27 March - Ordinary

Calling 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 any 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 the council chambers has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Connery. Peter.

Apologies. I have apologies from Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Tree. I'm assuming Councillor Conolly is running late. Oh, he's an apology too. Councillor Conolly as well. Thank you. Someone move that the apologies be accepted. Moved Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour? Motion is carried. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Councillor Reynolds?

Yes, in item 80, 080.

Significant non pecuniary.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. I'm just bringing to note to the councillors that tonight, after 11 years, our planning director, Matthew Owens, finishes working with council on Thursday, and so this is his last council meeting. For some time, Matt has been developing a plan to make a change and start his transition to retirement, and last year and this year have seen a fair bit of change in his family and personal life, and those changes have made him decide to bring those plans forward. So on behalf of council, I would like to extend our best wishes to Matt and his family and wish him all the best for the future, and thank

Him for his contribution to council and hope that this final meeting is a good one. Thank you. Can we have someone confirm the minutes from the last meeting? Moved Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We'll move on to items for public address. Our first item is the Mayoral Minute.

All those in favour? The motion is carried. We'll move on to items for public address. Our first item is the Mayoral Minute, and we have one speaker. Our speaker is Kim Taylor.

Good evening, everyone. I'm just going to speak a little bit about the Red Shield Appeal within the Salvation Army and locally what we do here.

While Australia is the land of opportunity for so many, the tragic reality is that almost 3 million Australians are living below the poverty line. There's a woman who found the courage to flee abusive relationship, but has no safe place to go, and in the Hawkesbury, her name is Michelle. There's a young man who grew up surrounded by drugs and crime and wants to get clean but doesn't know how to escape his past, and in the Hawkesbury, his name is Dylan. There's a single mother who's working two jobs but still skipping meals every week in order to make sure the rent is paid and there's enough food for her kids, and in the Hawkesbury, her name is Kylie. I am so blessed to be part of an army that each year, motivated by God's love, saves souls, grows saints and serves suffering humanity across the country.

Our dedicated officers, soldiers, staff and volunteers continue to help Aussies who are doing it tough, because no matter the crisis or the person, we believe there is hope in any situation. In the Hawkesbury, we have a community of hope centre. We offer a fruit and veg program. We help with high utility bills, medical bills. We advocate for people, giving them a voice when they feel they haven't one. We cover the usual needs for people and families with the growing cost of living matched with the lack of income for whatever their circumstances. But we are more than just a welfare centre. In fact, we strive to not just be a welfare centre. Our aim is to journey with people, to be the light in what can be a very dark time in their lives, to show them hope when they feel all hope is lost, to accept them when society says they're different, to show no judgement because none of us are perfect, to love them the way Jesus loves.

We don't want to just fill their immediate need of food. We aren't here to put a Band-Aid on and say, see you next week. We're here to do life with them, to show them family and to show them community. In 2017, the Salvation Army helped over 2,000 women fleeing domestic violence, helped over 200 families find secure housing, helped over 4,000 families affected from natural disasters in New South Wales and Queensland alone, gave out 20,000 meals to hungry every week, and assisted over 7,000 people with addiction issues. Your support is more urgent than ever. Our goal for this year is to raise $73 million nationally, and locally in the Hawkesbury our target is $18,000. This can be done, but only with the support of our community, starting with our council.

Together, we can provide a life-changing support that helps Australians in crisis get back on their feet and stay on their feet.

Thank you, Kim. Are you happy to take questions?

Yep Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you very much, Kim, and I'm sure plenty of people in here know Kim and the work that she does at the Salvation Army in Windsor, and I've seen firsthand how many people you have helped. So thank you to you and your whole team. It's remarkable. Can you maybe just give the councillors today an example of what you may have done today, who you may have helped, and some of the projects that you have or things that you've done throughout the day to help, and how many families?

Okay, so we've had about 43 families come through today for our fruit and veg program. Our morning started off with going through all of that fruit and veg and just sorting out what I would eat, basically. I say to all of our volunteers, if you won't eat it, we don't give it out. It goes into a thing for some animals and things like that.

We're not means tested, so you can be a working family, someone that is on the pension or—

Yeah, sorry.

Yeah, like, so, like anyone can come and get help from us.

Sorry. Yeah, what happened today? Oh, it was busy. We didn't have all of our volunteers turn up, so we had four staff. One was running our coffee. We have a free cafe; it's called Hope at Expresso, so you can come and get a free coffee and a biscuit or a cake. So we had one running that, one on the registration table, which happened to be me, and then we had two downstairs, one making hampers because we also sell small low-cost hampers for families that wish to purchase them. And then we had the fruit and veg, so we had two people. Normally we'd have about ten volunteers, so it was a little bit busy today, but yeah, we helped

43 families. All right. And just secondly, could you maybe suggest, as part of this mayoral minute, a couple of ways that council could maybe help a charity like yours in a low-cost, effective way?

Yeah, so the Red Shield Appeal is important, and having our banners up in, like, certain places throughout the Hawkesbury is really important, so that people are reminded that it is Red Shield weekend, that Red Shield time is coming up. That's something that we really need assistance with. And social media. So obviously that's the new way to go. We do everything on our Facebook page. So if you can share our Community of Hopes page or share the information about Red Shield as well, that would be great.

Those sorts of things. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kim. Thank you for having me. Thanks. I'll move the Mayoral Minute and just speak briefly to it because it's reasonably self-explanatory. And I thank Kim for speaking and for outlining what the Salvos do, which we all know their wonderful contribution, along with many other groups who also contribute to assisting people in need within the Hawkesbury, and thank them all for their contributions in that area. Basically, the minute—and actually there's a third part that Councillor Calvert had sent through to add to it. If we could just get that up, I'll address that in a minute. Basically, the Red Shield Appeal is a national appeal for the Salvation Army, and we were approached, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards and I attended a meeting at the Salvation Army, and we spoke about how we could raise the profile of the appeal being on to assist with them getting the support that they need.

So they asked if I would be the chairperson, which I'm happy to be, and so the first part of the Mayoral Minute asks for an endorsement to do that, which is just really to be someone to help them promote it and to share it around that Council is supportive of Red Shield Appeal. The second one relates to developing some guidelines for any charitable organisations that seek Council support and assistance. So clearly we're quite restricted in what actual resources in terms of funding that we can give to charities, and we're also all mindful within the community of just how many causes and charities there are. So we seek to have some guidelines which would allow us to support the major charitable days throughout the year that are of national significance, such as Red Shield, and the various things that we can do.

And they were just alluded to, such as putting a banner up which supports it. Promoting it through our website and our Facebook pages, and to include it in any other promotional material that we happen to have going out to the community. It's something that I support, and I'm just seeing, can people see point three that's written up there? Can you

See it? Councillor Calvert offered this addition to the Mayoral Minute, which I'm happy to accept. I was just wondering if it could be changed from writing to local shopping centres and the Hawkesbury Agricultural Society to actually organise just a meeting where people could come so that we could actually discuss this and all really just establish what the parameters are regarding how we deal with charitable organisations, so that we've got some guidance when someone approaches us to assist with their cause. We need to have some quite clear guiding principles that allow us to make that decision in here. So, can you see all that? And it's, the suggestion is that Councillor Calvert suggests rather than people being charged, that they pay a bond, and then if there's no issue or whatever, that they have that bond returned to them because of the cost for charities, of course, to pay for stalls and various things.

So, I'm happy to go down that path, and I open that up for discussion if anyone has any discussion. Councillor Garrow.

I actually think the Hawkesbury Agricultural Society already offers a charitable space to one charity within the community to use at the event.

They do, but this is, yeah, this is just still to discuss with them how they, what their policy is, I think. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Looking at point 3, charging a fee to charity groups to set up a booth at various shops or events immediately brings to mind the booth that is in Windsor Mall, I think, is it CWA booth? There's a booth near the rotunda that is often used by— I was just wondering if that could be made available for charity groups as well. And the

One in Richmond.

That's a good idea.

And Council waive any costs that go— I don't know whether we put that in there or whether it—

We'll report back on what that meeting brings up. Okay. And what the proposed guidelines would

Be. Just so long as Council is also a part of the—

Any council facility.

Council facility, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you

Councillor

Reynolds. Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't know if you said this, Kim, but can you confirm to me so I can put on the record the dates of the Red Shield Appeal?

May.

Yeah

Okay, so the Red Shield Appeal is the 26th and 27th of May, so people can just put that in their diaries and make sure that when that's there, they see Salvation Army people out and about in the community to actually give as much as they can. The other thing I just wanted to say, that this mayoral minute is quite— I mean, I'm so happy to support it because it is across the whole political spectrum that, regardless of anything else, councillors can come together and support the charities that locally give back to our whole community and help so many people that we can't even put a quantifiable price on how much they give back. The only thing I would ask, and I don't know if we can commit to this, but I want to just open it up to discussion, is because I don't know when this report's going to come back, these draft guidelines, so, or how long you envision that to take, and the fact that this one's in May, can we maybe make a prior commitment now to— That idea of the banner or social media in this instance, and then wait for that further report to come back before we cement concrete future guidelines.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. I'd be happy to put in point one, perhaps we can just expand that to include where it says to promote the event, which would include a mural reception to promote the event. We could add the hanging of the banner and sharing

Of social media. Okay. I'm happy with that

Just because

That is so close to happening and we don't know when we're going to get those guidelines back

Yeah, no, that's fine. No problem with that. Further discussion?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for your Mayoral Minute. I think after talking to Kim and the others at Salvation Army, it's quite clear that in Western Sydney at the moment there is quite a crisis situation with homeless people and a new group of people that are emerging called the working poor. And I know some people have told me that they interviewed a group of people who are homeless, and when they spoke to them they found out they're homeless, but they've all got jobs. But the job doesn't pay enough to be able to even rent a place. So the work that Salvation Army is required to do is growing all the time, and that's one of the reasons I asked for point three to go in there, because they need all the help they can get.

And I was told that they can't go into certain shopping centres because they get charged a fee to be there, and when you take the fee away from what they raise, they sometimes even make a loss out of being there. I don't think our community, I think our community needs to support groups like the Salvation Army as best we can. So what I'm asking there in point three is that we approach the shopping managers or the— and I was also told Hawkesbury Show is not letting lots, it may be letting one group in, but there are a lot of groups who'd like to be there, but they will be charged, I think it's $400 a day to have a booth. And that's just not economical for charities to do that. So what we're doing is I'm asking that we talk to these people.

I said write to them, but the Mayor has changed to set up a meeting, which is fine. And we're not trying to tell these groups what to do. We just want to talk with them and see if we can find a way through this. And I think the appropriate way through is to charge a refundable bond, because apparently there were issues with certain charities who were going into shopping centres and harassing people and causing grief. And so the shopping centres said, well, you know, we'll charge them to be here and that'll keep the riffraff out. But it meant that all the charities were then kept out, and I don't think that was their aim. So I think if we talk to them about a refundable bond, I think they'll probably go for it.

So hopefully that meeting will be productive, and thank you for adding that point to your mayoral minute.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Any further discussion? I don't really have to reply except to say thank you to everyone for supporting it, and I think that thank you for the inclusions and additions, and I hope that we can support, you know, the charities. I hope we come up with some good guidelines so that we are able to make it very clear the extent of support that Council is able to offer and how that will manifest. In the future, so I'll put the mayoral minute. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item is item 75.

Four, we have one speaker, Peter Nicholson.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councillors, staff and the public. Councillor Conolly is going to be really upset because I'm not going to take much time at all tonight, and I'm not going to quote too many figures. But I'm glad to see that there's been a motion brought up to review the Development Control Plan because anybody who's had the misfortune to try and read it would know that it's way out of date. Most of its headings are written in a comic font, like an episode from The Simpsons, and unfortunately a lot of the content of it looks like it's been a script from The Simpsons. You look at the jolly frog site for the jolly frog, it has a picture without any verandas and says it needs the verandas restored as per the picture. So it just makes no sense whatsoever.

It has been reviewed quite a bit since 2002, despite the report that is included in the business paper. There's about 17 chapters of it that have been reviewed since 2002, but all the appendices and everything else are, yeah, 16 years old. The only thing that I really wanted to bring up with this is that on the bottom of page 36 it says it may be more appropriate and effective to incorporate controls within Hawkesbury LEP 2012, which will provide greater weight than the Development Control Plan. And the reason that I'm sort of concerned that this probably should go ahead is the Development Control Plan isn't statutory, as we all know. It's just referred to as a guideline. And if you want to get around it, you just say, Oh, it's only a guideline, so we won't follow it.

And then you end up with the situation like we had at McGrath's Hill, where we get a Hindu temple right next to a Methodist cemetery on roads that are only eight metres wide. And if you look through the development control plan, it says that the width of the road should be, I think it was, thirteen and a half metres for that size of development. But because it was a development control plan guideline, it basically got ignored. So I think that if we are being hounded by the state government into basically trying to just pass every development that comes up because it meets the development criteria, we need to make sure that our criteria are very specific. And I don't think that our LEP is specific enough to achieve what the general public in the Hawkesbury would like to see, which is protection of the heritage, protection of the environment, no development until the infrastructure is in place, though they will have the M9 running right through Oakville now, which will probably make a lot of people happy because they'll be able to get onto transport and they'll have better roads.

But that's about all I really want to say on it, which is kind of amazing because I did all of that in three minutes. Thank you

Mr Nicholson. Are you happy to take questions?

Yeah. Anybody's got any

Questions, councillors? No questions. I'm done. Thank you. That was our only speaker for that item.

Councillor

Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll put the motion. The seconder? There's a, with a third point that I've handed to

The staff. We'll just see what the third point is and call on a seconder at that point.

Thank you

Jodie.

The third point is to hold a forum for councillors to review and build on the discussion held during the development of the Community Strategic Plan, as well as other relevant information, and to hold that forum before the 30th of June 2018. That's the third point added to the two points in the seconder Garrow. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

So this is, I guess this is an attempt to bring our documents up to a point where we've got something that's useful with the changing nature of planning, the planning legislation that we're now dealing with. So the LEP is a much larger, albeit a statutory document, and revising that is, of course, much more expensive because of its scope. So this is something that we can feasibly do within the budget to provide, at the very least, a guideline. But my understanding is that they're an interlinked process, and when we've got the funding, we can attempt to address the issues with the LEP as well. My understanding also in the statutory nature of, or the nature of the DCP, is that if Council sticks with its DCP and is seen to only vary within about 10% of the DCP, that the Land and Environment Court then looks favourably on that DCP as a guideline.

And currently— We're not doing that, in part because the DCP is no longer fit for what we need. So it doesn't cover heritage protections, green space protections, insufficient detail for us to rely on agricultural protections, et cetera. The Land and Environment Court has also referred to the inconsistencies within the DCP that we really desperately need to address. I think the report articulates quite nicely what this is really about, and that's developing a document that's relevant, concise and user-friendly. And that's not just user-friendly for us, because it's got to be user-friendly for applicants. People need to come to council with an application with a reasonable expectation that council will be able to process that application in a timely manner because it meets the guidelines that council has laid out.

It needs to be concise and relevant for use by IHAPs and also for the community. The community needs to have an expectation of what the Hawkesbury will look like into the future, and that's something that we've heard loud and clear from them, particularly with the community consultation meetings that we've held and in the run-up to the 2016 election. So this is the first step, I suppose. I wish we had a big bucket of money to throw at fixing both the LEP and the DCP, but we don't. So this seems to be a workable solution. And I've added point three because I think we need to have a robust discussion as councillors as to what we expect this document to deliver, what we want the Hawkesbury to look like into the future based on what the community tells us.

We started doing that at the CSP weekend in a really useful afternoon session, and we haven't gone anywhere with that since. And I would really like to pick up on that information and use that to build a DCP that we can all live with. I hope that you can support this. It's a beginning.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question. In the business paper on page 32, it talks about a workshop. Is what Councillor Wheeler is putting up as number three, is that the workshop, or is this as well as the workshop? Bottom of page 32, two recommendations. One is we have a workshop,

But it's not in the recommendation. So did you mean to replace the workshop with this, or is it an addition?

Mr Conroy.

No, they're two different activities. One's sort of just a regrouping subsequent to the community strategic plan, that initial guidance for staff. Then there'll be a further, more detailed workshop for councillors when we get a lot of the documentation together.

Can I ask Councillor Wheeler if she'd put the workshop in as a point? Councillor

Wheeler. So you want a second workshop? A follow-up workshop

Yeah, as mentioned on page 32.

Yeah, with a follow-up workshop as mentioned on page 32. Do you want to suggest a timeline on that as well?

No, I don't.

Okay.

So I don't think it's possible to have that follow-up workshop prior to the 30th of June? No, so it would have to go in after the date, after that date.

Further discussion, Councillor Ross.

Question, probably two questions if I may, probably to the General Manager through you, Chair. In the first instance, is it correct to understand that the...

I'm

Sorry.

No, no, I'm listening, but I'm just asking a question.

Okay. You're a better man than I

I'm wanting to gain an understanding that the modification to the DCP, if we agree on it, changes, that that is within the province to move those, or do we have to then take those to DP&E or some other state agency, please?

So the DCP is totally within the control of Council. The LEP is a statutory document that requires the oversight and approval of the Department of Planning.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you. That, I think, is important because that means that whereas an LEP seems to take anything up to three years to get modified, this is a much more proactive type arrangement. Could I also inquire, please, that if the Council comes to a certain position on the DCP, that as a document would be put out for public consultation before final adoption?

Mr Conroy.

It needs to be consulted, and then even after final adoption it doesn't become actually operational until there's been a notice placed in the press after that final Council resolution. But there will be extensive consultation along the way.

Councillor Ross.

Have you, sir, experienced any instances where a council may have fixed on a particular aspect of a DCP? For instance, I think a few of us have got a dislike of grey cement tile roofs on new dwellings. If a council decided in its mind to include such a preclusion from a DCP, is there any chance that that type of thing could be overruled?

For the DCP to have effect, it needs to be linked to the LEP. So just potentially reading between the lines here, if there was a provision in the LEP that was related to, shall we say, climate change or urban heat island effect, and ensuring that all future development minimised the potential for urban heat island effect, then it would be appropriate to have a provision in the DCP that discouraged dark-coloured roofs, for example. So the two need to be linked, and they need to be linked to a, then, a strategic objective.

Is that, in a sense, beyond challenge from the state? I can understand possibly a court may view things in a different matter.

The LEP is within a template format that's determined by the state government. There is some flexibility to move within that template, and provided that the LEP was endorsed by the Department of Planning, then there's not an issue with council. Having a subordinate but more detailed set of guidance in the DCP, the issue though does become one of consistency then, as Councillor Wheeler referred to. It needs to then be consistently applied by the Council.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I think, question to the General Manager.

I note on page 37 it says the Department of Planning and Environment proposes to implement a standard format development control plan by mid-2020. Given that our DCP review will probably come into effect before then,

Do we have to adopt the standard format development and then modify it, or can we keep our revised DCP as our document and then to the side modify the standard format? And then just wondering about the process involved, whether we have to stop it and then pick up the new pro forma one.

Mr Conroy. So

It's sometimes the practice of the department to run trials, and trials. And whilst the standard format DCP is talked about in terms of 2020 , they may be interested in one or more councils testing the format. And there may also be some funding assistance to do that. So there could be some benefits in us trying to work that through with the Department of Planning. It may come to nothing, and if that's the case, we would continue and just work up the format that we deem appropriate. But if there's some potential funding and that doesn't compromise Council's objectives, then that's something that we'd definitely consider.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Could I follow on from the previous councillor's question?

Do you have any even preliminary indication at this stage as to whether this so-called standard format is going to be handled in a similar fashion to the standardised LEPs of 2012? In other words, it becomes ordained , if you like, and you have to fit within the box.

The standard format LEP started life as an incredibly rigid document, virtually no scope for local flexibility. But over the life of the development of those standard format LEPs, there was a degree of flexibility introduced, and I think there was some learning from that exercise. So I think there will have to be some latitude in that document based on that experience.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Right of reply. I'll give you—there's no further discussion.

Thank you. So, just very quickly, point two alludes to the general manager's cunning and very altruistic plan for us to offer our services to road test the standard format. And I also want to thank Councillor Calvert for adding point four. I think that tidies up the notice of motion and gives us a way forward past the forum. And I expect the forum to be a working session where we come up with the ideas. It's not meant to be onerous for staff, where the staff present stuff to us. This is for us to do the legwork and get our ideas out, and in a format that we can feed them back to the staff, so that the staff know really what we want. We are the representatives of the Hawkesbury. We are the people that the residents talk to about what they want in this LGA and what they want this LGA to look like and the quality of life that they want living here.

So I think it's up to us to put our ideas forward rather than the other way around, hence the word forum rather than a workshop, while we try to make our briefings a more dynamic space. So I thank you for your support, and I hope this is the start of something useful.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'm just—this is listed as a planning item. Yep. So we'll vote with our buttons.

On the count of three, everybody, voting for the motion on the board.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Councillor Calvert has a problem with the grammar of point four.

Well, it says, ‘Hold a follow-up Councillor workshop be held. This is too much holding going on.

Well, we can get rid of the hold at the start. A follow-up councillor workshop be held. Thank you, Jodie.

Is that okay, Councillor Calvert? Can you live with that? No.

It doesn't make sense. It should be that Council for hold a follow-up workshop. Hold a follow-up workshop,

Yeah. Take out ‘be held’ and it works.

Yeah. That's what I was going to say.

Yep. You're okay with the ‘be held’ being removed? Okay. On the proviso that that occurs, can everyone vote on the count of three. One, two, three. For the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler— Oh! I pressed the yes. I did. I did. Sorry, I'll reset and I'll do it again. This happened before. Someone's wired. Someone's been in here at the wiring. On the count of three. One, two, three.

For the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Zambrano, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Conolly, and Councillor Tree are absent. The next item is item—

Eighty. We have three speakers. The first speaker is Professor Jack.

Madam Mayor, I have—

Oh, sorry, Councillor Reynolds, read your conflict, please

Significant non-pecuniary interest. I live near the area under discussion.

Thank you, and goodbye.

We have— I did, sorry. We have three speakers. Our first speaker is Professor Jack.

Madam Mayor, Councillors, my name is Ian Jack, and I live in South Windsor. I'm a member of your Heritage Advisory Committee. As an academic historian, I have written extensively about Hawkesbury history, including Thompson Square, based on original research. At the request of the Heritage Advisory Committee, I have revisited the original documents about the Thompson Square drainage, and written a thorough new explanation of the meaning and significance of what has been found. This is available for you all to read, attached to the business papers on pages 94 to 96, and my executive summary is printed on page 93. What I want to say very briefly is why I was so excited about the new evidence, and why it is so important for the Council and the community.

I was expecting that the archaeologists would find some evidence for a barrel-shaped brick drain 200 years old when they dug in Thompson Square. I was expecting, too, that the discovery would enhance the recognised state heritage significance of the square. What has emerged so far is, however, far, far beyond all possible expectations. What we have here in Windsor is a sophisticated piece of public works, which is the earliest of its sort to survive in Australia. When the main oval-shaped drain was commissioned by Governor Macquarie in 1814 from two prominent local men, Howe and McGrath, it was planned as part of a much bigger makeover of the square. We can now see that the main barrel drain was really massive because it's now exposed.

It's still high enough for a person to enter crouching sideways. This was a major recognition of the importance of Macquarie's new town of Windsor. It was a very expensive infrastructure project for the premier new country settlement, and in 2018 infrastructure is a very sexy word indeed. Macquarie commissioned a new wharf at Windsor. The new wharf would rise above ground level at the bank of the river, and it would support massive amounts of earth carted in to raise the height of the lower part of Thompson Square and thereby flatten out the slope from George Street down to the Hawkesbury. This gave Thompson Square something like its present contours. The big barrel drain was built first, just below the original ground level.

It is now no less than three and a half metres underground. We can see from the present excavations that Howe and McGrath built a series of empty spaces with vertical brick walls, which were then surrounded by fill. These led up from the barrel drain to another smaller drain on what became the new surface, three metres higher. This, in more recent times, has been raised again, so the upper drains are slightly underground. The open U-shaped brick drain built 200 years ago on top of all this sort of survives just under the surface and has also been excavated. It was fed by side channels, also excavated, so its surface water was excavated into the big underground drain. It's all pretty sophisticated.

It's implicit in the contracts which Macquarie himself personally signed, but none of us realised the full importance of it till we saw the brickwork. We knew that Howe and McGreal were permitted to make no less than 150,000 new bricks at the new Windsor brickworks, but now we know how well we used them. We have a very human story as well of triumph over adversity. The work was impeded by three huge floods. Two successive new forks were destroyed, and the massive three-layer drainage works together with new fill must have required a lot of reworking. The contractors were not paid off until 1820, six years after the project started. But after that, Thompson Square settled down. That's why the square and its water management system survive today.

The water system is visually spectacular. You cannot see anything like this anywhere else. If a brickwork can be conserved and the drainage made available for public viewing, it is a great tourist potential for the Hawkesbury. Archaeology of this sort has enormous public appeal. Roman remains in Pompeii and Paris, or colonial remains in the USA at Williamsburg and Alexandria. Windsor is unique in Australia. Our newly revealed infrastructure adds a whole new dimension to the high heritage values of Thompson Square, its houses and its vistas. I wholeheartedly endorse Councillor Willers' motion.

Thank you, Professor Jack. Are you happy to take questions? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you very much for that, Professor Jack. I'm certainly in awe of all that you've done and the book that you've published. And in fact, I've actually been undertaking some of my independent research into Thompson Square. I'm a complete novice. I'm sure people will testify to that. But I certainly want to ask just a few questions while you've got the floor up here and I've got this opportunity. You mentioned, first of all, that the brick barrel drains have an element to boost our tourism industry. You said then the reason that they have that ability is because you want to be able to have them to be preserved in a capacity to have tourists observe them. Can you just describe how you would want that to happen in terms of a design element?

Well, that gets beyond my historical brief, but elsewhere, Graham Edwards will talk more about the idea of conservation of old bricks which have been underground. But this is achievable. Those of you who have seen photographs of this site will see that the brick drain and its sump going up to an upper drain, all that is very immediately recognisable and understandable. When much of it is exposed, and if it can be preserved, perhaps under some sort of cover, then this is an intelligible infrastructure work, two centuries ago, the earliest to be sought in Australia, which I think people would find genuinely enjoyable to visit. It would be attractive to visit. There are technical problems in conserving the bricks and keeping, but these problems are only there to be solved. Well,

That's where I guess I was alluding to, because the bricks have been buried for so long and unearthed only because of the project going ahead. My concern is how we do that. And I know that you're not, you know, an engineer, but in terms of the weather and things like that, and if we did have another flood and the water's rising again now that they're exposed, I think that there are certainly big issues that we just can't brush to the side. And the RMS has come out now and said that— They've amended their design plan to actually bury them, but keep them preserved intact. Do you agree and then still proceed with the building of the bridge? How do you view the RMS decision to move forward?

I am not in favour of the bridge being built. Of course. And the bridge is extremely close to the bottom part of the drainage, drainage diverted from the brick. The works involved in creating the bridge, the bridge are going to create tensions on the old bricks, tensions just as great as anything which you're thinking of. The idea of protecting them by barriers on either side, by concrete barriers, is unappealing aesthetically. But I'm not sure how these ideas are simply evolving. RMS has undertaken to get the best conservation advice on how the bricks can be protected both from brickworks, the bridge goes ahead, and from the weather if they are exposed. As I say, Graham Hedges can answer that question better than I can.

But overseas, there has been an immense amount of expertise gone into the conservation of buildings much older than these, which have now been exposed and which can be treated to, or protected to withstand the weather and provide tourists with a really genuine experience

Can I have one more? One more quick one. Thank you. I think this one is definitely in tune with your expertise. Can you just confirm that when we continuously discuss and debate Thompson Square, that we're using the right terminology for Thompson Square? The current area, the parkland there, that's called Thompson Square, is that what you would declare in 1811 that Governor Lachlan Macquarie declared as the Thompson Square precinct?

He declared the open— when Macquarie declared the building, the square in 1811, the buildings which are around it, none of them was built at that stage. Can I show

You that? Yeah. Like that area?

No, Thompson Square is only the lower part towards here at the river, this

End here . From

George Street down to the river is what he conceived as Thompson Square. Not

This bit at all?

Not what we think of as the Bridge Street section, no. That was part of the government reserve, but it was not part of Thompson Square as such. Thompson Square is the part going down from George Street to the river.

This bit?

Only the part from George Street down on that map, the upper part.

Here, this blue bit?

This is the map that Councillor Richards is showing, this is the river up here. Actually there's a bigger

Version here. There you go.

The Hawkesbury River at the top, but Thompson Square is this part here from George Street down to the river.

And the part that we call Thompson Square now, this is part ten on this map?

There's been some— there's a Thompson Square Conservation Area which Council has approved and the Heritage Office has approved and is on the State Heritage Register. That includes both the open space of Thompson Square, all the buildings around it on George Street and Old Bridge Street and the other street which is called Thompson Square, and the gardens behind them. So it's more extensive than the open area. That is what it is, but there is at present a CMP commissioned by Council which is redefining what Thompson Square actually is. It will certainly define it as larger.

Based on all of this, like this local history and—

It's based on the very best evidence. It's a very competent report.

Thank you so

Much

I know I'm over time.

Thank you, Professor Jack. Thank you. Excuse me.

I'm sorry, Professor Jack, could you come back? I'll allow Councillor Ross to ask you a question because Councillor Richards took up their time. Councillor Ross, one question.

Good evening, sir. Just to pick up from where the previous councillor left off, is it not true that the state heritage conservation area also extends beyond George Street towards Macquarie Street?

Yes, to some

Distance.

As I explained, all the streets, including George Street, which have got houses on them facing the square, the houses themselves and their entire front gardens and back gardens are inside the area. Therefore, the area behind the houses and the shops on George Street facing Thompson Square, between it and Macquarie Street, are also included in the current conservation management plan.

Thank you. Thank you. Quickly, Councillor Ross. Microphone. I'm sorry, sir. In

Relation to the construction of the major brick barrel drain, you mentioned this evening that, if I—and I don't want to misinterpret what you said, please correct me if necessary—as I understood it, you mentioned that the construction was actually relatively close to the surface. As at that moment, before backfilling or filling or whatever, is that correct?

The original barrel drain was just under the surface, as it was then .

Oh, I'm sorry. The original, when Howe built the barrel drain in 1814, 1815, he built it underground, but only just underground, on the present original level of the square. He immediately started to put fill in to raise it, but so that he could connect to drains on the top, he built what were small towers of brick, two or three metres high, which survive, which connect to an upper drain, and these are surrounded by the fill. But originally the barrel drain is not far underground, but then it becomes three and a half metres underground by degrees. Within five years it was deep underground, and now it's about half a metre more underground.

Thank you. Sorry, the reason I posed that question of you, sir, was that on the day on which councillors were offered the opportunity to visit the site, one of the, I think one of the archaeological folk posited a theory, something like that the root of the barrel drain was in fact peered with very heavy timber to prevent adjacent... Soils collapsing in on the construction or injuring the workers. Are you—what would be your feelings about such a proposition, sir?

I haven't seen the archaeological report as finalised, but that would be a very sensible precaution taken to make sure that if fill was poured in, it didn't crush the drain. So if such supports have been found, and I wasn't aware that they have been, but if they have been found, then it would be perfectly rational and it would be just the sort of thing that Howe would do to protect his new drain from all the immensely heavy cartloads of dirt which were being thrown in on top.

Thank you, Professor Jack. Thank you. Our second speaker is

Graeme Eds.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, General Manager, Councillors, and general public. I do have an image which I would like to hand out to Councillors, if that's possible. Could

That happen? Thank you.

I provide this image, and it's exactly what Professor Jack's been talking about, of this barrel drain, and I think it's a good visual reminder of exactly what we're looking at here, a significant archaeological resource that has enormous significance to Australia. And even further than that, I think it's got even more significance to the world. That's internationally.

Councillors, look, I wanted to raise a few things tonight. One is that you are the responsibility, or you councillors have the responsibility as custodians, as custodians of our heritage here in the Hawkesbury, and I hope you don't take that lightly. This is an enormous resource which really has national significance, as I said. And it really, the information that's within the Greater Western Sydney Commission's study has actually identified Windsor and Richmond as being a large resource of significant heritage values, including some of the oldest buildings in Australia, and an emerging tourist-based focus on colonial history, rural character, agriculture, economical assets, included within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and also the Hawkesbury and the Hawkesbury River.

Look, that study is obviously known to you, and I commend the Commission for saying that. I know they only looked at Windsor and Richmond, but I think our significance goes a bit further afield than that. But in saying that, you've also, councillors, I'm sure, are aware of this particular study, which I have a copy of. It's the Place Score, which actually looked at the Hawkesbury town centre's top attributes. And guess what was ranked number one? Local history, heritage buildings or features, and it rated 71%. And as I understand it, that is the highest rating anywhere else in Australia for heritage. Now, this is what you're looking at, and this is what you're taking care of, and I hope that you'll actually think about the sorts of decisions that you will be making this evening, and certainly Councillor Wheeler's motion in front of you.

The other four items, or other four top places, of course, is cleanliness of public space, which is great, elements of natural environment, and the overall visual character of the area, but also the vegetation and natural elements. All of those are conservation based, and here we are in the Hawkesbury, so lucky to have it all right here, and it's worth looking after.

Look, I also wanted to make councillors aware, and you may not be aware, and I wasn't until just recently, about the Big Dig Archaeology Education Program that has been running since 1994, in at the Rocks. And this is a real education process for school children as well as the general public. It's now open to the general public as a resource, and I believe it's well attended on a daily basis. This is the sort of resource that you can actually make out of this archaeology here in Thompson Square. Let's not consider covering it up. Let's flaunt it. Let's use Thompson Square, let's use Howe's House and the museum as an embryonic place where you could actually have this education process. And here you have in Thompson Square just a stone's throw away this great archaeological resource that forms part of this tourism adventure, if you'd like, or this educational resource that could be open to anyone throughout Australia and elsewhere.

Look, I really think that you need to think very hard about this, very hard about the bridge, and very hard about what this archaeological resource really means to the Hawkesbury and to Australia. Look, I commend Councillor Wheeler's motion as Ian Jack did, and I would encourage you, councillors, to support it wholeheartedly and certainly put Windsor and the Hawkesbury on the map.

Thank you, Mr Edds. Are you happy to take questions? Questions.

Councillor Garrard. Mr Edds, could you please, in your opinion, could you please let me know whether the claims to encase the drains for their protection is a good outcome or not?

Look, as a conservation architect, I guess I deal with historic fabric of the age of this barrel drain, not on a daily basis because there's not that many of them around, but I'm dealing with buildings of 1804, vintage, 1820, 1812, 1806. So this is the sort of fabric that I guess I'm involved in conserving for a long, long time. I was a conservation architect for Elizabeth Farm for 14 years for the Historic Houses Trust. So I guess that gives me a little bit of knowledge and a little bit of credibility when it comes to materials conservation. And the sorts of things that we're seeing out here in the barrel drain, I believe can be conserved. I don't necessarily agree with others that say because it's exposed, it'll just fall apart.

Look, you really need to have a look at the fabric, and you really need to look at the way it is. You need to test it and see what sort of aggressive salts it's got there and what sort of remedial action can be taken, what sort of materials conservation things can be brought to the fore to actually keep it. As Professor Jack said, it's happening elsewhere in the world. Why can't it happen here? We do expose our archaeology throughout the world and for people to enjoy. You know, we're looking at that on a daily basis. But yes, to actually just cover it up, I think that's a real disappointment. And I think the way that the RMS are wanting to cover it up, I can't be assured that structurally you won't have damage to occur to that barrel drain in the future.

I don't think anybody's actually studied it sufficiently yet to understand what the sorts of vibration loadings the bridge construction is going to have, nor the vibration loadings the bridge, should it be built in working capacity, what sort of vibrations will actually enter the soils around and what damage that will do. But I guess the disappointing thing for me, Councillor Garrow, is that if we're only going to conserve, or sorry, if the RMS is thinking that they will only conserve the barrel drain, that's only half the story. The other part of the story is the sumps, or Ian Jack said the things that sort of rise up three metres and then going to the higher level drains. All of that is a good, wholesome story.

And if we actually get rid of the other bits, then we're only left with half of it or a portion of it.

Thank you

One quick one, Councillor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This picture that you've handed — thank you for all of that information, by the way, Mr. Eds — this picture that you've handed around, there's a lot of claims out there in the public and the media that these are smugglers' tunnels. Is this 100% a smuggler's tunnel, or was it used as a sewer? Look

I don't think it was used for a smuggler's tunnel, or it was used as a sewer. I think it's a stormwater drain that actually collected surface water and then channeled it down to the river. That would certainly be my impression. Look, the popular history of a smugglers' tunnel has been around for years and years and years. Whenever I first came into the area, I remember John Miller took me up into Windsor and asked me, when we actually had a dinner in one of the buildings up in Thompson Square, down in the basement, he said, Here's the evidence of the smugglers' tunnel that should be coming out through this wall. Well, I couldn't see any evidence on it. You know, I think it's really just a popular history belief.

Thank you, Mr. Eds Thank you. Thank you.

Our third speaker is Jan Sparks.

Good evening, councillors. Thank you, Danielle, for bringing this notice of motion. Those against the Windsor Bridge replacement project, collectively we've written to pretty much every person or politician named in the NOM, and I think it's vitally important that we continue to contact them, especially now the barrel drains have been exposed. We've heard the folklore of the smugglers' tunnels, drains, and perhaps read documents, and now we've seen it with our own eyes. I personally find it fascinating, and the structure is quite extraordinary. To see the positions of the drain, the scale, and the design really is breathtaking. A unique part of our history is at Thompson Square. And the smugglers' tunnels were built by convicts and were done to create a better community and get the water out of the town, basically.

The story behind these drains is also a fascinating read. The story of our early colony and its survival are rich and colourful, and this is a fine example of our early infrastructure. Now, the majority of people that I speak to are outraged about these drains, that they're going to be documented, cleaned, photographed and covered up forever. There's also the people who say they've been covered for hundreds of years, so who cares? And I say I do. And I know that obviously, we've heard other speakers, and the thousands of signatures, a lot of people actually care.

The fact is that the drains could have remained in situ and never been touched. But then this project began, and there was always a possibility that this was going to be found. So it's true they've been covered and their existence was only documented in folklore. However, now it's a unique insight into our past, and they should be kept for future generations and historians to observe. I can tell these two men are quite excited by what they're seeing, and I think we all should be. So, and the other thing too is our history is only 230-odd years old, and we should be protecting every piece that's significant or we'll never have a history to display and share to the world, and this is significant to Australia and our town.

I think we need to find another location, another river crossing, the whole thing, we've been through it all before. So history may not be everybody's thing, but it does belong to all of us, and it's not just Gladys Berejiklian's or Dominic Perrottet's or Malcolm Fraser's, and it's not Josh Frydenberg's, and it's not theirs to make these decisions. I find it abhorrent that they have the power to take this away from us in our town right now, especially when we've seen them. They're not just a folklore any longer. Covering them up is not an option. Saying that they will be preserved is subjective and questionable, and I think we've heard that from both these gentlemen. The construction of the road and the bridge could mean they're damaged or collapsed, and we'll never know unless somebody wants to dig them up when they realise what we've lost.

So it's not a case of out with the old and in with the new, because they really can work side by side. So we need to preserve the drains, and we need to keep the pressure up on the government and the RMS, and we have to stop it. So recently I took my seven- and five-year-old granddaughters to view the site and spoke to them in terms, obviously, that a seven- and a five-year-old can understand. And the excitement on their faces and their questions was priceless, and they had lots of questions. So I stood up for their history, and I've stood up for it at a very high personal and monetary price. I'm surely collectively that my two girls, my granddaughters, I'll have instilled in them the value of a social and moral conscience, and they'll be proud of each and every one of the people that actually stood up for their heritage to protect this.

So I'm not speaking from a historian's point of view like the two gentlemen. I'm speaking as a resident, and I think I'm a sixth- or seventh-generation Hawkesbury person, and I've been involved in this fight for over five years. I sat proudly in the Corb tent until I was unable to due to family reasons. Then I went on my own way, and in other ways I have fought. So my fight will continue until it's no longer viable. And finally, to quote George Orwell, the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of their history, and I believe by doing what we're doing, that's exactly what's going to happen in our town.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sparks. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions, councillors?

No questions. Thank you. That was our final speaker. Councillor Wheeler. I'll put the motion. Madam Mayor. Seconder? Seconded Councillor Ross. Discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I want to thank the speakers in particular for outlining the importance of this place and this discovery. It is truly a remarkable part of our nation's heritage, and it's in the middle of our town, and that's quite extraordinary. It's an extraordinary piece of work, and it's extraordinary that it's in the middle of us, that it has been underneath us all this time. We've all known it was there. It seems to have come as a surprise only to the RMS. It's a bit like the wall at the museum. They dug and dug and lo, there was the wall that we all knew was there. And they dug and dug and there were the tunnels, and who would have thought?

I want to echo some of the things that Professor Jack has stated, that this is beyond all possible expectations, a sophisticated piece of public works. 1814. That is in a very young nation. This is a truly remarkable piece of early colonial history, the oldest piece of public infrastructure on the continent. Quite remarkable . And the other piece that I think is fascinating is that it's a major recognition of the importance of Windsor. I think we've got so used to perceiving the Hawkesbury as this little— Peri-urban fringe dwelling place on the outskirts of a major metropolis, that we forget just how vitally important it was to the colony of New South Wales. This is the place that saved the colony of New South Wales through its enterprise, through its grain, through its fertile soil, and through the work of the visionary Governor Macquarie, who sits there behind the mayor, looking down on us as we do our job as the custodians of the history that he commissioned and built for us.

And I am frankly gobsmacked that a state government who sits in another place on a street named after him would consider destroying, burying forever under three lanes of concrete, this remarkable piece of work that has survived this man. It's truly, it's gobsmacking, I think, that we would lose this tourist potential, that we would lose this unique site, that we would lose this remarkable space for a road that actually isn't going to fix anything.

Lots of people here talk up being Australian. They talk up the history of their families, their place in the Hawkesbury, their very early immigration to the Hawkesbury, the fact that their families have stayed here for a very long time. And we talk up Australia's colonial past, and yet here we have this example of some of these very things. And yet some of the very same people are happy for them to be buried, never to be seen again. The state government now has the chance to be the great saviour for this. No one's going to thank the state government for its great foresight when they're still sitting in traffic in five years' time. But many people would thank the state government if they were big enough now to say that this project shouldn't go ahead because of this remarkable discovery, that this is just too important to the story of the nation to bury for a bridge that won't fix anything.

I thank Graham Edds for bringing up the place score. Never before has a community stated that heritage has been so important to them. A large and representative sample, the highest ever score for heritage on the Place Score survey, a well-regarded university-backed tool looking into what is important to the people of the Hawkesbury.

We have the chance to use this to build on for our towns, for tourism, for business in the towns, and yet here we are faced with this idea that it should just be covered over, and that in fact that's preserving it. It beggars belief that burying this under a heavy load where we can't see whether it's been preserved, and Mr Edds outlined that very clearly, that once we cover this up, we can't determine whether we are protecting this or not. And yet it seems that the state government, the ultimate custodians of this, and I reiterate, state heritage-listed site, are happy for this to happen. And I want to close by contrasting our plight with Nowra. So Nowra has a fairly attractive, I suppose, if you're into the industrial-era steel bridge, historic bridge that runs across the Shoalhaven River.

And they've just, the RMS has just said that they'll retain that bridge, but also replace it with something that better meets traffic needs. It's going to cost $15 to $25 million to retain that bridge. I'll say that again, $15 to $25 million. And it's going to cost another $300,000 per year to maintain it. And yet, the RMS hasn't spent that much money in two decades looking after a bridge that carries a huge volume of traffic every day and has a state heritage listing on it to boot. B-double trucks, the load limit raised, no $300,000 for us. In the words that a resident sent me today, what have we done to be treated so shabbily? And in fact, what has the history of this nation done to be treated so shabbily by this state government?

This notice of motion calls us to urgently contact, not next week, not in a month's time, urgently, before these drains are buried forever, and ask the relevant ministers, both state and federal, to take heed of the information that Professor Jack has put forward in his expert opinion and to do something about it. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to clarify first, I think early this year we had a motion that went through that asked for the building of the bridge to be suspended until— The archaeological work was completed

There was another motion coming through from Councillor Wheeler, I think, and I added that point on the end of it. So I'm just clarifying that that is still our position.

Well, I'll let you look for it while I keep talking.

Okay.

What I'm worried about, Madam Mayor, is even though I agree with what Councillor Wheeler is saying, I don't think this motion spits it out. It just sort of implies that we should

Preserve the brick barrel drain or that we should have it open and being used for tourism or archaeology, but it doesn't say that in the motion. All it asks us to do is, in the bottom of point 3, it asks us to send that to those people and ask them for a comment. Point 1 asks us to receive Professor Jack's report , point 2 asks us to disseminate the information, and point 4 asks us to disseminate the information. The only action there is asking for a comment, and I would like to see this made a bit stronger so that we actually state a position, whether that position be that we investigate whether it can be used for, as Mr. Redd said, an archaeological tourist site. If that's our position, then I think we should be pushing it here and saying it now, rather than just implying that something should happen.

I can predict when you ask for comment from most of those people on that list. I can predict what the comment will be. Thank you for your letter. We will look into it. So, I would—I'm just suggesting to Councillor Wheeler that, no, I'm not going to change. I'm just suggesting that you think about maybe changing it to put a bit of bite into it and say exactly what we would like to do. And as I said, I do support what Councillor Wheeler was saying, and I do support the motion. A couple of months ago, I was fortunate enough to have some overseas visitors visiting us, and I said to them, I'm really jealous of the fact that in Europe you can go to places that are built in the 1400s and you can look at really old buildings, and our history isn't as old as that.

And they said, No, no, it's the other way around. We're really jealous because here in Australia, you can see your original history. You can see the original colonial history, and you can also see a lot of the Indigenous history. In Europe, it doesn't go back to the original state. They don't see that. So they're actually very jealous of what we've got, and in fact the fact that we have the chance to protect that and keep it forever, where theirs has gone. So some people say, Well, it's only 200 years old. It's not real history, but in fact it is real history, and we have, as custodians, we have the chance to keep it for future generations, and the people in Europe couldn't do that for a whole lot of reasons, including World War One and World War Two.

So, yeah, I do support the motion. I'm just hoping Councillor Wheeler can... Do a bit more than just ask for comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. I might just have clarification on what the motion was that we passed earlier this year.

So there were,

On the evening, there are a number of motions passed in sequence rather than all at once, and the first motion, I think, is the motion that's on the screen now.

And that's the one that requests the delay in the tendering process.

For which did we have a response?

No, not yet.

No.

Yes. Yes. So no response received from, actually from any of the letters that have been sent about it from anybody, as far as I know.

Perhaps Councillor Wheeler would like to build on that or reiterate

That. She might do. I'll take Councillor—she's onto it. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Worthy colleagues, could I also make a suggestion that I believe towards the end of calendar 2016 there was a notice of motion passed by Council in relation to the Windsor Bridge project, and I'm wondering if it would not be, on this occasion, a good time at which to reiterate that, which I think was a very definite proposition of

Disbanding, pardon me, option one. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I think you mean the one where Council restated its position to oppose the bridge replacement. That's

The one you're referring

To.

No, I'm sorry, Mayor, I didn't mean to interrupt. It was the first occasion on which the new Council— I

Think it was November 2016. I

Believe so—in which the new Council stated its position as a new Council, which overrode previous positions of previous councils.

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

I'd like to discuss— I have a lot to say, obviously, but I want to see what Councillor Wheeler's amendments are going to be before I say whether I agree or disagree with the motion and speak. Can we wait till that's up on the board? Certainly. Just have a little chat amongst yourselves for a minute.

Should I read that out?

I might just read out Councillor Wheeler's for the gallery, in case they can't see. I'll read out what it's been amended to. It's in point 3 of the motion that's in the business paper, in the notice of motion. And so point 3 will read that the Council urgently contacts the list of people included who are ministers and federal and state ministers and the Premier, requesting that they receive the information and asking for comment on the current and proposed damage to the drains and wider square, and requesting an immediate halt to works to enable the exposed drains to remain uncovered—

And there's a little impediment, one moment. Thank you, Jodie— and requesting an immediate halt to works to enable the exposed drains to remain uncovered and conserved for their archaeological, education and tourism potential. That's the amended section . Are you happy with that, Councillor Garo? Councillor Ross, it would be. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Are you happy with that? You're the seconder of the motion. Are you happy with that amendment, which I just read out, which is up there, point 3?

It's adding on another bit that we request an immediate halt to works to enable the exposed drains to remain uncovered and conserved for their archaeological, education and tourism potential. Are you happy with the change? Thank you.

Mayor?

Well, you're the seconder. I just want to know

If you're happy. Thank you. In part, I do commend , if it's possible, to also make note of the fact that Council has already adopted a very strong position on this at the end of 2016, and this is not a new element .

So you're speaking about the opposition to the project as a whole, as affirmed in November 2016?

Yes, that is correct. The notice of motion that was passed by Council.

Perhaps Councillor Wheeler could introduce her notice of motion with reiterating that statement, if that would help. I'm happy with that, Madam Mayor. So new point one, that Council reiterates its objection to the Windsor Bridge replacement project and calls for an immediate halt to that project. And then one becomes two, and so on. So on. Now you're happy.

Could I further suggest that in the point which I accept from my fellow Councillor Wheeler, that the date of that meeting be also included in that point? I

Believe it's November 2016, but we can confirm that

Yes, I couldn't quite find it on the hub. Yeah

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Richards, do you want to resume the floor? Yes,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to thank all the speakers tonight who definitely gave us some professional and expert advice and opinion into these brick barrel drains. But I must actually state that the addition to point three, I mean, with all of the additions now, I certainly cannot be supporting this motion at all. Surprise. But the assertion in point three of— we're councillors, we're not historians, and we are already putting in there a concrete sentence to say that the work has to halt to enable to expose—sorry, can't see the words.

Thank you, Mr

Owens . Drains to remain uncovered and conserved. So we are putting in that point four there, that the drains have to remain uncovered. I don't think that's up to us to say that they have to remain uncovered when there's advice out there by professionals saying that those drains remaining uncovered is actually going to be detrimental to keeping them intact. So I think that's a poor choice of words because we shouldn't be making that assertion until we have proper qualified advice from professionals. But that's certainly an issue I have with that. And if Council's certainly going to make point one, reiterating the fact that they don't support the project, then of course I won't be supporting this notice of motion.

It's quite clear that I am in the minority voice in this room tonight, but I can tell you now I am not the minority voice in the growing number of residents who are now not afraid to speak out and support this project.

Councillor Wheeler, you've made some great points tonight about our heritage value and about the precinct and things like that, and I will commend where that is deserved. However, we do differ greatly on our interpretation of the future of that area. Preservation is important, and what the RMS has suggested to do at this point in time—in their, I've got it up here, their March update, I think it is—they've put that publicly out to the community that they will be—there's a diagram there where they've amended the design of what they want to do to keep that barrel drain in place. So essentially by doing that, it means that the project can still proceed and go ahead, and that project is about forward planning for the safety of our residents.

Madam Mayor, please, I'm allowed to have the floor without the consistent badgering from the gallery, please. To say that the bridge won't fix anything, as Councillor Wheeler said, is not true. As an avid crosser of that bridge, and Mr Nicholson can attest to that, he sees me daily. Only yesterday, I sat behind a truck who had to wait for another truck to come across before it could. That is— Sorry.

Please

Councillor Richards , proceed on. Thank you. I hope that's the last time.

I sat yesterday behind a truck waiting for another truck to cross. If regardless of anyone else has seen trucks continuously cross each other, that's what happened yesterday. That goes to my point of saying why we need a safer crossing of the Hawkesbury in Windsor.

As I continue, I do want to clarify what I'm about to say with this. Just because I support the replacement bridge project, note key word replacement, it does not mean I do not value the entire colonial precinct around Thompson Square and what these images here say is or was Thompson Square, and I'm so keen to keep investigating that. And of course, the Aboriginal significance of the area, because I do. I just have a difference of opinion as to the value of the new bridge to the improvement of safety and reliability in crossing the Hawkesbury River. And guess what? I'm entitled to that opinion, just as many are entitled to have their protest tent there under the police provisions, although not entitled to the visual pollution of the signage that continuously covers the area, despite Council asking it to be pulled down.

I would also like to take the opportunity here to encourage very strongly the use of less violent language to be used amongst a family precinct. The words rape, dead and war is terribly unnecessary. Put your light on, Councillor Ross.

I have point of order. What

Is your point of order?

Relevance.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I'll continue talking about

Drains. I have to rule on the point of order. Councillor Ross, state your point on what relevance.

Discussions about signs and language, I don't see as being relevant to the matter under consideration , Madam. Thank you. Well

It is part of the— Yeah, it's not actually a point of order. You can call a point of misrepresentation if you feel that's the way. Excuse me, Madam Mayor, part of the notice of motion— Councillor Richards, I'm just dealing with the point, which is not a point of order as a point of order. But if you're claiming misrepresentation, you may address that after Councillor Richards finishes. Oh,

Thank you, I shall.

Thank you. Continue, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. On that point, if the motion now states its opposition to the construction of the Windsor Bridge replacement project, then I believe that the elements that I am drawing on now actually are relevant to the debate. But essentially, the original part of tonight's motion was about drains. The brick barrel drains uncovered only, and I emphasise only, due to the bridge project and the associated earthworks. If that was not occurring, you would never be seeing them now. You would only be guessing that they were there. You have the project to thank for that. So, now that they have been discovered, it is going to be the topic amongst historians of what to do with this find. As I said before, the RMS has issued in its March 28 update on this specific topic.

It states that the drains will stay in place. Part of the box drains above will be removed, but the brick barrel drains will remain. The project will now be designed around it. And while I am still in the process of doing all of my independent research into Thompson Square and the drains, I am keen to know more and I am keen to keep learning, even if I have a difference of opinion on the outcome. Now , that is why I asked the questions that I did tonight. I am keen to verify from local historians on both sides of the fence where Thompson Square is. Where did Lachlan Macquarie declare the site in 1811? Was the current site ever called Thompson Square prior to the sign being moved there in 1935, or prior to the street name change in 1988?

The conclusion I come to here is that the whole precinct has been a changing and evolving space. The new bridge is just another chapter in its lifetime. I’m not going to get into the debate about the tourism impacts of the brick barrel drains. As people know, I certainly have a very keen interest in tourism, in promoting this area, sitting on a couple of boards, the Dominic Perrottet Tourism Board, where we have some really, really exciting things to deliver to the Tourism Committee of Council.

Madam Mayor— Point of order again.

What is it, Councillor

What’s the point? What’s the point of order?

Irrelevance.

No, that’s not a point— Relevance is not a point of order, Councillor. I’m sorry, point four, last two words,

Tourism potential.

That’s what I’m talking about. Continue , Councillor Richards . Thank you very much

So the discovery of those drains as a tourism element, I think that can still be debated, but that's certainly not going to be the entire solution to making sure that Windsor comes alive and delivers us a boost in the tourism dollar. In conclusion, I was actually going to ask tonight to have the motion broken down into Siriatta, but now with all those additional inclusions, I'm just not going to support it. I was keen to support part one. The original part two asked to disseminate the information to the community, doesn't say how. Was there ever an indication as to how that was going to be done? You can answer that in your right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. I'm not sure what that was going to imply, but I'm not sure that was not going to have any financial implications.

The original point three discussed proposed damage, asking for comment and the current and proposed damage. How do we know what the proposed damage is going to be? So I think that that was important to clarify. I certainly wasn't going to agree with sending the information to the New South Wales Upper House inquiry after we've already had an agreement by the Land and Environment Court. That was certainly on the process, I understand that, but saying that there was nothing wrong with the project going ahead. So I have no doubt that subcontracted heritage experts will ensure that they're in their professionalism that the drains are properly analysed, dated and catalogued for historical purposes.

The bridge design has been amended to ensure the brick barrel drain is left in situ and protected. Exposure to weather and possible flood would be detrimental to its preservation, but I'm also happy to receive further proper historical advice on that. I note the RMS says that any significant discoveries will be analysed by archaeological staff, and a final report will be prepared on the results of that excavation. Therefore, I look forward to that report and to the replacement bridge being built for a safer, more reliable crossing of the Hawkesbury River in Windsor. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Councillor Ross , you may raise your point of misrepresentation to be ruled on.

Thank you. The entire speech is one of misrepresentation, Madam.

But specifically— Sorry, can I just stop you there? There's a matter of opinion, and there's misrepresentation. Misrepresentation relates to if Councillor Richards has said something that you believe was misrepresenting something. From what I gather, Councillor Richards gave—

Misrepresenting a factual matter? Well

I think Councillor Richards gave an opinion, but if you have a fact to raise, you can raise that fact.

Yes. The fact is that, for one, in regard to the brick barrel drains, RMS or their agents have tampered with them, have destructed— I

Never made it— I'm sorry,

Councillor Ross, I think you may want to raise your opinion as your opinion in your speech, I think, because I am ruling that what Councillor Richards, even if you don't agree with it, I think Councillor Richards gave an opinion on what her interpretation is. So would you like to speak on the matter, and I'll rule it was not misrepresentation because it was an opinion being given. So you're quite entitled to now give your opinion if you'd like to proceed.

Okay. This is an opinion about an opinion.

In the first instance, the attempt to redraw the

Extent to which Thompson Square was proclaimed by Macquarie is specious.

Point of order, I never— Well, what are we going to do here? Because he's putting words in my mouth. Councillor Richards

Well, just— Councillor Ross is now giving his opinion, okay? He doesn't agree with what you've brought

Up about— I did not try to redraw the boundaries of Thompson Square. No, you

Asked a question about the boundaries. That was Councillor Richards' question. Councillor Ross, you can say where you believe the boundary is. Go right ahead and deliver your opinion on it. Thank you.

The very minimal established , if you like, area of Thompson Square is that which was declared, I think, in 1988 by the state government as being a state heritage significant area. That is that. Our learned colleagues may, upon further investigation and maybe over time, if further documents and history are able to be revealed from Trove or state archives or wherever, may reveal that the extent of Thompson Square was actually somewhat closer to South Creek than the current state significant area. Then we look at the brick barrel drains and their construction with bricks. It was supposed by my learned colleague that— These

Are in grave danger unless we return them to obscurity .

I reject that argument. Reject that point of view entirely. We have such robust physical above-ground demonstrations within Thompson Square itself, to it, the wall of the Macquarie Arms Hotel, and

Surrounding buildings, some of which are of that era, including the current Crowsley Shipley construction on the single-level structure there within Thompson Square precinct. That is a fallacy. It is also a fallacy to say that if they are exposed, they are going to depreciate rather remarkably rather quickly. Upon what do you base that? It's not based on any scientific or evidentiary material. To my knowledge, there has been none

Obtained from any respectable source to indicate that they are going to be subject to that. In fact, they may even be sufficiently robust to last many hundreds of years with barely minimal preservation activity.

There are a whole region of things that

Fail in the

Propositions put forward. The current bridge is perfectly safe.

Inexperience or incompetence on the part of a particular driver, or nervousness on a part of a particular driver, may show a lack of skill rather than a lack of bridge capacity or width. They seem to manage to get across Buttsworth Creek quite okay. You might have a think about that, and the comparison in width between Buttsworth Creek and the current Windsor Bridge. The other elements, of course, are that not only is this

Rapacity of the RMS being supported by you, there is no guarantee, as was pointed out by our venerable professional folk here, and particularly Mr. Eds, that if they pier and bridge this brick barrel drain, there is no guarantee that the vibrations resulting both from the construction itself and then subsequently traffic will not have a severe impact. If you would care to read the professional reports that were produced and are available in the period up to 2012, it was noted that option one, going ahead, will cause potentially very great damage to the footings and structures of those buildings adjoining Bridge Street. That is fact, and they have stated that in black and white. These are state government advisory people, not us, not the community.

Then we'd go further down towards the river. Well, not only is option one just handling the brick barrel drains, but it also wants to tidy up the Greenway wharf and the residue there. And some of our good community folk have , through their own time and effort, allowed the public to see the remnant timbers from the wharf that are still in place. They also get affected. I'm afraid that my colleague is speaking purely from a political point of view, and without respect for our worthy contributions from our historians and public who, in the main, in excess of 90 percent, reject this project. And she might have had further colleagues here in this place had she and her group decided to have a slightly different campaign at the 2016 election, as would you might have had a slightly different outcome in a federal election in 2017.

They all bear thinking about, and I suggest also that there might also be a different outcome in 2019. Because of this absolute rapacity of a government who has no regard for either community, history or heritage. And the same has occurred, and the same is going on in regard to the wretched heightening of the Warragamba Dam. They are deplorable projects, deplorable. And I'm very happy to stand with Councillor Wheeler and support this notice of motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

If I might coin a phrase, you spend 40 years waiting for a bridge, and then three of them come along at once. And what I'm referring to is the announcement yesterday of corridor reservation for the Castlereagh route, which includes a major new crossing of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, somewhere around Castlereagh, and a major new crossing of the Grose River, not far from where we are already planning to build a bridge in the not too distant future. I, in addressing this issue in the past, have always made the caveat that I supported the current government's proposal to build a new bridge at Windsor because it was the only offer on the table. It was the only bridge that had a real chance of being built within our time, that the planning was well along, that the money had been committed for its construction.

That's still Almost mostly the case, I am intrigued by the announcement that the government made yesterday because it is a commitment for major new crossings of our local rivers.

It's interesting to me that they've made these corridor reservations based on some knowledge of origin-destination need, which is precisely the information that we have been seeking at some cost through our own regional traffic study, which is not complete.

So maybe it is time to pause and take stock of the implications of a new commitment to crossings of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River and the Grose River by the government, but within what time frame? If the time frame indicated is 15 or 20 years, then we still need to proceed with the Windsor Bridge as it stands, because we need a traffic solution now—not a perfect solution, but a solution nevertheless. I concede the historic importance of what's been uncovered in Thompson Square, but I remember reading that these were unfired bricks, and I think that part of the correspondence that might be engaged in will seek some clarity about the tourism potential of these exposed brick barrel drain remains, because if they are unfired, there would need to be an assessment of their fragility and their long-term exposure in an area that's susceptible to flood.

It could be that we will destroy this heritage even more completely than by covering it up. If we leave it exposed and these unfired bricks are left exposed to the next flood event, which will inevitably come, and that they dissolve away and are destroyed and work contrary to our purpose to conserve them permanently. I'm going to request, Madam Mayor, that we do consider this notice of motion in serio. I'm going to support all except point four.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you for that, and I do agree with that. I might just address a couple of points that you raised regarding the term that we wait 40 years for a bridge, then we get three at once. We're definitely not getting three at once. We're not really getting any improved ones at the moment, and the announcement of the corridors is very symbolic of the absolute mismatch of what's been happening with infrastructure in this area. I found an email I'd sent in 2009 the other day asking, could we look holistically at crossing, getting people from one side of the river to the other side of the river, and pooling the resources that were being bandied around at that time into—that was after the proposal for the Nepean Bridge—into getting one decent crossing that would improve the traffic and that would set us up more for the future.

But that has never been looked at, and then we've had the government sitting on these various corridors, and they've chosen to announce them yesterday. But announcing them yesterday does not mean that they're imminent by any means. So we're still really back to the uncertainty of when we might get something when, and still carrying on with the investigations into the proposed crossing of the Grose River. Connected to the Redbank development, but I would think that there would have to be some form of discussion around that. I don't think you would have two bridges within fairly close proximity. That would be a bit of overkill after not having anything there. But anyway, that's something to look at into the future.

I think that it would be better if everything was put on hold and, for once, we did actually look to a solution, where in our local government area, we've got two exits out of a city that's set to be growing by over three quarters of a million people in the years to come, and the government is not giving us any certainty of any upgrades or improvements to allow people to exit the city in any shape or form. All we've got is one bridge proposal that will add one lane going one way, and that's not going to alleviate any of the traffic. And in the process, that is going to irreversibly alter the authenticity of the heritage precinct in Windsor, which, as Councillor Wheeler stated so well, has, you know, has a huge amount of significance and importance in this, not just in this area, but in the whole of the wider Sydney area.

Now you see in areas like Camden and Liverpool, the preservation and the conservation of historic buildings and precincts to enhance their area and to show the possibilities of having new developments and things in close proximity to other developments. But the presence of a big concrete monstrosity going right through the middle of a precinct that's intact at the moment of Georgian buildings that is intact now, dissecting it with that concrete sort of monolith going through, is just destroying the integrity of that heritage, and so therefore not allowing us to capitalise on it for our tourism or for our people or, in fact, for the future generations to enjoy. So, as Professor Jack and Mr. Ed said, this is a highly significant find, and it's not a minor find.

It's a valuable, valuable find, and it's a portrayal of our early colonial infrastructure, which— Some people may not think that's important, but maybe it's just as you get older and you think more about those things, or maybe it's when you travel and see the value when you see older things in other countries. But it really is something that people do enjoy understanding, and we are so fortunate that we are the young country that can preserve our original examples of things. I was at Rose Cottage the other day, and of course it's such a prime example of the earliest intact timber slab building in its original spot. And I mean, the people that were there celebrating that came from all over the world, not just all over Australia.

And so it's a really valid and viable means of allowing people to have a bit of a glimpse into our past. And if we lose that, we lose our chance to ever make Windsor that special place that it could be by capitalising and embracing on the history that it has. And we're selling it out for something that's a half-baked solution that's not going to—it's not going to deliver for us anything into the future. While we've got a government that's hell-bent on a big infrastructure spend and who's wanting to build a mega city right on our doorstep, then we need to be demanding that we at least have the proper exits out of the city, and for our people and the people that visit our city and for the people that want to access the Western New South Wales areas and so on, that people have a proper means of doing that.

And this will be public expenditure on this project, and once that's gone, that's gone, and we then have to wait around for, you know, these things that maybe may or may not ever eventuate from these corridor announcements that came out. And I just don't know that we should sit back and take that. Well, we know that most of us in here don't think we should sit back and take that as being touted as a solution for this community, to be given something like that and have it branded a solution when we are told the bridge is not unsafe, when we're told that the traffic is already at capacity at both of our river crossings. So therefore we need to stand up and try and get the best solution for this community, keep a local bridge and get one of these proposed extra crossings to be done in a reasonable amount of time to really give a solution to the traffic and to allow people to be able to access the other parts of New South Wales by passing through and hopefully visiting and enjoying what we have to offer, specifically in Windsor where we have preserved and conserved our heritage as a fine example of early colonial life for people to see and, of course, equally our Indigenous heritage, which we already do preserve and direct people to see.

So I think that Councillor Wheelers' motion, with the additions from Councillor Calvert and Councillor Ross, are good. I think the message is getting out there. There's a lot of discussion. I go to a lot of things with mayors from other places and with a lot of people from other places, and people talk about this. And to be quite frank, there are people in absolute disbelief from all political sides of the field that this is actually proceeding when we have a chance to preserve it and to call on the government to do much better. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Councillor Kotlash

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of the motion, although I'm not happy about 0.4. I think we need to send a much stronger message than we have. And what I'd like to see us put there is to have 0.4 divided up into possibly federal and state. Messages , because I recall early in the piece we sent, and I think we sent, a letter to the Honourable Josh Frydenberg about getting an emergency listing for Thompson Square. Now , at the time, I think that was—I don't know what happened about that—but I think the upshot was that, no, it didn't deserve emergency listing. So I think instead of writing to them asking them for comments and to take on board what we've said, I'd like to ask them what would constitute an emergency listing.

It seems to me that we've uncovered a most remarkable structure that has so much value. Now, if that doesn't deserve emergency listing, what does? I mean, what else is going to be so important that it justifies emergency listing? So I'd like to have that answered. And also, surely it's of national significance. So for the federal ministers, and for the Prime Minister indeed as well, I'd like to ask them at their level what they think of this proposal. And also I think we should include Professor Jack's report, lots of photos, how we might make this a tourism mecca . It might be such an exciting thing for Hawkesbury, and I think that they have to know that. For the state ministers, possibly the same thing.

But I don't, I suppose without the explaining why it isn't an emergency listing on a federal level, I don't think we need to send this to Susan Templeman. I think her views on this particular issue are quite clear. Possibly we should send a note in point three to Alan Jones as part of being the wider media, since he seems to be involved in this debacle . The other thing that I'd also like to say is I think we should say we need a stop to works, and I agree with Councillor Zamprogno that we need to figure out what we're going to do next. We've found this gem, we've found this really very important piece of colonial heritage. Now we really need to know what to do with it. It's precious. We have to have our experts figure out what is the best thing to do with it.

I mean, I can't imagine that's covering it up, but anyway, whatever that might be. I don't think we're as councillors are in a position to say either way what that might be. So if Councillor Wheeler wouldn't mind, would be able to split point four to be a bit more explicit and to ask the questions about emergency listing and about national significance. I haven't got words. Can we make the words up now? Going on from— Requesting that they receive the information and ask, not asking, and ask for comment on the current and proposed damage to the drains and the wider square doesn't quite do it for me. So we could possibly change that to request

That the Honourable Josh Frydenberg explain why Thompson Square does not meet the criteria for being listed as an emergency listing for national significance or national heritage significance. I think I'd send that to the Prime Minister as well as Josh Frydenberg. Then we could send a letter to the state ministers asking for an immediate halt to works while we get further information about the conservation and heritage and tourism ramifications of this significant find, or something to that effect. Is anybody else going to help me out on this? No? Go on. And to the media, I think I'd send all of the above

To every media outlet we can get our letters out to.

Is that enough, do you think? Councillor Wheeler, are you happy with those? I'm just waiting to

See it.

Yeah.

Sorry, that was a bit off the top of the... So if we could just get that on the screen, we can maybe

Massage that a bit.

To

Be a bit stronger. I believe, in response to the letter sent to Mr Freidenberg, that he answered saying that clearly, I would imagine it wasn't going to be an emergency listing because one would assume an emergency happened, like there and then, but that he inferred it was being required further investigation. So it was really no specifics about that, but no clearly worded— So

Now we've actually got some evidence. Yes, so this is the difference. You're quite right. This is the part where we crack on with an emergency, I expect.

Does anyone else want to say anything while we're waiting on the wording? Councillor Garrow.

Could we possibly ask for them to reconsider prior to reporting back?

Reconsider

The emergency listing followed by the rest. Yes

Can I ask a question while we're waiting? Yes. Is there any international, I don't know who this is directed at, but— Maybe, Mr. Owens. Is there any international bodies that help deal with a country's significant heritage? Is there international— do we have—?

Yeah.

Is that a

Tricky one, sorry. Mr. Owens?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think there is a body that we did actually write to previously about this, but I'd have to—

There was the World Monument. We did apply for the World Monument, but there is another international organisation that's actually coming here, I think in 2020. ICOMOS. Madam Mayor, you have a member of that committee seated in the audience who addressed us before. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Edds. Mr. Edds, could you just alert us to what the international body is and what they're responsible for?

Well, the international body is, of course, International ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, which has an Australian organisation, the Australia ICOMOS, and they're the ones that are hosting the General Assembly in 2020. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. How are you on the words there now, Councillor Beller?

So I think point four, to requesting that they reconsider the emergency national listing.

In light of

Professor Jack's information

In light of the findings and the interpretation, Professor Jack's interpretation of the finding, because we want them to know that we have the finding now, so we have the significant heritage item now , and Professor Jack has interpreted that significance, and we ask them to reconsider that.

And I think the second part of that is an attempt to elicit from the Minister why this has not met the requirements for an emergency listing. So perhaps we could ask for

Clarification of why this item is not worthy of emergency national listing, given

Its obvious significance.

Sorry to labour this, Madam Mayor, but I think it's really important— It is important. —that we get this

Done . Labour with you.

Can I add to point four that we also send the member for Macquarie, the Honourable Susan Templeman, leave her in point four. It's a matter of courtesy to the federal member. She's also spent quite a lot of time prosecuting the national listing to the minister, so far to no avail.

Thank you. So are we happy with that wording now?

Councillor Ross, are you reading this because you're the seconder, so you can confirm that that's fine . It's not the insertion.

We could have a little break and have a game of Pokemon Go or something. Some people seem to be playing. Sorry? No.

People want that? All right, we might have

A five-minute adjournment.

We can have a five-minute adjournment if anyone wants to grab a cup of tea, so we can allow them to fix up the wording.

Back at a quarter to nine. Thanks.

We'll start back up again. I think the motion's just about ready to go.

Would you like me to read it out, Councillor Wheeler, what's there? So the change to number five, the item five—oh, four. Oh, so we've got a four, five and six. The changes that Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Kotlash, thank you for working on those. Number four is that Council urgently contacts the Prime Minister, the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg, the Member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, requesting: A, information from the Australian Heritage Council as to why the initial request for emergency listing was refused; B, request that in light of the archaeological findings of the brick barrel drains, that emergency listing be urgently considered; and then point five is to urgently contact the Premier, the local member, the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Heritage, requesting A, they receive the information and ask for comment on the current and proposed damage to the drains and wider square; and B, immediately halt works —I think there's an extra two in there—immediately halt works and to further investigate the options needed for the conservation, preservation and realisation of tourism and educational potential.

Were they the only two clauses that were changed? Okay, so Councillor Ross, are you okay with those now as seconder?

Yes, thank you.

Yes, you're okay with that?

Councillor Kotlash. Just on the bottom of point—at the end of point four, rather— listing... Be urgently reconsidered.

That's all. Okay, thank you. So I think we're right now. Okay. Now, is there any further discussion before Councillor Wheeler's right of reply? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor, and I do so need it, Deputy Mayor. It's heckling me from the sidelines.

Where to start? This is one of those projects where everyone's got an opinion, and I think it's worth noting that opinions are not facts. On the subject of safety, there are a couple of real furphies that go around with this project, and more so with this bit of the project. On the subject of safety of the bridge, the RMS's own documents state that this bridge is safe. They have demonstrated that safety by increasing the load limit several times to now allowing B-doubles on the bridge. Not one B-double at a time, but as many B-doubles as can squish themselves on there. That's not the mark of a bridge that's in imminent danger of falling into the river. No one is saying that we don't need another crossing.

The argument is around when and where that crossing should be built. This isn't another crossing. This is just a slightly wider bridge feeding into the same narrow bottleneck intersection. The lanes on Macquarie Street are just as narrow as the lanes on the bridge, and they won't be widened. There's nowhere to widen them. Neither will the lanes on Buttsworth Creek be widened. And I remind people who don't cross it regularly, Buttsworth Creek doesn't even have a lane for cyclists or pedestrians. If you want to walk or ride on Buttsworth Creek, you just have to stick your head down and go like the clappers in between the cars as they come at you.

It's

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by the idea that these drains are only important because we dug them up as part of this project, and we should actually be grateful that we stumbled across them. Just because we found them because of the bridge doesn't mean that we should build over them again . When we know better, we should do better. We know better now.

This is what to do with these tunnels is a matter of urgent importance. They are already covering them over. They have been covered with geotech fabric today. They will begin covering them with soil tomorrow.

The borders of Thompson Square have been redrawn, and that somehow relates, that that somehow means that this space is more or less valuable is yet another furphy. We've got the words of local historians, well-intentioned, well-meaning, but largely based on oral history and conjecture, versus a well-researched professor of history.

The whole precinct is clearly documented. It's one of the remarkable things about these drains is that we can trace them right back to their original contracts, not just for the drains and the building of them, but for the bricks that made them. Truly remarkable for such an early piece of work in a colony that was still paying for stuff with rum. I mean, just think about that. Half the price of these drains. was organised in Rum. That's the state of the colony at that point. The boundaries of Thompson Square are quite well recorded. The people who did that are sitting in this room at the moment. To say that, to basically imply that they don't know what they're on about is unbelievable. It is rude.

I thank Councillor Kotlash for her efforts on point four and five, and Councillor Calvert for his. I think the notice of motion in its original form actually reflects my despair at this project, our powerlessness at the hands of the state government. The archaeological work has been completed on these drains. They are being covered over. I don't mean that they should sit there uncovered and just be eroded by the elements. That's a ludicrous proposition. Uncovered and conserved was the sentence that I used. I think it's much better in its present form, and I'm always happy to work towards a better motion that's based on the ideas of more than just me rattling around trying to get something in by five o'clock on the preceding Tuesday. So thank you for your input.

We have been rendered powerless in this project. We've asked repeatedly for this to be stopped. We've asked repeatedly for a better solution for both the town of Windsor and the wider Hawkesbury community and for the heritage of this country. But nothing has changed. No emergency listing. No reply apart from Susan Templeman. Repeatedly. So I do want comment, and that's why I've left that in the notice of motion. I don't want a polite fob off. I don't want some staffer sending us a pat letter to say, yeah, we received your correspondence, and we'll put it in the round filing cabinet, and we might get back to you in a couple of years' time when it's all over.

Because we've had years of that, and we deserve better. So I want these custodians of this place to tell us why they're making these appalling decisions about the protection of the heritage of this country and this place. It doesn't matter if these were smuggler's tunnels or not. It doesn't matter if they're the rum drains or not. What's remarkable is the fabric and building detailed by Professor Jack's work. The Heritage Advisory Committee is a remarkable committee. It's large, and it has an extraordinary breadth and depth of expertise, and we are really, really lucky that these people give their time to advise Council on matters such as this. Going to the site was very emotional for members of the committee. I thank them for their work and their passion, and I hope that this notice of motion actually does something to save this extraordinary space. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. We've

Had a request to look at, to consider the points of the motion in seriatim, so we shall begin with point one, and I'll ask that you clearly raise your hand for each of the points so that I can see. All those in favour of point one? Against? Point one is carried. Point two. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Point three. In favour? The motion is carried. Point four. All those in favour?

The motion is carried. Point five, all those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Point six, all those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. That's six of them. So the motion is carried in its entirety. That is the end of that item. Could I have some—

That item, could I have someone move the items on block? Moved Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Zamprogno.

Know all those in favour. We'll move back now to item 73. It wasn't called up, but we need a decision on that.

Someone move the— oh, thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Please return.

Someone to move item 73.

Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Calvert. Discussion?

No discussion. It's, Councillor Richards, right of reply not necessary. It's a planning item.

We'll vote on the count of three. One, two, three.

For the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree absent. Thank you. Next item is item—

77. The Human Services, Councillor Calvert moved.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think Mr. Wern has got a—

An alternate wording

Alternate motion.

Okay.

Recommendation.

I'd like to move what's on the board, points one and two, thanks.

Okay. Councillor Calvert is moving point one or two. That's different from the one in here.

Yes. Seconded.

Seconded Councillor Richards. Councillor Calvert.

I don't really have anything to say on the minutes. I will have a lot to say on the working group report when it comes back at the next meeting, so I'll save that till then.

Okay. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Where are we up to? Hang on. That's my page. Item 79, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move—

The recommendation. And seconder ? Seconder, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to make a few points in favour of this Notice of Motion. I got my inspiration for it from the climate change conference that Councillor Wheeler and I recently attended. There were a lot of great talks from a lot of experts, but one particular message has stuck with me, and that was that while the Paris Agreement has resulted in pledges being made to try and keep the mean temperature increase of the world below 2 degrees C by 2050, I think it is, in reality this is a bit of a furphy in terms of how this pans out on the ground. It's a mean. And the reality is that we're already experiencing extremes in weather now, and our world has only warmed by just over half a degree.

In the Northern Hemisphere there have already been instances of temperatures getting as high as 53 degrees C. So not only do we have to act rapidly to reduce our emissions, which is the first part of this Notice of Motion addresses, we need to set ourselves up to be able to handle the impacts that these extreme temperature events have on vulnerable people. It's usually the very young and the very old. I'm not sure yet what Council can do. Maybe we can open up air-conditioned Council buildings as an emergency measure. We might be able to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of many of the charities that help people in crises such as these. In any case, we must start to plan our response, and this notice of motion hopefully will help this process along by allocating adequate funding to pursue these sorts of options.

I urge you all to support this notice

Of motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I've got an additional point that I'm just madly scratching out,

If you just bear with me.

I'll just take the opportunity to thank Councillor Kotlash for bringing forward that notice of motion. Some of that, I think, will tie into our report we're doing on resilience studies and so on.

And I look forward to seeing what comes up in this regard. I think it's a good move and I think that, you know, we've got to keep pressing forward with it, and thank you for bringing it forward.

Anyone else like to say something while

We could talk about the Paris Agreement? Would you like to deliver a summary?

I'm just getting the wording on this.

Yes. While we get point four, I'll just talk to what point four is actually about and where it's come from. So part of the conference, which was both inspiring and devastating, I think, given the information that we took in.

Some councils, and councils in Victoria and South Australia in particular, due to a variety of different things, different legislation, but also a different focus from their state governments, have been able to implement some really useful programs that allow people to reduce both their emissions but also their energy costs, which is becoming an increasing problem for people, particularly people on limited incomes. So, and one of those schemes that is particularly exciting is the scheme developed by Darebin Council called Solar Savers, where they've targeted pensioners and people of low incomes in particular, where people are given access to solar panels that they can install on their roofs, that after they carry out a lot of energy-saving measures within their household, they're given access to solar panels, which they then pay off through their rates, so that there's no upfront hit to these low-income households.

It's a really, really nice model that apparently at the moment we're not able to do in New South Wales because of the way our legislation is set up. So, but rumour has it that— Those legislative changes are listed in the report on rates, the long-awaited report on rates that we've asked for already, that covers different methods of rates and different things. So point four asks for clarification from the Minister as to the legislative barriers for Council pursuing something similar to the scheme that's used in Victoria. There are councils in New South Wales as part of SSROC that are providing access to bulk buys of solar panels, but they all rely on households having enough money for an upfront payment for solar panels, and while that cost is coming down, it's still prohibitive for low-income households.

So who are the ones most hit by high power bills in areas where it's getting hotter? And that's where Melbourne, I think, provides a really nice model for Western Sydney, because their climate is very similar to ours, with extremes of heat such as we've been experiencing locally.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Would you just consider, with your point four and Councillor Kotlash overall, in writing perhaps to Local Government New South Wales to ask that they promote that as a cause in both seeking and trying to improve the legislative enabling of those sorts of things. So could we also write to the President of Local Government New South Wales?

As long as you provide the words, Madam Mayor, because I have run out.

Well, those are the words. Councillor, write to the Minister for Local Government. I'm glad that's publicly declared that you've run out of words, Councillor Wheeler. Council write to the Minister for Local Government asking for clarification on the legislative barriers to Council pursuing a VPA, and also to the President of Local Government New South Wales.

Council write to Local Government New South Wales seeking their support. In approaching—

Okay. If Council write— sorry, Jody, Council write to Local Government New South Wales

Seeking their support

In writing to the Minister for Local Government asking for clarification, et cetera, same as. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I know Councillor Connolly's not here, but I think if he was here, he'd probably say this is not a council matter. He tends to say that a lot about these issues, but I believe it is a council matter. I believe it's a whole community matter. Therefore, I would like to see something in there that talks about encouraging partnerships with other levels of government. Because,

Yes, those things there we can do, they're all things

We can do, but there's more we can do if we work with the other levels of government. I'll just put that out there for Councillor Wheeler,

Councillor Kotlash to consider.

Plus, I would like to see a more realistic return on the power that is sent back to the grid. When solar panels were first put up, they were worthwhile doing from that point of view. Now there's really not much financial incentive. What I found is, I know a lot of people who do have solar panels, and I go to their place and they've got everything running, and I say, How come you've got everything running? Oh, it's all on solar. And I said, Well, if you switch all that off, the power goes back to the grid, and the whole community is saving power. And they say, Oh, that's not my problem. If I send it back, I only get two cents, so what's the point? So, you know, I think we need that incentive to get people to send it back, and I'd like to see a better price on that. I don't know whether that fits into the motion, but I'll leave that to Councillor Kotlash to consider. Thank you

Councillor Kotlash, are you considering?

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. I would be happy to include that in the notice of motion

As possibly a separate point, because I think it's... I'm not sure who we would... I'm not sure how that would come about, but let

Me think. Put something like encourage No, I'll give it her words. Encourage partnerships with other levels of government and lobby for a greater return on the power payback to the grid.

Yes, on the payback. Okay. Further discussion?

Once that's up, would you like— do you need to wait for that, Councillor? Oh yes,

We better make sure that the i's are dotted and crossed and underlined . I can barely read that, you know. I'm really having— Dotted.

Oh, it's a bit late now. We've done and dusted.

Okay.

Good stuff. Okay.

Anybody got any other handy ideas? Might as well get them all in. Councillor? Oh, you've just repeated— Support in writing a

Relevant Commonwealth

Okay.

I think that— Same initiative with the Commonwealth Government.

Yeah, I think the thing was partnering with other levels of government.

Well, that's

Commonwealth and State, is it?

Well

You've got the State in four and the Commonwealth— Oh, okay, got

You. Josh Frydenberg again. Okay, that's good. Excellent,

Thank you.

Oh, you want Amanda— Councillor Kotlash to repeat her other point again. It was

It was the point Councillor Calvert made about partnering with other levels of government about the return on the solar.

I think it was that we seek partnerships with other levels of government to, I forget what the next word was.

Well,

I think we would, I think that would fall into part of that

Somehow. And the last part was to lobby for a greater return on power sent back to the grid from solar panels.

Mr Conroy.

If we write a letter as Hawkesbury Council, that will account for absolutely zip. We've got to work with the national and state associations, and that's where the power comes from, us working as part of that much larger group. We can write a letter tomorrow, but I know what's going to happen to it. So I think, you know, if we, the Victorian system is the outcome we're after, I gather.

Yes.

Now it's going to happen if we don't write the letter, though. Sorry? It's going to happen if we don't write the letter. True Surely if we write the letter it just states our position. It's a public statement. People can see it.

Well, if that's the objective, that's fine.

Okay, so we write with what's up there now. Consensus? Not quite. Councillor Ross.

I think the general manager's point is germane. In that these feeding tariffs should be

Subject of our industry bodies and so on

Becoming involved in the argument, because it's not purely a Hawkesbury LGA matter; it's state and national.

They are. They're included there. They're points four and five. Councillor Wheeler.

Seeking partnerships.

Councillor

Wheeler.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure point six is correct. So council

Work— I think we're talking—

I would think because the Victorian system is a greater return on— It is. — tariffs, maybe if we see what we can do in our letters.

There's two ends of that sentence that need changing, so I'm not quite sure that we are seeking partnerships with other levels of government. And I think we're lobbying for higher feed-in tariffs. I don't think greater returns is specific enough. Greater feed-in tariffs for renewable energy to the grid. Well

Yeah, but that's

But are we — Yeah, it's just need trying to be specific. Are we seeking partnership? Is that what we're supposed to be doing?

Madam Mayor, I said that about seeking partnerships before those other points came up.

Okay, so you would be happy to just incorporate. We could perhaps incorporate a specific request of seeking increased feed-in tariff. From those associations, which, as the general manager just stated, would give us more pulling power. So we could specify that as one of the items we're writing to them about.

Councillor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a point. I think we could leave it open-ended that we look into ways that we can advocate and promote those systems, like those aspects of solar power, like the feed-in tariffs, et cetera, et cetera. So we don't actually have to know who and what we're going, you know, how we're going to lobby and who we're going to lobby with.

So we would just— I think that the staff require direction in that regard. They can't just have an open-ended thing of just doing this. Well, no

I didn't mean it to be open-ended, but I guess that there are— I'm not quite sure I understand the setup of electricity tariff payback prices and how they're set and who sets them, and if we could find out who we were to lobby to, to have a say in how that's developed, when it's developed, when it changes, how it changes. It's a

Legislative

And it's a state

Legislation. And then there's the federal, of course, there's the national electricity market.

That's kind of— In the realm that I was trying to get at, I didn't mean it to be open-ended. That would be not helpful.

Councillor Wheeler. Can I suggest possible ways forward for point six? We do have existing partnerships with other councils through our RSA and through WesROC, and possibly through the City Deals, although that does have a slightly different focus, that perhaps we, that the City's Power Partnership, that we use our links with other organisations that we remember of to lobby for greater feed-in tariffs, including, if we want to specify, including WesROC and the RSA. I think it's, and I think it's, I don't know if this is the point where we foreshadow potential motions to both the Local Government Conference and the Australian Local Government Association conferences later this year, that we put up motions about those bodies lobbying for greater feed-in tariffs as well. So I don't know if this is the place that we park that, or we just have to hang on to that for later

Okay, so how are we now with that? We're right with that? Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash. Not necessary. Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Move.

Moving on, questions. We've got two sets of questions. We've got one question from the 27th of February, which was Councillor Conolly's question. Is there any question on behalf of Councillor Conolly, or does anyone have a question on that particular question on page 98?

I'll move on to...

Question on page 98.

Move on to questions on questions from the previous meeting. Any questions?

Councillor Garra. Just a question in regards to my question number one. Can we get a breakdown of which of these codes of conduct were non-founded and which were founded, and the costs related to each of those, please?

Any further questions? Councillor Ross.

Yes. Look, I've got a particular interest in question four that was initiated from Councillor Wheeler.

Is there an update that possibly the General Manager might be able to provide us, as of today, as to what responses have been had to that correspondence, please?

I've got no further update at this stage, as of today.

I take it that means nothing, no breaking news. That's correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Questions? Any further questions?

Questions? Any further questions? No further questions. Questions for next meeting: Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor. Yes,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The declared corridors that came out yesterday, perhaps everyone knows the answer to this question already, but has Council been invited to make a submission to those, and will we be making a submission?

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. No. Councillor Reynolds.

No.

Councillor Garrow.

Yes. In relation to the M9 and the Bells Line of Road corridor consultations, can I request that Council writes to Mr Perrottet and the State Government regarding: one, why are there no meetings being held for the Hawkesbury residents affected by the M9 corridor, namely the Vineyard, Oakville and Maraylya areas? Two, why has a local member met and consulted specifically with residents of Windsor Downs to ensure the route is changed, but has not with the residents of any other of the affected areas? And three, can Council make a clear statement to the community that these corridors are a State Government decision? Also, yesterday a syringe was picked up by a child at Dont Worry Oval in Windsor at the commencement of the rugby league training session. Can I please find out what procedure is for scanning of these areas prior to the hire of our spaces ? Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you. Microphone.

Thank you , Mayor. I would like to

Seek staff to be in touch with RMS in relation to two properties, cornering Bosworth Street and March Street, Richmond, which they have resumed.

My first concern is that neither property is being maintained

Outwardly, and that visual obstructions occur to drivers using that intersection.

And the second question I would like to have posed with the RMS is why would it not be possible for them to place these, what were and I presume basically are habitable properties,

Out for lease at moderate rates on a short-term or, in a sense, casual basis for less affluent members of our community?

Councillor Russell, just get confirmation on that. That may be more a notice of motion than simply questions. Mr Conroy?

Yeah, I think if it's a question that the staff can answer, it's certainly a question. But where you're asking us to make inquiries with a third party, I think that's got to be a notice of motion.

Notice of motion for the next meeting. You can submit that.

Thank you. But maybe the cleanliness of the exterior of the properties within side the boundaries may be a matter for our folk to— Give them a bit of a gee-up.

If you're asking us to clean up the nature strip

No, no, I'm asking. I don't understand why council officers can't ask the RMS to get on with it and clean the place up.

Is this the one that we've already spoken about,

Or is it a

Different one?

No, these are the two properties about which I've spoken. Okay

So I've sent the answer to. So staff are working with City West Housing and other parties to fix up those issues. So we're already implementing that. But if you want to do something more formal than that, I think it's got to be a notice of motion, not a question.

Thank you.

You're saying that both those properties are subject to work by council officers now in terms of occupancy, et cetera?

I'm saying if that's the property that you've already raised with me, then we've already pursued that. And I've given you an answer that things were going to happen this week and next week.

No, no, no, no, no, no. That was a property in South Windsor. I'm speaking about Richmond.

Okay, I think you just raise it through the councillor app and we'll take it forward that way. Otherwise it'll have to be a notice of motion. Okay

Thank you. Now, I have a question in relation to notices of motion three and six on the meeting held on the 9th of May 2017 . I'm wondering if it is not possible that a gestation and a response to those questions may be forthcoming.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Is that—

Thank you.

That's it. Can someone move, please, we go into confidential? Move Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour?

In regard to item— Mr Kennedy, if you could sit down please. In regard to item 83 , whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that: one, the acquisition of the entire property of 74 Laws Farm Road, Lower Portland, being lot 2 in Deposited Plan 774847, proceed and compensation in the amount detailed in this report be paid to the property owner; two, Council bear all costs including disturbances where applicable associated with the process of acquiring 74 Laws Farm Road, Lower Portland; three, authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; four, details of the resolution be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice the Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties; five, Council classify the property known as 74 Laws Farm Road, Lower Portland, being lot 2 in Deposited Plan 774847, as operational under section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. Meeting is finished at 9.35 pm. Thank you everyone. Thanks, and if Councillors can just wait please.