9 October - Ordinary

City Council meeting for 9th of October 2018. I'll ask the General Manager to run through some procedural matters.

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

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council Chamber has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Conroy.

Do we have any apologies, please?

Councillor Tree.

Councillor Reynolds.

Councillor Reynolds. Someone like to move we accept the apologies? Moved. Councillor Sam Prognos, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of interest? No. Okay. Confirmation of the minutes. While we're on the minutes, I'd like to ask a question, if I might, of the General Manager about the resolution that was moved coming from the Mayoral minute. I would ask the General Manager to comment on how that might affect the plans that the staff have for currently reviewing policies and updating policies.

Okay, Mr Mayor. As has been outlined to councillors in briefings and other forums, each manager has prepared a business plan for the current financial year, and in that business plan each manager has been allocated policies that they are responsible for. They are currently, as part of their annual work program, working their way through those policies to determine their status in terms of are they still relevant, or do they need to be updated, or can they be amalgamated with another policy. So that piece of work is already in train operationally within the organisation, and I would anticipate that it would continue as part of the— Normal program of works. I understand you've just pointed out what the terminology means, and following the completion of these activities, I would see them probably proceeding in tandem, which was the plan from the outset of this financial year.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Would someone like to move the minutes? Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour? Those against? We have no public address items, no mayoral minutes. We go to exception reports. We have one item to be moved on block, item 246. Would someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Cutler. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried. Now we go through the reports in the paper in the order in which they're in the paper, and the first item is 243. Would someone like to move?

Move that. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I think you were interested in that one.

I'll move that.

Would you like to speak to it, Councillor Lyons-Buckett?

Not particularly. I just, it would need a decision anyway, so I suppose it would come. It was actually the next one I was interested in, but if anyone's—I'm not available on that day to go to it, so

I think it'd be a very good conference, but it would be good if someone could go along. Okay

Any further discussion, Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I would like to nominate for that workshop. I think I've been to a few of them now and I think they're extremely worthwhile, and I think this one will be too, given that it's sort of trying to commercialise, or at least come up with some ideas how we might commercialise the data that is collected throughout our city and other cities.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I can't attend either, but I think given that there's a push within the City Deals program that we look at some commercial data and we look at this sort of data collection, that we do need to be across certainly the ramifications of it so that we can deal with community expectations. So I would hope then that Councillor Rasmussen's report could be shared with all the councillors and perhaps it's something that we could discuss further at a briefing.

Councillor Sam Prokner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It was Councillor Rasmussen and myself who attended the last Smart Cities conference in the city back on the 8th of March of this year, and my observation was that we were the only two elected councillors in the room. Most of the representatives that other councils had chosen to dispatch were staff , and although it had some value as an elected member, I tended to concur that the best audience for that particular presentation was council staff. So I'm not available. I'd encourage Councillor Rasmussen to go if he expresses an interest, but I'd also say that it would be worthwhile if we sent a staff member along because I think that was the audience that was best suited for it, at least the last one that we went to, that was the case.

Thank you. Any further discussion? No. I'll put the recommendation moved by Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

Mr. Conroy, do we have a restriction on the number of people who can go to this?

The restriction is primarily a financial restriction in terms of the council

Sorry, apologies.

The restriction is primarily a financial restriction in terms of councillors attending and just working within our budget. We have staff working on the digital strategy under the Steady deal, and at this stage we've got one or two staff members that we're contemplating sending, perhaps one, perhaps two, but more likely one, to this conference.

Okay, so Councillor Rasmussen has expressed an interest. Is there any other councillors interested ?

Looks like you're all on your own, Councillor Rasmussen.

Someone like to move we accept Councillor Rasmussen as our delegate to this conference, moved by Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Ross. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried, and you'll work out which staff will go. Okay.

Item 2.4.4 is—

Cities Power Partnership Summit.

Move that one, Mr Mayor.

Okay, well moved by Councillor Rouse-Masson, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yes. Councillor Rouse-Masson, did you want to speak to it?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I had a quick look at what this conference down at Kiama would offer, and given the latest IPCC, and given the importance that we all place, most of us place on climate change and global warming, and the issues and the experts that are likely and will be turning up here, I think it's worthwhile that we send those councillors who might be interested and the staff as well, because this is clearly going to occupy and concentrate our minds for some years to come.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Yes, I'd be interested in attending this, of course I did. We were one of the first councils to actually join this partnership, but unfortunately we've not had any resources to do much in this area. However, a lot of other councils have done some really, really good projects, and there's a lot of very good tools that have been developed for councils to use, various things to assess climate risk, and there's all the various solar farm projects that have been done by other councils, transport solutions and other energy solutions. And so there's a lot of online activity that we can access anyway, but there's also a lot of very good speakers at the conference, and I would be very interested in going.

And my hope that would be one day that we would also be able to do something in this area and perhaps even have it included through the livability funding that comes into the town centres to have some sort of initiatives incorporated into any work and any funding that we actually get. It's, for example, electric vehicle chargers in our town car parks, etcetera, and various sort of small things that could enhance the progression forward of emissions reduction. So I'd be happy to attend and I do think it would be a very good conference. I'm happy to bring a report back if I do go. Councillor Wheeler and I delivered our reports from the floodplain management conference to the floodplain committee, and from those reports there've been quite a few actions arising from that, and so I would imagine this would be a similar situation.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

No

I'll

Put the recommendation, which is on page 14. All those in favour? It's been moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by the Deputy Mayor. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried. Now do we have—

Mr Mayor, just a point of order, if I might. And I noticed the last council meeting too, and similarly with this council meeting, there was no call for right of reply. Is that the new way we're going to do things or not?

My understanding is you get a right of reply if someone speaks against the motion. But if you believe that you have more to say, then—

No, no. It was just, there was a point of order and how are we going to do things? Obviously things have changed a little bit, and I was just wondering whether that was one of them.

Well, that's the system I've always used. If there's a debate for and against, then the mover gets a right of reply. But if everyone is in agreement— Then there's no right of reply. Okay,

Thank you. Okay

Thank you. Now, we've moved that and we're looking for volunteers.

I'll volunteer.

Deputy Mayor.

Just the Deputy Mayor. No. Okay. So it's been moved by somebody, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that the Deputy Mayor be our delegate to this conference. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against, declare it carried.

Item two .

245. This is about providing financial assistance for another council, and I just thought I might ask the general manager if he might give us a— Mr Mifsud, if he could give us a two-minute introduction to this item, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This item is about the Local Government New South Wales has a policy that enables councils to apply to seek contributions from other councils to assist with legal costs where a legal matter would be of concern to all councils in New South Wales. In this particular case, Sydney, North Sydney and Bayside councils applied to Local Government New South Wales for financial assistance in regard to a legal matter concerning the categorisation of rateable land. In particular, it's whether land should be categorised as residential or business. Local Government New South Wales considered that this case was of importance to local government throughout New South Wales and approved the financial assistance applications from the three councils.

So now they're seeking a contribution from this council of about three and a half thousand dollars towards the legal costs of those three councils. This amount is calculated based on each council's subscription fee to Local Government New South Wales. Through this program, councils support one another and benefit from the awareness of a legal precedent. Hawkesbury Council supported this program and contributed costs on numerous occasions in the past, and therefore it's recommended that Council contribute to the amount requested by Local Government New South Wales.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, are you looking to move this?

Yes, I'd like to move it. I've got an amendment that just is a point two, which is a second part to it. I'll get a seconder, then I'll explain the amendment.

Okay, so you're moving that. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wheeler.

I think it's very important when these cases occur because we don't know, we don't know when we may need to utilise this sort of information that comes out. Of course, the Land and Environment Court basing its decision-making both on a set of planning principles that it's already formulated, but also on the building of case law, such as a case like this, which enables definition within the Local Government Act in something which is a very complex area with the categorisation of rating for properties that are undergoing transition from one category to the other. So I've included the point too because I think it may be of relevance to us. There is, of course, an appeal still before the court, and the decision is to be handed down at the end of the year.

But should that appeal fail, then the judgment in this case would be upheld , and that would change somewhat how the categorisation may occur when development is taking place. So I think it's very important pending the outcome of the appeal that we seek legal advice regarding any developments that we have or the situation here where there's transition in rating categories from either farmland to residential or from commercial to residential, such as in the case , just so that we're ready to ensure that we are getting the proper rating revenue from any activity like that, and also to ensure that we wouldn't be charging people too much rating income on that basis. So it's really just a, and I'm sure that I know the staff will be doing that anyway, but it's just really to flag the importance of getting clarity around that particular circumstance.

And also, I think it's a reasonably small amount of money. I think that we all contribute to these sort of cases to build up the information that we then all utilise. So I put forward that recommendation.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Sam Prollner. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A question for Mr Mifsud. On how many occasions, or roughly, you know, have we drawn on this arrangement of solidarity in the past? Have other councils contributed to our legal expenses when we've had something that's worth supporting, or is the flow of this support net out rather than a zero-sum game?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. To my knowledge, over the last, say, 10 years, Council probably has contributed on at least maybe six or seven occasions, maybe a bit more. I don't know the exact figure. And as far as I'm aware, this Council hasn't applied in the last 10 years for assistance with legal costs itself.

If that's the case, I'd simply make the observation that an insurance policy that you never claim on is probably not worth very much as an insurance policy.

The General Manager would like to comment on that.

There's two benefits we derive from this. One is the insurance policy benefit, as Councillor has observed. The other is that we sometimes benefit from cases, even though we're not a party to them, by virtue of changes in legislation. This one happens to be a change which affects income, but likewise this could equally enhance income. So we can get benefits in different ways sometimes. So it's an insurance policy as well as other opportunities from time to time.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to get a bit of clarification on if this appeal, the outcome of the appeal, is going to be pertinent to most of councils in New South Wales, why would we need to seek our own legal advice? Would there not be

Maybe from the Local Government Association or some other place, I mean, would there be some advice given to us that we didn't have to pay for, I guess is what I'm getting to. I'm not quite sure if it's relevant for us to do that off our own bat.

Mr Conroy. So this case will set some principles for the status of the development of land in relation to the rating category.

Where this case is particularly relevant is in the case of business land being developed for residential purposes, and it's quite clear in most cases when that's happening because you've already got an established subdivision pattern, the site's already developed, and so when work starts it's quite apparent.

In relation to rural land going to residential, it's far more abstract, and we will have to get some advice because whilst there's a potential financial benefit. The benefit will arrive when the dominant use occurs, in the case of the translation from rural to residential, and that's a really unclear science. And we would need to get some legal advice on that tipping point as to when we felt we could apply the new financial regime. It's not just because often there's a much larger parent parcel that is developed successively in stages. And so whilst part of the site is being developed, the dominant use is still potentially farmland. So it's when that tipping point occurs.

Thank you.

Any further?

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions. Do we know or have any idea of the costs so far in this case?

Mr Mifsud.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. No, I don't have an idea of the costs so far. The court case is still going, so the decision handed down by the Land Environment Court has been appealed by the council, and that's—it's been heard before the Court of Appeal, and we're waiting for that decision. So no, I don't know the exact costs.

The other question relates to the insurance. Depending on how the appeal goes, either for or against them, but is any component of this case able to be claimed on each of the three councils' insurance?

Mr Mifsud

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm not sure. I'd have to take that question on notice . Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Mr Mayor

Councillor Ross, sorry.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate the advice from the General Manager, and I appreciate the moves made by the Deputy Mayor. I support the sentiments of the Deputy Mayor in moving the way she has, and I think the information supplied by the General Manager is very cogent, and I believe this Council needs to proceed on the basis of the precautionary principle. And I would therefore support the Mayor—Deputy Mayor at least, I'm sorry—in this matter. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor, although no one spoke against it, did you have any closing remarks?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just really that I do, just to reiterate what Mr Conroy said, that because we have quite unique situations where we have land that has been rated as farmland transitioning to residential, which is not—you know, it is a grey area. And of course we need to know that we're getting the proper amount of income that we should be getting in rates from those sort of developments. So thank you for the support from people for this, because I think that that's—we look forward to hearing what the appeal says, and I do hope in the future, if we do have any cases, that we will also access this, because we have had a number in the past, particularly the temporary use one about the Richmond Lowlands, which obviously we could have probably got some assistance on. But thank you.

Thank you. It's been moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

We move on to reports of committees. Item 247, Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee. Deputy Mayor, do you want to move that?

Thank you. I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler.

I just mainly had this brought up to discuss, just to draw attention to a couple of things that are within the report of the Floodplain minutes, because some of these committees don't meet that often. I think it's really important to just point out to other councillors some of the actions that are taking place within that committee, and to advise that at our next committee meeting we will be being addressed by the Insurance Council of Australia, which I know councillors have been contacted by people who have been having these issues with insurance in the floodplain. And so we are having them come to the next floodplain meeting, as well as having a report back from staff who attended a session in September, which was called the Effective Consideration of Flood Risk in Land Use Planning, which will also be another interesting report to hear back from the staff who have attended that.

Just with regard to the Insurance Council, I think it's interesting to note that they did make a submission to the recent public inquiry regarding the bill that was put forward about Warragamba Dam to inundate the catchment area, that the Insurance Council did say in their submission that they want to deal with the development that exists within the floodplain and that there should be no further development in the floodplain, which also was the statement that the SES made about the same thing. So I think they're just interesting things to be aware of as we reiterate the call for the government to actually put a framework around restricting any development on the floodplain if the Warragamba Dam is to be raised.

So the other thing is we're waiting for the flood study, of course, but we're also waiting for the mapping that is to be released from Infrastructure New South Wales, and they've promised that will be soon. And so that will actually be shown, the flood maps on that will... will be without mitigation, and then they will prepare an extra set which will show the extent of those flood levels, I believe, if there was that additional mitigation in place. So I just wanted to bring that forward to make Councilors aware, if anybody, perhaps we can pass on to people what is said by the insurance council because I know a number—there's been an extended number of properties in the Hawkesbury that have been designated as flood-affected properties, and I think it's important that people know just what the situation is and what the way forward is for people who've been getting these very significantly enlarged premiums to pay in the flood areas and to see what they'll be doing about it.

So just putting forward the minutes as they are, not changing anything, but just drawing people's attention to those few things that are included in the minutes.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Further to the Deputy Mayor's comments, one of the things that's become clear from the Insurance Council of Australia is that the lack of data in terms of flood studies pushing up insurance premiums. So the Insurance Council is now erring on the side of caution, and where they don't have firm flood studies and firm data, they're now assuming that properties are flood-affected rather than assuming that they're not, and that's having a negative impact on people's premiums. So we've had a number of people who've stated that their premiums have now become almost impossible to pay. There's also a push within the insurance industry to reduce the number of opportunities people have for opting out, so that people increasingly won't be able to opt out of flood cover, and that's going to have long-term implications not just for people's individual— Circumstances , if they're flooded.

But for us as an entire LGA, if we have a large pocket of people who are both severely flood damaged and uninsured, we are looking at an economic catastrophe that this LGA will really struggle to recover from. So I think there's a number of take-home points for this, and it will be useful to have the insurance council at the next meeting to discuss this with. But I think there's a need for us to be producing flood studies that the insurance council can use. So my understanding is that Penrith has done the study for South Creek. We're still waiting on Infrastructure New South Wales to release the study on the Hawkesbury-Nepean to the insurance council. We have a flood study for Colo, but one of the areas that's being impacted, surprisingly, is Kurrajong because of Weeny Creek, and we don't have flood data for that creek.

What we also lack is the big picture where we put all that modelling together. So there's a real absence of data in this space, and I think it's something that we have to address, both as a council and as part of the Western Sydney councils. So I hope that we can continue to work on that issue. One of the other things that happened at the meeting was Harry Panagopoulos from the Office of Environment and Heritage. That was his last meeting with us. He's moving on from OEH, and he's been a really, really helpful member of that committee for the two years that I've been on it. I'd like to ask, if possible, Mr Mayor, if you could perhaps send a formal letter of thanks to him via the OEH. I understand that he's left, but I'm sure they have a forwarding address.

He voiced at the meeting that he was grateful that there's been a change of attitude in council and that we are now looking at flooding far more seriously and noting a need for planning for increased resilience in the LGA, and he saw that as a very positive move. And I've got one further question, if I may. Could we—has council written in that we... We felt coming back from the floodplain management conference , Lismore highlighted issues with the EPA waste levy, and it was basically too expensive for them to dump waste in their own waste facility, and they trucked all their waste to Queensland because it was cheaper. I think we moved that we would write to the EPA to clarify whether we had to pay that waste levy to use our own facility if there was a flood.

Could I just get some clarification as to whether that's been done and what the reply was from the EPA, please?

Mr. Conroy, do we know? I'm familiar with the resolution. I know I've read something recently. I'll have to chase that up and let the councillor know.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

I do want to thank the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Wheeler for that. I was saying to the General Manager recently that the minutes that we receive from committees are not very informative unless you were actually there. To just read these cold, you don't get all the details that we just received. So I was suggesting that maybe in future, at our briefing sessions, we could have a small report from each committee, and I mean a small report, not a two-hour report, just maybe one PowerPoint slide. This is what we're doing. This is where we're up to, because we don't all get to all the committees, and that way we could share the information. So when I meet—I'm planning to, I've invited all of you to meet with me, and when I do I'll run that past you and see what you think about how that might work or may not work, but— I really am keen for us to know what goes on in all the committees because I think there's lots of times people ask us questions about, for example, floodplain activity, and unless you're on that committee, you don't really know the latest information.

So I'm hoping we can do that. So thanks very much for that input. The report's been moved by the Deputy Mayor and seconded by Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye. Those against. Declare it carried.

We move now to notices of motion, and this is item 248, and Deputy Mayor is moving this.

Thank you. I'll move the notice of motion.

Seconder?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not sure if what I've put forward is the most appropriate way, but I've brought something forward as I'd foreshadowed some time ago, just really to start the conversation about this inappropriate tendency for people to misuse burning off and pile burning. I've read through, I've got the conditions and the regulations and so on, and if everybody adhered to those, there wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately, burning off has become something that people do on a weekly basis. Now, they don't get the permits. I know this because I've asked people in the fire brigade. They don't get the permits. They don't adhere to the sizing, and they don't adhere to the timing, and they burn absolutely anything.

So some people are burning off as a method of waste disposal, rather than the last resort, have a pile burn with the RFS knowing about it, et cetera, et cetera. I'm very concerned about it because you can see right through the valley wafts of smoke going up, and then with the conditions that we have now, they're very dire. And of course, we don't want any additional work for the RFS to have to do. So I guess really, I have put four points. I'd be interested in how many notifications we get through this online thing that is in here, which people can merely send that in, and that says that they can burn off, unless it's in the fire. The fire time, which of course was moved forward because of the very adverse conditions.

So then people are meant to have a permit. So I'd also be interested in how many permits are issued. It would be difficult, I know, to restrict the number per property per year, but that was merely just to put forward to see if there was some limitation that we could have introduced. The whole idea being that we somehow change the understanding of burning off, rather than having to have an enforcement type of situation. But in terms of the inconvenience to people when there's people burning off all over the place, and just for the sheer fact that it's just really, I mean, you go out on a hot, windy day and there's all these people out the back burning wardrobes or something like that. Like, it's weird.

So I just think that if we can engage, and I know we do engage with the RFS, I just wonder if we can have some sort of a tighter regime than what we've currently got, or some additional education. I know I've asked for it before, but I'm very concerned. A number of those fires earlier already in this season were from people burning off in their backyard and they'd spread. So I'm just putting it out there for the conversation to start and for the RFS to advise us what they think we could possibly do, and to look at what our current protocol is and to see if we can enhance that to reduce the amount of burning that occurs here.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Were you seeking any sort of response from the staff on some of those questions?

I'm happy to hear one. I was really throwing, like I just said, I was really putting it in there just to start the conversation. So I'm happy if the staff want me to change it or alter it. I just really had to find a starting point to get the situation

Started.

Throw Mr Organ in the deep end.

Sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I guess Councillor Lyons-Buckett, the Deputy Mayor's comments about throwing it out there is probably something that the RFS would probably welcome an opportunity to make some comment on the policy. I know there's a few things not related to these items that they would seek to have a discussion on in terms of the hours of burning. Yeah, there's been a long-standing issue there, so it's probably an opportunity if those are just ideas that can be discussed and come back with an adjusted policy if that's required. There's also obviously the issues that you've raised, which is about community notification, what we do there, and then also what Council's responsibility and what our regulatory services team would need to do in terms of enforcing some of those things rather than the RFS.

So I think come back with that, have that discussion with them and report back. Thank you, that would be very welcome.

Councillor Connolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've been inclined to support the majority of the motion. I'm not sure that I want to support point 2, and I think from what the Deputy Mayor said, perhaps that's on the same page, that I think if we take that out, rather than making a judgment, what we're saying is there might be an issue here. We need to have a conversation about it. We want to know what the strategies available are, and then we look at the specifics when it comes back, if that's possible.

I'm happy to remove point 2 because, of course, that would be very hard to monitor, and there's unforeseen things can occur like storms and so on that could give people a requirement to do it again. So it was merely just writing it from the top of my head, but I'm happy to remove point 2.

Councillor Ross as the seconder of the motion, are you happy to remove point 2?

I'd be very amenable to that, sir.

Good on you, thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I wondered if the Deputy Mayor would consider expanding point 4 slightly so that it includes specific information in Council's community newsletter and social media to reinforce the regulations relating to pile burning and burning of refuse in residential areas. Deputy

Mayor .

Yes. Yes, happy with that.

Councillor Ross.

Again, affirmed.

Thank you.

My concern here is that people on large residential blocks seem to believe that they are entitled to the same pile burn rights as residents on acreage blocks. So, in towns like Wilberforce, where we have the traditional quarter acre, it seems to be perfectly reasonable to have a pile burn whenever you like. And I'm wondering if it's a pile burn in a residential property, or is it just burning household rubbish? All of these people have a green bin. Is it a pile burn, or is it perfectly, or is it just, I don't know, is it just a little shindig if you stick all your refuse, usually green, in the vicinity of a 44-gallon drum and set it off so that your neighbours have to sniff it the whole weekend?

If you invite all your mates round and you all have a loud, noisy party and get drunk, is that still a pile burn? I think we need to really inform the public what is allowable and what isn't, because we've got a lot of people who are not working within the confines of the regulation, and I think we need to use our social media platform to do that. It's not safe. It's really unpleasant. And some people are just using it rather than sticking their green waste in the green waste bin, which they pay for. The mayors will use it. Much of this waste could go to other uses. There's some investigations going on with the University of Western Sydney, and Council is investigating how we can better use the green waste that comes to us as well.

So. The other issue that I see with pile burning in some areas is that it's used to quickly dispose of illegally cleared vegetation. So once you've made a big pile of it and burnt it, it's much more difficult to prove that you cleared that bit of bush. So if we've got tighter regulation on permits, I think that would be helpful. It's wasteful, it's smelly, it's dangerous. I think it's time that we cracked down on this. It's not your right to have a big fat fire in your backyard.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor, are you happy with what's on the screen?

Yes, I'm happy with that. Thank you. Thank you for those changes.

Okay. Moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Ross. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declared carried.

Questions from last time. Do we have any follow-up questions from last time?

No? Yes.

Yeah, just regarding question number one. It's disappointing, really, that we didn't have a representative at that event. Every other LGA got the, as I'm aware, received the same amount of notification of that set event. It appears that we need more notice, clearly, to get somebody at an event like this. It's just disappointing.

Thank you. Yeah . Councillor Ross. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just on that point, I'm on the community forum for this airport, and I didn't get notified about the event. And had I been notified, I would have gone.

Thank you. Any further discussion on questions? No? Questions—oh, sorry, Councillor Ross.

Excuse me, Mr Mayor. Is it appropriate to raise matters relating to questions not in the immediate past, but—

No, that

Will come later.

We're restricted to these, but you could ask another question, I suppose, for next time.

Thank you very much.

No further discussion on those questions. Someone like to move item 249. Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross

Is it possible to raise questions for the next meeting?

Not yet. It’s about to. Questions for next meeting. Councillor

Ross

Please push your button

Thank you, Councillor. I would like to have some light thrown on lighting, please. On the 2nd of August, I received some information from our staff in regard to a consultancy regarding floodlighting in the district . I’ve since been contacted by residents in the higher elevations who have indicated that they had not or have not been approached in regard to the matter, and it was clearly understood in response to an earlier question that I raised that there would be some consideration of those people at the time. So I’d just like to follow up, firstly, in regard to the degree of completion of the report, which has been, I understand, progressing for some two months, and I don’t quite understand why those in upper elevations hadn’t been contacted.

So perhaps there could be some information there. And then there was also the matter which I understood was going to be one relative to compliance in regard to property on the lowlands, and I'm seeking some information as to when that might be occurring. Thank you. The next is in question is in reference to tourism. I received a call today indicating that at the moment Clarendon Showground is conducting , sorry, is venue

Commencing yesterday the 8th of October and running through to the 14th of October of sheepdog trials, which are in fact, if you like, an ANZAC event involving both New Zealand and Australian working dogs. I was unaware of this. After some searching on my part, which is never easy for me, I found that there was a website described as NSW Sheepdog Workers, in a string dot org dot au

Having read that, I was able to confirm the dates, but that contained no information as to the events or the programming thereof. And whilst it's my understanding that there is private sponsorship going into this event. I have a suspicion that there may also be some public, possibly state government funding involved, and I'm rather at a loss to understand why Council isn't either involved or able to provide that information on its own website to facilitate visitor participation or even local participation, because those type of events will draw crowds , and particularly through the school holidays, I'm sure kids would and parents alike would find it very educative, as well as rather wonderful that our beasts can handle livestock without causing injury to them.

So I just seek information there. And then I've also received a report from Karajong Village today in regard to the sewerage pump-out service provided by Council. I don't know whether this is a new

Manifestation of the service provided, but apparently apart from the tanker driver, there are three additional personnel on site

Who may or may not have been Council staff, but were apparently involved or supposedly involved in the road safety issues that might arise. In, in confined space.

As reported to me, only one person was

Bearing a stop-go indicator. There were a couple of other apparent employees in attendance, but not seemingly actively involved in other than conversation.

And I wish to understand whether this is a new mode of operation, and if so, why does it take four personnel to conduct what was formerly an operation conducted by one contractor? Surely there can be a better arrangement and more economically conducted.

Returning to lighting, I wish to inquire as to is there a DA relevant to the installation of six floodlighting units in the Target car park, which I understand is possibly council property, mounted on the rear of the Target building, which is facing Macquarie Street and causing visible light pollution. Next question relates to Wallace Road at Vineyard. I'd like to draw the condition of that from level crossing road junction moving towards Vineyard Railway for some 200 metres is showing quite substantial signs of adverse wear and tear, and I would like to inquire of staff as to whether they have any plans for any remediation or such works, because also shoulders have been rather impacted. And the last is an inquiry in regard to a matter that I initially raised on the 3rd of August 18 in relation to a particular fleet liner prime mover unit, registration AW51KX.

It has apparently now become a matter of street ornamentation in Hannabus Place at McGraths Hill because it hasn't moved since that date to this, some two months. Has Council involuntarily acquired this unit as a result of the fines levied on the owner? Please advise.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, my question relates to the so-called standpipes, which are no longer water standpipes anymore, but I'm just, if I could ask how many there are throughout the Hawkesbury and whether there are all operational, and is the fact that residents who are on tank water can often wait at the moment anyway six to eight weeks to get their tanks filled, is that a function of the commercial market or is that a function of not enough standpipes or watering filling points in the Hawkesbury?

Councillor Garrow.

Can Council please clarify if the Windsor Bridge replacement project is to be a two-lane or a three-lane bridge? I've been asked by several residents who've been seeing conflicting information on this. Apparently the RMS final review is still referring to a two-lane bridge.

Mr Wheeler.

Could we get some information as to the progress regarding investigations into illegal works at Bushells Lagoon? Further trenching works have been carried out that now run the length of the causeway on the Freeman's Reach side of the lagoon. And a second question: could councillors be provided with a list of food and drinks served at Richmond Pool, please?

Deputy Mayor.

Could we have an update on the progress or a timeframe of the progress of the emergency management plan? I know it wasn't that long ago that we resolved to do it, but I think with coming into the summer it'd be good if we could get an idea of when that's going out. And further to Councillor Ross's question about the events on at the showground, I think in the past we had resolved to somehow have a calendar of events that were going to be on — or maybe it wasn't a resolution, it may have been a briefing — but that we were going to have something that showed what was actually going to be on at the showground so people could attend if they wished to. And I would also just like to thank Mr Organ and his staff for the quick response to the issues relating to the gate closing at Beaumont Avenue,

Because the people there were very concerned about the behaviour, so thank you for that.

Councillor [unclear]. Councillor Sam Prokno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Late in the day I was informed that there was some rubbish dumped, possibly building waste, on Old Pitt Town Road between the intersection of Skyville Road and the entrance to the National Park. The report I received... Included a description of a hot water system, which leads me to believe that it's building waste. Could that please be attended to? Yeah

Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards. I have a question. Following on from Councillor Rasmussen about water carters, the water carters have told me that Sydney Water is pressuring them to not take as much water from the Currajong area as they usually do, and to move further into North Richmond because the water pressure is not as great as it could be. So my question is— Hallelujah. Yeah. And I know the Deputy Mayor has been asking about that for a long time, but my question is, does Sydney Water take the water carters into consideration when they say that we do have adequate water supply and water pressure? Because I don't think they do, anyway. That's my question. That's the end of the questions. Thank you. So we now move—