25 June 2019 - Ordinary

Council ordinary meeting for the 25th of June 2019. I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional— 2019, did I say that? I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay respects to the custodians and to Elders both past and present. I'd like to hand over to the General Manager now to talk about some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our wardens. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is therefore voluntary.

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. All councillors are present, so there'd be no apologies. Do we have any declarations of interest, please?

No. We move to the confirmation of minutes. There's two sets of minutes. The first set of minutes is 28th of May ordinary meeting. Do we have someone to move that? Moved. Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Any discussion? All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Second set of minutes is for the 12th of June extra ordinary meeting. Someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded

Councillor Reynolds. Any discussion? All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. We have two items.

As it is subject to public address, the first item is item number 103, and the speaker is Mr. Bill Snedden.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, just before I speak, I attended the opening of the new inclusive park yesterday at South Windsor. It was a wonderful occasion. Many kids very happy, and it was in use today. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Councillors, reading the documents in this submission to iPart and related attachments regarding the Vineyard development, one is reminded of Sydney growing and pressuring the Hawkesbury and the desire of our residents to maintain a sane lifestyle and more rural ambience that we now have. We have had this development foisted upon our council by the Vineyard rezoning. I'm told we can't say no. Hawkesbury staff appear to have appropriately done the design for the required infrastructure for the new urbanisation and contributions cost per block for the subdivisions determined.

The numbers are in for doing the job as per the working rules. Real work on the real ground isn't cheap. However, it now appears the New South Wales government is unhappy with the cost estimates for the works and engineering on ground. Remember, land requires all works to be done before sale. No longer is land cheap due to no services being supplied with the land at sale. This stops the previous 20 to 30 years follow-on spend required by ratepayers to provide road services, etc., as used to be the case in the good old days of cheap land for housing. It now appears from the documents before you the state government considers the block and development costs are too high, not meeting the template standard used somewhere elsewhere, probably on easier land.

This is the nexus referred to constantly in the documents. Can't charge more than what it actually costs. iPart is now involved and is disputing routine engineering and costings for this development as done by your council. Also disputed is the nature of the area and its flooding problems and waterways needing stabilisation. IPART seems to have done, to my mind, a desktop review on the area, reminiscent of the recent transport corridors debacle by the Department of Planning. This subdivision area has significant hydrology problems for development. That is also being mandated before the finalisation of our floodplain management plans that would also include this area, which will possibly be involved in more flooding due to climate change with overland flooding.

Remember, the Windsor Road in this area was raised to standards fit for flood evacuation in parallel with building the Jim Anderson Bridge some 10 years or so ago. Councillors, we cannot submit to cost shifting suggested in this development to produce a substandard development. We would also be risking flooding in a new urban area threatening homes of new Hawkesbury residents. These homes will be the major life asset. Bowing to IPART's suggestions would also cost shift millions of dollars to Hawkesbury Council to the extent I believe it would threaten our mandatory fit for the future status that we have been working towards with our recent rate increases. In all conscience, this Council has to dispute the new IPART proposals.

We are not playing the schoolyard game of Australian rules, i.e. make them up as you go along. I remember that from primary school. One observation from this process appears to be that IPART can override the Valuer General. Perhaps residents of Oakville affected by the recent Valuer General's valuations could see IPART to dispute their new valuations if this is the case. Councillors, frankly, we cannot submit to IPART proposals for the Vineyard subdivision before you in any good conscience. I would also like to note that landholdings tidying up of areas on the other side of the Blacktown Council line have not been fixed up, particularly in the railway road area along Vineyard between Windsor Road and getting on towards over the station area.

I think there's a lot being missed out by Department of Planning and Lands in doing things before we really need to be forcing this Vineyard development. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Snedden. Are you happy to answer questions? Yes, sir. Are there any questions, please? No, looks like you might have got away with it. Thank you. Thank you. The item is up for discussion. Recommendation in the paper, Councillor Conolly. I move the recommendation. You move the recommendation. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Zamprogno. You wish to discuss, Councillor Conolly?

Yeah, just briefly, Mr. Mayor. I think it's really important that we put this submission in. Obviously, there's a lot of detail in there about all the different parts of it we're contesting, but I think overall the message would be that it just doesn't make sense that it would be so much cheaper to do this in the Hawkesbury than it is in all the surrounding areas. The fact of who's paying for it is irrelevant in terms of how much the infrastructure costs. IPART, obviously being an independent body, has put together this assessment. We need to now advocate politically before a decision is taken by the state government on how to proceed. I think it would be hard. I think the honesty of the situation is it would be hard for any state government to, overall, IPART to increase developer contributions, and that's what we're going to have to ask them to do, and that's going to be incredibly difficult for any minister to do that.

So I think we need to be loud and united and not let this get away from us and become a political issue, but just draw on effective advocacy and focus on the detail of what we're talking about and try and get to the right people before a decision gets made.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Ross.

I respect the right of my fellow councillors— Offer an opinion. I hope you're well aware of the correspondence in which I've entered into in the last two days. What we're looking at here is nothing short of a

Very major risk being placed upon this council in an escapade similar in its elements as to what our worthy citizen mentioned in his contribution.

The matter of flooding and the appropriateness of the site for development has not apparently been taken into account.

I believe that if we follow the staff recommendation on this occasion, we are subjecting the council to an element of risk which I believe is untenable on behalf of the ratepayers.

I would further mention that it is not for council to entertain risk

In such a fashion. Risk should be an aversion to this council and to all councils. We have a flood management strategy and plan that was developed in 2012, and that was founded on numerous , some 60-odd as I understand it, previous studies. And the information contained therein and the maps therein provided clearly indicate that Chapman Road is at grave risk of inundation. Likewise, I've heard from local people that Boundary Road is also inundated on occasion. We also don't know the impact of the development within the adjoining shire, and that could create further difficulties . I believe that this council should, with respect, take this back to the Department of Planning and indicate that the DCP and the finalisation reports fail to adequately address the matter of flooding, and that we would seek their affirmation that they will, if there is risk involved, that it is the state government who bear the risk and not this council and not the ratepayers of this city.

Thank you.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Respectfully, in response to Councillor Ross, I think the ship has sailed. This land has been released. The state government has determined that this land will be developed. Council was not the consent authority. Council did not release this land. Council has not determined the density of development that will occur on this land. The state government has. Further, the Department of Planning and Environment has determined the infrastructure that's required on this land. So council is— Council is just the bunny who has to sort this mess out, and I think the issue with this report isn't whether this land should be developed or not. That's another argument that, sadly, we will lose because we were never invited to the table for that one.

The issue here is that the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury are going to be responsible for paying for a level of infrastructure that IPART has determined we cannot rightly gain from the people who will profit from this development. And it comes about in large part because there is no gap funding for infrastructure from the state government, unlike the surrounding LGAs, Hills and Blacktown, so this is fundamentally unfair. I would hope that residents would also note that Council has already incurred additional expenses to complete the draft contributions plan and the IPART application. It's simply not reasonable to expect the rest of the LGA to subsidise Vineyard to satisfy this thirst for growth across greenfield sites.

Particularly troubling is the downgrading of Boundary Road to the standard of a collector road. Clearly, whoever determined this isn't aware of the deplorable state of public transport in the Hawkesbury, nor have they ever driven along Boundary Road and seen the volume of traffic it's already coping with, with a fraction of the development that it's being asked to carry. The reduced stormwater costs are also really concerning. I think IPART needs to be reminded that we live on the soggy end of a floodplain, that stormwater isn't an optional extra for us, and that proper management of it is an environmental necessity. If we get flash flooding, it's a safety issue, and it's certainly going to be an increasing impost on infrastructure management as water continues to flow through the Kalarney chain of ponds and down into the areas around Oakville.

The open space embellishment reductions really are just code for council can stump up the funds later, and we know what that looks like. We've seen that in Pitt Town.

The bridge and environmental works, which were previously considered essential, are underfunded. It's really essential that council get this submission in. The bones of it that are already available look good. There's still plenty to flesh out, though, and I hope that we have time to do that before the submission is required. I also think, though, that it's essential that council post this submission publicly on its website to ensure full transparency for the other residents of the LGA. The Department of Planning and Environment talks about reasonableness being about fairness, equity, sound judgment and moderation. Now, I would imagine that not leaving the rest of the ratepayers with a massive infrastructure and cost burden as the result of profit from a few developers would be the very definition of reasonableness.

I also note Mr Stedden's comments that it appears IPART has based its land values on Blacktown Council, and like him, I wonder if the residents of Oakville, for example, could pick and choose from Blacktown's land values when they determine their rates, or perhaps we could all buy in the Hawkesbury at Blacktown's land values. And I say that as a former resident of Blacktown. I'm quite fond of Blacktown, but it's a bit cheaper than it is here in large part. So we have to get this application in. It's really important. Councillor Conolly is correct. It's important that we show a united front on this. The minister does appear to have some discretion. I'm hoping that he uses it and that we can present a case for fair treatment for the residents of the Hawkesbury.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to echo the words of Councillor Conolly and Councillor Wheeler, but I have a question, I think, for you or the General Manager. Two weeks ago we resolved to send a delegation to the Minister for Planning. I was wondering what the status of that is, whether we've contacted the Minister's office to arrange it. It seems to me that that should be expedited. General Manager?

Yes, Mr Mayor, we've made contact with the Minister's office and there's been an email exchange with the relevant staff with a view to organising that. We don't have an ETA for a meeting as of yet? Not at this stage

Okay.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Likewise, of course, the points have been made and I agree that we have to do, we have to get this submission in. It does appear that IPART seeks to penalise Council for some reason. I just wanted some clarity on something Councillor Wheeler just raised. And what we, I think, was raised at the last meeting, and there wasn't an answer available, and that was just exactly what rights of review we have if IPART don't change. So do we, does the minister have the discretion — I'm assuming he does — to overrule that decision of IPART, and what's the mechanism to deal with that?

Yes, Bren.

Through you, Mr Mayor, we're basically put an appeal to the minister directly. I mean, the minister will get a copy of our submission anyway, and then we'll follow that up with an appeal.

Thank you. I would hope that wouldn't be necessary, but looking at the other IPART reviews, it would seem that not many people are getting what they're asking for. So it's quite possible that we should do that and, of course, in doing so, be very clear in the very unfair burden, unjustifiable and unfair burden this would place on our ratepayers to be put in this position, as well as the very stringent financial requirements that the state government does impose upon us to remain financially viable. So I won't say any more because it's been said, but I support the submission going in, and hopefully some sense will prevail.

Councillor Sam Probyn.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions to seek some clarification. I'm trying to read among the various reports before me here the degree to which we would be on the hook for what has been termed essential infrastructure. That is to say, if this development proceeds, the infrastructure that would have to be done as a mandatory pre- or co-requisite, and it couldn't be dispensed with. Now , the IPART report suggests an overall deduction of nearly $35 million in what we could collect, and the draft GLN report refers to $25 million worth of essential infrastructure. Can I assume, therefore, that that is the quantum, that is the correct figure, that's forming what our Council would be on the hook for? It's the proportion of development that could not be dispensed with; it would have to go in.

Ms Barin.

All of the works are deemed essential infrastructure. So if we don't, and I suppose to help you understand, we've allocated an amount of money that we think the works will cost. If all of the development didn't happen, as in the case, for instance, of Pitt Town, we still may end up having to build infrastructure that is deemed essential that might still have to be done by Council. So there's a quantum of work that we're saying it will cost this amount of money. These are the works that are essential. They're not pick-and-choose pieces of work. So we will still need to build them, and at some point, even if the development doesn't occur to 100%, there's still going to be an amount of money potentially that we're going to need to find. So

Notwithstanding what the GLN report says, but it's not contending $35 million, it's not contending that it might actually be a $35 million shortfall, but our Council would have to spend if the forms of development were cut. Is that correct? Yeah

Yes.

Oh, and that one too. Sorry, I didn't realise it was off.

Sorry. There are state infrastructure contributions that are made to the state government for works that they may deem are required. But at this point in time, we're not sure what those works may include for Vineyard, if there are any. And if they are, then the state government would pay for those, but we're not aware of what they are or how much money.

All right then. Okay. So with those questions clarified to my satisfaction, all I'll say is that the remarks that I made at our last meeting don't need to be repeated. I think this is not acceptable. I think that the quality of development that we would like to put, now that this has been foisted upon us, would be enormously reduced if we weren't able to fund it properly. And certainly, the report that's before us now. Answers many of the questions that I had in relation to what we're asking for compared to other LGAs that can have LIGS funding, and it shows that far from being excessive in what we're asking for, we're actually on the low side. We're below the average in terms of what we need to provide essential infrastructure for these blocks.

I think the status of Boundary Road will become totemic for the state government's approach here because everybody understands that Boundary Road will be the spine of that development, and the development that we're even less responsible for that's on the eastern side of Boundary Road that is being put in by Hills Shire Council, and then to demote that road, I think, is extremely short-sighted. What I'm pleased about is what I hope is an emerging consensus that we will present a united front on this question, and that we will declare that our first allegiance is to our local community, and if that means taking the state government, or indeed IPART as it is at this stage, to task to rethink their strategy, then we can do so shoulder to shoulder.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, clearly there is no way that this council can stump up $35 million to carry out the works that have been identified that need to be done. So I'm just wondering what the options are for this council and how it could proceed, given that clearly $35 million is, or an amount of money equal to $35 million less than what's required to provide the infrastructure in this development, isn't available within this council's resources, then— Where does it come from? Now, I think we've just heard, Mr Mayor, at least I heard, if I heard it correctly, that all of the infrastructure and the costs associated with that infrastructure for this development is not pick and choose.

And Councillor Zamprogno's point that the development would be much lesser than we should develop for this area. Now, I'm not sure that there is a lesser option, and I guess my question relates to this lesser option, if there is one. Because it seems to me, from what the Chief Planner has been saying, that $35 million, or that extra $35 million, is what's required to develop this to the standard that's required for this development. So, what is the implication of this development proceeding and Council not having the $35 million extra to stump up? And what is the lesser infrastructure that could be provided or would be provided as a result of this money, or this shortfall, actually taking place?

Mr Parry.

We're looking for an answer.

I'm hoping to get some sort of an answer, Mr Mayor, because clearly—

You definitely will.

I

Would like an answer, Mr Mayor.

You will. The General Manager is going to answer. I think if it got to that, like, there are some fundamental flaws in what's before us tonight. As the report outlines, on one side of Boundary Road, a Council is collecting contributions. Legally collecting contributions for a major road for half the cost of that major road, and I part of proposing that we have a lesser standard road on the other side, it really just doesn't make sense. And I think, you know, there are a number of these examples that are in the report. And remember, the report is still a work in progress. It landed on our desk two weeks ago, and, you know, we're still working our way through all these matters, and we will continue to do that until we get in front of the relevant people.

Our objective is not to come back to Council with a bill. And if push comes to shove, we'll have to find ways of cutting the quality of the plan to suit the budget. I don't think it's a case of imposing costs on other parts of the local government area. You know, the whole idea of developer contributions is that there's a nexus between development and the contribution and the beneficiary, and we're just going to have to rejuggle that to get that balance aligned. But that would be the last thing that we would do.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, General Manager, for that response. So, and I go back to what Councillor Brodner was saying: what is the lesser that we're looking at? Are we looking at dirt roads instead of paved roads? I mean, what is, at the end of the day, for this Councillor, what are we signing up for here? I mean, clearly IPART's not going to budge, I suspect. They're not going to budge. The minister will go, Nah, can't tell IPART what to do. So at the end of the day, it'll be back on us. So what are the options? No drainage, dirt roads? What are the options? I think they need to be spelled out. At least for my mind, they need to be spelled out.

The reality is, in respect to the roads, that we may end up building the road that they specify,

And

Then at a later date, RMS and the Department of Planning are going to have to come in and fix up the situation, and that will cost even more. And we'll explain that to the relevant state government representatives . The other things

Are that

I think one of the dilemmas we've got here is this is, you know, we're really in frontier area in terms of the role of IPART and developer contribution plans. But at one level, you've got various state government agencies talking about, you know, creating liveable, sustainable, vibrant, better urban places, and then you've got other parts of government not subscribing to that objective and looking purely perhaps from a financial perspective. And there's got to be some mechanism that starts bringing those together in a more reasonable way. Now, it may not be, you know, at one end, it may be somewhere in the middle, but we don't even know where that is. But I think there's a few conversations that have got to be had.

IPART makes a recommendation. They don't actually have the final call. And as I say, I think there are some bigger conversations that need to be had, and we need to make sure that they're on the table and had.

Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. A question for, I think Mr Organ. With the confusion over the classification of Boundary Road where the Hills Shire side is arterial and IPART is saying that our side will be collector. Who is responsible? Do arterial roads fall under the responsibility of the RMS and collector roads fall under Council?

It's not the classification whether they're arterial, it's whether they're classified as a state road. So if it's a state road, then it's RMS. If they're arterial, sub-arterial, really depends on whether that classification translates to a responsibility and a funding. But generally, you'll find that it won't be. It'll stop at Windsor Road or Bandon Road will be the state roads. And at this stage, if it was an arterial road, it would still fall probably as a Council road.

So arterial roads can still be a road that falls under the responsibility of Council, is that right?

That's correct.

No further speakers. I just wanted to add that this is a draft report from IPART. They've called for submissions, and we're putting in a fairly strong submission from what I can see. We pointed out some really large inconsistencies, particularly like Boundary Road, which has been pointed out several times tonight, and also the system that was used to value the land is really questionable as well. I think Councillor Rasmussen said that IPART won't be flexible, but I suspect in this case they will have to be flexible to some extent because basically they've got it so wrong.

I'm meeting with the local member this week, and this is on our agenda to discuss with her. And as the General Manager said, it's the Minister that actually makes the final decision, not IPART. So pressure will be being put on through the local member to have another look at this and listen to what we've got in our submission. So if it goes through in its current form, I'll be as angry as the rest of you. But I think at this stage we need to wait and see what comes back from the submission and what IPART does before we start manning the barricades. No further speakers. Councillor Connelly, you want a right of reply? No right of reply. I'll put the motion. Please stand if you're in favour of this motion.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Against the motion, Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

Before we move on to the next item, I just want to point out we do have a new system based on the clock. Now, if you're asking a genuine question, please do so at the beginning of your speech, and the clock won't start until your question is answered. Please make it clear that it's a question, and please make the question as short and succinct as you can. That way you can get your full length of speech of five minutes, and there'll be no confusion about what is a question and what is a speech. Okay, so thank you for that. Our next item is item 106. Move that way, Mr. We have one speaker. Anne Roby, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, councillors and visitors. My name's Anne Roby. I'm a long-term Hawkesbury resident and ratepayer. I run Safe Rescue Hawkesbury, and I've been a volunteer at Hawkesbury Companion Animal Shelter for six years. I'm a member of the shelter working group, and I'm speaking for item 106. First , I would like to thank Councillor Wheeler and all the other councillors for responding to community concerns about the shelter and for getting the process started back in 2017. I'd also like to commend Linda Perrin and the staff who have painstakingly gathered all the threads from various stakeholders and compiled a set of straightforward management tools in the form of detailed policies and procedures.

This can't have been an easy task, but they overcome all obstacles. I've noticed a lot of small changes that have already been implemented at the shelter, and I'm so excited to see the positive results these changes have brought, and to see it as a sign of things to come. Best practice can't be achieved overnight, but I believe achieving it is a lot closer now than it was two years ago. Hawkesbury Companion Animal Shelter is becoming something our community can be proud of.

Thank you, Ms. Robbie. Were you happy to answer any questions? I don't know whether there are any, but are there any questions? No. Thank you.

Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Second.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

I've been the chair of the Companion Animal Shelter Working Group since 2017, with Councillor Reynolds also a member of that committee. It's been quite a challenge to get the shelter to this point, and I really want to thank the committee members and staff who've been involved. We've had open , frank and sometimes quite emotional discussions about the issues that have come out of the shelter. I particularly want to acknowledge the staff involvement, especially the Director of Planning. This has been a highly emotive issue. There's very high public expectations of the shelter. Getting it to this point has involved a long-term vision for the care of vulnerable animals, the management and protection of staff, the management of volunteers, work across four council areas, and really tight budget constraints.

It's been very difficult. We've also had four excellent community members who have given freely of their time and expertise. Two of them are here with us tonight, and they really are to be commended for the lengthy— It's very difficult to put yourself in a position where you're liaising with an organisation that many of the people in the community that you represent are very unhappy with, and that's what these volunteers have done, and they've done it well. They've brought their concerns forward, they've stated them in a clear manner, they've put their expectations quite clearly to council, and demanded that we come up with the goods. And we're getting there. This isn't an easy fix. It's not going to be a quick fix.

To get the shelter to the point where everyone is happy with it would take more monetary resources than council actually has. But what we've been able to do is fix a large backlog of work, particularly around work with volunteers so that they're protected, so that when volunteers come in, they're a value add rather than being used to do tasks that council should normally perform, and that they feel safe and protected and appreciated within that environment. We've also got council to a point where we're far better able to advertise the animals that come into the shelter, to reconnect them with their owners in some cases, but also move the animals on so that they aren't languishing in the shelter.

We've tightened up financial arrangements with existing councils, which in some cases were decades out of date, which has meant that Hawkesbury Council has been paying to keep animals out of the goodness of our heart because we feel that it's the right thing to do, and because we've been running on a very, very low kill rate, particularly for dogs. And yet we've been subsidising neighbouring councils who've been paying us for quite short stays for their animals that we have then chosen not to euthanise and keep for sometimes several months until they're rehomed. I'm hoping that some of these management practices will also mean that we're not putting such an impost onto volunteer rescue groups as well, and also that we've tightened up the release of dogs who may be deemed unsafe into the community, and all of these things have been big concerns.

We've had a generous donation that's allowed us to put in some new infrastructure into the pound, which has made particularly hot weather stays better for the dogs, but Council really does need to allocate more funds down the track to bringing the pound up to scratch. And we're hoping to liaise with neighbouring councils who use the facility to help them come to the party. We still need further education in the Hawkesbury. Point six of the report talks about service to other councils, and table 6.1 details the number of animals that come into the shelter, and it's quite concerning to see that the Hawkesbury has such a high rate of dogs that end up in the shelter. 4.9 in every 100 people in the Hawkesbury in the last 12 months— sorry, in the last four years—will have had a dog that lobbed up in the pound, compared to Penrith, two in every 100.

So clearly we've got an education problem in the Hawkesbury where we need to look at how people house their animals, how they look after them, whether they're chipped so that they can be easily rehomed, and whether people are getting the right dog for their family as well. And so Council has some plans in place to work with rescue organisations, animal behaviourists and other groups to try and make sure that people do take the right dog home with them, do keep the dog, fence the dog in, and microchip the dog, and we're currently discussing with Rescue Hub whether we can provide... subsidised microchip service. And you'll see in the community grants later in the business paper a desexing program that Council is subsidising as well, all designed to keep, to reduce the number of animals that come through the shelter because it's expensive and it's also really difficult for those animals.

So I think this is, this represents a significant improvement for Council. It's been a lot of work.

It's really important that those who've done this work and have given freely of their time and resources be acknowledged for the ongoing commitment that they have to the shelter. But I hope you can also endorse this report. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just be brief, but I would sincerely like to congratulate the Director of Planning and Councillors Wheeler, Reynolds and the working group for the work that they've done on this. It's an area of Council service delivery that's very vulnerable to criticism because of the highly emotive nature surrounding it, and because of the very big demand on resources, and because we have this situation where we're catering for four local government areas. It was long overdue for a review, and I think now that that, and I do understand it's still a work in progress, of course, but I think that the people involved have really pushed forward and really made the improvements so far, and many more to come.

And I think that the community will be very satisfied with what they see, the changes that have occurred and that will occur. And I just really commend you on an area of work which has really made a significant improvement. Well done.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I too would just like to thank those who made a contribution to this working group. The companion animal shelter is obviously, for anyone who has visited, a very confronting place to visit, and it's a hard thing to work out what is the best way to keep animals, and there seems to be no real other way. And you know it's a significantly sad thing when about a year ago took the kids to get a kitten from there, and when your six-year-old says, Mum, I can't even be here. This is a really, really sad place. You know that, obviously, you know it's having an impact in some way. I think that as councillors, we need to ensure that when we're talking to the community, we tell people that they can go and get pets from there.

And I think there's so many people who are lacking in that knowledge because a lot of people will say, Well, I'm going to Kellyville Pets, you know, or I'm going to go to the pet store and grab a pet. And in my role as a councillor, ever since I've actually had that visual of what the shelter looks like, I've been saying, Please give that a shot first. Please go there and actually have a look what there is to offer and house something that has been abandoned. So I think that we really do need to get that message out there that we have this facility and that these animals deserve a second go. I can see here in the report it's got a section called future actions, and I don't want the good work that's been done so far just to go without any further work.

So I don't know how, as a council, we come up with some way that we can ensure those future actions actually get worked on and implemented, whether that means forming an ongoing loose working group that only have to meet a couple of times a year or something like that, just so that there's some level of control or at least community input in that way. But just thank you again to everyone who had a go in this. I don't know as a council how we do it any differently. It's terribly—it's something that no one likes to see or look at, but I know that we're also doing that in the best way we possibly can. So thank you, everyone.

Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. First off, I'd like to echo Councillor Richards' words in that we should all do the best we can to publicise the fact that pets can be obtained from the shelter, and I think that we have an obligation to the staff who work there to do the best we can, again, to increase, or at least maintain, and hopefully increase, the uptake of animals by the public. Personally, I'd like to congratulate and thank Councillor Wheeler and the Director of Planning and the staff at the shelter for the amount of work they've put into this. It's been a very emotional process. At times, it's been quite harrowing, and I'd like to acknowledge, especially Councillor Wheeler, in her position of the chair, has been subject to

Abuse of an extreme kind, including death threats. Yet she shouldered that and kept going, and I think that we should all recognise the pressure that she's been under to get this done. I'd also like to thank the volunteers and members of the community who took part in the working group. As Councillor Wheeler says, it was honest and it was open. Sometimes, you know, things got a bit heated, but that was the way we found our way through. We're now in a position to start the process of making the shelter more financially viable, and I think it's important. For councillors to realise that we have been subsidising neighbouring councils for an enormous amount of money each year. And then, like, they've been passing the buck back to us whenever there's an issue with animals and going, ‘What's Hawkesbury's problem?’

And I know the Director of Planning conducted an extensive review of the financial arrangements, and I hope and I know that that is going to change. And, you know, some of the neighbouring councils might be in for a bit of a shock, but that's the way it's going to be. So again, I'd like to thank everyone involved, and also especially thank the vets who came along and gave of their time. So I thank everyone. I think everyone here should support this report. Thank you.

No further speakers. Can I just add that I also wish to thank Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Reynolds and their committee, and the working group for the work they've done, and also the planning director. I have also had meetings with people, some of who were quite aggressive on this issue, and— The committee and especially Councillor Wheeler have worked their way through this and come up with what I think is a fantastic result. I'd also like to thank the staff who work there. They do a great job, and the volunteers who are fabulous in what they do at that place. I know a few of them and the work they do, it's amazing. I know some councillors said that other councillors are using us, but I've spoken to a few other councillors, councillors from nearby councils, and they weren't aware of the problem.

And now that they are aware, they're the ones I've spoken to are quite keen to pay their share. And they, yep , and they have nothing but good things to say about what happens at our companion animal shelter. So just thought I'd pass that on and just generally like to say thank you to all those involved. I think it's a fantastic result. Councillor Wheeler, do you want right of reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just quickly, I want to thank Councillor Reynolds for his kind words, but it really is the Director of Planning who has done the bulk of the work in liaising with volunteers and getting us to a place where we're back to being a team effort in the companion animal shelter. And that's happened at a difficult time because it's happened at a time when we've had to exclude volunteers from the shelter because of the building works that have been ongoing. So in some respects, it was really lousy timing because it looked like we were shutting people out while the review was coming to its conclusion, when really what we were doing was excluding them from a building site for their own safety.

And that building has dragged painfully because of Sydney's building boom and something that we hadn't anticipated, which was a lack of steel. So who knew that everything could grind to a halt because we weren't churning out enough steel in New South Wales.

Just quickly in response to a couple of things, Councillor Richards' comments I think are really useful. We all need to push the shelter as the best place, not the last choice, but the best place to go and get a pet. These animals are desexed, they're vaccinated, they're in good nick. Many of them are very well socialised. You know, getting an animal that's actually, you know, 12 months old and has passed the weeing all over the carpet stage is actually a real bonus, particularly if you've got young children. Yeah, and someone who already... yeah. So this is often, and it can be confronting, but one of the things that we need to look at, that we're looking at in the shelter as an early stage, is having a meet and greet area where people don't necessarily have to go into the more confronting areas of the shelter, particularly with their children if they don't want to.

So they can pick a short list of animals and those animals can come to them, rather than you having to go and walk through dog jail.

I also really need to acknowledge the work of the Friends of the Hawkesbury Companion Animal Shelter in getting these dogs out, the dogs particularly, but also the cats, out to the public so that they can have good photos and a really high social media presence, which is really helpful in rehoming these animals. If you've got a social media page, and I know most of us have, please share the shelter pictures so that people can come and find their new pet. It's much cheaper than going to Kellyville Pets as well. The budget will be fixed by us increasing the contribution of the other councils, but if we want to do these further actions, we really need to allocate funds towards them as a council.

So we need to prioritise the shelter when we deliberate the budget each year. The vets have played a pivotal role, and they continue to do so. We have a number of vets, Greg Thompson from Richmond and Rob Zammit from Vineyard in particular, who give very freely of their time and expertise to provide services, usually at below cost, for council to keep animals healthy or to vaccinate them.

And they really do need to be thanked in addition, and also the animal behaviourist from Hawkesbury TAFE, who gave us excellent advice about some changes that we could make to the animals so that their stay would be less stressful and they’re more likely to be rehomed. So we’ve implemented lots of things, including the time that dogs are desexed, the use of pheromones to keep dogs calmer, placement of animals in kennels, all sorts of stuff that seem really minor but actually make huge differences to the running of the shelter. And I think the biggest indicator from all of this is that the staff are less stressed, and for us as their employer, I think that’s really important as well.

Thank you. I’ll put the motion. All those in favour please stand.

In favour, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Cotterell, Councillor Sam Provano, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried.

There are five items to be moved on block. Would someone like to do that? Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Any discussion? If not, I'll put that. All those in favour say aye. And we move.

Move to item number 104, I think. Yes, 104. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. So it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it's really important that Hawkesbury has a position on this committee, and it's important for us to be well represented on this committee. I note that Councillor Rasmussen has held the position in the past. The Hawkesbury is the forgotten half of the Blue Mountains World Heritage National Park, and I think it's time that we made our presence felt. I note that the nominations appears from the report, unless I've missed something, the nominations closed some time back. I assume we've got an extension, and if that's the case, I'd like to nominate the Deputy Mayor for the position. She has necessary qualifications in science, with experience as a research scientist, working with water quality and membrane technology, qualifications in law and an understanding of international conventions and their application to Australia, knowledge of natural resources, biodiversity and Aboriginal legal issues.

She's also trained in mediation, which could be helpful in a committee such as this, and has done extensive work with the Hawkesbury Environment Network, as well as other committees as a council representative, the Regional Strategic Alliance, etc. So I think she would be a really useful addition to the committee, but I think she would also be very well placed to present council and the Hawkesbury's needs on that committee as well.

Sorry, could you repeat who that person was?

The Deputy Mayor.

Oh, sorry.

I didn't hear you say that. Congratulations. Further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As Councillor Wheeler said, pardon me, I did have this position some years ago now and found it very useful, in fact. And it was a great opportunity to put the Hawkesbury side of this great national park and heritage area before lots of other very eminent and very learned board members. And often that made quite a difference to how the Hawkesbury was presented. I remember some years ago now, way back when, that I was very concerned and very annoyed, I guess, that the Hawkesbury did not get any mention at all in this World Heritage area, given that we've got 73 or 72 or whatever the number is, it's close to that anyway, of that area. And for some reason or other, the best we could do, I was told by the then mayor, was that it was changed to the Greater Blue Mountains.

Otherwise it probably would have ended up the Blue Mountains. However, with a bit of lobbying and a bit of razzmatazz, we managed to get the Greater in there. But it always amazes me that when you look at the website, the UN website on this, there's a whole lot of linkages to Two websites from the Blue Mountains itself and none, at least when I checked a few months ago, none from the Hawkesbury. So that was very disappointing. But all of that can be changed with a strong representation from this council on this advisory committee. So yes, I fully support. It's really worthwhile. You do get to see a whole lot of the area up there or here as well that maybe many of us haven't seen or won't see, and certainly get some very interesting presentations and overviews of what's happening with the park and that whole area.

So I certainly and strongly recommend that we take up this membership.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to nominate myself to be considered for this position. I think it would be—I agree with Councillor Rasmussen that it's a really important position, and I have a background in science and have a background that's predominantly been working in the Greater Blue Mountains area. And I would relish the chance to work with the rest of the committee. It seems such a wide-ranging and varied committee, and I think the experience would benefit the— not only benefit the World Heritage area, but also benefit the Hawkesbury. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I probably... have covered so many different areas in my scientific career over the last 27 years that I won't bore you with it. But I'm well qualified and I would relish the opportunity. Thank you.

Councillor Garrow.

I'm just curious if it's possible to nominate two people?

I don't think so

General Manager. My recollection is that they're looking for a nomination.

General consensus seems to be only one.

Is that the final decision? General Manager is still looking.

Well...

We

May be

Able to have a delegate and an alternate delegate, but— I

Don't think there's anything that precludes us submitting more than one application. It's a matter of filling the form in, and then I think it's the group that makes the determination will make the decision. There's nothing that says one person that I can see in terms of just a quick review of it.

Point of order, Mr Mayor? Definitely. So if the motion— Before us is to choose our delegate. I'm very open to the idea of nominating a second, but certainly direction from this chamber is to a preferred delegate and an alternate. In other words, to rank the choices, I think would be appropriate.

Unless we change the recommendations.

Any further speakers?

Do we have another

Answer, General Manager? Mr Mayor, there's two local government positions. They call for councillors and/or staff, and there would be similar letters going to a number of local government organisations: Wollondilly, Lithgow, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. But there's nothing that precludes us from supporting two nominations going forward and letting the selection process determine the outcome.

So in that case, Councillor Rasmussen's motion could be changed to read something like, the nomination of representatives to the local government, etcetera, be considered. Councillor Conolly, as seconder, are you happy with that change? Deputy Mayor, you wish to comment

Mr Mayor, yes, I'd just like to comment on Councillor Sanbronio's statement. This is a position—it's not to do—you don't go and represent Council. It's a local government representation position because it goes for three years anyway, so you might not even be on Council when you were on there. So an organisation doesn't nominate. You to represent them. It specifically says in here that you go as yourself. So it's just an individual with local government experience. So I don't think ranking is , you know, applicable. But if you've changed the motion, then that doesn't matter. I think if nobody else nominates, and if Councillor Clatson and I both do, it's a very short time frame. It's only a day or something, so we could take that.

I'd just like to echo, though, that it would be a really good opportunity because I know from when Councillor Rasmussen was on it that it is so valuable. It's not a decision-making body. It's an advisory body, and it is, of course, a political appointment. So, you know, perhaps that could particularly go against some of us here. But I think that when you look at the value of having a World Heritage listed thing within—not thing, national park—within our World Heritage area, within our location, it's really, really important that we do look after it and that we understand it as best we can. And, of course, to be able to understand how the international conventions translate into the real care and conservation is something that I have done quite a bit of work with, and I think that that would be a really good opportunity to have.

So I think that either one of us would be able to perform very well on doing that, and then to be able to use the value of being on that committee to bring it back to assist us in our council duty.

So we're all

Happy

With the recommendation, or the motion being changed? Sorry. No one wishes to discuss that. Okay. Any further discussion on the new motion? Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to write a reply? Mr Mayor, I don't think it's necessary, but yeah, just quickly, I think if we put forward two, that would be perhaps good. But yeah, we

Just need someone up there, I think

I was thinking this

Was a two-part stage. The first stage is we say we will send representatives, and the second part is we say who they are. Are we building this together, are we? Apparently we're building this together.

Mr Mayor, sorry, could I just withdraw my application? I've just realised a significant could potentially lead to a conflict of interest in other things that I do, so I'd like to withdraw my nomination.

Okay. If you're sure.

You're sure?

Yes.

Okay. I suppose it does, yes. Unless there's any other nominations. No.

Are we going to change that on the screen now? We all understand what the motion is now

Original motion

Except it says we accept Councillor Kotlash's nomination. If we all understand it, then I'll put it. Please vote in favour by standing up.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Buckett. Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert declare it carried. Thank you.

Move to item 105. Do we

Have

Anyone? Councillor Rasmussen, you moving the recommendation? Seconded, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

No, Mr Mayor, I don't think it's necessary.

Are there any other speakers? Councillor

Conolly. Look, only to say, Mr Mayor, that obviously Council considered a motion about 12 months ago to express our support for this, for the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall, and Council decided it wasn't. At that time, said we weren't going to take a position until the EIS was released. So I think that this is consistent with that, and when the EIS is released, we'll read it and have a big fight at that point, I imagine.

Okay. Any further speakers? Councillor Sam Probyn.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm not going to allow the opportunity to remind this chamber that the support of successive councils and successive Hawkesbury mayors for capital works for flood mitigation to safeguard our floodplain has been axiomatic until the election of this Council two years ago. Mayor Stubbs, and mayors before and since, have all recognised that this community has been the community most at risk of a significant flooding event. And although we have a recommendation before us, That withholds our support for Blue Mountains on the basis of what I regard as a technicality. The fact that the EIS isn't out yet, well fine, I'll support the recommendation, but I believe that this council should be in the vanguard of supporting capital works for flood mitigation, the main element of which is raising Warragamba Dam wall.

Any further speakers?

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment. I've sent words to Mr Wern.

Deputy Mayor, that's me. Mr Mayor, I would second it, but I would just ask if Councillor Wheeler would make a change, which was to incorporate that we still, to specify that we still haven't taken a position because we're waiting for the outstanding— does it say that? Okay.

Yeah

Yeah, all right. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I'll second it.

Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak to your amendment?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I don't think we have to completely ignore what Blue Mountains Council are asking us to do here simply because our concerns are greater with regard to the impact of the floodplain.

The Blue Mountains wants us to give support to a fairly simple statement that they're opposed to the amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974, which allow parts of the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park to be flooded. Several councillors here would be, I think, would be quite happy to support that statement, and that's what this amendment is, or part one of this amendment is designed to test. Particularly the absence of an environmental impact statement before such a drastic change in legislation has taken place is really concerning. I think it's quite fair for Council to state that we hold grave fears for the safety and welfare of residents of the floodplain.

It would be daft for anybody to say that they don't hold fears for the safety and welfare of residents on the floodplain. It's also quite clear that increased development on the floodplain and along evacuation routes is exacerbating this risk and our ability to evacuate in a timely fashion. Council has chosen to wait for the release of the EIS before committing to a position on raising the dam wall, and Councillor Zamprogno referred to that earlier. And all we're doing in point four is alerting our members of Parliament and— Wesroc to our thoughts on this matter. None of this is outstanding stuff. None of it, I think, flies in the face of any of Council's positions. The only one that's probably contentious is one, and I

Can't fathom why a government would feel that it would be in a position to make such a drastic change to legislation without an environmental impact statement.

There's far too much reliance, I think, in the Resilient Valley, Resilient Communities report on raising the dam wall and not enough attention given to evacuation routes, education and infrastructure upgrades. And I think if we don't make clear statements about our concerns for increased development and evacuation, then we risk that not being heard.

There are concerns that have been raised by noted academics about the reliance on raising the dam wall

And on the push for increased development that is ongoing in the floodplain. And I think it's time that the Hawkesbury was heard clearly stating these concerns. One of the really disturbing things to come out of the consultation with the RMS last week was that Richmond Bridge is not going to be raised above, or that the third crossing of the river will not be higher than one in twenty, which I think is a real lost opportunity for the Hawkesbury. It makes- Council's plans to try and get the crossing across the Grose as flood free as possible, really important. But what we're seeing here from another government body, the RMS, is that our concerns about evacuation and flood risk are simply not being heard, and we need to make those clear. This is an opportunity to do that, so I hope that councillors can support this

Thank you.

Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking strongly against the amendment and in favour of the recommendation in the business paper. I resent

Being presented with what represents — I resent being presented with something that represents a monumental shift in this council's position relating to flood mitigation. Within the last year, I brought a notice of motion to this chamber inviting this council to reiterate the support that it had held for decades for flood mitigation works. At that point, the discussion concluded by saying that this chamber would withhold that support but looked forward to the presentation of the EIS. So in that sense, there was no overt statement from this council against raising Warragamba Dam wall. This amendment, effectively , regardless of what Councillor Wheeler says, effectively places this council at odds with the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam wall.

It would oppose it. And for that to be presented as an amendment— To a recommendation that simply says, ‘We’ll wait for the EIS, thank you,’ is, I think, not acceptable to us. For this community and the threat that flooding represents to this community to be subverted and for us to be led around by the nose by Greens councillors from Blue Mountains, who I can assure you are high and dry and thoroughly out of harm’s way, is unacceptable, and this council shouldn’t stand for it.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a number of questions first before my timer begins. The first question is regarding the resolution of the 30th of October 2018, which related to the information about the change in legislation that was rapidly brought forward. I just would like a response to the following: has there been a response from the Premier to our letter regarding that?

I’d have to take that on notice. Okay, thank you. Which probably the others you may not know either, but I’m wondering, to put on the record, has there been any response to our commitment that we would like to be consulted about the information arising as part of the environmental impact statement? Whether there has been any release of the data as requested, which was utilised to knock back any other options. If there has been any response from the Minister of Planning, any response from the former or current local member for Hawkesbury, and if the new local member hasn’t been notified, if she could be, regarding the questions that were raised in that resolution relating to planning legislation. And the fifth question someone may have an answer to, which is: is there any idea how long the proposed floodplain land use study will take?

Mrs Barin.

Through you, Mr Mayor. No, I haven't seen any responses to any of those letters that we've sent, and in terms of the study, we don't have a firm date on that either. Okay,

Thank you. So I note that it went out for tender just recently, and it's a crucial factor in this decision how that land use study is done. So that will be one of the studies that, of course, we will be waiting upon until we took a firm position. I don't think that Councillor Zamprogno is quite aware of what the variance in approaches to flood mitigation that did exist in these last few councils. He's very reliant on former Mayor Stubbs and his commitment to the raising of the dam wall. But having sat on the Flood Committee for a number of years, there were many different opinions on flood mitigation and very many different stances taken, including a big push for dredging, blowing up the Sackville Gorge, all sorts of things that were committed to, investigated, and we didn't—not since I've been here, we've never taken any firm commitment.

And if you look historically through the information, you will see there's a very clear statement back in the '60s or '70s, I think, which regards the dual use of the dam for both flood mitigation and water supply. So it says in the historical notes that this cannot be the purpose, and it simply cannot be, because we know what happened with the Wivenhoe Dam and going to so many different conferences and having so many meetings with people on this issue. There's a huge risk in this, and the biggest problem that I have with it all is that there have been contrary information coming out regarding it. We had the Premier prior to the election saying it was for water storage. We have other people saying it's only for flood mitigation, that there won't be any more water in it.

There's other people come out and say the Department of Planning during the corridor process were saying that there could be development when the dam wall was raised. So there's all these varying contradictory statements being made. We have called upon these departments to give us clear— to give us clarity on these issues, to tell us the objective. Infrastructure New South Wales has been consistent in saying that it is simply a raising of the wall, but then who has the final say? And what will happen when there's another, you know, few hundred thousand people living in Western Sydney and they decide to put a water supply in there? The consequences to that are something that could be very, very, very dangerous.

And so we need to have this information. Statements were raised in the public inquiry, the Upper House inquiry into the amendment of the National Parks and Wildlife legislation, and they raised some grave concerns about what's being proposed. So I'm quite happy to, and I most certainly would insist that we wait until we have all the information before we take a stance. But I think that we really, as a council, should be shifting our focus on the priority and urgency in ensuring that we can get our existing population out, because this is really, we could have a flood. Any time, and we most certainly are likely to have a big flood before the dam wall will be raised. And if we're all about protecting people and property, then we should be ensuring that every bit of new infrastructure that we get, such as the third crossing, is something that will assist in alleviating in a flood situation, that can be an assistance to us in that situation.

We need to be ensuring that the drainage around the culverts in the areas that are still low-lying are dealt with, and we also need to really ensure that the cumulative effects of overland flooding are factored into this. I spoke recently with someone at the flood conference from Toowoomba who told me about the devastating impact of the hard surfacing around there and what that did in the flooding in that town. Spoke to people from Townsville who said they just couldn't get everything in order. So we have to prepare, we have to be ready, and we have to have proper studies before we commit to any firm position. So I'm happy with the amendment to pass on the information we've already discussed and agreed to, and then to wait until we have the information from the environmental impact statement before we take a firm position.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Zamprogno that I think we should just support the original motion. The amendment, whilst it appears to, it gives the defence that we haven't formally taken a position, we might as well have with adopting 0.1. Point 2 is that we write to Blue Mountains Council and tell them we're concerned about the development on South Creek floodplain. I don't think that's got anything to do with them. It's just there as a public defence for passing 0.1. If we were really concerned, we wouldn't just be writing to Blue Mountains Council about the development on the South Creek floodplain. We would be taking some firm action. Note the amendment suggests we send copies.

But if it was something we were very concerned about, which I think we should be, then we should be taking some real action towards that, and it shouldn't just be stuck on here as something else to write to Blue Mountains Council about, because of course Blue Mountains Council have nothing to do with it. We should. I made quite clear in April last year when it was put to us that I think we should be proactively supporting the raising of Warragamba Dam wall. It's what our community wants. It's going to need our support to happen, because there is a campaign being waged by the Greens and the Blue Mountains in a big way, and it would appear that they're the only group that cares about it at the moment.

Now, Council in April last year said, no, we're not ready to support or oppose the project. We want to know what the project is and we want to see the EIS, which is a reasonable position to take. It now seems, though, that we're seeking to get out of that by adopting point one of this amendment, which all but says we're opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.

Further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm speaking against this amendment because I think that

We need to just address what's in the business paper, and that is we've had a request from Blue Mountains Council asking us for their support, and I think that what's in the original business paper, the notion in the business paper, is what we should say. I think that it's not that I don't necessarily disagree with the amendments that have been made. I just think we have to, we have to— Be mindful that if we make these sorts of responses, they're made in a way that's more holistic. I mean, this is just a reply to Blue Mountains Council, and I think the reply that we are not taking a position until we get further information about the modelling of the inundation area and all of the information about the Aboriginal heritage in the inundation area, which will be in the EIS, is really, is really important.

We must wait for that. And I would rather wait for that information to come and then structure a position that's based on all of the factors that we'll have in front of us. At the moment, picking out South Creek, and I kind of agree with Councillor Conolly on that point, that's really, well, nothing to do with Blue Mountains Council, but it's further away from them, so it's not really that relevant. I'm sure they're concerned about that because we all should be concerned about the welfare of our residents and residents in nearby LGAs . But I think let's just keep this simple. Let's not stir the pot until we know exactly what we're talking about. And I must reiterate that doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with point one or point two.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Garrow.

I'm just curious if, while we haven't seen this correspondence from Blue Mountains Council, or if you have a copy that you could read out to us for the entirety of what they're asking for.

What's in the report is essentially what was in the correspondence, a copy of the resolution of council.

A copy of the actual correspondence? Was that just

Their motion or just their recommendation?

It was just their recommendation, seeking support from surrounding councils.

Any further speakers on the amendment?

Oh, look, there I am.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The Deputy Mayor is right when she says that we have to wait for the proper studies before we can commit to any firm commitment. With those closing remarks from the Deputy Mayor, I can't see how anyone could support the amendment that's up on the board tonight. It's a shame that we need to wait till that environmental impact statement is released. That EIS is going to talk about the impacts of the temporary increase in the inundation. And until we have that further concrete black and white information in front of us, then we need to wait. The recommendation completely and utterly makes sense. This recommendation, this report should not have been turned into political point scoring, which is what the amendment up here on the board does tonight.

It has essentially hijacked a very simple request from Blue Mountains City Council and turned it into a debate on the Warragamba Dam wall. And I'm not actually going to talk a lot about it tonight because this is not a debate on whether you support the Warragamba Dam wall or not. This was about responding to Blue Mountains City Council and their request, and that's all we needed to do. That's all that needed to happen at this point in time. We don't have the EIS. No one in this room is an expert on that. And until we have that documentation in our hands. We cannot make these sorts of decisions. And let's just pull apart point two for a moment. First part of point two: Council holds, which means currently holds, grave, grave, that's very severe, fears for the safety and welfare of residents of the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain.

That's a current fear and concern, the part of that sentence. The second part of the sentence, and is concerned that increased development on the South Creek floodplain. Well, if you have a current fear based on the current level of development here in the Hawkesbury, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to protect life and property? You're not going to do anything about it if that current grave fear is right now. You're not going to do anything about it. You're just going to say, absolutely not, categorically not. This is the number one proposal of the New South Wales State Government. We have a flood committee here on Council chaired by the Deputy Mayor and who for all its entirety in the last few years supports all the possible flood mitigation proposals put forward except for this Council.

So let's turn a very simple recommendation into political point scoring. By doing this, I will not support it. I will be supporting the original recommendation, the business paper, because this tonight is absolute time wasting, unnecessary tactics.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Again, we see projection. Nobody here's made political point scoring out of this except Councillor Richards.

Totally amazing. Absolutely flabbergasted. I mean..

Yeah, waiting for the EIS is one thing, but, you know, there's obviously people within the department who are concerned about the process and have leaked information out about the draft EIS, which is available in the media.

The abutments of the dam will be at 17 metres, not 14 metres.

Hmm? Okay. And also, again reiterating the words of the Premier, she said, let me find it for you, We will make sure that we have extra capacity for water storage. That's not what the EIS is about. The EIS is about flood mitigation, not water storage. So there are extreme— I have extreme reservations about

The EIS process as a whole. We know that the EIS system for a lot of projects in New South Wales, to put it bluntly, is dodgy. We know what happened at WestConnex. We know what happened here in Windsor with Windsor Bridge, where decisions were made before the EIS is complete. Now, where you have legislation passed before the EIS is complete, that should raise flags with you that something isn't right in the EIS process. The fact that you can't see that is a bit of a concern. As far as being concerned about residents sitting on the floodplain and what are we doing about it, the only way to save lives, as Infrastructure New South Wales says, the only guaranteed way is to get them out. And here we have a major piece of infrastructure being planned at North Richmond that isn't about evacuation.

Excuse me, councillors. Councillor Reynolds, can you direct your comments to the mayor, not to other councillors? Okay, Mr Mayor. Okay, through Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards, can you stop interrupting, please? Yes. Naughty. Naughty

Where the RMS said that it's not about— the thing is not about evacuation route; it's a bank-to-bank bridge. They were their words. That was a bank-to-bank bridge. Point of order

Mr Mayor. Yes, Councillor. I just wonder about the relevance of discussion about North Richmond Bridge on a motion of how to respond to Blue Mountains Council about the—

To answer Council— Sorry. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Reynolds, can you make it relevant, please?

Yes, I'm responding to the words from Councillor Richards regarding that we should be concerned about people living along the floodplain and that we're not doing anything about it. As I said, Infrastructure New South Wales said the only way to guarantee people's safety is evacuation.

And here we have, again, a major piece of infrastructure being planned that doesn't take— How else are people going to get across the river at North Richmond?

How else? That bridge should be part of the EIS process. The RMS should be involved in the EIS process. The EIS process is just not about raising the bridge; it's about comparing options. It's about weighing the balance between evacuation and raising the damn wall. And I'm just, again, flabbergasted that there's councillors in this room who can't see that. It's about data, it's about science and

Engineering. And not only we haven't, we've got it. We've got words again from the Premier saying that obviously it's not just about flood mitigation; it's about water storage. We've got stuff from Infrastructure New South Wales in their document saying there's going to be 134,000 extra people living on the floodplain, living and working in the floodplain in the coming years. Well, if it's that bad, why put them there? Not only that, again, as the Deputy Mayor said, we don't have any modelling of overland flooding from South Creek and the South Creek catchment. And this

Whole system just reeks to me. And I personally, I support Blue Mountains Council.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Any further discussion on the amendment?

Can I say that I , the original recommendation was that we wait for the EIS, and what appears to be happening in this amendment is that we are not waiting for the EIS; we're skipping ahead with a position. Whereas it's quite clear that we don't have that position yet. To get that position, we would need to see what the EIS says, and we would need a whole lot of public consultation. Even though point 1 doesn't specifically say we are against the raising of the dam wall, it's implied by asking that we're against the flooding of the area behind the dam wall, which—

Please don't interrupt. So I see this amendment as moving too far, too soon. We're not ready to actually make that step because we're waiting for the EIS. That is our accepted position, and I believe that's the position we should stick to.

Councillor Wheeler.

Misrepresentation, Mr Mayor. That is not what point 1 says. Point one clearly states that Council is opposed to changes to the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974. It does not say that Council is opposed to the flooding of the national park. It says that we are opposed to changes to legislation within the absence of an environmental impact statement. That does not say that we are opposed to flooding. If you vote against that point, Mr Mayor, then you are saying that you are quite happy for a state government of any colour to change legislation without supporting documentation. And frankly, I am shocked that you would take that position.

Thank you for that. Was that a point of order? Okay. Any further speakers? Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've always been concerned about the flooding, or the potentiality of the flooding and the potentiality of a big flood coming to our way. I am concerned about the flooding that could be happening from all that development that's occurred at Richmond Road. I think that's a very big problem and the surrounds, surrounding catchment areas. However, I am probably a little bit more concerned about the potential flooding coming from upstream and the collective catchments, because I think that historically that has, you know, we, I think we could really see that happen. I think that's a really serious potentiality. I've always been supportive of the raising of the dam wall, only from the perspective of not creating more capacity, only inasmuch as to if you did capture more capacity, you can do environmental flows and allow it to come out gently.

And it is actually a means by which people have been able to evacuate more steadily, rather than to have to evacuate, you know, mad rush with any luck. That's always been my understanding of all the modelling whenever it's been explained to me over— a great number of years. My understanding from the last briefing that we had in the room over there was about the inundation would be a brief inundation and not something that wasn't going to be a long-term thing. We know that flood waters generally rise and then dissipate fairly quickly, relatively speaking. They don't tend to stay around for weeks and weeks. But until we have the EIS statement, I do think that it's important that we, I mean, I'm supportive of the raising of the dam wall, but until we have that statement, EIS statement, I think it's important that we just look at the motion that's in the business paper, and then if once the EIS comes out and we, you know, there's great cause for concern, then that's when I think we look at other avenues, but not before.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, could I ask that we vote on this amendment in seriatim, please?

Well, yes, we, on each of these points. Okay, you can ask that.

It's been moved. Do we have a seconder for that? Mr Point of order. Yes. Sorry, just, well not point of order, just a question. If it's an amendment and we're voting on each part by itself, will only the parts that are passed then be the entirety of the motion?

Yes.

I think that's the way it would work, but what in fact we're doing is making it into four amendments.

But I'm happy to accept that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Any further speakers on the amendment?

Nope. Well, I'm going to put the amendment in its four parts, which could require a lot of standing up and sitting down. Okay.

Remind you that if this amendment is lost, the motion is still alive and can be debated, the motion of Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Kotlash, you wished to raise a point.

May I ask a question about the process? Yes. We can't really do point four because— Yes, yes, because that doesn't make any sense. They're actually related to each other.

Yeah. So, I'm not sure. Sorry.

Deputy Mayor, would you like to rethink which way we do this?

Well, I think we could just obviously with point four, if there's no passing of the other, we wouldn't bother voting on point four.

Well, that's not what you asked for.

Can I— You

Asked for each one to be considered individually, and that's where we're at at the moment. Councillor Richards, you—

All right, well, just consider it on whole. Thank you. Safe speech.

Okay. So we've gone back to considering the amendment as one amendment.

We all understand that now. I'll put the amendment. All those in favour, please stand up.

In favour of the amendment is Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against the amendment is Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Calvin. Declare the amendment lost. We go back to the original motion as moved by Councillor Rasmussen, and do we have any further discussion or even any further amendments? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in favour of the motion now, which I have no issue with. I merely thought that amending it to give the Blue Mountains some idea of where we stood, given we're sort of, you know, close to them, neighbouring to them, was a good idea. I don't believe, as has been said, that we really have any official position that we're waiting for the EIS until we, of course, pass this. What we had was a motion to support the dam, and the rationale for not doing so in speaking was that, you know, many of us raised that we wish to wait for the EIS and the information to be given. And subsequent to that, we had another motion where we actually have required information from the government in terms of data and commitment relating to that EIS, which has not been forthcoming, sadly, because one would think in the best interests of trying to get people to support something, they would actually give the information as requested.

Nevertheless, I believe, as others have said, that we have to wait until we have this information, and I really look forward to getting it because I think it will be very interesting. I just want to reiterate that in the interim, we must not allow any complacency to develop or to be pushed upon our community that puts the raising of the dam wall as something that is going to save people from a big flood here, because it simply is not. We have to be ready. We're vulnerable. We're exposed to it. We're due for it, and we've got multiple issues. We've got multiple catchments. We've got whole flood vulnerabilities that are nothing to do with where the Warragamba Dam wall is. We've got overland flooding, and we've got— Got a lot that we really have to be working on, and I just can't say that strongly enough.

We've got a real situation on our hand with hundreds of thousands of people that need to be taken out of a valley. So I'll continue pushing for the urgency of evacuation and education, which are crucial. They are not yet up to speed to enable our population to be safe. And so that will be my priority. And as we await for the various bits of information, which I hope I will be asking in questions for follow-up on that various data and information to assist us in arriving at a position.

Thank you. Further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Can I point out— sorry, go ahead.

I think this is a lost opportunity. Here we are sending a bland statement to Blue Mountains City Council that we don't have a position, and we're going to sit here as reluctant victims waiting for the state government to come up with an EIS, ignoring our requests for additional information, while we sit at the soggy end of the most dangerous floodplain in the country. Meanwhile, academics are publishing information on this plan stating things like: the New South Wales government strategy is constrained by two overriding policy decisions, namely that, one, it will not reduce the 5,000 houses on the most flood-prone lands, and that, two, it will allow an additional 134,000 people to settle in harms way on the floodplain over the next 30 years. But presented with the opportunity to voice those concerns, this council says nothing.

The same academic. The New South Wales Government has prepared a flood risk strategy that does not appear to have benefited from any independent expertise, nor is there any evidence of scientific peer review, and yet this Council says nothing.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Risk Management Strategy uses, implies a very narrow economic assessment to the project. The Infrastructure New South Wales assessment converts lack of vehicles evacuated into projected deaths of people, turning these deaths into a monetary value, and then adding property losses to estimate the cost of the flood damage. Their calculations exclude any additional benefits of alternative risk management methods. For example, in considering the $950 million costs of upgrading roads to allow residents to evacuate at higher flood levels, and none of the other benefits of an improved road system appear to have been considered. Think of that when you're sitting in traffic, in that lost opportunity, every day, wet or dry, because this Council is just going to send out yet another bland statement and wait for someone else.

Further speakers?

No?

Councillor Rasmussen, would you like right of reply?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll hopefully be brief. This Council, or this LGA, clearly has, as Councillor Wheeler said, we have got one of the, if not the biggest, risk of flooding in the country. Our floods are bigger than anywhere else, as far as I know, in this nation. So clearly, this is the biggest issue. Flooding for this area, this LGA, is clearly the biggest issue this council is facing, or has to face. Now, we have lost, in my view, we lost several years in getting our floodplain risk management study sorted out. That was delayed and officercated and prevaricated upon for years, and yet this is the biggest issue this council is facing. Having said that, I think what we need to say, and several councillors have made the point, that we really do need to wait for the EIS.

And if the EIS is flawed, as maybe it is, at least we should look at it, and then we can begin to analyse it, and then we can mount the attacks on the EIS. Putting up positions before the EIS, I think leaves us in a vulnerable position. That is the basis on which we're arguing. Once we've got that EIS and we've got the data behind it, then we can begin to pull it apart, if it needs to be, and we can put a decent and comprehensive and well-reasoned position forward. So at this point, I think what we need to do is stick with what we have said. That is, we have not developed a position until such time as the EIS is released and we've had a chance to look at it. At that point, we will put together the strongest, most powerful argument if we deem it to be flawed in any way whatsoever.

Councillor Rasmussen, that was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand up.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Garrow, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Progano, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Against the motion is Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Wheeler. I declare the motion carried.

Could we move to item 107 now, please, Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Move the recommendation on page 48. Seconded, Councillor Conolly.

I'd just like to say I understand that the recommendation is for the form to go on public exhibition. I just have a few issues with the whole thing overall. First of all, there's an error on page, I don't know what page it is in here, but anyway, it was the wrong date. It should say 2018, not 19, about the meeting with the RFS, just for record purposes. The original spirit of the notice of motion was to try and address the overuse of burning as a method of waste disposal in this area, rather than simply the rules around pile burning. This doesn't really address that in any way because I can't see anything in there that would encourage people not to use burning as their primary means of waste disposal.

And in fact, it has extended the hours in which they can burn so that they can burn till midnight instead of five o'clock. So I'm just wondering if, and I will do a personal submission about this in the period it's on exhibition, looking though for when this comes back, if there's a mechanism to distinguish between burning as a necessity and burning for fun, so to speak. So that was what the crux of the original notice of motion was about, to try and deter people from simply burning for the sake of it. There was a big increase in fire permits in this last year, and I'm wondering why that would have been, whether that was because there had been some form of compliance and people were getting a permit when they needed it, or whether, as what I think I've observed, people have just gone burn happy and they're burning all the time.

So I don't know what the answer is, but there's various issues in this, and I understand the need, of course, for the regulations as they are, and of course we all want people to have their properties safe from the threat of bushfire. But the trouble is in these excluded areas, the extreme risk areas that have the exclusion and can burn, like Kurrajong Heights and Bowen Mountain, many of the housing lots are just small building blocks, and so technically these people can be burning off, as they have been, and as people have contacted me complaining about people burning off in their backyard non-stop because they're, for some reason, whether they're keeping warm or something, but they're burning their rubbish rather than burning just vegetation that's cleared off their property, because they can't possibly, if they're clearing something on a weekly basis like some of them are, then they're illegal clearing for sure.

So they rarely notify a neighbour about it, as it says to do, and, you know, they don't necessarily have someone over the age of 18 with a bucket of water sitting there ready to put it out. There's many of the clauses, in fact most of them, are very good when you see them written here, but they don't translate into, you know, into people adhering to them. And I can understand that we don't have the resources to police them, to go around and check on that, but somehow there must be a better way, because it is not sustainable to have the amount of— of burning that goes on across the entire area, from what I've been told. So at this point, I'm happy to just support this to go on to public exhibition, of course.

But if anybody has any ideas, it would be great if we could somehow hear what other areas do to perhaps better educate or to, you know, encourage compliance with the regulations, because it's becoming—I really feel sorry for anybody who may be asthmatic or something that lives in the Grose Vale area, because it's just a continuous pall of smoke.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. A question first, if I may. On the draft notice of approval, it refers to, so following point 13 on the second page, under the section ‘It is prohibited to burn,’ the second point, without the approval of the Fire & Rescue NSW throughout the year in the following areas: McGraths Hill, Windsor Downs, Bligh Park, South Windsor, Windsor, Vineyard, Clarendon, Richmond and North Richmond. I'm wondering why it's confined to those areas and not all residential areas. I'm wondering why Wilberforce is singled out for a continuous smoke haze, given that we too are a residential area with areas of block sizes under 400 square metres, and why this courtesy isn't extended to Wilberforce, Freemans Reach and Glossodia, or if we should just suck it up and go indoors.

Is that a question? Yes

It

Is a question, with a small rant at the end. Do we have an answer to that?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we can look at that through the process of the exhibition period.

Thank you,

And the Deputy Mayor has just mentioned that it's because we are under an RFS catchment area, so perhaps an additional clause could be inserted to include all residential areas. I note that it specifically lists that you can't burn green vegetation, and you have to give your neighbours 48 hours' notice. I would contend that this would be a surprise to many residents of the Hawkesbury, certainly a surprise to many residents of Wilberforce, including my next door neighbour, who spent the last three weekends burning a gum tree. Green as grass that had only fallen down in the wind, and it seems that the best means of disposal is the 1950s backyard incinerator style, where you burn your hedge, you burn the gum tree, and anything else that the goats wouldn't eat over three weekends and with no notice given to any neighbours.

This is common in Wilberforce. People have areas set up to burn refuse in their yards as some sort of festive occasion. We urgently need to send out some information to people to stop this practice. It's ludicrous that people think that the best means of disposing of vegetation is by torching it. Most green waste can either go in the green waste bins in residential areas, if you're willing to stop pilot for more than a couple of weeks, or it can be It can be left to compost, or it can go to the tip. There's no need for it to be burnt in people's backyards and a smoke haze to descend over entire suburbs, and for people with asthma and other allergic conditions to be stuck indoors for days on end while people engage in this sort of practice.

This report, while useful, doesn't address the concerns about burning in residential areas that came out of the Notice of Motion. It needs an education component. I think we need to be sending out information with rates notices so that people are well aware that this isn't on. And then we need to follow up with compliance. Invariably it's done on the weekend. People need to know that they can make a report that Council will take seriously if their neighbours are making their lives completely unreasonable through illegal activities. I know that every second person in this LGA thinks they're Ned Kelly and can do what they like, but really, it's time that that stopped. It's becoming ridiculous.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I agree that this is an important issue, and whilst I think there are some problems with the draft Notice of Approval, I think that if we work on that in the public exhibition time, thanks, it'd be very worthwhile. One point I'd like to make is that when I read this thing about the no burn day that's declared by the EPA, I was really surprised because I didn't know that that existed, and that's my confession for the night. And I thought maybe on our website, if somebody could look at four o'clock the day before or have some sort of alert mechanism set up — well, they do that every day — an alert mechanism set up and we could put it on a flag on our website so people are reminded of that fact.

And I agree with Councillor Wheeler's plea for education. I think we just need to get that out to people, that burning , whilst burning is fun, and I get Cracker Night and it was all very lovely, we had that sort of, you know. . . Fun, you know, yeah. I mean, it's good to do all that sort of stuff, but I think people have to be aware that lots of people are impacted on it, and their health is impacted. And I think if we can use our website, that that might be a better way than expecting people to look at the public notice section of the Sydney Morning Herald, no later than the day before. I mean, that's just a little weird. And I don't think that people that intend to burn would go into their computer and look up the EPA's air quality part of their website either.

I mean, it's just not something that seems to be feasible. So I'll just make that point. There are a few things that we'd need to brush up on, the explanation of the different areas and how they go together, but I'm happy to support that for the exhibition period. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, Mr Mayor, I support the recommendation, but I'd like to just make an observation. On the weekend, we took some dressed timber to the tip, and it was denailed , but it was sawn timber, two by one, three by two, and it was just in the back of a station wagon. It cost us eighty dollars to drop at the tip, and I could see it would be quite tempting for someone to get a drum and stick it in their backyard and just burn it and save eighty bucks . Two

Cases of beer instead.

Two cases of beer, yeah. Or one, depends. That's going to come out of me. So I think that that's, I'd just like to bring that to Council's attention, that it seems a bit... I understand there's EPA fees and everything involved, but... I can see people burning stuff rather than taking to the tip when the cost for just a small amount of clean timber costs so much. Sam

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm reading this as closely as I can, and I may simply be slow on the uptake. So I'm trying to distinguish between pile burning and what the Deputy Mayor referred to as, you know, recreational burning, the bonfire, the party that includes a bonfire or crack a night or something like that. In our area at Oakville, on acreage, because we know the Rural Fire Service so well, because we effectively are the Rural Fire Service together with a cluster of other families in the area, a word to the wise is sufficient. Whatever permit or permission is required is usually dispensed. We're good neighbours. We let them know. If indeed, we just don't invite them along. And I wouldn't want to see us become too onerous or bureaucratic, especially given the point that Councillor Reynolds makes, and that is that disposing of, you know, combustible waste in that way is often very tempting compared to the expenses of disposing it at the tip.

Does this change further restrict the right of people to have good old-fashioned bonfires, or does it tackle a particular category of fire that's waste? I'm not quite sure how you would distinguish between them. Could somebody answer me that?

Mrs. Perendia.

No, this isn't meant to constrict people's ability to burn what they're allowed to burn. My understanding from the Deputy Mayor is people are burning maybe furniture and other goods that, you know, are not meant— this isn't meant to be used for that process.

Well, I mean, you know, when we're putting a bonfire together, all kinds of stuff gets thrown on. Not toxic stuff, because that would be unsafe and unwise,

But cardboard boxes and old timber and you know what it's like. You know what it's like. Well, look, this is the libertarian in me coming out. I find it difficult to be wholehearted in my support of this when it seems like it's just another overreach of government into the lives of ordinary people to do simple things like light a fire in their backyard.

Thank you. Further speakers?

Councillor Zamprogno, I don't see it that way. In fact, I think it frees people up to do things rather than restricts them. I've got my problems with this document, however. I've scribbled over it here, as Ms Bryn can see. But, for example, it talks about pile burning, but it doesn't say what a pile is, and that to me that's basic. If you want to look up and see what the rules are, then you need a document that explains it all clearly, without confusion, in nice big print and as short as possible, and I don't think this one does that. So hopefully when it comes back from public exhibition, we will be able to make it do that, because I think that's the aim of it. I am happy to support it going forward because I want us to eventually come up with a useful document. I just don't think that this one in its current form performs that role. Councillor Kotlash.

Could I ask another question, please? You

Can ask a question, yep.

Would we be able to include the impact of burning on the collection of water? A lot of people in this LGA collect their water from their roofs, and you reminded me because our neighbour used to just burn anything, and I often wondered what was going, you know, what was settling down on her roof, and our roof for that matter, I suppose. So have we got the ability to include guidelines for people on what they shouldn't burn in that situation? Is this too much of a

I mean, I

Don't know whether it's an EPA thing,

So...

Ms Perrin.

Okay, I wouldn't necessarily include that in the pile burning notification, but in terms of the whole education campaign for the community, we could look at a number of issues that we need to educate people on.

Right. Okay.

Further speakers?

Councillor Garrow, yes.

I'm speaking in support. I just wanted to back up what the Mayor has said and possibly to put in what Councillor Kotlash has said. It would be great if we could get a really concise list of the only approvable product that can be burnt instead of the list of all the things not to burn. If it was just a really basic, you know, the list of things that can be burnt, so anything clearly outside of that is breaching .

Because I think this is just too ambiguous. It's too— anyone could interpret it in any way, and I think we're just asking for trouble.

Yes,

We can do that.

Further speakers? Deputy Mayor, do you want right of reply?

Yes, please. Just to point a few things out, Mr Mayor. First of all, the original motion did include putting it out on social media and on our website and community newsletter, and that has been done. But I think there's still more that we can do. In terms of having the changes, we can, I mean, I'm happy to do a submission as a group if people have something like that, or to put a few ideas down. Because unlike what Councillor Zamprogno is speaking about, which is probably a tradition on large blocks of land in Oakville, where people know that you build up your stuff for a bonfire, then you contact the fire brigade. When you've got people in Bowen Mountain and places on small building blocks who see it as something that they're going to do week after week by finding, even taking from neighbours' stuff to burn, it becomes quite crazy.

So there's a real distinction and clarity around what all those things are. I don't think it's an intrusion into anyone's life because, of course, those larger blocks are exempt from it anyway. But it's also a state legislation anyway. It's not ours. We're simply forming up a mechanism for people to be able to register and get their permit, or notify Council that they're intending to burn. One of the risks is with an increased fire season and increased hot weather, the risk of backyard fires on small building blocks and embers travelling, and particularly, as Councillor Kotlash was saying, you know, onto the roofs of neighbours, into the backyards of neighbours, it is risky. And I think I'm glad that we've got it on the agenda that we can be starting to— To look at it.

But perhaps we have to think at some point, and maybe leading into the hotter part of the year, of some specific targeted campaign that where we can really push it in whichever avenue we can do, because it's just gone too far. Thanks.

That was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand up.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Cotterill, Councillor Sandbrogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried.

We move now to item 110.

Anyone wish to move anything?

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak to it?

No, I just had a question just regarding, and I think this may have been answered before, just with regard to giving the school, Gladesville Public School, the money, which is fine, I've got no problem with that, but do we get requests from most schools or many schools, is the question.

Mr Mifsud?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Any requests from the schools would come up through these programs. So for this particular round, that's the only one that's applied, so I'd have to go back and check the records about what other ones would have applied, but this is the only one that's applied through this round. Oh

Okay. No, I was just asking because I thought if they all suddenly decide to ask, then we're going to have to be—we've got about 40 primary schools or something here, so I was thinking we could. The other question I just had, just while I see it here, is there a document or is there some policy within Council for the long term of Woodlands Park Pony Club, which I know was originally part of the industrial subdivision out there, and I just wondered— I'm

Sorry, Deputy Mayor, Mr Mayor, I just realised that the Friends of the Hawkesbury Art Community Gallery is up for $500, and I should have declared

An interest. You can fill in the yellow form later. You're leaving the Chamber, Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, I just wanted to know if there is a long-term plan for the Woodlands Park Pony Club.

Mr. Mayor

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not aware of any plan for the Pony Club. They do have a lease of that area, but other than that, I'm not aware of anything else.

Thank you.

Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Just a question to begin with. Have we notified other schools that we're now using this method to fund these sorts of— Mr. Messett.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. No, we don't notify. We basically advertise that we're putting these out, and then it's up to the applicants to put an application in for their funding.

Thanks. And

This is obviously the last round of this particular program, and the new Community Sponsorship Program will kick in from there.

Thank you. I don't want to leave other schools high and dry. I've got absolutely no— I'm very supportive of this program. I think it's a bit sad that Council has to fund a public school using a function centre. It speaks really to the appalling state of public education that Council has to be kicking in 500 bucks so that these kids can use a function centre to do what should be a routine part of the curriculum. There's a couple of really good programs in here that I want to make note of. One is the funds to the Animal Welfare League for the desexing program in July. Having gone through the animal shelter stuff and seen how problematic the endless breeding of dogs and cats is, this is a really, really good use of Council's resources that hopefully will come back to us in savings from the animal shelter.

And the other one I want to mention is the Bligh Park Community Services, not just for their use of power tools and handheld operations, but for their first aid course for members of the Bligh Park Youth Group. That is such a good use of Council's funding. I wish we could fund more first aid programs. It is one of the truly most life-changing things you can potentially do, a first aid course, so that is excellent use of Council's funds.

Any further speakers? No. Deputy Mayor, do you want to write a reply?

Not necessary, thanks.

I'll move the motion. All those in favour, please stand up.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Progner, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Against the motion, Councillor Ross. And absent is Councillor Rasmussen.

I declare it carried.

So I please invite Councillor—

Pass motion back in.

Move to item 111, the Heritage Advisory Committee. Councillor Wheeler.

Second, Mr Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, there's just probably a couple of things that need to be probably further spelled out in the recommendation, although they could go into, they could as easily go into the next item, and so I'll probably just leave those there. I just want to speak to the item covered under the Heritage Near Me. So item 3 of the minutes, the Heritage Near Me funding grants for privately owned heritage remediation. Council worked really hard with owners of private heritage items to get a number of applications into the Office of Environment and Heritage. We had a record number of applications from the Hawkesbury, and it was a statewide program where private owners of heritage items were able to get assistance with drawing up a program of works for their heritage item by an expert.

And the plan was that the Office of Environment and Heritage would fund each property owner to complete priority works for maintenance of those items under the requirements of the Heritage Act. Unfortunately, in the Hawkesbury, it seemed to go a little astray. The Office of Environment Heritage was quite cross that Council had been so proactive in this program, and instead of dealing with individual property owners, bundled all of the Hawkesbury items together, had a single heritage expert go out and assess all those items, and each person was given a list. But it was when it came to the funding that it fell over. So one item, who lobbied hard to the then state member, received $100,000 in funding.

The rest of the items, 23 in all, were grouped together and given a pocket of $250,000 for Council to divide between them. This was not the deal when these property owners submitted their applications, and certainly not the way property owners across the rest of New South Wales were treated. Many of them received far greater funding. What we're now looking at is some sort of program where each owner will get about $10,000 each. For many of them, that means that they can't complete any of the work in their priority schedule of works. So there's been enormous effort from the property owners, from the heritage, from the conservation architect, and also from Council staff to continue with this program.

It's also months behind time, so that across New South Wales, other organisations have been given this, other owners have been given this money, have already completed the works and are now enjoying a much better managed or preserved heritage item, while here in the Hawkesbury, our heritage owners are fighting over the scraps, and that's really poor. So the Heritage Advisory Committee felt really strongly that the Hawkesbury hadn't been dealt with fairly on this matter and had asked that we make representation. To the new member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston, that myself as the chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee and Otto Sahami Council's heritage advisor, who's been involved in this process, go along and meet with Ms Preston to detail the Heritage Advisory Committee's concerns.

And you can see that reflected in some of the minutes in this item, and it will come up again in the next batch of Heritage Advisory Committee minutes, which I think is at item 116. So I guess that's the background to what's coming to Council, to what is before Council. There's also grave concerns from the Heritage Advisory Committee regarding the

Preservation of heritage buildings that have fallen into that gap between previous listings, which are largely pre-war, and current listings. And that's where you can see the recommendation at item 2, that in relation to that any item that's more than 50 years old should require a heritage statement to be investigated and reported to the Heritage Advisory Committee prior to Council considering the matter further. It's to catch those buildings that have fallen out of the heritage listing process because they're too young, and it means that we're starting to lose buildings that may be important and quite rare because they're not valued. So people tend to think that those post-war buildings, for example, some of the iconic 60s buildings that we have as infill development are just drifting off.

Thank you. Can I ask you, Councillor Wheeler, the— The first part of your speech about making representation to the local member, were you saying that the committee was going to do that or the council? Sorry, the committee would like

Council to endorse that recommendation.

Is that in here though?

It's detailed in the minutes here, but it comes up again in item 116. And so I can amend the recommendation in item 116 just as easily as this, but it's been an ongoing issue and is reflected in probably the last three sets of minutes from the Heritage Advisory Committee.

All right, so we'll leave it as it is then. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll try and put this in the words I meant to get onto earlier. In the committee report, there is discussion

About the Australian Pioneer Village and work that needs to be carried out there.

And it says that under the contract, the lease agreement states that tenants are responsible for the maintenance of the site. I'm sorry, discussion should— Yes,

It's been put off . It'll come up at the next meeting. Okay,

Thank you. We'll save it for the next meeting, thank you.

Okay . Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler, I assume you don't want right of reply.

No thanks, Mr Mayor.

I'll move this report. All those in favour, please stand up. They've

Robbed the report. Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sambrockner, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross and Councillor Calvert declare it carried. We go to item 14.

14, please.

Someone like to move something? I'll

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by the Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Rasmussen. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak to it?

I'll just speak briefly on it. There's not a lot in these minutes, considering we had the briefing from Infrastructure New South Wales and so on. That was basically what Stephen Yeo, who attended to update us on Infrastructure New South Wales, that was pretty much what councillors would have heard at the briefing as well. It was good to have the local member attend. Robyn Preston came, and it was really good because I think it's really, really important that the local member does attend and hear about the flood issues because of that being such an important topic of the moment. So that was good. At the next meeting, which is on Thursday, just to note, and I think we'd already had a motion come forward about applying for the, to do the other studies of the McDonald River, Colo River and Webbs Creek areas.

That had already passed. But at the next meeting I'll give a summary of what I thought was of relevance at the flood conference recently and update on that. And that was about all at this one. We looked over maps and over the flood data again, and there's a bit of discussion going on about the various campaigns that are being run to educate people. So they're all in the evolutionary stage, but I believe there's some starting in schools reasonably soon, and then there's going to be a couple of community-led ones and also a couple from the various emergency services. So that's an update on that.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

I assume you don't want your right of reply, Deputy Mayor? No , thank you. I will put this report. All those in favour, please stand up.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sam Procopio, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried.

Item 115,

Sustainability Advisory Committee. Someone like to move that? Moved, Councillor Rasmusson, seconded Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmusson, you wish to speak? No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Does anyone wish to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Just to draw Council's attention to the information that came out of the Resilient Sydney report and highlighting key areas for advocacy and education within the Hawkesbury. Hawkesbury is a very high emissions local government area. In part that's due to our high dependence on cars and our lack of public transport infrastructure. It shows a clear need for increased investment in renewables to offset some of these emissions, while it will be very difficult for the Hawkesbury to become less car dependent in the short term, certainly doubling down on our efforts to increase renewable energy in the Hawkesbury will make a big impact on some of our emissions. So there's a real need for Council to devote resources to increasing sustainability.

This isn't some sort of green or alternative agenda. It should be Council's core business, and there are clear cost savings to be achieved. This Council was at the forefront of declaring a climate emergency, and I note that the Local Government General Assembly last week also declared a climate emergency and called on the federal government to do the same. It represented a clear shift. There was a clear majority for a climate emergency. It represented a clear shift in the thinking of the National General Assembly. There's also a real need for increased education. Council sustainability education programs are really popular. Many of them are booked out really quickly. They tend, unfortunately, to happen during the day, and there's been a lot of requests for residents to have them in the evening as well.

So it would be nice to see us devote some additional resources to doing that.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. I ask Councillor Richards. Just

Through you, Mr Mayor, can I ask a question to Councillor Wheeler, is that possible?

I guess so.

You've stated Hawkesbury has one of the highest energy emission contributions by LGAs. Is that the graph on page 104?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I'm just scanning to find that. I'm in a different item.

104 is contributions by LGA. Obviously, Hawkesbury has a fairly low population. It's when you look at per capita emissions that Hawkesbury is quite high, so not that graph.

That's all I was seeking clarification on, because that was quite small on that graph. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. Councillor Rasmussen, you want right of reply? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. I'll put the motion always in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogna, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Reynolds. I declare it carried.

We move to item 116,

Councillor Wheeler. Move the recommendation with an amendment. So item

1 to remain the same. Oops. Item 2 to remain the same.

Point 3 to say, seeks a meeting with the Member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee. I'll read this out, Mr Mayor, and then run it across to the staff, to discuss issues arising from the heritage near me privately owned heritage remediation project, and then point 3 to become point 4. I'll second that,

Mr Mayor. Seconded, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I apologise in advance to the staff for my dreadful writing.

So as I said, this program has become quite difficult for Hawkesbury to execute. It's caused an additional load on the staff, but it's also not resulting in the great heritage outcomes that it could have, had the State Government been more clear about the limitations on the funding that it was going to provide to the Hawkesbury. So we've got a range of buildings involved in this program, from a slab hut that desperately needs a new roof before it falls over, to some painting works here and there. And had we known that we were going to be given such a small pot, we would have prioritised it very, very differently, I think. And the owners wouldn't have had the expectations that they have had from this funding.

So I'm hoping that— That the member for Hawkesbury will listen to our concerns and take them to the Office of Environment and Heritage so that we can expect fairer treatment. There's also concerns in this set of minutes regarding the Windsor Bridge. The Heritage Advisory Committee had a workshop with WolfPeak, who are handling the interpretation plan from the RMS. It was extremely useful. Councillors were invited to attend, and some did come along. There were some fairly robust discussions with people giving their opinions. The overwhelming opinion of the Heritage Advisory Committee was that the bridge, as far as possible, should not be the focal point of Thompson Square; that anything about the bridge really should lead people to turn around and look at the buildings.

The Heritage Advisory Committee is still very concerned about the treatment and storage of artefacts and the long-term placement of the artefacts arising from the Windsor Bridge replacement project, and you can see that in point four of the recommendation that should appear by magic shortly.

The Heritage Advisory Committee would like Council to submit the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan to the Heritage Council for endorsement, in the hope that it will give the Conservation Management Plan greater weight. So currently Council has endorsed the document. It's written by very well-regarded conservation architects. The Heritage Advisory Committee... Particularly the heritage conservation experts on the Heritage Advisory Committee are strongly of the view that an endorsement by the Heritage Council of the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan would give it some additional weight, and hopefully that weight could be used to show the RMS how important the conservation of those artefacts is.

Could I just ask for clarification of point 3. Who's actually meeting with who? Is that one meeting or two? Sorry

That's one meeting. That's my dodgy writing, Mr Mayor. So the meeting is between Robyn Preston, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee, and I should have inserted Council's Heritage Advisor into that sentence as well.

Okay. Thank you. That'll be changed. Any further speakers?

No. We'll just wait for the change to come up so we know what we're voting for. Point 3, is that now okay, Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Okay. I assume you don't want right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Riches and Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Reynolds.

We now move to.

Notice of motion one. Councillor Conolly.

Do we have a seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Sam Progner. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak? Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. I'm sorry? Yes. Point of order. I should have, in the previous item, I should have declared non-significant non-pecuniary interest. I wasn't aware that that issue was going to be raised.

About the bridge.

About the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan. So you

Will fill in a yellow form. I

Shall fill in the

Yellow form, yes. You weren't in the room anyway, so it's probably... Yeah, I know. That's why I

Bolted

Okay . Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is hopefully a fairly straightforward motion.

Obviously, between the state government funding and developer funding along Richmond Road, Richmond Road has been improved dramatically over the last five or six years from almost suburban road to now a huge, huge wide road in sections. However, without much development at all in the Hawkesbury and people only moving into Ellara in recent years, in the last sort of 12 months really, Richmond Road is already full again. Whether that's because a lot of people have been going other ways, other routes, and found that Richmond Road is a lot quicker now, I don't know. It's hard to see where the demands are coming from. At this end of Richmond Road, however, as someone who travels it not every day but every now and again, it is pretty terrible and it's disappointing that all that money and all that effort has gone in to make this great new asset and it's already at capacity when it's finished.

So I think we need to put it back on the radar of the state government again that they need to finish it off and make it widened all the way down to Bligh Park. Because that's the point up to which it tends to choke. Speaking about this with the Director of Infrastructure Services, he also suggested that we, whilst putting that on the— if we were going to be putting that on the radar of the RMS, we should also be asking them to look at the roundabouts on Richmond Road. Obviously you've got those multiple roundabouts in that vicinity, all very close together, and just to look at whether they're working properly together. And, you know, it would be interesting to see what their long-term plan is as well with all these intersections down there.

But I think the point of the motion is just to put it back on the radar, to write to the Minister, but also to our local member, and just ask our local member to get on board with our advocacy and put it back in the attention of the State Government so that hopefully we can get something to happen in the not too distant future.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to thank Councillor Conolly for bringing this notice of motion, but I have an amendment, or some amendments, that I've sent through that I'd just like staff to bring up if possible

Sorry? Yeah, in Councillor Connolly's motion, it said acknowledge the significant improvements to Richmond Road, but the improvements to Richmond Road aren't in this LGA. They're actually in Marsden Park, in the Blacktown LGA. So I think that needs to be spelled out, and that, as Councillor Conolly said in his introduction then, we're still experiencing lengthy delays due to the increased development in Schofields and Marsden Park and in Riverstone to a certain extent. When , if we skip through to point D, we're asking the RMS to undertake a review from George Street to Rifle Range Road, but Councillor Conolly's motion only asks the government to widen Richmond Road through to Northern Road.

So it's just simply moving it to George Street, and everything else is as it stands. I would just like to make the point that in the Traffic Committee, we have discussed the issue of George Street to the lights at Rifle Range Road, and the RMS representatives there said there are plans to widen it to four lanes, but it is some time off in the future. Whether it's in our lifetimes or not, I'm not too sure. I'm not too sure what that means. So I'd just like to put those amendments. If

Councillor Conolly, are you interested in changing your motion to read this way?

Some of it, but not others. I don't know if I can have an open negotiation on the floor, if you'll indulge us. Go right ahead. I think your change to point A is quite worthy. I think that it's probably good to point out to someone not from here what we're talking about. I think the problem with the change to point B is that we want the state government to widen the road way past Schofields and Marsden Park, so we don't want them just to cater to the development. And the issue is not the development in Schofields and Marsden Park in its entirety, because you actually hit traffic as soon as you get onto Richmond Road. Once you leave Bligh Park, and that's not being — that's what I said in my opening — that's not being caused by the development.

It's being caused by something else. So I'd rather not tell them what the — I'm talking about as soon as you turn around, as soon as you go down from Bligh Park, turn left, get past the Northern Road traffic —

Because

The

People I've been speaking to have been talking about coming the other way. Yeah , that's an issue too. As soon as they leave that built-up area, traffic flows freely, and so that's why the point was made.

Yeah, that's not necessarily been my experience. Just myself, on coming home down Richmond Road, you can get traffic all the way to Bligh Park. And that's why I would probably not tell them what's causing — not be so prescriptive, tell them what's causing the issue, but just tell them what the issue is. And the issue is affecting us in the Hawkesbury as well. Okay. The other change was, I think from the Northern Road it's already widened to George Street because of multiple roundabouts, but it probably doesn't matter either way. Because once

You get past the Northern Road roundabout, it stays four lanes. But if you're seeking to see if the roundabouts were operating at it.

Yeah, well, within 50 metres of it, I'm happy to accept the amendment. It doesn't make a difference. Yeah. Except—yes

Yeah.

If we just, for example, delete in point B, just say Hawkesbury—advised that despite the improvements, Hawkesbury residents are perhaps still experiencing lengthy delays when travelling on Richmond Road, and then delete the rest.

Okay. That's good. Councillor Conolly is taking that as the notice of motion. Councillor Tree had a light on first, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As a part of the Gazette of That Land release, there was an arterial road that was meant to go from Richmond Road near Garfield through the subdivision to Stony Creek Road to Shane's Park. I think if you would add it, because I think that they should be looking at that. Plus also, I think it'd take a lot of the traffic that's going up to those double roundabouts and then turning up left to go towards the Penrith way. I think there's a fair bit that goes up that way. So I'm wondering whether we could investigate that, maintain all of that, because I think it wouldn't hurt at all to have dual carriageway each way between that development at Marsden Park and the double roundabouts.

But if we could get them to look at that again, because I think that would take quite a bit of traffic away from Richmond Road there. Because I tend to, I mean, I travel it every day, and I find that once you've got past that development, a lot of people go into that development, but then after that a lot of people are turning left at that large roundabout, and then there's obviously people going to Bligh Park, but there seems to be a lot of high volumes of traffic. So

You're talking about what is meant to be the extension of Bandon Road.

I think so. It's the one, and it was also going to offer the potential for a flood-free pathway through there, that one that the poor boy was swept along that time. Yep.

So I think, yeah, you'd like to add a point, Councillor Conolly, are you happy to add that point if we..

I got to confess, I've got no idea what that road is and what you're talking about, so I'm a bit reluctant to put it on. If the council was to recommend that should be on there...

My recollection is Bandon Road was supposed to go from Windsor Road across the railway line at Vineyard... No, it's a different one.

It's the one that goes... Yeah, and then go

Across the flats to Richmond Road, then keep going to Bandon. Can I ask a point of order? That was what Bandon Road was going to do. Can I just ask a question, Mr Mayor? Yes, you can ask a question.

A question of Councillor Tree. Yes. Councillor Tree, are you talking about, is it Ellara Boulevard?

I don't know what the name of the street is.

Where it appears to—I'm just looking at Six Maps here—and it shows it running off towards Stony Creek Road and going to a roundabout, which then does, and there's a road spinning off that which doesn't go anywhere.

Within that development, there's a— it's sort of like everything's built and then there's a nowhere. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's an existing corridor—well, it's gazetted as part of the land release. And I just think that, I mean, I'd like to see that happen so we didn't have all that traffic coming up Richmond Road. I

Mean, can I just maybe... I would prefer that we keep this how it is, because we're now talking about advocating for a road from Blacktown LGA to Penrith LGA. I'm not suggesting it's not worthwhile, but I don't know anything about it myself, and I don't think it's necessarily what Hawkesbury Council needs to be pointing out. Hawkesbury Council should point out the problem with the road in our LGA and the traffic that's there and the issue, the RMS. can find whatever solution they want. But I'm not really comfortable advocating for a road from Blacktown to Penrith.

So, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly is not happy to add that point. What do you want to do at this point? Do you want to withdraw that?

Yeah, that's okay.

You want to withdraw that?

Maybe Werrisrock can pick up on it.

Maybe they can, yes. Councillor Garrow.

Through you, Mr Mayor, just wondering whether Council Conolly would consider in point D adding including pedestrian access, the George Street to Rifle Range Road.

Still on the floor.

Councillor Conolly.

I don't have a problem with that. I think it's an entirely different issue. So probably be a — you could put it as a point E, because we're talking about the optimum operation of the roundabouts and traffic flow. I mean, I would imagine, Councillor Garrow, you're talking about

I was reading it as ask RMS to undertake a review of George Street to Rifle Range Road bypass to ensure possibly A, or point one, optimum operation of roundabouts, and point two, pedestrian access of this area.

Yeah. That's a yes. I guess so, yeah. Okay. Mr Werny, are you able to generate words for that?

Good

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to ask a question.

Does our traffic model, is that able to assist us in any of these points, particularly about George Street and Rifle Range Road? Are we able to use our traffic model to— In any way enhance what we're asking from the RMS.

Is that Mr. Organ?

Thank you. We can certainly undertake intersection modelling using the traffic model and the data that we have. It's probably a bit of an overkill to do that because I think the capacities are well known there. But I think my view would be better to probably get the RMS to confirm that through their modelling and own the problem. But we can certainly support through the counts that we have and the modelling we have undertaken. Okay

I'm really interested in our traffic model and how we can get the best bang for our buck, but I concede that the RMS do have to own the problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I actually agree with Councillor Tree that we should be looking. I really think we should be raising that because I've been observing at the roundabout at Northern Road, before there was a roundabout, nobody came across because you couldn't turn right. It was a T intersection and you couldn't get out there. But now there's a roundabout. When you drive across from Penrith, there's just a constant stream of traffic and they're coming along to access down to the M7 rather than going back to the M4. And I just think that if we've got something going forward where we're writing to the Minister, we should perhaps question it because it was something that I've seen it on a plan going past the Sydney Business Park, that there is both a rail corridor and a road corridor.

And I think that you might reconsider including it because we , even though it's not in our LGA, our residents are bearing the brunt of that extra influx of traffic from Penrith, using, coming in at the roundabout and therefore on that stretch from Northern Road down to Marsden Park. So I don't know that it would hurt to include it, but I think it would be something. It's obviously a pressure point. If you come out at Bligh Park, all that traffic's not coming from Richmond and that area. It's coming in from somewhere. So I would think you might—

Would you like to suggest some words, Councillor? Well,

Just include what— well , just as an extra point to what you're writing to and possibly should be visiting the honourable Paul Toole about, to include questioning or asking about the link road from Richmond Road, I guess it goes to the Great Western Highway. I suppose that's where it goes. That was part

It's called an interchange.

It goes to St Mary's, I think.

It goes through St Mary's, but wouldn't that be the Great Western Highway? Yeah. Yeah . Yeah. Yeah , I wondered if it was..

Yes . We can do that. Yeah. Councillor Conolly, are you going to entertain Deputy Mayor's— Yes, he

Is.

I'd like to see the words.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, investigate.. . yeah , existing corridor linking from Richmond Road to Great Western Highway.

So , okay , just trying to think how we can— Point two is obviously that we're writing to Robyn Preston and seeking her support for our advocacy. I'm quite happy to ask them to look at it, but I don't necessarily want to be passing a resolution where we're advocating for that corridor when I don't know a lot about it.

Do you know the member

For Riverstone?

I do, yes. I believe that's

All in

Another seat, but anyway, if it's on the other side of Richmond Road.

Could we not ask for any other corridors that may be affecting this investigation area? Because I guess the point of this

I've put to seek a commitment from the government to widen Richmond Road. So I'm sort of asking for—the idea of the motion was that this is a statement of advocacy. We're asking for something concrete and we're going to ask for support and not expecting them to write back and say yes, but to be the start of a position and a conversation. Could, could we do it as point three, just to separate what we're advocating for and what's going to be, I don't know if this is going to make sense, but point three,

No, I don't know.

The point is that if those people are funneling off before they're in that last stretch, if we don't get the commitment to widen the road, then maybe you're going to get rid of them if that other road is built. Yeah, no, totally. I

Can certainly understand from your discussion why it would be useful and what you're saying. I'm just trying to think of a way of wording it that's—we're not taking a position that we think that existing link Yeah. I mean, I think that that's probably fine to say investigate. Yeah. Okay.

Sold . I have my doubts about the existing link

I'm not sure what we're talking about

You're talking about a proposed link.

Yeah

Okay. Change that to proposed. Any further changes? Yes . Hello. No. No it's a link road. I think it goes from Bandon Road to Somneres

I'd just like to make

The point, Mr Mayor, that I think that the, as I understand it, it's a proposed road corridor. It's not an existing road corridor from Richmond Road to the Great Western Highway. There's nothing gazetted on any of the maps, and Councillor Conolly said earlier that he didn't want to— I can't remember his exact words, but didn't want to muddy the motion by asking for too much. The Richmond Road issue is, I think, needs to be highlighted and dealt with by itself. It's an existing road, an existing corridor. Perhaps the RMS or whoever could do traffic counts to see how many vehicles are turning right from Northern Road and heading along Richmond Road towards Marsden Park, and then we'd have some solid data to work on . I'm just a little bit hesitant to muddy the request at this stage.

Mr. Organ would like to try and clarify that

Again, without intervening into the debate, noting those comments there about keeping the situations or the issues somewhat separate, RMS are currently undertaking a number of corridor studies — not M9s and so on — but looking at Richmond Road corridor, Castlereagh Road corridor, not the freeway, the links north-south. So it's currently bringing those together. But we've got a number of meetings with them, and they've done a couple of workshops and so on. It may be appropriate to come back with a report on that, which would then identify visually what's currently on the table, what their long-term plans are, and Council can then determine a position based on that and advocate for any of those elements. So my recommendation would be to probably leave it as a separate one, and we'll come back with a separate report on the issues that are being raised. So, Deputy Mayor, you're

Happy to leave out point 2E ?

I'm fine, yes, so long as it gets looked at in some context. Okay

Any further changes?

Councillor Ross.

I'm just wondering, Mayor, if in your Goodly office of West Rock, the Director of Infrastructure has previously advised Council that written correspondence, so to speak, is pretty ineffectual, and that we're better off if we're seeking to advocate for something to do it through an organised group, and it would seem that West Rock would be the ideal vehicle for that. I'd just ask you to consider that, please.

Well, it's up to the mover of the motion if he wants to add that to his motion, Councillor Conolly. Do you want to add sending this to West Rock?

That's a yes. That's okay. Can

You put a point in?

Councillor Richards.

Should I get a little bell?

No, that's all right. I'll see you eventually.

All right. Just giving more thought to this motion, and particularly, I mean point D, part two, the pedestrian access. I wanted to make a point from the start that over the last few months I've been fortunate to have been approached by a gentleman from Bligh Park called Grant Davenport. He's, for the last couple of years, been significantly petitioning for a— now I've got to think what it's called—a little, like a break in the road there out the front of KFC and McDonald's, so if we're actually— Medium strip . Thank you. If we are writing to the RMS to undertake a review of George Street to Rifle Range Road, I understand, Councillor Conolly, that's more of a traffic issue that you're talking about in point D, but I think if we're looking at that entire strip of road there for safety, a medium strip of some sort is quite necessary.

Actually, I think it should be a point D3 if you're willing to add it, because the cars that turn right into KFC and McDonald's, where there's a no right turn sign and they go over the double lines, cause really significant traffic safety issues. There's a fire brigade on the other side of the road where Bligh Park is. From something that I'd put on Facebook a while ago, someone from that brigade had come on and said that rather than a medium strip, because sometimes the fire engines actually have to take wider turns, perhaps even the tall rubbery orange spike things that can be bent and stuff, but it still acts as a deterrent to a normal car. So if you were willing to put something on there regarding that, because the post I did do on Facebook after Grant Davenport contacted me got significant attention from people in Bligh Park, and that's obviously something that they want because those right-hand turns into the takeaway outlets do cause a lot of issues.

I just was wondering if you were willing to add that. Whilst

I agree with everything Councillor Richards is saying in terms of that being an important issue, I think that is now an entirely separate issue on a different road and not at all related. I don't want to muddy a motion about asking for a position on Richmond Road from the RMS. We've tried

Hard. Yeah, we've tried very hard

We've done with that one. I think that could be another motion which I'd be happy to support.

So Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly is not...

You said no

What do you wish to do? Do you wish to withdraw that?

I'll do my own motion.

You do that. Councillor Reynolds. If Councillor Richards wanted to send me the information, we could take it to the local traffic committee and then get the RMS to look into it , because it's their road and they do have a look into things like that quite often. So I just want to flick me the info, and then we can take it to the committee and then I can give it back to you

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Any further suggestions for changes or any more speakers on the matter? Councillor Conolly, do you wish to have right of reply? I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand. In

Favour of the motion: Councillor Ross,

Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Brogner, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Riches and Councillor Calvert declare it carried.

Move to notice of motion number two, Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

We have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor, Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

I'll just begin with a few questions. Just regarding that stretch of road, has there been any, well I know that the road requires quite a bit of upkeep, but has there been any road pavement damage in recent years to that road? I'm speaking about Yarramundi Lane, Crowley's Lane.

Mr Organ? There's been nothing that we've attributed to any specific incident, but the road is suffering from significant ongoing repairs as a result of the increased traffic volumes, and I think that's fairly evident out there.

Okay, so compared to other country lanes, would it require more upkeep, would you say?

I get a constant request for pothole repairs and so on along that road. That's also related to some of the watering and the poor drainage along there as well, just not being able to cater for that loading and the traffic.

Thank you. I brought this notice of motion mainly from a safety perspective and some incidents that I've witnessed being a road that I'm on often, multiple times a day. As noted, Councillor Rasmussen had a notice of motion which he brought up at the end of last year, and I am just seeking to have some additional points added to that while— While the investigation into that's going on, and to just see if these points that I've raised can be considered and included in the report that is coming back about Councillor Rasmussen's motion. So there's been the upgrade of the intersection works there, which is great. It's made the actual intersection itself safe, however, made it safer. But the thing is, it has resulted in a huge volume of traffic then using Yarramundi Lane as the access to Penrith.

So if I'm heading along and going to Penrith, I'm automatically turn right, as do most other people going to Penrith, because you're not going to drive all the way into Richmond and along Castle Ray Road if you don't have to. And so there's been a very big increase in traffic using it, which I can tell you from some figures from the RMS. Recent counts on the 5th of March 2019 found that the morning peak hour two-way flow had increased by 18%, and in the weekday afternoon peak hour it's increased by 42%. That's from 2012 volumes. So they are really quite big increases, whereas the overall increase just of use along Richmond Road hasn't been that significant. So the actual number of people using those roads are really very, very much more than they used to be, and many, not many, but a tangible significant amount of those are trucks, heavy vehicles, and trucks, truck and dog type vehicles, which Really appear when you're driving along there and you're coming the other way that they are too big for the road when there's another one coming the other way or a big vehicle coming the other way.

Firstly, just to say any limitation on trucks on that road would not apply to vehicles associated with farm use because, of course, the actual ruling which is included in there is that when the sign doesn't provide detailed information, no truck is permitted to drive past the sign unless the driver's destination lies beyond the sign and it is the only route. So obviously for the farm vehicles going into the vegetable growers or turf or whatever is down there, that wouldn't prevent them going on there. However, there's a lot of movement, and we know there's a lot of movement of fill going up towards the mountains, and there's a lot of work vehicles going to various sites and so on. And a lot of these trucks, especially when they're empty, go thundering along there, and it's really quite dangerous.

So I also— there's no proof of it, and from what Mr. Organ says, we don't know if any incident causes the deterioration of the road pavement, but I would think that we have got to put some pressure on the state government if we can down the track, as Councillor Rasmusson has already asked for repeatedly over the years, because essentially we are being directed to use that road in lieu of a state road. So the way that the intersection is structured, it moves the vehicles along onto Yarramundi Lane and Inalls or Crowley's Lane and— We are the people who are responsible for the upkeep, and I believe and I expect that that is probably quite a lot of money. From what I've read of what the— from what I've read of what the

Width, the road design standards are and the placement of the traffic light power poles all along, there's just not the correct width to be carrying that sort of volume of traffic. Presumably there will be some more information when we get to the options for the Third River crossing as to whether if Yarramundi Lane was to form part of that, whether it would actually be financed to be expanded, which presumably it would, but that's more information to wait on. Anyway, this motion wants simply to have a couple more things investigated while there's an ongoing report from Councillor Rasmussen's notice of motion, and I would seek your support. Thank you.

Councillor Garrow.

I'm speaking for the motion. However, I have a concern in regards to the residents, the no trucks. So the farming residents travelling within that area, as an owner of a small business that has trucks, I know the painful process that we go through with trucks going over their limits in areas they're not allowed to be in. Simply, is a ranger takes a photo, sends you a notification, and then you have to fight it. So if that would be happening to these residents, that would just be consistently receiving ranger fines, and then they were having to process and prove. Their innocence. I just don't, I wouldn't like to know how we can simplify that so that the residents would not be consistently getting fined and having to go through all this red tape paperwork to prove their innocence.

I just don't know how they can signpost their own vehicles, basically, to prove that they are allowed to be in that area.

Question, was it?

Possibly a question.

Do we have an answer? I think, I just don't,

I can't see how we could possibly do that. That's my issue. I think that these

Residents would consistently be getting

Fined

I've got one .

Well , I think you could do things like have registered number plates. It's not a lot of properties there. It's soccer fields on one side, a big orange orchard on the other side, a vegetable grower down the end. There's only three or four people and they may get some deliveries, but it's not like there's not a lot of trucks going in and out of the farms.

General Manager. Mr Mayor, just thinking about that, if it was implemented and it was an issue, we'd probably, I'd probably speak to Jim Stewart and we'd probably do something with the police and we'd start with an education program and we'd have someone at either end, and they would go in and they'd come out the other end and we would know that they'd come in and gone out, or they'd come in and stopped somewhere along the way and we would have to try and monitor that. That's the sort of investigation that we'd have to undertake.

Further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I am able to support this Notice of Motion, and the grounds are that the right-turn facility from east travelling vehicles off Bells Line of Road into that vicinity has proved an effective way of ensuring that the traffic moving further east on Bells Line of Road is not impeded. It also removes the need for such traffic to turn right at Bosworth Street, thereby saving congestion there, and we have previously expressed concern about Bosworth Street and the difficulties being encountered in the closer confined settlement of Richmond itself. Then looking at destinations, well, it's not purely Penrith traffic. It could also be traffic to WSU

Or Londonderry Road. Indeed , in the mornings,

There is almost no traffic of heavy trucks using that road. None.

The traffic volumes in the mornings. I dispute the 12% variation between 2012 and currently. It appears to be quite a lot less. In fact,

Possibly no perceptible variation. It moves between about 300 and 350 vehicles an hour travelling out of Bells Line of Road into that area, which is not greatly different to what it was previously. The afternoon situation is somewhat different, I agree, but again, it's mainly the people who are seeking to avoid Richmond CBD, if you like, which in itself is not a bad thing. And it is predominantly lighter vehicles as well, very little heavy trucks, mainly utilities and such like. This just seems to be not supportable, and the width of the carriageway is sufficiently wide, and probably wider than some of our main roads. The difficulty with the pavement, of course, is because of the geology, and also irrigation and, as our director has said, drainage.

They are significant issues in the area. I think this is — A fairly unproductive exercise to me. I think an attempt to restrict trucks in the area when there are no trucks of any significant volume

Is a little bit of

An improper use of our time, frankly. And there are more grave matters than this to be considering.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Wills.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of the motion. This actually fits in with the push from regional councils across New South Wales for first and last mile funding for feeder roads. So, and this is exactly what we have here. We have a local road that's now being used to take volumes of traffic that it was never built or designed for in order to feed into a major arterial road. And council's footing the bill. But the real concern with this road isn't the cost. The real concern is the safety. I dispute Councillor Ross's opinion that the road is of sufficient width. It's not. It's a goat track with a gradually collapsing shoulder because of the volume of traffic that it carries. I drive this road weekly.

The shoulder of the road is full of potholes and the traffic clusters around the centre line. Some of the traffic doesn't cluster around the centre line. Some of the traffic just goes straight up the middle and you're left to duck and weave. More concerning than me using it once a week is that my son uses it on a motorbike to get to North Richmond coming from Penrith. If I'm concerned for my child's safety on that road, then I am assuming that everybody else in the LGA is concerned for their kids' safety as well. And that is our job. It is absolutely core business of this council to speak to the state government about roads funding or to manage our own roads so that they're safe. There's the no right turn sign at the end of Yarramundi Lane onto Bells Line of Road.

While it has fixed some of the traffic congestion, forces traffic that's originated or has been into areas of Yarramundi Lane or Old Kurrajong Road, like the soccer fields, for example, or the farm lane that I drive down each week to pick up my veggies from a CSA. It forces all that traffic to either go left up into North Richmond, which doesn't bother me because I can just go home via Freeman's Reach. But if I want to go to Richmond, I have to turn back onto Yarramundi Lane and go all the way around up in Alls Lane, which is no better than Yarramundi Lane, and back into Richmond that way. And so that volume of traffic has increased because one bit is being sacrificed to save a mess at another spot.

It's all this piecemeal work that we're trying to do to band-aid the traffic shambles that we've got without looking at a more holistic picture. I don't see any problem with telling trucks that they can't do a rat run from Castle Ray down through in Alls Lane and Yarramundi Lane and then jump out again at North Richmond. Yes, I'd love the trucks to come out of Richmond, but that's the RMS's job. It's not council's job to try and patch up this road and for our residents to try and dodge heavy vehicles. We're talking about truck and dogs. We're not talking about a few utes, so to try and keep our residents safe, because the RMS isn't providing adequate infrastructure. I can't fathom how you can object to this.

We're talking about getting trucks off a farm road. It's a no-brainer. Councillor

Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Just a question, is this something that we could refer to the Local Traffic Committee for advice?

I know normally if we have the power to do things, we just do them.

Mr Organ. Through you, Mr Mayor, it certainly could be referred to the Traffic Committee. It's been there on a number of occasions, and particularly Council's made representations to the three intersection corridor upgrade, where we did raise concerns over the impacts of this, potentially, albeit in the short term until the widening at Bosworth Street is undertaken. It was probably always expected that this would attract additional traffic during the program, I guess, of the three intersection upgrades. But it certainly could be referred to the Local Traffic Committee. If Council were to seek to put a load limit on this road, it would in fact be referred there at some point, along with the consultation.

Note in the attachments to the notice of motion, it's actually the 1988 guidelines, and it refers to the 1919 Local Government Act, but still the governing process outlined in that, where you'd go through consultation, notification, LTC, and then ultimately referral to RMS to impose that load limit.

Sorry, just to clarify, so

That was that we don't need to send it to the Local Traffic Committee because it'll go there anyway?

Through you, Mr Mayor, it would ultimately go through the Local Traffic Committee, but through a fairly convoluted process, ultimately ending up with RMS for a decision.

Right. Can I just answer that this is meant to be an attachment to Councillor Rasmussen's previous notice of motion, which is already ongoing. So I think

We need to consider that. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, happy to support it. I don't think it's a big deal. I just, as a general rule, we're being asked to make a decision with no data or evidence before us, and we've got some anecdotal stuff about why we need it, but nothing to suggest that there's been problems because of trucks other than anecdotal evidence. And it's a bit, you know, it's fairly compelling. You can see why it makes sense. But I didn't, I would prefer a formal process, but if it's going to go there anyway once we decide this, then I think that's okay.

Councillor Tree.

Thank you. My anecdotal evidence would be that I don't see that many truck and dog trucks there. Happy to support this, but just from what I see and when I go through, I don't, you know, there might be the occasional one, but when I make the mistake of going down

Inalls Lane instead of Crowley's Lane, on occasion when I don't think, what I do see is a lot of cars. And so I think that that's probably, that's a big thing. But I'm sort of hoping that once this goes through the process that Mr. Organ was just talking about, that they were taking into consideration the Grose River crossing and what an impact that would make, because a lot of the cars that are going down Yarramundi Lane currently and turning left onto Bells Line of Road heading west are actually then going left just before the shopping centre car park and doing the rat run down the side street that's parallel to Bells Line of Road and then going up Grose Vale Road. So I think that that would make a big difference, plus also the Roads Works at Bosworth Street. I think that'd make a big difference.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I thank the Deputy Mayor for bringing this notice of motion forward again and therefore focusing, or thereby focusing, attention on Yarramundi Lane, Inalls Lane and Crowleys Lane. And as councillors have said already, it really is a malfunction of road and traffic and danger and, and, and, and. And, I mean, I've been drumming on this drum for a few years now, and hopefully we'll get something out of the notice of motion that was brought forward back in December 2018 . But can I just add a couple of issues? And I travel that road probably maybe twice a day, early morning, evening, afternoon, Saturdays, Sundays. And my observation, and it's anecdotal, is that there are trucks, and there are big trucks.

There are truck and dogs. And it all depends on what's going on by way of development and such things at North Richmond, who need to use, you know, the rat race or the rat run, rather than go through these trucks, rather than wind their way through Bosworth Street and the intersection there . And as we all know, in turning left onto Kurrajong Road, they have to virtually—well, they do—have to take up both lanes and swing out really wide and then come back to get back on the road. So that doesn't happen. And as I said, it depends. It goes in peaks and troughs, and it does depend on the developments that are going on at North Richmond or beyond there. But also my concern—oh, sorry. And furthermore, as I said, I travel it regularly, very regularly, and the edges of the road, Yarramundi Lane in particular, but also Crowley's Lane, the edges are really being ripped apart.

They really are. And the road is narrowing. You might say there's six metres. I think it's six metres or close to . But the edges, and I noticed that there've been patches, big long strips on some of the slight bends there, long stretches of patching there, which is good, but they continue to be torn apart or torn away at the edges. And the reason for that, of course, as we all know, is that we've got the power poles right on the— almost on the road itself, almost. There are deep, deep drains there in many places for long stretches. There is no verge, hardly any verge and hardly any shoulder there. So it is a dangerous road. There's no question about it, Yarramundi Lane in particular. But Crowley's Lane as well.

Inalls Lane is not so bad. It's a better formed road and has better, as I said, better verges and better shoulders. But when it intersects into Yarramundi Lane, it becomes quite a difficult area. The new works, the new works down at intersection of Yarramundi Lane and Kurrajong Road, that new part there, it is very low on the Yarramundi Lane side. And as people swing, and if you have heavy rain, what happens there is that more than half of the road— And I've raised this before. More than half of the road, in fact three-quarters of the road, is actually inundated with water. So people try and avoid that big puddle that forms and then end up on the wrong side of the road. So there are issues down there along that road, big issues, whether you've got trucks, whether you've got cars, whether you've got high traffic.

And let me tell you, the traffic has increased. The traffic has dramatically increased along that road. But more importantly, with this particular notice of motion, I think, is how we deal with farmers and their trucks. And now there's, I just counted off the top of my head, on the western side of Yarramundi Lane there are at least 12 farmers. There are at least 12 farmers that I know of. On the eastern side there must be at least eight , seven or eight anyway . Crowley's Lane, there would be six along Crowley's Lane, probably four or five along Inalls Lane. So there are farmers down there, and several of them have very large trucks. Now, granted, they tend to move on the road early in the morning, particularly on Fridays, when they're taking their produce to market.

But they've got very large trucks, and I'd hate to see them being, as Councillor Garrow said, I'd hate to see the farmers in a situation where they are issued with a notice and then having to fight that, and that would really get up their noses, let me tell you, really, and get up my nose too. But anyway, there's that part of it. There are deliveries, and there are some very large deliveries. These farmers are commercial producers. Time's up, I think. Time's up, is it? Okay. Anyway, thanks, Mr Mayor. But there are issues there, and if we can figure out how to deal with the farmers' issue, we're probably okay.

Thank you, Councillor.

Can I just ask a question, please, Mr Mayor? I'm wondering if they're going to look at Yarramundi Lane, when you come down to the end of Crowley's Lane and you want to turn right, you've got a stop sign there, and I know that's because there's a reason why that's like it is currently. But sometimes the visibility there to the left is really poor. And if this is going to be investigated, will they take into consideration that there's more traffic coming down from Crowley's Lane rather than the through traffic on Yarramundi Lane, I'm wondering?

Will that be investigated is your question. Mr Organ, do we have an answer to

That ?

We can certainly look at it again. The issue and why that unusual giveway configuration is there is because the width of Yarramundi Lane is such that you can't actually take the corner in a heavy vehicle at speed. So the visibility is not there for that and those vehicles would be on the wrong side of the road. So that's why it's there. If the truck movement was banned or restricted, that's something could be looked at if that occurred. The alternative to that is, of course, road widening

Can I just have one more question, sorry? Yeah, another question. So the road works at Bosworth Street there, should that not fix the problem that Councillor Ross was talking about, or I think it was Councillor Ross, one of them was talking about how you have to go out on the wrong side, it might have been Councillor Rasmussen, about going out onto the wrong side of the road. Should that fix that problem once that roadwork is done?

Mr Organ Yeah, there's significant widening at Bosworth Street in terms of additional lanes and turning. So again, heavy vehicles, if there was still a 90-degree bend and there'd be lane widths, they could turn left from the upper lane.

Can I just ask one more question? Sorry. So in relation, so the light at the end of the tunnel is coming, that respect. Do we have a time frame on that?

I might have to get back to you on what the latest in terms of the RMS construction is.

Just one last question, Mr Mayor. So what I'm concerned about now is that if we're telling them that we don't want them to go down — the question is coming— we don't want them to go down Yarramundi Lane, what are the alternatives if they're coming from Penrith? Do they have to go down, right down the street past the high school and then left and then right? What are the alternatives for them?

Mr Holgan.

The alternative for heavy vehicles, if they're banned from Crowleys or Inalls Lane coming along Castle Road and from going in there and then accessing Yarramundi Lane and Old Kurrajong Road, would be to use Bosworth Street and Arch Street intersection.

Is that the best alternative?

Is that another question ? Any further speakers? Can I just add then that that particular corner you're talking about, Crowleys Lane, I asked about that maybe 15 years ago. And because I came down Crowleys Lane to turn right and I nearly got wiped out by a truck full of cabbages coming in from my left-hand side, so I could have ended up as minced cabbage. And I had stopped and then went out and then he came tearing through. So I've always thought that left-hand part should have some sort of give-way sign or something. But apparently cabbages have right of way on Yarramundi Lane. The other thing is, when I first saw this notice of motion, my first response was, Well, where are the figures to say how many more trucks are going down there?

But then I had a second thought, Councillor Ross. It doesn't matter whether there's more trucks now. Those large trucks don't belong on that road anyway. So whether there's more or less than there used to be is not relevant. We need to keep those big trucks off those kind of roads, and therefore I'm happy to support this notice of motion. And I figure there's no more speakers. Yes, sorry. I need me. Councillor Richards.

Thank you. Could I just say something before Councillor Richards goes? Because — not goes — no, just because in case Councillor Kotlash did raise, I just wanted to change the wording. I've been trying to get in to say it in point A, to say that the following points be included to investigate imposing a no truck limit, rather than simply to — Well, that supports

Okay. Councillor Richards is now happy? That's

Better, but do we need — Councillor Rasmussen's hit the nail on the head. Do we need some sort of exception? That is a farming area for the local farmers. You can't have an imposition of no trucks when there are trucks that clearly live

On those properties. I think we've already answered that, that that's going to be looked at.

Okay, I'm happier with that.

You're happy? Councillor Richards is happy. Any other speakers? No. Deputy Mayor, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This wasn't an attack on trucks or anything like that. I'm happy to have trucks on a road if the road is wide enough and safe enough, and if we are not having to foot the bill for the use of it in lieu of it being on a state road. However, I just wanted these things to be investigated. So investigating whether that's feasible to impose such a limitation. The law does specify about that it's not all trucks; some trucks are exempt. But it can be looked at. We've got to look at these things because — We really do have a problem . Actually, on Google Earth, there's actually a picture. If you look on Google Earth of Yarramundi Lane, you can see a picture of a truck and dog passing a car, and you can see they've both had to pull off to the side to get past.

So that is just how it is. So I'm not sure how often Councillor Ross is on the road at North Richmond in the morning, but I am there every day. And I have the figures from the RMS from the 5th of March 2019, where there were 613 vehicles per hour turning onto that road, which is an 18 percent increase since 2012 and a 42 percent increase in the afternoon. I'm happy for there to be not as much traffic going into Richmond. I think, of course, ultimately a bypass of the area would solve many of these things, so that's probably what we're working towards inevitably . But we've got a situation there that we have to fit into our overall traffic, because merely by the nature of being directed to use it.

So that's just how the intersection is. And so I just want it investigated that we either have the trucks off or the road widened and that we have enough money to upkeep it when it's being, you know, sort of operating as much more than a country lane, which is what it was designed to do. So I think that— I think if those things were investigated, it would be good. The additional looking at the T intersections and the areas where there's very poor visibility on the corners is also good. And I think that I did have more figures, but I didn't want to bog down with the figures in a notice of motion because there is an actual report coming, which would obviously contain the figures in it. So thank you for the contributions, and I think that it's something that once we get the information about what options there are that we could improve it, and certainly have the resources to keep it maintained, that would be an advantage for all of us because it is a very precarious situation to be driving on it.

And particularly when you're coming along there in bad weather, or if you're there late at night coming home, coming along there, and with the increased number of trucks that are there, because I see them, unless I'm hallucinating, but they are increasing in number.

Thank you. That was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour: Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Progner, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, and Councillor Calvert. Against the motion: Councillor Ross. I declare it carried.

We move now to questions from the last meeting, questions on questions, which start on page 175. Do we have any?

What, what is the question, sorry? How does it

Work now with our new questioning process?

Isn't there 14 days notice for questions? We're looking at questions from previous meetings.

You are, I believe, you are allowed now to ask about those questions. Yes, you are allowed to ask now about those questions. If there's any matters arising from those questions. Right. Can't ask a new question unless it's in writing. Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And look, this may only require a short verbal response from staff. In relation to the inquiry that I made about the private car parks in the LGA for which council staff do parking enforcement, the response indicates that the agreements that were there have lapsed. And as much as it sounds like I'm trying to wriggle out of a parking ticket, I swear I'm not. But I did see a story in the media where parking fines were being contested because the enforcement by a council did not follow from a duly signed contract for that enforcement to take place. So this answer, I think, illustrates precisely the type of situation that I saw on that media story. Does this mean, if there is no current agreement, if the previous agreement has lapsed, does that mean that parking enforcement that we do in those car parks is not valid, or that in fact there is no parking enforcement occurring in those private car parks?

The

Parking enforcement ceased while we didn't have an up-to-date agreement. The agreement has now been updated and we'll resume parking enforcement. Any other

Questions on questions? No. There's no questions for the next meeting

Being submitted in writing? No. For this meeting, I mean, submitted in writing. So if you need to put a question into the next meeting, you need to do it today. That would have been by close of business today, I imagine. Well, otherwise you've got one hour and 45 minutes in which to do it. Is that right? And there's also a councillor app that's been— Do it on the councillor app. Yep. Okay, we now move to

Confidential

Would someone like to move that?

Yeah, but you need to read a report. Yeah . I'll ask Mr. Mifsud to read out the report from the confidential section.

In regard to item 121, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that one, Council agree to amend the existing licence agreement entered into with Bridges Disability Services on 26 September 2017 for the occupancy of rooms within Peppercorn Place, 320 George Street, Windsor, to accommodate the changed occupancy footprint as outlined in this report. Two, authority be given for the amended licence agreement and any other documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed tenant together with advice that Council is not and 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.

Voting in favour of that recommendation were Councillor Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards and Calvert. In regard to item 122, whilst in closed session Council resolved on a motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that the debt owed by debtor account 7304917 in respect of subpoena application processing and copy costs totalling $2,458 be written off as a bad debt. Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards and Calvert.

Thank you. Thank you. We don't have to stand this time because it was unanimous. Is there any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 10.19. Thank you.