Heritage Committee Meeting - 11 March 2021

Yes, thank you. So we are live. Welcome to the first meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee for 2021. This committee has been appointed by Council to discuss items on the agenda of the business paper in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice. My name is Councillor Danielle Wheeler, and I'm the chairperson for today's committee, and we have a number of other committee members here today, including Councillors Reynolds and Zampronio, and a number of members of the community. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the lands of the Burruburongal people of the Dharug Nation and acknowledge the Elders past, present and future . Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, which will only happen to those of us in the chamber, the rest of you are responsible for your own emergency management.

You'll be asked to proceed to the nearest exit following the guidance of staff. Could I ask that everyone turns off their mobile phones and places themselves on mute, please. This meeting is being audio and visually recorded and will be available via podcast on Council's website. Any part of the meeting that's held in closed session will not be recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, personal information provided at the meeting will be recorded. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. Any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the meeting. The recordings are used to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting.

For the benefit of those of you who will be addressing the committee, it's expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any member present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to the meeting and any answers given in response to questions. As required by the Code of Conduct, members are required to disclose any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in relation to the matters on today's agenda. And I will acknowledge that each committee member has completed disclosure forms at the commencement of this committee in 2017.

We would normally go through a formal declaration process of conflicts of interest for the business paper, but because of the number of people on this committee, we will take that as given. But I will ask at this point if anyone has a conflict, either a pecuniary or significant interest with any of the items on today's business paper, that you raise your hand now and make that declaration. Graham?

And Otto?

Yeah, my declaration is in regard to the works to individual properties, which is part of today's

Agenda. Thank you. And Otto? Otto, you're on mute.

Still on mute. Okay, I've got no conflict. Okay, you were just adjusting something. Adjusting

The camera, yep. Good,

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I can also declare a similar conflict of interest as Mr. Edwards has.

Thank you So that is, I presume that will come up in item 2, the discussion on the agenda items for future council meetings. Is that correct for both of you?

I believe so.

Thank you. And there's probably some overlap with the minutes of the previous meeting as well.

All right, so because.

For due to the changes to Council's committees, I think the first item that we need to deal with is Council's committee constitution, which you will have received as an attachment to the business paper. Andrew, would you like to introduce this?

Yeah , so there's a report that basically attaches the new constitution of the committee, and we're essentially asking committee members to receive in that report in terms of the new constitution.

So we don't expect you to plough through all of it now, although if anyone has any questions from their readings of it, I'm happy to take those at this point if you want to indicate that you need to speak.

Abigail, is that you indicating?

I just wondered why Advisory seems to have dropped off Heritage Advisory Committee when it's referred to throughout the documentation. I have no idea, but we can get back to you with an answer for that. Otto? Otto

Did you need to speak? Madam

Chair, sorry

Nathan?

No, I was just going to suggest, as a procedural matter, you need somebody to move the recommendation or some motion before debate can ensue.

I don't think that we'd be changing our practices to the point where we are becoming as formal as a Council meeting, so I'm happy to do the moving of a motion once we've worked through the..

That's fine. I have no objection to that. I have a general remark that I'd like to make, however. You can make a general remark. All right then. So, all members present would of course be aware of the debate that ensued late last year to change the committee structure of Council, and that everybody here was of course fulsomely in support of the preservation of the Heritage Committee, and I was very happy to be in support of the preservation of the Heritage Committee. In terms of the adoption of this new constitution , in addition to the innovations that it brings to us, like having a pre-published agenda, opening it up for public viewing or participation even beyond the general membership, if there was any apprehension that Council was going to be seeking to put the Heritage Committee on a shorter leash, and this will come up in a subsequent business item in terms of what the outstanding items are, I'd just like to say two things.

One is to provide a vote of confidence in our present Chair, Danielle Wheeler, who I think is doing an excellent job, and secondly, to say that as far as I am concerned at least, in terms of the one vote among twelve that I have, that it is not my intention to place any impediment on the reference to this Heritage Committee of any item that would have otherwise appeared on its business paper up to and including last year. So if there was any thought that the Heritage Committee endures, but what will it be doing, my intention at least is to ensure that it continue to consider anything that would have otherwise found its way onto a business paper for our consideration. And on that basis, I'm happy to endorse the adoption of this constitution.

Grime.

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm not sure whether this is the correct location to bring this up, but I think it is. I note from the business paper or the agenda that there isn't any general business. I just wondered if that is going to proceed as the previous committee did, bringing up those sorts of items within the meeting, or whether that's now banned.

So I have no direction as the Chair about the inclusion or the exclusion of general business. It's my hope that we will continue with that.

Thank you.

So I'll bring us back to the main item under discussion, which is the Constitution. So, and you'll notice in the back of the business paper is a long list of outstanding actions for the Heritage Advisory Committee, and that will form the basis of our work from now until the end of this council term in late August. So, and you'll see that they are all the things that we have been working towards in this term. I felt it was important that the Heritage Advisory Committee continues to set its own agenda around those items that it has felt important, which is why they've come to us in this first meeting rather than coming directly from the council. I've got Helen and then Venetia.

Helen, you're on mute.

Michelle Nicholson is having trouble logging in, so I've just sent her

My login, so you'll see my name twice.

I think the second

One is actually Michelle.

She, yeah, she may not. Well, I can see her on here, Tracy. I don't know if you can rename her.

Thanks, Venetia.

Sorry, can everyone hear me? Yep. Okay. In terms of this constitution, which I gather we're still on that option. Yes. Okay. I have a concern with the Heritage Advisory Committee is the only committee left in council which actually has community members on it, and I have a number of concerns around the same constitution being used to govern this committee as well as other committees that only have paid members in terms of, you know, councillors. And there are a whole set of different rules around these kinds of things. As far as I'm aware,

This really isn't— this isn't an authoritative document, because there's the conflict between unpaid volunteer community members on this committee and the remainder of the committees are all inclusive of staff and councillors. So I've got a bit of an issue with that.

Do you want to state what those issues actually are, in which case they could go into the minutes and be referred back to council?

Sorry, I'll just find my

Notes . So the constitution has been accepted by Council. This committee isn't in a position to accept or reject the constitution.

I understand the committee is not in a position to accept or reject anything from this point onwards. However, I just want to flag that I think there's actually legalities around this that could be an issue in terms of working with the Code of Conduct in conjunction with this constitution .

It seems to be wanting to hold people to

Certain restrictions and standards which we as volunteers have no capability to resource. So I'm happy to put a document together and send it through with the detail in it if that wants to be added to the minutes or something like that. Unfortunately, I had trouble logging on because of my internet, so I've actually lost the document that I was working on that had the detail in it.

We've got Council's governance officer, Charles McElroy, on the meeting. Do you have anything specific you'd like to ask him? Would that help?

No, not really. I've been through the legislation and pulled the pieces out of it that I think are relevant and sought in-house legal advice. And yeah, I just don't understand how a constitution can rule both paid and unpaid volunteer committees. There are a whole set of different rules around two different types of committees.

Okay, so if you send through some specific questions, then we'll try to have them answered for the next committee meeting. Yep. Okay. Okay, thanks. Any further comments on this item? Jan, I'm just going to check in with you. Do you have anything to add? No, not at this point. Thank you. Thanks. And Judy,

You're okay as well? Judy?

I'm going to take that as Steve. Yep. I just go, for a moment, back to the point already made about the name of the committee, because both names, Heritage Advisory Committee and Heritage Committee, appear in the document. I haven't checked what appears in the Constitution, either or both, but that ought to be clarified, and the same title ought to be

Used throughout any document. Sure. So what I think we've got now, and I'll ask for someone to move and a seconder, I think we have probably a recommendation that the committee be received and noted, but that members of the committee will forward specific questions about the Constitution, and that the committee would like clarification of the name of the committee, whether it's the Heritage Committee or the Heritage Advisory Committee. Is that a fair representation of where we are? Could I have someone move that, please?

Don't all rush at once. Thanks, Venetia. And a seconder? Thanks, Nathan.

Now, I'm going to depart slightly from the agenda that you have because the Director of Infrastructure Services is going to give us a bit of an update on the archaeological salvage for Windsor Bridge. And then we'll go back to the agenda and look at the minutes of the last meeting. Over to yours, Jeff.

Thank you. I assume Andrew Curns' persona now. Look, this is a little bit unusual, as I said, the first item there, but I think it's certainly worth putting this information to the committee and to the broader community about where various artefacts from the demolition of Windsor Bridge is currently sitting in terms. So, as I said, it's purely information item only, and my intention would be to take this information back in a report to Council, either to the next meeting or the following one, to get direction on what needs to occur with this material. At the moment, we don't have a resolution of Council or funding or any direction to deal with various artefacts that are coming out of the demolition itself.

So I'm just going to basically run through, because there's been a lot of emails flying around during the week and everybody's got a particular view and interest in this, so mine's going to be purely factual. So the material that we've taken possession of to date is that we have approximately 600 pieces of sandstone that have come out of the road infrastructure. We've taken 32 of the bridge handrail brackets. We have those currently in our stores and on our inventory, all of those items.

In our negotiations with Transport for New South Wales, we currently have three of the upper pier sections. We have three sections of the lower piers, or caissons as people refer to them. We have indicated that we can take possibly another two to three more of those sections, depending on how they come out of the demolition. There are some issues with those pier and caisson sections. They do contain lead paint, so we need to be a little bit mindful about where they're stored and how they're used, and how we stop any further contamination over time . We also have a section of the concrete bridge deck, which is around about two metres by three metres. That's in our store as well, or in our depot.

We have one cross brace and the brackets, which has come out reasonably okay, but in the demolition themselves buckles those sections up. At the current stage, we have two approximately 12 metre lengths of steel walkway beams from the pedestrian walkway, and there's possibly two more that have come out. I haven't checked in the last day some of the ones that came out first were quite buckled and not usable. There is some interest from the Pioneer Village to reuse those, but we need to look at that. We'll probably take those ones into our store whilst that's being resolved. We have one Lewis bolt intact, and I understand there may be one more plus some broken sections of other bluey bolts that have come out.

We've got, out of the caissons themselves as they're being demolished, there's various metal and iron fittings, bolts, pulleys, bits and pieces that were thrown in, obviously, into the concrete mix in the pier infill. So Transport for New South Wales have those and will transfer those to Council. They also have one layer complete of the curved bricks that were laid, and interestingly it appears that they were only laid in one or two layers in the bottom. We understand there are also some different types of bricks in the upper layers, and we'll try and get possession of those.

And

That's probably it. Other than for one which we've just taken possession of, and which is quite interesting, we actually have a six-metre length of rope ladder, including the rungs, and reasonably intact, that was embedded in the concrete for 148 years, or whatever the date was. And that's, we've taken some specialist conservancy advice on that. That's being stored in the dark and in water at the moment so that it doesn't dry out. And Transport for New South Wales have indicated they will also provide us with their specialist advice on conservation of that and whether it can be conserved out of its tomb that it was in for that period. But it's a very interesting human touch point, I think, out of the construction that was actually left in there.

So all those items will be taken in, if they're not already in council possession, will come to council and we'll appropriately secure those and put those in an inventory. And I said the intention would be to put a report to council very shortly about those and what council might wish to do with those in terms of either interpretation, adaptive reuse, or other purposes. I'm just—it's really just an information item only. It's not for any discussion or debate today, I guess, but just to put it out there that we are trying to take as many different and as much material as we can store out of this without taking every portion of the bridge, because we don't know where to rebuild it. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Jeff. I've got a question from Councillor Reynolds. Can you take that, or do you need to go? Yep. Pete?

Yeah, thanks for that, Jeff. How long are the sections of upper piers and lower caissons? Are they—I think they came in eight metre lengths and they were bolted together, so are they—sorry, not eight metre, eight foot lengths? Is that how long they are, or are they broken off sections that we've actually got in our possession now?

So the upper sections are generally intact, so that's the full length, and they're around about three metres, two and a half to three metres. So they've got the upper and the lower flanges on those. Yeah. The caissons, the below-water sections, I'll call them, or the lower sections. So the three we have are generally around about two to three metres, about the similar length to the upper ones as they've come out.

Okay.

Fractured as they're demolished. So again, they were riveted in sections and, as I said, when they're subjected to bending moments that— not normally, it's a vertical fracture.

Yeah, cast iron doesn't like that. The other question was, you mentioned 600 pieces of sandstone.

Whereabouts was the sandstone used in the bridge, or was this on the approach to the bridge?

So they were the bridge, the road approaches. So the L sandstone kerb and any other pieces there uncovered there, so they’re early on. They’re still terming them part of the demolition because they came out of demolition of the road. Right. Okay, I understand now. Okay, terrific. Thanks for that. Sorry, the other item I forgot to mention was we haven’t taken possession yet of all of the bricks, and the fragments of those bricks, they will also be provided to Council to determine where we might use them in the future. Okay, thank you.

I’ve got two more questions. Can you take them? Sure. Venetia and then Graham.

Hi. So the list that is, or the report that is going to be provided to Council, will that be made public?

It’ll

Be published in the business paper, and there’ll be a record of what I put through today, plus any suggestions on how we might deal with that. We’ll seeking direction from Council on that.

In which case committee members will be able to speak on that when it comes to Council, if you’d like. And I think that could be quite helpful. Graham?

Yes. Yeah, a question to Geoff, if I may. If you mentioned one layer of complete bricks, I gather this is the bricks within the caissons, is that correct?

Yeah, that’s correct.

Okay. And does that layer include in its made-up form including the actual mortar and the consistency of that mortar, which is obviously a vital part of that?

The layer that is there doesn’t contain the mortar, and I’ve been advised by Transport for New South Wales that that layer that they took out was never mortared. They were just placed dry. So that's their record, and that's what they've advised me on that particular layer.

Yeah, I guess, Geoff, that's a bit of a disappointment for me as a conservation architect, because obviously an integral part of any structure is what bonds it all together. So I gather what they're saying is that there wasn't any need to bond it together; it was just placed in place. And I guess that's really a disappointment because I went to the museum this afternoon just to have a look at the brick barrel drain interpretation, and all I can see is a stack of bricks. There's certainly no mortar, but you can actually see that is within the photographs which displayed within the museum, and it's clearly a shell lime mortar. And I would have thought that—well, I'm really disappointed that that sort of evidence is not taken into consideration.

As I said, the layer of bricks they had, the advice from transport was that they were not mortared together when they were placed. So then they've come out, there was no mortar; they were simply placed dry in the base of the pier. I can confirm that with transport about, as I said, whether they documented what I'm telling you now, but I'm just relaying that information .

One more, and then we're done, Venetia.

We've actually got photos of those bricks inside the end of the caisson, and there is mortar there. There is mortar surrounding them. There is mortar in between—not all of them, because some of them have shifted—but there was definitely mortar inside the caisson with those bricks. And I think that's probably

Useful information, I think, that can come to Council when this comes to Council for discussion, because I think we are currently getting what we're given. And I think, and it's—we're not actually—all of this stuff, it's worth noting that all of this stuff is currently the property of the demolisher. The demolition contractor owns all this stuff, and currently we're getting some of that stuff and hoping to use it. But these bits of extra information, I think that photographic record will probably be a big part of that, and that will be something that Council is going to have to deal with about how we take possession of this stuff and then how we interpret and display it as well. And so I'd urge you, if you have this information, to bring it to the Council meeting when it comes up for discussion so that we have a discussion of those artefacts in context.

Yep, I'll bring a whole portfolio then.

Because I think that it's going to be the community's record of this demolition that will be as important as the stuff that we manage to procure, I think. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks for coming Yes, Jan

Yep. Could I ask one question, please, Jeff?

You can.

Jeff , has any attempt been made to separate the material that's coming out, say from the roadway and the bridge itself, to differentiate between the 1790 sections and the 1870 sections and the 1890 sections?

Is it all just been put in together or anything at the

Town? Yeah, I think obviously we know which sections come from where. I said the— Yeah, in terms of the bridge itself, the uppercase, upper pier sections, and the lower are well known where they are. So I think all the items are readily identifiable. I should also add, probably in relation to the last question, I understand that Transport for New South Wales are keeping photographic records of the demolition, so that they would have that, and I would be attempting to try and get their data to support the report to Council and may address some of those issues that are being raised. But anything else would be welcome to further document the engineering heritage of the bridge and its construction methodology, whether anything further can be gleaned from the demolition process as to how the bridge was actually built, in addition to the drawings that are held.

Is that it, Chant? Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Jeff, for that. And the news of the rope ladder, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is your engineering nerdery for the evening. Okay, next we'll go back to the business paper and look at the confirmation of the minutes from the previous meeting. I'm going to ask that you just give me any changes that are required to the minutes.

Okay. Next we'll go back to the business paper and look at the confirmation of the minutes from the previous meeting. I'm going to ask that you just give me any changes that are required to the minutes, because I suspect any other business arising from the minutes will largely be around the progress of items that we will discuss when we work out our plan of action for the next few months. So I'm just going to hold over discussion of things that are in the previous minutes and just ask for any corrections, if anyone has any.

Graham ? In regard to the livability program— Could you give me an item number, please, Graham? Item five. Yep. Item five, the Western Parklands Livability Program. It's .4 that I'm referring to. The tree selection? In regard to tree selection, yes. I think what I did say was that I don't think that I would have said that you should actually use a specific tree rather than another. I think what I would have said also was that should Council go ahead with a tree canopy , the consideration be given to controlling the routes with root barriers. Now, that's been said a little in that, but the detail is always—or the devil is always in the detail when it comes to this. And it is my concern that with these historic drains that are around coming from individual properties, particularly along the main streets, that— and considering the floodability of the roads around Richmond— that any sort of infiltration of tree-seeking roots would be disastrous for property owners.

So do you have some alternate wording for that item?

What I've said is that whatever trees were selected, water-seeking trees

Would be of concern and cause drainage blockages.

I didn't catch that item. Sorry, I didn't catch exactly what you said between selected and— was that water-seeking, did you say?

Seeking trees

Water-seeking, yep.

Yes. Would be of concern to cause drainage blockages. And then I indicated, should Council go ahead with a canopy trees, the consideration be given to the control of roots with root barriers.

Do you have that? Thanks. Thanks, Graham. Are there any other changes to the minutes?

Not from my end .

Jan, any changes to the minutes? No. Thank you. Anyone else? Could I have someone move that the minutes be accepted with the change from Graham? Can I have two people who are not councillors recommend the changes to the minutes? Thank you. Graham and Michael. That's one thing I'm not changing with the new constitution. Sorry, sorry, lads.

Without being facetious, is there any particular reason why council representatives should be treated differently than non-council?

I just feel that it's important for a committee that contains community advisory to Council that the community does the bulk of the moving and seconding. I think it gives us, for me, it gives me more confidence when I take those items to the chamber that we're representing the views of the community members of the committee rather than setting up the committee to represent our own views. Not that we would do that, but I feel it's important. No

I think that's a worthy principle, and as my nan used to say, I'm not going to die on

That

Hill.

I die in a ditch, that's my, that's my, you can die on a mountain, I die in a ditch. Okay, so we've done the constitution, which is item one. We've done the minutes, which brings us to item two, which is the Heritage Committee outstanding actions. It's only quarter to six.

We've done the Constitution, which is item one. We've done the minutes, which brings us to item two, which is the Heritage Committee outstanding actions. It's only quarter to six. I think this is some sort of record for the Heritage Advisory Committee that we have progressed through three items at this pace. It must be the influence of Zoom. So the outstanding actions, look, I'll do a bit of a brief introduction, and then I think, and then I'll call on Andrew to speak to the list that we've got. So when the committee reorganisation happened, Council was presented early this year with a list of items for each committee to discuss. For us, that list of items is the outstanding actions from this committee.

This has been a very active and very busy committee, and we've dealt with a lot of material and made a number of strong recommendations to Council over the four years of our existence as a group. And we've still got quite a bit that we would like finished off in this term of Council, as you can see from the list at the back. Now, because we are the only committee with community representation still existing, and because many of these things require work from all of you, I felt that it was important that this committee set its own agenda and determined its own capacity for addressing these items. So you'll see that there are suggested dates in the list. They're suggestions. Now, we need to be cognisant of the fact that for something to come to Council by August , a number of steps will have to be taken before.

So we— So hence some of those dates which look quite close. Now, some of them are the 31st of March, and they are obviously not going to happen. So that's, above all, don't panic about those. But what I'm looking for in this item is for volunteers . Let's be clear, you are going to be inveigled into helping us with this work, because this is a very long list, and we've got a long list of things to do and a short list of resources with which to do them, and you all have lots of expertise that we would like to draw on. So that's the main aim of this item. Nothing on here should be a surprise to you, because they are all things that you thought up, either in conjunction with the staff or by yourselves.

So what we need to do first is prioritise these. We need to look at what's realistic to achieve in the five-odd months that we've got left, and then I'm going to call for people to help us achieve those outcomes. Helen, and then Venetia,

And then Graham. But I want to flick to Andrew to see if he has anything to add. Just

Given we haven't really had a meeting for close to six months, I have some real concerns about the end of March deadlines.

Ignore the deadlines. We're setting the deadlines. Okay, these are suggested deadlines we're setting them. They were the deadlines that were brought to Council. Council resolved that this would come to the Heritage Advisory Committee for the Heritage Advisory Committee to determine the agenda and the dates.

So take them as a suggestion. Obviously, the 31st of March is not achievable for many of them. Venetia?

Sorry, I don't know if I'm being a choose here, but why is the heritage study marked duplicate,

Item 14? It's marked as duplicate because item 4— sorry, item 8, the grant funding projects deals with— also has the heritage study.

Okay, so the heritage study is absolutely dependent on a

Grant? The heritage

Study is funded by a grant. We've got the grant.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

Graham? Madam Chair, thank you. Look, many of these items are actually subject to consultancies, and I guess before we could actually even think about a date, I would have thought that those consultancies need to have run their course, and we would have had to review their final documentation,

And

Then we could then present something to Council. So I guess we are dependent upon those consultancies.

And some of them have, and some of them we are still waiting on. But these are the actions given to us by Council, so in this new arrangement, this is what we have to work with.

Well clearly, you know, we're— We can't make those decisions then on those particular items.

No, we can't, and that's why we're now going through this priority and planning process. Andrew, do you want to speak further to this?

I'm happy to have a talk to all of the items in the one hit, or to sort of take them sort of item by item, just to give a brief update in terms of where the particular matter's at, where, you know, if it's consultancy, where that particular consultancy's at, or otherwise. So happy to take it sort of item by item or as a lump sum. So

Look, I think there's a couple of ways that we can categorise these items. There are things that are, we've got things that are easy to finish and can be worked on fairly quickly. There are items that we're waiting on, and there are items that are contingent on other things like funding, for example. There's also priority. I think there's also, it would be really useful to get your input on the things that you believe are priority items. Now, we've been really clear, for example, that the heritage study has been a big priority for this committee because without it we continue to lose heritage items because they don't have adequate protection. So I think there are two, probably our two main criteria: easy or waiting on, and high priority. Helen.

Sorry

If we've already got the grant for the heritage study, shouldn't that just be a standalone item?

What we've got to do is finish it off. So the heritage study, we have all the sheets. What we're lacking in Council is the capacity to get that to a point where it's ready to be presented to Council. And that's where we are with that. So

What I would like to do is maybe go through item by item, allocate it high, low or medium priority, and allocate it easy, waiting on or longer term. Are people happy with proceeding that way? And then based on that, we'll set ourselves a list of work.

I can't see any, Steve.

Just a comment on item four. Obviously, that's a waiting thing because we have to hear from Heritage New South Wales.

Yes.

Further consideration. Yes. And probably get a request for

Input ,

Comment. If you need members of this committee to be involved in responding to that, I'm happy to be involved in that.

Thanks, and that's what I'm looking for. So when we get to each item, we can make a list of the things that we're waiting on or the help that we need from committee members once we've allocated them a priority. So let's start then with item one, which is the Aboriginal cultural heritage study. Andrew, do you want to speak to that?

Happy to speak to that, Madam. So this is a matter that council— sorry, the advisory committee has, in its previous form, has provided advice to council on. The study's advanced, and we've had further consultation and engagement with applicable Aboriginal representative groups and individuals. The study's advanced to the stage that we now have the final draft, so it's something that we would be able to bring back to the next available committee meeting to seek the committee's endorsement or recommendations in terms of that particular study. So I guess for us, we view that as high priority, and it is one that we are able to move forward with fairly readily and have finalised.

So from the committee, you'll need them to comment on it when it comes back.

Correct. When it comes to the next committee meeting, we'll be seeking the committee's views and approving endorsement of the study.

Okay. So I'm going to propose that we rate that as a high priority, easy to finish. Is everyone happy with that? Okay. I can't

See any— Danielle, it's Michelle. Yep. Can I just make a point there, because it's going to be raised a few times with other statuses. If we need to comment on things, most of us are really busy people. Yes. And documents are quite lengthy, and if Council wants us to spend time on them, we can't have them all on the last week before the date's due. If we can have them as quickly as possible to make any recommendations and read, that would be much better for most of the committee. I think that's

A really good point, Michelle. Thank you. And I think rather than— because what we're moving from now is really asking for people's input in these items to try and get us over the line by the end of August with all of the stuff that this committee has on the go. And so we want you to do more than a cursory read of things that are then coming up for discussion. We really need your expert input. So I think that's a really valuable comment, that you need more than three or four days to deal with these items.

Okay, so high priority, easy to finish. And the date on that, can we, when's it likely to come back to the committee, Andrew?

I'm saying to the next available committee meeting. We haven't set a date yet for the next committee meeting.

So given that we have to report this back to Council with some dates on it, can we put a date where , say, can we say end of April , back to the committee?

That's achievable, yes. Yep.

And then it could go to Council by end of May? Yes. Yep.

Right. I've stolen all of Andrew's coloured textas, and I'm not using any of them, so I'll just give them back.

Excuse me. Then, let's bring it forward then from the 30th of June, is that— It

Does, yes. Based on our criteria, yes. But don't worry, something will go back. That's all right. It will be swings and roundabouts, I'm sure. All right. Next thing is the Design Excellence Principles into Council's LEP. Andrew?

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. So, item two, yeah, the Design Excellence Principles. So this is a matter that stems from the presentation that we were lucky enough to have from Sean Carter a number of meetings back now. We've obviously got the Council's under a process of reviewing the LEP and also our Development Control Plan provisions, and it's really a matter that will feed into that LEP review process. So... From, I guess, from a staff's perspective, we're viewing that as a high priority and something that we can, we'd really look to bring something back to the committee at the next meeting, seeking input in terms of that.

So we're saying April?

Yep.

End of April?

Yep.

Okay, so Helen

Just a question on that, and Graham might be able to help with this. Is design excellence, is this being based on the ECoMos principles or

Not?

Andrew, do you want to answer that, or do we want an architect to answer that?

I can probably answer it. You can all have a go. Yes. So in New South Wales, the local environmental plans, there's known as a standard instrument that covers the whole of New South Wales. And then it's up to councils as to what elements of the optional parts of that standard instrument are adopted by council as part of its local environmental plan. So at the moment, the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan doesn't have any provisions from the standard instrument regarding design excellence principles, and it is something that we consider has merit in terms of looking at those principles and having those incorporated into the reviewed Hawkesbury LEP.

Graham, what do you think about that?

Look, I think this is a real complex item, and one that will actually need time to bring forward.

I'm involved, as well as Michael, is on the LEP DCP review committee, and this has been brought up a few times now in relation to certain aspects of the LEP DCP that Council's reviewing. And it goes to, I guess, the whole character of the Hawkesbury. And I think the committee necessarily believes that the Hawkesbury is different to everywhere else, and we should all believe that, I think. And so we probably need to treat these design excellence provisions differently to perhaps other council areas, so that, you know, it will be, I guess, going from that it may come to subdivision controls, it may come to streetscape controls or floor space ratios, all sorts of things. And that would be, I guess, my prediction that should come out of this, as well as lots of other things, as well as, you know, having sort of space between buildings to allow foliage and the like, and just the sort of the rhythm of towns as we know it now.

And I think the committee has also flagged that the Macquarie towns are different, and they should be respected, and these sorts of design excellence things should be brought in as part of that.

Nathan

Look, I just wanted to state that I've got a special interest in this area, but no particular subject expertise. That presentation that was made by Sean Carter all the way back in November 2018 really impacted me, and since then I've had the opportunity of going to a A planning

Professional development session where they said that a lot of the work that's being done in this area is at the New South Wales Government Architect website . And although I have no particular subject expertise, I really do want to act as an advocate for this to form an important part of our LEP reformation process. So I am prepared to do any work that's given to me, or at least to be party to meetings, or to engage with you in advocacy before my council colleagues to ensure that this is given the importance that it deserves. My own idea was that we should co-opt Sean Carter and have him back and ask him what developments there have been in the last two and a bit years, and what advice he or others might give us about how we then translate those principles into an LEP document.

So I'm just putting my hand up to help and to say that of all of the matters remaining to us to consider, I've got a particular interest in this one.

So I think it actually would be quite useful if we had a presentation to the councillors, and this committee could be invited along, I think, regarding the design excellence principles, because I think that was something that this committee got a lot out of, but I don't think all the other councillors were present at the time, and that might be helpful going forward. But Nathan , Pete and I can take that up with Council. So having heard from Graham that we're going to need some time to consider this, Andrew, how does that fit into your timeline with the LEP review? Because that's quite a tight timeline. That's a timeline set by the state government, not by council.

Yep. So you have to complete that process by mid this year. So I guess I'm sort of highlighting that I can bring a report back to the next available meeting of the committee as a starting point in terms of this particular process with the

Committee. Okay. So that April date will still work with several weeks for the committee to give some input?

Correct, yep.

Okay. Great. Graham, does that answer your concerns?

Look, I know that council is working on it, and I guess the earlier the better.

Okay. Thanks. Jan, did you have anything to add on either of these items?

No, no, Danielle, thank you.

Okay. All right, so the next, so we've got the design excellence principles. It sounds like that this is a high priority, and while it isn't easy to finish, it's something that we are committed to putting extra effort into. Is that a correct summation? In which case, we've got it coming back to the committee in April , and then the committee giving advice to council by May.

You should be getting the impression that we are going to be meeting more frequently.

Okay. The Hawkesbury Heritage Study, which is item three. Andrew?

Oh, sorry, Pete, did you have your hand up?

Yeah, I did, Danielle. Sorry, I was going to suggest that anything that has a time restraint on it. For example, the design excellence principles, because of the restraints we have on the LEP, should automatically be given high priority. There are some in there that obviously won't have such a time frame wrapped around them. So I think anything that we go through that is to do with any of the planning documents that have to be prepared by August should automatically be given high priority. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks.

Yeah, look, I think that's a fair point. Aside from the state government requiring that we do the LEP and DCP review by the middle of the year, I think it's fair to say that this council is very keen to have that review completed in our term rather than that going on to the next council. Okay. Heritage study, Andrew.

Yeah, item three is the Hawkesbury Heritage Strategy. So this is the three-year rolling strategy that council has that enables us to support applications for funding through New South Wales Heritage. So this is a matter that's been to the committee previously, and input has been provided, and we consider it's a matter that's relatively easy to finish. And based on the input from the committee previously, we're able to bring that to the next meeting to wrap up.

Okay, so this gets to be a high priority because we have to do it, but also because we've already done all the work, which is always nice. Is this coming back to us in April?

Yes.

Yep. Gosh. We'll have to arrange food for this April meeting because I think we're going to be there for a while. So that's not a particularly high priority in terms of us being desperate to get the information out, I think, or does it stop us getting grants if we haven't?

No, that's fine. That's okay. That's work.

But it's not particularly—it's probably a medium priority, but it's easy to finish. So it gets pushed forward. Helen

I don't know how the other community reps feel, but I'm feeling somewhat put upon, disgruntled, having a whinge that Council has put these arbitrary demands on this committee, which has actually been functioning very well for four and a half years, and all of a sudden, whammo, everything has to happen by next month. I feel very unhappy about that.

You can all refuse to do these things, and you don't have to participate in them happening.

These things are all things that the committee has brought up, that the committee would like to see done, and that we now have to resource if we're going to get them done by the end of this committee's term, not just this Council's term. This committee's term is linked to this Council's term. And that's why I'm asking you to prioritise them. So if there's something here that we can't complete, then it should be something of low priority that is perhaps too time- and resource-intensive for us. So I don't think that we will manage to do all 19 items by the end of April. That's not my intention. But so far, we've got things that we believe are important or are close to completion, and some of them, like the heritage study, the heritage strategy, where we've already had that lengthy discussion and done that work, I think we can probably knock on the head with about, you know, 15 minutes' discussion, and that will be a box ticked.

So I hear you. I hear you, and I

Hear what you're saying, and I read the subtext as well. But, I mean, we haven't met since, what, October last year because of the upheavals, and all of a sudden, whammo, all of this is now on the table. We're talking about meeting in April. We're talking about having a long meeting. We might have to meet in May. Just, I feel uncomfortable.

Sorry. Yeah, no, look, I take that on board, and we can only do what we can do. You are volunteers. It's possible that we will send some of these out to working groups, but let's set up our priorities and list of actions first, and then we'll talk about—you'll notice that I haven't taken any volunteers for who's actually doing this work. So we'll talk about how that goes once we've worked out exactly what we've got to achieve and the timeframes for it.

So the state heritage listing of Singleton's Watermill, Andrew.

Thank you. So this is a matter that has been discussed with the committee previously, and input provided in terms of our application to the state for the state listing of this particular site. Where the application is currently at, it's been through the New South Wales Heritage, their prioritisation committee in December of 2020. It's currently with the relevant New South Wales Heritage officers to assess, and they will come back to council in terms of any clarification or additional research or information that is required as part of that application. So this is a matter that really, that input will be required after we hear back from New South Wales Heritage in this regard. So until we know more from New South Wales Heritage, there's probably not much more we can do in terms of a date.

Steve . That's perfectly, all perfectly true. I'd just like to point out that we were previously advised that

The matter would be passed to the prioritisation committee in October, but it wasn't passed on until December. I just have the usual fear that something's growing very slowly, particularly Mills, and I don't know when we'll hear, given it's already been delayed by that two-month period. I'm not sure when we'll hear anything.

And this, look, I think this is one of those hurry up and wait things. It's, and I think we

I'm a bit inclined to just leave the date that's been suggested here so that it doesn't fall off. But we won't be able to necessarily have this item completed by the 30th of June because we're dependent on the New South Wales Heritage Office. But I think if we change that date, we don't need to do anything until we hear from them. I think if we wait until the 30th of June and we haven't heard from them, then we might use some other means of agitation. Is everyone happy to just park this here as a hurry up and wait item? And I think we're all clear that if we need input, Steve would be one of the first ports of call for it. All right. Shall we move on to item five, which is the brick barrel drains in Richmond? Andrew.

Thank you. So the committee's previously been— Provided the CCTV footage that was undertaken in terms of the Brett Bauer drains there at Richmond. The location of that is plotted on Council stormwater drainage plans. So I guess for us as officers looking at this matter and the volume of other work, we're probably viewing it as a lower priority than some of the other stuff. But it's something that we will need to come back to the committee in terms of potential advice in terms of land use controls and how to preserve the drainage system.

So it sounds like , it sounds to me, and please jump in if I've not got this correct, but it sounds to me, and I'm following on from something that Graham said earlier about the livability program, this sounds like one of those things that we keep in mind when we're looking at all the land use documents as we go through the livability, the LEP, the documents that back up the LEP. Is that correct?

Yeah, that would be an appropriate time to consider that.

So rather than a specific action from this council, perhaps we should be, perhaps a statement of advice about how we deal with, about how we preserve those drains or deal with them in relation to the other items. Would that— I'm looking for some guidance on what would be more appropriate, most appropriate with this item at this point. I acknowledge I've got Pete and Abigail's hands up , but I'm just looking for some— I will be looking in a minute, particularly Michael, Otto and Graham, for some advice on how we take this item forward. I'll go to Pete and then to Abigail.

Yeah, thanks, Danielle.

This drain runs under, I think it's underneath the existing bowling green at the Richmond Club. I'm pretty sure there's still a development in train for the Richmond Club. This asks us to, you know, to provide advice regarding land use controls that could be considered to assist in the preservation of the drain. I'm not sure of the timeframe for the development at the Richmond Club, but I think we need to have something in place in regards to that. Whether it can be a request that the drains are incorporated into the development, as been done in various locations, I think in Parramatta and in Sydney, I think even at Port Macquarie from memory, where heritage infrastructure has been placed under a glass floor or whatever so people can see it.

I think it would be good for us to request that sort of work be carried out to mitigate impacts rather than the section of drain just removed and photos taken and a couple of bricks put in the museum. So I'm not too sure how we go about applying that now. It's the only development that I'm aware of that would impact on the drain. I'm not sure whether that should be part of a DCP or whether planning staff can make it a condition of consent. Or however, you know, the condition of consent may be taken out of council's control completely. When it goes to, for example, the planning commission because of the cost of it. So maybe Andrew can provide some info in that regard. But I just wanted to highlight it, that I imagine it will be impacted by that development, and I think we need to have something, some sort of advice in place for when that happens.

So I'm going to go to Abigail and then to Helen, and then I'm going to look—I'm going to call on the Heritage advisers for some guidance on how we go forward.

This is slightly unrelated, but when we were doing the 150th anniversary at Windsor Public School, people were talking about tunnels under Windsor Public School as well. So I'm wondering if there's similar old drainage infrastructure in that part of Windsor, which might be something to consider at this point.

Yes.

Helen. Given the catastrophic destruction of the Toxon Square drains, I think that elevates the importance of the ones in Richmond, and I completely agree with everything that Peter has just said. And I think that we should endeavour to make them, what's the word, a feature of any proposed development to that site, and not have yet another loss to, you know, our heritage, the public viewing of our heritage.

So what we're determining at the moment is not what we do with the barrel drains in Richmond, but how we deal with this item, which is—yeah. So what I'm going to do now, Helen, is jump to— To Graham , Michael and Otto, in the hope that they can suggest some ways forward, having heard what the committee's got to say about how they would like those drains treated.

Chair, if I can jump in there. Sure. I brought this item to the committee when we were dealing with some archaeological investigation, or some archaeological investigation, being done around the Richmond Club. But we were uncertain between Professor Jack and ourselves as to whether there aren't other drains higgledy-piggledy around the Macquarie Towns. So we really don't know how many there are and what their delineation or alignment is. Certainly the one that we're talking of does go along private property as well as public, so that we need to be mindful in setting up some sort of process that it's all encapsulated, or whether we can actually ask Council to actually investigate further the other likely locations of these drains are.

So that sounds like something that we could flag in the next lot of the heritage study, perhaps, that further— and I know Graham and I have discussed at length the paucity of archaeological studies in the area and the impact that that then has on our planning as well, and the information available to people putting in planning applications. So that might be something that could come, will flag to come to that discussion.

Michael, did you have

Anything? Danielle, can I just add something there quickly?

Yep, go ahead, Jan.

I personally know of a drain, a barrel drain at the bottom of Fitzgerald Street. I have seen it when there was a washaway in the road many years ago when Gary McCully was the general manager, and it's running along the centre of the road, is my recollection of it, at the bottom of Fitzgerald Street.

Running parallel with the river or down to the river?

Yeah, there could have been a junction even. It's a long, long time ago, and

I'm not even sure that there was photographic record kept of it because council was about to fill it in and Gary rang me and said, come down here quick and have a look. But yeah, it was certainly like a junction, I think, at the bottom of Fitzgerald Street, but it was definitely a brick barrel drain.

So it sounds like we need to address brick barrel drains as a matter of high priority, but we don't have any resources, which I think means that we are going to have to shunt it to the heritage study, so the heritage strategy for the next tranche of works that council does in terms of gathering heritage information. But what I'm interested with this item, I think, okay, so

I'm trying to cobble together something for this item, that we're hearing from the staff is a low priority because we don't have the resources to deal with it.

Perhaps a statement of advice from the committee for dealing with the potential, with the barrel drains enrichment and other potential drains, and then— The archaeological works to go into the heritage strategy, is that fair? And what I'm interested particularly is to hear from the architects as to whether that is useful.

Yeah, if I can just add to that. Yeah

Go ahead, Michael, and then I'll go to Graham.

Yeah, I think following on from what Graham was saying, he's absolutely right. We don't know the full extent of what is there, and that's the nature of archaeology. You don't always know what's there until you start uncovering it deliberately or inadvertently. And I think it's prudent to at least have a fairly sound basis to know the extent, or at least have a better understanding of the extent of the brick barrel drains and any infrastructure to start mapping that, so that if there are development proposals that come into council, there is a basis that it can be flagged to say, look, there is potential for footings or excavation or driveways or crossovers or whatever it might be to potentially impact on very significant archaeology.

And then that would be the trigger point to at least capture an archaeological assessment on a site-by-site basis. It's more reactive rather than being proactive in identifying and assessing the true significance and extent of such infrastructure. But I think at least it does still capture some assessment of what is there, should there be a proposal come in to develop land that is potentially affected by the drains that may run underneath.

Sure. Okay. I think that's helpful. Particularly that mention of trigger points. I think that's useful. Graham?

Madam Chair, look, I'd like to think that we could, or Council could be proactive rather than reactive in this instance. When Anne Jacka and myself actually looked at this particular drain that we're talking of, it was clearly identified on early mapping. And I think historical archaeologists could actually pore over early mapping within the historic towns and come up with the likelihood of where these drains might be. And then we could certainly further investigate based on that. But as you rightly said at the outset, archaeology hasn't gone down very well with this Council in the past, and the Richmond Archaeological Management Plan actually wasn't ever adopted, and the Windsor Archaeological Plan that was actually proposed to be funded was turned down.

So we don't have a good record when it comes to these sorts of things, but it's certainly something that we should be proactive in seeking that advice upfront. So I guess someone's comment earlier on was, yes, it probably could form part of the heritage study.

Okay. So can this come back to the next meeting for discussion and a potential way forward?

I think we're hearing that this is important. I've got Michelle and then Venetia.

My issue relates to sort of what Graham was saying, that those earlier reports that were done many years ago that recommended any development in the main part of Windsor and Richmond required archaeological reports, and I wasn't sure if they were ever ratified or what happened, but — Graham would probably remember more than I do.

No , previous councils chose not to adopt them.

Yeah.

Yeah . Okay

Thank you. Unfortunately

Venetia? Yeah, I think this should be included as part of the LEP review, and the footprints of the Macquarie towns, the archaeological studies, should be made mandatory. We have no idea what's under the ground under these Macquarie towns. More than likely, specifically in Windsor and Richmond, even more infrastructure from pre-Macquarie era that could be in odd locations, not necessarily following the Macquarie plan. So I am absolutely gobsmacked that there is really nothing much in, when a development application goes in, in the approval documents or anything like that, letters of determination. There's a really weak little line at the end of it in any of these areas. I've seen them down around the peninsula, that basically if you find anything, oh, give us a ring if you can be bothered.

And that's really not good enough. The Macquarie towns footprints, I think this should go into the LEP review and it should be included in it.

Okay. So we've got a couple of, and I think we've got a couple of... Trigger points where we need to start thinking hard about the archaeology, and the livability project is another one, with Graham raising the concerns about tree planting and things like that, because they may not have an impact on the drains at point of installation, but they may have years down the track. So let's put this, even though it's—we aren't well resourced for this item, let's put it for discussion within the next couple of meetings so that we can have some advice from this committee about how Council includes the issues of archaeology in the LEP. And I think if it's not coming back to us until May, April, May, for example, we will probably have seen some of the stuff around the livability plans, and also the information about the revised LEP will be starting to emerge as well, and so there might be some confluence there, rather than this being a separate item.

I suspect that it's going to be part of the other items. Does that sound fair to everyone?

And also include this in the next round for the heritage strategy so that we can recommend, because that will be—the next Council will take up that heritage strategy—we can have a strong recommendation for further archaeological work if possible. Graham.

Madam Chair, I'm going to pass a comment, and I guess I'm disappointed that I have to pass this comment, that with the LEP DCP committee, there are quite a few developers on that committee, and dare I say that most of them couldn't give a stuff about heritage, and they really don't care about what's under the ground. All they want to do is an easy way forward of getting approval to maximise their subdivision and to maximise their profit at the end of the day. I might be doing some of them a disservice, but I don't think so. And I guess that's going to be a hard road to actually include these sorts of things in the LEP unless Council is really forceful. Well

Let's be really clear that that committee is not writing the LEP; Council is, and that committee does not sign off on the LEP; Council does. So when these things come to Council, those of us who are— Adamant that our heritage is worthy of protection, would very much appreciate the support of all of you who are of the same mind coming into the chamber and speaking, or via Zoom and speaking to that effect, because it will be this Council that determines that LEP, not that that's an advisory group in the same way that you all are an advisory group.

Okay, let's take—let's do item six, which is the heritage information sheets. Now, these are the series of information sheets that tells you what to do about with your heritage item. Is that right, or am I

Making that up? Yeah, that's right. Good,

That's excellent. So this is something that we discussed revising early on. I think there's a pretty close to done. Is that right? Yep

So we're in a position where we'll be able to bring the first series of those sheets to the next available committee meeting, something that Otto's been helping us with in terms of, I guess, his experiences as an advisor in the Hawkesbury LGA particularly, but also widen that as well in terms of the common matters that are, you know, consistently come up as particular issues and, you know, tend to form the bulk of the advice that Otto is able to provide. So I don't know, Otto, if you're able to give us just a bit more of a rundown in terms of that.

Yeah, okay. We're starting off with the first three on those that I've found to be the biggest sort of problems in the area. The first problem we've had was re-roofing in galvanized sheets, where most of the community is wanting to use Colorbond these days, and it's affecting our heritage building greatly because quite often when they're doing it, it's not just the sheeting, but it's also the surrounding junctions with the beautiful lead work that may be surrounding the sheeting on chimneys and flashings and so forth. People tend to rip them out and then put in quite awkward, bulky modern flashings three times the height of what the lead would be, and it really affects the roof, etc. So that's one of the first things that we're talking about was the right roof sheeting, the right flashings, the right gutter profiles, the right downpipes, the right rainwater heads, and that sort of thing.

So that's the first one. The second one we're doing is rising damp, which is a huge problem in the area, and so the Zus and those of those. And the third one is really the use of lime. The effect of too much cement on buildings is still a big problem, especially with a lot of community groups wanting to repair heritage items on weekends, and from lack of knowledge, they can be doing damage to headstones, to churches. One beautiful very early church got cement pointing inside and outside, which is something that we've not really done in many areas. Decades ago we stopped. The heritage office stopped this in the 70s, and yet it's still happening in certain areas. So they're the three that I'm pushing.

But now that I've just heard this thing about archaeology, one of the things that we could do meantime is come up with a principles on archaeology. So we could be saying that until future, other than the Heritage Act at the moment, which says that if you come across something that's over 50 years old, you've got to stop and then, you know, report. We could be saying that Richmond and Windsor and maybe Wilberforce, et cetera. There's indications from early documents and from bits and pieces that there's early, early barrel drains underneath, et cetera. So at an early stage, prior to you doing a development application, early discussion with Council is recommended so we can guide the development a bit.

Because what I found was if developers know upfront what some of the constraints are, then those constraints can be creatively incorporated into a DA. The good ones, for example, the barrel drains next to the conservatory of music. Why that worked so well is the government architects came in extremely early. They knew it was there, so when they were designing it, it didn't become a problem because it wasn't something that came in very late. It came in very early. So the issue is if we can tell people, owners and developers, early on through something like a fact sheet that that may be a stopgap measure till we can get more money to get archaeological studies and so forth. Anyway, just a suggestion.

So you've got three, Otto. What about paint? Archaeology, the next one if you want. Paint would be nice, I think, if we could do an on paint in honour of Donald Elsmore's endless efforts to stop the parade of acrylic across the Hawkesbury. And another one I'd love to see, which I think would be really helpful, is the minimum disturbance of fabric stuff . So if it's all right, you could leave it alone

Graham? There's another one I would probably recommend, and that I'm finding at the moment with a number of court cases I'm doing for this council and also for the neighbouring council, and that is to articulate the heritage process a bit more. And that is that people understand that when we do heritage items, the first thing before we look at a use, we actually look at the significance of what's on site. And that analysis on what's on site, like, for example, before you start doing anything, you have to look at what's underground, or you might say what's above ground, etc. So once you understand those significances, those values, only then you go on. So, in other words, explain the barra charter a bit more so people can understand why we're doing this.

Yep. So at the moment in our LEP, in section 5.10, we have a theme which says that Council has the right to ask for appropriate heritage documentation, and that usually means that someone is expected to do a little bit of research. It would be good to articulate that a bit further: why we do this, why it's important, and then when people come into Council, they realise that when they do a statement of heritage impact report, it's not for one option that we're looking for. Council would like to see— Several options. So if you are, for example, you've got a barrel drain and you say you're coming in, you say, okay, well, we've got rid of it and we put a bit of the bricks up on a wall with a photograph.

Well, we'd be saying, well, what about the other option of trying to keep it, designing around it, et cetera, et cetera. So this idea of explaining the heritage process, that in heritage there are a number of options, and the Statement of Heritage Impact reports that we're getting in Council in the last year that I've got, only one out of a dozen actually looked at multiple options. All the others were just sanctioning the development, and that's not how it was meant to be. So if you read the Heritage Council's guidelines on how to prepare Statement of Heritage Impact reports, for example, they tell you you must come up with a series of options and then argue why the option you've chosen is the best option, not for value for money and development, et cetera, but why it's keeping most of the heritage fabric.

A lot of people misunderstand that. They just don't

Get that logic. So you've just volunteered for quite a bit more homework, Otto,

Which is— I find that quite important because I think a lot of people don't get it. And at the moment, the LEP, the way we've got it, the one-liner in there is not strong enough. The one-liner in there that you need to do appropriate heritage documentation really needs a miniature DCP, and that's what we're doing. These fact sheets are now the modern version of the old DCP.

Okay. Any more comments on this item? Venetia and Michelle, you've both got your hands up. Are they legacy hands or is that for this item?

I just wanted to ask if we could look at perhaps a very quick cemetery fact sheet, because I get a lot of inquiries from people wanting to clean headstones, maintain headstones for both the privately run cemeteries, control cemeteries, as well as councils. And just a simple document about, no, you can't do this, you can't do that, and where to go to for more information would be really good.

Okay, we actually already have most of that information, as you know. Yes, that's what

I thought. We

Got a grant two years ago, and we actually got all the bases from Brookwood, who gave us a lot of good information. So we have the basis for that; most of that we already have. So that won't be that difficult.

Thank you. Graham, did you want to speak?

Yes, I did. I thought that one of the priorities also would be deterioration of timber structures, and I don't think I'd mentioned that just yet. And particularly when Hawkesbury is so rich in slab... I

Haven't listed the full range of heritage, because obviously these fact sheets will be dozens by the time we finish. It's just starting. What we're hoping to do with Andrew is we do a couple first, get an idea of what everyone thinks, and then we'll gradually go in, because we've got a lot of other things. We've got fencing to do, we've got verandas, we've got timber repairs, we've got, you know. Conservation or lava plaster, so we've got many, many issues, but we just want to get going in terms of a common agreement with all of the committee and the council members.

So it sounds like we'll be getting a batch of these in the next, so the next meeting or the meeting after, and then— And over the next year. And then we'll get another—well, we haven't got a year, unfortunately, Otto. We've got till the end of August, so we'll have as many as you can fling at us by the end of August Yep. So, okay. So I think this sounds like it's a fairly high priority, but it's also easy to do part of it. So we're looking at April, May for looking at the first go . April , May, and then continuing, I think we'll say for that item. Is that fair?

Yep, fair.

All right. Next—sorry. Oh, sorry, Pete.

You're just waving. That's fine.

So the next item is item seven, which is the Hawkesbury is the birthplace of the fair go.

And I think this is probably, of all the items on this list, this is probably the one that has progressed the least of what we've got on our list of things to do. But it's here for further investigation. Pete?

Yes, it says further investigation, but what happened was this committee resolved to— Accept the claim that the Hawkesbury is the birthplace of the Fair Go. That then went to Council, and Council resolved to accept the claim as well. And then Council resolved that a working group should be formed, and from memory it was Nathan , myself, so that it was like, you know, politically bipartisan, and then the chair of the tourism committee. Of course, the tourism committee never met again, and now, of course, the tourism committee has disappeared, and it's morphed into one of the other committees. So what I'm proposing is, I don't think it's a high agency, but we still form a working group, hopefully Nathan's still on board with it, and I would propose that, as well as Nathan and myself, that we accept or second a committee member that has tourism committee experience, or another councillor that has tourism committee experience.

I know Councillor Rasmussen does, and I know that Councillor Garrow does. And then, of course, according to the Council resolution, we can second academics from this committee as required, and then that working group come up with a proposal strategy to promote the Hawkesbury as the birthplace of the Fair Go. That then goes to possibly a relevant committee or goes straight back to Council for adoption, or goes to a councillor briefing. But I'm quite happy to kick that working group off . And meet with Nathan and whoever else basically wants to be on it. So we can get the thing going. But again, I think it's not of high priority. No one can take the claim away from us. It would be nice to have something done by the end of this council term.

It's nothing required for a planning document or anything to do with the LEP, which are of much more urgency. But I think that that is something that we should push on with because Jan provided the proof after preliminary work was done by the late Noel Butler and his wife Nina. And it's probably one of the positive outcomes from the Windsor Biz project was that this sort of research was delved into and improved on all the fronts required.

So, is everyone happy for this to be sent to a working group, with that working group to report back to the next committee meeting as to its formation, and then they can report to us subsequently before it goes back to Council? Is everyone happy with that? Yes So it will only come back as an information item to the next meeting, which will be just to tell us who you've co-opted, basically, just so that we've got some formal record of your activities, Councillors Reynolds and Zamponio.

Expect incoming emails, yes.

Good. Lovely. All right. Item five, grant funding projects. Now, we've got a couple of things. How do you want to do this one, Andrew?

Yes, so item eight is sort of broken into the two parts. So these are the grant-funded projects that are ongoing projects. The first one there and probably the most important one—well, not probably, definitely the most important one—is the heritage study. And then the other parts of the other studies, obviously the Aboriginal cultural heritage study, the strategic conservation management plan for cemeteries, and then the works to individual properties.

So shall we divide these into two bits, basically, and discuss the heritage study to begin with? I think of all the work that this committee needs to do before the end of its term, this is probably our highest priority, and I think this should take the bulk of our

Efforts.

So could we have—where are we up to?

Okay, so in terms of the heritage study, that's a consultancy work, and this is obviously a community-based heritage study. So we do have a working group that's provided input into that process to date, but it's probably a matter that we would probably just need a bit more assistance in terms of some further research and advice from that working group in terms of those particular items. If there is any information or research that working group members have in regard to properties that are identified in the study to date, then that would be most welcome as we sort of move to progress that particular study.

So are those sheets and the lists of buildings ready to come back to that working group to look at? Yes,

They're ready to present to the next meeting of the working group.

Okay, so it sounds like our next step really here is for the working group to meet. For those of you who are on the working group, which I think is many of you, and I don't think if anybody else turned up, we would close the door on you. There's a lot of work involved here. So I think we reactivate that working group is probably our best way forward, and for that to come back to this committee as soon as possible, I think, as a report. I think this is our highest priority. Is there any discussion on that, Deb? Sorry, you're on mute, Deb.

That's it.

Is there any discussion at all about when this working group might occur?

Sorry , I didn't hear your last word.

Sorry, any idea of when this sort of meeting might happen? I mean, it's been years

So, Andrew, when are we likely to? So

Yeah, we can reconvene a meeting of the working group fairly shortly. So probably certainly within this, ahead of the next meeting so that we're able to

Provide

An update to the next... So a March meeting of the working group we're looking at. Can we get the sheets out? Can we get the information out to that working group to look at first? Yep. Okay. So, yep, Jan, and then I'll go to Graham. So Jan first

I think that Ian was on that committee and I'm happy to go on it if the people are agreeable to that. I

Think everyone would be quite agreeable to that, Jan. That would be very welcome. Okay,

Thank you. Graham.

I just wanted to remind the committee members that this is not a complete heritage study. This is only bits of it that we're actually looking at, and there's still a long way to go . Which is probably going to be another consultancy, unless I'm not correct in that, Andrew, but I believe that that's the case. We were focusing on the outer areas, I believe.

Yeah, so it's looking at existing listings and also new listings, and the working group, there was a particular focus on additional listings that were more within the rural areas of the LGA. That's right.

And so that, Graham, I think is a thought to hold over to the heritage strategy, which will be another tranche of listings, I suspect.

So is everyone happy to move on from that item? It's a high priority. The working group will be reactivated, and we'll have an update from that working group at the next meeting. Madam Chair, can

I ask a question? Sure. I'm just curious to know what exactly are the consultants doing if the work is being pushed back to the working group to flesh out inventory sheets and actually undertake assessments of items?

Andrew?

If the committee members or members of the working group don't have the resources and it is a voluntary service at that, are those items going to be assessed, or will they just be omitted from the study, or will this just perpetuate the time that it takes to actually complete the study?

Respect to that

I guess it's the more information that we can gather as part of this process, the more informed those particular inventory sheets will be. So yes, there are consultants working on this matter, but I guess we're really looking to delve into the wealth of knowledge that does exist within the committee and in the working group to, I guess, to ready make those inventory sheets as accurate and as robust as possible.

Okay. So it's more just to supplement rather than to empower rightly. Correct, yep. Okay, thank you.

Okay. The other half of that item then, which is the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study, which we've dealt with.

Correct, yep

And then there's the cemeteries.

The cemeteries and the works to individual

Properties. Works to individual properties. So before we, we've got two conflicts of interest for the individual properties, so we'll just do cemeteries first, and then I'll take those conflicts of interest to be read onto the record. So just cemeteries to begin with

So the cemeteries project is one that has significantly advanced. The actual strategic conservation management plans have been considered by the committee and have actually been adopted by Council. There were a number of things associated with the particular grant in terms of signage and other ongoing matters that we're actually in a position to report back to the next available committee meeting to wrap those up, essentially.

Okay. And then, so really that's just a report coming back to us. Report coming

Back, yep.

So that's just about done. The works to the individual properties, Graham and Michael both have conflicts of interest, so I'll just get you to repeat that because we're now up to that relevant item, if you wouldn't mind.

Michael first, perhaps.

Sorry, I was typing, yes. I declare a conflict of interest in relation to my personal property. I am a recipient of a grant through the Heritage Near Me

Funding stream. Thanks, Michael. And Graham?

I guess my conflict may have passed, but it was in regard to being engaged to actually identify some of those individual properties to the heritage office.

Thanks. So, Andrew, where are we up to with that?

So again, this project is very new to completion, and we would be looking to bring a report back to the committee just to wrap all that particular matter up. Okay.

So, look, I think we've got the Cultural Heritage Study as a separate item. I think we'll just take reports back on those other two items within the next couple of months, perhaps. So they're not urgent because

They're largely completed. Good. That's two things we've done. Okay. The Heritage Awards . So this was a suggestion from this group that Council start up some heritage awards, and the thing that has stymied this, despite really the background work all being completed, the work of this committee has been completed, is funding. So I think probably the next thing to be done here is for this committee, as a result perhaps of this meeting, to recommend to Council that a sum of money, and I think we had that sum in the proposal, and I can't remember what that is, but we can dig that out , to begin these awards. Is everyone happy with that? If this goes to the next Council meeting, I think we'll be in time for the budget round.

We may or may not get our— this is, all the Council staff are currently doing their budget bids, so this will be part of our— we don't get a lot of budget bids as Councillors. We are supposed to listen to the staff's bids and to tick them off. But I think it's about time, after four and a half years, that we might put in one of our own , and we'll see how we get on. But it's money that's going to kick this off. It's money and allocation of resources. If we recommend that this goes to Council for funding in the 2021 budget—sorry, the 21-22 budget— then we might be able to get started. And again, I think probably the slow start with photography first, and the awards next is probably what we will be looking at.

So the photography as a primer, and that will fit in with COVID. Graham? Madam Chair

If I recall correctly, the previous GM was right behind this particular initiative and was assuring this committee that he would be looking at putting a budget arrangement ready for this year. So I guess, is that still in train or not?

Not that I'm aware of.

Abigail

Yes, I thought that it had had money allocated and then unallocated, possibly twice. So I thought

That there was money to run them for this March-April with the photography. So I'm not sure what's been happening with the budget, but certainly money had been allocated at one point. I

Think flood, fire and COVID happened with the budget is probably the safest bet as to what's happened with this money . It has been a difficult time. I

Think the amount was around $5,000.

Yeah, it wasn't a large sum of money. So I think we'll dig that price out and put that—if everyone is happy with that, that can be part of this. Proposed action list that goes to the next meeting of Council, or to the whatever meeting of Council this goes to.

Good. All right. Next, Windsor Bridge duplication program. So this is another hurry up and wait.

Madam, it's Richmond actually. Yeah

It's Richmond. Sorry, what did I say, Windsor? Sorry, I've got Windsor on the brain. It's Richmond Bridge. You are very right. Freudian slip. Perhaps. Well, let's hope it's not a Freudian slip, in fact . So this is another hurry up and wait item, I think. Venetia

Yeah, I believe this committee's already provided advice on the options that were being looked at, which were going to particularly affect heritage. We've already provided advice to that. So I'd actually like the status update to

Reflect that. Well, I think we've provided advice to the initial options report, and now I think we're looking at getting an options report that will be made public because the previous ones weren't. And I suspect that this will come back to this committee for further advice, which will probably be unchanged from our previous advice, but we'll have more concrete recommendations from Transport for New South Wales.

Yeah , maybe after the election's announced, we'll get the options.

We'll see. Yes. So I think we can put this in the hurry up and wait.

Basket and move on to livability. Is that fair? Sorry, Deb, did you want to

There is floating around, et cetera, et cetera

So I'm struggling to hear you, Deb.

Oh, I'm not muted. Okay. They've been floating around rumours that the preferred option has been released and we're just not being told.

Any ideas? So there was the article in the Hawkesbury Post, I think, a week or so ago. Andrew, have we had any formal communication from Transport for New South Wales?

No, I've received nothing from Transport for New South Wales in regard to either the corridors option report or an update in terms of timing for the release of the options report.

So

Probably a furphy.

Nathan

Can I provide a line of insight? I work reasonably closely with the state member. She and her office are scathingly sceptical of that map that appeared in the Hawkesbury Post and says that there is no indication that it looks like a leak or is close to reality at all and that we must wait for the official release.

Venetia?

It can be as scathing as they like about it, but that is a map that was also provided to me at the value management workshop back in March last year. And at that meeting, they wanted to walk out of there with one option, and that was this hybrid option. So, you know, whoever's scathing can be scathing, but that's the same information I was given by the RMS at the value management workshop.

So I think the short answer is that we don't have any formal correspondence from Transport for New South Wales about where the duplicate or any roadworks for the duplicate is going. And which brings us back to the hurry up and wait scenario that we were looking at earlier . We've given our input into this, and we'll just have to wait and see. Both Graham , myself, and Andrew and Venetia are part of the community advisory group for that project. We've not had anything formal back to us either and aren't expecting anything in the near future. So, but if we hear anything, we'll keep you posted. Let's move on to item 11, which is livability. I'm conscious that it's now 7 o'clock, and we still have to get through to item 19.

So I'm going to be a bit more short and sharp as we carry on. So, livability: provide Council with advice as to the heritage impacts of the proposed town centre revitalisation. Excuse me. Again, this is a timeline I think that's currently outside of our control. Andrew, when are we likely to get the next round of detailed design work?

I'd have to get back to you in terms of talking to the manager of City Design as to their progress with those designs, but I don't know that anything's imminent. So

I think we've put in place the group that is doing the detailed design work, and then that will come back. Once that detailed design work is in, that will come back to this committee for advice. So I think this is a hurry up and wait. I think we can cross out the 30th of April because that's outside our control. Graham?

Just a question as to whether the consultants have actually been given the comments from this committee.

We can follow up on that question. I guess, yeah, obviously the manager of City Design was at the committee meeting where the matter was discussed and has provided the insights from the committee to the designers. So

And it sounds like we're going to, as we work through some of the other projects on this list, that we will probably have more to add into that design work as well. But again, I think we can just park this and deal with it as it comes to us, because council will be the— council again will sign off on that design work, so council will be looking for this committee's input. And you, of course, will all be able to address, all three of you will be able to address council on that matter as well.

Item 12, General Assembly. This is ICAMOS.

Correct.

So this is now pushed through to 2023 because of COVID, so I would suggest that this is a low priority. We have all the work that we've done. I think it can be parked and handed to the next committee. Is that fair? Yep. Those of you who are involved, are you comfortable with that?

Yes, I'm comfortable.

Okay, great. Jan, I'm just going to check in with you that you've got nothing to add on the previous item. Sorry, I should have checked in earlier.

Yeah, no, no, that's fine. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, item 13, historical mile markers. Andrew, did you want to— so this is what we do with the markers that we've got left, which is not many.

And also the interpretation of the missing milestone marker at East Richmond. Yes. So, yeah, that's a matter that we consider that we can bring a report back to the next committee meeting to wrap that matter up and seek advice from the committee in terms of how we would undertake that interpretation and, I guess importantly, the preservation of the remaining mile marker.

So we're looking May, June for this?

Probably May, yep.

May, June? Yep. I'm just conscious that if we push a May deadline for lots of these things, then we're going to have a very, very long meeting , and you will never ever go home.

Okay, the heritage study we've dealt with. Look at us go. We are up to item 15, heritage signage.

So this is part of a big project . Do you want to talk about this, seeing I seem to have run out of sensible things to say on it.

So I guess this is a matter that we've actually sort of brought up through our, obviously, discussions with the committee previously, but we've also raised through the wider group of Western Sydney councils, so the Heritage of Western Sydney group, with the view to having a consistent approach to heritage signage across those particular local government areas. And it's something that we can probably bring back as a future item for further discussion with the committee in terms of an update with those discussions with the Heritage of Western Sydney group.

Otto, did you have anything to add to that? I know you've done lots of work with House.

Yes, it's been raised last year, but unfortunately— Sorry, Otto could you speak

Up a bit?

Yeah, sorry. With COVID, unfortunately the House group didn't get together all that much last year. However, we've had one earlier this year, and this is one of the first things that we're talking about, and that is cultural tourism and with its signage. So everyone's gone back to their councils with thoughts, and at the next meeting it's going to be a synthesis of the six councils. So we'll report back to you once we get—

Any idea of a timeline for that?

Well, I think it's going to be something that's going to take, you know, three, four months, but we'll probably have initial thoughts after the next hours meeting. So I would say probably by May we should be able to give you some information.

Okay, great. Because one of the things I'm conscious of is that the Livability project has a signage element to it, and I'm wanting those to both tie in together because otherwise we're going to—the left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing on this issue. I've got Venetia and then Abigail.

I think you all know this is a particular trigger for me. The very first heritage meeting I attended four and a half years ago, we were discussing heritage signage, and designs had been developed, and while we were well on the way to everything, we still do not have a single scrap of heritage signage in this LGA. Quite frankly, I don't think we should be having this consistent approach to the entirety of Western Sydney. Every area in Western Sydney is a different place and has a different signature and a different flavour. This idea of homogenising signage across Western Sydney and having a consistent approach, aside from the obvious, you know, mile marker informations,

Can we not just do something about this signage and get it done and dusted and get some bloody signs up before August, before this committee finishes? Because otherwise I'm going to fund getting some printed up and I will go and hammer them into the ground with staff pickets.

Steve. If this was partly sparked by concern in Kurradjong, the Historical Society came up with ideas for a design for signage specific to Kurradjong and takes advantage of the six and a half thousand photographic images we have, which could be incorporated into signage. We offered to at least part fund such signage in Kurradjong Village. We'd still love to do it, and I agree entirely with Venetia that I think there's a strong case for a local approach, which suits both the enthusiasm of the local community and the available materials and designs . It seems that referral to Hows has just meant that the thing,

COVID notwithstanding, has just been really, as the Irish would say, put on the long finger.

I think we should be able to proceed with local plans.

Abigail.

I was going to raise the livability signage and the style guidelines and talk about probably heritage signage needs to, as you said, be incorporated in some manner for consistency. I'm wondering if there are almost two levels of signage. I think a lot of what Otto had been talking about previously was the more— Sort of permanent building plaques highlighting, you know, specific items of heritage, but maybe not with the information. I'm wondering if there's almost two levels that we could work with deliverability thing to get some maybe directional signage and information precinct signage, and then the other stuff would be more specific

Okay. So what I'm hearing is that the committee really wants to see some signage. There are things that are, that we have to— there are some constraints around signage. One of them particularly is money. And if we can do some of the heritage signage as part of the livability program, then that is the signage taken care of, the cost of the signage taken care of in Windsor and Richmond. It's not— it doesn't cover the whole LGA, however. I think we need to have a broader discussion about signage. We're not going to fix this issue now because that isn't the purpose of this discussion. So I think we need to have this come back to another meeting, and I don't know that we have a finish date on this, but it needs to come back to the committee before June for further discussion and some resolution.

Is that fair? Yes. And then hopefully Otto will have some more information for us, and we can have a way forward by the end of May, June.

Good.

All right. Sixteen, Macquarie towns. So this is looking at the state listing of the Macquarie towns, which was done. The bulk of the work for this was completed by members of the committee, not by the staff, in a previous incarnation of this committee a couple of council terms ago, in fact.

And we need to work out whether that's going to go forward and if there's any additional work. Now, Council doesn't have the resources to progress this matter. So again, this may be something that comes back to us for further discussion. But the committee members may choose to form a working group and carry this forward separately. But apart from bringing something back to Council for Council to endorse, I don't think you can expect Council to advance this process at all. Helen?

Didn't Ian give us quite a detailed presentation, and I think also Graham was involved, in the five Macquarie towns and the lodgement with, I presume, the Heritage Office? Yes,

We have a great deal of information. There isn't

Very much work that

Needs doing.

I guess my question is, given that all that information was— Lodged and put forward to them to be recognised. What's the next step?

One of the next steps would be that this committee could take that to Council for an endorsement. But in terms of Council putting that listing to the Heritage Office, I think given the resources that we have, which are focused on the completion of the heritage study and the LEP, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that Council will carry this forward.

Graham, can you perhaps throw some light on that? I was under the impression that Ian had done a presentation to Council.

Previous councils refused to endorse it.

No, I know in the last four years, I can remember quite clearly that I think Graham and Ian went to Council and put up their whole PowerPoint presentation suggestion. Graham, you'll have to help me out. I can't quite remember. Yeah

You are correct in that regard, Helen. We did actually make a presentation to councillors, and I can't exactly remember what the outcome was then. But I guess the critical bit that I see here is that we really need to get some sort of endorsement that Council is going to accept such a nomination. Because even if individually we put a nomination to the Heritage Office, then they will go back to the owner, and in this case Council, as far as the Macquarie towns are concerned, and if they don't say, Well, yeah, we'll support it, then it's not going to go anywhere. So that's really the first cab off the rank, is to actually ascertain if we do have the support of Council to actually take this on board.

And didn't Otto have some say too about Castle Ray? So

I'm just going to jump in and say we do have a resolution from Council endorsing that, but it's not something that Council is going to be able to advance. We simply don't have the capacity within the department that handles this work. And I could—I'm being really honest with you—this isn't going to happen in the next six months. So you can take this to a working group as a way forward. But you have an endorsement from Council, but I don't think you will get anything else.

Okay, so the endorsement's not going to be retracted? Are we assured of that?

Well, I can't see it being retracted in this current term. What happens in the next Council term is anyone's guess.

Sorry, if the implication is that parties of another hue might seek to backtrack on this, all I can say is over my dead body.

Okay, well, I respect your dead body, but you're not the only one that sits on Council, Nathan. But certainly I would be prepared to take this forward as part of a working group. I think Jan Barkley-Jack possibly would be okay to come in on that group as well, and we'd invite many others if we can get that support.

Okay, so that's to go out to a working group because it's already been to Council. So, Graham, perhaps if you want to begin that working group and just report back to the committee that that group is formed and who's on it, in a similar way to the Fair Go working group, and then whatever assistance I can give you, I will, but I can't commit any of Council's resources simply because we don't have any.

Okay, well, thank you for that, but we may well talk to Council in respect of perhaps a couple of resources, maybe for particular printing or something. I think

That's fair. I think that's entirely fair. Okay, thank you. Okay, Howe House is next. Andrew, this is about the CMP, revised CMP for Howe House?

Yeah, so the committee had previously raised potential issues in terms of the existing CMP for Howe House and whether or not the existing veranda was removed. This is really a matter that's probably, you know, from our perspective, is probably low priority and it's probably more when that CMP is reviewed is probably the case in this scenario. So

I think this came before Council because Council had in its budget some money to remove the veranda from the balcony—sorry, not the veranda, but the balcony from Howe House, which isn't an original feature. So it's clearly a Victorian-era feature, and that's what the previous CMP, which is quite old and from a different take on heritage management, I suppose. The ideas on heritage management have changed since then to incorporate some changes, sympathetic changes to a building over time. So that CMP does need to be reviewed, but again I think this is something that may come back probably to another heritage committee. Perhaps we put in the heritage strategy that we flag CMPs that need renewal as a separate.

But we've taken that money out of the budget. That money has been repurposed somewhere else because it wasn't felt that it conferred any benefit on the building at this point, nor was it the priority of works that needed doing to that building, which has a galloping damp problem. Not related to the veranda. So that's just been, I think that's on the back burner, priority-wise. Is everyone comfortable with that, and we'll flag revised CMPs in the heritage strategy?

I'm not seeing any hands . Can

I just make a small comment?

Can you make it louder, please, Otto?

Okay. The Lucas Stapleton CMP for the square did not mention removing the veranda at all. And in discussion verbally with them, they're of the same view that we're talking about here, that yes, it's Victorian, but it's been there for over 110 years, and therefore the layering of history, as we all now think more about than we did when the first CMP was done, you know, 30-odd years ago. So the preservation of the Victorian bit makes more sense than removing it, because you're going to do more damage to the facades. Remember that, you know, windows were converted into French doors and all sorts of things. So the moment that you want to reinstate an earlier veranda, you're basing it on a very loose little illustration that we have, whereas the Victorian veranda is intact and it's there, and it's pretty mostly there.

A lot of the flooring's gone, but most of the veranda structure and also the balustrading, etc., is all from the late Victorian era

Graham?

Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. Look, I'd agree with Otto in that respect, that, you know, let's let history live, and I would have thought the money that would be expended on that sort of approach, or even the investigation of reviewing the CMP, would be better spent on actually some fabric conservation and getting rid of the rising damp issue.

That was certainly Council's opinion when it came up in the budget. As well, and so you'll be pleased to know that the veranda is staying exactly where it is

Has that money been allocated then to other things on that building?

That's an outstanding question, and I will take it on notice

All right. So we're happy to move on from Howe House. Heritage trails.

Andrew?

So, yeah, it's probably already a matter that further work is required in order to progress the preparation of these heritage trail flyers. At the moment, I guess given the volume of work, no real staff resources are available at this time to progress that matter.

So can I just ask, are these the flyers that were developed, I think it was— they've been around for a while. I think Kathy McCarty developed them when she was still in the library, and then Kerry Whiteley presented them to us at the beginning of the council term. Is that the—

That's the ones

Are they the ones? So I think one of the reasons that we slowed down the progress on this was that we were trying to tie it in with the signage project. Am I remembering that correctly? And also because some of the sites were around Windsor Bridge, which was deeply problematic, and also some of the sites were not particularly attractive, and I'm thinking of the bit down behind the Jolly Frog . So not attractive and not safe.

You're right, Danielle.

Yeah. Okay. So perhaps this can just come back to us at a subsequent meeting. I don't know that the flyers necessarily need work. It's the on-the-ground work that's probably what's required, which is outside the capacity of this committee unless you all want to don your gardening gloves and boots. Janice, is that a hand? Yes. So I can't hear you, Janice. You'll have to shout.

You can't go to the Green Hills burial ground anyway because the people at the old Holden site have put a fence up behind that, and because they are saying that it is their property down towards the creek. So there is no access to Green Hills burial ground at all. It hasn't been for about three or four weeks. I've spoken to Council about it. I have spoken to the owners about it. They said they would get back to me. Well, they haven't. Council said it is these people's property. It is not public property. So you can't have people, flyers which include Green Hills burial ground, because you cannot get there. Okay

So we can probably follow up on where the boundaries are for that burial ground. Yep.

Jan ? Yes. A while back, a couple of years back, John Miller, who put that signage on that wrong site, and Ian had a meeting with several of the Council officers and proved that John Miller's put it on the wrong site. And I also supplied the exact location of the boundaries already to Council.

Okay, thanks, Jan. Council

Was going to look at either moving the— It's actually straight behind the jolly frog, and the boundary was the end of the government precinct. Which makes sense because you wouldn't put a public cemetery on private land. No. So the Baker Street line continuation is the boundary, and Council is going to look at how they could resolve either moving the monument or putting signage up explaining the problems with the monument. Right

So that was

A couple of—

Yeah, okay. So it sounds like there's further work for us to do. Jan,

Is that— does that mean that the private property owners can block access, or is that in fact public land?

Yes, it should never have been put on that site anyway because it's the wrong site. It is private land. So it was only by accident, and now that we know it's wrong, then it obviously pulls up problems that the owners can intervene, I guess. Yeah.

Okay. So there's further problems with these heritage walks then than just the flyers, I think is what we're hearing, and we'll have to deal with this when it comes back to us. I'm going to go to Abigail first and then Venetia, and then I want to move on from this item.

I was going to say similar, that it was— I think we removed the peninsula walk due to safety and the Thompson Square walk, but I thought that we still had flyers and things for the other walks around Windsor, and certainly around Richmond, although recently I haven't been able to find them on Council's website. I'm not sure whether they've completely, all completely vanished, or just some of them. Oh, and the other thing, I apologise. I need to declare an interest in item 19.

Yep, goodo. We'll do that when we get to that item. That's fine. Venetia?

Considering, you know, the very popular practice of asset recycling, since the Green Hills burial ground is not actually the Green Hills burial ground, can Council not sell it and buy a piece of land from the owners of the Jolly Frog property down by the South Creek bank, in order that there can be some public access to the monument and something like

That? So again, I think that's something we need to discuss when we bring this item back to Council. At the moment, we're prioritising the items rather than working out exactly how we're going to deal with the intricacies of each item, because it's nearly half past seven. So I think this is going to have to come back to us as an item for discussion, and I'm not sure. Andrew, do you want to propose a meeting date for this?

Probably by May, yeah.

May or June?

May, June, yeah.

Yep, because there are going to be issues that we're going to have to sort out. So the Thompson Square precinct will be largely ready for people to walk around again, but if we've got areas that are A, wrong, or B, inaccessible, or C, dangerous, then we're going to have to deal with those on the flyers when that item comes to us. And I hope that if we can have that, if we can have those flyers come to us a few weeks before we meet, then those of us who are feeling energetic could probably attempt to walk some of them and work out just how doable they are on the ground, because it has been a while since they've been road tested, for want of a better term. Item 19, Abigail, do you want to make your declaration?

Yes, my house is a flood-prone heritage property that cannot get insurance.

Thanks. So that's a pecuniary interest you're declaring? Yes. Okay. So now this was an item that I think we'd passed to Council, really. I'm not sure that this committee was necessarily going to engage in a great deal of extra work. Is that, where are we up to with this?

Yeah. So both the Heritage Advisory Committee and the Floodplain Risk Management Committee received a presentation from the Insurance Council of Australia that then subsequently led to reports back to Council in that regard. And it is, I guess, it is a big issue, and it's probably something, a type of issue that's probably more than just the Heritage Committee can address in reality.

I would agree with that. I think we've done what we can in this space. We've highlighted that it's an issue. We've highlighted the, we've passed back to Council our recommendations for . .. For both, for Council to provide more information to property owners, heritage property owners, detailing or commenting on the fabric of that property and its ability to withstand flooding if it has done on several occasions previously, or if it's been designed for flooding. I think that's, I think this committee has done what it can in this space. I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think about taking this item forward.

Nothing. Crickets. Graham.

Look, Carol is in the background here, and she's just reminding me that the flood committee were seeking a grant through Council, I think, to actually further this sort of investigation. Is that correct, Andrew?

Yeah, and we've failed in those applications, which is our usual, unfortunately, for flood grants. We don't do well out of flood grants. You'd think on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain, we might be a higher priority than we are. I think this is perhaps an issue. I might suggest that this committee refers this to Council's new Emergency Management Committee, which is a whole-of-Council committee for that committee to deal with, and Pete, Nathan and I can discuss what we know from this committee. Is that a fair way forward?

I think if Abigail wants to move that, I'll certainly second it.

Thank

You.

And especially too with the discussion about State Government raising Warragamba Dam wall to facilitate more development of floodplain, that could become quite a pressing problem.

Watch the 7:30 report next week. There will be more to say about that.

All right. So we're referring that on to the Emergency Management Committee, and that brings me, I think, unless I have missed something, to the end of the very long list. Thank you for bearing with us in that process. We've got a number of items that will come back to the next council meeting and two working groups to form. I think what we have, whilst it will keep us busy, is doable. The only thing left for us to do is to talk about our frequency of meetings. Previously we met quarterly. We haven't met, as has been stated a few times this evening, we haven't met since October, so we have lost some momentum in this rejigging process. I'm keen, very keen to rebuild that momentum, and I would be proposing that we meet at the end of April to advance some of the things that we've discussed this evening, with a subsequent meeting perhaps in May.

We're looking, I think, at meeting at least every two months, but with an additional meeting in some meetings that will occur every month. How do people feel about that?

I'm okay with that. I'm perfectly happy to. Now we've only got to have 50% of the committee in order to be quorum, so if you can't come, it doesn't leave us unable to move forward. So if you have a life outside council's business, please don't feel bad, and you could always send forward your... Your thoughts and comments on a particular item, we'll be happy to put them before the committee if you can't make it, because I realise that we're asking a lot of volunteers. But I think we're all keen to get through this stuff and make our mark on heritage protection in the Hawkesbury, which is a worthy goal. That's fair. All right, so we will set a meeting for probably the end of April. Yep. And is Thursday night still workable for everyone? Yep Yes. So stick with Thursdays. So perhaps the last Thursday in April, whatever that is.

29th

That puts it in competition with the Historical Society, but that's just a small.

Do you want to make it the week before, Jan?

Well, we meet on the fourth Thursday, and that can be the last one.

Is that a fourth Thursday that month? The 22nd is the fourth. Yeah, yeah. The 22nd is the fourth, so we would be the next one. So it wouldn't be a conflict, Jan.

Oh, I don't know about April. Sorry, I haven't got a calendar.

Yeah, no, apparently, so April's a fairly long month, so it's not in conflict, which is good.

Okay, that's good.

I think it's foolish for this committee to be in conflict with the local Heritage Society meeting. That spreads our resources a little bit too thin. Thursday the 29th. The 29th of April.

Yep. Pete?

Yeah, Danielle, do we need to have a resolution on the decisions we've made regarding recommendations to Council? Yes, we do. We

Do. So the resolution would be that the... Priority and proposed actions and adjusted timelines go to Council for endorsement.

You won't let me move that.

I'm not, because Graham offered to move a motion previously and thought that Abigail should second it, but I can see Venetia is waving at me. Is that because you want to move it, Venetia, or have you got something else? Yes? All right, so Venetia to move. Can I have a seconder? Steve. Good.

And that's recorded. So we don't have the poor old minute secretary desperately trying to make sense of our resolutions as we have in the past. But that's a very good time to mention that Megan has moved on to the Gold Coast Council and will be sadly missed from here because she was an excellent minute secretary and managed to keep up with our rapidly evolving, convoluted resolutions.

You don't have general business on the business paper, but I'm happy to take general business if you have any, bearing in mind that it is 25 to 8.

I have one thing I would like to bring up.

Can you be swift?

Yes. I happened to visit the archaeological display in the Hawkesbury Museum the other day, and I was somewhat dismayed that of the 30,000 pieces of archaeology that were discovered through the investigation at Thompson Square, that there was a very small and rather sad display . No mention of the Greenway Wharf, no mention of the brick barrel drain. I would have thought maybe graphic representations would have been in order, or some AV kind of display. There was also a number of spelling mistakes in the information presented, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes because I suspect that maybe it was volunteers who put the display together, but I would hate to have a throwback to the council saying how pathetic council are, that this was a very inadequate and poorly curated display. I have no experience in museum curation, but to my eye, as a member of the general public, it was

Sadly pathetic. Do we know if this is the final display or is this an interim display? Does anyone have any further information on the status of this display at the moment? Because I have to confess, I haven't seen it and I'm not aware of what's happening. I've got Abigail and then Graham. And Jan, was that you?

Yeah, I just said no, I had no idea, sorry. Okay

Thanks.

I don't know about the status, but I spoke to Rebecca Museum today and she was saying she was waiting on a further video from the RMS. With the archaeologist speaking about what they found, that she said she thought was really informative to include as part of the display, but that's my only additional information. Okay, Graham .

Yeah, I was actually speaking to Rebecca today as well, and she indicated that she had been trying to contact Kylie over the last few weeks, and I gather she just reiterated what Abigail did say, but also that, yes, she's waiting on further information to come through, and certainly the video. But I guess I wanted to bring up one point. I saw above the barrel drain, or the box drain section,

On

Display there, it made reference to a sewer, and I was really concerned about that because I wasn't aware that a sewer line went through Thompson Square, and it was certainly drainage rather than sewer. So there's really misinformation out there on the notations. The

Notation was particularly pathetic, very sad, no context. The Indigenous representation had no context. The colonial representation had no context. What was supposedly a reconstruction of the box drains bore no resemblance to what we were shown the time we did the site visit. A few bricks were piled up and a few broken bricks. And as I say, I don't want to be critical if it was poor museum volunteers who were told to throw something up, but I think it's an incredibly sad reflection on the custodians of the heritage of the Hawkesbury if that was the best we could do. It was terrible, really terrible.

Venetia.

I'm not surprised at all by the quality of the display. It's in the heritage interpretation plan. They've told us what they're going to be doing, and we have received exactly what they said they would give us, which is why we were fighting for an extension on the museum. There is simply not enough room or resources of this council to properly display the massive amount of artefacts and tell the story of Thompson Square. It's just ridiculous to think it could go into a corner of the museum

It's a corner, and as Graham said, very improperly labelled and very unimaginatively displayed. And as I said, the vast infrastructure that surrounded Thompson Square is not in any way represented. And I would really commend all of you to go and spend a whole of ten minutes, that's all it will take, for you to see what you think.

So that sounds really troubling. I think what we might do is bring this back for discussion at the next meeting in April, which will give us all time to go and have a look, and for us to also get some extra information about whether this is it, or whether this is part of it , and whether there will be anything added to it. And then perhaps we can go. You may want to flag—now, I'm happy for the minutes to include that members of the committee who have been to see the display are concerned about the information presented, the scope of the display, and the mistakes within the display, and that we will be seeking further information and making further recommendations to council about

The display. I'll move that if you like, Danielle. I was very disturbed by it. There's no real mention of the old bridge or the industrial heritage of that. It's certainly nothing about the brick barrel drains. I mean, even graphic representation would be good. There was one display of Aboriginal artefacts, but with no context, very little explanation of the colonial stuff that they had found. There was a few broken bits of pottery, and that was about it. If it's phase one, okay, it's phase one. But the general public are seeing that now.

Yep . All right, so let's bring this back for further discussion. Graham, did you have something you wanted to say?

Yes, I guess this relates to concern that Jeff Organ was mentioning about where these other artefacts from the bridge are going to go. He mentioned, obviously, a couple of them might actually end up in APV. Well, I don't know where they're going to go in APV, or maybe they've put their hand up for something, but I don't know what they're putting their hand up for.

And look, this is going to have to be a much bigger discussion. I mean, we can't use, those of you who are aware of the constraints of the APV site and the fact that it's a volunteer-managed site, it's not a dumping ground for bits of notable archaeology. But I think what you heard from Mr Organ is that certainly Council staff are very keen as well to take on some of this archaeology. But again, it will be a matter of allocating some resources and working out what we do with it, because piling it up, you know, it has to be stored properly. And then when we get around to displaying it, it has to be displayed well and safely, both for the people who interact with the display, but also for the goods within the display itself as well.

So taking possession is only a small part of that. But I'm going to move us to the conclusion of this meeting now, because it is quarter to eight, and flag that this item, that we'll put this item on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. But— But we will flag to Council, as a result of this discussion now, that the committee is unhappy with, for the reasons articulated earlier, with the display that we currently have.

I think I moved a motion, so we need a

Seconder. Yes. Can we have a seconder? Venetia, is that your hand up? Good,

Thank you. I understand there are space constraints, but AV could be used. You know, there's a lot of old stuff.

Yes. Yep. All right. I've just had that display hasn't been done by our museum volunteers. That's a Transport for New South Wales-led project as part of the heritage interpretation and archaeology. That's not us. Is it all , really? Yeah.

It's not good enough.

So, noted. So I'm going to finish us now because that is quite enough meeting for this evening, and wish you all a very pleasant evening. Thank you for coming, and we'll see you on the 29th of April. For those of you watching from home, welcome to the ins and outs of the Heritage Advisory Committee. We hope it was better viewing than Married at First Sight, which I think is our current competition, but perhaps not as good as the 7:30 Report, showing a clear leftist bias there. Thanks very much. See you all later