9 February 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respects to all Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country, and hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Members attending the meeting are advised that in an event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of 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 meeting.

The 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'll 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.

Thank you. Are there any apologies? Acting General Manager.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. We received a request for leave of absence from Councillor John Ross from tonight's meeting, the 9th of February 2021.

Somebody wish to move that? Accept that. Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

Somebody want to move the minutes from the previous meeting? Oh , sorry, sorry. Are there any declarations of interest?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Richards.

Item 206, please. I'll be declaring a pecuniary interest. Okay.

Any other declarations of interest? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Item 26, and it's a significant non-pecuniary interest.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Somebody wish to move the minutes of the previous meeting? Moved Councillor Zamprogno. Anyone want to second them?

Seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

The first item subject to public address is item 18, and our first speaker is Ms Jacqueline Bowie.

Mr Mayor.

Yes.

Would it just be possible? I just wanted to move a procedural motion about something, if I could.

Procedural motion, yep. What is it? Yes,

It was to have something included that's late, and I apologise I couldn't get it in earlier. It's just to have something included in condolences regarding the passing of the Mayor of Cobar.

Oh yes. Yep.

Okay, is that okay?

That's urgent, so yeah, just go ahead. Yeah, I think.

Do you want to do it now, or?

Yes, please. Okay.

I did send through some words about it, which was that council write to Cobar Shire Council to express our condolences at the passing of Mayor Lillian Brady to the community of Cobar and to Mrs Brady's family. Within the letter, we acknowledge the enormous contribution Mrs Brady has made to local government in New South Wales and to the Shire and citizens of Cobar. I just brought that forward, Mr Mayor, as I'm sure everyone has heard of Lillian. Anyone—

Take a seconder. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler seconding. Yep. Yep. Sorry, go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. I'll only be brief, Mr Mayor. It was just anybody who has been to a local government conference couldn't have failed to have come across Lillian somewhere along the way. She was in local government for 47 years, I believe it was, and she was the longest serving female mayor. I think that some people would have seen her recently on the ABC show Back Roads, and she was an amazing advocate for her community. She simply got on and did the things that needed doing, including getting aged care and all sorts of facilities that the Cobar region needed. A couple of years ago, I think it was at the Rose Hill conference, she was acknowledged, given the Lifetime Achievement Award as New South Wales' longest serving female mayor, and she was incredibly proud to receive that.

Having seen that show, I think you would know she had— she just simply wanted to get on with the job to make things good for her community. She seemed to have a fairly low tolerance for most politicians and other people, but that was— she did everything in the true spirit of the Cobar community. And I think that for anybody, as we all know, being community representatives, to serve your community for almost half a century is an incredible and amazing achievement. And I just wanted us to send our condolences to the people of Hershire and to her family on her passing. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to speak as well?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, thank you. Just to acknowledge Lillian Brady's contribution not only to Cobar but to women in local government as well. It's — We're a rare beast, Hawkesbury Council in this term being 50% female. That's quite unusual on local government. For someone from a rural community to have spent more than half her lifetime on a local council is an extraordinary achievement, and I think she's been an inspiration to lots of women, particularly rural, that we do have a place in local government and that we can achieve great outcomes for our community.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to echo the words—

Sorry, Councillor Reynolds, I'm not sure if it's the same on Zoom, but in the chamber we can hardly hear you again.

Okay. I'd just like to echo those words, and I'd also like to point out that Lillian's name has two Ls.

Okay.

So if we could fix that up, that would be appreciated.

Yep. Any further speakers?

If not, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow. Everyone? Yep. Declare it carried.

So the next item is item 26, the Mayoral Minute to Councillor Richards. Did you want to read on your interest? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My interest is a pecuniary interest. My partner owns property within the KKIA. Thank you.

So you'll be leaving?

Yes. Yes, I'll leave the room.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mine is a significant non-pecuniary interest. I live at 90 Currajong Road, Currajong, which is within the investigation area.

Okay. I'll be leaving too. Okay, we'll make sure we get you afterwards.

When we're to come back.

Yep.

Thank you.

Do I just leave?

No, I think we'll put you in the wait. You're gone.

Okay. So item 26, the Mayoral Minute. So this is in regards to the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area, and I think most of the debate is listed here in the motion. We've got planning proposals from 2014 that still are not resolved. We've got not a large number, but a small number, I think six or seven planning proposals that are still in the process that are many years old. I think we have a duty to resolve this issue. We've been deferring this matter a number of times. Both times it's come up, it's been deferred. All I'm asking for here is that we receive a report to the next meeting of Council outlining all the options available to Council to finalise the consideration of this matter, so that Council can decide how to move forward to give some certainty for these people who have planning proposals, and to the community of Kurrajong and Kurmond about what's going to happen, and we can hopefully resolve this matter once and for all.

So I'll move the minute and open up for discussion. Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, just a couple of questions, if I may. How many proposals have we got outstanding? Can someone just refresh my memory, please?

I'll refer that to Director City Planning.

Sorry, so of the planning proposals, we've got, if I remember correctly, three pre-gateway and three post-gateway, so six in total.

Thanks. And when were they likely to come back to us anyway?

The pre-gateway ones? Yeah. That we're actually following up with each of those applicants because when we contacted them last year, and more recently, we've asked them to amend their planning proposals or, you know, give us further information. So we're waiting on that information. Then the process will be take that to the Local Planning Panel for their information and advice, and then bring them back to Council. So that's in the hands of the applicants. Yeah. And the post-gateway ones, a couple of them are actually, they've reached, they have been a response from the Department of Planning, but those applicants have sought a review of the determination, so they're with the Department of Planning.

So actually none of these proposals are with us currently?

Well, technically the ones that, you know, we're waiting on applicants, if they don't choose to do anything, we could progress them in their current forms.

Right. Yep. And the report, do we have the capacity to produce this report by the next Council meeting, or are we dropping the ball on something else in order to do that?

No, no, we'll be able to provide that report to the next council. Thank

You. Councillor Reynolds?

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, Councillor Reynolds. Sorry, can I ask you to really speak up if possible?

Yeah, can you hear me now?

Yeah.

Okay, that's good. I guess I've got questions. Well, I do have questions, and they would be for staff, Mr Mayor. I noticed that a couple of the planning proposals that Council voted to proceed or to push through last year, one was rejected, and then that decision was appealed, and it went to a review in November, and it was lost on appeal. And the reason given for the rejection was that even though the proposal may have been consistent with the 2011 residential land strategy as it was, it doesn't comply with the Western District Plan of 2018, which we all should know is a New South Wales Government plan. And the consultant also said that apart from the—or the Commissioner, rather—no, actually it was the consultant—said that apart from failing to comply with the Western District Plan, the application needs to be in accordance with designated growth areas.

And so my question to staff would be, given that the Western District Plan now seems to be the overarching— Rule for approval of planning proposals in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area. Is there any way that applicants can get around the Western District Plan?

Refer that to Director City Planning.

No, there's no way any applications can get around the requirements of the Western Sydney District Plan. So it is a key document. It outlines key issues around the Hawkesbury being identified as a metropolitan rural area with its own set of objectives, and there's certainly some of the factors that the department are taking into consideration when they're considering these planning proposals.

Okay, okay, so basically the Western District Plan rules and that's it. Regarding the comments, I think of the Commissioner, I think it was, regarding designated growth areas, and this is going to be a bit of a gummy question and I apologise. How does a place become labelled a designated growth area?

Refer that to Director City Planning. Did you hear that? Sorry,

Are you asking me how does a place become a designated growth area?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

All right.

So thanks for that. So each council would have their housing targets which have been set by the state government, and so within our own housing strategy, which has come off exhibition, that setting, we've looked at that in terms of the opportunities for meeting those targets and where that housing could be accommodated. So as you're aware, yes, we've got new release areas in terms of Redbank, which is still in train, Vineyard Stage One and Glossodia. So we've not been identifying, we're not designating other, you know— Larger land new release areas is part of that housing strategy at this stage.

So, in regards to that, you mentioned Redbank. Would it be possible, even though the Western District Plan rules, would it be possible for Council to get approval for a growth precinct such as Redbank within the metropolitan rural area and override the Western District Plan?

Are you asking if we had another similar application like Redbank, would that be approved now under the Western Sydney District Plan? Would

It be possible for such an application to be approved, given the implications of the Western District Plan and the metropolitan rural area strategy?

I would probably say that that is unlikely, but it's not— I would say that's unlikely.

But the government, if it wanted to, I suppose the Western District Plan belongs to the government, so it's possible the government could override it for some reason.

Well, I mean, obviously

It would have to look at the metropolitan rural area and the objectives and basically say that's not going to be applicable to this whatever planning proposal were to come before it. Okay , so

The government basically now, with their three cities vision, is looking at taking such proposals for growth areas as like a helicopter view of the whole, rather than looking at an LGA, they're looking at the bigger picture across multiple LGAs as far as growth centres go. Would that be right?

Yes, that's right. So the state government has looked to, you know, and as you know, that we've got the Western Parkland City, the Central City and the Eastern City in terms of the district plan. So, and they've seen where they could accommodate growth and higher densities, and from that each of the councils have been given their housing targets.

Are you still there? Sorry, everybody froze. Telstra. Okay. Can you still hear me? Yes

I can still hear you.

Yep . One more question and then I'll be quiet. Knowing that we know, for example, with the M9 corridor down south, that even though it's not gazetted, there's a fair idea where—well, some of it's gazetted—but there's a fair idea of where it's going, and so there are now developments planned around that corridor. So even though we may have a Western District Plan and a metropolitan rural area strategy, if, for example, the M9 was to go through—and apologies to Councillor Zamprogno—through Oakville, would it be possible that growth areas could pop up around a proposed corridor?

Last one. Yeah, okay. So currently at the moment, in terms of growth, there's a large focus on growth in the southwest of Sydney, and there are bits with some of the other areas such as Liverpool and Penrith, they've got some targets. In terms of a significant decision around the Orbital, that would obviously then raise the question around what, if any, housing growth could then be accommodated. But I suppose at this point in time, we don't know the status of that. We don't know when that may or may not be occurring, and as a result, it would not be fruitful for us to be speculating on what could be occurring and where growth could be occurring as a result of it.

Okay. Yeah, okay. I'll be quiet then. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

There being no discussion, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash. Against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote, as was Councillor Richards, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett absent for the vote. It's carried. And we'll wait until Councillor Lyons-Buckett can be let back in. I appear to be

Frozen, so I'm going to try and log out and log back in. Okay.

Do you want to get also someone can get Councillor Richards.

We'll just give Councillor Richards a moment to return.

Next item is item 19.

Anybody wish to move anything?

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

Councillor Wheeler, seconded Deputy Mayor. Any discussion? Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Look, I think that the report in the business paper probably covers it quite well. I think there's just not sufficient detail and confidence in this clause for us to accept it, given the serious constraints of this LGA. And some of the research that I've done shows that none of the benefits that could be conferred by this clause here would in any way balance with some of the possible problems. So some of the advice that I've received basically says that consent can be, because there's a clause in this, because there's a section in this clause that says, despite any other provision of the plan referring to the LEP, it means that should Council accept this clause, we can't refuse an application on the basis of non-compliance with the LEP.

And that includes things like floor space ratio, height, building size, for example. So consent can be granted for a dwelling or a second dwelling where that's permissible in the zone that is quite a different size, design, or even location on the site to the original dwelling. So you could take a small two-bedroom single-storey dwelling and replace it with A large two-storey McMansion that covers the entire block without being able to go through the normal processes which would allow neighbours to object. For example, it's an overreach. I think Council still has the power to make the application process easier following a flood or fire without compromising our planning controls and the public and private amenity for neighbours.

Or, in our case, and this is the most important thing, I think, the safety of any future occupants of that dwelling. And that's particularly important for us when it comes to fire and flood. So, I think that the recommendation that we don't opt in, just because of the unknowns, is probably the wisest thing for us to do. The advice from the Law Society of New South Wales is that this overriding of the provisions of the LEP, including flood-prone land provisions, has the potential for great concern. Being able to move a dwelling on a property where part of the property is flood-prone, I think, is also really concerning in parts of our LGA, and that concern relates to fire as well. There's also some concerns about whether this would make it more likely that a repairable dwelling would be demolished rather than repaired, and I think the long-term outcomes of that are poor as well.

So, I'm much happier with us not taking on this at this point.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with what Councillor Wheeler said. I don't see any additional benefit in having this included. We can do it later if it's really necessary, but I can't see why it would be necessary. In fact, I can't really see the point of it at all. I'm particularly concerned about the potential inequity, which is described on page 19, that would enable some people to, you know, override some controls and have different sized secondary dwellings and so on. I think that's concerning. What I think is a real shame is that there's no requirement to actually be replacing damaged buildings with something that's safer and more resilient for the people that live, you know, within them.

I think that would have been a much more productive thing to actually ensure that these people could rebuild their homes but make them stronger and more resilient if they're doing so in vulnerable areas. The issues around flood seem particularly contrary to the aims of the increased flood protections that the state government has been introducing, and I think that it's sort of contrary to the notion of wanting to protect life and property if there's some sort of waiver of the controls that are in place. I think it seems that our controls are adequate to deal with this situation, and so I don't see why we would include this particular clause. So I support the recommendation in the business paper.

Thank you. I have two speakers for. Anyone wishes to speak against? Councillor Zamprogno,

Please. I'm just— I'm speaking for. Speaking for as well. Okay, on your indulgence. Yep. I mean, I was of two minds about this. It was my fault that we bounced this back to a briefing and that it's come back to us now, because I felt that it was a solution in search of a problem. And when I was able to secure additional data from staff, I found out that not only have the figures been revised in terms of the number of dwellings and outbuildings lost in the 2020 fires, and that we only had 12 dwellings lost, nine dwellings damaged, and 80 sheds or outbuildings destroyed or damaged, is that even a year later we've had a grand total of one DA lodged for a house and one for an outbuilding. And although there have been 10 other pre-lodgement meetings, it doesn't appear that this clause was something that was necessary.

It might have been of benefit in other LGAs, but I can't see the point, and I'm happy for us to set this one out.

Thank you. No further speakers. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Just very briefly, Mr Mayor, I think it was helpful for this to go to a briefing and come back. I don't think we've lost anything from that couple of weeks hiatus and a further chance to discuss how this really relates to our very vulnerable and complex LGA. So I think it's been a useful exercise for us.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 20.

Councillor Zamprogno, moving that way. Yep. Seconded, Councillor Richards.

Any discussion? No. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards , Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried. Anybody wish to go to that conference? Councillor Kotlash. Mr Mayor. Yes. Councillor— sorry, Deputy. Sorry.

Do we, do we have to decide now? I mean,

It's not —

It just says that's the option. I would like to go if I can, but I'm not sure if I can yet. So could we have the option perhaps of informing the staff, like by the end of the week or something like that? Yeah, we'll just

Include you and then you pull out if you want to, I guess. We've noted that you're a maybe. Yep. So we had Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Was there anyone else?

Just clarifying, Mr Mayor, that's for option 2, please, for me.

Yes Yep. Councillor Reynolds? Yep. Okay. Someone want to move that? Yep. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. All those in favour. Do we need to read that out? Yep. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried. Next item is—

Item 21, review of council committees.

I'd like to move that item with an amendment, Mr Mayor.

Do you want to move something different that's been sent to the staff, Councillor Richards

Yes, please. It has been sent to the staff, and it's a minor amendment. Would you like me to read it out?

This is the, Councillor Richards, this is the change to the table that I'd sent around to councillors earlier today. Correct. Yeah. I think staff have that wording, so bring that in.

Is there a seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Kotlash.

Discussion?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to confirm for the record that the additional words are in option one at the end of the sentence, as amended at the meeting, including with the addition of due dates.

Okay. Thank you. I might, did you want—yeah, I might just discuss briefly. I had sent around, so the table that was originally attached to the business paper, I've made some minor changes to the wording, and sent that, in collaboration with the councillors, and sent that around for councillors to review. It includes changing the matters to be referred into requests or questions, and putting due dates as per council's stated intention. That has been sent to all councillors. It's probably going to be hard to show it on the screen, but all councillors have had that by email and, of course, have been the minutes. I think if we go with that, it'll give much firmer direction to the committees as to what we want them to do and what our priorities are.

If there's any issues around the timelines, they are obviously quite arbitrary, and happy to discuss those and make changes to those on the floor now, of course. I think the idea was, though, to give some direction. So, other discussion? Councillor Calvert?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering whether Councillor Richards would consider adding a third point, which would be that the members of the dementia-friendly working group be advised that their group is not to be disbanded and that it will now report to the Community Services Committee.

Happy with that. That's fine.

Okay, write that on. Thank you, Councillor Richards. And, Mr Mayor, do you want me to explain that or just happy to? It's up to you.

Yeah.

I just wanted to point out that the members of that committee were advised a couple of weeks ago that their working group was going to be disbanded, and that was never the intention of this restructure. So, I would just like staff now to go back and talk to those members and make it clear to them that their working group will continue and that they will now report to the Community Services Committee. Just clear that up.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno?

I have no questions or objections

You've got your hand raised.

Oh, sorry, it's a legacy hand.

Yeah, okay. I wasn't just checking. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a question about your timelines, deadlines. I'm just wondering what the deadlines been based on. Did you discuss these individually with the staff, and also how are they being resourced? So, how. .. These actions going to take place by these deadlines. Does this mean other work is going to have to go by the wayside, or I'm just a little unsure at how you can come up with something being done by April when it's fairly apparent from what these actions are that certain staff will have to do these reports. And so I'm wondering, how do we prioritise what other work gets put by the wayside, in other words?

Sure. So I guess the first point is that all these items are actually already on the committee agendas, so none of these are new. So in terms of resourcing, they're already on the committee's agendas. So we're not actually talking about any new work. It's all existing work in the pipeline. I've worked on the assumption that the previous committee was going to deliver this work, and therefore we're not imposing anything new. I agree, actually, that some committees in particular, the Heritage Committee, has a huge workload. I was open to council prioritising some of that and taking some of that off, or changing the deadline so we're not doing it now, if council wanted to do that. Basically, I looked at the timeline, and essentially, if we want council to have time to act on the advice of these committees, we need that advice, you would think, at the latest by the end of June, when we're only going to be here till August.

So if we intend on doing it this term, that would be the latest deadline for any advice. If we don't intend on doing it this term, then council, I think, tonight should probably say that about some of these matters and take them off the agenda. And then, like I said, the timelines are quite arbitrary. Obviously the ones that are earlier than June, I've looked at that and seen after some discussion with staff and looked at, well, what do they feed into that's being worked on that we would need that advice earlier, or if they're an immediate priority of the council, then I've made that assumption. But like I said in that email out to you, it's just a starting point for discussion. I'm happy to move any of them around if you've got ideas.

Any further questions or discussion? No. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I share the Deputy Mayor's concerns, particularly about the Heritage Advisory Committee and the resourcing of that committee. Now, the work that the staff, the same department that does the work for the Heritage Advisory Committee, is also the department that is responsible for the bulk of the strategic planning document review, which means that that department is already overworked. And so it's extremely difficult for them to do that work and deliver on all of this work at the same time without additional resources. And I think we were very clear that part of the power of the Heritage Advisory Committee is that it has community-skilled and expert community members who are able to perform some of that work.

Now, all of them are committed to these outcomes because they are, as you've said, outcomes that have come from that committee. But I think if we're going to sign these people who are not elected representatives and are not staff members up to additional work, then we need to determine these dates and priorities in discussion with the Heritage Advisory Committee. And I'm a bit dismayed to see that all of this has been done without any discussion, particularly, or at least with myself as Chair and Councillor Reynolds. I'm not sure if Councillor Zamprogno has been in the loop. Councillor Reynolds and I certainly have not. So could I ask that the Heritage Advisory Committee items and the deadlines for them go to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which should meet in the next month anyway, for them to determine what is achievable in their remaining term on that committee.

That's an amendment, is it?

Yes, please

A seconder

Or a point four.

So, amendment, Councillor Richards, did you want to change your— Yeah. So it has to be an amendment. So, amendment moved by Councillor Wheeler that the items being referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee be referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee to comment on the priority prioritisation of that work.

I think the prioritisation and the deadlines of that work to be reported back to Council following the next meeting. It could be as early as March, I think. I don't think we need to labour this or delay it, and I'm happy to take Councillor Richards' additional three points into that. But I don't think you can give a community group eight pages of work to do and assign them dates and priorities. I think that's unreasonable.

I might just comment on that, just a couple of things there. The first point, to say that this has been done without consultation—it's not. Just clarify, it's not been done. I was quite clear about that. Nothing is done yet. We're here discussing it. It was sent out before the meeting for discussion, which I didn't get any feedback, and I've made it clear again tonight that I'm just a starting point on the dates and happy to discuss. So it's not that it's been done without you. It's not decided yet. Look, I think on principle, the idea of this, any council resources should be spent based on the decisions of the elected representatives of the council, not—so we shouldn't be referring prioritisation to a committee, I don't think.

The prioritisation should be by council as the elected representatives of the ratepayers. We should be deciding what's a priority for us in terms of how we want to spend our money and time . And I actually, you know, I think if what we're saying is that these items were never going to be done by the end of this term, then I think we probably need to fess up and say that to the people, to say that these things are not going to be done. I don't think it's up to us to commit the next council to do them by leaving them on there and saying that the committee should be doing these things, but they should have a deadline after the 30th of June and therefore clearly not reporting back to this council.

I don't think that's feasible. Having said that, I take your point that there's probably nothing to lose by asking for the Heritage Advisory Committee's comment on these deadlines and then council making a final decision when it comes back on what we want done. Of course, by then, if we're talking about a meeting in March, then we're coming back to council at the earliest at the second meeting in March, which doesn't leave a lot of time to do much this term. But I'd be, if that's the way council feels, I'd probably be happy to support that way forward . The seconder was Deputy Mayor.

Happy with that.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a point, your comment there that, you know, the prioritisation of matters before the Heritage Committee should be to the decision, the decision should be made by elected representatives, not anybody else. I mean, we're talking about specialist matters here. We're talking about matters that this committee has been working on for over four years. And with all due respect, Mr Mayor, you don't know anything about them. You don't know any of the detail of what's gone into them and what's required. So I fail to see how you and the rest of us who are not across the matters are in any position to decide. What should be prioritised and what should not be prioritised. That's the whole point of an advisory committee, is to advise Council.

And without wanting to go back into, you know, stuff from the last meeting and the merit of this whole committee thing, the reason the Heritage Committee was kept as it was was because it was a fully functioning and productive advisory committee for Council with members who are extremely qualified. And to rule them out of this decision is folly. It's folly, and I'm surprised that you would suggest that unskilled, unqualified people who were elected by the public for some reason, most of them because they had a political party flag above their head, should decide

What's bloody important in this regard, and this must go back to committee. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Zamprogno on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I had foreshadowed precisely this concern. I am all in favour of imposing deadlines because ultimately committees are there to do the Chamber's work, and I thought it was entirely appropriate to impose some deadlines. But I did feel that the imposition of some deadlines, I wouldn't use the word arbitrary, but certainly that they were heedless of external factors that are beyond this Chamber's control or the staff members' control and which would vary the ability of that committee to come back in the way that we're directing them to. And because this is a new era in terms of our committees, rather than add an amendment, I was simply going to suggest that these dates were taken as indicative rather than as binding.

It's not like— We're charging an external organisation to deliver a report, and if they don't meet that deadline, they're in breach of their contractual arrangement. These are committees of Council that are chaired by councillors and have councillors as members. So if we're unable to meet a particular deadline, it's not as though we're unaware of what the desire of the Chamber is. If the best way through is for these dates to go back to the Heritage Committee and then for them to report back to us about what's feasible, depending on what other inputs or contingencies come up, then we should just take that on board. On that basis, I'm happy to support the amendment.

Thank you . Sorry, can I ask anyone who's not trying to speak again on the amendment to lower your hand? Because there's lots of hands up, it's a bit hard to see who's next.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, just on a general point of committees and membership thereof, and what they can and can't do, I don't see, and I hope you don't either, see any reason why qualified people on a committee, or members of the committee, can't recommend priorities for action and which action comes before other actions. I just don't see that there's an issue there. I hope you don't see that either. I mean, Council, as you know, is the ultimate authority, can— and do different and set up different priorities. That's within Council's remit, and that is right and proper. So I don't see how you or anybody could take umbrage over committee members recommending that certain priorities be brought forward or be adopted, rather than, you know, some random whatever.

The second thing is, Mr Mayor, as you know, the expert committee members of HHC, you know, they're not saying they won't do this. In fact , as we all know, many of them, all of them, I suspect, have been waiting many years for these priorities to be done, and I think they'd want them done as quickly as possible. They've not been the problem. Council Chamber has been the problem on many of these things. So I really think we've got this, you know, the cart before the horse here. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. I'm not sure if you were listening earlier, but I certainly didn't take umbrage. I agreed that that was a sensible course of action . Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got a series of questions, but firstly I'd just say I think it's my understanding that the Heritage Committee members, of course, they do all want these things done. That's why they've been involved with it and voted to do them. So I don't think it's that they don't want to get them done. I think it's probably a matter of resourcing . I've just got some questions, and they stem from my concern that we still don't have any objectives or any clarification around how this is actually working. So we're going ahead and making other decisions. We're changing, some working groups can stay, some go. We're doing all this before we've actually ever come back with what was originally said we were going to get, which were the objectives of these committees, that they were going to come.

We don't know, I don't understand from what I read, what is the role of the councillors on these committees, and I'll give you an example to show you what I mean. For example, an outstanding action on the zero litter to ocean policy, for example, it says to provide a report in regard to what options are available with respect to a zero litter ocean policy, which is a council resolution that we have already. And I'm thinking, what's the role of the councillors in that? Because they can't write that report, and we already know we want the report. So why does this have to go to a committee to get a report when it's already something we've asked for? I'm just seeing a lot of duplication , and I'll tell you another example.

For example, the Warragamba Dam Wall, provide a report in regard to what actions would arise from the release of the environmental impact statement with respect to the Warragamba Dam wall.

So that doesn't actually appear in the document we're talking about, the change document, I don't believe. Oh

You've taken it out?

Yeah.

Oh, okay. I wasn't aware, and as Councillor Wheeler said before, she and I were all day in an online conference, and at lunchtime I was in the GM recruitment meeting, so I didn't have time to look at your document, which ordinarily I would have . Okay, so my questions really centre around what the councillors are doing, and it does give rise to the meeting that was held today, and perhaps if I raise my point around that, then somebody can answer me to make it a little bit clearer. So today there was a meeting held, I believe , and So I saw the agenda for the meeting and the recommendation in the agenda. I don't know if it was passed because now we wait for another council meeting to hear what happened .

But the recommendation was one particular thing, which was about giving consideration to send an invitation, whereas we have an existing council resolution that says that committee will invite Telstra and the federal member to a meeting. So I'm very confused at why an agenda would then be set up that doesn't say to do that when we've just referred something to it. I'm finding it really difficult to see any productivity in what's happening.

Well, technically, we're no longer debating whether we like the structure. We're talking about whether or not we should— I'm

Trying to raise my question around these outstanding actions.

Okay, just because your comment was that you didn't see any productivity, I don't think that's a question about this matter. Well

The question is that that then goes to this document, which has things that are going to be done, which are similar. They're saying do things that, like about the Richmond Bridge thing, we were requested by the RMS to give an opinion on the options report. We don't need a committee to provide us a report in what actions we might take when that's released. Yes

I agree. I've also suggested we take that out. So just to clarify , we did sort of cover it off in the business paper. To answer your question, these are all items from the existing committees, the previous committees. These are the items that were on their agenda that were being discussed meeting after meeting. And what we're doing is we're deciding whether or not we want to reassign them. So we're not— the report on the Zero to Ocean policy, council resolved at that time to refer it to the Sustainability Advisory Committee, and that's why it's sitting on this business paper. So we could tonight resolve we don't need to refer that and not refer it, but that's where these have all come from, from the existing committee, and we're deciding whether or not we want to reassign them to a new committee.

Well, yes, but I'm asking how it's going to work.

Surely

A valid question.

Well, I don't see how it's—you can ask a question around how it's going to work. It's not a very specific question that can be answered, but that's not actually relevant to the item anyway. But happy to answer any questions around the committee structure.

Well, my question is, who is going to write the report for that? How is the expertise drawn upon, and what is the role of the councillors who are on that committee in that specific action? That's my question, because that's what I don't— Yeah,

Sure. So to answer that question, with the zero litter to ocean policy, I imagine the environment committee would convene a meeting. They would invite any experts they wanted to hear from, as well as having an open to public address. They would take those submissions, both verbal and written submissions, and then use that information to compile their advice back to council. And that would require staff assistance, as it does with the current committee structure, the previous committee structure.

Okay, so the councillors would be inputting to the report. Yes. I can't see what's different to what we did before, that's all.

So they would be part of writing the report, is that what you're saying?

Yes, like any committee, the committee will come up with its advice, and then the secretariat will have secretariat assistance to provide the report, as we did before.

Okay, so really the shift is that you're now saying that instead of the staff doing the reports, as they always would have from committees, now the councillors are writing the reports with the staff

I'm not suggesting the councillor and the staff are going to sit down at a desk together and write it. It'll be a very similar process to before, whereas the committee will decide what it wants its advice to be. It will show that it will have the resources that it drew on to get that advice, and then staff will compile that into a report for council.

Okay, all right . I just have one other question, and that centres around, and I don't know if you've taken this out of your other document, around the Floodplain Risk Management Committee, the disbanding of, and the fact that this document says that the Disaster and Emergency Committee will act as an advisory committee in accordance with the Floodplain Manual. I think that's inconsistent. That's not correct, because to be in accordance with the Floodplain Development Manual, you have to have experts on your committee, and you have to have community representation on your committee. So I would ask that that's removed because we can't perform that function in that model of committee, because it's contrary to what that manual dictates a committee should comprise.

Okay, so we've got an amendment at the moment that we're considering, so you have to foreshadow that amendment to be considered after this one .

Mr Mayor, I'm happy to make that change, perhaps 2.2, that 2.2 includes some sub-clauses for things that could be removed from the table.

So you want to change the amendment so that to take the amendment plus the council remove the referral of acting as an advisory committee in accordance with the Floodplain Development Manual?

Yes .

Thank you

I think we'll probably need to just for... Transparency and fair process here. That's substantially different to what the amendment looked like. So anyone who wants to speak again on the amendment will probably need to be allowed to.

Yes, unless, of course, Councillor Wheeler preferred to leave that until there's actually a meeting of that committee, in which case we can clarify what exactly it does and try and work out how we can fulfil our obligations properly in accordance with the manual, which we're currently not doing. I had one other question, and that was around the waste , the waste management committee, and that was to do with, we had within the waste committee, we had a food and organic waste pilot project working group, which has never been referred to. Presumably it's disbanded. I think that that was incorporated, I can't see it now, but I think it was just incorporated into the waste

Environment, into the environment under the draft waste management strategy . I think that's unfortunate. It wasn't a formalised committee, as in through a resolution of council specifically, although it was a resolution within the committee of the waste committee. And I think we had done a lot of work on that. There were experts in the field, and we were moving towards putting to the council a pilot project in that regard. So I would expect that that would be a priority to just have it come back in another report saying what steps are required to finalise the trial. I don't know who would do that if you're not going to draw on the people who've already done it.

Yeah, I might refer that to the acting director, supports services, as to why that working group is not appearing in the report. Is that— Well

It's not a formal working group . It's a working group formed within the committee. It was formed—

There was a resolution of the committee there?

Yes

Yeah, it should be appearing then, I would have thought.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We did not come across it, but we can certainly have another look.

Sure, because the intention would not be to disband that committee— sorry, that working group if there's a working group attached to that item. And certainly the intention, both the amendment and the motion are proposing to refer that. The wording's changed slightly, Deputy Mayor, but it is to refer that to that committee to continue to advise on the Food Organics and Garden Organics pilot. So—

Thank you for that, Mr Mayor. I think if you recall, I think Councillor Richards had a notice of motion one time also about it, bringing it forward, and we decided that the best outcome was that we did the working group within the waste committee, which we were already working on. And so it was informal by nature. It wasn't itemised as specifically who it would be comprised of, but it ended up being comprised of some councillors and some community members who were very knowledgeable in the sector.

Okay. Well, I guess if it's not formal, then we probably can't formally disband it either. So I think the intention will be that continues. Okay,

Thank

You. Sorry , one moment. Councillor Richards. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I was considering the amendment, but now I'd like to see that additional wording, like

You said, for wording. Sorry, just want to clarify, Councillor Wheeler, were we including that wording or were we leaving it for the committee? I wasn't sure what the resolution was

I think the Deputy Mayor's suggestion has some merit that it goes to the committee and we work out what's possible from that, particularly if it's governed by legislation. Yep

Thank you.

So I'm talking on what's on the board. So the amendment is on the board is current. Thank you. So as I said, I'm happy to consider the amendment. If I can just ask a couple of questions to clarify timelines. When is the Heritage Committee set to meet again, or has that date not been decided?

Refer that to Director City Planning.

I'm not aware of the date at the moment unless somebody else can. I'd have to come back to you on that. Okay .

Councillor Wheeler, do you know the date by any chance, or roughly?

No, I don't, because I think it's been tied up in this process. Normally we would meet in February.

Okay. Councillor Richards.

Thank you. I hope that there's an intention amongst everybody that we can set that date ASAP and get that one sorted, just as we did with the Innovation and Partnerships Committee today and had that one sorted nice and quickly. So if we can get that date set, because my next question flows on from that, will the prioritisation and deadlines of those tasks, it says they'd be reported back, but can I just check that's to the very next Council meeting after they do meet? So the current Council, as in the current term, have an understanding of what will be done and met before the end of September 2021. So I just wanted to ensure that even if we don't have the exact date for that meeting yet, can we at least confirm when it's reported back to Council, it's the immediate meeting after, so we can get on with the work that needs to be done?

Refer that to Acting General Manager.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, we'll look at that and where we can convene the Heritage Committee as soon as possible

Okay,

Thank you.

Thank you . Councillor Brennan, do you want to speak again? Ask a question?

Yeah, just a question, Mr Mayor, and it refers to, with your indulgence, it refers to the committee meeting that was held today. I tried to watch it and it wasn't broadcast on YouTube like our normal public meeting. So I was wondering, is that an oversight or are the committee meetings...? Look

It was definitely our understanding that it was live streaming, so I'm sure we passed that feedback on. If it wasn't, we'll have to look into that. Yep. Okay,

Thank you

Councillor Wheeler?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, that's a legacy hand.

Okay. All right, so we'll put the amendment first. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. If I could ask that the words be taken off the screen so I can see . In favour of the amendment are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zappogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote, declare it carried. Any further discussion on the motion now? No, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Richards. Not needed.

Right of reply,

All right, we'll put that. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zappogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote and declare it carried.

Next item is item 22, the minutes of the Civic Citizenship Committee. Someone want to move those? Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Just a question, Mr Mayor. I understood from, and I know this is changing anyway, so I'm pleased to know that it'll be the new format. But in the past years, I thought we had discussed whether councillors would be given a list of the nominees. That didn't happen this year.

Okay, I'm not sure. That's all

Right.

It's not

An issue now. I just

Wondered

Why. But yeah, thank you. Yeah

I guess like you said, in future years it'll be decided by the entire council anyway. I guess we can take that on notice and refer that list if it's possible . Councillor Wheeler.

Yeah, similar point to the Mayor, and I agree it's a moot point if this is going to come to the whole council. But the result of this is that council, apart from seeing the people who turned up on Australia Day, is unaware, the bulk of council is unaware of who the nominees were or the process for selecting the winners. And I think that's a bit problematic when there's an award that is conferred by the whole council, for the majority of us to have no idea of what's happened in that meeting is unacceptable. Yeah

I agree. Any further discussion? If not, put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour : Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Item 23 is questions with notice.

Deputy Mayor, did you have a question on the question?

Thank you. I didn't have a question, just a very brief comment, Mr Mayor, and that was to just thank the staff for both the comprehensive and encouraging answer, and also for the efforts taken in this path, because it's a really, really important issue that I know that I and others have been pushing for a long time, and I hope that something further happens sooner rather than later, that these things continue to be done by the staff as they've been being done in line with our net zero emissions strategy and so on. And I'd just like to thank them because I think it's very interesting, particularly as I know of the work that Mr Chalkley has done in Western Australia, and I think that that is really a good result. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

I'm just wondering if the information here and the ramifications of it will come back to Council via the Disaster and Emergency Committee. It appears to me to fit into that point. Provided a report in regard to what the evidence collected and solutions identified in regards to the issue associated with power supply risk of the river. It says here flood events, but I think flood and fire is probably pertinent based on what we see here. So is this going to come back to us, or are we just going to sit on this knowledge now? Yeah

No, we can certainly include that when the committee is collecting that evidence. I think we'll refer to this. It's a good point. Thanks . No further discussion. So I want to move.

Someone want to move we go into confidential. Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Declare it carried.

Okay, we're now live streaming again. I refer to the

Acting General Manager. Thanks, Mr Mayor. In regard to Item 24, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that one, Council approve the extension of an easement area in the order of 34.15 square metres within 698 George Street, South Windsor, Lot 1 DP 879466, owned by Windsor Leagues Club, as shown in the location plan attached as Attachment 1 to the report, and compensation in the amount detailed in this report be accepted by Council. Two , authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of the resolution be conveyed to the owner, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Calvert, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Conolly. Councillor Ross was not present. In regard to Item 25, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Zembrogno, that one, Council agree to enter into a new licence agreement with Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd for part of the property known as Magnolia Mall Car Park 7 West Market Street, Richmond, as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for the licence agreement and any other relevant documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council.

Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed licensee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. Voting in favour of the resolutions were Councillor Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Calvert, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Conolly. Councillor Ross was not present.

Thank you, Acting General Manager. That concludes tonight's meeting. So the meeting closed at 8.13. Thanks everyone.