11 August 2020 - Ordinary

Ordinary meeting of Hawkesbury City Council for the 11th of August 2020. I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug and Young and Dharug people, and pay 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 tonight's meeting are advised that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, the meetings of 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. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information is therefore voluntary . If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system

For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and to 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, that they either turn it off or to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

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

I've got apologies from Councillor Treed. Are there any other apologies?

Councillor Conolly, please.

Councillor Conolly. That's everyone accounted for. Would someone like to move we accept the apologies? I'll move that we accept the apologies. Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Anyone wish to speak against that? If not, all those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

The agenda tonight, we have one item with a public speaker, and that is item number 149 , and we have two items on block. They are items 151 and 152.

So we now move to, we're about to move to items subject to public address. But Councillor Wheeler, you wanted to put something up first?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I've got an urgency motion.

Could you briefly describe what the issue is and why it's urgent, please?

Yes, I sent through the motion to the staff and to councillors earlier. It's regarding the Thompson Square, sorry, the Windsor Bridge replacement project final draft interpretation plan. It's urgent under 9.3(b) of the code because the plan is on its final draft and the plan has been lodged with the Department of Planning for approval. So Council has really no additional time to make recommendations if we don't act this evening.

Okay, well I'll accept your explanation of why it's urgent. So would you like to move that the meeting consider this matter tonight? Moved, Councillor Wheeler. Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Is anyone wish to speak against that? All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Councillor Wheeler, would you like to move your motion now, please? Yes

Mr Mayor. I'll move the

Deputy Mayor is seconding it, I believe.

So I'll move the motion the text should be available to show on the screen. If staff could do that, that would be helpful. The Heritage Advisory Committee met last Thursday, which is why this is bridging between two Council meetings and needed to come in as an urgent motion. The Heritage Advisory Committee was quite dismayed at the final draft interpretation plan for the Windsor Bridge replacement project at Thompson Square and the artefacts that are to be stored in the museum. They felt that their expertise had not been respected or taken into account by the consultant, nor had the comments that they had made — and they made extensive comments backed by much research about the draft plan. They felt that it didn't provide an accurate or appropriate interpretation of the story of Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge.

They also felt that their input had not been treated respectfully. Many of the members of the committee were quite upset. In particular, there is a comment about the brick barrel drains that infers that everyone had forgotten about the brick barrel drains and that there was a bit of a discovery moment when they happened upon them because they'd fallen from local knowledge. The committee disputes that, as does much of the community. The barrel drains were well known and have formed part of community folklore for a very long time, and they were fobbed off as being only of interest to history buffs. There's continuing concerns, and I will point out that this is a fairly expert committee. There are a number of historians, academics , authors, and heritage advisers on this committee, so it's not a committee whose expertise...

This can be written off lightly. They hold real concerns about the interpretation plan for the site and the accuracy of any forthcoming histories that are prepared, particularly digital media, oral histories and the protection of display of artefacts if this is the level of treatment that's going to be given. So they would like Council to pass on their concerns to the Office of Environment and Heritage and Transport for New South Wales, or the RMS. They recommend that Council does not endorse the final draft interpretation plan on the advice of the committee and passes that information on as well, and requests that we make a statement expressing the concerns for the potential inaccuracies and the possible implications of that.

I've added here that I would very much like Council to thank the committee for their contributions to this interpretation plan. They've worked very hard. They met a number of times. There were lengthy discussions over several hours. There was a lot of research and academic material handed to the consultant for consideration here. Much editorial input, fixing claims , fixing spelling mistakes, wordings. This has been a lengthy process for the Heritage Committee, and they've given their time freely and in good faith, and they feel that they've been treated shabbily. And point three is some minor means of Council endorsing their input and thanking them for it. The interpretation plan is a lengthy document.

There have been many attempts, I think, to tell this story well, but it falls short of the local knowledge and bespoke treatment of the site that is really required to get such a significant site right. This is a very big thing. This is a state significant site. Many of us believe it should be a nationally significant site. This legacy is what we will be left with after the damage done to Thompson Square with this replacement project. At the very least, the community and the Heritage Advisory Committee should be able to expect to be treated with some respect in this process. Thank you.

Thank you. As I mentioned last meeting, I want to avoid the situation where we have five councillors in a row speaking in favour of a motion, but I suspect having two might be an adequate number. And Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak in favour of this, I believe. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour. I'm not part of the Heritage Committee, and I haven't been witness to all the input that they've given, but I take Councillor Wheeler's words on board, and I know that that is a committee with a huge amount of experience, and I'm sure their input is incredibly valuable. I think the important thing is that this is a really important part of this project now that the new bridge is there, that the interpretation plan of such a nationally significant site should really be done in a way that is really respectful and that really captures what we want to retain and to present to people. And I refer to when we had the meeting with Minister Constance, he was incredibly forthcoming with wanting to even put more money into the interpretation around this project, I gather because he could see and understand the extent of passion about it and the sense of loss that the community, many in the community, are feeling because of what has happened in Thompson Square.

So I think that, given that we identify that it is a really, really important aspect of the project, I think that it's really important that we get the interpretation plan to be as compatible with what the local heritage experts and with what the local people are feeling. So I thank Councillor Wheeler. I certainly would happily thank the committee for their contributions to it and hope that whatever the next stage is, that we can rectify what is not being taken on board, that that can be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, Councillor Zamprogno, are you wishing to speak against this?

My support is heavily qualified, and I've got questions that will help inform councillors as to what position they should take, if you'll indulge me briefly. So I will regard that as speaking against. All right then. So although I'm generally sympathetic to the aims of Councillor Wheeler's motion, the two points of caution that I'd raise are: if this discussion devolves into simply an opportunity to bash the Windsor Bridge replacement project, then we'd have to part company. And the other thing is, is this — and this is a question for staff — is this kind of report the kind of thing where its submission to Council for ratification is effectively a courtesy, and if we were to reject it on this occasion, I mean, what happens next?

If Minister Constance has indicated a willingness to put more money into this process, and the interpretation plan has formulated its strategy in relation to the available money, would rejecting this trigger an opportunity to reappraise what can be done with more money? I don't know the answer to that question, and I'd like to know. Equally, if we reject it wholesale, will RMS simply press ahead and use it as the basis for heritage interpretation regardless of what we say, as indeed they have done so on so many occasions in relation to other aspects of the bridge project? So my ability to support this or not

Will depend on the answers to those questions, and I was wondering if staff could comment. Mr Conroy, is there a comment you can make on that? Might refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So Transport for New South Wales has advised Council that the final interpretation plan has been submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for approval. So Council is not the approving body in terms of the actual interpretation plan. We have, through this process, been asked for input by Transport for New South Wales, and that's been provided as outlined through our Heritage Advisory Committee. But in terms of final approval, that actually rests with the Department of Planning.

Does anyone else wish to speak in favour of the motion? No blue hands up. So Councillor Wheeler, would you like right of reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

The issue here is whether the heritage interpretation plan is accurate, and it's not. The advice that this Council has from its own Heritage Advisory Committee, and normally this advice would come to Council with the minutes of that meeting, but the timeline means that we need to do this faster. The advice from our own Heritage Advisory Committee is that this plan is not supportable, that it doesn't provide an accurate and appropriate interpretation to tell the story of Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge in a way meaningful to the local context. That was the unanimous resolution, including Councillor Zamprogno, I will add, the unanimous resolution of the Heritage Advisory Committee. It's a shame that Councillor Zamprogno didn't feel the need to raise any of these concerns in the meeting last week. He certainly had every opportunity.

So, Jill, right of reply.

We have people on that committee who wrote the thematic history of the site. They are well aware, and they wrote it for the RMS. They're well aware of what the true heritage of that site is. I don't know how many of you have read that document. I have read this document. I urge you to read it. It includes quotes from the Manila Express near Tamworth. Surely we can do better than a quote from a newspaper 600 kilometres away. Some of this document is frankly insulting, and certainly that's the way the Heritage Advisory Committee feel about this. The advice was freely passed, including the thematic history for the RMS, was freely passed to the consultant for consideration.

Windsor Bridge is there . The square has been heavily impacted by the project.

The

Very most the community can expect in return for a project that has damaged history forevermore left an indelible mark on the site, and consigned Windsor to a non-solution that funnels heavy transport through the site for at least another decade, the very least we can expect. Is an heritage interpretation plan that correctly tells our own story.

Is that the end of your right of reply? It is, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. That was right of reply, so now I will now put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand.

In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow. Against the motion, Councillor Richards. Councillor Zamprogno has disappeared.

Councillor Zamprogno, are you there? Yeah, he's in favour

No, against it,

Sorry If you're not voting, you're against it. And an absent is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree declare it carried.

I move to the item subject to public address, which is item 149, and we have one speaker, and that is Mr. Andrew Thomas.

Mr. Thomas, you there?

Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Councillors and distinguished guests. I'd like to make a brief submission tonight in support of Recommendation 149 to submit the draft Hawkesbury Employment Land Strategy for public exhibition. I'd first like to take this opportunity to commend Council and SGS for developing a thorough and well-balanced draft employment strategy. In particular, I'm in support of PP No. 5, being the overarching planning principle contained within number five contained within the draft strategy, which broadly recognises, one, the key role of Hawkesbury's industrial zones, the importance of maintaining and, sorry, retaining and managing the industrial lands within the LGA, and, thirdly, expanding these lands as appropriate to meet the demand over time.

In my view, however, the draft strategy does correctly identify the Mulgrave Industrial Zone as the most successful industrial precinct within the LGA, due to its better quality buildings, general character and close proximity to transport infrastructure networks. The draft strategy fails, however, I believe, respectfully, of course, in that it elevates one aspect of potential investigation of the Mulgrave industrial area, being the eastern side, at the expense of potentially looking more seriously to the western aspect. of the Mulgrave industrial area. I believe that the Western Precinct, which was identified for future expansion in the adopted 2008 Employment Land Strategy, whereas in the newly identified Eastern Precinct was not originally identified in that 2008 Employment Land Strategy.

And accordingly, I believe that the Western Precinct, which is immediately adjacent to the existing precinct in the Mulgrave Industrial Zone and west of the train line, offers better connectivity, being an access to existing transport infrastructure networks, being Windsor Road and Mulgrave Station. Accordingly, in conclusion, I request that Council perhaps give due consideration to the rezoning of the industrial, the identified area in item figure 54 on page 125 of the— sorry, 125 rather — being the area immediately west, not east, of the Mulgrave Industrial Zone for any potential future expansion as demand so requires. And for that reason, and the reasons outlined above, I support the recommendation item 149 in tonight's business paper, and I encourage Council to submit the draft Employment Land Strategy for public exhibition.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Thomas. Would you be happy to answer any questions if there are any? Certainly, Mayor. Are there any questions, please?

Yes, I have my hand up.

Sorry, yes, you do, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Thomas. Thank you for that. I'm glad you like the strategy. I'm really pleased to see these planning principles coming into play too. I'm just wondering, are you a resident or do you have a particular interest in that area? I'm just wondering if you're a planner or somebody like that.

Certainly, Deputy Mayor. I actually represent a number of landowners who have an interest in a significant portion of the land . In that particular area, being west of the adjacent, west of the train line, immediately adjacent to the existing area, so I directly represent them.

Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for your contribution.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, councillors. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Reynolds has a question too. Certainly.

Thank you for that, Mr Thomas. Just to clarify, you're saying the western part of Mulgrave, which is the other side—you say it's the other side of the railway line. I'm just looking at the maps on page 125 now.

We can see that South Creek becomes an issue. You're not talking about as far down as South Creek?

No, no, Councillor, just the area that's highlighted black, bordered around. And

Do you have any opinion or professional opinion on the potential expansion of industrial land at North Bligh Park to be investigated?

At this stage, Councillor, I've predominantly focused my efforts to date on understanding the investigation around the Mulgrave industrial area. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. And

Councillor Ross has a question, I believe.

Yes. Good evening, sir.

Mr Thomas, could you more clearly identify the road boundary on that for me, please, because I'm just not able to sight that clearly.

Certainly, Councillor. I believe it's Boundary Road.

Pardon me.

You're talking about Windsor Road.

No, no, Councillor. I'm talking about

The

Boundary road along the train line.

I don't think there is a boundary road on the train line.

Perhaps I've...

Now, running parallel to the railway line, we've got

North and south roads .

Are you talking about the area that is adjacent to the industrial area, but over towards the council treatment works and that area there, or opposite the high school area?

Pardon me, Councillor, for clarification, I'm referring to Railway Road South.

Aha .

My apologies. Okay

So that is in the area where there is a structure at the moment operated by a Peppy's Ducks or some other company.

Correct, Councillor. So the area incorporating that current establishment, but also more broadly the area around there.

Okay, that's Railway Road South. Yes And it is actually south of the railway line.

Yes. Because Railway Road North is on the present industrial area. Skirting the railway from the other side , closer to Windsor Road. Yes, Councillor, yes . Okay. I understand where you're coming from, and I can appreciate the point that you're making.

My apologies for the confusion there.

No, that's fine. Thank you very much for informing us.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. That's the end of the questions. Please use your blue hand if you wish to. John Ross has got a blue hand. Okay, Councillor Ross, your hand is up. What would you like to move?

Now your hand's gone down again. Are you moving something, Councillor Ross?

Yes, I move the adoption of the recommendation, thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. Seconded

By the Deputy Mayor. Councillor Ross, you wish to speak to that? No,

Thank you, sir. I think the report is sufficiently robust on its own right. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, you wish to

Speak to that?

Not at the moment, Mr Mayor. I'm just looking for something.

Are there any speakers against the motion?

No blue hands, no one wishing to speak against it.

If not, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, now's the time. Otherwise we go to right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I might just, I couldn't find a section as to why that area wasn't included. I was just wondering if the staff might give an indication as to why West Mulgrave was not considered.

Mr. Conroy. I'll refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the figure 54 on page 125 nominates an area for investigation, so that's the area sort of west of the railway line. The issue is if we go too far west, we obviously run into flooding issues in terms of South Creek and particularly the one in 100 year flood line. So that's too far west is flood-prone issues to consider

Thank you. Thank you. I thought that might be the reason why that wasn't being considered. I think this, as Councillor Ross said, I think this is a very good document and I do like the inclusion of the planning principles, which give such good guidance for this type of thing. It's great to have an updated employment lands strategy. The other one is, of course, 12 or so years old, 14 years old. I think it was started in 2006.

And I don't have a lot to say. We had the workshop on it and we went through it and it was really good to see. Looking forward to what feedback there may be from the public on it. I think it's something that's very, very important as an integral part of our planning documents because, of course, when we get our employment lands, then we can try and sort the infrastructure around that and so on. So I'm happy to support this going out on public exhibition and looking forward to the input from the public back on that.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, your blue hand is up. Is that from before or do you wish to speak?

Down, okay. Councillor Kotlash, you're speaking for or against this?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was just wishing to ask, I guess, a procedural question, but if you need me to say that my intentions, I generally support this, and like the Deputy Mayor, I welcome the public's contribution. But my question was just going to be that in the recommendation, it says that the draft plan, the draft plan on, I think it's on page 44 , does the recommendation mean that we're endorsing the draft plan and that significant changes can't be made to that plan after we get submissions from the community? Because it seems to me on page 29, in another item, it's just got that council places that particular plan on for public exhibition, and I just wondered whether there was a difference.

Mr Conroy. I refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So no, the intention of the recommendation is to seek council's endorsement to place the draft document on public exhibition and is to bring the document back to council to consider the submissions and then any amendments to the document after that. So it's essentially just seeking the council's endorsement to public exhibit.

Okay, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you. No, that's all. Thank you. Well, I'll take that as a question. So we've had one speaker in favour . Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak in favour? In favour, Mr Mayor. And I'll accept you as the last speaker in favour. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I just wanted to reiterate that there is some really useful information in this document, particularly from the interviews conducted in our town centres, and that information is particularly useful for the livability project as we move forward with that around the economic management of those sites, around the information around office spaces and configuration, how people find accessing those spaces, comments about the rent, the ability to even get in to have a look at some of those shops. That's information that people often don't tell us directly. So to have a consultant go out and gather that information and know that it's been collected through a robust process, I think is really useful.

We get a lot of information that comes from people complaining on Facebook, and while some of that info is useful, it's also really useful to have it from a sit-down interview with people who are actually working on the ground. There's some really interesting points in there. Things like it's cheaper to have an office in town than it is at the university, which makes you wonder why people would choose to have one at the university when there is plenty of office space in some of our towns. And another point that I found particularly interesting was comments about local businesses not necessarily hiring local staff, and I think that's useful information for council, who can then lead by example with a locals first policy in terms of In terms of hiring and use of services where possible.

The other comment that comes up in here from businesses is something that I think we've long known from a tourism perspective, and that's the lack of short-stay accommodation. So more things that we need to look at seriously as we reinvigorate our towns and look at our other planning documents. And that's, I think that's one of the most useful things about these documents, is that each one interacts with the other. If we were to do any of these in isolation, I don't think we would get the same quality of information or the same quality of end documents in terms of the LSPS and the LEP and DCP as we would if we hadn't done these and let them feed into each other. What we've got here is really clear objectives with an evidence-based capacity for decision-making to guide our planning that includes things like employment needs, transport needs, retail space.

It's far better than some of the almost pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approaches that we've used to employment lands and industrial lands in the past. And we've got some good examples of where we haven't done that well, and it's had knock-on effects, particularly with conflict of use, which we continue to see in some areas, which then has very big compliance issues for council, and that costs us quite a lot and is very difficult to police. This has been a really expensive and time-consuming process. I think it's been an extra burden on our planning staff, who are frequently used as a whipping post for the community when they don't like what council does. So I really want to acknowledge the efforts of the staff to produce high-quality documents, to bring our planning into the 21st century, to provide for the ongoing needs of the community.

We won't all agree with every single aspect of the stuff that goes into these documents, but I think what we will end up with is a broad suite of documents that allow us to have a far better planned and far more livable space, and hopefully a far more workable space as we move forward. So this is exactly where we need to be going as a council.

Thank you. Are there any speakers against the motion? If not, Councillor Ross, you have right of reply

Thank you, Mayor. I don't believe there's any requirement for that. I think my fellow councillors have done adequately. Thank you. Good.

Then in that case, we'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash. Absent is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree. I

Declare it carried

Now to item 145, Local Government NSW Conference. Someone like to move something? Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

And Councillor Rasmussen, are you seconding that?

Yes. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak? Sorry, yes, I am.

Not particularly, just to say that I always think it's a very good conference. I'm not sure. I think we should consider whether to submit any motions. I don't know if anyone's got any specific motions. I do think in the last few years there's been the same motions generally coming up across the whole LG New South Wales, the whole local government area. I think the same motions are being raised over and over. I can't think of anything specific that we would want to raise, except to perhaps support again the calls for the pensioner rebate to be lifted and for the other various things we've asked for over the years. But I don't know that we have any specific motions to bring forward.

I might just ask a question of the staff. Do we know when these motions would have to be in to make the deadline for the conference?

Yes, sorry , I missed that page.

Towards the end of September, Mr Mayor. End of September. Okay. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak in favour?

Yes, in favour, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to flag a couple of motions that I'll, I think there's a deadline in the document to have them in by the 18th so that they can be considered at the next council meeting. So I want to bring at least one motion that's related to domestic violence and another around animal holding numbers.

So you wish those to be brought up at the next meeting, is that what you're saying?

I'll provide staff with the draft motions, and they can be discussed at the next meeting, yes.

Rather than now, okay. Yeah, rather

Than now, yep. Did

You wish to say anything else, Councillor Wheeler?

No, that's all. Thanks,

Mr. Mayor. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the motion? If not, Deputy Mayor, do you want to have right of reply?

Just briefly again, yes. Well, I do think that perhaps we could come up with some motions, particularly, for example, asking IPART to be included to look out for things around climate change and so on. But given we've got a deadline given to us of when we should get the motions in, I expect we'll actually be discussing these at the next council meeting. So I'll submit anything I come up with. But I think that we should have attendance at this conference, which may or may not be physical. It may be online, but whatever that is, yeah. Okay , thank you.

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

Mr. Mayor, we'll be looking for some nominations at some stage, whether it's tonight or at the next meeting.

Yes, well I was going to ask now, I think there's five people, five councillors that can attend. Do we have any nominations for that?

I'd be interested in going, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, Councillor Sam Brogno. Is that a yes?

Yes. So we've got Councillor Ross, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Anybody else? There's one space left.

Are you not attending, sir?

No, I'm not. Thank you. So we have four nominees , so there's room for a fifth, which could be attended to at some later stage, I imagine. So would someone like to move those four people go? Moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Anyone want to speak against it? All those in favour, raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross , Councillor Rasmussen, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, and I also believe Councillor Wheeler has a hand up. Yep. Nobody against. Abstained is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree . Declare it carried.

It's just been brought to my attention that once again I've forgotten about items on block. There are two items on block, items 151 and 152. Someone like to move that please? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded. Deputy Mayor, anyone wish to speak against that? If not, I'll put that. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Now to item 146, and Mrs. Perrin would like to introduce that topic to us, please.

Thank you, councillors. So item 146, in relation to establishment of a reference group to work with council staff and councillors and provide input into the review of the LEP and DCP. We need to complete this review by June next year, and essentially we're looking to, for expressions of interest to participate in this reference group. Over the years, or not many years that I've been here, but in the couple of years I've been here, I've had a lot of consultants who do work for our community raising issues or concerns with our LEP and DCP. We think it's an opportunity to bring a range of these professionals to the table to discuss the issues and provide input and represent the, you know, the issues that they've grappled with over the time that we've had these documents.

And as you know, the DCP is 18 years old and the LEP is eight years old. So we see this as one part of the engagement process. There will be other engagement processes with the community more broadly, and essentially though what we'll be using this group for is to discuss issues. I won't assume they will all agree, but to use a form in which to raise the issues, discuss them, and ultimately put recommendations to this council for their consideration. This group will not be making decisions. They are merely just giving us input around what is working, what is not working, looking at best practice and helping us form some recommendations in terms of the revised documents to councillors, which ultimately will be placed on exhibition next year.

So I'm anticipating that we would get a number of applicants, so we are setting some criteria, as you'll see in the document, and ultimately Council will have that decision as to who will form that reference group.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

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

Do we have a seconder? Councillor Garrow. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak to that?

I think that this is an essential part in this whole planning process, to have such a reference group. I think it's very important that we allow the people who deal with the planning framework but outside of Council to be able to bring forward some ideas about where they see the deficiencies in the current DCP and, you know, what needs better clarity and detail and so on. And I think, given they're not making decisions and it's a vehicle for input, I think it will be very beneficial, and I hope that it draws a good amount of people from varying qualifications and backgrounds to assist with this process, which is a very important process.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've just got a question, if I may. I notice in the terms of reference that a quorum is only four people. That's a significant deviation from our standard arrangement , which is 50% of the total membership plus one. I'm just wondering why, given that we're anticipating having 10 to 15 people on this reference group, why the quorum would be so low. Mrs. Perrin.

Okay. We're anticipating that we won't actually have an issue with the quorum. However, we've got a lot of work to be done in a very short amount of time, and if for a particular meeting we weren't able to get 50% plus one, we would actually lose time in the process. So we're trying to, I suppose, mitigate against a potential risk, but ultimately I don't think the risk is going to eventuate.

Okay. I suspected that that was going to be the answer, and I certainly understand the time pressure. I'm just a bit concerned, given that we are hoping to get a broad range of expertise, that if we settle for four, we're not going to get that broad range, and we risk having a biased — and I don't mean biased as a necessarily negative, or I don't mean that to be a value judgment on the decision — but we're likely to miss significant expertise from people from fields that aren't represented, I suppose. And I find, given how much we're going to rely on this group of people, I find that concerning. So while I'm broadly supportive of the document, I would like that quorum amended to reflect our standard practices.

Are you suggesting an amendment?

Yes, if possible, that the quorum be council standard 50% plus one. Mrs

Perrin, is that possible to make that amendment?

Yes, that's possible.

Deputy Mayor, would you like to accept that change?

Yes, that's fine. I've got no problem with that.

Okay. Councillor Kotlash.

A

Question, if I can start with.

When I was reading this document, I was a bit confused about whether this group was going to be dealing with the LEP and the DCP concurrently. I guess that's my first question. Mrs Perrin

Yes, they will be looking at both documents and providing input into both documents concurrently.

Given that, should the third objective in point two in the terms of reference, would they be developing a framework for testing for the draft DCP development control plan as well as the local environment plan, or is that only for the development control plan?

So essentially, with the LEP, we have the LEP template, which largely guides, you know, where we're going. So that, to an extent, is our framework. The DCP, however, is a council-determined document from the ground up, so we will be—it's more our framework and what we would be using for at a local level.

Right.

I'd like to make an amendment, but I think it can be included, possibly in the recommendation.

I think that the roles and responsibilities section, I don't think it's really a responsibility of this group to be across whether what they're considering is compliant with the relevant acts, regulations and guidelines. I can imagine that that's not really their responsibility. I mean, they might consider it and you might guide them through that, but really, I don't think that that's necessarily something that potential people on this group would really need to be across. So, I mean, I'd probably just cross number one out on the roles and responsibilities in that case. And to ensure that the resulting documents are in plain language, I don't think that's a role of this group either. I guess what I'm getting at is if we get this group of people that are obviously going to be professionals and they're going to come from all sorts of business areas, I don't think that that's something that we really want to press on them.

I think we have to make this kind of as succinct as possible. And the only other change that I would like to make is I think it's possibly a bit over the top to get them to review documents with only three days' notice. I don't know if everybody else thinks that that's maybe a bit of an ask, because I'm assuming a lot of this stuff is going to be quite meaty. And so that's point D on the last page of the terms of reference: no meeting of the Hawkesbury Local— no meeting of the group shall be held unless three days' notice is given. So if we could just make those changes, then I'm happy for that to go through. Thank you. Is

Perrin, are those changes possible?

Yes, that's fine.

And Councillor Kotlash, if you remove three days, what are you going to replace it with?

Well, I'll take advice from Mrs Perrin on that, but I guess, well, at least a week.

Seven days.

Well,

I know we have to get on with this, but, you know, that's up for negotiation.

Yeah, to explain though, the intent once we have the reference group established, we would be advising the meetings that we'd be sending invites for the whole set of meetings that we want to invite them to. What we're anticipating though is if there are particular issues that they want to have further discussions on outside of the, I suppose, a number of set meetings, we're saying that we need to give people at least three days' notice before having that meeting. This isn't about, we won't be going from one meeting to another, you know, just coming up with a date. We'll be setting those dates so that they have them in their calendars because they are, you know, all busy people. So we actually need to give them, put those dates in their calendars straight away once they're, you know, they've been approved through part of the reference group.

Councillor Kotlash, are you happy to leave it as three given that advice, or—

No, I think we still need to look after them. I'd give them a week.

Okay. Deputy Mayor, those three changes, would you be interested in making those?

I think that, I mean, I've got no real problem with them. I think that the one about ensuring compliance with relevant acts, I mean, these people aren't writing the documents; they're advising. Obviously the staff will have the documents done. They're reviewing what has been written. I read that more to mean that they shouldn't be suggesting anything that would be in compliance with relevant acts, regulations and guidelines. I wasn't seeing that they were checking the document for that. It was more that what they were advising would not be outside those remits. And when we're speaking that these people all work within this sector, they should be aware of what those limitations are. But if the staff have no issue with removing it, I have no problem with it.

But I didn't see it as problematic. Likewise, the point about the plain English. I think that that is such an important point, and I think that they are the very people who can perhaps advise on the type of language which will be comprehended by the people that actually have to understand these documents, who are working in this sector. So I don't really think— maybe it's with the word to ensure, that might be a little bit much. But I think that definitely their input into how the plain English, you know, can be structured, because this is the issue with a lot of planning documents. They come to sound quite ambiguous because of the way they're often worded, and I think that that's a real issue.

I'm happy with the week. If it's a week's notice, that's not a problem. Was there another one, or

Just the three. Do you think it might be to everyone's satisfaction if it said, for the staff to ensure compliance with relevant acts, and for the staff to ensure plain English? Would that meet everyone? Well

The terms of reference are for the people on the reference group, so I guess if— I mean, obviously the staff would be ensuring that. So if people have a problem with it, I don't really care if it goes, because I think that the staff are not going to prepare a document that is outside of compliance with those various things. So

Happy to leave out the first two and change the third one to seven days.

Yes. Okay, yes. You are, okay. If that's what people support, yes,

I don't have a problem with

Them personally.

Councillor Garrow, I think you seconded this. Are you happy with those changes? Councillor Garrow.

Sorry, I was just trying to unmute myself. Yes, I'm happy with that. Thank you.

So for the staff who are trying to change this, we're leaving out in roles and responsibilities, we're leaving out A.1 and A.4, and in procedures in general, which is number seven, we're changing point D to say seven days instead of three days. Yes. Now , do we have any further speakers while I look at my screen? Councillor Sam Brogner. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor.

I have some questions

So in part six of the proposed terms of reference, it refers to the method of appointment of members, and it just simply says that Council will invite nominations and that Council shall select. Now, point of clarification, who gets to select the people that will be appointed to this committee? Is this returning to the Chamber or is this going to be selected by staff under— This,

The report will come back to the Council Chamber.

With the proposed nominees.

Yes.

Okay then. And I suppose one of the implications of forming a reference group like this is that we're assuming that people of the requisite experience and talent are prepared to donate their time on a voluntary basis, and when people are prepared to do so, that's wonderful. But I think this work is so important is that we should actually be maybe even a little more proactive, and that we should solicit people either to become permanent members of the reference group, or that we should be very particular about, as it says in Part 5B, that we would co-opt other people from time to time. And if that required a person to be paid for a portion of their time so that we got really good advice, I was very affected by a presentation by a gentleman called Sean Carter, who came and addressed the Heritage Advisory Committee in August 2018 about design excellence principles, the design excellence principles that Sydney City Council were in the process of incorporating into their LEP and the Better Place program that was developed by the Government Architect.

And I always tucked away at the back of my mind that this juncture would be the juncture where we would tap that kind of expertise on a reference group to make our LEP and DCP very excellent documents. So my encouragement, I suppose, is that we don't leave this to chance and see who wanders through the door, but that we request people to take up a post on these reference groups, and we let them know that we're looking for those nominations, and if not, we pay them for their time.

Thank you, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My comments are a little in line with what Councillors Amprogno just had to say, so I'll keep it brief. And I just wanted to offer up, I guess it's a question or some sort of commentary for the Director of Planning. This is such so vitally important, this LEP and the DCP , in getting it right, and we've had multiple debates throughout this Chamber in this term of Council as to how many problems there are with the current LEP. Now, we all know the contentious issues and the amount of items in the housekeeping LEP. I mean, this is not good enough. So this is a huge opportunity here to get this right. I just wanted to say to the Director of Planning, do you believe the guidelines we have for people to be part of this reference group are stringent enough?

I would want to be 100% concrete on the fact that the people applying have a demonstrated capacity to actually talk about these sorts of things. And I'm going to be blunt. You know, I don't want it that Jack Smith put a DA in in 1992, so he has, you know, experience, or John Doe watches every council meeting on YouTube, so he has experience. You know, I really want to make sure the people that we get on this group, and as Councillor Zamprogno said, they're volunteering their time, will have a demonstrated capacity to show they understand an LEP and it's actually part of their day-to-day job.

That's a question, I believe, Councillor.

It is. I want to know if the guidelines, if the Director of Planning believes the guidelines are stringent enough, that we're not going to have people applying that do not actually have a day-to-day job in dealing with this sort of stuff.

Thank you. Mrs. Perrin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I understand the concerns being raised, and yes, obviously we know this review is really important, and we know that there are a number of issues that we need to address. There are any number of people that we've dealt with as a council who do know the Hawkesbury, and they do know the LEP, and they do know the issues that we're trying to deal with within, you know, or outcomes we're trying to meet in terms of the land use planning. So we will actively be pursuing people to participate in this process. And yeah, when applications come through, it will be much like doing a job in a job application. Even though there's criteria, as people address that criteria, we will be making that assessment.

If there's grey in terms of the information they provided, we will, you know, try and clarify the grey, because ultimately councillors will have to make that sign-off. So we need to make it as clear as possible for you that the reference group are actually going to meet your expectations. So our job is to make sure that we get the best group as possible, knowing, yes, that they are volunteering their time.

So you believe those current guidelines are stringent enough that we will get the cream of the crop applying, not just people who, you know, want to jump on the committee for the sake of jumping on another committee?

I can't guarantee we won't get applications from people who are not suitable.

Will you give your say to us when we get them, obviously, and we're all smart enough to see it, but you will say this person does not have the demonstrated capacity to sit on this group. You'll say that as blunt as that. Yeah, exactly. All right. Thank you.

Yeah. Councillor Rasmussen, are you speaking in favour of this?

Mr Mayor, yes , yes it would be, but I would be asking a few questions as well.

Okay, well I'll take you as the last speaker. Please go ahead. Okay,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do support this, and I think it's a great, great initiative. Yeah, I wish we'd sort of got into this territory much earlier. But anyway, we are here now, so that's good. Questions I have are these: what time of the day would the meetings be, or would that be up to the reference group once formed? Because many of these people will hopefully—not hopefully, but many of these people have full-time jobs, and daytime meetings may not be suited to them and their work. So I'm just wondering if there is a hard and fast meeting time of the day.

Mrs. Perrin.

Yeah, so having set up reference groups in other councils, part of that preliminary research will work out whether daytime meetings or evening meetings are going to suit. So we're not going to specify that at this point in time. We need to get— To some extent, as we're talking to people and encouraging them to apply, we'll also be trying to get a sense of are daytime meetings preferable or evening meetings. Now, a lot of consultants that I've dealt with over the years, it is easier for them to have the meetings during the day because this is part of their job. They might see this as part of their job, as opposed to attending meetings in the evening. Or some, you know, reference group, you might actually have a mix. So , or, you know, we haven't determined that as yet. It's something that we have to work out. Okay.

Thank you very much for that. Having that, yeah. If we are, let me preface it by saying this first. Many residents have made very detailed submissions to this council over the years about these documents, and so they, I think in my book anyway, would have good strong knowledge of the functioning or non-functioning of these documents. So I would suspect that some of those, I can think of about three or four, who might well be interested in applying for a spot on this reference group. And so they may well need some consideration, and I'm sure that can happen anyway, about the time of the day when they meet. So I'm satisfied with that answer. Thank you. What advertising channels are we going to be using to make sure that people get to know this, or following up on Councillor Sanbruno's, are we going to knock on doors or, you know, make suggestions, or how will this work?

Have we worked that out yet?

Yes. So when we've—there've been changes to legislation, we do actually have a list of, as we call them, regulars, people who have done a lot of work across the Hawkesbury for our residents, you know, planning consultants, architects, surveyors. So we actually have a list at the moment of professionals that we know we regularly work with. So obviously we'll be touching base with that list, but we'll also be doing other letters and media releases to kind of broaden the catchment. So because I know there are other people who may not have worked as, you know, regularly in the Hawkesbury, but they certainly have a range of skills that we should be considering as part of this group.

Yeah, okay, thank you. But I'm thinking more of residents as well as business people who you may not know immediately. But anyway, I would think very wide advertising or very wide channels to be used for getting that information out that we're interested in getting people to join. Now also, Mr. Mayor, final question. I assume that Council, when we are presented with the candidates, or the applicants, let me call it that, and I assume we'll get all the applicants presented to us, that there will be some sort of a summary of experience, skills, knowledge listed against each candidate. Is that a fair assumption, or am I barking up the wrong tree? No

No, that's a fair assumption. We would absolutely do that.

Yeah, right. So from that, I guess each councillor can determine whether or not— They consider some of these candidates or applicants are suitable. Okay,

Thank you very much

I'm looking for speakers against. Councillor Reynolds, are you wishing to speak against?

No. Councillor Garrow, are you wishing to speak against?

I just have a question, Mr Mayor. Question

Is fine.

I was just wanting to know what steps Council will be taking to ensure that members of the reference group, so we're managing the conflicts of interest within that group?

Yeah, so there is a standard approach that Council has in relation to declaring and capturing declarations of interest. So I'll just be following the standard documentation that we currently use for any of our committees.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds, did you have a question or are you wanting to speak in favour? What were you looking to do? So

I had four speakers in favour. Now I don't want to go any further.

It's actually a question, sir.

A question, yeah, you can ask a question. Go on

Thank you. To the Director of Planning, will applicants be required to have tertiary qualifications in the fields described, such as architecture, planning, building, heritage consultants, urban designers, etc.? Will they be required to have qualifications in each field?

I suppose really I am making it, it's not necessary. I mean, experience would, you know, can win out. However, I know that with some of those professions, it's a degree that's generally led to them having that qualification. But no, if somebody's got years of experience, I know there are some people who've got years and years of experience who may, you know... The building survey, building survey course, that's not seen as a degree or tertiary education. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Councillor Richards, is your hand up from before, or did you wish to add something?

Just waving.

Councillor Garo, your hand. You finished your questions.

I just wanted, sorry, I just wanted to, just following on from what my question was answered before, I'm just curious whether we could possibly add whether these members of the review committee could possibly provide pecuniary interest disclosure, disclosure of disclosure, showing their businesses, their properties owned within the LGA and likely things like that that could come up as a conflict.

Mrs Perrin?

Yes, we can consider that as well, yeah.

Do we need to change the motion to read that way, or is it implied?

Mrs Perrin?

You can change the motion and add that in as a requirement, but we will do it anyway.

So the motion needs to change, is what you're saying? Well

The code of conduct ultimately may cover that. I, you know, off the top of my head, I can't remember, but there is a code of conduct that does cover issues around pecuniary interest, so— Well,

I

Think that's sufficient. Yeah, if that's sufficient, then it would, you know, these, the members of the reference group would have to abide by the code of conduct.

Okay, which includes— Disclosing any interest?

Yeah.

Councillor Garrow, are you happy with it?

I would prefer to it be in the motion, just so there's 100% clarity around that, as please.

Okay, well, what do you want to say and where do you want to say it?

I think Mr Mayor, Councillor Garrow is alluding to is that the code of meeting practice requires a declaration at each meeting of various conflicts. I think she's just meaning it would be easier, confidentially, of course, if members of the group had done one disclosure to cover all the meetings, which is similar to what we have in the floodplain committee.

Yes, and Councillor Garrow, where would you like to say that?

Yes, correct.

Appointment of members, is that where it goes?

Yes, please.

Words to the effect of—

Sorry, I'm just trying to find the screen. I'm having laptop issues, so I'm running on a couple of different screens.

Words to the effect of all members should issue a disclosure of interest at the beginning of the first meeting. Words to that effect.

Yes, words to that effect. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Deputy Mayor, are you happy to make that addition?

Yes, happy with that.

Councillor Garrow, you obviously are. Okay. To the staff who are writing that up, I think that goes in point six, but it may go in point five. This is, Bereen, where do you think it goes? I

Think point seven.

Point seven, well there you go.

Put it in point seven.

Staff, are you happy with that? Do you know what it is?

Yeah, I mean we can work out the best location. We'll just take the motion as including it within the terms of reference.

Okay.

Deputy Mayor, are you looking to have right of reply, or you? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I thank you for the changes that the councillors have made. Excuse me

I have had my hand up for a little time.

You wish to speak against the motion?

I do, sir. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. The reason I speak against the motion is I personally feel that this is a very bureaucratic process that is being outlined. I have grave doubts that we're going to get a free exchange of understandings, and one of my concerns at the back of all of this is that the number of development applications still in Council's hands of some duration, of which we were informed some months ago, or a couple of months ago now,

And I see in correspondence that pops up occasionally and in verbal discussions I've had around the district that there are concerns that it's a case of doctor cure thyself. And from that point of view, I think there needs to be a great degree of introspection. Within the planning area , in regard to the backlogs that we have and the causation of those, and the understanding of what factors have led to those, and to be able to respond to those. So I'm

Feeling that it could become rather more boisterous than one would like, and possibly not as productive as one might like. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

You wish to have your right of reply now?

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, as I was saying before, to the councillor who've contributed to those, particularly around the conflicts of interest, because obviously, if we are holding this as a transparent process, that would be a concern for the public, I guess, even though, of course, we would know most people who work in those professional sectors would have some sort of interest that they would have to declare from time to time. I think it's important to remember, though, that this group isn't making decisions. This group is giving advice, and they're giving advice from the position that they work within the community, within the planning area. And it's incredible how many diverse opinions, when you speak to people who've had experiences, that would relate to the planning documentation.

So something that one person might never have come across or thought about may be raised by someone who's experienced it through their time. And I think that that came really to the fore, and Councillor Richards alluded to it, that there were issues with the 2012 LEP. And I recall when the transition from the old LEP was being done, there were a couple of opportunities for changes to be made, but obviously , by the amount of housekeeping that we had to do, there wasn't the exact transitions, and that maybe meant that someone didn't identify, for example, that a tourism-related zone wasn't put in, or definition wasn't put in, or something wasn't in the transition from one LEP to the other. So I think that this will really add to our— Add to the input that we have to make these documents to be as best as they can because they are so important.

And I think that we also have to remember that other stakeholders will be consulted along the way, including community engagement and, of course, coming to Council and Councilors being briefed and Council making the ultimate decision on that. So I really welcome that we are involving people who have experience in this area, and I look forward and certainly hope that we will get people who want to be a part of this process, not just people who have had a bad experience, but people who simply want to make sure that we have a very well-functioning, highly functioning, of our upper planning documents within the Council. So thank you for supporting this.

Thank you. That was right of reply. The motion is on the screen for anyone who is not sure. I'll put the motion now. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Sorry, the screen changed on me. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried.

Item 147, which, the draft

Works in Kind policy. Councillor Ross, you've got your hand up.

I

Would like to move an amended motion, sir. Please do.

That Council refer the draft Works in Kind policy attached as Attachment 1 to the Audit Committee. Full stop.

Councillor Ross, on page 26 of the business paper, there's a part in there in italics about the Audit Committee. It says, The Audit Committee were of the opinion that there is no need for Council policies to be referred to the Audit Committee and that Council policies require Council approval and not the Audit Committee's approval. So given that statement there, which, if you would like to challenge, if that statement is correct, I won't be accepting that amendment. So do you wish to challenge that statement?

I do, sir, because if you refer, as I have done, to the Audit Committee minutes, that narration was applied to the matter of Council delegations. It was not applied to this particular matter at all. And I further— and excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I am now getting into the point of argument, and there is no seconder at the moment. No,

There is no seconder because I haven't accepted it as a motion. I

Want to know

Whether you agree with that statement on page 26, and why not.

I do, vis-a-vis delegations . But this matter of works in kind is, in fact, a matter regarding the revenue of Council.

Okay, well I'll ask Mr. Conroy.

So it is an entirely different matter, and with great respect, I suggest to everybody that that is a misuse of that

Report in regard to delegations, to apply it in regard to an entirely different report. And it is also contrary to the recommendation of the external internal audit body.

Mr. Conroy, as the author of this document, do you wish to comment?

Mr. Mayor, the discussion at the Audit Committee used the delegations policy as the basis for the discussion, but the discussion was about whether policies needed to come back to the Audit Committee. These are the minutes of that discussion from the Audit Committee. They were subsequently noted by Council and then they were confirmed by the Audit Committee. And I think the statement from the Committee is quite clear, and that is that there's no need for Council policies to be referred to the Audit Committee. The Council policies require the approval of Council. That said, there's also scope for the Audit Committee, you'll see later in that quotation, for them to ask to see the documents if they have an ongoing interest. So it's not that they're cut out of the process, but they've stated quite clearly that they don't require to be involved in the approval of the policy.

On the basis of the General Manager's response, I'm going to rule that that amendment is out of order.

I'd like to move a motion, Mr Mayor.

Hang on. Councillor Ross, at this point you could move a motion of dissent.

I move a motion of dissent, Mr Mayor, with your agreement. Well, it's not up to me to agree.

So a motion of dissent has been moved. Would you like to state what that is, Councillor Ross?

I do

I refer my colleagues to an internal audit report provided by Centium Group Proprietary Limited, who are the external internal auditors.

And in so saying, I quote from their report, which was supplied to the Audit Committee, in similar terms to those which I addressed Council on the last occasion regarding voluntary planning agreements. Now, the recommendation from the internal auditor said this at their areas for improvement point three: VPAs and WIKs not formally monitored or enforced. There is no formal process to monitor and enforce and reconcile, although they've said reconcile, agreements. Quality checks of defined facilities can be improved. Inter-team communication management and management reporting against agreements. Allocation of appropriate resources can be improved. Council should improve its computer system and should consider establishing an oversight body to oversee developments.

That's at that point. Now, in their list of required or agreed actions by staff at the paragraph 2.3.2, establish a steering committee to provide an overview contribution plan, VPAs and WIKs.

In other words, the internal auditor was suggesting that there is a requirement for a committee to be formed to oversee these areas of revenue. And I would further point out that the report recommendation, if one follows the requirements as indicated in the actual document at Attachment 1 of 147, states in reference to the roles and responsibilities that it is purely a staff committee which is looking at these matters. Now, I move to, on the basis of the unfortunate occurrences that have previously occurred in this Council in regard to the— Developments out at Pitt Town, which have cost Council very dearly, millions of dollars, in fact, over time, and we've recently heard of an element of this that is still wagging its tail and of which this Council has to address.

But yet the suggested policy makes no reference to any oversight committee. A Development Contributions Committee ensure executive team is kept informed as required at page 6 of 10 of the draft works policy document.

Councillor Ross, have you got much more to add, Councillor Ross?

No, I think that sums up the situation quite succinctly, sir.

Very good. Well, I'm going to give my answer to your motion of dissent, and that is the point in the business paper that I read and that the General Manager also read is quite clear that there's no need for Council policies to be referred to the Audit Committee. And I don't think it'd be any clearer than that. It does say further down in italics that the Audit Committee can have policies tabled at a later date if they want to, but there's no need, as far as I can see and as far as this says and as far as the General Manager says, there's no need for a policy to be sent to the Audit Committee by the Council. It's clear. It's definitely clear in my book, and it's clear in the General Manager's book. May I make

A further representation in

Response

To

Your—

No

Councillor Ross. No, you can't. You made your statement, I've made mine, and that's it.

I believe

Your statement requires rebuttal, sir. We now have to move the motion of dissent, and if you agree with Councillor Ross, then you vote yes. If you agree with me, you vote no. So if you're in favour of the motion of dissent, please raise your hand. In favour, ayes, Councillor Ross. Nobody else. Against, please raise your hand. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmusson , Councillor Cottleage, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow. Abstain, ayes, Councillors Conolly and Tree. Declare the motion of dissent lost. Councillor Rasmusson, you wish to move something?

Yeah, I do, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move the — Sorry

Councillor Zamprogno is first, sorry.

Yes, Mr Mayor, I was going to move the recommendation in the business paper. Okay

Do we have a seconder for that? Yeah, I second that. Councillor Rasmusson. Councillor Zamprogno, do you wish to speak on that?

Very briefly indeed. I have no objection in principle to the idea of a works in kind policy. If we are going to have such a policy, I'm glad that we're in the process of formalising it, and remind those present that all we are seeking to do tonight is to place a draft policy on public exhibition to invite comment. That concludes my remarks.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmusson, you're hands still up. Do you wish to speak?

Yeah, I do, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I just ask— This question, Councillor Ross referred to, and he's quite correct about an overseeing framework or committee to oversee the revenue streams coming out of these sorts of developments. Is it appropriate for such an overseeing committee to be incorporated into this policy? And if it is, has it been left, inadvertently left out of this policy?

Mr

Conroy. Mr Mayor, this particular management action that relates to the policy that's the subject of the report, the works in kind report, that's one of over a dozen management actions that were issued by the external internal auditor in relation to developer contributions. And all of those matters are on foot, including matters that relate to contributions, delegations, contributions policies, six-monthly audits, checklists, peer review of officer calculations. There's a whole range of actions and arrangements that are in progress, and that's just one of them. So all of these things are reported to the audit committee at each meeting, and the progress is noted, discussed, questioned by the audit committee.

Thank you, Mr Musson. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that reply. Now, does that mean that this particular... Concept of having an overseeing group body, including some of those others, some of these other items that was mentioned by the General Manager. Will they form amendments to this policy, or are those not seen to be required in this policy, given that they are already under foot or on foot?

Mr Conroy. So , Mr Mayor, we have that internal group that's been established, and it comprises representatives from finance, from planning, from engineering, and everything goes through that group before it ultimately then comes to Council via this reporting mechanism. So we do have an internal review process. That's an ongoing process. There are matters on foot that Councillors are aware in relation to the Vineyard precinct. This committee is going to have a long role in this organisation, and this is just one of the matters that they're considering.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So can I take it from that that it's not required to be incorporated into this policy? So we don't need an amendment to this policy. Is that a— That's correct, Mr Mayor. Okay. Thank you very much.

Councillor Ross

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor. I refer Council to, and I'm speaking against this recommendation, I refer Council to item 1.3.7 of the meeting of the 28th of July, minutes which were passed this evening. You will note that the matter regarding VPAs is being placed before the Audit Committee. What is proposed here is in direct rebuttal , if you like, or opposition to that recommendation and to that motion of Council. So at one meeting of Council, Council decides that the VPAs, voluntary planning agreements, go back to the Audit Committee for its consideration of a VPA policy. And here, we've got the works in kind policy, which is an associated policy. We're now talking about, oh no, that's good enough.

We just let the staff have a crack at this. Well , $13 million later, and we haven't learned anything. I hardly think that's appropriate. I'm not—I can't vote for this recommendation at all. I'm sorry.

Thank you for your input. Any further speakers for or against?

Yes. Was that a question, Councillor Ross?

You're on mute. I can't hear you, sorry. Councillor Ross . Can't hear you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to foreshadow an amendment to the recommendation.

Foreshadow an amendment.

You mean if this motion is lost, you want to foreshadow a motion, or do you want to move an amendment?

Move an amendment, should I say. Yes. Could we hear your amendment, please Yes.

By all means, that

Whilst suggesting the—whilst agreeing to the placement of the document on public exhibition, it is also suggested that before doing so, the

Attachment , namely the draft policy document, be reflective of the requirement that there be an oversight committee of Council appointed. To review.

Wickers.

Before it goes to exhibition, please. Councillor Ross, that sounds very much like the amendment you tried to move a few minutes ago. In which way is it different?

It's different. The staff can have their committee, and the

Document can go out on publication with also the suggestion at this draft stage that there is also the requirement of an oversight committee to be added to the roles and responsibilities element of the policy.

Mr Conroy, could I ask for a comment on that, please? An oversight committee.

Mr Mayor, we've already got a group, as I said, that's been set up internally within Council pursuant to the management action of the auditor, and that group is working on this. As I said earlier, all policies and documentation goes through that group before it comes to Council. So those activities arrangements are already in place, and I don't see that there's any necessity to change the policy on that basis.

Okay, Councillor Ross, I will let you put that amendment up, and I'll just see if there's a seconder. Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Doesn't look like it. So the amendment is lapsed. Are there any further speakers on this matter? Councillor— who moved this?

Councillor— It was me, Mr Mayor.

That's Zamprogno moved it. Sorry, yes. Zamprogno,

Yeah.

Would you like to write a reply, Councillor Zamprogno?

Look, I need to very briefly state that I understand that these things are works in progress. I mean, on examination of the works in kind document , I don't see any mention, for example, of what happens when a development changes hands. If a developer sells their stake in a particular development , whether those works in kind credits are transferred to its successor. But I would also point out that the draft policy makes it abundantly clear that the agreement to any works in kind is at the sole discretion of Council and would occur only if there was a clear benefit to Council. And I am sufficiently confident that those safeguards would secure value and probity in the transaction. So again, we'll put this on public exhibition and see what comes back. I commend it.

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

Item 148. Councillor Ross, is your hand up from previously? I think it is.

I apologise, sir. Yep, Deputy Mayor.

I'll move the motion, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder? It's Councillor Rasmussen. Are you seconding it? Yes. Deputy Mayor. Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Thank you. You wish to speak to it, Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wonder if, before I start, if perhaps I could ask Ms Perrin to perhaps clarify something regarding this policy, that being why we would not amend our existing DCP with this chapter. This is a question that I've been asked about and others have been asked about. Why would we be going down this path? I know what we've been told, but maybe just for the purposes of the general public, if you could just give a brief description about the process surrounding this and why this is in the format that it's in, with the two sections of one being a policy and one being a procedural document. Mrs Perrin? Okay

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for the question. So this flood policy we see as a stepping stone to get us from the existing policy to a more detailed flood chapter in the DCP. So we know we have more work to do and, as you can see by the report, there are a number of moving parts still happening, but we have some current issues at the moment. So the main reason for having this policy, and it is an interim step, it is a stepping stone, but it will assist Council in meeting the requirements of the current Clause 6.3 of flood planning in our LEP. So it will actually help with current applications that we have on hand and give a lot more information for the assessment of applications. At the same time, as you'll note, that we are reviewing the Hawkesbury Floodplain Risk Management Study of 2012, and this work will also provide further information and will help create the new DCP flood chapter.

The reason why we wouldn't go straight to the DCP flood chapter is, as you know, we are reviewing the DCP as a whole, and any number of those chapters will integrate and, I suppose, be informed by and also will be informed by other chapters within the DCP, and they will provide more specific controls around building components and materials, structural soundness. So the DCP flood chapter will give us other information, but it actually needs to talk to other chapters within the DCP, which, as you know, we haven't completed that work yet. So that's why we're seeing this as a stepping stone to help us in our current situation as we move towards the flood chapter. In regards to the two documents, the policy as such, it gives Council the statement of intent of where we're heading and what we're intending around flooding.

The guidelines are the document that sits that essentially helps staff work. It helps us, I suppose, undertake the work to make the flood policy happen. And it also, it's a document that needs to be able to be responded to and a bit more nimble, I suppose. So if the state government or other things happen that mean we need to reflect on procedural matters, we can actually do that in a ready fashion, as opposed to if we want to change, if there's legislative changes, we would then come back to Council to change the policy, place it on exhibition and have it come back to Council. Whereas the procedural document is very much an internal procedural document. It allows staff to deal with matters, but also to adapt as things need to adapt, as and when, as many procedures have to in any organisation.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Perrin. I think that, I think never before have I seen an area where the conversation is perhaps changing so much, and so much work is going on at state, regional and local level all at the one time. And the capacity to get it all contained into one specific document is quite challenging because we are also doing our various studies of parts of the catchment and trying to get an overall picture that we can have in our DCP. I think, given that our existing policy that exists, our flood liable policy from 2012, that doesn't address the suitability of land use types in relation to flooding impacts. Something can be permissible, but there's no other controls to enable assessment of that.

And this was a major flaw when we adopted the last, in the last term of council, when it was adopted to have a flood policy that actually excluded the town planning sections. So at the start of this council term, we moved to have those included so that there were some guidance for the staff when they're assessing DAs and so on. And I think this is a good interim measure to have until we are given the regional flood study and the state floodplain development manual that is being reviewed, and so that we'll have that. I'm hoping that when we do do our DCP, we'll have a very, very comprehensive chapter on flooding, which really gives certainty to people around flooding because the whole issue with flooding and land use is so uncertain at the moment, and it gives rise to problems quite often.

Just to draw attention to a couple of the concerns that were raised by the flood committee, they are on page 33, and there was quite a number. And again— As Councillor Wheeler was alluding to earlier with the Heritage Committee, the Flood Committee has people on there who have expertise in this area, people who know what they're talking about and who are feeding into the Advisory Committee to assist with this process. The outdated Regional Flood Mitigation Policy, it was called a policy. Councillor Kotlash brought that to the attention of the Flood Committee some time ago, and it was basically a statement. It wasn't a policy, and there was a move originally to rescind it, but now it has actually been incorporated after discussions with the committee so that we do have that information about, on a regional level, what the Council is committed to at this stage and what we're looking at.

I think having a procedural document that gives controls for the assessment for the staff is crucial, and I think this is the way that we have to do it at this point in time. I know that the new planning framework that the State Government has put out is encouraging councils to keep their documents updated as regularly as possible, and I really welcome this. I think this is a really good way to look at planning, to have the strategic planning, and to ensure that all the controls are updated with great regularity so that we're on top of our game and so that we give certainty to our residents and our businesses and so on, because it is very ambiguous in many areas of flood policy at the moment.

So I welcome all the work that's being done, and I thank the staff for preparing those controls that they will then implement in their assessment until we can actually move forward into next year when we have our DCP ready to go.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Ross

Thank you. I have a question, or possibly a number of questions to commence.

With your indulgence, sir, I'm wondering if you'd be inclined to ask the staff, in relation to the reference in the executive summary to clause 6.3 of the Hawkesbury LEP 2012, that that reference does not mean that this policy is going to go as a gateway application to the Department of Planning and Environment.

Mr Conolly

Ms Perrin . Mr Mayor

No, ultimately this policy is a Council policy, so once it's gone on exhibition and Council makes a decision after adoption, that's policy that will take effect then. Councillor

Ross. Thank you. Could I seek further elaboration upon that? What is this word policy in terms of its veracity or applicability, as opposed to an insertion of a new chapter in the DCP, even of an interim nature? Mrs Perrin

Okay, so as I said, it is a stepping stone to the DCP flood chapter, and ultimately what it's doing is giving Council and Council staff, in the assessment process, a little bit more information to look at the suitability of applications in terms of location and land use and, you know, risk assessment. The DCP flood chapter, when we have that, will actually then have further information, as I said previously, around providing more specific controls such as building components and materials, which at this point in time this policy doesn't, you know, won't be doing. So it is a guide. The DCP is a guide. It helps take effect, you know, helps, I suppose, help the LEP take effect. This policy gives you an overarching approach, and then these controls or the schedule is actually just giving us a bit more information, or giving staff a bit more information in terms of assessing current applications.

They will get more assistance as we get the DCP flood chapter, but this is a good stepping stone in the right direction.

Councillor Ross. Mayor, I understand the aim of what we're talking about, and with due respect, the answer provided there was not of the question to which I sought an answer. What I am asking specifically, and I say specifically, is how is this policy different, if it is implemented, to implementing a chapter in the DCP, even if it is of an interim nature now, rather than just a- Policy statement, please.

Mrs. Perrin.

How is it different in terms of enforcement, you mean, Councillor Ross?

Yes, legal standing is what I'm concerned about.

Okay. Well, as with any, I mean, there's a difference between an LEP and a DCP in terms of legal standing. The DCP helps, you know, give effect to the LEP and the outcomes and objectives within the LEP. A DCP does have slightly more weight than a policy, so if you are asking which is stronger, then I would say the DCP is stronger than a policy. But at this point in time, the current policy that we have is very weak, so we're actually trying to address that by having this policy at this point in time until we deal with the DCP flood chapter. Okay.

Thank you again for that answer. It does not satisfy my viewpoint . You've just mentioned that the DCP is a stronger document than a policy. Okay. Now, as I understand it, looking at the DCP, it is within council's competence to amend the DCP at its volition. Is that correct?

Yes , council can amend the DCP as and when it chooses, yes.

Thank you. I question why, on this occasion, and I appreciate this is an interim document and it can be titled such, as to why, if we're putting this out on public exhibition, that we do not say so and we do not proceed to put in A chapter of flooding in the DCP when we have one in the DCP in regard to bushfire. It just seems totally inconsistent. And if the DCP is stronger than , shall we say, a policy, whatever that is,

To me it would be of greater significance from staff's point of view and a greater, if you like, a rod behind staff's back in legal, in litigation and so on, to have a DCP there even if of a short duration due to state government requirements. Would you like to comment, please? Yes,

I hear your concerns, Councillor Ross. However, if we were to wait and turn this into a DCP flood chapter, then it will take a lot longer. It also needs to be informed, as I said earlier, it will be informed by the other review of the whole of the DCP because even though we will have a flood chapter, it will be informed by other chapters within the DCP which we're reviewing. If we were to wait, then basically it puts the assessment of current DAs continuing to be just, you know, I suppose, not supported by this policy and by the— developing the schedule of controls that will support it. So that's essentially why we're saying, or recommending, that we place this on exhibition , bring it back to Council after considering any submissions during the exhibition process, and then we have an interim document that will help support applications in the system or coming into the system while we continue reviewing the DCP, which will not be finished until June 2021.

Mr, can you not ask the same question again? Do you have any other questions you wanted to ask?

I don't believe this is satisfactory, sir. I still don't understand why the staff are recommending that we move on a course which is obviously inferior by enunciating a policy, which in the same process we could have introduced a DCP. I would have thought, personally, that the attachment four is sufficiently robust to act straight into a DCP without much attention at all, and that's what I'm concerned about. And I just don't understand the officer's viewpoint there. If they could elaborate as to why they see that DCP addition as being unworthy at this stage, I would be grateful to be appraised, please.

The staff have already answered that several times. I'll regard that as you speaking against the motion. Councillor Reynolds, do you wish to speak for or against?

A question, if I may. Yep. To the Director of Planning, just following on from Councillor Ross's concerns , if this was to be placed into the current DCP, knowing that we have to have a new DCP finalised under 12 months' time, that put to one side, how long would it take to achieve the aim of inserting a new chapter into a DCP? How long would it take, say from now, after the public exhibition process through the government, to actually get it embedded in the DCP?

Doesn't have to go to the government. Doesn't go to the government

Excuse me, Councillor Ross. Councillor Reynolds has a question. The piece of work

That we are about to commence is the review of our flood risk management plan. This work is actually quite critical, and that work will also then basically lead to the review of the flood chapter. So there's still a number of months of work that we need to do before we can confidently bring the flood chapter to Council as part of the, you know, the rest of the DCP. So, yeah , essentially it's not—we need to do the flood risk management plan, which will then inform the DCP chapter.

Basically what I was asking was, if we were to grab, for example, attachment four, and then say we want to plonk that as is into the current DCP, how long would that take?

Well, a few months potentially, but I suppose I wouldn't want to be doing that because it wouldn't necessarily be informed by other work that we need to do around the DCP chapter or this flood risk management plan work that we need to do. Okay,

Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Speaking in favour of the motion, Mr Mayor. I think this is a— this is... Really useful for exactly what it says on the box. It's an interim policy to fill a gaping void that we have had, and the fact that this void has existed up until this point, I think, is a sad indictment on previous councils. If any council needed a robust best practice guideline for flooding, it was the Hawkesbury. Those of us who have attended floodplain conferences are well aware of the place that the Hawkesbury has and the responsibility that we have as decision makers and that the planners have in this space. It's quite common to go to a flood conference, introduce yourself as being from the Hawkesbury, and have people from other flood-affected areas laugh, not because you're really funny, but because what we deal with here has the potential to be horrific.

The fact that we have had a three-line policy, pseudo policy, to hang our hats on is actually terrifying, and Councillor Kotlash should be commended for bringing that to the attention of the Floodplain Committee, and the staff should be commended for getting this in place as an interim. A nice fat chapter in the DCP would be lovely, but we're not there yet. And if we spend our time bogged down in trying to get that done, to go to the state government, to ask them to interrupt the process for reviewing the current DCPs they've got before them, and then add it to, and then go through the whole bloody thing again in 12 months' time, or less than 12 months' time, when we put our new DCP up, I think is a waste of time, particularly when you consider the pressure that the strategic planning staff are under to get these documents ready in time for the state government's timeline without any additional financial resources.

We have to be realistic. This is an interim process. This is what we need to do now, and I think it's commendable. Again, lays out the problems between the difficulties with permissibility versus vulnerability, especially with regard to evacuation, the problems that we have with ambiguity regarding access that particularly affect the McDonald Valley and the Colo. We can't afford to muddle about any further with this document. It needs to go out on public exhibition. The people can add to it if they choose. I think Attachment 4 is particularly useful, and I want to thank the Director of Planning for articulating why it exists in the form that it does. I think that's been really helpful. Let's just get this done.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Are you speaking for or against this?

I'm speaking for. Have we run out of force?

Well, I'll let you be the last speaker unless someone else speaks against after that. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I just add that I have sat on the floodplain management committee over years and been frustrated by the lack of progress and the stymieing that happened during those years. Lost years, in my view. Almost 13 years of lost years on floodplain management, risk management consideration by the committee. That has all changed now and has certainly changed enormously in this particular council. And can I say also, Mr Mayor, we had a recent little bit of a scare in February of this year. We had a little bit of rain, a reasonable amount of rain, on one day with a significant low sitting over the east coast, inundated the Shoalhaven. We got at Yarramundi River overnight, last night, about a five, most of about a five metre rise very quickly in the river.

Mr Mayor, flooding in this Hawkesbury Valley is nothing compared , in terms of the magnitude of the likely flood, compared to the rest of Australia. This is potentially catastrophic for us. We have got to put that policy and our development of strong, robust policy for this valley right on top of our list of things to do. And if we cannot, and we're going to continue to argue and bicker about and slow the process down for this development to take place, we are going to end up being culpable, in my view, when something serious happens to the people and the businesses in this valley. And I would really, really, absolutely regret and be devastated if that was to occur, you know, because we have wasted so much time.

So, Mr Mayor, can I just recommend to councillors that We get on with this. As Councillor Wheeler said, you know, what the package says on the front is what you get. We should get on with this part of it and let the staff then work very hard and as quickly as they can for the next more robust development of the DCP and other documents that safeguard flooding— not so much safeguard the flooding, but certainly we develop a policy for this valley so that people know that we are in control and we have plans, pre-prepared plans and policies to deal with the situation, not do it on the run, as we've seen in aged care and so on in the last week or two. We need to do it now, way before it happens. So please, councillors, let's just do it and move on to the next item, please.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, your hand is up. You've already spoken on this matter.

I do have a question before matter is voted upon, sir. One question. Thank you. Yes. Should the passage of this staff recommendation go forward, could I please be informed as to what the intention is regarding prior policy document dated 2011 and its fellow policy document dated 2012? Do they become expunged or do they still sit in the area of active policies in addition to what is being proposed this evening? Mrs. Perrin.

Should Council choose to adopt the new draft flood policy, the recommendation would be those two older policies would then be expunged . Yes.

Thank you. There's no further speakers. Deputy Mayor, do you want right of reply? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think that this is such an important thing, and I understand partially what Councillor Ross is saying. And if we weren't in the midst of a DCP review process and waiting upon significant major strategies and studies to be completed, I would suggest trying to amend the existing DCP as well. But I don't see that as the most viable solution at this point because, as it's well identified, we have been a long time with no controls for the staff to be using in the development assessments. And I think that was, as somebody did say, that was an absolute, you know, a dreadful thing in the last Council to have that. I remember the celebration within the Floodplain Risk Management Committee when we said that we were going to actually include the town planning section, which had been excluded in the previous Council, that that was so well received.

I think there's nothing else really to say. I just am pleased to see that this has been done. It's been a long time coming, and I'm glad that the Floodplain Committee could be of such use in feeding in some information. And I look forward to seeing what the public feedback is.

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

Moved item 150 , Councillor Wheeler, is your hand up on this?

Was that from before, Councillor Wheeler?

It was, sorry, Mr Mayor, but I'm happy to move the motion.

Okay. No one else wants to move, by the look of it. Councillor Wheeler moved. I'll second

It

Councillor Rasmusson had his hand up, though. Did you want to second this, Councillor Rasmusson?

Well, I did, but Deputy Mayor can second. No, that's okay.

I don't mind .

Thank you. Moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmusson. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak? I'll wait to write a reply, Mr Mayor. Okay. Any other speakers? If not, I think I wanted to ask , in the recommendation in point two it says, consider reviewing its current housing targets. I think that should say, review its current housing targets. Councillor Wheeler, would you be happy to make that change ?

Yes, happy with that. Could I ask, Mr Mayor, if we should be specifying at this point or do we want to save that for a later discussion?

I personally would save it for a later discussion. I think we'd all have to get involved in that, probably in a briefing session. Happy with that, Mr Mayor. And Councillor Rasmusson, you're happy with that? Yes. Any further speakers? If not, Councillor Wheeler, a right of reply.

Look, I don't have much to add. Again, I think this is like the other documents that we've looked at this evening. I think it's really helpful to have some evidence base. Behind these documents that we're putting forward. Now, I'm pleased to see that we can cut the number of houses, of target dwellings, particularly given our constraints around flooding, the RAAF noise contours, biodiversity, and Indigenous heritage in the area. I think it's quite useful that we can— it's nearly a 10,000 dwelling decrease. I think it's about 8,000 dwelling decrease that's being proposed, and I think that probably does much to recognise the constraints that we have, particularly the constraints west of the river.

It's clear that the small-scale carve-ups of small acreage into lifestyle blocks will be a thing of the past, and I think that that is probably useful. That slow drip of development by stealth west of the river that's caused so many problems for people who live on this side, I think is finally being acknowledged. But what we're seeing here is also, I think, the product of good place-based planning that relies on evidence gathered by council to support our position, and that's to be applauded.

Thank you. That was right of reply. If you want to vote in favour of this motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Brodhead, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Garrow. Nobody against. Abstained is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Item 153, the committee, Waste Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee. Councillor Rasmussen, are you moving that?

I'll move that way unless somebody else does. Thank you.

And Deputy Mayor, you seconding that? No. Yes,

Me.

You are. Okay.

Yes.

Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak?

Not at this stage, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, did you wish to speak? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to draw attention to the part of the recommendation that is brought forward from the committee minutes. It was to publicise about our curbside audit, which takes place regularly. And I think at the time it happens, we always have a lot of questions from people about why are these people in fluoro vests rummaging through my bin, et cetera, et cetera. But it's a really, really important part of us to be able to deal with managing our waste, but also for our waste strategy to gather that data. And it has performed quite well. And I think that I was raised in the committee that we really should be putting this out as a story to the public to thank them and encourage them for their commitment to how they're managing their waste, because comparative to other councils, we're actually doing very well.

So it's a good news story that should be going out to people about the results of that survey, outlining why we do it in the first place, what sort of information it gives us, and just how well we're doing in comparison to other places. As well as that, during the last management committee, we were discussing the issues that we have locally with so many people burning their green waste and the desire that we could be using that green waste to process, in a process to generate high quality compost. And again, that gave rise to the food and organic... Pilot trial that our working group is also looking at within the Waste Committee, and we'll be having a meeting tomorrow night again for the working group to be discussing the options that Arcadis, who are doing the waste strategy, may have come up with.

So there's definitely a community commitment to getting the food and organic trial going, but we did have discussions about a few of the problems around that, particularly to do with uniformity between local government areas, where some councils have food in their green bins and some have separate bins, et cetera, et cetera. And whereas we are probably not going for a full-scale green bin system, the desire is to have a pilot program where we look at the use of food and organic waste. So I think that they were the only things to actually raise , I think, apart from I'm assuming the chemical cleanout was a big success. There was a lot of positive response to putting out the Facebook message about the chemical cleanout coming, so I hope that went successfully.

Would have been a bit wet, I guess. And also the remote area recycle collection events, which were really well received by those communities out on the periphery of our local government area, if they've had them already. So yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just following up on a couple of things that the Deputy Mayor mentioned. The Waste Committee is really keen on the FOGO trial. Wollongong's just successfully run one and have decided to roll out a FOGO bin to the whole residential part of their LGA. They're a bit like us in that they've got some areas that are far more rural, but it's been really well—the uptake of it has been really well received.

Seem to be running out of words tonight. The uptake has been really surprising and it's turned out to be really cost effective for the council as well. There's certainly a lot of— people have really high expectations now of waste management, and that's happened for a number of reasons. I think the war on waste on the ABC, I think, has contributed greatly to people's understanding of how waste works. But also a lot of people with children are becoming increasingly aware of waste because their kids talk about it. So the war on waste provided lots of educational materials, and a lot of parents report that it's their kids who are driving the waste strategy, the waste management strategy at home.

I know that people come into our library wanting the plastic FOGO bags that Penrith hand out, and then they have to be told that we don't do FOGO, and they report that they have been getting FOGO bags from relatives in Penrith and chucking them merrily in our green waste bins. So that idea of consistency across LGAs is really important, I think, because we've got people unwittingly contaminating our green waste as a result. The waste audits are particularly interesting. The results of them are really interesting. It's also a useful part, I think, of our campaigning of alerting people to the impost of the EPA fee on the tip, so that as people become aware of what they throw in the bin and how much that costs us in terms of how much the weight of each bin costs us as it goes over the weighbridge and how much money we have to glibly give to the state government to put our own rubbish in our own hole, I think the waste audit adds to that argument that firstly people need to reassess what they do with their waste, but also that we aren't being treated fairly.

So if you are an active social media user, the results of that waste audit are really useful things to share with the community because there's lots of valuable information. The ABC is rolling out its second wave of sustainability programs. I think we all missed it tonight because we were here. So the Fight for Planet A was on this evening, I think, and council staff are doing some work to roll out. Some education materials for the LGA consistent with that program. So some stuff about waste will probably tie into that really nicely. So this is a good time. It's a good time to be talking about rubbish. But there's lots happening in this committee, which has now got an extended year of life and has also put some really valuable input into the Kurnell Sustainability Study as well.

And they should be commended for giving their time and effort to that process. Thanks.

Thank you. General Manager, you wanted to say something.

Mr Mayor, just following up on the Deputy Mayor's question, I think the Manager Strategic Planning or the Manager Corporate Communications can provide Council with an update on the numbers of attendances that we had at the chemical drop-off, given the weather, they were really high. Yep

We had 565 vehicles on Sunday, which was up from the previous year, so that was a very high amount. And compared to other local governments, so Liverpool, for example, had a relatively recent one, they had 175 vehicles, so just a bit of a comparison there. So 565 was our total.

Thank you. There are no further speakers. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to have right of reply?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, about the slow. No, I don't. Thanks very much.

Okay, in that case, we'll put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried. Gentlemen.

General Manager, did you have any further business? No, Mr Mayor. I wanted to mention that there is another rally on tomorrow at Thompson Square at 11 a.m., organised by the Defenders of Thompson Square.

Hopefully it will be COVID-safe. I might see you there. No further business. Thank you all for your participation. I'll see you soon.