Month: July 2024

Earlier this month our Council’s Flood Risk Management Committee explored the implications of different flood mapping methodologies on properties in our LGA.

As context, each Council is required by the State to ensure that their flood areas are mapped and properties appropriately tagged as this impacts where residents can safely build as well as what future infrastructure is required to support.

At Ku-ring-gai we’ve broken up the LGA into their respective river / creek catchments and we are systematically going through each one to model and understand which properties are impacted under various flooding scenarios.

We do so based on current available data, which means that the increased rainfall from future climate change and increased velocity of runoff from state housing increases and non-compliant construction are not baked into the modelling. In other words, the modelling may understate actual impacts that are experienced in the coming years.

At the same time, we have residents who will push in the other direction…. They are generally motivated by concerns that addition to a flood map leads to increased insurance premiums.

Council generally explores the impact on each property on a case by case basis, so for example if the flooding is expected to only impact 1 sqm of the corner of a property then we are happy to remove the tag from that property. But if modelling with reasonable assumptions shows that a large portion of the property may be affected (even prior to climate change / increased density scenarios) then we would have to exercise our responsibility by tagging the property.

The current focus is on Middle Harbour North and the next area will be Lane Cove catchment. We will later cover Cowan Creek, Ku-ring-gai Creek, Lovers Jump Creek, and Spring Gully Creek when the funding becomes available.

For more information visit https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Sustainable-living/Prepare-for-extreme-weather/Flooding

From time to time we receive complaints about the Coles development at Balfour Street Lindfield, primarily in relation to traffic delays that it causes on Balfour Street and perceived breaches of the conditions of consent which say “𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘷𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱-𝘰𝘧𝘧 (8:00𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘰 9:30𝘢𝘮) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱 (2:30𝘱𝘮 𝘵𝘰 4:00𝘱𝘮) 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴.”

Residents have also said that council has done nothing to prevent these perceived breaches but that is not the case. The construction site has been fined over $80,000 to date for various offences.

I think it’s important to break down what is and is not a breach, because we will have many more construction sites like this in the years to come as part of the TOD precinct.

So I went down there yesterday morning to observe what was going on.

First of all, this condition of consent applies to construction vehicles. That means concrete trucks, excavators, demolition trucks, heavy transport.

The condition of consent applies to construction vehicle MOVEMENTS which means that if we see a construction vehicle parked on the street but it is not moving, then it is not a breach.

There are other things like forklifts, cranes, machinery, scaffolding, which are counted as plant and equipment. In other words, forklifts are not construction vehicles, they are plant. And if you see a forklift driving or a crane operating during those peak hours then there is no breach because they are not construction vehicles.

What was annoying, however, is that from time to time the lollipop ladies would pop out and block off traffic along the entire street so that the forklifts can pickup skip bins, etc. This probably took up 5 of the 90 minutes that I was there, and if I was a resident driver on Balfour Street waiting to get to work, I would be very annoyed and blame Coles for everything….. I gave our Director of Regulation a call and he explained to me that the lollipop ladies were part of the construction traffic management plan, and that the intent of the condition of consent was to prevent heavy construction vehicles from hurting pedestrians from a SAFETY perspective. That is, the condition of consent was not designed to optimise traffic flows, and there will always be some level of disruption associated with construction.

I did also see two skip bin trucks moving that morning, but the Director said that these were not construction vehicles. They were ‘ephemeral’ and only there to quickly pick up or drop off something before they were gone. He explained that the condition of consent was with regard to longer, more drawn out activities.

I also saw five concrete trucks pop out from Bent Lane turning right onto Balfour Street, before turning right onto Pacific Highway. While these do count as construction vehicles, they were not in relation to the Coles Development so their movements are not a breach of the conditions of consent.

Out of all the things that I observed, there was only one thing that the Director agreed was illegal. I noticed that the utes on Balfour Street were parked for longer than the 1 hour allowed. The Director said that rangers do come here from time to time to issue fines, and that he’d send rangers onto this case.

So other than the illegal parked utes, it was a relatively good morning for the construction firm. But just because they were good this morning, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re like this all the time. They have been fined over $80,000 to date after all.

But we shouldn’t jump to conclusions that they are breaching the conditions of consent or that council is doing nothing about it just because we see a few lollipop ladies and forklifts moving around.

Whether the conditions of consent should be broadened to cover lollipops and forklifts is a separate point of debate, but those are not the conditions of consent for this particular site.

And if you do see anything that you suspect is actually illegal, please let us know straight away.

At the July 2024 council meeting we resolved to:

🏘️ Identify suitable planning controls for dual occupancies, which are to be introduced by the State Government in Ku-ring-gai on 01 July 2025. [Councils without existing planning controls like minimum lot size have been given a one year to establish controls whereas most councils commenced this month.]

📐 Work towards delivering upon the Planning Minister’s Statement of Expectations for all Local Councils, including the improvement of DA turnaround times and the updating of strategic planning documents to reflect new short term housing targets and State Environmental Planning Policies.

📄 Request an interim heritage order on the 23 heritage conservation areas within our four TOD precincts, until planning for these precincts is finalised early next year. This is an unusual request that has been rightly raised by Council in the context of an even more unusual decision from the State Government with regard to 6-9 storey developments in federal and inter-war heritage conservation areas. In both of my meetings with the Planning Minister there was a clear unwillingness to honestly explain how 22m / FSR 2.5:1 can be achieved in such areas, so we now put the question to the Heritage Minister for consideration.

⚡️🐶 Investigate further updates to Council’s planning controls and net zero initiatives to support growing demand for electrification, other energy efficiency initiatives, and allowing doggy daycares in town centres.

📹 Update the Code of Meeting Practice to support the live-streaming of the Council’s monthly public forum. The updated Code will soon go out to public exhibition for public feedback before council votes on the final document.

🌳 Allocate funding for the annual round of Environmental Levy Grants and Sponsorships.

🙋‍♀️ Appoint members of the Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.

🎭 Note a report on the potential cost of reviving the Marian Street Theatre with minimum repairs, and asked for further detail on a pathway / timeline to expanding the theatre as per a previous development application (DA0144/20).

There were other items as well, which you can read about in the draft minutes. https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/07/OMC_16072024_MIN_WEB.htm

The NSW Government has committed to delivering 377,000 well-located homes over five years – and it expects Ku-ring-gai to deliver its share of 7,600 in the same period.

A critical element of delivering these targets is the government’s ‘Low- and Mid-Rise Housing’ (LMRH) Reforms. And over the weekend the government announced its approach by gradually updating parts of its website.

It appears that the LMRH is now split into two stages.

Stage 1 of LMRH, which commenced yesterday on 01 July 2024, allows for dual occupancies to be installed in any R2 low-density residential zone across NSW with the exception of certain sites that are affected by flood, bushfire, individually listed heritage items (but not heritage conservation areas), or other criteria.

Some residents will consider stage 1 of LMRH to be good news, as it makes it easier to enter the housing market and allow multi-generational families to live in proximity while having their separate space.

However at Ku-ring-gai we also recognise that if dual occupancies are implemented with the non-refusal parameters that the NSW Government had proposed in December 2023 (minimum lot size 450 sqm, floor space ratio 0.65:1), then it will have a detrimental impact on our urban tree canopy, biodiversity, climate resilience and heritage.

The problem that I have with the announcement over the weekend is that it is silent on the minimum lot size and floor space ratios for dual occupanices. And in the absence of these parameters, the impacts of these dual occupancies are unknown.

As a Council, we have previously proposed more appropriate parameters to the Department of Planning, and we will be following up to confirm its support to provide you as residents the certainty that you need.

Stage 2 of the LMRH involves additional density around train stations and town centres. Further details will be announced later in 2024 (I suspect after the Local Government elections to safeguard Labor candidates) with an implementation date set for the second half of 2̶0̶2̶5̶ 2024 [Department website said second half of 2025 on 01 July but when I checked again this morning it said second half of 2024].

T̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶l̶f̶ ̶2̶0̶2̶5̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶n̶e̶w̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶K̶u̶-̶r̶i̶n̶g̶-̶g̶a̶i̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶c̶i̶l̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶D̶e̶p̶a̶r̶t̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶d̶u̶c̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶M̶R̶H̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶’̶s̶ ̶g̶r̶e̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶D̶e̶p̶a̶r̶t̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶d̶b̶a̶c̶k̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶c̶i̶l̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶g̶o̶.̶ [Paragraph stricken out due to Department of Planning website update on morning of 02 July]

Having said that, we are still in disagreement with a separate set of reforms called ‘Transport Oriented Development’ (TOD). These reforms were imposed on a small radius around Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville earlier this year.

Despite multiple requests to have sufficient time to plan for the TOD, the NSW Government pushed ahead with their April timeframe. The financial impact on ratepayers is over ten million, and to recover the costs we have had no choice but to take the State Government to court.

I have spoken to the Minister on 02 May and subsequently written to him twice saying that the court action can be avoided if he were to be consistent and given Ku-ring-gai the same opportunity for local planning that he gave to 12 other councils for the TOD (and now 128 councils for the LMRH stage 2). All he has to do is lift the map for our four TOD precincts and set a deferred commencement date in 2025. But he has not been interested in backing down from his position, so the only way we can protect your ratepayer funds is to go through the courts.

In May, Council also resolved for staff to identify different density scenarios for each of the four TOD precincts and to commence a public consultation process towards the end of this year.

N̶o̶w̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶e̶r̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶c̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶L̶M̶R̶H̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶2̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶K̶u̶-̶r̶i̶n̶g̶-̶g̶a̶i̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶o̶r̶e̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶p̶p̶o̶r̶t̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶d̶u̶c̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶8̶0̶0̶m̶ ̶w̶a̶l̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶t̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶a̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶t̶ ̶I̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶p̶s̶.̶ ̶I̶f̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶m̶i̶d̶ ̶2̶0̶2̶5̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶u̶r̶b̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶o̶p̶y̶,̶ ̶b̶i̶o̶d̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶t̶y̶,̶ ̶c̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶i̶l̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶i̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶e̶r̶v̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶a̶s̶.̶[Paragraph stricken out due to Department of Planning website update on morning of 02 July] ̶ ̶B̶u̶t̶ ̶C̶o̶u̶n̶c̶i̶l̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶c̶u̶s̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶o̶l̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶M̶R̶H̶.̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶i̶l̶a̶r̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶s̶u̶p̶p̶o̶r̶t̶ ̶d̶u̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶b̶s̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶-̶t̶e̶r̶m̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶-̶t̶e̶r̶m̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶Q̶L̶D̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶2̶0̶4̶6̶,̶ ̶V̶I̶C̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶2̶0̶5̶1̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶N̶S̶W̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶2̶0̶2̶9̶.̶ ̶S̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶c̶i̶l̶l̶o̶r̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶g̶u̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶K̶u̶-̶r̶i̶n̶g̶-̶g̶a̶i̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶e̶s̶t̶a̶b̶l̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶-̶t̶e̶r̶m̶ ̶L̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶E̶n̶v̶i̶r̶o̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶.̶[Paragraph stricken out due to Department of Planning website update on morning of 02 July] ̶ ̶A̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶’̶l̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶s̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶’̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶m̶b̶i̶g̶u̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶L̶M̶R̶H̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶1̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶’̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶w̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶a̶i̶l̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶f̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶r̶i̶f̶y̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ [It’s a bit ridiculous that I had to cross out a large chunk of this Facebook post…. The Department should check their material and their dates before publishing the details on the Internet.]

Link to 01 July 2024 webpage. https://web.archive.org/web/20240701140452/https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/diverse-and-well-located-homes

Link to 02 July 2024 webpage. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/diverse-and-well-located-homes