150616 Community Hub Engagement Outcomes - Ku-ring-gai … · This report provides a summary of the outcomes of community engagement completed to inform Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning

Creating and building community

ACTIVATE LINDFIELD/LQG½HOG�&RPPXQLW\�+XE(QJDJHPHQW�2XWFRPHV�5HSRUW

Ku-ring-gai Council

How to provide feedbackDuring the exhibition period between Saturday 21 March and Friday 8 May 2015 there are a number of ways you can provide feedback on the designs:

Visit the mobile exhibition spaces. Council staff will be available at designated times to talk to you about the designs. Visit kmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield to find out when staff are available.

Complete an online survey at kmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield

Complete an online submission at kmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield

Email your feedback to [email protected]

Complete a hard copy survey at Council’s customer service centre at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon.

Mail your feedback to Ku-ring-gai Council Locked Bag 1056 Pymble NSW 2073

Following the end of the public exhibition period, your comments will be incorporated into a report which will recommend a preferred design for both Lindfield Village Green and Lindfield Community Hub.

Lindfield Activate

Lindfield Activate

Have your say on

the future of

Lindfield centre

Designs on exhibition from Saturday 21 March to Friday 8 May 2015

kmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield

More informationIf you have any questions and would like to speak to a Council officer please contact us on 9424 0000 during business hours.

Or go online for more informationkmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield

kmc.nsw

.gov.au/a

ctiv

ate

lind

fie

ld

kmc.nsw.gov.au/activatelindfield

KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL LINDFIELD COMMUNITY HUB: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

OUTCOMES REPORT

Lindfield Community Hub: Engagement Outcomes Reportǀ 16 June 2015 ǀ

Cred Community Planning ǀ Page 1

Report Title: Ku-ring-gai Council Lindfield Community Hub Community Engagement Outcomes Report

Client: Ku-ring-gai Council

Version: Final Report, Date: 16 June 2015

Author: Sarah Reilly ([email protected])

This material is made available by Cred Community Planning on the understanding that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith. Cred Community Planning is not liable to any person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to in this document.


OUTCOMES REPORT



Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 About Lindfield Community Hub ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Consultation completed ........................................................................................................................ 5

2 Online survey ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Respondent profile ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Option preferences and feedback ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Preferences around design themes ....................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Reasons for visiting the Hub ................................................................................................................ 12 2.5 Main modes of transport ..................................................................................................................... 12

3 Recruited community workshop ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Recruited workshop participant profile ................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Workshop outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Preferred Option .................................................................................................................................. 15 3.5 Feedback around themes ................................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Participant feedback around themes (worksheets) .............................................................................. 17


OUTCOMES REPORT



Executive Summary

Background

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of community engagement completed to inform Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning and decision-making in relation to the proposed Lindfield Community Hub. Lindfield Community Hub will be a vibrant multi-purpose space with a new library, community centre, park and town square. The Community Hub will be located on Council’s Woodford Lane car park on the western side of Lindfield local centre behind the Pacific Highway shops.

Community engagement outcomes will form one part of Council’s decision-making and assessment in relation to these projects, and will be considered alongside:

! The public response to options during public exhibition

! A cost review of each option by an independent quantity surveyor;

! A financial feasibility analysis of the options by an independent land economist;

! A review by an independent traffic consultant;

! A review by an independent community facilities consultant;

! A review by Council staff of each option against the project objectives set out in the project brief; and

! A review by specialist Council staff.

Consultation completed

Community members were provided with a range of opportunities to provide feedback on the designs for the Lindfield Community Hub during the exhibition period Saturday 21 March to Thursday 14 May 2015. This report provides the outcomes of the following engagement:

! Online survey for residents, business and visitors – 206 completed

! Community workshops.

− One community workshop was held with 28 community members recruited from the Lindfield area and surrounding suburbs. Participants were randomly recruited by an independent agency. Experience indicates that participants of a recruited workshop will be more broadly representative of the general local community, as they are unlikely to have particular interests.

− One opt-in workshop was cancelled due to low registration.

Summary of engagement outcomes

Four design options have been developed and were presented to the public by design team SJB. The preferences and feedback provided through consultation, along with other design and feasibility considerations, will inform the final masterplan design. Overall, Options 2 and 4 included design aspects that were most preferred by the community across both consultation methods (scoring 1st or 2nd most preferred option across both the survey and workshop), with different aspects of each design impacting on this outcome.

Online survey

There were 206 surveys completed. 93% of respondents lived in the Ku-ring-gai LGA and 69% in the suburb of Lindfield. The age profile of survey respondents was older than the Ku-ring-gai LGA demographic (for example, 35% of survey respondents were aged 65+ years whereas 23% of Ku-ring-gai’s residents are aged 65+).


OUTCOMES REPORT



Results from the online survey showed that Option 4 scored 1st most preferred design option, followed by Option 2, which scored 2nd most preferred option.

Sixty-three percent of survey respondents stated that they liked Option 4, followed by 41% of survey respondents who liked Option 2.

Recruited workshop

Around 70% of the recruited workshop participants lived in Lindfield, with the other 30% living in suburbs neighbouring LIndfield. The age profile of the recruited workshop participants was younger than the online survey and more closely aligned to the age profile of the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

Participants of the recruited workshop scored Option 2 as the preferred option (78% or 22 participants) followed by Option 4 (18% or 5 participants).

Overall feedback across design themes

Across both the online survey and workshops, the following preferences emerged across a range of themes:

! Community facilities. In addition to the library and public toilets that will be provided, online survey respondents and recruited workshop participants scored a multi-purpose space for the whole community (age groups and interests) as its first preference for a community facility need.

The online survey respondents scored the top three priority community facilities as: 1. Multi-purpose space 2. Active recreation space 3. Community lounge (hang out, reading space).

! Open space. A plaza/space for community events emerged as the most important open space need for the Community Hub with online respondents and workshop participants indicating a desire to have an open space that is a place to meet, to engage in community activities and that is safe and well lit.

The online survey scored the top three priority open space elements as:

1. A plaza/space for community events

2. Large park

3. Children’s play space as the three priority aspects for the Community Hub’s open space.

! Movement and access. In terms of movement and access, around 56% of survey respondents said they would drive to the Community Hub indicating a need for good parking and access points. A further 37% said they would walk indicating a need for safe and accessible pedestrian routes.

The recruited workshop identified a need for a range of short and long term parking to be available, sufficient car parks, and that the Community Hub needs to be accessible off the Pacific Highway.

! Retail and commercial. Restaurants, and places to go at night were scored as the 1st priority need in terms of retail/commercial as a result of both the online survey and the recruited workshop.

Across both engagement methods, there were mixed views on the size of the supermarket needed. As a result of the online survey, the following rankings were given to the type of retail/commercial preferred:

1. Boutique food grocer (eg. Thomas Dux)

2. Restaurants

3. Large supermarket (eg. Coles, Woolworths)

4. Service/retail (eg hairdressers, pharmacy)

5. Small supermarket (eg. Aldi)

While there were a mix of views from the recruited workshop participants on the size of the supermarket, workshop outcomes indicated a preference for the Community Hub to have a “village feel” and for the retail/commercial to reflect this.


OUTCOMES REPORT



1 Introduction

1.1 Background

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of community engagement completed to inform Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning and decision-making in relation to Activate Lindfield, Lindfield Community Hub. Activate Lindfield is part of the Activate Ku-ring-gai program and is a major initiative for the Lindfield local centre and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA).

Community consultation outcomes will form one part of Council’s decision-making and assessment in relation to these projects, and will be considered alongside:

! The public response to options during public exhibition

! A cost review of each option by an independent quantity surveyor;

! A financial feasibility analysis of the options by an independent land economist;

! A review by an independent traffic consultant;

! A review by an independent community facilities consultant;

! A review by Council staff of each option against the project objectives set out in the project brief; and

! A review by specialist Council staff.

1.2 About Lindfield Community Hub

In accordance with Council’s vision, Lindfield Community Hub will be a vibrant multi-purpose space with a new library, community centre, park and town square. The Community Hub will be located on Council’s Woodford Lane car park on the western side of Lindfield local centre behind the Pacific Highway shops. The site is bound by Beaconsfield Parade to the south, Woodford Lane to the east, Bent Street to the north and residential land to the south west.

Four development options have been developed by urban design firm SJB. The four options were on public exhibition at the same time as the Lindfield Village Green concepts, from Saturday 21 March until Thursday 14 May 2015. During this time the community was invited to provide a response to the four options. Following the exhibition period, Council will assess each option considering the project objectives and community feedback.

1.3 Consultation completed

During the exhibition period, community members were provided with multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the designs for the Lindfield Community Hub. This report provides the outcomes of the following community engagement:

! Online survey – 206 completed survey

! One facilitated community workshop with 28 participants representative of the general community. Participants were recruited by an independent agency to participate (Note: originally two workshops were offered for the Lindfield Village Green but due to low registration the opt-in Lindfield Community Hub workshop was cancelled. As a result only one recruited workshop was held). Twenty-eight local residents participated in the workshop. A recruited workshop is a workshop where residents living in Lindfield or neighbouring suburbs were randomly recruited by an independent agency to participate in either a Lindfield


OUTCOMES REPORT



Village Green or Lindfield Community Hub workshop. Participants were representative of the Lindfield demographic and the general community view.

Table 1 provides a summary of the community engagement completed.

Table 1 Community engagement completed, Lindfield Community Hub

Consultation method Date Respondent group Number

Lindfield Community Hub Survey

21 March to 14 May 2015

Residents, business and visitors

206 surveys

1 x Lindfield Community Hub opt-in community workshop

6 May, 2015 General community Cancelled due to low registration

1 x Lindfield Community Hub recruited community workshop

9 May, 2015 Recruited Ku-ring-gai LGA residents

28 participants


OUTCOMES REPORT



2 Online survey

2.1 Respondent profile

There were 206 respondents to the survey. The majority (69%) were aged 40 years or over. Around 93% of respondents live in the Ku-ring-gai LGA with 69% in the suburb of Lindfield. There were more female (57%) than male (41%) respondents.

Figure 1 Sample profile Lindfield Community Hub respondents.

The age profile of the online survey respondents is older than the age profile of the Ku-ring-gai LGA demographic as follows:

! A lower proportion of 18 to 24 year olds (3% of respondents compared to 8.7% across the LGA)

! A similar proportion of 25 to 39 year olds (16% of respondents compared to 13% across the LGA)

! A higher proportion of 40 to 59 year olds (44% of respondents compared to 30% across the LGA)

! A higher proportion of respondents aged 60+ (35% of respondents compared to 23% across the LGA).

There was a higher proportion of female respondents (57%) than compared to the population of the Ku-ring-gai LGA (52%).

2.2 Option preferences and feedback

Table 2 shows that online survey respondents scored Option 4 as the 1st most preferred option, followed by Option 2, which scored 2nd most preferred option.

Male Female

18 to 24 years 25 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 to 69 years

70+ years

LIVE IN KU-RING-GAI Lindfield

East Lindfield Killara

Roseville St Ives

East Killara North Turramurra North Wahroonga

Wahroonga

Work in Ku-ring-gai Own a business in Ku-ring-gai

Regularly visit Lindfield

Profile of Lindfield Community Hub respondents !


OUTCOMES REPORT



Table 2 also shows that 63% of survey respondents liked Option 4, followed by 41% of survey respondents who liked Option 2.

Table 2 Preferred option

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Online Survey (206 surveys)

Preference 3 2 4 1

Score1 364 413 263 489

% Like the design 23% 41% 15% 63%

% Dislike the design

35% 40% 64% 20%

A summary of what online survey respondents liked about each of the options is provided below:

Option 1

23% of respondents liked Option 1, 43% were neutral, and 35% disliked it.

Some features respondents liked about this option were: ! “Human scale, and retention of trees”

! “3 storey limit on buildings” ! “Open space and small supermarket”

! “Does not involve demolition of Scout Hall”

Some features respondents did not like about this option were: ! “Not enough retail”

! “Residential development, small public square that does not integrate well with the park”

Option 2

41% of respondents liked Option 2, 19% of respondents were neutral, and 40% disliked it. Some features respondents liked about this option were:

! “Good balance” “Good mix”

! “Large supermarket”

! “The way it combines the square and the park to create a real sense of place” ! “The most integrated solution that meets the needs of the community”

The most common reason why respondents didn’t like this option was height (7 storey) of the residential.

1"Score"is"a"weighted"calculation."Items"ranked"first"are"valued"higher"than"the"following"ranks,"the"score"is"the"sum"of"all"weighted"rank"counts."


OUTCOMES REPORT



Option 3


Some features respondents liked about this option were: ! “Green space”

! “Retention of trees”

Some features respondents did not like about this option were:

! “5 storey too high” ! “Too much residential”

! “It is a wasted opportunity, providing mostly for residents rather than the local community”

! “A lot of area is devoted to residential which might make it appear unwelcoming to members of the public”

Option 4


Some features respondents liked about this option were:

! “Large supermarket and retail” ! “Lots of open space”

! “Provide[s] a quality retail offer to help activate the precinct and ensure that it actually gets used by the whole community”

! “The community hub, generous size of the park, specialty retail, three-storey height limit, and no residential apartment buildings”

Some features respondents disliked about this option were: ! “Supermarket dominance makes it commercial, rather than community focused”

! “The traffic congestion caused by the shoppers to the large supermarket” ! “Would use a number of modes – walking, cycling, train, car”

2.3 Preferences around design themes

Community facilities

The Lindfield Community Hub will include a new branch library, public toilets, and rooms available for community hire. In addition to these facilities, survey respondents would like to see the following community facilities as part of the Lindfield Community Hub (ranked and scored in order of preference):


OUTCOMES REPORT



Table 3 Community facility preference (online survey)

Community facilities Ranking Score2

Multipurpose space 1 849

Active recreation space (tai chi, yoga) 2 681

Community lounge (hangout space, book club) 3 625

Performance space 4 531

Creative art space 5 423

Childcare 6 389

Comments from respondents included:

“Ease and flexibility are a priority”

“An example of a successful hub is Lane Cove which is underpinned by commercial activity – eg retail and cafes”

“The space should be designed to appeal to as many members of the community as possible – old/young and with kids or without”

Open space

In relation to open space, as part of the Lindfield Community Hub respondents would like to see (ranked and scored in order of preference):

Table 4 Open space preferences (online survey)

Open space Ranking Score3

Plaza/space for community events 1 1179

Large park 2 1040

Children’s play space 3 1007

Passive recreation (eg. yoga, meditation) 4 915

Art/water features 5 885

Community garden 6 823

Retain existing trees and landscaping 7 734

2"Score"is"a"weighted"calculation."Items"ranked"first"are"valued"higher"than"the"following"ranks,"the"score"is"the"sum"of"all"weighted"rank"counts"3"Score"is"a"weighted"calculation."Items"ranked"first"are"valued"higher"than"the"following"ranks,"the"score"is"the"sum"of"all"weighted"rank"counts"


OUTCOMES REPORT



Open space Ranking Score3

Active recreation space 8 666

Youth facilities (eg. skate park) 9 503

Comments from online survey respondents included:

“The space should be for as any people and groups as possible”

“Shopping, resting and meeting place”

“This is not the place for active balls sports or a skate park…it needs to be a community space for meeting, relaxing”

Retail and commercial

In relation to retail and commercial, respondents would like included as part of the Lindfield Community Hub (ranked and scored in order of preference):

Table 5 Retail/commercial preferences (online survey)

Retail/commercial Ranking Score4

Restaurants 1 1161

Boutique food grocer (eg. Thomas Dux) 2 1151

Large supermarket (eg. Coles/Woolworths) 3 1072

Service retail (eg. hairdressers, banks, pharmacy) 4 1007

Small supermarket (eg. Aldi, IGA) 5 950

Speciality retail/fashion shops 6 845

Affordable space for emerging businesses/creative enterprises 7 677

Gym 8 553

Leasable office space 9 408

There were mixed views on the size of supermarket needed. Comments relating to retail and commercial included:

“Preference for large supermarket is due to poor facilities at existing Coles supermarket”

“Good specialty shops and a decent supermarket”

4"Score"is"a"weighted"calculation."Items"ranked"first"are"valued"higher"than"the"following"ranks,"the"score"is"the"sum"of"all"weighted"rank"counts"


OUTCOMES REPORT



“Good parking and a safe link across the highway”

2.4 Reasons for visiting the Hub

The main reasons respondents said they would visit the Lindfield Community Hub were:

! Community facilities and classes

! Relaxing and meeting up with people

! Convenient parking and supermarket

! Library

! Restaurants and cafes

! Retail and shops

! Bringing children to the park/play centre

! Walking home from work and the station, through the Hub

2.5 Main modes of transport

The main mode of transport respondents thought they would use to travel to/from the Community Hub were:

! Car (56%)

! Walk (37%)

! Cycle (3%)

! Train (2%)

! Bus (1%)

! Skate (1%)

Comments included:

! “Our family would walk there for lunch or dinner if there were sufficient variety of dining options” ! “We need a pedestrian overpass to the railway station!”


OUTCOMES REPORT



3 Recruited community workshop

3.1 Background

While it was planned to hold two workshops to consult around the Lindfield Community Hub, due to low registrations for the opt-in workshop, only the Lindfield Community Hub recruited workshop was held.

Experience indicates that participants of a recruited community workshop are unlikely to have particular interests and are more likely to be representative of the views of the broader local community. The findings from this workshop can be seen to represent the views of the general local community.

Table 6 Community workshops

Consultation method Date Respondent group Number

1 x Lindfield Community Hub opt-in community workshop

6 May, 2015 General community Cancelled due to low registration

1 x Lindfield Community Hub recruited community workshop

9 May, 2015 Recruited Ku-ring-gai LGA residents

28 participants

3.2 Recruited workshop participant profile

Council engaged an independent agency to recruit participants randomly who lived in the Lindfield or neighbouring suburbs. Participants recruited were representative of the Lindfield and Ku-ring-gai LGA demographic. Twenty-eight people attended the recruited workshop.

The recruited workshop participant age profile was younger and more closely aligned to the age profile of the Ku-ring-gai LGA than the online survey. The age profile of participants compared to the Ku-ring-gai LGA age profile as follows:

! 18 to 34 years represented 12% of participants (compared to 15% across LGA)

! 35 to 49 years represented 34% of participants (compared to 25% across the LGA)

! 50 to 64 years represented 37% (compared to 22% across the LGA)

! 65+ years represented 15% (compared to 16% across the LGA)

Participants were representative of a range of backgrounds:

! 38% had young children still living at home with them

! 50% were female and 50% were male (similar to LGA at 52% female)

! 15% spoke a language other than English at home (lower than the LGA at 21%)


OUTCOMES REPORT



3.3 Workshop outcomes


OUTCOMES REPORT



3.4 Preferred Option

Table 7 shows that respondents of the recruited workshop clearly scored Option 2 as the preferred option (78% or 22 participants) followed by Option 4 (18% or 5 participants).

Table 7 Option preferences recruited workshop

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Workshop (28 recruited participants group)

Preferred option 4 1 3 2

Number 0 22 1 5

% 0% 78% 4% 18%

3.5 Feedback around themes

Table 8 shows the common feedback received relating to the four options around four key themes:

! Open space

! Community facilities

! Movement and access

! Retail and residential

Table 8 Feedback around themes from workshop groups

Theme Feedback

1. Open Space

It is important that the hub:

! Has a ‘green heart’ and ‘village feel’

! A mix of uses is desirable, and the night life should cater

! Traffic and parking must work for the hub to be a success

! Consider the mix of uses in the open space and the impact of noise in the park (children, events) on neighbouring residents

Option 1 did not have useful green space – keeping existing trees is not important. Residential and park are too close together in this option.

Option 2 was most popular:

! Like that the entrance is a park – ‘green threshold’

! Like how design encourages refocus to Pacific Highway

! Like eat street but more bars

! Great potential for civic meetings and uses in park / plaza.

! Consider planting trees in upper plaza

! Consider stair location – restricts plaza use

! Consider heights – not a major point

! Residential – good for passive surveillance of open space; orientation could be


OUTCOMES REPORT



Theme Feedback

improved; consider how residential and open space is separated especially in terms of noise

Option 3 was universally disliked. Generally no reason to go there – residential is dominant and there is no civic space

Option 4 had not much feedback or interest generally. However, there may be potential for more active sports, such as a half court

2. Community facilities

Overall Option 2 came out as the preferred option – participants like the relationship of the library/community facility to the park and other uses within close proximity.

! Need to investigate how much library space is needed

! Wish list of functions and or uses included:

− Multi-functional space – ie a hall which could be used by the community, groups, or schools

− Smaller rooms for rent for community groups − Auditorium space – to allow for presentations, film screenings, etc. − Art/gallery space − Space for indoor sports

! Good accessibility to the community facility/library entry – including a drop-off area, and parking accessibility for seniors.

! The open space almost being an extension of the indoor community facilities – being able to use the open space for outdoor cinema, organic markets etc.

! Community facility should be within proximity of specialty retail and cafes.

! Allow for an extended activity through the day and the night – eg restaurants/cafes.

! Space within the library/community facilities to cater for all age groups, including seniors and young people.

! Solar panels to the building are important.

3. Movement and Access

! Lighting and safety along pedestrian connections

! Pedestrian bridge over highway, with lifts and escalators

! 240 commuters car park – is it enough?

! 4 hour parking to allow day trips

! Reduce or limit on-street parking

! Improve bus services to reduce the need for kiss and ride

4. Retail and residential

! Small supermarket and specialty shop, fish shop, deli etc. (there is a need since a lot of the shops on Pacific Highway have closed)

! A mix of views on size of supermarket needed between groups, some arguing there area already enough large supermarkets and a smaller IGA or Thomas Dux style would be preferable, others arguing for a larger supermarket – but adding a large supermarket may not be necessary, if the Coles were upgraded?

! Don’t need many night activities because that is available in Chatswood

! Create something unique – Lindfield as a community place to meet up with friends, not just somewhere to shop


OUTCOMES REPORT



Theme Feedback

! Needs good parking and easy access to train, if the retail is to be successful

! Local shops in Lindfield are important, so people don’t have to go to Macquarie, Chatswood or Gordon (the traffic around Gordon is bad).

3.6 Participant feedback around themes (worksheets)

Respondents were asked to write down their feedback on each of the four theme areas. A summary of feedback is provided in Table 9.

Table 9 Participant feedback around themes

Theme Participant feedback

1. Open space

! Open space to be available for large events e.g. carols/concerts

! Park to have some canvas roof for shade

! Safe and well lit

! The space should be “useful” and give a “reason for coming”

! “Everyone should be the beneficiary”

! “Areas for children to play safely and for parents to be able to sit close by.”“

2. Community facilities

! Multi-use is important

! “Make sure it is for community not just residents who move into units”

! “The more reasons to use the hub the more successful it will be”

! “Many types of rooms for rent to community groups”; “We need spaces we can hire/use for private needs”

! “Multiuse auditorium with stage and screen for film”

! “Need to attract all ages and cater to many different needs”; “Youth, infants, and availability at night”

3. Movement and access

! Availability of parking both short and medium (2 to 4 hours)

! Pacific Highway crossing is currently dangerous

! Need the car park to be still available while under construction

! “Ease of access and parking absolutely required”

! “Kiss and ride”

! Needs a lot of thought and planning

4. Retail and residential

! Don’t require large supermarket – however the existing Coles needs upgrading (main reason for bringing a Woolworths to the site would be out-compete Coles)

! Specialty shops and cafes

! Not too much residential

Documents

150616 Community Hub Engagement Outcomes - Ku-ring-gai … · This report provides a summary of the outcomes of community engagement completed to inform Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning