13 August 2019 - Ordinary

To Hawkesbury City Council's ordinary meeting of 13 August 2019, I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, and pay my respects to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the General Manager for 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'd 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 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 Council chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Do we have any apologies?

Councillor Rasmussen.

Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Tree. And we'll put one in for Councillor Ross as well.

Oh, he's here now. Very good. Good timing. Someone like to move we accept the apologies? I'll move that, Mr Mayor. Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Any declarations of interest?

Councillor Reynolds.

Item 150. Oh

Sorry. No,

You don't. Which one? I do. That's you.

That's me You're off the hook. Today's Tuesday.

It's me, not you. You're safe.

I'm safe, sorry.

You're safe.

Read

The...

Councillor Wheeler.

Yes, it is me, Mr Mayor. I've got a pecuniary interest in item 150. Bit of

An identity crisis, was there?

I'm fine. Okay. I'm not sure about Councillor Reynolds.

Any other declarations of interest? No.

Well, I might pause the meeting there at the moment because tonight we're privileged to have with us our friends from our sister cities, Koyotamba in Japan and Temple City in the United States. They have been here for a little while. I don't know exactly when they go home, but I met them the other week, and they gave some lovely speeches and some performances, which were terrific. And the young fellow from the United States said he particularly likes the dual flush toilets that we have in Australia. So apparently in the United States, that technology hasn't reached them yet. So I'd like to hand over to Nicole Mumford and ask her to introduce the students and say a few words.

Good evening, Mr Mayor and Councillors of Hawkesbury City. I'm privileged to be here this evening to present to you the 2019 Hawkesbury Sister City Association student ambassadors from Hawkesbury City, Koyotamba, Japan and Temple City, USA. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Hawkesbury City Council for their generous and ongoing support of the Sister City program. This is a unique opportunity for students within the Hawkesbury and our sister cities in Japan and America to truly immerse themselves in a different way of life. It is an opportunity for students to develop independence through problem solving and critical thinking. It broadens their cultural understanding in an increasingly globalised world, and it is the catalyst for lifelong friendships.

I have no hesitation in saying that the 24 students we present to you this evening have represented themselves, their families and their communities with pride. I would like to invite Holly Purcell of Colo High School to speak on behalf of the Hawkesbury City delegation to Kyoto, Japan.

Good evening, Hawkesbury Mayor Barry Calvert and members of the Council. On behalf of the 2019 Hawkesbury Sister City delegation travelling to Kyoto, we would like to thank the Hawkesbury City Council for their contribution and support to our student exchange. We will proudly represent the Hawkesbury as ambassadors and immerse ourselves into the Japanese culture to form new friendships.

Thank you.

I would now like to invite Muratayama Haruto to speak on behalf of the student delegation from Kyoto, Japan.

Hello. We would like to thank Mayor Calvert and the Hawkesbury Councillors for inviting us to Australia and supporting the exchange program. We have made great friendships and improved our English skills, especially saying, ‘Good day, mate.

Thank you. I would now like to invite Claire Adamson, Bowen Mountain resident and St Mary Senior High School student, to speak on behalf of the Hawkesbury City delegation to Temple City.

On behalf of the Hawkesbury delegates to Temple City, we went over in April, I’d just like to thank the Council for their continued support of the program, their monetary support as well as the time invested in it. We had a fantastic time, and the links forged between the two communities I’m sure will be remembered by everyone involved in the program in years to come. Thank you.

And finally, I'd like to invite Ryan Nishiyama to speak on behalf of the student delegation from Temple City.

On behalf of the Temple City Council and Temple City Sister City Association, we would like to thank the Hawkesbury City Council in allowing us to experience schools , landmarks, attractions we visited around Hawkesbury and the Sydney area. During our trip, we have become closer to our Aussie exchange students and their families, as well as meeting new Japanese friends along the way. We had a great time hosting these Aussies back in America, but an even better time staying with them in Australia. However, with our trip coming to a close, we can say that this exchange has been a great learning experience for us Americans in not only experiencing Australian daily life and Australian culture, but also in making lifelong friendships. This exchange has been a blast for all of us, and we thank the council and anyone else who made this amazing exchange possible. Thank you.

I would now like to invite the Mayor to present our student ambassadors with their certificates of participation.

Our student delegation from Temple City: Kaylee Fung, hosted by the Derwin family of Pitt Town. Matthew Kwan, hosted by the Egan family of Ebenezer. Suraj

Shah, hosted by

The Adamson family of Bowen Mountain.

Faith Watter,

Hosted by the Barbeitos family of Pitt Town. Darren Penedo, hosted by

The Ryan family of Windsor.

And finally, Ryan Nishiyama, hosted by the Dunnicliff family of Oakville.

Our Hawkesbury City delegation to Temple City. Katie Derwin, Arndell Anglican College.

Rose Ryan, Arndell Anglican College.

Archer Dunnicliff, Arndell Anglican College.

Claire Adamson, St Mary's Senior High School.

Campbell Egan, Colo High School.

And Taylor Barbeitos, Hawkesbury High School.

Our student delegation from Kyoto, Japan.

Maybe come over this side, Taylor.

Our student delegation from Kyoto. Yamauchi Nanami.

Komori Rikako.

Muareyama Haruto.

Nomura Chika.

Hori Natsuki.

Seno Misaki.

And finally, our Hawkesbury City delegation to Kyoto, Japan. Currently, our only students not to have completed their element of the program. They depart on the 17th of September. Luca McIntosh, Bead Polding College.

Odell Simmons, Arndell Anglican College.

Estelle Vigoro, Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School.

Darcy Brown, Arndell Anglican College.

Holly Purcell, Colo High School.

And Samantha O'Brien, Bead Polding College.

Once again, I would just like to thank Council for inviting us to present our 2019 Student Ambassadors, and I would ask in closing if the Mayor would mind please standing to take a photograph with our students.

Our regular meeting, thank you. Confirmation of the minutes, would someone like to do that? Councillor Connelly, Councillor Wheeler, all those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried.

Item subject to public address. We have two items subject to public address. First item is item 145, and our first speaker is Robert Humphries. Is Robert Humphries here? Here you go

Good

Evening, Mayor Calvert and councillors. My name is Robert Humphries. I'm an ecologist with the consultancy firm Ecological Australia, based in Sydney. My company was engaged by Celestino, who is the applicant for the planning proposal you are considering tonight, and we were engaged to prepare a biodiversity certification assessment addressing biodiversity values of the Jacaranda Ponds land. I'm here tonight speaking in favour of the recommendation for Council to support the application. Biodiversity certification is a relatively new provision within the now repealed Threatened Species Conservation Act and has been carried forward to the new Biodiversity Conservation Act. It is used to strategically address biodiversity issues early in the planning process to achieve better conservation outcomes, as in this application tonight.

Biodiversity certification has been used in the Sydney growth centres and by several Sydney-based councils, including Camden, Campbelltown and Wollongong, to address large-scale urban developments. As outlined in your papers, there are many benefits in addressing biodiversity values via the biodiversity certification process. When the assessment is undertaken early in the planning process, or in parallel with it as we are discussing tonight, it can achieve better conservation outcomes by considering them holistically across a larger area rather than piecemeal DA by DA fashion. Once land is certified for biodiversity values, it streamlines the environmental assessment process, as these issues do not need to be addressed again at the DA stage.

So this saves Council a lot of time and resources. The conservation commitments are secured by a legally binding biodiversity certification agreement, which is entered into with the Minister for the Environment. The conservation measures will be secured by biobank agreements, and these secure the land in perpetuity and are fully funded, with the funds held in a trust account. The application has been prepared in consultation with Council officers and officers of the former Office of Environment and Heritage. Biodiversity certification assessments quantify impacts and propose conservation measures in terms of biodiversity credits, which is a new concept, if you like. From an impact point of view, the larger the area you're impacting and the higher the quality of the biodiversity values, the more credits you need and the bigger the offsets are required.

In this assessment, the land proposed for conservation is able to generate all of the biodiversity credits that are required to offset the impacts, other than for potential breeding habitat of one of the threatened species, which is a bat called the southern myotis. We have a small deficit of credits for that species, which will be secured prior to commencing the relevant stage of development. The proposal has identified those areas of highest conservation value, which contain the higher quality endangered ecological communities, which is the Cumberland Plain Woodland, and habitat for threatened fauna species, being the Cumberland land snail and the southern myotis. There were no other threatened species recorded on the site.

The current landowners will undertake the initial restoration and enhancement of the degraded areas within the proposed biobank sites. They will register and fully fund the in-perpetuity conservation management of these areas as biobank sites before transfer and them to Council as public reserves. Once they are categorised as public reserves, they will be able to be used for passive recreation, and walking paths and open space hubs have been provided for this purpose. The funds required for the in-perpetuity management have been discussed with Council and will be finalised as part of the renegotiation of the planning agreement prior to land transfer.

I’m available to answer any questions that you may have around the biocertification process in general, or for this application in particular. Thank you.

I think you still have another 43 seconds. Do you want to go for it, or we can just

So, Deputy Mayor, do you have a question?

I do. Thank you for that. I’m just wondering, is the process that you’ve just outlined only applicable to this current proposal? And if so, what if the WICER licence—you may not know this because it might be out of your area—but if the WICER licence isn’t granted, would you be applying the same to the existing proposal as it is? It’s the licence for the operation of the sewerage and the recycled water system. No, sorry, it’s out of your— I’m sorry, no. I’m sorry. I was just wondering that. Thank you.

Any other questions ? Sorry? No ? Thank you, Mr Humphreys. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kate Chudhope. Did I get that right?

Very well done. Yes, that was.

It was all good? Okay. Ready

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Kate Chudhope, and I'm a planning consultant from Ethos Urban. I'm speaking on behalf of Celestino in relation to the planning proposal for Jacaranda Ponds, Glossodia. I would like to reiterate our support for Council's recommendation. We've been working closely with Council since the initial planning proposal was lodged in March 2018, and over this time the applicant has proactively responded to issues raised by Council and the Local Planning Panel. We believe that the planning proposal now represents a significantly improved ecological and urban design outcome for the site. As outlined in the recommendation report, the planning proposal offers a number of benefits when compared to the existing residential zoning, including it takes an active approach to habitat and vegetation conservation with the introduction of the E2 zone and an increased quantity of RE1 zoned land.

Together, these will contribute to the delivery of over 62 hectares of vegetation conservation and recreation land across the site, which equates to approximately one-third of the overall site area. Whilst more open space is proposed due to the inclusion of riparian areas, the quantum of open space to be maintained by Council is actually reduced. The proposal also seeks to improve the distribution of open space on the site, consistent with the New South Wales Government Architect's Open Space for Recreation Guide. The proposal will deliver a community that is more liveable and resilient and is also better connected to the existing Glossodia community while maintaining key outcomes of the extensive community consultation process that's been undertaken, which include having Lake Park entry from Spinks Road.

Having larger lots adjoining existing residential development, having minimum 1,000 metre lot sizes within the site and maintaining the existing residential yield of 580 lots. I would also just like to briefly touch on a couple of the key points that have been raised in Council's report. With respect to the character, density and relationship to the existing Glossodia Village, we note that the average lot size within Jacaranda Ponds within R2 zoned land is approximately 1,250 square metres, which is significantly larger than the lot size area within the existing Glossodia Village, where more than 40% of lots are approximately 600 square metres or less. So the proposed lot sizes within Jacaranda Ponds will assist in creating a more semi-rural character.

We've also introduced connections to the existing Glossodia Village to the north of the site, with pedestrian and bicycle connections at five separate locations. As I mentioned before, the proposal also seeks to increase the quantity of RE1 zoned land with an additional eight hectares of recreation land proposed. It also seeks to redistribute open space with a multi-use approach proposed, which creates more accessible and connected network of open space, which we believe increases amenity and improves management and maintenance outcomes. Overall, 95% of future residents will be within 400 metres or five minutes walk of an open space. That compares to 90% under the existing scheme, and the remaining 5% will be within 500 metres walk of open space.

Concerns were also raised regarding flooding by the local planning panel, and in response to this, the design has been modified so that no house will experience above-floor flooding in a PMF, and there will be no imperative for any house to be evacuated in a flood, whilst— A small number of houses would be isolated by local flooding. This would only ever be for a few minutes in events much larger than a 1% flood, AEP flood. With respect to servicing and water licensing, IPART is currently finalising a WICA licence for the site and is currently going through administrative processes to have that resolved. Celestino is also working with Sydney Water to upgrade the capacity of the existing networks, but there is capacity within the network to service the site.

Finally, with respect to the requirement for a DCP and a VPA, Celestino is more than happy to work with Council to develop a DCP for the site, and we understand this to be an important part of the redevelopment of the site, and is also open to amending the existing local VPA in response to the revised proposal. So, in closing, we would ask that Council support the officer's recommendation to forward the planning proposal to the Department for a gateway determination and prepare and submit an application to the Minister for Energy and Environment for biodiversity certification. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Tudor. Are you willing to answer any questions, should there be any? Yes,

Indeed.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you. I think you answered my question, so thank you.

Any other questions? Councillor Ross. Good evening, Madam.

Good evening. Am I correct in my understanding that you indicated that Sydney Water are indicating that there will be sufficient supply of potable water for this development?

Correct, I believe so. With minor augmentation to the system, as would ordinarily be the case, they've indicated that there is supply within the network.

It's just that that was not before us the opportunity to see that in the business paper.

Okay.

Any other questions? Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Now , third speaker is Mr. Bill Sneddon.

Thank you, Mayor, Councillors, gallery. My concerns are in a sort of a professional area for me. It's regarding mainly about the water supply, but I'm also concerned about this appears to be another one of these stand-up developments that's being put in this area, affecting infrastructure, roads, water, etc. A question, I also rhetorically to councillors: how many more of these are we going to have come out of the blue that seem to be against the planning, I notice, questions regarding getting this through to this stage already? My particular concerns are regarding the sewage system, however. I note that flow systems operations proprietary limited are engaged to develop and construct on-site sewer and recycling.

In theory, this is a good idea because by reusing water on site, we're not exporting it somewhere else, for example, say to the Richmond STP, as would have normally been the case if Sydney Water had been doing this. But there isn't capacity in the three towns, so they're having to do this standalone and also to cut the infrastructure costs. The recycling of water on site will also reduce the total import of town water, so there's good ideas there with toilet flushing and irrigation and appropriate garden use, etc. My concerns regarding the STP operations of this are a number. This is actually the third of these units that are going to be put in. There's a smaller one proposed for the Ray White Elderly People site at King Road, and we have another one at Pitt Town.

Whilst a good idea, my concerns are regarding the longer-term operations and life of the developments. If the units are corporate operated, as per apparently this site here, we have a separate corporate entity running the thing compared to the developers and ultimately the people who are going to be running it. I have concerns regarding this situation. Public corporations, to my memory of corporate law, the directors have a responsibility for return on investment to the shareholders and, as such, the customers, as was shown at the bank inquiry, really don't count as being important. So I've been asking some questions regarding how this would be owned and operated, and I've been getting unclear answers from both council staff, some other people I know, and even the EPA today.

How are we going to be locking in responsibility to operate this plant long term? I'm told that council doesn't, in their DA procedure, have a way of locking in responsibility for the operation in perpetuity of this site. I would also remind you that companies come and go, but the development is going to be there and the lady of the house is going to be expecting to... Flush the toilet button, no matter who is running the plant or in what financial condition they are. If the estate runs as a strata title, as in a large building, I'm told, then responsibility would be clear. It would be the operator's responsibility to report to the strata title holders. So, in theory, if the entire estate was owned by the owners, then that would be the responsibility.

However, if there's a fail of the operator, who is responsible to ensure the operation? Would council step in? I don't think so. Also unclear, I've been getting unclear answers to these questions today and yesterday. However, there are requirements for standards for EPA and health department. So if there is a fail, who steps in to operate this plant? I've already tried to get answers to what happened out at Pitt Town about six months ago, and I'm not getting clear answers as to now what's happened there, but it's continuing to run. I also have concerns, as I've mentioned before, regarding infrastructure in the area. How many more of these type developments will be started in the area? Sydney Water's plant at North Richmond, I believe, is basically at capacity, and we're also putting progressively more and more pressure on roads, the environment, water, electricity, telecommunications, etc.

Some of them are easily developed, some aren't. Water is limiting, and there's only so much water coming out of that river at North Richmond, and it looks like we're going to be in drier times with climate change. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sneddon. Are you willing to answer any questions? Yes. Yes, sir. Are there any questions for Mr. Sneddon? No. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Matter is now open for discussion.

Councillor Conolly moves the recommendation. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak on the matter? No. Would anyone like to speak on the matter? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to ask a question about one of the points in the recommendation on page 65, point 4, and it's regarding the biodiversity certification. It says to prepare and submit an application to the Minister for Environment for biodiversity certification over the subject site. Does that mean the work that's already been done, does that formulate the development of that application for certification, or does, after gateway, presumably if it comes back with a positive outcome from the gateway determination, does that then mean that we go into another series of studies and processes and develop the biodiversity certification application further? Sorry, that was a long-winded question.

Question nevertheless.

Thank you.

Mr Kurth.

So the material for the application to the Minister for Environment has already been prepared by the proponent. So, Council will lodge that information as part of that application.

So that means that we would do that now. With this recommendation, we would submit that as it stands now?

Correct, yep. So under the transitional arrangements, under the previous legislation, we have until the 24th of August to lodge that application. So that application, if resolved tonight, would be lodged now

Yep, soon. Okay. Well, my next question was going to be: can we take that point out of the recommendation, that the answer to that is obviously not? So there's no way that we can postpone that? Because my understanding is that— this is part of my question— that my understanding is that the biodiversity certification agreement is between Council, the Minister for Energy, and the four other interests in the site. So we have already established that agreement, have we?

That agreement is not established, but the need for Council to be the applicant is a requirement under those provisions.

Okay. I think I'm getting confused, and just one last question, if I may. So the preparation and to submit an application doesn't necessarily mean that that's the final biodiversity certification? Yeah

It's the start of the process, so it's not the final

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. So it doesn't need to come out because we have to do it by the 24th. Thank you.

Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

I'll just have some questions first, Mr Mayor, thank you. First of all, I'm just interested in, with the increase in, of course, anything that will give a better environmental outcome is good. I'm just wondering how it was decided upon to apportion between RE1 and E2, given that I would have thought perhaps some sort of conservation area along the creek line would have been good, whereas that's RE1 , which is public recreation, which will not necessarily enable any conservation on the actual creek line. I'm just wondering how the working out of that, if that were to be E2 there, we could think there was some conservation on the actual creek in the riparian zone. Is there a reason for why it is public recreation and not E2?

Mr Kearns.

Essentially, looking to obviously achieve the outcomes of the Biocert application for sections of that creek. It's not the whole of the RE1 land is part of the Biocert application, but also the RE1 area along Currans Creek forms an integral part of the public recreation for the estate in terms of having that centre point for the future community in that location. So allowing more, I guess, flexibility in terms of utilising the public recreation areas as opposed to being locked into an E2 zone, which would be more restrictive in terms of future public recreation uses.

I understand that, thank you. I just would have thought for a really good environmental outcome, some conservation along the creek line would be very advantageous. Another question, if I could, about the new VPA. Can we have some guarantee that the new VPA will ensure, and I know it's been said that it will cover the ongoing maintenance for this increased amount of land that will be dedicated to the council through the E2 and the R—E, have I got it right? The R1, Public Recreation, RE1 . How do we guarantee that that's going to happen? And at that time, will we be considering some sort of rate to be levied on this development, much as has been discussed for others, to ensure that council can maintain what is quite a sizeable area of public recreation land?

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

So

The recommendation in the report highlights, obviously, the need to negotiate a revised or new VPA and deal with a number of matters: transport, traffic management, for example, active transport links, but also the drainage management and reflecting the ongoing costs for maintenance has also been highlighted there. And the recreation and open space areas, basically funding the ongoing maintenance of those areas. So, and our recommendation in terms of this matter is that if council does resolve to submit this proposal to Gateway, and we do get a Gateway, but the recommendation is such that we don't actually go to public consultation until we've got a draft VPA and a draft development contributions plan that's been adopted by, endorsed by council.

Thank you. So I take that there is some commitment from all parties that the contribution would be more sizable than the current VPA, which is 30,000 a lot, I believe, and so we would need more if that's the case. I'm just trying to just look forward so that we don't get to a situation where we feel that we have some issue with the contributions, as we've had in the past, and so on. So there is that good faith, I'm assuming, with the developers to be giving more than the current VPA to enable the ongoing maintenance of that extra dedicated land to council. Do we have an answer to that? That was a question. Discussion is taking place. Somebody will answer. Mr. Kearns. Thank you. So the renegotiated

VPA would be reflective of the impacts of the development on the Glossodia community.

Thank you. So you're saying yes, it would be more and enough to cover all that. Just one other point , two other points to mention to do with the new VPA. Is there some way we can guarantee, or can we have it said now, that there is, with that same spirit of the old VPA, how it was negotiated, because it was a very lengthy process that involved a lot of compromise with the community and a lot of work. And I know that the mayor and I on the Human Services Committee did a lot to do with the social impact study to do with that before the VPA was drawn up, and I'm just hoping that because it was quite a process, that the same degree of community engagement and community feedback and the necessity of ensuring the connectivity between the old and the new sections of Glossodia to avoid having an us and them situation of new development and old development, that all that spirit will be incorporated into a new VPA and the same degree of community involvement.

Yep. So there was obviously a lot of benefits out of the previous negotiations with the original VPA and the reference group and, you know, connections with the community in terms of developing the VPA. Discussions with the proponent have indicated a willingness to, you know, to continue with a reference group to move those, you know, the negotiations with the new VPA forward.

Thank you. And just the last one, the other aspect that was quite a feature when that was being negotiated and planned was the concerns of the Rural Fire Service, that they have the guarantee that they will be fully equipped to deal with this increase in population. And I know at the time they had some concerns and that they wanted to have some guarantee that with the new development that they would be adequately equipped. I know that's not our call really to make; they've got to do that. But I would just like to stress that they had concerns and that I am asking, will they be carefully listened to in that regard?

Mr. Kearns? Yes. Yes.

Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

I've got some questions as well, Mr. Mayor, hopefully shorter ones.

Sorry. I'm not— I don't really understand what becoming a biobanker means for council in terms of the governance issues. And so I am looking for some further explanation of what this actually means to us in terms of responsibilities, but also in terms of how those credits work for us going forward. Who keeps the credits? What happens to those credits? Do we get land and credits? What does this mean for us, and what does this mean for the site on the ground?

Mr Kearns, is that you?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the recommendation is obviously to proceed with an application for biocertification, and there's a process involved for that consideration of that application. And through that process, it become clearer in terms of Council's obligations and responsibilities as part of that, and we'd have that greater understanding and that opportunity to brief Council before that agreement is actually finalised. So the recommendation is only to lodge the application, it's not to finalise it at this stage. Do

We have some more short questions, Councillor?

Can I also follow up on the Deputy Mayor's question about the RE1 zoning along the riparian zone. I don't really understand why we've opted for a lower level of protection on a riparian zone, and I'm not entirely sure that, in fact, it meets the requirements of SEPP 20, that we're using a riparian zone as an area of passive recreation, which opens it up to mowing , quite a lot of maintenance, to keep it in an area where people would, say, have picnic tables. It's not quite the same as maintaining a riparian buffer.

Mr Kearns.

So, in terms of this matter, this, you know, this is considering an application to go to gateway determination, so it's, you know, it's the start of a process, so we're not locking in. Final zones as part of tonight's consideration. There's a whole process involved in terms of state agencies, community consultation, and further consideration of all relevant matters. So as a result of that process, it may be determined that different zones may be appropriate. But at the moment, the application is to include that as the RE1 land. And in terms of the area that you see , it is significantly wider than the required buffers to the actual creek . That is the whole RE1. But the matter can be considered if it does proceed to gateway, and then through the ongoing processing of the proposal.

Councillor Wheeler. I'll wait, thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor . I wish to enquire, sir, as to what the significance of this mentioned date earlier, the 24th of August this month. I noticed that the applicant lodged these documents in July, and here we are barely four weeks later having to consider and deliberate upon this. It just seems an unduly short period of time, and I'm just wondering what is the constraint. There's nothing mentioned in the business paper as to time.

Mr Kearns.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So under the transitional arrangements of the previous Act, it happened until the 24th of August to lodge applications under the previous legislation. And in terms of this matter, so the original proposal was lodged in March 2018, and there's been a number of discussions and ongoing changes between Council and the proponent. And then also as a consequence of advice from the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, so there was further amendments required to the planning proposal in that context, which then have to be reflected in the application that was prepared for the biocertification process

Mr Mayor, that doesn't answer my question . I need to understand why is it obligatory upon us to discuss this matter and try and make a determination before the 24th of August. What is the change in legislation that's muted? Mr Kearns.

So it was the repealed Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. There's transitional arrangements when the new Act came into place that certain proposals could still be considered under the previous legislation provided an application was lodged by the 24th of August

Mr Mayor, that still doesn't tell me what the difference is between this so-called old legislation, or the one that's being phased out, and the requirements of the new legislation, and I think it is incumbent upon the staff to let us know what that is, please

Well, that could be another question. Are you asking that as a question, Mr Kearns?

In

Terms of the old legislation and the new legislation, there's, I guess for Council there's a lot more benefits for a biocertification under the old legislation as opposed to the new. There's a number of issues to be worked through in terms of credits if it was to be under the new legislation, but it is advantageous to Council to lodge an application under the repealed legislation.

Thank you, Mayor. May I continue? The question regarding biocertification... Asked by my colleague earlier, I don't think was answered either . And that leaves me in further quandary as to trying to ascertain what the benefit is to Council . We are looking at potentially a situation where Council has to put extra resources in to accommodate this new scheme or system. And it's unclear as to just what that may entail . And is that the case or is it not, or am I up a gumtree?

I'll take that as another question, Councillor Ross. Do you have an answer for that?

Sorry, through you, Mr Mayor. So as Mr Cairns has said, we're lodging, we're at the beginning of the process in terms of, you know, this biobanking process. There will be information as we progress down the path that will be coming back to Council to give you information about what that means, what the implications are, how this works for Council, and obviously for that area if it's redeveloped and the ongoing maintenance of those, the area

I take it that should this recommendation be adopted, that whatever cost impositions may result, so far as Council is concerned, as a result of this via banking reserving or whatever, that it will be able to be incorporated within a contributions plan.

Thank you.

The answer is forthcoming.

So, in terms of the application to the Minister, so the proponent is funding the various reports and applications to lodge that application. So there's no financial burden on Council in terms of that process

I take it from that answer, Mr Mayor, that there are potentially imposts going to be faced by Council and ratepayers on an ongoing basis. I

Don't think Mr Kern said that, but I'll ask him

So if the biocertification process goes through, basically it's fully funded in terms of the ongoing maintenance and regeneration of the biocertification areas. So there's no cost implication for Council in terms of those biocertified areas.

Does that include inspection and maintenance?

Yes.

Any more, Councillor Ross ? Go right ahead.

Light on, please.

Thank you

I would like to inquire if the Chamber was not of a mind to accept the recommendation made by the staff as to what the impact of that would be. It's not at all been progressed in terms of the report from staff as to what the alternate… op situation would be, and I'd like some clarification of that, please.

Mr Kearns? Then it would have to be, if the proponent wanted to continue with the bio-certification process, it would have to be done under the new legislation, which essentially requires a whole series of new reports to be prepared to reflect the new legislation

So, am I to take it that

Non-agreement by Council on this occasion

Will not

Halt this particular iteration of the development proposal?

Mr Kearns

In terms of the proposal, essentially the main changes around what happens around the bio-banking and which legislation they would have to be addressing. In terms of everything else, it's up to them how they want to proceed, really.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you.

Are you saying that if Council were not of a mind to support this this evening , that the same

Proposed amendment to the lot structure and the whole structure of the project— Is rejected, or is it—does the situation revert to the original plan and VPA? In other words.

The applicant can at any point withdraw this application and revert to the original approved subdivision and VPA. However, if Council doesn't , I suppose, approve the report as proposed tonight, the applicant then can then proceed with this current proposal, but they'll be addressing the new legislation in terms of, you know, biobanking and biodiversity. But everything else could be the same.

Okay. Next question. If this is not approved this evening

And the applicant hypothetically decided to revert to the original VPA,

Is the $17 million contribution plan there a fixed sum, or is it attracting CPI increments from the date of first submission, which possibly was 2012, to present, please? It's

Attracting CPI

From 2017.

Okay. From 2017 it's attracting CPI.

2017, I take it .

Yes

Okay. Mr Mayor, the Deputy Mayor indicated, and I concur, that the original plan and the original contributions plan catered for approximately $30,000, slightly under, for a 580-unit, a block unit development

Allowing for the inflation and the CPI increments in those few years, probably another $32,000, let's say. As we have seen in the, and this is

Based on information of which we're now aware in view of the Northwest Growth Sector and Vineyard Stage 1, Blacktown Hills, etc., in terms of contribution plans. Those contribution plans are significantly, significantly higher . I just inquire as to, firstly, the adequacy of the former $ 17 million, and secondly, have there been any changes in legislation which would necessitate a change in a current VP, that original plan being reverted to in terms of... Government legislation or requirements in the construction area of an estate such as this

So, no, I'm not aware of any legislation changes that would be available to us to renegotiate the VPA. The VPA has been negotiated in relation to the previously approved approval. The opportunity here is if this process progresses, a new VPA, the applicant has agreed to undertake a new negotiation for another VPA

Okay, thank you for that. Could I raise the question, I would understand from work so far on the vineyard stage one, that it's a necessity in that instance for rainwater to be absorbed

Significantly within the bounds of the allotment. Will that situation not prevail also in terms of this particular application and scenario?

Those kinds of issues can be considered as part of the development control plan.

Just to clarify that point, there's not an obligation on an individual lot. To absorb rainwater. There's an obligation on how water is managed within the catchment, within the development catchment, and it must be maintained at rural runoff rates, pre-development rates. How that happens depends on topography, soil, rainwater tanks. There's a whole range of tools that are there that can be used depending on the circumstances, but it's not on a lot-by-lot basis. It's on the development catchment.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Is that requirement, as just mentioned by our General Manager, one which has prevailed since the commencement of the thoughts about this development, or is it a new requirement of government?

It's

Not new. I heard that, but I don't know how old it is.

General Manager. Stormwater management has become increasingly important in subdivisions since the mid-1980s, and certainly by the 1990s there was a significant change in focus, and maintaining rural runoff rates has become the norm since the early 90s in most parts of Australia.

Thank you, Mayor. I think I've concluded the questions.

Okay. Do

You wish to speak

On the matter?

I foreshadow an amendment.

Okay.

That Council decline to accept the staff recommendation on this occasion. That's

I think you're foreshadowing a motion.

Oh, a motion. I'm sorry,

Yes. Which conflicts with the motion we've got here.

Yes, I foreshadow a motion. You

Can move an amendment at this point.

Not one that says we won't

Accept. Oh, I see.

Okay

Right. You can foreshadow a motion if this one is lost.

Yes.

Yes. Is that what you're doing? Yes, thank you . So if it's won, your motion doesn't come up.

Understand? Right. Yep. All right. Any other speakers? Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Question for staff.

In the planning proposal information, it says no change to the current 10 metre maximum height of buildings, and then it says reconfiguration of the current 10 metre maximum height provision in line with the proposed residential zonings only. So do I take that that we are going to increase the height within the residential zonings beyond the current limit on height in those zonings?

Mr Kearns. No, the height limit stays at 10 metres.

Then why do we need to reconfigure the current 10 metre maximum height provision?

Because the zonings on the site are being amended from the current zonings, which was under the 2014 gazettal. So that included R2, R5, public recreation land, infrastructure land. So some of those zonings didn't have no height limit. So that's why, given we're rejigging the lot zonings on the site, we have to amend the height of buildings map as well to reflect the new zoning layout.

Just one more question. Perhaps the general manager might be able to answer this. I understand from previous briefings that the current VPA involves funding for intersection works on the new Windsor Bridge. I was wondering if that will still be included in a new VPA?

That is included in the state VPA. So the local VPA that council has doesn't collect money for that. That's with the state VPA.

So there will be a new state VPA as well with this?

Potentially, yeah.

Councillor Cottles.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Forgive me if I'm labouring this point about the biodiversity certification, but I just want to check that I've got it straight. It's my understanding from the discussions that we've had and the answers we've had from various questions that We are submitting this application by the 24th because it satisfies the old legislation, but the new legislation would require us to do more studies. So I want to clarify that if we put this application in now, are we at liberty to do some of those studies possibly, or negotiate which ones might be beneficial?

Mr Kearns.

So lodging the application is the start of a process, so there may be other requirements as part of that process, so it's not finalising the process.

My question was what—you said before that if we lodged this after that date, we would have to satisfy different legislative requirements , and I just wanted to know whether you could, if you can, what those extra requirements might be, and would they be something that we would be interested in because they give us a better outcome for the environmental aspects of this development?

So under the new legislation, it's basically a whole different system of calculating credits and a whole different calculation process in terms of that. It's very clear to us in terms of our discussions with environmental consultants, it's advantageous to Council to lodge this under the old legislation because the new legislation doesn't give us certainty in terms of what the credits are and what the money is we're going to get in terms of ongoing maintenance of those bioset areas. So the definite indication is it's a benefit to Council to lodge under the transitional arrangements under the previous Act. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you for clearing that up.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Another question, I'm afraid. I'm looking for a way forward to get better protection of the riparian zone along Currency Creek. So my understanding is that there will have to be a buffer, and that would probably be 40 metres. Is that correct? And what will be the zoning of the area in that buffer?

Mr Kearns. That's correct. But at the moment, the proposal is the RE1 zoning . But through the planning proposal process, that can be considered further, whether that public recreation zoning is the best for that location.

Okay, so thank you.

Given that we've got an increase in the R2 coverage of the block by more than 50 hectares, we've now got a much bigger footprint in that area. I would think that the buffer zone along that creek, and that is quite a vulnerable creek that is already heavily impacted in other areas, that increasing that conservation area would be important . I think I want to amend, I'd like some advice on whether amending recommendation 2A1- To read rezone part of the subject site containing significant vegetation to E2, is it workable and what would be the implications of amending that to read significant vegetation and riparian zone along Currency Creek to E2?

Do we have an answer?

High level consideration is taking place.

General Manager. The position we're in is that our preference is to go with the old legislation, not the new legislation. And the issue with that is the timing. But we've already flagged that before any— if there's a gateway decision achieved, before we actually start any consultation, we're going to negotiate the VPA this time. Last time we did the whole rezoning process and then we did the VPA. That's not the way to do it from my point of view. We do both together, get an agreement on the VPA from Council, and then we go out and exhibition. I'd be suggesting that maybe we wrap that into the VPA negotiations. We'll then be able to get some advice on that, and we can keep the Council in the loop through the process.

But I think if we start— Adding things in tonight, it just, I think, will make it more complicated than it needs to be, when we can come back and have a conversation in a more considered way and in a more comprehensive way about the pros and cons.

Councillor Wheeler.

I hear the General Manager's point . I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with effectively a decision from this Council that says we don't really understand how biobanking works, but we've got to hit a 24th of August deadline, so we'd better run with it. We're not happy with—I'm certainly not, and I'm hearing from Councillor Ross that he isn't—happy with the protection along Currency Creek, but we might sort that out with the VPA. You're asking us to trust an awful lot of stuff that is not covered in the recommendation for this resolution, and I think that's a very dangerous position to ask this Council to adopt. The matter before us, really, is: is this a better outcome for this site and Glossodia than the existing, the approved proposal?

And the answer most certainly is yes. But you're also asking us to take a lot on faith, and I'm really uncomfortable with that at this point.

General Manager would like to comment on that.

I'm certainly not asking people to take anything on faith. I'm certainly suggesting that you include that in the resolution so that all those points are in there, but we wrap it up in those negotiations on the VPA, and then we bring all that back to Council.

So currently the resolution doesn't state really anything around—

It doesn't cover that concern. So I'm looking for a way forward.

So General Manager, you're suggesting a way to include that in the recommendation.

Mr Mayor.

So if we go to the resolution

Sorry

Point 6 of the resolution relates to the VPA, and that's where I'd be suggesting that you can include extra items to make sure that they're in the council resolution and they're covered when we bring that document back to council, in the event that there is a gateway determination.

Thank you. I'll work on some— Councillor Wheeler, you're going to now put something in Items?

I'll prepare some words as an amendment to point 6. Right. Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I was just going to see if it's possible for one of either two things. Either because we have the applicants here and their consultant, perhaps we could ask them if they have any objection to that. Not that we would be changing it now, but just so that we had some indication if they're open to that sort of change. Or could we move into committee of the whole and have a discussion so that we—because I think there's a willingness to get this through, but I just think that if people's concerns can be overcome and we were to just be able to have an untimed and unstructured— Conversation, perhaps that might be advantageous.

While Councillor Wheeler is putting some words together, I might invite Mr Humphreys, if he wants to come back and answer that question.

E43. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, he did.

So as Councillor Wheeler is doing that, I will just ask him, would you can understand, I imagine, the concerns that people are raising and that perhaps... Sorry, perhaps a little more conservation area along the creek area. Do you think this is a thing that can be explored?

Most definitely. It was something we did discuss with council staff, and just listening to the discussion, there's a little bit of confusion about the terminology, and I appreciate that because biodiversity certification is new. But if I could try and make it simpler, biodiversity certification is about the development land. So you're certifying the land for future development, and you're saying all the biodiversity issues have been addressed. Biod banking, so different to biodiversity certification. Biod banking is about the conservation land. So the proposal, and separate something else, the planning proposal through Gateway is completely separate to biodiversity certification. They're just going in parallel, but they used to have two separate ministers, but now it's the same minister, which confuses it again.

But the biodiversity certification application only nominated enough land to be registered as a biobank site to generate enough credits to meet the offset requirements. There is additional land there which has conservation values. So, just go back one step, because someone asked a question about what happens with the credits and things. All of the credits that are generated by those biobank sites are used to meet the offset obligations for the development. So there aren't any leftover credits to council. What's left to council is the money to manage those biobank sites in perpetuity. There is other land, i.e. the land along Currency Creek, which has biodiversity values. It's a different vegetation type to what's being developed.

It's river flat forest compared to Cumberland Plain woodland. We did discuss with council that if they wish to biobank that land, if they wish to rezone it to E2, that's not a problem. The land would be transferred to council, and if council chooses to register that as an additional biobank site, those credits would belong to council. They would not be required to offset the development because the development has already been offset. So you could sell those credits to the open marketplace and generate additional resources to manage that creek system. So that answers some of the discussion from before.

Thank you. That made it a lot clearer, that comprehensive answer. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, are you still working on— Councillor Ross. Oh, hang on, Mr Humphreys, I think Councillor Ross might have a question.

Yes, I do. Thank you for your time, sir. Being naive,

May I inquire,

In regard to a riparian zone such as the Currancy Creek, is it not protected in a sense by, if you like, a statewide zoning element, such that it is not able to be tampered with, shall we say, or the subject of human interaction of a deliberate nature?

It's not protected by zoning per se, although zoning allows or disallows certain things to happen. It's protected under the Water Management Act as waterfront land. So I can't quite remember what order Currancy Creek is, whether it's a second or third order creek, but first order creeks get a 10 metre buffer either side, second order creek gets 20 metres, third order creek gets 40 metres. So that's called waterfront land, and if you do anything within that buffer, that requires approval from the what's now called the Office of Natural Resources, NRAR. Okay, so what's proposed is that land is zoned for recreation, but the vegetation is actually a much thinner strip of vegetation, which varies in width from only a few metres and in places 20 or 30 metres.

So the open space recreation doesn't impact any vegetation along the creek whatsoever. If it did, it would be included in the biodiversity certification assessment. So the RE1 zoning is protecting the vegetation along the creek, and where there's no vegetation, it's providing land for recreation. It's open space. But if you do anything within the waterfront land buffer, that requires separate approval from the Office of Natural Resources. Does that answer the question?

Yes. Now, could I extend my inquiry to also page 18 of the business paper at Figure 2. There are three unnamed watercourses up in the region of Spinks Road,

In the area closer to the present village, if you like. Sorry. What page

Do you want? Page

18.

Yes ,

I can see that figure.

Could I inquire, do those three watercourses also, are they afforded the same protection , shall we say, as is Currency Creek proper?

I'm not overly familiar with those three watercourses, but sometimes, given the current use of the land for agricultural purposes, sometimes I would suggest they are first-order creeks, just looking at the map. And sometimes those first-order creeks exist on a topographic map, but they don't exist physically on the ground. And sometimes the Office of Water says, for the purposes of waterfront land, those creeks aren't of sufficient enough quality to warrant that level of protection. Now, that's a general answer. I don't specifically know about those three creeks, and I think a couple of them are actually included in the land proposed as conservation, or at least part of one of them is at least. Thank you

Mr Humphreys, for your extra time. I believe. Do we have the change? Can we see it, please?

Yes, up there.

Councillor Conolly, are you happy to accept that as a change? Councillor Zamprogno, seconder.

Is that a yes, Councillor Zamprogno? It is. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak to that?

No, I thank Councillor Conolly and Councillor Zamprogno for taking that on. I think it's an improvement. I must say I'm impressed to hear the developer's willingness to work with Council on a DCP, and I hope that what we get out of this is a really good DCP. I think this could be a model development for the Hawkesbury. I'm not sure that this is the development that we would necessarily be looking for these days, given that it goes against the Greater Sydney Commission's theories on where development should occur, particularly a development of this scale. This is not something that we would now be looking to put west of the river, I think, but given our issues with public transport and traffic and the fact that it's not along a transport node or in one of our major centres, but— The deed has been done, and the question really for us is, is this better than what we had before?

And I think it definitely is. By concentrating the development into a more confined area, we'll get a better outcome. These are still, by most standards, quite large lots. A thousand square metres today is a very large lot. It's vastly larger, three times larger than many, four times larger, in fact, than some of the lots that we're getting in Vineyard. So this will be quite a different development. And what I'm hoping is that the developer will use that additional space to give us some really good outcomes. I'm hoping that we see far less non-permeable surfacing in any development control plan that comes to us, so that we're not dealing with a lot of runoff coming from these houses. I don't want this to be acres of concrete driveways taking up that thousand square metres.

I don't want 500 square metres of house and 200 square metres of driveway. That would be a real loss, I think, to this site. There is room on these blocks then for good passive solar orientation, for really good tree cover, and some maintenance of what greenery is left on that site. And so I'm hoping that this will be a good outcome and a really high quality development. I don't want this to turn into yet another sea of black roofs on what was functioning agricultural land. I think that would be a really bad outcome. But I applaud the developer's willingness to come to us with a better proposal than we had before. The question isn't, do we want 580 additional lots at Glossodia? The question for us, I think, is, is this a better 580 lots than we had before?

And I think the answer is yes. What I'm also hoping comes out of the VPA is that we don't see, and this has been a concern for us with North Richmond, with the Redbank development, that we don't see... A town of two halves. We don't see a haves and have-nots. Thirty years ago we had a very poor development at Glossodia, which has resulted now in significant expense for council to bring that up to standard, particularly with regards to drainage and public amenity around roads and footpaths and kerb and guttering. And the VPA provisions allow us to make sure that that never happens again, but also that Glossodia as a whole gets a far better outcome for all the residents of Glossodia, a town that hasn't been well planned, a town that doesn't have a defined town centre, and a town that struggles with the provision of infrastructure.

I think we can hopefully get something better for Glossodia out of this development, and so I would urge the applicants to keep that in mind as well.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler has said much of what I was going to say, and I also applaud the applicants, and I do understand that from most of when the VPA and the negotiations for this development were taking place, they have been very, very willing to engage with council and to adjust and amend to any suggestions that have been raised. I'm quite keen that we can have a new VPA, especially if we maintain the spirit of the old VPA. And I do hope, though, that by saying that we will do a draft VPA before going out to the community, that we do in fact ensure that the stakeholders who will be affected by the VPA, for example the community centre and the fire brigade and so on, I do hope that they are engaged before we have that draft VPA because it will be very important.

The last time when we looked at this, it was, as Councillor Wheeler said, with the view of having a Glossodia that is enhanced and more viable as a standalone centre so that we don't have an isolated settlement where people are having to access Windsor and Richmond for everything. And so by having more people and a new development with some more facilities, people are more likely to stay in that township and make it a more functioning standalone area of the Hawkesbury. And I think that will be a wonderful thing. And I think that what's proposed will be very good. Keeping in contact, I hope councillors will be kept up, now that we don't have as much to do with the development process. I do hope we'll be kept up to date with the various conversations and so on, because we are able to bring from the community the things that are of concern to the people of Glossodia and to the various organisations out there, and I'm sure we will be.

And so I look forward to doing that. It looks a much better outcome, and the areas of open space will be very, very valued by people. And the connectivity as well is a really good thing, that we can blend together the two parts of Glossodia and make it a much better place for the people out there. So I'm looking forward to what happens next. Thank you.

No further speakers? Councillor Conolly, you wish to exercise your right of reply. Councillor Ross, I just ask for right of reply. And there wasn't any. Did you wish to speak?

Well, I'll let you speak because maybe I missed your light, so Councillor Ross, please turn your light on. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for the courtesy. This, at any point from my perspective as a councillor, is an appalling development. It should never have been approved in the first instance.

The alteration put before us now

Looks like it's going to be almost a gated community. There are allegedly five points of access to the remainder of Glossodia. I can see three on the figure four, and that's all.

There is too big a physical separation, particularly with Spinks Road, to regard it as being a melding of— If you like, two communities, or the potential melding of two communities. I think the reservations , to put it in a very polite sense, offered by the Planning Panel in their review of it has not been and can't be addressed with this particular plan.

The whole place lacks any heart. The Glossodia infrastructure that we have, by way of the school, the neighbourhood centre, and the retail space there, is quite a distance and I gather, geographically, if you like, certainly challenging to seniors.

The considerations enabling this document to proceed in the way of being a partial indication , if you like, from Council to the Department of Planning, I presume, is covered by ministerial directions, which were spelled out. I'm very disappointed in the staff reporting on this. I think it's a very lopsided report, not balanced, and as a result, I'm unable to agree with their— Commentary in regard to

Direction 3.1,

Existing infrastructure.

Clause B there says to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing, typo, sorry, has appropriate access to infrastructure and services. Goodness gracious. Were that the case, I'd be a happy person, but it's not. 3.4, integrated land use and transport. Improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport. What public transport? Two buses a day. Increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars. Reducing dependence on cars. For heaven's sake, this just increases it and the demand upon council roads. Reducing travel demand, point C, reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distance travelled, especially by car.

Fails that. Fails 4.4, bushfire protection. We've got to race off and get bushfire protection. 6.1, failure on approval and referral requirements, particularly in regard to bushfire. 6.2, admitted, rezoning for public purposes. The other thing I wish to say before conclusion is that this idea of having four sewerage systems in that general area, we've got one in Tennyson Road in regard to a poultry processing plant on Currency Creek. We've got one in Glossodia, part of Sydney Water. We're going to have this one proposed, and we've got something else different down in Wilberforce. This is all just a shambles, and this is no way to build for the future and have any perspective. The only thing that I would consider to be appropriate is if this council were , in considering this application, if it's to go through, had the option of being able to try and consult with both the developer and Sydney Water through means of the VPA, also to have a publicly funded and provided full-scale sewerage facility available to this and the rest of the Wilberforce, Glossodia and Freemans Reach communities, as should probably have been done in the first case.

This is really a very small development of two and a half thousand people. Councillor Ross, your time is up.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly, you wish to have right of reply?

Yeah. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think that we respect Councillor Ross has completely misunderstood the item before us. In that long discussion around whether or not the development should occur, the development is occurring. That is not for debate tonight, and nothing we can decide here is changing that. So all those sections you just quoted are completely irrelevant to our decision tonight. The decision tonight is whether or not we want this particular planning proposal to proceed, knowing that the alternative is the one that's already been adopted and gone through. So the decision tonight is whether we're happy with it as it is, we want to wait and go under the new legislation, or we just want them to go ahead with the development based on the zoning they've already achieved.

And I think, as Councillor Wheeler said, this is the best of those options, regardless of your thoughts on development . And I don't think we should be putting out there to the community that this was a decision about the development, because it isn't, and to go on about buses and other matters is completely irrelevant. And, you know, I was a supporter of the development back at the time, but I know many people here who look like they're going to support this motion probably wouldn't have been, because that's not what we're voting on tonight.

Thank you. That was right of reply. I'll now put the motion. All those in favour of the motion as it appears on the screen, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion: Councillor Ross. Absent: Councillor Rassmussen and Councillor Tree. I declare the motion carried.

We now move to item 146 and we have one speaker, Mr. Bill Snedden.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councillors, the gallery. When I looked at the Council papers on Friday and I came to this item, I thought,

Not again.

However, further reading allayed my fears. I'm pleased to see Councillors now settled on the current status quo regarding Councillor numbers and no return to the wards issue. As I said, my first reaction at looking at this paper was not again. After our fight to preserve the Hawkesbury Council area against the state government intending to amalgamate us with Moree Hills or worse, and the need to be fit for the future, as now mandated, I feel we do not need the distraction and expense of again going down this proposed path that some people would like of reviewing Council numbers and going to wards. However, I do hear the odd murmur of discontent regarding our current well-understood local government workings with our 12 councillors in the Hawkesbury.

So I constantly hear little murmurs about wards and suggestions for change. Quite frankly, if we were going to review the Council numbers, I would prefer to go to the maximum 15. The more people making the decisions and the more things are pounded out, the better, in my opinion, in a democracy. I'm pleased to see the listing of the results of the referendum, which is why I thought not again, because I thought it was all thrashed out well and truly. This item soundly trounces the murmurs regarding numbers and the potential for going to wards as per our previous referendum. This data appears to have now been forgotten in some quantities. This report, to my mind, puts a stake in the coffin of Dracula of the potential for doing things we don't need to do and reconsider again.

Thank you.

Thank you. You willing to answer questions?

I certainly am, sir. Are

There any questions? Doesn't look like it. Oh, sorry, Councillor Reynolds has a question. Yeah

Thanks, Mr. Stedman. What is your view on changing the number of councillors?

Councillor Reynolds, I've been coming to Council since about 1995. I certainly first spoke against mushroom composting smells in the area back then. Basically, I find that Council appears to be working quite well with 12. If anything, as more residents come into the area and we were going to do something, I would prefer not to see a downsize, if need be. I would prefer to actually go up to the maximum 15. Quite frankly, I love the idea of more representatives listening to the voices in the area. I'm in very strong favour of upper houses of review at state and federal level. The more we thrash things out in a democracy, the better a consensus we get regarding the final decision, in my opinion.

That is my decision. Democracy, I was once told, was a messy, expensive beast. But if you can think of a better way of doing things, a benevolent monarch or a benevolent dictator may be a better answer to get quick results. But if you want to advertise and hire and guarantee you get something benevolent, well, good luck to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Stedman.

Thank you

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move a motion, but to be honest, I didn't ask the General Manager how I should do this. And having read through it this afternoon, I'm really not sure. I would like to propose that a question be put at the next election to reduce the number of councillors to 11. How that takes part. How a motion to that effect would be worded, I'm not sure.

It's being written. I mean, if you're happy to continue with the debate, I think the intent is clear. So the recommendation has four parts. So I would be accepting all the parts of the recommendation other than regarding the number of councillors. Which is part one

Yeah So you want to keep two, three and four and change part one to read, at the next election we ask that the number of councillors be reduced to 11. Yes. That's your motion. Do we have a seconder for the motion? Seconding this.

I've got a question before it goes ahead. Can I ask that now?

Okay.

Is it possible to have asked a question of options, or is it just one thing? Can

You put two questions

Yeah. No, two

Numbers

Like, can it say 11 or 13 or something like that?

Don't know the answer to that. Can we just leave it at 11? Maybe as we go on we can find an answer to that. But do we have a seconder for that motion?

Councillor Richards, are you seconding this? Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak to it? Sorry. I think it's a good time to consider this, given we get to do it once a term, to consider whether what we're doing, and the fact that any change you make is obviously always going to be five years from the point of making it. You don't get to do this very often, and you need to think longer term as to whether what you've got is working.

I think that we've seen during this term of Council, as well as in previous terms of Council, the extreme of this situation where you have a mayor being elected by By lot , councillors not agreeing on who the mayor should be amongst themselves, six votes each, it being pulled at random. And then that person, who then only has the support of half the council, whichever way it gets pulled out, then has a casting vote on a whole range of matters. That's clearly not the ideal democracy that you could have.

And I think, to be honest, I think the most democratic way, if you're going to have somebody who's got a casting vote, I think they should be popularly elected. But I don't think there's going to be support for that based on the conversations I've had, and that does have a whole range of other issues. But I think if you're not going to have someone popularly elected, I don't think anybody should be having a casting vote when everybody's been elected under the same system. People are being elected with a quota of seven percent of the vote, and then somehow land themselves in a position because if they had the confidence of half their colleagues at some point, they then have a casting vote on a whole range of matters.

I don't think that's ideal for democracy. Certainly after the last mayoral election, there was a whole lot of feedback. People did not know how it worked in that situation. Most people would never have thought about that in their life. And it had been some time since we had that situation. And there was a lot of people who found that completely unacceptable, that the council's mayor would be chosen at random in that situation. There had been a period of, I think, 12 years before that before it last happened, because there'd been a majority of one way or the other on council who had decided who they were going to support to be mayor. But before that, there was a term, I believe, of council where there was four mayoral elections in a row determined by lot between different councillors.

It's not a democratic way to do things. Obviously, there will be a cost in having a referendum, and in the benefit of hindsight, this should have been put up at the last election to change something in this space, although it would have been difficult to have an odd number of councillors and wards. You would have had to have a popularly elected mayor. Given that wards was soundly rejected, I think this is far less controversial. There will be a cost to put this on at the next election, but there'll be a cost saving forever after that if it's successful, given that you're reducing the number of councillors and the number of everything else that comes along with councillors. And you'll have a much more democratic system where no one individual is being given two votes to determine matters without any say-so from the community.

Thank you. Do we have any progress on the change to the motion? Sorry, the wording of the new motion.

We need to get rid of point one, don't we? No,

That's for the next election.

Okay.

You happy with that, Councillor Conolly? Councillor Richards, seconder, you happy with that? Any further speakers?

Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, Mr Mayor, I find that I agree with Mr Snedden's sentiments in that we, you know, with approved developments, we're about to get, you know, another four and a half thousand homes in the LGA. You know, that's just under a 20 per cent increase. In homes and no doubt in residences as well, we all are asked to advocate on behalf of residents from time to time, and to represent them to staff and advocate on their behalf. It seems logical that with an increase in residents, rather than a decrease in councillors, that there would be a corresponding increase to, I think, at least 13. I do agree with Councillor Conolly that an odd number of councillors avoids the situation where the mayor has to use a casting vote, because the mayor effectively gets two votes.

As Councillor Conolly said, he or she may have only got in with 7% of the vote. In the past, there has been the unfortunate situation where, with hindsight, the mayor inadvertently appears to have been compromised by using their casting vote to approve an application when it was later disclosed that the applicant had made a financial donation to the mayor's political party. By having an odd number, this avoids this, because the mayor has no greater say in it than anybody else. So I do agree with Councillor Conolly, but I don't think it should be decreased. I think it should be increased to 13. Thank you.

Question.

You could move such an amendment if you felt like it, Councillor.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Zamprogno, you wish to speak?

Yep. Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. It was just really a question on process to do with this. If I recall, when we did the wards referendum, we had to formulate the question and have that come back to Council. Would that be the same in this instance? I think, yes. So essentially , does that mean we're locked into the 11, or can we just have a change in Councillor number and then investigate whether we can have multiple numbers or something like that, or do we have to specify?

General Manager. Mr. Missen. Thanks

Mr. Mayor. The previous advice from the Electoral Commission was that when you formulate a question at a referendum, it needed to be a yes-no answer, and so therefore the question needed to be formulated in such a way that it provided that ability to have that answer.

Anyway, Councillor Reynolds, did you— Yes, could I move an amendment, Mr. Mayor, please? You wish to move an amendment which reads 13 instead of 11. Do we have a seconder for that?

I second that. Councillor Ross. Thank you.

I've already spoken to it. You've already spoken. Further speakers?

Councillor Conolly, you want to speak on the amendment? Yes, Mr. Mayor, just briefly. Look, I'd be inclined to— I'd rather have it seen moved as an amendment and test the support of the chamber. I'd still be inclined to support it rather than leaving it 12. I would make the point, however , if you look at the ratios of councillors to electors, comparatively with other councils, we would still be, even if we reduced to 11, one of the smallest ratios in that mix. Still smaller than Blue Mountains, still smaller than Wollondilly, just. A little bit bigger than Singleton and Wingecarribee, but I don't know that they're necessarily our best comparisons. And I do, like I said, I'd still be inclined to support it, but I think that people of the Hawkesbury would be more likely to support a question that isn't seen to be expanding the size of the council, but is coming to the point of we want to have an odd number of councillors, and that's what we're trying to do.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

A point of history to begin with. In the original democracy in Athens, any citizen could be appointed by lot, by the very process that Councillor Conolly objects to, to almost any post except that of strategos, which was the leader of the army.

As long as they were male, Mr Mayor.

Or not a metic. We're going to discuss Greek history now. But more relevantly, I'm in favour of the status quo, and I'd like to remind the chamber that it would be folly to think that if you simply cook up a referendum question to be put at the time of the next election, that that rather negates the total cost of that. I mean, we had a referendum question with the last local government election, and it didn't come at no cost. It came at some... Considerable cost, and the question was as simply formulated: Do you want wards? And it was put along with the local government election, and it cost many thousands of dollars. And I think generally questions of this type are likely to be voted down, in the sense that we don't have a citizenry that are sufficiently engaged to deliberate in the way that we are here on the finer points for or against it, and it will simply be voted down.

I don't want to be cynical about this, but I'm reflecting on the cost and the likely outcome, and the fact that this council seems to work reasonably well. I take Councillor Connolly's point about an evenly divided council with an even number of councillors, and then, for example, that people have pulled out of a hat or that the mayor holds a casting vote. I rather take the view that the position of mayor deserves that extra stature, and that the mayor would use his casting vote on those rare occasions where it arises in a very deliberative fashion. And I can say that with a Labor mayor currently in the chair and with the prospect of a Liberal mayor in the future, the pendulum swings both ways.

And if we were in the chair, I doubt that we on this side would be making precisely that argument. Pendulums swing. So I can't—

Excuse me, Councillor Zamprogno, can I point out we are now discussing Councillor Reynolds' amendment of 13, not Councillor Connolly's motion. Well

I've said, Mr Mayor, that I'm opposing either form of the amendment because I prefer the status quo, and that still remains my view. Thank you.

Councilor Cotless.

Just a question, if I may. Is there another mechanism for changing the number of councillors?

Mr. Mayor. Thanks,

Mr. Mayor, no. Councillor Garrow. Could we get an indicative costing of a said referendum, please? Thanks,

Mr. Mayor

It's a bit hard to come up an exact amount, but what I can say is that the referendum that was carried out at the 2016 election was around about $24,000 or $25,000.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really... Don't really care. I mean, I don't. I don't. I think an uneven number probably is better because it does eliminate the draw out of a hat situation. However, I think with regard to the casting vote, we don't have the development obligations now that we once had, which was when the use of the casting vote was probably most problematic. So now we don't have those issues that are so controversial and the decisions having to be made. We don't have those come before us now. However, I mean, I would have no objection to 13, 11 or 12 because I think it's more about quality of representation rather than number and how much people put into the council and how functioning the council is and how much each councillor contributes.

You know, you could have two good ones or you could have 12 or 15 not good ones and your council may or may not be any better off. But the thing is, with regard to the last, the difference I think that Councillor Conolly, where he's coming from, or Councillor Reynolds, either one, when there was the referendum for wards, there was no momentum from the community. That was merely a councillor that wanted that done, and there was not people saying things. With this regard, I have also had feedback from people who have had problems with the method with which the mayor was decided upon and a misunderstanding, and then a, you know, why does it have to be like that? Is it democratic, et cetera. But having said that, I really, you know, I really don't think it's something that really matters.

And if it's going to be $25,000, I would be happy to leave it as it is. That doesn't bother me. I'm just not sure if it's worth that money to ask. But then if the question's there, I'm happy to go with. with that too. Either way.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak for the amendment. Like the Deputy Mayor, I'm not really fussed either way. I'm not a fan of even numbers on any committees because, in large part because I think they put far too much weighting on the chair and consequently also put a lot of pressure on the chair as well. You know, and let's not pretend that it's always a fabulous thing to have a casting vote. We had, for example, the development at McGrath's Hill, where the mayor had to use her casting vote at the time, and that resulted in enormous community backlash for the use of that casting vote, which was simply used to agree with the recommendation in the business paper, which is the standard thought for how a mayor is to use a casting vote.

So it's not always a bonus. You know, it's not always something that's going to give you some grand power that is going to make your life fabulous. Often it's a really onerous responsibility to have that extra vote. It can lead to calls of corruption, and they are very often incorrect. It also, I think, at the end of the day, I think they're unreasonable. I'm glad we're not looking at a popularly elected mayor. I think I have several friends who are popularly elected mayors on councils where they don't have the numbers, and that also is incredibly onerous, particularly when the councillors are poorly behaved for that mayor, and it becomes a bun fight and very, very difficult to negotiate. So , I would, I appreciate Mr Snedden's point, and that's the reason really that I've supported the amendment.

We are a very large LGA geographically. We don't necessarily have a lot of rate payers and a lot of residents, but we do have an extremely large area. And to get to cover issues from one end of the LGA to the other throughout the week whilst doing what is supposed to be a part-time job is often really difficult for councillors. So if we could share that load, I think that might be helpful. It's not a particularly large cost to add another councillor. It's not free, but it's not the end of the world. But I really do appreciate Mr Snedden's point that more opinions in the room trying to come to a decision should lead to a better outcome if everyone engages in that process in good faith, which I guess is why I'm supporting the amendment here.

Frankly, I don't care. I really would probably rather save the 25-odd grand and just get on with it. But if I have to choose between 11 and 13, I'll go with 13.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor. I support the amendment.

I am firmly of the belief that whilst the number of electors and persons in the community are relatively, shall we say. .. Static around the 5,000 in the case of Hawkesbury, as it is with a number of the smaller councils. Geography is certainly a particular characteristic of this area, which does make it more onerous in terms of firstly becoming acquainted with the physical status of the area, and also our obligations in terms of being out there and consulting with the community at these community get-togethers and so on. We've got a little bit of travelling to do this coming week.

The idea of a

Council body with an odd number,

Rather than odd councillors, has appeal, and I'd all be for the 13 because that might just bolster our ability to be out there and be seen and to look after the welfare of our community. And there are some very major things on. I mean, checkerboard ponds is one. Vineyard Stage 1 is another massive one that we're going to have to face, and is going to no doubt be battling on that for another 12 or 18 months, I can see. And there'll be, you know, we've got carriage on Kermon, investigation area, we've got all sorts of things going on, and we've got these demands from government as well being placed upon us at every which way. And frankly, it's not an easy job to be on top of everything at the one time.

And to be able to have an extra person in there who could do some work with committees and so on and so forth, as we've discussed in briefings, I think would be an advantage. I'm very happy to support the amendment.

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Mr Mayor. First of all, I would strongly like to refute the comments by Councillor Reynolds and his innuendo regarding the casting vote and reminding us certainly was no case to prosecute. Secondly— I've finished what I've said. I'm moving on to my remarks. Don't interrupt. I

Just want to

Move a point of order.

So next, the point is an odd councillor does make sense. I would prefer 11 because that does reduce the financial burden on the council. But again, 13 is neither here nor there in my respect in terms of 13 or 11 because I do believe the odd number has value. However, there is a cost associated with this, as we've already discussed. And as I've made public comments in the past when we had the federal, the national plebiscite, if you're going to go to a community at a considerable expense and ask them a question, why not ask them multiple questions at the same time and get value for your money? Now, if you want to run a platform of bringing the community along for the ride and letting the community have as much of a say as possible, then put all the options to the community.

We know that there was no appetite for the wards last time around. Absolutely fine. The proof is in the pudding. It's there in the statistics. We probably don't need to ask that again. But if you're going to go to the expense and you have an amount of options available to you to ask, which includes a popularly elected mayor, then why not just put that on the same piece of paper if you're going to the expense of printing it up anyway? So if you want to talk about community participation, then this is the way to do that. I already work out that there's not going to be that ability to do that with the opinions in the room, but I want to make a very strong put on the record here that I believe that if we're going to go to that expense, ask them everything.

And if the Hawkesbury wants a popularly elected mayor, then they will vote that way. If they don't, then they won't. And that puts to bed every single question that we have open to us as councillors right now in front of us in going to the next election. And again, then it's not happening for the election that we'll be running in September 2020. It's happening, whatever that is voted on is for, yes, five years away. So if you're going to put that to the community, put everything to them and let them have their say, because this will be the once in a, you know, lifetime probably opportunity for them. I mean, to be able to voice what they want to do. And if they want to, I mean, everyone's raised questions here tonight about the method of mayoral selection.

Then if you want to put that in the hands of the community, it takes it out of the hands of us and the issues and the questions that people raise in that regard. So give the people more power. I certainly would never stand against that, and I'd be very much for putting every single option available to us to the community if that's the path we're going to go down and open it up to that expense. But I know that we're not going to be able to do that tonight, which is unfortunate. So the community, therefore, in my opinion, misses out.

So you're not foreshadowing another amendment?

I would possibly like to foreshadow to put everything that's available to us on the referendum. Why wouldn't we? It's our one opportunity.

You can foreshadow that if this current amendment is lost.

Happy to do that. Councillor

Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against the amendment for 13 councillors. I remember in this chamber when we were having the debate about how much allowance we get, there was strong opposition to increasing our allowance by even a small, I think it was a small CPI increase. So I don't know what's happened to change people's minds that we need to spend even more money on councillors. But I'd rather, I'd support keeping 12 councillors. Or reducing the number to 11. But I think increasing our numbers is not going to improve community participation. It's, I just think it's just going to add just another body to, for not a lot of benefit. Thank you.

Councillor, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a question with regard to what Councillor Richards raised with using all the questions. My understanding was the cost was in the case that has to be prepared for and against, not actually for submitting the questions. Is that correct? And I would assume that multiple cases would have to be prepared on each of those items. I understand when the wards was done, there had to be a case for wards and a case against wards, and everybody had to be notified, and that was what the expenditure was on.

That sounds like a question that belongs to the foreshadowed amendment, should it come forward.

Okay, I'm happy. No, I'm just raising that because I think that it wouldn't be necessarily the same cost, that's all I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah

When we, if the foreshadowed amendment comes forward, then we'll raise the question. Any further speakers?

Can I just add that the mayor, whether it's 11 or 13 councillors, the mayor still has the casting vote. If someone's absent, then you've got an even number. Changing the number does not remove that casting vote.

In my experience, there's very often at least one councillor absent, and many times councillors declare an interest and leave the room. So that problem that some people have with the mayoral casting vote is still going to be there. Changing the number may reduce the number of times that happens, but it'll still be there.

And secondly, the mayoral election, not all councillors have to vote at the mayoral election. A councillor could choose not to vote, and you could once again have an even number, and the system then is to draw it out of a hat. That system still remains. So changing to an odd number does not solve either of those problems. It may reduce the number of times they happen, but not remove them. So for that reason, I'm going to vote against the current amendment that's on the board. Councillor Reynolds, you don't get a right of reply because it's an amendment. The right of reply still belongs to Councillor Conolly. Should we get back to that point. So I'm ready to put that amendment. Is there any further speakers? The amendment of Councillor Reynolds. No further speakers. I'll put that amendment. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the amendment: Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against the amendment: Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Tree and Councillor Rasmussen. I declare the amendment lost. We revert now to the foreshadowed amendment by Councillor Richards. Do we have a seconder for that foreshadowed amendment?

Can we actually get what I'm going to foreshadow sorted out first?

Well, okay.

In terms of, I want to make sure about that cost thing, though, that the Deputy Mayor has raised.

We can ask that question first, if you like, Mr. Mifsud. Do we have an answer to it?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The cost that I outlined earlier, around the $24,000 mark, includes the Electoral Commission running the constitutional referendum, as well as the various advertising and consultation that was required as part of that. That would have included presenting both a for and against case, or a yes and no case, for the ward.

Can

You turn your light on, please?

Does there have to be a for and against case made for every element that would be on the referendum paper, or would there be multiple papers for each question? I'm not sure how it would work.

Mr. Mifsud. I don't have the direct answer to that, other than to say that my understanding is that for each referendum question, that you would have to have a paper that outlined the yes and no case for both of them. How that was presented, I can't answer that.

Yeah, sorry, we're going into a bit of uncharted territory. You

Wish to withdraw your foreshadowed amendment?

I hold firm to the fact that if we're going to a referendum, we need to ask the community everything

Because— The choice is yours. Do you wish to withdraw or wish to keep it?

Well, I believe that they should have the right to be consulted on all matters. So you wish

To keep the foreshadowed—

But, well, it's hard when you don't have the answer in front of you. If every single one of those questions is a separate referendum and the poor residents of the Hawkesbury are going in, you know, with six or seven bits of paper in their hand, so— I don't have that information available to know how it's going to work.

Mr Mifsud, is there any further information we can provide?

I know you can't.

Mr Mayor, no, I don't have a direct answer to that question, but all that the Electoral Commission has previously indicated through their guidelines that you would need to present a yes and no case for each referendum. How that was presented, I don't have that answer.

So, what would you like to do, Councillor

That's me in a pickle. Can I

Raise a point of order, Mr Mayor? You certainly can. If my worthy colleague doesn't have a form of words to advance as a proposed amendment, then there is no amendment.

I'm reaching that conclusion.

I understand that. I mean, it's, in a nutshell, I want to ask the community everything that is possible to put to them, but I'm cautious of doing so now and putting a foreshadowed amendment without the cost factor known.

So... So your worthy colleague is

Not... I am happy to revert to the original motion put forward by Councillor Conolly, but I want to make it very clear that I would like to put every single question forward

Okay, that's been noted. Okay, we're back to Councillor Connolly's motion. So far, Councillor Conolly and Councillor Reynolds have spoken on that motion. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Having spoken against the amendment, I'm now speaking against the motion, and I will foreshadow that should the motion of Councillor Conolly fail, I will simply propose the recommendation in the business paper, which is for the status quo.

Well, you've a motion before us

Councillor . If procedurally it would be more straightforward for me to simply move as an amendment the recommendation in the business paper, I so move.

It's the same either way, but if that's what you wish to do.

I'm being advised by my colleagues that that's— So you're moving an amendment. I move the amendment, which is that we adopt the recommendation in the business paper.

Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor

Reynolds . Okay. Mr Mayor, it wasn't too long ago that in this chamber we were tying ourselves in knots and making a very symbolic gesture of deferring a CPI increase to our councillor rates that would have saved about $9,000 a year.

Can I interrupt again, sorry. We are now speaking on the amendment that you're putting up, not Councillor Connolly's motion. Sorry, keep going.

All right then. Thank you, Mr Mayor. That symbolic gesture would have saved council about $9,000 a year, and yet some of those same councillors have just demonstrated their willingness to a process that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to put to the local community, with no guarantee that there's any particular impetus within the community to endorse it, and then to increase the number of councillors to 13, which would cost council approximately $80,000 extra over the course of a council term. Now, if the aim was to measurably increase the quality of our democracy in this area, then you could say that that expense was justified. I don't believe that that's the case, and therefore I'm simply proposing the status quo.

Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

I won't speak again. I just wanted to address one comment that was made earlier by yourself. And just to clarify, I take your point that you can still have situations where the casting vote will be used. My point was more around the fact that currently it's possible, and we have seen in this term of council, a situation where the mayor is drawn at random, and then that mayor, drawn at random because of a 6-6 tie, then has the casting vote. By having an odd number of councillors, you will have a mayor who was elected with a clear majority of the council, who then gets to exercise that casting vote in limited circumstances. I think that is a different situation to currently.

If I could just clarify. I pointed out that even if you have an odd number, the mayor still can be appointed by being drawn out of a hat, under certain circumstances.

Thank you, Mayor.

That was a very gelatin argument.

Just a point of clarification for my colleague across the chamber. The saving wrought was actually about double what he was indicating. So he forgot that there are actually two years of those changes, and let's go for the equilibrium and the status quo if we can't get a move upwards.

Thank you. Any further speakers on Councillor Zamprogno's amendment?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in favour of Councillor Zamprogno's amendment, mainly because I think, just from seeing the diverse opinion within this group, that there isn't a really strong commitment to any specific change. And I think that probably because we are representatives of the people, I think that would show that there probably isn't the will out there to change, and we may well be wasting our money. As I said before, I have no real preference of how many. I think it's more about the quality. And, you know, we may, if we had extra, we may well have got our money's worth by having somebody who worked incredibly hard and did all sorts of things. So I don't think we can judge and use the monetary argument in that sense.

And just to address Councillor Zamprogno's comment on the CPI increase of the money, the fact was that that was, it was symbolic, as he said, in the sense, but it was also because we did not feel we required that increase, while other wage earners had their wages frozen, and also when we had asked people for an SRV. So in the same vein, if there's not a strong commitment to altering or running a referendum, I am happy to remain with the 12 councillors, even though I do take on board Councillor Conolly's point. But, you know, we do have nights when we're off at 11, so we'll just see what eventuates. I'm happy to leave it as it is.

Councillor Reynolds. Yes, I speak in support of Councillor Zamprogno's amendment, in that, yeah, of course I second it. My amendment to 13 from 11 was just in response to increased population and development. And in regards to, just to clarify something for Councillor Richards, I was speaking about a perfectly legal donation. I wasn't talking about anything that laid a cause trouble in any investigation, and I apologise to her for confusing her and hitting a nerve.

Any further speakers? Further speakers on Councillor Zamprogno's amendment?

No

You don't get right of reply because it's an amendment. So I'm going to put the amendment, which is the recommendation in the business paper. All those in favour, please stand.

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

Now, this means the amendment becomes the motion. Yes. Yes. No, we're not done yet.

Yes, we are. So the amendment becomes the motion. Now, if you like, we can just ask Councillor Conolly to exercise his right of reply, even though it's not his motion. He still gets right of reply. We had an expert in the other week who told me that's how it must work, so, okay. Yep. Yes,

Because you moved the motion and it's been amended, but it's still your motion. Yes. Unless other people wish to speak, I'll ask him to exercise his right of reply. No. Go ahead. Not necessary. Then we need to put the motion as it now exists. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion : Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards. Abstainers: Councillor Tree, the Deputy Mayor, and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare the motion carried.

Now we can move on.

And we move on to items on block. Someone like to move that? Councillor Zamprogno.

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye. Carried.

Would someone like to suggest we have a five-minute break?

It's been moved that way. All those in favour say aye. You can stay here then. Back in five minutes.

And we're on to item 147, which is Bilpin Oval. Does anyone wish to move anything on that? Councillor Conolly, you're moving the recommendation. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler seconding. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak? No? Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

I just have a question, Mr Mayor. This oval has been the subject of numerous emails to me about when we can actually do some work on it. If we resolve this lease issue now, does that mean that we can start work on the site? Mr. Organ.

That's correct. Since we've signed the lease, we have the funds available and we can commence works on the toilet block and other issues there. Woohoo.

Thank you.

Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly, do you wish to exercise your right of reply? If not, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand. In favour of the motion: Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Tree. Declare the motion carried.

Move to item 148, the Access Committee.

Maybe I should move that.

If that's all right, I'll move that from the chair. Councillor Conolly, you seconding it?

Access and Inclusion, 148.

I just wanted to point out some of the things the Access and Inclusion Committee's been looking at recently. The Dementia Friendly Hawkesbury working group is working very well. It's trying to put things in place in council and in the community to make this a dementia-friendly area. It's something that's happened in a few other councils around the country. It's not something we invented, but I think it's something that we really need to take on board with our ageing population. There was a forum on the 26th of June, and the feedback from the forum was that it was rather confronting, but it was quite a good experience for those who turned up. Also on the committee, we've been looking at footpaths around the area, and as Councillor Ross will tell you, the footpath in Cable Street has been one that we've been talking about for a long time.

It's finally been completed. We've also been talking about the Wilberforce Shopping Centre, and I believe that's in the budget for this year to have that addressed as well. And we also looked at the Bligh Park Shopping Centre. There was talk about the orientation of the parking spaces for disabled people, and that was all looked at and examined and changed. The committee has been working on a whole lot of little things like that, plus it's also been working on our overall access. Policy for the city, and that's an ongoing process which the committee is involved in. So I recommend the Access and Committee report to you. Any further talk? Discussion? Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, Mr Mayor, I'd like to commend the committee on its work on the dementia-friendly plan. I have spoken to a couple of Dr Ravi and Peter Gulia about improving , for example, with local businesses becoming dementia-friendly. My late father-in-law suffered from Parkinson's disease, but it was actually the Lewy body syndrome side of it which manifested as dementia. And we were at a cafe in Windsor, and normally he would just be quiet and not take part in anything. But there was a member of their staff who twigged to the fact that he had a form of dementia, and he obviously then just targeted the father-in-law, and it was just a wonderful thing to see. The father-in-law came to life because it was someone who was looking after him, you know, was trying to do his best to make sure he enjoyed it.

And it was, as I say, it was a good thing to see. He was a young fella, you know, looked like he fell into the tackle box, had metal everywhere. But I think, you know, doing such work in the community will only benefit those who suffer. They suffer in silence a lot of the time. Some of them aren't very old. You know, and again, I congratulate you, Mr Mayor, on the work you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I ask the General Manager, put him on the spot. We were looking at training our staff in dementia-friendly approach. Is that being taking place yet?

That hasn't taken place as yet, Mr Mayor, but it's scheduled. The staff are looking at programming that, correct?

Yep, especially for our front of office staff

Any further discussion, Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thank you for asking the question regarding frontline staff. I know a couple of our facilities already have already set themselves up to be dementia-friendly spaces. The museum is one, and I think the library also provides a safe, comfortable place for people. It's not just the person with dementia that we're catering for in those instances. It's particularly the carers who need some respite time or need a place where they feel comfortable taking someone who may not meet all the routine norms of behaviour. So it's really good if our frontline staff can cope with what's going on. And I think we've had some really nice examples in the community of little businesses and just community members working really well to ease the lives of both people with dementia and their carers.

There's a lovely story of a person with dementia in Freeman's Reach who walks up to the local shops quite regularly, and they'll wander off from home and just appear at the shops. And the shop owner will sit them down with a cuppa and give them a safe place to sit and contact the family and say, Look, they're up here. They're fine. They're safe. Be here when you get here. And the family really appreciates that work, and I think that's the real strength of a functioning community. So it's nice to see that happening. What I would like to do, Mr Mayor, is... is flag the need, I think, for a discussion between the Town Centres Working Group and the Access and Inclusion Committee, if perhaps some members of the committee could come and give us a bit of a presentation or just a general discussion about your objectives and the Access and Inclusion Plan, so that it's front of mind for the Town Centres Working Group when we make any decisions about projects as well.

Just looking to see whether we can write that in as an extra point.

I suppose we can, that the minutes be received and that the Access Inclusion Advisory Committee undertake discussions with the Town Centres Committee or working group, is it, so they can work together on the Town Centres project. I'm happy to add that to the recommendation. Councillor Conolly, are you happy to add that? Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I waive exercise my right of reply. I'll put the recommendation. All those in favour, please stand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried. We move on.

To item 150, which is a notice of motion from Councillor St Progno.

Mr Mayor.

Yes . I

Have a pecuniary interest in item 150. My son is contracted by the lessee of the Australiana Pioneer Village.

So you'll be leaving. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Do I need to move that? It'd be nice if you moved it. Have we had a seconder? Councillor Reynolds. There you go. Right

I'd like very much for this to be seen as a very simple matter, and I'll just make some of these remarks. We should want the Pioneer Village to really thrive, and certainly there's a sense of hurt in the Friends of the Pioneer Village that the council, or previous councils, were almost willing it to fail. And I think that we've still got an ongoing role to kind of dispel that, and to really be cheerleaders for this group of volunteers who have done such magnificent work to continue to improve that site and to put it on a financially viable footing. But there are some gaps. There are some gaps that we here in this chamber can help. And through my role as a member of the Heritage Committee, it came to my attention that although work had begun, there was not a complete conservation management plan incorporating an asset management plan, incorporating a site management plan for the Pioneer Village .

Certainly the portion of that body of work that relates to an assay of the structures at the site and their historical significance is well begun or indeed complete. But these other parts that are actually quite crucial for the Friends, who again, I point out, are a volunteer organisation to identify. Those heritage works that are required to meet our obligation under the Heritage Act to maintain these structures to an appropriate standard for this generation and generations to come, that information is missing. And I think that maybe the mistake that we've made here on Council is we've inked a lease where we have devolved the responsibility of the upkeep of those structures to the Friends.

And I was pressing the General Manager on this question earlier this year. I said, the lease says that it's responsibility of the lessees. The Heritage Act says that it's ultimately the responsibility of the owners. Council took legal advice. The best legal advice that we've received says that it is legitimate for us to devolve this responsibility to the lessees. But it still leaves us with the responsibility to enable this group to do what they need to do to maintain the site. So I'm suggesting that a sum of money, which we will need to quantify, be factored into the budgetary process for 2020-21, and that if there is a shortfall between the money that I believe has been pledged, that could be Council funds, that could be money from the State Government, but if there is a gap between that money that's already been pledged to complete a site management plan and the completion of that, then we should step up and we should offer at least that help, especially because it will help that group make the most compelling case for other forms of grant funding.

So we're spending money to save money in a sense that if that group have the best information and the best site management plan that they can have at their disposal, and they're making grant applications for heritage purposes or tourism purposes or whatever purposes there may be, they'll have the best chance of securing that funding. I think that— It is not enough for us to simply say that it's great that the Friends, as a volunteer organisation, have put the Pioneer Village on some kind of a sound financial footing. I mean, they may be cash flow positive, considering that their labour costs are so low, but there is a difference, there is a profound difference potentially, between being cash flow positive and identifying the monies that are required to maintain a heritage site with unique and irreplaceable heritage items to the appropriate standard.

And until we can quantify what we have and what will be needed to be spent over a period of time, we can't simply point to the fact that the Friends, through their own labours, are cash flow positive and say, Well, they've obviously got this, because that might not be adequate to the needs of the village. And I think this work is something that we can support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further

Speakers? Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the motion. The Pioneer Village has always been a much valued and much loved local asset. It was run down under previous councils, and if it wasn't for the Friends and their willingness to fight for it, then it would have been lost. CMP, as Council's own progno has stated, is an important tool in caring for a heritage item. It deals with the management of change and provides a framework for the management of that change. And it also deals with issues where a site may be managed by different... Different uses. We know that, for example, the men's shed is going to be moving out there. There are issues, apparently, but hopefully they'll be resolved regarding a veggie barter arrangement that's going to be set out there

The APV already has one section of the CMP completed. That's the history and the site of the buildings which was required for its state heritage listing. The friends themselves have successfully applied for a grant from the Office of Environment and Heritage for management and maintenance of the buildings, and that's currently being carried out. But what's missing is funding for the elements that tie the whole thing together, a whole-of-site management plan to protect the open-air museum nature of the site, which is why it's so special and is the basis of its state listing, that it is an open-air museum, as well as the curtilage of Rose Cottage and Laurel Farm. So, as well as that, it also needs a management plan for the collection of items out there, which will deal with protecting the items of movable heritage, such as the contents of the buildings, horse-drawn vehicles, etc.

So it's probably, you know, 70 percent done, and we just need to fund that last little bit to, as Councillor Zamprogno says, allow basically the tenants to take care of what is an asset of the community. And I would appeal to all councillors to support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No . Councillor Zamprogno, you wish to exercise right of reply. In that case, I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of this motion, please stand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, and Councillor Wheeler, who declared an interest. I declare the motion carried.

Can we invite Councillor Wheeler back, please?

Deputy Mayor.

I'll move the next item.

Oh, okay. We're just waiting for Councillor Wheeler to come.

Next item moved by the Deputy Mayor. Thank you. Seconded for that, Councillor Conolly? No. Anyone?

Second.

Councillor Ross. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. I've moved this because Councillor Ratsmasen was unable to be here tonight, but I think it's a good idea. I can't see that there should be any problem with it. I'm not sure what format it would take and how we'd actually do it, but I certainly think that being able to have the federal member and the state member, not necessarily together but at some point, I gather it's just for them to come whenever they can. I know we did have the federal member in the last council term. She came for dinner and to chat with us, and I think that that is the spirit with which Councillor Ratsmasen has put this forward, that we are able to have a discussion as a council group and to find out the priorities that our elected members have, and I'll put that forward on his behalf.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I was actually going to speak against this motion. And look, I mean, obviously it's not put up with any great intent, and there's nothing wrong if it happens, but I mean, my feeling was that I've been—I know both these people. I've never had a problem getting in touch with Susan Templeman or Robyn Preston, and I think it's—I don't think—I just don't think there's a lot of value in this meeting. And it is just another thing that staff have to then go away and organise, and we all have to come and attend. I mean, the idea that it might be a bit easier for the federal member, given that she's in opposition and obviously a lot less of what the federal government does is going to impact us, but the idea that we're going to get a briefing from Robyn Preston on the state government's plans for Hawkesbury, I mean, that's going to go for hours.

I think if it's just a social, if it's just a catch-up, then, you know, I think that that can be organised by any councillor if they feel like they need to. I don't think— certainly wouldn't be in favour of inviting them to a council meeting. I think there's no value in that at all. If anything, it would be, like the deputy mayor indicated, that it could be for a dinner and a much less formal meeting. But I really don't think either is—I don't think it's necessary for council to resolve to do this and make staff go ahead and carry that out. If any councillors want to meet with either of those members, I'm sure they're able to get in touch, and I'm sure those members would be happy to meet with them.

I don't think we need to go and set up another forum and another set of actions for our staff to go ahead and implement. Further speakers?

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, Mr Mayor, I wasn't going to speak to this, but I speak in favour of the motion, but I think that it would be advantageous, especially with the state member who has been quite active in— Some of the issues, for example, with the traffic committee. At the last meeting, we moved a notice of motion to deal with pedestrian crossing or solving, trying to work out a way to deal with issues, people doing illegal right-hand turns and gaining access to the fast food places at the bottom of George Street. That's now gone through the traffic committee, and although the member wasn't at the meeting, one of her representatives were. And I think that talking to her about the way that she's involving herself in dealing with issues in the community would be, especially with council committees.

I know that she's been to the floodplain committee. It's a vast change from the previous state term. So I would like to, I think it would be nice to, well, not nice, strange word. I think it would be advantageous to have her perhaps to a briefing where she could talk about what she's doing and the way that she's involving herself. You know, I just think that, I think it would be good to build a relationship between the local member and the councillors at such a thing, because I know that there's probably some councillors here who haven't spoken to her since she's been elected. So I support the motion. Thank you. Thank you.

Further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm inclined to support the motion as well. I think this is quite a nice way forward, actually. I think if we can have a good relationship with both our state and federal MPs, regardless of what side of the political fence they sit on, then that's only to the good. And I think actually it would be great for us to hear what the state government has planned for council. I think that would be really helpful. I think it would actually be quite nice for the community to hear what the state government has got planned for the Hawkesbury as well. So I have no objection to this taking place, and I don't think it needs to be a particularly onerous task for Council. It will probably be a Tuesday. We will probably have dinner anyway. So I think it's a matter of liaising with both the members. And look,

They both seem quite happy to get together and chat about things that are relevant. We could probably kill two birds with one stone and do it and have both of them on the same evening. I think that could also be quite a useful way forward as well.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Zamprogno.

One of the biggest bugbears that we have in this tier of government is in getting the attention and love of other tiers of government. So if we can't go to Muhammad, then Muhammad—what is it? No, hang on. The mountain. You know what I mean. The mountain needs to come to Muhammad from time to time. So, you know, I share Councillor Conolly's gripe that this is

Symbolic gesture. But the thing is, any invitation, any invitation for other tiers of government to come and speak with us, sit down with us, and to engage with us has to be welcomed.

Councillor Conolly. Could I perhaps just clarify with your indulgence— Clarification. I guess my point in saying that the idea that Councillor—that Robyn Preston is going to give us a briefing on the state government's plans is that if you think about the number of state government agencies that are operating in the Hawkesbury, there is—it's huge. We should— No, no, but my point, Councillor Wheeler, before your interruption, was going to be that if we want a meeting, we should actually just have some agenda items of what we would like to discuss, not just an open invitation to talk about anything and, you know, not suggest what we want. I mean, in regards to the traffic matter, we've resolved to ask for a meeting on that matter already. What do we want to talk about? Thanks for your clarification

Mr Mayor, could I perhaps include something then to satisfy what Councillor Conolly is saying, in that we could have an agreed agenda for what might be covered in any such briefing, despite the fact that I think it is intended to really be a forum, as Councillor Zamprogno alluded to, where we simply have access and we can discuss some of obviously the major priorities, and as a group, and then to discuss it in a group as a meeting of the three tiers of government, if that's possible, or with either state member. I just think that it would be a good way forward. But I'm happy if that would make Councillor Conolly happy, which we all aim to do all the time. Can I

Ask your seconder, Councillor Ross, are you happy with that change?

Oh , we've got two happy people here, Deputy Mayor. Three happy people. So we've made that change. Do we know over there what that looks like in the...

Just merely to have an agreed list, perhaps list of...

You want to take out council meeting? Just a briefing.

A meeting with councillors.

They might— well, they probably should, I would think. It would be a good idea.

So is that a yes or a no to that change?

Which change was that?

Take out council meeting.

Oh, Councillor Wheeler thinks it was Councillor Rasmussen's intent to have them come to be a more public... Okay,

So we leave it in. Thank you. We'll

Leave it in.

Any further speakers?

Do we all aware of what we're voting on?

Just the point of order, sorry

To be annoying. Point of order, yes. I thought you were happy. I don't think you can have a motion that says that Council is resolving to invite them to a council meeting or a briefing. Which one are we going to invite them to, a council meeting or a briefing, or we're letting them choose?

They can choose.

Is that our intent, that we're going to invite them to both a council meeting and a briefing? I think we should resolve on— I'll ask the Deputy Mayor what— Well, I can't be inside Councillor Rasmussen's head, I'm sorry, but he's not here

And perhaps if we put, yes, a meeting with councillors at either a council meeting or briefing, subject to their decision of which they would prefer. They may wish to come to a council meeting. They may wish to come to a briefing. And of course their availability is , you know—

Let's solve your angst, Councillor Conolly. No. He's gone from we better—

Pardon?

What you said is fine.

A meeting with the councillors at some point.

Yes.

Yeah

We can leave that open. To be determined. Yes, if we send them the invitation

Invitation to meet with us.

Councillor Ross, you're happy with that? Yes, I can see that. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor, you wish to exercise your right of reply?

Does everybody know what we're actually voting on?

Yep.

Yep. Okay, well no need for a right of reply then.

Okay, then I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Rasmussen. Declared carried.

We move to questions with notice. Any discussion on those?

Councillor Conolly. Just a bit of feedback in regards to the answer provided for question number four. I mean, I got my calculator and worked out the answer, but it wasn't printed in the business paper. It was quite a clear question: what increase in positions have there been? And instead of just providing that, we've broken it down by different parts of what we've removed from different places, what we've added in different places. It could have been a lot more concise in saying, I think I've worked it out correctly, we've added 9.9 full-time equivalents currently, and we're going to add another four next year. So just some feedback that perhaps clearer answers wouldn't leave people with questions or the feeling that the question was being avoided.

More precision required. General Manager.

It was a difficult question to answer because it's actually not that simple, because some of the positions relate to the SRV; they're specific to that. Some relate to increased workloads, some income generating, and others are related to the community strategic plan. The intention was not to confuse ; it was trying to provide more information, but I'll take the feedback on board, absolutely.

Further discussion?

I don't think we have to move anything on this. Okay.

There's no further general business. We move to the— someone move that we move into confidential. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Sam Brogno. All those in favour say aye. Carried.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 153, Council, whilst in closed session resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that the current contract for the hire and maintenance of landfill plant at Hawkesbury City Waste Management Facility with Select Civil Proprietary Limited be extended until midnight 30th August 2020, based on the proposed agreed rates, option B, fixed for the one-year period, with the option of three by one-year period extensions. In favour of the motion were Councillors Ross, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Richards and Calvert. Not present at the meeting were Councillors Rasmussen and Tree.