15 November 2018 - HLPP

Well, I have a few matters of housekeeping and introduction. Firstly, I'll introduce the members of the panel today. On my left is John Brunton, who's the expert panel member, and on my right is Casey Holtom, who's the community panel member. So my name is David Ryan. We have no apologies today, and prior to this meeting we filled out some declarations of interest forms and I've just confirmed that there are no declarations of interest on the items today

We have two matters for consideration today. One matter is for determination, and the second matter on today's agenda is an advisory matter only. Our responsibilities as the panel are to consider material presented to us in an unbiased and transparent manner and to make decisions in accordance with our responsibilities under the relevant planning framework applicable to the development application before us.

In terms of emergency procedures, 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, and there are staff of council who will help guide you to that.

Can I remind people to either turn off or turn to silent their mobile phones ? And in relation to recordings, the panel meeting is recorded. A copy of the recording will be uploaded to Council's website within two days of the meeting. This may involve recording of personal information provided during the meeting. 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.

Those who have registered to address the meeting, I have the information here. You will be given five minutes to speak. If anyone hasn't registered, please see the Council's minute secretary for a form.

So the way the panel operates, we'll hear from those who are objecting to the applications in the first instance, and then the applicant will be given an opportunity to respond. The applicant may be given slightly longer than five minutes to respond, given the

Number of issues that may be raised.

In terms of your presentation, anyone who is making a presentation, please address your comments to the panel. And I don't need to say we just need to be courteous and listen to all parties. It's not a matter of debate. It's a matter of us hearing what all the parties have to say.

Now, the first item.

Number 12 is a S82A 7/18, lot 1 DP 605179, number 129 St Albans Road, Lower Macdonald Function Centre. It's a review of a previous decision of the panel to refuse the application.

Now, I have three speakers speaking against the recommendation and three speakers registered speaking for the recommendation. As I say, we'll hear from those against in the first instance. And I have—I'm aware that Mark Hopping is running a bit late, so the other two speakers I have registered are Chris Stevenson and Brian McCabe. Is either of you both here? Okay. Any particular order in which you're speaking? Okay, and come forward, if you could just sit in one of the councillor's seats there, and you'll need to just press the little button in front of you to speak. And firstly , if you could introduce yourself and where you

Live. Good afternoon, members of the panel. My name is Chris Stevenson, and I have been a resident of the Macdonald Valley for over 16 years. My property is directly north— Of the church, the first residential property north, about 600 metres north. Sorry, go.

I object to the proposal to allow a commercial function centre to be operated at St Joseph's Guesthouse. I am sure you are fully aware of the views of the immediate local residents, all of whom oppose this proposal, and are concerned as to road safety, parking, noise, litter, trespass, river pollution, precedent setting, and the inability to manage large numbers of often intoxicated guests. I should note in passing that the only supporters of this proposal either have a commercial interest in it, or live some distance away and are not personally impacted by it. I would like to make four points. Firstly, if Mr. Cavanagh had followed the planning rules and had applied to Council to use the ruins of St Joseph's as a commercial function centre, I doubt that we would be here this afternoon.

Instead, whether by accident or design, Mr. Cavanagh happened on a very lucrative commercial venture, which he ran without any form of approval for over two years, and now wants to use exemptions in the planning rules he so blatantly disregarded to circumvent the normal planning outcomes. This is patently wrong. Secondly, Mr. Cavanagh's purported main reason for wishing to operate a commercial function centre at St Joseph's Guesthouse is so that he can make sufficient money to maintain the building. The logical inference from this reasoning is that the renovation was not properly carried out in the first place, if it needs significant remedial repair after only four years. Or Mr Cavanagh never had any intention of using St Joseph's only as a guest house.

Either way, it is not the community's obligation to assist with any one individual's commercial problems, which is essentially what Mr Cavanagh is asking be allowed to occur. If Mr Cavanagh cannot afford the upkeep of his property, then, like any other property owner, he should consider putting it on the market for sale.

Thirdly, Mr Cavanagh's whole basis for allowing the proposal to proceed relies on the fact that St Joseph's, in its present state, has heritage value, thus allowing him to apply for the planning exemption relating to heritage properties. In the Hawkesbury LEP 2012, it is St Joseph's ruin, item 427, that is listed as a local heritage item, not St Joseph's guesthouse. In my view, there is limited heritage value in its present structure, described as a private folly by the CEO of the National Trust in April 2017. Ms Kay Remington, the expert who wrote the original heritage plan for the ruins, asked Lucas, Stapleton, Johnson and Partners, architects and heritage consultants, to review the initial development proposal and the report has been provided to Council.

They concluded that, and I quote, the current proposal for the change of use of St Joseph's Church from a guesthouse to a function centre does not meet the requirements to rely on conservation incentives of the Hawkesbury LEP. The proposal will not result in the conservation of the heritage item and may in fact lead to negative impacts on the cultural significance of the place. The tinkering around the edges, which Mr. Cavan has done in his current application, would not, in my view, change this conclusion. And finally, even if you accept that the heritage exemption could apply, in allowing this exemption, Clause 5.10.10(e) of the LEP states that the consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The amenity of the residents who live in the surrounding area will be significantly adversely affected by the operation of a commercial function centre, as you have read in the many objections to this proposal. This should automatically disqualify this proposal. Mr. Cavanan and his consultants have argued that any adverse effect is not significant because there are few residents impacted. That argument should be rejected. There is no caveat in the legislation that I can see that supports this line of reasoning. The fact that there are some residents in the valley who are not impacted because they live far away does not negate the significant effect this development would have on the residents who live close by and who will be impacted.

In conclusion, I ask you reject this development application as you did with the initial application, and not allow one person's commercial gain to destroy the amenity that my neighbours and I have every right and expectation to be able to continue to enjoy. Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions, Mr. Stead?

Mr. McCabe.

If you just state your name and address for the— Is that Storm?

Is that Storm? My name is Brian McCabe, and I own the property adjoining, immediately to the south of the property in question. I've owned that property for 12 years. I've been a visitor to the valley for the last 45 years.

Here we go again. For years, we've been subjected to illegal weddings, unrelenting noise, trespass, litter problems, as well as drunken wedding guests. And now we're back here again. We've all been worn down by the relentlessness of this whole process. The committee, at its last meeting, first and foremost gave the reason for refusal that the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Clause 5.10.10 of the Hawkesbury LEP. There's lots of other things in there that they noted, and he's ticked the boxes on those, but this was the primary reason. Now the applicant needs to satisfy all five points of that Clause 5.10.10. The last of these are that there are no significant adverse effects on the amenity of the area.

I looked up the meaning of the word amenity. It means the pleasantness and attractiveness of a place. Certainly for me, the pleasantness and attractiveness of this area drew me to buy here. But the relentless pursuit of this DA has left me wondering whether the qualities of the valley will remain. I am certain that the changes proposed to the DA, plus the conditions imposed by Council, will not satisfy, in the minds of the objectors, that there will be no adverse effects on the amenity of the area. The report omits the fact that all the objectives to the church being used for wedding receptions cite the negative effect on the amenity to the area. Unfortunately, the report states the objectors' main concerns are traffic safety, noise emanating from the site, inadequate sensitivity to heritage conservation, and potential water issues.

Surprisingly, it doesn't say that all 36, not 24 as in the report, in the latest round object to the negative effects on the peace and quiet of the area, the very reason many of these people live in or visit the valley time and time again. This is in addition to the more than 60 letters of objection when the proposal was last put up. The applicant has, in his response, said that he has addressed all the concerns, but we should remember that the base is zero weddings in an E4 zone. Any increase on that is going to have some effect on the area. To now say that they have reduced what they originally planned is nothing short of believing that the nearby residents are happy to put up with what will become the new base.

This base will then be progressively eroded away in the same relentless pursuit as we have seen over the last few years. Brings me to another point about compliance. How will compliance be monitored, policed, when council in the past have been reluctant to address the concerns of neighbours out of business hours when the weddings occur? Council staff have asked neighbours to take videos and photos to prove disturbance and trespass, but we've then had our photos dismissed out of hand. This report states that the applicant has not even complied with the requirements imposed when the building was approved as a bed and breakfast last year. Why not? Who will police compliance with the many conditions that the Council now recommend?

It's interesting to note at this point that throughout the report it is stated that the committee can be satisfied that all will be okay because of the changes and proposed conditions. But once approved, it will be a case of who cares. No intervention occurred for two years whilst the applicant was operating illegally. What will occur if the applicant has an approved DA? We'll see that envelope pushed again. A few other points worth noting again. The applicant has ticked all the boxes. I read a letter in. Yes, he's ticked all the boxes. Supplied a report, this report, that report. But if you look at those reports, the building's in a sad state of disrepair very soon after it was restored , and it shouldn't be.

He supplied reports where the content is showing serious concerns about the stability of the structure. I see nothing in the report addressing the safety of the bed and breakfast customers now. The traffic changes means that vans and buses turning south out of the driveway have to come to a stop at the bottom of the driveway with very limited sight, and then crunch through the gears uphill across traffic. And at 60 k's an hour, that's 50 or 60 metres they will travel in that time. If they're doing 80 k's an hour, like they normally do, they'll hit them. I'm worried every time I leave my driveway about traffic coming around a blind corner, and that's 100 metres away. There was a head-on collision right in front of my place on that corner a few years ago.

Even though there were 36 objecting submissions received to this amended application, there were no new support letters received. The only support letter received was copies of previous letters submitted by the applicant. Council recommend approval on the basis of the fact that there will be less noise, less traffic, less impact on surrounding area. But there will actually be more because the base is zero. Right now it's zero. We should not be working from when he was operating illegally as the base. The nearby residents and visitors to the valley strongly object to the detraction of the peace and quiet, the very reason that visitors come on a weekend. Not one person who needed to be notified by the council is in favour of the DA, but all the near neighbours objected.

Only weekend weddings is not a concession on the application. If the council allowed this application on the basis that he could only have weekday weddings, he'd object to it because there are very few. Where is the $300,000 collected whilst operating illegally? Maybe a new holiday house at Yerrinbah or a proposed new building and swimming pool at St Albans. If council wants to fund the maintenance and upkeep of the old church building, it would be better to buy it and manage the process to be sure the funds go into essential repairs. Why should we be subject to a degrading of our lifestyle and upending of the peace and quiet of the valley because the applicant has not funded his grand plans appropriately?

And

We see from this report there seems to be a wish to push this development application through against the wishes of every landowner and ratepayer within two kilometres of the site. Last weekend the social media was awash with people saying that the noise, cars and behaviour of the visitors to the valley was appalling. These people will be less than impressed if this is approved. Thank you. Thanks very much.

Any questions?

Can I ask a sort of a general question, and it comes back to that issue of amenity and particularly peace, the peace and quiet of the valley. And we noticed that when we were out there today that you can hear a bird in a tree 50 metres away, you can hear a dog bark 100 metres away easily. But are you suggesting that in the future that nothing can happen in the valley that would disturb that peace and quiet?

My property, from my back door to the front door of the church is 328 metres, as surveyors told me. Daytime weddings, there was a daytime wedding. I was sitting on the deck with the music going in the background, having a few drinks. Kathy caught the bouquet. Congratulations, Kathy. We can hear it from our place. I don't want to be up there listening to that 300 metres away. And I'm sure Dave and Heather, who are 100 metres away, don't want to hear it. People one and a half kilometres away can hear it. There's no stopping it.

It's a zero base at the moment. There is that beautiful peace and quiet where you can hear the birds, where you can hear... I can hear Dave and Heather speaking at their house when the wind's right. I can't hear what they say, but I can hear amplified voices from the church. Yeah

I just want to just generally explore that issue because if someone decides to open a sawmill in the valley, which is an agricultural...

I mean, this is a

General question Yeah,

You'll need to sit up here.

I'm just exploring that general issue about, because I'm acknowledging the peace and quiet. With respect,

What sort of

Disruption of peace and quiet do you think is reasonable and what's not? You've obviously said— That something like wedding receptions and those sort of things are not. Do you extend that or have an expectation

That— Sorry, sir.

We

Have an expectation. When we bought into the valley and we visit the valley, you know the type of environment it is. It's an e-four environmental, whatever, I can't quite remember the... So you expect to hear country sounds. You expect to hear the odd tractor. I'm one of those people. You will hear occasional people having family parties, just because of the topography of the valley. So nobody's suggesting that Mr Cavanagh can't use his property for the guest house that he's already got a proposal application for. What we're objecting to is him using the exemptions to force the local residents to have to suffer every weekend for potentially now 60 drunken people at the wedding. And if you can imagine, sir, this is some of these most important day of their life.

They may sign whatever they sign to say that they're going to leave at 7:30 and they're not going to have amplified music, but I can guarantee you that there is no way that 60, potentially 50 drunken guests will leave of their own accord by 7:30 and not have amplified music. So it's not a question of just the proposal itself being against the amenity, but it's the management of it going forward. We know he can't manage the people. We've had occasions in the past, and no matter what he says now, he can't control the 60 people are there. And if I was the groom, my wife... Newlyweds said, I don't want all my friends to leave, and it's 7.30, and they're going to lose a two grand bond or whatever he decides to put on it.

That'll just be a cost of the wedding. And guess who the bond goes to? Steve. And guess where he lives? He lives 12 kilometres away, doesn't get impacted at all by this. But the people that do get impacted have

No choice. Also, the amenity of the area that I take would come back to because I rent my place out on weekends to various groups, and at times I have rented out to people who have attended weddings. All of a sudden, they're back at my place, and I've got, you know, sleeping for nine people, but all of a sudden there's 20 or 30 or whatever back there, and I've had that. Yes, I can not rent it out to those people, and actually I ended up asking if people were attending a wedding in the valley. If they ticked yes, that was it, they weren't renting my place. That affects the amenity, my amenity. That doesn't affect everybody else's, but it certainly affects me. So I just want to emphasize, nobody—

Sorry, nobody's suggesting that the guest house, there's lots of guest houses in the valley and everybody lives happily with them. This is just completely

The wrong site for a function centre. If you were ever going to have a function centre, it's certainly the wrong site for that, and it will destroy the amenity of the residents. That seems clear to me. I don't know, I mean, I have sat on the balcony and you can watch the moon go down across, or come up across, over the escarpment, and you can hear the mozzies and the birds. There's not a sound in the valley. Apart from the days that there's a wedding on. Now, Mr. Cavanagh will say, well, he's not allowing any amplified music, and that may be certainly what people agree to. But, you know, what's the disincentive ? The disincentive to them is to spend some more money for Mr. Cavanagh, and they can have the best evening of their life.

We can't call the police . And hey, why should it be up to us to have to do that even if we could? The council won't have council officers there on a Saturday evening. Steve is 12 kilometres away. He won't care. And the people that do care are the ones that have no choice. It's just unfair, and it's not in accordance with the legislation, I can see. And you cannot argue that there's not a significantly adverse effect on the amenity of the area.

Thanks very much.

Now, Mr. Hopping was running late as he arrived. No, did you want to?

That's all right. If you could just introduce yourself and who you're speaking on behalf of and where they reside.

My name's Gillian Jessop. I'm speaking on behalf of Mark Hopping, who's delayed on our fabulous rail service. So bear with me because it's just scribbled notes as we've been, as everyone else has been talking. You asked a question just now about the peace and quiet and what their expectations are of the valley. And the valley has, in the 10 years that I've been living there full time, grown exponentially. Actually, a lot more residents coming into the area. They're not coming in bringing business or industry to the area. They're coming in for probably, I imagine, the same reasons that my husband and I came, therefore, and that was the opportunity to live in a rural environment, which isn't all that far really from suburbia.

So, you know, you're about an hour away maximum from anywhere, Glenorie, Hornsby, Windsor, but you still have that opportunity to live in a rural environment. And as others have said just now, you get to enjoy the peace, the quiet, the serenity, the stars in the sky, the space unimpeded. And just worth noting that in previous presentations , Mr. Kavanagh himself and his wife individually have both stressed how much they love the valley, also because of the peace and serenity and for what it brings to the lifestyle. Yet apparently it's quite okay to ruin that for us. It's fine for them where they live, but not for where we live. We don't count. And as already stated, the 36 objections that came in, those people all took the time to personally write again, I think some of them for the fourth time, their objections, stating their feelings on this round, and Of all of the submissions that were made, there wasn't one in support that was written in this particular instance.

And in fact, of the letters of notification sent out from Council, not one person wrote in support. They were the people that Council deemed would be most impacted by this development. Every single one of those people have written letters of objection.

Yes, zero base. Well, we had two and a bit years of illegal weddings with no consequences, no fines, not even a slap on the wrist. A hundred or plus people, not sure who was counting. I certainly wasn't. But now apparently it's going to cut back to 60. I don't know if you've heard 60 people making a noise, but it's not much difference between 60 and 100. And I'm just wondering who's going to be counting if there's 60 there or 61 or 65 or 69. Certainly at the end of the day, it makes Mr. Kavanagh look like the good guy because he's making a concession. And in fact, a concession to what?

I feel it's an outright attack on the people who live closest, with no respect to those properties and the fact that it is an E4 rural living zone. He knew that when he bought that property. He went along and placed the DA as a residence with no intention of living in that building. And I know that because I did confront him in the very early days. Also interested to know when I was reading through the Council's business paper in preparation for today, on page 10, apparently he doesn't even have an occupancy certificate, yet he's been given permission to run a guest house, and we're now considering changing that into a function centre, yet there's no occupancy certificate. Council has stated that in their own document.

And I think that leads me to state that at no point, even during the grace period. That was granted of nearly five months to Mr. Kavanagh about 18 months ago. At no point was there any indication or example of compliance to anything that was suggested to him, as far as making sure that the amenity or the attack on the amenity was minimised. And I'll just bring to your attention that during that grace period, the very last wedding that was held during that grace period was a daytime wedding. At 1:30 in the afternoon, I live 1.5 kilometres away. I could hear everything. I could hear the speeches, 1.5 kilometres away. I went down to Mr. and Mrs. Hopping's home. They're elderly. They live opposite, and we had to shut all of the windows.

It was—the noise was so loud, it was thudding through the walls. And I did provide a sound byte to the previous panel, and it was very clear, and just taken from my ordinary phone. When do visitors come to the valley? Most people are probably working during the week, so they choose to come and enjoy the valley on a Saturday and Sunday. If we, the people that live there, invite our friends to come and visit, invariably because it's so far, if you want to have a wine, they're going to stay overnight. They're going to stay overnight on a Saturday night, usually, maybe a Friday night. When are the weddings going to be held? I'm just about there. When are the weddings going to be held? On a Saturday.

Do my friends want to come and visit and enjoy something that they don't find in Newtown, and then come to the valley and they've got exactly the same thing they just left behind? I don't think so. And just the final word from me is around the compliance. During the grace period, there are numerous times that we had to call Council: re noise, re traffic, re trespass. The response from the compliance officer, I'm sorry, because the noise is before midnight, there's nothing we can do. And that was during the Council had stated 7 p.m. during that grace period, but the compliance officer was not able to reinforce it. And I didn't choose to live where I do to become a policeman.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you very much

Now we have three speakers for the recommendation: Joan Hoprock, Steve Kavanagh and David Thompson. Are you all here?

Okay. I would

Like the report of Council. I just thought if there's any questions that you might have of a technical nature, please direct them to me. But I think I'll cover the reasons for doing things in that report. Okay

Thank you. Great. Do you wish to speak?

And in doing so, firstly, if you can just mention your name and your capacity here, and I'd invite you to respond to some of the questions that have been raised by the objectors.

Right. My name is Joan Opbrook. I've lived in the Macdonald Valley for well over 30 years, during which time I have been actively involved in many community organisations, leading in 2011 to the honour of having been selected as Hawkesbury Citizen of the Year for my contributions. My interest in speaking here today, for the proposal, for the approval to go ahead, is in seeing justice done.

For much of my 30 years in the valley, St Joseph's, which was acknowledged as the cathedral of the Hawkesbury, was a roofless, crumbling ruins until it was rescued, stabilised and restored by Steve Kavanagh, leading to his receiving the National Trust Award in 2013 for the best restoration of a heritage building. And this was achieved without financial assistance or support. As a National Trust member, I'm well aware that it is imperative for the Hawkesbury to retain such treasures by affording concessions to such properties.

The main brunt of why I felt I should stand up and speak is because I'm aware that there has been a concerted, orchestrated campaign. Of misinformation, scaremongering and innuendo surrounding this development, and I believe that these have resulted primarily in the plethora of objections that have been submitted to Council. Such information that has circulated is that approval would need rezoning from E4 Environmental Living Zone. Not so. Conservation incentives under the Hawkesbury LEP 2012 do not require this. It is not the thin end of a wedge on wholesale rezoning of valley properties. Innuendo. There's been reference repeatedly, and even in our speakers this morning, about an increase of drunken drivers on our local roads.

This doesn't necessarily figure. Most people these days are well aware that they need to be responsible drivers. They have designated drivers. They do not necessarily drink and drive.

It's also been suggested that early closure, the 7 p.m. time frame now proposed by Mr. Kavanagh, would lead to the reception proper, or a post-wedding party, occurring at the Settler's Arms, and that such establishment would be applying for a 2 a.m. curfew to accommodate this. I have it on good authority from the owners and licensees of that establishment that they have no intention of so applying for any extension of their time curfews.

I'd like to point out the obvious benefits that will accrue to the valley if this proposal is approved. It is, I believe, a fitting historical usage for a heritage church. Weddings and celebrations would have occurred there in the past, and it is appropriate that they continue to do so in the future. It would provide funds for ongoing maintenance, and it's been referred, well, if he'd restored it properly, there shouldn't be any maintenance. All properties, particularly old heritage properties, do require maintenance. Such maintenance is costly and should be made available to the owner of the property to be able to do that. I also firmly believe that there will be a flow-on benefit, particularly to other accommodation houses in the valley.

For example, the historic Price Morris's Cottage, the Courthouse, the Settlers Arms Inn, and even the adjoining neighbour's Swallows Nest at 937 St Albans Road, where an unauthorised B&B has been operating for quite some years. So , in conclusion, I would like to say that in approving a wedding function centre, it is likely that St Joseph's will continue to survive. Please adopt a just and common-sense approach to your deliberations.

Thank you very much. Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kavanagh, do you—

If you're speaking on behalf of the applicant, if you could just —

I'd probably like to start with just trying to address some of my neighbours' concerns. Probably the neighbour I would be concerned about most is Dave and Heather.

They're really lovely people, and even in this whole process of going through this for the last three or four years, Dave and Heather have still always come down to the pub and were very civil to each other, and we still have a nice relationship, I think. So it's been really pointed in my thought process, bearing in mind this has been recommended for approval by Council five different times now, and each time we've always reduced what we're doing. At the end of the day, I've got to live in that valley too, and as much as Chris is right, yes, I do live 12 kilometres down the road, but I pretty well live there all the time. I live at one of the most public buildings in the valley. I've got a wife and a four-month-old son, so what I do, I have to, in my own mind, be happy that what we're doing— and I hear what Brian's saying, they're coming from a zero base.

Well, I mean, it is an old church. As Joan said, it would have had weddings there in the past, but I'm really conscious of, in the past, when Council allowed me to operate under a system where it was called my DA's in train. I know it infuriated my neighbours, but that's the Council process. If I have a DA in train, they took 18 months to deliberate, I was apparently still allowed to operate. To alleviate any of their worry about this and that it will just continue to run on after 7:30, that is impossible. We've got a manager on site. We've been threatened by the Council that we'd have a $6,000 fine, and as I was saying, I live in the valley. I can't afford to have it where, in the past, previous to that, for the— Previous two years we were running weddings, I would have got a couple of calls from Dave hopping, and I'd really take Dave that he was very patient with me because we had weddings that were running late into the night, and he'd ring me and say, Oh, they were pretty noisy last night.

And I must admit, I sort of just brushed it off, and I apologise for that, Dave, because you're a decent bloke. But, and as for Chris, yep, he did ring me one time. The moon was coming up. He was trying to entertain a local, I guess, from overseas. He said, I can still hear this wedding down here. It was late at night. So that's what led me to conclude that I really need to—I can't live with these people. Like, I see them on the road, we see them at the pub. We're a very close-knit community. And so I've concluded that, in my own heart, I know that we will, if we can have our approval, we would run that guest house. This is all off my own volition. No one told me just go to 100 guests. No one said make it 60.

No one said put a noise limiter. I did all these things of my own volition because I wanted to try and appease my neighbours. I know in my heart of hearts, and I know with all the reports and all of the different scrutiny that I've had from Council, I know that in my moral fibre that I can maintain that building with this little bit of extra income that comes in. I know I can comply. One, there's the big sticker of, yes, a $2,000 bond, and I hear Chris's point, they could say, Oh, we're having the best night of our life. Forget the 2,000. We have a staff member on site that says, That's it, it's all over. These people who register then want to have a wedding at our place, they don't turn up last week and expect—we counsel with these people and talk to them.

We've had people who say, Oh, no, no, we want a big nighttime. I'm sorry, this is not the venue for you. This is the way it's going to work. Here's our terms and conditions. We meet them there. These are prospective people. We've taken no bookings, but we have got people who are six or 12 months out who are interested if we can get some sort of approval. And we've told them this is the way it's going to work. Oh, that's great. We only wanted a small little lunchtime wedding. We don't, yeah. And then we show them the pub that Joan alluded to, and again, that scaremongering. I haven't heard it myself, but apparently there was some scaremongering that we were going to license the pub till 2 a.m.

We sleep there. Like, this is a little pub that we actually sleep in. It's a beautiful sandstone pub that we live in, sleep in. We have the opportunity to do that sort of thing with the folk festival, and if that's a precedent for good behaviour, our licensing law says we close at midnight, and that's it. We push 60 people out of the door. It's a big folk festival event, all run by the council, all with approval, and we need to go to bed. So we have no intention of this scuttlebutt that was going around that we're going to have a 2 a.m. finishing time. So look, I know I can look at myself and self-actuate and discipline myself and know that I don't want to just be a bully and run this past.

I would have got that done three years ago when the council asked me to hold off on my decision. I had 12 councillors sitting in here. I'm pretty sure we probably would have got it through. And they said, No, no, can we just hold off on that decision? Can we come out and listen to your noise limiter, please, Mr. Kavanagh? And I was ready to take the vote, and I said, Okay, come and have a listen to it. So we held off on the vote, came back three months later, someone was having a hip operation, and I got rolled, and we've been fighting an uphill battle ever since. So I know I'm a good neighbour. I know I know how to do the right thing. I know I have the big stick from the council and 60 conditions to abide by.

We also have that threat of a $6,000 fine, and different to what Brian was saying, and it's not because he meant to, but the council said to me, We are on whilst that— venue is going, and we're in that moratorium period. He said if there is any non-compliance or you have a problem, they can ring us, and we had councillors who would ring. Like a councillor would ring me and say, Hey, you're parking on Brian's grass down the road. What the hell is going on? I'd say, Hang on, must be some sort of misunderstanding. Brian's actually charged the groom 150 bucks to park on the grass. There's some just a bit of— I'm sure Brian didn't mean to do that in a nasty way, but there was some misunderstanding there, so I had to reassure him.

So I had councillors who were on to me even whilst we were in that moratorium period. And sorry, as I was alluding to, the compliance officers said, We're told that if— because it became so political with councillors, or different ones— we're told that if we get a call, we're heading out there, and if we come out there and you're not complying, you'll be getting a $6,000 fine. So I know that if we can get this to work, one, it's primarily just to keep this building maintained. I got no council handouts or no special privileges when I restored that whole building. Yes, we got a heritage award for a great restoration. It's a beautiful building. This money, this little bit of extra money that we get, and that is designed to go into— we've got where the cappings to be replaced and different things.

It's all been itemised with the council. They have all of the detail for it. It just allows us a little bit more income, and I know that we can do this, that 60 people, and have a daytime wedding that it will be compliant. I'm absolutely certain of it. It's not just a hit and a miss, we've got measures in place, and this council's so on to me about how I need to comply with that. And I live in the Valley. I'd be ridiculously foolish not to make this comply exactly with these times. And I know all these people. Like, I don't want to upset them.

So, in conclusion, I think we've covered everything in the report: the traffic sorted, we've only got 20 cars; we've reduced it to 60 guests in lieu of 100 that was previously recommended by Council. So each time I'm happy to look at ways that we can still just eke a living out of it to maintain this building. And so by reducing that, reducing the hours, still maintain the noise limiter, only having people set up on the western side, no tents. I know everything of this requirements backwards, and I know we can comply with it. I know I'm not out of town. I live there. I have to comply. I can't have these people upset with me. I want to have it that if in six months' time I've proved myself, Dave Hoppey will come to the pub, shake my hand, go, Yep, I was worried that you wouldn't do the right thing.

I know Dave's a very honourable guy, and in different times he's questioned my honour, and I get a bit upset thinking, I don't want to upset that guy. And I hope that in six months' time Dave can come down to the pub and go, Yep, you're doing the right thing, because he is an honourable bloke, and he would say that if he knew I was doing it, and that's my intention.

Thanks very much.

I've got a question. You just sort of tricked my thinking. Then you're talking about you'd like to go down the pub in six months' time, or you'd like your neighbours to come down to the pub in six months' time and shake your hand and say, Yes, you've done it. Does that raise the possibility that we should be thinking about giving you, say, a 12-month approval as a trial period to see whether it'll work, or is there some obstacle that that's not really apparent?

Look, as I said initially, when probably two and a half years ago, I would have had this across the line, except I thought, No, I'll do the right thing, get those councils come out, listen to my noise limit, see how it works. It was, in a way, probably a bad decision on my part. I should have just gone, No, I want the vote, and I would have got seven councillors to five, in all probability would have supported it. That's immaterial now, and that's just hypothetical. But I do take your point. Look, if there's a mechanism that council can do that, I just got to have it where I can do the things I have to do to get my compliance certificate, and I take the point of my neighbours; it's an issue, but I'm dealing with council in relation to that because of the crossover between Guest House, Function Centre, and those couple of extra things.

There are some other nuanced items that need to be sorted out, so that's why that is an ongoing issue, and I've been speaking with Greg Miles from Building Department. But to answer your question, I really just want to have it so I can get those compliance issues sorted, confirm the mezzanine floor's not going to collapse, do the PRAC report issues which indicate the actual structural elements. The rest of it takes 20 years to get through, and I've been trying to work out with council, and I understand in this report I've got to come with council and between council officers and myself, try and work in a program of how are we going to nail you down to make sure that 20-year work happens. Now, I probably can't go on my track record of the fact that I spent $700,000 restoring a roofless ruin of blackened stone, which, like a blind person can see, is a beautiful-looking building.

This extra work has to be done over a period of time because I just don't have the money, so we need this generation of income to bring in, yeah, a couple of weddings, and that additional income will help to put those stones back together, help grout the place, and it's all documented in the schedule of works. Possibly, yeah, because I'm trying to work out how. Like, I know I'll do the work; I've already, I've got a beautiful building. I've got a four-month-old son. We live in the valley. We intend to live in the valley forever, and hopefully my son takes it over. So, yeah, I wouldn't mind a mechanism where that could work. So I'm just not sure how the 20-year thing. I know I'll do it. I know I'll do the work, and I probably need a bit of time to get on my feet because I literally— Like on the bones of my arse.

So I need some income out of that place because I'm just not getting it. You know, it was great when we first started. Yes, there's a guesthouse, Brian's got one down the road, and it was working really great. But people just don't want to spend. They don't want to have 10 people staying in church anymore. I know why. There are so many choices to make now, and we're just not generating the income. I wish I was. I've been closed down since May last year after that moratorium, and I'm like, we just cannot get the people in there. But the weddings, that's a cool little place to have a wedding, beautiful atmosphere. It's only lunchtime. We tell people, best thing you can do is a little canapé wedding.

Everything's finished, start wrapping it up. You know, after lunch, we don't even say, you know, forget trying to have dinner before seven. It's lunch. You know, then you start winding up. By seven, you all stay and move off the site. We've got an on-site manager who can clean up, RSA can pour some drinks for these people and keep the place managed, help them tidy up, etc. It's very much a little bohemian-style wedding thing. Now, I take my resident points that when we had 100 people plus, we did get people who wanted to hang out there all night. But now that we're only at 60, we're getting people who want to come in with 20 or 30 or 40, but we're not getting those big amounts of people. So again, in my heart of hearts, I know I'm attracting the type of people who aren't big drinking people.

I mean, yeah, they might come down to the pub, and we can get a few extra people to come down to our beautiful historic pub where we live. We've got a little section out the back which is separated from the pub, but still part of the beautiful historic fabric of the pub, and they can continue their celebrations there till midnight, which is what we're licensed to anyhow, help support our little pub, help support the 17 casual employees we have. And so I know that, I mean, my resident neighbours have said things, and I take on what they're saying, but I know I've got ways to alleviate that. This council, God knows what they've spent on this with me, and trying to make this thing work properly, and I know I will, and I'd be a fool not to.

So to your point of, is there a 12-month thing or something, I'd be happy to do something. I did it three years ago, and if there's a mechanism, I've just got to be able to get on my feet and get started again. Like, I want to start and get these issues sorted, the bare bones of what I've got to do to be able to open and start trading as that, and have some small weddings, which we've got people who are months and months down the track. But, you know, people asked 12 months ago, Oh, can we have weddings? No, I've got to get some council issues sorted out. Don't even know if it's going to happen. So we've got people who are interested, but I'm happy with a mechanism whereby that my residents and the council officers are happy that they know I'm going to do that work, but I've got to get on my feet.

I've got nothing.

May I?

No, Ms. Avery, unless you're speaking on behalf of the applicant.

I am speaking on behalf of the applicant, and I would just like to elaborate on my reasons. Can

I just be clear? Because we have questions now for the applicant. We've heard from you in support of the applicant, but unless you're able to speak on his behalf, then we'll

Direct

Our questions to the applicant. I'm doing a pretty good job on my own.

Right, okay. I just would have liked to elaborate on one of the points that was raised by panel member John as to whether— Yeah,

This is the problem. So I think it's best if we can hear

From the applicant. Okay, I will cede to your ruling . However, they were allowed to come back and speak to further issues after the point why is this side not

Being— Yes, we're not here to debate. We are here to hear from the applicant. If the applicant wants to defer something to you, that's fine. Other questions

Could I just— there was a question or an issue raised by Ms. Jessop. Where she referred to being able to hear speeches from a kilometre and a half away. Are you familiar with that event? I've

Never actually heard that from Gillian. In fact, I think in different discussions, and Gillian might correct me if I'm wrong, but she's maybe come to these council meetings and said, This doesn't directly affect me, but— well, I don't know, Gillian. Anyhow, if I can just answer it, probably to you then, David. No

No, we won't have a debate.

I just want to—him to be able to respond. If he doesn't

Know, he doesn't know.

Yeah. And

Mr. Kavanagh, actually , it's on the last wedding. It was a daytime wedding.

Thank you. We can't have discussion from the floor. Thank you. Yeah.

I'm sorry to reinforce that, but to answer your question, yes, there has been that issue with that last wedding, and they were on the water tank, and they had music there. That's not the way we operate, like that we're proposing to operate. Everyone knows that it's on the western side of the church. There's a big water tank there, 10 metres in diameter. It looks like a great dance floor. That doesn't happen. It's not part of what we're proposing. It's on the grass area behind the church. The church creates a buffer, so then we won't get that noise. As far as hearing it at a kilometre and a half away, to answer your question, look, I can't imagine it, but no. Brian's point of, yeah, hearing—and they're right—you know, it's a very quiet little valley, and it does have that effect of valley walls and that sort of thing.

But—and that's why we were proposing not to, in the past council's recommend for approval to have it till 11 o'clock at night, music inside at 9. We're proposing to have it—it's all over at 7:30, so it's lunchtime. It's a completely—that's another thing. If you look at my acoustics report, acoustics is based on different times of the day and night, as you would know. So daytime, there's an expectation of some background noise. At night time, and that's why I decided to only have it till 7 o'clock, is that after 7 o'clock there's a higher tolerance or expectations of peace and quiet. So that's why we did that. We've gone from a night-time wedding venue to a daytime wedding venue to stop this.

So, to answer your question, with this new proposal, no, Gillian won't hear that noise from her house one and a half kilometres away. Look

I think the difficulty, I mean, what we're hearing from you is what you're proposing to do. I mean, the difficulty, and we can understand in hearing from the objectors, that to date you've been operating contrary to those things. You've been, you know, you haven't obtained certain approvals that you were needed to obtain. You started without consent. Some of the behaviour hasn't been particularly good. And, you know, that's not the way to convince a project like this or a proposition like this to operate well needs to be managed well, reliably. And to date that doesn't appear to have been the track record. So there's a real need, if this is to be approved, to provide confidence to us as consent authority and the public, if it were to gain consent, that you are able to manage in a way that won't have the sort of implications that you've had for people in the valley to date.

So if I just respond to that, sort of a graying of the lines in that occasion that you're speaking of. For example, Brian's guesthouse down the road, which is called Swallows Nest, it's on the same landmass as the church. So as he said, he's 350 metres down the road on the same grassy landmass. And so what was happening in the past, my guests would rent his place and charge, whatever it was, per weekend, and then additional charge to park on the grass, as it was, was $150, park on the grass. Then you did get that transference of people from the church down the grassy area back to the guesthouse where Brian was renting it out for—well, apparently you can rent the place for the stables. We're not

Talking about his situation, so just stick to

But see what the point is where they were saying, Oh, drunken behaviour, bottles thrown everywhere, extra people, trespassing. So you can muddy the waters by saying trespassing, but they're actually his guests, my guests, being in his guesthouse, commuting back to their— Where they're staying. So there is that kind of, you could say yes, trespassing if one of the guests from the church wasn't staying in that guest house. But that's why we've now gone, it's just too hard to police that. So we're not suggesting that we would use Brian's guest house anymore as wedding guests would go next. There's too much of that muddying of the waters, crossing of boundaries. It's all too difficult to maintain.

So that part of the objection, which was, you know, trespass, bottles, drunken behaviour, trespassing and walking on other people's property. Don't know how many guests are at my guest house. You know, I've got 20 people there sleeping on the floor. We've fixed that by we don't use that guest house anymore. So just to repair that problem, we don't engage with that property anymore. And then as far as we've got 34 objections. Well, some of them, really the main objectors as far as neighbours would be Dave and Heather, Chris Stevenson and Brian. The other objections of that 34 were people from Woy Woy, Sunshine. There were people from Victoria and there were people from Port Macquarie and people from Orange.

So—

If we could just, please, and you've strayed from what I was asking. Sorry. Okay. Any other questions? Okay.

To answer your question, we intend to not have that sort of behaviour anymore. So, okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That ends the public hearing part of the hearing from the public. I'll adjourn the meeting now. We'll be just going into the adjoining room to deliberate, consider all of the submissions that have made, and then we'll be coming back for our determination. Now, I can't guarantee how long that will take. You're very welcome to stay. Otherwise, the minutes will be available.

When do they go available?

Oh ,

Next week. But anyway, as I say, you're welcome to stay. We'll be back shortly.

Okay, we'll reopen the meeting. Thank you for your patience. Appreciate that.

After consideration of the matters we heard during discussion, the panel has deliberated on those issues raised, and I'd like to put forward a recommendation that the panel will vote on. It's recommended that the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, as consent authority pursuant to clause 4.16(1)(a) of the EP&A Act, approve the application for review of the decision to refuse a development application DA703/17 for a function centre known as 1029 St Albans Road, Lower Macdonald, and as a consequence of Part A, a deferred commencement consent be issued for a reviewed development application for the function centre subject to the conditions contained in Council's report with the following amendments.

In relation to the deferred commencement conditions, Schedule 1, C, Conservation Works, the applicant is to provide a revised conservation management plan incorporating the scope of work, quality of works, cost of works and timing of the works to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the revised heritage impact statement submitted with the application, and including the cost summary and maintenance and repair schedule dated 8 September 2008 submitted with the application, and other works as may be necessary to ensure the structural safety of the building. Condition 2, general conditions, Schedule 2. This consent is limited for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the consent.

We note that a new development application must be submitted and determined prior to the expiration of the time period if it is intended to continue the use. If an application is not submitted and determined within the specified time period, the development subject of this consent must cease.

Condition 3, conservation management plan, conservation works, is amended by the first paragraph reading, the conservation works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved conservation management plan.

Condition 13 is amended with the addition of, or the amendment of, an all-weather car park constructed of permeable material shall be provided, with the rest of the condition remaining the same.

A new condition 46A, function centre effluent disposal, the function centre shall operate at all times in accordance with any approval issued by Council pursuant to Section 68 and 68A of the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to the aerated wastewater treatment system approved under development consent 1B, and in conjunction with the appropriate number of portable toilets to be made available on site on days when functions are held. Condition 14— sorry, 14.9 is to be amended that a suitably experienced on-site manager must be present to oversee and manage the operation of the function centre at all times during all functions and events. And new condition 52A, a complaints register is to be maintained and forwarded to Council at six-monthly periods, brackets January and July each year. Now, I'll put that recommendation to the panel. Those in favour? Okay.

That being unanimous, it becomes the resolution.

The reasons for our decision. The panel notes that the scale and intensity of the development has been reduced in the amended proposal, and the previous reasons for refusal have been generally addressed. The panel is satisfied that the requirements of clause 5.10, brackets 10, of the Hawkesbury LEP have been satisfied because the conservation of the former St Joseph's Church will be facilitated by the development if it is undertaken in accordance with an approved conservation management plan. The panel is satisfied that the heritage significance of the heritage item and the amenity of the surrounding area will not be significantly adversely affected.

The panel is satisfied that by limiting the frequency of functions, the number of people allowed to attend, the hours of operation and generation of noise, the demand for parking and potential traffic impacts are within acceptable limits and will not significantly adversely affect the amenity of the area. And the panel considers that a time-limited consent for a period of two years will provide the opportunity for the applicant to establish that potential significant adverse impacts can be avoided. That's the decision of the panel. Thank you for your attendance. And we'll move on to the second item, which is an item for

The advice of the panel, not for decision.

Item 2, or is it actually item 13 in the agenda, is a Section 455 amendment, subdivision modification of consent for a community subdivision to create 33 residential lots at 396 Bells Line of Road and 2 Inverarity Drive, Kurmond. The advice that the panel has been requested to provide is solely in relation to condition 79 of the consent as issued relating to a sewer reticulation. The condition reads, sewer reticulation including junction shall be constructed to each residential lot in the subdivision and to 406 Bells Line of Road, and it's contended by the applicant that the condition is inappropriate.

I don't know whether we need to vote, to be honest. I think this— so the panel has considered this matter and advises the council accordingly that the panel considers it appropriate to amend condition 79 by deleting the reference to 406 Bells Line of Road. The panel considers that any condition in relation to 406 Bells Line of Road should be restricted to ameliorating or rectifying any impacts on the sewerage system servicing number 406 associated with the approved development. The applicant should be requested to provide details of the access works within 406 to enable the extent of such impacts and the necessary rectification works to be determined.

So that is the end of today's meeting. I close the meeting.