8 May - Ordinary

This evening, thank you all for coming. I'll pass over to Mr Conroy for the introduction.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their Elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with Clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings.

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person, present or not at this meeting. This request relates both to your address to Council and 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. No apologies. Everyone's here this evening. Any declarations of interest?

No declarations of interest. Could I have someone move confirmation of the meeting? The meeting, we've got two sets of minutes we've got from the extraordinary meeting on the 9th of April. Moved Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour? The motion is carried. And from the minutes from the ordinary meeting of the 10th of April.

Moved

Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Thank you. We'll move on to—

The item subject to public address, I'd just like to move a procedural motion to, and I'll need a seconder, to move item 115 — seconder, Councillor Garrow, thank you — to move item 115 to be heard first , one of the speakers, and we send our congratulations. His wife has just had a baby, just in the last week, so we will move that to the top of the list. So we have three speakers on that item. It's the rescission motion, resolution 375. Our first speaker is Brian McCabe.

Thank you. Madam Mayor and Councillors, I'm speaking for the rescission motion, but before I start, I'd like to apologise for being late to the last meeting. I wasn't able to speak then. We're not here to speak about Facebook. We're not here to speak about bringing up the kids in the valley. We're not here to discuss whether you live in the valley or just holiday there. We're here to discuss the facts pertaining to the CMP that was approved on the 28th of November. As soon as I was aware of this approval, I wrote to the Mayor, each and every councillor here, the General Manager, and the council staff, noting my objections and why. The full 12 reasons are public and can be found on the Council Tracker website.

Does the Council wish to endorse the continuation of the myths and flippant comments about the church, some old, like the 500 parishioners to obtain government funding in the 1840s, and a lot of new myths, like 41st Fleet graves? Wedding parties were held in the church 150 years ago. Weddings were, noisy receptions were not. That there was a steeple on the old church, and where the boundary boundaries of the church actually are. The CMP references in many places parts of my property as being part of the church property. It does this in words, drawings, pictures and maps. Now we have a survey that is supposed to clear up the boundary issue, but it doesn't at all, as it only shows where the remaining headstones are in the western part of the cemetery, and the remains of an old fence that was erected in the 1980s to protect the remaining headstones.

The words under the survey in your meeting notes say, This plan clearly defines the boundaries and location of the cemetery. This is untrue. The surveyor notes on the survey that it shows the details of the cemetery, details of the cemetery, the headstones and the remaining old fence posts, not the cemetery boundaries. A very clever way of putting it. I have obtained from the Land Registry Services for the princely sum of $14.20 the deposited plan for the church. This is the document all surveyors use to start their onsite surveys. They use at least two reference points, the distances and bearings that are on the DP, and produce their onsite document. The DP I obtained is identical to the plan shown on page 18 of the CMP, and it clearly shows the cemetery boundaries extending all the way to the road on my property.

The narration in the CMP says, Interestingly, this shows most of the cemetery outside the church property. This fact is ignored after page 16 or 18 of the CMP. Let's consider this. Between 1841 and 1856, 45 burials took place at St Joseph's, and a further 24 between 1868 and 1942. That's 69 people buried in the cemetery, at least. About 39 of these without surviving headstones, or they never had headstones. The Oxford Dictionary definition of a cemetery is a large burial ground, especially one not in a churchyard. Look at Windsor Cemetery just across the way. There are large parcels of grass. A cemetery is not just the surviving headstones. Page 16 of the CMP, there is a copy of a photo from the early 1900s that hangs on the wall in the Wiseman's Ferry Hotel.

This photo shows an earlier post and rail fence before the road was built, and also shows what could possibly be grave markers outside the fence on the eastern and southern sides. The DPI obtained is also signed by a registered surveyor. This DP and the DP for my property clearly show that the bulk of the cemetery is sited on my land. So for the CMP to be historically accurate, all references in words, drawings, pictures and maps that suggest my land is Mr Cavanagh's must be corrected. The fact that 41st Fleet graves or the interior layout of the church being inaccurate, that is just making the work of future researchers just that little bit more difficult. I actually rang Windsor Library yesterday, said I was researching the church.

Among the other publications they directed me to was the 2003 CMP. The CMP should not be about satisfying Mr Cavanagh's desire to be the identified owner and custodian of the cemetery to the exclusion of other landowners. The staggering number of falsehoods in relation to the church and the cemetery need to be addressed, and if the renovation of the church followed this CMP, there would be no spire, no gargoyles, no Juliet balconies, no dormer windows with the fake stone. Which leads me to ask, when the CMP is corrected, does this just provide an appropriate platform for making decisions about the future conservation of the church? Does this in any way imply some sort of approval of future DAs that may be submitted?

Is it legally binding as part of any DA process? I ask you to rescind the motion. The approved CMP is not factual and should never have been approved on 28th of November.

Thank you, Mr McCabe. Are you happy to take questions? Yes Questions, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks. Thanks, Mr McCabe. I know you spent quite a bit of time on your presentation talking about the fact that most of the cemetery is in fact on your property. In terms of, I guess the CMP outlines how the cemetery should be conserved and cared for going forward. Do you see there would be a difference as to the procedure for conserving the cemetery based on the boundary of the lot? And is it your intention that if we were to rescind this CMP, you would put in your own CMP for your heritage assets?

Certainly not. I actually would— sorry. Thank you. I would actually, let's

Say, conserve the headstones in a better manner than Mr Cavanagh has done. I would not attempt to put them straight, adding concrete around sandstone. It's a thing that in the borough charter you don't do. You don't whip a snip around the bottom of the headstones. Mr Cavanagh does. No, I would not do that. So yes, I would follow what was in the CMP, but not what Mr Cavanagh has done.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr McCabe, could you be specific and tell us— What negative impact or onerous duty or monetary loss would occur to you as a result of this CMP?

In the CMP, originally I objected to it because it put impositions on me. I didn't know what those impositions were. I wrote to you as, I wrote to each of you, as soon as I read a lot of the document. I had not at that stage read the whole 400 pages, but I put to you that it could have left me with some impositions. Yes, it could. I don't know at this stage.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Kavanagh

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councillors, and thanks for pushing our item forward. With the greatest of respect to Brian, I'd just like to point out a few things, as the CMP is not a statutory document, so probably to explain it as simply as I can, it's a document that just outlines the procedure for how you would look after these graves. There's no monetary loss to anyone. No one is obliged to do anything. The only person obliged would be me, possibly. As by having this CMP, I need to have that CMP approved, and then there might be some implications with a DA, as Brian has said as well. But there is no monetary implication to him. There's nothing on his title or anything that's going to affect him.

The graves, or the initial boundaries that were on an old survey that Brian's got a copy of, and is on, yes, page 16 of the conservation management plan. Look, I've owned the place since 2009, and Brian's right. A grave or a cemetery is defined as grass with some gravestones. Look, there may well be some there. So I highly recommend that he possibly goes out and gets his own conservation management plan and conserves his graves that are under the grass. That's on his property, and we're just putting a delineation between our stones and what's on Brian's property. But as I said, there's no monetary loss to Brian. Before we got into this stage, he was using his guesthouse and my guests from my church having weddings were charged into parking his grass, and they were using his guesthouse.

It was a great, I thought, scenario for both my guests and Brian, but I don't really understand the rationale behind it. But the end result is this conservation management plan is solely there to inform and protect and guide as to how you would do further renovations or further. Stabilisation of those stones. Just another point that Brian raised in regards to those grave stones. We're instructed by Hawkesbury Council, in particular Otto, as to how to lift those stones up which were falling over and position them back, and they came out and inspected that work. So, look, I'm sorry if we put concrete around, but I'm not sure how else you hold up a gravestone that weighs probably 500 kilos. I'm certain there's probably a better way, I'm not sure, but the heritage advisor came out, who's council employed, and said that's the way to do it.

So I apologise, Brian, if you're offended by it. And as far as whipper snippering and mowing, yes, we do whipper snip around the graves, but, you know, it may well be the Baro Charters objection to that. I'm very sorry, and from now on we'll poison around them. We won't whipper snip anymore. But back to this document, it's basically, to put it simply, it's a bit like my only analogy, and it's not a perfect analogy, my only analogy would be, it's a bit like having a flora and fauna report and then we're fighting over who owns the koalas. You know, this is a cemetery. I'm sure Brian's got the greatest respect for it as I do as well. But at the end of the day, there's no impact on he or I, monetary, on your title, nothing.

This is simply a document that just gives you a step-by-step on how to protect this little cemetery. And if Brian's got graves under the ground, I suggest he work with council to create his own CMP. And as other people in this shire might know, if you own an old heritage building, there are some really great advantages to owning old buildings. You can get some grants and you can, in my case, once we get this CMP approved, hopefully by council, and I take Councillor Wheeler's comments last time we were here very seriously, Danielle actually said, Look, we've got to get this thing right, and so— So we went away and we got a survey done. We've marked the graves that are visible. It's an accurate survey done by a registered surveyor.

And yes, I took Danielle's points very seriously, that it has to be right. So as far as I'm concerned now, and I'm sure my heritage advisor will attest to, who is probably more skilled than any of us, we do have the documentation right now.

Thank you, Mr. Kavanagh. Are you happy to take some questions? Yep. Should there be any. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Kavanagh, thanks very much for that presentation. Mr. McCabe referred to another DP that he had obtained at a small cost. Are you aware of that DP, and have you seen it? And does it accord with your understanding of the boundary of the cemetery?

Look, what it is, and I guess when you've got a building that's nearly 200 years old, you're going to have—there are going to be little anomalies in its lifetime. Like, as Brian referred to, there was that 500 people were going to be parishioners there. That's what happened in 1839 when they tried to get extra funding. So that's a little lie, but I didn't tell it. It's part of—it's history. Same with that boundary fence. Now, at some stage, and I've checked it at Land Titles—I'll get to your question, Paul, but just I like to put a little bit of background—that I have part of the frontage or the curtilage of the church sliced off and some of those graves. You know, the church would never have had its cemetery sliced off in its initial form in 1839, but there was apparently, and I've checked it with Land Titles, there was a road realignment, and at some stage it just got sliced straight through the middle of the property and part of the graves went to the property down the road.

So there's an anomaly, and I'm suggesting that the fence that basically goes out to the road line, and it does show that's where the cemetery is, yes, that's a fact. It's part of some documentation, but there's no evidence that there are graves there. Yes, I take Brian's point. There may well be some underground, but we've never seen a stone. We don't do any harrowing there or feel— Trimming or anything like that, we just mow the lawns, or sorry, Brian mows the lawns now. But yeah, so to answer your question, I think in these histories, when you've had 170 years of history, there are going to be these little anomalies that come in. That fence is shown there on a DP. We didn't disguise it or try and deny it.

It's part of the CMP, whether it's good, bad or indifferent, and also in relation to those 40 so-called first fleet graves, that was a mistake made by the National Trust when we got awarded our National Trust Best Restored Heritage Building in 2013. It was a press release. I didn't say it, they did. So we put it in the CMP because, again, it's part of the history. It's deniable, of course, but someone said it, so now it's part of the history.

Thank you, Mr. Cavanagh. Thank you, Mr. Cavanagh. Thanks Thank you. Our third speaker is Michael Edwards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councillors. Thanks for the noted congratulations too. I'm using toothpicks to keep my eyes open tonight as a newborn. It's good to be presenting and speaking to you again on this. Hopefully this will be the last time that we have to present to you and talk through this issue. Hopefully this will put to bed the ongoing issues with the Conservation Management Plan, and that Council can be fully resolved that there are no outstanding issues to address. Firstly, following the presentation at the last Council meeting, we went away and engaged a surveyor to undertake further revised survey plan, which forms part of the revised Conservation Management Plan, which has been submitted to Council.

If I can just add to Councillor Rasmussen's comment or question rather about the previous DP, that does form part of the Conservation Management Plan as historical evidence of the land titles, and that was an interpretation of the original surveying , which was in chains and furlongs and imperial system. And so when you convert that to a metric system, that resulted in the deposited plan from the 1970s, which is what featured in the Conservation Management Plan and presented the boundary in its form previously. The new survey plan does certainly clarify and demonstrate that part of the cemetery does fall within Mr. McCabe's property. What that indicates first and foremost is, and I guess fundamentally, is that that portion of the cemetery is not identified as a heritage item.

There's no statutory protection over Mr. McCabe's portion of the cemetery, and what we are looking to ensure is a holistic approach to the management of not only the cemetery but the church site itself.

We reviewed some comments that we received back from Council following your briefing session, and they were some amendments and comments that Council had requested that we include in the Conservation Management Plan to clarify the statutory enforceability of the document itself, as well as some clarification on boundary fencing. We've taken those on board. We've included those in the revised document in the understanding that they don't actually have any consequential impact to the outcomes of the Conservation Management Plan itself. Rather, they actually bolster the approach to management and clarify the best way forward in conserving and maintaining that site as a whole.

As I said, the boundary resurvey does show part of the cemetery in Mr McCabe's property. The question was not about identifying where the cemetery boundaries were themselves, but where the actual property boundary was. So the cemetery is partly delineated by an existing dilapidated timber fence, and there is historical evidence to show that there was some form of fencing around there. That was not defined by any registered survey or lot. That was practically just a fence around the concentrated area of known headstones. There is a conservation policy in the document which does recommend further survey work, such as ground penetrating radar, to determine whether there are any other headstones or grave sites outside of the identified area of concentrated headstones themselves.

So if I can just briefly talk through the changes that have been made to the revised Conservation Management Plan, we have included in the introductory section a statement which clearly identifies that the CMP bears no statutory weight until it forms part of a development consent, and then the CMP will only relate insofar as that development consent relates. So there's no— Concern or ambiguity that the CMP could become statutorily enforceable upon Mr McCabe's property, unless, of course, he submitted that same document as part of a DA for his property. We have included some conservation management policies for boundary fencing to ensure that a fence doesn't go straight through the heart of the cemetery, so it separates one side from the other.

Again, we're trying to approach it from a holistic sense rather than his and hers, in a sense. And we have looked at including the additional conservation policies identifying the constraints and opportunities, the fact that we have revised the document for additional information that has come to light, and again there are opportunities for further revisions as more information is revealed. I think that's pretty much the extent of the changes that have been made, other than we have also amended the heritage curtilage, and that was initially identified as a lot boundary curtilage based on the original allotment details that were in the CMP as per the 1970s deposited plan. We have changed that to an expanded curtilage to incorporate the portion of the cemetery that falls outside of Mr Cavanaugh's property.

So they are the extent of the changes that we have made, which satisfies the comments that we received from council staff.

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

Absolutely.

Any questions for Mr Edwards? No questions. Thank you. Thanks very much.

Pleasure.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move the recission motion. If somebody would give me a second.

Seconder, Councillor Wheeler.

I'd just like to let Councillors know if this rescission motion is accepted, I will be moving a substantive motion to amend the CMP, as we were informed at a recent briefing, and it will include the recommendations in the business paper. I think that by doing this, we can get rid of or put to one side the existing conservation management plan and then adopt one that covers all the issues that have been raised. And I hope that you will agree with me in this is the way to proceed.

Thank you.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks

Madam Mayor. Just a couple of questions. First question is, do we need to actually rescind this motion before moving that sort of recommendations in the business paper? And secondly, in point one it says delegate to the General Manager to endorse an amended draft document containing the modifications outlined above. So I'm just not clear on what that would mean. Does that mean we're delegating authority for the General Manager to approve it, or is it delegating for a draft to be formed for someone else to approve it?

Mr Conroy.

At the moment we've got a conservation management plan that's been adopted. For clarity, given that we've come this far, it would probably be better to just rescind it and move through and endorse the revised plan. There's still corrections that have got to be made in the plan to make sure it all ties together. And again, rather than it coming back to Council, the thought was we would delegate that, and when we've got all the edits in place and it's one cohesive document, it can be approved.

Sorry, just to clarify that, sorry to be pedantic, I just wanted to clarify, who is going to approve it?

I'll approve it under delegation.

Thank you. Further, Councillor Tree. Yes, I just wanted to know what sort of timeframes should the applicants expect, because this has been a really prolonged experience for them.

Mr Conroy.

The substantial changes to the document have already been made. It's more a matter of proofreading and making sure that all the elements of the document speak to each other. I don't think it's a long process at all.

Any indication of, like,

Weeks?

Days, not weeks.

Further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Reynolds?

Not required, Madam Mayor.

I'll put Councillor Reynolds' rescission motion, and after we vote on that, if that passes and is rescinded, then he'll be moving his other motion. All those in favour?

Against? The motion is carried. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll ask for the staff—oh, it's already up there.

Seconder? Do you have a seconder for it, Councillor Reynolds? Councillor Zamprogno.

Not really required, Madam Mayor. It basically follows the notes and the recommendation in the business paper, and the councillors can see that it addresses— Most of the issues that were raised in relation to the previous conservation management plan, and by delegating to the general manager and staff, we are then probably spared the thing coming backwards and forwards while they sort out the finer details to make sure that this is something that we can lock down nice and solidly. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Further discussion? Councillor Conolly.

I just wanted a bit of clarification. I actually, yeah, point C there, what does that mean, an additional policy?

Is that a

New

Policy of Council is being formed?

Mr Kearns.

That's a policy in the CMP. So there's a number of CMPs existing in the previously approved CMP. So this is an additional policy to that document.

Further discussion?

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Reynolds.

Not required, Madam Mayor.

I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. We'll move now to—

The Mayoral Minute. We have five speakers. The first speaker is Michael Wont.

Thanks, Madam Chair. The NRDC doubly supports the Mayoral Minute, but suggests there should be an addendum, a fifth paragraph calling on an appropriate body to refer this matter, if it's needed, to ICAC or the Upper House Inquiry in view of the government's directions to Transport New South Wales to eliminate steps in the study timetable, which prevented the community the opportunity to have deep and meaningful input into the process. The proposed corridor announcement has been catastrophic and of deep concern to the Hawkesbury community. The government's decision has caused extreme stress, anxiety, anger, heartbreak and uncertainty in families in the wider community. It could lead to mental health issues for victims.

Minister Perrottet should answer the following questions and more. If not, the matter should be referred to an inquiry by an appropriate body. Some questions: Who directed Transport for New South Wales to eliminate the very important fifth step of the study timetable that Transport for New South Wales had agreed to with the community? What was the barracking and government's motive in removing this vital step? Was it to win back the seat of Orange from the Shooters and Fishers Party with fake news? Was there pressure from the developers so they can impose more ugly red bank developments and traffic congestion upon us? We note the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, posted on the Hawkesbury Bylines Road Corridor Facebook recently, and I quote, When I spoke with the department fellow asking about development pressures.

Which they cite as a reason for preservation. He explained that they expected more red banks to spread across the area. An ICAC upper house inquiry should be seriously considered. Inquiries can secure the truth. As we know, an ICAC inquiry found in August 2016 that in 2010, for the purpose of his 2011 New South Wales state election campaign— Excuse me, Mr Watts, sorry, Councillor

Tree,

Do you have a point of order?

I was just going to say, I think he's already received — Sorry, do you have a point of order?

Yes, he's been told not to do this in the past and he's doing it again now. And in fact there was no corrupt finding of corruption whatsoever. And so if he wants to allude to it and make insinuations at every juncture, maybe he should just stop. Mr Conroy.

I think that's a reasonable position. We've had a conversation with Mr Want and I don't think this is particularly relevant tonight.

Nor was it ever.

Mayor, I just, I would say that I think it is relevant because it is

There's been a ruling. There's been a ruling. So let's move on to the next point.

I think it is relevant because it is referring to inquiries and the findings of inquiries. Okay,

Can you please explain how you think that there was any

Corrupt finding ? Councillor Tree, I'm dealing with it, sorry. Can you please be quiet? Mr Watt, please move on to your next point. The General Manager's done his ruling. Okay,

Thank you. The development referred to, of course, was Redbank. Councillor, further questions: has Minister Perrottet visited the home site of victims to view the picturesque scenery, fauna and flora for the proposed corridor which would be destroyed? Has he answered correspondence from residents with deep and meaningful answers? Has Mr Perrottet been readily available to meet with victims affected? Has he attended any of the community forums where Transport for New South Wales tells people what the government is going to do? Further , the Greater Sydney Western City District Plan refers to how the Hawkesbury Vision will be achieved. Two of the dot points say this: protecting districts' natural landscapes, heritage and tourism assets, unique rural areas and villages.

The second dot point: protecting the environmental, social and economic values of the metropolitan rural area. Does Minister Perrottet support the Hawkesbury Vision or the corridor? The Grose Valley and surrounds is a jewel that should be cherished and protected by all of us. Councillors, on the 19th of April 2018, the NRDC AA and other representatives attended a meeting with Road Minister Pavey, organised by Minister Perrottet, following a request from us in November 2017. At the November meeting, he told those present he would like the Mayor of Hawkesbury City Council and the GM to attend. They attended the meeting on the 9th of April. Minister Perrottet did not. The community members at that meeting expressed their strong disappointment of a no show of the local member.

We also asked that Minister Pavey make representations to the government that all notices to affected landholders be withdrawn to progress the consultation which Transport for New South Wales committed in 2015. The NRDC AA would suggest that that be added to paragraph 4, second line after river. Councillors, the RMS and Council have local traffic committees that meets very regularly. Minister Perrottet or his nominee has a seat at that table. There's been nine meetings in the last 12 months. No one's attended them.

The ministerial nominee has not— sorry, our member is not quite the invisible man, but close to. Juxtaposed to Susan Templeman, the member for Macquarie, our Mayor and some councillors. It is possible to work together with goodwill regardless of the politics. Minister Perrottet, will you please at least try to work collaboratively with our progressive Mayor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, the energetic member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, and the community. The proposed corridor is against the public interest and the common good of our community. It must not proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Want. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions for Mr. Want? No questions. Thank you. Our second speaker is Virginia Jackson.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor, I was just wondering, I believe the mayoral minute has been changed. I was wondering whether we could get an updated copy on the screen.

Certainly, if we could have one on the screen. Thanks.

I'll just point out that it was point 4

I thought, that was changed. Oh, there's been an addition from— yes. So point 5 was slightly changed, if people— and a new point 4. I might just read those out before you proceed, sorry, Virginia. There's a new point 4 which was submitted by Councillor Zamprogno, which I've included, relating to the M9, which reads: Council also notes that the concerns of Hawkesbury residents affected by the northern extent of the M9 Outer Sydney Orbital Corridor are very similar to those held over the BLOR, Bells Line of Road, Castle Ray Corridor, both in relation to the proposed location, the negative impacts that would ensue, and the process that has been followed to inform the community. And then the new point five reads that Council requests the New South Wales Government to review its approach to the planning of future transport needs in the Hawkesbury LGA by both abandoning the current proposal west of the Hawkesbury River and considering alternatives to the current path of the M9 Outer Sydney Orbital through Vineyard, Oakville and Maraylya, and genuinely work with the community from the bottom up and not the top down to: one , document the objectives of future transport needs;

two, identify transport, social, flood, environmental and other issues that need to be addressed when pursuing short and long term transport plans; three, acknowledge the strategic directions of the projected growth within the area as identified in local strategic plans, the Greater Sydney Commission and Western Sydney City Deal plans and reflect this projected growth in any transport planning; four, develop options that respond to the community-developed objectives and issues; and five, engage in broad and inclusive consultation with the community in the identification of any preferred final transport options. And then two additional points: one regarding a call for counselling for any people who have suffered emotional turmoil from this announcement, and the final point being to notify Local Government New South Wales of our resolution.

Local Government New South Wales is the association body of all New South Wales councils . So, just updating you on that, there were some changes that I made both after sending out to councillors and asking for councillors to input any amendments that they may have, and also in taking on board what various members of the community had sent to me since the business paper came out on Thursday. So, I'm sorry if that has changed what you may have been saying in your speech, but that is the current wording. So we'll proceed now, and thank you for bringing that to attention, Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

Madam Mayor and Councillors, the proposed Bells Line of Road corridor would involve compulsory acquisition of a section of our property, hence my direct interest in it and any changes made to its path. I'm speaking for the recommendations listed in the Mayoral minute. I grew up in the Hawkesbury and after living interstate, overseas and in Sydney for many years, I returned with my family about two years ago.

Sorry .

It's okay.

Is the microphone okay, Madam Mayor ? So,

My name's David Jackson, Virginia's husband.

So my wife, son and I left Sydney to escape the fast-paced noise and pollution and moved to Gracevale. We love our home for its peace and quiet, scenic beauty, space and fresh air, and have made big sacrifices to live here. This proposal would take the sole reason for us moving away, moving, as we would now be overlooking a four-lane motorway. We love our home so much that I travel to work an hour and 40 minutes twice daily to get there. That is one of the sacrifices we make to live here. Like many residents, our family have been suffering great distress at the state government's announcement of a proposed Bells Line of Road Castlereagh motorway. When we moved here, my wife and I were completely unaware the government had made plans to protect a corridor stretching north-west of the river near Yarramundi all the way back to Kurrajong Heights.

I'm for the recommendation that the government review its approach to planning any corridor by abandoning the current proposal west of the river and generally working with us, the community, whose homes and livelihoods are at stake. Personally, I'm not against improving road transport and freight efficiency, but any proposal needs to consider Hawkesbury residents. This proposal was quite literally dumped in our laps on the 26th of March when we received the flyer in our letterbox, followed by a letter from Transport New South Wales. The government has given residents a mere nine weeks to make submissions on a proposal they apparently have been researching for many years. Yet the government expects people to try and save themselves and their homes by making good quality submissions outlining their objections in a minuscule amount of time.

This feels like bullying by the state government, particularly when we hear they've been researching options for so long. There are many vulnerable people in our area have little idea of what proposal would actually look like, not to mention the sound it would make in our valley. Many seem to think that it does not directly impact their property or doesn't spoil their views, they won't be affected. Villages, not just individuals, maybe must be made aware of the visual, noise and air pollution impacts this would have on our area, not to mention the damaging economic multiplier effects on individuals and the local economy through direct negative impacts on property values.

We're still meeting people who are unaware of this proposal. Here are some actual examples. If built, the motorway would take half of our neighbouring property. The current owners, who settled their purchase two weeks after the announcement, were not made aware of the proposal. Their solicitor has not received or found any evidence of the proposal. This was to be their retirement home. There are other upsetting examples, such as the family on Grose Vale Road. who would have their proposed motorway placed a mere two metres from their front door. The family have been told by Transport NSW that they were not considered to be directly impacted. They would therefore not even be entitled to any compensation for the noise, obstruction and significant devaluation effect on their property.

This is what happens when a government is allowed to railroad and bully vulnerable people for reasons unbeknownst to us. I am for the recommendation that the government abandon the current motorway proposal west of the Hawkesbury River and ask that Hawkesbury Council press the government to stop the rush to get the corridor gazetted. Push the government to prioritise using state government-owned land for any proposal. Press the government to make it a priority to absolutely minimise the impacts on individual properties and the amenity of the area by both using a route that minimises the number of properties impacted and tunnelling underneath properties. Follow a proper consultation and feedback process involving the whole Hawkesbury community and hold council-led public meetings to raise awareness of the issue.

Please ensure the Hawkesbury residents are treated as a first rather than a last priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are you happy to take questions? Are there any questions for Mr or Mrs Jackson? No questions . Thank you. Thank you. Our third speaker is Brian Harry.

Is Mr Harry here?

No. Is our first reserve speaker here and do they wish to speak? That was Angela. She's not coming. Okay. We'll move on to our next speaker who is MJ Boyer.

I may or may not need glasses. It's all a bit weird. No. Right , good evening everyone, and here we go again. For me, 20 years of fighting this Jurassic proposal, which raises its ugly head every time a state or federal election looms. Every time. And in the past, every time, it has died a natural death, as this sort of garbage does. This time, however, the dirty little devastating letters hand-delivered to unsuspecting residents, the threats of gazetting, the big media announcements by gloating MPs, has more teeth to it than previous occasions. Because this state government has a proven track record of never-seen-before ruthlessness and lack of consideration for the residents of New South Wales, as shown in the land acquisition process for WestConnex, etc.

Its bullish stubbornness in pursuing idiotic proposals, regardless of logic, statistics and cries for compassion, are staggering. And this lack of respect for straightforward, blatant statistics is what brought me to speak against the original number four in the Mayoral Minute.

The New South Wales government is attempting to sell the objective of this corridor as being that of future transport options. In reality, we have two red lines randomly drawn over an old Google map, ending in a tunnel under a well-known geological fault. Seriously? The truth is this. This corridor is a vote-buying exercise to coax voters in Orange back to the National Party fold. It is also the most effective way of rezoning land for development in accordance with the state government's massive land grab on a scale not seen since the bad old days of Nick Greiner's administration. So therefore, documenting the objectives of the corridor serves little purpose as long as the state government stands by its future transport option story.

Developing and identifying route options are also time-wasting activities. The statistics are clear. Feasibility study after feasibility study has blown this proposal out of the water. From the Monsell McIntyre study to Sinclair Knight Mertz study and several other multi-million dollar research studies done by reputable, independent engineering companies, every one has stated clearly that the numbers don't add up. There is no need for this corridor. None. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Bugger all. No on cost. No on environmental factors. No on traffic numbers. No, no and no. This corridor proposal is a furphy. It is rubbish. The Hawkesbury does not need lines drawn across it, ruining residents' lives and livelihoods for the next 30, 40 years or whatever.

The Hawkesbury needs real local traffic solutions.

And we especially do not need Steuart Ayres or Melinda Pavey to tell us how or where. I understand the Liberal National Coalition will never give up on a second mountain crossing. Maybe instead of them telling us what we should have, we should ask them why they are pursuing a second crossing when all that is needed is one which works properly. Think about it. I commend the Mayor on this mayoral minute, and I applaud the concept of joining forces with neighbouring councils. I am grateful the Mayor listened to concerns about the original recommendation number four and amended it. If only the state government would listen to us, and listen well, for this is crunch time here in the Hawkesbury. Our voters are well known for being a passive, disinterested group.

Well, no more. The anger out there is a tangible thing, and this Bells Line of Road proposal has to be sent back into oblivion where it belongs.

Thank you. Thank you, MJ. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions? No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker is Megan Lawrence.

Good evening, everybody

I'd like to start with a request, and I haven't spoken at council before, so tell me if I'm not getting this in the right order. I have a property that is impacted by the corridor, so it's also a personal request, but this is of concern to other people that I have spoken to. You'd no doubt be aware that if this is gazetted, that property owners will have a draconian and unfair limit put on the amount that they can then spend on their properties of $200,000, and that is a total spend for the lifetime of the corridor. If anybody doesn't follow that. So it's not that we get $200,000 every year or every time we put a DA in. It's one chance with $200,000 for the life of the time that we're waiting until it's built, so it could be 30 years.

And even if I went to spend $200,000 today, I'm not going to be getting very much. So when we've been to our one-to-ones, they've told us that we should all be, if we're wanting to stay, and it looks like most of us will have no choice, that we should be rushing to put DAs into council. To get past everything we'd like to do in the next 50 years.

Having tried to put through Council, and successfully in the end put through Council, a small flat bit of ground that my son kicks a soccer ball on, and it took almost a year, I'm really hoping that Council can give consideration to residents that are looking at this lifetime yoke, that we can get DAs through in time.

Do you mean— sorry, can I just clarify? Do you mean so that you could spend more than $200,000 prior to gazettal of anything? You

Don't have to spend it before, as I understand it. If we get it passed— Okay, thank you. And then we can start it later, and then we've got the rest of the 50 years to be spending the money. So, for example, if I put a DA in for $100,000, I get to spend that over the next 30

Years. I will ask for that question to be answered in our debate. All right

It's of great concern to people. It's really controlling what they're going to be able to do, and it's actually affecting the decision-making process and where they go and when. So I am speaking against point four, and I was aware of the changes that you had put up. The first one— so it's a bullet point, and number four that I'd like to just quickly talk about. If the version of the corridor that you end up speaking about going forward, if your request for inclusion in the process, et cetera, are met, if we're looking at a version of the corridor that really is something that's still going to be built in 50 years' time, then you'll be talking about future transport needs that are meeting a need that is very different to the need that would be met tomorrow if you built the road.

So I would really like that point to be amended to give some recognition of something like Australia's climate targets or— I recognise that we're not going to be driving large trucks full of coal and things like that in 30 years' time. So there's no point designing a road for the future that includes that. I've done a bit of reading in the last six weeks, and I've been really concerned to see that some of the planning behind this, particularly in the southern part of the OSO, is all about large quantities of coal being driven around the place. And if we're still doing that in 20 years' time, then we have other things other than corridors to worry about. So I'd like to point out that that document, the object is of future transport needs, I'd really like to see what the future means there.

Are you talking about the future next week or are you talking about the future in 30 years' time? And as I said, I'd like it pinned to something like Australia's 2030 Climate Change Target document, something like that. If I go to point four in the bullet points, my next concern is the line that says develop options that respond to community developed objectives and issues. And I noticed that was changed from a previous wording, but I'm still concerned with the past tense there. And I'm wondering what version of those objectives and issues, where are you proposing to get those from? Are you proposing to go back to any of the information that was collected during any of the previous processes run by New South Wales Transport?

Because I, for one, have no faith in that process whatsoever, and I would like to see that point changed to add to the end of it to say raised since March 26th, because I don't see any value in reaching for any of the data that New South Wales Transport has previously provided in the consultation process, for all the reasons that Michael Wont elaborated on. The previous consultation process has been flawed. Fundamentally, every time they've tried to do it, it was bad in 2005, it was bad in 2012. 2015 used ludicrous large maps like this one, where you have a blob of was green on the page and said, Tell us what you think. I mean, how does anybody participate in public consultation when the documentation is like this?

So I think if council is reaching to use old data, you'll fall into the same trap that Transport for New South Wales has previously done .

Thank you.

Thank you. That was our final speaker. I'll move the mayoral minute, and I might just start by just answering those couple of questions that Mrs Lawrence just raised with regard to her final question there of which community developed objectives it was referring to. I'm happy to specify a date, raised since March the 26th, but it was actually relating—it's a sequence of things to do, and it's relating to the first point, which says to document the objectives of future transport needs. So that would obviously be contemporary ones, although I would not dismiss the large amounts of data held from previous consultations, because many of those would, of course, show a solid history of opposition to any form of corridor going ahead.

No, we're finished now. Sorry. Also, regarding the future transport, I know you may not know, but I'm probably—

Madam Mayor. Yes? We have the screen scroll up a bit so

We can see those subpoints, please. See the subpoints. Sorry.

Thank you. Yes. So, with regard to point one, with documenting the objectives of future transport needs, I'm very much on the record for speaking about what future transport needs may be. Also happy to tie that to something. But one of my biggest problems with the future planning in terms of what it is, is that it has failed to embrace any of the

Advancements or new technologies and the evolution of transport as it is progressing so rapidly throughout the world, and a bit slow coming to Australia but definitely coming in the near future. So they were just addressing those points, but I'm happy to put in small wording changes to clarify that. As suggested, I've got no issue with that. Basically, this Mayoral Minute has come forward. I think it's, you know, I think it's very widespread. Everybody knows that this has been a shocking announcement by the government. It has driven fear into our community. It has caused people immeasurable amounts of grief and stress, and it has not been well addressed in terms of explanations and information and clarity being given to our community.

The initial part of the Mayoral Minute is to work with Penrith Council. Penrith Council have already started to move on what they want to do about their section of the corridor, which goes from the Penrith area across and which is the original 1951 corridor from the County of Cumberland plan, which was gazetted in 1951. I suggest we work with them to see what they want to do with that, because the bulk of that corridor is in their local government area. The tail end of it is in the Castle Ray area, which we have, and so I think that by agreeing to meet with them, I would like to have their information on what they want to do with it, what their people want to see happen. I'm not aware of what exactly they want to happen, so I think the best thing to do is to meet with them and hear what the Penrith Council want to do with their section of it before we take a final position on that.

Their resolution states that they want to adopt the 1951 route of the corridor, but I would rather have discussions with them about that. Point three is regarding working again and pushing again for what we want in terms of a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, and that filters through many of the things we look at in here. Point four was submitted by Councillor Zambrano, and it relates to the M9 Outer Sydney Orbital. I had not included anything regarding the Outer Sydney Orbital at this point because there haven't been any public meetings on it, and I have not received feedback from people in the area aside from a couple of emails from Vineyard residents, and so really I did not feel in a position to know what that community was wanting to happen with the section of corridor that runs through the Oakville area.

I'm happy to take representation from them and I'm happy to include it, but I would like further information, and I intend to go to the public meeting that will be held at Oakville on the 16th of May to address more about the proposal in that specific area. With point five, with all the various points that are there, it's calling upon the government to abandon the proposal west of the Hawkesbury River. And also to consider alternatives for the outer orbital, and then to work with the community. So, as you heard one of the speakers say, Ms Boyer, this has been going on for years. Like her, I have fought against this in the past as well, and every time it goes away, it just comes back. And part of the reason it comes back and it makes its way through is because we don't have a firm position, or we don't have a formulated policy or solution of how we want transport to look in the future.

So, of course people can go drawing lines over maps in the Hawkesbury because there's nothing to say that you shouldn't. And so it's really important that we do work with the government, that we identify the extent of what we want in our community, the extent of where the growth is going to be, and that we call on the government to give justification for suggesting that we have a massive expressway through our area. Where is the justification of that? I've not seen any, and it's a very, very unfair thing to impose such a high level of detriment upon the landowners in our area when there's absolutely no explanation of what this road is for. There's no timeframes, there's no costings, there's nothing that would make us think that this was a good idea.

That's not to say that we shouldn't plan for the future, because we really have to plan for the future. And the fact that the future hasn't been planned for is part of why we have so many problems with congestion and things happening today. So we need some sort of a plan, and I just think if we were to just say scrap it and get rid of it and be done with it, that does not solve our problem, because we don't want to all be back here in six months' time having to have this conversation again, as we have done many, many times before. So we need a proper solution where we look at all the different possibilities with transport, and so we address the short-term, immediate solutions that we need. Now we've got various government documents.

We've got things from the RMS regarding the potential duplication of the North Richmond Bridge. We've got the potential of the Nepean Bridge, which is connected to the Redbank development, and then we've got this series of corridor proposals. So what we need is, we really need to look at what our needs are, how we can get some relief for our people immediately and in the short term, and then we can think about then what happens in the long term. We've got a series of upper-level strategic documents that have been developed in the planning of Sydney, including the Greater Sydney Commission Western District Plan, and we've also got the Western Parkland City Deal. And in these, it shows the potential of the Hawkesbury and its limitations to growth in a big way.

We are never going to have the sort of growth that you see down around Marsden Park and places like that, because we have limitations where we cannot have that growth. And so when we hear from Transport for New South Wales or Department of Planning, when people in their meetings are being told that you're going to have Redbank-style of developments all along there, that just simply isn't what we want, and that's not what we've been projected to have in the strategic documents. So what we need is transport solutions that fit in with the strategic documents. We need to have things that suit how the future of our area is going to look. So that's what we need to do. We need future planning, but that future planning has to involve the community, and the community has to say what they feel the acceptable levels are of what we can sustain, of where we see things going.

Do we want rail? Do we want to use the existing corridor? These are all the things that have to be nutted out, and so we arrive at a position that we can say to the government when they go to propose something, this is the position in the Hawkesbury. This is what the Hawkesbury people want, and this is how we feel it should be done. And so then we have something to back up our opposition to what they may impose. It's just not good enough to say we don't want it and hope that it will just go away, because believe me, it won't go away. It will come back. It's been going on for years, as was alluded to. There were the various, the Monsel McIntyre, the Sinclair Knight Merz reports. They all found it was non-viable to ever construct this road.

That there will only ever be the traffic to support one primary route, and that primary route has been designated as the Great Western Highway. And so therefore, we need to look at other options, and we need to have—we need to draw on what was wrong with all those proposals, and we need that firmly articulated somewhere. For anyone who's gone to do their research about what's happening with these sort of things, you would have found multiple studies and multiple commentary. And so what we need is a summary of the history of these proposals, what was wrong with them, why weren't they viable, and how do we work around that to get short, medium and long-term solutions that will deliver to our community what we need.

Point six is calling on the government to provide counselling support to anybody who has been particularly distressed by what has happened to them. And believe me, I have come across some people who have really been suffering, and I believe that the failure of the government to anticipate how much this would hit people when they've delivered a message to people that essentially was saying to people that what you believed your future would be is no longer because we're going to change it. That is a significant and dangerous thing to have put on people who may be vulnerable, and for all those people who are feeling extremely distressed, I would ask the New South Wales Government to provide them with access to counselling if they feel they require it.

And finally

The final point of my mayoral minute is to notify Local Government New South Wales of this resolution. Local Government New South Wales, I had a meeting with them, and they are keen to sort the whole transport New South Wales situation out as well, because this scenario plays out in different local governments across New South Wales, what the people out west want, what the people in here don't want. It all needs to be coordinated. Of course, we've got to move people around the state, we've got to move freight around the state, but there's always an optimum way to do that, and that's what we all have to work together to come up with ideas and solutions of how we can do that, and that's what I'm aiming for and committing to. And I'll open the floor for comment on the mayoral minute. Thank you.

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not taking this opportunity to speak yet. I just want to ask a couple of questions. First of all, point five of your motion, can you please clarify for everybody here tonight, you've got there that you want to abandon the current proposal. Can you clarify that that is not abandoning a proposal in general? It's just the current one? Yes, that's what it says, abandoning the current proposal. So you're still supporting—there's nothing in that mayoral minute to say that you're abandoning the entire idea of a corridor? Well, of that corridor, yes. Just that one. Yes, but it says to work with the community. Now, a corridor could involve the existing road, or it could involve, you know, other roads or whatever.

So I wouldn't say never to support any corridor, but it has to be a corridor with minimal impact. All right, thank you. The other question I have prior to speaking later is, what does Council plan to do? Does it have any strategic way forward if members who are affected by the corridor start to put in DAs and there's an absolutely huge influx of development applications to Council because of the wording around how they need to be managed and the limitations that they have, does Council have some way forward if there all of a sudden is a huge amount of DAs going in, which results in obviously a lot of development west of the river? Thank you. I was just going to follow up on that question from— Mrs Lawrence as well.

Mr Kearns.

So obviously, you know, resources are tight at the moment in terms of, you know, applications that we have, and obviously, you know, in terms of the increase in volume of applications, we would look at, you know, ways to resource dealing with those further applications if it does turn out to be an influx of further applications. Mr Kearns.

I'll also point out that, you know, if there are applications lodged, obviously the current LEP and DCP provisions will prevail. That's what we'll be assessing the various applications against.

Thank you. Further discussion?

No further discussion?

Councillor Richards. Oh, okay. Yeah, Councillor Richards. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for everyone for being here tonight. Your commitment to your community is commendable because this is our community and this is our home. We all feel very passionately about it, and I know we all have its best interests at heart. We all appreciate the frustration, the uncertainty, and the anxiety, and these are not just words. We actually, we really, really do. I'm sure we all do in this room. But to move forward, we all need to work together. Just because I'm a Liberal does not mean I have to stand behind this project and defend it. In some aspects, I don't, and I actually won't. We all agree that the proposed corridor is in the wrong spot.

What I do stand by, though, is the state government's commitment to consult, to listen, and to take time to digest the submissions. They have committed that. They have committed to that, to digest the submissions and reflect on a more positive outcome. I have that commitment personally from Dominic Perrottet last night.

I'm telling you now that the state government is listening, okay, and I am a local— Listen , I have every right to have the floor, thank you, Madam Mayor, without interjection constantly. I'm telling you now, I'm a local councillor. I'm not part of the state government, but I'm telling you what I have been told, okay? So please just listen carefully and let me be able to say what I need to say. So as I said, I have that commitment personally from Dominic Perrottet and from Stuart Ayres, and now also to all of you. What I do wholeheartedly disagree with is elected representatives using this issue as a political tool. Finding a solution or an alternative is on everyone's agenda. So to me, that would mean picking up the phone or sending an email to our state member requesting an urgent meeting to discuss from our other elected representatives.

Have you done that, Madam Mayor? I have spoken to him, yes. You've asked him for a meeting to sort this out? Not specifically a meeting, but I have spoken to him about this issue. Has the federal member for Macquarie— And he hasn't fronted the community about it. I'll address that later, thank you. I certainly do think that I should have the floor, Madam Mayor. Has the federal member for Macquarie actually called Mr Perrottet himself or emailed or made personal contact and asked for a one-on-one discussion to resolve this? That's right. We will ask her. Has the former independent councillor, Mr Reynolds, now the state Labor candidate, alternative choice to our current state representation, done that?

Have you contacted Mr Perrottet one-on-one as our alternate choice to ask to sit down and find a solution for the community? Point of order, Madam Mayor. Point of order, Councillor Wheeler.

Is Councillor Richards just going to spend the evening engaging in rhetoric, or is she actually going to get on with some points? She asks her question through the Chair, doesn't get to ask questions of Susan Templeman or Councillor Reynolds.

I think I have the right to rhetorical questions. That's not a point of order. But if you can state if it's a rhetorical question. Which it is, thank you. Were you directing that to Councillor Reynolds, if so? No, I was asking for the room to hear. The answer is fine, he can address that later if he wishes. So I'll continue on. Then what have you done to proactively and productively sort out this for the better of our community? Well , I can tell you what I have done, and your local Liberal councillors. We have been listening to you all, talking, discussing, seeking views and ideas. We have not been grandstanding about this, and you know that because we haven't been out there trying to do anything but work diligently behind the scenes.

We have been working to make this better. And I take this opportunity tonight to outline what we have done so far. We have made representations about ideas to minimise impacts to property, to minimise acquisition of property, to have a more positive outcome. So as well as talking to locals, I have been in constant contact with Dominic Perrottet and his office about the local sentiment about this announcement. And I have made these representations for an alternative. That does not mean that it has to be a corridor. But what we all can agree on definitely is that we need to be proactively pushing for an infrastructure plan that involves a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, for something better to offer to the community.

And it has gone far. My representations have gone straight to the Premier of New South Wales, straight to the decision makers that have the influence and the discretion to change this for the better. So to get something done to fix this issue, speak to us more, to your local representatives who can make the change for you, who have been working on representing you to the relevant ministers. Not just regarding a corridor, but as I said, finding a way to implement that much needed third crossing, an infrastructure solution. We are not just about oppose, oppose, oppose. We are about, okay, the community has some really good ideas out there. Let's put it direct to the state government right now while we are in a consultation period, and we will consult and we will advocate to amend as necessary, and we will help you.

We are on your side unreservedly. What we need to do moving forward is separate the genuine good people of the Hawkesbury who just want answers from the political jargon that has been caught up in all of this. Therefore tonight, I intend to support the mayor in part in her motion. I'm not going to oppose for opposing's sake. I'm going to debate, to highlight, to be constructive, and to be collaborative. And Madam Mayor knows herself that I have tried to be collaborative. We have met for a possible discussion on a bipartisan way forward, and I have yet to hear back on that approach. So what I did is took my feedback direct to Cabinet. And tonight, I want to highlight that your local Liberals have been working behind the scene for that more positive outcome.

Last week I had a meeting in Parliament House with the Treasurer himself, Dominic Perrottet, with the Minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres, and we discussed possible ways forward to make this more positive. We discussed the process, proposals in detail. Items were then taken the very next day about my representations that I made to Andrew Constance, Melinda Pavey, and the Premier herself, Gladys Berejiklian. I have confirmation as of last night that Dominic said once the consultation period closes, all options are on the table. I just want to address here for a minute the meeting that was held at the showground. On another note, I applaud the BLOR group for their efforts last Wednesday night in gathering the community for a forum.

The Bloor group is reminiscent to me of the Windsor Downs group who advocated to Dominic not to have an orbital near their homes. They worked hand in hand with Dominic, scheduling meetings for when he was available and obtained the result that they wanted. So I plead to you all genuinely to work with everybody around us. It was known last Wednesday that it was a state parliamentary sitting night for Dominic and that he couldn't be there. But the meeting was still put on. Would you have done that if it was a federal parliamentary sitting night? Would you have done that if it was a Tuesday night council meeting that had been scheduled for that night? I just believe that the best way forward is to get all of the representatives in the room and work with them, set a date where they were all available, so you can get the best result.

I also don't believe the vicious and nasty attacks on Liberal women help anybody. And I implore that we all need to keep to the agenda, rather than to the unsavoury comments that have been circulating on social media. Here tonight in the room, we do have the new state Labor candidate, who's jumped back on board the Labor ship, the newly minted candidate as the alternative to Dominic Perrottet. So, considering tonight we are talking about a state government policy and you are now Labor's state candidate, I would implore you to put something forward to the people of the Hawkesbury, an infrastructure solution that can make things better for our area. Does the Labor Party already have an infrastructure solution, a traffic solution for the Hawkesbury?

Tell us now, or tell us soon. Tell us what your platform is. If there's going to be a debate about opposing the current proposal, then we need to have other ideas put forward, not just oppose, oppose, oppose. And I hope it is not another tent. I hope we can come up with a positive outcome. Tonight is about a way forward. You have my word on that. I am in constant contact with Cabinet members about a better outcome. We need something that will deliver infrastructure benefits and maintain a plan for a third crossing. And we know consultation ends on June 1, so get your submissions in. Dom did tell me that the state government is confident of securing a more positive outcome. I cannot stress that enough to you tonight.

I tell you this as someone who is working and pushing hard behind the scenes for you when it matters. In true democracy, you have consultation, and great ideas have come forward to me unsolicited in this way. I look forward to looking at them and more of them in more detail. So come and speak to me after. My details are always available to contact me. I am happy to talk and advocate direct to Cabinet to you, as I have been doing over the last few weeks, because I also, along with the state government, am confident to find a more positive outcome. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Further discussion?

No further discussion. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It is true that I was concerned when the first version of the mayoral minute only referred to the Bells Line of Road corridor, and I am grateful, and I want to express my gratitude for your willingness to include the point relating to the M9 Outer Sydney Orbital corridor, because we're aware that the time constraints are on us to get submissions in. I thought it was important that we took the earliest juncture we could. To have Council express its opinion on both corridors, because both corridors impinge on residents in the Hawkesbury community. I'm also strongly of the view that if these corridors were announced at the same time, that they have to be seen as a kind of matched pair.

And if there is going to be a substantial change to the Castle Ray corridor, if it defaults to its original alignment, if it stops at the river but goes no further, then there has to be a knock-on consequence to the M9 out of Sydney orbital corridor as well. If we were relying on the Castle Ray corridor to provide us with another crossing of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, if it changes, it won't have that characteristic, and we badly need traffic relief in this area. So, in my opinion, your already stated desire to work cooperatively with neighbouring councils and other tiers of government to achieve our long-held ambition of another crossing somewhere between North Richmond and Wilberforce is only going to be realised if we encourage the state government to reconsider the M9 as well.

So I'm happy to support the Mayor's minute, and I would encourage Council, when talking about the impact of these corridors, not to favour merely the Bells Line of Road corridor. The Bells Line of Road Action Group should be commended for the way in which they've organised and rallied the community, and they're perfectly entitled to focus on their patch. But — I think we need to present a united front as a community and acknowledge that the concerns that people have raised about the M9 corridor have precisely the same basis. The negative impacts that that corridor will have, the deficiencies of process that have ensued in informing the community, they are essentially the same concerns. And then we can add the specific concerns relating to the impracticality of running that corridor any further north of its current terminus at Moralia, or the fact that it's so close to Skyville National Park, or the fact that it destroys remnant Cumberland woodland on acreage properties in that area.

So, yes , thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to start by saying that I don't support any Bells Line of Road corridor. I made that clear at the public meeting last week , and the people I've spoken to from the areas affected, I believe, also don't want a Bells Line of corridor of any description. When speaking to the people that have been affected, I suggested to them that they should make it clear when they're speaking to Transport for New South Wales that they don't want a corridor, because if you are speaking to them and you say something like, If you could move it one kilometre this way or that way, then it wouldn't be too bad. As soon as you say that and they tally up the people who are in support of the corridor, you go onto the support list.

You have — Maybe unintentionally supported the corridor, because you said, I don't mind if it goes through, but just not where it is, just down the road a bit. And I believe what they're looking to do is get a tally that says something like 80 percent of people in the area support the corridor, which to me is playing with statistics, but I think that's the process that's going on at the moment. So I do recommend to people who are going to talk to Transport for New South Wales that they make it very clear from the beginning, if you agree with me that is, that you make it very clear from the beginning that you do not support any corridor. I think what we should be doing is concentrating on solving our immediate traffic issues.

Developing a corridor, which apparently won't be finished till 2056, is not going to solve any traffic issues in this area. It's just a joke. And if they argue to wait till 2056 to do the first bit, how old are we going to be when they do the rest of it? And if they're going to wait till 2056, why don't they wait till then to do the first bit as well? Why build this little bit now that goes nowhere? Why not wait till 2056, and by then, you know, the whole road might be out of date. There might be something else that we can use. We could tunnel under the mountains, all sorts of things. And why do the first bit now? Because it's totally redundant and always will be redundant, because I don't think that road will ever be turned into a freeway.

I know the— Leader of the opposition in New South Wales, Luke Foley, has made it quite clear that he's never going to build that road. And the present government says it'll be after 2056. So why go to all the trouble of moving people out of their houses and causing all this misery for something that I believe will never happen in the end anyway?

What I was suggesting before about making it clear, I believe the 1951 corridor has a little appendage on it that comes from Castle Ray and goes across to Springwood Road. So if we say we support the 1951 corridor, then we are then supporting a Bells Line of Road corridor that goes across to Springwood. So I think we need to be very careful when we meet with people from Penrith to make it clear that we don't support all of the 1951 corridor. We especially don't support the part that crosses the river and goes in our direction . To have that corridor, or have that road coming out of the Castlereagh Freeway, whether it be part of this corridor or part of the 51 corridor, as I said, doesn't solve our local traffic problems.

I had written here that if you're coming home on Windsor Road or Richmond Road, if you wanted to use the corridor, you'd have to drive halfway to Penrith to get onto it. When I looked at the map, it's actually past halfway. It's more than halfway to Penrith. So if you're driving on Windsor Road or Richmond Road and you want to get to Kurrajong Heights, which is where it's going to go to, you've got to drive more than halfway to Penrith to get onto it. And then you may have an exit at Grosveale. If you live in Wilberforce or somewhere, it's totally useless to you. It doesn't solve traffic problems, except maybe for a handful of people who live at Kurrajong Heights and Bilpin and work in Penrith.

They aren't the bulk of our people

So I'm looking, therefore, Madam Mayor, I noticed that there were amendments today and I didn't have time to get involved in the discussion, so I've put a possible amendment forward and Mr Wern over there has a copy of it. But given that there have been changes, I may change it again when it comes up

Point number two, I've suggested that we make it clear that we don't support that extension of the Castle Ray Freeway across the Nepean River, and that we don't support the Bells Line of Corridor basically in any form whatsoever.

Deputy

Mayor, can I just seek some clarification on that, because I actually looked up what was gazetted and read that the 1951 corridor ended in Londonderry today, which is what was only gazetted. So I'm not sure that there is a gazetted section. I know there's lines on a map . It's in

The road map.

It's on a road map, but I don't think it's gazetted . There was also a road map going through where Redbank development is, but that was not gazetted, but they've been included. Obviously they were proposed. So I'm just— Well

Even if it wasn't, I don't see any harm in making it clear that— Oh,

I don't have any problem with that. I'm just pointing that out, that I specifically did look at the gazette today and it did say it finished in Londonderry. Well

I took it from a very reliable source, the Gregory Street directory.

Right, okay. I got it from the Government Gazette. I

Still use it

I would be happy to have those words included from point two. Point

Number three I was suggesting we replace your point with that, but I— Things have changed. Well, would you consider adding point three to your overall mayoral minute?

Does not support the Bells Line of Corridor. That was similar to the question that Councillor Richards had asked. I'm just conscious, I certainly don't support the current Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or any location, but by location into the future, if there had to be some upgrades in terms of further overtaking lanes and use of the road reserve in certain areas to allow some extra travel on the existing Bells Line of Road, I think that would be a consideration over and above any additional or alternative corridor. So I don't know if that eliminates keeping upgrading the existing road, which is of course a corridor in itself. I support

What you say as well, but I don't think that's what a corridor means. In my opinion, a corridor is about reserving land that's not already used for a road. You're talking about the area that is already marked for roads,

Or there could be additional coming off the side of that. That's all. I mean, it's just really getting down to the—

Well, I'd be happy to change that

I'd probably just need not support the current Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or location, so the current manner in which it's been proposed, funding. I'm not aware of what funding has been allocated to the Bells Line of Road either.

Well, I didn't say that there has been. I said there may have been allocated, and then we could spend it on the River Crossing. Well

That would be— I would certainly agree with that, yes .

So can I clarify, are you adding those two bits?

I'm adding that, and I would be happy to add the first sentence. I would just want it changed to Council does not support the current. .. Support the Bells Line of Road corridor, the current proposal of Bells Line of Road in any form or location.

Okay. So thanks for that, because I think it is important that we spell it out to the government. We don't want this large freeway ripping through our countryside, displacing people. We may be in favour of upgrading the road where it is now, but we're not in favour of displacing whole groups of people who have lived there all their lives and go back many generations. So I had originally suggested point three replaces one of your points.

Which point was it replacing? I think

Replacing your point three.

Okay, so you've moved them down. Okay. Well, I just don't want to—I want to make sure that your original point hasn't disappeared.

No, your point three has gone in ahead of my point three, which is now my point four, I think. Or has it replaced it?

No

It has replaced it. I would rather it added. Sorry. Yes, thank you. Just the one that was point three, which was just calling on—I just thought it was important to support, to get the support of Penrith Council in pushing for our additional river crossing, because if they continue with their section, which they appear to be doing, we would be probably adjoining a road coming off that somehow. My

Problem with your point three, if I may, was that it ties the river crossing to the M9, whereas I see it as a separate issue. It's a local traffic issue, and we shouldn't have to wait around for the M9 or anything else to get it solved.

My point three is about the Bells Line of Road, Castle Road corridor connection. Not the M9. The M9's in point four. Oh, okay.

Sorry?

That's correct. That was, yeah.

Well, I've confused things. I will leave that in your capable hands. Okay

I'm happy. I get, I guarantee what you're trying to put forward, Councillor Calvert, is though I get the point two that regarding the 1951 corridor, and you're basically saying that we don't support the current proposed Bells Line of Road corridor, which we've asked to be scrapped anyway in the motion, and that any funding will be spent on planning and construction towards a third river crossing. Okay. Happy with that. Councillor Kotlash

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In your original point three, there's just a few little things I think need to be tightened up. In the third line where it says, in the vicinity of North Richmond, Richmond and Windsor should be, or Windsor. And then it says further on down to address Hawkesbury City Council's long-term ambition of achieving the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River should be in the vicinity of Richmond and Windsor. Yes, in the vicinity of Richmond and Windsor

Doesn't need to be there . No, I'm sorry. So just to tighten it up a bit. Okay. So if we can have river inserted after Hawkesbury and have or replaced and between Richmond and Windsor, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you to the

Tidyer uppers. Thank you. Further discussion. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think there's some good things coming out of this discussion tonight, and I'd encourage more of it more often in this chamber. But anyway, Madam Mayor, just to pick up a couple of little points from Councillor Richards' speech. I think she said that when she spoke to Cabinet members, I think this is the word, but you can correct it, that all options would be on the table. I think that's what she said, and I assume that means the current option, which might be adjusted a little bit here and there. I assume that's what she meant, but you can correct that. So I just want to make sure that people understand that in her discussions that that came up. And I did speak to Mr Perrett very early, 6 a.m.

on Anzac Day at Richmond, and I did raise this issue with him. And he did say, he said there would need to be some adjustments to the Bells Line of Road corridor. He didn't say he was going to stop it. He said there would need to be some adjustments. So this councillor did talk to the member because he was there, which you may or might not know, but he was certainly there. So from that point of view, yes. Now whether other councillors have done the same thing, I don't know, but I took the opportunity whilst he was there and I was there, and it was a good conversation. Now can I also just raise one other point, Madam Mayor, and I'm really speaking in favour of your mayoral minute because I think it does encompass all of the things that we need to do on behalf of the Hawkesbury residents, those certainly that are affected and seriously affected.

The only one other little point I want to make is whether the orbital— The outer Sydney orbital needs to be so closely linked to this, I'm not sure. I think there's a lot in this Mayoral Minute, Madam Mayor, and whether or not we need to separate those two issues out and run separately on those, which we may gain more ground if we do. But anyway, it's there now and we'll see where it goes. But can I just remind Liberal councillors, the

Current Liberal councillors, that we have such a thing called the Kermond Carrajong Investigation Area. Some of us will remember that. It's been going on for a while. And every, to my recollection, every planning proposal put to this Council within the Kermond Carrajong Investigation Area, they have supported, I suspect,

When you look at the numbers and look at the voting. So, what does that mean? What it means, and this is, sorry, another point which was raised recently at an IHAPs, that's an independent hearing assessment planning group panel, where they considered one of these planning proposals for a 47-lot subdivision in the Kermond Carrajong Investigation Area. They said that Council had, in fact, encouraged applications for this investigation area. Previous Council, previous Council dominated by the Liberal councillors. Approve the Redbank development . No question about that. That's the record. Right. So maybe, maybe, just maybe, the bureaucrats, the bureaucrats in wherever, planning department, looked at that history and said, Oh, clearly, clearly there is an appetite for developing west of the river.

Clearly there is an appetite for development to happen. And yes, they did say at one of the meetings that I attended, Yes, well we're expecting a series of Redbank developments up along the corridor. That's what they said, right? So where's all this going? Well maybe they can't be blamed entirely for putting a corridor so that developments approved by this council and previous councils in the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area, maybe they thought, Well, there is an appetite in this council for doing just that. So let's not blame the bureaucrats entirely. I think we have some questions to answer, and I think the Liberal councillors in this chamber have some questions to answer because maybe we have pre-empted, and it's all been pre-ordained because of what we've done in this chamber over the past.

Thank you. Councillor Tree, thank you. Oh my goodness, that's the longest bow you've ever drawn, I think, Councillor Rasmussen . I don't think so. I think it's hilarious. And they mustn't have done much due diligence because there's been a change of colour in this chamber for, you know, quite a while, so. Right. Anyway, very funny. I actually, I'm not unhappy that I supported Redbank. I actually think it's an excellent development. I think the nursing home's excellent No, I'm not. I'm absolutely deadly serious. I think it's quality housing in this local area. It was the second stage of a development that started in 1990, and I actually don't think it was a bridge too far. Regarding the Kermond Carradjong

Investigation area, that was put forward as a result of encouragement from the Director of Planning at the time, because nobody wanted—everybody wanted to build around the villages, and they wanted to focus their development around that rather than out in the green space. So that was in response to that, not an appetite from our side, definitely. I don't think anybody in here is supportive of the corridors in their existing state. Definitely not the current Castle Ray one or the Bells Line of Road. However, I do think that having had something earmarked on a map since 1951, if they went back to the old one, the initial Castle Ray corridor, then people could live with that. It'd be a bit more palatable because people made investments and, you know, built according to that .

And if someone just said, It's not our council, you're right, it's not our council, so I don't know why we're putting it on here, but— Anyway. Part of it, our council Yeah, not a large part. But anyway, I just think that people have, and that's what I'm saying, I'm really supportive of this Bells Line of Road section not being, you know, the thought bubble that it is. I'm not supportive of it. I mean, if I was going to be a bit cynical, we've got an election year coming up and get the tinfoil out, but I mean, you could be forgiven for thinking either that the bureaucrats have thought that this would be a great way to shake things up before an election, or you can believe that the Nats and the Coalition wanted to have some sort of selling point with a super freeway across the thing.

Forget the date of 2050 whatever that Councillor Calvert mentioned. It's 20 never. Like, it's never going to be there. It's just a desperate hope, if that's without much thought. So we need to get away from that thought bubble. It's a terrible one. Either way, it's really important that they take on board the community's concern. I'm not a big fan of, I think that there are a lot of people in the community who are really terrified that this could mean the end of their houses, their homes, and it would be upsetting for them, and I absolutely agree with that. Sorry.

She said Councillor Tree was agreeing with that. Continue

And I think that, you know, any government that doesn't listen to these sorts of concerns over, you know, these sorts of projects which seem to have very little process in them, I think that they really do need to pay big attention. But Councillor Calvert made a really valid point, so I'm supportive that the Bells Line of Road corridor is scrapped completely. Happy with the initial one from the 1951 due to the fact that we knew it was there. Nobody's bought— You know, nobody feels like they're going to miss out there. The point that Councillor Calvert made was really spot on regarding the local traffic issues. And we do have some solutions, and I know that they're not incredibly popular with many here, but, you know, that little crossing down over the Grose River would make a big difference to a lot of people.

I'm not disputing the fact that we do need another crossing. I've always said that we needed another crossing. The Grose River crossing was nothing more than to alleviate— it wasn't meant to be a big thoroughfare or a freeway. It was just meant to alleviate some of the local traffic. The problem with a big crossing is that without huge, you know, we've said this, without huge investment from government—and you could have government, you know, as the option, or you have government and private enterprise—but as we're not, you know, we haven't got an appetite for further development in the area, it's unlikely that it'd be a partnership with government and private enterprise. But even if we did convince the government to get another crossing, we're still looking at, you know, establishing, putting a line on a map to find another corridor.

Those processes take a really long time. It's not something that happens overnight. If you're thinking about putting the, you know, if you're going to upgrade Bells Line of Road and put the few lanes through North Richmond and expand on that bridge, that's a little while away. But we need to have two minds here. We need to make sure that we're putting forward our staunch position of opposing the Castle —sorry, not the current Castle Ray corridor and also the Bells Line of Road corridor, and— I'm just wondering whether if you didn't want to put there about a corridor for Bells Line of Road, but if you wanted to put in there about the upgrade of Bells Line of Road as a positive possibility into the future.

I don't know if you've got it, is it point two?

In point two, at the... just about extension. I'm just

Wondering

If we could be... I think, really that's the point of point five, though, that we would look into all those sorts of things. That's the, or point six it probably is now , to look at those future things. The upgrade of the Bells Line of Road is a current policy. I mean, they're working on overtaking lanes at the moment, and from a number of those reports that came out in 2012 and so on, a priority was to upgrade for safety purposes and to put in lanes on the Bells Line of Road. So that's an existing thing. It's just whether they will actually expand that . Yeah, and that's right. So expanding that would be part of an existing thing, I would think

Yeah.

How did that happen? I think that'd be sufficient for the interim anyway. But the roadworks that had been done in the lead up to the North Richmond, the approach to the North Richmond Bridge has made a huge difference. I know that when people were sitting there, it has made a huge difference compared to what it used to be like. And also the proposed works that are actually currently, or the works that are actually being undertaken at the moment, they will also help the flow of traffic in a very big way. Everybody poo-pooed the big roundabout down here at the end of George Street, which is actually brilliant. So I think that there will be a difference. People will notice a difference to that. That's

All. Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm supportive of your Mayoral Minute. I thought it was a correct response. I think Council followed a really good process and has shown some good civic leadership. The community clearly has been very upset by this proposal. The State Government has done a very poor job at consultation. We're in a consultation period, but most people, rightly or wrongly, it's still the State Government's fault, most people don't believe we are in a consultation period. People believe we're in a fight to the death, sort of. It's either going to happen or it's not, and that's indicative that the State Government's process has not been a good one when people are feeling that way. If the State Government had stuck to their initial process, as they indicated, they wouldn't release any options and the studies behind them, people might have a lot more confidence that they were being consulted with.

And that's a message I've passed on to people who will listen to me. But I'm supportive of this motion. I think it responds to the community's concern. We've taken our time to listen, we've taken our time to have those public meetings, and then come back here and represented the concerns that our residents have put to us. I wasn't going to say much more than that because I think this isn't a time for us to be squabbling amongst ourselves. This is a time for us to be putting up a united front.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Any further discussion? Question, Councillor Calvert.

Your point three, I remembered what problem I had with point three.

Okay. Is it still my point three

Or has it become something else? I think it's still your point three if they could roll it down.

Yes.

First line, regarding the adjustment of the alignment of Bells Line of Road, I would be happy to support it if it said, support of Penrith Council to facilitate the establishment of a high-level crossing. Okay. As soon as you say adjustment of the alignment—

All right, I'm happy to remove adjustment of the alignment. Take it away. It's gone.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I've got a lot of notes here. I'm just trying to sort them out. I'd just, first of all, I'd like to commend Councillor Conolly on his words and the sentiment behind them. I think the community will appreciate that greatly. I'd like to point out to Councillor Richards, this isn't a political campaign launch, and despite her admiral pre-selection speech, I'm not going to get involved in such things. But I wish you all the best in your coming battle. I find it hard to believe that we actually need to have a discussion in this way about the way these corridors have been revealed without any consultation. I was there in 2015 and we heard the promises.

This is both for the M9 and the Bells Line. The shock, distress and anxiety goes beyond the definitions of ignorance that government or its departments must have. It's really quite distressing. Last Wednesday, there were people there so distressed they were in tears of desperation. To turn up on people's doorsteps unannounced and hand them letters telling them their homes will be impacted by an expressway corridor with no warning. Let alone any consultation should be unimaginable. But it's not. It happened.

Minister Pavey said on March 26th, the Bells Line of Road corridor is determined, and we all saw her jumping for joy with her Nationals friends over the mountains. You don't have consultation after a determination. Consultation occurs before a determination. So I think, again, take Councillor Connolly's words and the sentiment behind them, because I hope the government has realised that they have got this terribly wrong. Regarding Councillor Rasmussen's words and Councillor Tree's comments about tinfoil hats, I think it was, Transport for New South Wales admitted the corridor west of Kurrajong Heights—

This is at

The meeting last week—was a problem because the— I'll see if I can get their words— because there's very little land pressure west of Kurrajong Heights. But they said there is pressure, land pressure east of Kurrajong Heights,

And that's why it is the land pressure east of Kurrajong Heights that is behind the rationale of the corridor. Not once did they mention the improvement of traffic for people west of the mountains to Sydney. It was all due to this land pressure.

Another gentleman from Transport New South Wales said that they need to preserve space for corridors if things are going to grow.

And by grow he meant development. He said if we're not going to grow, then we don't need that space. In other words, if there is no development west of the river, we don't need a corridor. So I think we need to bear that in mind, despite some people's disbelief that this could be the actual case, that

This is not about providing traffic through to people west of the mountains. Even Transport for New South Wales themselves said the Bells Line of Road corridor, I assume the M9 corridor, is 150 metres wide, but east of Kurrajong Heights it's only 30 metres wide because it impacts National Park and World Heritage areas and they can't make it any wider.

If they are serious about providing some kind of transport corridor to connect Sydney to the west, then let them start in the west. Let them find a way up the western escarpment. Let them find a way up Scenic Hill, so 26 metre B doubles can get up it. Let them find a way over Mount Charles, over Pierce's Pass and up and down Mount Tomah, then come and talk to us. Until that's sorted out, there's no need for any expressway corridor this side of the mountain. So, I mean, this whole thing is bizarrely, and I suspect I'll get a grin here, it's not unlike Douglas Adams' book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when the Vogons notified Earthlings, and I quote, As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development on the outlying regions of the galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition.

The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes.

And this is what's happened. It's like the Vogons are in charge. So I'm hoping the aims of this Mayoral Minute, with its intention to make a more overarching strategic view of the traffic requirements now and into the future, will bear fruit. And I hope out of this horrible situation our community has been through and is going through, something positive can be generated. The government has a duplication of the North Richmond Bridge pencilled in for 2036. That's still, what, 18 years away. This corridor is planned for construction after 2056. What's that, 30, 40 years away, whatever it is. Castle Ray Corridor is 67 years old and has not done one thing for traffic. A corridor does not provide traffic relief.

That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen who have been kind enough to come and visit us tonight,

This government is truly bogan .

Let me assure you,

The representative from Transport New South Wales

At the Clarendon Showground the other night indicated very clearly,

From his own mouth, that these corridors— sorry , that a number of corridor— Proposal, shall we say, had been put to the State Cabinet

With the express intent

Of

Passing to the superior cabinet

The options that had been looked at

Within the public service, with the inquiry as to whether or not

All of those proposals, or one only of those proposals, should be put out for consideration.

The answer came back on March 26. It is a Cabinet decision. Despite what you have heard from three of the Liberal councillors, this is a State Cabinet decision. It has all of the significance and remarkable parallels, may I say, to the Windsor Bridge replacement bridge project. And look, that has been running for 15 years. We now have an upper house of the State Parliament inquiry, to which I've sat in and listened to and watched over two sitting days.

Believe me. This government pays no heed at all to John and Mary citizen. Not a bit of it. You're seeing that here manifest. We've got it with the Windsor Bridge replacement project. We've got it with the total traffic situation around the Hawkesbury. This whole Hawkesbury local government area and probably the adjoining areas require an integrated traffic solution. And what are we being offered? Nothing. We've got a process now called this Windsor Bridge replacement project, which hooks up with nothing. It doesn't hook up with this proposed corridor affair. We've got the same thing going on out at Pitt Town with a bypass there being promulgated by the State Government after being prodded and poked and pushed for years.

It doesn't tie up with anything. But believe me, in amongst the projects that were on the table to be looked at by the Public Service were options in relation, at least at Corridor M9, which could have had it

Marrying in to a degree, admittedly maybe not perfectly, but was something for Windsor in the way of a crossing of the river and something for Pitt Town. And it could have all been done as a major consolidated , really thought-out, carefully considered plan. Instead, we're operating in silos. RMS play their games, Department of Planning play their games, Infrastructure New South Wales plays its games, and the parliamentary members play their own games. And they're doing it very nicely. You just look not only at what we've seen about this, you just have to look at the stadia debacle. Go down to Penrith and have a look at the lovely bridge going across the river as a pedestrian bridge. My God, probably $40 million worth of total expenditure, not worth a cracker.

Should not have been spent to that order. If they'd spent $4 million tacking a pedestrian bridge on either the road bridge or the rail bridge, that would have been perfectly fine and decent. Instead, we've got rubbish. Wasted money, just total waste of money and infrastructure that is useless and pointless. Just unbelievable. Believe me, you folk have got to not only act through us, and we'll certainly represent you, but we can't issue the one great thing that you have, and that is your franchise, your right to vote. You exercise that right and be very cautious and very careful about how you do so in March of 2019. I strongly recommend that you consider your positions very carefully because this style of government is not democratic.

It is far from democratic.

You only have to look at the projects that are going on in Sydney. The light rail is an absolute debacle. The transport corridor that doesn't even take in other areas. Order, Madam. Point of order, Councillor

Conolly, please. Absolutely.

Could we potentially get back to the subject? Yes. Well,

This— Councillor Ross is concluding. Yes

Well, our dear Liberal councillors like to have their little foray, foray into make-believe. It's all softy, feely, touchy, lovely. No, it's not. I'm sorry. They're there with everything but an AK-47.

That is the truth of it.

Now. If it is not beyond my fellow councillors' good

Offices to consider, I think if there is some indication in this wonderful activity this evening to include somehow an integrated transport solution for the whole of this LGA, apart from dealing purely with corridors, I think that would be also not a bad idea. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rosson. I may just say that that is the intention of what those points have, along with our already underway local government area-wide traffic study. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam

Mayor. I agree with Councillor Tree that this is very much a thought bubble and a pretty poorly thought out one. It's very clearly a vote grab for the National Party west of the mountains. We need to ensure that we don't use this purely to score political points, and we should not be allowing those who are opposed to either of these corridors to be labelled as a Labor protest movement or politically motivated.

This isn't a bypass, and this isn't a traffic solution. Decades away was what we heard from Transport New South Wales at the meeting last Wednesday. So let's not pretend that this is going to benefit the Hawkesbury any time soon, certainly not in two earth minutes.

Residents are justifiably devastated by these proposals. In Vineyard, residents were consulted in 2015 and led to believe that the corridor would be limited to the area around Bandon Road. Several families had commenced negotiations with developers as part of the Vineyard 2 release. They've been completely blindsided by this. People who worked two and three jobs to buy their houses. People who have planned their retirement, their children's schooling, their futures around the Vineyard 2 development, around where they thought the corridor was going to go through, incidentally an area that actually doesn't contain any residential properties anymore because it's been marked out as a corridor for so long.

In Castle Ray and Grose Vale, they've had the rug ripped out from under them. No consultation, no warning, no support or information, just men in suits at their doors with letters talking of acquisition. These people believed that they owned their houses and land. They were obviously wrong. For those of us who attended the public meeting, there was no joy there either. Just bureaucrats speak and empty promises of consultation too late after the fact. This is not democracy, and it's certainly not respectful and transparent governance. Tonight, a resident has posted from the Bells Line of Road group that due to the letters that she sent to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight and to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, she got a single letter back from a principal manager, Ministerial and Government Services, telling her of the marvels of all of these corridors in their ability to connect us and the Blue Mountains with Western Sydney.

And I'm sure that will be very cold comfort to her. Council needs to send Transport for New South Wales back to the drawing board. They need to justify these corridors and the impact they'll have on the Hawkesbury. As Councillor Reynolds says, start at the central west end. That's actually the hard bit, and then find the best route back to Sydney, not this lazy finger painting exercise, starting in our very best land with absolutely nothing to gain for our residents. Justify the road to nowhere at Oakville, where it stops just shy of Moralia and disappears into a dead end. Beyond that is pristine wetland and woodland habitat. Just what does this wrecking ball of a government have planned for us?

And Council needs to make it very clear to Transport for New South Wales that the area west of the river is not slated for development, something we heard over and over again last Wednesday night, and that the numerous planning documents issued by state and federal agencies support the Hawkesbury being retained as green space and agricultural land, not medium-density housing. Our residents are not so materialistic or selfish that the promise of a quick buck for destroying all that they value is sufficient to placate them. And it's time for the State Government, the Department of Planning and Transport for New South Wales, to get that message, because last week's meeting contained some obviously erroneous information.

I hope that the Cudgegong investigation study can further inform this, and I hope that it happens in time for our submission. There is no justification to destroy the environment and people's homes for an outdated mode of transport. The Greens don't support toll roads up to 150 metres wide, while the rest of the world is moving to public transport and rail freight. I need to commend the local residents groups, including Vineyard, Oakville, and especially the Bells Line of Road group. Your work and your efforts to inform, connect, and support your community are commendable. Thank you. You should be very proud. There is no justification for berating community members for not being flexible enough for Mr Perrottet.

They too have busy lives, some of them travelling, as you heard, for more than three hours a day to get home. And I understand that Mr Perrottet failed to RSVP until 24 hours before the meeting.

He also had the opportunity to respond in Parliament and instead of responding to concerns about his residents, spent his time talking about the marvels of the Victorian Government and their building of infrastructure there. I hope this Council can unite behind affected communities and deliver a strong message to the State Government that this is simply not good enough. We won't tolerate a road that's all pain and no gain. Windsor Bridge has taught us what happens when we don't fight, when we accept second rate because we bought the furphy that there was nothing else on offer. Ms Bowe has clearly stated what we need: real local traffic solutions.

I appreciate the Deputy Mayor's efforts to amend the mayoral minute. I don't support this corridor either. I think we also need to be very cautious that we don't treat the outer Sydney orbital and the Bells Line of Road corridor as a package deal. It's not possible to treat them in such a way. The outer Sydney orbital has a much shorter timeline. We will fail to represent those residents adequately if we don't separate the two issues sufficiently. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? No further discussion. I won't take a long time in right of reply. I'll just address a couple of things. I'd just firstly like to address Councillor Richard's question to me regarding have I contacted Dominic Perrottet. I was requested with the General Manager to attend a meeting with Minister for Roads Melinda Pavey and Mr Perrottet in the city the week before last, and I did do that with some traffic representatives and local community representatives, and we did attend, and unfortunately Mr Perrottet was unable to attend, but the Minister for Roads did attend, and so I have also spoken to him about the issue on another occasion, just to clarify that.

But I'd like to thank Councillors for their support and contributions. I think we all acknowledge it's a flawed process that's been imposed upon people, and I think that now we can say we're united in opposing the current Bells Line of Road corridor and the M9. I clarify that with saying that's subject to hearing more from the affected communities because, as yet, I have not really heard enough from those communities to go out on a limb and say exactly what Council's position would be. But we'll revisit that once we've had the public meetings there and spoken to more people. I think we're all committed to working for solutions, and we've identified the need for short-term solutions and to take proper steps to lead into what future transport both means and how it can be addressed.

And obviously that is going to have to include an increase in public transport. It's just unacceptable that we live in an area where public transport is not an option, both for the benefits that would have to congestion on our roads, but also for access for people that don't have a car, for younger people accessing employment and leisure time, and for a variety of reasons. We have minimal bus service and we have issues with the train timetable currently. So we need to expand our public transport options, and I do feel that's a government obligation to start really looking at putting some public transport out here for us, as well as, of course, continuing to investigate any considerations for upgrades in rail, both for freight and passenger movements, both within our local area and, of course, to the western areas of New South Wales.

Much of the congestion we currently suffer, it has been a change in the dynamic. We have the weekday daily peak hours, but we have this growing weekend congestion, where on a Saturday morning, the line of traffic going out of the city does not stop. It just starts early in the morning and it goes all morning. And these are people who are exiting the growing density in the city, people who are accessing our open spaces and the open spaces of other areas. And therefore the government does have an obligation to ensure that it provides suitable means to move those people around, and rail would be a good way to do that. We have two of the city's exits, of course, and the government needs to upgrade those to a suitable position.

Thank you for the support for this. I hope we move forward with working through those various things and really working with our community, so our community is a part of what the future solutions will be. It is our community and it's our future, and I'm looking forward to what we can do next. Thank you.

I'd also ask the community to stay involved and keep going. Keep up with this, because this is when it's really important that people out there, you see what happens, you see how governments can suddenly impose things on people with no warning, and you must be alert and ready to react and to be part of the community so we can find solutions to deal with it together. So I'll put the motion now. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you, councillors.

Our next item is item one.

100, we have one speaker, Glen Falson

Thank you, Madam Mayor, for the opportunity to speak to you

I was going to say, in the words of Monty Python, And now for something completely different. But I wonder whether it really is because it involves Councillor Rasmussen's pet study area, Kermon, Kurrajong area . However, I just say in relation to this proposal, it's already been supported by Council a couple of times, and to the effect that we're at the final throes of it now. The plan has been endorsed by the State Government that it can be made, and the only outstanding thing is to adopt the voluntary planning agreement, which has also been checked by the applicant and myself, and by the applicant—sorry, and the owner, Council staff, and I understand Council's lawyers, who had the final drafting okay of this planning proposal, planning agreement.

What the business paper doesn't mention is— As I indicated, I've been to the council a couple of times, and this is the property, to refresh your memory, that has an old house which the landowner, through myself, applied to council some, I don't know, six, seven, eight years ago for consideration of it to be a heritage item, because it was felt at that time that it was a shame to see this old house not be used as a proper dwelling once again. And the opportunity and the avenue probably at that time was to have it included as a heritage item, which might have then allowed it some alternative uses, such as a house, because the LEP only allows one house on one block of land. With the council, and I think I beg to differ with Councillor Rasmussen, but the council actually resolved to encourage these applications in the Kurmond and Kurrajong area, and the council is the council is the council.

It doesn't matter whether it's this council or previous councils or a council 40 years ago. If the council resolved to do something, then the community have a reasonable understanding and requirement that they can make applications in accordance with the council's resolved wishes. And that's all that this landowner, through myself, has done. We've done everything that is required of us. We've spent tens of thousands of dollars on various studies, all of which have come back positive. And indeed, the council's own heritage advisor has said that the house is certainly worthy of further consideration for inclusion in the council's heritage listing. Although, I must say that the heritage status or otherwise of the house has nothing to do with the— Draft amendment to the LEP, which the council previously and the council staff have said we'll go ahead irrespective of the heritage items, but just letting you know that we've supported that, and I'd like you to support us on this final throw of this planning amendment, which, as I said, is in accordance with council's adopted policy, which to date has still not been changed.

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

Yes.

Any questions for Mr. Falson ? Councillor Tree. Oh, thank you. Just wanted to ask, you're all happy with all of the suggestions in here?

Yes

And happy with the recommendation that the general manager and the mayor can— Yes. Yep. Okay. Goodo. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Falson.

Move the recommendation, Madam Mayor.

Moved. Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Reynolds. Discussion, Councillor Conolly. Oh,

Just to say that I think this is pretty much the standard VPA we've been using for all of these applications to go to this point. We're charging 30,000 per lot, which is the maximum allowed under the Section 94 contributions, the equivalent of that if we had one. So I don't think we could be asking for anything more. So I think the VPAs should be accepted.

Thank you. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Conolly . Not necessary. I'll put the motion. It's actually a planning matter. We'll vote with our buttons, voting on the recommendation in the business paper 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 Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against the motion: Councillor Rasmussen. The motion is carried. Our next item is item 100.

We have one speaker, Bill Snedden.

Mayor, Councillor, Pres Galley, I'm speaking in favour of this proposal, which has the potential to rationalise land use in the area, retaining its rural character and clarify its, in planning terms, uses appropriate to its lengthy rural use history. Hopefully, the completed document will also reduce the substantial recent conflicts between residents wanting a quiet rural lifestyle and those wanting more active uses on the lowlands for recreation and the need to finance sporting activities on the leisure use lands. Yes, there is potential to resolve the conflicts regarding noise, unapproved commercial activity including mining and flood vulnerable structures, and also traffic volumes on narrow rural roads.

I'm aware that conflicts to date have involved significant litigation, now into several millions of dollars spent by several parties, some prepared to spend much more if they feel necessary. So we do need some conflict resolution. I'm also pleased to see the emphasis on constraining uses in line with the flood risks and frequency on the lowlands areas affected. However, there is an almost glossed-over elephant in the room tonight. A fluorescent pink one, to my mind. This involves Figure 10 in the attachment, page 14, in red, the mineral resources in the lowlands. The entire lowlands is identified as state significant alluvial sands and gravel, as was extracted at the Penrith Lakes Scheme. Several of the councillors here tonight are well versed in this issue, and former Mayor Rick Stubbs first mentioned the potential for mining in this and the North Richmond areas around 2001, 2002.

I remember clearly I was in the chamber when that was done. What I'm not seeing in this planning proposal is the potential for New South Wales Government to override Council and insist on the lowlands being mined for sand and gravel, a la Penrith Lakes, which is now closing. This would be some time in the indefinite future. As it is, Maroota and Tinda Creek sand deposits are being pushed harder and harder. With all the development in the area, the conspiracy theorists are also suggesting that there's going to be a shortage of supply with the Sydney Airport developments going in. Indeed, the local conspiracy theorists hold that the historic Windsor Bridge and its pilings have to go in order to allow sand laden barges unobstructed use of the river.

Although this was actually denied by RMS engineers at the New South Wales Upper House Bridge hearing yesterday, the 7th of May. So I'm reading: planning for a potential for land use clarity and ensuing peace in the valley. But there will still be the potential for the elephant to raise its trunk and trumpet loudly at some potential time in the indefinite future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Snedden. Are you happy to take—

Yes,

Certainly. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Do I take you correctly when you say that despite the investment that's been made at those lowland properties— To create handsome facilities for equine use, is that you think that at some future point a state government will step in and decide to mine it instead?

Councillor, as it's identified mineral resource by Department of Planning, as are, say, for example, the sand deposits up at Tinda Creek, which people didn't ever believe were going to be mined. Sand is going into short supply. Penrith Lakes is closing down. Price for sand apparently going up, and sand is now getting to be a scarce resource, as with gravel. The reality is I'm simply flagging the potential for somebody in state government, maybe road reserve corridors, to come in and say, This is now state significant. We need to do something different. Roll over, guys, we have different ideas about the land use. We're going to resume it.

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that. I mean, it's also true that there's coal underneath the CBD of Sydney, but that doesn't mean that it's about to be dug up.

Councillor Zamprogno, in relation to coal, my family background is actually in coal mining in Newcastle. The coal measures for Sydney are so deep that it's uneconomical to mine. That is why the coal measures that are mined go from Wollongong South, around the back of Lithgow, out to the west and to the Hunter. The Sydney Basin is too deep for economical coal mining. My

Point was rhetorical, but thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Richards. Oh, okay. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Snedden. Thank you, Councillor Richards.

I'd like to move to defer this item, please, for one further briefing and bring it back at the next Council meeting. I'm sorry to do that, but upon reading further detail in the report and the attachment, I have a few issues that I think we need to discuss. And I believe that if we're going to have one shot at putting this into the Department of Planning, we need to get it right. And I would just genuinely ask that all councillors be on board with exploring those further issues. Can I just get you a

Seconder, please? Seconder, Councillor Tree. Thank you. Sorry, continue, Councillor Richards. I'm not going to add any more. I'm conscious of other speakers ' time. Is there any further discussion?

Would you just get clarification as to what those further issues could possibly be? Yeah, absolutely, Councillor Richards. There was ambiguity around whether all properties had been included. That might be a possibility, but that was one of them. The other one was the fact that I believe the definition of equine is too narrow. I do believe that if we are going to be looking at allowing a use there that was already permissible prior to the 2012 LEP amendment, that we also need to be making sure that the owners in those areas don't have such a narrow definition of equine to only be polo and show jumping, and also include things like rodeos, vaulting, jousting, pony clubs, things like that. I believe that we need to be encouraging small business more in this area and making sure that it has the tourism potential that it does have, encouraging possible B&Bs to be allowed on those sites because we do have a lack of accommodation in the Hawkesbury.

And I believe that being a social sport, that the polos need to be able to have facilities to be able to sell food and drink so that we actually have good events. So they're the things that I'm actually looking at, and I'd like to discuss more maturely with councillors before we actually put through a proposal to the Department of Planning.

So, Councillor Richards, your motion is that we defer subject to a council briefing and to bring back at next meeting? Correct,

Thank you

We’ve just got to confirm we’ve got capacity to do that briefing in the interim. It may have to be a later meeting, if otherwise.

Are we doing that now?

We’re doing that now. Any further discussion? It should be

Okay. It should

Be okay. Are you happy if it’s unable to be done then that we just have it to the following meeting after that? Any further discussion? Any issue with that, Councillor Tree? Are you happy with that? Okay. Councillor Ross.

I’m just not quite of an understanding about the equestrian

Activity that is being

So cautiously worded in the proposal .

Could I have a comment from staff, please, in regard to addressage event or something similar involving an equine activity , please?

Mr Kearns.

Councillor Ross, I think that’s the issue Councillor Richards raised, that there’s some ambiguity around the definition. So that was what she was seeking. But if you wish Mr Kearns to do a dressage definition, Mr Kearns.

Show jumping.

Yes, so I guess when looking at it, you know, we looked at the definition of equine and we thought that was too broad to, particularly I guess given the local character in the lowlands, there is a number of issues to consider on the lowlands. There's obviously the rural land, the scenic landscape, and there's obviously the highly flood affected. So that was why we felt the equine definition was too broad and that's why we looked to refine it down to particularly polo and show jumping and limit it to that, essentially.

Councillor Russ. So do I interpret from that, sir, that

You would envisage that, for instance, the conduct of a dressage event to be without— sorry, not permissible should this change go through?

Mr Kearns. So if this planning proposal was submitted on the papers tonight, it just deals with polo and show jumping only.

Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Richards. Not required, thank you. We'll take the vote. It is a planning decision. Can

I just ask Connor the question?

Quick question, Councillor Ross, because we've already gone— you can ask it at the briefing. It's a planning matter. Vote with buttons, please, on the count of three. One, two, three. I knew it. Oh, it was there. It was there and it went. Sorry. We'll do it again.

On

The count of three, we'll do it again. One, two, three.

It's a delayed reaction. For the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is carried. Next item is item one.

116. We have three speakers. The first speaker is Rebecca Tolk.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councillors. I am the chairperson of the 2018 Hawkesbury Relay for Life, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. Relay for Life is a 24-hour community event where teams of friends, families, schoolmates and colleagues register and raise money leading up to relay. There are many aspects of Relay for Life, whether it be our opening ceremony, where we show our VRPs, our cancer survivors and carers, that they are the reason we are all there. Throughout the day, we show off our local talent. We have health hub filled with experts on a range of healthy living topics, plenty of kids activities to encourage them to be active and get involved in a charity and think more about just themselves.

Live entertainment, where we showcase the abundance of talent we have in the Hawkesbury area. There are team and local emergency service displays, food vendors and much more. Relay for Life is not a race. It is open to all ages and fitness levels. We walk the track to signify that cancer never rests, so neither will we. And every single cent raised goes directly to the Cancer Council. Cancer Council is Australia's leading cancer charity, working across every aspect of every cancer. It supports families, speaks out on behalf of the community, empowers people to reduce their risk, improves detection and treatment options. With the help of communities, the Cancer Council is getting closer to a cancer-free future.

But in 2018, there will be an estimated 138,321 new cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia alone. However, due to improvements in prevention, diagnostic capabilities and treatment options, our survival rate is increasing. Most of our cancer survival rates are now near 70 percent, and some up to 90 percent. In the last 10 years, Cancer Council Australia has provided $148 million for research. Their goal is to fund world-class, groundbreaking research to cover all aspects of cancer control. The Cancer Council also provide a confidential information service hotline. Anyone can contact their hotline and speak to specially trained staff. They can put the patient or their family and friends in touch with counselling services or support groups.

The Cancer Council also help with transport to treatment, emergency accommodation, financial assistance, legal help, and make sure that people know that they are not alone. In the Hawkesbury area, the Hawkesbury Cancer Support Group help locals when they need it the most. The Cancer Council has been involved in Improve Your Long Game at Windsor and Lynwood Golf Clubs to reduce the incidence of melanoma and encourage people to have healthy lifestyles. They also provide support at the Hawkesbury Cancer Centre at Hawkesbury Hospital. Relay for Life isn't just a Hawkesbury event, nor a New South Wales, or even an Australian event. It first started in the USA, and there are now over 20 countries participating in Relay for Life.

In Australia, relays are held in every state and territory, and over 134 people participate every single year. I'm extremely proud to be the Chairperson in 2018, as we're celebrating our 15th year. And if we get the community support, the participant numbers and enough money, we will reach $1.5 million raised by the Hawkesbury community across the past 15 years, which I think is such an incredible effort. So on behalf of the— excuse me—on behalf of the Cancer Council and the organising committee of the 2018 Hawkesbury Relay For Life, we ask that the Hawkesbury City Council support us and help us achieve our goals. We ask for support via social media in promoting our events and addition to the calendar.

We request the erection of our banner on the exterior of the Council chambers to show that the Hawkesbury City Council support us in the fight against cancer. And we request permission to utilise electronic signage on Council-owned land, like we see over the Hawkesbury. I would like to invite all of you to come along to the 2018 Hawkesbury Relay For Life and show our community that you support us in the fight against cancer. Thank you.

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

Absolutely. Any questions, councillors? Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, just a quick one. No

It's okay, I'll— Okay.

Change of mind. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Kim Smith.

Madam Mayor, councillors and the gallery, normally I would strongly support something like this, as I believe the Relay For Life is an amazing event that happens all over Australia and raises a lot of money for this cause. Please note, I totally support Relay For Life. It is a great initiative. What I think is relevant with this notice of motion is the hypocrisy that some of the Liberals here voted against the same-sex marriage banner going up on the Council chambers. The banner went up after the vote was successful, but then the banner was subsequently stolen and had to be replaced with a new banner that the community once again had to fundraise to purchase. What is concerning here is the culprit who appeared in court may even be here tonight, as he usually attends these meetings. I think he may have already gone.

Point of order!

To say this banner won't also be stolen, considering this person clearly has a fetish for banners

Point of order, Councillor. This

Is turning a positive motion that needs no grandstanding, just a simple resolution, into a personal vilification of a member of the community. Keep

Going . Move on. Madam Mayor, if the culprit had had a conscience and offered to purchase another banner for the same-sex marriage event and had apologised to the community he grossly offended by taking off with their banner, then perhaps this issue regarding banners would go away. But the culprit has continued to basically thumb his nose at the people he offended, hasn't offered to purchase a new banner or pay ... Point of order. Please

Miss Smith, move on from speaking about an individual to

The issue. I think it is a serious risk to the Relay for Life people to pay for a banner when there is a very distinct possibility it may be stolen in the dead of night like the other banner. Now for the electronic signage. We have a protest that has been going on for five years up in Thompson Square, and the signs that have been put up around the square have been removed due to complaints from drivers who find them distracting. Other signs in the area around the square were also removed by some Facebook trolls, who distorted— Again,

Relevance, Madam Mayor. Let's just stick to the point that this is a community notice of motion to support a community charity, and we are so far off track that it's ridiculous. Councillor

Richards, we're just discussing the signage. Just go to the point

These were stolen off poles and thrown into the nearby river. The masterminds behind this weren't too bright as they took photos of dry signs that they said were found floating in the river. All evidence pointed to the sign culprits being people that we know. When the signs went up again, the complaints began to Council. This is only to a debate about Thompson Square. It's

About signage. And those signings are against the requirements of

Our own Council. If it's targeting individuals, it's speaking about signage and the putting up of signage.

Okay. But the complaints began to Council again about signage in the area being a distraction to motorists. Councillors, is there a difference between these signs and electronic signs? This was something I found in regard to electronic signs and distraction to motorists. The Human Eye is hardwired to look at bright, moving or flashing objects. It's an evolutionary feature that protects all animals from potential threats. When something moves quickly, your eyes automatically look towards it. There are two sets of data related to digital signage and road safety. One is driver distraction, and the other is collisions. The first category gives us very clear conclusions. Almost every study that's been done shows a direct relationship between digital signage and driver distraction.

This is no surprise since the purpose of these signs is to distract drivers. When it comes to collision data, however, we get inconsistent results. Some studies show a significant increase in collisions, while others show little or no change at all. Experts blame this inconsistency on the fact that the collision data itself is often inaccurate or incomplete due to lack of proper reporting. And because so many of the other external variables are involved, we know that flashing digital billboards are guaranteed to increase distraction. And we know that driver distraction is the number one cause of traffic fatalities. Then why would we even consider placing these digital signs on roads? So basically, if the electronic signs are going to be approved on council land, perhaps the protest groups up at the square could do the same near the bridge and the square.

Would that be acceptable, and on what land?

Thank you, Ms Smith. Any questions? Thanks . No, no, I have a question. Councillor Zamprogno has a question.

Councillor Zamprogno. I just wanted to check that you were aware that this notice of motion was to support a charitable event that is trying to prevent cancer.

Okay, I'm not sure if you heard my first sentence. Normally I would strongly support something like this, as I believe the Relay for Life is an amazing event that happens all over Australia and raises a lot of money for this cause. Please note I totally support Relay for Life, a great initiative. Do you understand what I just said? I

Have a question. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Richards. Ms Smith, can you please explain to everybody why you decided to come up and talk about banners on this notice of motion, but not the one that was pretty much similar to the Red Shield Appeal, thank you? I

Wasn't. I was actually away when the Red Shield Appeal was on.

Any further questions? Is

That it? Thanks.

No further questions. Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Nicholson

Mr Nicholson, please refrain from mentioning individuals.

That's okay, I won't mention any individuals. I think Ms Smith actually sort of covered all of that, which gets rid of most of the first page of my speech. But I'm speaking tonight not in opposition to this notice of motion, although I do. Fully supports the Relay for Life. I've been there for a number of years, and I've got friends that provide all their sound gear. I've got friends that perform at their concert and whatever, and it's a fantastic thing, and I hope that Council will support it. The main reason that I'm opposed to this is that most of this notice of motion doesn't even need to be there. We won't go into the merits of the banner other than I think it's a little bit hypocritical of the Liberal Council to be proposing a banner when they've argued vigorously against banners before, and particularly on the Council building.

In fact, the mother of the proponent stated that it was wasting ratepayers' money on little pet projects.

But, yeah, and as far as signage goes, I won't go into that too much because we've already seen what they've done to the Thompson Square signs. I had to remove a banner that was on my fence in Court Street because it was distracting the traffic . So, Madam Mayor, the Hawkesbury Relay for Life is an absolutely wonderful event, and as with the Red Shield, I would be more than happy for Council to show their support for this event, but the manner of the support is what needs to be addressed here. Points two and three of this notice of motion are things that Council would do in any event if requested by the Relay for Life, and hardly require a notice of motion to be discussed at a Council meeting in order to proceed.

Point four, on the other hand, is so vaguely worded that it is hardly a matter that can be agreed on. Council could, for instance, allow electronic signage to be permitted, but it might end up on land that they own, like Chain of Ponds Reserve, Stanley Park, Kent Beach, or even Governor Phillip Park, where it could be facing into the river and nobody would see it. I would suggest that the notice of motion should state that the electronic signage should be placed on Windsor Road, Hawkesbury Valley Way at McQuade Park so that it can actually be seen by as many people as possible, rather than just being a blanket on council land . The other problem, of course, with the visual signage is things like the Rotary Club currently has advertising in McQuade Park on a trailer, which a guy up at Bilpin got fined $6,000 for having his sign on a trailer.

So I'm not sure that the signage would comply with council's DCP. Madam Mayor, as previously stated, the subject of banners is a highly contentious one in the Hawkesbury of late . We won't go on about Windsor Bridge, other than to repeat what Ms Smith already said . And I'd prefer to see a number of amendments in relation to this motion that's before you at the moment. As I said, I'd suggest that council make the space available for electronic signage on Hawkesbury Valley Way at Ham Common , which is land that council controls, and it would be in the vicinity of the Relay for Life. And given the number of motorists going along there, it would promote them more heavily. The other thing is council already has three banner pole sets that will take three banners each.

They're eight metres high. I can't remember how far apart they are because I didn't write it down. But if council was to allow the Relay for Life to put their banners there , the maximum cost to council would be $75, which would be foregone revenue from renting it out at $25 per banner pole. Given that these banner poles are at McGraths Hill, Ham Common and North Richmond, they will be seen by far more people than will see it on the side of a building in George Street, that everybody is more worried about stopping at the traffic lights than they are about looking on the council building. Um. No doubt, Council, of course, include the promotions suggested in points two and three, as they would do if they were approached through the normal channels .

And, yeah, I guess the only other thing that I wanted to say is the Mayoral Minute of 27th March relating to the Red Shield Appeal called for a draft guideline for working with charitable organisations who are seeking Council support and assistance in the promotion of their activities. And as this has not yet been provided , the current motion may set an undesirable precedent by stating that you can put a banner up on a Council building. I think that we need to wait until you get that report and decide how Council actually wants to conduct its promotion of charitable events Hawkesbury-wide so that all charities have the same opportunity. And that's about it.

Thank you, Mr Nicholson. Are you happy to take questions? Yep Any questions? No questions. Thank you, Councillor Richards

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Now, I think it's— Oh, sorry, seconded Councillor Conolly. Thank you. I think it's pretty fair to say that I've expressed disappointment in this chamber with decisions over the time since I've been elected, but I have to say tonight takes the absolute cake. To take a charity that is promoting raising monies for cancer and turning it into a political grandstanding event is probably one of the most appalling things that I've ever seen. And I think that if any councillor in this room tonight condones that sort of behaviour, in my opinion, I am absolutely disgusted and disappointed and appalled . This motion didn't even need to have that much time taken up on it.

All it was doing was following suit from what we had done for the Red Shield Appeal and actually saying that we haven't got that report yet back from Council on how we deal with these charities that are more known nationally than just a local-based charity in our assistance to promote them and promote their cause and promote when they're doing their event. To have this sort of level of cynicism and negativity cast onto something like this , it absolutely blows my mind. I'm actually lost for words about this because we have had an individual come in here tonight, Rebecca, who has volunteered for Relay for Life for a very long time and is dedicating countless hours this year for the 2018 cause, and who has had a motion that supporting such a worthy charity berated and belittled and turned into a political circus.

And I'm sorry, Rebecca, and I apologise unreservedly to you that this motion tonight was taken down that path because that was absolutely unnecessary. I don't think that the motion needs to be tidied up. The only thing I'd like to have to point for is I'd be happy to add the words at the discretion of the Relay for Life Organiser Committee, where they want to put that electronic signage. I have ducked in and chatted to the committee at their first meeting for this 2018 event, and this is where I made a commitment to them that as per what happened with Red Shield Appeal, we would try and do something. Something similar to their charity. If Council can't endorse something like this but endorse something similar, I'd be very, very surprised.

Thank you.

Councillor Richards, were your words at the discretion of the committee? Yes, please. On the first sentence. Point

Four. Okay. All right. Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler . Thanks, Madam Mayor. I understand that the report from the Mayoral Minute hasn't come back yet, and I'm not sure what that obviously, what that report will say, but perhaps we need to ensure that that report includes clarification of what banners will be eligible under the policy so that we don't ever have to go through this again Yeah

That's what it's designed to

Do. Yes. So I think it's a real concern that we would end up in a position where we would be pitting, where Council would be called to pit one issue against the other . And so we need to have very, very clear statements about that. The George Street site is a bit more than Council's banner poles. They're open to anyone who books and pays their money. This placing the banner on the George Street, on Council chambers, is an endorsement by Council of the event, and it's one that I'm happy to make. This is an outstanding event. My mother is a cancer survivor. I've participated in the Relay for Life down in the Southern Highlands. The weather here is much better for the Relay for Life. It is very brisk doing the midnight lap down at Moss Vale, in probably the coldest, lowest point of Moss Vale.

Let's not make this about anything but an excellent community event that provides dignity, support and money for a disease that kills people and ruins lives. I'm happy to make the endorsement of the Relay for Life. I hope that Council sends a large team. I hope that some of the councillors can be part of that . I commend the organisers for their dedication and their fundraising. I'm a medical researcher. Money is very, very hard to come by. This is one of the ways that you supplement the money that isn't forthcoming from other levels of government. We will come up with solutions to cancer for people like my mother because of money raised from events like this.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Just to clarify , the Mayoral Minute regarding how to assist charities in this way was specifically designed to deal with events such as this, which are both of significance within the community and of state and national significance. And like you, I'm happy to endorse it. And I also look forward to that report so that we do have a policy in existence, so that these matters don't have to come before Council. I imagine with point 4, at the discretion of the committee is fine. But also I think that there would be no concern of it being in places people wouldn't see, because I expect that the organisation would want to have it on the main road where people would be able to see it.

And I expect that would be, you know, in the major areas of the main roads where people drive along. So I'm also happy to support it and looking forward to that policy so that we have some firm guidelines so that we can assist these amazing organisations that, as you say, put so much effort and dedication into assisting fundraising for a variety of very, very valid causes.

Further discussion. Councillor Sempronia. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm very happy to support this notice of motion. I commend Councillor Richards for bringing it. Relay for Life is a very worthy organisation, as I'm sure we all agree. I'd like to share Councillor Richards' profound disappointment that people would choose to get up and make cheap political points. I think it's incredibly undignified to hear that kind of talk in this chamber, when this is ultimately about a charitable event for a group of people that are trying to raise money to prevent cancer. All of us either know somebody who's had cancer or have lost a loved one to cancer, and that's really the only thing that we really need to be focusing on here. I am so disappointed at the conduct of some members of the gallery.

Thank you, Councillor Sempronia. Further discussion?

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Richards. Thank you. I'll be brief. I just want to commend all councillors for being on board and supporting this motion, despite efforts from the gallery not to. Thank you.

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

The next item is item 117. We have one speaker, Elizabeth Montano.

No, no, thank you

Madam Mayor and councillors, I'm a member of the Executive Committee of the Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine Rural Fire Brigade. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this item and to give you some background to it. While Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine are not within this local government area, we are geographically very near and have enjoyed a close relationship with the Bilpin, Berambing and Mountain Lagoon areas of the Hawkesbury for over 100 years. As the crow flies, Mount Irvine and the Bells Line of Road at Bilpin are three and three-quarter kilometres apart, not far for a bird to fly, and also not far for a bushfire to travel, as has been seen several times. As recently as October 2013, a bushfire started on Defence land at Lithgow.

Within 24 hours, it had raced from there to Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine, where it destroyed two houses and various fences, sheds, pastures and agricultural assets. A week after it started, having travelled around the base of Mount Irvine, it made a run into the Hawkesbury. It threatened the orchards at Bilpin and Berambing, with major losses there being averted through a combination of intense firefighting efforts and more benign weather conditions. So you can see that while we come from the mountains, we feel very close to the Hawkesbury community. This route was, until the late 1990s, an open public road used by rural fire brigades on both sides of Bowen's Creek, which is the dividing point between the two local government areas, for hazard reduction work and, when conditions allowed, firefighting activities.

The two RFS districts worked together on various hazard reduction campaigns before the closure of the route due to poor conditions. In the past, both RFS districts have considered this route an essential part of their firefighting infrastructure. In a risk assessment made by the Hawkesbury District Office in 2008, this route was found to have, significant strategic value in the control of wildfire. More recently, we were joined in our campaign by several Hawkesbury Rural Fire Brigades, with Mountain Lagoon and Kurrajong Heights brigades both providing letters of support. The then captain of the Mountain Lagoon Brigade joined us in one of our meetings with the former federal member for Macquarie, Louise Markus, in urging that this piece of essential emergency infrastructure be restored to the benefit of both Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains communities.

This has been and can again be a route for all emergency services vehicles, for RFS trucks, for New South Wales Ambulance and New South Wales Police Rescue to get emergency vehicles around the area much more quickly than using Bells Line of Road and for getting into parts of both local government areas where emergency vehicles cannot otherwise go. Our objective is to have that route restored not as a public road or as a public escape route, but as an emergency vehicles access route prepared to fire trail standard. We think that the restoration of this route, to the benefit of both our communities, is a poster child project for the strategic regional alliance between BMCC, HCC and Penrith City Council.

If you were looking for a project to show you are strategic, I would have thought this is one. We're not alone in thinking that we have to be strategic about emergency services infrastructure. Like Louise Markus, Susan Templeman, the current federal member for Macquarie, whose electorate covers both local government areas, is a strong advocate and is keen to support this council and BMCC in this preparatory work and in efforts to then find funding for the restoration works themselves. Your councillors, Paul Rasmussen, Sarah Richards and Nathan Zamprogno have all shown support. Councillor Rasmussen spoke in favour of a motion supporting the route several years ago. Madam Mayor, you entered into an agreement with Mayor Mark Greenhill of Blue Mountains City Council last year to work on this together.

Thank you very much. We appreciate all your support. On the BMCC side, Mayor Mark Greenhill and our ward councillors are all supportive, and I know that some of those councillors have been in contact with their counterparts here tonight. The state member for the Blue Mountains, Trish Doyle, has spoken in state parliament about the need for the restoration of the route, and most recently, Senator Marise Payne has put her support behind this. We take great heart from this bipartisan support for public safety. So in coming here tonight, we look forward to continuing the momentum, working together on a really useful and comprehensive feasibility study, and then finding federal and state funding to restore this essential piece of emergency services infrastructure for the benefit of both our communities.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

Thank you, Ms Montano. Would you take questions, if there are any? Any questions, Councillor Reynolds?

Yeah, thanks, Ms Montano. Have you been, has Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine Brigade been approached to take part in the feasibility study?

We've been in contact with staff at both councils. We've been asking to be involved in that. Not to date, because I think it's quite early in the process. But we have asked, and we are, we think that if we're not involved, we're wondering who will be in terms of community interest. Okay

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Miss Montano, thanks very much for that presentation. As always, it's very nice to hear from you, and over the years that's been a great pleasure to deal with this issue. And you've pushed it really hard, I know that. Thank you. The terms of reference for the study, have you got a list of things you would like to see embedded in that terms of reference before it goes out?

There are a number of things. In particular, we are concerned about some preliminary advice which indicated that it was to be looked at only in the context of a fire trail, as in used only by rural fire service vehicles. The reality is that fire trails are used by New South Wales Ambulance and by police rescue. Certainly on the Blue Mountains side, and in the past on the Hawkesbury side, police rescues are often started off fire trails. That's where you get your crews down to mobilise to search and rescue. It's where you get your ambulance people in to often walk the last few kilometres, from experience, but also to get vehicles down there. Helicopters are not an answer to a good land route that is usable in all kinds of weather conditions, and they're the times when you really do need this kind of strategic access.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms Montano. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Mayor. I think I've been upstaged by— Oh, sorry. She's

Oh, yes, sorry. Finished . I think I've been upstaged by Ms Montano in anything that I would like to say, because she certainly

Seconded, Councillor Richards. Seconded

Councillor Rasmussen. She certainly knows a lot more than me and presents very well. So thank you very much for putting the case forward. I'd just like to quickly say that it was an absolute pleasure to be there with the Honourable Marise Payne, Liberal Senator for Western Sydney, Minister for Defence, with Councillor Zamprogno, to be able to make that announcement following up from a commitment from the last federal election of $100,000 to Hawkesbury City Council to go towards this feasibility study. The reason that my motion has come forward, I'll keep this brief, is because not only is it worth Council acknowledging those funds to actually proceed down this path, but the fact that it was brought to my attention by Ms Montano on that day that Council had actually undertaken its own upgrade investigation scoping report of the Mount Irvine Road, and I did send that as an attachment to all Councillors to actually just give them a heads up that Council had done that.

So what my motion is basically seeking for is bringing to the attention the fact that Council now has $100,000 to do more work on that, but for a briefing to be held with all the Councillors to actually bring us up to date on what Council has done so far, because I think the last thing that we need is any doubling up of work when something's already being done so far. So that money needs to get the maximum use that it can. So I'd just like to thank the federal government for putting that money forward, following through with an election commitment, and I look forward to the briefing and actually watching this proceed further and making sure that we get a good outcome, so then we can actually advocate to other levels of government for funding to actually make that road usable.

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

Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I speak in favour of Councillor Richards' notice of motion, and I thank her for providing us with a copy of the upgrade investigation scoping report obtained by Council in August last year. As far as I'm aware, the agreement between Council and the Federal Government was executed in January, so the community was aware the funding was available some four months ago. But it's important to point out that the local community up there has struggled for many years to convince this Council to come on board with this study, while Blue Mountains Council has been pretty supportive of it. So it's really good to be part of this Council that has seen a deliberate shift towards dealing with this sort of issue that was previously dropped in the too hard basket because it was too remote.

As this Council is now the lead agency in this study, I think it's important we

Have a responsibility to determine the scope of the study, and it concerns me that the comments there by Ms Montano in response to my question, that they haven't been asked to be involved. As a member of the RFS myself, I would strongly recommend the close involvement of the Mount Wilson, Mount Irvine RFS representatives in this study. You can't beat local knowledge in a situation like this. The big point is the community has driven this project. Let me read: in spite of it sitting across two Council areas, two state seats and one federal seat, they're an articulate and self-sufficient community, and to leave them out of this process would be to invite failure and the integrity of the feasibility study would be in question.

So I'd like to just add a little amendment to Councillor Richards. Motion, and point two, just create two sub points. Point A, that the briefing also include the community's involvement in the study. By that I mean the local RFS. And B, strategies and funding methods for maintaining the road post-upgrading so that it doesn't fall into disrepair again. I remember the road from the 80s, driving down into—you could drive a normal car down into Bowen Creek, and it just fell into disrepair. So if we go through this, it's important that it is maintained properly because, contrary to Senator Payne's comment, it's not an evacuation route. It's actually an access route in to help the community, and it's very important in times of trouble, whether it be a fire or it be lost bushwalkers or it be an accident, that the emergency services, not only the RFS, have access to this area.

So again, I commend the motion to the council.

Thank you. Councillor Ritchie, are you happy to take those points? Yes, I'm happy to add those two points, yes. And seconder, Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Can I seek some clarification, please? Yes. The $100,000 is coming to this local government council. Does that mean that Blue Mountains have any buy-in on this at all or not, or have they applied separately to obtain funding for works on the other side of Bowen Creek?

Think yes, I'm not sure. Do you know, Mr. Amit?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. The funding is provided as a, you could say, a joint venture, so Blue Mountains Council and Hawkesbury Council are working together on this project. And just to give some background also, we'll be working with RFS on this. The consultant brief will be based on getting clearances from RFS to ensure that the road can function satisfactorily

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Amit. Councillor

Ross? Yes, further. The Hawkesbury City Council study, which was revealed to us today by email, PDF, stopped at the creek and the bridge. So the Blue Mountains City Council have not, within their own mechanisms, gone from its commencement down to the creek on their side of the roadway. And I'm just wondering, have we had contact with them about this, and are they prepared to do similar type stuff?

Mr. Amit?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yes, the idea of that scoping document was to create an example of what was required for the project. So that extends also through Bowen Creek Road as well. So the full extent will follow that basis of that scoping document, which was used then as the basis for our RFQ to put out to the consultants.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler? Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Pleased to see Councillor Reynolds' additions, because that saves me the bother of coming up with some words myself. I think it's really important that we consult with the community on what will work for them. They know this site better than anybody. I've spoken to one of the Blue Mountains councillors for this ward, and she's talked about the idea of replacing the bridge with a ford, with having a locked gate. I think we need to work out if those ideas actually fit the needs of the community and also for the other emergency services. And I also note Councillor Reynolds' point that this isn't an escape route. This is an access point, and it might be helpful in that regard to look at some of the figures, the visitor figures for Mount Wilson.

The population currently is around 220, but at any time they can have up to 15, 000 visitors in peak season, apparently often for nuts and gardens. So that's a significant—I mean, we should be so lucky—that's a significant number of people in a very, very small area, with one road in and one road out. I think this is a matter of urgency. I think we finally have two councils that are on the same page on this, and I think we really need to get going before we do have a disaster. We nearly had a disaster in 2015. Let's not wait for another one before we get started.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen.

Yeah, just a question, Madam Mayor. Thank you very much. The RFQ, is there any sort of timeline for that? Are we expecting this year, next year, or— Mr. Amit.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The expectation is to have the report completed by the 18th of July, and we then go back on the 25th of July to the funding providers and then submit that.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Richards

None needed. Then, other to just clarify some comments I made in my initial speech before where I said it was an access road. It is just to highlight for essential emergency vehicles only, not just RFS but of course police and ambulance. So just to clarify for anyone in the public questioning that, it is not a public access road. So just questioning that. And thank you very much.

Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. That was the last of our speakers. Someone move the item.

Moved on block, moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We're back to the—

Item 99,

Which is the draft Vineyard Precinct Contributions. Move, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. Discussion? No discussion. All those in favour? Sorry, it's a planning matter. Sorry, planning matter

Oh. I'm sorry, we've got to have clarification. There's a correction in it first.

Is that the Vineyard? Yeah.

Mr. Kernst to just go through the correction in case anyone

Has... Yeah, just

The correction was in Appendix C, in the rate column, there was two of the components, they were the wrong way around, so looking to amend that and exhibit that. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

I'm concerned about, with the residential development, about the width of the road corridors and, if you like, pavements, particularly in the build-up areas. Are we going to be inflicted with the same sort of thing that we're seeing down near Penrith , where it's impossible to get heavy vehicles such as refuse trucks and so on through the area because of parked vehicles impeding their progress?

Mr. Kernst. This matter doesn't deal directly with the control provisions. This deals with the contribution planning. So this deals, in terms of the road component, deals with the collector road network, which has a road reserve width of 20.8 metres. The DCP that was gazetted by the state government, or commenced in January of this year, deals with the development control provisions.

So the road reserve is 20.8 metres

Right, but if we're talking about a yield of either 2,300 or 2,500 blocks residential, surely there has been some consideration or parameter set about the assumed road width .

I'm sure there has been, Councillor Ross, but we're dealing with the contributions plan.

Yes , but surely that affects the yield. Therefore it affects the contributions.

So the overall yield allows for 2,500 dwellings, and this is the first time in the Northwest Growth Corridor that they've actually got a cap on the overall number of dwellings. So they've had some learnings from previous precincts in terms of the amount of development that has ensued within those areas. So this cap is 2,500. The road network has been designed and planned to those numbers. This contributions plan, as I say, only deals with the collector road network. The local road access is already gazetted as part of the State Government's release of the control provisions.

Is the State Government provision 20.8 metres internal?

For the collector road network only, yes.

He wants to know the width of the internal roads. If we don't know, just take it on board. The

Subdivisional road widths.

I'll have to get back to you in terms of that.

You can be advised of that, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen?

Not necessary, thank you.

It's a planning matter. Vote with our buttons. All those in favour? Oh, sorry, no. One, two, three. In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zambronio, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Bucket. The motion is carried. Those…

Extra, a bit strong, I think. Next item is item 105. Councillor Wheeler— 103, sorry, I didn't see that. Move the recommendation. Moved Councillor Connolly, seconded Councillor Richards. Discussion?

Any discussion? Well, are we going? Who wants to go? It's the National Government Conference in Canberra. Always a nice cold middle of the year experience.

They do, and you have dinner at Parliament House, which takes two hours to get through security, but Canberra is a lovely place. I like Canberra. Councillors Ambrogio is keen.

Anyone else who wants to put their name down for attending the national

Unless you want to put down your name and then just clarify with Robin in the next couple of days. Yeah, I'll just clarify. In the next couple of days, if you can. Okay, so tentatively for Councillor Richards and definitely for Councillor Ambrogio. Any further takers? No further takers. So we'll vote on the motion, and then we'll vote on who will go. All those in favour of going? The motion is carried, and voting that Councillor Ambrogio and tentatively Councillor Richards attend, all those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Now item 105, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll be very quick.

Move that. I'll move the recommendation. And your

Seconder is Councillor Garrow,

Thank you This is —I'm a bit of a convert to the Sister Cities program, having gone along because none of the councillors who are on the Sister Cities Committee were available to both the presentation that the kids gave before they left and then the presentations that they gave when they returned. And it really is the most remarkable program. The growth in these young people in that short time that they were away is quite extraordinary. I think we get a lot of value for our dollar. They came back quite different. They're fantastic ambassadors for the Hawkesbury. When they spoke before leaving, they have to write a presentation and give it to the group before they leave. And the kids who go to Japan have to do some of their presentation in Japanese, which is pretty big given that only one of the group who went to Japan actually spoke any Japanese at all.

And they go and live with a family who usually have no English and just deal with being there for that period of time in a country where they may not be able to communicate through anybody but an interpreter that they see during the day. They talked really passionately about the Hawkesbury and the bits of the Hawkesbury that they wanted to take with them. And when they came back, they talked really passionately about the things that they'd seen and what they'd like to bring back to the Hawkesbury, but also how much they appreciated where they came from. They were mature, engaged, well-spoken. I wish we could give this to all our young people. And I think the only issue that I see with this is that some of the schools aren't getting on board quickly enough.

We're not marketing this to some of the schools as well as possible. Hawkesbury High, for example, doesn't engage particularly well. Maybe they think it's not a program for them. I think we probably need to dispel that myth. I also just want to mention before I finish the superb contribution from some of the committee. Some of these people have been on this program for two decades on the committee. It's really quite remarkable. They meet often. They do a lot of work. They take care of other people's children. It's a really, really big commitment to the community. There's a second generation of exchange students and host families. This is a standout success for the Hawkesbury. I think we should be promoting it further and we should be making much of it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further comments? No further comments. I agree with what you've said. It's a great program. We'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Item

1.11, Tourism Committee. Moved, Councillor Garrow, seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. I just need to raise a point on page—sorry, I'm just finding the page—108. The third point from the bottom, I think we need to—we either require a correction or this is some sort of social engineering by a Greens-controlled council. I don't think that it's reasonable to take the affluent to transport them all to Vineyard, and I don't—any more than they would appreciate being dumped at McGraths Hill sewage treatment plant. I think we mean effluent, not affluent. We probably should fix that. That's nice.

Yeah, Kath and Kim. Yeah.

You are affluent, Barry. Councillor Kotlash. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to know who Mr Stafford was, because there seemed to be a lot of references to him, but he wasn't at the meeting. Oh, Mr Conroy.

Mr Stafford is a consultant that's been working with Council for some time in relation to tourism-related issues. He prepared our destination management plan. He's also prepared similar plans for Blue Mountains and Penrith. Right.

Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Garrow ? None needed, Madam Mayor. No. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item, heritage.

Advisory 112, Councillor Wheeler, moved. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion.

Councillor Wheeler. I just want to clarify some of the points that have been raised for Council's attention. The Council supporting an event or a tour from ICOMOS. This is a particularly good opportunity. Let's hope that Thompson Square won't be a shambles by that point, but this is a two-day tour would provide a really good opportunity to showcase our heritage as an unparalleled example of colonial history and the Hawkesbury's place in the early colony. We've got members of the Heritage Advisory Committee who are willing to run such a tour. I think Council should get behind it. That was recommendation three of the report that's with the minutes. And the other item is item four, which is the Bowman flag.

I don't think Council is going to have to stump up for remaking the Bowman flag. Judy Newland, one of the Heritage Advisory Committee members, has unearthed the Bowman flag in the museum. A replica was made for the bicentennial celebration, and she's dug it up, and it looks like that can be used instead. So we'll clarify that at the next Heritage Advisory Committee meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Notice of Motion 3, Councillor Wheeler,

Seconded by Councillor Conolly. Discussion. Very briefly, the intent of this notice of motion is to make it easier for people with disabilities to engage with the community. It meets the objectives of Council's Access and Inclusion Policy, particularly the objectives to promote application of access and inclusion principles, principles four and five of those inclusion principles. It's very simply done. It can be a line at the bottom of an invitation or The details of a program or an event that simply states that the building being used has wheelchair access, or that access is via, you know, in a less optimal situation, that access is via, say, the service lift and a number to call, so that someone isn't stuck outside wondering how on earth they'll get in.

It also means that people with disabilities aren't forced to ring all the time and feel like some sort of difficult other trying to get information. There's a really lovely example from the Bells Line of Road Corridor Group with the meeting invite that they put out last week, where very early in the invitation they had information about wheelchair access and also information about seating at the front of the event so that people with hearing impairments could sit closer to the microphone and the stage. These aren't costly. These don't prohibit us using other venues. But it does signal to event organisers that we expect that disability access is front and centre. The second part of the notice of motion relates to council's screen, and I think we've seen tonight just how limited we are with the single roll-down projection screen when we have anything more than a bog-standard motion on the table.

And at the moment we're talking about something that no one can even see. So because apparently, you know, we seem to have decided at some point that telling people what's up next is more important than what we're actually talking about, and that's fine for us with access to the business paper. It's fine for all of us who can hear and are sighted. That's very difficult for someone who's maybe stuck outside, or can't hear well, or can't read the business paper. I'm even at the point where I probably couldn't read the business paper if I left my glasses at home, so which is becoming a bit sad. Such is life. But I think it's probably time we advance the projection capabilities a little bit better so that people can actually see what we were talking about.

Because for half of the meeting, they just can't. That's not transparent. That's not inclusive. We can do better than this.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? Councillor Conolly. I'm just going to

Suggest a really small change. In point 3, it says Council should make arrangements to ensure this upgrade in the next spate of budget. Maybe it should just say these quotations to be reported to Council in the budget workshops for the next budget, just so we're not committing to it right now.

Was that change received? Who was your seconder, Councillor Rasmussen happy with that? Thank you. Oh, it was you, Councillor Conolly. Are you happy with that too? That's good. You suggested it. You should be. Any further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Questions on questions from the 30th of January first. Any questions on that? That's on page 194. Councillor Wheeler. Sorry, I'm just finding the relevant page. Councillor Ross's question, question seven. I don't think that answers particularly . That's just on that. I'm just doing 30th of January . Sorry , sorry, sorry. Any on 30th of January? Councillor Garrow. Are you just in relation to the Royal Life Saving Society developing assessments on how to manage our river sites? Just wondering if councillors will have the opportunity to be involved in that process at all? Mr.

Amit?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. They are meeting with staff on the 28th of May, so that's the initial connection with them, and I guess we could always report back the findings of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further on 30th, or we're moving on to 10th of April. Any questions on Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. First, on question two, my question about Macquarie Street between Hawkesbury Valley Way and Baker Street. I'm not really sure what the response means. I don't think I asked for— so the response basically says that it might preclude

Later roadside amenity improvements. At the moment, I don't really think that's the primary consideration. People are driving on the wrong side of the road. Is there parking there? Can we refer it to the RMS or, at the very least, the Traffic Committee and come to some sort of determination, please? Mr Conroy.

What the officers are flagging there is if you're going to be doing a town improvement plan, and you're going to be looking at street tree planting and things like that, then you may actually preclude that from happening if you pursue this objective, because the 2012 plan contemplated street trees.

I don't think in 2012 people were driving on the wrong side of the road because of the traffic kerfuffle that we have between Hawkesbury Valley Way and Baker Street. So I think we currently have bigger issues than that, and I would like some sort of response from either the RMS or the Traffic Committee about that as a matter of priority. This is getting dangerous.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Question number one I don't really understand the response to my question on how we purchase our electricity. The response is, I'm sorry, just somebody has to explain it to me. It doesn't make sense. It says that we purchase our electricity through the local government procurement tenders, which are undertaken across all retail suppliers. First off, what does that mean? Okay, Mr Amat.

That's, for example, Endeavour Energy or Energy Australia. So we go to the retail providers through this procurement process and get the best deal we can.

Okay. Then the next part, by way of background, power purchase agreements have been considered previously to fund the installation of solar panels to council's operating buildings. However, the return on investment is higher if this is funded internally rather than through a purchase power agreement. What does that mean?

So if we bring in a third-party provider, there'll be a higher rate we'd have to pay. So the long-term gain for us might cost something like about six cents a kilowatt hour if we actually purchase the infrastructure and utilise that ourselves. If we use these other providers, then we have to get into a long-term agreement as well. So there's a long-term commitment we'd have to get into

Was that assessment made recently?

Microphone, Councillor Kotlash, so we get that recorded. Sorry,

Madam Mayor. Was that assessment made? Recently for power purchasing agreements, Mr. Amit.

My understanding is yes. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wheelie. You had another one?

Yes. Councillor Ross's question, question seven, regarding the odour emissions from elk mushrooms. I don't think this answers the question. There's no point quoting the complaints data. The EPA-appointed community liaison committee clearly concluded that, given the 40-year history of non-compliance, residents are suffering from complaint fatigue and that any complaints data is not useful at all. I think if the answer is that Council can do nothing about this issue, then that needs to be recorded, not three paragraphs about the lack of complaints. That's not helpful and it doesn't answer the question.

Any further questions on questions?

Councillor Garrow. My question number five, just following on with the Governor Phillip Park upgrade, can we just get some clarification as to whether any security measures are going to be put into place into that park, just after a recent spate of vandalism that's been occurring? Mr. Amit, do you know?

There's nothing in the pipeline at this stage, but we could take that on board. Take

It on

Board, yeah. Okay. Questions for next meeting, Councillor Ross. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to make an inquiry regarding the lighting of the sporting fields in the lowlands.

The inclusion of...

You're talking about the Colo soccer fields?

Yarramundi Lane?

No, I'm talking about the Sporting Council area, I guess you'd say.

Oh, Benson's Lane.

Benson's Lane. Dear old Benny.

There have been apparently lights installed there. I'd like to inquire, firstly, was there a DA submitted for those?

If not, is it a requirement of Council that a DA be submitted for those? Then I'd like to inquire as to

Whether such lighting is required to not cause interference with other members of the public by way of its slanting or panning or organisation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I've just seen a message, sorry, that was sent to me some time ago about a silver Lexus in the car park with its lights on. If you own that and you're still here, your battery's probably flat. But I'm assuming whoever owned it, unless it's someone in here, they may have gone. Sorry, I didn't see that. It was on an email. Thank you. Do you have another question, Councillor Ross? Yes

I'm just wondering if it would be possible to get some indication as to the...

CMP in regard to Thompson Square as to when that may be complete, please.

Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Garrow . Yeah, can I please get some advice on the event conditions relating to the start time for the double dash that was held at Governor Phillip Park on the Sunday the 6th of May. They commenced their PA system at 6 a.m. on Sunday morning. Their event advertising material stated an 8 a.m. start. There was a lot of very angry residents on Sunday morning. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Calvert. Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have lodged this earlier today, but I wanted to put this on the public record so that the answer is on the public record. It's to request an update on the status of the new gate at Hanna Park at North Richmond. I'm getting continued representations from near neighbours who say that it's still the location of carousing and graffiti at night, and that they were told that money had been approved for those works back in September of last year, and that the works would be completed by March. So update, please.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I've had an inquiry about the church bell at St Matthew's Catholic School at Windsor. Apparently there's been some proposals to move it and change the boundaries around the church. Given that it's all heritage listed, I just wanted to know if Council has any involvement in those proposals or if it's all done at a state government level. I'm not sure how it works.

Councillor Tree. Councillor Richards. Someone move we go into confidential. Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Moving on.