Month: March 2023

This week a group of scientists (IPCC) will release an update on their projections for climate change while saying that with greater rises in global temperatures comes more frequent and extreme weather events.

I personally don’t support children skipping school to protest this issue, but they do have the right to ask governments what they are doing to mitigate the impacts on future generations.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that based on their modelling, the world needs to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030 (compared to 2019 levels) to have any chance that temperature rises are curbed at 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. This target has been matched or exceeded by the federal, state and local government, and I commend the politicians and staff at each level of government for doing their part.

For more information on what Ku-ring-gai Council is doing, visit

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Net-Zero-Ku-ring-gai

⚽️ 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 – 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗢𝘃𝗮𝗹 – 𝟭𝟲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 One of the peculiarities (and frustrations) of politics is that divisive issues often result in two ‘sides’, each of which take an approach of emphasising some facts and being silent on others in order to put forward their case. I sometimes sit in the middle and feel frustrated because I perceive that neither side has balance and by taking a middle of the road approach, as I did last month on the NTRA issue, I end up pleasing nobody and I get misrepresented and skewered by people from both sides.

Well it’s probably going to happen again this month, and the topic this time is the installation of a synthetic surface on Norman Griffiths Oval. An extraordinary meeting of council has been called for 16 March 2023 to discuss this matter and at this stage I have no idea what position the majority of council will end up voting to resolve. I don’t entirely agree with any of the narratives out there in the public domain, but I’m happy to present what I believe to be a balance of facts below.

𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀

⚽️ In recent years there has been a significant increase in demand for sport, including soccer, in metro Sydney. Team sports significantly benefit our residents’ physical and mental health.

🚜 In ages past, the most effective way to provide for the sporting needs of our residents is to get the bulldozer and chain and clear bushland to deliver the required space. But in present day Ku-ring-gai this is considered inconceivable because of the significant loss of habitat and biodiversity as well as the loss of Oxygen-creating trees.

📈 Six years ago NSROC (Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils) commissioned a study on projected sporting field needs, and it said that we needed a 40% increase over a period of 20 years. To meet this 40% capacity increase, it suggested a range of measures.

💡 One of the suggested measures from the NSROC study is to add lights to existing sporting fields, extending the use of sporting ovals into the night. While this does achieve the desired outcome, it often faces opposition from local residents and environmental groups 🦉.

❇️ Another suggested measure is to upgrade traditional grass ovals (which wear and tear easily and support limited hours of use) to other surfaces such as synthetics or hybrid (which support higher intensity of use). While this also achieves the desired outcome, it faces opposition from some environmental groups.

↔ Yet another measure suggested is that sporting codes will need to change format over time. Instead of playing one large 11-a-side game of soccer, the same field could support 3x the number of players if reconfigured to support futsal matches. While this achieves the desired outcome of increasing sporting opportunities for all, it faces opposition from incumbent sporting codes.

❌ In November and December 2019, I was involved with shooting down a proposal to deliver a synthetic upgrade at Mimosa. My argument wasn’t on environmental grounds as I was comfortable with the latest developments in synthetic technology, rather, I did not believe that Mimosa would have adequate natural grass leftover for other activities after a synthetics upgrade, and I believed that the traffic impacts would be undesirable at that point in time. As an alternative, I was involved in a proposal to move the synthetics surface to Norman Griffiths which doesn’t have either the limited space or traffic impact issues that Mimosa had. The proposal to move the project to Norman Griffiths was defeated in 2019.

✅ There was a strange change in sentiment in 2020 and 2021 where all councillors unanimously got on board with delivering an upgrade to Norman Griffiths. I don’t know why the other councillors had a change of heart, perhaps it was a combination of practical reality and changes in perspective for staff, but it did mean that we were looking to deliver an increase in the availability of use at a location which had easy access, plenty of parking, and ample alternate space for other activities such as walking the dog.

✍️ Council unanimously approved and then signed the contract for the Norman Griffiths synthetic upgrade in late 2021.

👷‍♀️ The approvals process for the Norman Griffiths upgrade falls under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. Under this SEPP, community consultation is not a mandatory requirement however in some cases consultation with other authorities such as National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) may be required (as per clause 2.15 and under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).

🖥️ In February 2022 the newly elected council resolved to put the project’s Review of Environmental Factors (REF), final design, and revised schedule of construction on the council website prior to the construction phase beginning.

📄 LGNSW best practice guidelines on the REF recommend stakeholder consultation after the environmental impact assessment is conducted. These are, however, non-binding guidelines only.

🔍 The community (including NPWS) was consulted on the matter in March 2022 but at the time it was with regard to the early design rather than the final environmental impact assessment.

🖥️ On 27 February 2023 the final REF, final design, and revised schedule of construction became available to councillors and the public via the council website. The construction project was scheduled to start 13 March 2023, leaving some members of the public (and councillors) in a position where they felt that they only had two weeks to review the REF before construction began. For some, this felt like it was highly improper due to the short time available, however others argue that consultation had already happened in March 2022 and that under the SEPP community consultation was not required at this stage of the process. The REF claimed that it has NPWS support.

🌲 In prior years, NPWS had already provided in principal support for the Norman Griffiths synthetics upgrade pending further clarification on the detailed design and environmental impacts. However on 3 March 2023 the NPWS wrote a letter to council stating that its in-principle support support for the upgrade was contingent on ongoing detailed consultation around the proposed design and management strategies to mitigate impacts, and that Ku-ring-gai Council had yet to undertake the agreed consultation. Therefore it would not be accurate for the REF to claim that the current design has NPWS support. NPWS therefore requested that the project be delayed until details around the final REF are properly reviewed and discussed.

💰 On 13 March 2023 the Norman Griffiths Oval was fenced off for construction. A delay in the construction date will lead to supply chain impacts and cost Ku-ring-gai Council hundreds of thousands of dollars.

𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

🦉 Some environmental groups have been determined to shut down the project in its entirety. There have been a number of negative articles circulated re: the negative impacts of synthetic surfaces, however these articles do not accurately reflect what is being proposed at Norman Griffiths which uses a more advanced cork infill rather than the problematic rubber infills of previous generations. There has also been talk of legal action should council proceed with construction in its current form.

⚽️ Other groups are arguing that the REF is fine, that the project already has NPWS support, and that consultation had already taken place last year.

🟩 Other councils have been exploring alternate solutions for increasing the durability of sporting fields. There has been talk of exploring hybrid solutions (natural grass reinforced by artificial frame). There has also been talk of using natural turf options such as sand slit drainage, rootzone sand profile, quality soil profile and perched water table. But some claim that many of these options do not provide the cost vs. durability balance that full synthetic surfaces currently provide.

😠😠😠 All of this places me in an awkward position. While I’m personally fine with the proposed development and impacts, I do wish that the REF had been conducted with greater NPWS involvement as well as greater (optional but best practice) community consultation post-environmental impact assessment. The ‘right thing to do’ may be to put the project on hold until NPWS catches up on its comfort on environmental impacts, however others may argue that NPWS approval (as per 2.15) is not required and that the ‘right thing to do’ may be to proceed and avoid the costs associated with a delay, especially if council is forecast to operate at a deficit this year. I haven’t figured out what to do yet.

😡😡😡 I’m also a bit grumpy because this recently scheduled Extraordinary Meeting of Council clashes with a birthday celebration.

Let’s see what the council decides on 16 March. I don’t know yet as to how I will be voting and it depends on what proposals are put forward, but my own middle of the road thoughts may draw the ire of both sporting groups and environmental groups.

⚽️ 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 – 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗢𝘃𝗮𝗹 – 𝟭𝟲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 In short, Norman Griffiths Oval to proceed but with minimal further consultation.

In the corporate world, decisions are usually made in a careful and considered manner. If there are four options on the table, then all four options are considered simultaneously with their relative strengths and weaknesses compared against each other. The governing body discusses then decides which of the four options to choose.

In Local Government, the Code of Meeting practices requires decisions to be made in a very different manner. Motions are considered and voted on one at a time, and depending on luck of the draw, sequencing of motions / amendments, and the chairperson it results in not all options being considered or debated by the council. This does, at times, lead to suboptimal decision making and results.

At last night’s council meeting we had four proposals (or options). The third proposal was the one that became ‘the motion’ and was voted on, and I’m disappointed that the first and the fourth proposal never had the opportunity to be voted on.

𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝟭): 𝗖𝗿 𝗔 𝗧𝗮𝘆𝗹𝗼𝗿 🚧 Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled ✅ Further consultation with community groups and NPWS to explicitly occur, and inform potential design change 😢 No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝟮): 𝗖𝗿 𝗞𝗮𝘆 🛑 Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to be put on hold ✅ Further consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to explicitly occur 🗳️ Voted on but defeated 2 vs 7

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝟯): 𝗖𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝘁𝘁 🚧 Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled ⁉️ Consultation with NPWS not mentioned, but I will be driving it behind the scenes 🗳️ Voted on 5 vs 4 and became ‘the motion’ 🗳️ As ‘the motion’ it succeeded 6 vs 3

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝟰): 𝗖𝗿 𝗡𝗴𝗮𝗶 🚧 Construction of Norman Griffiths Oval to continue as scheduled ✅ Further consultation with NPWS to explicitly occur ⏰ Further update on NPWS endorsement scheduled for April council meeting 😢 No opportunity to vote, due to local government meeting procedures

I’m not comfortable with local government process that permits only one option to be considered at a time. It leads to suboptimal outcomes. But it is what it is and I don’t see these rules changing anytime soon.

I do wish that there would have been the chance to vote on Proposal 1 and Proposal 4. Both of these options strived to deliver the project without further delay but while also lifting community engagement beyond minimal statutory obligations and towards best practice (or community standards). In fact, a lot of the drama and grief that arose in the last two weeks could easily have been avoided had relevant stakeholders been more thoroughly engaged last year. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are further conversations about perceived gaps in community engagement in the coming months.

But given that Proposal 3 is what we ended up with, it means that the Norman Griffiths Oval will proceed as currently scheduled and we expect completion in mid November.