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 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.

📣📣📣 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.

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

⚽️ 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.

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

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.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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.

Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council – 10 November 2015 (nsw.gov.au)

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.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2021/road-user-space-allocation-policy.pdf

I’m a cyclist and I think this plan is crazy.

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:

1. Importance to cultural or natural history
2. Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history
3. Potential to yield information to contribute to our understanding of our cultural or natural history
4. Ability to demonstrate principal characteristics of a cultural or natural place or environment
5. Ability to exhibit particular aesthetic characteristics
6. Importance in demonstrating a creative or technical achievement at a particular period
7. Special association with a particular community or cultural group (including indigenous)
8. 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.

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

For further details of the Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan, refer to GB20 (page 376) of the upcoming council meeting agenda.

https://eservices.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Infocouncil.Web/Open/2021/06/OMC_15062021_AGN_AT.PDF

The original draft plans for Lindfield can be found here.

https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-say/Projects-open-for-comment/Draft-Ku-ring-gai-Public-Domain-Plan/Draft-Lindfield-Public-Domain-Plan

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.