13 February - Ordinary

Welcome to tonight's meeting, everyone. I'll hand over to Mr Conroy for the introduction.

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'd 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. In 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 on 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 an insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in Council chambers has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or to silent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Do we have any apologies? Councillor Rasmussen may probably just be late. He hasn't sent an apology. Declarations of interest. I'll just read mine on first, so anyone else declaring in the same item will understand the restriction on what is said. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item number 34. Any

Other declarations? Councillor Richards. Yes, thank you. I have an interest in, sorry, significant non-pecuniary in item 28.

Thank you, Councillor Richards.

Councillor Garrow. I have a significant non-pecuniary in confidentials. Thank you, Councillor Garrow. You can read those on after. Confirmation of minutes from the last meeting. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Conolly.

I just noted, Madam Mayor, item 29, there's a typo there. It says resolved on the motion of Councillor without the name there.

Sorry?

In the minutes, item 29, the resolution isn't recorded correctly.

Oh, okay. I'll just have a look at that. Item 29.

Or page 29.

So the tender?

The tender, is it, Councillor Conolly? Which—

Yeah, page 44, sorry, Councillor. Oh, page 44. Sorry, I couldn't see the page number there.

Sorry, I would have emailed, but I only noticed when I was reading through it again.

That's all right. So the resolution to do with the ferry.

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Mayor Also, in resolution 8 on the mayoral minute from the previous meeting, my name is listed specifically as requesting as being against that motion. I was not against that particular portion because we'd broken it down into parts. I had only objected to resolutions 6 and 7, but not 8 as indicated.

Okay, that can be modified with those modifications. Someone to move the minutes from last meeting? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Sanbrano. All those in favour? The motion is carried. Move on to our items of public address.

We have two of those tonight. Our first item is item 23, and our first speaker is David Murphy.

Good evening all, and thank you for your time. The item at present is in regards to 507 Pitt Town Bottoms Road, in regards to a small development application back 17 months ago. A small background in regards to myself and my wife, we have two kids. I've lived in the Hawkesbury for 12 years, and we bought the property at 507 Pitt Town Bottoms Road back in 2011. When we bought the property, we knew, living on the river, some of its liabilities, that we are on a river and it does flood. It was an approved dwelling, and there was add-ons to the house. What we didn't know, that previous to us buying the property, that there were issues with council in an approval for the dwelling. Just on two years ago, as our family grew, we needed to make the house more liveable.

Boys of 10 and 12 years old now, we put an application in with council, engaging a consultant, Urban City Consultancy. Seventeen months later, we receive an email from council that it was going to be presented for refusal.

What I need to understand is why it took 17 months for a refusal, and not sure if the council actually understands what we propose. The proposal is a small extension, six metres by four metres, to square up a house to make it a perfect rectangle, and enclose the current veranda to make the master bedroom a little bit bigger. The size of the master bedroom at the moment is 4.3 by 4.5, and as my wife says, you can't swing a cat in there.

Our current bathroom is 2.2 by 2.8, and with two growing boys, it's quite small. The laundry where we want to do an extension at the moment has— it's got our facilities for our laundry. It's got our kitchen fridge in there, and it's got our spare toilet. If you can multitask, it's not a bad purpose.

I do understand the risk and the flooding living in the area and living on the Hawkesbury River, and I'm happy to sign any documents needed that council will have no liability if there ever is an event.

To basically wrap things up, we live in the Hawkesbury for a reason. Number one, for our lifestyle, the landscape, and the historic value. In regards to the development we want to do, we want to modify the house to give it a consistent look, as at the moment it has three different styles of brick and blocks building the construction. The construction was designed and engineered for a flood. It's double-besser block, core filled with a six-inch ceiling , concrete 32 MPa ceiling, so it's basically like a cube. The engineering of that would stay, and the small new dwelling would stay on the same engineering design in case there's ever an event. So I'll ask you to reconsider the actions that the Hawkesbury Council may take in regards to our small additions.

If they feel it's too big, I'm happy to adjust it to make it smaller. But all we're trying to do as a family is make our house more livable, not build a masterpiece.

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

I am.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Ultimately, the question before us is to balance Council's duty of care when flood liable structures are proposed and your acceptance of that risk. So I suppose my question to you is: you apprehend completely—it's been 27 years since there's been even a moderate flood in the area. You're aware that one day the water may rise and, despite the engineering that you've cited, wash that structure and its additions away completely. Is your house uninsurable?

Uninsurable, did you say? No, it's insurable if we feel we want to insure it. It's insured for fire and theft. I don't actually insure it for flood. We were applicable to—like, it's not the insurance company doesn't want it; it's just the excess is quite high, being on the river. When we purchased the property back in 2011, it was insured for quite a long time. When the floods come through— In Top of Queensland there, I'll think of it, Ipswich, the insurance company's done a revaluation and they put our excess up. So we decided not to insure it for flood. Due to the design and the engineering of the place, talking to engineers, I highly doubt our property, the house construction will move in a flood.

If you include the veranda, you're talking about enclosing a veranda. So could it be said that if you included the veranda, your proposal doesn't increase the amount of square metreage of the dwelling? It's not extra in that sense. It's simply taking a semi-enclosed space and making it fully enclosed. Is that a correct description? Yeah

To look at the footprint of the house, and if you looked at it, for instance, like on a map or a Google map, the proposed dwelling is a six by four, and so the veranda being over the top of that, it's not actually changing the aspects at all. Besides a little corner, which is going to square — not square — rectangular house up, so it's quite uniform. Like in regards to the landscape or the look of the property at the moment, there's a few bits and pieces where we want to make it very, very uniform to suit the area: cedar windows, rendered with an iron roof, which I think suits the landscape of the Hawkesbury.

That's time. Thank you, Mr Murphy. Thank you. Thank you. Our second speaker is Greg Hall.

Madam Mayor, Councillor, thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight about the application, and also for deferring the matter last week to give Mr Murphy the opportunity to address you on the matter, which he has done. As Mr Murphy has sort of expressed to you, this proposed addition is minor. It doesn't increase the number of bedrooms or persons that can reside in the dwelling, but just allows the existing dwelling to function better and to provide larger main bedroom and additional bathroom facilities. As it is now, it has one toilet and one bathroom amongst four people. As you probably know, if you have a family of four, that's just not going to work all that well. So it's not a significant doubling the size or getting more people living there.

It's basically just to help the family be a bit more comfortable there. The council report that's in front of you has outlined the history of the existing dwelling by the previous approvals, and the report notes that the dwelling was accepted as existing use rights, and then there was a variation under State Policy 1 to increase the area by 10%, which was the, which at the time of the approval, that's what existing use provisions were, 10%. Since that time, the 10% no longer applies. It applies certainly to when you're doing industrial or commercial existing uses, but for residential, it doesn't apply. So don't feel that, oh, we've already got the 10%, we can't go beyond that. You can go beyond that.

There's nothing to stop you in the Act that says you haven't. The other thing that was hard to understand with existing use rights, it relates to a use of the property. So it's where a use was approved on a property, an LEP comes in and changes and all of a sudden makes that use prohibited. In this regards, unless there was a clause or something in the previous LEP that said dwellings are prohibited in a flood area, I can't see how existing use rights apply because a dwelling is still permissible in the zone. Nothing in the current LEP or even in the LEP 1989 actually prohibited dwelling there. There is still the issue of flooding, but that doesn't prohibit the use of being approved there if Council wishes to approve it.

As I said, in this case, the scale of the dwelling is really quite small. There's no increase in bedrooms, so the number of occupancies there is not going to be altered, and it's really a modest addition of just squaring off two sections of the existing dwelling to make it a little bit more functional. Again, with existing use rights, the whole idea is talking about the scale. It doesn't increase the scale. It doesn't increase the impact. Well, again, as I've just said, the extra works that's proposed doesn't really increase the scale of it in terms of the intensity of use. You're going to have the same number of people living there. It's not going to all of a sudden put two families there, three families there.

It's still got the one family with the four people in it. It doesn't really increase the flood risk, as currently now the property has a flood risk for those people. So doing the additions is not going to add the flood risk there. You're still going to have four people there, whether you approve or not. You're still going to have the same people living there on that property with the same amount of flood risk. All this is, is makes it a little bit more comfortable. As Mr Murphy has identified, the current building is constructed with double, double besser blocks, core filled, I mean, and a concrete slab for the roof. So that is really high above and beyond the standard of building that one would expect for a dwelling.

So I think a structural engineer could easily qualify that that would be able to withstand the impact of the floodwaters. As I said, the risk hasn't changed. The provisions of the Act allows Council to approve that under the existing use rights. The report also talked about the previous dwelling being an old boat shed that was converted, being swept away. I think you've got to bear in mind that that is not the same level of construction of what we're looking at now. A boat shed to me would be just a bit of a tin shanty, those ones there, or just a metal shed. So in terms of comparing the two, you can't compare the two together. And it's not to say that this, I don't think this one will be blown away by floodwaters.

The other thing that we talked about is that in there is about the existing easement. Yes, we've got an approval to have that extinguished. We haven't extinguished that because we didn't want to spend any more time or effort or money on it until we had an approval from Council, and there can always be a condition on any approval saying that that's got to be sorted out before we can issue the construction certificate. As Councillors are aware, as Mr Murphy has indicated, this has been at Council for a considerable period of time. It's almost been 12 months since we've had the information to Council to make a determination, and this matter was held back because of the Flood Task Force report, and that report needed to be considered by Council before the determination of this.

We've waited a long time to get it to this point. Very disappointed to find it was refused without no further correspondence about the concerns since March 2017. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Hall. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions, Councillors? Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. G'day, Mr Hall. In our notes, it mentions that—I'll just read it out—says the current application proposes to increase the existing dwelling containing four bedrooms, blah blah blah, you know, containing... The dwelling containing two bathrooms, ensuite, increased living area, increased bedroom sizes, et cetera, et cetera. It said this represents an increase in size of the existing structure by 54.8%. So that's like—it's not 10%, it's 54.8. Can you—

Can you push the mic on? Sorry. What I was saying

In terms of where it's an existing use, the provisions used in the Act is you'd only ever increase it by 10%. 10%. Right? That was the maximum you could do. The slate legislation changed that,

Right

And therefore the 10% doesn't apply. So if Council wanted to increase it by 50%, they could. There's no legal implement to say that the Act doesn't allow you to do it. If it was commercial like a commercial or industrial development under the Act, under the provisions, the clauses, yes, you're limited to 10%. Yeah.

Thank you for clarifying that. As you mentioned, the application was delayed while we waited for the report from the Floodplain Task Force, which was— You know, a reasonably scary document when it came out. You and Mr Murphy have pointed out that there'll be four bedrooms. You know, there's four people living there. That's all that will ever live there. Sorry, three bedrooms. So it's not being enlarged to contain four bedrooms? No.

There's four. The applicant just said there's four.

I think if you look at the floor plans.

There's currently four in the...

Four? Okay. Okay, so there is four. So the only concern I have is that, you know, at some stage in the future the property may be sold, and there could conceivably be, you know, up to eight people living there. And this is a major concern given the task force report on the troubles we're going to have with evacuation from the district in general, let alone from the floodplain. There's no way we can really put a caveat on the number of people that can stay there.

I guess that's an unanswerable question, so I'm just...

But can I just make a point on that? If this doesn't get approved, you've still got four bedrooms there. You could still get eight people living there.

Okay. Good point

It still could be the same because there's no restriction and there's nothing that says that I couldn't have ten people living there. It might be a bit cramped, might have three people in a bedroom, but if you could physically do it, there's nothing to stop you from doing that. Okay. This just makes it, again, as I said, just makes it a little bit more functional for the people, a little easier for when you've got four people living instead of living on each other. More importantly, one bathroom amongst a family of four doesn't work. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Especially as the kids get older. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Hall. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Rasmus, and did you have a question?

We can take it if you want.

No, no, I'll deal with it later.

Okay. All right, thank you. That was our final speaker.

Councillor Wheeler. Move the recommendation, Madam Mayor. Seconder? Councillor Ross. Discussion?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I refer to the middle of page 20 in our business papers where it says, and this is, I think, a question for Mr Owens, clause 6.33 of the LEP 2012 serves to prevent Council from granting consent to a proposal where the Council is not satisfied that, and it lists three points, that the development is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic cost to the community as a consequence of flooding. I don't see how any of those We can be satisfied on. So my question is, why has this come to Council? I don't know where the wiggle room is in this application. Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's come up to Council because it has some fairly significant policy implications . It's a very floodplain-prone area, and to allow extensions , do we allow extensions or do we allow a new dwelling or do we allow replacement dwellings, all those sorts of things. So we need to deal with these fairly carefully, and it's come up to Council to get a bit of direction on how Council would like to deal with it that way.

Councillor Semperoni.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you to Mr Owens. Much for me in this hinges on whether this genuinely represents such a substantial increase to the dwelling in question. Now, the applicant insists that he's squaring off a building by filling in a veranda. The business paper says that it's an increase in the size of the dwelling of over 50%. I'm just trying to get my head around how it is that we calculate this. I can't determine from this whether it's a roofed veranda, but if it's enclosing a veranda, it doesn't seem to be as substantial as the business paper would make out. Could you clarify that for me?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I haven't got the full detail here, but an awning or something like that isn't counted as floor area. So, to count floor area, it's enclosed by walls. So there are some open areas, veranda areas, so once they all get enclosed, that was the calculation that was based on. The issue is the flood-prone, or the extent of the flood affectation on the land. It's not necessarily only risk to life; it's also a risk to property, property damage, and both for this property, and if something washes down the river, it will cause property damage on other properties as well. So it's a range of issues that

It's got to deal with there. So, Mr Owens, if we wanted to understand, as you put it, the broader policy implications, instead of just looking at this in isolation, my heart is to permit this applicant to do as he pleases with his own dwelling. That's the libertarian in me. But if there are broader policy implications, are you suggesting that this sets some kind of unwelcome precedent? Is there going to be— are there going to be other applications of this type that's going to be harder for us to turn down if we permit this one?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In a word, yes.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks , Madam Mayor. Just a couple of questions, or really one question. If we got this application on the 24th of August 2016, and Mr Hall indicated that all the outstanding information was provided over a year ago, why did it have to wait a year for this study if it's below the 1 in 5 flood level amount? The really frustrating thing would have been is that if this is fairly black and white, and as Councillor Kotlash pointed out, it's fairly black and white, why wouldn't they have walked in and been told, No, that's not going to happen, because we're not going to allow you to increase the size of your dwelling when it's at that level.

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, there's no denying it, it took a long time, and the exact reasons was to try and work out, is there any options to deal with this. We were trying to look at a range of different things. As you can see from the history of the report, we went back some 20, 25 years looking at resolutions, and also at what's been happening in the other area. There are other properties in the vicinity of this property that have a couple of ranges of issues. One is dwellings, unauthorised dwellings, and that sort of thing. So we were trying to actually look at it, and as Councillor Zambrano said, we're trying to look at it on a more holistic basis . But we thought, no, we need to get this one up and determined

Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just following on from Councillor Kotlash's question before, that clause that she read out from page 20, Mr Owens' answer, as I heard it, was that it was put before Council because Council staff were seeking some direction on the issue. Does that mean that that clause is somehow subject to interpretation and not as clear as it appears on that page?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. No, like the first point is the development is compatible with the flood hazard of the land. There has been, possibly not with this Council, but previous Councils, some conjecture about the flood hazard. In different areas, and some other decisions have been made in the past that didn't take those things into account. There's, as the speaker said, the house is there. It's only extending the house a little bit. But how much is a little bit, and where do we stop? Where do we draw that line? And that was the part of the direction from Council that we're after. So do we do 5%, 10% of an existing house, or 20%, 50%, or it's that sort of interpretation. The staff position is any residential development isn't compatible with that flood hazard in that location.

A follow-up question, if I might. Going through the history, on the 18th of October 2011, the owner was directed to return the building to its previous state, that is that of a storage shed. So as far as I can see, that was the last direction that I can see. Yet now it's coming back and it's being classified as a dwelling. How did it move from a storage shed to a dwelling in those couple of years? Mr

Owens .

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that's referring to another building on the site. There's three structures on the site. There's this dwelling, a brick building in the middle, and another quite large agricultural shed on the other end of the property.

Okay. It's not made clear in here that there's another shed.

Yes, I also had that question actually, because the approval under DA67306 for the purposes of a dual occupancy,

I had a question of clarity regarding that too. So was the dual occupancy for a house and a shed or something?

Mr. Owens, I haven't got the detail. Okay.

Councillor Tree. Thank you. I actually feel incredibly sorry for this applicant because it seems to me that had the previous owner followed instructions, that this wouldn't have been a situation that we would have had to have discussed in here. I actually think that when you buy something, the due diligence is not to be underestimated because I would hope that when the solicitor checked out everything, they'd find out that it was an unapproved dwelling. However, I kind of think that the clauses that Councillor Kotlash has pointed out, those three clauses there, the building that they're dwelling in at the moment is subject to all three of those things anyway. So part of me kind of thinks, why would we, I mean, we're not going to ask them to tear it down, are we?

That's not what the purpose of this is. So you're going to let them stay there in the existing dwelling. Why are we really going to say to them, you can't increase it by, and make the proportions of the house a little bit more comfortable to live in? And as has been highlighted, you've got four bedrooms and you're still going to have four bedrooms. So it's not likely that you're going to have an increase of the number of people actually living there. And if you're going to look into the future and worry about, well, once they've sold it, other people can have more people live in it, well, that's just, that's, you know, it's like the thought police stuff. We can't do the mind reading into the future stuff.

We've got to do what's here currently. I also feel very, very sorry that it's taken to this point where you've had 17 months, I think, to be told no. I think that it's a reasonable expectation to think that you could probably tinker around the edges of the building and change the size and whatnot. The dwelling that's there currently is probably going to wash away if there's a big flood. So obviously they're prepared for that eventuality. So I'm just thinking that...

I'm thinking that it's a horrible position for these people to be in, and I don't see how I could do anything other than vote for refusal, because I don't think anyone else would support it. But I just think that they've been stuck in between a rock and a hard place, and through no fault of their own, except for maybe the solicitor didn't pick up when they purchased it in the first place. So I think it's a very horrible situation for them to be in. I'm

Very sorry about that.

Thank you, Councillor Tree. Councillor Rasmussen. Oh, Mr— Oh, sorry, Mr Owens is just clarifying about the DAE that's mentioned in, that Councillor Calvert brought up on the 18th of October 2011.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's probably the way that clause is written, but DA67306 was for a storage shed, but it was being used at that time... As a residence. So it's saying it was approved under— they've got to cease using that building for a dual occupancy and return it back to the storage shed that it was approved. So it's just a little bit jumbled up. Sorry.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree that it's a bit jumbled up, and I guess that's why the time is taken to unjumble it or scramble it. Madam Mayor, I've got a question, and that relates to the legal status of the current dwelling. Can we get some idea of the legal status of it?

Mr Owens.

Is it approved or not approved?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The dwelling was not approved. It is detailed in the history of the property, but essentially the dwelling wasn't approved, but Council considered a report, and there was a bit of talk there about existing use rights, and in that report it says allow it under existing use rights. But Council can't actually issue existing use rights, but it can accept that there's something existing there and not do anything about it. So in this case, the legal status is it's an unapproved dwelling. Only the court can issue existing use rights for a property, but Council's accepted that the house is there and allowed it to remain. So in this case, we've accepted Council's resolution from March 1992 and the house remains, but we're not recommending extending it or improving it.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Follow up on that. So if we were to, say, go with this, approve this tonight. We would be putting an approval on top of an unapproved structure. Now, where would that sit legally? Would that give some legal recognition to the , or greater legal standing to the building, the current building, if we were now to go ahead and approve it?

Mr. Rollins.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, it would. There's also been a bit of discussion about the engineering of the building, but I'm not aware that we actually have structural details about that. But an unauthorised dwelling, if Council wishes to approve it, that changes its legal status, definitely is.

Thank you for that. Just a further one, Madam Mayor, if I may. If this application had been for a two-storey development or extension, say, would that have likely got a different assessment and treatment?

Mr Rollins.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. No, it wouldn't have. Essentially, if this was a vacant block and a dwelling application came in, we would refuse it virtually straight away. And from the staff perspective, the dwelling shouldn't be there at all. But Council's accepted that in 1992, but we don't think it should be extended.

So a two-storey wouldn't have made any difference.

Okay, so you don't have that capacity to have one storey above the, what is it, 13, 14 point something or other, so you can keep the basement or the lower floor, ground floor unoccupied, but only occupy the top storey. There is no capacity to do that in this particular flood area? Mr Rollins

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In this particular case, because the dwelling is unauthorised and unapproved, there's no opportunity to do that. If it was a legal dwelling and everything was there legally, but the flood heights have changed, then we'd look at it differently. And yes, we'd probably look at extensions going up and raising floor levels and things. Yeah

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I think this is a really sad situation. Clearly, as Councillor Tree has pointed out, somehow or another, the conveying thing process didn't pick up the problem. And I think from the history of it that I can read, there's been at least three or four changes of ownership on this property, and the current owners clearly have got caught in the situation that they're in. And as we heard, with an illegal structure. And if Council was to approve this, then that clearly would make the legal status of that building significantly different and improve on it, I guess, enhance it, give it greater benefit. And given the area and given the flooding, that is obviously problematic.

It's just a pity that it didn't go down the two-storey, or before didn't go down the two-storey route on it, because that could have been a possibility, but it didn't. So, Madam Mayor, I think it's really going to be hard for us to approve this.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a question for Mr Owens regarding a comment he made earlier, that the reason this came before us was because the staff were seeking some direction on policy issues. I'm just wondering why we would have to wait for a DA to come to Council to discuss such issues, and wouldn't it have been better for that matter to come before a briefing, or for it to be dealt with by the Floodplain Committee? Rather than go through this, I'll just make a comment that something Councillor Tree said, that, you know, an increase, we shouldn't consider future use. But, you know, floodplain risk is a constant source of anxiety for the Floodplain Committee and the SES, and future use of properties for those perhaps they weren't originally intended is a problem, is a problem, and it was mentioned obviously by the state government when they denied us the right to put detached dual occupancy in because of flood evacuation issues.

So it's not a thought police matter, it's a real one. So regarding, I'll just leave it up to Mr Owens and perhaps the General Manager to comment about whether this would have been better to come to a briefing. Thank you.

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've said about a policy issue.

It's not so much a policy issue. Council policy actually says it doesn't beat Council's existing policy . But given the previous resolutions of Council, albeit back in 1992, accepted this, there's a fair bit of conjecture, and staff don't jump in boots and all and make those sorts of decisions lightly. We do consider them very carefully. And as it's been said tonight, it's a most unfortunate situation and it's not an easy decision to make. But we had to take it back to take the emotion out of it and take it back to should we have development in that flood area, and essentially no. So given the previous resolutions of Council and the sensitivity of this, we thought it would be best to come to Council.

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of questions, firstly. From the outset, when the application was first lodged, was the applicant informed that it was most likely going to be refusal, or there was no indication given? Mr. Rollins.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not aware what was said to them, but it has been mentioned that certainly the flooding has been a principal issue in any discussions with them. And they'd be fully aware of that. I think the application makes comment, but it's a bit dismissive of the flood, saying it's a minor alteration.

Sorry , is there a genuine concern that this does set a dangerous precedent, or would, if a decision allowing this tonight occurred, would that still allow future applications that were similar to this to be done on a case-by-case basis, or would it really set a precedent for any application in the future that was in line with this? Mr. Rollins.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Certainly every application gets looked at on merits, but at the last meeting of Council, there was another submission about looking at unauthorised dwellings and in dangerous areas and various things like that. This is actually one of those. It's an unauthorised dwelling, and it's in a dangerous area. So it's exactly what Council was asking us to look at. So it does set a direction, if you like.

Okay, thanks. Under the existing use rights, is there any liability on Council under those? If a flood came and damaged the property, would an applicant have any claim against Council under that existing use rights term? Mr. Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. As I said, under the law, it doesn't have existing use rights because Council doesn't have the ability to do that. But if it did, the liability would go back to what was the advice to Council. Was the advice from flood experts or experts in the area, was the advice to allow it or not allow it?

Back in '92.

In '92 and now. Yes.

So if we did approve this tonight and say there was a significant flood in the future and a lot of damage was caused to the new additions based on a decision tonight of approval, if that occurred, what would, if any, be liability to us as a body for making a decision like that tonight? Mr. Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, the expert advice shouldn't precede. So if Council goes against that expert advice and something happens as a direct consequence of that, the liability rests with them. It does rest

With Council.

With the individual councillors at times, yes.

Thank you for clarifying. I think that is important information. Thank you. I just want to say that this is a very conflicting one. You know, we're very clearly given what is the law or what is the policy. It's set out there. The applicants having to wait this long is what I find insignificant and distressing about the whole matter. I can see that what they want to do is just give a better quality of life to their family. But unfortunately, you know, the flood considerations are important, and so it's a very conflicting one tonight. But thank you for answering those questions, because I think that sets a different tone to... to what an approval would actually mean, so thank you.

Thank you. I'd just like to just add to that, and I can see that everybody's in agreement of the unfortunate nature of this particular application. It is most unfortunate that there's been such a delay with the DA. It's also quite unfortunate that there was such a delay in the flood study coming out as well if we had things waiting for that determination. I think above all, it does serve as a lesson in how, when decisions are made which go outside the rules and go outside the boundaries, such as what has happened back previously where this has been allowed under the existing use rights, it shows that there are often consequences further down the track. And that's something we should all be mindful of when we make these decisions, because then it's unfortunate that this family are caught up in that, both through what's happened in the past and now how the position that that now places them in.

I just had a question regarding the extent of what would be permissible. Are they permitted to restructure internally their house within the confines of the existing building envelope, or is the present thing a complete prohibition on that? Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd say there's no hard and fast rule, but if Council in '92 accepted that there's a dwelling there and are not going to do anything about it , to reconfigure the dwelling internally.. . We'd have to look at that on its merits.

Thank you. I was just wondering of the extent of that. That's

All I say. Councillor Garrow. Sorry, a question for Matt. Would they be able to knock down that house and build a two-storey dwelling with non-habitable on the bottom floor, so the first floor meets flood levels? Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. As I mentioned before to Councillor Rasmussen, the existing dwelling is actually unauthorised. It doesn't have approval. And I did say if it was a vacant block, we would have the same recommendation of not allowing a dwelling there.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I really feel for the applicants here. I don't think Council did the right thing in 1992. It was probably motivated by a desire to keep people in their house. And I think we see, you know, two decades later that that probably wasn't the best outcome for the people involved down the track, because houses do change hands. Houses do sell. That's the nature of property. And so we do need to look at the future of what happens with properties. I agree that 17 months was too long to get directions from Council. I don't think it would have been extraordinarily difficult to get this Council to say whether we were happy about increasing the likely number of occupants that close to a flood-prone river.

But I think this also highlights the need to identify and notify the occupants of flood-affected houses in locations like Pitt Town Bottoms and other areas, particularly those that have been in converted boat sheds or other converted shedding. And I see this primarily as a failure of, as Councillor Tree said, of due diligence. Clearly, whoever was responsible for the conveyancing of this property when it sold in 2011 didn't. They've clearly failed to identify that some very shonky things have been done with this block. This represents an unacceptable risk to the inhabitants. And so whether the house survives the flood, frankly, at the end of the day is immaterial. It's the loss of life that I think we need to be most concerned with.

This isn't a property in an area that will get water that slowly rises, rises up to meet it like it would in the middle of Windsor. This is a property in a high-velocity water area on the edge of a large flood-prone wild river. The risk is quite clear. We, several of us sat in a floodplain conference. People openly laughed at us when we said we came from the Hawkesbury, and not in a gosh, your jokes are funny way, but in a my God, you have got a serious problem out there and you won't be able to fix it sort of way. One dwelling's already been washed away. I'm not worried about whether this dwelling survives. Worried about the people. The floor height of this property is my full height below the one in five flood level.

Just process that for a little while. It's an unacceptable risk to emergency services, and it sets a really dangerous precedent for development in flood-prone areas like this. And I really feel for the people involved, and I am really, really sorry that it has taken 17 months to get an answer on this that should have been much clearer and much quicker. I think, for me, one of the things that makes this , I think the bathroom is actually the capping factor on this property. You might get four people in the house with one bathroom. I don't know that you'll go to eight people, which is what we would plan for the bedroom. So if we were looking at the sewer capacity, for example, we'd look at two people per bedroom.

I think the additional bathroom actually opens this property up to having more people live in it down the track. For example, if the Murphy sell. So I just can't support this application.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. Not necessary, Madam Mayor. It's a planning item. We'll vote with our buttons. The motion is the recommendation in the business paper on the count of three. One, two, three.

Do you want to redo it, Councillor Richards?

On the count of three. One, two, three.

All right. Well, maybe press the other one this time, Councillor Richards, and we'll see how we go. On the count of three. One, two, three.

Was that the correct one or the other one? Okay. For the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Connolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is carried.

Our next item is item 28, Councillor Richards. Do you want to read

That on first

Yes,

Thank you. My interest is significant non-pecuniary. I was the previous director of the board and only resigned a month or two ago, so I think I need to leave the decision-making process. Thank you, Councillor

Richards. We have one speaker on this item, and our speaker is Rob Staley.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councillors. My name is Rob Staley. I speak for the recommendation. I'm currently a director of Fitzgerald Aged Care, and our chairman of the board cannot be here tonight.

Some 20-odd years ago, Council did have a financial interest in Fitzgerald's Aged Care, and that financial interest ceased a long time ago. Fitzgerald Aged Care is now a very strong, viable business, making profits for several years, has a very strong balance sheet. Last year we did some significant refurbishments of the internals of the buildings. In 2018 we've got plans to do further refurbishments to the exterior of the buildings, and that

Council has no ongoing financial interest in the facility, and I support the recommendation, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mr Staley. Any questions, Councillors?

No questions, but thank you. Thank you. That was our only speaker on that item.

Moved that way, Madam Mayor.

Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow. Discussion?

Madam Mayor, I think in this case, I think it's worthwhile that we unravel that caveat, and the sooner we do that the better. And I think, yes, they are doing a great job in the Fitzgerald Memorial Aged Care facility, and— And they duplicate. Well, hopefully they will become very good at the business model, and they will duplicate, maybe triplicate throughout the Hawkesbury. But anyway, they're doing a great job, and we should help them along the pathway.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen

No, sorry, Madam Mayor, thanks.

I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Thank you. Councillor Richards may return now. We'll move on to the next item. The next item is actually the supplementary business paper, which is a Mayoral minute regarding the passing of Sir Nicholas Shehadie. It , obviously, it was late because this was an event that only occurred on Sunday night. But I just wanted to speak briefly to it and have just provided a brief outline on his contributions, which, of course, were much more extensive than what is written in that short paragraph . He was a very well-known Australian, contributing to many fields in Australian society, and he was an extremely highly respected person in his own right and, of course, the husband of Dame Marie Bashir, who we all know has a very strong association with our community and often attends and is very keen on our history and so on.

So I'm happy for people to speak on that, and then I'll put the recommendation and we will have the minute silence if that's passed. Any further discussion?

No further discussion. So all those in favour? Against? We'll now observe a minute silence in recognition of the passing of Sir Nicholas Shehadie.

Thank you

Everyone. We'll also be sending our condolences to his family as well.

Our next item, items on block.

Someone to move that move, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Item is not on block. Our next item is item 24.

Homelessness Conference. Someone to move that? Councillor Calvert. Second that, Madam Mayor. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion on that or nominations to attend?

Madam Mayor, I... Councillor Calvert. I would like to attend. I'm just not too sure of the dates, whether they're going to work for me now, but I'll be happy to be put down as tentatively attending, and I can sort out the dates over the next week or so. I'd love to go.

Okay,

Thank you, Councillor.

You'd like to go, Councillor Wheeler? Can I, is it possible to nominate a second if Councillor Calvert can't go then? It's possible, yes. Would that like to be you?

Would you like that to be you, I mean?

I would prefer that Councillor Calvert went, but if he can't make it then I will go. Thank you. Because I think we need someone to attend and preferably bring a report back to

Council. Yes, that would be

Good.

Anybody, anyone else?

Yeah, I know. They're very close, it's unusual. I'll run. Councillor Ross.

I'd like to express an interest in that.

In going to that one? Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Ross. All right, any further discussion or nominations?

It's probably a good thing to report back.

Yeah, General Manager is just saying it is a good thing to report back from conferences. I'm sure we would all like to hear what is learned, and particularly the things that are applicable to us. So we might discuss at a future date how that would be best presented, whether in a briefing or whether via even an email report or a... But it's something we should be looking at anyway with all our conferences, because there's so much good knowledge out there. So , Councillor Ross, did you—

I concur with your thoughts.

Good.

In this instance, because of the gravity of the matter and its effect on this area, I think a combined written report from the participants might be able to be placed before the public meeting, please.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. We can consider— we will consider doing that. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Calvert? Not necessary. We'll put the motion and additional recommendation — we'll put the motion, and then we'll do the nomination. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. And that would be the nominees would be Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross and Councillor Wheeler as a backup. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item is item 25, which is the tourism

Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow. Discussion and nominations for that.

I'd like to nominate

To go, thank you. I'd like to nominate to go, Councillor Richards. Anyone else keen on attending that, Councillor Garrow? I was going to nominate to

Go, but I just feel that if Councillor Richards is already going, if she can bring a report back to save on expenses to the council, I just would rather one person go and not cost us more money. Okay. I'm not sure whether the dates will actually work because it's my daughter's birthday, like the next day. But yeah, if you're going to go, then you can bring back the report and we'll put

Our heads together. That sounds good. Any further discussion? No other takers? Okay, we'll put the recommendation that we attend that conference. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Our nominated councillor to attend is Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Item...

Number 26. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded, Councillor Calvert. I would like to attend the International Women's Day luncheon, and I hope some others would like to attend too. It's a daytime event, so we can be down and back. Any other takers? Councillor Ross. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Garrow.

Okay , so that is Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler and myself. Any further discussion?

No further discussion. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. The nominated councillors to attend are Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item is item 29.

Nine.

No. Review of seal of Council policy. Hi , Madam Mayor. Councillor Ross, would you like to move that, Councillor Ross? Yes, sir. Moved, Councillor Ross, seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion.

Councillor Ross.

I'm just a little bit concerned. I don't know whether it's appropriate to mention it at this point or whether it should be part of the public consultation, but the register appears to be rather broad, and I'm wondering if it should not have either subcategories or some subclassification by which, when

Utilisation of the seal is conducted, that if it is in a situation where it is a, shall we say, a one-off event ,

Such as maybe the sale of a property or something of that ilk, as opposed to being associated with an ongoing or a commercial arrangement which does have a period of currency, that there may be some thought, or should ought—sorry, I would suggest that there ought to be some thought given to having the register identify permanent one-time events as opposed to those with some currency, so that those that do have some currency. We'll be able to be reviewed by the appropriate personnel in the staff, and at least have flags there in cases where there may be leases to be renewed or other matters that may affect the ongoing operations of Council. I just felt that that was, shall we say, a little lacking in the suggestion. I'll

Just get a comment from Mr. Mifsud.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. The Council seal register records the subject matter, which in case if you use the lease, it would be about lease of a particular property, who the lessee is of that particular property. It would indicate the Council resolution date of when that decision was made to put the seal on, and that detail would be what would go in the register. And obviously that would then enable, if anyone wanted to check something, that would give them a way of trying to check out further detail about that particular document that was signed under the seal of Council.

Councillor Ross. The point to which I was alluding was that if it is a document purely of that, a register purely in that format, that those matters which had, if you like, an expiry date or a set term of operation would have to be elucidated from all of the material in the register, whereas if it were able to be further categorised in its inception between those that were a one-time event and those that did have some time element in their make-up, that they'd be separately identified for ease of access.

Mr. Mifsud.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. It is possible that we could put something into the register that would indicate whether it was an ongoing matter or whether it was just a one-off matter.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm a little bit confused. Are we talking about the protection of the integrity of the seal or the register?

Mr. Mifsud.

Are we talking about both here, or just the— I'm reading it's the protection of the integrity of the seal. Is that what that report's about? Mr. Mifsud.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. The report is about the council seal policy. Right. So, and part of the seal policy is the register that we would be required to keep to record what documents have been put under the seal of council. Okay. Thank you.

Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Ross. Was it Councillor Ross? No. Okay. We'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Item...

30. Access and Inclusion Committee.

Happy to move that, Madam Mayor. Moved,

Councillor Rasmussen. Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Discussion?

No discussion. Councillor Wheeler.

Just a tiny addition to the point in the report about the dementia forum and the subsequent meeting with Dr Ravi, Susan Templeman, Peter Gooley and other interested members of the community and service providers about Council's potential role in some sort of dementia assistance and something for Council to consider, I think, when we start our budget deliberations. The most useful contribution that it appears Council could make is as some sort of facilitator or provider of things for people, particularly in the early stages of dementia, and their carers to do. So safe spaces for them to go. The museum in particular has already been trained up in dementia access. We need to train up our other frontline staff, like the library and gallery staff, and we probably need to consider using some of our community centres to provide safe places for people to go so that they can have some sort of fulfilling, interesting activity, but also so their carers can get some respite during the day.

So I'll just park that thought there. It's something that we need to consider in the next month or so as we start talking about where

We allocate the budget. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Firstly, I want to recognise the new format of these reports of committees and how useful this new format is, where the recommendations are summarised right at the beginning. And in this one, it mentions that in relation to items one, two and three, there are potential policy or financial implications and they require specific consideration by Council. Are we planning to do that consideration now as part of this report, or do these things flow on to future Council meetings?

Mr Litwin.

I think the recommendations, thank you, Madam Mayor, allude to the necessity to prepare a report for Council to outline those policy implications. The fundamental reason why that's required is because the documents mentioned in the minutes were ones that were initially approved by Council. So if they're to be amended, then I guess they should be brought back to Council for ratification.

Thank you, Mr Litwin. Any further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Yes, sorry. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll

Put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item, notice of motion one.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

I need to apologise. Because of the events that have unfolded at Bushells Lagoon in the last week, instead of, I guess I had two choices: to continue with the notice of motion as it stood and put up an urgency motion, or try and achieve two things with the one notice of motion. So I've sent an amended notice of motion through, if we could have the words up on the board, and that's —

So did you have a seconder, Councillor Wheeler? Councillor Ralston. You'll need to just read it

Thank you. There's two more points below that as well, so I'll just give you some time to read it. Sorry.

And they've changed. Some of the points have changed, but there's lots more

Has everyone read that? Are we still going? Sorry.

Okay. Discussion, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So again, I apologise. This is lengthy and it is markedly changed, and it would have been better that I wasn't doing it this way round. But I feel that both issues are really important and they're things that we need to move on as quickly as possible. We've got a case of what appears to be either an extreme lack of understanding or extreme cruelty that's unfolded at Navua with people clubbing turtles to death. Now, they're either doing that because they think they interfere with later fishing, or they think they're an introduced pest species, or they've been stuck in yabby traps and they've killed them on the way out or killed them because they're in the trap and they felt that they were some sort of risk or threat or competition .

Or they're just cruel. I don't know what motivates people to behave in this fashion. So that's one issue. The other issue is the impending crisis with Bushells Lagoon in particular, which is probably the most visible of the wetlands currently drying out, and some of our other wetlands as well. But Bushells seems to be the big one. We've had a really substantial fish kill there in the last couple of weeks. A lot of carp, and no one's going to miss any carp. Carp are pretty tough fish. So if the carp have died, there's been a massive species loss before the carp failed. There's dead eels. There's been a dead turtle. There's been some dead pelicans. So this is, the EPA are involved. I'm imagining that tomorrow when it cracks 40, it's going to be smelling pretty ripe all around Bushrangers Lagoon, given that it's full of rotting fish.

There's real problems with that whole site, with the overuse of the lagoon, the use of the land around it, the removal of vegetation around Bushrangers Lagoon. That's happened over 200 years. Look, a kombi sat in Bushrangers Lagoon for about 10 years and no one seemed to be bothered by it. This is, we use these, we look at these waterways. We think that they're a real part of what makes the Hawkesbury what it is, what we value about the place, and yet we fail to look after them time and time again. And we do the same thing with areas like Navua and Yarramundi. We just expect that they will be all right, that they will look after themselves, and then it takes a crisis like this for us to realise that they won't.

So we need to look at how much water is being extracted from the lagoon. We need to look at vegetation clearing around it. We need to urgently look at revegetating. So there was some really good work done by the Hawkesbury Environment Network and the Green Army,

Revegetating and fencing stock out of Bushrangers Lagoon, and that's been carried on by a volunteer group called the Wetland Warriors. We need to support them. They're doing this on a Saturday with their own materials, plants that they're buying. We need to get behind doing this, but we also really need to talk to Local Land Services, the DPI, Water New South Wales, to make sure that we're all doing the right thing. And that all the people that use these spaces are doing the right thing. We need to get more people patrolling Navua and Yarramundi and checking fishing licences. We need to start an education campaign for users of all of these sites, including the lagoon. We need to start some clean-up activities.

Brewers, the causeway at Brewers Lane currently contains hundreds of car tyres. That's more than we can expect the community to deal with on Clean Up Australia Day. We need to get in and start cleaning up these sites so that it doesn't look like a choice dumping ground for everybody who needs to get rid of a few tyres on a Sunday afternoon. We need to install some signage on all of these sites pointing out their importance. Bushes Lagoon is a listed bird breeding ground. It's a really, really important ephemeral wetland. Yes, it will dry out, but it shouldn't dry out this quickly. The water shouldn't be this hot. It shouldn't be this silted up. It shouldn't be this contaminated, and it shouldn't be this shallow.

And that's one of the reasons why we're seeing the impacts on it that we are. There's a blue-green algal bloom just starting in areas of it. That will spread unless we get some rain soon. So we've got a crisis unfolding in front of us. The media is watching. Channel Seven is running a story tonight. The ABC is hoping to come out tomorrow and film a story on the site. We need to move. We need a water management plan that's required under the Water Management Act of 2000. We have a lot of work to do. We need to start now. So I'm hoping that you'll support this notice of motion. And again, I apologise for springing all the extra detail on you at this point.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I would be happy to support the notice of motion with a small change. If Councillor Wheeler would be up for including points seven and eight as part of point four so that we're getting a report on these commitments before we go and make them. Yeah.

Okay. So. Moving those two in to be part of the report in point four. Councillor Sam Bronja.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I also support the notice of motion. I'll always support a greater degree of resource being put towards looking after our environment. Councillor Kotlash and I, as our Council's representatives to the Hawkesbury River County Council, would seek to point out that some of the dot points in this, point seven for example, relate specifically to weed removal. Now that's squarely within the remit of HRCC. Well, weed removal is the remit of HRCC. So I would suggest to Councillor Wheeler, where we have dot points, like in point six and earlier, I think in point three, there's a laundry list of agencies and organisations that need to be cooperated with. Is it the County Council be placed in that list to see what they can do? So firstly, are you amenable to that?

Yes, I'm happy with that. And I want to point out that Richie Benson from the HRCC, who's done a lot of the documentation of what's been happening at Bushells recently, is here and able to take questions if necessary.

Fantastic. And my second question relates to what Councillor Conolly just raised, but I just wanted to get some staff comment on this. What was Councillor Wheeler's point eight, that we should develop a water management plan as required by a particular Act, is that to suggest that there's some statutory requirement that we're not meeting at the moment? Councillor

Wheeler. Our staff

Will take that on notice Councillor Zamprogno, it's been moved into the

Section to be part of a report, so I imagine it will be investigated in there. I'll just check, Councillor Wheeler, you were happy to include Councillor Zamprogno's suggestion of the River County Council? Yes. Who is your seconder, Councillor ? Who's the seconder on that, Mr Conroy? I don't . Oh sorry. Who seconded that motion? Councillor Ross, are you happy with that change? Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, look, there's lots of good stuff in this note as a motion, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for raising so many issues, so many important issues. And I agree that our waterways and our rivers and our creeks are terribly, terribly important to us. It is much of what the Hawkesbury is about, apart from its agricultural and heritage. But anyway, what I wanted to ask is in point three, I think it still may not be point three anymore, investigate a Clean Up Australia activity. Have we got a particular activity in mind? Something went wrong, or

Is

That what it means?

No, that's a clean-up. That's using Nuwarra and Yarramundi as a listed Clean Up

Australia site. Oh, do a similar thing as clean-ups. Oh, okay. Misread it, sorry. Yeah , okay.

Can I make a— Councillor Garrow? Can I make a suggestion? Under that Clean Up Australia activity, would we be able to maybe list these said sites and maybe get something out onto our social media as Clean Up Australia Day locations, possible locations for community members to volunteer in? Is that something you were looking at doing? Mr Conroy. But if we actually, if we were to isolate and nominate locations— Mr Conroy.

So we've had a number of approaches about potential sites, so we're just looking at what we can do in terms of a range of activities over actually that weekend. There are some sites that are going to require support each day because of the nature of the material that's going to be collected, and there are other sites that won't require as much support. But we're just trying to get our head around all of those requests to see what we can reasonably support across the local government area, and then we'll certainly be publicising that.

Okay, yeah, I understand. I just know that I've had a few people say they wanted to volunteer for Clean Up Australia Day. Where was the best location for them to go? A lot of people may not be aware of the various locations, so if we could just, listen, we may get community members that are willing to take it on themselves. Thank you, Councillor

Garrow Further discussion, Councillor Reynolds.

Ah, yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Probably a question for Councillor Wheeler or Mr Benson, perhaps. Do you have any indication of the health of Bakers Lagoon at the moment on the lowlands? I know that there's some development occurring nearby there, and I'm just wondering if it was under the same conditions as Bushells.

There's, um, I was told about Bakers Lagoon this afternoon, and it appears there's a sand mine adjacent to Bakers Lagoon, and Bakers Lagoon is now, or is going to adopt some sort of special hanging position above the level of the extraction, if it's the same site. It's on the lowlands. Yes. But look, I don't have any concrete information about Bakers Lagoon, no.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Just a question. The various lagoons, and we have a number of them, we're very lucky, the Yarramundi Chain of Ponds as well, does Council actually own those lagoons?

Mr Conroy

We've actually been having some discussions in relation to this matter this afternoon as a consequence of the media inquiry. Some of them are in private ownership, a number of them, in fact. Some of them are Crown land, and we have care, control and management for some of those Crown land sites. The real challenge is where the boundary is between the Crown land and the surrounding private landholding, because it's not fenced, and then some of them are Council sites as well

Thank you.

Thank you. I think I'd like to thank Councillor Wheeler for managing to incorporate this latest issue, which has occurred just recently, into her... Initial notice of motion. The initial one, of course, being of huge concern that people would use the killing of tortoises or turtles as some sort of sport by the look of that. And I think that all of these things are really, really important to have this level of investigation to ensure the integrity of our waterways and specifically of our wetland areas. We had the benefit of Robin Woods giving us a wonderful briefing on the wetlands, and from that we were all able to ascertain the importance of them in our environment and so on. And so I'll really look forward to— I know there is quite an immediate response required to this to deal with it initially, but also we need a lot of this investigative work and a lot of these things done to shore up our ongoing contribution to maintaining these various wetlands and so on.

So I'm fully in support of this notice of motion. Further discussion?

Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I know I have spoken, but if you indulge me, I just want to put on the record, though, that both reserves, Navua and Yarramundi reserves, I actually think a lot of council good work has been done there. I spend a little bit of time at Yarramundi Reserve anyway, and sort of look out across onto the Navua Reserve, and I think there is a lot of work, good work down there. I mean, it's really well kept in my book. I asked at a previous council meeting, and I notice there is a response from Mr—organ, sorry—that he'll have a look at trying to fill in the potholes. I suppose they are traffic-calming devices in some way, however, you know, some of them are getting to the—you can only calm a truck car—some of them, no, they're not that bad.

But anyway, look, I think—I really do think some good work has been done down there, and I want to thank council staff. For looking after those, because they are extremely highly used and loved by both locals and visitors, and particularly on Australia Day. It is a real icon at Yarramundi Reserve on Australia Day.

Thank you,

Councillor Rasmussen Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm very impressed with this notice of motion, and I'm very glad that Councillor Wheeler has put it up for us to discuss. One thing I'd just like to point out in, or at least share my concerns with Council, is if we have cyanobacterial blooms in any of these lagoons, they're toxic to dogs and cattle, and I guess I'd like to see point 5 strengthen a bit and/or some wording put in that to hasten our response to these sorts of algal blooms, because I'm not sure of our relationship with Algal Watch or with the department, the agency that is responsible for alerting people to these sorts of blooms. But our responsibility, I'm sure, would be with signage and, you know, appropriately managing the sites that we're responsible for.

So I guess the work with DPI and Water NSW to ensure compliance under the Water Management Act 2000 might do it. I'd just like to voice my concern about a cyanobacterial bloom. Would you like to specify? I would, and if you wouldn't mind, I think we need to, as a matter of urgency, because cyanobacterial blooms develop very quickly, and in the weather conditions that we're having now... Sorry, you know, this, I'm sort of sure that somebody's onto it because, as I said before, having people walk their dogs and having, you know, stock access, it can be a disaster. So maybe work with DPI, blah blah blah, in particular to make immediate representation to, think it the EPA might be dealing with Algal Watch these days, with the appropriate authority to , where am I up to, to,

What did I

Say? Sorry. In particular. You're up to doing something like, in particular to ensure immediate

Response to the relevant authority in terms of cyanobacterial blooms Yeah. Okay . Other algal blooms are okay, cyanobacterial blooms are toxic to liver. Do

You want to add to ensure notification of users?

Yeah, yeah. And signage is what they do and they probably have examples and we might already do that. I'm not sure whether we, we have that sort of

Signage. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. We'll just wait for that wording. Is there any further, Councillor Calvert?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to mention something about Navua Reserve. I take Councillor Rasmussen's comments on board. I think we have done quite a good job in terms of infrastructure down there, the car park, etc. But I've had a lot of complaints over Christmas about the... The mess and the broken glass and a whole lot of other things, and I'm just wondering, do we have a set routine for going down there and cleaning up, or is it just on if someone complains, then we go down and do it? What is our policy?

Mr Organ. We

Certainly have programs to go down there on a regular basis, clear those areas. We do, over busy periods, also put additional cleaning on. Our resources probably don't allow us to keep up with the influx of people that hit Yarramundi Reserve on Australia Day. That's just, and as I said, we know the consequences of that, as Councillor Rasmussen raised the other week. People just— it's just overrun. So it's something we will need to look at in terms of putting more resources into that. We do have a regular program of picking that up

It could perhaps be one of our responses to extreme weather conditions too, because I know as soon as it's hot, that area is filled with people swimming down there all the time. So we have that wording change. Councillor Wheeler, are you happy with that, Councillor? I'm happy with that. Councillor Ross. Okay. Further discussion ? Councillor Richards . Thank you, Madam Mayor

I'd just like to say thank you for adding that aspect of Bushells Lagoon. I was tagged in something on Facebook on that and did make a commitment to follow that up. So I think that this does that nicely, and staff had contacted me in regards to say that Council were aware and were looking for a way forward. So I think that this provides that way forward. I just want to ask, in terms of the education program for Navua and Yarramundi, what do you think that that's going to be or entail or cost to Council? I mean, what's the program? Because do you capture a river user while they're on the river and educate them? Like how do you envision that program was, just my first question. Councillor Wheeler.

So I sought quite a lot of advice from various people, including some academics from the University of Western Sydney and who— Who advised that the best way of educating people is probably through some of the bait and tackle shops, but also through signage down there and just having a bit more of a presence down at the lagoon as well. Sorry, not the lagoon, at Yarramundi and Navua. One of the issues is that many— not many, but some fishermen believe that turtles are a competitor, that they eat the small fish that will grow up to be the big fish that they then catch, and that's an erroneous belief. In fact, these turtles don't eat those; they eat mosquito fish and plants. They don't eat the little timblers that go on to be the catchable, usable, eatable fish.

So it's that sort of information that we have to give out. There's also a thought that we need to educate people that these aren't a pest species, that these are actually a quite significant turtle that's only found in the Nepean. These are the Nepean short-necked turtles. They're found in a very, very small area, and they're not a pest and they don't need to be forcibly removed from the spot. So

Perhaps a one-page information leaflet at the bait and tackle shops.

Well, that's where I think working with some of the other stakeholders is probably the best way, but certainly the bait and tackle shop in Windsor, which is really well connected with the bass fishers, they're a really good target, I think, for further education. All

Right. The other thing I want to raise is nothing to do with the notice of motion, but something to do with Navua and Yarramundi, and that is the presence of dogs down there . I don't know what the council's feel is about dogs down there, because I certainly know that when I've gone down there in peak times, the presence of dogs is huge. Some of them are off their leashes, and I don't know, but a couple of my kids are petrified of dogs. So it definitely becomes somewhere you can't take your children because of that sort of circumstance. So is the signage there, can I just confirm, meant to be dogs on leashes? Is that what it is?

Mr Organ.

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't believe it's an off-leash area. Yeah I think we've only got two other off-leash areas. I

Don't know if that's a discussion for another day or whether Council wants to look at, I mean, I don't know if there's a limited amount of areas we allow dogs to go swimming. Like, I don't know. But I just thought that has a really high concentration of people on certain hot days, and I don't know whether we should look into the permissibility of dogs there in the future.

Thank you. We'll take that on. Have we

Considered that

Yeah. I recall something about it. Further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Just one minor addition to point 3, where it says bacterial— wasn't point 3, point 5, I'm sorry—bacterial bloom, if that could read cyanobacterial.

C-Y-A-N-O .

Call

To the scientists in the room. It's one word.

Sorry . Sorry, it's the combined nerd gallery. Thank you for your support with this, and for those people who've made changes, I think it's better than it was when I prepared it at quarter to five this afternoon. I want to thank Hen, and in particular Robin Woods and Richie for their investigative work and the advice and ability to cobble together information and speak to the relevant stakeholders to get this to a point where it's workable for Council. And thank you for supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against, the motion is carried. Questions from previous.

This meeting, I'd just like to point something out regarding the questions that are in there. I'd just like to note that questions 4, 10, 11 and 18 will become part of the budget considerations and discussions because they were all requiring things to be looked at in that regard. And questions 8, 9 and 16 are all subject to reports coming back to Council, so I was just pointing that out. But are there any further questions on questions?

Just in relation to question 11, can I just get clarification on when it was that the swing was removed? Because I was there this week and the swing is still there, or replaced.

Mr

Organ.

Through you, Madam Mayor, that particular swing that was referred to was removed probably within two days of that. Hand was probably re-erected. It's one of the issues; we had to get Tree Climber in to do that. But as soon as we put them up, take them down, as soon as they go back up.

Thank

You.

Any further questions on questions, Councillor Wheeler?

I just want to get some clarification on point 5, where I asked about putting a tap in for fishermen down at Windsor Wharf, and apparently we don't want to encourage fishermen to be there. It's a bit late; the fishermen are already there. We either need to come up with some strategies to dissuade them, or we need to provide some infrastructure. The boat users would also appreciate a tap. This is currently affecting business, in particular tourism business. They're trying to bring people into the wharf. It's putrid and it stinks of fish guts because people aren't cleaning up effectively after themselves. We either need to clean up more often, or we need to put a tap in. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler

Questions for next meeting.

Questions for next meeting. Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have a question relating to my notice of motion last year on the school education program. I was hoping that would be up and running early this year, so I'd just like to get a time frame on when that report will be back to Council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tree. Councillor

Conolly. Councillor Sambrognio. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Last year I inquired as to the legality of the fence that the Johnson Property Group erected around the three-lot parcel in Bootles Lane, and the reply came back is that that fence was not legal and would have required a DA anyway. And if the DA had been applied for , it would have been rejected because it was the wrong kind of fence. I'm not aware that any action has been taken, and new concerns have been raised to me that Mr Owens would be familiar with concerning the ongoing clearing of that land. So my questions respectively are: what action is going to occur on the presence of that fence, and can any directive be made, considering that that parcel of cleared land lays at the edge of remnant Cumberland woodland, to not have it violently mowed, but that it could be allowed to be restored to the bush that's adjacent to it.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I went to a function at the National Servicemen's Memorial at Ham Common the other day, and they asked me to mention that there has been some slight damage to the memorial, and they think it may have been caused by our lawn mowing people, but they're not sure about that. So can I get someone to have a look? At that. Also they said that they'd put in a request a while ago to have that car park area named, rather than just having it as a blank car park. Can I get follow-up to see where that request got to, and maybe we can look at it again. Also, I noticed that the VPA for Peel Park is going to be

On exhibition. I'm just wondering whether this means that it is not going to be able to be changed in any way after the exhibition. Is this the finalised version of it?

The master plan or the VPA, Councillor Calvert? The master plan. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Could we get, last year I asked about having the 60 kilometre an hour speed limit on Sackville Road moved up so that the area where the cafe, Tractor 828 I think is its name, was covered by that speed limit. Lots of people—it's very, very busy. Lots of people pull over to use it and cross the road there. It's quite a fairly busy stretch of road, and I think that matter was going to go to the Traffic Committee. If we could get some information back on it, on whether that has gone to the Traffic Committee and what's happening. It's only a matter of moving it a short distance up the road.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Garrow. Can I please get some progress report on the building on the corner of Baker and George Street? We previously reported the health hazard there with the pigeon poo that is flowing onto the footpath on a regular occurrence. The footpath again this week is covered in pigeon poo. Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Councillor

Rasmussen. Yeah , thank you, Madam Mayor. I, just wondering whether—sorry, I'll go another way. I've been told that there is no power substation west of the river, and that would be an issue, obviously, if something happened east of the river where the power could be coming from, that west of the river would then blank out. I'm just wondering whether there is a power substation that could keep west of the river going if something happened to the power east of the river.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

No. Could someone move we go into confidential? Councillor Wheeler.

I move that we don't move into confidential, actually, Madam

Mayor. Do you have a seconder for that? Councillor Reynolds. Point of reason. I

Was going to say, what are we voting on? Are we going to have more business in public session, or are we trying to move the confidential items into—

I'm just waiting for the motion, yeah, to be said what you want to do. I

Move that item number 34 be held in open session.

Seconded by Councillor Reynolds.

Mr Conroy to adjust— adjust to comment.

We haven't gone into closed session yet. Madam Mayor, some of the material that is relevant to the confidential item is certainly council-related material that we were responsible for gathering and that we are responsible for reporting on, namely the community representatives. But some of the material is material that's been collected by another party and forwarded to us, and they are the professional and technical representatives. And I don't think we're in a position to really consider those in a public session because that information has not been provided to us on that basis.

Thank you, Mr. Conroy

Councillor Wheeler. Well, I think that's a very great shame, in fact, and is indicative of this whole sorry IHP process where councils lose their ability as elected representatives to decide the future of the LGA that they represent. The fact that this is being, that we are now being asked to choose who makes planning decisions for the future of the Hawkesbury in a closed session with members of the community unable to hear who is chosen and why, by whom, I think is a very, very sorry state of affairs indeed. It's bad enough that the chairman of this committee has been appointed for us and that the two seconders have been appointed for us with absolutely no say granted to the elected representatives of this LGA.

I think further it's appalling that we are being given a short list of people to choose from, and it would appear that we have only been given all the information about the applicants on request of a councillor, that we in fact are being asked to decide who these people are based on five to six lines in a table. And these people will determine the major developments of the Hawkesbury, the major developments that shape the Hawkesbury. Under a piece of legislation slipped in while the amalgamated councils were under administration and were going to election . I really commend Hills Council for their stand against IHAPs, and their mayor, who's today called IHAPs an erosion of local government power.

She is absolutely correct. Just

A point of order, Madam Mayor. Is there a motion currently before the Chair?

Councillor Wheeler speaking

To the motion. That's a procedural motion, though, without discussion.

It's a motion. She's explaining why she..

It's a procedural motion, Madam Mayor. It's not a substantive motion. Mr Misford

Thanks, Madam Mayor. The question is, is it a procedural motion or is it a motion to Council? The motion is whether Council moves this particular item into open Council, so I believe it's a motion before Council. Okay

So just to clarify, Madam Mayor, so I wasn't sure from the comment from the General Manager, you're allowing the motion to proceed regardless of his advice?

No, we're not discussing the actual motion. I was going to suggest, as soon as Councillor Wheeler finished speaking, that perhaps we were to segregate the two sections so that the section that perhaps is quite applicable to have an open session is done so, and the other heard in confidential.

Yeah. Well, I guess the reason for my point of order was I wouldn't mind having a good 10 minutes talking about what I think about IHAPs too, but we're talking about whether or not we hear this in open

Session or not. True. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Councillor Wheeler.

All right, Madam Mayor, may I take Councillor Connolly's point that he doesn't want to discuss whether the Hawkesbury is allowed to determine its own future. I think that this process stinks, and if we're going to discuss who determines the future of this place that we care about, then members of the public should hear who we've picked and why we've picked them, in open session with some transparency.

Further discussion?

Madam Mayor, I would wholeheartedly agree. I don't see why we couldn't perhaps deal with the recommendation in confidential, and if that was to pass, then proceed to appoint the community representatives in open session,

Because the recommendation in the business paper is just that we select three community representatives. So once we've done that, sure, but in terms of what the general manager indicated has to be done in confidential, and then following that motion, if it was to pass, we could then elect them in open session, I believe.

Councillor Wheeler.

I don't think that that quite achieves the aim of this being open and transparent.

Councillor Connolly, were you suggesting we have the discussion in open session and we actually make the final decision in confidential?

I'm still a bit confused, Madam Mayor, as to whether or not you're allowing the motion to be heard of Councillor Wheeler's initial motion. My suggestion was that we hear the item in confidential, but Councillor Wheeler indicated her concern was we then go and appoint these people, we're going to do that in confidential session. The general manager said we can't go and share the professional details, but the other applicants have actually applied to council, so could we not hear those in open session?

That's what I was suggesting, could we hear— So you're saying get a resolution, do the

Professional— To elect them, and then elect them in open session. Do the

Professional bit in confidential, then resume open and do the community representatives. Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen.

Madam Mayor, I would support your direction on that. I think that's probably the best way to deal with it. I think Councillor Wheeler's got a very strong case, that she's making a very compelling case, and I happen to agree totally with what she's saying. But look, in order to get this thing moving, I would suggest that we go with the direction you pointed out.

Perhaps we could move into confidential, deal with what we can do and clarify what we will then proceed to do in open session, while we're in confidential. Can

I just make a point that perhaps these community applicants didn't want their names public, that want to be known that they applied. I don't know, was that part of the application process, and we're just assuming that they do want to be made public? Thank you, Councillor Richards

Mr Conroy? Mr Owens? We're just checking the form on that. But perhaps we'll begin our conversation in confidential, and we can clarify some parameters and perhaps move back to do that. So, Councillor Wheeler.

Madam Mayor, can I just clarify, I'm not concerned about determining the community members. In fact, I think that's probably the most appropriate group to determine in confidential session, given that they have to live here. It's the professional people who have applied through the State Government to be members of this committee that I think that the community doesn't know from Adam that the community has a right to know who and how we have determined to put on this committee. I think actually there's a stronger argument for the community members being held in confidential session than there is for the State Government suggested applicants.

I do agree with you, Councillor Wheeler, but I think maybe just to advantage us going forward, we move into confidential, and we can have that bit of debate and clarify exactly the parameters in which we can hold the open debate, so that we aren't going in a circular motion here, and then we can do it that way. Councillor Conolly Okay. So, Councillor Wheeler has a motion that we don't move, that to move item 34 into open session. So we've sort of got an alternate. Perhaps we better vote on Councillor Wheeler's motion, and so all those in favour?

Against? Yeah, we had a seconder. Yeah, against. The motion is lost. We'll move into confidential and we'll return to open session after that. If the members of the community, I don't think we'll be very long, so if anyone's here who wants to hear that debate, I can't imagine we would be very long.

Now we need a mover and a seconder to move into confidential. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Connelly. All those in favour? The motion is carried.

A declaration of interest in item 34, a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I know some of the applicants who, in different capacities, who are listed on the list of nominees, and the reason for no further action is that it was for the selection of a community member, and therefore it was appropriate to participate given the nature of the discussion and the nature of the association.

My pecuniary interest is for item number 34. It's a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, and I do know several of the applicants.

Thank you,

Councillor

Garrow .

In regard to item 34, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that Council select three community representatives from Attachment 1 to this report for the pool of community members of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, IHAP. Motion 2, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Calvert, that Council select the following community representatives for the pool of community members of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, IHAP: Graham Eds, Casey Holtom, Paul Rogers. Motion 3, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno, that Council select the following expert representatives for the pool of expert members of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, IHAP: John Brockhoff.

John Brunton, Sean Carter, Michael Harrison.

Motion 4, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council advise the Department of Planning of the preferred membership of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel by the 14th of February 2018. Two, Council advise all nominees of Council's determination and thank them for their interest in this matter. Motion 5, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that Council expresses to the Premier, the Minister for Planning and the local Member: one , its strenuous objection to the imposition of IHAP legislation as undemocratic, unaccountable and costly; two, its disgust at the lack of transparency and lack of information provided to both elected representatives and community members in the selection of panel members and the undue haste imposed on Council.

Councillors Richards, Tree and Conolly requested that their names be recorded as having voted against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. Meeting is closed at 9.25 p.

M .