11 September - Ordinary

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their Elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our wardens. 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, and 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 chambers has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Conroy. We have an apology from Councillor Tree tonight. Someone move the apology. Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? The motion is carried. Declarations of interest. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, Madam Mayor. Item 2.

2.7, non-significant non-pecuniary.

Thank you. And I have one in item 2.2.2, less than significant non-pecuniary.

Someone to confirm the minutes from last time. Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour?

We'll move on now to...

Those in favour?

We'll move on now to the items for public address. The first one is item 222, and I'll just, we have one speaker. I'll just read this on first. I'll just read on my conflict of interest. It is a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm the public officer of the Kurrajong Community Forum, but I'm not involved in meetings or decisions, or I don't attend that . So no further action. Thank you. We have one speaker, and our speaker is Fiona Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councillors and ladies and gentlemen. I'm coming here to speak about the event that we're planning to hold for the Kurrajong Community Forum. The Kurrajong Community Forum has been an incorporated organisation for the last 25 years, and I've been president of that organisation for the last five. What the Kurrajong Forum aims to do is generally to increase the ambience of the village itself and also to bring the community together. And the way we bring the community together is largely through community events, and those events we're running very frequently. This year, the Jazz in the Park that we're asking for funding for will be our third event of the year. We've had a previous jazz event.

We're also having a picnic in the park, which will be held in October, and then we've got this one that we're applying for. In the past, we've done activities like Kurrajong Buzz, which has raised money, but this year the Mount Tomah Botanical Gardens decided that they would like to take it over. So from that perspective, that event we're no longer holding, but we have got the other events that we're doing. Now, the Jazz in the Park has been a really fabulous and interesting event for the community, and it's growing with every event that we have had, and it's also changing formats. So, the event that we're going to hold this time, first we're going to have some school students who are Year 12 ATAR students who have just prepared their pieces and performed for the ATAR exams, and they will be doing four songs each, and we'll have three of those.

Then we will have a local band, which will be local, fairly professional group, and then we'll have a professional out of the conservatorium of music for our third event. So we will have a very good, strong music event that will bring people to the village. So it helps the village community and the shops, and the events are truly fabulous, I think. We get a lot of people coming, and the ages range from like toddlers right up to 90-year-olds and everything in between. So it's a really great community atmosphere. Everybody has a ball, and so far, so good, and we'd like some funding. The issue, though, with holding events, they do cost money. We are a relatively small group of people, and we only make money through events and collecting funding, also other fundraising activities that we do.

But really, without the help of Council, we won't be able to do these events. And this year, as I said, we've already had two events, and the Picnic at the Park, we will be self-funding. So, and we will also be putting up Christmas decorations this year, and we are not asking for any funds from Council. So we would really appreciate it if you could do what Suzanne has nicely asked you to do, and please support our event because it's a small amount of money, really, and we contribute quite a lot as well. So thank you all, and that was it, really. Okay,

Thank you, Fiona. Are you happy to take questions? Councillor. Yeah, of course. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Smith, how many—could you just confirm how many events the forum organises in Kurrajong each year again?

Well, it varies a little bit from year to year, but this year we have had a music event earlier on in the year. We've got the picnic in the park. We've got this music event coming up in November, and we'll also be doing Christmas decorations, all of which bring the community together.

Thank you. Any further questions? No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. That was our final speaker. Councillor Connelly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Just for the point three, the council write to the Kurrajong Community Forum to congratulate them on their events program and thank them for the effort they put into generating community events for Kurrajong.

Thank you. Do you have a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Reynolds. Thank you. Councillor Connelly, do you wish to speak?

Only to say that I think we should support the event. I think it's for a smaller community group, for the amount of effort they're putting in to making these things happen and only asking for small amounts of money, you know, if we had more of them, we'd have a more vibrant community.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yes, I agree with Councillor Connelly. It would be nice to clone the Kurrajong Community Forum and have one in each town, frankly. The other thing that I want to comment on is it's really helpful. Last time one of these proposals came to us, I asked that we see how this fits into the total pool of money, and I noticed the staff have done that this time, and that really helps with our decision making. So thank you for that. This is a really nice community-building event, and I think it's now starting to get some continuity. It's now becoming one of those things that people look for, and that's what we need, I think, with our events, that they become sort of signature events that repeat on a year-by-year basis.

Then people start to put it in their diary. They start to think, Well, I'm going to go and do that in Kurrajong in November. And if we could have something like that throughout the Hawkesbury in each month, I think we'd really be achieving some fantastic things for building both community and activity in our town centres. So I think this is fantastic, and it's a really good use of Council's funds.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll just check, did the minutes people get the wording of Councillor Conolly's third point? Okay. I just wondered if you needed it repeated or something. Further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen.

Madam Mayor, thank you. Yeah, Madam Mayor, I think it was Councillor Wheeler said that if we could clone Kurrajong Community Forum across the Hawkesbury, we would certainly be supercharging our community togetherness and the sort of things that community should be about. We've got the Koala Fest happening up there very soon. I forget exactly the date, but it's very soon, a couple of weeks, I think it is. Next Saturday. Next Saturday. So we should all be up there, cuddling the koalas and having a great time up there. The Memorial Park is just an outstanding park. It's a great, you know, community village feeling up there. Council does a wonderful job, in my book, looking after that park. And there's a lot more on the plans, as Mr Morgan would know.

He's developing a plan for how we can do more up there, which is great. And yes, it would be really nice to see such an expansion of that sort of community forum group, whatever we want to call it, I don't care what people call it, but it would be really nice to see that across the villages of the Hawkesbury because that really would supercharge our community and certainly make it a much more liveable community for all of us. So, Madam Mayor, I think this is a great initiative and I support the... Support the motion, Councillor Connelly.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. The motion is up on the board now. Further discussion?

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Connelly. I'll put the motion, which is the motion on the board with the additional point from Councillor Connelly. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Our next item is item 223.

Our next item is item 223, drought assistance. We have two speakers. Our first speaker is Alastair McLaren.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. For those who don't know me, we run a small business in the Hawkesbury called Paddock to Plate, and we produce grass-fed Angus beef right here in the Hawkesbury, and have done for the last ten-odd years. And we sell all our product back through the local area, so we support the local abattoir, a local butcher, and the local farmers market. So we have a very closed loop of all of our funds that we make are spent back in the community, which we believe keeps our community a lot healthier than, you know, going off to the city or whatever and spending, you know, spending our money down there. But we believe that, you know, the Hawkesbury was, you know, Sydney's food bowl at one stage, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be.

I do a fair bit of off-farm work, and the last couple of weeks we've been putting in a few gate posts, and we've been—gate posts need to be down about 900 millimetres in the ground, and at 900 millimetres there's no moisture, absolutely none. I've been doing a little bit of work helping Graham Williams, who started the donations for farmers in the Hawkesbury, and just to bring awareness that this drought is actually in the Hawkesbury. Not only livestock owners as ourselves, I suppose we're in a bit of a unique situation where we don't own any land. So our animals that we do have are our life, our income, our superannuation, everything. We just yesterday, we lost three, two stuck in the mud, another one with some complications, and it's quite distressing.

And to hear all the talk about all the money going over the range and not a lot happening here in the Hawkesbury is quite distressing to a few people that have, you know, made their life here in the Hawkesbury with their animals. But saying that, it's not only livestock farmers, it's vegetable growers. Not many fruit growers left in the Hawkesbury, but also small business, like lawnmowers , the lawnmower shops, the guys that have ground maintenance, you know, because no one's mowed their lawn for six months. People with lawn mowing franchises or small businesses, they are really doing it tough. Fitzgerald Motors in here, like I walked in there and I thought, you know, someone in the family must have died.

They have four guys out the back as lawnmower mechanics, and there's no work. So every day you go to work and you pay some guys, you know, they'd be pretty spick and span out the back, I tell you. But they're the kind of things we just need to really be aware of here. And it's been brought to my attention that the McGrath's Hill flats treatment works is probably about to be cut for silage, and those bales of hay subsidised for local farmers, which I think is just absolutely, you know, an incredible initiative to have it here in the Hawkesbury. We've lost so many farmers since I— Came here, all the big dairies are gone except for, you know, one small dairy. The beef farms, you know, there's no one.

There's hardly anyone left. And if you want good produce that's produced in your local area, you know, we normally get through and we don't need any help. But there's a point where you go, you know what, that's, you know, this is it. And I'd just like to thank everybody getting on board and bring it to everyone's attention. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are you happy to take any questions that Council has made? I love questions Any questioners? Any questioners? Any questions, Councillor?

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you very much for that, and that's certainly a good perspective from the local farmers' point of view. You may not know, but I've got a strong interest in the local farming community as well, having spent some 20-odd years being the chairman of the commercial farmers. But what I want to ask you is, in your opinion, is farming dead in the Hawkesbury?

No, absolutely not. I think what may be on the decline is the work that the supermarkets have done in wanting everybody to buy cheaper.

Everybody knows about dairy farmers and how that they've been attacked by supermarkets to sell their $1 a litre milk. Norco's just announced that they're going to give their farmers an extra five cents a litre, and that won't be passed on to the end cost. They're going to absorb that cost themselves. Supermarkets are absolutely predatory . I know people, and you only have to go and ask a few of the local guys. Riverview Produce is one of them. 10, 000 hydroponic lettuces a week, and then the supermarket wants you to put plastic sleeves on. The contract is for 10,000 a week. Now we want you to put plastic sleeves on them. They buy $10,000 worth of plastic sleeves, then the supermarket comes back and says, No, actually, we need barcodes on them.

He said, Can we run out the last of them? They said, No. Starting tomorrow, another $10,000 worth of plastic sleeves. They come to him, they say that we want to put the lettuce on special. The supermarket doesn't take a cut on putting a product on special; the farmer does. The farmer didn't have electricity for less this week, the insurance didn't go down, the fuel didn't go down, the wage price didn't go down, but he's taking a cut on his product. And then Dave was telling me, he said, And then they wanted 2,000 more lettuces that week. And he said, Mate, I filled the contract, and you want 2,000 more. That's going to take out of the next crop. And he goes, Do you want your contract or not?

And then they sent in some of the best lettuce he reckoned he'd ever produced, and they didn't tell him that they'd already filled the orders that week. And the bloke rang him up and said, Mate, I can't take the lettuce, they're no good. After he dropped them, unloaded them, and come home, and that's when he lost it. His wife was in tears, and he said, I've always provided for this family, and I will continue. And hence they have an on-farm shop and a feed supply place now. And that story goes through a lot of the veggie farmers throughout the whole of the Hawkesbury. Mushroom growers, exactly the same situation. There's a very good video that that's doing circulation on social media now about how a supermarket wrecks a town.

They promise jobs, and now what do we have? You all got a job. You can all go and check out your own stuff. They're not interested in the local community. They're interested in making money. There's guys that produce top quality vegetables here in the Hawkesbury. Those vegetables are trucked off to a distribution centre and not even sold back through the Hawkesbury. The only way you can get the product that is grown right here and the freshest stuff is to support those local green grocers and ask them whether those zucchinis come from here, does that corn come from here, the Richmond Good Food Market. And if we want agriculture to stay, it's for everybody has a choice every time you put your hand in your pocket.

Some people come to me and say, Why is your product more expensive than the supermarket? Luckily I have a couple of customers around me at that time and I just let them go for it , because we don't have the economy of scale. I'm not ripping anybody off. You know, I don't put someone in a contract and then tell them that I'm going to pay half as much this week. You know, I pay full cost. I don't do many bodies of beef. I pay full cost at the abattoir. That employs people in the local area. I support a local butcher, which I believe that, like, you would know, you've been here for long enough, that where all the butcher shops? They're gone. There's only a couple left, and they prided themselves on the quality of their product that they sell.

And same with the green grocers that are left. I think there's one in Richmond and one in North Richmond. But it's up to us. To go, if we want it to stay and we want the Hawkesbury like it was, you know, I've only been here for 23 years. I'm not really a local. I'm a long way off being a local. But, you know, you see those great cabbages and those fields of, you know, vegetables, and it's fresh and it, you know, and then they send it to wherever and we don't even get to eat it. But if, you know, if we support each and every one of them, it'll come back. And there's some people here doing some wonderful stuff. You know, like you've got Five Serves that are doing organic veggie boxes, Aaron Brocken up at Bilpin, you've got all those apples up in Bilpin, and, well, there's only a quarter of those farms left now.

And we don't really appreciate as much as we really should the products that we have right here that, you know, it's 15 minutes down the road. They can't get that in the city. We can.

Thank you. Thanks so much. Thanks very much. That was great. That's a really good presentation of what the situation is.

Thank you. Our second speaker is Sally-Ann Eather.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councillors and members of the public. My name's Sally-Ann Ether. I'm born and bred in the Hawkesbury, and with a name like Ether, you can imagine how far back that goes. I'm a second year sustainable agriculture and food security student at Western Sydney University Hawkesbury campus. So my degree is about working out where is our food going to come from with urbanisation, climate change, and other issues such as foreign ownership of farms. However, I'm here tonight to speak on as a representative of Hawkesbury District Drought Relief. It was a collaboration between Mr. Graham Williams, who initiated the events, and his charity partners, Lions Club, and it was— Also, with the newly formed Western Sydney University Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security-led committee, Hawkesbury Collective, of which I'm a member, as well as the Richmond Good Food Market , and has been supported by the Western Sydney academics and council.

Thank you very much. But please keep in mind that all of the stakeholders from Hawkesbury District Drought Relief are coming from different angles, but with the same agenda, to assist the local drought-affected livestock and families. So the national media's exposure of the drought has created awareness and community support for our farmers, but it's been showcasing the typical country drought images from across the mountain range, and many city folk don't realise that the drought is here in the peri-urban ag landscape. So the first event for Hawkesbury District Drought Relief was held by Graham Williams on his own, and it was at the Hawkesbury Showground on the weekend of the 18th and 19th of August, where he collected feed and other items and financial donations, which was distributed within 48 hours.

And this was one of the first initiatives to raise awareness of the drought in the local area and how it was affecting the local farmers. So at the same time, the student-led committee, Hawkesbury Collective, was establishing — we're very new — and we were collaborating with Vanessa from Richmond Good Food Markets to hold an event for the same cause, which is obviously supporting the local drought-affected farmers. So when we heard about Graham, we've collaborated with him. And then on the 1st of September, we held an event at the Good Food Markets. So at the farmers market event, collection buckets were provided by Lions Club of Richmond, and that were pretty much filled. Stallholders donated some of their earnings, and Hawkesbury Collective stall held a raffle.

Eliza McLaren, Alastair's daughter, even brought the farm to the markets with her petting zoo of potty lambs. The response that we received from the community. was greater than any of us could have imagined. In total, we earned $8,332.65. That's not bad for coming together within like two weeks for the event. And there was also bags of feed and jumpers for Eliza's lambs. So these contributions were from the local community, storeholders and entertainers on the day as well as other corporate sponsors. So the generosity of the local community has been astounding, and Hawkesbury District Drought Relief recognises the responsibility to all of those who have donated to ensure that the money is spent in a fair and unbiased manner on feed that is purchased at the best price to ensure that we help as many local drought-affected farmers as needed.

So therefore, we have kept open the cut-off date to apply for assistance for the local farmers until next Tuesday, the 18th of the 9th , to allow for advertisements of the opportunity to reach local drought-affected farmers that we personally don't know of to make themselves known to us, and they can do that by emailing hawkesburyddr@gmail.com.au to receive an application form to be submitted by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, 18th of September 2018. So in the meantime, Hawkesbury District Drought Relief have sourced animal grade food waste streams from food rescue hubs and have linked drought-affected families that we know of to food support agencies. However, we look forward to distributing the feed to assist the animals.

So as a representative of Hawkesbury District Drought Relief, we'd like to thank Council for acknowledging how severe the drought is in the local region. And also encourage you to understand that with other pressures such as electricity costs, land values, loss of peri-urban landscape, the Hawkesbury farmers have their own unique set of issues that they are facing. And I encourage you to allow this amazing proposal to be passed so the Council can help their own residents. So to elaborate on what Alastair had mentioned, the local area has always been the food bowl of Sydney, even prior to colonisation, and that's got to do with the fertile floodplains. And there are many of us who intend to maintain that title of Sydney's food bowl.

And through the Hawkesbury District Drought Relief, the community has shown that although urbanisation is at our doorstep, we are still a rural village like the one that I grew up in. So the only other thing that I'd really like to add is that with the media's exposure of the drought, I feel that there's been a fair bit of negative publicity about Australia's ag industry , but there's been many positives with this as well. And I feel that they should be publicised, such as farmers who are communicating the hard facts like Alastair is, and being proactive to connect the consumers with the land. The farmers who have adopted progressive farming methods such as regenerative farming, and also how communities are pulling together in solidarity and with compassion, which is what the Hawkesbury has shown us in the less than a month since Hawkesbury District Drought Relief has been going.

So thank you.

Thank you so much, Mrs. Ether. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions, councillors? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Miss Ether, thanks very much for that. That was quite a nice

Overview of the total situation.

Apart from relief... For the moment, which is dire and intense, as we know, and many farmers, particularly grazing farmers, but others as well, and the support industry suffering at the moment. What can we do beyond this to help the farming community in this area? What should we do? What can we do? Because there's an awful lot of negativity, and we heard from Alastair that a lot of people are leaving the farm, and why would that be apart from, you know, there's not much money in it. But do you think we do as a council do enough for the Hawkesbury farmers?

For the Hawkesbury, and that's all I can

Speak of , that's all I know, being from... Just pop the microphone on so we get that recorded. Thanks. Sorry.

So being from the Hawkesbury, and that's all I can speak of as I'm an agricultural student, second year only, and I'm born and bred from the Hawkesbury. So what we can do individually is to shop local, and to elaborate on what Alastair said is to find out where your food is coming from. There's benefits of doing that, and that is that there's less food miles. The food is fresher, it's generally seasonal, and it's supporting the local economy and the local community, and it's keeping the money within the local area. I believe that we could promote the Sydney's Food Bowl title and create a brand for our food. Another thing is to, I guess, promote agricultural tourism , possibly have food festivals. There's many things. I guess it's about being creative and collaborative as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you. That was our final speaker on that. Councillor Rasmussen. Move that motion, Madam Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Garrow. Discussion? Councillor

Rasmussen

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, this is a great initiative of Council and this particular Council. This Council is doing a lot of good things, and this is clearly one of the good things that this Council is doing and has adopted, or wants to do, assuming it’s passed tonight. I hope it does. Everybody will support it, I hope. We’ve just heard how the farming community, particularly some of them, are struggling—not struggling so much, but are hurting because of the drought. And I know that from my own circumstances. But at the end of the day, what we’ve got to do is to take not only an immediate view of what needs to be done, and we are doing that, but also, in my view, a longer-term view of farming in the Hawkesbury.

As we’ve just heard, you know, we have got a wonderful situation here. If you wanted to design a perfect setup for a very large capital city, what you would do is you’d have a big harbour, you’d have a big basin, you’d have a mountain range and a big river flowing around it, and you’d have a lot of farmers in between. And guess what? I think that’s called Sydney. You know, it doesn’t come much better in terms of farming close to a big market, close to everything, and the food miles, the food kilometres, as we say, is just outstandingly economical. So if we can’t get that in this Hawkesbury area, we can’t get that, we are sitting right on top of one of the best opportunities this area has ever had, then I think we’re missing something serious.

Important here. So, Madam Mayor, I think, and the other thing I would just like to point out that I don't know how many of you noticed the Hawkesbury River lately, but come up to Yarramundi Bridge and stand on the bridge up there and look down. You'll see a lot of trees, bushes, woody bushes growing in the main channel of the river. That's not because the river is six, seven, eight feet deep with water or ten metres deep with water. It's because there's hardly any flow in the river, hardly any flow. And this is just coming in, well, we're into spring now. Now as we move further and further into summer, guess what's going to happen to that water flow? Now what that means in terms of farmers, and I know that really well because I've been involved with this for 20-odd years, is that there is a plan called the Water Sharing Plan.

And within that Water Sharing Plan, once the river gets to a certain level, and that usually happens normally in summertime, and I think this summer it's going to be even worse, is that farmers will be required to cease to pump.

Cease to pump, right? Now a vast majority of the farmers have their pumps facing the river for obvious reasons. Cease to pumps means that nothing gets watered. Now imagine the impact of that. Imagine the impact of that. So what I'm saying is that we've got to be very mindful of the fact that we are heading into some very serious conditions. Farmers are struggling now, and if this drought continues on, then there will be serious impacts come summertime or soon after. So, Madam Mayor, I think this is a great initiative, and I certainly hope the councillors can find it within themselves to support this, and that we get on with it and we advertise it and we make farmers know what we are actually trying to do here to help them get through this very, very difficult period.

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to touch on something that Councillor Rasmussen just said about advertising what we're doing, and maybe make a point eight in the recommendation to have a concentrated social media campaign with awareness of the drought and its impacts on our local area, and secondly, what the Hawkesbury Council is actually doing financially to assist. So if you would endorse that.

Councillor Richards, I think that's a great idea, and I thank you for that. I would love to add that to it

Fantastic.

Councillor Garrow. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Richards

Thank you. I just wanted to only add a couple more points and just congratulate the two speakers that actually addressed us tonight, because not only did they do so so well, but I think they presented all of us here tonight with so much information that I didn't even know. Not how it was just impacting the local, what we would classify as a farmer being someone working on the land, but those industries who also live off that, you know, for example, the lawn mowing business. So I think that it's extremely important for us to be aware how broad the scope of a drought actually is to impacting other small businesses. So I just want to thank the speakers for sharing their knowledge tonight and presenting us with that information.

And I think this is a great initiative of Council. I congratulate them in making sure we make some sort of a financial contribution. I think that this is the perfect way to go. I know we debated this in a briefing, so I think what's come up in the report tonight really is a good place to start, and I think that this is a wonderful thing that we should all get behind. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Richards. Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Firstly, I want to thank the staff for pulling such a well thought out proposal together. When I threw up an urgency motion a couple of weeks ago, it was fairly amorphous. It was a bit of a, we need to do something. And now we've got a plan. I think that we've heard from the farming community that is a workable plan. So thank you for your efforts. I know it wasn't easy, and you did it in a very short turnaround time . What we've heard, I think, particularly from Alistair, is what the impacts of drought actually look like on the ground. We've seen the images of farmers and the impacts on animals and of dry paddocks, but I think Alistair has really brought home that this impacts on the whole community.

So he's got kids that are going to school who've already done three hours' work each morning doing farm chores and feeding potty lambs, and they're coming home and doing it again. Those kids are tired before they even start the day at school. We've got families who are doing without because their income streams are seriously cut, and I understand that well. My husband— Mows lawns part-time for a living. He cut his first lawn today. That's the first time he's worked in seven weeks. So it does have a really big impact on family incomes. But what we've heard from both speakers, I think, is that we now have to make some choices about whether we want to retain agriculture in the Hawkesbury or not.

You know, we all have to make choices to keep agriculture here. Some of those choices, some of the easiest of those choices, are what we do with our purchasing power. Buy less junk and buy more from the farmers' market. Today, we've all been given a keep cup with Wake Up Fresh—sorry, with Wake Up With—as part of the tourist marketing campaign. And for Hawkesbury, that's our little slogan is Wake Up Fresh. And that's an acknowledgement of our long history and tradition of food production. But if we don't do something to maintain the farms that are in the area, we're not going to be waking up fresh at all. We're just going to be waking up to suburbia. So I think this highlights that this council really does need to make some hard decisions about what we do.

I don't think this is a hard decision. This is an easy decision. But it's part of a suite of decisions that we're going to need to make. One day Sydney's going to wake up hungry, and it's going to wonder what it's going to eat. If we continue to undervalue farming, if we continue to divide up agricultural land, if we continue to grow roofs instead of food, then we're all going to wake up hungry . The future of farming we've seen tonight, I think, that's sustainable small farms that sell local and sustainable agricultural students like Mrs. Ether. I went to the first meeting of the student collective a couple of weeks ago, and there was the most extraordinary energy in that room of people who understand what it's going to take to provide food into the 21st century with increasing With increasing drought, with increasing difficult weather patterns, with increasing heat

What we also haven't seen yet, but some organisations are already seeing, is that the drought is impacting on little pockets where you wouldn't normally think. So a charity, a homeless charity, told me this week that the drought is impacting on them, not directly, but because everyone's donating to the drought, with the very best of intentions, and they've stopped donating to them. So they've really struggled to pay their expenses, storage expenses, rental expenses, fuel expenses, because their donations have dried up. So there's big problems that are coming, I think. So I think we need to be aware of it. I'm really pleased to see the point eight, that we run a really concentrated social media. This devastating drought can actually be a community building process, and I think this is where we get to really focus on the future of the Hawkesbury, and I think part of that future is farming.

Thank you, Councillor

Wheeler. Further discussion? Before we go to right of reply, I'd like to also add my congratulations to both the speakers, but also for holding that event. I know how quickly you put it together, and it was a wonderful achievement. And as Councillor Wheeler just said, people are being asked to donate to a lot of things at the moment. There's a lot of campaigns. There's a lot of issues that are requiring the community to rally together and put in money. So I think it's really good that we've got a council-driven initiative, and hopefully that will continue to support our local farmers in particular. I'd also like to confirm what Councillor Wheeler just said, in that we really do have to take some hard looks at what we're going to do about the retention of agriculture and ensuring that our agricultural industry is resilient, as the rest of the community needs to be, in the face of the current conditions, both weather-wise and economic considerations.

So I think that we know there's been a permanent change to farming in this area, but we have to capitalise on what we can still do, and especially for the adaptive new types of farming, we need to encourage and support that so that we can continue to be a provider of food for the greater Sydney basin. So thank you again for coming. I think that having an insight from someone who lives and breathes it every day is really valuable to us, and thank you so much for doing that. We know how tough it is. I'm from the country. I know how tough it is to be involved in farming. So thank you again, and I will go to right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Not necessary, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

We'll put the motion with the additional point that was added on by Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

The motion is carried. Next item is item 227. We have one speaker, Bill Sneddon. Oh, sorry, Councillor Reynolds, read your conflict of interest first, please. In

The significance non-pecuniary, the bridging question is but far from my place. I'll leave the room because I think that this might spill over into the project itself, so I'll go outside.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

We have one speaker, Bill Sneddon.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, staff and gallery. In speaking to this motion, I wish to note the long saga involving the Windsor Bridge project, 10 years and counting of what was touted as a flagship legacy project for the Hawkesbury. However, I have concern that our most senior councillor, in raising the bridge matters again, is showing lack of empathy towards his fellow councillors in the now voting minority in this council chamber. Whilst I do agree with the need to retain the old bridge and its Thompson Square context, we're being deluged with bridge and square details from those opposed to this flawed RMS project. And in fact, I thought that the matters raised in this notice of motion were actually already on council's agenda.

However, appearing what appears to be the same old, same old can be distressing. So Councillor Ross should be showing more regard for his minority fellow councillors who have recently indicated distress at having to deal with agenda items their vote will be unable to change. Our democracy is a wonderful governing instrument. At least that's what I was taught in high school and I believe that. But it's also messy and inconvenient. When we don't all agree with the majority vote, though, the duty of our elected office holders requires informed consent and participation in the process. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Snedden. Are you happy to take questions? Yes

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr Snedden? No questions. Thank you. That was our only speaker on that item, Councillor Ross.

Good evening.

Do you wish to move your motion, and I'll call for a seconder?

Yes, I wish to move notice of motion one this evening, if I may, please.

A seconder for Councillor Ross. Seconder, Councillor Wheeler. Thank you, Councillor Ross.

The reason for bringing this forward this evening is that although there was a similar matter raised slightly over 12 months ago, on that particular occasion council was asking for support in retaining the existing bridge,

And the responses received came from the National Trust, the Royal Australian Historical Society, and the Heritage Council, New South Wales. The National Trust and the Royal Australian Historic Society all

Wish the current bridge to be retained in toto for its heritage values. The Heritage Council stopped short of saying that, but noted that the structure is on

The RMS Heritage Register. And declined to make any further comment. The

Situation with that original Notice of Motion was that it had not garnered any response from the RMS.

And I think that that matter is now, if you like, passed with not only the effluxion of time, but with more recent events, most notably

The parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry emphatically declared that the existing bridge should be retained as is, in situ, for its heritage values and be utilised in other ways as the community had already indicated would be beneficial, for a walking path, cycling, possibly markets, or even potentially lightweight traffic, but also as a means of pleasant access to Macquarie Park.

The effect of the parliamentary inquiry really is that,

As it has taken a great deal of evidence. Both from recognised engineering and consulting folk, in addition to the government

Departments who, Planning and Roads and Maritime, have come out in favour of its retention, which aligns with our community expectations, I believe.

The possibility, as had been freely claimed by RMS, that the structure would pose, if you like, a risk to any new structure erected further downstream has been firmly rejected by the inquiry.

I believe that the basis of this

Notice of motion is that fact, and that having completely scotched that line of proposition , if you like, or opinion , with eminent engineers and so forth, that it is time for this Council to

Take a firm stance in regard to the heritage assets that lie within and adjacent to the Thompson Square precinct. We are having

A great deal of angst caused right throughout the community with the so-called salvage works that are going on both on land and in the river, and that retention of the bridge

Becomes a vital element because , as everyone here would appreciate, all that had been offered, if you like in inverted commas, through the processes to date has been that a span of the bridge would be retained on the southern bank as a viewing platform.

We, as a council, have already expressed our displeasure at that suggestion, and I believe that in view of the Upper House inquiry, it is time for council to stiffen its back somewhat and resolutely

Solicit the retention of the full bridge for its own historic attributes, which are many, and they have been recognised both in terms of the way it was constructed, the techniques that were used in its construction, the rather unique— manner in which it was upgraded in later days in the early 1900s. And it will also enable a better use of that area. And I would suggest eliminate some very unpleasant features I saw in a report put out by RMS in regard to the WBRP called the interpretation plan, which shows two massive stairways being erected within the current grassed area of Thompson Square to allow pedestrian access to any new structure. They, frankly, because of their size and their scale, are completely

Out of context in the area and also defy any access in terms of the less able, and that is really a great consideration. Whereas the retention of the current bridge would obviate the need for that form of access to the other side of the river. It would also be more amenable for those less able than you younger folk. And apart from that, it will deliver what was— Being considered in a previous term of Council, a project known as the Hawkesbury Horizons Project, which rather fell into disregard or abandonment really, but access from one side of the river to the other has eminent suitability both in terms of practicability and aiding the cycling , pedestrian traffic, etcetera, etcetera, and also will enable events and other measures to be staged in that area that will not otherwise be possible .

So I suggest that it's not out of step with RMS policy to retain such bridges as this. We know that they do have a policy, and this has been located in GIPA Research, which can be provided if sought, the actual documents, wherein RMS

Remediate the structure,

Continue to maintain it for a 30-year period. itself, and then handed over to the local government area. That seems like an eminently sensible and just

Solution. Yes, I think that's possibly the word. And some minor recompense for the other loss of heritage and artefacts that this area has already gone through and is likely to see going on over the next two or three years. And for that reason, I think that we need to be resolute in making a claim, and not purely, as was done a year ago, seeking support. We need to establish that we wish this asset to be retained, refurbished, and maintained it at a standard by RMS in accordance with their normal policies, and after I drop off the perch, it can be handed over to the then local government authority. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Russ. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want people present in this room to reflect on what policy you should pursue if your aim was to preserve the heritage of Windsor.

And it's easy when you're not in government to propose any harebrained scheme. And then rail against a government that says, no, that's actually a stupid idea. We can't do that. And unfortunately, that's exactly what we're facing with, we're faced with here. When I read Councillor Ross's notice of motion, I could scarcely believe my eyes. Firstly, it's deeply inconsistent, because Councillor Ross was resolute in insisting that this Council not be party to a proposal of Council retaining part ownership of part of the bridge, the first span, to be retained as a viewing platform, partly on the argument that Council would have to carry the can for the upkeep of that part of the bridge. And yet he is prepared to turn around and then say that Council should carry the can and pay the price of retaining the whole bridge, when we have been advised, when this question has come up before, that not only does the ongoing presence of the old bridge pose a safety risk to the new bridge in a time of catastrophe, but also that the costs associated with maintaining the old bridge to any standard, even if it was for pedestrian traffic, would be many millions of dollars.

So I'd like to ask Councillor Ross where in this addled scheme he proposes to get the money for Council to pay for the upkeep of the whole bridge, which is presently an RMS responsibility.

I'll put that question, Councillor Zamprogno .

Well,

Were you asking that question to Councillor Ross?

Look, I'll say that I'm asking it rhetorically in the expectation that there is no potentially sensible

Answer to it. But there is a point too in the motion I'd just point out regarding a 30-year maintenance program.

So this scheme is — Ill-conceived. Council is not in a position to take on the cost of maintaining the whole bridge. And when Councillor Ross was adamant in declaring that this Council should not take on the responsibility of even taking on a single span of the bridge for retention as a viewing platform, it was primarily on the basis that Council would have to pay for it. So I can't support this. I think it's a stupid idea.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. In the original notice of motion on the same topic,

The second point was that Council, a report would be presented to Council detailing the responses that we received from the National Trust, the Royal Australian Historical Society, etc.

Are we still going to get that report, or have I missed this report somehow? Mr. Organ.

The resolution from the previous Council meeting

Mr. Organ.

Through you, Madam Mayor, we've received some of those responses back from those organisations, but we haven't come back yet to Council with that report, but we will come back with that report. If we don't receive all of the responses, can we make shortly with the..

Thank you. My second question through you, Madam Mayor, probably to the General Manager, is that it says subsequent to receipt of any advice of support, that Council advise the RMS that it will take possession of the State Significant Windsor Bridge refurbished for the use by pedestrians and cyclists in the event the planned Option 1 bridge is constructed. Have we notified RMS of our wish to retain the bridge? Mr Conroy.

Not at this stage, no.

Right. So

Probably a question to Councillor Ross then. I thought I heard Councillor Ross say that we had not, we'd only asked for advice from these other agencies, that we actually hadn't asked for what he's proposing in point 1 of his notice of motion. I'm a bit confused why we need this current notice of motion if we already have this resolution that clearly states that we are going to advise RMS that our wish to retain this bridge.

Would you like me to request a response from Councillor Ross for that? And Councillor Ross, did you hear Councillor Clobasher's question, which was regarding your point 1? Why would that be needed as well?

If you could answer what Councillor Kotlash asked, which was what, I gather she's thinking this is a repetition of an existing resolution , but this one, of course, mentions the upper house inquiry. Councillor Ross.

I believe that because Council hadn't received replies from each of the individual people to whom it addressed correspondence, that the matter had really lapsed, and that this was the cause of a report not being generated by the staff, and as such it required , if you like, a reinvigoration at this point. Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm just a little bit confused with this whole process. It seems—I think this is a reasonably good idea. If I can remember back to the debate we had in the meeting when the first notice of motion came up, it was that to ask, to request the RMS to hand over this bridge, I thought we were going to get a report from the staff to, you know, to address what might be our responsibilities, not necessarily just about maintenance, but in terms of insurance or, you know, the practicalities of how we would actually operate this bridge. So. If that's not the case, if we're not asking for any other further information, I really, I really don't understand why, why we need, you know, this second notice of motion.

If we could add to it, and if we could add a third point about getting a report from Council, you know, with more details about how that might actually work, I think that would be a good idea.

I mean, I won't not support the notice of motion, but I just would like to get a bit more meat in the bones, if you like, about how, what sort of, you know, responsibilities we would have ongoing. So if you were to add a point three that , well, it's really only one point because we already have the others in our original notice of motion, but we could reiterate that, I suppose, and do another resolution. If we could possibly have an amendment by adding point three, which asks for a report from the staff on those various issues I mentioned before. Would that, through you, Madam Mayor, would that be acceptable? Councillor Ross.

I'd be quite amenable to that as long as we indicate firmly that the heritage asset is certainly sought to be retained by Council

In toto without any form of

Reduction in its physical qualities and structure, I concede that details such as insurance and whether RMS would wish us to be a lessee of that property or some other arrangement, I am not familiar with that. But the

RMS policy, as is known to us and has been implemented in other parts of the state, provide that the structure will be rehabilitated and that they will maintain it for a period of 30 years from rehabilitation.

And at the end of that 30-year period will allow Council to

Gain access to the property and that asset for its own purposes and thereafter to become the responsibility of Council to maintain. Thank you.

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

So just to clarify, was there anything changed in the motion or not?

There was an additional point. Were you accepting an additional point, Councillor?

Sorry,

Me? Yes, I'm happy

To accept a

Point. To accept one calling for a report back.

Yes,

We'll just see that. I'll just, while we're waiting on that, I'll just mention that the way I interpreted the notice of motion as being distinct from the previous one was that when there was the Parliament's Upper House inquiry, that it actually recommended a recommendation that was supported by all the various people on that committee from across the political spectrum, was a recommendation that that bridge actually be retained for cycle and pedestrian traffic. And that wasn't, that of course wasn't a finding when the last notice of motion came up. So when I read this, I thought it was in the context of that, that we were then again asking to go for the bridge to be retained in line with the RMS policy of the rehabilitation and 30-year maintenance program.

Councillor Connolly. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I won't be supporting the motion. I actually don't think that calling for a report after we've already advised RMS we're going to take position is all that helpful at all. I mean, we've already made the decision by the time we get the information. It seems we're doing it backwards. If we don't feel like we've got the information we need to make the decision, we shouldn't make it. We shouldn't just ask for it later and hope that it's the information we want. I would just take a little bit of issue with something Councillor Ross said, that the Upper House committee debunked the notion that the bridge needs serious work and isn't structurally sound. The committee did find no such thing.

In the committee report 1.54 says that— On the one hand, the government has asserted the structural condition of the bridge has deteriorated to such a point that demolition and replacement is the only way forward. In contrast, this is 1.55, in contrast, evidence from independent consultant and retired government bridge engineers opine the bridge would not fail in the short term and the structural inadequacies could be addressed with relatively modest expenditure. The committee's comment at 1.56: These are highly technical matters and having reviewed the evidence before it, the committee is unable to determine which side, if indeed any, presents the more robust case. Both sides present evidence from the independent and credible sources to support their claims.

So I think you've misled the council in saying that the committee said that that's not true, because the committee clearly did not say that. I find it bizarre that a committee of the upper house would make that statement, that they can't determine whether or not the government is correct, the bridge might fail in the event of a flood, and yet still recommend that we keep the bridge. I think that is contradictory in itself. However, I think it's important that we review the facts, not just rattle off what we think, because the facts are, of course, the committee was not able to find that. It did not have the evidence before it to find that the bridge is structurally sound, or that it isn't. But I think, as I said last time we debated this, I'm sure, so I won't try and repeat it all, but it's probably not the worst idea in the world that the bridge can stay if it can.

Of course, the government would tell us that it can't because of safety implications and the risk that it might fail in a flood and then impact other infrastructure, a claim the committee was not able to determine to be untrue. And of course, we don't know the financial implications of this to council, and it's all fine and well to say we'll just put it off for 30 years and I'll fall off the perch. I'm hoping, you know, no one's got any guarantee. I'd like to be here in 30 years, and I don't want to be leaving myself and future generations with a huge financial burden that we haven't quantified or made any attempt to quantify. If the government is saying right now that the bridge is at the end of its life and may fail, and the committee is unable to determine that that's untrue now, what is the situation going to be in 30 years of that bridge without any significant work, because we're saying we don't need any significant work.

What's it going to be in 30s? We don't know. We've made no attempts to quantify that before we go ahead and say, yeah, we'll have it. We talk endlessly and endlessly about cost shifting, and yet here's a very old asset the government does not want on its books, and we're saying, yeah, we'll take it. You know, we'll take it forever. We'll be responsible for it from here on in, all with the comfort that none of us are going to be held accountable for this decision because it's not going to hit us until 30 years if the government agrees. But at some point Hawkesbury ratepayers are going to be left with a huge problem if we go ahead with this, or potentially are. We don't know because we haven't checked.

We don't know because we haven't tried to quantify it. We haven't looked at that element of this at all. We're just going ahead with—we've noticed a motion on political grounds. That's all we're thinking. We're not worrying about the facts and the impacts on council and its ratepayers. So as per previously when this came up, I wouldn't be able to support it unless we actually had some facts before us.

Which we may get if we had an answer from the RMS, I expect, so we're yet to have that. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just wondering whether Councillor Ross might consider rewording his notice of motion so it says something like, point one: in light of the Upper House report, Council note its motion of 27th of June and ask that it be followed up,

And point two would become point three that's on the board at the moment.

Councillor Ross.

Yes.

Did you get that? That was to eliminate point two, to reword point one as Councillor Calvert just said, and to leave point three as point two.

I'm not quite sure why you would want to eliminate point two.

Right. Sorry. I'd be amenable to that.

Okay, so just a rewording of the point one.

Yeah.

Thank you. So is that a yes?

That's a yes to the amendment to point one. I

Just also wanted to point out that I think that point two and three attempt to answer many of the issues that Councillor Connolly put forward. I think if we get those reports, then we should be a long way towards answering his questions about maintenance and costs, which I think were the two main issues he brought up. So I don't think Councillor Ross is saying we should ignore the cost or that cost is not important. I think he's asking for the reports to give us more information on those issues. So on the basis of that, I would think you shouldn't have many difficulties supporting this motion.

Further discussion.

Councillor Richards. Councillor Calvert just took the wind out of my sails, so I'm now trying to think about it. I, yeah, the wording was bothering me in point one, and I actually had no intention tonight to say a lot on this, apart from a couple of... Sentences , but I wanted, I guess before I say a bit more, can we get the amended motion now up? The point one

Because my issue with point one was that council, the word will, council will take possession without any quantifying of what that liability would mean. So I know that that's now being changed, so

You beat me to it.

That was my biggest issue there, but I clearly won't be supporting this motion for reasons that are quite well known. But I go ahead and ask, ask the RMS, ask them what they— put your question to them and see what you get back. So there's nothing wrong with that. But I certainly don't support the idea. The other thing I just want to touch base on quickly and put on record is this idea of the community. This has probably been, in the history of political things and decisions for a very long time, the most decisive thing in our community. It has seen people on either side of the fence absolutely doing things that are appalling in the name of defending the project. And so I think that, I mean, I know there's issues going on outside of this debate where we've said this has to stop, and it does have to stop because I don't think either side can speak for the community, because the community is divided.

You have people for this project, you have people against this project. So I think that no one can claim that they speak for the community because people are contacting me personally, stopping me in the street. You look at, I mean, I've said it before, our Gazette comments, anything of an indicator? I don't. No, I don't think it's statistically valid, but unfortunately the, I mean, the comments are saying build the bridge. So I don't want to get into a huge drama about this. I think we already know the outcome of this motion, quite frankly, every time a bridge motion comes up. So as I said, go ahead and ask the RMS and let's see what they say. However, I won't be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Further discussion?

Is that the, yeah, that's the changed wording. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Madam Mayor. I'm glad to see that we actually have had some responses to the questions that we asked in July last year. I'm a little bit dismayed to see that they came in in September at August, and we are now viewing them this evening. It might have been nice to have them a little bit earlier in the piece.

One of the things I want to note here is the really poor stakeholder engagement from the RMS with regard to this project from start to finish, and I think that part of Councillor Ross's intention in this notice of motion is for Council to make much clearer statements to the RMS about what we now expect in this precinct, this incredibly important heritage of national significance in this precinct. What we've seen with the RMS is that if you play their game a little bit, your intentions can be deeply misconstrued, and we've seen that with Council's Heritage Advisory Committee in the last few weeks, where we requested a site visit to see the drainage system, and we went along. We spent half an hour on site.

No member of the Heritage Advisory Committee, and I've asked them directly, felt that they were there to consult about the future of that drainage system. No one was asked. We viewed the drains. People talked about how important they were. People were obviously deeply moved by the visit, by what they saw, and by what the RMS and the state government's intentions are with those drains. At no stage was anyone asked for an opinion or able to give one. It was purely a show-and-tell exercise. The RMS is now presenting that little activity as engagement and stakeholder consultation with Council's Heritage Advisory Committee and with the councillors who attended in the hour afterwards. That's the sort of garbage that we're getting from the RMS on this project.

That's why Councillor Ross is moving motions like this, however inconvenient or ill-timed they, or lacking in background information, they may be perceived to be. Because if we don't start making really clear, definitive statements to the RMS now, we are going to be further railroaded. Last week, they removed those magnificent box drains. There is a little portion of them left that you can see if you stick your head over the top of the fence. They weren't removed and numbered piece by piece. The first 20 or 30 of them were. The rest of them were tossed into plastic containers. Many of them were broken. They've been loaded into big containers, and we don't know what they're going to do with them because they haven't asked us if we would like them.

We are the key stakeholder, and no one's asked us. So who are they consulting with if it's not us? So when it comes to the retention of the state heritage listed Windsor Bridge, I think we are quite within our rights to make very clear statements about what we want done with it. The RMS has done this in other communities, and they've done it and maintained the bridge for the next 20 or 30 years, in most instances 30 years. It's only in the Hawkesbury that they've got long pockets and short arms. Why, given the depth, the age, and the incredibly good condition of the heritage of this precinct, are we treated so shabbily?

What we have here is the potential for a useful community asset, much easier to access, much safer for pedestrians if they don't have to walk next to vehicles, much easier to walk on a flatter bridge if that was the main cycle and pedestrian access. We wouldn't have to have the big hideous abutments on the side of the bridge with ramps on them. This would be a good outcome for everybody. The parliamentary inquiry did find that the bridge really didn't need to be removed, a finding that was supported by both the Liberal and National Party members. And I can't quite quote Robert Brown, the chairman, on the findings or on the recommendation to remove the bridge, because I'm not allowed to swear in here.

But he clearly is subject to different rules. Old call BS on that was the quote from the chairman on ABC Radio after the inquiry findings were released. So I think it's time we stood up and said, this is a community asset. This is ours. This is a significant piece of infrastructure and heritage, and we want to keep it. And not only do we want to keep it, we want the RMS to pay for it to start with. You let it run down. You failed to maintain it for more than a decade. Fix it, give it back, and let the community use what's rightly theirs. Thank you

Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? Just

A question, if I could.

Councillor Conolly.

I just want to clarify in point one, what is it we're following up on? Because I'm reading the motion of 27 June 17, and I think we've got all the replies.

No, we don't have all the replies. We don't have the reply from the RMS.

Where does it say to write to the RMS? From Engineers Australia.

Oh, from Engineers Australia, sorry.

Right. Okay. All right. Well, I mean, is Council— I would be surprised that Council was of a mind to wait for the reply from Engineers Australia rather than proceed with a report to Council, given that this has been ignored by— not been brought back to Council by staff for over a year. So is the intent—I just want to clarify—is the intent that we're waiting for a reply from Engineers Australia or that we bring a report back?

Mr Conroy . We'll try and get a response and then bring a report regardless, I would think, whether that response is forthcoming or not. Further discussion? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I guess when I saw that notice of motion, to me the new information, as you pointed out, was the firm recommendation by the Upper House inquiry to the effect of wanting to—or the bridge should be retained. That's the new bit of information, and that therefore makes it sensible for us to move on that and use that as a starting platform to actually reinforce the fact that our intention is to retain this historic bridge. And it seems to me that... We shouldn't have a problem with making it very clear, as Councillor Wheeler said, that we as a council want this bridge to be retained for lots of reasons: historic, tourism. I mean, tourism is one of our major planks for our strategies going forward, and I think that's a great idea, and we should all support that.

This is a great tourism icon, or could be and will be. So why we would be worried about having another motion on this important topic, I have no idea, but some of us clearly are, have. And the other thing is that possible possession. That sounds pretty lukewarm to me. You know, there's not a lot of, let's get action, let's get some action done on this, let's make some positive statements about that, or this bridge or this historic bridge. Possible possession. That sounds like a, dare I say it, a committee from one of those TV shows that doesn't really go anywhere. So I would be in favour of retaining, Council will, but maybe change the wording so that, you know, we would like to signal a clear intention of council to actually take possession of this bridge following the RMS renovation of the bridge up to appropriate standards, and that maintain it for the 30 years as Councillor Ross previously put.

Now, why, why some of us would be worried about that 30-year funding history or potential history from the RMS, I don't know. I mean, after 30 years, I am absolutely certain that this community will come to love that bridge, and if there is an issue of ongoing funding for it, should there be, I don't think there would be, then that's the time to be dealing with or talking to the community about how we might fund it through other means, grants or whatever. And I don't, I mean, in 30 years' time, this is, I mean, it is an icon now. Add another 30 years to it and it'll be a national icon, and people will want to be here and donate to it and make sure the bridge stays in a condition suitable for use.

I think it was Councillor Connelly said, it's the end of life of this bridge and it may fail. Now, clearly that can't be so. That can't be so, because if it was, then that bridge should be closed now, or at least we should be reducing the load on the bridge or the traffic on the bridge or both. Clearly. So that can't be the case. So the bridge is in reasonable nick, but it does need some TLC, of course it does. After that many years, who doesn't? I mean, most of us who are that sort of age would need lots of TLC, and there's probably only one here, and that's about me, would be that age. But all I'm saying is Councillor Connelly's probably reached out a little bit there. He probably knows he's overreached on that, but let him stay with that.

Let him stay with that. He's a

Young bloke. Yeah, he's

Got youth on his side. I also didn't say it, I read it out from the report, Councillor Rasmussen. End of life and may fail, I read it down. Anyway, so let's stay with that. But I don't find it surprising that Councillor Ross would put such a motion forward because I think we do need to be positive and we do need to have action statements in our notice of motion and the resolutions that we pass, and just leaving it to be a Possible possession. That sounds familiar to me, or anyone else? Yes, Minister, or something like that.

So were you suggesting a wording change as well, or a reversion to the original, or?

I don't know. That's up to Councillor Ross. He was listening. He's paying very close attention, I know, made some notes, so he may want to amend his motion. I'll leave that to him, because at the end of the day, it's his motion.

Councillor Ross. Councillor Zamprogno.

Apologies, Madam Mayor, it was just a question. I was wondering, I guess I wanted to follow up on a point that I'd made earlier. Could our Director of Infrastructure perhaps remind us of the history of this? I seem to recall that this question had been posed, that the RMS had made a response about the engineering and safety reasons why they did not support the retention of the old bridge next to the new bridge, and also put a figure on the cost of the upgrade and upkeep of the old bridge in any case.

Mr Organ.

Through you, Madam Mayor, my recollection is that the RMS's advice was that they were concerned with the structural stability of the bridge in a flood. These are RMS words. Excuse me.

And that was their concern with that, and their advice was they would not retain the bridge. I think that was the advice was provided to council verbally at least.

I seem to recall that a dollar figure was attached to that suggestion

I can't recall a dollar figure. What I can recall is the RMS's advice that they would not retain the bridge. There was a dollar amount which was indicated on the retention of a single span. That was an estimate that we made of approximately $30,000 a year from memory to retain and maintain that single span after it was refurbished.

At your indulgence, Madam Mayor, just a follow-up. I know that this Council had resolved that we would not support the retention of the first span of the bridges of Ewing Platform. Could I ask the GM or Mr O'Rourke for an update about whether the RMS are proceeding regardless of Council's resolution and that their current plans still incorporate the retention of the first span?

Mr O'Rourke.

The latest verbal advice I'd had from RMS is that there's nothing to change that, is that the bridge would be demolished in its entirety.

Just with regard to Councillor Rasmussen's suggestion, because the second point is actually requesting that we do request the RMS renovate the bridge, is your first point sort of conditional on the second, is the question I had for you. So we're requesting the bridge anyway , but do we first want to establish whether they're going to renovate it and pay for it? That's what I think is the outstanding question that needs clarity in the wording.

Councillor Calvert. Well , Councillor Ross is thinking.

Madam Mayor, I just wanted to point out those words possible possession didn't come from me. They sort of showed up in the translation somewhere. I was saying that we refer to the resolution of 27 June and follow up with the RMS in respect to... Advising the RMS it'll take possession of the historic Windsor Bridge. So that's what I meant by, in my change of words, just to note there was a previous motion and refer to it, that's all. I wasn't trying to water down what Councillor Ross had put forward.

Okay, Councillor Ross, are you happy with it as it is, or you wish words removed?

Look, I'm very much more in favour of— I

Think the sentiment is still there.

The sentiments of Councillor Calvert. I think the addition of this possible possession is a

Grave lessening of our intent. It eliminates our intent.

Well, if we could just take out the possible, just take the possible out and just leave possession. Yes

Take possession, if—

Yeah

Now, I'm not quite sure as to

I believe we want to take possession of the bridge, and we hold them to their recognised

Existing

Policies in regard to such significant assets of historic nature.

Councillor Wheeler? Could we tidy up the grammar, please?

I think me too. I do,

Because I'm the seconder, so I get to have good grammar.

Councillor Kotlash. Thanks, Madam Mayor. If I could just ask for another question. In the original notice of motion, we talk about refurbishing the bridge for use by pedestrians and cyclists. In point one here, we refer to and possibly light traffic. And I just wanted to know, possibly from Mr. Organ, whether that changes the way that the RMS might refurbish the bridge, and , I mean, is that a real game changer, I guess I'm asking? Mr. Organ. I mean, it's a much bigger deal than

Without having done the detailed structural analysis of it, I would have thought that the key thing would have been the road connections at either end. If you were going to have two bridges, and one of them will be connected, then the difficulty may be in getting the road connectivity to the old bridge. So I think that would probably be the most problematic. In terms of refurbishing, I think it would be probably fairly much the same for if it was light traffic and no heavy vehicles on it

So, Councillor Ross, are you right with the wording of it now, Councillor Wheeler? No. No .

Could we perhaps amend and advise the RMS that Council requests to take possession?

In respect to taking isn't proper English. Sorry.

We could either have… we could either have advised the RMS that we… we can’t have that. That

Doesn’t work. Advise the RMS that Council… Well, we just requested a decision. Well, I just did, but they’re

Not

Appearing.

I know. I’ve given them…

Refurbished. Yes, and then I was talking to them.

That’s what I would have thought. Well, I

Don’t think…

We’re either advising the RMS that we want to take possession, or we are making contact in some way with the RMS with respect to taking possession, but I don’t know that we can have… could advise them in respect of… that we’re not advising them of anything.

Yeah.

So the verb doesn’t match

The activity. Well, with regard to the cost, I would imagine, for what Councillor Conolly and Councillor Richards are talking about, would be that it is… it would be conditional on having the 30-year maintenance and the refurbishment carried out by the RMS in accordance with RMS policy. Yeah.

Okay, so are we right on the wording? So just… Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam. I understand you’ve just said that, but where does it say that in the motion? Because nothing to link points one and two.

It is, but the point one and two link was what I… it was the conditionality of it was what I was querying before, and I was just waiting to see what this would read as. Before revisiting that.

I've just got a proposal. I'm just thinking we're going to defer this item because I'm mindful of a lot of people for the next item with children and so on. And in the meantime, the staff can draft something up from the suggestions made, and we'll revisit it after the next item, if that's okay. Everyone in favour of that? Yes. Okay. We'll then move on to the next item, and we'll come back to that one. Item 228, we—

We have one speaker, and I believe we also have a video. Is that correct, Michael?

Our speaker is Rochelle Miller.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors and community.

This is Capri. Can't

See everybody on here, but this is Capri. And this is Ivy. Say hello. Hello. And this is Jay. They are in kindergarten and year one at Ebenezer Public School. You can sit down, guys.

Getting their first lessons in politics.

I am the secretary and presenting on behalf of Ebenezer Public School P&C Association. This evening I am the voice of families and only 134 students. For item number 228 NM2, in favour of the motion that Council contact the Member of Hawkesbury, the Hon Dominic Perrottet, Roads and Transport, the New South Wales Police Force and Department of Education to request they urgently intervene with Roads and Maritime Services to request the following. Number one, as in the motion, the installation of a pedestrian crossing outside Ebenezer Public School on Sackville Road to ensure the safety of children alighting from buses and parked cars. Number two, a bus turning bay located on Clore Road in Ebenezer Park.

Number three, a permanent speed camera, particularly targeting the Sackville approach. Number four, better signage and lighting of the designer road entry onto Sackville Road. At 8:10 a.m. August 28th this year, I witnessed five-year-olds— Trying to be saved by 12 year olds. Still a bit shocked.

They were nearly hit by two vehicles in both directions.

Daily this happens. Daily parents witnesses. We have video footage we wish to show you. In this video, a mother is entering the crossing with two children, one child a student, the other of not of school age. You will see a white ute in the video drive straight through the crossing, not slowing or

Stopping at the markings,

Even when the parent has already entered, and the children are also being assisted. Drivers appear unaware they need to stop and let the children continue. Vehicles do not stop. Could you please show the video?

As you can see, the parent has stepped back onto the curb.

Sackville Road, a rural road, has ongoing evidence of continual and excessive speed violations. The speed limit's approach the school zone from 80 to 60 to 40 in a short stretch. Tozana Road approaches Sackville Road from 80 to 40 zone with no flashing lights entering the school zone. Continual growth of traffic, usage of water carters, quarry trucks, horse floats, cattle transport, trade vehicles and average vehicles. Sackville Road is unlike suburban streets who would not encounter these types of vehicle RMS don't consider these hazards or consider them. In regards to our children's safety, the correct solution needs to be applied, not only the solution that fits the regulations. In February this year, our application for a school crossing attendant was denied by the RMS.

Its denial was due to the amount of children using the crossing unassisted, being significantly under the required qualification amount. The traffic count frustratingly fell just under the requirement in the morning, but also recording well over in the afternoon. On this particular day of the entire school year, the survey times were conducted after the commencement of the school zone times and after the arrival of the first school bus drop-off opposite the school. Parents are not counted, non-school-aged children are considered, or any disabled student needing assistance to cross the road. For those of you not familiar with the RMS requirements for a school crossing supervisor, they are as follows.

The site must have an existing children's crossing, pedestrian crossing, zebra or combined crossing, children and zebra. The crossing must be used by infant and/or primary school children. The site must be located within 40 kilometre zone. The crossing must be used a minimum of 50 unaccompanied infant or primary school children per hour across a road carrying 300 passenger car units per hour within the morning and afternoon school zone times. Heavy vehicles over three tonnes and laden are counted as two passenger car units. The site must be considered a safe working environment for a school crossing supervisor. You would understand that no five-year-old has the perception to decide the outline the risk of approaching traffic, nor should a child of 12 years of age be assisting minors to cross the road when they exit the bus.

Busways allow the children to disembark on the opposite side of the road from the school. Although there is a school bus zone on the entry side, there is no kiss and drop zone or bus bay to turn into. There is room for a bus bay and turning zone on the same side of Sackville Road on Kolora Road and Ebenezer Park. If the buses could drop off the children on the same side as the school, it would largely reduce the risk of endangerment. Occupancy levels are far greater on the afternoon buses due to the safety concerns. Our point is every child matters, every school community matters, whether it is a large or country school. The only number that counts is one. One child. Please do what you can to avoid a serious accident.

Thank you, Mrs Miller. Are you happy to take any questions? Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mrs Miller. Thanks for that. Could you just run again through the requirements for the warrant?

I think we've had a lot to get through in minimum time, and I even had to take out a lot of evidence against it.

Yes, so it was how many vehicles per hour?

Per hour, 300.

300 vehicles per hour, and how many children crossing unassisted? 50 unaccompanied. 50 unaccompanied during the same hour?

Yes, that's correct. So if the child was walked to the crossing and a parent did not cross with the child, it was also counted as accompanied.

So the child has to approach the crossing on its own. Thank you.

I'd also just like to state that it's really rare for buses to drop off children on the other side of the road, especially in a high traffic area. And we have had the support of council recently updating the paint on our crossing, which has been a visual improvement, and we thank you for that. We also had some funding approved late last year to improve the walkways and the curbs, which has improved the visibility, but not the safety of the children. It has not changed in that respect. The cars are just going straight through. Thank you, Mrs Miller.

Thanks. Excuse me, Madam.

Councillor Ross.

Quick

Chair,

A couple of questions.

The school crossing is within a designated 40 kilometre... Pedestrian zone. Correct. School zone. Yeah. They are marked. Correct. By signpost. Do you have the flashing lights?

Only from the two approaches. There is a third approach from Tizana Road that has some signage, no flashing lights, and it drops from 80 to 40.

Right.

Once they enter Sackville Road, there is nothing to tell them it is a school zone. Right

Okay. The crossing itself, I gather, is painted with the white diagonal marks. It has

One line across the road because it is a children's crossing. As it's not a zebra crossing, there's no other markings.

When you say one line?

There is one line at the start of the crossing, and there are some warning lines on the side of the road, but unlike a zebra crossing, it doesn't have the zigzags coming into the crossing. There is no pre-warning of the actual stop of the crossing. The

White painted bars that you would normally see on a crossing, are they on the roadway, on the pavement?

No. No, no. It's not a zebra crossing. It's a children's crossing.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mrs Miller. Thank you, Councillor Garrow.

I just wanted to note that I have made an amendment to— So move that and a seconder for that. I set this out earlier to Council. Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. And Mr Wanchop. Councillor Garrow.

I just wanted to thank Mrs Miller and the rest of the school community for being here, and to the awesome little models that paraded around tonight, and their patience waiting for their item to come up. The concern for the safety of children attending Ebenezer Public School has been an ongoing issue for this community for over eight years. During this time, traffic on Sackville Road has only increased. Ebenezer Public School, like many rural schools, is a small school with a roll call of only 138, 34 kids. As a result, it is unable to meet the RMS warrant for installation of pedestrian crossing. To assist the safe crossing of children across Sackville Road, to meet these RMS warrants for pedestrian crossing, there must be upwards of 50 children crossing unaccompanied each day.

Fifty kids is over 36 percent of the total population of this school, and their parents are expected to let them cross the road unaccompanied in an area that the community has already identified as dangerous. What responsible parent would do that? Although this is ultimately a decision for the RMS and the Minister, we can and we should do everything to assist the people of Ebenezer Public School to highlight their request to implement four key infrastructure items the school community has identified. This notice of motion proposes that Council writes to our local Member of Parliament to request the Member make strong representation to the Minister for Roads on behalf of his constituents to achieve safety for our children.

Every single child deserves the right to get to and from school safely, whether it is two kids or 200 kids, and we have to stand up for the kids of this community

Thank you, Councillor Garrow. Further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I support the notice of motion, and of course we should be doing everything that we can. What I'd like to do in my question is to contextualise this. There are a number of schools in the district, and I recall that other schools have made similar requests. For example, I recall that the PNC of Windsor High flagged the issue of pedestrian traffic on Mulgrave Road, and then we went through a similar process of saying, right, well, how do we quantify the need? How do we advocate to RMS? How do we present it to the local traffic committee and make sure that we make the most compelling case that we can? So what I'd like to know is— As dire as the situation is at Ebenezer School, do we have evidence of other schools in the district that are facing a similar issue, and as worthy as the issue is at Ebenezer, potentially are there other schools for which the situation is even more acute?

And if we're going to make an effort on, in a particular case, is it actually the first cab off the rank, or should we be looking at advocating for similar works at other schools in the area? I don't know if Mr. Organ could field that.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. I might just add a point to that because I also had a similar question to that, which was: are the statistics different for an RMS road to a council road? Given that Kermond School has a crossing supervisor, and I'm pretty sure 50 kids don't cross there unaccompanied ever, or never did. There's literally only a few people crossing the road there per day. So, do you know, Mr. Organ, if it's different for RMS, or Sackville Road is a council road, I gather?

Yes, Sackville Road is a regional road. It's under council's care and control. Not to my knowledge that there are a number of different anomalies. So in the past there were different standards or different applications to different schools. So some of those are historic by nature in terms of whether they had the required warrant or the standards have changed. In terms of other schools, I'd have to really take that on notice, go back through our road safety officer and just see what other itchy spots, I'll call them out there, are where there's safety issues, and then when they come back to council with a further report. Don't have that information at hand.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the motion. This issue came before us at the Local Traffic Committee, and it was quite frustrating to basically hit the brick wall of the requirements of the warrant that would allow a proper crossing out at Ebenezer School. As Councillor Garrow said, it shouldn't really matter if there's 200 kids or whether there's just two kids. Every school should have a pedestrian crossing, I think. And I take up the point Councillor Zamprogno raised where, you know, what other schools do we have that are in this situation? And I think perhaps we should consider lobbying, I don't know how, for a change in the, whether it's a legislative change or whether it's a change of policy within the agency itself, that every school, no matter how large or small, gets a pedestrian crossing.

I think that that's probably, I think, where we should be heading. It's not, in the relative scheme of things, that expensive to put in a pedestrian crossing, and I find it quite horrendous that sometimes action will only occur after there's a fatality. It's just, it's horrific to think that that is one of the prerequisites for action to occur. I'll just leave that hanging there in case Councillor Garrow or someone else wishes to make an amendment that we... I'm not sure how we would approach that. Yes.

Signed, Strand Road 5, perhaps write to the New South Wales Government requesting that every school in regional New South Wales be provided with a pedestrian crossing.

Yeah.

Zebra crossing?

Every school, not just region?

Oh yeah, every school, yeah. Yes, of course. Every school in New South Wales, yeah. Because you're, yes, you're right, Councillor Richards, there are undoubtedly small schools that aren't across the other side of the river that would be in the same boat. So yeah, good idea.

Thanks, Madam.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Conly.

You can go if you want

I was just thinking of something along those same lines. Yeah, go ahead.

I was actually going to suggest that that point five be a separate motion at another time, because this is about Ebenezer and the current problems right now, whereas that's about state government politics and policy. I think they need to be intertwined at all. So I'd prefer if we could just vote on this and we could do that another time.

That's up to the mover of the motion, which is Councillor Garrow. If it were to come at another time, I would suggest also along those lines that there be some request on the government to rethink the criteria for the allocation of the crossing supervisors, because this sort of thing shows the limitations that come with numbers-based criteria when safety isn't a factor that's considered. With the increase of traffic on Sackville Road over the years, it's obvious that there's a lot more heavy vehicle traffic, there's a lot more people live down Tezana Road, and you're seeing you come out of Tezana Road and there's nothing to tell you you're in a school zone. I mean, that sort of thing all needs to be revisited in terms of policy and so on.

But I think Councillor Conolly's right. We are dealing with a specific thing for Ebenezer with the hope of getting something done as soon as possible to eliminate your dangerous situation out there. So I'm happy to go either way with whatever Councillor Garrow decides on that.

Councillor Garrow? You're confirming it just to stay the one to four. Okay. Further discussion

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think the addition of a meeting between the parties involved is a really good idea. It hopefully will prevent this becoming one of those things where council goes into bat for something that we don't have responsibility over, and we ask and ask and ask and hope that something happens, and nothing does. And I think if we can get all the parties in the room to hear what we've just heard, that 12-year-olds are being used to get five-year-olds across the road. I mean, that's just, that's an appalling level of responsibility for a young child. I know what the traffic is like on that road because I live at the other end of it. And it's the volume of traffic on King Road, which becomes Sackville Road, is now— Appalling.

And a lot of it is heavy vehicles. A lot of it's non-local vehicles. So they've got no idea that they're coming up onto a school. They don't adhere to the speed limit in the built-up residential areas. So their chances of adhering to it at the other end of the road in a rural area are minute. I mean, it's become a racetrack. Unfortunately, Council's done some very fine roadworks at my end of the road, and that's only made it worse. It's nice to live outside of if people would just bloody slow down. I've also never seen an RMS vehicle checking anybody's speed on it. They're constantly on Wilberforce Road, and I've thought of knocking on the window and offering them endless rounds of tea and cake if they'll just come and sit up the street a bit.

So this idea of quotas is some sort of collective madness, surely. I mean, this is just something that you would do in an office and sit up there and wave your finger about and go, Oh no, they don't need one. I mean, that's just appalling. So I think they need to all be dragged into a room and hear from the people on the ground about this. This is, we've tried to get the speed limit changed outside Tractor 828 for exactly the same reason, and were met with, Oh no, it looks fine to us. Well, how about you come out on site and tell us at the end of the day, after you've watched 12-year-old kids try and save five-year-old kids, that this is all right. It's clearly not all right. So maybe we could include a site visit in that

Top point. Oh, can I? I've got something on that point.

That's fine.

Are

You finished, Councillor

Wheeler? Councillor Richards. Mayor, thank you. So Mrs Miller has obviously lobbied all of us as a council, and I have, with that email that she's sent through, sent a previous representation to Dominic on the 7th of September. They've written back already and said that they are looking into it, which is great. So this is why I think I support this as an additional point. But what I wanted to say to Rochelle is we actually communicated today and agreed on a site visit on Friday at 8.15, and I wanted to offer that invitation to every councillor who may be able to attend.

Thank

You, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Councillor Ross

Yes, sorry. The reason I said 8.15 is I'm dropping my kids to Freeman's Reach at 8, which is before they should be there anyway, and then I'm rushing over quickly to Ebenezer. Okay

Okay . Can can we— Thank you. We know this is bad. As councillors, we already know that this is an absolute dogfight here, and it's unacceptable for our community to be living like this. The people we need there are those key stakeholders that are sending letters and ticking boxes. We need them on the ground to see just how dire this situation is. So I think we need to add into this notice of motion that we invite them to a site visit as part of this convening a meeting process. So maybe add a point. Can we add a point five? Or just include it in, convene a meeting and an on-site visit between blah blah blah blah blah, or convene an on-site meeting at the school, if the school—

Are you right with that, Councillor Cutler? Thank you.

On-site visit at the school. Okay, so that would mean if one is organised for this Friday, that may not be enough time to get the agencies, so that perhaps they'll just have to be a subsequent one as well

If that's the thing . And whoever wants to come, can go

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll try and assist with a couple of things. The inquiry regarding Windsor High School, it's my understanding that RMS policy is that no high school has a supported school crossing provided. In regard to other areas of Hawkesbury LGA, I'm familiar with Kurmond, and your assertion that

There is a small— that the numbers of pedestrians at the Kurmond Public School crossing Bells Line of Road is petite , shall we say, is correct.

I would strongly urge the folk in the case of Ebenezer to clearly draw the distinction between their situation and that prevailing at Kurmond , if I can be of assistance in that regard.

It's some time since I've been active at Kurmond in that area, in that field of endeavour, and the numbers never quite got to double figures through the course of an hour or an hour and a half. But the difficulties with the passing traffic were serious and continued to be serious. And I can well appreciate the difficulty out on Sackville Road where it's possibly not even regularly observed that even a 60k speed limit is in operation, if you like. And having day-to-day experience with these young folk,

Most of the year six kids who will be heading out of that environment into a high school have pretty well got their head around things, but those younger don't. There's always the problem of a ball occurring, particularly young males as well. And I just caution you about that.

They should never be in that area without, if they're holding a ball, it has to be clasped and held tight , because it's happened even within the last two weeks, as far as I'm at the location at which I serve,

A ball goes astray. Off goes Junior, chasing it. Just a natural impulse.

There could be a human life lost as a result.

Bear those things in mind.

You've got a good case, and bear in mind that Kermond has got the facility, and you deserve of it too, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I think possibly the difference with Kermond may be the amount of traffic per hour on the road. However, I do think it's something to refer to, and I think that's why I asked the question: was it different for an RMS road to a local road, which could make the difference. I can understand what a very stressful situation it is for the community, and I remember and was part of the lobbying for a pedestrian crossing outside Kurrajong School, which took a considerable amount of time. But there is one there now, you'll be pleased to know, eventually. My youngest child's nearly finished university. It took a long time. But I did contact the local police earlier this year when the PNC contacted me, and they did say that they would increase patrols out there.

I hope that they have done more patrolling to try and reduce the speeding on that road, and I wish you all the luck and can assure you that I think it seems to be that everyone in here will certainly be supporting you to try and get a safer outcome for your children in the near future, so hopefully. Right of reply, Councillor Garrow. None needed, thank you, Mayor. None needed. We'll put the vote as it is up here of Councillor Garrow's motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

We'll now return to item 227. If— yeah , are they? Yeah, dismissed. Pete's gone

Yes, I'll be keeping that

Thank you.

We'll return to item 227. Councillor Ross, are you happy with the wording that you've been given, and if we could see that on the board as well

Yes, I believe that's a reasonable compromise, possibly a little more polite than I would have—

Polite

However, I think I would have been slightly more assertive, but never mind.

So this is what we've got, and we were up to right of reply, I think. Is that correct, unless anyone's got anything to raise on that changed wording? It was really just tidying up. It was just tidying up the wording. I think we'd all spoken on the actual motion. So everyone happy? We'll go to right of reply, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. For the stall that's in the gallery, and the benefit of our councillors,

The first lack of support was in regard to, I think, some rather spurious commentary. Yes, it is true. I voted against the retention of a single span of the bridge, because I saw that as being unacceptable and, in fact, a slap in the face with a dead mullet.

I could not come at that and felt that preservation of the whole thing or nothing. And frankly, we're entitled to preservation of the whole thing.

Thank you for that.

Now, the other councillor who made comments at, I think, 1.56 or something or other in the report didn't quite get to the recommendations of the report.

And there is a clear recommendation which suggests that , as our dear Mayor pointed out, each of the participants in the committee agreed that the bridge, now in existence, should be retained. As my dear councillor on the left has indicated, that there were some more florid terms used in regard to its possible impact on any new structure further downstream. And she is quite right in this environment to suggest that it was a little bit too colourful to be expressed here in the chamber. But a very definite affirmation that the bridge is of sound mind and body, and upon refurbishment, a life that is of a minimum of 50 years, even in a road traffic condition, and conceivably reaching into the second or third centuries with only light or pedestrian traffic.

The other arguments, rather not against this proposition, I think are not sustainable . The eminence of the folk who gave evidence at the inquiry was well and truly tested, and I think that is shown in the recommendation. of the Upper House inquiry,

And that is a significant development which took what was, if you like, a point of community contestation on unreliable sources into the area of fact, based upon highly qualified technical sources and reviews that have been conducted over the space of the inquiry and prior periods. So I've got no qualms at all in promoting

The retention of this bridge by the Hawkesbury City Council, providing the RMS, of course, comply with their own policy understandings of a refurbishment and ongoing maintenance of the structure for the 30-year period. In fact, it may also assist council in some other regards in terms of being able to offer reticulation of recycled water from South Windsor to the northern side of the river as an aid to the farmers . who are growing non-edible crops, and if that may or may not be a by-product, if it is, there is also a benefit there in a number of forms, which I think would be an additional bonus for Council. So I crave your indulgence and support, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. I'll put Councillor Ross's motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Can we have someone move the items en bloc?

Move Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour.

Next item, item 221.

Move the recommendation.

Moved Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Any discussion?

No discussion. Oh, Councillor Wheeler, sorry.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I understand what we're trying to do here and that we're trying to get some money out of this space. What I am concerned about is that this currently provides some green space and some buffer, and so what I would really like some assurance on here is that changing this land to operational land isn't going to result in further loss of tree cover along that space or cause any further visual pollution through that mole grave, McGrath's Hill precinct, which is already really severely cluttered with signage along the edges of Windsor Road.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler—Mr Conroy.

I don't think we can give an absolute assurance tonight on that. Anything that does come up would be the subject of an application, and I understand the sensitivity. Happy to brief council on any applications and things like that. But the objective is at this stage to get the land operational and take advantage of an advertising structure that's on that land that we're not getting any income for and it's been there for some years. And we'll also investigate any other commercial opportunities, but that will have to come back to council. It's not a case of trying to sneak something through the back door here tonight.

Further discussion, Councillor Ross.

I'm concerned that this has gone on ultra vires for this period of time. I'm also concerned that our staff, although they've been handling this matter and have been conversant with the situation for well in excess of a year, had not made provision in the budgetary procedure, at least for some contingency in regard to potential expenditures in this element. I just make those comments. And I , like Councillor Wheeler, feel a certain amount of ill ease in this regard, because as I understand it, the strip is effectively 25 metres in width from one roadway to the other roadway outside the RMS road reserve. My ill ease is that, for instance , I'd like to put this to staff, if I may, through you, Mayor. Yes.

Does this then give, for instance, the RMS,

Because of its conversion of status, the ability, for instance, to whack in a load checking station or a surveillance station or, shall we say— A heavy vehicle stopover or rest area even. Do either of those possibilities stand a chance of occurring?

Mr Conroy.

So the land is our land. It remains our land. It's not a road reserve. It's actually titled land, and we're proposing to change it from community operational. If RMS were of a pinion to locate some sort of vehicle checking station, they'd have to acquire the land office, or they would have to negotiate some sort of lease from us. But they could compulsorily acquire it, and we wouldn't be able to stop them from doing that in all likelihood, if there was a strategic reason why they wanted that particular location. So the other thing while we're in passing, the matter is funded out of the property reserve. So there's funds in the property reserve. The transaction in the property reserve is carried out at a quarterly review. That's the process we follow. So there's nothing untoward about the budget process. It's out of the reserve. Further discussion

Councillor Ross. But

Just to clarify things, the community title, would that land be subject to compulsory acquisition too?

What we're talking about is the classification of the land under Local Government Act, and at the moment it's classified as community land, but it's got an advertising structure on it. For that advertising structure to be operable, it needs to be operational land. So we're just changing the classification. We're not changing the title or anything like that. It's still a titled property in our name

Clear on that. What we're doing is correcting an ultra vires situation. But if the land were to remain community title, shall we say, does that still leave RMS the option of compulsorily acquiring that land regardless?

Yes, it does. Yep. And just look, ultra vires is a term that's thrown about. We inherited the land with the sign on it, and at the time we should have inherited as operational land, and we didn't do it. So it's not some sort of conscious decision that we made. It's been an administrative oversight, and we're now correcting it.

Any further discussion? I

Was just wanting to clarify that the change in status of community to operational didn't change the status of or the ability of any government agency or other agency to come in and hit us over the skull with it. Thank you.

Further discussion? Right of reply.

Councillor Conolly? Not necessary. It's a planning item. Vote with your buttons, please, on the count of three. One, two, three. Ha . There we go. For the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Tree is absent.

Our next item is item 224 , Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move point one as per the recommendation, remove the point two in the recommendation and add that Council requests a briefing on the progress of the traffic study and a recap on how the budget for the project has more than doubled since Council originally committed to it, and the briefing to include details of which other works will not take place if we commit an additional $33,000 as per the recommendation. Sorry, I didn't write that all down, so I've got it written down. I can say it again or I can give you this piece of paper if you want. Yeah.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, when this—

Hang on, you'll need a seconder first. Councillor Richards. Thank you. Councillor Conolly. Thank you.

When this project was originally brought up, it was brought up not in conjunction with, but in association with the Council's decisions on development at Kurrajong and in the investigation area, and it was one of the reports that we were to wait for before we dealt with a whole lot of applications that have since been deferred. I believe it was early 2017 we were told that the cost of this sort of study— it might have been '16, I'm sorry, but, yeah , somewhere around there— the cost of the study would be approximately $100,000, and we would have all the requirements to make the decision on the deferred applications within four to six months. We're now years later, the budget's more than doubled on this project.

I think it's time that we rein it in a bit and say let's not just throw money out without giving careful consideration. It's not to say we shouldn't do it. We probably, from the report, you would think you probably— there's enough sunk costs, we should continue with this last little bit. But I think we've got a responsibility to our ratepayers when we have projects with budgets that are more than doubling, that we actually can demonstrate that we've had a proper look at it, we've had a proper explanation as to exactly what has happened. We're satisfied that the cost-benefit of $100,000 still exists at $210,000. And that we understand, I understand Councillor Zamprogno asked for an explanation of where that money was coming from, because in the report it just says it comes from the existing budget.

The reply was that there will be funds in the existing budget by not doing other works that we might have been doing. I think as a council, before we make that decision, we want to know exactly which works we're not going to be doing that we would have otherwise done in that budget, because of course there's $33,000 there, $33,000 that we've said we're going to fund from the existing budget that we'll allocate it to something, and we don't know what before we make this decision. So, like I said, my feeling is that we probably should go ahead with this, but when we've got these huge blowouts in both time and cost, I think we've got an obligation to be looking at it more carefully than just waving on through another 33 grand on a council report.

Further discussion, or do people just want to wait until the wording is up on that?

Have a little chat amongst yourselves. Can

I ask a question You can ask a question, Councillor Kotlash.

Now I'm not going to be able to find which part it was. There was a—

Sorry.

Oh gosh, talk amongst yourselves, sorry. Keep going with it. Oh yeah, here it is. The last dot point on page 28 of the hard copy business papers says, whilst these intersections are able to accommodate future background traffic growth, they are not able to accommodate the addition of the significant future traffic associated with Redbank. Can somebody possibly Mr. Organ, tell me what background

I didn't quite get that. Mr. Organ, thanks. Did you get which one on page 28? Yep.

Yeah, the sense of that point is that the RMS improvements at those intersections would accommodate normal traffic growth, so that's, yeah, increase in trips that are running at 2 to 3 percent per year regardless of any development, people using cars more, greater car ownership, and, yeah, the dispersed development around. The second part of that is that it refers then to, obviously, if there is additional development such as Redbank, then that requires additional improvements, which is being proposed as part of that project.

It's normal traffic growth.

It's up. Any further discussion?

I

Was waiting till everyone read it.

I'd like to inquire, if I may.

Yes, Councillor Russ.

I raised in the briefing session last week that I was rather concerned at the non-inclusion of Brennan's Dam Road in any foreseen council roads program at this juncture.

Can we gather that the additional expenditure involved here will help inform us in that regard as to the traffic and possible potential future demand for traffic using that particular route and along Old Stock Route Road and so on?

I think, along with a lot of other people, notice that the volume of traffic is quite

Growing at a far more rapid rate than one might, shall we say, expect from natural increase. And one only has to look at Macquarie and George Streets in Windsor, South Windsor and Bligh Park areas to appreciate that. And it's becoming increasingly obvious that infrastructure generally, in terms of the road network, is sadly deficient.

Mr. Orkin.

The nature of a traffic model, by definition, I guess, is that it can actually be used to interpret and model what occurs as a result of any new traffic-generating developments, or against that background growth that I spoke of earlier, and identify where there are deficiencies in that road network. So it's a tool that would enable either— Understanding of whether the growth requires is forecasting. So if we get additional, yeah, 5% instead of 2% growth over a trending period, then we know we're going to have some issues there. Or alternatively, where the other roads being upgraded and intersections improved might actually diminish the need for a particular upgrade or linkage.

Thank you, Mr. Organ. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm fairly certain, I seem to remember that we've already received a briefing on stage one of the traffic study. Yeah. So I don't see the point in this motion, really. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Could I ask a question,

Please, Madam Mayor?

Yes.

In the report it refers to under funding, financial implications, it refers to the funding being made available through reallocation of funds from Council's operational traffic budgets. Could I ask what that means, please? Mr. Organ.

Council undertakes a range of traffic studies and Council itself, things like our Ebeneezer and so on, we'll do those. Council at times, if RMS doesn't. So we actually have a program which looks at our, from our asset management area, doing our local roads so that we know what the deterioration is of those from an asset management perspective. We also do works from a safety perspective from our traffic facilities budget. So both of those, the additional counts, and we would not normally do them on main roads, which is where the missing information is here. But what we could do is reallocate. The funds that we would do normally to those local traffic counts to this particular project. I believe there is some value in being able to have a good network model that still satisfy our asset management predictions.

The reality is it would probably push some of the counts that we might have done this year out by around six months.

Thank you, Mr Organ. Councillor Reynolds.

Can I just ask a question? In the experience of the directors, is it normal that the RMS would have information, the information that we're requesting, in other areas? Or is it normal there is information missing from the RMS in relation to data on traffic on roads under their jurisdiction?

Mr Organ

We've been able to get quite a bit of information from RMS through both the SCATS system, the traffic signal system, as well as various counts that they've done. It does appear to be a bit of a dearth of information on the main road network at mid-block locations. So I think that was the issue that both the consultant and council were a little bit bemused about, that there wasn't that level of information that you would have had elsewhere. So that was the missing bit of information they expected we would have when we actually trawled through all the available information from RMS.

So SMEC expected that the RMS would have that information, is that correct?

Mr Organ.

In their fee proposal, they did indicate that they may require additional counts, but they couldn't quantify that, and I think it was in verbal discussions with them that they thought that information would generally be available.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Another question, if I can. I got the impression from reading the business papers that

You or SMEC at least were expecting the RMS to do these counts and collect these data. So are we proceeding with paying for this data collection because, one, the RMS is too slow or it's all wrapped up in the planning for the bridge crossing? Mr

Organ. I'm not aware that RMS were intending to carry out these counts at this stage. It may be that something that does come out of their further investigation of the bridge crossing or additional capacity for crossing of the river and, in my view, it'd be information that they should obtain. And as we've always said through the preparation of the model, it needs to be something that is integrated and is accepted by RMS. So again, we're trying to work hand in glove with them to get that information.

Another question, if I can. Councillor Kotlash. Have we actually asked RMS for this? Can they do this data collection for us?

Mr Organ.

We haven't specifically asked them to carry out these new counts. They've provided us with everything else that they do have, but we haven't asked them specifically for this information.

Sorry, we did ask them for the information; they don't hold that, though. In those locations, and it's not as bad as though they're holding back.

But I was just trying to get to whether it would be not an unreasonable request to ask RMS to collect this data, because it's obviously going to benefit them in the long run. And since we've had a bit of a cost blowout, that would, you know, it seems to me that that would be a reasonable way forward. I guess from all of these questions that we're asking, I think I actually have to agree that we probably do need a further briefing on this matter.

I think because of the complexity of it, and because it's such an important study,

And we have spent a lot of money on it so far, that we actually come up to speed with it. So I'm sensing that that might be a good idea, and I will support the amendment. Thank you.

Thank

You,

Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I think referring back to the motion that we're actually debating and the fact that we need a briefing on why the blowout in costs might have occurred, double since Councillor Rigney planned it. Well, I think the answer to that, I think, is in the report on page 28, isn't it, as we've just been talking about. And if you go to the current situation, you go to the last sentence there, which starts off, In developing the proposal for the modelling, it was assumed that the RMS would hold the necessary traffic data volumes for the main roads network. Well, they don't hold that data for those particular traffic... Main road network. And clearly that's why we need extra money to do that work that perhaps they should have done.

And it also probably indicates, and should indicate to some of us at least who appear to listen and look, is that maybe why over the years we haven't had the attention on our roads and the main roads that we should have had, because they just don't have the data. And they've not bothered to collect the data. So maybe there are good reasons, and I think they're in the report, and why we need to go through this briefing again. Given the importance of the study, I'm concerned that this might hold up the process and the progress of this particular study. We have been waiting for it, as it's been pointed out to us on a number of occasions in this council, that we've been waiting for it for some time, and it's holding up everybody and everything and so on.

And therefore, I think we should just accept the fact that we need these, for our purposes, we need these data sets, and we need to generate them. And it's so important to us, and it's worth investing in this traffic model because it will give us a future base on which to base our, and also to argue our case for better attention to our local roads and the main roads in this area, because it is absolutely appalling, and it's been appalling for a very long time.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. I'm just interested, has there been an actual cost blowout from what we originally planned?

Look, I think the report's got most of the information. The study was originally proposed in 2016 in two stages, and there was an allocation, my recollection is, in the order of $100,000 to stage, set aside at that point. And stage one came in at around about $60,000. So there was a balance then of $40,000 to put towards stage two. We discussed stage two during the course of the preparation of the budget this year. There was an allocation of another $90,000 in the budget. Approved in the budget, which gave us a total of $130,000 for stage two. That's the $40,000 left over from the initial allocation plus the additional allocation. So it's in line with the budget. It's in line with the allocations that have been made.

And as the director has said, it wasn't unreasonable to expect that RMS would have this data for their main roads mid-block when they've got significant traffic issues. And it did come as a bit of a surprise to us that they didn't have the data. I think we need the data. We need it if for no other reason than we've got the discussions coming up on the third crossing, and we need to have that data in place. And I think the other thing is that we can fund it out of the current provisions in the budget. We'll use the funding that's been set aside for those data counts, but my intention is that we'll go back to RMS as well because we're really doing their work for them, and I think that we should be making a submission for them to fund that as well.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor

I'll move an amendment, please. Move the resolution in the business paper as the amendment. Seconder for that?

Seconder, Councillor Rasmussen.

Councillor Wheeler, did you want to speak to that?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think we've just heard from the general manager that it wasn't unreasonable to expect that this data existed. This is essentially a piece of cost shifting. This is data that's required to make decisions about our road network, but not just our road network, also planning, and increasingly as planning is done by external bodies who don't live here, who don't sit in traffic—for example, IHAPs—or staff who haven't necessarily sat in our traffic for years and years either. We really need to give them adequate information to make decisions. This is about data-driven decision making, not about—

Whatever else has been going on with the RMS, while it chooses not to collect this information on its main roads, on major routes out of Sydney, and on seriously clogged roads in the Hawkesbury, it looks like this has been ignored for quite some time. I think it's about time we picked up the baton and just ran with it. I think asking the RMS if they'll cough up is an excellent idea, but I don't hold much hope. It's good to see that they're making decisions without data. That's terrific. So no data, no community consultation. That's no wonder we're on a winning formula here. Clearly this needs to be done, and we're going to have to be the ones to do it. So let's just get on with it. Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I'll speak against the amendment, Madam Mayor. It seems disappointing that everything in this council has to go along political lines. It's not an unreasonable request that after 18 months plus of waiting for a report that was promised in four to six months, now we can't possibly hold it up for three or four weeks to have a briefing. That would be so unreasonable. We have not had a briefing, Councillor Reynolds. I take the interjection. We've had a briefing, and I'm not suggesting—that's the other point—but I'm not suggesting that each subsequent increase in the cost hasn't been reported to us. What I'm suggesting is that we had an obligation to explain how we got from $100,000, because as the general manager said when he entered the debate before, the initial allocation was $100,000.

We had a debate in this chamber. It first came up as an amendment to a development matter that we should have this traffic study and all the development— the planning proposals should wait for that traffic study. And obviously the first question I asked was, well, how much is that going to be and how long is it going to take? And the response was, in the order of $100,000, and we should be able to do all these things in the next four to six months and make these decisions. Now, I'm not suggesting that each increase hasn't been reported to us for approval. I understand that has happened every time we've had an increase; it's come back to council to say, can we spend a little bit more? I get that.

But what I'm saying is, at some point, should we not do the responsible thing and say, well, hang on, we keep getting requests for more money for this project. Does it still represent good value? Is it still, at this price, as valuable and the same cost-benefit ratio as it did at half its price? Because as the general manager said, $100,000 was put aside at that point. And when this first envisaged, there was no stage one and stage two. I think maybe the general manager— I'm not sure if you'd like to clarify, mix that up, the timeline—when it first came to us, it was a traffic study. Once we then came back with a second report saying, well, look, we need to do this in two stages. We need to look at the information we already have.

We can do that within the current budget of $100,000, and then we'll come back to you if we need more money to do the rest of it. That's what happened. It was never proposed to us that it was going to be $ 100,000. 140, sorry, 186,000. That wasn't the upfront figure. The upfront figure was 100,000.

It seems like because I've suggested it, it can't get through the council, and that's just the way it's going to be. But, well, it's not an unreasonable request to ask for a councillor briefing session for more information, but the block in here is not going to allow it, as per usual.

Further discussion, Councillor Ross. Oh, good

Try. I do recollect a councillor briefing in regard to the traffic study stage one. We have been provided that.

With all due respect to my fellow councillors,

We are bereft of good data upon which to make decisions and upon which to engage

RMS in any discussion

Regarding this so-called, in inverted commas, new, close inverted commas, crossing of the Hawkesbury River at Richmond, wherever that is to be.

It will surely also aid in this bridge

To be constructed as a result of the Redbank project ,

And it is likely to give us, I would think. Some indication as to the amount of traffic which is going to be generated, if you like, by folk coming from Kurrajong Heights and further west, as some sort of rat run or whatever if they're heading towards Penrith.

We also don't know what the impacts of the Jacaranda Ponds development may be. We are going to need all sorts of good quality data to look at all of these things and to even look at our own works programs. They should be informed by the best possible data that is current and relevant. If it costs us another few, well, okay, $33,000, if it costs us that, so be it. Because it seems to me that

The opportunity cost that would be foregone by not doing that is going to be immeasurably higher. We need the data and we need to be able to

Have information at our fingertips

Because we're being prevailed upon by the RMS and other network situations, and we don't know where we're going with the corridors issue either. Frankly, I think that's going to rear its head again within the next 12 to 18 months. And again, we will be better informed to cope with such discussions

If we have better information at our fingertips. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This debate's gone on long enough. I think we should just put it to the vote. However, I'll just quickly say that to approve this tonight would be ludicrous. I think if anyone approves this, it's an irresponsible approval of ratepayers' money without knowing more information. Councillor Conolly was right to ask for a briefing for more information. It's disappointing that when things like this are put up, and, you know, if my memory serves me correctly, I actually voted for this traffic study. I approved the traffic study on $100,000. But the consistent we need more, we need more, we need more, it's outrageous. And I don't think that councillors—it's responsible at all to just be going, Okay more, okay more, okay more, especially when we've got the staff here saying we haven't even asked the RMS yet if they can actually provide it, actually would do it for us.

Really, would do it for us. We haven't asked them if they would do it for us. Is that correct? We've asked them if they've got it. They've said no, but we haven't asked them if they'll do it for us. No. And here we—let's just, $33,000, throw it in the middle. I just think you can't go ahead with this. This is—we're not elected to do these sorts of things, especially in the era of a huge rate rise. We are so answerable to the community on this, and I think this is a terrible way to go.

Councillor Sanfroni.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to try to middle ground, if I can. I backed the idea of the traffic study at its inception, and I continue to support the principle behind it. But as Councillor Conolly said, not at any cost. And I appreciate, because of the background notes that are in the business paper, that there is a need to approve this so that the subcontractors responsible for taking that data can be accountable under the cost centre allocated for that purpose and that they can get on with their work. So the advantage of the original recommendation was that it provided that approval. However, the advantage of Councillor Connolly's motion was that it made the very reasonable suggestion that we be given a briefing on this subject. I'd like to have both, and it looks like I can't have that. So I'm going to vote for Councillor Connolly's motion and just be frustrated. Okay

Each to their own. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I've just been checking back through Council's website looking, and I think Councillor Connolly's mistaken because the actual original motion regarding a traffic study was to form a traffic working group, which was to then come back to Council with a recommendation, and that recommendation was for a traffic study in two parts.

And as the General Manager said, funding was allocated for the first part, stage one. So it was, just bear with me, October 2016. The, as the General Manager said, we funded stage one and there was $40,000 left over, which was then reallocated to stage two. There was a briefing on stage one. I remember we had a briefing at the infrastructure committee and we also had one. At normal councillors' briefing, perhaps Councillor Connolly wasn't at that briefing. Again, all the information regarding Stage 1 and the results from it are in the business paper. That the RMS, somehow or other, has planned for a crossing at Windsor,

Is planning for a corridor. I can remember in 2015, at the first meeting on corridor, when the corridor issue came up. And there was a gentleman from Transport for New South Wales and a gentleman from RMS, and we were talking about the corridor issue. And at that time it was going to be somewhere between Yarramundi Bridge and Windsor Bridge, probably between Yarramundi Bridge and North Richmond Bridge. And I said, is this in addition to the duplication of the North Richmond Bridge, which has now been resurrected as the third crossing? And he said, yes it is. And so I said, so we're going to have Yarramundi Bridge, we'll have the Redbank Crossing over Grose River. He said, yes. I said, we're going to have your corridor bridge, we're going to have the existing North Richmond Bridge, and we're going to have the duplicate North Richmond Bridge.

That's five bridges between Yarramundi Bridge and North Richmond. And he said, yes. And the question was, don't you blokes talk to each other? I then asked him where the traffic, when it crosses North Richmond Bridge, where does it go to? And the answer was Richmond. I said, no, when does it get to Richmond, where does it go? And he said, we don't know. And it's obvious they still don't know because they don't have the complete data set. Now it's not our fault that the agency is going ahead with planning for major infrastructure projects without all the information. That's not our fault. Our responsibility is to the people and to do the best job that we can for those people. Now, $33,000, okay, that's a fair amount of money.

That's almost the same amount of money that was wasted in the 2016 council elections on a referendum on wards, from memory. And it's, you know, about, you know, what, a quarter of the or a fifth of the price of council reports on dredging over the last 10 years that ended up in the garbage bin. At least this thing will have some It will have relevance, and it will be a tool that will be available to staff for years to come, not only in dealing with traffic but to dealing with planning for residential developments throughout the LGA. So it's actually an investment, and we actually get something for it. It's not something that's going to be chucked in the bin. So I support the amendment, which was the original recommendation in the paper.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. I'll speak in favour of the amendment also, and I think that, as I understand it, from what it says is that it's a reallocation of funds from something in the budget that was already going to be used for traffic counts to the traffic study, where the traffic counts are being done for the traffic study, as opposed to just being general traffic counts. So I think that it's not being taken from a project, which would be different. It's not being taken from anything else. It's actually being taken from an allocation to do traffic counts. So I don't think that that being the case, I don't think that there's an issue with reallocating the money to enable us to get on with this because- For too long we've had these gaps in information.

The gaps in the information have led us into issues with our planning and also with the provision of infrastructure. Like everyone else, I'm quite surprised that the RMS does not have this sort of information. I would have thought that they would have had information all over Western Sydney right now while there's so much going on, particularly where they've got exits out of the city area. We could wait and have a briefing and more likely probably reallocate the money after that. But as it's been pointed out, we have had a briefing on the study and we've also had a lot of questions asked tonight. I don't know what further information would come from having a briefing. It is an investment in Council's accumulation of data that we have, which maybe possibly can be used by other agencies as well if we end up having this data.

I would imagine it would be a very valuable source of data for other purposes. It is concerning to me, as Councillor Wheeler pointed out, that major decisions are being made without the requisite data to really inform the decisions that we're making, and being able to complete this traffic study is one of the major gaps that we have been calling for when we have people wanting to proceed with various developments and so on. So to slow it down now, and I know it has taken longer, but I believe that's because there hasn't been data available and so on, to slow it down now when we've invested so much to a point would mean that we would just be sitting on a partially completed traffic study, which I don't think is a responsible expenditure of ratepayer funds.

So I'll be supporting the amendment at this point. Councillor Reynolds

Question, Madam Mayor, for the Director of Infrastructure. When you said that the $33,000 would come from Money allocated for traffic counts that we were planning to do that we could postpone while we did this work. That those traffic counts, when we go back and we redo them, they're on local roads, I take it, would the information obtained through traffic counts on local roads also go into aid the traffic study and that development of the model?

Mr. Organ.

As I indicated, Council does an extensive number of traffic counts on our local roads each year anyway. That's the funding source that we would potentially use. That's already been put into the model. So that information we've been collecting over many years, one gives us also the patterns of growth. So every five years where we've got key roads. So the information that we've obtained so far is sufficient for the model for the local roads. The proposed reallocation is to, instead of doing local roads for the next six months or so, we would push that onto the main road network, if that was Council's wish.

So when we do go back and we do the counts on those local roads, they will go in and aid the traffic study as a whole? Basically all of the data that we get will be used on an ongoing basis

To inform the traffic model. So where we get growth, it will go back in. We would probably update that model every one to two years, hoping to have that capacity in-house to be able to do that. Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to ask another question. When did we find out that the RMS didn't have this information?

Mr. Organ.

Probably about six weeks ago or something like that, where we went back to them and sort - it was a bit of toing and froing to see whether there was further information. For my just add, one of the reasons the project has dragged down a little bit is it's been difficult to get the other information out of RMS. Not that they were unwilling, it was just purely a capacity of sourcing all of the data. It's there's reams and reams of it to go through. Probably about six weeks ago, we sort of got a definitive thing saying, well, no, we need to do that. We went back then to the consultants and said, Can you do the model with any veracity without that information? Their answer was no. Hence the report to Council.

Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I ask a question about what are the anticipated outcomes of Stage 2? What do we expect? What would the recommendations be to us?

Mr Organ.

The outcome of Stage 2 will be basically a model that Council can then utilise to predict. As I said, a bit hard to describe how a traffic model works, but probably the same as any other model. It's a tool that's used. So again, we'd go back, and as I said, there's two levels in this model. One's the microscopic , the large scale, so we can define and say, okay, look, if there was a release area at Bilpin, then the impact of that would be X, Y and Z on the main road network. The second part of the model that's been used is to do it at a micro level. So going to the other extreme, if there was a block of units being developed on the main road corner or on a single block of land, we could determine what the impact of that was in terms of any improvements that might be required at an intersection.

It's probably down to probably even too small. Say a school was to be proposed or some traffic generating development, you could then argue that an intersection upgrade would be required. So similarly for a subdivision or any other traffic generating development.

The model doesn't— It won't be giving us any suggested extra roads or bypasses. It'll only be dealing with the current roads.

Mr. Welcome. What the model will give you is the level of congestion that would be on the existing network and identify where those problems may be. It'll be stating the obvious where it is now, but where it may start to emerge in a few years' time if you put a growth factor to that. You talk about background growth, everything else being equal, if you had a 2 or 3 percent annual increase, where you would find those tricky spots, what intersections will start to experience those difficulties. Sometimes it's not quite as obvious as people think as to where those occur and what the rat runs — shouldn't use that term — but people start to take. So they can become obvious when you do get a level of congestion. The other thing that the model will then be able to do is say, well, if we did put in another link or another road or upgrade an intersection, what the impact of that is.

So are the consultants going to recommend those other links, or will that be us recommending them?

What we'd be intending to do out of this whole exercise is actually to build up some capacity in our own staff to be able to run those models so that we can actually update that and have some capacity in there. Would be our intention to go back to the consultants at every development or proposed change to the model should be, yeah, we can actually do that in-house and build up that capacity with our own staff.

Thank you for those answers. I can understand what Councillor Connolly is trying to get at and— And I concede that having a couple of weeks to have another briefing may not be such a bad thing. But unfortunately, I think we've committed to this now and we're sort of getting closer to the end of it. And I think we must now finish it and not try and leave it at this stage. And the briefing, I don't think, would do anything to— I mean, the only two outcomes of the briefing are, A, we continue or, B, we stop. So the outcome for me is that we should continue. So in those terms, the briefing would serve no purpose, except we'd have a greater understanding perhaps of the financial side of things. But we could possibly get that along the way without having to have a briefing—sorry, without having to stop to have a briefing.

I am concerned, however, that the study itself will possibly not be too useful because the state government has apparently committed to putting in a third crossing somewhere . Now exactly where that goes will make a tremendous difference to the whole traffic study. It's not as if putting it at, say, Pitt Town as compared to putting it at down Driftway direction will have the same impact. Those two things will have a tremendously different impact on traffic flows in the whole city. And hopefully the consultants will take all those possibilities into account because if they don't, we're going to be left with a lot of figures that may not be as useful as we'd like them to be. Given that, however, I think we must proceed.

We've gone this far, we must finish it off, and it will be useful in other areas of the city perhaps. But I just have my doubts that bringing in a third crossing will allow the data to be used successfully. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I just have doubts.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I take a slightly different point of view on that. I think that an additional briefing might enable us to get a better understanding of the usefulness of this model. I think the expectation is that we are going to have a model that's going to help us make decisions about individual planning proposals. And it sounds to me like that isn't the outcome. That isn't what we're going to get from what you've just said, Mr Organ, about it being applied to traffic-generating developments. So can you, have I got that wrong, Mr Organ?

No, I think once we have the model, Council can use it for whatever it decides. You can plug in a new school or a cinema complex or a release area and understand what the impacts of that might be at the planning stage, or slowing down the track whether it could be used for identifying very specific intersection improvements, whether something needs to be signalled intersection to give capacity. So the model will be used for that. Where we'll get to out of the model at this stage is simply we will have the model and we will have the capacity to be able to Test out various different scenarios, as Councillor Calvert go back to that, we could actually model and verify what the impact of a new river crossing at any location might be. It's a fairly simple coding thing to put in a new link. It's not a major task.

Yes, I understand that, but I'll ask it a different way. Do you think the model, after we spent the $ 186,000, once we get it, will we be able to use that to assess individual planning proposals that might be a subdivision of 10, five blocks, let's say? Yes So it will be. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I don't think it should come, as a surprise to any of us, that for many years now we've been copying expenditure that the state should have done. I think we've been seeing that, as was raised earlier, cost shifting. So it shouldn't come to any of us as a surprise that we are yet going to have to spend some more money making up for, yeah, things that the state should have done that just hasn't done. I think we should be used to that. On the

Point of the cost of it, it seems to me that the third crossing that has been proposed, and I hope it goes ahead, we could actually end up making a little bit of money and get some funding return from the RMS, because presumably they would want to have data about traffic in the local area wherever they decide this bridge might go. Now if we've got the WIPAN on the data, then surely we could say, well, okay, we'll give it to you. This will cost you $33,000. Or when the developers come along and say, Look, we want to put in a subdivision here, or do this or do that, as we've just heard, yeah, we'll be able to do that for you. We'll plug in the numbers, and then we'll send you the bill for whatever traffic study that they would have been required to do, which would have cost them $33,000.

Multiply that by 10, 20 or 30 or whatever. I think this is a good investment. I think we should just get on with it. And I think Councillor Richards was right about 25 minutes ago. We probably had ended the discussion about that point.

Further discussion? Righto, reply. Yes, ma'am. Oh, Councillor Ross.

I believe in completing the study. The element about which I'm interested is , does that by implication mean that we have an ongoing arrangement with SMEC, either in terms of consultancy or software or both? And what is the likely impact if that is the case, please?

Mr Organ.

As I did indicate earlier, it'd be our intention to have council staff be able to run the traffic model. There may be some costs associated with licensing of the particular software. At the moment, that's owned by SMEC. We would not own the proprietary product. We may need to acquire that at some point in the future. It's intention that council staff would be sufficiently trained through this exercise in being able to operate it. We already have one staff member who is conversant with this product.

Could I just seek further elaboration, please, sir?

Would not we be simply seeking to be a licensed user of their software? Because it would no doubt be subject to updates and— That was my response, yes.

Councillor Reynolds.

Did you have any indications as to how much that might be? Sorry. Unfortunately, I don't

Councillor Reynolds.

Just one final question. Is the model, when it's finished, will it be compatible with RMS requirements? For example, if we were to come up with something and say, Well, here's our model, are they going to turn around and go, Well, your model is not suitable because it doesn't use this standard or that standard. Is it going to be compatible with their requirements for things?

Mr Organ.

We took great lengths to ensure that the brief ensured that the modelling was fully compatible with the RMS's doorstepper of a specification for traffic studies, so that it was something that they could use and, again, try to integrate with their programs in the future.

Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a few points trying to go on because this debate's gone forever. Obviously something that was a very simple motion, just to ask for a briefing session before we go ahead. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler? Okay, great.

Sorry, I lost my train of thought when Councillor Wheeler interrupted.

Continue, sorry, Councillor Conolly. Take a moment, take a moment to reflect your thought. I'm just

Going to have to. I'm going to have to just get myself back in the zone together after the frequent interruptions from Councillor Wheeler. Can't help it. As I was saying, this is a fairly simple motion. It was just to ask for a briefing session for this before we go ahead and make a decision. For whatever reason, that's become incredibly contentious, that we can't have a briefing session. We like to talk a lot about collaboration and how collaborative this council is, but I'm just asking for access to information before I make a decision, and it comes up with this huge brick walls. All these, all these—shouldn't say manufactured reasons—all these reasons, Madam Mayor, as to why we couldn't possibly have a briefing before we move ahead on this.

We couldn't possibly delay it three or four weeks after it's been delayed by over a year from the original projections. We couldn't possibly. It wasn't the briefing we had on stage one. That's not the same as this briefing. This briefing is having a look at how did we get from there all the way to here. How is it still going? How is it still more money? Is this the last financial request this council is going to have on this study? Is there anything else to come? And if all the results from stage one are in the business paper, as Councillor Reynolds suggested, I think we've been ripped off because there's about two pages there of very general information. If that's the entire results of stage one, I can't believe we paid $57,000 and someone's got to get fired if that's the entire results from stage one.

But of course it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion that could be the entire results from stage one. In October 2016, there was the motion to form the committee. I apologise if I misspoke on that one. However, before the committee came back to us, before it was reported back to council in 2017 on the stage one, stage two and the additional costings, in November 2016, that motion that's caused us all this trouble was moved, which was to wait for the traffic study before we go ahead and deal with the planning proposals. And at that meeting, it was stated the cost would be around $100,000 and all the reports would be done within four to six months. And we know that hasn't happened on either count.

You know, it's not—the main crux of this motion is not about finding out what that $33,000 was going to pay for. I think that's relevant. I think we should do that. It wasn't the main crux, but to say that it's a reallocation from some other local traffic count and therefore it doesn't matter. I mean, if it didn't matter, why were we paying for it in the first place? Why was it even in the budget that you adopted if it didn't matter? And it doesn't matter what we're taking the money from because it's not important. If we don't need to do those local traffic counts, why would we do them? It's a waste of money. So I don't buy that line that, you know, just because it's a reallocation, therefore we shouldn't be worried about it.

Everything's a reallocation, you know, and to say that sitting on a partially completed study would be irresponsible— I mean, going ahead with just increase after increase after increase without stopping to look at it is irresponsible. Stopping to look at it at a briefing session is not irresponsible. This motion does not say we should not proceed with the traffic study. I disagree with the Deputy Mayor also that the only two options available are to proceed or not proceed. If you look at page 28 of the business paper, the total of the detail we've got on this funding is that it's the 23 intersections and 10 mid-block locations. That's the entirety of the detail we get on what this money is for.

If that couldn't be broken down further to show us what value there is in that, I'd be surprised. If that's the entirety of what's contained in stage one, I'd be really worried. But look, it seems like that everyone—it's remarkable that almost every councillor has spoken on this motion to have a briefing or not, and it's quite clear that it's been decided that that's not going to happen. So I guess we'll just proceed with the vote.

I'll put the amendment first. Councillor Wheeler's amendment. All those in favour?

One, two, three, four, five. Against? The amendment is carried. We'll put the amendment as the motion. All those in favour? Against the motion is carried.

The motion is carried. Oops, sorry. Okay, questions from last meeting. Questions on questions from the 28th of August.

No questions on questions. Questions for the next meeting. Councillor Richards. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert,

Councillor Wheeler. Yes, Madam Mayor, two questions. First one relates to Dr. Asme, who's the GP at Wilberforce Shopping Centre. He's been there as a council tenant in that shopping centre for 30 years. He retires in the next two weeks. Would it be possible for Council to write a letter under Council seal to Dr. Asme, recognising his service to the local community, please? And the second question relates to the street lights at Bligh Park. Sorry, I'll just get the exact address.

It's the last two nights, the street lights on Porpus Crescent at Bligh Park from Settlers Crescent to Rifle Range. The Rifle Range Road section of that road have been out. Could we rectify that, please?

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Garrow. Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Rice.

I've just got one. Do we have a program for upgrading outdoor furniture at our shopping centres, especially at Wilberforce, where there's inadequate outdoor seating

For people who are waiting out at the shopping centre?

Someone move. We're going to confidential. Move Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour? Motion is carried.