18 April 2019 - HLPP

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the meeting of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel. My name is David Ryan. I'm chairing today's meeting. I'll ask my fellow panellists to introduce themselves. John. My name is John Brunton.

My name is Jane Fielding.

And I'm Graham Eds.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Dharug people, their elders past and present. Just some housekeeping issues before we commence. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd like to advise members of the public that Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meetings are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting.

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant legislation, regulation. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. In addressing the meeting, it's expected that you refrain from making any insults, allegations or personal reflections on any person present or not at this meeting. The request relates to both your address at the meeting and any answers given in response to questions from the panel. Finally, it's requested that everyone turn their phones to silent or off.

We have today one item. It relates to, it's DA 304/18, Lot 3 in a Crown subdivision of Lot 7007, DP 1032928, Freeman's Reach Reserve, 361 Kerman Road, Freeman's Reach. Before we commence, we have all panelists have filled out a declaration of interest form. I'll just ask the panelists to confirm that there are no declarations of interest.

I have no conflict of interest.

I have no conflict of interest.

Nor do I. And nor do I. We have five speakers. We have two speakers against the recommendation and three speakers in favour of the recommendation. The procedure is I'll invite those against the recommendation to speak first. You'll be given five minutes to make your representation to the panel, after which the applicant will be invited to, or sorry, those speaking for the recommendation will be invited to speak. The applicant may have a little bit longer time to speak so that they can properly address any of the matters raised by those speaking against the recommendation. Those I have who have been advised have registered to speak against the recommendation: Robin Woods and Peter Mobbs. Ms Woods, would you like to come over to the lectern over there?

And if you could just provide your name and address for the meeting.

Thank you. My name is Robin Woods. Hi. Thank you, Chair and panel. I've never come before one of these planning panels before, so thanks for permitting me to speak on the matter of the fireshed placement overlooking the old shale quarry. Briefly, my relevance in this matter: I'm a retired science teacher and also taught conservation and land management at TAFE after completing the four-year course taught by my colleague Peter Mobbs, who is here today. My final science teaching years were at Hawkesbury High from 1994 to 2002, so I got to know the area pretty well, as I also engaged students in bush care and farmers in land care. Then, as a result of curiosity about the silcrete rocks in the area, I met archaeologist Jim Cohen, and later was assisted in bringing together botanist and local Dharug elder to understand the trading routes that were probably used right through to the stage when settlement began around Bushrangers Lagoon and the river in 1795.

In fact, the edible bulbs of terrestrial orchids were possibly traded for silcrete between Freeman's Reach and the Georges River. I was told. Cohen told me the tool making site would also have been linked with camps above the river, away from floods, but Bushes Lagoon would have been a prolific food source as well as for fibre. My work with landholders around Bushes Lagoon as part of the Green Army project from 2016 to 2018 has revealed many more stories about that contact period as farms took up the water access. The tribes were ultimately dispersed, but some of their people also worked on some of the lands. Peter Pintermoff has his own story in this situation. He and I were curious about plant diversity and uses and the local history, and did a check on the reserve, the larger reserve, where he identified the rare plant Pimelea spicata, spiked rice flower, back in 2015, and I lodged the record with the Atlas of Living Australia.

At that time, I also wrote to the Metropolitan Aboriginal Group asking about their reserve and got a very brief reply which told me nothing about any plans to maintain it. I've since discussed the situation with Gary Adams because I was very curious about this shell quarry. I'd passed it. Many people who I've taught asked what this area was because it was such a mess. And so when I spoke to Gary, I explained some of the background that I have, including that I've got no particular objection to the placement of the fire shed. So in a way, I'm in both camps. I understand the need for the fire shed, as I discussed that with Gary and realised just how restrictive the existing one is. However, I do.

I do concern that the impacts on the reserve below could really damage any possibility of preservation of the endangered species. But also, I don't see that it needs to have an impact below if it's managed properly in both the preparing of the ground above that reserve, in establishing the fire shed and in maintaining the fire shed afterwards. Drainage is possibly an issue, which I think somebody else had put in in their objection. I am a bit concerned about the possibility of doing the 10.50 burn below the shed to preserve it, because it is a steep area below where the shed will go. I know that the removal of the 51 ironbarks is going to be quite a big change, but they're struggling as it is, and there are ironbarks further down in the shale area.

So my concern is that the impacts are minimised so as to maintain a recovering bushland on the quarry, and that the cultural and historical aspects are respected, shared appropriately through the relevant council committees, including the Cultural Heritage Committee , and that sustainable land management of the reserve is undertaken by council. It's obviously not being undertaken by the Metropolitan Land Council or the Dharawal people. The people that I've negotiated with are Dharug people, and I really feel that there's a need to institute some sort of requirement for their information to be much more widely dispersed amongst the planners in council. The story of the Shell quarry itself needs to be a part of the whole situation.

The fact that I could find out absolutely nothing about that Shell quarry, and Gary gave me a really good history of it, was important for me. So that's the end of my submission.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Yes, I've got one. Robin, the endangered species that you talk of, the Panilius pinkarda, I think, is that within the site area?

No. I believe the flora and fauna study established that it wasn't there. It's below.

Okay. Okay, thank you. And the next question is, in maintaining the activity of the RFS around there, what do you perceive as being any sort of issue or concern that you might have on that reserve? I

Think there may have been some mention in the paper itself, the whole report, about the need to protect the fireshed from fire. So if any burn-off is done, it will be done below the fireshed. And, of course, the fact that fire rises quickly uphill is important to understand. I should mention that I was a bit sort of peeved about the tone of Gary's submission, and that's why I rang him. I'd actually trained in a fire brigade myself up at Bowen Mountain, because where I live, we're in enormous danger if we do have fire. So I do understand the threats of fire in the area generally and what needs to be done to protect assets. Okay.

Thank you very much. Right,

Thank you.

Peter Mobbs, if you could just state your name.

My name is Peter Mobbs, and a bit of a brief history. I'm a land management teacher and have been for 30 years. I'm also currently a nature conservation fire management rep in New South Wales.

Sorry, fire management rep in New South Wales. Is that better?

Sorry about that. So I have some experience. I've also been in the fire brigade, but I am an ecologist. And I'm not necessarily, as Robin has said already, I'm not necessarily against any construction, but I do want to see a better outcome than, you know, is the norm within most of Western Sydney. My concerns would be basically that because it's on a steep hill, you've got a slope where the fire can run up, and that requires that you play around with the 10-50 rules and regulations. And my concerns for that is that there will be too much vegetation removed. My experience in fire management, and especially in fire ecology, would indicate to me that a fire regime that was reduced below, or not below, but down to a sort of four- to six-, seven-year cycle could probably keep the fuel level, would keep the fuel level down to a reasonable level that wouldn't impact on the shed.

So we've got a threatened species on the site, of which I have identified with Robin Woods some years ago. I think there was about 20 individual specimens. The species itself is— Easily managed by fire. It's not impacted in a negative, too much of a negative way. It has a ground root system that allows it to reshoot post-fire. So some sort of reduced fire regime to be operated on that site could be very useful at minimising the need to reduce the overall vegetation of that site. The other aspect would be the runoff, urban runoff from the building, et cetera. And I would think that, as council goes into this, that there should be a— it should be looked at that a plan is suitable and approved to actually deal with the runoff.

And because the runoff is going to be a major impact on the plant species down below. So the concerns are around those two aspects. And I feel sure that this fire station could be built, as long as there's some very careful and considerate reasons given or sort of comments made or outcomes that are produced that show that the Hawkesbury Council and the Rural Fire Service and the ecology and environment of the area are maintained. I think that these things can be achieved. And I certainly would, as with Robin, would put my hand up to work closely with both Council and the Rural Fire Service to bring about a positive outcome, because these things can happen. They just need a lot more work and energy put into them.

That's it.

Any questions? Any questions? Thanks, Peter. I was going to ask you, speak, excuse me, specifically in regard to the urban runoff, because that's obviously a concern of yours. When we're dealing

With fire sheds

And from

My experience there is a fair bit of water in training being sprayed around the fringes

Of a building, is it that sort of runoff that you're worried about, or is it other things? Well

Well , it would be that runoff, as well as the runoff from the construction itself, because being that it's coming off the roof, unless it's trapped, et cetera, et cetera, then it could have an impact and will have an impact. There's no question that if the water is excessive, it will be an impact. So I think that one of the things I would allude to is that there's an opportunity here for the Council, Rural Fire Service and the environment to work together, again, I say that, to achieve an outcome. They're very fortunate to have this species on their property, or on this property. It is listed under both federal and state governments as an endangered species, and there is a full recovery plan available for everyone to look at in terms of how to manage the site better, which includes fire as well. I

Have one further question. The endangered species that you're talking of, I think from the previous speaker, Robin indicated it wasn't actually on the site of where the fire shed is going

No, no, it's not where the actual fire shed is. It's down slope of where the fire shed is. So the impacts are on that plus the actual 1050 regulations, which allows you to clear vegetation, you know, obviously to protect the building. They're the concerns, that it's going to not be the building itself, but the impact the building will have on the location. Okay

Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, Mr— can

I just ask one question? Sorry. The business paper for us has a series of recommendations that go to flora and fauna, tree removal, bushfire requirements and drainage and the like. Have you had an opportunity to have a look at those conditions? I

Have had a look at the conditions, yes.

And are there any concerns? So I think your contention is that it's not a fundamental issue, it's a management, ongoing management issue. Do you have any view as to whether the conditions before the panel, recommended conditions, address adequately the concerns you're raising now?

Yeah, I think on a general level they are, but my concerns, as I say, is that it's about the specifics and it's about the interpretation that one places on that. I mean, if we were to go to the location and clearly look at those issues, then I'm sure that we could work through what the impact would be so it's clearer to the panel. Okay . Thank you very much

Having heard from those against, those submitters, I have three speakers registered speaking for the recommendation: Gary Adams, Naomi Daly and Greg Tesoriero. Is there any particular order that those speakers wish to speak in? All right. I'll invite Gary Adams. Could you state your name?

My name is Garry Adams. I've been involved with the Rural Fire Service for 40-plus years, and went to the first fire when I was 12 years old. My father and— okay, my father and other members here were actually the founding members of the brigade. And back in those days, it was an old Fordson tractor with a spray cart on behind, and that's how we went off to do battle. But over the years it progressed, and unfortunately our current fire shed no longer suits the needs. Okay, it's situated in a dangerous location. We are 50 metres from a blind corner in an 80-kilometre zone, and any movement of the truck requires firefighters to get out and stand on the road and try and flag down the speeding cars as the truck backs into the shed.

The shed itself is about the size of a bit bigger than a double garage. So once the trucks are inside, there is no room to move about. You've got a space of so big , no room for maintenance. All maintenance has got to be done outside regardless of weather. And it's really difficult to, when you have such a confined space and such a small area with no parking available, park across the road, walk across the road to get to the shed. It's really difficult to hold members. And, you know, we've got a core group in the brigade that have been there all the time. We have others that come and go, and this is mainly because of the lack of space and lack of amenities. They come to be firefighters, but they don't come to work in a double garage.

Okay. The site that is under contention, well, I used to walk to school. I lived in the area for most of all my life. Used to walk to school, and in those days there was a shale pit there, and this is going back 50, 60 years, and the shale pit had probably been there, you know, maybe five or six years before I started school. It was simply a lunar landscape. Where you see the trees now, there was nothing. Where you see the grass now, there was nothing. It was just a great crater, and they continually took shale out of there for many years after I left the school. And it was simply, they'd set their charges, blow shale all across the road, scrape it up and back again. There were no trees there.

There were no trees up where the fire shed is now. There might have been one or two, or where the fire shed is proposed to go, there might have been one or two. So any vegetation that's there is what you consider new growth. You know, it's in the last 40-plus years . As the site sits now, it is a massive fire danger, not only to the buildings across the road. It's been, despite requests to have it burnt off, we've been unable to get that done. It's always been refused because of the , what would you say, the area of the land. And it's on an upslope, on a hot, windy day, you get someone throw a cigarette out of the car, you would have burning embers travelling, you know, four or 500 metres into opposing bushland.

So it does need to be managed. It does need to be cleared off by burning, by proper controlled burns. And when you go and look at the site, I don't know if anyone's been there and looked at the actual site. It looks terrible that, say, you know, 51 trees to be knocked over. But there are a number of trees in there that are dead. Okay, so they've already been numbered, but they're scraggy little black wattles that only have a limited lifespan before they fall over. And some of these trees, you know, maybe half a dozen or so, have been tagged as being removed. But they're already dead, so rather pointless exercise marking them and numbering them in that situation. And that's about it. Good site for the brigade.

It's central, and it puts us closer to the more built-up area of the Freemans Reach, and gives a quicker reaction time.

Thank you, Mr. Woods. Any questions, Mr.

Woods? I've got a couple of operational questions for you. Yep . The plans show that there's going to be three car parking spaces plus one disabled space.

Yes.

When you have a big incident, how many cars do you reckon you're going to, or spaces you're going to need?

Normally for a turnout, you know, for any brigade activity, because we're only a small brigade but do a lot of work, you'd only have maybe five or so turn up to go out. And then later on, if it's an extended campaign period, you know, you might have another five or so turn up for the next shift. But they make do. There's plenty of areas around that, not specific car parking spaces that are needed. There are other places along the side of the tennis courts or at Carss Family Park if needed. You know, parking's no problem, but in the other place it is a problem.

Sorry, could I just clarify, Mr Wood? You're speaking in support of the application not as the applicant? No, no, speaking

In support, yeah.

Thank you, Mr Wood. Naomi Daly.

I don't know if the panel will allow—we thought we might come together just on behalf of the applicant. So Naomi Daly from Urbis Planning, and

Greg Tessarolo, Creative Planning Solutions, the arborist.

So largely, I presume your issues will probably be directed at both of us, so I thought it might be for efficiency just address you together if we could. I guess firstly to, I guess, you know, we're available for any questions you may have to respond to some comments by Robin and Peter. I guess there was a lot of these same issues were raised early on in the DA assessment, and the applicant responded by undertaking an independent peer review, particularly on flora and fauna matters. I know that that wasn't until recent times potentially even on the council's website, so I'm not sure if Robin and Peter had actually seen that independent review by Ecological, so they may not have all the information before you, so I just did want to just acknowledge that.

Also on their matters that Robin and Peter raised, I guess a lot of them are related to the Crown, the reserve lot. As you're aware, this is proposed lot number three, and a lot of these issues are—whilst there is a flow-on effect to some degree, we are looking at a development site within a whole broader Crown land reserve. So we've purposely tried to move the building as far as we can away from, you know, flora and fauna and the like. The other, I guess, issue in terms of stormwater, I did see in the consent conditions that the engineer within council had reviewed the details within that submission of the flow-off, and there's, you know, we've got on-site detention and also delaying the runoff on site, which would feed into this crown reserve.

So, I mean, largely, you know, as I said, we're here for any condition questions you might have, but on balance, I think we need to review that, yes, there is a lot of trees removed as part of this. The ecological report said that it was unlikely to result in any impact on the flora and fauna community and any, you know, indigenous species. And on balance, it's really, you know, we're providing a broader community benefit and purpose here, and I think we need to sort of, you know, go back to the first principles of why we're seeking to undertake these works, and it's to safeguard the community against bushfire protection and threat. So, yeah, so I guess, Greg, unless you've got anything to add in terms of submission, but, yeah, any questions open to the floor?

Any questions for the

Applicants' representative? Yes, Naomi. Some of the other speakers that were not necessarily against the proposal but had some concerns were mainly to do with maintenance and runoff. How would you propose the development of this particular RFS shed be managed then to fulfil the sorts of things that should be done ecologically

Yeah, unfortunately I can't, you know, on stormwater, I'm a planner. Unfortunately, it's not my area of expertise to understand how you could better manage it, bar looking at, you know, for me the conditions of consent look reasonable. Yeah

Thank you.

I've got my operational questions. The plans don't clearly show truck manoeuvring. The— well, yeah, it shows the vehicles actually reversing in— sorry, driving forwards into the fire shed and then reversing out. I don't know of any fire units that would do that. So it raises a particular issue about the layout of the area in front of the fire shed and how that's supposed to operate, and how the trucks are supposed to get in and out efficiently , with the consequent implications for where the car parking spaces are. That then has a flow-on effect in the use of the area for— Post-fire event activities where clean-up's happening, how's that going to happen, where's it going to happen? One of the difficulties is that the block of land next door, which has got an informal car parking area on it, is not easily accessible because of the change in level, because this site's being excavated.

So you've got a drop in level of about 1.2 metres between the two areas. It just seems to me that there's some operational issues that I'm not quite sure have been adequately resolved. I'm not sure whether you're able to actually answer

Any of those questions. Potentially I'm not. I mean, bar that I know that, you know, Barbara, bar doing swept paths and the like to ensure that manoeuvrability was appropriate on the site , and as you obviously had, I don't know, RFS here, if that's available to them to understand the operational aspects of that, how they operate, if that would be an issue, refer it to them.

Yeah

And then I guess that's on the drawings showing the swept paths. So is your issue that you'll be— I'm just trying to get to the crux of your concern. So in a fire event, it's—

In a fire event, they come straight out of the shed and hit the road. Yeah. Well, it's the way the apron is designed. I don't know that it's actually designed for the trucks to get in and out , and to undertake all the other activities that need to be undertaken. I assume that underlying this is a belief that the adjoining area is going to be used conjointly at times when it needs to be, but— There's a difference in level of a metre to a metre and a half. I mean, it is— it's just operational issues that, to me, I'm not sure that they've properly been resolved. That's all

Is a way of addressing this potentially putting, I guess, a condition of consent to show, I guess, satisfaction of these turning paths in a little bit more detail prior to, you know, issue of a CC or something like that, as a way of making you satisfied? I don't know. Excuse me, sir. If you wish to

Speak, you'll need to come to the lectern and introduce

Yourself and your capacity in the application. Lachlan McClure, the building manager at Council

Which we've been

Working on this DA for the last 12 months to get through. We engaged Barbara to— Barbara Tadasky to do the plans, and we've been dealing with the RFS basically on a monthly basis to ensure the operational status of the site matches their needs. So we did actually do a turning circle study based on the newest trucks, the future newest trucks that the RFS will be using, and looked carefully at the operational needs. So the brigade have carefully looked at that a number of times, and we've redesigned the site I think three times based on those options, including— Discussions with our Parks people to ensure that we weren't using the park site, because there was a specific need for the park site not to be influenced by the RFS site, and vice versa.

Did anyone have any questions for Mr. Lachlan?

By the park site, do you mean the tennis court, or do you mean the —

Yeah, the park site's where the tennis court and the existing toilet is. Originally we looked at combining the two sites, but the plan of management from Parks required that to be separate, and also the RFS had a particular requirement to try to keep those two separate as well because of security, etc. So the two sites basically will work separately. Yeah .

I've got another question for, David. Lachlan, you said you'd actually redesigned or had this building redesigned a few times. Yeah . Have you actually looked at turning the building at 90 degrees, for instance?

We did. We did.

Did. And what was the issues that you— Turning circles. Turning circles?

Yeah, turning circles was a totally key ingredient for this site, because the turning circles were influencing the parking for the park as well. We didn't want to interfere with the 12 car spaces that are available for the park, and the turning circles also to get on and off the road with that large pole that's on the road there. There's a big County Council electricity pole, which was an issue as well. So we had to make sure that getting a truck in and getting a truck out— Because coming in has a turning circle as well as coming out. And then there's the backing in, the backing into the two garages, not just one. So, oh, it's three bay, three bay. So there was, it was quite an intricate mapping of that turning circle.

And the original design, we had the issues where parks were getting interfered with the turning circles and their car spaces, and also the fact that the trucks were having to back two times. So we made sure that there was just one backing in of the truck rather than a three-point turn, if you like. Yeah. So that was a very important and crucial ingredient of placing the building in its current location, which was right at the back of the site, to give us the biggest apron we could achieve. Because that site was limited to the 30 by 40. That was the only available land we could use based on the Aboriginal land right issue.

I've just got one other question in regard to that, the actual size of the allotment. Was there any room to move the boundary, for instance, towards Gorex Lane a little?

Crown lands gave us, I think, a couple of metres. So we got as much as we could from Crown lands based on the Aboriginal land claim . Okay, thank you. Yeah, we did actually go back to Crown land to get the best margin we could, but we were not doing any work on the allotments other than the allotment we're working, the one allotment allocated for the fire station. Just save another DA, of course.

Can I ask another related question? Yep. Projecting the kitchenette area out over the gully and having to support that structure becomes an expensive exercise in building the building. Yeah. Absolutely. And when I also look at it, in some places the local brigade likes to have their office a little bit further forward so that they can actually see what's going on around it.

Yeah, I think the office is right at the apron at

The front. Yeah, it's at the front

Yeah.

But it just tweaked in my mind, was there an advantage of pulling that section forward a couple of metres? So partly to save cost at the rear, partly to improve observation at the front. In your examination, did you actually look at something like that?

We used a plan that was put together by the RFS. That plan is an approved plan that the RFS are fairly strict on as far... We did move things around to try to get the best option, and we've gone through that with the RFS quite a number of times to make sure that they were happy with that operational need. But we didn't actually change... We actually, we did have a plan, come to think of it, that did split it and push it forward. But the cost of excavation is fairly minimal if we use the piers, and we were trying to minimise any ... Excavations or any importing and exporting of materials on the site. So we basically, once we went to the peer process, we then went back to the original layout to try to keep to their standard requirements, because they use that everywhere.

Yeah, we built one at Tennison the same. Yeah, but totally anywhere we can save, we had looked at the cost plans carefully, and we actually got special work done by the surveyor to make sure we were careful in the way we designed our footings to make them the most economical, together with Accent, the structural engineers. We brought them in early to look at just that item. Yep.

I have a question which might have kind of touched on and might go to you and to the RFS as well. The fire service have used, at least in the past, you know, the foam, which has been a bit problematic environmentally. It's probably since improved and maybe it's not so much of an issue these days. I know that the facility will be used for some training-type purposes. Will there be any use of that kind of substance on site, and will that be just within the building, confines of the building, and go to sewer, or will any of that be outside of the building in areas that will go to stormwater?

Must have timed out. Sorry, can I ask the RFS to answer that? Because PFAS is, I've been told, I'm under the impression that they don't use it, but they're probably best to say whether they do or not. Can I ask the RFS to come up?

If you could just introduce yourself, please.

So I'm Bruce Lille, I'm the captain of the Thurimburch Brigade. So we don't train with those foams on site. We basically don't train. Yeah, we might go into paddocks, but we don't use foam in any extent at all. So specifically on site, no, there would be no foam on site at all. So, and in fact, we do very little training on site. So as far as water, gas, runoff, there'd be very, very little from our actual activity.

Thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to say something.

Okay Well, we're still in open session. Is there any questions of the council staff? Okay All right. That closes the public submissions part of the meeting. I will now adjourn the meeting so that we will carry out deliberations on the report and consideration of the submissions made. Thank you for making those submissions. We will, after our deliberations, so the procedure is we will stay in this room and I'll invite you to leave the room while those deliberations take place. We will then open the meeting again to the public where we will make our decisions on the items. You're welcome to stay around. I can't guarantee how long that will be, hopefully not too long. Otherwise, the minutes of the meeting will be available . Tomorrow. So you will be able to find out the decision at that point. So thank you very much. So if you could vacate the room.

Thank you

Ladies and gentlemen. I'll reopen the meeting, and thank you for your patience. It took a little bit longer than we thought. We've got there. I will put a motion to the panel, which will be voted upon. The motion is that development consent be granted, subject to conditions contained in Council's assessment report, subject to the following amendments.

Condition 19G be added: the method of disposal of stormwater drainage shall minimise the impacts on the adjoining bushland. New condition 22A, amendment to landscape after the amendment to landscape plan: the external materials of the building, including the exposed concrete walls, shall be finished so as to minimise the visual impact of the building as viewed from Gorick's Lane. New condition 28A, operational management plan: preparation and submission of an operational plan for approval by Council, which: one, addresses the means of implementing all relevant conditions of this consent relating to environmental, drainage and other operational management issues; two, provides for arrangements to utilise the adjoining car park area associated with the tennis courts for any events for which additional car parking is required.

And three provides for measures to avoid impacts associated with the use of any hazardous materials on adjoining bushland and endangered species. And new condition 62, operational management plan, ongoing implementation of the approved operational management plan. I'll put that motion to the panel. Those in favour? Those against? None. That becomes the resolution adopted unanimously. The reasons for the panel's decision. I'll just wait till...

The local planning panel considers the proposal is acceptable and the proposed development is approved for the following reasons. The proposal is acceptable having regard to the statutory requirements applying to the development. The proposal is in the public interest. The proposed development adequately satisfies the objectives and provisions of the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012. The panel has included additional conditions to address issues raised by the public in relation to ongoing operational management of the site, particularly addressing protection of adjoining bushland. So with that, that's the end of the meeting. I hereby close the panel meeting. Thank you for your attendance. Thank you, staff, for your assistance.