Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 20 February 2024 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 KRG 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.

In accordance with clause 3.23 of the Model Code of Meeting Practice, Councillors are reminded of the oath or affirmation of office made under section 233A of the Act, and of their obligations under the Council’s Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

Please refer to Part 4 of Council’s Code of Conduct for Pecuniary Interests and Part 5 of Council’s Code of Conduct for Non-Pecuniary Interests.

The Oath or Affirmation taken is as below:

Oath:

I [name of Councillor] swear that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government area and the Ku-ring-gai Council, and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.

Affirmation:

I [name of Councillor] solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government area and the Ku-ring-gai Council, and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgement.

APOLOGIEs

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Documents Circulated to Councillors

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

NOTE:

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

GB.13 Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Community Member recruitment

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

Attachment 2: Confidential Attachment

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

Attachment 3: Applicant 1

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

Attachment 4: Applicant 2

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

Attachment 5: Applicant 3

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

Attachment 6: Applicant 4 - current Community Member

GB.15 RFT1-2023 - Stormwater Pollution Device Maintenance

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

Attachment 2: RFT1-2023 Tender Evaluation Report

GB.16 RFT12-2023 - Building Schedule of Rates Panel

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

Attachment 2: RFT12-2023 Tender Evaluation Report

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting 14

File: S14099

Meeting held 23 January 2024

Minutes numbered 01 to 02

Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting 17

File: S02131

Meeting held 5 February 2024

Minutes numbered 03 to 05

minutes from the Mayor

MM.1 2024 Australia Day Honours and Citizen of the Year Awards 23

File: CY00785/3

I am pleased to inform you that 9 Ku-ring-gai citizens, through their outstanding achievements and services to the community have been awarded 2024 Australia Day Honours.

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

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

Mr Julian BICKERSTETH AO of Wahroonga, for distinguished service to the museum and arts sector, and to conservation and the environment

Mr Dallas Wayne BOOTH AM of South Turramurra, for significant service to the insurance industry, and to the community

Mr Guy Stuart FOWLER OAM of Killara, for service to business, and to the community

Dr Peter Charles FREDERIKSEN of Roseville, for service to dermatology

Dr Graham Cameron GRANT AO of Roseville Chase, for distinguished service to biomedical engineering as a pioneer of innovative equipment development, and to medicine

Ms Margaret-Anne HAYES OAM of Turramurra, for service to the community through a range of charitable organisations

The late Dr Sacchint Kumar LAL OAM of Wahroonga for service to tertiary education, and to the community

Mr Robert LIONS OAM of Killara, for service to the community through a range of roles

Mr Anthony Kwong Ming PANG OAM of Wahroonga, for service to the community through a range of roles

I also congratulate Ku-ring-gai Citizen of the Year winners for 2024:

Citizen of the Year – Michelle Bell

Young Citizen of the Year – Kevin Hao

Environmental Citizen of the Year – Jemma Wlasichuk

Mayor’s Award for an Outstanding Contribution

by a Community Group – Men’s Kitchen Association Inc.

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

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

Recommendation:

A. That Council acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by these recipients of 2024 Australia Day Honours to the Ku-ring-gai community and to the well-being of our society.

B. That the Mayor write to the recipients on behalf of Council to congratulate them on receiving their award, including a copy of this Mayoral Minute

MM.2 Cost shifting onto Local Government 25

File: S09613

The pressure on councils to continue to provide services of appropriate standard to our communities is now extraordinary.

The unrelenting growth of cost shifting to councils, coupled with rate pegging, is increasingly eroding any possibility of financially sustainable local government and risking the capacity of councils to deliver tailored, grassroots services to their communities and properly deliver and maintain vital local infrastructure.

Alarmingly, the latest research commissioned by Local Government NSW (LGNSW) shows that the increase in cost shifting has been accelerated by various NSW Government policies.

As shown in the latest cost shifting report produced by independent consultants Morrison Low on behalf of LGNSW for the 2021/2022 financial year (www.lgnsw.org.au/costshifting) (see Attachment 1 for summary), an amount of $1.36 billion of expense has been passed on to councils to fund. This is an increase of $540 million since the last report from the 2017/2018 financial year and represents lost services, lost opportunity and lost amenity for all our residents and businesses.

On average, this represents an additional cost of $460.67 for every ratepayer across the state.

With councils having to fund this ongoing subsidy for the State Government each and every year it means our communities get less or go without. They go without better roads, they go without better parks, they go without important community services that only councils provide, and they and their ratepayers are effectively paying hidden taxes to other levels of government.

Councillors, our communities deserve better and this must stop. Prior to the most recent state election the then Minns Opposition wrote to LGNSW acknowledging that cost shifting had undermined the financial sustainability of the local government sector.

Now in 2024, it is important to councils and communities that the NSW Government urgently seek to address cost shifting through a combination of regulatory reform, budgetary provision and appropriate funding.

Recommendation:

A. That Council receive and note the findings of the LGNSW Cost Shifting report for the 2021/2022 financial year; and

B. That a copy be placed on Council’s website so that our communities can access it; and

C. That Council write to the Premier, the NSW Treasurer and the NSW Minister for Local Government seeking that they urgently seek to address cost shifting through a combination of regulatory reform, budgetary provision and appropriate funding.

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 Lindfield Village Hub - update following removal of TfNSW grant funding 31

File: S12165-4-6

To provide a further update following withdrawal of grant funding by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for the commuter car park at the Lindfield Village Hub (LVH).

Recommendation:

That the report is received and noted

GB.2 Minutes of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Meeting held on 14 December 2023 36

File: CY00458/12

To provide Council with the Minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 14 December 2023 for adoption.

Recommendation:

That the minutes from the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee meeting held on 14 December 2023 be adopted.

GB.3 Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group - Meeting Minutes 28 November 2023 37

File: S13163

That Council receive and note the minutes from the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group (‘SRAG’) meeting held on 28 November 2023 and endorse the recommendations within.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Sustainable Recreation Advisory Group minutes from 28 November 2023 and endorse the recommendations within.

GB.4 Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 6 December 2023 37

File: CY00413/11

To have Council consider the minutes from previous Heritage Reference Committee (‘HRC’) meeting held on 6 December 2023.

Recommendation:

That Council receives and notes the HRC minutes from 6 December 2023.

GB.5 2023 - 2024 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2023 37

File: S09112/12

To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2023/24 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023.

Recommendation:

That the December 2023/24 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

GB.6 Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 2ND Quarter 2023 to 2024 37

File: FY00623/6

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 December 2023.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 31 December 2023 be received and noted.

GB.7 Investment Report as at 30 November 2023 37

File: FY00623/6

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for November 2023.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for November 2023 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.8 Investment Report as at 31 December 2023 106

File: FY00623/6

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for December 2023.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for December 2023 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.9 Investment Report as at 31 January 2024 114

File: FY00623/6

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for January 2024.

Recommendation:

That the summary of investments performance for January 2024 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

GB.10 2024 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions 120

File: FY00581/9

To inform Councillors of an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions for debate to the 2024 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA).

Recommendation:

That:

A. Councillors provide any proposed motions for the 2024 NGA to the Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy by 28 February 2024

B. Any Councillors interested in attending the NGA notify the General Manager by 28 February 2024

C. A further report providing details of any proposed motions be referred to Council at its meeting on 19 March 2024 for approval prior to submission to the ALGA.

GB.11 Mayoral Donations - 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 120

File: EM00043/1

To advise Council of the Mayoral donations made during the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023.

Recommendation:

That the report be received and noted.

GB.12 Nominations for Sydney North Planning Panels (SNPP) Alternate Representatives 120

File: S11352/5

For Council to consider the appointment of alternate Panel membership for the Council nominated representatives on the Sydney North Planning Panel, being Suzanne Jolly and Barbara Newman, whose current term expires on 8 June 2024.

Recommendation:

That Council resolves to:

A. Reappoint the incumbent alternate nominees for a further maximum period up to 3 years and that the Minister for Planning and Environment be advised of the decision.

B. Seek new alternate nominees for appointment through an expression of interest process, with staff to report back to Council with a recommendation for the appointment of nominees.

C. Appoint nominees from within Council and advise the Minister for Planning and Environment of the decision.

GB.13 Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Community Member recruitment 159

File: S11736-3

To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint Community Members to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

Recommendation:

That Council:

A. Affirms the recommendations of the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel and appoints Community Members (Applicants 1,2 and 3) to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 March 2024

B. Reappoints the remaining Community Member (Applicant 4) for a period of up to 3 years from 1 March 2024.

C. Notifies the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and all the applicants of its decision.

GB.14 Project Status Report - February 2024 167

File: FY00621/6

To provide Council with the Project Status Report for October to December 2023 and January 2024.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the Project Status Report for December 2023 and January 2024.

GB.15 RFT1-2023 - Stormwater Pollution Device Maintenance 175

File: RFT1-2023/R

To consider the tenders received for RFT1-2023 Stormwater Pollution Device Maintenance and to appoint the preferred tenderer.

Recommendation:

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

GB.16 RFT12-2023 - Building Schedule of Rates Panel 180

File: RFT12-2023/R

To consider the tenders received for RFT12-2023 Building Schedule of Rates and to appoint the preferred tenders.

Recommendation:

In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submissions.

GB.17 Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee Meeting Dates for 2024 185

File: CY00022/16

To determine the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meeting dates for 2024.

Recommendation:

That the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meetings for 2024 be scheduled quarterly between March and December as per dates specified and that meetings are held only as required.

GB.18 Transport Oriented Development Program and Low and Mid-Rise Housing Provisions 188

File: S12198

The purpose of this report is to put draft submissions on the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program and proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions to Council for consideration.

Recommendation:

That Council resolve to forward submissions on the TOD Program and the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions at Attachments A1 and A2 to this report respectively to the DPHI, noting that the TOD submission was been forwarded to the DPHI as a draft.

GB.19 Release and Acquisition of Council easement at St Ives 442

File: CY00470/11

To consider a request to relocate Council’s stormwater/ drainage infrastructure and to extinguish/release an existing Council easement that traverses 1 Dobell Place St Ives (Lot 9 DP 259441) and part of the adjoining property at 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives (Lot 5 DP 259441).

Recommendation:

That Council approve of the release of the existing easement over 1 Dobell Place, St Ives and 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives and the acquisition of a new easement over alternate parts of the subject properties in favour of Council on the terms set out in this report.

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

Motions of which due Notice has been given

NM.1 2024 Community Relief Fund 449

File: FY00275/16

Notice of Motion from Councillor A. Taylor dated 2 February 2024

The NSW Council of Social Services (NCOSS) 2023 Cost Of Living Survey showed that households in Sydney are experiencing a cost of living crisis in increasing numbers. Almost two-thirds (62%) of survey participants said they had gone without essentials or could not afford to pay for essentials in the past year, up from 58% in 2022. Sharp increases in the cost of food, essential hygiene items, medications, utility prices, rents and mortgage repayments are a significant challenge to household budgets. The NCOSS survey found “Rising interest rates and rents are hitting hard. Just under one-fifth (19%) of all respondents reported having failed to make rent or mortgage repayments. This is an increase of 4 percentage points since 2022, representing a 27% year-on-year increase.”

The need for community relief support in the Northern Sydney Area has increased. Catholic Care based in Waitara had to “close their books” at Christmas due to the level of demand. Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury reports a sharp increase in emergency relief provision of approximately 30% in 2023 and a significant increase in families experiencing mortgage stress, with many spending 40-50 per cent of their total income on mortgage/rent payments. Many of the parents seeking assistance from Lifeline are in their early 40’s with young children, and are presenting for the first time. Additionally, 50-60% of the individuals requesting assistance have also had a recent mental health diagnosis attributable to financial stress. All services state that the number of families in financial stress is an underestimation as people are reluctant to seek help and identify themselves as needing assistance.

Council could initiate a one-off Community Relief Fund targeting vulnerable families and individuals to alleviate some of the short-term cost of living pressures experienced by our community. This could be achieved by adding a temporary priority area to the Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program, for Families and Individuals Experiencing Financial Hardship In 2024, with an additional financial allocation of $50,000. Organisations already providing emergency relief in this area e.g. Catholic Care, Mission Australia, Salvation Army and Lifeline would be invited/eligible to apply for the grant funding. These organisations have the expertise required to assess eligible families and individuals, and distribute those funds to Ku-ring-gai residents. These organisations already have in place robust accountability structures crucial to ensure transparency, efficiency and ethical use of funds. These structures also include clear policy frameworks, legal and regulatory compliance, transparent application process, financial controls, performance monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Adding a one-off, short-term financial hardship component to the existing Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program would demonstrate a commitment to the well-being and social cohesion of our community. It could also stimulate economic activity within the community with positive cascading effects, benefiting local businesses and creating a more robust local economy.

I, therefore, move that Council:

A. Create a temporary priority funding area of Families and Individuals Experiencing Financial Hardship in 2024 within the existing Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program.

B. Allocate an additional $50,000 to the Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program for the new priority funding area.

C. Invite eligible organisations already providing emergency relief in this area e.g. Catholic Care, Mission Australia, Salvation Army and Lifeline, to apply for funding

D. Highlight that this is a one-off increase to address the short-term issue in the current year, and only Ku-ring-gai families and individuals experiencing financial hardship are eligible to receive assistance.

Recommendation:

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

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

Questions With Notice

QN.1 What is Council’s expected capacity in terms of visitors and parking spaces at the NTRA with the new NSFA grandstand and ancillary facilities? 451

File: EM00043/1

InspectionS– SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

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

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Extraordinary Meeting
HELD ON Monday, 5 February 2024

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor S Ngai (Chairperson)

Councillor G Taylor (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors S Lennon & B Ward (Gordon Ward)

Councillor A Taylor (Roseville Ward)

Councillors C Kay (Online) & M Smith (St Ives Ward)

Councillor K Wheatley (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

Acting General Manager (David Marshall)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Acting Director Corporate (Angela Apostol)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Acting Director Operations (Peter Lichaa)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro)

Manager Governance and Corporate Strategy (Christopher M Jones)

Governance Support Officer (Nicole Kratochvil)

The Meeting commenced at 7:00PM

The Mayor offered the Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer

Apologies

File: S02194

Councillor Kay advised of an apology from Cr Spencer due to a prior commitment.

The Acting General Manager, Mr David Marshall, advised of an apology from Councillor Pettett due to illness.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai/Ward)

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.

Cr Kay declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in NM.1 - To consider the proposed changes to housing policy and planning controls by the NSW Government as she is on the LGNSW board and will leave the Chambers during debate on this item.

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

The Mayor referred to the document circulated in the Councillors’ papers:

Memorandum: Confidential Memo from Corporate Lawyer, dated 5 February
2024, to Councillors and General Manager.

minutes from the Mayor

Recent Developments with the Proposed Housing Policy

File: S14427

Vide: MM.1

This Mayoral Minute follows MM1 from the December 2023 Ordinary Meeting of Council to provide an update (for noting) on local activity regarding the State Labor Government’s proposed housing policy.

The State Government commenced a ‘public feedback’ process on 18 December with submissions due 23 February 2024. The effect of commencing a feedback process at the start of school holidays has meant that media coverage and public awareness has been low.

Given the drastic nature of the changes being imposed upon Ku-ring-gai, Council’s position has been to make all efforts to raise awareness in the community.

Earlier this month Council released a four page brochure (see Attachment 1) to summarise the changes being proposed as well as highlight key implications for Ku-ring-gai’s infrastructure, amenity and environment. This brochure was delivered to all ratepayers via email or physical mail, as well as to renters.

Residents were encouraged to respond to a council-run survey, and the preliminary survey results indicate that the majority of those who responded were not in support of the State Government’s proposed changes. Residents were also encouraged to write directly to the State Government to provide their feedback.

Council, councillors, and community groups have also been active in promoting awareness of the State imposed changes through multiple eNews, through social media, and through personal interactions. We encourage further activity in this space in the coming months.

Council also organised a public information session on this topic for Wednesday 31 January, with further actions required for raising awareness to be determined following the information session.

The Department of Planning also met with Council Staff on Tuesday 16 January and Councillors on Wednesday 24 January to provide an update specifically on the Transport Oriented Development (‘TOD’) policy. From these sessions, three particular items to note were that:

1. The TOD policy does apply to Heritage Conservation Areas. Specific questions as to how it is possible to observe heritage while also allowing 6-7 storey development were not answered.

2. There were underlying assumptions of how many additional dwellings can be provided in each of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon. While the TOD policy will come into place in April 2024, councils have the option to propose alternate zoning arrangements to match or exceed the dwelling targets.

3. The underlying modelling for each dwelling target is cabinet in confidence and not available to council or members of the public. The department did not agree with Council’s concerns as to whether there was sufficient infrastructure (roads and congestion, stormwater, amenities, and appropriate funding) to support the dwelling uplift.

Point 2 in particular has been suggested as a potential way to protect the heritage conservation areas, however, any decision to restrict heights in the HCAs would have to be accompanied with even more drastic uplift elsewhere. Some councillors expressed concern that if Ku-ring-gai were to propose uplift in the town centres, the State Government may nevertheless renege and still require 6-7 storeys in the HCAs.

In the meanwhile, property developers have been circling (even harassing) residents within 400m of these train stations. This was reported just today in the Sydney Morning Herald and other residents have shared with us their displeasure of receiving regular, unsolicited contact from developers in recent weeks. In one case, a resident who last lived in Roseville 15 years ago is still receiving unsolicited phone calls seeking sale of property she does not own.

The Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils has called an extraordinary meeting to discuss the proposed changes. This meeting will be held on 15 February.

Also scheduled for 15 February was a meeting with Paul Scully MP (Minister for Planning) to discuss the housing policy as well as the Lindfield Village Hub, however his office has deferred the meeting to 29 February.

This information is provided to publicly record what has been happening and the situation changes from week to week. Council staff will have more to report for the upcoming Ordinary Meeting of Council on 20 February, and in the interim Councillors Smith and Wheatley have called for an Extraordinary Meeting of Council to agree on a further round of action (refer to NM.1).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Ngai)

That Council notes and receives this Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

After previously having declared a conflict of interest on item NM.1, Councillor Kay withdrew from the meeting during discussion on the below matter.

To consider the proposed changes to housing policy and planning controls by the NSW Government

File: S14427

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillors Smith and Wheatley dated 29 January 2024

The proposal by the State Government to impose brutal changes to planning controls across NSW would be vandalism to the built and natural environment on a grand scale.

Just prior to Christmas the Government cynically released details of their intention to override the planning controls of NSW councils, using the holiday period to hide from public scrutiny. Some of the worst parts of their plan are due to commence as early as April 2024. Ku-ring-gai is alarmed by the long-term consequences of the Government’s plans and will not sit back and allow it to occur.

The new planning controls will lead to the widespread destruction of heritage properties, massive tree loss and traffic gridlock. We know that there is already inadequate infrastructure for sewer, water supply and stormwater in Ku-ring-gai, and yet the Government will not release their analysis, hiding behind Cabinet secrecy provisions. The Government has not even provided councils with the expected number of extra dwellings to be delivered under the new planning controls, let alone any planning for extra schools, parks and other needs for a much larger community.

One shocking aspect of the Government’s plans is to blanket large areas around train stations with 6 to 7 storey buildings that are so dense they will take up most of the land, not allowing for setbacks from neighbours nor space for landscaping and tree planting. There will be inadequate access to natural light and fresh air.

If the Minns Government was serious about housing affordability it would work with other states and the Federal Government to reduce the impact of short term rentals, vacant properties, foreign ownership and immigration. Revising planning controls will be ineffective at making housing more affordable without addressing these broader issues.

The Government’s proposal to override local planning controls with a one size fits all approach abandons all notions of good planning. The Government must withdraw its proposal to change planning controls in this manner and conduct genuine consultation with local councils and their communities.

We, therefore, move that Council:

A. Condemns the State Government for its irresponsible approach to planning for the future of the built and natural environment in NSW.

B. Rejects the proposed changes to planning controls and demands that they be withdrawn with genuine consultation to be undertaken with councils and their communities.

C. Explore all options to oppose the changes and stop them being implemented.

D. Lodge an application under the GIPA act to obtain the NSW Government analysis of the proposed planning controls.

E. Continue to actively inform the community, and request NSROC and Local Government NSW to lobby against the proposed changes to planning controls.

F. Write to the Mayors of all Sydney metropolitan councils seeking for these councils to fight back and demand that the proposed changes to planning controls be withdrawn.

G. Arrange for banners in key locations to alert residents to the proposed changes.

H. Authorise the General Manager to take all action necessary to implement this resolution and otherwise progress the interests of Council consistent with this resolution.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley)

A. Condemns the State Government for its irresponsible approach to planning for the future of the built and natural environment in NSW.

B. Rejects the proposed changes to planning controls and demands that they be withdrawn with genuine consultation to be undertaken with councils and their communities, as intended by the National Housing Accord 2022.

C. Explore all options to oppose the changes and stop them being implemented.

D. Lodge applications under the GIPA act to obtain the NSW Government analysis of the proposed planning controls and other information relating to the possible impact on Ku-ring-gai.

E. Continue to actively inform the community, and request NSROC and Local Government NSW to lobby against the proposed changes to planning controls.

F. Write to the Mayors of all Sydney metropolitan councils seeking for these councils to fight back and demand that the proposed changes to planning controls be withdrawn.

G. Arrange for banners in key locations to alert residents to the proposed changes.

H. Continue to actively campaign against the proposed changes, collaborating with the community, councils and other stakeholders.

I. Authorise the General Manager to take all action necessary to implement this resolution and otherwise progress the interests of Council consistent with this resolution.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Meeting closed at 8:04PM

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 5 February 2024 (Pages 1 - 58) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 20 February 2024.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P4.1 Our centres offer a broad range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces and places where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time E1.1: Ku-ring-gai is an attractive location for business.	P4.1.1 Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design and sustainability outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community (S&E) E1.1.3 Secure a development partner for Lindfield Village Hub (MPU)	P4.1.1.2Progress public domain streetscape plans for key local centre precincts such as Lindfield, Gordon and Turramurra. P4.1.1.5: Finalise Public Domain Plans for St Ives, Roseville, Lindfield and Pymble. P4.1.1.8 Integrate all transport modes for the primary local centres through the Public Domain Plan, traffic and transport studies in collaboration with Transport for NSW. E1.1.3.1: Progress negotiations with prospective developers for the Lindfield Village Hub.

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

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.	Implement priority actions from the Recreation in Natural Areas strategy.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets	Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions.	Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.5 / 1

Item GB.5	S09112/12
	16 January 2024

2023 - 2024 Budget Review - 2nd Quarter ended December 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of report:	To inform Council of the results of the second quarter budget review of 2023/24 and proposed adjustments to the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023.

background:	Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current financial year (2023/24).

comments:	The recommended budget adjustments outlined in this review are expected to improve the net operating result (excluding capital grants) by $743k. This improvement primarily arises from increased interest earned on investments, higher user fees and additional operating grants. These are partly offset by unfavourable rises in materials and contractor costs, other expenses and depreciation, as detailed in this report. After adjusting for capital and operational grants, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital will increase by $231k.

recommendation:	That the December 2023/24 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes are received and noted.

Purpose of Report

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the Council meeting held on 20 June 2023, Council adopted the Revised Delivery Program 2023-2026 & Operational Plan 2023-2024, which incorporated the Annual Budget for 2023-2024.

Comments

This review analyses the financial performance of the Council during the second quarter of the 2023/24 financial year and forecasts an end of financial year position. The review recommends budget adjustments for both operating and capital budgets.

Budget adjustments proposed in this review will improve the net operating result (excluding capital grants) by $743k. This is mainly due to additional interest on investments (partly restricted to external reserves), other revenue, operating grants and a decrease in operating project expense. This is partly offset by unfavourable increases in materials and contractor costs, depreciation and other expenses as detailed further in this report.

From a funding position, after adjusting for capital and operational grants movements, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital is projected to increase by $231k. This increase is attributed to additional income from investments (partly restricted to external reserves) as well as grants.

Proposed adjustments to forecast budget

Operating Income

The recommended net increase in operating income, totalling $1.16m, primarily results from increased interest on investments (partly restricted externally), increased user fees, additional revenue from other sources and operating grants and contributions received:

· User charges and fees – a decrease of ($43k) is primarily attributed to a decline in library fines.

· Other Revenue - an increase of ($71k) resulting from income generated for works at Koola Park entirely offset by project expense.

· Interest and investments income – an increase of ($800k) resulting from more competitive interest rates than initially budgeted, out of which ($612k) is restricted to reserves ($419k to S7.11reserves and $193k to the internal Infrastructure & Facilities reserve).

· Operating grants and contributions – an increase of ($336k) mainly from

o Additional subsidy approved under the Low cost loan initiative (LCLI) for St Ives Indoor Sport Complex) - ($242k)

o RFS bush fire mitigation support ($90k)

o RFS Service ($4k)

Operating expenditure

The recommended net increase in operating expenditure, totalling $422k is primarily due to increased depreciation (non-cash) and net increases in materials and contracts partly offset by transfers (reclassification only) of budgeted expenditure associated with capital projects as detailed below:

· Materials and contracts - net increase of $234k from:

o Increase in consulting costs associated with the proposed changes to NSW housing policy ($100k);

o One off increase to bush fire mitigation support funded from RFS grant ($90k);

o Increase to maintain pedestrian crossings at schools and shopping centres ($50k);

o Increase to external auditors fees as advised by the Audit Office ($32k);

o Other minor increases funded from increased revenue and grant ($9k);

o Decrease to library expenses to offset reduced library fines ($47k).

· Other expenses – increase due to higher than anticipated environmental planning levy ($16k)

· Depreciation (non-cash) - increase from revaluation of assets at 30 June 2023 ($280k)

· Operational projects expenditure - net decrease of $108k, fully offset in capital budget due to projects reclassification between capital and operational.

o Transfer of sustainability project ($90k) and allocation of library grant to capital projects ($53k)

o Transfer of IT project from capital projects ($34k)

Capital Budget

· Major adjustments to the capital budget are due to:

o Projects deferred to future financial years ($4m)

o Net decrease in grants ($100k)

o Transfer to recurrent budget ($50k)

o Minor adjustments ($21k)

Partly offset by:

o Project budget brought forward ($850k)

o Net transfer from operational projects ($186k)

o Additional works ($529k) funded from reserve (details provided further in the report)

o Income received ($71k)

Details by project and other budget adjustments are detailed further in the report and listed in Attachment A2.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS)

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

· Operating and Capital Budget Review Statement (Table 1)

· Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Adjustments by Resource Group (Table 2)

· Income and Expenses Statement by Theme (Table 3)

· Cash and Investments position (Table 4)

· Contracts and Consultancy Expenses (Table 5)

· Capital and Operational Projects Summary (Table 6)

· Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer

These statements are shown below.

Proposed Budget Adjustments

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

Attachment A2 summarises all proposed budget adjustments for Projects.

The table below splits the current budget by six themes identified within Council’s Delivery Program 2023 – 2026. These themes are used as a platform for planning our activities to address the community’s stated needs and aspirations.

Cash and Investments position

Restricted funds are invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Total investments portfolio as at the end of December quarter is $208m.

A detailed Restricted Assets Report as at December 2023 (Actual) is shown in Attachment A1.

Contracts and Consultancy Expenses

Capital & Operational Projects Summary

Actual expenditure for capital and operational projects for the period ending 31 December 2023 is ($32.3m) or 27% against the full year revised budget of ($120.6m).

The table and chart below show the YTD actual project expenditure against 2023/24 full year revised budget and projected forecast.

The December review recommends a net decrease of $2.7m to the forecast project budget resulting in a total revised budget of $117.7m

The most significant variations and projects proposed for adjustment are listed below:

· Deferral of expenditure

o Gordon North Streetscape Improvement ($4m)

· Brought forward expenditure:

o St Johns Avenue Construction ($450k)

o East Turramurra - Neighbourhood Centre Upgrade ($400k)

· Additional expenditure:

o Primula Oval Upgrade ($333k)

o 9 Dumaresq St, Gordon – temporary park ($150k)

o Gordon Bowling Club – Open lane ($35k)

· Grant funded expenditure:

· Reduced grants:

o RMS Road Repair (grant on hold) ($300k)

o TfNSW Wombat Crossing Eastern Road, Turramurra ($136k)

o Adjustment for grant received 2022/23 ($26k)

· Partly offset by additional grants:

o TfNSW Telegraph Road, Pymble ($248k)

o NSW Infrastructure - Bannockburn Oval Amenities ($84k)

o Road safety program ($30k)

· Project income funded expenditure:

o Koola Park upgrade ($71k)

· Other internal transfers:

o Net transfers only from operating projects to capital projects ($108k)

o Transfer to recurrent for pedestrian crossing maintenance ($50k)

o Minor adjustments ($21k)

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

Attachment A2 – Summary of Capital and Operational Project Budget Adjustments

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Ku-ring-gai Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2023 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2024 will be satisfactory, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 6: Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

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

Financial Considerations

Financial impacts from recommended budget adjustments are discussed in detail in other sections of this report.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

Not applicable.

Internal Consultation

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

Summary

Budget adjustments proposed in this review will improve the net operating result (excluding capital grants) by $743k. This is mainly due to additional income from investments (partly restricted to external reserves), user fees, other revenue, operating grants and decrease in operating project expenses. This is partly offset by unfavourable increases in materials and contractor costs, other expenses and depreciation as detailed in this report.

After adjusting for capital and operational grants, deferred expenditure and restricted items, the net working capital will increase by $231k.

Recommendation:

That the December 2023 Quarterly Budget Review and the recommended changes be received and noted.

Angela Apostol

Acting Director Corporate

Mette Kofoed

Strategic Management Accountant

Ann Wang

Acting Manager Finance

Attachments:	A1⇩	Attachment A1 - Restricted Assets Report - December 2024		2024/018191
	A2 ⇩	Attachment A2 - Summary of Capital and Operational Projects Budget Adjustments - December 2023		2024/021156

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.6 / 1

Item GB.6	FY00623/6
	10 January 2024

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 2ND Quarter 2023 to 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 December 2023.

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

comments:	For the quarter ended 31 December 2023, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to the Land and Environment Court were $748,657. This compares with the annual budget of $1,338,800.

recommendation:	That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 31 December 2023 be received and noted.

Purpose of Report

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the quarter ended 31 December 2023.

Background

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

Comments

Appeals Lodged

In the quarter ended 31 December 2023 there were five new appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court. The number of appeals received in prior years is as follows:

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2019/2020	25
2020/2021	13
2021/2022	18
2022/2023	36
2023/2024 (as at 31 December 2023)	7

The appeals commenced during the quarter to 31 December 2023 concerned the following subject matter:

· Multi-dwelling housing

Council was also in receipt of two appeals against Development Control Orders.

costs

For the quarter ended 31 December 2023, Council made payments of $748,657 on appeals and associated expenses in relation to Land & Environment Court matters. This compares with the annual budget of $1,338,800.

In addition to expenditure on appeals, a further amount of $2,840 was spent in obtaining expert advice regarding development assessment matters.

Land & Environment Court Costs 2019/2020 - 2023/2024
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2019/2020* (25 appeals lodged)	$1,892,040	$417,046	$446,071	$543,218	$485,705
2020/2021* ( 13 appeals lodged)	$1,512,459	$356,735	$501,925	$278,510	$375,289
2021/2022 * (18 appeals lodged)	$1,114,447	$402,328	$258,053	$226,500	$227,566
2022/2023 (36 appeals lodged)	$1,261,734	$324,397	$300,017	$474,367	$162,953
2023/2024 (7 appeals lodged)	$748,657	$381,788	$366,869

* Costs reported to Council in previous reports

The costs incurred in the period to 31 December 2023 represent 55.92% of the annual budget of $1,338,800. In recent reported periods, there has been a trend of increasing numbers of appeals.

The commencement of appeals does not lie within the control of Council, however there a number of factors that appear to have influenced the volume of appeals:

· Amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act made in 2013 and then reintroduced in 2022 reduced the timeframe for lodgement of an appeal from twelve months to six months. This had the effect of applicants for more substantial and complex development proposals lodging appeals for no other reason than as a mechanism to preserve early appeal rights. The number of development applications received by Council in recent periods has itself been high.

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

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

· The additional pressure on application processing times arising from the Statement of Expectations issued to all NSW councils by the previous Minister for Planning in December 2021, which remains in force.

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

In relation to costs recovered, the amount of $88,104 had been recovered as 31 December 2023 compared to an annual budget for costs recovered of $114,900.

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· one appeal were upheld in relation to an amended proposal

· eight appeals were resolved by agreement in relation to an amended proposal.

As at 31 December 2023, there was a total of 15 matters proceeding before the court and unconcluded.

integrated planning and reporting

Leadership & Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial

resources and assets to maximise delivery of

services.

Achieve financial sustainability targets

identified in the Long Term Financial

Plan.

Undertake quarterly reporting to Council on the financial performance of the

organisation.

Governance Matters

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

Risk Management

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

Financial Considerations

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

Social Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Environmental Considerations

None undertaken or required.

Community Consultation

None undertaken or required.

Internal Consultation

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

Summary

For the period ended 31 December 2023, Council made payments of $748,657 on Land & Environment Court appeals. This compares with the annual budget of $1,338,800.

Recommendation:

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 31 December 2023 be received and noted.

Tony Ly

Financial Accounting Officer

Jamie Taylor

Corporate Lawyer

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:

A1⇩

Individual Case Summary December 2023 - Land and Environment Court Costs

2024/033963

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.13 / 1

Item GB.13	S11736-3

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel - Community Member recruitment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint Community Members to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

background:	Changes to legislation in 2017 required all councils in the Greater Sydney Region and Wollongong to have Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs), now known as local planning panels (LPPs). Panel members on local planning panels are appointed for a period of up to 3 years and can be reappointed for another period up to 3 years, totaling a maximum 6 years. Council at its 15 June 2021 meeting resolved to appoint, 4 Community Members for a period of up to 3 years. Three of those were reappointments, who had been on the Panel since February 2018. Consequently, 3 of the 4 existing Community Members’ maximum term expires at the end of February 2024. In preparation for the impending departure of 3 of the existing Community Members and to ensure consistency with the Minister’s Direction, dated 7 December 2022 that requires a minimum pool of 4 Community Members per panel, Council sought Community Members on the KLPP through an expression of interest (EOI) process. Advertisements were placed in the local newspaper and on Council’s website from 5 October 2023, with the most recent EOI advertisement closing on 2 February 2024. The remaining Community Member is eligible to continue to serve on the Panel. The Community Member has applied during the EOI in order to be eligible to serve on the Panel beyond February 2024. The Community Member has already undertaken probity checks and there are no performance issues.

comments:	Thirteen applications were received during the EOI advertising periods. All applicants were reviewed by the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel with the recommendation to appoint 3 new Community Members from the pool of EOI and to reappoint the existing Community Member who remains eligible to be a panel member for a further 3 years. This is to ensure Council is consistent with the Planning Minister’s direction of 7 December 2022, to retain a pool of 4 Community Members on a panel.

recommendation:	That Council: A. Affirms the recommendations of the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel and appoints Community Members (Applicants 1,2 and 3) to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 March 2024 B. Reappoints the remaining Community Member (Applicant 4) for a period of up to 3 years from 1 March 2024. C. Notifies the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and all the applicants of its decision.

Purpose of Report

To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint Community Members to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

Background

Legislation introduced in 2017 required all councils in the Greater Sydney Region and Wollongong to have Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs), now known as local planning panels (LPPs).

Council at its meeting 29 November 2017, resolved;

That Council establishes a standalone IHAP for Ku-ring-gai.

A. That Council affirms the recommendations of the General Manager’s selection panel and appoints community representatives to the Ku-ring-gai IHAP for a term of up to 3 years:

B. That Council notifies the Minister for Planning and Environment and all the candidates of its decision.

C. That Council authorises the General Manager to select the two other IHAP members when the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment in due course.

D. That the General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning and Environment of his decision.

The appointments to the Panel membership were made on 28 February 2018 for a period of 3 years. The term for all members expired on 1 March 2021. Council at its 16 March 2021 meeting resolved to appoint, temporarily, the existing members of the KLPP up until 30 June 2021. This was in line with the request by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to enable them time to recruit experts and chairs for local panels. During the temporary appointment term, Council sought EOI from Community Members in April 2021. The selection criteria and recruitment process followed the model set by the then Department of Planning and Environment at the time of the establishment of IHAPs.

Selection criteria for Community Members

The community representatives should:

· be current residents within the local government area (LGA)

· have knowledge and awareness of the LGA and issues of concern to the local community

· be able to represent and communicate the interests of the local community

· have an understanding of the planning process and assessment issues (but are not expected to be experts)

· commit to attending the LPP meetings and contributing constructively to the determination of applications

· be willing to adhere to the LPP code of conduct and operational procedures.

At the OMC 15 June 2021 staff reported the outcome from EOI submitted by Community Members and resolved the following:

GB.8: To consider the expressions of interest (EOI) received and to appoint community

representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel (KLPP).

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Greenfield/Szatow)

That:

A. Council affirms the recommendations of the General Manager’s Selection

Panel and appoints Community Representatives to the Ku-ring-gai Local

Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 July 2021:

B. Council notifies the Minister for Planning, Industry & Environment and all the

candidates of its decision.

C. Council authorises the General Manager to review and appoint expert members

once the experts’ pool is approved by the Minister for Planning, Industry &

Environment.

D. The General Manager advises Council and the Minister for Planning, Industry &

Environment of his decision.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

In the current Community members EOI process, applicants were sought from the wider community through public advertisements (Attachment A1) that appeared in a local paper and on Council’s website over the following periods:

5/10/23 – applications closed 3/11/23

12/10/23 – applications closed 3/11/23

16/11/23 – applications closed 2/2/2024

23/11/23 – applications closed 5/1/2024

Thirteen nominations were received (Attachment A2) and have been reviewed by the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel (comprised of the Acting General Manager, Director Strategy & Environment, Director of Development & Regulation and Manager Development Assessment Services).

Selection of Community Members

Following the EOI process, the Acting General Manager convened a selection panel to review the applications against the relevant selection criteria and shortlisted suitable candidates as possible Community Members and their alternates. Candidates who nominated as Community Members are listed in the attached confidential report (Attachment A2).

By the Minister’s Direction, dated 7 December 2022, Direction 2 Appointment of members to a pool, applying to local planning panels:

‘a council must establish a pool comprising at least 4 community representatives that have been appointed for the purpose of constituting a local planning panel.’

To ensure compliance with the Minister’s Direction, the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel also recommends the remaining fourth Community Member, who remains an eligible member, is reappointed for a period of up to 3 years. This would total close to the maximum 6 years, consistent with the EP&A Act. This member has had probity checks and no issues are raised in this regard nor in respect of their performance.

Once the decision is made, the Acting General Manager will advise the Department's Planning Panels Secretariat on who will be appointed as Community Members to the KLPP in 2024 for a period of up to 3 years and provide reasons why they will be appointed.

The Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) is currently recruiting for the pool of independent, suitably qualified persons from which the Expert Members are to be drawn. The Minister for the DPE will approve the persons in this pool and will also choose the independent Chair and Alternate Chairs of each panel. Council’s General Manager is required to choose the other Expert Members. The fourth panel member is the Community Member, to enhance the panel's knowledge of local matters. This person does not have to be an expert in a planning related field.

Membership of a panel is a part-time role. Remuneration and allowances are set by the Minister for the DPIE. Any Panel Member (other than Chair) may be removed at any time and a written statement of reasons must be made available by the General Manager should this occur.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces & Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Applications are assessed in accordance with state and local plans.

Assessments are of a high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements

Governance Matters

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act) in particular Division 4.2 and Schedule 2 provides for the constitution, functions and operation of Local Planning Panels (LLP) and obligations in respect to councils.

The Act requires that LPP members must disclose any pecuniary interests that arise in relation to a matter referred to the panel and cannot take part in that decision. A code of conduct for LPP’s has been established by the former Department of Planning, Industry & Environment. The code sets out the expected standard of behaviour required of panel members, including managing conflicts of interest and relationships and interactions.

Risk Management

There are no risk management considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial considerations associated with the recommendation in this report other than the typical costs associated with the management of a local planning panel.

Social Considerations

There are no social considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.

Community Consultation

Expressions of Interest were sought from the wider community through a number of public advertisement that appeared in a local newspaper and on Council’s website on:

5/10/23 – applications closed 3/11/23

12/10/23 – applications closed 3/11/23

16/11/23 – applications closed 2/2/2024

23/11/23 – applications closed 5/1/2024

A copy of the advertisement can be found in (Attachment A1).

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation occurred throughout the selection process.

Summary

Council sought expressions of interest (EOI) for KLPP Community Members and 13 nominations were received. Following the EOI process, a Selection Panel convened by the Acting General Manager reviewed the applications against the relevant selection criteria and shortlisted the preferred suitable candidates as possible Community Members. Council is requested to consider the appointment of the Community Members for a period of up to 3 years commencing on 1 March 2024.

Recommendation:

A. That Council affirms the recommendations of the Acting General Manager’s Selection Panel and appoints Community Members (Applicants 1,2 & 3) to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for a term of up to 3 years from 1 March 2024:

B. That Council reappoints the remaining Community Member (Applicant 4) for a period of up to 3 years.

C. That Council notifies the Minister for Planning & Public Spaces and all the candidates of its decision.

Shaun Garland

Manager Development Assessment Services

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1⇩	North Shore Times Corporate advertisement	2024/027120
	A2	Confidential Attachment	Confidential
	A3	Applicant 1	Confidential
	A4	Applicant 2	Confidential
	A5	Applicant 3	Confidential
	A6	Applicant 4 - current Community Member	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.18 / 1

Item GB.18	S12198

Transport Oriented Development Program and Low and Mid-Rise Housing Provisions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	The purpose of this report is to put draft submissions on the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program and proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions to Council for consideration.

background:	The State Government sought feedback from councils within which 39 TOD precincts are located until 31 January 2024. Under the TOD Program these sites, being metro or heavy rail stations, are divided into Part 1 and Part 2 sites. Ku-ring-gai has four sites identified as Part 2 TOD stations: Lindfield, Killara, Roseville and Gordon. Comment on the TOD Program was not open to the public. The TOD SEPP is to apply from April 2024. Separately, the State Government is seeking feedback on proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions.

comments:	The planning controls contemplated by the TOD Program combined with the changes contemplated by the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP, represent a fundamental reset of the normal application of zones and planning controls established by the Standard Template Instrument, the broad planning framework established by the North District Plan, Local Strategic Planning Statements, and more than a decade of city planning. Collectively these proposed changes represent a significant departure from good planning practice and will leave a profound and indelible mark on the structure and aesthetic of Sydney.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council resolve to forward submissions on the TOD Program and the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions at Attachments A1 and A2 to this report respectively to the DPHI, noting that the TOD submission was been forwarded to the DPHI as a draft.

Purpose of Report

Background

The State Government sought feedback from councils within which 39 TOD precincts are located until 31 January. Under the TOD Program these sites, being metro or heavy rail stations, are divided into Part 1 and Part 2 sites. Ku-ring-gai has four stations identified as Part 2 TOD stations; Lindfield, Killara, Roseville and Gordon.

Feedback is being sought until 31 January and the Transport Oriented Development Program is not open to general public consultation.

The A/General Manager sought an extension of this period for submissions to allow Council to consider a formal submission at its meeting of 20 February 2024. The request was granted in part, so long as the “staff submission” was forwarded to the Department by 31 January.

A draft submission on the TOD Program was submitted to the DPHI on 31 January as required.

The prospective TOD SEPP planning controls are intended to apply from April 2024.

In respect of the prospective TOD Program this report will primarily deal with Part 2 of the TOD, being that part of the program applying to the four TOD sites in Ku-ring-gai. It is worth noting however, a number of the key differences between the two processes developed for the two parts of the program. These are outlined briefly below.

This report will also deal with proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions.

At an Extra Ordinary meeting on 5 February 2024 Council considered a Notice of Motion from Councillors Smith and Wheatley and resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Smith/Wheatley)

A. Condemns the State Government for its irresponsible approach to planning for the future of the built and natural environment in NSW.

B. Rejects the proposed changes to planning controls and demands that they be withdrawn with genuine consultation to be undertaken with councils and their communities, as intended by the National Housing Accord 2022.

C. Explore all options to oppose the changes and stop them being implemented.

D. Lodge applications under the GIPA act to obtain the NSW Government analysis of the proposed planning controls and other information relating to the possible impact on Ku-ring-gai.

E. Continue to actively inform the community, and request NSROC and Local Government NSW to lobby against the proposed changes to planning controls.

F. Write to the Mayors of all Sydney metropolitan councils seeking for these councils to fight back and demand that the proposed changes to planning controls be withdrawn.

G. Arrange for banners in key locations to alert residents to the proposed changes.

H. Continue to actively campaign against the proposed changes, collaborating with the community, councils and other stakeholders.

I. Authorise the General Manager to take all action necessary to implement this resolution and otherwise progress the interests of Council consistent with this resolution.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Comments

National Context

The National Housing Accord

The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program is part of the State Government’s plan to create more well-located homes close to transport, jobs and services. This is partially in response to both the housing crisis and in order to respond to the National Housing Accord 2022 agreed by the Federal and State Governments, and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).

It is noteworthy that while the ALGA signed off on the Housing Accord on behalf of all councils Australia wide. Individual councils did not sign the agreement. Further, nor does it appear that the ramifications of signing on to the accord were understood by the ALGA or individual councils before the accord was executed. If they were, they do not appear to have been communicated broadly, if at all, to impacted councils.

The Housing Accord of commitment for state governments to work with local governments clearly has not been implemented:

'Commit to working with local governments to deliver planning and land-use reforms that will make housing supply more responsive to demand over time, with further work to be agreed under the Accord.’ (emphasis added).

The TOD Program and the proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions are clearly in breach of this commitment. What is being proposed is a top-down approach, imposing planning controls on local governments and the broader inhabitants of the city.

STATE CONTEXT

Approval of Council’s Housing Strategy

Council has an endorsed Local Strategic Planning Statement prepared in the context of the Greater Cities Commission’s metropolitan and district plans and an approved Local Housing Strategy. Notwithstanding that Council in November 2021 resolved to reject the then Department of Planning’s conditions attached to its approval of the strategy (GB 25), Council has continued to provide housing supply from capacity within existing zones in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and has indeed already met a limited number of the Department’s conditions.

At that time Council resolved:

That Council reject the conditions in the Letter of Approval (1-12) issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 16 July 2021, and further debate on this matter be under the authority of the newly elected Council in 2022.

For the Resolution: Councillors Anderson, Clarke, Greenfield, Pettett, Smith and Szatow.

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Spencer, Councillors Kay, Kelly and Ngai.

It is important to note that the Minister’s correspondence of November 2023, which appears to be the trigger for the current intervention in the planning system, does not link back to any of these planning frameworks or commitments. It is additional to prior arrangements, commitments, understandings.

Ministerial Statement of Planning Expectations

Attention is drawn to the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Statement of Expectations) Order 2021 made by a former Planning Minister on 26 November 2021. Notwithstanding the change of Government, it is understood that the order still applies to all councils in NSW.

The Order sets out clear expectations as to what constitutes an efficient and effective planning system and sets benchmarks for council performance in areas of development assessment, planning proposals and strategic planning. The Order aims to improve the performance of councils’ existing processes and relates to circumstances where a planning administrator or regional panel can be appointed.

The Order sets expectations for all Councils in relation to their performance on planning and development functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

If a council is found to not be meeting the expectations as set out in the Order, the Minister can appoint a planning administrator or regional panel to exercise a council’s functions in accordance with Section 9.6(9) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Order identifies the following heads of consideration that will be taken into account in exercising the power to appoint a planning administrator or regional panel under s.9.6 of the Act:

a) Whether or not the council has failed to meet the Minister’s expectations in relation to council performance

b) The frequency and degree to which the council has performed, or failed to perform, in accordance with the Minister’s expectations

c) The range and type of planning and development matters in respect of which the council has performed, or failed to perform, in accordance with the Minister’s expectations.

d) Whether or not an appointment under S.9.6(1)(b) should be made in relation to one or more of a particular class of planning and development matter, or all planning and development matters dealt with by the council

e) The effect of any caretaker period preventing a council’s performance in detail with the planning and development matters (or any particular class of such matters) as set out in Clause 5

f) The public interest

Ku-ring-gai Council has never been given notice that it is in breach of the Minister’s expectations in relation to planning performance. There appears to be no link between the current initiatives of the State Government and the previously agreed and understood process for intervention in the case of failure to meet expectations.

Disbanding of the Greater Cities Commission and Withholding of Updated District Plans

The Greater Cities Commission (GCC) existed as a as a separate State Government organisation since 2015. The Commission has been involved in comprehensive strategic planning including across the Sydney Region, preparing the hierarchy of strategic plans including greater Sydney regional plan and the North District Plan. Ku-ring-gai Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement aligns the adopted North District Plan.

The Commission was dissolved on 1 January 2024 with its strategic planning functions moved to the new Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI).

At the time that possible abolition of the GCC was first flagged, it had purportedly completed new draft district plans, which were supposed to be released for public comment in about October 2023. It has been widely commented on that the Minister was underwhelmed by the housing targets being proposed by the GCC.

What the district plans would have referenced, and indeed been based on, was the latest research and analysis of demographic change, city wide economic performance and other city shaping trends both through, and coming out of, pandemic lockdowns.

This analysis and research will now not be available for councils in the timely manner that was initially intended before they are asked to respond to the new planning paradigm.

Abolition of the GCC, which was arguably relatively successful at coordinating independent advice to Government on a broad range of issues such as on climate change, infrastructure planning, transport planning and housing.

2023 Invitation from the Planning Minister for Councils to be Proactive

On Thursday 9th November, Ku-ring-gai Council staff and the Mayor received a letter from the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces The Hon Paul Scully MP (dated 30/10/2023, see Attachment A3).

Notwithstanding the short notice, as requested by the Minister, the letter was tabled at Council’s November Ordinary meeting by way of a late Mayoral Minute.

The correspondence covered a number of matters, but did state:

With this in mind, the Department will be realigning its resources to support councils in

these initiatives and is developing a tool kit to help councils and state agencies deliver the outcomes we need. Councils shouldn't wait for this work to happen, rather I am asking you to begin work identifying locations and permitting more low and mid-rise homes immediately.

The Minister’s letter goes on to say:

With the benefit of hindsight, the November communication from the Minister for Planning largely flags the matters incorporated in the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP EIE. However, the Department has not developed the promised “tool kit to help councils and state agencies deliver” outcomes, and councils have been denied the opportunity to “begin work identifying locations and permitting more low and mid-rise homes”.

December 2023 Planning Policy Changes

Notwithstanding that the November 2023 correspondence from the Planning Minister appeared to give all councils the “opportunity to begin work identifying locations and permitting more low and mid-rise homes immediately”, a number of policy initiatives were rolled out by the Government shortly thereafter which really did not give councils any opportunity for meaningful opportunity to address the matters raised by the Minister.

Specifically in this regard:

· On 14 December 2023 a new State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) introducing housing reforms to make it faster and easier to build more affordable housing has come into effect today, following a policy announcement made by the Government in June of last year.

The reforms introduce a new bonus Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of up to 30 per cent and a height bonus of up to 30 per cent where a proposal includes a minimum of 15 per cent of the gross floor area (GFA) as affordable housing.

· On 18 December 2023 the Government published an Explanation of Intended Effect: Changes to create low and mid-rise housing for a new SEPP. This statement is on exhibition for public comment until Friday 23 February 2024 and the reforms are expected to come into effect in late 2024. At this stage this is understood to be on or after September 2024.

From a Ku-ring-gai perspective, these changes will allow:

Low-rise housing in the form of:

o 2-3 storey manor houses and multi-dwelling terraces/townhouses on all R2 (Low Density Residential) land within 800m of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, Gordon, Pymble, Turramurra, Warrawee, Wahroonga railway stations, and 800m within the St Ives centre; and

o 2-3 storey dual occupancies on all R2 (Low Density Residential) land across Ku-ring-gai.

Mid-rise housing comprising:

o 4-5 storey residential flat buildings in R3 zones within 400 to 800m of a railway station or town centre precinct; and

o 6-7 storey residential flat buildings in R3 zones and shop-top housing in E1 and MU1 zones within 400m of a railway station or town centre precinct.

These provisions apply similarly across the entire Six Cities Region, being greater Metropolitan Sydney, Central Coast, Newcastle - Lower Hunter and the Shoalhaven – Wollongong regions. The dual occupancy provisions will apply across NSW.

· From April 2024, a new Transport Oriented Development State Environmental Planning Policy (TOD SEPP) will amend planning controls within 400m of 31 well-located metro and heavy rail stations.

· This will allow for the development of new and affordable housing within walking distance of public transport.

The changes will allow:

o 6 to 7 storey residential flat buildings in all residential zones (R1, R2, R3 and R4) within 400 m of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon railway stations.

o 6 to 7 storey residential flat buildings and shop top housing in local and commercial centres (E1 and E2) within 400 m of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon railway stations.

These changes will (purportedly) create the capacity for an additional 138,000 new homes over the next 15 years across the nominated TOD areas. The basis for this latter claim has not yet been made available to impacted councils or the general public. It presumably forms part of the “evidence-based approach” to the selection of TOD Precincts which at the time of writing appears to remain Cabinet-in-Confidence.

Given the speed at which a State mandated solution to the matter of low and mid-rise housing was released to the public, the offer for councils to contemplate solutions to that prospective SEPP is arguably somewhat disingenuous.

LOCAL CONTEXT

The diagram below is a best-efforts interpretation of the combined impact of the two policy initiatives on Ku-ring-gai based on the Department’s published material (which does not include maps).

The implications of the Affordable Housing SEPP, as already gazetted, are above and beyond the TOD Program and the prospective Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions.

Part 1 and Part 2 of the TOD Program

Part 1 Precincts

Part 1 of the program will focus on 8 accelerated precincts to create infrastructure and capacity for 47,800 new homes over 15 years. These precincts are Bankstown, Bays West, Bella Vista, Crows Nest, Homebush Hornsby, Kellyville and Macquarie Park. This is an average of 5,975 new dwellings per Part 1 TOD precinct.

The NSW Government has committed $520M to provide community infrastructure within the 8 Part 1 precincts. This is intended to cover costs of critical road upgrades, active transport links and good quality public open spaces like parks and walkways, to make sure that homes are built close to jobs and in placed that people want to live.

Further, the Department has said it will work closely with relevant councils and Government agencies as decisions about planning controls are made and implemented to make sure good place-based outcomes are achieved. Through this process, community and stakeholders will be invited to have their say on master plans and rezoning being proposed for each precinct and can make a submission through the NSW Planning Portal.

Part 2 Metro and Rail TOD Stations

Part 2 of the program focuses on precincts that have existing infrastructure and are located within 400 metres of 31 stations to create capacity for 138,000 new homes over 15 years. This is an average of 4,451 dwellings per Part 2 TOD precinct, being 74% of what the Part 1 accelerated and master planned TOD precincts are anticipated to yield over the same time period.

The presence of a heavy rail or metro station, and some undisclosed analysis of water and sewer capacity, appears to be sufficient “enabling infrastructure” to have been identified as a Part 2 TOD precinct.

When potential additional yield arising the Low and Mid-rise SEPP provisions is considered in the 400-800 metre zone of impact around the Part 2 TOD sites, it is reasonably foreseeable that more yield may come from TOD Part 2 plus Low and Mid-rise SEPP locations (Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville) than does from the TOD Part 1 precincts. This is notwithstanding that the TOD Part 1 precincts apply to a greater area (1200 metres radius as opposed only a combined 800 metres radius for TOD Part 2 plus Low and Mid-rise SEPP locations).

There is a distinct disadvantage, other than the notional reduce spatial impact of being identified as a Part 2 station as opposed to a Part 1 precinct. The process for the 31 Part 2 stations does not include a collaborative master planning process, it does not appear to involve community and stakeholder engagement, and nor does it include a State Government contribution to infrastructure despite appearing to have a greater impact than the Part 1 TOD precincts.

“Evidence-Based Approach” to the Selection of TOD Precincts and Stations Has Not Been Made Available

The material provided in support of the TOD Program states:

How were these locations selected?

The department undertook analysis of 305 Sydney Train, Sydney Metro, and Intercity stations within the Six Cities Region to identify locations that have enabling infrastructure capacity close to a transport station to support additional housing growth. This was informed by an evidence-based approach that used planning, infrastructure, and spatial data, along with expert advice and feasibility analysis. The analysis also considered the current zoning of land around stations, with a focus on residential and avoiding industrial zones where possible. The analysis identified that these 31 locations have the capacity to support additional growth.

On 21 December 2023 the Department was asked to provide access to the analysis on which station and precinct selection was made. While this issue was subsequently addressed at a briefing with staff and again with Councillors in mid-late January, on 25 January the Department responded in the following terms:

“As explained in the staff and councillor briefings, the Transport Orientated Development Program was endorsed by Cabinet and therefore is restricted by Cabinet in Confidence conventions.

We are currently seeking advice on what information we are able to provide in addition to the slides already forwarded to council (emailed on 22 January 2024).

We will keep you informed as further advice comes to hand.”

At the time of writing access to the evidence base had not been provided, and it is highly unlikely that any material will be available to Council prior to briefings of the Council and community scheduled for 29 and 31 January respectively, or indeed prior to Council’s submission having to be lodged on 31 January.

Implications of TOD SEPP on Ku-ring-gai

· The TOD SEPP ignores a best practice planning methodology. Council has undertaken exhaustive constraints analysis for its local centres including Gordon and Lindfield. The studies show that the Ku-ring-gai local centres are constrained with large areas within the TOD SEPP area having no potential for new housing.

· There is no evidence that a constraints analysis was undertaken by the Department to inform the decision to adopt this combination of development standards. To the contrary, it appears that the basic planning controls or height 21 metres and floor space ration 3:1 have not been modelled, because they do not appear to work when applied to the fragmented ownership patterns to which they are intended to apply.

· In this regard, presentation material from the public forum conducted on 31 January appears below. A 3:1 FSR is not typically compatible with a height of 6 storeys (21 metres), requiring something in the order of 9 storeys to achieve acceptable design and aesthetics.

· As a result, dwelling yields could be significantly over-estimated.

· The TOD SEPP covers areas that are highly constrained and require careful master planning to accommodate any increase in density, not the least because they are existing residential areas with not insignificant resident populations which are not intended to be fully dislocated in the urban transformation process contemplated by the TOD SEPP.

· The TOD Program states that (emphasis added):

“Putting homes near planned and existing public transport will help to improve the development pattern of our cities by reducing urban sprawl. This means that more people will be able to live within walking distance of supermarkets, restaurants and open space and be near good public transport to get them where they need to go.

While theoretically it makes sense to locate increased density in close proximity to railway stations, services, and amenities, there are no amenities available to Killara Station and limited services, including no full line supermarket at Roseville for example. Without the opportunity to master plan these precincts, and without the express requirement to consolidate lots, it is highly unlikely that the services and amenities to support theoretical yield arising from the TOD Program would ever be able to be provided at these locations. That is why they are relatively low in Council’s own centres hierarchy. One size definitely does not fit all.

Council’s submission on the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program is at Attachment A1 to this report. Since circulation there have been minor corrections and edits only.

Implications of Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions on Ku-ring-gai

Notwithstanding that the DPHI is treating the TOD Program differently to the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions, most if not all of Council’s comments in relation to the TOD Program apply equally to the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP.

The Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions apply on top of the TOD Program at the four southern rail stations, significantly increasing the footprint of potential impact.

Council’s submission on the proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions is at Attachment A2 to this report. The document should be viewed as a working draft and will be recirculated prior to the Ordinary Council meeting on 20 February. No substantive changes in relation to policy matters are anticipated.

In addition, the specialist reports at Attachments A5-A8 inclusive are considered to form part of Council’s submissions to both SEPP initiatives.

PROFESSIONAL ASOCIATION RESPONSES

Australian Institute of Architects (NSW Chapter)

At the time or writing the Australian Institute of Architects (NSW Chapter) does not appear to have taken a position in relation to the proposed TOD Program or the Low and Mid-Rise EIE.

National Trust NSW

At the time or writing the National Trust NSW does not appear to have taken a position in relation to the proposed TOD Program or the Low and Mid-Rise EIE.

Planning Institute Australia (PIA)

The Planning Institute Australia has made recent announcements in relation to National Cabinet’s Planning Reform Blueprint: Planning Institute of Australia

And in relation to The State Government’s In-fill affordable housing bonuses: (4) Post | Feed | LinkedIn

The Planning Institute does not appear to have made comment on the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program and proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions.

Planning Institute of Australia’s Response to Housing Affordability and Diversity - August 2023

The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) published a report in August 2023 entitled Planning for the Housing We Need – Ten ways planning can Support Housing Affordability and Diversity (Attachment A4). This report takes a nation-wide view of housing issues rather than a NSW centric view.

The report predates the NSW Government’s housing policy response by some four months and makes it clear that the so called “housing crisis” is far more complex than the simple supply response initiated by the NSW Government from mid-December 2023.

The report opens with the statement (emphasis added):

“Australia is in the grip of major housing affordability challenges which are placing large numbers of people into housing stress, insecurity and homelessness.

This has sparked debate over housing and planning policy like never before. Planning has emerged as one of the highest reform priorities for all levels of government across Australia.[1]

Planning has an important role to play in enabling more homes to meet Australia’s diverse housing needs, and this report sets out ten areas where planning systems can act.

However, it is also important to recognise that whilst planning regulates the location and type of new housing, it doesn’t control the speed with which housing is developed – nor affect powerful drivers for investment in housing. In short, planning can enable the right housing in the right place – but planning alone can’t deliver more houses. The decision to act on planning approvals largely rests with property owners, who make decisions based on a range of market factors including the availability and cost of finance, taxation settings, sales rates, profitability and other market factors.

As a result, political pressure on planning systems to deliver more housing often misinterprets the complex drivers of housing unaffordability and fails to appreciate the role of planning to put the right housing in the right place – including well-designed homes that are integrated with planned infrastructure and services to create complete communities.………”

The ten ways that PIA identifies that planning systems can support housing, under three themes, are:

Theme 1: Enabling housing for those in need

1. Facilitate social and community housing and short-term emergency housing

2. Utilise inclusionary zoning and value sharing

3. Develop new models for inclusive renewal for existing urban areas to ensure place-based outcomes

Theme 2: Encouraging more housing diversity & good design

4. Facilitate housing diversity in high amenity locations near jobs, transport and infrastructure

5. Fast-track housing diversity and reduce unnecessary costs for medium and higher density housing

6. Foster good design and sustainability

Theme 3: Improving decision-making systems and strategies

7. Transform community engagement

8. Invest in long-term strategic planning and implementation

9. Depoliticise planning decisions

10. Improve data quality and availability

Arguably the response by State Government in respect of its three SEPP initiatives fails to address, in whole or in part, all ten initiatives identified by PIA as being representative of a considered and well balanced planning approach to the issues of housing affordability and diversity.

The report goes on to identify a number of non-planning factors that influence short-term housing supply and affordability in direct and material ways.

These key factors are summarised below.

Labour and construction material shortages

Labour and construction material shortages are causing significant cost escalations and project deferrals. Analysis undertaken by KPMG shows that a 30 per cent surge in residential construction costs over the last two years has resulted in developers deferring projects.[6] The analysis found that almost 16,400 dwellings in New South Wales were approved but not yet commenced as of March 2023, up from 13,800 in the year previously. In Victoria, almost 10,500 dwellings were approved but had not commenced construction. Importantly, around three-quarters of the not-yet commenced dwellings in New South Wales and Victoria are apartments or townhouses.

Higher interest rates that reduce the amount of capital buyers can borrow

The borrowing capacity of households is strongly linked to interest rates.[7] Sharp interest rate rises over the past two years have reduced household borrowing capacity and restricted the number of households entering the housing market. This has dampened housing demand and moderated house price increases across Australia, reducing the incentive for housing development.

Tax settings which encourage housing as a speculative investment rather than as shelter

Housing demand is also linked to fiscal policy. At the federal level, policies such as the capital gains tax discount on properties owned for longer than 12 months have stoked underlying demand for housing as a financial asset rather than as shelter: “The interaction of a fifty per cent capital gains tax discount with negative gearing distorts investment decisions, makes housing markets more volatile and reduces home ownership” (Grattan Institute 2016).

Long-term under investment by governments in the provision of social and community housing at below-market rates

Rising rent-to-income ratios across Australia have coincided with a steep decline in the role of governments in the provision of social housing (with rents at subsidised rates). Australia would have 330,000 extra social housing units if governments had continued to build at the same average rate as the 30 years prior to 1985.[8] This has restricted the supply of secure rental housing and increased the proportion of people renting at market rates.

Finance limitations which can affect product type and market innovation

Availability of finance can pose a major constraint on proposals for innovative development typologies in new locations. Development proposals must pass a test of ‘market acceptance’ before they are financed, based on a comparison with recent development sold in a similar location. This encourages replication of standard product types which are considered most appealing to a broad market segment, limiting housing diversity and innovation.[9] There is an appetite for more widespread demonstration of financial products and designs in different setting to de-risk investment in diverse housing products.

Reduced government involvement in land markets

Public developers and land agencies formerly took a leading role in land markets and site acquisition. Land for future development and supporting infrastructure was assembled in advance and sold to private developers in sequence with infrastructure. This government involvement in land markets was important to overcome inefficiencies caused by fragmented land ownership and reduce inflationary pressures caused by land banking and speculation. But in many jurisdictions, this role has reduced.

In addition to the above matters identified by PIA, other commentators have identified other factors possibly impacting housing supply such as building quality (including its impact on buyer confidence), covid building bonuses, migration levels (particularly as they outstrip capacity of the industry to provide new supply), and land banking by major builders and developers.

The diagram below shows migration to the 2022-2-23 financial year. While 2023-2024 looks like being lower than 2022-2023, it will likely be the second highest year on record. That is the equivalent of a new Canberra having to be accommodated annually, and largely on the eastern seaboard. Yet Australia does not have a National Settlement Strategy, something PIA has been lobbying for now for a number of years.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 1 – Community, People and Culture

Theme 3 – Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

C6.1.1 Councils planning approach to the provision of housing across Ku-ring-gai is responsive and addresses the supply, choice and affordability needs of the community and the changing population

C6.1.1.1 Implement the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036

C6.1.1.3 Identify opportunities to provide a range of housing choices and part of the implementation of the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036

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

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

P2.1.1.1 Prepare plans and strategies as required by the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS)

Governance Matters

By way of correspondence received on 9^th November 2023 the Minister for Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has asked councils across New South Wales to, among other things, “review their local policy settings and approaches in the interests of housing supply. I ask you to identify existing well-located areas where terraces, small unit blocks or well-designed mid-rise apartments can be permitted.” A copy of the correspondence is at Attachment A3.

The correspondence goes on to say:

The correspondence from the Minister appears to be a generic letter to all metropolitan Councils and many regional councils in the Hunter and Illawarra (The Three Cities). Its actual distribution is not known. The correspondence is so broad that it asks all councils to contemplate the same things without any regard for differing capacity, supply, infrastructure, or local character issues including hazards such as bushfire.

The Minister requested that this letter be tabled at the next meeting of Council, viz.:

Despite being received late, Council has complied with this request by way of Late Mayoral Minute at Council’s November Ordinary Council meeting.

Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting documents are based on a set of long standing community values and aspirations which will fundamentally be undermined by implementation of the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program and proposed Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP in their current forms.

Risk Management

Council sought advice from Michael Hall SC in relation to likely operation of the proposed transport oriented development program and changes to create low and mid-rise housing.

The summary of conclusions of Michael Hall SC is:

It is not possible to express firm conclusions, because of the lack of detail of the proposed policies particularly in relation to transport oriented development. But using the available information, my conclusions are:

(i) The proposals will have a significant impact on future development in the affected areas, and will greatly reduce Council’s ability to maintain the values reflected in the heritage conservation area listings.

(ii) Some existing planning controls in those areas, including minimum lot sizes and prohibitions on multi-occupancy, will be wholly disapplied. In effect, most protections for heritage or environmental values in the HCA’s which are currently reflected in prohibitions on types of development will instead be protected only as considerations in a merits review.

(iii) Other existing planning controls, including Part 5.10 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan, will continue to apply and to be required to be taken into account in assessing development proposals. However, a consent authority or the Court on appeal will also be required to take into account the fact that new types of housing, multi-occupancies, much smaller lot sizes and significantly greater height and FSR restrictions are now expressly permitted in the relevant areas. A consent authority will not be able to apply Part 5.10, or any other provision of the LEP, mechanically but will need to assess those matters in balance with the relevant proposed policies.

(iv) Overall, it appears inevitable that the character of the built and natural environment in the affected areas will change significantly and that neither the consent authority nor local residents will be able to prevent such changes.

A full copy of the advice is at Attachment A8.

Financial Considerations

Policy Announcement Response

The Council response to the housing policy changes announced by the Government, including public notification and the engagement of additional resources to contribute to submissions on both the TOD program and the prospective Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP are unfunded. They will need to be addressed in the next quarterly budget review

Land Acquisition under the 2010 Contributions Plan and the Open Space Acquisition Strategy

Council has a longstanding program of acquisitions arising from the 2010 Contributions Plan for both open space and provision of new road infrastructure. Negotiations in relation to a number of prospective acquisitions, and in relation to potential disposal of a balance lot surplus to requirements, have been put on hold due to these policy announcements. Potentially the cost of acquisitions in and around the town centres will increase significantly as a consequence of the TOD Program. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient funds available in Council’s contributions reserves to fund acquisitions previously identified.

Lindfield Village Hub Implications

The Lindfield Village Hub Project is addressed separately on this Council agenda. The LVH site falls within the prospective Lindfield TOD and is potentially subject to alternate planning provisions under the TOD Program and the affordable housing SEPP provisions which came into effect in December 2023.

Local Infrastructure Contributions

Support for intensive redevelopment requires the funding and delivery of supporting infrastructure. The existence of railway stations does not mean that all supporting infrastructure is present or adequate. Community support for intensive redevelopment is reliant on the provision of adequate infrastructure and the concept that existing residents must subsidise new development while suffering a reduction in accessibility to road-based transport and parkland has long been a major barrier to new development.

Ku-ring-gai’s current s7.11 Contributions Plan, which is under review, levies for the provision of just 2.75sqm/capita of local parkland and that is possible only because of the cap exemption in the existing higher density Local Centres areas. Ku-ring-gai’s s7.12 Contributions Plan which was reviewed in 2023, does.

There has been no background data on the infrastructure assessments undertaken for the TOD SEPP provided to Council. The review of s7.11 contributions plan relies on extensive supporting documentation and a fully costed works programme with demonstrable nexus to the increased demand to derive an appropriate defensible contribution rate that will be able to deliver adequate supporting infrastructure including local parks, community floorspace, intersection upgrades and public domain works that cater for increased pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular activity in the same limited spaces.

Ku-ring-gai Council is extremely concerned that the local infrastructure contributions arising from the immediate uptake of higher density redevelopment will result in inadequate provision for supporting infrastructure due to the lack of adequate time and resources to review the s7.11 Contributions Plan properly supported by accurate infrastructure impact assessment, the introduction of higher density in areas outside the existing exemption areas that are already zoned R3 and R4 and Business areas and the inability of s7.12 contributions at 1% to fund the acquisition of additional open space land in areas where land acquisition costs for even R2 zoned land average $3-4,000/sqm without factoring in the uplift from the greatly increased development potential.

Existing higher density Local Centres areas. Ku-ring-gai’s s7.12 Contributions Plan which was reviewed in 2023, does.

There has been no background data on the infrastructure assessments undertaken for the TOD SEPP provided to council. The review of s7.11 contributions plan relies on extensive supporting documentation and a fully costed works programme with demonstrable nexus to the increased demand to derive an appropriate defensible contribution rate that will be able to deliver adequate supporting infrastructure including local parks, community floorspace, intersection upgrades and public domain works that cater for increased pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular activity in the same limited spaces.

Long Term Financial Plan Implications

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan is based significantly on capital works programs included in the approved s7.11 and s7.12 contributions plans. Works are costed, scheduled, and coordinated based on forecast dwelling production. The Long Term Financial Plan will need to be significantly reworked in order to reflect implementation of the TOD Program and the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions, perhaps in a far less orderly manner than has occurred in the past.

Meetings with the Department in relation to the TOD Program in particular indicate a perhaps unreasonable assumption that development contributions will be available to deal with all infrastructure issues arising from additional housing. This is certainly not the experience of most councils in the past, particularly in the middle ring suburbs of Sydney.

It may be in time that significant additional cost shifting arises from implementation of these policy initiatives as the call on development contributions to fund various program initiatives becomes broader.

Social Considerations

Community facilities and Social Infrastructure

Council is concerned about the potential strain on existing social infrastructure, and the impact of a lack of coordination between State and local governments.

Based on the findings of the Ku-ring-gai Council Community Facilities Strategy 2018 and the dwelling figures used in the Government’s TOD SEPP Program document, Council’s existing undersupply of libraries and community facilities by a further 4,500sqm to a total of 14,500sqm.

Typically, about 1/3 of the total costs of new facilities can be funded by section 7.11, leaving Council with a significant funding gap.

Under the assumption that the program aims to deliver 17,800 new homes in the LGA, this equates to around 5,200 primary and 2,300 secondary places. While private schools would be expected to take some of these students, many would need to be accommodated in new or upgraded public schools.

Proper planning and collaboration between state and local agencies will be required to ensure growth reflects the capacity of the area, and that schools and other social infrastructure are expanded alongside housing development.

Open Space and Recreation

Ku-ring-gai is characterised by natural areas and bounded by National Parks but historical development patterns around the oldest areas around the local railway stations provided for relatively fewer local parks in the areas where densification has already been occurring and will be significantly increased under the TOD SEPP.

Targets identified by the Award-winning Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy are being realised through s7.11 contributions with the delivery of seven new open space but the significant new development will give rise to even greater unmet demand. Ku-ring-gai already designs all new parkland for intensive usage within a compact space at much higher cost than baseline embellishment because the cost of land at $3-4,000/sqm metre prohibits acquisition beyond 2.75sqm/capita of additional residents – less than 1/10th of the established standard of 28.3sqm/capita and half of the prevailing provision of local parks (5.83sqm/p) at the time of the 2010-2012 rezonings. This programme of local parkland delivery must be supported to continue to cater for even more demand.

The recently completed Ku-ring-gai Recreation Needs Study will guide delivery of Ku-ring-gai’s open space and recreation needs and support a review of the s7.11 Contribution Plan, however, the growth predictions may now be significantly under-estimated as the implications of the TOD SEPP could be a potential increase in the resident population of up to 30% as compared to 5.1% between 2016 and 2021.

The importance of local open space in supporting community well-being was firmly established during the recent COVID19 pandemic, consistently supported by Council’s Community engagement. The provision of new parks in areas of new unit development fosters the creation of new local communities and becomes a local focal point.

Environmental Considerations

Apartment Design

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) has been the cornerstone of well-designed higher density living forms in New South Wales for a number of years. This Council has always maintained strict adherence to the AGDs, notwithstanding that in some instances they requires very creative responses.

The TOD program purports to maintain a focus on well designed and built apartments but acknowledges that “[a]mended design criteria are proposed that reflect the unique design challenges of mid-rise buildings and may vary some existing Apartment Design Guide provisions. The design provisions will ensure apartment buildings and shop-top housing around these stations are well-designed and have excellent amenity and liveability for residents and contribute to the amenity of the neighbourhood.”

The TOD Program does not guarantee the level of design quality offered by the ADGs, which is often seen by neighbours of apartment buildings as inadequate.

At the time of writing this report an expert from Hill Thalis Architecture + Urban Projects Pty Ltd has been engaged to provide advice to Council on the implications of the TOD program on Ku-ring-gai’s built from and urban design. This report will be circulated separately (Attachment A7)

Biodiversity and Canopy Cover

· Existing Canopy cover across the residential zones within the TOD areas is currently between 29% and 32%.

· Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Forest Strategy has a target to increase canopy cover percentage in residential zoned areas up to 40%.

· This target was set based on the NSW government target and recognises the importance of canopy in improving the liveability and amenity in residential areas.

· Based on the modelling undertaken by Council the proposed development controls will result in significant loss of tree canopy.

· The proposal as it stands make it impossible to meet these canopy cover targets across the LGA.

· Average canopy in the residential areas of the TOD precincts could drop from 30% to 7%.

· Urban Forest Strategy (2022) aims to increase canopy cover from 45-49% across the LGA. Noting that 50% of urban canopy is on private land, changes make the objective completely unachievable.

· Based on canopy mapping from 2022, impacts from the low-rise housing proposal can be estimated:

Within the R2 Low Residential

o Canopy cover approximately 35%. (Ku-ring-gai's UFS objective is to raise this to 40%)

o ~80,000 trees

o Target canopy under the SEPP proposal for dual occupancy is 15-25%

o Assuming reduction of canopy is generally proportional to a reduction in trees

o An average 20% canopy = 40% canopy loss in R2

Potential loss of trees under the low-rise provisions of this SEPP:

o 100% redevelopment of the R2 zone under the SEPP, loss up to 32,000 trees

o 50% redevelopment of the R2 zone under the SEPP, loss up to 16,000 trees

o 25% redevelopment of the R2 zone under the SEPP, loss up to 8,000 trees

· Irrespective of overall potential canopy loss, it will be the older, larger, and more significant trees, locally indigenous and introduced, that will be at the greatest risk.

· Land Eco Consulting was commissioned to provide an Independent Assessment into the potential ecological impacts associated with the NSW Government Planning reform: the TOD SEPP and the Low-Mid rise Housing Policy. Land Eco Consulting concludes:

“….Land Eco acknowledges the ambition of the NSW Government to help combat the ever-increasing housing crisis that is facing NSW residents. However, in its current state the SEPP and Housing Policy poses substantial concerns related to its environmental impacts on the biodiversity of Ku-ring-gai including threatened species such as the Powerful Owl and Grey-headed Flying-fox, and threatened ecological communities such as Blue Gum High Forest CEEC and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest CEEC. It currently appears that the NSW Government has prioritised the density of housing at the expense of biodiversity conservation, and there is strong need for more research and planning before such a significant planning policy change is implemented.

This report is included as Attachment A7.

Other Environmental Impacts

· The proposed TOD SEPP raises substantial concerns related to its alignment with Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles and potential impacts on Ku-ring-gai’s biodiversity, water management, and local environmental controls. Notably, the SEPP appears to prioritize housing density at the expense of biodiversity conservation, presenting inconsistencies with crucial state Acts, such as the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Water Management Act 2000. The lack of detailed environmental assessments further amplifies concerns about potential adverse effects on biodiversity and waterways.

· Scepticism surrounds the TOD SEPP's reliance on one-size-fits all planning which is inappropriate for Ku-ring-gai. The blanket application casts doubt on its ability to meet the desired standards for "good design" and liveability. To address these concerns, it is recommended to:

o explicitly state that local/site-based controls and merit-based assessments will remain applicable.

o Increase the deep soil provisions.

o reducing floor space ratio (FSR) in the TOD SEPP

o Ensure protection of all biodiversity/greenweb mapped areas

o Prioritise tree retention over replanting and offsets.

· These measures would help foster a balanced approach to increasing housing that upholds local environmental values, ensuring the proposed development aligns with environment and sustainability goals and safeguards the distinctive character of Ku-ring-gai in line with community expectations and Government policy.

Heritage Conservation

· The proposal has a disproportionate impact on Ku-ring-gai’s heritage by placing the highest density on land containing the largest concentration of significant historic development in the area.

· 40% of land proposed for highest density redevelopment within 400 metres of four stations is listed as a heritage conservation area or a heritage item. For Killara station, 83% of the affected land is heritage listed.

· This proposal directly impacts more than 530 listed properties, including more than 100 heritage items. More than 2,000 listed properties are impacted by the parallel proposal within 800 metres of these four stations.

· The heritage impact of the proposed density is heightened in Ku-ring-gai because of its distinct local history and heritage, where Ku-ring-gai’s listed buildings are concentrated along the train line and are primarily low-scale houses in garden settings.

· At the Heritage Reference Committee on 1 February 2024 a detailed report on the implications of the TOD SEPP was presented. The Committee made the following observations:

o Council’s community satisfaction survey (2021) found that 88% of residents believed it was important/very important for Council to maintain Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity.

o In terms of the importance of council’s functions and services -75% reported that council’s role in protecting heritage buildings and conservation areas was important or very important.

o Ku-ring-gai is fortunate to have a rich heritage, inherited from past generations and protected through heritage listing for future generations.

o The conservation areas were listed over 10 years ago, based on their confirmed heritage significance, as worth keeping.

o These listings of over 10 years ago and Ku-ring-gai’s commitment to conserving its heritage is not about opposing development. It’s about retaining and respecting what matters, links to history, place-makers, and passing these on for future generations.

o All heritage matters – in Ku-ring-gai and other areas – and by its nature is distinctly different as part of the story or history of each place. These differences and history need to be respected and incorporated into planning for new development, whether in Burwood or Killara.

o Our local places and their distinct differences from history, geography and surrounds are to be celebrated.

o The one-size-fits all planning currently proposed does not respect these local differences in two fundamental ways - removing the local historic buildings and gardens and inserting new development using the same formula of density.

o The proposal has a disproportionate impact on Ku-ring-gai’s heritage. This is because of local differences in Ku-ring-gai’s history, low density built form and the location of early development along the railway line. Ku-ring-gai has also protected and retained this heritage. Gardens and established trees are a large part of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage. This will differ to other areas.

o The proposal will potentially remove or impact nearly all of Ku-ring-gai’s listed heritage areas and items – more than 4,000 listed sites.

o The proportion of impacted sites that are heritage listed is as high as 70% for the 800 metre radius around Killara station, where 6-7 storey apartments and 2-storey multi-dwelling buildings are proposed.

o For Wahroonga, 65% of the land within the 800 metre station radius is heritage listed

o The degree of density proposed in these listed low-scale heritage neighbourhoods and removed heritage protection will have an irreversible impact.

o In particular, this proposal will devalue Ku-ring-gai’s 46 heritage conservation areas.

o Historic building and gardens, once lost or built over, can never be replaced. These are our tangible links to history that we have a duty to pass on to future generations.

o Good planning responds to all the needs of its community, including heritage, the environment and liveability, alongside housing , so that these places continue as thriving communities for generations to come.

o This is a turning point for the future of Ku-ring-ga’s heritage and urban landscape.

o Alternatives are available for meeting housing needs with less heritage and environmental loss.

o Let’s not waste this opportunity for something better, keeping our past and building a better future.

· Notwithstanding earlier comments in relation to the absence of a position on these policy initiative by the National Trust NSW and the Australian Institute of Architects (NSW Chapter), both of these organisations are represented on Council’s Heritage Reference Committee.

· The proposed increased density will irreversibly degrade the heritage significance of both the heritage items and heritage conservation areas because of the disparity to the existing low-scale historic built form and proposed removal of Council’s capacity to refuse detracting development.

· Lacking any requirements to retain heritage significance, fabric or setting, the proposed increased density will instead incentivise partial or complete demolition of heritage buildings, over-scaled infill development and loss of garden settings.

At the time of writing this report Lisa Trueman Heritage Consultant has been engaged to provide independent advice to Council on the implications of the TOD program on Ku-ring-gai’s heritage conservation areas and heritage items. This report will be circulated separately (Attachment A6).

Traffic and Transport Implications

· The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program offers no transport impact assessment from proposed increases in residential dwellings.

· Preliminary assessments by Council suggest traffic generation impacts from the potential additional residential dwellings (excluding impacts from any additional retail/business/community floor space) would be substantial, and there may not be capacity for further road network improvements over and above those foreshadowed in the Ku-ring-gai s7.12 Contributions Plan.

· These effects are likely to be exacerbated in the Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville centres, due to the close proximity of Pacific Highway and the T1/T9 North Shore Railway line presenting a constraint to local access, with limited crossing opportunities of the railway line and the Highway.

· The Low and Mid-Rise SEPP would result in a large number of new dwellings with poor access to transport, shops and services, resulting in cumulative traffic impacts to the TOD centres that have not been quantified.

· Maximum residential car parking provision is supported in principle but there is no information on the threshold or rate of provision, to be able to comment further.

Community Consultation

The draft TOD SEPP is part of a suite of policy initiatives by the State Government to purportedly address its commitments made by all levels of Government under the National Housing Accord.

To keep the residents of Ku-ring-gai informed of these proposed changes a Council website was established showing information on what the proposed changes are, what they mean for Ku-ring-gai, visual representation of what the changes may look like, a map of where the changes will have the most impact, and links to the NSW Department of Planning and its submission portal, see Proposed changes to NSW housing policy and its impacts on Ku-ring-gai Ku-ring-gai .

An online survey was also set up for residents to have their say on the proposed housing policies to help form Council’s submission to the State Government. As of 6 February 3173 surveys have been completed (a near record for a Ku-ring-gai Council opt in survey) and indicate that:

· 74% of survey participants oppose the proposed planning changes (62% strongly oppose))

· 3% are neutral about the proposals

· 23% support the proposals (15% strongly)

An Enews newsletter was emailed out to Council’s digital subscription list. This was sent to near 36,000 subscribers and was supplemented with social media promotion.

An information booklet was sent out to all Ku-ring-gai residents-highlighting key pieces of information about the housing policies and the impacts they will have on the area.

A public information session was also held on Wednesday 31 January- 6pm - 8pm at the Council Chambers, with broad participation as follows:

· Registrations – 774

· Online – 364

· In-person – 144

· Questions/Comments submitted in Q&A – 165

Information on Council’s website includes, but is not limited to:

· Recording of information session on proposed changes to NSW housing https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Recording-of-informationsession-on-proposed-changes-to-NSW-housing-policy

· Ku-ring-gai residents up to speed on NSW Gov housing policy changes https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Ku-ring-gai-residents-up-tospeed-on-NSW-Gov-housing-policy-changes

· Proposed changes to NSW housing policy and its impacts on Ku-ring-gai https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Proposed-changes-to-NSWhousing-policy-and-its-impacts-on-Ku-ring-gai

Internal Consultation

Staff provided Councillors with an initial briefing on the proposed SEPP amendments on 10 January 2024.

The Secretary of the Department and senior Departmental staff provided Councillors with a briefing on the TOD Program only by way of a half hour briefing on 24 January 2024.

A second Council staff briefing for Councillors on the broad content of a draft Council submission on the TOD program and the broad implications of the prospective Low and Midrise Housing SEPP was conducted on 29 January 2024.

Summary

The great cities of the world acknowledge and respect the constraints of the natural and physical environments within which they sit. They reflect and take pride in the interplay of the different characteristics of the existing urban fabric that represent the time, place, and culture of when different parts of each part of the city was developed. No part of any of the great cities of the world is necessarily the same as even the district, precinct, or subregion immediately next door. They are a rich tapestry of many phases and styles of development.

There are a number of vibrant and well-designed high-density mixed-use precincts in Sydney. Commonly, though not universally, they have arisen from the wholesale transformation of older style industrial precincts. Some work better than others. Some evolved over many years of implementation such that later stages have improved on earlier stages. Some are better located with respect to bey transport interchanges and employment and services nodes. Some have created their own such services and employment nodes. What they all have had the benefit of however, is considered and coordinated master planning and infrastructure provision.

The TOD Program seeks to impose a universal set of very basic planning controls on 31 heavy and metro rail precincts with complete disregard for any of the special and unique characteristics of any of the individual precincts singled out in the program. The TOD Program pays no respect to the culture and fabric of any of the 31 station sites in Part 2, and in some cases, appears to come in over the top of fairly recent locally led planning processes.

It is highly unlikely that the TOD program or the Low and Mid-rise SEPP will deliver additional dwelling production in the early years of the National Housing Accord. It will come from dwellings already in the construction process, and at the very least, it will be from dwellings already documented and approved. These policy initiatives will impact dwelling production in the medium term.

The TOD Program is arguably not a planning exercise. It is short term response to a housing crisis that has been decades in the making. Unfortunately, given the nature of buildings anticipated to be constructed under the TOD Program, the program will leave an indelible and not necessarily positive mark on the character of the city.

The TOD Program, because it is only being implemented though the planning system, arguably ignores many of the real and more significant drivers of the housing crisis such as land banking by developers, supply chain and labour constraints, immigration levels significantly above long term trend (and arguably above the reasonable capacity of the construction industry to actually house), tax settings which encourage housing as a speculative asset rather than a basic right, and a long term withdrawal of governments from involvement in land markets to name but a few. It focuses on supply only, when supply is only a small part of the overall problem.

Strategic planning and infrastructure coordination is about maximising the benefits of public and private investment. Planning provides the opportunity for community engagement in the exploitation of various growth scenarios and the trade-offs that are required to obtain various goals. It is real and meaningful engagement with all stakeholders about a long term vision for the places and spaces they will live in.

In the case of the TOD Stage 2 station precincts, large scale blanket rezonings are not planning. The TOD program is not the subject of community engagement, and nor is it tied to infrastructure provision other than a train or metro station. The program is a very blunt response to a very long standing, complex, and deeply entrenched set of problems. A transformational shift in the policy settings that will shape the functioning, aesthetic and operation of the city for decades to come requires a conversation with its inhabitants.

The claim by the Department that selection of the 31 TOD locations was:

“informed by an evidence-based approach that used planning, infrastructure, and spatial data, along with expert advice and feasibility analysis. The analysis also considered the current zoning of land around stations, with a focus on residential and avoiding industrial zones where possible. The analysis identified that these 31 locations have the capacity to support additional growth”

does not hold true when that evidence based is then hidden behind the shroud of “Cabinet-in-Confidence”.

The Planning Institute’s observation that “whilst planning regulates the location and type of new housing, it doesn’t control the speed with which housing is developed – nor affect powerful drivers for investment in housing. In short, planning can enable the right housing in the right place – but planning alone can’t deliver more houses” still holds true notwithstanding the aims of the TOD program. The reality I that a good number of apartments and other dwellings to be constructed in the short to medium term are already permitted. Worse, as this Council has seen from a number of its own experiences, projects that are already in the “pipeline” have been delayed and possibly terminated so that partners and stakeholders can get a better understanding of what the TOD program, and other housing initiates, have in terms of further uplift.

Recommendation:

A. Due to the multiple issues cited and the highly destructive outcomes that would result from the proposal, Council does not support the EIE- low mid-rise housing proposal, nor the TOD proposal.

B. That Council resolve to forward submissions on the TOD Program and the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions at Attachments A1 and A2 to this report respectively to the DPHI, noting that the TOD submission is unchanged from that version was been forwarded to the DPHI as a draft on 31 January 2024.

C. In addition, Council resolve to forward the specialist reports at Attachments A5-A8 (inclusive) to this report to the DPHI to be considered as part of Council’s formal submissions to both SEPP initiatives.

D. That the State Government work in collaboration with local councils as per the intention of the National Housing Accord to deliver additional housing in line with strategic planning processes under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

E. That the Acting General Manager be authorised to make minor changes to the submissions on the TOD Program and the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP provisions where they are of a minor or editorial nature and otherwise progress the interests of Council consistent within this matter.

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Transport Oriented Development Program - draft Ku-ring-gai Council submission		2023/419574
	A2⇩	Low/medium rise SEPP submission		2023/419534
	A3 ⇩	Letter from the Hon Paul Scully, Minister for Planning and Open Space		2023/359874
	A4 ⇩	Planning for the housing we need		2024/033640
	A5	Hill Thalis Architecture & Urban Projects Pty Ltd report	Excluded
	A6	Lisa Trueman heritage consultant report	Excluded
	A7 ⇩	Land Eco Consulting report		2024/036074
	A8 ⇩	Michael Hall SC advice regarding implementation of TOD and low and mid-rise housing - 01/02/2024		2024/034566

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.19 / 1

Item GB.19	CY00470/11

Release and Acquisition of Council easement at St Ives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To consider a request to relocate Council’s stormwater/ drainage infrastructure and to extinguish/release an existing Council easement that traverses 1 Dobell Place St Ives (Lot 9 DP 259441) and part of the adjoining property at 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives (Lot 5 DP 259441).

background:	The owner of 1 Dobell Place, St Ives (the Applicant) is proposing a knock down and rebuild of the dwelling on the land through a complying development certificate. However, before this process can proceed the Applicant will need to comply with the development consent for eDA0076/23, which is currently under assessment, for the demolition of an existing swimming pool and stormwater works. If approved by Council, the latter will involve the relocation of Council’s drainage infrastructure and easement on both lots at the Applicant’s costs to Council’s specifications.

comments:	As part of eDA0076/32 the Applicant is seeking the release of an existing drainage easement benefitting Council that traverses 1 Dobell Place, St Ives and part of the adjoining property at 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives. The footprint of the new proposed dwelling impacts on Council’s existing easement and therefore will require relocation including on the adjoining lot. The owner of 8 Warrabina Avenue has signified that, subject to the Applicant meeting all costs and carrying out restoration works, no objections would be raised to the altered easement arrangements.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That Council approve of the release of the existing easement over 1 Dobell Place, St Ives and 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives and the acquisition of a new easement over alternate parts of the subject properties in favour of Council on the terms set out in this report.

Purpose of Report

Background

The owner of 1 Dobell Place, St Ives (the Applicant) is proposing a knock down and rebuild of the existing dwelling on the land through a complying development certificate. The subject property (Lot 9 DP 259441) is burdened by an existing Council easement which will be impacted if the new dwelling which will have a larger footprint is to be constructed on the land.

As an initial step, the Applicant will need to comply with the development consent for eDA0076/23, which is currently under assessment, for the demolition of an existing swimming pool and stormwater works. The stormwater works involve the partial removal and relocation of Council’s drainage infrastructure and easement that traverses the property as well as part of the adjoining residential lot at 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives (Lot 5 DP 259441). Please refer to the plan in Attachment A1 depicting the current and proposed location of the easement on Lots 9 and 5 DP 259441, respectively.

Given that Council has a legal interest on the land in the form of an easement, the Applicant is required to obtain a resolution from Council that it will consent to the relocation of the existing Council easement on both lots. The Applicant has obtained a letter from the owner of 8 Warrabina Avenue agreeing to the alteration of easement arrangements subject to the Applicant meeting all costs and carrying out all restoration works on the property associated with the works. From Council’s perspective the adjoining owner’s permission is required for the purpose of varying the easement currently recorded on title, however, arrangements pertaining to the costs of works are a matter for the neighbours to settle on. Council will condition any consent on the basis that the cost of removing and replacing Council’s drainage infrastructure to Council’s specifications is to be at the Applicant’s cost. Additionally, the new easement is to be created in a new location acceptable to Council at no cost.

Comments

The proposed development involves the release of an existing Council easement which traverses the subject property as well as the adjoining lot and its relocation of new replacement drainage infrastructure over another part of the property (refer to plan in Attachment A1). This allows the development consent to become operational and creates a development uplift in the value of the property, due to the relocation of the drainage infrastructure.

Previous legal advice obtained has confirmed that an easement is a valuable property right and an asset of Council. Accordingly, there is a responsibility on Council to dispose of Council’s interests in property in a commercially transparent, fair and proper manner. This includes extinguishing easements for fair market value. The most appropriate manner for Council to ensure that this occurs is to obtain an independent valuation of the easement to be released based on the circumstances of each case. Council’s current adopted Fees and Charges provides for a minimum compensation fee of $20,000 plus GST or an amount assessed by valuation whichever is the greater.

Council’s adopted Easement Management Policy specifically provides for commercial consideration where the release and/or relocation of a Council easement provides a benefit to a property owner or developer where there is a resultant “uplift” in the property’s value. Council staff have in the past concluded successful commercial negotiations for the release and modification of existing Council easements over similar development sites where the release or relocation has allowed for the maximisation of development opportunity on the site and has created an “uplift” in the “before and after” value of the land.

In this instance, the proposal entails the demolition of an existing dwelling house with a new single dwelling house so any uplift in the value of the property will not be as significant as would be the case with medium and high-rise development sites.

This report seeks Council’s approval to progress the application process and endorse the General Manager as the delegated authority to conclude future negotiations with the Applicant in relation to securing fair commercial consideration for the release of the existing easement based strictly on the valuation advice that Council receives from its expert independent valuer or by reference to Council’s Fees and Charges.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme – Leadership and Governance - L2 Financial capacity and sustainability

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise service delivery.

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 is permitted to dispose, or deal with property, including easements, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

The existing easement is a valuable proprietary right that benefits Council and can only be extinguished by a resolution of Council.

Council’s adopted Easement Management Policy outlines processes and requirements for both internal and external parties. The Policy has been provided to the Applicant to ensure that all parties are informed of Council’s requirements and dealings are consistent with its terms.

Risk Management

Council has in the past formally approved of several similar requests for the release and/or extinguishment of easements, though these have predominately been for multi storey and townhouse development sites covering several lots. Development approval has been conditional on the Applicant providing alternate infrastructure to Council’s specifications and paying fair commercial consideration assessed by independent valuation. In most of these cases release and/or relocation of the easement has resulted in a significant uplift in the value of the property given more developable utilisation of the land has resulted.

In this case, the Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing dwelling house with a new single dwelling house so any uplift in the value of the property will not be as significant as would be the case with medium and high-rise development sites.

The appropriate legal documentation to release create the easement will either be prepared or reviewed by Council’s solicitors to ensure Council’s interests are protected.

Financial Considerations

The Applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the release of the easement, including but not limited to construction of new drainage works, relocation and de-commissioning of infrastructure, valuation, legal, survey, registration etc., and payment of fair commercial consideration.

Council staff will commission an expert independent valuer to obtain a valuation to assess fair compensation/commercial consideration for extinguishing Council’s existing easement. The appointed valuer will be instructed to consider all relevant circumstances, including the location of the new stormwater drainage easement over both properties and the associated infrastructure being provided to Council at no cost.

As previously noted, Council’s adopted Fees and Charges prescribes an amount of $20,000 plus GST for the release of a Council easement or an amount assessed by independent valuation whichever is the greater.

Social Considerations

Council and its officers have a responsibility to the community to administer Council’s interests in property in an objective and fair manner.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental impacts will be determined and mitigated through the development assessment and approval process.

Community Consultation

There has been no specific community consultation undertaken in relation to this specific application.

Internal Consultation

Consultation has been held with staff from Council’s Operations, Development and Regulation and Strategy and Environment Departments.

Summary

As part of a complying development approval for the construction of a new dwelling house and for eDA0076/23, which is currently under assessment, for the demolition of an existing swimming pool and stormwater works, the Applicant is seeking to extinguish an existing stormwater/drainage easement that benefits Council over 1 Dobell Place St Ives (Lot 9 DP 259441) and part of the adjoining land on 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives The proposal also entails the creation of a new easement and the replacement of Council’s drainage infrastructure on an alternate location on the properties to Council’s approved specifications. The Applicant has provided written evidence that the owner of 8 Warrabina Avenue has no objection to the relocation of the easement on that property subject to the Applicant meeting all costs associated with the proposal.

The Applicant has been advised of Council’s requirements to progress the release of the existing easement and has paid the required application fee and submitted written confirmation agreeing to Council’s requirements set out in Council’s adopted Easement Management Policy. Easements are a valuable property right and an asset of Council which are required to be disposed of in a commercially transparent, fair and proper manner. The most appropriate manner for Council to ensure that this occurs is to obtain an independent valuation of the easement to be released which considers all relevant circumstances, including any “uplift” in the value of the property due to the relocation of the drainage easement.

Council’s approval is sought to progress the application process and endorse the General Manager as the delegated authority to conclude future negotiations with the Applicant in relation to securing fair commercial consideration for the release of the existing easement based strictly on the valuation advice that Council receives from its expert independent valuer. Council’s adopted Fees and Charges for 2023/2024 prescribes an amount of $20,000 plus GST for the release of a Council easement or an amount assessed by independent valuation whichever is the greater.

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolves that the General Manager or his delegate be authorised to negotiate Council’s requirements including the payment of fair commercial consideration for the release of the existing easement at 1 Dobell Place St Ives (Lot 9 DP 259441) and part of the adjoining property at 8 Warrabina Avenue St Ives (Lot 5 DP 259441). The amount of commercial consideration is to be the amount assessed by independent valuation or $20,000 plus GST as per Council’s Fees and Charges, whichever is the greater.

B. That subject to the General Manager or his delegate completing negotiations on the basis set out in this report that Council grants approval for the release/extinguishment of the existing easement.

C. That Council approves of the acquisition of a new easement being created in favour of Council either by way of modification of the existing easement or a new section 88B Instrument over the freehold properties depicted in Attachment A1, subject to survey and Council approval. The easement to be acquired will be at no cost to Council.

D. That Council authorises the General Manager and or his delegate to execute all documentation to facilitate the release of the easement and the creation of a new easement in Council’s favour as reflected in Council’s resolution.

E. That all costs associated with the release of the existing easement and the creation of a new easement in favour of Council, including legal and survey costs and all costs associated with the new drainage works be borne by the Applicant.

Vince Rago

Property Program Coordinator

Steve Johnson

Manager Property

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:

A1⇩

Release and Acquisition of Easement - 1 Dobell Place and 8 Warrabina Avenue

2024/022050

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	MM.1 / 1

Item MM.1	CY00785/3
	29 January 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	MM.2 / 1

Item MM.2	S09613

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.1 / 1

Item GB.1	S12165-4-6

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	CY00458/12

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	S13163

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.4 / 1

Item GB.4	CY00413/11

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.7 / 1

Item GB.7	FY00623/6
	10 January 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.8 / 1

Item GB.8	FY00623/6
	16 January 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.9 / 1

Item GB.9	FY00623/6
	1 February 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.10 / 1

Item GB.10	FY00581/9
	31 January 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.11 / 1

Item GB.11	EM00043/1

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.12 / 1

Item GB.12	S11352/5

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.14 / 1

Item GB.14	FY00621/6

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.15 / 1

Item GB.15	RFT1-2023/R

Attachments:	A1⇩	RFT1-2023 List of Submitters		2024/033459
	A2	RFT1-2023 Tender Evaluation Report		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.16 / 1

Item GB.16	RFT12-2023/R

Attachments:	A1⇩	RFT12-2023 List of Submitters		2024/033457
	A2	RFT12-2023 Tender Evaluation Report		Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	GB.17 / 1

Item GB.17	CY00022/16

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	NM.1 / 1

Item NM.1	FY00275/16

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 February 2024	QN.1 / 1

Item QN.1	EM00043/1

Land & Environment Court Costs

2019/2020 - 2023/2024

How were these locations selected?