29 September 2020 - Ordinary

Hey, welcome everybody. Thank you for joining us for the ordinary meeting of council. We're now live. So I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the elders past, present and emerging, and hand over to the General Manager.

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

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

Thank you. I have apologies from Councillor Garrow. Do we have any? I think everybody else is here.

So, no other apologies. Someone who wanted to move that we accept that apology. Moved, Councillor Ross, seconded, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Carried. So we have one item subject to public address, item 183. Not sure if the speakers are in the meeting or if we're waiting.

Can I declare my declaration of interest,

Please? Oh, sorry, yes, please. Are there any other declarations of interest at this point? So, Councillor Richards.

Item 183. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Any other declarations? Yes

Mr Mayor. Deputy

Mayor? For you as well, thank you.

Councillor Reynolds?

Yes, Mr Mayor, item 183 as well.

Okay. Given that's the first item, I'd better actually get you to each read on the nature of the interest. Councillor Richards?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mine is significant non-pecuniary, and I'll be leaving the meeting for that item.

Okay. Deputy Mayor?

Mine is less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'll be staying in the meeting.

And Councillor Reynolds?

Thank you. My interest is less than significant and non-pecuniary, and I'll be staying in the meeting. Thank you.

Okay. So once Councillor Richards has left the meeting, we'll move on with our first speaker, Benjamin Woodbury.

Mr Mayor, are we using blue hands for raising questions, or—

Yes, sorry, Councillor Rasmussen. Yes, Councillor Rasmussen, I can see your hand is up.

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, was that—that was the—

Oh no, it was just about it earlier, right? That was all. Okay. I had my hand up, but that doesn't matter. Okay. It's okay. It's passed now. Okay

Prior to item 183, we also need to do the confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting. Sorry, everybody. So, does someone want to move? Moved. Seconded , Councillor Reynolds . All those in favour, say aye . Carried.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. I don't think the disclosures—I didn't read, I don't know if everybody gave the details, but I hadn't given the details. I just said mine, sorry. Sorry,

No, sorry, that was my fault because I skipped the minutes, so you didn't know we read that item. So now we are at item 183. I'll get you to read your nature of interest.

Thank you. My interest is in item 183. The nature of the interest is less than significant non-pecuniary interest because of a property in one of the town centres, and the reason for no further action is that the recommendation is to receive a draft plan with some items to be investigated further, and at this stage there's no impact on the property in question.

Thank you. Sorry, and I should do that. Councillor Reynolds, I'll get you to go again.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My interest is significant non-pecuniary

A building of high importance in Richmond is set to become my partner's business premises and I am part of the restoration project team. And although it is not directly involved with the actual livability program, it is in extremely close proximity to parts mentioned in the item tonight, that being the old Richmond Post Office, so I'll be leaving the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Okay, so once Councillor Richards has left the meeting, we'll move on to our first speaker.

Am I being removed?

I would think so.

We also need to do the confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting. Sorry, everybody. So does someone want to move? Moved. Seconded Councillor Reynolds . All those in favour, say aye. Carried.

Okay, so our first speaker is Benjamin Woodbury. Hi,

Thank you for your time. I don't have much to say. I was just more concerned with what was, I think, item 183, the draft livability plan , or it's actually called the Western Parkland City Livability Plan. On behalf of, as having a shop in the mall, two shops now, and on behalf of a lot of resident shop owners there, we don't want it ripped up and the water wheel moved. And it's just, I know it's not tonight, you're probably not discussing that entirely. I just wanted to make a point on that and whether we'd have more say as to that, just due to us actually having businesses in the mall. And my main point was don't fix what isn't actually broken. We have had so much positive feedback with the mall and the improvements that have happened in the last few weeks, and then over the last two years of what we've noticed, the improvements in, as in new businesses and a lot more tourists.

And there were two things that we noticed in the plans. I know they're not fixed, was the moving of the water wheel, which is, I think, you know, is insane because it's Windsor's most iconic piece. And then also ripping out the other end of the water wheel—sorry, the other end of the mall. And I say that because from experience, we've had two businesses in Richmond, and when they did a major refurbishment there, which blocked the access to our shops, we suffered, and that really was detrimental to our business. And that's purely all I had to say, is that don't fix what isn't broken, and give us a chance to speak, and we'll work with you like we have been with this Place Score project, the current, or Key Score, by, yeah, by working together with us and coming up with something that, you know, that helps us that actually do have businesses there, that are there for the long haul.

That's all I had.

Thank you , Mr. Woodbury. Happy to take questions. Yes. Are there any questions? Councillor Zamprogno?

No. That blue hand is for later.

Thank you. Right. Okay. Any questions at all? Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thanks, Ben. Could you just give us an idea—you mentioned tourism and getting positive feedback from the work that you've been doing in the mall. Yes. Do you have, like, a rough idea of when you do most business? Is it on weekends or during the week, or is it sort of 50-50? Well, yes. Is tourism, like, a source of major income for you?

Look, to be honest, I purely think it's 50-50. We have great support from locals, which surprisingly happens. See, with our Richmond stores, we would never open our stores on a Sunday or a Monday because it wasn't worth the trade, it wasn't worth the expense of opening. Here, we can't do without our Sunday and Monday sales. Mondays are one of our best days with locals, and tourism, because we do have a lot of people that stay here for weddings, stay the extra day and come and visit the mall. They come and speak to us, and it's just from two years of conversing with our clients and customers to know that Sundays and Saturdays are definitely your tourist days. People come out for the whole weekend, but we have a lot that stay over on the Monday.

And then, yeah, we're open seven days because then from Monday through to Saturday, or through to Friday, we get a lot of our locals, and it is definitely 50-50, and a lot more tourists here than we do in Richmond.

Yeah, okay. Thank you. That, um, your comments about Monday and people staying over is really interesting. Thanks for that. Good on you. No problem,

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks, Mr Woodbury, for coming in and talking to us about this. I just wanted to ask, you're involved in the Jumpstart program that Council runs. Yeah, sorry, I got the name

Wrong.

No, that's all right. It was a carryover from Place Score, and it's the same business, so that's understandable. Is that providing a useful conduit now between business owners in the mall and the program exists in South Windsor as well, and Council? Is that one of the things that it's doing?

Definitely. I think it's been a great medium between the two. I know, like, they've got that experience of working with multiple towns, which, you know, which we've drawn from, and then also in, you know, it's been obviously what you guys have expressed as well. It's, no, I think it's worked. Like, look at the results. We've had great, like, great feedback, and I'm sure the next speaker, or Darren, would be able to confirm that. We've had great feedback on just the little things we've done so far, and even if that's just, you know, the promotion of things on social media, not even the physical aspects. Like, we've had a lot of—and it's also brought together the businesses, which I think in a small town is hard, but once you get past the competitive part of it and realise how important having competition is in, you know, progressing your business and for overall, like, for everybody's business and how healthy it is, and that's what it's been.

It's been the fulcrum in doing that, and I've, yeah, applaud you guys and Keystone—sorry, Keyscore. It's been a great initiative and, yeah, I look forward to the next, this weekend in particular.

Thanks, and thanks for the work you've put into it.

No worries. Thanks, Mr Woodbury. Our next speaker is Darren Pete. Hi,

Thank you, Mayor. I hope everyone can hear me okay.

Yep .

Okay. For those who don't know me, look, I've had a business in Windsor for more than 15 years. We're in our 15th year now. We currently run two businesses in the Windsor Mall, which is Guy Stuff, which is in the southern end of the mall, and Lollies and Stuff, which is in the northern end of the mall. Now, we are in the process of moving our Lollies and Stuff store from the northern end of the mall to the southern end of the mall, and then in the vacated building, we're going to open another business. So by early next year, we will operate three businesses in the Windsor Mall. The two businesses that we do operate in the Windsor Mall are both very successful businesses. We have four stores altogether, and our two most successful stores are both located in Windsor.

We also have a store on the Central Coast, and we also have a store in the Campbelltown area. So not only do we run the businesses in Windsor, we've also purchased the buildings. So we're investing our own money and putting a lot of commitment into Windsor. And as I said, we've been there for 15 years, and the fact that we've bought those three buildings proves that we believe in Windsor for the long term. Now, when we came to Windsor 15 years ago, Windsor was a completely different place to what it is today. The amount of visitors coming to Windsor is growing rapidly. I think that's due to the amount of population growth around the Western Sydney area, plus also the COVID situation is attracting people to outdoor...

Outdoor shopping , like they're avoiding shopping centres. So Windsor has benefited from this. So what I want to talk about is that I don't believe that the Windsor Mall should be ripped up either. What we've got in Windsor is fantastic. A lot of other towns and suburbs of Sydney don't have what we—well, no one else has what we have in Windsor. And I think the Windsor Mall is one of the things that brings people to Windsor and brings visitors and tourists to Windsor. The northern end of the mall, I think everyone would agree that no one says anything negative about the northern end of the mall. There's only one or two vacant shops, and there's a lively buzz in the northern end of the mall regular, like every single day and in the evenings as well.

The southern end of the mall is not as vibrant and exciting as the northern end of the mall, which is one of the reasons why we're moving. Like our Lowlyson staff store in Windsor is probably one of the most exciting businesses in Windsor, and the reason we're moving it to the southern end of the mall is we want to help improve the southern end of the mall. So I believe that by us moving our business to the southern end of the mall, the things that we've got planned to market that business and the amount of visitors that our business attracts to Windsor is going to assist in making the southern end of the mall as vibrant as the northern end. So I would really, I would be devastated to see the southern end of the mall ripped up because I think we're on a journey that's working.

And like Ben said, a lot of very good things have happened over the last couple of years, and even in the last 12 months, the improvements in Windsor have just been outstanding. And 10 years ago, I used to hear about 90% negative comments about Windsor Mall and 10% positive. Today I hear 90% positive and 10% negative. And the 10% negative comments mainly relate to empty shops and rundown and dilapidated things in the mall, which this project that's underway now can fix the look and feel of the Windsor Mall. And I believe, from my experience in retail, that if the Windsor Mall can be, if the look and feel of the Windsor Mall can be improved dramatically, those empty buildings won't be empty for too long.

That's the way to get the buildings filled up. It's not the Council's job to fill the buildings up. It's like to go and get the buildings leased. But having Windsor as a desirable place to have a business is the way to get those empty buildings filled up. And there's not that many empty buildings. I know there's a few very big empty buildings, which makes it look worse than it actually is. So I believe part of, from what I've seen about the livability program, the boulevard of trees from the Windsor train station all the way through to the Thompson Square is absolutely fantastic. We need art, we need entertainment, we need the markets, we need open spaces. We just need rejuvenation, repairs, cleaning up, restoration, fixing and cleaning.

That's what's going to improve Windsor, not ripping out the mall. Ripping out the mall is going to set us back, you know, five years. It's going to go, we're going to go backwards five years. There's a lot of money to be spent, and there's no immediate benefit that's guaranteed. But by doing all these other things, I think there is a guaranteed benefit by refurbishing, repairing and fixing up what's there.

So yeah, that's what I want to say. So I also don't believe the water wheel should be removed. The water wheel is the number one iconic thing other than the river, I guess. The water wheel is the thing that brings people to Windsor, and it's in every photograph. I see people taking photographs next to that water wheel all the time, along with the murals. The other thing that I've done over the last 10 years in Windsor is work with other business owners, and we have a Facebook page called I Love Windsor, and we use that Facebook page to promote every business, every activity, every event that's happening in Windsor. And that I Love Windsor Facebook page is something that we work on. I spend my own time and money, and my staff spend time and money promoting that page, which brings people to Windsor. And we also employ 25 people in our businesses in Windsor. Once we open our third business—

Sorry, Mr P, just the time has expired. I just wanted to wrap up.

Yep, okay. So I think there's a lot of very good things happening in Windsor, and I think the project, the liveability program, has got the potential to just blast that off and make it even better without ripping up what we've already got. So yeah, that's what I wanted to say. Thanks very much.

Thank you for that. Are you happy to take questions? Sure thing. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr P, thanks very much for that wrap of Windsor. I think we should make a promotional We Love Windsor business-type video and put you on it, mate. I think you're doing a great job promoting it and selling it to the people who already love Windsor, but that's great. Now I wanted to ask you this. These great comments that you've been making about Windsor and the mall and so on, and the water wheel.. . Were you part of the consultation process for the master plan? And if you were, did you make these comments to them as well?

Yes, absolutely. I have been part of the program and I have put my thoughts forward on every opportunity that I've had to do so.

That's great. One more, Mr. Mayor, if I may. You mentioned the markets. Now, there's obviously a little bit of controversy around that, as you would know, having spent 15 years in Windsor. So what are your thoughts? Does it detract from your businesses, or it's generally a positive to have markets there on the weekends?

Absolutely. There's not one negative thing about the markets. Some people say the markets cause traffic chaos and parking dramas, but, you know, there's never—there's no ideal solution to the parking. And if the parking is the biggest problem that we have, you know, that's a good problem to have. I think the markets should be there to stay. The markets are an iconic part of Windsor, and look, I get along very well with the market organisers, and I work with the market organisers, and I think, as do just about every business owner. So the business owners and the Windsor markets, I believe, we all work well together, and the amount of controversies and dramas are nothing compared to they used to be, I think. There's a good feeling in Windsor at the moment between business and the market organisers.

That's great, and I'm pleased to hear that because poor old Windsor has copped it for a few years now. Thank you very much.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks, Mr P, for coming along, and also your involvement in this. You've been, for the last three years, I think, been working with Council for some of the improvements in Windsor, and also very generously donated your two walls for the mural project, which has been really successful. I wanted to ask about—you mentioned that you had a shop on the Central Coast. There was a mall put in there and taken out again, if I remember correctly. Did that impact on businesses there?

The one you're talking about would be the entrance. Now, I've only had a business at the entrance for six years, and this mall situation happened long before I was there. But I think the thing I find interesting is I used to hear a lot of people in Windsor say, Rip the mall out, it'll fix all the problems, which is obviously not the case. At the entrance, there was a part of the mall removed, and all I hear at the entrance is, We should put the mall back in, it will fix all the problems. So, look, my belief is that ripping a mall out or putting a mall in is not going to fix any problem at all. Working with what we've got and attracting better businesses and making what we've got look nicer and feel better is the solution, not ripping things out and putting things in.

And just on that also, I went to Bathurst recently, and I saw a petition in one of the shops in Bathurst that there's a street in Bathurst that they're talking about putting a mall in. to attract more people to spend time in that street, in Hawkesbury Street, Bathurst. So I think this discussion about putting malls in or ripping malls out, it's 50-50.

Thanks . Let's keep the mall and fix the mall, not rip it out.

And Councillor Reynolds, just so we don't exceed our time, so if it's not a long question.

No, not at all. Thanks, Mr. Pitt, and thanks for the hard work you've put into— I suppose, well, congratulations on the hard work you've put into your businesses, but thanks for having them in Windsor. Similar question to Ben. I know you're open basically seven days. Your foot traffic through the door trade, is it roughly the same as Ben, with 50 during the week and on weekends, or do you notice, like, you have a high turnover on weekends compared to during the week?

Look, I think it's pretty similar to Ben. We have good business seven days of the week. Sometimes our best day of the week is not the weekend. Look, Mondays, like similar to Ben, Mondays for us are always a very good day. Interestingly as well, our lolly shop trades late every night, so we trade till 9 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, and quite often Saturday night at 10 o'clock could be one of our busiest hours of the entire week. So yeah , our trade is spread out between seven days of the week and nights as well.

I know that some time ago it was discussed to introduce night-time trading into the mall. Given what you said, do you think that that would be a good proposal?

Absolutely. I think Friday and Saturday nights, you know, the amount of people around Windsor on a Friday and a Saturday night is quite amazing. So absolutely, I think the more nighttime trading, and that's what we plan to do in the southern end of the mall. We'll be opening our shop later in the southern end of the mall, and I think it's just going to attract more and more people to Windsor at night.

Okay, terrific. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Mr. Pete. And our final speaker is Gay Kelly.

When you're ready. Yes

Mayor, councillors, general manager, thank you. I'd like to speak about the mall between Fitzgerald and Cable Street with the shared pedestrian zone reopened to cars. I totally oppose this suggestion. I have spoken to many of the businesses within the precinct who share with me their opposition to the proposal. We ourselves owned a restaurant in Windsor for 19 years, and also I am part of the Jumpstart Committee as well. Windsor Mall should be creating a nostalgic effect. We should not be drawing straight lines with our eyes to view through the mall. We should be meandering along the mini curves in a nostalgic fashion, suited to the heritage of our area. If this proposal was to go ahead, it would totally destroy the businesses within that precinct.

They may as well close their doors now. You cannot guarantee that opening the mall is going to be a fix-all, and it will cost millions of dollars. The project will have the mall closed and looking like a demolition site for up to 18 months. It might even be two years. If it was closed for just six weeks, I can guarantee you that people will go elsewhere and they won't return. Imagine being closed for a far longer period. Let us create a thriving marketplace within the mall. Let us restore the many assets that we have within the precinct. The bench seats with the old cast iron sides are descriptive of our heritage. The tables, the gas lamps, the water wheel, the beautiful Wisteria plant that grows on the trellis in the mall.

Why not look at this idea at each of the town entrances? Vines such as Wisteria, Crape Myrtle to complement our jacaranda trees. It wouldn't cost much, an idea that would not cost millions. Do not asset strip. Within the plan, it talks about the moving of our water wheel. I totally oppose this, as do the many businesses in the area. The paddle wheel is, or I call it the water wheel, is a landmark, and located where it is now is where it should stay. The gas lamps were also mentioned. They were actually restored six years ago, and I am told by the plumber who restored them all they need is TLC. That's rather scary. I know the parts can actually be obtained in Ballarat, so they need to be restored.

They do not need to be replaced. They are perfect for the heritage. Windsor is one of the five Macquarie towns, and we should be recognised for its heritage. Would you go to Liverpool if you were going away for the weekend? No, you wouldn't, but you would come to Windsor. We are actually the gateway to the Hawkesbury. We should be marketing what we have and building upon our assets. That's what makes us unique. Those assets are from all itself. It attracts many tourists to our town. They come here to soak up the heritage and the ambience of our charismatic town. Windsor is unique. The old church on the terrace should be solar lit for all to see, both day and night. Use some of the money to do this rather than to demolish our beautiful mall.

Don't strip our assets. The plan also shows a walkway from Windsor across to McQuarie Park. This is insanity. We have a walkway already, and that is the old Windsor Bridge. Why not restore this bridge and use it as the walkway? Do not waste money and build yet another bridge. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. Do not asset strip. Best practice should always be applied. It is not the best practice to strip our assets. Our mall should remain a pedestrian mall. Thank you. I do have a couple of photos that I could show you, if you would be able to see them. Quite a few years ago, we actually gave photos to Jeff Organ of how we would like to see the pavers painted on the mall. I can show you this if you can see.

Probably a little hard to see. It might be better to email that in. Yeah. Happy to take questions.

Yes, certainly.

Any questions, councillors? No? Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, Ms. Kelly

Councillor Sam, Councillor Sam.

Well, if we've concluded our speakers from the gallery, I have a form of words that I'd like to propose as a motion. Okay. All right then. Now, I've sent this to Mr. Maclellan prior to the meeting. It is effectively that points one, two and four remain as they are in the business paper; that point three is amended to state that Council approve the list of projects outlined in the body of the report for detailed design, excluding the proposal for Borriwen Park in South Windsor, and that an additional point be added, point five, that Council investigate opportunities to work with business operators and owners in South Windsor to improve facades and shopfronts, this investigation to be reported back to Council with a recommendation of whether or not to proceed to detailed design for this work within two months.

And that form of words has been provided . I'll seek a seconder and then speak to that. Seconder ?

I'll second that, Mr. Mayor.

Who was that, sorry? I believe that was Councillor Tree. Thank you, second. Moved Councillor Sam, seconded Councillor Tree. Councillor Sam, do you want to speak to that?

Yes, I will. So I'll just explain the nub of the motion that I've put. So firstly, the first thing to state is that I don't want to unnecessarily hold up the bulk of this work because I think in times like these, we shouldn't be placing impediments in the way of getting shovels in the ground and seeing the benefit to the community and the economic stimulus that that represents. Nevertheless , I'm unconvinced that the particular plan that's been advanced for Borriwen Park in South Windsor is the best expenditure of our money, and that generally my principle is that we should be focusing as much... of our attention on improvements that can generate economic activity. So if some of that resource can be redirected into liaising with the shop owners in the strip of shops at South Windsor, we may be able to do a better job of that money by working with those people to renovate awnings and to improve access and to look more closely at a variety of options.

The footpath could be widened. You could take George Street in just that location near the shops down to one lane on the basis that adjacent parallel roads like Macquarie Road and Church Road are well able to accommodate traffic coming in the other direction. You could have nose-to-kerb parking and you could increase the total amount of parking that was available if there was only one lane for traffic. You could encourage alfresco dining, and I think all of those things would be a better use of that money than spending it on Brewin Park. So I invite councillors to support or comment on that. The other comment that I'd make is that Mr. Peat and Mr. Woodbury, I was very glad that they made the contribution that they did because it rather underlines my point that our focus should be on things that generate economic activity.

I'd like to allay Mr. Woodbury's particular concern that the water wheel would be demolished. That's not the case. Page 83 of the draft master plan says that it's the southern part of the mall that's going to be reopened between Fitzgerald Street and Cable Streets. The water wheel is in the northern part of the mall and I wouldn't dream of touching the water wheel. I think it's a really iconic location in the Hawkesbury. But that then leads me to remark that The Liberals took the possibility of reopening the mall to the last election as an election commitment, but it was contingent on there being a demonstrated case for that. I don't want to reopen the mall for its own sake or for the sake of some kind of change.

What I really wanted was for this master planning process to look at the example that other towns teach us about malls that were put in and then those decisions that were subsequently reversed years later, the example of the entrances cited. I'm sure there are others. Despite the fact that Urbis's report runs to 230 pages, there's no analysis about whether there is an accepted position about whether malls generally are a good idea or not, and whether you tangibly fix a particular problem by taking a pedestrian mall and reopening it to traffic in some way. And I'm disappointed that the draft master plan doesn't address that with some scientific data about whether it will generate more economic activity or fix a particular problem.

And another councillor may seek to add another dot point to the motion, which I'd be happy to consider, about whether we go back to Urbis and ask them whether such data exists or whether perhaps I've just missed it . I commend it to you. Thank you . Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A question, if I may, to the Director of Planning, I think it would be.

What we're looking at tonight is a detailed design. We're not looking on actually... Parts of this draft master plan we're going to proceed with. Is that right?

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, that's correct. We're just looking at what projects will move into detailed design for Council to consider once we've got those designs.

Okay, so once we, for example, with Berowra Park, would we save much money by not having a detailed design plan done for that?

I couldn't say how much money it would cost to do the detailed design for the park, but I suppose , you know, it'd be a few thousand dollars that we'd be saving if we didn't look at that project.

Okay. May I speak to the amendment, Councillor Zamprogno, Mr Mayor? Yes, Councillor Reynolds, go ahead. Thank you. I'm speaking against it purely on the basis that I don't think we should lose this opportunity to have the detailed design done. It doesn't mean we have to go ahead and do it. We may all well decide not to go ahead with it when the time comes to decide which parts of the master plan we're going to do with the funds available. But I think it's unwise to rule this out when it's unlikely we'll ever get a chance to look at it again in toto with the rest of the town, especially from an economic point of view. We have to remember when trains pull up at the station and look out their window, if they're not looking at the station platform, they're looking at Berowra Park, and so it's basically the gateway to South Windsor.

So the more inviting that is, the better it has to be for the economics of Windsor. Plus, of course, this is an economic issue, but there is also the social issue. I grew up in South Windsor. That has always been basically a site of stockpile for the DMR and the RTA and now the RMS. I don't think that's a really good thing for people to see when they come into town. And as well as that, we know from the Heritage Committee at the moment that students from, I think it's the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales are doing geophysical and ground penetrating radar studies to figure out where people are buried in the cemetery. I don't think we should throw all this out. Purely because we may not go ahead with it in the future.

I think we should get the detailed design done, and then we can make an informed decision after that. So I don't support the motion, or the Councillor Zamprogno's amendment, rather, on that basis. I think we should take advantage of the situation and get it done now. So we've got a big helicopter view of Windsor, South Windsor. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Can I just ask a question? Hosie, you've spoken against essentially point 3 of the motion. Are you also against point 5?

No. No.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm against it on the basis of point 3.

Yeah, and I just want, in case anybody wants to, in case Councillor Zamprogno or somebody else wants to move something else. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had a question because I'm interested to hear the input of the other councillors about this, and I don't have an issue with investigating the shop fronts and the facades in South Windsor. I think that would be a marvellous thing to do. I'm just wondering if that is actually, first of all, was this brought up in the submissions when the consultation has been on? And also, is it actually a master planning thing, or is it in itself more of the detail that would come through another further design?

Director of City Planning

Okay, so thank you. So in terms of the shop fronts, that would be more of a Main Street discussion. So there is a Main Street program going on within the businesses in South Windsor at the moment, and they are looking to, you know, do small things now to improve their shop fronts, whether it's flowers in the windows or, you know, those kinds of things. I suppose the work through the economic development program would be that, you know, we could be looking to work with business operators and ongoing fashion and business owners or the real estate agents to address, you know, whether there's opportunities to deal with vacancies or, you know, look at shop fronts and facade improvements. Ultimately, it's all under the umbrella of liveability, but specifically, does it have to be, you know, this funding?

Not necessarily, but it is work that we'll be doing under the overall: how do you revitalize town centres? How do you make them active both day and night? And how do you just generally make them look good? Which ultimately the community have been very strong about saying, you know, we're really excited about this. And the speakers tonight were also saying they're very excited about this. You know, it is about making our town centres more attractive and clean and inviting.

Thank you

Councillor Cutlass.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Actually, I think my questions have been answered, but

I'll just make a comment on the excluding Rowena Park. I agree that we shouldn't do that at this stage. I think that

It's the liveability aspects of South Windsor, I think, would be improved by that linkage between those two parks. And I think that— I think that the money involved in the planning of this will probably be well spent. I'm not certain I agree with that. I would support point three, but I would support point five. A question about point five. I'm just trying to whiz through the details of the plan now, but could I get somebody to comment on those aspects of brightening up South Windsor, like the facades and the shopfronts? I think the Director of Planning just commented on it, but I was under the understanding that was already in this plan.

What's the question exactly, Councillor Collish?

Is point five already included in the plan? It seems like point five is for additional work to be done. Can I just get clarification?

Yeah, I’ll refer that to the Director of City Planning.

Thank you. Thank you. It's work that would be complementary to the public domain improvements. Ultimately, the works that we're proposing for South Windsor would be things like landscaping, tree planting, parklets that create outdoor dining opportunities to support the businesses. But then it would all sit part and parcel with any work that we do with businesses where they would then do their shopfronts. The Liveability Program is a grant; it's obviously state government funding, so we can't actually spend it on private property. So the work would be businesses would do work to their shopfronts, obviously we’d work with them on that, but ultimately, if they're going to do improvements that cost money, then they would have to spend that money, while we're doing the public domain area, which is where we can spend the money.

Thank you. Mr Mayor, can I ask another question?

Are you able to, is somebody able to tell us what the percentage of expenditure would be

On Berrina Park, sorry, I find that hard to say, compared to the other works in South Windsor? I'm just trying to get a feel for how much money we might be saving if we didn't do planning for this.

Yeah, well, I suppose that's a difficult question to answer in that, I suppose with other, it would be a similar approach that we've done with master plans for other parks, where we might have a master plan that says, you know, this is going to cost $4 million. However, we know we do not have $4 million, so it's a staged process. So it'd be a similar approach where we might then say, okay, you know, in the first, we'd have a, develop a master plan, taking into account, you know, obviously situations around, people might be buried, et cetera. But, you know, it might be then where, you know, stage one might be some trees and some, you know, seating, we're encouraging some people with picnics or, you know, a pathway and some landscaping, through to, you know, bigger projects which could be, you know, an outdoor court of some kind, whether it's basketball or whatever is needed by the community.

So, but ultimately the plan would give you the option to scope it up or scale it up or down depending on the budget. I suppose the other point to be made, and I think, is that, you know, the more projects, and I'm not advocating that, you know, really for or against what's being proposed, and I fully understand where Council is coming from. I suppose from a detailed planning point of view, the more projects we've got sitting on the shelf, we'd be then looking for any other money that is available from grants that we can then be applying for in terms of, you know, getting money.

Yep. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment to this motion. So the original recommendation in the business paper, with some additions to point 2, which I've sent through to Mr McElroy.

Okay.

So there's some caveats around point 2.

Do you want me to detail them while we're waiting?

Yeah, I think so. Yep.

Okay. So it's the original point 2 from the business paper, with the following caveats: A, no commitment to open the south end of Windsor Mall; B, no endorsement of a bridge to Windsor Beach due to feasibility concerns; C, retain the water wheel and gas lights in Windsor Mall; D, note the delicate balance between heritage, flooding, increased density and building style is not adequately addressed; and E, recommend that any new three- or four-storey residential development includes setbacks with the front storey lower and prevention of shading and overlooking of lower-density adjacent blocks. So they're effectively things that I believe, having been closely involved in this process, haven't been adequately addressed in the information that's come back to Council, and you can see some of that being raised in the discussions tonight. So particularly—

Perhaps could you just ask for a seconder briefly?

I'll second.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. So in particular, this doesn't preclude some design around opening the south end of the mall, but I think it's important that Council notes that we aren't committing to— To opening that end of the mall. Similarly with the proposed bridge. What I'm concerned about with this master plan is that even though we're looking at this as a stepping stone to some more detailed design before we accept any of these changes, we are in fact endorsing this master plan this evening, and there are flaws in it. And I would like to have these things on record if there are a position of council before we move to accept it. You've heard about, I don't need to go into the stuff around the waterwheel and the gas lights, clearly beloved by the community and part of Windsor's character, and people are very, very keen to retain them.

We know from the place score work that's been done here in the past that heritage is a key issue and a key thing that people want to retain about Windsor. Again, I'm not sure that that's adequately addressed, nor is adequately spelt correctly in the amendment. That's my fault. And also I think it's pivotal if we are going to talk about increased development, that we talk about the terms that that increased density should be given. You'll notice in the master plan that there's some purple drawings on the plans that indicate areas that are ripe for increased residential development. I'm not sure that the master plan considers the flooding constraints nor the heritage constraints of a number of those properties.

And I also wouldn't like to see unattractive residential development that is not in keeping with the style of both Windsor and Richmond, which we know is what brings people both to live and to spend money as tourists and to visit our towns. And I think we need to make very clear council's position on this. On Burriwan Park, I think it would be short-sighted to remove it from the detailed design at this point. It— This, it's not a big part of the program. It won't attract a lot of funding. It's a very complicated site, particularly because there are, to be frank, a lot of bodies buried there, and we don't know where they are. And you heard from Councillor Reynolds that there's a project going with one of the universities using ground-penetrating radar, probably the three most exciting words ever uttered in a Heritage Advisory Committee, to try and work out exactly which parts of that park aren't constrained by grave sites.

So it will never be a big park. It will never be a park that's heavily used. But what it does provide is very key links between South Windsor and Windsor Station, and I think it would be a real lost opportunity with a project that's looking at linkage, and particularly green linkages, to leave that looking as an ugly barren piece of land between the train station where people get out and walk, or where people drive past and not make a plan for the future for that. I also want to particularly acknowledge the work of the Town Centre's working group here. It's been a difficult journey for them. This project has morphed a number of times from when we didn't have very much money at all to when we got a little bit of money from Windsor RSL, which enabled them to get more poker machines and us to put some murals in, not something we were necessarily keen on, the poker machines.

But they've now taken on this town centre master planning role, and they've really given their all to this. I will be really sorry to see this committee disbanded. I think they have a lot to give. Many of them are now involved in the Jumpstart program, which is also involved in some revitalisation and tidying up, I guess, work in South Windsor. And what I'm seeing from some of the comments from the other councillors is that we've not done a particularly good job in getting the information between that working group and the other councillors and the Jumpstart program as well. And I think we probably do need this to come to a briefing where we talk in more detail. Perhaps we meet with the members of the Jumpstart groups, both in Windsor and Richmond, so that councillors really have an idea of what's happening on the ground with those businesses.

It's one of the failings, I think, of a working group where the minutes don't come back to council for discussion, and we don't hear that information. So I hope that councillors can support this. I think this is probably the best way forward at this point. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I'll just step in here. I think your motion is quite—your amendment, sorry, is quite sensible and lists out a few of the problems. And I think it's important to note these will be statements of intent rather than—obviously there's documents that have to be used to back these up—but it's just our message out to the community. I did wonder whether you would— what you thought about Councillor Zamprogno's point number five. Just trying to read the room, it doesn't seem like there was a lot of support for his point number three, and I wondered if we could merge these two if you and Councillor Zamprogno both agreed on that.

Look, I'm happy to do that. I think it's probably outside the master planning realm, but there is work being done in South Windsor, and I think we need to hear about it. So I'm not sure whether we need a full report, but we certainly need a briefing on what's happening.

Mr Mayor, I was going to assist you and suggest precisely that. Anticipating the success of Councillor Wheeler's amendment, I was going to put to her myself her willingness to incorporate point five. My point five into the motion, and then go further with a question to staff first

And then — Hold on a second. So I think what we're doing here before we go any further is, so Council, are you happy to include point five?

I am, Mr Mayor, but notice that point three that's on the screen isn't my point three, so I don't intend to include

3

1.

Okay. Yeah, I think that was— I don't know how that happened.

If we could just have that corrected, I'm happy to include point five

Okay. And then so we have the point five from the original motion, and Councillors, then withdrawing your motion, this will become the motion.

I would be willing, subject to the answer to one further question, if I might. All right, go ahead and ask it then. So this is a question for staff, but through you, Mr Mayor. Am I incorrect in concluding that the extensive urban report nevertheless does not address the general question of whether the mall, or whether malls generally, are an economic deadener, and whether you fix a particular problem by reopening a mall, and what the experiences of other towns that have gone through this exercise have been? Because it seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question. We certainly heard from our public speakers that this is very much at issue, and I want to know what the data says. Have our expensive consultants addressed this question, or should we ask for more information? Okay, I refer that to the Director of City Planning. Okay,

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. In terms of the work that Urbis did, they obviously have looked at a range of other town centres and work that's been done in public domain improvements because they've also done a lot of, you know, master planning and public domain planning previously. The detailed design, apart from, you know, obviously giving you design options, particularly around opening a mall, which can be, as we can see, a very contentious issue, it would be supported by other evidence and data. So the intent from staff's point of view was that with most of these projects, the public domain, you know, design would give you the design details and the costings. However, with the option of opening the mall, that is a decision that Council would need to make, and we were not planning to give just a, you know, here's a look good project, but give you the data that says here are other centres that have open malls or other centres that have malls, give you information around pedestrian counts, issues around safety.

There's all of these factors that would be looked at in relation to the pros and cons of opening the mall. Now, I suppose I can say that from experience, yeah , you don't just pick up a project and plonk it in a town centre and think it's going to work just because it's worked somewhere else. It would be looked at within the context of Windsor. How is it working? And then Council can make a decision through facts and be informed. I mean, at the end of the day, the information might actually come back saying, you know, we have looked at all of the information and, you know, maybe the best option may not be opening the mall. This has come up through consultation. This has come up through looking at other town centres and it's being put forward to Council for consideration.

The detailed design focus would be giving you more information for your consideration.

So through you, Mr Mayor. So if I understand you correctly, Ms Perrin, it wasn't the intention of the current urbanes report to address that question. But if we give you a go-ahead tonight to do the detailed design work, that data would be what would be coming back to us next.

Yes. So the urbanes work was about broader public domain, coming up with a range of projects. And I suppose they didn't go into detail around each and every project, the pros and cons. It's just giving you, I mean obviously, you know, there are pros and cons that are quite self-evident, for instance tree planting, urban heat, greening, et cetera, et cetera. But, you know, even then, you know, Council, if we were to progress an idea, we would be giving you data around the pros and cons of tree planting.

All right then. So, Mr Mayor, just assist me. I mean, I'm reading the room and I'm listening to everybody carefully. I'm happy to yield to Councillor Wheeler if you and the others suggest that the motion that she's put would be more acceptable. I won't force it to a vote on my motion first. If that's agreeable, I'll yield. Thank you

Councillor. So the motion on the screen is the motion that we're discussing in that case. There's a lot of hands still up. We've had speakers for and against different parts of this motion. Does anyone still wish to add anything? Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did have my hand up for quite a long time, but anyway, what I want to add here is I think we need to listen very carefully to the speakers tonight, who obviously, all of them have had and are investing heavily in Windsor and good on them, and I thank them for that investment. But also, I thought they gave a very compelling case as to why we should take the opening of the south part of the mall off the table. I just don't think we should. I think we need to send a signal to businesses and people who have invested for many years and want to continue to invest, we should give them quite A degree of certainty that we are not keeping this aspect of this master plan going. We just take it off the table, we leave it the mall as is, and we listen to the people who've come tonight, who have businesses, who operate businesses, who want to continue.

Give them the certainty their businesses are safe and that we continue on along that line, and we improve the mall. We make it better, more friendly, lots of trees and so on and so on. I like particular views that, or ideas that came from Miss Kelly about the tree design and the mysterious and so on. I think that's a great idea. The other thing I want to add, Mr Mayor, is that I've spoken with a number of people in South Windsor now about the master plan and in particular the rejuvenation or the making of Peregrine Park something that the South Windsor people could take on and become proud of. I heard several comments saying to me that, Oh, goodness me, for once Council is considering residents of South Windsor.

So I would be very much against include or taking out the further study of Peregrine Park. I think it can be made quite a part of the station, the whole vista as people come in along the railway line and also for the residents of South Windsor. I think they need a boost as much as the northern part of Windsor, and I think to take that off, we are sending a very bad signal to the residents of South Windsor. And finally, Mr Mayor, I think what we need to do is make sure that we've had another, or an earlier master plan, as I recall, and I think Ms Kelly would too, some years ago the Council spent tens of thousands of dollars on, and most of it was just wasted and duds. I just hope that once we get down to the final detailed planning design of this, that we actually then commit to actually getting on and doing it.

Windsor needs that boost, South Windsor needs that boost, Richmond needs that boost, so the sooner we get on with it, the sooner a lot of the committees that are working hard to rejuvenate our town centres will have their work acknowledged and also celebrated. And finally, I'm not inclined to support item number five on this motion. I think, as City Town Planner said, there is business going, there are consultations and aspects of that element of it going in other areas and being done by other groups and work, and I think we could— this is not a master planning exercise. It belongs in a different forum and it is being dealt with in a different forum. So I'm really not terribly keen on point number five.

Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am unable to support any one of the elements of this amended motion for the following reasons. Number one, the Urbis report was, to say the least, underwhelming as a document, and I believe it has not served and is not serving Council well because I do not believe that they had any appreciation of the particular characteristics of each of the three urban centres and townships about which we're speaking. Furthermore , in regard to point two , I am firmly opposed to any alteration to the southern section of the mall. I support the three business people who have spoken tonight seeking its retention, and the fact that staff and my fellow councillors should be aware that that is part of the very distinct heritage precinct of the area.

And the two things going for Windsor are heritage and the river. We have to work with them, and Mr Pete's proposal to relocate a business will improve pedestrian traffic, I am absolutely sure of, having seen the patronage that he gains from that business. Furthermore, there appears not to have been any consideration of a public convenience or toilet, shall we say, in the area of Thompson Square, and that is an absolute necessity. There are signs around the Macquarie Arms Hotel indicating that they don't want —

Visitors to the area frequenting only the conveniences and not affording them any business, which is quite correct. The consideration of a public toilet, wherever we place it in that area, it will assist these businesses and assist the tourism trade.

Right. Then we move to South Windsor . The Berowra Park, should I say, sorry, should not be touched. And the reason for that is that if Council, as it has told the GSC and everybody else, we want a duplicated rail service to Richmond,

It strikes me that the Berowra Park is going to be the part of the route. So it is therefore most inadvisable to start doing anything in that area adjacent to the rail line. It is also an area used by Transport for New South Wales to access the permanent way, as they have done in the last period in which I've been on Council, frequently to undertake maintenance works and other activities. Required to maintain the rail service. Furthermore, at the end , closer to the Windsor Country Club, there is an element of the land there

Which would be a suitable building site, if it were possible to readjust the nomenclature of the crown land to enable the construction of affordable or low-cost housing in that area, which would be a perfectly attractive site, central, and so on. And furthermore, any work in Berowra Park is at the deficit of McLeod Park. We've already spent quite a lot of money this term in improving the facilities up in McLeod Park. The deficiency there at the moment, frankly, is the public toilet again. If that were improved and some better seating and accommodation there, that would facilitate the visitor element and the working folk who choose to have a coffee break or a meal. Further to that, the proposal by my fellow councillor earlier indicating that George Street ought to be reduced to a single-lane traffic thoroughfare is just a revisiting of a plan previously put forward by a former councillor engineer, which was firmly rejected, and I am sure would absolutely not find any— Agreement from the retailers, nor would it be practical in terms of saying, well, Macquarie Street can take the load.

Unfortunately, what the proposal from the former engineer was also going to do was to put higher traffic loads in both Cox and Church Streets as rat runs. And the location of the oasis happened to be at that particular spot to stop a rat run in Church Street.

Sorry, your time has expired, so just get you to wrap up if possible.

Yes, I shall do quite soon. Thank you.

I believe that Richmond also has not been appreciated for its ambience as a distinct rural town of some note and character because of its buildings and so on. I agree that some improvement to the park area and possibly the gardens and so on would be fine, as may be some hanging gardens down in the main street. The other area that needs attention in Richmond is the parking area behind the Windsor Mall and possibly up in the Coles area. Those areas would be well worthy of some consideration by the Council without too great an expense. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And thank you to Councillor Wheeler for bringing this amendment. I know she has a lot of valuable contribution, having worked on this project since its inception, and also liaises a lot with the business people. I'd like to thank the Town Centres Committee for their wonderful contribution and their hard work, and I'd really like to thank the speakers who came tonight, because I think that their input to, first of all, know that they have had the confidence to invest in our town centres, particularly in multiple businesses, I think that's a really great thing that they've done. And I really liked when Mr Pede said that we need to work with what we've got, and I think that's a really good fundamental thing to remember, that we do have so much in Windsor that we don't need to take everything away.

We can actually build on what we've got because it's such a unique and beautiful place. So thank you for that. And another point that he raised, and that also Mr Woodbury raised, in that doing small things can make a really big difference and get people really interested and enthused and supportive of what's going on. I was somewhat disappointed to see that there was nothing in the rankings of priorities of doing anything down near our cultural precinct, down near the library. And in that area of town, and I'd like it to just be to really keep at the forefront of our mind that when we discuss about these things, it's very important not to make it look that just one small area is getting all the funding directed at it, but to emphasise the benefits that it will bring to the whole town centre.

If something is done in one end of town, and as Mr. Peed said, he's opening on the southern end of the mall to reinvigorate that area a bit more, and his expectation is that other tenants will go into various empty shops there, and that will get that part of town going as well. So we have to remember we've got a long strip, and that we need the benefits to flow. If there's something like the greening of the town centre or whatever, we need the people in the other areas to understand they will also benefit, even if it looks as if it's centred in one particular place. With regard to the mall, the status of the mall, I think, will be driven by economic factors specific to Windsor and specific to this time in the economic climate, which is of course quite unique at the moment, as we know.

And I think we need to be informed by the people who have invested in the town and who are telling us what they think will work, because they're the people there every day. I don't think that people saying that they opened High Street Mall in Penrith is at all relevant, because Penrith's a totally different shopping place. So I know that companies look at other areas, but I think there's nothing more valuable than having the input of the people who really understand how the retail sector, how the town centre is actually operating at this point of time, and showing us what particular strengths that we have there that we can capitalise on. And as Mrs. Kelly said, we should not be asset stripping.

We shouldn't, you know, we've lost a lot already in Windsor. We shouldn't be losing more. We should be building on what... On what we've got and beautifying around that and capitalising on the very valuable attributes that we have in Windsor. I think with the park,

You know, I don't think, as Councillor Ross said, if the RTA are going to duplicate the rail line, which I've been waiting for all my life, I don't think that it's going to take up much space. That park is quite sizeable. I think that doing something to enhance it and beautify it, as it is a spot where you get off the train, also to make it more conducive for people to walk between South Windsor and Windsor, I think that not a lot of money would have to be spent there. I don't think it's going to have a big playground or whatever. I don't know what's planned for it, but I think that it's a valuable piece of public space which could do with an uplift, and I think definitely looking at that would be good to do, as people have pointed out.

The only other thing I would point out is that there still seems to be some bits and pieces, so I don't know if someone, if I move it or if the mover of the motion, the amendment, Councillor Williams wants to move it, but maybe these need to be voted in seriatim. I'm not sure. That's just maybe a point to consider. Thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Bill, you've got your hand up. Did you want to speak again?

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things, if I may, Mr Mayor. I realise I've spoken previously. In response to Councillor Rasmussen's comments relating to point 2A, I'm happy to amend that to read that Council does not intend to open the south end of Windsor Mall, if councillors would prefer that. My intention in leaving point A worded the way it is, I suppose, is so that we can receive information about both options. It's not my intention to open Windsor Mall, but I certainly take Councillor Rasmussen's point that it's helpful for businesses to have some certainty around that issue. So if councillors would prefer that, prefer 2A firmed up, I'm quite happy to do that. And I just wanted to answer the comments from the Deputy Mayor about business owners in particular feeling that the work in Windsor was centred around Windsor Mall.

And I think it's important to understand that the green corridor that Council is planning in this master plan is intended to run from the top of Windsor Mall and from, in fact, beyond that, from Thompson Square down to the train station. What the detailed planning will show us is exactly what we can get for our money. So the intention with the green corridor is from, in Windsor, the entire length of George Street down to the station. South Windsor similarly, George Street from the shopping precinct back up to Windsor Station. And again in Richmond from the roundabout in Bosworth Street down to the intersection with the station and possibly a little bit beyond through that entire main street shopping strip.

So I want to reassure business owners that who are outside the mall or who are outside what they consider to be the preferred parts of the shopping precincts, that everyone will benefit from this work. And that's why that green grid is so important. It connects both ends of town, but it also provides, in particular, some alleviation to the heat and glare that keeps people from walking through the businesses. And what we know from all the information we've received from town planners and town revitalisation experts over the past four years is that people in cars don't spend money. People walking spend money. They're the ones who open their wallets, and that's what we need to get in our town centres.

Thanks, Councillor. I just want to clarify. So I think we're at the moment with this motion here. So Councillors have probably accepted all your changes to this motion, but I wasn't sure from what you just said if you wanted to now move an amendment to change point two.

I think it's important that we get as much support for this motion as possible, Mr Mayor, because it's really important as a way forward for Council. So look, I know it's irregular, but perhaps a bit of a straw poll on A, whether we want to make the decision about Windsor Mall now, or we want some more information before we make that decision, you know, whether it's business certainty or information that we're going for. I'm not committed either way.

Mr Mayor. Well, I might, I would just speak at this point and say that I think, you know, I think the motion as it's drafted gives us the, you know, similar to what people are saying about the park in South Windsor, that we get the information, we don't rule it out, then we make a decision once we've done the planning. I think the same can be said for this item. But I don't think we've got any way to do a straw poll. It would be easier. So I think if we want to do that, we're going to have to move an amendment. In the absence of anyone moving an amendment, I'll let Councillor Zamprogno have right of reply.

All right. It's simply to request that Councillor Wheeler leaves her suggested motion as we

Presently see it. Sorry , Councillor Zamprogno, sorry. At the moment, this is the motion, it's your motion and you've got right of reply.

All right then. Well, what I'm trying to consolidate things here, Councillor Wheeler has my support with the form of words that's before us now. If it were to move beyond that and to reflect an active intent to reject even the investigation of reopening the mall, then I'm afraid she'd lose me. So I'd recommend to her if she keep things the way that they are. I don't want to tie staff hands who appear, based on what Ms Perrine said, to be in the process of Coming back to us with the data that we're looking for, and that is some objective information about whether opening malls and opening our mall in particular is a good idea. If we sent that signal now, it would effectively tie their hands, and they wouldn't be even conducting that investigation and coming back to us with the data that we've asked for. All right, well that's right of reply

So we'll put the motion as is on the board. I'll just wait until the screen comes down so that I can see. Mr Mayor, whose motion is this ? So the motion was moved by Councillor Zamprogno, who then accepted the changes that Councillor Wheeler put up, and so that's why we only had one motion.

I thought she put up an amendment.

She did, yeah, and then Councillor Wheeler put up an amendment, and then Councillor Zamprogno accepted all the changes that Councillor Wheeler had suggested, so that became the motion. But the original mover of the motion is the mover of

The motion. And Councillor Wheeler withdrew her amendment.

Well, we can— I didn't hear that she withdrew it. So is this a point of order?

Yes, it is.

Yeah, okay. So you can't have an amendment that's the exact same as the motion, Councillor Rasmussen. So all the changes suggested in the amendment have been taken up in the original motion. So we could vote twice on the same thing, the exact same motion, or we could just move on now. So I'll overrule the point of order and we'll go to a vote. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand.

So in favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Conolly opposed the motion. Councillor Ross declared carried.

So we now move on to the items on block. There are three items on block.

So we now move on to the items on block. There are three items on block: item 186, 188 and 19— sorry, 189 and 190. Someone want to move those? Moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? I declare it carried.

Using your blue hands if you want to move something.

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

Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. The recommendation, seconded Deputy Mayor. Any discussion?

If you could use your hands, that’d be good. But Councillors—well, not your actual hands, your blue hands. Councillor Zamprogno.

Point of order, did I—was there a seconder? I didn’t catch that. There’s a seconder by the Deputy Mayor. Oh, excellent. Thank you.

Look, I want to get this through, but I want to have a grizzle about it on the way, and it’s a well-worn path for me. The State Government imposed the Northwest Growth Precinct on us, Vineyard Stage 1 and Vineyard Stage 2. There was a pot of money for state infrastructure called the Local Infrastructure Growth Scheme. It was a pot of 369 million dollars to allow infrastructure to go in. We weren’t eligible for it. We put together our developer contribution plan , as everybody well knows. The amount that we were intending to spend per block was identical to what’s being spent next door at Box Hill. IPART knocked us back. I’m baffled at that outcome. The State Government were offering 32,000 dollars per block within a kilometre or two of the land that we’re now going to be developing at Vineyard Stage 1, allowing their developer contributions to be capped at 40,000.

As it is, we're going to be asking developers to contribute the lot, which of course has an effect on the land prices, and I think the state government have treated us very shabbily. Nevertheless, if this is the best that we can get , then we have an obligation to get to it. Therefore, I endorse it.

Councillor Soprano, Councillor Ross.

Thank

You, Mr Mayor. I have forwarded staff a proposed amendment to the recommendation, which I believe staff should have, and I would like to move that, please.

Just wait till we see it and see if we have a seconder.

Could it be put up on the board?

No. Trying. Okay

Is there a seconder for Councillor Ross's motion or amendment?

If everyone has a second to read it, but if there's no seconder, it will fall there.

There's no seconder for that amendment, Councillor Ross. Did you wish to speak to the motion?

Sorry, you're on mute again, Councillor Ross.

I don't know that I'd have permission to do so without a seconder.

No, not this amendment. I'm asking if you want to speak to the motion.

I'll speak against it.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Well, as I indicated in my proposal, there has been a report issued by the Auditor-General dated the 17th of August, which was further informed by

Legal interpretations provided by the Crown Solicitor in regard to the matters at issue here. I think it is very unwise for this council, given that we are looking at a contribution plan with a lifespan of 15 years and not subject to review for the first three years, that we just barrel ahead without even this draft plan having been subjected to either a council briefing because, as is indicated by the date on the consultant's report, it has been received earlier this month. I do not believe that's appropriate under the circumstances. A $170 million contribution plan is way more than this council has had to embrace or contend with at any stage of its life, and I believe it would be less than diligent on our part to hasten.

When already, since the release of the DCP, there has been three years elapsed with towing and fraying between the DPIE and IPART, etc. I believe it would profit the Council to take a little time to make sure that we are fully appraised of what the Auditor-General has said in relation to the activities of four other local government areas in what I would describe as a seminal report on its behalf. And I believe also that in future years, this Council may be subject to the same scrutiny. And I cannot support adoption of this item at this time without some further consideration be given. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I just ask a question? I have read that report today, and it does have some interesting insights into the contributions situation. I thought it was a very interesting report. I'm just wondering if our senior management are aware of it and if they've read it, if someone could answer that first, please

General Manager.

Mr Mayor , we're familiar.. .

I'll just wait. So one thing, Linda. Mr Mayor, we're familiar with the report. It's been prepared in relation to four councils. It was conducted by IPART, and IPART have also reviewed our contributions plan, as have the Department of Planning. So our plan's been peer reviewed by two government organisations, one of which completed the review in relation to the four other councils. Linda, you might want to add some other things perhaps.

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, yes. Not only have we aware of the report, we've actually read through the findings and have had initial discussions within our internal contributions steering committee to look at the findings and see what we need to learn from what's been found from here. So it is a number of matters have been raised, but there's a number of things that are working well, and I'm happy to provide a briefing to councillors to take them through those findings and how we'll be addressing that within our own ongoing management of contributions.

Thank you for that. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, that answers it. And I knew that, I echo Councillor Zamprogno's comments that I too have had issues with this whole thing. And of course, we know that this has been around for a long time, trying to get this through, and I think it is important that it does go through. I think there has been enough scrutiny of it. I mean, each time it's gone for review, we've had things changed and we've been alerted to the changes and so on. I think that we have to get on with it as we've been directed by the State Government to do. And I think that we have learned a lot over the years. There were some significant flaws in the various contributions plans that we've had before. So I think that we've learned a lot, and I think that that report did set out some actions that councils would have to take, some issues that they need to be aware of, and I'm sure that our staff would be doing just that while they're putting this in action.

And I think that even though the review period is three years, I can't see why there couldn't be an interim review of that if there were some questions to be asked. And I don't think there's anything stopping councillors asking for updates on how that is progressing either. Thank you.

Thanks, Tiffany. Could I just ask before we move on that the amendment currently being shown on the screen was not supported, didn't have a seconder, so if that could be taken down to avoid any confusion for people watching. Are there any further speakers? Right of reply, Councillor Zamprogno.

I will briefly remark that in Box Hill, Rouse Hill— Riverstone, Marsden Park and Schofields, the amount of infrastructure spend per block ranges between $82,000 and $90,000 per block. And we are going to be asked to spend as little as $55,000 per block for infrastructure, and we will get what we pay for.

Thank you. All those in favour of the motion? In favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly. Against ? Councillor Ross. Councillor Garry was absent for the vote. Declare that carried.

Next item is item 182. Anybody wish to move anything?

Councillor Richards.

Seconder?

Councillor Zamprogno. Anybody wish to speak?

No. All right, well, I'll put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, and Councillor Conolly. Councillor Gary was absent from the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 184, submission to the draft Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan.

Deputy Mayor?

I'll move that, Mayor.

Move the recommendation. Is there a seconder? Councillor

Rasmussen.

Okay. Anyone wish to speak? Deputy Mayor?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. Yeah

Yes,

I thank the staff for the submission that they've done on this. I think I do have a few issues with the whole concept of this conservation plan, given the magnitude of the development and the extent of land clearing which is going to take place. I think it's very hard to see it as being compatible, to say that we're actually protecting some very vulnerable ecosystems when there is such extensive land clearing. I think the submission, however, has raised some good points. I think we could have had stronger points around the funding. I think the funding suggested is inadequate, and I think we should push much more for more funding, and also much stronger about the mechanisms to protect around protection in perpetuity as a concept.

The proposal to have three officers employed across Western Sydney as compliance officers is—I mean, I'm sorry, but I find it quite laughable because it's a massive expanse of area that you're speaking about. And if they're to implement this plan with any sincerity, I would think that the government really has to come forward and put a lot more money behind that. It's grossly inadequate to not have put funding in place for a long term. I mean, the establishment of any of these alternative places is going to take a lot of work, and I just think that that three officers as a proposal is not satisfactory at all. There's been some good points raised about the wetlands and the need for the enhanced legislation around that.

I'm just wondering, and I'm sure we're going to hear more about what we would be doing to lobby for that further down the track. I think one thing that perhaps we could have had a bit more about was the impacts of urban heat. And it's imperative that when they're putting the funding towards this, that a primary aim is to retain as much of the vegetation that's there, and also to put some money into creating some more reserves because we know how poor the air quality and how heat in Western Sydney is both killing people, literally, and also is a growing problem. And we've seen the increase in Penrith over the time with the massive land clearing around there, of how the urban heat factor has led to these increased temperatures.

So it doesn't matter how many trees you plant there, it's not going to combat the clearing of thousands of hectares of vegetation in that area. So I think that there will be significant increases in temperatures, which will make people, animals and ecosystems very vulnerable. The increased evaporation as well from that heat will dry out the Cumberland Plain and increase the risk of fire. So there's many things around the heat factor that we can't deny, and I don't think that's been addressed enough in the plan, and also probably our submission could have been a bit stronger in that. Another point that I thought was worth raising is that some of the reserves that are included in the area have actually already been used as offsets.

So they've been used as offsets for other developments already, and I'm concerned that there could be some duplication. I haven't had the time to go through all of what the previous developments had as offsets, but I think that I know the Wyana Matter Reserve was used as a place to offset for Jordan Springs development, for example. We've seen the loss of the Cumberland Plain woodland in that area, specifically of Western Sydney. And I think that we need to check that. A lot more will be lost in the corridors when they put the corridors in for the various road linkages and so on. So I think that—I have lost my page where I have my notes. I think it's an excessive amount of the remaining Cumberland Plain woodland to be removed, and I would think that prioritising something that is an endangered, critically endangered ecosystem should be retained as much as they can possibly do.

I just think the emphasis—I understand that it's going to proceed and that they've put a conservation plan in place, but I just think that there's a real— the loss of connectivity that will occur with the way that it's structured is not good. But these are criticisms of the plan itself. In terms of our submission, I think that we have raised the points, particularly about the outdated mapping, which I would have hoped that, you know, that sort of thing would have been updated in this whole doing the western area of Sydney. And I think that I'm happy to endorse the submission. I'll be very interested to see how what other submissions go in from across the fringe of the city where people are set to lose a lot of this vegetation.

And of course, as a trade-off, not that I'm a fan of biodiversity offsets in any shape or form, but we may have some opportunities within the Hawkesbury to protect some of our areas that we want to protect. So, yeah. Thank you for doing that, the submission.

You're on mute, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to add some comments from the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee, who looked at this plan last week, and they actually found it fairly overwhelming in terms of the amount of information that they were required to chew through in the plan. And they chose not to endorse Council's submission because they didn't feel that they had sufficient understanding of both the plan itself and their role in that endorsement. They did, however, make comments regarding some aspects of it. One of the members of the committee described the plan as monstrous, and I think that's probably a fair estimation when you consider just how much Cumberland Plain, critically endangered Cumberland Plain, is due to be lost under this plan.

One of the things that really came out of that discussion, however, was the idea of compulsory acquisition, and I see that that has been included in the revised draft, the revised submission that's now come back to Council. So, particularly following on from the corridor debacle that happened here, there's really strong feeling in the community about compulsory acquisition and locking up of private property to offset government decisions effectively, where private individuals then have their own properties constrained due to decisions of the government to basically, for private profit elsewhere. And unsurprisingly, members of the community felt that that was completely unreasonable. The Deputy Mayor has raised a number of things that are problematic with this conservation plan.

I can't support the conservation plan at all. It's not based on anything scientifically valid that I can see. You can't expect that an ecosystem can be moved from one LGA to another. It's utterly ludicrous that you can devastate a piece of Luddenham or Mulgoa, and do you expect all of that ecosystem, the microbes, the birds, the animals, the insects, to pack their suitcases and move to Bakers Lagoon, described by local land services as a Paspalum paddock, and a Paspalum paddock contaminated with PFAS, I will add. The urban heat stuff is really concerning. That's one of the really concerning aspects of this airport, and let's be clear, this is all about facilitating the Western Sydney Airport, currently on track to become a freight hub rather than anything else.

The urban heat isn't just making Western Sydney unlivable for people; it's going to make Western Sydney unlivable for the Cumberland Plain as we know it as well. We're already hearing from experts that we're losing tree cover not just through clearing but through drought and heat. And the Cumberland Plain itself will drastically change the more development we put in to Western Sydney Parkland. So this is a really concerning development for Western Sydney. There's some bonuses in here for the Hawkesbury because we're not due to be developed much, and so we benefit from these offsets. I am concerned that it's going to bite us down the track financially, that we are going to have to maintain these areas.

We're certainly going to have to be responsible for compliance. The fact that we couldn't do the compliance requirements of this LGA with three people, the idea that you would cover all of Western Sydney, I don't know whether that we're going to be given little Jetson-style hovercraft to get around in, but, I mean, ludicrous to think that three people will be able to police this. So I think there desperately needs to be some—if the government is serious about maintaining the Cumberland Plain, it needs to look at the scientific evidence for biodiversity offsets, which is almost non-existent. It needs to urgently look at connectivity, and it needs to be fair dinkum about compliance and actually protecting this space.

I thank the staff for the work that has gone into this. They've taken on board not only our feedback, but the feedback from the Environmental Sustainability Committee, but this is a vexed issue, and it's a very poor way forward for Western Sydney as a whole. Thank you

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got a few points to make about our submission. I don't think—I agree with the past two speakers that I don't think we've been — Detailed enough in what we've sort of, we've commented on things, but I don't think we've made it clear that we are going to need more support than it seems it's being offered. And just to the point of the three compliance officers that are going to be spread around Western Sydney, we also need to point out, I think, that we need support for the planning assessment. It says on page 56 of the business paper that aspects of this new plan will encompass assessments of development applications and proposals for ecological function, ecological communities, species habitat and population numbers, habitat connectivity and ecosystem resilience.

I don't think we have the ability to be able to do that sort of assessment. We are going to need a lot of support, and that sort of support isn't in the form of a compliance officer that checks on vegetation clearing and rubbish, I think it said, and rubbish dumping, which is a noble pursuit, but that's not going to help a planner that's faced with quite a complex task . So I think we have to, in our submission, ask the question about what sort of support we're going to have be given in that respect, because I think that's going to hit us if we don't make it clear that we probably don't have that level of expertise in-house, or at least we need that sort of support. I think one of the things that I'll say up front is that, and I know this is—I know I preach about this— but biodiversity is not the same as vegetation.

Vegetation is not just biodiversity, and this plan is actually flawed. And I think Councillor Wheeler said this. This is not a biodiversity plan. It seems to me it's just a bit of a vegetation plan, throw in a couple of koalas and off you go. Biodiversity is a really complex scientific concept. It's about every living thing and how it is connected and how it forms systems and thrives. This offsetting is just such a poor, lazy way to pretend you're conserving something. I find it really unacceptable. But nevertheless, we've got this, so we have to make the most of it. And I would suggest, as it says in one of our comments in this plan, that it says that in respect that Council is already undertaking biodiversity mapping.

I think we have to correct that. I think we're undertaking vegetation mapping, and there's a big difference. So that needs to just be clarified, I think. The other thing that's also not—and I don't know whether I could have one of the staff just explain this to me. But it said in here that we agree with the confluence reserve investigation area, and we agree that that's a good place to have some protection. But then it goes on to say that we don't endorse compulsory land acquisition, and we sort of leave that open-ended. Like , I'd like the staff to sort of tell me how we might get that area if we don't have compulsory land acquisitions. So if I could just get an answer to that question, and then I'll go on to the next points I've got.

Madam Manager. I might refer that to Mr. Kearns, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the compulsory acquisition comment, I guess, was feedback from the Environmental Sustainability Committee meeting that we were able to have last week, and so that was the inclusion there. So I guess we're identifying that the idea of a reserve in that location is supported, and, you know, considered part of the green grid. But I guess the concerns of the Environment Committee was the process to acquire that land. They weren't supportive of the compulsory acquisition process. So it's probably more about process of acquiring that land, not forcing the process, essentially

Thank you, Mr. Kearns. Can I suggest we ask that question then instead of ask what the process might be in that regard, instead of kind of leaving it open-ended, like, you know, we think it's a great place to do that, but, you know, we don't agree with the way you're doing it. So, Councillor Kotlash, you've made a couple of suggestions. I just wanted to clarify, are you moving these as an amendment? Is that your intention? If that's what I need to do, yes. Sometimes we, the staff are able to give us some assurances that those things might be able to be addressed without necessarily needing specifics, but I'm happy to. I

Think the motion is to endorse this submission. So I think if we want to include other things, we should note that we endorse the submission on the basis that we include the following items or matters.

Because a few of the things that have raised would strengthen the submission somewhat, so I would be happy to put a list that we'd be suggesting, if we all agree on, that that could be added to strengthen the submission and also frame that, like Councillor Kotlash has just said, that would be very good. That would add to it significantly, as well as strengthening about the planning, you know, some resources for the planning assessment process connected to it, as well as strengthening our desire of retention of as much as possible, and also the three officer thing and the ongoing funding. Those five points, I guess.

Yeah. Sorry, Deputy Mayor, do you mind just listing them out slowly in words we can use again?

Okay. Well, I'll let Councillor Kotlash just put the question she just put, which would be one of them. So if Councillor Kotlash does that, I'll just write the list of the others.

Is that okay, Mr Mayor?

Yep, happy with that.

Okay. The first change that I think we should make is we should make it clear what sort of support we are going to get. for the planning assessments that will be needed around implementing this plan.

Okay. And I might just go back to the Deputy Mayor to add anything else you want. Oh, are you finished? Sorry, Councillor Gais.

No, I have. No ,

Sorry. Sorry .

There you go. Could we have a

Further explanation about the, or a way forward about the Confluence Reserve investigation area and Council's concerns about the compulsory land acquisition and how that might be— at the moment it's just left hanging. So, sorry, I don't quite know how to put that. A further explanation of the process involved in getting that particular investigation area

Might be a more succinct way to put it.

Given that this is our submission, I think it's fine to ask questions rather than make statements as well. Yeah.

Yes, that's right. And those questions are what would be the processes. Yes . What other processes are on offer other than compulsory land acquisitions? That's the question, I guess. And I think I'll leave it to the Deputy Mayor to add the other things which I sort of agreed with. And then I've got one final point.

Do you want to just make your final point for us and then I'll go to

The Deputy Mayor. There's a statement here about certain lands. It says certain lands within the suburbs of Freemans Reach, blah, blah, blah, and it lists all these suburbs. In

The Hawkesbury local government area are within the strategic— Conservation area. Then it goes on to say none of these lands have been identified in the local housing, the employment and rural lands, and the rural lands strategy. Does that statement mean that we should go back and put those particular suburbs that are associated with this plan into those strategies? I don't understand what that statement means.

General Manager?

I refer that to Mr. Kearns, Mr. Mayor .

Yeah, so the statement is essentially saying that none of those strategies identify those sites as future potential investigation areas for rezoning or development. So that's essentially what we're saying. So our plan's identifying those for future development. So

It's not that we need to include

These

Areas in any other plans; it's just to point out that they're not included for anything else. That's correct, yeah.

From an internal council's perspective, should we include those? I mean, why would we mention that?

General Manager or Mr. Kearns?

Mr. Kearns.

Yeah,

We're mentioning that to say that, I guess, there's no conflict with the plans that we have proposed in terms of identifying potential future development sites and this particular plan. So we're not identifying investigation sites that are affected by being protected by the conservation area.

Okay, sorry.

I

Get that now. Sorry, I didn't think that was terribly clear, but maybe you could. .. that's it for me. Thank you for your patience.

I know you hand slipped, Councillor Ross, but I'll just go back to the Deputy Mayor to see if we can get this motion clear first.

Thank you. Yes, I think the other two points were just one regarding strengthening our point regarding the ongoing funding. Particularly towards creation of additional reserves.

And the other one would be to, and related to that as well, express our preference to retain as much as possible of the existing, particularly Cumberland Plain woodland, but just existing ecological communities, to alleviate the impacts of urban heat.

So do we— does, is the minute secretary have all of that on ? Can we get that on the screen? Do we get that all down?

Sorry, I can type it. I can try and type it into the chat if that helps.

It probably would help if you want to do that while I go to Councillor Ross. Okay. Thanks. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My overall understanding of the submission would appear to indicate that there's not been significant thought given to the impact of development, which is, I believe, being promoted here in one form or another, and the consequences in terms of the South Creek and Colebee Chain of Ponds. And I believe it would be

Probably to the advantage of Council if it were to indicate that the flooding that occurred in the month of February . Displayed characteristics not before experienced in living memory, which is attributed to excess development and inability of the catchment to withhold rainfall, and that this

Is a continuing and developing deficit , which is going to have a direct impact on areas adjacent to both of those estuaries or creeks in the coming years, at increasing

Risk and loss of use of those adjacent lands. Thank you. Councillor Ross,

Are there any further speakers?

Have we made any progress getting the motion on the screen? I can see the Deputy Mayor's put it in the chat for us. Or getting there, violently.

Just give it a moment, see if we can get some advice on that. Okay , we're just one minute away, so we might just, for the sake of clarity, just wait a minute until we can get that up on the screen.

I'm sorry for my noisy typing. I didn't realise I wasn't muted. Sorry.

And there might be one more about connectivity that Councillor Wheeler might add as well to strengthen that section. As well, she could start typing.

I was going to say, anything you want to say here, Councillor, because you type it out and just say it to

Make

Sure it doesn't

I'm on an iPad, Mr Mayor. I can't do all those things at once. Sorry. I actually would like some help with the wording, if possible. This might be Councillor Kotlash's area of expertise. I think we need to make the point that we need to retain and increase connectivity to ensure retention of existing biodiversity. And there's, I can't remember what the clause is in the current Biodiversity Act, but it's something about the connectivity and the capacity of the ecosystem to survive due to that connectivity. And I think we probably need to make reference to it, but I don't know what it is.

Any ideas, Councillor Kotlash?

Sorry, I'm not up on that either. I know what you're talking about, but I'm sorry, I don't have specifics. But do we have to be that specific? I mean, I think we can—

No, we don't. The motion here will just be that we endorse this in principle and ask the staff to include these items. So I think as long as we give the staff some direction, I think that's probably enough direction.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, we can always clarify that. I don't think anybody's going to be particularly worried about that. That's not that controversial. Okay . Looking good for

A second. Okay.

Deputy Mayor, can you read

Through those points and tell us if that's what

You intend to move ? Yes, I am, and there's one

Coming from Councillor Wheeler, and I think that, yes, I'm happy with that. I mean, the staff may put that in more, you know, conducive language to the rest of the submission, to fit in with the rest of the submission, but that's definitely the intent of what I meant.

So Councillor Wheeler's , that'll become point F, will be to retain and increase connectivity to ensure retention of biodiversity, with reference to the relevant Act. Who was the seconder of that motion, sorry? Councillor Rasmussen, happy with those words? Could we get that back onto the screen? I was halfway through reading it.

Yes, Mr Mayor, I am. Thank you.

Okay. I think they're probably just updating it before they put it back on the screen share.

Okay. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you want to start your right of reply, actually while we wait for that? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank the other councillors for their input into that. It is a very complex situation to be commenting on it. I think, you know, because we all feel quite strongly about it, and it is such a big thing, such a massive project that's going to occur. So I'm happy to put in this submission. I do hope that the government will be taking these sort of things on board. I'm sure a lot of other councils have raised other issues and so on, so I'll be hoping that they take our submission into consideration and— Thank you for the contributions.

Thank you. So the motion on the screen we'll vote on. I'll just wait for it to come down so I can see everybody.

Mr Mayor, can I just point out that there's a typo in 3E, that ends currently as ‘here as’, which I think is just supposed to be ‘heat’, and perhaps ‘and’ or something. It's the Deputy Mayor's fault. It was her dodgy typing in the chat. I saw it. It

Would be my typing, and there was also typo on page 43 in that it was attachment in point number two in the recommendation included as attachment 2, not 3.

Just so we don't have to get the screen back up and down again, we'll just note that that was meant to be read as ‘heat’, not ‘he as’. All those in favour, could you please raise your hand? In favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly. Any against? Opposed is Councillor Ross, and Councillor Garrow was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

We move on to item 185. We've had advice that the incorrect document was included in the report, and so it would be most appropriate if someone were to move a motion to defer consideration to the next meeting. Moved Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour, if you please raise your hand. Oh , sorry, any discussion I should offer? There being no discussion, we'll put the motion.

Sorry,

Councillor Ross, was it? Yes, thank you. Okay.

Before that late email arrived from the director, I had proposed deferral of consideration of this matter.

I believe that the representation that came, I believe a joint representation that came as a result of the public review of the document, was indeed a very valuable and considered, thoughtful contribution .

I believe further that it would

Benefit Council to consider quite a few of the elements which have been,

Shall we say, put aside, and some responses which appear not to be consistent with what is going on. There are questions of probity and so on, which the correspondent made, which I believe do require addressing by staff, and I don't believe that the responses have been sufficiently considered. It would be great if this matter could be brought to a briefing before it's further tabled. Thank you.

Any further speakers? No, all right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly. Any Councillor goer was absent for the vote, so declared carried.

Move on to item 187.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Move the recommendation.

I move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Is there a seconder for that? Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. Anybody wish to speak to that?

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, what I'd like to do is congratulate the staff on the results that Council has achieved over the full year, and I think it's a worthwhile result. And given the circumstances of all the headwinds that we've faced so far this year and last year, I think it's an admirable result from the staff. And I note that we come out with a slight surplus and therefore also a balanced budget. And I would commend the general financial statements, purpose statements to Councillors. Thank you.

Councillor Ross, you still got your blue hand up. Is that from a previous item or did you wish to speak?

I'd like to speak if it's possible, sir. Yep, go ahead. I'd like to ask a question. There is reference to a $2.6 million, I believe, disaster recovery application or approval. I'd like to inquire of the staff as to whether that applies to both the bushfire period as well as the flooding. And is it true that, is it possible for the staff to identify the amount of that grant which is applicable to unsealed roads within the LGA, please?

General Manager. I refer that to Ms Scalia, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The 2.6 million relates to roads damaged by floods, not fire. In regard to the split in regard to sealed roads, I may need to refer that to the Director Infrastructure Services

If I could add to that, I'd have to come back to you with the detail of that split. We certainly do have it by road and by project, but I need to provide that to you by way of memo if that's satisfactory.

Thank you. Councillor Ross. Thank the staff. My point in raising that is that I find

That the proposal to offset that 2.6 million against asset values to be

Inconsistent with the idea of matching costs and revenue, which is a tenet of accounting. The roadworks which have had to be conducted as a result of the, at least the floods, and certainly to some extent I would think of the bushfires, because of heavy traffic on roads which are not up for that sort of pounding . They were surely repaired prior to June 30. I also saw and understand that the report indicates that there is a valuation being conducted of that infrastructure as at the 30th of June 2020 . Those roads were well and truly serviceable within a short period after the flooding event, and therefore I believe that that proportion of that grant, or however you describe it, should in fact be offset against the no doubt very high expenses incurred by staff and the Council in putting those roads back into a trafficable condition, which have all occurred prior to June and would be surely assessed as fair value as trafficable roads.

Thank you.

Can I just ask a question to clarify, General Manager? The 2.6 million dollars, in relation to— my understanding was an asset write-down based on damaged assets. So is it correct to say that our valuation has showed that our roads are worth 2.6 million dollars less than what they were as at 30 June?

I'll put that through to Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, in line with accounting standards, we had to undertake fair valuation of our roads as at 30 June. As at 30 June, there was a part of our road network that was damaged because of the floods, and the 2.6 million was essentially based on the grant that we had approved in relation to that damage. So it is only a timing difference. So as those roads are repaired and essentially reinstated to the condition that they need to be in, those asset values will be reinstated. So it is simply a reporting of fair value as at 30th of June.

So to follow up, if that's okay, does that mean that next year we'll report grant revenue of 2.6 million and an increase in the asset value of 2.6 million?

No. So unfortunately, again, in accordance with accounting standards, when it's a reduction in value, it goes to the profit and loss statement. But if it's an increase in value, it does not go to the profit and loss statement. Right.

Thank you. Thank you. Any, Councillor Richards?

You're on mute, Councillor Richards.

Sorry, I did click it, Mr Mayor. It just didn't work. I won't be supporting this item tonight, and in backing up the reason why, I just wanted to ask a question to the relevant staff member. A few months ago, I asked for a financial report to be brought to Council, and it was, and I detailed further questions that I had regarding the financial status of this Council, and that still has not been brought back to this Council for us to have further scrutiny or to debate. So I was just wondering when that report is on the agenda to come back to Council, please.

Mr Manager? Mr Mayor, in addition to the issues raised by Councillor Richards, there are other matters that were raised by other councillors. That was a motion that was passed on that occasion. So we're pulling together all that information with a view to holding a briefing and then reporting it back to Council as per the resolution. And as discussed recently with the Mayor, that's likely to happen in November.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'll wait till November. Thank you.

Are there any further speakers?

I did have a further point, Mayor. Oh

Okay. Sorry, Councillor

Ross. Thank you. Look, I wish to raise for probably about the third year in a row the incorrect statement in the notes regarding the relationship of Hawkesbury Sports Council to the Council.

What is written there is erroneous . Council has no voting power within the Sports Council at all.

Council has a staff member who attends the meeting and also a Councillor representative, but without a vote. And the number of members of that committee, if one would like to have a look at their constitution, is such that even if there was a vote available to the Councillor representative, 10% would not be appropriate. But we've also heard on a prior occasion that in a matter of litigation, it was Council which was forced to step in and take certain actions in relation to matters pertaining to the Sports Council, which rather puts to question the ongoing, I believe, incorrect assignment of the Sports Council in that note. Thank you,

Councillor Ross. Any further speakers?

No, it was moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Did you want right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen?

Mr Mayor, I don't think it's necessary. Thank you.

Okay. Put the motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Wheeler , Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Conolly. Opposed?

Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards. Did you vote, Councillor Tree? And Councillor Tree opposed, yeah. Councillor Gary absent for the vote, so I declare it carried.

Item is 188, the Council resolution summary

Deputy Mayor. Could I move that, Mr Mayor, and I wanted to add an additional point, if possible, to the recommendation that is to be received and noted. And the point, that's point one. Point two would be to have a briefing session to work through outstanding resolutions .

I'll second the motion, Mr Mayor. Seconded

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. To have a briefing session to work through the outstanding resolutions. I'm not quite sure of the wording that I wanted to put in there, but basically it's to prioritise what's left outstanding to see what's achievable and what could be incorporated into other projects. And I'll speak on it now and I'll find those words. I think thank you so much for getting it to this point, the resolution summary. It's very good to see, particularly the latest ones, in a format where we can follow what exactly the status of the resolutions are. With regard to the outstanding ones, I think that, I just think that I would like us as a group of councillors to go through and add a briefing and with the staff and to Just look at what we can actually get done, because I know a lot of the things that come forward, and this happened with the last council as well, they're brought forward and then there's no possibility of them being done.

So I think we need to know that. Some of them could be added into somewhere else, and what mechanism would we do that by? But I think that if they can be incorporated into another project or another idea, something that's maybe in the budget, in the operational plan, I think that would be a good idea. But really it's tidying the whole thing up so that I think that when we finish as a council, we're not leaving a lot of leftover things that a new council may not know about, which is what has happened in this council. Often something will come up in this council, and it's something that some of us have heard before previously, and a further counselling briefing session held to work through the outstanding.

Yes, thank you. That's adequate wording, and we can elaborate on that. But it's nothing; it's really just to have a look at what's outstanding. I know there's some things that I've brought forward that I think are maybe just not achievable in this term of council, and I'm happy to go through whatever process to settle that and get rid of them if they're not achievable. What I don't like is having a feeling that you've raised a lot of things and they're never going to get done, but someone needs to tell people they're not able to be done. That's the sort of conversation I would like to have. But I think it's a very valuable resource to have the resolutions listed as such, and to know which ones have been followed up on, which ones are completed, what the outcomes were, etc.

So thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, look, I completely support the motion you've put up. I think it makes a lot of sense for us to go and work out what we can do in the next 12 months and what's just not going to happen. And as you said, be honest and upfront with the community. Just, you know, if we've resolved things that are just not achievable in the short term, we should be upfront about that. No further speakers. Did you need right of reply, Deputy Mayor?

No

Thank you. All right. I'll just wait for the motion to come down so I can see everybody. So put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rassmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Carbone, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Garrow was absent for the vote. So declared carried.

Someone want to move we go into confidential? Moved Councillor Ross, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. Any discussion? No. Put the motion. All those in favour, please say aye. Yep. Declare it carried.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 191, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council: one, receive and note the draft Water Industry Competition Amendment Bill 2020; two, endorse the draft submission contained in Attachment 3 to the report. In favour of the resolution were Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Councillor Garrow was not present. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Rasmussen. That was our last item of business, so I declare the meeting closed at 9.02. Thanks everyone for your attendance.