30 January - Ordinary

Welcome everyone to tonight’s meeting. I’ll just hand over to Mr Conroy for the introductions.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our fire warden. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. Council’s Code of Meeting Practice is covered by the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. This may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting.

The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored in Council’s record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates both to your address to Council and to any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the chamber has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. No apologies, everyone is here tonight. Are there any declarations of interest? Councillor Garrow. Yes, in the confidential report, item 22. Thank you. Oh, less significant. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Item 1 and item 8, non-pecuniary, significant non-pecuniary.

Thank you. You can read those and leave at the time. No others. Someone to confirm the minutes from last meeting. Councillor Sanbronio, seconded Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour?

The motion is carried. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, Madam Mayor. Could I move a procedural motion to bring item 15 forward tonight ?

Seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those—the reason for this is to allow Mr John Miller to speak rather than wait for all the other items, and so we'll take a vote on that. All those in favour? The motion is carried .

Please to allow Mr John Miller to speak rather than wait for all the other items, and so we'll take a vote on that. All those in favour? The motion is carried. So we shall begin with item 15, and we have one speaker, which is Mr John Miller.

Madam Mayor, councillors, council staff, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to support the intent of Recommendation 3 of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee report in Section 4 of the business paper. With a slight redrafting of its content, we do not need another committee to tell us what we already know.

There are over 27

000 people on the northwestern side of the Hawkesbury River from Wilberforce to Grose Vale who have been neglected for many years for the lack of a suitable high-level four-lane, one-in-100-year flood-free bridge of 17.3 metres to get to work and keep their employment, without travelling four hours via Bells Line of Road to Penrith. This would allow the evacuation of these forgotten people in a major flood event that damaged sewerage and electricity stations and put them out of action for months. On the 29th of November 2017, I made a submission to the Member for Hawkesbury, Dominic Perrottet MP, requesting that he arrange a meeting with Infrastructure New South Wales senior executives to consider my submission requesting a second crossing of the Hawkesbury River.

Between Chapel Street, Richmond and the high land at North Richmond via a four-lane , one-level, high-level one-in-a-hundred-year flood-free bridge to allow evacuation of 27,000 people in a major flood event. The RMS recently closed Windsor and North Richmond Bridge due to OH&S requirements when a small flood was two metres below the bridges. Stopping all the traffic is a ridiculous situation. There are no police, ambulance or hospital facilities available on the western side of the Hawkesbury River for residents. After the meeting in Sydney with Infrastructure New South Wales Executive, ever concerned confirmed that they will look into the feasibility of my proposal and write back with a response.

In a telephone discussion with an Infrastructure New South Wales senior executive yesterday, I was advised that they were drafting a response that would be sent directly through the member for Hawkesbury, Dominic Perrottet MP, recommending what further action could possibly be taken. I have made personal contact with the Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian MP, Melinda Pavey MP, Minister for Roads, and Stuart Ayres MP, Minister for Western Sydney, seeking their support. I believe that most of you councillors came to this place with good intentions of making things better for your community.

You have probably found that things don't happen as fast as we'd like in a bureaucracy. You must follow proper procedure. I have been trying to have a flood mitigation dam built for 20 years to reduce the height of major floods. I don't think I'll live to see Warragamba Dam built. I'm going to be 90 years of age next year and I'll never make it by the time they do it. If we're successful with our submission, this could be the most important major infrastructure project carried out in the history of the Hawkesbury for many years. We have a duty of care obligation for the safety of our residents. I therefore respectfully request that you councillors, as the ultimate decision makers of this council, will unanimously support my submission here tonight.

A copy of my full submission has been supplied to Council General Manager for his staff to peruse and consider for future action. He may wish to comment on its content.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Miller. Are you happy to take questions?

Yes.

Councillor Conly.

Thanks, Mr Miller. Just wanted to clarify exactly what action you're proposing we take tonight. Sorry, just wanted to know exactly what action are you proposing we take tonight?

I'd like you to support the Member for Hawkesbury in his push through the Infrastructure New South Wales to come up with some way we're going to achieve this. We know there could be funding problems. I mean, here's the Treasurer, thank God he's our member of parliament. If I can't get some money out of him, there's something wrong. And if they run short in New South Wales, I believe we could call on the Prime Minister of Australia, who is descended from the Turnbulls of 1804 at Ebenezer. He's always pleased to meet someone from the Hawkesbury, and I'd be quite happy to go to Canberra and put a case to the Prime Minister to do dollar for dollar funding with the New South Wales Government to achieve this end.

Thank you, Mr Miller. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks for that, Mr Miller. I'm just wondering if your proposal to connect North Richmond to Chapel Street, is that, like, non-negotiable? Because I know that the government, Mr Organ might correct me if I'm wrong, is proposing a corridor for a one-in-100 bridge to connect Bells Line of Road to the M7, which appears as though it might go across the river near North Richmond somewhere, but go for the sort of well, yeah, or the new version of that, which may connect up somewhere near the driftway. You know, four lanes connecting into Chapel Street funnels everything into Richmond. I'm just wondering if you were locked into that, HAC, where it had to go, or can it just go somewhere—

Okay. Yeah, just turn it— thank you. Did

Not turn it on. Yeah, you did, just for that last— Okay. I raise this issue with Infrastructure New South Wales, but I am a bit of a dreamer, and I thought the cost is going to be enormous for what you're proposing, and it is an excellent one in the long term.

I won't be here for that one either. Hope you are, Peter. But I felt that this one to North Richmond was more in the realms of reality and possibly achievable because 2018, in the timeline of Infrastructure New South Wales policy they put out in January, said that they're going to raise low levels of roads in the Hawkesbury to allow evacuation. Because when I went down to Sydney to talk to them, they said, Where's this low spot you've got? I said, It's 2.5 kilometres from Chapel Street to North Richmond, and it's a big hole to fill. But it is something that's necessary to be done. Fifty percent of our Hawkesbury people live on that side of the river, 27,000, and we should be out there doing something for them. This is a great thing to be done.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. No further questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. That was our only speaker on that item. If someone would like to move now, ...

Councillor Rasmussen, and what is it that you're moving?

What I'm moving, that we support the movement for the Hawkesbury, the Honourable Mr Perrottet, in seeking a second crossing, flood-free second crossing across the Hawkesbury River as soon as possible, or before.

If I could just say, because this arose, the item is to do with the minutes. I think if we have point one that we accept the minutes from the Floodplain Committee and point two the recommendation that you just made.

That would be fine, thanks, Madam. Thank you.

Do you have a seconder? Seconder, Councillor Garrow. Discussion? Councillor Conolly.

Only to say, are we still moving points two and three of the recommendation?

Well, they're just part— we're just actually, the recommendation is just that we adopt the minutes. So all these other ones are the recommendations within. Within

Our minutes from the committee, which normally just go through without discussion. So I thought,

Having read it on page 162, these were actions for council. Maybe I'm confused, but—

Oh, here's the recommendation. Sorry, I was on the wrong— I'm happy

To include points two and three as well, Madam,

So we'll end

Up with four points. Yeah

Okay. So we've got an additional point, which is to, as Mr Miller raised, to support the calls for that. Discussion, Councillor Rasmussen.

Madam Mayor, I want to thank Mr Miller for again coming along to talk about this particular important infrastructure issue for the Hawkesbury. He's been an advocate and a passionate one for many years, as he pointed out, and that I know, and many other here know about John's efforts in this regard, and he's tireless in contacting state politicians, federal politicians, local politicians, and anybody who's prepared to listen to him about this important issue, probably the single most important issue that is flooding in the Hawkesbury. And I think we should rally the support of the member for Hawkesbury, the Honourable Mr Perrottet, to seek to have, as quickly as is possible, to build a second crossing, flood-free second crossing across the Hawkesbury.

That has been needed for many, many years now, and the growth in this area has certainly—the infrastructure, rather, has not kept pace with the growth in this area, and it is about time the state government did something about alleviating the traffic holdups and the long waits and the queues that people have to endure west of the river. And there is a couple of other bits of infrastructure that we need west of the river, but let's deal with that one first.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross.

Would it be possible to suggest an amendment?

You can suggest an amendment.

I would not be happy with point 3. I would seek its excision in favour of point 4, and the grounds for proposing that is that I am very concerned that with point 3 we are further damaging the historic township of Richmond by inferring that there will be a funneling of all major thoroughfares into March Street, Richmond. And further to that, RMS, I believe, have resumed

Property at the traffic lights on the corner of Bosworth , shall we say, South and March Street on both sides of Bosworth Street.

Sorry, Councillor Ross, I just have to see if you have a seconder for your amendment before we continue discussion. Oh

So can you just say the amendment just in terms of actually how that would change the recommendation? Delete item 3.

Delete item 3

Altogether? Altogether. And just have item 4, as Councillor Rasmussen. Yes

Which would become a new item 3 if you wish.

If councillors can follow that on the recommendation. Delete item three, yeah , page 162, and have the item four, which Councillor Rasmussen is waiting for.

If we could have Councillor Rasmussen up even, and you'll just be able to see to delete Council item three. Yes.

Who could you not hear, John? Generally. Yes

Can I just remind everyone when you're speaking tonight to speak clearly into the microphone for the podcast, and just take this chance to say hello to those people out there who listen to the podcast, and thank you for listening. Hello, Matt at North Richmond. Hello.

Hello, potties.

Sorry, we're just waiting on the wording so we can confirm if there's a seconder for the amendment. Okay,

Here we are . We have it up on the board now.

Can everyone see that to read it? Councillor Ross has proposed to delete item 3 and just have an amendment that is just 1, 2 and

4

Oh, he wants to delete 4 on here. It was 3 in the business paper. Yes.

Okay.

And I'm waiting on it to see if someone wants to second Councillor Ross's amendment or not.

Can I just clarify, Madam Mayor?

Yes, Councillor Calvin.

So is Councillor Ross suggesting something else to go in its place, or— No

He just wants only 1, 2 and 3 and 4 removed. Okay.

Any takers on the seconding?

No. Sorry? Just the amendment.

Oh, it should say item 3 of the minutes. Yes. All right, so Councillor Ross's amendment lapses. So we'll resume discussion on Councillor Rasmussen's motion, which is 1, 2 and— Three . Three and four. Yes, all of those. Thank you. Further discussion?

No further discussion, right. Oh, sorry, Councillor

Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. The only concern that I have with point four is that it's quite specific. So I'm not— I didn't second Councillor Ross's amendment because I think that there's value in point four, and I don't want it removed completely. But it is quite specific in talking about a route from Chapel Street to Hanna Match at North Richmond, and I'm not sure that we should be that restricted in what we and what the Infrastructure Committee considers. I think perhaps it would be better if that was a more open— particularly given Councillor Ross's concerns that we're basically doing, we're proposing doing the same to Richmond as Option 1 does to Windsor, funneling all the traffic through an existing town centre, and I think that's a mistake.

I think we also need to correct the record. This isn't a second crossing. This will in fact be a third crossing, given that none of us here— well, most of us here are not particularly keen on pulling down perfectly good bridges to replace them with something else. I don't think we would be proposing that we lose the bridge that's already there. I think we're after, what we are genuinely after is a third crossing, and any money that's spent on an additional crossing should fix both flooding and traffic and protect heritage, which nothing we've got on the table at the moment does.

Yes, I think Mr Owens, could you please clarify that point? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just reading the item 4 there, the committee discussed the matter of Chapel Street to North Richmond, Chapel Street, Richmond to Hannah Match, North Richmond, but then that the matter be referred to Council's Infrastructure Committee to investigate the feasibility of constructing an elevated flood evacuation route from Richmond to North Richmond. So that broadens it out from the Chapel Street to Hannah Match. It's just linking Richmond and North Richmond. So it's just referring back to the minutes of what the committee was discussing.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think we're imbuing the decision that we make here on this particular matter with far more weight than it's actually going to be ultimately given, in the sense that we're not debating whether we're about to imminently construct a bridge in that location. This is extremely preliminary, and itself is a reference to another new Infrastructure Committee, which I think would be well served with ideas of all sorts coming from all quarters, whether it's from the Floodplain Management Committee or whether it's from another committee or whether it's from an outside body from Council. They then collate , assess and represent the aggregation of those suggestions to higher tiers of government that ultimately provide the funding .

The finer points of the wording of this recommendation doesn't commit us to build a bridge anywhere. We're not that important. But I do welcome the opportunity for other committees to receive the suggestion, to consider them in light of other suggestions and then forward them to other tiers of government.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Pragno. Further discussion? Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I would just like to as well offer my, well, kind words to Mr Miller about his commitment to this issue. I think we all know he's definitely an engaging local personality who for decades has been working on this. So thank you, Mr Miller, for continuously highlighting this issue to all levels of government. I agree with what Councillor Sam Pragno just said. This isn't committing us to anything. It's not even committing us to the feasibility of the issue. It's referring it to the infrastructure committee for them to make an assessment. So other than, I mean, those minutes have already been adopted by the flood committee to do that. The infrastructure committee can then decide whether they want to proceed with that from that point on.

So it's only a referral really at this point. And the point two that's been added , I mean, there's nothing wrong with endorsing recommendations for that regard. I think that Mr Miller has made those representations and if I can confirm with what you said, have the representations been made to the minister?

Yes

Yes. Yeah, I think they have. So perhaps we should have something in there to have the response from the RMS referred back to council or to this committee to actually give them the response from the RMS. I'm not sure if you want to add that or not. It's just a point if you want to add that so that you can actually get some concrete feedback from the RMS rather than some speculation.

Madam Mayor, look, I'm happy to, if this is going to get unanimously through this council, if we add that bit, I'm happy to add it. Because I think it's important that we actually vote as a united group here. We've got all of us here, and if we can get that on as a united, you know, all together representation to whoever, then I think I'd be very happy.

Well, if that needs to be added, there's no issue with that. We would like to have as much feedback as possible, of course. The other thing is that, of course, essentially it's basically being referred to the Infrastructure Committee, who I guess will then be the ones actually doing the representations and following up on everything. So, yeah . If you want that added in, that's fine. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Not necessary, Madam Mayor, thank you.

Sorry, Councillor Ross, was your light on?

Yes. I cannot support the motion because I believe element two , and with due respect to Mr Miller, who I do respect and whose viewpoint I respect, but he also noted that he had no particular truck with a route from Chapel Street to North Richmond. I believe we should be seeking a fourth crossing of the river at a point other than using Richmond Town Centre as its base, other than Richmond Town Centre. With all due respect, and in the light of the wording of two, I'm unable to support that total recommendation. Thank you.

It's quite a broad-scale representation. It's from Richmond to North Richmond. It's not from Richmond Town Centre. That may well be to where the driftway bypass options that have been seen in the past could go, or so on. So Richmond and North Richmond just really means from one point to the other in that locality. Doesn't specify the town centre now, if that helps you with your decision.

If it were to be considered to be appropriate to look at the driftway, I suggest that that would probably be called Castle Ray at that point.

No .

Okay. No. Anyway, okay, point taken. Councillor Rasmussen, right of reply.

Not necessary, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

It's not planning. All right, I'll put the motion as Councillor Rasmussen's motion up there. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Move now to mayoral minute.

Apologies regarding... Move now to Mayoral Minute 1, and we have a number of speakers. Our first speaker

Madam Mayor, sorry.

Oh, Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, I have a significant non-pecuniary interest.

Thank you. Could you please read that what it is

For and about the action

And then leave?

Yes, I have a significant non-pecuniary interest, and I live adjacent to the area under discussion.

Thank you.

We'll move on to our first speaker. Our first speaker is Graham Edds.

Madam Mayor, General Manager, Councillors, Council staff. Look, I applaud the Mayor in bringing this significant archaeological, or archaeology, at Thompson Square to be discussed in this chamber. It seems inconceivable that the RMS indicated that they did not know that an 1814 brick barrel drain existed before the salvage operation, yet it was reported on in an archaeological report in 1992 by a learned archaeologist and is noted within heritage listings on Council's own How House that Howe built a brick drain in Thompson Square. If the RMS had done their due diligence by comprehensively researching the Thompson Square conservation area and preparing a conservation management plan prior to planning a replacement bridge, they would have known.

This is a document that is normally provided before, or compiled before, any major work is undertaken anywhere. It also seems incomprehensible that the RMS and the Minister would approve a project that has the potential of destroying Australia's earliest Aboriginal and European archaeology. European archaeology that is reported to be the earliest known government infrastructure in Australia. And yes, it's in the Hawkesbury, in the heart of Thompson Square. I cannot speak with depth of knowledge about the Aboriginal archaeology within the Aylian sand dune beneath, but based on reports and Council's excavation within the museum site, there will be a large resource. It is my opinion as a conservation architect that this archaeology should not just be allowed to be salvaged and removed completely for a new bridge, but instead should become a formidable tourist attraction managed by Hawkesbury City Council, and a new bridge constructed elsewhere out of Thompson Square.

This is an opportunity, councillors, for Hawkesbury to be put on the map as a tourist destination. I can recall meeting with the State Member, Dominic Perrottet MP, soon after he was elected, and he was promoting the potential of the Hawkesbury as a major tourist destination. In last week's Hawkesbury Gazette, it was reported that the Sparrowly Group had been appointed by the State Government to work with Destination NSW with the aim to boost tourism numbers and expenditure in the Hawkesbury. But what a better opportunity is there to actually turn Thompson Square into a formidable tourist attraction? What better way would there be to promote than, in turning a 19th century archaeology in Thompson Square into a national and international tourist attraction?

So in Thompson Square, there's a conflict: inappropriate development versus Australia's unique and rare heritage, and its appropriate future management to ensure its protection for future generations to enjoy. Mayor and councillors, you may not be aware that both the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government have made substantial financial commitments for Australia ICOMOS to host an international council of monuments and sites general assembly to be held in Sydney, Australia, in October 2020. As a member of this international committee on vernacular architecture, I have offered to lead a tour of early 19th century vernacular rural structures within the Hawkesbury during that time.

But hosting an international general assembly in Australia will undoubtedly focus national and international interest on cultural heritage and showcase extraordinary places and Australia's heritage management practice. Wouldn't it be a disaster, and most embarrassing for the state and Australian governments, if the Windsor Bridge replacement project was to be constructed, irrevocably harming Australia's oldest civic square and, in so doing, destroying Australia's earliest known government infrastructure?

Mayor, I did have one other point I wanted to make because I want to change one of your recommendations, if that's possible. Mayor, can I be bold to suggest that a change within the recommendation item 4 as an alternate, or an alternative fifth amendment recommendation, that is not only to invite our local member to visit the archaeological site, but to request him, as our local member, to support Hawkesbury City Council and make representation to the state government to stop the Windsor Bridge replacement project.

Thank you, Mr. Eds.

Are there any— have you finished? Are there any questions for Mr. Eds? Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr. Eds. I'm just thinking back to the museum in Baker Street and the process that went on when that was getting built. What's happening, what's being recommended here in this business paper is the normal way of doing things, isn't it? Because that's what happened at Baker Street. We delayed the construction until we sorted out the archaeological information. That's all that's being asked of here, isn't it?

Yes, it is all that's being asked, but it's far more reaching than what is actually here in this Mayoral Minute. What we really don't realise is the damage that a bridge will make to this valuable resource that Australia has. And that's why there's a salvage operation, in other words, to remove it, to get rid of it, so that it won't be an impost to building a bridge. Now, how do you actually support a bridge on something that you don't know is down there? And, you know, we've got a brick barrel drain, we know that, so it's got to be removed before we have the opportunity to build a bridge. It's likely to collapse if we don't.

And we similarly don't know the vibrations that is going to occur on the surrounding buildings that aren't owned— well, who are owned rather by the public, as to what those vibrations, both during construction and also during the life of the bridge, will have actually on those historic buildings. Now these are questions that really need to be asked and asked forcefully, and get correct answers before anything happens. And this is why, I guess, Madam Mayor, I'm asking that you actually do approach our local member and ask that this bridge be stopped.

Thank you, Mr Eds. Any further questions? Councillor Ross.

Mr Eds, thank you very much for a very interesting and informative session

You've provided us.

The other aspect of the

In inverted commas, salvage works , I understand could also possibly involve the Greenway wharf closer to the river. Now is that within the realms of possibility as having such a grievous effect as this brick barrel drain instance?

Well, I'm not an expert on that marine archaeology, but I would think that it would have an effect. I don't know to the quantum of that effect, but certainly, yes, it will.

It is pinned by virtue of the beams being laid back into the, if you like, the hillside on the southern bank, are they not? That's correct, yes.

I think the other thing that one needs to mention here, Councillors, is that I was, I guess why I'm so passionate about the Hawkesbury and about Thompson Square is that I had the opportunity to actually run a tour for international guests from ECOMOS back in 1992. And then Mr, what's his name, Henry Clear, and he was the World Heritage Coordinator in the International Council for Monuments and Sites. And he came out to the Hawkesbury and viewed the slab barns, which I was taking this tour on. And he indicated to both Carolyn, myself and others within the group that we in Australia have a very unique position in the world, that we can go back to our firsts all of the time, whereas through Europe, through Asia, through the Americas, they can't.

And simply because those firsts have been changed so many times. And he was, you know, I guess we were underplaying the importance of Australia as being an infant when it comes to world history. But this guy was saying to us, no, that's not the case. You are most important because you can go back to your original stuff and you can respect it and move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Eds. Our second— oh, sorry, you've confused. Thank you. Nothing else? Thank you. Our second speaker is Harry Terry.

Mayor, council, staff, councillors, gallery.

The negative impact of the project. On the built environment of Thompson Square, the aesthetic values of the surrounding cultural landscape, including the Thompson Square Conservation Area, and the removal of a significant archaeological resource will change a familiar and valued space irreversibly. The impacts associated with the fundamental elements of the project cannot be mitigated to retain the strong sense of the past that is currently evident here. That is a quote from the Statement of Heritage Impact of 2008, commissioned by the RTA. Focus on what your byway has that is truly unique and different. Focus on the qualities that separate your location from anywhere else in the world. That's your hook.

That's your marketing angle. That is what visitors are looking for. As we become more homogeneous, people are looking for those special, one-of-a-kind places. That was written by Amy Webb, U.S. National Trust. A sense of place is central to community identity, building and belonging or attachment to a locality. It is developed through an understanding and appreciation of the distinctiveness of the locality. Local distinctiveness is often recognizable, yet difficult to describe. Heritage and character are key determinants of the distinctiveness and sense of place. That's from Arts Queensland, 2005. Heritage is something we have inherited. It provides a cultural system that supports human cultural endeavour, and an important element of cultural diversity.

Protecting and investing in cultural capital can produce social, economic or environmental returns, while eroding or suspending it diminishes the ability of future generations to do so. That was written by Clark in the Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Cultural Heritage. Our heritage reminds us daily of where we come from, and contributes to our social identity and our sense of place. It provides a roadmap for our future. Heritage is a right to your identity, and a connection to culture touches our happiness and wellbeing. That was written in 2019, or spoken in 2019 at the National Trust Heritage Awards by the New South Wales Minister for Heritage, Mark Speakman. Recommendation 7 from the Statement of Heritage Impact, October 2008, as I mentioned previously: the archaeological excavation and recording of the potential remains of the historic Windsor Wharf and drain associated with Thompson Square will be necessary.

These archaeological investigations should include an underwater survey of the wharf area. Excavation will require an excavation permit be sought from the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning. As the drain is within a State Heritage Register curtilage, a Section 60 permit will be required. That is the Section 60 that was removed from the State Significant Infrastructure legislation, that you can't challenge heritage. Recommendation 8: It is recommended that once the extent, condition and integrity of the wharf and drain have been assessed through archaeological excavation, the RTA should examine the possibilities for the in situ retention or partial retention of features as part of the new bridge designs.

I will be speaking on Motion 8 later tonight. To foreshadow my presentation, the key points I will be making is that the RMS has a tradition of refurbishing bridges before handing them to councils and providing funds for maintenance for... Thirty years. Thirty years. There are quite a number of bridges handed over to councils, so why not to the Hawkesbury City Council? Windsor Bridge is unique in its construction. The RMS would not just be destroying a valuable asset, but also our heritage, the unique design and construction of the bridge, and the blood, sweat and tears of those who made it happen. I will be therefore recommending the council does its utmost to fight for the retention of the bridge in toto.

Back to this motion. Councillors, I ask you, will you stand with the mayor in passing this motion? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Terry. Are you happy to take questions? Surely. Any questions for Mr Terry? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr Terry, thanks very much again for a very informative and I think very erudite presentation there. And I appreciate the research and the history that you bring to the table tonight, because it's important, I think, because there is such a long litany of quotes like you gave tonight. There are many more. There are others similarly claiming the importance of heritage and where it fits into the local environment and the local culture and the local people who inhabit this place. So can you offer any explanation as to why the state government doesn't get it?

A number of people who have worked for the state government are RMS, as it's currently called. When I say a number, I will talk about two that I know who spoke to me while I was occupation of the tent. Both of them said that the RMS and government are doing all their utmost to eradicate heritage because it gets in the way of their goal of development at all costs. And one of them said, I no longer work for the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project team because I was a heritage advisor and I was wasting my time. The other one wasn't working in the area. He's doing something else, but he said that's just part of the culture of the current government. Now, can I guarantee that? I'm just reporting what two people who work for them told me.

I think there's a touch of the emperor's new clothes in this whole project. No one's game to tell the Premier the truth, and the Premier is not prepared to listen to it anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Terry. Thank you. Our next speaker

Is Jan Sparks.

Here we are. Sorry, got glasses. Good evening, everybody. Congratulations on bringing this to Council. All four recommendations are very important and appropriate given the recent findings of the barrel drains. I'm not going to go into that because the other two speakers have completely covered it. So I particularly like number four: invite the local member, Dominic Perrottet, to come and see this site. Dom is 110% behind this project, and he believes that he has full support, except for the fringe groups, which I'm one of. He is a representative of the five Macquarie towns, so I'm unsure how he can be so dismissive of our heritage. Is he passionate about the Hawkesbury and our heritage? Does he live in the Hawkesbury electorate?

Both of those are quite telling. If Dominic is so convinced that this project is fantastic, why does he take extraordinary steps to avoid all of us in every group, I think including probably some of the council members? So the finding of the barrel drains is fantastic. However, if Option 1 had never made it to the table, which it never should have, the barrel drains would remain in situ, untouched, as they should be, especially for our tourism. The fact that they have been found and disturbed and possibly damaged is disgraceful. However, we do have a group that are dedicated to sit at the dig five days a week from the time that the people arrive to the time that they leave, and they document every single step of the dig, which will make history.

Kudos to them. A couple of them are here tonight. If they weren't there, I wonder exactly where we'd be today and what would be the result of those barrel drains being found. Would they be reported on? It's all pathetically potted on at the moment, reported on at the moment. So these drains, as we know, oldest example of public infrastructure of their kind in Australia. They were commissioned by Lachlan Macquarie, built by Howell and McGrath, circa 1815. I won't go into that. It's all been covered before. Number three, Josh Frydenberg has a number of emails highlighting the situation, and I expect Council will probably receive nothing in return, as we don't get anything in return from Dominic Perrottet.

And most of the protectors for Thompson Square have received pretty much nothing, even though they've taken a lot of time to express their concerns about the drains and about the entire project, all met with a wall of silence. So I say go to it, councillors. I urge you to get behind the recommendations. We get one shot at this. Delay the process as best you can and as long as you can. We are running out of time. I challenge anybody that's sitting in this room with their hand on their heart to tell me, in all seriousness, that this is not the most destructive project for Thompson Square. It's our iconic part of Windsor. It's the heart of Windsor. An unsightly large concrete road bisecting Thompson Square is not in keeping with the Georgian square.

It will not enhance it, and I just want to understand how anyone can think otherwise, especially when there's so much evidence to the contrary. From numerous conversations I've had over the past four years, I actually came back from Queensland many years ago, five, six years ago, and I was here for the first occupation of Corp, the tent. I've been a member of the tent, which I don't do anymore for numerous reasons, and I've spoken to so many people, and the most common comment from these people is, If we don't get this bridge, we're going to get nothing. They honestly believe that the government will give us nothing if we don't get this. So what does that tell you about what they think of the government?

They don't have confidence in the government, and I'm really angry because tonight I actually rang into 702 Radio ABC, and I put a question to Gladys, and it was basically I outlined the project very quickly. I said I was standing in Thompson Square as I was talking to her. I mentioned the amount of trucks going through the area, how it's going to increase because of the sand up at Tinderrick. Her response was, I dare say, pathetic. She actually said that this will act as a bypass. Is the woman completely mad? Because I'm sorry, this is not a bypass.

It beggars belief that she, as the state, she's the Premier of the state, and she thinks cutting this through the centre of our town with 5,000 trucks possibly growing to that is going to be a bypass. I'm speechless. I'm angry tonight. I was so angry I could barely drive my car.

She said she's also protecting the square, and we're going to get this in writing. We're going to get that podcast because we're going to throw this in her face and everybody else who will listen, because this project is disgraceful. Graham, the first speaker, Mr Terry, covered everything. But for her to sit on a radio and tell everybody who's listening that she's protecting our square and it's acting as a bypass, I just don't get it . Thank you, Ms

Sparks. That's time. Are you happy to take questions? Yep Are there any questions, councillors? Councillor Conolly.

Just one. Thanks, Ms Sparks. I noted in your address you mentioned that the drain has possibly been damaged. Through the materials I've read through, I hadn't seen that indicated. Would you be able to elaborate on that?

Yeah, in our documentation of the videos that we have, there's been damage to, when they were finding them before they actually uncovered them completely. Okay, we've got video documentation and photographs that those drains were—the excavator was in there. We don't know how much. How would we know? We don't get in there to see it. We're the mushrooms. Thank you

Oh, Councillor Ross. No? Okay. Our last speaker is Kim Smith.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor and councillors, this issue has divided the community, and it's time it was put to rest. Make this issue history. Oh, wait a minute, that's what this is, right? History. It's really concerning that this mayoral minute is requesting that the member for Hawkesbury, Dominic Perrottet, comes and inspects the dig. How inconsiderate to request that the local member travel to his electorate. All the way from Beecroft. Do you know how many tolls that is? To inspect this historic archaeological dig. Do you really think that's a fair request, Madam Mayor? The member for Hawkesbury does not answer emails or phone calls in regard to this issue, so clearly it's not as important as most of you here believe.

It's Australia's oldest public square, not the rocks. Oh, hold on, it's older. Thompson Square is older than Port Arthur. It's older than Hyde Park Barracks. It's older than most of the remaining heritage in the rocks. Never mind, it's old. It's historic. I'm sure you all get it. And asking that the dig stops, really, is that to protect the historic barrel drains, to stop them being bulldozed or moved off site. But if they were moved off site to a museum, they could be seen easily, big lights and glass to protect them. I know they are preserved as they are, but wouldn't it be better to dig them up and hopefully not break them into oblivion and move them somewhere else irrelevant like a museum?

And what about the inquiry that's happening? Wouldn't it be better to let the inquiry members see all the workers digging and excavating and showing them that they are doing exactly what Gladys, Dom and the RMS have instructed them to do? Keep digging, and the faster the better. In conclusion, Windsor is history. No, sorry, Windsor has history. No, wait a minute, Windsor had history. And decision makers will be remembered for what they did to that history. For anyone who's interested, like Ms Spark said, Gladys the Premier was on ABC Radio 702 at 6 p.m. tonight, where she announced that the new bridge is actually a bypass. I will leave that with you. The podcast will be on the next tonight.

You'll be able to pick that up on the web. And if you two find that unbelievable, I don't know what else to say. Like, it's just totally unbelievable that that's the Premier telling you that you've actually got a bypass.

Thanks. Thank you, Ms Smith. Are you happy to take questions? Yeah, sure. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ms Smith, thanks very much. Do you think this could fall into the fake news category? Thompson Square? No, the Premier's announcement.

Well, I think the government are actually fake news, aren't they?

Thank you. Any further? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ms Smith, your team has documented evidence of the archaeology that's taken place there.

Thousands and thousands of photos.

Do you have evidence of archaeological items being moved into the compound across the river? Plenty. Yep . And that is not normal practice, is it?

There should be ten truck movements a day, apparently, eight truck movements a day. That's part of the conditions that they should be carrying out at the dig. Yesterday I was there at nine o'clock and there was already 15 movements, and one day last week, or this week, there was 37 movements in the day. So 43 movements, way over the limit that they're supposed to be doing, and who's taking any notice? Anybody here? Only these people documenting it. This is your history, your kids, your grandkids. Don't take them to Australiana Village and be such hypocrites.

Any further questions? Good. No. Thank you. That was our final speaker on that item. I'd like to move the Mayoral Minute, and it has a couple of amendments. I have taken on board Mr Ed's request to ask Mr Perrottet to support the council stance on this project and. .. Point number five. I did email councillors about it; it was just omitted from the original, the one on the business paper. So that was to request that the company that is doing the conservation management plan be able to inspect and document officially for the conservation management plan what exactly has been found, and to record and do the appropriate documentation of that as part of their process in the planning. So I brought this forward.

I've just actually been advised that the RMS has booked the museum for the 3rd of February from 10 till 2 to hold an information session, which I imagine will be that they will be informing, or having it open to the public to inform the public what has been found and what the consequences of that would be. The other day, a member, Mr Standen, representing the RMS, I believe, had told people that the find of the brick barrel drain may mean that the design could have to be changed, which is. What underlies why I have called for the request to delay the tendering until the design is confirmed. If it has to be changed, and that is the reference to the Tibby Cotter Bridge that was built across Anzac Parade, if it has to be changed, there could be a major blowout in costing.

And already it's cost a lot, and it will cost a lot. So it's much better, as Mr. Eds was alluding to, that all the investigations and all the decisions on what will actually happen to this piece of heritage infrastructure is decided upon before anything else proceeds, because it's far too valuable to simply allow things to proceed and then be changed later depending on that. This is a significant find. It's not finding a piece of chipped crockery or something down a hole. This is a really significant finding. And so these are why I call on Council to support doing these number of actions and to allow the relevant people with the expertise, such as Lucas Stapleton and Partners, to have access to really be able to give an expert opinion on what exactly this value of this heritage is and what it means in terms of the need for preservation and so on.

So I'll open the floor to debate on that now, and I would ask for the support of this Mayoral Minute. Councillor Connolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just had a couple of questions about the late changes. That point five regarding the request for Lucas Stapleton and Partners to have access and to do on-site works of inspecting and documenting on the site, was that work included in the initial engagement? And if not, have we inquired as to the cost of having them do that work?

In the engagement of them to do the plan, I'll have to check.

Mr Rowlands.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Not specifically, but it is to document a range of findings, so that would be

Included as part of

That job, yes. So just to clarify, Madam Mayor, because obviously if we're having to ask for permission, then I would imagine therefore they would know they would not ordinarily have access to this site to be able to do these things. Has anyone from council actually made contact with the firm to find out if there'd be additional costs for this work

To be done?

Mr Rowlands.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We've actually contacted the RMS about gaining access to the site, and we are talking to the consultant as well. I just don't have the answer back from them yet, but we have commenced discussions with them about doing that.

Okay

Councillor Conolly. Oh, that's all for now. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

That's all. Further discussion?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, ma'am. I'm interested in point five.

I'm wondering if it would not be possible also, because this whole wretched thing is the greatest PR disaster of all times by the RMS and the Department of Planning and the State Government.

I would wonder if there may not, if it would be possible for our heritage committee members to be able to— Actually attend the site, and at least be given the joy of being able to sight the elements which have been unearthed , and possibly be able to liaise with the AJV or AAJV or whatever the heck the crowd is that is running the archaeological works at the moment.

Comment from Mr Owens on that point?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It was just today that we were talking about and contacting RMS about the Heritage Committee and our consultants getting access to the site to view that. So I did say to staff to wait until this mayoral minute to see if anything came out of this so that we can discuss that, but we're actually doing exactly that now.

Thank you, Director. Through you, Mayor , I do want to stress that I would see the opportunity for the committee members to be involved in that as crucial. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Every time this debate comes up, I make my standard disclaimer. I have mixed feelings about this, badly mixed feelings about this. Ironically, I'd have been prepared to support the mayoral minute if it hadn't included the amendment to point four, because that effectively turns the whole mayoral minute... into yet another referendum on the whole of the bridge project. The original points that were proposed seemed quite reasonable. I think that, regardless of your view on this project, that a precautionary principle should be applied, and that if there are potential changes to a tender that arise from an incomplete archaeological investigation, it would be good to delay.

Point two is almost moot. One would hope that the RMS does execute all of the practices that are mandated in an archaeological survey.

The council has already resolved to advance the candidacy of Thompson Square for inclusion in a federal heritage register. So in that sense, the Mayoral Minute was benign enough for me to be able to support it. But the tone of the speakers to this Mayoral Minute unfortunately have changed my view.

I thank Councillor Ross. He anticipated the other suggestion that I was going to make myself, and that is that not only should our local member, but members of the heritage committee and other councillors. I find it genuinely difficult to judge the significance of these brick barrel drains unless I've seen them myself. And as we know, access to the site is tightly controlled. So I'm not entirely sure what it is that we're dealing with here. These are items of archaeological significance, certainly. If they're more than two centuries old, we don't have much of that heritage left. I'd like to see it preserved. I'd like to see it with my own eyes. The stories about these drains, or the smugglers' tunnels, or whatever it is that they've been called over the years, I've heard about since I was a small boy.

I'd very much like to see them. I'd very much like to see a bridge built in a different location, but as I've said on other occasions, this is the only offer that's on the table. It's the only bridge that's likely to be built within this decade, and therefore, with reluctance, I have to support it, and therefore the amendment to point four rules it out for me.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Firstly, I just wanted to strengthen some of the points. I think some of the grammar is not very neat . First word in point one.

Sorry, Councillor Calvert, can you speak up a bit? This dalek in my ear is making it a bit hard to hear.

Turn it up.

Can you turn the volume up?

Is that better?

Yes, I never knew you could turn the volume up. Is

That better or worse? Have I got it on the

Wrong— Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno.

This way. That's what I did. Is that better?

Yes.

Okay. Point one, it says request right. I think the request doesn't need to be there. Point two I'm okay with, but I think it needs—it could go a bit further than that, in that we could ask that no items be removed from the site.

I'm happy to add that.

Point three says to advise the federal minister of the discovery, but it doesn't say what the discovery was. I assume it's the brick

Barrel drains. Of the barrel drains, yes.

And point four, I would have rather have asked the local member if he would support the delay due to the archaeological discoveries. I don't think it's worth anything to invite him to visit the site. I mean, what's the point in that? I would ask him to do something, and that is to support the delay that we are requesting in point one. I think that would give it a much more meat, much more strength.

I'm happy to also ask him to support the delay, but I do think that we should invite him to visit because he has not visited the site. Well, not that we

Know of.

Well, not that we know of, but not officially to visit as the local member to see the local significance of it.

Okay, well, I'd be happy to combine those two points.

All right. Point five

I have no problems with. Okay

I

Thank you for this mayoral minute, and other than those few grammatical corrections, I support it.

Thank you. Thank you. Always the school teacher. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In the same vein, in point three, in recommendation three, it was my understanding that quite a while ago we had made an application to Josh Frydenberg to have Thompson Square listed as a... As an urgent listing, I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but if we could possibly reword that point to say something like, We further advise the Minister, or, you know, following on from our initial request for this urgent listing, we now have discovered this very significant barrel drain and other significant Aboriginal archaeology, et cetera, et cetera, to strengthen our case for this urgent listing. I don't think we should be, you know, we should point out that we've actually made this request quite a while ago. So maybe, you know, if you could reword that in such a way, I think that would be better.

Thank you , Councillor Kotlash, and I do agree. The reason I included it was that the Minister for Environment and Energy had specifically said he was now assessing items of national significance, and he did not decide to go with our urgent listing at the time, and so our application is still standing, I guess, as a non-urgent listing, I would imagine. So I'm happy to include those words, but I might just have to—you might have to just bear with me while I go through them for Jody, and I'd just like to thank Jody, it's her first night, as Natasha has gone and Jody is here. So I'm sorry that you're about now to have about five amendments going in there, but if there's anyone else who wishes to speak, or would you like me to do the amendments first, Councillor Ross? Otherwise, I can write them down while you're speaking. You go ahead, unless you want to change.

Initially, a point of clarification, Mayor.

Yes.

As I undertook your most recent remarks,

The emergency listing application to Honorable Freyberg has been turned down as an emergency listing?

Well, it wasn't acted upon to be an emergency listing at the time, an urgency listing at the time. He was seeking more information.

In view of not only the European archaeological discoveries, but also adaptive use by Indigenous cultures, people of European —

How would you say—European technology, the adaptive use by Indigenous people of European technology, which I believe is potentially unique on the mainland of this country, that we should reassert our claim for emergency listing, please. Would you consider that?

Yes. Yes, sorry, could you just repeat that? I was just writing out the— I was just writing out the amendments for the other bits . No, I heard the first bit. Just that last bit you just said.

Not only the European heritage ,

But the Aboriginal heritage as well. What, as

I understand it, is adaptive use of European technology by Indigenous folk,

Obviously in the early 1800s. And to my knowledge, and I'm not an authority, I'm only a lay person, to my understanding, that is the first discovery of its kind in Australia.

The brick barrel drain. No.

In fact, the adapted

Aboriginal.

To be specific, I believe it is European manufactured glass.

Yes

Which Indigenous people have apparently been able to fire and to use as some form of cutting implement.

Okay

So that's been

Discovered there. So if

We were to— To my understanding, yes.

Well, if we were— That's revelatory. To have the people documenting it, so either the Heritage Committee or the Lucas, Stapleton and Partners, as well as having included in point two that no items be removed, then I imagine that can be dealt with if nothing's being removed. Obviously it's going to be documented, and the significance of the heritage of those items will then be presented, rather than us going into each specific item, because I don't have that information specifically. So I'm just rewording this, but I'm happy to follow up on that, Councillor Ross. So following on from

That

Sorry.

Did we want to specify in point five that the Heritage Committee also have the access to the site? Do you want that included in this resolution? Yes, you're doing it, but should be included as a resolution. We'll add in Heritage Committee into point five.

Sorry, Councillor Gower. Just in reference to point number four, I was wondering if we could also, additionally to inviting our local member, if we could also invite the Premier of New South Wales

Sorry

Yeah, well, we can do that too. Sorry, change number four and the Premier. Okay. Sorry, to the site

It's not our site, but they can come to Thompson Square. That's our square . Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Madam Mayor, I thank you for the mayoral minute. I think it draws on a really, really important topic here, and I'm glad you jumped on it as quickly as you did and highlighted all those key issues that need to be dealt with and put that before the state government and the RMS. And I'm sure we all can nitpick, but I think we need to stay with the bigger, broader aspects of what you're trying to achieve with this mayoral minute. And I do applaud it. I really do, because yes, we do have something that is really significant that's been discovered in recent times, and we need to be very, very mindful of that. And I think we need to get in there and be as proactive as we can to make sure this is not salvaged, as Mr. Ed has said.

It needs to be kept in place, and it needs to be preserved for future generations. Madam Mayor, I specifically want also to talk to item four, I suppose. Oh, well, maybe there. Perhaps we could invite Mr Frydenberg as well.

Madam Mayor, sorry, sorry, that was tongue in cheek. Sorry, that was tongue in cheek. I'm sure if Josh is in the area, you know, some of us could give him a call and he'd come out and say hello to us. I'm sure. He's a very friendly, friendly person. He really is. Nice bloke. Anyway, the point five, where you talk about the document, inspect and document the findings, could we be specific, or is it already understood that the documentation of it would be including a video recording of it, including photographs as well as a written record?

I would imagine there are quite set criteria and guidelines for the documenting of things found in

An archaeological dig. Yeah, I'm just wondering whether, could we ask our consultants to include a video? Because there's nothing like this being able to be put on our website with, you know, some sort of a video where people can, like Councillor Sam Brogden, he'd love to be able to see it. Or if he can't actually get into the tunnel himself and get down there, then maybe he could view it on YouTube or something similar to that. It would be a million. It would go feral. I guarantee it would go feral. Viral. As well as viral. And for all those feral people out there.

So anyway, I'm sure Councillor Sam Brogden would be the first one to be viewing and liking it on Facebook. Anyway, so we could just make sure we get that. And I assume we're also talking about this finding as well as any other finding of significance that might come up as the archaeological dig proceeds.

That is what that refers to.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross.

Mayor, I refer you to point one, please, Madam. Yes . Second line, I'd like the excision of the words ‘at the site’ , right, and that those three words to be replaced by the following: ‘within the project area.’

I'm happy to do that. Jody, did you get that? Thank you. Thank you.

That will increase the area to which we're—

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I think my opinion on this matter has been quite clear in the past, and I maintain my opinion on this to keep that consistency. There are two reasons that I won't agree to this mayoral minute. The first is that this mayoral minute was a mayoral minute about the archaeology of the findings in Thompson Square, and it has very quickly and very predictably turned into bringing up the whole bridge project itself. So I think that the mayoral minute has detracted from its original intent and has now included a whole array of issues that detract from the archaeology per se. The second reason I do not want to support this mayoral minute is that the mayor has just confirmed the RMS is offering—did you say from ten till two?

Yes, I

Think so. If that's correct, a four-hour, basically, a briefing, is it?

Well, I don't know what it is. See, none of

Us know. None of us know. None of us sitting around this room, these 12 of us, unless someone can inform me, are archaeologists. The RMS has offered us this coming Saturday a four-hour window to be briefed on what they have found. We don't know. A camera over a fence isn't going to tell you everything the archaeologist in that hole or in that site have found. I think this mayoral minute should be deferred until we have the opportunity to hear what the RMS have to say in that four-hour window on Saturday and actually know what they are going to tell the community. Right now, we don't know. We're about to sit here and decide and make all these decisions on something that we don't actually have the information on.

How about for once we just actually not make a decision until we've actually got all the facts in front of us, go to this on Saturday, find out what the RMS wants to tell us about the archaeological discoveries in this site, and actually get some evidence, get some information for once. I think that we're jumping the gun here, considering we now have this offer on the table. And I'm very, honestly, I can't believe—well, I can actually, I predicted it—that this has turned into a discussion on the project itself. It should not have gone down that path, and that was not the intent of this mayoral minute, and that's extremely clear. I think it would be sensible for all of us to strongly sit here and consider deferring it and discuss it at the next meeting when we have some information in front of us about what they have actually found, because we don't know what that is.

We don't know what their intent is about preserving the site, moving what they found. We don't know. Let's find out what the RMS want to tell us on Saturday. Just also briefly, if we are going to bring in other perspectives other than the discovery of the barrel drains into this debate, if everyone is so keen on— The historical significance of Thompson Square, I would like to put on the record to have an undertaking by those people who actually have every right to protest in the square and every right to have their say against any project, to stop the signage that's everywhere and is making the place look terrible. It looks like a tip sometimes with the amount of signage there. And I just think that if you are going, your signage, I just think that if you're going to advocate to preserve a place in our town centre, and we have groups here wanting to support bringing to life our town centres again, right now you've got a place like Thompson Square littered with signage.

I'm not a councillor for Lane Cove, I'm a councillor for Hawkesbury. So therefore, I'm worried, I am concerned about the excessive signage that's in Thompson Square, and I think that respectfully that signage should be taken down to what the limitations in the permit are. No calling out, please. Thank you. Lastly, in conclusion, I'm not going to take too much time. I just want to say without this project going ahead, you wouldn't even know that the drains are down there. To actually see them and visualise them, now you actually know what they look like and what they contain, and that's why I look forward to the RMS briefing on Saturday as to what they're about. In conclusion, I think that we need to actually understand and acknowledge that there is a possibility of recording historical finds and preserving them in certain ways, and that can go hand in hand with governments providing safer and better infrastructure for their communities.

And let's look forward to what the RMS has to say. In any control, which I'm not tonight, I'll be deferring this until we have more information to hand. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Any further

Discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I wonder if you would consider adding 2.1, that Council, when it writes to the New South Wales Government and the RMS, state its deep concern over the government and RMS proceeding with this project against the recommendations of its own heritage advisors. Our grave fears for the wealth of archaeological relics known at the site and the long-lasting detriment such a bridge and the resultant heavy traffic will impose on Windsor's historic Thompson Square and Windsor's tourism potential. I've sent that through to Mr Wern as an addition to that point, if you would consider it. Okay.

Keep speaking and I'll wait till it goes up.

Thank you. I firstly want to thank the speakers, particularly Mr Eds, who has discussed—Mr Eds and I have been discussing this project since it first came before the Heritage Advisory Committee around 2009, 2010, and the real concerns that expert historians had with this project and its impact on the archaeology of Thompson Square, and in particular the brick barrel drains. I discussed the likely impact of the barrel drains with Graham Standen, the RMS senior project manager, last week at the dig site, and he stated that they may prompt a redesign and that tenders would probably have to be repriced. That's hardly an open and transparent process. He also went on to state that because the lower quadrant of Thompson Square had been disturbed previously, it was okay to continue to disturb it further, and that all artifacts would be protected into the future by either bagging them and removing them or covering them in concrete.

Now, this flies in the face of Mr. Ed's comments about being able to go back and look at our firsts, because once we encase the brick barrel drains in concrete, we won't be looking at them again.

I'm very happy to see the amendment at number five, that Lucas Stapleton—it's actually Lucas Stapleton Johnson and Partners—and they're compiling a CMP, not a CNP, for council, if we could just fix that up

And I would appreciate the Heritage Advisory Committee

Actually being allowed on site to have a look, given that they are our local experts, that they include notable heritage architects, including two people who've contributed to the strategic conservation management— Plan. Ian Jack has contributed to that, along with his wife Jan.

And they both reported that the brick barrel drains were there. They attempted to report to this council back in 2012 that the archaeology in Thompson Square was likely to uncover evidence of European use as a marketplace back to 1795. This was well known at the time, and this council refused to listen to that information repeatedly.

I think it's really important that the people who are writing our Conservation Management Plan are able to document what's on site before it's gone. I'm pleased that, I think it was Ms Smith brought up, that the workers are currently exceeding the allowable number of truck removals. Make no mistake about what's happening to the archaeology on this site. It is being dug up and taken away. This isn't some little brush around the edge. This isn't some we'll build something nice and you can look at it later. This is gone. Absolutely 100% gone. Much of it already dug up while you slept the other morning, while you went off to work, while you sat there and posted on Facebook. Gone. While misinformation was spread to the community about this being a traffic solution.

Gone. The impact on business and tourism for the loss of heritage and tourist potential is extraordinary. The Wheat Sheaf Hotel in Parramatta is a really good example of what happens when you save a piece of really important archaeology and turn it into a tourist attraction. The lead archaeologist on that project was Ted Higginbotham. Who warned the RMS about the brick barrel drains in Thompson Square and their significance back before this project began.

The findings underneath the Wheat Sheaf Hotel now sit under the Crown Building in Parramatta, and they're part of the Philip Ruddock Heritage Centre. They were opened by the Premier in December, in the same week that the RMS discovered the brick barrel drains in Windsor. Mr Ruddock said when he opened the centre, We need to keep moving forward, but at the same time it's vitally important that we preserve our heritage. I'd laugh at the irony if it wasn't such a despicable tragedy happening in front of us. This is our hook, our heritage, our sense of place, and it's been dug up in front of us. You've already heard that the Premier was on 702 this evening, telling the people of Sydney how the state government is protecting our heritage by digging it out and covering it in concrete, and how the vista would remain.

It's impossible for the vista to remain with a modern-scale bridge driven through a Georgian human-scale square. She demonstrated her in-depth knowledge of the area by calling Option 1 a bypass. What exactly is this bypassing? Our economic prosperity? Our tourism potential? This highlights the misinformation that's at the heart of this project. Now, I appreciate the offer of going onto the site, and if we're given it, I will take it, but I don't need to see for myself to believe the heritage experts that this is fundamentally wrong. And I can't speak to the costs in point five as raised by Councillor Connolly, but in our initial meeting with Lucas Stapleton Johnson and Partners, they expressed a strong wish to view the archaeology of the site so that they could complete their work.

It's not unreasonable. To ask the local member to view the most important archaeological finding in his own electorate in decades, or to support that electorate in their pleas for a bypass, a genuine bypass,

And the retention of its heritage. The archaeology is relevant. The project is relevant to the discussion of the archaeology because the archaeology is being uncovered as a result of the project. We didn't need to dig it up to find it was there, but having dug it up, we should preserve what's there already. A four-hour drop-in session won't do anything to provide access to the CMP consultants. We know what the intent is already. We've been watching it. We don't need to listen to four hours of spin to learn that they are digging up and removing our heritage in front of us. And then after a plea not to make it about the project, it turns into a plea not to make it about signage. That area is littered currently with bulldozers, and the bulk of the signage belongs to the RMS, so I fail to see how the signage is the issue.

I'm very pleased to see this mayoral motion. I'm very happy to support it, and I now move that the motion be put.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I think we may have completed speakers. I'll just confirm that we've got all the amendments there. We've got fixed Lucas Stapleton Johnson, fixing that to Johnson, and Councillor Wheeler put your point as a separate point rather than adding it to point one. So that is now how the mayoral minute stands, and I would like to thank all of the councillors who've given some input into it. It's not just for me to say; it's that we should work together to get the best motion possible to be able to express our commitment to Preserving the heritage, the heritage of Windsor, which is really one of the biggest assets for this region, to have such early examples of the colonial infrastructure that was built so long ago.

And from the photos I've seen, what a great example of how to build something for longevity, and that remains. And I really take to heart what Mr. Ed said about, and Councillor Wheeler also referred to it, about us being able to still have within amongst us our first examples of when this area underwent European settlement, and that really is something that other countries, other nations don't have the privilege of having. So it's not just a matter of what we want to do. I believe we have an obligation and a duty to preserve that for generations to come. We must preserve it because we aren't the people that just own it and determine that. We have to respect that it's there, and we have to do whatever we can to—we have to work to get the best outcome, not just for now, but for the future.

And that's why people are so passionate about this issue. It's not something that people take lightly. Many people have stepped out of their comfort zone to speak out about an issue that they think is very important, and these sort of issues arise from time to time. And of course, while respecting the views of all people, we can fight when we have a majority like that want to oppose something. We can fight to have it done in a way that really does try and get the best outcome. So I thank you for the contributions and for enhancing and expanding the mayoral minute to the point that it's at now. I also take on board what Councillor Zambrano said, that he could— In part, have supported it before it perhaps changed shape somewhat, and I would be happy, Councillor Zamprogno, if you wish to move the motion in its individual parts, if you should choose that you would wish to support some of it or not.

That's an option I will give you if you call on me to do it individually. I'm happy to do that.

Madam Mayor, I would endorse that. I think the various parts of this Mayoral Minute are now so diverse, I would appreciate the ability to support those parts that I regard as palatable.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. I'll just finish, and then that's how I will move the motion. I thank the speakers for speaking. I'm incredibly interested in the heritage of this country, and I love it when we hear people that know about it and who can fill us in with more information about it, because they really are treasures to have these things right on our doorstep, and of course they are a fundamental part of how we develop as a tourist precinct and so on. We need to capitalise on our most valuable assets, and they include our beautiful river and of course our history and heritage. So I'm looking forward to that being enhanced, and I hope that this Mayoral Minute can contribute to the delay until all investigations are done to enable the proper preservation and treatment of whatever items are found in the salvage dig.

And I think that's about all. Everything else has been said. So I will now move the Mayoral Motion, and I'm going to move it by each item individually and ask each person to vote on that, so that any councillor who doesn't like all of it may perhaps want to support some parts, and by all means you may ask for your name to be recorded against it if you wish. So I'll move— Part one, which is to write to the government about that. I'll put that.

It says write to the New South Wales government and RMS requesting the delay in the tendering process. You can't see it. Yeah , there's one above. I was reading it off here, yeah. But if you can scroll down. Sorry, Jodie. Thank you. So I'll move part one of the motion. All those in favour?

Against? That part of the motion is carried. Part two. All those in favour? Against?

Abstaining, Councillor Conolly. I'll move part three.

Oh, sorry, are you reading them all carefully? Sorry. Wait.

We're up to number three.

I'll put motion part three. All those in favour?

Oh, unanimous. Against? None. Thank you.

Number four. All those in favour? Against?

And number five, which is the last one. And against? Is there a six? Oh , sorry, there's a six. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried in its entirety with those various different people supporting it. And I thank everyone. Can we please have our name recorded against all the ones we were against? On myself Councillor Tree, Councillor Conley. So that was against all of them except item 4. Thank you.

No, the Josh Frydenberg. Oh, it wasn't. Okay. Well, that one. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Reynolds can be returned.

We move on to Mayoral Minute 2, and we have one.

Speaker, which is Bill Snedden.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, me, Wendy, Mayor, Councillors, gallery. This is—I'm speaking in favour of this Mayoral Minute regarding urban resilience. Although, considering the temperatures in the chamber here, things have gone up a couple of degrees since I originally arrived here, I think. Today is an example of extreme weather conditions. Though at 38 degrees C at Richmond Air Base, somewhat below the 43 degrees C days that we've had in the last week or two, but still it's hot for the Hawkesbury, and if we were in London or many parts of Europe, this would be considered catastrophic conditions. Facts are, we are seeing greater hot weather in this area, by 40 years local experience, and also worldwide.

The last several years have been reported the hottest ever on record. Believe what you will, facts are that a hotter atmosphere gives both extremes of weather, of heat and cold, in total more extremes of weather, though we've lacked major flooding events due to severe rain just recently. Council's current actions are most timely. Heat island effects are already noticeable in my area and around the area. Deciduous trees around my residence, silky oak and jacaranda in particular, have stopped leaf fall in winter over the past five years, and I'm not a horticulturalist, but I'm wondering whether we'll have others. For example, the plane trees on the entrance to Richmond, will they hold their leaves all winter?

The rate things are going, that's a possibility. So if you don't see that as climate change and effects of heat effects in the area, you're blind. The July 2018 workshop, as recommended in this paper, is a good idea to firm up more actions for the short term. I fully agree with section two of this Mayoral Minute. Minute with its support options and protocols for the short term. With heat extremes, we could also add to the hot weather items, particularly more shaded bus and other shelter areas for the public in open areas. More water drinking points are mentioned for our public areas. They're very lacking here. The only one I can think of at the moment is the one in Thompson Square. I think there used to be one in the park at Richmond, but I've not been there for a while.

And they could certainly be relatively easily installed next to watering fittings for use in our parks and garden areas. Watering points also used to be widely cited in public areas. I certainly remember them around Newcastle. They're still one in Toronto in the main street. I gather from speaking to some public people that one of the reasons for them being removed was simply vandalism. But there are other items that Council could consider. Some building code suggestions, for a start: white or light-coloured houses and roofing materials to reduce urban heating effects, as is common in South Australia. Light-coloured roads, believe it or not, not the black roads. They have been studied, they've been reported on, but they're relatively expensive, but they do have a significant effect in reducing the immediate heating effect from roads.

Greening of urban areas, as has been mentioned here in Council some time ago, proven effective with trees and shading. Increasing urban density, which we're mandated to have in the Hawkesbury, with the rapid infill of Sydney, also adds to the heat island effect. And again, those should be things considered in our building codes, and maybe some other things could be incorporated into the BASIX rules for buildings that would help. Certainly light-coloured roofs would help. Now, getting on to other things that are mentioned, medical effects are also mentioned in the Mayoral Minute. This is commonly referred to as heat cross... medical effects are well known and documented. Interesting, 20th of January New Scientist has a cover item on— Heating and medical effects that we are about to go into.

Heat can also be devastating to the long-term health as well as deadly. Medical authorities worldwide, including in the new science I've just held up, have statistics and costs of heat effects per degree C. The aged, infant and infirm have poor thermoregulatory mechanisms, and they are greatly and the worst affected by heat effects. And with increasing electricity costs, poor and elderly are more vulnerable due to reluctance to turn on air conditioning due to the cost, simply the cost of electricity. Elderly people that I've certainly cared for were extremely reluctant to turn on air conditioners, and that's going back 10 years when power costs were a lot more reasonable than they are now. Other economic costs are also to be found and can be documented.

And one interesting one that was mentioned on Jean's ABC was by some sports people talking about the heat effects of sports performance, and if you continue to play during extremely hot weather, you get very dull, boring games because the activity of the players are affected. And they were even asking some questions about would the public be getting value for their sports dollar. Thank you very much, Mr Snedden As a community, we need to do as much as possible to make our community resilient.

Thank you, that's time. Are you happy to take questions? Yes Any questions for Mr Snedden? No questions. Thank you, Mr Snedden. Thank you. I'll move Mayoral Minute 2. It's a little bit of a combination of various things that have come to attention during the recent heatwave conditions and so on. And the first section about holding a workshop is really that we need to move forward and build on our plan so that we implement an approach which mainstreams climate change into our decision making and to ensure those decisions are made with the best data and information available. So we do have an existing plan. So I think, though, that as more data comes in and various other things change, we need to really have it so that it becomes part of our thinking.

And it's just, you know, what we get on with when we're making decisions. So we have the information that identifies our physical vulnerability, and we have some information on our social vulnerabilities as well. But that's a really big discussion, and we've already had that when we did introduce the plan in 2016. So really, that point is just to foreshadow that we should workshop and build on that and introduce some more, possibly some of those points that were raised by Mr Sneddon regarding improvements in the building code with the light-coloured roofs. Definitely, I'm a fan of the white roads concept. The black bitumen roads throughout an entire city gives a massive increase in urban heat.

And also, of course, recently Councillor Wheeler brought forward the greening the streets notice of motion, and we really need to be getting shade in place because the value of shade simply cannot be underestimated. When one goes for a walk on one of these 40 degree days, you're looking for a tree wherever you go. We've got a few things coming up. We may be involved in a pilot program run by the Rural Regional Renewal Fund, which is a resilience within communities, helping to prepare communities to be ready for natural disasters should they strike, and by that, that includes extreme weather events. And we can also draw upon other programs existing across the metropolis in various other councils and other agencies where there's much work being done, such as the 100 Resilient Cities program, which is a program run worldwide by the Rockefeller Center.

So heat really is our most acute climate risk, though, and in the background there, you'll see that it has been reported that, first of all, how many days over 43 degrees we had last year, which was nine over 43 degrees, which is fairly extreme. But also there's a report by University of New South Wales and Sydney Water which says that we have three times as many people die from heat-related deaths in Western Sydney than in the east. So that really is symbolic of how we have to lift our game and really do something about the urban heat effect out here. You'd all know that the temperatures out here are often 11 or 13 degrees warmer than in the city, and with all the hard surfacing and everything going on in this area, that's why we have so many issues when we have these extreme weather conditions .

As well as that, of course, there's the associated impacts on air quality when it's really hot, which can lead to trouble for people with respiratory disease and so on. And we're also vulnerable to potential other disasters related to extreme weather, such as flood, bushfire and storm surges. So during this last heat wave, I requested extended hours for the library and for the pools, and this was well received within the community. That's why I've brought up foot point two, that we actually, the staff prepare in the upcoming budget to cater for when this happens and to develop a protocol for what the system is. So to actually structure some parameters that would trigger when we, you know, have extended hours, operating hours or so on.

It didn't come as a big cost. We did get extra people at the library, 74 extra on the Saturday and 50, 46 on the Sunday, and that was at a cost of $700 for Saturday and $566 for Sunday. The extended hours at the pool wasn't expensive, but we have no real way of measuring how many people were there, or we don't have that information at the moment. So these simple measures offer some respite and comfort to perhaps the more vulnerable, but perhaps just to anybody who doesn't have the comforts of air conditioning or the ability to cool themselves down. And that means that for those extended periods of time, they can actually access a cool building or go to the pool for longer or however they choose to cool off.

I did include wanting more signage along the river because my fear was when it was a very hot day that people head to the river with their children, and swimming in a river isn't that straightforward. It can be very dangerous. So that's why that's included there. And Mr Sneddon mentioned the water filling stations. These are really important. So you can have an all-in-one Fairly Vandal Proof water filling station these days, which have a bubbler on top, a capacity to fill your water bottle and a drip bowl down the bottom, which is for animals that are going past. So I think that we should investigate installing some more of those, just generally, not specifically related to heat. Point B. Point B is something that we address in many other forums, and of course we've got in various committees and working groups working towards initiatives connected to homelessness and to do with affordable housing and so on.

But it came to light the vulnerability of this group of people during the extreme weather, and I just felt it was important to bring forward that we accelerate our efforts to try and identify a central point where there can be a number of services available for homeless people. We don't have the resources to build it ourselves, but we can advocate and work hand in hand with other levels of government to develop it. This isn't new. We've had resolutions regarding this before, and there's various things in our homelessness action plan. It was merely to say that now more than ever we need to push forward to have this sort of resolved in some shape or form. So that's the mayoral minute discussion.

No discussion? Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, I endorse all of the things you said.

I remember when I was on WesROC the first time, maybe 12 years ago, some of these items were brought up then, and of course I also remember that Al Gore told us all about this in Inconvenient Truth. Many people have been telling us this for a long time, and in Australia we tend to do nothing until the crisis reaches us. And I would suggest even now there are many people who are still denying that the crisis is here. But I'm not denying it. It is here, and we need to do something about it. Now, we can't change the climate from Hawkesbury City Council. We can't bring in any major infrastructure to address this, but we can do a whole series of little things, and that's what you've put forward.

I know that you talked about water filling stations. I believe that, I think it was Councillor Payne put up a request for a report on that maybe three years ago. Yes. I don't know where that report is, but maybe when this workshop takes place, we could drag that out and have a look at what it said, because it's a great idea. And I know over Christmas, when I went to various places around New South Wales, they had these, and they were used extensively. And as you know, I've always been pushing for some kind of oasis centre or water park or a series of water parks west of the river. We've got— Quite a bit of infrastructure in terms of the pools and the library, etc. on this side of the river, but on the other side, there's absolutely nothing, and we really need to address that.

And of course, light coloured roofs is something I asked about maybe six months ago, and I think there's a report in the pipeline somewhere. And so I totally agree with what you've put forward here. I just think there are probably many more things we haven't thought of, and I invite the community to work with us on this because they're the ones that are feeling it as well. And if we can get some more ideas on how to address this issue, I think that'd be terrific. So I'm hoping that the workshop in July will invite members of the public as well. It doesn't actually say that, but I think that'd be a good idea. I

Think so. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Any further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I too welcome this report, and yes, it is getting to the point where even the most sceptical of us need to sit up and take notice. And even if we don't, you know, if we poo-poo it for ourselves, we should take note of elderly people who do struggle. And as was pointed out by Mr Sneddon, who are reluctant to turn on, if they've got one, turn on the air conditioners in their houses because of the escalating and huge costs of electricity in this area and many other areas throughout New South Wales. But, Madam Mayor, I just want to take up the point that Councillor Calvert made, and that is the lack of pools and air-conditioned venues west of the river. And I think to that point, you talk about providing some sort of free transport so that people can get to these facilities.

I think it will be important in the future that we provide that sort of free transport for people west of the river to get to, you know, the only pools which are east of the river. And I'm not sure how many air-conditioned facilities we've got west of the river. I think we've got North Richmond Community Centre. We've got a very dilapidated scout hall somewhere in North Richmond up there that we use for whenever we've got a flood, we put people in there, but it's certainly not air conditioned and certainly not five-star. In fact, it's probably minus four-star accommodation there. But anyway, all I'm saying is there is a huge lack of infrastructure, council infrastructure as well as state infrastructure west of the river, and I think we just need to pick up that point as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to support this mayoral minute . You've brought up the statistics about deaths in Western Sydney, that they're three times higher. They're three times higher not just because of our inland geography and topography and the heat bowl that that causes here, but also because of the lower socioeconomic status in Western Sydney, where people either don't have somewhere cool themselves to go, or their house doesn't keep the heat out, or they simply can't afford to provide sufficient cooling for themselves. I was listening to an ad on the radio the other day talking about new houses from one of the building companies, and they were saying that everybody would get free air conditioning.

And unfortunately, we've now moved to this idea that everybody has an air conditioner in their house, and that we have to remember that that isn't the case for the vast majority of existing houses, and for many, many people, that that is extremely difficult to firstly install and secondly pay for, particularly with the rising cost of power. So that's when it becomes a civic responsibility of council to do something. I think we need a heat wave warning system similar to the way we think about floods and fire. These things are increasingly deadly. I mentioned last year when we did the Tree Canopy Notice of Motion that three times as many people died in the heat wave in the lead up to the Black Saturday bushfires as did in the bushfires themselves.

We think about fire and flood as natural disasters, and we don't think about record levels of heat, and we have to. We need to start thinking about community cool spots, and they need to be accessible to everyone. Either we move them to the spot or we put more spots in that are close. And like Councillor Rasmussen, I'm struggling to think of places west of the river. Mr Miller told us that we have 27,000 people living west of the river. Now, they're not all going to fit into the Glossodia Community Centre nor the North Richmond Community Centre. And I think when we have further discussions with Redbank about the sort of infrastructure that goes into North Richmond, heat is one of the things that we're really going to have to consider, particularly given the impacts of that development on the heat island effect.

I agree with Councillor Calvert about building codes and I'm hoping that our changes to the DCP that I'll bring up in the notice of motion later will address some of those. The bottle filling stations also have the advantage of cutting waste so that people aren't throwing out six bottles to drink a litre and a half of water; they've only got one. We need to consider shade sails on parks. I think we also need to, I really like the Deputy Mayor's idea of gathering ideas from the community for this, and I think opening the workshop up to the community is an excellent idea. I think we could also use social media to do that, and I think we probably need to do that now because come July it won't be hot and we'll all be thinking about how we keep warm.

So now would be a really good time to ask people, how do you keep cool now? How can we, what can we do to help you? What can you do as a neighbourhood to help each other

So I think this is an excellent start. I think the inclusion of how we help the homeless during this process is really important. We've had several periods between Christmas and mid January where we've had extremely hot weather. There are no homeless services open between the week before Christmas and the first couple of weeks of January. That means no access to anything but a volunteer service run entirely by volunteers. Now those volunteers at the end of January are utterly exhausted, and one of the services they provide is to distribute. Cold water and ice to people on those really hot 40 plus degree days. One morning they delivered 40 bags of ice. Now that's the extent of the homeless problem in this LGA.

It's not going away. We have to do— these are extremely vulnerable people, a number of children and a number of pregnant women living by the banks of the river in cars and tents, really, really vulnerable to this heat. And I think too the inclusion of signage is really important on the river. We're seeing increasing numbers of people swimming in the river. Tarzan swings back out again. People are hurling themselves off it. Kids are using it. It behoves us to get some signs up to at least inform people that they swim at their own risk. It's not the beach with lifeguards. It's not the pool. It's really dangerous. We need to let them know.

Thank you, Councillor Whelan. Any further discussion? I'll just respond briefly and thank you for that input . Essentially adapting to the impacts of climate change is a necessity because there has not been anywhere near enough done to address the reduction of emissions and to encourage and actually enforce people to build and to live in a sustainable way, which would of course lessen these impacts of heat when we look at the sprawling suburbs that have been built in the outer west, and that's a contributing factor to this. I like the idea of moving forward with the workshop and certainly gathering ideas from the community is very important, as is the whole key of building resilience within a community, which means equipping people with the knowledge of how to ensure that everyone in their street or their township, everybody knows what to do when there's extreme conditions or that there's extreme events of any sort.

So that it's really building a strong neighbourhood that knows where people should go and what you should do and who's checking on who, because we simply shouldn't have people dying in this country just because it's hot. So we have to work harder and work together and develop our planning so that we can really become as resilient as possible, and because it's not going to get any cooler, so we have to be ready for it. So I put the Mayoral Minute as the motion was in the business paper and all those in favour. The motion is carried. Thank you . Mayoral Minute.

Cabinet number three, we have one speaker, Michael Wont.

Thanks, Madam Chair. The NRDAA supports the recommendations and would urge the Oakville Progress Association to accept the offer of Council to address their association at point one. We also note our local member has now agreed to meet Council next month. That’s encouraging. Informed community and an informed local member can only be beneficial if the dialogue continues. The community does not have to agree with the Council’s decision, but we need to be informed about their decisions. The NRDCAA has been involved in many disputes with Council. The issues have been wide and varied, but the only way to resolve our differences is to have dialogue that must be factual and polite. We note in the report that the local member said Council should be looking for efficiencies.

Well, here are three that would lead to more efficient councils. Firstly, councils should call on the local member to immediately stop cost shifting onto local government without equivalent funding. As we understand it, there has been equivalent funding with the cost shifting by governments. There would be very little need for a special rate increase. Secondly, abolish state governments. Their use-by date is over. The Feds collect 80 percent of the taxes, the states 16, local government 4 percent approximately. So the state, and to a lesser degree local government, relies on the federal system collecting the tax.

We should also ask the local member to look at the possible cost savings if we abolished the states.

Thirdly, the third matter is that governments should pay rates on their properties in the local government area, and that would certainly help. Councillors, there was a massive outcry by the majority of the community in the NRDC Double A and some councils in 2012-13 when the Liberal-controlled council supported a proposal to increase rates levied on residential properties in order to decrease the rates on rural residential properties like my own. To the best of my memory, then Councillor Zion Buckett, Calvert Rasmussen opposed the proposal along with Councillor Connolly, but only for him a short period. Councillor Connolly was outraged at the time and vowed to fight the proposed changes. He told the consent December 12 while he was meeting with the South Windsor residents of 50 years and a pensioner that under the proposal, over $2 million more will be levied from residential property owners in the Hawkesbury each year.

He went on to say that residential property owners shouldn't be subsidising people who choose to live in rural areas. When it came to the vote, Councillor Connolly did a backflip and voted with his Liberal comrades for the unfair rating system. The reason the NRDC Double A brings this to Council's attention is for the April residents and others to be careful what some councillors say, who they will stand with. There is no place for political opportunism in local government. The unfair rating system was implemented despite outcries from the community. This new council changed the rating system to make it fairer, and the NRDCAA believes councils have delivered on their promise. That was detrimental to a lot of people.

The NRDCAA also believes that land valuations are the only fair way to determine the rating system. The cost of goods and services are generally determined by their value. With regards to the special rate variation, NRDCAA representatives attended at least ten of the meetings overall to discuss the fit for the future information sessions and options. Staff provided very detailed briefing papers with questions and answers. We decided after attending the briefings to unanimously support option three because we want better transport infrastructure, social infrastructure and protection and improvement to our environment and heritage, amongst other things. Finally, the NRDCAA urges the Oakville Association to participate in the dialogue with Council with a view of being a supportive group in making the Hawkesbury great again, and call on the local member to work in collaboration on all issues with Council and the community and stop the madness to destroy our heritage, our history in and around Thompson Square, and provide traffic solutions that will address traffic congestion in and around Richmond, North Richmond and Windsor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Want. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions for Mr Want? No questions. Thank you, Mr Want. That was our only speaker on that item . I'll move Mayoral Minute number three, which has some additional wording to point two. Which was advised to councillors this afternoon,

Which was basically that the information that's been prepared as a fact sheet be circulated. I just said be circulated, but it's to be circulated by mail to the residents who received the invitation to come to the Valuer General's workshop that we held earlier , well, last year now. So it would be to the same people. They are the people who have had the major land valuation increases. So the main reason I brought this forward was because to do that, of course, there would be a cost, and therefore I feel there should be a resolution to approve that that money would be spent to send these letters out. I think it's a few thousand dollars to do a mail-out like that. So it's to get approval to send these letters to people to correct two items of correspondence that were randomly distributed.

I don't know where they went. I was given them by people from various locations, so I've got no idea what. They weren't sent to all Hawkesbury residents, and they weren't even sent to sets of people in similar circumstance. So I have no knowledge. I did request some information from the Oakville Progress Association, but they will be taking it to a meeting to decide whether to respond. So I have no answer from them on that yet. I found their letter was misleading and it required correction. It had facts that were simply untrue. So it is essential that when that is randomly distributed, that we correct those facts, which are the facts that the staff had available during the consultation, and to send that out to the people who may have misunderstood or been misled by what is included in that letter.

With regard to the letter from Mr Perrottet, I was sent that by an Oakville resident who was unhappy because they did not feel they had been consulted by Mr Perrottet to stand on their behalf and to speak up for that sector to lobby the minister about the special rate variation. They were someone who supports the special rate variation, and yet they had been clustered in with a generalised statement by the local member who, by doing that, essentially was supporting a small amount of people in the Hawkesbury area and yet not being briefed or coming to get the facts of what the rest of the Hawkesbury area feel. You may find it amusing, Councillor Tree, but it's not amusing for the people who are upset by it.

So there have been a number of letters sent to Mr Perrottet offering for him to be briefed by council staff on the special rate variation proposal. In fact, two official letters, one hand delivered, a number of emails following up, and four phone calls requesting a meeting before Christmas. And Mr Perrottet did not respond. Eventually we got a response that he will meet in February, which is too late for this meeting. So I have not had the chance to speak with him about his letter that he sent to people. I have simply not been able to have him come and hear from the staff who are the experts on the calculations and the various — The various non-factual information that has been put out, and I have to express that I am incredibly concerned that a local member would advocate to approach IPART, which is an independent pricing tribunal, and to say they are the people that make the decision on this special rate variation.

And the reason IPART was set up was to eliminate any political influence from this process. That's the very reason it was introduced by the Liberal State Government in 2011, to change how the rating variations were assessed. They used to be done by the Minister for Local Government, which was what happened when one was defeated here some time ago, but that's not the case anymore. And there are very, very stringent requirements of what people must follow. So my concerns with the misleading information was particularly, and I'll outline it so that you understand, because if you take it from the perspective of someone who's engaged in the consultation period and had their say and understood the works programming and all the various facets of the special rate variation, which is in fact a separate issue from the rate restructuring, which we have already committed, and in fact are starting this week our workshop to review the rating structure.

That is a separate issue to the special rate variation. So we have a fit for the future program, which has been signed off by the Minister for Local Government, which includes a special rate variation. So the Minister for Local Government knows that we have that program, and it's been signed off, and that's the process we're adhering to. So to say that 89 percent of people oppose a special rate variation is a blatant misleading statement. We know from discussions in here before that the only statistically valid Our consultation process was the telephone survey, where there was a majority of people that supported the special rate variation. So that is purely a misleading statement to have put out, and to have a small asterisk saying it's from something on page 125 on a business paper.

That really is what is defined by the term misleading. As well as that, there was no mention that the increase was over three years. So simply to send a letter to people saying your rates are going up 31%, with no explanation of the time frame or what that is regarding, is unfair and, again, very misleading. So we have a duty to ensure that people have the proper facts. Our staff have done an enormous amount of work to prepare the facts, to do the consultations. These are people who work in local government. I've seen a figure today on a Facebook page saying your rate should have been this in 2016. It's incorrect, because you cannot just calculate it without knowing every property in this area.

You need to know the distribution of the rating system, and so there persist the inaccuracies of someone saying someone's rates would be 2,000 under such and such. You cannot do it unless you've got the information that the council expert staff have. So this is my attempt to ensure that all residents of the local government area are provided with the facts about what a special rate variation is and why we need it. So I put it out for discussion.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Look, my colleagues, I'm sure, will chime in on various aspects of this, but I just wanted to frame this with some context. And I'm glad that you mentioned that a fruitful debate only comes if you have access to the actual figures. So I asked Council staff for the aggregate rating data going back a number of years, and I've been doing my own analysis on it. It was a spreadsheet with 24,000-odd rows in it, and my analysis turned up a couple of salient facts, which I'll summarise for you now. And it might explain why the depth of feeling is what it is in places like Oakfield. You see, in Oakfield, representing 2.4% of the number of dwellings in the local government area, immediately prior to the election of this government, the rates were set in such a way as that that 2.4% of the population were carrying 3.2% of the rating burden.

In other words, they were carrying 130% of the rating burden compared to other suburbs. Immediately after the election of this Council, and with the various tinkering that occurred not only because of the change to the valuation of land, but because of the change to the formula, that this Council very unwisely implemented. Limited,

2.4% of dwellings in the Hawkesbury are suddenly carrying 6.6% of the rating burden. In other words, residents in Oakville are carrying 270% of the rating burden that would be expected of them if things were more equitably distributed. Now we know that the way in which we are allowed to calculate our rates is not a perfect system. It's unduly influenced by things like land value, and it is true and it is widely admitted that the bulk of the increases come because of a change that was beyond our ability to affect. However, as I've said here repeatedly, it rubs salt in the wound that at the time where that change was happening, that this council had within its power the ability to mitigate that in some degree, and it chose to do precisely the opposite.

And if this was ostensibly to provide a fairer rating structure, and the mayor will admit even says the rating changes that this council implemented have ensured that a more fair and equitable distribution of rates for all households in the Hawkesbury, many of the residents in some of our suburbs wish that that were true, but it is not. If it was believed on the basis of class warfare or whatever the motivation was elsewhere in this chamber that people in Bligh Park or Hobartville or the more urbanised areas of this LGA deserved a better deal, over the same period of time, let's take Bligh Park for example, 9.3% of the number of residences, prior to the election of this council they were carrying 7.4% of the rating burden, and under the changes it's gone down to 6.8.

In other words, they were carrying 80% of the burden that we would ordinarily expect them to if all things were equal, and that percentage has gone down to 73%. I'm not suggesting that the good citizens of Bligh Park aren't pulling their weight, because they're only paying what they're being asked to pay. But when the people in Bligh Park or Hobartville, and the figures are similar, are being undercharged in that technical sense, and the poor people in Oakville are being charged 270% of the rating burden that the number of dwellings would otherwise dictate, then there is a manifestly unfair situation. And we have the obligation to do what we can to mitigate against those changes. It is extraordinary to have this mayoral minute before us, and to have a council seeking to censure or to bully a community organisation that is trying to get some action based on this manifest unfairness, and to have council seeking the permission of this chamber to go out and put out its own fairly blatantly political propaganda to put out a particular line on this.

And the people in Oakville won't have a bar of that.

Thank you, Councillor Sambrognio. It would be very good when you do your statistical analysis to actually factor in the land valuation proportions as well, because that would make it valid then. Without that, it's not really carrying the burden, because the amount of land valued in that place is also a factor. Councillor Connelly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want a few questions. First of all, what is the cost associated with this mayoral minute?

You mean the cost to send out the, Mr Conroy.

The cost of sending out the previous letter to the valuer generals workshops been used as the basis for the calculation. We've estimated in the order of five to six thousand dollars.

Thank you. In your mayoral minute, Madam Mayor, at the bottom paragraph, you state the rating changes this council recommended from 1 July were responsible for a small proportion of the rating increase in Oakville. What is that proportion?

The proportion of— so, for example, on a figure which has been bandied around a lot, which is of 607,000 going up to 1.91 million, so that's a common, and it seems to be quite a standard increase that happened in the land valuation. In that regard, the percentage increase would be 84% due to the land valuation changes and 16% due to the rating structure changes. So, overwhelmingly —and the bigger you get, obviously, that changes—but that's one I saw today that somebody had put on the internet, and they had the wrong values because they wouldn't have known how to work it out. But the increase—so, for example, I'll just explain that to you so people can hear it. So, for a property based on $607,000, under the old structure the rates were $1,485.

So, on that land value, with the changed structure, they would have been $1,829. So when that land value goes up to 1.91 million, under the old structure they would have been 3,179, and under the new rating system 3,632. So in summary, where the land value has changed from 607,000 to 1.91 million, and the rates have increased by $2,147, of that increase, $1,802.96 is attributed to the land value change, and the remaining $344 is attributable to the rating structure change.

Sorry, maybe I read that down wrong. I thought you said under the old structure land value of 1.9 million was 3,179.

Yes.

And under the new structure it would be 3,632. Yes So the difference is 453.

No, but we didn't have — I'm saying the rates have gone up because their valuation and the rating structure changed.

But I think you just said at the end there, so the change structure account for 345 or something, but it accounts for 453. Sorry? I think your last statement was something to the effect of — No,

It said of the increase of $2,147, $1,802 was attributed to the land value change, and $344 to the rating structure change. So

What I'm saying is, if they had the same land value under the old system, they would have paid 3179.

Yes.

Or under the new system, 3632. Yes. So the difference between those two numbers is the amount apportioned, is the amount that has been created by the new rating structure, not by the land value.

No, no, because it's a different system. The thing — maybe I'll get Mrs Galea to explain that to you in case I don't do it adequately.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So the way to work out the split between the impact of the land value and the rating structure, essentially what we've done is we worked out that if the land value had not changed, so if it had stayed 670,000, the rates would have been 1 ,829. So that's what the rates would have been. When the land value changes, the whole mix changes. So when you do that, that land value change, the total change in rates, so including rating structure and land value, so the rates go up to 3,632. So the difference between those two is the split that the Mayor explained. So the increase of 2,147, the split of that increase is $1,800 due to the land value increase and 344 due to the rating restructure.

So what is the number of 3,179?

That's just what it would have been. It's only saying what it would have been under the old system.

And I suppose, like, I know exactly what you're looking at. If you look at the 670,000 last year and this year, that's where the 344 can be picked up. The second scenario is not a real scenario because there is no property that was 1.991 and stayed 1.91. So the way to compare it is if you held the value constant at 670,000 and you worked out what the rates would have been on that and then comparing that to what the rates actually are.

So just the 3,179 represents what the rates would have been if the land values all changed to what they did, but the rating system didn't.

In reality, there is no property, there is no—if you look into the actual data, there is no property that was 1.9 and stayed 1.9. So it's probably not the best way to look at it. The best way to look at it is... But

Just to clarify, the 3,179 represents— What this property rate, that would have paid if the land value had changed, but the rating system hadn't.

No, it would have been under the old system if that was 1.91. Yes back then.

But because there is no real property that has occurred to, we can't really reflect the true impact. So the suggestion would be to actually look at the impact if you hold the value constant. So if the $607,000 did not change and we..

But is there a property in the LGA that had 607 and didn't change?

Sorry?

Is there a property in the LGA that had about land value of 607?

607,000. We actually did have a property last year that was 607,000. So when you look at what the rates were there and what the rates would have been now, it's where the difference is. I'm happy to circulate to Council as the calculation of this.

Madam Mayor, if there's any further questions along this detailed line, could we leave that for the rates workshop, perhaps? Perhaps Councillor Connelly could bring those sorts of questions up at the Council workshop. So this is really confusing

To everybody.

Hang on, Councillor Connelly has a point of order.

I believe I have the floor, and I've just been interrupted with a request that I be quiet, and I'd just like to know what's happening.

Well, I think Councillor Galleya has said she will send them to you. Yep So, and I understand you're trying to establish, because I've said it's misleading, you're obviously implying it's not, but that's, I gather, that's where you're coming from.

Well, I guess, Madam Mayor, I'm an elected official to this Council, and it is actually my duty to establish that the facts we're being reported are correct, and that I do that in a very open and transparent forum, and I think I've got the right to do that. So I don't understand why it would be suggested I don't. However, I take the point that whether we're talking about 450 or 350 makes little difference. The point is that over a rate increase of $2,000, a few hundred would have made a difference if we hadn't changed the rate system. To some people, that's not significant. I understand that for some of you, but for a lot of people that is significant. I did have some questions I'd like to finish, Madam Mayor, actually.

I was told that, Madam Mayor, I just wanted to confirm: did you send an email asserting your legal rights to personally view the register of members of the Oakfield Progress Association?

No, no, I wouldn't term it like that. I asked them who their executive was because the letter was unsigned, and it was a letter that I wanted to know who the executive of their committee were, and they are obliged to have that register available to people, any person to view at an agreed time, but they have not responded. So—

So I understand, Madam Mayor, that from what I've heard, that you asked that request and they said they'd come back to you, and then you sent them back the sections of the legislation which meant that you're entitled to view it. No,

Well, Councillor Conolly, you could have asked me about that and I would have told you. I asked them for three things. I asked them for the minutes of their meeting, a copy of their constitution, and who their executive committee was. They said they'd have a meeting in February and they'd decide whether or not they'd tell me those things, and I said that's fine for the constitution and the minutes, but I would like to see the register, which must be available at all times for any person to view.

So section 29 of the Associations, I think it's meant to be Incorporations Act, places an obligation on associations to have the register available for viewing by any person who requests. Subsection 3 states the register must be kept at the main premises of the association, or if the association has no premises, then at the association's official address. Subsection 5 states the register must, at all reasonable hours, be kept available for inspection free of charge by any persons. I look forward to your response containing options for the best time, place and method for me to access this information. I believe — That's correct. Yeah. Can I ask, Madam Mayor, have you ever sent a similar request to the NRDCWA?

No, because they've never denied me a request of information.

Have you ever sent a request to view the register of members to the NRDCWA?

No.

To what about to the Pitt Town Progress Association?

No, I've asked for their constitution.

What about the Carriageong Community Forum?

No, I'm a member of that.

Have you ever asked, Madam Mayor, to see the membership register of any other group in the Hawkesbury? No

Point of order

Madam Mayor. Thank you. Yes, Councillor.

I don't think this is a courtroom, and I don't think that Councillor Connolly is in a position to be cross-examining the Mayor and cutting her off when she's attempting to answer his questions. If you ask the Mayor a question, perhaps you could wait until she answers it.

Just, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor.

I will rule on the point of order. Thank you. It is upheld, Councillor Connolly. I'm happy to discuss that, but I would like you to just get to the point. I will tell you what happened so that you don't have to do the interrogation in the style that you're doing. And that was that I was given by a number of residents concerned by the contents of a letter that was sent in various places. So I had someone from Oakville contacted me, somebody from Grose Vale, someone from Kurrajong. There was no pattern to the letter. I live on Acres, I didn't get a letter, and yet people up the road got a letter. So I was confused, what was this letter? It had no signature. Madam Mayor, it just had that the executive of the Oakville Progress Association had decided to do this.

So because I was having requests from various residents, I wanted to know who was this letter from? Like, why was it there? That's not an unreasonable thing when I have people asking me about its content and when personally I was concerned by its content. So to ask an association, of which I have sent numerous emails and had very few responses, to ask them to know who this letter was from because I knew I had this mayoral minute, I don't think that's at all unreasonable. And I will uphold Councillor Wheeler's point of order and ask that you stop interrogating me on that. I'm happy to send you the email. I've answered what I did and why I did it.

Madam Mayor, I'm not sure what's going on here tonight in terms of order, because you are the chairperson, Madam Mayor. You don't need another councillor to call a point of order as to whether or not you yourself are being interrogated. If you don't want to answer my questions, you just say, I don't want to answer your

Questions. Well, I did answer your questions, but you were bombarding me with another... Madam Mayor

I think Councillor Conolly's been totally out of order. He has no respect, obviously, for the chair. And I think he needs to put a thinking cap on and calm down and get back to the meeting. Get back to the meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Proceed now, Councillor Conolly. Thank you. This has

Just been total disorder, Madam Mayor. I don't know what's going on around here and why things are just descended to this level of chaos, but I don't... Well, I'd hardly

Call it chaos.

Well, if I could ever finish a sentence, Madam Mayor.

Councillor Conolly, progress with your questioning or with your debate.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll see if I can this time.

Obviously, my questions, Madam Mayor, which you wanted to cut off, were designed to point out that you are not treating this community group— Point of order, Madam.

Yes, Councillor Ross, point of order.

I am rather concerned at the, shall we say, unfortunate remark that issued forth from Councillor Connolly's lips, and I don't believe that that was appropriate. I should be obliged if you'd call upon him to offer an apology. Thank you. Which remark?

Thank you, Councillor Ross. To which remark were you referring?

There were a couple of words said there which I felt were beneath his standing. What were they?

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I think we'll just decide that we'll just uphold a suitable level of respect. Move on, Councillor Connolly, with what you wish to ask me.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will try again. Yes, I will try again. There seems to be a mood in here—we've already had one gag motion earlier—to not let any opposing voices be heard, and that is very fitting with this motion, because that's exactly what we're doing here. We've had a community group being bullied, a community group that didn't agree with the Mayor's position and had the audacity to write a letter to residents disagreeing with it, and they're singled out for attack in a Mayoral minute. This is very extraordinary, and now at the very last minute, 3:30, 4 o'clock on the day of the meeting, we get the most important part of the motion added by email, which is that not only are we going to say all these things about the Oakville Progress Association, we're actually going to spend Council's money—the Council that just went is just about to go through an SRV process— we're going to spend Council's money to write to all these residents to tell them how well they've been consulted with.

This is nothing short of an election campaign, Madam Mayor, and Hawkesbury Council should not be paying for it. There are so many misleading things in this document. I think, Madam Mayor, if it's only a small cost and you feel very much the need to refute them, then I think you should pay for it, because Hawkesbury Council should not be paying to defend the reputation of some councillors over others. Looking at this document, it is not a document of facts. You know, in terms of one of the facts you mentioned before, it's been said 89 per cent of the Hawkesbury rejects the SRV in its current form. I don't believe that's exactly what we said anyway. I think it said in the latest round of consultation, which was correct, and I acknowledge that was not a broad round of consultation, and that the ones before it were actually statistically valid.

In the valid survey, it was about 77 per cent. 77 per cent were opposed to this option three.

Well, it doesn't matter if it says this document says, it comes on, doesn't actually say what proportion of residents said anything. It says the majority of residents told us they didn't want to see a reduction in service levels, duh, and they were willing to pay more rates to improve or maintain services, but leaves out the fact that most of them didn't want to pay as much as option three. The vast majority of residents were not in favour of paying as much as option three. About 77 per cent in the telephone survey would not vote for option three. In terms of, in 2017 to 18, the average increase in rates for residential properties in the Hawkesbury was $12.85. Completely misleading, completely.

When you've got a situation where 77 per cent of properties are getting a rate decrease, the average means nothing. Nobody has that average. Not one single person has anything like that. Of course, when 77 per cent of the population you're working with is going the other way, the average increase is not going to be very big across the board, because of course the average increase is really limited to rate pegging. But the increases, what would actually be much fairer and much less misleading if you said the average increase in rates for residential properties experiencing an increase in rates was this, and it would be a much higher number.

In terms of the next one down, it's been said the new council gave a rate decrease to 80% of the local government area, and we have a whole blurb around who got what, but nowhere does it state the percentage as to why that's not correct. The percentage is 77%. So the letter said 80%, it was 77%. Sure. Do we really need to send out a letter to correct the fact that 3% was an error of 3%? And is this blurb really saying that there was an error of 3%, or is it saying something completely different? It's giving a blurb, a sales pitch in favour of the rate rise. Why did my rates go up so much? Properties which experienced an increase in their land values would have experienced an increase in their rates regardless of rating structure that existed or the proportion of their rates based on land value.

True, but that's not the only reason. We've just heard that several hundred dollars of that rate rise comes from a restructure.

Madam Mayor, often on Facebook—I've been on council for as long as you—often on Facebook things are said about me I don't like, and often I'll sit there and I'll draft out furiously my response, but normally what I do then is I delete it. I don't post it because I don't need to respond to every little thing that is said about me, and I think that's what should have happened here. You should have written this out and then said, I feel better now. I don't need to send it in and have a go at a community group.

No, I'm not the Mayor, thank you. I don't think it's any different for the Mayor. I don't think the Mayor needs to respond to every little bit of criticism, and I don't think it's right for council to be moving motions attacking community groups that don't agree with us. Well, it is attacking. It says here,

The letter from Oakville Progress Association appears to contain some significant omissions and misrepresentations.

While I respect the right of residents to express their views, and any information provided to residents is balanced and fairly represented in Council's position, unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. We're going around out there and saying they've lied to you, they've left things out, and they're not being balanced. Now, you might think that, but that is a political statement. It is 100% a political statement. These are not just facts in this document. It's opinion. It's a lot of blurb. It's a lot of sales pitch. This should not be being paid for by Hawkesbury Council. And, Madam Mayor, another thing I took issue with in this thing was, in your address, sorry, was the idea that Dominic Perrottet did not come and get the facts from Council.

Council has published all its documents publicly over and over again. We've done extensive consultation, according to the it's been said versus real facts document. But because he didn't sit down and talk to you, he couldn't possibly be informed about what Council is doing and what the SRV application involves. I think that's a ridiculous proposition. I would also point out, Madam Mayor, that this has been snuck into this meeting. The part of the motion that says we're going to spend Council's money sending out a document to these people to defend ourselves has been snuck in at the last minute. Not true. It is absolutely true. It was not in the business paper. It did not get notified.

It said to be circulated. It just didn't say by which method.

Information, yeah, it doesn't— exactly. It did not involve any financial implications. It did not say that it would be mailed out at a cost to Council. It did not say that. And then at the last minute it was put in there, and I would say if it already said that, why did it need to be put in there? Obviously it didn't say that. It's been snuck in at the last minute. Nobody from Oakville has registered to speak on this. Nobody had registered to speak against it at all because that wasn't in there. And if that had been in there, they would have wanted to be here because it's a ridiculous proposition. And, Madam Mayor, I will just warn you now, my initial feeling is that if this goes through and is snuck in here tonight, that I will be moving, if I could get support, a rescission motion, and I will be requesting that that be held at an extraordinary meeting to allow as many speakers as we can, because this cannot be allowed to sneak through for Council to spend— I think this is a really dangerous position.

It's the start of something bad. Never before have I seen Council spend Council's money on just blatant promotion of the incumbent Mayor and Council and Council majority. I've never seen that before in Hawkesbury Council. It happens in other councils, and it's a complete waste of money. I remember once, Madam Mayor, there was a motion to put on the rates notice. Which was already being sent out, the cost of the carbon tax to Council, and yourself and others were absolutely outraged that Council would be doing that. This is a hundred times worse. This is so much more blatant politically, and I can't believe that we're sitting here going to spend Council's money on this. And I would give a commitment to the residents that are here tonight, and to others, that I'm not going to just let this go.

I won't let it go through without a fight. And if it means we debate this again and again, we'll debate it yet again when people have actually seen what Council is proposing to do.

Further discussion?

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before I begin, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. And first of all, point 3 of your mayoral minute says to reaffirm its commitment to reviewing the rating structure through a series of workshops, the first to be held on Thursday night. So is that the commitment to review the rating structure, to change the rating structure for the next financial year, to look at changing the rating structure for the coming financial year? That's what

We have a resolution to do.

Right. So why on page 52 of the IPART application for the SRV does it state, as part of the application, it is anticipated that the current rating structure will be maintained over the period of the proposed special rate variation if approved. So is that a three-year commitment in the IPART recommendation? Mr Litwin.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess the reason for that statement is because Council has made no decision in relation to next year's rating structure, so on that basis we can only assume the rating structure will be the same as it is in this current year until such time as Council changes it. So because there is no resolution to that effect, it was difficult to say anything other than what's in the IPART application. Thank you.

Sorry, I think that that leads to a very confusing position for the community. When you have a document that is supporting the biggest increase to their rates the Hawkesbury's seen, stating the structure will not be changing, and point three of the actual Mayoral Minutes says there's a commitment to review that for the next financial year. So I think that that just goes to the whole point of this Mayoral Minute, that this actual Mayoral Minute, I can't even find words for it, but trust me I will, is, it should never ever have been printed. It should never have got to the point where it was in Council's business paper. It should never ever have attacked a community group the way it did. If you have an issue with State Member Dominic Perrottet, go for it.

He's an elected official. Have an issue with Dominic Perrottet. But I can tell you now, he's probably the last person in the whole of New South Wales I'd want to have an economic debate about being the Treasurer of this state. Well, it's absolutely— okay, I'd love to see any one of you go head to head with Dominic Perrottet on economics.

Point of order, Madam Mayor. I'm just a bit curious as to why I was cut off numerous times and yet yourself and others are allowed to audibly laugh, sigh and carry on. It

Was the thought of having— I wasn't proposing to have a debate with Dominic Perrottet. I wanted him to have the staff

Brief him on it, so I found it amusing. I just think there's got to be a consistent level of respect, that's all.

Thank you. The point I raise in regards to that is the paragraph, and I quote: I'm particularly concerned that the Member for Hawkesbury is urging residents to oppose the rate increase before Council has even lodged its submission to IPART, outlining the facts and issues pertinent to the application. Is that implying that the Treasurer of New South Wales does not know how to read the documents that Council's already put onto public exhibition and in its business papers? Is that a question? It's a rhetorical. I think that the Treasurer of New South Wales will be able to do that. I don't see where, as a matter of process, he cannot, as an elected member, come out and actually have an opinion.

Before, it said here that this, he can't do so until the submission to IPART is actually lodged. Council resolved first and foremost to take option three as its preferred choice for the SRV. That then went to public exhibition. Council then has resolved, after that consultation, to endorse option three. There have been multiple—any step of the way along there, any member of the community, not just OPA, not just Dominic Perrottet, anyone can say, Guess what? I don't agree with this. There is no—where does it say that no one can say a word, everyone must remain silent until IPART submission has been lodged? That's not a matter of process. There's quite a few other things that I want to bring up within this, and I'm going to just go piece by piece because I think that's the only way that I can do this.

It does state down at the bottom of the page 16— let's read it. Mr Perrottet's letter omits the facts that the recent rating increases in Oakville and other areas adjoining the Northwest Growth Sector were the direct… result of substantial increases in land valuations. It's not a direct result. It's part of the reason. Included with that is the rating restructure that this council did. I'm not going to sit here and debate statistics and facts about that. Councillors Ann Pragnell and Connolly have done a great job in trying to highlight those sorts of things. But I think that you need to be very careful with what you're putting into writing. I think this has set a very dangerous precedent about leadership in this community being upset with anybody having a difference of opinion to them.

It really does set a dangerous precedent. I don't know on what level anyone thinks that this is okay to attack a community group like this. Like I've said, go for it with Dom. He can handle it. But seriously, to do this to a group of community members who are just angry about something that has affected their hip pocket and they want to speak out about it, and this is the way to do that? Publicly, on the record, forever and ever humiliate them. And to top it off, Councillor Connolly is—I'd appreciate if Councillor Ross stops the giggling from across the chamber. It's highly inappropriate. And he continues again, What is this? Honestly, let me speak without interruption, without intimidation, or without any sort of giggling immaturely from across the chamber.

Continue nodding. It's not a good look, all right? Let's go to the document that council wants to pay ratepayers' money to actually send out to the whole community. Councillor Connolly is spot on by saying this was snuck in at the last minute, regardless of the intent that it was supposed to say that. Every member of the community is entitled to see that this is part of the mayoral minute tonight. They have not had the chance to see that it is this council's, or this mayor's, intent to spend council's money on a mail-out to actually— As a form of somewhat intimidation to go to the same bunch of people that you sent that value agenda letter to. And Councillor Conolly again is right in absolutely pulling apart that document.

It should never have been put together that way. The political bias in that document is astounding. That document is nothing more than a form of retaliation. And I thought that this council, this new council, was supposed to be above all that sort of thing when it comes to proper conduct and proper resolutions in this chamber. Madam Mayor, I'd really like you to do something about Councillor Ross, because while I'm personally not intimidated, it is actually a really, a really poor form of behaviour coming across the chamber when I have the floor.

Do you tend to?

Well, he's quiet now. Keep going. It's not that you and Councillor Tree don't giggle and do things either.

I do not consistently sit there grinning like a Cheshire cat across at another councillor who's trying to speak and actually have her say, and continuing to do it absolutely like he's got all the authority in the world. Councillor Ross,

Are you intending to intimidate Councillor Richards?

Consider that necessary. Thank you. Well, sit quietly and just listen. Continue,

Councillor Richards. Okay, thank you. I'm just going to continue on with pulling this apart. What this Mayoral Minute is doing is adding increased fuel to an already very, very hot fire. It should not. I mean, other councillors in this chamber, including the mayor, have stood shoulder to shoulder with other community groups in the last term, shoulder to shoulder with community groups who have held up Liberal Party faces printed onto cardboard and burnt them. And you want to talk about here a group of people, an organisation, a community group who's done a letterbox drop. I mean, you want to talk about things that other community groups have done. I think if we're going to start, like I said, this is a dangerous precedent.

Other community groups in the past have done terrible things to Liberal councillors and Liberal leadership, and it's never been called out in this way before. And that's why I think I'm so highly emotional and so highly appalled that this has actually happened. I'm going to sum up now because I think that I've got my point across quite clearly. This mayoral minute is an insult to our residents, and I can't find any other word than petty. Leadership needs to live with the fact that all decisions will not be accepted favourably. This mayoral minute was not the appropriate course of action. It is not how to address this issue, and it is not something I will ever, ever support. Thank you.

Further discussion?

Councillor Ross. Madam Mayor, I'm pleased this notice of motion has been brought forward.

The comments that have been made this evening by those opposite

Would best be thought of as a

Rather skewed view of numbers and statistics, which can be distorted and contorted to make any particular point seem relevant and bear some factuality. The truth of the matter is , as you've indicated,

That land values were the predominant cause of the rate changes within that locality. Councillor Connolly admitted that, but then tried to

Re-address it, or overlook that, shall we say, admission with other elements, which are really rather disingenuous, I'm sorry to say.

The situation to which Councillor Zampronio alluded is no doubt caused in part by the impact of the actual area

In terms of the, if you like, the average physicality in terms of hectares or acres, however you want to describe it, per rateable property. And of course, if that is somewhat more significant than those of the, shall we say, closer settled areas,

That will result potentially, because of the greater physical size of the property, to which there is some value attached by the Valuer General, will result in a rate potentially, which— Might mean 3% of the rateable income of Council is derived from 2% of the rate notices issued.

An unavoidable fact.

It would happen in Broken Hill like that, or Mildura or somewhere, you know. I mean , it's not a bias of Council. It's a, if anything, a bias because of the State Government's

Determination about the rating structure per se being based on UCV.

And if people have

Got physical land units, acres or hectares, which are larger than those in another part of the LGA,

There are consequences to it. Very simple. The simple fact of the matter is, as our Mayor has indicated, the extraordinary, and I'd agree with the word extraordinary, fact that firstly, and you haven't highlighted this either, is that the valuation was conducted through the course of 2017, ostensibly as a result of the proposed— Implementation of an FESL, which failed. Thank you, local member, treasurer. Hello? Failed . But

The Hawkesbury folk, every one of you have been infected and affected by the implementation of land values that were not in accord with past practice. They occurred a year earlier. So you might look to your local member, yoo-hoo , the treasurer, try Beecroft, to wonder why that

Occurred.

Point one. Point two, the state government also ordains the use of UCV. Other states have different bases.

Local government itself has very little control over those factors.

Now, the matter of the restructuring, shall we say, of the rating system, to which there has been a catawall as well , followed what might well have been described in 2013 , and has been, as an unjust

Variation to the rates. In your favour. In your favour at that point,

What this council has done, and I'm happy to say that I voted this way, is that

A redress of that situation, which was seen as inappropriate on the overall scale of things, was conducted. It had some impact, sure, on the Oakville people, but

Very little in terms of where it was turned in your favour in the initial instance some years prior. So, in other words, there has been a rebalancing, if you like, of the situation that prevailed in 2012.

And

I can understand

The mayor's concern that

Public statements being committed to printed documents being sent out,

Which , in all fairness, were not factually correct,

Rather extreme and heated, and we can all understand people getting a bit upset, but it seemed to have become carried beyond the point of any reasonableness. And I think one or two of the members on the other side might just like to take a cold shower themselves.

I think it's only reasonable that the Mayor and the Council as a whole

Have the gumption to stand by the decisions that we have made as a whole, because we believe, in the majority,

That appropriate decisions have been made, both in regard to the current rating, and regrettably, regrettably, tonight, because of failures of past councils, which were under the aegis of

Other folk in another time, politically aligned, who had no interest in the welfare of the Hawkesbury and no view about the finances of the Hawkesbury other than to presumably say it is much easier for us to ignore the failing infrastructure, the depreciated state of our roads or anything else, and sit back and allow it to happen,

So that the Hawkesbury could become a rotten borough in the state of New South Wales.

Sorry,

But the bulk of the population and the electorate are telling us that they don't want to be a rotten borough. Sorry, the response to that has to be from the council, folk.

We've got no other option

Other than to have to seek more funds to do the job that we're being asked to do. We are endeavoring. To operate the business operations of Council professionally, at as reasonable cost,

We commit to doing that, but that does not generate under the rate system that we've got and under the collections we're able to gain through IPART sufficient funds to bring this great area into a state of more reasonable repair and maintenance. And we also must look to actually the failures of IPART, the independent body, who have restricted the fixed variations to Council's income in all parts of the state with 1%, 1.3s, 1.5s, just absolutely ludicrous. You know yourselves. Look at the cost of—well , go and look at the cost of electricity, for a start. Energy, any energy, terrible. Gone substantially higher than that. Look at the cost of food and what you're paying for food, substantially higher than that. This year, we were told by the state government, 2.5% you'll get. IPART turn around and give us 2.3. We can't even get that.

I'm sorry, folks. This is where the rubber hits the road. We're not here spinning wheels. We're here trying to work for you. And it costs money. And the only way we'll get any improvement is to go for the SRV and hope like heavens we get it, and that we , whom you have put trust in, will make sure it is spent economically. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Can I

Just ask a

Question, Madam Mayor? Just wanted to know, in Councillor Ross's address when he said that those in the previous council didn't have any concern for the welfare of the Hawkesbury, who he was referring to exactly?

Who were you referring to, Councillor Ross, when you referred to the previous council not having any concern for the welfare of the Hawkesbury? To whom were you referring? Councillor Conolly's question, if you could answer.

I think it was the elected body in tota. I couldn't—

Thank you. I

Actually wouldn't actually want Councillor Ross to withdraw that because I actually don't believe in that kind of style of politics. But I would point out that if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Are you calling for a retraction, Councillor Conolly? No. Okay.

Thank you. Councillor Garrow. I'm just wondering if circulating

By mail, if there is any— Sorry, a minute. Councillor Ross, can you turn off your thing Thank you. Just in reference to circulating by mail, is there any other means that we could possibly explore that would be more cost effective, say for instance emailing out to all the email addresses we have on file, a social media campaign, ads in the Gazette, something that would be a lot more cost effective than a mail-out per

Se? Well, I did initially think an ad in the Gazette, but then I thought that that would be more exposing it outside of— I'm happy to look at options of which way to circulate

Or a direct meeting with the organisation as well if they would accept.

Well, I have tried to do that, so therein lies my problem. That's why I brought it forward. But we can just consider that. Maybe some staff can think of what would be a better way.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I must congratulate you on your composure under such sustained and irreverent attack, which is what I thought that little tirade was all about. And it's certainly not becoming of this council chamber to be behaving like that. Anyway, Madam Mayor, the real nigger in the woodpile, sorry, the real culprit in this—

The real culprit... I thought that would get a response. Thank you. The real — yeah, and like yours too, and I think it's about the same level.

Cost shifting is the real culprit in this debate. Council is being attacked wrongly . What obviously is happening here is that some councillors are out there generating as much division as they possibly can generate out of this, get as much mileage for their political cause as they possibly can get hold of. I mean, okay, well that's politics, I guess. But it would be really nice if they actually added some facts and figures and helped the community to understand what is really happening and why the special rate variation was necessary. And I have never, ever heard any of the Liberal councillors talk about cost shifting. If you want to get into detailed analysis and accounting, Madam Mayor, on rates, then please spend your energies and your brains and your skills figuring out where all of that cost shifting and how it translates into rate increases to everybody in the Hawkesbury, including the good residents of Oakville.

That's where the good residents of Oakville should be looking at: cost shifting from the financial burden of cost shifting the state government is shifting on to the ratepayers in the Hawkesbury. Now where is that debate? Who is Mr Perrottet putting that point of view out there in the Oakville forums? I bet he's not. I bet he's not. He's quite happy to sit on his $4.7 billion surplus, and guess where that money is coming from? Some of it is coming from the ratepayers of this area because the state government continues to shift cost onto local government. Relentlessly they've been doing it for years, for 10 years. Probably amounts to close to $60 million over a 10-year period or more, we're told.

Now that's a lot of money that the ratepayers have to fund out of their rates and their fees and their charges. Now where is the debate on that? Where are the Liberal councillors? Where is the cry for the rest of the Hawkesbury? Where is the big rhetorical flushes in this chamber for the rest of the Hawkesbury? Because they are equally burdened by the rates increase as a result of the cost shifting. Where is that? I don't hear that anywhere. I don't hear any of the cries for all the people in the rest of the Hawkesbury. So let's please, come on, let's get back to combining, and let's bring this community together. Stop dividing this community. It is not doing you any good. You might think you can gain a few votes out of it.

Trust me, long term, it won't work. It will, it will, and there goes Councillor Connolly. There he goes. Come on, come on. I thought that would bring it on. Come on,

Come on. — He's had his turn.

No, you think he's— No, he's got to get another 10 turns, I know. He's got that nice smiley face. He's such a young, nice, smiley bloke. I love it. Anyway , I really think that the Hawkesbury is not well served by that sort of division running through this area. This Hawkesbury area is a lovely area. We need to be working on working together, not dividing it, not dividing off little bits here and little bits there for political gain. That is such a bad, bad, unhealthy thing to do. It's bad for the Liberal councillors, and it's bad for the people of Oakville . Trust me. What they need to be doing is working with Council, working to work out how we can stop the cost shifting so that we don't have to have the special rate variation.

I have never been in favour of a special rate variation. I voted against every one of them in this chamber for the last... 22 , three years. Every one of them, except the last one. Why? Because it's got to the point where the cost shifting is so burdensome. So, yeah, you can smile, and you've had a crack at Councillor Ross about it, and here we go, right down into the gutter again. Okay, let's go there. If you want to go there, let's go there.

Point of order, Madam Mayor. Nobody's going into the gutter. Point

Of order, Councillor Conolly. Body said

Similar to Councillor Rasmussen's point of order when I was speaking earlier. That is completely out of order. No one's going into the gutter. He is consistently attacking us, and it is a little bit awkward, so sometimes I'll smile because it is awkward to be consistently— I like your smile. You're a lot better

Off when you

Smile, mate.

I'm sorry.

I really like your

Smile. It's a lot better. Councillor Rasmussen, move on,

Please. Thank you. Okay. Okay, and I've just been—and I will. Look, I'm sorry. I think it was pointed out to me that I need to apologise for niggardly—the woodpile. It was a slip of the tongue. It certainly wasn't meant in any nasty sense, in the same way that I think that Councillor Ross might have made a slip of the tongue some time ago. I think I need to apologise for that, and I have done so unreservedly. However, I just think it's a bit sad in this chamber that we are meant, really meant, to be working very hard on behalf of the total community, the whole community of the Hawkesbury, and we see some councillors out there trying to divide the community in this way. It is very, very sad to see.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Tree. Thank you. I actually find that gobsmacking. I've been here—this is my third term, I think, like eight years, and during that time I'd say that... Many councillors of all political persuasion, or lack of political persuasion, have used their position and their might and their association with local community groups to do exactly what you just said we shouldn't do. You also just said that we should be working very hard for the community. Well, I'd say that we haven't really been displaying that for the last four hours when we've been debating complete non-issues, essentially, for four hours. Four hours we've been sitting here talking about nothing.

Nothing. We , I mean, if you're a conspiracy theorist, you might be forgiven for thinking that we're going to get to the point where the SRV is going to come up and we're also exhausted that we're just going to tick and flick the thing through. That's the business of council, not this. I mean , the criticisms that a lot of the councils have copped over the years from political groups, from action groups, from community groups, we still continue to do so, but it's par for the course. I mean, I don't think I've ever once said to somebody, I'm going to send out a mail-out to correct something that they've said, and very often the information has been completely incorrect. But it doesn't matter.

That's part of freedom of speech. I also don't think that I've ever said to anyone that I'm going to threaten legal action to them because they've said something I don't like either. So I'm just concerned that what tends to happen in council meetings is that we do do a lot of this and we don't get any traction. We don't get anywhere. And I think that's part of the frustration of this chamber. If we were, if we were very serious, we wouldn't be spending four hours doing the notices of motion, that's a personal opinion, like you can have your opinions. We're all entitled to our opinions. We're all entitled to freedom of speech. And if we don't agree with each other, it's certainly not a reason to call each other names or to be really pejorative in our approaches to each other in here.

It's pretty disgraceful. And I've been guilty of it too, and I don't like it because it's not the person I am. So I'd really appreciate if we can get on with the business that's really important to the community, and to not spend time doing tit for tat across the room, because it's going to make the next three years pretty freaking unbearable.

Councillor ,

Are you

Finished, Councillor Tree? I'm not sure. I think there's one more point I wanted to make.

Anyway, no, I just, the reason why I was having a little bit of a chuckle before is because I just found that this sort of thing that we're discussing in this particular instance is a little bit, I felt a little bit hypocritical considering the fact that there have been lots of other community groups have made lots of other comments in other contexts that have been left to just slide away, that's all. I don't want the community to have to pay $7,000 to right a wrong. We don't know who sent it. We don't know to whom it was sent. So to do a blanket one to the whole community seems to be a bit crazy. So I'm not going to support this Mayoral Minute. I just really would like to get on with the other things, planning and the SRV.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to be really brief. I'm not supporting this Mayoral Minute because when I first read it, I thought I didn't. I had to read it about three times to try and figure out what the actual outcome of these recommendations would be. And I came to the conclusion that, for instance, the first recommendation that Council write to Oakfield Progress Association to restate its offer to address. association about its concerns. I would have thought that that was already on the table because we already know that there are many people in Oakville that aren't happy with what's been happening to their rates. So there's really no need for that recommendation. I am totally against spending ratepayers' money in sending a letter out to these people.

They have a right to have their community groups, and they have a right to say really whatever they like. We have done our duty in the way that we had public meetings, we held telephone surveys. We, I thought, did quite an exhaustive process to try and to inform the community about the things that we thought were in their best interests. Thirdly, to reaffirm our commitment, I don't think that we need to reaffirm our commitment. We have a commitment. We've said we're going to do a rates workshop, and that's beginning. So I think it's unfortunate that this was tabled. I think it is divisive. I don't think it has any outcome that I could support. It doesn't have a good outcome. It doesn't have any outcome.

And it's got little to do with the special rate variation, as far as I can see. That special rate variation has already been recommended. It's going through. I think we should always talk to our residents, but this just smacks of, let's get the Oakville Progress Association and set them straight. And I just don't think that it's—it's just not. A good look. So I won't be supporting this Mayoral

Minute. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Further discussion? Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I did write to you the other day about my concerns with this Mayoral Minute. And my reason for writing was that I thought it would be divisive, and I didn't think it would repair any of the damage that has gone on. In fact, I expected it would make it much worse. And I think that's exactly what's happened. We've, as demonstrated by some of the language that's been used across the room tonight, and we're supposed to be going into a rates workshop in two days' time, where we're going to look at this matter and hopefully come up with some kind of solution. I can't see if we're going to go into that meeting with this kind of mindset I see here tonight, I don't see the workshop being very fruitful.

I'm hoping that we can move past the, what I see tonight is a lot of name-calling and a lot of he said, she said things, which are totally non-productive. The recommendation itself has, there are three points to it. What I've heard here tonight is a lot of people talking about the SRVs, cost shifting and a whole lot of other things. If you look at the recommendation, cost shifting and SRV is not relevant. Most of what people have said here tonight has not been relevant. To the three points in the recommendation, I would go so far as to say most of what has been said is actually out of order, in my opinion. The recommendations, as Councillor Kotlash said, the first one and the third one don't ask us to do anything because those things are already being done.

And the second one asks us to send out information which we've already sent out and put on Facebook, or we're going to put on Facebook or on the website. So in my opinion, number two has already been done as well. So I don't see any need to support any of the three recommendations. Furthermore, the SRV has already been debated and I supported it. I don't see the need to keep supporting it at every meeting. And I don't see the need to do that and create more public conflict. What we should do, I think, is let's move on from this. Let's move into the rates workshop on Thursday with a clean sheet of paper and see if we can find a way forward. Going back opening old wounds is not the way forward and I therefore am not going to be able to support this Mayoral Minute

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. It's been a very interesting discussion and

Understandably passions run high when Subjects such as this arise. First of all, regarding Council contacting the Oakville Progress Association, I don't think anybody should run from the truth, and I think that the Oakville Progress Association is being seriously misled by the local member. I was present at two of their meetings and one where he spoke. He spoke about Council being completely inefficient and not needing an SRV, yet as a couple of people have suggested, said here tonight, if we hadn't had any cost shifting, we wouldn't need an SRV. He didn't mention that at all. As far as Mr Perrottet being entitled to his own opinion, he is entitled to his own opinion. However, he spoke to the Oakville Progress Association as the local MP and as the Treasurer.

He spoke to them as the local MP and as the New South Wales Treasurer, and he said that he was going to lobby the

Minister for Local Government and interfere in what is an independent process. The INI part stands for independent.

And he said, he suggested to Oakville people to get loud and fight against the SRV, and that's what he was going to do. But I mean, there is a way for him to do it, and it's not by spreading mistruths to people and saying Council is inefficient, but it's only inefficient because of his cost shifting and he didn't tell them that. Now hopefully we're going to fix that up with a notice of motion later on. Now, the Oakville Progress Association is an incorporated association and it's a legal entity, a separate legal entity. Now, previous councils here have slagged off local community groups in the past. This is in no way doing anything like that. All it's trying to do is to set them straight regarding the facts, and I can see nothing wrong with that.

I think perhaps a mail-out probably isn't required. There may be other ways to do it, but we definitely need to call Dominic Perrottet to account. He has misled the people of Oakville. He's overstepped the mark by saying that he would interfere in what is an independent process. The only reason there was an early valuation was because of his Fire and Emergency Services levy. That's the only reason. It's the only reason we're in this mess, is because of Dominic Perrottet's Fire and Emergency Services levy. That's the only reason there was another valuation. He pulled the pin on that. He should have pulled the valuation. He didn't. He left it. He's the Treasurer. He can pull the valuation, and he didn't.

And he's the one that's responsible for this mess. And there he is going to public meetings and misleading people about the cause for it. So I would support the Mayoral Minute if the information, the mail-out part, was circulated by mail to the same people was removed. But as a general, in general, I

Support the Mayoral Minute because, again, we should never run from the truth. We should not be afraid of standing up to especially a local member who is Obviously the New South Wales Government is out to do this council in. They're out to do the Blue Mountains Council in and all the grief that's happened up there. That's fine. I don't think we should run from standing up for what we know is right and correcting what we know is untrue. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks , Madam Mayor.

I think what this, I would also prefer to see the circulated by mail clause removed from the second item in the resolution, which then leaves item two without an action effectively . So that after special rate increase, perhaps instead of be circulated by mail, it could read be posted on social media or be circulated by social media.

It's already been prepared for social media, and the

Aim of having it, I'm happy to remove it. I mean, the only reason it came was because I needed the approval to have the money spent to do it. I'm happy to not do that and to use other avenues. I'm also happy to pay myself to do it, but I think that's silly. I would rather a resolution of council. I just think that that would have been the only way to get it to the audience who we have a database for. So that was the rationale behind that. So doing it by social media, you know, I will contact the residents who've contacted me and personally give them the facts. I'm raising this on behalf of people who've brought concerns to me, and that's what we are meant to do. So that's why I'm doing it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks for that clarification. Did we collect email addresses from people who attended the workshop? Some people do. Could we perhaps email those

People? Yes . And we could send it by email to as many email addresses as we have.

So

While that's amended, I'll just keep going. I understand and appreciate that the reason that this has come to Council as a Mayoral Minute is not to waste the time of Council, but in fact to put the weight of a Council resolution behind information that is prepared and put out to the community. Council has a right to correct the record.

I do want to take exception to the idea that in four hours we haven't discussed anything significant. We've discussed flood access, the destruction of the oldest European infrastructure in the country, and the loss of heritage and tourism potential, and heat preparedness. It's clearly not particularly insignificant in the grand scheme of things in the Hawkesbury. I think it's really concerning that the member for Hawkesbury is circulating a letter without being in full possession of the facts. If he has chosen to cherry-pick those facts from the information provided, then I think that's even more concerning. If Mr Perrottet or his conduits opposite have some suggestions for increasing efficiency, then I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear them.

You've had nearly 18 months to make concrete suggestions. Further, the letter that the local member has put out ignores the State Government's for the future requirements, which require Council to implement an SRV in order to meet their benchmarks. This Council is merely cleaning up the mess left to us. The inefficiencies were yours. The failure to plan for future infrastructural renewal was yours. Cost blowouts and spending on follies like reports into dredging, more than $100,000, and a referendum on wards, $30,000 at least, were all yours. This letter from the local member and the information that he presented at a public meeting is a slap in the face for Council staff who worked long and hard to prepare the most comprehensive works program this LGA has seen.

They fronted the community repeatedly, were rudely abused on several occasions for their efforts, and while some councillors slunk off home early or failed to turn up at all, some of them had to be escorted to their vehicles for their own safety. Both letters have the potential to further divide and confuse the community due to their lack of balance. Telling people that their rates could rise from $2,500 to $11,000 is a nice example. In a midst to say that in order for that to happen, your land value would have to be $5 million. Now that's not really a big worry for anyone on a normal block in Windsor, Bligh Park, Richmond, Wilberforce, McGraths Hill, Freemans Reach, Glossodia, Bowen Mountain.

This isn't bullying. It's about correcting misinformation. It's not bullying to tell the truth . There's a principle of freedom of political speech here. Both Mr Perrottet and the Mayor are politicians. Both are allowed to have their say, but both should speak the truth without misinformation or undue bias. If Mr Perrottet has a problem with the actions of this Council, he should first respect the office of the Mayor and seek to meet with her, especially when repeatedly invited. Instead, what we're witnessing is an undermining of this Council's democratically determined position for a bit of cheap political point scoring. Council should be allowed to tell its side of the story in the face of that.

It's not petty to correct the record, and it's not propaganda to tell the truth. Councillor Zamprogno has given us some figures, but like many people who overestimate their understanding of statistics, he's missed. Missed a really important confounding variable, land value. What he should have done is used land value to percentage of notional yield, and he would have found that under the old rates system, 58% of people paid 65% of the rates yield, where 28% of people on large residential properties, i.e. the high-value rural residential properties, paid only 20%. So if we're going to talk about fairness, let's really talk about fairness and take the confounding variables out. The land value restructure in our example of the $1.91 million property accounted for 84% of the rates rise, and the restructure accounted for 16%.

So let's talk about some of this information in context. As for the idea that this is an election stunt, who's going to an election? Is anyone running? I'm not. So how is this an election pitch? There's some serious selective reporting going on here. The restructure corrects a previous extremely unfair rates distribution that saw people on our lowest-value properties subsidising those on high-value properties, like some sort of reverse Robin Hood scheme. We promised to address that, and we have. Because of the drastic increase in land value, we now have a large problem with a relatively few number of properties, and that's what we're going to try to sort out beginning on Thursday night. But we have to proceed with the SRV, and in order to do that, and in order for people to make representations fairly to IPART, they need to be given the proper information, not a biased or misrepresented sector of that information that suits one particular political leaning.

They need to be told the truth. That's what this Mayoral Minute seeks to do, is to tell the truth with the weight of a Council resolution behind it. If you can't handle the truth, I'm very sorry, but the truth stands on its own merits.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? I'll do right of reply. As you can see, we've changed the mail-out to be by social media and email, and I'm happy for that. I simply thought it was the right thing to get a council resolution to spend any money addressing it. I believe it needed addressing. I was approached by residents. This is our role. If I have people ring me and they're concerned because they've got something in their mailbox that says, Your rates, this could happen to you. Your rates could go up 31%. No explanation that that's over three years. No explanation, no truth in saying 89% of people oppose the council doing this. If I have people ring me concerned about that, then I am doing something to address that.

That's fair and that's reasonable. It is not bullying. If it's all very well for Councillor Richards to say this mayoral minute should never have come, perhaps the letter should never have been sent without being checked for facts and without being truthful. So we can all say those sorts of things, but this is how it works. If there's people who are concerned, we bring the issues forward. Everyone does it. It is important, Councillor Tree. It's very important that this is addressed. And I totally accept that not everybody will take a decision when it doesn't fall the way they like. I know what that's like. I've spent many years of having that happen, and I know what it's like. But I have never put out untruthful letters distributed to various sectors of the population giving incorrect facts.

Now these aren't my facts. I haven't made all this up. It's not my agenda. These have been prepared by our hard-working staff who've been- Toiling away at this month after month after month, they have done the most amazing job of the consultation. They've got out there to the community. Every single person has had an opportunity to participate by a number of methods, and they have delivered the facts. They're pure hard facts. And the fact is that in those various increases, let's just look at it like this, for example. Had there not been valuations brought forward a year, how many people would have been in here saying they don't want the special rate variation? Probably not many, or possibly a different sector of people.

However, those valuations were brought forward. If they hadn't been, and the special rate variation went in, and then the following year the valuation went and the land values went up, then everyone would blame the land values, not the special rate variation. So it's a timing matter. So that's why it makes it really, really important that the truth is put on the table and that inaccuracies that mislead people and frighten people are corrected. Now, I have seen it done in this chamber before, and it should be done whenever it occurs. It's not bullying to ask an association to identify who they are. They're people putting facts out into the community, and that's a thing that should be part of, if you're doing that, you should say who you are.

I'm just going to go through some points that were raised, and I agree, Councillor Kotlash, the SRV has been passed. So why is there all this persistence about it? The SRV and the rate restructure are two separate things. In the Oakville situation, they've been merged into one, and they're never looked at distinctly. The reason I have two things in there, which have been essentially called useless, is that firstly, I've got that we write again to the Oakville Progress Association because both the general manager and myself have made numerous attempts to speak with them, and they do not respond nor invite us, although they are happy to say things about us and about... Council and giving correct facts without allowing us to actually attend or to speak with them.

Very unlike the other community groups that Councillor Conolly raised, who are happy to have us come, who come in for meetings, they ask if they've got a problem, we discuss issues, and that's how the situation is done when the community engages with the council, not to block out a certain section of people and then proceed to give out information which is non-factual and inaccurate. My point three to reaffirm the commitment to the rating structure is put in there because this seems to have been lost in this debate. So this still continues, even though we have said we will look at that. That's what we're doing. We have said that over and over, but it's not something you do overnight, and it's not something we could have changed immediately.

So I'm reaffirming that, so people understand we are looking at it, and that's been swallowed up into these misleading letters and things as well. So there's the two aspects that have merged together, and that has added to the complexity and the confusion of people. And Councillor Zamprogno's got a joke he wants to share with us. No. Oh no, apparently not. So I sought advice from the general manager of whether to put this up, and of course I was advised that I should if I was expecting to have a mail-out done. So I've done that. So it's all very well to criticise me for doing it and say whatever, but I will always put up when people have asked me to address something, and when my efforts to have it addressed by approaching the association and by multiple numerous attempts to speak with Mr Perrottet about it, when they have failed, I don't have another option.

And I am determined to clarify things for those residents who felt they've been misled. So it's unfortunate if you can't agree with that approach, because that's the approach I believe we're here for in local government to do that. If Mr Perrottet chooses to support one pocket of the electorate, that's his prerogative. If he chooses to oppose his own government's approval for the Future Program, which the Minister for Local Government has sent us the letter saying, yes, your fit for the Future Program is adequate. It includes an SRV, proceed. If he chooses to go against his own policy, then that's his prerogative as well. He's entitled to do that. However, in doing that, what message is he sending?

To the rest of his electorate, and these are the people who have concerns, I don't see an offer from him, from his, to fund our infrastructure upgrade. Yet he's prepared to deny a significant proportion of this LGA the improvements and upgrades that they deserve and which can be delivered through an SRV. So he's determined to deny that not to the people of Oakville, because he wants to support them to not have any SRV, but he will deny the other people in this area the very badly needed infrastructure upgrades that they need. And by saying no SRV, you are saying to the people that you cannot have these things you need because we have gone through the motions, we've gone through the whole budgets and every single process, we've done the consultations, and we need the SRV.

Like Councillor Rasmussen, like Councillor Calvert and like Councillor Connelly in the last council, I did not support an SRV until, and I said until every avenue is investigated. And I have sat in here line by line through budgets in this council to see where the expenditure is, to go through every single possible alternative revenue raising option that we have. Our Fit for the Future strategy has 20 different options that we're working on, and the SRV is one of them. So we did investigate all avenues. The people in this community said solidly that they want the service levels maintained, and we are going to maintain those service levels through the program that we have. So I haven't seen any alternative come from the Liberal councillors on this regarding the SRV.

You say no SRV. How do we operate? Will you stand up and tell the staff that it doesn't matter if their jobs are lost because we can't operate? Would you stand up and say, you know, you can't— In all these suburbs have any road sealing?

Are these questions, Madam Mayor?

Sorry?

Are these questions?

They're rhetorical.

Thank you, Madam.

Yeah, bit like Councillor Richards' one. And so, are you going to say to some residents that they can't have the upgrades they need because you wouldn't have an SRV, because that's what it would come down to?

Point of order ,

Clarification. No. Clarification — I'm sorry, governance lessons clarification

Well, I'd like to correct your incorrect statement, because we have always said there was a case for an SRV, not on this current rating structure. Yes

But what I would point out, Councillor Richards, is that we are bound by the Fit for the Future benchmarks, and that means we can't defer it. We can't do things like that, because that is how the government has structured what we have to meet. So, no solutions. Nobody raised option two. I've seen a few people have referred to it as a thing , but nobody brought it up as an option or anything. I think that we have an option for hardship, and people can access the hardship policy if they are having difficulty paying their rates. I checked today, and there have been nine applications out of all the rates

Point of order, Madam Mayor. Just a governance lesson: you're not allowed to raise items in right of reply that didn't occur in the debate. Well,

I had— well, I don't think that is. I raised the hardship, that we have a hardship policy. I'm now telling you how many—

Well, I am. I'm doing a right of reply. Well, that's right. It's my minute. Yes. Exactly. Well, I am replying, and I'm saying there's only been nine hardship applications. Had the association used the facts, then I would have no issue with them putting out a letter like that. But it's just the misleading statements that are the problems. On that note, I will finish up. I had a lot more to say, but I know the night is getting on. So, I think we've debated some really important items tonight. I note that councillors have had an opportunity to send through their options and were requested to send in their options for the rating workshop of how they would like the rate restructure done. But I don't see anyone having taken up that offer yet.

And on that final note, I will put my notice of motion, which has changed slightly just by the method of circulating that information, and I will put that forward. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried on the casting vote.

Our next...

Item five , we have two speakers. The first speaker is Elias Saleh.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Elias. I'm an architect from Damoor Design Architects, a firm which specialises in childcare centre designs. I'd like to say a few words just in support of the proposed childcare centre at 7 Smith Road, Oakville. A centre proposed to be a family business operated by local family living at the property, whose profession is within the childcare industry. The centre has been designed in accordance with Council's DCP, LEP, relevant codes, as well as ASICWAS regulations. ASICWAS is the governing and regulating childcare body in New South Wales. Now , this application made at previous Council meeting and was recommended for approval.

It was discussed at the meeting, however the decision was deferred and a number of conditions requested for us to consider, which were increasing the number of car parking spaces from 25 to at least 37, moving the development further away from the common fence with No. 1 Smith Road, moving the development further back into the site to better accommodate for the extra parking at the front, ensuring the rubbish storage area be located along the northern side of the building.

There was an additional comment made for ASICWAS, which was the additional noise mitigation devices to be investigated to allow outdoor play area to be utilised for more than two hours

Now, all the conditions were considered and addressed in consultation with Council's planners. The car parking spaces were increased to 37 at Council's request. Front setback was increased from 24 to 39 metres at Council's request. The side setbacks were increased to 7 metres, creating a larger landscape buffer zone to aid further in visual and acoustic privacy. And the garbage storage area at Council's request was also relocated to the northern side of the property. In regards to the acoustic measures, the recommended time for safe outdoor child play is two hours, and the limitation is

Not a limitation based on the amount of outside play time. It's rather a management decision based on ASIC's regulations and the recommended time of play for children, following, you know, the Cancer Council recommended periods, et cetera. Now, just to finish off, we've since the last Council meeting worked with Council's planners as well as the relevant consultants, acoustical traffic consultants, to address all these concerns raised at the last meeting. And we do believe the centre's approval would greatly benefit the local community because it would create jobs and service local families and their children. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Saleh. Are you happy to take questions? Yes

Any

Questions, Councillors? Councillor Ross.

Good evening, sir. Good evening . Councillor Ross. The glazing that

Standard, which is mentioned in the conditions, could you explain that to the layperson as to the table glass what it is?

Which particular condition was that, sorry? The

Glazing. Glazing?

Glazing. Yes, thank you. Okay.

I'm just trying to find the condition. Would you have a—

Condition number, Councillor Ross.

No, I'm sorry, I didn't.

Is it a condition 64? 64.

There's a reference to an Australian standard, I believe, there.

On page 64, was it?

Condition 64

Condition 64.

Okay. On page 66.

Yep.

Okay, so what I can understand from that is pretty much the glazing needs to comply with Australian standards. So generally with childcare centres, you have safety glass requirements. There are certain conditions as well with glazing within three metres of boundaries that generally need to be fire rated, which we don't need to comply with because there's a certain distance there. So

It's likely to be a safety glass. Yeah

Yeah. Well, there's certain conditions with the glass for childcare centres that need to be met, which differentiate between residential and commercial buildings of this nature. So this is, I believe, this condition is trying to pretty much say it needs to follow the Australian standards for childcare centres

Councillor Ross, can you use your light and—

Sorry.

Keep the questions succinct

Excuse me, sir. Lighting in regard to the external areas, particularly the car park,

Is that envisaged? If so, how?

Lighting? Yes. So natural lighting, or in the evening— No, I'm talking about illumination. Yep. To the car park space? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Well, generally the operating hours are between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., during which time the sun is out. In the evenings in winter, you probably have an hour or—

This particular DA is calling for a 7 p.m. operation?

No, 6. Is it 7 p.m., is it? Yeah, that's correct. There you go, till 7 p.m. Which

Will not be up to speed during winter.

Yeah, that's right. Look, in regards to lighting, I believe nothing has been specified at this stage, but it would take into consideration, you know, the neighbours' concerns. I believe the applicant and the owners will work with the town planners if they did want to condition anything with the DA consent to address those concerns. Obviously, any lighting which will be proposed will be not directed towards neighbours. Maybe small lights on the external signage panels; that'll generally be sufficient, and maybe some walkway lights along the footpaths, pedestrian footpaths there. Yeah. Is there a condition you're looking at in particular? Councillor Garrow. Councillor, 7 p.m

Cut-off? I'm reading 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Yes, that's what I thought

That's what I thought, yeah

As well. Still illumination needing during winter. Yeah, okay. So it is 6 p.m. That's okay. Okay. Sorry about that. That's okay

Question time's done, Councillor Ross. One quick question.

Okay, I just want to inquire as to whether the use of spotlights would be considered.

Spotlights directed where?

Onto the car park.

Onto the car park. Yes. Would they be considered if they are required and the lighting can be directed particularly to the car spaces, and if it's a necessity, it would be taken into consideration. Obviously, excuse me, any lighting that will be proposed obviously will take into consideration neighbouring properties and privacy of the neighbours, yeah. Okay,

Thank you. Could

I ask just one other question in regard to the personnel numbers mentioned of 19? Beg your pardon?

The personnel numbers.

Staff numbers of 19. Does that number include administration?

Well, generally the administration would be covered by the director and the second in charge and nominated supervisors, and they do tend to work on the floor. So yes, those staff members are considered within the ratio of the children, depending on the way they ratio the children to the staff numbers. But the director was included, yes. Yeah.

Right. And what are the normal shift lengths for this personnel?

Shifts are subject to the ratios of the children, I guess they, yeah.

Sorry. Answer

The question. Yeah, so the shifts, they're not particularly, you know, you can't say a certain number of hours. It's all subject to the number of children at the centre, so they'll take into account the ratios. So for an age group of zero to two, you need one staff member per four children. So they look at the room, how occupied it is by the children, then they... Obviously, work their shifts based on the numbers attending.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much

Our next speaker is Maria Slaats.

Light, Councillor Ross, please. Thank you

Lady Mayor, councillors, my name is Maria Slats. My husband and I own 1 Smith Road, Oakville, where we've lived for 17 years, and I'm speaking to you regarding the recommendation for DA 107/17, the childcare centre for 101 children. Firstly, I want to thank the city planners for their determination report and the details in which they have examined the proposal . The further conditions that they've put on the approval have gone a long way to easing some of the concerns that my husband and I have had. We also wanted to thank the applicant, even though he hasn't talked to us, but he has agreed to a lot of the items, which again have come to alleviate some of our concerns. But this is not just about how it affects my family and my amenity.

It's also about the people of Oakville and the people who drive through Oakville. 101 children can mean 101 cars, all trying to get into a car park, park their cars, drop off or pick up their children and leave. 101 is an awful lot of cars. When deciding the merit of this proposal, I would like the council to keep in mind these few salient points. At capacity of 101 children, 19 staff will be required. There is one bus drop-off and pick-up on our street each day, so staff will not be coming by public transport, nor will any children or their parents. Car parking has been increased to 37 spaces, which is great, but 37 minus 19 for staff leaves 18 spaces for parents. Parking will happen on the road.

Remember the original traffic report was based on one car per minute entering or leaving the site. This is an average. When anyone who has ever taken children to a childcare centre knows this is not how it works. Most drop-offs and pick-ups will all happen around the same times, so traffic and parking will be compromised at certain times of the day. By the applicant's own admission, parents will park on the road. At our previous council meeting regarding this matter, I was told that council cannot make road signage and presumably road speed signage decisions. But if this road is owned by the council, who does make these decisions? I would like to request that the following signage changes be recommended: that no stopping zones be recommended from the roundabout to past the site's entry at the proposed site on both sides of the road.

This will prevent people from parking too close to the roundabout, then trying to enter and leave their cars while cars are going through the roundabout. That the speed zone from the current roundabout to 50 metres past the proposed exit driveway be reduced. Currently it is at 70 kilometres an hour, but many, many drivers treat this like a raceway. They think we are on a country road and a speedway exists when leaving the roundabout. They come flying out of there. Can we request that a recommendation be placed to reduce the speed limit to at least 50 kilometres an hour until some distance past the centre, again for the safety of the parents who have to park on the road. The exit from the childcare centre should be made a no right turn, so that parents are not turning against the traffic flow but turning into it, again to help with moving the cars through the car park and into the traffic.

The condition for the improvement of Smith Road on the western side by the addition of the increased width kerb and guttering does not detail where this will start and finish. There is no detail in the road widening, guttering and kerbing recommendation at all. Currently Smith Road is kerbed and guttered from the roundabout to the first driveway at 1 Smith Road. We would request the proposed additional kerbing and guttering continue on from this point up to at least the exit driveway from the childcare centre, or else there will be a gap in the kerbing and the guttering which will cause water pooling and erosion on the verge banks at the places without guttering. Council needs to note that the verge in front of 7 Smith Road can, in places, be higher than the road by over half a metre.

Can we get assurance that the work done will be done properly and not in a way that causes drainage problems into the driveway and verge of 1 Smith Road? And will this road widening, kerb and guttering be of the standard Council would install themselves? We do not want to see a repeat of the small roundabout built by Arndale College and presumably passed by the Council, which was grossly inadequate and required change immediately after installation. Lastly, I think that the Council should consider what type of childcare centres they are advocating when they seek to approve those that will restrict themselves to two hours of outdoor play per day in total, meaning that each of the two age groups of children who play outdoors gets only 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon of outdoor play.

This goes against the applicant's own statement in their plan submission. And I quote, outside play is a vital component of a quality early childhood care and education program. I hope you are able to assess the reasonableness of my concerns to this development and make appropriate recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs Lutz. Are you ready— sorry, are you happy to take questions? Sure. Any questions, councillors? No questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno

Madam Mayor, I'll move the recommendation in the business paper

Seconder ? Councillor Reynolds.

And speak to this briefly with some questions for staff, if I may . I note at the same time that one of the conditions of the consent is that the western side of Smith Road will be upgraded or reformed to try and address some of these issues, and yet childcare centres are exempt from Section 94A development contributions. So maybe the director could illustrate for me how this obligation can be placed on the developer in the absence of Section 94.

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor . A development consent condition is placed on a development where there's a nexus that that development requires the work. It's not relevant to a Section 94 plan. So in this case , the roadway to cater for traffic and the potential for roadside parking, the road needs to be upgraded. So that's why that condition's there. So it's not a contribution to roadworks; it's a requirement if that development goes there.

Does the specific design of the upgrade to either side of Smith Road, possibly including a widening of the verge, possibly including kerbing and guttering, is that design something that comes to us and that you sign off on as suitable for that purpose? Mr

Owens. Through

Madam Mayor, yes, it does. They're required to do a design. It gets submitted to Council. That gets checked by our engineers in infrastructure and development and modified if necessary and then approved for construction

Next question. Although traffic control in the area by way of no standing, no parking, no stopping, speed signs and so forth are outside the conditions of consent because it's got nothing to do with the applicant, it's what we choose to do with that road as a consequence of that type of facility being in that location. But is it possible to give Mr Slutz some reassurance that the kind of traffic control measures relating to no stopping on possibly both sides of Smith Road , from the roundabout and extending to at least the nearest driveway on Smith Road, are the kinds of things that we would be putting in afterwards to mitigate those concerns?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Those sorts of controls are done through the traffic committee, not through a DA. So they can be referred to the traffic committee to consider as part, once we have a design and what's actually going to be done, then we can refer that to the traffic committee for that sort of consideration

I suppose, I mean this is a question of process that I'm new to here, so for example— If I held that concern, and my vote on this would be affected by the assurance that those are the kinds of traffic control measures that would be put in place, but they're not in this document because they're not part of the DA, as you properly say, that leaves me suspended a little in the sense that I don't know whether those suitable traffic control measures would in fact be put in place. There's a separate process that may or may not result in those kinds of restrictions being put in place.

Mr Owens

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The road rules apply in all cases. So currently people can park, if they're parking legally, on either side of the road. The development application requires some road upgrading, and the parking can be still must be in accordance with the law. If the traffic committee considers that changes need to be made there, then that's a matter for the traffic committee. But as far as the DA is concerned , anyone parking or driving up or down the road needs to comply with the road rules.

Now it's also true that if there was going to be some change to speed limits in the area, that would best be done on a timed basis because you only need to do that during the operating hours or the coming in and going out, morning and afternoon times, and that's why we have timed flashing lights around schools. Educateme, there's no such scheme or requirement or desire to place those kinds of traffic speed controls around preschools, only primary schools and high schools. Is there any mechanism by which we could have timed flashing lights in that vicinity like we would have around the corner at Aqua Public School?

Through you, Madam Mayor, there's no legislative basis to have variable speed limits in the vicinity of childcare centres. You're purely restricted to schools. So

If the Traffic Control Committee decided that a lowering of the speed limit was necessary to preserve the safety of parents and kids, it would be permanent. It would be all hours, regardless.

That would be correct. It wouldn't be the local Traffic Committee. That would be referred to the RMS themselves, who retain the responsibility for making decisions on the actual speed in response to any perceived real issues.

All right then. Okay. So those are my questions for staff. The other brief remark that I'll make broadly is that I'd like to thank Council staff for being diligent with this, and I'd like to thank the applicant for being prepared to come back and revisit some of the specific concerns that I raised when I moved for this to be deferred when it last came before us. Whether this is a commercially viable enterprise is not for us to decide. Personally, I'm surprised because there are a number of other facilities in the area that already meet this need, and the sense that I get is that they're not oversubscribed. But that's out of our remit. But I am pleased in the way in which the applicant and Council staff have met to address the concerns that were raised in this chamber and to address the concerns of the nearby Mrs Schlutz, and on that basis, I'm prepared to vote for the proposal as it stands.

Thank you. Further discussion. Councillor Ross

I've got a number of questions. Further on from Councillor Semperonia, would traffic speed calming devices also be an element that is subject to the Local Traffic Committee's deliberations

Mr Ireland.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That would be in this case, yes.

Thank you. Pardon me. In reference to the widening of the thoroughfare, I believe

There is a drainage issue. I think there was mention of a swale being current, and our good lady community member, I think, expressed some concern that the,

Shall we say, adequate discharge from rainfall would be appropriately directed. Now, with the widening of the road, your engineering considerations will encompass a full drainage of the kerb side, et cetera

Madam Mayor, most certainly it does. And if you look at Condition 16, the second paragraph actually says, Works must incorporate adequate drainage infrastructure to prevent ponding or impact on adjoining properties. That is the standard requirement, and we look at drainage all the time.

Thank you. Next question is in regard to lighting in the car park areas. I don't believe there is any... I could not locate any condition for illuminated lighting of the car park area.

Mr Owens.

Thank you Madam Mayor. That's correct, we haven't required that . Why

Not, may I ask?

It's not a matter that we would normally require. That's an operational matter But if they did choose to put lighting, as the speaker said, the lighting would need to be positioned so that it doesn't annoy adjoining neighbours

I notice that with, and it's not the same situation, that with medical consulting rooms in the area, that they all have lighting to allow potential operation, and in some cases do, beyond dawn and dusk.

And those matters, in at least one case of which I'm aware, were mentioned in the DA

That's me. Would that not be relevant in this case, sir?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not sure which ones you're referring to there. I'd have to look at those. They haven't specifically proposed any lighting. Lighting can be installed without development consent as long as it meets the requirements of not annoying the adjoining neighbours.

Right, but are there not Australian standards relevant to lighting of areas such as that?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. There are various standards for different premises, but that's if lighting is installed, it must meet that standard. If lighting isn't installed, the standard doesn't require it necessarily.

I'm just concerned that

Undoubtedly they will, if the operation runs till 6 p.m. through winter, they will need lighting maybe for half an hour or an hour . And depending on when the premises are cleaned as well, and if it is evening, that the use of things like spotlights and so on, which seems to be a common feature of some of these commercial premises, may severely impact either adjoining neighbours or the 120 degrees play from those rigid things can cause distress to adjoining properties as well.

Mr. Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That's correct, and that's why any lighting would need to not do that, and that's a requirement. A condition could be placed on here: any external lighting must be directed in such a manner as not to cause adverse impacts on adjoining owners or the road users. That could be added if required

I'd be proposing that if it were possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen.

Yeah, just a quick one, Madam Mayor. Following on from that lighting issue, is there not a—could there be a safety issue in wintertime loading and offloading kids in the car park?

Mr. Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

The operations of childcare centres is pretty well restricted. by various other authorities and things. They're required to have drop-off and pick-up areas and that sort of thing. I don't think in this case it would necessarily be a safety issue, but if Councillor Ross or Council wishes to have that condition about the lighting on there, that can be added to.

Thank you . Further, Councillor

Boylan. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just need to voice my concern that we still have a proposal for a childcare centre where children will be only spending an hour outside each day. I find that, for children as young as this, I find that really quite concerning. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be the parent who takes those children home at the end of the day, because I think they might be just a little bit feral. And I mean feral, not viral, Councillor Rasmussen

They could

Pick up a virus. Childcare centres are good for boosting immunity. And I think that we do need to take into account Mrs Slut's concerns about parking. I think we need to monitor this development very carefully. It looks as though it's going to go ahead. You can't run a kiss-and-drop set-up at a childcare centre. You have to get out, you have to get the kid out, you have to get all the kid's stuff out, then you have to take the kid in, and then you have to detach yourself from the child. So it's not a two-minute turnaround. So I think we need to keep an eye on what happens, particularly with traffic at this site. And I guess the issue with the outdoor play time will be one of those things that we leave to the dreaded market forces. If people are happy for their children in those centres, then that's just the way

It goes. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Ross. Could I just clarify, were you moving an amendment or were you requesting Councillor Zambrano include that condition that you suggested, the lighting suggestion?

So that was to include a condition relating to the lighting, as Councillor Ross spoke of, Councillor Zambrano. My

Apologies, Madam Mayor, my mouth was full . Normally I would oblige, but I would like to see the form of words that represented that difference, so it may be better moved as an amendment.

All right. Or

You can just tell me specifically the words.

Well, we'll just wait till the words are up. We'll continue discussion.

I confess it's occasionally difficult to divine the thread of Councillor Ross's argument.

Anyway. So I'm just, like Councillor Wheeler has mentioned, it looks like it's, is it two hours per day or is that two hours, one hour per age group, even though there are three age groups? Anyway. So is that a restriction that's been imposed on them by us because of, you know, due to acoustic issues and sound for the neighbouring neighbours?

Mr Owens. The. And

Also it's after 11, it's past my bedtime, and the Gazetteed moving meeting time, so we probably shouldn't do something about that.

Yes, well, as soon as this item's finished, I'll get someone to move. The question was regarding the outdoor times.

The play, the two hours of play per day between 9 and 10 and 4 and 5, is that due to restrictions imposed by the suggestion that there would be too much noise for the neighbours? Because it's coupled in there with the acoustic report, Mr. Owens

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I believe that was proposed by the management. I don't think we were restricting outdoor.

Do you think that they did it based on the fact that they were worried about noise for neighbours? Would you like

To

Ask the applicant,

Councillor Tree ? Oh,

The... the... yeah, okay.

Would you be happy to just answer the question regarding the hours of outdoor ? Yeah , come around here . Yeah, that's what I mean. Thank you. There

Was a question

From Councillor — Councillor Tree has a question

Yep. Yeah, I'm just wondering if the two-hour restriction self-imposed by you is based on the fact that you're worried about noise for neighbours, or whether you think that's best practice, or what you think?

Based on the — so there's certain regulations and requirements from ACECQA, which is the childcare body. Now, the acoustical consultant would have looked at the recommended time, and he would have factored that in with the noise recommendation measures. So they would meet the recommended time, because it is quite restrictive when it comes to childcare centres. There are only short periods of times where children can play outside, even though internally they set up play areas. So it's not necessarily the mentality that if a child's inside, they're not playing, or they're not exposed to different environments inside because they do... No, I'm

Not disputing that. I actually quite understand.

Yeah, so within certain, you know, Cancer Council guidelines, mornings — there's also different seasons. So within winter and summer there's certain very specific times. So that two-hour period of play would fall into a category that meets the requirements.

I actually understand all of the SEPPs conditions, so, intimately. What I'm concerned about is that even once you've done all of your routines, your daily routines, your sleep times, your meal times, your, you know, arrival and departure times, two hours is a really minimal amount of time, even taking into consideration the amount of UV that is impacting on us on a daily basis. So I don't quite accept that it's just the restrictions of the daily routine and that sort of thing that are doing it. That's why I was asking whether it's a sound concern

I'll just read from the report here, which is the planner's response. Additional mitigation measures for the outdoor play area were not nominated by the acoustic report as a limitation on the amount of outside play time. So does that answer that question, or?

Not very nicely in your favour, I'm afraid.

Oh, sorry, because that's the best way I can respond to that question. It's pretty much... So then it responds and explains that point by saying the limitation is a management decision, as the childcare centre is provided with age-specific indoor play areas. So there actually are a lot of factors that limit the time outside. So the question, if you sum it down to, is two hours enough? I would say yes. And it is a period of time which is incorporated in a lot of different childcare centres we've designed. There are certain times, or there have been certain projects we've worked on where the time is restricted based on acoustical purposes, but not in this case, due to, I believe, the size of the land, the design which encloses the outdoor playground, so it's almost like a U-shape.

So these all add to the... I guess the privacy, acoustical protection from the neighbours, the setbacks, 40 metres from the street, nothing behind, over seven metres from the boundary to the south, and then the setback of the house from that boundary as well. So there are a lot of... I believe the acoustical measures in place would possibly allow for an additional certain amount of time, but I think the two-hour period is sufficient

Okay. Can we take that out

Take it out? I don't like it.

Well, if you want to allow the children to play for longer and

The management needs to be consulted , then... Do we have to stipulate in this? Because, I mean, directors are fully aware of what their requirements are in relation to adhering to all of the