14 July 2020 - Ordinary

In the meeting of Hawkesbury City Council for the 14th of July 2020, I'd like to start 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.

Members of the public participating in the meeting are advised that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. Recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of those persons who will be participating in the Council meeting tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone, they are to turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. All councillors are here, so I assume there's no apologies. Are there any declarations of interest, please?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Richards.

Items 126 and 127.

And 127. Will you be staying in the room for either or both of those? No

I'll leave the room for item 126, but stay in for 127.

Okay. Any other declarations of interest?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Yep . I had my blue hand up. Yes, item 126, a pecuniary interest, and I'll be leaving. Thank you. Okay.

Any other declarations of interest? No.

Okay. The minutes of the last meeting. Is there any discussion on the minutes, please?

If not, is there someone who would like to move the acceptance of the minutes?

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Rasmussen. Anyone wish to vote against that? If not, I'll declare it carried unanimously.

Tonight we have a number of public speakers. We have eight.

Tonight we have a number of public speakers. We have eight speakers altogether. Our agenda is that the public speakers are speaking on item 126130 and 131. So those items will move forward. We have one item on block, and that is item 128 .

Now normally we now go to agenda items subject to public address, but I believe a condolence motion would like to be moved. So would someone like to move that condolences be heard now, please?

Yes , Mr Mayor, I would

Moved by the Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder for that? Seconder. Councillor Rasmussen. Anyone wish to speak against that? If not, I'll put that. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Carried. We'll move to condolences, and Deputy Mayor, I believe you wanted to move something.

Thank you, yes, Mr Mayor. I would like to move a condolence motion in regard to the passing of Mr Alan Aldridge, who was well known within the council for his work on the committees, on particularly the Formation of the Access and Inclusion Committee. Former Councillor Christine Payne has requested to address the chamber on, to have some words said about Mr Aldridge, and I would ask if she would be able to do that now, please.

The Deputy Mayor has asked that Councillor Payne can address the meeting. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Wheeler. Anyone wish to speak against that? No, the motion carried.

Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Would you like to continue speaking, or is Councillor Payne on board?

I think Councillor Payne is ready to speak, I believe. Thank you.

Councillor Payne, the former Councillor Payne, welcome.

She's always ready to speak

Please go ahead, Councillor Payne.

Can you hear me?

Appears she's still connecting to audio.

Technical issues.

Could Councillor Lyons-Buckett say something?

Yes I could. I believe that Councillor Payne would address it much more adequately than I would, or perhaps Councillor Rasmussen may like to say something, or the Mayor or Councillor Tree, who were the councillors who would have been here when Mr Aldridge, of course, moved to have that committee started and to do the work that he did to set up, you know, to go around the Hawkesbury and identify all the various issues associated with access for people who require such access. And I don't know the circumstances of anything else. I expect that Councillor Payne, a former Councillor Payne, will address that if she has come in now.

And Deputy Mayor, I believe you're wanting to move a motion of condolence and to say condolences to Alan's family. Would that be

What you're moving? To Alan's family, that is what I would be moving the motion for, in line with what we have done previously, and to extend our sympathies to his family and to thank him for the contributions he's made to the Hawkesbury. community and to the Hawkesbury City Council in particular. Thank you.

Councillor Garrow, you wish to second that, I believe? Yep. Former Councillor Payne, are you with us yet?

She's with us, but not with audio.

Still connecting.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen, you ?

Thank you,

Mr Mayor. If I

Could just, I'll just say a couple of words about Alan. As some of you will know, I've been around for a long time, and in this particular case I've known Alan for quite a long time. He was a very regular attendee at council meetings. He was a very, very strong advocate for access and for disability in our community. He achieved a lot on that front with access ways and toilets and so on. He was a very, very strong advocate for the arts as well in our community, and I in particular want to thank him for his contribution to the artist community and the cultural life of the Hawkesbury. He did an excellent ambassadorial work in my mind in that regard. But I guess he's probably, well, best known for his photography.

I'm not sure how much thunder I'm stealing from Councillor Payne. I hope not too much, but she'll no doubt traverse that. Those achievements of Alan's as well, but his photography was just brilliant, outstanding, capturing the moment, capturing the feeling, capturing the emotion. And, yeah, he was just really , really good at what he did. And what he set out to do, what I think many people try and do, but he actually succeeded in doing, and that was that his disability wasn't going to slow him down or detract from the person, the inner person that he was. So, Mr Mayor, Alan was a real gem, a real stalwart, a great ambassador for all the good things that the Hawkesbury has and can and will offer.

So, Mr Mayor, I would like to just offer that minor little tribute to Alan and obviously my sincere and heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends, and all those who are now either celebrating or grieving or both of Alan's passing. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Former Councillor Payne, are you with us yet? Disappeared altogether.

No picture now.

Looks like.

Did anyone else wish to add anything while we're waiting?

Well, I can add that I worked with Alan on the Access and Inclusion Committee. I always found him to be an extremely positive person. When things were well done, he always commented on how well it was done. If we had a staff member come in and say that they'd fixed this or fixed that, he was the first to put his hand up and say, Congratulations on doing that. I appreciate the hard work, et cetera, et cetera. He was that kind of guy, very positive, always went out of his way to help others, and when we wanted something done, like an audit of the main street of Windsor, he put his hand up. He was there. So I really appreciated his input into that committee, and it was sad when he moved away. And now it's very sad to hear of his passing because he was a great member of this community.

This councillor, a former councillor Payne, are you there?

She doesn't appear to be there, Mr Mayor. Maybe we will have to proceed, and perhaps if she comes in later or something, maybe between an item. She's

Just returned. Oh , she's just returned. I think they're on a different device, and if they unmute, they can join us now.

Councillor Payne, you're muted.

There she is.

That would be quite pleasing for some of you that I would be muted, I'm sure. Look, thank you so much for allowing me this time, Mr Mayor, and I'd like to thank Mary Buckett for organising it and suggesting that we do this tonight to honour a really wonderful citizen of the Hawkesbury, Alan Aldridge, who passed away on Sunday morning. Most of you, or particularly the older councillors, are not age-wise, of course, like not like Paul Rasmussen and I, but— Not long serving,

Yeah. Most of

The councillors, and I know most of the staff, would know Alan and his involvement in council and the Hawkesbury in general. Alan moved to the Hawkesbury. Mr Mayor, do you just want me to keep talking?

You can keep talking for a couple of minutes, yes. Okay,

Thank you. Alan Aldridge moved to the Hawkesbury in 1983 and he lived here for 33 years with his wife Ruth, who is a well-known Hawkesbury artist and has exhibited in Sydney and Hawkesbury and quite a few other centres. He was a hydraulic engineer and a design draftsman by trade. He was very much involved in the Hawkesbury and its community. He was a teacher at Hawkesbury TAFE. He did web designs with them until he realised that he thought those kids didn't really want to learn, and he got quite frustrated. He was president of the Camera Club. He was president of the Historical Society. He was very involved with the Hawkesbury Museum and setting up the Hawkesbury Museum. He won many council awards, and during my time working with Alan on the Access and Equity Committee, of which he was a member for well over 15 years, Alan used to peruse the plans for some of Council's planning department with the idea of looking at whether the access was suitable for people in wheelchairs and what they could do.

Mr Mayor, Alan did a lot with the Access and Equity Committee, and he was vice chairman from the time he was on it. I spoke with Richard Baby today, and Richard described him as a highly intelligent man with a great understanding and the ability to articulate the needs of people in wheelchairs. Alan used to drive in a scooter-type arrangement that he had constructed with his wheelchair on the top, and it had a motor in it. He'd drive in from Oakville, and he would push himself around Windsor. Then he'd get on the phone and ring Richard up and tell him what the needs were for people with mobility problems within the Hawkesbury. And if he couldn't get on to Richard, baby, he would ring me. Richard, like me, was terribly sad to hear of the passing of Alan Altrich.

Alan was responsible for doing an access and equity, an access committee for the centres of both Windsor, Richmond, and also South Windsor. This meant that we went to every shop and every premises in those centres. He would be the scribe, and I would be the measuring person. And he went back to home each night and he put it all down. He came up with a map that was printed, published, and put in places like our tourist information centre, council chambers, libraries, and other places within Western Sydney. So people coming here would know where they could get into a bank easily, what restaurants they could access, what phones they could access, what tables in parks. So many tables in parks people in wheelchairs can't.

Alan went to every one of those parks and said, and also changed council's policy on how we put tables in parks so that people with mobility problems could access them. We went into every other shop, and we also actually, Alan and I went to the brothel in George Street, and it was up a flight of stairs, and he looked at me wildly and smiled and said, Well, that's up to you, isn't it? I can't do that. He was a wonderful man. He will be greatly missed by all who had the pleasure of working with him. I know the Camera Club are grieving his loss, as is the Museum and the Historical Society have put things on Facebook. Mr Mayor, I thank you for the opportunity to speak about Alan Aldridge, a wonderful Hawkesbury man who moved close by out of his five acres at Oakville so that access wasn't a problem for him in his later life, and that was cut short by that dreadful disease called cancer.

Thank you so much for allowing me the time to speak about a wonderful man called Alan Aldridge. Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming along. I think we all appreciate what a great member of the community Alan was, and you knew him for many years. I didn't know him for quite as many, but I share your feelings on what a great man he was. Any other speakers? Deputy Mayor, do you want a round off? No,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would just thank former Councillor Payne for enlightening us on a few more of the very practical contributions that Alan made to our community. I'm sure there are many people who are in wheelchairs who really appreciate that somebody bothered to go around and find these obstacles that they face, and to have had things fixed up in our parklands, etc., for that very purpose. So thank you to former Councillor Payne and the other councillors who contributed, and thank you and sincere condolences to Alan's family from everyone at Council. Thank you.

Thanks. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, I didn't see your hand up. Did you wish to speak?

Very briefly, Mr Mayor. I would just like to make the point that clearly we have—I didn't know Alan well. We've lost a treasure, I think, and a real advocate, both for our community but also for the Hawkesbury as a whole. And it's very clear that Alan was very well equipped to use his lived experience to help other people. What I think we need to do is honour the legacy that he has left us, and as well as paying homage to what he's done, we need to make sure that that is a lasting legacy within the Hawkesbury. So I would like to see our—and I will endeavour to see this carried out—that the Town Centre plans that we're currently working on take into account Alan's work, and that also we update his directories of accessible spaces and make sure that we have a truly accessible city going forward, that his work doesn't become something that was confined to the period when he was an active advocate, that it's something that we continue to honour into the future by acting on it for the rest of our time that we're in control of this city.

Thanks. Okay,

Thank you for that. Councillor Rasmussen, your hand's gone up again.

Yeah, just quickly, Mr Mayor, I did say something at the beginning, but maybe Councillor Wheeler's contribution has just triggered my mind. Maybe what we could do, if we work on it together, we could set up an Alan Aldridge pathway or something like that. There must be plenty of— Plenty of themes that he has contributed to that has created, you know, pathways for all sorts of people, you know, with disability and without disability in the arts and the photography and so on. So I'm sure if we collectively put our minds to it, we could come up with something appropriate and fitting for Alan's longer memory. Thank you.

That's a lovely idea.

So, did you want to put that now, or is that something we're going to follow up later?

I think perhaps— Sorry. Yeah,

No, go ahead, Councillor Rasmussen. If you want to put it forward, I'll second that to go— No, no, not at all

Deputy Mayor, it's your motion and I would rather defer to you to put it up if you want to.

I was just going to say we might wait and look at some various things that we might actually suggest specifically to do and put it forward Thank you.

Good idea. Thank you.

Yep. I think we all agree with the concept and we'll look into it. No further speakers. Thank you for your time. Thank you, former Councillor Payne. Deputy officially. Barry,

Thank you for having me, and I'm delighted that I'll be able to tell the family that action is going to be taken along those lines because I think it's a wonderful idea. It's a really sad day for them.

Yes.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, you're moving that officially, and Councillor Garrow, you're seconding it.

Yes

Thank you In that case, I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Brodnax, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. Nobody against it. I declare it carried unanimously.

Madam, please.

You sure can, yes.

I'm wanting to request to have item 128 put back up for debate, please. I'm really sorry, but I just missed that one in calling today.

You wanted debated, 128?

Yes,

Please.

So I want a laptop, and the sound apparently you can hear me quite well, but I'm having trouble.

Yes, I

Wanted to have item

128

Debated, please. To the councillors, if—

Do you want to argue or put your case to—

Okay

Mr Mayor,

Your audio is quite distorted, Mr Mayor, sorry, from my end.

Councillor Garrow, do you wish to discuss it and tell us why, or—

My machine is getting—

Sorry, I'm only getting about every fifth word that you're saying, Mr Mayor. I will— I'm terribly sorry for— yes, I can. I think that it's important that we debate this matter, and I simply forgot to call it up today. I hope I can get some support from some other councillors.

Mr Mayor, Councillor Garrow has my support too. I should have called it up. I was a bit busy with a couple of things, so if that can be brought back on the agenda, that would be great, Mr Mayor.

Now we've lost the Mayor now.

Can we get the Mayor back? He's frozen. He's frozen.

So do you want to take over this...?

No, I think they will need to fix it. I don't think that... I think they may need another device, perhaps.

He's gone.

Mr Conolly . And he's back. He's back.

No.

He's on mute. And he's muted.

Hey ,

There again. Can you hear

Me now?

Yeah, he's back now. Having technical difficulties, sorry. I was asking, does anyone else wish to speak on the matter?

Yeah, I do, Mr Mayor. I was saying earlier, and I'm not sure how much you heard, but I also admitted to calling it up today. I was just a bit busy, but it would be great if we could have it back on the agenda for further debate.

Okay. Please indicate whether you want to speak by putting your blue hand up. There's no more blue hands. So, Councillor Garrow, would you like to have right of reply?

Mr Mayor, there is no right of reply on the movement of a procedural matter.

On a procedural matter, yes, well said, thank you. Well, Councillor Garrow, you don't get a right of reply, I'm sorry.

No further speakers

Yes

In that case, I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, which is to include 128 for debate, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Strogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. I'll declare the motion lost.

Items. Can you still hear me?

We move on to items subject to public address. Can I remind you that whenever you wish to speak, can you please raise your blue hand? And I think there are two councillors who have expressed an interest in 126. First item for discussion is item 126. Yes

Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I declare a pecuniary interest and due to a family member having a business potentially impacted by the decisions made in this item, so I will be leaving, which I expect means I get put in some sort of waiting room or something, do I?

I think so, yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest due to having friends who this may apply to, so I also will be leaving the meeting.

Okay. Now I think we need to wait for you two to disappear.

I think they've disappeared. Okay, and Councillor Conolly, you've got your blue hand up.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I wanted to move a motion. The recommendation in the business paper, however—

Councillor Conolly, we've got public speakers. We've got to go through, so I thought you might have a procedural motion or something. All good. All good. Okay. So Rob

He's just jumping the gun.

We've got four public speakers. The first speaker is Mr Michael Spurling.

It's Mr Spurling there.

We are having a few troubles tonight. Michael Spurling, I can see his name there.

Resurgence of the COVID lockdown.

Yes. Second wave.

Yeah, third wave.

Yeah.

I'm waiting for the staff to tell me what's happening with Mr Spurling

Must be the fault of the NBN, or lack of.

Yeah, lack of.

Yeah.

Is our host listening? Are we able to get Mr Spurling online, or should we move to the next person?

Maybe wants to talk to us.

I'm endeavouring to get some information for the councillors.

Yes, I just got a visitor telling me that Mr Spurling is having trouble getting the video going. Give it another minute or two, and then we might move to our second speaker and come back.

Looks like Mr Sartor is connected.

Mr Barwick is here. Mr Barwick, I think you're the second speaker.

I can proceed if you wish, Mr Mayor.

I think that'd be terrific if you did. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, councillors. My name is Scott Barwick of SJB Planning. I'm speaking to you tonight on behalf of Marshall Rural in relation to recommendations 2 and 4 of item 126, Chris Thomas and Friends. I commend to you recommendation 2 from staff, which recommends the

I

Think Barwick, I think you're the second speaker. I can proceed if you wish, Mr Mayor.

I think that'd

Be terrific if

You did. Thank you.

Oh, looks like we're on a loop. I already said all that.

Of SJB Planning, speaking to you tonight on behalf of Marshall Rural in relation to recommendations 2 and 4 of item 126.

Of course, he has the YouTube open in another tab.

I commend to you recommendation 2 from staff, which recommends the—

Can you hear me, Mr Barwick? I can hear you now, Mr Mayor. I'm not sure where that loop's coming from. Just told that you've got YouTube on or something. No, I've just got the Zoom open.

Mr Sartor has the YouTube link open in another tab.

Mr Sartor might have the YouTube open. Someone has, apparently.

Yeah. Someone has, that's for sure.

So if you're on here and you've got— The YouTube patch open, you need to get rid of it. And Mr. Barwick, we will start your time again. We'll see how we go this time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I commend to you recommendation 2 from staff, which recommends the pursuit of a place-based approach to identifying suitable locations for function centres. This recommended approach will ensure that local circumstances and hazards are taken into consideration in land use planning for function centres and addresses the concerns we raised in our submission to Council on flood hazard in areas such as the Richmond lowlands. This recommendation recognises that it is imperative that natural hazards are taken into account in land use planning decisions, and Chris Thomas of Advizion will address you further on flood hazards and the soundness of this recommendation from staff.

In relation to recommendation 4, relative to temporary uses, my submission requests that Council maintain the existing limit of 28 annual occurrences and that this limit not be increased to 52 annual occurrences. It must be remembered that clause 2.8 for temporary uses applies to every zone in the Hawkesbury Council area and could be for any use. The proposed increase to 52 days could mean a use occurring for every weekend of the year, as an example. This is hardly a temporary use. This amendment is a change with broad ramifications. A more detailed consideration should be undertaken for councillors to consider and understand the broader implications of this change to the LEP. Councillors must also understand that a consent granted under clause 2.8 under Council's current policy framework is unlimited and would be a permanent ongoing use of that parcel of land.

I suggest that it is most prudent not to make this change, but should the option be pursued, Council should be considering putting in place an assessment framework in its DCP that: one, limits the duration of any temporary consent to operate for two years, after which it would need to be renewed. This would ensure that changing circumstances can be allowed for and considered by the community and Council's assessment staff and councillors. The DCP should also include provisions providing an assessment guidance for the consideration of amenity impacts and being clear that associated structures for a temporary use must not be permanent structures. This change, the proposed change and the recommended change, while seemingly innocuous, has broad potential ramifications that have not been appropriately explored.

I suggest to you it is prudent that the duration of temporary uses not be increased and that instead the current limitations be maintained. In conclusion, I strongly support and commend to you recommendation 2 as put forward from staff, and request that in relation to recommendation 4, Council resolve not to proceed with the extension of the time period for temporary uses in this instance. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr Barwick. Would you be happy to answer any questions? Absolutely, Mr Mayor. Councillor Zamprogno, your blue hand is up. Does that mean you've got a question?

It does indeed. Thank you, Mr Barwick, for your presentation. I'll address this question to you, but other speakers who are also in the same vein may also care to take this up. My question is why you would not be confident that if we were to contemplate, and the purpose of this housekeeping LEP is to make certain uses contemplatable in certain

Zonings

So what I want to know is why you have no confidence that simply by rendering a use contemplatable, that there is no ability for us to look on a merit basis on an individual DA that comes before us. To see whether an issue like flood risk rules it out. I take the view that if we—

Councillor Zamprogno , you're supposed to be asking a question, not giving a speech.

That is my question.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor [unclear], Mr Chair. I'm assuming the question is in relation to the function centre uses. Is that correct? Okay. Yes. So certainly , as recommended by council staff and the guidance around planning, good planning practice should identify that you take into account all of the circumstances. In this instance, it's the circumstance of flood hazard. When you have a circumstance where there's been a significant body of work undertaken by the state government in cooperation with council around flood hazard, it seems prudent, and all good planning direction would suggest that you take that information on board before you make a land use permitted, so that you're not putting the case that the community has to prove its case every single time it has a development application.

It also means that applicants aren't put to the expense of having to attempt to prove a case otherwise, so that it's clearly recognising and embedding in the planning framework where there are known hazards and there are areas upon which sensitive uses are not suitable. That is clearly presented and made known to the community to say, well, we've done the background work, we've done all of the hazard analysis, and we've identified where these uses can be safely contemplated, and we've identified where it's not safe to contemplate those, so that it's a very clear message and it's a very clear position that everyone can understand upfront.

Thank you. Any further questions? No. Mr Spurling has arrived. Can you hear us, Mr Spurling? You're on mute. You have to press the mute button.

Top right-hand corner of your picture. That's it.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. Sorry we couldn't hear you before. We started with other speakers first, but we've come back to you if you're ready to go.

Yes, I am. Thank you, and I was just sitting there with the screen saying I'll be let in, so I've been waiting. I first wanted to speak in favour of the eco-tourism discussion, that many of us up here in Bilpin have been waiting seven or eight years since the 2012 LEP came through, and we've been waiting for the ability to really add overnight accommodation to the Bilpin area. And I say Bilpin, it's Berambing, it's Bilpin, it's through to the Kurrajong Heights area, and we've waited patiently, and this is the opportunity. So I strongly encourage all councillors to give the tick of approval to eco-tourism tonight. It's also worth please noting that we've seen there were some submissions made saying no to eco-tourism.

It's worth noting that 15 tourism operators in Bilpin have signed the letter put together by Lionel Buckett and myself. So when you see a submission from Lionel Buckett and/or myself, it's actually speaking on behalf of 15 tourism operators in Bilpin. So there's a very, very strong groundswell across the whole district to say yes to eco-tourism.

I'd also like to speak in favour of function centres, and it's very disappointing that there seems to be a great deal of, I guess, anti-feeling towards function centres. Again, there are clearly flood concerns, which we're all fully aware of. All I would say is that as a matter of policy, to lock out Bilpin, Berambing, Kurrajong Heights, where there are clearly council could put in any number of safeguards to any DAs that are submitted in the lowlands, for example, that would preclude, for example, function centres where there's a flood risk. So there's any number of ways that council could modify when a DA is put in, and yet here are areas where we clearly have no flood risk, and yet we're being completely penalised and locked out from the possibility of even thinking about a function centre.

So again, it's very disappointing, and I would really encourage the councillors to vote in favour of the function centres.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Spurling. Would you be happy to answer any questions, should there be any? Of course. Are there any questions for Mr Spurling? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. I'll counsel... Councillor Rasmussen had a question, but he disappeared again. Changed your mind, or are you still? Councillor

Rasmussen. Sorry, Mr Mayor, I'm back on. If that's okay with you, I'm back on. Mr Spurling, thank you very much for that presentation, and I agree with you about ecotourism. It's important. It always has been important for that area up there, and in fact in many other areas of the Hawkesbury. Hawkesbury is a great ecotourism centre, in my view, along with obviously the Blue Mountains. But in this case, it's the Hawkesbury we're dealing with. Now, can I just get from you a clarification? So you would have read the business paper and the recommendations. So are you in favour of adopting the whole recommendation in the business paper? Yes

However, it's my understanding that they've been split. The ecotourism question has been split from function centres. Yeah

That's my understanding. Okay, yeah. Anyway, as far as you're concerned, the recommendation as presented in the business paper, Council's business paper, you're in favour of adopting all of the eight points in the recommendation? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Spurling . Our next speaker is Mr Thomas.

Good evening, everyone, and through you, Mr Mayor, I'm here to speak in relation to the support for recommendation two with reference to the function centres, and also in terms of requesting that recommendation four regarding temporary uses be deferred for more detailed report because I and my client oppose it. Just a little bit of background. I'm a principal hydrologist with Advizian, which is part of the Worley Parsons Group. I've practiced as a flood engineer for over 30 years. In that period, I've done many , many floodplain risk management studies and flood studies, government-funded studies as such. In fact, might I add, in my earlier years, I was involved in the first, or the 1990s, '97 Interdepartmental Flood Advisory Committee report that was tabled in relation to the Hawkesbury-Nepean.

And 20 years on, we find we're back there again discussing that very same issue, and many reports have been tabled for that since then. As a matter of interest, I'm currently working for Penrith City Council, preparing a flood risk management study for the Lower Nepean, which abuts the area of interest to Hawkesbury Council, and we're also working for Infrastructure New South Wales doing a bit of a cutting-edge study in relation to cumulative impacts along South Creek, with a view to providing land use planning advice for the Aerotropolis and areas around the Aerotropolis. So I guess the relevance of that is that I had fair bit of involvement in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and understand that, as many of you would because you live there, the significance of flooding, and it's been discussed at length.

In that regard, you know, it's been described as probably the most significant flood risk exposure in the Hawkesbury-Nepean, if not in New South Wales, certainly only parallel possibly by the Lismore area. So the Richmond lowlands is one of the most significant and critical areas in that, and I've provided in a report that I'm sure you've seen with some graphics that show how fast floodwaters would cut across the Richmond lowlands in the advent of even relatively minor floods, certainly not as big as the one-in-a-hundred-year flood, which, as you will all know, the 1867 flood was bigger than the one-in-a-hundred-year flood. In more recent times, flood mapping has been prepared by Infrastructure New South Wales, which shows the severity of the flooding that can occur across the Richmond lowlands and areas which are designated or zoned RU2 zoning.

Those floodwaters would reach up to eight metres depth of water in that one in 100 year flood, should it occur again. The mapping also shows that even in events of the magnitude of, say, one in a five year flood across the Richmond flowlands, that there'd be areas would be inundated to depths of up to one and a half metres. So even in the more frequent floods, there would be significant inundation of that lowlands area. The mapping also indicates, probably most significantly, that the velocity of those floodwaters, even in those relatively frequent floods, would be quite substantial. And that means that if we combine the velocity and the depth of floodwaters, that tells us about the hazard.

When we deal with floodplain management, we try to find ways of managing the hazard so we can reduce the risk. But from my experience, and in my opinion, the risk associated with flooding on the Richmond lowlands is very , very difficult to actually approach in that manner. Yes, there's understood there would be cause for considering things on a merit basis, but the flood risk in that area is so great that it would be very, very difficult to argue a case to support intensification of development in that area and certainly introducing an increase in population in that area, even if it was only temporary. So , in my opinion, any planning proposal that could result in an intensification of development on the land that's classified as RU2 in the Richmond lowlands, or any increase in the population density, even if only temporary, is totally at odds with the flood hazard that the land could be exposed to.

And indeed , I think that the New South Wales Government is making moves with its modification to its flood prone land policy and its guidance about how to deal with that potential risk and to minimise the intensification of development in those areas. So the potential to manage that hazard and reduce the risk is negligible, in my view. And that's due to the likely frequency of inundation, the short flood warning times that are afforded to the area, and then on top of that, the limited carrying capacity of the existing road network for evacuation during the onset of flooding. In other words, if we said, let's put function centres in a particular area in the Richmond lowlands along many of the narrow laneways that extend across that area, the potential to actually activate an evacuation plan, implement it and evacuate those people out of there would be very, very limited.

Then on top of that, once you've got them out of there, you've then got to get them probably back to Penrith when roads were locked out.

Mr Thomas, you've run out of time.

That's all right. That was my final point. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Would you be happy to answer any questions?

Sure, happy to answer any questions.

There's a couple of hands up. Councillor Conolly, do you have a question?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that, Mr Thomas. I note that you mentioned at the start of your address that you were speaking in favour of point two of the recommendation regarding function centres, but you did also make the comment that you wouldn't support any intensification of development in that zone or anything that temporarily increased the population in that zone and the floodplain. So would you also suggest we don't go ahead with the ecotourism in that zone?

I would probably haven't exercised my mind around that. I think it's the intensification is in relation to the numbers of people. If an ecotourism proposal involved hundreds of additional people, then yes, that would present the same sorts of issues. It's an intensification that wouldn't be sustainable in terms of being able to evacuate, let alone warn those people in sufficient time to allow them to relocate. Bearing in mind that the sorts of flooding we're talking about here, many of the road networks that already exist in the area would already be clogged, or with very slow-moving traffic that would be being directed by emergency services and SES. So to add to that, in an area that is at high risk would be, in my mind, unacceptable where that risk exists in the Richmond Lowlands.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmuss, and you had a question. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Thomas, thanks very much for that detailed analysis and your advice on that. Could I just ask you a couple of questions? One relates to your understanding or familiarity with the recent February floods in the Hawkesbury. Are you familiar with the extent of impact or inundation of the Richmond Lowlands?

I haven't mapped it as such, and I haven't modelled it as such, but I am familiar with that particular event. And I guess the point I would make is that there is no doubt that in that particular event there was significant rainfall in the Grose River Valley, which has significantly contributed to flooding in the lower, or in the central Hawkesbury Nepean. However notably also, the dam was very low, so therefore there was substantial storage provided in the dam on the main arm extending up through the Nepean and along Warragamba River Gorge. So what we need to see is to develop the sorts of flooding that we saw in 1867—well, I didn't see it, but as reported in 1867— is we need to have, in the particular circumstance we have here, is the dam at close to capacity, and then the sort of rainfall that we saw over the Grose River Valley extending across other parts of the catchment.

And when we analyse these sorts of floods, that's what we contemplate.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and Mr Thomas. I have two questions, Mr Mayor. Can I follow up?

Yes, please. Okay,

Thank you. So, talking about Warragamba Dam in particular, or by the way, I live or had property butting onto the Grose River, and I did see the extent of the water coming out of the Grose because I lived just at the confluence, and there was extensive—so yes, you're right. But my understanding of the Richmond lowlands was a little bit different, perhaps, to yours. Now, back on the dam, if the dam proposal to, or the lowering of the dam by 14 metres, if that actually proceeds, or the business case stacks up, what do you think would be your advice with recommendation two? Would it still be the same?

Yeah, it would be still the same. I'll just explain my reasoning. The raising of Warragamba Dam by 14 metres is totally about a flood mitigation benefit. There's no doubt about that. If it was to be raised by 14 metres, and the dam existed at full supply level, so if everyone understands, full supply level is how high that the dam would be let to hold water to without periodic releases, and then the flood mitigation capacity is this airspace that sits above it, which you've rightly quoted as 14 metres, which is the proposal. Back in the day in the late '90s, it was proposed to be 23 metres, but that's not now the current proposal. With that. Freeboard, the capacity that would be held within the dam is estimated to be about the one in 50 year event before the dam would still then start to discharge.

When we talk about flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean, the most critical thing apart from the need for these inflows is that Sackville Gorge serves as a choke and prevents floodwaters from escaping at a rate similar to the rate at which floodwaters enter the bathtub, that is the Central Valley. So the issue that unfolds is one whereby floodwaters fill that bathtub and then start to back up along the Nepean River, upper Hawkesbury and the Nepean River. And as they fill up, they then protrude back along tributaries like South and Eastern Creek and Rickabys Creek and the like. And as a consequence, many of the mechanisms for evacuation from that area are cut because roads , even the Windsor Bridge, would get cut and people can't travel in an east or west direction to get out.

So they must travel in a southerly direction back towards Penrith and the M4. In so doing, they're heading in the same direction as floodwaters are coming from that are filling up, and effectively the backing up of floodwaters from the blockage caused by Sackville Gorge leads to them being chased by those floodwaters. It might seem a bit preposterous, but that's what would happen. Modelling has been undertaken back in the '90s, which we were involved in, and since then more recently, which shows that people would not be able to get out in time. There'd be major chaos. So the issue that That exists is that even with raising of, and the key to that, I guess I should say, is that there isn't enough warning time for people to be told it's time to go.

The current estimate is that if we had the sort of rainfall we're talking, which is bigger than a 100-year flood event , if we had that sort of rainfall occurring, there would be about four to five hours warning time, maybe six hours warning time. So ostensibly what SES would have to do is make a prediction. They'd have to make a prediction, like they've got this east coast low sitting off New South Wales right now, and they'd have to make a prediction that east coast low was going to be so severe that It was going to cause major flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and lead to— Mr

Thomas, we're running out of time again, sorry.

Sorry. Potential loss of life. And therefore what the raising of Warragamba Dam would effectively do is buy them more time, but only a few more hours. So hence the issue remains the same. And to answer your question, I would still be anti the proposal to intensify in the RU2 zone in —

Councillor Conolly, you had a hand up. Do you have another question? Councillor Conolly? No

Sorry, I'll remove the hand.

Councillor Rasmussen, your hand's still up from before.

No, it's not, Mr Mayor. I do have a follow-up question, if I may. Can we be brief?

Yeah.

I'll be very brief with the question, and I'll leave the rest up to Mr Thomas. So, Mr Thomas, are you familiar with the latest product being developed by the Bureau of Meteorology, where in fact they use the Hawkesbury-Grose River flood in February to rivet truth, if you like, their model? But that model, when it comes out, will give the Hawkesbury something like a two hours or less warning time. Are you familiar with that? And if that does come out and is as good as they say it is, would your advice for recommendation to be the same?

So firstly, I'm not directly familiar with the Bureau's tool, unless it's actually related to an SMS-type telemetered tool that they're actually proposing for Parramatta. If that is the case, I know of that, and that's about providing— Advanced warning for people to either evacuate or shelter in place. So if it's not that, some of the items that are available from the work that's been done from, or sorry, have been prepared for the work that's been done for Infrastructure New South Wales are cabinet in confidence and haven't been released at this stage. So I'd have to say I'm not familiar with that particular tool.

Thank you, Mr Thomas. We're actually well over time, Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you. Thank you , Mr Thomas. Now our final speaker on this matter is Mr Sartor

Can you hear me?

Yes .

Look , I want to speak in support of recommendation two. And in doing so, I want to answer two questions. The first question by Mr Spurling, or comment by Mr Spurling, is that he's very disappointed, but I actually think that recommendation two will address that issue because it doesn't kill function centres. It just says there has to be proper consideration of parameters around where they can be located. For example, you could have a rule that says you can't have them in high frequency and high hazard flood areas. So recommendation two is well crafted. It intends to come back with a DCP control and with the comprehensive LEP to identify suitable sites, and hopefully that would address Mr Spurling's concern.

So I don't think that recommendation two, in the long run, will be a problem for areas like Bilpin. The second question I want to answer is Mr Zamprogno, who says, Well, why can't it be contemplated, or why can't we assess it at DA stage? Well, the standard template provides for about 30 zones, and each of those zones, it provides a whole lot of prohibited uses. And it provides prohibited uses for a good reason, because in a lot of areas, we regard uses as incompatible with the setting. It might be with the neighbourhood or with the setting. So if you took that view, you wouldn't prohibit uses anywhere. You'd say we'll do it all based on assessment. It's also true to say that it's well-established practice that you prohibit uses in high hazard areas.

And one of the hazard areas that we often hear about is in relation to bushfire risk. And so you have asset protection zones, and you have all sorts of limitations on what uses can occur in certain locations in advance of and separate to development assessment. So really, the problem with making a use permissible is that there is a presumption, if I'm the owner of that land, that I can have that use. And if I lodge an application and it's refused the first time, I can go back with a variation, and eventually I will convince enough people to approve my application. But where there is a very high level of risk, and we're talking here about flooding levels even in a one in five of up to two metres or one and a half metres, and one in ten, two to four metres in depth, and isolation of areas in the Richmond lowlands, it's a nonsense to say we can assess this every time there's an application.

It really has to be a line in the sand which says, no, this is not a legitimate permissible use. We do the same in contaminated sites as well. So that's in response to that issue. So I strongly support recommendation two. I think it's very sensible, and I think the staff have done the right thing. And if it's carried, would then go on and identify areas that are not so flood prone where you can have function centres subject to then individual site assessment. This is really a whole precinct, a whole lot of areas; it's not just individual sites. In relation to item four, I support what Mr Barwick said. It's difficult to see, the problem with the report in relation to item four, recommendation four is that, presumably because the staff have a lot on their plate, it hasn't really assessed what is it you're trying to achieve with these temporary uses.

What are these uses? If, for example, You're talking about weekend markets, and you're going to allow 52 days, so 52 Saturdays of the year. For them to be temporary uses, you'd have to pull—if you put in an upper structure or a marquee or something, you'd have to pull it down every time. So it seems to me that there is—and by the way, under the exempt and complying development State Environmental Planning Policy, already community uses are catered for, other than in rural zones, but so are private functions, weddings and so on, in the rural zones. They're allowed at the moment, but only for up to seven days. You can put up a marquee so long as it's not more than 300 square metres for seven days in a rural zone.

So you can do all that now. What you can't do now, under the exempt and complying development state policy, is you can't actually run it as a commercial business. But you can have, if you want to have a function, and indeed I think in the Richmond lowlands they probably do have ancillary functions after a polo event. I assume they do. So what I'm saying is that that item needs a proper report and needs to be properly assessed, so that you look at what it is, what's the problem you're trying to solve, or do you just allow 52 days everywhere? Now I know some councils allow 52 days. We introduced 35 in the City of Sydney only because of the Olympics; before that we used to allow about 15. So I'm saying you could have all sorts of implications.

Are you allowed permanent structures? Can you have temporary uses in permanent structures? Should the use go on forever, or should you maybe do these temporary uses for a period of, say, two years and they get reviewed and if there's no problem they can continue? So I'm not saying that I'd be against temporary uses, whether my client is or not is a little bit irrelevant because we provide him with professional advice. All I'm saying is that to jump from 28 to 52, given the extent of land in the LGA that's high flood risk. is unwarranted without a bit more analysis and to work out exactly what you're trying to achieve. And I think it could be done in a better way. So

I— You can have to wind up now,

Mr. Sartor. Except I would request that Council seriously consider deferring item four as well for a separate report to be considered properly and to finesse it more so that it doesn't achieve any unintended consequences.

Thank you. Are you happy to answer any questions?

Of course I am.

Would there be any questions, please? Sorry. Doesn't appear to be any questions. No. Well, that was the last of our public speakers. Councillor Conolly has his hand up. Councillor Conolly.

I'd like to move the recommendation of the business paper without recommendation two.

Second that, Mr. Mayor.

And just before I go further, Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to confirm with the staff through you that the effect of doing that would be that the entire—

That the function centres would proceed for the department's consideration.

Mr. Conroy.

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

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just to clarify, Councillor Conolly, I think what you're seeking to do is to allow the use of function centres to be included in the planning proposal going forward. Is that— yeah . Okay. So then it wouldn't necessarily— you're not seeking to remove recommendation two, but change it to not essentially include it within the planning proposal. So it would proceed with the inclusion of function centres as part of the planning proposal going forward.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd be happy to move that way then, just wanted to seek clarification of that.

Okay. Would you like to speak to it, Councillor Conolly? Yes,

Thank you. I understand that potentially doing some place-based planning might, in the very longer term, produce a similar outcome to this process, and perhaps have the opportunity to provide more certainty in the planning system, and so I'm certainly not opposed to that.

Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross. Could I inquire as to who was the seconder? Councillor Tree was the seconder. Thank you. Sorry, please continue, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

However, this planning proposal has been the result of several years of trying to get to this point. We found, I think it was, I don't want to misquote the year, but it was in the last term of Council, a long time ago, we came to the point where we found that the majority of Council recognised that having function centres in our rural zones makes a lot of sense. It is synergistic with the strategies we have for tourism. It just makes sense in a lot of cases. But because of the way the LEP was, and it was brought to a head by what everyone's talking about, the Richmond lowlands, we didn't have that option of allowing it. It wasn't an allowable use. And so at that time, that applicant on the lowlands suggested that he was going to put forward a planning proposal to allow function centres in the lowlands, and Council said, no, we're going to include it in our housekeeping LEP amendment planning proposal, and it was taken forward that way.

Since then... It's taken many years of back and forth. Council staff had recommended to us on previous— well, council staff, you know, I shouldn't, carefully how I say this, but it was sat on for a long time. It took a very, very long time in council to get to a point where council was able to make any decision. It was recommended to us to defer it, only to be clarified later that there was no option to defer it. We could either proceed with the planning proposal or not. And I would seek to make that point again. I don't think that the recommendation in the business paper is actually very clear, and is potentially misleading. There is no option to defer this. We can move the planning proposal forward without function centres or with function centres.

If we move it forward without function centres, it would require a new planning proposal or the general amendment to the LEP that's coming. There's no option that we pick this up in a couple of months and move it on again. It's not going to happen. So it's not really a deferral, and that was the point that was made very clearly the last time council had a recommendation before it to—at that time we were told we were going to pull it out of the process and progress it separately, which again, it turned out meant would not be in the planning proposal and would need a new one if we wanted to take it further.

There are certainly some considerations around flooding. No one's ever suggested that's not a problem, and there's no reason that that should stop function centres the whole way across the LGA. There is no problem with flooding at Bilpin and many of the other places that function centres would be very attractive businesses. In fact, the recommendation in the business paper is that we don't proceed with this not because of flooding, but because of the submission from the Department of Primary Industries, which is around land use conflict. Land use conflict can be managed through the DA stage as well, and I think that, you know, Hawkesbury businesses have been asking Council for the last five years to have function centres in these zones.

We keep saying we support it, but just not yet, just can't, just have to do this bit first, just have to change this first, and this has been going on for years and years and years. We've got the opportunity tonight to stay the course and say to Council staff, once and for all, no, please proceed with the planning proposal that we've all voted for over and over again, send it into the department to be considered, or we can stop again and say, yep, we still support it, but we can't just yet and do something else. Thanks,

Mr Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment.

Yes.

And the amendment would be the recommendation with the deferment of item part four.

So you're keeping one, two, three, etc., but deferring part four.

That's correct, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak on that?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I do, and thank you for the opportunity. Mr Mayor, I've got a question to Lee first, and that is the part that Councillor Connelly said that this is not really a deferment. We're kidding ourselves. I'm not sure I can remember exactly the words he used, but we're kidding ourselves. Could I just have the General Manager give us a view on whether this is a real deferment or a blatant deferment?

General Manager, would you like to comment on that? Refer that

To the Director of City Planning, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I suppose essentially what we're saying is instead of considering this item through this planning proposal, we would consider it through the review of the broader LEP, which is due to be completed by June 2021. So it would be picked up as part of that piece of work instead.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So my understanding of what the Chief Planner has just said is that it is a deferment because we will do some more work. That will be the place-based planning approach, and that will be picked up in the LEP when that proceeds. Is that a correct understanding, Mr Mayor?

I'll ask the Director

Yes, I suppose it could technically be seen as a deferment as part of this planning proposal, but ultimately it's not going to be picked up. It will then be picked up as part of the broader LEP review, which we're undertaking now.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I want to lead off by saying, and you would know, and other councillors who've been around for a while would know that I'm a very strong supporter of tourism in the Hawkesbury, eco-tourism in the Hawkesbury, and tourism that plays to our advantage in the Hawkesbury. And certainly eco-tourism is one of those. Polo is one of those. There's a whole range of activities and industries that really play into our strength in the Hawkesbury, and I certainly want to support that, have always done so. I take Councillor Connolly's point that this has been going around for too long, way too long, and it's frustrating. I've been frustrated by it, obviously he is, and so are many other operators who are trying to get on with their business and just do what they do best, and that's promote the Hawkesbury and do tourism in the Hawkesbury.

But I think it's important that, having gone this far, that we actually get it right. And I think perhaps now we've had a bit more clarity put onto this whole issue, and place-based planning approach may be the clarity that we've been needing for some time. I think, from my point of view, it's a pity that we haven't seen that come up before, but anyway, it's there now, and I want to support that approach to the extent that I know it will produce a better result for tourism in the Hawkesbury. I heard Mr. Spalding also say, and I asked him very specifically, was he in favour of the recommendations, all the points one to eight. My recollection is that he said yes, he was. So it seems to me that at least some of the operators are in favour of this particular recommendation.

So I take a lead from the operators and, as you know, I'm keen on making sure the operators have the strongest voice in this. But I also take Mr Sartor's point, and that is about item number four, and that is that suddenly jumping from 28 to 52 days, that's one function every week. I would like to see a bit more clarity, detail around why that would be a good thing for a temporary use. So, Mr Mayor, hence my recommendation or my request to have this item deferred until we can get a report on exactly why staff have come up with that particular jump from 28 to 52 days, Mr Mayor. So I would ask councillors to support my amendment. Thank you.

Can I just clarify with point four of the recommendation, you said you wanted to leave it out. Do you want to leave it out or do you want it to say something like that it stays at 28 days? What are you saying, or defer it, as you just said?

Okay, Mr Mayor , thank you for making that point and clarifying it. What I would like to do is leave it at 28 days and have a further report brought to Council, perhaps obviously from staff, pointing out or arguing or building the case around why it should go to 52 days. I need a bit more detail around the 52 days is what I'm asking, Mr Mayor.

Okay, I did ask that question myself today and got told that the change from 28 to 52 was a Council decision from before, but I'll leave that hanging.

Councillor Kotlash, you've got your hand up.

Mr Mayor, just a couple of questions. I'm a bit confused with Councillor Rasmussen's interpretation of what Mr Spurling said before. My understanding was that Mr Spurling was disappointed that the function centres weren't going to go in with this planning proposal.

I think that—I hope that's what he said—and in that case, he wouldn't be supporting all of the points in the recommendation.

The point of clarification

There?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did ask Mr Spalding, and he's still listening, he's still there. I did ask Mr Spalding very specifically, and it was a good reason for asking specifically, whether he supported all of the items in the recommendations one to eight, and my recollection is he said yes. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. I'll leave it at that. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but that's okay. I'll move on.

Was the amendment to Councillor Connolly's motion for changing — Point two of the recommendation, and leaving out point four. I was a bit confused whether that was part of Councillor Connelly's motion.

Councillor Connelly's motion was to

Change point two

To leave it out, he said originally. Councillor Connelly, is that what you meant? Leave out point two?

I was advised by the Director of City Planning that we shouldn't leave it out, but should actually change it to, instead of the negative, to make it the positive that Council does proceed with the planning. Okay,

And keep all the other points of the recommendation. Yes. Yes. Okay, Councillor Connelly.

Thank you. In that case, can I ask Councillor Connelly whether he'd consider removing— not removing point four, sorry, we've just had that discussion— whether he would consider changing point four to defer it until we get more information about the advantages of changing the temporary uses from 28 days to 52 days.

Councillor Connelly. Yes, I would be happy with that. Yeah. Councillor Tree, would you be happy with that change?

Mr Mayor, I feel like this has just been kicked down the road until we just don't want to have to deal with it anymore, so it's a little bit frustrating. But I guess if Councillor Connelly is happy to, I just think that it's such a simple thing to move forward and go with what Councillor Connelly has said, and then we deal with the DA at each individual process, at which point there'll be lots of involvement from all of the relevant bodies and parties.

But, yeah, okay. I mean, we've been talking about this for how many years, and I just feel as though it's ridiculous.

I'll take that as a yes.

They'll do.

Okay. Point of order, Mr Mayor. Point of order, yes. Councillor Samprogna.

It's just a point of clarification I'm seeking. I support Councillor Connolly's motion, but Councillor Rasmussen has moved an amendment. So is it proper to be talking about amendments to the motion when an amendment, sorry , is it proper to be talking about the motion when the amendment has been moved? You're probably right.

The question was asked of Councillor Conolly, and Councillor Conolly said he'd be prepared to do that, but we haven't actually done it yet. It's just a discussion. When we get back to the original motion, we'll do it then, okay? So at the moment, as Councillor Samprogna points out, we are discussing the amendment. Councillor Kotlash, did you wish to speak more on the amendment?

Okay, that's, sorry, Mr Mayor, that's what I was trying to clarify. I didn't realise that Councillor Rasmussen was wanting to amend the recommendation in the business paper. I thought he was trying to, I was confused. That's all I want to clarify for the time being. I'll step out of the conversation at this point.

So to clarify, nobody has moved the recommendation in the business paper. Councillor Conolly moved a different version of it, and Councillor Rasmussen moved an amendment to Councillor Connolly's motion. We're discussing—

Sorry, Mr Mayor, can I just clarify?

Well, there's a lot of feedback coming through my earphones. What I meant to do was amend—whoops.

I'm not sure where we are now.

You moved an amendment.

I moved an amendment, and the amendment would be all of the recommendations except for item, or part four, where I'm happy to take on board the deferment as proposed by Councillor Kotlash. Does that make sense now, Mr Mayor?

I think we already knew that. Point four is on the screen now. Is that what you had in mind?

Hang on, I can't quite see it on my screen. Refer, consider.

You wanted to keep point two, though, didn't

You? Yeah, I do want to keep point two, that's right.

Point two

Seems— And item 4.4, I'm happy with that as it's now displayed on the screen.

Yep. Well, point 3 has been repeated there as 2 and 3.

That's correct.

So what you wanted was the original point 2 that's in the business paper plus that changed to point 4. Yep. And that's

Correct. That's correct, Mr Mayor. That's my amendment. That's my amendment, Mr Mayor, yes, thank you.

And that was seconded by Councillor Wheeler . Correct. Councillor Kotlash, you've finished your speaking. Yes. Councillor Ross, you wish to speak on the amendment?

Thank you, Mayor. I wish to approach you on the following basis. I have one question in relation to subject matter

That has been discussed as part of the amendment, and I also have other matters germane to other recommendations about which I also wish to ask questions. Now, would you like me to confine myself to the amendment at the moment, and then we'll deal with other questions later?

Yes, please. We're talking about the amendment right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, with your indulgence, sir, I'd like some clarification from staff in relation to particularly recommendation number four.

Could I interrupt? I'm sorry, but I think there's a point of order here, or there's a procedural problem we have. If Councillor Rasmussen asked Councillor Conolly to change point four, then that's not an amendment. Sorry, I'm getting totally confused.

Councillor Conolly has a different point two to Councillor Rasmussen, so they're still different.

That's correct.

Even if point four ends up the same. Councillor Ross, you have a question about the amendment? Sorry.

Thank you, sir, with your indulgence.

Yep.

Could I ask the staff through you, sir, to refer to Attachment 3 of Item Number 126. At page number 55 on the printed document. You could. Thank you. Now, my question is in that regard. It deals specifically with the recommendation of staff at point number four, and it describes the matter here as item 1.18. The description says the following: insert a local provision for temporary uses on public land.

Am I correct in understanding that that statement will alter the standard 2012 LEP to

Curtail

Such temporary events to Crown land, which is under the control of Council , either being community land or operational land or roads or such like material that Council has influence over, and is not a pervasive all zonal impact?

Director, can we have an answer, please?

Mrs Perrin, are you in a position to answer that?

You're on mute.

Sorry.

No, 1.1 deals with the change from 28 days to 52 days. So I missed some of Councillor Ross's question, but ultimately, number 1.1 deals with changes from 28 days to 52 days.

Mr Mayor, that's not in accord with the question to which I sought an answer. May I repeat it, sir, in essence? The

Question was about whether it refers to public land, I think, is that?

That is correct, and the document is Attachment 3 at page 55 on the Council reporting for this evening. Clearly it says at 1.18, which is on page 55, insert a local provision for temporary events on public land. I just seek clarification.

Mrs Perez?

Yes, sorry. Yes, that item is relating to public land. However, item 1.1 relates to amending clause 2.8 for the temporary use of land, which is on page 23, which is the point we're discussing now in relation to this amendment.

Okay, Councillor Ross.

You still with us, Councillor Ross? Can't hear you.

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Well, could I direct the officer to page 55 and could the officer please explain the difference between the narration provided at pages 23 and 55? There seems to be a conflict within those. So

In terms of the broader planning proposal, there's a number of items that are being proposed to change as part of the overall housekeeping LEP. This was one item that's been identified specifically in relation to temporary events on public land. So that's relating to that issue. However, the item we're discussing is around temporary activities or temporary events increasing from a number of days, 28 days to 52 days, which is— Therefore, on all, not just public land, just land.

Councillor Ross

Thank you. That is remarkably unclear because the explanation at both points quotes Clause 2.8

Of the existing LEP. Now, one just mentions 2.8, holus bolus. Page 23 mentions sub-clause in brackets, numeric 2. So

If I may answer the question, in our current LEP, there's no provision for temporary events on public land. So ultimately, through the review of this housekeeping LEP, as I said, a number of items were identified when they moved from the existing LEP to the template LEP, and this would allow, reduce the need for development applications lodged for minor temporary events on council-owned or managed land. Ultimately, this item is about addressing that specific issue for temporary events on public lands, which does not exist at the moment

There are two separate things being discussed, I think.

Yes ,

There are Okay, so I believe I would now be correct in understanding that there is, in fact, an expansion

Projected in both of those applications to involve both public land and private lands. Correct? Please.

It's not an expansion. There are two different items. One is to do with allowing temporary events on public land, which is something we do not currently have. It would also then reduce the need for development applications, which currently is occurring. The item in relation to allowing an increase of temporary uses from 28 days to 52 days is a separate matter, and it's not just related to public land, but it is related to private land and, again, would be subject to a development application. But ultimately, it allows people to apply for uses more than 28 days per year.

Councillor Ross, do you have any more questions?

I'd just like to expand on, have that answer expanded upon, please. In relation to the new use projected or requested for public land,

What is the intended limitation upon that in terms of days or occurrences through the year, please?

So at this point in time, any applications in relation to events on public land are subject to a DA, and it would depend on what the application was applying for. So it'd be hard to specify all of the constraints because every application is different.

Councillor Ross, I think we've laboured that question. Have you got any other questions?

Excuse me, Mr Mayor. That answer is contrary to the wording on page 55. Page 55 says in the latter paragraph, In order to reduce the need for development applications to the lodged for minor temporary events — sorry, the English is not coherent — on council-owned or managed land, it is proposed that a new clause be included . That's fine. But there is no development application being proposed in that element on page 55.

And that?

Director, would you like to have one more go at this, please?

Okay. So at the moment, if somebody wants to There is a requirement for a development application if you want to do an event on public land, which is a temporary use.

We're trying to insert a clause which

To allow these activities, these temporary activities, in our LEP because it doesn't currently exist.

But ultimately... Okay

I'm trying to work out how to explain this without, you know, confusing

Things even more.

So there are any number of DAs that we would be receiving for minor temporary events. This clause would allow activities to occur without requiring a DA for each and every minor temporary event on Council-owned public land.

And essentially, you couldn't then have an event every day of the year. It would be temporary. The maximum would be 28 days per site.

Councillor Ross, we need to move on. Have you got any other questions?

I take it that what is being suggested is that this be

Delegated to staff as an operational matter. Is that my understanding of things?

For development applications, yes. If it met the criteria that could be resolved under delegation, then it would be resolved under delegation. Or if a DA is not required, then a DA would not be required. And so, yes, it would be resolved under delegation.

Do we need an amendment to the LEP to do something on council managed and controlled lands?

In relation to what specifically, or just anything?

Specifically in relation to this item. I mean, we've got council operated land. Surely it's within the purview of council at the moment to say you can hold a market or you can't hold a market without a DA.

No. No, there are different rules around . At the moment, if somebody wants to hold an event and this has been raised by different councils in the past, then DAs are required. This ultimately would help alleviate a DA requirement for a number of minor or temporary events.

Councillor Ross, can we move on now?

Thank you very much. I do have—

You've gone on to mute, Councillor Ross. Did you finish or did you just—

I've concluded at the moment. I just wish to reaffirm that I do have questions in relation to other elements of these documents later. Yeah,

To the motion, yes. Okay. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak on the amendment?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in favour of the amendment. The amendment looks remarkably, and the recommendation in the business paper looks remarkably like a solution I proposed last time this came to us, that we separate out function centres in lunch part, I think because it's our best chance to get the other items, particularly eco-tourism, through the department now instead of waiting until next year. And I hear Mr Spurling's point that they have waited a long time for ecotourism to be a possibility between Kurrajong Heights and Burrambing. And I think the amendment is perhaps the swiftest path for this to go through. I appreciate Councillor Rasmussen's deferral also of the temporary land use at point four.

I think that's, given the concerns that have been raised by the speakers, I think that is probably the best way forward. I've got quite a lot of questions about that that I can hold off on if the amendment goes through, because they will come back to Council when we consider our place-based planning. And I think it's worth making the point that this place-based planning analysis is not something that's on the never-never. It's not something that we will be waiting forever for. We're starting it on Saturday, that we have an all-day strategic planning session on Saturday to look at place-based planning to feed into our LEP and DCP. We have already started our place-based planning with the local strategic planning statement.

So this isn't something—we've heard that the state government's timeline, not our timeline, that we could fudge a bit or put off for a bit longer, but the state government's timeline is June 2021. So that's less than 12 months away. I disagree with Councillor Tree's point that— If we, if this goes through, then we can catch these things at the DA stage. That is really, that's not a responsible way forward. What that leads to is applicants believing that their DAs will be accepted. It leads to the same sort of debates that we've seen in this council for the last four years, where we're implored to accept an application because the applicants have taken some time and spent some money. And in fact, if we don't have, or if DAs are not appropriate on flood prone land, then it's far better that we have that clearly laid out in the LEP so that the applicants don't waste their time, money and energy getting their hopes up and putting those DAs in, nor is it a useful use of council resources.

So far better that we do some proper forward thinking place-based planning and work out where function centres can actually occur. What we've heard from Mr Thomas, I think, should give any councillors who are who are not supportive of Councillor Rasmussen's amendment, real pause for thought. We have heard yet again about the very real risks of our floodplain and the difficulties, and I think the key point is the frequent short warning times and limited carrying capacity of our roads. And one of the things that I think the COVID pandemic has shown us, and this recent resurgence of the virus, is the difficulties when you have large groups of people gathering on a site. And that's ecotourism. I think the issue of people gathering at ecotourist facilities has been raised.

Ecotourism is a really sensitive approach to land use and means that you usually aren't increasing density to a large extent because that doesn't fit with sensitive consideration of land. But function centres don't have those considerations, and packing 150 people into a site that may have poor capacity to evacuate and a limited amount of time to get people out of narrow clogged roads is a recipe for disaster. We have a duty of care as councillors. If you doubt Mr Thomas's thoughts on this, I implore you to go and have a look at the flood maps and think seriously about the duty of care that we have to people who use the facilities on the land that we are responsible for the land use planning of.

So I thank Councillor Rasmussen for his amendment. I want to thank the speakers for clarifying these issues of concern, and I hope that my fellow councillors will support the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Progner. You wish to speak

On the amendment. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against the amendment and I'm speaking for the original motion. And I have to respectfully disagree, and I'll deal with Councillor Wheeler's comments first. It is a gross oversimplification to suggest that a landowner is going to lodge an expensive DA purely on the basis of a cursory reading of the LEP and that a particular

Use can be contemplated. They are going to do so on the basis of a conversation that they've had with our planning staff. They're going to have a conversation with a town planner. And if there are obvious issues with fire, flood, noise, amenity, they will realise that their potential DA has little prospect of success. I am concerned that we are effectively sterilising these areas for perfectly legitimate uses, and yet again, we

Are finding that this process has been poisoned by an encouragement by some for us to look at this through the lens of the lowlands and nothing else. I agree with Councillor Conolly that this process has already been very long-winded and that the housekeeping LEP has already been watered down well past our early expectations. And therefore, I can't support any further delay. And I only wish that we had paid more attention to Mr Spurling's presentation, where he said that on his own behalf and on behalf of a dozen other property and business owners in the area, they are looking to us to pass this so that they can conduct meaningful economic activities on their land. It's what we need to do to try and get the economy of this area back on its feet. And if this chamber chooses to delay and defer this yet again, we will be judged harshly for it.

Thank you , Councillor Conolly. Thanks, just to very briefly speak against the amendment. And just to make the point, in response to an earlier speaker who said that we've got a duty of care in this matter around flooding , just to remind councillors that the reason the recommendation before us is to not proceed is got nothing to do with flooding. This has been out on public exhibition and the state agencies didn't come back with a huge concern around flooding. The only people that have raised a concern around flooding are consultants hired by a neighbour who doesn't want a development in his own area. It doesn't mean that those aren't real concerns, and I'm not casting any aspersions on those consultants.

I'm sure they're perfectly well qualified to make those comments. But this is before us with a recommendation not to proceed on basis of land use conflict with agricultural properties, which nobody is discussing. We're all discussing flooding and, you know, clearly we're all talking about the Richmond lowlands, whereas, you know, there's all sorts of constraints across the area, not just flooding. You know, many parts of Bilpin, it would be unsuitable due to fire risk. And as Councillor Zamprogno mentioned, there's many other constraints as well. You don't go and say you can't have a function centre in the zone just because some parts of the zone are flood prone. That doesn't make any sense.

And that's certainly not why the state agencies have said we put it on exhibition.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers on the amendment?

Councillor Wheeler, is that a new hand or an old hand? Councillor Reynolds, please

No? Councillor Reynolds, you've disappeared. Did you wish to speak?

Yes, please, sir. First, a question to staff . If item four is deferred as requested in the amendment, will it go through with the LEP amendments next year?

Mrs Breen. Yes, that would be intent to include in the broader LEP review, which is due to be completed next year. Okay,

Thank you. Yeah, I speak in favour of the amendment. Regarding the increase from 28 days to 52 days, as someone else said, basically it's making, opening up the possibility for basically a full-time business to work on weekends, like we're seeing in Windsor at the moment, down at the intersection of George Street and Hawkesbury Valley Way, where food vans and eateries are plonking themselves. And the issue is that obviously they're taking business away from the commercial strip and the established cafes and restaurants. And these cafes and restaurants basically exist on weekend trade, and obviously they pay wages, they employ local people, they pay rent, they pay superannuation, they pay insurance.

And when you turn up in a food truck and plonk yourself on a corner every weekend, you basically— Paying for petrol to get there, and perhaps power to run your generator. So I know that, you know, competition is great. I've been in business all my life, and competition is good and it's necessary, but you can't have this. You can't have an unlevel playing field. And I'm really concerned that by extending this to 52 days, that we're going to seriously damage some of our businesses in our local towns when we're at the moment trying to revitalise them. Regarding the point two, I cannot for the life of me understand why councillors do not want to go through with place-based planning proposals, especially when it comes to, you know, proposals and DAs or whatever that are built in areas where there are safety issues.

And I'm not talking about flood here. I'm more talking about bushfires, because that's where I live for 30 years in bushfire-affected areas. This shouldn't be called place-based planning. It should be called safety-based planning. And to think that leaving it to the DA stage will solve everything, and Councillor Zamprogno chastised Councillor Whelan for saying that, you know, there would be all kinds of issues raised at a DA when he said that the applicant would go in and have words with staff and meetings and all the issues would be raised and dealt with then. I mean, Councillor Zamprogno obviously hasn't personally gone through a DA process. The issues aren't raised until the thing is assessed and all the documents are in.

So for developers and entrepreneurs and landowners and people who are buying land to come in and see that a particular development is allowable on that land, subject to the DA process, they'll buy it. They'll buy it, and then they'll put in their DA, they'll go through the whole process, and then they'll probably object. And then, as with a lot of other things that have gone through, we'll end up in the Land and Environment Court. Now, we went through this down with the function centre down at St Albans. It wasn't allowed in that zoning area, but the applicant, you know, which is his right, tried to get it through under heritage provisions. Now, it was a function centre in an E3 and E4 zone.

Now, what Councillor Conolly is proposing is that that would have just gone through, that that function centre would have gone through without taking into account, although the DA stage would have taken into account, objections from neighbours who had moved into E3 and E4 zones for lifestyle reasons. Now, I spent, during my work in career, I spent a lot of time in function centres, and they can be really, really loud places. And especially when you've got a lot of people that are having a good time, and even with conditions that are part of the DA approval, as was the case at St Albans, things get broken. People don't comply with conditions. What we're doing here with place-based planning proposals is going, that could be a problem if that goes in there.

We're not going to do that. We're not going to risk putting a function centre with 100, 150 people where we're going to end up with something like Gosper's Mountain taking off, which will happen far, far faster than the flood, and then everybody trying to get out down Bells Line of Road or Putty Road or Settlers Road or wherever it may be.

We know we have issues with our planning documents, and here we are trying to get it right. We're so close to the end. We're trying to get it right, and people are coming in here and going, No, don't worry about that. Just leave it to the DA stage. And you know it's going to be a headache. And you know council will get berated because, oh, they held us up at the DA stage again. We're trying to speed things up, trying to get the process right, and I just can't believe that someone would not want to go ahead with place-based planning proposals, especially when it comes to things like function centres. Thank you.

Councillor Ross, you've got your hand up.

Councillor Ross, we can't hear you.

Councillor Ross, you're on mute.

Councillor Ross, you've disappeared now.

Totally. Something I said.

Must have been, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash, you had your hand up, I think.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a question about place-based planning . It seems to me that a DA is the ultimate place-based planning. I mean, I'm not sure how we're going to negotiate our way around what is a place and how we define that. It seems to me that, you know, we have to consider applications for function centres, or for anything in that matter, about where it's going to be in the landscape, what it's going to do, how big it is, what sort of technology is going to be used, and that to me is place-based enough. It seems to me I'm not quite convinced that we've got a handle on how we are going to do this place-based planning. I know some councillors say, Well, we'll will along the track, but— I'm not sure I agree with that yet. And I just wanted to ask, could

I get some sort of comment about how a staff envisage place-based planning working in terms of function centres? I'm talking around the scale of it. Okay,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Okay, so essentially the concept of place-based planning is not just, you know, something that Hawkesbury Council is, you know, throwing out there. It is a concept that is being pursued through the Sydney Region Plan and the Western District Plan. It is a language that is beginning to take more of a footing. It's not about an individual site, but it can be, but the place can vary in terms of neighbourhoods, local centres. It could be an area or areas that have similar characteristics. This council has already started doing some level of place-based planning, and, you know, although contentious, Kermode Carriageway is a place that we've been doing planning around through the Liveability Program.

We're doing place-based planning for Windsor, Richmond and South Windsor, which councillors are aware of. The draft Rural Lands Strategy also is taking a strategic place-based approach. So, you know, we're beginning to do that through our own planning.

So, and as you all know, our LGA is not the same. So having function centres in a zone, which would then be permitted use in that zone. So, but the areas are not the same. Bilpin is different, Colo is different to the lowlands. You know, topography, landscapes, whether they've got agricultural areas. So each area has, or each place would have their own opportunities, constraints, that place-based planning would allow you to look at all of those and understand that outcomes that you're trying to meet, and therefore how would any uses, not just function centres, but how would uses you want to permit in those areas enable those outcomes to be met.

Can I ask a question a different way, if I may, Mr. Mayor? It seems to me that ecotourism is very place-based. My understanding of ecotourism has always been that it is somehow related to the place that it's in. So, and its purpose , I guess, is to enhance the place and whatever it offers. So I can't understand the reasoning behind it . It's okay for ecotourism to go through this housekeeping LEP. Apparently we don't need place-based planning with ecotourism, but we do need it for function centres. It just seems to me, I'm sure we've got all of the hazards with locations in Bilpin, you know, fire and whatever else we have to contend with. I can't, I'm not getting, I don't know. Could you just, I suppose my question is, why don't ecotourism facilities need to be Need to be done under this umbrella of place-based planning.

Okay, yes, sorry. Thank you, Mr Mayor. So essentially, there are a number—if you look to ecotourism within our LEP or within planning, there's any number of other elements that need to be considered for ecotourism that, by definition, would curtail or, you know, guide where those places would allow ecotourism to be permitted. So , you know, ultimately it's in areas that have, you know, environmental values that need to be protected. So any ecotourist, you know, application or, you know, function or, I suppose, facility that, by its very nature, would be— the scale of it would be, you know, potentially smaller, the numbers of people potentially different, and the places that they would be considered would be really looked at within that place.

So I suppose what we're saying is, by definition, by the outcomes and by the objectives already existing around ecotourism, it is leading us down the path that we are looking at through a place lens.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks. That's it

That's it. Councillor Wheeler, you had your hand up again.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just very quickly, a couple of questions about temporary use, if I may. I'm a little bit—I guess I'm seeking some clarification around what temporary use actually means. Does this mean the use of a temporary structure, or does this mean the temporary use of a permanent structure, or both?

This is Perrin.

Okay, so ultimately it can be temporary uses, temporary structures being, you know, brought up like markets, et cetera, brought up, put down for events. But if we go to

Page 27 of the report, there might be structures on a site that potentially could be used, that are already there, that could be used for, you know, temporary activities. But what we're saying is it's not about building permanent structures that would allow, you know, the concern around temporary uses. It isn't about creating permanent structures that would then impact, you know, the use of that land for other activities.

So effectively , it's both, by the sounds of what you've said. So I guess that, so 52 days is every weekend. I'm wondering what you then have to do in between. So if I've got a caravan that I park on a site and I use it for a purpose every weekend, and we allow 52 days a year, can I leave it there and call it temporary? Do I have to drive it around the block once a year in order for it to be considered a temporary structure? At what point does a temporary structure become permanent if it can be used 52 times a year?

So again, if we're talking about, so yeah, I mean, your application for temporary use by default implies that you are then, if it's a caravan in that case, you are removing it so that it's not therefore used as a permanent place of residence by, you know, people, because then we have an issue where you've got... Intensification just by default of people living on the land that don't have permission for living there permanently.

But how, if I can use it 52 times a year and I use it every Saturday, then do I have to take it away in the interim, or do I just have to not use it?

No, the intent, well, the intent would be ultimately you revert back to the original, what the space was like before that use was enacted . That's the intent of a temporary use.

But we're going to end up chasing people for this, aren't we? This is going to be a compliance issue.

It could do, yes. Yes . Thank you.

Councillor Ross, you had some questions .

You're on mute, Councillor Ross.

Yes, thank, thank you. I'm sorry, I browned out earlier.

In regard to the questions that the previous speaker was seeking information upon,

If I have this caravan and I move it this weekend to a particular site and then go to move it to another part of the LGA,

Does that count to the 52, or do I start again if I move to another site?

The approval, if somebody were to apply for a temporary use, it would be relevant to that site. They're not attaching it to the caravan and therefore attaching it to different parts of the LGA. It's a different site.

Right. So if I'm down in George Street in Windsor and then next weekend race up to Springwood Road. .. That's all well and good. No

No. If you were to apply for a temporary use of a caravan on a site, then you would get permission approval for use of that caravan on that site. It does not give you permission to then take that caravan and move it to a different site or in a different suburb , because that's then dealing with an application for a different site. You'd need two different applications.

Councillor Ross, is that okay? You've got more?

Are different applications, do they become cumulative or do they stand alone?

They would be individual applications with their individual conditions, because every application is individual, every site is individual, and the conditions that apply would be individual to that application.

Okay. Thank you. I'd like to speak to the amendment, if that's also possible.

You can speak to the amendment, yes.

Thank you. I'm afraid, to me, it appears a bit like Hobson's choice. Firstly, following the line of the original mover and seconder, I'm not in favour of that approach, but equally, in terms of the amendment, I feel that the approach taken vis-à-vis element three with the ecotourism

Is a very bold statement. And if it were to the pleasure of the mover of the amendment, I'm just wondering if that fellow councillor would consider engaging in a place-based alternative situation there, which would make both two and three recommendations and their treatment handled in a similar fashion. Could I

Ask Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, please.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would need a bit of guidance from the Chief Planner, Mr Mayor, if that's okay. Could I have some comments from the Chief Planner, please? Okay

Mrs Perrin.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, ultimately, if Council wished to look at ecotourism through a place-based lens, it can do so.

But we are also okay with proceeding as recommended in the report.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. One further question. Which would be the fastest pathway for ecotourism to become established, the place-based or the way item three is expressed?

I suppose technically, the ecotourism is currently being considered as part of this planning proposal, which is at the tail end of the whole, you know, gateway process, post-gateway. If we were to consider it as part of the broader LEP review, then it would be at more of the beginning process, and therefore— however, once this report gets resolved and moves to the next stage, I have no timing to give councillors into when it will get finalised. Okay,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross, I'm afraid, given that answer from the Director of Planning, I'm not inclined to put a place-based clause into Item 3. I think, from what I heard, that potentially could slow up ecotourism more than it already has been. So I'm sorry, Councillor Ross, I just can't accept that at the moment.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, have you finished your questions?

Yes. Look, thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to my fellow councillor. I'm, as I say, faced with Hobson's choice. I'll have to go with the amendment, although I do have a grave fear that the bold step in relation to Item 3, Element 3, may in fact end up resulting in delay. And anyway,

Thank you. I

Just have to accept that situation, and thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

I was only going to point out, Mr Mayor, that much of our debate has been fruitless

Because— You've already spoken on the amendment. You wish to speak again?

Yes . Well, it's only to make this one point. Section 2.8 of the 2012 LEP is the section that deals with the temporary use of land. Associated with that LEP are well-known definitions of what a temporary use is. We waste our time by not being familiar with those definitions and then just talking ourselves into circles. Okay

Thanks for that. Are there any further speakers? On the amendment. No, there's no hands up. In that case, we'll move the amendment. There's no right of reply because it's an amendment.

If you're in favour of the— and I'm waiting for my full screen to come back so I can see everyone. Thank you. If you're in favour of the amendment moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen,

Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler. If you're against, please raise your hand.

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? Declare it carried. The amendment has become the motion.

Any further discussion on the motion?

No hands up. Councillor— no, still no hands. Councillor Ross, you wish to discuss the motion.

And you're on mute again.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. I'm just going to be quick. I brown out again . Is this in which I could seek clarification of questions I have in regard to other matters in the recommendations ?

You could, except we now have a new motion, which is the amendment, which was the amendment.

Right. So

If it's relevant, yes, you can.

It's relevant to the overall matter, sir.

Okay.

The first question I have is in relation to page 56 of attachment number three, at item 1.19. I'm just trying to seek clarification from staff as to the

Reason for the inclusion of point P, and is that not also covered by point H in that same list of standards ?

Mrs Perrin?

So can I just read the context. So did you say on page 56, E ? Did you say letter E? No

P for Peter. P. Oh , yes. P versus clause H for Harold. Oh , okay. I don't understand the necessity for P if H is met.

Mrs Perrin, are you speaking? Because we can't hear you.

No, sir. I'm reading to myself.

Okay.

So P is in relation to bushfire requirements, and H is in relation to Building Code of Australia. But if there's further discussion around this, I'm, yeah. So there's two different drivers leading to those two, so H and P.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

I was really questioning as to why it was felt that the Building Code of Australia did not, in fact, cover point P.

It does. I mean, it's essentially... It

Probably does, but ultimately it doesn't hurt to have the same—well, from our point of view, having the two points there doesn't hurt the issue. That's

A point of order, Mr Mayor. Yes, Councillor Conolly. Sorry to interrupt. Councillor Tree has been kicked off the meeting. She just contacted me. She can't get back on to the meeting. Okay

Can the host please look into that for us? Thank you.

Mrs Brennan, you're answering a question.

Yeah. So the question is, could you have one instead of both? Potentially, you could. Ultimately, we've listed both to specify one is more in relation to the PCA and one is in relation to bushfire specifically.

Okay.

I guess we'll—thank you for the response—I guess we'll just wait for DPI to sort out what they make of it in that instance. Now I'd then like to draw your attention to Page 75,

Item

Of the same document, 2.1, subcategory H, Heritage Map Amendment.

Has not that piece of land, in fact, had a change of status with the construction of the new bridge? And why is it proposed that this amendment be here and not one which is pertaining to where matters have now devolved, please?

Okay, just hold on a sec.

So, in terms of this, so again, if matters have changed, which, as you know, things have changed, items such as this could be updated or removed through the process of finalising this planning proposal.

Thank you. By whom is it inferred that— by whom would such a change be initiated, please?

Ultimately, it can be initiated by us or the Department of Planning themselves.

Right. Right. Have you not considered this prospect?

Once this, well, depending on what happens with the resolution tonight, there is an iterative process that will have to occur between council officers and planning officers, Department of Planning officers . Before things are finalised , there will be discussions around, I suppose, language, definitions, finer detail that will go on that will pick up any particular matters that need to be clarified as we progress the finalisation of this planning proposal.

Councillor Ross. Sorry. You have any

More questions?

No, I hope to clarify the matter here in a moment, sir. Are you suggesting that this , at this stage, is satisfactory to leave at this point, and that between operational staff and the department or RMS or whatever, Transport for New South Wales, that this amendment will be updated to reflect the current status?

Yes, that's

Correct. Thank you. I conclude my question, sir.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Is this right of reply?

No, not yet.

Oh, okay, sorry.

Are there any more speakers on the matter? You don't get right of reply. It's Councillor Conolly's motion. You've just amended it

In that case, Mr Mayor, I'd like to say a couple of things.

Go for it.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I want to point out a couple of things. Firstly, most of us, and certainly me, totally in favour of tourism and ecotourism and people doing tourism in the Hawkesbury. It's one of our key strengths and we should applaud it and we should support it. Having said that, Mr Mayor, the place-based planning approach is something that the state government and state agencies have been putting out as a great way to deal with difficult issues and to get greater clarity for people wishing to do activities, industries and certainty of investment. And I applaud that approach. And as long as it's sped up, I think in this case, given the circumstances of this particular issue that's been hanging around for so long, and I agree with Councillor Connelly, Tree and Zamprogno that it's gone on for way too long.

But I think this is probably the most quickest path for this issue to be resolved. You will also know that the LEP is the point at which councillors, because of its strategic nature, is the point or the plan at which we have greatest influence on what can happen in our area. Once it gets to the DA level, we don't have much say in the matter. The DAs in the main are dealt with by staff or planning panels. Now, if we don't give very clear directives as to what it is that we want in our LEP, and that is for our area, make it very precise and clear, then we know what happens. The planning panel goes, well, there's no guidance from Council in its planning documents, and so therefore we can't decide or we make a less than optimal solution.

Similarly with staff, if we don't give clear guidance in our LEP, then we'll have the same outcome. But at the DA level, we have no control. Remember, councillors, we have no control at the DA level. So leaving everything to DA level is not, in my view, a good strategy for this council to adopt. So I just hope that all of us can go with the motion now. It is the clearest, fastest pathway for industry players, people who want to get on with tourism and get on with their businesses and get things happening for the Hawkesbury, create jobs, local economy and so on. It is by far the quickest way to deal with it. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. You've got your hand up. Is this right of reply?

No, I'd like to move an amendment,

If possible. You can do that.

I'd like to move that we defer consideration for a briefing session and have this matter brought back to council at a future meeting.

You want to defer the whole matter to a briefing session? Yep. Okay. Do we have a seconder for that? Oh , why not? Why not? Who was that, Councillor Tree, was it?

Thanks

Seconder. Can I speak to the— Yeah, I just can't see everyone at the moment, so that's moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Tree. Yes, Councillor Conolly.

I think, based on the conversations and the contributions of some councillors here, and as pointed out by Councillors Zamprogno earlier, there seems to— we spent a lot of time discussing definitions and people trying to get their heads around what they're actually doing, and I think we're about to go ahead now, it seems, and ditch the function status from planning proposal that's been going since, I think, 2014. It gets right to the last hurdle, and it actually seems like we're going to go ahead and take it out of the planning proposal, not for the reason recommended to us by the staff to take it out, but because of flooding, which is not the recommendation the staff have given us at all. And I think, to make the point the best, and— With respect to Councillor Rasmussen, what he just said, I don't think it makes any sense.

You can't leave DA stage . To give you some examples, Mr Mayor, in the RU1 zone, we allow open cut mining, places of worship. We allow public administration buildings. We allow all sorts of things: veterinary hospitals, water recreation structures. We allow charter and tourism boating facilities. We allow correctional centres. You know, obviously there are many, many uses in every zone which are not appropriate for even most of the zone. That's how the planning system works. To say that we would need place-based planning for function centres, but we wouldn't need place-based planning for any of those other uses is ridiculous. You know, for a councillor to say that, you know, we don't care about safety if we go ahead and allow this is just, it's, you know, with respect, nonsensical.

There are heaps of uses. In fact, most uses are not going to be suitable for most sites that are zoned that way in our LEP. So the idea, I think, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this based on a misunderstanding, and it is painful to watch after sitting here watching this trying to progress it for years and years and years. In fact, councillors over and over again say, you know, make those statements, I very much support this, you know, we want to care about, you know, we want to get things going, but I just can't. You know, and to say that this is the fastest way to get local business going is, again, nonsensical. I mean, not every tourism business, but many do. Many tourism businesses need function centres, and ecotourism isn't going to allow that sort of use.

You know, and I think that to throw this all out, I would just ask councillors, just please, you know, if you're inclined to throw it all out and not let it happen, go to a briefing, make sure we understand what we're doing before we give away five years' work

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Well, speaking of nonsensical, for a councillor who said that we'd wasted far too much time on this and couldn't believe that we were still at this point, to now move to defer this because he didn't get his way, I think is—it's more

Than not. It really beggars belief. If we get an open cut coal mine, an application for an open cut coal mine on the Richmond Lowlands in the next 12 months before we've got our next draft LEP underway, then we can probably rely on the DA process to sort that out. In the meantime, how about we do what you keep telling us we're not doing and actually advance this proposal? Really, this is just stalling. It's shameless. It's really transparent, honestly.

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler has hit the nail on the head, as she usually does. I just find it incredible that Councillor Conolly, as smart as he is and as sensible as he is, is now completely doing a backflip. And now saying, as Councillor Tree said, Ah yeah, why not? Why don't we delay it for yet another briefing and another one? I mean, honestly, Councillor Connelly has somehow or another seen the writing on the wall. He obviously does it. He wants to have the message, I think, out there which says, Oh here, Councillor, you know, Council's, you know, basically deferred the whole bloody thing, and we're now going to go for a briefing, the fact that he did. I mean, I just find that really bad play. Anyway, I'm sure Councillor Connelly will have something to say about that. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen, I think some of what you said is bordering on personal comments. All right,

I withdraw those comments if you see them like that, Mr Mayor.

I just want to point out that we're not allowed to use personal comments, whether they're positive or negative. So to say that someone is clever or whatever else is still a personal comment, okay? All

Right, I won't say he's clever. No

I'm not. I hope you see my point. It's a personal comment, okay? Councillor Sam Provn.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Connelly is being misrepresented here. The entire thrust of Councillor Connelly and myself and Councillor Tree is to get this thing done. We don't want to see additional delay. We want to see the best outcome to permit economic activity in certain zonings that local landowners have asked us to contemplate and to permit. We have a group of people who have been paid by a particular landowner to put a contrary view. That's entirely their right. The reason that Councillor Conolly is seeking a delay is because it is obvious to him and to me that there are councillors who are under a misapprehension, and that if the recommendation—well, if the motion that's now before us passes, is that this will be put off yet again to the never-never.

And if, through a briefing from council staff, those councillors can be better educated as to the definitions that apply about simple things like what a temporary use of land is or what the DA process does to gatekeep inappropriate developments from going through, then maybe we could return to the chamber better informed and get it through then. I don't want to see any additional delay on this, but if it means that councillors have to sit down and be educated again about these basic matters, then I'm afraid we're just going to have to do that. So I support Councillor Conolly's amendment.

We don't appear to have any more speakers. Councillor Wheeler, your hand was up.

Point of misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

Oh, you can do that at the end, okay.

Sure.

Councillor Ross, your hand is up .

Thank you

Please be brief.

I shall. I prefer to go with the amended motion as it's been put, even though it is a Hobson's choice. My fellow councillors who have just spoken are flirting with the prospect that DPE, DPI are just going to wipe this matter and say, well— There's insufficient attention to given to the flooding issue and, frankly , there seems to be enough documentation and enough direction

If you like, from government

And the department to indicate that a place-based development , if you like, of these facilities is well and truly warranted. I'm sorry, chaps, but I've got to stay with Councillor Rasmussen's motion.

Thank you. Councillor Conolly, your hand up.

Just a question, Mr Mayor, because it's just been raised again then by Councillor Ross. So just maybe to clarify, did the Department of Primary Industries ever mention flooding as a problem?

Mrs Perrin.

Can't hear you, Mrs Perrin.

Still can't hear you.

Now you've disappeared.

Mr Kearns, were you— Okay.

Sorry about that. I'm just —I don't know what happened then. No, they didn't specify an issue around flooding.

Okay. Councillor Conolly, you finished your questions?

Yes. There are no further speakers with their hands up. So we'll put the amendment. The amendment is by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Tree.

Before I do that, though, Councillor Wheeler, you want to claim misrepresentation.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I feel that I need to point out to Councillor Zamprogno that just because councillors ask a question doesn't mean we don't understand a point, and that it really is a stretch and actually quite an insult to infer that councillors don't understand how the DA process works. I think most of us are quite cognisant of how the DA process works. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Conolly, your hand is still up. Does that mean anything? No. So it's been moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Tree, that this matter be deferred to a briefing session. Maybe they're not the exact words, but that's the general idea. If you're in favour of this amendment, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Sam Provo, Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash. Declare it lost. We get back to the motion, which is the amended motion put up by Councillor Rasmussen. Is there any further discussion on the amended motion? If not, Councillor Conolly, it's your motion. You have right of reply.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I mean, probably tried everything I could now. And, you know, to respond to a couple of things that were just raised, you know, it's not— I don't think it's shameless or transparent. I wasn't trying to be anything but transparent. I was obviously trying to stall because I feel like this is a terrible outcome and we're giving away, at the end of a process after five work, on the basis of flooding, which hasn't been mentioned by anyone other than the neighbour of a potential development. None of the agencies, nobody in the community has come back and said when the next vision that this flooding is an issue, except consultants paid by somebody who doesn't want this to happen.

And we're going to give away the whole thing after it's been sitting there for five years, and Council has—a majority of councillors expressed support for this use in this area, as has a majority of the community over and over again throughout the time point. So, of course, I was trying to stall before this happened because, of course, once this happens, it's done, and we've got to wait for an LEP. I also take Councillor Cotlash's point about, you know, is it realistic that we're going to go and have a different plan for every location within the next year? And once we start that process, are we really going to think that it's just appropriate for this use, or are we going to think we need to do it for every use?

In which case, how long is that going to take? Is it really going to be done in the next year? I find that very unlikely. So I would urge people not to vote for the motion, but I feel like I've probably gone as far as we can down that road.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. That was right of reply, so I'll put the motion. If you in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow. I think, did I miss any in favours? No. Against, if you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Sam Provner. Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone? Declare the motion carried, five votes to four. Thank you. That's the end of that item. Thank you to those members of the public if they're still around.

Yeah, thank you. Can the deputy mayor be asked in?

Yes, and Councillor Richards, can they come back please?

Next item is item 130. We have three speakers on that. The first speaker, Mr Paul Lawrence.

I think Mr Lawrence is actually on the same PC as KSN Ypers.

Okay. Mr

Lawrence, are you there somewhere?

Can't hear you yet.

Still on mute.

Mr Lawrence, is that you? Yes, please, please go ahead .

My name is Paul Lawrence. I'm an adjoining owner to the development that's proposed. I'm for Councilor Wu's proposals and against the DA that's been submitted. Like I said, I'm directly adjacent the property. Any of their runoff runs into my property, so that I lodge my objection, and I've got— A number of issues that I've raised technically or emotionally. You know, it's something that shouldn't be in our zoning. By their own paperwork in the EIS statement, they're talking about bringing in, by their own figures, 28,000 cubic metres of fill or 45,000 tonne of fill. We've got 3,200 cubic metres of road base. We've got an area, the platform that this sits on is 4.1 metres of fill plus a 10 metre shed on top of that again.

So it's 14.1 metres above the natural ground level, which is very imposing from our street and our driveway. We'll get to look at that. Any runoff, they're not putting concrete down to put this recycling on. It's all road base material, stabilised road base. So that's going to have a runoff into our area. The materials, the possibility of the materials they're bringing in, one thing, you know, our concern is no matter how good the facility is, it's going to create dust, it's going to create noise. It goes through the whole valley. The road activity that, you know, they've got averages of trucks, but of course when you spread averages out over a full... Twelve months, it doesn't get many movements, but when you're doing a construction site and you're carting material off site, you're going to have up to 1,800 tonne of material in a day.

You average that out and, you know, it's nothing, but it all happens in a couple of days. During the construction of the shed, they're talking about they're going to do the earthworks in four months, and then there's about a two months construction of the shed. So they're talking about up to 25 trucks a day moving into the facility along Sargents Road, Stannix Park Road out onto Sackville Road, King Road, and through the townships. So that's just going to devastate the area. They're talking about processing 20,000 tonne of material during the operation of the unit. They've got a 2,000 square metre shed that's going to have a processing facility in there for crushing up the concrete. Once again, we've got dust, the moving materials in and out of the shed to stockpile it, we've got dust.

They're talking about putting a mist spray, but they've got no or an inadequate design for water retention. They're talking about 130 cubic metres of detention on site on a 10,000 square metre area. So we're looking at if we get more than 1.3 mil of rain, everything's going to flood down into our property again. During the crushing operations, of course, there's silica dust, which everyone knows that there's cancer problems with the silica dust. Once again, that's going to be over the area. The Ebenezer School's only 700 metres away from the site. Dust, the wind blows, it's all going to end up in everyone's backyard, including the school. We've got a nice little community. Any noise, of course, we're in a valley atmosphere.

One of the protesters at the rally said that he lives nearly three kilometres away from the school, and he can hear the school bell ring at change of period. So the noise travels right throughout the whole area. So we're deeply concerned about that. We're concerned about the dust. Their own environmental statement points out a whole lot of areas that the wetlands is only 40 metres from the boundary. The nearest residence is 200 metres from the site. And there's at least four residences that are only 500 metres away from the site. So there's a whole lot of criteria that don't seem to be met or weigh over what this area is zoned for

Thank you, Mr Lawrence. You're actually out of time, so thanks for that. Are you happy to answer any questions if there are any? Certainly, yes. Councillor Garrow, do you have a question?

Oh, sorry, I'm having speaker issues.

You don't have a question. Councillor Ross, do you have a question? Yes,

Thank you, Mayor. Mr Lawrence, thank you very much for your speech this evening. I'm concerned to inquire of you if you could give us some indication as to the rural pursuits being, shall we say, carried on in the area at the moment within a radius of about a kilometre, please?

We've got, there's horse agistment around us, people with horses. There's cattle grazing. There's farming around the area. There's the mainly equestrian centres seem to be the activities around the area, but people have hobby farms as well as normal farms. They're all largeish properties, you know, from 15 to 20 to 25, 35 acres, so that some areas are cleared, some areas are heavily treed. It depends that, you know, we have motorbikes in the area that you hear on occasional weekends. We have four-wheel drives that you hear at other times, but it's mainly hobby activities. Right,

Thank you. I was concerned if there are any immediate neighbours, apart from equestrian, involved in poultry raising or egg production at all?

We've got Grange composters that are just up from the site that do the landscape composting, and unfortunately we've got Tuscany Foods that we get odours and a bit of noise in the area that also have truck movements as well. So they're the main two areas in the industry. The other ones, we've got the hardware store and the produce store and all that that don't seem to be a problem anywhere.

Thank you.

Could I ask a question, Mr Lawrence, to you? Are you of the opinion that Council is going to decide on the outcome of this DA tonight?

I'm aware of the fact that it's got to go to the State Planning Panel. We were hoping that Council would basically be on our side and reject the submission and oppose the submission so that it's not suitable for our area. That's what we were hoping for, yeah.

Thank you. Our other speaker is Mrs Whitehurst , Ms Whitehurst. Thank you.

Hello, Mayor and Councillors.

Thank

You for having me here this evening. I would just like to speak for, to say that I am for item 130.

Can you hear me okay? Yep, making sure. I believe, based on my understanding of the provided documentation supplied by the applicant, Halle Constructions, in DA0119/20 for 99 Sargents Road, Ebenezer, the following does not comply and raises many unanswered questions regarding the development application for the proposed landscape and material supply and resource facility. The DA is both designated development and integrated development,

Therefore the following applies.

Section 4.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The general requirements for environmental impact statements, the EIS, must meet the minimum form and content requirements in clauses 6 and 7 of the Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

So, in short, it must include not just the existing environment and take into account, you know, the pollution factors that are there right now, but also take into effect what this proposed development will also bring to that. So the environmental assessment that has been applied by Bembo Environmental applies only to the current environment, the current air readings, the current noise and water pollution readings. They have not taken into account the production of the proposed operation. My main concern with this DA, if it does go ahead, are the health risks, primarily with Ebenezer Public School and the safety of the children that attend the school, as well as the local residents and the neighbouring properties.

So, in Haller's document set ID 6921736, in table 2.1, the nearest receivers, there was only 12 of them. The school was not included. I'd like to know why the school is not included when it's such a vulnerable and vital part of the community. The school is only 700 metres away from the proposed site. It's a growing school, has approximately 150 students plus staff who occupy the school Monday to Friday. They'll be there when this operation starts, not just through the process of building it, but also during their hours of operation. So the proposed site is not well screened from residences. There is not adequate controls to comply with particulate matter, especially with the school in such close proximity.

The misters and water storage capacity do not appear adequate to minimise the harmful dust that will be created during the operating process. The school is to the southeast of this development. Regular northwesterly winds will carry harmful airborne particulate matter, so airborne pollution, towards the school along with noise. So particulate matter, also known as PM or particle pollution, they're minute little particles that we can't even really see in the air. It's really harmful to health. It can cause lots and lots of problems. And just imagine this dust will most likely, and they've already stated this in their proposal, that it will be from building and construction waste. So a primary thing that they're going to be processing is concrete and bricks and things like that that you would pull off of a construction site.

That means that the airborne pollutants, the PM matter, will primarily be silica dust. Could potentially be asbestos. This is going to be incredibly damaging to anyone nearby, not to mention the long-term exposure to this. So along with that too, the water misters that they've got in their report, where will that water go? Will it go into these sensitive waterways? We have like a very sensitive ecological area . Also to this, the noise pollution. So noise decibels typically around 30 in a rural area. So, and I've actually researched here, so anything of 70 decibels and above, according to here in Australia, is labelled as being damaging. So any machinery, especially rock crushers, jackhammers, the type of machinery they will be using will most likely be well and truly above these levels.

It will be prolonged and it will be heard by the school and the residences. So these are my main points for why I am opposing the DA that they've put in. I do have many, many more to cover, which I don't think I'm actually going to have too much more time to cover it. But I've also got the fact that there are already similar businesses like this in the Hawkesbury. They already, you know, supply and demand, it's already there. We don't need another one. So the business viability also comes into question. I believe there's quite a lot of objections, including mine and many others, that actually address all of these points. So I've really got more questions of the DA than anything, but I would like you to accept my objection to it, and I would be asking Council for support in not letting this DA go through.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, did you have a question?

Yes, I did. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Ms Whitehurst, for giving us your feedback and your concerns. I'm just wondering, I'm assuming you're a parent at the Ebenezer School, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Yes

I'm just wondering, has the school addressed this at all, the Department of Education or the school P&C?

I know it's very active

P&C at Ebenezer School.

No, they haven't. I would like to point out that it's all been very, very quiet, this whole DA. Myself, I only found out a little over a week ago , and being school holidays, I don't believe we've had sufficient time to prepare anything.

Okay. I see Councillor Wheeler's motion calls for an extension of time for these submissions, so I'm assuming you support that, and I would wonder if there might be some notification given to the school on that front. So thank you. Thank you for coming and speaking to us tonight. Thank you.

Councillor Ross, you had a question.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, ma'am, for your speech this evening. Just following on from your indication that you are a parent of students at the school, am I correct in understanding that, in fact, there has been a new demountable building provided by the Department of Education because of the growing population at the education centre at the primary?

Yes, you're correct. There's actually been two new buildings. One building is for a classroom, and another one is an amenities block.

Oh, well. So just

To give you an idea of the growth

That the school has had. Yes, yes, because it was fairly stable for a long time, or even falling some years back, as I can recollect. But apparently things have changed somewhat with the.. . Thank you.

Any more questions? Doesn't look like there's any more questions

Just one, if I may, Mr Mayor.

Yes.

Is the community

Member aware of the structure that they're intending to do all this reclamation or recycling work? Is it true that it's in fact just a steel building?

That they're in the school, or that's part

Of the DA? No, it's part of the development application about which you've been complaining.

Yeah, so it's a steel frame shed.

Right. Okay. And I guess you'd also be concerned that that's not going to do very much to buffer noises either.

No, I actually believe it'll make it much worse. As this shed, which it has actually been amended in their plans from being 12.8 metres high to being 10 metres high, but that will be sitting on top of over four metres of fill.

So it's

Not so much the shed that's the problem. Yes, it will be ugly and it will not meet the rural outlook at all. It's more so the machinery that is going to be used throughout the operation. So rock crushers, jackhammers, they're going to be storing their workable materials in open air, four metre bays. We get a big wind like we had them today, that material is not going to stay within those open air bays. It's going to be completely airborne. It's going to go everywhere.

So

That's another big concern.

Thank you. I think we're out of time with questions. Thanks very much for your participation tonight. Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, you wanted to move this notice of motion?

Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Do

We have a seconder for that? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Deputy Mayor, yes. Councillor Wheeler.

Mr. Mayor, I need to make a minor change to the motion that's in the business paper. So at point one, where it says strongly rejects, to replace rejects with objects to.

Okay. Deputy Mayor, are you happy with that change?

I am, Mr. Mayor, but while we're at it, I might ask, would Councillor Wheeler add something? Could I do that now?

You can do that now, yes.

It was just if we could perhaps add, it does say regarding impacts on the Ebenezer Primary School. I would just ask that specifically if the school was contacted regarding this matter, because it appears they haven't been, if Councillor Wheeler would like to add that in as a specific direction to be done.

Councillor Wheeler.

Certainly, Mr Mayor. Perhaps it could go at point two, so a comma after 2020 and Ebenezer Primary School be specifically notified about the development application.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. You wish to speak to your motion?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. So firstly, I want to thank the community and, in particular, the speakers, firstly for hanging around till half past nine while we dealt with another matter, but also for their efforts to inform and rally their community around this development application. I anticipate that my fellow councillors will have some questions about whether we should be debating a development application in this manner, and in fact, what I think we're doing here is one of the things—this is a twofold issue . The first is us deciding whether we object to this application, but also whether we decide to prepare a submission and make that objection a formal process and formal submission to the planning panel.

I've— I've received advice from a senior planning consultant that Council resolutions objecting to applications are legal and do carry significant influence with planning panels. And I think that in the last few years since we lost our capacity to assess DAs, we have probably devalued the role of Council. We've accepted the State Government pushing us aside in determining or having influence over development applications. And I think that we need to regain our influence. And it's time that we reclaimed our position as advocates for our community. And you've heard from our two speakers tonight that that's in fact what they would like us to do, is to come out in support of them. You've heard from them that they are extremely concerned about this development application, and I think rightly so.

Point 3 outlines some of the concerns with the application that we could include in a submission. This isn't consistent with the zone objectives. The application actually calls for the use of a SEP to allow the concrete recycling facility . So a landscaping facility is allowable within the RU1 classification, but the concrete recycling facility is not. And so it's not consistent with the zone objectives. Our zonings aren't perfect. We just spent two hours or three hours nearly debating problems with our zonings, but in this instance, the RU1 zoning exists for a purpose. You've heard that it will interfere with the quiet enjoyment of people's lands. It will in particular impact heavily on Ebenezer Public School.

It will increase traffic and wear and tear on Council roads, roads that are not designed to carry heavy vehicles. Sargent's Road, in fact, is a dirt road. The bottom end of Sackville Road is very narrow and already carries significant truck traffic. It's quite dangerous. There are accidents almost every week down on that end of Sackville Road, and I know this because the emergency services vehicle go past my house nearly every Sunday afternoon. What also is considered in the application is the cumulative impacts from existing industry, and you've heard that there are two significant industries there, both of which use heavy vehicle traffic. One in particular is the source of noise, numerous compliance issues, and particularly odour .

The impacts on the public school are particularly concerning, and then there are further environmental impacts on endangered ecological communities, waterways and Currency Creek and House Creek. So I think it behoves us to make a stand on this. They are our zonings. We put them there for a reason. They shouldn't be undermined by an applicant willing to take this to a planning panel and use a SEPP to override our land use zoning. So I urge you to support this and support the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Brodner.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to support this notice of motion, but I am going to articulate precisely the concerns that Councillor Wheeler anticipated that we might, and they are as follows. I'm prepared to say that I oppose this development, but if we were, as a chamber, if we had courage of this, what I have just said would be actionable, in the sense that I would not have the right to declare myself for or against without having seen the staff report. Of course, I would be under-informed. Actually, I wanted to lead with a question to staff, and that was to ask the General Manager or the Director of Planning when it is likely the staff report that will be presented to the Planning Panel is likely to become public. And then I'll resume.

Mrs. Perrin. Thank you, Mr Mayor. At this point in time, I'm not able to tell you when it will be going to the regional panel. We're at a point where we need to seek some further information from the applicant, and depending on that outcome, it will determine what work we then do in response. All right, thanks.

So I'll resume, and I suppose it underlines my point. If the staff report is not public, it would be unwise for us to speculate as to its contents. It would be unwise as councillors to, you know, to say that we would vote for or against it. But of course, we can now, because we're not voting on this, and it's the issue that we've raised repeatedly for the last three years. Councillor Wheeler has raised this point, and our Councillor Lyons-Buckett has repeatedly raised this point. What voice is it appropriate for us to have on a planning matter, and how appropriate is it for us to direct council staff to prepare a report that reflects our wishes, when they are also in the process of writing a staff report that may or may not be at variance with that?

Now, I note that Councillor Wheeler's motion carefully states that councillors should prepare a submission. So I presume it is her intent that we personally write that submission, rather than impose that duty on staff who are already engaged in their own process . Which then leaves me with the question, well, what's the point of this notice of motion except To express some degree of solidarity with that community. The case ends, and a score of other residents have written to me. I've written back to them all personally. I've made my views very clear. I don't support this development. But we are still left with this fraught issue about what voice it's appropriate for us to have before a planning panel.

And Councillor Lyons Buckett has asked whether we could be given some guidance that the Office of Local Government might be able to provide a briefing or a workshop so that we understand how we can have some agency on behalf of our constituency when matters come before planning panels, and that that has not been forthcoming. So we're left here with notices of motion like Councillor Wheeler's, which, despite these difficulties, I will still support.

Thank you, Councillor Samprogno. Are there any further speakers? Councillor Ross, you're up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, councillors. Look, I just feel that the previous speaker must surely be unaware of his right as an individual councillor to advocate on behalf of his constituents, or any of the other constituents in the local government area , personally at a planning panel meeting. There is no restriction on doing that, and I'd be surprised if he hasn't already done so through the course of these

Change situations from council's point of view. I have certainly advocated.. . In regard to one particular matter, which was of concern at a particular time.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Richards.

Can't hear you, Councillor Richards. Are you there?

Yes, technological issues there with forgetting to unmute. Basically, just wanted to say that I stand in solidarity with the community on this one, so I will be supporting this notice of motion. I think essentially the contents of the notice of motion is a no-brainer for anyone, not just as a councillor, but for all of us as members of the Hawkesbury community. We've all received the emails from members of the community expressing their concerns. They have been articulated tonight very well by both of the speakers. But I do share Councillor Zamprogno's concerns regarding process. So we've never had this come before us in this way before. So given the fact that our planning powers were taken off us essentially and given to a planning panel, we've sort of tiptoed on eggshells around how we as councillors define our role in terms of development applications.

Now, if this is going to set the precedent for the way forward, and it's legal and we're allowed to do it and we're not breaking the code or the Local Government Act, then I'm all for that. If this allows us to, in any DA that comes to the council in the future, if we are able to follow this process so that our voices are heard on certain matters, then I would like some confirmation from the staff that— This is the process. Oh, thank you for taking us back to the grid. That's much better, seeing everybody. This is the process that we can do, that sending a notice of motion is absolutely the right way for us to express our concerns with the DA and to show the community what we do and don't support in our LGA.

And if that's 100% concrete as allowed and legal and a process that we can engage in, then we're probably going to see more notices of motion like this come forward into the business paper, into the chamber in this way so that we can express our views. I'm hoping, my one concern here though with the notice of motion, the way it's been presented, is that it doesn't give us all of the contents. Now, what I'm hoping for is that all 12 of us councillors have actually gone onto the DA tracker and had a look at the documentation for this DA. That would be doing our job properly and actually read the reports and read the submission and looked at the application in detail. Because if we were to vote tonight just based on the contents of the notice of motion, to me that wouldn't be enough.

So I really do hope that the councillors have gone and sourced that information. I'm assuming we've all been contacted by varied members of the community on this issue, and we are all across the breadth of it. So I'm not going to throw up an amendment or a request for amendment on it tonight, but I think in moving forward, perhaps a condition on these sorts of notices of motion can be to request a report from the staff, even an interim report from the staff, even some level of a summary of what's been submitted, where we're at, just so that we can have that sort of information on the public record and not just us as councillors, but anyone else who looks at this notice of motion on the business paper doesn't then have to go and try and find where to source that information, because it can be quite difficult.

But in essence, I do support this notice of motion. I do not support that kind of development in our area. As someone who's lived in those suburbs around there and my kids have participated in sports around there, and certainly know people who live there and have kids at the local school, this doesn't fit in with any of the sort of objectives that I think we want in the Hawkesbury, the noise, the odour, the traffic and of course the environmental concerns. So I will be supporting this motion tonight and our community.

Thank you. Councillor Richards, was there a question for the staff in there somewhere?

Look, there was, if we can just get confirmation that, I mean, we're all obviously proceeding with it, and I'm assuming that Councillor Wheeler has done her homework and has made sure that this is a proper process before it actually appeared in the business paper. So if staff can just confirm that this is the way forward, if they would perhaps prefer if these sorts of notice of motions come again, that they get the opportunity to attach a report, whether that's a full report or an interim report on the DA, just so that there's a little bit more information attached, some guidance there, I guess.

General Manager?

Mr Mayor, I'll let the Director answer, but I will say that we can attach a summary from DA tracking to a report, but to get staff to start preparing preliminary reports for such notices of motion is just going to be a further issue in terms of workload. But I'm sure we can do a summary from DA tracking that will have all the key elements in terms of the proposed use, the DA number, lodgement, and summary of advertising and things like that. But I'll pass over to the Director.

Thank you. So you may recall, Councillors, that last year we had Adam Seaton from Marsden's brief Councillors on, you know, the do's and don'ts around DAs. I think it would be useful for me to track down that presentation and send it out to Councillors again, but also just to clarify, because I can't remember all the details of the presentation, to be honest, to clarify what, you know, his advice was in relation to the advocacy in relation to DAs.

In relation to this matter specifically, yes, there is a difference between getting Council staff preparing a submission and Councillors preparing a submission, because Council staff need to You know, do the assessment, and we can't be wearing two hats where we're then also preparing a submission on behalf of councillors for or against an application. So the councillors can choose to do a submission as a whole, or they can do it as individuals, which Councillor Ross was referring to earlier. The concern or the question I'm not quite aware of, and I need to clarify, is in relation to this: is it a requirement that it's a unanimous decision of council to prepare a submission against a development application?

Because if it's not a unanimous decision, then obviously that leaves the other councillors who aren't in support in a position where they will then have to write their own submission rejecting or, you know, in support, so in opposition to what was resolved by council. So I'm a little bit grey as to whether it needs to be a unanimous decision or it can be a majority of councillors there by leaving the minority preparing their own submission against what was resolved by council. But I will look at the Adam C advice, and if that doesn't clearly articulate this, then I'll get further advice to give to the councillors.

Thank you. Thank you. Before I end, Mr Mayor, just one question to the mover of the motion, if that's okay. Yep. Just regarding what the Director of Planning has touched on there with the submission to be made by the councillors, is Councillor Wheeler happy to start off that submission, or at least do the bones of it, and is the intent then to sort of send it around as an email and get consensus and then send it in from that point?

Councillor Wheeler . Absolutely. I wouldn't presume to write a submission on behalf of the other councillors without consulting on the final version of that document.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor— sorry, Deputy Mayor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. This is a very interesting discussion. Firstly, I'd like to thank the speakers and the community for the many emails we've received. They've raised some very valid concerns. It's quite clear that this would have an adverse impact on them, and they are a very active community. They've lobbied us on other issues as well, and I thank them for their involvement and their participation in our council in that way. I think I'm very happy to go forward with this, and as Councillor Zamprogno and others have alluded to, this is a very grey area that's been presented to us when the planning reforms took place and our planning powers were actually taken away. We were never really given the detail of what our role would be, but I see our role in this now.

We're not making a decision, so we are advocates for our community. So we're acting as the representatives of the community, and we're taking forward a position which doesn't have to be done to the level of being assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as an actual DA would be, but we can raise all the issues that would be pertinent to that, and we're bringing forward what our community is concerned about and the impacts they feel will occur to them. And I think that if it were not unanimous, then we simply would submit something from the councillors that said it was unanimous. Given it will be written by councillors, if eight of us agree with it, then those eight names would go in it.

That is how I would think would be a sensible way forward, because I think it would be bad for any councillor that didn't support what the community were calling for. I think it would be bad for them to feel forced to have their name on something simply because a majority felt that that's how it should proceed. So I think it's more an advocacy role in this sense, and I think it's very good that we do take this on. It's probably, it would have been nice had the Department of Planning given some guidelines around exactly how this would manifest when we had our decisions taken off to a planning panel. Obviously, we are the voice for these communities that come to us with concerns, and we've not ever been told exactly how we would translate that into getting their message across to show that they had the support of their elected representatives.

So it's understandable that the staff could come up with reports that could be contrary to what we think, because they would be looking at it from a more technical aspect and so on. But I would think that a unanimous decision or a majority decision from the councillors would have some weight when it goes to the planning panel, because we can represent a collective voice of an area of our community. So I do believe that there are quite a few issues, and the reason I raised about the school is that I think that, I think it was Kay Sand who raised it. The issues around health, and particularly health of our children, is something that we have to take very seriously. And there is the potential with this sort of industry to, you know, particulate matter and various— Yes, are the byproducts from these processes impacting on the children, particularly if they're playing out and around, and I think she said 700 metres from the school.

That's very close, actually, that's not far away at all. The traffic we know is an issue along that road. The school lobbied very hard for their pedestrian crossing, which thankfully they got after some time, and I think that the last thing you want is a lot more trucks in that area. So I take all those on board. I hope that we can formulate a system where we can be the voice of the people going to the planning panels. It's not to say we would go to the level of being all over technical and raising things perhaps ourselves. I would see it more coming from what our community express as their concerns and the impacts that they feel they're going to suffer from, whether those are things that we may personally agree with or not.

I think if we know that that's what they're putting forward, then we have the capacity to add our voice and present that to the decision makers, given that we are no longer the decision makers now. So I thank Councillor Wheeler for going to the community meeting. Unfortunately, I couldn't attend it; I was away, and for bringing this motion forward to start the process for us to get, you know, to get our system going to reinject ourselves, I guess, into the planning system, perhaps a bit more, albeit in another functional role. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I

I'm feeling Like I'm being wedged here, and it's an awful feeling because whenever I make decisions in this chamber, I always make a point of having every bit of information, excuse me, that I can get in front of me, and I take that assessment and I take those sorts of decisions very seriously. I can't at the moment say whether I support or not support this DA. It sounds like it's not the right fit, and I've heard everybody's thoughts about it. But I actually don't have any details yet, and I did read all of the stuff online and all of the letters that people have sent. But I would prefer to put in my own personal objections to the planning panel than to be wedged in this way. And I can't say that— I just can't make an assessment of this at this stage.

All I can say is that I will listen to the community, I will take all of those objections and issues and things that people are worried about on board. I will also look at What the applicant is wanting to do and how they have done it and how they've done their assessments , etcetera, etcetera, like we would have done in the old days. I don't— I'm not happy with this process. I don't think it's—I don't think it's the right way to go in future. I don't think this is the right use of our notices of motion. It's an inappropriate way of dealing with this sort of thing. But I want to say again, that doesn't mean that I am in favour of this development. I want to underline that. So I still want people from the area to email me with their concerns, but I just don't want to be put in this position where I don't have enough facts to make a proper position.

This is not an appropriate way to do this. And , yeah , I'll leave it at that. I don't know what to do here. I feel wedged. Thanks. Thank you

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, the first thing I want to lead off with is I stand united with the community out there as well. They're a strong, cohesive, articulate, intelligent group of people, and I certainly stand with them and united with them. And I'm sure by the sound of it, most of us will be close to or in that boat, in that frame. And what it demonstrates to me, Mr Mayor, is that clearly... The fact that the state government has removed councillors from the DA process is clearly flawed. The community wants us as councillors, the ones that they voted for at the local election, to have an input on their behalf and decide on their behalf these sorts of development applications. And I think it behoves us, and this becomes a very good template or exemplar of why we as councillors should take that out to the community and why the community should support us on the fact that councillors should be inserted back into the DA planning and deciding process.

And I hope the community takes that firmly on board and will help us to try and do that. I want to also thank Mr— sorry, Councillor Wheeler for bringing this forward. I think it's a great way, it's a very innovative way of dealing with an issue where we have been sidelined. She has managed a process where we can reinsert ourselves into the DA process. And I thank her for her innovative process here at local government level, and that's what local government needs. It needs innovative new ways of doing things, and this is one that I want to commend her on. Now, the other thing I want to say is this. I am recalling a little while ago where we were caught in a similar situation. Where staff clearly could not put in a summary or a submission or a backgrounder to something like this, because that would compromise their assessment role that they are required to perform.

So clearly that can't happen. So we've got to find another way. The way we found, as I recorded in the past, was that councilors, or council on behalf of councillors, would find a consultant who would write, with our input, a proposal or a submission, which most councillors or those who prepared support it would sign as a councilor submission to the planning panel. From memory, that's how we dealt with it in the past, and I don't see any reason, unless Mr Mayor, you or the general manager has a contrary view to that, that we can't hire a consultant to submit a councilor submission to the planning panel on this issue. And Mr Mayor, can I just say this as well. I don't know how many councillors are aware that we actually do have a similar concrete and soil recycling depot in the Hawkesbury.

Now, it's called Rock and Dirt. It's located on Racecourse Road, in case you didn't know. Some of you councillors, I think, may not be aware of it. But we do have it in the Hawkesbury, and it's been there a very long time. And I wouldn't like those owners and, yeah, owners and investors to think that we don't think that their business is an appropriate fit for the Hawkesbury. Clearly, it has been a good fit for a very long time, and the investment, I don't think we should be undermining that by any statements we make here in this chamber. But I do stand with the community out at Ebenezer. I think they absolutely represented the issue clearly, concisely, forensically. They've done a lot of research, obviously, and I commend them for it.

And I just hope that they continue to take this level of interest in council and support us with the state government to get councillors back into the DA process. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I mean, first of all, I just want to, yeah, I mean, I think, I'll just point out, I think that's actually quite improper, what was just said there, and I don't think council should ever be considering the investors of a competitor when looking at something relating to a planning matter. I don't think that's proper at all, and I wouldn't want on the record for anyone to think that's what we do. We of course don't do that. I find myself in a similar position to Councillor Kotlash. I mean, it seems like this DA should not be supported. However, when we consider DAs, we've of course had the benefit of the full report, and that might sound quite flippant, but of course what that actually means is that the applicant submits all of the required information, and expert local planners then provide us with an analysis, a commentary and a conclusion on that information that's provided, and how it aligns with council's plans.

I'm not sure that, obviously, like the Deputy Mayor said, we're now not deciding it, so we don't necessarily need that, which I take that point as well. But I'm not really comfortable being put in a position where we have to make a decision as to whether we support or object to a planning matter without having seen that report. Certainly, it would have been a breach of the Code of Conduct in the past when we were determining these matters. If we were to take a position prior to seeing all the information, that would be a breach of the Code. Whereas now, obviously, we're not in a decision-making capacity. There's no probity issue, but it's still a question of good faith if we're making decisions before we've seen all the information.

I understand the timings issue, and perhaps this needs more consideration beyond just this item as to how we can coordinate that timing so we can make the submissions after the final reports are submitted to the planning panel. So I don't really, I mean, look, I'm not going to be upset if this gets through. I don't see any reason to support this DA, but I do share Councillor Kotlash's broader concerns over the process and whether this is something we want to be doing going forward.

Thank you, Councillor.

Mr Mayor, I've got a point of misrepresentation, but I'll deal with it at a later date. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Garrow.

I

Just had a question on the notification of these DAs to councillors.

I've gone through my email history of when we receive our DA notifications, and either I've missed it or we were never notified of this DA coming into council. Can I get some clarification as to whether that was sent out in our DA received email list? This

Mrs Perrine? I would have to check. I would not know off the top of my head.

The answer is we don't know.

Have any further, Councillor Garrow?

Okay, and in there leaves another concern that I have is how are we, other than being contacted by the residents, who a lot of residents didn't know about this. Apparently the school doesn't have a principal at the moment, so the school community didn't know about it. It only was flagged by a couple of residents and then brought to councillors. I think that we need some more notification on this particular item, but any of these contentious items that are coming out into the community, to give us the opportunity to help our constituents. I can't see anywhere in my email history that we were notified at all about this. There's also another application on the same property that came in in December, which I feel does tie in with this quite suspiciously as well, but that's a presumption.

I just, I think that we need to really clear up these items coming to councilors. We're very limited in what we can do in representing this to the panel, and we've had to extend it now, and only because the community brought it to us. We weren't given the opportunity to actually assess this prior to that.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the other councillors have stated it all pretty well.

I find it a bit of a shame, Amanda. I mean, Councillor Kotlash can't support this. The community asked us to extend ourselves with this one, and I agree with Councillor Richards in that the relevant documents are on the tracker. The EIS report, the environmental impact statement, is there, and it clearly states, even in the executive summary—you don't have to go too far to read that it's not an approved development in this area, and they're going to try and use the State Environmental Planning Policy to get around the zoning issue. So I think that it's, you know, in the past we would look at a staff report and we would make a decision based on that. Some of us might look a bit further depending on what it was.

But here we have not just a couple of people; we have the community asking us, the community of Ebenezer asking us for help. And I mean, the EIS obviously, like it's 695 pages, but all it took was to read the executive summary to find out that it wasn't complying. So again , I support the motion. I'm all for the community standing up and taking a stand, and I think it's obviously it's our job as their representatives to support them, and I support the motion. Thank you.