27 April 2021 - Ordinary

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

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Members attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The revision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored in Council's records management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected you'll refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you.

And

The apologies?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've received a request from Councillor Tree for leave of absence from the Council meeting of 27 April 2021.

Moved that way. Councillor Kotlash. Seconded Councillor Richards. All in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

Also, Council at its meeting on the 20th of April 2021 resolved to grant approval for Councillor Massimus to attend this Council meeting on the 27th of April 2021 by audiovisual link.

Okay, are there any declarations of interest? Councillor Reynolds? Yes, item 78, pecuniary. Pecuniary interest. Any other declarations? No. So we have two sets of minutes tonight. First, the set of minutes from the 19th of April. Do you want to move those? Moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour? Against? Declared carried. And then the minutes from the 20th of April. Moved, Deputy Mayor. Excuse

Me,

Mr Mayor . Councillor Ross

I would like to make a suggestion regarding the minutes at item 69. I'll

Describe a seconder for that first. Seconded, Councillor Calvert. Go ahead, sorry, Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I believe it would be appropriate for Council to indicate that with the public exhibition of the draft operational plan, that the dates at which the public exhibition commenced and ceases should be part of the resolution that is prosecuted on that occasion. Thank you.

Thank you. They actually weren't included in the resolution. It's just being a record of the meeting. So this is exactly what was moved at the meeting and resolved. We can certainly, I mean, that information is available on the website, but it wasn't in the resolution we passed. Yeah .

I appreciate that, but it doesn't assist the public either.

I don't think we can change the minutes, though, to what actually was resolved . Any further discussion? No , we'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? Declared carried.

So we have a number of items with speakers tonight. The first item is 73, and our first speaker is Jacqueline Bowie.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. Can you hear me okay? My name is Jackie Bowie, Celestino Development Manager for the Jacaranda Project. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Celestino in relation to the final planning proposal biodiversity certification documentation and the Development Control Plan for Jacaranda. During the public exhibition of these documents from the 25th of February up to the 28th of March, I and other Celestino staff attended a successful community drop-in session to discuss the development proposal. We answered questions that the community had and listened to their feedback and concerns with the goal of making changes to the proposal where appropriate.

Some of the positive feedback we received was that the large lot sizes and the lot yield remained the same from the existing zoning, the large amounts of open space and the new amenity to be provided for Glossodia, excitement that the project could be commencing construction in 2022, a lot of buyer inquiry from existing residents looking forward to buying into Jacaranda, and also positive reactions to the improved biodiversity outcomes and the in-perpetuity fund for ongoing management of the biodiversity sites. We also heard concerns about Jacaranda, including the interface between Jacaranda and existing land uses such as acreages and market gardens, the existing traffic and future traffic demands on surrounding local roads, the future road intersections and connections on Spinks Road, and ensuring the road widths are sufficient for future traffic demands.

As a result of community and agency feedback, we've worked with Council and we've updated the lot size map along the southeastern portion of Jacaranda to address land use interface issues. We've reviewed the proposed development controls to ensure that the objectives and controls adequately address the feedback that we've received. We've added development controls to improve outcomes for biodiversity, existing native vegetation, future infrastructure in public spaces and sustainability and resilience. And we've clarified the zoning of the footpaths and recreation nodes adjacent to the biobank sites as RE1 and confirmed that these are excluded from the biocertification calculations and offsetting as they're not permissible within the biobanking sites.

We've also undertaken administrative updates to ensure consistency throughout the documents, separate to the planning proposal, but in response to the community feedback received during public exhibition. We are also undertaking detailed survey at the key intersections so that we can understand the site constraints and propose intersection designs that meet required standards and are to Council's satisfaction. We're working with Council to resolve the revised VPA within four months, including the increased total contributions to 23.5 million, which will deliver several community and road upgrades. And we're committed to notifying our purchases through the sales process of the surrounding land uses.

We're also committed to addressing boundary interface issues such as fencing in due course. To this end, we have started meeting with some of our neighbours adjacent to our first precinct. We intend to progress these meetings and extend it to all neighbours in due course and as relevant to each neighbour. We're also reviewing Council's net zero emissions and water efficiency strategy to see what we can do to implement this at Jacaranda. We appreciate the feedback received from both the community and government agencies and believe the post-exhibition amendments and development strategies strengthen our development proposal and the vision for Jacaranda. In terms of development progress, Celestino is hoping to hold pre-DA meetings in subsequently lodged DAs over the next couple of weeks and months for the Concept Masterplan DA, which will include site-wide strategies such as bulk earthworks and water cycle management and landscaping; for a temporary sales and information centre on the site; and for Stage 1 roads and subdivision package.

We are still hopeful that we can commence construction in 2022. Thank you for your time. We look forward to working with Council on the delivery of Jacaranda.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks for that address. You mentioned you're doing traffic counts to better understand the traffic in the area. Is that right?

We're doing not traffic counts, but we're doing a detailed survey. So a lot of the community concern was regarding the crest at the proposed intersections, so we're trying to find out exactly what that means and how to address it.

Okay. I note in the VPA, or the current VPA, that there are plans to do two roundabouts on Kurmond Road, one with the intersection of Spinks Road and another only a short distance away at Wye Lane. Just out of interest, given a roundabout cost is typically in excess of a million dollars, especially for the two-lane roundabouts that you're proposing, have you considered a road realignment just so there's one roundabout?

Turn your mic on. Yeah, it's okay. We

Haven't considered that as yet. Part of our proposal is to revise the VPA within the next four months, so there is an opportunity to consider those roadworks within the next four months and finalise the ultimate strategy with Council.

You might not be able to help me with this, but I'd just like to bring to your attention that the VPA has a lot of roadworks in it, which there should be. I notice that you're upgrading Wire Lane from Kermon Road through to Terrace Road, but there's nothing planned for Terrace Road at all. There's a lot on Spinks Road, Creek Ridge Road, you know, Goricks Lane, but it's not that far from the site through to North Richmond. So I was just wondering why there's nothing planned for Terrace Road. Perhaps you could take that on notice, maybe later on. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? No, thank you for that. Our next speaker is Nathan Croft.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Nathan Croft, and I'm a town planner at Orion Consulting. I'm speaking on behalf of Celestino in support of Jacaranda. So Council resolved on the 9th of February to proceed with public exhibition. That's now occurred, and that included the full suite of documents, which was the biocert application, draft DCP and voluntary planning agreement alongside the planning proposal. The public exhibition presented a valuable opportunity for us to actually canvas the views of the local community. This is the first time we're able to do that since we actually made changes to the proposal from the original rezoning. We've been working with Council closely since Council's resolution and the public exhibition.

We've proactively responded to the issues raised by the community and government agencies, and we believe the planning proposal has responded to the matters raised during the public exhibition. The planning proposal maintains the approved 580 lots, however now represents a significantly improved ecological and urban design outcome for the site that increases Celestino's local infrastructure funding requirement. I thought it useful to just briefly canvass the changes that we've made to the planning proposal in terms of the key changes. So as I said, there's no change to the existing yield; it's maintained at 580 lots. All lots continue to be greater than 1,000 square metres in size. The E2 Environmental Conservation Zone, which was first introduced in the revised planning proposal to provide for the biobanks, has now been expanded to include all of the riparian land adjacent Currency Creek.

Some of the R5 large lot residential land along the northern boundary has now been rezoned Open Space and is now under the RE1 Public Recreation zoning. The minimum lot size has been increased on the eastern interface with the existing agricultural uses from 2,000 to 4,000 square metres to provide a larger buffer to these land uses. The VPA continues to be refined, as Jackie said, to provide for the social infrastructure to support the new Chakranda community and upgrades to external road network. There's also been a raft of changes to the draft DCP under the guidance of Council. These are aimed at really enshrining our joint vision for a low-density, landscape-led rural community at Chakranda.

So, based on the above amendments, we're actually seeking for Council to support the recommendation of the Council officers. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Do you

Have any questions, councillors? No questions? Thank you, Mr Croft.

Our final speaker is Mr Robert Humphreys.

Good evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Robert Humphreys. I'm an ecologist with the consultancy firm Ecological Australia. My company was engaged by Celestino, the applicant for the planning proposal, to prepare the biodiversity certification assessment under the now repealed Threatened Species Conservation Act. The biodiversity certification assessment addresses the biodiversity issues associated with the planning proposal. The application was first submitted to the Environment Department in August 2019 in accordance with the methodology at the time, and has been captured by the savings provisions under the new Biodiversity Conservation Act.

I spoke to Council in August 2019 when Council resolved to forward the application to the Department for adequacy review, and the assessment reports were updated following that review. I then spoke to Council again in February when Council resolved to place the planning proposal and the biodiversity certification application on public exhibition. As indicated by Jackie just a few moments ago, the application has now been placed on public exhibition, and one submission was received addressing biodiversity issues. There were other submissions addressing more general planning issues, but only one on biodiversity issues. This submission was submitted by the Environment Department, and it raised concerns about potential indirect impacts to retained areas from adjacent recreational areas.

In response to that submission, the biodiversity certification assessment has been updated and now includes zoning of all of the riparian buffer along Currency Creek as E2, and has also included the preparation of a vegetation management plan for all of the open space and riparian areas across the whole Jackarounder project site, in addition to the biobank areas. I'm here tonight speaking in favour of the recommendation for Council to now submit the final application to the Minister for the Environment for determination and conferral. The environmental outcomes resulting from the revised planning proposal and the biodiversity certification application are superior to the current planning outcome.

The application has identified the areas of highest conservation value, containing the highest quality remnants of the endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland and the threatened flora species on site, and now zones all of these E2 and protects them in perpetuity by the registration of biobank sites. Those biobank sites are 28 hectares in area and contain the known records of the endangered Jural Land snail and breeding habitat for the Southern Myotis, which is a threatened bat species. The applications to register the biobank sites, which is separate to the biocertification, have already been submitted to the department, and the department has started their audit and review of those to bring them into line with the decision on the biocertification application.

The assessment has found that all of the impacts to the degraded Cumberland Plain Woodland and habitat for other threatened species can be fully offset by the registration of the two biobank sites, and thus it meets the improve or maintain outcome required by the legislation. I'm available to answer any questions about the biocertification if there are any. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions, councillors? No. Oh, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Humphries. A question, I don't know if you know the answer to this. I've been talking to members of the local environment group who've commented on the biodiversity, the biobanked sites, and wondered if it's possible, and if it's indeed been done elsewhere, that you would signpost those sites so that the community knows that they're a biobanking site, that they're important, and that they, as part of a protection mechanism, I suppose, so that people, as part of, I guess, letting the community know that these places are precious and should be protected long term. Is that done elsewhere?

There is signing, which is a legal requirement, so all biobank sites in New South Wales have standard signing as biobank sites. They're not particularly exciting. They're just small little signs which say it's a biobank site. But in the costing for the management of those areas, we've also costed for some more standard council interpretation signs, which talks about the environmental values of those areas. That's all costed in the management plans.

Thank you. That will make them very happy.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Sorry, Councillors, there is actually one more speaker, Alf Fabazogli.

Good evening, Mr Mayor and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. I first attended the first session in 2013 and then March 2021. I'd like my submission to stay on record, but it looks like most of the issues have been addressed. My ... Reading the council officer's comments regarding my submission, they've addressed the large size blocks. By the way, I live on 355 Spinks Road, Glossodia. My main concern is with the blocks on 361 Spinks Road, which is at the top of the crest of Spinks Road. As I said, it looks like they've addressed the issue with the large blocks, which I appreciate. But then they talk about rear setback provisions at DA stage. Now, to me, that means that I will still be sharing a fence with the neighbours.

I would like to put to Celestino that I do get a green belt separation, because I do believe that council should maintain segregation between rural and residential blocks, and if this could be considered, I'd appreciate it. But I would like not to share a fence with anybody. On the website, going through all the documentation, which is hundreds of pages, there seems to be some inconsistencies with the general master plans. There's one, the adopted existing master plan, which still shows thousand square metre blocks on 361 Spinks Road. I don't know why that's there. But then further down there's an existing land use zoning, and that particular portion of land has no labelling , so I'm still not clear as to what it's actually designated as.

But in the final one, the proposed concept master plan, it does show the large blocks, but I'm still not clear on the segregation. So I would like, if possible, if somebody could advise me on what is the... Detailed proposal for that portion of the land, and some detailed dimensioning of where the blocks and clearances off boundaries, if that's possible. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll certainly note those questions, and we'll get them answered if we can in debate, if we've got those answers. Are there any questions? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Could you tell us what the nature of your business or your activity is on your land, and why you think that a buffer is required? Right

Yeah, look, we've got horses, stables, my daughters and her boyfriend also into cattle raising, that not on our property, but mainly equestrian. And I'm concerned with the fact that when neighbours come in, that if you start to share a fence, they'll complain about the smell, the noises, and then, you know, I don't want stuff thrown over the fences, et cetera.

Do you use lights in those activities?

No, not at night. Yep Okay. We do have, I do have floodlights on the dressage arena, but I can't remember the last time we used it. But if we do, it's not facing that side. It actually faces towards the acreage.

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? No, thank you for that. Thank you for your time. Thanks. That was the final speaker, so if someone wants to move anything

Councillor Zamprogno. I have a question which may lead me to move the recommendation. Through you, Mr Mayor, to staff. I am aware that at the community consultation, some residents, and certainly I shared a concern about road widths. Now, I've looked at the draft DCP and the DCP that's being put to us for approval tonight and notice that there have been no changes to road widths in the estate at all, and that the road widths in the DCP range from 13 metres up to 21 metres, all of which have formed footpaths on both sides . Was there any work done to address the question of the adequacy of road widths in revising the DCP? I refer that to Spring. So

I'd just refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning.

So in terms of looking at the various cross sections of the proposed roads, there's a range of road widths that are proposed as part of the development. So the maximum carriageway is the main collector road, which is a 13 metre carriageway. Then you have a series of roads that are considered local minor collectors, which are 8.5 metres carriageway, and then the local roads of 8 metres in width. There is a proposed cross section of a local access road, which is 6 metres in width, but that's only for scenarios of where there's lots of two or three lots within that particular road. So in terms of assessing those cross sections, they're consistent with Council's current Development Control Plan and, by comparison, just for example, the existing Spinks Road varies in terms of carriageway width between 8.5 and 11 metres in width as Spinks Road.

So the assessment of the... The cross sections is that they were considered appropriate.

Through you, Mr Mayor, would you be aware of the road widths in the Faulconer Estate at Penrith that reportedly were so narrow that garbage trucks couldn't navigate or turn around?

Not the specific road widths, but a lot of the new growth release areas have road widths in the order of six metre carriageways.

Well, with respect, that's what's being proposed here. So the narrowest roads only have a six metre carriageway, which I would regard as too narrow. Certainly it wouldn't be sufficient for that road to be navigated in both directions if even a single car were parked on the side of the road. And I also note that the DCP mandates barrier kerb, which precludes the use of rolled kerb. That means that people could go a little bit up onto the footpath. So I suppose my next question would be, if I was sufficiently unhappy with this and wanted to see some work done to improve those road widths, and I voted against this tonight, is there a mechanism for us to readdress this question? I

Think Councillor Zamprogno, that one thing that I would just point out for consideration is that there's no requirement for the DCP to be adopted at the same time as these other documents. We could still forward the rest of this recommendation to let the planning process continue and take a closer look at the DCP if we wanted to.

I think that's acceptable. I have no difficulties with the bio information, but I do have that concern about road widths in the DCP and I wouldn't be comfortable passing that tonight. So , I don't intend to. I'm going to listen to my colleagues and see what other people think. Okay. Deputy Mayor.

We need a motion, I believe. Thinking along similar lines to Councillor Sanbrano, actually, I think there's a number of things, and I note the four-month window with the draft voluntary planning agreement and more work to be done there. I'm just wondering if we should, in fact, alter the recommendation in the business paper to include—would it be possible for us to do a review of the development control plan within the four-month period as well to coincide?

Refer that to Miss Green.

Yes, that's possible.

Can I just clarify, do you mean a review or you mean not adopted and adopted at the same time?

Not adopted, yes. And to re—well, not for us to review it, obviously, but for the concerns that are raised to be perhaps canvassed and looked at, so that I would be happy to defer the whole thing, actually, for four months and just go from there. But I'm not averse to receiving and noting and, in principle, accepting the biodiversity and the adoption to make the plan. I'm just very cognisant that we must ensure that the feedback that we've had—sorry, should I move a motion? So you're

Moving the

Recommendation

Is that point four?

I will remove—I will propose points one to three

And amend point four to coincide with point five in the timeframe, if that's possible, but amend it to have similar to point five, that— Any amendments be finalised and reported to Council within four months. Is that possible?

I think that that works.

To amend it that way.

Seconder? Seconded , Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak briefly. I think thanking the speakers for raising their concerns and particularly thanking the Glossodia community for their input at the drop-in sessions and their submissions, etc. As we can see, much has been done to improve environmental protection outcomes through this process. But we do still know there's a lot of— there's some angst and some outstanding issues around this, which hopefully will be addressed through the development control plan and the voluntary planning agreement. In line with what we're doing here, I think it's always important to stress that we must continue to advocate for increased public transport because many of the issues that we have seen arise during this are a result of the level of car dependency that we have in that area and also a perceived poor condition of roads, etc.

So that was a really strong theme coming through at the consultation, and I think that we must really— the voluntary planning agreement must really address those road issues, as well as we as a Council really pushing for increased public transport, particularly from that area and from areas west of the river.

I think that the land use conflicts between new residents and existing farmers who wish to continue their current farm activities, hopefully it will be addressed enough, sufficiently. And in saying that, I really, I appreciate how the developer representatives have come and spoken to us, and I would really urge them that every step of the way to take the community with you, because people , in supporting this in good faith, they want to be involved and they want to know they're being listened to, and there's evidence that they are, and there's evidence of attempts to make things as best as they can be. So I think that this development already has the approval for the rezoning from the past and so on.

We have been told in the past that this exhausts the development in that Greenfield development in that area, that that will be it once this development is done. And so we need to work with what we've got in being able to make this as beneficial for the existing residents and for the new residents who move in, so that it can be something that is done without the feeling within that community that they haven't been listened to, and so far they have been. So I hope that that continues. And we've seen those questions raised by the speaker tonight, which I hope can be addressed as well to ensure that his propositions have been heard. Thank you.

Thank you. I might just also refer those questions from the speaker and see if we have any answers for those.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So, in terms of the question regarding the NEPRA buffer at the rear of the lot, so the actual DCP proposes a 10 metre landscape buffer to the rear of properties in the R5 zone, which is the zone that the speaker was referring to. So those lots will have that 10 metre landscape buffer in which there's no—any proposed dwellings on those lots will not be within that 10 metres. So that's the proposed buffer as part of the DCP. Thank you. Any further speakers

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. Can I just go back to that 10 metre landscape buffer under the DCP? Will that be on the land purchased by the new landowner? So that will be on private property? Correct, yes.

It's on the land to be subdivided, yeah.

And what protections do we then have on that buffer from later rearrangements of various acts for bushfire clearing and all sorts of—we know how this goes. So it looks like a grand idea at the time, and then 10 years down the track we have some other change because of some impending disaster, and every tree in the place is wiped out. How do we make sure that that 10 metre, if that's on private land, how do we make sure that it stays there?

As part of consideration of development applications, there could be consideration to a covenant in terms of that landscape space there.

Okay. I think that's going to be essential in the DCP, and I'm still not convinced that that will provide any sort of protection long term.

I find this whole proposal really challenging. I think it's a, as developments go, as development proposals go, I think it's a very good one. I think it's been sensitive to the needs of the community. I think the developer is trying really hard to meet the requirements of the community as they come forward. I think the lot sizes will allow it to fit in well with the surrounding township, which is not a well-planned township, let's be honest. Glossodia has had ongoing problems since its inception and is a very fine example of poor planning and the impacts on both the residents and the council responsible for that site down the track. And it's a salutary lesson for us to get it right as we do this.

But I have to be really frank and say that if this was a new proposal, I wouldn't approve it. And a whole lot of those reasons are really well articulated by the submissions that have come in. Particularly around the issues of traffic, loss of agricultural land, lack of infrastructure, lack of public transport, and I think there's that really telling comment that came in one submission and then was repeated in a few others that said, This is not the Hawkesbury I want to live in. It's our responsibility to make sure that the Hawkesbury that we care for in our period on council is the Hawkesbury that our existing residents want to live in. And that's where I find myself challenged by this, because we can't stop this development.

All we can do is get the best possible outcome. I'm happier with the recommendation that's now on the table than the recommendation in the business paper, because I don't think that we can That we can adopt the DCP and the VPA until we have seen these objections that have been raised. For me, there are four key points, some of which have already come up: the green belt and buffer zones with rural agricultural blocks. We heard at the community consultation meeting, and unfortunately, I think, I don't know how many of the things that came up in the community consultation meeting also came up in the drop-in session with the developer, but there was certainly real concern from people operating farms on that site that there would be significant conflict of use.

We know that we strike conflict of use frequently in this LGA, and it causes a lot of angst for residents and for business owners or for farmers, and it also costs us a lot in terms of compliance and mediation. So I think those buffer zones and those green belt zones are really important, and I don't think we can rely on a DCP, having seen how unreliable a DCP is for controlling anything in this term on Council. I'm not convinced that that is the best way forward to protect these buffer zones and make sure that, for example, properties that are trying to harvest lucerne at midnight are going to be protected from complaints from new residents who may not understand that this is how a rural property functions.

My biggest concern is about vehicle access via Spinks Road. I'm pleased that the applicant is looking into those intersections, but I am really concerned that we are putting people in and out of two intersections on a single road, one of which is on a crest of a hill, and I really can't approve anything that hasn't given us really clear information about how that is going to work safely. There are a couple of other concerns that I think can be dealt with before approval, and that's issues of fencing and the integration of old and new townships. And I do want to acknowledge that the applicant has worked hard with a lot of that integration. But I think these are things that we simply need more information about before we can sign off on this proposal.

So I look forward to the further information coming back to us. I think this is probably the loss of points four and five from the recommendation I think are probably the best we can do at this point.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor

Reynolds.

Thanks

Mr. Mayor. A question, if I may. I've just noticed there appears to be a gazetted road that runs from Kermond Road down across Caracy Creek and up into the properties to be used for this development,

Or it's a right of way. I was wondering, is there any intention that that gazetted road or right of way would be used as an access for the development directly to Kermond Road? I refer that

To Manager of City Planning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So it's not a gazetted road. It's a current arrangement in place in terms of access to the current poultry farm on the site from Kermond Road. So Celestino, the applicant, doesn't actually have control of that land, so it can't pursue that option, essentially.

Just the microphone, please, Councillor Reynolds. Sorry, it's just that it is— shown on, like near maps and six maps as something that's gazetted. It's not just an agreement sort of thing. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we're heading in the right direction. I remain displeased with point four because despite making the remarks that we have and raising concerns about road widths, it isn't prescriptive to staff to make particular amendments. So I've just looked up Penrith Council's DCP, which was amended in 2016, and their definition of local roads is at least eight metres instead of the six that's being proposed here. And their definition of minor collector road is 12 metres, and we're only offering 8.5. So I suppose what I'm seeking from staff is an assurance that without further and more specific amendments to point four, is that they're actually taking on board what we're saying to them about road widths.

Sure. Well, I think, Councillor Zamprogno, the idea being that we're not adopting at this point. We're making clear the reasons we're not happy to adopt it now, and that's what will be fed into that process of revising it.

Well, so long as that is loud and clear, then I'll let point four lie. Thank you.

Thanks.

Further discussion?

Right of reply, Deputy Mayor.

Not really necessary, Mr Mayor, except to say I do understand what Councillor Zamprogno is saying, and I assume that we will have opportunity to send into staff anything that we have raised that we think should be included in having those amendments looked at. So I reiterate Councillor Wheeler's sentiments about the submissions. They were very representative of what we had heard in person, and it was really good to hear and see responses to those in this process. So thank you.

Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Tree was absent for the vote. Declared carried.

Next item is item 76. We have one speaker, David Wilkins.

Is David Wilkins present?

No. I did note that we just got an email from Jared Faint. It didn't sound like David Wilkins is going to be here, so if he's not here, we'll move on. Somebody want to move something on item 76?

Move the recommendation , Mr Mayor.

Recommendation moved by Councillor Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Any discussion required? Anybody?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I think that this is a good event. Sounds like a good event. It's a wonderful initiative. I think it's great that we have Rotary on board to handle the finance side of things, because that's always a concern in these sorts of fundraising events. I mean, we've seen fundraising for bushfires and various other things, and the money's still sitting in an account somewhere. So I know we can all trust Rotary. I'm glad to see that we're waiving costs for this event, and that all that is required, as far as, you know, I suppose red tape for the event, is the traffic management plan, which is going to be simply a modified version of one that they've used before. I was under the impression that we were developing, I think with Stuart, that we were going to try and develop a, I guess you'd call it like a pro forma traffic management plan for Governor Phillip Park so that— People could just use it.

I'm not sure what stage that's at, but perhaps we can talk about that later on. But I hope everybody will support this. And yeah , thank you very much. Thanks

I agree. It sounds like a good event for a good cause, and it makes sense for us to waive the fees. Was there any further discussion? Councillor Richards.

Just a quick question to staff, please. Given the time constraints and the fact that we're voting on this tonight and the event is in June, when does the flood relief concert organisers have to have those sets of conditions met by? Because obviously they need to start advertising and selling tickets. So I'm just looking at all those dot points. Is there a date they all have to be met by before they advertise?

Refer that to Mr Stuart.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, we would just receive most of those as quickly as possible, and they will need to be submitted before the event obviously goes ahead. Thanks.

Councillor Garry.

Yes, just following on to the time frame that Councillor Richards just mentioned, the Governor Phillip Park is still in quite a bit of a shambles since the floods. So just wanting to know if that's all going to be repaired prior to guests entering this event, or if the event is planning to take place with it in its current state.

Refer that to Mr Alden.

It's my view that we probably have all of the park back in good operational order by the date of that event. A few things that still need to be sorted out down there, but by and large everything is basically on track. Thank you. Okay

Thank you. Is that including the boundary fencing along the— George Street entrance.

One of the issues we will need to look at is whether that actually serves any purpose anymore, and whether the boating event — so we'll need to talk with the boating event people as to whether that's required anymore for charging and security of their site, given a number of other changes down there in terms of the playground and use of the area.

Last one. And the play equipment that is not complete, would that be completed by then, or would that still have site fencing around that?

No, that'd be complete by then. Okay,

Thank you.

Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Reynolds? Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor, and just a question, if I may, to Mr Organ. Is there— are there any structural issues with the boat club from the flood? Just to put people's minds at rest. I know— Right of reply will allow a question. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thanks, Mr Organ.

We're currently doing some structural assessment of the boat club following the flooding, and have to have an answer on that in the next week or so as to what works might be required there to get it back in order. Okay,

Thank you. It's just that, yeah, I wanted to make sure that that was okay. Thanks for that, Pat. Yes, I hope everybody can support this. I think it's a great local initiative, and we should all get behind it.

Thanks. Thanks. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lanesbury, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. It was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item, subject to public address, is item 78. So, Councillor Reynolds, want to read your interest on this item? Yeah, I declare a pecuniary interest. My home is within the precinct

Under discussion. I'll leave the chamber.

Thank you.

First speaker is Paul Caleo.

Thank you. I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of our land, the Darug and Darkinjung people. I pay my respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First People of this country. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land. Thank you, Mr Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors, for the opportunity to address this council meeting tonight. My name is Paul Caleo, and I'm speaking as a Windsor resident and as one of the community observers and documenters of the Windsor Bridge replacement project. I speak in favour of the recommendation proposed in item 078 to accept the offer of $250,000 for the completion of works in the wharf reserve.

I wish to advise that while I am a member of the Defenders of Thompson Square, Inc., I'm speaking this evening on my own behalf. I acknowledge and thank the council for its work in securing the retention of a number of artefacts from the 1874 Dixon and Turnbull Windsor Bridge, with its 1897 height upgrade by the addition of upper cast cylinder bridge pier sections, plus the 1922 upgrade of the Percy Allen concrete beams, decking and bracing. The bridge has now been demolished, except for the retained and modified first section of the historic Windsor Bridge that adjoins the lower area of Thompson Square. I refer now to the list of the artefacts contained within item 078 that have been transferred to Council.

A number of these items have now left the Northern Bank Council facility adjacent to Macquarie Park. However, a number still remain there. I have in this past week observed some of the items referred to being handled in a most unfortunate way. A large number of the special tapered and curved bricks that formerly lined the 1874 cast iron caisson bridge piers were tossed about, thrown, and a number of them crushed under the tracks of the excavator. The 1874 Lewis bolts, which are the large mechanisms which were taken from the lower sections of the caissons, were also tossed about. I would like to request that Council secures all items at its earliest possible convenience and commences planning for community consultation in regards to appropriate works concerning these items.

Preservation measures for the Lewis bolts is of high importance to ensure their long-term integrity. I am very much aware of the demands and stress upon Council both financially and in work hours, most particularly following the March 2021 flood. However, I trust that through cooperation with all stakeholders that Council can assist in ensuring we achieve the best outcomes for our area in terms of all of our residents, the visitors, and our businesses. In relation to all of the remaining special bricks, including a significant number which were this past week removed to a compound that sits behind the corner of Wilberforce and Freeman's Reach Roads, I would like to request that Council seeks to secure these also.

I do note that in the list on the Council document under bricks it says all for being retained, but I would just like to question if this includes those bricks. Use of these, if retained, would of course be subject to any consultation and processes that Council establishes. One use that I've thought of, apart from those bricks to be held at the museum or used in some other ways, would be the idea of using a number for a pathway or pathways. These could be paved with a combination of both complete bricks and broken bricks, and ideally could be a community participation project in the final laying of the pavers over the substrate. This, I feel, could also assist in the healing process for those who've deeply felt the loss of the historic bridge.

I thank you all for this opportunity to address you. I look forward to being a part of the community consultations and the work ahead, and I thank you for your consideration of my address.

Thank you. Are there any questions, Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Calio. I just missed what you said at first about the bricks. I think you said the bricks from the caisson?

Yeah, these are specially curved bricks that were curved the same shape as the caisson. They were alternate layers, so they're nine-inch, the equivalent of nine-inch bricks that went two rows end to end around the inside of the caissons that we used to look at, and then alternate layers were almost like a pizza pie shape that bonded in those layers. These went from the bedrock up to the tops of the 1874 where the bridge used to end. So that little bolted joint that we used to see, that upper section was an 1897 addition to the bridge. These bricks went all the way up to the base of that 1897 addition.

So when you say they curved, they

Could be reused in something that had a significant shape? Joined together and used to form a pathway.

Microphone, sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Oh, sorry, sorry, microphone not on. The other thing was, is your request that we request from the operators at the bridge site, or that we get from Transport for New South Wales, whoever holds it, that we secure all items as soon as possible. Is that because you believe some of them are exposed or unsafe or something like that? Sorry

As far as I'm aware up to today, and it was definitely yesterday, the three Lewis bolts—I note that there is two written down on the council table, but there were three there—and there was something placed on top of those. And as of late yesterday they were there, and I believe they were there today as well. So they're still sitting there, as well as the items that are destined for, I believe, for Australiana Pioneer Village, the walkway support beams and the bracing.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that address. I was just interested in your idea about the brick pavement because I thought that's a great idea. Are you able to give us a bit of an idea of the quality of those bricks, and would they be suitable for that task?

Sorry, as far as the way those bricks are configured, I do believe that it would be possible to form a pathway with them. There is a combination. There's pure pristine bricks that were removed that were magnificent as if they were made yesterday. There are bricks where the mortar was cleaned off, and they were formed in the shape of it looked like a wishing well, which could perhaps be another use. And I think they were transferred to the Transport for New South Wales site. So there's a variety, but because of the unfortunate handling of things being moved about and tossed and damaged on the site, there are broken bricks as well. I think that perhaps no matter whatever the length of this pathway, that it could be the good bricks are all used for a pathway, and there may be another section of pathway with some good and some broken bricks.

I think it speaks of the stresses that these things were put under.

Thank you. Any further questions? No. Thank you for that. Thank you Final speaker is Patricia Swartz.

Yep.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, glasses help. Thank you, Mr Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councillors for the opportunity to address this council meeting. My name is Patricia Swartz, and I'm speaking on behalf of Defenders of Thompson Square Incorporated for the recommendation proposed in item 78 to accept the offer of $250,000 for the completion of works in Wharf Reserve, Thompson Square. Under the heading Community Engagement in item 78, the community interest in both the artefacts and future heritage interpretation of Thompson Square is noted. It is also noted that community consultation will take place on appropriate works. In light of the deep community interest in the artefacts retained from the historic bridge and from Thompson Square, Defenders of Thompson Square requests that this consultation be enacted as a collaboration between Council and community.

Specifically , we request Council to form a joint working party to include representatives of Council, the Heritage Advisory Committee and community groups to plan for and inform Council's ultimate decisions on the use and interpretation of items retained from the historic bridge and Thompson Square. Within this process, it will be imperative to ensure that best practice in heritage conservation is adhered to. Defenders of Thompson Square wish to thank Council for the efforts to retain artefacts from the Windsor Bridge to date. However, we also wish to emphasise that the process of securing and using artefacts from Thompson Square and the historic Windsor Bridge is ongoing and collaboration through a joint working party would enhance both community involvement and respect for the process.

There is a list of artefacts in item 78 that have been transferred to Council. However, it has been observed in the last few days that some of the items in the Northern Bank Council facility have been crushed and knocked about. This is what Mr Caliot was talking about. In particular, large numbers of the unique curved bricks have been destroyed and the Lewis bolts have been picked up and dropped by the excavator. We request that Council secure these items for their protection as soon as possible, please. With the bridge replacement project coming to an end, there is now an opportunity to highlight and complement the heritage buildings in Thompson Square through an appropriate display of retained heritage artefacts.

Our aspiration is for Thompson Square to rise from the destructive impacts of the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project and emerge as the stunning heritage asset for Windsor that it deserves to be. The businesses that are becoming very successful in Windsor now realise that the heritage drawcard will be the basis for Windsor's successful economic future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any questions

No questions. Thank you for that. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Could I move the recommendation in the business paper, please, Mr Mayor, with a point four, if I may

Or maybe four and five, but point four would be for Council to immediately secure the artefacts from the old Windsor Bridge, and five that Council consult with the community about the best use of these artefacts.

That's just come off the top of my head, so any augmentation of that would be gratefully received. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a seconder for that? Seconder, Deputy Mayor.

Further discussion?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I think there are two issues here. One is regarding the— Bridge elements which are being retained,

I believe that the government has treated this council shabbily in totally disregarding the fact that these heritage items are being retained, but the government is not offering anything in the way of any funding or a grant or any other means by which this material might be offered to the public for their sighting and enjoyment and understanding of the historic nature of that material. That's point one.

I think that needs to be addressed, and I don't believe—I believe the government have also not properly addressed the heritage elements adequately either with what they've done in the museum. Now , in regard to the particular Wharf Reserve area, the offer of $250,000, frankly, is totally unacceptable from my point of view. That area, I believe, is also the source of heritage elements which people— In the main, and not aware of, but they are physically there in the environment.

I do not believe that the $250,000 will cover the cost of making that area, shall we say, into something of benefit to the community, nor will it provide or enable amplification of the historic infrastructure elements that I believe are contained within that area. I personally believe that we ought to be asking the government or Transport for New South Wales for half a million dollars. I believe that they are fully aware, as they were of the barrel drains being there, they are aware that this infrastructure is there and, of course, don't want to talk about it because it's just going to cause more angst. And they're quite happy to walk away and do nothing on behalf of this community, which has been raped by this project, an absolute disgrace. Thank you.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sent some alternative words through, which I'm hoping Councillor Cottnash will pick up, including an additional point that relates to a conversation that the Heritage Advisory Committee had at its previous meeting. So it's effectively Councillor Cottnash's motion with some more words in points four and five and an additional point. Perhaps if we could see those on the screen, Councillor Cottnash could decide if she is happy to... Roll those into the existing motion .

I've emailed them through. I'll read them out, which I can't do because I've put them in my email. Yeah, put my glasses on. Thanks.

So it's: take immediate steps to secure all remaining artefacts, including the Lewis bolts and bricks from the bridge caissons; request photos and other documentation held by the community detailing the demolition works and bridge structure; form a working group with interested community groups and the Heritage Advisory Committee to determine the best possible means of conservation, interpretation and display of the Windsor Bridge artefacts. So it's effectively the same thing, but extra.

Councillor...

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that seems, yes, very. Could

I

Suggest— It's in the same spirit as the two points that I said. I think the photos and the other documentation, whilst I think that might come out of the working group—

Could I just clarify, which are you replacing both points four and five? Just points

Four and five with an additional

What if you just left point five

As

Well?

Sorry, now we haven't got—

No, I don't

Know. I just want to be clear what

We're agreeing. Just simply, Council consult with the community about best use, in addition to the working group. Sure.

So seven points. Yeah,

I think. Yeah, that's fine Bigger than her. Yeah,

Yeah, yeah. This is not— this needs to be done properly, and we have this opportunity to do this. And as I said before, the request for the photos and the other documentation, to me, is part of that sort of restoration and interpretation process. So, yeah, I'm more than happy to include that and— I think the first point is probably the one that we have to underline.

I won't talk to it yet. Can I continue, Mr Mayor? Just regarding the photographs, we discussed this very briefly in the last Heritage Advisory Committee, and we had some questions as a group about actually how these casements were put together and how the bricks were secured within the casements, whether they were placed or whether they were—what was used as a medium to hold them together, whether it was a lime mortar, what type of lime mortar, that sort of thing. What we've got now from this really meticulous documentation of this demolition process, and I really want to thank the people who've been involved in this, particularly Mr Calio for his really fine photography and meticulous work, is that now we know, in the process of watching these things being pulled apart, how they really went together.

So we've got pictures of young men. We know that a young boy died in the process of this build, but now we really understand the detail of the work that went into this, and that's a really important part of the history of Thompson Square. And I think we need to really take steps as an organisation to harvest this information before it drifts off. I've got a question, if I may. There were very detailed plans drawn up for this space and what was to happen in it. In the whole of Thompson Square, the Heritage Advisory Committee and members of the community met repeatedly with the consultant who drew up the plans for Thompson Square, and I'm wondering what's happened to them. There was detailed plans for lighting, signposts, sandstone work, landscaping, pathways, all sorts of stuff, and all I can see is three trees and a set of concrete steps with a bit of blow-on mulch.

It's not the plans we were given. Councillor Ross is correct. We have been told that we were going to receive something, and it's not there. Now, whether we take the $250,000 and we're responsible for putting that in there, I'm not sure. But this is quite a large scope of works, and I'm really concerned that we're going to make the ratepayers liable for this when we've not been given what we were told, and I don't think it's $100,000 worth that we're missing out on. So if I could get an answer to that,

Please. Can we refer that to Mr. Organ

I'd need to reconcile what the plans are you're referring to. I don't mean that in any disrespectful way, as to with the plans that have been approved by Department of Transport, and just see if there is any discrepancy between what was believed was going to occur as to what was actually approved as part of the approved plans.

So I'm referring to the Heritage Interpretation Plan that came to both the Heritage Advisory Committee and later to this council, and it went back and forth. It was not a comfortable or easy process, and it got down to fine detail of what would be on signs and what would go into the museum, the wording for that, the materials for that. Where is this stuff? This is a project that's a couple of hundred, a couple of million dollars below budget according to the last state budget estimates hearing. Where is this staff? So

I might just refer, because there's a couple of elements within that in terms of both the interpretive signage that was approved and the wording, and that's why I'm querying what the plans are that we're trying to reconcile. So do you want to make a comment on that one, Linda?

Yes, so obviously I'm aware of the meetings that were held and the debate between Transport and the Heritage Committee. However, yes, I agree with Mr. Organ that we need to reconcile what was signed off ultimately by Transport in terms of the heritage interpretation plans and therefore what would be covered within that scope of works.

So we can't proceed with this if we don't know what Transport for New South Wales is reneging on based on what we were offered to start with. This is really disingenuous that we went through—this took months. This was hours of volunteers' work, and I'm certainly not angry with our staff. I'm angry with the—frankly, I'm angry with this process and the way that we've been treated in this whole mess . We were led to believe that that square would be rehabilitated, an interpretation plan enacted, that the community had had some input into, and that we would be getting more than three trees and a bit of blow-on mulch. This is really poor. Where is the interpretive signage? Where are the places to sit? Where is all the stuff that the community was promised in this grand rejig of Thompson Square that made this shambles of a project vaguely palatable?

So just to clarify, Mr Organ, the alternatives before us tonight are either to take on that obligation to deliver that with a payment of $250,000, or we could actually say to Transport for New South Wales, you know, we don't want to; we want you to do it. And that's the decision we're making?

No, if I'd probably just clarify, because the actual what Council is taking is $250,000, or the proposal is take $250,000 in lieu of additional works that would have been proposed in Wharf Reserve, not in Thompson Square. And I've used the term in the precinct there because I think there's, in most people's mind, there isn't any great difference between the areas. It reads as one. So the $250,000 doesn't relate to any of the obligations to carry out landscaping or interpretive works that are approved as part of the bridge plans for Thompson Square itself. This is $250,000 in lieu of the additional work in Wharf Reserve. So, and we've looked at the costs of the various works that were proposed in Wharf Reserve and believe that there's probably better value in applying a finer hand across the whole of the precinct and maybe deletion of some of those works that were proposed in Wharf Reserve.

So that's what I find confusing. When we talk about Wharf Reserve and then we talk about the whole of the precinct, are you now talking about Council, Council then doing the work in Wharf Reserve and only Wharf Reserve in an attempt to make that marry up with what we think we might get at the top end of Thompson Square?

No, I think that, as I said, the acceptance of the $250,000, if Council resolves that, is in lieu of them doing the work in Wharf Reserve. Council would have the option of carrying out that work themselves and the— The scope of works in Wharf Reserve could easily be delivered with $250,000 that was proposed. The choice for Council and the community, I guess, is do we want to spend $250,000 on Wharf Reserve only, or would we rather add that to embellishing some of the other parts of the Thompson Square precinct as well? So, coming up with a revised plan. Okay

Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Yes. I question the officers.

The Heritage Interpretation Plan, I'm sure, was run by Department of Planning, was it not? DPIE?

I refer that to Ms. Green.

The project was run by Transport for New South Wales, and they engaged consultants to develop that plan. Thank you. Okay

Thank you very much. Well, obviously , like my fellow councillors, certainly not satisfied that they haven't met the situation in Thompson Square at all. But I agree with the director that there was, after all of the earlier goings on, that there was an offer made, probably in the last 18 months, from memory, in regard to the Wharf Reserve area. Now , I believe that there is infrastructure there of an historic nature which would go back to the early 1800s. And I also believe that probably the heritage people, certainly the heritage people in the State Government area. .. Would be aware of that and have decided that this is not such a good idea because it might cost quite a lot of money, well in excess of $250,000 to do something about that site.

That's why I'm suggesting that we ought to amend, if this goes ahead, that I would like Council to consider amending point two to make it that we go back and seek a doubling of the grant that's being offered, because we do not consider it's adequate. And the further point, of course, is in this whole situation which hasn't been addressed is where does this material from the bridge itself become housed or located or whatever? The government's not offering a cracker in that regard. Now, I'll be so bold as to suggest at this meeting that the old police station would be an ideal spot. It's not being used. It hasn't been used for years. It has historic material there, as we all know, and out on Lower Bridge Street, Old Bridge Street, that site would be a very good situation in which to house those things, and possibly it would also allow for further display of other heritage items of which we have not been appraised of in regard to the overall...

Heritage that has been withdrawn from the lands as a result of the project, and which are certainly not going to be displayed at the current museum. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I just had a couple of questions to continue on. I think added to the confusion that some others have around the proposal from Transport for New South Wales. What, I know some time ago we saw some plans, and I can't recall if that was what they intended to do in the wharf reserve or what we intended to do. It involved some sandstone seating and paving. Was that their plan or our plan?

Mr Organ.

That was a plan prepared by the consultants, or landscape consultants, as a concept. There was some further work done on that. So some of the works were completed. So sandstone walling along the roadway, the lower level roadway, so sandstone walling and retaining wall was put along there. There was rock protection done downstream of the wharf itself, and some other minor works in there, some landscaping that was done. So they were plans that were prepared by their consultants. In terms of the areas up the top end, there was some issues then that came out during the consultation with the bushcare group about doing further bank clearing and stone walls and terracing through there because it would have impacted on the bushcare area, and that was deleted from the concepts and left to be there.

The bulk of the works that were proposed in the final plan, in addition to the stone walls, were replacement of the treated timber staircase that comes down the middle of the casuarinas, and there was a proposal to build that in sandstone block work. And that's probably the key element that hasn't been delivered, for which the $250,000 is proposed as an offset, in addition to plantings and embellishment of the grassed areas to the northern end, I'll call it, the far end of the reserve. Thank you.

Thank you. That makes it a little bit clearer, but I'm still not exactly sure how. I'm trying to look at this from whether we're getting a benefit as such in taking this money, or rather in requiring Transport for New South Wales to complete what they had said. Being quite mindful that $250,000 is not a lot of money when it comes to outdoor works as such. So, where it says Thompson Square precinct, you're just still saying that this would only be done in the Wharf Reserve area, even though it's been labelled that. Is that correct? Or would works be done up in the upper section of Thompson Square?

Through you, Mr Mayor. No, maybe I've coined the term the Thompson Square precinct because that's the whole of the area. So we'd include potentially Wharf Reserve if that's what Council and the community wanted to do. What I would propose as part of the consultation that's included in the motion before Council would be to throw that into the mix about what the community actually thinks is the most important elements in integrating the whole of the area post Transport for New South Wales. So there could be, within Wharf Reserve, could be the stone staircase might be what's required, or it could be replacing seating or embellishing seating in what's known as Thompson Square parkland.

So, in other words, is it possibly nothing

Else done in Wharf Reserve and just some work done? Sorry.

So is that saying that this particular amount of money could possibly not have anything else done in the Wharf Reserve area and be spent up in the other section of Thompson Square, in the upper section?

Mr. Organ. Are

We compelled to do more from a point of view of what's actually needed there?

No. Basically, the offer comes without strings, and Council could make a decision to spend all or nothing in Wharf Reserve, depending on what it felt was the priority. I said one of the things that we looked at was, is that staircase actually required? Because that was the consultant's view, was to put the staircase in and replace it. We're going there's a perfectly good graded path, yeah, 20 metres away. Why would you need a staircase there? So they're things that can be debated more broadly in that consultation.

Okay. So I'd probably sort of want to have that debate before deciding whether to accept the money or not, because what if it's a lot more money? What other funding is available for this particular set of works?

So, can I just add to that question? Where it says in the business paper, this offer supported by contractor quotations?

Yep. Just to add to that question, in the business paper it says this offer supported by

Okay. Where it says in the business paper that this offer supported by contractor quotations, does that mean that we have fully costed the works that they propose to do?

That's correct. They've given us their written contractor quotations to verify the amount that was being offered. That totaled somewhere around about $180,000, and as I said, we've negotiated basically Council's administration costs if we were to do that, plus some additional funds, and that's where the total came up to $250,000. But to actually do the works was around about the $180,000 mark. With the quotations for the approved works that were signed off.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate those explanations. I still have an inkling feeling that we need a lot more money somehow, and I'm going to raise something which was raised in a meeting with Minister Constance some time ago, when he was quite adamant that he saw some scope to putting additional funds into the heritage interpretation, given the extent of loss that this community had suffered. Now, he, I believe, he was being genuine when he was making those offers, and he did say to us that we should get back in contact with him. So I would ask first if there was ever any more contact regarding that. I expect there wasn't, but if not, I would still think that we should approach him again, given he gave that commitment, and try and get some more money, because I just think that if we really want to reflect something, as Mr Callio and Mrs Schwartz said, that the community has suffered loss in this regard of the heritage, and if we can get some more money to actually make this a better outcome with the reuse of those materials, et cetera, that we've got, and with some money to make it better, I think we should try every avenue that we have before us.

Thank you. Can I ask who was in that meeting?

Councillor Calvert, Robin Preston, Mr Constance and Mr Conroy.

Okay. Does anybody here know if there was further correspondence following that meeting? Take it on notice .

Yeah, look, I need to check that. I think there was a council resolution, I believe, so I think in that case there would have been correspondence, but I need to take that on notice and check .

Excuse me, Mr Mayor, could I ask a further question of the director? I'll just go to Councillor Calvert first.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to clarify, there's been talk about requesting more money, and there's been talk about the community being involved in how we spend the $250,000, but no one's actually altered the motion that's on the screen to reflect that, so I'm wondering whether the people who've said all those things could put forward what changes they want to put into the motion, because at the moment those things are still not there.

Yeah, well, the consulting the community about the $250,000, we're actually not resolving anything about how to spend it. We're just resolving whether to accept the offer, so I would imagine that would be part of that process. But in regard to the letter, is there a letter we want, Deputy Mayor?

Yes, I would like to add that we follow up, follow up, because there may well have been a letter spent, and perhaps frame it in the context that we now have materials that can be reused, and we're at that stage. We're at this meeting occurred before the demolition proceeded, and so we are now at that stage that we could be actually implementing these various interpretations, and that we would respectfully request that he give us more money.

Are you happy with that if we just include that in the motion, Councillor Kotlash?

Yes,

That sounds like a plan. Could I just— Follow up the correspondence with the minister. Councillor Wheeler. Oh yeah, and then Councillor Ross after that.

Can I just note then that if we—I don't know that it's a particularly good negotiating position for us to accept the offer with Transport for New South Wales and then take out the begging bowl to Minister Constance. Perhaps we—could we note the offer and then approach the minister with the hope that he offers us more, and we probably will accept that.

We could. I just remind Council we deferred this matter on the 30th of March when they were pressing us for an answer, and we are getting what seems like a—I mean, they get to wash their hands of it, but they're giving us more money than they otherwise would. So I might refer that to Mr. Morgan for comment.

Without entering into the debate, I think they're two separate items. The $250,000 is in lieu of what they were required to do as a condition of approval. So they either do that work or they don't. So that's that value. If there's additional funding required, and I think it's quite valid to say we now have the artefacts, the salvage materials, and it probably has another dimension to the costing for Council to actually display those and reuse those in an appropriate... So I think they're probably two separate things, but one could go before the other, but I'm not—we have a bit of an issue that Transport will be moving out of the site and may choose not to do those works. Okay ,

You've convinced me.

Okay. Yeah Councillor Ross.

I have a question for the director, if I may, Mr. Mayor. In regard to Wharf Reserve, I understand that there was access to the rear of the properties facing George Street. Is that a formal right of way, or is there a gazetted road, or

Could you inform us of what there might be there, please, Mr Organ?

I'm not aware of any formal land tenure issues associated with access from the car park to those properties, but I need to take that on notice and have a look at what the land titles are. There's nothing currently proposed in giving that access.

Thank you, because I'm just concerned that that may affect the project anyway, whatever goes ahead.

Yep, I can probably just add to that. The current proposed works in there would not impact negatively on any other arrangements than currently exist.

Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with Mr Organ that we're probably dealing with separate issues here, and I don't want to conflate the 250,000 with any other question we might put to Mr Constance about other works. I would suggest that if the Minister were willing to provide additional funds, we would need to go with a specific proposal. My experience of such matters is it's highly unlikely that a number would be pulled out of the air and then we would think about what we would do with it. It's probably very much the reverse. We would need to think of something which is not presently funded but which would adorn that precinct, cost it, and then go to the Minister and say, Well, since you asked and you're prepared to go above and beyond, so I'm not sure that there's anything in this motion that Guides staff towards coming up with such a proposal and then costing it so that that can be advanced to the minister, but that might be just part of the vibe.

I think that's a valid observation. We did, I guess we don't have all the information that we think we might be following up a previous request rather than submitting a new one, but we're not actually sure. So I'm not sure.

Councillor Garry.

Just wanted to clarify the Wharf precinct. This was actually an addition to the project in one of the modifications when the additional land was taking extra land from Thompson Square. And can I just get that confirmed?

Through Mr Mayor. Yeah, Wharf Reserve was not part of the project boundaries in the approved works. The works were offered when the advanced lane, the slip lane was widened into Thompson Square parkland area, and that was the offset offered by Transport for New South Wales was undertake a range of other works in that area.

They gave us

The offer of additional works, but it was in works outside of the approved project area. And that was approved as a modification of the consent.

Okay. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. I'd just like to ask a question if I can . I'm referring back to Councillor Ross's comment about the old police station. Can we, does anybody know if we own the old police station or is it a state-owned?

Everyone's saying it's state owned.

State owned In that case,

In that case, I think it'd be an interesting activity change point four to say take immediate steps to secure all the remaining artefacts, da da da da, and investigate the use of the old police station. Come on, we've only got one chance, so we may as well take it . I'd also like to change possibly point three to say note that the funding in part two can be used to undertake any range of activities. I think utilise, it's directing us, and I think that's causing a bit of our confusion. If we have that, I think that will improve that recommendation.

Deputy Mayor, are you happy with that change?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Okay.

Mr Mayor. Questions, Councillor Cabot? Yeah , question. Are we waiting on the point about writing to Minister Constance? It's being written up, yep. I just wanted to reiterate what the Deputy Mayor said. We did have a meeting with the Minister, and he was very keen to point out that he would like to support the,

What did he call it, the Heritage Interpretation Centre. So what was the question ? The question is, are we going to refer to that letter that he sent us round about that time, or we sent him? There was correspondence. Can we get that put in that point somewhere?

Yeah, I think we've written it that we're— So, we've

Got ‘write to the Minister and request’— We can say ‘write to the Minister of Transport and Roads to follow up our request. ’ His

Follow-up, his offer.

Yeah

Mr Mayor, can I suggest that the Mayor write to the Minister? I don't think this is a staff— I think this is a political issue rather than a staff issue. Yep.

I think that's generally, if we resolve to write, I think the Mayor writes. Yeah.

So, Mr Mayor, you would refer to either the other letter sent or to just reiterate that he had made such a generous and genuine offer.

According to reports . Yeah.

According to reports and witnesses

Yes, depending on the existence of the letter, but we'll determine that. Was there any further questions? No, I think everyone's spoken, so we're going to write. Oh, Councillor Ross.

Yes, can I seek clarification on the length of these Lewis bolts? Are they 25 metres or are they sectioned, please?

Mr Organ, the length of the Lewis

Bolts

Three metres, probably about a metre and a half long. Would also just clarify there were two intact and there's one that came out

In part . Now, we can't allow Mr Caglioti to speak again, but if he shouts out, I'm not going to rule it out of order

Thank you. Quiet in the gallery, please. So that answers the question, Councillor Ross. Yep. No, that's all good, Lisa. Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash.

Not necessary. Thank you. All

Right, we put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross . Got to find Councillor Rasmussen. Yes, and Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Tree absent for the vote. Declare it carried .

Councillor Reynolds, absent for the vote.

Next item is 83, and the first public speaker is Scott Murray. We'll just wait until those councillors come back, but if you wanted to get ready.

Yep. Thank you. Good

Evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councillors. I'm speaking as Lester Stump, and not Scott Murray, the General Manager for Strategic Development Facilities and Assets. I'm joined by my colleagues, Mr Scott Murray, the General Manager of Operations, and Mr David Zammit, the Hawkesbury Club Manager. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council with PCYC's support to the recommendations in the business papers. For Council to enter into a lease agreement, development agreement with PCYC. This is in line with previous endorsements and resolutions. This meeting marks a significant milestone in the establishment of the Hawkesbury PCYC. PCYC and Council management have worked continuously preparing these agreements and, in parallel, the development application to expand the facility in line with previous presentations to Council.

The DA submission is complete and ready for assessment. PCYC commenced operations in July 2020 at the height of COVID-19 pandemic. We are pleased to share participation. Thus far is in excess of 100,000 visitations. The community has embraced the PCYC.

The development has a keen program to complete in time to possibly host teams to train for the 2022 FIBA Women's World Cup basketball. We must get cracking, subject to approval of the JRPP.

I'm making this brief, so thank you, and PCYC is in favour of the recommendations in the business papers.

Thank you. Any questions? No questions. No

Just thank you for clarifying the name. I was having an issue trying to work out who you were.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Mr Murray, want to speak, or— Excuse me. No. Oh, sorry, did you have a question, Councillor Ross? I did. Sorry. I have a number of questions. Sorry , would you come— Mr Mayor, please

Excuse me. I've just been advised my son seriously hurt himself. I'm just

Sorry to hear that. Sorry, Councillor Ross.

Good evening, sir. I'd like to inquire, please, as to what the square footage is of the additions that PCYC are actually going to put on the ground,

Or square metreage, should I say.

Thank you. I think we're in the vicinity of 2,000

Is 2,000, 2,200 maybe?

Could be 2,200 square metres

Thank you.

How many trees are you going to knock over with the additional area that you're pushing out to, I guess it's the north of the east or the northeast or something? I

Think it's in the vicinity of a dozen trees.

Right.

And we've had ecological assessments on all that work. Right

And

That's included in the DA. Right.

Thank you.

What is the— on what basis are you wishing to increase that play space area, shall we say? Have you

Conducted any research as to the need for that in this area?

Yes, we, in the process of determining the location for the PCYC, Sorry . We undertook significant market research and reports that we shared with Council, and in the deliberation over determining the location of the PCYC

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but I understood that there were a number of sites initially that Council proffered as might be of interest to PCYC, and PCYC felt that the particular site in question was its preferred site. But I can't recollect seeing anywhere where there has been any— Detailed, if you like, assessment of the need and the fact that if this facility is constructed, that it will actually be utilised to its best advantage in an economic sense. Would you agree with that or not

Well, the advantage that we have is that we've been on site for circa nine months, and our participation rates have been considerable, and there is ample evidence, live evidence, that the demand is certainly there for the additional square metres for the various activities that we're proposing.

But is that not just purely, if you like, residue from the days of YMCA and so on, and that was there anyway?

No, I believe we're far exceeding the YMCA participation numbers. Okay,

Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further questions? No . Thank you for that

I do have another one . Okay. In regard to the works in general, what is the intended use of the roof space externally? Are you going to fully equip that with solar paneling, or is that just a fond hope of mine and will not be realised?

Not at all. This project is amongst a portfolio of projects where PCYC is pursuing solar on a portfolio program basis, and not necessarily a project by project basis, and that'll be captured in that process. And most certainly, we would expect to see solar on this building

I don't believe that's been seen in the architectural works documents that we've been provided so far.

No, it's not on the DA drawings at this stage.

Thank you. Now, in regard to the property itself also, the

Intent, I gather, is not to take the full area of one

Portion of land, but excise that from your requirements.

Are you in fact increasing the number of car parking spaces, or does that remain static?

In the DA documentation, it shows an increase of car parking spaces.

Quantum, please, in percentage? I

Don't have that off the top of my head. I believe it's in the order of 30 or 40.

Right. Would that be sufficient to cater for the additional floor space that you were talking about? We

Believe so through our traffic management studies that are included in the DA documentation. Councillor

Could I

Ask a question, if I can? You said that visitation had been 100,000 in nine months . Are you really pleased with that, or is that something that's a standard for when you open a new facility

No, we're pleased with that, given the circumstances of the COVID pandemic

Thought I misheard you. So well done. I think that's great. Yeah, good stuff. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay . Somebody want to move something? Recommendation moved by Councillor Calvert, seconded by Councillor Kotlash

Any further discussion, or— Councillor Calvert?

Look, I'm happy to move this recommendation, and I've seen this partnership grow over the last few years, and this is going to be a wonderful asset for the people of Hawkesbury, especially for the young people. And I think Council has made the right decision by working on this partnership, and I applaud all the partners that are part of this agreement, and I look forward to watching this grow over the next few years. So thank you very much to all the participants.

Thank you . Further discussion? Councillor Ross.

I'm not in favour of the motion. I believe that PCYC are only going to be spending a portion of the fifteen million that we've been advised that they have. I believe the addition should not go ahead, but I believe that they should, in view of recent events, look for a site west of the river which is flood free, and provide a facility there which could be used in addition to the existing South Windsor facility that Council has. And I think that that, in the longer term, would be a far more satisfactory and desirable result, both from the PCYC because they'll pick up extra clientele. And it is also going to be a huge benefit to the people across the other side of the river, who even our former mayor indicated previously that he was concerned about had no good public facilities there for active indoor, if you like, sporting or cultural events.

So I would very much hope that the PCYC might give that some serious thought in a positive vein, because I seriously believe that that would assist in sustainability of the area and would then better justify the large amount of public funds being utilised.

Thank you.

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Could I just get some— when we discussed this matter originally and we looked at, or we talked about the use of sites west of the river, and I think that horse has well and truly bolted, we discussed and we put in the motion that Council put forward contained a requirement for a bus to pick particularly young people, young users up west of the river. Can I just get some feedback on whether that's happened? Do we know?

Through that

To Mr Mayor, there was recently a public announcement in the last 10 days indicating that there had been a bus provided to the PCYC, not from the PCYC but from other sources

Thanks, Councillor Ross. I might just invite a representative from the PCYC back up to answer that question if that's okay.

Yeah, hi everyone. The relationship David's forged with Rotary has ensured we've got that bus available now. It's now in the, I guess, procurement to bring it in, and that was addressed right at the opening about ensuring we had buses to ensure that traffication and bringing people to the facility was adhered to. So the relationship Dave's forged with Rotary and other stakeholders in the community has been fantastic. Thank you.

A question, please.

Okay. Yeah, Councillor Ross, yep

Excuse me, sir. With the bus, or bus, I think we were talking about three buses at one stage, but we've got one to start. Where is it going to be garaged and how?

Yeah, it will be garaged on the premises in a secured location.

I take it that that is under cover

That, yes. Yes, it will be. It's part of the review we're looking for. I

Didn't see any facility in the—

I'm happy to allow further questions out of order, but they need to be relevant to the matter we're discussing. Yeah, so how and where they're keeping their bus is not relevant to our decision tonight

Well, we've had a recent situation in one of council's own

Parks. Yeah, it's worth discussing if you work for the PCYC, but it's not relevant to our decision here tonight.

No, no, but it's not been flagged in the drawings, to my knowledge, so far presented

To council. We're not assessing the DA. We're talking about the broad concept, and where the bus is being housed is not relevant, so we're not going to proceed on that line.

We see it with a

Gated premises. We see it with a gated premises that it'd be taken care of, safety from vandalism, etc. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, no further questions

That's

Fine, Mr Mayor. I apologise, that question only occurred to me then. I apologise for not asking it earlier. Thanks.

Thank you. That concludes our questions, hopefully. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think that, yes, having the bus is definitely good because it was flagged that people west of the river, youth and others west of the river, would like to participate in the PCYC activities. So that's good. I have heard some very positive feedback about the operations at the PCYC, both from the police and from some of the user groups such as basketball, Hawkesbury Basketball. And I'm pleased that we're progressing to this stage now to secure this level of it. And I think the, from what I've seen of the designs, I think they look quite good. I agree with Councillor Ross that we would like facilities like this west of the river, and I hope that at some stage we can move towards that and maybe PCYC would like to involve in additional services down the track or to expand their outreach work that they may be doing to include holding more.

I know they are going to engage with the schools and so on, but they may find the capacity to do holiday clinics, et cetera, et cetera, and other things to allow people over there to participate. But this has been a long time coming. It seems a long time ago that a Rotary fellow rang me in the first instance about this happening, and that was probably 2016. So I'm pleased to see that it's got to this stage now and that the facility will be more formally underway.

Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Carvett. Okay , we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carvett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Against: Councillor Ross. Councillor Tree was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

So that was our last item subject to public address. So move the items on block. Moved, Mr Mayor. Moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

And then we'll move to item 74.

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Recommendation moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Wheeler.

Any discussion?

Mr Mayor, I think that this is possibly one of the most valuable conferences that I have ever had the pleasure to attend, and I have done so since 2013 , every year. This year it's an online conference, and it was last year as well, which was not quite the same as engaging in person because of course a lot of what they have at this conference are solutions and interactive stalls, etc. But nevertheless, an online participation of this I would recommend to anybody who is wanting to keep updated around floodplain management, and it's being a national conference, it has both international and national speakers who give the latest update in research and innovations, etc., around technology. Could I just ask, are we having a paper presented at that or not?

I'll refer that to Mr Spring.

Yes, one of my staff will be presenting at the conference. Thank you.

Okay.

No further discussion. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, and Councillor Garrow absent for the vote. Declared carried. Anyone interested in attending that conference?

Yes, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, and myself.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thanks,

Mayor. I'm glad somebody noticed me in the dark. Thank you.

Next item is—

Oh, we're going to move to send those people. Yep. Moved, Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour, please raise your hand, I guess. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. Absent of the vote declared carried.

Okay. Next item is item 75, moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. So I'll just speak to this briefly if no one else wanted to. I think it's really important that we go with the recommendation here, which is that we should be waiving DA fees and construction certificate fees for any flood impacted properties, as well as prioritising those applications when they come in so that these people don't have to wait in the long queues. Also a number of other financial assistance measures in there, including rent abatements for our tenants, looking at reducing interest or not having interest on payment arrangements for people in these situations. I don't think any of these things are going to be significant costs to council in the overall scheme of things, but would be huge to people in this situation. So I think that we should be going ahead with this one. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to echo everything you've said there and just reiterate that I think this sends a really good message to our residents that council stands with them and beside them during what is a very difficult and traumatic time for many people who have had their property flood affected. You know, there's such significant things to look at and to fix, and being out there and travelling around and meeting with so many of our residents, especially with the mayor, seeing the damage and the destruction of the riverbanks and drainage issues on their property, and just the scale of the cleanup, the debris left on properties, and skip bin after skip bin after skip bin that is needed to clean it up, and the morale of everybody, you know, looking at how big the task is ahead of them, but then now that we're a few weeks down the track, getting through it.

And I think that, you know, as someone who's quite always talking about making sure we are very careful with our budget, I think that something like this is— Has to be done by our council to send a really good message to the community that we understand what they are going through and that we will do what we can within our means to make that an easier process for them. So waiving those sorts of fees with application processes that they may put in for works that need to be carried out. And then, of course, sending that message out that we will, in our planning department, at least prioritise the assessment of those applications is fundamental to people understand that Council has listened, that we've heard that they're going through a really rough time, and that we are going to respond.

The other things of Council assets, you know, as the representative of Sports Council, our sports fields and our sports buildings is an ongoing issue, and I continuously have representations made to me by our sporting clubs about when they can get access to those buildings. And I do urge them that Council staff have worked tirelessly, and I thank them for that, especially Mr. Organ. Your work has been significant, so thank you for that, especially with our sporting clubs, ensuring that they can get access to those fields and that our kids and older residents as well can start playing their winter sports again. That's been significant. I also want to just take this opportunity to thank Council for what they've done with rectifying a lot of our road issues, especially the opening of Freeman's Reach Road.

I think that that was faster than a lot of us anticipated would happen, and thank you very much for making sure that happened because I know a lot of people who had to go around Wilberforce were very cranky, you know, but understood it. But I think, yeah, thank you. You did it faster than we all anticipated. I think the ongoing issue that we're all getting representations on is Greens Road. I know that I want to urge the residents out in that neck of the woods in the Hawkesbury to appreciate that Council are doing all that they can, and I know that that doesn't help in their day-to-day situations, but we really are trying our best. So thank you to the staff who've put forward this item. I think that it is a great message to send to residents, and I'd urge all councillors to get out there and tell people that this is something that we are offering, waiving those fees and prioritising those assessments.

I think it's a great move. Thank you.

No further discussion. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, if I may. How many properties do we anticipate the DAs coming in from? Do we have any idea of what we're looking at in terms of scale here?

At this stage, we don't. We're still undertaking an assessment of the impacted sites, and then from there we'll have to determine what the most appropriate course of action will be. So at this stage, I don't know. Thanks.

And are we—is it possible to pass on to anyone who approaches us the details of the, I can't remember the proper name off the top of my head, but it's a reference, it's a guide to flood resilient building materials that are recommended for use. So it's things like, and I think we saw this, those of us who helped with individual property cleanups saw this, things like rockwool in-wall cavities and between floors in flood-affected spaces. All of that ended up in the skip, you know, and there's really strong recommendations that have come out, I think pushed strongly by the Insurance Council of Australia and the work of some other councils like Maitland, where there's been subject to frequent flooding, where there's been some really good work about putting back things that are far more resilient in the future because, you know, it's really demoralising to have to throw out all your stuff.

It's even more demoralising to have to pull all the wall linings out of your house while they're turning to mould around you. We can prevent some of these things, and I think this is a really good opportunity for us to get that information out to people. The other thing I'm concerned about is that ... That we may end up with a bit of a lag with the other DAs, that we have to push back in order to move these up. We either need to resource that DA processing more effectively, and that's on us, or we need to tell other applicants that we are prioritising flood restoration, flood works. If we can do that, I think then we're at least being upfront with people that their new back deck is not our current priority, and I think that's only fair.

The other question I'm wondering if we could just get a little bit of an update on where we're up to with skips and some cleanup, and could we just put on public record what people need to do if they haven't received any assistance yet, and reiterate, if we could, what people need to do to register with Services New South Wales should they require assistance in the future? Should anybody actually watch our council meetings.

So, a number of questions there. I might go first to Mrs. Perrin. Obviously, one thing I think might help is if we could have, just to elaborate on Councillor Wheeler's question, what was our experience following the bushfires, which maybe didn't have quite as many properties affected, but not too dissimilar? Was there a rash of applications? Was there a drip-in? Was it all after six months? What was it? So,

Thank you. So, I would anticipate that we will have a similar experience. Yes, there's not as many people in the bushfires affected, but we're still getting discussions now around pre-lodgement meetings, and that's 18 months on. So, I wouldn't anticipate we'll get a flood. However, depending on flood of applications, forgive my wording, but I suppose each case will be different, and we'll be looking, so not all will be a development application. You might go straight to a construction certificate if they've got an approval, they want to build like for like. So, we'll be working with each person individually to work out what the most efficient course of action going forward is. But I would not anticipate they would all come in at once.

Thank you. And then, Mr. Organ, if you could just give us an update on skip bins and, as Councillor Wheeler said, maybe just put on record in this forum what people do to get in touch with us if they need assistance.

So there's two ways. So basically there's a number of options for cleanup. So people can book into our landfill waste management facility at South Windsor and take flood-damaged waste in there by arrangement, and that's at nil cost. Alternatively, people can book a skip bin by coming through our customer service or using our website to book that online, just giving some details, basically where it is, and we will arrange for the skip bin and its delivery and ultimate pickup. So again, more details people put in that about what they will do , and basically that's it.

And Mr. Organ, do you know how many skip bins we're up to?

There's around about 500 skip bins from the work that the state government did, currently circulating, I'll call it that, so 500 out in the field at any given time. They're being progressively brought back in. Council is actually taking over the booking of skip bins now, and we've brought a new contractor on as well to supplement the delivery and pickup by Bingo. The other thing we've done is we've also shortened the time for turnaround, so our waste management facility is now acting as a transfer station so that we can get bins out into the field and get them picked up a lot quicker.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Just to finish off on that point, I think that's a really good outcome. Now, one of the problems that we've had with the skip bins is that they've been sitting there for quite a while under the previous arrangement, and everybody has been availing themselves of them to get rid of their crap, basically, which is really demoralising for flood victims. If you're the sort of person who thinks that that's a top spot to put your old tyres and lounge, shame on you. You might need to go to the waste facility with your own trailer and pay to dump your own garbage. It's really, really poor form. I do want to just comment on the marvel that is Freeman's Reach Road. If you haven't been for a drive along the new and improved Freeman's Reach Road, I urge you to do so.

It's actually a really good space to see just the power and impact of the water because it's really heavily scoured on either side. It's pretty extraordinary. So well done to all who got that back in operation. We of Wilberforce are quite happy not to have the good folk of Freeman's Reach driving up our road at 40 kilometres an hour, thanks very much.

Councillor Garrow.

Yes, I just had a question, possibly to Mr Organ, but also maybe Mrs Gleer. Just following up in regards to the Green's Road and any other roads that still haven't been repaired and the damage being created to residents' vehicles and the inconvenience of them having to take fire trails and the like. I'm just curious if there is any way at all, without opening a big can of worms, that Council could somehow offer some sort of relief to these residents or some sort of a discount in rates or compensation? I mean, I'm hearing stories over and over of repetitive punctures from fire trails and the likes, and just wondering if there's any direction that we could take in that avenue.

I wouldn't support that, but I'll refer that to Mrs. Scalia.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Probably the only thing that could be available is that in terms of rates payments, there is provision for people to apply under the hardship provisions. And then we would consider those applications. That's probably the only thing that's available under the Act in terms of providing assistance.

I think I just would clarify that we wouldn't be—I mean, I can understand why we would be compensating people for their road not being available, as if it was our fault that the flood happened. Everyone's working as fast as they possibly can on all these roads, and I don't think Council wants to take legal liability for the flood as if we caused it. So I think this has been not a good financial experience for Council either. It's got to be worth remembering that for all our ratepayers.

Councillor Reynolds. Just a comment on the comments made is, you know, people pay rates so they can use local roads. And if they can't use the local road for whatever reason, then I'm with Emma, right. But as Mr. Scalia said, you know, they can apply through the hardship provision. But people pay rates to use local roads, and if that local road is not there for whatever reason, then in any other circumstance you would be compensated. If you're paying for a service that's not provided, that's from one perspective. I get the other perspective. As Emma said, it's maybe opening a can of worms, but I think it's just an observation that we should consider, and perhaps let people know they can claim for hardship when it comes to rates, and it will be done confidentially, so there's no personal embarrassment.

That's right. Yeah, and just to clarify for everyone who might be watching, that there's no nexus between services and financial hardship. You can do that if you're in financial hardship wherever you are, whatever the circumstances, to your local roads got nothing to do with it. It's just about your own personal situation. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just on that point, I think at our last meeting we covered this, but there was some sort of state government funding that was available to anyone who was impacted by the floods, even if they weren't directly inundated. Can somebody reiterate what that was maybe publicly?

There's quite a few things going around. I

Think it was Services

New South Wales. It was a grant that the people—I think I raised it in regard to the closure of the road at Mount Tomah and people who were impacted by that closure. It was the answer to that.

I believe that there's— I'm not sure if anyone's across all the different grants that are out there. There is a low income assistance, there are the small business rebates, there's primary producer grants, there's small business grants. Not sure which grant program you're referring to, though.

Well, it doesn't matter which one I'm referring to. I guess it's just to alert people that there could be another avenue for that inconvenience and that any damage sustained, they may be able to access some funds to help in that, as people did in the fires who weren't directly impacted.

Thank you .

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Ross.

Good evening. Just in regard to the comment or suggestion from Councillor Wheeler in regard to building materials. I'm not quite sure of the designation, but there was a gentleman appointed as a building commissioner or something in the last 12 months or so by the state government. And it's my understanding he is having quite an impact on the industry and standards and so on, and possibly materials. So I'm just wondering if possibly the Director of Planning may, through her staff, be able to make contact, and it would be relevant in terms of materials both for bushfire and flooding, and if there are any current recommendations he is making or intending to make, and could we be kept in the loop, please? Happy to do that, Director. Yep, thank you

Okay, right of reply, Councillor Richards.

Not needed, Mr Mayor. Okay,

Put the motion. Oh, sorry, Councillor Rasmussen, do feel free to just come off mute because I can't see behind me on the big screen. So go

Ahead, Councillor Rasmussen. Well, I'll learn that lesson. I'll blurt in. So the question—look, yeah, I think this is a great initiative, so clearly all of us are going to support that in spades, which is great, and Council deserves a pat on the back for that and the fast recovery work that they're trying to achieve. Now, what I—so if you want to witness or see the destructive power of serious water flows, hop down to Cornwallis Road and the farms along there, you'll certainly get an idea of what can— the destructive power of water or the usefulness of water. It moves lots and lots of tonnes of farms. In fact, whole farms have just disappeared. The road has disappeared. So my question, Mr Mayor, relates to two things.

Firstly... There's probably in the order of about, I don't know, 60, 70 farmers who've contacted me who've lost their pump sites along the river , seriously, like not just a few tonne of sand, but the whole bank's gone. And they're now trying to re-establish pump sites, otherwise they just can't get their operation back up. Have we got any means for letting farmers, or any process that we know of, for letting farmers re-establish their pump sites along the river at all, that we know of , that we can guide them on? That's the first thing. And secondly, what is the status or the progress on repairing Corwallis and the area down there? Because that's quite serious.

Okay, I'll refer the first question to Mrs Perrin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So yes, currently through the Natural Resources Access Regulator, NRAR, they have an emergency order that people can access in order to, you know, apply to just reinstate their pumps. And so we've been using various mechanisms to promote that information, whether it's through, you know, turf farmers associations as well as, you know, through meetings and any other means possible. So my understanding is those applications are coming directly to NRAR, and separate to that, we're working with NRAR and various state agencies in terms of the broader bank works and restabilisation activities that are required.

Okay, well that's great. First time I've heard of it. I run a farmers group of 600 farmers , and that's the first time I've heard of it, but that's all right. Thank you for telling me. Appreciate it. So if you wouldn't mind sending me a bit more information, but I've got friends at NRAR, so I'll talk to them as well. Now the Cornwallis situation, what's the status of the repair of that?

So I refer that to Mr Organ.

Through you, Mr Mayor, so we've already had an inspection with Transport for New South Wales, who will be the assessing authority under the Natural Disaster claim. They've been quite positive in their attitude to the repair. Regardless of that, we're proceeding, irrespective of the approval, to secure access to the adjoining land to enable bank stabilisation works to occur in the first instance, reinstate the power and irrigation for the affected farmer, because he has a pump that he can't operate at the moment, and then look at the reinstatement method for both the road on Cornwallis Road and the embankment. So we've got to look at the methodology, but also get the approval. So it will take some time to get things going, but we're looking at a couple of options in terms of potentially putting in some temporary works, ensuring that the remaining floodgate structure operates under small flows in the river and carries out its function.

But it's going to be a substantial job to replace the pipeline, twin pipelines, and the embankment through there.

Thank you. What sort of time frame are we looking at here?

Being honest, I think a couple of stages of the work, but we're looking at trying to start works within the next couple of weeks on stabilising the embankments. We need to secure the agreement of the adjoining owner, which I don't think will be a problem. But then the remaining work is probably going to take somewhere six months at least.

Well, okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Could

I follow up with— Yep. Councillor [unclear]'s questions. In regard to the washaway that we're talking about down in Cornwallis, that failed in 2000 and again this year, this year in a very major sense.

Are you seeking any hydrological study before you proceed with any new infrastructure, please?

Through that, Mr [unclear].

We'd certainly carry out all of the necessary engineering designs and, whether required, hydrology studies as well. I expect that we probably would do something in terms of protecting the immediate riverbank at the floodgate structure as well to make sure that we don't get any repetition of scouring or slumping immediately upstream or downstream of that site, which would render the works at risk again.

Thank you for that. I would like to just

Question you in that regard. I mean, you reported to us, and fully visible, that there was, if you like, a hydraulic block caused by South Creek and other creeks flowing into the river, which caused the river, in fact, to flow backwards up Rickaby's Creek, which caused severe damage to a pumping station. And I would also posit that— This area and this washaway was indeed,

If you like, consequential damage for that hydraulic block. Now, I put it to you that the two pipelines that were there are, under those circumstances, totally inadequate, both in their capacity to withstand that on a future basis, well, on a sustainable basis for that matter. So frankly, I would just wonder if it would not be prudent to go the extra step now to make sure that we're not just going to put in another dual pipeline system that proves to be inadequate in the next period. I mean, we may have another flood next week or next year, we don't know. But this is surely a time where this sort of problem has to completely change our outlook on infrastructure and how it is put in and where it is put in and for what reasons. Thank you.

I'll refer that to Mr. Organ.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Look, when we're replacing any of this infrastructure, we would look at bringing it up to contemporary standards. That's eligible under the natural disaster funding arrangements. There's a no betterment clause, though. I mean, the question of whether what the failure mechanism of that structure was is probably different from a number of other areas. Some of the issues along that reach of the river were what they would term rapid drawdown failures. That's where you get the typical slumping and circular failures in the embankment, and they can be seen upstream and downstream of this site. So there's a range of different causes at different locations on the river. Some of it's just pure scouring and velocity.

In terms of the structure itself, it's there to drain the lowlands after the flooding and reduce the levels in what were the natural lagoons in that area. So that's what that structure does, prevents flows up to around about the 12 metre mark or 13 metre mark going into the lowlands and then allows those flows to drain out in the event where it overtops that high bank. It's simply just a means of draining the lowlands in a more rapid fashion than through the natural system.

Thank you. Yes, Councillor. And I just want to make a comment before you go ahead that the matter before us doesn't pertain to the design of any infrastructure or solutions, and I did allow one question, but it's not going to be relevant to continue down that path. Councillor Richards' right of reply.

Not needed, Mr Mayor.

All right. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Yes, Councillor. Oh, yeah. I was actually going to suggest, given that it's close to nine o'clock and we've still got more than half the business paper to go, we might have a 10-minute adjournment, if everyone's agreeable to that. Yep. We'll come back in 10 minutes.

Okay, thank you everybody.

Okay. All right, so move on to item 77, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor.

Yes.

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I understand there have been no statements of interest submitted in regard to this item.

That's correct.

And I believe that there ought to be. Okay

That's not a point of order. Refer it to you. That's not— it's not a point of order. All conflicts of interest are self-assessed and required to be declared by the person who has the interest. And if you think there's an interest not being declared, it's a code of conduct matter to be investigated that way. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank

You , Mr Mayor. I move the recommendation in the business paper.

Is there a seconder?

There being no seconder, it fails. Councillor Kotlash.

I'd like to move a motion that I sent to staff earlier, if I can, and while that's being loaded up—

Better just wait for a seconder, I think, given— Sorry Yeah.

Can I say it and then get a

Seconder? Yeah, you can read it out, yep.

Thank you. I'd like to

Refer this report to a briefing session,

Because I think at the moment it has some inadequacies and has some problems, and I think that they need to be addressed.

Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Zamprogno, I just noticed you haven't got your video on. I thought it was a deliberate decision, but— Sorry, Councillor Kotlash, you can speak

To it now. So the words are that the Council refer this report to a briefing session where details which need further investigation and clarity can be addressed.

I think I'll leave it at that. I think we should discuss these details in a briefing session so we can have a full understanding of the issues. So I'm just going to leave it at that. Thank you.

Any further discussion, Councillor Zamprogno?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I would have been happy to invite my colleagues to endorse the recommendation we've just received and note. And the reason for that is that it seems clear to me that we have the answer to the question that we posed. I endorse the sentiment that it is good to look at our models for service delivery for the value proposition from time to time. Not all the time, but every, you know, five or so years, it's good to look at whether an arrangement, any arrangement, is suiting our needs and delivering value. It's always been my belief that our relationship with Hawkesbury River County Council does confer outstanding value and has since the council's formation in 1948. The questions that were put that led to the report that's before us tonight have now shown that for our investment, for our annual contribution of around $190-something thousand dollars, let's say it was $200,000, is that we are getting value just in the last financial year of $471,510.

And furthermore, that if we were obliged to undertake the same work ourselves, as that it would cost us well in excess of $610,000 to do the same thing. This backs up what I believe is a very verifiable proposition that shared service models deliver value. There's scholarly research to back that up, and despite the fact that our council only has 8% of the population of the quadripartite area covered by the county council, we have 73% of the land area, and because the organisation in question is headquartered within our own LGA, I think we get the lion's share of value even compared to the other councils. And although it's good to ask the question, is this still delivering value for us? I think the answer before us is reasonably clear.

My worthy colleague wants to continue to poke at this in the belief that other figures will emerge, but I think that we have our answer, and I'm not convinced that that position that's represented to us in this report will be altered very substantially at all by demanding of HRCC, which has limited resources and has a modest accounting system, is going to deliver us different figures to alter our view for other financial years. They made it clear that they generally do not run their accounting on a per LGA basis, so it is challenging to give an individual council a figure for the works acquitted in their LGA because generally HRCC plans its operational works across the four council area. We at our board meetings regularly do get operational reports of the activities that occur on a per council area.

And those reports are available to all of us as councillors of HCC, if there was ever any curiosity or doubt about the work that was being done on our behalf. But I think that we were best served by stopping where we are. And I don't know that there's anything new or radical that will change our view by taking this to a briefing asking for further information. I think we've got the answer we're looking for.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm very disappointed that the chairperson of the HRCC is not conversant with his own council. First of all, the draft operational plan of that council was put out on the 21st of April and is open for public comment until the 20th of May.

Councillors may care to look at it in their own individual time. The proposal for the coming year is an 11 percent increase in the council contribution of 20,000 per annum, in round figures, for each council.

Correct. Despite what we were told on a previous occasion where it was going to be 10,000.

There, I believe, are good and justified reasons to take this off to a briefing session, because there are many serious questions to be asked and sought answers to, particularly in relation to the granting of funds from DPI and its subsidiary elements, and the level of acquittal required in offering those grants. Now, as I understood it from the March 16 meeting, it was made clear by the officers of DPI that there were other financial opportunities available, and apparently that has not been forthcoming for reasons that may best be known to the chairperson and their other representative on the council.

I believe that the report, as we've been given it, is not a fair indication. There are contradictory statements. For instance, our council report says, and I believe this has come from HRCC itself, saying that they are unable to ascribe a value of the services provided to this council through their own— Efforts. However , in the business paper of the 8th of April, which is the last business meeting they had, in speaking to the draft operational plan, a different complexion was offered by the general manager of HRCC, and I find that rather concerning. And for this to go to a briefing session would, I believe, be a most prudent step so that we can look at the matter in a more wholesome and considered way. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Calvert. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the motion. I don't have any— my problem is not with HRCC, and I think Councillor Zamprogno needs to understand that I don't think that is what, in my case, I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is what I would call the audit process that took place here.

I've been waiting for a report on this matter since February 2019. That's when I first asked the then general manager to give us a report on all the groups that we work with, in partnership with. Among them was HRCC, and he kept assuring me over the course of 2019 that the report was coming, the report was coming, and the report was supposed to ask the basic question: are we getting value for our money? Now, what we've done here, I think, is gone to HRCC and said, tell us, are we getting value for our money? And they, of course, said, yes, of course you are. I mean, if you ask someone, are you doing a good job? They're going to say, yeah, I'm doing a great job. Yep. I mean, that's what happened here.

I was always wanting to have an independent report into all the bodies so we could sit back and comfortably say to our ratepayers, we spend this much money. It's money well spent, you know, and we should continue to do so. And that was what I was hoping to get out of this report. But unfortunately, the process to me is flawed , and I would like to have a discussion about it at a briefing session because I think we need to go back and do it in another way. And I'm hoping, and Councillor Zamprogno needs to understand, I'm hoping that HRCC comes out with a beautiful report card and it is money well spent, but I can't make that decision on this report. So I'm very happy to support the motion.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just following up on Councillor Calvert's comments, my recollection is that our initial council resolution was to look at the risk of our third-party organisations, and this is one. And then we asked about value and efficacy. Now, we had detailed information about our risks, and we've communicated that to HRCC and asked for that information to come back to us. I'm not satisfied that we're at that point yet, but we're certainly not at the point where we can determine value and efficacy of this approach. And it's not enough for us to say we're not the responsible authority. I think we pay into this. Our ratepayers have an expectation that something is done about the weeds in the LGA, and I think, you know..

. Even if we have ticked all the boxes in terms of risk, and we've said that we've shunted this off to a third party, it's not enough for us to be satisfied with that. We have to interrogate this further. I'm not convinced that we're getting what we need out of this arrangement, or what the ratepayers expect. I don't want to poke at this. I want the best possible outcome from it. And at the moment, when I drive around the LGA, I don't believe that we are getting the best possible outcome. I think that we've got a problem, and I don't know if it's because of the structure of the organisation, the resourcing of the organisation, the fact that we have siloed off this particular aspect of weed and land care management, or that actually the legislation is the issue here.

But what we have lost is a focus on weed management and land care, and we now have what appears to be a fairly limited focus, and this is, I have to say, an uneducated opinion, a limited focus on priority weeds. So that when I look at areas of the LGA, for example, like Buttsworth Creek, which has been stripped out of its quite fantastic population of balloon vine in the recent flood, that appears to me to be a site that we could actually, if we had some capacity, be in there doing some work. And yet, because we've divested this responsibility, we don't do any of this work. We look at it and go, Well, that would be nice, and then we move on.

We need a more holistic approach to weed management across the LGA, or we are just going to—or what we're really saying is we can't do anything about the volume of weeds. Now, we are in a particularly vulnerable situation because this area was disturbed so early, because it was part of the early settlement, because large areas were cleared, and because lots of different species were brought in. It is much harder to do weed management here with our very fertile soil and long growing season than it is, for example, in the Blue Mountains that has not had some of those pressures. But that doesn't mean that we can just go, Well, look, we're just going to wash our hands of the privet, the lantana, the balloon vine, the castor oil plant, all of that stuff that people see when they come.

It's at the entrance to all of our LGA, that every entrance to our LGA is weed infested, and our community isn't happy with that. We have to have a robust discussion about how we go forward with this process. Now, that may be a process that we work forward with the HRCC. It may be that we have to resource weed management more effectively as a council ourselves. But currently what we have in front of us isn't working, and we have a responsibility to make sure that it does. So I'm very happy with the motion that this goes to a briefing. Given the last briefing, I think we spent two hours on this matter and really hardly scratched the surface, I think, because we heard from a couple of external speakers.

I think this is a briefing that's going to have to have some space in it for everyone to air their views and perhaps some time for us to kick around some ways forward, because currently what we have isn't adequate. And I note in the report that it admits that this isn't adequate, that currently we are not meeting community expectations, and the current level of resourcing for both us and the HRCC doesn't meet community expectations. And I think we have to have a really serious discussion about that.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah , thank you ,

Mr Mayor. Yeah, I would agree with that, and I was going to touch on some of the comments that Councillor Wheeler just made, and that's in relation to the structure of what the briefing session might look like. So, Mr Mayor, are we looking at asking staff to give us a more in-depth, detailed analysis of either the report before us or the audit report, or are we all, as Councillor Wheeler alluded to, are we all going to have our own little wish list of things we might want to have a look at in greater detail, or are we going to address the issue that Councillor Talbot , I mean, is there any structure other than that to this briefing session, or are we just going to all pile on and have a bit of a free-for-all here?

I just think this could be, probably need to make a day available if we are going to do that. But I certainly agree that, you know, the detail we had before is inadequate, and I think, as Councillor [unclear] said, you know, they've got very basic, even perhaps, could I say, maybe not even फिट for purpose accounting system, and, you know, they can't really differentiate for us over the five years exactly what they've spent and so on, because that's not how they do it. So maybe we need to talk about that as well. But look, I would just like a bit more clarity about what the briefing session... Perhaps could there be a bit of a framework, if you like, that's for scientists to now, I suppose, a bit more definition to it, if that's possible.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. I think, from my perspective, that the briefing would be in regards to the report, because that's what we're referring to. The briefing session is the report, and I imagine there'd be some explanation of the report, but primarily the purpose of the briefing is, as in the motion, to identify details which require further investigation and clarity and how these might be addressed. If you wanted to move something else, I guess you're welcome to, but I think probably our discussion here in that motion would be enough for staff to put together an effective briefing, I would have thought.

Yeah, I'm happy if that's the framework and that's the boundary of it. I'm happy with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the motion? If not, right of reply, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to make a few points. I wasn't going to go into detail, but seeing as though it's been described that I'm poking at this, I'd like to say that that's far from the case. When I read the figures in Table 1 in the business paper in this item, I noted that HRCC had an indicative cost of $3,110 that was their estimate of cost for weed control on public land. The regional mean for Greater Sydney is $927. The regional median is $190. Now, I don't think that's poking around and, you know, prodding at this, wanting some, you know, some strained outcome. I want a report that gives some indication of what would be a reasonable amount for treating a hectare of public land in terms of weed control.

That's not an unrealistic expectation, and it's definitely not poking at this report. I'll leave it at that. I'm quite offended by that description because, you know, I really would like to get some just decent data on this so we can make a decent decision. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lanes-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Oh, sorry, against. Councillor Zamprogno. Sorry, declared carried.

Next item is 79, Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Move the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will move that. I'm happy to receive and note this report, but I do foreshadow that I'll probably bring something up about it in the future once we get some more detail around the layout at Ham Common. I'm pleased that it identifies the dangers associated with having these big trucks parked there, and I just really have a bit of an issue with the fact that we have these big companies like Coles telling us that they want it, you know, that their preference is to leave this area without regulation, or they will need to reconfigure their deliveries to their stores. Now, I understand how important it is that food supply gets in, but it's quite advantageous for them that they can leave their second trailer in a spot and go in to where they have to deliver, and that's understandable.

What my concerns are around is that we then have had to go ahead and allocate funds to provide an alternate pedestrian pathway between the parking area and the boundary to the railway line, which I'm pleased to see is being funded in this current year, because I think that it's paramount that we ensure our community are safe, particularly when children are on bicycles and people are walking and so on. But I do think that— I would like to ask, first of all, is there any known avenue for us to get some sort of contribution towards this? Or because I just think there's a disparity there. I mean, we're providing this, or we don't own it, I suppose. That's the first thing I should clarify. Who owns that land at Ham Common?

Crown land?

Refer that to Mr. Smith.

We're the managers, that's right.

It's council reserve.

It's council reserve. So, are there any avenues for us to seek any form of contribution from these users?

Mr. Orman?

Subject to the plan of management, council could potentially seek to lease an area or enter into some form of licence. But I guess the issue is probably one more fundamental than that, and that should we be even doing it at all? Is it an appropriate site to have trucks manoeuvring in what is now a current high pedestrian area? Yes. So I think that's probably the question before we'd go and say... Are there other alternative— is there a licensing? The other alternative is to take some more serious negotiations with the transport company that delivers on behalf of Coles in that location. There are other trucks and so on that use it as well.

There are, and I imagine that would be hard to police who got to use any allocated spots, etc. I can see difficulties. I mean, we live in an area where we've got lots of flood-prone fields and things. I'm a little bit surprised that we can't find somewhere that we can have all these trucks park, because they are increasing. I don't know, they're reproducing somehow, and I'm seeing more of them all the time around the area, and they are dangerous. And yet I acknowledge that they are essential as well. And it's really important that we try and solve this, because I'm a little bit surprised to read that the Colo High School location is considered, you know, that it's all fine, because I would challenge anyone to go there at 2:25 p.m.

when hundreds, if not thousands, of parents turn up to pick up children, and there's a big truck and a big pile of gravel. It is a very, very precarious situation. However, I understand that there's limitations on what we can actually do about this at the moment. And I'm pleased that there are— first of all, I'm really pleased that that pedestrian access is being improved, because that was really dangerous for people to be crossing in front of where the trucks are decoupling and so on. But is there any indication of how long until the layout is done? The layout for that parking area.

So we've actually prepared a number of different layouts looking at whether that would be line marked and/or reducing, what I'd call the throat of the intersection as it comes out into Hawkesbury Valley Way, to reduce the ingress speeds of vehicles entering there. So we've got some layouts of that, and we're just going through those at the moment as to whether we should line mark it and/or leave it as a large area.

Do you think there's an alternative site, maybe somewhere around the area, that that could actually be a truck depot, or is that too difficult to... I understand that you would want something central, but maybe we could have a couple.

We did consider that. There were a number, looking at whether there were any council sites. There wasn't anything that we identified that would be suitable in a built-up area. Council doesn't have huge areas of unused land for these things. It really comes back to probably putting the cost back to the trucking and transport interests that benefit from this, and making sure that they are actually getting their costs recovered from their clients, I guess, and providing appropriate trucking arrangements, whether that be by size of vehicle or providing sufficient storage depot facilities.

Thank you, and I do appreciate the efforts in investigating this, and I can see the issues surrounding it. The signage may or may not assist. It's hard to know with signs. But I think the signage at Mole Grove may be better because that would appear, from what I read, to be more enforceable in that location. I think that's how I interpreted that. I think that there's a difference between sole operators who own just one or two trucks and where they have to go, as opposed to these big companies that are daily using our, you know, it's not like somebody who leaves a trailer so they can just drive into a quiet residential suburb for the night. This is commercial activity, and I would just hope that we continue investigations, and you've confirmed that that is ongoing, of any way that we could secure a contribution for the use or the impact to enable us to make sure that where these trucks are, that we can introduce any safety measures around them that we may need for our pedestrians, particularly when they're in a public place.

Well , they're all—

Pedestrians in private places need very little protection generally. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm pleased that we are doing something with Ham Common because this clearly can't continue. This report that we're now about to receive a note states in here that the main role of Ham Common is to provide safe pedestrian and recreational use, and that the effective use of the reserve shouldn't be compromised for the benefit of truck and trailer parking needs. And it also states that it currently isn't safe. This is something that has to be an immediate priority for us, whether we pay for it and seek reimbursement from Coles. And I will note that Coles made a $951 million profit in 2020. It can cough up for some truck parking before a kid gets killed. That's what we're talking about here. We’re talking about the safety of pedestrians in a piece of open public space managed by this council. We have to get serious about this. We have to go in harder.

We can’t afford to note this now, wait for some plans and not act for another 12 months. We have now made an admission of risk. We must act on it as a matter of urgency.

Further discussion?

Yes. Councillor Calvert. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with what’s been said so far. I’m just intrigued. This report I don’t see as being very complicated or detailed, but it’s taken over three years to come back to us. I was expecting a bit more. And in terms of the alternatives, as the Deputy Mayor said, I would have thought the alternatives would have been built into this report. But now we’re going to have to go away and get a further report, and as Councillor Wheeler says, that means we’re letting the risk continue. I’m just wondering whether we could make overtures to maybe some of the private land around the place, such as the showground, the race track, the university, and maybe they could host these things and get paid to do it.

You know, it could be a commercial thing. So could we build that into whatever comes back after this report as well? And it’s getting to be a bigger problem every day, and I have noticed trucks parked at Colo, in the gravel pit, and one of them a couple of weeks ago parked across what you would call the access. And so people were going out on the road, and it was chaos. So we do need to get control of this, and the sooner the better.

Thank you. Further discussion? Right of reply, Deputy Mayor?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow. Councillor Rasmussen against. Councillor Ross, how were you voting on that one?

First time. Sorry, Councillor Ross was for, sorry. And Councillor Tree absent for the vote. Carried.

Move on to item 82. Moved, Councillor Richards. Seconder, Councillor Zamprogno. Discussion?

Not necessary at this point, Mr Mayor.

I'd like to say that I would endorse our submission. Obviously, we're in this transition period where we're allowing some people to attend by Zoom, but the conditions that have been imposed are not necessarily that workable. So our submission is that we should recognise that there are remote communities as well as urban communities, and if you live more than an hour away from Council, there's no reason why you couldn't be able to participate by Zoom, which would be much better for our democracy in a place like the Hawkesbury, where distance can be a barrier. We're also noting that it doesn't really make sense to have a notice requirement when one of the reasons is natural disaster. You don't necessarily always get notice of a natural disaster.

I think we've got to put this submission in and go with the process. We make the comment that generally we are the representatives of our community, and if we were happy with any arrangement, it probably would be okay. I don't know that we really need this to be all so prescriptive, but given that it is, I'm happy with our submission and I would encourage Council to go with it. Further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I called this up for some reason because there was some question I had after I had read it all, but just to get the clarity around what our submission said, was it five days' notice we had to give, but there was a clarifier for emergencies? Is that correct?

Refer that to Mr McElroy.

Yeah,

Probably tell you in a minute, but...

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, just bear with me while I just find that part of the submission. I can say that both the draft procedures and the consultation paper does say that there ought to be a requirement of five business days. We've referred to that as seven days because that's consistent with what we say in our code of meeting practice about notices of motion, but it's the same period because the consultation paper refers to five business days, which is the same thing as seven days in total. But I'll just find the part of our submission where we've

Our submission says that any amendment to the model code to enable councils, in their discretion, to approve requests by councillors to attend remotely where those requests are made inside five business days.

Yes, well, I'm a little bit... inside five

Business days. Yes, so we should have the discretion. Yes. So if,

For example, there was some issue on the afternoon or something, then someone can. The other thing I wanted some clarity around was in the draft paper, or in the paper that came with it, the

Pre-existing work commitment . I would be all in support of a pre-existing council-related thing. For example, if someone was offered a conference or something and they wished to participate. But I think a pre-existing work commitment, if that is carried into ours, that's basically saying, well, you could just say, well, I had to work, and so, you know, I think that introduces some quite tricky sort of conflict with your role as a councillor if... But I don't know. Maybe, maybe I'm a bit harsh thinking that.

I agree. I wonder if we would include that, does our submission become quite contradictory? On the one hand, we're arguing for more flexibility and greater discretion. On the other hand, saying... Yes,

And I agree. And I would think that, and I do agree with the distance of someone's primary residence, if that is greater than an hour away, that's definitely, you know. But then I suppose if you lived 57 minutes away, you might be a bit put out. But I think that, I'm not sure that it's going to be overly utilised anyway, unless we do have somebody who is a councillor who lives in a very remote location, or perhaps somebody who doesn't have a vehicle or something like that. But I just thought that pre-existing work commitment was an odd inclusion in there. But if we're not going to include that as one of our principles or one of our guiding criteria, I'm not concerned about it. I don't know what other people think of that, but I think the other one is good, that we're wanting diversity of representation and we don't mind how far away somebody lives.

And of course that, as I think was brought up in the briefing, in the natural disasters or any emergencies where some of us can't get here but the others can, that's an obvious sort of benefit to have this in place. So I can't recall, I've written notes here, but I had a different page before and I can't remember if that was in our actual submission, that clause, was it? The pre-existing work commitment. So

You've got to be absent from the local area due to a pre-existing work commitment. So if you're away for work, you can still come to the council meeting by Zoom.

Yeah, okay. What if you're on holidays and you're saying you're working? I would never do that, but some people may. I don't know. You know, it's just a little bit fraught with... Yeah,

I guess if you're willing to be dishonest, probably none of them need to apply in particular.

Okay, well I guess that's okay. I think that's all right. But it sort of is really that if you take on council as a role, you work it in with your work, I guess is what I'm saying. Just to say there was a typo where we said that we met by Zoom from April to September 2021. Which was, yeah, way ahead of ourselves and still on Zoom, so that might just need correcting. Aside from that, thank you. I think it's good to be able to have these options available .

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree that this should improve access for people, particularly my concerns are particularly with people with carers' responsibilities. We know that it's often a barrier for women joining councils. We're an unusual council in that we are 50% women on this council. There are still many councils in New South Wales that have no women on them at all, which is a bit staggering in this day and age, but that's the way it goes. So hopefully this will allow that. I note that in the provisions, you have to pay full attention to the council meeting , and that is only reasonable. I don't have a problem with the working away. Provision , I think it allows an extra flexibility. Not everybody is in a fixed job that has them in a fixed place with fixed hours all the time, and as we have an increasingly casualised workforce.

That's particularly a problem for councillors. It takes a pretty decent boss to put up with the demands of being a local councillor and the constant, you know, I've just got to slip out for this meeting, or, you know, I've got to knock off early today, or my head just isn't here today because I'm dealing with X, Y and Z. So if we can allow councillors some extra flexibility from our end instead of just expecting it from the employer's end all the time, then I think that's a bonus. It also, and you have to pay attention. We're not asking for a proxy. You're not asking for a pair. You're asking for the right to pay full attention to a council meeting and participate in all its processes. So I don't think that really matters.

I think we've seen in the last 12 months that that doesn't matter whether you're in your lounge room or in the council chamber or, frankly, sitting up a gum tree, you know, in the wilds of St Albans. Yeah, I don't think it matters where you... I don't think it should affect people's capacity. People are useful councillors when they put the time and energy in, and that doesn't matter where they're located. So I'm hoping that this will allow people from particular... and I'm particularly thinking of St Albans, where it's a good hour and a half. If we don't knock off till 11 o'clock and you've still got an hour and a half to get home, that's a very, very long and actually dangerous trip. So if this means that more people want to participate in the glorious process that is the council meeting, then that's a good thing.

Thank you. Right of reply, Councillor Richards?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, to say that I think this is a great step forward, and I think that if we did take any positive out of... The circumstances of last year with COVID and things like that, it is that we have fast-tracked our ability to be online, and we have debated that at length in this chamber prior. I know, run by Councillors Zamprogno, a lot about being online and podcasting visually, not just with audio. So I think that Zoom has really taken us leaps and bounds ahead of where we thought we'd ever be, and I think that it is a more inclusive process to allow these sort of circumstances that we can get more people wanting to put their hand up for local government. Thank you.

All right, put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Trev was absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 84, submission to review the rate peg.

Move that, Mr. Mayor.

Deputy Mayor move the recommendation, seconded to Councillor Wheeler.

Any discussion?

Minimal discussion. I thought it was very good. I think it's an interesting— I'll be very interested to see when the paper actually comes out with the conclusions on this. I think that definitely the points raised in the submission, the concerns that have been identified, and the input into that are very good. You know, who will know what will happen further down the track? We don't know, because each council may have a different opinion. But also it does identify that each council, you know, annual rates increases should be made by each council with the objective of ensuring that the community's expectations are met in a financially sustainable manner over the long term. And I thought that was a good sentiment within there.

And I just look forward to hearing what else happens. This is a long overdue area to be being dealt with, the rate peg. I think as long as I've even heard of councils, the rate peg issue has been something that's been going on. So I just look forward to the other feedback and what's going on around it.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I find this totally unsatisfactory, frankly. The last question, number 12, is: Do you have any comments on our proposed review process and timeline? I do,

Certainly.

Now, council's capacity to service the community are affected by such things as Transport for New South Wales altering load limits on local council roads. In other words, they can increase the permitted size of a vehicle and the load it carries on a road that's meant for a horse and cart. We cop that. Then we have increasing cost of road standards and the expectations

Of the community. Sorry, Councillor Russell, talking about this item about the—

Well, a process

Doesn't cover. The question is, do you have any comments on our proposed review process of the rate peg and the methodology?

The rate peg is unsatisfactory.

Right

Because there are other elements apart from property value which affect council's finances. Yep. And even the question of flooding and sustainability and those situations over which we have no control. In fact, other councils in

Our immediate surround are impacting us. Sorry, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I think what's happened from my understanding is that the department's come to us and said we're considering introducing a methodology of using population growth as part of the rate peg. What do you think about using population growth? And can you answer these questions about how population growth impacts your finances? So I don't think this is an opportunity to put a submission in about every other thing that we think is wrong with the rate peg. I mean, we could, but they haven't asked us that at all, just to make sure we're on the same page. But back to you. Yep.

Sorry, I believe that the rate peg is deleterious because there are many other factors outside of UCV or ICV or property values that impact on Council's finances and ability to supply the services required by the community.

So I don't think it's a particularly useful way of looking at things.

Thank

You. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think there's some really useful stuff in this, in what's come to Council, particularly the discussion of unimproved land value. There's, I think we need to address the problem that faces the Hawkesbury and other peri-urban councils, in that there is this perceived pressure that if we put in more development and consequently more population growth, that we will get better infrastructure and services. And I think, you know, and this idea that if you have growth, that you get to charge more rates plays into that idea that infrastructure only comes with development, and that's something that we really have to knock on the head. People are entitled to a level of servicing . That shouldn't mean that they have to sacrifice amenity in order to get it.

And I think the idea that you would rate peg based on population growth is completely contrary to what this Council has repeatedly argued in terms of service and infrastructure provision. And so that needs to be quite clear. I think this proposal has the potential to really disadvantage councils like Hawkesbury, and we need to make that clear as well. You know, we can see that councils like Hills and Blacktown have done extraordinarily well financially out of Quite , quite, well, ridiculously high in some places, levels of development that are not consistent with the constraints of this LGA. If that's what you have to have in order to get some decent service provision, either from a council or from a state government, then that's just not acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable to us.

This also taps into that notion that council allows development in order to get more rates, and that is another falsehood that we need to knock on the head. So I think we need to go in quite firmly on this. I can see that several councils will be quite happy with this because it will advantage them. This will not advantage us, and we need to make that very clear. We are stuck in that invidious position as a peri-urban council between, you know, the rural councils who get additional grants and things because of their low rates base and large geographical area, and then we get these small urban councils with very high populations that do very well out of their rates base, and then there's councils like us and Windsor Caribee stuck in the middle where we can't develop further.

We don't want to develop further. We will get flooded if we develop any further. We have to be sensible about what can happen here, and yet we're subject to these cost pressures that we can't manage under the current system.

Councillor Calvert. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I was considering this before, wondering whether it should be looked at on a regional basis, and I think what Councillor Wheeler is saying leans itself to that. Because Western Sydney has grown tremendously in terms of numbers, and as it grows, that impacts our city even though we're not growing at the same rate. And we inherit all this extra traffic and extra whatever. So I'm wondering whether we could suggest, whether I could suggest, this gets sent to WesROC so that they can probably think about crafting a regional approach to this question, if they don't have that already. I'm not sure whether they have, but I was wondering whether the mover would like to consider that.

I would. I'm just mindful that I think there was—did we get an extension to have this in? Sorry.

Yeah, there's not much time, but I'm happy to include it.

Okay. But anyway and see what happens.

Yeah. Yeah, they can get their own extension, I think, and that's what we got. So

We're going to add in at point two that we send this to WesROC.

Yes, happy to do that.

Okay. Writer of reply, Deputy Mayor?

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

All right. Well, with that motion, which includes point two that this gets sent to WesROC, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Tree absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 85, minutes of the Traffic Committee. Move that, Mr Mayor. Recommendation moved. Councillor Reynolds, seconded Councillor Garrow. Discussion? Not necessary.

Councillor Wheeler.

Can I just ask a question, Mr Mayor? What's the process for council referring matters to the Traffic Committee for discussion?

I refer that to somebody here, Mr Morgan.

Probably no short answer to that would depend on whether it was an item that is within the purview of the Traffic Committee. So it would depend on that specific item and the path that it would go there. There is an option, obviously, for various matters to be raised in general business and have those either passed on directly to Transport for New South Wales if it falls outside of that. But certainly you can contact me and ask me specific issues as to how they might go there. But generally it's to do with statutory work, such as a report that's here or events where it requires an approval. So

What about discussion of a speed limit on a particular road, for example?

So speed limits are the responsibility of Transport for New South Wales to set those. They can sometimes go through the committee if there's a particular issue and we'd raise that in general terms. It might be referred on to Transport to undertake the survey and determination of that. But council can just pass that directly through to Transport if that's required. But sometimes there are other solutions to that.

So would it be, so if I contacted you with a matter to go to the Traffic Committee for, say, a recommendation back to council for a way forward, is that workable?

Yeah, we certainly give you advice on that specific matter and we can work out what the best way to deal with that is.

Thank you.

Okay. No further discussion. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. How are you voting, Councillor Reynolds?

There

Was no discussion, so you get a right of

Reply

There's no debate, there's no right of reply.

So are you in favour or against? Councillor Reynolds in favour. Councillor Atree absent for the vote. Declare it carried. Yes, a right of reply.

Response to any debate.

Next item is notice of motion. Councillor Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor, but I have slightly different wording. I just reworded points two and three, and I did the staff—they're basically the same. I've just moved them around because it was a little ambiguous how it was worded.

Waiting for a seconder when no one has read it. Seconded, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, on the screen we've got the gallery still. I think we can't all see all the words.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. We right

It was just a change to point two to make it a little clearer of what the briefing was about.

I brought this forward because I think we probably all had some contact recently by people concerned, not so much around the approval of particular tree removal, but around the— The concerns of people who wish to either observe or ensure that every effort was being made to rehome any animals, to rehouse hollows that were in any of those trees that were being removed. And I think it came to light that there was a gap in the information that maybe we had in what conditions around that were generally framed as. And there was a lot of concern, particularly from wildlife rescue groups, that they, you know, what their role is. And I think that it's really pertinent that we have a briefing where we can discuss and understand the extent of what council's role can be in either setting conditions or in ensuring that best practice is followed.

We know that we have diminishing habitat in this area. We've had the impacts of flood and fire. We've had, you know, in certain development areas, each time there's a standing of trees removed, we have a corridor that's interrupted or removed. And we have people in our community, and I would assume all of us, who simply want to ensure that the best efforts are made to protect as much of our precious wildlife that can be, and that we ensure , for example, if a dam is being drained, that we have something in place to collect the tadpoles or the turtles that may be coming out of there before it's too late, and that we know that when animals are found. If a tree is felled, that there's somebody there who knows how to deal with that.

And I think it would be just a really good exercise to go through this and to understand just exactly the consent conditions and how we can deal with that in particular.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I agree with the sentiment of this notice of motion, but I'm a bit concerned that point one is not specific enough. It just seems to me, when I read that, that Council commit to ensuring that best practice in protecting wildlife occurs when their habitat is being impacted or removed. We have to actually say in what context that's going to occur, because when I first read that, I thought, well, that happens in so many different ways. Do you mean, if I could through you, Mr Mayor, whether the Deputy Mayor means when there's works being undertaken in development? Because that's just an open, that first statement is just an open statement about where we're going to ensure it.

I think you mean specifically in areas, or do you just mean everywhere? I mean in any

Environmentally sensitive area. I do mean it's a general commitment that we will always ensure it, because point three says that we undertake to ensure best practice in specific—

So the intention is it's a broad policy statement rather than an action?

Yes, it is. It is basically that, and this is a reduced motion from what I originally put in, so it's— I did have more elaborated information, but this is, yeah, it's basically a commitment just as we would commit to various other things. And it is open-ended, but it should cover everything that we can possibly have it cover, really.

Can you microphone on

I'd be more comfortable, I guess, if it said council commit to council.

Sorry, I just had the words and now it's gone. I guess I don't like the notion of ensuring something that might not be able to be done. I find that a bit. I think we can commit to the best practice in situations . I just balk at that we make a commitment to do something that might be out of our control. But I understand what you mean, so if we could just maybe be a bit more specific, I'd be more comfortable with that. I just think that's so open-ended, and not— is that under our control? Are we able to, not police this, but are we able to ensure that? That's what I'm getting at. Thank you .

I think I might just speak to that. I'm happy to support the notice of motion. I think I can see where you're going, Councillor Kotlash, but the way I view this is it's similar to the statements that are in our CSP. Council commits to ensuring the best practice, and if we ever don't, then people can come in here and say, You said you committed to doing this, and here's where you fell short. And rather than it being the policy, it's the broad intent of the council, and that should then inform any policy development. And on that basis, I'm not uncomfortable with it. I don't think there's any legal commitment there that we're going to be held to. So I'm happy to support that. I think that's— Generally, if you read through, I think that's pretty much what our community expects of us.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and have the briefing and see what's actually in our control then and go forward from there. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support this motion. I'm just trying to work out , being a pragmatist, how it would work. When you say briefing, are you meaning a briefing session, or could it be a briefing note?

If we're looking at cutting down one tree, are we going to have a briefing session on that one tree? Are we saving them all up, or how would it work? So it's been

Changed since the wording that's in the business paper to, I think, to clarify that, because that was my reading too. But I think the understanding here is that we are having a briefing on all our current policies, and following the briefing, Council will be advised what action can be undertaken. So it's not a briefing on every case where consent is required, as read in the first instance. It's one briefing.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood a bit.

It

Wasn't clear. That's

Why I reworded it.

See if there's any further discussion, then you can have right of reply. Maybe Deputy Mayor, unless she had a question. Is there any further discussion? If not, we'll go right of reply.

Thank you. See, I knew. Thank you. Yes, I can understand that. I mean, I see this more as a starting point because we need to look at what exactly is within our control, which is the point. Because originally, I had wanted a broader application of what we were looking at, but obviously there are limitations with how we can do this because, of course, there are different ways in which permits and approvals for tree removal, et cetera, are granted. So we can't always be in control of it as much as we would like. That's why it specifies new release areas in particular and cases where consent is required from us. So I think that if we have a briefing and we understand what exactly exists in terms of practice notes and how conditions can be put into approvals, how far we can go with, for example, saying that, you know, wildlife rescue people can observe or whatever, we need to clarify that so that we can understand the whole extent of that so that we can get to the best practice conditions that we wish to achieve.

So thank you.

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

Any questions on the questions on notice?

Councillor Ross? Yep. I've

Got a question in relation to business this evening, about which we discussed. No

So this is questions in relation to item 87. Not specifically, no, thank you. No. No questions on that, so we'll move on.

That, so we'll move on to the confidential matter 88. Mr

Mayor, may I? Do

You want to move we go into confidential?

No, may I do something before we do, please?

Okay. You want to do that? I was going to do that at the end of the meeting, but we can do that now. Yep.

Just a small remark to make to Council. On the 3rd of November 2019, the Hawkesbury Liberal Team published a post on Facebook. We have since removed this post and we undertake not to post in this way again. We apologise for any offence this may have caused. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor Richards. Someone want to move we go into confidential? Councillor Ross, seconded Councillor Calvert.

Okay. I advise that whilst in closed session, Council resolved in regards to item 88 that Council seek quotes from independent investigators to complete the confidential property matter investigation, moved by Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, in favour were Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Ross. Councillor Tree was absent for the vote and it was carried. There being no further business, we'll close the meeting. Thanks, at 11.20.