10 August 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's ordinary meeting of Council. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging. And then just hand over to the General Manager to go through the procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'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 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 will 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. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any apologies? I think everyone's here except Councillor Ross, I can't see, and I believe Councillor Ross was joining us. Apologies. So then we've got declarations of interest. I've got an interest in item 156, Councillor Garrow.

Yes, item 152.

Councillor Richards.

152 and 155, thank you

Okay, we'll read those under the tape when we get there. Councillor Rasmussen?

Sorry, Councillor Rasmussen.

No audio there at the moment.

No, sorry, we can't. Nobody else can hear Councillor Rasmussen? No. No. We'll leave it with you for a minute. Feel free to grab my attention when you sort it out. Somebody want to move the confirmation of the minutes, previous meeting? Moved, Councillor Calvert, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Against? Carried.

Are you there now, Councillor Rasmussen, or ? No, you’ve still got your hand raised. I’m just going to move on until we hear from you then. So we have a number of items subject to public address. First item subject to public address is item 152, and our first speaker is Mr Mark Regent.

Mr Regent in the meeting.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, should I declare an interest now or after the speakers?

Oh, sorry, that’s this item. Sorry, Councillor Richards, go ahead.

Thank you. On this item, I am declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I live in Redbank but do not own the property that I live in, but I’ll be staying in the meeting. Thank you. Councillor

Garrett.

I am declaring a pecuniary interest. I’m employed by a charity that receives regular donations from Redbank, so I will be leaving the meeting. Okay.

Can you hear me now, Mr Mayor? I can, Councillor Rasmussen. Oh, great. I’ve got a pecuniary interest in 152.

Okay, did you want to give us the details of that now and you can

Leave? Yes, the bridge is partially being built on land that I own.

Okay, thank you. So we’ll just wait for Councillor Rasmussen and Gary to exit the meeting. Yep. Okay, and our first speaker is Mr Mark Regent. Are you there?

You got me there?

Ready when you

Are. Good evening, Councillors and staff. I’m here tonight representing the Redbank community and the owners of Redbank. I’ve been here every step of the way in delivering a wonderful estate and embracing the Redbank residents to create a truly unique community since 2007. To date in Redbank, we have delivered 658 lots. Approximately 500 families have been welcomed to our estate. We've also delivered extensive parks, playgrounds and water features, walking trails and bike paths, an 80-bed nursing home, 190-home retirement village, including a community clubhouse, pool, men's shed, lawn bowls, etc. To the broader community, we've now delivered extensive footpaths connecting Redbank to North Richmond shops and the public school, a childcare centre site in Redbank approved for 88 places, $ 1.885 million of cash to Council to expand the preschool and the after-school care, and another $2.5 million of cash to Transport for NSW to upgrade Bells Line of Road and the Grose Vale Road intersections.

We entered a voluntary planning agreement in 2014 with Council and Transport for NSW, and we've complied with every requirement within the VPA to date. A key requirement of the VPA is for Redbank to build a bridge crossing over the Grose River at Nepean Reserve. If we are unable to obtain the development approval, then a monetary contribution of $23.8 million is paid to the State Government. The proposed bridge application was lodged by the required VPA milestone trigger of lot 121, and in November 2015, some six years ago, at a cost of a million dollars. Soon after lodgement, we were advised that the application could not be assessed as council had somehow rezoned the land under the proposed bridge to now prohibitive bridge.

Despite the zoning issue, we worked the solution in Lots of Part 5 application to proceed without the zoning being an issue. The Nepean Reserve Plan of Management also had to be amended, and Redbank funded the process to amend the Plan of Management. The time required to amend the Plan of Management would have taken longer than the original milestone of Lot 341 to obtain the bridge approval. So in late 2016, Council, Transport for New South Wales and Redbank agreed to amend the trigger from 341 to Lot 701 to obtain approval. Around the same time in 2017, Council also discussed the opportunity to relocate the bridge from Nepean Reserve upstream to private lands between the treetops Adventure Park and Ashton Road.

So in 2017, they paused the process of the bridge DA and the Plan of Management. During 2018-19, Redbank worked with Council and Transport for New South Wales on the new location proposal. At a cost of $250,000, we completed a strategic report, new bridge designs, technical support, and

Some cost estimates for the government.

During 2019, the Council prepared a draft Memorandum of Understanding for Redbank, Council and Transport for New South Wales to ratify the position. Unfortunately, the MOU had some legal planning issues in that it could be deemed invalid if challenged. It was agreed by all the parties the best course of action was to simply amend the current VPA and move forward. The VPA has to be amended to legally allow the new bridge in this new location to be delivered. We hope to— sorry, despite numerous delays for many different reasons, we've maintained dialogue with Council and Transport for New South Wales to assist the process. We committed to spend a further $750,000 on another DA, and in good faith we have commenced that process in May '21.

We hope to lodge the DA in November 21, late November I'd say. However, recent COVID shutdowns and lockdowns of LGAs is causing us trouble in having our consultant team access the site. Notwithstanding this, the current milestones will need to be moved to allow more time to assess the DA once it's lodged. We support this recommendation to move the milestones from lot 701 to 801 for the development approval and lot 1001 to 1101 for bridge completion. We expect lot 701 to be March 22 and 801 to be mid-23. To be very clear, Redbank has always wanted this bridge. We have complied with every requirement asked of us and more. We have spent nearly $2 million in application, months this bridge application's approved.

We also pulled forward the cost of the roundabout of $3 million, which was to be from the Grose River Bridge contribution. So we are here as we always have been, ready to get going. We love what we do and we love the Redbank community we've created. We want to get on and build the bridge, and we recommend that Council amends the milestones as per the recommendation.

Thanks, Mr. Regent. You happy to take questions if Councillors have any?

Yep.

Any questions? Councillor Reynolds. Yes,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Regent. Thanks for that. Just one question.

Why did you, a couple of years ago, run a campaign asking people to tell Council to take the money and build the bridge when you know that 95% of the money goes to the New South Wales Government?

Oh, that campaign, Councillor Reynolds, was just to get action going, to get some stimulation going when the discussions had been some delays, so we wanted to— Get things moving along. We wanted to

Essentially apply pressure.

Okay, even though Council wasn't in any position to enhance or expedite proceedings. Well,

Behind the scenes, it was just a few delays. We wanted to get things moving along. The bridge DA had been delayed, the plan of management had been delayed , and we wanted to, if that was going to be approved or assessed or this new location was going to be progressed.

Did you contact, before launching that campaign, did you speak to, like, the Mayor or any other councillors to see if the issues could be addressed, or were they ongoing from the previous Council? No, we spoke to the General Manager at the

Time. We were just part of our process of wanting to get things going. Okay,

Thank you.

Any further questions for Mr. Regent?

I had a question which was just about the

Requirement here, the agreement in principle to have a DA lodged no later than June 2022. I think, whilst I can understand some of these delays, a lot of them have been outside your control, and there's a lot of factors at play here, I don't think it's reasonable we want to wait that long for a DA. And essentially I want to know if we said we want it by March 2022 tonight, what does that mean for you?

Well, I hope to have it lodged by the end of the year, but yeah, we can work with that. The issue we've got at the moment is we just don't know what happens in these COVID times. We've had construction sites shut down and rules keep moving and changing, having trouble getting people to come to do the testing, but we have rerouted our program and we still think we can be by the end of the year, so I'm happy to consider any proposals, but

It's

Our best endeavour to get this thing in.

Thank you. With no further questions, our next speaker is Mr Michael Morris.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, Councillors, staff. I'll be short. I'm speaking in opposition to the extension. This matter, and I fully appreciate and am sympathetic to the delays being experienced by the developer, but the bridge is part of a broader strategic traffic management issue for the Hawkesbury, and it is part of an item that is dealt with later in Council's papers today. And given that basis, I think any further delay to getting that done is an impediment to the outcomes of the strategic traffic management for the Hawkesbury, given that it is integral to the Transport for NSW calculations and traffic modelling for the bridge duplication project. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Morris. Happy to take questions if there's any. Yep , certainly. Any questions, Mr Morris? No

Thank you for that. And our final speaker is Mr Michael Want

Good afternoon , Councillors and Mr Mayor.

Councillors, item 152 raises many concerns for the NRDC AA Committee of Management. There are a few issues. Firstly, the claim there is no need for community engagement, and secondly, the investigation of the flood-free access to Springwood, and thirdly, the Council's initial approval of the Redbank development, and I'll say no more about that except it is well documented in ICAC reports. Firstly, the development has been in making for years with twists and turns. The community strategic plan and the main plan that sits on top of all other policies is very clear. At our leadership, page 22, at the intent, be a respected civic leader through consistent, transparent and engaged decision-making that the community can understand.

With that in mind, councillors, the Grose River Bridge has been on the books for years. I recall the initial meetings, the NRDCAA and the community were sceptical of the five-tonne load limit bridge would ever be built. The developer's representative roared at a council meeting, We will build the bridge. They have not, and they won't build it where they said they would. I think it was Councillor Conolly at the same meeting tightened the hurdle to make sure that the bridge would be built sooner. It was not. Council have had to keep shifting the goalposts to accommodate the developer's dilemmas. Councillors, it is time to engage now with the community in accordance with the Hawkesbury Strategic Plan at page 22, at our leadership, consideration of our future at the second dot point.

I quote, The need for authentic community engagement in order to build community respect, resilience and correctedness. It is not good enough to say there is no need for community engagement because Council has a policy. This is a massive decision, and there should be community engagement. To do otherwise would be to shirk your responsibilities as councillors representing the community. There must be community engagement in the form of public meetings, roundtable meetings, and whatever it takes to obtain maximum benefits for the community. We note some councillors claim that they have opened up council committees to all in the community. How about testing this claim by referring this matter to one of those committees as well?

Here's a chance councillors to test that claim. We saw what happened when the developer twisted the story a few years ago that council was to blame for no bridge, and I think that's what Councillor Reynolds may be referring to. Now, with money allocated by governments for another bridge across the Hawkesbury River, that becomes part of the mix. To repeat, there must be community engagement informed similar to what the NRDC AA has indicated, so there is transparency for the community. Secondly, at page 15 of the business paper under alternative routes at 4, council staff initiate discussions to ensure that the route between Grose Vale Road and Springwood is above the one in 100 flood level. We do know that the route was cut with floodwaters earlier this year.

So is that still an alternative? And I'd like to hear an answer to that. Surely that seals the fate of that alternative in line with that council decision. Councillors, you should not waste any more time and ratepayers' money on that route. Despite the exhaustive negotiating process, the voluntary planning agreement is a toothless tiger. There are outs everywhere. The VPA is just voluntary. The developer holds all the aces. Council's international report on climate change released yesterday observed increases in greenhouse gases are unequivocally caused by human activities, and this council and previous councils continue to allow destructions of our flora and fauna. This council should not allow destructions of the wild Grose River and its precincts.

We should protect these natural areas and restore them. Enough is enough. Councillors, there's no more diversions, deflections or vague promises from the developer. Please refer this item for public consultation in the minutes, suggest it or something similar for certainty. Thank you. Thanks, Mr Watt

Happy to take questions. Yes, sir. Any questions, Mr Watt? No. Okay, thank you for that. So Mr Watt was our final speaker. Somebody wish to move something, Councillor Tree? Move the recommendation. Seconded for that.

Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. Discussion? Councillor Tree

Mr Mayor, I'll just wait until I listen to what everyone else has to say. I was, as I said in the briefing the other day, been here for the duration of this whole process, and I just think it's, I know, I think we know what the community want, the majority of the community. I know there are some aspects of the community who don't want to see it built at all, but for the most part, people expect it to be built because it's part of the whole deal, the VPA, and it's the best outcome for the broader community. And I just think any further delays is not doing our job. So I just want to see what everyone else says, and then I might add to it later. Thank you. Is there

Any further discussion?

No further discussion. Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a number of questions, if I may, through you , concerning the VPA, the Voluntary Planning Agreement . I just would like to know the hierarchy of the VPA, as in , is it a tripartite agreement where each party, that is Council, the developer and the RMS, now Transport for New South Wales, has, for example, one third each, say? So, for example, you know, majority rules and two parties overrule the third. Is that correct, or does one party, for example the developer, have the right of veto

Through you, Mr Mayor . In any changes to this schedules or the VPA, we need all three parties to sign. It's not a matter of majority rules or the developer has the final say.

Okay. The other question was, has Transport for New South Wales considered impacts on the Richmond Bridge duplication project if there is no Grose River Bridge? Refer

That to

The Director City Planning

To be frank, I wouldn't know what their consideration has been in relation to this and the other bridge duplication project. I'm sure they're aware of both, and I know they're aware of both, but as to whether they considered what the impacts would be, I haven't had those conversations. Okay

Okay, thank you. Another question. Can the developer move the milestones again? If they're moved tonight, you know, kicked further down the road, as we've done before , the request is to kick them down the road again , do they have the ability to request the same thing, for example next year or the year after

Yes, there is always the ability to put forward a request to move the milestones. However, they need to be justified and they would have to go through this process in terms of agreement with both council and Transport for New South Wales. Okay,

Thank you. And the last one, and then I'll leave you alone . I know there's concern amongst some community members that they're afraid of seeing a repeat of Pitt Town here. What happens, with all due respect to Mr Regan, because I can see him sitting there, what happens to the VPA if the developer was to go into liquidation

That to Dr C. Payne.

Yeah, well, I think we'd have to then deal with that through a legal process, and I wouldn't be able to answer that question to the fullest extent.

So, for example, if the development was then, what's the word, purchased or picked up by a third or fourth party, would the VPA apply to them ? Would the development be sold with the VPA, or would it be sort of thrown out and a new one have to be developed?

I would anticipate the VPA is with the approval of the development, with the planning proposal. So if somebody were to come in and, you know, take over if Redbank were to fall down, then that VPA would move with the application.

Thank you. Thanks for your patience.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Payne . Deputy Mayor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Also a series of questions, actually. Just a first point from what Mr Regent said, I just wondered, and it might have to be taken on notice because I understand that there's very few staff still here who were here in 2014, or whenever that original adoption of the VPA occurred, and when the first, in 2015, when the first application was submitted. Is it true that Council rezoned the land at Nepean Reserve so a bridge could not be built there ? If that occurred, I've never heard of that, and so could we have some documentation from when the Council approved to rezone that particular land? I don't recall that coming to Council at the time , but if that's the case, then We would have have to have found an alternative route.

And so any delay in saying it couldn't, wasn't being built at Nevoa is moot if that's the case, if a bridge couldn't be built there. So there was an alternative route found, and that's what's been being investigated. So if we could have some clarity around that, that would be really, really good. I just want to know when Council re-zoned that land. The other— Sorry . Oh, I'm not

Expecting the Director

Of Planning to know that... Thank you. That would be a long time ago . The second point is, and this is a question, I'm not sure if Mr Regent would know the answer. I was trying to find my little hand-on-here to ask, but with the milestones being moved, it's diminishing the amount of time between milestone two and practical completion down to quite a small amount, only being 236 lots now. I just want to know if that's a practical amount of time for the bridge to actually be built. I understand how it works. It would mean that the registration of the lots, the subdivision certificates, wouldn't be released if it wasn't. But I'm just wondering, is that, in practical, to have that very small time window?

And if that was the case, is it likely that milestone two could be reached much quicker than what's scheduled, given that very small window between when approval is all granted and when practical completion would be expected to be finished? So

Did you indicate, Deputy Mayor, you wanted to ask that question to Mr Regent, but I missed you?

Well, I don't think you missed me. I was having trouble with my hand, but if Mr Regent were able to answer that, I just do think it's actually quite something that I would like to just hear, if you would permit him to answer that for me.

Happy to answer that, Mr Regent.

Yeah, so what I understand, Councillor Buckett, is you're trying to understand the window to complete from the DA approval to the completion of the bridge. For us, it's doable. It's tight, but it's manageable. One of the key things will be the timeframe in which Transport for New South Wales can compulsorily acquire the three private owners. They are in contact. So there's quite a bit to that program, but, you know, it's manageable. I'd say it's at the tighter end, though, but it holds up your registrations.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. So I'm just thinking if the first milestones weren't shifted, but I understand, I think that you feel you can't meet the first one , the 701. I was just thinking it looked a little unachievable, that's all. I was looking at the diminishing window of time between the milestones. Okay, thank you . Thanks for answering that. I did have some other questions, and I'm not quite sure if now is the time to raise them, but I just might, just in case, because they may be things that the public are worrying or being concerned about. They don't come from members of the public, they're just things that I've probably asked before. But I'm just wondering in this actual process now, if we're changing the dates and the timeline, at what point will we have any further idea of what cost there will be for the ratepayers to upkeep the feeder roads and the additional roads around the precinct once the bridge is built?

And then it is Council's responsibility to be maintaining these roads once they're all handed, you know, once it's completed and they're our roads, and there's more traffic on, particularly those roads around the Grossvale area. Will we be getting some sort of an idea of a cost burden associated with that

Infrastructure services, up for you. Through

You , Mr Mayor, something we will need to include into our asset management planning and into our long-term financial plan to factor that in . Generally , the initial cost and additional maintenance is relatively low, but it is something we'll need to be factored over the post ten-year period, meaning our roads need to be resealed and maintained. There will be an initial sweetener, I guess, in terms of the upgrade of Grose River Road , in terms of improvement to that asset At some point that will need to be built into the long-term plan for the renewal of that.

Thank you . In a similar vein, another question going forward with this is at what point will there be an opportunity to actually look at how the road network would work around there? So I understand we've got the route that goes straight down Grose River Road and crosses to Springwood Road, but there's always been a concern of the flow of traffic through what are essentially quite small country roads through the Grose Vale area, particularly along past the school there, I think it's Grose View School, and some of those are potentially dangerous roads. So I'm just wondering at what point does all this incorporate into a local traffic management, so to speak, to ensure there's some sort of control over the safety of those roads leading out from the additional traffic that would be coming across the bridge. I

Refer that to Director Infrastructure Services

I suppose it's probably tied up with the item that's later in the meeting and one of the questions that was raised by some of the speakers earlier, and that would be to indeed have a look at what the impact of the proposed new route is. It's a little bit different from what had been previously modelled in terms of the impact on the Gross Vale Road, Bells Line of Road intersection that will have some impact if flows are diverted further to the west on Bells Line of Road. That would also have some impact on the Grose View School area and the other roads . It's something we will need to look at as part of an overall plan. I'd suggest that's probably done as part of when we have some more certainty of the additional crossing of the river , and also in terms of the staging of the development .

So we'll actually attract traffic from the Redbank area, which is what's principally designed to do . But whether there are other flows that will come from other areas will need to be worked out.

Thank you. Another question. Sorry, I've only got two more. I did raise this at the briefing, and that was around the bridge route now, the crossing over at the shortest section of the Grose River , and the desire to have it as immune to flooding as possible, which is very desirable given that the other bridge wasn't going to be particularly good in a flood. I'm just wondering, and I asked this before, but I'll ask it now so that it can be taken on the record, is can we investigate any available funding from Infrastructure New South Wales connected to the evacuation routes or the Flood Task Force that's dealing with the Resilient Valley strategy to see if we can get the money or a contribution towards making those feeder roads.

Obviously raising them, because on both sides of that bridge, the roads will dip down and be cut off very early in flood. So I think that if we are truly talking about having an increased flood immunity on that bridge, then we have to make sure, and I don't believe it's the responsibility of the developer to redo the whole roads, because the section on Grose River Road is quite a long way back from where the bridge is. But if we're to use that and to get the benefit of being able to use that when there's a flood situation, then can we try and get funding so that we can have those roads raised appropriately so that it will be usable in the flood situation

Refer that to the general manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, that's certainly something that can be investigated moving forward. I don't know if the Director of Infrastructure Services has a more targeted response on that, but my view is it's certainly feasible. To

Add to that, the works are basically to provide that alternate flood egress from the west side of the river, rely upon potentially two, I think it is, two culverts or bridges on Springwood Road as being upgraded. So there'd be opportunities to either through resilience or to look at upgrading that, or potentially lobby Transport for New South Wales as part of upgrading that infrastructure to provide that asset improvement . So I think we certainly answered the question, I think, in a more direct way. We'd certainly be looking at every opportunity. If the proposed bridge is being raised more, as at a level which is clear of the Grose River, and then the option is then to raise the feeder road, Springwood Road— I'm not talking about Yarramundi Bridge, I guess— back to the higher level to provide an alternate to the West Link Bells line of road exit.

Yes, that's what I meant, so people could go up to Springwood, for example. Given that we were totally isolated in the last flood, I would think we have quite a good case . I would think we should somehow be provided with some sort of funding to assist with that. But anyway, thank you for investigating that. The last question, which was actually my first question, was: but in the original recommendation when the VPA was first adopted, there was a requirement that an alternate route besides the Yarramundi crossing be provided. Does that still stand? Like, should there have been two routes being investigated still , or just this one? I'm assuming this one's okay, but I'm just, I was just checking up on that. I'd just reread through the whole original thing, that's all.

So, no, we're basically focusing on this route and the planning work that Redbank are undertaking is about this alternate route at the moment. Okay,

Thank you. That was my question, so I'll just process all that. Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to direct a question to the general manager, if I may, please, through you.

I'm rather concerned that the two community members who have spoken this evening have , in their own particular way,

Expressed concerns about these so-called milestones, in that we've already seen a significant variance, let us stick with milestone two, which has moved from 341 to 701 and now is proposed to move to 800, I believe. There appears to be a lack of good faith in this VPA being promulgated. My question is, therefore, please, general manager, can you indicate your understanding as to what level of requirement or fixation Council can give to any milestone which it may choose to change tonight. Does the council have any means of ensuring that the developer does in fact show good faith and is not simply going to turn around in another two years' time and say, touch, touch, it's all been a bit difficult and we can't do it? Thank you .

Through you, Mr. Mayor, as the Director of City Planning has just indicated, there will, by the very nature of voluntary planning agreements, there will be inevitably an opportunity for the developer to come back to Council seeking another variation to the VPA should it wish to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean that Council needs to agree to that, and it certainly doesn't mean that Transport for New South Wales necessarily need to agree to that . And that would certainly be part of the key consideration moving forward, is that all the Council, the developer and Transport for New South Wales are all working together to deliver this bridge that the community overwhelmingly are seeking.

Thank you. Thank you , General Manager. Again through you, Mr. Mayor

You're saying that in the report that's put before us tonight that there are a handful or two handfuls of specific reports which are required to be — Put in place to accompany what I gather is a development application for this particular project. We apparently have no oversight or control through the VPA to ensure that one or all or some of these reports are completed and by any given dates, except the so-called milestone situation. Is that correct, Mayor

That's the intent of the milestones, Councillor

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep my remarks quite brief tonight. Suffice to say that I'm pleased we're here tonight to make a decision on this really important piece of infrastructure that our community really wants to see happen. Now, the previous term of Council approved this development on the basis that our community was getting this bridge, a bridge that we certainly need for access . We've seen our community hit by a range of disasters over the last couple of years, and a bridge like this will certainly come in handy for those sorts of things. More importantly, to ease the traffic congestion west of the river and, of course, to provide an additional piece of road that will enable less cars on the other roads and create a safer environment.

So I'm glad we're here tonight. I understand there has been, or there are, frustrations in the community with delivering this bridge, but I'm just glad that we have something on the books tonight. where we can all put our vote across. We have not just the lots there, but we have timeframes, including the month and the year that each milestone should actually be achieved. And I really hope that whatever decision is made tonight, we stick to that. And we actually, the best thing that we can do is give the community certainty as to when this bridge will be built. Sticking to what's on the business paper tonight means that happens. Everybody who's a signatory to that VPA needs to ensure they stick to this one this time.

There's no ifs or buts around that. And I look forward to hopefully seeing that bridge constructed in 2025. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Look, I feel a certain sense of déjà vu because I don't want to vote for any further delay. The community doesn't want any further delay. I certainly hear Mr. Morris's plea , which I'm pretty sure is widely reflected in the broader community, that they don't want to see any more delay. And yet I feel like our hands are tied. The sense of déjà vu is similar to that which I felt in June 2017 when there was a delay, and then in December 2018 when there was a delay, and now there's another delay. And what I'm trying to get my head around is whether voting no on this occasion, if we denied a further delay, how genuinely imperilled the whole project is. Because I'm not confident at all that if Redbank were able to claim that

The

VPA is now null and void and that the whole thing has fallen apart and that they can make their payout and walk away, is that the bridge will ever come. The only thing that we can do, it seems to me, in a fairly weak bargaining position, is agree to another delay to try and keep them on the hook so that the bridge ends up being built. So I'm really , really unhappy about this. But based on what I'm hearing, what I've read in the business paper, and how we were briefed, it would appear that we effectively have no choice. To vote no is to effectively condemn that community to never have the bridge that was promised to them as the key piece of infrastructure that justified the whole Redbank enterprise. And I can't, in good conscience, allow that to happen. So there we are. Thank you. Thanks

Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wish to indicate that as an independent councillor, I am not at all happy with any deferral of these so-called milestones.

I am utterly concerned, being a first-term councillor, that the information provided by the developer this evening and what documentation we as councillors have been provided seem to be at odds, and I find that very disturbing.

The most amenable or agreeable path, I think, would be, frankly, that the milestone not be granted approval this evening, but the matter be deferred for further consideration once both council and the developer can agree on a timeline of the events that have occurred through this process leading up to this point, because there seems to be some— There's some

Serious disagreement or question about that, and the Deputy Mayor has raised that herself just a few moments ago. And I am totally unconvinced that the community are getting a fair deal out of this. And I'm not prepared to support this particular motion this evening on that basis. But if there could be support for some deferment and consultation, which would involve the councillors in being better informed and then, as a result, the community being better informed, I think that may go to some way towards some form of affirmation by the developer that they are not going to leave this council holding the bag, so to speak , and leave the area in a few years and say, Well, thank you very much. It's been nice to know you, Hawkesbury. That's all I have to say, so thank you. Thanks

Councillor Ross. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I share Councillor Ross's gloom about this, about the state that we find ourselves in, and therefore I speak against the motion. I simply cannot support this motion with a clear conscience. The impact of the Redbank development is being felt by the North Richmond and wider community now, and has been for some years. I'm not convinced that a crossing of the Grose is the best way forward, although I admit that the potential for a high-level crossing is appealing if Springwood Road can be brought up to scratch and paid for by Transport for New South Wales. Because as a flood evacuation route, that should be the responsibility of the state government, not of this council, and frankly, not of the developer.

I'm disappointed with the admission from Redbank that they effectively misinformed the community about council receiving funds, which we had not received, to, and I quote, get things moving. That's a really divisive act. Once the developer has moved on, the North Richmond community is going to have to come together, both old and new. Those actions were not a good faith gesture. We've heard that this will give us certainty, but then we've also heard that we're all experiencing déjà vu, and frankly, we are, because there is no certainty with this project, and there is no certainty with these ever-moving goalposts. None for council, none for the residents of Redbank, and certainly none for the affected residents of the wider North Richmond community who deal with the impacts of the Redbank development on a daily basis.

I'd be willing to move these goalposts if the developer was willing to remove the clause which allows them to make a cash contribution that will not come to council and will not build the Grose River Bridge. But

I'm not willing to continue to shift the milestones in the VPA so that we can just keep stringing the community along. It's unreasonable . We've almost doubled the initial milestone . We need more surety from the developer that this is actually going to happen, and I don't think we have that at this point

Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's definitely a perplexing issue, this one, because we have what is essentially a very poor VPA. We have something that is not necessarily delivering for the best outcome for our community. We've got a willingness to have a bridge in place because that's what was promised, and it, as Mr Morris alluded to, it all feeds into what our future transport solutions in the area are all hinging on. I also hear what all the other councillors say, and I've got like a big blended mix of all those concerns and all those things around it. And in thinking of the best way forward, I have so many concerns about that. But I do want to see this bridge there, and I want to see it done. You know, as Councillor Wheeler says, in good faith, we want our community to have this infrastructure because the impacts of Redbank are significant, and they have impacted significantly on the people of all the west of the river areas, and we need a solution to that.

What I'm finding is— It's very hard to grapple with something that, when it was originally presented. For example, today I looked back over the old papers and, of course, many of the concerns our community raised were around the certainty of this and would this very thing happen. There were submissions saying the goalposts will be moved, this will happen, this will happen, and this is what's happened, and that's very disappointing. And some people point the fingers at council, but the delays and things have not been orchestrated by anybody in particular. They are symbolic, I think, of some quite big flaws in putting forward a proposal like this, which is to deliver infrastructure in such a manner.

I think that's a very flawed way of doing it. In hindsight, I think we probably learn a lot from this, and I think that goes for everybody. I think the issue for Mr Regent now is that he has a certain dependency on the state government fulfilling the acquisition process, and that may be lengthy. I don't know a lot about it, but I've heard that there's been issues in other cases where it can have protracted, drawn-out things. So he's got that, and, I mean, there would have been acquisition wherever the bridge, wherever a bridge is going, and the same will be with the other bridge that's coming. The acquisition process can be a big delaying factor. So I am hesitant to support this as it is because it is delaying.

But on the other hand, I'm a little like Councillor Zambrano in that we really have not much choice. We have got to try and get something done. I did just want to ask you, Mr Mayor, had you made a change around that date for the development application to be in? You did suggest it, but I didn't know if you made a change.

I haven't spoken yet to suggest that to Councillor Tree, but I was going to suggest that.

Okay, so maybe bringing that forward. Ideally, when I read through this, I was going to make a proposal along the line of shifting the first milestone, but not the others, and then with the additional in there. We want our community to have some certainty, and I think that if we're just bending to every request to extend it out, whereas we're working with the developer to try and get a solution, we also have to show our community that we're trying to put something in place that makes it feasible and makes it achievable within a good space of time. And as we know, feeding into all the other traffic solutions around the place, we have got to keep everything moving so that we do actually achieve solutions in the long run.

It's quite unsustainable to leave our community west of the river as impacted as it is, so we need to move forward. But I do really still have grave concerns around the timeline with it, and, yeah, I'll wait and see now then, Mr Mayor, what you might propose for changes. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Reynolds . I think who's next.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor.

Like other councillors who have spoken, I have great reservations about this, about moving the milestones again. I'm very concerned to hear that the media campaign the developer launched a couple of years ago

Was deliberately set out to deceive the community and get things moving.

The lack of good faith there is very difficult to overcome.

I have great concern, like other members of the community, this has really , really bad echoes of Pitt Town.

And there are those, Mr Mayor, in the community who believe that there was never ever any intention to build this bridge, and that the developer and the supporters were relying on resistance and protest from the community to stop it. And that's why there's a $25 million get-out-of-jail card stitched into the VPA. Otherwise, why would it be there? The whole project was sold to the community on the basis this bridge would be built. So why is there a $25 million get-out-of-jail card that goes to the state government, doesn't go to council? I mean, the community has really had a gutful with the delays, especially the people of North Richmond and Redbank, sick of the traffic.

And the developer needs to uphold their end of the deal they made with the community. They didn't make it with 12 councillors, they made it with the Hawkesbury community. We are just the representatives of those 60-odd thousand people. And so, on behalf of those people that have spoken to me, I'm just saying just get on with it and just build it. Thank you.

Councils then, Councillors then, program to have a question.

You're on mute at the moment. I'm on indulgence, Mr Mayor. So this is in the form of a question, and in two parts. I'll invite staff to comment. So if it is correct that at this point in time, the developer has registered 658 lots, and that the original VPA that was inked in August 2014 required the bridge to be finished, done, opened at the threshold of 641 lots, then I'd like to know if it's fair to assume that the total cost of the bridge, based on that estimate in 2014, is now sitting with the developers. And the second part of the question is to really press on that matter that I raised before, and that is to work out what a rejection tonight would represent, whether it would represent some legal trigger that would allow the tripartite agreement to fall apart and for them to make the cash payout and walk away, and I think we're all the poorer for that, or whether a rejection tonight would simply result in a deadline sailing past and it just sits there, but it doesn't represent any other particular trigger .

The crucial thing for me is keeping the developer on the hook to build the bridge. Could I ask somebody on staff to address that more directly, please?

Yeah, those two questions are referred to Director City Planning.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. So in terms of the total cost, so the cost of the bridge, so that sits with the developer, but it sits— to a maximum amount of money that was originally agreed in terms of when the VPA was first arranged. So $ 23 million, which now, as per most cost index, is just over $25 million. So we haven't received any of that money yet; it's all with the developer. In terms of if Council resolve not to amend the milestones tonight, then a number of things could happen. One would be, obviously, we'd have to sit down with the three parties to work out what's next. Is it a matter of negotiation or mediation to see, you know, what needs to happen in order to get all three parties to agree?

Is it about, you know, or the developer in this instance could turn around and say, okay, well, if the other parties are not willing to move the milestones, then they can go to the option of basically nominating to give the monetary contribution. So it's not a— we're not in a position to say, you know, you must build this bridge when there is the option now of construction , and that's what the developer is working towards. They're undertaking all of the work required for the application, and as you've heard from Mr Regent, with the aim of getting that to Council, taking COVID into account by the end of this year, and then it would be up to us to go through the process of approval, et cetera, et cetera.

So that's the work that's underway. However, if we don't move the milestones, then we'll have to see what the outcome is.

Well, I mean, thank you for that answer, Ms Perrine. I mean, the only thing I can add then is to say that we do have to consider that it's in the developer's favour that we mucked them around massively. They invested $800,000 in the lodgement of a DA for a bridge in a location that ultimately we changed our mind on. So if that results in some further deferral of the thresholds, we can't— Consider ourselves to be lily white. And on that basis, and with enormous reluctance, I think I'll be supporting the recommendation, but I'm really unhappy about it. Okay.

I'll speak to the matter briefly. First thing I want to ask Councilor Treas whether you're willing to make that change that I suggested to move that date of June '22 in point 3 to be March 2022.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm a bit reticent because I'm concerned about the issues that they've highlighted in relation to what happens. I prefer to leave it to be able to

Provide an opportunity for the developers to be successful. If we changed it and they couldn't get everybody to come and do all the things they need to, and they come back to us and say, We just need another couple of months, that would really worry me. So could I ask a question of the Director of City Planning? I mean, they made the recommendation to give the point, sorry, the end date of June next year. I'm just thinking about practicalities and getting it done rather than—I mean, I understand the desire. I mean, this bridge should have been built, so I'm really upset about it, and so I want it done. But the point I'm trying to make is that if we say we do this to make ourselves feel better about that time frame and then due to COVID—and let's just face it, I don't see our kids going back to school between now and the end of the year—I just worry about all sorts of contingencies like that.

Could the Director of Planning indicate whether that was a time frame that she just decided, or it was one that was suggested by the developer, or what the go was?

So,

Three things. So, in terms of the discussions with Mr . Regens, I talked about the idea that we put in a milestone around the lodging of the application and discussed his timeframe around lodgement. And as he discussed in today's meeting, when he presented, their intention is they're aiming for the end of this calendar year. So, based on that, and knowing how COVID is impacting, you know, access to consultants, we did have a conversation around what would be feasible. Now, my understanding is Mr. Regent is comfortable with, you know, the March timeframe . It does allow some fat based on their planned timeframe at the end of this year. And if, you know, I mean, to all intents and purposes, it is really hard to predict how COVID will impact, you know, things, but they are progressing things as well as they can, and they're reviewing their program on a weekly basis.

But to all intents and purposes, Mr. Regent did seem comfortable with the March timeframe.

Okay. What if they don't meet that and then they come back and then we say, 'Well, blow it'?

So, we are meeting regularly, the three parties between Council, Redbank and Transport . So, we would know fairly early on if there was a significant issue. And, you know, so, and it would have to be a significant issue. So, if, for instance, you know, things happen and they weren't going to meet lodge until April 2022, then to all intents and purposes, it wouldn't be an issue that we would be concerned about because we're aware of what's going on. And I don't, you know, at that point, we wouldn't — feel the need to come back and vary the milestone. So it is a matter of where we are meeting regularly, we are, you know , understanding what's going on, and we will get, I suppose, a heads up way in advance if there was going to be an issue with that milestone.

Okay. Okay , so you're indicating that if you feel as though there are any great delays or issues, that you would have, you know, frank and open conversations with the developers to make sure that things are on track, or if they are— so you're saying also you wouldn't have to come back to us to extend it, you'd just deal with that in that instance, unless it was catastrophic and it looked like— Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Exactly.

Okay. March, April? April?

I was happy with March, Councillor Tree. I mean, if the motion before us, it's your motion, you don't have to change it. If it says June, I'll still vote for it if that's the only thing on the table, but I would prefer March, I guess it's the one I was making. So, did you want to change it or are you leaving it as is?

Can I leave it as is? I just— my only concern is because we've just heard everybody say, talk about good faith, we're giving them a time frame, but I'm sure that, from what I've heard, that they'll be happy to put things, the accelerator onto things now because, you know, we're really— everyone, all three parties of the VPA, the signatories, seem to be committed to the process. I think it's the first time where they've actually been working in unison, so I'm happy for it to happen as it is

Okay. Well, I'll just speak to the matter briefly. I think a lot of this has already been outlined, but ultimately we're in a position now where we can either tonight accept these changes as they're proposed to us, or if we don't accept these changes as the Director City Planning outlined, there's a number of things that would take place there, and without prejudicing our position, I would of course push as hard as possible in any negotiation. I think the Council would as well, to make sure we've got an outcome where the bridge was built, but we'd have to be prepared to accept that if we didn't take this tonight, the most likely outcome would seem to be that we get a cash contribution coming in in the next, you know, in the next few weeks.

Cash goes to the state government, and that's it. It's up to us to then try and go and get that cash back or try and convince the RMS to build the bridge . some other way, and all of those outcomes are far less certain than what's in front of us, given, even though, as I acknowledge completely, it's not a great deal of detail in, it's not perfect. I think, from my perspective, those are the two options before us, and so I'd much rather work with the applicant to actually find something reasonable and hopefully have this bridge built, which is what hopefully we all want. Like I said, I would be much more comfortable with March '22. I think it would show a bit of a message that we're not just going to take anything.

There has been, I think, in the first instance, we do have to actually acknowledge that Council changed the location of the bridge. It's not that this just got delayed by the developer. Council in 2014 agreed to a bridge that went in one location. A new Council was elected in 2016 and sought to change that location, which obviously was going to have significant delay. I think the new location is quite a good location. I'm not suggesting that that's not the case, but it was obvious that that was going to cause delays, and that is part of the issue here. But I think that also, since that point in time, it's hard to understand why it's been delayed since then. And so I don't think we should just accept that because it's now come to a head, we have to allow plenty of time from now.

I think we can expect that we should have had a DA lodged by now, and we don't want to extend out another year. I think we should be able to get it by March. But like I said, if the motion before us is for June, I'll vote for that, because I think that's the best of the alternatives in front of us. Deputy Mayor? Mr Mayor, would you just permit me to just correct something that you said about the decision of the previous location of the bridge in light of a question I asked? Sure.

Mr Regent

Stated that the previous council rezoned the land so a bridge couldn't be built there. And that was in the previous council, as was the decision when the application was originally put in and then withdrawn at first, and then moved to a Part 5, which was going to be independently assessed by Penrith Council. So it wasn't a new council coming in. The new council, the new route did come up under the new council, but the new council did not decide that they couldn't build a bridge through Nepean. That was the previous council, just clarifying that , or some rezoning that apparently occurred and you couldn't build a bridge there. So that's a question that's been taken

On

Notice.

It's been taken on notice about the rezoning. I don't believe it's correct. I believe there was an actual decision taken by council in 2017 to adopt a new route and change the VPA to have that new route included in it. So that's the decision I was referring to, the decision of the new council in 2017 when that was formally made.

Yes, I agree with you. I was referring to what Mr Regent said, but the decision regarding the assessment of the DA was in the previous council

Yes . Okay . Any further discussion? No further discussion. We go right to reply, Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's interesting, you know, tonight the rewriting of history can create a false sense of the story of the chain of events that's brought us to this point here tonight. And I think it's incredibly disingenuous and unhelpful. And everybody who has a good grasp of the history knows that they know what has happened. I feel as though Redbank have shown good faith, considering what has happened over the years. And if the bridge had been able to be built in the earmarked location across the corridor, which we go on about over and over, prior to Mr Pleffer putting a little mark on a map, it would have been built within the initial milestones. And so we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

To fail to support this tonight is not a show of good faith to the community. And everyone has said here tonight that's who we're here for, and everybody I speak to... Want the bridge, and they're a bit disappointed that it hasn't happened to date. But I really don't feel as though talking about the history is going to get us what we want, and the community want and deserve the bridge that was promised. So let's build the bridge and get over it.

Thank you . Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillors Amprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash. Against? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross. Declare it carried. Councillor Garrow, Mr. Mason were absent for the vote.

I'll move on to our next item, subject to public address, which is item 15. Just wait for those councillors to rejoin the meeting.

Item 15 is the Jacaranda Development Control Plan, and we have one speaker, Mr. Andrew Jennings.

Mr. Jennings in the meeting?

Joining now.

We're ready for you, and you're ready, Mr. Jennings.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is— apologies,

I just have the live stream still going. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Andrew Jennings, Celestino Assistant Development Manager for Jacaranda. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Celestino in relation to the revised Jacaranda Development Control Plan that was deferred at the council meeting held back on 27 April earlier this year. Celestino understands that there were three key matters requiring further information and resolution for council to favourably consider the draft DCP for adoption, namely the internal road widths, external road intersections, and the existing rural land use interface. As a result of community and councillor feedback, we have worked with council to investigate these matters further and include additional controls within the DCP, which is before you tonight.

To provide a short summary of the updates, the internal access roads, the question road type of the local access road, a six metre wide carriageway has been deleted from the draft DCP, and those roads have been replaced with a local and minor collector road in these locations. The proposed local and minor collector road of eight metres in the carriageway allows for sufficient access for vehicles, including garbage collection vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, and is aligned with Hawkesbury's own DCP. We've worked with Council to investigate this road type, including comparing against other developments and other Council's DCP, which has been included in the paper. Jacaranda is a low-density rural residential subdivision with average lot sizes in excess of 1,200 square metres.

These lot types easily accommodate off-street parking for visitors and residents, in addition to on-street parking provided in an eight-metre road type. The Spinks Road intersections. Cellasteno has been working with Council to investigate these intersections. Due to existing site constraints, the intersections require further investigation. We are confident we can work with Council to deliver these intersections to the satisfaction of Council under the relevant AusRoad design standards, and we're progressing the detailed design and development to do so. The draft DCP does not preclude the intersection design being developed in coordination and consultation with Council and the landowners. So the existing rural land interface, so the western Spinks Road entry interface.

So following the previous Council meeting in April, we have consulted with the neighbours, both immediate to the north and the south of this intersection, and provided Council a number of options, which are included in the Council report. The DCP allows for flexibility in achieving these solutions so that the appropriate solution takes into account the existing site constraints and can be determined by Council during the detailed DA design phase. The south-eastern boundary interface. So the DCP has been updated to include a control to manage the rural urban interface, including a requirement of the landscape garden buffer of a minimum of four metres along the boundary, in addition to a 10 metre dwelling setback.

This is aligned to how other LGAs have mitigated the issue, such as Wollondilly. Further, Cellasteno will ensure that all future landowners are made aware of the existing agricultural uses through the sales and marketing process, particularly on marketing material and within the contract of sale. In terms of, I guess, a development update as well, Celestino has held a pre-DA meeting with council staff for a concept master plan DA, which includes bulk earthwork strategy, water cycle management, landscaping, and other key site-wide development strategies. And I guess we will subsequently lodge this DA in the coming months once we have feedback from council. We are hopeful that construction will commence in 2023, and we thank you for your time.

We look forward to working with council on the delivery of Jacaranda, and I am available to take any of your questions. Thank you.

Are there questions, Mr Jennings

Councillor Zamprogno Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Mr Jennings. Look, would you concede that if the revised DCP now merely confirms that the narrowest kinds of roads in this development, the local and minor collector roads, will be either 8 or 8.5 metres, but that previously the suggestion that those roads could be as little as 6 metres in their carriage width, is that effectively confirmation that the first DCP that was advanced was beneath the relevant standard that's applied in

That question's out of order, Councillor Zamprogno. We're talking about the current DCP, not about whether or not you thought the old one was good or not. I'd have thought it was a perfectly—

No, I'll accept

Your adjudication. I can't see how it leads to a better decision being made here on this one. Very well. Thank you. Well, that's it. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Jennings. I'm just wondering, I think it's been really good to see how agreeable Celestino has been to engage with the neighbours and with the concerns that the community has raised. I'm just wondering, and I'm not quite sure what it is you're doing around the various strategies and so on, but it just seems to me that there's a real opportunity for some intergenerational planning ahead where you could really make some big advantages and really be a really good example of planning for the future. So for example, around things like using blonde asphalt for the roads or various things like that. Are you open to that sort of very futuristic planning sort of approach?

Look, absolutely. We work on, I guess, a development in the Aerotropolis called City Science Park, where we're looking to pioneer some of those technologies and, I guess, new practices. So we're practical. We can definitely leverage that experience we have and, I guess, trying to integrate things where possible. You know, we are delivering a recycled water plant as well, which will deliver recycled water to all the residents of the development and irrigate, I guess, the public open space. We've committed to doing light-coloured roofs to mitigate the heat island effect. We have over 30% open space. There's significant tree canopy within the streets. There's permeable paving within open spaces. So I think we've done a lot within this DCP and, I guess, where we can do things in the future, we'll definitely look to see what we can do.

Thank you. Yes, I did notice there's a lot in there along those lines, and I was just thinking, you know, where sometimes it just is asking you to consider it, I'm wondering if you would in fact be happy to commit to that approach, and it sounds like you are. So thank you for that. Thank you. No worries.

Any further questions? All right, thanks, Mr Jennings. Is our final speaker on the matter. Was there anyone to move anything? Councillor Rasmussen moved the recommendation.

Seconder ? Seconder, Deputy Mayor. Discussion? Anybody?

No.

Sorry, Councillor Rasmussen, were you wanting to discuss?

No, I'm happy with— I've read the council brief and/ or report, and I think it's a great— well, it's got the potential to be a — A bit of a showcase development, and I hope it is. I like the treatment around the creek and all of those elements that we just talked about, that Deputy Mayor talked about. Let's hope all that does come to fruition, and let's hope we get some of that future, so-called future, actually it should be now, but future planning takes place out there. It would be great to see that happening at Gosford. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll make the remark that you adjudicated against momentarily, and that's to say, look, I want to express pleasure that certain feedback has been considered and represents a significant improvement to the DCP concerning road widths. When we went out to the community consultation evening, which seems a geological age ago, pre-COVID, pre-lockdown at least, that was the significant concern that was expressed by many residents, that the narrowest roads within this estate were too narrow and that we had an opportunity to remedy that and to avoid the mistakes that we were seeing elsewhere. And if the narrowest roads are now going to have an eight-metre carriageway instead of a six-metre carriageway, I'd have to regard that as a good outcome. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. A couple of comments. Most of my comments relate to the planting, the suggested plantings, but just a comment on the dark roof. So I see in the DCP, I think the roof, the absorption heat absorb— sorry, I've lost the word. Hang on.

It relates to the, sorry, the

Solar absorption— sorry, index. I think is set at seven, or is less than seven, which still allows, if I look that up then, say on the colour bond chart, still allows you—doesn't allow black, which I think is fabulous, but still allows a fairly deep red and brown colour, and then shifts into the greys. It would be really nice if we could push that down to, say, 0.65, which then shifts to much lighter greys, greens and creams. I think what we've got is a significant step forward, looking at the newer housing in the LGA, but I think if we are to really push down that solar gain from roofs, we need to, I think we need to tighten up even further. If we could incorporate that, that would be helpful. I've got a little bit of—I've got a few concerns about some of the planting options, and they largely relate to some of the tree recommendations. So

It appears that sterile hybrids have been chosen for, and I'm particularly interested in the Acer fremanii, which is a red version of the box elder maple.

If people don't stick to the planting chart and they buy the cheaper versions of this plant, they're an absolute weed catastrophe. I would really like to see acers taken off that chart. They're also a tree that is very unlikely to survive increasing warming. They're on the short list of plants that won't survive. Anything, really anything from the northern, from the— Upper end of the Northern Hemisphere is not going to be a good bet going forward. They do grow really quickly. They have spectacular colour, and the ash, the Fraxinus, are a similar problem, the Claret Ash. Their colours are extraordinarily beautiful, but they're already succumbing in some areas, and they've been listed by a variety of academic studies and work coming out of Victoria that says that they're really not going to survive climate change.

And I think that would be a shame if we're going to go to the bother of planting these to provide additional tree canopy. If they're not going to last the distance, then that's a real shame. It would be really nice to see actually some food-bearing trees incorporated into these designs. They can be big shady trees. Something like pecans or macadamias that grow incredibly well here and are very well adapted, and are also spectacular. And some nectar-bearing trees, again, would be a bonus. In the climbers, Bougainvillea is listed for some of the public areas. That's really an accident waiting to happen. It also creates a maintenance nightmare for council. While they are extremely hardy, they're very spiky, and not too many people are keen on taking a crown of thorns home from the park.

So they're really not suitable for a public space planting. I don't know if the rose recommended is what's actually planned for that site. Pier de Ronsard, whilst beautiful in the pictures, is a bawling disaster in the Hawkesbury. It's simply too humid for a rose with that many petals, is the short answer. There are many, many spectacular climbers and spectacular roses that grow well here. Pier de Ronsard is not one of them . It would also be really nice to get the community nursery involved in some of the propagation and supply of these plants. I know we provide, the community nursery provides plants for some of the developers in the Northwest growth sector. It would be terrific if we could have some local seed used here.

I really, really want to commend the clause in the DCP that calls for local seed to be collected. That's fantastic, and our local community nursery is really capable of dealing with those plants. And I really want to commend Celesteino for working so hard with Council in such a positive fashion to deliver this development that looks like it will be a bit of a showpiece for us. So I think this is a really good outcome. Thank you

Thanks, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor . I think that this is a very encouraging document to have before us. It covers so many things. It really addresses the issues that the community raised when we went out to the consultation. Particularly to be addressing the potential land use conflict now is such a good thing to have done because we need for our existing farmers to be confident that they'll be able to continue their operation and to have had those measures put in place to minimise that potential land use conflict has been really good to see. We know that developments of this size have an impact on the existing residents, and they have an impact on the wider area. So by doing it in a way that shows an effort's been made to make it as sustainable as possible for the future, and also to deliver improvements to the Glossodia Centre itself and the facilities and amenity of the area, is really encouraging.

And hopefully, you know, its voluntary planning agreement and DCP and everything will turn out really well for that community . The reason I raised something like the Blonde Ashfield, for example, I think it's time that we start either asking or somehow mandating that we start to move down the path of these newer ways of doing things. We can't hide from the very, very disturbing IPCC report yesterday, which has shown us we have to do absolutely everything possible that we can do. Now, some time ago, Councillor Richards went to, I think, and I went to a local Ashfield facility open day to see what they did, and it was very interesting. And when I asked them, why aren't we having these, you know, very recycled products that are light coloured and all this sort of stuff?

They said, you have to ask for them. So they make their Ashfield to deliver. So whatever's asked for can be done. And I think that there needs to be a shift in how we approach a lot of these things, and that's what we should start to be encouraging people to do. Because when we look at the bigger picture and we add in all these various measures we can take, then we start to set the pattern of how things go for the future. And I think this is an opportunity as As Councillor Wheeler just said, this is an opportunity for us to show how good planning can be done, how proper negotiation and listening to what the community raises as their issues, working around those and coming up with the best way forward is really good.

And it's very encouraging for Mr Jennings to say that they have all these things in place that are going to make it something where we should be planning for the future. We have to be planning for people to be living in these houses in the next decade and beyond. And we know that that's going to be a changed environment. It's going to be a lot different than it is now. And we really have to start taking the measures that we can take. So I'm happy to support this DCP how it is, and I look forward to seeing the various plans and the various wonderfully innovative approach that can be taken to have the lowest, a lot of recycled products, et cetera, like that used if that's at all possible. So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm just wondering whether someone can give me an answer to two questions. Firstly, about solar panels on domestic roofs. Will there be a scheme brought in that encourages those panels to be put on as the houses are built? Because I think that is something that should have happened, in my opinion, at Redbank and didn't. So will we be—that's the first question—will we be looking at that process?

I'll go and that one first, Director City Planning.

Sorry, sorry. So in relation to that question, I would anticipate, I mean, it is something from Celestino's point of

View

They have got a fairly green or sustainability focus. So as to whether there's a scheme in place, I couldn't answer that question, but it's certainly been something that they would be looking at, I suppose, encouraging for, you know, any of their home occupiers coming in for the homes that they're going to build. But I wouldn't know if there's a particular scheme in place

Can I suggest that Mr Jennings look at that? Because it's been shown that if you get those solar panels put on during the building process, you can get bulk buying of those panels and can be a lot cheaper for everybody, and it can all be coordinated. Whereas people who are buying a new house are often stretched to have any money left over to do anything, and solar panels then often are something they aspire to, but they may not get around to for quite some time . The second question was about street lighting. Are we looking to be bringing in any sort of solar street lighting, or is it we're looking at conventional street lighting? What are the plans for that

Director City Planning

I'd have to refer that to the manager, strategic planning.

Okay, well, can I put that on record as well, because— The

Manager's here. Sorry, Councillor. Oh , okay

Sorry.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So at this stage, looking at conventional street lighting is the proposal.

Well, can I put it on record that we should try and encourage this development to look at more innovative ways of running those streetlights, because ordinary streetlights, as you know, are very expensive, and running them falls back onto Council's pocket. Whereas if we could get a system built in at the beginning, one that looks after itself, and there are many examples around the world now, solar streetlights, then this would be the time to do it. And as the Deputy Mayor said, this estate has the opportunity to be an example to everybody else, and I think if we're going to make it an example, we need to look at those two things in particular if we can. So thank you very much.

Thanks, Councillor Calvert. Is there any further discussion? If

Not, we'll go to our Councillor rounds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I also am going to support this. I think it's a good DCP . Like Councillor Zamprogno and others, I'm glad to see that the roads have been widened . I'd just like to point out that roads of six metres are not substandard. They're actually classified as local access roads. And so what the developer has done is done away with the term local access road, and so now they'll be eight metres. So they weren't substandard before; it's just the standard has been increased. Regarding the solar absorbance of roofs, I just, a question for staff . I think it's the Building Code of Australia rates dark... Classifies a dark roof as having a greater than 0.6 absorption, and the BASIX, the BASIX number, BASIX, is greater than 0.7.

So which standard will we apply when it comes to DA approval? Because if it's 0.7, as it says in the DCP, it will still allow, in inverted commas, dark roofs. Whereas if it's in accordance with the BCA, then it won't. So I just ask that question, please. Leave that to the manager, planning .

I'll just highlight in the DCP that's before Council tonight. So in the residential design controls, it talks about a control C7, which is basically, it requires that all development proposals have to consider the urban heat island effect, and they have to propose suitable measures, and that includes permeable surfaces, light-coloured roofs. So there's specific reference to light-coloured roofs in the actual controls in that regard. Okay .

So, and is that, what's the word , how firm is that

Well, I mean, yeah

All DCPs are a guide to development, but, you know, that's the control, and it basically has to come back to the overriding principles of the DCP, and that's embedded in the DCP. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank

You

Councillor Ross. Thank you,

Mr Mayor . The first thing I'd like to do is expand upon Councillor Calvert's discussion in regard to powering of the area . It might be a point which Celestino could give consideration to having, if you like, a local grid

Within that area using solar collection and possibly a storage battery facility, which could make the area somewhat self-sufficient and possibly even be able to export beyond its own boundaries. And that's the first comment. The second one is in regard to the water cycle. I was very interested in Mr Jennings' comments there in reference to the use of recycled water . The reason for that, Mr Jennings, is as follows . We have a similar situation which is operating at Pitt Town now, and I believe the operator of that plant will be the operator of the plant that you're envisaging installing.

The typical problem, both at Pitt Town, and this also applies to the Richmond sewage plant that Sydney Water run, is that there's a preponderance of recycled water available in the cooler months, but a shortage in the warmer months. And then it becomes a question as which part of the 50% is yours, or which part is somebody else's, or whatever. So I'm just wondering how you intend being able to manage that and being able to— Offer residents the use of recycled water throughout the calendar year

Please Can I use that as a question for Councillor Ross?

So you're on mute. Yeah, yes

I think that would be a wonderful question if Mr. Jennings is up to it, please.

Well, we have had time for questions to Mr. Jennings. That's all I'm sort of getting at. There was no questions for him, but I'll allow this one question, but then we'll leave it at that, if that's okay, Councillor Ross, if Mr. Jennings is happy to answer.

Yeah, so we'll have to take this on notice and I guess refer it to all together group that will operate the facility. That's a question for them

No further speakers. We'll go right to reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, just a couple of points. I want to pick up on what Councillor Cowan said. If we

Can encourage Celestine to actually pick up on the solar lights or LED lights in particular is my passion, if we could do. Now , this is pretty much current technology these days. Conventional lights are really being phased out as quickly as the cost curve allows it to be. And the other one

Was

The solar panels. I know that adds cost , and there are some difficulties with getting the RITS subsidies , but I'm sure that

Could be worked

Out. So if I could encourage that particular direction , that would be wonderful. But apart from that, I think it could well be a model development, and I certainly hope it is. Thank you. Thank you. Put

The motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lines-Buckett, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow. Declare it carried.

Thank you. Our next item subject to public address is item 154, and we have one speaker, Ms Erin Wilkins.

Is Erin in the meeting?

If you're there, Erin, we're ready for you now.

Thank you.

Sorry, just whenever you're ready, Erin.

All right. Good evening, Mr Mayor, Council and staff. My name is Erin, and I have a strong connection and continuing connection to my Darug people. My Darug ancestors are from the Hawkesbury, the Booroberong and Wianamatta families along the Dharug and the South Creek waterways. Before I begin, I'd like to pay respects to my ancestors who guide me as I walk on this rich land, and to everybody here online tonight, and to your ancestors also. Tonight I wish to address the Cultural Heritage Study report that was developed by Hawkesbury Council on the GML Heritage over the past few years, and I'd like to acknowledge Council's steps for supporting and setting up this study in place. As I learnt not too long ago, Hawkesbury is only one of a few councils that has developed such a deep interest and concern for Aboriginal space and place within the LGA.

This time is quite a timely date, as yesterday we celebrated the International Day of Indigenous Peoples, the theme Leaving No One Behind, Indigenous People and the call for our new social contract. I'd like to recommend that the Cultural Heritage Studies go to the public for exhibition and consultation. Because of the culturally sensitive information shared by many people and groups during the study period, some of the information, including photographs and locations, have been restricted and hence only a public version is being released. Hawkesbury, as we all know, has a long and deep heritage. Although the primary focus has always been to share and celebrate the colonial history of this place, tonight I want to quickly take you on a journey to show you the importance and significance of this place we all call home, especially to the Darug people and to the ancestors before me.

The messages, however, I don't think the report truly and entirely displays is our Aboriginal heritage is deeply embedded in the sands and soils, the sandstone escarpments, the ridgelines, and powerfully in the waterways as they wind and cut through this land. Our story starts right at the beginning of time, when the great eel spirit, our creator of landscape, Gurangatch and Gurrangady, surges way across our landform to create this beautiful landscape we all call home, the Hawkesbury. Over time, and especially through the darkness that we call colonisation, which we still feel the impacts of, our stories were no longer celebrated, our language tabooed, our cultural sites were seen to be no longer relevant to the farmers and to the settlers seeking to utilise and own the fertile lands in our region.

And as such, they destroyed them, covered them over. Our land still speaks to us. In fact, it calls to us to maintain, to protect and preserve its history. To understand the deep and powerful connection Aboriginal people have to place and space is important. To stand together, both non-Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people, to show strength. The ancestors and elders before us, we forge resilience. And most importantly, it is time that truth-telling of the darkest aspects of our history, Hawkesbury's history, is acknowledged and shared, and not only glorified as a colonial settlement. But one of a trifling pain and disposition. What I would like to mention here, though, is that our history and our country sacredness is not only defined by the physical sites and locations that are expressed in this report.

Our history is intertwined with our landscapes through stories and language, stories and language that have been passed orally through the generations. These stories are no less part of our cultural heritage, or our history. They are pieces that bring it all together. Aboriginal people have a strong spiritual connection to the land, waterways and skies that cannot be measured against a white policy or understanding. They are the pieces that keep our culture alive, that maintain our connection, and will continue to maintain our people physically and spiritually, and walk forevermore on the cultural landscape of the Hawkesbury. My wish for everyone here is to understand, for those that read the report, it is although that there are many sites registered under AHIMS, that there are also so many more sites known to us that have never been officially recorded.

And as our connection grows, we believe our ancestors are sharing more of their stories with us every day. They show us engravings that we have never seen before, even though we've been to those sites so frequently and regularly with our families, we were just not in a place to receive this information. While we're out bushwalking, pulling us in directions to a platform, ridgeline, rock shelter, and any open space. In wishing this report to go into exhibition, I hope that every person and family that reads it realises their importance and knows that there is a shared obligation to not only learn more of our history, the history of the Hawkesbury, the Dharug history, but of a true history of where they live, visit and share.

I wish these residents. To investigate new areas, possibly reading landscapes, to help assess the importance and significance prior to development. To learn the sacredness of our country, our community and our culture. But, more importantly, actually look at our landscape, not just see it, listen and not just hear it. Our culture has never died; it's always been here in the Hawkesbury. And thank you for your time and allowing me to address and to speak with you all tonight.

Thank you. Are you happy to take questions if councillors have any questions?

Yes, of course.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Erin. Thank you. It's always wonderful to hear you speak, and I have to say that this report is one of the most fascinating things I've ever read. It's absolutely extraordinary to read so much, particularly around the geomorphology and things like that. But my question to you is: what would be your ultimate application of this study in terms of what we do in Council? And because you've identified how strong your other links are to your heritage around your language and stories, are there any other ways that we could enhance the understanding of this cultural heritage by perhaps in the future doing other sorts of programs or something to go with it?

How long have I got to answer that? No, I think you can have probably as long as you'd like. I think when it comes back into Council, I think that every DA or every part of planning needs to be referred to it, not just create this document and leave it and let it sit there and not read it again, not look at it again. Let that document guide you. When it comes to language and stories and things like that,

We know that the Thompson Square signage has had a lot of praise with the Dharug history at the moment. But taking that and putting in place place naming, dual naming, and allowing people, putting more interpretive signage into certain sites to show that the sites are here, that we still have those connections, that they're still important. Not all sites are going to be open, but to have that educational basis for every single person that walks through any part of our landscape is important.

Thanks, Erin.

Okay, Erin was our final speaker. So, Councillor Wheeler.

Move the recommendation in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen.

Do you want to discuss, Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks to Erin for coming to speak. Erin also came to the Heritage Advisory Committee to introduce the study to the committee, and the committee also gave some commentary on it. I'm really pleased to see this document come to Council. I'm especially pleased to see us owning a document that makes it clear that the lands of the Dharug and Darkinjung peoples were invaded and contains a clear recognition of the Hawkesbury Nepean Wars from 1788 to 1816. This document forms a key part of the truth telling that's required for us to achieve real reconciliation and a real capacity to move forward both as a council area and as a nation with the First Peoples of this country. It's a really fascinating document.

If people are watching at home, because clearly this is far better than anything on the telly, and you haven't read this document, do so. The geomorphological record is fascinating. The extraordinary story of the formation of the Hawkesbury River and its passage. This is the understanding of this incredibly ancient river system, more than 90 million years old. In fact, older than the Blue Mountains that rise beside it. If you want to understand the river system that defines and sustains us, this section really is a must-read. But it's also a must-read if you want to understand the culture that developed with it.

There's a really interesting comment in here that the art that's detailed in this study isn't scattered randomly, but it's part of a web of art occupation and ceremonial sites. And I think that that understanding of that web of culture is not just influenced by the topography and the geography of this area, but as an integral part of it is what is really so fascinating about this story. There's also the comment that there were decades of conflict and attempts at subjugation, control and removal; paternalism, control, segregation and assimilation. We need to own those as parts of our own heritage. Our heritage isn't just about the marvellous development of these towns and the agriculture that saved a fledgling colony.

That came at a price, and it came at a price for the Darug and Darkinjung people, and we need to recognise that. It's also worth noting on this, the census night, that the 1967 referendum referred to in this document was the first time that Aboriginal people were determined as finally being able to be counted in the census, along with the rest of us. That was two years before I was born. That's —it's quite staggering, in fact, that this culture has survived the onslaught of the 200 years that faced it. There's also reference to the Real Secret River Darugan project, and I sincerely hope that the Darug place names can be incorporated into council signage project, and Erin referred to that when she was speaking as well.

I want to particularly thank the contributors to this, particularly the Darug and Darkinjung people. The spirit of generosity and forgiveness is really humbling, I think, for us. There are clear recommendations in this report regarding access, maintenance and treatment of these sites, but also incorporation of this knowledge into signage management plans, how we deal with planning arrangements. What I would like to see when this comes back to us after it goes on public exhibition is some clear recommendations about the resourcing that council is going to have to provide in order for these things to happen. Because as Erin said, it's not enough for this document to be put on the shelf. It's not enough for us to tick this box and say, Yep, we'll do this again in 10 years' time, we'll update it.

This has to be a living document. It has to be a document that we refer to frequently. It has to be a document that we make sure we understand the contents of so that we can continue our path towards reconciliation. But it also has to be a report now that is incorporated in every aspect of our planning regarding livability, signage, our— What we plant, what we do, and how we value this place that has been handed down to us and has been cared for for such a long time by the extraordinary people documented in this study. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I fairly much echo what Councillor Wheeler just said, but I think that this provides such a great baseline tool to inform us on all these sorts of issues. And not just from a history point of view, but it shows just how important it is that we get the input from our local Aboriginal community because their knowledge is incredible, their contributions are incredible, and that extends into modern decisions and modern decision-making. But we should be incorporating their point of view at every single point. And I think this is such a wonderful educational tool that I hope it will spread beyond Council and that it is something that can be accessed by schools, and I'm sure there's other material that there, and that people do.

But I think that it should be read by as many people as possible. And the dual signage with the language as well, I think that is being considered in our signage strategy or policy, and hopefully that will be a reality before too long. I was also going to ask questions about resources, but Councillor Wheeler just raised that. So I hope we get some feedback from the community. I hope that when this goes out on exhibition, that people read it and really embrace the incredible history that we have in this area and read about just the wonders of the whole thing. I just think it's a really fantastic report, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank Erin for coming and speaking to us tonight. I think that this is a good plan. Some of those actions, some of the actions that are in the implementation plan require funding. Some don't require funding; they just require us to take certain steps that are included in our remit. Some we've already started on. I did go out to Cada Bridge Reserve with Erin, and she showed me around and was happy to answer my different questions, and got a feel for what needs to be done there, and we have started that work. So some of these things are for Council to fund. Other parts of this are for Council to now say we've got a strategy, we can go and have this packaged up for grant funding.

So I think it's important that we get this on exhibition and get it adopted so that when those opportunities come up, we've got a chance to go and seek that funding that's available. Are there any further speakers?

If not, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Not necessary, Mr. Mayor.

Put the motion. All those in favour? Favour , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash. Have I missed anyone? Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Okay, thank you, everyone. That was our last items of public address. So, with the items on block, I'll just read my interest in item 156. So, I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 156, being that I'm a member of the Hawkesbury City Chamber of Commerce, which is one of the applicants for funding. I was not aware of the application, will not personally benefit from success or failure, and I'm a general member and not on the executive, and I reason for no further action. Someone want to move the items on block? Moved. Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour? Clerk

Do I have to read those out?

No? Declared carried.

Next item is 158, the Heritage Committee minutes. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Second, Mr Mayor.

Thank you,

Mayor. So the Heritage Advisory Committee continues to power along, despite having a bit of a slow patch while we adjusted to the new committee structure. I think the committee will be— I'm not sure how we all feel about the council election being pushed back to December, but I think the Heritage Advisory Committee will probably be pleased because it will mean that they'll be able to finish off some more of the work that we've still got going. So there is—this was a lengthy meeting with a massive business paper, more than 700 pages in the business paper. This is a committee that gets through a lot of business. Key things to note: the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study, which we've now put on public exhibition the draft three-year heritage study.

It's unusual for, excuse me, a heritage committee to be endorsing a second study, given that this committee has now had two extensions to its lifespan. It's now settled on the heritage strategy for 2017 to 2021 and now has settled on the next one as well. Particularly pleased to see the appointment of a heritage officer. The members of the Heritage Advisory Committee are very, very keen to see that person put in place as soon as possible, and we're very grateful to the Director of City Planning for pushing for that position and similarly to Council for agreeing to the funding of that position. It will make a real difference in an area with such rich heritage and so much that needs doing . We're still proceeding with the heritage study and keen to see the inventory sheets , and endorsed the next round of the Local Heritage Assistance Fund.

There was also recommendations for further advertising of that Heritage Assistance Fund, both as a carrot to potential owners of heritage buildings that will be potentially listed under the heritage study, but also as a means of increasing public support for heritage and also education around what's done with heritage. So the committee is really keen to see more work done with council's corporate communications to really push both the fund and the results of the work that's been done . There's some additional information for heritage owners that's starting to be rolled out through heritage information sheets. I think we covered roofing and rising damp too, so water coming down and coming up.

We've tackled first. There are additional sheets to come on paint, fencing, I think, and a variety of other hot topics in heritage circles. The committee would like some more money from council, but also from the state heritage office, never backward in coming forward asking for more resources, and I think that's probably a fair cop .

And also a big push for education of tradespeople working on heritage buildings that that work. but be done both in a sensitive fashion, and also there'd be attention to materials, excuse me, and gaining approvals. There was talk about the signage project and Councillor Zamprogno's recommendations for a Blue Parks program, similar to the one in the United Kingdom, and also comments on the Richmond Bridge duplication, which have already been incorporated into the submission. So as you can see, quite a lengthy and very useful meeting. Lots of information given freely from expert members of the committee, which continues to provide a really useful service to Council.

Thank you. Councillor Richards.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I was to declare an interest, as this item mentions Richmond Bridge duplication project, so I'll leave the room now if it's okay before the vote takes place, and I'll send through my declaration of interest form.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? I ask for Councillor Richards to be removed. No . All right, we'll put that motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand . Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lainsbury, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert . Councillor Richards is absent from the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is questions with notice. Any discussion on those? For Wheeler

No. All right. There's no questions on those answers.

Council, I want to move we go into confidential for item 161. Moved Councillor Gary, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Declare it carried, and we'll wait till we go into—

Okay, I'll just ask the General Manager to advise on the resolutions from closed session.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 161 regarding lease to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, Unformed Road Reserve adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: one, Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed deed of lease with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, for the road reserve adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, as outlined in the report in accordance with section 154 of the Roads Act 1993. Point two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part one, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received regarding the proposed agreement to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, a further report be submitted to Council; or B, should no submissions be received, one, Council agree to enter into a deed of lease with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, in regard to the Unformed Road adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, as outlined in this report;

two, authority be given for the deed of lease and any other documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council; three, details of Council's resolution to be conveyed to the proposed lessee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation put to such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. The vote was moved, Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Rasmussen, and those in favour were Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Tree and Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor

There being no further items of business, we'll declare the meeting closed at 9.35 pm. Thank you, everybody.