Category: Blog

The State Government has announced today its Low- and Mid-Rise Housing Part 2 provisions.

What this means for Ku-ring-gai is that within 800m of Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble, Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville Station as well as St Ives Shopping Village, 3-storey townhouses and manor houses can be built in R2 zones, and 6-storey apartments can be built in R3 and R4 zones. This applies to Heritage Conservation Areas as well, but not Heritage Items.

The implication this has for residents near TOD zones is that it will probably add an additional level of transition from high to low [The details of this are being checked / confirmed with the Department of Planning in coming days.]. Previously there were fears from some residents that the council?s 5-storey TOD-alternative (with setbacks) would overshadow / overlook 1-2 storey homes. But with the formalisation of the State?s LMRH part 2 changes which we have known is coming (since November 2023), all of these ?impacted? residences (including those in HCAs, but with the exception of heritage items) may have the ability to become 3-storey themselves and I don?t believe that the future residents of these future 3-storey homes will be concerned about the 5-storeys next door. As for heritage items, I suspect that they can still be incorporated within larger developments in such a manner that the item is protected but the population increase and value still realised.

Another implication of this announcement is that Warrawee Station, as well as neighbourhood centres such as St Ives North, West Pymble, East Lindfield, Roseville Chase, Eastern Road and Princes Street are confirmed to not be impacted by these changes as originally implied by the State Government. (Residents in these areas may, however, potentially have access to dual-occupancy depending on where those changes land in the next 4 months).

Snippets of the State Government?s indicative mapping are provided, and a more detailed map is linked. Please note that these maps include the default TOD which may be superseded in coming months.

Please also note that the reasons why Council took the State Government to court over the TOD are not applicable to the LMRH provisions. Therefore I do not see any legal challenge arising from this.

Some residents may know that I was not personally satisfied with any of the four new TOD scenarios put forward by Council last year. Each scenario had significant flaws – a symptom of the incredibly short timeframe given for preparing them – but it was necessary for us to act quickly to prevent the costly impacts of the state government?s ill-thought default. If we hadn?t forced an outcome through our legal action (a few hundred k), we would have been stuck with the much more costly impacts of the default TOD (tens of millions plus detriment to quality of life) which didn?t consider infrastructure bottlenecks, local character, or community consultation as required by law.

I?d like to thank the thousands of residents who provided us with feedback on these scenarios. You told us which ones you liked, which ones you hated, and your specific reasons why.

Last week our staff extensively took the councillors through this feedback and then presented us with a revised scenario. I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw because it felt to me that the staff had genuinely considered all feedback AND they had applied additional thought to identifying and remedying some of the inherent flaws of each scenario. There were even some adjustments that I had never considered and made me really excited (on residents? behalf)!

The draft revised scenario I saw last week was not perfect and there is still some finetuning to do over the coming week(s). But when it is ready, the intention is that the public will be briefly consulted a second time before we implement the proposal in or before May 2025.

There will still be some unhappy residents about the revised scenario, and it was never going to be possible to please everyone. But it is still much better than anything we have seen before and from my perpsective, we have to come up with something that would work best for the future residents of Ku-ring-gai rather than purely focus on the short-term needs of some residents (e.g. residents who want to maximise their own short term land value).

Thanks everyone for your feedback yesterday on the Development Application Average Assessment Days chart. Some of it was constructive, while some of it was less so, but regardless I’ve made some adjustments to further the discussion.

The first chart shows both the average assessment days (in green), the number of applications received (in grey), and a 5 month rolling average of the applications received (in purple). The main takeout is that in 2024 there was an overall decline of 27% in the volume of development applications compared to 2023, and I suspect that uncertainty with the State Government’s incremental trickle-down planning changes (that have yet to be finalised by the way!!) along with the time it takes to follow-up with preparing a development application could be a major driver for the decline in average assessment days. The staff therefore have a smaller queue to deal with and could therefore pump the backlog faster, although my understanding is that part of the improvement has also been due to other operational adjustments. We should see further improvement once we have the findings of the DA service review.

The second chart gives a comparison of average assessment days for each Northern Sydney Council. At a very high level it’s safe to say that: – Hornsby, Lane Cove and Northern Beaches appear to be fastest; – North Sydney and Willoughby appear to be slowest; – Everyone else appears to be in between although Hunters Hill in particular is experiencing sustained improvement.

I wouldn’t necessarily draw conclusions out of the chart (such as one council doing a better job than another) because there are multiple factors in play, but for operational staff it may be worth exploring why some councils appear to do better than others… Is it due to factors outside of control (such as more complex mix of DAs) or is it due to process optimisations yet to come into play?

If you want to suggest improvements feel free to email me at sngai@krg.nsw.gov.au and I will send you the spreadsheet so that you can see the underlying data and directly make the changes yourself.

One of the top three priorities that I had set at the start of my 12 months as Mayor was to streamline the Development Assessment process so that homeowners could have greater certainty about when they can move back in. This was formalised as part of the General Manager’s performance agreement for FY25 (after resistance to suggestions under previous leadership). The Planning Minister’s Statement of Expectations also helped to add weight to the initiative.

Under our new General Manager, we commenced a service review of the Development Assessment process and from what I understand this review will finish in the next few months. Having said that, our staff have identified some quick wins and you can start to see the impact – and this is even before we have implemented the recommendations of the review.

There will be some constraints to how low we can go … Development compliance obligations in NSW have become increasingly complex over time, and with a limited budget we are regularly competing with the Private sector as well as the State for talented staff to do the work. But I am optimistic that we can get to a better future for our residents, and look forward to reading the findings and recommendations of the service review.

ONE SLEEP TO GO before feedback on future housing scenarios officially closes.

This is with regard to the NSW Government?s imposition of 22,500 new dwellings within 400m of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon Station. Please let us know whether you?d prefer to do it by demolishing the entire precinct with six storey homes, or by preserving canopy and local character by spreading out further and/or having it taller in the middle. (If so, how tall?)

In the last month we?ve heard from your concerns around traffic gridlock and inability to access the highway, transitions and isolation, impact on canopy and local character, bushfire safety, the sub-optimal timing and duration of consultation, and your preferences for or against specific scenarios. I hear you, agree that this situation imposed by the state is quite unreasonable, and know that there will be some tough decisions that have to be made. However the more feedback that we receive, the greater the chance that we?ll be able to optimise a new scenario next year.

If you have yet to make a submission, please visit the following link to view the material and fill out the survey. https://krg.engagementhub.com.au/housingscenarios (If the link does not work, try turning off wifi and switching to mobile.)

Also yet to be announced is the NSW Government?s other initiative to allow townhouses and apartments in R2 zones within 800m of ALL train stations? we expect this second announcement to come within a few weeks.

AI presents an enormous opportunity for us to work more quickly and create value. I’ve been using it on and off and find that while it is not always entirely accurate, it does help with giving us a good starting point.

On this particular occasion, I’ve been looking at GB11 of our December Council meeting and the staff recommendation to propose minimum lot sizes of 955 sqm for Dual Occupancies across the LGA (as compared to the State Government default of 400 sqm).

According to the AI output – which may not be entirely accurate – our Sydney metro councils offer minimum lot sizes per two homes ranging from 450 sqm (Waverley) to 600 sqm (Hornsby, Northern Beaches, Liverpool, Fairfield). So you can imagine how the Department of Planning will respond if Ku-ring-gai were to go ahead with the proposal in its current form.

In my view it’s helpful to see AI like a junior that you employ at your business. Their work may not necessarily be the most reliable or intuitive, but it gives you a good starting point to further interrogate and refine. You can see through my chat with Claude that I’ve been doing just that.

The benefit of AI over a junior, however, is the price and speed of output. If I had employed a junior to do this it may have taken hours or even days, plus hundreds of dollars. But my chat with Claude here only took a few minutes at a fraction of that cost. How reliable is the data? For someone who knows the topic really well there are likely flaws in the answer, but there will also be flaws when you employ a junior as well. That?s where some sensible scrutiny and subsequent fact checking comes in place before you place reliance on it for anything mission critical.

Council is seeking your input to two items, both of which have an enormous impact on the future of our LGA.

The first is our Community Strategic Plan (CSP) which sets the aspirations of Council from now through to 2034. It?s important that we get diverse input into the CSP because it is what council staff use to recommend project priorities and spend for the next four years. (And historically if you look at our 2014, 2018 and 2022 CSPs both their participants and the resultant reports change very little from term to term).

You can contribute to our CSP either online or via in-person sessions. For more information visit https://krg.engagementhub.com.au/krgcsp

The second is our alternate scenarios for delivering on the Transport Oriented Development Precincts of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon. As previously mentioned, this is being done because the State Government has mandated the delivery of 22,500 new dwellings within 400m of these four train stations, and imposed (poorly planned) interim default controls that will have adverse impacts to tree canopy and local character unless we implement a better configuration that meets the policy objectives.

Council staff have prepared four alternate scenarios for your consideration, and you can provide feedback either online or via in-person sessions (up til 11 December). For more information visit https://krg.engagementhub.com.au/housingscenarios

The expansion of St Ives Shopping Village on council owned land (GB12) is on the November 2024 council meeting agenda.

As is the selection of 15 youth for our Youth Advisory Committee (GB2), which is an election commitment.

And the Planning Proposal for 47 Highfield Road and 47a Highfield Lane (GB13).

More information can be found at https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/11/OMC_26112024_AGN_AT.PDF

If any of these matters are close to your heart, you have the opportunity to speak to the councillors at our upcoming public forum held Tuesday 12 November at 6pm. https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-Meetings-and-Public-Forums

Last night council resolved to bring the TOD Scenarios out for public exhibition. Members of the public will have the opportunity to have their say about which scenarios they like, which scenarios they don’t like, and why.

The scenarios and the consultation material is being fine-tuned before the public exhibition formally starts in early/mid November. The exhibition period is four weeks, which is longer than the statutory requirement, and given the significance of this topic I suspect that any submissions made after the exhibition close might also be considered before the staff write up their report in February.

More information about the upcoming TOD scenarios is found in the following media release. https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Council-to-ask-for-community-feedback-on-new-housing-scenarios

And for those interested in my opening speech from last night, refer to the below.

In November 2023, the NSW Government dissolved the Greater Cities Commission along with any long-term infrastructure and housing plan that Sydney had in place.

In November 2023, Ku-ring-gai also proactively wrote to the Planning Minister stating that we would like to meet and discuss the approach to housing and infrastructure. This meeting was eventually granted on 29 February 2024 where the minister said that based on his extensive modelling, the suburbs of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon must become Transport Oriented Development precincts and that no other train station within our LGA has the adequate infrastructure to support this scale of development. He also said that these four stations MUST become TOD precincts and that there was no option to opt or swap out.

We asked the Planning Minister whether we can have a 12-month deferred commencement to come up with alternate scenarios and consult the community and he said NO. But he did say that he was willing to lift the TOD maps if council came up with alternate plans that meet or exceed the original policy objectives.

After several more weeks of discussions and a second meeting on 02 May, it was apparent that the NSW Government had no interest in giving Ku-ring-gai residents the opportunity to properly plan housing and infrastructure, and the TOD SEPP provisions were imposed on Ku-ring-gai. At an extraordinary meeting on 08 May, Council resolved unanimously to commence legal action to invalidate the TOD, as well as to prepare alternate long-term scenarios for these four TOD precincts.

The preparation of these scenarios was not easy and took considerable time. Each of the scenarios before us tonight are designed to meet or exceed the State’s target of 22,500 while improving on heritage, urban canopy, and infrastructure outcomes.

These scenarios are by no means perfect. Each scenario has strengths and flaws. And my preference is that all scenarios are put to public exhibition so that members of the public can formally tell us which ones they like, which ones they don’t like, and their reasons why.

After the public exhibition, council staff will consider the feedback and finetune these scenarios. Council might then select a preferred scenario as the basis for updating our Local Environment Plan. The process of updating the LEP is quite lengthy – Department of Planning guidelines state 420 working days from end to end – but we hope that the NSW Government will expedite the process so that we can get on with delivering housing as per the timing of our requested 12-month deferred commencement.

I now want to make a brief comment about each of these scenarios.

Scenario 3a and 3b seek to protect all of our heritage conservation areas while at the cost of additional uplift in the town centre and/or expanding beyond the 400m. Many residents may find the heights too imposing, and they are welcome to provide that feedback as part of a public exhibition process. I suspect scenario 3a will not be supported by council next year, but it’s good to put it out to public so that they know what a ‘worse case scenario’ looks like. I like scenario 3b a lot, but I am not certain whether it will have the Planning Minister’s approval as he previously thought it would clash with low- and mid-rise changes yet to be finalised.

Scenario 2 seeks to protect 78% of our heritage conservation areas while providing milder uplift in the town centre. There are some benefits to this, although there are also peculiarities such as the destruction of HCA’s while non-HCA land is left at 2 storeys. We wait to receive public feedback on these matters.

Scenario 2b is one that we requested as the ‘minor amendment case’ back on 08 May, and we are proposing that this too goes out to public exhibition after some finetuning by our staff. It only saves a third of the HCAs and I personally do not think it is as good as the other scenarios. However, I think it’s very important for 2b to go out for public comment. I think back to September 2020 with Ku-ring-gai’s Draft Housing Strategy, where staff proposed 3 housing options and councillors were bombarded with over 1,200 emails – many residents criticising council for not making a 4^th option available. From this experience, I think it’s important to give residents all five scenarios representing the full spectrum of possibilities, silencing any complaints that council has withheld scenarios from the public feedback process.

Finally I’d say that as part of the public feedback process, I encourage all councillors to look at the quality, rationale, and motivations behind each submission rather than the number of residents offering support for or opposition against each scenario. There will be residents providing feedback that maximises their short-term land value, but as Councillors we are looking out for the best interest of our residents over the next 100 years.

Recently I have seen inaccurate comments on my Facebook page claiming that Council?s move to put Transport Oriented Development scenarios out for public exhibition was sudden, secretive and without explanation. These comments are highly disrespectful, defamatory, and far from the truth and I will address these claims below.

There has been no secret whatsoever that as an election candidate, I intended to arrange for the TOD scenarios to go out to public exhibition in early November. These plans featured prominently in our election campaign.

In our election brochure distributed to all Roseville Ward households, it said that “This year, the NSW Government’s non-consultative approach to housing policy has been contrary to everything that is taught about good planning and development… To reduce the impacts, council staff are currently preparing alternate scenarios for meeting the State’s housing objectives. You will be consulted about these options in early November.“

On our election day How-to-vote Flyer handed out to all voters who wanted one, it said that we will “Engage the community on alternate Transport Oriented Development options once they become available in early November 2024“.

In response to an election survey conducted by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment, I said at the bottom of page 3 that “Council staff are looking into alternate scenarios to provide for housing while reducing the impacts on heritage and the environment. Members of the public will be consulted on this in early November with the view of having Council make changes to the LEP next year.“

I was also very open about these plans whenever asked during the election campaign.

Prior to the election campaign we have also been fully transparent that this process is underway, starting from our council resolution on 08 May 2024 and followed by various followup on council?s e-News, website, conversations with print and broadcast media, and at the parliamentary inquiry.

Admittedly, plans have shifted since the first half of the year because I was initially saying that the public consultation would commence in October 2024? It was only more recently that the message shifted to ?early November? because staff updated us and said that it would not be possible to complete the supporting work for informed scenarios by October. But other than this delay of one month, I have consistently stayed on point both with the path forward on legal action as well as the commitment to delivering TOD Scenarios for public consultation.

As far as I am concerned, the public has had sufficient notice that a public exhibition was going to take place in early November and the council remains on track to delivering this objective. All councillors both old and new were also briefed on these scenarios beforehand and told that we will be voting on this in the form of an extraordinary meeting so that we can save two months and protect our HCA?s.

My normal response to inaccurate comments is to click on reply and correct the individual’s claims. However this time I was spammed by eight comments and it was inefficient to reply to each one individually, only to end up in a never-ending war with a keyboard warrior. Hence I’ve chosen to hide the eight comments and address the core issue in this one post.

Several residents have enquired about tomorrow’s extraordinary meeting so I write to explain my position.

The urgency to act has been forced upon by the State Government, which imposed the default TOD policy onto our f our suburbs in May 2024. We already have developers preparing development applications that will permanently change the character of our heritage conservation areas, and the only way to protect these HCAs is to quickly introduce an alternate plan that meets the state?s policy objectives. The more than we fluff around and delay, the more extensive the destruction will be. We also have a duty to give all landowners and residents greater certainty about what will be happening next.

The reason why this comes in the form of an extraordinary meeting is that an ordinary meeting will delay the outcome by at least two months, thus exposing our HCAs to further dectruction. We couldn?t do it in time for the October meeting both because the scenarios were still being developed, and also because the agenda had been finalised before councillors were sworn in. We also can?t do it at the 26 November meeting because there would not be enough time to do a proper public exhibition before Christmas / New Year, resulting in a final decision that?s delayed from February to April. The two month delay results in more HCAs being destroyed, and the exhibition material becoming outdated very quickly. Plus it is the public exhibition, not the ordinary meeting, where public feedback is critical to future outcomes.

Tomorrow’s decision is merely to put scenarios out for public exhibition. It is the start of a process where a range of ideas are displayed for discussion. There are multiple scenarios, and having a scenario up does not mean that councillors, council, or council staff have endorsed its implementation. Each scenario has strengths and flaws, and they are merely there to inform residents on the range of what is possible so as to elicit an informed discussion and feedback process.

I expect the legal action to be ongoing with the next step being court-ordered mediation on 21 November 2024. Both the legal action and these scenarios are linked, with council unanimously voting for both on 08 May 2024. My own view is that the State Government has not followed the law in introducing its Housing SEPP changes, and the reason why the planning minister repeatedly calls for Ku-ring-gai to withdraw the legal action is because he does not want his non-compliance to be found by the court. But even if Ku-ring-gai does win the legal action, it does not permanently stop development. The State Government will still have two years before the next State Election to have a second crack at legally introducing TOD v2, and so it?s important for Ku-ring-gai to have alternate scenarios identified and ready to go.

All of this drama could have easily been avoided had the NSW Government respected Ku-ring-gai’s multiple requests for a deferred commencement. Our intent all along has been to publicly consult on scenarios and establish a plan within a 12 month timeframe, but the NSW Government has not been reasonable in its dealings to date.

I actually don?t know what council will resolve tomorrow night. Will the councillors support any of these scenarios going out to the public? I don?t know. Obviously I think it?s a good idea to have a range of scenarios for discussion, but it?s a democracy so we?ll wait to see what the council collectively decides.

Council staff have prepared alternate scenarios to provide the 20,000+ dwelling uplift in the TOD precincts of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon.

These scenarios are designed to mitigate the negative impacts to environment, heritage, urban canopy and town centre vitalisation that the TOD in its original form unfairly forces upon Ku-ring-gai.

Next Wednesday Council will meet to consider which of these scenarios (if any) will go out for public consultation, as well as the manner in which the public consultation will take place. Given that this is probably one of the biggest changes to face Ku-ring-gai in recent history, it is important to get the comms right in the limited time available to us.

The current aim is to form a view on the preferred scenario by February 2025. If we delay the decision too long, we will just end up with the TOD and its impacts everywhere.

The legal challenge continues in parallel though the reality is that even if the Housing SEPP is invalidated in the current form, the State Government may have a second crack and it’s worthwhile to have superior options on standby. The legal challenge and this scenario analysis are both linked, both decided unanimously by council on 8 May 2024.

I have yet to read the meeting papers in full, but they do raise some interesting questions which I need to clarify with staff in the coming days. The meeting papers are linked here

https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/10/OMC_30102024_AGN_AT_EXTRA.PDF

We had our first Ordinary Meeting of Council last night. It was good to see our new councillors and new mayor settled in. Key decisions were:

? Support to display the Menorah and celebrate Chanukah festivities at council chambers, plus opening up the site to celebrate other religious and cultural occasions.

? Exploring funding opportunities to make 1192 Pacific Highway more safe and accessible to the public while simultaneously supporting more homes in Ku-ring-gai.

? Directive for staff to consider the means to preserve the Marian Street Theatre DA, with an intent to budget for activities in the FY25/26 year. Councillors will continue to discuss options behind the scenes.

On Tuesday I seem to have sparked some interest / controversy by sharing an example of how a heritage item can be incorporated as part of a larger development site, with the heritage item?s land used to provide uplift elsewhere on site.

My Tuesday post was not an endorsement of the TOD controls. In fact I think the TOD controls are ill-conceived and with no prior consultation with local councils. The Planning Minister?s lack of genuine good-faith collaboration is disappointing, and it is the reason why we are currently involved in legal action.

Multiple residents have also asked me whether the idea of site consolidation only applies to Willoughby Council, or whether there is any precedent within Ku-ring-gai for this to occur. So this time I?ll give you an example from Gordon.

25 Bushlands Avenue, otherwise known as ?Birralee?, is an example of a Federation Bungalow style house and garden built c. 1915 that was made possible by the provision of public infrastructure to support the growth of suburbs like Gordon as an alternative to living in the inner city. You can read more about it here.

https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=1882351

On 16 November 2017, as newly appointed members of the Sydney North Planning Panel, Councillor Spencer and I were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to develop a residential aged care facility on the amalgamated site of 25, 25A, and 27 Bushlands Avenue under the predecessor to the Housing SEPP. The developer had proposed to retain the heritage building and most of its garden in the existing form, and instead to use its land to establish additional uplift rights at 25A and 27.

Both Councillor Spencer and I disagreed with this concept and we argued that?

“The Proposal will have adverse impacts on the heritage item at No. 25 Bushlands Avenue (Birralee)“

and that

“For the reason of excessive encroachments into the curtilage of No. 25 Bushlands Avenue the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item.“

You can read more about it here.

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/residential-care-facility-8

However the planning panel is comprised of 2 councillors and 3 state-appointed members so the state overrode the councillor opinion 3 vs 2 and said that it was fine to incorporate the heritage item into a larger development.

Ultimately the development was refused by the Sydney North Planning Panel on other grounds, however it then went to the Land and Environment Court on a Merits Appeal where it was approved.

But we do see here that both the regional planning panel and the Land and Environment Court are open to consolidated sites with uplift shifted around under the Housing SEPP. There are residents who disagree with my statement here, but I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes. I personally believe that many residents have been ill-advised by property developers seeking the lowest hanging fruit. Heritage items and heritage conservation areas are too messy to deal with when there are 45 TOD precincts to choose from across NSW, so they will not want to get involved with heritage unless they can offer prices that are substantially below the genuine underlying value.

Released today is the Report on the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Development of the Transport Oriented Program

In the chair?s forward it was noted that the TOD program and its planning rules were selected in an opaque process with inadequate consultation, and that its one-size-fits-all approach is not well enough designed to stimulate appropriate housing supply or address affordability issues.

10 recommendations were made regarding the TOD program and the NSW Government is called to take on a holistic, long-term view of options to address the inquiry. In summary these are:

1. Work in collaboration with local councils 2. Work with stakeholders to clarify how TOD operates with existing controls 3. Greater consideration of specific drivers of housing affordability 4. Deliver package of measures impacting constraints on residential construction 5. Deliver a framework for affordable housing under the TOD 6. Consider broad range of issues and solution to the housing crisis 7. Focus infrastructure funding to areas of growth including TOD locations 8. Maintain robust design and building standards through new housing reforms 9. Focus on family-friendly apartments 10. Continue the commitment to 40% urban tree canopy across Greater Sydney by 2036

My favourite personal quote from the report is

“4.92 Similar concerns were raised by Mr Sam Ngai, Mayor, Ku-ring-gai Council, who stressed the importance of ensuring open space is a short-term priority in planning and delivery of housing:

The one thing that cannot be left til next decade is public open space because our kids will no longer have a yard and our community needs public places to meet. In the Roseville precinct alone, we expect 5,000 new dwellings, but the only open space is a small war memorial garden next to the highway.”

For more information visit

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3035#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses

Is development possible within a TOD precinct when there is a heritage item?

Last week while shopping at ALDI, I checked out the Chatswood Community Nursing Home and Hospital at 256 Victoria Avenue. It is listed as a heritage item and is known for its history as well as its representation of the Arts & Craft style. More information can be found on the State Heritage Register.

https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2660256

The amazing thing (and this is what I have been telling residents) is that just because a heritage item exists, doesn’t mean that development cannot take place. In this specific example, the heritage item was amalgamated into a larger site and repurposed for different uses. Meanwhile, the development uplift (floor space) associated with the heritage item’s land is redistributed elsewhere on site so that the same number of homes can be delivered while heritage is respected.

At the moment there are a lot of anxious residents in the TOD precincts who are insisting that their homes get delisted for free. Having said that, it’s not how heritage works…. The mere existence of a multi-storey development next door does not in any way dilute the heritage significance of an individual heritage item and, if anything, it makes the heritage item more valuable. Delisting would involve commissioning heritage reports which say that the property no longer meet any of the seven heritage criteria (significance, association, aesthetic/creative/technical achievement, social/cultural/spiritual, research potential, rarity, representation). And unless the original report or basis on which the property was listed is flawed, the delisting is unlikely to happen.

However, heritage items can be incorporated into a larger site and the floor space / development rights distributed elsewhere on site. An honest and savvy developer, real estate agent or adviser will tell you this, but there aren’t many of them out there. A lazy developer on the other hand will see it as being in the too hard bucket and not touch it with a pole, which is understandable given that there are 45 TOD precincts to choose from and they are just going for the lowest hanging fruit first.

On the agenda for the October 2024 Council Meeting are:

261 Mona Vale Road (GB14) – Whether to reclassify this from community to operational land, a move that may lead to more flexible long term use of the site.

1192 Pacific Highway (GB15) – Whether to reclassify this from community to operational land, a move that may eventually lead to its sale.

Pymble Golf Planning Proposal at 2, 12 and 14 Cowan Road (GB16) – Whether to seek a 10% affordable housing contribution (either monetary or in kind in perpetuity) towards the 78 dwellings being built as part of this development.

Marian Street Theatre (GB17) – An update on the costs of extending the site vs. refurbishing the site.

More information can be found at https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/10/OMC_22102024_AGN_AT_WEB.htm

If any of these matters are close to your heart, you have the opportunity to speak to the councillors at our upcoming public forum held Tuesday 15 October at 6pm. https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-Meetings-and-Public-Forums

Congrats to Ku-ring-gai’s new Mayor Christine Kay and Deputy Mayor Kim Wheatley. I have worked closely with both of them these last few years and I can confidently say that Ku-ring-gai is in good hands.

My parting gift as Mayor – The General Manager’s Performance Agreement FY25

In my first six years as a Councillor, the General Manager?s performance management process was always a debacle.

The Mayor of the day would set the GM?s performance metrics at some undisclosed date, and then at the end of the 12 month period the Mayor would call all ten councillors together to rate the GM?s performance in each area (usually over 40+ items).

The scoring system is typically as such.

5 Outstanding – GM consistently achieves extremely high-performance standards.
4 Exceeds Expectations – High standards are set and achieved. At times performance exceeds requirements.
3 Meets Expectations – Satisfactory performance and meets expected requirements.
2 Improvement Required – Minor shortcomings in performance but major requirements are usually met.
1 Improvement Required – Major shortcomings and important requirements are not being met by the GM.
NA – Milestone is not yet due, and progress cannot be reported on.

In the corporate world (which is where I come from), most employees typically score a 3 on each measure. If they have done poorly, then they may get a 2 and it would be accompanied with constructive management feedback. But if they get a 4 or even a 5 on any measure, it needs to be supported with extensive commentary and evidence to prove that they earned the score that they deserve.

But at Council, this has never been observed to date. We have had councillors who, because they liked the former General Manager, gave him 5?s without any substantiation whatsoever. On the other side we have had councillors who, because they were not satisfied with the General Manager, gave him 1?s without any constructive feedback.

Meanwhile I would give a mix of 2, 3, and 4 with appropriate feedback if I ever deviated from the 3.

With Council?s composition and numbers, the scores from all ten get averaged out and it always ended up with a score that was above 3. The headline promoted by the Mayor of the day would then be that the General Manager scored above average in his performance metrics and therefore should keep his job.

But of course it?s easy to score above 3 if it?s heavily skewed with multiple unsubstantiated 5?s.

What?s worse, the councillors were not shown the GM?s performance metrics until the end of the 12 month period. As a councillor, I had no way of knowing whether the performance metics were agreed to at the start of the period, or whether it was done just a week before the performance review.

Also on multiple occasions when I would give constructive feedback on the GM?s performance, instead of deciding to address the issue and lift performance the following year, the Mayor of the day would just delete the area from the following year?s performance metrics. So rather than seeking to improve for the benefit of ratepayers, she deleted anything that was too hard.

I was incredibly frustrated by the multiple manipulations of the process and it led to one of my election objectives for December 2021.

Align General Manager Performance Reviews with Office of Local Government Guidelines, setting ambitious but realistic performance targets and holding the General Manager to account.

Fortunately as 2024 Mayor I have had the opportunity to start this process. Together with Deputy Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Cr Christine Kay, Councillor Kim Wheatley and Councillor Alec Taylor we have cast a vision of what we would like the General Manager to achieve in the next four years and then built his 2024-25 performance objectives to align with achieving this vision. This was completed last month.

Furthermore, the scoring for each area will be more difficult to game as we have provided constructive guidelines as to how each should be scored. For example on the topic of community participation we have said the following.

Initiative 1.2 Improve community consultation and notification (frequency, reach, timeliness)

FY25 Activity: Community Participation Plan and Community Engagement Policy updated to reflect community expectations

FY25 Success Measures:
[For a 2] CPP and CEP are rolled over from prior terms
[For a 3] Genuine overhaul of documents to reflect  how we will engage the community in a range of different scenarios
[For a 4] Details of the overhaul are publicly accessible and well accepted by the community

Consultation and notification practices consistently implemented in line with policy

This makes it pretty clear what needs to be done to earn a 2, 3 and 4 and it makes it more difficult for a future council to just give 5?s and 1?s based on how they feel about the performance of the General Manager and our council staff. It also gives the General Manager and the staff a clear objective to stretch to if they want to be recognised for their performance.

I?d like to thank the residents of Ku-ring-gai and the councillors for the opportunity to reform this most-critical element of Council?s governance, and I hope that the next Council decides to continue this practice of shaping Council?s outcomes through proper professional performance management.

So how will we pay for that?

We’ve been talking to residents at Roseville and Lindfield train station and their top issues (apart from development) have been

1. Proactive management of council owned trees (dead branches, roots causing problems) 2. Footpaths and road bottlenecks 3. Provision of playgrounds and toilets in town centres

We know that all councillors and council staff are keen to deliver on these, however, the real challenge is council?s own ?cost of living crisis?.

In the last decade, our operational costs (eg delivery of services, infrastructure and maintenance) has gone up 40% while our rates, which are regulated by the state government, have gone up by 28%.

Obviously when our income (rates) are growing more slowly than our expenses, something has to be done to balance the books. These options include?. 1. Looking for cost efficiencies 2. Reduction of services 3. Selling off assets (noting that this is not an infinitely repeatable process) 4. Increasing rates

In August 2022, before my time as Mayor, I actually moved a motion proposing that we look for these cost efficiencies. However my cost efficiency motion was defeated by former Mayor Pettett using his casting vote. He didn?t offer any alternatives to the efficiency motion either. He didn?t believe that we needed to improve on Council?s spend. He believed that Council was cost efficient.

Fortunately after becoming the new Mayor in September 2023 and with a new General Manager in place, we have started to look more closely at each of our key areas, identifying whether there is potential to improve the quality or volume of service with the limited funds that we have. We?ve looked at our customer service and are now in various stages of progress on looking at development assessment, compliance, communications, sportsgrounds, and other areas tbc. We?ve also looked at the long term maintenance of our assets and have identified significant cost savings with the maintenance of our ageing pipes, offset by increased costs with maintaining our community buildings. The overall cost savings identified to date have been $100m over the life of the assets.

What we find really bizarre though is when there are experienced candidates (current/former councillors) who claim that they will freeze rates while simultaneously delivering more footpaths and other social goods. It?s not possible or sustainable. I do firmly believe that there is still some ?fat? left in Council to trim out, and as a hopeful councillor-to-be we are keen to continue supporting that drive if the majority of the new council is on board. But we will also soon come to a point where there?s nothing more that can be done and we will either have to consider reducing services (e.g. slow down delivery of footpaths, reduce library, youth and seniors services, stop mowing the sportsfields), or look towards other ways of funding activities.

One candidate has inferred that she will revisit the long term financial plan, which implies that she will sell off public assets. But from my perspective, this will only plug a gap in council?s own cost-of living crisis by one or two years. After that we?d have to sell something else. And we don?t have enough assets to keep council afloat like this forever. Asset sales are also not the best idea when we have a projected explosion in population growth and need to retain a sensible portfolio for public open space and/or community space.

Willoughby and Hornsby Council have dealt with the solution through increasing their rates by 15% and 31% respectively. They did so by extensively consulting the public to see what they wanted to do, and the public told them that they didn?t want to see a reduction in service delivery by maintaining the status quo of rates growing slower than cost inflation. The public told them that they wanted to see a drive for efficiencies, and that they were also willing to pay more so long as the council proved that it was delivering more.

For an example of the options that Willoughby provided, visit https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/48dc3fb6900dda3aa80bc7064a3a026721b32213/original/1694751512/7d6aa9cd39fde884296f0699681668a8_A3_Options_Matrix_Chart.pdf

We personally think the most appropriate course of action for Ku-ring-gai is to continue its focus on efficiencies for the time being. Then if at a later point in time the majority of councillors want to explore the option of maintaining our current level of service, or perhaps even increasing services/infrastructure, then it would be appropriate to consult the public and give them the choice, much in the same way that other councils have. We are actually fine to respect whatever the public decides, and in each scenario I?m flexible enough to make it happen. But we?d only earn the right to go out cap in hand if we have first demonstrated that we?ve looked really carefully at internal spend first.

Going back to the original topic? Would you like to see Council take a more proactive approach to Council-owned trees? Would you like to have more footpaths and fix road bottlenecks such as Tryon x Archbold? Would you like to see faster planning and development? Would you like playgrounds to be upgraded? Or are you looking for something much bigger such as the upgrade of a theatre? When the new council is elected, please pass your feedback to the new councillors. It is our hope that the new councillors can put together a list, prioritise what needs to happen first, and have a serious discussion about how and when these initiatives can be funded (reducing another service, selling off assets, or revisiting rates).

In July 2024 Council resolved to request an interim heritage order for the 23 Heritage Conservation Areas impacted by Transport Oriented Development. It was declared carried with all Councillors in support except for Cr Spencer. I could understand and sympathise with the perspective of both sides of the argument, though on this particular occasion I saw it as a case of using one unusual tool (IHO) to protect against the damaging elements of another unusual tool (TOD). I respect the position taken by each Councillors on this matter.

The Heritage Minister sent us a response yesterday to tell Council that she is not currently considering granting the IHO.

Today I responded to her with a follow-up letter and you can read it all in the images below.

You can also read more about the IHO’s rationale in the media release from 19 July 2024, linked below.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Council-supports-interim-heritage-order-for-key-suburbs

There will be a further housing update next week.

I have just hosted a citizenship ceremony where we welcomed 80 new Australian Citizens. I?m then off to West Pymble Venturers to talk about community service.

However across the road there is an event which, on the surface, is regarding the role of community participation in planning. I was invited to attend and at a high level I?d agree to some of these principles, however from a governance and policy perspective it was inappropriate for me to get involved.

Council has a standing resolution that the staff will conduct studies around the four Transport Oriented Development (TOD) precincts to explore better resident outcomes. The studies and scenario analysis will be presented before the community in early November as part of a community engagement process. The new Council will then consider next steps (such as a potential update to the Local Environment Plan) early next year.

But around the same time as this council resolution, a separate organisation approached Ku-ring-gai Council seeking funding to use their own people to run the planning and consultation. This would bypass the regular procurement process and put the steering of a critical planning function and community engagement into the hands of an unvetted external party. It was an unusual proposal.

My own preference would be to keep it neutral by using council staff to do the planning and communication as is the practice at other councils in NSW. I want to give all members of the public an equal opportunity to have a say, and let them be involved in detailed discussions. And this November I welcome all members of the public (including special interest groups) to participate in the feedback process.

But I do not support the idea of Council paying anyone to participate in the process, nor do I support the idea of giving any one individual or special interest group greater weighting or influence in the process than another. And the final decision needs to be made by the newly elected Council with the support of staff who know the LGA, not co-erced by an external body of non-local consultants and lobbyists from a ?not for profit? entity.

I also understand that some election candidates and community members participated in tonight?s event. I wouldn?t necessarily see this as a negative thing. For some of them I think they just did not have the same background information as I had and may therefore not have been aware of anything inappropriate. But ideally they should have done their research.

At the August 2024 council meeting we resolved to:

🙋‍♀️ Adopt a Prevention of Violence Against Women Action Plan, a first for Ku-ring-gai.

🏡 Put on public exhibition for at least 28 days an updated Planning Agreement Policy. Planning Agreements are a legal agreement between a developer and a planning authority where planning controls are varied in order to achieve a public benefit. Some examples may be to dedicate land for public recreation, environmental protection, road widening, or an extra road while allowing the developer to build an extra storey. It’s usually a win-win for both public benefit and future housing.

🌇 Modify and then support two Planning Proposals for a retirement village (110 homes) and residential development (181 homes) in Turramurra, to be sent to the Department of Planning for ‘Gateway Determination’. The Department of Planning will review the planning proposal and conditions before it goes to Public Exhibition and Assessment.

🚌 Write to the Minister for Transport and the NSW Premier to accelerate the delivery of rapid bus services along Mona Vale Road.

🐶 Explore setting up a small dog park at the site of the former Gordon Bowling Club site.

🗒️ Provide terms to council’s lawyers for the court-ordered mediation with the State Government re: housing, noting that this would not have been necessary had the Planning Minister responded to any of my earlier requests for good-faith collaboration in the last ten months.

There were other items as well, which you can read about in the draft minutes. (I will update with a link when this becomes available.)

Thank you Ku-ring-gai for choosing us to serve you from 2022 to 2024. We just had our last official Ordinary Meeting of Council last night, and the Council will enter caretaker period from Friday 16 August through to the election on Saturday 14 September. Our General Manager David Marshall will be in charge during this period.

I have personally enjoyed working with each of the councillors and I wish them (as well as the other candidates) all the best in the coming weeks. I would also like to thank the staff for their contributions (within the guidelines set by the governing body) to what is predominantly a well-run organisation that seeks to serve you as ratepayers.

At Ku-ring-gai we want to create opportunities for the youth to participate in policy and projects that matter to them, so we have started a Youth Advisory Committee.

Applications are open til 13 September.

If you know anyone who may be interested in participating, please check out the website.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Committees-and-Panels/Youth-Advisory-Committee

One thing that we are in the process of improving at Council is the way that we consult with or notify the community regarding proposed changes.

An example of this is Traffic DAs where our staff will traditionally send a notification to nearby households (eg 10 or 20), and then make a recommendation based on any feedback received. However these notifications may not necessarily go out to the wider group of residents who are affected by the traffic proposal, and a ward councillor may end up asking for the notification to go out to a wider group.

To assist with this process, I’ve asked the staff to make some of the larger impact matters available for online consultation so that we can reach a wider group of people.

We experimented with this approach when a roundabout was proposed to improve safety conditions at Trafalgar x Clanville. The traditional notification only generated a few responses, so when we switched to online we received quite a lot more. [I have not yet seen what these responses say.]

The process can still be improved. On hindsight I should have actively shared the consultation link on social media, and will aim to do so next time.

https://krg.engagementhub.com.au/clanville-trafalgar-roseville-proposed-roundabout

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.