15 June 2021 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome 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. And I'll hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit and following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

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

Thank you. Do we have—I don't think we've got any apologies. We do have a note regarding Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. At the Council meeting on the 20th of April 2021, Council resolved to grant approval for Councillor Rasmussen to attend the meeting of the 15th of June 2021 by audio visual link.

Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest?

No declarations. In that case, does someone want to move the minutes? Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Against. Declared carried.

We don't have any items subject to public address, so the first item will be item 109.

Oh, sorry, we move the items on block first. Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Calvert. All in favour? Against? Declare those carried.

And then move on to item 109.

Anybody wish to move anything there?

Councillor Ross move the recommendation? Yep. Recommendation moved by Councillor Ross. Is there a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Kotlash.

Any discussion?

Councillor Ross. Question, if I may, Mr Mayor. There is a section of

North Railway Road which is unused , shall we say, at the moment, but on the map adjacent to that area. Will that be retained, and does Council intend to make that into a roadway to access this development once it gets underway, please?

Yeah, I'll refer that to Director City Planning.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. There's no current plans at this stage. It's not part of the planning proposal, but there's no plans for Council at this point in time for that area.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

There's no discussion. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I find the comments of the Environment, Energy and Science Group from DPI really concerning, where we've— Where they raise the matters of flood evacuation

And really what we're attempting to do here, which I think has been a habit of this council and previous councils, to take this DA by DA approach to planning proposals, where we approve the overall plan and then we hope that when the DAs come to us, we can sort the problems around flooding and, in this case, biodiversity out later. I'm not satisfied with that plan anymore, or that arrangement anymore, and I think the feedback that we've received from the Gateway process shows that the Environment, Energy and Science Group is no longer happy with that either. There needs to be some assessment of cumulative impact with regard to flood evacuation. And I think we've heard this in the past from—we've heard this on the Floodplain Risk Management Committee from the Department of Planning, but we have also heard it with regards to Marsden Park, and I think it was brought into sharp focus when Marsden Park was under an evacuation warning in the floods in March.

The implications from clogged evacuation routes for our residents are dire. Flooding doesn't—we focus a lot on what flooding does west of the river and how inconvenient or difficult that is for residents who are cut off, but we have a real problem for residents of Pitt Town and McGraths Hill and Windsor and South Windsor using Windsor Road as an evacuation route. As that evacuation route becomes increasingly clogged with traffic trying to get out, that's what these comments coming back appear to be referring to, and what we are not addressing. And we keep saying, we'll do this at the DA stage. And what we find over and over again is after we've approved the planning proposal, after we've sent it to Gateway, after it's come back to us again and we've given it another tick, the DA becomes a fait accompli.

I'm simply not satisfied that we are doing the right thing by the people who live in the areas impacted by these developments. I can't support this planning proposal as it stands. There are significant biodiversity concerns if you look again at the comments from the Gateway, where they say that they didn't receive sufficient information to do the assessment, that the Cooks River Castle Rea Ironbark Forest is considered to be in good condition, not reflected in the ecological report, I might say, that only 7% of the original distribution of this remains, that insufficient information has been provided in the planning proposal documents, that there's real issues with minimum setbacks that we haven't defined here, and again we think we'll fix at the DA stage, that the management zones providing connectivity to adjacent vegetation patches are compromised.

Again, we say we'll fix that at the DA stage. There's a thin strip along the southern boundary of the site. The revegetation won't be recreating the Cooks River Castle Rea Ironbark Forest, and the areas under the VPM will not offset the loss. And yet we keep saying we'll fix this at the DA stage. I've seen no evidence that we ever fix any of this at the DA stage. This is the point where we put a stop to this, and we're not making any attempt to do that. We are yet again waving it through with significant impacts on both flood evacuation and biodiversity. Enough, and then we're told that our flood documents aren't good enough to justify this development either. We have to stop this. This is ridiculous.

When are we going to say no? The state government has given us enough opportunity here to say this isn't supportable with the information that we have before us, and here we are again recommending that it goes through. We need to have cumulative impact statements about flood evacuation. We need to have a better handle on biodiversity. We're proposing an unlimited building height here. There's vegetation mapping concerns. The clear message here is that the DA stage is too late to manage or mitigate these threats, and we need to take notice of that.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I'd be concerned about any approach that said that land between 19 and 22 metres is unsuitable for development due to flooding just based on the suburb. I think that would effectively put a stop to any future development in those areas at all. If we took that view, we've been through a process of developing a new flood policy, which is being implemented and used to assess this proposal. So I'd certainly not support the view that we can't have any further development in any of those suburbs that are flood affected at all or land on an evacuation route, irrespective of their high or flood risk. I think that's not a sustainable way forward. Any further speakers?

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I share a lot of those concerns that Councillor Wheeler has, and in reading that I also saw that the agency comments did give rise to some things of concern. I'm just wondering if we have any idea with the time frame of this. Would it be likely to be assessed under our new planning documents by the time it got anything to a DA stage?

Refer that to Director City Planning.

I'm not sure when an application will come in, but it will be affected by the proposed flood planning package that's coming in on the 14th of July. It will be impacted by that.

Okay. And has there been any indication to date of what sort of industry would be proposed for this site? Not at this stage, no. Okay. I read over this a few times because it's something that gives me quite a difficult— it's difficult to come up with what the right thing is to do. However... Going through all the various issues that have been raised in here, I still do believe that it is possibly the best use for that land there is to be industrial, despite the various issues that have been raised. It is in keeping with the area. Obviously, it would never be something that was used for any form of residential use, and yet it is currently something which is primary production. So I think that industrial land there is a logical zoning to have.

It's also been included in our previous employment and current employment land strategy, I think. So I don't doubt that it's the best type of use for the land, but I do, I totally agree with Councillor Wheeler that leaving everything until the DA stage is problematic. But I'm hoping that that won't be the case once we have our planning documents updated, and that's what has caused me most of the issues, and I know that we're working on that. I think that the risk is to the owners, you know, if they have this rezoning and then if they put something in that then is not achievable, I'm imagining that that is the risk that they have to carry when they're submitting DAs, because our future planning, once those cumulative impacts are done and our planning documents are complete, may well prevent them, you know, having what they're intending now.

So I guess it's a matter that comes with the sequence of events of how these things unfold. So even though I have concerns, I do actually believe that the use of land there is the correct sort of use. But I do so say that with hesitation about many restraints and impositions that are around it.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I was concerned that the State Emergency Service, the SES, were asked to comment on this proposal, but it seems that we didn't get a response from them. So we didn't

Infrastructure New South Wales.

Okay, well, while I'm sorting that out, I'll go on to my next point. I agree that quite often we leave things until the DA process, but in this situation, in this type of zoning, I think we don't have a choice but to actually deal with this sort of, at least the vegetation issues, from a DA perspective in this sort of zone, because the vegetation that's around this sort of industrial area, I think lends itself to different sorts of management, and I don't think that that's necessarily at the planning at this stage. I think it is at the DA stage. So whilst I have concerns about biodiversity in general, I think in this instance it is appropriate that this land be used for what it was zoned for.

Now, just getting back to my point about the SES, it says on page 16 in the business paper that the SES was asked to comment and we received comments from everybody else but the SES. So there's a reference to them in the Infrastructure for New South Wales, sorry, it says the New South Wales State Emergency Service can provide more specific advice on flood evacuation risk. Well, they've chosen not to, so I guess we can only assume that there would be no impact. Did we ask the SES? Do we know why the SES didn't respond?

Director City Planning?

No, we don't know why. Okay , thank you.

Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions first, if I may, through you, Mr Mayor, to the director of infrastructure, probably the director of infrastructure I suppose. In the response from the government department, the agency response, Sydney Water said it won't be able to service the site until Vineyard Stage 2 precinct is being rezoned by the DPIE. Do we have a timeframe for that rezoning of Vineyard Stage 2? Director City Planning?

Not at this stage, we don't.

So if we don't have,

If there is no rezoning of Vineyard Stage 2, then Sydney Water won't be able to supply. .. Won't be able to service this area, but it says that council, or infers that council could service the rezoning if Sydney Water was not able to. So what sort of cost would it be to council to pay for the wastewater servicing system for this area if Sydney Water didn't do it? Director City Planning.

I'd have to take that question on notice because I would not know that off the top of my head.

Okay. Does it,

This being the case, does it make sense to go ahead and rezone this land now while services are not available and before the adjacent area is rezoned by the state government? Is that a question? Yes

It's a recommendation from staff is that we do that, yes. Yeah, it's a question, Mayor. Director City Planning.

Thank you. It is our recommendation that we do this process now. It is supported by our employment land strategy. In terms of its location, it's quite evident that we're not going to be able to have, you know, sustained agricultural use there. It's sited within the broader industrial area, so from our point of view, it does suit the change of zone into an industrial zone

Just

Your microphone, please, Councillor

Oh, sorry. In that case, if we did go ahead and approve the rezoning and a developer came along and decided he or she or they wanted to do something, because we've rezoned it, would the onus be on council to supply Wastewater servicing, because we'd rezoned it.

No, that only rests with the applicant of whoever wants to do an application on that site. It will be their responsibility to address that issue. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion?

Councillor Ross. Just a question, following on from my colleague. The remainder of the industrial area, which is in Park Road and so on, is that serviced by Hawkesbury City Council wastewater infrastructure?

Refer that to Director of Infrastructure Services.

The majority of that would be. Thank you. I don't need to take that on notice if you want exact areas serviced, though

Thank you. That just leaves the question hanging in the balance. Thank you.

Paul. Councillor Rasmussen, sorry.

Thank you, Patrick. Oh, sorry, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, a couple of questions. One is, what's the highest value use, is it residential or industrial, or light industrial, whatever?

So just repeat that question for us.

Oh, sorry. What is the highest or best value use of land? Is it industrial or residential?

Director City Planning. I

Couldn't answer as to what is the highest value use, but in terms of where it's sited within that area, the industrial use is the recommended, I suppose, zoning.

Yeah, I can see that. All right, thank you. The other question, Mr Mayor, is: have we contacted the RFS about this ? I noticed that we're proposing no height limits or restrictions for buildings. Is that correct?

Have we sought agency response from the RFS?

No, we haven't, but they would be consulted as part of the development application process, and they need to basically comply with the ANEF contours.

Yeah, I'm not talking about—well, ANEF is important, but I'm talking more about short finals and lining up for the runway . I know it's not on the short runway, on the glide path to Home, but sometimes in bad weather pilots do run off a bit. So anyway, look, if you're contacting the RFS, which I suggest you do, and you do it soon if you're going to have no height restrictions there, please contact them as soon as possible. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen, any further discussion? If not, we'll put the motion. Right of reply, Councillor Ross.

Not necessary, thank you. Okay.

All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 111.

Somebody wish to move the recommendation?

Councillor Richards.

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Wheeler. Any discussion, Councillor Richards?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor

Councillor Wheeler. Just

A quick question, if I may, Mr Mayor. We've had problems in the mall in the past and complaints from business owners regarding vehicle movements in the mall, and we brought in the Windsor Mall policy at the beginning of the year that now restricts vehicle movements in the mall. I'm just wondering how we're going to deal with the additional requirements for goods and snow machines and the like to be moved into the mall, and are all these businesses aware that they can't drive in the mall, particularly if they're having more markets? How is that going to fit in with our current Windsor Mall policy?

Further, Director City Planning

In relation to the markets, we've clarified with the event organiser that markets will not be held. The usual regular Sunday markets are okay, but not the night markets that they were proposing. In relation to the vehicular access, the policy will remain in place. He hasn't advised that he will need access to get the machinery in. Can I ask Suzanne

I imagine that he would bring the machinery in once for the snow machine, and then it will be set up the same as the Christmas tree. They'll come in, install it, and then it will be left for the month, and then they'll come back and remove it.

Thanks. Can I ask how we're going in enforcing that vehicle movement aspect of the policy? Because the reports that we're getting back from some business owners and mall users are that that isn't being enforced, and people are still driving through the mall during business hours. For

That, the Director City Planning

If people are experiencing, you know, people doing the wrong thing, they need to notify Council, preferably, or if you could forward their comments on to us so we can actually investigate. But ultimately, I can just advise the patrols to do more regular patrolling of that area.

Could we perhaps also check in with businesses to make sure that they are still aware of the policy and they have not forgotten about it?

Yes ,

We can do that.

Councillor Garrett. So just on that matter there, can I just get confirmation that we're still waiting on the loading zones to be identified, and therefore that is having a restriction on the following through with enforcing this policy?

For that, Director City Planning.

The loading zones are how they were proposed in, I guess, behind where Ty 89 are and along the Baker and Fitzgerald Streets. The signage request has gone in. We'll follow that up.

Okay, yes, thank you. So it was my belief that when the policy was put into place, business owners were notified of the policy. However, the loading zones hadn't been identified and signposted, so therefore there was no alternative means for them to deliver goods. So if we can get that followed up so we can carry out the conclusion of that policy. Thank you

Any further discussion on the motion? Councillor Wheeler

Just one more question, if I may. Have we made any provision or has there been a request for increased garbage collection while this event's on

Yep.

No, we haven't received a request for additional bins or rubbish

Collection. Can I suggest that we keep a better eye on the rubbish then, in case we do have an influx

Okay. Any further discussion on the motion before us? If not, any right of reply, Councillor Richards?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick note, because I do think it is vital that we highlight that the businesses in Windsor continuously are coming up with ideas and strategies to ensure that they are activating Windsor, and I just think it's important to give them a little bit of a note of congratulations and acknowledge their effort, because I know a lot of this cost is borne by them, and our area are the recipients of that benefit in tourism and extra visitors. So well done to the businesses, and it's great to see Council support that initiative. Thank you. Thanks

All right, all those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, and

Can't find Councillor Rasmussen. Yes, and Councillor Rasmussen. Okay, I should just

Look up there

All right, declare it carried.

Next item is item 112. I might just ask Mr. Mr to clarify, in relation to point 3 of the recommendation, there's reference to a few statements that are being replaced, but we don't have the original reference in the report. So I wonder if we could just have the original reference read out to us perhaps, so we can consider that.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yes, so what I can do is just read out the original points within the request for tender and provision of internal audit document, and then those changes that were proposed by the audit committee. We take the first one

Is around—

Excuse

Me, can I seek a correction please? It should have been a draft tender document. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the first alteration is on page 24, was around the scope of work. So this is where the contractor is required to do a number of things. So there was a couple of dot points there that the audit committee would like to have changed, and the main reason for that was the audit committee felt that they were fairly general and needed to be more specific around what the contractor needed to do. So the first dot point in the draft document was the contract would be required to assist with the review and update of Council's risk registers. The audit committee wanted that changed to identify any risk where carrying out the internal audit is to ensure that Council's risk register is updated.

So that gave a bit more clarity around that particular dot point. The next dot point was that the contractor is required to stay up to date with the implementation of changes to the Local Government Act by the Local Government Amendment— Governance and Planning Act 2016, additional legislative changes, New South Wales Audit Office programs and council operations, and provide relevant advice to council accordingly. The draft document was proposed to be changed to say, stay up to date with the implementation of changes to the Local Government Act, sorry, stay up to date with the relevant risk and audit legislation and provide relevant advice to council accordingly. The other change was around on page 26, and that was around the internal audit reporting, where the contractor was required to do a number of reports.

The changes proposed to the draft document by the Audit Committee were around points 3, 4 and 5, and I'll just read those out and then the proposed changes. So point 3 was that the contractor must provide the reports to the Chief Audit Executive for review at least four weeks prior to the date of the relevant Audit Committee meeting. Point 4 was undertake any further work and have regard to any amendments to the draft report suggested by the Chief Audit Executive as soon as possible following a request from Council. And point 5 was provide a further draft to the Chief Audit Executive following additional work and amendments, which, if acceptable, will become the final audit report. The Audit Committee wanted to give more clarity around the reports being referred to the Chief Audit Executive, to change that to the reports being referred to the General Manager or the relevant officer in accordance with adopted legislative requirements.

Thanks,

Mr Mayor. Thank you. Anyone wish to move the recommendation or anything else?

Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. Any discussion? Councillor Rasmussen ? Or anyone else? Councillor Wheeler.

I'm just wondering if we can get the briefing on cybersecurity. Sounds really interesting to me, and it's something that we've never had, to my knowledge, or to my memory, which may be faulty. And I would really like one. We're probably running out of time, but it seems like a really useful talk to give to councillors. And if we can't have it for this term, then perhaps we can have it for the next term of council. It's increasingly relevant and important, I think. Take that notice.

Yep.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We can do that same briefing to a councillor briefing session. Yep

Any further discussion?

If not, we'll put the motion.

Excuse me,

Mr Mayor. Oh, sorry, Councillor Ross. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not going to oppose the recommendations.

Firstly, I will offer a comment in regard to recommendation 2. The existing committee charter is dated 2009. It is out of date

And was written in a fashion which indicated that council would be employing an internal audit person or persons, whereas we're actually going out to a contracted service, and we have for five years. So from that point, it's not valid today. There are also matters of functional separation of roles and reporting in the current charter which require addressing .

We heard from the director this evening in regard to the legislation that was drawn up in 2016 but has not as yet been enacted. Its enactment was projected to be 1 April of this year. That has not occurred. We have not been supplied with any indication in a formal fashion to indicate when that deliberation by the government will be complete.

So it's rather speculative to say that we should just hang off. I think there is more to be done in this space within the current term, and I'll leave that point at that, if I may. In regard to the recommendation that item 9, recommendation number 3, that is. Firstly, I would wish to thank and show my appreciation to the mayor for acting and interposing as a result of representations to enable. The audit committee to participate in the tender evaluation process. As the report indicates, one member of the community and the other councillor on the committee are joining with the staff in the evaluation of tenders when they are received. The point I'd like to make here, and I would stress it to you all now, is that it is within Council's bailiwick , and this is the night to do it if you wish.

If any of the other councillors here may choose to seek to participate in the evaluation of that tender when it comes in, or when the bids come in, you would be open to do that tonight as part of the operation of this Council. I personally won't do that because I think that would not be quite where I stand, but I think other folk should be aware of that and should take the opportunity if they feel it would be of benefit.

There is a lot more work to be done in this space, of course, and thank you for your time. Thanks, Councillor Ross.

Is there any further discussion?

No. Being no further discussion, who moved the motion? Councillor Rasmussen, did you want right of reply? No, thank you, Mr Mayor, not necessary. Thank you. In that case, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. Declared carried.

Now we move on to Notice of Motion 1. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll seek a seconder and then address it.

Seconded, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. When we commenced this term of Council, we discovered that the IT staff had helpfully prepared an assortment of resources offered to assist us in the execution of our duties. I was a little taken aback because it was immediately apparent to me that some expense had been made towards devices which I didn't want or need. At the time and since, I remember a number of councillors saying that it was a bit of a shame that we weren't asked first what we needed because Council could have saved itself some expense and bother. It turns out that those commitments of purchase and lease flowed from this policy, which I'm suggesting we begin the process of updating tonight. None of us are here because of the perks.

As a case in point, I can't find a biscuit in the kitchen down the hall most times. But most of us here treat what we do as a civic duty and as a privilege. Certainly, we should be thinking in terms of only placing a burden on ratepayers for resources that are directly related and genuinely enable us to be better representatives. To cite my own experience as the example, I handed back the Windows laptop because I'm a Mac guy. All my output as a councillor has come through me working on the device that I'm used to. I handed back the iPhone because I'd just bought myself a new iPhone and couldn't fathom the merit of having to carry around two . I use the SIM card, but largely for data. Some of you are Android people, and the idea of being handed an iPhone was like being asked to decipher Martian texts.

I've never used the wireless modem that we were given to facilitate our internet use at home because, like most of you, I have broadband, which I'm perfectly happy to use at my own expense for Council business. And in most cases, many councillors will attest that they live in an area where the reception is so poor they couldn't have used a cellular modem anyway . So right there, there's thousands of dollars in unneeded expenditure. Further, the current policy has a number of anachronisms. It still refers to the installation of phone lines and even fax machines to councillors' dwellings. It offers councillors the ability to get a tape of the audio of a council meeting, which vastly predates the advent of web streaming and podcasting of our meetings.

I even pay for my own license for Microsoft Office, which I need to access my council email, because council's licensing does not extend to Max. Now, Council have indicated in their note here that the policy can be rejigged in the first year of a council term, but we arrived here in September 2016 with those decisions already made, equipment either purchased or leases entered into. I think one legacy we can leave the new chamber in September is a better policy, not one that's updated after the horse has bolted. Now, the elements that I've placed into point 2 of my notice of motion are not proscriptive; they are simply there to illustrate the kind of things that could be looked at in a draft policy that will come back to us for exhibition.

My hope is that with a more flexible policy, councillors on the next council may well choose to forego some of the resources that were given to us without us asking for them, and that that will save council money. I'll conclude with just a word about why I'm bringing this now and in this form. I floated this with a request to staff back in July of last year. As with many such requests, I received affirmations that my points had merit and that the policy was due for review per Councillor then Mayor Calvert's Mayoral Minute in September of 2018 that sought to review all of our council policies. Nothing happened. If this had been recognised as one of those policy updates best completed in time for the new term, this notice of motion would not have been necessary.

I'm grateful for the support and feedback that many councillors have already given for the sentiment behind this notice of motion, and I commend it to you.

Thank you. Anyone wish to speak against?

No. Anyone else want to speak? Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I take on board what Councillor Zamprogno was saying about our policies. It was an aim of mine to have all our policies categorised at least, but it never happened. But I'm wondering whether Councillor Zamprogno would consider adding another point which says something like that a similar review be held at the end of each council term. Because, as he said, we inherit a situation and now this is a one-off review. We should build it into our system so that at the end of the term it happens again. I

Think we were actually required by the OLG to review this policy in the first year of the term. So if we did that, we would be building in two reviews each term of that policy.

That is a problem, isn't it? But as Councillor Zamprogno just pointed out, the new council wouldn't have a deep understanding of what's needed. So I'm just putting it out there for Councillor Zamprogno whether he wants to try and build that in. I'd like to replace the one at the beginning of the term with one at the end of the term, if that's possible. I'll take advice on that.

Councillor Zamprogno.

I'm amenable to the idea. It would depend on whether the staff note that's come to us proscribes us to have that review. I think a review now, before the end of this term, is the wiser course. And if there's some statutory requirement for us to review it in the first 12 months, we can give it a tick and flick because we've just done it, basically.

If we were to pass this resolution—so, question for the General Manager—if we were to pass this resolution, can the report that comes back include our options for review, timeframe of review? Just simplicity.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Certainly, as it stands today, the legislation indicates and states that we must review it within the first 12 months of the new council. And I think that's prudent for a whole lot of reasons, so that the current council isn't burdening the new council, but equally, it certainly makes sense that it be reviewed now prior to the dispensing of technology and materials to the new council.

Any further discussion, Councillor? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Zamprogno, for bringing this up. This has been discussed often throughout this term. I think I know Councillor Rasmussen has also raised it, as well as Councillor Zamprogno in the past. And I think, like Councillor Sampragno, I'm a Mac user, and this is my council computer. It's come in handy for being in here, but that's the only time that I've had need to use it. I think that as well as looking at the technology that we're given, the devices we're given and so on, I would really like us to look at the provision of a room in here for councillors. I don't think that small room is adequate. I hold quite a few meetings, and I have to hold them out in public because that room is too small, and it's also often in use when I've come in to use it.

So I would think that if we're not giving people the technology as such, perhaps we could have a room dedicated for councillors that has a computer or something in it, should anyone want to come in and do some work or something like that. But also, I don't think that it is an adequate room, that sort of very small room over there, for if a councillor wishes to book to have a meeting with members of the public. If you've got more than two people, you're squashed in, and the other rooms are generally in use. I mean, I often come in here, and they are all in use, so including in here. So it would be really a good thing to look at, to set up. Of course, in the bigger councils, the very lucky councillors have their own offices, and, you know, if you're in City of Sydney, of course you have your own secretary as well.

But we shouldn't dream of having such luxury as that. Just a shared room, perhaps, which is adequate for the purposes of holding actual meetings with members of the public would be very good, and I support this. I mean, now we're— Having said that, back in 2012 when I first got on council, the internet wasn't as available for everybody. It was much more expensive, and the iPads only came in during that term. So I think that because technology changes so much, it's really important that we review it and that we get the feedback from people of what level they expect councillors to have. The bare minimum is really all we should be having. So thank you.

Okay, so I've had three speakers in favour. Does anyone want to speak against the motion? No? Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler, also in favour?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm really pleased to see this report come to us—sorry, this motion come to us. This is a report, this is a policy that needs to be updated frequently because ours is desperately out of date. Technology changes radically very quickly, and our policy hasn't, and so it's left—it now looks as tired as some of the equipment that we're lugging around. I don't think I even turned my laptop on when I received it. It's—no, this—oh yeah, this is it. It has waited for me for five years and has finally got a run. It lives here. I don't take it home. It's a waste of money, in short . This is reflective, I think, of COVID, but also the fact that our chamber hasn't kept up to date with technology either.

And these are things that the next council is really going to have to address because we are falling behind and it's affecting access for the community. And so as much as it's cumbersome for us to lug stuff around, and it might be inconvenient and they might gather dust and take up room in our cupboards, our key point really needs to be how the community can access what this council does. And with a really large LGA with particular difficulties around access and provision of services, we need to make sure that people can at least watch a meeting without having to travel for an hour and a half. I think we, I think we're in a position at the end of this term, having particularly having gone through COVID, which changed the way we access council's resources and council meetings, to make some quite informed commentary for the next council.

But I don't want us to be making prescriptive statements about what the next council should have simply because it suits us, because many of us may not be here. You know, that will be up to the residents of the Hawkesbury who is sitting around this table come the end of September. So I think I can see merit in reviewing this at the end of a council term and making advice to the next council. But I think that really the policy needs to be open enough so that the next round of councillors can choose the equipment that best suits them. I have several friends on other councils who have drawn no equipment, no IT equipment from councils and have in fact been paid an IT allowance because they use their own phone, they use their own internet.

We don't have that. We just pay for the cost and offset that. I guess we just accept that that is a cost to us or part of. I think most of us are probably on unlimited broadband deals and simply don't worry about the additional usage. I think , I think though that councillors need to be well aware that if you're running one phone, you do run a privacy risk and you do run a cybersecurity risk. I've been in a job for the last two years where I have simply not been able to, I have had to have a separate device. So I think if people are choosing not to take that on at the beginning of a term because they think that that's going to do them for the three or four or five years of a council term, then there needs to be some caveats around where they go with that.

And that's perhaps the input that we can have now as experienced councillors that we wouldn't have known in September 2016, which may be the useful thing that we can input into this that we wouldn't have done at the start of a term. I think what is really needed in the policy is some flexibility with a what do you need clause that's embedded in it, not here, have this grab bag and go away and deal with it. It suited me because I'm a Mac user. I like having an iPad. I like having an iPhone. I certainly didn't want a PC or a laptop. Didn't suit me at all . But these are the things that we have to negotiate. I think technology is now so flexible that we don't have to sit with a particular provider or a particular, I think we can move fairly seamlessly between Mac and PC in terms of use.

So I don't think that's the problem that it used to be. With regard to the councillor room, that's no longer COVID safe if you have more than two people in it. And these are other adaptations that we are going to have to make as a council, sorry, going forward to make sure that we provide adequate facilities for our future councillors.

Thank you. Any further speakers ? Councillor

Rasmussen. Yeah , thank you , Mr Mayor. Just quickly, way back when I raised this numerous —in fact, I’ve raised numerous times over the years—obviously an idea way before its time at those times, but now I think it’s a good time. But I did raise also the fact that council station within the chamber where you’re sitting now, it’s got a power point. What it doesn’t have built into those power points is a USB charger. So most councillors then bring their own charger along, plus their cord and so on. It’s not very expensive to change those power points over to include a couple of USB ports for charging. So when we’re thinking about things to update, maybe we could think along those lines as well.

And

I agree that we shouldn’t be— Councillor Wheeler said—we shouldn’t be lumbering the new council with what we think is good for them. I think they need to have the freedom and the flexibility to choose what is suitable for their work to make them more and most efficient. We’re all time poor, and we don’t need clunky equipment that takes time to operate , to learn, to whatever , and install stuff on. So yeah, I would say review it by all means, but let’s not make a decision on behalf of other councillors who are likely to be there after September election. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. So we’ve had five in favour and no one disagreeing. Was there any further speakers? Noting we'll go right of reply if required.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Suffice to say that I've taken on board the other councillors' input and thank them for it. The idea, as Councillor Wheeler says, is not to be prescriptive on the next council, but indeed to have a more flexible policy that not only delivers resources that are better geared towards enabling councillors to be effective representatives, but may indeed save some of that expense. It's just a case of asking the new councillors in the new term first, and I'm hopeful that the policy that will be in effect by that point will have that effect. Thank you.

I put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. We declare it carried.

Speakers were all very convincing. Notice of motion two.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you.

Seconder? Councillor Calvert. Discussion

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Well, this notice of motion has been a long time coming in my head, and I guess it is about time I thought that we put our minds to environmental conservation and restoration for its own sake. I think a lot of our strategic documents have components

Of the conservation and restoration of the natural environment sort of within them, but we don't have a sort of an overarching strategy that looks at the natural environment from a sort of holistic perspective. Now, I note that in the note by management that staff are already working on a sustainability strategy, but I'd just like to point out that in the themes that are written down, it's our natural environment, resource efficiency, resilient communities. Most of the projects that have been done to date are predominantly about those last two themes of resource efficiency and resilient communities. There's very little in that list of things that's actually to do with natural area conservation and restoration.

So I'd like to see some work done in this area and— I know I've gone to town a little bit with the notes and the background. I was just trying to put up something that got us thinking about how this might be structured, and this is by no means—the notes that I've put in the background information is by no means what I think is, you know, that's not exactly how I think it might work out. I think it is to start the conversation and to move towards having that strategy. So I think that if we use, as I said in the three dot points in the motion, I think if we use the Environment Committee to help

Define the workload and to give the staff some areas so that they can prioritise their work, I think that would be a good outcome. I won't say anything more about it than I think that there's obviously a lot of work to do, and I think even if we just get a small part of this done, I'd be happy. I mean, I'd be really ecstatic if we could get more than that done. But it's one of those things that's always put in the too hard basket, and I realise why it is a hard thing to do, and I think we just have to start the ball rolling. So that's what I want to get out of this notice of motion. I just, I want us to agree that we need this type of strategy and we start to work on it even if it's in small steps. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, did you— Deputy Mayor.

Yeah,

Thank you. I've got no problem with supporting this in principle, but I'm a little bit concerned about the suggested time frame, particularly in light of all the other work that is incomplete and that we would want to finish. I think to expect the staff to do something by mid July is just too much of a burden on them because, as we see in the note from management, they're already doing so many other... So many other strategies are underway, and we would have to stop something to do this. And I don't think that, given that we're only a month or so out of caretaker period before the election, and we've only got five meetings left, I think that this is also like the last thing. It's something that you would start at the start of a council term, and yet I would be happy to support the principle of it.

The other thing is that the state government is currently doing a SEP on strategic conservation planning, and I would think that we would have to be looking at the interrelationship with a state document, given that it would override anything that we had in this department. So that's currently on exhibition, and I'm assuming that, I gather we would be making a submission to that at some point, which would also be work that would then probably inform any such strategy. I just think that it's unrealistic to expect this to be done now, right at the end of a council term, because it is an extensive piece of work. It would be an enormous piece of work, and it would be a valuable piece of work to actually have .

And I see that the committee could do some of it, but I was under the impression that the reason of the committees being set up was to reduce the amount of work for the staff and free up some staff time. But this would be something that would be taking quite a significant amount of staff time. So I'm not sure if Councillor Kotlash wants to reword it to be an in principle rather than a time-framed action, because I wouldn't be happy to support the staff having to give up what they're trying to get finished for this council term to take on a strategy that's a new strategy at this point.

Just a question, maybe it goes to this point, Councillor Kotlash. About if there's potentially rewording or clarification required, but point two of your motion is that— I read that to be that staff are going to produce a report for the Environment Committee. That's all we're doing by mid-July. The strategy is not intended to be completed by mid-July

Yeah, that's right, Mr Mayor. The only thing that I requested from staff was for options, how that might fit into what they're already doing. That could be as much or as little as they're able to do. And I've had some discussions with staff about this, and that date was left in, so I'm assuming that mid-July , that options report could be achieved. I appreciate that we will never—this strategy won't be finished in a year, two years. I mean, this is a big strategy, and it's the type of thing that if you give it a deadline, you're never going to finish it. We have to keep prioritising and keep, you know, we have to keep devising how we do this, and we have to start somewhere. So that's why I brought it now. So it's just the options for doing it, how we might do it, what other councils have done.

Okay, and that—Councillor Garrow .

Sorry, just in relation to the options for July 2021, Mr Mayor, through you, I am assuming to Director of City Planning, is that an achievable timeframe?

Director City Planning.

Thank you, through you Mr Mayor. So essentially we're envisaging having a committee meeting in July, and we're preparing an options report and as outlined that's saying this is the work that it would require and the potential flow-on effect might be we might have to shift another piece of work that we're doing in order to accommodate it. But that would be open to discussion with the committee and then ultimately by Council. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, just following on from the answer the Director just gave, would that mean then if the options report went to the committee,

And

Would the resolutions of that committee come back to Council in this term? And would it be during the caretaker period?

Yeah

It would be hard to say. I mean, in terms of when, we haven't got a meeting set as yet for that Environment Committee, so we'd have to establish that depending on when that is and how soon we can get the minutes turned around to come back to Council. I wouldn't be able to confirm that. Okay,

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Really it's a question, and Councillor Kotlash may choose to address this in her right of reply , else staff can take this on board in the event that it passes and then come back to us. I mean, Councillor Kotlash refers to six different extant strategies that overlap on the same space, and in the staff note they mention eleven different policies that overlap into this space. So if I was thinking about this as a great big complicated Venn diagram, what I'd be looking for is The justification that this new policy addresses some gap in that Venn diagram, or necessitates its own thing having that emphasis, because I'm perfectly happy to have an options report come back to the Environment Committee in July, and I agree with the mayor that that's probably fairly low impact on staff.

I agree that the full strategy would take far longer than that, but I'm struggling to get my head around what gap this addresses that isn't addressed by the score of other policies that have been mentioned by the councillor or the staff. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Zampogno for a quite nice segue, really. I think there are clear gaps, and I think Councillor Kotlash and I are very aware of this after four years on the Environmental Sustainability Committee and also our work with the Wetlands Working Group, where we—and Councillor Kotlash stated this—and that we have covered areas around urban heat and energy efficiency, and we've had a lot of ground to make up in this council because previous councils have ignored those areas and have left us well behind. But what we also have is highly sensitive, very significant large areas of environmental areas that need protection that we aren't covering adequately. Our wetlands are a really prime example of something that's been used as simply a resource rather than a natural area deserving of protection.

And I think we know that this—and I think if you look at the way Councillor Kotlash has set this out under the themes—sorry, not, sorry. Chapters,

Thank you. And then the themes later that have been articulated by the staff as well. The threats to natural environment and the bits under the themes, our natural environment under the Community Strategic Plan, we are not covering well biodiversity, waterways, some aspects of waterways, bushland and national parks. And I think we do need a framework, and I think this is, there's a lot of merit in this framework. My concerns, like the Deputy Mayor, are about the timing. I think this is a fabulous election pitch from Councillor Kotlash. Congratulations. I think you're off to a flying start, because I think we have left these things out. And in part we've left them out because we haven't had the resources to deal with them.

We've dealt with the things that have been immediate and apparent and also that have saved us money, things like energy efficiency, and where we've been able to piggyback on things like WesROC or other offers that have been going around, like the power purchase agreement that we made that has now left, now made us 90 percent renewablely powered, something as a council we should be really proud of. But that has also saved us a lot of money. And that happened not because we planned for it, but because our power agreement came to an end and we needed to cut a deal that was financially sound. And we were very lucky that the staff got us something that was also environmentally sound. I can support point one in this motion.

I struggle with point two because of the comments made by... by the staff that this is difficult for them to achieve. I think Councillor Kotlash has allayed some of my concerns because this is just about options rather than actually doing this now. But I'm— if this comes back to us in the caretaker period, I think we've tied up staff time in something that isn't going to come to fruition in this council.

I'm a bit stuck. I'm not quite sure. I don't want to burden the staff with any more work that means that the stuff that we've set in motion isn't going to be completed in the very limited time that we've got left. So I'm not really sure what to do about points two and three, but I think this is an excellent idea. I'd like to see it carried forward. I'm not sure how we do that in the limited time we've got left. So I'm just going to sit here now and — on what I'm going to do.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. If I can give you a nudge, I think one way to look at this is that if we go ahead and we have an options report that goes to the Environment Committee, and the Environment Committee makes a recommendation and it doesn't come to this council, then it's going to be on an agenda early on for the new council. And I know we're all thinking that because we all think we might not be back here, no one knows for sure, that we're all going to stop at September 4, but we're not. Council comes back again and we'll continue work. And I think, from my discussion with Councillor Kotlash, the idea of this was to try and push this down the line so that the next council comes back to a set of options before them as to how they could proceed with this and, in principle, support from council that we are doing it, and the choice is then how do we proceed.

If the new council, because you can never predict what happens, turns around and says it's no longer a priority, then yes, we write a report we didn't need to, but that could happen at any point in time, really. So on that basis, I'm happy to support the motion. My only caveat or only concerns when looking at something like this is that we have a lot of strategies, and sometimes it becomes really unclear as to what the hierarchy is and what the purpose of each strategy is, and that leads to them not being used at all. They get quoted in a debate every now and again, but not actually applied. So I think what needs to come out of something that would be a significant investment like this is a fairly clear understanding of what its purpose is, and it needs to have a list of actions that council actually could take rather than just a list of things to advocate for, like a lot of our strategies are.

That's great, but really, if we're going to invest this sort of ratepayer expense, I think we have to come out with a list of things council could actually do regardless of whether we get any support from anyone else. But on the basis of that being the objective, I'm happy to support it. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, clearly this is a bit like, do you support motherhood? Well, most of us, I think, do. I certainly do.

However— On the record.

On the record, I'm happy to be owned, to be picked off on that side of nature. I like motherhood, in fact, I like kids. Now, on the main point though, look, we continually sit in this council and we make noises about things not getting done, not having been done, and things that, you know , I can mention a few councillors. I raised that 25 years ago. I raised it 10 years ago. I raised this five years ago, and nothing's happened. You know, guess what? The reason nothing happened is because we keep loading staff up with ever-increasing more stuff. Look, we've got enough on our plate. Staff have got enough on their plate to just do the stuff that residents need to have done right now after all the disasters that have befallen us in the last two years .

There's enough stuff for staff to do without adding more. I really think we need to take a really good look, and it may be politically, you know, important for some councillors to have it raised now so they can go out and trumpet whatever it is they want to trumpet. But seriously, this is about the Hawkesbury and the residents of the Hawkesbury. Let's get the stuff done that needs to be done right now so the Hawkesbury can recover, get back on its feet, and get on with its life. That's the most important part, and I think that's what this motion misses. It has some other agenda. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm afraid, you know, motherhood, if it was up there, I would vote for it. But this one, I'm not going to vote for it.

Okay,

Thank you. Pro motherhood against the motion . Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, could I move that we vote in seriatim? Yep.

Thank you. Sensible . Right of reply or any further? Oh, sorry, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not supportive of this notice of motion . Inappropriately timed.

I also draw attention of the committee chair of the Environment Committee to the fact that a lot of the work about which we're speaking has in fact been

Previously documented by council staff, and what I would be seeking ,

Looking forward to the new council term of three years, that the Environment Committee could well sit down and look at the information that's available now in terms of past record and use that to formulate directions for themselves, which may lead to requests for further support from staff or externally to assist the committee . I'd also draw the proponent's attention to Blue Mountains City Council, who have recently declared themselves supporters of a notion. Or a group or a philosophy called Rights of Nature. I would seriously suggest that before you travel too far down the road upon which you have embarked, that the Rights of Nature as a movement or as a philosophy does certainly crave your attention, and possibly it is also a means of collaboration between the two adjoining LGAs in that regard.

Lastly , I oppose this at the moment because every second day now we are hearing from the State Government of

Quite dramatic changes, and we need them, frankly, and guidance as to how they see the world shaping up, and we're behooven to take that into account, very seriously. The most recent announcements speak to single-use plastics. We're also talking about gaseous discharges from either green or FOGO waste and potentially dry waste, other than flaring, as we are currently doing, which is an improvement, but it's not the answer . But it may have to be. And

As much as I am as keen as anybody here to all of those matters, there are other steps apart from the big picture which this council and this environment committee could be getting on board with and activating of its own initiative. And one I would suggest is

A positive stance in regard to the reduction of waste going into our streetside and roadside collection, shall I say. The segregation of that further and the reduction in the size of bins even, as a trial, would be well warranted. I therefore cannot support this matter. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Any further discussion? If not, we'll go right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

The motivation for this is because I've been thinking about it for a long time, and I guess every time I read our Community Strategic Plan and read that one of our key directions was that the natural environment is protected and enhanced. And it's the thing as though I couldn't really find any sort of thing that led us to really embrace that in any particular way was my motivation for this strategy. I must say that it was called a framework, a plan, a strategy. You know, just a something or other. It doesn't have to be a big strategy. It can start by being a part , you know, components of strategy, even if we get a few things done on the way to achieving a more holistic strategy.

I don't think that we should stop trying to improve our strategies and our systems. I think we have to recognise when we have a gap in our strategies, and I think we need to, I think we need to agree that we need to go down this road. Council needs to have a strategy that looks at this holistically. Like , for instance, street trees. Instead of planting the same species of street tree up and down a street, plant different ones because that will bring in a more diverse insect populations. It will attract different sorts of bees, birds, etc. There's just so much that you can do on the level that council operates, and I think it's really, we really need to look at that. Now, I must say that I didn't expect this to be done entirely by staff.

Most of the reading that I've been doing and the investigations I've been doing, looking at what other councils have done and success stories in other councils. This is a real partnership between community groups, individuals, gardening clubs, Frog Watch , wetland working groups. So many people are doing so many good things in this space, and council is really in a good position to be able to support them in doing that. Not necessarily doing everything. Sometimes, yes, we can do things, and it's getting a grip on all of that sort of thing. And we can also do things in terms of looking at our natural environment in terms of maybe sub-catchments. In Brisbane Council's just done some terrific work in dividing up their LGA into sub-catchments, and they give a report card every year.

And it's when you know those sorts of things about the sub-catchment that you live in, and that's just one way you can describe an area, then you can start to say that, you know, we have a lot of wetlands in that sub-catchment. That's related to the stormwater and the drainage setup. We don't want to have flashy, fast drainage. So that's a council thing. That's the sort of integration that I'm after. And I understand that it is a lot of work, but we have to start steering ourselves in that direction. So I wouldn't be fearful that this is going to cause staff to start tearing out their hair. I hope it doesn't. I hope it's embraced, well, in the first instance by the Environment Committee, who can do some of the work.

And I did hope that we might be able to form a working group, although it sounds like the working group might be of one person . But I— and also I think that the Deputy mentioned the new SEP. Well, that's something that the staff can give us some advice on. And if it comes out that we really do need to change our direction because of that, well, that's good. That's part of this work, and I think we should encourage that.

When we talk about recovery from fire and flood, it's really important that our community and our businesses, our farmers, our, you know, people that have some more tourism businesses, know about the things that they can do to help the natural environment recover. There was a lot of people, I remember a lot of people were really concerned about providing water for wildlife. There was a lot of, you know, there was a lot of people trying to provide food for wildlife after the fires. You know, there's so much we can do, and I think it's a really exciting time to be involved in this sort of thing. It can be driven by the community, universities, schools, farmers, tourism. I've said it before, there's so many players in this area, and Council's in the best position to be able to provide that sort of framework and, well , I call it a strategy.

I don't care what we call it, as long as we have a good idea of how it all fits in. So I look forward to the staff report coming in mid July if this gets up. As I said, it can be a page of just where to from here. I'll leave it at that, and I really, really would appreciate your support on this one.

Okay, put the motion, put it in Sir Adam as requested, unless anyone has an objection. So put point one. Everyone in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow . Sorry, I'll just find . And against, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried. Put point two. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler. Against, Councillor Ross, Rasmusson , Garrow

Reynolds and

Lyons-Buckett. Declare it carried. Point three

All those in favour

Please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler. Against, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmusson. Declare it carried. So I want to move.

So I want to move that we move into confidential. Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Tree. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried.

Over to you, General Manager.

Through the Mayor, in respect of item 115 regarding the acquisition for drainage purposes of part of 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, while in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Garrow, that Council undertake the compulsory acquisition of sections under sections 187 and 196 of the Local Government Act 1993, an area of land as shown in Attachment 1 in the order of 4.142 hectares within part of Lot 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, Lot 2 in DP 67375, being proposed Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1268597, for the purposes of creating a retention basin and associated infrastructure. Point 2. Council undertake the compulsory acquisition under sections 187 and 196 of the Local Government Act an area of land shown as Attachment 1 for a right of carriageway over proposed Lot 33 in DP 1268597, marked A on the plan of acquisition, 15 metres wide and variable within part of Lot 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, Lot 2 DP 67375, for the purposes of creating an accessway to the retention basin and associated infrastructure.

Council undertake the compulsory acquisition under sections 187 and 196 of the Local Government Act an area of land shown in Attachment 1 for the right of carriageway and easement for services over proposed Lot 33 in DP 1268597, marked B and C on the plan of acquisition, 7.6 metres wide and variable within part of 130 Hall Street, Pitt Town, Lot 2 DP 67375, for the purposes of creating an accessway to the retention basin and associated infrastructure. Point four. That Council approve the making of an application to the Minister for Local Government for the issue of a proposed acquisition notice, a PAN, under the Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991, with respect to the acquisition of the land and right of carriageways and easement for services.

Point five. Council approve the making of an application to the Governor for the publication of an acquisition notice in the New South Wales Government Gazette under the Land Acquisition Just Terms Compensation Act 1991, with respect to the acquisition of the land and right of carriageways and easement for services. Point six. Council bear all costs associated with the process of acquiring the land, rights of carriageways and easement for services. Point seven. Authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Point eight. Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of Council associated with the compulsory acquisition process, which do not require the seal of Council to be affixed.

Point nine. Details of Council's resolution to be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed. Voting in favour of the motion were Councillors Rasmussen , Garrow, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Calvert, Zamprogno, Tree, Richards and Conolly. Against the motion were Councillors Ross and Reynolds, and the vote was carried 10 votes to 2. Thank you.

There being no further business, we'll declare the meeting closed at 8.20 p.m. Thanks, everyone.