11 December - Ordinary

Hawkesbury City Council, I would firstly like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land on which we meet, and pay my respects to Elders both past and present. I would now like to ask the General Manager to address the Council about some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 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 Chamber has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. All the Councillors are present, so there'd be no apologies. Do we have any declarations of interest? No. Okay, thank you. We'll firstly move on to the minutes from the last meeting. Would someone like to move we accept those minutes? Moved, Councillor Conolly, seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour, say aye. All those against, declare it carried.

We now move to agenda item subject to official subject to public address. We only have one item which is subject to public address. That's item 294, and our

Speaker is Mr Michael Wont.

Okay, we'll have to wait now, sorry. I've already called Mr Wont up.

Thanks, councillors. Councillors, I think council should try very, very hard to find a way to find a solution to traffic congestion on a holistic basis. That's not an original thought. It has been said many times in this chamber by the NRDC, AA and others to no avail. The voluntary planning agreement does not provide a holistic fix to congestion. It's a toothless tiger based on hope. Who would enter into an agreement that provides options and does not provide solutions? I remember clearly the NRDC AA calling for planning approvals for the bridge to be obtained prior to the approval of the voluntary planning agreement. We were ridiculed by the Liberal councillors, Councillor Conolly and Tree.

They should have listened. The bridge across the Grose, if it's ever built, has a five-tonne load limit and will not address congestion. At the information meeting last week in North Richmond, you could hardly walk away from that meeting thinking the residents wanting a bridge across the Grose River. The overwhelming majority want to protect the environment. That was made clear. I only saw one Liberal councillor at the meetings. Maybe there were others. I make the following points in support of a holistic approach. The residents who lived west of the river have suffered badly as a result of the 2008, 2012, 2016 Council's decisions to ignore the community's call for no rezoning west of the river

Because of the lack of transport infrastructure. The current Council is trying to address that situation with two hands and a leg tied behind their back. Council should never have sought a gateway approval for this development in the first place. The Liberal-controlled Council at the time, led by the ICAC-affected Councillor Bassett, knew there was traffic congestion that could not be addressed in the foreseeable future. His Liberal councillors knew also as well.

Sorry, excuse me, Mr. Wont. Point of order. Just to the relevance of the debate, I just want to bring your attention, Mr. Mayor, to the fact that the matter is about whether or not to amend the VPA, and that hasn't come up yet so far in Mr. Wont's address.

Mr. Wont, do you think you could confine yourself to the matter at hand, please?

I have been, Mayor. Well

I think you've been giving us a history lesson. It's about changing the schedule of certain items as on page 17.

As I said, Mr. Mayor, could I just— I'm sorry, I apologise to councillors and you that I really should have declared an interest in this item, given that the predominant focus is on the Grose River Bridge, and I really, I will declare an interest. Significant. Significant.

And you'll be leaving the chamber. I will be leaving, sorry. Thank you. Mr Want, can you see if you can stick to the recommendation on page 17, please?

I'll do my best, but I'm just making some points why it should do something else. Okay

Thank you. I oppose it.

I'm opposed to the... Yep. Yep, just the recommendation . The Gateway approval from the Department of Planning had a caveat within the decision, and that was the State Government Planning Department was not providing any infrastructure should Council proceed with the planning proposal.

Yet despite that caveat, the development Council has kept on course

And we eventually found out why with the publication of the findings at page 154 of the ICAC report.

Good grief.

Councillor Richards, do you want to move a point of

Order? Yeah, thank you. Previously Mr Want has been advised by the General Manager to not go down this path. I'd like to make sure that that is still binding, if the General Manager's got comment to make on that, please.

Does the General Manager have comment to make on that?

Mr Mayor, Mr Want has been given correspondence that outlines the scope of his comments, that they should be contained within that scope, and I think we are drifting in areas where they're not relevant to the matter under consideration. They must be relevant, not just factually or historically relevant. It must be directly relevant.

Can I move a

Point of order, Mr Mayor? Hang on, Councillor Conolly has his light on. Mr Mayor, I think Mr Want, sorry, should be given the opportunity to withdraw that remark. Nothing in the ICAC report made any comment about any Hawkesbury City Councillor, and I don't like the suggestion that there's a reason the ICAC report is through why I supported the development. Given that's defamatory, I think Mr Want should have the opportunity to withdraw it now. Thank you for that

Mr Want, would you care to withdraw that comment?

I'm quite happy to withdraw it, but— I wasn't talking about — I said you go to the report and you'll find out why. But I will withdraw the comment .

Mr. Wont is withdrawing the comment. Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm a little bit sick of Mr Wont coming in and raving on about— Is this a

Point of order

Yeah, it is — about Bart Bassett having been found corrupt at ICAC, when in fact there was no corrupt finding whatsoever. There was no referral to the DPP. There were no issues that were pursued further by the Electoral Funding Commission. So the way that he keeps on going on about it is completely and utterly irrelevant, and it's on the record that there was no corrupt finding whatsoever. So his continual reference to it is really frigging boring.

Thank you for that. Point of order, Mr Mayor. Yeah, hang on. I'm dealing with this point of order, Mr Councillor Ross. Mr Wont, what I heard might have been different to what Councillor Tree heard. I thought I heard you say that the mayor was referred to ICAC. I don't know whether you said he was guilty of anything. No , no, sir. But—

The inference is always there, Mr Mayor. The

Inference is there, I know, but I don't think Mr Wont actually said what you think he said. Mr Wont, would you like to comment on exactly what you did say? Yes, I

Referred to the affected Councillor Bassett, and he was found to be affected, whatever that might mean. Excuse

Me , Mr Mayor. What do you mean by affected? It's defined

In the decision, I think at page 155 or 56, and there's a list of people there, and the reasons for that are also identified in page 55. You should be

Giving him more airtime. You're giving him more time to talk about a topic that's so far off the track.

Councillor Ross has a point of order.

Mr Mayor, I just felt that the major speech made by one of the folk across the aisle was not dealing with a point of order at all, but also a rewrite of history, and I felt that that was unnecessary.

Thank you. So that's not really a point of order, Mr Councillor Ross. If you don't like what someone's saying, that doesn't make it a point of order. Councillor Richards, were you moving another point of order?

I was moving a point of order, just for the fact that by asking Mr Want to elaborate on the points of order already raised by other people, you're actually giving him more opportunity to go so far off the track of what the topic is at hand of item number 294, and I don't think that we should even be referring to these, the sorts of things that he keeps referring to, and he's been given that warning in writing by the General Manager. I don't know why we're still debating this. Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. I will take your advice on board. Deputy Mayor.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. I think what Councillor Richards is referring to is not a public document, so to refer to it, the correspondence from the General Manager to Mr Want, is not an acceptable way to raise a point of order. For those of us who and councillors have seen that point of order, perhaps the General Manager could clarify exactly what it said so that the situation can be clarified once and for all. It was my belief it relates to infrastructure.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I don't think we need to go any further into that matter. Mr Want, would you like to continue, but could you continue to only mention what's in the recommendation, which is the milestones and the order in which the milestones are to be changed. Thank you.

Remember I said I was— Speaking against the recommendation, I'm offering an alternative.

Okay. Okay.

The traffic study released by Council to the public a few days ago indicates that a bridge across the Grose would lift the level of service from F to E at the North Richmond intersection. That's hardly something to look forward to. On Monday, the RMS met with the NRDC, AA and other community groups. They have also scheduled meetings with others, and I understand they met with Council officers as well regarding investigating the bridge duplication and traffic improvements. No money has been allocated to do any real work. Enough money is available to investigate. That's all. The only solution I see is the developer, Council and the State Government negotiate an agreement urgently how we can have a holistic approach to a very, very bad situation. Good faith isn't required all around. That may be a bridge too far.

Thank you, Mr. Wong. You happy to answer questions? I am. Anyone got any questions for Mr. Wong? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. Would someone like to move the recommendation or some other recommendation?

The recommendation on page 17. I move that, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Conolly is moving it. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Tree seconding it. Councillor Conolly, do you wish to speak on it? Nope . Any other speakers?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's just a couple of points of clarification. Could the staff please advise me as to what the current lot milestone is? Where are we up to in terms of lot releases in relation to the various milestones?

Mr. Mayor, we're up to about lot 450.

And my other question relates to whether this represents any kind of delay to the overall process. It moves one of the internal milestones up, but the provision of the bridge is still fixed at Lot 1001. That's what we see on the table on page 14. However, in the financial implications section on page 16, it says it won't result in a reduction of infrastructure provision, but is proposing some additional time to provide that infrastructure. I presume that only means time within the timeline, but the overall timeline is unaffected. Is that correct?

That's correct, Mr Mayor

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Any other speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Just a question, Mr Mayor. One of the questions that came from the community meeting last week was what financial certainty we had should the developer reach, for example, the thousandth lot prior to the construction of the bridge and, say , be declared bankrupt, for example. What would then happen with the construction, with the money that's been pledged whether construction takes place or not? Mr Conroy .

Mr Mayor, the total development is in the order of fifteen hundred, sixteen hundred lots. At the moment the bridge is required to be completed by the one thousandth lot, or thereabouts. That means there's another five to six hundred lots still to be developed after the bridge has been completed. The value of those lots is still going to deliver a significant amount of income to the overall project. If you look at an average lot of 300,000 by 500 lots, there's still quite a lot of income to be derived. And again, the project plan requires certain things to have happened in the lead up to that thousandth lot. So there's got to be a development approval, there's got to be construction certificates, and I would imagine that there would be provisions put in place along the way to secure some of those funds as we move through the process.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

I'm just not sure that I imagine that there are sufficient protections is quite sufficient for us. What are these protections? Where is this money? Is it with the developer? Is some of it in trust? Does Council have any claim on this money? Should we get to, for example, 900 or so lots, the developer will have made a significant profit from this at this point. How do we hold them to the delivery of this infrastructure?

I'll have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor, and speak to the RMS about the specific details of that.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Yes

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Deputy Mayor.

I just had a question. I believe it's 1,399 lots is the total, unless it's increased somewhat, or it was, used to be. I had a question. I'm just wondering why this wasn't changed in 2017. I don't understand why. We changed one and not the other. Was there a reason for that, or was it an oversight?

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, I would say it was an oversight. Should have been changed at that time. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Mr Mayor, could I enquire of you, please? The statement made a few moments ago by the General Manager would indicate that construction would be completed by the 31st of July. Would he please clarify that statement? Because I've had the understanding that— Construction would be due to start at that time

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, the current voluntary planning agreement requires the bridge to be completed at the 1,001 lot.

Any further speakers or— Deputy

Mayor. Further question, Mr Mayor. Can we have an explanation as to why we wouldn't just take it to the same level as when the development approval is ready at 701 lots, so that the development approval is issued and the construction documentation done before more lots issued? I'm asking that on the rationale that I would think that then gives a bigger space for the actual construction to be done and the money to come in for the construction between 701 and 1,001 lots. Just maybe just an explanation of why that wouldn't be a preferable option when it's gone from 461 to begin with.

Mr Conroy. Mr Mayor, normally the construction plans are prepared after the development application is approved. That gives time for the construction plans to incorporate any conditions that are included in the development consent. I'm not familiar with a situation where the construction plans have been prepared at the same time as the development approval plans. One's more conceptual; the other is the actual plans that will be constructed on site, and they do have to respond to all the planning conditions.

Thank you. Any further questions or— Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks

Mr Mayor. A question to, I suppose, the General Manager. Point D, sorry, yeah, point D in number two of the recommendation says construction of the proposed bridge. It doesn't say completion of the proposed bridge. Can we have that changed to completion?

That's the term that's in the VPA. Construction doesn't mean completion. I think the context of the VPA is that it's construction and operation. I wouldn't suggest we change any of the wording without changing the VPA. It just creates another issue of inconsistency.

It is a concern because, as I say, it says construction. It doesn't say completion or commissioning of the proposed bridge, which is the normal terminology used when a bridge is completed. It may be a fault with the original VPA, but that leaves us wide open for construction to start at the thousand and first lot, for construction of the proposed bridge to commence. I think that's a bit of a problem with this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Councillor Connolly. Yeah, I'll just say to that, I don't think we should be scaremongering, Mr Mayor, about the original VPA. If there's an issue, we shouldn't be sitting in a council meeting saying, Oh, we're left wide open. If we're legitimately concerned, maybe we should suggest that we should seek further legal advice, in addition to all the legal advice we've already had on the VPA, if we're really concerned about it. But I don't think scaremongering to the general community, saying that we've been left wide open and the bridge is not going to be constructed by the thousand and first lot is a good way to go. Thank you, Councillor Connolly

Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

A point in reference to the most recent comment.

The speaker is a multi-term councillor and had the benefit of being in situ, shall we say here, when the original agreement was promulgated. Therefore, he would have a greater understanding of the relevant elements and steps that were taken along the way, whereas we are somewhat less able to have seen those things going on at that time. So he has the benefit which the current new crop haven't been able to observe. So, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. My observation is that, Councillor Connelly suggesting that if there is a problem with that word construction, then perhaps we should be amending the recommendation to say something like we would seek further legal advice on the definition of that word, rather than just sitting here suddenly changing the word without having that legal advice. I think that's what he is saying. And it's open to the councillors if that's what they want to do. Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Ross.

Well, I'd propose that as an amendment with your blessing, Mayor

So you want to add a point three?

If you'd be so kind, sir.

Thank you. I'll ask Councillor Connelly if he would entertain that

Thought. Look, I'd ask, Mr Mayor, if I could through you to the General Manager or whoever it's relevant to, if that is considered necessary and what legal advice we've had to date, whether we are unsure about that matter. Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, I don't actually have the agreement here in front of me at this moment, but the report does contain an extract from the voluntary planning agreement, which says: construction of the proposed bridge, brackets multi-span, close brackets, crossing at Yarramundi of the Grose River, including road approaches between Springwood Road and Grose Vale Road. The current milestone by which time this must take place is prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate for creation of 1,001st lot. That's essentially what the agreement says, but I'm happy to get some legal advice to confirm that the interpretation that we've taken is the correct interpretation.

So perhaps, Councillor Ross, your amendment might be more like: we ask the General Manager to provide us with further clarification of the terminology used.

Thank you, Mayor. With your guidance, I'd be very happy to proceed along that path, should there be confirmation.

Councillor Conolly is happy with that, and Councillor Trevis, seconder, are you happy to do that? Good. Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor.

I'll support that additional point. I think it is important to clarify that this is a community that has often been burnt by failure of developers to complete developments, and we know that it is a concern for people when we're dealing with something that is termed a voluntary planning agreement, for which there needs to be the agreement of three parties for the agreement to proceed. So it's probably very pertinent that we get a proper clarification. I don't believe we've had previous legal advice regarding the definition of what that actually means with construction, and I would imagine if it's not a firm definition, that we should then actually seek with the other two parties to properly clarify it within the agreement, because the last thing this community wants is to see us get to that point and not have that bridge there when they've put the faith in this process of going ahead on that basis.

So I think that's a very pertinent addition to have to the recommendation.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

If not, does Councillor Connolly require a right of reply?

This is a planning matter, so we need to vote with our buttons. Hoping it's all switched on.

On

Account of

Councillor Rasmussen needs to be switched off. That's good.

Before we move on, yes. Yes, we're moving. We're voting on an amended motion which has a point three in it, okay

But it's only the motion, it's not an amendment.

Well, it's now a motion with an extra point, yes. And the mover has accepted that, yes. So I shouldn't have used the word amendment. No, it's the motion with an extra point,

Okay.

So we all clear on that? So on account of three, please vote by using your buttons. One, two, three. Look at that. It actually worked. The recommendation is passed. Councillors in favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Connolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Voting against is Councillor Wheeler, and missing or absent from the room is Councillor Rasmussen. Now, before we move on, Councillor Wheeler, I'm sorry about before. I didn't ignore you, I just forgot. Okay, so Councillor Wheeler wanted to... Put something forward. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an urgent motion, please, relating to the prevention of drownings in popular river swimming spots. I've sent the motion forward. Second that, Mr Mayor.

Before you do, I know it's probably quite obvious, but could you explain why it's urgent?

It's urgent because we've just had two drownings in both the Colo and the Hawkesbury. It's summer, and we're not due to meet again until February. So if we don't deal with this now, we won't deal with it for another six weeks.

Okay. Now, before you all start discussion, and I note it's been seconded by Council, the Deputy Mayor, I had a meeting with one of our experts about meeting procedure just two weeks ago, and she told me that urgency motions can be accepted at this time, but they don't actually get discussed until the end of the other business, which means it would be discussed at the end of the business before the confidential. Okay. That's why I wasn't in a hurry to notice you before. So look, I do accept your statement that it is urgent, and I'll put it on the business paper, and we'll discuss it after item 299. Okay. So we now move on to other items.

Item 295, Local Government NSW, there's a recommendation on page 19. Someone like to move that, or something else? I'll move it. Moved Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded Councillor Richards. Any discussion?

No.

Do you require right of reply, Deputy Mayor? No, thank you. I'll move the recommendation. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

I think at this point we need to nominate some councillors to go, and I don't know whether we actually have a recommended number, so could you tell me who's interested? Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Garrow. Councillor Richards. Three councillors. Can we accommodate three councillors, Mr Conroy?

Mr Mayor, there is—we've got more than half the budget left for the rest of the year, so we can most likely accommodate the three councillors, yes.

Okay, well it's been moved that those three councillors attend this conference. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. Item 296.

Six, I would ask if the General Manager would like to give a short introduction to this one. Ms. Perry. Thank you

Mr. Mayor. The purpose of the policy, the draft Compliant and Enforcement Policy, is to enable an effective governance framework pertaining to compliance and enforcement. The intent is that we provide a framework that enables Council to be transparent, consistent, accountable, and reflects the model code.

Thank you.

Move that way, Mr. Mayor, moved

By Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Garrow. That's the recommendation on page 23. Any discussion? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I just had a question regarding point 4.8, role of councillors in compliance and enforcement. 4.8.2, where it says individual councillors do not have the right to direct council staff in their day-to-day activities, and councillors can help individuals who raise concerns with them by satisfying themselves that their council's policies are being carried out correctly. However, they cannot ignore or alter a policy in order to satisfy the demands of special groups. I'm just wondering where we fit into that clause about the actual process of what councillors are expected to do, for example, to use the councillor request portal, or how, I think we should outline how, rather than just saying what councillors shouldn't do, I think we should somehow include in there what councillors should do and what the accepted practice is, because this is a policy and a guideline, so it should probably include what the appropriate action is.

Ms. Berry.

It could. However, what I would do in terms of—we have a detailed procedure laying behind this. Policies, if we were to change procedures and contain procedures in the policy document, if we wanted to change that, then we have to keep coming back to change the policy. To date, the process is councillors send a councillor request. It comes to me. At that point in time, I forward on to the relevant staff to action. The actioning timeframe does depend on the risk associated, as well as a number of other factors. So if there is high risk that we need to address quickly, then it's addressed quickly. If it's something that could be done along someone's journey onto another inspection, then it's done that way as well. But I wouldn't be proposing that we put in a policy the procedural part of how we deal with councillor requests coming through.

Okay. So is that what clause five is meant to refer to, is it? Is that a reference clause? Yes. Okay.

Further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I note on page 23 of the business paper that the report from the officer indicates that there are no financial implications. I would like to have that reaffirmed in light of the next item that is coming to Council this evening, in that it

Would be very beneficial to know that we are resourced and , shall we say, to use that vernacular, tracking. With our operational plan in terms of expenditures, and that there is no deficit in the personing of the roles that are within the council establishment. Mr

Comment on that?

We are tracking. We currently have a couple of vacancies within the compliance enforcement team, so we're looking to fill those roles, which will actually help lift the level of work that is able to be delivered to date. But essentially, we're delivering services as well as we can within the resources that we have.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Today I had a brief discussion with Ms. Perrine about the scope of the policy, and since then I've been talking to my colleague, Councillor Zamprogno, who's also on the Hawkesbury River County Council, and we were talking about control of weeds and whether it was appropriate to have weed control within this policy. And we were unsure whether Hawkesbury Council has any type of control in this area, and it was about whether, you know, we give guidelines for NDAs of what to plant and what not to plant, and whether that's sort of in the realm of something that we would have a compliance role on. So I might have been, by saying to remove it, might have been jumping the gun a bit, and I just wanted that to be discussed if I could.

So, Councillor, so this policy actually applies not just to the regulatory team and actually applies to some other parts of Council as well. For instance, in the infrastructure services, there is bush management services, which obviously does include weed control. They've had input and they've reviewed this. It would apply to them as well. From an enforcement point of view, however, yes, there are activities that we do, but we would be working with the Hawkesbury Council as well, counter council on those kinds of broader activities.

Okay. Any further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Just a question on that, generally, if I may, sir. Would that not fall more into the province of a DCP element?

Landscaping and designs falls into the control of the DCP, and obviously through that you'd be hoping that there is weed control that's part of it and the types of plants that we'd be encouraging that's native and relevant to the area, yes.

Further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen, would you like a right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr. Mayor, thank you.

I'll put the recommendation. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

We move to item

297

Swimming pool inspection. Moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Richards. This is on page 27. Any discussion?

Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, Councillor Ross.

I'm generally in support of what we're trying to do.

I found the report rather confusing, and in part that I think is caused by the fact that we haven't been given the privilege of reading the BLG Consultants report to inform us. I therefore must inquire, please, a question firstly. It's quite clear as to the three-yearly legislative inspection regime required of, shall we say, more public areas and tourist facilities and so on. What is it in regard to a single pool,

Privately situated pool? Is it five years, three years or another ?

As per the legislation, our approach is we will only be actioning any requests for registration application approvals or any complaints that have been sent to Council in regards to pools, whether it's through private certifiers or other means. Council will not be entering into properties on a proactive basis in order to examine their pools to make sure that they're compliant.

Could I ask further, what does the legislation say, please, in this regard?

At minimum, what we're proposing, that we respond to complaints or we respond to issues that are raised with us by the community who want to apply for registrations for their pools.

The next question I'd like to pose is: the

Survey that has been conducted, which in total mentioned 6,000-odd installations, was it possible for Council or the consultant or both to agree upon a level of those installations which do require three-yearly inspection

Council

We're currently going through our database and doing a data cleanse, which is about 98% complete, so that we've identified the properties that we must conduct the three-yearly inspection of. In terms of the other number of approximate 6,000 pools of private dwellings, that's what we know. We're also assuming there's maybe a couple of thousand more pools that we do not have registered that are in across the LGA as well . Is it possible

For us to be informed as to the number of these? Installations which require the three-yearly inspection, please.

I'll have to come back to Council on that when I can finalise a number.

I then am a little bit curious as to if we were to conduct that program as is suggested, that there would be a requirement for additional staff and personnel, a total of four people, when we don't have a quantum involved.

I'm also, that's a comment. My next question would be, do we have anyone actively involved in this area from staff, or is it being conducted on an as-needs basis by other elements of the staff establishment, please? We

Have staff actively enacting our pool inspections currently.

Could you indicate a number, please?

Well, at the moment I've got a building services team of five FTE, and across all of them they can conduct pool inspections. However, one is more, I suppose, accredited at a level that does most of the inspections. However, all of the staff are able to do them.

So from that I would understand that

The current situation is we have one—

Person attending to this area as their prime responsibility. No

No one has paused as their primary responsibility.

Are you able to also indicate the number of current and compliant licensing inspections that have been conducted and are, shall we say, within their time limit of operation?

I don't have up-to-date data on that

Number . Councillor Ross, is that it?

I think so. Okay. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Following on a little bit from Councillor Ross's inquiry about the full-time equivalents that might be engaged on this activity, is there an estimate that we could come to about the FTE that's required to carry out this policy?

If we want, in terms of the revised policy that I'm proposing now, or do we do a proactive program?

Well, in terms of implementing the policy that we're about to pass—

Well, the current FTE will cover this proposed policy. If we wanted to continue under the current proposed program, I would need three FTE and an administrative support person, which I'm not proposing we do that.

Right.

But under our current FTE of the five building services staff within the team that also have a range of other activities, the current program will be able to fit within that current regime of staff.

Okay. Thank you for that. Another one, Mr. Meve, I may. How much effort was involved in developing this policy?

We obviously engaged a consultant who was, I'm not sure, the work started before I was here, so I'm not sure how long he was working with us. Working with the staff involved in terms of reviewing the system, the processes at the moment, and staff are currently involved in doing the data cleanse of Council's systems to get the information up to speed so we can actually know what we're doing going forward.

Councillor Rasmussen, you turn your light on, please.

Thank you. Thank you. This is actually a state-imposed piece of legislation, correct?

Yes.

Now you say in the report, or someone does, that there are no financial implications of this policy.

It's a program. When it was first introduced, it would have been seen as an impost on Council, but it's a program that's been going now for a number of years. So it's just been absorbed within our operational budgets, or the staffing arrangements that Councils have.

Is there any opportunity to recover any of the costs from the state government in implementing this policy?

I would like to say I wish.

You'd like to say wish. Well, maybe we could just develop a little business plan around what it's costing Council and ratepayers to do this, and then maybe we could send the invoice to the state government. Would that be a possibility?

To have legs, I would probably say that would be a local government industry-wide initiative as opposed to just Hawkesbury on their own. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and if I may carry on. You may. Thank you. Yeah, look, it's another, I mean, I think the policy is well developed, and I thank the staff and applaud them for the effort that's gone in there and the consultant, because it is a very thorough policy, I must admit. But the point of it all is, I guess, and from my point of view, is that this is yet another area where state government has shifted costs onto local government and therefore ratepayers. How many more of these are we going to put up with before we say enough is enough? Can't just keep escalating rates, and we know how difficult that is in this area in terms of increasing rates, whether it's here, there or wherever it is in the area.

And I just think sooner or later somebody has to call a halt to this, and maybe what we need is to put a motion to the national conference to say, well, look, we will do all these things for you, state government, but you've got to follow on with some resources so we can do this. Maybe that's the answer to it, and maybe I'll develop a motion for the national conference as well.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I think as long as we're satisfied that this policy satisfies our legal requirements, and the Director of Planning has made that clear, then I don't think we have any other choice. We simply don't have the resources to carry out this work to the level that we originally stated we would. This is a clear example of state government regulation creating an unlevel playing field for councils. We can't do this in an economically viable fashion because the legislation has capped our costs below cost recovery, unlike private industry who can charge what they please and simply leave the market to sort it out. We are not able to do that. So I think this policy for us currently is the best way forward.

While we've got staff dealing with solicited swimming pool proposals, we don't have those same compliance staff dealing with core council business around compliance, regulation and planning. So where the private sector is able to do this, I think we need to let them.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. Councillor Connelly, would you like a right of reply? Not necessary. I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

Move to item 298, dementia friendly communities and the recommendation is on page 32. We have Councillor Wheeler, you want to move that? I'll move that. Councillor Rasmussen. Seconding it. Councillor Wheeler.

This is a really excellent initiative. I spent some time last year and early this year speaking with members of the community, including Dr Ravi and Peter Gooley, about dementia friendly communities. We've already got some facilities that provide some dementia friendly services, including our own museum and gallery that seek to provide some programs, and also a safe place where carers of individuals with dementia can comfortably leave people for a little while so that they can get some respite or at least go and do the shopping.

I think this policy is quite good timing with the town centres revitalisation and the liveability grant funding coming into play as well. If we can have a unified approach, then we can do some of the things that are recommended by this report can feed in, I think, to those other initiatives. I think we really need to look at developing support networks and community education as key initiatives, like the Indigo Shire examples that have been detailed in the report, where the focus really is on building community around the people who are living with dementia and also the people who are living with them and caring for them. We've got a couple of lovely examples in the community. In Freeman's Reach, we have a gentleman living with dementia who regularly goes for a walk up to the local shops.

The shopkeepers know to look after him and to look out for him. They contact the family to say that he's safely arrived at the shop. They feed him, they put things on tick in case he hasn't brought up any money and he's decided to order some stuff. They watch him set on his way, and they notify the family to say that he's coming home. The reassurance and support that that provides the family seems tiny, but is actually huge. We've got another instance of a husband caring for his wife in Richmond, and her girlfriends come and take her to play tennis at council's tennis courts each week, and that provides him with four hours respite. She doesn't play very much tennis. He said she was never very good at it anyway.

He doesn't think her friends probably are either. But at least it gets her out of the house and gives him some respite. And I think these are the initiatives that communities like ours can really provide. And I'm hoping that that's some of the stuff that comes out of this report and this project. So I think it's an excellent initiative.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

I'd just like to echo what Councillor Weenless said. Like some councillors, we've gone to several of the forums, and I also went to Dr Ravi's evening that he had to launch a dementia advisory service. I think the important thing is, with an ageing population and also with an increase in early onset dementia occurring, that we do ensure that this is something that's instilled in, especially in our organisation, but also within our townships and so on, to help people just have that understanding that enables them to deal better with people who are suffering from dementia. So I think this is a really positive and a well-written report and something that we should be really Proud to be moving on with.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I fully support the initiative. I'm just unsure

As to the Council's intention in terms of providing the support.

I would have some inclination towards suggesting that the Access and Inclusion Committee might well be involved in possibly the lower level considerations and maybe day-to-day involvement , because it's quite possible that the members of that committee would be quite conversant with folk who may require our care and consideration under this policy. I'm just wondering if

Management might think of— Sure, that was

The intention because actually this item was brought to Council because it was recommended by the Hawkesbury Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee, so I'm assuming that they will be part of the development of the plan. Mr Conroy, did you want

To comment on that?

Nothing further, Mr Mayor. I think it's something that will be worked on right across Council. I also think it will be something that will run through a number of our committees because there are various dimensions to this in urban design and in some of the services that we deliver as well.

Okay, any further discussion? I just wanted to indicate that I think this is a tremendous policy for the Council to pursue, and if other towns and cities around Australia have already managed to develop plans, then I'm hoping that we can borrow heavily from those plans, and our plan shouldn't therefore take very long to be written. So this has been moved by Councillor Wheeler. Do you want to exercise your right of reply?

No.

I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried. We now—

Move to item 299, notice of motion by Councillor Rasmussen. The recommendation is on page 39. Do we have a seconder I'll second that. Deputy Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I bring this notice of motion to Councillors' notice because, as many of you will know, that the situation down there on Farm Lane 3, Yarramundi Lane, Crowley's Lane and Inalls Lane has progressively over the years become quite a safety issue, in my view. It has been exacerbated by the fact that the roadworks that were conducted, carried out a few years ago, that is at the intersection of Kurrajong Road and Yarramundi Lane, also known by the RMS as the old Kurrajong Road, though anybody knows it as that. Anyway, the point of this notice of motion is, in fact, is to call upon the RMS to conduct some reviews, safety reviews, of these lanes because, as a result of their construction project, and to really come to grips with the fact that there have been a considerable diversion, if you like, of traffic flow in the morning peak hour and certainly in the evening peak hour through these lanes as people try, travellers try to avoid, and that's trucks and utes and all sorts of cars and traffic tries to avoid the intersection at— At Castle Ray Road and Kurrajong Road in Richmond.

So, in other words, people are trying to get away from that intersection there. Now, I know there will be some work done on that in years to come. But at the moment, what we have is, I think, quite a safety issue for people using those lanes. And all three of the lanes are heavily used. In fact, I think it was about two weeks ago now that I witnessed the situation where Yarramundi Lane, Inalls Lane and Crowleys Lane were all backed up. Crowleys Lane in particular was backed up to Castle Ray Road, and people wishing to turn left into Crowleys Lane off Castle Ray Road just simply couldn't. So they were beginning to bank up on Castle Ray Road, becoming very dangerous on that road, which is quite busy.

So, and furthermore, if we have a rain event, and we've had a couple recently, what happens is that that very narrow farm lane, Yarramundi Lane, has water over the edges of the road, particularly the trenches that drain Yarramundi Lane on either side of Yarramundi Lane. And so what happens is that the road width narrows even further, the usable road width narrows even further. So we're looking at, in the main, about one lane for traffic travelling both north and south. Now that becomes quite dangerous as people try and avoid the water over the road and also try and avoid the power poles and also the trenches, which everybody knows is on both the left-hand and the right-hand side. So my point, I guess, is that this is quite a serious situation, and it's getting worse.

Now, I think there is responsibility on the RMS to To do something about an audit of the safety audit of their works and to then do something about fixing it. And I think it's becoming quite urgent. So I would like Council to support this motion so that we can get something going before something serious happens down there with quite serious consequences. So I ask Councillors to support this notice of motion.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of this notice of motion, and I appreciate the safety concerns that Councillor Rasmussen has made. But I was just wondering whether we have a maintenance problem as well, which can exacerbate those safety issues, because I notice I travel that road quite often and it does get wet an awful lot. And I wonder whether that's a product of the rainfall or a product of the overwatering of the crops there. So we have a few issues that I think we might be able to solve without a lot of effort. So do we have any—so my question is, do we have any form of ability to get some compensation from RMS because that road is being used with such a high level of traffic?

Mr Conroy? Mr Organ?

I guess that's what the heart of the notice of motion is, is to approach the RMS and see whether they can do something for it. It's a road under Council's care and control and, as indicated in that notice of motion, it was against our best advices that they undertook those works in the way they did, knowing the consequences of funneling traffic by their works down that lane. I guess the last part of that notice of motion or the discussion there talks about, I guess, a closeout of the works. It'd be good project management for RMS to understand and close out that section of the work, and the way to do that with this would be a road safety audit, which would identify and link any consequences that we currently see back to the project works. So that would be the way to link it back to RMS.

Right, so I'm jumping the gun by, I was going to suggest that we add, you know, an emphasis on maintenance, but it seems like that will come out after the safety audit.

Yeah, the safety audit would identify that, but again the drainage issues you refer to are partly as a result of the farming practices down there and the ploughing and fields, which are not within our control. And as indicated in the words here, they are farm lanes, essentially, that should have been upgraded if they're to undertake the function they're now fulfilling.

Okay

Well, I was just wondering whether Councillor Rasmussen wants to beef it up a bit. I mean, I think it's perfectly fine, but, I mean, if we're going to write, we might as well lay out all the issues.

So what are you suggesting, Councillor Kotlash?

Oh, that we just strengthen the, you know, the emphasis seems to be on safety, which I totally agree with, but just extend it to, you know, those issues of the suitability of the road for the traffic that RMS have sort of caused to use that road. So I guess I haven't got any words. I'm trying to read and talk at the same time, which is not really working, but leave it with me for

A minute. Would you like to think about it while other people speak?

I think I'll stop talking now.

Thank you.

Perhaps I could just tell, Councillor Kotlash, if you direct your attention to the second item towards the last sentence there, they're talking about the standards pertaining to the main regional roads network, which sort of captures the fact that this is not fit for purpose. The purpose at the moment is obviously a pseudo regional road. So I'm saying, look, guys, let's get with it. You've got the traffic counts. Let's get it to the standard that you would want, we all would need for safe road travel on the main regional roads.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would support having it as strong as possible because it is an increasingly dangerous situation. It's obviously has emerged from trying to have a coexistence of farm lanes with major traffic increases, and there's no doubt that that intersection was upgraded with the intention of encouraging people to use it to go across to Penrith. So I think that as strong as we can make it, I would certainly support. Previously I had requested whether a load limit could be put on that because it is also increasingly used by truck and dog vehicles. However, I was told that that was not possible because by the very nature of it being a farm lane that they would have to have vehicles like that on there.

But that is also a growing problem. Not only does it put more wear and tear on the roads with the heavy vehicles, but it's also incredibly dangerous to be going along that stretch with a big ditch to have a truck coming the other way and you've got nowhere to go. So I fully support doing whatever we can possibly do to make it safer. And really we ought to be getting some money from the state government to assist us to maintain that because it would be one of our most heavily used roads, I would expect. I don't know what the numbers are, but as Councillor Rasmussen was saying, there's traffic banked up there on a Friday afternoon. It's half the way to Penrith. But anyway, I support that and I hope that we can get some action on it because I know that we have asked in the past and we haven't had anything happen then.

So hopefully another call will bring us some more information and some more resources.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support Councillor Rasmussen's notice of motion, but I'm trying to contextualise what's being proposed here with a suggestion that the General Manager made to us at some point within the last year or two to prioritise precisely this precinct as part of a special project and advance that section of road for special funding from another tier of government or to add it to our own works program. Can you recall, Mr Conroy, and would that assist us in achieving a good outcome?

Please direct your comments through the Mayor. Mr

Conroy Mr Mayor, I think the Councillor is referring to a session that we had during the City Deal where we were looking at some potential road funding opportunities, and one of the opportunities we put forward was addressing this particular section of Yarramundi Lane, where it's very narrow. So we were talking about essentially a link from up near Agnes Banks down to Bells Line of Road at North Richmond. That didn't get any traction at the time, and that was as far as that went on that occasion.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Perhaps some suggested wording for point one. I understand— Councillor Kotlash and the Deputy Mayor's points about making this as strong as possible, and I think what we need to do with this is to make very clear to the state government that this situation is dangerous, and that we want that danger resolved. And I think that is best done by laying that out in detail. So perhaps in point one, where it says after Minister for Roads and Local State Member, instead of regarding the dangerous traffic situation, just really detail what we mean by that. So detailing Council's concerns about the dangers of increased traffic, heavy loads and road width and condition and whatever else I've missed in that.

So I think what we need to do, we're in a situation where the state government have put this impost on a local road that isn't capable of handling it. We are not capable of bringing that road up to the standard required. The state government is making no attempts to bring that road up to the standard required, and therefore our local residents will either have to pay to fix it or they'll have to put up with a dangerous road. And I think we have to make it very clear to the state government that the problem here is that it's dangerous, and that if they continue with this plan, which was their plan to start with, that they are responsible for the danger on this road. And I think a part of this is about a clear statement of risk that we are not willing to accept as a council, and that this community shouldn't be forced to accept.

And I think in part that is Councillor Rasmussen's intention, aside from getting the problem fixed. I think we need a very clear statement of what's gone wrong here so that firstly we're not liable, but that the community don't continue to be put at risk either. All they want is a timely way of getting home.

So, Councillor Wheeler, are you wanting to put that list forward now, or are you happy for the general manager to maybe add it later?

I'm happy for the general manager to add it, but I've got it here if you want to stick it in.

Well, if you've got it there in writing, okay. I didn't realise you

Had— I don't know that my writing is legible,

But...

Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with that concept?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I am indeed, and I really do welcome any contribution from any councillor to make this a stronger notice of motion, and I'm also happy to add more myself, but yeah. Yeah ,

And we'll wait for it to come on the board. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. One of my colleagues was making an inquiry of you, I believe earlier, seeking information. Could I just remind you that I believe it was a briefing session some 11, 13 weeks prior to tonight, at which we received information from the RMS, which was primarily to do with the third crossing of the Hawkesbury River, and that there was an expanded area of interest that they indicated to councillors and staff at that time had come to their mind, and they were— Actively considering that at that stage as well.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any further speakers?

No. Do we have the wording yet?

Mr Mayor? Yes. Sorry, that's my dodgy writing, which is now being amended. It needs a comma after heavy loads.

So. .

And has should be have. And

All the rest is okay?

Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy to make that change?

Thank you, Mr— Yes, I am indeed. Thank you. And I thank Councillor Wheeler for it.

And Deputy Mayor, are you happy to second that?

Happy with that.

Councillor Kotlash?

Am I allowed to add just one bit more? Yes, certainly

Are.

Thank you.

You're allowed to ask.

I'd like to add that the road is sort of straddled by ditches and that's another thing, and power poles. I think you've said that in the background information, and that's what makes this road really dicey as well. So increased traffic, heavy loads, with a restricted road width and... Vicinity. And power poles right on the edge of the road. I don't know what the terminology is. There's no shoulder. It's not a shoulder. Yeah

Unshouldered road I

Just, I guess it's because it's, you know, it's not your average— it's just a lane, and I think everybody needs, you know, we have to underline that. Thanks.

Okay, so Councillor Rasmussen is happy to add that point, and we won't wait for it. Any further discussion?

I'm happy with that.

Sorry, yes. Councillor Rasmussen, right of reply.

Mr Mayor, just quickly, I want to thank councillors for the contribution that we've had, or seen tonight, because I think it has made the notice of motion stronger. And I also think that people, councillors have got the very clear, if you travelled there, the very clear understanding that this is not something we can leave for another, you know, three or four years before something is done about it. So I'm glad councillors see the urgency of this, and I'm glad they made a contribution, and I want to thank you councillors for that.

Thank you. I'll move the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. I believe at this point, Councillor—

Reynolds would like to address Council.

I had your item first, Councillor Reynolds, that's all.

No? You'd rather wait till the last item before confidential. Okay. Then I'll ask Councillor Wheeler to tell us about her urgency motion, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sent some words through, so it should appear shortly.

The intention of the urgency motion is for Council to improve the signage around some of our local swimming spots, the most popular of those including Macquarie Park in Windsor, Navua and Yarramundi Reserves, Upper Colo Reserve and Colo River Bridge, as well as the boat ramp at Governor Phillip Park, and I'm happy for further suggestions of others that should be included. There's—

Before you go on, the Deputy Mayor has seconded this, I believe. It's an

Urgency motion. I don't think it needs a second. I don't think it does need a second.

Urgency needs a second. Sorry, I seconded

The fact that it was urgent.

Okay. Is that what it was?

So, as well as the signage, for Council to use its media resources to distribute information about the dangers of swimming in unsupervised rivers and the risk factors that are well known, and have come out of an extensive report from the Royal Life Saving Society and the New South Wales Government in 2017, detailing risk factors including... Certain particular age brackets, male gender, and drug and alcohol use related to drownings in rivers, and for Council to also use its social media platform and local radio to highlight these dangers. For Council to also contact the Royal Life Saving Society and the New South Wales Government to discuss the implementations that they've recommended in their 2017 report, which also include running a series of community education events in communities like ours where people are likely to swim in rivers, the trial of equipment to help people save someone who get into difficulty.

If you're swimming at the beach, for example, or in a pool, there's often equipment around the poolside that you can use as a buoyancy aid for someone who gets into difficulty. Unless someone is quick thinking and has something with them beside the river, then people tend not to have anything. The esky is the most likely candidate, and it's usually containing a precious cargo of grog, which is often one of the causative factors anyway. We've got a lot of people coming to our swimming holes. Increasingly, they come from culturally diverse backgrounds, hence the need to have signs in language other than English. People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are overrepresented in drowning statistics, as are young males between the ages of 18 and 40.

This can't continue. We can't hope that a few signs that aren't particularly obvious in areas where the river is clearly full of people swimming will be enough to dissuade people. Or at least to let them know that swimming in these areas is unsafe. The media campaign needs to include these risk factors, but it also needs to encourage people to think about the activities that they're engaging with and what they might do if someone gets into difficulty, including encouraging people to learn CPR that might be able to save a life, but also to think about how they might rescue a friend or family member who gets into trouble. The reports that came through from the drowning on Sunday night are really harrowing.

They searched for the person for a very long time. The family, before emergency services arrived, the family searched for

Five hours. Emergency services searched for the body. The family searched for nearly an hour. At one point, apparently, they managed to find the individual and they went under again before the ambulance arrived. It's absolutely heartbreaking that this is happening. The very least we can do is get some signage and some information out to the community that swimming in a river is not the same as swimming in a pool. It's not the same as swimming at a supervised beach. Rivers are full of snags and currents. You can't see under the water. You're not as buoyant in a river. This is serious stuff, and it's time we treated it seriously and committed some resources to it.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Garrow.

Point of order, Mr. Mayor. It was my understanding on an urgency motion under the regulations that only the mover can speak.

You're probably right.

It's a point of order, Mr. Mayor, but I believe only the mover can speak as to

Why it is urgent because that's a procedural motion. Once you get to a substantive debate, all councillors are invited to

Speak. I'll ask Mr Conroy if he could give me some advice on that matter.

Sorry, I did read clause 241, subsection 4, which says only the mover can speak before the motion is put.

Can we just wait for Mr Conroy to give us the advice, please?

I would rather not restrict people from talking on this. It's a very important issue. Deputy Mayor

Could you tell us which section you were referring to? I was referring to clause 241, subsection 4

I'd be happy to move some sort of motion to enable us all to speak if that is the case anyway. Page might say it's missing . Yeah. Despite clause 250

Only the mover of the motion referred to in subclause.

This will be of great

Urgency, so it can only be an expected motion before it is put. It's the mover. Can

The mover move the motion to overturn

That

Thank you, councillors. Then it appears Councillor Lyons-Buckett is correct. Only the mover of the urgency motion can speak on the matter, and I will rule that way because that's the case. The matter has been raised and spoken about, so we will now put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

Carried.

Questions on questions, please. Councillor Garrow.

In relation to question number six regarding the responsibility for ensuring riverbank stability at the site of the new Windsor Bridge, the comment was made that RMS to review and provide response to Council. Can we get a time frame on that response, please?

Mr Conroy, do we have any time frame? Mr Organ. It's taken on notice. Anything else, Councillor Garrow? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's by way of a thank you and a comment. I raised the issue of the school crossing at North Richmond, and I noticed only on Friday, I think it was, it's been attended to and fixed up and it looks pristine and great. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just in regard to Councillor Zamprogno's question two on page 40 regarding the rubbish removal, there's been a couple. I'm not sure if this is the same one I put in about may have been Bandon Road, I think, but it is a common occurrence out in that area. I was just wondering, I was contacted by the people who'd initially brought it forward, and they did ask that when we have the rubbish removed, could the surrounding rubbish also be removed? Because apparently only the pile that was dumped was removed, and standing next to it were garbage bags and piles of tyres. So could any other rubbish there go at the same time? Thanks.

Thank you for that. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My follow-up question relates to my question number one from the previous meeting about abandoned vehicles. I had actually asked at the previous meeting about another abandoned car on Saunders Road near the intersection of Old Stock Route Road. At that time, it had merely been abandoned as the result of an MVA. Since then, somebody put a match to it, and it is now a burned abandoned car, and it's been there for over three weeks. So it's to request some follow-up on that additional abandoned car, and I also asked a question on that occasion about what our abandoned vehicle removal process is. I can see that the process has been initiated, but I'd like some intelligence about whose responsibility it is and within what time frame. Thank you.

Do we have an answer to that now, or would we take it on notice? Take it on notice. Councillor Garrow.

Just following up from Council Zamprogno's question on questions for number one regarding abandoned cars, I just noted that there's also an additional burnt-out abandoned car on the beach at Macquarie Park. This will become a pretty big hazard to the community if floodwaters are to reach that level. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. In relation to Councillor Garrow's question 4.1 and the second dot point answer, it is in relation to the Light Up Windsor event last Friday and the traffic issues that happened. It says that the traffic management plan was approved by the Traffic Committee, which I'm on the Traffic Committee. Point 2 says that there would need to be traffic modelling to demonstrate to the RMS that traffic flow on the state road network is not compromised. Noting all the RMS—noting all the modelling the RMS has done for the Windsor Bridge project, including the traffic exiting George Street into Bridge Street, the amount of traffic that comes out of it, and knowing that that traffic would then have to go somewhere else, in the future who would be responsible for modelling to inform the traffic management plan? Would it be Council or would it be the RMS? Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, it's an RMS road, so whatever modelling is undertaken, RMS would have to endorse the modelling and then would have to support the findings. So ultimately they're going to play a fairly major role in determining if any action is taken.

Would we have to carry out the modelling ourselves and pay for that, or would— The RMS be able to do it from modelling that they already have done?

As councillors will recall, we are preparing a model ourselves for the local government area, and that is based on fairly contemporary data. We'd have to check that we've got data for the sections of road concerned, but if we do, we could certainly run some of that modelling ourselves. But as I said, RMS would have to concur with the findings.

So just taking that a little bit further, so our traffic model that we're developing would be able to be used for planning for future events in and around our towns, yes

It may have some. It really does depend on the exact location and what data we've collected at what locations. We don't have fine-grained data for every street in the local government area, but we certainly will have data from RMS, and if it's relevant and applicable, we could potentially use that. Okay, thank you.

Any further questions? No.

Questions on questions

Or questions Questions on questions. No. Well, now we move to questions for next meeting. Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And given that it will be some time before we meet again, with your indulgence, I might suggest that in addition to there being some documented answer in the new year, maybe council staff might be able to just touch base with me informally before then and provide some answers to these questions. One relates to— Can we please clarify the situation relating to public seating on Clarendon Station? It's been asserted to me that there used to be seating there and that it was removed and has not been replaced. So I'd like to clarify what that situation is, and then that will inform me perhaps in terms of bringing a notice of motion next year. Question two is, can I please receive some advice about what representations Council has made to assist Ebenezer Public School upgrade their crossing for the safety of school children?

We all went, some of us went out there recently and saw the manifest need of that situation. I'd just like an update as to what representations we have made relating to that. And the third question relates to whether it is true that the Pitt Town bypass project, in its more recent public newsletter, has downgraded the roundabouts from two lane roundabouts to a one lane roundabout, and if that is the case, then can we please receive some information relating to that? That's it.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The first one is regarding the RMS consultation for the third crossing at North Richmond. I believe a number of groups have been invited to participate, and people have been telling me about this, and it includes—people keep telling me the Heritage Committee and the Floodplain Committee have been asked, but I think there's some confusion that the Council Floodplain Committee don't seem to have been asked, but an additional Community Floodplain Committee that was set up by John Miller have been asked. So I'm just wondering if we can ask if the Council Floodplain Committee can be represented at those meetings, and like Councillor Sanbronio, I would imagine that schedule may be before our next Council meeting.

So if that's a possibility, it would be really good to be included, because we have been dealing in the Floodplain Committee a lot with those specific issues. That would be really good. The second one is I've had quite a few representations from volunteers within the community who say that they were not invited to the Community Appreciation Party. I have asked about this before, but I'm yet to receive an answer. So could we just have an explanation about that and perhaps update how we invite people next year so that our volunteers don't feel that they were left out from the Appreciation Party.

Thank

You. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Could we have the vegetation trimmed along Yarramundi Lane and Old Kurrajong Road? It's becoming quite difficult to exit from Old Kurrajong Road safely because you can't see around the corner. Old Kurrajong Road's also become a real dumping hotspot. Can we put this on our list of regular drive-bys and institute some regular clean-ups? There's been lots of concrete dumped. Lots of household refuse, bits of asbestos, all sorts seem to end up on Old Kurrajong Road.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor— Councillor Garrow, sorry.

Can we please seek a response from the RMS as to why the RMS traffic survey and cameras around North Richmond and Richmond installed in the last day or so are being done during the school holidays? Several schools have already broken up. This is not a representative of the actual conditions of this traffic flow. So, could Council please ask the RMS how long the survey will go and suggest that this time of year is not an accurate indication to survey. Additionally, there's comments going around on social media that Mayor Calvert has announced that the corb tent will be removed by February. Can we please seek confirmation on this and under what authority is this so?

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Relates to lining Windsor, which firstly I want to say I thought was a spectacular event with thousands and I don't know how many thousands, and that brings me on to what I'm going to ask. But certainly when I was up there, or got up there about eight or later, and by 9.30 or thereabouts, people were still—families, kids, you know, were still streaming through up and down. So, Mr Mayor, the question relates to what sort of information gathering we did at this event and what are the learnings from this event, and is Council is going to get some sort of briefing on how it all went and, yeah

As I said,

What are the lessons learnt in doing such an event? Because… The people I've spoken to now since have said, ‘Look, it'll be nice to be able to do that sort of thing again.’

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

I wish to inquire of you, sir, whether it would be possible for staff to,

In view of the urgency matter raised earlier, consider the

Advisability of signage being

Put in the waterway — in other words, anchored with floats, possibly up to two and a half metres in length, with a buoy at each end —

Warning of the dangers of entry to the water in those places, and also be in multilingual signage. Thank you. Thank you.

So, Mr Mayor — Councillor, another question. I just wanted to, similarly to Councillor Zamprogno, could I please get a response to my questions prior to the next meeting, please?

Thank you.

That ends all the matters. Sorry.

Sorry, I did overlook one, if I could.

Yeah, another question. Yes, thank you. Yes.

At a recent meeting of Council, subdivision of land in Mulgrave was before the Chamber, and I did inquire at the time, but have not had any response to my inquiry. In regard to the road reserve between that particular block of land and the railway line, I was seeking to obtain an appreciation from staff, please, as to the extent to which that road reserve, which is unformed, extends, and does it, for instance, travel along the railway line to the extent of level crossing road? Thank you.

That ends all the matters before the confidential. So, Councillor Reynolds, would you like to address Council

Yeah, Mr Mayor, with leave of Council, I would like to make a statement to the meeting in relation to a matter involving comments I made during a debate regarding library funding on the 31st of July 2018 involving Councillor Conolly.

Leave granted. Yes, leave is granted. Please proceed. Thank you. There is a claim I brought Councillor Conolly into disrepute. There was no intent to do this, and I don't believe that I did. I made a comment regarding words which, to my honest recollection, were words which were spoken. However, I was challenged on it at the time, and I withdrew the comment. I then used a different form of words to make the point, which was not challenged. There was no request to withdraw that. I think what I said was legitimate and part of a genuine political debate which was happening at the time. However, the General Manager has made his decision, and while I don't agree with it, I respect it. If I'm wrong, then I apologise.

I respect Councillor Conolly. There was no intention to diminish him in the eyes of the public. I believe I acted then, as I'm acting now, in good faith. Again, it was not my intention to cause any disrepute. And despite independent legal advice to the contrary, I'm not going to waste our ratepayers' money pursuing this further through tribunals or whatever. We heard at the last meeting $15,000 has been wasted on this sort of stuff, and I'm not going to add to that. So, I'm sorry, Pat.

Thank you. There's no debate on that issue. Would someone like to move that we move to confidential? Councillor Rasmussen. Seconded. Deputy Mayor, all those in favour? Aye. Declare it carried. Thank you, everyone. We've moved into confidential.

Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. In regard to item 301, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno, that: one , Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed licence agreement with WICEN ( NSW) Inc. for part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1007671, part of Warks Hill Radio Tower, as outlined in the report in accordance with sections 47, 47A of the Local Government Act 1993; two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part 1 above, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed licence agreement with WICEN (NSW) Inc., a further report be submitted to Council; or B, should no submissions be received, one, Council enter into a licence agreement with WICEN (NSW) Inc.

for part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1007671, part of Warks Hill Radio Tower , as outlined in the report; two, authority be given for licence agreement and any documentation associated with the matter to be executed under seal of Council; three, details of the Council's resolution can be made to the proposed licensee, together with the advice that Council is not, will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. In regard to item 302, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that: one, Council lodge a Class 3 appeal under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act NSW 1916 in the Land and Environment Court in relation to the compulsory acquisition of part of Lot 7008, DP 1029964, now known as Lot 71 in DP 123863 and Lot 345, DP 752061; two, authority be given for licence agreement and any documentation associated with this matter to be executed under seal of Council; three, grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of Council associated with the Class 3 appeal, which do not require the seal of Council.

In regard to item 3.03, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that Council endorse the confidential recommendation contained in the late supplementary report.

Thank you. Moved by Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen that we accept the confidential report. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried. That ends our meeting. I just want to firstly invite Councillors to come to the Mayor's office for drinks and biscuits and things at the end of the meeting, and because it's the last meeting of the year, I would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas, and I'll see you sometime in the new year probably. Thank you. Meeting closed 8.37.