23 February 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Dharkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging. I hand over to the General Manager for procedural matters.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Members attending the meeting are advised that in the 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 the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The recordings may be made available to other persons to access 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 you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested if any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. We have one apology. I'll just refer that to the General Manager to read that one.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. A request has been received from Councillor John Ross for leave of absence from the Council meeting of the 23rd of February 2021.

I don't think anyone else is here, so there's no other apologies. So if someone would move to accept that leave. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. Seconded? Councillor Kotlash. All in favour, say aye. Against? Declared carried. Does anybody have any declarations of interest?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Richards.

Item 30, pecuniary interest, thanks. Okay.

Deputy Mayor

Sorry, Mr Mayor. Yes, I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in

Item 30. Thank you. We have two item— sorry, the minutes from the previous meeting. Does somebody want to move we accept those? Moved, Councillor Kotlash.

Seconded, Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? Against?

Two items subject to public address tonight. The first item is item

30. We had a late—well, we had a registration that didn't come through on the initial sheet, sorry councillors, but there's a speaker, Mr David O'Dowd. So given that it was just a registration issue, we'll allow him to speak. But before I call on Mr O'Dowd, I'll just get Councillor Richards and the Deputy Mayor to read your interest onto the tape. Councillor Richards?

Pecuniary interest. My partner owns land in the KKIA.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest, and my house is within the investigation area in Kurrajong Road.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we'll just wait for Councillor Richards to leave and Deputy Mayor to be removed. Sorry, hello? Sorry, Mr O'Dowd, one moment. We'll be ready for you. Thank you. Sorry, I just— That's okay .

Do I have to remove myself?

No, we're just having some problems removing you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

That's the way it goes.

Apology.

Okay. So yeah, our first speaker is Mr O'Dowd.

Thank you, Mr Mayor and councillors. My interest in this is on behalf of David and Christine Seal, who live in Vincent Road, in Kurrajong, and as you're probably aware, there's been a lot of correspondence over quite a number of years about this, and I've come involved because... There's been a, I suppose, what one might call the delays that we just don't comprehend about the adoption of the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation plan. And Linda Prince has been helpfully dealing with this beyond this. And what I, my interest in this is to seek to obtain some understanding about why is it that the adoption of the plan, albeit on it having been recommended by the Planning Department, having been the subject of detailed submissions and public exhibition and all the usual requirements, is now apparently being determined to need to abide the outcomes or the finalisation of a number of other instruments, including the Local Strategic Planning Statement, the draft Rural Land Strategy and the draft Housing Strategy.

And whilst it's been said that its consideration for final adoption is awaiting those , the finalisation of those matters, that is something that is not understood because, as I see it, there's no reason why it has to, and nobody has been able to give us a reason why it has to other than the fact that it has to abide it. And I understand today's agenda item is to determine how, not to determine to adopt it or not, but determine how it is going to be dealt with going forward so that it's not just another open-ended kind of situation where we just don't know when this is going to be dealt with. There's been a lot of money, a lot of time spent on this in the past, and we thought it was done and dusted, and we're still in this limbo, and I'm wondering if somebody could explain to us or assist us in understanding.

What's happening?

Thank you for that. Happy to take questions from Councillors, if there are any. Yeah, absolutely. Councillors, are there any questions?

Okay. It doesn't appear there's any questions. Oh, sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Mr O'Dub, can I ask in what capacity you're representing David and Christine, just to help us understand

Well, I'm David and Christine's son-in-law, and so I'm very much not a lawyer, also a practising barrister, but I'm not wearing that hat as I speak to you today. I don't wish to be sounding like, you know, I'm trying to be intimidating. I just, I have real concerns myself, and I've been corresponding with Linda wearing that hat in a way, but I'm a great believer in sorting these things out between people. I just don't think there's need to get into that sort of stuff. So, I mean, they're in a situation where, you know, what they do going forward has been waiting on this particular issue for a number of years, significantly. And I just, that's how I became involved. But what I wanted to do was to assist , not persuade, but to leave this meeting knowing that, for example, that this matter could be determined sooner rather than later, and if there is some reason why it has to abide these other three matters, then that could be, because nobody's been able to give us an explanation for that.

It's a standalone process, and one isn't dependent on the other. That's a very important issue for us.

No, that's helpful. Thank you. So, do you have—your issue is to get this resolved so that you can move on from this process. Do you have a preference for the way that resolution would

Well, in our mind, it's simple. It's the adoption of the plan that's been recommended by the planning officers. It's after an exhaustive and very thorough and very expensive process. It's been exhibited, so in the usual course, and I'm not obviously teaching anyone to suck eggs, these matters—that's why we have these expert bodies to advise us— these things then go before council and they're determined, and in the normal course, in accordance with the advice received from their own departments. And for some reason that hasn't happened. Not because perhaps it's not going to happen, but because people are saying, or somebody's saying, well, we should wait for these other things. And what I'm saying is there's no need to do that. We'd just like this plan to be adopted in accordance with the recommendation, and then —

That's our point, I think.

Thank you very much, Mr O'Dowd. That's helpful.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Mr O'Dowd. So I take it that you would like council to adopt the strategic plan so you can move on. Is that right? Absolutely. That's— Okay . Yes, indeed . Sorry

Councillor Reynolds, you've got that audio issue again. You have to yell at us.

Yep, I'll speak up again. We've been trying to deal with that today. Mr O'Dowd, is the property— That your in-laws own, is it in Vincent Road? Did you say it was 36?

Yes, I just, I believe it. It's on the form. I'll have a mental block as to what number it is, but it's

I think it might. It's just that the— I was looking at that today, and the planning proposal is actually for number 36 and number 42.

That was— although that doesn't cause any— in my, doesn't cause any issue, because that was initially a joint proposal with , I think his name was Rafael, who was an adjacent landholder, and they submitted the plan together, and so they would be pursuing, I believe that, as I understand it.

So he still owns the place and still wants to go ahead, as far as you're aware?

As far as I'm aware, yes. I don't have personal knowledge of that myself, but certainly as far as Mr. Seals is concerned, nothing's changed. And while they have aligned interests, they're discrete properties, and they affect the properties, you know, in the same way. Right.

No, I just saw the two numbers together and thought it may have been one big joint proposal. Thanks for that. I

Understand Dave Seals has a 16 hectare property. Yeah, I've been to it, obviously, and it's— yeah, yeah .

Thank you

Thank you. Thank you, Peter

Thank you

Councillor Rasmussen. No audio there , Councillor Rasmussen. No video either

We can see you but not hear you now. If

You can still hear me, I take it.

Yes, I can. Yeah, I think it just cancels the rest of my son's issue there. Might just give it a moment and see if you're able to fix that, cancel the rest of my son, and be able to move on

Hello , hello, hello. Perfect. Okay. Is that better? Yeah, we can hear you now. Yeah. Oh

Sorry about all that. That's all right. Go ahead with your question. Yarramundi is a long way from Windsor. I'm sorry about that. Well, I had simple

Problems in the city, so don't worry.

Yeah, no problem. Anyway, it's all good and fun. Now, I'm just going to ask you, apart from thanking you for that sort of rounding out of your interest in this, now I think you mentioned in your summary there that you had spoken with Linda.

Did Linda not give you a good explanation as to why it's proceeding in this way and why it needs to go this way?

All Linda can do is, and with due respect to Linda, and I don't want to drop her in it because she's being as helpful as she can be, she can explain to me... If you like , the resolution or the rationale, which is delay is caused by the fact that

The determination of this is going to abide the determination of those other three matters. And my question was to her, why must it? I mean, just because someone says it won't be determined until these matters are determined, it doesn't explain to us why, because as I understand it, and the advice I've given is that this is a standalone instrument, an investigation which was duly investigated, submitted on, advertised, all of the above. And then when the process got to the point where it was for adoption by the council, with the appropriate recommendation, yay or nay from the planning officers and department, it didn't proceed. And so whilst Linda could tell me about those three things, she couldn't tell me why, because she doesn't know why.

And of course, for someone to examine the veracity or the correctness or otherwise or the appropriateness or otherwise of an administrative decision such as that by council, one needs to understand the reasoned process, and that is not something that, after 30 years of experience in the law, I can understand. And I asked Linda if she could explain it, and she couldn't because she said, Well, that's a matter for the councillors. That reasoning hasn't been exposed to us. And I

Don't think

There is

That, with respect, I don't know that there

Can be any reason, given what I understand about the process, but be that as may, that's one of my major concerns. Okay.

Thank you very much. I'll quiz Linda on that a bit later. Thank you.

Yes, she's done everything she can do, but she can't get in the mind of the councillors. I think that's— yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah

I think I might just, before we get to the debate anyway, just for clarity, I think probably just remind councillors that, to be fair to the staff, the resolution adopted by the council was contrary to the staff's recommendation, so we probably can't be publicly questioning why they didn't back up that reasoning with arguments for you. That's right. So that was the final speaker. Anybody wish— Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move the motion in the business paper with option one, that we adopt the structure plan and proceed with planning proposals to amend zoning, etc., as the resolution of council. Okay

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Garrow . Discussion, Councillor Wheeler.

I think we've just had some excellent input from the speaker. We have been through a very exhaustive, thorough and expensive process. At the time that we began this process, the early stages of the Kurrajong-Kurmond Structure Plan coming to us, councillors were largely very pleased with the results of the plan and voiced that it represented a new era for council, an era of council-led planning which I took to the last election . As a way forward for Council, that we stop being the victim of developments that come to us and that we set the standard for what we expect to happen in this LGA as elected representatives. Now, the game changed for us when we lost our capacity to determine DAs, and it made things like the Kurmond Structure Plan.

Far more valuable for us as a planning document. And then we've had all the overlays of the Greater Sydney Commission, the Western Districts Plan, and the LSPS, which I believe this plan to be consistent with. Many or several of us would like to see the Kurrajong-Kurmond plan rolled out across the LGA to give not only developers certainty, but our residents certainty as to what the LGA that they live in will look like going forward. I think this is a really responsible step for Council, and I urge councillors to get this document back into circulation. Let's tidy this up. We've heard endless discussions about people spending lots of money and people wasting their time and all of those things.

This is Council's time and money that we have put into this document. It's an excellent document, and I think it's high time we put it to good use.

Thanks, Councillor

Wheeler. Councillor Carver. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, if I may. I believe the secretary has a copy of my proposed motion or amendment. Basically it is to Council to—

Just waiting to see if it comes up—

Council to proceed with point four,

Which is not adopt the structure plan, and with the sentence added on the end which says, And Council does not encourage any further large-scale development west of the river.

Words to that effect. I'm just waiting for it to come up. Would

I just wait till we get that up on the screen and then see if there's a seconder

We're having trouble getting that on the screen. I might just, I can see it on this screen, so I might just read it out. The amendment is, oh here we go, on the screen.

Is there a seconder for the amendment? Councillor Zamprogno. Discussion, Councillor Carver.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This structure plan has been hovering around for a long time , and the development of the plan caused a lot of uncertainty just by the fact that it existed or was being developed. It also provided a lot of anticipation amongst many residents west of the river, thinking that council had decided that development west of the river was a good thing. We just have to finish this plan and off we go. I don't think council ever decided that, and I find it unfortunate that people took it that the plan or the development of the plan actually meant that we were, as a council, in favour of any more development west of the river. Now, just because we put this plan in place and we spent money on it doesn't mean that council is any way tied to it, that we have to pass it, we have to support it.

We put it up so we could have a look at it. And my recollection is when it did come to briefing sessions, et cetera, at council, it wasn't warmly received by all councillors. Some of us were not very warm at all, because what this plan does is it sanctions development in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area when most people in that area, from what I can remember, are not in favour of such development. Only small pockets of people are in favour of the development, and I think that's the people—we need to listen to the people in general, not the small number of people who have land in these pockets. I mean, if you lived in that area, then obviously you would say, Yeah, I want this to go ahead, but if you are part of the larger Kurrajong west of the river community, from what I can see, they do not want any more development of housing in any large numbers, and this structure plan would enable such development to take place.

Therefore, I believe it's our responsibility to say, Yeah, thank you for the hard work, thank you for the plan, but we're not going to adopt it. And furthermore, we're not going to encourage any lodgement of additional planning proposals in the Kurmond and Kurrajong area. And I find it unfortunate that there was a lot of anticipation going around and a lot of people getting the wrong idea, but I firmly believe that council never went on that path. They just wanted to see what the plan would come out, what it would look like, and then make a decision after that. And what I'm saying here is, here's the plan, and our decision should be: let's not adopt it, let's restrict development west of the river.

So I urge my fellow councillors to support my amendment.

Mr Chairman, may I

Be heard briefly on that? Thanks, Councillor. Sorry, Mr O'Dowd, the time for public address is closed and now just restricted to the councillor debate. It would be a disappointing outcome. Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There's a concept in economics called the sunk cost fallacy. It basically boils down to falling into the trap of throwing good money after bad. When we inherited the idea of having subdivision of some form in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area, I always had my misgivings. I was prepared to encourage good planning work to either mitigate the bad elements of this, or to provide us with the kind of toolkit that we might use elsewhere. And a good example of that would be the Views and Vistas report that we did in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area. I was equally seized of the obligation to give applicants who had lodged valid planning proposals the benefit of due process. And in the first half of this term of council, I was disappointed that it was not possible in some cases to give them the benefit of due process.

People were voting against things or holding them up simply because they didn't like the idea. And that's not how a good government should work.

I support Councillor Calvert's amendment that we complete this process and do not adopt the structure plan. I believe that we should give those remaining applicants the benefit of due process to bring their applications to whatever natural conclusion they need to, but I do not think that we should be subdividing west of the river, because it is not necessary for us to do this to satisfy the housing quotas or aspirations we have in our residential lands strategy. And it appears that it's going to be increasingly difficult to get any additional planning proposals off the ground because of the additional constraints that are being put on us by the Greater Sydney Commission. So I find that I am in an unusual situation as a Liberal, is that I am trying to mitigate against excessive or inappropriate development, but that there is another motion which will be voted on if this amendment should fail from our Greens councillor that would effectively permit further subdivision in that area and against the broad wishes of that community.

So for that reason, I'm happy to support Councillor Calvert's amendment.

Thanks Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions to staff or yourself, if I may,

If I can find them. Questions are: if we do not adopt the Kurrajong-Kurmond strategy... Will it stop spot planning proposals from occurring as they have done in the past, or will it still be possible for, you know, a property owner to apply for a planning proposal that doesn't meet the zoning but still go through the process?

I'll refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning.

Mr Mayor, so individual planning proposals can be lodged at any time. It's obviously up to Council what it decides to do with those particular planning proposals that are lodged, and that's following a process that also involves the officer's assessment of the planning proposal and obtaining advice from the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, as is required before coming to Council.

Okay, so not adopting it won't stop proposals for subdivision. So if the Kurrajong-Kurmond strategy is adopted, then it puts in place planning , as I understand it, that will limit the size and the amount of subdivision. That's right, is it?

I'll refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning.

Yes, so the draft structure plan has a number of provisions and controls that relate to lot size in particular, so the size of lots in different locations based on the assessment of various constraints and opportunities as part of that whole investigation area structure planning process. So that would inform a council-led planning proposal to amend our LEP and DCP provisions in accordance with the structure plan.

Okay. Another question. I'm sure I read it somewhere, and I think it was yourself, Mr. Kearns, who said that the strategy was developed in line with the principles of the Greater Sydney Commission's metropolitan rural area and the Western District Plan. Is that, even though the strategy itself may not, you know, 100% comply with the Western District Plan, it provides for proposals or planning proposals outside the scope of the Western District Plan and bases that on the studies that have been done. Is that right?

Refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, any strategy work that we do has to undertake, has to consider the New South Wales planning framework. So that's obviously the Sydney Region Plan and the Western City District Plan as part of that process, because at the end of the day, any planning proposal that we lodge, you know, has to address those key strategy documents. So if we provide a plan that's inconsistent with those strategy documents, then we've got very little chance of having success with getting that planning proposal through.

Okay. And just to confirm, the Greater Sydney Commission, who developed the Western District Plan and the metropolitan rural area, they requested that the Kurrajong-Kurmond strategy be included in the LSPS. Is that right?

Refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning. Mr

Mayor, yes, there was a previous request from the Greater Sydney Commission for the inclusion of reference to the Kurmond-Kurrajong Structure Plan in the Local Strategic Planning Statement. Council did resolve to not include reference to the LSPS, and so it was withdrawn. Okay,

Thank you.

I'll speak on the matter later on. Thanks, Mr. Mayor

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Did you mean to still have your hand up? No. Okay, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment. Look, I think the amendment sounds like it's good intentioned, but I think it's naive and it's based on false premises. And frankly, it's at odds with the behaviour of those pushing for it previously. It's not that the Kurrajong-Kurmond Investigation Area plan, that this plan caused uncertainty and provided anticipation. That was already there. It was actually previous councils that did that with spot rezonings, and those with interests in this sector who actually encouraged applications through letterbox drops and letters to landowners. Council was then forced to deal with that anticipation, and we've seen where that's gone wrong. And I think Bells Line of Road is a good example of quite large developments in areas that are not suited with respect to biodiversity, slope, views, traffic, climate change, etc.

This doesn't encourage development. What this does is control development, and there's a really big difference there. And I think the Manager of Strategic Planning has highlighted that. I will also remind you that many of you have voted for these plans to go ahead based on Councillor Zamprogno's sunk cost fallacy, where you've used the fact that applicants have spent time and money on, and therefore their application should be not only processed, but in many cases adopted, or, sorry, passed. Because they've spent time and money, you... that's the trouble with fallacies. Sometimes they go in your favour, and sometimes they don't.

This leaves, if we drop the structure plan, we really leave ourselves open, as we have been for the last 15 years. Dropping this plan favours individual developers and spot planning proposals. It allows those who send applications in, many of which are likely to fail, to develop a false understanding of what this council will tolerate. It means that those applications that come in aren't governed by any particular controls, and that's our responsibility now as the body responsible, not for looking at individual planning proposals necessarily or DAs, but as the body that does the strategic planning and puts the development controls in place. Good governance means that you have a clear plan, transparent, evidence-based and fair for everybody, and that's what this structure plan provides.

I'm happy to add a clause that council doesn't support further development west of the river. I think that's clear from the emerging planning documents, including our LSPS, but I don't think that point three does that strongly. I think it's weak and ineffectual. What it says is that council does not encourage the lodgement. That doesn't mean anything. We may not encourage it, but that doesn't stop it, and it doesn't control what those outcomes look like effectively. You may be doing this because you think that you will signal to the community that you are not pro-development, but I have to say that your actions over the last four years show very much that that is not the case. Further, I don't think that this achieves those ends for the community, and therefore this is based on a flawed premise.

Thank you. I might just ask a question at this point to the Manager of Strategic Planning. If we do adopt the structure plan.. . Does that stop further spot rezoning applications?

No. So any planning proposal can be lodged over different sites, whether it's within the investigation area or outside of the investigation area, and there's a process to assess individual planning proposals.

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

If not, I might just speak— oh, sorry, Councillor Reynolds, you want to speak on the amendment?

Sorry, you're on mute, Councillor Reynolds.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, just a quick question and then I might speak. You raise a good point then with your question. If the Kurrajong-Kurmond strategy is adopted and goes through the LEP process and DCP process, and then someone comes in with a spot planning proposal which is outside the scope laid down by the Kurrajong-Kurmond strategy,

Is that planning proposal likely to be favourably received by planners, in your opinion?

Whose opinion did you want?

Obviously someone with planning knowledge.

I thought you might mean that, but you directed it to me, so I'm going to assume you'd like Mr Kern's opinion.

Yes, well, normally questions are directed through the Mayor. That's why I asked you.

Yep, I'll give you my opinion, but it's sort of having a second bite.

So refer that to the manager, strategic planning.

Mr Mayor, so it's obviously— Subject to applications that we do receive, and obviously it's a hypothetical question because, you know, particular applications could vary in terms of what's actually applied for. But in principle, if something is applied for that's inconsistent with strategy documents that have gone through a particular process, then it's probably unlikely that, from an officer's perspective, that it would be supported if it didn't meet the strategy guidelines. Okay,

Thank you. And if I may speak, Mr Mayor, with your — that's terrific, thank you. Regarding, someone pointed out that it was against the wishes of people on the other side of the river, and I too do not want to see large-scale development west of the river. We went to the last election on the platform of no large-scale development west of the river, but at the same time saying we weren't against strategic and well-planned development. Now, this is what this is. This is strategic, strategic planning. Excellent strategic planning. Now, we've actually had, in the submissions that were received when these documents went on public exhibition, there were 26 written submissions, and there were only six people against it.

That's all. Only six people objected to the draft structure plan. So, regarding chaos and people thinking that Council was taking, was open to receiving spot planning proposals, Councillor Wheeler was, you know, largely correct. And I can quote from the former Director of Planning when he spoke to, I think it was the Planning Commission. He said,

Basically, the investigation

Was announced within one kilometre of the built areas, and he said, and that ended up creating confusion. And I'm speaking from experience because the confusion was directed at me at the time.

So in a way, this area, the Kurrajong-Kurmond area, was under pressure. So we developed, instead of using the general criteria, we drew lines around Kurrajong-Kurmond, and that's the red line there. So that's what we walked into as a hospital pass when we came to this Council. And what we've done is we've had to see it through. Now, the process this has gone through is exhaustive, and it's been

One which I heard one councillor say, you know, is excellence in planning. It's taken in every conceivable issue that could be raised, even to views and vistas, which some people, you know, basically said, and I think it may have even been yourself, Mr Mayor. To said that in a democracy, nobody has the right to determine what is a significant view or vista, even though that now views and vistas are required by the GSC, state views and vista studies required by the GSC, and since 2013 have been recognised by the Land and Environment Court as a reason not to approve development. So it all comes down to a thing called solastalgia, which is basically the impact of lived environment when development occurs.

Now all that has been taken into account right here. Now there's nothing to stop the next council when it comes along, depending on its political makeup and who or who not it may be favourable with, to let a spot planning proposal, a large-scale subdivision, proceed. They may support it. This stops that.

This protects what's there, and it gives certainty, and it gives all the requirements that any landowner needs if they're thinking of doing any sort of subdivision. So I can't support this amendment. This amendment just opens the door back to the horrors that we saw with planning proposals coming in, arguments, dragging us into court. So, no, no. This is a good document. It's a good strategy. It's not one that I personally would have commenced, but it already had been commenced when we came in, and so we've had to deal with it. And as they want to see it brought to a conclusion, and I think that we need to adopt it as in Option One, and give certainty to the people of Kurrajong and Kurmond.

And I'll just read out, Mr Mayor, an ad for a property in the heart of Kurrajong. It says, This fantastic ten-acre corner property with long road frontage, situated in the heart of Kurrajong, has been identified in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area draft plan with a recommendation lot size of basically one acre. Now, one-acre lot size, it may not be as large as everybody wants, especially in the heart of Kurrajong where you have much, much, much smaller—

Councillor Reynolds, your time has expired, so I've just got you to wrap up.

Yeah, so what I'm saying is that it's quite clear to me and the people I've spoken to that even though it may not be the ideal thing to a lot of people, it is the best thing and the best outcome and the best that planning could provide for the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area, which we were handed when we walked in here. So I'm against the amendment. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Kotlash. And just, can I just remind councillors, if you're no longer wish to speak, just remember to lower your hand, if that's okay. It makes it a bit hard to read. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. If I could just ask a question, I'll just get some clarification because it was my understanding that the Sydney Region Plan and the Western City District Plan, because it had described the Hawkesbury as having mostly metropolitan rural areas, that that guarded against the prospect of ever having any of the large residential developments that Councillor Reynolds just referred to. So my understanding is we have those sorts of controls in place already. Can I just get that clarified, please?

Yeah, I refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning.

Mr Mayor, so the Metropolitan Rural Area classification that's in the Region Plan and District Plan really does highlight that urban development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Metropolitan Rural Area. It also highlights that generally rural residential development isn't encouraged in the Metropolitan Rural Area.

Thank you. Thank you. Did

You want to speak, Councillor Kotlash, or—

No Okay. I'll just make a few remarks in response to some of the points raised. I'm going to support the amendment. At the start of this Council term, there was a number of outstanding planning proposals for the Kurrajong-Kurmond area, some many years old. And at that point in time, I think it was fairly clear that the community sentiment was that we didn't want to continue with rural residential development in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area. Myself and some other councillors felt very strongly that it was unfair to change the policy after these planning proposals had been lodged and apply a new policy to those planning proposals. So my view at that point, which I made very clear, was that we should continue to process those planning proposals based on the way they'd been processed before any policy change, but change the policy so that we weren't bringing in more rural residential development in Kurmond-Kurrajong.

Councillor Reynolds is, I don't believe, correct that this process was started in the previous Council. It was, I think, 2017 when Council decided it should embark on the investigation area and structure plan. The previous council had an investigation area. However, the previous council determined a set of criteria which it would use to assess applications. It was this council that decided to defer consideration of those applications until the structure planning had been completed. And at that time, I said again quite strongly, I don't understand why the people, the very people who have been saying all this time they're opposed to further development in Kurrajong, Kurmond, are going about a plan specifically for council to produce the planning proposal itself to go ahead and rezone for rural residential development in Kurmond, Kurrajong.

To me, that never made sense. And then even when it was done, it was then deferred and deferred and deferred. And we've had planning proposals in the system for many, many years, and to me that's unacceptable. We're here to service, we're here for the community. People should put a planning proposal in and get an answer, either yes or a no, based on the policies that we have. And we shouldn't be putting roadblocks to make that process take years and years. I think we asked for a report at the last meeting to give us the options of how we can wrap this up and make a decision finally. I'm very comfortable with the way forward that is outlined in the amendment, which is that we don't go ahead and adopt the plan, we don't go ahead with any more planning proposals ourselves in terms of council lodging one.

We also make a policy statement in this resolution that we're not encouraging any further planning proposals. That is as strong as we can make a policy statement on this issue. We cannot say we won't accept them. We have a legislative obligation to accept them. But we're making a very strong policy statement that we do not think that that kind of development is appropriate for this area at all. Similar to the answer the manager of strategic planning just gave to Councillor Kotlash, it's already the case that the higher-level plans don't allow that anyway. So— What we're doing here is we're saying process these last couple, don't go ahead with a new planning proposal initiated by Council, and make a really strong policy statement that we don't want to see any more of this.

And I think that's a sensible outcome, and we'll finally put this to bed.

So we'll vote on the amendment now. So, Mr Mayor, do I get an opportunity to speak against the amendment? No, you don't, sorry. So we're going to have public address at the start of the meeting and then debate is restricted to councillors. So I'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Against?

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garry, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Richards were absent for the vote. I declare the amendment carried. Was there any further discussion or right of reply? Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, I now speak to the motion, Mr Mayor. I was just wondering if I could ask a question of staff. I'm not sure of the address, but recently a large-ish scale subdivision was allowed with quite small lots in Kurmond. I know the developer's name, but I don't want to say it live, but some of the blocks were quite small, down around I think 500 square metres, or around about that size. Now, that was approved under the current system.

That was approved under the Western District Plan, and somehow it got through. Now, what you're doing is allowing that sort of thing to continue. So, I'm not going to support this in any way or form when that sort of thing can continue to occur.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think this is a very disappointing outcome for the community, but I think it's also really disappointing in that this is based on a flawed premise and, frankly, attempts to paint councillors who have clearly been anti-development without infrastructure west of the river. In fact, anti-development without infrastructure across the LGA for the four and a half years of our term on council, to now be insinuating that we are pro-development is frankly ludicrous. And really, if that's as good as you've got, you should be ashamed of your capacity for debate. It's clear that we do not want development west of the river. The Western Districts Plan and the Metropolitan Rural Constraints on rural residential development have not constrained some of the development that we've already seen with that system in place.

You have just removed the best capacity this council has for controlling development in that area. The Kurrajong-Kurmond Structure Plan is not pro-development. What it is is pro-development control, and you have just voted to dump that. This is not a strong policy statement. It's really, really weak. We don't encourage... Come on. Surely, you've had the business paper since Thursday. Could you have come up with something a bit stronger than that? It's not effective. All it says is we mightn't be very keen on it, but give it a whirl because we've got nothing to stop you. And that's what you've now voted for whilst pretending to the community that you think that you've got some control on this.

I do hope this doesn't land us in court with the people who've been waiting for us to process this, but I do fear it will.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash. Against: Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillors Ross, Lyons-Buckett and Richards are absent for the vote. Declare it carried. And does somebody want to invite those councillors back in?

Got the Deputy Mayor. We'll just wait for Councillor Richards.

Thank you So our next item is item 40, and we have one public speaker, Mr Michael Want.

Mr Want in the meeting. Just , Councillors, just a reminder to please lower your hand after you've finished speaking so I can see what's current.

Okay, Mr Want, over to you.

Sorry, we're ready when you are, Mr Want.

Mr Want, I'm not sure if you can hear us, but we're waiting for you to start your address.

Sorry, can you hear us, Mr Want?

Okay. We'll give it a moment.

Is there any audio issues on our end or is it— No. Let me just try chat if he's on here.

Is

It

Can you hear me now? We can. Okay, sorry, Mr White, when you're ready.

Mr Mayor and Councillors, the original motion on the 25th of January, amongst other things, was to organise a public meeting and invite Telstra and the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, to attend and address the meeting. The original motion was moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler. The notice of motion was amended by Councillor Kotlash and Calvert, who referred the items to the Innovation and Partnership Committee to review options available and repeat what was in the original motion, that is to invite Telstra and the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, to attend and address the meeting. The resolve of the Partnership and Innovations Committee meeting watered down the necessity for Susan Templeman to attend, as I read it.

The discussion at page 136 of the business paper indicates at the fourth dot point, and I quote, Council staff establish when relevant representatives from Telstra and the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman MP, are available to hold the meeting in Bilpin, end of quote. The committee has not given the same opportunity for Susan Templeman, the member for Macquarie, to attend as was intended in the original notice of motion or the amended motion. I hope it's an oversight. As I understand, the intent of the motion and the amended motion was for Susan Templeman to attend. I note the chairperson of the committee was a candidate for Macquarie in the last federal elections. Political opportunism, councillors should not be countenanced.

Councillors, I'm calling on you all to amend the committee recommendation to ensure Ms Templeman cannot attend. All of you would know the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, has been pursuing with vigour Telstra and other telcos and the Morrison government on the poor performance at locations in the Macquarie electorate in places like Bilpin, Bowen Mountain, Grose Vale, Colo, Putty, for a long period now with some success. Councillor, she is a terrier for the community. Councillor, she's the best resource you've got to make things happen. Grab her with both hands. In closing, councillors, I suggest to rectify this possible oversight, point 4 needs to have the member of Macquarie, Susan Templeman, name added after Telstra, if it pleases.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Wont. Open to questions? Yes, sir. Are there any questions? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Wont, how do you make the leap between a dot point that actively declares that we're contacting the member for Macquarie to establish a mutually convenient time for her to come to a meeting and us not inviting that person to the meeting? I don't see the leap that you do.

I must be viewing it in different lenses, Councillor, but it's clear to me that the amended motion does not make— does not enable— it goes this way, that the chair is going to contact Telstra to make sure they can make the date, but the chair is not going to contact Susan Templeman to see if she can make the date. So let's say that the Parliament's sitting and Susan Templeman can't make it, and you set the date for one of those— you set the date— For one of those dates, then she won't be able to attend. You should be contacting her to see that she's able to attend, then set a date.

Thank you. There's no further questions. Before we go ahead with debate, we just have an update. I might just ask the manager, Corporate Communications, sorry, just to give us an update on arrangements with Telstra.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, we have invited Telstra to come along, but they have advised that they're unable to attend.

And that was just to clarify on a number of different dates we've offered. Yep, that's correct. Okay. So I just thought it was important, councillors knew that's where that was up to.

Did somebody want to move something ?

I did have a motion prepared that I thought would be a good idea. If someone wants inclined to move it, so I might just share that on the screen.

I'd be prepared to move that, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Moved. Councillor Zamprogno. Oh, sorry, Councillor Rasmussen, were you trying to get my attention? I just saw your hand up.

Is there a seconder for this motion ?

Seconded, Councillor Richards.

Any discussion?

I'll speak to it briefly as the mover. Firstly, to just put Mr Wants' fears to bed, as a member of that committee, It was very clear to me in the discussion, which is on the public record, that of course our intention is to engage the federal member, because this is fundamentally a federal matter. And it would be ridiculous not to invite the federal member, whom we acknowledge has been active in this space. And I think Mr Wont was splitting hairs in suggesting that we were anything less than sincere in our desire to find a mutually convenient time. The other point to make is that it is profoundly disappointing that Telstra have failed to seize the importance of this issue to the community in Bilpin and have refused at this point to come to a public meeting.

I conclude regretfully that it is probably pointless to hold a meeting without that stakeholder present. And I hope that Telstra are publicly shamed into reversing their position and come to a meeting. But it's certainly the resolve of this committee to hold a public meeting and to bring this issue to their attention.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Zamprogno that it is very disappointing that Telstra have signalled that they cannot attend. Having not been party to that correspondence, I'm not sure whether we can infer from that that they can't attend the dates that we gave them or that they just won't attend. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter, given that that's the impression of the community involved. And I think that is really, really, it's more than disappointing. Frankly, it is in fact what happens when you allow a monopoly to control an essential service without the control of government regulating that monopoly effectively.

I would like to see the motion enhanced or strengthened to set a timeline and an alternative course of action, if possible. I think we could wait for a year for Telstra to turn up. We could have another bushfire season. We could have a variety of emergencies in Bilpin, particularly health emergencies, and that's my big fear for this community, and why the Deputy Mayor and I brought this to Council to begin with. I would like to see us suggest to put a timeline on Telstra that they either attend a meeting within three months or that we hold a meeting with the local member, record that, and send it to Telstra. The local member then has the capacity to raise the issue with the Telecommunications Minister, buoyed by the community's input during a process like budget estimates.

So I don't know if you're willing to add that to your motion, Mr Mayor, but I think that would at least be a show of faith for the community that we are taking this seriously if the telecommunications provider is not. I'm a little dismayed by this process because I don't know that sending this to the committee really achieved anything apart from you holding a meeting, exercising your new committee muscles, and delaying the community for a month. I think that's a shame as well. But the fact that we're just going to say it's really disappointing and we're not going to do anything, I don't think is a viable way forward. So I would like to see either, if you don't want to add that to your motion, Mr Mayor, then I'll move an amendment.

And can I also raise that the minutes of this meeting are incorrect. Now, I don't know if the minutes are going to come back to us at a later date, but I note that we've been asked to receive a note, the first item, and so I suspect that this is the last we will see of them. Can I note that Councillor Ross and I were not in the meeting because we're not on the committee, and therefore it's highly unlikely that we would have voted for the motion in item two as stated in the minutes, and Councillor Tree wasn't there either.

It's quite valid. These are the minutes, so we need to make that change now. I guess the first part of my response would be it's not my motion; it was my suggestion, but it's been moved by Councillors Zamprogno. I would just point out that this is not the end of the matter. Council's already resolved that this committee should hold meetings to discuss this issue, and that will continue. I guess what we're clarifying here is that the direction should be given that it doesn't make sense to go ahead and hold that public meeting at Bilpin when Telstra won't come. I will continue to try with Telstra and see if we can get them, but I think your assumption is probably correct that they're just not interested in attending.

I did speak to Susan Templeman, and she's already held public meetings at Bilpin without Telstra. So I don't know that replicating that is of great value right now. I think that the sensible thing for council to do, given that our role really in this is just as a facilitator, if we can't facilitate that meeting, then we should continue looking at having the committee look at what actions we can take, identifying solutions and giving us advice. But I wouldn't think there's a whole lot of point holding more public meetings at Bilpin without the stakeholders that can make a decision. That's my view. Councillor Zamprogno, did you want to take that request though from Councillor Wheeler?

If she'd like to propose this, could I just ask Councillor Wheeler to clarify the wording that she wants included?

Councillor Wheeler? So it would be a change to point two, which I guess could come in after. So it says the committee be advised not to hold, the committee be advised not to hold a meeting at Bilpin for two months while continuing to secure Telstra's attendance.

I want to be obliging, but I can't see that that's substantially different to the wording that's before me now.

I've got some more. If Telstra cannot attend, that Council hold and record the meeting with the local member.

My view is that this meeting is probably not worth the time and effort unless Telstra is there. So I can't agree to that amendment. I'm sorry, I just wouldn't see that as adding anything. All

Right, so that was a no. So we've moved that as an amendment. Is there a seconder for that? Deputy Mayor. Discussion on the amendment . If you didn't want to discuss the amendment, put your hand down now. But otherwise, Councillor Kotlash.

Sorry, you're on mute, Councillor Kotlash.

Sorry, I was just going to ask a question before because it was my understanding that Susan Templeman's office was contacted, and I just wanted to ask whether that was the case, but you've answered that question. Yes

Her office was contacted and I spoke to them myself as well. Yeah,

Sorry, that was a legacy hand. I won't speak— oh yes, I will speak on the amendment.

I don't really agree with having public meetings if the purpose of the public meetings is to just characterise an issue. I understand that it's important for people to have their say, and it's important for us to characterise issues and get them heard and straight. But at this stage, I think that that has already been done. I think we have a very good understanding of those issues, and I don't mean that to say that I want to stop people continuing to voice their issues and to contact Susan Templeman's office and explain their particular issues. That's always a good idea. But for Council to facilitate and hold a public meeting, I think it's really essential that both Telstra and— The member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, are there.

It's very important to get that because then, by facilitating that, Council is saying we must move to a solution to these problems. I don't want to be part of a talkfest, I suppose, so I won't support the amendment. But whilst I appreciate what Councillor Wheeler wants, and I agree with that, but I think we have to wait till Telstra is going to come on board, and we can actually start to solve these problems. We must facilitate some solutions. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, did you want to speak further on the amendment, sorry?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor, and I think I need to add a point three, which is that the minutes be amended to accurately reflect the vote on item two. I'm not on the committee, wasn't there, I don't know what that vote looked like, so I can't put the details in.

Happy to put that in the motion as well, Councillor Zamprogno. Yeah, I'm happy to add that, yes.

So can I just— no, I'll leave it, sorry.

Okay. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Are we speaking currently on the amendment?

That's correct.

I would ask for an amendment to the amendment, or a foreshadow an amendment in this situation, regarding the reluctance of Telstra to attend. I think if we go to the original idea of the motion, it was for Council to show our support, to show that we supported that community in gaining the relevant backup infrastructure they needed so that they had communications when they lost power at their Telstra tower. So looking forward to what the solution would be, the idea behind us holding a meeting was in a supportive manner. So I'm wondering if we should now move beyond trying to hold a meeting and actually show our support either by a letter or some other form, because clearly Telstra don't appear that they're going to come to the party.

So I'm wondering if Councillor Wheeler would entertain the idea of maybe changing that, sorry , maybe changing that to moving it or adding a point that we move it to a letter of support. I know that letters of support are sometimes not as powerful as they can be, but I think in this case it would show that we could use the supportive evidence of what we have put forward in our submissions to the Royal Commission on bushfires and in other relevant places, that we have identified that lack, that vulnerability of the tower, in that once the power is lost, the communications go out, and just how dangerous that is. We need a solution to this for the people up there, and they have managed to get through the minister to be on the list.

Now we want Telstra to be supporting them for the actual funding. So I think there's a better way now that they have refused to come to the party, that we could propel it and show our support in that way is possibly the best outcome we can have at this moment, whilst also continuing on with various other strategies about communications, telecommunications generally.

So that would be your proposal, Deputy Mayor, would be to replace the point three in the amendment with providing a letter of support.

I'll see what Councillor Wheeler feels about that and need necessary, or shadow. Well

I guess I'm just trying to work out whether it's more appropriate to ask Councillor Zamprogno or Councillor Wheeler, which one is closest to.

The whole aim of this is to get something done, not to continuously have this delay by sending it here, there and everywhere.

Okay.

Right. Councillor Wheeler, did you have comment on that?

I'm happy to add

That, Mr. Mayor. So we're just adding it, we're not changing anything?

I think there's still merit in having the meeting and in using our capacity as a community advocate and facilitator to allow the community to be heard as a group. I think, as we discussed when this first came to Council a month ago, there is advantage in bringing people together as a group to discuss an issue. And there's actually a great advantage in small communities to bring them together and allow them to be heard when they feel like—and this is a community that has been heavily impacted in the last 18 months—to feel that someone is on their side. And that's our job as a council, to be on their side representing them to higher levels of government. So I don't see that having a meeting is ineffective or a waste of anyone's time or any of those things.

I think it's our job to gather people together and give them a voice. And I think we still have the capacity to do that as a meeting, whether Telstra can turn up or not. But I also agree with the Deputy Mayor that we are not beholden to Telstra, and I think we can put other systems in place as well. So I think it would work as an additional point.

Okay, can I just ask who, just for the, just so we can write this out, who is the letter to? Is it the letter going to Telstra, or — I think it

Would go to Telstra, copied into the Communications Minister and the local member. Okay

And perhaps a referral in there to, perhaps in the motion, just so that it doesn't get lost in the discussion, to include the evidence given to the Bushfire Royal Commission regarding telecommunications infrastructure.

Thank you, Councillor Williams.

Did you want to add that point to the motion as well, Councillor Zamprogno?

I'd probably be amenable to that point, yes.

Okay. So the seconder for the motion was Councillor

Richards, so are you happy with that? And the seconder for the amendment was the Deputy Mayor, so she's obviously happy with that, Deputy Mayor? Yep.

Could I just take a point of clarification, Mr Mayor? I'm glad that you've asked me, but I'm now confused about whether we're amending the amendment or my motion.

Well, just inserting that in both so that it's — All right then.

Okay.

I mean, technically we're not. We're supposed to actually change either motions or amendments on the floor, but we just do it as practice, as long as everyone's happy.

So we're just waiting for that to be written up, but while we wait for that, Councillor Reynolds, did you wish to speak on the amendment?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the amendment, but I'm mainly speaking in response to Councillor Cutlash's comments about not considering meeting with the public necessary when an outcome isn't likely at that particular time. It's — Meeting with the public on any matter, to me, is so important, no matter how dire the issue and no matter how unlikely a positive outcome is going to be the result. You never leave the community alone, and I find it sad to think otherwise. I mean, we started in this term, we started with community meetings to do with the SRV, and in a lot of cases it was the first time that people had seen any councillors in any sort of meeting in their area. So it was proposed at the time that regular community meetings be held all over the LGA to keep in touch with the community

Yeah. Yeah. Good on him. So in this regard, you know, meeting with the community on this issue, to me, is vital. And not going up there and sitting there and listening to them, as Councillor Wheeler said, you know, these people need to be heard, and they need to know that someone understands. You know, pressure must be applied, and perhaps some pressure is outside the normal remit of councillor. But council, or maybe councillors who may be inclined, could assist the community in bringing pressure to bear. But not holding a meeting purely because an outcome is unlikely is, it just goes against everything that I think a lot of us stand for. stood for when he became councillors. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There's a few things I'd like to bring up, and firstly is I support the amendment, obviously. I think it's correct that we need to get up there and talk to our people, listen to our people, listen to their concerns, make sure they understand that we are on their side, and we will do everything in our power to do what we can to improve their circumstances up there. It's critically important. It's safety of life importance, and we need to explain to them that we understand that very clearly. So having said that, it seems to me we can't just back out of it and say, Ah well, Telstra doesn't want to come and play ball, so we just keep doing whatever, plugging away, doing whatever, play our little whatever, and leave it at that.

I just don't think that's good enough. In fact, it's simply not good enough. So having said that, Mr Mayor, could I just raise an issue that when you look at the minutes that came out of that meeting, and I note it was the first meeting, so I hope it's not a template or a model for all the other such meetings to be rolled out, but are we facilitating? Are we coordinating? Or are we lobbying? The question, as I understood it to be put to the meeting such as to be held was, you know, for the community to tell us how we should lobby Telstra. You mean to say we don't know how to lobby Telstra? Seriously? We don't know how to lobby? Well, then we need some serious consultation and some expert advice on how to lobby if we don't know how to do that.

I think the question is wrong. But anyway, that's another issue. On the committee itself too, was there actually an agenda? I mean, it seemed to me there was one substantive item, apart from the election of the chair, but then nothing else was done. That was it. Just one item. Wow. That was a big committee. Most of the other committees that I've ever been to had, I don't know, dozens of items to be discussed, substantive items. Anyway, maybe that'll improve as things go along. But it seems to me that if you want to get Telstra on board, and Mr Mayor, in many ways you are the equivalent of a CEO. Not exactly, but close to. Why don't you just pick up the phone and ring Mr Andy Penn, Andy Penn, CEO of Telstra.

He'll take your call. Guarantee he will take your call. You might have to go through a few gatekeepers,

But just ring him up and say, Hey,

G'day. I'd like to talk to you about an issue we've got. He's a very, very friendly guy. So just get on the phone, Mr Mayor. It's not that hard. It really isn't. Don't leave it to the bureaucrats.

Get on with it. This is so pathetic and bizarre to not phone.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen, for your advice. Unfortunately, neither myself nor Susan Templeman's been able to get that meeting with Telstra, but it's probably because we're both being ineffectual in your opinion.

Yeah, give Andy Penn a ring. Debbie

Maroon. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. Next speaker is— is anyone? Councillor Kotlash. If anyone's spoken on the amendment and not trying to speak again or ask a question, can I just get you to lower your hand, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a question. Does anybody know how many public meetings there have been in Bilpin about telecommunications? I just want to know that because I wasn't— I wasn't saying that I thought that it was useless to have a public meeting, and I think everybody needs to be heard. But I thought there had been plenty of meetings, and I just thought that we really started to— anyway, I won't labour on that. I'm

Not sure if we know. I'm not sure if we have a number. I know that Telstra referenced a community drop-in session they did, and Susan Templeman told me of a meeting she had. So, there's a couple. I don't know if there's been more. I couldn't tell you. Yeah, we probably haven't been included in any or most of those.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, no further speakers on the amendment. We'll put the amendment. Just wait for it to come up on the screen so we're just sure what we're voting on.

So, all those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds,

And against, Councillor Conolly , Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree. Councillor Ross is absent from the vote. Councillor Garrow, were you intending to vote for or against? Sorry, you're muted at the moment.

Sorry, I'm having freezing issues over here at the moment. I was for.

For, Councillor Garrow, for. Declare the amendment lost. Any further discussion of the motion or right of reply? Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, could we just see the actual motion?

Yes.

On the screen, please.

Just putting the final touches on it.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, so that includes the letter. Thank you for that. Mr Mayor, I just wanted to address a couple of things about the committee. It did, I mean, to be quite honest, it did seem quite farcical to go through this exercise as we have done, particularly to come out with no result of it. But more to the point, I was quite concerned that there hasn't been a step taken with the new committees. To have the first meeting address the objectives or what that committee is going to do. So we still don't really know. Like we sent a notice of motion that went to that committee, essentially came back the same a month later, and we have no other information about that committee.

So we have nothing else from that committee about what other things they will do about telecommunications, what they put in place as to what their goals or objectives may be. We literally had a notice of motion come back with an additional point, and I think that's very disappointing. And to think that there were six staff members attend that committee meeting is also a concern because we were told that one of the issues with the other committee system was the demands on staff and so on. And we had six staff members attend a committee meeting where there was one motion essentially besides election of chair, and I'm just having difficulty seeing any value in the whole process. I know it may evolve into something better, but I think that it really isn't off to a good start is I guess what I'm saying.

And we have wasted a month of when we could have been moving on to be doing something with the community up there. It is a very dire problem, and I'm worried that the intent of the notice of motion has been lost in this whole process around who's ringing who and who's doing what. So I'll be pleased that if we can at least get a letter of support that identifies the issues and acknowledges that we know what the issues are and what we're doing to move forward with it would be really good. I'm also hoping that we will have some objectives within the committee system because without anything like that, I don't know how we know what we would refer to any committee because The process from last year when this came forward said that the first meetings of the committee would be to establish the objectives and so on, and that the minutes would report back how the content of the meeting was in line with what those objectives are.

So I think there's a big gap in this system that needs to be addressed. So I don't see it's possible. If all we're going to do is refer something that then comes back to us with nothing else, I just think that is a ludicrous and a farcical, in fact a very yes minister situation for us to be dealing with. So I'm glad that at least it has established that Telstra don't seem to want to participate. I think that perhaps one of the public meetings people may be thinking about is that there was one held in Kurrajong. There was a lot of issues with Telstra here. There was a lot of agitation from the local community, and eventually we did have Telstra come to address in the CWA hall some of the issues that came up.

But you have to be loud, and you have to push, and you have to let them know that the people in the community expect them to deliver a service when in fact we, many of us, are paying a lot of money to them. And when it comes down to an issue of safety connected to it in a vulnerable community, there's an additional impetus on getting that sort of thing solved. So I'll be happy to see the letter. Could I also ask that we are given a copy of the letter that's sent? I think in any of the letters that are sent off to these people, the councillors should be provided with a copy of what's sent. So thank you for that, Mr Mayor. I will support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just address a couple of those comments, and the first thing I'll probably say is that obviously most of that was not relevant to the item we're discussing tonight. I understand this is the first lot of minutes to come back since we changed the committee structure, so we'll allow that discussion tonight, but just to make it clear that going forward, we get that you didn't like it, you didn't vote for it, but we're not going to have a new debate on the committee structure every time we have a set of minutes come to Council. The objectives of the committees are set by Council. We did that a couple of weeks ago at our ordinary meeting. We actually went through a process. There was a report to Council on the outstanding items, and Council decided what it would like committees to look at and when it would like them to look at it by.

So we've given our committees all their objectives. At this point in time, this meeting happened very quickly after the Council meeting so that we could try and get onto that. We didn't waste a month. There was certainly a few days between the Council meeting and this meeting, and from that point in time, we were in touch with Telstra. Telstra would not attend the meeting, and I think you're right that the spirit of the notice of motion was lost in the sense that Telstra wouldn't come, and it probably didn't matter how we invited them, what form of meeting it was. I don't think their objection was to it being a committee meeting. I think their objection was that they didn't want to come and face that committee when they don't have answers potentially, not to put words in their mouth.

But these committees have had their objectives set by Council. This was a very quick meeting, as you pointed out, because this was the only item of business at that time. Since then, Council has actually delegated to this committee some further objectives, and this committee and the other committee with items before it will be meeting to work their way through those. But yeah, look, if there's still questions around the structure, and I know you're not on committees, you chose not to participate in any of these committees, but if you did have questions around the structure and how they're working, feel free to come to a meeting or to ask a question of any of us who are at the meetings, and we're happy to always answer those for you.

Sorry, Mr.

I had misunderstood. I thought that list of things was a list of actions. I thought IC objectives is a different thing based around what the objectives of the whole committee was, not individual things. I apologise.

I know it's a bit of a change since the previous system, but we think that the objectives should not be set by the committees themselves, because that is very Westminster to have a committee existing and then setting its own objectives. The objectives of these committees will be set by the Council. Are there any other further speakers?

No further speakers. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lones-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Cutler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Tree, Councillor Roche is absent for the vote. Declared carried.

Items on block. Somebody wish to move those? Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. All those in favour?

Mr Mayor, sorry, I can't see the items on block.

Sorry, moving

A

Bit fast. They were circulated to Councillors, but the items on block are 31.

No, they weren't, Mr Mayor. I don't have an email listing

The

Items on block.

Okay, we'll follow that up.

We'll just wait to bring it up on the screen then.

I'm happy for you to read them out if that's faster.

Okay. 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39.

Thank you.

Everybody happy for proceed to vote on that? Yep. All those in favour of those items on block, say aye. Against? Declare them carried.

The next item is item 27, the Mayoral Minute.

So I brought this Mayoral Minute in response to some discussions we had at a briefing session earlier this year around the way that councillors are interacting with the budget process. As in the background there, in 2015, we felt, and I think it was mainly the Deputy Mayor and myself at the time, felt that we were not having the input we needed into the budget process, and we were being given a final product at the very last minute, and that was our input and being asked to vote on it with no time left. So we came up with this system of having a couple of councillors, councillors, being present in the executive's draft budget preparation meetings. That's been a good learning curve probably for those councillors that have been included, that have been included, and I guess it was meant to work like a delegate situation that those councillors would then report back.

However, having reviewed that and following that discussion, I think it would make more sense for all councillors to be given that opportunity, rather than have some councillors in what are really operational meetings, but to give all councillors the agendas that those councillors have been receiving, to give those all councillors then have the chance to point that they'd like to have a Q and A session on a particular part of a particular branch's budget, then have that session open to all councillors, maybe a very brief intro and then just open to questions, so that all councillors have the opportunity to ask anything they want and really get to know the detail of the area they're interested in.

I've spoken to Councillor Ross, who's the other delegate to this process, and he indicated he was supportive of the mayoral minute as well. So I'd be asking for council's support to make this change. Any speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think the basis of this, I think, is good and valid. I think it will work a bit like a budget estimates session. My concern with it, though, is point three, where we're removing the capacity to have councillor delegates should we choose to. Now, that may not be something that this council feels that it needs, but I think it might be something that we regret down the track, should we actually want to put delegates or allow particular councillors to attend those sessions. So I would prefer to see item three either not there or us vote in seriatim on this issue. I'd like to see us maintain the capacity to have councillor delegates if we chose, or alternatively for any councillor who wanted to attend.

And look, that may not be particularly appealing to staff, and I certainly recognise that a more open, sleigher approach could lead to nuisance value in some of those meetings if the councillor isn't aware. I see it as a watch function rather than a continual interjection function, and perhaps we would need to set some parameters around that. I think there is use in having delegates, and perhaps those delegates could be chosen closer to the budget process rather than chosen at the beginning of a councillor session. Councillors' capacities change over a four, or in our case, a five-year term. You know, we're not necessarily as free at all points of our term as we are at the beginning. I just think this is—I really see the benefit of points one and two.

I think they're an excellent initiative. I'm just not sure that we're giving up a little bit too much with point three, that we might actually want to maintain should we choose. Okay.

Any further speakers?

No. I would just make the point that if at any time in the future a council wanted to appoint delegates, of course it can do so at any time, just by resolution. No different to what would be required to actually appoint those delegates. So I don't see it as a huge barrier. It's just setting a new process. Deputy Mayor.

Sorry , Mr Mayor, I hadn't pressed. I thought my hand was up and of course not just going up and down. Yes, I do agree with Councillor Wheeler that that should perhaps be an option because I guess it would depend on the timing of when we had these sessions and whether perhaps something arose that someone had a particular interest in who then still wanted to perhaps attend and get more information. And I don't see there would be anything wrong with leaving it as an option in that regard. But perhaps you will vote in ceriatum and we can see how that goes. I think you touched briefly on the history, and that was quite a tumultuous time, I would say, as a councillor, because of course we felt that we were not getting the information that we needed and we were being asked to approve something right there and then, basically.

So there was literally next to no information coming forward to councillors about anything back in those days, and to understand how ratepayer money was being spent, it was crucial to be able to be involved in the process earlier on, and— In the coming years after that, simply by having that as a mechanism, we saw the amount of information increase over the years building up, and we got much more information being circulated to us that we could be able to align it with the things in the operational plan or the community strategic plan that we wanted to see go through into the budget process. So I think that it would be very good for councillors to learn more about local government accounting.

I think it's very evident there's quite a lot of misunderstanding around it. We're aware of the differences between the private sector and the fact that we are a public sector, and I do get quite annoyed when I hear both councillors and people in the public say someone wouldn't last five minutes in the private sector, when in fact we are the public sector. And so we're not running a business trying to generate a profit like that. We have a budget that has to be managed, of course, and we are a service delivery, so we've got to use our ratepayer funds to deliver that. I think that it will be good to see the level of interest people take in attending and asking questions and going through all this various information.

We've had a lot of it provided in another item tonight that we went through that hasn't been called up to be spoken on, but I think that this will be a good thing. But I do agree with Councillor Wheeler, it takes a lot of commitment, as you would know, Mr Mayor, to attend all the budget sessions, but it is something of value. So I think a combination of if someone wants to go to that level, as well as having the capacity of all of us to be asking the questions and looking at things is a good mix in going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, Mr Mayor, I won't be voting for this. I think it encourages councillors to dive into the minutiae of the operations of council, which I really don't think is the purview of councillors. I would prefer councillors stick with a strategic view of council, where it's going strategically and so on. I think that's where our focus and our energies should go. And we lose quite a lot, have lost quite a lot over the years because we haven't been able to muster the strategic view necessary to take this council forward. And the other issue is, Mr Mayor, the budget process that you spoke about that councillors, some councillors wanted to attend, I was in agreement at that time because there was a need for councillors to be educated on just how a public sector budget is constructed and all the elements that go into it.

So that was an education process. But all councillors, all councillors should avail themselves over time and as their time permits to dig into that. And at any stage during time , week, councillors can call up, as I've done over the years, can send emails, request better and more detailed information on an issue that comes out in quarterly reviews or whatever. I just don't think it's necessary for us to add all this extra. Load, and it is a load on staff. Anyway, clearly I have a different view, but there it is.

Okay. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler, you trying to speak again?

Oh, I just wanted to move a procedural motion, Mr Mayor, to pass this in seriatim. I was going to, yeah, I

Was going to put it that way. Yep.

Thanks.

Okay, so there being no further speakers, we'll do that. So we'll go first with point one of the Mayoral Minute. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Against: Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare that carried. Point two. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Reynolds, were you in favour?

No. Okay, against. Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried. And point three. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, against: Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross was absent for the vote, and declare it carried.

Okay.

Next item is 28.

Wish to move recommendation or something else?

Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendations to move.

Seconder? Seconded. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Any discussion?

No discussion. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it's very important that we get this document adopted to enable progression of our planning documents to be complete. I think it's a document that we could probably look over and over again and try and perfect it and make it exactly how everybody, you know, wanted a bit changed here or a bit changed there. But as it is a fluid document and it's something that is open to being reviewed and amended as we go along, I think that we really need to get it in place. I think we, all other councils have done it. We are behind because we've had delays of having it delayed and deferred and going back and forward. I think that it encompasses our planning priorities, albeit in a very broad sense.

It's a very overarching document and we will have to rely on our various other strategies and plans to feed into it. And then ultimately, of course, our actual statutory instruments will contain the actual planning controls as such. We know it complies with the overarching state plans from state government, guided by the Greater Sydney Commission and the Department of Planning. The correspondence from the Greater Sydney Commission I found quite interesting. It compels us in a number of instances to consult and confirm with the Department of Planning about the various strategies and the place-based planning. So I think that's an ongoing issue that even though our local strategic plan will be in place, we are going to have to continue to have an engagement on a level of having our plans aligned, which is a very important issue.

I raise the question of how much attention we've given to Action 88 in Planning Priority W20, which requires a commitment to limit the intensification of development in areas most exposed to hazards with regard to the impacts of climate change. I couldn't see that that was specifically addressed in the LSPS, although the general direction is in the sustainability section, but I couldn't see that that particular planning priority had an individualised section, although I'm assuming that that therefore means that it will be in our zero emissions documents and our rural lands study, and I guess that that's where that's going to actually be elaborated upon. I also thought we could have probably had more attention devoted to emissions reductions in the transport sector, as well as the energy and waste sectors.

Those two sectors are mentioned, but not the transport section. I'm hoping that the other documents will address them more clearly. There was also a number of points. I think it's unfortunate that the Greater Sydney Commission doesn't mention anything about any increase in actual public transport within this area. There's nothing directing any future public transport. There's something mentioned in here about improved services on the Richmond line. I've lived here over 40 years now, and that's something I've heard every year that I've lived here. They're going to improve services on the Richmond line. It took so long to get any electrification, and I think that our residents are having substandard public transport in this area.

And if we can advocate for more, then that's what we should be doing. And I know that that is a commitment of ours. Also, there's some interesting sections, including various things about the Outer Sydney Orbital and the Bells Line of Road Casuarina connection. I think we need to have a system where we ensure that we have greater clarity and engagement around what is happening with that. They're part of the state-led transport solutions, but we really need to know what's going on there because that, of course, informs our future development and so on, particularly the M9 Orbital. When there's no certainty around that, we should be being given that. There's a various number of things in the Greater Sydney document that I think are actually state issues that they seem to have lumped into council issues, such as getting efficient bus routes between Richmond and Windsor and so on like that.

I think that's a state issue. I don't think we organise public transport. Likewise, working with the Department of Education about the shared — or not the shared use — the use of public grounds and open space, I don't know that council negotiates that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I had no idea that was a function of ours to be doing.

Sorry, Deputy Mayor, time's expired. Just get your wrap-up shortly.

Okay. Sorry, I think that just associated with it, and I assume we will have a lot of ongoing briefings and so on about it. I just wanted to draw attention that there were some things in there that raised some questions for me, and of course we hadn't seen this before. It came out in the business paper, so perhaps at a future briefing we could just have a run-through that correspondence and which parts of it are actually within our realm to be dealing with. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm just going to follow up on a couple of the things that the Deputy Mayor raised. I think it is concerning that we've had issues like the corridors and transport put into the category of council-led negotiation, and I think that's potentially really problematic for us. We've got an advisory note of both the Bells Line of Road corridor, which is slated for zero to 10 within the next 10 years, which seems to be at odds with the information that we've been given previously. I think would certainly come as a surprise to some of the residents involved, and the Outer Sydney Orbital, which is in the 20-year plan, both raised as transport for New South Wales initiatives. I'm wondering if we've had any further information on either of those matters.

And then I'm also concerned that we've got these, in the next point, council-led transport initiatives, including an additional crossing and the evidence base for that, and I suppose we do have some information in our traffic study. But I think this, firstly, it confirms that Transport for New South Wales isn't considering the Richmond Bridge duplication as a third crossing. It also, frankly, highlights the wasted opportunity we've just witnessed at Windsor. And then it puts efficient bus routes not within the Hawkesbury, but between the Hawkesbury and other transport hubs, Blacktown, Rouse Hill, St Marys and Penrith, as council-led transport initiatives. Now, certainly council can lobby for those things, but I don't think council should be leading on what clearly are state responsibilities.

So I don't know if this is an attempt to fob this off onto council. And if it is, where we will get the resources to do this, or if it's just a minor change to wording that I'm reading as something that's all wrong. W20, as the Deputy Mayor raised around climate change and areas exposed to hazards, I think we need to flag this as something that's going to require really tight controls in both the LEP and DCP as we go forward. I just want to use a minute now to talk about the need for these documents in our planning and how that currently affects the community. Yesterday I attended the Southwest Sydney Planning Panel—sorry, I've muddled up the name of that spectacularly—but the Sydney Planning Panel to discuss the concrete recycling plant at Ebenezer, which the panel had the first hearing yesterday.

Unfortunately that matter's been deferred, but I was able to put council's position as a result of the council resolution to that committee, and I'm pleased to say that the chairman was quite respectful of council's position and took notice of our concerns, which I think was some comfort. But what it shows is that our planning documents are currently so muddled that we're struggling to give clear indication to our planning staff as to whether these proposals should be allowed to go any further. And so what we've ended up with, unfortunately, and in part due to the applicant not providing sufficient information in a timely fashion to the panel and to council. But we've ended up with a bit of a mess where we've now got a deferral that the community has to live with.

And what really would have, I think, shifted things substantially was if Council had a really clear statement that this type of development is not welcome in our rural areas, that while you might be able to wriggle around the RU1 zoning, until we have our employment land strategy, our environment land strategy, our LSPS, our LEP and our DCP all set in stone, turned into pieces of legislation by ratification by the various government bodies, we are still sending mixed messages to applicants and leaving our community vulnerable. And that's where I think this—I don't love this document, but I think it's a really good start for us. And I urge you to support it because we need to move on to the next phase.

Thank you. No further discussion. We'll put the motion— Oh, right of reply. Councillor Wheeler, I think you moved the motion, so we'll move on. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lanes Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. Against: no one. And Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 29.

Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Is

There a seconder? Seconded, Deputy Mayor. Any discussion?

Just briefly, if I might, Mr Mayor.

Yep

I'm just curious if we've discussed the issue of contributions with the local member recently, and if so, what the outcome of that was.

I'm trying to think if there's— there is a— we do have a really good publicised agenda of everything Council's resolved to lobby on. I don't believe we've ever resolved to have any particular stance on contributions. We did obviously talk to the local member about this particular plan and making getting her help in getting the Minister to see our point of view. I don't believe we've had any discussions more broadly than that since then.

Thanks. We've only had two submissions here, and the most strident was from the Property Council, which is effectively a lobby group for developers. I think the key sentence in this report, and you can find it on page 20, is this: for Council to adopt the contributions plan that accepts less than the costs outlined within the contributions plan means that the Hawkesbury community would have to subsidise development within the precinct. I think this is pivotal here. I know that there are concerns that the contributions here are high. That comes about for a variety of reasons, particularly because we're dealing with piecemeal— A piecemeal collection of developers across the area, rather than one large developer like we have at Crossoda and Redbank, where we could use a VPA to try and smooth out some of those concerns.

We can't do that here . I think it's my understanding that we've already lost some money because of the contributions cap that was in place prior and then also put in place again during COVID. If we don't have a contributions plan that's based on the costs of what we must fund under the plan , we know that that means less services elsewhere, because we know that that means that people who don't live where this infrastructure will be built or these services will be provided are very unlikely to travel from North Richmond, for example, to Vineyard, or from Kurrajong or Wilberforce or Windsor even to Vineyard to use these facilities. They should not have to pay for them while the developers who've set themselves up at Vineyard reap a profit.

If the property council doesn't like this arrangement, I would urge the property council to take that up with the state government because it's the state government that has refused to provide the same support systems around contributions that our surrounding councils have received. I hope the property council gets further than council with canvassing that issue, but we certainly haven't got very far at all. We've had no support in this matter in terms of smoothing out developer contributions or providing infrastructure into this. In fact, from my understanding is that our submissions have either been refused or ignored. And I think we need to be very clear as a council that we are not willing to allow our existing ratepayers to foot the bill, and that's what this contributions plan seeks to do.

And I think that's the responsible position for us to take.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

No further discussion. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Tree, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 32.

Anybody wish to move something there? Recommendation is to receive and note.

Moved, Councillor Richards.

Seconder? Yes, Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion?

No discussion, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Councillor Garrow. Mr Mayor,

I did have a question. I did have my hand up. Oh

Sorry. When I put the motion, there was no hands

I know. You were very fast. I was just pressing it as you went, but that's okay.

Yeah, I think we've started voting now. So I'll just start that again. Against?

Okay. Against are Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote Councillor Kotlash, I didn't call your name. Were you for or against?

For.

Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Councillor Garrow, I had you as against. Is that correct? Yep. Declare it carried.

Sorry, Deputy Mayor, just because I'd waited about a minute before anyone spoke in the first instance, I didn't expect to wait then very long after that when no one wanted to speak.

I think it was a minute.

Councillor, sorry, item 33.

Deputy Mayor?

Yes, Mr Mayor, I'll move that.

Is there a seconder? Seconded, Councillor Garrow. Discussion?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I think this is a good outcome for H-COS. They, of course, were faced with the anomaly of being on Crown lands and having the issue where they wanted to extend the bus shelter to be able to house their custom-made bus, which is larger than an ordinary bus. And they were unable to because of the lack of a plan of management, which is currently being undertaken for McMahon Park. So as an interim solution, they are going to have the temporary licence for a maximum of 12 months, and hopefully within that time the management plan will be completed, which will enable them to then have that structure passed as a permanent structure. So I just think that I'd like to thank the staff that came up with that.

I know that we had been to the local member about it, and unfortunately the fact that the bus had to be kept off the premises meant that a lot of the grant funding was being used up driving the bus to and from Blacktown , where it was being housed. So this will make a big difference to that organisation in being able to have their bus on site. So that is a good result for them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Just a question, if I could, Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering why we feel the need to charge HCOS, who are a reputable organisation, a thousand-dollar bond.

I'll refer that to the Director of Infrastructure Services.

Probably Linda's computer.

Sorry, that would be our normal practices to secure that. There is a risk in this one, and that's not a reflection on the organisation, but that would be our normal practice. If at the end of 12 months the facility needed removing, it would require— there is no potential for extension and would need to be removed. I guess there is the option of looking at other arrangements there for securing that removal, but that's our standard recommendation.

Thank you. Did the organisation raise any concerns around that, Mr. Organ?

Nothing's been raised with me directly, but it was suggestion that potentially the McMahon Park committee may put the bond up in lieu, but either way would be an arrangement, given the likely cost, $1,000, wasn't seen to be prohibitive. Okay .

Councillor Wheeler.

I'm just wondering if we could perhaps flag with them that we would be amenable to discussing that cost if that is prohibitive to them. I don't know their financial arrangements, and unfortunately Councillor Ross, who's our delegate on their committee, isn't here to ask.

Is that okay, Mr. Organ? Got my attention.

We would probably just need to modify the resolution to indicate

That

Council negotiate an

Appropriate bond

With Hawkesbury Community Outreach

Mr. Organ might need to sit forward. He's quite hard to hear.

He's got his microphone off. Time's going off. It's turned me off. Yeah, we just need to modify the point number three to encompass that the General Manager negotiate an appropriate bond with Hawkesbury Community Outreach Services

To remove the temporary structure. Okay.

Sorry, I don't have in front of me who moved that.

Councillor Deputy, are

You happy with

That? Yep. And Councillor Garrow as the seconder, yep. Okay. We'll make that change. Do you wish to speak any further, Councillor Wheeler?

No, thanks, Mr. Mayor. All

Right. Any further speakers?

Definitely no further speakers. All right, there being no further speakers, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lainsbury, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, and against — that should be everyone — so Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item

Would

Be item 34.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Calvert

Mr Mayor, I'd like to move a motion on this matter, and I'm sorry I haven't put it through to the secretary beforehand. The motion has three points. The first point is the same as the business paper, which is that the report regarding weed and biosecurity management be received and noted. The second point is Council receives a further report on the costs of what was actually delivered by HRCC versus the annual targets outlined in the annual operation plans for the last four years. And point three, Council receives a report outlining the process it would need to follow if it wished to withdraw from HRCC and take over as the local control authority.

Is that something you could email, Councillor Calvert? Sorry, is that in a format you can email at the moment? Can you email that now? Not really,

No. I can give you the phone if you want. Yeah.

As long as you give it back.

Is there a seconder based on that, or are we waiting to see it on the screen?

Just give it a minute, I think.

What have you done?

Are you seconding that, Councillor Wheeler?

I'm willing to, but I'm hoping Councillor Calvert may add an additional— Point .

Okay. All right, well, we'll take that as a second, and then if you want to now speak to it and propose that. Do you want to

Speak to it or, Councillor Wheeler?

Well, it's up to you. I mean, you had your life, but it might be more productive if you let Councillor Wheeler quickly suggest

A change. Yeah, I just wanted

To clarify. I

Might just suggest this as a question, and then let Councillor Calvert give his opening address. I'm wondering if Councillor Calvert would also ask for a cost estimate of the replacement service provided in-house and a likely time frame to be operational.

Well, I'm happy to do that, although I thought one of those points implies that, but if you want to spell it out more clearly, yes, I'm happy to add that point.

Possibly when I've eyeballed it, I'll know that, so I'll hop off now.

Okay

Councillor Calvert.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Basically what I'm saying here is that I don't think this report gives us information upon which we can make any kind of concrete decision. It's looking at the targets that HRCC has put forward over the last few years, and they may be admirable targets, but what we really need to look at is the achievement, the actual results. And if you want to measure whether council can take over such an operation, you need to measure it against the actual results that have been delivered. And it may turn out that the actual results are exactly the same as the targets or even more than the targets. That's fine. But until we know the actual results, I don't think we can really do anything with this report.

And I would just like to see those results before we move any further. I've been asking to see those results for a couple of years now, and they haven't been forthcoming. And so when this was coming up, I was expecting to get a lot more detail. I was expecting to get something that we could hang our teeth on and say, look, yes, we should stay with HRCC because it's delivering what we want at a good value, or no, we should consider leaving because it doesn't deliver what we want. That's all I want from this report. I'm not suggesting we go either way. I'm not suggesting we jump ship and leave HRCC or that we embrace it forever. I'm just suggesting that we don't have the figures here to really make a decision.

So I'd like to see more reports, more figures, especially about what is actually being delivered. And the point three that I put in there about leaving HRCC, once again, I'm not suggesting that we should. I'm just saying that I saw an email today, I think it was from Councillor Zamprogno, that said that we can't leave HRCC, and I've heard before that we could. And there's a conflict there of what is the actual situation. What do we have to do if we want to leave? And all I'm asking for in point three is that we find that out, and then we can, if we ever do decide to leave, then we'll know how to do it. But at the moment, there's a bit of conflict over whether it is even possible to leave HRCC.

So that's what I'm putting forward, Mr Mayor, and plus the extra point that Councillor Wheeler has added.

Okay, we're just, I think we're just going to try and get that regional information you put up on the board first so that Councillor Wheeler can see if she wants to add something. Tell us what it is. We're getting close, I believe.

Mr Mayor, I had a question. Oh, yes, it doesn't matter.

You can go now if you want. Yeah

I just had a question about, I seem to recall in the last council term, we did have a comparison of this. I may be wrong, but I think it was asked for, and I think there was a report about the comparison of cost and efficiency. If that were the case, I would just ask that that would also be called upon to, nobody might remember because it could even be older than anyone who's there, but if that could be drawn upon for comparison as well would be interesting. Thank you.

I don't recall that either, but I'll, I guess we'll take that on board and look for that report if it exists. Yeah.

One suggestion. Yeah. The item two indicates council received a further report on the costs of what was actually delivered versus a target. So is it, could I just seek clarification that it's actually the costs or the work?

I think if I could, I think the question is that we're basing the costings in this report using their targets. You know, what would our costs be if we tried to meet their targets? And we're saying what would our costs be if we just tried to meet their actuals, if that makes sense. Yep. Is that, that's correct, Councillor Calvert? Yep.

Councillor Wheeler, did you still want to speak or add anything to the motion?

Yes, I'd like to add a point four, Mr Mayor, which I'm currently just emailing for Mr McElroy, which might be— Which might make things easier.

Anyone else wish to speak while that's happening?

I'll just add my support to the motion. I think this is probably what we were really asking for when we resolved last time. What we want to know is, based on what HRCC is actually doing as much as we can determine for us, we want to know what the cost of that is if we wanted to do it ourselves. That way we'll have an assessment of whether we're getting good value for money delivering this service based on the model we have now, or whether there's an alternative model which delivers better value for the ratepayers. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think I've just sent an email to Mr McElroy with a proposed point four. I think this is a useful way forward. This isn't a decision to leave HRCC. This is a decision to get more information about our position whilst using this service. And I think we've, several of us have had a number of concerns over the last few years about the service that we receive from HRCC. And I know several of us have also received representations from people in the community about our weed burden and our actions on weeds. And I think it's a really poorly understood area for the community, but I think it's also an area where, when you look around, you can see that we are not getting on top of this issue.

And so I think we really need to look hard at what we're doing and whether that's working to achieve our aims. Now, we have obligations under the Biosecurity Act, and we currently have those obligations met, or at least we delegate them to the Hawkesbury River County Council, and that's for priority weeds. We also have a large, very, very large, spectacular collection of other weeds. My concern with the report that we have here is that what we've got is the HRCC targets and not an indication of whether those targets are being met, and particularly whether they're being met for us in the Hawkesbury. And that's what I see as one of the problems of this aggregate structure. And I note that Councillor Zamprogno assures us that we get a lot of bang for our buck out of this arrangement, but I would like the evidence of that before we decide that that is indeed the case.

I'm not saying that that's wrong, but I need to see something more than targets in an annual report. I think also, and I think Councillor Calvert's motion does this, when we talk about our capacity to deliver versus Hawkesbury River County Council's targets, we need to talk, that's where we need what's actually happening with those targets. Otherwise, we aren't comparing apples with apples. There's a general feeling from residents that this council isn't meeting its obligations regarding weed removal, and I think we need to have also a clear indication of what we provide on top of the HRCC's work, and then whether increasing capacity using a more integrated approach with greater community involvement and organisational and community building capacity by doing the weed management as a council, like for example the Blue Mountains or Camden does, will result in better outcomes for us.

Because some of these HRCC outcomes, while I'm sure they mean something to HRCC, it's never been told to us, despite the fact that we pay a membership and we have two councillors on this committee who are paid for their role, we are never given enough information for us to understand what any of this means. In fact, this is the first information that has really flowed through to us about What the HRCC is achieving, unless of course you go to the annual Bushcare Awards and you have chat to people about what they're doing, which I have done in the past few years prior to COVID coming along and mucking that up. I'm concerned if we do withdraw from HRCC that we have contributed to HRCC's assets for decades, and I think we need to be concerned about the loss of either that asset base or access to that asset base.

I think that's something that we need to discuss more strongly. I'm not sure what the inspections achieve. I look forward to a briefing on why the HRCC does the work that it does. I don't know what this act on priority reads mean. Is it a hillside activity? Is there follow-up? Is there replanting so that a void isn't left for the seed bank to regenerate?

There isn't enough information in here for us to discern what the HRCC is actually achieving for us with our money. I think there's real potential for the council to attract grants, for council to leverage our large expanse of national park in the same way that the Blue Mountains does, but also our wetlands and riparian zones as well. And I think this could be a useful addition to council's capacity if we do it well. And I think this report is the beginning of that. But I want to make it clear that this isn't a definitive decision to leave. This is a decision to get more information so that we can have an informed way forward.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, on point two, I'm just wondering whether we need to sharpen that a little bit. It talks about the cost of what was actually delivered by HRCC. I assume that means actually delivered by HRCC to our council area, because they have, as we know, HRCC's got a wide area that they deliver to. I guess we're talking about our area in particular, is that right?

Yeah, we're talking about our LGA, I thought that's pretty clear.

Could we make it specific and sharpen a little bit and add our area into that? Otherwise, we'll get a big blob of numbers back and they won't really give us a true idea of what it's all about.

How about that, Councillor Carver, just to put the words ‘in our LGA’ after that? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's implied, because that's what we're trying to do, measure the cost for us. If you'd like the words in there, then that's fine

Yeah, better spell it out. Thank you.

Thank you. So, any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'll just add to that. I'm speaking in favour of this motion because I think, look, it's vital that our community is confident that council's spending its ratepayers' money in the most prudent way. So I'm supporting this call for more information . As Councillor Wheeler says, Hawkesbury Council's been providing funds to HRCC for many, many years. And while it might be additional work for staff, I think it's really not unreasonable to have this type of review from time to time. So it's good governance that we have a thorough independent review of this nature. It worries me a bit when I read, and I'll paraphrase, that there's not available information to make a direct comparison of costs of undertaking weed management by council compared to HRCC.

If this is the case, we can't really make any assessment on regarding value for money. So I hope that staff can dig a bit deeper and go further. I don't think that's acceptable. I think we have to be able to determine value for money. I think we need this further report to look at the costs that we actually get, as I've said. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, for example, using HRCC's 2019-2020 annual report and operational plan shows that each constituent council got about 60 hectares of weed control, and that was about half the target. So I think we have to be mindful that, for whatever reason, the targets that might be put up, how that's met. If half the target's met, I don't think that we need to be able to have a look at that.

I would also like to see the grant funding that's given to HRCC that's not part of its core business, such as the land care and the tree planting grants, partitioned off, so that the next report we get is sort of a better understanding of what we get for our contribution in terms of what we need to deliver in terms of— of

The control authority, if we were to be the control authority, and that's the sort of comparison I think we need. So I'm happy to support that amendment, and I look forward to that report. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I might be able to provide some information for the benefit of my colleagues, as the present Chair of the Hawkesbury River County Council. In terms of the partial picture that's presented in this report, I am informed that

HRCC staff received a phone call and not a written request only a few days before this business paper and this report would have been concluded. And the verbal request made of HRCC staff was, Can you please summarise everything that we've done for you, that you've done for us in the last five years? It wasn't made in writing, and it didn't ask specific questions. To which the response was, Well, you might start with all of the annual reports that have been made publicly available on the HRCC website over that period of time. And once you've digested that, if you have any other specific questions, please feel free to come back to us. Obviously that has not occurred. And for those of my colleagues who are curious about the value that's conferred by HRCC, they might start by looking at the annual reports that HRCC puts out every year and which, I might add, are circulated to the member councils.

And I'm sure that I've made a request at times that that material be more visible to you by being placed on the hub or that they be included as an email, so that in addition to the reporting that your two delegates, Councillor Kotlash and myself, make to you to continue to make the case that HRCC represents value or whether we need to look at that value proposition, that information. is there. I recognise that the report that's in the business paper isn't as much information as we might need to make a decision on this question. I would, however, point to some things that are in this report that don't appear to have been addressed. One is an acknowledgement that when we do look at other adjacent LGAs that act as their own control authority for weeds, that Blue Mountains has to spend $2 million per annum on that, and that Camden spends a quarter of a million dollars per annum and gets about $56,000 worth in grants to offset that cost.

Our contribution, like the other member councils' contributions, is on the order of $190,000 per year, and I have made the case that we get the better end of that deal because our area is over three times larger than the other three member councils combined, and that we have substantially more waterways. So for the contribution that we make, we get the lion's share of the benefit. And to add to that, the organisation in question that has had an association with this council and its predecessors for 73 years is headquartered in this locality in South Windsor, only a couple of minutes from us here tonight. So I am minded to support this resolution because I'm confident that the value proposition is there, but I recognise that you are not satisfied to that value proposition on the basis of the information that's been presented to us tonight.

I'm glad that— The general manager of Hawkesbury River County Council will have the opportunity to address us at a briefing, and you can put whatever questions you want to him, and I'm sure that will also be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's a bit of a circular argument, you know, around this sort of thing. So I welcome another report. I have to say I was quite concerned by the figures that were contained in the information we received by email regarding the grant funding in terms of why there were reductions and so on. And I know there was some explanation given, but moreover, I think that overall, I just don't know that our community has an understanding of exactly what this organisation is delivering in terms of, on a localised level. So I've had people actually just in the last couple of days ask about the weed issues in the Colo River, for example. So I think that I never have seen something that says where exactly this work is done.

I'm sure it's on a website somewhere that you could go looking for, but in terms of having delegates go to this who are paid, in the case of the chairman, quite a significant amount of money, I think that we should be getting more of a report to council that is actually something relevant to what we might be able to tell constituents or feed back into the community for how this ratepayer money is actually used to ensure that we are getting the value for money. So I may have been wrong when I said before this was done before. I know there was a comparison done on an organisation we put money into. I thought it was Hawkesbury River County Council, but I certainly would like to see the figures and perhaps some more clarification around the entire how the funding and so on works.

Thank you.

Thank you . Right of reply, Councillor Calvert? Yeah

I actually want to ask a question first, if I might. I didn't put any timeline in this motion. I'm just wondering through you, Mr Mayor, what kind of time frame would the staff think we might need to get all this information back to us? Through that to Mr Organ.

It's a difficult question. As I said, probably just one of the things in here is that some of the information over the four years isn't available in a consistent form from the HRCC. Certainly improved in the last year in terms of the level of detail for this area and the extent of works. So it will require probably a little bit of work and will be reliant upon HRCC going a little bit possibly beyond what's in the operational plans, where they've got the information available. I would anticipate we'd probably be looking at probably by mid-March, mid-April, we'd be able to bring something back that would be meaningful.

Well, with your indulgence, Mr Mayor, can I add that timeline to the motion, or is it too late for that?

I

Think that's

Okay. There's no objection . Anybody? So we add the timeline. So what— End of April. By the end of April. Yep.

I hope that's okay with everyone . Okay. Because we do have a short council year, we want to get— If we're going to make any decision either way, we need to have time to do it. Okay . Right of reply. Yes, look, weeds are a big issue in this area at the moment. You might even say it's a growing issue. At the moment, there are weeds in some properties around my place that are towering over my head, and a lot of the locals are starting to say, Well, what's the council doing about weeds? And I think we really need to have some good answers to that. All I can say is, you know, Hawkesbury River County Council is the body that looks after this, but it'd be good if we had some more figures, and that's all basically I'm asking for here, is more information, please.

And for example, if we found out that Hawkesbury River County Council was, say, only meeting 20 percent of its targets, then perhaps it is financially possible for us to take over. If, on the other hand, we found it's meeting 120 percent of its targets, then obviously we shouldn't look at financially taking it over. So it's just getting that information so we can start making some decisions and talk to the locals about what's going on.

I'm not suggesting—so what the motion is about is about this report and the inadequacy of this report. I'm not suggesting that there's any conspiracy going on anywhere with councillors or Hawkesbury River County Council. I'm not suggesting anything like that. All I'm looking for is transparency because I think transparency is better for everyone, and that's what I'm after with this motion, and I thank those councillors who will support this.

Thank you. Put the motion. Just wait for the motion to come off the screen. Yep. So put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Against. Having called Councillor Wheeler, sorry, we have four against

Sorry, I can't. Sorry, four. Four Councillor. There's four. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. We'll declare it carried.

Mr Mayor, can we have a—

Five-minute break? Yep, sure. Is that a request for a five-minute adjournment? So we'll adjourn and reconvene in five minutes.

Mr. Organ, will you resume your seat? It’s not extinct.

Okay, we’re now back from our adjournment. So the next item of business is item 41, notice of motion 1. We’ll go to the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Oh , sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think there’s, after discussions with yourself, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Mitzford today, I’ve altered slightly my notice of motion to change it from seven days to ten days in point 1. And I think the motion will be put up on the board, so that is the only change. So seven days— sorry, do I need a seconder before I continue

Sorry, you’re right. Seconder, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you.

The seven days was a little short, given that if it’s seven days, the question, the business paper is printed the following day. So to give a little bit more time to staff to answer those questions, ten days would be a more suitable time. I just brought this forward because I noticed that we had stopped having really any questions that were in the public domain, and I think that I went to ask the question recently about an update on the power west of the river situation, which I thought was something that was a good point, to have that question answered publicly so people knew we’re keeping up on it. I know that sometimes we all get inundated with various matters, and on occasions it’s really good to be able to have the question in the business paper so that everybody can see the answer.

Point, the second point, point B, that’s regarding questions that are asked during a meeting. Now, sometimes a staff or a councillor or the Mayor, someone will take a question on notice, and it’s— Important that we get to hear that meeting in a public forum, to hear the answer in a public forum. I know sometimes staff follow up with an email to all councillors, which is good for getting us the information. But if it's been a question asked in public, then it's very good to also have the answer in public as well. And I have seen in other council business papers that they have a section there where they address questions that have been taken on notice during debate. And I think that will just enhance our business paper to enable follow-up from outstanding questions.

While this process was being undertaken, it was noticed that there was a couple of clauses that didn't align, and that's a minor issue that will also be fixed. That's just a numbering issue. It's nothing to do with content. And the fact that this is considered minor amendments. The change of date from 14 to 10 is not significant, but it will enhance the process by not having it such a lengthy delay that sometimes you may ask a question and it could end up being almost a month before it's answered. So yes, I think it's fairly straightforward, and I think it is a minor amendment, but one that will better allow us to utilise the question asking facilities within our meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno. Okay . Councillor Calvert. No. Take your hands down. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm happy to support this notice of motion. I think it's a good compromise and— In some ways, replaces the loss of the previous system of questions on notice, which I found really useful, particularly in the earlier days of my term on council. I think many of us quarantine in our minds the council Tuesday in terms of when we attend to council business. And it's when matters arise. It's when, often because the community knows we're sitting in here or they're watching at home, or it used to be that it was when they were in the chamber watching the council meeting because they had a particular interest, that people would send us questions to ask with the expectation, quite reasonably, I think, that we could ask them then and there and have them answered within a two-week period because of the change to the code of meeting practice.

And I want to acknowledge that it wasn't a change that this council sought. It was a change put in place by the minister. We've lost that capacity, and I think we've probably lost a bit of that back-and-forth communication between the community, ourselves and the staff. And this, I think, reintroduces some of that capacity. It's still—we're not asking questions out loud. We still have to get onto the app and put those questions in, but I don't think that's a difficult process. I think this is a little bit more agile than the two-week notice that we had. You could try and get them in before a meeting. Different things would come up in the meeting, or you would get an answer in the meeting, rendering the question redundant.

It just wasn't agile enough to meet our needs. I think this is better. I think the ten days' notice is better staff. I think the— I think, too , the very clear direction about questions that are taken on those in the meeting is also good for us in terms of our level of transparency and the expectations of the community.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Being no further speakers, right of reply, Deputy Mayor? No. Put the motion. Pull it down, if that's okay.

So, all those in favour of the motion: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Gary, Councillor Tree. Councillor Ross was absent for the vote. We declare it carried.

Notice of motion two, Councillor Reynolds .

Thank you.

Do you have a seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Wheeler.

Here we go. I realise that this will appear like a strange issue for this Council to be discussing as a notice of motion, but it was brought about by a member of our community asking why this Council supported the Powerhouse project, and I really didn't understand. And then realised that Wesrock, of which we are a member, has continued to support the Parramatta Powerhouse for some time, and I don't recall us being consulted at any stage about this support. Regarding the actual issue of the project itself, there's no doubt we can't argue that Western Sydney needs more cultural facilities. But again, the people of the West being told what's good for them, and our community will go to such a facility at Parramatta.

And when you look at the project, you can see that it's more of an entertainment centre, not really a museum. The big issue for me is here is that even though Windsor is the third oldest settlement in the country, Parramatta is the second oldest European settlement. And its heritage again is under threat. There's a parliamentary inquiry into the project, and yet, despite pleas from the parliamentary inquiry, the government has gone ahead and signed the contract for the project to go ahead. And, you know, just as that happened here, the New South Wales government is riding roughshod over the community and any built heritage in pursuit of their project. You know, the overnight demolition of, I can't remember the name of it, but one of the oldest pubs in the country is evidence of this.

It's the fact that they haven't even waited for the parliamentary inquiry to conclude that is the big issue, and it leaves the Parramatta community with a number of unanswered questions. Especially when, you know, the parliamentary inquiry last week established that there's insufficient funds to operate the new museum, yet apparently there's an open-ended budget to relocate the building known as Willow Grove. And we know what open-ended budgets appear like. You know, the Windsor Bridge, even after all the legal stuff was all said and done back in 2015, the Windsor Bridge project was going to cost seventy-something million dollars, and now it's up in the order of 150. So I think that we've been, perhaps through our association with WestRock, in the eyes of some members of the community, we've been dragged into this.

And I think it's important that, as a council, those of us who care about good planning, good infrastructure, Protecting heritage, you know, that we stand up and we say, no, with all due respect to Wesrock, we don't support this project, and that's the reason for this notice of motion. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Are there any further speakers?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm a foundation member of the Powerhouse Museum and have been since it found its present home at Ultimo in 1988, and, you know, I've always had a heart for it as an institution. I feel conflicted about Councillor Reynolds' motion because, again, it's very snarkily framed. The link to Windsor Bridge and the way that Windsor Bridge was executed is, I don't see that connection myself. But one of his premises is incorrect. I mean, to the degree that this affects us and our community and this council, and any view that we might take on this council, the move of an institution that currently resides in the CBD to the western suburbs has to be good for our community. It would be a boon to have something of this scale in the western suburbs and more accessible to our community.

However, on the other hand, on a more objective level, it's not a good idea in the sense that it impinges on heritage properties on the banks of the Parramatta River in Parramatta, and it potentially dilutes the importance and investment in the current home, which the state government has now belatedly voted to retain. So, Councillor Reynolds is trying to do the right thing, but working from the wrong premise. As far as this council and this community is concerned, they should welcome anything that is currently in the city moving towards the western suburbs. But on the more objective level, it's not such a good idea. I'll be interested to know other councillors' views.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm happy to support this. As a lifelong resident of Western Sydney, and I was educated around Parramatta, I've spent a lot of time in Parramatta, both as a teenager and as a young adult. I lived in the Parramatta Council LGA for a number of years at Granville. I know this area really well, and I've watched it evolve. If you could, actually, it's not been an evolution for Parramatta. It's largely been a devastation of Parramatta. It's certainly not the place that I knew. It's lost much of its fabric. I'm really tired of successive governments giving Western Sydney lower quality infrastructure, and I think that's what this really is: forcing us to forfeit significant cultural and heritage assets to get anything.

Why do we always have to compromise? The inner west doesn't compromise, the eastern suburbs don't compromise, the city certainly never compromises. Why does Western Sydney have to just cop it sweet and then be grateful to get the crumbs from the table? And that's what this is. This is the crumbs from Sydney's table. We sealed this with Parramatta Pool. I think they've had two summers now without a pool for a corporate stadium. They're looking at at least another four. In the meantime, there have been several pools built in LGAs already with pools. Parramatta no longer has a pool in its LGA, demolished by the state government. It lost the Royal Oaks pub, 180 years old, bulldozed for a light rail that could have gone around it, frankly.

That's quite a wide road and there are far less significant assets on the other side of it. Willow Grove is highly significant as an Italianate villa. It can't be moved. It's a ludicrous proposition that you would remove a building made of friable bricks to another site. This is a demolition of Willow Grove.

I'm a huge fan of the Powerhouse. I spent a lot of time taking my son and his friends into the Powerhouse. I'm really pleased that it's being retained on its Ultimo site. It's a great opportunity for kids from Western Sydney. It's easily accessible by public transport. It's a really good opportunity for kids from Western Sydney to have a reason to travel into the city that's appealing to them, that meets their educational needs. You can learn to catch— I taught my son and his friends how to catch the train, how to negotiate the train system, how to negotiate their way around the city by going to a series of educational programs at the Powerhouse. And that's— kids need to own their own city.

They don't need to have everything brought to them. But we do, we do need an equivalent facility in Parramatta, but not on a flood-affected site that compromises the heritage there. And I think that it's— yes, this isn't in our LGA, but this affects us in that this is part of an overall program that says to Western Sydney, you are not worthy of the high quality infrastructure that we will put in other places. If you get anything, you will have to lose something to have it. You don't deserve beauty. You don't deserve your cultural heritage. You don't deserve things that evoke for you a sense of place and a sense of pride in that place. You will have the same old modern — There's not even a flood study for this site.

It's really highly significant artifacts going into a site that floods regularly, and the state government hasn't got a flood plan that deals with—I think they've got something that does one in 50. This is ludicrous, and we shouldn't be seen, because of our membership of WesROC, to be supporting this.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was just going to ask Councillor Reynolds if he would consider adding that the letter also go to the—and I'm not sure what the minister is called these days, but it's Don Harwin. Is he the minister for—I know they don't have— is he the minister for Arts and Heritage, or I don't know what he's called—but to he who has a position that I don't know what it is.

What would you like the motion to say there?

Well, I would like to say that we write to the Honourable Don Harwin , Minister of— He's the Minister

For the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and the Arts. Okay

So it must fall within the Arts because I did hear him speaking about it the other day, which was why I would ask Councillor Reynolds to include that. And as I was going to speak, it was largely to echo what Councillor Wheeler had said in regard to that in the western areas, we should not be expected to take things as they're offered to us or miss out. We need to say, we would love that and welcome that, but there are other considerations that have to be looked at because Councillor Wheeler is correct. For too long, we have been given what others have decided we are worthy of having. And I think that's a very sad, it's a very stigmatised thing. If we ourselves don't recognise it, or people of my age may not recognise it, most certainly within my children have recognised it and in fact been discriminated from being from the west when they're in other areas along those lines because of that real stigmatisation.

So being second best is not good, but I digress from the issue, which is Councillor Reynolds' motion. And I think that we should take a position on these things, particularly when we have concerning issues around how government decisions are being made, particularly if they're done prior to the inquiry being completed, and when there are very, very severe concerns around flooding in particular, which is a concern of mine wherever it's occurring. So I support that, but I would ask Councillor Reynolds to include, to write that other letter as well, if he would. Thank you.

Happy to add that, yes, Councillor Reynolds is happy to add that. Okay, are there any further speakers? If not, do I have a right of reply, Councillor Reynolds?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to, I thank Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett and Zamprogno for their points of view and their opinions. It's a shame that Councillor Zamprogno has some kind of anaphylactic reaction every time Infrastructure is mentioned, but the idea was, you know, it was meant to draw a parallel between the process, not the actual project itself. You know, there are solutions to this. I'm not too sure whether it's too late. It would see the community satisfied while fulfilling the commitment of the New South Wales Government. And it's not hard, you know. Rushing ahead, ignoring experts, the community is not good planning, and we've seen that here locally, and it's not good use of public funds.

You know, the government in this regard has a choice. They can divide the community again, or they could put politics aside and actually create a wonderful facility for Western Sydney, which benefits all of us, even out here, and doesn't erode our ever-diminishing heritage. And it's possible, and it would be warmly welcomed. You know, proceeding with, which is obviously a flawed plan, is not good governance. It's actually tyranny, Mr Mayor, and I'd ask you to support the notice of motion. I can live in hope anyway. Thank you.

All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please— actually, just wait till... that's better. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillors [unclear], Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow. Against? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Richards. Councillor Tree. Councillor Ross is absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Someone, we're moving. We're going to confidential. Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Carried. Going to confidential.

Mr. —. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. In regard to item 43, 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 lease with Y Get Kang in regard to shop 2, McGraths Hill Shopping Centre as outlined in this report; two, authority be given for the lease and any documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council; three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the lessee, together with the advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal 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 44, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that: one, Council accept the proposal submitted by Marsdens Law Group, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie to undertake the provision of legal services based on the schedule of rates for a three-year period, with the option to extend for an additional three years at Council's discretion; two, authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council.

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.

Thank you, that concludes the business, so thank you everyone. The meeting is closed at 9.40 p.m .