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.