11 May 2021 - Ordinary

Good morning

Everyone. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the meeting. 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, and hand over to the Acting 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. We'd also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The recordings may be made available to other persons who have such access as 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 requested that any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. Do

We have an apology from Councillor Richards? Any further apologies? Councillor Reynolds. And we have to note a statement regarding remote attendance.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. At the Council meeting on the 20th of April 2021, Council resolved to grant approval for Councillor Rasmussen to attend the Council meeting of the 11th of May by audio visual link.

Thank you. Someone move the apologies. Moved Councillor Kotlash, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? Against? Declare it.

Declarations of interest?

No. Someone wanted to move the minutes. Moved , Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

Carried. So we have one item subject to public address, which is item 90, and one speaker, Mr Peter Ryan.

Look, thank you very much for affording me this opportunity to speak on the master plan for the development of the Fernadell precinct. Now, the master plan itself has been working since—they've been working on it since 2019. We have a number of issues I'd like to bring up to you, so for consideration by the councillors. The stormwater drain down the eastern side should be piped. I believe it takes up approximately 12% of the site. Previously, the detention pit was expanded, taking away land from the sporting complex. Why? To take runoff from the extra houses that were added to the Bonavista section, a variation by or for the developer. So we have already sacrificed enough land there.

So what is the cost of piping the stormwater drains compared to the type that's on display now? We have been informed that it's far too expensive to pipe it, but in the future it may not be far too expensive. We're a lot dearer then when we have to do it. So let's look into it. It's clearly a stormwater issue. It's been identified by that in the plans. So in the section 94 stormwater, there's approximately $2.2 million being held in the fund for stormwater piping. So I've got that there if people want to look at it. So why is that not being used for this situation? It's definitely identified as stormwater. It should be done. will be a safety item. And also, it'll look shocking. That's the opinion that I'm copying from a lot of the people.

They're not happy with it at all that that big drain be left there, and we lose that much of our sporting grounds. Perhaps if we could have that covered in, we could have a far better, far better looking oval. And we'd also like to confirm the timing. We want it locked in. We want it delivered. We're not happy with any delays. The people of Pitt Town have had enough. It's taken long enough. So we'd like Council to lock in a timeline, and we request that we get three-monthly updates be given to councillors and the community, so we know exactly where we are going with this. We don't want to have to stand around and guess anymore. We need this. So the community centre site, I'm requesting, or our progress association is requesting, a formal memorandum of understanding be undertaken that all the funds for the sale of that site be used exclusively to deliver extra facilities for the community centre only.

And that was the agreement, but we haven't got a formal memorandum of understanding, and we would like this. This is the biggest community infrastructure project in Pitt Town, and we want it delivered correctly and on time. That's basically until we go further through it, what I've got to say tonight.

Thank you. Have you taken any questions?

Yes, happy to.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Ryan. When you said that you'd like the community to be updated, did you say every three months?

That's correct, yes.

For such a big project, three months is quite a short time. What sort of information do you envisage— Getting in such a report. Well

I'd envisage to see what planning was going on, when the structural works was going to beginning. We'd like to see everything that's required here, because this was levied on the people of Pitt Town's land. It's their project, and I think we should be updated on it constantly. We've been trying to get updates on our roadworks that were supposed to be delivered in 2018, 19, 20, February, March, April this year, and we still haven't got roads. Today we were lucky enough to find out we've got a security fence around where the toilets are going to be. We need information. People are very, very annoyed out there at the moment that they are told nothing, and we don't want surprises in our life. We want delivery of infrastructure. And I think three-monthly is quite a liberal time to ask for. Thank you. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. How long have the people of Pitt Town been waiting for this park?

Well, it formed part of the original planning agreement in 2006, and 2008 when land was started to be sold out there, we were given all the details of how it was going to happen, and that basically didn't come through council staff. I'll give you that, but came through the developer. And then, as you know, we had that problem where the ratepayers had to fork out another two and a half million dollars. This site shouldn't have been accepted as it was. It's a disgusting site to be accepted, let alone with the extra money that was paid for it. It shouldn't have been accepted by council staff in that manner, and we are waiting for it. There's children out there that are 12 years old and never played in a field in Pitt

Town. Sorry

Your microphone, please, Debbie.

Sorry, I think it was on. Subject to the drainage issues being looked at, are the community ready for this to be placed on exhibition, do you think? Oh

They are more than ready to be on it. I've spoken with quite a few of our members, and basically, now these issues have been started, our membership's gone. We started off with 36 people. We're over 300 now. And they're strong, and they believe this is the way to get respectfully put their voice to the council and tell them exactly what they want, and they want it now. They've waited far too long.

Thank you.

Councillor

Zamprogno

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ryan, thank you for coming and speaking this evening. What is mentioned on page 47 of the draft master plan as the staging of the works? I'm asking— I want to ask you this question as a prologue, perhaps to further questions to staff afterwards. What understanding has been conveyed to you and your association about the timeframe of the staging of the works and the requisite thresholds that would have to be achieved for stages beyond stage one to become a reality?

Sorry, Suzanne, would you mind just—

Sorry. Look, thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Haven't received a lot in relation to the staging of this. We're like everyone; we've paid the money upfront, we'd like it all delivered at once, but we believe that's not possible. So I'd greatly like to see the sports fields there for the younger people, and I think that's what we really need because it's a younger community with young children, and then move on to the community centre. The community centre is really something that I'm passionate about. I dislike taking—the only place we have for meetings is a licensed club. I dislike taking children to there. I'm not really happy about having meetings there. And so I'd really like these stages to be pushed through as quickly as we possibly could, and that's a lot to do with why we put forward the notion of having that site sold where the original community centre was to go, so that we could get this thing done properly and done at a real good rate, because we believe that it would not have happened unless we sold that site.

Thank you.

Thanks. Any further questions? Councillor Ross.

Good evening, Mr Ryan. The question I have is in relation to this so-called eastern drain. Could you describe where it runs from and to, please?

It runs from Boodles Lane, that's on the northern end?

Yes.

And it runs directly down the boundary line into the detention pit.

Right. Okay.

I understand that. There are two other drains, though, are there not, as well?

Yeah, that's correct, and they're being dealt with with piping, but also when that piping becomes full, they have outlets on it to overflow where they'll run down in a overland, in a bit of a depression, which can be mowed, cars can drive or parked on it perhaps, or can be maintained very well. And we're quite happy with that idea. We believe it's a great idea. Okay.

Now, when you were talking about piping, have you had a look at page 11 on the so-called plan of management?

I've read it through. I don't have it with me here now, but go ahead with it.

It is showing here in the case of a one in 100 flood that there is a substantial amount of inundation.

That's correct.

Okay. Have you had the opportunity to go down to Cornwallis Road since the March 19 flood?

No, I have not.

I suggest you go down and have a look at Cornwallis Road. You'll find that it's not trafficable because of a washaway, and it's going to cost Council— And the government, presumably to some extent, a considerable amount of money because what was a piped outflow into the river directly was breached, and there was a chasm of 13 metres in depth through the landform formed as a result of the inundation in March. So you might just take on board to go and have a look at the site. And I would also suggest that if Council and its engineers and drainage consultants, as I've been informed today, have been looking at this matter, that possibly, likely, that piping is not an approach which would yield a permanent long-term benefit at that site, sir, with due respect.

Thank you for that. Look, there's two distinct differences between Cornwallis and Pitt Town. Cornwallis is directed right on the river, where the flow from Rickaby's Creek comes out through there. We don't have a creek flow. This is backwater that's pushed up from the lagoon or stormwater that comes in from the homes. Completely, I couldn't compare the two. Cornwallis has a flow from the river. This just has a rise, and then it goes down. It doesn't have a great flow. It's not a current. I've been there all my life, and I have, in fact, I've never seen water there in my life. So if it comes up there in the one in 100 year flood or one in 100 chance per year flood, I don't believe there would be any problems with stormwater.

Any problems whatsoever, the water will come up, the water will go down. Pitt Town is like that because it's a long way around. It's at the headwaters of the Bardenarang Creek, which where it is there now, you can't compare it with Cornwallis at all. Okay,

Thank you. You are aware that property at the lower end of Buckingham Street was actually inundated in March?

Inundated. It wasn't water that rushed through. It went up and it went down. Yeah, I know the houses very well. Right. Thank you. Okay.

Thank

You.

I just had one sort of question, without entering debate, but I just wanted your opinion, I guess. I hear everything you're saying, and I thank Sorry. Yep. I hear everything you're saying, and thank you for coming along to give us that feedback tonight. In regards to the finalisation of staging and a timeline, very much here, and I understand the community wants that, and don't disagree with that as a concept. However, I do think that we have to first get the community to agree on what we're providing before we can determine the final staging, because I think what we're doing here tonight is saying this is what we're planning long term for this site. Is this what the community wants us to do on this site first?

And then when this comes back to Council after the exhibition period, at that point we can be saying, okay, well now if we're finalising the design, we know this is what we're going to deliver. That's the point at which we look at this is what'll be in stage one, this is when stage one will be funded, and then an indication of when further stages—what needs to happen for further stages to be funded. As a general principle, would you agree with that?

Patrick, yes, Mayor, I would agree with that. So long as there's no holdbacks. We want it done. We don't want any more... Reasons why it can't happen. We want reasons why it can happen, and can happen as quickly as possible. I fully agree with you. I understand the process that has to go through in relation to council consultation and that with the people. We've done a lot of consultation through our association, and to be honest, our membership is growing unbelievably. We're getting a hundred more members a month, and as they find this is a great way to respectfully deal with these issues rather than ranting and raving. And I think if you put forward a good plan, the people of Pitt Town are very smart. They'll work it out, and they will also work out if there's issues with it. And I can tell you right now, they will let you know. Yeah, good. Thank you.

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Could I have a subsequent question, Mr. Ryan, please?

Yes, you may

Thank you. Have you consulted with the people on Staples who are directly facing the longest boundary to a residential area? And have you had any feedback at this stage about their sentiments towards the development of that area, please? There

Has been a meeting quite some time ago. One chap wanted to leave it there so he could fly his drone on it. Thought it was great. They were all made aware when they purchased their land that it was to be playing fields. If they weren't aware of that, they didn't do their due diligence in when they're purchasing their land. That was always put down as land that would be for community playing fields. They were fully aware of it. Some people would love to leave it like that. I would love to leave a big area around my home. Like that. But I've got a park across the road from me. I didn't object when that went in, and I can't see why they should. We have one chap, he's objecting strongly. He played cricket for the Hawkesbury and everywhere else, and a question was asked to him, When you were playing cricket, did you do that in front of someone else's home?

Of course he did. So why should he now come along and refuse to have it in front of his place when it was planned and was there prior to them purchasing the land? So if they haven't done their due diligence, I think it very much rests on their shoulders. Thank you.

Any further questions? No, thanks, Mr. Ryan.

Thank you. Thanks.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with an additional point which I've sent to Mr. McElroy.

So it's the recommendation in the business paper, and the wording of the additional point, which would probably be slotted in between points one and two, would be that Council develop thresholds for the commencement of stages two and onward of the Fernadell Park master plan, and that these thresholds be incorporated into the report coming back to Council at the end of the exhibition period.

Seconded. Seconded

Deputy Mayor.

Yep.

So seconded, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. So I'll speak to that. The Pitt Town community has waited a very long time for this, and they've been very patient with Council, and I think this is high time. My concern relates to the staging. Now, there is quite a detailed table on pages 47 and 48 of the staging, and I'm given to understand that— There's money in the 7-11 fund to complete or commence stage one, but I'm concerned that what happens after that is left in a rather nebulous state. And as, like many government promises, they can be put off to the never-never unless they're properly codified. In the Redbank area, we have thresholds that clearly tell the community when certain improvements are going to occur, and they may be linked to the sale of a certain number of lots, or they may be linked to the correct accumulation of funds in a 7-11 fund.

And there is no such instrument in this master plan, and I'd like to incorporate those kinds of thresholds so that the Pitt Town community know what they're getting in stage one, but furthermore they can hold us or a future council to account about what would need to happen to allow stages two, three and onward to also commence. So I commend it to you.

Thank you.

Can I just ask a question to staff? Not sure who, but would a motion in that form of words

Be okay? I've still got confusion about what threshold means, but is that clear enough that we could proceed with that? I'm sure you'd refer that to Mr. Rogan.

I understand the sentiment of it. What I would point out is that normally this is in the plan of management, page 47, 48, so that document would not normally spell out those stages or thresholds of work as being described. In the Pitt Town area, I guess the issue will be, it's different from Redbank where it's a VPA, and the thresholds there are tied to a certain number of lots that are being developed to manage that VPA. In Pitt Town, it could be, you could extrapolate that, I guess, in terms of, we know what the contributions are per lot, and you could say when a certain number of lots are developed for the next stage. I do think that that would potentially limit the other opportunities by linking that in there.

As said, it was discussed by Mr Ryan there, as said, if there's some, there may be an option for bringing money from other elements within the Section 7.11 plan, i.e. the community centre and doing stage two. But that's a matter that'd need to be debated quite separately from the plan of management. So,

I'm probably

Comfortable with putting it in. The report comes back and putting those words around it, and then Council can decide whether they want to actually incorporate that into the plan of management based on that advice.

That's fine by me, Mr Mayor, because all I'm looking for is some guidance from staff so that the community can have a clearer expectation about the sequencing and the timeframes. Thanks.

Anyone wish to speak against? Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor, I wish to foreshadow an amended motion.

To move an amendment?

Yes, please. Yep

What's the amendment?

I ask for that to be put up on the board.

Thank you.

I'm going to say that— Point one is the direct negative of the motion, so we're not going to have it as an amendment, but I'll allow you to foreshadow a motion if this motion should fail.

Any further discussion? Anyone against? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Some questions, if I may. Firstly, the swale that Mr Ryan referred to, could we have, for the public record, an explanation of why there's a swale in that space rather than a piped drain, as Mr Ryan raised, and an idea of—could we have a cost comparison, if possible, of the swale versus a piped drain? Why are we using a swale rather than the piping that's being used elsewhere?

Refer that to Mr Organ.

I couldn't give you off the top of my head the difference in the cost, but that was an issue in terms of preparing the master plan against the likely costs of the overall development and getting something that can be delivered. As the master plan stands, it wouldn't preclude a piping of that in the future. However, the catchment is quite significantly larger than the two east-west drainage swales through the site, transect the site, so it would require substantial pipe works in there. The other pipes are what we'd call low-flow pipes with overland flows. There's also another issue within that channel, and whilst it's not performing particularly well at the moment in terms of its design and function.

The ideal thing would be to have that as a constructed wetland to do further water quality polishing before it got to the open water body. So what's actually proposed in the plan is actually a, I would call it a harvestable channel. So it actually shows two wheel strips there to be able to bring in equipment to harvest reeds and macrophytes that would be growing in there. But it wouldn't preclude drainage in the future or piping of that swale channel.

So my understanding is that this swale is actually going to do two jobs, in that it's going to take the runoff and slow that water down and sink it, partly sink it into the ground and partly transfer it to the detention basin. But at a reduced flow, then it would run normally if it just ran over land and into that, and also clean it up before it gets there. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Probably no infiltration in that area. It would be just simply a water polishing linear wetland through there. But again, these are notoriously difficult to manage. So again, one of the options that avails itself here is to have, as I said, use, I'll call it farming practice, to basically harvest and remove the macrophytes and remove the nutrients that might build up in that system, but also keep it under control and manage the slopes.

Is there a concern with it silting up? Is that part of that harvestable management?

One of the things that would go in there would be what I'd call a sacrificial wetland to pick up the silts before it enters that channel, and a similar device at the other end before it enters the larger water body. The one thing you want to get out of it is those silts that bind the heavy metals and other nutrients prior to it getting into that system. So using very contemporary... Yeah, stormwater drainage techniques to polish that water up

Who will be responsible for that ongoing maintenance then? That will be Council, and have we factored the cost of that in?

Council responsibility to maintain the drainage systems through there. As with any drainage system, including the upstream section of this, that's something that would be warned through our stormwater management plans.

Thanks. Can I ask next about the dog off-leash areas? Do we have any plans to have anything in the dog inside the off-leash area, or are we just talking about a fenced space where people put their dogs, not on a lead? For that

Mr. ... Probably have to take that one on notice. Yeah. Check what that is there. But again, what is in some new dog parks is some play equipment, some exercise elements, whether they just be open pipes or steps or whatever

Can I strongly suggest that you have a chat to an animal behaviourist? Because a dog off-leash area, and we got this lesson while we were doing the animal shelter review, a dog off-leash area isn't just a play pen for dogs. So it's a bit like a kids' playground, in that if you just put them inside an area, a fenced area, they will do what kids and dogs do, and the outcomes won't necessarily be good. They need spaces for dogs that are nervy, or dogs that want to hide, or dogs that need to hide from larger dogs whose owners are perhaps not paying attention because they're on their phone or all those other things. We know parents do when they take their kids to playgrounds. The dogs need some protection in these spaces, and they also need something to do.

There are some very good dog off-leash parks, none of which are currently in our LGA. If we either do this well or we don't do it is the answer from the behaviourist, or we're looking at likely legal action from people whose dogs have been attacked by other dogs who've not been sufficiently under control. They also need a double gating system so people don't let other dogs out and things like that, because it's going to end in tears otherwise. Do we have any idea of the time frame of the further community centre

I’ll probably advise at this stage is that there’s been further work done to satisfy the Department of Planning, with information being provided or gathered for them in terms of the necessary things in the planning proposal, including contamination studies and so on. Those things will be referred to Department of Planning shortly, seeking their approval to put the planning proposal on exhibition. You could make a comment on the timing of those sort of issues, come back from Department of Planning

I’m not sure. You would probably have to take that on notice, what their current turnaround time frame is.

Could we have that taken on notice and perhaps come back to us when this comes back from exhibition, please, because I think the community are anxious to know what’s happening. And with regards to engagement, what have we got planned besides the report in the business paper talks about a couple of ads in newspapers, I think. Are we planning some active engagement physically in Pitt Town now that most of the restrictions have been lifted? Yeah

We did speak about that today, but I’ll refer that to Mr Stewart.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, we spoke about following our normal practice, which would be to put the document on Your Hawkesbury Your Say and invite comments back from the community, advertise it on Facebook that that’s available, the media releases, and we did speak about today the Mayor going out to the location and talking to the community out there and having flyers and things available.

Thank you.

Questions? Yes, Councillor. Thank you. First of all, to the, through you, sir, to the Director of Infrastructure. In regard to the swale mentioned by Councillor Wheeler , as I understand it, sir, there is a, am I correct in understanding, should I say, that in the lower part of Bootles Lane, there appears to be a watercourse. Is that a natural watercourse which feeds into the, or is attached to the swale in some form ?

Through you, Mr Mayor, there's a natural watercourse, and it's been constructed as part of the release area, which comes across from the Vermont Street area, and there's a culvert under Bootles Lane that then enters into the, what's being termed the eastern drainage line adjacent to the eastern boundary

Just to clarify that, water is flowing from the Bootles Lane side across into, if you like, Fernadell land, that eastern swale?

Correct.

I think that leads to the question by everybody as well. There's another point too. But regarding that, in regards to the publicity, the people just announced, there's mention of handbills. Does that mean that handbills available, as the phraseology is, is there an intent to have handbills sent out or mailed out, particularly in that area immediately adjacent to the site, so that those people have, even if they're not electronically attuned or aware, do have some notification of the proposals?

Yes, as far as I'm aware, we haven't finalised the exact communication plan broader than what we would normally do. I just, I did raise today that we probably need to do something broader than that. But certainly, if there's suggestions, I think the best course would be to make the suggestions, and that can be taken on board when that's developed, if that's okay. Yep.

Thank you. Look, just my mind is just refreshed, and can I go back to the, through you, sir, to the Director of Infrastructure . As I understand the site, sir, along the eastern swale, there is effectively an evacuation channel for that swale. Am I correct in understanding that? Which, if you like, directs flow out of the Fernadell area into lower climbs, shall we say.

Mr. Organ. From the wet basin, we— so there's a channel that leads through. If I go to page seven of the plan of management, which has just got the aerial photo on there.

So the drain you were talking about before, which comes from Vermont Avenue, can be seen coming through to the top right-hand corner of the red edged area, then goes through along the eastern boundary of what would be the active playing fields, then enters into the wet basin, and then there's a discharge point around about halfway along the eastern edge of the wet basin, and that discharges then down to Buckingham Street.

Right, okay. So that discharge area is from the water body.

That's correct.

Okay, I do understand that.

My concern is also with the water body. That is going to be maintained at basically in its current form?

That would be the intent. There may be some further works to edge plantings and so on, again to bring it up to what you would normally I'd call a contemporary design for those edge plantings, to retain the edge and to provide a measure of further safety for adjoining users against the water body.

In conducting a site visit, as I've done,

That water body is also stagnant. And has some form of a red algae or something over a substantial part of that, if you like, the area below that escape channel. And is Council going to address anything there in the longer term, should this proposal go ahead, to make sure that there is in fact sufficient oxygen content in the water not to have adverse growth occur? Through you

Mayor . What I referred to before in terms of the water polishing effect of leaving the open channel in a reconstructed form along there would partly address that. If there were issues of stratification within that pond that are causing low oxygen levels and algal blooms, they can be managed potentially through recirculation of those flows, either through a mixing pump or by broader irrigation and linear wetlands again, or pumping back to the start to get that polishing effect in those times. So, it's not the detail that's within this plan. This is purely the plan of management, the master plan. The detailed design would throw up those particular issues about how to best do that.

Thank you.

Thanks Anybody wish to speak against the motion? Any further speakers? Any questions? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just briefly, I'm happy to second and support Councillor Zamprogno's motion. I'm just not, and I'll leave it till it comes back in the report, but I think there's probably a better word than thresholds, perhaps indicators or something. I think thresholds in this instance are too difficult to actually achieve. But I think the crux of the matter is that the community want to understand what's coming and when, and basically however we can arrive at that, I think. I'm happy to support it. It's been a long time coming, and I very much look forward to what the Association and what individuals in Pitt Town think of this park and what feedback they give us on the plans that are being put out to them. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to speak against it Thank you. The reason I want to speak against it is, in one element, loss of amenity for those people on the long boundary, and people on the lower side of the property as well. And in addition to that, the council report that we have indicates a project cost, as I understand, of about 10.3 million. Now , we have not been given any detail as to the breakdown of that cost. One of the prime matters would appear to be the cost of the so-called cut and fill operation that is intended to be deployed to make the site appropriate for active participation in sport.

I find that rather disconcerting and disheartening because we don't know

Where the cost of this project reaches those stratospheric heights in terms of this council. I find that very unsatisfactory and am not prepared to support the motion on that basis alone, as well as the amenity and the fact that we appear still not to be learning anything from the recent flood.

We should have learnt by this that

Hydrology in this area is Highly variable. Monte Carlos and all the rest of the prognostications aren't worth a crumpet, particularly when we've got other activities going on outside this area over which this council has no control and is basically government controlled, and it just seems to be development at any cost. And to heck with what happens in the Hawkesbury as the recipient of the various flows that come into Greta's unexpectedly . So I cannot support that motion, sir. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, my question is firstly to the detention polishing water body. How often do we expect that to be? Is it going to be ephemeral? Do we know? How often would we expect it to go dry? Refer

That to Mr Organ.

The wet basin basically would be, in this setting, would be very rare that it would not have a level of water in it and maintained from an urban area. In terms of the wet, if, and subject to the plan being adopted, the polishing channel, I'll call it, upstream of that, there's potential there to use the recycled water from the lake, from the wet basin, back into that system, should you need to keep that alive. The alternative is to try and mimic an ephemeral stream and allow that to dry out at times to enable maintenance and harvesting as well. So there's a number of techniques that can be used in there to either flood or I use the term loosely. Introduce water back into that system or to allow it to dry out.

Thank you. That sounds, that's going to be quite an active engagement by Council to keep that system going, which will be good. I'm not complaining about that side of it, but it's going to be quite an active managed water body. Now secondly, and forgive me if I've not picked it up somewhere, what is the irrigation system that we're going to be using on the sporting fields? Is it in-ground or above-ground or rainmaker or what sort of system are we going to be using?

Mr. [ unclear ]. Probably getting into more detail than the master plan. Typically what we would have in those areas would be pop-up sprinklers in that system. The area is currently being used by a Holland Flow systems, not their current name, with recycled water. So we would probably seek to negotiate with them about a permanent arrangement for use of recycled water on that site. But typically those sorts of fields, you would use a pop-up system. Okay ,

Thank you very much. Okay. Councillor Ross.

Further question, Mr Mayor, to the director. Following Councillor Rasmussen's comments, if flow systems are supplying the water, recycled,

What do you anticipate in the way of availability through the summer, hot months, when everybody else will also be requiring the water and no doubt Council— In this area will be the least considered element.

I refer that to Mr. Organ.

Councillor, recall that there is an agreement with Flow Systems to use this on a lease basis at the moment. I call it a lease, but a licence to irrigate there. That would terminate at the end of the year or be able to be terminated as required to enable works to commence. In terms of access to water during summer months, we have raised that potential with them if they wanted to use it for winter irrigation about providing that as the quid pro quo. The other alternative available to Council would be to use water within the wet basin as part of that water cycle management and pump from that as well. So there's a couple of options there to look at.

Thank you. Right of reply.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Look, I need to make a couple of very brief points. Councillor Ross must be either joking or mistaken in asserting that we should oppose this because of the loss of amenity to the people along Staple Street, Fernadell Drive or Bootles Lane. They have been waiting years to have a muddy paddock turned into a community facility that will bring value to the local area and significant amenity. And I think through the Progress Association, which I take as a reliable barometer of the sentiment within that community, they can't wait for this to happen. The other thing I'll say is I acknowledge the Deputy Mayor's point. My use of the word threshold— carries all kinds of inadequacies, and I freely admit that.

I am heartened, however, that staff understand the sentiment in which that question is being put, and that what we're looking for is some degree of guidance about what will permit the further stages to occur, especially since, as the staging document shows us, some of the very significant amenities that the community is expecting with this project don't arrive until stage two or further. And because the Pitt Town community have quite rightly felt burnt in the past, where developer levies have been collected, certain improvements have been promised, and then they have been evaporated , then at the very least that we can do for that community through this process is to try and provide some guidance so that they can hold us to account when stage one is complete, but stage two is pending, and the sale of land is proceeding, and the 7-Eleven contributions are accumulating in the relevant fund.

I, of course, do not intend , through asking this question, to limit the ability of other more innovative strategies to emerge through the allocation of funding from elsewhere, or indeed the securing of funds through a variety of generous grant schemes that are offered by the state and federal government. I'm thinking of the Crown Lands Improvement Fund. I'm thinking of various sporting funds, other areas within our LGA of benefit from applications through those funds recently. All of those things can still occur, but we can ask the question that we're putting forward in point two. So thank you.

Thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillors Napolitano, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lanes-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow. Against? Oh, sorry, Councillor Rasmussen also in favour. Against: Councillor Ross, Councillor Rannolds and Richards absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 89.

Anybody wish to move the recommendation? Councillor Kotlash?

Yes.

Thank

You. Sorry,

Seconder for the recommendation, the business paper?

Deputy Mayor.

Do you wish to speak in favour, Councillor Kotlash? No. Anyone wish to speak against the recommendation?

So I'm not sure who called it up, but somebody called it up. Councillor Ross and Wheeler, I think. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a question that wasn't clear from the report in the business paper. Is it possible for existing members of the planning panel, community members, to renominate?

Refer that to Mr McElroy.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My understanding is that a person can't be a member of a planning panel, including a local planning panel, for a period of more than six years. So it would be possible for someone who has already been on the panel as constituted to seek to be on it again.

So that's effectively a two-term limit. I think they're three-year. They appear to be three-year terms. That's helpful to know, I think, given the calibre of the people that we've had on to this point. I think it's also worth noting in the report that we've got some information about how much these planning panels have cost, which is $84,000 for 18 DAs and advice on six planning proposals, work that councillors used to do as part of our normal duties, and that councillors in regional and rural councils in New South Wales, with the exception of Wollongong and Newcastle, are also permitted to do as part of their, or trusted to do as part of their normal duties, which we no longer are. So I find that $84,000 a slap in the face, frankly, for elected representatives of the community.

While the advice of the planning panel has been appreciated , I think this is a significant impost on ratepayers. It amounts to just over $3,500 per item. That's a significant amount of money for something that we, as elected community representatives, used to manage to do by ourselves. And I still find the whole thing both unnecessary and a slap in the face for people that the community trusted to carry out this work.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

I have a specific question, which, thank you, Mr. Mayor, may be more prudent for me to put that to staff at a later date regarding the reporting contained in the business paper.

Thank you Anyone else wish to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash?

Not necessary, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

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

Next item is item 91. We

Wish to move something there. Councillor Wheeler.

I'm happy to move the item in the business paper, Mr Mayor, but I have a question first.

Okay, so move the recommendation. Is there anyone seconded, Deputy Mayor?

Any question?

Could I just seek some clarification of the— I'm sorry, I'm not on the right page. It's much easier, I must say, this is much easier to have up on my desktop at home. The clause where we're talking about specific provision for councillors to have an additional— for councillors to seek leave at short notice than the seven days, where we've got— sorry , I can't find it. I think there's a clause in there that says that councillors may attend, in exceptional circumstances— sorry, I found it. It's under approval for councillors to attend meetings, audio-visual link, page 35.3, which says, in exceptional circumstances such as a natural disaster, requests by councillors to attend. I'm just wondering why we have such as a natural disaster in that clause, and why we would make that the— I guess I'm wondering how does that— does specifying that, and I realise that it's clearly not the only thing that you could use, but I'm wondering why that's been specified and what the implications of that specification are

Thanks

Mr Mayor. So it is clear that the intent of the guidelines is to provide some parameters around the time frame of given notice. So what we were trying to do there is identify that there could be situations where that notice is just not possible, and we used the natural disaster as an example to indicate what type of emergency that might be . So the natural disaster, it's simply used as an example. It's not intended to limit it to that, but it is intended to indicate that it is in those unusual circumstances beyond everybody's control that notice is given within the established timeframe

Thanks. So it would be my expectation that if someone was ill, for example, and it was of sufficient severity, but was still able to participate, so not to the point—say you'd fallen and broken your leg and you had an access issue—you were probably well enough to function within a council meeting, but perhaps not get to the council meeting

Such as,

Such as, such as if you—yeah. But, you know, but clearly we're not talking about lack of organisation or you've lost your keys down the back of the lounge. You know, this is—so we're— I think I'm comfortable with this. I don't—I would—I wouldn't like to see this used to deliberately exclude a councillor down the track, and I think we need to be clear. I think it's worth us being clear in a public forum that the intention for this is to facilitate as many councillors as possible attending a meeting, not for this to be used to exclude, in a political way, another councillor who, for reasons of, you know, misadventure or ill health or some other level of responsibility, simply can't attend, but didn't know seven days out that they weren't going to.

Yeah, I agree. I think the idea of—I understand what the Acting Director of Support Services is saying—is to indicate that this is not going to be just because you don't want to come that night, it's going to be for an unforeseen event. But yes, it has to. I mean, I can't—it's hard to envisage any council rejecting a request anyway. It's always going to be a council's discretion and therefore kind of whatever is reasonable to the council of the day would be reasonable regardless of what it says, really . Can

I ask, put forward a hypothetical? If I got out, you know, got in my car and my car didn't start, would that be a—that would be out of my control, possibly? That's a missed adventure.

I think it's not—I don't know. It's probably not an exceptional circumstance to the degree of a natural disaster, which I think is what Councillor Wheeler is

Saying. Yeah, I just thought— But I can't

Envisage that—I can't envisage anyone here then therefore rejecting your application to attend by audiovisual. But yeah, I take the point the code should say what we are trying to achieve.

Mr Mayor, just wondering whether those two points, two and three, should be rolled together so that we say something like, ' Councillors give seven days' notice where possible,

Which allows the freedom to—you don't have to talk about natural disasters or anything else, or words to that effect.

Yeah. Well

I would—I think it could be, and I would therefore move it as an amendment if that's all right

So

You're talking about the third and fourth dot points from the top of the page?

Yep

Acting General Manager wants to comment, or wants Mr Khalid to comment.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just want to highlight that these procedures that are proposed to being adopted are based on the procedures provided by the OLG. So what we tried to do here is adhere to the procedures, but allowing an avenue for those exceptional circumstances. I think it could be quite difficult if you have something as generic as 'where possible.' For a variety of reasons to potentially being put forward that may not be in line with the intent of having some sort of timing parameters around it.

What if we had— instead, what if we changed ‘in exceptional circumstances such as a natural disaster’ to ‘in unforeseen circumstances out of the control of the councillor’?

Would that work? Yeah .

Happy to withdraw my amendment and change it to that. Yeah

I’ll just have that as a motion. Yep.

Okay, any further discussion? If not, right of reply, Councillor Kotlash? No,

Not necessary, thanks. Did I move it?

Oh, sorry

That’s all right, it was confusing. I think this is a really nice step forward for councils. It’s us embracing the current technology, but it’s also us working in a consensus-building collegiate fashion to try and make life easier for the councillors who come after us. And I think that’s where the wording needs to be a little bit tight because this isn’t necessarily for us. This is to guide the next round, I suppose. And, yeah, and Mrs Galea is correct in that we have to fit in with the state government’s intent in providing this document. But I think this is a really useful way forward for us as a council and hopefully will stand council in good stead in the future. It is worth noting that if you want to appear by audiovisual, you have to state your reasons.

So if it’s something, you will have to confess to whatever it is that has kept you at home, and that may be entertaining in some cases. Okay

Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kopacz, Councillor Lanes Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillors Richards and Reynolds absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Last item is item 92, minutes of the Audit Committee. Anybody wish to move anything here? Councillor Wheeler.

I'm happy to move the recommendation in the business paper. I just had a question.

Seconded, Councillor Garrow. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd just like a bit more information about the GIPA backlog, whether this is a normal thing for us, why we're now at this point where it's become a noted issue, if we've got some idea of how many applications we're dealing with and what sort of cost we're looking at to second staff in order to sort this backlog out. I'm just curious to know where this has come from, if this is indicative of a lack of trust overall, if this is a deterioration in trust or the relationship between Council and ratepayers, or what actually is happening here. Through

You, Mr McElroy. Through you, Mr Mayor. There are two— sorry, I'll just turn my video on for the benefit of those on remote.

So applications for access to information come in two broad ways. There are formal access applications under the GIPA legislation, and although the GIPA legislation doesn't use the word informal, we treat everything else under that legislation as an informal application. By far and away, the majority of applications are informal, and they are for things like requests for information about development applications, consents, planning information essentially, and other things, who owns property next door if someone wants to negotiate a boundary fence. Typically , we get, we have had over the last almost 10 years in excess of 500 informal applications for information in a year, in a financial year.

Back in 2012, 2013, it was over 700. 2017-18, 537. 18-19, 539. 19-20, 629. This year, I don't have to hand with me now the numbers to date, but I can say anecdotally it's going to be about the same. It would be in excess of 600 applications again up to the end of this financial year when we get there. And by contrast, the formal applications are generally less than about 50. So I think in the last year, about 50, and then in the year before that it was just under 30. And in terms of resourcing, we have a governance officer whose job is predominantly to process applications, but concentrating on the formal ones because they take a lot more time , because they are for more complex types of information and require a lot more searching.

But they could still be for things like planning information. It's just that an applicant has decided to use that process instead of to do it informally. Once they are lodged as a formal application, they have to be dealt in a certain way. The legislation requires that. So there's more boxes to tick, for want of a better expression. And that officer... Predominantly deals with those applications and we have had a senior governance officer employed since about July of last year. But up until that time, that position was in the structure but vacant. So there were a few months, and in the first half of last year where that position wasn't filled, and the same applied to the governance coordinator position, which is also responsible for overseeing the GIPA applications generally.

So in short, we've had periods in the last 12 to 18 months where all of the positions in the governance area have not been filled, and at the moment that is the case as well. We have the governance officer is on a period of planned but extended leave for more than a month, and we took the opportunity to employ, or to second a governance officer from Blacktown Council to assist with both covering that leave but also with the backlog because we just don't have a full complement of staff, and because there has been a steady increase in applications, and we tend to get a lot of applications for some reason towards an increase towards the end of a calendar year, so in October, November, etc., there's an increase and some of those obviously have been dealt with, but we've had a continuation of that in the first half of this year also.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just also wanted to add in terms of the cost and funding of the additional resource, that was taken into consideration, extra income that gets generated through the formal applications, and also when staff are on leave, essentially the salary is available to be used. So there is no additional cost as such for that resourcing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Oh

That's fine. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a couple of follow-up questions to Mr McElroy. Is who lodges GIPA applications itself a disclosable thing?

Mr McElroy. Through you, Mr Mayor, not to my knowledge. And there are, it's something, some aspects of this may need to be taken on notice, but there are issues that I can identify with the privacy of the identification of an applicant under separate legislation.

I will not be specious and ask whether, if I lodged a GIPA application, whether I could turn a non-disclosable fact into a disclosable fact. What I will ask, however, is, is it true that some GIPA applications come from a very small number of individuals? I couldn't, of course, call them nuisance applications, but could you confirm, for example, that of the GIPA applications that we receive, is that they come maybe a lot of them from a small segment?

Mr McElroy. Through you, Mr Mayor,

Probably not. I can think of those, for example, of the 40 to 50-odd formal access applications that came in the previous financial year, and appreciating that I wasn't here for the whole of that period, but I don't understand that there would be any more than two or three of those that would have been second and subsequent applications by the same applicant. And in my experience in the last 12 months, I'm aware of— On two occasions where the same applicant has lodged a second application. So that's out of, say, you know, in excess of 30 or 40 applications in a period. So as a rule, no, that's not the case.

So one more follow-up question. Then is it also then possible that the scope of a GIPA application is so broad that it becomes onerous to produce all of the information that's requested? Is there a reasonableness requirement on the breadth of information that's asked for that sometimes makes it difficult for us to process

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sometimes the requests are very onerous. The legislation requires council as an agency to take reasonable steps to provide information that is held by it, subject to applying the public interest considerations test in the legislation. And there is a provision for council to be able to say that the request can't be complied with because it is too onerous in terms of an unreasonable use of the council's available resources. And that decision is subject to review, but council can take that position, and some of them do take up a lot of time. What we typically do when we get an application that looks like it is very complex and might involve the searching of a lot of records is we attempt to have some negotiation with an access applicant about the scope so as to attempt to meet the intent of the Act, which is to release information that is able to be released subject to the tests in the Act, but to do so in a way that is more cognisant of our resources and oftentimes that access applicants will agree to limit the scope of applications.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Wheeler on this one. When I read this item in the business paper, I was really curious about these, you know, this extent of GIPA applications.

But my point here is more about process. What I wanted to do was go back and actually look at the attachments because it said it refers to the particular items that were actually in the audit committee. So I would really like the business papers for the audit committee to be able to be put on the hub if we're able to do that, because we're having this conversation now and I think, like Councillor Wheeler, I just thought, wow, okay, is this odd or is this unusual? And it would have been good to be able to just quickly go and have a look at the report. I'm sorry if it's on the hub and I couldn't find it, but I had a good look and it's very frustrating to have this sort of information and then not be able to actually dig a little bit deeper when necessary.

So could we, could I ask Councillor Wheeler through you, Mr Mayor, if we could have another point on the recommendation that we have access to the business papers of the audit committee through the hub, please?

Councillor Wheeler is very happy with that, Mr Mayor. Yes,

Mr Mayor, there is a process at the moment that's going on where all the committees, backdating a couple of years, will be placed onto the hub in the next couple of months. So that's going to happen anyway, and that would include the audit committee.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So could I just ask, in that case, if we have further items like this coming to us, could we have those things that are referred to until we get that matter sorted out on the hub, that we're provided with it? Because there's a couple of items in here that I would really like to see the information behind, and we can't. So the GIPA stuff is one, and the other is the Centium overview of the customer service standards and complaints audit, that again we have a brief rundown of, but not sufficient information for. Sure.

Can I just ask that that actually be in the business paper, not just on the hub? Because that's really public. If it's available to be publicly disclosed , it's not.

So you want the business paper of the audit committee? If

In any of these reports of committees they refer to something that we're discussing and so on, if they're available, if they're not confidential, and I understand some of them would be, but if they're not confidential or a summary of whatever, it would be easy to have them in here because then of course the public know what we're talking about,

As an attachment. Yeah, as an attachment. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Any further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I point out that the February meeting of the audit committee.. . Occurred without my attendance due to a health situation at the time. My question is in regard to the fact that this is a Zoom meeting. What facility is there available to me as a member of the committee who was unable to attend to be able to see the Zoom meeting in today

Or yesterday?

So has it been recorded is the question. Pardon? The question is, was the meeting recorded and is the recording available? Yes, that's Mrs. Gallia.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I am not sure whether it was recorded. I don't believe so, but it is certainly something that we can implement going forward. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay. I have another question, sir.

Councillor Ross.

In view of that, well, there is at page 46, the element E at the bottom of the page regarding the risk officer position. Do I understand from that that the person who was fulfilling that role, who had only been a relatively short-term engagement, I think of probably less than 12 months, is now no longer with the organisation?

Refer that to— Who knows? Mrs. Galea, yep.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that's correct. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the minutes? In rather of reply, not that we have a debate, actually. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Gary, Councillor Ross. Councillors Reynolds and Richards absent of the vote. Declare it carried.

So that's the end of our formal meeting. Thanks, everybody. Just a reminder, Councillors, that we just want five minutes at the end to discuss a confidential matter informally. Everyone's got a few minutes.

Close the meeting at 8.47, 7.47.