26 June - Ordinary

Welcome to our meeting tonight. I'll pass over to Mr Conroy for the introduction.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their Elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 6. 3. 1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings.

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

For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person, present or not, at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council chamber has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. I have an apology from Councillor Reynolds. Does anyone know if Councillor Conolly is running late? He is. And probably Councillor Rasmussen as well. So could someone accept Councillor Reynolds' apology, move Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Wheeler, all those in favour. Declarations of interest.

No declarations of interest. We have two sets of minutes to confirm. The first one is from the Ordinary Meeting of the 29th of May. Someone to move those minutes.

Moved Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Wheeler, all those in favour. And the second set are from the Extraordinary Meeting of the 13th of June. Moved Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Wheeler, all those in favour. Move on to items with public address.

The first item is item 153, notice of motion 2. Our first speaker is Harry Terry.

Mayor, councillors, council staff, gallery. It has been said if someone wants to have the appearance of a leader, they wait to see which way the troops are running. Then they run quickly to get in front and continue running quickly enough not to get run over. The example of this style of leadership was shared with me by a colleague of mine. He was a teacher at a school which hosted a visit from the Education Minister. There were a number of parents at the front gate. The Minister turned to the school inspector — you can see how long ago this occurred — and asked what works for the school were in the pipeline. He then went to the parents and proudly announced what his government was about to provide, as if it were a new initiative.

The Treasurer has announced the allocation of $25 million over three years, with approximately a third of that amount being allocated for the 2018-19 financial year for planning and preparing a business case for a third crossing of the Hawkesbury. Although there was little detail in the press release, I assume the project to which the Treasurer was referring. Is the duplication downstream of the Richmond Bridge at North Richmond, which is planned for 2026. Sorry, 2036. If this is true, I will put this announcement into context by quoting from an RMS community update leaflet from that project dated September 2012. I repeat, 2012. In — here I go. In April 2011, the Australian government allocated $2 million for planning to alleviate traffic congestion on Richmond Bridge and its approach roads.

And the RMS is seeking feedback on four specific long-term options in order to reserve a road corridor to accommodate future improvements between Richmond and North Richmond. And community members have suggested completely bypassing Richmond, North Richmond and Windsor, or a combination of all three. However, these suggestions are outside the scope of current investigations. Bypass options can be considered as part of overall transport planning for north west region of Sydney. And the RMS commissioned specialist studies to identify opportunities and constraints for the long-term options. These included traffic modelling, flood modelling to identify an option crossing with improved flood immunity for a one in 20 flood event, which, out of interest's sake, is about 13.7 metres.

Environmental studies, review of utility services, strategic concept design for the road and bridge, preliminary geotechnical investigations, and strategic cost estimates. Now, a number of options were considered, and the preferred option was decided to be Option D. Back to quoting, Option D: a new two-lane bridge with a one-in-20 flood immunity to provide four lanes, two lanes in each direction. A new bridge would be constructed 25 to 50 metres downstream from the existing bridge. This would also involve retaining the existing bridge for westbound traffic to North Richmond, and the new bridge would be used by eastbound traffic to Richmond. Widening Kurrajong Road to provide a four-lane divided road between Chapel Street and Old Kurrajong Road, Yarramundi Lane, and strip acquisition at Richmond Park.

If the press release refers to this project, the Treasurer has run very quickly indeed to get in front, and has announced a project that has been announced six to seven years ago, and extensive planning has been carried out. This is not kick-starting a new project, nor a historic commitment to begin planning for a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. The Treasurer cannot be congratulated for claiming this is a new initiative and still retain any ethical credibility. The Treasurer cannot be congratulated for funding a project that will continue to funnel increasing traffic into Richmond. The Treasurer cannot be congratulated for supporting a band-aid strategy. The Treasurer cannot be congratulated for ignoring a bypass alternative.

A third crossing of the Hawkesbury means very little unless it is part of an overall transport plan for the Hawkesbury. Ergo, it would be very risky, and some people would view it in this way, that any councillor who has supported the motion could be doing so hypocritically. Thank you.

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

I am.

Councillors Zambrano.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr Terry, thank you for your presentation. I just want to be clear about the timeline that you've just laid out. All of the various announcements that you've quoted from are subsequent to March 2011. Is that correct?

What I read out was for, yes, subsequent to March 2011, correct.

So it would be correct to say that the quotes that you've made are in support of a government initiative, which is the present government, and which has always been an initiative of the present government for which funding has now been allocated. Would that be a fair construction on that?

Yes, indeed. It would have been much fairer if the Treasurer had indicated this is, say, a fast-tracking of an existing program. It's not fair to say this is a start of a new program. It is a program that has been in train for six to seven years.

But which was initiated by the current government. Thank you. Well

Actually, it was initiated by the federal government in 2011 with the two million dollar allocation. I seek leave to table the documents.

Mr Conroy . That

Are copies of the planning that has been done so far. These aren't copies for individual councillors. They are a copy of the documents that have been produced by the RMS since 2011 on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our second speaker is Michael Want.

Thank you, Mayor and Councillors.

Clause 3 of the notice of motion should be deleted or at least replaced with an apology. Firstly , Councillor Richards, a question for you. When Cabinet made the decision to proceed with the Bells Line of Road and the Outer Sydney Orbital corridors in March, what was Minister Perrottet's position on behalf of the Hawkesbury community? I'm sure you'll tell us in the subsequent debate. Also, you must know, because you knew firsthand how hard Dominic fought in Cabinet for the Hawkesbury community, but not so hard in March on the evidence. But what we do know, he could not attend community meetings, meet one-on-one with residents, attend community feedback sessions, and Councillors, even a meeting he arranged for the village people, the NRDC AA and traffic expert Christopher Hallam with Minister Pavey, a meeting he wanted our Mayor and Council General Manager attend, which they did, but guess what?

He could not make it, and Councillor Richards wants to congratulate him. You must be kidding. If anything, Councillor Richards should be pushing him to apologise for the hurt, the distress, the disruption of people's lives, the sleepless nights, the stress and strain put on their lives as a result of Cabinet's thoughtless decision. If anyone deserves a pat on the back and congratulations, then Angela Wellington on the Facebook for the— Blaw Group has done just that, with more pats on the back to come, she says, and I'm quoting from the Facebook page. The very first drop-in session at Kurrajong, Susan Templeman, Mary Lyons-Bucket and Daniela Wheeler all approached a few of our little group of bewildered but motivated people to offer genuine support in our distress and assistance in our efforts to engage the community and fight the corridors on our side of the river.

Throughout the last three months, each of those three women have been nothing but responsive and generous of their time and resources, with no expectation of anything in return. I cannot thank them enough. End of quote. Councillors, every political leader seeks to gain broad public support because the greater their support, the greater their power. One of the best ways to gain the support of the people you want to lead is to do something to benefit them. Failing that, the next best thing is to convince them that you have done something of benefit to them, even though you really haven't. So it is with Minister Perrottet saving our bacon, as described in Councillor Richards' notice of motion.

Whoever votes for this motion in its current form is trying to convince the Hawkesbury electorate Minister Perrottet is doing something which he is not. His press release of 22 June says, and I quote, I was able to take the community's strong response straight to the heart of government and advocate on their behalf. Is Minister Perrottet saying I had nothing to do with the previous situation? Please. Who in this room thinks Minister Perrottet had nothing to do with this except take it off the table till after the next election? Trust is a big issue for politicians. Minister Perrottet backflipped way too late as the community anger grew. Let's look at a similar announcement around 2013, when Susan Templeman, who was not an MP at the time, but secured $2 million for the Richmond Bridge and approach study, and $18 million for the intersection work in North Richmond and Richmond.

No wonder the community loves Susan.

Mr Bassett, and we all know what he's famous for, but I won't say, was screaming about the Labor announcement at the time and wrote in the Gazette on the 9th of June in part, The only answer the federal candidate has for local traffic problems is to waste $2 million of taxpayers' money on yet another expensive traffic study. Oh yes, he was so critical, which was to be expected. We all should wait to see if Councillor Richards changes her tune and will put the same position to Minister Perrottet that Mr Bassett put to Susan Templeman, that he is wasting $7 million of our money. That will take hard work, but I'm sure Councillor Richards will stand up for the Hawkesbury community. Her first move should be to withdraw the politically motivated motion, work with the Progressive group of Councillors led by Councillor Lyons-Buckett and stop the political point scoring.

Her second move should have Mr Perrottet address the next Council meeting on his announcement. Minister Perrottet was wrong, and that won't change with press releases or the notice of motion. So lots of questions should be put to Minister Perrottet by Council about the funding announcements for the Richmond Bridge, and Councillor Richards should ask Mr Perrottet to issue an apology to those people that we've mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Whelan. Do you have any questions? Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Mr. Wan. I just wanted to, I guess, address—just to clarify something you mentioned there, which was in regards to the Bells Line of Road works. And you mentioned that Susan Templeman secured that funding, and that you also mentioned in your speech that at times politicians will try and convince you they've done something. I'm just wondering, given that it was a local Liberal member of Parliament at both state and federal level, Liberal governments at both state and federal level that allocated the money, my question would be: are you for real?

Mr. Wan, can you put the microphone on, please?

I think you've got it quite wrong, Councillor Conolly. It was Susan Templeman who acquired the money.

You're asking me a question, I'm going to answer it. She's the one who got the money. It was put in the forward estimates of the federal budget by the Labor Party in government, and then it was carried out subsequently. And you referred to the previous member for Macquarie—I just forget her name now— Ms. Marcus. Ms. Marcus did about as much in her, I think, eight years in Parliament as what Susan Templeman does in a day.

Thank you, Mr. Wan. Any further questions?

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Wan, you said in your speech that you would like to see people stop the political point scoring. You said, ‘My motion should be withdrawn because it is political point scoring,’ and you want that to stop. Yes, absolutely. So let's talk about not doing political point scoring. Did I not visit your premises and walk around your street and that of other homes during the whole corridor issue ? Sure,

I didn't want you to tell people that.

Did you come to my home?

I came to visit people in their homes during the corridor issue. I didn't feel the need to go and put a Facebook post up like other people. I haven't felt the need to go out there and let people know who I've met with on the issue. But you've commended other councillors. What's the question? Well, my question is that basically I think that if you're telling people to stop the political point scoring and you're asking me to withdraw my motion. I'm telling you that I'm not going to withdraw it because I'm not about political point scoring. When during the whole issue, I haven't had to cry out about the things I've done to try and help people with issues during the corridor process. So I just want to make it very clear and answer that question to you that I won't be withdrawing my motion because it's not about political point scoring. Okay, we'll take that as a comment.

Will you answer the question we've asked in relation to the question I put up to you first?

You have

To

Repeat that. When Cabinet made the decision to proceed with the Bells Line of Road and the Outer Sydney Orbital corridors in March, what was the Minister's peremptory position on behalf of the Hawkesbury community?

Considering that's addressed to Mr Perrottet, I'd be happy to take that on notice and address it to Mr

Perrottet. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Want. Our third speaker is Jan Sparks.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, everybody in the chamber. Okay, should Council thank Dom for doing his job, for listening to one section of the community whilst ignoring other sections of the community? That's a no. He has deliberately ignored certain people and certain groups. There was no animosity or ill feeling toward him in the eyes of many when he was elected to the Hawkesbury. However, that quickly changed. It's been painfully obvious that he has been selective in who he meets with and who he will talk to and what issues he will discuss. Many good folk just wanted an audience with Dom, just like the Blore Group were given. However, he has ignored a very prominent group in Windsor, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Or in the case of Thompson Square, its history will be, pardon the pun. So let's not thank Dom. The people directly impacted by the Bligh corridor debacle, who were stressed and tortured for weeks over that announcement, will thank him if they feel so inclined. I'm positive they will receive a prompt reply, unlike many who have been ignored on many and various issues that have faced us in the Hawkesbury. With an election in the very near future, it appears that the backflip came after Dom received some very negative attention in the media. Dom was falling out of favour faster than Usain Bolt can dart over 100 metres, so he really had to do something. And now we have the $7 million study. A study.

Because of Redbank's growth, the pressure on the roads is really significant right now, and a bridge is going to take years to build. We probably could have had a bypass at Windsor in that time. And effectively, like Windsor, the residents of the north side have no traffic solution to look forward to. Development before infrastructure is the mantra for the Libs. Could the Libs backflip yet again after wasting taxpayers' monies on the study? Sure can. We have discovered Dom has the ability to intervene when things are wrong. Many of us in this room tonight have discussed this over the years. Can Dom intervene on behalf of, if a major project was inappropriate and there was enough of an outcry?

I think we've had enough of an outcry about the Windsor Bridge replacement project. Nothing has been done. He hasn't even met with anybody in regards to that, especially the major players. And that's what we can answer now. He'll only meet if he wants to, or he can ignore. So why is he being so selective? Votes. Is there a good catchment of votes over the river? Probably. Well there was, but now we've got to wonder. A bypass option for Windsor should have been the third crossing instead of our dud option. Anyway, back flip done now. Probably got a 10 out of 10 for that. Let's hope Dom knows the exact location of the new bridge at Richmond because we'd hate to see another embarrassing error like the Hawkesbury Station.

Oops. Dom can't be trusted. He still resides in Beecroft. He's got the boundaries wrong again. Another oops. I'm living in the wrong part of town. Perhaps he's not exactly sure where we are. Anyway, I don't support the NOM in any shape or form because Dom does not sincerely support all the people in his electorate, and he doesn't fight for all the people in his electorate. He's selective. So let's not thank Dom for doing half a job. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Sparks. Do you want to take questions? No questions? Okay, that was our final speaker.

Councillor Richards? Yes, please. Do

You have a seconder? Seconder, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you very much. I think that my motion is quite self-explanatory, and it seems to appear that most people in the room have read the motion, so I won't actually read it out again. But what I would ask you to do, I think that while there's no further words that I can put forward to my motion, I think it's quite condensed there and actually says everything it needs to. What I might do during my moment of speech is take my time to reiterate some comments from a local politician who have actually put things on the public record regarding a third crossing. Here we go. Susan Templeman, Federal Member for Macquarie, 9th of August 2016, made a speech at Hawkesbury City Council chambers. But the big issues are going to take a lot of work to solve.

Things like progressing a third crossing of the river for the community so we can get around the Hawkesbury in a measured way. I will be campaigning with our council candidates to ensure we send the Hawkesbury Liberals a message that the community supports a third river crossing, and they should back the community. Tick . Media release title by Susan Templeman. Title is, Labor backs a third Hawkesbury River crossing. Full stop. Here it is. Tanya Plibersek pledges a planning study for third Hawkesbury River crossing. It is not another study. This is a quote. It is planning work to identify a site for a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. Commitment there, $500,000. Commitment here, $25 million.

Susan, a third crossing will help reduce traffic in the centre of Windsor and improve travel times for residents in the Hawkesbury. Blue Mountains Gazette, July 4, 2016. In the Hawkesbury, the key local issues. .. the need for a third crossing across the Hawkesbury River. First speech in Parliament, 14th of September, 2016. And it makes it easy for me to want to fight to improve the travel times for Hawkesbury residents by advocating for a third crossing of the river. In Parliament, 11th of May, 2017. Do not get me wrong. I want a third bridge to cross the mighty Hawkesbury River. I was at the Hawkesbury Show at the weekend giving out I'm for a third crossing bumper stickers. The real— please, Madam Mayor.

The, quote, the real spending that we need to see out of the New South Wales government in its next budget, spending that the Treasurer should be backing for a local road study and bridge improvements. Tick. June 18, 2016, in an article by Jessica Staveley. Labor wants to see a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River.

Our Mayor, Mary Lyons-Buckett, council press release, 19th of June 2018. Mr Perrottet's budget announcement promises a commendable $25 million in funds towards a third river crossing between Richmond and North Richmond. We always welcome state government funding for local infrastructure. I'm not sure if you welcomed it with the Windsor Bridge, but you've said here you always do. Really? Always? Okay. It will be important to have the initial business case put forward so that all the issues can be considered up front. I agree. Mayoral Minute, 8th of May 2018, point three. To facilitate the establishment of a high-level crossing in the vicinity of North Richmond, Richmond and Windsor to address Hawkesbury City Council's long-held ambition of achieving a— let's all say it together— third crossing of the Hawkesbury .

8th of April 2017. Solutions for infrastructure in our area are well overdue. Everyone agrees on that. We need sensible, mature debate on these issues. Independent councillor, state Labor candidate Peter Reynolds, previous president of CORB. Gazette, 26th of June 2018. Laughs about the study being announced by Minister Perrottet. However, I think the study was pretty much the same thing announced by Tanya Plibersek, or for money towards planning, back when she made that announcement. Gazette, April 30, 2018. He added the traffic experienced by those who live west of the Hawkesbury River was another thing he wanted to fix. Here it is, delivered by his counterpart. The battle for Windsor Bridge, personal stories, 21st of April 2016.

The Hawkesbury desperately needs, let's all say it together, a third river crossing. 24th of June. Shared a CORB post. First line: CORB has been advocating for, let's all say it together, a third river crossing for years now. Our objective has always been abundantly clear. A, let's say it, third crossing of the Hawkesbury

Come on, we're

Not in a preschool.—I'm just bringing the community along with me. —Allocation, which provides the

Madam Mayor, just a point of order, if you don't mind.—Point

Of order,

Councillor.—And I don't normally want to break in on a councillor's foray into politics, but, Madam Mayor, the councillor is very critical on many occasions about the gallery joining in, and on this occasion seems to be encouraging the gallery joining in. Could I suggest that we don't do that?—

I hadn't actually said who I was encouraging. How about the councillors?—

All joining in.—All joining in.—

All right. Thank you. Point of order. Point of order. I won't do it again. Okay. Deputy Mayor, Councillor Calvert. March 6, 2015, in a Gazette article, Councillor Calvert said he wants to build a third crossing over the Hawkesbury River. Yourself? 9th of April 2017, I believe that most of the Hawkesbury's traffic problems could be solved by building a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. Councillor Wheeler. 12th of April on Facebook. Neither the state government or Hawkesbury City Council can make a decision without a business case or an EIS. And what's Minister Perrottet announced? A business case. Councillor Rasmussen, 10th of August 2016 on Facebook. North Richmond needs a new bridge. A solution for the horrendous North Richmond traffic delays and debacle giving so much grief to residents. Tick. Justine

Doherty. Yeah, I remember that one.

Former Gazette journalist. There are

Several others in case you want them.

Far and away the biggest issue for council is to get a third river crossing. Corb. Handed out bumper stickers and has a sticker on their tent. The same ones that Susan Templeman handed out at the show. I'm for a third crossing. 14th of April 2016. The heading is, Government says no to a third crossing. Well, now they're saying yes. 28th of June 2016. To think the Hawkesbury doesn't deserve a third crossing is foolish. It is foolish because now they're getting one. 3rd of October 2016. Somehow our council has to break the stalemate and get us a third crossing. Well, council didn't do it because it's not in council's domain. But the Honourable Dominic Perrottet has allocated the money to start the process. I could go on and on and on, but I'm not going to. Please don't. I think that I've said enough. Just

A point of order, Madam Mayor. Yes. Just in regards to your interjection then, you're very critical of other councillors being interrupted. Well, we've

Gone way over. It's been very

Long. Well, if you wanted to call time, you should call time, but I don't think sitting there making snide comments, interjecting is appropriate

Well, Councillor Richards just said she wouldn't go on and I said, Okay, don't. What is wrong with saying that? I

Think it's very clear what is wrong with saying

That. She's finishing it up. Well, she's read a series of press releases, and we've all heard them now. We probably all knew that we said them, so you can wind up. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm not going to add anything else now because I'll wait for the end of the debate and hear what everybody else has to say. I look forward to having full support for this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Councillor Ross.

I seek to place an amendment, Madam, to the motion.

Have you sent it through

Yes, I have indeed, I believe.

I'll just see if we can get it. Otherwise we might...

Can everyone see it to read it?

Should I read it, Madam, if you..

How long is it? Is there a draft.

Yes, there is. There are three points in the motion.

Read out the three points in the motion, and then we might refer to the other.

This is the amendment I seek. Point one: Council notes a State Budget, financial year 18/19, allocation of $7 million for work described as, in inverted commas, New Hawkesbury River Crossing at Richmond. Followed by brackets, planning, close brackets, close inverted commas. Under the heading of, open inverted commas, major works, comma, works in progress, close inverted commas, with no further financial commitment and no reference to a third crossing. Cost is, in inverted commas, N oblique A, close inverted commas. Total expenditure to 30/6/18 has been left blank. Point two. Council further notes advice in a media release issued by the Member for Hawkesbury that this $7 million is part of a three-year funding package of $25 million.

Point three. Council writes to the State Treasurer seeking clarification regarding this allocation, in brackets, see attached draft, of which follows. Close brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Can we just see the content of the draft letter then, if that's one of your points?

If people can see it, are you going to speak to it? Can you put your light on, please?

Yes, I am. Sorry, Madam, I do apologise.

We might just run some copies of it off, so you commence with your reference to it if you wish. Yes. Hopefully people can see it. Is that it in its entirety or is there more?

Look, I'll proceed with the reading of it. The letter I'm

Suggesting— Okay. We've just got to get you a seconder for your motion. I'm

Sorry, that's true. I'm terribly sorry.

Yes, seconder for Councillor Ross's motion.

If we. waiting to see it. All right. Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All right, proceed, Councillor Ross, thank you. Thank you.

The draft letter is as follows: to the Honourable Dominic Perrottet MP, Member for Hawkesbury, and Minister for Industrial Relations, 52 Martin Place, Sydney, 2000. Dear Treasurer, re New South Wales Budget, new Hawkesbury River crossing at Richmond. Hawkesbury City Council notes an allocation of $7 million — there is a typo there — has been made in the 2018-19 New South Wales Budget for an item described as New Hawkesbury River Crossing at Richmond, in brackets planning. It is further noted that an media release dated 19th of June 2018, you advise a new river crossing between Richmond and North Richmond will receive $25 million. It appears the allocation of $7 million will be directed to planning and a business case for a bridge across the Hawkesbury River at Richmond.

Council seeks to clarify the specific infrastructure project intended to benefit from this funding. A degree of confusion has arisen due to a project duplicate Richmond Bridge between Richmond and North Richmond identified in a document titled Richmond Bridge Options Report, Long Term Solutions, prepared by SMEC on behalf of the RMS. This document identifies the preferred option as option D. However, Option D, a bridge and additional eastbound carriageway to be constructed at a level to provide a one in 20 year ARI flood immunity, and providing a total of four lanes, that is two lanes in each direction, along March Street, Carrajong Road and Bells Line of Road between East Market Street, Richmond, and Grose Vale Terrace Road intersection, I think probably should be there, North Richmond, was not Council's preferred option.

Given option D is planned to connect the same roads as the existing Richmond Bridge, and that the reference in your media release to a third crossing implies a location different from that of the existing bridges, Council seeks to establish if the intention is to build two different bridges across the Hawkesbury River between Richmond and North Richmond. In light of the complex transport planning issues currently confronting the LGA, your advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. You can speak on your motion.

Okay. I hope it will be slightly briefer, more brief than the prior presentation . Madam Mayor, Councillors, let no one in this chamber, or indeed anywhere in the entire local government area, be in any doubt regarding my commitment to a properly planned and fully funded third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. However, as I've already made clear, that does not mean I support any old Notice of Motion just because it includes the words third crossing. As you also all know, I have some very serious concerns regarding road infrastructure in and around our historic towns, and with the budget announcement we are discussing now, we potentially have four, yes, four new river bridges being proposed in the vicinity of Windsor and Richmond.

To elaborate, option one at Windsor, the so-called Nepean Bridge, the duplication of Richmond Bridge, and the new Hawkesbury River crossing at Richmond. I'll just touch briefly on each of those projects.

Option one requires little explanation. One three-lane bridge and government destruction sanctioned, at Windsor, proceeds, eliminating a significant Hawkesbury asset. The other three are more closely associated with Richmond. The Nepean Bridge, planned to cross the Grose, is a product of the Redbank VPA. The duplication of the Richmond Bridge is reported in RMS documents published in 2012, the documents resulting from a federal government grant. The new Hawkesbury River crossing at Richmond is flagged as, in inverted commas, planning, in this year's budget paper number two, page five, item 46. With an allocation of $7 million under the heading of, in inverted commas, major works, works in progress, close inverted commas. There is no further financial commitment and no reference to a third crossing. Cost is,

In inverted commas, n oblique a, closed inverted commas. Total expenditure to 30th June 18 has been left blank, as I did mention in the amendment. Decisions around the location of new bridges in the Hawkesbury LGA must take into account a number of associated infrastructure issues, including the outer Sydney Freight Rail Corridor and adjacent Outer Sydney Orbital Corridor and the Bells Line of Road Castle Ray Connection Corridor. Significantly, the New South Wales Government last week advised the community, the Bells Line of Road , that the planned Castle Ray Connection Corridor west of the Hawkesbury River had been abandoned. However, it is evident the government remains committed to the Bells Line of Road due to an announcement of upgrades to the Bells Line of Road, including the Chifley Road upgrade at Scenic Hill realignment and the Chifley Road Clarence Rail Bridge.

Both projects reinforce the ongoing importance of the Bells Line of Road route. Complexity compounds with the realisation that on the 8th of May. 2018. Council considered a Mayoral Minute and resolved to:

Firstly, seek the support of Penrith City Council to facilitate the establishment of a high level crossing above the one in 100 year flood level in the vicinity of North Richmond, Richmond or Windsor to address Hawkesbury City Council's long-standing ambition of achieving a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River; and, next point, not to support the current proposed Bells Line of Road corridor in any form or location. Council believes that funding that may have been allocated to the BLOR project should be spent on planning and constructing a third river crossing in the Windsor or Richmond area. Pardon me. In addition, I'm sure, as you are all aware, Council is about to receive the first stage of its traffic study commissioned by Council in an endeavour to put some context around the transport planning for the Hawkesbury.

I think it is fair to say this budget allocation has been made against a complex planning background, and its specific place and responsibilities within that context are manifestly unclear.

Before releasing you from this horror story, let me return to the duplication of the Richmond Bridge. I understand that in year 2010, $20 million was set aside by the Australian Government for improvements at North Richmond Bridge, with $2 million for a study into the short- and long-term options, and the remaining $18 million being used towards associated projects. In September 2012, Roads and Maritime Services published the Richmond Bridge and Approaches Congestion Study Long Term Options Report, which states that the purpose of the study was to develop suitable options to address specific traffic congestion issue in the short term, that is in the period 2016 to 2021, described as Stage 1, and in the longer term, that is 2021

Ongoing to 2036 as Stage 2. In October 2012, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Tree, seconded by Councillor Creed, that: 1 . RMS be advised that Council supports in principle Option C, a new two-lane bridge 25 to 50 metres downstream of the existing bridge, constructed at a 1 in 25 year ARI flood level , subject to further analysis and determination of the short-term options report currently being finalised in conjunction with the long-term options report.

2. RMS be requested to undertake further consultation with Council following community input and the value management workshop prior to finalising its option for the long-term strategy for the Richmond Bridge and its approaches.

Councillors Calvert, Lyons-Buckett and Williams requested that their names be recorded as having voted against the motion.

There is, of course, a great deal more of this detailed information available. I will spare you any further tedium and advise option D was ultimately selected as the preferred option. I quote RMS documents when I indicate . Option D will provide a total of four lanes, two lanes in each direction along March Street, Carrajong Road and Bells Line of Road between East Market Street, Richmond, and Grose Vale Terrace Road intersection at North Richmond. The bridge and associated eastbound carriageway will be constructed at a level to provide a one in twenty year ARI flood immunity. This would involve constructing a new two-lane bridge twenty to fifty metres downstream of the existing bridge, retaining the existing bridge, adding two lanes to Carrajong Road eastbound carriageway between Chapel Street and Old Carrajong Road and Yarramundi Lane intersection to provide four lanes, two lanes in each direction, removing some turning movements at Old Carrajong Road and Yarramundi Lane intersection, and restricting street parking along the corridor to off-peak hours in Richmond and North Richmond to provide four lanes during the morning and afternoon peaks.

This description should be of concern to every one of us because this is another very bad plan for the Hawkesbury.

The RMS have decided that they have locked in, to use the terminology, the destruction of Windsor and would now appear to be ready to turn their attention to destroying Richmond.

We all know that Hawkesbury desperately requires an integrated, carefully thought out strategic transport plan.

In ancient Rome, commercial vehicles were kept out of the city during daylight hours. All deliveries were made during the hours of darkness. Now, I'm not suggesting anything so draconian here. However, if the Romans, a couple of thousand years ago, could so clearly understand the value of amenity in commercial precincts, surely it is possible for equal comprehension for the 21st century transport planners of New South Wales.

I believe the funding allocated in the New South Wales State Budget offers an unparalleled opportunity to get this right. I think we need to start by establishing exactly what is intended with the allocation of these funds, and be transparent about intentions. The processes up to now,

As I hope have been demonstrated to you through this speech, have been shambolic. Landowners, residents, business owners, commercial enterprises and future generations of Hawkesbury people deserve better.

Surely no one believes that directing increased traffic numbers with large industrial juggernauts into the heart of our Georgian towns and villages is even remotely sensible or safe. And yet, that is exactly what the RMS is planning to do in Windsor and now in Richmond. Can we please surprise even ourselves and unite around this third crossing funding and cut a better deal for everyone who calls the Hawkesbury home .

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Sam Bronner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Would it be in order to seek clarification from a fellow councillor on a point?

You can ask a fellow councillor a question.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, I'd like— I'm just referring to the remark that you made at the beginning of your 17-minute speech, where you stated that people should not be mistaken about your support for a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. And therefore, I'd like to ask you about the fact that in October 2016, at almost the first opportunity we ever had to address this issue in this chamber, you not only voted against a notice of motion that stated very simply that Hawkesbury Council expresses its support for a third crossing, or an additional crossing of the Hawkesbury River, and that you asked that your name be recorded specifically as having voted against that motion, which said little more than the council supports an additional crossing of the Hawkesbury River, and also asked the RMS for some information relating to the current Windsor Bridge project.

How can you state that you are in support of a third crossing when, at the first juncture when you were available to do so, you voted against it and insisted that your name be placed on the record as having voted against it?

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor.

Let me address it in this fashion. It'll take a couple of minutes. Firstly, the original notice of motion tabled on that occasion by your fellow councillor, Richards, was specifically in relation to the Windsor Bridge project. And a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River downstream of Richmond, of Windsor at least, sorry, of Windsor, downstream of Windsor.

Through the course of that interaction , if my recollection of the minutes is correct, that particular motion was withdrawn.

As I recollected also that both the Mayor and I put forward an amendment which did not find favour with the council and was lost. Subsequently, an amendment with which I understand you were a party was approved.

My significant disagreement with the adopted amendment by the body of other colleagues was that what was being spoken of

Clearly indicated by

Those folk a lesser degree of knowledge about the conditions of approval

Pertaining to the Option 1

Ministerial determination of December 2013,

Because that particular

Ministerial determination indicated. In no uncertain terms, in at least two of the prevailing conditions, that there was required consultation with Hawkesbury City Council.

Now I dispute that

Sorry, I won't digress there at the moment. I was not at all happy at that time, and given the opportunity to revisit the past, I would still maintain the stance I took at that time,

For very good reason, and I think they are substantive reasons. What was being sought in the Notice of Motion, which was subsequently passed, ended up

Having absolutely no impact. In fact, as I recollect also, RMS wrote back and said, Thank you very much for the letter. We've got nothing further to say.

So , apart from it being a pointless exercise, it also, as I indicated, clearly

Represented a misunderstanding or an ignorance of the terms of the ministerial determination in regard to Option 1.

That situation

Has been, may I say— Somehow been misread by you or miscomprehended, I do not know. I fear something has gone astray there with those thoughts. We are dealing at the moment with this new matter and I don't really see that regurgitation of the past in a form that is rather at variance with my understanding of matters is cogent . Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Further discussion? Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mayor. I'll speak in favour of the motion.

Before I go into the matter at hand, I would just like to respond to something that one of the members of Corb, or the wobblers, might have been said when they spoke earlier, that Mr Perrottet has never met with anybody from Corb or people concerned about the Windsor Bridge. I just checked that quickly because I thought that can't be right, and I was directed to Corb's Facebook page. Before Mr Perrottet was even the Member for Hawkesbury, when he was just a candidate for Hawkesbury, this is directly a reading from Corb, Save Windsor from the RTA. Members of Corb today met with Mr Dominic Perrottet, Liberal candidate for Hawkesbury, for what was a fruitful and cooperative meeting. However, there is still a lot of ground to cover.

The candidate has sought clarification on a number of matters. And I understand since then Mr Perrottet has met with, had numerous meetings in regards to Windsor Bridge. When people from the Hawkesbury wobblers come here to spread those lies, it's because they can't understand or don't want to understand or would seek to confuse others that just because it's possible that people don't agree with you. That's actually a possibility. That seems to be beyond the comprehension of some people. It's not that there's an evil, you know, some evil agenda here, and, you know, we actually, the RMS, as Councillor Ross said, want to destroy Windsor and Richmond. It's just that they have a different opinion.

And so to get up here and spread those lies because people don't agree with you, I think is unfortunate. And it actually goes somewhat, not to the heart of this motion, but, you know, it's quite relevant because this motion is to acknowledge that this government has done a great thing for the Hawkesbury residents. And this council is very often very critical of the Member for Hawkesbury and of the state government. The council takes a very strong advocacy role, and people here, some of the independents turn out to be Labor candidates, fight very strongly to point out all the shortcomings of the government, you know, as is the right of the council, as is the right of anyone independently elected here.

But the problem is, Madam Mayor, we want to have a good working relationship with this government, with any government. We want to have a good working relationship with any local member because these people are decision makers. And so when, if we're going to point out every single shortcoming, every single thing we see as a problem, when something like this is announced, we should be saying, Yeah, well done. Thank you. We acknowledge that. We should be saying, This is in line with—

Continue I didn't actually hear that, but—

Continue, Councillor. Sorry, I've just lost my train of thought, Madam Mayor, from the interruption.

Yeah, as I was saying, to wrap that point up, that this council is constantly critical of the member. The member has come out and announced, and I was very pleased by your media release, Madam Mayor, which was largely very consistent with what's been put up here, just an opportunity for the whole council to say it rather than just you, to address some of what Mr. Want said in regards to this just being an old announcement rehashed. Councillor Richards pointed out during her speech that many, many people have pointed out that the only way we're going to get a better decision and a better outcome on this, and a quicker delivery of the project, would be to have a business case put forward. This government has been making decisions based on cost-benefit analysis and business case on major infrastructure projects , like the dam and other projects that's gone through Infrastructure New South Wales.

If we want to be able to effectively advocate for this bridge that we all know we need, we don't need this business case to know we need it, but this is an evidence-based decision-making model. You need to have these things in place to show that this project is more deserving than others around the state. We're not a high-growth area. We're a very almost no-growth area relative to the rest of Sydney. If we want significant infrastructure investment, we have to show that the numbers stack up, that the government spending the money here is going to get a bang for its buck. The only way that we can move that forward from 2036 is to do this. 2036 is too far away for this infrastructure. We can't wait that long.

And in the current climate all around Australia, that's probably three or four governments away, the way things are going. So the idea that 2036 is going to stick in there as some deadline is not correct. The only way we're going to get this infrastructure is if a business case is completed, as is step one of this process in year one, a business case is completed that enables the government to go ahead and make a decision. Once a decision is made, it makes the advocacy for the funding for the project much , much easier, much more realistic. And the later years of this package, whilst there's not a lot of detail exactly what that planning will be, I guess that's dependent on the outcome of the business case.

Hopefully will enable us to have a project that's going to be shovel-ready to be funded. This is something that our community is crying out for.

It's something that, you know, will be very well received across the whole community. I'm surprised by the opposition. All this motion is doing is saying that we welcome this announcement. We think it's a good thing for our community, and that we still desperately acknowledge that we've been advocating the need for a third crossing of the river because we still desperately need it. In regards to the idea that it can't be, that either it's going to be Option D or it can't be Option D , this is further money for planning, because this is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to build a bridge. A $2 million plan from a few years ago is not going to cut it. I would take issue with the second-last paragraph of the letter that's been given to us.

Given Option D is planned to connect to the same roads as the existing Richmond Bridge and that your reference in the media leads to a third crossing implies a location different from that of the existing bridges, that it can't be the same thing. I mean, Option D, if that was the preferred option once all the planning was done, involves an additional crossing of the Hawkesbury River. We currently have Windsor Bridge and Richmond Bridge. We would have Windsor Bridge, the existing Richmond Bridge, and a new bridge at Richmond. That would be three. And if you've actually read the long-term options study, that preferred option was not the end of that process. That preferred option was initially, based on this first study, this is the option we think has the most legs, and it actually lays out, there's a flowchart in there of all the studies that happen after that to get to the preferred option the government will actually select.

So the idea that we've got to fight for a better deal, I mean, this is the best deal anyone's offered us in decades. This is the best deal we've got, is that we're actually going to have significant money to do proper planning, to do a business case, and actually consult with our community and get a really good plan for a third crossing that we desperately need so that we can get it funded and built. The idea that CORB or the wobblers are already stacking up their arguments against why this bridge is wrong too is just so frustrating and frightening almost. It's probably the wrong word, but are we going to actually have a big campaign against this crossing as well?

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Further discussion?

Councillor Samperonia.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. As somebody with an eye to history, I recall that when the very first crossing at North Richmond was built in around 1860, it was a very low-level crossing. It was badly damaged in the flood of 1867. It was damaged again in 1870. And then by the time the new century rolled around, there was a well-attended meeting of the Kurrajong Progress Association in about 1903 protesting against the construction of what is now the current bridge at North Richmond. And their argument at that point seemed to be, Oh, well, you can't build a big bridge at North Richmond there. There goes the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, the bridge was built in 1905 and it was augmented in 1926 with the railway, and it served our community very, very well.

But it's at capacity. Now, the thing is, in my political life, I've always taken the view that, you know, you don't knock something down simply because of who proposed it. And to give you a good example, early in this term of council, Councilor Reynolds came up with the idea of having a unified and comprehensive traffic study. I believe that traffic study will speak intelligently to the decision that the state government will need to make about the location of an extra crossing. And I've been pleased to support the progression of that traffic study, although I do worry about how much it's ultimately going to cost us. And I won't disparage it simply because of who's put it up. Unfortunately, that isn't how our political opponents seem to want to treat this issue.

What I hear fairly consistently is a lot of poo-pooing about the idea of this crossing, simply because it's been proposed by a Liberal state government. Putting aside the fact that only a Liberal state government seems to have been able to manage the state's economy in a prudent way so that this kind of project can come within a bull's roar of actually being funded and then achieved, but that's not the point that I'm seeking to make here. I'm saying it's a good idea, and Councillor Richards' motion— I don't support the amendment—Councillor Richards' motion fairly simply states that we welcome this funding, and to fail to make that clear signal to the broader public that Hawkesbury Council is on board and wants to speed this along and to provide every cooperation we can to see an extra crossing of the Hawkesbury River and provide some relief to those people who are stuck daily in the logjam of traffic between Richmond and North Richmond, I think will send precisely the wrong signal to the government and to the broader public.

If we fail to pass a simple notice of motion saying this is a great idea, what can we do to bring this on and to have our input into the best location for this? Well, look, if we fail to pass that tonight, the message that the community will receive is that the governing block on this council are so recalcitrant, are so spiteful, are so absolutely resolved to oppose this simply because it's being proposed by Coalition government in New South Wales, is that they are against it, will do what they can to get in the way, and the people who are stuck in that traffic will make their own judgment at the next council election about whether this council represents their interests.

Thank you, Councillor Sanfronio. Further discussion?

No further discussion?

Oh, sorry, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Madam Mayor. I'm speaking against the motion.

This isn't— regarding point one, this isn't a process. It's a study costing $7 million, and yes, it may be the beginning of something, but yet again, it's a case of the state government telling the Hawkesbury what it wants, long before it listens to what we actually wanted. We saw something like this quite recently, and there are people in the audience, who are in the gallery, who are well aware of what that feels like. Statement point two really is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, and therefore it's a bit of a waste of time.

And point three,

If Mr Perrottet was to actually listen to the community, he would have halted the Windsor Bridge replacement project and used the $130 million and rising from that, as well as the $25 million that he's just managed to find in his back pocket, to build a proper solution to the needs of the Hawkesbury. Never before has the Hawkesbury had so many bridge proposals on the table at once, the notice of motion tells us, indeed. And you'd be forgiven for thinking that there was an election on, such is the pork barrelling, and so strong is the smell of bacon.

Why mention the vote of 2016? It's not relevant to this debate. The resolution 341 refers to an additional crossing downstream of Windsor. There are five points to that motion that Councillor Ross voted against.

And my recollection of that debate and the motion itself was that Councillor Ross objected to the additional four points, which he felt gave weight to the Windsor Bridge replacement project and therefore felt compelled to vote against the notice of motion. It was prior to us receiving training in meeting practice and prior to us discovering that marvellous tool of passing a motion in seriatim, where you could pick off the bits you didn't like and vote for the bits you did, and consequently he felt compelled to vote against it.

The Greens apparently don't support a bypass of Windsor either, and I draw your attention to this little gem handed out by supporters of the Liberal Party and carried to those supporters by one of the Liberal Party councillors, stating on the bottom that the Greens do not support a future Windsor bypass crossing. Here we see that it doesn't actually matter what you believe or what you say to people. Your views will be misrepresented when people don't like it or when it suits them. This is rank collectioneering, designed to divide council and further to grovel to the state member, who could actually provide a reasonable solution to both Windsor and North Richmond's traffic woes in a single action.

It's very clear that some people are not above misrepresenting other councillors and their views, both before and after the election, and I suspect anyone who votes against this motion will be similarly misrepresented if we don't agree to this sycophantic notice of motion before us. We don't need to endlessly commend Mr Perrottet. It's his job to represent us. I'm not sure why we should be so surprised when he does it. Nor is it his money. It's ours. It's from the public coffers of the people of New South Wales.

Sensible mature debate is apparently what we're waiting for. Do let us know when that starts. All the endless quotes show is just how late to the party Mr Perrottet is. And I'll point out that some of those quotes were taken out of context. In April, I was talking about the dam wall study, not about a third crossing. This is wedge politics at its finest, as shown by Councillor Zamprogno's statements. This is designed to divide council into those that support a third crossing somewhere to alleviate council's woes and those who are happy to jump on this electioneering bandwagon of a single solution that has not taken into account the wants or needs fully of the people of the Hawkesbury. I can't support it.

Thank you, Councillor Whelan. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mayor. I'd like to speak against the amendment. And just to cover off on some things there, point one of the motion, is it to tell the Hawkesbury what it wants? Come on. The Hawkesbury has been loud and clear that it wants a third crossing.

The long-term plan for the Richmond Bridge did extensive community consultation, and option D was actually the preferred option of the community consultation as well. And this funding doesn't do anything of the sort to say to tell people what they want. It funds a business study, a business case, which will determine, which will give the government the ability to make a decision and to go forward with the project. It doesn't do anything of the sort. How ridiculous to say that this is telling the Hawkesbury what it wants. If you've been here, you know this is what the Hawkesbury wants. We all know this is what the Hawkesbury wants. We spend so much time talking in this chamber about the need for a third crossing.

It's not funny. And now when it's funded, now when we're going to fund a business case, we're telling the Hawkesbury what they want. You know, endlessly commending the member for Hawkesbury in this chamber? I don't think so. I don't know what chamber you've been sitting in. This chamber has not been endlessly commending the member for Hawkesbury. It's just not correct. Talking about misrepresenting colleagues, the motion, you just quoted—you just, I don't want to use the words made up—but when you just said that the motion that Councillor Ross voted against was for a bridge downstream of Windsor, that's not correct. The resolution states, and I'm looking at the minutes. If I can look at the minutes again, Councillor — point one, support an additional crossing of the Hawkesbury River.

Full stop.

Full stop. So that misrepresentation has to stop. That's not correct. We should be checking these things before we go and put them on the public record. The additional points were not about support for Windsor Bridge. The additional points were about requesting a briefing from the RMS and Transport for New South Wales on the process and on the project and on heritage matters. There was nothing of the sort of suggesting support, and that's quite evident because it was resolved by this council to go ahead, and I'm pretty sure this council in that time was not supporting Windsor Bridge. You know,

Going forward, telling us that this government's late to the party or Mr Perrottet is late to the party, I must have missed all the other announcements of major funding for a business case from other parties, from other people. That means that Dominic Perrottet is late to the party with this announcement. From my memory, this is the first one. He's the first one there who's actually been in a position not just to talk about it, but actually have the funds available to fund the first stage of this process. You know, I'd be really interested, and like I said before, it seems like the protest groups are already lining up their opposition. I'd be interested to get some elaboration on that phrase, whether there's a single solution for this problem or not.

It seems like it's the first sort of easing incentive, the fact that we're going to oppose this, we're going to oppose the third crossing. You know, and to suggest that this motion is grovelling. I'll just say it's just ridiculous. This motion is not grovelling. This motion is saying, you've done this funding. This is actually huge for the Hawkesbury. We're acknowledging it and we're in support of it. That's all it's saying. I think the idea that this council, as I said, is endlessly commending and grovelling to the Member for Hawkesbury is just ludicrous. It's just as if, as if that's what's been happening in here.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I want to speak to misrepresentation. Speak.

I think it's a bit rich of Councillor Connolly to say that I've misrepresented Resolution 341. When you look at, beyond the minutes, when you look at the motion that was put up for 341, it was about, it clearly states an additional crossing downstream of Windsor Bridge. Now , that isn't reflected in the resolution, Councillor Connolly, it's my go.

It may not be reflected in the resolution, but the rest of the discussion and the notice of motion was based on the Windsor Bridge project. Councillor Ross has clearly stated to you that his intention in voting against the resolution was to maintain his stance against the Windsor Bridge replacement project. Now, if you don't believe Councillor Ross— Point

Of order, Madam Mayor. I believe we were talking about misrepresentation . Point of

Order. Councillor Connolly, what's your point of order?

That Councillor Wheeler was going to raise a point where I misrepresented her, but now she's talking about what Councillor Ross thought about the motion.

She is saying that you misrepresented what she said about Councillor Ross

She's talking about what she was explaining to you . Continue, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Oh

It's not even worth it.

Further discussion. Councillor Ross.

I've been misrepresented, Madam.

Councillor Ross, are you speaking for misrepresentation?

Yes, I am, Madam.

Speak

I deeply appreciate Councillor Wheeler's support of me I'm afraid, Councillor Connelly, that

To interpret what I was thinking is a prerogative which I don't think you ought to have aired here, and the same with Councillor Sam Paronio. And I understand that that is extended into a public sphere as well, which I think is grossly offensive, frankly

I'm deeply

Opposed, gravely opposed, to Option One and the destruction of Windsor.

The protestations in regard to

Describing this as the project that everyone knows about is going forward— Point of order, Madam Mayor. Again, you were speaking to a point of misrepresentation. It is. You have misrepresented

Well, I'll uphold that, Councillor Connelly. The misrepresentation was about the resolution 341 . Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further? Councillor Calvin.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I firstly wanted to say that I'm disappointed in this motion that Councillor Richards has put forward. When the Treasurer made the announcement, Council was not required to do anything. We were not required to applaud or criticise or anything else. We were—and what this motion plans to do has no effect. It would have been better, I would have thought, to move a motion which perhaps has some kind of positive involvement for the Council, something which, along the lines of this Council should forward a submission to the Minister or words to that effect. But no, there's nothing like that in here. It has no positive effect. It has no effect at all. One could consider it, therefore, to be just a political beat-up or political advertising.

And I want to thank Councillor Richards for quoting something from me. But I would suggest if you read the rest of that article, it probably said, I want a third crossing, but the third crossing should be a bypass. I've been saying that for years. To be a bypass, to be an effective bypass, it needs to be located either upstream from North Richmond or downstream from Windsor. To put it in between Windsor and Richmond is not a bypass. That's where the traffic is. All it's going to do is perhaps move the blockages around a bit, but it's not going to clear the traffic unless it's either side of the existing bridges. And when this announcement was made, I was disappointed that the minister has attached it to North Richmond because I did actually speak to the minister a couple of months ago about this.

I told him my version of things and how, to be an effective bypass, it does need to be in one of those two places. He politely acknowledged that and seemed to take it on board, and I was hoping that maybe when this announcement was made, he might have gone down the bypass route in some way. What he could have done is said, We will examine possible locations, but he hasn't done that. He's limited it to one particular location, which to me does not solve our traffic problems. And the main aim of the bridge, any bridge, any third crossing, must be to solve our traffic problems. It's not going to be a monument that we can all look at. It's supposed to be a functional bridge that solves our traffic problems.

And putting one downstream from the North Richmond Bridge will not do that. It'll funnel the traffic into Richmond. It'll funnel it back into North Richmond. Instead of having a one-lane queue of one kilometre, you'll have a two-lane queue of half a kilometre. And as more traffic comes, that'll go back to one kilometre again because it's poor planning to stick all the traffic through that one funnel. It needs to be moved somewhere else. And I was very disappointed that that's what this funding is for, to make our traffic worse rather than make our traffic better. I also think that the motion that Councillor Richards put up isn't really about the funding or the bridge. It's about the minister.

It's about— Our mate Dominic. And I don't see why we would be asked to pass a motion about the minister. And I find it very, very political in its nature, and to put it up in front of what is basically a political venue and expect people of all colours to suddenly salute it, I think was a bit unrealistic. I believe that there was an opportunity, and Councillor Richards mentioned this herself, there was an opportunity for us to all get together and perhaps work on this, but this motion doesn't do that. This motion is deliberately divisive, and if that was the aim, if the aim was to be deliberately divisive, then I think it's been very effective, because all we have now is people shouting across the room and name-calling and you said this, you said that.

That's no way for us to proceed. And the whole mood of this notice of motion puts us in that position, and I'm very sad about that.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Rassmusson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move some amendments or additions to the amendment, if that's okay with you, Madam.

Well, if you're seeking for Councillor Ross to include something.

I'm going to ask Councillor Ross to think about adding a couple of, or three, additional paragraphs to his motion, and they would run along these lines. I would make point number one the following. Council commends the State Government for its 2018-19 NSW budget allocation of seven million to commence planning for a new bridge across the Hawkesbury River. Two — actually not two. I would stay with Councillor Ross's points, and they have become two, three and four. And then I would add, as a five, Council calls on the State Government to give a detailed timeline and a commitment to transparency with regard to the consultation, which will be required as part of the planning process. Five, Council acknowledges the extreme distress and emotional toll on landowners, the flawed rollout of the lack of consultation through the corridor proposal.

And seven, I think it is, Council congratulates the community in their ten years of fighting for increased capacity over the Hawkesbury River despite the lack of support from previous councils. So I ask Councillor Ross to add that.

Councillor Ross.

Please consider it.

Yes, I certainly consider that, and be amenable to it, except that I think point one is being duplicated by the sound of things.

All right, we'll just check. Is that the case, Councillor Rasmussen? Are the point ones the same

Or similar? Could they be?

They are similar, but I guess the difference in point... is that I do, I do think we should commend the state government for actually making an allocation. I don't think there's— we should shy away from that because at the end of the day, if this state government, and hopefully future other state governments, will then continue on and, yeah , alleviate the severe and intense traffic congestion and stress that we have in this area. So I think we do need to commend them, commend the state government on that.

So would you be suggesting a replacement of Councillor Ross's number one with your number one?

Yes. I think that's probably how it should read, yeah, sorry, yeah, probably that's how it should go.

So you're saying a number one that's commending the state government, then Councillor Ross's, and then you had on a congratulations for the community and another point, or another two points?

Two points , Madam Mayor. Acknowledge the extreme distress and emotional toll as a result of that flawed corridor, you know, fall out of the sky proposal, and also congratulate the community for their ten years of fighting for an increased capacity across the Hawkesbury. I think it's important that we acknowledge the community's long, strong and dedicated support for a further crossing across the Hawkesbury River. Now, in most cases, I think that goes to a bypass, but that's— I don't know if we get into that sort of, because that'll just— Tumble out of control, I think.

Okay,

You're the seconder, Councillor. Councillor Ross, are you accepting those amendments to your motion? And Councillor Rasmussen, you're the seconder, I think.

Collegially, yes, I am, Madam.

Okay.

Can I ask a question, Madam?

Yes, Councillor Connolly.

Would Councillors Ross and Rasmussen be happy to add at the end of point 7, and state governments?

Point 7, can we—

Which

Is now point

6, Council congratulates the community and state governments. Is that what you mean, Councillor Connolly?

At the end of the sentence.

The hostility despite the lack of support, and state governments. Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with that? So it would be reading that— I'm

Happy with that, Madam Mayor. Yes.

Councillor Ross. So it would be meaning that the final point was saying, despite the lack of support from previous councils and state governments.

Yeah. Yes

Okay. And Councillor Rasmussen's all right with that. Yes, Councillor Connolly. Councillor Tree.

Thank you. We've never been against anti-bridges or supporting the idea of a bypass. It's just that those sorts of projects, I didn't think that this sort of funding would be coming our way either. So I never really did think it was going to happen, but I'm welcoming it. It's really important to be a pragmatist with these sorts of things. So I think that, you know, the Nepean Bridge, or the one up across the Grose there, people don't want it because they just don't want it. They don't want that piece of infrastructure because it doesn't suit them in that place, even though it's been in a corridor for a long time. So we say that we want this infrastructure, but sometimes it's not exactly what we want.

But the general public really just want to be able to get around. And I think anyone who I speak to, apart from the groups who are loud about their opinions, they say, Why hasn't that started yet up across the Grose? In relation to a bypass, that's a lovely idea, but— But seriously , I just, I mean, that involves a lot of, you know, compulsory acquisition of land and studies, and that's probably so much further down the track than any other proposal where it's going to be in areas that are going to be impacted as much on that need of establishing a corridor.

In relation to saying that Councillor Cowell said, you know, it won't make a difference because of the way the traffic's funneled. It's actually incredible how these things can be engineered and how a little bit of traffic work can make an enormous difference to traffic flow within the areas. And as we're not engineers, I'm sure that when they do undertake the studies, they may find that it's not the most optimum place to put it, and then the cost, you know, the cost of the study will be that, oh, okay, well, this is not the area. Maybe they do look down the options of a bypass. But I just, I don't think it's sensible for us all to sit in here and say that we want to think, you know, it's a very political environment in here.

We've got people getting up and saying that Templeman has done an enormously good job. We've got people saying that the mayor and Councillor Wheeler have done an incredible job. We're just trying to say that it wouldn't matter where the money was coming from, I'd still be saying thank you to whomever it was, whether they'll bring red or blue, because this is something the community want. The community don't want to see us having an all-in brawl about saying that we don't want a bridge or we don't want the studies for the bridge because we don't trust what's going to happen, because the general community really just don't care about that tit for tat in here. They don't. They just want to be able to get across the bridge without too much trouble.

So I think it's not unexpected that it became a political football tonight, but it is a little bit disappointing because, as Councillor Rich has highlighted in the beginning, we've all said it. We've all said the words. We want the third crossing. But it's sad that we can say, because it's been presented by somebody whom we don't agree with politically, we just don't want it there, or we don't want to pursue this option. And I think that is incredibly disappointing.

Thank you, Councillor Tree. May I just say a few words? It was just my understanding, just to clarify something that you said, it was my understanding that this is not in lieu of the proposed Nepean Bridge.

I didn't even say that. No, I'm not saying

You said that, but you said people don't want that, but they're saying this. But I'm just making that distinction. They

Don't want any bridge. I'm making

The distinction for the gallery that that still is an existing thing that's proceeding. I didn't know that was unclear . Sorry. Thank you. Just with regard, I'd just like to make a few comments about what has been said. I don't think that Councillor Ross's motion is opposing having the study done. And like Councillor Rasmussen, and I commend the government on giving us an allocation, and as Councillor Richards did in her quote speech, I did say that I always welcome state government money for infrastructure, which doesn't necessarily mean that I agree 100% with what it's going to, but I certainly welcome the input of the government in trying to solve the traffic solutions. But I think we all agree we all do want a third crossing, and I don't think people are going to oppose a third crossing.

I think more what is coming to the fore is the distinction in the motions. One is simply commending the Treasurer, whereas the others are moving more towards some sort of clarification on the issue and having the Treasurer tell us what it is. Now, we have had a very recent learning of how the community reacts when they are not involved in the process. So I think this is more gearing towards the community calling for some involvement, and they're looking for us for guidance to ensure that they are involved in that process. So whereas we welcome the money and the idea of a third river crossing, we are most certainly going to stand our ground in ensuring that the community has their input so that we don't get another situation like we just had, which we all admitted was flawed and caused a lot of stress to people.

So I understand it's different from the corridor situation. I'm not suggesting it's the same, but it was something that we learnt, and I think that we should just be trying to go through the steps where we have the community involved right from the start, and then we can all work together and we avoid these divisions and these various issues that arise. So that would be the best scenario, would be to seek some clarification of what exactly is going on. I can't see why there would be any objection to— to doing that. And Councillor Ross's motion does do that, as well as, of course, thanking the community for their advocacy. And I think that they've made it very clear, and we all live here, so we all know that that is a really, really high priority for this community.

It is our taxpayer money that's being spent, so we should have the involvement. And I just don't think that it should be seen, as Councillor Zambrano put it in a typically black and white thing, that we are opposing this initiative. I don't think anyone has said that we're opposing anything. We're simply not—well, I'm simply supporting this form of notice of motion, which is calling for more clarity so that we just get a better understanding of how this process is going to be carried out. I do commend the Treasurer for allocating the money, and I think that if we can all work together to deliver this is much better than being divided over it. So I'll be supporting the amendment. Further discussion?

Councillor— To see the top bit?

Further discussion. Councillor Rass.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I speak in favour of the amendment, but just let me just perhaps clarify a couple of points. I'm just wondering if the staff could locate for me the business case for the Windsor Bridge.

Is that a possibility that we could perhaps show everybody the business case that was developed by the state government for the Windsor Bridge?

Mr. Organ?

I'd have to go back and have a look at the project documents and see what is available in terms of the initial studies that were done for that. I'd have to provide that and take that on notice, though. Okay

I appreciate that, but just an indication: was there actually a business case developed?

Mr. Organ?

As an indication, I'd take that on notice and just check the project documents that were done and are available.

Appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, further to something that we dealt with a meeting ago in the budget meeting, I recall there was a budget motion, and there was additional items put onto that, and that related to Mitchell Drive. And I recall some councillors saying that was a political move to wedge the Liberal voters because they really wanted to support the Mitchell Drive thing, but they couldn't vote for all of it. Oh, sorry, they couldn't vote for that part, so they voted against the whole budget motion. So , Madam Mayor, I think the point there is that I think we just need to, and I pardon the pun here, we just need to grow up in this chamber. And I totally agree with Councillor Tree's comments that, you know, the tit for tat, whether it's state or federal, and people are sick and tired of hearing the tit for tat and the rubbish and the personal attacks at the federal level, and to descend into, you know, this local democracy where we all know each other intimately and deeply and closely and all the rest of it is just bad, bad form.

Bad form. And I don't think it behoves any of us to descend into that. So I'm encouraging councillors, just, you know, let's think of the Hawkesbury. Let's think of building a better Hawkesbury. Madam Mayor, the motion , the amendment as it now stands, I think does all of what Councillor Richards would like to do, except it takes the flag waving and the trumpeteering and the drum roll out of it and gets down to the nitty gritty that Councillor Calvert would like to see. In other words, yes, thank you very much. And I do think we ought to thank the state government. I've said that for allocation of some money for this business case and study. I think that's important. Yes, my book, projects of this magnitude do need to have business cases developed.

I've been saying this in this chamber for a very long time. Let's develop a business case for our projects. So I'm not against the business case, and I think that's quite commendable, and the process is quite good. But we have, as you've pointed out, Madam Mayor, we have had recent learnings and experience. Sad, tragic, emotional, really gut-wrenching proposal , corridor proposal, which tore families, lost money, you know, the whole box and dice of human tragedy you can imagine thrust upon it just fell out of the sky on people, fell out of the sky, completely destroyed their lives. And now all of a sudden, and goodness, oink, it's all turned over again. But do you think that's going to— do you really, do they really think that that's going to wipe out all the emotional and the lost sales that occurred on the deadline there?

I don't think so. I don't think so. That memory is going to last and is now burned into people. And the reason that I'm putting, suggesting that we actually ask for some more detail and community engagement is because of that, as you've just pointed out, Madam Mayor. You know, how many times do we have to be burnt, singed, hair shortened, fried before we learn that no, thank you very much, love the money, thank you, but let's give us the details. Please tell us what's got in your mind. Open up, you know, your transparency to tell us what you want. And I think that's where this motion is going to— or not motion, the amendment. So from that, I think—and yes, there are a number of bridges on the table, which is good.

I mean, goodness me, from none since 19— what did Councillor [unclear] say? 1907. Oh yeah, that's the low-level one, but the more recent, 1907, and thank you for that history—1905, thank you for that history lesson. But we haven't had a bridge built here for that length of time. I

Mean

Seriously, horse

And cart

Stuff . And it's obviously good bridge builders, thank goodness for that, a bit like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, thank goodness for that. However, we do need another crossing. We do need one that alleviates the traffic, sorts out the stress, the health issues, the lack of wellbeing that people are experiencing sitting in traffic day after day, morning and evening for an hour and a half, two hours, or whatever it is. I just think we've got to do something about that, and hopefully this will do something about it

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. And any further discussion, then I'll— Councillor Whelan. Thanks,

Madam Mayor. I want to ask Councillor Ross if he's willing to add some further detail to point 3. The letter is quite detailed, but it doesn't ask for any information about the correlation of this proposed crossing with the Grose River crossing , and I'd have to look at points 4 to 6 again to make sure, but we don't know how this, again, how this will fit into wider plans for Bells Line of Road. We were told yesterday via a press release that there's some plans to upgrade Bells Line of Road. Stuart Ayres assured the people at Castle Ray last night that the Bells Line of Road corridor was now absolutely 100% off the table. We don't have that in writing. We just have the minister's word for it.

And we don't know how any of this fits into the existing 1951 corridor, which we've been told will be retained as well. So I don't think we can afford to look at a single crossing at North Richmond without looking at it in a wider context. And I agree with the Deputy Mayor in that this needs to be a traffic solution for the wider Hawkesbury, not something that funnels more traffic between Richmond and North Richmond. We've already seen a second-rate solution that just widens an existing crossing, that just adds an extra lane to the mess of already congested intersections on either side of it. That will have a long-lasting and devastating impact on one of our flagship Macquarie towns. We do not need that for Richmond, and I think we need to make that very clear to the state government that we will not tolerate that.

So if Councillor Ross is willing, I'd like to add to point 3 that, as well as the information sought in the letter, that it asks for further information about the intent of this crossing and— And how it will work in conjunction with the Grose River crossing and the wider plans for Bells Line of Road and the 1951 corridor.

Councillor Ross

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Mayor. You

Know, in a sense, possibly I like some... I have a question.

The difficulty I have is that I perceive that one part of the chamber believes it's a continuation of a process, whereas I'm not sure that it is. It could be or it may not, and that was partly the point of writing to our local member and Treasurer. If it is the part of a process, as I understand it, the project

Would fall under Part 5 of the Planning Assessment Act, in which case Council , as I understand it, would not have any

Consultation at all.

And it would be taken completely out of our hands. Or otherwise, if it is something new, it could also be declared state significant again.

It could be. I think what Councillor Wheeler was just asking was, could it just be elaborated on how it fitted in the context of any other proposals that exist as river crossings? I think that's what she meant, not going into the intricacies of what sort of project it would actually be

Right. Look, I'd be quite happy with that, but I think possibly also we need to add the question : is it going to be decided under Part 5, or is it state significant? Well

I would imagine that's what the investigations are going to look at. I mean, I— But if it's a

Continuation of a process, it's

Already been started. But I imagine if there's a case to be done, though, Councillor Ross, that will specify what sort of infrastructure it's intending to be. I don't think that we can make that call at this point.

No, $7 million seems not quite enough to do a full... It appeared in 2012-13 that they'd completed all of the planning. In fact, there are very detailed maps that are out there.

I think we're confusing it a little bit. I'll call for a simple explanation from Mr Organ about whether he, or maybe Mr Kearns, about whether there would be any input regarding whether it's state significant infrastructure or not, but I expect there isn't. So I expect that that would be the answer, Mr Organ,

If it's an existing project or if it's a new project. Sorry to put you on the spot.

Really, depending on what it is. I mean, if I go back and also address Councillor Rasmussen's earlier question there in a moment, I think the real issue is whether the project, following its inception stage and identification of the various options that would form the basis of a business case, if it was of such a magnitude that it would form or be required to be considered as state significant to fall under that legislation, or that part of the legislation, or whether it would simply be carried out as a Part 5 would really depend upon the nature of what is the recommended option. If I can just also take the opportunity of going back and answering Councillor Rasmussen's question, there was a number of studies done from 2009 for the Windsor Bridge replacement where, and I'm not sure the terminology used back then was business case.

However, they did the options report, undertook a number of workshops and came out with an economic analysis within the options report for the various, I think it was nine options or ten options that they came up with. That included their analysis of net present value and also the benefit-cost ratios, which ultimately fell towards options one and two. But there was no other publicly available information other than what's on their website that's available to go into any more detail. But as I said, my understanding and recollection, there was no discussion or use of the terminology of business case back then, but they certainly used some economic modelling.

Thank you, Mr Organ. Councillor Ross, did you agree to those latest word changes or not?

I'm happy to accommodate Councillor Wheeler's. Yes, Madam Mayor. Action

Thank you Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Richards. I was going to speak against the amendment first. Oh, okay.

Well, I'll do it all in one. Save you all another speech. Yeah, there you go. Okay, so right of reply and speaking against the current amendment, I think that tonight the amendments that have been made have gone a bridge too far. As expected, my motion has been derailed. Councillor Rasmussen speaks about not wanting tit for tat in the chamber. However, most of your speech was a bit tit for tat, and quite frankly, if you wanted to show a council that wanted to do something as a group, most of those amendments could have been made to my original motion, and I could have consented to a lot of those points. So there was a clear intent tonight to derail that motion and have it in the name of other councillors, which is fine by me.

That's a process that's permissible. However, the intent is extremely clear. Some of those points in there go so far off what the intent of the motion was, which was about a new third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. To add the points about the corridors, we've already come to a 12-0 consensus on that. Why do those points need to be added into this? You know, this is about trying to build bridges so that we can all get over them. So I don't see how that we need to be bringing corridors into this. What I want to say is a few things then from some of the other comments made by councillors tonight. I'm alarmed by a couple of things Councillor Ross said, and I put on record now that if your disapproval and the words that you said tonight about the crossing being announced at Richmond, North Richmond mean we are going to have Corp 2.0 and another tent parked somewhere near there, then that is very disappointing for our community.

Councillor Wheeler says that it's clear that this is about wedge politics. It's clear that there must be an election coming around the corner. Perhaps we could ask the Greens the same question when they post a political poster on Bloor within minutes of a corridor announcement being taken off the table. So if we want to talk about pork barrelling, there's an example of politics at its finest. In terms of some of the comments made by the Deputy Mayor, and I quote, When Treasury made the announcement, Council was not required to do anything. Can we set that as a precedent? Every single time Treasury makes an announcement, we don't have to do anything? I think that it's a rhetorical one. I'm good at those.

So if we're going to set that going forward, I mean, you can't pick and choose when you want to, with that comment, when you want to comment on a state government announcement. And I don't think—you said you were concerned that a monument was going to be built. I don't see the word monument being used in any media release, in any one discussing it. So I think what it's going to be is a crossing of the river. What that ends up being, I don't know, but I doubt it's going to be a monument. And that's the beauty of podcasting. We can go back and actually see everything, hear everything that everybody has said. Now, the fact that this motion was also called deliberately divisive.

That's interesting, because if any motion ever comes to this chamber again commending any announcement by any politician on any level of government from any political party, then I'm going to bring this up, because I don't think deliberately divisive. My goodness, because what you've just done on your amendment is basically gone through and said everything that's in my motion, with adding a couple of points in it. So, I mean, saying that I'm going tit for tat with things, I think this whole chamber is, and Councillor Trees 100% right. You know, look how maturely we all handled the corridor announcement, because it was a detrimental thing to our community, and as Liberals, we've made that clear, okay?

You don't always have to toe party lines, but this tonight is a very clear indication that the rest of the chamber doesn't want to do something that the Liberals have announced. It is, you're saying my motion's divisive. This amendment is what is divisive. You could have asked me to make amendments to my original motion, and you know what? We may have come up with a consensus for everyone to vote on. So just going back to my original, In my name perhaps? In my name, goodness no. So just to wrap up then, the community has been asking for a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River for years. All sides of politics have asked for it. Residents, community groups and advocates have all asked for it, and I am proud that our state member, Dominic Perrottet, through his role as the New South Wales Treasurer in the New South Wales state budget last week, put forward the money, allocated the money to start the process, to start the planning and the business case to actually get these done.

I am glad that he has prioritised this consistent. This has been one of the most hilarious debates ever for gallery. input that has not been called to account. Oh, he's

Now out of his seat. Mr Terry, please sit down. Mr Terry, please sit down and be quiet. My goodness.

That's the— Okay. He's made an announcement to prioritise an investment in infrastructure spending. As the budget, as the original motion says, there's never been so many bridges on the table at one point, and we should be proud about that. And I'm proud to be part of a local team who is committed to offering a solution to traffic congestion. Honestly, Mayor, I've got to put on the record on the podcast forever that I'm appalled by how much you've let the gallery interject tonight and not called it to account, except for the point that someone rises from their seat and approaches the councillor bench. If that was someone—

I stood up for truth and the community.

Oh, well done, Mr Terry. Well done, Mr Terry.

Point of order, Madam Mayor. Point of order

Councillor

We've got people screaming from the gallery and you're just sitting there doing absolutely nothing. It's ridiculous.

Well, Councillor Conolly, have you not ever seen that in here before? I've

Actually seen a previous member of Corb also think they were so intelligent they had to be heard as well. I've seen

An entire previous council worse than that. Well

Madam Mayor— Unfortunately

This is a council under your control, Madam Mayor, so maybe you should do something. Well, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for— They've sat down. They're quiet now. Councillor Richards may finish. What's your point?

There's another precedent that was set when anyone wants to get up and scream about anything supporting us. As long as they sit down, then it's okay. So we'll take that one on board as well. I'm finished here. Let's just vote on this because I think we've wasted, what, where are we at now? Two hours? When we could have just amended the original motion with a couple of points and passed something. So thank you.

I'll put the amendment. All those in favour? Against.

The amendment is carried. I'll put the amendment becomes the motion. All those in favour of the motion? Against. The motion is carried. Our next item we—

We have one speaker. It is item 158, Notice of Motion 3. Speaker is Kim Smith.

I probably can't follow that performance, but anyway, we'll give it a go. Great idea to have a centre such as this in the Hawkesbury. Not so great an idea to be congratulating the Clayton's local member for Hawkesbury on this vote-grabbing carrot. Before the usual suspects start howling about not being supportive, or me not being supportive of this, blah, blah, blah, I am supportive of these type of facilities, and they are a much-needed facility that the community needs. A thriving community needs this sort of thing. But a thriving community has a good public transport system to allow kids and families easy access to use these facilities. A thriving community has a train system that works and allows people to arrive and leave home at a normal time to get these kids to these places.

A community that has a decent bus service. This community has been neglected consistently since the election of Mr Perrottet.

No, he does not need congratulating for anything here tonight. His recent blaw debacle was just that, a debacle. The community reaction to that has had him backpedalling faster than Cadell Evans, trying to claw back the potential landslide of votes that he was going to lose come March, and he will lose those votes. That will still happen if the people west of the river wake up to this sort of announcement and be prepared for a few more sweeteners before March. Not good for Mr Perrottet and his four supporters here tonight. The Hawkesbury deserves a local member who actually knows where we are and listens to the community as a whole, and not only when he realises his days as an MP are doomed and he faces unemployment. The Hawkesbury deserves so much more. He does not deserve our praise.

Thank you, Ms Smith. Are you happy to take questions? No, thanks . No. Councillor Connelly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

You move— seconder?

I'd actually like to move something slightly different to what's in the business paper before you jump to second that. Just be careful. While I had some feedback from the mayor on some wording, which I did email to the general manager, but not until about an hour ago, so I'm not sure I've had a chance to flick it on, but I can read it out. So point one is the same. Point two is that note that Council will provide a list of multiple sites for investigation and include reference to Council's advocacy for improved facilities for youth west of the river and in Hawkesbury generally. Three, seek information about the project, including the timeline. Four, request that Council continue its involvement in the process of selecting a site.

And five, write to Tony Miller to thank him for his role in instigating the initial discussions about a local PCYC and for organising the coming together of stakeholders to commence the process.

Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor. Yeah, I'll second that, Madam Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Councillor Connelly, for taking those on board.

So I'll let you, Madam Mayor, speak to point two, because I don't have the detailed knowledge of that, but I'm certainly happy to take your word for it. That's somebody who needs to be acknowledged in this process. In regards to the speaker against this motion, I mean, if you don't want people to say you're against the motion, stop getting up and speaking against them. But I don't agree that we have to have a perfect public transport system before we should consider funding the PCYC facility. This motion doesn't say that our public transport system is perfect. It's saying that we want a PCYC facility. If Council was going to— Advocate for the PCYC facility in the past and then turn around and say now we don't want it because we don't have good public transport, I think would look pretty ridiculous.

So I think this one's fairly straightforward, hopefully nowhere near as contentious as the last motion. Next time I'll look for a synonym for commend, something that's more politically palatable. But this is what I've got for now.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I'll just address that, might be easier if I do that now, to speak to point two, and I do thank you for taking on those slight changes. I think that we all agree this would be a facility that would be a wonderful thing for the youth of the Hawkesbury. The reason I would like to have Mr Miller thanked is that he contacted me last year, early last year, about it, and he was very keen to follow up. I know it has been something that's been in this chamber before. I believe in 2012 there was a proposal regarding it, but he organised a meeting with stakeholders, and it was very interesting to attend a meeting with the police, with the PCYC, and with Mr Perrottet about it.

And there was no doubt that everybody had the interests of the youth of this area at the forefront of their thinking and to try and work together to come up with a solution. So I do commend the Government for doing that. It's quite evident that there, and that was what Mr Miller was alluding to, that there is an absence of activities for young people and PCYC. I went to a PCYC when I was young, they're that old, and they really do offer a lot of opportunities for children who otherwise might not have access to various activities and so on. So I really hope that by putting in these multiple sites, and I'll call on the General Manager to give an update on that in a moment, but by putting that in, hopefully we'll come up with something that satisfies all the criteria that both the PCYC said were very important, and also that the police contributed to because, of course, the police have, they don't run them anymore, but of course they have a very big involvement in the management of youth and the deterrence of crime in youth in this area.

So I thank Councillor Conolly very much for bringing up this motion, and I do thank the Government for their generosity in doing that, and I hope it can be propelled forward. Would reasonably quickly to find out where we can have this PCYC. So, Mr Conroy, could you update on what the latest is? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Joseph and myself met with the PCYC last Friday afternoon. We discussed the history. We certainly discussed the involvement of local residents in escalating the project, and we agreed that the best way forward was to identify more sites rather than less sites. So we're going to look at sites either side of the river. But again, the PCYC are particularly interested in sites that have good access to public transport. So we're going to be looking at options. I think when this was considered by Council, we discussed the option of having a bus route that would run along various parts of the local government area and act as a collection agent for the PCYC. The model they're moving towards is a model that endeavours to have the building utilised over as long a period as possible.

So they're interested in being located near schools, interested in being located near other community facilities that will use them at all hours of the day. So it's not just an afternoon youth centre; it's an all-day community centre that has multiple potential uses. So Joseph's going to be looking at potential sites. We're going to be looking at more rather than less, putting them in, and then the PCYC will commence the process of analysing those sites against their criteria and identifying what they think is the optimum. site or sites that can then go back out to community consultation.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Deputy Mayor.

Just a question, Madam Mayor. I'm just wondering about the content of the building, what is going to happen in the building. Does PCYC just give us a package, or is there going to be a community consultation process? Are they going to work with Council about how it matches with current resources and that sort of thing?

Mr Conroy.

As we understand it, the police have allocated some resources to man the building at certain times of the day, but that won't be a 24/7 operation. There'll be opportunities for other community groups and other organisations to use the building as well. So they've talked about some recent examples where schools use the buildings, where community groups use the buildings. It's intended to be a multipurpose centre that has maximum flexibility, but again it's geared towards the community that it serves. So there'll be a lot of research in terms of the demographics, both current and future, and also existing demand, whether that's in the area of dance or gymnasiums or other activities.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I wish to express some grave reservations in this regard, and I'll be clear.

Firstly, I have no— Claims about being involved with the PCYC and supporting that organisation. That is clear and unequivocal. However , I see this as a process that is flawed and unacceptable in terms of its use of public funds. And as far as I'm concerned, the Hawkesbury is nowhere near the point at which any large-scale investment in an edifice or a monument, let alone it be stacked on a bridge, be included within the city. Now, the other funding that has gone to PCYC, as I understand it from the current state budget, has been allocated to regional areas, which I would describe as hubs. I understand Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, and some up in the northwest as well, possibly Tamworth from memory.

I have not seen any documentation that would indicate that

There have been any statistics collected as to the extent of infraction

If you like, of our youth. Presumably we're talking about young folk, possibly from young teenagers up to maybe mid-twenties.

Unlike the regional areas which have already received, are going to receive funding in terms of redevelopment or upgrading of facilities, we're talking about a new facility, but we're talking about the Hawkesbury, which is not a single hub. We've got multiple hubs. We've got the recognised towns already,

And North Richmond, because of the prospective and ongoing developments, is going to be a major residential and township area, as is Richmond and Windsor, as is Wilberforce. So they're all spread out. Without knowing what the statistics are either of crime or the difficulties and the numbers of people with whom the, if you like, the police or other agencies are not able to address their needs, if you like, I just think it's way too early. It seems to me as if there is a case for possibly the creation of some drop-in centres. Now, to me, in the case of Richmond, the difficulty is always mentioned as being within the range of East Market Street up to March Street and in that vicinity. Part of that I would put down to the lack of appropriate public space lighting.

I think it is inadequate in the evenings. I've had that commented upon by various members of the community. But also, when we have a think about this, I fancy that the range of ages of people about whom this may be appropriate and who might care to avail themselves of any facility or facilities, it is over a broad spectrum of probably at least ten years gap between the youngest and the eldest. And you get to the point of the eldest, well, you're talking about people who may well be nominally available for employment, potentially have motor vehicles and licences and so on, so they're not even a stationary, if you like, resource, for want of a strange word to use, or a marketplace for offering these services.

I think there needs to be statistics gathered either by the police or by council . And I think that there are other diversionary things as well, including the access to sporting facilities and the sporting council and possibly sports involvement, which would be a healthy distraction as well. So, as much as I support the PCYC, I don't think we're at the stage where we can justify the dollars for a fixed piece of real estate and a huge building. For goodness' sake, we've already got 29 council community centres, as I understand it, and no doubt, with appropriate arrangements, if public school buildings were wanting to be used, I understand that that would be possible with due and proper arrangements being brought to bear and promulgated.

So I'm afraid I think it's too early. I hate to think that we're going to just build a structure and not have people to fill it. Then the other question comes about, okay, let us say we go into one of these things, how do we actually pay for the running of it, or who pays for the running of it?

Now, as I'm led to believe, the successful PCYC organisations in rural areas or wherever are really those which have a strong… Commitment from volunteers within the community to proffer their services and support of both the, if you like, the institutional element as well as the subscribers or partakers of the service. From what I have heard here this evening, it sounds as if what is being proposed in a sense is the deployment by our local area command of staff from time to time as an addition to their duties, rather than, shall we say, a volunteer force. It appears from the information I've been able to gather that where the staffing of a PCYC centre is, if you like, by dragooned or paid staff, in other words not of a voluntary nature, that there is a lesser degree of involvement, and those centres tend to actually, in the longer run, fail because they lack the community support and the backing.

So I think without starting at a small scale and being able to affirm, in a reasonable sense, that there is an actual demand for the product that is being offered here, this is an unwise expenditure . Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I have to disagree with Councillor Ross. I think this funding announcement is very good news, and I think we need to be careful not to look a gift horse in the mouth just because it comes from the other side of politics. We've advocated for this, and we're getting it. And aside from a bit of electioneering, I don't think there's any ulterior motive in funding a centre for our large and growing youth population. The need is clear.

We have a larger than the state average population of young people in the Hawkesbury, with the addition of developments like Redbank, which are predominantly being purchased by first home buyers and young families, and again with Jacaranda Ponds at Glossodia. And because of our place in the Sydney housing market at the lower end, we increasingly see families with kids coming to the Hawkesbury, and those kids grow up to be teenagers, and those teenagers have not a lot of places to go and not a lot of things to do. And the PCYC isn't just there to rehabilitate kids who have got into trouble or who might get into trouble. It's there to give life skills to young people that they wouldn't get elsewhere or that they can't get after hours at school, because schools close at half past three and those kids need somewhere to go.

And we know that the parents in the Hawkesbury are often travelling for up to an hour and a half each way a day. So lots of our kids come home to empty houses, or they bum around looking for somewhere to go. Lots of them sit in our libraries. Lots of them rely on youth organisations like those run out of North Richmond, where the facilities have become... Tired, and probably could be a whole lot larger and provide them with more than just a room to sit in. So I think this is actually really good news for the Hawkesbury. It's an outdated view of the PCYC to think that it's going to get kids back into line. It's now moved well beyond that. I've used the PCYC facility at Penrith for group community rooms, for their gym facilities and that sort of thing for kids aged from three up to 16 to 17.

And then I've seen in the evenings that adult community groups have taken over those facilities. They're extremely well used. We don't have a hub town in the Hawkesbury. We have a series of villages. It's part of our makeup. And if every time we're offered something, we say, Well, no, we would need it to be in a hub town, so we can't have it, we'll never get anything, frankly. What we have to do is make sure that when we advocate for these facilities, we advocate for the ability to move people to those facilities, preferably not using private vehicles. Hence the previous resolution of this council that the PCYC not just provide a building, but provide a bus to get our kids to it, because the kids that are going to rely on this facility, I suspect, will not have parents who are free to drive them hither and yon each afternoon.

They already do that a couple of times a week on average. They don't want to do it every afternoon, okay, coming to the end of my son's teenage life enough . You know, I would love to be able to stick him on a bus. It's a life skill. Getting your kids, your kids being able to get from point A to point B is just as valuable a life skill as learning to do anything else. So if we can have a facility that does exactly that, and council has advocated for this and the general manager has confirmed that we're continuing to do that, then I think that's really useful. The great bonus of this, of course, is that it's not our money. In some instances councils do fund the PCYC. I notice, just running through some funding, Wagga Wagga Council has provided funding to their PCYC, and that may be something that this council has to look at down the track.

But at the moment, this— This is for a study and a building, and I think that's really, really good news.

Thank you Councillor. Councillor Sam Bronja.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I find myself also furiously disagreeing with Councillor Ross's complexion on the prospect of funding for PCYC. I'd respectfully suggest that the PCYC organisation is not pitched at his demographic, and that may contribute towards his misapprehension of what it's about. Councillor Ross's contribution , and I was paying as much attention as I could, seems to be that we shouldn't welcome this funding for PCYC because it might attract kids that are in danger of being on the wrong side of the tracks, and I rather thought that was the point. Or that we should say no to funding for PCYC because it can only be in one place, and we should say no unless it could be in all of our town hubs.

And that's a nonsensical argument there as well. I strongly support Councillor Connolly's notice of motion with your amendments, Madam Mayor. I think it's a brilliant idea. I think it's entirely appropriate to applaud this funding for a significant community facility, and I think it will be an adornment to our city.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Bronja. Further discussion? Right of reply —oh, sorry, Councillor Richards.

Right of reply, Councillor Connolly. Not necessary. We'll put the motion as it is up on the board. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Someone to move the items en bloc, please. I move that,

Madam Mayor.

Secondly

Councillor Rassmussen, all those in favour? We'll move back to item 148. Sorry, I have only one matter, and I'd like to apologise for my outburst, not only to the councillors, the gallery, but also particularly to Councillor Richards. I had a slight senior moment and transferred which was in the budget and which wasn't in the budget, and I just apologise publicly for my outburst. Thank you , Mr Terry

Thank you, Mr Terry. Thank you.

We'll move on to item 148.

Councillor Wheeler? I move that. Councillor Rassmussen?

Move that way.

Seconder?

Seconded, Madam Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Calvert. Discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I disagree with the motion. We've just had a rates rise where Council has been accused of not pursuing additional efficiencies. I don't think we should pursue a pay rise. It's less than $10 a week. We'll lose a third to half of it in tax. For each of us, it's not a large sum. It's $480 a year, but that's $6,500 in total. It's a show of good faith with the public. I think that we refuse a pay rise at this point.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, Madam Mayor, I don't think that I can move an amendment because it would be in direct contradiction. So I'll foreshadow an alternate motion.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion?

Right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Yes, Madam Mayor.

I'll put the vote on the recommendation that's in the business paper, that is to go with the rise suggested in there for Councillor and Mayoral pay. All those in favour? Against? The motion is lost. Councillor— I'll just get— Sorry

We've just had the motion lost and we do another one in its place. But

Was it direct negative?

Yes. Yes, Councillor Wheeler. So I'd move that the annual fee for councillors and the additional fee for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor remain at 2017-18 levels.

Seconder, Councillor Conolly. Discussion? Right of reply? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against. The motion is carried. Our next item is item...

152, notice of motion one, Councillor Zampronha.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move it in my name.

Seconded, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I hope that we can dispense with this in less than two hours because the notice of motion does not thank the state member.

I'll start with a really brief story. Part of my heritage lays in the Hills District, and my grandparents had property at Glenhaven. In centuries past, back to the 1850s, they were orchardists in what is now the most densely developed part of Glenhaven. And from my early childhood in the 1970s through until ill health forced the sale of the remaining tranche of their land in the late 80s, I saw Glenhaven transformed from a rural hamlet into something that basically ceased to resemble anything that I or the early generations of my family would have recognised. And it was heartbreaking, in a sense. So what the family did is we , Mum and Dad moved to Oakville, bought five acres, built a house and a family and a life, and , you know, we've been there for over 40 years now and nevertheless rather uneasily see this development marching towards us and wonder whether history is going to repeat itself.

That experience in my youth deeply affected me, and if you ever want to know what motivates me in public life, it's that sense of wanting to preserve what deserves to be preserved and to articulate and to defend things and not to stand in the way of progress simply for its own sake, because there are some things that really deserve to be protected and preserved in the Hawkesbury particularly, things that we've come to value very highly: the last remnants of productive agricultural land in the Sydney Basin, the vistas and the heritage that are associated with certain landscapes in our district. And in this chamber, in my time here, I've heard that we are, you know, our voice is strengthening in being able to stand up against what others might see as an inexorable force of development, and to really put meat on the bones of that argument, to say, well, look, we firstly need to retain our right to manage our own destiny here.

It is inappropriate for this to be taken out of our hands under the guise of state significant development or some other level of government saying that this is just the kind of thing that's going to happen in Sydney. You can't stand in the way of it. Just accept it as a fait accompli. I can't do that, and I never will. Now, I'd ask your indulgence if this notice of motion seems to focus on one particular part of the Hawkesbury, but it's quite critical that we do focus on this part of the Hawkesbury in this notice of motion, because these areas of our LGA that are adjacent to the increasingly intense urban development that we see in the Northwest Growth Sector, and particularly in Vineyard Stage 1 and Stage 2, which are in our LGA, are raising serious and long-term questions about what the future of that part of the LGA is going to look like.

And the whole process around the corridors raised these concerns. There were hints and whispers. The strategic environmental assessment for the Outer Sydney Orbital says, oh yes, well, we are looking at land north of the current Vineyard precinct. Developers are openly canvassing residents in this area, saying, get in quick before Oakville is rezoned and prices soar. We see down at Corridor, Chinese developers seem to have the advantage over the rest of the community and can acquire land at some tens of millions of dollars based on their entirely reasonable assumption that this land is about to be redeveloped. And where does our community sit in this process? I think we're poorly informed and we're poorly equipped.

Now council is looking at its residential land strategy later this year. If I were to take on completely what the General Manager said at one of our recent community consultation sessions at Morelia, for example, I could become very disheartened and believe that council has no agency to manage our future, that the state government and the Greater Sydney Commission and the Department of Planning and their ministers are completely in charge of the way that our Hawkesbury area is going to evolve. And with the greatest of respect to the General Manager, I can't accept that. I believe that we should have agency. We deserve to have agency. That as the level of government that's closest to the people, we deserve to have that representation, to have that agency, and to say what the Hawkesbury should look like.

So I'm looking to our residential land strategy later this year as an important part of articulating what our vision should be. And what we do in this part of the LGA is really significant. It is the part of our LGA that is relatively flood free, that is relatively close to Windsor Road and the new rail infrastructure. There is a case to be put that if there's going to be growth in the Hawkesbury, it should be at that end of the LGA. Just like there are people in those suburbs who moved there, retiring on that land, who want very much to preserve the rural way of life, to preserve the productive agricultural and equine lands, that want to act as good stewards for the remnant Cumberland Woodland that we find in that part of the LGA, and adjacent to Skyeville National Park, that want to keep the waterways clear, that want to see wildlife corridors preserved.

And it's a really fraught issue, and we can't address that as council unless we're properly informed. So the purpose of this notice of motion is to write to the various agencies that might be responsible and to say, we deserve more information. Please explain what you mean by these hints that we've picked up in government documents that suggest that the urban development may leak out beyond the current North West Growth Precinct, beyond Vineyard Stage 1 and Stage 2, and that in the time frame of 5, 15 or 25 years, we might be looking at further urban development in Oakville, Moralia, the rest of Vineyard, and further out. The signs that I've articulated in my background information on this notice of motion lay that out clearly, and I'm seeking your support so that we can write to those agencies and ask them to be honest with us.

There is, of course, every likelihood that they will not give us a satisfactory answer, but I do think that this exercise has merit because we can put them on notice, and if they spring something like this on us down the track, we can say, but hang on, we asked. We wanted to be part of this process. And you told us that there was nothing to worry about. Well, I want them to be on the record in responding in whichever way they choose to do to this notice of motion. I commend it to you and hope that you'll support it.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I agree with the sentiment of Councillor Zamprogno's notice of motion. I wonder if he would consider a few amendments to it. There's a typo in point 1. River should just have one R. It is a big river, but it still only gets one R.

Point 2, I guess the issue that I have here, and I certainly understand what Councillor Zamprogno is trying to achieve and why he is focused on a single area, but I am concerned that it is dealing, by and large, with Oakville, where there is significant development pressure. And I understand that, but I'm a little bit concerned that when we look at a single area, and I guess we've seen this to a degree with Kurrajong and Kurmond as well, when we look at a single area, depending on the answer we get, it either quarantines that area or it opens it up. And so it either puts more pressure on that area, or if it's quarantined, it puts pressure on other areas. And I'm a little bit concerned about the impact of that on the LGA as a whole.

So I do have concern. I understand the reason for point 2, but I wonder if Councillor Zamprogno would consider altering it to read that development is and will continue to place significant pressure on the Hawkesbury LGA, rather than on this part of the Hawkesbury LGA, because I think this is a fundamental problem right across the LGA, not just— at Oakville, and we see that most directly at North Richmond and Kurrajong and Kurmond. Again in point 3, I'm wondering if we want clarification for the whole LGA, and I recognise that it may be more difficult to achieve that end if we do open it up. So I'm anticipating that Councillor Zampronha may not be that keen. I would like to add a point 4 that Council requests, or Council receives, updated timelines and expectations regarding Vineyard 2.

That's now significantly up in the air as a result of the corridor suspension stopping at Richmond Road, and I think we urgently need to get some clarification of what's happening on the other side of Windsor Road at Vineyard 2 for those residents of the Hawkesbury who are caught up in that little mess there . And I would also like Council to consider extending the excellent report that we received, the briefing on the Kurrajong and Kurmond study, rolling that out across the LGA. So to that end, I would like to see us receive a report on the cost and timeframes for replicating that either in those areas slated for further development or across the LGA. And if Councillor Zampronha isn't keen to add that, then I'll foreshadow that I'll put up a notice of motion to that end down the track.

Councillor Zampronha.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have anticipated the likelihood that there would be an effort to broaden the impact of this notice of motion to the whole of the Hawkesbury. And my response is this . The way in which Council staff takes on board this notice of motion and then articulates it into the correspondence that will be sent to the various agencies is critical here. And I would be very happy to take on board Councillor Wheeler's suggested amendments to make the point that these questions are relevant to the rest of the Hawkesbury, so long as the wording of the correspondence that goes ultimately to them places some emphasis on the southeastern part of the LGA as being the most urgent because of their proximity to that growth.

As far as adding a new point that calls for a report on what I agree was a very excellent briefing that we received on rural vistas in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area, I thoroughly agree. I would very much like to see that kind of study extended to other parts of the LGA, and I would happily take on board that as an extra point so that we can get some sense of how quickly we can move, possibly not in time for our residential land strategy. I think it would inform our thinking concerning the residential land strategy. Perhaps a question for the General Manager is: within what timeframe we are contemplating the residential land strategy?

Mr Conroy.

The timing for that was delayed because we fast-tracked that Kurmond-Kurrajong document, so that's going to be presented to Council formally in July. I think it's the last meeting in July, and then once we finalise that, we'll move on to the rest of that study. I haven't had an update from Andrew in recent time, so I can't answer that on the run, but I'm happy to provide an update to Councillors via email or something like that.

Thank you. Councillor Zambrano, were you happy with Councillor Wheeler's additional point regarding the updates and timelines of Vineyard 2

Provisionally, yes. I'd like to see it up on the board, but generally, in principle, of course.

Okay. Further discussion while that's just happening? Councillor Ross.

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor.

I don't support this notice of motion.

And the reason I don't support it is quite simple. It's going to suffer the same fate as the notice of motion of October the 11th, 2016.

In regard to the winds of Imbroglio

I think there was a saying that became an oft-repeated phrase from the picture show movie, whatever, called The Castle,

Which would probably bear rethinking of .

To think that any

Government, let alone department, would disclose their future plans is beyond the realms of even the wildest dreams of fantasy land.

Just not possible. We only have to look at this bridge business, and if that's the same as the project that was there before, well.. . They're going to have to have a fight with the Department of Industry,

Based on what I can remember about a certain LEP that came to Council in the last two years, and a certain submission that was made.

They all work in silos. It's all political. The decision on the corridors was a Cabinet decision.

There were many options taken to the Cabinet room. We were told that at Clarendon.

Quite clearly, we were told it explicitly. Just had to listen.

This is a waste of time, frankly. We'd be better off getting our CMP sorted out and going for a break on that, and hoping like heck that the twenty-odd thousand people that we look like increasing the population of this local government area in the next five to seven years is sufficient

To enable the state government to believe that we've done our bit of

Housing provision for the masses, and that

They might think about doing something about infill planning and something serious there, which would be far more productive, because it's all already got services and so on, which are not out here, and transport. This area should have minimal development in any case because of the lack of public transport, whether it be rail, bus or whatever. And every time that a road project proceeds, and we've seen that with the upgrade of the Windsor Road, it's now absolutely chock-a-block from Rouse Hill further in. Totally. Takes you anything up to an hour to get to Parramatta. Dear oh dear. It'd all better buy pushbikes, I think. But as for this, having any impact or any response, I think you can save the money on the postage. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I might just ask—sorry, Councillor Conolly—just in mind of that, because I think quite the contrary, actually, Councillor Ross, that now is the time we would be asking. But I'm just wondering if Councillor Zampronio would add in next to the state member for Hawkesbury also the Minister for Planning, because of course, as the minister responsible for the Department of Planning, if you were to write directly to him seeking it as well, that gives it a little bit more, perhaps a little bit might be looked at more on a political level as well, in light of what has happened with the corridors, if that's okay. And Councillor Conolly. No, you don't want to write to him. It'd

Be the callback

Yes, I'm just suggesting an additional point. I'm

Happy with that, Madam Mayor. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Just briefly, I'll just speak because I do think that we need to be doing this. We do need to be told. We've seen an erosion of our input into the planning process over the past 18 months, and it's really, really important that we can get our strategic documents in place and to have them informed by this sort of information on a state level. I think that Councillor Ross may believe it will be futile, and it may be, but I think we have to try because we owe it to the residents who've been impacted by the Bells Line of Road corridor and the Outer Orbital to find out what the plans are for these areas. And I know this is focusing mainly on Oakville, and I gather its proximity right next to the growth centre, growth sector, is really, really important.

I think that we also need to have the community involved and get the feedback of what people want in this regard, because what I seem to hear from the Oakville area is quite mixed messages. Some people really want to be able to realise an investment and divide their land. Others want to retain the rural character. Some want to have dual occupancy. So there's a lot of different scenarios that could occur, and it's one of these examples when it sits in such a strategic position, right on the cusp of our alignment with the growth sector, that we actually do get this right. So I'm happy to support attempting to get this information, and I hope we do get this information. I think that the sooner the better.

And thank you, Councillor Zambronio, for bringing it forward. I also think Councillor Wheeler's additions to it make it that little bit stronger, particularly regarding the Vineyard 2 precinct, which has been very much left up in the air after the recent corridor. So I'm happy to support the notice of motion. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree with the sentiments that Councillor Sam Prognosis put forward. I just noticed over the last little while that a lot of the motions and notices of motion that we put forward tend to be getting longer and longer. And many of them don't have very many action words. I was reading Councillor Sam Brogno's motion, and the action words appear in point three on the third line, where we seek clarification of statements . We're not really asking for the government to do anything. We're not. It's really just a statement that we're not happy. And the rest of the point three talks about transparency, disclosure and cooperation. Well, of course, the state planning is going to say, yes, we'll be transparent, we'll disclose, we'll cooperate.

Therefore, I commend the points four and five that Councillor Wheeler's put up. They're very punchy and direct. They say, this is what we want to know, this is what we want to do. And I'm not particularly pointing this at Councillor Sam Brogno. I'm just hoping that councillors in general will try and copy the model that Councillor Wheeler put up for points four and five in future and be much more direct, because we want an answer. We want to know. We should be spelling it out. This is what we want to know about Vineyard. This is what we want to know about Oakville. These are the questions. Ask for the answers, whereas I don't think we've done that here. But as I said, I do agree with your sentiment.

I embrace that. I totally support that. And therefore, I will support your notice of motion. Further discussion

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah, thank you

Madam Mayor. I'll be

Very brief on this. Yes, I do think that's essential, like you pointed out, Madam Mayor, that given that— Very close proximity to the northwest growth sector that we get on the front foot with some of this stuff and get them to, get the state government, the various planning agencies to look across the road and into the Hawkesbury LGA. It's not something they've done regularly in the sense of letting us know what they're doing, what the big picture plan is. It's certainly not their normal track record. So if we can encourage anything in that direction, that would be really good. The other thing I want to say is that my experience at senior government level, particularly at the federal level, is that writing letters is one thing.

What I have found to be very, very punchy and very direct is if you actually seek or have a delegation go to the minister or whoever, and you actually make the presentation and you articulate your case eyeball to eyeball. That, in my experience over many years at federal government level, works really, really well. So I might suggest that we think about doing something like that.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Just a point of clarification, Madam Mayor. I note today that the Greater Sydney Commission has now passed to the Office of Premier, and I wonder if we need to include that in the list, the growing list of the people we write to. Yes, it has

Councillor Zambrano? No, it's, do you want to write to the Premier? Yes. Councillor Conolly, are you here? Thank you. No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Zambrano.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The way in which I phrased my original notice of motion attempted to be agnostic in the sense that I recognise that I have to represent a diversity of views within the LGA and within this part of the LGA. I'm well aware of the fact that there are some residents in Oakville who see people on the other side of Boundary Road achieving ridiculous sums of money for their acreage properties, and then other people that are just as passionately committed to preserving our semi-rural way of life and acting as good stewards over the land. So I suppose if my wording was mild, Councillor Calvert, it was because I recognised that the best way through this isn't to state a strong view for or against development, but to simply say that Council will be engaging in this process and we deserve to be better informed than we are now .

We have seen, because of the corridors issue, just how much ill health is caused by the sense of dread, the sense of uncertainty, the sense of a lack of a clear direction in terms of what the future holds. And I don't think it's good enough for the State Government to, you know, have this coming right up hard against our borders and indeed jumping over the border and now in our LGA, and for Council to stand by idly and

To accept this meekly. I think that in order for Council's residential land strategy in this area to be useful, to actually do the job that it's going to, we have to be better informed as to what the State Government's intentions are. Councillor Ross may be right that we won't get an answer, but I'm not as cynical as Councillor Ross. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by his contribution. But anyway, yes, I commend it to you . Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Zambrano. I'll

Put Councillor Zamprogno's notice of motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Questions on questions. We have two sets of questions in there from the 8th of May. Any questions on that question? It was your response, Councillor Conolly, I think. Yep

So question one. The question has not been answered. The question was, could I be advised before the next business paper, which I wasn't, as to what action the council has taken in respect to the church bell being relocated. And the response was that if they want to relocate the church bell, they need a DA, and they haven't received, and the DA hasn't been received. I've informed the council in the public meeting on the record that the bell has been relocated. What action has been taken? I'm a bit disappointed that the response is, we're unaware if the bell's been relocated, when I've provided that as my entire question.

Okay.

Yeah.

And the next, on question two, if I can, Madam Mayor. Yes. I was a bit confused on this one. The answer suggested that the State Environmental Planning Policy gives the school the right to do the development without consent. They only have to consult with us because it's a heritage item involved. The statement of heritage impact was referred to council's heritage advisor for comment, and the following advice was provided. Point two of that advice was that statement of heritage impact report recommends an interpretation strategy followed by an interpretation plan. This is supported and will be included as a condition of DA consent. Now, I thought from my reading of that, they weren't getting it. They weren't putting a DA in to do this. It was done without consent, just with consultation. So I'm confused as to how that's going to be added as a condition of DA consent.

Okay. Following both those up for you. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I reference item question 3, page 66 of the business paper, the last paragraph . In addition to the Benson's Lane area, I would appreciate Beaumont Avenue

And the soccer fields in Yarramundi Lane to be likewise reviewed with the same study, and for those to form the basis of possible further reviews of other sporting arena. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Questions on questions from the 29th of May.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. In regards to question 3, I'm confused by the answer. In the second last paragraph, this just doesn't seem correct. In order to issue an order to remove a sign, a council officer must be able to establish who was responsible for placing the sign in the first place. Surely, Council, if there's no evidence of who placed the sign and the sign has been placed illegally, Council can remove it.

Mr Conroy.

If it's on private land, we can't. So these are just general observations, but as a general course, if we're going to issue an order, we'd ideally like to know who we're issuing it against.

But wouldn't it be— sorry if I can, Madam Mayor— wouldn't it be being issued to the landholder, not to the person who put the sign there?

Mr Conroy.

It can be issued to the landholder if it's deemed appropriate, but again, sometimes landholders are innocent parties as well, and we need to be on very clear ground if we're going to start issuing orders.

Can I have one more follow-up, Madam Mayor? Yes. I mean, I find that a very odd statement, that if I'm a private landholder— And you know that somebody else has put a sign on my property, you're going to order them to come back on my property and take it away?

Mr Conroy. It's

It's, once you issue an order, it starts becoming very prescribed. So it's more a negotiation with that landholder rather than issuing an order.

Councillor Sanpranje.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm referring to question four on page 69, where I asked what consultation had been conducted with Council about the location of the two road corridors prior to the announcement in March of this year. Now, the document that I was thinking of was a document titled A Plan for Managing, A Plan for Growing Sydney that was issued in December 2014, and which showed, I believe for the first time, the likely location of both road corridors as going through, you know, Grose Vale, Kurrajong, et cetera, and then up through Moraillya and Oakville with the OSO. So forgive me for pressing the point, but I want some further clarification about what consultation occurred with Council between December 2014 and March 2018 .

Council's response really only references an immediate prior awareness under embargo prior to the March 2018 announcement, and I want to know what consultation, if any, occurred closer to the original awareness that the corridors might go through those areas.

Thank you, Councillor Semperonio. Councillor Tree.

Thank you. I'm just wondering, is there a timeline relating to the written agreement being finalised? Question two, Mr

Conroy. As soon as we get RMS to the point where they're happy to sign something. And we've had meetings and all the indications are positive. We just haven't been able to get to that final point yet. And there are further meetings planned, and we're hopeful that we'll achieve that.

And so has it earmarked a particular space, place, location where they're going to look at that?

It's earmarked an investigation area, yes.

Whereabouts is that?

I'm not at liberty to say at the moment.

So what sort of, you know, what sort of, do you call them weekly or do you, what do you do? Like I'm just wondering why it's, they're taking so long, because they surely know that we have a problem over here with traffic.

If you are asking me my personal thoughts, I'd say that they're dramatically understaffed. As I understand it, they've got hundreds of vacancies, can't fill them, and we've got, we're, you know, we're trying to contact people. I'm ringing people at 10 to 7 in the morning and they're already at work. And, Yes, we'll get back to you, get back to you, but they're just totally under the pump. And I think that's a function of just how much is on at the moment. And it's very difficult for a whole range of organisations to get staff. And we're just trying to work with them to get something to happen.

Okay. Questions for next meeting. Councillor Richards. Yes

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question regarding signage. I'd like to know how Council chooses who they go out to approach each day on signage. Why certain requests are being ignored about signage, and why other small businesses seem to be targeted regarding the signage out the front of their properties. My second question is regards to resident clean-up. I've had a resident contact me who has a neighbour in their street who has a lot of rubbish and debris and clutter out the front of their property. Is that something Council can get involved in in terms of orders to clean up, or do we need to approach other agencies? My third question is about mountain bike tracks. I've been asked by a resident, does the Hawkesbury have any mountain bike tracks properly identified, and can we actually get the location for those?

If not, can we look into some? And the Windsor RSL sub-branch, which I don't have a conflict of interest in that one, has asked for their permanent memorial. When are they going to get a response on when they'll get approval to be able to put up that permanent memorial? Oh, and lastly, there's another one actually I've just thought of. Can I please get a response as to previous notices of motion regarding the RSL criteria and regarding schools coming into the Chamber, because the Chamber one was brought about last year with an intent to implement that at the start of this year, and we are now in the middle of the year. Thank you.

Councillor Tree. Councillor Conolly. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. A request on behalf of the Pitt Town Progress Association references the most recent community update concerning the Pitt Town bypass project. That community update simply says that — RMS will continue planning and development of the concept design and environmental assessment based on the preferred design option. We will continue to consult with the community. They are looking for some indication as to when shovels will be in the ground. Can we please make inquiries to RMS about their commencement date for the Pitt Town bypass project?

Okay, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could we look into the parking time restrictions along George Street at Windsor, near the medical businesses there? I've been contacted by a woman who had a procedure that went over time and she got fined because the parking restrictions were for one hour. So could we look at whether that's a problem beyond this one woman, and whether it might warrant changing the parking restrictions to possibly three hours to accommodate people, firstly, who aren't very mobile and secondly , who might have procedures that go on for longer than they anticipate. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I received an email today from a lady who wanted to complain that she had a fall in the car park in North Richmond at the back of the shops near the River Orchid Restaurant, which I believe is the car park that belongs to Council. Yes. And she's saying that the lighting was not adequate. So can we have— Someone inspect that lighting and see if it is actually adequate, please.

Thank you,

Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Caro. Can we get some traffic numbers for our meeting podcasts visits so we can understand a level of engagement of our community has with this level of council meeting? Secondly, has council issued orders to have the sign removed around the Oakville Moralia area, and how much time has council spent on this matter?

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Has council granted parking spaces in council's Richmond car parking area to the Coles supermarket, and if so, how many, and what are the terms of that granting?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I'd like to inquire, please, as to when the

Gospers Lagoon Bridge Number 5, I believe it is described as,

Was rebuilt, replaced on the last occasion, please. Secondly, I've had a complaint from a party who was interested in a destination from New South Wales digital program that was being, as I understood it, co-sponsored with the council, somewhere towards the 15th of... of this month and with dates running through the course of last week, that

The time permitted for the response was very restrictive and less than 24 hours for intending participants or such like. And I'm just wondering if there was some sort of administrative problem with that or if, because it would seem that that would not be in the best interests of such an event or such a gathering. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I'd just add to Councillor Kotlash's question about the parking outside the medical centre. I assume you mean where the radiology is? Yes. No, because I'm just wondering if when you look at that, you could look how well signposted it is that there's underground parking, because I didn't even know it was there, and there's actually underground parking. So I think people don't realise that and they park in the street. So just if that can be looked at. I'm assuming that's where it means.

Yeah

Yeah. Anyway, that's something to look at. So no further questions. Can we have someone move we're going to confidential? Move Councillor Connolly, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour?

Yeah.

Yeah, so they actually have an underground car park. I didn't know it was there. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, they need to have it on their referral page or something. Yeah, because I did the same, and then the lady said, Oh, you should have parked underneath, and I said, How do you know? Yeah , yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud

In regard to item 156, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Waller, seconded by Councillor Rasmusson, that Council: one, agree to enter into a lease with Vannarith Chea and Sayoen Khun of the property known as Shop 4, Wilberforce Shopping Centre, as detailed in the report; two, authority be given for the lease and other documentation associated with this matter to be executed under seal of Council; three, details of Council resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessees, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Meeting is closed at 10 p.m. Mr. Conroy, just to address everyone.

When

The staff... Don't rush now. Just joking, Andrew, it's a joke.