29 May - Ordinary

The address is item 1.2.3. We have three speakers. The first speaker is Andrew Minto.

Mayor and Councillors, Andrew Minto. I’m a consultant town planner on behalf of Marshall Rural. Councillors, my client currently owns land within the area the subject of this proposed planning proposal, and participates as a member of the Polo Community within the Lowlands. For these reasons, we strongly support the proposed planning proposal. It is our opinion that the report and draft planning proposal correctly identify the unique rural and scenic characteristics of the Lowlands, as well as the high flood risk associated with this precinct, and provides for an outcome which is responsive to these factors. The report also correctly identifies the sensitive nature of this area, particularly in relation to minimising noise impacts, and correctly proposes low-intensity uses being polo, show jumping and dressage.

It is noted that at the Council meeting of 9 May, that a question was raised as to whether other activities such as rodeo should also be permitted within the Lowlands. It is our opinion that a rodeo land use would not be consistent with the character of the Lowlands and the low-intensity uses proposed by the proposed planning proposal. It is our opinion that rodeo events typically extend into the evening hours, when noise is of particular concern, and typically include amplified music and PA system announcements, all of which are inconsistent with the quiet rural environment of the Lowlands. It is considered that a rodeo is best suited to the showgrounds, where there are already suitable facilities including a grandstand, toilets and parking facilities.

So, Councillors, we therefore seek your support of the proposed planning proposal for polo, show jumping and dressage within the Lowlands area and ask that you adopt the report as recommended. There’s just one little housekeeping matter, and that’s on page 14 of the report where it refers to subclauses 3 and 4. The proposed use of dressage has not been included and completeness should probably be included in those paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minto. Are you happy to take questions? Yep , sure. Any questions for Mr. Minto? No questions.

Thank you, Mr. Minto. Our second speaker is Danielle Warner.

Today I come to speak for the animals. I've been working with and for the animals most of my life, but predominantly the past eight years. I'm trained in captive animal management, wildlife conservation. I'm currently studying and also work at a local animal sanctuary. I talk to Dane in support of them in regards to item 123, speaking for the case in hope that the zoning will not change completely. To avoid this approval, and again, as previously mentioned, the rodeos was the main concern that I had with my background and any other entertainment where animals are treated in any sort of form which is not good treatment. We need to consider animal welfare standards on all levels. Rodeos are illegal in Britain and Holland.

However, Australia continues to allow this type of thing to happen. The RSPCA said laws around rodeos were incredibly deficient, and they're gathering a team of senior legal counsel to investigate ways of making change. And Dr. Ayres of the RSPCA said they're basically a legalized form of cruelty . Rodeo riders and participants deliberately provoke horses, cows and other livestock, and partake in calf roping to gain responses from these animals. There's evidence of all these things that you can see on Animals Australia. There's plenty of videos and things like that if you want to look further into that.

There's also the use of bucking straps, where this tool is used to burn the animal's abdomen and groin area. It can cause a lot of pain and a lot of injuries, which again, you can see the evidence from that as well. Calf roping is the last thing that happens within rodeos as well, entailing a small calf having a rope around its neck and then flung into the air and its legs tied together. Again, all animal welfare concerns that I would have if this was to take place on the Hawkesbury City Council land. The most recent incident that ABC News reported occurred in an Adelaide rodeo where a bull broke its leg. The animal was put down after the event, unfortunately. So at the hands of humans, these types of things continue to occur.

So I'm sure you can all imagine the panic, the stress, the pain and the fear that these animals would feel. And bringing this type of event into our community, what are we creating for our community and the people that are coming to see these types of things? If the Polo Club has the best interest of the animals at heart, which I'm sure they do, they would be highly opposed to such a heinous activity occurring on their grounds or any other animal event that would have ill treatment of the animals. I would hope that they would put ethics and welfare well above any sort of financial gain from these activities. I just want to quickly refer to the Australian Professional Rodeo Association rule book.

There's many different rules in there, but specifically 39.10 says that ropers can be fined for certain things which continuously happen in these events. But regardless of the fines that they can get, the fact of the matter is that this treatment is allowed under our own legislation, and it's quite disgusting that it continues to happen . Secondly, in the rule book, 39.15.7 clearly states fines for ill-treating livestock. This entire activity is ill-treating livestock. So I strongly urge the Hawkesbury City Council to dive deep into this, ban all rodeos from taking place on any land in this area. And furthermore, I would hope we can unite in the future to ensure it's banned countrywide. That would be an amazing thing.

So I hope Hawkesbury City Council can become a leader in animal rights and not a vicarious perpetrator. Entertainment ends when cruelty begins, so please be the change you wish to see in the world. It starts right now. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Warner. Are you happy to take questions, should there be any?

Absolutely . Any

Questions for Miss Warner? No questions. Thank you. And

If anyone also wants any of this information, there's plenty of links as well I can send out. Thank you again. Thank you.

Our third speaker is John Wayland.

Mayor, councillors, my name's John Wayland and I am the chairman of the Windsor Polo Club, which is that block of land on your right as you're driving towards North Richmond. The ground is owned by 400. It is leased to Apollo Club, a separate entity. The people on the board of the Polo Club are all past presidents of the club and who no longer want to organise what time the game starts. They leave that to the

President of the Polo Club. I'm

Here to speak in favour of the item one, two, three as the council have set it out, and I have the authority of the board to so speak in its support. As it is, and with no more.

What has been developed down there since we started in 1971 is quite extraordinary, is quite outstanding, and it is a world attraction as well as an interstate attraction. When the basin has An event down there, we attract 36 teams from all over Australia, and with a good population of Maoris—sorry, New Zealanders—involved in it too.

We have teams from Queensland and Western Australia. We allow the Victorians to come across the border. It is, it is kind of us, and mostly they go home with what they brought. So they are very, very well appreciated. I don't think it's worth estimating that those two periods, spring and April, bring in probably half a million dollars worth of revenue into this district in feed, fertiliser, accommodation, taking people out for dinner. I think it's a very, very important part. But when they do come in from all around the world, and they're amazed at what is down the range that's been developed by Sydney Polo Club and Kurri Burri Polo Club and the others, they really come back and say again and again it is the rural ambience of the district that they really appreciate.

Not more, no more than what is there. What has been done is quite extraordinary. So if this change clears up permitted land uses, which include cemeteries, crematoria, funeral homes and places of public worship, which I think is what's permitted at the moment, then we are greatly appreciative of it. We think that what is going on there now, when we bring over all of these teams. is quite extraordinary, and we are told that by everybody who comes. Now, if you look at the film Pretty Woman, and you see them walking up and down an American polo field with hats and gloves, that isn't what Windsor and the basin is all about, I promise you. Roz Packer, who's probably the fifth wealthiest woman in Australia, arrives in her jeans.

And when Prince Harry came in 2008, he walked around and said to everybody, G'day, my name's Harry Wales. How are you? And people did try and say, Your Royal Highness, may

I present—

And he said, No, no, no, no, I'm Harry Wales, and that is the way we like to keep it. As is, this is a very well-researched document. Thank you very much, Mayor, and your management for bringing it up to speed as it is. We support it 100%.

Thank you, Mr. Wayland. Are you happy for questions? Yes, I'm sorry, yes. Any questions for Mr. Wayland? Councillor Rasmussen. Oh, yeah. Thank you, Madam

Mayor

Mr. Wayland, thank you very much for that presentation. I enjoyed that, as always. Are you aware of anybody who would oppose this proposal in that area down there

No, I don't. We passed a resolution. We, Windsor Polo Fields, passed a resolution supporting it. I'm aware that other people support as it is, and no further. My point is, as it stands now, and the speaker about animal cruelty, I want to tell you, written into the rule book is no excessive use of whips. You would not see on a polo field what you see at the racetrack. It's banned. All horses are bandaged. We look after our best friends. They're even better friends than us and some of the people from the eastern suburbs who come and play. We do know some people from the eastern suburbs, but Councillor, no. Serious.

That is all

We want. No more.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Thank you

Madam Mayor. Thank you for that presentation. When you've got these events with up to 36 teams , what kind of size is that event? How many people down there on the leg links for tournament? Very good question. Yes. 36 teams

Represents a thousand horses. It represents grooms and helpers and wives and children, all of whom have to come and stay somewhere . I've played overseas and there is nothing like it in the world.

Thank you. No, keep, continue.

Nothing like it in the world. I played at Windsor Great Park , you know, where the Blues and Royals, all those blokes with silver breastplates, all those guys play. You're not allowed to ride off the major. The major's allowed to hit the ball over there. But the field is nothing like as good as you will see at Currieburry, Sydney or at Arunga. Beautiful manicured fields, dedicated. If you go to Goulburn, the field runs downhill like that and they kick the sheep off on Thursday and mow the lawn. I don't go to Goulburn. Not many people do. But it's been there for 150 years. We've only been going since 1971.

Thank you, Mr Whalen. Thank you. Councillor, that was our final speaker. Thank you, Mr Whalen. Councillor Wheeling,

Move the recommendation.

Seconder? Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion? Councillor Conolly. Can

I ask a question, Madam Mayor? It's just in regards to the question I just asked the last speaker. If there was a tournament, a polo tournament involving international teams, 36 teams playing this tournament, is that going to be allowed under this proposed use, or is that a major recreational? Mr Conroy

We had an event just after Christmas which had multiple teams playing across multiple locations over four weekends. And I'm assuming that when we say those 36 teams, they don't all necessarily play on one day. But it is more sort of almost like a festival rather than a day of events. I think all of that is perfectly within what we're talking about. We're talking about polo, and when we're talking about polo, we're assuming that it's going to be competition as well as training as well as everything else. And providing it's competition, it's permitted within this amendment.

Councillor Conolly. Yeah

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Not trying to be difficult, just trying to make absolutely sure of what we're doing here. I mean, I guess a lot of the controversy we're not speaking about is the World Polo Cup and the championship and how that went down. That was also a tournament, a competition. Not everyone was playing on the same day. I'm just wondering at what point does that get cut off under this use so that we can be confident that these events are going to be okay?

Mr Conroy.

So the event last year was—there were other things in addition to polo. So there was a rodeo, for example. There were other activities, jousting and things like that. So it went beyond polo. And there were also then much larger scale entertainment activities to complement that larger crowd for those greater range of activities. And again, they went well into the night as well. So it was a level of intensity beyond what we would see as a polo competition.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question. At these polo events, say where you might have 36 participants or teams, would the threshold break if there were commercial tents also on the ground?

Mr Conroy . Assuming by commercial tents you're thinking some sort of— Oh

Mercedes-Benz and BMW and, you know, Moët and all those sorts of commercial

Activities

That can be associated with a polo event.

I think once you get into formal sponsorship arrangements like that, with perhaps marquees for sponsors, that's starting to become a commercial activity as well. So there would become a line where that would become an issue. But if it's just a tent and some people are gathering in it and having a few drinks or having something to eat, I think that's consistent with the principal use, which is the polo match.

Right. Just follow up, Madam Mayor, if I may. So we've got a— Let's call it a people number. But is that the only criteria that would trigger it from being allowable or not allowable, or would there be some other trigger, like, as I said, the commercial aspect to it? Because it may not generate any more people.

Mr Conroy. I don't think the polo use is the problem in the situation you're talking about. It's what are the added elements, and there would be a point where it would become more commercial than associated, and it would be a judgment call to a degree. But again, you can have a temporary activity on 28 days a year, and that could be a tent that provides some sort of refreshment. It could be a food van. It could be a number of things. So there are certainly ancillary activities that you can have in association with the principal activity, the polo. But once you get over some of those thresholds, then you start running into different activities and different levels of use.

Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and it's also just a question of clarification. I share the concerns of some earlier speakers relating to rodeo. I have no objection to polo or show jumping or dressage, but I believe rodeo is a barbaric activity and I don't want to have any part of it. But I'm confused about what the relationship is between the matter before us tonight and what might be coming down the track, which is more extensive, and rodeo. Could the General Manager clarify, please? Mr Conroy

The amendment that's before Council at the moment is for quite a specific set of what we've termed low intensity activities. A rodeo is a more intensive use, and we've given some consideration to that because the matter was raised at the last Council meeting.

There are currently locations within the local government area which rodeo is permissible, and if there's going to be a rodeo, that's where it should happen, in those locations. I'm not aware of any other planning proposals where we're considering expanding the range of uses to specifically allow a rodeo. There are other permitted under the current zone, or they're not.

Oh, I was just curious as to why those earlier speakers felt the need to raise this concern.

Mr Conolly.

Yeah, I think it was the fact that it was raised at the last Council meeting .

Further discussion, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just before I start, I'd like to draw everybody's attention to page 62 of the business paper, if you could just flick over there. If you can't, I'll just quote what's written there. Council is seeking to expand the number and diversity of events that are held within the Hawkesbury. The intention statement with the Hawkesbury Community Strategic Plan is that the Hawkesbury will be a place that is vibrant, attractive and welcoming, and treasures and celebrates our shared history, environment, local economy and lifestyle. The development of an expanded program of events for the area will assist Council in achieving this intention. So I'm sure that might highlight to a few people the contrasting statements that we have in that item where we want to expand on our events, and the narrow definition that we have.

Under the item 123 tonight with the amendments to the LEP. However, I will start by saying that I'm actually going to support this motion tonight, because to me, it's fundamentally important that we get polo permissible in the Richmond lowlands. However, I do do that with the strongest of reservations. I understand that the issues that arose in the 2012 LEP changes were an unintended consequence, and that this attempt tonight is to rectify those issues. However, I stand by my previous claims that my support tonight relates purely to the need to get polo approved in a precinct that is and has been historically dominated by polo. But my reservation comes from the fact that we have not been broad enough in this housekeeping LEP on this issue.

Richmond lowlands and the polo equine industry has the potential to be an economic and tourism magnet for the Hawkesbury. I think we all agree on that. With my tourism hat on, which is one of the biggest things that I want to promote in my time as a councillor, I cannot stress enough that we have been too narrowly focused on our equine definition. In my opinion, we needed to include permissibility for things like polo club, pony clubs, vaulting, showing, hacking, jousting, camp drafting, barrel racing and rodeos. Some of those activities I've just mentioned are also what the general manager has called low intensity activities. So things like pony clubs and the showing and the vaulting and the jousting, they are low intensity.

So I do believe that our definition of what was permissible in that zone should have been expanded. We needed everyone to know that this is a hub for equine activity, and we also must highlight that back in our Hawkesbury Horizons report, which was years of work by dedicated volunteers in our community, one of those four precincts, things that we wanted to highlight in the Hawkesbury as a tourism hotspot, was to expand on our equine industry and make us a destination. By not including the above, we have limited the involvement of our youth in events and activities prevalent to their interests. My fear is that by not broadening the definition of equine to include all possible related activities, we could potentially open ourselves to litigation, because equine should be equine, because horses are horses.

Part of this business paper seeks endorsement on an event strategy, which I read out before. We need to make sure that we are being a consistent council. Right now, tonight, we have the chance to open the scope of events for a certain industry, and we are missing that opportunity. So as I said, I'm going to support tonight's recommendation because I believe that it is crucial that polo becomes permissible. But as I said, I still hold true to the reservations I've just expressed tonight. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Can I just ask a question, please? Is there a clear—I mean, Mr Conroy just said that I just didn't get the impression that we had a really clear idea of what the guidelines, what the parameters would be for, you know, are they already predetermined, or is it something that would be determined on a case-by-case basis in terms of the amount of people who'd be allowed to attend any event, or, you know, how many food vans would be allowed to be on the premises at the time of the event? I'm just concerned that if we don't have those things nutted out and really clearly stated, it might be a bit left to opinion. Mr Conroy

Yes, Councillor. So look— At any one property, there probably is a maximum of two fields. And so at any one time, there's going to be two games going. And over the course of the day, you know, you might get the half a dozen games. So you're going to get a level of patronage that's geared to that level of use. And that's historically what's happened on the lowlands since the early 70s. And what we're trying to do is just reinstate that legality to do that. So I think anything that's consistent with what's historically happened is something that we would be anticipating should continue. In terms of the associated activities , there's quite a lot of case law about associated and ancillary uses.

And if we want to get down to the specifics, there's quite a lot of guidance in that area. But as a general rule, if you've got, you know, a couple of hundred people watching a match, then it's not unreasonable to have a number of food trucks, as an example, there servicing their needs if that's what you want to do. But I hope that assists in explaining that.

A little bit, but still not. I'm just worried that it'll be very open to interpretation down the track, so I was just wondering whether there was something we could put down in more concrete form. I'm supportive of the polo being reinstated as being permissible as part of this LEP, and I think housekeeping LEP. And I know that I was supportive of it way back when, but I actually think it's a pretty big disappointment that we've missed quite a big opportunity in our area to make it a real tourist hub. We always talk about it, the tourist.. . Committees talk about everyone. Everyone in this room talks about tourism and supporting it and all that sort of thing, and yet, but just not in this particular area.

And I kind of think that's a bit disappointing because not only should we be supporting the equine industry, but also we shouldn't be limiting other activities which could draw people from the local area and also from outside of our local community to engage in a whole range of activities which would bring money into the area and to help to make our pretty sad little towns be a little bit more viable and also to get more traffic through. So I kind of don't understand the counterintuitive move of not supporting other types of use, but I will be supporting this just to get the polo across the board there because it's a

Long time coming. Thank you, Councillor Tree . I just had a question, actually. Is pony club permitted down there, Mr Conroy

Yes, Madam Mayor, there are a number of uses that are permitted under the current zone. And so animal training establishments are one of those permitted uses. So pony club is something that could happen there under the current zone.

Okay. Thank you. I might just comment just on something that Councillor Tree raised, which was about this being a missed opportunity. I think really what this is, is it's a planning proposal which reflects a resolution that we had to actually ensure that polo was permissible across that specified area. So I think that it's been very well constructed to reflect the historical and agricultural uses of the lowlands area, and to expand it any further to other activities would be to specifically be putting something in an area that other properties in that zoning in other areas of the Hawkesbury would then be missing out on. So we'd be sort of back to having to deal with that if we were to do anything along those lines.

And we already do have an area at Clarendon where, for example, we have a jousting tournament coming up in July, and potentially another one coming after that. And last weekend... Councillors, Conolly, Reynolds and I went to the Hawkesbury Riding Club , and where the Sydney Show Jumping Club is also at Clarendon, and it was very enlightening to see the number of events and the facilities that they have there that have adequate parking and access from two major roads into them. And there's a lot going on there too that also offer those same sort of events, that people coming into our area from all over. So I think that we are not missing out on opportunities, but what we're doing is we are tidying up something that was left untidy, and we're allowing the polo and associated activities to take place in those designated areas.

So I think that rather than seeing it as something missed out on, I think it's enhancing those areas, and I think it's been a very well prepared planning proposal. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a question for the General Manager. Pony club activities, does that include gymkhana competitions?

Mr Conroy .

Pony club is about training and receiving tuition about riding and things like that. Now, there are some activities that are associated with pony club, such as, you know, low jumping and things like that. Gymkhana, I'd have to take that on notice. I wouldn't want to give a definition tonight. Look, if someone wants to try and thwart polo happening in the lowlands, or— Some other low intensity use. They've got to demonstrate that, A, it's illegal and, B, that it's causing some adverse off-site effect. So if someone rings up and starts complaining about polo, then it's a permitted use. You know, if they've got a DA approval, you know, they'll have conditions. If it's complying with the conditions, everything will be in order.

So I think there's a process to go through to get certainty over whatever you want to do. Now, if someone applies for pony club and again, we give approval to have, you know, low-scale jumping in association with horse tuition, then it's all there in the approval and it's been notified, and I think that's what gives people the certainty. So I think there are ways of working our way through this.

Okay, thank you. Any

Further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Whelan. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think this is a well-considered report that seeks to give consistency across the lowlands, which is what we've been lacking up until this point. What it also does, though, is consider the fair use of the properties involved with the constraints, and they are heavy constraints: flooding in particular on this site. There's also significant environmental constraints, and there are problems with access, and there's also problems with noise, as we know from previous activities there and the complaints that have arisen as a result. I'm pleased to see rodeos lopped out of this area. I'd like to see them removed from the Hawkesbury completely.

When we have had them elsewhere in the LGA, we've received complaints. I've received many complaints about them as a cruel and unnecessary form of entertainment. So I'm pleased that they're deliberately excluded from this. I think the proposed use is consistent with the objectives, and some of the additional uses that have been mooted are not. I

Think we've —we do want to expand the number and scope of events in the Hawkesbury, but we also have made a deliberate choice to put those events in places where they are best suited and where they will best serve the purpose of increasing activity and economic activity in our, what Councillor Tree terms, sad little towns . I don't think that adding barrel racing and rodeos on the lowlands will necessarily do much for our towns. We have an equine hub already. It's at the showground and the race club. It has public transport, it has good access, and it's not right on the river and as heavily flood affected as the polo grounds are. So I think this proposal makes perfect sense, and it makes perfect sense within what we're trying to do in the rest of the LGA.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. It's a planning matter, so we'll vote with our buttons on the count of three. Voting on the motion in the business paper. One, two, three. For the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is carried. Our next item.

Item 124, Councillor Garrow, can you read your declaration of interest, please?

Item 124, a significant non-pecuniary interest. Redbank are a regular financial donor to a charity that I'm employed.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Call you back in after.

We have one speaker on this item, and our speaker is Beatrice in South Street.

Madam

Mayor, Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Peel Park and its development in the VPA is a long, long story. I'll just keep this short and to a few crucial last dates that have marked a significant change. The NODC AA had an open meeting for the community on the 4th of June 2017, where council staff and the developer's landscape architect were present to answer questions on the proposed overdevelopment of Peel Park. At the conclusion of that meeting, the community voted unanimously to reject that proposal and the overdevelopment of the park. When the item came to council on the 29th of August 2017, Brian Smith and myself spoke against the overdevelopment of Peel Park, and this council actually listened to the community and deferred.

Deferred the item for further community consultation. I, along with many people of the North Richmond community and the NRDCAA, took part in the extensive consultation, and those of us that are passionate about that park look forward to seeing the feedback that came and possible changes that has come to that initial master plan. So we are happy for the milestone to be changed to 930, 901st urban lot, as long as the community remains involved in this. We want to make sure that that park remains part of our community and is not overdeveloped. So we're happy to change the milestone as long as the community remains involved.

Thank you, Ms. Soustie. Are you happy for any questions? Yep. Any questions, councillors? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Mrs. Soustie. Thanks very much for that presentation, and I know you've been working very hard with all the members of the North Richmond group over many, many years now. The involvement of the community, how would you like to see the recommendation amended to build in some sort of assurance that the community will be involved on an ongoing basis?

We have had one major workshop, and I believe the feedback from that has changed some of the items. We are hoping that the next, when that comes, it's supposed to be coming back to the community for exhibition in June, I believe. I hope that that is still an open consultation, that it's not locked and loaded. We would like to see what they come back with and if need be, we need to go back to the drawing board and change some more items. We don't want that park overdeveloped so that the existing community that uses that park as passive recreation loses that opportunity to keep using that park.

So can I take it from that that you're satisfied the current process of engaging the community?

It's been, the workshop we had was pretty good. I was quite happy with that. It was probably a two-hour workshop , I think it was, and they were quite open to having the community voice their opinions, and they took a lot of notes

So hopefully — Councillor Rasmussen, can you put your microphone? Thanks.

So we don't need to write anything into the motion here to bolt it in and make sure it stays in?

Well, I would hope that it will.

Okay

That we do continue that consultation, that it's not going to stop at that one workshop. That's what I'm aiming for, that we do have some further consultation if , when the plans that come back to the community, if they are not satisfactory, that we can have further consultation and say, no, yes, maybe.

Okay, thank you. Thank you

Councillor Tree.

I just wanted to know, because you're worried about it being saved for passive recreation. Yes. So what about sporting fields and floodlights for training for children? No

We don't want floodlights. That was one big no from the community. Existing community that backs onto that park do not want big floodlights.

So all the new population will have to drive east of the river to get to training.

Well, we'll have to find some other fields elsewhere. That park is in existence and has been used by the existing community of North Richmond. The fact that we were sold out when the VPA was written by another council, not this council, is a sad statement. It is a really sad statement. That park should never have been included in the VPA.

Thank you, Ms Insausti. Thank you. That was our final speaker on that item.

Recommendation, Madam Mayor? Second that one.

Move Councillor Connolly, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Just before we start, I'll just ask for an update on the consultation from the general manager so we know where that's at.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So yes, we did have a session with the community. It was a very strong representation from local residents and other stakeholders. At that consultation, we took a significant number of observations, notes, comments. There's wads of paper. They've all been recorded, and we've given an undertaking that we're coming back to the community, and we're going to respond to every comment, note, or observation that was made. And we're going to demonstrate to the community in very clear terms how we're suggesting we'll respond to those points. Now, there will be some things we won't agree on, but there will be other things that we will be able to agree on. If we can't agree, we'll explain why.

If we can agree, we'll show exactly how we're responding on the plan or some other way. So the whole objective is to really clearly close that consultation, and we also said to the community that we wouldn't be bringing it back to the council until we'd had that further meeting. So we're in the process of organising that further meeting. It is planned for June, and then we'll be bringing it back to council.

Thank you, Mr. Conroy. Councillor Tree. Thank you. I just remember we were sitting here not that long ago, a few meetings ago, where Councillor Calvert, and I think maybe even Will, I'm not verballying you if it wasn't you, myself and a whole heap of us agreed that it was really important that we got, that we had a desperate need for training facilities to be available west of the river. And I think that this park, I understand why people might not want lights, but it's only for a short period of time during winter that the lights would be on. And I think that we all know that the travel across the river to get somewhere else to do the training is not the most desirable. And so I think that whilst someone else is paying for it, i.e.

the developer, to make it to, you know, good quality training fields, I think it's a good opportunity. So I think it'd be a bit of a shame to miss out on that for the children and the families and, you know, the new and existing families to have access to those sorts of training facilities.

Thank you, Councillor Tree. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm a bit concerned if we were only going to hold workshops as the only consultation, is the online surveys, were they— how extensive have the online surveys been? Mr. Conroy.

So in the lead up to the first consultation, there were extensive surveys, and we're just talking about closing the loop with that group of people that came to that workshop to demonstrate that we've actually listened and that we've got a position in relation to all those points. Any plan would then come back to Council and then it would go out to formal consultation via our Have Your Say website and other mechanisms. So there's quite an extensive process of consultation still to come.

Further discussion, Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. A question for Director of Infrastructure. Turnbull Oval in North Richmond, is that still floodlit for sporting activities and training at night?

Mr Organ.

My recollection is that it is floodlit, but I'd need to probably take that on notice and get back to you. Thank you. I think they're giving you the wrong advice.

I can confirm that Turnbull Oval is lit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have some concerns about our master plan for Peel Park because I suppose it boils down to defining who is the community. The message I'm getting tonight is that the community are the people that already live in North Richmond and doesn't include new people who move in. Whereas the VPA is all about the new people that are moving in with Redbank, and those people will need access to infrastructure, they'll need access to playgrounds and a whole lot of facilities. And Peel Park was chosen as a place to put that because it was seen by many, including me, that the people of North Richmond are inconvenienced by Redbank being there. And so by using the VPA, we could pay back the people of North Richmond by improving the existing facilities in Peel Park for the existing community as well as the new community.

I'm not convinced that the people at the workshop... Or even those online actually provide an accurate cross section of the community. People who go to workshops are usually people who are motivated and have time to go. I looked around the room at that workshop. I saw very few young parents. Most of the young parents were home with their young kids. They find it difficult to get out to these kind of workshops. And I did suggest last time that what we really need to do is go and find those young parents and we can target them through the school sector. So I'd be very interested to see whether our community engagement, whether we've actually done that or whether we're still going to do that, because the community I've spoken to down there seem to be a very different community to what I've heard here tonight.

As I mentioned last time, one of my sons used to live in North Richmond. He's not there anymore, but I used to go up to the primary school and pick up the grandkids and sit around with the mums in the playground. And I used to mention things about the Peel Park, and all of the mums there said, Peel Park, nice green space, but there's nothing for our kids. Your council really needs to work on that and build in something for our kids. And that's what I was hoping we would do with Peel Park, do something that helps the kids and the upcoming kids and the new kids that show up through the Redbank development. I'm not convinced that the master plan that I've seen here actually does that. It has a lot of passive area, a lot of passive land that basically is there already.

All it tends to do, as far as I can see, is bring the bulldozer in and level out a few fields and then— Plant the grass again, and to me that's really not good enough. I've been to other areas around Western Sydney where other councils have had these kind of opportunities to use money from development, and they have created some stunning parks that have all kinds of facilities for the young people. And I was hoping that that's what we would do here. I'm not so sure that that's what's going to happen, but this is an ongoing process, so I will vote for the recommendation, but I'm just putting it on notice that at this stage I am not pleased with the way we are proceeding.

Thank you, Councillor. That's right, there is no master plan before us, so hopefully that will be working towards reaching a balance between both maintaining some of the areas for different uses and also upgrading to some new forms of uses. It is a very big area there, so there's potential to do quite a bit of mixed-use things within the park. Further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I've got some questioning, if I may, for the General Manager, please, through you, Mayor. I'm of the understanding that this deferment, shall we call it, is being promulgated by the developer. Is that correct?

Mr Conroy.

The deferment is at the request of the developer, that's correct

Taking it to block 901, I think brings it rather close to, I think it is 1021. At which point we..

Mr Conroy.

There's over 1,500 lots, I think, on the development.

I appreciate that, sir. But the point of 1,021, I believe, is the Nepean Bridge.

Mr Conroy.

I can't recall that at the moment, I'm sorry.

That's a figure I haven't... The reason for raising those two elements, pardon me, is that it seems as if the developer is very keen on deferment of any expenditure on his part in terms of community or public assets.

And I'm rather concerned at that type of approach, and to some degree, whilst this may suit Council in terms of relieving stress amongst the strategic development of these plans and so on, that it

May not be good for the overall benefit of the Council or the community.

Is that a question, Councillor Ross,

Or a comment? It is, yes.

Mr Conroy. I'll answer it by advising we're currently at the point where we have issued subdivision certificates for... 254 lots, and the next lot will take it up to 377 lots. Now, that doesn't give us a lot of breathing space. Between now and the release of the certificate for the 601st lot, we have to agree on a plan of management and a master plan. We then have to exhibit it. We have to adopt it. Then we have to prepare the working drawings. Then we have to go out to quotations, and then we have to build the park. And what the developer is recognising is that that probably can't happen before the 601st lot. So it would be prudent to buy some breathing space and extend that milestone to the 901st.

Balancing that, though, is the fact that the developer is, in all likelihood, keen to see the park finalised because it is a selling point when you've got prospective purchases. So I think you'll find if it can be completed before the 901st lot, it will be, because it's commercially to the advantage of the developer to do that.

Thank you, Mr Conroy.

Is the developer in

The VPA committed to responding to a final plan of Council, regardless of its, shall we say, cost, or is there a set dollar limit on that, please, sir?

Mr Conroy. No

The VPA is not clear when it comes to the actual cost of the plan, and that's going to be a negotiation. And that's, you know, I think one of the shortcomings of the document, that there's not a lot of clarity in relation to this point.

It also places Council in a certain degree of jeopardy too, I'd venture to say, because of, shall we say, inflationary trends, and if we take some of these construction indices, we're talking possibly another three or five percent.

I think it's a fair point to say we're not in the strongest negotiating position.

Councillor Rossi, you finished? No. Go ahead

Would it be amenable to you, Madam Chair, if I could respond to some of the other Councillor points? Well

You've asked questions, now you can speak for or against the motion

Fine. Generally speaking, in favour, I do understand the sensitivities of Councillor Calvert

Whom I think did raise some very good points.

Councillor Tree's observation regarding playing fields, I know would possibly be of some interest to the sporting council, but they do have access to Beaumont Avenue, and I would imagine that training there is not conducted every night of the week, and that if training were an element for a game. Play that that may be able to be accommodated within the five working days, Monday to Friday evenings, by the Sporting Council, one would hope.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Tree, I

Just want to ask a question, please. Isn't Peel Park being held up with the extensive consultation and further consultation rather than trigger points? I thought it was a bit further along, and then there was a community group who wanted to have further consultation. Mr Conroy.

So the request for the change to the trigger point is primarily about allowing for that extra consultation.

Just another one, please, if that's possible.

Oh, it's just to make a statement. I think that all this, just in response to what Councillor Ross has said, the existing fields and lighting, et cetera, would be fine for the existing population, but we're getting another new lot of population through, so I think it's definitely worth considering planning for the future.

I'll just get Mr Organ to make a comment on the other fields in North Richmond, I think.

Mr Organ. Just to confirm the advice was, my preliminary advice and ratified by Councillor Ross, the Turnbull Oval, all the two fields there are floodlit, but they are near capacity in terms of near carrying capacity in terms of both game time and training time. Training is the one that actually wears out the fields more than the game days. Councillor Connelly. I forget my question actually, so. Okay. Councillor

Wheeler

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

So it's my understanding really that part of the reason that we've gone back to consultation is that the consultation was poor to begin with, and we felt wasn't really canvassing the needs of the community. I think it's— I'm really pleased to see that the community have said that they're willing to let this go ahead. This has been a very unhappy development between the old and the new. And like Councillor Calvert, I share real concerns about how we put this community back together after this. And so I'm pleased to see actually that tonight we don't have a parade of people coming up here talking about the very obvious problems with traffic and asking that this be put back again. But what I would like some advice on is if it's possible, and I understand that this is a voluntary planning agreement with the onus on voluntary, is it possible that we build into the recommendation some caveat that there has to be some community consultation and that that consultation be taken into consideration for Peel Park?

Mr Conroy.

I think the consultation is already happening, and we'll be coming back to Council with the results of that next round of consultation, and then Council will be able to make a decision about formally going out to that broad consultation that's required as part of the plan and management, the master plan. So I think the process that Council put in train last year is underway, and it will come back to Council with some results.

And so we will still have a chance then to alter the master plan and make sure that the community is also getting what they want out of this process. Because we all know that consultation doesn't necessarily lead to outcomes, even with the best of intentions at the back end. Mr Conroy, a question

For you.

Councils, the ultimate authority, can make whatever decision it likes. Thank you.

Memory recall from Councillor Conolly, thank you. I

Remember my question, and I'm very concerned about it, Mayor. No, my question was just, I wanted to ask it before we write a reply just because it is a question. If there's a problem with the VPA, because this is the first I've heard of that, is that going to be reported to us separately? Because I hope that we would actually, you know, I'd like to know whether we've spoken to our legal advisers about that, what we put in place to stop this happening again. Because obviously at the time, I think it was almost unanimous we accepted the advice of our legal advisers that the VPA was up to scratch. If it's left out key details, I think there should actually be some, for the community's sake, some reporting of that and some consequence of that into our future planning.

Mr Conroy.

I'll take that on board and make sure that we provide Council with some information in relation to that.

Thank you. Further discussion, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I speak in favour of the motion in that I think this is one of those rare, or not rare, but a nice occasion where we have the community, the developer and the staff recommendation all syncing up and saying the same thing. So I think it's, to use that horrible term, a bit of a no-brainer, really, that we go ahead with this one, provided that the consultation continues. I think it's turned out well. Thank you

Councillor Reynolds. Further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Connelly. Oh, sorry, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to say that there's been some great feedback in the room tonight about some feedback I support about the future of Peel Park. Remembering that the motion in front of us is really only to move milestones. We don't actually have the results of the community consultation or the master plan in front of us. And I look forward to when that does come back to Council in a few weeks, all of us being able to comment on that. I think that while there may have been an initial lack of community consultation in the past, I think we've addressed that issue. And I think that with a quite extensive consultation that I was at at North Richmond Community Centre, and I think that when this does come back again, it goes out to that consultation again.

But let's not forget the most important thing here, and that is providing facilities to our community, to our young people. We have a growing community. We want our towns to grow and prosper, and that means providing things and facilities for our children to be able to access. And as Council's rep on the Sports Council, I've sat in those meetings with Sports Council, who are crying out for sporting fields. We have sat down and looked at this master plan, and we know that our kids need sporting facilities. And if that comes with some floodlighting, then we can work around times and we can work around the direction of those lights, and we can actually work together to make sure that the community is heard on one hand, who might have a different idea of what they want for that park.

But then on the other hand, we have to remember there are parts of the community who want these sorts of facilities. So it needs to be met somewhere in the middle, and we need to understand that in these growing areas, we need to make sure a priority is providing facilities that are adequate to meet the needs of our kids, of our sporting teams, because the benefits of sport and recreation and things like that can't be forgotten. So I just want to put those sentiments out there, that when these reports and plans do come back to Council, we really do need to put a strong emphasis on making sure that our kids and their future needs are looked after.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I was just going to say that I agree very strongly with what Councillor Calvert has said, Deputy Mayor, sorry, in terms of extending this consultation as widely as possible. The people who live in the immediate vicinity are very important stakeholders. It's going to potentially impact their lives more than it will impact other people's lives, and we need to give due consideration to that. But we also need to keep in mind that they're a small part of a very large community, and they're part of a community with a lot of residents that aren't there yet that still need representation by the council in terms of what their needs will be. So I think that Councillor Calvert makes a very good point that council should be seeking out people who don't necessarily have the time or the strong enough interest to come to a workshop, but still have very valid feedback and valid ideas and are just as much a part of the community as anybody else.

I would also just, I think we should be careful in regards to what Councillor Ross said about how we as councillors, we've got to remember we're representing the community in a very formal setting. I don't think we should be here bagging out a developer saying that they're trying to put off their commitments. I don't think that's helpful, and I understand that some people don't like this development, but this developer is going to have an ongoing relationship with this council for the next five to ten years. And the VPA says that they must do this by the 601st lot. They followed and trusted council's procedure and process to get to a master plan, and council at the end of its initial process said, actually, no, we don't like that process, we're going to start a new one, and therefore you won't be able to get it by the 601st lot.

For us to then come and say publicly that they're trying to push off their commitments and they don't want to provide any public assets is not helpful to a proper working relationship. It's also not true. In this instance, we're quite clearly they're responding to council and council's process rather than anything they're doing themselves. It's not that the developer has come out and said. They're trying to push this off. They're just responding to what Council has asked them to do, which is to give us more time, have a further community consultation and a much greater consultation process than any other park that I can think of we've ever upgraded or done a master plan or plan of management for.

Thank you, Councillor Connelly. It's a debate's finished, Councillor Ross. It's a planning matter. We'll vote on the recommendation in the business paper as moved by Councillor Connelly on the count of three. One, two, three.

Concentrate on the count of three. One, two, three.

Okay.

One more try. One, two, three. It's not going to work. We just do hands.

Sorry? Oh, because Emma. Sorry. She.

Try again now. On the count. Oh.

There we go.

For the motion, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zambronio, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Bucket. Against the motion, Councillor Ross. Councillor Garrow was absent from the chamber. The motion is carried. Come back in. Thank you, Councillor Garrow.

Our next, that was our final matter with speakers. Our next item will be the Mayoral Minute, which is item 142.

It's in the supplementary paper, although it was out at the same time. It's fairly explanatory. It relates to the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code for the Hawkesbury local government area. This is something that the state government has put out, and like a growing number of other councils, we are seeking a deferral of 12 months. We're seeking a deferral until we have prepared our various strategic planning in that regard. I think we need to do our proper infrastructure planning. We need to understand how this will impact our area, including the Vineyard precinct in the growth sector, and know what the impact there is. So we've already had the IHAPs come in, which were—the rationale for that was that councillors could then focus on preparing better strategic plans rather than dealing with development applications, and to do that to inform decisions so the decision makers could know what the strategic plans of the council were.

And a policy like this could potentially allow unplanned development to proceed in a manner which is inconsistent both with our local character and our local planning, and also with the strategic plans of the Greater Sydney Commission, which of course do not target this area for that sort of development. And we do not want to end up with a situation when we're trying to implement our strategic planning and comply with the previous direction from the government, we don't want to end up with more development that has not allowed for the proper provision of infrastructure. So this is a motion calling on us to join the growing number of councils to defer the implementation of this planning policy until it is better understood, particularly in the context of our local region.

I open the floor to discussion.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I must confess I don't quite know what to make of the mayoral minute, and I'll explain why I have mixed feelings. When we were very early in our term and we had our community strategic plan weekend, we did a shorthand exercise. I'd call it a corkboard exercise, where we tried to foreshadow the kinds of things that we might be doing in our residential land strategy later this year. And we agreed, if my recollection is correct, that medium density would form part of the mix, and therefore it's good to be able to have options that we can execute in terms of medium density. Not appropriate for all areas. In fact, I'd go further and say not appropriate for very many areas at all in our LGA.

But it's good to be able to have the flexibility of knowing that we could go down that route if we wanted to. What I'm unsure about is the implication of this new medium density code and whether it provides us with options or whether it provides us with threats or constraints that we don't want. I'm also unconvinced as to how urgent it is. This has been in the media only over the last week, and it may well be appropriate for us to ask for this exemption in the same way that other LGAs have, but that case has not been made either. And for that reason, I would probably be happier if we could defer this and receive a briefing on the subject and then have it reported to a further meeting.

Just to clarify, Councillor Zamprogno, it allows that sort of development to proceed without development application and so on. It's a complying development code. So it doesn't prevent us from designating areas in our strategic planning that may be zoned for medium density housing. It's a separate issue to that. So when you're speaking of what we were looking at in our strategic planning, this does not preclude us still looking at and designating those areas in our strategy to be in line with that. But I'll just call on the General Manager to see if he knows a better time frame of the implementation of this policy, which has come out reasonably recently, as you say, but it's another layer of planning policy that has just appeared. Mr Conroy?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the policy will come into effect in the middle of the year, and what it will allow to happen is in our two residential zones, it will allow applications to be proposed for terrace houses and for what's called manor house development in traditional residential areas. Now, terrace houses can be up to four terrace houses on a block, and a manor house is a large house that's generally two dwellings in the shape of a very large house. And what we, I think, have in front of us is a proposal to request a deferral of that control until we've completed our own strategic planning to determine if and where we would like to see that additional density occur. So at the moment, it's under the government proposal that can occur in any of our residential zones, and we've still got planning to do in Vineyard in terms of our Section 94 plans.

And what this would potentially do is lift the cap on the number of houses that would be permitted in that release area, and we need to make sure, for example, that our Section 94 plan is calibrated to that additional housing opportunity. And likewise, we need to understand the impacts of the floodplain management controls because at the moment, any change in zoning requires State government concurrence, but this is a change in zoning by virtue of just increasing the range of uses, and it's not something that applies equally to everyone else.

So, just to make sure that I've got my head around this, so it wouldn't—it would allow that kind of development to occur even though we haven't designated an area as appropriate for medium density.

That's correct.

All right then. Now, because—and this is no criticism—but because that fuller explanation wasn't in the wording of the mayoral minute, I wasn't sure what to make of it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just following on from that, if we are to defer this and then do our planning and allocate certain areas for medium density, and then later on this planning policy takes effect, will it then follow our planning or can it still just override it? Mr Conroy.

We'd, in all likelihood, introduce some changes into our local environmental plan that would preclude this from happening in certain locations.

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to point out that there is a lot of confusion about this, and I'm one of the many confused. Thank—thank you for clearing that up. But a lot of the talk has been about whether we should have medium density housing or not, which is really not the question here. No But I just wanted to point out that medium density housing is something these days that— Many people actually prefer, and I'm not just talking about old people, I'm talking about many young families prefer medium density housing. And I hope we can work out a plan which allows quite a degree of medium density housing into our city because it's not as great a burden on infrastructure as people might imagine.

People think that if you cram more people into medium density housing, then what happens then is that there's a burden on the infrastructure. But it really depends how you look at that. If the people are not crammed into medium density housing and are forced to buy individual blocks, some of those individual blocks, of course, are not much bigger than the medium density housing anyway. But that means that the borders of the towns and cities get pushed further out into greenfield sites, and then you have to follow that with electricity and roads and sewer and water and everything else. So pushing for individual sites rather than medium density is not necessarily something that provides better use of infrastructure.

So I think we really need to discuss all that. Hopefully that's what the general manager is going to do over the next little while. And I'm pleased that he sees some hope that when we do discuss it, we can actually put some plans into place which prevents the state government from overriding our decision.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I won't be supporting this Mayoral Minute tonight. I want to stress how much this code goes to the heart of addressing the whole housing affordability issue. And funnily enough, I directed you to a different aspect of the business paper when I was speaking about the polo before, which showed another item contrasting that item, and I'll show you another one tonight in the business paper that does the exact same thing. So if you turn to page 85 of the business paper, we are being asked tonight to endorse the recommendations and report from the Affordable Housing Working Group, which I was a part of. Now, if you go ahead and endorse that report tonight, but you also endorse this, you'd be endorsing two different things.

So I think it's very important that the Council understands what they are, in fact, endorsing. So just to read from page 85 of the business paper, it says, 2017 data from the Centre of Affordable Housing shows that 91% of very low income earners and 58% of low income earners in the Hawkesbury are in rental stress. They also state that the Hawkesbury is in moderate need to increase its affordable housing options. Further, the projected rate of population growth for Hawkesbury between 2011 and 2036 is 25%. Approximately 5,600 more homes will be needed to accommodate this. Currently, 85% of all dwellings in the Hawkesbury are separate houses, which does not provide for affordable housing needs.

So how can we, as a Council, say that we fully support and endorse affordable housing strategies, and then not support this medium density housing code? And I'll elaborate on that a little bit further. This code allows one and two storey dual occupancies, manor houses and terraces for fast, complying development. It even comes with a design guide. This is what people want in our LGA. This code will come in on the 6th of July 2018, and there is no doubt that our population is growing, and we now find ourselves in a dire situation where our town centres are dying, local jobs are diminishing, and economic activity for small business in the Hawkesbury is struggling. Here we have a complying development housing code, which provides more housing choice, promotes housing affordability, and fast tracks approvals.

And we are saying no. Here we go, the no argument again, and again, and again. And let's not forget, this is not an open door to a flood of inappropriate medium density living across the LGA. Let's instead highlight the biggest point about this code. It is only permitting medium density where medium density is already permissible in the zone. I'm going to just repeat that again for the record. It is permitting medium density where medium density is already permitted. So the main benefits of this is to just make the whole application process more streamlined, faster, and less complicated. It gives surety, which is the biggest thing anyone needs when they are wanting to put in some sort of a development application.

So what sort of a message is this sending to everyone? The Hawkesbury is closed for business. The Hawkesbury is closed for investment. The Hawkesbury is closed for advancement. Community needs to adapt and grow to be able to meet changing needs. We need to bring new people, new ideas to our area to help it thrive, not take a dive. Stopping everything diminishes our hopes of a viable future for the Hawkesbury. The oppose everything model does not work financially. The counter argument will be, But the traffic, our roads are congested. We have no infrastructure solutions. Well, guess what? The Hawkesbury is part of Greater Sydney, of the Western Sydney region, and our traffic problems are no different to the rest of the traffic problems across Sydney.

What we need, absolutely, is another crossing of the river. But if you're looking at AM and PM peak times, the whole of Sydney is congested. Let's keep pushing for that river crossing, but let's also remember this. Why are our roads congested at peak times? Because so many people have to leave our LGA for work. And why is that? Because there is a lack of jobs here, the lack of employment options, the lack of investment in industries, the lack of encouragement in that investment. People are on the roads because they have no choice but to leave for work. We need to change that. We need to start saying yes to things. Start saying yes, we want not only options available in our LGA that give surety, but options that allow our communities to prosper.

Hiking up rates and making our residents pay more for services a council should be delivering is not the answer. Perhaps let's think about growing our rate base in a sustainable, proper way. I want to hear the outcry. I see the comments being written on Facebook pages. Councillor Richards wants development, shock horror. Well, guess what? I say to every ratepayer whose rates are about to go through the roof, yes, I do want more sustainable and proper and balanced growth. I say to every small business owner in the Hawkesbury, yes, I do want more sustainable and balanced growth. I say to every resident commuting out of this LGA for lack of job options, yes, I do want more sustainable and balanced growth.

Because I am not afraid to admit that the Hawkesbury is barely standing upright because it is walking around on wounded legs. This Mayoral Minute is designed to be another state government blame shifting exercise. Well, let's look a little closer to home about where some of that blame should lie. I hold my head high on every decision I have made in this Chamber and everything I have also fought against, and I will stand by this one. So let's look at the other issues mentioned in the Mayoral Minute. The floodplain strategy, which has taken years and will likely take a few more. But what happened in this chamber only a matter of weeks ago? The same councillors who will probably say no, will support this Mayoral Minute and say no to the implementation of this medium density housing code, are the same councillors who also said, voted against a motion put up by Councillor Zamprogno to in principle support the raising of the dam wall, one of the top strategic ideas for flood mitigation.

Can anyone else in the room see this level of hypocrisy? The complete land total, the contrast in argument and reasoning. Well, I do, and I'm very happy to highlight it. Then we have the same councillors making the corridor proposal highly political when we should have been working as a group to solve this problem. And yes, we had a 12-0 unanimous decision, but we should be making sure that we stand up for our community as a whole and not politicising these sorts of things. All the State Government have said is here is a new fast-track approval process to approve developments that are permissible under the planning policies and meet all the design codes. We are putting up rates to keep our doors open.

We cannot afford to put on more staff to get DAs approved in 42 weeks, let alone the required 42 days. Let the experts approve this. Let's get some affordable housing into our region that is needed. Let's get some assistance for our local businesses. Let's employ more people locally. Let's stop saying no and let's start saying yes. Thank you.

Councillor Calvert.

Just a point of clarification, if I might. When Councillor Zamprogno was speaking before, he asked, I thought he asked, can this policy override our zoning for medium density? And I thought he was told, yes, it can. And now I hear from Councillor Richards that it can't, it can only go in areas that are already zoned for medium density. Which way is it?

Mr Conroy.

So the zone that we're talking about currently permits dual occupancy, so that's two dwellings per lot. So what's being proposed here are terrace houses, four per site, and manor houses, and they're proposed to be through certification. So the hurdles for certification are much lower than they are for development consent. So the fact that you can have these developments through certification means that you satisfy minimum criteria, you notify the neighbours days before you're about to start work, and then work happens. What we're proposing, I think, here is to continue the housing strategy and identify the areas where we believe that that housing should occur, and then through the amendments to our LEP facilitate that happening

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a point of clarification and perhaps a question. Are we dealing with a deferment here or throw out the window and say no to development or no to this? I

Was going to clarify that, my right of reply. I thought I heard you say it was a deferral . Yeah , exactly. And there is a

Difference, I think

Councillor Richards, thank you very much. I'll answer that when I answer. Further

Discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So here we have yet another joyous surprise from the state government. First we had private certifiers and complying development, then we had IHAPs, and now we've got this. And surprise , surprise, when I look online at who supports this, oh, it's the developers. It's not the affordable housing lobby, it's the developers. So now we know what this is about. What I find quite astounding is the fantastic contradiction between the Department of Planning, who've refused to allow us any detached dual occupancy across the LGA, or the occasional duplex due to flood constraints, and then this. And actually, the reason that that is occurring is because this isn't really directed at us.

We've been caught up in this because of the usual approach to metropolitan Sydney, which we now find ourselves in. If you look at the information about this housing code, it's directed at what's known as the missing middle. It's the missing middle of the missing middle. It's the missing middle density housing that should be in ring suburbs in that middle ring of suburbs in Sydney. It's not for the outer suburbs, because one of the things that this is designed to do is exactly what the Deputy Mayor referred to, and that's to reduce urban sprawl.

Travelling for an hour and a half a day from work to home. It does not make affordable housing. Just because you can afford the mortgage or the rent doesn't mean that you can afford to live in the property. You've still got to pay for an extra car, extra childcare, all the extra stuff that you just can't afford to do when you're at home, like cooking. People buy more takeaway when they travel further. They tend to be more overweight. They exercise less. They spend less time with their children. They have higher rates of mental health problems. This is not the place that we should be shoveling more people into. That's not what this is for. It's rare that the Hawkesbury makes the news, and yet so many councils are up in arms over this.

Councils like us, who are on outlying areas, who are asking for deferral of this. Hawkesbury was mentioned on 702 the other morning as asking for a deferral when the Premier was on. This is about fast-tracking development . No one's saying no to this. We are asking to defer this until we have reasonable plans in place, strategic land plans, and in particular, the floodplain strategy. And let's talk about flooding, shall we? The Mayor, Councillor Zamprogno, and I are off to a floodplain conference tomorrow where, when we say that we come from the Hawkesbury, people will openly laugh at us because of just how bad flooding is here. So let's not be making light of shoveling more people into the floodplain.

Eight hours warning for a flood and 16 hours to evacuate. Not exactly a top spot for putting extra people at risk, is it? 16 hours. Just think about that, and no hope of getting many of those people out of the LGA, out of harm's way, on heavily congested roads with the LGAs that we need to travel through embracing medium density housing as fast as they can get hold of it. And leaving us, not high and dry by any means, but wet and at serious risk.

It's a no-brainer that we defer this. I hope that we are successful. I suspect that a couple of councils have already received deferrals, and it's likely that the state government will dig in. I hope that isn't the case. This will be really bad news for the Hawkesbury if it happens.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll just speak in reply. You're exactly right in saying this is asking for a deferral, not an exemption. Some councils have asked for an exemption. The Blue Mountains Council has asked for an exemption because they feel that medium density is not part of their planning process. Sorry, I've got a very sore throat. But we are saying, in line with what we've been directed to do previously by the state government, get your strategic plans in order, get the planning done and tell us where you're going to have development and where you're not. And then we have taken over the process through the IHAPs of being the decision makers on those things. So we need to do those plans.

That's what we've been asked. So the fact is that the level of ambiguity coming out of the state government is quite startling, because on the one hand they want us to do this, and then they introduce a policy that would override that because our plans aren't already ready. And look at the mess we have in the Hawkesbury. The ad hoc development around here is just mind-boggling. We've got issues of all sorts because the proper planning is never done. And now we have the opportunity to do it, and we're calling on the government for a deferral of implementation of this code until we are the decision makers of where this medium density housing will go. And of course we need it. We need it in certain places.

And the Deputy Mayor is correct. It's the sort of housing a lot of people want to live in. So let's give it to them, but let's give it to them in the places that we decide, not just anywhere that somebody who doesn't even come from here will just decide to do. So— Oh, beg your pardon.

Who was calling that out? Oh, of course.

So, it's another issue with the state government running blind and putting out these policies, and it's within our rights to call for that to be deferred until we can properly form up our planning.

The Councillor Richards mentioned a lot of things in her speech, and most of them I disagree with because it was a politicised-sounding speech. It wasn't really giving any facts. But regarding the corridor, the corridor saying it's politicised, it was a political decision by the government to do that, so of course it's politicised. The state government announced one day that a whole lot of people were in a corridor and their houses were under threat, so that's very political. And to support the community in saying that that was a flawed process is not a highly politicised thing to do, and we decided unanimously that that is what we would do. With regard to the mayoral minute, also with regard to working on employment opportunities, that's exactly what we're doing through the City Deals program and looking at generating employment because, quite correctly, people should not have to leave this area and spend two hours each way going to work.

They should be able to work, as the Prime Minister would say, within 30 minutes of the cities where they live, and that's what we're working towards. But that doesn't mean having more housing necessarily, and most certainly having more medium-density housing does not make it affordable automatically. There's no automatic affordability in simply building more houses. That's proven that increasing the supply does not increase the affordability. When this was announced last week on the media, there was all sorts of mayhem all across Sydney, all across the metropolitan area. People were saying this cannot be allowed to proceed until the proper planning is in process. So for the state government to have already taken away a level of planning power and now wanting to do it again, this has got councils of all political persuasions up in arms, and they're calling for this deferral because to introduce a policy literally within a few weeks without giving people the chance to deal with their planning, and we all know how long it takes to get any changes through the Department of Planning, and then we can see what may happen.

For example, with our dual occupancy, we saw the state government knock that back, the application for that, based on the flooding issue, and they're sending mixed messages. So we really need to do it properly. Sydney is a growing city. We've been given through the Greater Sydney Commission our targets of housing that we're to deliver, and I believe that we should have the right to deliver that housing in the area that we plan for in line with our strategic planning. And that's exactly what we should do, and this is calling for a deferral, not an exemption. So I ask for your support on this, and obviously it's something we'll be revisiting because we are hopeful there'll be more information from the government on it, and certainly we would hope that our application for deferral would be successful.

So I put the motion before you. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Our next.

Item. Can I have the name recorded please on that one? I recall Councillor Richards' name. Councillor Tree was absent. Can we have someone move the items en bloc please? Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Connolly. All those in favour? The motion is carried. Our next...

Item is item 125, the events strategy. Moved

Recommendation. Councillor

Garrow.

Sorry, Councillor Garrow's light. Have you got an interest? Oh no, you've— No, I wanted to move. Oh, okay, sorry. Move.

I wanted to— I've sent these through to Mark Bennett as well, if you can put that up on the board, please

Do you want me to read it out to you while I'm waiting for that, or do you want to wait? Yes, please. Wait? No, read it out, I think. That Council, one, note the work carried out by staff in establishing events such as the 1867 flood commemoration and the Australia Day on the Hawkesbury. Two, note the content of the draft events strategy and its focus on encouraging community involvement in events, the capacity of the community, and social interactions within the community. And three, defer further consideration of the draft events strategy so that it can be amended to, A, include an objective in relation to our town centres and villages and establishing events to make them more active and exciting in accordance with the recent Place Score study, and B, create a more direct link between the event objectives of community capacity connections and town centres and how they are assessed in the proposed event assessment matrix.

Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion? Councillor

Garrow. This is another item that has just been delivered to us in the business paper. We would like this to come to the Tourism Committee for discussion

And the Town Centres

Working Group.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think, I understand it's good work being done by Councillor Garrow. It would be really helpful if this could be sent out to all councillors when you send it to council staff, so that we're not getting surprised. I mean, if you think that getting the business paper week ago is a surprise, getting it right now is a much bigger surprise in terms of what we're being asked to do.

I don't see the great urgency in adopting it tonight, and if there's things to work on, they should be worked on. Perhaps rather than asking council to commit to these specific objectives, which we're just learning about now, it could just be deferred for consideration by the tourism, whichever committee it was you wanted to consider it, and that committee could formalise those recommendations back to council and that could be done that way. I mean, I don't want to vote against it when there's no real reason to, but I also don't want to be put in a position where I'm voting for new objectives that I'm just reading about now.

Councillor Garrow. Did you want to change that, Councillor Conolly, to reflect what you've just said? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, well, you don't want specific objectives in here now.

Yeah, just defer for consideration of the draft event strategies that can be considered by the Town Centres and Tourism Committees. Yeah

I'm happy with that. Councillor Rasmussen. Yep, happy with that. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Further discussion? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Can I just ask a question through you to the General Manager, please? A few weeks ago, through the Dominic Perrottet's Tourism Board, we were given an events audit by the Sparrowly Group. Was that events audit given to the staff to form part of this events plan?

Mr Conroy.

There've been discussions between the ministers, the Treasurer's Group and both Council and the RSA, so they are aware of this information. They've had a number of meetings, so yes.

So they're fully aware because a lot of that work had been done as part of that sort of, you know, funded through that level. And I think that the most important thing with tourism is because we all want to increase visitor numbers to our areas and take the politics out of it. And whether Dominic Perrottet's money is paying for it or Council's ratepayers' money is paying for it through the staff, at the end of the day it's all taxpayers' money, so why double up on work? So I fully endorse the amendment tonight because Giovanna from the Sparrelli Group is coming to the tourism meeting tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. here to present, and I think that this needs to be shown to her first because Giovanna has been more than accommodating to Council, has met with Mary and I think Kerry — not you, Mary — Mary from the VIC, has met with them multiple times and shared freely a lot of information, and you couldn't meet someone more apolitical than Giovanna.

She speaks like a Green, no offence, but she's completely and utterly apolitical. She doesn't speak like a Green, then. Well that's true. That would not be speaking like a Green, but she's very conscious about takeaway coffee cups and coffee pods and things like that. Anyway, so, you know, the priorities of Greens. So she, I think it's really important tomorrow that Giovanna have a chance with our tourism committee to address this report before it goes up. So I fully endorse the amendment put up tonight so that the committee again can look at this and we can actually get a holistic report approach rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Thanks.

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

I agree with Councillors Richards and Garrow that I think this does need to go back to the, it needs to come to the Tourism Working Group and the Town Centres, sorry, the Tourism Committee and the Town Centres Working Group. I think it's a lost opportunity not to tap into that local knowledge, particularly the local business knowledge. The matrix, I think the matrix is useful. It's always nice to have some sort of subjective tool with which to assess something, rather than whether you like the shape of their head or the colour of their banner or something. So I think this is, I'm always happy to see some much more subjective assessment that you can then point to and say, this is how we came up with it.

But I'm a bit disappointed that it doesn't seem to consider the impact on local businesses, only their opportunity for involvement. And I think that's, I think again that's a wasted opportunity, and that's something that we probably should consider. Just because an event's on doesn't necessarily mean it's good for business. We have to look at whether it detracts from business or whether businesses are invited to participate isn't quite the same as whether it comes at a price to them. I can't see much mention of heritage events. We know from the Place Score survey that heritage was the number one scoring factor on Place Score by far and away greater than anything seen in any other area used by that very well researched tool.

We've got photos of the pioneer village, but nothing else for them. We've had... And I'm still not sure how we end up with the events that we've got in the list, whether they're things that we've sat down and decided to have, or they're things that we've always had, or they're things that people have approached us about. So I would like to see some sort of more holistic method of getting to this point, and perhaps that will come through the information that the Tourism Committee already has and the suggestions from the Town Centres Committee. And we've got other committees who've tried to put into these, and in one instance, in the Heritage Advisory Committee, a very well-presented and well-thought-out, well-researched proposal for heritage awards to tie in with Heritage Week, and we poo-pooed it and said that was too hard and we didn't have any money.

And actually it was far less money than we've just decided to shell out for two other events blithely. So we're not being consistent here, and I think in part that's because we're not using the people who volunteered to help us to get to this point. And I agree with Councillor Richards, if we've got public money that's been spent on giving us some information that we can build on, we'd be mad not to use it.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Garrow? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Next item is, item 127.

Move that, Madam Mayor. Moved

Councillor Calvert, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion?

It's on page 77. All those people who don't like paper copies

81 on your iPad. Firstly, I just want to thank all the people who were involved in putting this strategy together. As you may know, we did have an affordable housing strategy developed a number of years ago. I think it was 2004 off the top of my head. But it was a very simple strategy which basically said, we would like some affordable housing, and we'll get back to you on how we're going to do that. And so this is the part where we get back to you. This is the follow-up on the original strategy. And the Human Services Advisory Committee set up a working group. I suspect it might have been the first working group that this council actually put in place, and I believe it worked extremely successfully.

We had a number of councillors involved, and a whole lot of committee members and staff, and all those people embraced the concept, and we all put in our own efforts. I actually recommended that we subdivide the work or delegate some of the work into different people, and so different councillors and members went off and found information and brought it back, and then we used that compilation of information to provide the report. So it worked really well and we put together a tremendous amount of information, and if you look at the bibliography towards the end, you can see that it's something that has been really well researched, not something that's been thrown together without a whole lot of thinking.

Basically, the recommendations of the report start on page 87 in the paper copy, and it divides the recommendations into four main sections: partnerships, planning, property and providing leadership. I hope you notice the use of alliteration there.

A lot of P's.

Yes. That was a definite decision to do that. Now, council's role in those for P's can be limited in some cases. Council is not the one that provides public housing in great numbers. I know overseas in the UK, the local councils are the ones that provide public housing, but that's not the model here. Public housing is a state government responsibility here. So there are a lot of things in those recommendations which require us, rather than to actually do things, to go and lobby the state government to do things because they are the owners of the issue and also the money that goes with it. However, there are some things that we could start almost immediately, some things which council can do.

For example, the partnerships. Council has already commenced some partnerships with local community housing providers. Those partnerships have been running for quite a while, and what we're recommending here is that we build on those partnerships and encourage more of those affordable housing models, especially through our relationship in the Western Sydney City Deal. So what we're trying to do is get those partnerships to go further than they are at the moment. Planning, of course, is a long-term process. There's no way we can just suddenly plan for affordable housing tomorrow and suddenly it's here. It's going to require quite a long process. For example, as it says on the top of page 88, building the affordable housing strategy into the residential land strategy.

Now, we all know where the residential land strategy is up to. It's still

Puttering along at a relatively slow pace, and so some of those things in there are not going to happen immediately. But what we're saying is, as we do our planning, we build the affordable housing strategy into it at every stage possible, and I don't think that has been done in the past. With property, there's a potential there for the council to rearrange its investment portfolio and use some of the land that it owns, and use that land in the partnerships that we talked about in the first point. And the working group is asking the council to, as it says about halfway down through the property section, provide at least one innovative small-format housing project by 2020. That's not very far away, and we wrote that, of course.

We first wrote that at the end of 2017, and 2020 seemed like a lot further then. Whether we can make that timeline, I'm not sure, but the point is the committee and the working group would like us to strive towards that, basically to provide a model which we can then follow. Also, we're asking council to provide leadership by encouraging different schemes and also by educating people. One of the things that the committee, the working group, found out is that through many of the areas of Hawkesbury, there are a lot of basically empty houses. There are people who built houses, had, you know, four or five children. The house was full. The kids have all left, and now you've got empty nesters with these four-bedroom houses.

And many of those people are attached to the house. They don't want to move anywhere, but it's been suggested that if they were allowed to build a granny flat in their backyard, they may move there, and then the house could be available to younger families to move in. And we're asking council to look at those sort of things and try and provide links between the people who want the housing and the people who own the housing. That's basically a very quick summary of what's in there. I'm not going to go through all the points, but I just wanted to recommend this strategy to you. And like all strategies, of course, there will be things that some people want to change and adapt, and I actually welcome that.

If councillors would like to suggest changes or particularly enhancements, then please do so. But it has already gone through quite a— stringent development process. So thank you once again to all those people who participated.

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I won't say too much more because the Deputy Mayor pretty much went through everything in that paper. Suffice to say that I was extremely happy to be part of that subcommittee. We really got some good work done in that subcommittee, and to end up as a result in this report with these strategies is, I think, a job well done to everyone who participated in that group.

Coming up with this final report is something that I think every councillor and every person in that group should really be proud of, because by endorsing the recommendation tonight and making sure that those elements of the report are part of the work plan going forward means that we might actually start to see some real action on looking at this housing affordability issue. And the different things that we came up with in that report—and honestly, I know you're all busy, but if you've got five minutes, please read it. It's actually got some really amazing ideas from the people that were in that subcommittee. And pulling it all together the way we did, with showing all the different types of housing that we're trying to focus on, showing what all different levels of government are actually doing to try and look at this housing affordability crisis, having a look at what other councils are doing.

So actually getting examples of hands-on things that other councils are trying to implement, with changes to their LEPs or other planning incentives, is actually— it's really good to take on board as a council. You know, in these four years that we are all elected, I really would love to see some tangible outcomes. And other than tourism, which I said is extremely important to me, this one is probably equally important as that as well. And I think that— You know, the medium density housing code that we just spoke about before is something, while many of you may not agree, I think it goes a partial way to actually looking at the housing affordability issue because you aren't building those big, big-style homes.

You're building the smaller homes, which obviously are going to be much less in cost. So if we can actually make sure that these points go into the work plan moving forward and we actually get some things done, you know, I was working specifically with Peter Webb, who's our Citizen of the Year, on a transitional housing project, and I met with him again last week, and we now have some other ways forward with that. So endorsing this report doesn't mean that this is the end of it. You know, as a side note, me and him have decided to keep working on our arrangement together, and we've got a way forward that we want to go. You know, stressing the importance of partnerships, private and other levels of government, and also making sure that we keep being consulting all of the stakeholders along the way.

So well done to everyone on this committee. I think this is a huge success of what a subcommittee can achieve, and I'm very proud to be part of it.

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

Thanks, Madam Mayor. It's nice to see something that's got some tangible plans in it. I think that's we've talked about the need for this. The community has talked about the need for this for a long time, and I don't think we've had a council with sufficient will to do that. I think it's good that we now have enough support across the chamber to move this forward. I'd really like to see some targets. I'd like to see Council decide on some targets for new development. The report talks about setting some. I'd like us to start putting some numbers into the mix. I'd also like to see a call for a needs analysis or some sort of assessment of the appropriateness of some of these projects before we become too committed to them.

So what works in some contexts doesn't always work in others, and I'm particularly concerned about the small format housing project. It's a fabulous idea. It's been used really well in a couple of LGAs. What we have to determine is whether it will work here, both for the people who are living in it and for the surrounding communities, and whether it will be acceptable. And we've seen a couple of these. You know, we've basically got a small format housing project at Wilberforce, not what we would call a staggering social success by any means. And we also had another proposed for Glossodia, which saw the community erupt over it. So I think we need to place some caveats around this. I think we just need to be really cautious.

I'm certainly not meaning to imply that the Deputy Mayor is going in all guns blazing, but we need to do our homework so that these are successful for all the stakeholders, including Council, in these things. I'm a little bit concerned that the tiny house thing is really sexy at the moment and has big potential to fall over. In fact, it seems to be most successful when people are actually quite cashed up and build very cute things, and not necessarily fantastic affordable housing projects. Some of them you could easily build quite a substantial granny flat for the amount of money on what's effectively a glorified caravan. But it's, I think it's terrific that we've actually got something on the table that we can now move forward with, and we can give some real certainty to the partners who've worked so hard in this process as well, including Wentworth Housing.

I agree with the Deputy Mayor that we really do need to go and put the bite on the State Government to come up with them. We can't fund this ourselves. We can provide land, and I think this is really useful to have before we now move on to a discussion of Council's land portfolio. This will give us some really clear guidelines to work with that, and our discussion of pocket parks and that sort of thing. I'm also really pleased that Councillor Richards has mentioned Peter Webb, whose input into this has been really, really valuable, so I thank her for that

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I would endorse all of those comments and congratulate the people who worked obviously very hard to put this together in a very constructive and very forensic way. So that is good to see, and we're finally getting hopefully something over the line that we couldn't get over the line in past councils. Now, reading the, somewhere at the back here, page 91 on the digital version of Council's business paper, it talks about at paragraph 2, current state and Commonwealth initiatives. Now, I'm fully aware that it says brief summary. Is there anywhere that anybody on that committee who did some research on community housing and state investment in state housing for people who obviously are in stress, low income workers and so on, is there anybody who did that research, and if so— How much is the State Government committing to state housing for these, for people like we're talking about, who need that housing?

And is there any going into the Hawkesbury from the State Government?

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Further discussion? Is

That a question that needs answering?

A

Question to anybody who has the answer. If not, then I'll try and look it up myself.

Okay, Councillor Calvert, would you like to answer it?

Firstly, the answer is yes. We did look into social housing, and you can see that mentioned on page 89 in the paper version. And we did look into what the State Government is doing, and there's a table there with a list of what the State Government is doing. And we went through all those and tried to see how they would apply to Hawkesbury, and unfortunately only some of them apply to Hawkesbury. Most apply to the inner city or areas, say around Parramatta, the more dense areas. But I will give the State Government a bit of credit there that it is doing some things towards helping affordable housing, and we did find them. But unfortunately, they're not things that we can actually apply here.

So our lobbying would be to get the State Government to reconstitute what it's doing and include areas on the outer fringe such as Hawkesbury and Wollondilly, and that's something we need to lobby for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert, and thank you for leading the charge on this. I know it's been a passion of yours for many, many years that you've worked on, and in the last previous councils as well. So it's good to have a comprehensive report. In particular, I think the responses from management, which we're noting, are very beneficial for us to be able to keep track on how we're going, and which things simply are out of our scope, which ones we can, you know, be advocates on behalf, and also to see which ones we're already moving towards. For example, the creation of a homeless hub centre. We're moving quite well towards identifying the space and so on for that, and I think that it's really good to have it in this format.

And well done for doing that. I think that it's something that we just really have to do what we can do, even though we are somewhat restricted both with our resources and also in what we can offer in terms of whose jurisdiction it falls within. But well done on that report, and I'm happy to support the recommendations contained within. Any further discussion?

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Calvert? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item.

Is item 128, the proposed Bells Line of Road corridor item moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. Discussion?

Basically a deferral of this item until we've done our submissions. So, no discussion at all. Councillor Zamprogno, you had it called up. You didn't want to discuss something?

Look

Say no

No

There'll be more to say at another time.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. I'll put the motion, all those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Next item, item 132, naming it— oh, Councillor Garrow, declaration of interest.

Item 132, I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm employed by LEC of the building, and I've been part of the discussions of the renaming.

Did you say less than significant or significant? If it's significant, you'll leave. If it's less than significant, you can stay. I believe it to be less than significant. Okay, well, your choice.

Someone to move the recommendation?

Moved, Councillor Wheeler. Seconded ? A seconder for the motion to rename the hospital. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. So my understanding, and my understanding is limited, is that the current tenants of the building would like a different name for the site rather than the old hospital. Basically, it's a bit of a fresh start, I suppose. My only concern with it is that I understand that it's all part of the Dharugan precinct. I just don't want people to get confused between the Dharugan building and the Dharugan Centre, which is the library and gallery. And that's the only glitch that I can see in this process. Aside from the fact that we are a fairly immovable , traditional, let's say, community, and we like to keep the same names for things, that I've lived in my house for nearly 20 years and it is still known as Ethel Jones's house.

Ethel Jones has not lived in it since 1985. I suspect that our chances of renaming this building anything but the old hospital are probably fairly limited, but it will probably largely be a legal change. So I'm happy to move it. I just don't know how it's really going to stick with the people who use the building.

Do you think maybe underneath that name it could have a... Or something like a subtitle.

Can I give a bit of background

Please do ,

Councillor . Can I just give a bit of background on this? Currently, technically the building is known as the old Hawkesbury Hospital. However, currently there are some tenants in there that have followed over from the previous tenant, and there is quite a lot of clientele that refer to the property as Hawkesbury House. Hawkesbury House no longer exists in that facility. It has been requested that it be renamed to Derubbin House to separate it from Hawkesbury House, and also as a point of reference for giving directions to new clientele who are not knowing where to come. When you say the old Hawkesbury Hospital and they drive down McQuarie Street and cannot access the old Hawkesbury Hospital because they need to access the Derubbin Centre to get to the old Hawkesbury Hospital.

Hence the desire to tie the two, Derubbin House to the Derubbin Centre, so that it is a point of reference more for a business directory and to tie into the precinct. I hope that makes sense to you all.

Thank you. Did you still have a question, Councillor Conolly?

Yeah, my question is, is it called the old Hawkesbury Hospital at the moment, or does it not have a name? I

Think it's called Hawkesbury House at the moment.

I thought Hawkesbury House was the name of the business.

Oh, Mr Mifsud.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I don't think there's any legal name to the building. Council's, as far as I know, since it's taken possession of the building has always called it the old hospital building, and that's what was called previously. The new tenant came in a couple of years ago and called it Hawkesbury House as part of their marketing and so on. And obviously with that tenant leaving, that Hawkesbury House name is no longer relevant and legally couldn't be used anyway. So therefore the tenants have approached the managing agent who have come to Council seeking to change the name to Derubbin House to enable them to then market, I suppose, their services and so on there with some sort of identification to the building.

Thank you, Mr. Ms. Councillor Zampronha.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not in favour of this, and I'll be voting against it, and I'll be inviting my worthy colleagues to join me. But I'll give the best reasons I can. We are, as a community, very fixed on our heritage and the correct nomenclature that we use for things. So it would be an outrage if somebody suggested that Thompson Square be renamed to some other name, Aboriginal or otherwise, because the name that it has has certain connotations that are worth preserving and are quite crucial to its historical values. If there was an item of Aboriginal heritage that was arbitrarily given an Anglo name, like Uluru being called Ayers Rock, people kick up a stink and accuse people of cultural appropriation or insensitivity.

And I rather feel the same way about the old hospital site, because it's the old hospital site. I share the concerns of others that this is unnecessarily confusing. The Dear Rubben Centre is a new building and was given that name and is known in that area by that name. I don't agree with Councillor Garrow that people are incapable of navigating to the old hospital when it's the most visible and famous building in Windsor, second only to St Matthew's. But people can find it if it's called the hospital. That's the point.

Well, that's— I don't know that that's going to be ameliorated by giving it a completely new and novel name. I agree that there might be some transitory confusion caused by the previous tenants. Feeling that that kind of named the building, but that will pass. But it is and should always be the old hospital, and I think that name is redolent of its heritage and its history, and we shouldn't lightly cast that aside by giving it a name that's confusingly similar to a name elsewhere. So I think this is a stupid idea.

Thank you, Councillor Sam.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam. I tend to agree. I think that giving it a whole new name is just more confusing. I mean, everybody knows in the Hawkesbury, everybody knows it's the old hospital building. I agree, you have to turn around the corner, but I think most people can find their way around the corner. Like, I don't think that if we call it the Drummond House, they go, Oh, I've got to go around the corner then, it's the Drummond House. I mean, it's still going to have the same street address. I don't think, you know, I think that it's just odd to go and rename it a whole new name when it's got a name that's worked for a long— since it was the hospital, it's been the old hospital, so I think—

But it's not marked. It doesn't have that as a name. That's just what we all refer

It— Yeah, that's right, but most buildings are actually unnamed. Most buildings don't have a name.

But the name is— is the name. Councillor Garrow, can you clarify please, is the name for the building, or is the name for the operation of the businesses within the building wanted as a name to market their services? Is that the idea of it, or is it to physically name the building? It's to market their services.

Can I ask, why are you asking Councillor Garrow that?

Because she just said that she knew the background to it

Yeah. Okay. I wasn't quite No, it just seems an odd procedure that I was in the middle of speaking and you stopped to ask Councillor Garrow a question. I thought you'd finish,

Sorry. Your light went off.

I do believe so. But — As I was saying, most buildings are actually unnamed, and that's not a problem for most people. But what we're doing here is taking a significant heritage building. It's a bit of an icon in town. It's the most predominant thing you can see visibly in the middle of Windsor, and we're renaming it an entirely new name that's got no connotation to the building whatsoever. And the reason being given is for clarity, but I don't think that really works either. It's not very clear either. Most people in the Hawkesbury, I don't know if anyone would argue, but I think if you ask anybody in the Hawkesbury where the old hospital is, nobody's going to not know. If you rename it this and ask them in a year where the Darubbin House is, a lot of people won't know.

And I think that's evidence, that test, that it's not going to have greater clarity. I don't think it's adding anything to rename it a whole new name.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also have reservations about this name .

It will cause confusion. I mean, you've got two buildings side by side. One is Darubbin Centre. The other is, what is it, Darubbin Building? Darubbin House. Darubbin House. Yeah, I've got it wrong already.

Which one are you aiming at? So I would have thought that we could have come up with some other name for the building, maybe even keep the old hospital building and then in brackets underneath, Darubbin Centre or Darubbin Precinct, so that there is a name for the building, but it's part of the precinct. To give the building the name of the precinct sounds confusing to me. It should have some other name, and I'm quite happy with it being called Old Hawkesbury Hospital Building, brackets, Darubbin Centre. House. Pre-sec. So I won't be voting for this either. I think we need to take it away and rethink it.

So are you moving an amendment to defer it, Councillor Calvert, for more thought? I think you are. Do you have a seconder, Councillor Kotlash? Discussion on the amendment.

Councillor Kotlash.

I agree with the last three speakers. I think it's—we're just heading into more confusion, and I think that to defer it is possibly a good idea. We have the opportunity to name it. We should get it right.

Thank you, Councillor

Kotlash . Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the amendment, and I'm therefore going to fabulously contradict myself having moved the motion, which I think I did shortly after I moved it anyway. Are you

Withdrawing your motion,

Councillor Wheeler? I can withdraw the motion. It's probably just as easy. I think there are concerns about how acceptable and how useful this rename is. I'm also not actually sure what we've got in the recommendation is necessarily what the tenants of the building are asking for. And I think that this is a separate— this is a different business model to the previous one that Hawkesbury House used as well. I think we probably do need to have a formalised name for this building, whether that is Old Hawkesbury Hospital or whether it is De Rubben House or whether it is any number of other names. Maybe we could— We are talking about putting this up for consultation. Maybe instead of— maybe we ask the community what they think. Maybe we give the community a number of options, including Derubbin House, and we run a straw poll. I can see that the general manager is delighted with my suggestion.

He did say.

Point of order, Madam Mayor, if there's an amendment, can we please see it on the board?

Well, it was literally to defer it to— there we are. Consideration of the item be deferred.

Madam Mayor, I'm

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking against the amendment because

Old Government House is Old Government House. Nobody would dream of calling it anything other than that. Old Parliament House is Old Parliament House, and we wouldn't dream of calling it anything else. The armoury at Newington is still called the armoury, even though no guns or ammunition is kept there anymore, because that was its historic connection. In the same way, I'll vote against the amendment so that the— if the motion's been withdrawn All right then, because I just want us to vote against the motion and let it die.

Councillor Calvert.

Just in response to that, Madam Mayor, what I'm suggesting is we go away and think about it and come up with a name. That name could be Old Hawkesbury Hospital.

And I think, just to clarify what is going on, that we need to have two things. If the people who are operating a business there want to call their— Establishment, something, that's one thing. The naming of a specific building is another. I feel a bit blurred just at the moment with all the conversation that's going on about that. So I support the amendment to, or the motion as it is now, to defer it and to clarify that and to proceed forward in that way. Further discussion, Councillor Reynolds.

Sorry, Madam Mayor, I won't be very long. I, to a certain point, agree with Councillors Zamprogno in that, you know, Old Hawkesbury Hospital is what everybody knows it, but I think from memory it was actually originally called the Asylum, so maybe that should be the name. Do you

Know what is in that house?

Anyway, I think that there is an issue with the Derubbin Complex in that a lot of people don't know how to access it. They see an entrance perhaps from George Street. They don't know that the actual entrance to the car park is down that little road near the Johnson Wing where Urban City are at the moment. There is, and there's a driveway, a circular, semicircular driveway that faces Macquarie Street, but you can't use it. I think that we're probably getting off the topic of naming the building, but I think that that precinct could do with

Do with some serious thought to make it more accessible to people, as well as naming it.

It's another point of clarification, if I might. Yes , yes . The deferment has no time or when it should come back? Would you like

A time frame on it?

Well, I'm happy to take advice on what that should say. Like, should it go to a next briefing? Can I just

These businesses have already been waiting probably in excess of months for a response from the Aboriginal community on this to now then go to Council. So if it is going to be deferred, can we please speed it up, because these people need to run their businesses.

Councillor Calvert has asked for a time frame on when we could discuss this.

Look

We'll speak to the local history librarian this week and we'll bring something back to the June extraordinary meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. I'd just like to seek clarification. I'm a bit confused about , as landlords, we are obliged to name this building so that the businesses that are in this building can then do their— what, direct people to come to their— I mean, can't they just give them an address to come? I just don't quite understand. I don't think it's an obligation to name it. But it would be a good— I think what we've discussed and what's come out of tonight's discussions is that we have a heritage item, I guess, that has always been known as the old Hawkesbury Hospital. So we could name the building and give it an official name, but that has really nothing to do with what— I'm like, I don't know this. This is what I want clarification on. Why does this—why are the tenants waiting for us to name? So

The tenants originally decided to call the house Derubbin House. Sorry, the tenants came to a joint decision to name the property Derubbin House to get rid of the confusion of Hawkesbury House. The tenants then took it upon themselves to contact Council , not for an official naming, but for the consent of Aboriginal community to use the Derubbin name. Then Council has taken it to come to Council to get approval post the Aboriginal community giving approval from the Elders. Clear as mud? Okay

So I think the— as it stands,

The tenants never actually wanted an official renaming of the house, technical renaming of the house. This is how it has played out once it has gone through the

Property manager. So I think the current status is that the General Manager will investigate through the local historian and so on and bring it back to the

June meeting.

Councillor Wheeler. I think the question that Councillor Kotlash is asking is a valid one. I'm wondering if the original recommendation actually goes too far, and what we're actually being asked is to just let the tenants call the space Derubbin House, just like the previous tenants called the building Hawkesbury House, rather than us giving this building a formalised name. So I'm not sure if we actually need to be as tied up in knots with this as we are. It seems to be a bit of a courtesy that they call this

Something. So, Councillor Wheeler, are you suggesting that just part one of the recommendation should have been what it be, and not that we publicly exhibit or— Well

I don't even know that. I think the first part of the recommendation would need rewording, in that we endorse the proposal for the tenants occupying that building to refer to it as Derubbin House. While they are occupying that building. Just a comment from the

General Manager.

I think if it's just going to be something that the internal tenants refer to it as, that's possibly acceptable. But there's also signage outside that refers to Hawkesbury House in this direction and things like that. So if we're going to remove that signage, that's potentially going to be an issue. And if we're going to change that signage, that's potentially going to be something we've got to deal with as well. So I do think we need to just go back to first principles, get some advice and come back with an option that can facilitate an identification for the tenants, facilitate some signage if required, but also perhaps more accurately reflect some of the other issues that have been raised tonight. Okay.

Thank you. So, Councillor Rasmussen.

Madam Mayor, I don't ever recall Hawkesbury House coming to this council and spending this amount of time discussing whether we should adopt it or not adopt it and whether they could put signs up or not. I mean, honestly, these people are trying to get on with their business. They're trying to promote their business. They're trying to get a name sorted. If you know anything about small business, this is really important stuff. Their business cards, the whole box and dice. It's seriously important. And we're sitting here wandering around the bush, it's like...

Councillor Tree. Thank you. I think that they probably came to us to act as a conduit to the Indigenous community. And if that has been given the green light by that community, I don't think it's up to us. They can name it, you know, Jack Black's Best Whatevers. I mean, it doesn't really matter. It's sort of like—

I had to stop what I was thinking

I just... But anyway, I just think that—

I don't go well

With Debrubbin, yeah. Yeah.

Ah

That wasn't what I meant. I meant Jack Black, as in the awesome actor from The Holiday. But anyway.

So anyway, so what I mean is, I just think that we— this doesn't have to busy us anymore. I think if they've asked us whether the Indigenous community were happy for the name to be used, they've said yes, they can go forth and do as many signs or business cards or whatever to their heart's content, surely. It doesn't need further consultation or discussion, because we're not actually naming. It's just like the Hawkesbury House was, isn't it? Same, same.

Councillor Conolly.

Well, in that vein, can I understand the general manager has indicated a good way forward would be to get this advice, but if we wanted to deal with it now, I mean, is there anything stopping us from just moving a motion saying we're not endorsing any renaming, but we don't care what you name it, in some other words, like do what you want?

And then if there was an issue with signage or anything like that, they'd have to come back if that's the issue.

Madam Mayor, I just want to be clear. I mean, the reason I kicked up a stink about this is because the wording in the business paper was that we are changing the name of the building, and I'm dead against that. I have no objection to that cluster of businesses calling themselves Derubbin House, in the same way that we spent no time at all discussing whether we should call it Hawkesbury House, but that wasn't the form of words that was in the business paper.

Okay.

Mine was a question, Madam Mayor.

Yes, Councillor Conolly.

I already asked it. Oh , what was your

Question? Sorry

I can't remember. My question was, could we move a motion— Oh, to say

We don't care what they— or we allow them to call it whatever?

Well, we're saying we don't— Council does not agree to formally rename the building, but Council raises no objection to the tenants referring to the building given any name that they choose.

All right. Mr Conroy, comment on Councillor Conolly's proposal.

As I said, I think if it's just what they call themselves, and maybe there's something in the foyer that refers to it, I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue becomes one of there's signage required external to the building directing people in certain ways , then it becomes more formalised, and then it does become a bigger issue. And to take up Councillor Rasmussen's point, we didn't get involved in Hawkesbury House. They just did it.

And they put up signs, right?

And it's always the case. Sometimes if you ask a question, it creates challenges.

So the general manager's saying, Don't ask the question, just do it.

Yeah . So the way

Forward is we can advise them that way, and we can also get some advice about a long-term name for the actual building if you want.

That might suit it. So we—

Well, that might be

Can

We delegate that, so just to get started? Can you just do that, do you think maybe?

I don't think we need to talk

All right. So that was your— there was a withdrawn motion, then there was an amendment from Councillor Calvert and Councillor Cotter. Now we've got Councillor Conolly's offer of a send it to them. So, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cotter? No, because the motion was withdrawn, I believe. Yeah. So, Councillor Calvert.

Madam Mayor, I— I still believe we should defer this and

Wait for the General Manager to report back. Okay, so your stance is the motion and Councillor Conolly's is the amendment. Have you got a seconder, Councillor Conolly? Councillor Rasmussen. Okay. Further discussion, or shall we begin the voting process? Right

Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Calvert , it is now.

I could do a two-hour filibuster, but— Yeah

But I have nothing further to add, Madam Mayor. Okay,

Thank you. So we'll vote first on the amendment, which is Councillor Conolly's amendment to advise the tenants that they can call it what they like and end of story, or were you having the part two to look at a future building?

No, no, just the one. The text should include, though, that we're not agreeing to any formal renaming of the building, but we

Raise no objection. So it's basically saying in terms of their business operations they may name it whatever. Okay. So voting on Councillor Conolly's amendment. All those in favour?

One, two, three, five against. The amendment is lost. Voting on Councillor Calvert's motion to defer and look at it further. All those in favour? Against. The motion is carried.

Next item is item 137, Human Services.

Advisory Committee.

Move that, Madam Mayor. Moved,

Councillor Calvert.

Seconded

Councillor Kotlash. Discussion? I

Wanted to, when I find it,

It's on page 146. Sorry, can I just make an announcement? It's officially raining outside.

Oh,

Exciting

That's why everyone's gone mad

Go ahead. Sorry, Deputy Mayor. No

That's fine. I haven't found it yet. Oh, page

144. No

I found the item, but it says there that item 2 within the attachment, it says, action recommendation, it requires councillors' consideration. That's what I'm looking for. Okay, so item

2, which is the update on the initiatives to end homelessness.

On

Page 148.

Well, somewhere in here the recommendation is that

Councils

Should lobby the state government to increase social housing availability

Yes. Yes, okay.

So I'm just asking that that point be put forward now with the minutes of the committee meeting. Okay,

Thank you, Councillor Calvert. Further discussion?

No further discussion? Oh, sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Would it be worthwhile then when we, to add to that recommendation that council include the fact that it now has an affordable housing strategy and seeks the state government's assistance in implementing. That .

Councillor Calvert.

Happy to do that, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Right of reply. Oh, sorry. Councillor Calvert just explained it was the recommendation within the committee. So

What are we actually voting on?

We're voting on—well, we're voting to adopt all the minutes, but Councillor Calvert was specifically referring to an action item within there on page— Yeah. Yeah. So is

There a recommendation or is there an amendment that we put up so that it all goes forward, or just the business paper ?

No, I think— How are we going to pull

It out and make it stand out? Because I think that's important.

Well, it is a separate thing, Councillor Calvert, or you're merely referring to—it says it in the recommendation. Yeah.

We can't change that. No

No . No . So, and Councillor Wheeler added regarding the affordable housing policy that we have also just— That would be an added point to the recommendation, I would imagine, after we receive and note the committee meetings and then we endorse the committee recommendation. Yeah. So it would go there. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Calvert Not necessary. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Questions on questions?

From last time,

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Madam Mayor. My question number six in relation to the proposal to move the church bell at St Matthew's Catholic Primary School, and what's the church really. In the answer it says, as the school bell is not covered by the SEP and the site is a heritage item, a development application is required to be submitted for the relocation of the bell. I'd already informed Council the bell has been relocated, so I'd just like to know what action has therefore been taken. Okay. Mr Conolly. Does that need to be a question? That can be taken as a question, as I noticed, but I'd like to have a reply sooner than the next business paper. Okay. And the second question is, the portable classroom does not need consent under the SEP, and Council has not been involved in decisions about the exact location of the classrooms in relation to the church's curtilage.

I just want to know why. Does the SEP allow them to do whatever they want in relation to that heritage item? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely if they've told Council they're going to put it there, Council would have asked how close and what impact it's going to have on the heritage asset.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Questions for next meeting, Councillor Richards.

Oh, sorry, Councillor Ross, did you have a question on questions?

I did.

Okay.

Question 139, or item 139.

Question 3.

Question 1.

Oh, okay.

I'd like to inquire of the General Manager:

Does Council have a memorandum of understanding with the Sporting Council? If so, what is that, please?

Yeah,

Taking it on notice. Thank you. Councillor Ross.

I then move to—and whether it's a memorandum of understanding or a lease or what—

I'm wanting to establish

The division between Council responsibility and that of the Sporting Council, in that it would seem, I would have felt that Council had the overriding control of what activity, or development— however you might phrase that word, development—occurs in the Benson's Lane complex. I'm just wanting to establish that for a start.

Would the General Manager agree that Council has the overriding consideration of activities that go on down there, and any developments or changes that might be made with regard to equipment or inclusions or exclusions or whatever? Structures. Structures.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Oh

You wanted to add to now, Mr Conroy, I think.

Council's the owner of the land, so Council's ultimately responsible. And I think it's a fair point to ask what's the nature of the agreement between the Sports Council and Council in relation to how we manage some of these activities and projects.

Thank you. Well

I'm wanting to establish who actually organised this particular project of lighting of that area.

What were their credentials?

The installation was no doubt conducted by a third party.

On what basis had Council been tendered plans and

Undergone discussions either with the Sports Council, preferably, or with the third party involved in the installation?

It's a question on a question.

Yes. And I continue on.

What are the relevant standards,

As considered by whomever? Is it the Sports Council who decided what the relevant standards were, or is it the Council?

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I haven't finished yet. When the installation was— Conducted, completed. Sorry, at the

Assessment

Stage

Were council staff involved in reviewing the assessment of what was required and what was going to be put into that complex? Upon its installation, what compliance activity was done in reference to its adherence to the agreed framework?

Further, the complaint mentioned here, which was not originally suggested in the question ,

Is not relevant. I was speaking about a wider area of interference.

What efforts did council make in regard to the potential wider element of interference and loss of amenity to other residents

Within eyeline or eyeshot of that particular property, including those of the higher elevation on the northern, western side of the river?

Who conducted the

Light evaluation?

Was there a simulation done prior to the, a lighting simulation done prior to the implementation of the— Fixtures , the lighting matters.

Councillor Ross, if there's much more, that might have to be a notice of motion.

I'm reluctant to call for a notice of motion because of the time. I've had a very serious complaint from a local resident

Who is constantly being harassed and having their amenity destroyed by the lighting that is going on at that property from this Benson Lane activity at night. Now, I further draw your attention to the statement that the lights are under control and that there seems to be some degree of management. Well, I dispute that fact. Last Friday evening, I travelled into that area at around about 7, 7:15 p.m., personally.

The whole area was not being occupied or utilised. At 8 o'clock, without warning and without any personages being on site, apparently the lights turned on

In the evening. They were not extinguished until 5 a.m., apparently on a timer.

Madam Mayor, can I

Make a point of order?

Yeah. I think Councillor Ross is abusing this section of the meeting for a purpose that it is not intended for.

Well, I have just asked him if it's any more extensive, it will have to be a notice of motion because this is questions on questions. It's not new questions.

The last question would be, when would Council anticipate either inspecting or doing something about this to alleviate the difficulties of residents, please?

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Questions for next meeting, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't know, I have a question regarding deer in the LGA. I've had a number of complaints from residents about deer destroying their fruit trees and their vegetation, and I don't know what the answer is, and I don't know if we have any role in that either, but whether Council can see by maybe talking to some animal groups, has there been an increase in wild deer? Because I've had a lot of people complaining to me about the damage, and I don't know what the result is because I'm not going to, I don't know, but that's my question. Thank you.

There is actually, just to tell you, the CWA are currently working on a project with feral deer. So if you ask the local CWA—

Yes, they are.

Sorry? They're bringing them in.

No, they're not bringing them in. You're like, I don't know what the solution is. I'm not going to go out there and say culling, but can you catch them and do something? Councillor

Tree. Yep. I'm just wondering where things are up to with the Grose River crossing. I've heard that the ball's in RMS's court, but then I've also heard it's in Council's court, and so I just want to know where it's up to and whether there should be more dialogue, if nothing's been— and what is being done at the moment to get an outcome there. Councillor Conolly. Thanks

Madam Mayor. I just want to know how many times Council has issued orders to have the signs removed to Thompson Square. I had a conversation with the General Manager by email, who informed me that Council does issue orders to have the signs removed when they're in improper places. But it does seem like every time you go through there, they're always there. So I'm just wondering how often this is happening and how much Council time is being spent on a matter that probably could be simply solved if someone would just tell them to stop.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. My question relates to the Bells Line of Road and M9 corridors in the area, and I'd appreciate a statement from— Somebody knowledgeable concerning what consultation occurred with Council specifically and with community in the affected areas prior to the announcement in March.

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was contacted by a resident late this afternoon. She was ordering a Section 10.7 environmental planning certificate, the cost of which is $53, but she was told that if she wants to get it by email, she has to pay a further $54.60, or it can be posted to her for free. I just wonder whether that is Council's policy. Is that the way we do it, or has she got the wrong end of the stick?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Could someone please go and have a look at the footpath outside Richmond Library, specifically the bit on the corner of West Market Street? It's becoming a trip hazard apparently, largely due to tree roots. We might need an arborist to tell us the best way forward.

Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow. A community member has sent in a request following up on the EPA and WesRox bin your butt campaign if they can get some sort of signage or stickers in the Thompson Square Giant Ash tree region, please. Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Yes, could we, Council please be informed of the progress and the date of completion of the upgrade to the North Richmond intersection.

Councillor Ross.

Has Council been advised by Windsor RSL of a Boer War commemoration activity in George Street on Thursday at 11 o'clock? Yes. Right. Is Council being represented?

Yes, Councillor Calvert will be there as I'll be away.

Right. Okay. I just hadn't seen any email. Yeah .

Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Can someone move we go into confidential? Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded, Councillor Connelly. All those in favour?