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.
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.
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.
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.
🏘️ 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].
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
As you know Ku-ring-gai aspires to reach Net Zero by 2040, and part of this involves encouraging residents to electrify their transport.
We will be introducing more EV chargers in the coming months, and we also want to encourage residents to consider making their next car electric.
The NRMA recently held an EV test drive and awareness event at the HART driving school in St Ives. I was joined by Councillor Martin Smith and Councillor Kim Wheatley and we saw a wide range of vehicles manufactured by BMW, BYD, Ford, GWM, Hyundai, Kia, LDV, Mercedes, MG, Renault, Tesla and Volvo. There was also a VW Buggy retrofitted as an EV.
It was a good opportunity to test drive a number of vehicles and at this stage I still say that my personal favourite is the Tesla Model 3. Tesla has had more time to refine their product and it stands above the rest.
🪆🍀 Develop a multicultural inclusion plan and fund a multicultural festival (think of our well-attended Lunar New Year festival, but bigger).
🏐🍁Make amendments to the Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management to make the site safer to use for under 9’s and more accessible to all age groups.
🏃♀️➡️🏃➡️Reclassify the Roseville Chase Bowling Site to Community Land and develop a masterplan for future recreational use.
⚽️🏑Support Hornsby Council in lobbying for the retention of funding to develop Westleigh Park, which will provide critical infrastructure for residents in Northern Sydney.
📐🔍Make further improvements to our Enterprise Risk Framework and Internal Audit Charter, in alignment with updated requirements from the Office of Local Government.
🌆🏙️We also discussed 345 Pacific Highway, however that is a complex issue and I’d prefer to provide a more detailed post later this week after the recommendations of the Sydney North Planning Panel are also published. It’s not helpful to talk about it in little chunks.
Following considerable public interest as well as some confusion about the range of different housing policies and targets out there, the Council is running a series of community information sessions on the NSW Government’s Low- and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP changes.
The first session was held last night at Council chambers and it was well attended. There are further sessions available both in person and online, and if interested you are free to register to attend whichever one is most convenient for you. The content will be almost exactly the same at each session as the policy change applies consistently across NSW.
On 16 June, we are scheduled to plant trees at the West Pymble Village Green as part of a scientific and educational initiative on climate adaptation. This Tiny Forest will cover 5% of the site, and towards the edge. More information is available on Council’s website.
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/tinyforest
Reflecting on the overall comms leading up to 16 June, I think things could have been better.
We had fenced off almost half the site for related works / equipment movements, causing some residents to wonder whether half the site would be planted when in fact it is a much smaller area affected.
Council did consult nearby properties as part of the process and that should be commended, but with these plus our traffic developments, I think that in addition to household letters we can also provide more information on the website upfront and seek online submissions from the wider neighbourhood.
We will be revising Council’s Community Participation Plan in the coming months to improve the resident experience.
p.s. Photo was taken soon after my flu vaccination, hence the lollypop.
There are three separate State-led housing reforms that will lead to Ku-ring-gai’s population doubling within a few decades.
But we currently have residents out there (unintentionally or intentionally) mixing up the names of the reforms, mixing up suburb names, and mixing up the targets and durations so as to achieve their own political goals.
So just to be clear I will provide links to each of the reforms here.
NSW is seeking to deliver 377,000 new homes within 5 years under the National Housing Accord. Of the 377,000, Ku-ring-gai’s share is 7,600.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-targets
As part of delivering the target, there are three separate reforms being applied by the State to Ku-ring-gai.
In December 2023 they introduced in-fill affordable housing provisions.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/in-fill-affordable-housing-practice-note.pdf
In April 2024 they introduced Transport Oriented Development Part 2 provisions.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/transport-oriented-development-program.pdf
This month they will be introducing Low- and Mid-Rise Housing reforms.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/eie-changes-to-create-low-and-mid-rise-housing.pdf
We joined other LGNSW councils this morning in meeting with the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Planning. Most of the questions were around the delivery of social and affordable housing.
They said that today, the Premier will be announcing each LGA’s share of the five-year 377,000 housing target. I can’t comment on it until I see the numbers, so we just sit and wait. 🍿 As for longer term targets for each LGA (which would help us with setting up a new LEP), there is currently no information.
The NSW Government has just released its housing targets for each council to strive for in the coming 5 year period. For Ku-ring-gai it means 7,600 homes in the 5 years to 30 June 2029.
Under the state’s transport oriented and low- and mid-rise housing provisions, Ku-ring-gai can theoretically meet those targets. The supply is theoretically there. But my concern is whether there are enough construction workers to deliver on this theoretical target.
The target is also too short term. QLD has targets through to 2046, which allows councils to properly plan and deliver infrastructure for future generations. We believe that each council should receive a 20-year target to aspire to, and that councils are best placed to determine where the housing densities should go.
If Ku-ring-gai had the opportunity to deliver long term planning, it may result in the protection of heritage conservation areas and urban tree canopy in some places while other parts of each suburb may have greater density that improves the financial viability and timing of housing delivery.
It’s all well and good to offer councils a financial incentive for meeting these housing targets, but the main constraint here isn’t councils but is rather the availability of construction workers.
I want to make it clear that I have no problem with 6 storey buildings. People gotta live somewhere and I welcome them.
But what I have a problem with is the state government claiming that heritage controls will be respected, because in practice they cannot.
In the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program documentation it says that “heritage controls will apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with the new standards”.
In the SEPP it says that the consent authority cannot apply more onerous standards than the maximum height and floor space ratio set within the TOD provisions.
I’ve asked the Planning Minister multiple times in person and in writing how it is possible that we do FSR 3:1 in an HCA (later revised to FSR 2.5:1, matching what’s in this image) while still following the Apartment Design Guide for amenity. He told me the usual spiel about how councils have the ability to assess against heritage.
This is a problem not just for Sydney’s North, but also for the Ashfield, Dulwich Hill, and Marrickville. But for the Inner West they’ve kicked the can down to December and it’s currently radio silence.
The government just needs to say it as it is. The Heritage Conservation Areas within a TOD precinct will be a thing of the past.
Once again I need to make it clear that I have no problem with 6 storey buildings. My problem is the message that HCAs are compatible with the TOD.
And at Ku-ring-gai we are exploring ways to save these HCAs while still providing great infrastructure outcomes for future residents.
The Planning Proposal for 345 Pacific Highway will be decided by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on Monday 20 May, 12:30pm.
I haven’t had time to read through the reports but on page 35 the recommendation appears to suggest a reduced height of 12 storeys and FSR of 3.5:1. My own concern regarding Pacific Highway road widening appears to also have been covered, although I have yet to look into the detail.
Ku-ring-gai Councillors have no influence over what this independent planning panel does. The independent panel also has no obligation to follow the recommendations of the assessing officer.
With normal development applications, the meeting is open to the public but for an item like this, it’s closed off from public for some reason (I think that’s weird). I’ll ask council staff if there is a way for the public to make submissions.
So council just met and voted unanimously to proceed with legal action as well as to explore different density scenarios for our four Transport Oriented Development precincts.
I understand that there are some residents concerned about the cost of legal action but let me assure you, the benefits far outweigh the cost. In the last six months alone, Ku-ring-gai has already lost tens of millions in lost infrastructure opportunities as a result of a State Government that has shown no interest in talking to us prior to making detrimental decisions.
The value destruction is extensive.
They expect us to deliver the housing – and I am certainly up for the challenge – but to cripple both infrastructure expenses and funding before imposing a SEPP is just poor form.
13 councils have been willing to engage with the State to get the best possible outcomes, but the State was only genuinely interested in working with 12.
For those familiar with ‘The Trolley Problem’ then this is my summary of the dilemma that faces all councillors tomorrow night. We do it one way and get criticised. We do it another way and also get criticised. Critics from both sides don’t understand the complexity of the situation. As for how the trolley got to where it is right now, that is a frustrating thing as well… I wish the State Government was more genuine in its intent to collaborate with Local Government. And my perspective on the matter is covered in yesterday morning’s post (photo taken in the city).
I first wrote to the Planning Minister in November requesting a meeting to discuss housing. This he arranged for mid-February and later postponed to end-February. It took over three months to get the meeting, but at least he’s more responsive than the Transport Minister (crickets).
At the February meeting I asked for 12 months to plan for our Transport Oriented Development (TOD) precincts and he said NO. He later gave other (Labor) councils extensions ranging from 9-15 months.
He also said that we’d meet again in March, but then cancelled on me.
We finally met a second time in May and once again on grounds of fairness, I asked for 12 months similar to what he had offered other councils. He said NO. I told him that some residents wanted Council to commence a legal challenge if there wasn’t time to do proper planning.
On grounds of fairness, I also asked for funding to support some of our most pressing amenity needs (public open space, which we need to secure now as it cannot be retrofit). I said if he can make it work, we’ll promote it as a win-win. But surprise surprise, he said NO.
I pointed to the TOD Part 1 (Accelerated Precincts) program which aims to provide 47,800 homes in 15 years within a 1,200m radius of eight centres such as Crows Nest, Hornsby and Macquarie Park. I said it was unfair that they were getting $520m of infrastructure funding (~$10,800 per dwelling, 6,000 dwellings per centre) when we were getting no funding for 5,000 dwellings within an area 1/9th the size. And four of these.
He stuck with the no infrastructure funding line, and told me that I was wrong… That it was 47,800 dwelling in five years, and that there would be many more homes to come. He did say, however, that if Ku-ring-gai wanted to establish an Accelerated Precinct with 1,200m of a train station, he’d be open to talking about funding.
Of course I didn’t commit to anything as that would require a decision of council. But I did tell him that he needs to update his website if the intent genuinely is 47,800 dwellings in five years, because since December it has been saying 15 years.
If Labor had been genuine in working with Ku-ring-gai, we would have had a different outcome.
𝗡𝗦𝗪 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗙𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘁
You may have read in the papers that 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁. This is not a decision that should be taken lightly, however, I believe that it is necessary in the interest of future and current residents.
The first reason is 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. In my first meeting with the Planning Minister (over 3 months after I requested it), I asked for a 12 month extension to consult with the community and establish proper planning for the four Transport Oriented Development precincts and he said NO. Later on I find out that he has offered similar extensions to the majority of other councils, and is using Ku-ring-gai as the scapegoat. So what’s with that? It seems like the only way to get an extension is to go to court.
The second reason is 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. These TOD precincts will generate over $200 million in Housing and Productivity Contributions for the State Government, but when I asked the Planning Minister to assist us with some of our most time-sensitive / critical infrastructure needs (i.e. open space, which cannot be retrofitted) he did not commit to giving us a single cent. 𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗱 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗞𝘂-𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗴𝗮𝗶, 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 $𝟮𝟬𝟬𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀? Meanwhile, TOD Part 1 gets $520m of funding.
The third reason is out of respect for 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲. Now for those who have tracked my 6.5 years on council, I am not a heritage yes-man. On each occasion, whether it be a heritage conservation area or an individual heritage listing, I personally assess what’s proposed on its merits and I vote accordingly. Sometimes I vote in support of heritage listing. At other times I’ve been boo’d and scolded by residents during council meetings for voting against heritage protections on specific items that I didn’t believe met threshold. But what NSW Labor has legislated means the complete destruction of all heritage conservation areas. I do not believe it is possible to do floor space ratio 2.5:1 and height 22m while maintaining the integrity of a garden-style heritage conservation area. And many of Ku-ring-gai’s HCA’s are definitely worth fighting for.
Like the open letter before this, it is not a matter that should be taken lightly. Having said that, when there is so much at stake then I do believe it is worth taking a risk-based approach to decision making.
I do want Ku-ring-gai to provide more housing for the residents of tomorrow, but I also want it done on fair and just terms.
I’m pleased to announce that Council has appointed our Acting General Manager David Marshall as Ku-ring-gai’s next General Manager.
During his seven months in the acting role, he has led a range of process improvements.
We conducted a customer service audit which led to improvements to our training, procedures and systems that will lead to more timely response in the coming months.
For residents concerned about the ongoing loss of tree canopy and habitat destruction, Council’s response is limited by State law but we have introduced order provisions under the EP&A Act to require replacement planting of illegally removed trees, with regular follow-ups and fines if the order is breached.
With our asset infrastructure backlog, we have identified new methods which may significantly bring down the cost of maintaining our ageing stormwater infrastrucutre…. expected savings of ~$100m over the lifetime of the assets.
We have introduced a library app and are investigating the provision of an app to cover borader council services.
We are now reviewing the Development Application process, seeing what we can do to streamline the process and improve the customer experience as a whole. Other service reviews will be announced in the coming months.
Internally, councillors are also getting better follow-up to their queries, regular activity updates, and a proactive response to regulatory change.
In particular, David has been responsive to each councillor’s concerns regarding the upcoming Transport Oriented Development and Low- and Mid-Rise Housing policy changes. His role is to proactively provide the councillors with information and options to consider, then to carry out whatever it is that Council resolves. It was also his proactivity that resulted in early resident notification in January when other councils had not yet grasped the implications.
There were other promising candidates in the selection process as well. I would have been happy to work with any of them, though was of the view that David would be the most appropriate for Ku-ring-gai at this point in time. Local Government plays a sepcial role in the community and I am encouraged at the talent that is contributing to the sector.
Initial thoughts on yesterday’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Part 2 provisions.
Please note that I’m talking about what’s in the legislation itself, not what’s in a media release (which is not legally binding).
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/epi-2024-135
The 400m radius remains the same. Some would question whether it is realistic when TOD Part 1 uses a 1,200m distance.
The changes to height and floor space ratio sound gentler but in reality do not fix anything. What’s proposed is equivalent to the Lindfield IGA development with one less floor. There will still be no setback and it won’t achieve Greater Sydney’s 40% urban canopy target by 2036. The reduction in FSR will also mean that the any proposed development is less feasible, resulting in a slower rate of housing delivery.
The minimum lot width is a welcome change and will result in better outcomes for future residents.
2% minimum affordable housing target is very low. The Inner West for example has 15% in perpetuity and the Northern Beaches has targeted 10% in selected areas.
The SEPP itself is silent on heritage, and there are some provisions which might suggest the heritage conservation areas are still under threat. Further clarification is required.
It is also unclear whether a subsequent council-led change to the Local Environment Plan could result in the removal of the SEPP. What was proposed in December suggested that this was an option, but the SEPP that was gazetted yesterday does not provide for this. I will ask the Minister on Thursday.
I expect the state to raise $1.5Bn of Housing and Productivity Contributions from these developments in 37 precincts, but nothing has been committed to improving local infrastructure. This is different to Part 1 where $520m was committed for critical road upgrades, active transport links and public open spaces (approx. $10,800 per dwelling). I will be asking the Minister on Thursday re: infrastructure support.
I’m aware that the Department of Planning’s website has been updated with slightly watered down TOD parameters. But the SEPP has not yet been gazetted and I don’t have access to the final words.
I won’t be making any comment until I see the legislation.
Earlier this week the North Shore Times reported a Planning Proposal for a 15 storey development at 345 Pacific Highway Lindfield which caused a stir. If approved, it will have implications for increasing housing supply, setting a new precedent of heights in the suburb, and also traffic implications. The developer has rejected Council’s suggestion of widening the Pacific Highway southbound bottleneck from 2 lanes (effective) to 3 lanes, matching the 3 lanes present at the rest of the highway. Details below.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲?
Council’s Local Environment Plan (LEP) zones this land as E1 Local Centre. 2,665 sqm of land with allowed heights of 11.5m (3 storeys) and floor space ratio of 1:1 (i.e. 2,665 sqm of floor space).
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 (𝗧𝗢𝗗 𝗦𝗘𝗣𝗣)?
As the site is within 400m of Lindfield Station, which is a future TODD site, the owners will be allowed to build at a height of 21m (6-7 storeys) with floor space ratio of 3:1 (i.e. 7,995 sqm).
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹?
It is a proposal, typically initiated by a land owner, to change the properties of an existing LEP. In this case, the owner wants to build taller than the 3 storeys and 2,665 sqm of floor space that is currently allowed.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸?
An increase of the height from 11.5m to 55m (15 storeys).
An increase of the floor space ratio from 1:1 to 4.5:1 (11,992.5 sqm).
𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹?
No, it has been initiated by the land owner.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱?
A range of reasons were provided including
Proximity to the railway station, multiple bus services, and the highway. The absence of environmental constraints such as bushfire or flooding hazards.
Minimal impact on neighbouring properties due to being an ‘island’ site.
Consistency with various State, Regional and Local planning objectives.
𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱?
From what I understand, the Planning Proposal is going through two separate and parallel pathways.
The conventional path has council officers assessing the proposal. Once assessed, it will go to an independent planning panel (in this case the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel) in May before going to a Council vote in June. If Council supports the proposal, then it will go to the Department of Planning for a ‘Gateway Determination’. If Council does not support, then it will follow an alternate path (which has already been triggered).
The alternate path which is happening in parallel is that the owner has requested a ‘Rezoning Review’ which means that an independent planning panel (in this case, probably the Sydney North Planning Panel) will review the matter before it goes to the Department of Planning for a ‘Gateway Determination’. It’s too early to tell how long it will take the independent panel to assess the matter, but Q2 or Q3 2024 may be a reasonable estimate.
In either case, if it reaches Gateway Determination then there will be some further assessments and public exhibition of what’s proposed before a final decision is made. Depending on what exactly happens, the decision maker may be the council, or a planning panel, or even the Minister of Planning. It is too early to tell which path will be taken.
𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱?
I don’t know. But there has been a history of planning proposals rejected by Council but subsequently approved by an alternate pathway.
𝗜𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀?
It may provide for more housing near the town centre. Each person has their own interpretation over whether this is good or bad.
It may set a precedent for building heights and floor space ratios elsewhere in the suburb.
📰 Publishing an open letter in national, metropolitan and local news publications to address Council’s concerns about the impacts of State Housing Policies
In short, the minister says that 6 months is a reasonable timeframe to conduct studies, bypass community consultation, establish a plan without a target for the LMRH SEPP, and get an LEP approved.
The mayor said that 12-18 months is a more realistic timeframe to consult the community with targets, plan for good outcomes, and that funding is required to make it happen.
For the last five weeks I have personally been waiting for Minister Scully to further engage but he has not. Now it is clear why; he wants to portray the message that we have not collaborated on the process when in reality he has not been engaging on reasonable terms.
Gordon Creek is usually just a trickle but on Saturday midday, a few hours after the rain stopped, I joined my reptilian friend in watching a robust stream pass through. The stream was fed by runoff from stormwater systems, overland flow, and underground seepage as it made its way downhill. With the State Government’s future Transport Oriented Development, we will see more hard surfaces directly connected to stormwater and less soft landscaping (trees, bush, grass) to absorb and hold back the rain. This in turn will mean that water will get released into our creeks and rivers at a much faster rate, causing greater flooding and erosion.
This week over 100 residents registered for our first ever Tree Forum to hear what Ku-ring-gai is doing to protect its trees, ask questions, and contribute their own ideas.
👮Council spoke about its plans to increase tree compliance officer activity supported by a 24/7 hotline. The jobs are currently being advertised for anyone interested.
🌲Council also spoke about the recent introduction of Tree Replacement Orders which require landowners to plant replacement trees for illegal activity, with regular followups and fines for non-compliance. The Tree Replacement Order is tied to the land rather than the owner, so future land owners are also required to follow the order until the tree reaches maturity.
🎄Council covered other initiatives such as our urban forest strategy, tree inventory and planting analysis, community nursery, street tree planting pilot, tree tag project, smart schools and comms.
⚖️Council explained that much of what we can do (nature of investigation, size of fines, effectiveness of court orders) is constrained by State law.
Thanks everyone for your role in this process.
For further information, refer to the video and slide pack.
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Tree-Forum-success
This week over 100 residents registered for our first ever Tree Forum to hear what Ku-ring-gai is doing to protect its trees, ask questions, and contribute their own ideas.
👮Council spoke about its plans to increase tree compliance officer activity supported by a 24/7 hotline. The jobs are currently being advertised for anyone interested.
🌲Council also spoke about the recent introduction of Tree Replacement Orders which require landowners to plant replacement trees for illegal activity, with regular followups and fines for non-compliance. The Tree Replacement Order is tied to the land rather than the owner, so future land owners are also required to follow the order until the tree reaches maturity.
🎄Council covered other initiatives such as our urban forest strategy, tree inventory and planting analysis, community nursery, street tree planting pilot, tree tag project, smart schools and comms.
⚖️Council explained that much of what we can do (nature of investigation, size of fines, effectiveness of court orders) is constrained by State law.
Thanks everyone for your role in this process.
For further information, refer to the video and slide pack.
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Tree-Forum-success
This evening I’m attending Ku-ring-gai’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee as an observer.
Of particular interest this quarter are two audits on 🤵♀️ Customer Service and 🌲Tree Management, where opportunities were identified to improve our service delivery. I look forward to seeing the benefits flow to you as ratepayers.
This evening I’m attending Ku-ring-gai’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee as an observer.
Of particular interest this quarter are two audits on 🤵♀️ Customer Service and 🌲Tree Management, where opportunities were identified to improve our service delivery. I look forward to seeing the benefits flow to you as ratepayers.
Because of COVID ripping through our household, I had to attend the quarterly NSROC meeting of Northern Sydney councils online. The focus of this quarter’s meeting was on waste recycling and transfer as well as support for urban canopies. Also discussed was the impact of the Rozelle Interchange on traffic in Ryde / Hunters Hill / Lane Cove, as well as a brief update on the State Government’s Housing Policies.
I’ll be holed up for a while, although appreciate that there’s more flexibility these days with outdoor exercise, etc.
🔥We agonised for two years on whether to replace our gas cooktop and oven. We didn’t like the idea of throwing it out because of all the embedded energy, however the oven no longer worked properly and gas apparently has health impacts in an indoor environment.
⚡The transition to induction cooktop was amazing!!! The cooktop heats things so quickly, it’s faster to boil water on the cooktop than to use an electric kettle. It’s easy to specify the exact amount of power that we want, the cooktop is easy to clean, and no accidental burns. We’ve really benefitted form the induction cooktop and wish we had made the transition earlier.
🗓️If you’re interested to find out more, our council has a webinar on Switching to Induction Cooking on 13th March at 12pm. For more info visit
https://www.facebook.com/events/664389969046472/
🧑🍳If you prefer something hands on rather than online, feel free to contact me and we can arrange to cook a meal together.
Loving Living Ku-ring-gai
🔥We agonised for two years on whether to replace our gas cooktop and oven. We didn’t like the idea of throwing it out because of all the embedded energy, however the oven no longer worked properly and gas apparently has health impacts in an indoor environment.
⚡The transition to induction cooktop was amazing!!! The cooktop heats things so quickly, it’s faster to boil water on the cooktop than to use an electric kettle. It’s easy to specify the exact amount of power that we want, the cooktop is easy to clean, and no accidental burns. We’ve really benefitted form the induction cooktop and wish we had made the transition earlier.
🗓️If you’re interested to find out more, our council has a webinar on Switching to Induction Cooking on 13th March at 12pm. For more info visit
https://www.facebook.com/events/664389969046472/
🧑🍳If you prefer something hands on rather than online, feel free to contact me and we can arrange to cook a meal together.
@[100064452052016:2048:Loving Living Ku-ring-gai]
Today I visited Woolloomooloo which in the 70’s was at the heart of major union confrontations seeking to protect their homes against inappropriate development.
Through the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) and the Green Bans movement, strikes were organised against developers who were seeking to build skyscrapers at Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, Leichhardt, Hunters Hill, the Botanical Gardens and other parklands which were considered trash in the past but are now treasured for their heritage values today (and major tourist hotspots).
Some places like Woolloomooloo did not entirely escape development. There were politicians, developers, police, thugs, media all working together against the workers who squatted and refused to leave their homes. A much loved newspaper owner Juanita Nelson was murdered. And eventually the $$$ won out.
The mural behind me depicts local workers and resident action groups protesting to “Support BLF Green Bans” and “Demand Homes for Public Need, Stop Highrise for Private Greed”.
The Liberals eventually lost office and the new Labor Government introduced the Heritage Act 1977 as well as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These laws introduced heritage conservation, community consultation, development controls, and a planning assessment process where environmental considerations were given weight.
Ironically, these principles are ones that appear to be going out the window fifty years on under a different Labor government.
Today I visited Woolloomooloo which in the 70’s was at the heart of major union confrontations seeking to protect their homes against inappropriate development.
Through the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) and the Green Bans movement, strikes were organised against developers who were seeking to build skyscrapers at Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, Leichhardt, Hunters Hill, the Botanical Gardens and other parklands which were considered trash in the past but are now treasured for their heritage values today (and major tourist hotspots).
Some places like Woolloomooloo did not entirely escape development. There were politicians, developers, police, thugs, media all working together against the workers who squatted and refused to leave their homes. A much loved newspaper owner Juanita Nelson was murdered. And eventually the $$$ won out.
The mural behind me depicts local workers and resident action groups protesting to “Support BLF Green Bans” and “Demand Homes for Public Need, Stop Highrise for Private Greed”.
The Liberals eventually lost office and the new Labor Government introduced the Heritage Act 1977 as well as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These laws introduced heritage conservation, community consultation, development controls, and a planning assessment process where environmental considerations were given weight.
Ironically, these principles are ones that appear to be going out the window fifty years on under a different Labor government.
Good morning everyone. At last night’s council meeting, council voted to:
🏙️Support the council’s submission on the state housing proposals. While council recognises the need to provide more housing, each council must have the opportunity to say where the housing goes and back it with appropriate planning and infrastructure.
🎭Investigate the cost of reviving the Marian Street Theatre with minimal works.
🙋Support the introduction of the Welcome Here project in Ku-ring-gai, which aims to promote community awareness and safety for the LGBTIQ community.
🏐Commence a public exhibition to explore more flexibility with age restrictions at the Canoon Road netball facilities.
😓Implement a once off grant program to support residents undergoing financial hardship.
📊Begin the recruitment process for the General Manager.
𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹
Good morning everyone. At last night’s council meeting, council voted to:
🏙️Support the council’s submission on the state housing proposals. While council recognises the need to provide more housing, each council must have the opportunity to say where the housing goes and back it with appropriate planning and infrastructure.
🎭Investigate the cost of reviving the Marian Street Theatre with minimal works.
🙋Support the introduction of the Welcome Here project in Ku-ring-gai, which aims to promote community awareness and safety for the LGBTIQ community.
🏐Commence a public exhibition to explore more flexibility with age restrictions at the Canoon Road netball facilities.
😓Implement a once off grant program to support residents undergoing financial hardship.
📊Begin the recruitment process for the General Manager.
Last night council voted unanimously to take action against the State Government’s housing policies. It was an unusual experience because as councillors we almost never agree on something this big!
In short, the view was that housing uplift needed to be accompanied with appropriate urban planning – however the state approach bypasses both community consultation and planning and would therefore deliver suboptimal outcomes.
As a politician from the North Shore, I received a generous invitation from our State Treasurer Daniel Mookhey MLC today to visit Meadowbank and “tell them what’s wrong with it”.
What did I find? Well I found that the residents at Meadowbank are incredibly blessed with multiple forms of public transport (ferry, train, buses) all within a few hundred metres of their home. They also had close proximity to multiple parks, open spaces, sports facilities, a shopping village, a foreshore walk and a pleasant sea breeze.
It’s a sensible place to put housing density and I am actually quite jealous of the residents who live here.
But the only reason why it is the way it is is because there has been deliberate planning in the establishment of the suburb, with the benefit of repurposing large former industrial lots and certain natural advantages that come with the geographic area.
Suburbs like Roseville and Killara, by contrast, do not have any of these advantages and it is difficult for developers to do anything meaningful without the almost impossible task of purchasing entire street blocks. And so when it comes to planning for future growth (which I am open to), it is important to consider how to deliver appropriate infrastructure and provide for the quality of life amenities that the residents of Meadowbank have.
But that is not what the residents of Roseville and Killara are getting in April. They will have housing policies imposed on them without any consultation, and without the natural infrastructure benefits that Meadowbank has.
If the state government was generous enough to support our infrastructure and amenities then sure, that would be a different conversation, but in the current form the housing proposals are not tenable.
I will share more about the flaws in the current proposal in my next post.
As a politician from the North Shore, I received a generous invitation from our State Treasurer @[100050246809705:2048:Daniel Mookhey MLC] today to visit Meadowbank and “tell them what’s wrong with it”.
What did I find? Well I found that the residents at Meadowbank are incredibly blessed with multiple forms of public transport (ferry, train, buses) all within a few hundred metres of their home. They also had close proximity to multiple parks, open spaces, sports facilities, a shopping village, a foreshore walk and a pleasant sea breeze.
It’s a sensible place to put housing density and I am actually quite jealous of the residents who live here.
But the only reason why it is the way it is is because there has been deliberate planning in the establishment of the suburb, with the benefit of repurposing large former industrial lots and certain natural advantages that come with the geographic area.
Suburbs like Roseville and Killara, by contrast, do not have any of these advantages and it is difficult for developers to do anything meaningful without the almost impossible task of purchasing entire street blocks. And so when it comes to planning for future growth (which I am open to), it is important to consider how to deliver appropriate infrastructure and provide for the quality of life amenities that the residents of Meadowbank have.
But that is not what the residents of Roseville and Killara are getting in April. They will have housing policies imposed on them without any consultation, and without the natural infrastructure benefits that Meadowbank has.
If the state government was generous enough to support our infrastructure and amenities then sure, that would be a different conversation, but in the current form the housing proposals are not tenable.
I will share more about the flaws in the current proposal in my next post.
Today I visited Summer Hill, a suburb which in many ways reminds me of Roseville as it has its fair share of heritage conservation areas. The houses here are beautiful and reflect the character and early development of Sydney.
There is however one thing that distinguishes Summer Hill from Roseville and that is the wider range of infrastructure and transport options available to it. Like Roseville there is a railway station but this one is closer to the city (16 mins vs 23 mins). But Summer Hill also has a light rail station; it is incredibly well connected. Summer Hill also has a supermarket!
Given its distinct advantages over Roseville it does surprise me that Summer Hill has not been flagged for April’s non-consultative TOD housing program.
Two weeks ago at a briefing with the Department of Planning we asked them for the rationale of selecting Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon as part of the plan. And do you know what they said? They told us that modelling had been done but that it was “cabinet in confidence” so they can’t tell us.
I think what they meant to say was that since Summer Hill is in the heart of Transport Minister Jo Haylen ‘s electorate, it could not be touched regardless of its proximity to the city.
All in all, quite disappointing really and in tonight’s motion Councillor Martin Smith and Councillor Kim Wheatley will seek to acquire these documents through the GIPA (similar to freedom of information) process.
To rub insult into injury, Minister Haylen was also the one who effectively killed off the Lindfield Village Hub in December when, just one day before council was to sign a contract with the developer, illegally withdrew state government funding without consultation and thew the project in disarray. Gone is the opportunity to deliver a few hundred homes for residents this decade. Gone is the opportunity to provide a library, open space, park, and community facilities for the residents of tomorrow.
I am disappointed by this value destructive behaviour. Bringing the population of Chatswood into each of our four stations, without providing the necessary infrastructure or urban planning for each centre to thrive will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes than if the state government were to work together with us on these matters.
Today I visited Summer Hill, a suburb which in many ways reminds me of Roseville as it has its fair share of heritage conservation areas. The houses here are beautiful and reflect the character and early development of Sydney.
There is however one thing that distinguishes Summer Hill from Roseville and that is the wider range of infrastructure and transport options available to it. Like Roseville there is a railway station but this one is closer to the city (16 mins vs 23 mins). But Summer Hill also has a light rail station; it is incredibly well connected. Summer Hill also has a supermarket!
Given its distinct advantages over Roseville it does surprise me that Summer Hill has not been flagged for April’s non-consultative TOD housing program.
Two weeks ago at a briefing with the Department of Planning we asked them for the rationale of selecting Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon as part of the plan. And do you know what they said? They told us that modelling had been done but that it was “cabinet in confidence” so they can’t tell us.
I think what they meant to say was that since Summer Hill is in the heart of Transport Minister @[100044424429649:2048:Jo Haylen] ‘s electorate, it could not be touched regardless of its proximity to the city.
All in all, quite disappointing really and in tonight’s motion @[100063481211240:2048:Councillor Martin Smith] and @[100081079106909:2048:Councillor Kim Wheatley] will seek to acquire these documents through the GIPA (similar to freedom of information) process.
To rub insult into injury, Minister Haylen was also the one who effectively killed off the Lindfield Village Hub in December when, just one day before council was to sign a contract with the developer, illegally withdrew state government funding without consultation and thew the project in disarray. Gone is the opportunity to deliver a few hundred homes for residents this decade. Gone is the opportunity to provide a library, open space, park, and community facilities for the residents of tomorrow.
I am disappointed by this value destructive behaviour. Bringing the population of Chatswood into each of our four stations, without providing the necessary infrastructure or urban planning for each centre to thrive will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes than if the state government were to work together with us on these matters.
Encouraged to see so many register to attend Wednesday’s public information session on the State Government’s housing proposals.
800 had registered to attend but with a capacity of 150, Zoom was offered as a spillover. The slides plus video of the event are available here. krg.nsw.gov.au/housinginfosession
Ku-ring-gai’s diverse group of residents often disagree on big issues, but it is amazing how the State Government’s lack of public consultation, secrecy, and overzealous approach has brought those who usually disagree onto the same page.
Looking at the broader picture, I understand that some people in NSW see this as pure NIMBYism but from my perspective that is a gross oversimplification that does not truly account for what is happening on the ground. There are many residents who believe that more can be done to support housing diversity however the State Government’s approach does not achieve this in a realistic or appropriate manner.
Key concerns shared include the inadequacy of funding and support for existing and future infrastructure (existing traffic bottlenecks, future congestion, stormwater limitations, access to open space, etc.), the impact on tree canopy, biodiversity and climate resilience, and the loss of local heritage and character.
In the minority, there has also been the occasional YIMBY in Ku-ring-gai but my message to them is that while I understand the sentiments, it does not mean careful planning, modelling, procedure, consultation, and budgeting needs to be thrown out the window in an attempt to obtain a theoretical but unworkable outcome. To date there have been some pretty dismissive responses such as “developer contributions will fund everything” but if you look at the details and do the numbers, it’s clear that it will not be adequate given the LGA’s physical constraints and existing funding models.
All Ku-ring-gai residents are encouraged to read about the housing changes, let us know their thoughts via the survey, and make a submission to the State Government. For more information refer to krg.nsw.gov.au/housingchanges
p.s. I was late to the meeting, ironically due to traffic congestion from Roseville to Gordon.
Encouraged to see so many register to attend Wednesday’s public information session on the State Government’s housing proposals.
800 had registered to attend but with a capacity of 150, Zoom was offered as a spillover. The slides plus video of the event are available here. krg.nsw.gov.au/housinginfosession
Ku-ring-gai’s diverse group of residents often disagree on big issues, but it is amazing how the State Government’s lack of public consultation, secrecy, and overzealous approach has brought those who usually disagree onto the same page.
Looking at the broader picture, I understand that some people in NSW see this as pure NIMBYism but from my perspective that is a gross oversimplification that does not truly account for what is happening on the ground. There are many residents who believe that more can be done to support housing diversity however the State Government’s approach does not achieve this in a realistic or appropriate manner.
Key concerns shared include the inadequacy of funding and support for existing and future infrastructure (existing traffic bottlenecks, future congestion, stormwater limitations, access to open space, etc.), the impact on tree canopy, biodiversity and climate resilience, and the loss of local heritage and character.
In the minority, there has also been the occasional YIMBY in Ku-ring-gai but my message to them is that while I understand the sentiments, it does not mean careful planning, modelling, procedure, consultation, and budgeting needs to be thrown out the window in an attempt to obtain a theoretical but unworkable outcome. To date there have been some pretty dismissive responses such as “developer contributions will fund everything” but if you look at the details and do the numbers, it’s clear that it will not be adequate given the LGA’s physical constraints and existing funding models.
All Ku-ring-gai residents are encouraged to read about the housing changes, let us know their thoughts via the survey, and make a submission to the State Government. For more information refer to krg.nsw.gov.au/housingchanges
p.s. I was late to the meeting, ironically due to traffic congestion from Roseville to Gordon.
We mentioned last month that the State Government is making significant changes to housing policy across all of NSW (with limited opportunity for resident and council input).
I’m frustrated that their plans have been leaked or released in snippets rather than all at once. By incrementally providing the news over the holiday break, residents haven’t had the opportunity to consider what is proposed in its entirety and make an informed view on whether the changes are appropriate.
Our own understanding of the changes have also evolved in this time. The latest information suggests that there 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 be less of an impact on neighbourhood centres away from train stations than we were initially led to believe, however this is offset by the allowance of dual-occupancies (either standalone or duplex) in small lots of 450sqm. On a larger block of 900sqm, that means there could be four homes. The potential impacts on tree canopy are also quite brutal.
Our council staff have summarised all the changes in a four page brochure and this brochure has gone out to all ratepayers. For those who receive physical rates notice, check your letterbox. For those who get it via email, check your emails from last Friday. You can also get the information on our council’s webpage.
The State Government has established a feedback process with responses due February. As a council, we are also keen to hear what residents thinks about these changes. So take a look and please let us know what you think while council ponders next steps.
�There will also be an opportunity to attend a public information session held on Wednesday 31 January. More information will become available on the link closer to the time.
The media has just reported that the state government will “𝘀𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴” in 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲, 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱, 𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗼𝗻.
What does this mean? I don’t know yet as no official documents have been released. But I assume it means more building heights and when we find out the details, we will let you know.
The media has just reported that the state government will “𝘀𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴” in 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲, 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱, 𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗼𝗻.
What does this mean? I don’t know yet as no official documents have been released. But I assume it means more building heights and when we find out the details, we will let you know.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/revealed-the-25-sydney-suburbs-where-the-government-will-seize-control-of-housing-20231205-p5ep72.html
The State Government has been drip-feeding information on their top-down (bypassing council) housing density changes, with a public feedback process to commence early December.
What I discovered yesterday is that their definition of a ‘well-located area’ (for greater housing density) includes E1 local centres with frequently needed goods and services such as full line supermarkets, shops, and restaurants. So that will probably include places such as North Turramurra, St Ives North, West Pymble, East Lindfield and Eastern Road.
3-6 storey apartments will be allowed as shop top housing as well as in existing R3 Medium Density Zones.
Terraces, townhouses and manor houses will be allowed in existing R2 Low Density Zones that are within 800m walk of the local centre (shops).
Everywhere beyond 800m will allow for two homes on one lot.
High level information is available on the Department of Planning website.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/diverse-and-well-located-homes
And their original 28 Nov announcement is here.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/news/new-planning-rules-fast-track-low-and-mid-rise-housing
At this stage, I see council’s role as to make residents aware of the proposal (once the full details have been released in the coming fortnight), to help residents understand the implications of the proposal, and to encourage residents to participate in the State Government’s public feedback process.
Separately, councils across NSW will also be lobbying for appropriate infrastructure funding to support the increasing population. Because behind the scenes there are serious road, stormwater, transport, and other bottlenecks associated with this change. [Admittedly, the densification will occur over a few decades so there will hopefully be time to ramp up.]
More information to come once the State Gov gives us the details.
This morning the State Government proposed that in order to boost housing supply, it will:
1️⃣ allow dual occupancies (two homes) on all R2 low density across NSW
2️⃣ allow terraces and townhouses on R2 low density ‘near transport hubs and town centres’
3️⃣ allow 4-6 storey apartments on R3 medium density ‘near transport hubs and town centres’ (meaning within 800m of hubs / centres)
With 2️⃣ and 3️⃣ it’s important to note that there has been a softening of language because last month’s message was that they will allow it across 𝘢𝘭𝘭 of NSW rather than limit it to places close to transport.
Having said that, both 1️⃣ and 2️⃣ will significantly increase the number of households here in Ku-ring-gai while decreasing the open space (and tree canopy) that we have in our yards. We currently have capacity for approximately 45,000 households but the change if implemented will result in a capacity that well exceeds 80,000. (And by way of comparison, the controversial housing strategy plans from three years ago targeted 54,000 by 2036.)
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀. But whether we’re talking about existing bottlenecks on Archbold Road, Boundary Street, and Pacific Highway or last week’s removal of $9.8m funding for commuter parking, the signs that I’m getting is that 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳.
I’m meeting with the Planning Minister next month so that we can finetune our understanding of proposed changes and explore how the housing needs of Greater Sydney can be met with appropriate infrastructure.
For more information see
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/news/new-planning-rules-fast-track-low-and-mid-rise-housing
Update: Public consultation on the matter to occur over Christmas.
𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
😢It was a sad night. Last night was meant to be the time when we voted to proceed with the Lindfield Village Hub. We were ready to announce the development partner and proceed with lodging a Development Application next year. Instead, 8 hours prior to the council meeting the State Government told Council that it will withdraw its funding and support for the Lindfield Village Hub 135 space commuter carpark (even though the $9.8m was already in our bank). This surprising turn of events changes the financial certainty of the project and as a result, the councillors voted to defer the decision while discussions take place on next steps.
Earlier this month the State Government also requested that all councils urgently look at increasing the housing capacity supported by their Local Environment Plan and Planning Controls. The frustrating thing with this is that I am a firm believer that increased density needs to be supported by appropriate infrastructure. We already have infrastructure bottlenecks in each suburb; now the State Government is killing infrastructure projects while still requiring additional housing (and it is not helped that rates increases are limited at below the rate of inflation). The local government sector has not been setup for success, and more information is available on Council’s website.
🛝Last night we also voted to select appropriate firms to upgrade stage 1 of Hassall Park in St Ives and Eldinhope Green in Wahroonga. We also voted to make a space next to Council chambers (9 Dumaresq Street) in Gordon available for passive recreation after the building that was on the site was demolished earlier in the year.
🎭We voted to establish an Arts and Culture Committee as well as a Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.
🌲We voted to increase the headcount of staff dedicated to tree issues and also to re-establish a former practice of displaying a 🕎 Chanukah-related Menorah in Gordon, next to our 🎄Christmas tree.
✉️ Councillors also voted for the Mayor to write a letter of thanks to the former General Manager and publish the letter on Council’s website.
𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
😢It was a sad night. Last night was meant to be the time when we voted to proceed with the Lindfield Village Hub. We were ready to announce the development partner and proceed with lodging a Development Application next year. Instead, 8 hours prior to the council meeting the State Government told Council that it will withdraw its funding and support for the Lindfield Village Hub 135 space commuter carpark (even though the $9.8m was already in our bank). This surprising turn of events changes the financial certainty of the project and as a result, the councillors voted to defer the decision while discussions take place on next steps.
Earlier this month the State Government also requested that all councils urgently look at increasing the housing capacity supported by their Local Environment Plan and Planning Controls. The frustrating thing with this is that I am a firm believer that increased density needs to be supported by appropriate infrastructure. We already have infrastructure bottlenecks in each suburb; now the State Government is killing infrastructure projects while still requiring additional housing (and it is not helped that rates increases are limited at below the rate of inflation). The local government sector has not been setup for success, and more information is available on Council’s website.
🛝Last night we also voted to select appropriate firms to upgrade stage 1 of Hassall Park in St Ives and Eldinhope Green in Wahroonga. We also voted to make a space next to Council chambers (9 Dumaresq Street) in Gordon available for passive recreation after the building that was on the site was demolished earlier in the year.
🎭We voted to establish an Arts and Culture Committee as well as a Status of Women’s Advisory Committee.
🌲We voted to increase the headcount of staff dedicated to tree issues and also to re-establish a former practice of displaying a 🕎 Chanukah-related Menorah in Gordon, next to our 🎄Christmas tree.
✉️ Councillors also voted for the Mayor to write a letter of thanks to the former General Manager and publish the letter on Council’s website.
I’m at the annual Local Government NSW conference where councils get together to share knowledge and also agree on matters to collectively work on, including the lobbying of the state and federal government on key issues.
Ku-ring-gai in particular has motions in relation to Private Certifier activity, trees, and the costs associated with assessing development. Other key themes include housing, waste, finances, community, the energy transition, and water management.
I’m at the annual Local Government NSW conference where councils get together to share knowledge and also agree on matters to collectively work on, including the lobbying of the state and federal government on key issues.
Ku-ring-gai in particular has motions in relation to Private Certifier activity, trees, and the costs associated with assessing development. Other key themes include housing, waste, finances, community, the energy transition, and water management.
𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹
Every three years we seek community members for our Local Planning Panels, which determine Development Applications worth between $5m and $30m, and other significant heritage or high-compliant applications.
Our talent pool for these positions have typically been shallow, so if you know any town planners, architects, environmental lawyers and the like who live in Ku-ring-gai and want to get involved, please ask them to apply at
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Ku-ring-gai-Local-Planning-Panel-KLPP-Community-representatives
𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹
Every three years we seek community members for our Local Planning Panels, which determine Development Applications worth between $5m and $30m, and other significant heritage or high-compliant applications.
Our talent pool for these positions have typically been shallow, so if you know any town planners, architects, environmental lawyers and the like who live in Ku-ring-gai and want to get involved, please ask them to apply at
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Ku-ring-gai-Local-Planning-Panel-KLPP-Community-representatives
In 2018, 𝗜 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 but was discouraged by the EPA as organic waste was required in red bins to support electricity generation at the Woodlawn Bioreactor.
More recently, the 𝗡𝗦𝗪 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟬. Once industry has built the capacity to process food waste, it will be collected in maroon-lidded bins and reduce waste going to landfill by a third.
Last year the Northern Sydney Councils jointly trialled separated food-waste collection with 2,400 households. The trials found that certain household types had 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱-𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗶𝗻𝘀, making it expensive or impossible to recycle. There were also issues with 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗸𝘆 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 and 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗻-𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝗻𝘀. Further education will be required in supporting the future rollout of food-only bins.
For more information refer to the NSROC report:
https://nsroc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/16142_NSROC-Foof-Organics-Exec-Summary-12pp-web-reduced-1.pdf
𝗙𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 – 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘂𝘁
In 2018, 𝗜 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 but was discouraged by the EPA as organic waste was required in red bins to support electricity generation at the Woodlawn Bioreactor.
More recently, the 𝗡𝗦𝗪 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟬. Once industry has built the capacity to process food waste, it will be collected in maroon-lidded bins and reduce waste going to landfill by a third.
Last year the Northern Sydney Councils jointly trialled separated food-waste collection with 2,400 households. The trials found that certain household types had 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱-𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗶𝗻𝘀, making it expensive or impossible to recycle. There were also issues with 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗸𝘆 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 and 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗻-𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝗻𝘀. Further education will be required in supporting the future rollout of food-only bins.
For more information refer to the NSROC report:
https://nsroc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/16142_NSROC-Foof-Organics-Exec-Summary-12pp-web-reduced-1.pdf
This week I was honoured to be elected by Councillors to the position of Mayor with Deputy Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Cr Christine Kay supporting as Deputy Mayor through to September 2024. We take time to thank Cr Jeff Pettett and Cr Barbara Ward for their service as Mayor and Deputy in the last two years.
As Mayor, my aim is to collaboratively lead the Council and build on relationships with residents and with staff. I also know that each councillor genuinely cares for the community, and I believe that our diverse views will produce the best outcomes if we engage in respectful conversation.
In these 12 months we hope to deliver meaningful changes that improve your quality of life. We have commenced a customer service review which should lead to more efficient and effective responses to your queries. We are also reviewing our internal spend to identify savings which can fund infrastructure and process improvements.
The decisions that we make must benefit current and future generations, and where appropriate it is important to engage residents in the process.
I look forward to seeing you at some of the great events that Council has organised this month. With warmer weather and school holidays, there is no better time to be in Ku-ring-gai.
Mayor Sam Ngai
This week I was honoured to be elected by Councillors to the position of Mayor with @[100049240526757:2048:Deputy Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Cr Christine Kay] supporting as Deputy Mayor through to September 2024. We take time to thank Cr Jeff Pettett and Cr Barbara Ward for their service as Mayor and Deputy in the last two years.
As Mayor, my aim is to collaboratively lead the Council and build on relationships with residents and with staff. I also know that each councillor genuinely cares for the community, and I believe that our diverse views will produce the best outcomes if we engage in respectful conversation.
In these 12 months we hope to deliver meaningful changes that improve your quality of life. We have commenced a customer service review which should lead to more efficient and effective responses to your queries. We are also reviewing our internal spend to identify savings which can fund infrastructure and process improvements.
The decisions that we make must benefit current and future generations, and where appropriate it is important to engage residents in the process.
I look forward to seeing you at some of the great events that Council has organised this month. With warmer weather and school holidays, there is no better time to be in Ku-ring-gai.
Mayor Sam Ngai
On Tuesday 12th September, Ku-ring-gai Council met for the monthly Public Forum as well as an Extraordinary Meeting of Council that had been called regarding the General Manager’s employment. Members of the public shared their views on the matter and responded to councillor questions. Then some councillors, including those who had called for the meeting, counted the numbers and staged a walkout. This resulted in a situation where there were not enough councillors left in the room to proceed with the debate or the vote. The matter has been adjourned to Tuesday 19th September.
I’d like to thank members of the public for coming to share their views on the matter. During the public forum there were calls for transparency, probity, and for councillors to act in the public interest 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘔’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 These are all values that I share and they support my decision back in August to vote the GM out. The biggest difference, however, is that the general public has not had the same level of access to information that I have had as a councillor these last six years. I am firmly of the view that most people who would have seen what I have seen (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵) and who are placed in similar circumstances would do the same as I have or at least be very sympathetic to the circumstances.
I also appreciated it when a former councillor got up to speak and waved a copy of the 2011 edition of the Guidelines for the Appointment and Oversight of General Manager. I wish she was actually on council with me last council term when I fought for (and lost to the mayor’s casting vote) the right for councillors to participate in the setting of the General Manager’s performance metrics. In fact if you look at the minutes from 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 you can see that the oversight of the GM’s performance has always been a divided topic, with the mayor often using the casting vote to quash those who do not agree. A new 2022 edition of the Guidelines was released last year and council is partway through implementing these governance changes. I also expect legislative changes to the Local Government Act and Regulation later this year which will bring long-awaited improvements to governance across all NSW councils.
If Ku-ring-gai does get to the point where a new GM is appointed, I want the process to be supported by an independent and apolitical recruiter and I want it to follow the 2022 guidelines. In the last 12 months we have seen examples of senior public official recruitment done poorly at all three levels of government, and Ku-ring-gai must not go down that path.
I am sorry that this is all that can be said for now. Current councillors are bound by a code (including conduct and confidentiality) whereas former councillors do not have such restrictions.
Some of the exciting things that have been confirmed from the August Council Meeting.
𝗥𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 – Council is undergoing a 2 year trial of recycling hard to recycle materials such as soft plastics, electronics, batteries, and textiles. For more information search for “RecycleSmart”.
𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗸 – In principle support provided for Lindfield Rugby and Lindfield District Cricket to apply for grants and upgrade the existing Clubhouse with better change facilities.
𝗦𝘁 𝗜𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 – Approved tender for construction. Facility will be upgraded to 4-court and available to public hire outside of school hours.
𝗞𝘂-𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗴𝗮𝗶 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗛𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – Council support to upgrade the Hockey pitch and carpark facilties at Ku-ring-gai High, available to public hire outside of school hours. The key difference that I see between this and NTRA is that this development builds additional parking capacity on-site to keep parked cars off the road and maintain its social licence.
𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 – Approved a motion to go up to the November Local Government NSW annual conference, lobbying the state government to fix our broken private certification system. Right now property developers are able to get away with building illegal structures that are improperly certified, and council is powerless to stop them.
There was another item that was discussed but not yet resolved due to a rescission motion. At this stage I know there are some comments elsewhere on social media (stringing together selective facts to infer an inaccurate picture) but if any comments about it pop up here, I’m just going to delete them because I don’t think it’s appropriate or constructive to publish comments on an unresolved matter of this nature.
𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
Some of the exciting things that have been confirmed from the August Council Meeting.
𝗥𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 – Council is undergoing a 2 year trial of recycling hard to recycle materials such as soft plastics, electronics, batteries, and textiles. For more information search for “RecycleSmart”.
𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗸 – In principle support provided for Lindfield Rugby and Lindfield District Cricket to apply for grants and upgrade the existing Clubhouse with better change facilities.
𝗦𝘁 𝗜𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 – Approved tender for construction. Facility will be upgraded to 4-court and available to public hire outside of school hours.
𝗞𝘂-𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗴𝗮𝗶 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗛𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – Council support to upgrade the Hockey pitch and carpark facilties at Ku-ring-gai High, available to public hire outside of school hours. The key difference that I see between this and NTRA is that this development builds additional parking capacity on-site to keep parked cars off the road and maintain its social licence.
𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 – Approved a motion to go up to the November Local Government NSW annual conference, lobbying the state government to fix our broken private certification system. Right now property developers are able to get away with building illegal structures that are improperly certified, and council is powerless to stop them.
There was another item that was discussed but not yet resolved due to a rescission motion. At this stage I know there are some comments elsewhere on social media (stringing together selective facts to infer an inaccurate picture) but if any comments about it pop up here, I’m just going to delete them because I don’t think it’s appropriate or constructive to publish comments on an unresolved matter of this nature.
𝗪𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 on the Recreation Needs Study which will inform how council develops facilities and services for community recreation. For more information visit
𝗪𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 on the Recreation Needs Study which will inform how council develops facilities and services for community recreation. For more information visit
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Draft-Ku-ring-gai-Recreation-Needs-Study
Good Morning Everyone. It’s great to see film crew here at East Lindfield today because it is, afterall, one of the best places to live in Sydney 🙂
Last night we were anticipating a long council meeting going up til 11pm but fortunately it did not come to that. I’ll outline the key decisions below, and the official (draft) minutes will become available on Thursday.
𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗽𝘆 – We made further steps on the conversation of planting native trees such as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Sydney Blue Gum at council-owned sites. Thanks to Cr Greg Taylor for driving the agenda.
𝗦𝘁 𝗜𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔 – Highly anticipated discussions about the future of the Secret Garden, Ku-ring-gai Town Hall, childcare site, and NTRA ended up not proceeding this month.
𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲 – It was decided that the councillors and staff should continue discussing options for the theatre in a separate (internal) councillor briefing to be held in the next 4 weeks.
𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗨𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿 – It was decided that Ku-ring-gai will not pursue a special rates variation (out of cycle rates increase) in the upcoming year, which while popular and arguably appropriate for our particular phase of the economic cycle, may have other implications on the timing and delivery of major council projects. It was also decided that nearly $0.5m will be prioritised to restore the external elements of the Ku-ring-gai Town Hall.
𝗞𝘂-𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗴𝗮𝗶 𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – Changes to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan will be put out to public exhibition for a 40 day period. This is longer than the required 28 days, meaning that residents have extra time to consider the changes.
𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗵 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 – We made minor adjustments to the Masterplan Report then adopted it. The next steps are Detailed Design, Phased Delivery, and Tendering for Delivery and this typically takes a few years.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 – There was some debate but Council ended up settling on a version of the draft policy that is largely consistent with the Office of Local Government’s Model Policy (i.e. nothing wacky or weird). It will now go to public exhibition for 28 days.
𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
Good Morning Everyone. It’s great to see film crew here at East Lindfield today because it is, afterall, one of the best places to live in Sydney 🙂
Last night we were anticipating a long council meeting going up til 11pm but fortunately it did not come to that. I’ll outline the key decisions below, and the official (draft) minutes will become available on Thursday.
𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗽𝘆 – We made further steps on the conversation of planting native trees such as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Sydney Blue Gum at council-owned sites. Thanks to Cr Greg Taylor for driving the agenda.
𝗦𝘁 𝗜𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔 – Highly anticipated discussions about the future of the Secret Garden, Ku-ring-gai Town Hall, childcare site, and NTRA ended up not proceeding this month.
𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲 – It was decided that the councillors and staff should continue discussing options for the theatre in a separate (internal) councillor briefing to be held in the next 4 weeks.
𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗨𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿 – It was decided that Ku-ring-gai will not pursue a special rates variation (out of cycle rates increase) in the upcoming year, which while popular and arguably appropriate for our particular phase of the economic cycle, may have other implications on the timing and delivery of major council projects. It was also decided that nearly $0.5m will be prioritised to restore the external elements of the Ku-ring-gai Town Hall.
𝗞𝘂-𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗴𝗮𝗶 𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – Changes to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan will be put out to public exhibition for a 40 day period. This is longer than the required 28 days, meaning that residents have extra time to consider the changes.
𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗵 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 – We made minor adjustments to the Masterplan Report then adopted it. The next steps are Detailed Design, Phased Delivery, and Tendering for Delivery and this typically takes a few years.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 – There was some debate but Council ended up settling on a version of the draft policy that is largely consistent with the Office of Local Government’s Model Policy (i.e. nothing wacky or weird). It will now go to public exhibition for 28 days.
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
🌏 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲
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.
⚽️ 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.
⚽️ 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.
❤️𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
The councillors and council staff thought it was a good idea to hold a meeting on Valentine’s Day. Here are the key outcomes.
🌃𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮 𝟭𝟱 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘆𝘀 – Following the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel’s recommendation to not support the planning proposal, our council unanimously rejected it. Next step, I expect the developer will take the matter to the Sydney North Planning Panel for a Rezoning Review.
📚𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗯 – Staff authorised to continue negotiations with one of the proponents.
⚽️𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 – Council resolved to further progress with the project. Although I was ok with the grandstand itself, I had some reservations with Traffic and Parking issues which in my view were not adequately addressed and which represent a substantial hidden cost to council further down the line.
💦𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝘀 – A recent review found that council’s stormwater pipes, most of which were laid down decades ago, have been wearing out faster than anticipated. Meanwhile council has for a long time not set aside enough money to repair these pipes. So council (and ratepayers) may potentially enter a world of pain over the next decade as we figure out how to get $81m to keep our stormwater network up to an acceptable standard.
📈𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗞𝗣𝗜’𝘀 – For the first time in at least four years, we’ve agreed to have the KPI’s proposed by a panel of 3-4 councillors (previously just the mayor alone). This will give councillors greater control and accountability of the council’s performance, and the practice is in line with Office of Local Government Recommendations.
❤️𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
The councillors and council staff thought it was a good idea to hold a meeting on Valentine’s Day. Here are the key outcomes.
🌃𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮 𝟭𝟱 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘆𝘀 – Following the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel’s recommendation to not support the planning proposal, our council unanimously rejected it. Next step, I expect the developer will take the matter to the Sydney North Planning Panel for a Rezoning Review.
📚𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗯 – Staff authorised to continue negotiations with one of the proponents.
⚽️𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 – Council resolved to further progress with the project. Although I was ok with the grandstand itself, I had some reservations with Traffic and Parking issues which in my view were not adequately addressed and which represent a substantial hidden cost to council further down the line.
💦𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝘀 – A recent review found that council’s stormwater pipes, most of which were laid down decades ago, have been wearing out faster than anticipated. Meanwhile council has for a long time not set aside enough money to repair these pipes. So council (and ratepayers) may potentially enter a world of pain over the next decade as we figure out how to get $81m to keep our stormwater network up to an acceptable standard.
📈𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗞𝗣𝗜’𝘀 – For the first time in at least four years, we’ve agreed to have the KPI’s proposed by a panel of 3-4 councillors (previously just the mayor alone). This will give councillors greater control and accountability of the council’s performance, and the practice is in line with Office of Local Government Recommendations.
To be considered at the February Council meeting, with the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel having recommended against the planning proposal.
𝟭𝟱 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗮? To be considered at the February Council meeting, with the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel having recommended against the planning proposal.
𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗨𝗽𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀
In 2023-24, Council plans to upgrade the streets in the Roseville Town Centre. Key changes proposed by council staff include visual revamp, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀, addition of 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘀 and floral arrangements where it’s currently no parking, a 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻/𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 in laneways, and improvements to the Roseville Memorial Park.
Beyond the two year period, council may also be exploring the concept of a 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 behind the Roseville shops, similar to what we have in Lindfield. Parking moved underground with public open space on top. This concept likely won’t happen til next decade.
Council is seeking your feedback on these plans with 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟮 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮. For more information visit the link below.
https://krg.engagementhub.com.au/rosevillepdp
Intersection of Hill Street and Lord Street. Raised pedestrian crossings, planting beds with street trees in areas that were previously no parking, some options for street dining.Intersection of Hill Street and Roseville Avenue outside the Post Office. Widened footpath with street trees where it’s currently no parking. Raised pedestrian crossing.Hill Street with widened footpath outside the train station (left). South of the train station it is proposed to include a shared pedestrian and cycleway (right).Early plans for a Roseville Village Green behind the Roseville Shops, similar to what we see in Lindfield. Above ground recreation space and below ground parking. Unlikely to occur until next decade, and it will not look like what’s drawn here.Future plans for the Roseville Memorial Park including wider footpaths and new plantings.
Personally I’m not certain if the flowers on MacLaurin Parade are necessarily a good idea but it’s up for public comment.Outdoor dining in Roseville laneways.Reconfiguration of parking spaces in Larkin Lane. By making it 90 degrees it is supposed to add street trees without reducing the number of parking spaces.
I’ve had queries in recent months about what’s happening at council. Marian Street Theatre, Roseville Chase and Gordon Bowling Greens, footpaths, the Village Hubs, Council’s four year Delivery Program and ten year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). Many of these issues are connected by a central theme: the challenge of meeting a wide range of expectations with a limited pool of funding.
The great thing about democracy is that each councillor brings a range of ideas, but it also means that the council hasn’t quite figured out the best way to fully meet the financial challenge. Each of the June, July and August Council meetings have finished late and included long and varied debates on how to fund a pipeline of services and projects that exceed our income. And as part of the debate, ideas have come and gone. Should we be selling our recreational assets? Should we be reducing our financial commitments by stopping non-core initiatives? Are there other ways to fund the delivery of services? We haven’t quite got the answer yet and it’s been a bit of a frustrating process (for me anyway) because a lot of the comments that get thrown about the public sphere aren’t exactly balanced, accurate, informed, or fair. We’ll have to wait to see what happens and I’ll let you know once there’s an answer.
As for separate issues such as town centre changes, I’ll be covering them in separate posts in the coming weeks.
𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 – 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲
I’ve had queries in recent months about what’s happening at council. Marian Street Theatre, Roseville Chase and Gordon Bowling Greens, footpaths, the Village Hubs, Council’s four year Delivery Program and ten year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). Many of these issues are connected by a central theme: the challenge of meeting a wide range of expectations with a limited pool of funding.
The great thing about democracy is that each councillor brings a range of ideas, but it also means that the council hasn’t quite figured out the best way to fully meet the financial challenge. Each of the June, July and August Council meetings have finished late and included long and varied debates on how to fund a pipeline of services and projects that exceed our income. And as part of the debate, ideas have come and gone. Should we be selling our recreational assets? Should we be reducing our financial commitments by stopping non-core initiatives? Are there other ways to fund the delivery of services? We haven’t quite got the answer yet and it’s been a bit of a frustrating process (for me anyway) because a lot of the comments that get thrown about the public sphere aren’t exactly balanced, accurate, informed, or fair. We’ll have to wait to see what happens and I’ll let you know once there’s an answer.
As for separate issues such as town centre changes, I’ll be covering them in separate posts in the coming weeks.
𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹’𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀
New council term, new plans. Residents have til 30 May to provide feedback on five items. Your submissions will be considered by staff if you use the contact details in the link provided.
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Revised-plans-for-Ku-ring-gais-future
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – This sets out council’s long term plans for the next 10+ years, informed by community engagement activities conducted earlier in the year. I’m proud of the improvements made to this iteration of the plan which now tie council’s individual objectives to performance indicators (which we will review).
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – This sets out the challenges that council faces for delivering assets and services to the public while working with limited resources.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – If you want to know what assets (parks, footpaths, stormwater, sports fields etc.) council proposes to upgrade in the next four years, take a look from page 86 onwards.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 – The usual approach is to recover the cost of activities or subsidise activities that bring about a community good.
𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 – Includes helpful details about council’s community engagement and consultation process which has been more extensive this time around.
𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹’𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀
New council term, new plans. Residents have til 30 May to provide feedback on five items. Your submissions will be considered by staff if you use the contact details in the link provided.
https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Revised-plans-for-Ku-ring-gais-future
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – This sets out council’s long term plans for the next 10+ years, informed by community engagement activities conducted earlier in the year. I’m proud of the improvements made to this iteration of the plan which now tie council’s individual objectives to performance indicators (which we will review).
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – This sets out the challenges that council faces for delivering assets and services to the public while working with limited resources.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 – If you want to know what assets (parks, footpaths, stormwater, sports fields etc.) council proposes to upgrade in the next four years, take a look from page 86 onwards.
𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 – The usual approach is to recover the cost of activities or subsidise activities that bring about a community good.
𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 – Includes helpful details about council’s community engagement and consultation process which has been more extensive this time around.
📉📉📉 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁. This month, councillors and residents will be considering Ku-ring-gai’s Long Term Financial Plan which says that kerbs, guttering, stormwater, buildings, parks, and bridges will deteriorate over time due to insufficient funding. At the same time, council is also exploring the construction of the Marian Street Theatre as well as the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre at a combined cost of ~$40m, with most of the funding to come from borrowing money.
Is this sustainable and if not, how do we balance the books? It’ll ultimately be up to the councillors to decide, and residents will have the opportunity to provide feedback for consideration. More on this in tomorrow’s post.
But for today I want to focus on what most people consider when faced with having to provide more services. Their natural inclination is to focus on 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘. Should Council 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 charged to residents, businesses and community organisations? Should Council 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 to plug gaps in the budget? Can Council 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 from the state and federal government? All measures can be considered.
However, before Council goes out cap in hand to ask ratepayers for more money, I personally believe it’s also important for Council to first demonstrate that it is 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 to ensure that the money we are already receiving is being spent wisely.
I know that our council staff regularly consider this question and budget effectively. Having said that, there may also be a time and place for an external local government expert to review the organisation and suggest more efficient ways of doing things.
📉📉📉 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁. This month, councillors and residents will be considering Ku-ring-gai’s Long Term Financial Plan which says that kerbs, guttering, stormwater, buildings, parks, and bridges will deteriorate over time due to insufficient funding. At the same time, council is also exploring the construction of the Marian Street Theatre as well as the St Ives Indoor Sports Centre at a combined cost of ~$40m, with most of the funding to come from borrowing money.
Is this sustainable and if not, how do we balance the books? It’ll ultimately be up to the councillors to decide, and residents will have the opportunity to provide feedback for consideration. More on this in tomorrow’s post.
But for today I want to focus on what most people consider when faced with having to provide more services. Their natural inclination is to focus on 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘. Should Council 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 charged to residents, businesses and community organisations? Should Council 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 to plug gaps in the budget? Can Council 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 from the state and federal government? All measures can be considered.
However, before Council goes out cap in hand to ask ratepayers for more money, I personally believe it’s also important for Council to first demonstrate that it is 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 to ensure that the money we are already receiving is being spent wisely.
I know that our council staff regularly consider this question and budget effectively. Having said that, there may also be a time and place for an external local government expert to review the organisation and suggest more efficient ways of doing things.
🍅🥦🥕🌽♻️ 𝗙𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗻 (𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲)
At the moment many Ku-ring-gai households are just chucking their food scraps in the red bin and believe it or not, that’s actually a good thing. Red bin waste is sent to Woodlawn where this mix of organic and non-organic material is used to generate electricity and re-habilitate an old mining site. And back in 2017, the EPA valued the Woodlawn concept so much that when I inquired about holding a separate composting trial for Ku-ring-gai, I was discouraged by the EPA as it would cause the Woodlawn bioreactor to cease working to spec.
Somehow things have changed and now in 2022, the EPA’s position is that all councils must implement FOGO (Food Organics and Garden Organics) thrown into the green bin by 2030. Ku-ring-gai is not yet ready to implement this and while some people at other councils have been critical of the delay, I don’t think the criticism is well thought out or justified. There is currently very limited capacity in NSW to support FOGO; it requires facilities that have not yet been built, so Ku-ring-gai will join in when the market develops and the capacity is there. FOGO will likely come at an increased cost to ratepayers due to the complexity of dealing with food contamination in green waste, and in the interim our practice of capturing organic emissions to generate electricity is quite a reasonable one.
There will also be new practices that come along with FOGO, especially for apartment dwellers. At the moment it’s sufficient for many apartments to have red, yellow and blue bins. In the future we will have to add the additional green bin and the concentration of predominantly food organics (only) will be particularly smelly.
𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗽𝘆
There’s been a lot of talk this month about the role of trees and the value that they provide to our residents.
Trees provide us with fresh air, shelter from the sun, and a home for our wildlife. During major storms, trees also play a role in mitigating the impacts of flooding as they reduce the amount that instantly hits the stormwater system.
At Ku-ring-gai, tree canopy covers 45% of our residential land though it’s a little bit lower in Roseville Ward. Sydney’s stats are lower at 23% with the state government is targeting 40% long term.
Apartment blocks have a reputation for reducing tree canopy but if it is done right, the impact is only temporary. In the attached image, we see a block of 31 apartments across the road from Lindfield Public School. At one point there was significant land clearing to establish these homes but we are now at a point where tree canopy has grown back to over 40%. I think most councillors are committed to policies which will help increase canopy over time while making us more resilient to the effects of climate change.
𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗽𝘆
There’s been a lot of talk this month about the role of trees and the value that they provide to our residents.
Trees provide us with fresh air, shelter from the sun, and a home for our wildlife. During major storms, trees also play a role in mitigating the impacts of flooding as they reduce the amount that instantly hits the stormwater system.
At Ku-ring-gai, tree canopy covers 45% of our residential land though it’s a little bit lower in Roseville Ward. Sydney’s stats are lower at 23% with the state government is targeting 40% long term.
Apartment blocks have a reputation for reducing tree canopy but if it is done right, the impact is only temporary. In the attached image, we see a block of 31 apartments across the road from Lindfield Public School. At one point there was significant land clearing to establish these homes but we are now at a point where tree canopy has grown back to over 40%. I think most councillors are committed to policies which will help increase canopy over time while making us more resilient to the effects of climate change.
Roseville Chase Bowling Site – Council voted to ask the Department of Planning to undertake the final steps of rezoning the entirety of this public land to Low Density Residential (with the next obvious step to sell the entire site). The vote was close, 5 vs 5 plus the mayor’s casting vote in support of land rezoning. Our alternate proposal was to take a step back, consider potential community use, and retain part of the site for recreation but this was defeated 5 vs 5 with the mayor’s casting vote against the proposal.
Marian Street Theatre – Design work put on hold for three months so that members of the community could have further input into the design.
Norman Griffiths Oval – Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and other supporting documents to be made available on council website once available. It is noted by some that at other councils, the REF is usually conducted before a contract is awarded however there were concerns that at Ku-ring-gai the process was the other way around. Personally, I found that there were residents from various camps who were incredibly rude to councillors during the weeks leading up and although it didn’t affect me on this occasion, I felt sorry for those who had to put up with it.
Code of Meeting Practice – Glad to see that councillors supported my proposal to align our meeting practices with the majority of other councils in the North Shore (and in line with Office of Local Government Guidelines). Previously our Public Forums had very little interaction between residents and councillors, but with a revised code we hope to improve the public interaction and engagement.
Superannuation for Councillors – There was some debate over whether councillors should get paid superannuation, in line with basically every other job in Australia. Council’s resolved position was that councillors should get super, and that councillors may choose to opt out of receiving super if they choose to do so.
Some of us have a Will, a legal document that provides instructions on what to do with our estate once we are gone. And for those of us who have a Will, especially a complex one, we take extra care to make sure that every word is crafted such that there can only be one (intended) interpretation. And if our lawyer drafts a Will and we are unsatisfied with it, we ask for the changes to be made and presented to us for review again before signing it.
In recent years, the State Government asked each of the Sydney Metro councils to prepare a Housing Strategy through to 2036. In many ways it is similar to a Will. I’m not going to be a Councillor by 2036 however the decisions that we make as a Council today affect our children though to 2036 and beyond. If council works collaboratively on a Housing Strategy, the State Government can then plan the appropriate transport, education, hospital, and other infrastructure delivery. And because I intend to live in Ku-ring-gai in the decades to come, and I want my children to do the same, the Housing Strategy through to 2036 is very important to me.
In September and October 2020 there was a bit of drama regarding Ku-ring-gai’s Housing Strategy and I am disappointed that the former-mayor, who used to be my mentor, used Council’s resources of 31,000 mailing list as well as ratepayer funded newspaper ads to misrepresent my position on the matter. I asked councillors and General Managers from other LGAs as to whether this activity was normal, and they said no definitely not.
So what was the drama about? In preparing a draft Housing Strategy for Ku-ring-gai, council staff had proposed 15 storeys in Lindfield and 20 storeys in Gordon. All ten councillors opposed this proposal (as demonstrated by the September 2020 minutes and webcast) however there were two views on how to best move forward.
One group of councillors including myself proposed that given the slowed population growth due to COVID, the population projections were no longer accurate and that we should require council staff to prepare an amended strategy with lower dwelling targets and a more diverse mix of housing to include townhouses and duplexes in sensible places. We proposed that staff should prepare the revised plan and put it out for public consultation and councillor consideration.
The other group of councillors proposed that Ku-ring-gai would do absolutely nothing at all. All land zoning to remain exactly the way it is now. The 600+ page housing strategy to be revised to reflect this and submitted to the Department of Planning without further consultation with members of the public or consideration by councillors.
I had strong objections to this alternate approach for the following reasons:
Despite their claims it did not provide a housing plan through to 2036. It was 2031 at best, or potentially 2026.
It bypassed all community and councillor consultation, akin to asking your lawyer to drastically amending your will and getting you to sign it without any review.
It leaves Ku-ring-gai exposed to further property developer spot-rezoning. So instead of the community having a say on where townhouses should go and what they should look like, the buck was being passed to property developers who would do it without appropriate consultation.
It places Ku-ring-gai at much greater risk of significant 10+ height increases under a state Labor government (whereas if we had gone with brand new 2-3 storey townhouses 200m from the train station, with Ku-ring-gai-specific R3 development controls to conform with local character, nobody would think to replace them with 10 storeys next decade).
The former mayor got her way with the casting vote. The housing strategy was revised and then lodged with the Department of Planning. Councillors were notified less than 2 hours before lodgement, however there’s no way that you can expect any Councillor to read a 377 page document in that period of time, and provide meaningful feedback. A subsequent review revealed that council staff had left some inclusions that left some parts of the LGA especially St Ives exposed.
More recently in July 2021, the Department responded with a letter of conditional approval for the Housing Strategy. The message was basically that no, Ku-ring-gai’s proposed Housing Strategy in isolation was insufficient to provide the diverse housing needs of Ku-ring-gai through to 2036. 2026 yes, but not 2036. So in order to achieve approval, twelve additional conditions were added to close out the remaining gap. You can read the document in the following link, in particular point 6 which says that if Ku-ring-gai is unwilling to do the rezoning, the property developers will.
At the November Council meeting, 6 out of 10 councillors rejected the twelve conditions of approval. I personally said that I wasn’t a fan of the conditions either, but that I’d prefer staff to prepare the material and let the next council decide what to do next. But with the twelve conditions of approval outright being rejected now, it means that the housing strategy itself also has no approval.
Yes, Ku-ring-gai fought the housing targets but Ku-ring-gai certainly has not won. We had a great opportunity for residents to have a say in what they would like the future to look like, and to set appropriate development controls so that our residents’ downsizing needs could be met while ensuring that future multi-dwelling homes are consistent with Ku-ring-gai’s character, but that opportunity has been given away now and this messy legacy is left to next term’s councillors to tackle.
I am disappointed at the use of these short-sighted political stunts for short-term political gain, at the cost of Ku-ring-gai’s future and legacy, by people who don’t plan to hang around to live with the legacy. This is the legacy that my children and I have to live with, and it’s not fair. We would never sign a Will without reviewing it and understanding the implications, why would we ever allow a Housing Strategy through to 2036 to be pre-signed even before reviewing the legal document?
In the attached image you can see a great example of what a multi-dwelling home could look like. It looks like a regular house set in a Heritage Conservation Area. It has a massive yard for residents to enjoy. But it actually contains four very pleasant dwellings (I know because my friends used to live in one of them).
Lindfield Netball Club and Ku-Ring-Gai Netball Association. In recent months I’ve been working with some of your executive to ensure that the Tryon Road courts could be set aside for Training in 2022 however last month council staff argued that for ‘Equity’ reasons Tennis Permanent Hirers should have first dibs on court hire in November, with Sporting Codes (including Netball) having second dibs in January. For Tryon Road this means that if a single tennis court is booked, both of the perpendicular netball training courts are unavailable.
I disagreed with this ‘Equity’ argument as there are ~50 tennis courts in the local area and only three multipurpose netball courts (all prioritised for tennis to maximise profit). I have nothing against Tennis and there are plenty of options for Tennis to use. However I’m disappointed to report that six of the ten councillors including Councillor Anderson voted against the proposal, so you will have reduced access to Netball Training courts next year because of this decision.
Similarly the (realistic) proposal for staff to investigate increasing the number of basketball hoops in the area from 5 to 12 were shut down by the same councillors.
We’ll try again next council term.
The other main decision of the night was that the majority of councillors outright rejected the conditions of approval for the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy. With the conditions of approval rejected, it also follows that the Housing Strategy itself has no approval. Without an approved Housing Strategy, next term’s councillors will have to deal with the consequences of this legacy (including additional property developer spot rezoning).
To be honest I was not completely happy with the conditions of approval either, but I thought it was more appropriate for staff to prepare the options, buy us some time to negotiate with the State Government, and let the new councillors digest the issues early next year. This reflects my personal work style, I prefer to first consult with the community, stakeholders, and higher levels of government to achieve the best outcome possible.
This is exciting news for the Local Government sector, especially regional and rural councils where councillors may live hours away from their council chambers.
What’s especially great is the acknowledgement that “Councils will now have the option to allow councillors to be present for official meetings by audio-visual link if they can’t attend in person because of illness, disability, caring and work responsibilities or other reasons agreed to by council.“
The extra flexibility will be appreciated by those councillors who are serious about carrying out their civic duties and attending meetings.
Residents and journalists have asked me to comment on what’s happening at Ku-ring-gai. At this stage I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to say much other than the following.
1) The same five councillors have not attended council meetings in October, on eight separate occasions. Because of the lack of quorum (six councillors required out of ten), council has been unable to meet and conduct business.
2) I have attended each time that we tried to meet.
3) Meetings were available for attendance via Zoom. I attended one of the occasions on my iPad at a park. Another occasion clashed with a family reunion so I attended via Zoom from a separate room.
4) I’m disappointed that we cannot get through some of the big agenda items for October such as Lindfield Village Hub, pedestrian bridge, basketball and netball facilities, various project tenders, net zero, Trucks on Pacific Highway, etc. Some of these things will have to be decided by the next council in February as caretaker period starts soon.
5) There’s a lot more behind the scenes than what the public knows, and things are not always black and white.
6) At this stage I do not think it’s appropriate for me to make any further comments. I didn’t call for any of these meetings and I’m not the council spokesperson.
7) I might be moderating this post and page as I don’t want to be held responsible for defamatory comments made by others.
While it’s unfortunate that we’ve had to protect our loved ones through the lockdown process, we’ve also been forced to innovate and find better ways of doing things. One such benefit is the increased adoption of platforms such as Zoom, Teams and FaceTime which allow us to work remotely while reducing our carbon footprint.
This week our council attempted to meet on three separate occasions to discuss a very serious matter, and with Zoom we had the flexibility of meeting at home, in the council chambers, or even while outside such as during a picnic. On all three occasions, it was unfortunate that five councillors happened to not be available to connect on Zoom, and without a quorum (6 required) we were unable to carry on with the council agenda. What’s especially bizarre is that we see some of these councillors actively posting on social media these last few days but then they are somehow unable to connect to Zoom via their phone, tablet or laptop, or desktop computer.
As for the specifics of this agenda item, as I mentioned in a previous post, it’s not appropriate for me to comment on this further at this point in time because I didn’t call for the meeting, because I am not the council’s spokesperson, and because of the confidentiality attached to the agenda item.
For the Ordinary Meeting of Council (19/10) we are voting on 33 items. I haven’t had the chance to read through the details yet but for me the five highlights are:
C1/GB22 – Lindfield Village Hub; a confidential item proposing a way forward with negotiations for construction as well as the consideration of a planning proposal
GB24 – School Infrastructure NSW and Ku-ring-gai Council; a proposal to meet monthly with the Department of Education to explore ways of improving the utilisation of public assets
GB25 – Cities Race to Zero; an opportunity to consider joining the COP26 Race to Zero initiative (which also includes the recognition of a climate emergency), I’m curious to see how councillors will vote
NM2 – Basketball and Netball Facilities in Roseville, Lindfield and Killara; my proposal to take practical steps to delivering the facilities that residents have asked for
NM3 – Saving Bates Park; our second motion to Save Bates Park after the first one was delayed by councillors three months ago
In addition to the Ordinary Meeting of Council we also have an Extraordinary Meeting of Council (09/10) that’s been called by two other councillors. It is a confidential item with the topic of “Appointment of General Manager“. Because of the confidentiality, because I didn’t call for the meeting, and because I am not the council’s spokesperson, it’s not appropriate for me to comment on the matter at this point in time.
I’d like to thank Councillors Cedric Spencer, Christine Kay, Peter Kelly and Jeff Pettett for giving me a turn at being Deputy Mayor (Sep-Dec 2021). In the same meeting, Councillor Spencer was also elected as Mayor. Both positions were randomly drawn 50/50 out of a box.
It will be an extremely short mayoral / deputy mayoral term with 10 weeks to go before the local government election. Caretaker period starts in six weeks and there’s only one council meeting between now and then. With the little time we have, we’d like to make meaningful improvements for our community and we will provide you with updates along the way.
Last night the councillors voted unanimously to proceed with the design and upgrade of the Norman Griffiths Oval in West Pymble. This project has been a long time coming with the NSW Government, West Pymble FC , Northern Suburbs Football Association and a range of other sporting funds all having made financial contributions in the last five years.
In the interim, there was also a period of time when council was considering whether to relocate the project to Mimosa. My personal view has consistently been that Mimosa was not the right location from a public amenity, traffic and environmental perspective and that Norman Griffiths (the homeground of West Pymble FC) was the more appropriate location, especially with its access to readily available parking and adjacent green spaces for dog walkers.
It’s good to see that the councillors ended up on the same page on this occasion, and I look forward to seeing the community benefit from this in the coming years.
Note: The image is an indicative concept design only, not final.
St Ives Cultural annd Environmental Education Centre – Council committed to spending $4.3m to design and construct the education centre. I know some residents have criticized this decision as they’d rather see $4.3m spent to support local businesses, however it’s important to point out that this money comes from restricted funds ($1.2m environmental levy, $3.0m development contributions) and legally there is no option for council to collect money for one purpose then spend it for an entirely different purpose.
St Ives Showground and Precinct – Council recognised the importance of potentially heritage listing some of the built structures in the precinct. Before the heritage listing of any specific structure, it will be assessed against the usual eight criteria for heritage assessments.
Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra – Council voted unanimously to sponsor the KPO an amount of $28,000 for community activity throughout 2021/22.
Where do your rates go? – Council voted to investigate the possibility of adding an attachment to the annual rates notice to indicate how much money will be spent on each initiative. This isn’t exactly a groundbreaking idea, it’s been done by other councils before where the feedback has been that some residents have found it helpful. Personally, when talking to residents about the way our council spends money I usually just guide them through our annual report which contains much more detail. In the image below I’ve provided a page from our annual report showing you where $100 was spent in 2019/20.
Samuel King Oval – Council to explore re-allocating $500,00 of Sport Australia grant funding towards toilet, kitchen, changing room and store room upgrades at Samuel King Oval, North Turramurra.
Women’s Advisory Committee – The concept is to give women the opportunity to participate in planning and improving council services, facilities, programs and projects.
Sale of Bates Park – Mixed news. The sale has been postponed by a few months while a consultant ($15-20k) further looks into the matter. I disagreed with this approach and instead proposed to just cancel the sale on the spot. That consultant money could have gone towards providing other public benefits, and during my time on council I’ve seen occasions where consultants are used to support / validate an outcome that did not reflect the reality of what local residents (including myself) have observed or experienced.
Roseville Chase and Gordon Bowling Clubs – Based on my discussions with local residents, the majority thought that starting the process to rezone and sell 21,000 sqm of public recreational land two months before an election was not a good idea. I proposed to defer the matter to the next council term and this was defeated. Instead, council will proceed with plans to rezone with a final decision to sell the land at market value likely to occur next council term. We still have some time to ponder the implications of selling public land (noting that any money gained from land sale will also theoretically be reinvested in other projects of community benefit).
Confidential Item: Lindfield Village Green – This was in relation to the Lindfield Village Green where the intention is to have an additional café or restaurant in the area.
Confidential Item: Lindfield Village Hub – There has been some meaningful work in this space, though due to the sensitivity of what was reported, I can’t talk about it.
This month we are seeking to reverse a decision made by the previous term councillors to sell Bates Park (97 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase). Bates Park is a small parcel of land rich in native flora and abundant with native wildlife including Echidnae, Wallabies, endangered Bandicoots, the Powerful Owl, and a range of other native birds. Based on observations of what has happened in similar situations in the past, our concerns are that once sold there will be no effective way to protect our wildlife and that the ecological damage does not justify the tiny (and once off) financial gain.
If you agree (or disagree) with stopping the land sale there are two ways in which you can contribute.
First, in the absence of a public forum due to COVID, you can officially make an online submission either as written text or a video, to be presented to the councillors. Submissions are due Monday 12 July 2021, 5pm and further information is in the link below.
I’d like to thank Councillor Jeff Pettett and our Deputy Mayor Cedric Spencer for their support in stopping the land sale. Without their care and support we might not have had this opportunity to even propose a reversal of our predecessors’ decision to sell.
I’d also like to thank the local residents who organised the awareness campaign on this important matter. I’ve actually wanted to reverse this decision ever since finding out about it in 2018 but it was difficult to establish a base case for reversing the decision without know that there was local support.
Public Domain Plan (including Havilah Underpass) – Councillors asked for a site inspection to better understand the issues. Matter deferred to July or August.
Killara Bowling Club and Lawn Tennis Club – Council to work towards heritage listing the site.
Mona Vale Road – Council to ask the State Government what can be done to improve cyclist safety.
St Ives Showground – Council to ask the State Government to investigate measures to make the entry / exit on Mona Vale Road safer. Measures to be investigated may include traffic lights and a reduced speed limit.
Local Character Background Study – Document amended to reflect community feedback and adopted. Indicative timeline of next steps to be provided to councillors.
Roseville RSL – Majority of councillors voted to adopt site specific development controls for the site to allow for seven storey apartments.
Confidential Item: Land Acquisition for Open Space and Public Roads and Divestment of Surplus Council Land – Majority of councillors voted to support the staff recommendation. I voted against this because I don’t like voting in relation to the sale of assets when members of the public don’t know which public assets we are talking about.
Many residents have contacted councillors in the past week with objections to council staff’s proposed plans to remove the westbound lane of the Havilah Underpass and replace it with a cycleway.
I will answer the most frequently asked questions below.
If the westbound lane is removed, how will we get to Coles, to Holy Family, to Highfields, to West Lindfield and beyond?
In addition to the removal of the westbound lane in Havilah, traffic lights will be installed at the intersection of Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway. The staff (most who don’t live locally) believe that this will be sufficient to offset the loss of westbound Havilah, however as a local resident who knows just how bad both Havilah and Strickland can get even in the current state, my gut feel is that the proposed changes won’t be enough to allow effective flow and will have unintended consequences (especially at the intersection of Strickland and Lindfield Ave). This is also the view of many other residents that I talk to.
In the future residents on the East side wanting to head North on Pacific Highway via traffic light, there will only be four options. Roseville’s Clanville, Lindfield’s Strickland, Killara’s Lorne, and Gordon’s St Johns.
Has there been any statistics or modelling of traffic at these intersecitons?
There was a 2014 report on traffic in the Lindfield Town Centre. If you look at pages 34, 36 and 38 of the report, it indicates that Pacific x Balfour was one of the worst intersections and required attention. I think it’s important to note here that the study is nearly 7 years old and that traffic conditions are arguably worse today.
Is Balfour x Pacific dangerous? What’s the crash history?
In the five years from 2010-2015 there were 23 recorded crashes, 5 of which involved vehicles turning right from Balfour and conflicting with pedestrians.
In the five years from 2015 to 2020 there were 5 recorded crashes, 1 of which involved vehicles turning right from Balfour and conflicting with pedestrians.
Sometime between 2013 and 2016, Transport for NSW installed a no right turn light at this intersection and this appears to have reduced the number of pedestrian collisions.
Why is the performance of this intersection so bad?
Local residents know that it’s because there are cautious drivers who want to turn right but don’t want to creep into the middle of the intersection to allow the vehicles behind them to go straight or turn left. This causes unnecessary holdups and worsens the performance of the intersection.
What are Transport for NSW’s priorities?
Transport for NSW prioritises the overall network performance of state roads and generally holds these with higher regard than traffic issues at local roads. I’ve previously presented sensible solutions / requests to them about other network performance or safety issues at intersections such as Archbold x Boundary, Pacific x Clanville, Lady Game x Delhi, Boundary in front of the Roseville Chase shops and on each occasion the focus of non-local staff is on state road performance without understanding whether reasonable adjustments can lead to overall better state and local road performance.
With regard to the Lindfield Town Centre, their priority is the performance of Pacific Highway so a simplified version of their logic is that if we add a traffic light at Strickland, something else has to go (i.e. Havilah). Hence Transport for NSW has been in discussions with Council Staff about the possibility of turning Havilah into one way.
Having said that, the Havilah one lane is only one of many options and I think it’s reasonable to say that there may be other solutions that improve State and Local network performance without severely compromising the Pacific Highway. One such suggestion by local residents as well as our State MP Jonathan O’Dea (in his submission to the public domain plan) was to leave Havilah Underpass as two lanes of traffic with a no right turn onto Pacific during peak. With the no right turn in place, the flow of traffic from the East will be much smoother and without significantly impacting the performance of the Pacific Highway (in fact it may improve Pacific Highway performance as we won’t have cars unnecessarily going south to Strickland and then driving back up North on the highway towards Coles / Holy Family / Highfields). I haven’t seen any evidence that this suggestion from residents and our State MP has been seriously considered or modelled vs. the one way design.
What about widening the underpass to three lanes?
The railway bridge and the underpass is a state government asset so it requires state government funding to widen. If you look at the structure it’s obviously quite an expensive project. I asked our State MP (again) about this last week and due to the cost-benefit of such a proposal along with the significant needs elsewhere in NSW, it’s not a current priority.
We are, however, getting pedestrian lifts at Roseville and Killara Station and so that’s something that we can appreciate.
What about a right turn green light similar to St Johns Ave x Pacific?
Right turn green lights only work if you have two lanes of traffic heading out. With the current arrangement we only have one lane of traffic out and we cannot create space for a second lane of traffic out without significantly reducing the pedestrian walkways, relocating traffic light and streetlighting poles, having to redo the support structures of the railway bridge, etc. It’s an expensive exercise for limited benefit (and the no right turn during peak sign would be much more cost effective).
Will Councillors move a Notice of Motion for a cost-benefit analysis of a pedestrian tunnel?
What I plan to do with this is to instead raise a Question with Notice and have the answers published in the July or August council papers. Council staff are required to answer Questions with Notice, whereas a similar Notice of Motion will be subject to councillor vote and will likely fail.
I will ask council staff for a high level cost-benefit analysis and let’s see what answer they come up with.
My gut feel is that it’s going to be very expensive and we won’t have any way of realistically funding it. Council (when going down its current resolved path) has found it challenging to deliver things like the Lindfield Village Hub and a Pedestrian Bridge, so if those are already a challenge to fund then a properly built 90m pedestrian tunnel even more so.
What’s this that I hear about Transport for NSW prioritising pedestrians and cycleways over vehicles?
Link to the document below. My gut feel is that the document is simplistic, a bit ambiguous, and can lead to interesting interpretations and outcomes.
I agree, I’m a cyclist as well and I think it’s perfectly fine to use the road on this occasion if it means we can retain two lanes.
Why are we in this situation where significant changes are made to town centre plans without extensive consultation with the public?
My personal view is that when significant changes like this are proposed ($24m plan to revamp Turramurra, Gordon and Lindfield), residents should be notified by mail and invited to provide feedback.
When I ask council staff about sending out notifications by mail, the general message is that notifying residents by mail is expensive and not required. Instead the preference is to rely on council’s email newsletter and advertisements in the North Shore Times.
I don’t agree with this approach, and I also think it’s inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Community Consultation Plan adopted by Council in November 2020. The community consultation plan will need to be reviewed to remove any ambiguities. Refer to the attached pictures for more information.
At this Tuesday’s council meeting we will be voting on whether or not the Killara Bowling Club and Killara Lawn Tennis Club Sites should be established as a proposed heritage item (GB13). What does this mean? When a property is heritage listed, it’s usually a limited or unique asset which we aim to safeguard so that present and future generations can learn and benefit from it. The property is then recognised under law, a stricter standard and approvals process is applied for development on the site, and the government provides extra support for heritage owners to upkeep their site in the form of grants, reduced council rates and reduced taxes. And in this particular case, I personally believe the site should receive such protections.
How do we decide what to heritage list and what not to heritage list? Heritage experts usually assess a potential site based on eight criteria. These are:
Importance to cultural or natural history
Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history
Potential to yield information to contribute to our understanding of our cultural or natural history
Ability to demonstrate principal characteristics of a cultural or natural place or environment
Ability to exhibit particular aesthetic characteristics
Importance in demonstrating a creative or technical achievement at a particular period
Special association with a particular community or cultural group (including indigenous)
Special association with the life or works of a person or group of persons important to our history
Heritage listings occur quite regularly at Ku-ring-gai but what I’ve found these four years is that proponents of heritage listing are often advocating heritage listing for the wrong reasons. Their reasons are not the eight criteria mentioned above, rather, they are using heritage listing as a proxy for preventing further development and congestion. And in the case of the Killara Bowling and Lawn Tennis Club Sites I’ve certainly met some residents who are using heritage as a proxy for anti-development (there’s also some internal drama within and between the two sporting clubs).
My job as a councillor is to vote on heritage listing based on the eight criteria above and my feelings regarding development, traffic congestion, internal political dramas, etc. are not relevant. So in this particular case of Killara Bowls/Tennis, based on the information available to me, I do think that the site meets the threshold for Local heritage listing (but not State, National or World). How will the other councillors vote on Tuesday? We will find out soon.
Thank you everyone for your submissions to the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan. We received over 50 submissions in relation to Lindfield’s extensive pedestrian, cycleway, parking, outdoor dining and traffic flow changes, and council staff have amended the proposed plans in response to this.
Positive amendments include the removal of the proposed dedicated cycleway immediately in front of the shops on Lindfield Avenue. This allows for more ground-level parking which residents, especially the elderly, have told me is something that they value. I don’t think cyclists are disadvantaged by this change as the plans retain the dedicated cycleway on Lindfield Avenue North and South of the shops, and the lane immediately in front of the shops has and will always be a safe, low-speed area which cars and bicycles can easily share.
Another positive change is the retention of what is currently a temporary roundabout at the intersection of Lindfield and Woodside Avenue.
The most controversial remaining issue is the Havilah Road Tunnel, which faces a reduction from two lanes of traffic to only one lane. The outbound lane onto Pacific Highway is proposed to be given up, making room for pedestrians and cyclists. Under this proposal, people wanting to exit onto Pacific Highway will have to use other options such as Strickland (with traffic lights installed), Treatts, or Lorne.
If you would like to see further amendments to these plans, there is one more opportunity to do so. Prior to the council meeting on 15 June, there is also a “public forum” on 08 June where members of the public can each speak for 3 minutes on anything they want (including these proposals for changes to traffic flows). More information on how you can register to speak at the public forum (by Monday 07 June 5pm) can be found in the following link.
It must also be noted that these are high-level concept plans for desired long term outcomes and some proposed concept designs have remained the same in the final plan. In most instances additional funding or further studies, collaboration with Transport for NSW, changes to the LEP and DCP or targeted community consultation, or all of these, will be required to realise these designs. Though the design intent has been demonstrated, the final design may be delivered differently.
In the picture below you can see three trucks bolting down southbound on Pacific Highway, turning right onto Ryde Road. It appeared that most councillors including myself agreed that this sort of thing had an undesirable impact to residents from a safety and acoustics perspective, though we did not share the same view on what would be the most appropriate way forward.
The majority of councillors voted to ask the state government to ban vehicles over 12.5m from using the Pacific Highway (except for those which have an immediate requirement to use the Pacific Highway).
Other councillors voted against this for a variety of reasons. Some of us voted against because while we agreed that action had to be taken, we disagreed with the tone of the preamble, the accuracy of the media statement surrounding the matter, as well as the tone of the speeches given by ‘the other side’ on the night. Personally speaking, these came across as being unnecessarily hostile and I would have personally preferred to approach such situations diplomatically, seeking to get a more thoroughly considered outcome by working co-operatively and constructively with the State Government. We proposed that we ask the State Government for their traffic data, gather some independent data ourselves to verify, and work collaboratively to promptly reach a range of solutions by June in a civil manner. (This is also close to what we normally would have done through the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee.) But our alternate motion did not receive the 50%+1 support required.
Other exciting things from last night were the approval of some Men’s Health Week activities, the trial of a Youth Leadership Program, and a request to get a report to investigate the feasibility of an expanded St Ives Nursery and Garden.
Overall it was quite a long meeting (nearly four hours) with moments of intense debate. There were also numerous accusations and conjectures flying in all sorts of directions on the night so my suggestion is that if you hear something wild and fanciful, it’s best to watch the video of the council meeting to verify for yourself whether the wild claims are true or whether the people laying the accusations have misunderstood the situation. Having said all that, this is democracy in action.
Also, it’s good to be back to meeting in person. Online meetings have been great but after a while I start to miss the face to face element.
It’s been a long day. 5am Dawn Service and 1am Truck Watching.
Should vehicles over 12.5m be allowed on Pacific Highway? I’m still forming a vew but what’s clear to me right now is that the issue is far more complex than what people have made it out to be. If you have any thoughts (and in particular anything more sophisticated than the usual narrative) please let me know.
![🔥We agonised for two years on whether to replace our gas cooktop and oven. We didn't like the idea of throwing it out because of all the embedded energy, however the oven no longer worked properly and gas apparently has health impacts in an indoor environment.
⚡The transition to induction cooktop was amazing!!! The cooktop heats things so quickly, it's faster to boil water on the cooktop than to use an electric kettle. It's easy to specify the exact amount of power that we want, the cooktop is easy to clean, and no accidental burns. We've really benefitted form the induction cooktop and wish we had made the transition earlier.
🗓️If you're interested to find out more, our council has a webinar on Switching to Induction Cooking on 13th March at 12pm. For more info visit
https://www.facebook.com/events/664389969046472/
🧑🍳If you prefer something hands on rather than online, feel free to contact me and we can arrange to cook a meal together.
@[100064452052016:2048:Loving Living Ku-ring-gai]](https://roseville.online/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/430483154_1165460528189200_4801712242131309840_n_1165721904829729.jpg)
![As a politician from the North Shore, I received a generous invitation from our State Treasurer @[100050246809705:2048:Daniel Mookhey MLC] today to visit Meadowbank and “tell them what’s wrong with it”.
What did I find? Well I found that the residents at Meadowbank are incredibly blessed with multiple forms of public transport (ferry, train, buses) all within a few hundred metres of their home. They also had close proximity to multiple parks, open spaces, sports facilities, a shopping village, a foreshore walk and a pleasant sea breeze.
It’s a sensible place to put housing density and I am actually quite jealous of the residents who live here.
But the only reason why it is the way it is is because there has been deliberate planning in the establishment of the suburb, with the benefit of repurposing large former industrial lots and certain natural advantages that come with the geographic area.
Suburbs like Roseville and Killara, by contrast, do not have any of these advantages and it is difficult for developers to do anything meaningful without the almost impossible task of purchasing entire street blocks. And so when it comes to planning for future growth (which I am open to), it is important to consider how to deliver appropriate infrastructure and provide for the quality of life amenities that the residents of Meadowbank have.
But that is not what the residents of Roseville and Killara are getting in April. They will have housing policies imposed on them without any consultation, and without the natural infrastructure benefits that Meadowbank has.
If the state government was generous enough to support our infrastructure and amenities then sure, that would be a different conversation, but in the current form the housing proposals are not tenable.
I will share more about the flaws in the current proposal in my next post.](https://roseville.online/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/425471564_1149335166468403_7711099425217261541_n_1149335169801736.jpg)
![Today I visited Summer Hill, a suburb which in many ways reminds me of Roseville as it has its fair share of heritage conservation areas. The houses here are beautiful and reflect the character and early development of Sydney.
There is however one thing that distinguishes Summer Hill from Roseville and that is the wider range of infrastructure and transport options available to it. Like Roseville there is a railway station but this one is closer to the city (16 mins vs 23 mins). But Summer Hill also has a light rail station; it is incredibly well connected. Summer Hill also has a supermarket!
Given its distinct advantages over Roseville it does surprise me that Summer Hill has not been flagged for April’s non-consultative TOD housing program.
Two weeks ago at a briefing with the Department of Planning we asked them for the rationale of selecting Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon as part of the plan. And do you know what they said? They told us that modelling had been done but that it was “cabinet in confidence” so they can’t tell us.
I think what they meant to say was that since Summer Hill is in the heart of Transport Minister @[100044424429649:2048:Jo Haylen] 's electorate, it could not be touched regardless of its proximity to the city.
All in all, quite disappointing really and in tonight’s motion @[100063481211240:2048:Councillor Martin Smith] and @[100081079106909:2048:Councillor Kim Wheatley] will seek to acquire these documents through the GIPA (similar to freedom of information) process.
To rub insult into injury, Minister Haylen was also the one who effectively killed off the Lindfield Village Hub in December when, just one day before council was to sign a contract with the developer, illegally withdrew state government funding without consultation and thew the project in disarray. Gone is the opportunity to deliver a few hundred homes for residents this decade. Gone is the opportunity to provide a library, open space, park, and community facilities for the residents of tomorrow.
I am disappointed by this value destructive behaviour. Bringing the population of Chatswood into each of our four stations, without providing the necessary infrastructure or urban planning for each centre to thrive will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes than if the state government were to work together with us on these matters.](https://roseville.online/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/425508845_1149391789796074_3982826984352335949_n_1149391796462740.jpg)
![This week I was honoured to be elected by Councillors to the position of Mayor with @[100049240526757:2048:Deputy Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Cr Christine Kay] supporting as Deputy Mayor through to September 2024. We take time to thank Cr Jeff Pettett and Cr Barbara Ward for their service as Mayor and Deputy in the last two years.
As Mayor, my aim is to collaboratively lead the Council and build on relationships with residents and with staff. I also know that each councillor genuinely cares for the community, and I believe that our diverse views will produce the best outcomes if we engage in respectful conversation.
In these 12 months we hope to deliver meaningful changes that improve your quality of life. We have commenced a customer service review which should lead to more efficient and effective responses to your queries. We are also reviewing our internal spend to identify savings which can fund infrastructure and process improvements.
The decisions that we make must benefit current and future generations, and where appropriate it is important to engage residents in the process.
I look forward to seeing you at some of the great events that Council has organised this month. With warmer weather and school holidays, there is no better time to be in Ku-ring-gai.
Mayor Sam Ngai](https://roseville.online/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/380833491_1061524265249494_2506531112333879298_n_1061524268582827.jpg)
5am Dawn Service and 
1am Truck Watching.