Category: Council Decisions / Policy

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.

https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2024/05/KLPP_20052024_AGN.PDF

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.

TOD SEPP draft maps are out. Shades of blue indicate where the Transport Oriented provisions seem to apply.

Individually listed heritage items are out. Heritage Conservation Areas are in.

Credit to Support Lindfield for providing instructions on how to access the map.

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 have my follow-up meeting with the Planning Minister on 2nd May 😀

I need to move a few things around, but keen for it to happen.

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.

𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘣𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁 https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/rezoning-reviews/under-assessment/345-pacific-highway-lindfield

Last night council resolved towards

🏃‍♀️ Community uses for former lawn bowling land

🥰 Developing a Reconciliation Action Plan

🌆 Preparing an Affordable Housing Policy

📰 Publishing an open letter in national, metropolitan and local news publications to address Council’s concerns about the impacts of State Housing Policies

What the minister said vs. what the mayor said.

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

We had a relatively quick and uneventful council meeting where we voted:

To adopt The Glade Masterplan with a few additional criteria for future works and mitigations.

To appoint members to an Arts and Cultural Committee.

To explore best practices from other councils for a future Youth Advisory Committee, which will help inform Ku-ring-gai policy, events and services.

I also provided an update on (the unreasonable) State housing policies, with a decision on further action to be taken at the next council meeting.

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

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.

This week I wrote a letter to the Premier in response to his invitation to councils, and I hope to hear from him soon.

In the letter I outline why Ku-ring-gai is particularly impacted by the housing changes proposed. Key themes are:

1️⃣ The loss of enabling infrastructure and homes due to a recent state government decision.

2️⃣ The timing of the April Transport Oriented Policy, which is sudden, without public consultation, and secretive.

3️⃣ The uncertainty regarding heritage.

Click through to read more about it.

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.

My own speech from last night is provided below.

—

𝙎𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙉𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔 𝙫𝙨 𝙔𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙉𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔’𝙞𝙨𝙢, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜.

𝘈𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘚𝘞, 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴, 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴, 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵, 𝘣𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳.

𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦’𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴… 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.

𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘒𝘶-𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘨𝘢𝘪, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘴.

𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘉𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺, 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘗𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘎𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘴𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵 20 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘷𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘥 2 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘹. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.

𝘖𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘒𝘶-𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘨𝘢𝘪’𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦-𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺.

𝘖𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥. 𝘋𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦-𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴, 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘯 12𝘵𝘩 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 – 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 – 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 $9.8𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦.

𝘉𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳, 𝘙𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘱.

𝘗𝘭𝘶𝘴 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘖𝘋 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 10 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 40% 𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘺 𝘣𝘺 2036. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 7% 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 15-20% 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴’ 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙧, 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭.

𝙆𝙪-𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜-𝙜𝙖𝙞, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙡𝙨, 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙖 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚. 𝙒𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙐𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙂𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨. 𝙄 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜.

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.

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.

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.

📣📣📣 Your Feedback Appreciated💌💌💌

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

❤️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.

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

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.

📉📉📉 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.

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.

Key decisions included:

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:

1. Despite their claims it did not provide a housing plan through to 2036. It was 2031 at best, or potentially 2026.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Ku-ring-gai+Council+-+LHS+Letter+of+Approval+20210716.pdf

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.

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.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/unacceptable-government-poised-to-intervene-in-chaotic-north-shore-council-20211027-p593nl.html

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.

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.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Council-Meetings-and-Public-Forums

Secondly, there is also a petition organised by residents associated with saving the park. For more information see the following link.

https://www.facebook.com/kuringgaiparks/posts/789118758417090

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.