Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Tuesday, 27 April 2021

Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 27 April 2021 AT 7:00pm

Level 3, Council Chamber

Agenda

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

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

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers

The Livestream can be viewed here:

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-meeting-live-stream

Disclaimer: All Ku-ring-gai Council Ordinary Meetings of Council are livestreamed for on-demand viewing on the 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

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 12

File: S02131

Meeting held 16 March 2021

Minutes numbered 31 to 53

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 Indigenous Artefacts and Sites in Ku-ring-gai 31

File: S12643/3

I am aware of a number of significant Indigenous artefacts and sites within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area, and would like to ensure that they are respected and appropriately conserved and maintained to ensure our future generations will have the benefit of experiencing the impressive culture of Australia’s First Nation’s people.

Council works closely with the regional Aboriginal Heritage Office, which is aware of Indigenous heritage sites in the LGA, and I understand significant sites are registered with the NSW Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System. Council staff are also in regular contact with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council about Indigenous matters.

A study titled Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council’s Aboriginal Heritage Study, which identified Indigenous sites and artefacts, was undertaken by Margrit Koettig in 1994. This study was conducted well over 20 years ago and should be updated. Given there are increased sensibilities surrounding Indigenous sites, I feel it appropriate that Council initially seek updated advice from a recognised institution about the management of the significant artefacts and sites within the LGA.

I suggest that appropriate Council staff, in the first instance, make contact with the First Nations department within the Australian Museum, to request advice and recommendations about the management of Indigenous sites and artefacts within the Ku-ring-gai LGA. Advice may include, but not be limited to, alternative institutions or organisations to approach, further studies that may be required, Indigenous grant opportunities and awareness of correct cultural protocols surrounding Indigenous sites.

Recommendation:

That Council make contact with the Director First Nations at the Australian Museum,
advising of this Mayoral Minute and requesting advice about how to best progress this matter.

Petitions

GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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

GB.1 Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Draft Operational Plan 2021-2022 32

File: FY00382/13

To obtain endorsement to place Council's draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition and that following public exhibition, a further report to be submitted to Council to consider any submissions and adoption of the revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, including Fees and Charges.

GB.2 Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 - 2031 45

File: S11276

For Council to adopt the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 – 2031 incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 – 2031 incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

GB.3 Ethical Lobbying Policy 54

File: S13114

To present a Draft Ethical Lobbying Policy to Council.

Recommendation:

That the draft Ethical Lobbying Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and should any feedback be received, the matter be reported back to Council after the consultation period.

Should no submissions be received, Council adopt the Policy.

GB.4 Submission to the Office of Local Government - Remote Attendance at Council and Committee Meetings 70

File: S02211

To seek Council’s endorsement of a submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG) on the consultation paper released concerning proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee meetings.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the content of this report as its response to the OLG on its consultation paper on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings, and delegate authority to the General Manager to finalise the submission.

GB.5 Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link 85

File: S02211

To inform Council of interim arrangements that will permit councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link and seek adoption of procedures to govern this access.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link, as attached to this report.

GB.6 Report on NSW ALGWA Conference 2021 100

File: S11703/4

To report to Council on the NSW Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) Conference 2021

Recommendation:

That the report be received and noted.

GB.7 Council’s Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Review of the Rate peg to include population growth 103

File: S06788/7

To advise Council of the IPART’s Issues Paper on the review of the rate peg to include population growth and to seek Council’s endorsement of the draft submission.

Recommendation:

That Council note while it is likely to be financially beneficial to Council if rates are allowed to increase in proportion to population, proposed changes to development contributions would be highly detrimental and significantly outweigh any benefits.

That Council endorse the draft submission to IPART on the Review Of The Rate Peg To Include Population Growth.

That the General Manager be authorised to finalise the content of the submission consistent with the position put forward in this report and attached draft submission.

GB.8 Review of Council's Investment Policy 132

File: FY00623/3

To adopt Council's revised Investment Policy.

Recommendation:

That the attached revised Investment Policy be adopted by Council.

GB.9 Investment Report as at 31 March 2021 152

File: FY00623/3

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

Recommendation:

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

GB.10 Annual Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee for the year ended December 2020 160

File: CY00578/4-1

To provide the annual report of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) from the Chair for the year ended December 2020 that highlights the Committee’s activities and achievements.

Recommendation:

That the annual report of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee received and endorsed at the meeting of 11^th March 2020 be presented to Council.

GB.11 Draft Planning Agreement - Roseville Memorial Club - Part 62 and 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville - Post Exhibition Report 179

File: S12306

To bring to Council’s attention the post exhibition submissions for the draft Planning Agreement (noting the exhibited draft Planning Agreement (PA) has been withdrawn by the applicant, thereby terminating the process).

Recommendation:

The report notes the formal termination of this process by the proponent as a result of being superseded by a new letter of offer.

GB.12 St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands - Draft Plan of Management 194

File: S12710

To have Council endorse the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management before submitting to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment - Crown Lands for approval prior to public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management for formal exhibition once approval from Crown Lands is achieved.

GB.13 Heritage Assessment of Hutter House - 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra 323

File: S10066

To have Council consider not proceeding with the local heritage listing of 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra (‘Hutter House’) and revoking the current Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’).

Recommendation:

That Council note the contents of the consultant report and recommend that the existing IHO is revoked.

GB.14 Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Housekeeping Amendments 2021 432

File: S13079

For Council to consider housekeeping amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated).

Recommendation:

That the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 be placed on public exhibition.

GB.15 Draft Heritage Strategy - Post exhibition consideration of submissions 486

File: S12203

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy.

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy.

GB.16 Heritage Reference Committee Meeting Minutes November 2020 525

File: CY00413/9

To have Council consider the minutes from previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 26 November 2020.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the HRC minutes from 26 November 2020.

GB.17 Proposed Heritage Listing of 33 Young Street, Wahroonga 531

File: S10066

To have Council consider the proposed heritage listing of ‘Wainberg House’, the property known as 33 Young Street, Wahroonga, on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP 2015’).

Recommendation:

That a Planning Proposal be prepared and submitted for the listing of ‘Wainberg House’, the property known as 33 Young Street, Wahroonga.

GB.18 Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group Minutes 601

File: S13163

That Council receive and note the minutes from the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group (‘SRAG’) meeting held on 30 November 2020.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group minutes from 30 November 2020.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 Men's Health Week 607

File: CY00290/13

Notice of Motion from Councillor Greenfield dated 8 April 2021

Men’s Health Week: (14th – 20th June 2021)

Men's Health Week provides a platform for highlighting key issues in men's health and to raise the profile of men, identify strategies to address them and improve outcomes for young men.

A range of activities will acknowledge and celebrate the strengths of men and the connection between the Ku-ring-gai Community.

Proposed events include:

Free Breakfast Event

A number of disability services have identified this an important issue particularly for families with children with additional needs.

For: Dads of children who have a disability

Details: Free breakfast for dads of children who have a disability.

(There will be a guest speaker who is a health lecturer and a father of a child who has a disability.)

Men’s Health Information Day

For: All men (in the past has been attended predominantly by seniors)

Details: This information day will include speakers on various topics relevant for men’s health including heart health, hearing and wellbeing/mental health. Lunch will be included.

Let’s Chalk About Mental Health

This initiative will involve young people who have experiences mental health issues and want to support others in the community.

For: Young people

Details: Writing positive messages in chalk to raise awareness of mental health issues and spread positive messages to anyone who may be struggling.

Expo of activities for men

For: All men

Details: Expo displaying activities for men in conjunction with men’s/community shed at St Ives.

Mental Health Training/session for staff to target men working in council

Collaboration with men’s shed.

I, therefore, move:

That Council support and endorse the Ku-ring-gai Men’s Health Week events.

NM.2 Youth Leadership Program 609

File: S07810

Notice of Motion from Councillor Greenfield dated 8 April 2021

Youth Leadership Program:

To provide an opportunity for young people to obtain an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Local Government internal opportunities and gain direct experience in the day to day operation of Council.

This an opportunity to open the doors to young people and show them all the possibilities there are at Council. This mentorship style project will provide opportunities and pathways for young people in their careers and develop employment-related skills.

Program Objectives:

- Young people learn and develop new skills, knowledge and capacities

- Young people gain insight into future career opportunities

- Strengthen the engagement and relationship between schools and Council

- Council receives feedback from young people with a fresh perspective

- Schools further develop their students, networks and share learnings with each other

- Students can provide recommendations for changes or improvements

Starting with 4 schools and 4 students from each school (16 students in total) Council will provide the opportunity for Year 10 students to participate in a work experience type engagement with Council for 10 weeks consisting of one half day per week, rotating the day so that students don’t miss the same subject every week. Schools recommended commencing the project in Term 3 as this aligns with the school curriculum. The commencement of the project could be held online dependent on COVID-19 requirements.

During the program students will spend time with various Council Departments obtaining an overview / understanding of the roles and functions of each area, community engagement opportunities and common issues impacting residents.

The areas of interest identified by students include:

- Recreational facilities

- Planning

- Customer Service

- Trees and Environment

- Operations

- Community Services

- Libraries

Part of the program will include a mock Council meeting potentially involving students, key Council members and staff including: the Mayor, Councillors and Senior Management. This may be held at the end of the program or at another time suitable to Council and we will invite all participants back for this event.

Students will spend time with each of the Departments understanding their roles and responsibilities including opportunities to attend events at Council i.e. citizenship ceremony, public meetings etc.

At the conclusion of the engagement, students would prepare a presentation on what they learned. It would be an opportunity for students to suggest areas of improvement for Council, gaps in services or something they have experienced / learned that they see could be done better or adjusted.

I, therefore, move that:

A. Council endorse the Youth Leadership Program

B. Council staff and the schools work together and plan the outcomes for the engagement

NM.3 Trucks and buses on Pacific Highway 611

File: S10082

Notice of Motion from Councillor Smith dated 9 April 2021

The $3 billion NorthConnex tunnel has brought many positive experiences to drivers travelling between the M1 and M2, specifically taking 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road through this section of roadway. Trucks and buses over the length of 12.5m or over the height of 2.8m, travelling between the M1 and M2, are required to use NorthConnex unless they have a genuine pickup or delivery destination only accessible via Pennant Hills Road, are carrying a placard Dangerous Goods load or are a restricted access vehicle required to use Pennant Hills Road.

Signage and cameras on the Pennant Hills Road overhead gantries and signage on connecting major roads are in place, and for breaches, fines of $194 with no loss of demerit points apply.

Unfortunately, even multibillion-dollar projects have their planning flaws. Much of the state government strategic objective was focusing on the traffic on Pennant Hills Road. Still, it failed to incorporate traffic repercussions on the Pacific Highway once the project was complete.

Fines have become enforceable in March this year for trucks travelling on Pennant Hills Road, and it has been witnessed by many local residents, businesses and schools that the number of trucks travelling in both north and southbound directions along the Pacific Highway to avoid the toll has significantly increased since the official opening of the Northconnex in October 2020. I have been advised that this trend is continuing well into the night and is now impacting aged care residents, apartment residents, house residents, as well as Knox Grammar and Abottsleigh Boarders. This disruption is obviously further increased by the exhaust breaks slowing the trucks in preparation for the speed camera on the highway.

The residents of Ku-ring-gai have been sacrificed for Hornsby Council residents who have been given a permanent reprieve of the trucks and buses. The inequities are beyond belief, particularly when the objective of the Northconnex was to bury the heavy moving vehicles underground.

I must also highlight the safety impacts on our community, particularly pedestrians but most importantly children, innocently walking to and from school. The increase in these large trucks negotiating a narrow, winding road like the Pacific Highway increases the risk of crashes. It was as recent as the 11th of March, where a truck crash caused wires to land on the road near Kissing Point Road in Turramurra, with a snapped power pole the only saving grace between the truck and a busy cafe. Thankfully, nobody was hurt. With the widening of the Pacific Highway now underway, trucks will no doubt be left with narrower lanes and more vehicles to negotiate, which in time will result in further crashes and inevitably a fatality.

I now bring your attention to the added pollution that this increase in traffic brings into our LGA. Our Council prides itself on leading the community to be carbon-free by 2040 and has made significant inroads to achieving this target. How do we justify turning a blind eye to diesel plumes while trying to set a standard for the community? We have been advised that the NorthConnex ventilation pushes air out of the tunnel at speeds of up to 50 kilometres an hour through a 20-metre-high ventilation outlet. The air will go high up into the atmosphere, rapidly disperse and not concentrate in any one place. That is far better for our children's health than the exhaust pipes of trucks and cars presently passing at chest height directly adjacent to our local schools. Unfortunately, the Pacific Highway does not have this ventilation, and the increase in trucks is causing our local schools and children to choke. The added pollution must be addressed immediately.

I believe now is the time to act and hold the state government to account. The state government must advocate for safety for our local community. Ku-ring-gai residents deserve the same consideration given to the residents of Pennant Hills Road.

I, therefore, move that:

A. The Mayor write to the State Member for Ku-ring-gai, Alister Henskens MP and the Minister for Transport and Roads, The Hon Andrew Constance MP and advocate for the permanent ban of trucks and buses over the length of 12.5m or over the height of 2.8m, travelling along the Pacific Highway between the M1 and Ryde Road unless they have a genuine pickup or delivery destination only accessible via the Pacific Highway or are a restricted access vehicle required to use the Pacific Highway.

B. The State Government install signage and cameras on a gantry similar to the existing infrastructure located on Pennant Hills Road.

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, 16 March 2021

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson)

Councillors J Pettett & C Clarke (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors C Szatow & P Kelly (Gordon Ward)

Councillors S Ngai (Roseville Ward)

Councillors C Kay & M Smith (St Ives Ward)

Councillor C Spencer (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Operations (George Bounassif)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Acting Director Development & Regulation (Shaun Garland)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Michael Wearne)

Governance Support Officer/Minutes Secretary (Rebecca Srbinovska)

The Meeting commenced at 7:02pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

Apologies

File: S02194

The Mayor advised of an apology from Councillor Greenfield due to sickness.

The General Manager advised of an apology from Director Miocic due to being on leave, and the Manager Development and Assessment Services will be acting Director.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Kelly)

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.

The Mayor, Councillor Anderson declared a less than significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest for Item GB.11. Up until 2016, she resided next door to the subject property whilst the former owner held ownership and as such, she will remain in the chair during debate of the item.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:

MM.3 - Jo Harris – 2021 Local Woman of the Year for Ku-ring-gai

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Szatow)

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

GB.6 RFT12-2020 Façade Waterproofing 828 Pacific Highway Gordon

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

Attachment 1: RFT12-2020 List of Tenders received

Attachment 2: RFT12-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

GB.7 RFT13-2020 Stormwater Drainage Works – Oliver Road Roseville

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

Attachment 1: RFT13-2020 List of Tenders received

Attachment 2: RFT13-2020 Tender Evaluation Report

GB.8 RFT14-2020 Recreation Precinct St Ives Village Green

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

Attachment 1: RFT14-2020 List of Tenders received

Attachment 2: RFT14-2020 Recreation Precinct Tender Evaluation Report

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

C.1 Council land Holdings Strategy

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 16 February 2021

Minutes numbered 3 to 30

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Smith)

That Minutes numbered 3 to 30 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

minutes from the Mayor

Vale Dr Barbara Robin Walker

File: CY00455/9

Vide: MM.1

It is my sad duty to inform my Councillor colleagues and the Ku-ring-gai community of the untimely passing of Dr Barbara Walker.

Barbara was born on 6^th March 1952 and became a passionate supporter of the values of Ku-ring-gai. Her death on 27 January 2020 was deeply mourned. I have only recently become aware of Dr Walker’s passing and I think it is important to commemorate her significant contribution to the
Ku-ring-gai community particularly the Roseville area.

Since moving to Ku-ring-gai in 1994 Barbara embraced her garden together with the heritage and ambiance values of Roseville, and other parts of Ku-ring-gai. Joining with other passionate Roseville residents, she helped form The Archbold Estate Roseville Incorporated and worked consistently over many years to achieve the Heritage Conservation Area status. This involved many presentations to Council, contributions to the Council Heritage Committee and consultation on many development proposals and zoning studies. The informative plaque at Firs Cottage, Clanville Park and the Roseville railway station “roll-over boards” in Sous le Soleil (within Firs Cottage) are other examples of the Archbold Estate contributions to the area.

Barbara was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998; a life changing moment. However, she tackled the disease and appropriate treatment with determination and optimism. The untiring efforts of the Mater Hospital team and her oncologist, Professor Fran Boyle, were always greatly appreciated and contributed significantly to her survival of metastatic disease for so long.

She valued her family life and many enjoyable school holidays were spent with her husband, Bruce, and children, Alice and Cameron, travelling to many and varied parts of Australia. Barbara turned some of her leisure time to painting at the Ku-ring-gai Arts Centre, Roseville. Watercolours, pastel and oils were all tried and she left a wonderful gallery of her works which family and friends now treasure as a memory of her talents.

She worked as a GP in Dee Why throughout, retiring from work in 2015 to help look after her father, Bob Ockenden.

The legacy of Barbara’s many interests and achievements will be gratefully remembered by many and Council will certainly miss the important advocacy role she undertook for the Ku-ring-gai community.

It was a privilege to know Barbara, to share her passion, knowledge and dedication for Roseville and to witness her tireless commitment to protecting its values and cherished character. We thank you for your life of service that has enriched our community. Our sincere condolences to Bruce, Alice and Cameron on the sad loss of their wife and mother and to her many friends across
Ku-ring-gai who will miss her dearly.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillor Anderson)

That:

A. The Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. We stand for a minute’s silence to honour Dr Walker.

C. The Mayor write to Dr Walker’s family and encloses a copy of this Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Penny Howell - 2021 Local Woman of the Year for Davidson

File: CY00455/9

Vide: MM.2

This week St Ives resident Penny Howell was announced by our State Member for Davidson, Jonathan O’Dea MP as the 2021 Local Woman of the Year for Davidson.

Penny is a tireless community worker with many strings to her bow working in community radio on Northside Radio 99.3FM and as past President of St Ives Football Club and current Special Projects Officer.

Many community forums have been organised in St Ives by Penny including Meet the Candidates during the last local government elections and most recently a local traffic forum for St Ives. She is an active member of the St Ives Community Facebook page sending out helpful and insightful information to local residents.

Penny is an informed and proactive community member and it is important to recognise the value of community workers as Council does every year in our Australia Day Awards.

As the 2014 recipient of the Davidson Local Woman of the Year, I am proud to be in the same cohort as Penny and other past recipients including Kathy Cowley from FOKE and Namoi Dougall from KYDS. The past year’s challenges of dealing with the pandemic have shown more than ever the importance of the community around us. These women are examples of the generosity and compassion within our neighbourhoods.

Community service is vital to the fabric of our society and encouraging our young people to get involved with volunteering at an early age is important to instil, just as my parents did for me. These recipients have all had a long involvement with volunteer organisations that serve our local community every year and Ku-ring-gai is the better for it.

It is timely with this award as part of International Women’s Day that I continue to encourage women to stand for Council in the upcoming September 4 elections.

The ALGWA NSW is supporting councils to hold forums for prospective women councillors in the coming months and I have asked staff to organise one for Ku-ring-gai Council.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillor Anderson)

That:

A. This Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. The Mayor write a letter of congratulations to Penny Howell on behalf of Council.

AMENDMENT:

(Moved Councillors: Ngai/Spencer)

That:

A. Council acknowledges Penny Howell's contributions to the community at Northside Radio 99.3FM, at St Ives Football Club as the past President and current Special Projects Officer, and as an organiser of various community forums for St Ives.

B. The Mayor write a letter of congratulations to Penny Howell on behalf of Council.

The Amendment was put and declared LOST:

For the Resolution: Councillors Kelly, Ngai, Pettett and Spencer.

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

The Amendment was put and declared LOST.

Debate recommenced on the Motion.

The Motion was put and declared CARRIED.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson)

That:

A. This Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. The Mayor write a letter of congratulations to Penny Howell on behalf of Council.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Kay, Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillors Kelly, Ngai and Spencer.

Jo Harris – 2021 Local Woman of the Year for Ku-ring-gai

File: Cy00455/9

Vide:

I am pleased to advise Councillors that Wahroonga resident, Mrs Jo Harris OAM is being celebrated with a Local Woman of the Year Award for the Ku-ring-gai state government area in recognition of the significant support she has given to the Ku-ring-gai community.

An extremely valued local identity, Jo has lived in Ku-ring-gai all of her life, raised her children here, and has been active in a range of community pursuits.

Jo has been a member of the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society since 1999, and a Vice President of the Society since 2001. For 15 years she was Leader of the Family History Group, and has run many successful group tours around Ku-ring-gai. Jo’s interests and involvement in the community are varied - she was a founder of the Turramurra Stamp Club, and a member of the Ku-ring-gai Arts and Crafts Group, along with a local spinning group.

Jo Harris, was a well-deserved recipient of an OAM in the 2017 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. I have had the pleasure of knowing Jo for many years, and her contribution to preserving the history of Ku-ring-gai is immeasurable. Her tenacious energy in research is well known. When matters of historical significance were not always clear, Jo gave generously of her time to research the answers. Maybe less known is her skill in family history tracing bringing long lost families together.

Jo is particularly interested in the Arthur Phillip Chapter of the Fellowship of First Fleeters, which meets in Gordon, and shares her knowledge with this group. I’ve enjoyed many of those meetings as Patron, especially as my husband and our children are First Fleet descendants. Jo’s encouragement and support of the Arthur Phillip Chapter has been much appreciated. Jo’s very popular “Exploring Ku-ring-gai Tours” showcased her encyclopaedic knowledge of Ku-ring-gai’s history.

In 2018 she organised impressive Centenary commemorations for the 100th Anniversary of the First Direct Wireless Message from the United Kingdom to Australia on 22nd September 1918 from Wales to Wahroonga. A statue celebrates this event and was unveiled by Rt Hon William Hughes CH, KC and Prime Minister of Australia (1915-1923) in December, 1935.

Her very impressive accolades have included:

1987: Turramurra Rotary Community Service award

1994: NSW State Government Award for involvement and support during bushfires

2002: Ku-ring-gai council certificate of merit for a heritage written work

2005: Ku-ring-gai Historical Society “Historian of the year” Award

2005: Member On the Centenary Committee for Ku-ring-gai Council Celebrations

2006: Mayor’s Centenary Award

2008: Ku-ring-gai “Citizen of the Year”

2009: Royal Australian Historical Society Certificate of Merit

2010: St Ives Rotary Community Service Award

2011: North Shore Times 50 years – “50 of the Finest”. Recognition of Service to the Community 1960-2010

2014: Rotary International – Paul Harris Fellowship Medal

2017: Queen’s Birthday Honours: Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM)

2018: Life Membership of Ku-ring-gai Historical Society

Alister Henskens SC MP said when awarding the honour: “Jo has made a tremendous contribution to keeping Ku-ring-gai’s treasured history alive, I congratulate Jo on this well-deserved honour. More recently she has been the storyteller of Ku-ring-gai’s history actively promoting our local area through her involvement in the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society”.

Please join me in congratulating Jo Harris on this significant achievement.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson)

That:

A. This Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B. The Mayor write a letter of congratulations to Jo Harris on behalf of Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

Petition Against the Proposed Hockey Facility Development at Barra Brui Oval

File: S12027

Vide: PT1

We the undersigned oppose Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council’s plans to rip up the grass oval at Barra Brui Reserve and allow the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association to turn the field into a wet-based artificial regional hockey field that denies recreational access to the local community.

We want to keep Barra Brui Reserve as a natural grass and bushland space for the enjoyment of ALL residents and the protection of existing flora and fauna. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:

· High risk to users of the oval and local residents – this development will bring in up to 280 cars per day, with 100 requiring parking. With surrounding streets being zoned E4 (areas of high bushfire evacuation risk – requiring clear egress and evacuation routes) and in bush fire prone land, this traffic requirement will put residents and players/ visitors in danger plus limit emergency vehicle access to surrounding streets and to Barra Brui Reserve itself.

· Loss of a local amenity – Barra Brui oval is a much-loved flat, grassed recreation space for the local community. The oval will be surrounded by 3m and 5m high fences. Surrounding properties are built on sloped blocks with limited flat, grassed surfaces for recreational play and exercise; residents rely on Barra Brui oval for green space.

· Loss of a local fully-fenced-off-leash dog park – dogs will not be allowed to use Barra Brui oval once it is synthetic turf. The oval will be managed by the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association – including bookings.

· Risk of injury for users of the oval due to synthetic hard-impact surface and increased heat amplification associated with plastic surfaces.

· Danger to pre-schoolers and their families at existing Barra Brui Preschool of a dramatic increase in traffic and hours of use of Barra Brui oval associated with a regional facility using a synthetic turf oval.

· Inadequate road safety – entering and exiting Burraneer Avenue onto Eastern Arterial Road using the existing slip road system (“seagull junction”) is already very difficult, the increase in traffic will make it dangerous.

· Environmental threat of plastic and chemical run-off into Middle Harbour Creek – located approx. 2.5km downhill from Barra Brui Reserve, with a smaller tributary creek running directly behind Barra Brui Reserve threat to the existing critically endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, Duffy’s Forest and surrounding bushland and Garrigal National Park flora and fauna.

· Habitat threat to native wildlife – echidnas, wallabies, lyrebirds, cockatoos, galahs, king parrots, rosellas, bandicoots, ring-tailed possums, brown cuckoo-doves, bush turkeys and many other Australian natives all make their home at Barra Brui Reserve. Their habitat is threatened by the introduction of a high-use, high-fenced synthetic oval built for hockey.

While we acknowledge that the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association deserves a dedicated space to continue to play and grow their sport, we reject that Barra Brui Oval is the right pace for a synthetic oval or regional sports facility.

Synthetic surfaces may result in longer play times for sporting associations, but their risk to users and the environment is too great, especially in high-risk bushfire zones like Barra Brui Reserve.

(2,588 signatories)

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Pettett)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Proposed Heritage Listing of 33 Young Street, Wahroonga

File: S10066

Vide: GB.10

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

That the matter be deferred for an inspection of the subject site.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Kay, Kelly, Ngai, Pettett, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillor Clarke.

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

Site Inspection - Council Land Holdings Strategy

File: S11846/3

Vide: C.1

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Spencer)

That a site inspection be undertaken of the Council property identified and discussed in Closed Session.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Kay, Kelly, Ngai, Pettett, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillor Clarke.

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

The Mayor referred to the consideration of the matter in the Minute numbered 39, and to the resolution contained in such Minute.

Business Engagement Update 2021

File: S09438

Vide: GB.1

To provide Council with an update regarding the business engagement program, relevant local business statistics and a summary of results from Council’s second Annual Business Survey.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That Council receive and note this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2021 Women in Local Government Leadership Workshop

File: FY00581/6

Vide: GB.2

To advise Council of the 2021 Women in Local Government Leadership Workshop hosted by Liquid Learning.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That any Councillors interested in attending the 2021 Women in Local Government Leadership Workshop advise the General Manager by 27 March 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 - Bi-Annual Report

File: FY00382/12

Vide: GB.3

To report to Council on the progress of the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021, for the six month period July to December 2020.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That:

A. The results for the December 2020 six months progress and exception report for the Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2020-2021 be received and noted.

B. Inclusion of the following additional task in the Operational Plan 2020-2021:

‘New Task - Promote local tourism activities to the whole community via Council’s communication methods e.g. social media and website.’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Investment Report as at 28 February 2021

File: FY00623/3

Vide: GB.4

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That:

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Temporary Appointment of Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Members to 30 June 2021

File: S11736

Vide: GB.5

For Council to consider the membership of Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for an interim period up until 30 June 2021.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Spencer)

That Council re-appoint all of the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel members for a period ending on 30 June 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RFT12-2020 Facade Waterproofing 828 Pacific Highway Gordon

File: RFT12-2020

Vide: GB.6

To consider the tenders received for Facade Waterproofing 828 Pacific Highway Gordon and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Kelly)

That:

A. Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Facade Waterproofing 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 Local Government Tendering Regulation.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RFT13-2020 Stormwater drainage works -Oliver Road Roseville

File: RFT13-2020/R

Vide: GB.7

To consider the tenders received for RFT13-2020 Stormwater drainage works – Oliver Road Roseville and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That:

A. Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Stormwater Drainage works – Oliver Road Roseville.

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

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RFT14-2020 Recreation Precinct St Ives Village Green

File: RFT14-2020/R

Vide: GB.8

To consider the tenders received for RFT14-2020 Recreation Precinct St Ives Village Green and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That:

A. Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the Recreation Precinct St Ives Village Green.

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

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

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Gordon Golf Course Masterplan and Gordon Golf Club Lease

File: S09625

Vide: GB.12

The purpose of this report is to revisit Council’s position of April 2016 in relation to closure of the Gordon Golf Course in light of the inability to fund conversion of the golf course to a regional park.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That:

A. Council resolve to defer masterplanning for the Gordon Golf Course in the 2020/2021 financial year due to the lack of available funds to convert the golf course to a regional park until there is an available funding source;

B. The General Manager or his nominee be delegated to negotiate a 5 year lease extension with Gordon Golf Club Limited on such terms as to protect Council’s interests; and

C. The General Manager be delegated authority to execute all documentation to give effect to this resolution.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Kay, Kelly, Ngai, Pettett, Smith, Spencer and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillor Clarke.

Flood Prone Land Policy and Updated Flood Planning Area Mapping

File: S12577/3

Vide: GB.13

To present Council the final Flood Prone Land Policy for adoption and revised overland flow Flood Planning Area maps for endorsement.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That Council:

A. Adopt the Flood Prone Land Policy 2021 and endorses the Mainstream and Revised Overland Flow Flood Planning Area maps for Blackbutt Creek And Lovers Jump Creek Catchments;

B. Directly notify Submitters to the 2019 public exhibition on the outcomes of the process and all owners impacted by an update to part (2) or (5) of the s117 planning certificates;

C. Updates are made to the relevant reports, certificates and website information including relevant sections on the s117 planning certificates, Council’s Flood Certificate Report and Council’s Web Viewer mapping system; and

D. Undertake community consultation, for no less than 28 days, on the additional overland flow Flood Planning Areas identified during the revised FPA mapping exercise and following the close of the public exhibition period a report is brought back to Council to consider any submissions received.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee 16 February 2021 Meeting

File: S10746

Vide: GB.14

For Council to consider and note the minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 16 February 2021 (Attachment A1).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Smith)

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Flood Risk Management Committee meeting held on 16 February 2021 (Attachment A1).

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council Land Holdings Strategy

File: S11846/3

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

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

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

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

Report by Manager Urban & Heritage Planning dated 22 February 2021

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/Pettett)

That the actions identified within this report are noted and endorsed by Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Barra Brui Hockey Oval Proposal

File: S12027

Vide: GB.9

To provide Council a feasibility of the proposed Barra Brui Hockey Field and the prospects of constructing the field at Barra Brui Sportsground.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Kay/Smith)

That:

A. The proposed hockey facility does not proceed at Barra Brui Sportsground

B. Council Officers continue to liaise with the NSBHA to find an alternate site within the Ku-Ring-Gai Local Government Area and report back to Council with the outcome of the investigation

C. Council quarantine their contribution of $1,116,814 ex GST for a maximum period of 12 months.

D. Council Officers write to the Office of Sport and Sport Australia advising them of Council’s resolution and formally request the quarantine of grant funding until an alternate site is determined.

E. Council Officers write to the NSBHA and Scouts NSW advising them of Council’s resolution.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Post exhibition consideration of submissions Planning Proposal to heritage list 6 Springdale Road, Killara

File: S12954

Vide: GB.11

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list 6 Springdale Road, Killara as a local heritage item.

MOTION:

(Moved: Councillors Kelly/Spencer)

That:

A. Council not proceed to make the plan, using it’s delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

For the Resolution: Councillors Kay, Kelly and Spencer.

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Ngai, Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

The Motion was put and declared LOST.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Clarke/ Smith)

That:

A. The Planning Proposal to list the property known as ‘Eastment House’ at 6 Springdale Road, Killara as a local heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 proceed without variation.

B. Council proceed to make the plan, using it’s delegated authority under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Anderson, Councillors Clarke, Ngai, Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: Councillors Kay, Kelly and Spencer.

Inspections– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

GB.10 Proposed Heritage Listing of 33 Young Street, Wahroonga TBA

C.1 Council Land Holdings Strategy (property identified in Closed Session) TBA

The Meeting closed at 9:03pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 16 March 2021 (Pages 1 - 19) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 27 April 2021.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.1 / 32

Item GB.1	FY00382/13
	17 February 2021

Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Draft Operational Plan 2021-2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To obtain endorsement to place Council's draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, on public exhibition.

background:	Under the Local Government Act Council is required to have an annual Operational Plan adopted before the beginning of each financial year, and to review its adopted Delivery Program each year, when preparing the Plan.

comments:	Due to the postponement of NSW local government elections to 2021 the Minister extended Council’s Delivery Program for one additional year until June 2022. The Operational Plan 2021-2022 will be the fourth and final year of Council’s extended Delivery Program. It has been developed to facilitate the completion of this Council’s term achievements, while maintaining the key themes and any activities not yet completed. The Plan contains the services, projects and tasks to be undertaken by Council during the year, supported by an annual budget and works programs.

recommendation:	That the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition and that following public exhibition, a further report to be submitted to Council to consider any submissions and adoption of the revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022, including Fees and Charges.

Purpose of Report

Background

In 2018 Council adopted a new suite of strategic plans that form the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework under the Local Government Act, 1993. These documents include:

· Community Strategic Plan - Our Ku-ring-gai 2038;

· Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· Resourcing Strategy.

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

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

Due to the postponement of NSW local government elections to 2021 the Minister extended Council’s Delivery Program for one additional year until June 2022.

The Operational Plan 2021-2022 will be the fourth and final year of Council’s extended Delivery Program. It has been developed to facilitate the completion of this Council’s term achievements, while maintaining the key themes and any activities not yet completed. The Plan contains the services, projects and tasks to be undertaken by Council during the year, supported by an annual budget and works programs.

Comments

Attachment A1 provides a copy of the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022 incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Statement of Revenue Policy.

Attachment A2 provides a copy of the draft Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, which is exhibited in a separate document.

The combined Delivery Program and Operational Plan contains Council’s term achievements for 2018 – 2022 along with an annual Operational Plan which details the services, projects and actions to be undertaken by Council during the third year of the Delivery Program. It has been developed to mirror the six (6) themes contained in the Community Strategic Plan and includes:

· Community, People and Culture

· Natural Environment

· Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

· Access, Traffic and Transport

· Local Economy and Employment

· Leadership and Governance

Preparation of the combined document included:

· A review of Council’s three year term achievements with no changes proposed;

· preparation of one year tasks representing Council’s services, identified major capital projects, a capital works program, operational projects and one off actions proposed for the year;

· implementation actions for Council policies and strategies as well as regional and state government strategies and legislation;

· a review of performance measures, established base line data and targets;

Organisational performance will be measured through the achievement of the one year tasks as well as performance indicators under each theme, developed to provide both qualitative and quantitative information back to the community.

Resourcing Strategy

Council is also required to review its Long Term Financial Plan, contained within its Resourcing Strategy, each year when reviewing its Delivery Program. Similar to previous years a revised Long Term Financial Plan has been prepared along with a revised Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy, which make up the three key parts of the Resourcing Strategy. The revised Resourcing Strategy is reported separately in this Business Paper for adoption. The Resourcing Strategy is not required to be publicly exhibited.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

L1.1.1 – The priorities of our community are reflected in the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.

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

Governance Matters

Under the NSW Local Government Act and associated Integrated Planning & Reporting guidelines Council is required to prepare, exhibit and adopt a revised Delivery Program and new Operational Plan before 30 June 2021. The document must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback. Following exhibition, a report on submissions and any proposed changes will be presented back to Council’s Ordinary Meeting before 30 June, 2021.

Risk Management

Council has a statutory obligation to review its Delivery Program and prepare an Operational Plan, and for them to be placed on public exhibition, for community feedback to be considered, and for the plans to be adopted before the end of the financial year.

The draft Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022 must be informed by the Community Strategic Plan and consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ku-ring-gai Council is in a sound financial position. The 2021/22 budget provides for an operating surplus of $28 million after allowing for the depreciation expense on Council’s $1.553 billion portfolio of largely depreciable assets such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. If capital grants and contributions are excluded, the operating result remains in surplus, with a result of $4.4 million. This is consistent with Council’s long term financial plan which provides a framework to achieve continued operating surpluses.

The Operating Surplus contributes to Council’s capital works program. In 2021/22 the capital works program is $80 million. Details of the capital works program for 2021/22 can be found in the Capital Works Program and Operational Projects 2021/2022 section of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

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

The outstanding loan of $34 million is discharged by revenue from general funds provided by the future net revenue generated from leasing out the investment property at 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon and proceeds from asset divestment to fund St Ives Indoor Sports Courts. Council’s 2021/22 budget provides for loan capital repayment (interest and principal) of $1.9 million.

Council’s proposed budget assumes that proceeds from asset sales will add $1.9 million to its capital income budget in 2021/22. These funds will be used to fund the infrastructure assets renewal program.

Council collects S7.11 (former S 94) contributions from developers to help pay for new infrastructure and facilities for the growing population of the area. Some of the works to be undertaken in the Contributions plan cater for the existing population and these works require a co-contribution from Council’s general funds. Some contributions will also be derived from development partners for the major local centre projects. The amount of works programmed to be undertaken over the next year are shown below (S7.11 $14.7 million, capital external contribution $7.3m million).

Marian Street Theatre

The capital budget for refurbishment of the Marian Street Theatre is estimated at $15.8 million (mainly phased in 2023) from the following sources: asset sales $14.8 million, general revenue $1million.

The chart below shows the budget phasing and the funding sources proposed. It must be noted that a budget allocation has been approved by Council for the current financial year (2020/21) for commencement of tender documentation and design services. Any unspent funds will be carried forward to 2021/22 at the end of the financial year. Funding of an additional $10.7 million has been deferred to 2022/23 due to delay in asset sales

St Ives Indoor Sport Complex – Joint use indoor sports facility

The proposed capital budget for the construction of the new indoor sports facility at St Ives High School is estimated at $19.4 million mainly allocated to 2021/22 from a combination of funding sources: grants $3.5 million, general revenue $1.7 million, loan $13.5 million.

Council has resolved to spend significant funds on the design and DA for the facility and to meet the proposed timeframe for construction the planned funding from assets sales is not likely to be available in time. Council resolved in February 2021 to fund the project from increased loan borrowing of $13.5 million. This loan is assumed to be repaid from proposed asset sales.

The chart below shows the budget phasing and the funding sources proposed. It must be noted that a budget allocation ($0.7 million) has been approved by Council for the current financial year (2020/21) for commencement of tender documentation and design services. For 2021/22 a total of $18.7 million is allocated to the project.

The St Ives Indoor Sports Courts is a partnership with the NSW Government.

In March 2021, the NSW Government put the Local Government Amendment Bill 2021 before the Parliament. If adopted into legislation this provides for special rates to be levied for works provided in partnership by councils with other government entities. This may be considered in the future as an alternative to asset sales for the St Ives Indoor Sport Courts facility.

The New South Wales Treasury Corporation (Tcorp) has recently approved a loan facility of $13.5 million for Council to fund this project. This approval is subject to terms and conditions specified in the Loan agreement, which will be presented to Council for approval and execution.

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

In the 2021/22 budget the projected rates income is $69.8 million. This amount includes the permanent existing Special Rates Variations for Infrastructure and the Environmental Levy.

A summary of Council’s Funding Statement showing the draft budget for 2021/22 and prior years is provided below:

COVID -19 Pandemic

The Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID 19) continues to impact both communities and businesses across the country and in the local government area. This Pandemic has had a financial impact for Council in the financial year 2019/20 and continues to impact the current financial year, forecasts of which are reported to Council as part of Quarterly Budget Reviews. The Annual Budget 2021/22 was developed on a COVID free assumption, however, due to the changing environment, the financial impacts are uncertain and close monitoring will be required to assess if funding sources identified in the budget will be sufficient. Further information on any implications and the need for amendments to the budget will be the subject of further reports to Council in the new financial year.

Financial Challenges

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

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

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

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

Budget principles

Council’s budget for 2021-2022 is developed using the 10 year LTFP. The LTFP principles and financial sustainability tests applied in developing next year’s budget and future financial planning are outlined in Council’s Resourcing Strategy. The draft 2021-2022 budget has been developed to ensure that the LTFP financial targets are met and maintained in the future.

Major assumptions of the 2020-21 budget include:

· CPI of 2.1% applied;

· the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved rate pegging increase of 2%;

· no price increase for domestic waste charges due to sufficient funding in the DWM reserve to cover the 2021/22 cost increases;

· fees and charges increased by an average of 2.2%;

· interest on investments estimated at 1.2%;

· employee costs increase of 2.8%;

· capital works and operational projects program of $80.4 million; and

· Section 7.11 (Development Contributions) revenue of $10.9 million transferred to externally restricted reserves and expenditure of $24.7 million from these reserves.

Rating Structure 2021-2022

Each year the NSW Government approves a maximum percentage increase in the total income a Council can receive from rates, known as the ‘rate-peg’. The rate peg for 2021-22 has been determined by IPART at 2% and this percentage increase has been applied to Council’s rates.

Rates Structure including Rate Pegging increase of 2%

Type	Category	Rate in $	Min/Base Amount ($)	% of Revenue from Base for each rate	Yield $
Ordinary	Residential	0.00064330	$566.00		$33,162,837
Ordinary	Business	0.00333868	$566.00		$4,700,669
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate	0.00029557			$13,160,053
Special	Infrastructure - Primary Rate		$288.00	49.98%	$13,151,808
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation	0.00003557			$1,583,848
Special	Infrastructure - Special Rate Variation		$33.00	48.76%	$1,506,978
Special	Environmental - Special Rate Variation	0.00007240			$3,223,562

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

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

Other Key Charges

Council levies a domestic waste management charge and a stormwater management charge. The domestic waste management charge varies depending on the service selected, with a base service with green waste being $455 pa. The stormwater management charge is $25 pa for a single residential property and $12.50 pa for a strata residential property.

Fees and charges schedule for 2021 - 2022

The draft Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan includes a range of proposed increases to current fees and charges in 2021-2022. Underlying these is the draft pricing methodology in relation to fees and charges which are not prescribed by legislation. The pricing methodology seeks to ensure Council recovers its costs in delivering of services, while also allowing for fees and charges to be discounted, where appropriate, in recognition of Council’s community service obligations.

Council’s Fees and Charges have been increased where appropriate. Fees that have not been subject to an annual increase include Statutory and Regulatory Fees, Development Contributions and those where it was not commercially viable to do so. Attachment A2 provides the 2021-2022 draft Fees and Charges Schedule.

Social Considerations

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

Environmental Considerations

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

Community Consultation

The draft Revised Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan will be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days, and during this period input from the community will be sought, considered and reported back to Council in June 2021.

It is the responsibility of Council to consider all submissions made during the exhibition period, prior to adopting the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on the budget parameters for 2021-2022. Consultation has taken place across the organisation in preparation of the draft Revised Delivery Program and draft Operational Plan, including preparation of the budget and revenue policy, development of tasks and review of performance measures.

Summary

In June 2018, Council adopted its three (3) year Delivery Program and annual Operational Plan. Following deferral of local government elections from 2020 to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic the Office of Local Government advised councils to extend their current Delivery Programs by one year to June 2022.

The adopted Delivery Program has been reviewed and a new Operational Plan developed for 2021-2022 in accordance with the Local Government Act.

The development of the revised Delivery Program and Operational Plan has been informed by the community’s long term objectives contained in the Community Strategic Plan, Council policies and strategies, prioritisation of capital works projects, service delivery standards, income from external sources and fees and charges. As required by legislation these documents must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of twenty-eight (28) days to allow for community feedback.

It is recommended that the revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022, be placed on public exhibition for twenty-eight (28 days) and that following the consultation a further report be brought back to Council.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The report on Council’s draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, be received and noted.

B. Pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and draft Operational Plan 2021-2022, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program, Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees and Charges for 2021-2022 be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

C. Following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council to consider any submissions and to adopt the Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022, and Operational Plan 2021-2022, including Fees and Charges for 2021-2022.

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Coordinator

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1	Draft Revised Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022	Excluded	2021/103674
	A2	Fees & Charges Draft 2021-22 Public for Exhibition	Excluded	2021/090699

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.2 / 46

Item GB.2	S11276

Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 - 2031

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to adopt the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 – 2031 incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

background:	Under the Local Government Act, Council must have a Resourcing Strategy adopted which supports the Community Strategic Plan and the Delivery Program. Council reviews the Resourcing Strategy each year as part of the review of its Delivery Program. The current Resourcing Strategy was adopted by Council in June 2018 as part of a new suite of strategic plans for Ku-ring-gai that form the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework under the Act.

comments:	The revised Resourcing Strategy includes the components of the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and the Workforce Plan. All three components have been reviewed to incorporate updated asset, financial and workforce information.

recommendation:	That Council adopt the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 – 2031 incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

Purpose of Report

For Council to adopt the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021 – 2031 incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

Background

In June 2018, Council adopted a new suite of documents that form the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework. These documents included:

· Community Strategic Plan – Our Ku-ring-gai 2038;

· Delivery Program & Operational Plan; and

· Resourcing Strategy.

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

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

· 10-year Long-term Financial Plan;

· 10-year Asset Management Strategy; and

· 10-year Workforce Management Strategy

The Resourcing Strategy is designed to be a living document to reflect changing financial and asset information. Initiatives within the Resourcing Strategy are reviewed annually to ensure relevance in the changing environment and to respond to any changes in Council’s Delivery Program.

Comments

All three components of the Resourcing Strategy have been reviewed to incorporate updated asset, financial and workforce information. Implications of any ongoing impacts from COVID-19 will continue to be assessed over the coming year and the need for future amendments to the Resourcing Strategy will be the subject of further reports to Council.

A copy of the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031 is attached in four parts:

Attachment A1 – Introduction

Attachment A2 - Long Term Financial Plan

Attachment A3 - Asset Management Strategy

Attachment A4 - Workforce Management Strategy.

Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP)

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

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

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

· assumptions used to develop the plan;

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

· financial modelling for different scenarios;

· methods of monitoring financial performance.

Balancing expectations, uncertainty of future revenue and expenditure forecasts is one of the most challenging aspects of the financial planning process. As such, the longer the planning horizon, the more general the plan will be in the later years.

The LTFP has been revised to present the most current estimates and project scopes.

Asset Management Strategy (AMS)

The Asset Management Strategy includes the following:

· Asset Management Policy; and

· Asset Management Strategy.

The Asset Management Policy sets out principles, requirements and responsibilities for implementing consistent asset management processes throughout Council. It also ensures that Council, as the custodian of public infrastructure, has mechanisms in place to deliver infrastructure services in the most effective manner.

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

The AMS is supported by Asset Management Plans for each asset class which are regularly reviewed. Together, these documents and our processes, data and systems (including asset registers and technical databases) make up Council’s Asset Management Framework.

The AMS has been revised to align with Councils updated Long Term Financial Plan. The capital expenditure figures and the required renewal costs have been included in the AMS to establish Council’s funding gap for infrastructure assets.

The Asset Management Improvement Plan, which is included in the AMS, has also been updated to reflect progression and allocate responsibilities.

Workforce Management Strategy (WMS)

The Workforce Management Strategy establishes a framework for building the capability of our workforce to provide Council with the people best able to inform its strategic direction, develop innovative approaches to complex issues, and deliver appropriate services effectively and efficiently. The WMS provides a link between service and strategic objectives and associated workforce implications and also spans 10 years.

The WMS has been revised to reflect current workforce statistics and policies.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
L1.1 – A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement.	L1.1.1 – The priorities of our community are reflected in the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.	L1.1.1.2 - Prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting Plans including a Resourcing Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

L1.1.1 – The priorities of our community are reflected in the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan and inform Council’s policy development, decision-making and program delivery.

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

Governance Matters

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

Consistent with the Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines under Section 406 of the Local Government Act, 1993, a review of the strategy is undertaken each year as part of the review of the Delivery Program.

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

Risk Management

Council has a statutory obligation to prepare and adopt a Resourcing Strategy at the beginning of its term, and to ensure that the strategy is reviewed each year.

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

Financial Considerations

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

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

The plan contains a series of assumptions. Year 1 of the LTFP – 2021/22 is the draft budget for the next financial year and is based on Council’s current revised budget. Years two (2) to ten (10) are calculated by extrapolating the budgets across each of the remaining years using these assumptions and known changes.

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

The LTFP has incorporated a principle of applying any otherwise surplus funding in future years to closing the asset renewal gap as a priority. Council continues to follow the principles of its adopted “Road to Sustainability” funding strategy. This strategy looks to address the infrastructure backlog and invest additional funding in infrastructure renewal as a priority. The Road to Sustainability identifies additional funding from a Horizontal Service Review (originally adopted in 2018) - a combination of additional operating revenue and decrease in operating expenditure, along with Asset Recycling (the divestment of underutilised assets).

Two scenarios have been developed :

Scenario 1 - Base Case Scenario with additional funding for Infrastructure

The base scenario of the LTFP shows the financial results of delivering the current level of service as per the 2021/22 budget expanded out over 10 years and adjusted by various price forecast indexes as detailed in the financial assumptions section of this document.

The adopted principle under this scenario is that $54 million of funds will be diverted towards Council’s assets renewal as a priority, from a combination of asset sales and horizontal service review initiatives. This scenario is sustainable according to the recognised financial sustainability measures and aligns with Councils current funding strategy described earlier in the report.

In addition to the standard renewal expenditure, approximately $22 million per year on average will also be allocated in maintenance as required by the Asset Management Strategy. Additional funding will also have a positive impact on Council’s infrastructure backlog, with a reduction in backlog to $15 million by 2022/23, meeting the current industry benchmark for the backlog ratio. In addition, the funds will significantly reduce the cost to agreed level of service identified by the community. As per the current plan the cost to agreed level will be fully addressed after 2030/31.

Scenario 2 - Scenario with reduced funding for Infrastructure

The current scenario assumes reduced funding for infrastructure. Funding of $54 million originally identified through the Horizontal Service Review and Divestment of assets (proceeds from assets sale) may not eventuate resulting in significantly reduced funding and deterioration of the state of Council’s assets in the long term. Most financial sustainability indicators will be negatively impacted due to reduced revenue.

This scenario in the LTFP shows the financial results (impact on key indicators) of delivering the current level of service as per the forecast 2021/22 budget expanded out over 10 years with reduced funding for infrastructure. This scenario is not Council’s preferred one and is not considered sustainable.

Highlights and significant changes to the Long Term Financial Plan

The following LTFP highlights are based on Council’s preferred scenario from above, where the additional funding for infrastructure is addressed as a priority:

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

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

· Additional funds (above the standard renewal program) of $54 million over 10 years identified through the “Road to Sustainability” funding strategy to be redirected to infrastructure assets renewal from 2021/22 onwards contributing to closing the infrastructure backlog (cost to satisfactory) within the term of this financial plan.

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

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

· Asset Recycling (the divestment of underutilised assets).

· Property Development Reserve - Council has established a Property Development Reserve in the Long Term Financial Plan of $44 million, accumulated from the proceeds of asset sales. This reserve is created to ensure that Council has sufficient funds in reserve as a contingency for the financial risks of development for town centre revitalisation projects.

· A total of $221 million will be allocated to asset maintenance over 10 years, $260 million to asset renewals and $162 million (excluding Local Centre Major Projects) to build new or upgrade existing assets.

· Continuation of a permanent special rate variation for environmental programs and works (Environmental levy) of $3.2 million in 2021/22 and growing in future years.

· Maintaining a working capital target of $5.5 million in 2021/22, this is maintained at 5.5% of operating expenses (excluding depreciation).

· S7.11 Contributions Plan Projects totalling expenditure from S7.11 reserves of $240 million over 10 years. These works are included in the Plan on the proviso that future asset sales will be made to fund the estimated funding gap of projects that require a co-contribution from Council. ($8 million over 10 years).

· Delivery of a total capital works and other major projects program over 10 years totalling almost $616 million (at future prices). Some significant projects included in this and delivered within the next 10 years are:

o Implementation of St Ives Village Green Master Plan

o Lindfield Village Green

o Lindfield Village Hub

o Turramurra Community Hub

o Marian Street Theatre, Marian Street, Killara – refurbishment of Marian street theatre.

o Joint use indoor sports facility - St Ives Indoor Sports Complex, St Ives High School, Horace Road, St Ives

o Gordon Recreation Area – Masterplan Implementation

o Local Centre Public Domain Improvements

o Council Chambers Upgrade

The full list of capital and operating projects proposed for the next year is provided in the Delivery Program 2018-2022 and Operational Plan 2021-2022.

Financial Challenges

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

Social Considerations

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

Environmental Considerations

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

Community Consultation

Extensive community engagement was undertaken by Council as part of the preparation and exhibition of the IP&R suite of plans, adopted by Council in 2018. This included the Resourcing Strategy. No further consultation is required for the review of the Strategy.

Internal Consultation

Councillors have been briefed on any changes to financial and budget parameters as part of the review of the Delivery Program and preparation of the Operational Plan, reported separately to this meeting. Consultation has taken place with relevant departments in the review of the Strategy.

Summary

The revised Resourcing Strategy includes the components of the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and the Workforce Plan. These components are integrated and have been revised to incorporate updated asset and financial information.

Revisions to the components of the Resourcing Strategy reflect updated expenditure figures from Council’s audited Financial Statements for 2019/20, changes to figures in our asset registers, progression of works in the Asset Management Improvement Plan and updated workforce planning statistics.

It is recommended that the revised Resourcing Strategy be adopted.

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Sections 403 and 406 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council adopts the Revised Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy.

Helen Lowndes

Integrated Planning Coordinator

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1	Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031 - Introduction section. Adopted June 2018. Revised April 2021.	Excluded	2021/103306
	A2	Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031. Long Term Financial Plan. Adopted June 2018. Revised April 2021.	Excluded	2021/103463
	A3	Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031. Asset Management Strategy. Adopted June 2018. Revised April 2021.	Excluded	2021/103327
	A4	Resourcing Strategy 2021-2031. Workforce Management Strategy. Adopted June 2018. Revised April 2021.	Excluded	2021/102998

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
Ku-ring-gai is well led, managed and supported by ethical organisations which deliver projects and services to the community in listening, advocating and responding to their needs.	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.	Compliance with the requirements of relevant Acts and Regulations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.4 / 71

Item GB.4	S02211

Submission to the Office of Local Government - Remote Attendance at Council and Committee Meetings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To seek Council’s endorsement of a submission to the Office of Local Government (OLG) on the consultation paper released concerning proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee meetings.

background:	The OLG has released a circular informing councils of the release of a Consultation Paper on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings. The purpose of the consultation paper is to propose an amendment of the Model Code of Meeting Practice to include provisions that would allow councillors to attend council and committee meetings remotely by audio-visual link in certain circumstances.

comments:	Comments on the consultation paper have been drafted and it is proposed that the comments will form the basis of Council’s submission to the OLG.

recommendation:	That Council endorse the content of this report as its response to the OLG on its consultation paper on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings, and delegate authority to the General Manager to finalise the submission.

Purpose of Report

Background

On 9 March 2021, the OLG released a circular informing Councils of the release of a consultation paper on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings (Attachment 1). The purpose of the consultation paper is to propose an amendment of the Model Code of Meeting Practice to include provisions that would allow councils to permit councillors to attend council and committee meetings remotely by audio-visual link in certain circumstances. Submissions are due to the OLG by 3 May 2021.

While the OLG is conducting consultation on its paper for proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee meetings, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 has been amended to temporarily exempt councils from complying with the requirement under their codes of meeting practice for councillors to be personally present at meetings to participate in them. Until 31 December 2021, councillors may attend and participate in meetings remotely by audio-visual link. There is a separate report on the agenda for this April 2021 Ordinary Meeting of Council on the temporary arrangements.

Comments

Comments on the consultation paper on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings are provided below, adjacent to the draft OLG provisions which are shown in italics. It is proposed that the comments will form the basis of Council’s submission to the OLG.

· The proposed amendments will allow councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link with the approval of the council in certain circumstances.

Comment

Councillors should not require the approval of the council to attend meetings by audio-visual link. Requiring a council resolution to authorise remote attendance means that the decision may be influenced by the political process. Further, if councillors seeking to attend remotely were not physically present at a meeting and were not permitted to vote on a decision to permit remote attendance, this may cause the meeting to be inquorate.

· Audio-visual” link will be defined as “a facility that enables audio and visual communication between persons at different places”.

Comment

Supported

· Under the proposed amendments, a councillor will be permitted to attend a meeting of the council or a committee of the council by audio-visual link with the prior approval of the council or the committee, or approval granted by the council or committee at the meeting concerned, where they are prevented from attending the meeting in person because of ill health, disability, carer responsibilities or natural disaster.

Comment

The reasons for not attending a meeting in person listed above would arguably not allow for remote attendance during a pandemic. To avoid unintended consequences, the particular circumstances where a councillor would be permitted to attend remotely should not be limited to a prescriptive list.

· A councillor will also be permitted to attend a meeting of the council or a committee of the council by audio-visual link with the prior approval of the council or committee, or approval granted by the council or committee at the meeting concerned, where they are prevented from attending the meeting because they are absent from the local area due to a prior work commitment. However, a councillor will not be permitted to attend an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the council or a meeting of a committee of the council by audio-visual link on these grounds on any more than three occasions in each year (inclusive of all ordinary, extraordinary and committee meetings attended by the councillor by these means).

Comment

The number of occasions a councillor is permitted to attend meetings remotely due to a prior work commitment should not be limited to an arbitrary number. Allowing councillors more flexibility to attend meetings while balancing work travel commitments may encourage interest in becoming a councillor from a wider cross section of the community.

· Where a councillor is proposing to seek the council’s or a committee’s approval to attend a meeting by audio-visual link at the meeting concerned, they must first give the general manager at least 5 working days’ notice that they will be seeking the council’s or committee’s approval, to allow sufficient time for the necessary arrangements to be made for them to attend the meeting remotely, should the council or committee give its approval.

Comment

If notice of 5 days is required all instances of ill health, carer responsibilities and work commitments that may occur within 5 working days (7 calendar days) of a meeting would not be grounds for remote attendance. The amount of time required for notice should not be prescribed as each council will have different technological capability.

· Where attending a meeting by audio-visual link, councillors will be required to do so from a location within NSW or within 100km of the NSW border.

Comment

Requiring councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link from a location within 100km of the NSW border means that work related travel could not be conducted by a councillor in most capital cities. The evolving nature of work and the capacity of councils to conduct meetings via audio-visual link means that remote attendance at meetings should not be restricted by location.

· As with decisions to grant a leave of absence under the existing provisions of the Model Meeting Code, the decision to permit a councillor to attend a meeting by audio-visual link is one that will be at the council’s or committee’s discretion.

The council or committee will be required to act reasonably when considering whether to grant a councillor’s request to attend a meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment

This clause is problematic as on the one hand the decision to permit a councillor to attend a meeting remotely is said to be at the council’s discretion, yet on the other hand the council must act reasonably. Whether the exercise of discretion is reasonable is very subjective, and there would be limited if any redress available for a councillor should an unreasonable decision be made to deny remote access. In practice the negative consequence would be the making of council resolutions that a councillor or councillors were unreasonably prevented from voting on.

Councillors should not require the approval of the council to attend meetings by audio-visual link.

· However, the council or committee will be permitted to refuse a councillor’s request to attend a meeting by audio-visual link, where the councillor has failed to appropriately declare and manage conflicts of interest, observe confidentiality or comply with the council’s code of meeting practice on one or more previous occasions when they have attended a meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment

Supported

· When attending meetings by audio-visual link, meeting rules and standards will apply to councillors in the same way they would if the councillor was attending the meeting in person.

Comment

Supported

· The council’s adopted code of meeting practice will apply to a councillor attending a meeting of the council or a committee of the council by audio-visual link in the same way it would if they attended the meeting in person.

Comment

Supported

· Councillors will be required to give their full attention to the business and proceedings of the meeting when attending a meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment

Supported

· Councillors will also be required to be appropriately dressed when attending meetings by audio-visual link and must ensure that no items are within sight of the meeting that are inconsistent with the maintenance of order at the meeting or that are likely to bring the council or the committee into disrepute.

Comment

Supported

· Where a councillor has attended a meeting by audio-visual link, the minutes of the meeting must record the fact that the councillor attended the meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment

Supported

· Councillors attending meetings by audio-visual link will be required to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

Comment

Supported

· Councillors attending a meeting by audio-visual link will be required to declare and manage any conflicts of interest they may have in matters being considered at the meeting in accordance with the council’s code of conduct.

Comment

Supported

· Where the councillor has declared a pecuniary or significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter being discussed at the meeting, the councillor’s audio-visual link to the meeting must be terminated and the councillor must not be in sight or hearing of the meeting at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the council or committee, or at any time during which the council or committee is voting on the matter.

Comment

This provision should not state that the audio-visual link must be terminated as meeting technology does not require termination in order to ensure that a meeting participant is not in sight or hearing of a meeting. Termination of a link is likely to cause unnecessary delays.

· Councillors attending meetings by audio-visual link will be required to protect the confidentiality of information considered while the meeting is closed to members of the public. Councillors attending a meeting by audio-visual link will be required to ensure that no other person is within sight or hearing of the meeting at any time that the meeting has been closed to the public under section 10A of the Act.

Comment

Supported

· The proposed amendments will contain provisions that allow the chair to enforce compliance with meeting rules by councillors attending meetings by audio-visual link.

Comment

Supported

· Where a councillor is attending a meeting by audio-visual link, the chairperson or a person authorised by the chairperson will be permitted to mute the councillor’s audio link to the meeting for the purposes of enforcing compliance with the council’s code of meeting practice.

Comment

Supported

· If a councillor attending a meeting by audio-visual link is expelled from a meeting for an act of disorder, the chairperson of the meeting or a person authorised by the chairperson will be permitted terminate the councillor’s audio-visual link to the meeting.

Comment

Supported

integrated planning and reporting

Good Governance and Management

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.

L3.1.2: Council’s Governance

framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency.

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

Governance Matters

Council is required to adopt a Code of Meeting Practice that complies with the direction from the OLG and the Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005.

The OLG has stipulated the proposed provisions referenced in the consultation paper will be non-mandatory and as such, Council is not obligated to adopt the changes in its Code of Meeting Practice if it did not wish to permit remote attendance at meetings.

Risk Management

Nil.

Financial Considerations

There are no costs to Council associated with making a submission.

Social Considerations

Nil.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Should Council choose to amend its Code of Meeting Practice in the future to include any of the proposed provisions to enable remote attendance at council and committee Meetings, an amended Code of Meeting Practice will need to be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Clause 361 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

Internal Consultation

The Governance department has consulted with Council’s Information Management Team in regards to the technical requirements necessary to host combined remote and in-person meetings in the Council Chambers.

Summary

On 9 March 2021, a consultation paper was released by the OLG on Remote Attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings. Comments on the consultation paper have been drafted and it is proposed that the comments will form the basis of Council’s submission to the OLG.

Recommendation:

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

OLG - Remote Attendance by Councillors Consultation Paper

2021/098014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.5 / 86

Item GB.5	S02211

Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Council of interim arrangements that will permit councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link and seek adoption of procedures to govern this access.

background:	As of 26 March 2021 when the temporary COVID-19 measures expired, councils are required under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993 to hold meetings of the council and committees (comprising only of councillors) in physical venues, and to permit members of the public to attend meetings in person. The Office of Local Government (OLG) is conducting consultation on proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee meetings. In the interim, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 has been amended to temporarily exempt councils from complying with the requirement for councillors to be personally present at meetings to participate in them, until 31 December 2021.

comments:	The OLG has suggested procedures to assist councils to manage remote attendance at meetings. Some aspects of these suggested procedures are problematic, in particular the requirement to obtain a council resolution to permit remote attendance by a councillor. For the reasons outlined in this report, a modified version of the procedures is recommended for adoption by Council.

recommendation:	That Council adopt the Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link, as attached to this report.

Purpose of Report

To inform Council of interim arrangements that will permit councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link and seek adoption of procedures to govern this access.

Background

As of 26 March 2021 when the temporary COVID-19 measures expired, councils are required under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993 to hold meetings of the council and committees (comprising only of councillors) in physical venues, and to permit members of the public to attend meetings in person, subject to the requirements of any Public Health Order in force at the time and social distancing requirements.

While the Office of Local Government (OLG) is conducting consultation on proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee meetings, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 has been amended to temporarily exempt councils from complying with the requirement under their codes of meeting practice for councillors to be personally present at meetings to participate in them. The amendment was made on 31 March 2021 as follows:

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

237 Exemption from requirement of code of meeting conduct—the Act, Schedule 6, clause 1

(1) This clause applies to an area if the council for the area has adopted a code of meeting practice that includes model code, clause 5.2.

(2) An area to which this clause applies is exempt from the Act, section 360(5) to the extent that the council, or a committee of the council of which all the members are councillors, is required to comply with the model code, clause 5.2, as adopted by the code of meeting practice.

(3) This clause is repealed on 31 December 2021, at the end of the day.

(4) In this clause— model code means the code specified in clause 232.

The above amendment exempts Councils from Clause 5.2 of the Code of Meeting Practice until 31 December 2021, as follows:

5.2 A councillor cannot participate in a meeting of the council or of a committee of the council unless personally present at the meeting.

On 1 April 2021 the OLG release Circular 21-02 Temporary exemption from the requirement for councillors to attend meetings in person (Attachment 1). It outlines the above mentioned requirements and also advises that councils should adopt procedures governing attendance by councillors at meetings by audio-visual link to supplement their codes of meeting practice. Suggested procedures from the OLG are attached to the OLG circular.

Comments

There are various aspects of the procedures suggested by the OLG that are problematic, which are shown below in italics followed by explanatory comments.

· The council and committees of the council comprising wholly of councillors may, in response to a request made by a councillor, resolve to permit the councillor to attend one or more meetings of the council or committee remotely by audio visual link where it is satisfied that the councillor will be prevented from attending the meeting/s in person because of illness, disability, caring responsibilities, or such other reason that is acceptable to the council or committee.

Comment:

This clause may lead to a number of problems, as follows:

o A councillor may only attend a meeting remotely if approved by council resolution. This means that the decision may be influenced by the political process. Further, as provided by a later clause listed below, councillors not personally present at a meeting that are seeking to attend remotely are not permitted to take part in the vote.

o The council may resolve to permit the councillor to attend remotely “…where it is satisfied that the councillor will be prevented from attending the meeting in person because of illness, disability, caring responsibilities, or such other reason that is acceptable to the council or committee”. There is no guidance as to how the council would satisfy itself that an illness or other reason would prevent the councillor from attending the meeting. In the absence of a medical certificate, for example, it would be difficult in many circumstances for a council to satisfy itself that an illness would prevent a councillor from attending a meeting.

· Requests by councillors to attend meetings remotely by audio-visual link must be made in writing to the General Manager at least [council to specify a timeframe that is consistent with the timeframe for lodging notices of motion] business days before a meeting, and must provide information about the meetings the councillor will be prevented from attending in person and the reason why the councillor will be prevented from attending the meeting/s in person.

Comment:

This clause is impractical. At Ku-ring-gai Council, notices of motion must be lodged by 2pm, 2 business days before the production of the business paper. This means that a councillor would not be able to request to attend a meeting remotely due to illness unless they were aware of this need 18 days prior. Similarly, a councillor would not be able to request to attend a meeting remotely for a work commitment unless it was known 18 days prior.

· A councillor cannot participate in a meeting until the council has adopted a resolution permitting that councillor to attend the meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment:

This clause is unworkable as if five or more councillors at Ku-ring-gai requested to attend a meeting remotely and were therefore not personally present, the meeting would be inquorate and would have to be adjourned. If other councillors were absent from the meeting for other reasons, the problem would be exacerbated as the number of councillors able to attend remotely while maintaining the quorum of six out of ten councillors would reduce further.

· The council or committee of the council may permit more than one councillor to attend a meeting by audio-visual link but must not permit all councillors to attend a meeting by audio-visual link.

Comment:

This clause would be redundant under the OLG suggested procedures as the preceding clause means that not more than four councillors can attend a meeting remotely without causing the meeting to be inquorate. In any case, the amendment to the Regulation does not mandate a minimum number of councillors to be personally present at a meeting.

· A decision to permit a councillor to attend a meeting remotely by audio-visual link is at the council’s or the committee’s discretion. The council and its committees must act reasonably when considering requests by councillors to attend meetings remotely by audio-visual link.

Comment:

In addition to the reasons outlined above, the threat from COVID-19 is still present to some degree and flexibility for councillors in attending meetings is considered appropriate. As such, it is recommended that Council adopts a modified version of the procedures suggested by the OLG. It is proposed that the requirement for a council resolution to be obtained to permit a councillor to attend a meeting remotely is removed, along with related clauses.

The proposed new Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link are attached to this report (Attachment 2).

Public Forums

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Public Forums have not been held in person and instead alternate arrangements were made to receive submissions from the public. Now that the public is permitted to attend meetings of council in person, it is also considered appropriate for Public Forums to return to the original in person format, as provided by the Code of Meeting Practice.

integrated planning and reporting

Good Governance and Management

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.

L3.1.2: Council’s Governance

framework is developed to ensure probity and transparency.

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

Governance Matters

Council is obligated under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993 to hold meetings of the council and committees comprising only of councillors in physical venues and to permit members of the public to attend meetings in person, subject to the requirements of any Public Health Order in force at the time and social distancing requirements.

The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 has been amended to temporarily exempt councils from the requirement under clause 5.2 of the Code of Meeting Practice for councillors to be personally present at meetings to participate in them.

Councils are not required to amend their codes of meeting practice to allow councillors to attend meetings remotely by audio-visual link while the Regulation amendment is in force, but should adopt procedures governing attendance by councillors at meetings by audio-visual link to supplement their codes of meeting practice.

Risk Management

Nil.

Financial Considerations

There will be minor additional costs required to transition the existing technology in the Council Chambers to enable combined remote and in-Chambers meetings to be held.

Social Considerations

As the temporary COVID measures have expired, members of the public are now permitted to attend meetings in person as per section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993. Capacity limits for the public will apply subject to the relevant Public Health Order in force at the time.

Environmental Considerations

Nil.

Community Consultation

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Nil.

Summary

The OLG is conducting consultation on proposed provisions enabling remote attendance at council and committee Meetings. In the interim, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 has been amended to temporarily exempt councils from complying with the requirement for councillors to be personally present at meetings to participate in them, until 31 December 2021.

The OLG has suggested procedures to assist councils to manage remote attendance at meetings. Some aspects of these suggested procedures are problematic, in particular the requirement to obtain a council resolution to permit remote attendance by a councillor. For the reasons outlined in this report, a modified version of the procedures is recommended for adoption by Council.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Interim Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link, as attached to this report.

Michael Wearne

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1⇩	OLG Circular 21-02 - Temporary exemption from the requirement for councillors to attend meetings in person		2021/102077
	A2⇩	Procedures for Attendance by Councillors at Meetings by Audio-Visual Link		2021/098023

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.7 / 106

Item GB.7	S06788/7

new

Council’s Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Review of the Rate peg to include population growth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To advise Council of the IPART’s Issues Paper on the review of the rate peg to include population growth and to seek Council’s endorsement of the draft submission.

background:	IPART released an Issues Paper in March 2021 on the review of the rate peg to include population growth. IPART is seeking submissions on the Issues Paper by close of business on 3 May 2021.

comments:	The proposed changes to rates income to allow for population growth is likely to be of benefit to Ku-ring-gai Council. However, a separate but related process is underway to change the development contributions framework. This is likely to be highly detrimental to Ku-ring-gai Council, with the loss of revenue far exceeding the benefit from the rates reform.

recommendation:	That Council note while it is likely to be financially beneficial to Council if rates are allowed to increase in proportion to population, proposed changes to development contributions would be highly detrimental and significantly outweigh any benefits. That Council endorse the draft submission to IPART on the Review Of The Rate Peg To Include Population Growth. That the General Manager be authorised to finalise the content of the submission consistent with the position put forward in this report and attached draft submission.

Purpose of Report

To advise Council of the IPART’s Issues Paper on the review of the rate peg to include population growth and to seek Council’s endorsement of the draft submission.

Background

The Minister for Local Government has asked IPART to recommend a rate peg methodology that allows the general income of councils to be varied annually on a total basis to take into account population growth. This is to support the NSW Government’s commitment to allow councils to align their rates revenue with population growth.

IPART released an Issues Paper in March 2021 on the review of the rate peg to include population growth which sets out the proposed approach.

IPART is seeking submissions on the Issues Paper by close of business on 3 May 2021.

Comments

IPART has been asked to recommend a rate peg methodology that allows the general income councils receive through rates to be varied annually in a way that accounts for population growth. The review will make recommendations on the adequate levels of revenue required by councils to service growth, with a focus on changes to total rates revenue not individual rates.

The rate peg is currently based on the annual change in the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI), which measures the average costs faced by NSW councils. Under the current system, an increase in the population of a council area does not necessarily result in an increase in revenue from rates. The costs incurred by councils to service growth are recovered from special variations, development contributions and supplementary valuations.

Under the current rating system, the growth in rates due to population growth is provided via the supplementary valuation process. If rates were alternatively allowed to increase in direct proportion to population, preliminary analysis suggests that Ku-ring-gai would gain approximately $300,000 pa in rate income for each 1% increase in population, compared to the current system.

IPART’s review of the rate peg looks at population growth in rural and regional NSW, as well as across Sydney. Councils were grouped based on region (metro or regional) and projected population growth. Ku-ring-gai Council has been identified as a Metro Council with below state-average-growth being a Council with a projected population growth lower than the state-wide average.

The Issues Paper explores the following key issues:

· Different types of income councils can source to cover the costs of population growth and the role of the rate peg.

· Varying population growth between councils in NSW, including how to define population growth.

· The impact of population growth on council costs.

IPART is seeking submissions on these key issues by 3 May 2021. The Issues Paper is attached to this report as Attachment A1.

IPART is expected to report to the Government in September 2021 with the new rating structure anticipated to be in place from 1 July 2022.

The draft submission is supportive of the proposed changes to rate income to include population growth. Comments to each specific issue raised is provided in the Draft submission attached (Attachment A2).

Development Contributions Reform

A key factor in the importance of Ku-ring-gai Council making a submission on the scope of issues to be considered by IPART as part of its investigations in Rates Reform, is the inter-relationship of this matter with the Contributions Reform agenda.

The NSW State Government is seeking to rebalance the sources of funding away from development contributions and towards rate income related to population increase. While it is acknowledged that decades of rate-pegging has given rise to an over-emphasis on development contributions in some contexts, the need for infrastructure delivery related to development remains pressing in redeveloping areas such as Ku-ring-gai – not least as we are midway through the design and delivery of several major projects.

Much of the documentation to date appears to rest heavily on the challenges of greenfield areas (which are certainly significant) but underplay the impact on redeveloping areas where redevelopment brings both population increase and demographic change. It is essential that the needs of redeveloping areas are taken into account in the IPART review of Rates and Population Growth and a submission has been prepared accordingly.

Preliminary analysis of the Contributions Reform agenda, taken in conjunction with the Rates Reform agenda, suggests that it is likely to be highly detrimental to Ku-ring-gai Council.

In December 2020 the NSW Productivity Commissioner completed his review of the infrastructure contributions system in New South Wales. The NSW Government accepted all 29 recommendations from this review and has developed a roadmap to implement reform to the system. ⁱIPART’s review of incorporating population growth into the rate peg will consider reforms to the local infrastructure contributions system.

Development contributions are levied by councils when new development – including redevelopment – takes place to cover the cost of providing capital additional infrastructure such as parks, roads, public domain works and community facilities.

Generally, the reforms include the following intended changes which are key concerns to Ku-ring-gai’s contributions system as it currently stands:

· Apply the Essential Works List to all s7.11 (formerly s94) contributions plans for development contingent cost only.

It is unclear what is included in “development contingent” costs but the implication is a move away from the process of funding infrastructure to meet cumulative direct demand which was the original purpose of s94. The Essential Works List is to be reviewed but it does not presently include community facilities and it does not appear likely that the reforms are heading in that direction.

· Contributions Plans to use a standard online template and to be hosted within the NSW Planning Portal

There is no template available for comment as yet and it is unclear to what extent, if any, local circumstances may be able to be addressed. The use of the template is to be mandatory. While the use of a standard format is reasonable, local clauses are still essential.

· Defer Payment to Occupation Certificate stage

The COVID-related temporary deferral of payment for developments over $10M is to be extended. For established area councils, the process of securing contributions on behalf of the community is much less clear. Further investigation of the security of local government cashflow is needed.

· Increase the maximum percentage of s7.12 (formerly s94A) but limit it to nett increases of dwellings and floorspace and cap it at $10,000 for dwelling houses and $8,000 for medium density.

Ku-ring-gai Council currently levies s7.11 contributions on all development that generates a direct increase in demand and the present cap is $20,000 per dwelling authorised by the consent, outside the local centres (inside the local centres where the bulk of the intensive redevelopment activity is taking place is currently uncapped). Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s s7.12 plan levies those indirect contributions on smaller developments that indirectly add to cumulative demand, for example the on-going process of the redevelopment of small deceased estates into substantial family dwellings for residents at the different stage of life with different infrastructure needs. Essentially this recommendation changes s7.12 into a “lite” version of s7.11 rather than a genuine alternative to s7.11 where the rate and location of such change is difficult to predict.

· Introduce a number of new levies at State Government Level

The reforms foreshadow regional infrastructure contributions for Greater Sydney of up to $12,000 per dwelling ($10,000 for other residential development) as well as reintroducing Sydney Water contributions.

Under the combined set of reforms, councils will gain increased revenue from rates, but decreased revenue from infrastructure contributions.

The NSW Productivity Commissioner reports that on average, over a 5 year period councils in the below state-average growth group will gain $13 per capita per year in rates and lose $5 per capita per year in development contributions, a net overall increase of $8 per capita per year. In the fifth year, the increase is $16 per capita. However, these averages are not applicable to Ku-ring-gai Council. Due to the nature of Ku-ring-gai’s development pattern and current contribution plans, the loss of development contributions is likely to be substantial.

More detailed information on the likely impacts on the capacity of Ku-ring-gai Council to support new development through the provision of capital additional infrastructure (appropriately apportioned as required where there is an existing demand) will be reported to Council following further detailed analysis.

Preliminary analysis suggests that Ku-ring-gai may gain approximately $300,000 pa in rate income for each 1% increase in population under the alternative rating system, and lose virtually all of the current s7.12 contributions (approximately $2.5M per annum) before even commencing the analysis of the impact on s7.11 contributions which is the more significant of the two types of contributions.

Ensuring the concerns of redeveloping established area, councils like Ku-ring-gai are considered as part of IPART’s investigation into population-based rates, is an important related step in mitigating a potentially significant loss of infrastructure funding potential in the future.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council's responses to government policy and reforms are guided by and aligned with the adopted Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community Our Future 2030'.

Analyse and provide appropriate submissions to government proposals affecting the local government industry.

Governance Matters

Submissions are required to be lodged by 3 May 2021.

Risk Management

Not applicable

Financial Considerations

Increased rates revenue is likely to be an outcome from the proposal to allow the general income of councils to be varied annually in a way that accounts for population growth. However, substantially decreased development contributions is likely to be an outcome of the proposed changes to s7.11 and s7.12. Preliminary analysis suggests that Ku-ring-gai may gain approximately $300,000 pa in rate income for each 1% increase in population under the alternative rating system, and lose virtually all of the current s7.12 contributions (approximately $2.5M per annum) before even commencing the analysis of the impact on s7.11 contributions which is the more significant of the two types of contributions.

Social Considerations

The proposed change to allow rates to increase in line with population growth will assist Council to maintain services to the community for the existing and incoming population. However, the loss of development contributions will result in substantially reduced capacity for Council to provide new infrastructure and facilities to support a growing community.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable

Community Consultation

Not applicable

Internal Consultation

The Strategy and Environment Department have provided comments on the impact of proposed changes to development contributions.

Summary

IPART released an Issues Paper in March 2021 on the Review Of The Rate Peg To Include Population Growth. IPART is seeking submissions on the Issues Paper by close of business on 3 May 2021.

This paper proposes a rate peg methodology that allows the general income of councils to be varied annually in a way that accounts for population growth. This is likely to be of benefit to Ku-ring-gai Council.

A separate but related process is underway to change the development contributions framework. This is likely to be highly detrimental to Ku-ring-gai Council, with the loss of revenue far exceeding the benefit from the rates reform.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council note while it is likely to be financially beneficial to Council if rates are allowed to increase in proportion to population, proposed changes to development contributions would be highly detrimental and significantly outweigh any benefits.

B. Council endorse the draft submission to IPART on the Review Of The Rate Peg To Include Population Growth.

C. The General Manager be authorised to finalise the content of the submission consistent with the position put forward in this report and attached draft submission.

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1⇩	IPART Issues Paper on the review of the rate peg to include population growth		2021/087293
	A2⇩	Draft Submission on the Issues Paper on the review of the rate peg to include population growth		2021/103833

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.8 / 133

Item GB.8	FY00623/3
	15 March 2021

Review of Council's Investment Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To adopt Council's revised Investment Policy.

background:	Council’s current Investment Policy was adopted in September 2019. Council periodically reviews and updates its Investment Policy.

comments:	Council has sought the advice of Council’s investment advisors, CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd, in reviewing the Investment Policy. The revised Investment Policy was reviewed and endorsed by the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee in March 2021.

recommendation:	That the attached revised Investment Policy be adopted by Council.

Purpose of Report

To adopt Council's revised Investment Policy.

Background

Council currently has an investment portfolio of around $195 million. Investment earnings are a significant source of revenue for Council and it is important that Council maximises returns on investments, whilst having due consideration of risk tolerance, liquidity and security.

Council has recently entered a long term funding agreement with the New South Wales Treasury Corporation (known as ('TCorp'). As part of the loan funding conditions, there are specific constraints placed on Council’s future investments in terms of Approved Deposit Institutions (ADI) ratings, limits and investment horizons.

In light of this, Council’s current Policy has been reviewed to include changes proposed by TCorp. In addition, other minor administrative and wording changes have been included.

The revised Investment Policy was reviewed and endorsed by the internal Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee on 11 March 2021.

Comments

Council has utilised its investment advisory firm CPG Research & Advisory in reviewing and updating the Investment Policy. The revised Investment Policy is attached to this report (Attachment A1).

TCorp’s conditions on Council’s investments Portfolio are summarised in the table below (sourced from TCorp). Key changes are discussed further in the report and reflected in the Revised Investment Policy.

The main changes introduced as a result of the TCorp requirements are:

· TCorp excludes small ADIs (BBB- and unrated other (non-local) ADIs only being permitted to the $250k guarantee).

· Tenor maturity limits are introduced.

· TCorp allows 100% to be invested in TCorpIM fund, unless otherwise restricted elsewhere.

· Ratings are defined on a “lesser-of” basis. Portfolio credit guidelines to be adopted will primarily reference the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ratings system criteria and format but Moody’s and Fitch Ratings equivalents are also considered on a lowest-of basis.

· Ratings are defined in terms of both short term and long term.

Proposed changes to the revised Investment Policy

Council management reviewed the current Investment Policy in consultation with the investment advisor, CPG Research & Advisory. The following changes or additions are proposed:

Objectives

In addition to the current Objective of the Policy, a secondary objective has been introduced:

· It is open for Council to consider the best interests of the community, where other secondary objectives produce greater public benefit. For example, Council may consider the net benefits of concessional loans from TCorp, where conditions of these loans may reduce yield on investments.

Authorised Investments

This section of the policy specified which type of investments are authorised to invest by the Ministerial Investment Order. It is now further stated:

Authorised investments must adhere to permitted issuers as well as any other restrictions placed by the Act or Order. Any successor Order shall have immediate effect without requiring the ratification of a new Investment Policy.

Risk Management Guidelines

This section of the policy provides a list of key criteria /risks associated with making investments. An additional risk has been added.

· Legal Risk - Failure to document and secure title in an enforceable manner.

Credit Ratings

The current portfolio credit guidelines adopted primarily reference the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ratings system criteria and format but Moody’s and Fitch Ratings equivalents are also used on a lowest-of basis.

In addition, the following breakdown of ratings and changes to portfolio limits are proposed:

Credit Ratings
Current Policy		Proposed Policy change ( as per TCorp)
*Long Term S&P Rating*	*Max Holding/Portfolio Limit*	*Long Term S&P Rating*	*Max Holding/Portfolio Limit*
AAA	100%	AAA	100%
AA or Top Level Bank		AA+ to AA-	100%
A	70%	A+ to A	100%
		A-	40%
BBB	25%	BBB, BBB+	30%
Lower, Unrated (credit unions etc.)	10%	BBB- & below local ADIs	5%
		BBB- & below Other	5%
		TCorp Investments	100%

Comments:

· “A” Category is further divided into two categories “A+ to A” and “A-“.

o “A” Category’s maximum portfolio holding is now 100%, increased from 70%.

o “A-“ Category’s maximum portfolio holding is now 40%, reduced from 70%

· “BBB” Category is further divided into the following categories and amended from a current maximum holding of 25%:

o “BBB+;BBB” (30%),

o “BBB- & below local ADIs (5%)

o “BBB- & below other” (5%)

The above ratings, are reflected in TCorp’s table below:

General Policy Guidelines – Counterparty Limits

Counterparty Limits specify the maximum holding with an individual authorised deposit taking institution (ADI). Exposure to individual counterparties/financial institutions is restricted by their rating so that single entity exposure is limited.

To align with TCorp’s limitations the following changes to counterparty limits are noted:

Counterparty Limits
Current Policy		Proposed Policy change ( as per TCorp)
*Long Term S&P Rating*	*Limit*	*Long Term S&P Rating*	*Limit*
AAA	40%	AAA	100%
AA or Top Level Bank	30%	AA+ to AA-	100%
A	20%	A+ to A	30%
		A-	20%
BBB	10%	BBB	5%
		BBB+	10%
Lower, Unrated (credit unions etc.)	3%	BBB- & below local ADIs	5%
		BBB- & below Other	$250k
		TCorp Investments	100%

Comments:

· TCorp investments - 100%

· “AAA” Category 100% (increased from 40%)

· “AA+” to “AA- Category 100% (increased from 30%)

· “A” Category is further divided into “A+” to “A” (30%) (increased from 20%) and “A-“ (20%)

· “BBB” Category is further divided into “BBB+” (10%), “BBB” (5%), “BBB- & below local ADIs” (5%) and “BBB- &below other” ($250K max.)

The proposed ratings are reflected in the TCorp Table under Credit ratings section above.

Investment Horizon

Investment Horizon Limit is further defined in the revised policy.

“Horizon” represents the tenor of direct investments. For pooled funds a suitable minimum investment horizon shall be adopted after considering advice from the investment advisor.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

Council is required to adopt an Investment Policy consistent with the Ministerial Investment Order. The Ministerial Investments Order prescribes the forms of investment that Council can invest in.

The Investment Policy should identify all types of risks associated with making investment decisions. The Risk Management Guidelines section of the proposed Investment Policy identifies and defines these risks as follows: credit risk, liquidity risk, market risk, legal risk, maturity risk, interest risk.

All investments are made in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy with consideration of advice from Council’s appointed investment advisory, CPG Research & Advisory.

Financial Considerations

Investment income is a significant revenue source for Council and it is important that returns are

maximised, whilst having due consideration of risk tolerance, liquidity and security.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Summary

Council’s current Policy has been reviewed to include changes proposed by TCorp. In addition, other minor administrative and wording changes have been included.

The Investment Policy has been reviewed in consultation with Council’s investment advisors, CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd.

The revised Investment Policy was reviewed and endorsed by the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee in March 2021.

The revised Investment Policy is attached to this report (Attachment A1).

Recommendation:

That the attached revised Investment Policy be adopted by Council.

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:

A1⇩

Investment Policy 2021

2021/055969

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.9 / 153

Item GB.9	FY00623/3
	7 April 2021

Investment Report as at 31 March 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for March 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 March 2021 was $2,579,000, against an annual revised budget of $2,638,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $59,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for March 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 March 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 Revised Budget

The net return on investments for the financial year to 31 March 2021 was $2,579,000 against an annual revised budget of $2,638,000 giving a year to date unfavourable variance of $59,000 as shown in the table below. The annual forecast budget has been reviewed in light of reduced interest rates and a reduction of $100K was adopted in the December 2020 Quarterly Budget Review. Council will continue to monitor the trends and further adjustments will be made if required as part of March 2021 Quarterly Budget Review.

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

Cash Flow and Investment Movements

Council’s total cash and investment portfolio at the end of March 2021 was $197,975,000 compared to $198,667,000 at the end of February 2021, a net cash outflow of $692,000 was mainly due to creditor payments.

There were five investments that matured during the month of March 2021. Three new investments were made.

Investment Performance against Industry Benchmark

Overall during the month of March 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 March 2021

* 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 revised budget for interest on investments for the financial year 2020/2021 is $3,480,800. Of this amount approximately $2,444,400 is restricted for the benefit of future expenditure relating to development contributions, $653,000 transferred to the internally restricted Infrastructure & Facility Reserve, and the remainder of $383,400 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 31 March 2021:

· Council’s total cash and investment portfolio is $197,975,000.

· The net return on investments for the financial year to March 2021 was $2,579,000 against an annual revised budget of $2,638,000, giving a YTD unfavourable variance of $59,000.

Recommendation:

That:

A. The summary of investments and performance for March 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 - 27 April 2021	GB.11 / 189

Item GB.11	S12306

Draft Planning Agreement - Roseville Memorial Club - Part 62 and 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville - Post Exhibition Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To bring to Council’s attention the post exhibition submissions for the draft Planning Agreement (noting the exhibited draft Planning Agreement (PA) has been withdrawn by the applicant, thereby terminating the process).

background:	The draft PA as exhibited included provision for the excision of a linear area of land at the rear of the Memorial Club from Memorial Park proper. Its divestment at a market rate (with the funds to be utilised for community purposes), together with the provision of public benefits through the dedication and future maintenance of the pedestrian route to Memorial Park to Council is in accordance with Council’s adopted DCP. A further benefit arising from the divestment of the land was expected to be provision of an improved underground car parking layout, with the anticipated outcome of alleviating pressure on the public Larkin Lane carpark.

comments:	This report outlines the background and process of this matter to date and identifies the parallel processes of the DA and a wholly separate Planning Proposal. It also addresses the matters raised in submissions received as part of the formal exhibition process.

recommendation:	The report notes the formal termination of this process by the proponent as a result of being superseded by a new letter of offer.

Purpose of Report

Background

Strategically Planning for the Public Domain Improvement of Ku-ring-gai’s Laneways

Previous reports on this matter have provided some context concerning the concurrent Development Application and a separate Planning Proposal process, together with references to the process of reclassifying the land from community land to operational land between 2014 and 2016. The 2014 resolution makes clear Council’s intention to reclassify the large allotment that is Memorial Park, back to community land immediately upon subdivision.

Feedback arising from the public exhibition process indicated that the relationship of the current draft PA to the broader strategic planning context for the local centres could also have been better communicated. Much of the strategic planning was undertaken nearly a decade ago and is still very much in the process of implementation.

The proposal that is the subject of DA0134/18 and the draft PA is a part of a much larger planning framework dating back to the 2009 work underpinning the current local environmental plans, development control plans, public domain plan and development contributions plans.

The subject site, together with the properties to its north, was rezoned to its present zoning, height and FSR under Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) Local Environmental Plan 2012. During a prior LEP process, Council had prepared the Public Domain Plan 2010 and Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to support the implementation of the local centres under the LEP and associated DCPs. The DCP came into effect on gazettal of the LEP in 2013.

In Larkin Lane there is a particular challenge as the line of the future pedestrian way includes mostly private properties but also includes areas in Council’s ownership. There exists a real challenge for unequal treatment of these properties compared to their neighbours in terms of realising the proportional floor space potential, particularly if some sites are amalgamated, leading to a poorer urban design outcome. There arises the need to consider some mechanism to deliver equity to the existing property owners, while providing for the community benefit of a contiguous pedestrian pathway from The Rifleway to Memorial Park and ensuring fair value for the community from any Council-owned lots to financially support the continued delivery of infrastructure to support on-going growth under the LEPs.

The objective for redevelopment of the area is that potential redevelopment sites backing onto Larkin Lane are able to secure the floorspace potential from the land in the future pedestrian way upon redevelopment. In this way a formal continuous pedestrian way linking The Rifleway to Memorial Park can be delivered beside the public carpark at the rear of those properties enabling dual frontage. The Memorial Club is the first of the affected properties to seek to redevelop.

Comments

The first step in the process of the subdivision and prospective divestment of this land occurred in 2014 with the reclassification process. Community classified land cannot be subdivided or sold. Consequently it was essential that the “axe handle” of land at the rear of 64 Pacific Highway was subdivided and legally separated from the main area of Memorial Park.

The then draft PA was formally exhibited in August/September 2014. A public hearing was held on 20 October 2014. Council considered the outcome of the exhibition and public hearing process on 9 December 2014 and endorsed the reclassification of the subject property. Following referral to the NSW Government in December 2014, the whole of Lot 2 DP 202148 was reclassified in December 2016 and has been operational land since that date.

The OMC of 9 December 2014 following the Public Hearing resolved that the subdivision line should be in line with the southern boundary of the existing Memorial Club. Council also resolved regarding the intended classification of Memorial Park:

C. That, upon registration of the subdivision of 62 Pacific Highway Roseville, referred to above, the new allotment which comprises Memorial Park be classified as community land and the new allotment which comprises the area utilised primarily for car parking retain an Operational classification.

Since the need for subdivision arises only as a result of the potential divestment to the only adjoining property which shares a common boundary with the land, the burden of cost of that work should rest with the proponent rather than with ratepayers, and is thus included as part of the Development Application and referenced in the associated draft Planning Agreement.

Divestment as an inclusion to the Planning Agreement

Divestment of land on its own is not required to be included in a PA. The primary purpose of the exhibited draft PA was to achieve a legal means of public access over the land to continue to support the objectives of the DCP in achieving a much longer pedestrian way. Additionally, the exhibited draft PA provided for the maintenance of the public way free of cost to Council. This was considered to be particularly beneficial to set a precedent for other sections over time. Such restrictions on title were tied to the subdivision process, being part of the Development Application. From Council’s viewpoint the divestment could have been a severable matter. It is acknowledged however, that the Memorial Club, in taking on the provision and maintenance of the public way under the development application, would seek surety that the potential for purchase of the land and its incorporation within the development site, would also be binding on Council. The listing of the matters under the PA in temporal order rather than order of importance appears to have given rise to some misunderstandings as to the purpose of the PA.

Valuation processes

The initial valuation involved joint agreement of the selection of a professional valuer to be paid for by the proponent. The valuer was required to follow Council’s adopted Acquisition and Divestment Policy which provides for a “before” and “after” scenario in providing an estimate of land value.

A second valuation was commissioned solely by Council (February 2020). This matter will be addressed in a future report to Council dealing with a fresh letter of offer and a potential new VPA.

Public Exhibition process

The first statutory 28+ day public exhibition took place between 31 October 2019 and 29 November 2019 inclusive. It was subsequently discovered that the public newspaper advertisement (though not the notification letters) featured an incorrectly truncated address for the property listing it as 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville rather than Part 62, 64-66 Pacific Highway Roseville. This technical error none-the-less triggered a re-exhibition to correct this error.

Some of the submissions to the first exhibition revealed some confusion between the statutory exhibition webpage and the online Planning Agreement Register webpage. The latter lists all current draft, active and discharged Planning Agreements along with their current status, in a register format, but it is not an exhibition page. A draft PA is defined as one which has been reported to Council for exhibition but has not been finalised post-exhibition. The subject draft PA met that description and was duly added to the Planning Agreement Register as a formal draft while also having a separate formal statutory exhibition page on Council’s website.

All exhibition advertising and letters directed recipients to the formal Exhibition pages on the Ku-ring-gai Council website at: www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/exhibition. However, to alleviate further confusion, as part of the second exhibition, additional text was added to the Planning Agreements Register webpage to assist in ensuring it was not mistaken for the exhibition page. This will remain to avoid any further confusions of this nature in the future.

To address concerns raised concerning the identification of the land and its distinction from Memorial Park proper, the second exhibition also included a link to the OMC report of October 2019 and a separate one page copy of the plan of subdivision which was incorporated within the Planning Agreement was also provided as a distinct stand-alone link.

The draft Planning Agreement was re-exhibited from 12 December 2019 to 30 January 2020 inclusive, being a period of seven weeks, due to the period of Christmas and New Year. Both the advertisement and the notification letters advised that all submissions to the previous exhibition would be considered in this report along with any additional submissions.

Notwithstanding the termination of the process relating to the current exhibited draft Planning Agreement, there have been substantial submissions to the process and these are outlined for Council’s information below.

Submissions arising from the Public Exhibitions

A total of fifty distinct submissions were received, although a number of these were multiple submissions by individuals with and without additional commentary, generally attaching previous submission(s) related to the property. Some were submissions to both the DA and the draft VPA; some attached the submission to the DA to the submission to the VPA and vice versa. One of the 50 submissions is from a public authority (RMS). Additionally, there was a petition of 153 individual names supporting the proposal with a covering letter. Received in March 2020, was a further petition of 664 individual names against both the DA and the draft Planning Agreement collectively. It is understood there have been further submissions on the DA which has also been the subject of a number of exhibited amendments, however, given the draft Planning Agreement exhibition ended in January 2020, only submissions up until March 2020 form part of this report.

Of the remaining 49 community submissions (excluding RMS), there were 44 submissions from distinct individuals/addresses. Of these, 24 were opposed to some or all of the matters that were the subject of public exhibition within the draft Planning Agreement, being the provision of public benefits, subdivision and divestment of land; and 18 supported the proposal (as did the first separate petition). Two did not express a clear view either in support of or opposed to the proposal, instead referring to consequential impacts with suggested mitigation should the proposal proceed. After the close of the exhibition, a larger petition opposing the proposal was received.

All submissions received from 31 October 2019 until the end of the second exhibition on 30 January 2020 until March 2020, including the two petitions, have been separately circulated to Councillors.

The key themes of the submissions are listed and discussed below. Many of the themes were integrated with aspects of the development that were subject to assessment by the independent planning consultant limiting the extent to which they can be directly addressed here other than as they relate to the content of the draft Planning Agreement. Council outsourced the assessment of the Development Application to an independent consultant to keep the matters at arms’ length.

Integrated Concerns with the Draft Planning Agreement and DA0134/18

Many submissions combined comment on the DA and the draft Planning Agreement and/or attached previous submissions to the DA to the submissions for the draft PA.

Key themes included the inclusion of Council land with the Development Application, the treatment of the land in relation to the provisions of the DCP, and traffic and parking implications. Some submissions objected to the development in its entirety but that is not a matter to be addressed in this report which relates only to the matters included within the proposed Planning Agreement.

Many submissions did refer specifically to the Planning Agreement. Key themes related to the draft planning agreement included: concerns about identifying the land affected, the effect on Memorial Park – and whether it was included, and legalistic language, concerns about the additional inclusions in the draft Planning Agreement and the exhibition process.

Divestment with easements vs land dedication

As outlined, the properties to the north of the Memorial Club where dedication for future public access is outlined in the Development Control Plan (DCP) will still retain the option to incorporate the floorspace potential of that land within any future development application. The question of land dedication is unlikely to arise until there is some form of development proposal that has the potential to utilise that floorspace potential.

In this way, the value of the land inherent in its floorspace potential will be incorporated within the owner or owners future developments and that benefit retained by them. The residual land, stripped of the value inherent in its floorspace potential, can then be dedicated free of additional monetary compensation. If the owners, at the time of development, preferred to retain the land together with the burden of easements to maintain the land, to provide public access and to assume public liability for the land retained in their ownership, then that option could also become the subject of a future Planning Agreement. Planning Agreements must be mutually voluntary, as such more than one mechanism to obtain the best public outcome are up for consideration.

In the case of the subject land at the rear of the Memorial Club, the development site does not own the axe-handle and cannot utilise floorspace potential of it without first purchasing that right, in order to achieve the same (relative) yield for the site depth as the properties to the north. Nor does it have the right to utilise the subterranean area beneath the land to achieve an improved car parking and vehicular circulation layout without appropriate compensation.

It is acknowledged that, being a gateway site, 64 Pacific Highway has a higher floorspace potential than 66 Pacific Highway (also part of the Memorial Club site) and the properties to the north. The matter of the requested clause 4.6 variation is a matter for the development assessment process.

There is also a private draft Planning Proposal to increase the site yield, which is an option that is open to any property owner to seek. The draft Planning Proposal is also the subject of independent outsourced assessment. That matter is now on public exhibition until Friday, 23 April 2021.

Development Application DA0134/18 was assessed under the current statutory controls under Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan (Local Centres) 2012. However it is now the subject of Land and Environment Court proceedings and the exhibition of the proposed changes to the planning controls renders them a formal draft with some standing. It is understood that this matter may be determined by the Court prior to Council considering this report.

Risk Management of the Ownership of the Pedestrian Area

The draft exhibited PA contained additional safeguards with respect to ensuring that access to the public way was provided and maintained both legally and practically. The draft PA included provisions for the divestment land to be compulsorily acquired in the event these conditions were not met. In noting that the Club, in having ownership, would also have public liability for the land, as such, it would have been very much in their interests to maintain the public pedestrian way.

Parking implications and competition for car parking spaces

There appeared to be a number of misconceptions about the Larkin Lane carpark. There is no proposal to divest any part of the area known as “the Larkin Lane carpark” which comprises Larkin Lane itself and 13 small lots (including amalgamated lots) excised from the rear of the Pacific Highway properties and progressively acquired between 1961 and 1964. The Larkin Lane carpark is a relatively small local carpark of about 44 angled spaces and is well-used by visitors to Roseville, including visitors to Roseville Cinema and the present Memorial Club.

Council’s 2010 Parking Management Plan does foreshadow mechanisms for managing essential parking were there to be a hypothetical redevelopment of the Larkin Lane carpark, whether or not in conjunction with adjoining properties, however it is a highly constrained site compared to other local centre car parks in the Ku-ring-gai area.

Parking Provision within Development Application DA0134/18

The assessment of the current Development Application DA0134/18 was undertaken by an external consultant planner because of the inclusion of Council land. The consent authority was the Sydney North Planning Panel.

The intent of the DCP is that any development that involves a complete demolition and the construction of a wholly new building is required to provide all the car parking required by that site under the current controls applicable to that site, wholly within that redevelopment site and, in the case of a mixed-used development, this includes the appropriate allocation of car parking spaces to each use in accordance with the DCP.

Provided the proposed development complies with Council’s Development Control Plan with respect to the provision of all the required car parking for the proposal, including its distribution between the residential and non-residential uses, then more of the parking located in the Larkin Lane carpark will be released for the patrons of other businesses as a result of the provision of additional parking for patrons of the Roseville Memorial Club in accordance with Council’s strategic planning documents.

Loss of car-parking on the divestment land

The DCP supporting the Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012, shows the subject land as part of a much longer pedestrian way from The Rifleway to Memorial Park. Accordingly, the on-going use of that land as temporary car parking (regardless of whether signposted as for the club - although, in practice, arguably available to all), has been expected to cease to be available for car parking and become available for pedestrians, for most of the last decade since the adoption of the Public Domain Plan 2010 and original Centres Development Control Plan in 2010.

In that context, the use of the land for car parking has been a temporary terminating use for many years pending the progressive delivery of the public domain in Council’s strategic planning documents. Even if Council were to retain the ownership of the land at this time, that section of the pedestrian way would need to be delivered and maintained concurrent with the end of the construction period, resulting in the immediate loss of the interim car parking.

Access to Larkin Lane carpark

One submission referred to restricted access to Larkin Lane carpark. The area of the road reserve that is Larkin Lane was not altered as a result of the proposal that was exhibited. The subject land will be a pedestrian pathway with the vehicle crossing area reduced to the driveway access to the underground car park of the new building as distinct from the full frontage as is currently the case. The reduction in vehicle movements for the majority of the length of the frontage of the site to Larkin Lane, should not have a negative impact on access to the Larkin Lane carpark.

Traffic in Maclaurin Parade

One submission refers to an increasing volume of traffic in Maclaurin Parade arising from northbound traffic on the Pacific Highway avoiding the Boundary Street right turn, continuing onwards, to turn left into Maclaurin Parade, executing a U turn at the entrance to Larkin Lane, and returning to the Pacific Highway (southbound) in order to turn left into Boundary Street. Council staff have observed such manoeuvres on an ad hoc basis though no formal counts have been undertaken. The expectation when the railway viaduct over Boundary Street was widened was that this would provide the scope for two right-turn lanes from the Pacific Highway into Boundary Street. While two lanes eastbound do now pass under the railway, allocation of an additional right-turning lane on the Pacific Highway has not occurred. It is understood that additional land needs to be acquired along the Pacific Highway in order to facilitate the provision of two northbound lanes in addition to two right turning lanes (rather than repurposing, or dual-purposing an existing lane). Prospective enhanced turning lanes are located in the Willoughby Council area on land controlled by RMS. As such this Council has only an advocacy role on this matter.

Any issues with traffic volume in Maclaurin Parade arising from proposed development are a matter for consideration within a Development Application. The legal and practical provision of a pedestrian accessway over land currently used for car parking will not, of itself, increase traffic.

The identification of the land area affected

The first exhibition in particular, indicated some members of the community were unclear as to the specific area of land involved in the proposal. The fact that Memorial Park together with the axe-handle currently utilised by the Memorial Club for car parking, remain in one legal allotment (being Lot 2 in DP 202148) and that the process of subdivision is included within the development application, as well as referenced within the draft Planning Agreement, does not assist clarity.

The second exhibition added the OMC report of 22 October 2019 to the online exhibition material because it contained a number of plans and aerial photographs that better delineate the areas involved, as well as reiterating the resolution arising from the reclassification process that makes it clear that Council intends the reclassify Memorial Park itself back to community land as soon as the subdivision has taken place, concurrently with the registration of that subdivision.

The image below generally illustrates the land parcels involved.

The status of Memorial Park

Several submissions objected to the loss of Memorial Park. This is a misunderstanding. The squarish area of grassed area containing the War Memorial and the passive recreation area, that is bordered by Maclaurin Parade, the Pacific Highway and Larkin Lane up to the line of the southern boundary of the Memorial Club, is to reclassified back to community land immediately upon subdivision and, as such, will remain available to the public for use as it always has been.

The OMC report of 9 December 2014 into the reclassification process, specified that the subdivision was to follow the line of the existing boundary between Memorial Park at 62 Pacific Highway and the Roseville Memorial Club at 64 Pacific Highway. It also resolved that Memorial Park revert to community classification concurrent with the registration of the subdivision. This resolution has been reiterated as part of the recommendation attached to this report for additional and current emphasis in the context of the current proposed subdivision.

The garden bed

A number of submissions expressed concern about the loss of the “garden bed”. The photograph below shows the garden bed referred to in the previous OMC report. It is a small area of unpaved land within the bitumen car parking area behind the Club. In Council reports, it has been specifically referenced alongside the car parking spaces in the interests of technical accuracy because of the anomaly in the zoning line that is being addressed under the Planning Proposal. This small unpaved area of the car park is fully separated from Memorial Park by a concrete pedestrian pathway. It does not appear visually to be part of Memorial Park proper.

The Garden Bed (image source Google Maps)

Inclusion of the divestment within the planning agreement

As outlined above, while it is not necessary for divestment to be included in a Planning Agreement, neither is it precluded. Further, it should be particularly noted that as a result of the inclusion of the divestment aspect of the matter as part of the draft PA, the proposed divestment was placed on public exhibition and the community was afforded the chance to comment.

Legalistic language

A Planning Agreement is a legal document that will be registered on the title of the land. This draft Planning Agreement included provision for a Right of Carriageway, a Right of Access and a positive covenant for future maintenance. This particular draft Planning Agreement also incorporated provision for divestment of the land. The use of formal legal language in this unavoidable.

Concerns around the Proposed Divestment

Issues related to the property sale included operational vs community land, the valuation process, whether the land was offered to adjoining owners, and the inclusion of the garden bed.

Community Land and Operational Land

The reclassification process for this site, among others, was commenced in 2014. The draft Planning Proposal was exhibited in August /September 2014. A public hearing was held on 20 October 2014. Council considered the outcome of the exhibition and public hearing on 9 December 2014. Following referral back to the NSW Government in December 2014, the whole of Lot 2 DP 202148 was formally reclassified in December 2016 and is currently operational land. No part of the site is currently classified as community land.

The land on which both Memorial Park and the axe handle stand, is a single allotment and its reclassification in its entirety was essential to enable the subdivision of that allotment because community land cannot be subdivided. Notwithstanding, Council made its intentions regarding the future of Memorial Park clear concurrent with that process. The resolution of the OMC of 9 December 2014 that recommended that the reclassification proceed, included the resolution that as part of the subdivision process, the area that is Memorial Park, be reclassified back to community land and the axe handle located directly behind the Memorial Club be classified operational land. That part of the resolution has been quoted in the main comment section above and is reiterated in the recommendations to this report.

The proposed subdivision line is a continuity of the existing allotment boundary line between the current Memorial Club land and Memorial Park in such a manner as the northern boundary of Memorial Park will be a straight line. Memorial Park will be classified back to community land on registration of the subdivision. The remaining section will remain operational land. As such, no current or future community classified land is proposed for divestment and no community classified land will be in private ownership as a result of these proposals.

Whether the divestment land was offered to adjoining owners

The divestment land is bordered by Larkin Lane to the west, by Memorial Park to the south, by the Memorial Club at 64 Pacific Highway to the east and by the Memorial Club at 66 Pacific Highway to the north. No other land shares a common boundary with the proposed divestment lot and the potential lot is not of a size nor configuration to be reasonably capable of independent redevelopment. There are no other adjoining properties. There can only be one realistic prospective purchaser, being owners of the Memorial Club.

Valuation

Several submissions expressed concern that the initial valuation had been wholly commissioned by the proponent and presented to Council. As previously stated above, the initial valuation involved the joint agreement of the selection of a professional valuer to be paid for by the proponent. The valuer was required to follow Council’s adopted Acquisition and Divestment Policy which provides for a “before” and “after” scenario in providing an estimate of land value.

A second valuation was commissioned solely by Council in accordance with the resolution of the OMC of 22 October 2019. It was commissioned prior to Christmas and received in February 2020 shortly after the conclusion of the exhibition.

One submission compared the offer from the Club (which is it should be stressed was an offer - not an agreed sale price until Council makes a specific resolution to that effect), to the sale price achieved for the Havilah Lane car park in Lindfield. The two properties are very different. The site on Havilah Lane Lindfield was a largely square shaped property of approximately 765sqm with two large consolidated holdings surrounding it on three boundaries (other than its frontage to Havilah Lane). The existence of two adjoining owners each with large consolidated development sites facilitated a competitive bidding process. There are no other adjoining properties in this instance

Submissions supportive of the redevelopment of the Roseville Memorial Club

Approximately 18 distinct submissions were received supporting the proposed redevelopment of the Roseville Memorial Club of which all specifically referenced the inclusion of the future lot at the rear of the property for proposed divestment to the Club and the proposed public benefits (provision and maintenance of public access and maintenance of the footpath free of cost to Council). Some were broadly similar in references; many added personal stories of involvement with the club. Additionally a petition of 153 signatures was received in favour of the proposals.

Other matters – Development Contributions

The draft Planning Agreement provides for a development contribution in the form of public access rights and future maintenance over the affected land. The draft Planning Agreement also specifies the relationship between the draft Planning Agreement and development contributions for the provision of infrastructure required under s7.11 or s7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as it is required to do. The dual use of the term “development contribution” can be confusing in this context. The exhibited draft Planning Agreement provided that the provisions under the Planning Agreement are not to be taken into account when calculating these contributions. Thus the calculation of the s7.11 development contributions remains a separate and independent process and the quantum is not altered by the draft Planning Agreement; it will be no different on the date of calculation for DA0134/18 as it would have been in the absence of the draft Planning Agreement. Like every other s7.11 consent condition, the contributions payable will continue to be subject to inflation in accordance with the Contributions Plan until they are paid.

Development contributions under s7.11 must be subject to a formally adopted development contributions plan which specifies both the rate of contribution and the costed infrastructure which is to be delivered to meet the nett additional demand for facilities and services arising as a result of proposed development (among other essential inclusions). Ku-ring-gai Council formally adopted Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 concurrent with the initial rezoning of the local centres for the specific purpose of providing for the infrastructure demand arising from the changes in development potential. As one of many documents guiding development and funding supporting infrastructure in Ku-ring-gai, that plan is due for review concurrent with the strategic planning work arising from the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) that is currently underway.

The Contributions Plan establishes contribution rates for all catchments, including the Roseville Local Centre, based either on per capita demand (multiplied by occupancy rates to be expressed as a rate for one, two or three bedroom dwelling units); or by traffic generation rates, based on RMS data, in the case of non-residential floorspace. These rates are a mathematical calculation applied to all development proposals based on their catchment, adding the demand for what development is proposed, subtracting the demand from what development exists, to mathematically derive a nett additional demand position expressed as a monetary amount. Contributions are calculated from the base data of units by numbers of bedrooms and square metres of business floorspace entered into council’s mainframe system. No part of this process is the subject of negotiation.

Development contributions are held in trust for the purposes of continuing the delivery of the rolling works programme published in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.

Current status of the Development Application

At the time of completing this report, the status of the Development Application DA0134/18 is:

· Considered by the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) on 4 March 2020 at Chambers following an earlier site inspection. The decision was formally deferred to allow a number of matters to be addressed.

· A s34 conciliation conference in respect of the deemed refusal was held on 11 March with a further directions hearing on 18 March 2020.

· The SNPP formally approved DA0134/18 as a deferred commencement on 9 September 2020. The deferred commencement condition relates to the Planning Agreement.

· The Land and Environment Court listed the matter for hearing on 10, 11, 12 and 13 November 2020, commencing on the site on 10 November 2020 at 10am.

· The applicant sought to convert the matter from an appeal against deemed refusal to an appeal against conditions. The proposal remains before the Land and Environment Court with a decision likely before this report is considered by Council.

As part of these proceedings, and to address concerns raised surrounding the relationship of the Planning Agreement to the Development Application following various amendments to the DA, the applicant submitted a new letter of offer to Council last year which consequentially terminated the draft exhibited Planning Agreement. That letter of offer was provided to Councillors by way of memorandum prior to Christmas 2020.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

L2.1.3 Council maintains its commitment to infrastructure asset management priorities

L2.1.3.1 Identify available funding sources in the Long Term Financial Plan and allocate to priority projects and assets

Governance Matters AND Risk Management

In 2013, the process commenced to reclassify the land at 62 Pacific Highway with the intention of subsequently subdividing the land in order to separate the mostly bitumen axe-handle at the rear of 64 Pacific Highway from the formal garden park and War Memorial that is Memorial Park. The reclassification was required because community land cannot be subdivided. Following subdivision, that part of the land that comprised Memorial Park was to revert to community classification. The axe handle was to remain operational land in order to facilitate divestment.

Subdivision and potential divestment arose following an expression of interest by the Roseville Memorial Club. The Club also wished to pursue a Development Application and a Planning Proposal, leading to the confluence of matters that should, ideally, have occurred sequentially, not concurrently. Council advice in this regard was ignored. This has resulted in a process exhibiting considerable unnecessary complexity. Notwithstanding, Council has retained external legal advice in respect of the draft PA, an external consultant to assess the Development Application (DA0134/18) and a further external consultant to assess the Planning Proposal which is on public exhibition until 23 April 2021.

The assessment of the Development Application has been outsourced to an independent planning consultant to ensure assessment is wholly independent and at arms’ length from Council. The consent authority was the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP). DA0134/18 was assessed under the current planning controls which have been in effect since 2013.

The matter was considered by the SNPP on 4 March 2020 and the decision was taken to defer the decision to enable a number of matters to be addressed. The SNPP subsequently approved DA0132/18 as a deferred commencement on 9 September 2020 subject to consent conditions. The deferred commencement condition related to the draft Planning Agreement arising from the now superseded letter of offer dated 6 March 2019. The applicant then sought to convert an appeal against deemed refusal to an appeal against conditions. That matter is currently before the LEC.

The assessment of the draft Planning Proposal to amend the controls pertaining to the site was also outsourced to an independent planner. It should be noted it is open to any owner or developer to lodge a private planning proposal. The draft Planning Proposal and associated draft Development Control Plan are currently on public exhibition from Friday, 26 March – Friday, 23 April 2021. The exhibition of the draft documents give the proposal formal draft status.

With respect to the draft Planning Agreement, Council retained external legal advisers.

Financial Considerations

The axe-handle part of the subject site was one of many properties identified for potential divestment by Council in 2013. The reclassification process commenced in 2014. The site was formally reclassified in December 2016. While Council could have proceeded to subdivide the site itself, the process had not commenced in 2017 when the Memorial Club approached Council expressing an interest in purchasing the land in the axe-handle. As such, the cost of effecting the subdivision could now be borne by the prospective purchaser rather than by ratepayers.

Social Considerations

The DCP and Public Domain Plan identify this area as part of the future pathway link between Roseville Memorial Park and The Rifleway, facilitating pedestrian access to businesses that front the Pacific Highway but have rear access to Larkin Lane and the carpark. The exhibited draft PA facilitated the divestment of the land, while providing for that pedestrian access as well as its maintenance.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations arising directly from the content of the draft Planning Agreement. Matters related to the Development Application with which it is associated are a matter for the process of assessment of the Development Application.

Community Consultation

The proposed draft Planning Agreement was exhibited from 31 October until 29 November 2019 (inclusive). Due to a typographical error in the address in one of the two notification methods (the advertisement, the letters being correct), the draft PA was re-exhibited from 12 December 2019 until 30 January 2020. Submissions from both exhibitions have been included in this report.

Internal Consultation

The necessity to keep distinct matters at arms’ length for reasons of governance and probity has limited internal consultation. The matter of the draft PA has involved consultation between the property unit and the strategic planning unit, the corporate lawyer and Council’s external lawyers.

Summary

The draft Planning Agreement that was previously exhibited by Council has been withdrawn by receipt of a new letter of offer (by way of letters dated 26 October 2020 and 23 November 2020), thereby terminating the process of dealing with the exhibited draft PA.

Recommendation:

That Council notes that the offer on which the exhibited draft Planning Agreement was based has been withdrawn by way of letters dated 26 October 2020 and 23 November 2020, thereby terminating the process.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Coordinator

Vince Rago

Property Program Coordinator

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.12 / 195

Item GB.12	S12710

St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands - Draft Plan of Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council endorse the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management before submitting to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment - Crown Lands for approval prior to public exhibition.

background:	Section 3.23(6) & (7) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW councils to adopt plans of management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new plans of management must meet both the requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Local Government Act 1993. The previous 2015 St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management required an update to be consistent with Council’s plans, policies and the relevant legislation.

comments:	The St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management incorporates input from the key stakeholders and aligns with current legislative and policy framework for the precinct. Council is required to refer the draft plan of Management to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Crown Lands for approval as land owners and seek endorsement to place it on public exhibition.

recommendation:	That Council endorse the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management for formal exhibition once approval from Crown Lands is achieved.

Purpose of Report

Background

The Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act) was enacted on 1 July 2018. Section 3.23(6) & (7) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW councils to categorise and adopt plans of management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new plans of management must meet both the requirements of the CLM Act and the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act).The requirements are such that many of Council’s existing plan of managements that include Crown land do not comply with the CLM Act.

Plans of management are an essential tool to assist in the strategic and day-to-day management of community land. They:

· are written by Council in consultation with the community;

· identify the important features of the land;

· clarify how Council will manage the land; and

· indicate how the land may be used or developed, such as leasing or other commercial arrangements.

Until a plan of management for an area of community land is adopted by a council, the nature and use of the land must not be changed. Council cannot approve a new development on the land nor grant a lease, licence or other estate over the land, until a plan of management is in place.

In 2015, Environmental Partnership prepared a draft ‘Plan of Management for the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands’, however, this plan was not referred to or endorsed by the Crown on the basis of the advice of the Crown at the time. The Crown has subsequently withdrawn this advice. The new draft plan of management uses content from the draft plan developed by Environmental Partnership and where relevant, the Ku-ring-gai Destination Management Plan 2017 to 2020.

Comments

The St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management (POM) (see Attachment 1) provides a strategic framework to guide the management of public land that is owned or managed by Council. It identifies the key issues affecting these lands and sets out how the land is to be used, managed and maintained for the long term.

A series of previous plans and studies have been reviewed and referenced in the preparation of plan including the Plan of Management & Landscape Masterplan for St Ives Showground (Mathers & Associates and Parkland Environmental Planners 1999). St Ives Showgrounds and Precinct Options Paper (2010) and the Environmental Partnerships Draft Plan of Management (2015).

Land Covered by this Plan

The 192 Hectare St Ives and Showground and Precinct site includes the:

· St Ives Showground;

· Ku-ring-gai Community Nursery;

· Ku-ring-gai Wildflower Garden;

· Former Green Waste Tip; and

· HART & CARES road safety education centre.

Initial consultation outcomes from the key SISPL stakeholders engagement included the common key values as;

· the natural heritage, landscape and bushland character;

· the capacity for the site’s continued role in education ranging from environmental to driver training;

· the importance of the precinct lands in relation to sport, recreation and social value; and

· social and community values in respect to local and regional scale destination events.

Issues identified through the stakeholder engagement process included:

· protecting and enhancing local flora and fauna including limiting introduced species;

· the need to carefully balance various needs such as community sport, regional events and dog walkers;

· the needs to enhance maintenance and management; and

· clearer communication including signage and wayfinding.

Key future uses and developments identified include:

· continued conservation and education;

· balancing local community use with major and special events;

· increase informal recreation activities and opportunities;

· enhancing access and circulation, including major entry points; and

· all weather sport and recreation facilities to cater for increasing community needs.

Crown Land Management Act 2016 (CLM Act)

Council is required to forward a copy of the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management to Crown Lands as the landowner before giving public notice (s39 of the Local Government Act 1993). This section of the Act allows Crown Lands to review the draft plan and Council must include in the plan any provisions required by Crown Lands as the land owner.

In addition, if Council has altered the initial agreed categorisation on the reserve, Council must seek consent of the Minister to alter the categorisation. This also must be completed before the public exhibition can occur as it determines whether a public hearing is required.

Crown Lands has also made Council responsible for the assessment of Native Title and liable for compensation under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (NT Act) (articulated within Part 8 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016). Council engaged Lands Advisory Services to complete a Native Title Status Report for all Crown Land sites (November 2019) and Native Title Advice (April 2020).

An advance copy of the St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands – Draft Plan of Management was provide to Crown Lands in the week commencing 29 March with the advice that of the plans of management Council would submit in coming months, the Showground and Precinct Lands PoM was to be consider Council’s first priority.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces & Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Progressively review and update Community Plans of Management

Governance Matters

Council is required to forward the draft plan of management to Crown Lands as the landowner before giving public notice (s39 of the LG Act). This section of the Act allows Crown Lands to review the draft plan and requires Council to include in the plan any provisions required by Crown Lands as the land owner, prior to formal exhibition and a public hearing (if required).

A plan of management for Crown Reserves must be compliant with the statutory requirements in relation to native title prescribed by both the CLM Act and the LG Act.

Native title has been considered in the preparation of the St Ives Showground and Precinct Land Draft Plan of Management and Council’s nominated Native Title Manager, Lands Advisory Services Pty Ltd and the advice will be submitted with relevant requirements. Preliminary feedback from Lands Advisory Services has been incorporated in the draft PoM attached to this report. Lands Advisory Services have now advised, in part:

Please find my draft advice attached. This advice can be finalised following exhibition when Council is ready to finalise and adopt the Plan of Management.

The St Ives Showground and Precinct Land Draft Plan of Management is ready to submit the Plan to the Department for approval to exhibit.

Risk Management

The draft plan provides a framework to guide the management of public land that is owned or managed by Council. It identifies the key issues affecting public land and sets out how the land is to be used, managed and maintained for the long term and this will assist Council in identifying and managing any risks.

Crown Lands has made Council responsible for the assessment of Native Title and liability for compensation under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (NT Act) (articulated within Part 8 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016). Council has engaged Lands Advisory Services to complete a Native Title Report (March 2021), providing Native Title Advice for all Crown Land sites covered within the plan of management. This advice has been considered and can be finalised following exhibition when Council is ready to finalise and adopt the plan of management.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing the draft plan of management is covered by the Strategy Department Urban Planning & Heritage budget.

Social Considerations

The draft POM identifies and recognises the social values of the precinct for active and passive recreation purposes and the significant role of the site for events including environmental and cultural education, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural values of the area.

The St Ives Showground and Precinct Land provides a diverse range of combined recreational and event experiences within a unique setting. The scale of the site allows users to experience a varied set of uses. It draws people from the local Ku-ring-gai area as well as other areas of the Greater Sydney Region. Added to this experience is a layering of reminiscent cultural past uses found in the built fabric retained from the site’s past agricultural and Military uses.

The St Ives Showground and Precinct Land is highly valued by local residents and visitors from the region as a destination for passive recreation in an idyllic natural setting, along with passive trail-based activities throughout the adjoining bushland. In more recent years, a range of formal and informal recreation uses combined with special destination events have continued the strong social values of the St Ives Showground and Precinct Land.

Environmental Considerations

The draft PoM identifies and recognises the significant biodiversity values of the precinct and their location in the Ku-ring-gai ecological grid as set out in the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (2020).

As a significant section of Council’s open space reserve system, the site provides habitat and bio-linkage opportunities for flora and fauna. The site is one of a very few parks across the local government area that contains Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Blue Gum High Forest. The draft plan of management aims to improve the ecology and biodiversity at the area.

Community Consultation

Initial consultation was held via a series of internal staff workshops across Council. As part of the preparation of this PoM, a webinar with key SISPL stakeholders was conducted on 28 October 2020. An associated stakeholder survey was also conducted.

The feedback and input received was as diverse as the site characteristics and its respective uses a summary of key themes from the stakeholder engagement are set out in the draft PoM. If endorsed by Council and the Draft Plan is placed on public exhibition then further input from the key stakeholders will be sought.

Internal Consultation

Consultation between Departments of Council (Operations, Community, and Strategy & Environment) has taken place in preparation of this report, including staff workshops.

Summary

The Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires all NSW Councils to adopt Plans of Management for all reserves for which they are the appointed Crown Land Manager. The new Plans of Management must meet both the requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Local Government Act 1993.

In accordance with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and Local Government Act 1993, Council has developed the St Ives Showground and Precinct Land Draft Plan of Management and is ready to submit the draft Plan to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment - Crown Lands for approval as land owners and seek endorsement to place it on public exhibition.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council note that draft advice has been received from its Native Title Manager in relation to the St Ives Showground and Precinct Land Draft Plan of Management.

B. Council request approval from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Crown Lands to publicly exhibit the attached St Ives Showground and Precinct Land Draft Plan of Management.

C. Upon receipt of approval from the Department, Council amend the draft Plan of Management, as and if required by the Department, and places it on public exhibition as per Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993.

D. A further report be brought back to Council after the exhibition process has been completed.

Dean Payne

Project Leader – Strategy & Environment

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇩

St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management ( March 2021)

2021/088030

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.13 / 324

Item GB.13	S10066

Heritage Assessment of Hutter House - 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider not proceeding with the local heritage listing of 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra (‘Hutter House’) and revoking the current Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’).

background:	On 8 December 2020, Council resolved to make an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) for Hutter House designed by Harry Siedler using delegated authority, which was gazetted on 11 December 2020. Council commissioned Tanner Kibble Denton (TKD) to prepare an extended heritage assessment for the property known as 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra. Facilitated by the property owners, TKD undertook a site inspection with Council staff on 24 February 2020. Following the site inspection, TKD completed their final heritage assessment of the property and provided this to Council on 3 March 2021. The assessment concluded that despite its potential significance, upon inspection, it was apparent that the property has been highly altered to an extent that would negate a possible heritage listing. The Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) and the property owners have both reviewed the contents of this report and have raised no objection to its findings.

comments:	The site inspection revealed that, despite the apparent significance of the building in terms of what it originally represented, the level and extent of change to the original building fabric and spatial arrangements is too excessive to warrant proceeding with a heritage listing.

recommendation:	That Council note the contents of the consultant report and recommend that the existing IHO is revoked.

Purpose of Report

To have Council consider not proceeding with the local heritage listing of 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra (‘Hutter House’) and revoking the current Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’).

Background

In October 2020, the National Trust drew attention to Council the real estate sale campaign for the property known as 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra (‘Hutter House’). It was suggested that the property may require an initial heritage assessment as a well-documented and significant example of the work of the internationally prominent architect, Harry Seidler.

Council staff then discussed the longevity of Hutter House with the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’), Harry Seidler and Associates and the Australian Institute of Architects. On Thursday, 26 November 2020, a preliminary heritage assessment of Hutter House (Attachment A1) was provided to the HRC as well as feedback from Harry Seidler and Associates (Attachment A2). The HRC agreed that an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) should be invoked in this instance.

Council has delegated authority under s.25 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (‘Heritage Act’) to make an IHO on this 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 8 December 2020, the matter was raised at the OMC. At this meeting, Council resolved:

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. (Attachment A3).

On 11 December 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 A4).

Comments

Council commissioned Tanner Kibble Denton (TKD) to prepare an extended heritage assessment for the property known as Hutter House. Facilitated by the property owners, TKD undertook a site inspection with Council staff on 24 February 2020.

Following the site inspection, TKD completed their final heritage assessment of the property and provided this to Council on 3 March 2021 (Attachment A5). The assessment concluded that despite its potential significance, upon inspection, it was apparent that the property has been altered to an extent that would negate heritage listing. Further details of the assessment are provided below.

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) criterion:

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.

7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra – Heritage Assessment

An assessment against the NSW Heritage criteria is outlined in the report as follows:

Criterion A: An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

7 Curagul Road has historical significance as an early house by architect Harry Seidler, who produced an important body of work in NSW, other parts of Australia and internationally. Seidler's architecture is notable for its consistent and rigorous application of Modern Movement principles. However, the historical significance of the house has been compromised by the extensive modifications that have been made to it.

7 Curagul Road provides limited evidence of the Influence of migrants from Europe, both as architects and as clients, on the architectural development of post-World War II NSW.

Criterion B: An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance to NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

7 Curagul Road is associated with internationally significant architect Harry Seidler. Seidler was the only architect working in NSW who had trained and worked under important architects associated with the Bauhaus and brought a thorough understanding of European Modern Movement methodology and aesthetics to NSW. The house was important in his body of work because of its particular planning configuration, whereby living areas and bedrooms were placed in separate pavilions and connected by a covered gallery. The clarity of Seidler’s original concept has been lost.

7 Curagul Avenue was owned and occupied by popular entertainers Dawn Lake and Bobby Limb for several years during the second half of the 1960s. Their association with the property is limited, as the first of a succession of owners after the Hutters had died, and considered to be of little overall significance. Stephen and Margaret Hutter, although not known to be historically prominent, are representative of the European emigres who commissioned Seidler, demonstrating awareness of, and positive response to, advanced architectural design within sections of the general community.

More research is required to establish if the Hutters have importance to NSW’s cultural history.

Criterion C: An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or and high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local area).

In its original form, 7 Curagul Road was a rare and early built example of a bi-nuclear plan house where the living areas and bedrooms were contained in separate pavilions separated by courtyards. The original plan has been severely compromised by modifications. The clarity and relationship of living spaces and bedrooms in separate pavilions has been totally obscured and lost, as has the relationship between the house and garage, separated by an open drying court. The original form of the house and original use of materials has also been compromised. The original setting of 7 Curagul Road, which consisted of about 3 acres of land with park-like planting and an orchard, has been irreversibly lost as a result of subdivision of the site.

Criterion D: An item has strong or special associations with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

7 Curagul Road does not fulfil this criterion.

Criterion E: An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

7 Curagul Road does not fulfil this criterion. The extensive changes that have taken place to the building and its setting have compromised its potential to yield information. The information that may have provided is available in the Rose Seidler House, which was a seminal work of residential architecture in NSW, and other intact houses by Harry Seidler in NSW.

Criterion F: An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or

natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

7 Curagul Road does not fulfil this criterion.

Criterion G: An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s (or the local area’s) cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments.

7 Curagul Road does not fulfil this criterion because of the extensive changes that have taken place to the building and its setting.

The assessment concludes the following:

It is concluded that the property at 7 Curagul Road does not meet the threshold for listing as a heritage item. Although the house was designed by internationally significant architect Harry Seidler and, when completed circa 1953, was a rare example of a particular approach to his bi-nuclear house planning, the property has been subjected to unsympathetic subdivision and modifications that have greatly diminished its heritage significance. The alterations, which are substantial in extent and nature, have compromised the clarity of the original plan and the way that building materials were disposed across the house. The extent of change is sufficiently great to preclude reconstruction.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

Governance Matters

The findings of the consultant report indicate that the property does not meet the threshold for heritage listing outlined by NSW Heritage and that the current Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) should be revoked.

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. However, where upon physical inspection and closer consideration of the extant building fabric, a property is not considered to meet the threshold for heritage listing this must be acknowledged and noted.

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

After being informed about the sale campaign by the National Trust, Council liaised with the HRC, Harry Seidler and Associates and the Australian Institute of Architects in relation to the longevity of Hutter House.

As part of making the Interim Heritage Order for the site, the IHO was published in the NSW Government Gazette on 11 December 2020. Council advised the property owner on 11 December 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 prior to Council determining whether to proceed with heritage listing or not.

Council representatives and TKD Architects visited the property and met with the owner on 24 February 2021.

A copy of the final heritage assessment has been circulated to the HRC for comment and to the property owners for their information.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with relevant Departments of Council has taken place in preparing this report, in particular, Development and Regulation.

Summary

Careful consideration has been given to the potential heritage listing of the property known as Hutter House, 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra.

The site inspection has revealed that, despite the apparent significance of the building in terms of what it originally represented, the level of change to the original building fabric and spatial arrangements is too great to warrant proceeding with a heritage listing.

Based on the findings of the final heritage assessment it is recommended that Council does not proceed with heritage listing the Hutter House and seeks to have the current IHO revoked.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council receive and note the contents of the Heritage consultant report for 7 Curagul Rd, North Turramurra.

B. Council under Section 29 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, revokes the Interim Heritage Order for 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra.

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Preliminary Heritage Assessment - Hutter House - 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra	2020/360094
	A2⇩	Email from Harry Seidler and Associates - Hutter House - 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra	2021/083683
	A3⇩	OMC OMC248 - 7 Curagul Road, North Turramurra	2021/084070
	A4⇩	Government Gazette 11 December 2020 - Interim Heritage Order - 7 Curagul Road North Turramurra	2021/087888
	A5 ⇩	7 Curagul Road North Turramurra - Heritage Assessment	2021/053837

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.14 / 433

Item GB.14	S13079

Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan Housekeeping Amendments 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider housekeeping amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated).

background:	The Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated) was adopted by Council in August 2020. The Plan was a consolidation of Ku-ring-gai’s two Development Control Plans. This consolidated DCP will come into force at the same time as Ku-ring-gai’s consolidated Local Environmental Plan. In the interim, housekeeping updates to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated) are proposed so when it comes into effect it is the most up to date and consistent version.

comments:	Housekeeping updates have been made to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated) to correct, clarify and update controls in order to align with updated legislation, practices and information. This amendment improves the effectiveness and use of Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated).

recommendation:	That the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 be placed on public exhibition.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider housekeeping amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated).

Background

Development control plans (DCPs) provide guidance for development by giving effect to aims of an LEP. They facilitate development and assist in achieving land use objectives. Section 3.43(2) of the EP&A Act requires that only one development control plan may apply in respect of the same land.

On 25 August 2020 Council adopted the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (consolidated) (KDCP (consolidated)). This plan merged the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan and Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan into one consolidated plan. The new KDCP (consolidated) will support the consolidated Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (KLEP). Council resolved for the KDCP (consolidated) to come into effect at the same time as the consolidated KLEP, which will be sometime later in 2021. The Consolidated LEP is currently with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation and gazettal.

In the interim before the effective date, general housekeeping amendments are proposed to update the KDCP (consolidated) to align with new and updated NSW legislation, standards and Council policies, as well as clarify controls and correct minor inconsistencies. This will improve the correctness and effectiveness of the KDCP (consolidated), providing consistency and assist in avoiding complications. This will facilitate better use of the KDCP, such as when assessing development applications and in Land and Environment Court appeals.

Comments

Issues Addressed

Issues addressed include clarification of controls for general development standards, heritage, water, trees and biodiversity, traffic and parking, acoustic privacy, sustainability and environmental health.

These issues were addressed through:

· identification of ambiguities that have been identified in Land and Environment Court appeals and subsequent clarification and updates of these controls;

· updates to controls to align with new and updated NSW legislation, Australian Standards and policies;

· correction of controls through minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections; and

· updates to refer to the new Ku-ring-gai Council website.

Housekeeping Amendments

An overview for the housekeeping amendments to each part of the KDCP (consolidated) are outlined below. A detailed table of amendments is available at Attachment A1.

Key amendments to each part are as follows:

Part 1: Introduction

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Updates to legislation and policy references for consistency.

· Updates and additions to definitions for clarity and to strengthen controls (specifically definitions for trees).

SECTION A

Part 2: Site Analysis

· Updates to reflect RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

Part 3: Land Consolidation and Subdivision

· Updates to reflect RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

Part 4: Dwelling Houses

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements, including clarification of diagrams.

· Updates to website links, legislation and DCP references for consistency.

· Amendment to controls to fix errors (e.g. Maximum Built Upon area calculation).

Part 5: Secondary Dwellings

· Clarification for noise level requirements associated with mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Amendment of control to reflect BCA requirements for the provision of laundries.

Part 6: Multi-Dwelling Housing

· Clarification for noise level requirements associated with mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Clarification of tree types.

· Inclusion of control for drainage in waste and recycling rooms, with reference to existing waste management controls in Part 23.7.

· Amendment to include balconies in list of areas where air conditioning condensers are restricted.

Part 7: Residential Flat Buildings

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Amendments to reference current Australian Standards.

· Amendment to include balconies in list of areas where air conditioning condensers are restricted.

· New objective and control on acoustic privacy in line with the Apartment Design Guide and control in part 23.8 of the DCP. Including clarification for noise level requirements associated with mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Clarification of tree types.

· Amendment to car sharing controls to accommodate for smaller developments.

· Inclusion of control to enable for future provision of electric vehicle charging points, in line with sustainability objectives.

Section 8: Mixed-Use Buildings

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· New control to reference Australian Standard for location of air intake vents and exhaust points.

· Amendment to include balconies in list of areas where air conditioning condensers are restricted.

· Clarification for noise level requirements associated with mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Clarification of tree types.

· Amendment to car sharing controls to accommodate for smaller developments.

Part 9: Non-Residential and Office Buildings

· Clarification for noise level requirements associated with mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Controls and objectives for surface parking moved to Part 22 General Parking and Access to apply to all development types. A new reference to this part has been included in place of removed control.

Part 10: Childcare Centres

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Updates to website links, legislation and DCP references for consistency.

· Amendments to noise level controls for outdoor and indoor play, as well as clarification of noise level requirements for mechanical ventilation and plant.

· Clarification of tree types.

· Inclusion of controls for food handling areas in relation to standards and addition of requirement for a separate staff room.

Part 11: Sex Industry Premises

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Updates to reflect Australian Standards.

· Clarification in introduction to reflect legislation and clarify who has authority.

· Inclusion of controls for laundry facilities.

Part 12: Signage and Advertising

· No change.

Part 13: Tree and Vegetation Preservation

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Amendments to reflect updated legislation and clarify what legislation applies.

· Updates to Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest description.

· Inclusion of definitions for ‘native vegetation’ and ‘clearing’.

· Clarification of what exempt works includes in regards to tree work to ensure greater protection and retention of trees.

· Updates to plant species names.

SECTION B

Part 14: Urban Precincts and Sites

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

Part 15: Land Contamination

· No change.

Part 16: Bushfire Risk

· Updates to reflect RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

Part 17: Riparian

· Updates to reflect RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

Part 18: Biodiversity

· Updates to website links, legislation and DCP references for consistency.

· Amendments to reflect updated NSW Biodiversity legislation and state agencies.

· Updates to reference Council’s new Priority Weed List rather than Council’s Weed Management Policy.

Part 19: Heritage Items and Conservation Areas

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Clarification in introduction that application process allows a merit-based assessment.

· Additional diagram to clarify controls.

· Clarification of what controls relate to Heritage items, and those which relate to a Heritage Conservation Area.

· New controls to align with the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 for demolition.

· Removal of requirement for archival recordings.

· Strengthening controls across all sections to deliver better development outcomes and improve the built form appearance. This includes elements that effect the streetscape such as driveway crossovers, gardens, gates and fences, materials and conservation of original building elements.

Part 20: Development Near Road or Rail Noise

· No change.

SECTION C

Part 21: General Site Design

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements, including clarification of diagrams.

· Corrections to references to the KLEP.

Part 22: General Access and Parking

· Updates to reflect Australian Standards for car parking.

· Strengthening of general parking controls through inclusion of surface parking objectives and controls from Part 9 to apply to all development types.

· Amendments to reference updated disability access standards.

· Amendments to reflect Council’s Traffic and Transport Policy.

Part 23: General Building Design and Sustainability

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Amendment to include balconies in list of areas where air conditioning condensers are restricted.

· Strengthening of controls for noise levels associated with air conditioning, mechanical ventilation systems and plant. Other parts of the KDCP (consolidated) now directly reference this Part.

Part 24: Water Management

· Corrections to improve consistency and clarity of requirements.

· Minor sentence, grammatical and wording corrections.

· Clarification for controls relating to trench systems for Development Type 3 and OSD requirements for Development Types 1 and 2.

· Inclusion of OSD Waiver Exemption Map for clarity, see new Part 24R.9.

· New control for requirement of Positive Covenant or restrictions on proprietary devices.

· Addition of terms for water quality measures, construction over Council easement, overland flow restriction, positive covenant for turntable, and easement for waste collection.

Additionally, website links have been updated across all Parts to align with the new Ku-ring-gai Council website. These links enable ease of use of the KDCP both between sections and with other Council information available on the website. Overall, these amendments enable more effective functioning of the KDCP (consolidated) as a supporting document to the consolidated KLEP, in turn improving the development assessment process and enabling better outcomes.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained.	P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character.	Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.
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.	Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs.
P5.1 Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.	P5.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets.	Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls.

Governance Matters

The process for preparing development control plans is governed by provisions within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

For the preparation of development control plans under s3.41[1] of the Act, Council act as the relevant planning authority. Under s3.34[1] of the EP&A preparation of development control plans is required to provide guidance for development carried out by Local Environmental Plans. Council may amend development control plans by a subsequent development control plan. Draft development control plans are to be exhibited for a period of 28 days.

Risk Management

By updating the KDCP (consolidated) it will better serve its supporting role to the consolidated KLEP when it comes into force. This will allow Council to more efficiently deliver on future strategic planning decisions. The clarification of controls will also assist in better development and Court outcomes.

Financial Considerations

The cost of reviewing the DCP (consolidated) and preparing KDCP 2021 Amendment 1 is covered by the Strategy and Environment operational budget.

Social Considerations

Social issues cover all aspects of human life, including how we live, our culture, our community, health, wellbeing and aspirations.

It is not expected that the housekeeping amendments to the KDCP (consolidated) will result in any adverse social impacts.

Environmental Considerations

The housekeeping amendments to the KDCP (consolidated) will not result in any adverse environmental impacts. All existing environmental provisions within the KDCP (consolidated) are retained and have been updated in accordance with NSW legislation.

Community Consultation

It is proposed to put the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 on public exhibition for 28 days, during which time the community will be invited to make submissions. The draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 will be exhibited in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

Council staff have access to an ongoing ‘DCP Tracker,’ which is used to flag any potential errors, inconsistencies or updates across all parts of the KDCP. Issues from this tracker were used as a base for meetings with different groups from across Council. These discussions also allowed an opportunity for any further issues within the scope of the housekeeping amendments to be considered.

The housekeeping amendments to the KDCP (consolidated) have been conducted in consultation with different groups from Council for specialised advice. Discussions were held with officers from Development Assessment, Compliance, Operations, Natural Areas, Bushfire, Sustainability, Transport Planning, Heritage and Environmental Health.

Summary

Ku-ring-gai’s consolidated Development Control Plan will come into effect at the same time as Ku-ring-gai’s consolidated Local Environmental Plan. In the interim before the KDCP (consolidated) comes into effect, housekeeping amendments are proposed so that at the time it comes into effect it is the most up to date and consistent version. These minor amendments correct, clarify and update controls. This will assist in the KDCP (consolidated) effectively performing its function to support the KLEP, facilitating better outcomes and avoiding any complications during development assessment and in Court decisions.

Recommendation:

That:

A. Council endorses the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 for the purpose of public exhibition.

B. The draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 be placed on public exhibition in accordance with provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

C. Delegation be given to the Director Strategy and Environment to correct any minor amendments or errors and inconsistencies to the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1 prior to public exhibition.

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

Bethany Lane

Student Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Table of Amendments - Consolidated Development Control Plan 2021 - 080421		2021/009486
	A2	Draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 Amendment 1	Excluded	2021/103192

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.15 / 487

Item GB.15	S12203

Draft Heritage Strategy - Post exhibition consideration of submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy.

background:	A draft Heritage Strategy was prepared in response to Planning Priority 13. Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage of the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). A short term action under this Planning Priority is to prepare a Heritage Strategy that outlines Ku-ring-gai Council’s objectives and actions for the management of heritage in Ku-ring-gai. On 20 October 2020, Council resolved to exhibit the draft Heritage Strategy. This report details the outcomes of the exhibition process and recommends that Council adopt the Heritage Strategy.

comments:	The draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy was placed on public exhibition and 15 submissions were received and have been reviewed as part of this report. Overall feedback was supportive of the draft Heritage Strategy’s vision and content.

recommendation:	That Council endorse the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy.

Background

The draft Heritage Strategy was prepared in response to Planning Priority 13. Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage of the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). A short term action under this Planning Priority is to prepare a Heritage Strategy that outlines Ku-ring-gai Council’s objectives and actions for the management of heritage in Ku-ring-gai.

The draft strategy was circulated to the Heritage Reference Committee in July 2019. The HRC provided comments that were incorporated into the draft Strategy. On 20 October 2020, Council resolved to endorse the draft Heritage Strategy for public exhibition. The strategy was exhibited from 23 November to 18 December 2020, then extended for an additional five days until 23 December 2020.

Comments

Public exhibition

The draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy was on public exhibition from 23 November to 23 December 2020.

Submissions

A total of 15 submissions were received during the public exhibition. Submissions were received from Ku-ring-gai residents and community groups. A Submission Summary Table is included at Attachment A1. The table summarises the matters raised within the submissions, Council’s comments in response to the matters raised, and notes whether changes be made to the draft Heritage Strategy as a result. A Table of Amendments is included at Attachment A2. Overall feedback was supportive of the draft Heritage Strategy’s vision and content. Some of the key matters raised within the submissions include:

Defining Heritage

A number of submissions suggested that the definition of heritage within the Strategy is too rigid, and does not encapsulate that Council’s heritage list is not a closed list, and there is a process in which potential heritage items and areas that have heritage value.

The established method of assessing and defining heritage is set out in the Burra Charter and is used by Council Staff and consultants in undertaking heritage assessments. Heritage Items and conservation areas are identified and managed under Council’s Local Environmental Plans and associated Development Control Plans.

Heritage Studies

Some submissions reference a number of heritage studies that are not included in the list of comprehensive heritage studies within the Strategy. These studies are acknowledged, however due to the exhaustive amount of heritage studies that have been conducted, it is not feasible to list every site-specific heritage study conducted. The Heritage Strategy has been revised to remove any reference to particular built heritage studies to avoid the appearance of preference to one study over another. The studies form the foundation of the heritage listings and conservation areas however the relevance of each continues to change and evolve over time.

A number of submissions demonstrated support for the conservation of significant mid-late 20^th century development, and the need for contemporary architecture to be recognised. The strategy has been amended to include an action to pursue funding from the State Government to assist in the preparation of a comprehensive Modern Heritage Study and to prepare a smaller scale Modern Heritage Study (if this external funding is not realized).

Heritage Controls in the Development Control Plan

Some submissions advocate for Council to improve its protection of heritage through more stringent DCP Part19 controls, with particular reference to interface and landscape controls in order to ensure heritage items, areas and curtilages are not adversely impacted by nearby development.

It is not the purpose of the Heritage Strategy to identify specific amendments to planning controls relating to heritage. Processes under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) govern any amendments to Ku-ring-gai’s LEP or Development Control Plan (DCP). Rather, the purpose of the Heritage Strategy is to ensure that reviews of Council’s heritage controls are regularly undertaken. This is covered by Action 2.1 of the Heritage Strategy.

Part 19 ‘Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas’ of the DCP includes controls specific to development in the vicinity of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, with regard to local character and streetscape, building setbacks, gardens and landscaping, and fencing. Part 19 of the DCP is regularly reviewed and refined, as outlined in Action 2.1 of the Heritage Strategy.

A housekeeping review of the DCP is currently being undertaken a will be reported to Council in April 2021 seeking a resolution to place the revised DCP on public exhibition.

Heritage Education and Promotion

A key theme in the feedback received on the draft strategy was suggestions to improve Council’s promotion of heritage awareness and education, through Council’s website and events such as Heritage Walks or a Heritage Festival. Council is currently in the process of improving the website, with a short term project in place to promote State listed items on the website. Ku-ring-gai Council will be running a Ku-ring-gai Heritage Festival from April to May in 2021, coinciding with World Heritage Day and the Australian Heritage Festival. The festival will be a series of events, with interactive workshops, displays, open homes, heritage trails, emersion events, entertainment, historical talks and tours.

Review of the Heritage Strategy

The Heritage Strategy has been revised to address some of the concerns raised in the submissions received and to improve clarity within the Strategy. A Table of Amendments is included at Attachment A2. The revised Heritage Strategy is included at Attachment A3.

integrated planning and reporting

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy consistent with the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

Governance Matters

Heritage conservation is embedded within the objectives and key directions of the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan 2038 and Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement. It is also a key priority within the State Government’s Greater Sydney Region Plan, A Metropolis of Three Cities and the North District Plan 2018. The draft heritage strategy responds to:

· Long-term objective of the Community Strategic Plan 2038 under Theme 3 ‘Places, spaces and infrastructure’ that seeks to ensure that ‘Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed’.

· The Local Planning Priority of Ku-ring-gai’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, which relates to ‘Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage’.

· The objective of A Metropolis of Three Cities that seeks to ensure that ‘Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced’.

· The Planning Priority of the North District Plan, which relates to ‘Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage’.

Risk Management

There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai 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. The preparation of this Strategy, is an important tool to convey transparency to the community in relation to Council’s strategic approach to heritage management.

Financial Considerations

The cost of preparing the draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy and this report is covered by the Urban Heritage – Strategy & Environment budget. There are no direct financial implications associated with the adoption of the recommendations within this report. It is noted that there are some aspirational projects outlined in the actions of the draft Heritage Strategy that would be subject to either internal or external funding. It is made clear that the delivery of these actions is contingent upon the availability of funds in the Strategy and Environment Department, Urban and Heritage Planning budget.

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. There are environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places.

Community Consultation

The draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy was placed on public exhibition for a period of one month from 23 November to 23 December 2020. The draft Strategy was made available on Council’s Your Say exhibition page and was available to be viewed at Council Chambers customer service desk.

Internal Consultation

Consultation with the wider Strategic Planning Department and the Heritage Reference Committee has been undertaken as part of this process.

Summary

A draft Heritage Strategy was prepared in response to Planning Priority 13. Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage of the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). A short term action under this Planning Priority is to prepare a Heritage Strategy that outlines Ku-ring-gai Council’s objectives and actions for the management of heritage in Ku-ring-gai. The draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy was placed on public exhibition and 15 submissions were received and have been reviewed as part of this report

Recommendation:

That:

A. The Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy March 2021 is adopted.

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

Angela Smidmore

Assistant Urban Planner

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Draft Heritage Strategy - Submissions Summary Table	2021/095209
	A2⇩	Draft Heritage Strategy - Table of Amendments Post Exhibition	2021/095210
	A3⇩	Revised Draft Ku-ring-gai Heritage Strategy - Post Exhibition	2021/095211

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.17 / 536

Item GB.17	S10066

Proposed Heritage Listing of 33 Young Street, Wahroonga

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To have Council consider the proposed heritage listing of ‘Wainberg House’, the property known as 33 Young Street, Wahroonga, on Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (‘KLEP 2015’).

background:	On 8 December 2020 Council resolved to make an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) for 33 Young Street, Wahroonga using delegated authority, which was gazetted on 11 December 2020. On 16 March 2021, Council resolved to undertake an internal inspection of the property, which is scheduled for Wednesday, 31 March 2021.

comments:	Council has commissioned architect and heritage consultant, Dr Scott Robertson of Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty. Ltd. to prepare a heritage assessment for the property known 33 Wahroonga Avenue, Wahroonga. The assessment considers that the property meets the threshold for local heritage listing.

recommendation:	That a Planning Proposal be prepared and submitted for the listing of ‘Wainberg House’, the property known as 33 Young Street, Wahroonga.

Purpose of Report

Background

On Wednesday, 14 October 2020 the property known as 33 Young Street, Wahroonga was brought to the attention of Council officers by a community member who identified the house as an almost completely intact example of the International Style of architecture, with extensive original interiors designed and crafted by Paul Kafka. The community member expressed his concern for the property’s vulnerability, which was [at the time] being advertised for sale and not within a Heritage Conservation Area (‘HCA’).

On Thursday, 22 October 2020, the potential vulnerability of the property was discussed with the Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’). The HRC sought further information in relation to the dwelling before making a recommendation. On Thursday, 26 November 2020, a preliminary heritage assessment of 33 Young Street, Wahroonga (Attachment A1) was provided to the HRC. Based on preliminary findings of the assessment; the HRC agreed that an Interim Heritage Order (‘IHO’) should be invoked in this instance.

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 8 December 2020, the matter was raised at the OMC. At this meeting, Council resolved:

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. (See Attachment A2).

On 11 December 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

Under the above conditions of the IHO, the order will lapse on 11 June 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 A4.

On Tuesday, 16 March 2021, the matter was raised at OMC and it was deferred for a site inspection of the property.

Comments

A site inspection has been facilitated by the property owners and is scheduled for Wednesday, 31 March 2021 to be attended by Councillors and relevant Council staff. One of the property owners is expected to be present and assist during the inspection.

The NSW Heritage Assessment Criterion

A. Historical significance – an item is important in the course, or pattern, of the cultural or natural history of the local area;

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.

33 Young Street, Wahroonga – Heritage Assessment

The full heritage assessment for Wainberg House – 33 Young Street, Wahroonga was prepared 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 13 February 2021 (Attachment A5). The assessment found that the property is of local heritage significance and should be included as a heritage item on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015.

The Statement of Significance prepared by Robertson and Hindmarsh Pty. Ltd. for 33 Young Street, Wahroonga, expounds this importance. It reads:

As a good example of International style architecture, 33 Young Street Wahroonga has historic and aesthetic significance and representative value at a Local level. These same values are evident internally through the building’s strong association with the designer of its high-quality interiors, Paul Kafka, as a fine and intact example of the work of the famed émigré designer and furniture maker. The planning of the house is also significant at a Local level as it demonstrates the planning of a house designed to accommodate live-in servants for the wealthy immigrant Middle Class.

In addition to aesthetic significance, the interior of 33 Young Street Wahroonga demonstrates rarity as a particularly intact and high-quality example of the interior design of Paul Kafka still located in its original setting, of which there appear to be few comparable known examples. This significance is potentially at a State level with regard to intact post-war interiors designed/constructed by émigré designers.

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, has historical significance at a local level for its ability to demonstrate patterns of European immigration in the inter-war and post-war periods following the series of conflicts in Europe.

In support of the recognised heritage value, it is recommended that Council prepare a planning proposal to include Wainberg House – 33 Young Street, Wahroonga on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. To support the Planning Proposal a State Heritage Inventory form will also be prepared.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning controls including the development of a heritage strategy.

Governance Matters

This report addresses the first stage in obtaining a Gateway Determination for a Planning Proposal which seeks to list an item of local heritage significance under an amendment to Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. If the Planning Proposal is supported by the Department, the Planning Proposal will be placed on exhibition seeking further State agency and stakeholder feedback prior to being reported back to Council to decide if the property should be formally listed.

The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Council will seek the plan-making delegation under Section 3.36(2) of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal.

Under the Ministerial Direction Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals and the delegations granted to the General Manager it is proposed this matter will not be referred to Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on the basis the proposed heritage listing is for an existing house within an established low density residential zone and the proposed heritage listing will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment or adjoining land.

Risk Management

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

Community Consultation

The purpose of the IHO was to enable a full assessment of the property’s heritage significance to be conducted. Council representatives and Dr Scott Robertson visited the property and met with the representatives of the property owner’s representative on 3 February 2021.

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 Wainberg House – 33 Young Street, Wahroonga is worthy of inclusion on Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015. The purpose of this report is to instigate Council’s commencement of a Planning Proposal in relation to this listing.

Recommendation:

That a Planning Proposal to list ‘Wainberg House’ - 33 Young Street, Wahroonga, as a local heritage item, be prepared and submitted for a Gateway Determination under section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Vanessa Holtham

Heritage Planner Specialist

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Preliminary Heritage Assessment - 33 Young Street Wahroonga	2020/325457
	A2⇩	20201208 OMC OMC247 - 33 Young Street Wahroonga	2020/371471
	A3⇩	Government Gazette 11 December 2020 - Interim Heritage Order - 33 Young Street Wahroonga	2021/053633
	A4⇩	Flowchart for making an interim heritage order IHO - extract NSW Heritage Branch Local Government Handbook Guidelines	2014/093475
	A5⇩	Heritage Assessment - 33 Young Street Wahroonga - redacted version	2021/053212

APPENDIX No: 1 - Preliminary Heritage Assessment - 33 Young Street Wahroonga

Item No: GB.17

Preliminary Heritage Assessment: 33 Young Street, Wahroonga November 2020

Lot 32 DP12371

Zoned R2 under KLEP2015

33 Young Street, Wahroonga is a c1950 two-storey International style residence with interiors designed by the renewed furniture maker and designer Paul Kafka.

The house was originally designed for Michael Wainberg, a dyer from Annandale. Wainberg and his brother Alexander immigrated from Radom, Poland sometime in the 1920s, with Michael applying for naturalisation in 1933. His brother resided elsewhere in Ku-ring-gai at the prominent residence “Meadowlea” at 22 Sydney Road, East Lindfield from 1955-1972.

October 2020 real estate images from: https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-wahroonga-134579318

History of the site

This land was part of an early 2000-acre crown grant to John Terry Hughes in 1842. A substantial residential subdivision of relevant land occurred in 1922 under DP11230, into large acre lots. In September 1923, the NSW Realty Co Limited acquired lots 16 to 33 of this estate, totalling over 17 acres in size. NSW Realty Co Limited promptly re-subdivided the land under the current plan, DP12371, known as the “Brundah Park Estate.” The subject site officially came into being at this point, as lot 32, at a size of 39 perches.

Lot 32 was not transferred to a new owner until January 1943, when it was first acquired by Alexander Wainberg and Michael Wainberg, both of Annandale, Dyers, as joint tenants. The 1943 aerials clearly show the subject lot as empty, but indicate that the sparse development around the site was increasing. The Wainbergs, Polish-Jewish brothers immigrated from Radom, Poland in 1928, with Michael applying for naturalisation in 1933. His application for naturalisation notes his name was Mieczyslaw Wainberg, known as Michael Wainberg. In July 1949, the lot was transferred to the said Michael Wainberg of Annandale, Dyer, as sole proprietor.

In 1950, M Wainberg lodged a BA (#1713) for a brick dwelling in Young Street, Wahroonga, Lot #32.

Though the architect of this house is presently unknown, the interior designer for this residence was Paul Kafka, a highly significant designer and furniture maker.

October 2020 real estate images from: https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-wahroonga-134579318

In January 1971, the property was transferred to Terence Joseph Wilson of Mosman, Dental surgeon and Veronica Maxine Wilson, his wife as joint tenants.

In May 1974, the property was transferred to John Fisher of Wahroonga, Company Director and Gladys Cynthia Fisher, his wife as joint tenants.

In June 1979, the property was transferred to Cedric George Holden of Wahroonga, chartered accountant and Patricia Mary Holden, his wife as tenants in common. No further transfers were recorded before a new (inaccessible) certificate of title was issued in 1979.

Significance of the designer

Paul Kafka was a significant interior designer and furniture designer who played an important role in the Modern Movement, through his collaboration with famed émigré architects like Harry Seidler, Hugh Buhrich, Hugo Stossel and others. The following biography of Kafka has been excerpted from the Design and Art Australian Online database:

“The son of a Viennese furniture maker Paul Ernst Kafka was born in Vienna on 1 July 1907 [1]. Experience in his father’s factory and an apprenticeship in another Viennese furniture factory gave him a good grounding in the more practical aspects of furniture making, but he is also said to have studied furniture and interior design at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna].

During the 1930s Kafka worked as a furniture and interior designer with a furniture retail store in Vienna and in 1939 he and his wife emigrated to Australia. Kafka worked for the redoubtable Ralph Symonds, an entrepreneurial Sydney plywood manufacturer, before establishing a small furniture factory in 187 William Street, Darlinghurst, in 1941. About 1945 Kafka moved to larger premises at 161 Botany Road, Waterloo where he employed four tradesmen, two Italians and two Australians. His company was listed in 1948 directories as a ‘Manufacturer of Modern Exclusive Furniture’ and from 1951 to 1967 was registered with the New South Wales Furniture Manufacturers’ Guild (formed 1948) as ‘Paul Kafka Exclusive Furniture Pty Ltd’.

In the 1950s and 60s Kafka exhibited regularly at the Ideal Homes Show and the Building Information Centre in Sydney and at the height of his business in the late 50s was employing about 40 staff]. During the 1960s, as imports competed with locally-made furniture, Kafka concentrated on work for hotels such as the Sheraton and the Chevron and for the Travelodge motel chain. He died in Sydney on 15 May 1972.

Kafka’s clientele ranged from private home owners to architects and interior decorators to corporations, but what distinguished many of his clients were their European origins. Like Kafka, many were also Jewish refugees from war-torn Europe and there was a particular concentration of these clients in Sydney’s eastern suburbs. Apart from their common European heritage what attracted many to Kafka’s work was its stylishness and fine craftsmanship, qualities that were part of a strong tradition in European cabinet-making, but were less common in Australian post-war furniture.

Kafka produced furniture, particularly built-in cabinet work, for a number of Sydney’s European-born architects, themselves amongst the small group of pioneering modernists practising in Australia at the time. Harry Seidler was a notable early client. Like Kafka, Seidler and his parents, Max and Rose, were Viennese and no doubt these shared origins, as well as a common interest in modernist concepts, helped reinforce their professional relationship.

Kafka completed built-in and freestanding furniture for Seidler’s landmark ‘Rose Seidler’ house (Wahroonga, 1948-50, now managed by the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales) and for several other Seidler projects. Kafka also worked with the late Hugh Buhrich, a German-born architect whose idiosyncratic form of modernism is belatedly receiving the recognition it deserves. Henry Epstein, another of Sydney’s early émigré modernists, commissioned Kafka to create furniture for a number of his houses, notably the Chaim and Florence Hillman house in Roseville in 1950 (4). Kafka’s cabinet work for this radical, flat-roofed cubic design was largely intact when the house was sold in 1995 amid much media attention. Kafka’s own house, a flat-roofed, concrete and glass essay in modernism in suburban Roseville, was designed about 1950 by Hungarian-born Hugo Stossel. Described as a ‘functional house that is different’ in the May 1952 issue of Australian House & Garden, it featured much beautifully-detailed cabinet work by Kafka.

According to Neil Sear, a cabinet-maker who worked for Kafka from 1948 to 1966, Kafka was a very astute businessman and played an important entrepreneurial role in the operation of the company. He was also very fastidious and insisted on traditional construction techniques and a high level of hand finishing. While Kafka had some training in design it seems he employed designer/draftsmen to produce art work for the firm and to draw up designs for interiors and individual pieces.

During the 1950s a Dutch designer, Alfons Worms, worked for Kafka and in the 1960s he employed George Surtees, a Hungarian-born designer. Kafka’s working method, according to Surtees, was to meet with clients and then provide the designer with a rough sketch of the client’s requirements for further interpretation and development.

While Kafka’s furniture can often be identified by a company label, his distinctive use of highly-figured veneers is also a characteristic distinguishing feature. Kafka’s favoured timbers included Italian walnut and burr elm, stripy zebrana, Macassar ebony and sapele wood, as well as sycamore, Queensland maple and silver ash. Borders of distinctive crossbanding were a common feature of both built-in and freestanding cabinet work with the occasional inclusion of marquetry patterns and decorative motifs, as in the Powerhouse Museum’s stylish cocktail cabinet of 1954.

Kafka’s love of patterned veneers was no doubt influenced by the strong Austrian tradition of using highly figured woods to enliven otherwise relatively plain, functional designs, a tradition that extended from the Biedermeier period of the first half of the 19th century through to furniture designed by members of the Wiener Werkstätte in the early years of the 20th century and the Art Deco style of the inter-war years. Indeed, the strongly geometric design of much of Kafka’s furniture of the 1940s and 50s remained firmly rooted in the European Art Deco or ‘art moderne’ style prevalent during the late 1920s and 1930s when his career in Austria was just emerging. Furniture such as the cocktail cabinet and Kafka’s tiered, mirror glass-topped coffee tables, and interiors like the Vaucluse dining room of the late 50s with its dramatic asymmetrical geometry [5] owe an obvious debt to the inter-war ‘modernist’ aesthetic. Kafka’s Austrian heritage and his penchant for decorative veneers largely inured him to the fashion for the blonde timbers and organic forms of Scandinavian design in the post-war years.

Paul Kafka’s furniture may not have reflected the latest international design trends and may have been subject to a certain ‘overstatement’ at times, but it nevertheless contributed immeasurably to the richness of Australia’s post-war furniture industry. In a country only just beginning to emerge from its pre-war isolation, Kafka’s stylish, sophisticated and well-crafted cabinet work acted as an important conduit for the transmission of European styles and standards of craftsmanship to Australia.”

Comparative analysis with other Kafka designed interiors:

Paul Ernst Kafka’s work initially focused in the 1950s and 1960s on furniture and interior designs for residential use, as demonstrated in his regular exhibitions at the Ideal Homes Show and Building Information Centre in Sydney. Into the 1960s, Kafka began to focus more on securing work for hotels to ensure reliable business during a time when international imports made the market particularly competitive.

Given the movable and ephemeral nature of Kafka’s furniture designs, it is those buildings which possess both built-in furniture and other interior designs, finishes and fittings that are of most relevance to a comparative analysis for 33 Young Street. On the basis of available information and surviving evidence of Kafka’s work, it appears this property is one of only a few identified as retaining relatively intact internal designs. Pending an in-depth assessment following internal inspection of the interiors of the house, the significance of this property may be further underscored.

40 Findlay Avenue, Roseville, also known as “Hillman House” (located in Willoughby LGA) is a Henry Epstein designed modernist house which had significant Kafka interiors.^{^[1]} Unfortunately, substantial portions of important built-in furniture were removed prior to the heritage listing of the house. However, in June 2010, Willoughby City Council denied an application that posed further removal of significant internal elements designed by Kafka (joinery, staircase), which has set a precedent for the protection of Modernist interiors in heritage items. This item reflects the significance of the Kafka interiors (especially in conjunction with the work of an émigré architect) and the prominence of Kafka, even where extant interior designs are only partially intact. Given that 33 Young Street retains both built in furniture and significant internal elements like joinery, it is a more intact and likely more rare example.

11 Eton Road, Lindfield, also known as “Kafka House” (located in Ku-ring-gai LGA) is a house designed by Hugo Stossell for Paul Kafka himself, which accordingly had extensive Kafka interiors.^{^[2]} Unfortunately, by the time this modernist house was flagged to Ku-ring-gai Council, the significant interiors had been stripped. Given that this was the main reason the house was flagged to Council by the community, it was not listed after its assessment. This reflects the significance of Kafka interiors which in this case determined the fate of the building. This further underscores the significance and rarity of Kafka interiors in Ku-ring-gai given this substantial loss in the designer’s own home and the hands of later owners.

1 Ailsa Close, East Lindfield, also known as “Fogl House” (located in Ku-ring-gai LGA) is a house built 1970-1971 to a design by Frank Lloyd Wright purchased by the owner in the USA, with extensive Paul Kafka designed interiors. This dwelling is presently not listed but will be considered in an upcoming Ku-ring-gai Post-War Heritage Study as it appears highly likely to meet the threshold for at least local listing. Though not listed, given the tight-knit ownership of this house over time, it appears to have interiors that are even more intact than those at 33 Young Street.

71 Clissold Road, Wahroonga, also known as Rose Seidler House (located in Ku-ring-gai LGA) is a state-listed heritage item built in 1950 to a design by Harry Seidler for his mother Rose. It is considered a highly influential, seminal work in Modernist architecture in Australia. Seidler engaged Kafka to fabricate furniture for this house based on Seidler’s own designs – items included the dining table, coffee table, tray-mobile, sofa and fitted cabinetry.^{^[3]} Though built to Seidler’s designs rather than being Kafka originals like at 33 Young Street, these are extremely significant interiors as reflected through the state listing of the item, and memorialize the significant contributions of émigré architects and designers in Sydney in this period,

12 Serpentine Parade, Vaucluse (located in Woollahra LGA) was refurbished by Polish Architect Henry Kurzer in 1959 with interiors (specifically custom-made furniture and cabinetry) by Paul Kafka.^{^[4]} The house was commissioned by Mr and Mrs Moses, retailers. The house retained the Kafka interiors until 1991 when it was refurbished, at which time several elements of the interior were auctioned and acquired by the Historic Houses Trust. Though no longer intact and not listed as a result, this case demonstrates the significance of the Kafka interior designs as reflected by the acquisition of his work by an important institution like the HHT (now Sydney Living Museums).

Other known projects of Kafka – of which evidence survives to varying extents – include 19/123 Macleay Street Potts Point, of which the Powerhouse Museum holds 7 drawings of different furniture items and lounge room elements, and 861 New South Head Road, Rose Bay, which contained some items of significant internal furniture still in 2011 when a major DA was lodged for the remodelling of the property.^{^[5]} It would appear that both of these addresses have since lost their Kafka designed interiors with items destroyed, resold or acquired by museums. This would also appear to be the case with the large amount of cabinetry Kafka design for hotel chains in Sydney as illustrated below, given the changeable and trend-driven nature of hotel interiors.^{^[6]} The above projects listed indicate the relative scarcity of intact Kafka interiors and the increasing threat that such examples of his work are under. The comparative assessment supports proceeding with a heritage listing for 33 Young Street, Wahroonga.

Max Dupain & Associates image of Kafka cabinetry in hotel chain from AFR “Sydney’s Forgotten Mid-century Modernists.”

Preliminary heritage assessment against heritage listing criteria

Based on an initial assessment, the dwelling is considered to have high potential to meet the threshold for listing, based on the standard criterion for listing outlined by the Heritage Council of New South Wales. In particular, the house appears likely to have significant historical, associational, aesthetic and rarity values.

a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history;

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, appears likely to have historical significance for its ability to demonstrate patterns of European immigration in the inter-war and post-war periods following the series of conflicts in the continent. The immigration of the Polish-Jewish owners of 33 Young Street in the late 1920s is indicative of Jewish immigration to Australia at the time, as a result of growing Polish nationalism and anti-Semitism. Their later engagement of a prominent emigre designer, Paul Kafka, and possibly an émigré architect, further demonstrate the immigration of European individuals to Australia and their significant contributions to a variety of artistic, architectural, intellectual and professional communities.

b) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history;

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, appears likely to have historic associational value with the designer of its high-quality interiors, Paul Kafka, as a fine and intact example of the work of the famed emigre designer and furniture maker.

c) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW;

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, appears likely to have aesthetic value as a fine and intact example of the work of Paul Kafka. It may also have aesthetic value for its International Style architecture though the architect on the project is presently unknown.

d) an item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

At present, it is not known whether 33 Young Street has a strong or special association with a contemporary identifiable group, however this would be the subject of further research.

e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history;

At present, it is not known whether 33 Young Street has particular research or technical significance, however this would be the subject of further research.

f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history;

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, appears likely to have rarity value as a particular intact and high-quality example of the interior design of Paul Kafka, of which there appear to be few comparable known examples. Kafka’s own house, designed by architect Hugo Stossel, has had its original interiors stripped by a later owner due to a lack of protection.

g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s

- cultural or natural places; or

- cultural or natural environments.

33 Young Street, Wahroonga, appears likely to have representative value as a good example of an International Style building possessing key characteristics of the style. It also has representative value for its ability to demonstrate interior design associated with significant interior designer and furniture maker, Paul Kafka.

Statement of Significance

As a good example of International style architecture, 33 Young Street Wahroonga has historic and aesthetic significance and representative value. These same values are evident internally through the building’s strong association with the designer of its high-quality interiors, Paul Kafka, as a fine and intact example of the work of the famed emigre designer and furniture maker.

The building appears likely to demonstrate rarity as a particularly intact and high-quality example of the interior design of Paul Kafka, of which there appear to be few comparable known examples.

Summary

The property was brought to Council’s attention in mid-October however there has been difficulty with identifying the architect, which is still unknown. It was recently sold (12 October 2020) and is not identified as a heritage item or located within a Heritage conservation area. The recent real estate campaign promoted the property as “an excellent opportunity to renovate or rebuild and capitalise on the excellent location” and therefore its potential heritage value, particularly its interiors, are considered vulnerable to harm.

Conclusion

That an interim heritage order be placed on the property to enable further research to take place.

Sources / Further reading:

The Sydney Morning Herald - Thu 19 Jan 1933 - Page 1 – Advertising: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/16946301

“Paul Ernst Kafka” by Michael Bogle. Entry in the Design and Art Australia online database: https://www.daao.org.au/bio/paul-ernst-kafka/biography/

[5] “Furniture designs by Paul Kafka” by MAAS: https://collection.maas.museum/object/53457 ; DA 678/2010/1 Woollahra Municipal Council Application Assessment Panel report - 861 New South Head Road, Vaucluse (online)

[6] “Sydney’s Forgotten Mid-century Modernists” by Shelley Gare in the Australian Financial Review, 31 October 2020: https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/arts-and-culture/sydneys-forgotten-midcentury-modernists-20170719-gxehcb

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	MM.1 / 31

Item MM.1	S12643/3

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.3 / 55

Item GB.3	S13114

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment 1 - DRAFT Ethical Lobbying Policy	2021/009577
	A2⇩	Attachment 2 - Lobbyist Registration Form	2021/009578
	A3⇩	Attachment 3 - Register for Lobbyists	2021/009579
	A4⇩	Attachment 4 - Record of Meeting with Lobbyist Template	2021/009580

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.6 / 102

Item GB.6	S11703/4

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.10 / 161

Item GB.10	CY00578/4-1

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.16 / 526

Item GB.16	CY00413/9

Subject:	OMC247 - 33 Young Street Wahroonga
Minute Number:	247
Notes:
File Reference:	S10066

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	GB.18 / 602

Item GB.18	S13163

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	NM.1 / 608

Item NM.1	CY00290/13

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	NM.2 / 610

Item NM.2	S07810

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 April 2021	NM.3 / 611

Item NM.3	S10082