Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 16 February 2021

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 16 February 2021 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 authorisation 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 confidential attachments to the following General Business report:

GB.14 St Ives Indoor Sports Centre – Heads of Agreement

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

Attachment 2: MinterEllison Comments on Heads of Agreement

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 9

File: S02131

Meeting held 8 December 2020

Minutes numbered 235 to 229

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 2021 Australia Day Honours
and Citizen of the Year Awards 25

File: S12975

I am pleased to inform you that 7 Ku-ring-gai citizens, through their outstanding achievements and services to the community have been awarded 2021 Australia Day 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.

Wendy CARVER OAM of St Ives, for service to community mental health

Mark GINSBURG OAM of Lindfield, for service to the Jewish community, and to music

Dr Stephen Edwin JUDD AM of Roseville, for significant service to older persons living with dementia

Janet Dorothy KNEESHAW OAM of Pymble , for service to the performing arts, and to the community

Professor Roger Robert REDDEL AO of St Ives, for distinguished service to biomedical research in the field of adult and childhood cancer and genetics, and to tertiary education

Professor Markus Joachim SEIBEL AM of Killara, for significant service to medical research, and to endocrinology.

Bexon WHANG OAM of Wahroonga, for service to veterans of the Korean War

I also congratulate Ku-ring-gai Citizen of the Year winners for 2021:

Citizen of the Year - Michelle Key

Young Citizen of the Year – Edward Giles

Young Environmental Citizen of the Year – Ella Di Moro

Environmental Citizen of the Year – Plant Rescue Ku-ring-gai

Mayor’s Award for Outstanding Service by a Community Organisation – Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury Christmas Hamper Appeal

Mayor’s Award for Outstanding Service by a Community Organisation - Kissing Point Sports Club

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

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

Petitions

PT.1 Petition to remove the pine tree and replace it with a smaller safer tree at the front of 212-216 Mona Vale Road, St Ives 27

File: EM00027/43

To whom it may concern and to the strata manager and building manager. We the underlined signatures believe that the pine tree out the front of our building is a dangerous tree and should be replaced with a smaller safer tree. We believe that the assessment by the tree arborist that the tree is not dangerous is incorrect. (31 signatures).

Recommendations from Committee

RC.1 Minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee held on 9 November 2020 28

File: CY00022/13

Meeting held 9 November 2020

The Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee presents the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 November 2020 (Minutes numbered KTC11 to KTC18) for adoption by the Council.

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 1 October 2020 44

File: CY00458/9

To provide Council with a copy of the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 1 October 2020.

Recommendation:

Council receives and notes this report.

GB.2 Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee - Extension of Appointment - External Independent Chair 52

File: CY00458/9

To consider offering a 2 year extension of appointment to the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee.

Recommendation:

A. That the current External Independent Chair of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee, is offered an extension of appointment for a period of 2 years commencing from 2 March 2021.

GB.3 Investment Report as at 30 November 2020 56

File: FY00623/3

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.4 Investment Report as at 31 December 2020 64

File: FY00623/3

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.5 Investment Report as at 31 January 2021 72

File: FY00623/3

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for January 2021.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for January 2021 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.6 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 2nd Quarter 2020 to 2021 80

File: FY00623/3

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.7 2020 - 2021 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2020 92

File: S09112/9

To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2020/21 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020.

Recommendation:

That the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

GB.8 Business Approved under Authority Delegated to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager for the December - January Recess Period 2020/2021 123

File: CY00259/13

To inform Councillors of any business approved under delegated authority during the 2020/2021 recess period.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the report.

GB.9 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions 127

File: S02133

To inform Councillors of an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions to the 2021 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Councillors provide any proposed motions for the 2020 National General Assembly of Local Government to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by Friday, 26 February 2021, and that a further report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 16 March 2021 for approval prior to submission to the ALGA.

B. Any Councillors interested in attending the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government notify the General Manager by 30 March 2021.

GB.10 Progress Status Report - December 2020 143

File: FY00621/3

To provide Council with the Project Status Report reflecting results for October, November and December 2020

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for October, November and December 2020.

GB.11 Site specific DCP - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville 149

File: S12030

To have Council consider an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan (DCP) to include site specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP amendments for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville for the purpose of public exhibition.

That the draft site-specific DCP amendments be placed on public exhibition alongside the Planning Proposal.

GB.12 Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes - 22 October 2020 169

File: CY00413/8

To have Council consider the minutes from the Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 22 October 2020. These minutes were confirmed by the HRC at the HRC meeting held on 26 November 2020.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the HRC minutes from 22 October 2020, which were confirmed by the HRC at the HRC meeting held on 26 November 2020. .

GB.13 Proposed Heritage Listing of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga 175

File: S13065

To present the proposed heritage listing of Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga and its interiors, on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP 2015’) following the advice of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (‘KLPP’).

Recommendation:

That the Planning Proposal for the listing of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga proceed to Gateway Determination.

GB.14 St Ives Indoor Sports Centre - Heads of Agreement 309

File: S12712-3

To update Council on the draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) with the Department of Education for the proposed joint use indoor sports centre at St Ives High School.

Recommendation:

If Council accepts the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project and draft Heads of Agreement, it resolves to endorse the HoA, increase the project budget to $19.6m, increase loan borrowing to $13.5m and approves the ‘concept design’ attached to this report as the basis for finalising documentation for the DA.

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Amendment to the Outdoor dining policy 353

File: S11530/2

Notice of Motion from Councillor Kelly dated 13 November 2020

Then COVID-19 enveloped us and there was the conflicting interests of keeping people socially distant with allowing enough business to pass through to allow a business to survive. Maybe not prosper, but survive.

I took it upon myself to canvass a number of small business owners in the LGA and they were struggling. Some that were originally geared for dine-in only business were struggling to adapt to a take-away business model. Others had their own unique issues. The last thing they needed was bureaucracy cutting them off at the knees.

The current outdoor dining policy is in dire need of review. Fortunately, the Minister for Local Government has come to the rescue with a new initiative to assist in this process.

I, therefore, move that Council:

A. Apply to OLG for assistance in adopting the new paradigm and engage with the community to encourage more outdoor dining initiatives.

B. Suspend all outdoor dining fees and penalties until the end of the current financial year.

C. Expedite initiatives such as the St John’s Avenue “eat street” plan.

D. Work with OLG to review and update the current outdoor dining policy and return it to Council for adoption at least one month before the end of this financial year.

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

Questions With Notice

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson)

Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward)

Councillor C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillors 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)

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro)

Group Lead – Major Projects (Geoff Douglas)

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Michael Wearne)

Governance Support Officer/ Minutes Secretary (Rebecca Srbinovska)

The Meeting commenced at 7:08pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

227

Apologies

File: S02194

Councillor Spencer advised of apologies from Councillor Kelly for health reasons.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That the apologies be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Director Watson declared a significant non-pecuniary interest for C1 and C3 due to his specific statutory role in reporting a planning proposal to Council. Director Watson advised he will leave the meeting so that he doesn’t listen to consideration of the matter.

The Manager Urban and Heritage Planning, Antony Fabbro, declared a significant non-pecuniary interest for C1 and C3 due to his specific statutory role in reporting a planning proposal to Council. Mr Fabbro advised he will leave the meeting so that he doesn’t listen to consideration of the matter.

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 Confidential Items:

C.2 - Acquisition of Land - St Ives
Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 1 December 2020 with attachments.

C.3 - Lindfield Village Hub Tender Negotiation Update - Supplementary Report
Report by General Manager dated 3 December 2020 with attachments.

228

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Spencer)

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

C.1 Lindfield Village Hub Tender Negotiations Update

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

Attachment 1: OMC Attachment 1 - CBRE - LVH Alternative Structure Aug
2020

Attachment 2: OMC Attachment 2 - CBRE - Indicative Guidance

Attachment 3: OMC Attachment 3 - Fabcot - 13 November Revised Offer

Attachment 4: OMC Attachment 4 - CBRE - Initial Analysis 20 November 2020

C.2 Acquisition of Land – St Ives

In accordance with 10(2)(c):

Attachment 1: Location Sketch

Attachment 2: Valuation

C.3 Lindfield Village Hub Tender Negotiation Update – Supplementary Report

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

Attachment 1: MPAC Report – 3 December 2020 Final – Attachment to OMC
                                    Report
          Attachment 2: LVH – CMPCF PDF Slides – with confidentiality note –
                                    Attachment to OMC Report

GB.12 RFT10-2020 828 Pacific Highway Gordon – Lifts Replacement

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

Attachment 1: RFT10-2020 List of Submitters

Attachment 2: RFT10-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

229

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 17 November 2020

Minutes numbered 210 to 226

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Szatow)

That Minutes numbered 210 to 226 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

230

Local Government and Ethical Lobbying

File: CY00473/7

Vide: MM.1

Councillors are frequently required to make decisions that have long lasting effects on the entire community. As a result, we are often lobbied by people who seek to influence the decision making process. Lobbying may be conducted directly by individuals or organisations, or via a third party ‘lobbyist’ who is engaged to lobby on their behalf. Other Council officials may also be lobbied, such as committee members and staff.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), in their publication Lobbying Local Government Councillors: A Guide for Councillors, Constituents and Other Interested Parties, acknowledges that the appropriate lobbying of councillors is a normal aspect of democracy and councillors have a representative role to consider the view of their constituents. The free and open access to councillors, and Council itself, is vital to efficient and effective local government, and is a significant source of public participation through which residents can have their say on issues closest to them.

Nonetheless, lobbying activities should be carried out ethically, transparently and fairly. Occasionally there may be attempts to improperly influence Council decision-making and obtain preferential consideration or treatment based on factors other than the merits of a matter. Councillors and other Council officials should take care that their duty to consider issues fairly and properly is not compromised by participating in lobbying practices that are outside the bounds of appropriate or lawful behaviour. Other levels of government and some local councils have implemented specific controls over the activities of lobbyists engaged to act on behalf of third-party clients, including requirements for registration and expected behaviour. Amongst other things, this allows officials who are approached by lobbyists to establish whose interests they represent, so that informed judgements can be made about the outcome they are seeking to achieve.

ICAC provided the following examples of inappropriate or unlawful conduct that may occur during the lobbying process:

· accepting undisclosed payments or benefits whilst making a decision that affects the gift giver’s interests

· accepting a political donation in return for the favourable exercise of discretion during decision-making

· granting access to a particular individual or group while unreasonably denying similar access requested by another party

· fettering discretion by giving undertakings to an interested party prior to considering all the information relevant to a decision

· acting in a manner that exceeds the role of a councillor as defined in section 232 of the Local Government Act, such as by directing council staff over the content of any advice or recommendation on a council matter

· disclosing confidential information

· being unduly influenced by factors that are irrelevant to the merits of the matter under consideration.

It is always the aim of this Council to ensure that all decisions are legal, ethical and impartial. Therefore, Council should implement an Ethical Lobbying Policy including the requirement for a Register of Lobbyists. This policy should at a minimum:

· include a definition of “lobbying activities” and “lobbyist”, for the purposes of this policy;

· outline disclosure requirements for lobbyists via a Register of Lobbyists;

· provide guidelines for expected behaviour of lobbyists, councillors and other Council officials; and

· outline appropriate and inappropriate lobbying, whether that is conducted directly by the persons concerned or by a third party lobbyist.

The implementation of an Ethical Lobbying Policy and corresponding Register of Lobbyists would send a strong message to the community that Ku-ring-gai Council is dedicated to creating further transparency, whilst increasing public trust and confidence in its decision-making processes.

I therefore put forward the following recommendation:

Resolved:

That a Draft Ethical Lobbying Policy be prepared and reported back to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

231

Code of Conduct – Complaint Statistics

File: S08447

Vide: GB.1

To report statistics in relation to complaints as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW 2020 for the twelve months to 31 August 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That the report pursuant to Part 11 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW 2020 be received and noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

232

Delegations for Council Recess December - January 2020/21

File: CY00259/12

Vide: GB.2

To grant delegations during the December – January Council recess period for 2020/21 to ensure the efficient operation of Council business during this time.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Szatow)

That:

A. Subject to any existing delegations already granted by Council, the following Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2020/21:

B. The Mayor (Councillor Jennifer Anderson), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Cedric Spencer), and the General Manager (Mr John McKee), be granted authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 8 December 2020 to 16 February 2021, subject to the following conditions:

i. Such powers, authorities and functions may only be exercised by unanimous agreement between the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager; and

ii. Any such power, authority, duty or function shall only be exercised by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager jointly where they are of the opinion that the exercise of any such power, authority, duty or function could not be deferred until the meeting of Council on 16 February 2021.

C. Consultation, subject to their availability, be held with Ward Councillors on matters where they would normally be contacted, before delegation is exercised.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

233

Amended Code of Meeting Practice

File: S02211

Vide: GB.3

To report the outcome of the public exhibition and seek adoption of the Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Meeting Practice.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Council Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment A1) to replace the current Code adopted in June 2019, and that it take effect from 9 February 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

234

Amendments to the Model Code of Conduct and Administrative Procedures

File: S11503

Vide: GB.4

To brief Council on the required changes to Ku-ring-gai Council’s Code of Conduct and Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct (The Procedures) in accordance with advice from the Office of Local Government (OLG) in order to facilitate adoption of the revised documents.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Clarke)

That Council adopt the revised Code of Conduct and Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

235

Fraud & Corruption Control Policy

File: S11503

Vide: GB.5

To brief Council on the draft Fraud & Corruption Control Policy in order to facilitate its adoption.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That:

A. The Fraud & Corruption Control Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

B. At the expiration of the public exhibition process, the following action be taken:

i) Should any submissions be received, a further report be submitted to Council

ii) Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the policy as attached to this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

236

Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Study - for exhibition

File: S12657

Vide: GB.6

Seeking Council endorsement to place the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Character Study on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Kay)

That:

A. Council adopt the draft Local Character Study for exhibition.

B. Council undertake further community engagement including workshops with residents to discuss and develop desired future character statements for the Broad Character Areas.

C. The final Study, incorporating community input, be reported back to Council before end of June 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

237

Draft Local Centres Public Domain Plan - Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield

File: S12249

Vide: GB.7

To seek Council approval to exhibit the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Public Domain Plan.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That Council adopt the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Public Domain Plan for public exhibition and after the exhibition a further report be brought back to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

238

Lindfield Local Centre - Eastern Precinct - Streetscape Upgrade Program

File: S12474

Vide: GB.8

To seek Council approval to place on public exhibition the draft concept designs for upgrade works to key streets and lanes on the eastern side of Lindfield Local Centre.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Ngai)

That:

A. Council adopt the draft concept designs for upgrade works to key streets and lanes on the eastern side of Lindfield Local Centre for public exhibition; and

B. Following public exhibition the matter be reported back to Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

239

Report on Public Exhibition Draft Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

File: S12956

Vide: GB.9

To update Council on the public exhibition of the draft Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy and for Council to consider the submissions received.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Szatow)

That Council receive and note the submissions received to the draft Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

240

Heritage Reference Committee Dates 2021

File: CY00413/8

Vide: GB.10

To determine the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee dates for 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee meetings in 2021 be scheduled for the dates as follows:

· 21 January

· 18 February

· 18 March

· 15 April

· 20 May

· 24 June

· 22 July

· 19 August

· 16 September

· 14 October

· 18 November

· 2 December.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

241

Royal Commission into the 2020 Bushfires and NSW Bushfire Inquiry

File: S06373

Vide: GB.11

To advise Council on the relevant findings and recommendations from the NSW Bushfire Inquiry and the Royal Commission into Natural Disaster Arrangements (Bushfire) Final Reports, particularly with reference to future fire management trends and the role of local government.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That Council receive and note the contents of this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

242

RFT10-2020 828 Pacific Highway Gordon - Lifts Replacement

File: RFT10-2020

Vide: GB.12

To consider the tenders received for 828 Pacific Highway Gordon – Lifts Replacement and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Pettett)

That:

A. Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Lifts replacement at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon.

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

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

D. All tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with clause 178 of the Regulation.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

243

Acquisition of Land - St Ives

File: S08130/11

Vide: C.2

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

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

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

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

Report by Director Strategy & Environment dated 1 December 2020

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Smith)

That Council resolve to acquire the subject property in St Ives for open space as outlined in this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

244

Lindfield Village Hub Tender Negotiation Update - Supplementary Report

File: S10973

Vide: C.3

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

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

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

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

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

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

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

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 General Manager dated 3 December 2020

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Clarke)

That Council:

A. Note that the Lindfield Village Hub tender and subsequent negotiation period has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, creating a global economic downturn, uncertainty in the property market and impacting on project viability and competitive tension.

B. Note that an offer has not yet been received that is financially viable.

C. Continue to negotiate with any possible providers, while undertaking a review of Council’s project assumptions and objectives.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

245

Lindfield Village Hub
Tender Negotiations Update

File: S10973-4

Vide: C.1

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

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

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

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

(vi) 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 General Manager dated 23 November 2020

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Greenfield)

That Council receive and note this report

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

246

Amendment to the Outdoor dining policy

File: S11530/2

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillor Kelly dated 13 November 2020

After an internal review of the outdoor dining policy following a couple of incidents earlier this year, it was decided to temporarily suspend the requirement for businesses to subscribe to a permit for outdoor dining until council had reviewed, amended and adopted the policy, making it more suitable for the current circumstances.

The current outdoor dining policy is in dire need of review. Fortunately, the Minister for Local Government has come to the rescue with a new initiative to assist in this process.

I, therefore, move that Council:

A. Apply to OLG for assistance in adopting the new paradigm and engage with the community to encourage more outdoor dining initiatives.

B. Suspend all outdoor dining fees and penalties until the end of the current financial year.

C. Expedite initiatives such as the St John’s Avenue “eat street” plan.

D. Work with OLG to review and update the current outdoor dining policy and return it to Council for adoption at least one month before the end of this financial year.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Pettett)

That this matter be carried forward to the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, 16 February 2020.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

33 Young Street, Wahroonga & 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra

File: S10066

Vide: BWN.1

Mayor Anderson put forward the following to Council:

It has been brought to my attention there are two properties with heritage value potentially at risk. These are 33 Young Street, Wahroonga and 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra. The properties are currently listed for sale. There has been a preliminary heritage assessment undertaken of both properties.

33 Young Street, Wahroonga is an example of Post-War international style building, and has been recognised for its rare and high-quality interiors designed by famed émigré designer and furniture maker, Paul Kafka.

7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra, known as ‘Hutter House’ was designed by internationally recognised Australian architect Harry Seidler. The home is widely published as influential in design for its bi-nuclear plan and also as an exemplar of the Post-War International style, featuring some of the quintessential indicators of this style.

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That the matter be considered at this meeting due to the reasons outlined above.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor ruled that the matter was of great urgency in accordance with Clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

A Motion moved by Councillors Ngai and Spencer
that voting on each of the properties for BWN.1 be in seriatim was
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

247

33 Young Street, Wahroonga

File: S10066

Vide: BWN1

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/ Spencer)

That Council resolve to place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on 33 Young Street, Wahroonga, Lot 32 DP12371, to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

248

7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra

File: S10066

Vide: BWN1

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That Council resolve to place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra, Lot 2 DP835996, to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Meeting closed at 7:40pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 8 December 2020 (Pages 1 - 16) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 16 February 2021.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

Do not delete this line

MINUTES OF Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
HELD ON Monday, 9 November 2020

Present:	Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Cedric Spencer, Chairperson) Transport for NSW (Cameron McIntyre) Representing Member for Davidson (Mr Michael Lane)

Staff Present:	Director Operations (George Bounassif) Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr Deva Thevaraja) Team Leader Traffic (Mr Michael Foskett) Strategic Transport Engineer (Mr Joseph Piccoli) Team Leader Regulation (Tony McCormack) Administration Officer (Nala Redford)

Others Present:	Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Peter Kelly, Deputy Chairperson) Stand-In for Representative Bike North (David Thomson)

Apologies:	Representing Police Local Area Command Kuring-gai (Snr Const Narelle Tomich) Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore (Sgt Ryan Edwards) Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai (Mr David Ross)

The Meeting commenced at 9.12am

APOLOGIES

Director Operations advised Representing Bike North, Lyness Beavis, provided a stand-in, David Thomson, in her absence.

Director Operations advised that Police Local Area Command North Shore and Ku-ring-gai provided apologies.

Director Operations advised that Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai, David Ross, provided an apology and supports item GB.1 and GB.7 on the Agenda relating their local area.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No interest was declared.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

KTC11

Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee

File: CY00022/12

Meeting held 4 May 2020

Minutes numbered KTC08 to KTC10

Representative for Bike North mentioned the Minutes from the last Traffic Committee Meeting does not mention where it was held and enquired if it worth mentioning that the meeting was held via ZOOM within the Minutes?

Chairperson advised that there was an overarching direction from the Local Government Minister and our General Manager that all meetings will be held by ZOOM in accordance with the legislation.

Director Operations confirmed the Chairperson’s response.

Representative for Bike North requested clarification that minor typos be sent to The Administration Officer.

Director Operations confirmed that minor typos be sent to the Administration Officer ensuring that the contents of the Minutes are not changed.

The Committee Recommends:

(Moved: Representing Member for Davidson / Councillor Kelly)

The Minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 May 2020, minute numbers KTC08 to KTC10, were received and confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting proceedings without change at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 July 2020.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

KTC12	Gordon High Pedestrian Activity Area File: S02171 Vide: GB.1
	To seek approval for the traffic facilities identified in the Gordon High Pedestrian Activity Area study.
	The Committee’s Comments: Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: This is the second project in Ku-ring-gai offered by Transport for NSW to introduce 40km speed limits in high pedestrian activity. The first project introduced was in St Ives, covering the area of St Ives shopping centre, Cowan Road and Memorial Avenue. This was implemented last year and has been very successful in achieving lower speed limit in the area. Following the success of St Ives HPAA project, Transport for NSW identified Gordon precinct and offered Council over one million dollars in grant to implement this project. There are many traffic calming measures have been proposed in the vicinity of Gordon Station, including Wade Lane, St Johns Avenue and Park Avenue. A part of this project is incorporated in the Council’s current project proposal to improve pedestrian and streetscape in St Johns Avenue and Henry Street. At the moment Council is engaging an external consultant to undertake detailed designs and construction. This project must be completed by June 2021 and Council plans to commence construction early next year; however, prior to commence construction the proposed facilities need to be approved by the Traffic Committee. The overall proposal is attached to the report. Transport for NSW requested a deferral: Can the item be deferred until Transport for NSW have approved the plan outside the Traffic Committee? There are a few things in the plan that Council applying to get funding for that don’t meet the Transport for NSW funding criteria. A meeting has been set up with the Manager of the HPAA program for tomorrow with Ku-ring-gai Council, including the Manager Traffic & Transport and the Strategic Transport Engineer. The meeting will go over and discuss the plan to work through what is and isn’t part of the process in terms of funding. Representing Member Davidson requested a meeting to discuss further items relating to this matter. The Chairperson accepted this request. The Chairperson relayed comments to the Committee on behalf of the Member for Ku-ring-gai: “Is Kartoum Lane not already similar and is currently 20km? I think Council have done a 40km speed limit change to the whole precinct without realising there were already 20km zones. I suggest Council check all current speed limits.” The Director Operations noted the Member’s comments. The Representing Member for Davidson put forward questions: The wombat crossing at Werona Avenue and Park Avenue is lower than the park, will this be a problem with drainage? The start of the 40km zone on the southern side seems to be a long way from any pedestrian activity as well as installing speed cushions. Why is this going in and why is it so far away from the pedestrian area? Will the parking and entering/exiting the roadways be affected where the kerb blisters are being installed on Khartoum Lane and Robert Street? The Director Operations advised that these questions will be taken on board and the most critical matter is to consult with Transport for NSW. Council is short on time and the grant must be spent before 30 June 2021. The Director Operations suggested an amendment to the recommendation: “That Council consult Transport for NSW regarding this proposal and that any changes are reported to the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee through a Traffic facility under Delegated Authority (TDA)”. Transport for NSW and Representing Member for Davidson expressed support to this amendment. Deputy Chairperson put forward a suggestion to the Committee: I think the loading zone in Wade Lane between the two wombat crossings should be extended for the entire length between the two crossings. Representing Member for Davidson enquired if there will be room for vehicles to turn left and right at the same time when exiting Wade Lane onto Park Avenue. Strategic Transport Engineer confirmed that the road width does maintain its current width in that section and that the dual lanes will still be permitted.
	The Committee Recommends: (Moved: Representing Member for Davidson / Transport for NSW) That Council consult Transport for NSW regarding the proposal and any changes are reported to the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee through Council’s Traffic Facility under Delegated Authority (TDA) process. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Recommendation. The Original Recommendation was: That the proposed traffic facilities for the Gordon HPAA, as shown in the Plan: Gordon Town Centre HPAA – Proposed Works – Overall Plan, be approved.

KTC13	Lindfield Learning Village - Proposed Pedestrian Facilities File: S11589 Vide: GB.2
	To consider proposed pedestrian facilities in Abingdon Road and Eton Road to support the operation of the Lindfield Learning Village.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Strategic Transport Engineer provided background information on this item: Lindfield Learning Village is a new school in Lindfield, currently with 350 students. The Department of Education’s plan is for a staged approach for school with student numbers increasing up to 2,000. There is a development application with the state government to increase to 1,000 students in stage two and the target date for that is day 1 in school term 1 2021. As part of the supporting studies for the increase for up to 2,000 students, there were a number of new facilities identified to enable students to walk to school safely and these are the facilities presented in this report. We have a new pedestrian crossing in Abingdon Road at Eton Road and in Eton Road at Austral Road to enable the continuation of foot traffic along that route which also forms part of an emergency evacuation route. At Eton Road, between Abingdon Road and Winchester Avenue, there is a proposed pedestrian refuge to allow students to cross from the western side of Eton Road to the eastern side. The consultants who have been doing the work for the Department of Education have identified future student numbers to support the provision of these marked foot crossings and they are confident through their transport management plan that these projected numbers support the crossings. These are the facilities that have been identified and we are reporting it to the committee for formal approval allowing them to construct the facilities in time for the start of the next school year. Representing Member for Davidson enquired regarding the age range of students for this school. Strategic Transport Engineer provided a response advising that it is from kindergarten to year 12, being a full range school: In the projections there is the assumption that there will be a high numbers of car movements for the younger students, and expecting the older students to walk as well as heavy reliance on bus movements. That is the way the travel managing plan has been structured, so as to reduce the number of vehicles in and out of the area. There is going to be a relatively high demand for pick up and drop off for the younger students. There is a new pick up and drop off area and bus turning area on the eastern part of the site. The school has Green Travel Plan submitted to the Department as part of the expansion to review and monitor the travel with an aim to reduce the demand for private vehicles into the site. The focus of this report is on the pedestrian facilities and reduce the number of vehicles in the future.
	The Committee Recommends: (Moved: Representing Member for Davidson / Transport for NSW) A. That the proposed pedestrian facilities be approved. B. That School Infrastructure NSW and its relevant representatives on the project be notified of Council’s decision. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC14	Rosedale Road & Shinfield Avenue, St Ives File: TM9/12 Vide: GB.3
	To consider a proposal to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road in St Ives.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: This intersection, in particularly, Rosedale Road is one of the busiest roads travelling from St Ives to Gordon. At the moment, this intersection is controlled by a STOP restriction giving priority to Rosedale Road traffic. Council have had quite a number of requests/concerns from residents living on the eastern side of Shinfield Avenue in relation to approaching the intersection and having limited site distance on the right. As a result there have been several near misses. Council looked at the intersection and proposed to increase the existing No Stopping distance on the right side, and a report was considered under Delegated Authority (TDA). Representing Member for Davidson objected to this proposal. In the meantime, Council looked at the crash history at the intersection and Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer identified that this intersection may attract funding under the Safer Roads Program. Council applied for funding for the Safer Roads Program proposing to introduce a roundabout at this intersection to improve traffic while at the same time slowing down traffic along Rosedale Road. Until we get this proposed roundabout installed with the funding from Transport for NSW, Council would like to increase the existing No Stopping restrictions on the right side of Rosedale Road by a car space length to give better site distance for those entering into Rosedale Road. The report has been brought to Traffic Committee for approving both of the proposals, one being to install a roundabout subject to funding and the second is to increase the existing No Stopping restrictions by a car space length until the intersection is facilitated with the roundabout. I would also like to add that there has been a very serious accident at this intersection and the St Ives Ward Councillor, Councillor Smith, referred this matter to Traffic Section with photographs of the incident. I informed him that this proposal is going to the Committee and he expressed his support. Representing Member for Davidson provided comments on this item: The No Stopping zone was increased about three years ago and now you want to extend it out again by 25 metres from the statutory 10 metres. It seems to me it is rather an excessive set back having already been set back further than 10 metres. In regards to the roundabout I noticed there is a very large tree and power pole on one corner making it difficult installing the roundabout. I am not sure how you are going to do it. In terms of crashes I haven’t heard about a serious one there but I did see the after math of one damaging one cars bumper and the others driver’s door. Transport for NSW responded to these comments: If Council want to remove parking to improve site lines, I support that. In terms of the roundabout, roundabouts are proven to improve safety and to meet the Safer Roads Program funding it would of needed to have crash data to support it, therefore I have no objection to that. Representing Member for Davidson provided further comments on this item: There is a demand for increased on street parking due to the building of more units, raising another problem as NSW Department of Planning seem to be very restrictive of the minimum allowable number of parking spaces within a new dwelling complex. Deputy Chairperson added comments: A lot of the apartment blocks in that area have one car space per dwelling forcing people to park on the roads. I think some of these streets and roads could be better served by having parking on one side only to increase visibility and safety on the road, but that is an issue outside the Traffic Committees purview. Director Operations provided comments: This proposal will improve the safety. I believe there are a number of vacant parking spots within Shinfield Avenue where vehicles can park further up the street if they have lost parking due to the relocation of the No Stopping zone. Manager Traffic & Transport provided comments in response to the Representing Member for Davidson’s comments: The statutory restriction is only 10 metres but we have already increased this by 6 metres and now increasing further by one car space. This is as a result of many accidents and many near misses at this intersection. We physically visited the site and checked the sight distance and because of the crest on Rosedale Road it is not very easy to see the oncoming traffic if there was a car parked. Once we get the funding and the roundabout is installed, the extension of the No Stopping zone will be reverted back to its original position. It is only a temporary measure until Council install the roundabout. If we do not do this there are more chances of near misses and the residents are already experiencing difficulty. The residents also referred this matter to Member for Davidson. The Strategic Transport Engineer provided comments in response to the Representing Member for Davidson’s comments: In relation to the tree and power pole, what I can tell from the concept plan is that the roundabout is designed to be retrofitted into the current intersection, with a mountable island. A standard passenger vehicle will be able to manoeuvre the roundabout without having to remove kerbs or relocating power poles at this stage, and it is mountable for anything larger than the standard passenger vehicle.
	The Committee Recommends: A. That subject to available funding, a roundabout be constructed at the intersection of Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road, as shown in the Plan No. Rosedale-Shinfield/KTC/11/20.A. B. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the eastern side of Rosedale Road be extended by 6 metres, as shown in the Plan No. Rosedale-Shinfield/KTC/11/20.B. For the Resolution: Chairperson, Transport for NSW Against the Resolution: Representing Member for Davidson CARRIED

KTC15	Stanley Street, St Ives File: TM9/12 Vide: GB.4
	To consider traffic condition at the intersection of Stanley Street and Richard Road to improve visibility to approaching traffic for motorists exiting Richard Road.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: Council proposed to move the parking on the left side of Richard Road and the Representing Member for Davidson objected. The site was revisited and we came up with a treatment that would still retain the existing parking arrangement and provide an area for a vehicle to edge onto the carriageway to get better visibility in either direction. The current proposal is to introduce a ‘Give Way’ control at the intersection and move the edge line into the carriageway giving more sight distance. The overall proposal is not losing any parking space while improving visibility. Representing Member for Davidson provided comments on this item: I had a look at the site and took some photographs. When I put the objection in it was referred back to the complainant and they then wanted the matter to go to the Traffic Committee. I was asked if I would discuss the matter with the complainant, which I did so. He was of the opinion that he should only go up to the kerb line and not any further. He decided that he shouldn’t have to go forward any further and that the parking space should be removed. As much as I don’t like the edge line it is probably the best solution for the problem. I find this is a reasonable solution.
	The Committee Recommends: (Moved: Representing Member for Davidson / Transport for NSW) A. That an edge line be marked 1.7 metres from the kerb on Stanley Street at Richard Road, as shown in the Plan No. Stanley-Richard/KTC/11/20 B. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ signs on Stanley Street at Richard Road be reduced by 5 metres, as shown in the Plan No. Stanley-Richard/KTC/11/20. C. That ‘Give Way’ intersection control and associated line marking be introduced in Richard Road at Stanley Street intersection, as shown in the Plan No. Stanley-Richard/KTC/11/20. D. That Mr John Duggan, of 15 Richard Road, St Ives and Council’s Team Leader regulations be informed of Council’s decision. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC16	Lyle Avenue, Lindfield File: TDA93/20 Vide: GB.5
	To consider a proposal to partially convert the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions from part-time to full-time on Lyle Avenue in Lindfield.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: This report is the introduction of ‘No Parking’ restriction in front of 2 Lyle Avenue, Lindfield. Prior to this, the entire area was looked at when the UTS campus was in place, to try and discourage students from parking in the local residential streets. As a result, we introduced the ‘No Parking’ restriction from 9am-6pm Monday to Friday on one side of Lyle Avenue. We may have to review these restrictions once the Lindfield Learning Village is in effect. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the existing restrictions until to see what impact the Lindfield Learning Village has for on-street parking. I received representation from the resident at 2 Lyle Avenue regarding number 28 Winchester Avenue. The resident was making a complaint about vehicles parking on weekends and overnight out front their property from the opposite residence, number 28 Winchester Avenue, using both sides of the street for parking. This was causing access difficulty for the resident at number 2 Lyle Avenue. The resident proposed full time ‘No Parking’ restriction at their frontage so as to access the property. This will allow any vehicles from Winchester Avenue to access Lyle Avenue without any difficulty. No consultation was undertaken with residents as the proposal is directly outside 2 Lyle Avenue’s residence. When this proposal was first reported under a Traffic Facility under Delegated Authority (TDA), the Representing Member for Davidson expressed his objection. Representing Member for Davidson provided comments on this item: Lyle Avenue is a fairly short residential street and doesn’t have through traffic because it’s a cul-de-sac. The complainant objecting to the neighbours parking strikes me as being a neighbourhood dispute. I do not believe we should get ourselves involved, so unless there is a genuine good reason for doing it, I objected to it. I still believe the nature of the complaint strikes me as being more about a dispute rather than the access difficulty. The Director Operations provided comments on this item: The resident is requesting clear access into their driveway and in our view it is a fair request. The resident who made the request will be the one losing out here because they lose the parking in front of their own property. Doing this will benefit the entire street improving the access into Lyle Avenue from Winchester Avenue. I can’t comment on the neighbour feud. Council have not been alluded of anything regarding a feud. The Manager Traffic & Transport provided a response in this matter: There was no neighbour dispute that I am aware of or that was brought to Council’s attention. The resident at Number 2 Lyle Avenue raised concerns that during weekends and night the residents living in number 28 Winchester Avenue have quite a number of people living in the residence parking either side of Lyle Avenue. The parking in Lyle Avenue on one side is still unrestricted meaning there is parking available. When vehicles are double parking close to the intersection it is causing issues accessing Lyle Avenue from Winchester Avenue and access into number 2 Lyle Avenue.
	The Committee Recommends: That the existing ‘No Parking 9am-6pm Mon-Fri’ restrictions outside the frontage to No.2 Lyle Avenue be replaced with full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions, as shown in attached Plan No. Lyle/KTC/11/20. For the Resolution: Transport For NSW Against the Resolution: Representing Member for Davidson, The Chairperson No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as the Motion when put to the vote was LOST.

KTC17	Shout Ridge, Lindfield File: TM6/12 Vide: GB.6
	To consider a proposal to re-install a marked foot crossing on Shout Ridge in Lindfield.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: There was an existing pedestrian crossing prior to upgrading the area and was removed outside the oval. The reason for the removal is not certain but it was said that it was no longer necessary at the time. At the moment there is an oval with children and other pedestrians using the area quite often to access Eton Road. Council is therefore proposing a pedestrian crossing at this location, and the proposal was discussed with Transport for NSW who agreed in principal. The proposal is to re-introduce the existing pedestrian crossing at the existing raised threshold to improve pedestrian safety. The Representing Member for Davidson provided comments: Is this crossing compliant with the requirements? If not, why are we putting it in? If it is put in and there is not a requirement I am concerned about the legality if anything was to happen. The Director Operation provided a response: I cannot comment on behalf of Transport for NSW but I do understand that they have strict guidelines in regards to where a crossing is located. We receive a number of requests for crossings and in most cases the numbers don’t add up. We can’t just install these anywhere if we are following these guidelines. In this case this proposal has the support of Transport for NSW in principal. They believe it’s a legitimate location without talking on Transport for NSW’s behalf. In my view it’s a perfect location with the oval adjoining the proposed crossing to Eton Road. The exit stairs for the oval are a very short walking distance to the crossing and Shout Ridge is a very busy part of the whole estate due to the ever increasing development in the area. On a sports night the streets are obviously parked out so this will provide improved safety for users that are crossing the road to get to their parking on Eton Road. The location on the corner of Eton Road and Shout Ridge is yet to be developed being a good time to allocate a pedestrian crossing. Transport for NSW provided background information: There are warrants for marked pedestrian crossings. At the moment the warrants aren’t met with the current amount of students at the school but as the school is proceeding with the predicated volumes of pedestrian usage rising, Transport for NSW approved it in that sense. As part of the Transport’s future strategy for the 2056 plan we want to encourage pedestrians to walk to school and make it safer for them. This is being approved on the basis of the amount of students at the approved school, but separate to that in the next year or two there should be a change in the pedestrian warrant numbers.
	The Committee Recommends: That a marked foot crossing be installed on the raised threshold on Shout Ridge, Lindfield. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

KTC18	Kissing Point Road, Turramurra File: TM10/12 Vide: GB.7
	To consider a proposal to construct a pedestrian refuge on Kissing Point Road, south of Monteith Street, Turramurra.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Manager Traffic & Transport provided background information on this item: The request to construct a pedestrian refuge in Kissing Point Road on the corner Monteith Street has been received by Council for many years. I can remember this request came in 2002 and at that time we looked at the proposal but it was not supported by the Traffic Committee and funding was also an issue. There is a temple on the corner of Monteith Street and Kissing Point Road which is heavily used during weekends. There is also bus stops on either side of Monteith Street they are also heavily used by Turramurra High School students. We have received a number of requests from residents living in the area to provide some kind of crossing facility mainly because there is no crossing facility on Kissing Point Road between Pacific Highway and the Comenarra Parkway. We managed to find some funding if we can get this facility approved by Council and installed early next year. A Plan of the site location was electronically displayed at The Committee Meeting. We did consultation with residents and received an objection from number 86 Kissing Point Road regarding access to their property. We looked at shifting the pedestrian refuge to access the property without difficulty. At the same time we also received objections from a few other residents. The resident at number 87 strongly objected claiming the facility is in the wrong spot and it does not have adequate site distance creating more accidents. In addition, we received objections from numbers 94 and 73 Kissing Point Road. Number 86 is the mostly affected resident and we managed to shift the facility and convince them they can access the property. In the meantime, we had received representation from Bike North to incorporate the cyclists. The Strategic Transport Engineer met with Bike North and discussed how to accommodate this. The Strategic Transport Engineer provided background information on the site meeting with Bike North: Kissing Point Road is a fairly important cycle route as it connects over the Lane Cove River and Macquarie University providing a key link for residents. Bike North raised an issue in the proposed plans that the shoulder will be reduced down in size that is, in effect, forcing bike riders to use the traffic lane to get past the refuge. We had a site meeting with the Representative from Bike North to look at options to accommodate a wider shoulder for cyclists to travel past the pedestrian refuge. We found the potential to relocate the refuge north of the driveway of number 84 Kissing Point Road. This would potentially provide extra space to do minor shoulder widening and provides provision for cyclists. This would also require additional investigation to the vehicle paths turning in and out of Monteith Street, requiring additional work from the Design team to make that an effective solution. One suggestion would be to defer the matter for additional investigation and potential relocation for the pedestrian refuge. Representative Bike North provided information on this item: The president of Bike North wrote to Council about this matter before we were aware of the formal position of this project and before the papers were distributed that didn’t make it into the report. The Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee noted that the letter from the President of Bike North had been received. Kissing Point Road is a heavily used bicycle route. It is also a key route on Council’s own bike plan. The current design would have the shoulder reduced to almost nothing forcing bikes into the traffic lane. It would significantly reduce the safety of cyclist at the location. The pedestrian refuge is a good idea, however the issue is that the site is restrained on either side. One side there is a large tree and other is a power pole. If either of these could be removed then the existing shoulder will be able to maintain the current dimensions. We have no objection to the pedestrian refuge itself. The Director Operations provided comments: I would like to remind the Traffic Committee that the Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai has provided full support for this proposal. The Manager Traffic & Transport provided further comments: A Plan of the site location was electronically displayed at The Committee Meeting. I visited the site last week to measure the existing line of site when using the pedestrian island. We measured the distance of how far we can see left and right when using the pedestrian island and the distances measured were 120 metres one side and nearly 150 metres on the other. This is well above the required site distance for the speed limit of 50km on Kissing Point Road. As a result I don’t think we need to move the power pole as long as we can get the design for relocating the crossing and the support from the resident at 84 Kissing Point Road. Turning movements in and out of Monteith Street and the driveway of number 84 will be taken into account when doing the detail design. Transport for NSW provided comments: I prefer if the pedestrian refuge was relocated further away from the intersection of Monteith Street so it is away from the turning movements. I am happy to support the proposed plan that is contained in the Agenda, but the proposed plan to move the pedestrian refuge closer to the intersection we would have to review further. Representative Bike North raised the question if Transport for NSW was satisfied with the reduced cycle safety in the plan on the Agenda. Transport for NSW provided a response: I prefer that it be dealt with as well, whether it be dealt with by continuing the investigations with Bike North or whether it be deferred. Representative Bike North made comments regarding the support from Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai: The report that was shown to the Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai made no mention of the cycle safety so they haven’t had the benefit of that discussion in their agreement. Manager Traffic and Transport confirmed that Bike North’s submission was not considered by the Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai and the support was based on the report done before the submission. The Strategic Transport Engineer directed a question to Transport for NSW: When the detailed design for the pedestrian refuge is referred to Transport for NSW, will adequate provision for cyclists be looked at as part of the design? Transport for NSW provided a response: Not formerly unless it is part of Council’s plan to come through and put a dedicated cycle facility through that area. The Director Operations put forward an amendment to the recommendation: “A. That a pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Kissing Point Road, south of Monteith Street, Turramurra. B. That a detailed design of the pedestrian refuge island and bicycle safety facility around the refuge be referred to TfNSW for approval, prior to construction.”
	The Committee Recommends: (Moved: Transport for NSW / The Chairperson) A. That a pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Kissing Point Road, south of Monteith Street, Turramurra. B. That a detailed design of the pedestrian refuge island and bicycle safety facility around the refuge be referred to TfNSW for approval, prior to construction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Recommendation. The Original Recommendation was: A. That a pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Kissing Point Road, south of Monteith Street, Turramurra. B. That a detailed design of the pedestrian refuge island be referred to TfNSW for approval, prior to construction.

general discussion

Representing Member for Davison raised the follow item:

The north bound carriage way on Link Road between Stanley Street and Mona Vale Road is starting to break up and is in need for serious repair.

The Meeting closed at 10:51am

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.	Integrated risk management, compliance and internal control systems are in place to identify, assess, monitor and manage risks throughout the organisation.	Manage, coordinate, support and facilitate the effective operation of Council's Internal Audit function.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.2 / 55

Item GB.2	CY00458/9

Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee - Extension of Appointment - External Independent Chair

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider offering a 2 year extension of appointment to the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee.

background:	In November 2018 Council undertook an Expression of Interest process to fill the positions of External Independent Chair and External Independent Member of the Audit Risk & Improvement Committee. During their meeting of 26 February 2019 (GB.7) Council endorsed the recommended applicants for appointment as follows; External Independent Chair – for a period of two (2) years commencing from 1 March 2019. External Independent Member – for a period of one (1) year commencing from 1 March 2019.

comments:	The term of office for the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit Risk & Improvement Committee will expire on 1 March 2021. During the initial 24 month term, the Chair has demonstrated his extensive skills and experience and become a valued member of the committee. The Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Charter provides that independent members will be appointed for a period of 2 years with the option of extension or reappointment based a review of their performance (4.9(i)) In light of the above we are able to offer the subject member an extension of a further 2 years.

recommendation:	A. That the current External Independent Chair of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee, is offered an extension of appointment for a period of 2 years commencing from 2 March 2021.

Purpose of Report

To consider offering a 2 year extension of appointment to the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee.

Background

In November 2018 Council undertook an Expression of Interest process to fill the positions of External Independent Chair and External Independent Member of the Audit Risk & Improvement Committee.

Expressions of Interest were invited through a public advertisement that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, Newcastle Herald and North Shore Times.

The General Manager established a selection panel to review the applications against the advertised criteria and to conduct interviews. Panel interviews were held in January 2019.

During their meeting of 26 February 2019 (GB.7) Council endorsed the recommended applicants for appointment as follows;

External Independent Chair – for a period of 2 years commencing from 1 March 2019.

External Independent Member – for a period of 1 year commencing from 1 March 2019.

It should be noted that a 2 year extension to the term of office for the current External Independent Member of Council’s Audit Risk & Improvement Committee was endorsed by Council in February 2020 and commenced from 1 March 2020.

Comments

The term of office for the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit Risk & Improvement Committee will expire on 1 March 2021.

During the initial 24 month term, the Chair has demonstrated his extensive skills and experience and become a valued member of the committee.

The Audit Risk & Improvement Committee Charter provides that independent members will be appointed for a period of 2 years with the option of extension or reappointment based a review of their performance (4.9(i))

In light of the above we are able to offer the subject member an extension of a further 2 years.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L3.1: The organisation is recognised and distinguished by

its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer

service.

L3.1.1: Integrated risk

management, compliance and

internal control systems are in

place to identify, assess, monitor

and manage risks throughout the

organisation.

L3.1.1.2: Manage, coordinate, support and

facilitate the effective operation of Council’s

Internal Audit function.

Governance Matters

The objective of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee is to provide independent assurance and assistance to Council on risk management, control, governance and external accountabilities.

Risk Management

The Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee reviews Council’s risk management framework and compliance with risk management standards.

Financial Considerations

The External Independent Chair of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee is paid a standard fee of $1200 (plus GST) per meeting.

There are usually four or five meetings held per year and the applicable fee is inclusive of all preparation and travel.

Social Considerations

There are no social considerations associated with this report.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.

Community Consultation

In 2018 an advertisement was placed in the Sydney Morning Herald, Newcastle Herald and North Shore Times seeking Expressions of Interest for the roles of External Independent Chair and External Independent Member on Council’s Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Summary

The term of office for the current External Independent Chair of Council’s Audit Risk & Improvement Committee will expire on 1 March 2021.

In accordance with the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Charter we are able to offer the current External Independent Member an extension of 2 years.

Recommendation:

That the current External Independent Chair of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee, is offered an extension to his appointment for a period of 2 years commencing from 2 March 2021.

Jennie Keato

Manager People and Culture

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.3 / 63

Item GB.3	FY00623/3
	18 December 2020

Investment Report as at 30 November 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for November 2020.

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

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to November 2020 was $1,533,000, against an annual budget of $1,491,000 giving a year to date favourable variance of $42,000.

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

Purpose of Report

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

Background

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

Comments

Investment Portfolio Performance Snapshot

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

Cumulative Investment Returns against Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to 30 November 2020 was $1,533,000 against an annual budget of $1,491,000 giving a year to date favourable variance of $42,000 as shown in the table below.

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

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of November 2020 was $205,098,000 compared to $200,102,000 at the end of October 2020, a net cash inflow of $4,996,000 was mainly due to second quarter of rates income.

There was one new investment made during the month of November 2020.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmark

Overall during the month of November the investment performance was above the industry benchmark. The benchmark is specific to the type of investment and the details are provided below. AusBond Bank Bill Index is used for all Council’s investments.

Table 1 - Investments Performance against Industry Benchmarks

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

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

Table 2 - Investments Portfolio Summary during November 2020

* Weighted average returns

** Funds in at-call/short term accounts are working funds kept for the purpose of meeting short term cash outflows. At the time of investing interest rates were comparable or more competitive to other equivalent investments. At-call investments portfolio is being monitored on a regular basis to ensure funds are reinvested at higher rates when opportunities arise, whilst also keeping and adequate balance for short-term cash outflows.

Investment by Credit rating and Maturity Profile

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

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Governance Matters

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

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

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Management

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

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

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

Financial Considerations

The budget for interest on investments for the financial year 2020/2021 is $3,580,800. Of this amount approximately $2,514,600 is restricted for the benefit of future expenditure relating to development contributions, $671,800 transferred to the internally restricted Infrastructure & Facility Reserve, and the remainder of $394,400 is available for operations.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Certification - Responsible Accounting Officer

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

Summary

As at 30 November 2020:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $205,098,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to November 2020 was $1,533,000 against an annual budget of $1,491,000, giving a YTD favourable variance of $42,000.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for November 2020 be received and noted.

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.4 / 71

Item GB.4	FY00623/3
	19 January 2021

Investment Report as at 31 December 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for December 2020.

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

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to December 2020 was $1,815,000, against an annual budget of $1,795,000 giving a year to date favourable variance of $20,000.

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

Purpose of Report

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

Background

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

Comments

Investment Portfolio Performance Snapshot

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

Cumulative Investment Returns against Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to 31 December 2020 was $1,815,000 against an annual budget of $1,795,000 giving a year to date favourable variance of $20,000 as shown in the table below. The annual forecast budget has been reviewed in light of reduced interest rates and a reduction of $100K is proposed in the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review.

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

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of December 2020 was $199,976,000 compared to $205,098,000 at the end of November 2020, a net cash outflow of $5,122,000 was mainly due to creditor payments.

There were four investments matured and five new investments made during the month of December 2020.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmark

Overall during the month of December the investment performance was above the industry benchmark. The benchmark is specific to the type of investment and the details are provided below. AusBond Bank Bill Index is used for all Council’s investments.

Table 1 - Investments Performance against Industry Benchmarks

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

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

Table 2 - Investments Portfolio Summary during December 2020

* Weighted average returns

Investment by Credit rating and Maturity Profile

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

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Governance Matters

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

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

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Management

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

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

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

Financial Considerations

The annual forecast budget has been reviewed in light of reduced interest rates and a reduction of $100K is proposed in the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Certification - Responsible Accounting Officer

Summary

As at 31 December 2020:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $199,976,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to December 2020 was $1,815,000 against an annual budget of $1,795,000, giving a YTD favourable variance of $20,000.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for December 2020 be received and noted.

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.5 / 79

Item GB.5	FY00623/3
	29 January 2021

Investment Report as at 31 January 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for January 2021.

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

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to January 2021 was $2,086,000, against an annual budget of $2,099,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $13,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for January 2021 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

Purpose of Report

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for January 2021.

Background

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

Comments

Investment Portfolio Performance Snapshot

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

Cumulative Investment Returns against Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to 31 January 2021 was $2,086,000 against an annual budget of $2,099,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $13,000 as shown in the table below. The annual forecast budget has been reviewed in light of reduced interest rates and a reduction of $100K is proposed in the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review.

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

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of January 2021 was $195,012,000 compared to $199,976,000 at the end of December 2020, a net cash outflow of $4,964,000 was mainly due to creditor payments.

There were two investments matured and five new investments made during the month of January 2021.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmark

Overall during the month of January the investment performance was above the industry benchmark. The benchmark is specific to the type of investment and the details are provided below. AusBond Bank Bill Index is used for all Council’s investments.

Table 1 - Investments Performance against Industry Benchmarks

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

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

Table 2 - Investments Portfolio Summary during January 2021

* Weighted average returns

*** Market Value of January 2021 were not available when the report was being prepared

Investment by Credit rating and Maturity Profile

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

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance

Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council

Governance Matters

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

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

(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Management

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

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

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

Financial Considerations

The annual forecast budget has been reviewed in light of reduced interest rates and a reduction of $100K is proposed in the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Certification - Responsible Accounting Officer

Summary

As at 31 January 2021:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $195,012,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to January 2021 was $2,086,000 against an annual budget of $2,099,000, giving a YTD unfavourable variance of $13,000.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for January 2021 be received and noted.

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.6 / 85

Item GB.6	FY00623/3
	21 January 2021

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 2nd Quarter 2020 to 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

comments:	For the six months ended 31 December 2020, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to the Land and Environment Court were $858,660. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

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

Purpose of Report

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

Background

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

Comments

Appeals Lodged

In quarter ended 31 December 2020 there were 2 new appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court. The number of appeals received in prior years is as follows:

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2016/2017	41
2017/2018	45
2018/2019	44
2019/2020	25
2020/2021 (as at 31 December 2020)	8

The appeals commenced during the quarter to 31 December 2020 concerned the following subject matters:

· Additions and alterations to existing dwelling and new swimming pool

· Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two lots and construction of new dwelling on one of the proposed lots

costs

For the quarters ended 31 December 2020, Council made payments of $858,660 on appeals and associated expenses in relation to Land & Environment Court matters. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

In addition to expenditure on appeals, a further amount of $4,625 was spent in obtaining expert advice regarding development assessment matters.

Land & Environment Court Costs 2016/2017 - 2020/2021
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2016/2017* (41 appeals lodged)	$1,054,747	$202,574	$196,949	$285,681	$369,543
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2017/2018* (45 appeals lodged)	$1,267,706	$221,520	$461,976	$201,332	$382,878
2018/2019* (41 appeals lodged)	$1,648,229	$372,972	$491,788	$336,336	$447,133
2019/2020* (25 appeals lodged)	$1,892,040	$417,046	$446,071	$543,218	$485,705
2020/2021 (8 appeals lodged)	$858,660	$356,735	501,925

* Costs reported to Council in previous reports

The costs incurred in the period to 31 December 2020 represent 65% of the annual budget of $1,315,300.

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

· Amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act made in 2013 reduced the timeframe for lodgement of an appeal from twelve months to six months. This had the effect of applicants for more substantial and complex development proposals lodging appeals for no other reason than as a mechanism to preserve early appeal rights. The number of development applications received by Council in recent periods has itself been high. However, the recent amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which took effect in August 2020, reinstated the appeal timeframe to 12 months.

· In addition, the prospect of changing economic market conditions in recent periods appears to have led to urgency on the part of developers, with a particularly high number and proportion of appeals commenced at an early stage on the basis of deemed refusal. As a result, Court listings are currently heavily booked and long delays for several months for the holding of both mediation conferences and hearings are occurring. Most recently, this situation has been exacerbated as a result of disruption caused by measures associated with COVID-19.

· Due to the abovementioned delays in the listing of Court-convened mediation conferences, the Court has required parties to participate in without-prejudice meetings in the meantime. These meetings have tended to result in additional iterations of amended plans being provided by applicants during the appeal process and therefore, additional costs.

Current delays in the Court have resulted in limited progress of many of the current appeals. Notwithstanding these factors, Council’s overall success rate in appeals has been high.

In relation to costs recovered, the amount of $106,500 had been recovered as at the end of the quarter to 31 December 2020 compared to an annual budget for costs recovered of $104,100.

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Two matters were dismissed by the Court;

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

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial

resources and assets to maximise delivery of

services.

Achieve financial sustainability targets

identified in the Long Term Financial

Plan.

Undertake quarterly reporting to Council on the financial performance of the

organisation.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

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

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Environmental Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

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

Summary

For the quarters ended 31 December 2020, Council made payments of $858,660 on Land & Environment Court appeals. This compares with the annual budget of $1,315,300.

Recommendation:

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

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Jamie Taylor

Corporate Lawyer

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Individual Case Summary December 2020 - Land and Environment Court Costs

2021/021219

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.7 / 106

Item GB.7	S09112/9
	18 January 2021

2020 - 2021 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of report:	To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2020/21 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020.

background:	Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current (2020/21) financial year.

comments:	Budget adjustments have been identified to offset the COVID-19 impact reported in the September budget review. Budget adjustments proposed in this review will increase the forecast operating surplus (excluding capital items) by $618k compared to revised budget. This is primarily due to savings identified to fund the financial impact of COVID-19 Pandemic, which is partly offset by other adjustments in income and expense as detailed in the report. The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2021 is projected to increase to $5.3m, slightly higher than the Long Term Financial Plan target of $5.2m.

recommendation:	That the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

Purpose of Report

Background

In accordance with Part 9, Division 3, Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (“The Regulation”):

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

The Office of Local Government has developed a set of minimum requirements that assists councils in meeting their obligations as set out in legislation.

At the Council meeting held on 30 June 2020, Council adopted the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 & Operational Plan 2020-2021, which incorporated the Annual Budget for 2020-2021.

Comments

This review analyses Council’s financial performance for the second quarter of 2020/21 and forecasts an end of financial year position by recommending budget adjustments to operating and capital budget.

Budget adjustments proposed in this review will increase the forecast operating surplus (excluding capital items) by $618k compared to revised budget. This is primarily due to savings identified to fund the financial impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which is partly offset by other adjustments in income and expense as detailed in the report.

Financial impact and proposed funding of COVID-19 Pandemic

A large variation proposed for this review includes budget adjustments to compensate funding shortfall associated with COVID-19 Pandemic.

For estimating the financial impacts, it has been assumed that the COVID-19 Pandemic will continue to affect Council and the community during this financial year therefore this report reflects the impact and proposed funding for the current financial year only and projects a forecast result to June 2021.

As the situation develops, the impacts are likely to vary from the estimates provided and further impacts will be assessed and reported to Council as part of the March review.

Funding of COVID -19 Pandemic

The estimated net financial impact (loss of revenue less reduced cost associated with the pandemic) for the current financial year has been estimated at $1.7m as reported in September QBR. Council staff considered various options to fund the financial impacts of the pandemic in the short term, and recommended a combination of funding sources leaving a funding shortfall of $969k. Following the September Quarterly Budget Review further savings of approximately $996k have been identified and are itemised below:

It must be noted that due to the changing environment, the financial impacts are uncertain and close monitoring is required for the next few months to assess if funding sources identified are sufficient. It may be still necessary to spend reserves and working funds in the short term, which will need to be replenished in the future years to ensure Council has adequate liquidity and funds in reserve against possible unforeseen events.

Further to COVID-19 related budget adjustments, other adjustments are also recommended in this review and are discussed further in the report.

As mentioned above, the forecast operating surplus (excluding capital items) to June 2021 will increase by $618k compared to revised budget. This is primarily due to savings identified to fund the financial impact of COVID-19 Pandemic, which is partly offset by other adjustments in income and expense as detailed in the report.

The change to the operating income ($181k) is largely due to an increase in operating grants and user fees mainly:

· Net Increase in user fees due to changes such as:

o Tennis income ($100k) – increase due to higher demand for Tennis Courts bookings used to fund COVID-19 related funding shortfall;

o DA Compliance Levy - Decrease to DA compliance levy as a result of downward trend in development activities ($100k). This is partly offset by increased building unit fees, area rangers permits and other applications ($64k).

· Net Increase in other revenue ($56k) due to changes such as:

o Area Rangers Fines - increased area rangers fines ($186k);

o DA legal costs recovered – increased cost recovery ($50k) ;

o Load limit fines – increased fines ($32k);

o Parking fines – decreased fines ($163k) resulting from reduced traffic activities;

o Fire safety fines – decreased fines ($80k).

· Decrease in interest & investment revenue ($100k) due to lower interest rates on investments.

· Increase in Operating Grants &Contributions due to more than budgeted library per capita grant ($93k) and Greening our City Grant ($46k) for St Johns Avenue Precinct (Local Government NSW).

The change to the operating expenditure ($437k) is mainly due to savings identified to fund COVID-19 related shortfall ($465k) as detailed below:

· Decrease in employee costs ($40k) due to reduced face to face training activity during COVID-19 pandemic;

· Decrease in materials and contracts ($40k) from savings on fuel; increase in legal costs ($237k) mostly offset by savings on DA contractors ($93k) and building unit agency salaries ($45k);

· Decrease in other expenses due to savings from street lighting ($100k) and savings in traffic infringement commission ($60k);

· Decreased operating project expenditure mainly due to savings from IT ($100k), IP&R (Integrated Planning & Reporting) ($50k), employment lands study ($50k) and land disposal operational expenses ($75k) partly offset by ($70k) brought forward for Public Domain Plan Review.

Capital Budget

Major adjustments to the capital budget are due to:

· Projects deferred to future financial years ($8.2m) mainly

o St Johns Avenue Construction ($3.6m);

o Council Chambers Upgrade ($3m) /part budget deferral;

o Lindfield Village Green Streetscape ($1.65m);

· Capital grants and contributions received, mainly from Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications for Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program ($1.9m) and Streets as shared Spaces grant ($327k);

· Savings in other projects identified to fund shortfall due to COVID-19 Pandemic ($431k).

Other budget adjustments to capital projects are detailed further in the report and listed in Attachment A2.

The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2021 is projected to increase to $5.3m, slightly above the Long Term Financial Plan target of $5.2m.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS)

The Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) as prescribed by the OLG guidelines are composed of the following budget review reports:

· Income and Expenses Budget Review Statement (Table 1)

· Capital Budget (Expenditure and Funding) Budget Review Statement (Table 2)

· Proposed Operating Budget Adjustments by Resource Group (Table 3)

· Proposed Capital Budget Adjustments by Resource Group (Table 4)

· Income and Expenses Statement by Theme (Table 5)

· Cash and Investments position (Table 6)

· Contracts and Consultancy Expenses (Table 7)

· Capital and Operational Projects Summary (Table 8)

· Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer

These statements are shown below.

Proposed Budget Adjustments

The table below lists the proposed budget adjustments, including comments for the December Quarterly Budget Review.

Attachment A2 summarises all proposed budget adjustments for Projects.

The table below splits the current budget by six themes identified within Council’s Delivery Program 2018 – 2021. These themes are used as a platform for planning our activities to address the community’s stated needs and aspirations.

Cash and Investments position

Restricted funds are invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Total investments portfolio as per the December Investment Report is $199.9m.

A detailed Restricted Assets Report as at December 2020 (Actual) is shown in Attachment A1.

Contracts and Consultancy Expenses

Capital & Operational Projects Summary

Actual expenditure for capital and operational projects for the period ending 31 December 2020 is ($28.7m) against the full year budget of ($122.6m). The December review decreases the forecast project budget by ($7.6m), mainly from projects deferred ($8.2m) and savings identified for COVID-19 funding shortfall ($706k) partly offset by new grants received ($1.9m).

The table and chart below shows the YTD actual project expenditure against 2020/21 full year revised budget and projected forecast.

The proposed budget changes to operational and capital projects represent a decrease of $7.6m. The most significant variations and projects proposed for adjustment are listed below:

Grants and contributions received and recognised:

· Local roads and community infrastructure grant ($1.9m) from Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.

Projects deferred:

· St Johns Avenue - Construction ($3.6m) deferred to 2021-22;

· Council Chambers Upgrade ($3m) deferred to 2021-22;

· Lindfield Village Green Streetscape Upgrade ($1.6m) deferred to 2022-23;

· Construction of new street, Turramurra (15m wide, two way traffic) ($1.3m) deferred to 2022/23;

· Indoor Sports Centre at St Ives High School ($500k) deferred to 2021-22.

All Proposed Budget adjustments for each Project and explanation for the changes are detailed in

Attachment A2 – Summary of Capital and Operational Project Budget Adjustments

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Ku-ring-gai Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2020 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2021 will be satisfactory, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

Due to the changing environment related to COVID-19 Pandemic, financial impacts are uncertain and are likely to vary from the estimates provided and further impacts will be assessed and reported to Council as part of the quarterly budget reviews.

One of Council’s key performance indicators in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is to provide for a minimum available working capital balance of $5.2m. The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2021 projected to increase to $5.3m, slightly higher than the Long Term Financial Plan target.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 6: Leadership 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.

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

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

Governance Matters

Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current financial year.

Risk Management

Income and expenditure is managed through the quarterly budget review process. Although some income and expenditure cannot be directly controlled, it can be monitored and action taken to mitigate potential financial or budgetary risk. Further, Council staff utilise monthly management reporting for managing operational and project income and expenditure, and any budget variations are reported to the Director. The executive team are also provided with monthly financial reports that allow Directors to make informed decisions and plan ahead to ensure budget targets are met.

Financial Considerations

Budget adjustments have been identified to offset the COVID-19 impact reported in the September budget review.

Budget adjustments proposed in this review will increase the forecast operating surplus (excluding capital items) by $618k compared to revised budget. This is primarily due to savings identified to fund the financial impact of COVID-19 Pandemic, which is partly offset by other adjustments in income and expense as detailed in the report.

The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2021 is projected to increase to $5.3m, slightly higher than the Long Term Financial Plan target of $5.2m.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

Not applicable.

Internal Consultation

Finance met with directors and managers as part of the Quarterly Budget Review process to ensure departmental budget targets reflect current forecasts.

Summary

Budget adjustments have been identified to offset the COVID-19 impact reported in the September budget review.

The recommended budget adjustments proposed in this review will increase the forecast operating surplus (excluding capital items) by $618k compared to revised budget. This is primarily due to savings identified to fund the financial impact of COVID-19 Pandemic, which is partly offset by other adjustments in income and expense as detailed in the report.

The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2021 is projected to increase to $5.3m, slightly higher than the Long Term Financial Plan target of $5.2m.

Due to the changing environment related to the COVID-19 Pandemic, financial impacts are uncertain and ongoing close monitoring is required to assess the financial impact and proposed funding sources.

Recommendation:

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

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Kalana Tennakoon

Managing Account Officer/Systems

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accounant

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment A1 - Restricted Assets Report - December 2020		2021/017961
	A2 ⇩	Attachment A2 - Summary of Capital and Operational Projects - December 2020		2021/019688

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.8 / 126

Item GB.8	CY00259/13
	17 December 2020

Business Approved under Authority Delegated to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager for the December - January Recess Period 2020/2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Councillors of any business approved under delegated authority during the 2020/2021 recess period.

background:	At its meeting on 8 December 2020, Council resolved to delegate authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 8 December 2020 to 16 February 2021 to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager.

comments:	One matter will be dealt with under delegate authority during the recess period. This is a submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG) concerning the release of Exposure Draft Bill on Local Government Rating Reform.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the report.

Purpose of Report

To inform Councillors of any business approved under delegated authority during the 2020/2021 recess period.

Background

At its meeting on 8 December 2020 Council resolved as follows:

(Moved: Councillors Spencer/Szatow)

That:

B. The Mayor (Councillor Jennifer Anderson), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Cedric Spencer), and the General Manager (Mr John McKee), be granted authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 8 December 2020 to 16 February 2021, subject to the following conditions:

i. Such powers, authorities and functions may only be exercised by unanimous agreement between the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager; and

C. Consultation, subject to their availability, be held with Ward Councillors on matters where they would normally be contacted, before delegation is exercised.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Comments

The following matter could not be deferred during the recess period and will be required to be dealt with under delegated authority:

- Release of Exposure Draft Bill on Local Government Rating Reform – Submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG)

On 15 January 2021, the Director Corporate advised all Councillors that the OLG had invited Councillors, ratepayers and other interested individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the Exposure Draft Bill by 5 February 2021. Council’s draft submission to the OLG was provided to Councillors for comment by Friday, 29 January 2021.

At the time of printing this report, comments received by Councillors were being incorporated in to Council’s draft submission to the OLG. The updated submission will be submitted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager for approval under delegation by 5 February 2021.

Upon approval under delegated authority or otherwise, Councillors will be notified via memorandum of the decision, along with a copy of the final submission if approved.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes.

Ensure effective and efficient conduct of Council and committee meetings for the benefit of councillors and the community.

Governance Matters

It is Council’s usual practice to grant delegated authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the December-January recess period.

Risk Management

Nil.

Financial Considerations

Nil.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

At its meeting on 8 December 2020, Council resolved to delegate authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 8 December 2020 to 16 February 2021 to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager.

One matter will be dealt with under delegate authority during the recess period. This is a submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG) concerning the release of Exposure Draft Bill on Local Government Rating Reform.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the report.

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.9 / 130

Item GB.9	S02133
	17 December 2020

2021 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Councillors of an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions to the 2021 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

background:	The National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) is held annually and provides an opportunity for councils to identify and discuss national issues of priority for the sector and to agree on possible steps which could be taken to address these issues. The 2021 NGA will be held at the National Convention Centre, Canberra from 20 to 23 June 2021.

comments:	The ALGA is inviting all councils to submit motions for the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA). The theme for the 2021 NGA is ‘Working Together For Our Communities’. Motions must be consistent with this theme. Motions should be submitted to the ALGA by 26 March 2021.

recommendation:	A. Councillors provide any proposed motions for the 2020 National General Assembly of Local Government to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by Friday, 26 February 2021, and that a further report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 16 March 2021 for approval prior to submission to the ALGA. B. Any Councillors interested in attending the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government notify the General Manager by 30 March 2021.

Purpose of Report

To inform Councillors of an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions to the 2021 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

Background

The National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) is held annually and provides an opportunity for councils to identify and discuss national issues of priority for the sector and to agree on possible steps which could be taken to address these issues.

The 2021 NGA will be held at the National Convention Centre, Canberra from 20 to 23 June 2021.

Comments

The ALGA is inviting all councils to submit motions for the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA). The NGA is an important opportunity for council to influence the national policy agenda. The primary focus of all motions should be to strengthen the capacity of local government to provide services and infrastructure in Australia.

The theme for the 2021 NGA is ‘Working Together For Our Communities’. Motions must be consistent with this theme.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, and subsequent debate on the floor of the NGA, motions must meet the following criteria:

· Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;

· Be consistent with the theme of the NGA;

· Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government association;

· Propose a clear action and outcome, and

· Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties which may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board Members, to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of the local government sector.

A Discussion Paper (Attachment A1) has been prepared by the ALGA to assist councillors in preparing motions.

Motions should be submitted online to the ALGA by 26 March 2021. Once submitted, motions will be reviewed by the ALGA Board’s NGA Sub-Committee and by state and territory local government associations to determine eligibility for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers.

Motions that are agreed to at the NGA become ‘Resolutions of the NGA’. These Resolutions are then considered by the ALGA Board when setting national local government policy, when the Board is making representations to the Federal Government at Ministerial Councils, during meetings and in ALGA publications. The ALGA Board is not bound by any Resolution passed at the NGA.

This report recommends that any Councillors wishing to submit a motion provide details of the motion to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by Friday, 26 February 2021. A further report will be provided to Council at its meeting on 16 March 2021 to consider all proposed motions and approve them for submission to the ALGA.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Council leads the community by advocating, influencing and participating in policy development to the benefit of the local area

Council actively engages with stakeholders to inform the development of Council’s strategies and plans as appropriate

Pursue opportunities to contribute to policy development affecting Ku-ring-gai at state and regional levels

Governance Matters

The NGA is part of Council’s Annual Program of Conferences that was developed to enable the attendance by Councillors, subject to approval by the Mayor and General Manager, without the need of a further resolution of Council.

The Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy provides for Council to meet the reasonable costs of Councillors attending conferences.

Risk Management

Nil.

Financial Considerations

Attendance is provided for in the Councillor’s conference budget in accordance with the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy. Council has an annual budget of $22,600 for Councillors’ attendance at conferences with $21,405 remaining in the 2020/2021 financial year.

Early bird registration (up to 7 May 2021) is $989 per person. Standard registration thereafter is $1099 per person. This does not include travel, accommodation and other associated costs.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

The ALGA has written to all councils inviting submissions of motions for the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA).

The theme for the 2021 NGA is ‘Working Together For Our Communities’. Motions must be consistent with this theme.

Motions should be submitted to the ALGA by 26 March 2021. This report recommends that any Councillors wishing to submit a motion provide the relevant details to the Manager Records & Governance by Friday, 26 February 2021. A further report will be provided to Council at its meeting on 16 March 2021 to consider all proposed motions and approve them for submission to the ALGA.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Councillors provide any proposed motions for the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by Friday, 26 February 2021, and that a further report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 16 March 2021 for approval prior to submission to the ALGA.

B. Any Councillors interested in attending the 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government notify the General Manager by 30 March 2021.

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Attachment 1 - 2021 Discussion Paper

2021/019566

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.10 / 146

Item GB.10	FY00621/3

Progress Status Report - December 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To provide Council with the Project Status Report reflecting results for October, November and December 2020

background:	On 22 May 2018, a Notice of Motion was considered by Council regarding the development of a monthly Project Status Report. On 14 May 2019 it was resolved to alter the reporting timeframe from monthly to quarterly

comments:	Council recommendation of 14 May 2019 noted that while projects are reported to Council and the community through a number of other reports, the frequency of quarterly reporting is a more informative, reliable and recurring method to update Council and the community.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for October, November and December 2020.

Purpose of Report

To provide Council with the Project Status Report reflecting results for October, November and December 2020

Background

On 22 May 2018, a Notice of Motion (NOM) was considered by Council regarding the development of a monthly Project Status Report. As a result, Council resolved the following:

A. That a Capital and Operational Projects Report is to be tabled at an ordinary meeting of council each month. The reporting will commence in FY19 with a report for the period of July 2018.

B. That the report should include any progress made in the month as well as a progress summary for the financial year to date. Where there has been no progress in the month, it is acceptable to acknowledge that nothing has progressed. And where a project has yet to commence, it is acceptable to note the expected start date.

C. That council staff may use their discretion in deciding whether any additional columns of information should be presented.

D. That the reported projects should include, but are not limited to, those that are mentioned in Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. For brevity, council staff may choose to aggregate some projects or set a reasonable threshold for reporting purposes.

E. That the current and historical monthly reports should be easily found on the Ku-ring-gai Council website (i.e. not just through searching council agenda items). One possibility is to create a page for the monthly Capital and Operational Projects Reports under “Current works and upgrades”.

F. That after the first six months of the report, the Councillors and Directors should discuss whether the frequency of the report should be adjusted.

On 14 May 2019, Council resolved to extend the reporting timeframe from monthly to a quarterly report:

C. That the reporting timeframe be changed from monthly to quarterly

In accordance with Part A of the NOM of 22 May 2019, the attached report is for the period July, August and September 2020.

Comments

Reporting on projects is currently undertaken through:

· Quarterly Financial Reports;

· Bi-annual reports on the progress of the Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· Annual Report.

On 14 May 2019, a Council decision altered the reporting timeframe for the Project Status Report from a monthly to quarterly.

It was noted that while projects are reported to Council and the community through other statutory reports, the frequency of quarterly reporting is a more informative, reliable and recurring method to update Council and the community.

Council staff has prepared the Project Status Report based on the following criteria:

· Capital projects delivering community/public infrastructure;

· Threshold applied to total budget per project – greater than or equal to $250k;

· No operational projects are included; and

· Any specific project that Councillors wish to be included in the report.

The reporting timeframe, the Project Status Report attached to this report will represents results for October, November and December 2020.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

Business papers and associated minutes are published in an accurate and timely manner for public scrutiny and to encourage community participation.

Governance Matters

The Project Status Report will be submitted to Council the first meeting following the end of each quarter. This will ensure progress during the relevant quarter is captured within the Project Status Report.

Risk Management

The Project Status Report is not generated through Council’s corporate information and financial systems. As such, it is reliant on key staff to provide input and to critique.

The Project Status Report will be reviewed by the relevant Director and General Manager prior to reporting to Council.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial implications associated with this report. The financial status, including allocated budgets of projects, is reported to Council through a range of statutory reporting:

· Delivery Program & Operational Plan , including adopted annual capital budget;

· Quarterly Budget Reports (projects proposed for budget adjustments);

· Bi-annual reports on the progress of the Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· Annual Report & Annual Financial Statements.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

Not applicable.

Internal Consultation

General Manager and Directors, along with staff from Corporate, Civic, Operations and Strategy & Environment have contributed to the structure and content of the Project Status Report

Summary

On 22 May 2018, a Council decision resolved to alter the reporting timeframe for the Project Status Report from monthly to a quarterly.

Projects are reported to Council and the community through a number of other reports quarterly, bi-annually and yearly. However, the quarterly frequency of the Project Status Report is expected to provide a more informative, reliable and recurring method of results.

The Project Status Report for December 2020 has been prepared based on the following criteria with results from October, November and December 2020:

· Capital projects delivering community/public infrastructure;

· Threshold applied to total budget per project – greater than or equal to $250k;

· No operational projects are included; and

· Any specific project that Councillors wish to be included in the report

Recommendation:

A. That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for December 2020.

B. That the Project Status Report be placed on Council’s website.

George Bounassif

Director Operations

Attachments:

A1⇩

Project Status Report - Oct 2020 - Excel Report

2021/024547

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.11 / 155

Item GB.11	S12030

Site specific DCP - Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan (DCP) to include site specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

background:	On 9 April 2019 Council resolved to submit a Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville to the Department of Planning for a Gateway Determination, which would enable its public exhibition. As part of the Resolution of 9 April 2019, Council also resolved that should a Gateway Determination be issued for the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, site specific amendments to the DCP should be prepared and placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal. A Gateway Determination was issued by DPIE on 1 June 2020.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the maximum height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards applying to the site. Site specific amendments to the Local Centres DCP have been prepared to guide future development outcomes on the site.

recommendation:	That Council endorse the draft site-specific DCP amendments for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville for the purpose of public exhibition. That the draft site-specific DCP amendments be placed on public exhibition alongside the Planning Proposal.

Purpose of Report

Background

The Planning Proposal (PP_2019_KURIN_004_00) for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville seeks to the following amendments to the KLEP Local Centres 2012:

· increase the maximum height of buildings (from part 20.5m and part 14.5m to 26.5m) and floorspace ratio (from part 2:1 and part 2.8:1to 3:1) to enable a 7 storey building on the site.

· Rezone a small part (garden bed – approx. 9sqm) from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre

· Amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to allow a residential flat building on the site to be located wholly above a ground floor registered club.

At the OMC 9 April 2019 Council resolved to submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination which would enable its public exhibition (part B). Additionally Council resolved that, should a Gateway Determination be issued, then site specific amendments to the DCP should be prepared and publically exhibited with the Planning Proposal (part E):

A. That the Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations in this Council Report and Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

B. That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

C. That delegation be given to the General Manager and Director of Strategy and Environment to verify all amendments are in accordance with the recommendations of this Council Report and Table of Amendments at Attachment A1prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment.

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

E. That should a Gateway Determination be issued for public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, site specific amendments to Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan be prepared in accordance with Council’s fees and charges, the details in this Council Report and the Table of Amendments at Attachment A1 and be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

F. That a Report be brought back to Council, as per any Gateway requirements, following the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site specific draft Development Control Plan.

G. That the applicant be notified of Council’s Resolution.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued a Gateway Determination on 1 June 2020.

The site is currently subject to a number of planning actions, with a Development Application and Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) concurrently proceeding alongside the Planning Proposal and site specific DCP. This Planning Proposal and supporting draft site specific DCP is an independent process and assessment to the current development application and VPA.

Comments

It is proposed to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan (DCP), Part 14 Urban Precincts and Sites to include site specific controls for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

The draft site specific controls have been prepared by Council staff, and have had regard to the Urban Design Study submitted with the Planning Proposal, which provides an indication of the possible type, scale, footprint and built outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal. The draft Site Specific DCP is included at Attachment A1.

The draft site specific controls have been prepared to guide future development on the site, by setting out the key elements which need to be considered and addressed in order to ensure new development fits sensitively within the streetscape and enhances the interface with the public domain.

A brief overview of the key considerations contained within the draft DCP are outlined below:

Urban Precinct

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

· Protection and retention of existing trees in Roseville Memorial Park

· Provision of a landmark building of high quality form and design, which is responsive to the specific context of the site, its features and the wider context of the Roseville Local Centre.

· Commercial uses on the ground floor to create an active and vibrant interface along the Pacific Highway, Roseville Memorial Park and Larkin Lane.

· Ensuring new development is respectful to the surrounding context with articulated height, street wall, setbacks and massing to provide appropriate interface with the Roseville Memorial Park, public domain and the adjoining properties.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Access

This section of the DCP outlines where vehicle entry/exit points are to be located, and where pedestrian access to the site is to be provided. A key requirement is that primary entry to the ground floor commercial uses must be provided on the corner of the Pacific Highway and Roseville Memorial Park.

The draft site specific DCP incorporates a car parking rate for ‘registered club’ use. Currently the car parking rates for a ‘registered club’ is assessed on its merits, with a traffic and transport assessment report prepared based on the parking demands of a similar development. The draft DCP proposes a control requiring on-site parking to be provided for a ‘registered club’ use of 1 space per 20sqm Gross Floor Area for patrons, plus 1 space per 2 employees. The proposed car parking rate has been determined by analysing the parking rates for registered clubs in other similar LGA’s.

The draft DCP also includes a control requiring parking areas to be designed and constructed so that electric vehicle charging points can be installed.

Building setbacks

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

· Ensuring that building and basement setbacks are sufficient to allow for the retention of the existing trees in Roseville Memorial Park

· The creation of a cohesive streetscape with consistent building alignments and setbacks

The draft DCP outlines that a 6m setback is to be provided from Larkin Lane, this is consistent with the existing DCP requirements for the adjoining properties to the north of the site and will ensure that a consistent rear setback is achieved. Basement levels are permitted to extend to the Larkin Lane boundary, subject to the provision of at least 3m soil depth to allow for the establishment of street trees along Larkin Lane.

Built Form

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

· Provision of active street frontages to primary frontages of the Pacific Highway and Roseville Memorial Park, and secondary active frontage of Larkin Lane. Floor to ceiling glazing is to be provided at the ground level to encourage visual connection between the public domain and building.

· Provision of a landmark building of high quality form and design, which is responsive to the specific context of the site and its features. A key requirement is that the building should turn the corner and address both street frontages, and incorporate corner articulations.

· Provision of a 3 storey street wall to the Pacific Highway providing a consistent and cohesive urban form and streetscape by matching the street wall requirement for adjoining properties to the north. This will provide a consistent urban form and human scale along the Pacific Highway.

· Primary entry to the ground floor commercial uses must be provided on the corner of the Pacific Highway and Roseville Memorial Park.

Heritage

This section of the DCP includes objectives and controls to ensure new development does not adversely impact on the significance of the heritage item located at 1 Maclaurin Parade, Roseville, and includes consideration of:

· Requirement for a Heritage Impact Assessment demonstrating proposed works will not adversely impact on significant, including curtilage and setting.

· Ensuring the scale of new development does not visually dominate, detract or compete with the heritage item

· Ensuring new development does not reduce or impair important views to and from the Heritage Item.

Public Domain

This section of the DCP outlines public domain works surrounding the site, including Larkin Lane. As with all Public Domain works identified in the DCP, it is to be delivered through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) or other delivery mechanism.

The objective of the public domain works is to provide a high quality streetscape that engages and activates the Local Centre, and contributes to its economic viability. Key elements include:

· Provision of minimum 2m wide pedestrian path within the 6m setback from Larkin Lane, to improve and enhance with pedestrian connection to Roseville Memorial Park and the rest of the Roseville Local Centre. The remainder of the setback area is to be soft landscaping, and tree planning to provide continuity and visual extension to Roseville Memorial Park.

· Paving to Pacific Highway to be in accordance with Public Domain Technical Manual for Local Centres

· Any external works, such as signage, must respect the location and heritage significance of memorials within the Roseville Memorial Park.

· Light spill from the building into the park is to be minimised.

· Balustrades surrounding the outside of any ground floor terraces interfacing with the Roseville Memorial Park are to be transparent for visual continuity with the park.

· Minimise overshadowing of the park.

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 is governed by the provisions contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

This report relates to a draft site specific DCP that has been prepared to support the amendments sought by the Planning Proposal which includes:

· increase the maximum height of buildings (from part 20.5m and part 14.5m to 26.5m) and floorspace ratio (from part 2:1 and part 2.8:1to 3:1) to enable a 7 storey building on the site.

· Rezone a small part (garden bed – approx. 9sqm) from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre

· Amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to allow a residential flat building on the site to be located wholly above a ground floor registered club

The site specific DCP controls are required to be consistent with proposed LEP provisions contained in the planning proposal. Under Section 4.43(5)(b) of the EP&A Act, a provision of a development control plan has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent or incompatible with a provision of the LEP applying to the land.

Risk Management

The preparation and inclusion of site specific development control provisions for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville will provide greater assurance for future development outcomes on the site.

Financial Considerations

The cost to prepare the site specific DCP provisions have been paid by the Planning Proposal applicant in accordance with Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges 2020/2021.

Social Considerations

The site specific DCP amendment includes objectives to promote and provide for civic improvements including public domain and pedestrian linkages to Roseville Memorial Park and the wider Roseville local centre.

Environmental Considerations

The draft site specific DCP amendments include requirements to ensure the retention and protection of existing trees in the adjoining Roseville Memorial Park.

Community Consultation

The community will be formally consulted in accordance with the requirement of the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 2 June 2020, and the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

In accordance with the Council resolution of 9 April 2019, the draft site specific DCP amendments will be placed on public exhibition alongside the Planning Proposal for a minimum of 28 days.

Internal Consultation

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

Summary

On the 9 April 2019 Council resolved to submit a Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination. As part of the resolution of 9 April 2020, Council also resolved that that should a Gateway Determination be issued, site specific amendments to the DCP should be prepared and placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal. A Gateway Determination was issued on 1 June 2020.

Draft site specific controls and objectives have been prepared by Council in order to guide future development outcomes on the site achieved in conjunction with the increased height and floor space ratio proposed by the Planning Proposal.

The draft site specific DCP amendments for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville is to be publically exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

Recommendation:

A. That Council endorses, for the purpose of public exhibition, the amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan (DCP) to include site specific controls to support the Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

B. That the draft site specific DCP amendment be placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal for part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

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

Alexandra Plumb

Acting Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇩

Draft Site Specific DCP - Part 62 and 64-66 Pacific Highway, Roseville

2021/016016

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.13 / 182

Item GB.13	S13065

Proposed Heritage Listing of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To present the proposed heritage listing of Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga and its interiors, on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP 2015’) following the advice of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (‘KLPP’).

background:	On 22 September 2020 Council resolved to make an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) for 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga using delegated authority and requested that a Councillor site inspection be undertaken as soon as practicable. The IHO was gazetted on 25 September 2020 and a Councillor site inspection undertaken on 13 October 2020. On 17 November 2020, following the preparation of a detailed heritage assessment, Council resolved to refer to this matter to the KLPP for advice. On 14 December 2020, the KLPP recommended that the Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (‘DPIE’) for a Gateway Determination, subject to Council considering the proposed curtilage and listing wording.

comments:	The heritage assessment for the property undertaken by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd. concludes that the property meets the threshold for local heritage listing on the grounds of historic, associative, aesthetic, social, research, rarity, and representative values. Moreover, it concludes that the property demonstrates significance through its connection with the Laverty family and their strong links to the NSW Art movement, as well as its association with renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher, as an intact example of his work.

recommendation:	That the Planning Proposal for the listing of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga proceed to Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

Background

This report provides the relevant background to the draft planning proposal for the listing of Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 (Attachment A1).

On 3 September 2020 the property known as 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga was brought to the attention of Council officers by a group of architects. The group communicated their concern for the property’s vulnerability as an intact example of renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher’s work, which is located on a large allotment that was (and still is) being advertised for sale. The property is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area (‘HCA’) nor is it within the immediate vicinity of any local or state heritage items.

On 8 September 2020, the potential vulnerability of the property was discussed with the Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’), who agreed that an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) should be applied in this instance. A preliminary heritage assessment was then completed by Council officers on 9 September 2020 (Attachment A2).

Council has delegated authority under s.25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (‘Heritage Act’) to make an IHO on the property. The purpose of an IHO being to provide Council with time to undertake an independent heritage assessment of the property to establish if it warrants formal heritage listing.

On 22 September 2020, the matter was raised at the OMC and Council resolved:

“Council resolve to place an Interim Heritage Order under section 25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 on Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road Wahroonga, Lot B, DP414327, to enable a full and proper evaluation of the heritage significance and prevent any harm to the site in the interim. Once the Interim Heritage Order is in place, that a site inspection for Councillors be arranged as soon as practicable.” (Attachment A5).

On 25 September 2020 the IHO came into effect. The wording of the IHO is as follows:

“This Interim Heritage Order will lapse six months from the date that it is made unless the local Council has passed a resolution before that date; and

(i) in the case of an item which, in the council’s opinion, is of local significance, the resolution seeks to place the item on the heritage schedule of a local environmental plan with appropriate provisions for protecting and managing the item; or

(ii) In the case of an item which, in the Council’s opinion, is of State heritage significance, the resolution requests the Heritage Council to make a recommendation to the Minister for Heritage under section 32(2) of the Heritage Act to include the item on the State Heritage Register.” (Attachment A3).

Under the above conditions of the IHO, the order will lapse on 25 March 2021 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. A flowchart of the IHO process can be viewed at Attachment A9.

On 13 October 2020, a Councillor site inspection was undertaken with Council staff and Council’s commissioned heritage consultant, Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd. On 22 October 2020, a draft heritage assessment was provided to Council staff for initial review and a final heritage assessment was provided on 29 November 2020.

On 9 November 2020, Council received a letter from the owner’s representative in support of the heritage assessment and listing of Laverty House, however, requesting that Council expedite the process as much as possible for significant financial and family reasons (Attachment A10).

On 17 November 2020, Council resolved to refer to this matter to the KLPP for advice.

On 14 December 2020, the KLPP recommended that a Planning Proposal to list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (‘DPIE’) for a Gateway Determination, subject to the Council considering the proposed curtilage. The wording of this decision can be found at Attachment A8.

Comments

Following the gazettal of the IHO, the property owner’s representative made contact with Council officers to arrange a meeting to discuss the process. This meeting was held at Council Chambers in person on Thursday, 8 October 2020. The owner’s representative was generally supportive of heritage listing the property however, expressed reservations about the IHO process and any likely impacts that this would have (or continue to have) on the property’s sale campaign. During the meeting, the style and approach to the heritage assessment was discussed, with the possible inclusion of a heritage curtilage review, reference to the advantages of Clause 5.10.10 Heritage Incentive of the KLEP 2015 and any potential for development in this regard.

The property owner’s representative requested that the processes be expedited as much as possible to limit impacts on their current sale campaign. However, it was discussed that the report would not commence until after the site inspection, which was scheduled for 13 October 2020 of the following week, and therefore unlikely to make the agenda for the November OMC.

An inspection of the property including the internals of the house was undertaken on 13 October 2020 with Councillors, Council’s commissioned heritage consultant and Council staff. The property owner’s representative and their Real Estate Agent were present and assisted during the inspection. After the inspection, Council’s commissioned heritage consultant, Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd, was requested to commence their extended heritage assessment and complete as soon as they were able.

The NSW Heritage Assessment Criteria

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 seven (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.

207 Eastern Road Wahroonga– Heritage Assessment

The full heritage assessment was completed for Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd. Dr Scott Robertson of this firm is a registered architect, who specialises in Post-war and Modern architecture. The final draft heritage assessment was provided to Council officers on 29 October 2020 (Attachment A4). The assessment found that the property is of at least local heritage significance and should be included as a heritage item on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015.

The heritage assessment considers that the property meets the threshold for local heritage listing on the grounds of historic, associative, aesthetic, social, research, rarity and representative values. The assessment concludes that the property demonstrates significance through its connection with the Laverty family and their strong links to the NSW Art movement, as well as its association with renowned Australian architect Sydney Ancher, as an intact example of the his work.

The comprehensive Statement of Significance prepared by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty Ltd for 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, expounds this importance. It reads:

“The substantially intact Laverty House is a rare example of an artist’s residence still with its functioning and identifiable artist studio. The way of life of the Laverty Family is still clearly evident in the extant planning and fabric of the house and studio. The design of the house and studio is of exceptional interest when planned expansion of the house is understood in order to cater for young couples of modest financial means in the post-war years, of post-war frugality, and of their increasing wealth and family size through later additions and enlargement of the small house nucleus.

The Laverty House is of local historical significance in demonstrating the post-World War 2 process of suburban infill development in earlier subdivisions. The Laverty House is of local aesthetic significance as its design exhibits the hallmarks of the Modernism with its clean lines, simple form, and walls of glass. The Laverty House is one of a series of houses within the Ku-ring-gai municipality that demonstrate the emergence of modern architecture in New South Wales, of which the architect Sydney Ancher was a leading proponent.

The Laverty House is of local associative significance because of its strong association with renowned architect, Sydney Ancher and his firm, Ancher, Mortlock & Murray and also because of its association with two prominent Australian artists, Ursula and Peter Laverty, who was Head of the National Art School and later Director of the Art Gallery of NSW. In this regard the house is of historical significance as the site of a meeting that inaugurated the concept of the international art biennale for Sydney. The Laverty House has the potential to yield information about cultural history in NSW, through its association with the artistic world, which is strongly reflected through the extant building fabric, arrangement and composition of elements on the site, including a purpose-built artist studio.

The surviving architectural drawings and the completed Laverty House demonstrate the palette of materials and construction methods employed by the architectural firm of Ancher, Mortlock and Murray that are recognised as forming a regional expression of modern architecture. The Laverty House demonstrates the key characteristics of the domestic work of the firm of Ancher, Mortlock and Murray in the 1940s, 1950s & early 1960s and demonstrates the firm’s use of similar details in houses for young couples of modest means in the economically constrained period after World War II.”

In conjunction with the proposed listing of Laverty House, the assessment identifies a suggested heritage curtilage, refers to the advantages of Clause 5.10.10 Heritage Incentive of the KLEP 2015 and identifies the development potential for the rest of the site from a heritage perspective, including the possible subdivision arrangement, all of which would be subject to a full planning approval.

On 17 November 2020, Council resolved to refer this matter to the KLPP for advice.

Council staff have considered the recommendations of the KLPP and have agreed to identify the heritage item as Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road Wahroonga and interiors (Lot B, DP414327). At this stage, the listing would apply to the whole allotment, which is consistent with the listing of other properties on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. The draft State Heritage Inventory (‘SHI’) form is appended to the Planning Proposal at Attachment A7.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets.

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

Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.

Governance Matters

This report addresses 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 25 September 2020. Council advised the property owner on 25 September 2020 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 property owner’s representative on 13 September 2020. The property owner’s representative 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 a unanimous decision to support the listing.

Summary

An assessment of heritage significance supports the findings that Laverty House - 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga is worthy of inclusion on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. The purpose of this report is to obtain advice from the KLPP in relation to Council’s commencement of a Planning Proposal in relation to this listing.

Recommendation:

A. That Council adopts the planning proposal to amend KLEP 2015 to include the allotment described as Lot B, DP414327 containing Laverty House - 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga as a proposed heritage item in Schedule 5 and on the Heritage Map.

B. The Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations.

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

D. A report be brought back to Council after the exhibition period.

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Planning Proposal to heritage list 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga	2021/016902
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX A - Preliminary Heritage Assessment of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga - September 2020	2020/285398
	A3 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX B - NSW Gazette - Interim Heritage Order IHO - 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga (Laverty House), 25 September 2020.	2020/319169
	A4 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX C - Independent Heritage Assessment of 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga (Laverty House) - Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty. Ltd. October 2020.	2020/321901
	A5 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX D - Council Resolution OMC 22 September 2020.	2020/319606
	A6 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX E - Council Report and Resolution OMC 17 November 2020	2020/344564
	A7 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX F - Laverty House, 207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga - Draft State Heritage Inventory ('SHI') form.	2021/016365
	A8 ⇩	Planning Proposal APPENDIX G - Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advice 14 December 2020.	2020/373170
	A9 ⇩	Heritage NSW Interim-heritage-orders-process-flowchart	2020/229568
	A10 ⇩	207 Eastern Road, Wahroonga - Letter from Piers Laverty to Council 9 Nov 2020	2020/333693

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 February 2021	GB.14 / 316

Item GB.14	S12712-3

St Ives Indoor Sports Centre - Heads of Agreement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To update Council on the draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) with the Department of Education for the proposed joint use indoor sports centre at St Ives High School.

background:	At the OMC on 22 September 2020, Council resolved: A. Council not endorse the draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) at this point in time. B. Council progresses the design through to lodgement of a Development Application and that further negotiation to attain a more equitable standing for Council in the HoA is pursued closer to receipt of development consent.

comments:	This report seeks to update Council on the status of the HoA and general progress of the project.

recommendation:	If Council accepts the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project and draft Heads of Agreement, it resolves to endorse the HoA, increase the project budget to $19.6m, increase loan borrowing to $13.5m and approves the ‘concept design’ attached to this report as the basis for finalising documentation for the DA.

Purpose of Report

To update Council on the draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) with the Department of Education for the proposed joint use indoor sports centre at St Ives High School.

Background

Department of Education (DoE) received development consent for a two court basketball facility on the grounds of the St Ives High School (Stage 1) and awarded the contract for construction of the project in 2019.

DoE began construction of the project in February 2020. At the time of this report, construction is still underway, that is, Stage 1 of the facility is not yet open.

Summary of progress since the last Council report (22 September 2020)

At the OMC on 22 September 2020 Council resolved:

A. Council not endorse the draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) at this point in time.

B. Council progresses the design through to lodgement of a Development Application and that further negotiation to attain a more equitable standing for Council in the HoA is pursued closer to receipt of development consent.

In relation to Part A of Council’s resolution, members of Council’s Major Project Steering Committee (MPSC) have been in negotiation with their counterparts at the Department of Education (DoE) since the last OMC report. The HoA as attached to this report (Confidential Attachment A1) is now in its final edit. That is to say, it is now considered that there is no room for any additional negotiation on any of the terms within the HoA.

The HoA is a matter for Council’s consideration as part of this report.

In relation to part B of the resolution, Council’s appointed design team have completed Phase 2 ‘Concept Design’ and received comments on a Pre-DA submission. Work is now due to commence on documentation of the DA submission proper.

Comments

In relation to Resolution A, Council staff and DoE representatives have progressed the HoA and it is now included in this report for Council’s final consideration. It is considered that there would be no utility in seeking to further negotiate the HoA with the DoE.

It is recommended that Council reviews the HoA and, consistent with earlier advice from staff, assesses the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project. If Council has the appetite to accept the residual project risks, not all of which have been able to be negotiated out of the draft HoA or transferred to other parties, Council can choose to endorse the HoA so as to progress the project. Without Council endorsement of the draft HoA, the project will by default be significantly delayed if not terminated.

In relation to Resolution B, Council’s appointed design team have completed Phase 2 “Concept Design’ and received comments on a Pre-DA submission. The concept design is to be presented to Councillors for review prior to the OMC at which this report is considered. A briefing has been scheduled for 9 February 2021 in this regard. This will lead to full documentation (Phase 3) of the design to be lodged for development assessment.

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: A community that embraces healthier lifestyle choices and practices.

A range of cultural, recreational and leisure facilities and activities are available to encourage social interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.

Healthy and active lifestyle programs and activities are delivered in collaboration with agencies and partners.

Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

A program is being implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.

Negotiate a Heads of Agreement with the Department of Education for the construction and joint usage of an indoor sports facility at St Ives High School.

P6.1: Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

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 sporting, leisure and recreational facilities through partnerships, grant funding and other external funding opportunities.

Governance Matters

On 4 March 2020 Council received a letter of support from the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) following the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) assurance process. The letter of support included a program of work as advisory notes, being key considerations to implement the LSPS. Item 2 in the advisory notes provides:

Shared use agreements
Planning Priority N3, Action 10 seeks to optimise the use of available public land for social infrastructure.	Work with Department of Education on the potential delivery of a new indoor sports facility for St Ives High School.

Continuing to work with DoE on this project is consistent with Council’s obligations to implement its LSPS.

Risk Management

Previously, legal advice was sought to aid Council throughout negotiation of the HoA. The below list of ‘risks’ as summarised by Council’s legal advisors (Minter Ellison [ME]) remain in the HoA as attached to this report and as recommended for endorsement:

Risk	Comment / analysis
Cost risk in construction of Council Facilities	As between Council and the Department, Council bears responsibility for the cost risk for construction of the Council Facilities (including additional costs due to variations up to the Project budget).
Use of the Facility	The Department retains significant control over Council's use of the Facility and the approval of any sublicensee, which may impact the way that Council operates the Facility and in turn Council's ability to derive revenue from the Facility.
Termination for convenience	The Department may terminate the Licence at the Department's convenience by giving Council 12 months' written notice. Council will be reimbursed a percentage of the cost of construction of the Council Facilities if this termination occurs prior to year 20 of the Licence (in accordance with the table contained in the HoA). There will be no reimbursement if termination occurs during or after year 20.
Revenue Sharing	Council and the Department will equally share any revenue earned by Council (less expenses) on the Facility. The revenue sharing does not incorporate Council's costs for construction of the Council Facilities or capital works.
Cost certainty	Council's proportion of ongoing costs payable to the Department for cleaning, maintenance and repair, capital costs and utilities and services remain to be confirmed.

Find further explanation of the above risks in the full ME report (Confidential Attachment A2). MPAC’s concerns have been partly addressed through revision of the ‘Termination for Convenience’ clause (see the following explanation) but other risks remain.

Members of the MPSC further reviewed the HoA post Council’s decision not to sign in September 2020. It was deemed that the major change required concerned the ‘Termination for convenience’ clause. There are other clauses that are also not ideal but they were considered unlikely to be able to be changed in the context of the HoA. With the exception of the ‘Termination for convenience’ clause, there exists an opportunity to further resolve these outstanding issues as part of the Licence negotiations, though the HoA should be considered as the baseline.

Additional wording to the ‘Termination for convenience’ clause to make resumption of the facility more difficult was proposed by the MPSC. The MPSC included ‘that the building must be demolished if DoE terminate the Licence’. This change was sought so that the facility could not be resumed and simply become a sporting asset for the school but rather must be genuinely needed for additional class rooms with no alternatives on other parts of the school grounds available. The additional wording has been accepted by DoE and is deemed a positive revision to the HoA. However, it should be noted that DoE also changed the requirement for ‘Minister approval’ to ‘the Ministers Delegate’.

The clause now reads;

“The Department may terminate the licence at any time by giving 12 months’ minimum notice to the Council. The Department needs to retain the right to terminate the licence in extenuating circumstances for example when the land is required to establish new classrooms to meet enrolment demand or such other specific educational need requirements. The Department may not terminate the licence unless the Council facilities are demolished. In circumstances where the Department wishes to terminate the licence this will be approved by the Ministers Delegate”.

In negotiating the clause, Council were told that there had been a change in policy and the Minister was no longer to be directly tied to these sort of agreements. Similarly, given the size of the school site, and the relatively static nature of the student base over recent years, the circumstances under which the ‘Termination for convenience’ clause might be invoked are considered to be relatively remote.

Negotiations have concluded. It is considered by both parties that there is no room for further changes.

The following additional risks have also been identified for the project:

· if tender costs for construction come in higher than expected and/or sufficient budget is not allocated for the project, Council may not be able to deliver the project;

· the DoE will be managing the project and hence Council’s ability to control costs will be limited. The HoA provides that Council bears cost risk for construction and variations up to the project budget. However as the HoA does not include a definition of ‘project budget’ there is uncertainty about this issue and will be open to future interpretation and dispute;

· once the project proceeds further and more costs are sunk, it will be difficult to withdraw from the project no matter how much costs increase;

· the DoE require Council to pay for their internal staff costs as well as costs for external project management engaged by DoE. This is estimated at $1.3m however the amount is uncapped and there is a risk it could be more;

· the HoA is not binding and even if Council accepts the terms, there is a risk the terms may change again through commercial negotiations ie if Council and DoE cannot agree to terms and conditions of a Funding Deed & Licence (post agreement of the HoA) the project is unviable for Council;

· risk to Council’s broader financial position if asset sales are not achieved to fund the project as currently reflected in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan and Operational Program and Delivery Plan;

· with Council’s application for the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund being successful for $3.5 million towards the project, there is reputational risk if Council not to proceed with the project; and

· Office of Sport may withdraw the $3.5m funding grant if significant movement toward delivery of the project is not achieved by the end date - May 2022.

Financial Considerations

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, the Council budget adopted on 30 June 2020 included a loan of $11.3 million to be drawn during 2020/21 and 2021/22, to fund Council’s contribution. This loan is assumed to be repaid from proposed asset sales by the end of 2022. If asset sales do not eventuate, the loan will have to be repaid from general revenue and other budget allocations reduced.

A TCorp loan application was approved 1 December 2020 and an application for a LCLI (Low cost loans initiative) to further decrease interest rates is currently still under review.

The DoE have added an additional project cost whereby Council are required by virtue of the draft HoA to pay for DoE staff to work on the project as well as external Project Managers that DoE would procure. The additional cost to Council for these services is estimated at approximately $1.3m. This is based on 3.25% of the total building works to pay for DoE staff plus an estimated $740,000 for the external project managers who are currently working on Stage 1. Accordingly, the budget will need to increase from $17.4m to $18.7m.

Due to Council bearing all project costs including risk of cost overruns (which it cannot necessarily control) up to the project budget (which is undefined), it is recommended that an additional 5% contingency on top of the estimated budget be considered now so that a larger amount is applied for in a loan (see below). This would make the total estimated project budget to be $19.6m. In addition, due to the issues outlined in this report, Council should be prepared for the costs to increase further as the project proceeds.

Previously, the proposed capital budget for the new indoor sport facility at St Ives High School was 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.

Social Considerations

A long term objective of Council’s Community Strategic Plan is to ensure that recreation, sporting, and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

As the age profile of the community changes, different preferences for recreation and leisure are emerging. Through its own programs Council will maintain its emphasis on access to a range of fulfilling recreation and leisure opportunities including multi-use spaces, facilities and infrastructure. This will include the acquisition of land for new parks under the Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy. Council will continue to work closely with sporting organisations and clubs, user groups and residents to upgrade and build sustainable sports grounds, netball, tennis and multi-sport courts, clubhouse facilities and other recreational facilities and amenities to provide for the needs of the population into the future. Many of these works require extended planning and are subject to available funding. Council will also continue to identify opportunities for multi-use recreational facilities, including optimising the community’s use of Council’s existing facilities.

The inclusion of community use of the facilities at St Ives High School will provide increased social and cultural venues for the community and enable better utilisation of facilities.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations will be taken into account in the documentation and design of the various upgrades to the facilities at St Ives High School and through the DA approval process.

Community Consultation

Further consultation is required with sporting bodies and the intended future users. Consultation with the broader community will be undertaken in a combined campaign with the DoE once agreement has been reached.

Statutory notification would be carried out as part of the DA process.

Internal Consultation

This project has been reported through Council’s Major Projects Steering Committee and the Major Projects Advisory Committee on a number of occasions.

Summary

Department of Education (DoE) received development consent (approved DA) for a two court basketball facility on the grounds of the St Ives High School in 2019 and commenced construction in February 2020. Construction is ongoing but due for completion in the first quarter of 2021.

Council staff have engaged architects for documentation of a DA for Stage 2 being an additional 2 x indoor basketball courts plus ancillary rooms and car park (Council’s portion). The design team have completed Phase 2 ‘Concept Design’ and received comments on a Pre-DA submission. With endorsement of the ‘concept design’ (Attachment A3) from Council, work will commence on documentation of the DA submission proper.

It is recommended that Council review the HoA as attached to this report and assess the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project. If Council accept the outstanding risks that have not been able to be negotiated out of the HoA, it is recommended to endorse the HoA so as to be able to progress the project. Without Council endorsement of the draft HoA, the project will by default be delayed if not terminated.

Recommendation:

A. If Council accepts the risks, costs and benefits associated with the project and draft Heads of Agreement:

1. Council resolves to endorse the Heads of Agreement;

2. The budget for the project be increased by $2.2m from $17.4m to $19.6m; and

3. Loan borrowing for the project be increased from $11.3m to $13.5m (to be repaid from asset sales).

B. That Council endorses the Concept Design (as presented and attached to this report) for documentation of a Development Application (DA).

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	St Ives Indoor Sports Centre_Heads of Agreement_20.01.2021	2021/016199
	A2	MinterEllison Comments on Heads of Agreement	Confidential
	A3⇩	St Ives Indoor Sports Centre_Concept Design drawings	2021/016207