30 June 2020 - Ordinary

In 2020. I'll declare the meeting open and I will first begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land and paying respect to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'd like to advise members of the public observing the meeting that in accordance with Clause 6.3.1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. The recordings are made for the purpose of compiling minutes of the meeting by Council staff. Recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations and requirements in this regard. Recordings are ultimately stored in Council's record management system. For the benefit of any person speaking tonight, I would like to point out that it is expected that you refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at the meeting. And finally, I'd also request that if any person participating in the meeting 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, please?

No, Mr Mayor, but Councillor Tree is still trying to get in.

Okay . Is she the only one missing?

Yes. Well, we'll hold over those apologies till we find out whether she can get in or not. Tonight's agenda, there are no public speakers on any of the matters, and there are two items to be done on block, and they are item 121. And 123. So I plan to go through the business papers starting from 111 onwards in the same order they're on the contents page. Do we have any declarations of interest, please?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Yes, Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor, which one are you?

I don't have the clause in front of me, but for item 111, I am declaring an interest but claiming the exemption under the Code of Meeting Principal Residents Clause. I'll send that filled-in form through in written form to, I guess, to Charles.

Item 111. Okay. So you— Yes, thank you. Councillor Richards.

I'll declare a pecuniary interest in item 111, thanks, and I'll leave the meeting

Okay. Any other declarations of interest?

No. Okay. The minutes from the last meeting, is there any discussion?

I'll move that they're true and correct, Mr Mayor.

Second that. Second that, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Zamprogno , seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, and that we accept the minutes as printed. Any discussion? If not, I'll put that.

Into item 111, and there are two councillors declaring an interest. Deputy Mayor, do you wish to explain your interest, please? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have an interest. I live in the investigation area, but as it is my principal residence, I claim the exemption under the disclosure provisions of the Code of Conduct as they are now included within the Code of Conduct.

Thank you.

I'll remain in the meeting. Thank you. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Thank you. I'll be leaving, as my partner owns land in the investigation area, and this particular recommendation brings about a conflict. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. So, Councillor Richards, they're going to put you in a waiting room, I believe, and I hope you enjoy it in there. And when we finish with this item, the screen will magically appear again for you, okay?

Item 111

Move, Mr Mayor.

Second that. Recommendation?

No, I'm not moving the recommendation. I'm moving an alternative motion to the business paper, but I am moving a motion which I have sent through only just now. I'm sorry due to the timing, but I can — can you not hear or something, Amanda? Councillor Kotlash, sorry, she's waving. I'm not sure.

Councillor Kotlash.

I was just wondering how we do the ordering of business items, also how we... A motion.

Well, I've moved a motion, so I suppose it would be an amendment. The Deputy Mayor put

Her hand up and said she's got a motion.

So are we not using the blue hands? Because I had my blue hand up.

No, we're using the red hands. That's a good point. Blue hands. I've got Councillor Kotlash with blue hands.

I don't have a hand thing on there at the moment. I

Think if you tick raise.

I thought last time we were voting like this and raising like this. That's how we did it last time, vote like this.

No, we vote like that, but we raise it by the blue hands.

All right, well. And I think we should continue that practice. All right, well, sorry.

So what are we doing?

Councillor Kotlash has— I'd like to— wants to speak. Sorry, I can't hear you, Councillor Kotlash. I'd like to move a motion that I'd

Sent the staff this afternoon.

Okay, please do.

Is it able to be put up on the screen?

I hope so. Mr Conroy, can it be put up on the screen? Yep

Thank you. You'd like— don't talk

About—

You'd

Like to move that. Do we have a seconder for it?

I'll second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Conolly, was that you? Yes, sorry. Moved by Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Conolly.

Councillor Kotlash, yes, please. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I ask just a couple of questions? Before I talk to this motion.

Yes .

On page 31 of the structure plan, it refers to RU2 as being the zoning in the investigation area, but on the map that has the zonings, it refers to RU1. And I was just wondering, is that a typo?

Mr Conroy? I'll refer that to the director, Mr Mayor.

There's actually two zonings across the investigation area, both RU1 and RU4 primary production, and RU4 primary production small lots.

So that means that that is a mistake on page 31 of the structure plan. There is no RU2.

Mr Conroy? I'll refer that to the director again, Mr Mayor.

Oh, so in terms of page 31, these were the options that we were considering in terms of the proposed zoning. So that's not talking about the existing zoning.

Oh, okay. Good. Right. Thank you. Thanks for clearing that up. The second question that I want to ask is, if the structure plan doesn't get adopted tonight, where does that leave the applicants who have already been waiting, and in some cases for seven years, for their applications to be dealt with?

So as later in the council business paper, you'll see there's an update on all of the current planning proposals, and all of those proposals have continued to be progressed, and they're all at different stages, as you would note in the reports. Anything that's in council's domain at the moment, we've been actioning.

Yes, but my question was, if this structure plan doesn't get adopted, what happens then?

It doesn't affect the progression of those current planning proposals.

Okay , so they just keep being assessed?

Yes.

So the planning proposals can still be assessed without the structure planning document?

Yes, we have continued assessing all planning proposals while at the same time doing the structure plan.

Okay. In the third question, sorry, this is my last question. On page 21 of the business plan, it talks about the structure plan being— I'll just quickly read it out. It says, It has been considered that the development within the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area is not going to achieve a LGA-wide community benefit. However, the draft structure plan demonstrates place-based planning to meet the local housing demand in the investigation area. And I was wondering, how was that a local housing demand that was actually generated from the community, or was generated from the fact that council was now looking at this investigation area? I wouldn't have thought we had a very burgeoning local— Housing demand.

No, so when the residential land strategy that was done back in 2011, so subsequent to that, a number of planning proposals. You might recall council received a number of planning proposals for that specific area, and then as a result of that, that led to the resolution to develop a structure plan to give council a bit of a framework in which to make that assessment.

So, in terms of the residential land strategy, didn't identify the Kurmond-Kurrajong area as an investigation area or one of the areas that we would be seeking to meet our housing targets in specifically.

That doesn't quite answer my question, but I'll let that go for the time being. I wouldn't have thought we had a local plan housing demand, but nevertheless. The reason that I put this motion

Forward tonight is

That I don't think this plan really adequately addresses the objectives of the regional plan or the planning priorities of the district plan. As recently as the 5th of May, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, in a gateway determination report from one of the current planning proposals that we have lodged with Council in the Kurmond-Kurrajong investigation area, said, and I'll read this out, but this is a direct quote: The draft structure plan as a whole is inconsistent with the Western City District Plan and Greater Sydney Regional Plan. Council has not requested the department's review or endorsement of the plan. However, the department has provided advice during the local strategic planning statement process to Council officers and consultant directly regarding the apparent inconsistencies of the draft structural plan with the district and regional plans.

So that didn't make me feel terribly confident that we'd actually addressed all of the objectives and the planning priorities that were listed in the front sections of page four of the structural plan. And there's just a few things that I was also concerned about. On page four of the draft structural plan, it has a list of things that, and it says that all of these objectives and planning priorities have been addressed. But, for instance, objectives 10 and 11 of the regional plan talk about

Requirements for housing, and it's just really not relevant to this area. There's objectives and priorities for waterways, which is sort of relevant, but not necessarily too relevant to the Kurrajong-Permon area.

It also talks about protecting scenic and cultural landscapes. And I think that there's a sort of a bit of a fundamental flaw in the structural plan at the moment, because I think what's happened is that the priorities and the objectives that I think the state government tried to get across in the regional plan and the district plan. Have sort of been misinterpreted. And I think that it's , I think there's a big difference between a scenic landscape and a specific view. And I think that, look, I think we can all appreciate that we have scenic landscapes, but to go around and take photos of specific views and then analyse them, you know, as if they're in themselves in need of protection, I find is really ridiculous.

I think it's subjective . It's just a conflict waiting to happen. And, you know, I imagine if you sent 10 people out to capture what they considered to be a great view worth protecting, they probably, the 10 people would probably come back with 10 different results. You know, I imagine that the locations of these specific views in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area is probably more a function of where the photographer could stop and park their car than anything else. So I think this is really something that I just do not agree with, that we need to put in a context of planning control or a planning tool, if that's the... So I'm sorry I can't see the clock from here, but I'll keep going until... You have

One minute left.

Thank you. So I think also there's been a bit of a misinterpretation of the managing the better lands objective, Objective 29. I think the ORF has emphasised the need to protect environmental and social values, but really has left out the economic values such as farming and mineral resources. Just a line from the objective number 29 from the original plan. It says, A significant portion of the metropolitan rural area is underutilised and has the potential to be used for more productive rural uses. So I think that we really needed to have a plan that looked at whether this land in Kurrajong Kermond was actually, you know, any sort of useful farming. And it says in the plan that it sort of dismissed it as, Oh no, it's no good for farming, it's best for residential.

But yet the classes of the OEH land and soil classification classes, 3 and 4, well, number 3 is high capability land and number 4 is moderate capability land. So I don't think that really needed to be dismissed in the way it was. So just to wrap up, I suppose I'm also, the second thing that I really wanted to say was I'm on the record of saying that I think that the applicants for these planning proposals, who as I said have in some cases been waiting seven years, just seem to be made to be jumping through a never-ending number of hoops. And I think that we really have to process these applications as quickly as possible, hence one of the points in the motion that I put up before you. And the third thing is if, look, we're going to do structural planning, I think we need to do it right.

And I think that we've fallen really well short at the moment. But I think there's the opportunity to use the information that we've got. We've done lots of studies and I think we should carry that through, and we should use all of the studies that we have. I don't think that we should, you know, leave anything—

Time's actually up, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. Well, I'll wrap up and that to say that I think that we can probably do a better job by using that for when we review the DCP and the LEP. Thanks. I'll stop there, but I think we really need to get this right. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further speakers? Can you please raise your blue hand if you wish to speak.

I don't have any blue hands on the screen. I've got— Maybe

They can't find their blue hand, Mr Mayor.

Maybe they can't.

Councillor Ross, your hand has come up.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Look, with your indulgence, seek to ask a question of the relevant director in regard to point four on the suggested motion, or the motion being discussed at the moment. Would the director comment as to the relevance of the DCP and the LEP in this process, as opposed to the other matters that have been thrust upon Council by the Department of Planning and so on, please? I'm just a little bit at a loss to understand the relative force or capacity of each of those elements to influence Council's abilities to conduct its operations. Thank you. Yes, it's Corinne. Okay,

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. So essentially the, as you're aware, we've now sent the local strategic planning statement through to the Department for the assurance process, which is our , you know, a long-term 20-year land use strategic plan. We're progressing work around our housing study, employment lands and rural lands strategies, all of which are studies that again are strategic and would inform the work that we need to do in terms of the review of the LEP and DCP. So if you want to see it as a hierarchy, you would say that the LSPS, along with our community strategic planner, the high order plans. The housing study and rural land studies would then sort of fall below that. And then the Kurmond-Kurrajong would be, because that's much more of a place-based localized plan, would then be informed by those higher order plans.

And then all of that work would also feed into the review of the LEP and DCP.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you very much, Director. I would then, if this is amenable to you, sir, ask the proponent of the motion if they would consider some rewording of element four therein, please.

Are you suggesting any words, Councillor Ross?

I'm suggesting words to the extent that the advice just given by the Director, if they could be accommodated, that they might better suit your intent, I think, as the mover, ma'am. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Ross. I think I, if I can, I'll just say what I think you mean by that. Are you saying that in point four, if we make it a bit so it's not so specific to the DCP and the LEP, it's that— That we use all of the information and all the studies that we have, that we use them in a broader way. Is that what you're saying?

Thank you. If I could respond, as I understood the director to say that the LSPS is possibly the highest level reporting that will be promulgated in the ultimate. And then following beneath that, we have the rural land strategy and whatever, whatever, and the housing strategy and so on. And then you would have possibly this Kurrajong-Kurmond investigations structural plan, and then that would, all of those things combined would inform both the LEP and the DCP, presumably.

Thank you.

Councillor Cotter.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I understand what Councillor Ruff is saying, and I agree that that is probably the way that that would happen, and that's probably not what point 4 explicitly says. But I think we could probably change it to say include the information that's in the draft structural plan

To include that in all of the strategies and plans that will not fall out of the local strategic planning statement but come out of that. So that's what you were saying. There's, we've got our regional, our housing strategy, our regional land strategy and all of those other strategies, and is that what you're saying? We need to use that information to inform them as well. So how about we, we say include the information in the draft Kurmond-Kurrajong investigation area plan in all of our planning strategies following the finalisation of the relevant strategic planning studies.

Mrs Perrin, does that capture what you were saying?

So essentially, from my understanding of the conversation with councillors, we're deferring the adoption, or not adopting this report, to enable us to complete the strategic planning framework, which includes the local strategic planning studies, the housing strategy and the rural land study, which is specific. They will then inform the review of, or the, I suppose, revised Kurmond-Kurrajong Structure Plan, and all of that work will then also be included in any review of the LEP and DCP.

And I didn't take myself, so I wasn't writing as I spoke.

Yeah, I don't know whether that was very clear, Mrs Perrin. I'm not sure whether I understand.

Yeah, essentially, yeah.

Essentially what Councillor Kotlash just said is also embraces what you said. Is that what you're saying?

It is. So I suppose I'm trying to clarify the reason for not adopting the study at this point in time is to allow Council to complete the Local Strategic Planning Statement, Housing Study and Rural Land Study.

Councillor Kotlash, is that— I'm

Actually someone is typing.

I have, thank you, Mr Mayor. I have been trying to follow this screen and it's been jumping up and down, so I'm not quite sure whether I'm having a—

It's being typed, sorry, so— I

Don't know whether I'm having an internet moment. No

We all had it.

It seems like it's coming in and out.

Yep.

I think if I understand Councillor Ross's point, and I possibly, I do, I think I agree with it, is that my understanding is there is a lot of other strategies and a lot of other pieces of work that the work that has already gone into the Kurmond-Kurrajong Structural Plan will address . And I don't— the reason, my justifications , my reasons for that point was I don't want us to lose the information that we've gathered so far. I don't think it's in the right format in this structural plan. I don't think it's— I think it's with sort of, what is that saying about wagging the tail or wagging the dog before the tail? Can

I get down to the specific words that we're using, Councillor Ross? Are you happy with that conversation? Is that what you meant?

Mr Mayor, yes, broadly speaking. It possibly could be condensed somewhat by referring to , if you like, the other planning strategies ahead of the DCP and LEP in that element number four, I think, without diminishing the mover's intent. Sir,

Sounds like we're all in furious agreement again, and the speakers, that is. So we wait, I think, until it comes up on the screen and then have another look at it. In the meantime, Councillor Conolly, would you be happy to accept that kind of, as seconder, that kind of change? Yes. Yep . Okay. So Councillor Kotlash, we'll wait till it comes up on screen and then I'll get your opinion on it then. The next blue hand up is Councillor Rasmussen. Thank

You, Mr Mayor. It's just a query. I don't know, we seem to have some, well they're called blue hands, they're actually white hands, are up or not up, and I'm not sure how many councillors are actually able to access their blue hand. And the second, so you might please check to see whether Councillor can all access their blue hand, because otherwise we're going to end up in a bit of a tangle with our voting. I can see that. And secondly, I noticed on the shared screen before the motion put up had a number of councillors voting in favour of it. Now that could be confusing to the public looking at that motion because we haven't actually voted on it yet. So Mr Mayor, you might want to clarify that so the public doesn't get confused with what's flashing up on the screen.

Okay, can I ask, is there any councillor who doesn't have access to the blue hand? They come up blue on mine, Councillor Rasmussen. So that's why I call them a blue hand, but no one is. Yeah. Okay, blue hand, white hand. I

Do now. I didn't at the start. I just went out and re-entered, and I've got one now, but I didn't have one at the start.

Secondly, I think what you saw before is the staff just put up all the councillors as a list, and then when the voting is taken, they cross out the ones from one list and put them on another list. They've been doing that for a while. I've noticed that come up on the screen over the last few years. That

Might suit the staff, but I'm not sure that the viewing public understands that protocol.

I know, and I was just about to agree with you that that part of the screen should not have been shown to the public, and I'm sure it was an error, and I don't expect we'll be seeing it again. But it's not normal practice to show that. I've just seen it a few times in the past. Did you wish to speak as well, Councillor Rasmussen, on this item?

Mr Mayor, not at this point. I'll reserve my talking until a bit later. Thank you.

Okay.

Deputy Mayor, you had your blue hand up.

I did, and my other hand up as well.

I'll foreshadow a motion. If this motion doesn't get through, I'll be bringing a motion after that if this one fails. So I won't specifically speak against this motion. I really couldn't. It was very messy and clear. I couldn't really understand it in terms of planning speak. So I'll just leave it. If this one goes down, I'll bring my foreshadowed motion after this.

So you don't wish to tell us the contents of your foreshadowed motion?

No.

Okay. Well,

I could. It's about deferring this subject. It's about deferring the plan, but it's in a different context.

It's just that if people knew what the foreshadowed motion is, that might affect their vote.

Oh, well, I thought we normally waited. I thought that's what a foreshadowed motion was, but I could—

You just want to tell us that it's about deferring that, that'll do.

It's about deferring. Yes, it's about deferring the motion. It's straightforward and clear.

And you don't wish to speak at this time?

No, I'll speak to that. Well, I'd be speaking to my motion if I spoke at this time, so I'll speak when it's foreshadowed.

Okay. Councillor Rasmussen, and your hand is up again. Oh

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I just want to add this comment, and that is the structure plan we have discussed as a council several times, both in briefings and in meetings , and it just seems to me that the council and ratepayers have paid , I think, very capable experts, consultants, to actually do the work necessary to bring this structure plan before us. And I'm not sure that it's as about as objective as I think we can expect consultants to be when they make recommendations. Now, we have all, most of us have said, and I think most of the time, for those of us who are out there at the election time talking to people and other times, we have all heard from surveys and talking to people that what people really enjoy about the Hawkesbury is the rural nature of the area and also the way that the hills are structured at the moment.

But that is not to say that a particular view would necessarily, because part of the view right now is, in fact, some agriculture, grazing, fruit growing and so on. So I'm not sure that the structure plan is going to, in any way, diminish what can go on up there. I guess the issue, the hard part of this structure plan, although that's not necessarily part of it altogether , but that is whether or not we take on the view that therefore we should rezone the area, or the hills, which I think will be quite controversial, as we've seen from the comments from the public on this plan. So, Mr. Mayor, I think we should take on board the consultant's capability and capacity to view things objectively when they go out and do work for us and bring back, in their view, their professional experience view, the best and the most objective view that they can present to us.

I wouldn't say it's objective or biased. I think it's what they see, and this is what they report to us.

So, I assume you were speaking against the motion.

Councillor Rasmussen. Mr Mayor, sorry, Mr Mayor, I didn't make that clear. I will now. Yes, I am. I was. I was, sorry.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll be supporting the motion. To be honest with you, I've been confused by this process in this council, this term of council. In 2015, we had a council that was broadly supportive of this kind of development in this area, and it got to a point where there wasn't a clear and consistent way that the applications that were coming in were being assessed, and it was recognised by the council that we needed to put a halt on the applications coming in while we developed a structure plan so that we had some way of assessing these applications as they come in. But then there was a change of council, a significant change, and the majority of councillors here made it quite clear they didn't support development in this area at all and didn't want development west of the river was the big catch cry.

But then went ahead with the structure plan anyway, and I never really understood the purpose. If you're against development in this part of the world and didn't want more population across the river until there's a new bridge, I don't know why you would be proceeding with a structure plan for development at Kurrajong and Fernmount. But it went ahead and I never quite understood the logic. Now that we're here and I'm looking at the structure plan, I think perhaps Councillor Rasmussen, when he said that the consultants have been objective, I think maybe he misunderstood the criticism. It's not that anyone suggesting any individual person has been subjective. It's that the concept of views and vistas being significant is subjective in itself.

Different views and vistas are significant for different reasons to different people, and in a democracy nobody has the right to determine which view or vista is more significant than another. You know, if you're an applicant and you had a planning proposal rejected on the basis that somebody thought the view across your property was worth protecting, I don't think you'd be very happy if you didn't agree. It's just far too subjective, in my opinion, to be a planning control or something to be used for planning assessment. I think there's a lot of good work that's gone in this. I think, you know, not everything needs to be thrown out. I don't necessarily agree that we would want to change the zoning either.

So I think it's the motion that Councillor Kotlash has moved to. To defer it, but make sure that the work forms part of the broader LEP review process. I think is on the right track, and I'm happy to support that. Okay. Before we move on, Councillor Kotlash, the version that's on the screen now, point four, is that what you're moving?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. While we were just— I had a little wordsmithing going on there. All I think we need to do is just remove the words in the DCP and LEP, and write— so if we do that,

We could have it so it now reads, Include the information that's in the draft Kurmond-Kurrajong Investigation Area Structure Plan in the review, in the development of related planning— development of related planning review processes. That's it. And then that leads it so that, as Councillor Conolly has said, and as we've said, that there's good work in this that needs to be— we need to not throw out.

In the development of related— Include— review—

Planning

Review process.

Of related planning review processes, or planning review documents.

Documents, not processes.

Yeah, sorry.

And through you, Mr Mayor, I'd like to see whether that's what Councillor Ross was getting at.

So you're looking to have a full stop after documents and leave the rest out?

Oh, if that suits. I think it could be left out, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just to make it so that nobody's confused.

Councillor Ross, is that what you had in mind?

I think broadly so. So I think it's more the intent of the mover and the seconder to whom I should defer. It's not my motion, sir.

I know, but you wanted to make the change. I'm just—

I suggested that it might be appropriate in the context.

Well, I won't ask you then. Councillor Conolly, are you happy as seconder with that change? Yeah, on the basis Councillor Ross is happy, I'm happy, Mr Mayor. Well, I can't tell whether he's happy or not. I've asked him, so— For goodness sake! I will assume that this is what— Well, I've taken myself off mute to interject, Deputy Mayor. That's good form. I

Did take myself off. It's becoming ridiculous.

I'll assume this is what Councillor Ross meant, and Councillor Conolly, you happy as seconder to keep seconding that, I believe. Councillor Wheeler, you had your hand up.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I was initially just going to ask that we see the motion again because I'm finding it a little bit difficult to follow, and I'd actually would prefer— I'm hoping that the Deputy Mayor's foreshadowed motion provides a clearer précis of where Council wants to go with this because I find this a— A little bit lacking in clarity, I suppose. Given that what we're trying to do here is, given that the majority of planning decisions have now been taken out of our hands, I think it behoves us to make quite clear statements about planning. I'm a bit troubled by some of the things that have been raised. Firstly, the idea that there's no local housing demand. There clearly is a local housing demand, or we wouldn't have developments like Jacaranda Ponds and Redbank happening in the LGA.

And regardless of whether there's local housing demand, there is clearly a large demand for subdivision of rural lands, particularly west of the river. These aren't necessarily council's hoops that the properties in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area are coming up against. They are, in fact, gateway's hoops. And if you look at the item later in the business paper, you can see that some of those developments have failed to meet the hoops put up by the gateway determination. I'm also troubled by the idea that views and scenic landscapes are not able to be protected or not able to be assessed objectively. I wonder how many of you are aware of Penrith City Council's scenic cultural landscape study that went on public exhibition last year.

It's a really interesting document and something that I think would be worthy of us producing for the— and it's a whole of LGA document, which I think is something that it has over the Kurrajong-Kurmond structure plan, and that it assesses views and vistas across the LGA, and I think that's really helpful. It talks about valued and priority landscapes. I think it is quite reasonable for a professional trained landscape architect to make an objective assessment of the value of views and vistas to an LGA, to the people who live in it, to its sense of place, and the values of the people who live in it, but also for those who visit it and its value to the visitor economy. And I think we need to keep those things in mind.

I'm not comfortable with point two of the motion, which says that we don't adopt the structure plan, but we use its information. If the information is good, I don't know why the plan isn't good. So I find that statement difficult. I think point three is redundant. We have an existing resolution that we process those proposals , and they continue to be processed, as seen in the later item on the business paper. So I can't support the motion in its current form. I do accept that accepting the structural plan today is not the best way forward, but this doesn't provide the definitive statement that I'd like Council to be making currently.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen, your hand is still up. Is that from before, or are you wanting to speak again?

Well, Mr Mayor, thank you very much. I've had already spoken, but to point of clarification, and it goes to the comments that were made by Councillor Conolly. I think he was referring to me and some of his comments, and some of the comments were relating to views. Now, I think he's aware that the Land and Environment Court has established very clear planning principles relating to views, and I can think of at least two , and maybe more than that, where views are an important part, and the Land and Environment Court does judge and make judgments and determinations about views and what can and can't be protected, and they use those planning principles. Now, the second point that he made was that, and I don't know, it seemed to me he was directing them at me, that development west of the river was a catch cry. Certainly wasn't my catch cry.

It sounds to me like you're trying to exercise some kind of right of reply against Councillor Conolly. No, no, I'm just picking up the points. I don't think he mentioned you in his comments at all. Yes, he did.

No, he did, absolutely he did. Councillor Conolly can clarify that, because I think he referred to my name. So I'm just taking the point of clarification, given this is a public meeting. There are many people, landowners west of the river, who have large properties, and they have an existing right to develop those lots within the zoning and the land size zone allowance for that area. So we have never, I have never said that you can't do it. Certainly people do have the right to do it west of the river because of the zoning. Councillor Rasmussen,

I believe you have that right because you've spoken already on this matter, and you are now just launching into another speech. I can't hear you clarifying what Councillor Conolly supposedly said. So if you can't do that, can we move on, please?

Do we have any other speakers?

I don't see any other blue hands. Hang on, I'll just have another look.

There's no other blue hands up on the screen. Does anyone else wish to speak?

No?

Okay, then Councillor Kotlash, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just make a couple of points about the motion. One of the reasons that

I thought that the structure plan wasn't up to scratch is that not that it didn't have some good things in it, that it lacked some things. There's big gaping holes in it , and that is a worry. And I think that there's such big holes that they could, you know, change the way this goes if we had adopted it. The other thing that was said, that

I think it was said about the consultant being able to give

Objective assessments of views. That is fundamentally impossible. Nobody can give an objective assessment of the value of a view. It's just, it's not a concept. I understand that . There are planning laws, and planning is being strengthened about protecting landscapes and scenic landscapes. But when you get down to taking a photograph and having a trajectory of a particular view from a particular place, and then expect the people that happen to have properties that come into that view to be happy with you saying, well, you can, you know, you have to do this, that and the other, so somebody else can benefit from, you know, a vista of your land is just, that's just a nonsense. I find that quite outrageous.

But anyway, I agree that we need planning laws to sort of keep the character and the rural and the beautiful, you know, feel of the Hawkesbury that we have. I get that, but not specific and not directional. And I think I'll just leave it at that. I think we've got a lot more work to do, and, you know, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

Okay, that was right of reply. Now, as of in the last meeting, your voting is done with your real hand, not your blue hand. Okay, so I'll ask those people who are in favour of this motion to raise your hand, please In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno. Did I miss anyone? No. Those against? Yeah, I mentioned myself. I'm sorry. Those against, please raise your hand against. Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Garard. Did I leave anybody out?

So it's five votes in favour and six votes against. I declare it lost. Deputy Mayor, you have a foreshadowed motion.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did send the motion through.

Could I have a second, if I have a seconder, I'll speak to the motion.

Is that it on the screen, is that the correct one?

Yes, that's it.

Okay, and Councillor Rasmussen, you'd like to second that? Yes, I have, Mr Mayor, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, as you would know, since the Residential Land Strategy from 2011 was introduced, it's been plagued with problems right from the start. There's been inconsistency and uncertainty, and much of this has arisen because when the planning proposals attached to that strategy started coming in, they weren't coming in for the five areas which were identified, but they were coming in from an area which was not identified, and we had nothing, nothing at all in place to enable assessment of those proposals. That was seven or eight years ago now, and many resolutions and many attempts to overcome that have occurred. But as we know, it's not our planning that just shifts, but we also have state planning and changes to the state level of planning, which, of course, is the highest level in the planning hierarchy.

So within this structure plan, I think we've got really important, valuable data. It's place-based information, but it is a lower order document. So to enable its effect, we need the higher order documents, which come in with these other outstanding documents that are currently being prepared. So over the past few years, the planning reforms and the formulation of the district plan in particular has put greater emphasis on strategic planning, and I very much support that this has been introduced by the state government. I think that it's a very good way to go forward, and I think Minister Stokes himself has indicated that proper planning documents would see the need of planning proposals like this diminish.

Now, it is the planning proposals that have been problematic because it's been very hard in the absence of any strategic framework around this. So we know now that to comply with the provisions of Section 3.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which are relevant to the implementation of strategic plans, means that we need to complete these three particular strategies before we have that planning framework in place. So they're our higher order plans, and then if we defer adopting the Kurrajong Kurmond Investigation Structure Plan until these are complete, then we can be assured that our plans are all in alignment and that they are compatible with the various district plans. So Councillor Kotlash did refer to the recent Gateway Determination reports, and I hope all councillors have read that because in refusing the two planning proposals for the Kurmond area, they found them to be incompatible with Planning Priority W17 of the Western District Plan.

And additionally, they found the proposals were considered premature in the absence of comprehensive strategic planning framework within Council, with the emphasis placed on completion of the rural lands and housing studies to ensure compatibility with the Western District Plan. The determination also referred to the need for planning proposals in the area to be viewed within the context of cumulative impacts of all the proposals being put forward. These proposals were submitted without any supporting studies, something the determination report states did not enable a site-specific assessment. There was no bushfire assessment, no wastewater report, no flora and fauna report. Those things had been advised by a local planning panel and then recommended by Council staff, but a majority of councillors decided they weren't necessary, and the planning proposal went to Gateway without them and subsequently was refused, which must have been a shock to the applicants, I guess, considering they agreed that they were happy with the staff recommendation.

Anyway, that aside— Point of

Order, please . Yes. Councillor Kotlash. I

Think that Councillor Lyons-Buckett has just said something that was untrue about that particular determination , that particular resolution. I think, I can't remember the Council meeting.

There weren't a particular number of councillors that took it upon themselves to make that decision. I can remember it clearly asking that question whether those studies were necessary.

Point of order. Is this following code of meeting practice?

No. I'm just listening to Councillor Kotlash to work out what the point of order is. You're saying that — Councillor,

It's a misrepresentation . I apologise. It's not a point of order. It's a misrepresentation. Well

If it's a misrepresentation, then at the end of this section you can say then how you've been misrepresented, okay? Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Just to address that so that it can perhaps make the subsequent talk shorter, I did listen to that former meeting today and yes, it was asked whether they were necessary. They were suggested. They weren't. It was said, could they be done at DA level? And they could be, but they were suggested by the staff to be done prior to it going to Gateway. Anyway, regardless, there was a lot that was included in the Gateway determination that is highly relevant to what we're facing now. So Councillor Conolly said previously that we've changed our mind. Why would we be doing this? The pursuit of many of us in this chamber from the very beginning, from when we were first faced with this dilemma, was to get the correct planning framework around this situation so that we wouldn't have this ongoing debacle with it.

And that's what we've tried to do right from the start. So at this point of time, with the Better Management for Rural Areas component of the Western District Plan, it requires us to have our higher order planning in order before we put our place-based planning into the picture. I think that we can proceed onwards if we defer this and then we come back to it to ensure that it is following what we come up with in particularly the rural land strategy, which will be very relevant to those areas that are part of the investigation area. I think that the results of getting this right are really crucial, and we've seen decisions all over the place with this, and we can't deny that it's been a huge problem for this Council.

And when we embarked in 2015 on getting the structure plan done, which was when it started, that seemed the best thing at the time. But subsequent to that, we've had the State Government come in and direct us to do these other strategies, and we've seen through their gateway refusal and their determination report that they are looking on a wider scope. They're looking at the Western District Plan, and that's

How it should be. Deputy Mayor, can you round up, please? Okay,

Thank you.

Any other speakers? No blue hands on the screen.

Is this the point in time, Mr Mayor, that I have my say about misrepresentation?

No, it's not.

Thank you.

Any other speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is probably the way forward that I was hoping for. The advantages, I think, in this motion are that it defers the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation plan rather than knocking it back effectively, and I'm— Don't have a better word than that , which isn't quite what the previous motion did, but that's the best I can come up with at the moment. What it does, I think, is attempt to put it in context, and I think that is a useful way forward for us in light of the documents that the state government is now requiring. And some of these documents, realistically, we should have produced many years ago. It's been stated that our rural land strategy is very out of date. I think that's quite clear.

But we can now also put all of these documents and the draft investigation area structure plan into the context of the state government's Western Districts plan, and then provide real certainty for people going forward, but also hopefully a solid plan that not only protects what people hold dear, but also the characteristics and the environment and biodiversity and the agricultural potential of this area, which I think we are just seeing the beginnings of following a summer where we've had to acknowledge the impact of climate change and also the pandemic, which has required all of us to relocalise and seen people having a big focus on their local area because they see that actually is, at the end of the day, that's where they have to function and the places that are important to them.

And I think we can come up with I think the— there are many parts of the structure plan that are very good, but I think what we can produce in the next 12 months is something that is excellent, and that, I think, is what the whole community deserves from us.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor.

I must firstly thank Councillor Wheeler for her earlier address in which she alerted me to the rather severe way Point 2 in that resolution dealt with the structural plan.

I was certainly

Not able to support the dumping of it as a plan. I think this amendment by the Deputy Mayor

Keeps the document alive, and I find that that is certainly in accord with my wishes, and I believe

Is a proper response to quite valuable information we've been provided. The only additional comment I'd like to make in that regard is that I think it is also now incumbent upon that particular directorate , through the opportunities it has, to ensure that views and vistas are maintained by active enforcement of the requisite legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I will endorse both the comments of both Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Ross in that I think the structure plan has a lot of good information, valuable information for this area, and I think it will accord with a lot of people out in our community who are keen to maintain the rural landscape and character, particularly the character of our area. So having said that, Mr Mayor, I think we should certainly keep the information and the valuable information that we've got. I also think that it accords with the planning principles of retaining views set down by the Land and Environment Court. And if anybody wants to have a look at those planning principles, I can think of two, please go to the Land and Environment Court and you'll see what the judges or the commissioners have said about that.

And I think that's instructive and important to do that, because it does give a lot of foundation and gravitas to the structure plan in that context. Mr Mayor, a question I would like to ask in addition to that is: when do we expect the Rural Lands Study to become available or to be completed? I think I'm on record now, and you would know that as well, I'm on record as having asked for that. For , I don't know, a good 10, 15 years now. Now, if we can't get our rural lands worked out, then clearly we are going to have problems. People are going to, landowners are going to want to do things with their land, which they in many ways are entitled to do and should do, or whatever they need to do or want to do.

But I'm just wondering when we are actually going to get this rural land study. It's been on the books for a very long time.

Mr Conroy, do we have an answer to that?

Through the Director, Mr Mayor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So, Councillors , as you're aware, we have been progressing work on the housing study, rural lands study and the employment lands study, all nearing completion. We've got a workshop scheduled. Following that workshop, the intent, and depending on, I suppose, the feedback, we'd be looking to bring a report to Council in August with the rural lands and housing study and employment lands study , to recommend that we place them on exhibition. The exhibition obviously would occur then through September, October, depending on the amount of feedback that is obtained through the exhibition process. We would then do a post-exhibition report to Council in October, November. And these studies would then obviously feed into the LEP and DCP review, which has to be completed by June 2021.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I appreciate that and want to thank the Director for those comments. That's good to know. So August, or about August, and I know the difficulties with the circumstances that we're all facing and working around at the moment with COVID. Now , the other thing I wanted to just add finally, Mr Mayor, is this, that, you know, it is not surprising that we have a difficulty or landowners face confusion and conflict, given that the original housing residential land strategy that was done some years ago. I came up with five centres in the main where development for housing should and could occur. Now, that wasn't accepted at the time, as I recall it. But what happened, in addition to the experts doing that study and presenting it to Council, what Council, obviously the majority of Councils, parachuted in this area called the Kurmond-Kurrajong area into the mix.

And as Councillor Lyons-Buckett has pointed out, not proceeding with all the necessary studies and preparing for the work to actually lay the foundations for a proper analysis of what could and couldn't be done in that area. Now, the subset correctly has been caught up with that. But that's what happens when you just parachute in without any expertise, other than councillors, plonking into a housing and residential land strategy, you get confusion and you get this sort of, I call it nonsense going on. But hopefully we'll work our way through it. We will sort it out. And the current planning proposals that are before Council, they will be progressed, as we will see later in this business paper.

They will be progressed, and that's right and proper. So, Mr Mayor, I'll conclude on that. But I'm sorry I didn't say at the beginning, I'm speaking for the motion. Sorry about that.

That's okay, and I'm sorry I cut you off before. I thought you'd already finished. Councillor Reynolds, you have your hand up.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of the motion. I have read the determination of the planning proposals for 42 Bells Road and 98 Bells Road, and I must say that I am concerned

For the remaining planning proposals if they are, if Council does decide to push them through for assessment without the reports addressing the requirements of the Western District Plan. Now, that's what happened before with 42 Bells Road back in September last year, where the planning panel and the staff said that there should be reports that go with that application to the Gateway, and it didn't, and it was rejected accordingly.

Regarding views and vistas, I end up being, like, totally subjective and not objective. I'll just read out a thing from the Western District Plan and its determination on 42 Bells Road, and it says, the key views and vistas from the development are within significant view corridors. Justification has not been provided to how the proposed lot sizes would not adversely impact the landscape character and the view corridors.

Now, it's not about a photographer taking a photo from a particular spot.

It's about—

It's about the view corridors.

Now, view corridors are a quantifiable thing. It's not something that somebody likes or somebody doesn't like. And that's, you know, that's why it is in the Western District Plan. And for some councillors to say that they need to be struck out of the structure plan is quite bizarre when the government clearly says that they are so important they need to be addressed. I know that, you know, some people, including our Liberal colleagues, believe an owner should be able to do whatever they want on their property. I mean, that's fine until somebody wants to do a subdivision next door to them or build a Hindu temple at Oakville. So then everything changes. So I think that those councillors regarding the issue with views, it's the same thing as art and music and everything else.

It is quantifiable. The quality is quantifiable. Just because you people personally don't appreciate it, and I'm, for example, when it comes to visual art, I'm a total philistine. I don't understand it. Something looks pretty, it looks pretty. That's great. But music I understand, and views and vistas I understand. And it's really, I just let councillors know that recently , I find it for you, I didn't make note of it, a Dr. Tom Brigden from the University of Newcastle in the United Kingdom has written a book called The Protected Vista: An Intellectual and Cultural History. Now, he has written about how familiar views have developed over time through the appreciation and love of the community.

Now, he's chosen sites in his book from all over the world and compared them to sites back in the UK. In Australia, he wrote about the views in the Hawkesbury.

Now, if someone from University of Newcastle, not just up the road here, but in the United Kingdom, can appreciate the historic and cultural landscapes and view corridors of the Hawkesbury, and our councillors can't, then I think that's a pretty sad state of affairs. So,

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Kotlash, you have your

Hand up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm just going to suggest to the Deputy Mayor that we put something in this motion that has to do with how we are going to deal with the planning proposals that are on the books, because in the recommendation on page 12, it says that progress the remaining planning proposals within the Cumberland-Kurrajong investigation area in accordance with the adopted structure plan. Now , it seems to me, and I'm still confused about why, when I'm asked why these planning proposals are taking so long, it's because nothing's wrong, they're being processed, but yet— Something , so what were the things, what was going to happen if the structure plan was going to be adopted? What mechanisms were going to be triggered by that?

And if we're not, if we're going to defer the structure plan, which I agree with—not, it's not my first choice, but I agree that we can't adopt it today— can I please get some clarification on how our remaining applicants are going to be dealt with? And I don't want the answer to be, yes, they're being processed. What about—I want to know what an adopted structure plan would have done for them.

Mr Conroy.

Through the director, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. So if the structure plan is deferred or not adopted, what we would do is we would revert back to the minimum planning principles that we have been using in relation to assessing planning proposals. And those principles include, you know, building envelopes, asset protection zones, making sure, you know, managing the removal of vegetation, reducing fragmentation of significant vegetation, road and water crossings are minimised, and impact on riparian areas are minimised. Ultimately, there's a number of objectives that we would still use to assess any planning proposals. But ultimately, there is a report in the business paper that gives you an update on each of the ten—there's only ten— five pre and five post gateway planning proposals.

Of which any that are in Council's control, we have been actively progressing through with the applicants or with the department, and others are not in our control. They are with the department to provide us a response, or with the applicant. So all 10 are actively being managed and progressed through, irrespective of the status of the structure plan.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Okay, I've got that. Why was it important to have point four in the recommendation then? Why? And also, I think in the other item that you referred to, it says that Council staff will be in touch with all of the applicants once the structure plan is adopted. Why? I just want to know a bit more about that mechanism.

So I suppose it's just specifically asking Council that you adopt the structure plan. So point four is then saying that we then use that structure plan in order to inform the assessment of any planning proposals. And it's our attempt of, you know, and the structure plan is then meeting the regional and district plan. So it's, you know, looking at how it's addressing those objectives and those strategic state planning documents.

Okay. So my understanding, sorry, just bear with me for a minute. So my understanding is that if we defer this structure plan— The same sorts of planning mechanisms and the same sorts of.

Planning principles will be applied to our remaining planning proposals.

So outside, so before the, if I use an example, the Western Sydney District Plan came into effect in March 2018, okay? These planning proposals have been coming to Council way before that, and at the time before Council talked about having a structure plan, there are some general planning principles that any planning department would use. And in the case of Kurmond-Kurrajong, you know, there's a number of planning principles that were used or would continue to be used. The district plan has then come in, as well as the Sydney Regional Metropolitan Cities of Three Cities , which have a series of objectives, and then they classify the Hawkesbury as a metropolitan rural area, which has a series of objectives.

And then there is a directive from the state government department that we must consider the objectives in those studies. So if we do not have a structure plan, we still have to take into consideration those state-based planning documents in any assessment of any planning proposal, irrespective of the area that they might be, you know, submitted in.

Okay, I get that. If I may just ask another question, Ms. Ne. Sure.

What troubles me about the processing of these planning proposals is that in the gateway determination from the last two planning proposals that we sent to gateway, in the belief that they could have the— In bushfire and all of the other studies done afterwards. What alarmed me about that is that the views and vistas that were included in a draft structure plan that had not been adopted were used, and Councillor Reynolds has just pointed it out to us, were used in the gateway determination to say they haven't addressed that. And that's why I'm very confused about. It

Doesn't seem to matter if we adopt this plan or not. Here are these photos, directions, vistas, views being able to be used when they haven't been adopted. So—

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Misrepresentation.

Okay. We'll address that later. Councillor Kotlash, keep going.

Good, okay. So what I'm saying is that I don't know why we're— what the mechanism is for adopting this structure plan. It doesn't seem to be a reason to do it. If we can apply all of the planning things that, you know, that somebody comes up with in any document that seems that that's going to be considered by the state government, that seems a bit strange to me. Anyway, so that was a bit of a long-winded way for me to sort of to say that I think we have to have point three in this motion that says that we will keep processing those planning documents and we won't wait for the structure plan to be adopted. But we will keep and ring them. So, Mr Mayor, if I could ask the mover of the motion, if we could have a point three that has that we

Include my point, whatever it was.

I really don't think that's necessary because there's another item where we're about to talk about it, which is why I didn't mention it, where we are giving the staff the authority to continue, and they are continuing. That's the point. They are continuing. I don't believe they're stopped in terms of anything to do

With this. Councillor Kotlash, I believe that's a no from the Deputy Mayor. Yep,

Thank you.

Have you finished, Councillor Kotlash? I think your time's up.

Yep. Thank you.

Okay. Any further speakers?

There's no more blue hands. Councillor Kotlash , do you want to address how you believe you were misrepresented? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm sorry, I don't know the date of the council meeting, but the Deputy Mayor referred to a group of councillors deciding that, I think her words were, deciding that the applicants didn't need those particular studies. For instance, I think she said bushfire and I don't know what else she said.

In my opinion, the Deputy Mayor made it sound like a group of councillors knowingly sent these applicants to gateway. Because we believed that, you know, we had a particular belief that they didn't need these reports . I can remember the council meeting and I can remember clearly asking, was the process the same if these applicants had particular studies, or could those studies be done after the gateway determination? And the advice that was given is that yes, they could be. Now , the deputy mayor was trying to make out that, one, we were being bloody-minded in some degree by just going off what we wanted to happen, and that wasn't the case, and that's why I was upset by that misrepresentation. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Do you wish to explain how you say you were misrepresented?

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash, I think quite innocently stated that I raised how views and vistas were part of the assessment process. Mr, I can't hear you, Councillor. Sorry, sir. Councillor Kotlash, I believe quite innocently stated that I said that views and vistas were part of the government's assessment process, and then she inferred that to be, and that's why the assessment was lacking, and that was the fault of the structure plan. I did not say that, and I did not infer that. I said the application did not address the site-specific issues of views and vistas. That is the application for 42 Bells Road. The views and vistas addressed in the structure plan I thought were quite reasonable. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for those contributions. It is frustrating to have tried for years and years to push forward to get the proper strategic planning framework in place in this council. Thankfully, the state government has now directed that that is what we have to have. So, since the Western District Plans have come in and since the focus has shifted to strategic planning, that has made things a lot different to when we embarked on this journey back in 2012, when we were faced with these uncertainties, inconsistencies, and very little in the way of mechanism to allow us to have these decisions made. It's just important to draw attention to the fact that planning proposals are not development applications, and I know I probably harp on about this quite a bit, but there's a big difference.

They're not development applications. Development applications have a statutory control around them. They have a framework that may make them much easier to assess in terms of criteria that they're assessed against, whereas planning proposals essentially are changing the planning controls to suit a specific site, and they are speculative. They're done, and people who have them done know that they may not proceed. It's not like a DA where there's a permissible development that can occur. So there is a big difference, and it's not unusual for them to take many years. I know in other councils they can take years and years, and that's not unusual. It's often better. It would have been easier if we had had more comprehensive strategic documents, and it would have been easier if the original residential land strategy had done what it was supposed to do and actually have had the structure planning done when it was implemented.

That would have saved a lot of this angst and a lot of the subsequent resolutions and changes in tack that have occurred. But given now that we have the gateway and the state planning department implementing very strictly, I would say, from what I've seen, the provisions of the Western District Plan, that will, of course, override any various other aspects. Except to say, the value of a structure plan, and certainly the value of our rural land strategy and our local housing strategy, is to give a more localised perspective for those people making the decisions when they're not in our area. So the place-based local information for the area could be advantageous in showing someone else making a decision just how in that particular area something is or isn't appropriate.

And so that's the real value in it, and that's why I think deferring it until we can get our other planning done and have it all tie in together, so that when something comes forward, and hopefully once the LEP is done and the rezoning and the DCP are all complete, there won't be a need for this spot rezoning to continue, because we will have the certainty that people deserve and that some of us have been trying to get for people for the many years. I'd just like to address what Councillor Kotlash said, which was not a misrepresentation. I was simply pointing out that in that particular council resolution, there was a suggestion. By the staff that those various reports were done prior to Gateway, which was based on advice from the local planning panel, and there was a decision not to go with that.

That was simply what I was saying, and that is what happened in that meeting. So I would like people to support this. I think deferring it means that it is still live, as Councillor Ross said, and that we can continue to use the information from it and to feed in the other information once we have the overarching higher strategic documents completed, which I'm pleased to hear will be reasonably soon. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're going to put the motion for a vote, and once again, you vote by raising your real hand, please. All those in favour of this motion, please raise your hands. In favour is Councillor Conolly, sorry, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, and Councillor Tree. Absent is Councillor Richards. The motion is carried. Thank you.

There were two items on block that we needed to move. They were items 121 and 123. Would someone like to move that? Moved that way, Mr Mayor. Councillor Richard should be invited back into the meeting so that she can participate. She should. Apparently she's just going to appear. There she is. There she is. Moved that way, Mr Mayor. I just have two items on block that I'm asking people to move. Councillor Rasmussen has moved it, Councillor Wheeler has seconded it. Anyone wish to speak against that? If not, I'll declare it carried unanimously.

The next item on the business paper is item 112.

Please, once again, use your blue hands. Councillor Reynolds, are your blue hand from there from last time or from this time?

No blue hands. Okay. Anyone wish to speak on item 112, please? Please put your blue hand. Deputy Mayor, thank you.

You're on mute, Deputy Mayor, sorry.

Sorry, I'll move item 112. It's the operational plan, isn't it?

Yes.

Yep.

We have a seconder.

Second that, Mr—

Councillor Ratzma. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak to that?

Yes, just briefly, thank you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, I'd like to thank the staff for the hard work. I know these are very challenging economic times to be operating in, and I think that they've done a wonderful job with just guiding us through the last few months. I think that's been really good. I'd also like to thank the people who put in the submissions because I think there's many valid projects and requests in there, and I always encourage people to let us know what it is in their area, where they see deficiencies in their footpaths, in their roads , etc., because unless we know the specifics of what people want, it's very hard for us with the works program and to feed into it. And obviously everything can't be done at once, but it is good to get things into the system so that eventually they can become part of the scheduled works.

So I do thank the people for the submissions. I note there was a lot in the McGraths Hill area, and I hope that a lot of that work ends up improving things for people out in that area. I note the state government motion or the Office of Local Government about delaying the first instalment in the rates payments. I think that— I mean, I'm happy to support that. I have no issue with that. I do worry, though, if people are having trouble paying their rates at the end of August, they may not be in any better position to pay them at the end of September, given that September is probably when the various federal government incentives from the stimulus package will end. But I am happy for that , even though it does mean a bit of a cost shift in us having a decreased cash flow for that extra month while that goes on.

Some time ago, I just, I do have a question, Mr Mayor, if I could ask that there was a motion some time ago regarding whether self-funded retirees could be included in the pensioner rebates. I think both for the rates and for the sullage and the sewerage charges. I'm just wondering if we could get an answer if there was any decision made on whether that applies to self-funded retirees or only to pensioners.

General Manager. Mr Mayor, I'll ask the Chief Financial Officer.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We have done some investigation in regard to self-funded retirees, in particular in relation to other councils. At the moment, we provide pensioner rebates to those that qualify for the pension because there's a process there whereby they can be verified as pensioners. It's a bit more difficult with self-funded retirees. So we are still undertaking some more investigation in that regard, and there's an outstanding report that will need to— that is going to come to Council in the near future.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor . Thank you and I hope that that can be an achievable thing to do. I also draw attention to the very low pensioner rebate, which is, of course, a state government figure that is set, still remaining at $250 despite annual calls I know every single local government New South Wales conference I've been to, this comes up as an issue. $250 is nowhere near enough as a rebate for pensioners, and it really needs to be increased. And hopefully that is going to happen any day now, and we'll all be pleased to see that happen. Within the submissions, I note there were no submissions calling for a review or restructure of the rates, no queries about the dollar value of the rates or charges.

And so I think that obviously everyone's very happy with how the rates are going, but I think that anyone who would oppose this would essentially be opposing, if you oppose the adoption of the operational plan, it's in effect voting against the scheduled works program and the delivery of services that Council is providing to the community. And I think there's very good feedback at the moment from the community about the level of service delivery and the adjustments during the COVID period, which have been very well received. So I think that, again, I thank you and happy to adopt this plan, and that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me firstly just say that the Deputy Mayor does not speak for me, and she cannot purport to try and speak for me in opposing this operational plan. And I take great offence to her statement that, shall I oppose the operational plan, I'm not supporting this schedule of works. Now, the Deputy Mayor is well aware that I will not be supporting this operational plan, as I have not supported the operational plans since both she and the current Mayor had control of this Council. The rating structure that we have under this operational plan is one of the most unfair rating structures that this council has ever adopted. Now, you might take great offence to that, but you will not try again to speak for me.

I have severe questions about the budgetary spending in this council, and I have brought those questions to the public ground here in the report that came to council a couple of meetings ago. There are still outstanding questions from that report, and I look forward to that report coming back to council again so that we can examine those numbers more clearly. Basically , until we have that information, I can't be satisfied with the spending in this council. That does not mean that I am not happy with the level of roadworks that are going on, potholes that are being filled in, parks that are being maintained and looked after. What it does mean is that there are serious questions for me about our expenditure concerning external consultants and taking matters to the Land and Environment Court and seeking legal advice on various matters.

Now, as I said before, this operational plan actually has one of the most unfair rating structures that has been imposed on the good residents of the Hawkesbury. It's a rating structure where certain councillors know full well the impacts that had on certain residents. Now, they were severe, and those councillors chose deliberately to ignore them. They ignored them purely for a political purpose. Some of the most honest statements that I have ever heard in this council have come from those who traditionally sit opposite me and who have tried. Major decisions. Some of the most uncompassionate comments I have ever heard are from those opposite who have insulted residents who have been chamber and who they have insulted to their face for daring to stand against the unfair structure imposed on them.

I will let you know, mind you all who voted for that rating structure, it has done you no favours and it will continue to do you no favours . In that regard, I won't be supporting the operational plan. But what I do wish to highlight is a couple of matters that have been sent to us in the submissions. Now, that relates to the Hawkesbury Sports Council, of which I am the sitting... and the matters raised by a certain resident who does live in McGraths Hill. Now , those matters I have spoken today with the Director of Infrastructure as to what we can do to help those residents and their concerns. Now, as for the Sports Council matter, I'm well aware that there is no room in the budget to be able to satisfy their inquiry, which is very frustrating, considering there are so many of our sporting fields that need drastic attention and we're sitting in a 30% rate rise, yet we have sporting grounds that are not up to standard.

They do need additional money to seek upgrades to infrastructure. So after my conversation today, what I'll be doing is having a look when the next quarterly budget review comes through and seeing if we are in a favourable position, if there's any chance of giving any extra funds to the Sports Council for their purposes outlined in their submission. Now, secondly, for the residents of McGraths Hill. There are a number of outstanding matters. Now, to address those matters and try and find whether there is any room anywhere to address their concerns, the Director of Infrastructure has agreed to meet a certain amount of those residents on site to discuss those issues further. Now, when I'm standing here opposing the operational plan, it wouldn't be up to me to put forward amendments to address those concerns.

So I thank the Director of Infrastructure for offering to meet with those residents on site and see what he can do to address those matters. I'll leave it at that. I find that this operational plan, as with the rating structure, as I said, is extremely unfair to the residents of the Hawkesbury. Thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, just trying to find the right thing to push. I have a question. I think it may be for the Director of Planning. There was recently a court case involving the Hawkesbury Sports Council, and where they were taken to court because somebody was injured because they tripped on a cable that was installed by the Sports Council. I was wondering whether Council pays those costs or whether they were found to be guilty , I suppose. Is Council liable for the costs incurred by the Sports Council and damages to the awarded to the complainant, or does the Sports Council cover that? themselves . General Manager.

Mr Mayor, I'll take that one on board. Look, I think I'll circulate a response to that to Council. It's not a straightforward answer in terms of the history of that particular matter. But ultimately, Council does take responsibility for actions and activities that occur within the local government area. But as I said, that particular matter is a bit more nuanced than just perhaps as was outlined by the Councillor.

Councillor Reynolds, do you have any more to say? No , no, no. Any other speakers? There's no blue hands.

Councillor Ross. Thank

You, Mr Mayor.

It's disappointing in regard to the Sports Council that matters in relation to its operation and management haven't been sorted out by the staff at this stage.

The previous speaker mentioned that works were being required. Well, they've got a further $150,000, give or take a few dollars, on top of the previous vote. I hope it's spent a little more judiciously than past expenditures, and maybe it's the Sports Council and the Council's management that has led to these particular shortfalls being suggested in the... Document that they tendered to the council.

I, as representatives of the community, would have anticipated that following the last election, that council was going to improve its operations and performance.

I regret to say that I see just a repetition of what has previously gone on, and some of the information gleaned in regard to item 93 has almost become legendary now, has been interesting and shows the deviation from what one might expect as accepted good management

Of the council's resources. And I do not applaud that. I believe that there is a great opportunity for this council to improve its efficiency and conduct. And the budget itself contains many items which are just not going to manifest themselves in the way that they are suggested. One only has to have a look at the legal fees at 365, I believe it is.

We've not achieved that low level of expenditure in the time that I've been on council, and that

Is just simply one item alone that could result in at least a half a million dollar variation within that element itself. So the operational result of 1.6 million in favour of the council are highly questionable. I would suggest that we're possibly headed for further disappointment in that regard. And of course, we don't know what will be coming forward in the quarterly budget review in September in terms of revotes , if you like, of expenditure and how that will impact upon the budgetary position of council. So I think it's a little bit tenuous at this stage to say that we're doing too well, and there is certainly a lot of room for improvement. The other particular area of disappointment is in regard to heritage.

We seem to avoid any expenditure in regard to heritage and tourism that might be influenced , if you like, by better heritage signage and such like matters, has been avoided with the usual gusto of the 1912 or 1915 or 16 council. Budgets

And activities, and it is a great disappointment and an opportunity being lost to the council, which in these straitened times deserves greater attention. I also saw that within that area, if you like, the Thompson Square outside eating precinct gets approximately some 7,300 or some such for some updates. It's the constant cause of complaint around the community, and it is degrading in terms of the experience , I would think, of the people who frequent that area. And of late, there has been quite a number of folk in the area at the weekends. Councillor Ross, your time is up.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm in a bit of a quandary about this. I find myself yet again faced with an operational plan that has a couple of components in it that I'm uncomfortable with. I have raised these matters a number of times, and I'm still waiting for a resolution. I find it troubling that we are deciding on an operational plan on the last day of the financial year, with that operational plan to kick in tomorrow. Now , this is what happens when we reduce the number of council meetings, for whatever reason. We are left with items that it's not possible for us to seek additional information on in a timely fashion, given that we first saw this business paper on Thursday, nor is it possible for us to get reasonable resolution on an item where councillors are seeking a different way forward.

The problems that I have are specifically with the funding that is given to outside bodies, and I refer to both the Sports Council and the Hawkesbury River County Council, which I assume is part of the $4 million given to outside bodies listed on page 48 of the plan.

The issue that I have isn't with those organisations per se. The problem that I have is with the provision of information to this council as the elected decision-making body. Unlike all the other committees that council runs, whose business papers and minutes regularly come to council or are posted online and that council can endorse the decisions of, we pay money to these organisations each year, and it would appear that we are liable for the decisions of at least the Sports Council legally, and yet we don't receive any minutes. We don't get to endorse any of their decisions. We don't see their books. We simply allocate them a sum of money and live with it every year, and that doesn't feel like good governance to me, nor does it feel like I'm carrying out my responsibilities under the Local Government Act.

So yet again, I implore the staff to get that information to us because I want it put on public record that this is the absolute last time I will vote for an item that comes to this council that gives us insufficient information about these two bodies. It is unreasonable to put councils and councillors in a position where we have to approve a plan. In order to keep council running in the next 24 hours, whilst we have not got this information, where we have expressly asked for it in the past.

I concur with Councillor Ross's comments that it's very disappointing to see that there's no money, or very little money, for heritage here. I again point out that the salage fees charged to residents are extraordinarily high, unworkably high, frankly, for many families, and I'm not quite sure why no one has outraged about that. I want to address the idea that this is the most unfair rating structure this council has ever put up. I strongly disagree with that statement. I think far more unfair is expecting people on low-value properties to subsidise those on high-value properties. And I will refer to a matter that a comment made in an ordinary council meeting of the 10th of May 2016: What changes should be made to ratings categories?

Rural residential subcategory suggested it be removed from the Act as it's currently defined. It fails to achieve a simple and fair way to levy rates by limiting the number of properties to be included by the area of land and whether the land is vacant or the site of a dwelling. And that's the system that we had. That's the system that you continue to defend when you say that this system is less fair than the old system.

I think councillors who don't want to support this also need to ask themselves where they think the funding for infrastructure improvements will come from. If we don't, if the rates rise hadn't taken place, infrastructure improvement in these budgets comes from the rates rise. If you don't agree with the rates rise, then I think putting a handout for further infrastructure improvements is a bit rich.

I also wonder why Councillor Richards, as Council's representative on the Sports Council, didn't make representation to Council during the budget process to ask for further funding for Sports Council. That would have been. .

Time is up, Councillor Wheeler, thank you. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I want to say at the top of my comments that I think I want to commend the staff on the work that has gone on to produce this operational plan, particularly under the circumstances that we've all had to deal with, they particularly have had to deal with, and it has not been an easy process. I know that. I've dealt with big budgets, and I know how hard it is to drill down and get all the little bits and pieces and the granular stuff fitting together and coming up with the sort of overall operational plan that this Council now has in front of it to approve. So having said that, I want to congratulate the staff and commend them on that hard work, because I know there's been many weekends and many nights that have been used up, family time that have been used up, to produce this budget.

So thank you. So having said that, Mr Mayor, I think the operational plan also reflects, at least in my view, what the community voted last council election, what the community voted for.. . For change of direction of this council, which they got in the main, and this operational plan continues on with changing and making, doing what the community out there saw as priority for them. And I think the extra money that was derived from the special rate variation has been applied well last budget and this budget, and it will produce and will continue to produce the sorts of outcomes that the community voted for back at the last election. So I think it's a good plan. But there are, as Councillor Wheeler and Ross has pointed out, there are some issues here.

Firstly, when I was, a while ago now, before I was, yeah, anyway, I was the council representative on the Sports Council, and I recall many times sitting at the table with the Sports Council's board and

Being confronted with things that needed to be done, and then taking those concerns to the relevant director back in council, whether it be the finance director or infrastructure director. So, Mr Mayor, I think that would be my preference, so that we did have some idea, because we don't have a lot of, pardon me, Mr Mayor, we don't have a lot of information other than the sports fields are being degraded and/or in the state of needing to be repaired and maintained. I don't find that surprising given the years, and the Sports Council does a great job in maintaining, and it's an important area for our kids and our And our sports-oriented people. The other concern I have, Mr Mayor, is that again this budget reflects quite an amount, quite a reasonable number of dollars that are cost shifted onto Council from State Government.

So we've had to make adjustments to take on the cost shifting from State Government to local ratepayers, and I find that really deplorable. But we can't do much about it because State Government continues to do that sort of cost shifting. In relationship to the Hawkesbury County Council, I'm just wondering if I could get an answer on

The weed harvester that I noticed was stranded up against some trees in the latest flood. Is that being replaced, and at what cost, or is it being repaired, and at what cost?

General Manager.

We'll have to take that on board, Mr Mayor. We don't have that information to hand. Thank you. I would appreciate that, Mr Mayor. And lastly, Mr Mayor , I agree with Councillor Thompson Square is an icon. I know it's been a construction site for many months now, and that has detracted largely, or to some extent anyway, to that area. But it is an icon of our LGA,

And I do think we need to spend some more money on that area. And I am particularly keen to see some public toilets there being put on the agenda for infrastructure to be developed in that area. And I'm hoping that either the one million dollars Of funding that we got from the federal government, some of it could be used to upgrade and spend more than $7,000 on that area up there, because it is an important area, particularly in this day and age of attracting tourists to our towns and villages. It's an important thing, and also the— Sorry Okay, right. Okay, just one last thing. The City deal, $18 million the council got , I'm sure we could find some money to actually concentrate a bit on Thompson Square. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Are there any further speakers?

Can I just add that the operational plan, in my experience, always comes out in June, usually late June. Even though in the past we've had many more meetings than we've had this year, I don't see there's any connection between the number of meetings and the timing of the operational plan. So I think some of the things I heard about Hawkesbury River County Council and the Sports Council, I believe some of those items, some of those places are being looked at very carefully. I've been pushing for that to happen for the last 12 months, but unfortunately it's not in a state where we're ready to make any decisions on it. But I urge all my fellow councillors, if those bodies are an issue for you, then please keep pushing after this budget , after this month, because I think we definitely need to analyse what goes on there.

Not just financially, but also in terms of responsibility, and I think a couple of councillors have pointed that out. So please don't confine it to the operational plan, is what I'm saying. Please pursue it otherwise.

Councillor Reynolds, you've got your hand up.

Yes, Mr Mayor, thank you. I'd just like to say that I support the operational plan , and I thank the staff for their work. I think it continues this council's dedication to improving services for the people of the Hawkesbury and protecting and enhancing the Hawkesbury itself. I'd just like to remind all the councillors that nearly four years ago, we all took part in a workshop to develop this thing,

Our

Community strategic plan, and every councillor voted for its adoption.

But to realise the goals in this community strategic plan, we had to implement an SRV, and that's what we did. Interestingly, four councillors voted against it, and one Liberal told me, not necessarily a councillor, they said, and I'll quote, We know council needs to implement an SRV. We know it's needed, but we won't vote for it because it's not in our political interests. And

Some people are continually viewing council through the prism of politics rather than the prism of what's best. for the community and the interests of the Hawkesbury itself. I mean, as far as Councillor Richards' rant about the most— Excuse me,

Councillor Reynolds. Yes. I think you're bordering on personal attack.

Oh, he's used to doing that, Mr Mayor. It's all he knows. Excuse

Me, Councillor Richards, can you just stick to the things that Councillor Richards may have said?

Okay, I'll take back the word rant. Okay, I take back the word rant. But I'll just point out that, as for being the most unfair rating system in the history of this council, or words to that effect,

Previous council's rating system saw someone on a building block, about a quarter acre, paying more in rates than their neighbour that was on five acres. Now, how on earth someone can see that as a fairer system, beyond me. And I'll just leave it there. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? There are no hands up.

No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, you would like right of reply? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for all that input. That was interesting to hear those perspectives. I would like to just point out that we have been pushing for third party review now for a number of years of the external bodies since back in 2017, so I do look forward to those being completed. And I think people have been bringing them up outside the operational plan. I think they've been brought up fairly regularly. I wasn't trying to speak on behalf of Councillor Richards. I didn't mention Councillor Richards. She did attack me, but I wasn't—I didn't mention her. I simply said that people who don't support the operational plan don't support council operating, and that just is— And that's a huge misrepresentation

The point of order is that Councillor Richards—

It's a misrepresentation that it's not a conclusion that someone who votes against the operational plan, it's not a conclusion that someone can come to.

That's opinion

Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards, the Deputy Mayor is expressing an opinion. In her opinion, if someone votes that way, that's what it means.

That's exactly. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was expressing an opinion because that is exactly what I had told me by a Liberal councillor in the last council term, who said if you don't vote for it, you're not voting for the council to be able to operate, and it's irresponsible and you shouldn't do it. That were the words of a fellow Liberal councillor, and Councillor Conolly would know that's true because he also voted one time against the operational plan at that time when we had concerns, and so we moved to try and make it a better system and to have ways so that we could have more input so that that didn't happen. And that's when we introduced having councillors more involved in the budget process.

I think that —I'm not aware that people are unhappy with the current state of the rates. I've never received any complaints, and I agree with Councillor Wheeler that some people with high land values were upset by their increase in rates, and that's understandable. But generally, I've had very positive feedback from across the whole local government area on how the council is progressing, particularly in these challenging times. I think we're going ahead in leaps and bounds, and I think that's a really wonderful thing that we're getting a lot done, and I compliment

Those involved in that.

So I think that's all to say. I think I acknowledge that there were some concerns raised by some councillors, but there'll always be concerns. It's a big organisation with a big operational and delivery plan to put in place, so it's understandable that not everybody can have what they want all the time. But I think that we've got a really good balance going on there, and I think that I hope everyone will support this operational plan and support our staff to implement it. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Garrow. If you're against, please raise your hands. Against is Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Progner, Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. I declare it carried.

113. Anybody wish to move something?

Councillor Wheeler. Ah

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Do

I have a seconder?

Second that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Wheeler. Ah,

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I'd like to thank the staff for putting this information together. It was a fairly simple request that prompted a whole lot of commotion when it came up. There is still a bit of information that isn't there, and a few inconsistencies with information that's been given previously. So we still don't have a copy of the debate topics. We know what they are because they were posted on Facebook, so I guess we could accept it as a moot point. We are yet to receive the information from the survey given to students, and I think the report says that it could be made available. I would like very much for it to be made available. It's not fair that two councillors had access to that information and ten don't.

And I remain confused about how

Councillor Richards got to the 2020 Mayoral Morning Teas when it states here that no councillors were invited. Clearly, she stumbled across it serendipitously. I wonder then why previously we were given the information that said that Councillor Richards was invited because she moved the motion, when apparently this program had nothing to do with the motion. So I guess I remain confused by some of the information that's been given to us. But what we see here is an outline of what happened in a process that it's quite clear from the previous discussions around this issue that other councillors would very much like to participate in. And I hope you take that message on board and that we can be involved in the future. Thank you.

When you say you, are you addressing that to me, Councillor Wheeler?

Well, given that there are mayoral morning teas, Mr Mayor, yes, I would think so.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No. Can I add my two cents' worth? I would like to urge people to not support this report, firstly because it has a number of inaccuracies. In the first page where it says Executive Summary, the second line says that there was a notice of motion regarding the local government leadership and awareness program and the mayoral morning teas held in March 2020. Well, there was no local government leadership and awareness program held in 2020. There was only a mayoral morning tea. Further down the page, just above the bold heading which says 2019 mayoral morning teas, it says, As an interim measure, the program of mayoral morning teas was held with the mayor and students. From high schools and primary schools in the Hawkesbury.

Well, that is absolutely untrue. The Mayoral Morning Tea was not an interim measure for the student leadership program. It is a separate program. The two programs are quite separate. On page 58, it says that in the second paragraph, it says that there was a mock debate, when in fact what we had at the Mayoral Morning Tea was a role play, not a debate. Further down the page under point two, it says in 2019-20, as an interim measure, a program of Mayoral Morning Teas have been held with students. That is incorrect once again. It was not an interim measure. The two programs are totally separate programs. And that's what I tried to explain last time, but apparently I didn't make it very clear because the motion for a report went through anyway.

And the fact that the questions have come back in this form shows a complete lack of understanding that we're actually dealing with two separate programs. And I believe maybe there's been misconception because of things like that phrase interim measure. I don't know where that came from. It was not an interim measure. It is absolutely untrue. The Mayoral Morning Tea is a separate program. I'm hoping that in the future mayors will continue with this program into the foreseeable future. I believe it's a valuable part of our future. The Mayoral Morning Tea is modelled on the program run by the Governor of New South Wales, where she invites all the school captains in New South Wales to be part of an annual gathering at the lawns of Government House.

That gathering celebrates and acknowledges our future leaders. It's designed to encourage our next generation and continue their leadership role. But in the case of the Mayoral Morning Tea, it is also designed to increase their awareness of the role of local government, and hopefully to help them become more involved in local government decision making. It is definitely not a political program, and I am upset that anyone should so completely misunderstand the program that they would think it was in any way political. In the Mayoral Morning Tea program, it has explained the role of local government to young people and highlights the fact that, unlike the Commonwealth and State governments, Council does not have a government and an opposition.

Rather , Council has 12 councillors who are supposedly working together to formulate policy. And then to demonstrate that, a role play is conducted in the chamber showing how decisions are made and highlighting the idea that councillors do not work in blocks, but it's done through a process of all 12 councillors working together. Now this is a role play; it's not a debate. The topics that were chosen were chosen at random just to facilitate the demonstration, to facilitate the role play. The topics themselves do not have any significance except that they may be of interest to young people. The school captains were also shown how the public can address our meetings, and that process was role played as well.

I emphasised that they were welcome to come along to any real meetings in the future and address Council, and hopefully some of them will. I initiated the Mayoral Morning Tea program in 2019, and I'm proud to be associated with it because it helps foster a stronger relationship between Council and the community. Particularly the youth section of our community. As acknowledged in the first question in this report, the student leadership program does not yet exist, and we've been waiting for nearly two years for a report to come back on how it might work. So the first question in this report is actually the only part of the report that is relevant to the student leadership program. The rest of the report focuses on an entirely separate program, the Mayoral Morning Tea Program, and therefore is completely irrelevant.

Now, one of our councillors put forward a notice of motion on the student leadership program, and she is keen to run that program. I invited her to come along to the Mayoral Morning Tea so that she could gather information to assist with the development of that program. If the notice of motion had been put forward by another councillor, then I would have invited that councillor along to the morning tea to gather information. There was no political motive in that action, and I resent the implication that there was. My understanding of the student leadership program is that schools will send representatives along to debate topics in the chamber. I emphasise they will be coming along to debate, not to have a role play on how local government works.

The Mayoral Morning Tea program is aimed at school captains. The student leadership program is not. I would imagine that the student leadership debates could focus on real issues in our community and therefore provide feedback to council to assist in decision making. This feedback would be very current and very useful. I could see the program developing into a youth committee or a youth council model for the Hawkesbury. This would be very different to the mayoral morning tea program, and the two programs would happily coexist, and I hope they do. I hope councillors embrace these two programs, and the first step to doing that would be to reject this report because it does not recognise that the two programs are separate.

I hope we can repair this rift, the rift that this report has caused, and work together to make these two programs a success for the younger members of our community. We have further speakers. Deputy Mayor, you have your hand up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that, and thank you for your explanation. I don't think it's the report that caused the rift. I think it was the situation that caused the rift. And I think that probably a better leadership approach would have been to perhaps acknowledge that some councillors were not included and had an issue with it, and simply apologise and say that it wouldn't happen in the future, rather than attack Councillor Wheeler for asking questions, which were in fact asked by members of the community who asked about it, and then that was taken up. So I think that we all do support both those programs, and I think there was a unanimous vote for Councillor Richards' motion back at the time, that everybody did want to see more involvement of students in leadership programs, in engaging and understanding local government.

It's really crucial because, as you were saying, local government is 12 councillors. It's not a government and an opposition, and that is a line that I use over and over again in this very chamber, because there is an us and them attitude, and there is a perception that there is bloc behaviour in councils, whereas ideally we're all meant to be there not for any political purpose, but we're meant to be there to do what's best for the community that we represent, and we're 12 representatives across the community, not in wards like some councils, which makes it a little different, but undivided across the whole local government area. And so we represent all the people across all of the Hawkesbury, and I think that it's unfortunate that it happened.

I don't think it would have had to happen. I don't know that being the mover of a motion is something that gives somebody the right to implement that action, but I've got nothing against Councillor Richards being involved in the program. I just think the opportunity should go to everyone because we all want to engage with the students. And when I was the mayor, we had the students from Windsor High School come and things like that as well. And it is great to be able to get them in there whenever we can. So I'm looking forward to the report on the actual program, which is coming up in September. And I think that, I guess that if nothing else this has taught that, you know, really it's probably a better idea that everybody has equal opportunity in this council.

Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I think there's clearly, as you have pointed out, at great length, and I thank you for pulling that report apart . And clearly you didn't have much to do with the writing of that report, but clearly there is a need within council staff, perhaps, to gain a better and clearer understanding of the separation and the separate functioning and objectives of the two programs. I totally agree with you. Those two programs are absolutely important in my view. They encourage young members of our community to come along and see what council is like, how it functions, what the building is like, not to be scared of it, to come and talk. And as you know, we've had many young people come and address council in the chamber.

But look , the more we can do of this, Mr Mayor, the better it will be for the community. The more we can address local democracy, and that local democracy is really worth fighting for, particularly in our young people, the better we will all be off . And certainly will lead to a much better Hawkesbury and a better place and a kinder place. Now, the fact that we often hear some councillors talk about members opposite,

I agree with you, Mr Mayor. I think it's an unfortunate term that some councillors want to apply to other members of council because they don't think it's either apposite or appropriate. But Mr Mayor, as you pointed out, and rightly so, the role of council is to have 12 councillors, in our case, working really hard, getting headaches on how we can make and improve Hawkesbury and the living and enjoyment of the beautiful Hawkesbury that we all enjoy so much. So I think that is the theme. That's what we've got to get to our young people, and I hope that we can continue to do that. Mr Mayor, I'm a bit a lot like the Deputy Mayor. I did not appreciate, as you know, you having a session of berating and belittling another councillor.

That has caused a major rift, and I think there is a need to repair that. And I think hopefully we can put some of this behind us, and we can move on without having to, you know, attack one of our female councillors in that fashion. I really hope we've seen the very last of that sort of approach to working in council. I don't think any young person would have appreciated, young female person in particular, would have appreciated that, or any other person, that sort of display . So , Mr Mayor, I encourage you to do your utmost to repair that rift and to, yes, go on and make sure that within council, within the staff, they understand the difference between the two programs, and let's go forward and make them better if we can.

So, Councillor Rasmussen, can you clarify, were you speaking for or against the motion?

Mr Mayor, thank you. I actually seconded the motion, I think, but I was speaking in favour of it.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be brief. I'm speaking against the motion, and quite rightly, as you point out, there are a number of inconsistencies in this report. I have no problem with councillors asking questions and wanting to find out information. In fact, I've been a champion of that exact phrase throughout this council, so that's absolutely welcome. But you are right that the two programs were different. And I think last time this came to council, I was quite right in addressing that the larger problem here is that the report that I, or the notice of motion that I put up to have the local government program is in fact almost three years old. And the fact that, let's be honest, it's not difficult to write.

I could do it in a night if you needed me to, or if someone wanted us to collaborate on it as councillors, we could come up with something very, very quickly over email. So if the staff say that they haven't had time to do this report. Then let us know. Let us as councillors know, because we're all switched on and we've all got brains and we can all actually put something together, but we need to be communicated with. I think the bigger problem here is you've got a notice of motion that came to the council chamber last week asking for answers to something, that the answers came back in the, you know, one meeting later in the next report. So why has it taken three years for the original notice of motion that got a 12-0 support to come to this chamber?

And I don't think that that motion alone, you know, that question can be asked just for that motion. It can also be put to a whole bunch of other notices of motion that have come before this council that haven't seen the light of day. As I said, I think I brought up last time the fact of my other notice of motion regarding the RSL, you know, eligibility criteria, which is quite dear to a lot of servicemen and women in our area, still hasn't seen the light of day despite us trying to move that motion forward and meeting with the heads of the various RSLs. So I think there's a problem here. I don't know whether a way to solve that is to have all the outstanding notices of motion brought to us, the length of time they've been sitting there, and if staff do have a problem in bringing them forward, we as councillors, I'm sure, would be more than happy to help see through to what limit we can and what access to information we have before us to actually get them sorted out.

I think that the fact that the report to come back to council on the original motion took so long is why the mayor, in his instance as the leader of our community, went ahead and had the mayoral morning teas. Our young people, our youth, are craving for engagement and I can say, and I'd love the rest of the councillors to be there in whatever way we move forward in a positive manner with this. But those kids had a great time, and those kids learn a lot about local government. And that is what should have been implemented when this original request for the report came before us years ago, years ago. And that should have been something that this council was able to partake in and contribute in, and we should have had by now at least two to three years of our schools' leaders coming through this chamber and participating.

So I look forward to that report coming back to council. I hope that as the original mover of that motion, I get a chance to contribute to that report. And in fact, all councillors do, because collaboration is definitely the key to ensuring a successful program and also to ensuring that the youth in our community feel engaged and have an understanding of how we operate at a local government level. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlas.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm a bit concerned that Councillor Rasmussen thinks that having a debate about this issue is somehow to do with gender. I'm quite concerned about that because unless there's something that I've missed, I don't think it has this sort of thing. We're just discussing, you know, the circumstances of what seems to me to be a bit of a mix-up in programs. I can't recall there being any untoward behaviour from anybody. Definitely not in terms of gender. I just want to say that I'm concerned about that and wary. I'm not going to make an issue of it at the moment, but I think we have to be careful about how we have these sorts of debates. And it's perfectly fine to have these sorts of debates. And if any of you think that you have been harassed or I think your term was berated unfairly, and you think that that is against our code of conduct, I think that person has a right to bring that up.

But these sorts of veiled allegations, I think they're a bit... I think we have to be really...

Mr Mayor, could I point out there's been a misrepresentation here?

Yeah, okay, you can answer that later, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That was my only comment, and I'm speaking against this. I think this has just been a bit of a... Funnily enough, I think it's just been a bit of a political exercise that's gone a bit sour. Thank you.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I don't want to spend any more time on this. I think even more time on this is actually ridiculous. But I also just wanted to echo what Councillor Kotlash just said. I don't think that anybody on this council is any more or less capable of holding a debate because of their gender, as was suggested. I think that's outrageous to try and bring that into it. And the rift was not created because somebody wasn't invited to morning tea. The rift was created when the wrong name got drawn out at the mayoral election two years ago, and some people never ever got over it.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Garra.

I

Just want to just rebut what Councillor Conolly just said. The rift was created when the Mayor decided to attack Councillor Wheeler when she asked a simple question, and he didn't like the answer to it.

Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen, you wanted to claim misrepresentation.

Yes, I certainly do, Mr Mayor. And the misrepresentation is that I somehow or another concocted the fact that one of our councillors was attacked and berated and belittled. And my evidence for that is that if councillors, both Cottrellash and Conolly, go back and listen to the last, or the meeting where you particularly spent some time attacking Councillor Wheeler at great length because she had somehow or another dared to ask questions, and that she might have got some parts of it not according to your liking. So please, councillors, listen to the tape. It was a blatant belittling and berating of a female councillor on this council. So just go back and listen to it.

Thank you. Thank you. I also want to claim misrepresentation. It's been said that I excluded councillors. The morning tea is a mayoral morning tea, and maybe next year, if there's another hot topic that needs to be presented. Another councillor could be invited, but the place for the councillors to work is in the student leadership program. That's going to come back to council, and at council we can decide to have a role for all 12 councillors if that's what we want, and that's where the relationship will be between councillors and students. The mayoral morning tea is, as I said, similar to the governor's morning tea, and she doesn't invite all of New South Wales government when she has that morning tea. Anyway, there are no speakers, and I will now hand over to Councillor Wheeler for right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I thank my fellow councillors for sharing their thoughts. Clearly, there is quite a lot of confusion with both of these programs or matters raised in the current motion, and I would like those councillors who at the last meeting stated that the notice of motion was misguided, disappointing, disgraceful, and designed to embarrass the mayor might want to reconsider the comments that they made, given that even the staff can't differentiate between these programs. At no stage did I state that this was political, nor have I put this up as a politically motivated attack. Well, you may scoff, Councillor Kotlash. You can see where the politics comes from, from the cracks made by Councillor Connelly and the subsequent laughing from other councillors regarding the mayoral hat draw.

I thank Councillor Rasmussen for coming to my defence, but I'm no longer young. And after 13 years in the Army Reserve, I have been abused by the best of them, most of it gender specific, so I'm not very easily offended. And I wasn't particularly offended by the Mayor's comments at the last meeting. Fortunately, I've got a pretty thick skin, and after four years on this council and some of the disgraceful public attacks on me, that skin has got substantially thicker. No one objects to this program. That is very clear from what we have all had to say on this. What we objected to was how it was handled and how subsequent questions were handled. I asked for information. What I've learnt is that requesting information is rewarded with a public dressing down, and that's a lesson I've learnt well, Mr Mayor, and you can be assured that I will not repeat it.

I would have welcomed your corrections to this report, but you didn't offer an alternative. So we have the report that stands before us, prepared by the staff, which I think we should accept because that's all we've got. The alternative is to refuse it and to have this go around and around and around, and I think we probably need to move on.

That was right, a reply. We vote now by raising our hands. If you're in favour of this motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow. Did I miss anybody? No. Against, please raise your hand: Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno. Absent is Councillor Tree, declare it carried.

114. Would anyone like to move anything on that?

Those people who still have their blue hands up from last time, can you remove those, please? Councillor Richards, is this a new hand? Nope. Anyone wish to move?

Mr Mayor, I'll

Move

The recommendation, sorry.

Moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak.

Mr Mayor, just briefly, because I think we've chewed on this for some time. I think it's pretty clear now that the remaining planning proposals that are in train and with council staff at the moment will continue on. They will now be, if this motion is carried, will be updated on the latest that we agreed on tonight about the planning proposal— sorry, the, sorry, what am I looking at?— the structure plan, and that it has been deferred until some of these other critical plans for the Hawkesbury are in place. So I think we should vote for this and let the staff inform the people who are waiting on their planning proposals to be dealt with. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions, if I can. Since this is an update, I'm not sure that it's actually been updated. Since the 5th of May, because it still has a couple, I think it still has a couple of the planning proposals that have just been to Gateway and were refused . It still says that they're pre-Gateway. So I'm not sure that this is an update. I think this is just a rehash of the last time we were told about this situation. So that , I think, needs to be corrected. And I also,

Sorry,

What sort of information are the authorised officers, if in take point two, what sort of information will the authorised officers be contacting the applicants about if things are going to be the same? I guess this gets back to one of my questions I asked in item number 111.

How is this going to change the progress of their application?

General Manager? I refer that to the Director, Mr. Mayor.

So each discussion with any applications that are with council staff or council to action,

I suppose, okay. So if a gateway determination has been issued by the department, one of their options is that they can seek to have that gateway determination reviewed. So council staff, in that respect, can actually just give advice to the applicant around what their options are, what does the review process mean. Obviously we don't do the review, we just kind of give them some information. If the applicant was to determine, then we would be going to the applicant to say, okay, there might be some information we need. So ultimately. Each planning proposal might require a different action relevant to that planning proposal, and where it is, whether it's at pre or post gateway, whether it's with the department or with us or with the applicant, our role will vary depending on what is actually required from that planning proposal at that stage of its lifecycle.

Councillor Kotlash, you have more to say?

Yeah. Is it indicated which of these planning proposals is in our hands and which aren't? Is that just...

Yeah, so the final column on the right-hand side basically says where they're up to. So essentially it says, for instance, the first one on number one, the applicant has been advised to amend the planning proposal, and essentially, so therefore it's in their hands to undertake that action. It is not in Council's hand; we're waiting for them to come back to us.

So that

Final column gives us the status of— Pardon ?

My question was, you said before some of these are in our hands and they're in the independent planning panel's hands. Is that , or did I mishear that?

No. So in relation to that final column is to basically indicate, is it the applicant to be doing something? Is it with the department to do something, or is it with us? Of these ten, so they're not all waiting for Council staff to be actioning them. We've been actioning those that are in our ball court to do something with. Okay

That's all I need to ask. Thank you.

Thank you. Further speakers?

Please put a blue hand up if you want to speak. No? Okay. Oh, sorry, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've just found the whole dealing of these poor applicants throughout this entire council term just so sad. And there's been votes and debates and arguments had in this chamber that I feel have been so unfair to people who did nothing but follow a path that was put open to them by the previous council. You know, like it or not, that was what these applicants did. Again, I agree with Councillor Kotlash why there's two

Applications in the red table that are in the pre-Gateway thing that say refused at Gateway. I would like to hear from staff maybe about how the previous motion that was voted on tonight—you've got things here that were waiting on certain things to happen. How is the deferral—and it's maybe been answered before, but I'm just honestly trying to get my head around it because I just want the best outcome for these applicants—how is the deferral structure plan going to affect progressing these applications and at least getting some resolution for all of these outstanding applicants ?

Through the Director, Mr Mayor . Thank you, Mr Mayor.

The deferral of the structure plan does not, will not impact the progression of these planning proposals.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Have you finished?

Weren't some of them, and please, happy to be corrected, but weren't some of them waiting on the structure plan to come through before they would decide what they would do, or wasn't there — there's other reports as well that they were waiting on to see how that affected their proposals. I mean, can we get some certainty from the staff as to any possible timeframes that these applicants can be dealt with and either just have a certainty one way or another? Because if you look at some of the numbers on these, you know, they've been sitting in the system since 20— this one here, number 10, 2014, 2013, 2015. Is there any indication about when we can just have an answer one way or another? I know they're all different, but I'm just saying everyone wants this wrapped up. Are we focusing on this and making it a priority?

Yes, we are. So anything that is requiring council action is being undertaken by council. Anything that is with an applicant, we cannot tell the applicant to hurry up. There's no timeframe in which that they must, you know, provide us information. With the question in relation to why are some applicants —so I'm going back to Councillor Kotlash's question— even though an application might have received a refusal, the applicant still has the opportunity to submit a request for that refusal to be reviewed. So that's why they're still listed and there's still—there's something that could still happen by the applicant. So

I suppose to make it clear, councillors, council staff have continued to enact the resolution of council that says to progress these planning proposals. We have done so. So anything that is within council's control, we are undertaking the work required.

So these 10 applications that are listed here in the red and orange columns, that's it. That's all that's in the system, these last 10.

For the Cameron Currajong area, yes.

Of course, for the KK, yeah, IA, that's all that's in our system. Are we having significant issues? I mean, can we, if the applicants, if you're waiting on that information, are you writing to them to try and follow it up and receive that information? If they're sitting on other things, waiting for reports, you've got here the one where they were waiting on the traffic study. That's number 13. When were they notified of that traffic study? And you're saying the planning of that proposal has now continued. Were they notified recently or were they notified quite a while ago?

I don't know the date, but ultimately they've been— I'd have to give you, look up the date specifically when they've notified, but it would have been soon after the traffic study was completed.

I mean, I don't know if you can answer this to us, but is there significant frustration that you're experiencing with any of these applicants, or are they actually happy with where things are at in proceeding with their applications on the whole?

I haven't. I've dealt with one applicant more than others, and that person has voiced their frustration with the process and, you know, the issues being raised, but ultimately the , you know, the staff have been working with applicants to try and, you know, work through any concerns or any questions, whether it's been raised by through the gateway process or through council. Through the council process.

All right. Thank you, Mr Mayor, that's all my questions.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just missed the start of the item. Was the motion moved, what is in the business paper?

Yes, moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Okay,

Thank you. Mr Mayor, I think I support the motion. We do have to proceed with these, which was what we had resolved to do. But I would just like to point out that these are often very complex issues. When further information is sought, it's not like just asking, what colour will your roof be or what sort of fence are you having? These can be very detailed further information that people have to provide. Because whereas Councillor Richards says that people were told in the last council they could follow a path, it was actually from the council before the last council, but it wasn't a straightforward path. This isn't a path that has given any detail about how this should proceed. This was something that was implemented with zero structural planning.

We have to remember that. There was nothing with it. They weren't the identified areas that were in the Residential Land Strategy, just out of the blue. And from reports we hear, people were encouraged to submit planning proposals, and those planning proposals came, and there was much confusion, and there was nobody who appeared to know how to deal them in those previous terms. So it's not— planning proposals do take a long time. Many of them take years and years because these are changing the planning controls that exist to suit a particular site. They're not things that are in a planning control. So there's not a planning instrument that says, in this area you can do this. So when we have zonings and so on, there's something that will say this is permissible, you can do that.

It's assessed against the criteria in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and you get a result. These are things that are totally coming out of nowhere and, in our case, in the absence of a strategic planning framework. So that's where the historical issue has arisen from. And despite many attempts going this way and that to try and rein that in, that has been difficult over the years because of the different approaches that have been made. However, now that we know now that we have the overriding strategic state-level planning in the form of the Western District Plan and the associated plans, which are overshadowing—or not overshadowing, but overarching—the other planning that we are continuing to do, and so when these are submitted, these various processes go to the gateway, I assume that they are going to be assessed against the Western District Plan, as the two that were refused recently have been.

So I understand that the staff are working with the applicants and that there is not much we can do if the applicants don't respond, and that there's a lot less planning proposals than were there before. So I assume that these ones will simply follow the course and they'll be dealt with in the appropriate way and as soon as is practical.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. I would, I'll probably repeating myself from item 111, in that I think we probably all want positive outcomes for these applicants. And I take Councillor Richards and Councillor Kotlash's sentiments on board, and I think we all understand the frustrations that the applicants are feeling. But we have to remember,

Council didn't change the policy here. Ultimately, it was the New South Wales Government that changed the policy with the introduction of the Greater Sydney Commission's Western District Plan and the definition of the Metropolitan Rural Area. With these particular applications, the last thing I want, and I think we all want, is a repeat of what happened with the sending through of 42 and 98 Bells Road through to Gateway and having them fail at some expense to the applicants. We don't want that with these ones. And so I think it's important that staff dot all the I's and cross all the T's according to the State Government's requirements. And if that doesn't happen, then we're going to have them fall over again at greater expense to the applicants.

So I speak in favour of this item, and I hope that everybody can understand that we have to meet the requirements of the State Government now. Thanks.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No? Okay. Councillor Rasmussen, right of reply.

Yes, I'll try and be brief, Mr Mayor. As several councillors have said, I think there's a bit of repetition here, but councillors who are new to this council, relatively new to this council, need to just have a look at the history of where this has come from. And it's a great case study on what not to do when you are planning something seriously important as where and how the Hawkesbury will look into the future. The KKI idea , it was a thought bubble that came out of several councillors who then, at that time, had the control of the council, because it wasn't—that whole KKI idea was not in the residential strategy that was put forward by consultants at that time. And so out of nowhere came this idea of, let's look at this big area called the Kurmond-Kurrajong investigation area.

No studies, no preparation, other than a thought bubble that just landed back into the residential land strategy, and you see what happened. This is what happens. You get total frustration of the people who, as Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, were encouraged, encouraged to put forward planning proposals, and that's what happens. Let's not let it do it again. The last time it happened before that time was back in Bowen Mountain. Some of you may or may not remember how Council, this Council, lost the planning powers because of what they did at Bow Mountain.

Out of nowhere

And State Government said, Oh, the bust, you can't obviously organise your planning. We will do it for you for several years. Now, we do not want to keep repeating the same mistakes. And as Councillor Lyons Buckett said, planning proposals are speculative. It's not a right. It's not a DA. It's not a right. It's speculative. And yes, okay, have a go and see how you go. But when all these studies have not been done and we're now living through the pain of that, and we are trying to correct it, and we will correct it. But Mr Mayor, I think we should just pass this motion and take or give back some of the certainty of where this process is going, and let's just move on from here.

Thank you. Thank you. That was right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor St Brodrick, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Before we go to 1.15, those people with their blue hands up, can you remove those, please?

Mr Mayor, could I move a procedural motion for a five-minute break so that the minute secretary can have a breather before we start again?

I think we'd all like to have a breather, Councillor Wheeler . It's been moved by Councillor Wheeler. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Anyone wish to speak against it? I'll put it then. All those in favour? Declare it carried. Back here in five minutes. Thank you.

Yes. Yes, please.

Deputy Mayor, was it? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper, which had a very small amendment which came through from Mr Kearns by email to all councillors, just about one clause that was in the submission that had been amended.

Okay, so you want to move that . Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler, is your hand up?

Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Yes, just briefly, thank you, Mr Mayor. And on the screen is the change which came from the Floodplain Advisory Committee the other day after we had our meeting, which was to change what was in the submission, which was the clause 3B. It was requesting deletion of that particular clause, but instead we thought to seek clearer interpretation and definition of what was meant by that. The clause itself related to the rising— I'll get the exact words here— just to explain it to people so they know, unless the staff were going to explain it, which maybe they— maybe I should leave it to the staff to do that because it may be only my interpretation. Perhaps the staff could give the explanation just in case I'm not doing it justice.

I'll take that as a question. General Manager, would you have an explanation ?

Refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor. Thank you. So

Yes, the clause 3B in the Regional Evacuation Consideration Area clause does relate to the rising road access. So the original recommendation in the submission— I was to recommend to the State to remove that clause, but stemming from consideration at the Floodplain Committee meeting on Thursday night, it was thought better to retain the clause, but to be amended to have a better, clearer interpretation as to what that clause actually meant and how it will be applied in the development assessment process.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Kearns. Thank you. I fully endorse this submission that is going into the government regarding the flood prone land package. The way it is set out, the way the report has been written by Ms Harron gives really comprehensive information about, to address what was in that flood prone land package. It gives good explanations of the complexities of our challenges with land use planning and flooding, and I think that the points that have been raised are very succinctly put across. There's some really important matters around the land use planning in the flood area, and I think this, our submission addresses it very well. I think that it's quite a process to get the proper information around the flood planning.

It's a very difficult area, and a lot of work has been done, and so I commend this for endorsement for this submission as it is in the business paper, with that minor amendment to be sent forward as our submission. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Wheeler, we can't hear you, sorry. Sorry, Mr Mayor. I would also like to commend the staff on this report, particularly Ms Harren. It's an excellent report. It's very comprehensive, and it clearly applies lots of local understanding to the initial work.

And I think that's particularly useful for us. I think we need to note that we have many properties that sit below the one in 100 ARI, and that's due to historical lack of building controls, a lack of awareness, in some cases non-compliance, and illegal dwellings being erected. And frequently, I think just a naive optimism about how we can live within the constraints of the floodplain. We're already at significant risk, and we can't afford to exacerbate that. I particularly like the suggestion in the report that flood maps be made available to the public. I think people need to know the impacts of flooding on not only their house, but their capacity to get in and out of their house. And I think we saw that earlier this year, where people really were blindsided by the flooding, because we deal in this space all the time.

We're quite cognisant of what's likely to happen, but I think we know that more than 30% of our population have not experienced a flood, and they really were unprepared and quite surprised by the fact that they couldn't go to work, they couldn't get groceries. In some cases, they didn't have power or services. And so I think what we have, and what comes out of this report too, is clearly a greater need for public education. What we have seen on the Floodplain Management Committee in the last six to 12 months is a really good relationship developing with the department, which I think should result in some more educational activities for the community. But it still behoves us to push this within that relationship.

This is certainly developed into a really good working relationship. I think the submission to this report and the submission, I think, are very constructive, and I hope that the department views them in that light as well. So I think it's an excellent report. I'm happy to support it.

Any further speakers? Apparently not. Deputy Mayor, you wish to have right of reply?

Not necessary, thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand in favour of the motion. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rouse, Marson, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow. Abstentions, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Item 116, please, and Deputy Mayor, can you remove your blue hand, please. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen. We have a seconder. Yep, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Conolly, was it? Yep. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak on this?

Not necessarily, Mr Mayor

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, your blue hand, you wish to speak? Ah,

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I was just hoping to ask a couple of questions regarding the unrestricted funds listed in the report. Assuming that councillors saw either the article written in the Daily Telegraph, or if you are not a subscriber to the Daily Telegraph, and I will put on public record that I most certainly am not, but I got it through a different source, the media request that was sent to us from the staff responding to the Daily Telegraph's request for information, which then became this story about Western Sydney Council's banking outrageous sums of money apparently in infrastructure funding, where they have taken our council figure of 16.8 million in unrestricted funds as being banked in the coffers, and I was hoping to get through you, Mr Mayor, some articulation of the restriction of that funds and what that actually means, where those funds come from and their purpose for the public record, please.

Mr Conolly.

Refer that to the Director of City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So in terms of that article, it was, you know, around developer contributions. So as you're all aware, Council prepares developer contributions plans in relation to an area or across the whole local government area. That plan is exhibited. It identifies a series of critical works that need to be undertaken, be it roads, drainage, you know, sporting facilities and the like. Those plans, once they're exhibited, are then adopted by Council. We then collect funds specifically to undertake those works as adopted, and we are not at liberty to expend those monies on other activities. They've been collected for those specific purposes. So it's not, I suppose, a general slush fund, as some people in the community might think, or developers like to throw at us.

It is really just, it's about funds that are collected specifically to fund infrastructure works that are required as a result of development.

So when we say that they're unrestricted funds in an investment report, they are still restricted to a degree. Is that correct?

Yes, they're restricted in that they have to be used for the purpose for which they're raised. So in that developer contributions plan, it identifies a list of works and essentially, therefore, the funds are raised to fund those works. They're not expended straight away because the money doesn't all come in at once. So we actually, that's why the reserves are built up, because as development occurs, money comes in and only as we are able to, you know, get the required amount can we roll out some of those capital works, because they're not cheap.

So why do we then refer to them as unrestricted funds

Mr Mayor, we might get the Chief Financial Officer to deal with the distinction between restricted and unrestricted.

Please do.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the restrictions listed on page 90, the external restrictions regarding 7.11 and 7.12, they relate to restricted funds relating to developer contributions, which I understand that's what you may be referring to, that was referred to in the Daily Telegraph. So those funds are restricted specifically for works to be undertaken in those areas for which the contributions have been collected. Then the, so that's the 11 million. Then the 18 million, they are other external restrictions. So they're things like, for example, the sewer fund, the domestic waste funds, where we are required by legislation to only use the money that we've collected to provide that service. Then internal restrictions are internal reserves.

Unrestricted funds, that's essentially our cash flow that we have there to be able to pay the bills for works that we do. So the unrestricted funds , the only restriction that there is on those funds is that we use them for the operational plan, but they're not restricted to a specific purpose. Thank you,

Mr Mayor

Thank you,

Councillor

Wheeler.

Any more? So I guess I'm wondering where that money comes from then, because there's an allegation from the Urban Development Institute that this is free money. Now, I don't really believe in free money, and I don't know that anyone else, after four years on council, believes in free money either. So I'm wondering where this money comes from, if we clearly... If the allegation is that we got it for nothing.

Mr Mayor, I'll just get some clarification on that. We're talking about the developer contributions funds. We're

Talking about 16.85 million, so I presume that's the unrestricted funds that was referred to, baked in our coffers, free money, according to the allegations made.

There was a press release to deal with the developer contributions and comparing councils across New South Wales, and some of the councils had hundreds of millions of dollars. We didn't. They are restricted funds by virtue of legislation. We can only use them for the purpose for which they're collected, which is developer contributions for development-related activities. So

They're collected to satisfy the demand created by the development, to build the roads, to build the drains, to build the, you know, ovals and things like that. They're not free funds. They're funds that are collected to address a community demand that arises as a result of the development. And there's a test, a nexus test, that's applied to those funds. You have to be able to demonstrate a nexus between the development and the purpose for which they're collected and spent. So it's not free money in any way at all.

Thanks, and that was certainly my take on— That money, what — I'm wondering if we can make that clearer in our investment reports going forward. So that there, is it possible to detail them restricted by project, or is that too difficult?

The funds are collected for purposes, for roads, for—you know, they're all in the plan. The plan is many pages long. So

I think it suits some people to make light of this, but the reality is that we're managing our funds in accordance with the regulations and directions and guidelines that are set by the state government. And the state government know exactly what the situation is. It doesn't necessarily suit the Daily Telegraph, and it may not suit some of the advocacy groups, but that's the reality of it. And I

Don't know how you address that in a very simple and accessible way, because it's a very complicated set of guidelines that we have to fulfil to make sure that we are using the funds for the purpose for which they're collected. There's not a simple way of deregulating that guideline and making it easily understood, other than to say what the director said, which is, you know, we go through a process of consulting, we collect the money, and we have to use the money for the purpose for which it's expended, collected, which is on those things like roads and drains and sports grounds and things like that.

Councillor Wheeler, I think we've been labouring this point a bit. Have you got anything else to add? No

I think, look, I think that's sufficient information, Mr Mayor. It's clearly far too complex to put simply into the report, but I think it's useful to have it on public record that Council is receiving this money for a purpose and is spending it responsibly.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, only to just mention in passing that it's quite lamentable, as it says in the report, that most major banks are offering term deposit rates of below 1%, and considering that the CPI in the last three quarters has been between 1.7 and 2.2%, that means that in real terms we're going backwards. And I know that we've addressed this question before, and there's some discussion here in the business paper about this, but I think we're not being good stewards of our resources if we're going backwards in real terms. We should adopt a risk profile that at least allows us to keep pace with CPI, and I know that that's very difficult in the current environment, and I'm only glad that we're trying to diversify our portfolio to ensure that we're not losing money by giving the bank the privilege of hanging on to it for us.

Otherwise, we should just take it out and stick it under a mattress.

Is that your financial advice, Councillor Zamprogno?

Yes, take it with a grain of salt.

Do we have any other speakers, please?

No. Well, Councillor Rasmussen, you move this. Would you like right of reply? Yeah

I only just say that I don't think Councillor Jan Brogden's advice about stuffing our money under a mattress. We'd need an awful lot of mattresses to stuff it under, but I suggest we don't follow his financial advice on that.

No, okay, that was right of reply. So I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow. Absent is Councillor Tree and declare it carried.

117.

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

Well , we're supposed to be putting our blue hands up if we want to move something, Councillor Rasmussen. No one else seems to want to move it, so.

Sorry, I put my blue hand up. Sorry about that. Okay. It should be up now, Mr Mayor.

Great. Moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Conolly, I

Think Yes . Putting his real... Waving

His hands, I think.

Blue hand if you want to move something, real hand if you're voting. Okay. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we're very... Firstly, the report, I think, is quite good. What it does highlight

Is

That how lucky we are now, anyway, given the circumstances going forward, that we have been given all these artefacts dating back in our history, both Aboriginal history and also European history. I think we're really, really fortunate to have this and to be the custodians in the future of this important historical material. And what I'm hoping will happen, Mr Mayor, with all this material is that it's not just find a musty, dusty, mouldy, dark place somewhere to hide away, but that we can actually see this as a real gem of a collection, not only for the local area and the local people, but for the state and the nation as well. I would suspect, Mr Mayor, that there are an awful lot of Australians out there who relate to the early years of this colony and also the Aboriginal interaction with the early settlers.

And I think if we could somehow know and find our way to display this material in a, you know, in a highly interpretive and delicate, perhaps in some instances, way, but also to tell a story about the arc that Hawkesbury Windsor, Hawkesbury has come from . And I think we really do need to try and be creative about how we do that, and we should seek outside assistance to help us bring this whole collection to life. And I would like to suggest too, Mr Mayor, that we find it within our means to catalogue every piece of this material, both photographically and descriptively, so that it not only becomes, you know , traceable, but also available for future students, scholars, and interested people who want to have a look at this material and, yeah, and feel proud of the history, feel proud of what was achieved in the early colony days, and also to demonstrate to the nation that there is a lot to be proud of and a lot of importance to them in this area.

So I'm just hoping, Mr Mayor, we could really, really, you know, power turbocharge. This collection and make it a really, really strong drawcard, a tourism drawcard for our area as well. Mr Mayor, I'll leave it at that, I think, for the moment.

Thank you. Our timekeeper seems to have lost interest or gone home. Have I got

Another five minutes, Mr Mayor?

Definitely not. But Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was just wondering if perhaps a couple of extra points might be possible to be added, and I'll ask Councillor Rasmussen to consider these. The first one would be that I'm not sure if you want to address people about the meeting with the Minister now or later, but during that meeting, Minister Constance was very adamant that he was prepared to commit more money to the interpretation connected with the Windsor Bridge project . So I'm just wondering if this would be the place, while we've got a Council meeting on, to insert a point where we seek that commitment in writing for some extra funding for those purposes, or somehow, I'm not sure of the wording which would reflect what he said, but I do think it would be a good place to get the Councillors to affirm that offer that he made verbally, that we seek that in writing from him with regard to his offer of additional funding for those purposes.

The other comment was regarding, do we have any record? I'm concerned that there's no actual stocktake record of all of these things that are out at the depot and so on. So I'm wondering if we could add a provision for having a stocktake done. I believe I was told today that some of the sandstone blocks were taken back to the work site for some form of work today. I received a message about that, and I think if there's going to be movement of particularly the valuable items that are being reused, it would be very good if we were able to keep track of where they're going and what's happening. I believe some sandstone blocks are being used in some part of a, maybe it's a retaining wall or something today.

So is it possible to, or maybe there is a stocktake done and we don't know about it, I can't see it mentioned here. Is it possible to maybe have that included as a function as well?

You asked a couple of questions there, Deputy Mayor. The General Manager was going to address in detail our meeting with the Minister at the end of tonight's meeting, but I do agree that he did offer some support for our display, our heritage display. And so, yeah, I think it would be a good idea to include that sentence in this recommendation here. General Manager, do you wish to comment on that item and also on the possibility of a stocktake?

Mr Mayor, I'll refer it through to the Manager Cultural Services, but I'll start by saying that the range of material that we've got goes from very minute shards of stone and things like that through to much larger items, and there's thousands and thousands of pieces in that collection. The Manager of Cultural Services will probably have a much better idea of the difficulty of doing a stocktake in a— Short space of time.

Manager of Cultural Services, your comment.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the artefacts and archaeology are being catalogued and listed. That will be handed over to us. The items at the depot, the sandstone, which I think Deputy Mayor was referring to, the sandstone blocks at the depot, they have not been in my purview previously, so I'm not quite sure what the situation is in terms of the stocktake of those or the records of where they've come from and where they've gone to. But that's something that the Infrastructure Division and Cultural Services Branch could look at.

Okay. General Manager.

So, just go back through the Manager Cultural Services. Just to be clear, there are thousands of items in the collection , and I don't think they've all been individually catalogued at this stage.

No, I doubt that 30,000 of them would have been individually catalogued, but I think in groups they would be listed at least. Yeah. It's really just the sandstone that I'm not— I can't really answer questions to.

Okay. So we'll have to follow up on that sandstone matter, Mr Mayor and Deputy Mayor, just to see what we can make of that particular matter . In relation to the balance of the meeting, Mr Mayor, do you want to still leave that till the end of the meeting tonight?

Well, what the Deputy Mayor is looking for is a sentence to add to the recommendation on page 93, suggesting that the Minister should make good on his promise. Do you have a possible sentence, you or the Deputy Mayor, to add to that?

Mr Mayor, I think we could include a new point 3 in front of the existing point 3 and 4, just to indicate that Council staff seek written confirmation from the Minister regarding his offers of assistance in relation to

Pedestrian issues and storage issues associated with the Windsor Bridge replacement project.

So the mover is Councillor Rasmussen. Would you be happy to make that change?

Mr Mayor, yes, I would indeed.

Thank you. And the seconder, Councillor Conolly, are you happy to make that change? Yes. Deputy Mayor, did you have more to say?

No, I think that was all to say. Thank you for including that. Thank you. I would still like the issue of the sandstone blocks to be pursued because I think it's really important that we know where they are and where they may be reused and where they're being transported around. Thank you.

Okay

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I thank the Deputy Mayor for bringing up the issue of , firstly, of the funding and secondly of the sandstone blocks. We do have an existing Council resolution that Council requests that Transport for New South Wales works with Council to find and fund suitable display and storage that does justice to the collection. So I think we're operating consistently with that existing resolution, but I am aware that we don't have a Council meeting again until the end of the month. And if there are movements made in the meantime, then we're not giving adequate direction to the staff if we don't add a little bit more to this, and I think that amendment will probably do that. Regarding the sandstone and the bricks, it sounds like they're not being inventoried in the same way as the other artifacts. Is that correct?

General Manager Through the Manager Cultural Services, Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

Yes, that's correct. Okay . So as far as I'm aware, yes, because my section, Cultural Services, have been in contact and communication with Transport for New South Wales about the archaeology and artifacts, and just very recently about the bricks and the sandstone, just to ascertain where the sandstone was stored and also where the bricks were stored. But up until quite recently, just focusing on the artifacts and archaeology.

Thanks, because it seems a little bit like we've got artifacts that are going for display in the museum, and then we've got bricks and sandstone which are sort of being treated like building materials in this instance that are off to the depot, and perhaps in some cases, particularly the sandstone, by the sound of it, might be coming back out again for reuse. And I'm certainly not objecting to any reuse of these materials. I think that that may be the best way forward for many of them. What I am concerned about, though, is that they don't dribble out either into other projects or, as we've seen in the past with the sandstone that came out of Windsor Mall. Disappearing magically in who knows where.

So these are, this is a really significant collection from a very particular spot. It is part of the fabric of Thompson Square and where possible it should be used in that space and at worst used perhaps in the revitalisation of Windsor. And I think, given the significance of the site and the

Excavation of that site, that these items need to be set aside and inventoried. So what I would like to propose is that point four

Includes an inventory of all items received, including the sandstone by Council's, I don't know exactly what we call the depot, the works depot or whatever its proper name is. Because I don't want that collection to be broken up and to dribble away into general usage. So I'm hoping, through you, Mr Mayor, that Councillor Rasmussen is willing to add to his point four.

Councillor Rasmussen, are you anxious to do

That? Yes, I am anxious to do that. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thought you might be

And Councillor Conolly?

Is that a yes? Yep.

Words from me, Mr Mayor? That would

Be very useful, yes.

Okay. So point four, a sort of an inventory of all artefacts and building materials taken to Council's depot be conducted as soon as possible.

Okay

And can I just bring up the— I just want to make note of the Aboriginal artefacts at the site, and note that the Aboriginal archaeologist, Dr Alan Williams— I'll have another go at that— Dr Alan Williams believes this collection to be exceptional. This is a highly significant collection of Aboriginal artefacts. We are very lucky to have this. I think it's a shame that it's been disturbed. It's been disturbed over the last 150 years, and that's worth noting. But it's definitely not a bucket of gravel, as was previously suggested.

Thank you. Can I ask, General Manager, that change you made about, I think it's point two or point three. It doesn't address what the Deputy Mayor said about, what the Minister said about interpretation , about interpretation of the old bridge, or words to that effect.

As well as storage issues, it was the offer of additional funding for interpretive artwork or activities around the interpretation. In other words, an increase in the funding for the actual interpretive work.

Okay, we can add interpretation to that, so it would become concerning pedestrian storage and interpretation issues. And it's Minister for Transport, not Transport and Roads, I think.

Okay, if we can make that change.

Councillor Rasmussen

You wish to speak, or is that left over from — No ,

It's not, Mr Mayor, thank you. I've got a question, actually, and I was referring, or going to refer to the fact that we have been told there are some 30,000 items of significance, and I'm just wondering, somebody must have counted every single piece , otherwise you couldn't come up with that figure. And I'm just therefore also wondering whether, but I think maybe Councillor Wheeler's addition has covered some of it. But what is always important, and I've learned this over the years, is that we have a photographic record of the items that we actually keep , because if we don't, for instance, the bricks— now the bricks... I'm not sure how many, but I think there are 16 or 18 cubic metres that have been bequeathed to us.

It's supposed to be a question, Mr. Councillor

Rasmussen. Yeah, it is a question. So, well, my question relates to : are we going to have a photographic record of these items for future use? Because I think that's important.

General Manager, do we know the answer?

Refer that to the Manager Cultural Services, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Transport for New South Wales have been photographing and cataloguing the items. I can't attest to whether they've done all 30,000, but I can ascertain that on Thursday I'll be meeting with the heritage consultant. Transport for New South Wales, through their heritage consultant, is developing a website which will have the photographs and catalogue records of the number of items that they have completed that for. It is standard practice to photograph collection items. If they're not all done, then it is a huge collection. It is a collection that would be worked on in future years as well and made available to researchers. So I will get back to you on whether the entire collection has been catalogued and photographed. But certainly a large amount has and is ready to put on a website that they're developing and will hand over to us.

Thank you

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regard to Councillor Wheeler's request regarding the sandstone items, I think the terms of her request would bear some amendment to not just allude to the council workstepper. I had earlier information that some of that material was also stored in an outside

Precinct utilised by Council down around the railway line on a piece of land there that Council uses as a storage area , and I would think that possibly we should include the words at any and all council installations, please.

Councillor Rasmussen's motion. Do you wish to make that change, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Councillor, are you happy to second that again?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

I have a second question, I'm sorry. The next question relates to the maritime artefacts . We've not spoken about those this evening, and I would consider them significant. I'd like to find out what is in store for them, please.

So you're suggesting adding to the motion, or you're just making a general comment?

Pardon me. It's a serious question because— There is at least one very significant hull , as I understand it, or part thereof, that relates to the very early 1800s and boat building within the confines of the Hawkesbury River.

I didn't say it wasn't serious. I'm just asking whether you want to add to the motion something about marine archaeology. Is that in your intention?

Yes, to understand what is planned in regard to the maritime archaeological relics and their storage and exhibition , please. General Manager, can you have a comment on that?

Or Manager of Cultural Services

We could break point 3 into two parts. Council staff seek written confirmation from the Minister for Transport in relation to, one, his offer of assistance , and we would just continue that. So in relation to one, or A, his offer of assistance.

And then we'd put a B after that

Which in relation to the status of the marine or maritime artefacts.

And plans for the future management

Of those items. Councillor

Ross, once again, you're happy to

Add that? Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Conolly. Yes. No. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Councillor Ross, were you still wanting to talk on this?

No, I think we've just about covered the field, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor

Reynolds, please. Yes,

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just request that an addition be made to point 6, in that it be changed to Council's museum staff, Transport for New South Wales heritage consultant, and Council's heritage advisory committee develop the interpretation and exhibition of artefacts. Council's heritage advisory committee consists of a number of qualified heritage conservators and historians, and that's basically advice and professional advice we get for free. Because the thing that concerns me is in the report, it says that bricks that were recovered, and these are colonial bricks, like pre-Macquarie, will break down if exposed to the elements. But we have to remember that, you know... Some of these bricks, these bricks came from the same brick field as the bricks which, you know,

Are the wall of the Macquarie Arms leading down to Howe House, and that's been standing for over 200 years. So the bricks themselves can be in the elements, depending on how they're placed in the elements, whether it's in, you know, as part of a construction or something like that and protected by, you know, a lime wash. So to say that they can't be exposed to the elements isn't correct, especially when they were used in drains and, you know, subject to, you know, water running over them for hundreds of years. So the Heritage Advisory Committee is, I think, is an untapped resource that we need to tap into in this particular case. We really need to involve them. So if we could just add that into point six. Point six, Rasmusson and Conolly agreeable? So Councillor Rasmusson,

You happy to add that to point six?

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Conolly? Yeah . Thank you . After the word consultant, if you want to say and the Council's Heritage Advisory Committee. Yes, please.

Yes, sir

General Manager, we've got that in hand, have we?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak, although you've spoken

Already. I've just got a question, Mr Mayor. I'm wondering if we can, given the Director of Cultural Services' comment that she was unsure whether all the items have been photographed yet, that given how many there are, that's a lot of work if our staff end up doing it. I'm wondering if that would be something that we could ask Transport for NSW to do, and perhaps we can weave it into some of the existing. .. Wording. So perhaps in point two, where it says Transport for New South Wales confirm in writing that it will fund the fit-out, perhaps the photographic recording of fit-out of the exhibition and storage of, or perhaps photographic recording and storage of the artefacts and archaeology.

Manager of Cultural Services, will that fit in there, do you think? Yes

I think so. I could confirm by tomorrow whether that has already been done, the photography and cataloguing of each and every 30,000 of the items, or whether it will be completed by the time of handover. I apologise, I'm not quite sure whether that has been done.

We have had confirmation in writing today that Transport for New South Wales will fund the fit-out of the interpretive display of artefacts in the museum.

Okay, so we can put that in there and you'll get back to us on the photography. Yeah, and yeah. Councillor Rasmussen and Conolly, you happy with that? Yes, I am, Mr Mayor, thank you. Thank you.

Yes, Mr Mayor .

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Ross, your hand up from before, is it?

Looks like it. No further speakers. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to have right of reply

Yeah, just a brief on this, Mr Mayor. I want to thank councillors for their significant and important contribution to the final motion that we now hopefully we can all agree on and therefore adopt unanimously, because I think it is a very, very important collection that we are now being entrusted with. And as long as we have all these guarantees in place, then it should be a real bonus to this community and a great tourism asset as well. And I just hope that we can all see how important it is and that we will find a way to display not just little bits and pieces of it, but a big chunk of the collection. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. That was a right of reply, so I'll now move the motion. In favour of the motion in its current form, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Sam Brobnor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Conolly. Absent is Councillor Tree. Did I say Councillor Sam Brobnor? Did I miss you? Absent is Councillor Tree, declare it carried.

118, please put a blue hand up if you'd like to move something.

No blue hands yet.

Councillor Rasmussen. I'll move it, Mr Mayor, thank you. Do we have a seconder

Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

No, not at this stage, Mr Mayor, thank you

Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I just had a couple of questions . Just in relation to the assessment of the applications from childcare centres, I note that we've had quite a lot of discussion about trying to get childcare centres to enter into lease for a number of years now, and they've managed to— well, I couldn't say it like that—but we haven't been able to get a lease until, it looks like we might be at that point now. But that's with one hand; on the other hand, we're going to give them out money from the community sponsorship program . Having read through their assessments, I'm just not sure how we would have decided that they represent a vulnerable section of the community. I think that's one of the criteria.

I understand these childcare centres are not means tested in any way. They're open to the entire community, and in fact they're cheaper than normal childcare centres. So I'm just not sure why we would have assessed that by supporting these childcare centres, we're supporting a vulnerable section of the community.

General Manager? I'll

Refer that to the Manager Partnerships, Mr Mayor .

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor . Essentially, the assessment criteria considers the services that are provided within each of the individual not-for-profits that apply. Many of the childcare centres receive a number of, I guess, classifications in terms of the children that attend their care, the relative qualifications of parents that attend their care, and then as such are deemed by the funding agencies to be providing a service to all of the community. And inherently, as you mentioned, not-for-profits, their fees are cheaper and therefore typically accessed by people from a lower socioeconomic background. So in saying that, it does reflect more the— I guess the services that those childcare centres actually offer support to the community, that they offer support to, rather than the services.

But we apply the same kind of consideration when a community centre would be applying for a subsidy in terms of an increased operational cost that they'd incurred unexpectedly, or a loss of funding or pursuing funding for a particular project. And that would be on the basis of the people who are accessing the particular services within those centres.

Councillor Crowley.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. If I could just follow up, just briefly, I appreciate the answer . I guess one of the points you made there was the costs are lower, so therefore people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are likely to access it. I don't think that's necessarily the case at all. I don't know that that follows. I think anybody who could get in is likely to access it. But you did make a lot of points there about the classifications that these centres have. So, I mean, does Council have information that is the case, that the students of these centres are more likely to be from a lower socioeconomic status? And could that information be shared with Councillors? Because it might help in our other considerations as well

Manager of Executive Partnerships. Look

Prospectively, we certainly have some data just in terms of the disability subsidies and classifications that are offered to various childcare centres, some of which are included in our not-for-profit . By nature, the classification, I guess, or approval of those childcare centres as being not-for-profit mean that any income that they derive actually goes back into the centre. Some of the financial analysis that was undertaken in preparation of determining the cost of the sinking fund actually showed of increased costs associated with accessibility and programs that were specifically related to catering for the children that access that centre, some of which is offset by additional government subsidies, but some of also which the not-for-profits actually engage very heavily with early childhood intervention providers and provide specialist supports and additional equipment.

I don't know if that necessarily answers your question, but we do have some indication that those centres do incur a greater cost than just simply providing what is guaranteed on childcare. So, for instance, if there were free nappies or food as part of the daycare package, some centres, Hobartville is a prime example of that, do have heavy engagement with the early childhood providers and therefore, I guess, elect to put some of the revenue raised back into their centre and facility to provide for those children with additional needs.

Councillor Conolly

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I support the recommendation because it's very difficult not to. I just, I do find it odd that we're going to hand out money in one business paper and then try and get it back in another.

And I guess I've, I might save my comments on childcare centres. I would like to see that data because I'm not ever seen a really convincing argument as to why, you know, people, ratepayers who might be paying, who couldn't get into one of these centres because they're not in their suburb, who have their kids in regular childcare, also pay to subsidise these childcare centres when there's absolutely no means testing or guarantee that people in these childcare centres need the help any more than the other ratepayers. And the federal government already heavily means tests childcare benefits. I don't know that the council is doing anything to increase equity or equality with this measure. So I'd like to see that data if we've got it.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Whilst Councillor Conolly and I have very different ideologies on the provision of childcare by governments, I do share some of his concerns about this funding being used for this purpose, because I don't think that it's actually what council originally intended, or thinks is likely to be the spend of this sponsorship. And I'm hoping that this is a pandemic blip, because this, all of this, all of this funding, apart from the three kids attending sporting events, appears to me to be cost shifting from other levels of government. So we're propping up childcare centres, we're propping up emergency food relief, we're providing a mental health intervention, or two mental health... Interventions .

And that— So perhaps you'd like to move that we review the process in a briefing session or something like that?

No, perhaps we just need to discuss it. I'm not— all of these are good things. All of these things are worthy things of giving money to. I'm hoping that this is a result of the pandemic, that council is being required to prop these things up. But this isn't really, as far as I see, the purpose of this funding. There is no money here for the arts, an industry that has been absolutely destroyed by this pandemic. There's very little money in here for any sort of cultural services. There's a public school seeking fee relief for using a council facility. The fact that a public school has to beg local government for funding to carry out a school activity is shameful in this day and age. That childcare is begging, that mental health is going begging.

This is yet another example of councils having to wear the lack of funding from other levels of government. And I think it's really disappointing that this should be additional money for things that make our community richer. And I think it's really sad that we're having to use it to just function at a really minimal level. I think that shows a real inadequacy and a lack of foresight from other levels of government, and good old council propping it up again. And I just think it's a real shame. I'm certainly not going to knock back this report. Maybe we can discuss it later, Mr Mayor. I would value your thoughts on that, but I'm—

I wasn't talking about knocking back what's here. I was talking about— After this, we have a review into our criteria, and I'm just wondering whether that's what you're up for.

Look, possibly. I mean, I'm hoping this is a blip. I just find it disappointing.

Okay, so we'll wait. Councillor Ross.

Thank you. This process and the process associated with item 120 tonight are both terribly unsatisfactory, in my opinion, and I share the concerns of both my previous speakers, colleagues.

The amount here would be in the order of, as I understand it, of approximately the same amount as we're talking about at item 120, of trying to collect from the childcare centres for maintenance funding. Why not proceed on the basis of withdrawal of these offers here, or requests, and offsetting those in normal speak against the requisite $ 13,000 that is being sought from the childcare centres at item 120. As much as both of those things go against my grain, I would see that as a means of not compromising this process, but also affording them some recompense and waiving those maintenance costs. Thank you.

So you're not arguing for a review either?

No, I believe our arrangements in this regard, I think, are satisfactory. This is the first time this type of

Request or funding has been sought, and I would possibly associate that with the fact that the world is off its axis at this moment.

Just I'm hearing a lot of unhappiness with the process, but I'm not hearing anyone want to do anything about it. So maybe you'd be considering a notice of motion to a future council meeting

On this matter. I think that might be a good idea. Yes, I think that would be fine, and I'd be certainly happy to entertain that and discuss it in embryo with my colleagues before lodgement. Well, I was, yeah, I was suggesting you put it forward ,

But

Okay. Just— It's up to you.

It's up to you what you do. I'm just throwing suggestions at you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a question regarding this, and I echo what some people have already brought forward, although I do support it. I'm just wondering, because it is 12,600 to childcare, what would have happened? Like, do we normally have enough people apply to use up all this funding, or would that have gone into the next session, into the next financial year if it's not spent?

Manager of executive partnerships.

The money isn't carried forward if it's not spent. We didn't have additional applicants under this round. Ordinarily, the money allocated to the community sponsorship program is spent every year. But the applications entered under this round, the amount requested was actually reduced just to ensure that the recommended amount was delivered on budget.

Thank you. That's what I thought it may have been, and I don't object to it happening. I just thought it was quite an anomaly because I've never seen something come up sort of along those lines before. But anyway , I'm glad that it was kept to budget, and thank you for that explanation. Thanks.