Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 30 June 2020 AT 7:00pm

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

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

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

The Livestream can be viewed here:

http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Your_Council/Meetings/Council_Meeting_livestream

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

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Documents Circulated to Councillors

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

NOTE:

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

C.1 Covid-19 Related Rent Relief Package – Council’s Commercial and Community Leasing
Portfolio

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

Attachment 1: Confidential Attachment – Rent Relief Package – Council’s Commercial and
Community Leasing Portfolio

NOTE:

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

GB.3 Lindfield Village Hub Tender Update

In accordance with 10(2)(d)(i) and 10(2)(d)(ii):

Attachment 1: Confidential Attachment A1 – Tender Evaluation Report

Attachment 2: Confidential Attachment A2 – Probity Report

Attachment 3: Confidential Attachment A3 – Finance Evaluation of Submitted Tenders

GB.11 Proposal to Name Creeks Within Twin Creeks Reserve

In accordance with 10(2)(a):

Attachment 1: Peppermint and Water Dragon Creeks Name Proposal

GB.21 RFT4-2020 – NSROC Tender – Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works

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

Attachment 1: NSROC RFT 2022 – Schedule 4 – Pricing Assessment

Attachment 2: NSROC RFT 2022 – Tender Evaluation Committee Report

GB.22 RFT5-2020 Abingdon Road Reserve Playground Upgrade

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

Attachment 1: RFT5-2020 List of Submitters

Attachment 2: RFT5-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 3

File: S02131

Meeting held 19 May 2020

Minutes numbered 87 to 97

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 Local Government motion of support for conservation and land management stimulus package 3

File: S11550

This Mayoral Minute deals with the expected economic impact of COVID-19 and a proposed call to action for a stimulus package aimed at supporting regional and other areas.

It is clear that decisive action and unprecedented investment is needed to temper the worst social and economic impacts of this crisis.

Ku-ring-gai Council recognises the important measures taken by federal, state and territory governments to date in relation to the immediate health and economic threats posed by COVID-19.

As part of the post COVID-19 recovery phase, I am calling on Councillors to support a call to action for a Conservation and Land Management Stimulus Package led by federal and state governments.

Investment in a conservation and land management program presents important opportunities for safe, meaningful and socially beneficial work during a period of economic crisis. Such an initiative will also deliver enduring benefits for the environment, tourism and farm-based businesses.

There is currently scope for tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers to be employed in the conservation and land management sector in roles that are:

· practical and labour intensive;

· located in regional and metropolitan areas;

· appropriate for repurposing existing workforces which are under pressure, including tradespeople, workers in the tourism, fisheries and forestry sectors; and

· will not create long-term structural commitments in the budget.

Practical conservation activities that could be undertaken across public and private land include:

· increasing weed control efforts, focussed on containment and preventing spread;

· river and wetland restoration, including fencing, revegetation and erosion control;

· national park infrastructure, track maintenance and park management (fire, weeds, feral animals);

· bushfire recovery and resilience activities, including infrastructure repairs and habitat restoration;

· invasive animal control for feral species which impact on farming and threatened species;

· tree planting and habitat restoration in metropolitan, suburban and rural areas;

· funding for private land conservation, putting money in the hands of farmers and other land managers;

· coastal habitat restoration and monitoring, in partnership with the fishing industry and local communities;

· plastics and marine debris clean up, including research to inform future policy decisions; and

· funding for Indigenous rangers to deliver jobs directly to vulnerable communities using a proven model.

Ku-ring-gai Council notes that:

· Over 70 farming and conservation groups around Australia, including Landcare, the National Farmers Federation, NRM Regions Australia, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators, have come together to call on state and federal government to invest in a jobs-rich conservation and land management stimulus package as part of the economic response to COVID-19.

· Such a program presents important opportunities for safe, meaningful and socially beneficial work as part of the ‘bridge to recovery’, while leaving enduring benefits for the environment, tourism and farm businesses.

· Local councils play a pivotal role in delivering conservation and land management work such as controlling weeds, protecting and restoring habitat and managing public land and are ideally placed to manage a surge in effort for on-the-ground conservation work.

I recommend Council endorses this Mayoral Minute and the recommended actions below.

Recommendation:

   A.     That Ku-ring-gai Council expresses its support for State and Federal government
            investment in a jobs-rich conservation and land management stimulus package as part
            of the economic response to COVID-19.

B. That Ku-ring-gai Council writes to our local Federal and State Members of Parliament
expressing its support for this proposal and urging them to support it.

MM.2 The Queen's Birthday Honours 2020 3

File: S02767

I am pleased to inform you that 8 Ku-ring-gai citizens, through their outstanding achievements and services to the community, have been awarded 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours.

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

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

Mr Kenneth James BROADHEAD RFD OAM of Wahroonga, for service to the community

Mrs Julie FITZGERALD AM of Wahroonga, for significant service to netball as a coach, and as a mentor of sportswomen

Dr Catherine Patricia FOLEY PSM AO of St Ives Chase, for distinguished service to research science, to the advancement of women in physics, and to professional scientific organisations

Dr Jennifer (Jill) GORDON AM of Roseville, for significant service to psychological medicine, and to professional medical bodies

Mr Peter Andrew LANCKEN AM of Turramurra, for significant service to business, to the equipment hire and rental industry, and to the community

Mr Ian LANGFORD-BROWN AM of Killara, for significant service to youth through Scouts, and to the community of the North Shore

Dr Emily Helene MATTERS OAM of Lindfield, for service to education, and to professional associations

Ms Jenetta Helen RUSSELL OAM of North Turramurra, for service to the community, and to business

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

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

I would also like to congratulate Annabelle Daniel, CEO of Women’s Community Shelters who received the Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) General Division “For service to women through social welfare initiatives”. Annabelle and her team have opened seven shelters since 2013 including the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter, where she has made and continues to make a substantial contribution in providing essential support for vulnerable women in our community.

Recommendation:

       A.   That Council acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by these recipients of the
              Queen’s Birthday Honours 2020 to the Ku-ring-gai community and to the well-being of
              our society.

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

Petitions

PT.1 Petition to clean up the nature strip outside 28-36 Dalton Road St Ives Chase 3

File: RT6/12

Residents located around Dalton Road request Council to clean up the nature strip located outside the properties of 28 to 36 Dalton Rd St Ives Chase. This overgrowth has been an unsightly and dangerous part of this busy road for some years. The road width along this area is greatly reduced placing all pedestrians, bicycle riders and pets in danger as they walk down the road to reach the only footpath next to the service station. The road is also reduced to one lane only for traffic when vehicles are parked adjacent for a section approximately 80 metres. (68 signatures).

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 Revised Community Participation Plan 3

File: S12564/2

To seek Council approval to publically exhibit the amended Community Participation Plan

Recommendation:

A) That Council supports amending the CPP to remove the requirement for notification of planning matters in local newspapers.

B) That the amended CPP be publically exhibited for 28 days.

GB.2 Spring Flowers Celebration 3

File: S05898

To report on the 2019 Spring Flowers Celebration Pilot and to outline suggested plans for the 2020 initiative.

Recommendation:

A) That Council receive and note this report.

B) That Council endorses an annual Spring Flowers Celebration of Ku-ring-gai commencing in 2020.

GB.3 Lindfield Village Hub Tender Update 3

File: RFT5-2019/E

This report provides an update on the Lindfield Village Hub tender and seeks Council endorsement on the next steps in the procurement of the project

Recommendation:

That:

Pursuant to section 178 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW),
Council decline to accept any tenders received
Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into negotiations with any possible providers (including Fabcot and Aqualand) over no more than a three month period and report the outcomes of those negotiations to Council by no later than October 2020

GB.4 Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 - Post Exhibition 3

File: FY00382/12

For Council to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021.

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993 Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021 with minor amendments.

GB.5 Councillor Access to Information, Interactions with Staff and Records Management Policy 3

File: S04882

To inform Council of the draft Councillor Access to Information, Interactions with Staff and Records Management Policy (Attachment 1). This new draft policy will be a merger of the ‘Councillor Access to Information and Interaction with Staff Policy’ with the ‘Records Management for Councillors Policy’.

Recommendation:

That the draft Councillor Access to Information, Interactions with Staff and Records Management Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and should any feedback be received, the matter be reported back to Council after the consultation period.

Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the Policy.

GB.6 Investment Report as at 31 May 2020 3

File: FY00623/2

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for May 2020.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for May 2020 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.7 Mayor and Councillor Fees - 2020/2021 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination 3

File: S11705

To determine the Mayor and Councillor fees for the 2020/21 financial year.

Recommendation:

That effective 1 July 2020 the annual Councillor and Mayoral fees remain as they were for the 2020/21 financial year.

GB.8 Postponement of the September 2020 Local Government Elections and Reinstatement of the September Public Forum 3

File: CY00438/8

To advise Council of the postponement of the September 2020 Local Government Elections and to seek Council’s endorsement to hold a September Public Forum session.

Recommendation:

That Council note the postponement of the September 2020 Local Government Elections and adopt the revised Council Meeting and Public Forum dates.

GB.9 Draft Companion Animals Management Plan 2020 - 2025 3

File: CY00008/12

To present Council the draft Ku-ring-gai Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025

Recommendation:

That the draft Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and then be reported back to Council.

GB.10 SEPP(Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 - Heritage Conservation Areas Exemption 3

File: CY00349/10

To have Council consider a permanent exemption from SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 to applying to the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Areas.

Recommendation:

That Council request the NSW DPIE grant a permanent exemption from SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applying to the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Areas.

GB.11 Proposal to name creeks within Twin Creeks Reserve 3

File: CY00422/8

To inform Council of an application to name the creeks in Twin Creeks Reserve and seek approval from the Geographical Names Board (GNB).

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the proposal for “Peppermint Creek” for the northern creek (flowing from Mitchell Crescent), and “Water Dragon Creek” for the southern creek (from Rothwell Road) and lodges the proposed names through the NSW Place and Road Naming Proposal System.

GB.12 Post exhibition

Consideration of submissions - Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra 3

File: S12120

For Council to consider the submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Planning Proposal for 45‑47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

That Council adopts the draft site-specific DCP for 45‑47‑Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

GB.13 Review - Conditions on Gateway Determinations for 4 Pennant AVenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase 3

File: S11890

To inform Council of the outcome of the request that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPI&E) undertake a ‘soft review’ and reconsider the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations for 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase.

Recommendation:

That at this stage Council proceeds with the Planning Proposals for an R2 Low Density Residential zone as conditioned by the Gateway Determinations.

GB.14 Completion of Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury - Nepean Coastal Management Program 3

File: S12059

The purpose of this report is to present the recently completed Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program (CMP), its findings and to outline the plan for progressing development of the whole of river system CMP.

Recommendation:

A) That Council notes the completion of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program.

B) That Council endorses the findings and proposed approach of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program and transition to Stage 2.

C) That Council seek funding for development of the CMP through a grant application with partner councils.

GB.15 Adoption of Bushfire Policy 3

File: S05914

For Council to adopt the exhibited Bushfire Management Policy 2020.

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the Bushfire Management Policy 2020 and that a copy be placed on Council’s website.

GB.16 6 Springdale Road, Killara - Heritage Listing 3

File: S11660

To have Council consider 6 Springdale Road, Killara as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP2015’).

Recommendation:

That a Planning Proposal be prepared to list 6 Springdale Road, Killara as an item of local heritage significance under KLEP 2015.

GB.17 Prospective Site for Hockey at Barra Brui Sportsground, St Ives 3

File: S12027

To update Council on the prospective site for hockey at Barra Brui Sportsground, St Ives.

Recommendation:

That Council reviews the initial assessments that have been completed and agrees to engage in preliminary design/scope to inform costings and the feasibility of project design options. Support for the delivery pathway of the project (new artificial playing surface and limited amenities refurbishment) and the preferred operational model is also required from Council.

GB.18 Norman Griffiths Oval - Additional Flood Investigation 3

File: S07491

This report addresses a Notice of Motion (NoM) from the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OCM) of 18 February 2020 from Councillor’s Spencer and Pettett - Proposed Synthetic Surface at Norman Griffiths, West Pymble.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the Norman Griffiths Oval - Flood Risk Investigation Report 2020 prepared by BMT and that the issue regarding mitigation of the existing risks identified in the report is forwarded to the Operations Department for action.

GB.19 St Ives Indoor Sports Complex Update 3

File: S12712-3

To update Council on progress of the proposed joint use indoor sports centre at St Ives High School.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the project updates contained within this report.

GB.20 Ku-ring-gai Council Infrastructure Contributions System Submission 3

File: S12758

To have Council consider a submission on the reforms to the NSW Infrastructure Contributions System.

Recommendation:

That the draft submission prepared and submitted on behalf of Ku-ring-gai Council be formally received and noted.

GB.21 RFT4-2020 - NSROC Tender - Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works 3

File: RFT4-2020/R

To seek Council's approval to accept the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) Schedule of Rates Tender for road profiling, supply; supply and delivery; and supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete, including associated road profiling and heavy patching and other work items for the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 financial year periods.

Recommendation:

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

GB.22 RFT5-2020 Abingdon Road Reserve Playground Upgrade 3

File: RFT5-2020

To consider the tenders received for Abingdon Road Reserve playground upgrade and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

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

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

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

Questions With Notice

Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting

C.1 Covid-19 Related Rent Relief Package – Council’s Commercial and Community Leasing Portfolio

File: S07209/2

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 sections 10A(2)(b) & 10A(2)(d)(ii), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(b) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

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

Report by Director Strategy & Environment

John McKee

General Manager

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 19 May 2020

Present:	The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward) Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward) Councillor S Ngai (Roseville Ward) Councillors C Kay & 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) Group Lead Major Projects (Geoffrey Douglas) Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Michael Wearne) Governance Support Officer/ Minutes Secretary (Rebecca Srbinovska)

The Meeting commenced at 7:03pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

No Interests were declared.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:

MM.2 - Vale Dr Patrick Simon, Mayor of Villers-Bretonneux - Report by Mayor PA dated 18 May 2020

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 28 April 2020

Minutes numbered 61 to 86

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Pettett)

That Minutes numbered 61 to 86 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

VALE Phillip Langley

File: CY00455/8

Vide: MM.1

It is my sad duty to advise my Councillor colleagues and the community of the passing of an esteemed local resident Phillip Langley at the age of 82.

Phillip was a lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai and a committed volunteer to a variety of causes and community groups. Born in Killara, Phillip went to school at Lindfield Primary School and then to Shore. He trained as a mechanical engineer, working at CSR and later at Standards Australia.

A well-known identity in the Killara neighbourhood, Phillip was a Scout leader at East Killara, served on the East Killara Uniting Church Council and helped establish a Federated Music Club at East Killara Uniting Church. Along with others, he also started a Men's Tennis Club on Saturday mornings and played tennis three times a week up to the end of his life.

At Gordon Park Probus Phillip produced the monthly newsletter, enjoying many of their trips including to South Africa and Vietnam. It was on his last trip to Tasmania last November that he realised that he was ill.

Phillip was passionate about Ku-ring-gai’s unique environment and bush walking and wildflowers were among Phillip's and wife Jan's interests. He was a keen member of the Bushcare Group at Jindalee Place, East Killara for about 30 years, secretary/treasurer of East Killara Neighbourhood Watch and a committed member of the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) community group.

Both Phillip and Jan, who died in 2011, were members of FOKE. FOKE honoured Jan by giving a sustainability award each year in her name to a primary student at the East Lindfield Public School. Even when Phillip only had a few months left to live, he attended Lindfield East Public School to present FOKE's 2019 Jan Langley Award. The children sitting listening to him were enthralled by his commitment even though it was obvious to them he was very ill.

According to FOKE President Kathy Cowley, “Phillip Langley was a committed volunteer for bush regeneration in East Killara. He understood the value of Ku-ring-gai's environment and was a great supporting member of FOKE. By his strong volunteer ethic he and his wife Jan brought the East Killara community together.”

Phillip is survived by his three children, David, Abby and Justin and his grandchildren. On behalf of the Council and our community, I extend my deepest sympathies to his family on their loss. May Phillip rest in peace.

Resolved:

A.That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Phillip Langley

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Vale Dr Patrick Simon, Mayor of Villers-Bretonneux

File: CY00455/8

Vide: MM.2

It is my sad duty to mark the passing of a great friend of Australia, Dr Patrick Simon, who was Mayor of the French town of Villers-Bretonneux. Dr Simon died last week at the age of 64 from complications arising from COVID-19, whilst serving as Mayor at the time of his passing.

Villers-Bretonneux and Australia have been closely linked since our soldiers played a huge role in liberating the village from German occupation during World War 1. As Mayor of the town close to the memorial sites so significant for Australia, Dr Simon continued the tradition established by former Mayors of Villers-Bretonneux of commemorating Anzac Day each year. Dr. Simon was also a strong supporter of the new Sir John Monash Centre in the town, which is visited by thousands of Australians discovering their country's wartime heritage.

Mayor since 2008, Dr Simon’s determination to maintain his town's special bond with Australia earned him an honorary Order of Australia medal in 2015. Only a few months ago he led his community in fundraising efforts to aid the Australian communities in the bushfire recovery. In this he was aided by another great friend of Australia and Ku-ring-gai, through our friendly towns relationship, the Mayor of Pozieres Bernard Delattre, who joined him in this fundraising effort. Around $37,000 was raised in total, thanks to these two gentlemen.

Dr Simon launched the fundraiser after seeing reports of the devastating bushfires across Australia earlier this year. “The idea came from my heart. Everyone here was talking about the fires, and we were all appalled,” Dr Simon said at the time.

Dr Simon's leadership continued to honour the bonds of service and sacrifice between our two countries, forged over a hundred years ago. His passion and commitment to this cause and our country will be deeply missed. On behalf of the Ku-ring-gai community, I express our sincere condolences to his family and the people of Villers-Bretonneux on their sad loss.

Resolved:

A. That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Dr Simon

C. That the Mayor write to Dr Simon’s family and encloses a copy of this Mayoral Minute

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Consolidation of Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2019 and Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2017

File: S11756

Vide: GB.1

For Council to consider the consolidation of Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2019 and Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2017.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

A. That Council endorse the draft Consolidated DCP in Attachment A2 for the purpose of public exhibition.

B. That the draft Consolidated DCP be placed on public exhibition in accordance with provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Infrastructure Contributions Reform - Issues Paper

File: S12758

Vide: GB.3

To provide an overview of the issues and potential outcomes for the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area as part of the latest contributions reform proposals and outline the content of the proposed submission.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

A. That Ku-ring-gai Council prepare a formal submission to the NSW State Government on the exhibition material on the contributions system as outlined in the report.

B. That a draft of the submission be circulated to Councillors in early June.

C. That delegated authority be granted to the General Manager or his delegate to lodge the draft submission prior to the deadline of 12 June 2020.

D. That the matter be formally reported back to the next OMC of 30 June 2020.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 12 December 2019

File: CY00458/8

Vide: GB.4

To provide Council with a copy of the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 12 December 2019.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

That Council receive and note the contents of this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2019 - 2020 Budget Review - 3rd Quarter ended March 2020

File: S09112/9

Vide: GB.5

To inform Council of the results of the third quarter budget review of 2019/20 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 March 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

That the March 2020 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 3rd Quarter 2019 to 2020

File: FY00623/2

Vide: GB.6

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 March 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the quarter ended 31 March 2020 be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Investment Report as at 30 April 2020

File: FY00623/2

Vide: GB.7

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for April 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

A. That the summary of investments and performance for April 2020 be received and noted.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Turramurra Community Hub

File: S10467-4

Vide: GB.2

To recommend that planning and development of the Turramurra Community Hub (TCH) is paused pending the outcome of the comprehensive LEP review

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Greenfield)

A. That the planning and development of the Turramurra Community Hub be paused for a period of up to 24 months pending the outcome of Ku-ring-gai Council’s comprehensive Local Environmental Plan.

B. That Council informs the Community of the project’s status.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Change of spelling of Narelle Avenue, Pymble to Narrelle Avenue

File: S03211

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Rescission from Councillors Szatow, Clarke and Ngai dated 30 April 2020

We, the undersigned, hereby move on rescinding NM1 - Change of spelling of Narelle Avenue, Pymble to Narrelle Avenue, of the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 April 2020. This rescission includes all amendments and supplementary recommendations in relation to the matter.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/ Ngai)

That the above Notice of Rescission as printed be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council adjourned the Meeting for 5 minutes

after a Motion moved by Councillors Spencer and Pettett

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

and the Mayor ruled accordingly

The Meeting resumed at 8:00pm

Motion

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/ Ngai)

That:

A. Council consult with residents of that street and the broader community regarding the change of spelling of the street from Narelle to Narrelle.

B. A report be brought back to Council with the outcomes of the consultation.

For the Resolution: Councillors Greenfield, Ngai and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Kelly, Pettett, Spencer and Smith.

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST.

The Meeting closed at 8:38pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 19 May 2020 (Pages 1 - 3) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 30 June 2020.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.1 / 27

Item GB.1	S12564/2

Revised Community Participation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PUrpose of report:	To seek Council approval to publically exhibit the amended Community Participation Plan

background:	Council endorsed its first Community Participation Plan (CPP) at its meeting of 12 December 2019. The Ku-ring-gai CPP sets out mandatory requirements for community participation by Council for the exercise of its planning functions. Recent amendments the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) have replaced requirements for publication of planning notifications in a local newspaper with online publication.

comments:	As a result of the updated regulations, temporary suspension of local newspaper publication due to Covid‑19, and potential cost savings to Council and development applicants, Council has amended the CPP to remove the requirement for notification of planning matters in local newspapers.

recommendation:	A) That Council supports amending the CPP to remove the requirement for notification of planning matters in local newspapers. B) That the amended CPP be publically exhibited for 28 days.

Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval to publically exhibit the amended Community Participation Plan

Background

Council endorsed its first Community Participation Plan (CPP) at its meeting of 12 December 2019. The Ku-ring-gai CPP sets out mandatory requirements for community participation by Council for the exercising of its planning functions. The mandatory community participation requirements include minimum public exhibition timeframes relating to planning functions undertaken by Council as the consent authority.

The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to make the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Exhibition) Regulation 2020. The new Regulation, made on 17 April 2020, requires various notices and other documents under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to be published online instead of in a local newspaper.

Impacts of the Covid-19 has led to the temporary suspension of printing and delivery of the North Shore Times. As the Ku-ring-gai CPP requires the notification of planning related information in a locally accessible newspaper, advertising has been temporarily transferred to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Due to this ongoing instability of local newspaper publication, accessibility of online services, potential cost savings to Council and development applicants, and changes to the EP&A regulations, the CPP has been amended to remove the requirement for notification of planning matters in a locally circulating newspaper.

Comments

In support of the changes, the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment (DPIE) have noted that:

Outdated provisions in the EP&A Regulation required planning authorities to notify the public of various planning matters through local newspapers. There is a broader industry trend away from hardcopy to digital media. Local newspapers have been transitioning to online-only delivery, often with a paywall, or suspending publication entirely.

Planning authorities such as councils can therefore no longer effectively or efficiently comply with this regulatory requirement. The changes therefore replace the requirement to publish planning notices in a local newspaper with online publication

The changes better align the EP&A Regulation with the digital government agenda and support the department’s established ePlanning program, which is increasing the use of technology in planning. It ensures development assessment and strategic planning processes make use of advances in technology and the changing communication preferences of consumers.

The amendments allow online access to information, while reducing costs and administrative burden for planning authorities such as councils. The changes modernise the EP&A Regulation by responding to the short-term COVID-19 effects and longer-term structural changes to the news media industry.

In summary, the DPIE’s advice states that the move away from newspaper notification supports a modern and efficient planning system and that it ensures development assessment and strategic planning processes make use of advancements in technology and changing consumer communication preferences.

Proposed amendments to the current CPP

Council staff have reviewed the current CPP and have removed requirements for publishing planning related information in local newspapers. Staff have also taken the opportunity to make minor amendments where small typographical errors have been identified.

The following table details the changes made in the revised version as attached.

Page/location	Change
Pg 12. In table outlining Council’s notifications commitments, in rows: · Draft community participation plans (CPP) · Draft local strategic planning statements (LSPS) · Planning proposals for local environmental plans subject to a gateway determination	Delete – ‘notification in a newspaper that circulates in the area affected by the planning proposal’
Pg 13, In table outlining Council’s notifications commitments, row: · ‘Public hearings for planning proposals to reclassify community land’	Delete – ‘notification of the arrangements for the public hearing in a local Newspaper
Pg 13, In table outlining Council’s notifications commitments, rows: · Draft development control plans · Draft development contribution plans	Delete – ‘notification in a newspaper that circulates in the area of the places, dates and times for inspection of the draft plan’
Pg 13, in table outlining Council’s notifications commitments, row: · Plans of Management for community under the Local Government Act 1993	Delete - ‘notification in a newspaper that circulates in the area of the places, dates and times for inspection of the draft plan’
Pg 14 in table outlining Council’s notifications commitments, row · Environmental impact statement obtained under Division 5.1of the EP&A Act	Delete – ‘notification in a newspaper that circulates in the area of the places, dates and times for inspection of the draft plan’
Appendix 1 Pg 3 in point 1ii)	Add ‘-Sec 4.56’
Appendix 1 Pg 3, point 3	Delete – ‘including a notice in a newspaper’. Add – ‘including a notice on Council’s website’
Appendix 1 Pg 8 in Table 1-1 Notification by development type row: · Heritage Items or Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance	Delete - ‘2014’
Appendix 1 Pg 13, point 31	Replace - ‘in a newspaper circulating in the locality’ with ‘on Council’s website’.
Appendix 1 Pg 15, point 1	Replace ‘DCP’ with ‘CPP’.
Appendix 1, Pg 18 point 8 and 9	Delete – Advertisements in the local newspaper 8) Where, in accordance with this DCP, the development application is to be advertised in a local newspaper, the advertisement must contain the following minimum information: i) the development application number; ii) the address of the proposed development (lot, deposited plan and street numbers); and iii) a brief description of the proposed development. 9) The applicant must pay to Council the fee determined by Council for advertising in accordance with its adopted fees and charges.
Appendix 1 Pg 18, point 8	Replace - ‘DCP’ with ‘CPP’.
Appendix 1 Pg 19, point 1	Replace - ‘DCP’ with ‘CPP’
Appendix 1 Pg 19, point 10	Replace - ‘Council’ with ‘Public’ (meeting)
Appendix 1 Pg 19, point 11	Replace ‘in the newspaper’ with ‘on the website’
Appendix 1 Pg 20, point 18	Replace - ‘Council’ with ‘Public’ (meeting) (x 2)
Appendix 1 Pg 20, point 19	Replace - ‘DCP’ with ‘CPP’

Future amendments to the CPP

The implementation of the Local Strategic Planning Statement will present an opportunity for a formal review of the CPP and potential for amendments to be made in consultation with other sections of Council including Development and Regulation and Corporate communications.

This review will also be informed by the outcome of Council’s review of the Community Consultation Policy that is scheduled to be completed later in 2020.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P2.1: A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai.	P2.1.1: Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.	P2.1.1.2: Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Theme 6 - Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
Long Term Objective L4.1: The community is informed and engaged in decision making processes for community outcomes.	L4.1.1: Innovative and effective community engagement fosters community participation and a better understanding of Council services, programs and facilities	L4.1.1.1: Provide support to deliver best practice community engagement across all divisions of Council.
		L4.1.1.2: Facilitate a program that enables staff to create and deliver engaging and accessible communication.
		L4.1.1.3: Continue to monitor and report on the outcomes of community engagement and consultation and identified policy related issues.

Governance Matters

Division 2.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires all authorities to develop a Community Participation Plan (CPP). In particular, Authorities need to take into consideration Clause 2.2.3 and Schedule 1 of the Act.

Amended CPPs are required to be exhibited for 28 days, with final CPPs published on the NSW Planning Portal.

Risk Management

Council is required by State Government legislation to develop a Community Participation Plan. A failure to prepare and exhibit the plan could potentially damage Council’s open and transparent approach to community participation.

Financial Considerations

The advertising fee is $1105, which is statutory. An applicant will not be charged this fee when applications are advertised on Council’s website.

The cost of updating and exhibiting the Community Participation Plan is covered by the Urban Planning and Heritage budget.

Social Considerations

The CPP provides a single document that the community can access which sets out all of Council’s community participation requirements under the Planning legislation, including all minimum mandatory exhibition timeframes.

Environmental Considerations

Community Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken in the review of this policy. The revised policy will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days should Council agree to proceed.

Internal Consultation

Staff from Strategy, Communications and Development and Regulation have been involved in amending the CPP.

Summary

Council endorsed its first Community Participation Plan (CPP) at its meeting of 12 December 2019. Recent amendments the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) have replaced requirements for publication of planning notifications in a local newspaper with online publication.

Recommendation:

A. That the draft amended Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.

B. That a report be brought back to Council following the completion of the exhibition period outline the outcomes of the community feedback and with a final Community Participation Plan for Council’s consideration.

William Adames

Community & Business Engagement Co-ordinator

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Shaun Garland

Manager Development Assessment Services

Janice Bevan

Director Community

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:

A1 ⇩

CPP draft amendent 1 June 2020

2020/159107

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
E3.1: Ku-ring-gai has a range of activities and experiences that attract visitors.	E3.1.1: Tourism business has been strengthened and expanded	E3.1.1.1: Facilitate marketing and promotional activities that support local events both new and existing.
E3.1.1.2: Commence key actions identified in the Ku-ring-gai Destination Management Plan.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.3 / 81

Item GB.3	RFT5-2019/E

Lindfield Village Hub Tender Update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	This report provides an update on the Lindfield Village Hub tender and seeks Council endorsement on the next steps in the procurement of the project

background:	Council resolved to call for Expressions of Interest from the market for the Lindfield Village Hub project at OMC June 2018. An EOI was released in October 2018, and shortlisted tenderers endorsed at OMC February 2019 Council considered a draft Planning Proposal at OMC July 2019 and endorsed submission of the Planning Proposal at OMC August 2019 The Request for Tender (RFT) was endorsed at OMC November 2019 and released to shortlisted tenderers in December 2019. Tenders closed in April 2020. Tender Evaluation was conducted during April / May 2020

comments:	The RFT was the second step of a two stage select tender process to engage a developer for the Lindfield Village Hub Project. Tender Evaluation Committee has evaluated the submitted tenders and determined that all Tenders received were Non-Conforming Tenders.

recommendation:	That: Pursuant to section 178 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), Council decline to accept any tenders received Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into negotiations with any possible providers (including Fabcot and Aqualand) over no more than a three month period and report the outcomes of those negotiations to Council by no later than October 2020

Purpose of Report

This report provides an update on the Lindfield Village Hub tender and seeks Council endorsement on the next steps in the procurement of the project

Background

Tender Evaluation Plan

A Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) was prepared in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Council’s (Council) policies and reviewed by the external Probity Advisor. The TEP was endorsed by the Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC). The TEP included an Evaluation methodology, criteria and weightings. The evaluation criteria and weightings were made known to the tenderers via the RFT.

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) was established in accordance with the TEP and comprised five voting members whose knowledge and experience included:

· Project Delivery / Development Management / Project Management

· Building Design and Construction

· Library and Community Services Operations

· Precinct Operations

· Council Finances

· Local Government Procurement

The Tender Process

Council resolved at 26 June 2018 OMC, to pursue an EOI from the market as the first stage of a two stage selective tender process. The EOI ran from late 2018 and a shortlist of five tenderers was endorsed at OMC 26 February 2019.

The RFT was endorsed by Council for release to shortlisted tenderers at OMC 19 November 2019 following a Tender Readiness assessment undertaken by an independent Project Management advisor.

Prior to the tender commencing all tenderers were asked to reconfirm in writing their bona fide intentions to tender, which they all did. The RFT commenced on 4 December 2019 to the following five shortlisted Tenderers:

· Aqualand Developments Pty Ltd (Aqualand)

· Fabcot Limited (Woolworths Ltd) (Fabcot)

· Frasers Property Australia

· Mirvac Residential (NSW) Developments Pty Ltd

· Planum Billbergia consortium

A non-compulsory briefing session and 3 sets of workshops were offered to the Tenderers during the tender period. These sessions were overseen by the independent Probity Advisor and were offered to the Tenderers as a forum for clarification.

During the tender, Tenderers could ask questions and receive written answers.

Tender Submissions Received

The Tender closed on 3 April 2020 (seventeen-week RFT period). Tenders were submitted electronically via Tenderlink.

As at the date and time of the close of Tender, two tenders had been submitted as follows:

· Aqualand Developments Pty Ltd

· Fabcot Limited (Woolworths Ltd)

Tender Evaluation

Tender Evaluation was conducted during April and May 2020. The TEC met 5 times.

To assist the TEC with its deliberations consultant reports were prepared covering the following areas of the tender:

· Legal

· Commercial

· Planning

· Architecture

· Library + Community Centre Design

· Landscape Design

· Cost Planning

The TEC produced a Tender Evaluation Report containing its findings (Confidential Attachment A1). This report was presented to and endorsed by the Major Projects Steering Committee on 10 June. Below is a summary of the TEC deliberations of the submitted tenders:

Aqualand Tender Submission

· The Aqualand submission was materially incomplete due to the submission not having completely uploaded to Tenderlink by the closing time. Due to the tendering regulations the tender had to be deemed non-conforming, and could not be further considered by the TEC.

Fabcot Tender Submission

· The TEC determined that the Fabcot tender submission appeared to be complete and should be evaluated

· Following an initial review it was resolved by the TEC to identify initial key points of clarification in the Fabcot tender so that it could proceed to further detailed evaluation

· Fabcot’s response to the initial clarification request was then considered by the TEC

· The RFT states that for a tender to be a Complying Tender, it must be on terms which were consistent with the RFT, and could not be conditional

· The TEC determined that the Fabcot tender contained material variations from the RFT, and was conditional, and could therefore only find that the Fabcot tender did not meet the requirements of a Complying Tender

· It was then open to the TEC to consider if the Fabcot tender was an Alternative Proposal, being a proposal that did not represent a substantial departure from (among other things) the legal and commercial structure contemplated by the RFT

· The TEC found that the Fabcot tender did represent a substantial departure from the legal and commercial structure contemplated by the RFT, and could therefore only find that the Fabcot tender did not meet the requirements of an Alternative Proposal

· Because the TEC had determined that the Fabcot tender was to be neither a Conforming Tender nor an Alternative Proposal, it was found to be a Non-Conforming Tender

Shortlisted Tenderers that did not submit:

From the initial five shortlisted tenderers, three did not submit, being Frasers Property Australia, Mirvac and Planum/Billbergia.

TEC Conclusions

The TEC resolved to:

· determine that both Aqualand’s tender submission and Fabcot’s tender submission are not Alternative Proposals;

· determine (in accordance with section 5(j) of the Tender Evaluation Plan and section 6.2 of the RFT Legal and Commercial Framework) that both Aqualand's tender submission and Fabcot's Tender are Non-Conforming Tenders;

· determine that Aqualand's tender submission and Fabcot's tender submission will be excluded from further evaluation or assessment; and

· prepare a Tender Evaluation Report in accordance with section 5.3 of the TEP, stating that:

o no Tender received was a Conforming Tender;

o no Tender received constituted an Alternative Proposal;

o all Tenders received were Non-Conforming Tenders

Comments

Under the Local Government Act, a Council may only seek clarifications or resolve anomalies during a tender period. Negotiation is not permissible during the tender.

The tenders submitted were materially at variance from the RFT. The matters which need to be addressed are potentially resolvable, but cannot be dealt with under the tender rules of the Local Government Act. The Act recognises this through the operation of to section 178 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), which permits Council’s to decline to accept any tenders received in response to a tender, and either invite fresh tenders or resolve to negotiate.

To be permitted to negotiate, pursuant to Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), Council must have:

· set out its reasons to decline to invite fresh tenders or applications - section 178 (4) (a)

· set out its reasons for determining to enter into negotiations… - section 178 (4) (b)

The recommendation of this report addresses the specific Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW) process which must be addressed to move to the next stage of the LVH procurement, which is to finalise the tender through negotiation.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

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.	P4.1.3: Secure a development partner for Lindfield Village Hub.	P4.1.3.1: Progress and award tender for the Lindfield Village Hub.

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.

P4.1.3: Secure a development

partner for Lindfield Village Hub.

P4.1.3.1: Progress and award tender for the Lindfield Village Hub.

Governance Matters

Tender Process

The LVH Tender was conducted under the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (Part 7) and the Tendering Guidelines for Local Government

A Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) was prepared by the Major Projects Unit with input from the probity advisor. Before the tender commenced the TEP was endorsed by:

· The independent probity advisor

· The Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC)

· The Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC)

Probity

An appropriately experienced independent probity advisor was engaged to provide advice to Council throughout the procurement process.

The objective of their role was to assist Council to identify, assess and manage probity risks arising during the procurement process such that compliance with the policy and legislative framework applicable to local government procurement is achieved in all material respects. In this capacity the probity adviser impartially also represents the interests of the tenderers in due and proper process during the EOI and selective tender stages of the tender.

The Probity Report is provided at Confidential Attachment A2, where the probity advisor concludes that it:

“… is not aware of any material probity risks which have not been identified, assessed and appropriate mitigation strategies adopted by Council to ensure ongoing compliance with the policy and legislative framework applicable to local government procurement, being the Tendering Guidelines for Local Government, Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.”

Risk Management

A risk assessment has been undertaken as part of the due diligence work. Regular updates and reports are provided to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC).

Financial Considerations

An analysis on the financial aspects of the Fabcot tender is provided at Confidential Attachment A3.

Social Considerations

The social and economic considerations arising from this report relate mainly to ensuring that Council is able to realise new and sustainable community services, assets and places through a well-considered asset and service delivery strategy.

Environmental Considerations

There are no direct environmental considerations arising from this report.

Community Consultation

Following the 26 February 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council the community were informed of the Developers shortlisted for the Tender.

From August 2018 to May 2019 Council involved the community in a broad discussion to extend understanding about the Lindfield Village Hub mixed use development, as a Council-led development providing new community facilities and enhanced social outcomes for the Ku-ring-gai and Lindfield communities and the key findings and outcomes were presented to Council at a briefing on 21 May 2019.

Since then, the Community are being kept updated on the project’s progress through Council e-news, and project website updates.

Given that tenders have been invited by select process, the tender documentation comprises commercial information of a confidential nature which could not appropriately be the subject of community consultation on legal, commercial and probity grounds. Likewise, the tender submissions that have been received are commercial in confidence.

Internal Consultation

The Major Projects Steering Committee (MPSC) has been the key internal governance body for project. The Major Projects Unit (MPU) has provided regular reports to the MPSC which has considered and resolved upon various matters pertaining to the management of the LVH project.

Regular liaison has occurred between the MPU and Council’s communications team. The input and advice of the Director Community Services was sought in regard to the Community Assets. The Corporate services team has been consulted in relation to project budgeting through the annual Project Bids and quarterly QBR process, and in regard to the feasibility modelling of the project. Council’s internal Corporate Lawyer has been consulted and provided advice as required. MPU have worked with the corporate planning team to feed in to the IP&R updates.

Updates have been provided to Councillors via the annual February Councillor Workshop, at Major Projects Councillor Consultation Forums, Councillor Briefings and through responses to Councillors queries.

Summary

A two stage selective tender was conducted. The evaluation of the second stage of the tender was undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Committee with input from Council’s internal teams and external advisors in accordance with the requirements of:

· Tendering Guidelines for Local Government, Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993

· Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

· RFT documents

· Tender Evaluation Plan

The TEC evaluated the submitted tenders and determined that all tenders received were Non-Conforming Tenders.

This report recommends that Council decline to accept any tenders received in response to tender RFT5-2019, and authorise the General Manager to enter into negotiations with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of tender.

In the first instance Council will seek to enter into negotiations with Aqualand and Fabcot who submitted tenders. This report recommends that the General Manager report back to Council with the outcomes of those negotiations within a defined timeframe.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Pursuant to section 178 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), to decline to accept any tenders received in response to tender RFT5-2019 advertised on 4 December 2019;

B. Pursuant to section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), enter into negotiations with any possible providers with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of tender RFT5-2019 issued to selected tenderers on 4 December 2019;

C. Pursuant to section 178 (4) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), to decline to invite fresh tenders or applications as referred to in sections 178(3)(b) to (d) inclusive for the following reasons:

(a) The tenders received in relation to the Lindfield Village Hub Project demonstrated that, due to the significant complexity of the Project and prevailing social and economic conditions, it is unlikely a further tender or application process conducted under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) will result in conforming tenders capable of acceptance (including from the tenderers who responded to the original request for tender).

(b) The range and variation of the non-conformances in the tenders received demonstrated that it would not be reasonably possible to reformulate a tender or application process on terms satisfactory to Council which would be likely to result in conforming tenders capable of acceptance (including from the tenderers who responded to the original request for tender).

D. Pursuant to section 178(4)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW), the Council’s reasons for determining to enter into negotiations with the persons referred to in (B) above are as follows:

(a) The selective tendering method conducted by Council has confirmed that there are two or more high quality and motivated parties interested in entering into a contract with Council in relation to the subject matter of the tender.

(b) A competitive negotiation process between with one or more high quality and motivated parties is likely to promote a value for money outcome.

(c) A negotiation process will provide Council with an appropriately flexible basis for engaging with the market to identify and address matters raised by the market within a framework which is acceptable to Council, and thereby deliver the most advantageous outcome for the Lindfield Village Hub Project and the Community.

E. The General Manager be delegated authority to conduct the negotiations referred to in (D) above which must be conducted over a period of no more than 3 months, and report the outcomes of those negotiations to Council by no later than October 2020.

Geoff Douglas

Group Lead - Major Projects

Attachments:	A1	Confidential Attachment A1 - Tender Evaluation Report	Confidential
	A2	Confidential Attachment A2 - Probity Report	Confidential
	A3	Confidential Attachment A3 - Finance Evaluation of Submitted Tenders	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.4 / 89

Item GB.4	FY00382/12
	24 March 2020

Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 - Post Exhibition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021.

background:	On 28 April 2020, Council considered a report on the Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021. At that meeting Council resolved to place the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days and to consider a further report on any submissions following public exhibition.

comments:	The Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, with separate draft Fees and Charges document, were exhibited for a period of 28 days from 30 April to 28 May 2020. Three (3) external and four (4) internal written submissions were received as a result of the exhibition. Following a review of the submissions and other matters, amendments and corrections are proposed to the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Council has a statutory obligation to prepare, exhibit, consider feedback and adopt the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, no later than 30 June 2020.

recommendation:	That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993 Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021 with minor amendments.

Purpose of Report

BAckground

On 28 April 2020, Council considered a report (GB.2) on the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2020-2021. Council resolved the following:

A. That the report on Council’s draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, be received and noted.

B. That Council authorises new loan borrowing of $11.3 million for the St Ives Indoor sports complex, noting that while the draft Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Long Term Financial Plan provide for repayment of the loan from future asset sales, the exact timing and funding source for repaying the loan may be reviewed in the future and revised by Council closer to the time when more information is available.

C. That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021 be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

D. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council to consider any submissions and to adopt the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021, and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, including Fees and Charges for 2020-2021.

Comments

The Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements of the Local Government Act require Council to have an annual Operational Plan adopted before the beginning of each financial year, including details of Council’s activities to be undertaken that year.

When preparing its Operational Plan Council is also required to review its adopted Delivery Program. Once endorsed by Council the combined Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback.

The development of the revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan has been informed by the community’s long term objectives contained in the Community Strategic Plan, Council policies and strategies, prioritisation of capital works projects, service delivery standards, income from external sources and fees and charges.

As required by legislation, the Delivery Program and Operational Plan contains the income (revenue), fees and charges and budget for Council over the coming year which supports the various services and projects to be delivered.

Organisational performance will be measured through the progress or delivery of Council’s three year term achievements and one year Operational Plan tasks under each theme. Performance indicators are also included under each theme, to provide both qualitative and quantitative information back to the community through bi-annual reports and an annual report. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan are presented in a single integrated document to facilitate community access to information contained in the plans.

Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic

Since March 2020 there have been a number of Federal and NSW Government responses to the pandemic. These have directly affected Council’s delivery of a number of services and projects in the current 2019/20 financial year and will affect the delivery of services and projects in the 2020/21 year.

Council considered reports in respect to COVID-19 impacts on the delivery of services and projects, as well as financial impacts at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 2020 (GB.16), and as part of the March Quarter Budget Review (GB.5) presented to Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 19 May 2020. Further assessment of impacts up to the end of this financial year, will be reported to Council in the June Bi-annual Review of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2019/20.

Significant planning for 2020/21 programs and services was completed prior to the introduction of the Federal and State Government measures to address COVID-19. Assessing the impacts of those measures on 2020/21 programs and services will be ongoing and the subject of further reports to Council.

· Postponement of NSW local government elections to 2021

In April 2020 the Minister for Local Government announced that the September 2020 local government elections will be postponed for a period of 12 months to address the risks posed by the COVID-19 virus. A separate report on the postponement local government elections is listed for consideration in this business paper.

The postponement of elections will have implications for the activities councils are required to undertake in the current and next integrated planning and reporting (IP&R) cycles. This will likely require an extension to the current IP&R cycle for 12 months, with the following cycle to be reduced to 3 years. Further guidance will be provided on this and other changes to statutory timeframes that may become necessary.

The postponement of the local government elections and certain IP&R activities from 2020 requires modifications to some draft 2020/21 tasks which are discussed later in this report.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L1.1 - A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement.

L1.1.1 - The priorities of our

community are reflected in the

Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.

L1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy.

Governance Matters

The legislative requirements to prepare and exhibit the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2020-2021 is governed by sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

It is the responsibility of Council to consider all submissions made during the exhibition of the draft program and plan prior to their adoption.

Risk Management

The structure and content of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993. Council has a statutory obligation to prepare, exhibit, consider feedback and adopt the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, no later than 30 June 2020.

Financial Considerations

Preparation of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, including the Annual Budget was substantially completed before the measures were introduced to slow the COVID-19 virus by State and Federal governments. Implications of those measures on Council’s budget for the current and next year continue to be assessed over the next months and an updated report will be presented to Council as part of the end of financial year reporting.

Ku-ring-gai Council is in a sound financial position. Operating surpluses are important as they provide funding for capital works, and the 2020/21 budget provides for an operating surplus of $26 million after allowing for the depreciation expense on Council’s $1.418 billion portfolio of largely depreciable assets such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. If capital grants and contributions are excluded, the operating result remains in surplus, with a result of $12.8 million. This is consistent with Council’s Long Term Financial Plan which provides a framework to achieve continued operating surpluses.

The Operating Surplus contributes to Council’s capital works program. In 2020/21 the capital works program is $102 million. Details of the capital works program for 2020/21 can be found in the following pages.

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

Council’s 2020/21 budget provides for loan capital repayment of $397k. The outstanding loan is discharged by revenue from general funds provided by the future net revenue generated from leasing out the investment property at 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

A new two-year loan is also proposed to fund Council’s contribution to the new St Ives Indoor Sport Court facility (a total of $11.3 million for 2020/21 -2021/22). This loan will be repaid from proposed asset sales in 2022. Further information on this project is provided below.

The chart below reflects the additional loan as part of the outstanding loan balance for 2020/2021

Council’s proposed budget assumes that proceeds from asset sales will add $6.1 million to its capital income budget in 2020/21. These funds will be used to partly fund the infrastructure assets renewal program ($1.1 million) and the refurbishment of Marian Street Theatre ($5 million). Further information on this project is provided below.

Marian Street Theatre

The proposed capital budget for refurbishment of the Marian Street Theatre is estimated at $16.2 million phased over two years funded from the following sources: asset sales $14.8 million, general revenue $1.4 million . This is an increase of $5.7 million from the approved budget of $10.5 million.

The chart below shows the budget phasing and the funding sources proposed. It must be noted that a budget allocation has been approved by Council for the current financial year (2019/20) for commencement of tender documentation and design services. For 2021/22 a total of $5 million is allocated to the project.

St Ives Indoor Sport Complex – Joint use indoor sports facility

The proposed capital budget for the construction of the new indoor sport facility at St Ives High School is estimated at $17.4 million phased over two years from a combination of funding sources: grants $3.5 million, general revenue $2.6 million, loan $11.3 million.

Council has resolved to spend significant funds on the design and DA for the facility and to meet the proposed timeframe for construction the planned funding from assets sales is not likely to be available in time. As such, a short-term loan of $11.3 million during 2020/21 and 2021/22 is proposed to fund Council’s contribution to the new St Ives Indoor Sport Court facility. This loan is assumed to be repaid from proposed asset sales by the end of 2022.

Council collects S7.11 (former S 94) contributions from developers to help pay for new infrastructure and facilities for the growing population of the area. Some of the works to be undertaken in the Contributions plan cater for the existing population and these works require a co-contribution from Council’s general funds. Some contributions will also be derived from development partners for the major local centre projects. The amount of works programmed to be undertaken over the next year are shown below (S7.11 $56 million, Council Contribution $2.3 million from asset sales reserve).

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

In the 2020/21 budget the projected Rates income is $67.8 million. This amount includes the permanent existing Special Rates Variations for Infrastructure and the Environmental Levy.

A summary of Council’s Funding Statement showing the draft budget for 2020/21 and prior years is provided below:

Financial Challenges

While Council is in a sound financial position, it faces a number of challenges to achieve long term financial sustainability.

Council is relying on asset recycling (the sale of underutilised property) to fund new major capital projects, co-funding for projects funded from developer contributions and for renewing existing assets. Progress on selling assets has been slower than expected and further, approval for the rezoning of two significant properties earmarked for sale (bowling clubs) at the zoning requested has not been forthcoming. Rather, Council has recently been advised by the Department of Planning that the rezoning process may only proceed at a zoning, which would provide significantly lower financial returns. Unless this is changed, future additional asset sales will be required or alternate funding sources identified, else projects will not be able to proceed.

Council is also embarking on town centre transformation projects such as the Lindfield Village Hub and Lindfield Village Green. These projects are very large compared to usual Council projects and are funded by the contribution of Council land, developer contributions and other funds. Due to the complex nature of the projects and the high value, they necessarily expose Council to a high degree of financial risk.

Managing infrastructure assets is a major challenge for Council, in particular providing enough funds to renew the existing assets in the context of a desire to build new assets. Council’s long term financial plan addresses the renewal of existing assets in terms of the core condition rating, however contemporary expectations are higher than allowed for in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). Examples of this include the desire for footpaths where there are currently none, and community buildings that may be structurally sound but are no longer fit for purpose. These buildings do not meet the functional requirements of modern society due to the design, size, materials and layout. Other existing assets may also require more renewal funding than currently planned, in particular the stormwater drains network, which is currently being inspected via camera analysis. Early indications are that these drains may require additional renewal works than is currently planned and funded.

Budget principles

Council’s budget for 2020-2021 is developed using the 10 year LTFP. The LTFP principles and financial sustainability tests applied in developing next year’s budget and future financial planning are outlined in Council’s Resourcing Strategy. The draft 2020-2021 budget has been developed to ensure that the LTFP financial targets are met and maintained in the future.

Major assumptions of the 2020-21 budget include:

· CPI of 1.7% applied;

· the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved rate pegging increase of 2.6%;

· no price increase for domestic waste charges due to sufficient funding in the dwm reserve to cover the 2020/21 cost increases;

· fees and charges increased by an average of 2.1%;

· interest on investments estimated at 2.5%;

· employee costs increase of 3.3%;

· capital works and operational projects program of $102 million; and

· Section 7.11 (Development Contributions) revenue of $13 million transferred to externally restricted reserves and expenditure of $56.3 million from these reserves.

Rating Structure 2020-2021

Each year the NSW Government approves a maximum percentage increase in the total income a Council can receive from rates, known as the ‘rate-peg’. The rate peg for 2020-2021 has been determined by IPART at 2.6% and this percentage increase has been applied to Council’s rates.

Rates Structure including Rate Pegging increase of 2.6%

Type	Category	Rate in $	Min/Base Amount ($)	% of Revenue from Base for each rate	Income$
Ordinary	Residential	0.00063258	554		$32,376,630
Ordinary	Business	0.00334068	554		$4,615,914
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate	0.00029019			$12,904,723
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate		283	49.80%	$12,801,788
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation	0.00003457			$1,537,434
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation		33	49.27%	$1,492,788
Special	Environmental - Special Rate Variation	0.00007107			$3,160,426

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

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

Stormwater management charge

The stormwater management service charge for 2020-2021 is levied under Section 496A of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

The charges have been set in accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Bill 2005 and for 2020-21 are as follows:

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

Other residential property: $25.00 per rateable property

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

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

Waste management charge – for business properties

The waste management charge for 2020/2021 is levied under Section 501 of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

Council’s annual waste management charges include a charge for waste management per business service provided. Upon request, a 120L waste bin to be emptied weekly will be provided. In 2020/2021 this charge will be $270 per service.

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

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

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

Domestic waste management charge

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

Charges for 2020 - 2021 are shown below:

Category Charge per Occupancy Service/Properties Estimated Income
Base service with green waste	$455.00	25,736	$11,709,880
Base service without green waste	$305.00	373	$113,765
Flat, home unit	$395.00	13,225	$5,223,875
Additional green waste bin	$150.00	3,861	$579,150
240L bin with green waste	$655.00	5,379	$3,523,245
Additional 120L waste bin	$200.00	184	$36,800
Availability/vacant land	$180.00	275	$49,500
240L waste bin without green waste	$505.00	36	$18,180
240L waste bin, ﬂat, home unit	$595.00	7	$4,165
Total Yield $21,258,560

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fees and charges schedule for 2020 - 2021

The draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan includes a range of proposed increases to current fees and charges in 2020-2021. Underlying these is the draft pricing methodology in relation to fees and charges, which are not prescribed by legislation. The pricing methodology seeks to ensure Council recovers its costs in delivering of services, while also allowing for fees and charges to be discounted, where appropriate, in recognition of Council’s community service obligations.

Council’s Fees and Charges have been increased where appropriate. Fees that have not been subject to an annual increase include Statutory and Regulatory Fees, Development Contributions and those where it was not commercially viable to do so.

Changes to Fees & Charges post exhibition (pending advise from OLG)

Increase to companion animal registration fees in line with CPI

In June of each year, Council is advised of increases to cat and dog lifetime registration fees in line with the Consumer Price Index as required by the Companion Animals Regulation 2018. At the time of writing Council has not yet received this advice. Should the advice be received at a later stage, these changes will be reflected in Council’s Fees & Charges. These fees are listed in the Companion Animals section under Compliance & Regulation in the Fees & Charges 2020 -2021.

Annual Budget 2020 - 2021 – Changes to Operational and Capital Budget post exhibition

Rates Levied: Minor changes have been made to the rate in the dollar as a result of additional supplementary valuations received after finalising the Draft 2020 - 2021 Annual Budget. The rates levied are listed under section “Rates Structure 2020 -2021 “in this report.

No other changes have been made to the total 2020 - 2021 Budget since it was placed on public exhibition. Minor changes to the budget will be reflected in the September Quarterly Budget Review.

COVID -19 Pandemic – Financial Impact to 2020/21 Annual Budget

For the purpose of estimating Council’s financial impacts, it has originally been assumed that the COVID-19 Pandemic will impact on Council and the community for a period of six months with estimates of a possible impact of $5.6m assuming the social isolation measures remained in place for that period. As restrictions are currently eased, the impacts are likely to vary from the original estimates. Further analyses and information on any implications and the need for amendments to next year’s budget are currently being performed and will be reflected as part of the September Quarterly Budget Review 2020/21.

COVID -19 Pandemic Government Stimulus Package

In June, the NSW Government approved a COVID-19 economic Stimulus Package that is directed to safeguarding jobs, services and infrastructure delivery at the State’s local councils. A variety of initiatives and measures have been announced, however not all will have a direct impact on next year’s budget.

Major elements of the Stimulus Package and impact on Council’s Annual Budget are discussed below:

• The Council Job Retention Allowance (JRA) Subsidy – The JRA Subsidy is to subsidise the cost of payments made by eligible councils to eligible employees who have been stood down as a consequence of the COVID 19 pandemic. Council is not eligible for this subsidy, as no employees have been stood down because of the pandemic, therefore there is no impact on Council’s Budget.

• Funding to meet councils’ increase in the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) for 2020-21 - The Office of Local Government will pay a grant to each council equivalent to the increase in their ESL contribution for 2020-21. The increase in primarily to pay for new workers’ compensation arrangements for firefighters with cancer. The ESL increase for Council for 2020/21 is $438,985, which will be paid in the first quarter of 2020/21.

• Access to low-interest, infrastructure loans from TCorp in line with TCorp’s credit criteria – Council does not hold any current borrowings with T-Corp, however any future borrowings will be assessed against TCorp criteria to make sure Council takes advantage of the most competitive interest rate offered. There is no impact on Council’s Budget.

• Access to a Crown indemnity for commercial borrowings, subject to meeting certain requirements. Council does not require an indemnity for commercial borrowings. There is no impact on Council’s Budget.

Other initiatives:

· Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) 2020/21 – In June Council received a pre-payment of two instalments of 2020/21 FAG grant ($1,982,602). This is not additional funding for Council, it is part of next year grant allocation paid in advance.

· Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program (LRCI Program) – This is a new program through which additional funding is available for local roads and community infrastructure projects that involve the construction, maintenance and/or improvements to council-owned assets that are generally accessible to the public. Council’s allocation is $706,890 available from 1 July 2020.

Social Considerations

The Delivery Program and Operational Plan include the same six (6) themes and long term objectives as the Community Strategic Plan. This ensures that the program and plan address social justice principles and social issues in an integrated way, along with civic leadership, environmental and economic issues as required by the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Environmental Considerations

The revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, through integration with the Community Strategic Plan, address both natural and built environment issues in a comprehensive manner integrated with civic leadership, social and economic issues as required by the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Community Consultation

The draft Revised Delivery Program 2018–2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 including draft Fees and Charges were publicly exhibited for 28 days from 30 April to 28 May 2020.

In addition to placing exhibition information on its website and through social media, Council is normally required to provide copies of the exhibition documents at its customer service centre at the Chambers and four libraries, as well as including an advertisement in the local North Shore Times newspaper, notifying residents of the exhibition.

In April 2020 the Minister for Local Government amended local government regulations in response to the required closure of council customer service centres and libraries and reduced publication of local newspapers. This included:

· Removing the requirement for documents to be made available for inspection at council offices, if the document is published on the council’s website or available electronically

· Removing the requirement for council notices to be advertised in newspapers and instead allowing the relevant notice to be published on the council’s website.

Notification of the exhibition was provided on Council’s website homepage with direct links to a dedicated page explaining the exhibition, providing an electronic version of the documents and information on how to make submissions. Information on the exhibition was also included in Council’s social media and e-news.

Social media results were positive with 10,781 Facebook followers viewing the exhibition post, 1,443 people engaging further and 794 Instagram views.

Three (3) external and four (4) internal submissions were received in response to the exhibition of Council’s Integrated Planning & Reporting documents.

Matters raised in the external and internal submissions and responses are summarised in the following tables.

External submissions

Submission/s	Issues raised
1. Resident	· Requests significantly increased funding for footpaths above the $1.8million in the exhibited 2020/21 Operational Plan; · Requests a new footpath to be constructed in Bent Street, Lindfield near Edenborough Park, due to unsafe pedestrian access, no footpaths available on either side of the street and high pedestrian usage; · Raises concerns that the above footpath request, previously made to Council, cannot be accommodated within the next 5 years.
Response The Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area has a significant number of roads with no formalised footpath. It has been recognised that it will take many years to construct a footpath on one side of every road. In some cases this may never occur due to constraints relating to construction such as multiple large trees and the slope or lack of space on the nature strip. Due to the large number of missing footpaths a numerical method has been adopted to rank the footpaths for construction. This priority ranking takes into account proximity to schools, shopping areas, public transport etc. with the intention to construct those footpaths that have the greatest use as a priority. Unfortunately the footpath construction program will take many years to complete and the footpath in Bent Street, as requested, is not within the first five years of the proposed program. Recommendation Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the resident to be advised in terms of the responses above.
Submission/s	Issues raised
2. Resident	· Supports most of Council’s planned programs; · Requests fast-tracking of transport and recreational tracks, due to the COVID-19 issues. In particular: Ø The Roseville to Chatswood cycleway, taking advantage of the proposed Roseville Station upgrade and using part of the rail corridor Ø Providing a walkway and/or cycleway link between lower East Lindfield and city buses on Archbold Road Ø Providing a pedestrian/cycleway tunnel at Archbold Road and Roseville Avenue. · Suggesting longer term cycleway ideas along the train line in Ku-ring-gai LGA and connecting Roseville Station to Davidson Park.
Response Council is investigating various opportunities for temporary pedestrian and cycling facilities as part of the NSW Government’s Streets as Shared Spaces grant program, the majority of which involve local roads or lands owned or managed by Council, to speed up necessary approvals. The idea of a cycling link connecting Roseville and Chatswood forms part of a wider strategic cycling route identified in the Greater Sydney Co-Designed Bicycle Network Blueprint map, and any use of the rail corridor or structures in it for pedestrian and cycle use requires approval from Transport for NSW/Sydney Trains. This is unlikely to occur given the degree of design work and Sydney Trains approval timeframes in order to meet the timing requirements for the grant. During the replacement of the rail bridge across Boundary Street, Council (with Willoughby Council) had tried unsuccessfully to advocate to Sydney Trains (then RailCorp) for space on the new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists. Nonetheless, as part of the wider strategic cycling route identified in the Greater Sydney Co-Designed Bicycle Network Blueprint map, Council will continue to work with Willoughby Council and Transport for NSW to investigate opportunities to provide a regional cycle link between Hornsby and Chatswood via the Ku-ring-gai LGA. Council staff have also been in discussions with Northern Beaches Council for a number of connections between the LGAs. This includes early investigation of a link between St Ives and Davidson via the Cascades Trail, and (in conjunction with Willoughby Council) a Cycle Route Corridor Investigation (yet to be funded) from Chatswood to Dee Why via Frenchs Forest and the Roseville Bridge. The idea for a recreation link connecting Moores Creek to Davidson Park across Middle Harbour has merit and could be considered in the Cycle Route Corridor Investigation as an alternative option to the Roseville Bridge crossing. Recommendation Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the resident to be advised in terms of the response above.
Submission/s		Issues raised
Northern Suburbs Football Association Inc.(NSFA)		· The NSFA thanks Council for the opportunity to comment on the exhibited plans and Council’s proposed 2020/21 investment in improvements to sporting facilities and amenities at Samuel King Amenities, Wellington Oval, Roseville Park, Bannockburn Oval, Primula Oval and Warrimoo Oval; · Indicates the NSFA’s willingness to contribute financially to projects consistent with NSFA objectives; · Seeks further investigation and support for the following: Ø The inclusion of hybrid turf in high wear areas at Wellington Oval on the basis of its cost effectiveness, strength and durability Ø The addition of floodlights at Roseville Oval, as a critical component in increasing sportsfield capacity Ø Further substantial investment in Bannockburn Oval over the short to medium term Ø Further substantial investment in Primula Oval to upgrade the playing surface.
Response All of the projects included in the NSFA’s submission are listed in the 2019-2020 Capital Works Program in the Revised Delivery Program 2018 – 2021 and Operational Plan 2019 – 2020. In regards to specific matters raised: *Wellington Oval* The suggestion for hybrid turf can be included in discussions, proposed to be held with club stakeholders including the NSFA, as part of the project. *Roseville Park Oval* The Roseville Park Landscape Masterplan, adopted by Council in May 2015, includes works to refurbish the football and cricket field (improved drainage and grass cover), which are fully funded under the S94A plan. The Masterplan does not include the installation of floodlights to the oval. Any future proposal for the installation of floodlights would require a separate funding source and be the subject of consultation with surrounding residents. Inclusion of floodlights in the project description for Roseville Park in the current Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2019/20 (page 102) for 2020/21 was incorrect, and was amended in the exhibited plan. *Bannockburn Oval* Further funded works are planned for this oval, to be included in future programs, *Primula Oval* Lighting for this oval has recently been completed with remaining available funding to be allocated to sports-field works only. Recommendation Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations for this report, the Northern Suburbs Football Association to be advised in terms of the response above.

Internal Consultation

The development of the draft revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2020-2021 was undertaken in consultation with all departments across Council.

Refinements to the draft document, as a result of ongoing review by staff during the public exhibition period are proposed for inclusion, including updated information relating to government measures related to COVID-19. Minor typographical and formatting errors identified during the exhibition period have also been corrected along with any updates of statistical data recently received from government agencies.

Other proposed revisions to projects and tasks are summarised below:

Theme 4	Places, spaces and infrastructure
Reference	Page 52 – Term Achievement P4.1.4 – Secure a development partner for Turramurra Community Hub Page 52 – Task P4.1.4.1 – Examine planning options within feasibility parameters for the Turramurra Community Hub.
Objective/Action	To place both the Term Achievement and Task for the Turramurra Community Hub ‘on hold’ for the purposes of progress reporting on the Delivery Program and Operational Plan in 2020/21. Both the term achievement and task will be retained in the plan, with a notation regarding Council’s resolution on this project.
Reason	This is consistent with Council’s resolution dated 19 May 2020 (GB.2 - Minute 96) to pause the planning and development of the Turramurra Community Hub for a period of up to 24 months pending the outcome of Ku-ring-gai Council’s comprehensive Local Environmental Plan.
Reference	Page 93 – Capital Works Program - Town Centre Streetscape – Pymble – Robert Pymble Park – Bicycle Parking Facilities - $5300
Objective/Action	Consolidate project with overall upgrade project for Robert Pymble Park (cnr Park Crescent and Alma Street) – page 89 – Parks Development - Upgrade works to park and surrounding streets – project management and construction - $1,357,600.
Reason	The consolidation will assist coordination of the various components of the upgrade project consistent with the Robert Pymble Park Landscape Masterplan, adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 17 March 2020.
Reference	Page 93 – Capital Works Program – Business Centres Program – Roseville – Babbage Road - Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program – $404,000
Objective/Action	Change project name/location to Wahroonga – Fox Valley shops.
Reason	Incorrect name included in the exhibited draft document. The Babbage Road shops project is included in the current 2019/20 year Capital Works Program. The Wahroonga – Fox Valley shops project is the next proposed project, consistent with the priority upgrade matrix previously adopted by Council for the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program.
Reference	Page 90 – Capital Works Program - Parks Development – Roseville – Roseville Memorial Park - cnr Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade – $559,400 – Upgrade centre park to urban park standard inclusive of new playground, new fixtures and associated landscaping works.
Objective/Action	Change description of works to ‘Upgrade existing centre park to urban park standard.’
Reason	Incorrect description of works. The proposed change of description is consistent with the project description in Council’s 2010 Contributions Plan, with no playground planned for this park.
Reference	Page 90 – Capital Works Program – Parks Development – Turramurra – Turramurra Village Park refurbishment – upgrade access, planting, user amenity - $499,900.
Objective/Action	Delete project from the 2020/21 Capital Works Program.
Reason	The project was incorrectly included in the Capital Works Program for 2020/21. Council resolved in 2017 to incorporate the Turramurra Village Park in the Masterplan for Turramurra Community Hub. The Masterplan is included in the Local Centres Development Control Plan and is also reflected in Council’s recently adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement. Council also resolved, at its meeting of 19 May 2020, to pause the planning and development of the Turramurra Community Hub project for a period of up to 24 months pending the outcome of Ku-ring-gai Council’s comprehensive Local Environmental Plan.
Reference	Page 92 – Capital Works Program – Footpaths – North Turramurra – North Turramurra Recreation Area main entrance, Bobbin Head Road – Roundabout and footpath installation - $123,500.
Objective/Action	Amend description of works to ‘Footpath – Pedestrian Access Upgrade.’
Reason	The amended description clarifies the pedestrian related works proposed.
Theme 6	Leadership and governance
Reference	Page 64 - Task L1.1.1.1 – Prepare an End of Term Report on the progress of implementing the Community Strategic Plan 2038.
Objective/Action	Change wording of exhibited draft task to: Task L1.1.1.1 – Commence preparation of an End of Term Report on the progress of implementing the Community Strategic Plan 2038.
Reason	The changes reflect extended timeframes for Integrated Planning and Reporting, as a result of the postponement of the 2020 local government elections.
Reference	Page 64 - Task L1.1.1.2 – Review Ku-ring-gai’s Community Strategic Plan 2038 in response to identified challenges, opportunities, community and strategic priorities.
Objective/Action	Change wording of exhibited draft task to: Task L1.1.1.2 - Commence review of Ku-ring-gai’s Community Strategic Plan 2038 in response to identified challenges, opportunities, community and strategic priorities.
Reason	The changes reflect extended timeframes for Integrated Planning and Reporting, as a result of the postponement of the 2020 local government elections.
Reference	Page 64 – Task L1.1.1.3 – Undertake community engagement and consultation for Council’s review of the Community Strategic Plan 2038 consistent with an adopted Community Engagement Strategy.
Objective/Action	Delete task.
Reason	The task is postponed to the 2021/22 year consistent with extended timeframes for Integrated Planning and Reporting, as a result of the postponement of the 2020 local government elections.

Summary

The draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the budget, capital works program, statement of revenue policy and fees and charges for 2020-2021 have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993, and the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Planning for 2020/21 programs and services was substantially completed prior to the introduction of the Federal and State Government measures to address COVID-19. Assessing the impacts of those measures on Council’s 2020/21 programs and services will be ongoing and the subject of further reports to Council.

The changes proposed to the exhibited Revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan, as discussed in the report, are minor and not considered to have a substantial or material change to the strategic direction and delivery of Council’s services and projects. For this reason it is recommended that Council adopt the revised documents without the need to re-exhibit.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2020-2021, with recommended changes discussed in this report.

B. That an ordinary rate in the dollar of $0.00063258 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential in the Council area be made for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

C. That an ordinary rate in the dollar of $0.00334068 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as business in the Council area be made for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

D. That the minimum ordinary rate for both residential and business be set at $554.00 for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

E. That an infrastructure - primary rate in the dollar of $0.00029019 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a $283 base amount be made for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

F. That an infrastructure special rate in the dollar of $0.00003457 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a $33 base amount be made for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

G. That an environmental special rate in the dollar of $0.00007107 on the unimproved capital value of all rateable land categorised as residential or business in the Council area, with a zero base amount, be made for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

H. That the voluntary pensioner rebate be granted to all eligible pensioners as a flat percentage of 8.5% of total rates and charges in 2020 - 2021.

I. That Council write to those people who made submissions in relation to the exhibited draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021and draft Operational Plan 2020-2021.

Kim Thomas

Corporate Planner

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Coordinator

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accounant

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

APPENDIX No: 1 - Companion Animals Management Plan 2020-2025

Item No: GB.9

Companion Animal Management Plan

March 2020 - 2025

Ku-ring-gai Council

Table of Contents

Companion Animals Management Plan. 1

March 2020 - 2025. 1

Ku-ring-gai Council 1

Ku-ring-gai Council’s mission and vision for companion animals. 3

What is a Companion Animal?. 3

Mission. 3

Vision. 3

Purpose. 3

Introduction. 4

1. Term of plan. 4

2. Profile of Ku-ring-gai Council area and its pet community. 4

3. Policy objective. 5

3.1 Service and facilities. 5

3.2 Education. 5

3.3 Compliance. 6

4. Current companion animal figures. 6

4.1 Permanent Identification and Lifetime Registration. 7

4.2 Customer Request Management System (CRM) – animal control 7

4.3 Pound activity. 7

5. Action plan for core areas. 7

5.1 Service and facilities. 7

5.2 Education. 9

5.3 Compliance Action Plan. 11

6. Monitor and review.. 12

Ku-ring-gai Council’s mission and vision for companion animals

What is a Companion Animal?

The term Companion Animal means each of the following:

a) A dog

b) A cat

c) Any other animal that is prescribed by the regulation as a companion animal, even working dog on rural properties, guard dogs, Police dogs and Corrective Services dogs.

Mission

To administer the Companion Animals Act in a consistent and informative manner.

Vision

To promote an optimal environment for people and animals to live together harmoniously.

Purpose

· To promote and create awareness of responsible pet ownership within the Ku-ring-gai Council area.

· To provide facilities that recognises the needs of pet owners, protection of the environment and general public.

· To seek voluntary compliance from pet owners through knowledge and education.

· To apply the Companion Animals Act in a fair and reasonable manner and in accordance with Council’s Compliance Policy

Introduction

1. Term of plan

This plan is to facilitate the management of companion animals and associated areas within Ku-ring-gai for the period 2020 – 2025.

2. Profile of Ku-ring-gai Council area and its pet community

The Ku-ring-gai local government area (LGA) covers approximately 85 square kilometres or 8,544 hectares. Ku-ring-gai contains nine suburbs and displays a wide variation in landscape and wildlife, with significant areas of urban bushland identified as having high conservation status. The area is bound by Garigal National Park to the East, Lane Cove River Park to the West and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park to the North. The estimated residential population is 126,046, which is up 3% since the previous plan. Ku-ring-gai Council encourages responsible pet ownership. The majority of households within Ku-ring-gai own, or have owned, pets and the NSW Companion Animals Register shows that there are approximately 26,276 dogs (up 18%) and 10,668 cats (up 28%) in Ku-ring-gai. This is an increase of 21% companion animals since the previous Companion Animals Plan.

Within Ku-ring-gai we currently have:

· 2 community based dog training clubs

· 21 leash free areas for dog socialisation

· 9 veterinary clinics

Ku-ring-gai residents and their companion animals are regarded as one of the most interactive communities in Australia. This claim is consolidated by the following statistics. Ku-ring-gai Council has the 3^rd highest number of registered companion animals in New South Wales. Ku-ring-gai Council also has a very low dog attacks per dogs in council area ratio compared to similar councils in NSW.

The NSW Companion Animals Act came into effect in July 1998. The Act introduced major reforms in the keeping and control of companion animals. The Act was developed with the understanding that all sectors of the community would benefit from having more proactive and enforceable laws. The community expectation is that Council will provide quality services relating to companion animal control.

Promotion of responsible pet ownership is the guiding principle behind this plan. Many of the issues commonly faced within companion animal management are related to irresponsible pet ownership. Council strives to encourage animal owners to be more responsible for the behaviour of their pets and, in doing so, many of the plan objectives can be met.

Council’s plan identifies three main factors in companion animal management; the animals, the community and the surrounding environment. All areas are contributing factors to our management plan and strategic actions.

The plan aims to:-

· balance the needs of the community, the environment and companion animals;

· identify and fill gaps in previous planning and education;

· provide guidelines for directing and prioritising actions;

· provide measurable indicators for the assessment of plan results and outcomes.

The plan has been developed following consultation and input from Council staff, industry experts and key community members.

3. Policy objective

Our core objective is to provide pet owners with functional facilities, relevant knowledge and a consistent approach in the regulation of companion animals, whilst also considering the needs of the broader community and the environment.

3.1 Service and facilities

To provide quality facilities, customer service & solutions for all matters involving companion animals.

Customer service: Enhance the quality of customer service by improving communication methods, access to information and increasing the knowledge of relevant Council staff in relation to companion animal issues.

Pound facilities: Provide a quality impounding service for stray and surrendered companion animals and the re-homing of surrendered animals. Regularly review the standards of service and facilities to ensure best industry practises are maintained.

Off-leash areas: To provide functional facilities for the enjoyment of pet owners and utilise space provided for these reasons. To continue with planned on-going maintenance of off-leash areas including: seating, signage, biodegradable plastic bags, waste bins and water facilities.

3.2 Education

To disseminate knowledge to all stakeholders about responsible companion management. Our education programs will target the following areas:

Appropriate pet selection: Promote appropriate pet selection based on individual circumstances, needs and potential housing arrangements.

Basic health and welfare principles for pets: All companion animals are appropriately cared for by the provision of adequate shelter, nutrition, exercise and interaction with other pets and people, and are kept in a manner that protects wildlife.

Identification and lifetime registration of companion animals: Ensuring pets are permanently identified by microchip and lifetime registered at the appropriate age.

De-sexing: Having pets de-sexed to reduce unwanted animals

Secure confinement : Confining pets to their property and preventing escape.

Environmental enrichment and exercise : Promote environmental enrichment and exercise programs to reduce the likelihood of nuisance behaviour such as barking, damage to property and personal affects.

Socialisation: Promote social interaction with other companion animals and people to reduce the risk of anti-social behaviour.

Training: Encourage and promote early training of dogs to ensure pets are properly conditioned when encountering the wider community.

Public place restrictions: (When not on private land) Keeping pets under effective control by means of chain, cord or leash (except in leash-free areas).

Environmental awareness: Increase awareness of environmental issues associated with companion animals in relation to the native flora and fauna so as to minimise impact on wildlife and the environment.

Safety around companion animals: Increase awareness of safety issues when dealing with companion animals to reduce the likeliness of serious injury resulting from attack.

3.3 Compliance

To achieve optimum compliance in accordance with legislation and local policy, our actions will focus on:

Legislative responsibility: Actively enforce the Companion Animals Act and Companion Animals Regulation to ensure a safe community and minimise instances of non-compliance.

Dangerous/aggressive dogs: To ensure dogs subject to a Dangerous Dog Order, Menacing Dog Order, Court appointed Control Order or a Nuisance Order are monitored and controlled to maintain a safe environment for the community.

Environment: To minimise negative impacts by companion animals on the community, wildlife and the environment.

Vermin pest programs: Provide compliance support for in-house pest control programs.

4. Current companion animal figures

To establish a benchmark, current and historical statistics have been gathered to enable periodic evaluation of the plan’s progress towards its goals.

The sources that figures will be collected from include:

· NSW Local Government Companion Animal Register (CAR), statistics available are:

- Number of animals with Permanent Identification

- Number of animals having Lifetime Registration

- Number of animals with Nuisance Orders

- Number of Menacing Dog Orders

- Number of animals with Dangerous Dog Orders

- Number of animals with court imposed Control/Consent Orders

· Ku-ring-gai Customer Request Management System (CRM)

- Number of dog attacks reported

- Number of dogs roaming reported

- Number of dog pick-up

· Taken to pound

· Returned home

- Number of dogs barking reported

- Number of nuisance cats reported

- Number of cat pick-ups

- Number of companion animal enquiries

- Number of deceased animals

· Ku-ring-gai’s Nominated Impounding Facility

- Number of animals impounded

- Number of animals released to owner

- Number of animals re-homed

- Number of animals euthanized

4.1 Permanent Identification and Lifetime Registration

Lifetime Registration figures have improved dramatically since the introduction of the first Companion Animals Management Plan in 2006. This rate has continued to increase through the recent Management Plan period. The overall registration rate of companion animals within the Ku-ring-gai LGA has been maintained at a consistently high rate of 90% or above, currently at 95% which is the 3^rd highest in NSW.

4.2 Customer Request Management System (CRM) – animal control

Council’s Customer Request Management System is utilised to record all concerns or enquiries regarding companion animals. This system will continue to be utilised as our primary record and case management system.

4.3 Pound activity

Under the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998, an authorised officer has the option to either return a seized animal to its owner at the address where the animal is ordinarily kept or to impound the animal at our service provider. Currently, Ku-ring-gai Council uses Thornleigh Animal Hospital to provide our impounding service.

5. Action plan for core areas

5.1 Service and facilities

Activity area

Strategic actions

Proposed outcome & benefits

Performance indicator

Customer service

Continually update Council’s Customer Service unit with relevant information and on legislative changes relating to frequently asked questions in relation to companion animal issues. Increase level of response to customer enquiries and increase knowledge of specific areas.

Maintain a current and informative website and social media platforms relating to companion animals.

Provide a high level of service to public/residents.

The community is provided with correct and current information.

Facilitates efficient communication between Council & the community on all matters regarding companion animals.

Frequently asked questions’ (FAQ) webpage is utilised by Customer Service staff on a regular basis.

Social media website enquiries.

Customer attendance at companion animal talks and events with companion animal staff presence.

Ranger services

Provide a professional and well equipped ranger unit that plans and responds to all concerns & complaints regarding companion animals.

Increase knowledge of regulatory officers regarding the management of dangerous, menacing and nuisance animals.

A professional experienced team that can address all companion animal matters in a consistent manner.

Promote positive initiatives towards improving service levels for residents.

Safety of ranger unit when dealing with companion animal matters.

Community satisfaction feedback and surveys

Reduced number of complaints from public/residents.

All matters are responded to in a timely manner.

Off leash areas

Improve facilities at dog off-leash areas in accordance with the prioritised capital works program.

Identify and target enforcement in areas having higher complaint profiles.

Education in relation to dog park etiquette, behaviour and cleaning up after defecation.

The provision of suitable areas and promotion of their use provides a range of options for the community and assists Council in the control of non-compliance.

Natural habitat & wildlife afforded greater protection.

All users are comfortable with park use and comply with mandatory requirements to control dogs and clean up after defecation.

Facilities that meet the needs of dog owners and non-dog owners.

Reduced numbers of dogs straying into bushland interface areas.

Number of reports of dog attacks at off leash areas decreases. Off leash areas are clean, with minimal fouling by defecation.

Pound facilities

Maintain a quality pound facility for impounded or surrendered animals

Ensure guidelines for impounded or surrendered animals are of national standards and or industry best practices.

Maintenance of current high standards.

Review current pound agreement and amend accordingly.

Continuation of low euthanasia rates and high levels of re-homing without releasing antisocial dogs or feral cats back into the community.

5.2 Education

Activity area

Strategic actions

Proposed outcome & benefits

Performance indicator

Companion animals & the bushland

Promote responsible behaviour of owners of dogs and cats in bushland – living together with wildlife.

Regular patrols of bushland interface areas by regulatory officers.

Consult regularly with Council’s Strategy and Environment team and Infrastructure Services team.

Educational activities for dog and cat owners in relation to bushland and wildlife.

Increased awareness & self-regulation so to protect natural flora and fauna.

Communication between departments on matters relating to sensitive natural environmental areas.

Reduction in damage caused by companion animals in natural bushland.

Decrease in number of companion animals found in bushland areas.

Reduction in complaints.

Implementation of educational material relating to sensitive natural environmental areas.

Publications & website

Develop and update pamphlets to address and manage topical companion animal issues.

Create a pet owner’s handbook in PDF format on Council’s website.

Distribute all written material via key pick-up points.

Make electronic copies of all publications available on Council’s website.

Increased community awareness regarding responsible pet ownership.

Residents provided with current information on companion animal issues.

Ensure website is current & has relevant links established.

Increased level of compliance and awareness of responsibilities by pet owners.

All contacts and information within the Pet Owners Handbook and pet pamphlets are current, correct, and available on Council’s website.

Website and social media platforms are well utilised.

Companion animal Council and community events

Annually participate in a Dogs Day Out event or similar community events promoting responsible pet ownership and involving the community and their dogs.

Promote and host Dog Talks at off-leash park areas.

Annually promote and host 2-4 pet talks with external speakers.

Biannually promote and host movie night or specialty events.

Biannually promote and host responsible Cat owner Expo.

Increase interrelations between Council and the greater community, whilst promoting registration and correct owner’s details.

Increase opportunities for dog socialisation and educational involvement.

Increased awareness and self-regulation.

Community participation & support of the events.

Increased level of compliance and awareness of responsibilities by pet owners.

Anti-nuisance companion animal education programs

Implement specific programs and talks targeting responsible ownership issues such as; nuisance/ anti-social behaviours, legal obligations, training and attack prevention.

Promotion of the Ku-ring-gai K9 Awards.

Problem and topical areas identified and managed through education programs.

Better socialised pets in the community.

Reduction in the instances of nuisance/ anti-social behaviour. Decrease in the number of serious dog attacks and nuisance cat reports.

Greater community awareness.

Increased number of programs developed and delivered.

Professional development of regulatory officers

Attend Councils’ Unite for Pets meetings.

Attend other relevant companion animal seminars.

Network with other council officers for best practise.

Participation in joint events where deemed appropriate.

Keep abreast of legislation, obtain new ideas and network with other councils.

Council employs best industry practise.

Registration & identification

Actively promote the identification and registration of companion animals.

Actively promote the up-dating of registration details.

Increased community awareness of the benefits of lifetime registration.

OLG provides commission based funding to Council from Lifetime Registration fees to support companion animal programs.

Lost animals are able to be returned to their owners in a timely manner.

Animals clearly identified by council officers when conducting investigations or locating owners of lost animals.

A steady flow of registration commissions are received by Council.

A continued high rate of companion animal registrations.

Dangerous/

aggressive animals

Provide regular refresher training for regulatory officers in dealing with potentially aggressive animals.

Keep ranger vehicles up to date with relevant and sufficient equipment for dealing with aggressive animals.

Reduce WH & S risk to the officer in the field when dealing with difficult animals.

Low rate of workplace injuries resultant from animal attack.

5.3 Compliance Action Plan
Activity area	Strategic actions	Proposed outcome & benefits	Performance indicator
Identification and registration	Continue to proactively monitor registrations to ensure companion animals are lifetime registered as prescribed by the Companion Animals Act. Execute appropriate regulatory action for non-compliance.	Council complies with its responsibilities of enforcing the Companion Animals Act. .	At least 90% of companion animals kept within Ku-ring-gai are registered on the NSW Companion Animal Register.
Standard Operating Procedures for complaint investigation & resolution	Maintain and annually up-date standard procedures for investigation of companion animal issues. Develop and implement new Standard Operation Procedures within the companion animal area. All investigations are carried out in accordance with Council’s adopted Compliance Policy.	Parity across the ranger team towards companion animal issues.	Complaints investigated in a timely and uniformed manner.
Dangerous/ Menacing/ aggressive dogs	Undertake dog attack investigation in a timely and professional manner in accordance with the Companion Animals Act and Standard Operating Procedures. Execute appropriate resultant actions. Conduct annual on-site inspections of premises where dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs are kept.	Council complies with its responsibilities of enforcing the Companion Animals Act. Dangerous /menacing dogs and restricted breeds are kept in accordance with the prescribed conditions of the NSW Companion Animals Act.	Dangerous/menacing dogs and restricted breeds are kept and handled in accordance with the law. Customer satisfaction that investigations have been conducted professionally and in accordance with the law.
Prohibited areas, bushland & environmental protection areas	Proactively patrol prohibited areas (playgrounds etc.), together with bush interface and environmental protection areas. Execute appropriate regulatory action for non-compliance.	Lower instances of non-compliance.	Reduction in complaints received.

6. Monitor and review

On-going monitoring and review of our performance regarding companion animal management is a responsibility of this plan so as to check targets on performance indicators.

Monthly monitoring of key areas: Statistics will be collected monthly so as to monitor progress and provide the basis of the annual report. The particular areas that will be monitored on a monthly basis include:-

· Animal registration – used to monitor registration rate in the area and monitor the number of unregistered animals.

· Total requests received for animal control – this will allow comparisons over each financial year period to allow education and resources to be allocated effectively.

· Individual figures for monitoring key areas – the specific categories that are of major interest include; all nuisance complaints, dog attacks and dog pick-ups. This will allow for programs to target problem areas.

· Animal seizure and pound activity – this information will provide the number of animals seized and the impounding rate and return rate for the Council area.

Key area monitoring: There are seven other key areas that are an essential component of companion animal management, these are:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.10 / 185

Item GB.10	CY00349/10

SEPP(Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 - Heritage Conservation Areas Exemption

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider a permanent exemption from SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 to applying to the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Areas.

background:	In February 2019, an amendment was made by the Department of Planning (now DPIE) to exclude Seniors Housing SEPP from applying to Heritage Conservation Areas for Greater Sydney until 1 July 2020.

comments:	Ku-ring-gai’s heritage conservation areas are unique and should be protected from further development under the SEPP. Council can continue to provide for further housing needs under the SEPP in areas outside of the heritage conservation areas.

recommendation:	That Council request the NSW DPIE grant a permanent exemption from SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applying to the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Areas.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider a permanent exemption from SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 to applying to the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Areas.

Background

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (‘the SEPP’) was introduced as a planning policy response to facilitate the delivery of seniors housing and retirement care facilities to meet projected need across Greater Sydney. In February 2019, the Minister made changes to the SEPP so that it will not apply in Heritage Conservation Areas (‘HCAs’) in Greater Sydney until 1 July 2020. This temporary change was made to allow councils time to ensure seniors housing provisions align with their local strategic planning statements.

Once councils have completed their strategic planning including community consultation, they will be able to choose whether the SEPP should apply in HCAs within their Local Government Area (‘LGA’). The Government has stated that this temporary amendment attempts to balance the demand for seniors housing with the need to protect local character.

Comments

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage conservation areas are evidence of twentieth century town planning and conservation philosophies, being: the separation of residential areas from other urban uses; subdivision patterns reflecting a range of suburban aspirations; the use of residential district proclamations to create and retain domestic environmental amenity; street tree planting; and post-war neighbourhood planning.

Seniors’ housing developments provided under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 can sometimes result in poor urban design, built form and landscape outcomes that are not consistent with the local heritage character and values of the Heritage Conservation Areas within Ku-ring-gai. This report sets out the reasoning to ensure a permanent exemption of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 applying to Heritage Conservation Areas within Ku-ring-gai.

Heritage Conservation Areas of Ku-ring-gai

Ku-ring-gai is well known across the Sydney region as the origin of the National Trust of Australia (NSW) and Council values its significant built and natural heritage through heritage programs and policies to identify and protect Ku-ring-gai’s heritage.

As of October 2019, there were 46 HCAs in the Ku-ring-gai LGA. These are generally grouped as the Northern HCAs (Wahroonga to Pymble) and the Southern HCAs (Gordon to Roseville), with additional East and West studies having been completed off the satellite of Pymble. Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs are predominantly characterised by vegetation, high-quality building stock and evidence of key historical development phases for the area.

Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs were originally based on the Urban Conservation Areas that were identified by the National Trust. They have distinct historic and aesthetic significance, demonstrated in the architecture, planning and setting of the areas and provide evidence of the varied developmental history of Ku-ring-gai. This includes the sparse early settlement with primary industry in the early to mid-19^th Century and an uptake in development accompanying the North Shore Line railway in the 1890s. In addition, the HCAs reflect the continuity of these trends with the opening of the Harbour Bridge in 1931, which stimulated further inter-war development and post-war economic growth that encouraged the further settlement of more distant and less topographically attractive terrains.

The Northern HCAs contain a variety of development, including both substantial and modest properties from the 1890s-1910s and 1920-30s, as well as some modest properties from the 1940-60s. The Southern HCAs predominately contain late 19^th to early 20^th Century development, representing the historic grants, landholdings and subdivisions of those periods, with some pockets of cohesive inter-war development. The Pymble East and West HCAs represent a wide range of development from the 20^th Century, including Federation, Inter-war and a high proportion of post-war and modern buildings.

Development Assessment Context

Since the formalisation of the HCAs in 2014, Ku-ring-gai Council has received numerous development applications for seniors’ living housing under the SEPP, including some within HCAs. Whilst in broader terms the SEPP aims to increase the supply and diversity of seniors’ living accommodation and ensure it is of good design, the compatibility of the actual built outcomes with the established character of Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs is difficult to reconcile.

Without even considering the design qualities of a proposal, there is an immediate and conceivable disjuncture between the scale of a typical seniors’ living housing development and the existing character of Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs. Where the HCAs are typically characterised by single dwelling allotments often with expansive individual building curtilages, a typical development under the SEPP proposes many smaller scale, attached and community style housing typologies, resulting in substantial intensification of existing sites or an amalgamation of sites. Furthermore, site amalgamation in HCAs to achieve appropriately sized allotments for development under the SEPP places unnecessary pressure on Council to compromise on the extent of retention of the established building stock and their respective curtilages. Regardless of the quality of a design and the sensitivity of materials, finishes and building modulation, ultimately the special character of the HCAs swiftly changes with the introduction of this type of density.

The current Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan focuses on ensuring that any works do not significantly alter the character of an area and attempt to safeguard against inappropriate development. An exemption from the SEPP within HCAs would eliminate drawn-out and repetitive assessment processes, which involve Council officers repeatedly relaying Council’s planning policies and development controls in attempt to ameliorate against overtly inappropriately characterised development. As well as being a logical solution, an exemption from the SEPP in HCAs in the Ku-ring-gai LGA would also prevent unnecessary expenditure of Council resources and those of the NSW Land and Environment Court.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (‘LSPS’) 2020 identified HCAs as a key contributor to the local character of the Ku-ring-gai LGA and that future medium and high-density housing development should be avoided in these areas. The need to retain appropriate settings and curtilages for heritage items and HCAs, as well as managing the interface and separation of these in town centres, were also key principles of the LSPS.

· Seeking an exemption from the SEPP within HCAs is therefore identified as a strategic response to meet the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Priority K13: Identifying and Conserving Ku-ring-gai’s Environmental Heritage. This planning priority is accompanied by the following action:

· Liaise with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to seek a permanent exemption of Heritage Conservation Areas within Ku-ring-gai from the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004.

Local Housing Strategy

The draft Local Housing Strategy demonstrates that Council can meet the needs of its diverse community through a range of amendments to local planning controls over the course of the next 20 years. The Housing Strategy community engagement process revealed a general disdain towards some existing poorly designed and located seniors’ housing developments. Moreover, a strong desire emerged for intergenerational housing options such as secondary dwellings or granny flats on the same lots as a principal dwelling to house a growing ageing population.

The Housing Needs Study commissioned to inform the draft Housing Strategy found an escalating market demand for diverse housing for people over 55 in the Ku-ring-gai LGA. The housing needs analysis for the ageing population generates an assumption that 37% of older cohorts may downsize in Ku-ring-gai, with an additional 15%, should the desired stock be available, of high quality and in the right location. The Study found a preference for semi-detached townhouse style dwellings for older cohorts, in more accessible locations. With a projected increase of over 14,400 people over the age of 50 between 2016 and 2036, a significant amount of diverse, smaller housing stock is likely to be required.

The summary of dwelling demand from 2022 – 2036 places the demand for apartments from the growing ageing population at 3,820 dwellings and the demand for semi-detached terrace/villa/townhouses and dual occupancy at 3,609 dwellings. Through the application of housing principles, and rigorous constraints and opportunities analysis, the draft Housing Strategy holistically investigates appropriate locations close to transport connections, services and facilities that may be suitable for delivering the required dwelling mix and numbers to accommodate for the changing population. This process has demonstrated that there are many opportunities for the realisation of seniors’ housing to meet the needs of a growing ageing population outside of HCAs, which constitute only 13.6% of residential areas within the Ku-ring-LGA.

This considered approach to identifying areas for future housing supply will ensure that dwellings are delivered in desirable areas and of the right typology to suit market demand. This is preferential to ad-hoc Seniors Living developments.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

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 controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

Governance Matters

In February 2019, the Minister made changes to the SEPP so that it will not apply in Heritage Conservation Areas (‘HCAs’) in Greater Sydney until 1 July 2020. This temporary change was made to allow councils time to ensure seniors housing provisions align with their local strategic planning statements. Council has completed its LSPS (including community consultation) is now is able to make a decision whether the Seniors SEPP should apply in our Heritage Conservation Areas.

Risk Management

Council through its adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement has made a commitment to identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage and Council’s reputation could be adversely affected if it does not implement this priority as set out in the adopted LSPS.

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

If a permanent exemption is put in place, housing provision under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 will continue to be provided in Ku-ring-gai, but not in the heritage conservation areas.

Environmental Considerations

A permanent exemption of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 applying to Heritage Conservation Areas will assist in protecting our unique heritage and local character.

Community Consultation

External community consultation is not required for the matters addressed in this report.

Previously consultation was undertaken as part of the exhibition of the LSPS, which included the action of seeking a permanent exemption of Heritage Conservation Areas within Ku-ring-gai from the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004.

Desire for increased protection of heritage conservation areas emerged as a strong theme throughout the community engagement for the draft Housing Strategy, including submissions received during the public exhibition period. A permanent exemption of HCA’s from the SEPP will ensure any development within HCAs is appropriate and in line with the local character of the area, with opportunities for Seniors Living developments to supplement planned dwelling delivery in areas outside of HCAs.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with other Departments where relevant has taken place for the preparation of this report. On 21 May 2020 Council’s Heritage Reference Committee were briefed of this matter going to Council and were generally supportive of the proposal.

Summary

In February 2019, the State Government made changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 so that it will not apply in Heritage Conservation Areas (‘HCAs’) in Greater Sydney until 1 July 2020.

Ku-ring-gai’s HCAs are recognised as having special characteristics and the prospect of allowing seniors’ living housing under the SEPP in these areas places this in jeopardy. Coupled with this, the development assessment process is often lengthy and can result in a decision of the Land and Environment Court. Ku-ring-gai Council would benefit greatly from an exemption from allowing development under the SEPP within its HCAs.

HCA’s cover only 13.6% of residential areas within the Ku-ring-LGA. The considered approach to identifying areas for future housing supply undertaken as part of the draft Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy has demonstrated that there are many opportunities for the realisation of seniors’ housing to meet the needs of a growing ageing population outside of HCAs. If a permanent exemption is put in place, housing provision under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 will continue to be provided in Ku-ring-gai, but not in the heritage conservation areas.

A permanent exemption of the State SEPP applying to Heritage Conservation Areas is sought to protect Ku-ring-gai’s unique heritage and local character.

Recommendation:

That Council makes a submission (based on the information in this report), to the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requesting a permanent exemption be made to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 from applying to Ku-ring-gai’s Heritage Conservation Areas.

Olivia Turner

Student Heritage Planner

Alexandra Plumb

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.12 / 200

Item GB.12	S12120

Post exhibition
Consideration of submissions
Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP
45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

background:	The Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP were placed on public exhibition from 5 March 2020 – 3 April 2020.

comments:	1077 individual submissions were received in response to the exhibition. Many submissions were made in support or objection to a specific retailer (Harris Farm) on the subject sites. This is a Planning Proposal to rezone sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, not a Development Application. A Planning Proposal can only consider proposed amendments to the LEP and assess the strategic and site specific merits of those amendments. A Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development outcome on the site (i.e. Harris Farm) and does not give any development approval for construction/or use of the site for a particular purpose. The Planning Proposal demonstrates strategic and site specific merit.

recommendation:	That Council adopts the Planning Proposal for 45‑47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra. That Council adopts the draft site-specific DCP for 45‑47‑Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

Background

Planning Proposal and Process

The sites the subject of this Planning Proposal are 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra. The sites have long term established commercial uses (nursery and service station), and adjoin the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre.

Image 1: Subject Sites and Surrounding Context

The Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015):

· Rezone the sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre

· Remove Minimum Lot Size Development Standard of 940sqm

	Existing	Proposed
Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential	B1 Neighbourhood Centre (same as existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Shops)
Height of Building	9.5m (No change)	9.5m (No Change)
Floor Space Ratio	0.3:1 (No change)	0.3:1 (No Change)
Minimum Lot Size	940sqm	Remove
Biodiversity Mapping	Existing site mapped with Biodiversity significance	No Change

Table 1: Comparison of Existing LEP Development Standards and Proposed Amendments

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 27 August 2018. Following the submissions of additional information the review of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 12 November 2018.

The Planning Proposal was reported to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP) on 19 March 2019. The KLPP resolution recommended that Council submit the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination.

The Planning Proposal was reported to the OMC 26 March 2019 where Council resolved to submit the Planning Proposal (subject to amendments) to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway Determination, which would allow the Planning Proposal to be placed on public exhibition.

Gateway Determination

The Planning Proposal was submitted to DPIE for a Gateway Determination on 14 June 2019. The Gateway Determination was issued on 13 November 2019.

The Gateway Determination included a condition that a site-specific development control plan (DCP) be prepared and publically exhibited with the Planning Proposal. A copy of the Gateway Determination is included at Attachment A1.

Draft Site-Specific DCP

A draft site-specific DCP was prepared by Council staff to support the amendments sought by the Planning Proposal and to provide greater assurance of development outcomes on the site. The draft site-specific DCP includes objectives and controls relating to future character; public domain; pedestrian and vehicle access; building setbacks and built form; retention and protection of trees and vegetation.

At the OMC 18 February 2020 Council endorsed the draft site-specific DCP for public exhibition.

Comments

1. Public Exhibition

The Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP were placed on public exhibition from 5 March – 3 April 2020 in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A copy of the exhibited Planning Proposal and Appendices is at Attachments A2 – A14 (circulated separately).

2. Submissions – Planning Proposal

A total of 1077 unique individual submissions were received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP. Some of the submissions were made on behalf of multiple people and one included a compilation of in-store feedback forms from Harris Farm’s St Ives and Lindfield Stores, resulting in a total of 1292 individual people represented within the submissions.

Of the 1077 unique submissions, 448 submissions were in support, 563 submissions in opposition, and 66 ‘other’ which included blank submissions, and submissions which provided comments both in support and opposition.

A submission summary table is included at Attachment A15 which provides a summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, Council response and any amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP.

30 late submissions received after the close of the exhibition period (3 April 2020) have not been summarised in the submission summary table. Copies of late submissions have been circulated to Councillors.

It is clear many of the submissions received have not been made having any regard to the Planning Proposal or Draft-Site Specific DCP documents on public exhibition. Rather they have been made in response to social media platforms seeking to support or oppose a particular retailer - Harris Farm – opening a store on the site. Many of the issues raised in these submissions are not planning matters (e.g. support for Harris Farm because of the goods/range of products they sell) or matters for consideration in the assessment of the Planning Proposal (e.g. timing of truck deliveries, noise mitigation measures, opening hours) which would be considered at the Development Application stage.

It needs to be reinforced that this is a Planning Proposal, not a Development Application. A Planning Proposal can only consider proposed amendments to the LEP and assess the strategic and site specific merits of those amendments. A Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development outcome on the site (i.e. Harris Farm) and does not give any development approval for construction/or use of the site for a particular purpose. The proposed amendments to the LEP need to be acceptable as an outcome on the site, regardless of the subsequent approval of any specific Development Application. The Department of Planning’s A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans notes “While a variation to a control may be pursued to secure a particular development outcome for a site, that outcome itself will be subject to a separate assessment process via the Development Application process.”

Should the Planning Proposal be supported and the amendments gazetted in the KLEP 2015, then a Development Application could be lodged seeking consent to use the site for a particular purpose in accordance with the permitted land uses of that zone.

The following are some of the most common matters raised in submissions, both in support and opposition to the proposal. Consideration is given to the planning merits of the issues raised, rather than the number of submissions received.

Support – Planning Proposal

· Support for rezoning of sites and benefits.

Submissions supported the proposed rezoning of the sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, noting the rezoning made a lot of sense and that the existing land uses are commercial in nature. Submissions noted that the benefits of the proposed rezoning include providing decentralised local business infrastructure for family convenience, extend the existing retail precinct, expand and improve the local shopping area, and keep the use of the site commercial which would support business.

Comment: The support for the rezoning of the sites is noted. The rezoning of the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre demonstrates both strategic and site specific merit in that:

o The existing and historic use of the sites has been for commercial purposes, and the proposed rezoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre formalises and rationalises the existing commercial uses of the land.

o The sites form a natural extension to the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning of the adjoining Eastern Road shops.

o The extension of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone would improve the range, quality and quantity of services for local residents .

o It is consistent with the Directions, Objectives and Planning Priorities of the Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities, the North District Plan and the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement.

o It is consistent with the aims of the KLEP, and existing controls, such as Clause 6.9 relating to commercial development within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

o The proposed development standards applying to the site are the same as those applying to the adjoining low density residential dwellings, which will ensure that any future development on the site is of a consistent height, bulk and scale to the surrounding residential area.

o The rezoning of the sites will not undermine the retail/commercial centres hierarchy within Ku-ring-gai.

· Support for Harris Farm development on the site

Submissions supported a Harris Farm store on the subject sites. Submissions also noted that it is a logical site – on a main road and near existing shops, and the size of the site is suitable for the project.

Comment: The support for the development of a Harris Farm store on the site is noted. However, this is a Planning Proposal, and not a Development Application. The Planning Proposal only considers the amendments to the LEP, in this case amendment to zoning and removal of minimum lot size development standard. A Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development outcome on the site – such as the development of a Harris Farm store, as the proposed amendments could result in a range of potential future land uses on the site. It is through a Development Application that the specific use of the site would be assessed and granted approval.

· Support for Harris Farm concept plans

Submissions supported the Harris Farm concept plans for the site, noting that the design of the buildings and landscape would enhance the local character of the area, and were sympathetic to the surrounding neighbourhood being low rise development. Support was received for the café, conservatory, orchard, nursery and florist aspects of the concept plans.

Comment: The support for Harris Farm and the concept plans is noted. However, this is a Planning Proposal, and not a Development Application. The Planning Proposal only considers amendments to the LEP (zoning and development standards) applying to the site. The Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development outcome on the site or plans showing a specific development proposal. The proposed amendments to the LEP need to be acceptable as an outcome, regardless of the approval of any future development application.

· Benefits of Harris Farm development on the site, including benefits to the local area, benefits to the community and benefits to amenity

Submissions noted the benefits of a Harris Farm on the sites, which included:

o Local Area: positive for Turramurra, add value to neighbourhood, upgrade and enhance local area.

o Community: serve local community well, would have the potential to create a community hub for people to meet and shop, cater to the changing demographics of the area, and be particularly advantageous for families, and the elderly who won’t need to travel so far to get groceries.

o Amenity: provide amenity for locals, provide shopping needs within walking distance to many, enhance area and lifestyle of residents, offer accessibility to alternative shopping without need to go to shopping centre, improve amenity for residents who currently have to go to Hornsby, St Ives or outside of Ku-ring-gai for shopping.

Comment: Comments noted. It needs to be reinforced that this is a Planning Proposal to change the zoning of the site – which once rezoned may be used for a number of retail or commercial uses. This is not a development application for a Harris Farm store. The B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone permits the land use ‘neighbourhood supermarkets’ with maximum gross floor area of 1,000sqm, which would provide convenient daily shopping for local residents, rejuvenate the whole Eastern Road neighbourhood centre, and encourage people to walk rather than use their car.

· No traffic impacts and support for parking

Submissions noted that traffic would not be an issue, with additional traffic being able to be accommodated into existing road network and intersections would be kept at A and B level of service, that the traffic would not be any worse than existing, noting Eastern Road is already a busy road, that most customers are locals and are already using local roads or could walk, and that the traffic impacts could be mitigated through planning. Submissions also supported the provision of additional parking within the neighbourhood centre, which is seen to alleviate the current lack of parking and ease congestion on surrounding streets.

Comment: The proposal is expected to generate additional vehicle traffic, and the supporting analysis indicates the traffic impact would not cause a significant deterioration in the performance of the surrounding road network. The comments regarding parking are noted, and the parking provision will be considered at the development application stage, with the rates of car parking dependent on the proposed use of the site.

· Existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre

Submissions noted the location is highly suitable, being alongside an existing retail precinct and land that has been used for commercial purposes for decades. Submissions noted that it would benefit the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre by revitalising and growing precinct, attracting more businesses as well providing commercial and retail outlets away from the main areas of Turramurra and Wahroonga. Submissions noted that competition is good for the community by allowing fair pricing and consumer choice and that the proposal would result in bringing more people into the area and increase patronage at existing shops.

Comment: Comments noted and agreed. The location of the sites is suitable for the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, noting that the current and historic uses are of a commercial nature, and the sites will form a natural extension to the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone of the adjoining Eastern Road shops. The objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is to provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of the people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

A permitted land use within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is ‘neighbourhood supermarket’ which would provide for the convenient daily shopping, and be of a size and scale that is compatible with the surrounding predominantly residential area.

Economic competition between individual trade competitors is not an environmental or planning consideration, and the planning assessment is not about undermining the operation of a free market. Competition is dealt with via other legislation such as Trade Practices Act 1974 and Fair Trading Act 1987 , as well as market forces. The Hill PDA Economic Impact Assessment Review (Feb 2019) notes that the existing retailers on Eastern Road may experience some loss depending on how they adapt or change (in the range of 10-15%), however the impact on the whole expanded centre will be net positive as total retail sales are expected to increase by more than 80%. Local residents would have a larger and wider retail offer.

· Lack of retail in Ku-ring-gai

Submissions noted that there is a shortage of commercial options and degraded shopping facilities within Turramurra, and Ku-ring-gai as a whole, with residents having to travel to other centres and outside of Ku-ring-gai for shopping. Submissions noted that all areas need more retail facilities and that retail has not responded to increases in density and population in Turramurra.

Comment: Ku-ring-gai has an undersupply of retail floorspace based on the population. This was first identified in the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Strategy 2005, which outlined that approximately 40% escape expenditure being captured by surrounding retail centres such as Chatswood, Hornsby and Macquarie Park. There has been limited additional retail floorspace developed in Ku-ring-gai since the 2005 study was undertaken, and in some instances the redevelopment of existing retail and commercial sites within centres has actually resulted in a reduction of the amount of retail and commercial floorspace provided. The Ku-ring-gai LSPS sets out the Local Planning Priority of K25. Providing for the retail and commercial needs of the local community within Ku-ring-gai’s centres, which highlights the importance of providing additional retail floor space over the next 20 years to meet the retail demands of a growing population.

The rezoning of the subject sites will allow for the future development of additional retail and commercial uses, in a suitable location noting the existing and historic commercial uses on the sites, and adjoining Eastern Road neighbourhood centre shops. The rezoning of the site could potentially result in a much improved neighbourhood centre, including more opportunity for wider and complementary range of goods and services.

· Provision of jobs

Submissions supported the proposal as it would drive the local economy, and provide local employment opportunities for the community.

Comment: The rezoning of the site would allow for future retail or commercial development on the sites which would provide for employment opportunities, both during the construction phase, and once completed. The Hill PDA Economic Impact Assessment Review (Feb 2019) outlines that a total of 70 jobs could be provided, depending on the type of future retail store or commercial use.

· Growth and development

Submissions noted the area is growing in population, and there is a need to provide development to support the growing community, and opportunities for better services. It was noted that the recent increases in medium density housing have increased the size and diversity of the population, however the retail sector has not responded to the change in demographics. Submissions noted they were in favour of commercial and economic development, and that the local community needed additional shopping precinct to ensure continued growth and enhancement of the community.

Comment: Comments noted and agreed. It is important that as the population grows, there are sufficient services and facilities to support the community. Ku-ring-gai currently has an undersupply of retail floorspace and this is expected to increase with future population increases. Some recent developments in centres such as Lindfield have actually resulted in a loss of existing retail floor space. All Ku-ring-gai’s centres play a vital role in the local economy. The Ku-ring-gai LSPS sets out the Local Planning Priority of K25. Providing for the retail and commercial needs of the local community within Ku-ring-gai’s centres which highlights the importance of providing additional retail floor space over the next 20 years to meet the retail demands of a growing population.

Opposition – Planning Proposal

· Existing traffic conditions are already congested, and proposal will result in increased traffic, including delivery trucks. Existing ‘rat runs’ and increased traffic in Eastern Road will encourage drivers to use side streets

Submissions commented on the existing traffic conditions on Eastern Road, Tennyson Avenue, and other surrounding streets and intersections. Comments were made that the existing streets are already congested and the area is already a bottleneck for cars – particularly at peak school drop off and pick up times, that the 50km/hr speed limits are not currently observed, and that the streets are generally narrow and only equipped to deal with local traffic and current volumes.

Concerns were raised that the proposed rezoning and future development of a Harris Farm store would then lead to increases in traffic and congestion on the surrounding local roads. Particular concern was raised with the potential for Harris Farm to draw customers from a wide catchment, increasing traffic, as well as the increase in delivery trucks and the impacts they would have on local roads and traffic.

Concerns were raised on the traffic impacts relating to the entry and exit of vehicles from the site, with traffic flows and access to surrounding residential driveways being affected by cars queuing to enter the car park and concerns that a right hand turn out of the carpark onto Eastern Road would be dangerous.

Comment: Eastern Road is a regional road which has a higher order function and is therefore expected to carry more traffic than local or collector roads. Due to their higher order function, regional roads (such as Eastern Road) do not have traffic flow environmental goals. When Eastern Road is compared to other regional roads within Ku-ring-gai (Burns Road, Junction Road) traffic volumes are much lower.

While the proposal is expected to generate additional vehicle traffic, the supporting analysis indicates the traffic impact would not cause a significant deterioration in the performance of the surrounding road network, and would not trigger the need for major interventions such as new intersection controls. Additional traffic generation is forecast to be approximately 2 vehicle trips per minute during the Thursday pm peak hour, and 2.5 trips per minute during the Saturday peak hour. The peak times would be late afternoons on weekdays, and around midday on Saturday, and is unlikely to add substantial additional traffic during the normal morning peak. The main traffic increases are forecast in Eastern Road, and Tennyson Avenue, with the traffic effects diluted as the distance from the site increases and would have minimal impact on other surrounding local roads. The traffic assessment found that the intersection of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue would continue to operate at Level of Service A/B, which is good operation and space capacity.

The supporting Public Domain Plan included in the site specific DCP will also assist in providing improved pedestrian amenity and traffic calming through treatments around the site including narrowing of road width.

The management of servicing vehicles and heavy vehicle access will be subject to consideration in a future Development Application. Rohini Street/Eastern Road is likely to be the preferred truck route given that they are designated regional roads and provide direct access from Pacific Highway.

The access arrangements, including the location of the entrances to the car park, is subject to detail within a future development application. Consideration would be given to the location of the driveway entrances during the assessment, including position, visibility and capacity.

· Existing parking, on street and carpark, and proposal will increase on street parking in surrounding streets

Submissions noted the local streets already are used for parking on both sides, and the existing parking (angled parking and Council carpark) is often full and not sufficient for the existing shops. Concerns were raised that the Harris Farm store on the sites would result in customers and staff trying to parking in side streets – such as Alice Street – impeding access down the streets, and blocking driveways. Concerns were raised that the parking provided by Harris Farm on the site is inadequate, and would be taken up non-locals driving to the area.

Comment: Any new development on the sites will be required to provide parking in accordance with Councils DCP, this includes the number of spaces required (which is based on the type of development and the size of development) and the location of parking. Any future development would not rely on on-street parking. The existing parking restrictions in Tennyson Avenue and Eastern Road could be reviewed, and additional enforcement could be carried out to improve turnover and opportunities for other shoppers.

· Safety concerns – pedestrian and traffic

Submissions raised concerns that the increase in traffic as a result of the proposed rezoning and future Harris Farm development will lead to safety risks for pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Concern was raised that the increased traffic will be dangerous, and lead to more accidents. Concern was also raised for children, noting the number of schools in the surrounding locality, and the elderly and that someone would be badly injured or killed as a result. Specific examples were also given of the existing pedestrian crossing on Eastern Road, and how currently it can be dangerous to cross with cars failing to stop and give way to pedestrians.

Comment: With regards to the specific examples given of the existing pedestrian crossing on Eastern Road, the most recent recorded crash around the pedestrian crossing dates back to 2008. The draft DCP includes a public domain plan for the area, which includes a number of improvements to pedestrian accessibility and amenity through the narrowing of the road, improvements to the layout of the pedestrian crossing on Eastern Road and adjustments to the angle parking outside of the existing shops to improve visibility and safety. The treatments outlined in the public domain plan include both pedestrian crossing to be raised crossings, which will reduce speeds and improve pedestrian safety.

· Inappropriate location and impact on local character

Submissions raised concern that the sites (45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra) are unsuitable for the future development of a Harris Farm store, or future development under the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone as the surrounding area is a low rise residential area, not near major public transport. Concerns were raised that the size of proposal is too large for the small neighbourhood centre, and that the proposal is out of local character with the area. Specific concerns regarding the impact on local character included the visual impacts relating to bulk and scale of future development, and impacts to the streetscape and village feel.

Comment: The Planning Proposal does not seek to amend the existing 9.5m Height of Building or 0.3:1 Floor Space Ratio development standards applying to the site – these development standards are the same as the adjoining residential properties and the Floor Space Ratio less than the adjoining Eastern Road neighbourhood shops, which have a Floor Space Ratio of 0.75:1. The development standards applying to the site will ensure that any future development on the site is consistent in terms of height, bulk and scale with the surrounding low density residential area. The controls and objectives within the draft site-specific DCP have been prepared to give greater assurance of the development outcomes on the site, and ensure that any future development is cohesive with the local character of the surrounding area through controls relating to building setbacks, built form and public domain.

Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 limits the future development of single commercial tenancy on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre to 1,000sqm. Any future development application would be required to comply with this, ensuring that the scale of any future development on the site is compatible with the scale and function of the neighbourhood centre.

Additionally, in August 2018, the NSW Department of Planning introduced a new definition of ‘neighbourhood supermarket’ into Councils LEPs, and made it a mandated use permitted within B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The size of a ‘neighbourhood supermarket’ is restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000sqm. It was considered that by permitted small-scale supermarkets (up 1,000sqm) in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone would serve the needs of the people who live and work in the surrounding neighbourhood. The size restricted to 1,000sqm is to ensure compatibility with the scale and nature of the surrounding predominantly residential area. The Department of Planning Planning Circular PS13-001 notes that by including a specific land term and definition it is clear to retailers, councils and communities that neighbourhood supermarkets can locate in these small centres.

· More appropriate locations

Submissions provided suggestions for more appropriate locations for a Harris Farm store, which included:

o Rohini Street, Ray Street and around Turramurra railway station such as carpark adjacent to Gilroy Lane or Plazas in main Turramurra centre;

o as part of the proposed Turramurra Community Hub;

o town centres along the Pacific Highway, including Pymble, Gordon, Roseville;

o Westfield Hornsby;

o Edgeworth David Avenue, Waitara;

o Hampden Avenue shops, Wahroonga; and

o Councils former works site on corner of Mona Vale Road and Pacific Highway.

These locations were suggested as they were considered to have existing infrastructure to support this type of development and are more accessible being closer to public transport, that it is State Government policy that such developments be located in town centres, that land in town centres is already zoned for this purpose and doesn’t require rezoning, that development of this scale belongs in high density areas.

Comment: The suggestions are noted. This is a Planning Proposal to rezone sites which have historic and long term commercial uses to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, and not a development application for a Harris Farm store. The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone on the subject sites, is the same zone that the existing Eastern Road shops are zoned. The existing development standards applying to the site – FSR of 0.3:1 and HOB 9.5m – are to be retained. These development standards are the same as the adjoining low density residential zoned land, and will ensure that any future development on the site is of a bulk and scale that is compatible with the surrounding residential area.

The objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is to provide for small-scale retail, business and community uses. Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 quantifies what is considered an appropriate scale within neighbourhood centres by limiting development of commercial premises to 1,000sqm within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. This is also consistent with the recent amendment undertaken by the Department of Planning which makes ‘neighbourhood supermarkets’ a mandatory land use that is permitted with consent within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, and is again limited to 1,000sqm. Any future development on the sites will be required to comply with these limits in gross floor area, ensuring that future development is of an appropriate scale for the neighbourhood centre.

· Existing retail provision sufficient

Submission noted that there was no demand for additional retail facilities, and the community was already sufficiently well served by multiple retail locations, including the existing shops on Eastern Road, as well as shops at Hornsby, St Ives, Chatswood, Gordon, Wahroonga and Turramurra. Submissions also noted that there was existing Harris Farm stores at St Ives and Lindfield and therefore an additional Harris Farm store was not required on the site.

It should also be noted that the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone permits a range of business, commercial and retail uses – not just ‘neighbourhood supermarkets’.

With regards to the submissions noting existing provision of Harris Farm stores in St Ives and Lindfield and another is not needed on this site, it needs to be reinforced that this is a Planning Proposal to change the zoning of the site – which once rezoned may be used for a number of retail or commercial uses. This is not a development application for a Harris Farm store.

· Amenity impacts

Concern was raised regarding the perceived amenity impacts as a result of future development on the sites, specifically a Harris Farm store. Submissions noted that the amenity of the area would be negatively impacted by:

o Traffic, noise and pollution – including increased road noise, noise from delivery and service trucks, pollution from increased traffic. Concern was raised regarding the noise impacts would be all night and early morning.

o Waste – including adverse impacts of odour and visual impacts.

o Trolleys – concern that trolleys would be abandoned around the surrounding streets.

o Impacts on property values – concern was raised that the amenity impacts would result in devaluing property values in the surrounding area.

o Impacts from trading hours – concerns were raised that future development on the site, including a Harris Farm, would have long trading hours. Some noted it would be operating 24hrs a day (restocking/delivery) and open for business at least 15hrs a day.

Comment: It should be noted that the Planning Proposal itself (rezoning of the site) does not result in any amenity impacts to the surrounding residential properties, or surrounding area. It is acknowledged that potential future uses of the site permitted under the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone may have the potential to result in some noise and other amenity impacts. As part of any Development Application, these matters would be considered, and if appropriate, conditions of consent be included which may limit trading hours, delivery hours, noise/acoustic levels from the site, and management of trolleys.

In order to ensure all future development outcomes on the site minimises amenity impacts on adjoining properties, the following controls have been included within the Draft site-specific DCP for the sites:

o service/loading areas are to be located in the basement to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, and minimise amenity impacts to adjoining residential properties;

o provision of setbacks for development to be provided from adjoining residential properties in order to protect the privacy and amenity of the residential land uses; and

o all plant and services are to be integrated into the built form and/or roof.

· Economic impact on existing Eastern Road shops, and other centres

Concern was raised regarding the economic impacts on the existing shops in Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, particularly the IGA, butcher and fruit and vegetable shop as a result of the proposal (and subsequent development of a Harris Farm store). Concern was raised the existing shops would be forced to close as a result of competition.

Comment: Economic competition between individual trade competitors is not an environmental or planning consideration, and the planning assessment is not about undermining the operation of a free market. Competition is dealt with via other legislation such as Trade Practices Act 1974 and Fair Trading Act 1987 , as well as market forces.

This has been well established in NSW case law - Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979) and Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (1997). In Kentucky Fried Chicken, Justice Stephens noted: If the shopping facilities presently enjoyed by a community or planned for it in the future are put in jeopardy by some proposed development, whether that jeopardy be due to physical or financial causes, and if the resultant community detriment will not be made good by the proposed development itself, that appears to me to be consideration proper to be taken into account as a matter of town planning…However, the mere threat of competition to existing businesses if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration’.

The Court has stated that councils should not be concerned about competition between individual stores, as this is a matter for Fair Trading, but, it should concern itself with impact on established retail centres, i.e. impacts the viability of the retail centre as a whole.

The proposed rezoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre would permit a range of land uses that would improve the retail and commercial offer of the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, improving the services for residents in the locality, while not significantly or detrimentally impacting other centres in Ku-ring-gai. The Hill PDA Economic Impact Assessment Review (Feb 2019) noted that existing retailers on Eastern Road may experience a loss of 10-15%, depending on how they adapt or change, however the impact on the whole expanded centre will be net positive as total retail sales are expected to increase by more than 80%.

· Existing R2 Low Density Residential zone, Proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and future uses

Submissions noted that the current R2 Low Density Residential zone should be retained as this is the most appropriate zoning noting the location of the site in the middle of a residential area, and will ensure future development is in keeping with the surrounds. Submissions also noted that when the LEP was drafted in 2015, the site was determined to be zoned residential in the event that the nursery and petrol station uses ceased. It was also noted that the sites should be kept residential to help meet population growth obligations.

Submissions noted that the proposed rezoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre was not required, as there was not a need for more commercial development. Concerns were raised that the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone would result in negative impacts, including that it is not compatible with the surrounding residential area, that it will result in development of a scale that is more suited to town centres. Concerns were also raised that if the sites are rezoned to B1 Neighbourhood Centre they will not be confined to use as Harris Farm, but could be developed into a number of uses which are unsuitable for the local area.

There were also concerns raised that the rezoning would set an undesirable precedent with businesses allowed to set up anywhere in Ku-ring-gai.

Comment: The sites have historically been zoned ‘residential’ despite the long term established commercial uses. Under the 1970’s Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) the sites were zoned Residential 2(c). When Council prepared the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, is was largely a translation of the KPSO into the format of the Standard Instrument LEP. The Residential 2(c) zone was translated to the comparable Standard Instrument LEP zone of R2 Low Density Residential. There was no agreement or resolution to return the sites to a residential zoning should the nursery or service station close.

Retaining the residential zoning on the sites will not make a substantial impact on the additional housing required to support the population growth to 2036 within Ku-ring-gai. Additionally, the sites are contaminated due to past land uses, and would require remediation which is a significant cost which may make a low density residential land use unfeasible.

Ku-ring-gai has a significant undersupply of retail floor space, as identified in the 2005 Retail Centres Strategy, The rezoning of the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre will provide the potential for future retail development on the site, helping to address the undersupply.

The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone on the subject sites, is the same zone that the existing Eastern Road shops are zoned. The existing development standards applying to the site – FSR of 0.3:1 and HOB 9.5m – are to be retained. These development standards are the same as the adjoining low density residential zoned land, and will ensure that any future development on the site is of a bulk and scale that is compatible with the surrounding residential area.

The submissions are correct in that if the sites are rezoned to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, they are not confined to be used solely for the purpose of a Harris Farm store. The concept plans and urban design statement submitted with the Planning Proposal provide an indication of possible type, footprint and scale of the built form outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal. The B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone permits a range of permissible land uses for which a future development application could be lodged. The B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone does permit ‘neighbourhood supermarkets’ as a land use permitted with consent. Any future development application lodged on the site, for a ‘neighbourhood supermarket’ or any other permissible land use would require assessment and consideration of the requirements outlined in Section 4.15, which includes an assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, and the public interest. Additionally, any future development on the sites would be required to comply with the site-specific DCP controls which have been prepared specifically for this site.

This Planning Proposal would not result in setting a precedent throughout Ku-ring-gai for rezoning of land to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, as there are unique site specific merits to this proposal, namely the historical and long standing use of sites for commercial purposes, and the sites forming a natural extension to the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre shops. Any future Planning Proposals lodged for rezoning of other sites throughout Ku-ring-gai are required to justify the proposed changes and be assessed on their individual merits.

· Views of local residents

Submissions noted that Council should listen to the views of local residents and those living within the vicinity of the sites, over the views and submissions from non-residents. Submissions also raised concerns with the promotion by Harris Farm seeking support for the proposal online, in store and via letter box drops, which were not limited to local residents.

Comment: The public exhibition of the Planning Proposal is governed by the statutory requirements set out in the EP&A Act 1979, and the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. The public exhibition of the Planning Proposal cannot be just restricted to local residents of Turramurra or Ku-ring-gai. The public exhibition is open for anyone to make a submission and provide comments to Council for consideration. There is no requirement for people making a submission to disclose whether they are a local resident or their address, as they are not required to do when addressing Council at an OCM. Consideration is given to the planning merits of the issues raised in submissions, rather than the number of submissions received in support or opposition.

It should be noted that there is nothing restricting the proponent of the Planning Proposal soliciting submissions for the proposal, just like there is nothing restricting local community groups or the Local MP, from soliciting submissions to the proposal.

· Comparison to ‘Aldi’ Planning Proposal 2015/2016

Submissions made comparisons between this current Planning Proposal, and the Planning Proposal that was lodged on behalf of Aldi in 2015 and subsequently refused by Council. Submissions noted that the two proposals are the same, and therefore the same reasons should be used to refuse this proposal.

Comment: The subject sites were part of previous Planning Proposal in 2015-2016 which sought the following amendments:

· Rezone to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

· Amend FSR to 0.75:1;

· Amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses for a Aldi Store with GFA of 1955sqm.

The current Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendments:

· Rezone to B1 Neighbourhood centre;

· Amend FSR to 0.3:1.

The differences between the two applications are:

· FSR – the previous application could have resulted in a maximum 3,850sqm of gross floor area across the sites. The current proposal seeks a lower FSR, which will result in a maximum of 1,540sqm floor space. This is 60% less than the previous application sought.

· Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Use – the previous proposal sought to specify Aldi with a gross floor area of 1,955sqm as a use on the site. The current proposal remains flexible in terms of future uses on the site.

Council must assess each Planning Proposal on its individual planning merits. It should also be noted that both these Planning Proposals are for amendments to the LEP, and are not Development Applications for the specific use of the site for an Aldi store or a Harris Farm store.

3. Submissions – Draft site-specific DCP

A total of 13 submissions made comments specifically relating to the draft site-specific DCP, which was placed on exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal. The submissions are included in the submission summary table included at Attachment A15 under the heading Draft Site-Specific DCP.

As a result of the submissions received, the following amendments are proposed to the draft site-specific DCP:

· Location of car parking

Submissions received raised concern with the wording of Controls 2, 4 and 5 of 14D.2 relating to the location of car parking in any future development. One submission noted the use of the word ‘justified’ is vague in relation to Control 4 permitting at-grade car parking at the rear of the site. A submission on behalf of the applicant requested Control 4 be amended to delete the requirement for at-grade parking to be located behind the building line.

At-grade parking located within the front setback area to Eastern Road would result in poor street amenity and street activation, as it does not encourage interaction or pedestrian movement. It is also not consistent with the KLEP 2015 Clause 6.7 which requires active street frontages to be provided by developments within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. For these reasons, it is Council’s preference that all car parking should be provided within the basement of new developments, and where it cannot fully be provided in the basement due to impacts on native trees and vegetation, limited at-grade parking will only be permitted at the rear of the site.

The following amendments are proposed to refine the draft controls:

o 14D.2 – Control 4. Where the provision of all required car parking within the basement is not feasible due to impacts on native trees and vegetation, a limited amount may be provided at-grade, as follows:

· It is to be located behind the building line

· Screened from view

· Not adversely impact on street activation, amenity or native trees and vegetation

· Access to be provided from Tennyson Avenue at the location of existing driveway crossover

· Refer to 9B.2 for additional requirements for at-grade parking areas

o 14D.2 - Delete Control 5, as this has been incorporated into the revised Control 4.

· Vehicle Access Points

A submission on behalf of the applicant noted that the DCP Diagrams (14D.2-1 Pedestrian and Vehicle Access and 14D.5-1 Public Domain Controls) have the shown the vehicle access points in different locations off Eastern Road.

The location of vehicle access points within the DCP diagrams are indicative, with the actual location to be subject to detailed design and assessment as part of a Development Assessment. It is proposed to make the following amendments:

o Amend key to figure 14D.2-1 to include ‘Indicative access points’ and amendment to location of vehicle access point to make consistent with public domain diagram 14D.5.

o Amendment to 14D.5 Control 4 – Indicative vehicle crossover for basement parking

· Native Vegetation

A submission was received from Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES) which suggested amendments to strengthen some of objectives and controls relating to the Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community. It is proposed to make the following amendments:

o 14D.1 and 14D.2 – Objective 7: to retain and protect the local native vegetation including Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) and to restore and revegetate a mix of local Blue Gum High Forest species.

o 14D.1 - Control 2 – New Development is to include the following key elements:

(i) Retention, restoration and revegetation of trees and vegetation associated with Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) located within the areas identified as Biodiversity Setback in Figure 14D.3-1 Building Setbacks Plan. Refer to Part 18.4 of the DCP.

· Electric Vehicle Charging Points

A submission noted that it would be beneficial to provide electric vehicle charging points within the basement carpark. Council is undertaking some preliminary work on the sustainability aspects for residential development, including the potential for EV charging in basement carparks of residential flat buildings, and future reviews of the whole DCP would extend this requirement for new non-residential developments as well. As development on the site may occur prior to amendment to the whole DCP, it is recommended the following amendments be incorporated to ensure they can be considered in any future development of the site:

o 14D.2 – Objective – To provide for future transport and vehicle options including Electric Vehicle charging stations, e-bicycles and the like.

o Control – Parking areas are to be designed and constructed so that electric vehicle charging points can be installed.

A copy of the amended site-specific DCP is included at Attachment A16.

4. State Agency Consultation

The conditions of the Gateway Determination required consultation with the following state agencies and public authorities under Section 3.34(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

· Transport for NSW, incorporating Roads and Maritime Services;

· Sydney Water;

· Environment, Energy and Science;

· Endeavour Energy (note: Endeavour Energy is the provider to Western Sydney. Ausgrid is the provider within Ku-ring-gai and accordingly the Planning Proposal was referred to Ausgrid for comment).

The State agencies and public authorities were provided a copy of the Planning Proposal and 21 days to provide comment as per the conditions of the Gateway Determination.

Responses were received from Ausgrid, TfNSW and EES.

Copies of the responses are included at Attachment A17, and a submission summary table outlining the key matters raised by each agency, and Councils response is included at Attachment A18.

5. Overview – Planning Proposal Merit

As detailed in the Report to OMC 26 March 2020, it is considered that the amendments sought to the KLEP 2015 within the Planning Proposal have strategic and site specific merit and should proceed. A brief overview of the merits of the proposed amendments are provided below:

· Strategic Merit

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad Directions and Objectives contained within the Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities as follows:

o It will encourage and foster healthy and socially connected communities by enabling the provision of additional and improved commercial facilities within walking distance of the surrounding residential area. By allowing all permissible uses in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, the opportunity for innovative development outcomes which meet the needs of the local community is provided. (D3, O6, O7, O8, D6, O14).

o It will enable future development and public domain works which will enhance the existing neighbourhood centre. The public domain works to Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue as outlined in the Draft site-specific DCP will result in a net community benefit for the surrounding area. (D3, O6, O7).

o The proposed B1 Neighbourhood zone provides for a range of uses, which will result in an increased range of goods and services and will result in increased opportunities for walking and cycling, with the Traffic Report noting future employees are likely to live in the surrounding area, and walk to work. The site has access to public transport (bus services), which connect the site with Macquarie University and Hornsby. The public transport accessibility in conjunction with the walkable access from the surrounding residential neighbourhood supports walkable and 30 minute cities (D6, O14).

o The proposed rezoning will enable future development which will improve, renew and revitalise the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre. The economic impact on the centre will be net positive, with total retail sales in the centre to increase by 80%. The rezoning has the potential to create a total of 70 jobs on the site. (D7, O22).

o The site contains significant native vegetation, with Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community. The draft site-specific DCP controls require these trees to be protected and retained. (D8, O27).

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following North District Plan Planning Priorities:

o The site is supported by existing infrastructure and services. The site is well located adjacent to regular bus services which operate along Eastern Road and connecting to centres such as Hornsby, Turramurra, Pymble and Macquarie Park. (N1 and N2).

o The Planning Proposal will enable future development on the sites which has the potential to increase the range of goods and services for the local community, within walking distance of many. The rezoning of the sites will not undermine the commercial hierarchy of centres in Ku-ring-gai and will not jeopardise growing investment, business opportunity and jobs in strategic centres. (N3, N4, N6, and N10).

o The significant vegetation on the site will be required to be conserved, protected and enhanced through site-specific DCP controls (N16, N17, N19).

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following Local Planning Priorities of the LSPs:

o K6. Revitalising and growing a network of centres that offer unique character and lifestyle for residents .

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

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

o K26. Fostering a strong local economy that provides future employment opportunities for both residents and workers within key industries.

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

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

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following objectives of the Community Strategic Plan 2038:

o Significant vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest CEEC will be conserved and retained, as required by the site-specific DCP controls (Themes 2 and 3).

o The Planning Proposal will increase the amount of B1 Neighbourhood Centre floorspace on Eastern Road, and future redevelopment of the site will generate employment opportunities for full and part-time jobs. Future redevelopment of the sites will be required to provide active street frontages, facilitating street activation in the Centre (Theme 5).

o The subject site is serviced by transport options, noting the site is located on a main thoroughfare, linking Hornsby and Turramurra. The site is located 1.3km to the Turramurra rail station and Pacific Highway. The site is also able to be accessed by cycle, and walking particularly for the surrounding residential area (Theme 4).

o The Planning Proposal seeks to maintain the existing FSR and HOB development standards applying to the site – consistent with the surrounding low density residential zoning. The retention of these standards, in conjunction with the site-specific DCP controls will help to maintain the local character, and neighbourhood scale of the area (Theme 3).

- The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following s9.1 Ministerial Directions:

o 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

o 2.6 Remediation of Contaminated Land

o 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

o 6.3 Site Specific Provisions

o 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

The Planning Proposal is justifiable inconsistent with s9.1 Direction 3.1 Residential Zones, for the following reasons:

o The land has never been used for a residential purpose, having long term established commercial uses on the sites.

o The site will utilised existing infrastructure, and is adjacent to the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre.

o Provides an opportunity for enhancement of the whole centre, and retention of the significant vegetation.

o The proposed scale of any future development will be of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding residential uses.

o The proposal to rezone the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre will allow for future development and uses to improve the quality and quantity of services for local residents.

- Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the applicable SEPPs.

· Site Specific Merit

- Historic Use: The sites have historic and long term commercial uses, and have never been used for residential purposes. The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone rationalises and formalises the long term commercial use of the land.

- Existing Neighbourhood Centre: The sites adjoin the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre to the south, which also zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. The proposed rezoning of the subject sites will create a natural extension to the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and neighbourhood centre.

- Built Form: The Planning Proposal seeks to retain the existing development standards applying to the site (Height 9.5m and Floor space ratio 0.3:1) which are the same as the adjoining low density residential zoned land, ensuring that any future development on the site will be of a compatible bulk, scale and height.

- Social: The proposed rezoning will allow for future development which will expand the range existing services within the Eastern Road neighbourhood centre, providing local residents with a larger and wider commercial offer at Eastern Road. There is a shortage of retail floor space within Ku-ring-gai, and the rezoning of the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone will permit future development which may increase the retail floor space within the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. As part of the site-specific DCP, controls and objectives have been included which seek to upgrade the public domain for the centre as a whole, with improved pedestrian connectivity and amenity.

- Environmental: The sites contain significant vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community. The presence of these trees on the site does not prohibit the rezoning of the site to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The site specific DCP includes objectives and controls to ensure future development on the site is designed and sited to ensure the retention and protection of these trees. The sites are also identified as contaminated from past land uses (including service station and nursery). The land will be suitable, after remediation, for all the purposes for which the land is permitted to be used under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

- Economic: The proposed rezoning will increase the amount of B1 Neighbourhood Centre floor area within the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. The existing retailers on Eastern Road may experience a loss of trade in the range of 10-15%, however the impact on the whole centre will be net positive as total retail sales are expected to increase by more than 80%, with local residents having a larger and wider retail offer at Eastern Road. As set out in relevant LEC judgements, Council should not be concerned about competition between individual stores, but it should concern itself with the impact on the centre as a whole. In this case, the proposal would facilitate future development which could improve the retail offer at Eastern Road, and improve services for consumers in the locality, whilst not detrimentally impacting on the existing Eastern Road (or other centre) as a whole.

- Centres Hierarchy: The Hill PDA Independent Review of the Economic Impact Assessment concludes that the increase size of B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone at the Eastern Road centre will not be sufficient enough to advance its status in the Ku-ring-gai commercial centre hierarchy. The Planning Proposal will not undermine the commercial hierarchy of centres in Ku-ring-gai and will not jeopardise growing investment, business opportunity and jobs in larger local centres.

- Infrastructure: The sites are supported by existing infrastructure in terms of road network which has capacity to support increases in traffic generation and public transport with bus services connecting the site to Turramurra, Hornsby, and Macquarie. Comments from infrastructure and service providers, such as Ausgrid, have noted no objection to the rezoning. Further assessment of infrastructure and servicing capacity would also be undertaken during the assessment of future development applications on the site.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 – Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

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

Council’s resolution from OMC 26 March 2019 requested that Council 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 to finalise the Planning Proposal. In issuing the Gateway Determination, DPIE considered the nature of the Planning Proposal and conditioned the Gateway Determination for Council to be authorised as the local plan-making authority.

Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 sets out that after considering submission on a draft DCP, Council may:

· approve the plan in the form in which it was publically exhibited; or

· approve the plan with such alterations as the councils thinks fit; or

· not to proceed with the plan.

Council must publish notice of its decision on the draft DCP on its website within 28 days of the decision being made. The DCP comes into effect on the date that the notice is published on Councils website, or on a later date specified in the notice. It is recommended that the DCP is to come into effect on the same date as the Planning Proposal.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on this Planning Proposal. Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal and accordingly was subject to the relevant application fee under Councils Schedule of Fees and Charges. The Planning Proposal was also subject to a further fee following the issue of the Gateway Determination for the advertisement of the Planning Proposal.

The costs associated with the preparation of the draft site-specific DCP have been paid by the applicant in accordance with Council Schedule of Fees and Charges 2019/2020.

Social Considerations

It is considered that the Planning Proposal to rezone 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre will not result in any adverse social impacts, noting that the existing uses on the sites are of a commercial nature, and the zoning is consistent with the adjoining Eastern Road neighbourhood shops.

The proposed rezoning would improve the retail and commercial offer in the locality, and improve the quantity and quality of services for local residents.

Environmental Considerations

Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC)

Council’s vegetation mapping identified part of the site as containing Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), which is listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under schedule 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

The draft site-specific DCP has included provisions which require buildings and basements to be setback from the BGHF trees to ensure their protection and retention.

Contamination

A combined Phase 1 (preliminary) and Phase 2 (detailed) Environmental Site Assessment has been undertaken for the site to support the Planning Proposal. The assessment concluded that the site is of a suitable condition from a contamination perspective for the proposed land use, and does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the surrounding environment in accordance with the National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (amended 2013).

Having regard for Local Planning Direction 2.6 Remediation of Contaminated Land, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the requirements of this direction as the land will be suitable (after remediation) for all the purposes for which land is permitted to be used.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP were publically exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

The Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP were on public exhibition from 5 March 2020 to 3 April 2020. 1292 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition, and an additional 30 late submissions were received after the close of the exhibition and have not been summarised in the submission summary table. Copies of late submissions have been circulated to Councillors.

The public exhibition was advertised in the North Shore Times and on Councils website. Notification letters were sent to all properties within a 500m radius of the sites, and additional notification letters were sent to ensure that all properties within Alice Street and Tennyson Avenue were notified.

The exhibition material was available on Council’s website, and hard copies were available at Gordon and Turramurra branch libraries, as well as Customer Service at Council Chambers for the majority of the public exhibition period.

All persons who made a formal submission were notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Covid-19

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Council was required to close libraries and customer service centre on the following dates:

· Turramurra Library closed from 23 March 2020

· Gordon Library closed from 25 March 2020

· Customer Service closed from 2 April 2020

There were only 2 days at the end of the exhibition period (2 and 3 April 2020) where access to hard copies of the public exhibition documents at either Customer Service or libraries was not available. During this period, if residents were unable to access the exhibition documents online, they could contact Council to arrange for an alternative. It should be noted, that the exhibition material was available online for the entire public exhibition period.

The COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Bill 2020 came into effect on 25 March 2020, and removed the requirement for planning decision makers (such as Councils) to display physical copies of documents (such as Planning Proposals and DCPs), with the documents to be made available online via the NSW Planning Portal or Council website.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal, drafting of the site-specific DCP and consideration of submissions received in response to the public exhibition have involved internal consultation with Council officers with specialisation in traffic and transport, planning, urban design and natural areas.

Summary

The Planning Proposal and draft site-specific DCP for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra were placed on public exhibition from 5 March 2020 – 3 April 2020.

A total of 1077 unique submissions were received. Many submissions received both in support and opposition do not have any regard to the Planning Proposal or draft-site specific DCP documents on public exhibition, rather have been made in response to social media platforms seeking to support or oppose a particular retailer - Harris Farm – opening a store on the site. It needs to be reinforced that this is a Planning Proposal, not a Development Application. A Planning Proposal can only consider proposed amendments to the LEP and assess the strategic and site specific merits of those amendments. A Planning Proposal cannot be tied to a particular development outcome on the site (i.e. Harris Farm) and does not give any development approval for construction/or use of the site for a particular purpose. The proposed amendments to the LEP need to be acceptable as an outcome on the site, regardless of the subsequent approval of any specific Development Application.

The Planning Proposal has demonstrated strategic and site specific merit for the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning on the site.

The site-specific DCP objectives and controls, subject to the proposed amendments discussed at Part 3 of this report, give greater assurance of the development outcomes on the site and seek to ensure that any future development on the site is compatible with the surrounding local character. Amendments are proposed to the site-specific DCP controls relating to the location of car parking and vehicle access to the site.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council adopt the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra to:

1. Rezone from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre; and

2. Remove minimum lot size development standard of 940sqm.

B. Council, as the local plan-making authority, exercises the functions under Section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and proceed to make the Plan under delegated authority.

C. Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan amendment associated with the Planning Proposal, subject to the amendments outlined in Part 3 of this report. The Development Control Plan is to come into effect on the same date as the Planning Proposal.

D. Those persons who made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

Alexandra Plumb

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Letter and Gateway Determination - PP Tennyson and Eastern Road, Turramurra		2020/054059
	A2⇨	Amended Planning Proposal 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra	Excluded	2020/056871
	A3⇨	Attachment 1. Survey Plan - prepared by SurDevel	Excluded	2019/063821
	A4 ⇨	Attachment 2. Supplementary Planning Statement	Excluded	2019/063819
	A5 ⇨	Attachment 3. Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Report - prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council	Excluded	2019/063817
	A6 ⇨	Attachment 4. 45-47 Tennyson Avenue & 105 Eastern Road Turramurra Planning ~ Amended Architectural Concept Plans	Excluded	2019/381075
	A7 ⇨	Attachment 5. Urban Design Statement - 31 May 2019	Excluded	2019/170540
	A8 ⇨	Attachment 6. Amended Traffic Report - June 2019	Excluded	2019/170549
	A9 ⇨	Attachment 7. Amended Economic Impact Assessment - 31 May 2019	Excluded	2019/170494
	A10 ⇨	Attachment 8. 45-47 Tennyson Avenue & 105 Eastern Road Turramurra Planning Proposal Amended Arborist Report	Excluded	2019/381129
	A11 ⇨	Attachment 9. Amended Landscape Report - 31 May 2019 -	Excluded	2019/170514
	A12 ⇨	Attachment 10. Ecological Report - 31 May 2019	Excluded	2019/170491
	A13 ⇨	Attachment 11. Combined Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment - prepared by Compaction & Soil Testing Services	Excluded	2019/063803
	A14 ⇨	Attachment 12. Engagement (Community) Report - prepared by Straight Talk	Excluded	2019/063801
	A15 ⇩	PDF - Submission Summary Table - Planning Proposal and Site Specific DCP - 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra		2020/160288
	A16 ⇩	Draft Site Specific DCP 45 - 47 Tennyson Ave and 105 Eastern Road - Post Exhibition Amendments		2020/152922
	A17 ⇩	Combined State Agency Responses - Planning Proposal - 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra		2020/137330
	A18 ⇩	PDF - State Agency Submission Summary Table - Planning 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra		2020/159747

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.13 / 330

Item GB.13	S11890

Review - Conditions on Gateway Determinations for 4 Pennant AVenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Council of the outcome of the request that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPI&E) undertake a ‘soft review’ and reconsider the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations for 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase.

background:	On 17 February 2020 DPI&E issued Gateway Determinations for the Planning Proposals to rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase (former bowling club sites). The Gateway Determinations included a condition which required the Planning Proposals to be amended from a proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone to a R2 Low Density Residential zone. At OMC on 28 April 2020 Council considered a report on the Gateway Determinations and resolved to request DPI&E undertake a ‘soft review’ and reconsider the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations.

comments:	A letter was sent to DPI&E on 1 May 2020 requesting the ‘soft review’. No response has been received. Council needs to determine how to proceed with the change in zoning for these sites.

recommendation:	That at this stage Council proceeds with the Planning Proposals for an R2 Low Density Residential zone as conditioned by the Gateway Determinations.

Purpose of Report

Background

On 8 May 2018 Council resolved to prepare Planning Proposals for two Council owned sites:

· 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon; and

· 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase.

The Planning Proposals sought to rezone the sites from RE1 Public Recreation to R3 Medium Density Residential, with associated development standards. The Planning Proposal also sought to reclassify 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon from Community classified land to Operational land.

The Planning Proposals were submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPI&E) on 2 October 2018. DPI&E issued Gateway Determinations on 17 February 2020. The Gateway Determinations were issued with a number of conditions which require the Planning Proposals to be amended from a proposed R3 Medium Density Residential to a R2 Low Density Residential prior to public exhibition. The Gateway Determinations and letters from DPI&E are included at Attachment A1 and Attachment A2.

At OMC of 28 April 2020 Council considered a report which set out a number of options for how best to proceed with each site. The options included:

1. Discontinue the Planning Proposals and retain the RE1 Public Recreation zoning on the sites;

2. proceed with the Planning Proposals for R2 Low Density Residential zone as conditioned by the Gateway Determinations;

3. formal Gateway Review; or

4. ‘soft review’ of Gateway Determination conditions.

Council resolved to proceed with Option 2, request the DPI&E undertake a ‘soft review’ and reconsider the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations.

A. That Council write to the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and request that the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations for Planning Proposals for 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase be reconsidered for the reasons outlined in this report.

B. That should an unfavourable response or no response be received within 30 days of the soft review, then an application for a formal Gateway Review be prepared and submitted to Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

A letter was submitted to the DPI&E on 1 May 2020 requesting the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations be reconsidered, and the Gateway Determinations be altered as per Section 3.34(7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

At the time of writing this report, no formal response has been received from the DPI&E.

Comments

As per Council’s resolution of 28 April 2020, no response has been received from DPI&E within 30 days. Part B of the resolution outlines that if no response is received within 30 days, then an application for a formal Gateway Review be prepared and submitted to DPI&E, however as discussed during the Council meeting of 28 April 2020, the outcome of the review request would be reported to Council prior to any further action being taken on this matter.

Since the outcome of the ‘soft review’ has not been timely, Council needs to decide how to proceed with the Planning Proposals. Options include:

· Formal Gateway Review as per the resolution of OMC 28 April 2020. The Gateway Review process includes assessment by DPI&E and the Independent Planning Commission (IPC). The Minister for Planning will make the final decision on whether to alter the Gateway Determinations based on advice from the IPC. Councils experience with the formal Gateway Review process is that it is a considerably lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that review will be successful.

· Proceed with Planning Proposal for R2 Low Density Residential zone as conditioned by the Gateway Determinations issued by the DPI&E on 17 February 2020. Land uses permitted under the R2 Low Density Residential zone include dwelling houses, and Seniors Housing is permitted under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004.

Despite the Council Resolution from OMC of 28 April 2020 to proceed to a formal Gateway Review should the ‘soft review’ be unfavourable or untimely, it is recommended that Council proceed with the Planning Proposals for the R2 Low Density Residential zone as conditioned by the Gateway Determinations. This recommendation is out of economic necessity for Council to continue to plan and deliver its planned community infrastructure in a timely manner and will ensure the first step in rezoning the sites to a residential use. Council may then seek to reconsider the R3 Medium Density Residential zone on the sites, potentially as part of a wider Planning Proposal for the implementation of the Housing Strategy.

In progressing the Planning Proposals with the R2 Low Density Residential zone for these sites at this stage, it will be made clear that during any future engagement processes that Council considers an R3 Medium Density Residential zoning on the sites has sufficient justification and strategic merit, and it is Council’s intention that an R3 zoning would be sought on the sites in the future.

In order to proceed to public exhibition, a number of studies are required to be undertaken to support the Planning Proposals, including:

· Flood risk management assessment/study (4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon);

· Traffic study (both sites);

· Urban Design Study incorporating a concept development scheme (both sites);

· Heritage impact statement (4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon).

It is recommended that the supporting studies should be undertaken having consideration for both options of R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential development on the site.

Once these studies are completed, amended Planning Proposals are required to be submitted to the DPI&E for approval prior to public exhibition.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 6 – Leaderships and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

L2.1.3 Council maintains its commitment to infrastructure asset management priorities

L2.1.3.1 Identify funding sources in the Long Term Financial Plan and allocate to priority projects and assets.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

There is a significant risk to Council’s overall budget position if asset sales are not achieved at a maximum level or on schedule. There is also a reputation risk to Council if it fails to proceed with projects, such as the St Ives Indoor Sports Courts and Marian Street Theatre, which rely on asset sales for funding.

Financial Considerations

The sites present an opportunity for Council to utilise asset recycling, to invest in new assets or revitalisations of existing assets, such as the Marian Street Theatre and St Ives High School Indoor Sports Courts.

There is a significant difference in value of the sites with an R2 Low Density Residential zone conditioned by the Gateway Determination, compared to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone originally sought by Council. The difference in value is in the range of $8.5m-$18.0m based on indicative market advice prepared by AEC.

It is recommended that Council proceed with the Planning Proposals for an R2 Low Density Residential zone at this stage due to economic necessity, as it will provide a faster funding stream for the planning and delivery of new and upgraded community infrastructure.

Social Considerations

The proposed rezoning of the redundant sites to a residential zone will assist in the provision of additional housing within Ku-ring-gai. An R3 Medium Density Residential zone would have provided improved housing choice, consistent with community feedback over a number of years.

Future divestment of the sites would assist Council in meeting community expectations for the renewal and replacement of community infrastructure, such as the Marian Street Theatre, and St Ives High School Joint Use Indoor Courts, as well as Council’s ordinary capital works program where in requires a “co-contribution”.

Environmental Considerations

As a result of past land uses and activities on both sites, that Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations have confirmed there are areas of environmental concern (contamination) on both sites. The sites are able to be made suitable for future residential uses, subject to further assessment, management and remediation.

4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon contains flood prone land, and located within the catchment of Blackbutt Creek. Council has prepared the Blackbutt Creek Flood Study and Blackbutt Creek Flood Plain Risk Management Study. The Gateway Determination requires a Flood Risk Management Study to be prepared for the site. The Flood Study should consider both an R2 Low Density Residential zone and R3 Medium Density Residential zone on the site.

4 Pennant Avenue is also mapped as containing Biodiversity Significance under the KLEP 2015. The site contains remnant components of the critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) Blue Gum High Forest. The remnant trees are on the boundary of the site. Future development on the site would need to be designed to avoid impact on the Blue Gum High Forest. As part of the requirements of the Gateway Determination, consultation with Environment, Energy and Science is required.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposals have not yet been the subject of community consultation. The Gateway Determinations require a number of amendments to the Planning Proposals, and supporting studies to be undertaken for each site prior to public exhibition.

The Gateway Determinations require the Planning Proposals to be publically exhibited for a minimum of 28 days. Additionally, the reclassification of 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon will require a public hearing presided by an independent chairperson.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation with other Departments of Council, the Major Project Steering Committee and Major Project Advisory Committee has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Summary

On 17 February 2020 DPI&E issued Gateway Determinations for the Planning Proposals to rezone 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon and 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase (former bowling club sites). The Gateway Determinations included a condition which required the Planning Proposals to be amended from a proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone to a R2 Low Density Residential zone.

There is a significant difference in financial value of the sites with an R2 Low Density Residential zone conditioned by the Gateway Determination, compared to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone originally sought by Council, which has an impact on Council’s ability to invest in new assets or revitalisations of existing assets, such as the Marian Street Theatre and St Ives High School Indoor Sports Courts.

At OMC of 28 April 2020 Council considered a report on the Gateway Determinations and resolved to request DPI&E undertake a ‘soft review’ and reconsider the conditions attached to the Gateway Determinations. No response has been received from DPI&E to the review request.

It is recommended that out of economic necessity, Council proceed with the Planning Proposals for the R2 Low Density Residential zoning on the site at this stage, with the view to reconsider the R3 Medium Density Residential zone on the sites as part of a wider Planning Proposal for the implementation of the Housing Strategy.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council proceed with the Planning Proposals as per the Gateway Determinations issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 17 February 2020.

B. In progressing the Planning Proposals with the R2 Low Density Residential zone for these sites, it will be made clear that Council considers an R3 Medium Density Residential zoning on the sites has sufficient justification and strategic merit, and an R3 zoning would be sought on the sites in the future.

C. Council reconsider the R3 Medium Density Residential zone on the sites, potentially as part of a wider Planning Proposal for the implementation of the Housing Strategy.

Alexandra Plumb

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Combined Letter and Gateway Determination - 4 Pennant Avenue, Gordon		2020/166065
	A2⇩	Combined Letter and Gateway Determination - 47 Warrane Road, Roseville Chase		2020/166062

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.14 / 345

Item GB.14	S12059

Completion of Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury - Nepean Coastal Management Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	The purpose of this report is to present the recently completed Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program (CMP), its findings and to outline the plan for progressing development of the whole of river system CMP.

background:	In August 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered between the six councils with management responsibility of land within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System (HNRS): Hawkesbury City Council, The Hills Shire Council, Ku-ring-gai Council, Northern Beaches Council, Central Coast Council and Hornsby Shire Council with the intent to work together to develop a “whole-of-system” Coastal Management Program for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River.

comments:	The CMP Scoping Study has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management framework and has been developed to guide the long-term, coordinated management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River with a focus on achieving the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

recommendation:	A. That Council notes the completion of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program. B. That Council endorses the findings and proposed approach of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program and transition to Stage 2. C. That Council seek funding for development of the CMP through a grant application with partner councils.

Purpose of Report

Background

In August 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered between the six councils with management responsibility of land within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System: Hawkesbury City Council, The Hills Shire Council, Ku-ring-gai Council, Northern Beaches Council, Central Coast Council and Hornsby Shire Council with the intent to work together to develop a “whole-of-system” Coastal Management Program for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River.

The partner councils agreed to work collaboratively in developing Stage 1 Scoping Study in accordance with the requirements outlined in the NSW Coastal Management Manual (the Manual). This included an assessment of the feasibility of working at a ‘whole-of-system’ scale. Funding was secured, and Stage 1 – Scoping Study has now been completed (Attachment A1). The study has been thoroughly reviewed by the partner councils, key State agencies and associated stakeholders (e.g. wider catchment councils) that play a role in the management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System.

The scoping study recommends that a whole-of-system approach is applied in the development of the CMP from a financial and strategic aspect. Consequently Stage 1 Scoping Study encompasses the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, Pittwater, Brisbane Water and Broken Bay, which span the Greater Sydney and Hunter - Central Coast regions. More specifically, the study focuses on the tidal area of the river system from Yarramundi to the mouth in Broken Bay including the waterways and contributing catchment of the wider Hawkesbury-Nepean River System.

Comments

The NSW Government has established a modern and integrated coastal management framework (the framework), seen to better equip coastal communities to respond to existing and future coastal management challenges and opportunities. A key part of this framework – the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program is only available to those Councils included in an endorsed Coastal Management Program. The recent establishment of the framework has shifted coastal management from the previously specific coastal focus to incorporate a wider ‘whole-of-system’ approach, which gives more scope for actions to be implemented within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

The CMP Scoping Study has been prepared in accordance with the framework to guide the long-term, coordinated management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River with a focus on achieving the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Specifically, the Stage 1 Scoping Study report provides:

· an outline of the legislative framework governing the management of the coastal zone;

· a synopsis of the current management arrangements and responsibilities for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River;

· a review of the success (or otherwise) of implementation of existing plans and strategies;

· a shared understanding of current and future emerging issues;

· a gap analysis of the information needed to make good management decisions in the future;

· the focus of the new CMP, including effective future management and governance approaches; and

· a forward plan outlining the intended process to complete the next four stages of the CMP and associated budget estimates.

Based on recommendations of the scoping study, partner councils have agreed to collaborate throughout Stages 2 to 4 as it is the most effective approach to achieve the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System and its catchment.

Partner councils will work together to transition to Stage 2 by agreeing to cost apportionment (funding model) and seeking assistance from the NSW Government. The Scoping study report in Attachment A1 and the summary table in ‘Financial Considerations’ outlines various options for the cost sharing arrangements.

integrated planning and reporting

Natural Environment

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

N3.1: Our natural waterways and riparian areas are enhanced and protected.

N3.1.1: The condition of natural waterways and riparian areas have improved.

N3.1.1.1: Participate in research programs and partnerships to advance water management.

Governance Matters

The governance of the estuary is multi-layered, with the waterways and foreshores owned and managed by a wide variety of stakeholders across multiple levels of government. Consequently, a governance structure has been proposed to be applied during the remaining stages of the Coastal Management Program (CMP) to coordinate projects, consultation, obtaining technical advice, communication and engagement. The suggested governance structure has been supported by the key stakeholders and includes a part-time project coordinator that will be co-funded through the project contributions during Stage 2.

The scoping study demonstrated that partnering with neighbouring councils will result in the most optimal way forward. The collaborative approach will better enable a strategic, long-term approach to estuary and catchment management across local and State government agencies. In addition, the stakeholder (local and State government agency) engagement activities undertaken as part of this study demonstrated significant support for the development of the CMP.

Risk Management

A first-pass risk assessment was undertaken as part of this study. It identified a number of pressures that could threaten the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System values, and that many of these threats will increase over the coming decades due to population growth within the catchment and the impacts of climate change. These pressures range from smaller localized issues, up to larger scale, system-wide threats that will require a coordinated and collaborative management approach. As discussed in the report some of the key issues that will require a holistic strategic approach include:

· Coastal and estuarine hazards (sea level rise and flooding/inundation);

· significant urban development and population increases across the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System resulting in increased catchment runoff. The increased urban stormwater discharge will impact on water quality, estuarine health and place pressure on recreational amenity and commercial activity (e.g. harmful algal blooms);

· disturbance of riparian and aquatic habitat, the presence of invasive species and diseases;

· waterway use and resource conflict; and

· planning and governance (lack of coordination across the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System and its catchment and protection of endangered, vulnerable and threatened species and communities).

Participating in the remaining stages of the Coastal Management Program will ensure that Ku-ring-gai is able to identify any risks to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System and ensure they are addressed as required.

Financial Considerations

The overall cost of developing the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System Coastal Management Program (CMP) is estimated to be between $1.0-1.3 million which will be shared across partner councils and with the NSW Government. The business case undertaken as part of the scoping study highlights that the cost of CMP development is less than 1% of the annual economic value of the estuary system – in terms of the significant environmental values and the major contributors to the social and cultural wellbeing of the community for Greater Sydney and the Central Coast regions that is dependent on the estuary.

Councils are eligible for funding via the NSW Coastal & Estuary Grants Program to prepare the CMP. The NSW Government recently altered the funding ratio so councils are only required to contribute one third of the overall total cost. Further, the grant program will provide up to 30% of the total project cost to project management where 5 or more Councils are partnering.

Details of cost sharing arrangements among the partner councils are yet to be finalised however several options have been canvassed within the scoping study report. A number of methods have been proposed to calculate this cost as shown in Table 1 below. Partner councils will make a decision about the most appropriate funding strategy to ensure completion of the CMP within the timeframe suggested in the scoping study report.

Table 1. Example cost sharing arrangements to fund Stage 2-4 of the CMP.

Potential Option	Central Coast	Northern Beaches	Ku-ring-gai	Hornsby Shire	Hills Shire	Hawkes-bury City	*State (DPIE)**
Equal Funding	5.6%	5.6%	5.6%	5.6%	5.6%	5.6%	66.7%
LGA Population	10.2%	7.9%	3.7%	4.5%	5.0%	2.0%	66.7%
Contributing Catchment Size	7.0%	1.1%	0.2%	3.4%	2.5%	19.1%	66.7%
Coastal Environment Area Size	19.9%	2.9%	0.1%	6.1%	1.1%	3.2%	66.7%

Social Considerations

The scoping study highlights that the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System possesses significant environmental values and is a major contributor to the social and cultural wellbeing of the community of Greater Sydney and the Central Coast regions. The Scoping Study report also highlights that these values are also a major economic driver in many important ways.

Environmental Considerations

The objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016 are to manage the coastal environment of New South Wales in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development for the social, cultural and economic well-being of the people of the State.

The purpose of participating in the development of the Coastal Management Program (CMP) is to benefit from the governance structure and funding model made available through the whole of system approach, considered optimal to responding to the objectives of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Community Consultation

In developing the scoping study, a series of workshops and collaborative review processes took place to seek input from a range of key public authorities with management responsibility across the wider catchment.

In addition, 18 wider catchment councils were invited to attend workshops and review the report. Four of these wider catchment councils actively engaged in Stage 1 with the intention to better engage with other catchment councils by establishing working groups as identified in the proposed approach to project governance.

Community and stakeholder engagement will add value to the coastal planning process by raising awareness of the significance and complexity of the issues and ensuring that relevant perspectives are incorporated throughout the CMP development.

A Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy has been developed (see Attachment A1) to provide an outline of the engagement activities for each of the partner Councils to consider during subsequent stages of CMP development. The Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy was developed with input from Communications and Engagement teams of each of the six partner councils and 18 public authorities involved in Stage 1.

Internal Consultation

Council’s Sustainability Engagement Coordinator participated in the community engagement workshop held to inform the proposed community engagement plan.

Updates on progress of the Stage 1 scoping study were provided to the Biodiversity Management Group, with staff represented from both the Operations and Strategy and Environment departments.

Summary

Stage 1 – Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean Coastal Management Program has now been completed (Attachment A1). The study has been thoroughly reviewed by the partner Councils, key State agencies and associated stakeholders (e.g. wider catchment councils) that play a role in the management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System.

Based on recommendations of the Scoping Study, partner Councils have agreed to collaborate throughout Stages 2 to 4 as it is the most effective approach to achieve the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System and its catchment.

Partner councils will work together to transition to Stage 2 by agreeing to cost apportionment (funding model) and seeking assistance from the NSW Government.

Recommendation:

A. That Council note the completion of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program.

B. That Council endorse the findings and proposed approach of the Stage 1 - Scoping Study for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Coastal Management Program and transition to Stage 2.

C. That Council seek funding for development of the CMP through a grant application with partner councils.

Sophia Findlay

Water and Catchments Program Leader

Jacob Sife

Manager Environment & Sustainability

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇨

Hawkesbury-Nepean River System Coastal Management Program Stage 1 Scoping Study

Excluded

2020/108417

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.16 / 366

Item GB.16	S11660

6 Springdale Road, Killara - Heritage Listing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider 6 Springdale Road, Killara as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP2015’).

background:	6 Springdale Road, Killara, was identified as a potential heritage item by Council staff in November 2019. A Preliminary Heritage Assessment was considered by Council on 10 December 2019. Council resolved to request a Ministerial Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) for the site. An IHO was gazetted on 31 January 2020. Heritage Assessment reports have been completed by Patrick Wilson of Touring the Past (commissioned by the property owner) and Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd (commissioned by Ku-ring-gai Council).

comments:	A heritage assessment has been prepared on behalf of Council for the local heritage listing of 6 Springdale Road, Killara, by a heritage consultant specialising in the architecture of this era. It is considered the house meets the threshold for local heritage listing on the basis of its historic, associative, aesthetic, social, representative and rarity values. In particular its significance is through its association with its designer, renowned Australian architect Ken Woolley, as a rare and representative example of the hallmarks of a regional form of modernist architecture.

recommendation:	That a Planning Proposal be prepared to list 6 Springdale Road, Killara as an item of local heritage significance under KLEP 2015.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider 6 Springdale Road, Killara as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP2015’).

Background

6 Springdale Road, Killara is located within the Springdale Conservation Area (C21), a heritage conservation area (‘HCA’) under KLEP 2015. 6 Springdale Road, Killara is located within the Springdale HCA under KLEP 2015, between two heritage items (I366 and I368) and directly opposite a heritage item (I365). However, the significance of the Springdale HCA places emphasis on Federation and Interwar style housing, and because 6 Springdale Road does not fit this description, reliance on the ‘protection’ of the HCA is tenuous. The listing of Springdale Road as an individual item will ensure that its significance is recognised into the future and its vulnerability to intrusive changes or potential demolition, diminishes.

In mid-November 2019, the subject property was first brought to Council’s attention as it was advertised for sale as an original Ken Woolley designed residence, offered for the first time since its 1976 construction. Staff viewed and conducted preliminary research of 6 Springdale Road, Killara during November and December 2019.

On 4 December 2019, the new owners lodged a Minor Heritage Works application to undertake to paint the existing face brick and construct a new front fence.

A preliminary heritage assessment was undertaken by Council staff and completed on 10 December 2019 (See Attachment A1). On 11December 2019, Council resolved:

“That a letter be sent to the Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and the Arts requesting a State Interim Heritage Order be placed over 6 Springdale Road, Killara.”

On 11 December 2019 Council requested the Hon. Don Harwin, (then) Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, to make an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) over 6 Springdale Road, Killara.

Council did not have authority under s.25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) delegation to make an interim heritage order on the property. Schedule 2 of the Ministerial Order published in the NSW Government Gazette on 12 July 2013 states: “Council must not make an IHO where…the item is within a heritage conservation area identified in an environmental planning instrument.”

On 31 January 2020 the IHO came into effect. The IHO has provided Council with time to undertake further historical research and an independent heritage assessment of the property to establish if it warrants a formal heritage listing.

Under the conditions of the IHO the order will lapse on 31 July 2020 unless Council passes a resolution to list the item on the Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 to protect and manage the item, or it nominates the item for inclusion on the State Heritage Register.

Comments

Following the gazettal of the IHO, the property owners commissioned a heritage assessment (‘Heritage Statement of Facts and Submissions’) by Patrick Wilson (heritage consultant) of Touring the Past (See Attachment A2). It was received by Council on 2March 2020. Following this, on 19March 2020, Council staff were able to inspect the property, accompanied by heritage consultant and registered architect Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd, as well as the owner’s consultant and legal representative.

The owner’s heritage consultant attests that the 6 Springdale Road does not meet the requirements for local listing as set out by the NSW Heritage Council. Their report disputes the heritage significance of the dwelling on the grounds of a lack of involvement from Ken Woolley during the dwelling’s procurement from concept design to construction. The owner’s consultant makes reference to correspondence and liaison with the former owner of the house (Mrs Eastment) to justify this assertion. Subsequent changes to the building fabric are also drawn on to outline the lack of significance of the dwelling.

Commissioned by Council, an independent heritage assessment of 6 Springdale Road, Killara [Lot 1, DP505522] was completed by Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd. The final assessment was received 14 April 2020 (See Attachment A3). The assessment found that the property is of local heritage significance and should be included as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015.

The report prepared by Council’s heritage consultant maintains that 6 Springdale Road warrants local listing on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015, satisfying the majority of the NSW Heritage Council’s criteria for listing. This report outlines that 6 Springdale Road demonstrates significance particularly through its association with notable architect Ken Woolley and through its demonstration of a high degree of technical achievement. Importance is placed on the dwelling’s relative intactness and on it being one of the few single residences that the firm agreed to take on during a time where commissions were much larger.

A heritage item is a place, which may include built structures, landscapes, moveable objects and relics, that have recognised cultural significance. In NSW, heritage items of local significance are assessed against 7 criteria:

A. Historical significance – an item is important in the course, or pattern, of the cultural or natural history of the local area;

B. Historical association significance – an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance to the local area’s cultural or natural history;

C. Aesthetic significance – an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area;

D. Social significance – an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area, for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

E. Technical/research significance – an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the local area’s scientific, cultural or natural history;

F. Rarity – an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the local area’s cultural or natural history; and

G. Representativeness - an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of the local area’s cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments.

6 Springdale Road, Killara fulfils several criteria for heritage significance. In particular, it has aesthetic, historic and technical significance to Ku-ring-gai. A summation of the findings of Dr Scott Robertson’s Heritage Assessment Report follows.

Heritage Significance of 6 Springdale Road, Killara

Eastment House is a high-quality, rare and representative example of a regional form of modern architecture, designed by renowned architect Ken Woolley. Construction of Eastment House at 6 Springdale Road, Killara began in 1971 and was completed in 1976 for owners Barry and Margaret Eastment. The Eastment’s were master builders, with their company F.T. Eastment & Sons known as a quality provider of master building services in the Ku-ring-gai and broader Sydney areas.

Eastment House was one of a small number that Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley designed for master builders (the other being the Pettit House) thus indicating the high regard builders held for the firm. Eastment House is also one of the very few individually-designed residential projects Woolley undertook in the Ku-ring-gai area, and one of the very few residential commissions he undertook in this phase of his firm’s work.

The comprehensive Statement of Significance prepared by Robertson Hindmarsh for 6 Springdale Road, Killara, expounds this importance. It reads:

The Eastment House is of local historical significance in demonstrating the post-World War 2 process of subdividing the grounds of the larger suburban houses erected from the 1890s until World War 2 creating closer settlement and reflecting the historical pressures of economic downturns on owners of larger allotments.

The house is of local associative significance because of its strong association with renowned architect, Ken Woolley and his firm, Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley. The construction of a new residence within an existing suburban area demonstrates a desire by the Eastment family to continue to live in Killara, where the family had been since the 1930s.

This Eastment House is of local aesthetic significance as its design exhibits the hallmarks of the regional form of modernism (termed by some as the Sydney School) including its use of unpainted external brickwork, vertical timber boarding, high lighting through clerestory windows, and complex, broken roof forms as well as the use of split levels within the house to create a flow of both visual space and of cooling Summer breezes. The surviving architectural drawings and the completed Eastment House demonstrate the palette of materials and construction methods employed by the architectural firm of Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley that are recognised as forming a distinct regional variation of modern architecture.

The Eastment House contains a large, highly sculptural fireplace form comprising two brick and concrete fireplaces that rises up through the house from the lower Sunroom level, through the Living Room level and up past the Study to emerge through the roof as twin chimneys with opposing skillion concrete chimney cappings.

The Eastment House is one of a series of houses within the Ku-ring-gai municipality that demonstrate the regional variant of modern architecture known as the “Sydney School” of which the architect Ken Woolley was a leading proponent in NSW. Architectural historians have acknowledged that Woolley’s greatest contribution as an architect was in the field of housing, raising the standard of suburban dwellings. The Eastment house demonstrates Woolley’s key hallmarks that developed during the mid to late 1960s out of his award-winning design for his own house at Mosman.

Ken Woolley is one of two architects to receive multiple awards for residential designs during the 1960s and 1970s, and houses designed by Woolley have developed a strong following, demonstrated by publications, tours and the acquisition of his drawings by the State Library of NSW.

The Eastment house is a rare example of a substantial residence designed for master builders by the architectural practice of Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley in a period of the firm’s work that primarily was occupied by large-scale commercial and institutional buildings as well as multi-residential and project homes, indicating the importance the firm placed on the project as one of the few single residential buildings the firm agreed to undertake for an existing / known client.

The Eastment House demonstrates the key characteristics of the domestic work of the firm of Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley in the late 1960s and early 1970s and demonstrates the firm’s use of similar details in houses at the upper end of the real estate market as were then modified and used in the firm’s work for the project home market.

On 21May 2020, the matter of 6 Springdale Road, Killara was referred to Council’s Heritage Reference Committee. This committee is comprised of representatives from the community, the local historical society, the Australian Institute of Architects and other qualified and experienced heritage professionals. The property owner, their heritage consultant, and legal representative made representations on the matter. All reports produced were provided to committee members. The Heritage Reference Committee moved unanimously to support the local heritage listing of this property.

An additional submission by Patrick Wilson was sent to Council one day prior to this meeting, by the legal representative of the property owner. This was supplied to the Heritage Reference Committee members (See Attachment A4). Dr Scott Robertson, on behalf of Council, commented as required on the matters raised in this submission verbally during the meeting, and has subsequently formalized a written response (See Attachment A5).

In support of the recognised heritage value, above and beyond that of a contributory building within a heritage conservation area, it is recommended that Council prepare a planning proposal to include 6 Springdale Road, Killara on Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015. To support the Planning Proposal a State Heritage Inventory form will also be prepared for Eastment House.

Council recognises that upgrades to the dwelling may be required to suit the changing needs of the occupants. The listing of 6 Springdale Road as a local heritage item does not preclude future alterations from being undertaken. Similar to the management of a dwelling within a conservation area, a qualified heritage professional can provide advice on changes that may be suitable both internally and externally and this has also been outlined in the report prepared by Council’s heritage consultant. The owners may also liaise with Council to discuss sympathetic changes that may be possible.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.

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 controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

Governance Matters

This report addresses the first stage in obtaining a Gateway Determination for a Planning Proposal which seeks to list an item of local heritage significance under an amendment to Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. If the Planning Proposal is supported by the Department, the Planning Proposal will be placed on exhibition seeking further State agency and stakeholder feedback prior to being reported back to Council to decide if the property should be formally listed.

The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Council will seek the plan-making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk of damaging the reputation of Council if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Ku-ring-gai draft Principal Local Environmental Plan - Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.

Social Considerations

The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s community-valued historic landscape and garden suburbs.

Environmental Considerations

The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places includes the substantial reduction in building demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.

Community Consultation

As part of making the Interim Heritage Order for the site, the IHO was published in the NSW Government Gazette on 31 January 2020. Council advised the property owner on 31 January that the order had been approved and published in the NSW Government Gazette.

The purpose of the IHO was to enable a full assessment of the property’s heritage significance to be conducted. Council representatives and Dr Scott Robertson visited the property and met with the representatives of the property owner on 19 March 2020. The property owner and their representatives were also given an opportunity to speak at the Heritage Reference Committee on the 21 May 2020 and to read all of the assessment reports that have been completed in relation to the property.

The affected property owner was notified of this report going before Council and will be further notified and have the opportunity to provide feedback if Council supports its listing in a planning proposal during the formal exhibition period.

Should the Planning Proposal receive a favourable Gateway Determination, it will be exhibited in accordance with the Department’s Gateway Determination requirements and with explanatory heritage information. This will involve appropriate notification and receipt of submissions on the draft Planning Proposal from the relevant State agencies and the general community, and a further report back to Council regarding this matter.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with relevant departments of Council has taken place in preparing this report, in particular, Development and Regulation. In addition, Council’s Heritage Reference Committee has reviewed the proposed heritage item and moved an unanimous decision to support the listing.

Summary

An assessment of heritage significance supports the finding that 6 Springdale Road, Killara is worthy of inclusion on Schedule 5 of the KLEP2015. The purpose of this report is to instigate Council’s commencement of a Planning Proposal tin relation to this listing.

Recommendation:

A. That Council proceed to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend KLEP2015 to include 6 Springdale Road, Killara [Lot 1, DP505522] as a local heritage item in Schedule 5.

B. That the Planning Proposal is referred to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (‘KLPP’) for advice in accordance with the Local Planning Panel Direction – Planning Proposals.

C. That a report be brought back to Council following the advice from the KLPP for Council to consider whether or not to forward the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination under section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Olivia Turner

Student Heritage Planner

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment A1: Report by Council Staff - 6 Springdale Road - preliminary heritage assessment	2019/373548
	A2⇩	Attachment A2: Report by Patrick Wilson for Property Owners - Heritage Statement of Facts and Submissions for 6 Springdale Road Killara and Appendixes 02/03/20	2020/160080
	A3⇩	Attachment A3: Report by Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd - 6 Springdale Road Killara Heritage Assessment report	2020/106975
	A4⇩	Attachment A4: Letter from Clare Collett (Mills Oakley) - 6 Springdale Road, Killara - regarding Heritage Reference Committee Meeting to be held on 21 May 2020	2020/160088
	A5⇩	Attachment A5: Response by Robertson & Hindmarsh 04 06 2020 - 6 Springdale Road, Killara	2020/160643

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.17 / 474

Item GB.17	S12027

Prospective Site for Hockey at Barra Brui Sportsground, St Ives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the prospective site for hockey at Barra Brui Sportsground, St Ives.

background:	In July 2018, Council provided the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association (NSBHA) ‘In Principle’ support for a synthetic field to be introduced at Barra Brui Sportsground, subject to Council completing the necessary assessments and consultation with the community. In addition to securing $2.25 million towards the proposed hockey facility, a further $500,000 has been obtained towards the amenities upgrade. Council also approved s.7.11 funding of up to $1,116,814 in February 2019 to contribute towards environmental assessment, planning approvals, consultation, procurement and project management services and any capital requirements arising for Council as the project is further defined.

comments:	As part of its commitment Council has conducted a number of key preliminary investigations to assess the suitability of the site in response to the proposal. Council has also initiated consultation with stakeholders and the community, progressed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the hockey association, consent with Crown Lands, and selected a preferred operational model for the proposed facility. A refined project scope including concept design, costing and further assessment is now required to determine the viability of the project.

recommendation:	That Council reviews the initial assessments that have been completed and agrees to engage in preliminary design/scope to inform costings and the feasibility of project design options. Support for the delivery pathway of the project (new artificial playing surface and limited amenities refurbishment) and the preferred operational model is also required from Council.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the prospective site for hockey at Barra Brui Sportsground, St Ives.

Background

In July 2018, Council provided the NSBHA ‘In Principle’ support for a synthetic field to be introduced at Barra Brui Sportsground subject to Council completing the necessary assessments and consultation with the community.

Council’s ‘In Principle’ support provided NSBHA the opportunity to source contribution from the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund in 2018, successfully securing $2,250,000 ex GST to assist with funding the synthetic playing surface. NSBHA was also successful in obtaining $500,000 ex GST through the Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund to assist with funding the refurbishment of the existing amenities building.

Since the last report in February 2019, Council has met with NSBHA regularly to define the functional specifications of the hockey field, auxiliary items such as water harvesting and lighting, requirements for the clubhouse upgrade, funding commitments and operational use. A number of key items that have been undertaken will be addressed in this report as follows:

· preliminary assessments:

o development constraints map;

o indicative tree constraints map and arboricultural report;

o native title – first stage of assessment;

o preliminary bushfire assessment and advice from the NSW Rural Fire Service; and

o preliminary traffic and parking assessment;

· Crown Land approval;

· a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties, signed by NSBHA; and

· consultation with existing stakeholders and the community.

In addition, the report will present the delivery pathway for the project, highlight the financial contributions (internal and external funding) for the sportsground and the clubhouse and advise the preferred operational model for the proposed facility.

Comments

Preliminary Assessments

Development Constraints Map

To commence investigations, a development constraints map for Barra Brui Sportsground was produced as a baseline to assess the potential impacts connected with the site and the proposed hockey facility (Attachment A1). Mapping in this high level assessment includes:

· bushfire prone land;

· bush care sites;

· riparian land;

· Greenweb;

· threatened species and vegetation;

· habitat;

· Aboriginal significance;

· heritage;

· acid sulphate;

· land tenure;

· hydro;

· infrastructure and assets;

· zoning; and

· biodiversity values.

Indicative Tree Constraints Map and Arboricultural Report

A preliminary tree constraints map (Attachment A2) was developed to show the tree protection zone, indicative field extent for tree protection and the trees of constraint in relation to the sportsground only. Tree locations for this map were not surveyed and are indicative only and do not consider tree health.

Naturally Trees were engaged to complete an Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement (Attachment A3). This report investigates the impact of the proposed development on trees and provides guidelines for appropriate tree management and protective measures. This included:

· a schedule of the relevant trees (401 trees) to include basic data and a condition assessment;

· an appraisal of the impact of the proposal on trees and any resulting impact that has on local character and amenity; and

· a preliminary arboricultural method statement setting out appropriate protective measure and management for the trees to be retained.

The proposed development for the sportsground (including auxiliary items such as storage sheds and water harvest tanks) requires the removal of no trees. However, design and/or siting modification would be required to be considered to accommodate eleven high category trees. If adequate precautions to protect the retained trees are specified and implemented through the arboricultural method statement, the development of the proposed hockey field will have no adverse impact on the contribution of trees to local amenity or character.

Additional trees will need to be identified and surveyed for any future plans relating to any clubhouse and associated car park works.

Native Title – First Stage of Assessment

Lands Advisory Services investigated the land status as the first stage of native title assessment for the proposed works and considered:

· if Native Title is likely to have been extinguished based on a Previous Exclusive Possession Act under Section 23B of the Native Title Act 1993; and

· the validity of R88493 and R86634 as an earlier act for the purpose of section 24JA of the Native Title Act 1993.

The assessment (Attachment A4) has identified that:

· the reservation was validity created;

· there is no current Native Title Claim affecting the Land; and

· Native Title is likely to have been extinguished for the areas in blue and pink as shown an Attachment A4.

It is important to note that this is an interpretation of the legislation and that only the Federal Court of Australia can make a formal determination in relation to the existence of Native Title.

Preliminary Bushfire Assessment and advice from the NSW Rural Fire Service

The main focus of the Bushfire review (Attachment A5) is the redevelopment of the existing clubhouse located within the south-west area of the site.

In terms of bushfire protection, the proposed clubhouse redevelopment has not been assessed as a Special Fire Protection Purpose Development (SFPP) (place of public assembly Class 9B) as it falls within the exclusions permissible under the size threshold of being less than 500 m sq.

Refurbishment of the existing clubhouse has considered the specific objectives that apply to infill development detailed within the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 (PBP). The proposed refurbishment should avoid possible flame contact, provide a clear defendable space around the footprint and ensure that the building can be designed and constructed in accordance with AS3959 – 2009.

The proposed refurbishment may also include Class 10 structures such as viewing stands (portable or elevated aluminium benches). In terms of providing a common sense approach the scale of the proposed seating is small and is no different than spectators gathering on foot to view games at any opportune location around the oval. In this regard the site already provides for this type of use/ gathering and no change is proposed.

It was noted that:

· the construction of seating is non-combustible;

· the increase in site capacity is not greater than that currently provided; and

· the application provides a better outcome in terms of construction and emergency management for the site.

This assessment has included an alternate solution approach to optimise asset protection zones. The design concepts seek feedback on the following:

· confirmation that the proposal is not SFPP Development;

· confirmation of short fire run assessment and attached fire modelling is appropriate; and

· confirmation that class 10 structures located greater than 6 metres from the clubhouse attract no specific bushfire construction requirements.

Future environmental review or development consent is also expected to include recommendations on service supply (water, electricity and gas), access provisions and emergency manage planning.

Upon the completion of the preliminary assessment, Australian Bushfire Consulting Services consulted with NSW Rural Fire Service which provided the following advice (Attachment A6):

· the proposed clubhouse is not designated a SFPP Development under Section 8.3.11 of PBP as it has a floor space area of less than 500m2. However, the proposed building will be considered as Class 5-8 structure requiring a suite of bush fire protection measures commensurate with the bush fire risk;

· the use of short fire run methodology is supported in this instance to provide asset protection zones to limit the radiant heat exposure to 29kW/m2;

· Class 10 structures located more than 6 metres from a habitable structure do not require construction requirements. However, such structures are recommended to be constructed from non-combustible materials given the nature of bush fire hazard and the occupants expected to use the facility and ancillary structures; and

· a bush fire emergency management and evacuation plan needs to be prepared in support of the proposal consistent with NSW RFS guidelines, including closure of the facility on days of extreme and catastrophic fire danger ratings and the possible refuge area on or off site in the event of a bush fire emergency.

Preliminary Traffic and Parking Assessment

The scope of this traffic and parking impact assessment completed by Bitzios Consulting (Attachment A7) included the following tasks:

· applying NSBHA’s utilisation model provided by Council to determine field peak hours for the weekday morning and evening, Saturday and Sunday;

· identifying background traffic peaks from traffic counts, and estimating the existing traffic flows for each peak;

· estimating the expected traffic generation in accordance with the Transport for NSW Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002);

· estimating the parking demand generated by the proposed facility;

· SIDRA intersection analysis;

· comparing existing and proposed scenarios from a traffic and parking impact perspective; and

· comparing the existing and proposed scenarios from a parking capacity perspective and assess the effects that the additional parking demand will have on the car park capacity of the ground.

The key findings from the traffic and parking impact assessment for the proposed hockey facility are summarised as follows:

· the site is expected to have the maximum number of participants during the weekday PM peak;

· with 80, and 40 during the weekday AM, Saturday and Sunday peaks;

· the site is projected to generate its highest traffic volumes during the PM peak hour with 205 movements. A total of 88 weekday AM, 110 Saturday and 110 Sunday peak hour trips are also projected;

· the trip distribution data suggests that approximately 67% of trips generated will occur to the south along Eastern Arterial Road, followed by 25% to the north along Horace Street and 8% to the west along Eucalyptus Street;

· the SIDRA analysis of the four intersections near the site concludes that they all perform well within practical capacity and at an acceptable level of service in all four peaks in both the existing and future year scenarios;

· the facility will not result in traffic volumes that would exceed the environmental capacity of Burraneer Avenue, with a maximum volume of approximately 250 vehicles during any one peak;

· 78 parking spaces would be required to accommodate maximum parking demand at given time of the week for longer stays and up to 22 spaces for shorter stays;

· the existing Barra Brui Sportsground off-street car park would not have the capacity to cater for the majority of this future parking demand or for drop-off/pick-up arrangements. as such, parking demand will likely try to spill onto local roads;

· some initial mitigation strategies to address this spill include:

o encourage carpooling;

o formalise the off-street car park;

o utilise the scout hall car park;

o encourage pick-up/drop-off; and

o alternate parking on Hunter Avenue.

Another option put forward by Bitzios Consulting which may be logistically impractical (but has been suggested for completeness) is to reduce the number of cars accessing the site at the same time by staggering the start times of hockey events, particularly during the NS13s/NS11s changeover which will have the greatest parking impact.

For example, one training session could be scheduled finish at 2:30pm, with the next one starting at 3:00pm. This would allow the participants of the 2:30pm session to clear the car park, freeing up the parking spaces for the next group. The duration between events could be shortened or lengthened based on a trial of the 30-minute gap to determine the most efficient gap. This would remove the majority of the 26 spaces required for new arrivals, and would also reduce the number of players being picked up or dropped off. The ability to implement this operational change would need to be considered in the context of a range of other event management considerations, but is one which NSBHA should be specifically asked to address.

Crown Lands – Land Owners Consent

To progress this project and in order to address grant requirements, Council has sought preliminary landowners consent with Crown Lands for lodgement of an application under Part IV or Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Council has submitted an application and provided supporting documentation with Crown Lands including a ‘Letter of Support’ from Scouts NSW (existing stakeholder on the northern side of Barra Brui Sportsground).

Once the project is ready for environmental review (following further design and assessment), Council would seek final landowner consent for lodgement under the EP&A Act.

Council has acknowledged that all landowners consent and any approvals under the CLM Act would be subject to adoption of a Sports Facilities Plan of Management that covers this site (including additional reserve purpose for clubhouse lot).

Once the Sports Facilities Plan of Management is finalised (currently drafted and under review by Crown Lands), Council will manage the site under the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 No 58. (CLM Act) and Local Government Act, 1993 (LG Act) as Crown Land Manager (rather than under the interim arrangements). Council will then have authority to approve construction and any future associated short to long term leases within this site.

Memorandum of Understanding between Council and NSBHA

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflects the parties’ respective required outcomes, commitments and obligations regarding the funding, development and subsequent management and operation of the proposed facility.

The MOU has been negotiated between the parties and signed by NSBHA as of 12 June 2020 (Attachment A8). This agreement is non-binding on the parties. It is only entered into to conveniently summarise the discussions between Council and NSBHA regarding the delivery of the proposed project. If the parties agree to work together to deliver the project, the parties will negotiate in good faith to enter into legally binding agreements based on the subject matter set out in this agreement including:

a. Project Deed; and

b. Licence Agreement

The arrangements proposed under this agreement, including the entry into the Project Deed and Licence Agreement, are conditional on each party obtaining all necessary internal and external approvals to proceed with The Facility.

Delivery Pathway for the Project

The preliminary investigations conducted by Council thus far, while extensive, are by no means exhaustive. However, at this point in the concept development process, no apparent issues have been identified which preclude the project being dealt with by way of a Review of Environmental Factors under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 as a recreation facility (outdoor).

Council’s Operations Department would be responsible for further concept development and environment reviewing in the event that Council supports the recommendations of this report.

Council’s Property Team have negotiated and finalised the MOU with NSBHA, and will work with the Operations Department in the development of the Project Deed.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C4.1.1 A range of cultural, recreational and leisure facilities and activities are available to encourage social interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.

Programs are delivered in collaboration with agencies and partners to encourage healthy and active lifestyles.

Develop and implement sports programs in co-operation with, or by supporting local sporting clubs and providers.

Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1.1 Partnerships are established with community groups and organisations to optimise the availability and use of sporting, recreation and leisure facilities.

Engage with community partners to improve Councils sporting and recreational facilities.

Pursue improvement of sporting and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities.

Governance Matters

As Barra Brui Sportsground is situated on Crown Land, the necessary approvals including Ministerial approval (under the EP&A Act and CLM Act) and Native title issues have progressed as outlined above. The proposal to grant a licence over the facility will need to be publicly advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act. It will also need to comply with Council’s Sports Facilities Plan of Management.

Risk Management

Risks have been identified in the preliminary stages of this project and these will be further defined and managed as Council progresses a licence agreement with NSBHA. At a high level, the MOU addresses a number of key items such as the parties’ project, funding and delivery commitments, as well as ownership and operation of the facility and insurance.

In particular, there is a substantial funding contribution in support of this project and if not able to proceed, Council and NSBHA are at risk of losing the funding opportunities of $2,250,000 ex GST (Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund), $500,000 ex GST (Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund) and s94 funding of $1,116,814 ex GST currently allocated to this project.

Financial Considerations

Financial Commitments

The parties’ funding commitments towards the project are outlined below:

A. As per the Funding Agreement

· $2,250,000 ex GST secured by NSBHA through the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund to assist with funding the artificial playing surface and clubhouse building refurbishment.

· $250,000 ex GST cash contribution from NSBHA, noting that $200,000 ex GST of these funds will be received by Council prior to the Request for Tender for constructing The Facility, with the remaining $50,000 ex GST received by Council prior to 1 December 2021.

· NSBHA have noted their previous commitment and financial guarantee of $500,000 ex GST from a local hockey family (as per NSBHA’s proposal titled “Project Plan” dated 7 December, 2018) has been withdrawn from the project, however additional funds can be raised by NSBHA if required and subject to agreement between the parties.

· $500,000 ex GST awarded to NSBHA through the Sport Australia Community Sport Infrastructure Fund to assist with funding the building refurbishment.

B. Council will contribute up to a maximum of $1,116,814 ex GST towards the project (including the costs of preliminary environmental assessments up to the date of signing of this memorandum), replacing its original $250,000 ex GST contribution as per the Funding Agreement. This contribution must be allocated towards project management services, including environmental assessment, consultation and planning approvals regarding The Facility, and any capital requirements arising for Council regarding the development of playing surface, ancillary parking and access, as the project is further defined. Council’s contribution is not available for refurbishment of the existing amenities building given its source from s.7.11 contributions.

Other funding requirements are as follows:

· Once costs and project timelines are determined, it is proposed that Council and NSBHA review its future funding commitments.

· The parties acknowledge and agree that the priority for The Facility is for the construction of the new multi-purposes artificial playing surface, with the balance of funds to be directed to the refurbishment of the amenities building.

· Council’s contribution is capped and the priority is the construction of a synthetic field.

· The parties agree to incorporate a payment schedule within the Project Deed.

Progressing the project towards preliminary design and costing is critical at this point to confirm adequate funding is available to deliver this project.

Operational Model

A report was prepared for Council’s GMD on 29 May 2020 to determine Council’s preferred operational model for the proposed hockey facility at Barra Brui Sportsground. Being a unique facility catering to a specialised sport, there is the potential for Council to licence the facility to NSBHA (as defined in a licence agreement) or for Council to manage and maintain the facility. Whilst a feasibility study for either approach has not been conducted, factors for and against both options were considered at this meeting.

GMD determined that the preferred operational model would be for Council, as Crown Manager and the owner of the facility, to enter into a licence agreement with NSBHA over the facility, including the appropriate use and access to the facility on the following key terms:

· Licence area – incorporates the synthetic playing surface and adjoining clubhouse building.

· Licence term – 7+7+7 years. Options subject to agreement between the parties (to align with life cycle of playing surface and to ensure that life cycle costs are able to be fully maintained by NSBHA).

· Permitted use – multi-purpose community sporting facility. Canteen/kiosk permitted within clubhouse building, subject to Council approval, food health regulations, Building Code of Australia and planning approval/environmental review (as appropriate).

· NSBHA to operate and manage all bookings for the facility, and will set reasonable usage fees for all non-NSBHA users in consultation with Council.

· Licence fee – minimum licence fee required under the CLM Act. NSBHA to keep appropriate records of all bookings. The parties should seek to enter into a profit sharing model in addition to the minimum rent following the initial 7 year term.

· NSBHA will be required to establish and maintain a sinking fund as per the following conditions:

o the annual contributions amount is to be determined between the parties in consultation with an independent expert regarding the ongoing maintenance and renewal of the artificial playing surface and clubhouse building. This amount may increase over the licence term as the operation of the facility increases;

o the sinking fund is to be used for the ongoing maintenance and renewal of the artificial playing surface and clubhouse building; and

o audited accounts must be provided to Council annually, which, among other things, clearly identify the sinking fund.

· The playing surface is to be publicly accessible outside of booked usage times, dogs may be restricted.

· NSBHA must maintain the building in good condition at all times, including at its cost the prompt rectification of all internal and external building repairs and maintenance.

· NSBHA is responsible for all outgoings, utilities and services associated with the use of The Facility (including without limitation electricity, gas, water, air conditioning, telecommunications and charges for discharge of trade waste and garbage collection charges).

· The proposed licence is subject to compliance with an authorised Sports Facilities Plan of Management, as well as Council and Crown Lands approval.

Social Considerations

The inclusion of a synthetic surface at Barra Brui Sportsground will provide increased social benefits for the community and enable better utilisation of facilities.

If a synthetic surface can be delivered at Barra Brui Sportsground, an alternative site has been considered for the dog off-leash community. The most suitable replacement is Bryce Reserve (located at Bryce Avenue, St Ives) which is a highly underutilised sportsground and within close proximity of Barra Brui Sportsground (approximately 1.5 kilometres). At the time of this report, Council is undertaking community consultation in relation to this site as a dog off-leash park as an alternative to Barra Brui Sportsground should the synthetic conversion project proceed.

The usage of sportsgrounds within Ku-ring-gai (including Barra Brui Sportsground) is directed by the Sports Facilities Plan of Management (2015). In part, the plan aims to:

· minimise the impacts from activities associated with sports facilities upon residents and the environment; and

· maximise the active and passive recreational opportunities provided by the sports facilities network in Ku-ring-gai.

Working with the local community to both shape and manage expectations relating to increased usage of a site. Consideration towards the local residents and ongoing management with user groups will be required from Council to minimise any such impacts that may occur from usage.

Environmental Considerations

Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), Council has a responsibility to consider the likely environmental impact of any proposed activity.

Council must identify all potential impacts of the proposed hockey facility at Barra Brui Sportsground and consider the scale and significance of any such impacts, to determine whether the proposal should proceed, be modified/ reviewed or not undertaken at all.

According to the EPA Act, exempt development may be carried out under Part 5 of the Act if the development is of ‘minimal environmental impact’.

To determine the ‘minimal environmental impact’ for the proposed synthetic field at Barra Brui Sportsground, Council has completed a number of preliminary environmental assessments as referred to in the Comments section of this report . Based on the preliminary environmental assessments completed to date and knowledge of the project, the conclusion as to the likely environmental impacts of the project are able to be managed appropriately.

Community Consultation

Following Council’s ‘in principle’ support to convert Barra Brui Sportsground to a synthetic hockey field, Council engaged the local community about the proposal in March 2019. 200 flyers were circulated to local residents within close proximity of Barra Brui Sportsground along with information on Council’s website. A small number of enquires via phone and email were received at this time mainly in connection with the investigation work required and the possible increase to traffic and parking from additional usage.

Internal Consultation

Consultation has taken place with the Strategy and Environment, Operations and Community Departments.

Summary

In July 2018, Council provided the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association ‘In Principle’ support for a synthetic field to be introduced at Barra Brui Sportsground subject to Council completing the necessary assessments and consultation with the community.

In addition to securing $2.25 million in grant funding towards the proposed hockey facility, a further $500,000 in grant funding has been obtained towards the amenities upgrade. NSBHA has committed to a $250,000 cash contribution to the project. Council also approved s.7.11 funding of up to $1,116,814 in February 2019 to contribute towards environmental assessment, planning approvals, consultation, procurement and project management services and any capital requirements arising for Council as the project is further defined. Council’s contribution is not available for refurbishment of the existing amenities building.

Council has conducted a number of key preliminary investigations to assess the suitability of the site in response to the proposal. Council has also initiated consultation with stakeholders and the community, progressed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the hockey association, consent with Crown Lands, and selected a preferred operational model for the proposed facility. A refined project scope including concept design, costing and further assessment will need to progress to determine the viability of the project

It is now up to Council to further review the initial assessments that have been completed and to determine if it agrees to proceed with the preliminary design/scope and management for the delivery of the synthetic field and clubhouse upgrade (in accordance with the relevant policies, legislation and the memorandum of understanding).

Recommendation:

A. That Council support the progression of the project to the concept design and costing stage for a synthetic multi-purpose hockey facility and clubhouse upgrade at Barra Brui Sportsground immediately. This will be used to inform costings and the feasibility of project design options.

B. That Council agree to project manage the delivery of the synthetic multi-purpose hockey facility and clubhouse upgrade under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 should the project proceed.

C. That Council note and endorse the Memorandum of Understanding between NSBHA and Council, including the preferred operational model of the facility.

D. That Council approve a licence being entered into with NSBHA on the terms set out within this report, subject to A, B, C and Ministerial consent.

E. That Council authorise the General Manager or authorised delegate to execute all documentation necessary in order to give effect to this resolution, including any relevant contractual matters.

Guy Thomas

Strategic Recreation Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Steve Johnson

Manager Property

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground Development Constraints Map (2019)	Excluded	2019/085480
	A2⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - Preliminary Tree Constraints (2019)	Excluded	2019/093307
	A3⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - Arborist Report - Naturally Trees (2019)	Excluded	2020/166918
	A4⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - Native Title Assessment - 1st Stage - LANDAS (2019)	Excluded	2020/166927
	A5⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - Preliminary Bushfire Assessment - Australian Bushfire Consulting Services (2019)	Excluded	2020/166932
	A6⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - NSW RFS Advice re clubhouse (2020)	Excluded	2020/166978
	A7⇨	Barra Brui Sportsfield - Preliminary Traffic and Parking Assessment - Bitzios Consulting (2020)	Excluded	2020/166987
	A8⇨	Barra Brui Sportsground - MoU signed by NSBHA - 12 June 2020	Excluded	2020/167293

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.18 / 486

Item GB.18	S07491

Norman Griffiths Oval - Additional Flood Investigation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	This report addresses a Notice of Motion (NoM) from the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OCM) of 18 February 2020 from Councillor’s Spencer and Pettett - Proposed Synthetic Surface at Norman Griffiths, West Pymble.

background:	At the OCM of 10 December 2019 Council resolved to not proceed with installation of synthetic grass at Rofe Park (Mimosa Sportsground). At the OCM of 18 February 2020, Councillor’s Spencer and Pettett tabled a NoM - Proposed Synthetic Surface at Norman Griffiths, West Pymble. The NoM notes that in April 2019 Council resolved not to proceed with a synthetic surface at Norman Griffiths, thereby leaving the project without a location.

comments:	BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd were engaged in March 2020 to undertake the additional analysis and further investigations of flood risks and flood management options relating to the conversion of Norman Griffiths Oval to a synthetic surface. A more comprehensive investigation into the impacts on hazard categories at key locations and alternative flood detention sites with associated costings was undertaken. This analysis found that, although hazards are already relatively high, by-passing detention at Norman Griffiths Oval results in an increased flood hazard level at the Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre access road and carpark; flood hazard level at Yanko Road; flood affectation to private property; and erosion potential to the section of creek between Norman Griffiths Oval and Yanko Road.

recommendation:	That Council receives and notes the Norman Griffiths Oval - Flood Risk Investigation Report 2020 prepared by BMT and that the issue regarding mitigation of the existing risks identified in the report is forwarded to the Operations Department for action.

Purpose of Report

Background

Between November 2016 and October 2018, Jacobs Group (Australia) was engaged by Council to undertake a flood assessment for Norman Griffiths Oval in West Pymble. The oval currently serves as a flood detention basin on Quarry Creek. It was proposed to upgrade the existing oval from natural turf to a synthetic surface. As part of the upgrade, drainage works were required to achieve flood immunity of the oval up to the 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event.

A split basin option, providing detention around the field was investigated as the most cost effective option to provide flood detention requirements. However, subsequent revision of the preferred concept plan demonstrated that major site constraints, environmental factors and visual connectivity with the surrounding Bicentennial Park resulted in prohibitive costs to achieve the conversion.

Following investigation into alternative nearby sites, a report was prepared for the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 April 2019, proposing a synthetic surface to be established at Rofe Park (Mimosa Sportsground) instead. The proposal was adopted by Council, noting required funding transfers, a proposed upgrade for Norman Griffiths Oval, and that following community consultation, Council consideration was required to relocate cricket formally played at Rofe Park to Norman Griffiths Oval.

Following this, a report was prepared for the OCM of 19 November 2019 providing Council with feedback received from the community during the public exhibition period for the proposed synthetic surface at Rofe Park (Mimosa Sportsground). No decision was taken in respect of the matter as it lapsed without an alternate motion.

At the Ordinary Meeting of 10 December 2019, a Notice of Motion from Councillor Pettett was raised to address the anomaly which had arisen at the November OCM wherein Council did not resolve a position on whether to proceed or not to proceed with the proposal for a synthetic surface at Rofe Park (Mimosa Sportsground). Council subsequently resolved NOT to proceed with installation of synthetic grass at Rofe Park (Mimosa Sportsground).

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 18 February 2020 Councillors Spencer and Pettett tabled the Notice of Motion - Proposed Synthetic Surface at Norman Griffiths, West Pymble. The Notice of Motion addresses the concern that in April 2019 Council resolved not to proceed with a synthetic surface at Norman Griffiths, effectively leaving the project without a location to proceed.

Council resolved:

A. That Council carry out further investigations in relation to installation of synthetic grass at Norman Griffiths Oval including:

i. For staff to provide high level costings to build the field in a manner that handles either a 1% or 2% flood event.

ii. Complete a risk and hazard assessment (pre and post development) for the key areas (aquatic centre car park and access road; creek adjacent to Scout/Guides Halls and Yanko Road) for all design events (0.2 EY; 10%AEP; 5% AEP; 2%AEP and 1%AEP). Identify other options (and costs) to address risks during an event, such as education, signage, flood markers, road barriers and potentially flashing signs to prevent people driving through flooded roadways during a significant event.

iii. Estimate costs for creek stabilisation works (where required) and alternative areas within Bicentennial Park to provide detention prior to Yanko Road, to mitigate some of the increased flow depth at this major road crossing.

B. That a report be submitted to Council outlining the results of these investigations.

Comments

As Jacobs Group (Australia) were unavailable to continue their previous work on the Norman Griffiths Oval Flood Study, BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd were engaged in March 2020 to undertake the additional analysis and further investigations outlined in the resolution of18 February 2020.

BMT have provided the report Norman Griffiths Oval - Flood Risk Investigation (Attachment A1).

The BMT report builds upon the modelling work already undertaken by Jacobs (Attachment A2) and looks at the impact on Flood Risk Categories (rather than just depth, velocity and extent) for the oval bypass option and considers alternative locations in the catchment to provide a location for flood detention to help mitigate increased flood impacts on Yanko Road.

The Best Practice Flood Risk Management approach to flood hazard mapping (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (2017) Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection, Flood Hazard Guideline 7-3) classifies the floodplain into six distinct hazard zones (H1 to H6), based on important thresholds of flood depth, velocity, and depth-velocity product. The adopted thresholds identify when flood conditions are likely to present a risk to people, vehicles and buildings. A description of each hazard threshold is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Flood Hazard Classification Thresholds

Hazard Classification	Description
H1	Relatively benign flow conditions. No vulnerability constraints.
H2	Unsafe for small vehicles.
H3	Unsafe for all vehicles, children and the elderly.
H4	Unsafe for all people and vehicles.
H5	Unsafe for all people and vehicles. Buildings require engineering design and construction.
H6	Unconditionally dangerous. Not suitable for any type of development or evacuation access. All building types considered vulnerable to failure.

Key points to note from the report include:

· the bypassing of Norman Griffiths Oval (which currently acts as a flood storage basin) will increase flood levels and velocities in the channel downstream of the oval;

· increases to flood hazard caused by the proposed upgrade are localised in existing high-hazard areas, where flood safety notification is already needed;

· key locations most heavily impacted by the proposed bypass, where overtopping depths and flood risk are increased include:

o the Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre access road and carpark, where under the existing situation flows overtopping the road range between H3 - H4 classification and, with a bypass of Norman Griffiths Oval, are increased in extent by several meters and to a H3 - H5 hazard classification; and

o Yanko Road Crossing of Quarry Creek, where under the existing situation overtopping flows have a H4 classification with H5 classifications along the

Footpath and, with a bypass of Norman Griffiths Oval, is increased to H5 within the road corridor itself; and

· there is also a slight increase in flood affectation on one private property near Yanko Road.

Additional flood mitigation and risk mitigation works have been assessed in an attempt to find a feasible alternative to offset the increases to flood level, velocity and hazard caused by the oval upgrade.

A thorough review of the Bicentennial Park area resulted in limited identification of suitable sites due to topography and environmental constraints. Consequently, the most suitable option for providing flood detention identified by BMT was the Bicentennial Park Stage area at the old quarry. This location does not address increases to flood hazard and associated risk at the Fitness and Aquatic Centre access road and carpark or creek channel between Norman Griffiths Oval and Yanko Road, however it was considered as an alternative site to address potential flood impacts to Yanko Road. The Basin options all involve installing a berm around grassed area in front of the stage, installation of pipe infrastructure and related earthworks to provide for the various detention depths.

BMT assessed 3 alternative basin options (detailed in Attachment A1). Estimated costs for each of the Basin Options (detailed in Appendix D of the report in Attachment A1) are:

· Basin Option 1 - $941,477

· Basin Option 2 - $1,182,267

· Basin Option 3 - $1,730,163

It is important to note that these basin options will not reduce flood levels along the channel reach between Norman Griffiths Oval and Yanko Road and the flood detention effects of even Basin 3 (which provides the most flood storage of all the options) will not fully offset the increases caused by the bypass option. In addition, of the basin options investigated, only Basin 3 will prevent an increase to flood levels to the impacted private property near Yanko Road.

As well as the alternative basin options, BMT has provided an estimate for channel stabilisation along the 180 m of high velocity area of the creek downstream of Norman Griffiths Oval, which would be required if a Norman Griffiths oval flood bypass is adopted. Two options were presented and provided cost estimates:

· the costs for the installation of gabion baskets is approximately $799,200 (detailed in Appendix D of the report in Attachment A1); and

· the cost for installation of extensive creek stabilisation works inclusive of sediment control dams would cost around $2 million (estimate provided, detail costing not included within the report).

In comparison, the Jacobs report (Attachment A2) provided two preliminary costings to maintain flood detention underneath the synthetic surface at Norman Griffiths Oval. These were (noting these estimates are based on unit costs in Rawlinson 2016 and quotes obtained at the time of the Jacobs report prepared in 2017):

· Atlantis Flo-Tank: $1,720,000 ; and

· Humes Stormtrap: $1,111,000

Allowing for an increased cost of 3% per year since 2016 will put the costs of these options up to $1,935,857.15 and $1,250,440.29 respectively. However, it should be noted that 2020 costings of these options has not been undertaken and any further analysis of cost is best based on a detailed concept design for the site.

The Jacobs report (Attachment A2) notes that there are minor overflows onto the upstream end of the oval in the 1% AEP event. These minor overflows onto the oval occur as the pit inlet capacity is exceeded. In addition the downstream end of the sports field is inundated by floodwaters ponding in the low point of the oval. These floodwaters originate from the downstream basin pit surcharging in the 1% AEP event. This pit does not surcharge in the 2% AEP event so the option provides for a flood free field in the 2% event and minor flooding in the 1% event which is shallower than the current situation. The Jacobs report also notes that for the underground detention option peak flows are reduced by 0.2m3/s, or up to 3.6%, in the 2% AEP event in Quarry Creek (just downstream of the oval), potentially providing a reduction in flood risk for the aquatic centre access road.

In summary, the modelling of the mitigation case indicates that the underground detention is effective at mitigating the peak outflow to near, or slightly below, existing rates, while the Oval is flood free up to the 2% AEP event.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C4.1.1 A range of cultural,

recreational and leisure

facilities and activities are

available to encourage social

interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.

Programs are delivered in

collaboration with agencies

and partners to encourage

healthy and active lifestyles.

Develop and implement sports

programs in co-operation with,

or by supporting local sporting

clubs and providers.

Governance Matters

The BMT report is on the agenda for the Flood Risk Management Committee Meeting Scheduled for 16 June 2020.

Any recommendations received from the Committee will be circulated to Council in a supplementary report if required.

If the project goes ahead it would be considered under the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007.

Risk Management

Extensive flood study investigations have been undertaken to gain a thorough understanding of the flood safety and financial risks related to the different options of incorporating a synthetic field at Norman Griffiths Oval. Impact on hazard classifications are outlined in the comments section of this report and additional information on risk mitigation options are outlined in the BMT report (Attachment A1).

The principal outcome of the BMT report is the recommendation that Council considers the installation of flood warning signs in the Fitness Centre carpark and along Yanko Road, and the potential flood impact and implications of scouring that may be caused by the oval upgrade.

Financial Considerations

Costs for installing signage in existing high-hazard areas, where flood safety notification is already needed range from approximately $500 (+ installation) for traditional flood depth signage. The cost for an automatic flood warning sign would be in the range of $30K to $50K upfront, with ongoing costs of $5K to $10K per annum. This would be dependent on the provider, the type of installation and the integration with other systems required.

Norman Griffiths Oval has been budgeted for an upgrade since 2016. The assigned project budget is approximately $932,000. The source of these funds is $405,300 from asset sales and $511,100 from Infrastructure and Facilities reserve. For various reasons of which Council is well aware, asset sales to this point have not been forthcoming. Further, there is a significant call on proceeds from asset sales ahead of capital works relying on a s7.11 Project Co-contribution (if and when they occur). The call on asset sales in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is set out in Table 2 and Figure 1.

Table 2: Projects Funded from Asset Sales in Council’s LTFP

Required Asset Sales
$'000	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29	2029/30	TOTAL
Marian St Theatre	5,000	9,500									14,500
St Ives Indoor Courts		11,300									11,300
Property Development Reserve	-	-	-	-	-	45,000	-	-	-	-	45,000
Infrastructure Renewal	1,100	4,500	4,500	3,600	3,100	3,900	5,100	5,000	2,500	700	34,000
s7.11 Project Co-contribution	-	4,035	-	1,453	1,108	1,359	-	580	6,240	-	14,776
Total Asset Sales	6,100	29,389	4,500	5,053	4,208	50,259	5,100	5,580	8,740	700	119,629

Figure 1: Projects Funded from Asset Sales in Council’s LTFP

Similar to other projects with an element of funding derived from asset sales which have not been forthcoming, they have in the past been deferred.

As separate from Council’s contribution (funded and unfunded), an additional $928,765 has been contributed towards the Norman Griffiths Oval project as follows:

· West Pymble Football Club $100,000

· Northern Suburbs Football Association $132,425

· Category 3 Office of Liquor and Gaming $500,000

· NSW Asian Cup Legacy Fund $150,000

· Local Sport Program $26,340

· Stronger Communities Programme $20,000

Total $928,765

Council’s $511,100 and $928,765 as listed above effectively covers the cost of a synthetic upgrade only. The project requires additional funding, as outlined in this report to provide for flood detention and potentially creek stability, depending on the approach to flood management taken.

The budget shortfall in respect of BMT Basin Option 3 including the costs for the installation of gabion baskets is $1.73m (option 3) + $800k (gabion baskets) = $2.53m

The budget shortfall in respect of BMT Basin Option 3 including the cost for installation of extensive creek stabilisation works inclusive of sediment control dams is $1.73m (option 3) + approx. $2m extensive creek stabilisation works) = $3.73m

The budget shortfall in respect of the Jacobs proposed Atlantis Flo-Tank is $1.93m (current estimate with CPI from 2016 estimate of $1.72m)

The budget shortfall in respect of the Jacobs proposed Humes Stormtrap is $1.25m (current estimate with CPI from 2016 estimate of $1.11m)

To each of these options needs to be added the cost of providing the actual synthetic surface which is estimated at approx. $1.5m

The question for Council is whether any of these options represents value for money when the cost of an ordinary synthetic upgrade would be in order of approx. $1.5m

It is important to note that all cost estimates for options presented so far are preliminary only and subject to detailed design and tender.

Social Considerations

Norman Griffiths Oval is well overdue for a major upgrade and improvements to this facility will benefit the club, football association, and the local community. However, any improvements need to consider the safety and amenity of the local community and users of Bicentennial Park.

The usage of sportsgrounds within Ku-ring-gai is directed by the Sports Facilities Plan of Management (2015).

In part, the plan aims to:

· minimise the impacts from activities associated with sports facilities upon residents and the environment; and

· maximise the active and passive recreational opportunities provided by the sports facilities network in Ku-ring-gai.

Consideration towards the local residents and ongoing management with user groups will be required from Council to minimise any such impacts that may occur from usage.

Environmental Considerations

The local environment, particularly the potential for land contamination, stability of the receiving waterway, surrounding vegetation and downstream bushland is a key consideration in this analysis.

Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), Council has a responsibility to consider the likely environmental impact of any proposed activity. When considering the synthetic proposal at Norman Griffiths Oval, Council must identify all potential impacts of that activity and consider the scale and significance of any such impacts, to determine whether the proposal should precede, be modified, reviewed or not undertaken at all.

In particular, surcharge of pits and flooding of the synthetic surface above the 2% event for the underground storage options should be carefully considered. It may not result in the surface being washed away in an event, however it may cause significant damage to the playing surface and fill materials may negatively impact the downstream natural environment. Controls to prevent synthetic surface materials being washed away should be carefully considered in the design, noting that extra detention or drainage works will increase project costs.

Also, the Atlantis Flo-Tank (or similar plastic crate) option would require a higher level of pre-treatment to the Stormtrap (or similar) option. The Atlantis quote provided to Jacobs does provide for GPT costs (total of $130 000) for a Humeguard model (HG35A). It does not appear that a GPT pre-treatment was assumed for the Stormtrap option costing, however grates/screens are potentially sufficient for this option (or similar).

Community Consultation

Feedback received during public exhibition of the Rofe Park (Mimsoa sportsground) proposal from Wednesday, 7 August 2019 to Monday, 23 September 2019 indicated that the majority of objections were specific to Rofe Park rather than an objection to synthetic fields within the LGA.

Many residents had a strong view that a synthetic field should not be considered at Rofe Park but would have no objection to another site such as Norman Griffiths Oval to be considered.

It should be noted that Council did not actually consult on the construction of a synthetic field at Norman Griffiths Oval.

Locating a synthetic field at Norman Griffiths Oval, within Bicentennial Park, will provide a playing surface capable of increased use at an established recreation facility where alternative natural surface options can also be provided for those who do not wish to use a synthetic field.

Internal Consultation

This report has been prepared in consultation with the Strategy and Environment and Operations

Departments. Council’s Community Department has also been involved with previous internal consultation relating to the original Norman Griffiths Oval Synthetic proposal.

Summary

BMT was engaged to provide additional analysis on the Flood Risk and associated options for managing impacts in relation to installation of synthetic grass at Norman Griffiths Oval including:

i. high level costings to build the field in a manner that handles either a 1% or 2% flood event;

ii. Completed a risk and hazard assessment (pre and post development) for the key areas (aquatic centre car park and access road; creek adjacent to Scout/Guides Halls and Yanko Road) for all design events (0.2 EY; 10%AEP; 5% AEP; 2%AEP and 1%AEP). Including the identification of other options (and costs) to address risks during an event, such as education, signage, flood markers, road barriers and potentially flashing signs to prevent people driving through flooded roadways during a significant event; and

iii. Provided an estimate of costs for creek stabilisation works (where required) and alternative areas within Bicentennial Park to provide detention prior to Yanko Road, to mitigate some of the increased flow depth at this major road crossing.

This report has been submitted to Council outlining the results updated flood risk investigations in relation to the original flood study. The BMT report in Attachment A1 clearly demonstrates that there are measurable increases in flood risk with by-passing Norman Griffiths Oval and alternative detention basin and creek stabilisation works do not necessarily provide sufficient flood risk mitigation and are not cheaper than the underground detention options originally outlined by Jacobs in Attachment A2.

Provision of a synthetic surface at Norman Griffiths oval is possible, however additional funding of between $1.25 million and $2.53 million will be needed to address flood detention requirements.

Recommendation:

A. That Council receive and note the Norman Griffiths Oval - Flood Risk Investigation Report 2020 prepared by BMT.

B. That information regarding mitigation of the existing risks identified in the report is forwarded to the Operations Department for action.

Sophia Findlay

Water and Catchments Program Leader

Guy Thomas

Strategic Recreation Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Jacob Sife

Manager Environment & Sustainability

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇨	Norman Griffiths Oval - Flood Risk Investigation, BMT	Excluded	2020/162156
	A2⇨	Norman Griffiths Oval Flood Assessment - Final Compendium Report, Jacobs	Excluded	2018/300601

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	MM.1 / 22

Item MM.1	S11550

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	MM.2 / 24

Item MM.2	S02767

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	PT.1 / 26

Item PT.1	RT6/12

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.2 / 71

Item GB.2	S05898

Stakeholder	How engaged
Local businesses	Invited to participate by having flowers in shops/premises, hang flowers from buildings, promote via social media etc
Local commercial building owners	Invited to participate by having flower installation on their buildings
Ku-ring-gai Arts centre	Invited to provide ideas for plant pot designs
Ku-ring-gai Youth Services	Invited to provide ideas for plant pot designs
Ku-ring-gai Events	Invited to provide ideas for street entertainment for launch
Local residents	Informed of installations and encouraged to promote via social media

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.5 / 110

Item GB.5	S04882

Councillor Access to Information and Interaction with Staff Policy	Code of Conduct	Amelioration
1. Approved contact positions and inappropriate interactions	· Clauses 7.2 and 7.6 of the Code of Conduct detail a list of inappropriate interactions.	· The new policy document does not cover inappropriate interactions as it’s covered extensively in the Code of Conduct. · Approved contact positions have been updated and streamlined. This will not updated by the General Manager as required and will be made available to staff and Councillors.
2. Legislation for Councillors and Staff	N/A	· Reference to the relevant sections of the Local Government Act is maintained in the new policy document.
3. Access to Council Records by Councillors	N/A	· Maintained in the new policy document.
4. Procedures for accessing Council Records	· Code of Conduct provisions, particularly clauses 8.1-8.3, 8.5 and 8.8 cover these procedures.	· Refers to Code of Conduct Provisions and includes an expansive range of Council Policy provisions.
5. Council specific procedures for the Interaction between Councillors and Council Staff (during meetings and outside of meetings)	N/A	· The policy document refers to legislative requirements and Code of Meeting Practice procedures to be maintained in interactions between Councillors and Staff.
6. Access to Council Offices	· Provisions for access to buildings – clauses 8.25-8.27	· The policy document reiterates these provisions.

Records Management for Councillors Policy	Code of Conduct & Records Management Policy	Amelioration
1. Interactions between Councillors and rate payers	N/A	· This is included in the new policy document.
2. Councillor access to records of Council	· Covered by Part 8 of the Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct Provisions).	· Covered by the statutory provisions and Council policy provisions in the updated Councillor Access to Information section of the new policy.
3. Archival storage and security of records	· Covered in the Storage and Security of Records section of the Records Management Policy.	· Not included due to overlap in the Records Management Policy.
4. Disposal and destruction of records	· Covered in the Destruction of Records section of the Records Management Policy. · Covered by clause 8.24 in the Code of Conduct.	· Briefly mentioned in the new policy document.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.6 / 127

Item GB.6	FY00623/2
	10 June 2020

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.7 / 136

Item GB.7	S11705
	16 April 2020

Category	Councillor Annual Fee		Mayor Additional Fee
Category	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
Metropolitan Medium	$13,820	$25,790	$29,360	$68,530

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.8 / 165

Item GB.8	CY00438/8

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.9 / 169

Item GB.9	CY00008/12

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.11 / 192

Item GB.11	CY00422/8

Attachments:	A1	Peppermint and Water Dragon Creeks Name Proposal	Confidential
	A2 ⇩	Peppermint and Water Dragon Creeks GNB map for proposal	2020/140484
	A3 ⇩	Creek Name Community Consultation	2020/140508

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.15 / 351

Item GB.15	S05914

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.20 / 503

Item GB.20	S12758

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.21 / 525

Item GB.21	RFT4-2020/R

Attachments:	A1	NSROC RFT 2022 - Schedule 4 - Pricing Assessment		Confidential
	A2	NSROC RFT 2022 - Tender Evaluation Committee Report		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 30 June 2020	GB.22 / 530

Item GB.22	RFT5-2020

Attachments:	A1	RFT5-2020 List of Submitters		Confidential
	A2	RFT5-2020 Tender Evaluation Report		Confidential