12 February 2019 - Ordinary

Welcome to our first meeting for 2019. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, and paying respect to Elders both past and present. Do we have any apologies, please? Councillor Richards has told me she's on her way and she'll be a bit late.

Do we have any declarations of interest?

Is that a yes?

Yes, that's a yes. Yes. Yes. A declaration of less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item sponsorship 007,

Bond. I think 007 is on block, so . Yeah, when we go on block, you need to tell us then. Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? No. Confirmation of the minutes. Would someone like to move the minutes? Councillor Rasmussen . Seconded. Seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour say aye. Thank you. We move on now to item subject— Excuse me, Mr Mayor.

Pardon? Sorry

Yes. Yes , Councillor Ross. I refer you to the minutes of the prior meeting at item number 294.

Yes. There appears to be an omission in the typographical record.

Okay. Thank you. Can you tell us what the omission is?

Motion resolved on the motion of Wright, seconded by Wright.

Okay. And what page is that on, by the way?

Page 4. Page 4

The LO section? Yes. Okay. The Secretary got that? Mr Mayor? Yes.

Before we start item 10, could I please move a procedural motion?

Can you just hang on a minute because I haven't yet asked the General Manager to read out his little procedural matters. General Manager.

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 wardens. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in the compiling of 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 both to your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in Council chambers has a mobile phone, either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Conroy. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to move a procedural motion for item number 10. Apparently there were three speakers already registered to speak for the motion, and a fourth entity, the Hawkesbury Environment Network, also wish to register to speak in favour. I'm just seeking leave that they also be allowed to address the Council.

I have no problems with that. I don't know whether we need a motion for that. Mr. Conroy, we don't need a motion for that? No, I think it's— I'll just accept the fourth speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any other business on that matter? No? Okay. We move to agenda item subject to public address. There's only one item, and that's item 10, sand and gravel mining. We have three speakers listed. The first speaker is Mr. William Snedden.

Thank you, Mayor, Councillors. I wish to speak in favour of this motion, but just prior to commencing of that, I wish to thank the two staff that held a rather short notice meeting regarding the proposed sand mine at Tremains Ridge Road. There were about eight or nine of us turned up, with two of the council staffers to give us an overview as to submissions that were going in and how the DA and the process would proceed. So it was very helpful. It certainly put a few minds at rest as far as what procedures would be followed. Now, on to the topic directly, which also follows. I'm speaking in favour of this notice of motion to remove from effect the Richmond Lowlands reservation of all the alluvial resources of sand and gravel for extraction.

Sydney Regional Environment Plan is far from a new item for some of the longer-serving councillors in this room tonight. Whilst Council voted in 2013, as noticed on this matter, former Mayor Rex Stubbs, Order of Australia Medal, and historian, expressed concerns several times, quite some years earlier, regarding this extractive industries potential plan and its effects if implemented. Indeed, the effects would be to continue the Penrith Lakes scheme downstream to Richmond lowlands, a 40 to 50 years extraction project based on the Penrith operation. If allowed to proceed, the Councillors of Hawkesbury will, for some 40 to 50 years in the future, once it commences, be dealing with fallout of our very own Richmond Lakes project, this on our prime agricultural land in the Hawkesbury food bowl.

I am advised also that this project, were it to proceed, would not be able to pull in enough fill material, venum extracted natural material from Sydney Works, as there simply would not be enough to restore and rehabilitate the extracted areas to floodplain, sorry, to prime agricultural land, so we would wind up with a lakes scheme of our very own on the Hawkesbury food bowl. I am aware that over the past 10 years, some citizens and possibly some councillors have been quietly following the land holdings in the Plan 9 designated area. I've heard large industry players' names at times attempting to have dibs on some of our prime lands, apparently holding cards ready to play if the time becomes right and approval proceeds at whatever state level.

Extraction on the floodplain is not new. Occupiers of the lowlands have dug out sand and gravel over many years, both on land and in the river. Some of them small scale and unapproved, other bigger players legally. For example, the Monty operation just downstream of our Windsor Bridge. In fact, the Hawkesbury Gazette recently highlighted that extractive industry at North Richmond, and I hold up a paper from October of last year, helped make our Pansy Railway to Kurrajong economic via an appearance sand and gravel companies activities, which was used for a lot of construction in Sydney in the 30s and 40s. A quick flip through volumes in the environmental section of our library will also bring to hand many proposals to sand mine in the Hawkesbury: in the river for at Colo, Tumble's Arms, and on land, Pitt Town Sand and Londonderry Sands.

These are partly gazetted in the Plan 9 as well, but they're not part of the Richmond Lowlands directly. Another interesting volume was submissions from the Quarry Masters Association in 1984 that apparently went into the Plan 9 areas. Another interesting set of 11 volumes was from the Public Works Department studies of the Hawkesbury River, and I quote, hydrology and sedimentology, dated 1984 to 1986. Eleven volumes in total. Some very interesting reading, and again tailored towards where we're going. So information, and there's more volumes, are proposing extraction. So old news is being revisited because it won't go away. And the new small players are trying again along Freeman's Reach, in this case, and the turf farms.

But these are not in the Plan Area of the Plan 9 this time. But there are other sand resources all around Sydney. Maroota sand, for example, has potential to supply Sydney for a hundred years, and it's upland friable sand without the alluvial plains problems that we would have with the Sydney Basin plan. So to list a few of the problems down on the lowlands, nearly all of this area is now considered acid sulfate soil affected. There's an inability to reclaim the prime land. There's not enough fill available coming out of Sydney. And it's also, the advantage of Maroota is it's away from the watchdog educated public watching in an acoustic bowl and wanting to protect our agricultural lands on our Hawkesbury food bowl lowlands.

If Department of Mineral Resources has their way, I could see that the educated public are going to create a hornet's nest. This is not an area out of sight, out of mind the way Peatworth Lakes scheme was, of its relatively low value land. It certainly wasn't primary agricultural land in most cases. Thank you, Mr

Snedden, the time's

Up

Thank you, sir. Are you happy to answer questions? Yes, sir. Are there any questions? Councillor Ross.

Thank you. Mr Snedden, in your research of library resources, have you come across something in the way of an extractive industry on the Colo River by any chance?

Yes, that was the one I referred to. That was actually originally a turf farm

And it was being...

Turn off. Yeah, there was a turf farm landholding operation, and they were proposing to actually dredge into the Colo River. It's at Turnbull's Arms. Whilst you say it's the Colo River, it's not a long way up. It's actually quite close to the conjunction with the Hawkesbury. They were proposing to put a cut-and-suction dredge into the river itself, and that's the only way that you can do it without causing major sedimentation problems in the river. But they actually only had seven months of reserve left on the dry land property, so politely they were really trying it on by going for it. But also they had to admit that they had actually mined across into the river with a dragline and also dug into Crown land along the riverbank.

So they were naughty players, and they were trying to. .. Keep their activity going by legitimising what their new process would be. In the end, the inquiry for the Colo River really laid into it. The commissioner said that he simply didn't trust them on their past commercial record. But the other thing was that there were significant problems with extraction in the riverbed itself. So, but that's the sort of proposal that we've been looking at several times at council. In fact, council also were given a final proper plan for five viable extraction points along the river for rehabilitation. And again, it just simply wasn't economic. It costs a lot of money to do all of this stuff. So if you want to extract along the river, it really needs to be done as an integrated whole, and council's report from legitimate engineers that know what they're talking about, good hydrologists, simply said, Don't do it unless you're prepared to spend a hell of a lot of money.

Thank you, Mr. Sneddon. Thank you. Anything else?

No,

That's

All. Thank you. Our second speaker is Ms. M. J. Boyer

Good evening, everyone. I'm speaking tonight in support of this notice of motion. Unlike some of my previous efforts, I'll try and keep this one short and sweet. Well, maybe not sweet, but shorter anyway. In 2009, the New South Wales Government released the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, which proposed to build around 640,000 new homes, with 400,000 of those to be located on prime agricultural land. More than 1,052 farms totalling 2,025 hectares have been replaced by houses in the northwest and southern growth centres since that plan was made 10 years ago. That strategy listed seven key strategies for development. Food wasn't one of them. Neither is it a priority in current state strategic plans.

In 2003, the value of agriculture in the Sydney Basin was $1 billion, with a multiplier effect of 4.5, which put the value at $4.5 billion a year, with Sydney Basin farms returning $5,433 per acre, up to 40 times the state average. To produce the same amount of food, more than 40 times the land elsewhere would be required. As the inland area's dry up at an alarming rate, this is looking increasingly impossible. The Hawkesbury floodplain is one of the remaining sites of prime agricultural land in the Sydney Basin. It is protected from development by its very nature. Resource extraction sterilises land for agricultural production. The very idea that this, the remaining high-yield food production land in the Sydney Basin, can be sterilised by resource extraction is offensive.

Aside from the immediate environmental, health and amenity impacts, the ongoing ability to produce food for our population will be significantly compromised. The failure of the New South Wales Government to recognise and develop strategies to ensure the food security of the Sydney population is bad enough, but to not only allow the removal of the soil, which would assist to ensure that basic need, and to purposefully contaminate and sterilise it, is also unacceptable. We cannot afford to continue to push our food-growing industry further and further west, particularly not for such a short-term gain. The Hawkesbury floodplain must be protected from resource mining and extraction.

Thank you. Thank

You .

Miss Bell, are you happy to answer questions? Yes,

Absolutely.

Do we have any

Questions? No. Oh, Councillor Ross, thanks.

Good evening, Mayor. Evening. You haven't mentioned anything about climate adaptation.

No, I haven't. I was

Concentrating on... Do you have any thoughts on that in regard to this particular proposal?

Well, I think climate adaptation, as in climate change, you mean? Well, that affects everything, especially the food growing abilities, and we need to keep the food production where there is water. And with climate change, there is increasingly a smaller supply of water west of the ranges, and therefore with our ability to still irrigate quite adequately, I think we need to be mindful to keep the food bowl here in the Sydney basin.

Thank you. Any further questions? No. Thank you, Miss Bell. Thank you.

Third speaker is Dr Ian Naud.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, General Manager and staff. My name is Ian Naud. My family has lived in the Hawkesbury for more than 40 years, and for nearly 20 years I've been an office holder of Hawkesbury Harvest Incorporated. I speak tonight in support of the motion, as Hawkesbury Harvest considers the threat posed by mining to landscape and agritourism to be dire. May I first make the observation that this motion is not on the development that has triggered it. The determination of the DA for the sand mining on the lowlands is taken out of our hands. Our community is disempowered in the face of a radically transforming development. Harvest has made a submission to the DA, which all can see on the tracker system. I urge everyone to read Harvest and the others as well.

The Hawkesbury River, its riparian zones and lowlands are the traditional lands of the Darug, sustaining them for millennia. For the last 225 years, they've been the food lands that service Sydney and beyond. It is the birthplace of agrarian civil society in our nation, which marked the transition from military penal colony to civic society and the democratic institutions it spawned. For 180 years, the Hawkesbury has been Sydney's backyard recreation zone and the river's at its core. Only in the last 20 years or so has too much of its fertile, food-capable soils been directed at feeding the appetite for turf in Sydney's development. And now they want to mine the sands and gravels that form its foundation as well.

The problem is that if this happens, the food lands will not be returned to food capability. We will sacrifice what could have been millennia of productivity and our children's inheritance for the benefit of Sydney. We will see it cannibalised. Sydney's appetite for our sands will eat our agricultural heritage and future. It will strip us bare. It's not that there are no other sources. It's just that fewer are as convenient and profitable as ours. We should not support short-sighted opportunism with such dire consequences. As recently as last November, Destination NSW, in partnership with Treasurer Perrottet's Hawkesbury Visitor Economy Advisory Committee, of which Harvest is a member, launched a tourism brand and campaign to raise awareness of the Hawkesbury as a destination.

It aims to position the Hawkesbury in the top three food tourism choices that visitors make. The brand tagline is, Hawkesbury, the river's just the beginning. I hope everyone's seen it. Ironically, the proposal to mine the Lowlands was submitted around the same time this was launched.

And to Harvest's distress, now puts a whole new spin on what the brand will come to represent and deliver for our community.

Mining of the Lowlands will transform landscape, food production capability, and the rural aesthetic upon which is based so much of tourism and resident appeal. I ask those of you who saw it to picture our riverlands in the same state as Penrith Lakes as it's progressed over the mine's life of 35 years. Add to this the acid sulfate soil disturbance and the ecological threats that that imposes for the river's ecosystem around the mining site and also downstream. We think the risks and costs are just too much. We have a river valley with characteristics that would give it a solid chance at listing on UNESCO's World Heritage Register. It's time to put the mining question into a much bigger and longer time-framed picture.

I think there's one thing upon which both speakers for and against would agree. If the mining is permitted, it will be the precedent needed to open the floodgates of extraction all along the Lowlands and perhaps beyond. This is not the kind of common ground position we want to see realised. The restatement, reaffirmation and reinforcing of Resolution 259 is, at this stage, one of the things we ought to do to make our fears and desires clear to those who do not have to live with the consequences of mining the river. But they do have the power to make the decision.

A unanimous vote in support will send a strong message in defence of where we live. My hope is that such a vote becomes something more than just a symbolic act, instead being a unifying and rallying shout-out from Sydney's fertile and life-sustaining backyard to recognise, respect and retain this special place, our Hawkesbury. I urge you, councillors, support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are you happy to answer any questions?

I am, Mayor.

Are there any questions? Looks like there's no questions. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, our four speakers from HEN.

Mrs Christine Watson.

Mrs Christine Watson. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, councillors and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak for this motion on behalf of Hawkesbury Environment Network. HEN's mission is to conserve and restore the environment of the Hawkesbury region by working with people and organisations for sustainable development. We strongly consider that both the sand mine proposal for Freeman's Reach Road and the wide-scale extraction of sand and gravel from the Richmond lowlands do not— Adhere to sustainable resource use principles. The long-term degradation of the natural resources of the Hawkesbury Valley, when compared to the short-term benefits of extractive industries, will fail a cost-benefit analysis test. Numerous case studies have shown that sand and gravel mining on a floodplain is a high-risk enterprise.

In a 2004 paper titled, A Review of the Effects of Floodplain Gravel Mining on River Stability, the authors cited 37 local, national and international documented examples where major damage occurred to rivers when floodplains were captured by extraction pits. The effects of floodwaters entering pits include riverbed degradation, bank erosion, channel widening, damage to riparian vegetation and habitats, as well as damage to infrastructure such as roads and bridges. These have all been documented in a number of papers. Erskine documented in 1990 that the Nepean River changed course to flow through gravel pits at Castlereagh. In 2010, the Goulburn River in Victoria changed course during a flood event when waters entered gravel pits, causing mature trees to be toppled and a road to be destroyed.

Overseas examples show that large infrastructure has been damaged by mining on floodplains. In another paper titled Review of Floodplain Mining Impacts and Risks, the authors suggest that mining should not occur on an active floodplain, and the only way to mitigate risks is to select areas above the one in 100 year flood level.

As an example, the proposed sand extraction facility on Freeman's Reach Road raised many additional concerns for the environment. These concerns would be amplified if large-scale extraction of sand and gravel were to take place on the Richmond Lowlands. For example, HEN has doubts about many aspects of the remediation plan as set out in the EIS. The idea that over 400, 000 cubic metres of virgin natural material will be trucked into the site to replace the sand and gravel removed does not sound economically viable. We fear that contaminated building waste will end up in the extraction pits, and how would you remediate a much larger sand and gravel mining operation? The EIS indicated that acid sulfate soils will be disturbed by this project and that a very high treatment plan is required.

Given that the groundwater is already contaminated with agricultural chemicals, with the potential to damage soils and groundwater, this additional risk is unacceptable to valuable agricultural land. We are very concerned about the impact of mining on our local wetlands such as Bushy's Lagoon and Baker's Lagoon. We have concerns about the impact of sand and gravel mining on species that exist along the lower Nepean to Sackville. We feel that the fate of those species, including owls, water dragons, flying foxes and platypus, and a wide variety of bird life, have been overlooked in the... Application that's come to Council at the moment. We therefore support this notice of motion and hope that the Hawkesbury floodplain does not become the sand pit of Western Sydney.

And I ask for Council, please, to support this motion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms Watson. Are you happy to answer any questions? Yes. Should there be any questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you very much. That's the end of our public speakers. Councillor Wheeler is moving this. Do we have a seconder? Seconded. Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I've put some minor changes to the staff. If we could have those up on the board for everyone to read. The particular changes occurred to point three, which says, ensure this position is included when undertaking strategic planning. So it's a more strongly worded point three, and an additional point four that Council's position on sand and gravel mining is presented when such a matter is being considered by the relevant planning panel.

Both points three and four are designed to deal with the fact that our planning documents are currently under review and that any applications that come forward may

Be covered. Deputy Mayor, happy to second those changes?

Happy to second that, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

I want to thank the speakers for their well-considered presentations and the issues that they've raised.

We're now in a position where areas of the Hawkesbury are covered by a planning document, SREP 9, which includes, with Council consent, development for extractive industry in an area of the Richmond Lowlands. And this therefore allows Council to have a say in the determination of the scope and thus the impact of this industry. So point 2B of SREP 9 talks about Council's role. Further, at 2D it talks about promoting development in an environmentally acceptable manner, and at 2E prohibits development in the McDonald, Colo, Hawkesbury and Nepean area which is environmentally sensitive. Now what we've heard from our speakers is that, and particularly from the Peake Environment Group in the Hawkesbury, is that the floodplain is, that all of the floodplain is environmentally sensitive, and Hawkesbury Harvest confirms that.

The people who live and work along this river and understand it well view this, view the entire area covered by this notice of motion as being environmentally sensitive. Further into SREP 9, it states at point 7 that Council may not, must not grant consent unless it's considered the effect on flood behaviour, water quality, quantity and hydrodynamics of any watercourse or underground water. Points B and D refer to rehabilitation plans. As we've heard, these are really quite questionable documents and they have a history of fairly poor adherence. They generally fail to provide reasonable rehabilitation because it's quite difficult to put— If there wasn't a, if there was a whole pile of virgin sand and gravel elsewhere that could be put back into the hole that they've just dug it out of, they wouldn't have dug that lot out, would they?

So whatever they fill it up with is not going to be the original material. The idea that thousands of cubic metres of virgin material can be removed and then the whole mess paved over again is just farcical. It's our job to protect this place by allowing this sort of extractive industry, we're failing to do that.

12D refers to extraction from the Richmond Lowlands specifically. It outlines the effects of proposed development. It says that the effects of proposed development on agricultural value and regional agricultural significance, heritage value, tourism potential, environmental value, wetlands, and the nature and effects of flooding must all be considered.

But these concerns shouldn't just apply to the lowlands. They should apply to all our land, and they should be reflected in our planning documents, and that's what this notice of motion seeks to do. Extractive industry is simply incompatible with agriculture, heritage, tourism, and environmentally sensitive land. And we've heard that from our speakers tonight. This industry is coming to the Hawkesbury. Penrith Lakes is spent. The Hawkesbury is close to Sydney and therefore it's convenient and cost-effective. This is a noisy, dusty industry that increases traffic, blights the landscape, and devastates the areas that it works in. It increases heavy vehicle movements on our local roads that we pay for the remediation of, and increases traffic.

This is an excellent time for Council to state a position before it starts. It's a proactive move to establish a level playing field, that the Hawkesbury is not open for extractive industry.

It's also an issue of intergenerational equity. We've heard from our speakers tonight that short-term gain will mean that we will lose the industries that this area is renowned for and relies on: agriculture, heritage and tourism. We're about to spend $18 million on our town centres. We've just had, in the middle of a $3 million spend from the state government on tourism, a sand mine, a gravel mine. A string of sand and gravel mines have no part in this plan for the Hawkesbury.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Do we have any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to thank our speakers and Councillor Wheeler for bringing this to the chamber. I must say that I agree with everything that the speakers have said, although in its current form, I probably won't support this notice of motion. And it's in a— before you all overreact, it's not that I don't think that the Hawkesbury needs to deal with this issue. What I think needs to happen, and I've sent the staff an amendment that I think, if you bear with me, might actually put us in a position where we have a stronger ability to protect our sensitive areas. So the first, and I said bear with me, if you will, the first point I'd like to see considered... Is that Council prepares a policy on , well actually it should say sand and gravel mining.

I think if we get our staff to start preparing this sort of policy, we can gather all the ideas that our environmental groups, our concerned citizens, and we can start to build a very strong picture of why it is so important that we protect our river especially, and our connected catchments and lowlands and our wetlands. So, having said that, that I think we should ask the staff to start preparing such a policy, to just to not sort of throw out this whole notice of motion, I think that in that capacity we can ask that in the course of preparing that draft policy, we ask the staff to consider that we had a resolution in 2013 which stated those things that you've included in your notice of motion.

I don't— I'm not a fan of reaffirming resolutions because I think we make resolutions in this chamber and they're our resolutions until we make another one that makes that irrelevant . So that resolution stands, as far as I'm concerned. I think when staff consider those resolutions, it will start to put a picture on, you know, the extent of the Richmond lowlands, what that actual schedule and item in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan actually means, because it's quite hard to, when you're reading that document, to get a really good idea of how it operates because there's so many schedules and, you know, so it's hard to do that in a council meeting situation. Council's concerns regarding sand and gravel mining in sensitive areas across the Hawkesbury River floodplain, not just the Richmond lowlands.

For instance, agricultural environmentally sensitive lands, those lands with high heritage and tourism significance, or those close to residential areas. So when I read your notice of motion, Councillor Wheeler, I just thought, let's not back ourselves into a corner here. Let's actually say no to, you know, get a position on why we think that it's inappropriate to have sand and gravel mining in the Hawkesbury, and , you know, it could be close to residential houses . That might be inappropriate. So it's not all about the environmental sensitivity, although I understand and appreciate that that is a really important issue, and it's an issue that once our sensitive areas are damaged, there is no going back.

There's no patch. There's no remediation. They're gone. So my last point is that once adopted, the policy will inform Council staff's actions when undertaking strategic planning, any review of the planning instruments or assessment of applications. So when I was doing my research on the sand mining— Before you continue, Councillor, could I just observe, you're speaking in favour of the amendment which hasn't been put up yet. Sorry

So you're suggesting this as an amendment. I'm wondering whether Councillor Wheeler would consider adopting this as the motion, or do we need a seconder for the amendment?

I'd consider adopting the spirit of— Providing some sort of draft policy for sand mining, but I think this weakens Council having a position. This notice of motion is designed for Council at this time to make a strong stance against sand and gravel mining in the areas stated in the notice of motion. That is the floodplain. I don't think we either—we are either considering sand mining in the floodplain or we're not. We are either— if

We can certainly have a draft policy, but I would imagine that that would come back to us with the DCP or the LEP when that comes back.

So your answer is no, you're not accepting this.

I'm willing to massage what I've put up, but this weakens the original notice of motion, and I'm not willing to do that.

Councillor Kotlash, are we willing to do the massage thing or would you like to move your amendment?

Okay, I think that a policy—having a policy will strengthen, so I suppose I'm not really in agreement with Councillor Wheeler about that this lessens our position . I think it strengthens our position.

So you'd like to move this as an amendment?

Yes, I would

Thank you. Okay. Do we have a seconder for that?

No seconders? Looks like the amendment lapses. We go back to the motion. Any further speakers on the motion? Councillor Connolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I would be supportive of the original motion, or the motion as moved by Councillor Wheeler. I think the point, though, is that we are aware that there are matters being considered now and about to be considered soon, probably, and we need to have a position on the record. And that was why we originally adopted this motion back in 2013, was because we wanted to have on the record what we thought. I think that this is not the current motion, but I think it's very important that we, Councillor Wheeler has specified out that this policy be put—well, this motion be put in front of everyone who is considering an application, that we've said that explicitly. I don't necessarily agree we need to go away and develop a policy.

I understand more information is always better, but at the end of the day, if the answer—we already know the answer at the start—then do we need to have a policy to get to the answer? I feel like we're just spending resources we probably don't need to spend if we're in a position to say we're completely opposed to sand mining, and our staff have enough information to tell people why. So I'd be inclined just to go quite simply and support the motion and say, yeah, we're against it.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Tree.

Thank you. I was just going to say if you could do a point four, because I think this is important for the interim, but— No, this is the

Paper . Oh ,

I can't see that, sorry. Point five then, that if you've got—this is important for the interim because of the time constraints, but I do think it's important to have a policy because anybody who wants to come into this area and they want to know what they're able to do, if we don't have a policy in place stipulating very clearly what we allow and what we don't allow, I don't think that's very fair. So a point five then could be

To make sure that we sit down and talk very clearly about exactly what it is we don't want. I know you've put a blanket across everything, but I think sometimes you need to have the conversation. I don't think there should be sand mining anywhere in the Hawkesbury, but there should be a formal policy, and I don't imagine the policy would have to take that long, but there should be a formal policy

Do you want to give us the words for point five

Point five

I guess

I think it just can be as simple as that, and I don't think it needs to be onerous. I don't think it needs to be that difficult, but I think we need to have a policy because I think everybody needs surety. And if we're going to say we say no to this, it needs to be very clearly stipulated as to what and why we're saying no to.

Councillor Wheeler, are you interested in adding that point five?

I think I'd like to get some advice on that, Mr Mayor. Point three intends that the position be included in our planning documents, the DCP and the LEP, and that infers that there's a policy developed, and we are currently reviewing those documents. So if that is sufficient to cover that policy, then I'm comfortable. Otherwise I will take a point five. Mr Conorine. It's apparent

Okay.

The timing is the issue. So yes, of course, within our LEP and DCP, we'll be considering all of these items, but those documents aren't to be reviewed until the next two and a half—I mean, we're working on them, but the completion won't happen for the next two and a half years. There is an opportunity to look at this as a separate standalone policy, at which point then we just pull it out and do it as a separate process, the timing of which to be determined.

Thank you. Next question then, could we put a time frame on five?

And could that be within three months? Mr

Conorine.

There's a lot of work on the agenda for staff at the moment, and— If we were to pursue this now, in three months, something else would drop off, and that would be frustrating to other parties. I think we should be trying to build it into work that we're doing, but I don't think we should lock ourselves into a time frame. I think we do need a policy position that's a bit more robust than just a council resolution, and I think we should develop that as soon as we reasonably can, but that's all I'd like to say at the moment.

Question?

I was going to ask Councillor Wheeler. Do you need more information? No,

That's okay.

Are you going to accept the point five? Yes. Yes, okay, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, I'll accept. I've just got a question that sort of generally encompasses all of this in terms of, so if we don't have a policy but we have a position, I'd just like some clarity on what that means when our position is to be presented to a planning panel. So I know that point four is that we do present that. Now, I know that the staff assess the DAs as they come in, and so there's a position taken on a staff basis. Obviously, we don't—do they take into consideration our position? And then how do we present that to a panel that is making this decision? Just some clarity, because I wouldn't like the fact that a policy was being developed to prevent us from somehow presenting that, because we do have an existing position on it. So just some work around how it will work logistically.

Mr Conroy.

At the moment, I've not read this resolution in great detail. That's the 2013 resolution. But if it's as simple as a statement, then what Council often finds itself in the position of is being in forums where we say, This is the Council position, and then staff have to substantiate that in the time and the context of that forum or that report. Now, if you're in a situation where you've got an application and the applicant has secured the services of, you know, consultants and done a whole lot of research, it becomes an issue of Council's opinion versus the evidence of the other party, and then the determining body in that environment has to make a decision. And more often than not, they will side on the

Position that's better informed, that's more evidence-based. And that's the position that staff often find themselves in when they're dealing with Council statements of intent rather than, you know, rigorously developed strategies and policies.

A follow-up question then, if I may, Mr Mayor. So I'm a little concerned that this is putting us in a precarious position then, because if we are to have a commitment to opposing this and we can't get the policy done or anything firmed up within the near future, I'm just thinking, is there any other format that we can have a stronger stance? And my other question is that when there is an actual planning panel on, what is the best way for we as the Councillor body, and we've gone through this before with previous planning panels, what is the best way and what are the ways, and I think we may be getting a briefing on this, but I'm just thinking the members of the public would like to know, what is the best way for we as Councillors to present our thoughts on a sand mining proposal when it is before a planning panel?

Mr Conroy. So sand mining is not something that we have a lot of expertise in within the organisation. So the director has already made the decision to engage external consultants to assist us on this matter. It's a complex issue. It's a specialist area. And if we're going to thoroughly and properly assess the application, we need that independent expert advice. So we're certainly getting that, and we are hopeful that some of that information will assist us in further developing a position in relation to this. But it's a work in progress, and we will work our way through it. But, you know, it's too early for us to be putting time constraints on ourselves and deadlines. What we know is we've got a serious application in front of us.

We want to address it in a comprehensive way. To do that, we're engaging some expert advice and assistance, and that will inform our position . And that position will be a public position, and council will be in a position to independently , you know, individually or as a group or as a council, have a position and present that to any forum. So there's opportunities for councillors to participate. To reinforce, you know, perhaps the council officers' report, and that would be a way of perhaps working our way through this, and that report could ultimately inform a policy position. But again , we're relying on the applicant pursuing this application to reach that position in a timely manner. They may withdraw it, and we may have to go back and start again.

These are the things that we don't know yet.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, just one more, if I may indulge you for that time, but just to summarise that for the members of the public so they understand, if we're to support this notice of motion here tonight, which shows that we believe that there isn't, you know, that we shouldn't be having sand and gravel mining, then regardless of what the council assessment may be, we as a body are then able to go in a form of representation to the panel and say that's what the council body is about. I'm just summarising that for people to understand that that is what we could do, because it's a little bit confusing with the panels. That's

Correct. Yes,

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, did you wish to speak as well?

Oh, Councillor Zamprogno can.

Okay, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm trying to get my head around a larger chronology here, and some assistance may help me come to a better understanding. So back in July 2013, there was a motion that was successfully carried that merely called for a report on the need for the possibility of establishing an independent panel of interested community members to look at the likelihood of future extraction of resources from the Richmond lowlands. Now at that time, you, Mr Mayor, and Councillor Rasmussen— I felt strongly enough about this to ask that your vote against that motion be recorded. A fortnight later—sorry, a month later—there was a rescission motion brought in part by my colleague Councillor Connolly and Councillor Tree, and that position was overturned.

And then a subsequent motion brought by Councillor Williams said what we now have in a reiterated form here, that we are completely opposed to sand or gravel mining on the lowlands, and that we call on the State Government to alter a particular schedule relating to extractive industries on the lowlands. Now, my question arising from that is if we resolved to call on the State Government to do something six years ago, for us to consider the reiteration of that now, it would be useful to know what representation Council made six years ago following our motion in 2013 and what the response and the reasoning behind the response was when we made this request previously. So that's question one.

Mr Conroy. We'd have to take that on notice, Mr Mayor. That's the level of detail that we don't have here tonight.

So I'd like to suggest that if we have a notice of motion before us that seeks to reiterate a position that's been articulated before, but we don't have in the chamber any intelligence as to what response or rationale behind that response we got, then we're a little blind. The next point that I wanted to make was to— State that I'm prepared to support this notice of motion this evening, but I do want to take the opportunity to say that sand mining cannot continue to be a poster child for the Windsor Bridge issue. The people who are opposed to the Windsor Bridge replacement project frequently raise this as an issue, as some ulterior motive as to why the bridge was being replaced or raised. And all the available information that I've ever heard from council staff or from wise heads in the area that have some knowledge of extractive industries say it's a nonsense to suggest that any kind of extractive industry is tied to the fate of Windsor Bridge.

And yet we do continue to hear it, including from the gallery this evening. Where there are extractive industries, overwhelmingly that material is taken out by truck. Nobody uses barges to move sand or gravel extracted from the floodplain that I'm aware of anymore.

Can the gallery please keep quiet, thank you.

So I did want to take the opportunity to just raise that point. But generally, yes, I think we need a policy. Generally, yes, I agree with the Deputy Mayor. She and I are particularly strong on this point. When things come before planning panels, we're still reaching, groping our way towards a way in which this chamber can convey the will of our constituency on matters before planning panels, and we need to work harder in that area. But, yep, I'll support it.

Thank you, Councillor Cotlas.

Can I ask a question, please, Mr Mayor?

I understand the timing of this, and I take on board what Councillor Waller and the Deputy Mayor and councillors and prognos have said about this, the urgency of getting this sort of protection at least in some sort of form that we can take to the planning panels. So my question is, if we had a draft policy, a draft policy that stated that we have a resolution, hopefully a unanimous resolution, that we don't think sand and gravel mining are appropriate for our LGA, and we start to put the pieces together, like I was reading the Lower Estuary Plan of Management. In that, it states that there should not be any sand mining throughout the whole catchment. We have other things that we can support, and that's where I was coming from with the policy.

We can start to just note those. That's not a lot of information to start to piece together what everybody else is thinking in the total catchment. Sorry, that was a question with a lot of background, but can we take a draft policy to the planning panel? It doesn't have to be—

Mr Conroy?

Yes, we can.

Thank you. Any further speakers for Councillor Rasmussen?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I have sat in this chamber now, I think it's on the third occasion... Maybe a fourth, and I would just conclude this one, where this issue has been debated at great length, and you may remember, Mr Mayor, some of those discussions and debates as well. And it surprises me that we are where we are in terms of such little knowledge about Council's policy on sand mining in our lowlands and along our river, because it was really well documented many years ago, many years ago, by staff, by competent staff in this chamber. And I'm sure, and I don't record it, but I'll try and dig it out of my records, the submission to State Government seeking to have that clause or item of the Schedule 5 removed.

I don't remember the documentation precisely, but it was a well-researched, good piece of submission that went from this Council. Now, if we can't find those documents, I'm really disappointed. But perhaps my bigger point is that, you know, a policy does not become important or have gravitas by the weight of paper. You do not have to have everything carved out in great granular detail to call it a policy. Many, many occasions where this Council puts in a resolution, passes a resolution, it becomes the policy of Council. I mean, surely a resolution of Council, particularly when it's been through this chamber at least on three occasions that I remember, surely is a policy, and it's a long-standing, well-supported and held policy by this Council.

Now, yes, you can flesh out the headline or the major statement of the resolution and form a policy in great, great detail, well researched, da-di-da-di-da-di-da. That can all be done. But I don't think that therefore constitutes a better policy of this council. What it constitutes is a more, yeah, more paper, and I don't think that really does the trick. And on this occasion, I think we should go with Councillor Wheeler's notice of motion. We should pass it, and we should not hesitate to make it very clear, and maybe it does need a bit of strengthening, I don't know. To me, it looks pretty strong, that we pass that to whoever needs to have it, including the state government, and say, look, this is what we believe.

We believed it over many years now, and the reason we believe it, and we can be stated very simply, and I don't think we need to have 20, 30, 40, 50 pages to say so. But what we do need is a concise, forensic, clear statement of why this river needs greater attention than it is given at the moment. If any of us, and I can point, and I'll take the time if necessary, the Office of the Hawkesbury Nepean documentation. I don't know how many people in this chamber know about, understand, and the people involved with the Office of the Hawkesbury Nepean, all you need to do is talk to the lady who's now in charge of the task force on the Warragamba Dam raising. She was there for several years. The documentation and the policy work there was enormous.

Really well researched as to why this river needed what it needed, and it did say that the sand mining and dredging on this river is not sensible. And it had good, well-researched, lots of experts, lots of money spent on it as to why that would be the case. We do not need to spend another 12 months going around in circles, hiring expensive consultants to get those answers. I really do not think we do. Now, if we don't have the corporate knowledge, that's sad, because if it's simply lost because people move on, I think that's tragic, because we'll end up spending, you know, thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars again and again and again and again simply because people move on. We should be much better than that.

And I think, Councillor Cotlas, you mentioned the lower estuary policy. It's in there. It's clearly in there. Maroota sand mining, there's lots of information about the effects of that. Penrith Lakes scheme, there's lots of information about that. Dredging the river, we have lots of information about that. So I don't know that we need to, you know, turn ourselves upside down and, you know, policy , policy, policy. Well, if we make a resolution, that is our policy.

So why don't we just get on with it? And this river needs a lot more attention. We all know what's happening out there in the river, so far as the river flow is concerned. I don't know how many of you passed over the Yarramundi Bridge. I do it many times a day, several times a day. There are big trees, big trees and woody bushes and all sorts of sundry things, not water weeds. I'm not talking about water weeds, I'm talking about trees. All sorts of woody trees and so on growing in the channel, growing in the channel. And I've sent photographs to Council about that. Now, why is that? Because almost every blimmin' drop that can be drained out of that river is being drained out of it. We can't keep treating our river like that.

We can't keep sand mining it, we can't keep dredging it, and we can't keep the water out of it. Sooner or later, we've got to get serious about this river and make sure this river is central. What's the big campaign, as Dr. Noud said, that we've just spent three million, or somebody spent three million bucks on? The Hawkesbury River is just the beginning. I mean , let's make it our central theme. Thank you

Thank you. Thank you , Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be brief in my comments, but I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this motion. It was great to see that Council in 2013 had the foresight to put this motion through to cover Richmond lowlands. It is great that in 2019, we can extend that to cover the whole of the Hawkesbury River floodplain. I believe that point five and developing a very clear policy moving forward is quite fundamental and important. As the previous speaker mentioned, we've had this issue come up time and time again in the Chamber, and it's been debated at length. So I think that point five, developing a policy, will make sure that Council has a concrete stance moving forward on this issue.

I also hope that after tonight and looking at this point in time, that there may be some sort of a consensus on this issue, that it takes the wind out of the sails of the entire stand mining debate in the community, because it looks like they're going to have a Council who's put a resolution forward that they do not support such mining.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I'll speak on the motion. I just had a rewording that may perhaps just make it a little firmer. I totally take on board what Councillor Rasperson says, and I think that's very true, that our resolution really is a policy position, and we've certainly had both in the previous council and in this council, it seems that we have had uniformity on this position. So perhaps if it was worded at the heading that Council takes a policy position on sand and gravel mining. That's one, and then reaffirms, etc. Two, opposes sand and gravel mining, as that says, and then another insert, and that three , council staff ensure for, etc. Councillor Wheeler, would you— I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor. Like that.

Could we— is everyone clear on that, or do you want to see it on the board? Put

It on the board. Are

You all clear on that?

Can I say I'm not clear on it at a little bit more? Okay, hang on, I'll get it written up.

Do you

Wish

To speak as well? Yes

I'll speak while I'm speaking. I think that the wording— I'll speak while I'm speaking, as I do. I think that it's wonderful that everybody is so committed to this because, of course, we all know the value of our river. It's the core attraction in our area, and of course it's the lifeblood of so much of activities and industries that both take place in the river and alongside the river. So I think that it's good that we are reaffirming. The resolution that we had in the previous council, and I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that because, as we know, things get lost because we do forget about it. We should reaffirm to the community, particularly when we're a new group of people, we reaffirm that the resolution is current, that we still support it, that it also gives us an opportunity to revisit it and, of course, to follow up with what has been sent, as Councillor Sanbruno brought up, what has been sent to the government, and perhaps that we could strengthen our efforts to have that happen, have that followed up, because it means we have an incompatibility with our stance with what there is a regional environmental plan existing, what that says.

So I think that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. That would be great. I thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing it forward. It assists us as a council body to take a stance when we know that our community has a lot of concerns with this issue, and therefore we can respond to them with a strong council opinion on this when they contact us with their concerns. We're no longer the decision makers in these things, but we can still represent the concerns of our community, and that's what I imagine we will all do in this instance. So it's all been said very well by the speakers and by the other councillors, so I won't say any more, but if the wording comes up on there, I think—hang on, that's coming.

Yes, you can understand that. Well done, Michael. Thank you. So the wording is up there, and perhaps that. Makes it a little stronger. So, thank you. So,

Councillor Wheeler, this is your notice of motion. Yes

On advice from Councillor Kotlash, could I make one more minor change to 2.2? So, following on from, particularly on the clause that says agriculturally and environmentally sensitive land,

Add land close to residential development, and take out those and put land with high heritage and tourism significance. Did our secretaries get all that? Am I right? Yep. Do you want

Me to do that again? I think they've got it. Is that it? It's two ands. Land . Oh, it's got a

Thing

Over

There

Okay, that'll be fixed. Before Councillor Reynolds speaks, I wanted to ask the General Manager if he could clarify. I was told recently that a council resolution is not the same as a council policy and doesn't have the same status. Can you clarify that, please?

A council resolution is a statement of— Intention or view or something like that. The more information that supports that, the stronger that position is. So more often than not, a policy statement will have a logic to it, a rationale, and will probably also refer to other documents or studies or things like that. So a policy is often a document that's developed over a course of time and it's reflective of that body of work. So that when it comes to presenting that in a setting, there's a body of information that can be presented, context that can be provided, rationale, and other things. Whereas the statement sometimes just sits alone with none of that supporting material. Now, I'm taking on board, I've made notes tonight that there's potentially other documentation that we can readily locate and use as a support to this statement tonight.

But we will be relying on finding that information and pulling it together into some sort of logical context and sequence, and that's what we'll have to do. But generally a council resolution is a statement. A policy is a reflection of a larger body of work and evidence.

Thank you. Just want to double check, Councillor Wheeler, are you happy with that?

So is the general manager saying that that first statement is workable or not?

We'll always work with what Council gives us. I think we've got, I think we've heard tonight there's other information as well. We'll pull that into the considerations, as well as the other work that we're already doing in relation to this development application. I don't have a problem with the resolution. I'll

Take that as a yes in that case. Thank you

Deputy Mayor, you wrote it, so you obviously second that again.

Second that again. I voted.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Just a question for the General Manager. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Given this, we hope this resolution will pass tonight unanimously, will it affect the staff's recommendation to the relevant panel on the application that is currently before Council, or before staff?

Staff will have to take that into consideration, yes.

Second question then is, I'm not saying that it will, what would happen in the event staff disagreed with a statement like this, and they were making a recommendation?

So under the arrangements that have been put in place by the State Government, staff prepare a report to the panel. They do that in the way that they prepare a report to Council. So they collect all the information and they consider all the relevant acts and regulations and other considerations, and they form a recommendation. So that would be the same in this situation. But as Councillors know, sometimes staff prepare recommendations that Council don't agree with. Now, we're just beginning the process of assessing this application. We've heard tonight there are some, you know, significant issues that need to be addressed. We are getting consultants to assist us in, again, addressing this particular matter.

So I'm confident that staff will look at it in a comprehensive way and whatever they come up with will be, you know, a well-considered report. But I can't tell you what the staff are going to recommend at this stage because they haven't completed the process, and they need to do that.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm comfortable with all but point five. The nervousness I have about that is that there is no specificity in regard to time. I think I rather fancy the idea of Councillor Rasmussen in which

We have a short-form policy document prepared immediately. We can put as an addendum to that that the policy will be reviewed within six months or 12 months, whatever may suit the Council. But I think we need to move with some haste

Because I believe it's not a matter that we can allow to linger. And furthermore, the very great degree of goodwill within the Chamber

Would enable a staff or similar person to quickly glean sufficient material to enable a coherent short-form policy to be produced rather, or shall we say, relatively quickly. And I think that would better serve the Council and our community, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Just wanted to point out my question about the difference between a resolution and a policy was designed to point out that I think it might be dangerous for us to not have a policy, and we should have a policy as soon as possible. I was not suggesting that the other—I think some people took it the other way. I wasn't suggesting that we don't have a policy. I suggest we should have a policy as soon as possible, and I concur with Councillor Ross on that, but the General Manager has already answered that question about timing. No further speakers. Councillor Wheeler, do you want to write a reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to thank everyone for their input into this. As some of you know, I come from a party of consensus-based decision-making, and this is a lovely example of what happens when we put differences aside and get on with doing what we're supposed to do, which is representing the people who elect us to get the best possible outcome. And I think we've tried to satisfy the majority of views in getting this policy, in this motion together. I do agree with Councillor Ross that it would be nice to have a timeline on this, and I certainly— Feel the urgency for that, but I do appreciate the General Manager's point that we have a stretched planning department, that we are demanding a lot of, including a review of the DCP and LEP, some of that foisted on us without additional funding.

So that is difficult. But I think we have, all of us have made it quite clear to the staff that we believe that this policy is a matter of some urgency, and I hope they take that on board. And I would also hope that people who are aware of documents and additional studies could perhaps forward those so that they can be quickly turned into a workable document that Council can use to deal with not just the proposal that's before it, but anything else that comes up as well.

I think

The problem with resolution 259 is that it appears that nothing has happened. Council has this resolution on the table; it's been sitting there since 2013. SREP 9 still includes the Richmond lowlands in it, so clearly, if we did plead our case, nothing happened. Surprise, surprise. We've also had

The successive changes of government. I don't think it hurts us to remind, and changes of ministers even within governments when they haven't changed. I don't think it hurts us to remind them of our views on this. But one of the main aims of this notice of motion is to extend the opposition from the Richmond lowlands to the floodplain, to the rest of the floodplain, and not just that isolated pocket. More of the Hawkesbury is vulnerable to this industry than just that area down on the Richmond lowlands, and that's the main point of this. So I thank you all for your support and your efforts in making this a better document than it started out. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll now move the...

Notice of motion as it appears on the board. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried unanimously.

Before we move on, I realise that at the beginning of the meeting I should have acknowledged former Councillor Christine Payne, who's up the back there. I didn't see you in the crowd, so thank you for being here.

We now move to items on block. The items on block are items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.

Can I read my declaration, Mr Mayor? Yes

Please.

Declaration: less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 007. I'm the public officer of the Kurrajong Community Forum, and they are an applicant for the Community Sponsorship Program. The reason for no further action is I am not a participant in their meetings, decisions or actions of the

Forum. So you're staying in the room?

I'll stay in.

Okay. So would someone like to move those items? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour say aye. Carried. We now move—

We now move to other reports. First one is item number one about Australian Local Government Women's Association conference. Do we have someone who wants to move something on that? It's on page 17, the recommendation. I'll move. I second the motion. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by the Deputy Mayor. Any discussion on that?

No, no discussion. Okay, I'll move the motion then. All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried. Do we want—

To nominate some people to go to that conference.

Anyone interested? Nope.

It's in Casula.

Is that a maybe? No. If it was Gold Coast, it might be different, is it? No . No one's nominating. Well, I'll leave it open. If anybody in the next week or between now and end of March sometime suddenly decides they want to go, please let the general manager know, okay? Item number two is report on Australia.

And the recommendation is that we receive that report and the recommendation, and that we submit it to the Department of Home Affairs. That recommendation is on page 21. Is anyone wishing to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow. Any discussion? Councillor Conolly. Thanks,

Mr Mayor. Look, I just want to make the point, I think this is obviously, as I made clear before, I don't need to rehash the debate. I would prefer that the citizenship ceremony be held on Australia Day. However, I wanted to make the point on the record that in our report , we detail that there's financial implications that it will affect our future strategy if we have it on Australia Day. I can see we haven't quantified that anywhere, and it sort of defies logic that having the event on a different day would make it more expensive. However, I wanted to make those concerns known. I note that we're not submitting that to the department. We're not making that claim in that forum, so I think we're okay.

At least externally, we're not going out there and saying that without quantifying it. But I do take issue with the idea that we, when the staff know this is quite a— this has been a contentious issue. We've had some debate about it, that we just make statements without providing any evidence or information to back them up in a report is not very useful, and it doesn't enable people to have confidence in what it says. I think if something has been challenged in the past, then it would be appropriate to actually detail in the report why it is that it's more expensive on a Saturday morning than a Friday night.

I'm thinking we have staff there anyway, we have all the same expenses. It doesn't make sense that it would affect our future strategy to have it on a Saturday morning. But look, I'm not going to support the recommendation on the basis that I'm not in favour of asking for an exception to hold it on Australia Day, to not hold it on Australia Day. But I did want to make that point. But as I said, I note we're not saying that to the department, so I don't think it's a big issue.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Any further speakers?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm in conclusion with Councillor Conolly, I certainly won't be supporting putting forward an application or a position based on the current one that is before us. The federal government has made it clear that if there is a directive issued to councils that Australia Day will be celebrated on the 26th. I believe that, as expected, I believe that there is a clear position that a lot of members in the community want it to be held on the 26th when we have our citizenship ceremonies. If the federal government is directing councils in that regard, I think that as a council we should respect that. I also believe that the excuses, or the issues, I should say, that we have listed in this position we're putting forward are weak, and I don't think that having a number one priority of weather conditions is actually a sensible position when we have an opportunity for many buildings with air conditioning, etc., in our LGA to be able to hold those ceremonies regardless of weather.

So I don't even understand how that becomes the primary concern. I also do know that we have had a position put forward to the public previously by our leadership that if the government were to direct such a direction that we would adhere to what the federal government said about the 26th. And I think that as a council, we would be able to come together and work something out so that we can benefit and have both the citizenship and the Riverside event at night on the same day. So there is no way I'll be supporting the position put in this business paper.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Probably a question for the general manager. If If we were to change the recommendation and support the government stance and make that our policy, what would happen if there was a change of government

And

That was undone?

I would imagine if there was a further change of the Commonwealth Code, then that would be consulted again and we'd be asked to comment, and that would be the normal way forward, I would imagine.

Any further discussion? Councillor Sam Prodno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Simply to briefly restate my previously stated position, which is that citizenship and Australia Day award ceremonies should be held on Australia Day. I don't have any particular objection to the form of words that's in Council's submission here, in the sense that it only says that it could suggest that the code be modified, that an application can be made for an exception. But I agree with Councillor Conolly and Councillor Richards. There are plenty of air-conditioned venues that could have been used on the morning of Australia Day.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I agree with, well not with what Councillor Sam Prodno said, but he raised a point I agree with, which is that it doesn't actually say when we're holding it. It's just saying that we're wanting councils to have that right to apply for an exemption to have that, which I assume that is something that would be a procedure that we would have to do closer to time. And I think that's a really good thing to have open because we don't know what may arise. One of those could be that there could be a change of government and any other form of direction could be given to us from the federal government. I do think that it's somewhat intrusive , although I know they have the right, but I do think that it's an intrusive way to behave, in a sense that it tarnishes the spirit that we, particularly as a community, have in trying to celebrate, albeit some of it on the night before and some on the day.

I think that there's an implication of anyone not having it on the day as actually defying the spirit of Australia Day. And I think that what happened here was far from the truth of that. And I do think there were valid concerns that were raised. And I had actually thought that Councillor Richards supported those on the radio interview that she did about that at the time. I think that with regard to the reading of the minister's letter, it always was read by the previous member for Macquarie until the current member was elected, and then it changed and the mayor at the time took over reading it. So I think that's a good thing, and I think that's not an issue. I think that should be standard, that a federal member would read a minister's letter.

I think in terms of the intrusiveness, I was quite astonished to see that yesterday a report from the National Audit Office came out and said that in June 2018 there were 244,765 applications for citizenship outstanding in Mr Dutton's office, and there had been a dramatic reduction in how many had been decided. And that department, the audit was recommending that there be public reporting. of how many are processed on a monthly basis. So I think that if people want to formalise their commitment to this country, surely it's more important that the application process is scrutinised and rectified so that these people are able to be becoming citizens. And there's 244,765. I'm sure they're not all, I don't know, whatever they call them these days, criminals or paedophiles or something.

And that process should be scrutinised and improved, rather than focusing just on whether someone would hold a ceremony the night before or the following day or something like that. But I think that because we're not taking a stand, we are not pushing forward a change the date motion as such, we are merely doing what suits our Council resources and how best to distribute those. And because we don't know at this point what form of other events we'll have, maybe we'll change our awards ceremony to be held some other time. Maybe we won't have our big event. So because we don't know these things and because we have to put in a submission now, it is probably best to have it open for us to be making our point about the exemption, because that is something we may wish to follow up when the time comes around.

So I support this going in as it is, and I think that if at the time there's some sort of changes, then councillors who don't support those particular changes can have their say again then, and we can see what the differences are at that point. So I support this submission and thank the staff for preparing it.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Any other speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, following on from the Deputy Mayor's comments about our ability to conduct these ceremonies in the part 2 of the code , it says in keeping with government policy that ceremonies be held at regular intervals. Most local governments should arrange for ceremonies to be held, you know, at least every two or three months. So if we do have a backlog of people that want to become citizens, we're going to have a bigger bill than we have now. I think that Australia Day thing's a bit of a furphy. I mean, if we have to have a citizenship ceremony every two months, that's a lot of rigmarole. That's a lot of stuff. So I think we really do have to start to negotiate with the federal government about how we are to fund this.

And I think that maybe is where the concern has come about our fit for the future. I love those citizenship ceremonies, and it would be a real pity if we didn't hold them because really we're the, you know, we're the grassroots of the Hawkesbury, and it'd be really a real shame if we didn't hold them. But we have to have the funds to be able to do that. So I'll be supporting this in its form because, as the Deputy Mayor has said, it has a bit of flexibility that we'll be able to say, well, you know, we need some extra support.

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

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with the Deputy Mayor that this really has become a matter of some overreach. It's Council who puts on this event. Councils must be given the flexibility to function within their resource limitations. We don't have the same budget as the federal government, unsurprisingly. We have to live within our means. We also have a difficult climate, as I'm sure the Prime Minister realised when he lobbed up and it was 40 degrees to a ceremony that we apparently weren't having because we weren't celebrating Australia Day and were publicly castigated in the mainstream media for a couple of months. Schrodinger's Australia Day we appeared to have had, the celebration you have when you're not having a celebration.

What a load of nonsense. Maybe if the department worried about its backlog and less about the timing of an event that we were having anyway, people might get their much cherished and incredibly important citizenship through. At every one of those events that I've attended as a councillor, someone has come up to me, a new citizen, deeply moved, often in tears, usually someone with children, who has said to me how much this means to them to come to this country and live in safety and freedom and how important that is to them and their children. That's what we should be focusing on, not the date, not whether it's in the morning or the evening, not whether it's indoors or outdoors, the importance of this ceremony and the conferring of citizenship on these people.

I'm quite dismayed at what has happened to this. This citizenship that we seem to take for granted, that people risk their lives for, that they give up their families, that they give up everything for, we have somehow turned it into some petty war to show who is the greatest statesman or who is the most nationalistic amongst us. As a former soldier, I am disgusted by people draping themselves in the flag, walking around in thongs and shorts with the Australian flag on it, vomiting and cleaning it up with a towel with the Australian flag printed on it, these people who present themselves as great patriots. It's bloody appalling. Let's get back to talking about what this citizenship ceremony means.

It means freedom, responsibility, but most of all, ... It is a great privilege and honour. How about we focus on that and we stop worrying about the petty details of which end of a 24-hour time period it's held.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I support the recommendation, especially, obviously, the third paragraph in the conclusion that Council should be amended to allow councils to apply for the Commonwealth for exemptions in situations where local circumstances and conditions are relevant. I don't know if it was— no, it was actually Christmas, Christmas and Boxing Day, probably, oh no, 2001. All celebrations and everything were put off by bushfires,

While

The Council and every available person went out and fought bushfires while houses were being lost. Now, what would happen if that was to be on Australia Day and we couldn't apply for an exemption, for example, because of extreme weather conditions? It's just so blatantly obvious that there should be the option to apply for an exemption where local circumstances and conditions are relevant. It's just so obvious. And if that is not there, then it's just not there for any sort of common sense reason or for any particular purpose other than pure politics. And I don't think citizenship should be about politics. It should be about becoming an Australian, and that's what Australians do when conditions, extreme weather conditions and national disasters strike, is they stick together. So I think objections to it are pretty pathetic, to tell you the truth. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Councillor Conolly,

You had— Just a question, if possible, Mr Mayor. If the federal government, through you, Mr Mayor, whoever is appropriate, if the federal government took up our suggestion to have a system to apply for an exemption, in that instance, and say it's 8 a.m. on Australia Day and there is a bushfire in the Hawkesbury, would that be an appropriate time for Council then to fill out the form to request an exemption from holding the Citizenship Ceremony? Mr Conroy.

No, I think that would be an exceptional circumstance.

Thank you for your question, Councillor Conolly. Any further speakers? No. Can I just say that I would like to thank the staff who ran the Citizenship Ceremony this year. I think it was run very well. I think there were a few problems with the venue, and I believe we would need to have a thorough evaluation of that. And I would suggest that we were talking about having some workshops later this year, or early this year. Perhaps that could be one of the topics that we actually look at, is the running of that ceremony, and not so much the date, but the place and the venue. Also, at that Citizenship Ceremony, I read out the letter from the Minister because I was instructed that that was my job.

I wasn't aware that it hadn't always been the Mayor's job, and I wasn't trying to overrule the government's position on that. I recalled the previous Mayor reading it out, and I just thought that's the way it was done. Very happy for the local member to read that out next time. That's not a problem as far as I'm concerned. So I'm also happy to support the recommendation in the business paper. No more speakers. Can I ask who moved that? Councillor Rasmussen, I think, was it? Seconded

Councillor Garrow.

It was you too. I thought it was Councillor Rasmussen, and you have right of reply? No thanks. Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. I'll put the motion then. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

Thank you. We now move to item 8, Audit Committee, and move that one. I believe Councillor Ross was wanting to move that.

I'll second it.

Seconded

I would like to move it. I would like to suggest an alternate resolution to that which is recommended. Yep I have acquainted my fellow councillors earlier this evening with some information which would indicate that there are differences in some factual areas which would lead me to request the withdrawal of this element of the business paper for further consideration and submission at the next meeting, please.

So you're asking that the whole report be held over to the next meeting, is that—

Well, as I understand it, there's a recommendation at page 49 of the paper

And

That is the point at which I find

That page and its predecessors to need some reconsideration, please.

So you don't want that recommendation; you want a recommendation that the matter be passed over to the next meeting, is that—

Reviewed and passed

Passed over. Held over to the next meeting. I'm just trying to understand what— Yes.

Yes, after reconsideration of the factual material. Councillor

Connelly seconding that? You wish to speak to that, Councillor Ross?

I think it's abundantly clear from the material which I've tendered to my fellow councillors and the general manager in deference. I don't believe it needs labouring at this point, and I leave it to my fellow councillors to express their opinion by way of vote. Thank you

Could I just ask the general manager whether that would create any special problems to defer this to the next meeting?

No

I don't believe so, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak on that? Councillor Codlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I actually haven't had time to read the notes sent by Councillor Ross, so it's hard to—I can't read it now and then read the differences . So if a deferral, I don't think we need to debate it now if that's okay.

Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Just a couple of questions, Mr Mayor. The first one, I don't think the deferral is an issue with this question. Item four talks about the waste management facility. Will this report also be brought to the Waste Management Committee for discussion?

And a second question through you, Mr Mayor, I'm not quite sure how Councillor Ross's issues will be resolved by holding this over to the next meeting. Does he intend that we discuss this at a briefing or that we receive more information in the interim? I don't have an objection to holding it over. I'm just at a loss to understand what will be achieved by that at this point.

Mr General Manager, can you answer the first question about waste? Yes, I would imagine that that report will go through to other committees. The second question about what would Councillor Ross like to achieve, I can only ask Councillor Ross to answer that,

Please

Thank you, Mayor. I believe I have pointed to some differences in the factual material submitted as part of the resolution here, and I believe they do warrant further consideration, please. And I think that would be appropriate at a time away from here because it's basically an internal matter. Thank you.

Does that answer your question, Councillor?

Not really, Mr Mayor. I guess I'm looking from Councillor Ross for some guidance on how his concerns will be resolved in the next two weeks and what he wants, I presume from staff, in order to move this forward so that we can deal with this at the next Council meeting. Councillor Conolly might be offering an answer to that. Because it appears to be something that's come to a Council committee.

You're offering an answer, Councillor

Well, I was going to, sort of. The reason I seconded the motion, having read through the email from Councillor Ross, is that clearly there's concerns about how the minutes have been recorded in a committee. None of us, other than Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen, were at the committee, so I understood the process to go forward was that Councillor Ross would then submit that document to the appropriate council officer in that committee to review, and then a further report, perhaps amended with some differences, be reported back to Council for consideration. Thank you

Councillor Ross, do you have anything to add to that?

Sorry, I've been in communication with my fellow councillors and the general manager today, this evening. I appreciate it is with short notice. I believe there are factual matters there which

Upon which, shall I say, I have elaborated and do merit review. And

I feel that that review would be appropriate

At a later time, and I don't think it's necessary to bring it before the chamber tonight.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Mr Mayor, could I suggest a way forward is that maybe we close the meeting for a little bit and then Councillor Ross could explain, because I didn't get a chance to read his email, therefore I'm not informed on it. And given that I'm probably one of the closest to this committee, I don't know exactly what the council is talking about. It shouldn't take too long. I think Councillor— sorry, Councillor Ross could do it in 10 minutes. He could explain it and we could be back on track. I

Think we already have a way forward, Councillor Rasmussen, and that is to defer to the next meeting. And some of the matters, as far as I've seen, might be quite serious, and I doubt whether you could do it in 10 minutes. I think they're bigger than that. So thank you for your— Your input, but I think we'll wait. The motion at the moment is that we defer till the next meeting. Any further speakers? For or against?

The general manager is indicating that the motion should include how you're going to meet. Are you going to meet with the general manager? Is the committee going to meet with the general manager? What is the way forward?

Could I ask the general manager maybe to give a suggestion on that? Okay . General manager.

So, Mr Mayor, I've offered Councillor Ross the option of meeting with yourself and the Deputy Mayor and myself to discuss this. I can also offer, perhaps based on the observations that have been made by Councillor Rasmussen, that maybe Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross and myself meet , and any other interested councillors, and we can go through the minutes and then we can prepare a statement coming back to the next council meeting.

Sounds like a way forward. We're happy with that, Councillor Ross? I'm certainly

Prepared to consider that.

Happy to consider that, yes.

We need to move it now, so— Fine.

Thank you. I will accept that offer.

So it's moved that it's deferred and a meeting be held between the general manager, the Mayor, Councillor Ross, Deputy Mayor to discuss these matters and a report given back to the next meeting.

I think Councillor Rasmussen should be asked to attend. Sorry, yes. If the alternate council representative on the audit committee chose to attend, I think he should be offered that option as well, please, sir, as a matter of courtesy.

We'll invite him as well, yes. Okay.

Thank you.

He's indicated he doesn't. But you'll get an invitation, Councillor Conolly, okay?

Yeah

Okay. So we're clear on the motion now. Moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen.

No , Councillor Conolly

Yeah, that's right. Yep, sorry.

Are we happy now? We move ahead. Moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Conolly. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. We move on to Councillor questions from previous meetings. We seem to have two sets.

One on page 72 from 27th of November,

And one on page 74 from 11th of December. How about we do them all together? Is there any business from those questions? Are

There questions missing in item 11?

I don't know

Oh, I see. Okay.

Councillor Wheeler

Just in relation to question 6, which was Yarramundi Lane and Old Kurrajong Road, I know it's impossible to keep on top of vegetation, but they've got away again. And Old Kurrajong Road is becoming a goat track as a result. It's really, really narrow and visibility is quite difficult. Right

Any further questions on questions?

Someone like to move we accept those? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasp, those in favour say aye. Do we have questions for the next meeting? Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly

Councillor Sam Progonov

Yes, briefly. I'd like an account of the number of complaints and any enforcement activity that's occurred relating to odours and the high-pressure facility at Wilberforce for the next meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor

Just wondering if, following up, if we could know if there has been any response from Mr Perrottet's office on the questions that you raised, I think which covered things like sullage and so on, when you had a meeting, a number of things were raised. So if we could just have an update if there's been any correspondence received back from them

Yep. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions

The first one is if we could have a look at the Yarramundi Lane intersection with the Kurrajong Road. That new piece of road there, just as you turn from Yarramundi Lane into that merging lane Yeah, in the slip lane. But just before you get to that, there is a considerable dip in that area there, and every time we get a rain event, that part of the road narrows because there's quite a considerable pool of water that builds there and stays there and doesn't drain away. Now, I think I might have—I can't remember whether I've raised it before—but it's an area of the new work that really needs to be done something about because that road really does narrow and people try and avoid that big, I won't call it a puddle, but a lake, and therefore, given that it's quite busy.

So if we could have a look at that, that would be good. And the other thing, we recently had a major storm event across the Hawkesbury, and I'm just wondering if there is any significant damage incurred and therefore the cost and whether or not there is any need to apply to the state for some sort of assistance in repair work.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. My first question is in relation to the telephone switchboard, if you like, the main number, double four double four double four. When ringing that, I find the announcements raucous and

Quite unpleasant in comparison to what I hear when I ring other council offices. I'm wondering if something could be done about that, please. And the second thing is, when ringing the council out of hours, the directory that is offered is not consistent with the folk to whom it is attached . I endeavoured to ring about a traffic matter prior to 8.30 in the morning and was put in touch with building services, which I don't think was appropriate. And I understand it's been that way for quite some time, and I'd like that looked at, please. The next matter is in relation to the trade waste policy . I believe that was debated, I think in 2017. It came to a briefing session, and it was indicated that the relevant director was going to review matters in regard to the two prime industrial

Discharge people involving South Windsor plant

Firstly, I'd like to enquire as to where are we at with the development of the trade waste policy and appropriate charge rates based on the review that was to be conducted. And secondly, I would be very appreciative if we could be supplied with the TDS levels of both the major input elements into the South Windsor sewage plant for at least the last six months, so that we understand the level of TDS, because prior to the first report to Council, there were very high levels reported from one such input source, which was causing severe aggravation, as I understand it, in the processing of waste, liquid waste that is, and possibly non-compliant with our EPA licence. The second matter is in regard to the South Windsor plant also and its connection with the John Moroney facility.

I'd like to enquire as to whether the $55 per kilolitre that is shown on the Council operational plan, if that is still the current tariff . And I'd like to understand also, please, the basis upon which that was evaluated and continues to be evaluated. Is it subject to change? And a general history, if we could, of the arrangements that might apply there, because I understand it was a later connection to that particular facility of the Council's. And I'm rather concerned at the level of revenue which is being raised from that source in comparison to the cost of domestic waste outflows, if you like, from our residents. Thank you.

Thank you. No last-minute questions? No. Well, we're moving to confidential now.

I'd like to move that. Councillor Cotlass, Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour say aye. Members of the public, thanks very much for coming tonight. Hope to see you next time.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 13, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: 1. Council proceed to publicly exhibit and notify the proposed lease to Mr Anthony Riley for the cafe located in Ham Common, being part of Lot 3 in Deposited Plan 1062683, 264 Hawkesbury Valley Way, Clarendon, as outlined in the report, in accordance with section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993. 2. At the expiration of the public notification process outlined in part 1 above, the following action be taken: a. Should any submissions be received regarding the proposed lease to Mr Anthony Riley, a further report be submitted to Council; or b.

Should no submissions be received, Council enter a new lease with Mr Anthony Riley for the cafe located in Ham Common, being part of Lot 3 in Deposited Plan 1062683, 264 Hawkesbury Valley Way, Clarendon, as outlined in the report. 3. Authority be given for any documentation associated with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 4. Details of Council resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. In regard to item 14, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: 1.

Council agree to enter into a variation of the lease with Stakks Pty Ltd for the property known as Shop 12, Wilberforce Shopping Centre, by amending the commencement date of the lease to the date that any construction certificates approvals granted. 2. Authority be given for the variation of lease and any other relevant documentation associated with this matter be executed under seal of Council. 3. Details of Council resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. In regard to item 15, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that: 1.

Council agree to enter into a deed of variation. of the current formal instrument of agreement with YMCA New South Wales and exercise the option for a period of up to two years with YMCA New South Wales commencing from 1 July 2019 for the management operation of the Hawkesbury Leisure Centre, being the oasis aquatic and leisure centre and the Hawkesbury Indoor Stadium. Two, the General Manager be given delegated authority to negotiate the deed of variation of the current formal instrument of agreement in regard to the option period of up to two years commencing from 1 July 2019. Three, authority be given for the deed of variation to the current formal instrument of agreement to be executed under the common seal of Council.

Four, details of Council resolution be conveyed to YMCA New South Wales together with advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen, you moving that we accept the report from the confidential section? You are, and Councillor Reynolds is seconding that, I believe. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Before you go, General Manager has asked me to remind you that there's a pool party on on Saturday, Richmond Pool, 11 a.m. And also nominations for Hawkesbury Sports Awards are now open, and they're open until the 1st of April, I believe. Thank you very much for your attendance. Meeting closed at 9.10 p.m