10 November 2020 - Ordinary

Good evening everybody, welcome to the meeting.

I believe we're now live. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay my respects to all Elders past, present and emerging. And hand over to Mr Mifsud for opening remarks.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Members attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you are asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our wardens. Also, I'd like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.1A of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council may be recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. Recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of meetings to enable podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information at this record is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

Recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored in Council's records 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 in the meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and the answers given in response to questions. Finally, it's also requested that any person participating in the meeting that has a mobile phone, that they turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Any apologies? I think we're missing Councillor Rasmussen. Nobody heard from him? I think we'll—

I understand he's still coming. He must be still on—

He's trying to connect to audio by the look of it. Oh,

Thank you, Councillor

Yes, and also, Councillor Garrow, your audio is very poor when you just spoke, so I'm not sure what you were saying.

Is that better, Mr Mayor?

It's not a lot better.

And the rest of the—

No, no, we were able to hear, Councillor Wheeler fine, so. Can

Everybody else on Zoom hear me okay?

Just. If you probably just yell, it might work when you speak.

A little bit soft. Hmm.

We'll work through that. Before we— oh, sorry, does someone want to move— well, is Councillor Rasmussen on the meeting then?

Yeah, well, I assume he's making his way in, so we'll wait him there. Any declarations of interest?

No declarations of interest. Before we go any further, Councillor Richards wanted to seek leave to make a statement. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to make the following statement. In November 2019, I responded to comments on social media made by two members of the public. I realised these responses were not suitable and I removed them promptly. I apologise for this occurrence and have since ensured that I refrain from interactions in this regard on social media. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Somebody want to move the minutes from the previous meeting? Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded, Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Declare it carried.

No items subject to public address. Items on block, items 216, 220, 221 and 224. Somebody like to move those? Moved, Councillor Tree, seconded, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Declare them carried.

First item for discussion is item 217. Somebody want to move something?

Deputy Mayor.

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

Moved, Deputy Mayor.

Anybody want to second it? Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor, did you wish to speak to the item? Yes

Briefly, Mr Mayor. I think this is something we've gone over many times. I think that we could keep on going trying to perfect it, but I think it's time that it goes to the Greater Sydney Commission to go through the assurance process . This is part of the LEP review, which we're meant to have complete by next June, as directed by the State Government, and this is one of the processes that will allow us to move forward with doing that. So I think that we should. We've reviewed it several times, and I think that it should go forward now to the Greater Sydney Commission for consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy for this to go to be adopted and be sent to the Greater Sydney Commission, but I have one particular item that I think needs to be taken out of the draft statement, and that's the reference to the Kurmond-Kurrajong investigation area.

I'm not really happy with this inclusion of this particular plan in what is essentially a 20-year plan. We still have some problems with the Comonkerojong Investigation Area planning, and I think we need to address these problems before we make mention of the area or the planning process in this broader overarching plan. I think we need to look at the size of the investigation area and whether we need to expand this sort of structure planning to include similar areas. At this stage, it seems to me that including the Comonkerojong Investigation Area gives a disproportionate treatment to a very small area of our LGA. So I'd like to propose an amendment, if I could, to the recommendation of the business plan that we endorse the submission of this draft strategic planning statement to the Greater Sydney Commission as it says, but with the following changes.

And I think that there's just a point to be added to it, which is that we remove the reference to Comonkerojong Investigation Area. And I suppose this should then be accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for this. And I think that the reasons are that the Comonkerojong Investigation Area planning is still draft. So we haven't actually finalised that structure planning, and I think we need the relevant studies to be able to be continued and completed.

Excuse me, [unclear], and I think that just because we're doing this particular structure plan for this area, I don't think it's really justifiable to put it in an overarching plan. So I'd like to propose that amendment.

Okay, so not sure if we've got the words down yet, but someone want to second that? Seconded, Councillor Calvert. While we're waiting for that, Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak to the amendment? I

Had

Your hand up before it was moved.

No, Mr Mayor, I'll wait to see the amendment first. Thanks

Any further speakers on the amendment?

Deputy Mayor, sorry.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't support the amendment because I just think we'd be— we've just been asked by the Greater Sydney Commission to include that when we put it in for assurance before, and they sent us back the correspondence asking us to include the objectives of the Kurrajong Kurmond in there. We're not saying we've done the plan, because the resolution is to wait until we've done the other plans. So I'm not sure if everyone's read the correspondence from the Greater Sydney Commission, but I think if they've asked us to put something in and we send it without it, I imagine they'll send it back again. But not that I'm particularly pushing for it to be in there, but I think that this was why it came back from them before.

It was one of the several requests, objectives that they asked us to include. So... I'm just not sure. There was three or four, maybe even more things that they asked for us to put in there. So I'm not quite sure what it is about it, because it says that it's just that we're waiting to do the other strategies anyway. So not quite sure. If Councillor Kotlash might clarify what part of it she has a problem with.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Might I ask the Director City Planning for comment on the proposed amendment, whether the Director feels that it's likely to be sent back again?

Okay, well, thank you for the question. And my apologies, I've had to have a COVID test. That's why I'm in isolation now for the next few days. Okay. So yes, the Deputy Mayor is correct. It was one of the things that the GSC had requested us to, or directed us to include. We hadn't included it in the original Local Strategic Planning Statement that went through the assurance process, but they were aware of the work that we were doing and they asked for this to be included. As to whether we, if we remove it or not, I couldn't comment as to whether that would put at risk the assurance process of the document as a whole. It would be, we would then, if it were to be removed, we'd obviously advise them of the reasoning behind the removal and, you know, hope that it doesn't undermine the assurance process.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment?

Councillor Wheeler, I'm not sure if you ever took your hand down or not, sorry.

Look, I'd rather speak on the motion, Mr. Mayor, but just to say I agree with the Deputy Mayor. I think that this is a provision that's been specifically asked for. We're late in the delivery of this document. I think we've been out to community consultation with it already. I think it probably needs to stay in. I agree with Councillor Kotlash that it would be nice to see the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation, or a similar type of investigation, done in a number of areas in the LGA, but at the moment we've only got it for this one. We've been asked to specifically include it. I think we need to do that.

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

No. There being no further speakers on the amendment, we'll put the amendment. All those in favour? In favour of the amendment are Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly. Against the amendment? Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow. Declare it carried on the casting vote of the Mayor.

The amendment now becomes the motion. Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash. I think it's my

Right of reply,

Not Councillor—

Oh, that's quite true. Right of reply, Deputy Mayor.

Was there discussion on the motion? I think some people wanted to

I don't think we discussed the motion again, but Councillor Ross, you've got your hand up.

Yes, please. I'm very grateful to be able to make a contribution, first of all, please. My first element is, if I could, with your kindness, direct a question to the director. I note that it is stated that the

Third river crossing was to be

Expanded upon or noted at page 34 of the attachment which is going to the GSC. I've looked at page 34 and can find no reference to that. I'm just wondering, is the— Document loaded on the hub, to which I've had to direct my attention, the correct document, and why is there nothing about the Third River crossing, please? Refer

That to the Director of City Planning.

Thank you. So on page 34, on the council website that I'm looking at, there is the second to last paragraph: The Hawkesbury-wide traffic study and work to inform the strategic transport routes has highlighted the need for an additional crossing of the Hawkesbury River.

Does that address the, if I may continue, Mr Mayor, does that address the concerns expressed in the letter from the department? I seem to think that they were seeking more robust commentary. Refer that to the Director of City Planning. No

They weren't specific in terms of wanting lots of detail. They just wanted a reference made to it in the document, in the LSP.

Thank you, Councillor

Ross. Thank you.

Would it be appropriate at this point to make some general comments? Yes. Thank you. I'm just not supportive of this document at all. Firstly, possibly I should ask another question of the Director. I couldn't see anywhere in the mapping that has been provided a reference to the— Natural resource reserves on the Richmond lowlands, about which Department of Industry have advised us on at least two occasions, to my knowledge, in this term of Council. Is there any such reference made in the document we're going to be submitting, please, ma'am?

Director City Planning

The audio is not currently working, Director City Planning.

Mute now, let me try.

That's an issue.

Mr Mayor, can you hear me?

I can. Just you, Councillor Garrow.

I've actually also had reports from people in the public saying that they are having a lot of trouble hearing anyone in the chamber other than yourself and the staff.

Okay. Make sure councillors speak into the microphones, please, probably because the staff are much closer to the microphones. Oh , Director City Planning is back.

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. So, in terms of the question, sorry, that Councillor Ross asked, so no, it's not there, and Council had resolved to object to its inclusion. But off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you when, but that's my understanding of the matter.

Thank you. With your indulgence, Mr Mayor, may I continue?

Yes, Councillor Ross.

Thank you. Excuse me, Director. In view of the fact that it is— A government policy or reserve over which we do not have any right of denial , shall I say, would we not be including this in the SPS at some point in our discussions and in the mapping to alert the GSC to another constraint or opportunity, as you may care, to be aware of in this LGA?

Councillor Ross, I think the answer is no, so I'll refer it to the city planning again, but we might not have the same question any more times, if that's okay.

Okay. So essentially, this is our first local strategic planning statement. This is first for all councils, and all councils have been learning as they've been drafting this document, as has the Department of Planning and the Greater Sydney Commission. So what I would be saying, though, and as councils are aware, there is an opportunity to review these documents as we get further information, undertake further studies, or there might be some arguments that need to be reviewed or changed, you know, as we get further data and information. So I suppose essentially what we're hoping is, you know, we kick off this first one, get it adopted, get it approved, and then over time, as we do undertake other work and other studies, there will be a need to review these documents and bring that back to Council for consideration, and any other issues could be considered at that time.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, was there any further discussion? Yes,

Thank you.

I'd like to point out that the— Council's CSP has been overtaken by events in the term of Council, and I believe that this document is nothing short of an embellished story, frankly. Apart from that little element, we have not addressed in any way, shape or form the impact of C19, which is having on the local area.

And I guess it's quite early in the piece for that to happen, but I think that should be noted because there appears to be a very significant decline in the use of at least rail public transport, and I might suggest also bus travel in the public sector.

Another element where I think there is significant room for more

Emphasis to be placed is within the area of telecommunications as a result of the C19 and also the natural disasters of which we're now familiar.

And in regard to river crossings, I think it might have been, as we're talking about a plan which is ostensibly looking at a period of 40 years, hence that there ought to have been some consideration of a fourth river crossing

As an adjunct to the M1 North Freeway. In case of any major calamity within the Sydney Basin of trying to get people out and to evacuate, there's been no consideration at all, even from the government point of view, as I can see it, of evacuation in the case of an emergency within the Greater Metropolitan Area and of people having to be shifted out of the Metropolitan Area. And this is going to be one of the areas which would be severely impacted, as would Penrith. We have two vital roads in that regard, both the Putty Road and the Bells Line of Road. And I think some emphasis ought to have been placed on that. And I think there's a great degree of lack of imagination as to what the 40 years may hold for us.

For instance, I could well and truly see the need, even if there is no third river crossing, as has been suggested of late, that there ought to be something like a fast rail or a light rail or some other form of mass transit between the probably Kurrajong, Kurrajong Heights and the Richmond-Windsor area. That would be a futuristic look at things. And I believe we need to be looking into the future. Furthermore, agriculture is not being looked at in a very futuristic basis either, with the impact of climate change and the possible lessening of Rainfall in the western sector of the state, there is going to be pressure on the areas closer to Sydney, including our own, which have agricultural lands, to intensify the degree to which agriculture is being conducted.

And the proximity to the Sydney populace and market is vital and fundamental in all of that. I believe this is a silo approach and lacking in perspective, both from government and so on, in terms of overall strategy and land use and traffic and communications, and is not going to be a very fruitful document at all. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion on the motion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking for the motion . There's just a few things that I would like to put on record. I think it's amusing that we are supposed to be, that we've been asked to amend the language so that we're working with the state government rather than advocating or lobbying, which is what I understood our role and council to be. I'm not sure that the relationship is that equal or consultative, frankly, and for us to be massaging the wording and pretending that it is is probably nothing more than semantics. I think there's a phrase in there where we work with Transport for New South Wales. That's fine, and we will work with Transport for New South Wales, but I don't know that that will make them any more likely to work with us.

Certainly past history shows that that won't be happening. I've got a few concerns with this document. It's still too passive on housing growth targets, and I think it's particularly useful for us to remember that. Two thirds of the projected 77,000 people who are thought to live in this LGA in the next 20-odd years may require evacuation in a major flood, and we currently can't evacuate the numbers of people that we're required to evacuate with 67,000 people living here. I think it underplays the impact of climate change. That's understandable because I don't think we actually want to admit to ourselves just how difficult it's going to be in Western Sydney with average temperature rises of two degrees or more, or the impacts on bushfires and flooding as a result.

I would have liked a much more, a much clearer— I think I would have liked a shorter document, but it's one of those Cicero cases. I think if we had more time, we could have written— the Cicero quote goes something like, If I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter. I think if we had more time and more resources, we probably would have written a shorter, a much more tight, concise document. We have neither time nor resources to do this, and I think it's important to note, now we've asked staff to do yet another thing, that any more time we spend going over this document is time that the staff aren't spending on the next round of documents, which is the LEP and the DCP, and that's really where we need to be concentrating our efforts now, because they're the documents that in 12 months' time the people who live here are really going to be relying on in order to manage either the properties that they own or wish to do something with, or the properties that they're planning to deal with in the future.

So I'm not delighted with this, but I'm willing to let it go to the next stage because we just have to. We have to move on.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I tend to agree with Councillor Wheeler on that point. I'm very reluctant to endorse this rather, what can I call it, City motion in some ways. We should have been left the way it was, but never mind. It is what it is. But if we want agriculture to go ahead, as Councillor Ross said, and we want to have a futuristic look at what the area has to do and can do, we need an awful lot more water running in that river. Otherwise, agricultural production in this area cannot and will not increase. It'll be constrained by that very important resource input, namely water in the river. So, and also, of course, as Sydney grows, more and more water is going to be needed for the population and the green areas and all the rest of it.

But anyway, having said that, it is important that we get on with it, and so I will support this motion, Mr Mayor, but only because we do have to get on with the LEP. That's the critical document. That's the law, if you like, and that has to be done. And the sooner we get on with that, the better it is. It's just sad that we've gone around in circles on this for some time. Anyway , thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. Third speaker in favour. Councillor Reynolds, are you speaking also in favour or against?

I actually have a question, Mr Mayor, or a couple of questions. Yep. Is that okay? Thank you. It's to staff, I assume would be the Director of City Planning. Just for the people who are tuning in, is this document a statutory document? Like, is it legislated like the LEP and associated documents?

I refer that to the Director of City Planning.

It's legislated that we have to create one, but it doesn't have the same level of— it's not the same as an LEP in that respect. Okay,

Thank you. Can it be relatively easily amended or updated as time goes on? Yes

And that would be the intent. As council, as we, you know, finalise other key land use planning documents, we'll then be in a position to revisit this document and make changes as required. And ultimately, the Greater Sydney Commission is expecting councils to do that.

Thank you, Director. Councillor Reynolds.

That's all. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Being no further speakers, Deputy Mayor, would you like right of reply? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'll support the motion because I agree with the other councillors that say that we have to get this in. We've had

A number of goes at it, and we've had the feedback from the Greater Sydney Commission of the things we have to include so it would be compliant with the Western District Plan. But I don't know what planning grounds we're going to send that for removing something they thought was important, but it's neither here nor there to me whether it's in there . But I hope it doesn't delay because, as the other councillors have said, it's about getting on with the next stages, which means we can go to the LEP stages once we have this in place. So... I think that the state government has directed us to do it. We are way behind the other councils. I believe most other councils have done it. So it really is important that we do catch up so that we can move on with our other, particularly now that we've got the review groups ready for the LEP and the DCP.

As we know, this is an overarching document for informing those sort of planning instruments. I think I just wanted to point out that what was included in the LSPS that the Greater Sydney Commission asked for was just about the objectives. It wasn't anything to do with adopting a plan or anything. So I think that that was part of Planning Priority 6, and that was—their aim was to show that we were doing the strategic planning in line with that priority. However , there was one other point somebody raised. I was going to—I think it was to do with the river crossing, but I can't see what I've written down about that. But let's hope that the Greater Sydney Commission accept it and give us the assurance status so that we can move on with the next stage in reviewing our planning instruments so that we can get it done as required by June 2021.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Against ? Councillor Ross . Deputy Mayor, how are you voting

I have my hand up.

Sorry, I didn't see that. Okay, and Deputy Mayor also in favour. Declare it carried.

Councillors, the next matter is a mayoral minute dealing with a staff matter. It's had to come up urgently, so I'd actually ask for a motion from the floor to move into full confidential session so that can be dealt with. Moved that way. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? Aye. Carried. We'll just wait, Councillors, till we're in full confidential.

Okay. In regards to the Mayoral Minute, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly that : Council notes that General Manager has communicated to the Mayor in writing the General Manager's intention to resign from his employment effective 13 November 2020. Two, Councillor appoints Laurie Mifsud as the Council's Acting General Manager pursuant to section 336 and 351 of the Local Government Act 1993, with such person to remain as the Council's Acting General Manager until the Council appoints a new General Manager or until further decision of the Council to appoint a different Acting General Manager, whichever occurs first. Three, Council authorise the Mayor to negotiate on Council's behalf to give effect to the terms of resignation.

In favour of the motion were Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross. Opposed were Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheelahan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, and Councillor Rasmussen.

Item 218, draft markets policy.

Anybody wish to move anything? Recommendation moved by Councillor Zamprogno,

Seconded Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion?

There being no discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? No one. Declare the motion carried. Item ...

Next item is item 222, draft Windsor Mall policy.

Is that not on block, Mr?

No, it was called up by Councillor Wheeler.

You want to move anything there?

Recommendation to endorse the amended draft Windsor Mall policy.

Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Calvert. Any discussion? Being no discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow. Against ? Councillor Rasmussen and Deputy Mayor, how are you voting?

Sorry, I'm still working out which way I want to vote. I'll voting for it.

Okay, record Councillor Lyons-Buckett as in favour and Councillor Rasmussen as against. Carried.

The next item is 223, Hawkesbury Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee.

Moved, Councillor Kotlash. Seconded, Councillor Calvert. Any discussion? There being no discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow. Against ? Nobody. Councillor Rasmussen, how are you voting? I'm still making up my mind, Mr Mayor. I vote Councillor Rasmussen as against.

Item 225, the Waste Advisory, Waste Management Advisory Committee.

Anybody want to move the recommendation or anything else? Councillor Zamprogno moves the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Tree. Any discussion?

There being no discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow. Against ? Nobody. Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Reynolds, I didn't record your voting

Declare both, so record Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Reynolds as against, and declare carried.

Item 219, renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding between Penrith City Council and Hawkesbury City Council for the maintenance of the driftway. Recommendation moved by Councillor Calvert. Seconder?

Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion?

Councillor Ross.

I'm just wondering, as this has featured in quite a deal of the discussions regarding this proposal that seems to have gone a bit cold on the Third River Crossing, whether we shouldn't be asking the State Government to take this over as a major arterial road rather than being borne by the two councils jointly. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

There being no further discussion, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen against .

Councillor Rasmussen, how are you voting?

Oh, sorry, I didn't hear what you said, Mr Mayor. I'm still making up my mind, thanks.

Record that as against. Declare the motion carried.

And item 226, rescission motion.

We did. So, a rescission motion submitted by Councillor Garry, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Garry, are you moving that?

Councillor Wheeler, Mr Mayor, move that.

Moved that, Mr Mayor. Is

There a seconder?

Second that, Mr Mayor. Thank you , Mayor. Any discussion?

I'll speak to the motion, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler.

I think Council jumped the gun in its decision with the previous motion to contact the Deputy Prime Minister about this proposal. We clearly don't have a full scope for this project, nor do we have sufficient information to go to the application process. So I think effectively we are engaging in special pleading should we contact the Deputy Prime Minister. I think given the current climate around grants and wards, that would be a really, really foolish thing to do. Hence the rescission motion. You can see from the substantive motion that it's not the intention of this rescission motion to kill off the visitor information centre or the project . It is, however, to put some flesh on the bones so that when it comes time for this funding round to open, which is due to be at the end of the year, we are actually in a position to put in a fundable grant application, should that be Council's decision moving forward.

If you look at the information... Sent through with the business paper by the general manager, or as I might begin to refer to him, the former general manager, you'll see that previous rounds have been required to show plans and development applications on how projects, so that project, for the project, how the project will remain viable in the long term. It's very clear that councils will be held responsible for the outcomes of the project. That will be very difficult, given that we don't know what those outcomes are yet, because we've never discussed it. This isn't full funding. This is dollar for dollar funding for the area of regional Australia that Bilpin is in, which is in a regional Australia.

This project was costed at more than $4 million 20 years ago. So even if it was to remain at $4 million, which is highly unlikely, we'd be looking at finding $2 million. We haven't got $2 million, so I'm not quite sure how we're going to pay our share of this. You can't use the money to purchase land or additional infrastructure. You have to show evidence of land ownership or authority. You have to show the intellectual property to carry out the works, and you need to be able to operate and maintain the project infrastructure into the future. We need to outline the strategy to fund into the future without federal government funding. So how we will pay staff, how we will equip this facility, what we will do with it over 5, 10, 20 years.

We need to submit a full cost-benefit analysis that shows consultation, community surveys, experience with similar projects. We may need to add in data from other relevant government departments. In this case, I would presume that would be National Parks and Wildlife at least, perhaps the various tourism bodies.

Any projects that are high cost will warrant more extensive analysis. This will be a high-cost project. We must cover the costs of the life of the project. We are currently not in a position to do anything of the sort. And it must commence within 12 weeks of signing the agreement. We don't have the authority of the landowner. We don't have continued funding from all the sources. We don't have submissions for all relevant approvals and development application, and we don't have finalised project designs and costings. We haven't even asked the Bilpin community if this suits them at this point. We are not ready to write to the Deputy Prime Minister. That would, frankly, that would be, that's a ludicrous thing for us to do at this point. I urge you to reconsider. You're not reconsidering your support of this project. You are reconsidering our actions moving forward with this project.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Are there any further speakers? Councillors Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against the motion. And here's the thing: I'm perfectly happy to concede to most points that Council will has made, but I don't think the aims of the original motion and the substituted motion are mutually exclusive. By that we mean we have to be mindful of the fact that there is a time horizon on the likelihood of funding for two reasons. One is the government is actively looking for infrastructure projects funded to aid with push by recovery and with economic recovery . It's also true, and there's a provisionly mentioned in this, and we have to concede that. This is now the most marginal federal seat in the nation, and in the lead-up to the next federal election, it would be very wise for this Council to bring to the attention of decision makers at federal and state level that this is a project that our community would gain something more benefit from.

Now, in saying that, all of the things that Councillor Willows is saying can still be done in an ordinary fashion. I think somewhat more of that information that Councillor Willows is seeking is already in hand, in the sense that I think it's a reasonable safe bet that Wilton Community is on board. I can't support a motion that not only talks about merely discussing it, but a preliminary discussion. It's not as action-oriented as I'd like to see it. I think we made the right decision at our previous meeting. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Reynolds?

Thank you. Back in July, when we all of us resolved to support the concept for a World Heritage Centre, that's what we resolved to do. We resolved to support the concept of a World Heritage Centre. That World Heritage Centre was to, according to the report that we received from Councillor Richards, was to house offices for national parks and wildlife, have cafe, souvenir shop. It was to include a visitor information centre. It was to be an educational precinct. It was proposed to act as a base or a staging area in times of bushfire, and perhaps maybe be used for WIRES and a koala hospital. What was resolved at the last meeting was just for a visitor information centre. Now, if it's just a visitor information centre, that has to be—visitor information centres stay under the control of the council.

Now, if the general manager was here, we could ask him how much it costs to run our current visitor information centre, but we can't do that because he's not here. And as Councillor Wheeler said,

The documents that are online basically say that the project has to be shovel ready when you apply. We don't even have a concept, and applications open very soon. So we're not saying don't go ahead with the World Heritage Centre. I think it was unanimous that we do that. But what is being asked for here is

And as Councillor Zamprogno just said, it's, you know, we're the most marginal seat, and without wanting to go into stuff that I said last year, this is really eyebrow raising that we would do something like this. Especially you, Mr Mayor, you've always, up until tonight, always been follow due process. You know, you've always dotted I's and crossed T's. Now, we're not doing that here. We're going to get in touch with the Deputy Prime Minister to ask him to consider an idea, a concept that doesn't —

Meet the applications required

For this fund. I don't see how any of us can sit here and support writing to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for money for a project

That is not even, you know, is just purely a concept. I mean, we're supposed to have a cost-benefit analysis. We're supposed to have a whole pile of other documents, and we have nothing. All we have is a 16-year-old drawing, basically. And if we were to go ahead with this, if we were to go ahead with this, and the money was to be granted on the basis of us writing a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister saying , Look at our concept, if that was to be granted, there would be hell to pay in the press, especially for this council. And I don't want to be part of a council that gets things done

By

Dubious means. There's already issues with grants surrounding the last federal election to do with sports grants. The state government is in trouble because of council grants where they shredded the documents. And here we are, here we are,

Wanting to write to the Deputy Prime Minister, short-circuiting the process and not having the documents in place. I can't support. I do support a World Heritage Centre, be it at Bilpin or elsewhere in the Blue Mountains. I support everything that was in the resolution of July this year. But what went through last week is wrong. It's procedurally wrong, Mr Mayor, and I don't see how you, of all people, could support it, and I support this rescission notice.

Yes, Councillor Reynolds

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I also support the rescission motion because I do think it's about transparency. Councillor Zamprogno himself just raised that this is the most marginally federal seat in the country, and in our chamber sits one of the candidates who is likely to run in that federal election. She may or may not, I don't know about the preselection, but having said that, it's really imperative that we show some transparency. And what we're asking for is to have a number of questions answered regarding the costs to this Council that may be involved, not only with the funding, but perhaps with the—we may think about the ongoing costs. Sorry,

Deputy Mayor, just for clarity there, just a point of order in procedure. You're not asking for that in this motion. This motion is about whether or not we rescind the former motion. You can speak to whether you rescind it.

Okay, well I'm sorry. All right. Well, we're rescinding because last time we did not investigate the costs to the Council, knowing that funding is generally dollar for dollar, but also the ongoing costs it would take to run any sort of centre, whether it's World Heritage or a visitor information centre. And I think that we have to be very mindful that in this chamber we always have a stipulation that we have an idea of what costs are going to be if someone puts forward a motion, or for most of us that's a requirement. So I think that we do all support it, we have all supported it, but we want to look at it properly. The other thing is that if we go with last week's motion and don't rescind that, if we stick with the original one from before, we would then be able to get the project in order so that if it didn't fit the criteria for the mentioned funding, which is in the motion from last week, the Building Better Regions, we may have it ready for other sort of funding because there's a lot of different funding coming out from the Commonwealth and the State.

State government. So I think that we should rescind the motion from last week, not send the Deputy Prime Minister a letter saying that we've got an idea, but we don't know what it is or where it is or how it's going to operate, and proceed with the motion from July from 2020.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Reynolds, did you have a question? No. Okay.

Look, I just wanted to address a couple of those comments. I think we need to be careful, councillors, in what we're saying here. There's nothing that's not transparent about this process. A motion was moved at a public meeting to write a letter in support of a possible grant application to the Deputy Prime Minister. We held an open vote, and the majority of Council decided to write that letter. That's about as transparent as you could get when it comes to letter writing. It is not at all a breach of due process. It's not unusual whatsoever to write letters in support of grant applications. I can walk into the office and come out with letters signed by myself from Councillor Calvert and probably Councillor Lyons-Buckett, which is the Mayor.

It's quite routine that, in addition to applications, you often write a letter supporting the application and bring it to the attention of the funding body. It's nothing going outside the due process. We're not committing to any funds in this motion. Another important point I note: I was waiting to hear some new information in any of those addresses, and of course there was no new information raised. We had all this information available at the previous meeting. We've now spent multiple meetings debating whether or not to send a letter, and I'm not sure that's a good look for Hawkesbury City Council, although it is, of course, your right to bring that up again. Are there any further speakers?

Question.

Question, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Who would be the applicant? This is my question, and that's why I understand what you say about people supporting applications, but who is the applicant? Because who is the landowner?

So there is no grant application currently. The motion that was passed was that, given the announcement of the grant funding, we write to the Deputy Prime Minister to bring his attention to the project.

So we wouldn't mention whose project it was. We'd just say there's a project and we support it. Okay

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Any further questions or speakers? There being no further speakers, I'll put the rescission motion.

All those— Oh , by the, Mr Mayor.

Oh, sorry, Councillor. Yeah, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So look, I think it's, um, I think we've had this laid bare now, haven't we, really? We've got a grant round of funding that hasn't been announced yet, our intention to contact the Deputy Prime Minister and Senator Payne to draw their attention to the fact that we would like some funding that doesn't yet exist , because that's apparently fine, and not at all a waste of time for Council to discuss that. But it is a waste of time for Council to discuss what we might actually ask for and how we might pay for it and where we might put it and how we might staff it and what we might do with it and Council's funds for the next 20 years. That's a waste of time. But writing letters, that's fine.

And spending time discussing it as a bit of political grandstanding, also fine. Also fine to bring to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister the fact that we're in a marginal seat and a bit of funding might advantage the Coalition government. That's fine too. That's actually not fine.

Sorry, Councillor, I think that's out of order because that's not part of the motion and nobody suggested it , that we bring that to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Also, Councillor Zamprogno suggested that that would be beneficial should the Deputy Prime Minister be aware of that. I'll remind Councillors that the Better Regions Fund has already been questioned in Federal Parliament about how that money was allocated. This is a very, very bad look for those who support this letter going forward to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll put the rescission motion. All those in favour, please raise your hands. In favour of the rescission motion are Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Against the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards. I declare the motion failed on the casting vote of the Mayor.

Next item is item 227.

Item is item 227.

Item is item 227.

Next item is item 227, notice of motion.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Move the motion, Mr Mayor.

Seconder. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Do you want to speak to it, Deputy Mayor? Yes,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The motion for policy paper that has been put out to advocate for federal government investment to reduce and eliminate litter going into our waterways. The policy document was attached to the business paper. It's a policy paper that recognises that local government needs assistance to enable it to deal with this very large problem. Some councils have already committed in principle, which is what this motion is asking for, as well as some councils going further and actually setting a target to reduce the litter by 2030. At this stage, my motion only calls for in-principle support and to refer the matter to the Environmental Sustainability Committee and Waste Committee, so they can follow up with it and determine what exactly that would require in terms of resourcing and the technologies required to achieve zero litter to river by 2030.

I've spoken to the principal environmental engineer from Ocean Protect, who would be happy to address the committee to assist and provide information with that. And I believe that these are opportunities we need to take to be a part of the mix, putting our name to the push to get adequate assistance to help reduce litter in our waterways. What the in-principle support entails is our commitment to the policy paper. It would include our logo on the document that is being used in the discussions with the state and federal government, and along with other councils and organisations such as Penrith, Blacktown, Shoalhaven, Brisbane, councils all over Australia actually. The advantages from being involved, aside from being part of a movement to reduce litter into our oceans, is that we may be part of any pilot programs that they run, which evaluate the effectiveness of technologies and so on, new technologies as well as those that can be integrated into our existing stormwater infrastructure are proposed.

By being a part of it, we increase our chances of receiving funding if and when it begins to roll out. So given we've already got a program of works for infrastructure, stormwater management, any additional resources would enable us to do a better job of doing that. A major benefit of this policy paper is the identification of 7,400 new jobs, which could be generated within the sector to implement technologies and solutions which are ready to go. It's a great stimulus in an area which would have a great environmental outcome. Essentially, the paper and the advocacy connected to it, which is already beginning, calls for 10 years of funding of $570 million per year from the federal government to go to local and state governments, which would enable a target to be met over that time, by requiring best practice stormwater quality management of all new development, appropriate management of existing stormwater treatment assets, and installation of new stormwater treatment assets.

The CSIRO will shortly release a paper quantifying the magnitude of this problem, which we know is an enormous problem because the Prime Minister last year came out and said, What an issue plastics are. We know how damaging the pollution of our oceans and waterways is with plastics and other materials. It is preventable, and we can begin being part of the solution by giving in-principle support, and hope we are the beneficiaries further down the track to greatly reduce pollutants entering our creeks and rivers here. Thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the motion. I am just going to ask the Deputy Mayor, should take a small change to point two. It currently says Environmental Sustainability Committee. I think the intention was to include the Waste Committee here. She certainly mentioned it. So if we could specifically include the Waste Management Committee at point two, I think that would be helpful. This is a really important motion. Basically, everything ends up in the ocean. And our river on the way to the ocean. There's a lot that we can do. We're currently not doing very much at all. So I think the faster that we can support this and move to do something, the better.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. So, Councillor, Deputy Mayor, are you happy with that change? Yes,

Thank you. So

I note that the motion in point two now reads: request the Environment and Sustainability Committee and the Waste Management

Advisory Committee to investigate

And instruct the Council's Zero Litter Strategy to approve a target by 2030. Are there any further speakers on the motion? Being no further speakers,

Right of reply. And I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor, thanks.

Thank you. Right of reply, Deputy Mayor?

Not necessary.

Okay. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, and Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Declare it carried. Carried.

That was the end of business paper council. Thanks for your attendance. We'll declare the meeting closed at 7.54.