23 November 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to the last meeting of this term. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury and pay respect to our Elders past, present and emerging. I hand over to the General Manager now to go through the procedural items.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd 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 may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Councillors, to Council, and in any answers given to questions from Councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Do we have any apologies? I think all Councillors are here except Councillor Ross. Is that right? So I think we'll assume he's late. Declarations of interest. Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I am going to make a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in item 225. 25 . Deputy Mayor.

Less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 244.

And Councillor Wheeler.

Lessons a significant pecuniary in 233.

Aye,

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. A significant non-pecuniary in 245, a significant non-pecuniary in 241, a non-pecuniary in 244

And a significant non-pecuniary in 233. I know way too many people in this area.

And Councillor Colash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Items 229 and 242,

Significant non-pecuniary interest.

Thank you . When we get to those items, we'll read down the table. There's a significant number there, so I'll get you to make sure you jump in at the start if I don't refer back to that list and get it right. So we've got some— actually, first thing we'll do is confirm the minutes. Someone wants to do that? Moved Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. In favour? Further carried.

So, Councillors, this is obviously the last meeting of the term, and we have a couple of councillors who are not seeking re-election, being Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Tree. So both have been offered the opportunity to give an address to Council. So I think we'll do that now. I think Councillor Rasmussen indicated he didn't wish to do that, but Councillor Tree, you wanted to make an address? Yeah, we'll go ahead and do that now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm grateful for my time on Council, and I've had the opportunity to meet and work with some truly wonderful people. I'd like to thank my Liberal colleagues Sarah and Pat for their support over the years, and has been greatly appreciated. I've been fortunate to be on a number of boards and committees over my period on Council, and as Vice President of Wesrock, I was part of a two-person delegation who met with the Minister, Warren Truss, to guarantee the $18 million of funding for the three intersection upgrades to ensure that it wouldn't be cut. Prior to this meeting, the funding was not a priority for the government, so it was great to see the tangible difference this has made for the residents in their daily commute.

Wesrock also lobbied for the raising of the dam wall, as there was great concern about there being a significant flood event, and I think we're only just starting to see those occur. We also supported Badgerys Creek Airport, which will bring jobs and infrastructure to Western Sydney. I see these as significant achievements in my time on Council, but I have to say that the little things like getting a road graded so residents don't lose their tyres in potholes is just as worthwhile. I'd love to give a big shout-out to the Sports Council. I was on this committee for a number of years, and I observed it as being an excellent delegated authority. The passion and dedication for getting the best outcomes for sporting associations in our community is commendable.

One of the proudest moments was attending the opening of the nursing home at North Richmond, as it was clear that this was a quality facility which would observe best practice standards for aged care settings, particularly in relation to dementia care.

Redbank is another great outcome for the Hawkesbury. It has provided quality housing and created a sense of community for its residents. Many businesses in the local area have enjoyed more turnover as a result, and the public school has grown, which was much needed. Unfortunately, we should have been able to use the Grose River Bridge by now, and I'm saddened by the continual delays which have prevented the builders from getting on with the job. I hope that Council and Transport for New South Wales seek to support the project in a timely manner and that we will see that happen in the coming year, because the community expect that. Windsor Bridge is another fabulous outcome for the community, as it provides much safer passage for all motorists.

Although I have to have a little giggle when detractors lament about how it's not a flood-free bridge, because I'd like to know where they thought they were going to go once they got to the other side, which is a floodplain and always filled up with water. You would absolutely need a boat. We all do our jobs in different ways. Whilst many, like in public life, like to enjoy posting to the world about what they have done, what they are doing, about what they're about to do to get likes and validation, I personally abhor social media, as I see it as a vacuous space, and in addition it can be a very unhealthy platform for keyboard warriors to take potshots from behind the safety of their screens.

There has been a lot of discussion about how unacceptable it is to treat women poorly in the political world. I don't think people of any gender deserve to be treated poorly in public life. Much is said about the Me Too movement, workplace bullying and domestic violence, are you OK, links to cyberbullying and suicide and other mental health initiatives. Yet for all this rhetoric, governments continue to turn a blind eye to the incessant online bullying and attacks of public figures. I heard the Minister for Local Government, Shelley Hancock, trying to recruit more women to become councillors. In one breath she said that it was a great opportunity, and then the next breath she said you had to grow a thick skin to cope with the cut and thrust of public life.

I can tell you from public experience as a councillor that being on the receiving end of hate mail, emails, texts, phone calls and social media is not fixed by growing a thick skin. It is demoralising, embarrassing, hurtful to your family and totally and utterly not worth the good that you thought you might do once elected. The culture of politics has led to the acceptance or expectation that you'll become the target of vitriol and you just have to cop it as being part of the gig. This attitude enables the well-wardened army of activists to get away with their hate campaigns as par for the course and without any fear of reprisal. Laws need to be introduced to set a higher expectation about the discourse between elected members and the public.

We talk about human rights, dignity and the right to be safe in the workplace. Yet, and we have anti-bullying laws for the workplace, and yet the public space is an elected members' place of work, and they are not protected in any way from the abuse of the public. This systemic abuse can lead to poor mental health and should not be expected as being just part of the job. I was glad to see the conversation starting about this idea of workplace safety in federal parliament, and there are many serious incidents that must be investigated. Most likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. I think we can all agree that the culture within the political world needs a seismic shift, and that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

However , I am disappointed to see that often the people advocating for the safety of women are the same people who regularly target or support concerted campaigns and attacks on women who do not come from the same ideological camp.

These are personal attacks, not attacks on policy. It is slut shaming, commentary about parenting, personal comments about partners, husbands and children. You become complicit when you say nothing to call out the vitriol of trolls on your pages and quietly snigger in the sideline. You are condoning unacceptable behaviour, and you are engaging in bullying behaviour. The hypocrisy is galling. I wouldn't have thought that in the year 2021 we still need to remind ourselves that we should be decent human beings to each other, regardless of any background or political leaning. You can always disagree with a political position, but it needs to be done respectfully and not turned into uncontrolled personal attacks.

On a lighter note, I would particularly like to thank Rob Veltch for her ultimate professionalism and support over the last 13 years. I want to wish our new GM the best of luck for the new term and hopefully following terms. I think Ms. Liz Richardson is a breath of fresh air for the council, and from what I can tell, she is doing the job that a GM should do and thankfully values the notion of good governance. This is where policy and procedures apply to the whole community, and the goalposts are the same for all, not shifted to suit political alliances or friendships or lack thereof. Lastly, I'd like to thank and wish all of the council staff and council as well, and hope that the new term brings in some more fresh air and positive changes.

That's right. Councillor Rasmussen, did you want to say anything?

Mr Mayor, no, I don't. I'm having a little bit of difficulty with the breathing side of it, but I mean , basically, it's been a great joy, 23 years, a huge joy to serve the community , the Hawkesbury community. It's a great community, and I wish my fellow councillors all the best, particularly the progressive ones who continue to move forward and make the Hawkesbury a much, much better place for all of us. And this political game playing has no place in the Hawkesbury. In my view, as you all know, political parties are not fit for purpose in the Hawkesbury or any other LGA. We should all work together for common good, do as best we can, and go hard. If you don't do that, don't stand for council.

And thank you, and of course the staff, who've been some really, really good staff over the years, and I do want to thank them for the support they've given to me. And it's been rewarding, it's been humiliating, and really gratifying to see how good people we have in the Hawkesbury. Really good people. They work hard. And the last two years has been particularly hard for me. Anyway , thank you, Mr. Mayor and

Councillors. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. I want to thank both Councillor Tree and Councillor Rasmussen, both long-serving councillors who have worked hard over a long time and both certainly will be missed. Councillors, we have, as everybody knows, an extremely long agenda today , and we, as councillors would be aware, the general manager has indicated to us a number of items that we have to deal with, that we do need to be dealt with tonight, cannot be adjourned, cannot be pushed out in a decision. So I'm going to suggest if somebody—that we need to move the order of speakers, sorry, of business. We also have with us visitors from the audit office and Grant Thornton, just to address us on the financial statements.

So if somebody wanted to move, I'm going to suggest that we deal with item 2.3.4, then the items on block, then the highlighted items for the councillors with that in front of them, which is 2.2.4, 2.2.9, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4. 6, then go back to the agenda for the other items that have speakers on them, and then deal with the other items in that order that they are in the business paper, just to ensure that we do get through everything we need to. Councillor Tree, happy to move that. Seconded, Councillor Richards. It's a procedural motion, so all those in favour? Carried.

And I will just, we'll move into two, three, four. I just want to make the comment that there is a lot to get through here, and most of it, all of it, is very important. But there are some particular items that are quite a lot of substance, and they do deserve consideration. So I would really encourage councillors that we don't need to have multiple speakers all saying the same thing. We don't need to have three or four speakers in favour of an item if there's no dissent. If everyone can be mindful of the fact that we want to get through this, it can mean that we can probably get to all the items. So just encourage councillors to keep that in mind. So the first item is two, three, four, and our first speaker is Mr. Kenneth Leong.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. So we've prepared a lovely presentation for Council tonight, and I might just share my screen. So let me know if it works.

We can see that. Lovely. All right. So thank you very much again for the pleasure to once again present on the conduct of the 2021 audit. We are very, very pleased to announce that the audit of the 30 June 2021 financial statements is complete, and we have issued a clean unmodified audit report. So as the year continues to bring us further challenges from the pandemic, it has been really impressive how Council has adjusted to continue to deliver essential services and maintain operations as close to normal as possible. I don't underestimate how challenging this has been, and acknowledge how hard it has been for many of your staff. In this context, can I please thank you for the way that you've worked to support the audit process, and in particular doing this against the normal timeframe, despite the impacts of COVID-19 on staff working remotely and in lockdown.

Before discussing the conduct of the audit, I'd like to just make some short general comments.

So in 2021, we released our annual work plan, and this work plan explains how we decide what to focus on and what we intend to cover in 2022 for all sectors that we audit. This year's program focuses on government's responses to emergencies. Some of our planned performance audits in 2022 include the COVID-19 Intensive Learning Support Program, bushfire recovery grants, RFS preparedness, and virtual healthcare. Both financial and performance audits will focus on emergency responses to date, and in later years, we'll look at recovery and the impact of government actions. Some of the planned performance audits include the effectiveness of financial management and governance in selected councils, development assessment processes in local councils, coastal management reforms, as well as the effectiveness of local government regulation and support.

And of course, our 2022 upcoming financial audit report will include management letter themes, cybersecurity, IT general controls, as well as ARIC and internal audit. So through you, Mayor, I'll probably hand over to James, who will talk on the conduct of the audit itself in detail. Over to you, James. Thank you, Kenneth, and thanks, Mayor and councillors. Again, thanks for the opportunity just to talk briefly tonight to the conduct of the audit report and just, I guess, tie that over. I guess as Kenneth alluded to, we issued, or the Auditor Office issued, an unqualified report, and we're pleased that was the case. I just want to talk to a couple of things which I guess really reflect what was in the financial statements for the current year and which we reported on in the conduct of audit report.

I guess we noted there the overall.. . From the operational perspective, clearly the impact in the current year of the impact of those disposals of assets, which had an impact on the operating bottom line, which flipped that around, I guess, in terms of the operating performance of Council in the current year. So that was certainly a matter which impacted on the financial performance.

When you look at the financial statements, which we obviously did and presented by yourselves, and in terms of the operation, the conduct of audit report which we briefly mentioned, that overall impact of the additional costs, particularly some of those, particularly some of the effect of the floods, but also the impact of COVID and the general position of Council in the current year with some restrictions around revenue meant that the impact on the operating performance ratio was negative, and so that flipped over again in the current year to be a negative ratio. So in terms of that overall ratio, performance of Council, Council met its ratios with the exception of the operating performance ratio, which you've outlined in your financial statements and the reasons why, and again that's consistent with the operating performance.

And then, not unexpectedly, I suppose, was just the annual rates and charges outstanding percentages, and that's something I guess Council continues to keep an eye on. But other than those ratios, Council met its ratios. In terms of the overall performance, which we alluded to in the report as well, in terms of cash flow, again cash flow from the operating performance of Council was consistent with the prior year, and the overall financial position, therefore, of Council was particularly , I guess, presented in that cash flow where that consistency of cash flow from the prior year meant that you're achieving a cash surplus, which then is deployed into the infrastructure assets of Council. So I guess in that sense, we pointed to those, the operating performance.

We pointed to the compliance with most of the ratios, and Council, as also mentioned that in its financial statements. There was no other additional matters we need to note. There's nothing from a legislative compliance perspective. So again, in terms of the... The outcome for the year was obviously significantly affected by the impact of the floods, which had an impact on both an impairment and a disposal, which affected the financial outcome in terms of the presentation of the financial statements. But I guess I'm happy to pause there and hand back to you, Kenneth.

Thanks, James. I think that's all we had. Happy to take any questions or anything. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you mind just pulling down the presentation so I can see the gallery view. Councillors, are there any questions?

No? Thank you for that. Thanks so much for your time tonight, really appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. In that case, if somebody, Deputy Mayor, move the recommendation?

Yep. Seconder for that, Councillor Wheeler. There is, oh sorry, I meant to mention there's a slightly updated staff recommendation to this one. It's just to include the fact that in point two that we heard representatives from both the Audit Office and Grant Thornton. So I don't know if we want to bring that up on the screen if possible. Very minor change.

Just 2.2

Yeah. Any discussion on this item, councillors?

If not, I'll put the motion. Sorry if you don't mind taking— yep, thank you. Everyone in favour, please raise your hand. Favourable: Councillor O'Connellly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cottlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Ross declared carried.

So next with the items on block, somebody wanted to move those. Moved Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Richards.

I have an interest.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. Good job. Return interest out, please.

Thank you. It's for item 241. Sorry, I just got to flick screens. Local Traffic Committee. My partner's business is in the area, so I'll be declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest and leaving the vote, please. Okay. Ready to go. Waiting room. Okay.

All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favor: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. I've just realised I don't have a seconder because I didn't read that out correctly. Councillor Tree, happy to second that. Declare that carried, and we'll let Councillor Richards back in.

Next item is 224,

Which we have two speakers. First speaker is Mr Glenn Apps.

Just let them, the speakers into the room.

Mr Apps, we've just got onto item 224, and we're up to your address if you're ready. Hello

Councillors , can you see me and hear me?

I can hear you, yep. Yes, there you are. Yep, I can see you. Sorry. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor and Councillors. I'm speaking on behalf of the proponent and in support of the recommendation, and as a result, you have the benefit of me being mercifully brief. The recommendation is that Council support the planning proposal, and obviously we endorse that recommendation. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Council staff for their considered assessment of the application. It has been a long process, and the planning proposal has evolved over time to where it is tonight in response to various strategies that have been implemented since the planning proposal was lodged. And again, we thank Council staff for their assistance over the protracted course of this matter, and we're pleased that we are here tonight with the recommendation of support.

So other than commend the recommendation of the report to you, I have nothing further to say, other than to respond to any questions that Councillors may have. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions

Councillors?

No. Okay, thank you. And then our second speaker is Mr Michael Want. You ready, Mr Want? Yes

Yes. Thanks , Mayor. The NRDCAA continues its opposition to no rezoning of land west of the river until the river structure is in place to ease traffic congestion. In addition, Dr Sebastian Forch, senior lecturer in urban studies at Western Sydney University, said single-standing dwellings are the Australian nightmare when it comes to heat. It probably also is a nightmare when it comes to public health or even the social interaction between the people, because they are just inside because it is just too hot outside. He said we are creating a very, very dire situation out here, and he told the Cooling Cities hosted by Penrith City Council and 220. The heat crisis in Western Sydney is posing a serious risk to people's health.

It's in your hands, councillors, if you can change the trajectory in which we are heading. The community cannot rely on governments who say around election time, we will build car parks, build shooting ranges in regional towns, a bridge across the Hawkesbury River in 2027-plus, or the Gross River Bridge that was promised over 10 years ago. The Gross River Bridge should never be built. Our environment is more important than a five-ton load limit crossing the Gross River. If council and the government are fair dinkum, they would build the bridge across the Hawkesbury to join Crownies Lane and then the Driftway. The business paper at page 21 refers to a city supported by infrastructure in accordance with the three-city plan.

The Western Sydney District Plan has been considered and issues addressed, all getting the big tick from council staff. At page 40 of the business paper, Transport for New South Wales raises matters in relation to traffic, to future traffic cumulative impacts. Council traffic studies pursued and obtained by the Progressive Councillors say there will be no significant impact. As I said earlier, we should not rely on hope that bridges will be built; we should wait till bridges are built. That is what the over 4,400 petitioners who have been asked to sign the petition No Resuming of Land West of the River Till the infrastructure is in place. There are four submissions attached to the report. As I read them, none of them are in support.

One says if residents don't put their foot down now, the Kermode and Kurrajong may well be called Richmond 2. Councillors, at least there is a reduction in the number of lots from 30 to 11. The Progressive Councillors received another tick for that reduction.

The rural landscapes between Colo High on Bells Line of Road and Comleroy Road, where once farms existed, including four dairy farms, will be gone. The city slickers will have to drive further to feel the country experience. Despite claims made by some, the planning proposals in the pipeline will complete the demolition of our rural landscapes in that area unless a majority of Progressive Councillors are elected in December. So, Councillors, if you are inclined to be wavering, then refer the planning proposals to the next Council. Now , Mr Chair, the President of the NRDC—sorry, Mr Mayor—the President of the NRDC AA branch in Surrey has asked me to publicly thank the Progressive Councillor Paul Rasmussen for his 20 years' service as a servant of the people of the Hawkesbury local government area .

She said that Paul has engaged with the community and community groups, listened to their concerns, represented those concerns within the chamber, and through proper channels within Council. He led the farming community for years. He may well still be involved. His service was state, five-star and still is. His commitment was unwavering despite his ill health. The NRDCAA would love to see at least seven Paul Rasmussens after the December elections. He was a councillor who

Ticked every box identified in the role of a councillor under the Local Government Act, and I just refer to two of those, Mr Mayor : D, to represent the collective interests of residents, ratepayers and local community. Paul was outstanding. E, to facilitate communications between the local community and the governing body. Again, outstanding . I would urge those councillors who are elected in December to follow Paul's example. Thanks, Paul, from our president and the executive members of the NRDCAA. You were there when the community needed you regardless. Thank you.

Mr Want, happy to take questions if councillors have questions. Yes . Any questions for Mr Want? No. Okay, thank you . Councillors, items open for discussion if someone wants to move something.

Sorry, make sure you use your small hands, the Zoom hands, because I can't see everyone on one screen at the moment. So, anybody wants

To move anything? Councillor Kotlash

Thank you,

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

Seconder for that?

Councillor Tree. Thank you. Any discussion? Right

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

The next item is, sorry, Councillors, 229, the Warragamba Dam submission.

Mr Mayor , I have an interest in that.

Yep, sorry, down the take please.

I am a member of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Advisory Committee. This committee has recently been briefed on the EIS of this project, and while the committee has yet to meet formally, the level of opposition to the project has become clear. I therefore feel that it is inappropriate for me to be involved in deliberations on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor [inaudible] is in the waiting room. Okay. Anybody wish to move anything on item 229?

Recommendation, Councillor Wheeler? Yeah, seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Any discussion?

No? All right, we'll put the motion. Deputy Mayor, did you want to say something?

Yes , please, Mr Mayor. I've actually got a hard copy of the business paper, and I'm not used to it. I'm used to my iPad, and I'm trying to find it. I did just want to thank the staff for doing the submission and just draw attention to the public, to some public... The public to some facts that are in the business paper, and I think it would be really good if people read that to see the history around the dam, because there's some things being said out there in the public in sort of election mode that aren't entirely true. And I think it would be good if the public were to read about what has transpired to get to this point. I know we're speaking about the submission, but I note that the history is quite well documented in there, in particular that this is back from the '60s and so on.

And I'd just like to say that obviously there's issues with turning a water storage dam into a flood mitigation dam, and hence it has never been done in the last 50 or so years. And I think that we've raised things in our submission that get to the core of the core reasons of what should be being looked at in an EIS, and that we have put together something that really calls for transparency on this matter when it's such a big project. And when Council has repeatedly asked for this information, I think that it's a submission over the last 50 or so years that government has not taken any notice of what Council's opinion was because they have not done what Council's opinion was. And so I think that it will be really interesting to get the responses or to see if there are any responses to what's been raised in response to the omissions in the EIS.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. All right, we'll put the motion then. Councillor Zamprogno, you've got the ability to

Raise your hand on Zoom. Yep. So I get you that from now on, councillors, the last time I'll allow that. If you want to speak on the item, put your hand up on Zoom, and if I'm called, then we'll speak as we're moving on. We're not going to all wait to try and be the last one to speak or not. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And it's not

My

Intention to rehash what

Are well-established and well-entrenched positions on this, but fundamentally, endorsing this submission should not be taken by any other political actors as Hawkesbury Council declaring that there should be no raising of Warragamba Dam . This

Submission is about raising issues that we see as gaps, raising issues that are particularly germane to our community. And I've taken the view that a bad submission is better than no submission. This submission has many flaws in terms of the tone that it takes, but I just want to put on the public record that we would be abrogating our duty if we did nothing, and if this is the only thing that the chamber will endorse, then I will accept it. Thank you. Thank you

Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just very briefly, just to the point that there are flaws with this submission. I don't think this is a bad submission. I think this is the possible submission from this current council. I think it's actually much of it makes some excellent points about what we see as the gaps in this process, and certainly the gaps in the information that have been given to us. We've been briefed by Infrastructure New South Wales. The additional information that we've gleaned has been from the Upper House inquiry and And experts who have addressed that inquiry, none of those experts have addressed this Council. None of them have been made available to us for questioning. We are dealing with the information that is before us, and I am glad that Council is making a submission, and I'm glad that Council is making a submission that discusses the information relevant to the Hawkesbury, not to other areas, and a submission that has a notable absence of fearmongering and cries of drowning people or not caring about the residents.

It's worth noting, given that many people are using this as an election issue, that Council is not in a position to give this project the go-ahead. Anybody who claims that they are capable of raising the wall for flood mitigation is simply lying to the people who might vote for them on that basis.

Thank you. We'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillors Improgno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds. Against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Declare it carried.

Next item, therefore, is item 244, which is in confidential. So, someone want to move we go into confidential? Moved, Councillor Garrow.

Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. All in favour? Declare that carried. So we'll go into confidential and we'll return afterwards to deal with the remainder of the meeting.

Okay, now back in open session. I hand over to the General Manager to advise of Council's resolutions.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Whilst in a confidential session, Council dealt with three items: item 2.4, nominations for 2022 Australia Day Awards; item 2.4 .5, appointment to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel; and item 2.4 .6, legal advice in respect of development application 0508 of 2018, Extractive Industries, at 374-395 and 415 Freemans Reach Road, Freemans Reach. So first of all, a procedural motion was moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Garrow, that consideration of each award category be dealt with in seriatim. So that's in respect of item 2.4, nominations for the Australia Day Awards. So in respect of motion one, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Richards declared interests, and I will pass over to those councillors to make those declarations.

Thank you, Ms Richardson. I have in item 2.4 a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, and we will withdraw from voting in the relevant categories.

Thank you.

Thank you. In item 2.4, I also had a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, and I withdrew from voting on those relevant categories as well.

Thank you. So, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session of Council in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Citizen of the Year Award. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion, no councillors. And absent for the vote were Councillors Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash and Richards. In respect of motion two, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Richards made the same declarations as they did with respect to motion one. I think that's fair, Councillors , and that Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Garrow, that Council adopts the confidential recommendation developed in closed session in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Young Citizen of the Year Award.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. There were no councillors against the motion and absent for the vote were Councillors Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash and Richards. Motion three, in respect of motion three, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Garrow, that Council adopts the confidential recommendation developed in closed session in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Volunteer of the Year Award. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. There were no councillors against the motion and absent for the vote were Councillors Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash and Richards.

With respect to motion four, Councillors resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett and seconded by Councillor Garrow, that Council adopts the confidential recommendation developed in closed session in respect of the recipient of the 2022 Local Hero Award. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Lyons-Buckett, Calvert, Kotlash, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Richards, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. No councillors were against the motion and all councillors were present. Motion five. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session of the Council in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Community Organisation of the Year Award.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Lyons-Bucket, Calvert, Garrow, Kotlash, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Richards, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. There were no councillors against the motion and there were no councillors absent. Respective item six. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Ross, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session of Council in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Community Arts Award. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Lyons-Bucket, Calvert, Garrow, Kotlash, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Richards, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. There were no councillors against the motion and no councillors were absent.

In respect of motion seven, Councillor Richards declared an interest in respect of this matter, the same declaration of interest that she declared in respect of motion number one. And whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session of the Council in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Junior Sports Person of the Year Award. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion were no councillors. Absent for the vote were Councillors Lyons-Bucket, Kotlash and Richards.

And lastly, motion eight. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session. Of Council in regard to the recipient of the 2022 Person of the Year Award, for the motion were Councillors Conolly, Lyons-Buckett, Calvert, Garrow, Kotlash, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Richards, Ross, Tree, Willer, Zamprogno. Against the motion were no councillors, and absent for the vote were no councillors. In respect of item 2.4.5, appointments to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Wheeler, that Council select the following two community representatives from the pool of community members of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel for the meetings of the Local Planning Panel meeting until the 31st of September 2021, Paul Rogers and Graham Eds.

A report be provided to the first Council meeting of the new Council term in relation to the role of community representatives and to select any additional community representatives. Point three, advise the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment of the community representatives appointed by Council to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel. Four, advise all applicants of Council's determination and thank them for their interest in this matter. For the motion were Councillors Lyons-Buckett, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Ross, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Tree and Kotlash, and absent for the vote was Councillor Richards.

Can I please declare my interest. Thank you, General Manager. In item number 2.4.5, I declared a significant non-pecuniary interest. One nominee was working with my partner, another is a member of my Rotary Club, and I left the room for the vote.

Thank you, Councillor. And the last motion considered in confidential session was in respect of legal advice in regard to a development application on Freeman's Reach Road, Freeman's Reach. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Tree, that the Council: one, note the report regarding the legal advice obtained in regards to means to lodge an appeal against the approval of Development Application DA0508 of 2018, granted by the Sydney Western City Planning Panel at 374, 395 and 415 Freeman's Reach Road, Freeman's Reach on the 14th of September 2021; and two, not proceed to appeal the decision granted by the Sydney Western City Planning Panel.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Lyons-Buckett, Garrow, Kotlash, Rasmussen, Reynolds, Richards, Ross, Tree, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion were no councillors, and all councillors were present for the vote. I think that's it, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Okay, so we move on to items now on the agenda with speakers. So the first item, therefore, is 226, and our one speaker, Ms Matilda Julian, just refer into the...

Hi Matilda, we've just gotten up to item 226 and you're our only speaker on the item, so when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you for giving me this time to address the Council. I know that—

Hi Matilda, we've just gotten up to item 226 and you're our only speaker on the item, so when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you for giving me this time to address the Council. I know that

Matilda, you just have to close down your YouTube if you have that open .

Item 226 and you're our only speaker on the item, so— Love where this happens. Do we— Devon

Second delay problem.

Now I'm reluctant to say anything else,

But this is so meta

Anybody got— does anybody have YouTube open? If you've got YouTube open, we need you to close that. Matilda, you don't have YouTube open?

Ah, maybe that's it.

Anybody got— does anybody have YouTube open? If you've got YouTube open, you need to— Okay,

Potentially that fixed the problem

When you're ready, Matilda, try again.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening to me again. I've had a chance to look at the first section of the proposed DCP. I've also had a good working knowledge of the old document. My concern is that there have been no changes to the way that car parking will be assessed for the new agritourism sections. For reference, they are on pages 77 and 79 of the proposed document. Given that this is the first time the DCP has been reviewed in 18 years, the community would expect that Council take the care and attention to get it right so that it fits for the future and the current culture of the Hawkesbury. Therefore, care should be taken to adequately reflect changes that have happened and are happening in agritourism in our area.

We've all seen agriculture change in the last, say, 10 years. I grew up in and live in Bilpin, and so I've seen this firsthand. Agriculture land use conflict is also changing. Agriculture used to mean smells, sprays and sounds. Now it means tourists, traffic and hazards. The DCP should reflect these changes. Car parking may not seem like a major issue, but the way agritourism is currently being assessed and will continue to be assessed if no changes are made to the new DCP is that local streets and main roads are becoming private business car parks for hundreds of people, and it's becoming unsafe.

For example, Hillbilly Cider Cellar Door was assessed as a roadside stall with a cafe and restaurant. Therefore, when it was assessed, it required five car spots for the roadside stall, and the cafe gross floor area ratio was used to determine that 15 car spaces in total was sufficient. The outdoor picnic areas weren't taken into account, and the tourist nature of the operation was not taken into account. As a result, the overflow of cars ends up on a narrow rural road, causing hazards for other road users. The same is happening throughout the Hawkesbury. It's happening at Bilpin Cider Cellar Door, and most people listening tonight would have probably heard of or seen the hazards around the Kurmond Pick Your Own Flower Farm.

This type of activity, as in agritourism, is only expected to increase across the Hawkesbury, which means that the DCP should respond to these cultural changes and reflect them. I'm not advocating for anything revolutionary. I'm simply suggesting that Council give this issue some due consideration and do some problem solving, rather than ignoring the issue because there's no precedent elsewhere or it presents a challenge. It may simply mean that outdoor eating, for example, or farm gate developments attract some kind of outdoor recreational or eating gross floor area ratio. For example, a Pick Your Own property's car parking space could be based on how many hectares of usable farm area there is.

I would just like to add, as a final note, that some may be thinking that such a comment as mine is better heard in the public exhibition period. Unfortunately, I've seen too many times the heartfelt submissions by residents being ignored in that space, and so I believe that people should be given a voice at the beginning of planning, not the end when the decision has largely been made. Therefore, I'm asking Council to consider this issue before agreeing to put this document on public exhibition. Thank you for your time and for listening to me.

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

Sure .

Councillor Reynolds, do you have a question?

Thanks, Pat. Thanks, Ms Julian, for speaking to us tonight. Which roads in particular are causing a problem? Is it Bells Line of Road or is it, for example, Kurts Road or, I mean, parking-wise, which roads are causing the issue in your view?

I would say in the Bilpin area, it's definitely Kurts Road. People are parking on the road because there's no verge. It's such a narrow road and there's no space off the road, and also Johnsons Road, which is where the overflow from Hillbilly Cider is parked.

Okay, so parking on Bells Line of Road isn't of particular issue at all?

It's definitely an issue in Autumn. You'll see that cars are parked, say, outside the botanic gardens on the main road, also when some of the picnicking places are in operation, yeah, definitely.

Okay, yeah. It's also because it's a— Yeah, appreciated. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Matilda. I'm just wondering, and I know, and thank you for raising the issues that you've raised both tonight and previously when you've put in a submission around this. I understand, you know, your desire to have it included. I'm just wondering, will you still put in a public exhibition, a submission during the public exhibition phase if this goes out tonight, or is your request some sort of a delay in having it go on public exhibition? I didn't quite get what exactly it was that you were asking of the councillors. You asked us to consider it, which I'm happy to do, but can you just clarify that please?

Yeah, sure. I suppose I'm asking for some further consideration to go into problem solving around this issue. I believe that it's been left out of the review of the DCP, and I believe that's because it presents a challenge, and so I suppose it requires some more attention.

Thank you for that. Thanks.

Councillor Reynolds, did you have your hand up again or it's just still? Yeah. Can I go sort of outside the process a tiny bit and start by asking a question, just whether the director, city planning or manager of strategic planning wanted to comment on that address and whether those things have been left out or plan to be addressed some other way.

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. So in stage of this, we are— Looking to do some more detailed place planning work, particularly in the area of Bilpin, and I've met with Matilda and some other members of that community to discuss that process and timing, because we're looking to start that early in 2022, and that work will inform both further work around the LEP and obviously the DCP. I do understand and I'm aware of the concerns that have been raised by Matilda and others in that area. What I'd be hoping to see, though, that we could proceed with stage one of this work, as it really would support the assessment of, you know, planning decisions on a range of other matters. It doesn't mean we can't come back and revisit this and modify that chapter in the next stage.

It just means that, you know, essentially the rest of the work here would also be very useful in terms of our planning work.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to move the recommendation in the business paper.

Is there a seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Reynolds. Sorry.

Yep Thanks, and thanks. Look, I've got a few problems with parking in here as well, and I'm hoping that the staff can make some revision to some of the parking recommendations that are in here. And perhaps we need an additional category for agritourism and its parking, because it sits in a different space, I think, than much of our business parking, in that it usually occurs— certainly here, it occurs in very long strips of road, and one business, you don't share the parking between a number of businesses. You know, there's that little patch of Bilpin where you may share a bit of parking, for example, with— The Apple Bar and Grumpy Baker across the road. But for most of Bilpin, like Hillbilly Cider, for example, or even our own facility at the community centre, they're distinct entities, and the distance between them is such that no one walks.

So everybody needs a car space every time they stop, and they stop multiple times. And so where we might have a business, a main street business in one of our towns where they're more densely settled, or the businesses are more densely settled , you can have a car park that where someone will stop and they'll go to perhaps two or three businesses. So each business doesn't need the same number of car spaces. What we know from Bilpin in particular, and I think it's been very well articulated this evening, is that we get people who park and then do one business, get in the car, drive to the next one. And they're often, they're excited, they're focused on what they're doing. They're focused on getting something to eat or going into a business.

They're not at all focused on the hazard that they're causing for everybody else. So I think perhaps we need to look at this as an additional table, and I'd be happy if we need to put that in as a specific resolution, that we have an additional section for parking recommendations for agritourism businesses. I think we're probably treating them like a food and drinks premises at the moment, and that isn't working in some of the spaces where we've got them. I think we've actually, and so I think we've not got enough parking spaces for some of them. But then in some of these other spaces, we've got too many car parking spaces, and I referred particularly to the top of that parking table where we've got dwelling houses.

Where we've got one covered car parking space, and for up to a two-bedroom dwelling, two covered car spaces for dwellings with more than two bedrooms. I think that's overkill. I don't think that people should have to provide a roof for two cars if they've got a three-bedroom house, for example. Many people don't want two cars. Many people would prefer to keep their car parked in the driveway. I think we need to think about the cost that we push up for each residential dwelling if we make those demands. So I'm not comfortable with the parking rates as they stand, but I'm hoping that this comes back to Council following the submission phase. I'm pushing for this to go out to public exhibition because we've done an— we as a council and the staff in particular have done a lot of work in this space, and much of that work has been excellent.

We came into Council calling for place-based planning, for proactive planning where we determine what developments are appropriate for the Hawkesbury as representatives of the people who live here. Our current DCP is old. It's not fit for purpose. Frankly, it's been a bit of a joke for far too long. It doesn't stand up in the Land and Environment Court because we haven't stuck to it either. This is a detailed forward-looking piece of work that sets us up for a future where the climate is hotter and less stable. It seeks to empower applicants to use resources better and to build better homes and neighbourhoods. Used well, it should assist not only new builders and renovators to provide better spaces, but also to protect existing residents and their quality of life and the environment.

I want to thank the staff for including us in this process. It's been really interesting, and it's been really Nice to work with my fellow councillors, with our differences of opinion and experience, where we've looked at all of these, the different things that have made up both the DCP and the LEP. And I think we've had a fairly robust and useful exchange of views. I also want to thank the industry reps that have been involved for their input, and particularly the staff for setting up this time-consuming but really innovative process, I think, which has led to a far more consensus-based document. Thanks

So we've had one speaker in favour. Is there anyone wishing to speak against?

There's no one wishing to speak against. Do we need further speakers in favour? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Pat.

I think Matilda raises some valid points, and it's interesting that when we speak of tourism, we know that a lot of people, tourists to the area, especially up around Bilpin, come from Sydney. And from my experience in Sydney, especially in the inner west, people are used to high-density parking, I suppose you could call it, and live in places where parking is at a premium. You know, you drive around the inner west and it's very difficult for cars to pass on any non-major road. I think the issues that Matilda raised are exactly the sort of response that we need from public consultation.

This is why we go to public consultation, so that these sort of issues are raised. I think addressing this one issue by putting the public consultation off to deal with this particular issue. It's not the way to go. I think that it needs to go out and then all the issues raised come back and then staff and councillors then deal with them. I mean, parking issues are similar to traffic. We're not used to lots and lots of traffic, like high density, extreme traffic like in Sydney out here in some places. And so, you know, the parking issues associated with that are something that we're not used to. So I support the motion as it is, and I just want to thank Matilda again for raising the issue, and I hope she does make a submission should this go through. Thank you.

Thanks. So if we have two speakers in favour, are there any speakers against?

No speakers against the motion. I just remind councillors we have a very long agenda, and if we all agree with each other, we probably don't need to sit around saying it. We're all going to have the same resolution, but everyone's got a right to speak, so I won't stop anyone. So, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I will just take a little bit of a different tack, so I'm not just repeating what's been said. And I'd like to thank Matilda for bringing those points. I think that I just wanted to clarify, had the extra thing been included in the motion? Is that part of the motion to include a specific section on the agritourism part? The

Motion before us is the recommendation of business paper.

Okay. So we're just hoping that staff will take that on board and do that. I probably would have liked to see it included, but if it's not there, I think that Matilda has raised something that's really important that we need to get. The public involved at the start of these processes, because now it goes to public exhibition. If it goes out to public exhibition, it's going to be over Christmas time. It's towards the end of the year when everyone's busy, and then we have people who will feel that that's unfair because of the timing of the year and so on. I think that if we have interested public members who want to submit things, that we should have some sort of a facility for them to do that right back at the start, because then we could have these things included for them to go out on public exhibition rather than waiting until they go on public exhibition and we get all sorts of different feedback, and then we have to sort of try and decide where that all fits in.

Obviously, we wouldn't incorporate what everyone says, but things around experience of the evolving controls that we need. And I think this is at the key of it, is that we are now living in an area that's undergoing land use change. We're having different influxes of people for different reasons, and I think our DCP has to keep up with current trends. We're updating a very old DCP to try and make it current, and yet we want to make sure that it really is current. So I'm hoping Matilda will put all her thoughts again into another submission, and that other people will do the same. This is what we need to hear. And I would also like to thank the staff. As one of the councillors who's engaged in all the DCP sessions, it's been really, really valuable to be a part of it, and a lot of work's been done.

And I do endorse it going out as soon as possible on public exhibition, but I hope that in the future, the level of engagement with the public around these, particularly large reviews of documents, will incorporate some mechanism for members of the public to feed into it before that final stage of public exhibition. I think that's very important. Very important, and I welcome that, and I thank the people that do that regularly from our community. Thank you. Okay

So I think we're all in favour based on that, so we're going to write of reply, Councillor Wheeler, if required.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just quickly wanted to ask the Director of Planning a question, if possible.

Okay. Yeah, I did go right of reply, but we'll do that first quickly, yep.

It's just in the business paper it refers to a proposed agri-tourism SEP. Is it possible that these planning matters will be covered by that? Sorry, these parking matters?

Through you, Mr Mayor. At this stage, we're not quite sure what the SEP will cover, but ultimately we will need to see what it does cover and how it will affect us at a local level and how we need to respond. But at the moment, we're not sure exactly when this will come out. We just know it's been alluded to, and then we'll see where that leaves us in both in terms of the LEP and obviously the development control plan.

Thanks. And just a supplementary question then, I assume that the strategic planning staff have taken down the concerns that have been raised about parking?

Yes ,

We have. Thank you. Look, very quick right of reply then, Mr Mayor, this is— I think it's important to make sure that everyone is aware that this is the next phase of the evolution of this document. First, the staff wrote us a sample document, and then both industry experts and councillors discussed what we wanted this document to look like. Based on that initial draft, we made a lot of changes. And now it goes to the community, and I'm really hoping that the community get involved in this. This isn't our document. This is everybody's document. This is everybody's. This is the plan for everybody's Hawkesbury. It's really important that people engage with this and give their feedback to it so that we can come up with a development control plan that as many people as possible are satisfied with going into the future.

It's taken us a very long time to get to the stage where we've been able to review our DCP. It's incredibly resource intensive. We won't be doing this again in a hurry, I don't think. So for us to have a DCP that reflects the unique nature of this space, we need everybody who's interested to get their submissions in and tell us what you want from this document. Thanks.

Okay. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Barry, Councillor Tree, Councillor Carver, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried unanimously.

Item 231 is our next item. We've got one public speaker being Alice Voigt.

Just give Alice a moment to join the meeting.

Hi, Alice, we're up to item 231 and we're ready for your address.

Yes, hello there.

Hello. Ready when you are.

Hi there. I would like to give you a little bit of insight about what's going on with the broken bridge. I know it's an issue which has been ongoing, and most of these issues have been ongoing for years and years, not just about the broken bridge. The amount of rubbish that is left behind is quite indicative of the type of people that come out here. Fifty percent of them are young P-platers with hotted-up cars who use the back roads to do a lot of four-wheel driving , and the rest of them are families. So we get a lot of cars coming out here on the weekends, which I have noted in the report, you are sort of aware of the dynamics. To ensure that residents are not solely and only responsible for cleaning up after the weekend crowds, bins do need to be on either side of the road.

I have noted that Council is responsible for one side and Crown Land is responsible for the other side. Crown Land should have been consulted about this years ago because this is not a new issue. Crown Land do need to— And even though it may take a long time, it's an issue which isn't going to go away. So rubbish bins do need to be placed on both sides of the road. Back in September, you held a motion to close Colo Heights Road, and in that resolution, you guys also noted that the road is extremely dangerous, and that's because of the pea platers, that's because of the high speeds, the blind corners, and the condition of the roads. If the reserve was to be opened, that would be the main concern of all residents.

The reserve is about two to three kilometres away from the broken bridge. So implying that people coming down to the bridge would be the sort of people that would be using the toilets at the reserve is just not feasible. The reserve is mostly used for camping families, for day trippers from the area, whereas the bridge is very much used for day visits from the locals, day visits from people coming into the area. So realistically, the only concerns would be that if you open the reserve, it would increase the likelihood of quite a serious accident on Upper Colo Road, and its not . . residents are keen to see at all. In relation to the frequency of the collection of rubbish bins, prior to the bridge becoming out in March, the bins were collected weekly.

The council truck would come down Comleroy Road, turn right onto Upper Colo Road, turn left and cross the bridge, and they were being collected weekly. Unfortunately, we understand that this will be taking resources away from other areas, but what it does mean is that people are coming into the area, whereas they would have been going elsewhere. We have, at least at the moment on sunny hot days, we have between 30 .. On the west side, and between 30 and 80 cars on the east side along Upper Colo Road. So we're getting huge amounts of traffic for people to access the river, and there's no facilities for them. The toilets are not a new problem. We have been picking up human waste for decades. The skip bins are not a solution because of the amount of flooding which we get into the area.

And if skip bins are only emptied once a month, that's a huge amount of waste and rubbish, which then gets floated away in the first flood . In your report, it does say that the bins having more bins would not deter people from littering. Again, it is about the clientele which is coming to the area, but what it would do, it would help the residents who pick up after those people. Every weekend, people are picking up rubbish, nappies, refuge, party balloons, broken chairs, floating devices, and we have to take it to the council tip because we don't have any rubbish collection here. So we pay our own money, we pay our own time, and we take it to the tip out of our own pockets.

We need to make sure that the report does talk about taking time away to clean any rubbish and toting facilities. But again, you've got more people coming to the area. Those are the people that were going to the reserve. They are the people that are coming from other areas. Providing a service to the community is not taking away time and resources for somebody else. I make that trip at least once a day, every day, to service my NDIS client who lives on the other side of the bridge. So I understand how long it takes, but it is a service which council does need to provide and has needed to provide for decades. This isn't something that will go away once the bridge is fixed. It is an ongoing thing which needs to be managed.

Signage and controls. It to be recognised that Upper Colo Road is now the main thoroughfare for access to the Colo River, up this end of the river, and we do need some sort of signage and controls to help people with parking. People take up an immense amount of parking, and it's a 70 zone with blind corners. So even just temporarily reducing the speed limit on Upper Colo Road near the bridge would assist. Because the reserve is so far away from the bridge, it's about two or three kilometres, the services which were provided at the reserve were never utilised for people visiting the bridge. The number of people visiting the bridge is far increasing, and it increases every year. And this year will increase even more due to COVID and people wanting to be out and about.

But we do need to have permanent services there to deal with the influx of people. In relation to the temporary bridge issues, it has taken an extraordinary amount of time to get to this point, and for to not have a follow-up phone call for the ADF is a bit lacking, in my point of view. I believe that whether or not every option has been explored, just letting the ADF is not an appropriate course. The broken bridge is isolating so many people. It is a fire hazard coming into fire season. It is a flood issue, making people on the other side of the bridge more isolated, and some of our most vulnerable people live over there. So getting services into my client who have high funding NDIS, he is grading the road himself simply because the bridge is out and he's not able to get much assistance.

Just running

Out of time expired a while ago, so if you want to wrap up shortly, that would be good. That's it. Thank you. All right. Happy to take any questions. Yes

Any questions for Alice? Councillors? No. All right. Thank you for that. Oh , Deputy Mayor, do you have a question?

Yes, I do have a question. Thank you, Alice. I just wanted to know, when you just said about grading the road, that's a public road you mean, someone's grading the road so you can get access?

Yes, my client himself is grading the road after each rain in order for me to get access to provide care for him down Crabb Tree Gully Road. Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. Somebody wish to move something, councillors?

No.

If not, we'll let that lapse. Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. Yes. The recommendation? Yes, the recommendation. Is there a seconder for the recommendation?

Councillor Calvert. Okay. Any discussion, councillors? Councillor Zamprogno.

I'll speak to this very briefly. I mean, given what we've just heard, it's manifest that there will need to be an ongoing dialogue with council staff. It's not good enough, in my opinion, that the recommendation that we have is merely to receive and note. And all I can say is that to be prescriptive in this motion, I think, isn't necessary, so long as Allison and others in that area understand that council are listening to them and will take further action. That's all I have to say.

Thank you Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm not happy with receiving and noting this. Frankly, I was shocked when I read this report. We've known that this has been happening at this site for some time now, and unfortunately it's taken a flood in March, and March was nearly nine months ago, to highlight the problems with this area. And we're paying attention to it in large part, I think, because we've got a significant piece of infrastructure that needs replacing, and so we've got eyes on this space. But I'm really shocked by what has come back to us. And the thing that shocks me most is that we are emptying these garbage bins only every two weeks. Now, we've had these residents telling us for months now, and no doubt telling us before that, that they are picking up human faeces from their drinking water supply.

That a major recreation spot in our LGA is being covered in rubbish and dirty nappies that these residents are having to collect and take to their own garbage bins and then take to the tip, which they pay for. And we are emptying two bins every two weeks because it's a bit far. This is unconscionable. This is a health hazard, and this isn't good enough. To have this report come back to us, to have our Parks Department functioning in this way, and for us to find out that the root cause here is both people's putrid habits and our lack of ability to clean this site effectively, in our last council meeting after five years in this space. Frankly, I'm ashamed that it's come to this.

What I would have liked to see out of this recommendation, and I'm working up an amendment, is a report to Council, or at least the offer of a report to Council, about a sensible way forward. Now, whether we pay local residents to clean this space, and we put some sort of waste collection on private property, because apparently we don't want to put it up there in case anybody actually puts their rubbish in it, then let's get onto this, because we cannot keep saying to these people, I'm sorry, you live in the boondocks, you can clean other people's poo up . Come on. This is simply not good enough.

I want to move an amendment. I haven't got the words yet, but I haven't got the words typed in, that Council request an urgent report detailing how the matter of waste and

Toilet facilities will be provided at Upper Colo.

Mr Mayor, I'll take any of Councilor Wheeler's suggestions into the motion proper, gladly.

Yeah, can I just ask a question at that point?

I think maybe, I understand, definitely understand where you're coming from. Potentially you're asking for the same report again would be my only concern, instead of making a decision— Well

No. What

We've got

Here is a report that says this is what we do and this is what we're going to keep doing.

Sorry, I wasn't speaking. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, I thought— I hadn't quite finished. So I think potentially Well, you'd stop speaking and said you're moving out of amendment.

Only because Councillor Zamprogno was speaking over the top of me.

So my concern would be that the report does actually list out the options, the cost of the options, and give Council the opportunity to implement them. So if we want something else, we probably need the amendment to be more specific as to what we want looked at. That's what I was trying to say.

The issue here is that all of these options come with caveats and reasons why we can't do them. I want a proposal for what we can do to fix this problem. None of this is giving us an option that we can move forward with in both the short and long term. It's just talking about why—frankly, it's talking about why we do what we do. And it's not good enough.

Okay. So your amendment is, which Councillor Zamprogno indicated he's happy with as a second, your amendment was—

And I might just refer that, if it's okay, to comment from either the Director of Infrastructure Services or the Chief Financial Officer who might review across this report, just to comment on what an additional report might be able to provide,

Or if there's anything else we should be considering at the moment in this one

CFO. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So essentially the report does lay out options and the costs. Council can resolve any of those options, and we will have to build those costs in a quarterly review or budget as required. So another report is probably going to put forward the same options with the same costs. Unfortunately, the limitations there are around, for example, it's not going to change, but there's certainly options that Council could pursue. I'm not quite sure what a further report or other option it could suggest. Would you, that there's any other. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Okay, so we'll take that as , well, I think Councillor Zamprogno indicated he's happy for this to be the motion, so we'll take this as the motion. Further discussion, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had actually a couple of questions that go to that. First of all, do we have the jurisdiction tonight to be allocating funding, or is that outside of the caretaker provisions?

I think that's what the CFO just said, that tonight we could go ahead and what I'd expect to see, for example, go ahead and say we want more regular rubbish cleaning, and that could be the resolution tonight. Oh

So we can do that? Yeah. Okay. All right, so that's one thing. The second thing was, I know I'm a bit concerned that somebody has to grade their own road to be able to access it. So I'm just wondering if somebody could answer what the current status is of the, how we sometimes authorise local contractors in emergency times to do some roadworks and to do some clearing and grading, I believe. I'm just wondering, is there a system currently in place? If somebody could just enlighten us a little on that. If there isn't, what mechanism would it take for us to have some sort of a system where if we can't get to all these roads, how can we ensure that they are accessible for people? Can someone answer that, please?

Heard that to the general manager.

I suspect, Councillors, we might need to take that one on notice. The issue of members of the public grading our assets and undertaking those works is certainly one that's quite fraught, I would think, on a number of levels, and so I would much prefer to take your question on notice, if that's all right, Deputy Mayor, and provide further response.

Thank you, General Manager. I would be really pleased to hear that because it's an issue we have in all of our remote areas. We have these sorts of things happen, so, and particularly when people are having to access through another longer route, it's probably something we should have a mechanism at least in place to be dealing with. Mr Mayor, may I speak now? Yes Okay. I support exactly what Councillor Wheeler said. When I brought this up in September in the meeting, it was with the aim to get some sort of a solution for these people who had been waiting for months upon months since the flood had occurred, and they are being greatly impacted. And as Councillor Wheeler said, they are doing the— they are really doing our work, essentially, in picking up the litter and other things that they're having to deal with.

And it goes to the core of this being one of our areas where we want people to appreciate the beauty and utilise it. It's public space that's very popular, but we have to ensure that we have sufficient... Repositories , I guess you would call, so that the rubbish can be put there. I think the— I'm not quite sure what's happened over time with the frequency of when the bins were collected, because I know I have raised this on a number of times, not just in the last five years, but in the last nine years around the rubbish collection out at areas of Colo and Upper Colo. And I think that I'm really, really sad that the pursuit of a temporary solution for these people has not been pursued as vigorously it would appear as possible.

So I'm happy to support getting forward, as Councillor Wheeler said. You know, we want to know what we can do, not what we can't do. We want to know what we can do to make it better for these people, to make it better for our whole area, to make it better for our environment, that it's not impacted the way it is. And I too am disappointed in this report. I was hoping for something that we would be able to say, well, you know, you might not be able to have absolutely everything at once, but I thought we could deliver some improvements out there. And I understand we can if we allocate the money. So I'm just going to reconsider that. I was a little under the impression that I thought we couldn't do this tonight, which was why it wasn't a suggestion, a recommendation.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to just ask a couple of questions to clarify things, please. There's been mention of Crown land. Is that Crown land situated on the— Kolo Heights side of the river, what one might describe as the northern side, or.

Refer that to the CFO.

Yeah, Madam, that's it's on the eastern side of the bridge.

I don't know what the eastern side means, I'm sorry. Could you clarify that? We're talking about west and south and whatever.

Yeah, so the direction are west and east, and essentially what was being referred to was, was just referred to as the northern side. It's actually the western side. That's the correct definition. And the Crown land is what people were referring to as south is actually the eastern side. So that's the correct definition of the sides, because I understand there's been some stuff up and the things out in the media that referred to north and south. So it's actually east and west.

So can I confirm that that is actually Carlo Road? And can you indicate the DP number that is actually public land, please? Is it the one one nine eight whatever it is? My eyesight's not too good.

Please.

Can I ask the manager parks and recreation to clarify the exact location, please? Thanks.

While that's going on, could I further inquire , in regard to the road which has been mentioned as being graded, is that a private road through Crown land or is it a public road, please?

We leave it to public road, and I believe that we have, Council has actually graded that road when required as well. Okay,

Thank you. That's very helpful. Now, the other point I'd like to just remind fellow councillors of is that very early in this term, and in that I mean 2017, we had had somewhat similar discussions over quite a lengthy period of meetings from memory, and Council had resolved that there should be a temporary or a

Portable type structure to provide living space and accommodation for

A, if you like, caretaker within the confines of the reserve. And Council had, as I understand it, voted something at that stage like 50 or 60 thousand with which to carry out that resolution. Now, that has obviously not been done, and it would appear that some consideration, apart from what we're speaking of at the moment, needs to be given to that matter, because that would, if the infrastructure and the right person could be found, would

Possibly enable a caretaker to be involved in that area, which may help with the cleanliness and general good order. Thank you.

That does a question, Councillor Ross. Yes. Okay , so you're on mute, so...

Sorry, I was trying to get out quickly. I would like to raise the question of what has happened to those... with that previous resolution, going back to, I believe, 2017. Thank you.

I refer that to Mrs. Blair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to refer that to the Parks Creation Manager. My understanding is that we have not been able to find a caretaker, but Mr Perry can provide details on the building itself.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just in regards to the first question Councillor Ross asked, the lot in DP on the eastern side that’s Crown land is Lot 7304 , so that’s on the eastern side. In relation to the funding that was allocated for Upper Colo, was actually, as Councillor Ross indicated, was to develop a building. Council started undertaking DA works, or preparing for DA, and we hit a lot of snags, and as far as costs went, it was a very high fire-prone area, and basically that was put on hold at this point in time. So those funds, I guess, is something Council could determine what to do moving forward from there.

Thank you.

Okay, so if no speakers in favour, anyone speaking against this motion?

Councillor Richards.

I’d like to move an amendment, or I’m not sure if it’s an amendment or an addition to this, but I’m open to— Collaboration with the other councillors. I believe that, you know, we've all over this term of council made quite grand gestures about our role and what that role and responsibility is to people in our community. And when we have a resident here tonight speaking so openly about what a certain sector of our community endures, I don't think that any of us could sit here in silence and do nothing. So if you refer back to the report that we have in the business paper, and knowing now that we can allocate some funding towards things, even though we're in caretaker, excuse me, for looking at page 129, for the provision of, for the time that the area is, the bridge is being built, it looks like there is an extra $6,000 for a weekly bin collection and a portable toilet is $7,000 each, and of course you would need two.

So that's looking at around $20,000. I'd like to move an amendment that we do both of those things as an interim measure. I do obviously welcome some comments from staff about where that money could be coming from, but it is $20,000. But I believe that we can't sit here and do nothing. There needs to be a way working through that.

Just to clarify, the motion in front of us, so your amendment is the motion in front of us with the point two, that as an interim measure, council move to weekly rubbish collection and providing two portable toilets. Yeah

I think that that— I'm happy if the original mover wants to add that as a point two.

I'm happy to, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I've sent words that affect through to staff already, so that might make it quicker.

Okay. All right. Let's see if we've got that to bring up. That'd be great.

Just give it a minute.

Could we change at least the 0.32 to Portaloos? Would you be happy with that?

I'm happy with that. It's whatever serves the purpose. That's why I said at least rather than just one. Yeah

I think if we can agree on two as a minimum, I think that's a good way forward.

Probably going a little bit outside the process, but we're happy to make that the motion, Councillor Zamprogno. You probably should

Have. No, certainly. This is precisely the process of collaboration I was hoping would happen.

Okay. All right. So we'll say that's still the same motion. Is there anyone who wants to speak against this motion, or do we all agree?

I want to add a point.

Okay. Deputy Mayor. Okay,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just don't want us to get lost in the temporary solution and not be still moving forward. So just something to ensure the continuity, and perhaps looking at permanent composting toilets or something down the track. Can we just ensure that even though we're getting a temporary solution, that we don't lose sight of— so something

To

Continue that. A

Further report to come to Council on the long-term solutions? Further

Report, or yes, a plan of management or something for that area that would include going forward with that. Thank you.

Okay. So we'll get that. Staff happy to put some words there for that? We understand what's happening there. Yep.

Looking for speakers against, if anyone— yep, Councillor Carbet.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. It's more like the Deputy Mayor was just saying that I saw this report as being the beginning of a process, not the end of the process. That's why I was happy to receive it, because it gave us something to build on to solve all the problems. And there are many problems that need to be solved, and what we're doing here at the moment is cherry-picking some of them and developing policy on the run. And what I was having— what I thought was going to happen was we would receive the report and then we would develop a process over the next couple of months with the new council to address all these issues. I didn't see that receiving the report meant that you don't do anything. I think it was just the opposite.

You do do something, and you answer all the questions. So if— What the Deputy Mayor just mentioned about an ongoing process goes into this motion , I guess I'm happy to support it, but it still is cherry-picking. We're leaving a lot out, and I would just like to see the process continued and just support whatever that last point is that the Deputy Mayor is putting in, rather than all these little bits and pieces.

Okay. So , just confirming, we do have 0 .7 coming.

Director support services, that's on the way, is it? Yeah , okay. Perfect. Is that okay, Councillor Zamprogno? Fine . Thank you . Okay. Noting that we've had a number of speakers in the motion, nobody's disagreed yet. Does anybody want to disagree? Councillor Reynolds wants to? No? No.

I want to speak against, basically.

Councillor Reynolds.

I think we failed to hear the speaker when she said that the issues at Upper Colo Reserve existed before the bridge went. So this isn't something that has just happened since the bridge was taken out in the flood. And looking at the motion as it stands, discuss a need for grading, provide at least two portaloos, empty the garbage bins weekly, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so, but when the bridge is replaced and there's finally a new one there, the problems are still going to exist. And

The Deputy Mayor touched on it. What we need is a plan of management. I , along with Councillor—I agree with Councillor Ross. I distinctly remember the Director of Infrastructure at the time speaking about the possibility of building a structure and having a caretaker there. Now that is the obvious solution. And I'm not sure whether that comes with a plan of management, that we need a plan of management for Upper Colo Reserve to then lead to having a caretaker there employed there and having accommodation. But that is obviously, that is what is needed to fix this problem. I don't disagree with what's happening here, but it's not going to solve the big problem that the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Calvert spoke to.

And I'd just like to ask the staff, if possible, how much do plans of management cost? Not that we need to string things out while we wait for more and more reports, but if we're going to do it and find a solution, then let's do it properly. So I'd like to ask the staff how much a plan of management would cost for Upper Colo Reserve so that we can fix this once and for all. I

Refer that question to somebody who wants to answer it. Just also, I would just add to that question, would that be something that would come back as a result of point seven in regard to a report on long-term solutions? Is that for the CFO or the Director of Infrastructure Services?

I can answer in regard to the costs. Normally plans of management cost around between thirty and fifty thousand, but I'm not quite sure that that would be the right document to provide us with the solution, so I may refer to the manager Parks and Recreation, please. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I guess in council has to develop plans of management for all the Crown land that it manages. Upper Colo may have fitted under a generic plan, but I guess council could consider doing an individual plan for that particular site. Generally , a plan of management just refers to the particular site that it oversees. The car park on the western side of the low-level bridge is actually road reserve, not a park. So that particular site doesn't require a plan of management. But as you've indicated, if there was a caretaker at the reserve, they could potentially go over and help clean or maintain that site, and that has happened previously, approximately 15 years ago, when we had a previous live-on site manager at the reserve. Yeah,

Thank you. I think that if we're considering,

As we know, like the extra garbage bins and apparently the cost of two portaloos and the expense involved in that, I think basically looking at the numbers here, the expense that we're looking at in the motion as it stands would basically cover the cost of a plan of management. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this, and we know that a lot has been made about this council wasting money, but I think we need to find a solution. And perhaps channel 0 .7 could be provided with a further report on long-term solutions and a plan of management, if Councillor Nathan would be amenable to that. I think that's the only way to go here. As we've been told, as Allison said, there was a problem before the bridge went away, and we're not really addressing that with this notice of motion.

If I may, Mr Mayor, if you don't mind, perhaps the wording could be with a report with long-term solutions, including a potential plan of management. What I'd prefer to do is to provide council with the full, I guess, the cost of that plan of management, what the timing on that could look like. We've already got an extensive backlog in our parks planning area, so you could be looking at sort of a 12 to 18-month or more process by the time we kind of get around to it. So I'd rather we provided you with a report as soon as possible that outlined, I guess, how to get to the outcome that council's after.

Yeah, that'd be good if we could have that included, yeah. Thank you. Councils and program?

Yes. So take the General Manager's suggested words on board and amend point seven.

Yep, perfect. Okay. So if all speakers now happy, anybody else against?

No. Councillor Gary, you want to agree as well?

I just had a question, actually, Mr Mayor, possibly for the manager of Parks and Recreation. I just wanted to know if there was a time frame on when the likelihood of these tangible items being put into place would be occurring?

So the portable— If it results

In how long till we can get them there to the director or manager?

Do we need to stipulate that in this motion?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to answer that. Look, it will depend on availability. So the things like the portaloos were looked at at a hire from Penrith Kennards Hire, and they had them in stock and indicated they could bring those out. So I imagine that would take a week or two to get those. Bins, we already have those on site. It's just a matter of changing crews , rosters and processes for them to include additional, if it was a weekly pickup that you wanted down on that site for them to go there. It's just a matter of rearranging and changing that time process. So it's fairly straightforward.

Okay, so there wouldn't be any need to add a time frame into this motion then; it would pretty much be effective immediately, regardless?

The idea here is that we're asking for it as soon as it can

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Right of reply required, Councillor Zamprogno.

No, only to say, Ms Voigt, we hear you, and I hope this improves matters. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garry, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Carver, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Mads Buckett, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash. Against? Is everyone? You have declared carried.

So our next item is item 233, and we have one speaker, Geoffrey Hudson, bring in from the waiting room. I have

An interest, Mr Mayor.

Do you want to read that on now, Councillor Richards?

Yes, I will just find it.

Yes, item 233, significant non-pecuniary. I am a member of the Hawkesbury Communications RFS Brigade, which operates out of that building, and therefore I don't believe it's the right thing to be sitting in the meeting tonight voting on this matter. Thank you

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a non-significant non-pecuniary interest. I am also a member of Hawkesbury Communications Brigade, and my son Patrick is a member of Wilberforce RFS Brigade. Neither my son nor I derive any personal or financial benefit from this project, and so that's my reason for no further action.

So, Councillor Richards, did you say you're leaving the meeting?

I think it's the right thing to do in this matter is to leave the meeting when you're a member of the brigade.

I'll put you in the waiting room. Okay. So we have one speaker, Mr Geoffrey Hudson. When you're ready, Geoffrey.

Unmuted. Hello. Hello.

Ready when you are.

Good evening to all. My name is Geoffrey Hudson of 108 Putty Road, Wilberforce. I'm addressing this meeting regarding item 233, Wilberforce RFS Brigade relocation. Our property is backed onto by Wilberforce Council depot on Old Sackville Road, Wilberforce. We do not have any opposition regarding the planned relocation of the RFS Brigade to the council depot. But we do have concerns with the additional stormwater and the main issue with extra wastewater flowing onto our property. Our concerns come from a recent issue which was raised by my neighbour when wastewater from Deppo was running in the northeast corner and the smell was extreme. Following procedure was completed by me. I contacted a previous council contact, Rob Ellis, who I dealt with last year, who advised me to register my problem with council to raise work order.

Reported to the council 27th of September 21. Had notification that had been received automatically from sopos@hawksbury.nsw.gov.au and awaited for reply in 10 days. Boxes on reply email didn't work. Recent emails on the 1st of October 21, same result as the 27th of September 21. Recent emails on the 11th, 12th and 14th of October 21, same result as the 27th of September 21. Recent emails on the 20th of October 21, automated reply came back. Received reply from Council 21st of October 21 from Vanessa Buchanan, apologising for the delay and that a contractor would attend to investigate, but their truck had broken down and would get in the next week. Thanked her for the response and advised that I had spoken to Rob Ellis.

She informed me that she had spoken with him. Sent email to Council personnel 28th of October 21, Vanessa Buchanan, regarding that and I had not heard from anyone, no reply. Sent email to Council personnel 2nd November 21, Vanessa Buchanan, the wastewater had stopped. This was going to be an ongoing issue in that the wastewater tank stops getting used and is then all well until it's put back into operation and the process starts again. There are concerns about the new building and hardstand areas, where the extra stormwater and wastewater will go if the system cannot work effectively now. On a footnote, I received a phone call and email in regards to wastewater this afternoon at 5:15 p.m., one days later.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have you taken any questions from Council's authority? Yes. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Pat. Thanks for that, Mr Hudson. How long has it been an issue for you with wastewater flowing from the council depot onto your property? I would say years. Any idea, like five, ten, two, three?

Probably about ten years ago, they decided to put a fence down the back of my— We agreed to putting a fence down the back of the property and a trench so the water could go down, and we were told it would be maintained.

That work, that never got maintained. We then, we started getting water running through the middle of the property, and we just kept talking to different people , and it never really progressed until last year when a whole easement has been created along the back of the council property to stop the water running across the middle of my property.

So, I was about to ask that. So there isn't like a gazetted easement on your property? No . Okay . But there is now an easement on Council's property, is that right? Yes. But it hasn't stopped the wastewater flowing onto your property? No.

Okay. Well, thanks very much for letting us know. Good on you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Dyson? No. Thank you for that, Mr. Dyson. So that's our final speaker on item 2.3. If somebody wishes to move something, Councillor Calvert.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper.

Seconder for that? Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno . Any discussion, Councillor Calvert?

Look, I just want to say how pleased I am with this result. During the bushfires of 2019 and 20, it was actually quite embarrassing to have international visitors and the Commissioner and the press come to our current facility in Wilberforce. It just wasn't adequate. It was, as I said, quite embarrassing. And I could see members of the press were now there looking around and being stunned. This is such a monumental event in our history, in our area, and basically we had all our workers stuck in little sheds or in an old building that's been there since 1930-something, I believe, or 1940-something. So this is really coming very late, and I was hoping that it would come a couple of years ago, but I suppose better late than never.

As well as that, the Wilberforce shed, of course, just wasn't fit for purpose. They couldn't get the trucks in and out. If they had a meeting, they had to move all the trucks out, this sort of thing. So I'm really pleased that we're making use of the space down at the depot to do this as well. So I'm really, as I said, really pleased to see this happen. And I know that when the Commissioner was there during the fires, he also expressed a surprise at the poor facilities and said he was going to get behind making the change. And I know he did, and I know he came and spoke at WesRoc , one of our meetings, and he mentioned how disappointing the facilities were at Hawkesbury and that he would work on fixing that.

And I think he might have done a bit of pushing before he left that role. So yes, I'd like to commend this motion to everyone and thank the staff for drawing this up. So thank you.

Thank you. Another speaker, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I want to second what Councillor Calvert has just said and thank him for bringing the initial motion forward that I tacked on the Wilberforce fire shed to at the time. And I also want to thank the staff from both Council and the RFS for getting this proposal to where it is now. It hasn't been a clean or easy road. I don't think there were conflicting ideas about what were the best locations for both facilities, both fire control and for the Wilberforce fire shed. And we also need to acknowledge the former General Manager, Peter Conroy, who, according to the then Deputy Captain of Wilberforce, was the first Council General Manager to actually listen to their pleas for a shed that met OH&S requirements for them.

This is a really good outcome. It's long overdue. There's been some really robust discussions with RFS personnel about the site that would suit them best, and they're very happy from my understanding with the Woodland site.

I think it's excellent that this decision has been made in this term of Council. I think it was a really important thing for us to see through to this stage. I want to thank also and congratulate the members of Wilberforce Brigade who've worked really hard for this for more than 10 years. I'm really pleased to see that we're using a concurrent planning and consultation phase for both projects, which hopefully will speed things up a bit. We do need to consider the reuse of the building. It's actually, aside from the fact that it leaks like a sieve, it's damp. Heaters have to be brought in to dry it out whenever there's been—I'm sure they're running this week—whenever there's been significant rain.

It is, in parts of it, parts of it are beautiful, and it does have significant history for the Hawkesbury, having been the Colo Shire Chambers. So we do need to consider heritage protections, regardless of what we do with that site in the long term. The Wilberforce shed no longer meets any of the requirements. They don't fit in the shed. Water scapes through the bottom of the shed. It doesn't meet OH&S standards. They can't clean their breathing apparatus currently in the shed. So they really have moved to a—things have become desperate. We have put this off for longer than we should have, I think. I'm interested to hear Mr Hudson's concerns. Clearly, we've got a problem on the depot site, which is on the high point of Wilberforce, and it seems that he's got our storm and wastewater sheeting into his property.

Currently, that needs to be looked at urgently. Before we add to the load on that property, or to the hard surfacing on that property, but I do want to make mention of Mr. Organ's fairly ingenious solution, where he has effectively conjured a piece of land that didn't exist out of that space, which will hopefully work well for both the council depot and for the Wilberforce Brigade. The only thing that's missing here, I think, is a projected timeline, which would give both headquarters—sorry , fire control—and Wilberforce some certainty as to where they're headed now and how long everyone has to function in the facilities that we've got.

A couple of speakers in favour. Are there any speakers against? Councillor Reynolds, against? Yep.

In a manner of speaking, more questions, Mr. Mayor, actually, of staff. I'm concerned about the issues Mr. Hudson raised with the issues of a case of wastewater running onto his property from the depot. Could staff tell me if this is just a natural flow from one property onto another, or has the water been collected in a drain and then is flowing from a drain onto Mr. Hudson's property? Is that possible?

I refer that to the Chief Financial Officer.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Probably that's quite a technical detail there that I don't have the answer on hand. But what I can tell you is that we've been looking at how we manage that flow, and we will be improving how we maintain that system. So the ... So that there is no accumulation on the trench that Mr Hudson is referring to, but also the quality of the water will be managed better. So essentially it won't be dirty water. That's with the existing, like without the building, we're already working on a solution for

It . That was one of the questions that I was going to ask. Is it just natural runoff, or is it actually contaminated from, you know, works that are normally carried out at the depot with various oils and other things? I know from personal experience, I've been in Mr Hudson's situation about 30 years ago, and I know it's illegal for someone to collect water and then run it onto someone else's property. And I'm concerned that that is what is happening here. Even though the drainage system on the depot may not be capable of handling runoff in an extreme situation, but it does cause me great concern that he and his family and his property

Are suffering something that of all organisations Council should be on top of. And I'd just like to ask Emma if this is going to be looked at seriously so that we can find a solution to Mr Hudson's issue after, you know, what, ten or more years.

I was going to actually ask as well, before I pass that on, probably not the best format to be dealing with an individual property matter in the council meeting, but obviously Mr Hudson's felt very strongly about the fact that it might not be being dealt with in the way that he feels satisfactory. So I was going to ask potentially if we could have a memo go to councillors in the following days as to what's happened and what the proposed solution is, just so we can make sure we're doing the right thing by Mr Hudson.

Yeah, but with due respect, Mr Mayor, this is to do with the relocation of the Wilberforce fire brigade shed to the depot. That's

Why I'm referring— Just to clarity, referring both questions, not referring yours

Okay,

Thank you.

Yeah, and if I may, Mr Mayor and Councillor Reynolds, certainly, certainly happy to circulate to councillors the advice with respect to Mr Hudson's property after we've had the opportunity to have a look into it. If anything, in my experience, the sort of, what are we talking, seven-odd million-dollar capital investment down there at the depot site, this will allow us the opportunity to have a look at those systems and make sure that the drainage is actually operating effectively, and that if there's overland flow issues and those sorts of things, that we can rectify those rather than exacerbate them.

Yeah, I mean, we don't want to exacerbate what has been an issue for an unaddressed issue for nearly 10 years. So anyway

Thank you. Thank

You. I go right

Of

Reply, Councillor Calvert. Excuse me, I just want to firstly say I assumed, as the general manager has said, that this development will actually go to fixing the problem that Mr Hudson has rather than making it worse. So I'm hoping that's happened, but I'm going to happen, but I'll wait for the memo to come through. Now, secondly, I just want to say that what we've got here is an investment in the future of our community, a very big investment, one that's going to look after our community in those situations like we had in 2019 and 20. So yes, thank you very much for everyone who's been part of making this happen. Okay

We'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross. Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Zamprogno declare it carried.

Our next item is notice of motion one.

We have one speaker, Mr. Robert Buchanan, to speak for

Mr

Buchanan to be.

I have a Yeah

And you just want to declare your interest.

It's the same interest as for item 229. Would you like me to read it again?

Yes, please.

Okay, I'm a member of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Advisory Committee. This committee has recently been briefed on the EIS of this project, and while the committee has not yet met formally, the level of opposition to the project has become clear. I therefore feel that it is inappropriate for me to be involved in deliberations on any of these matters. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash.

Mr. Mayor, have we got Councillor Richards back?

I believe we have. Councillor Richards, yep, good. Okay, Mr. Buchanan, you're our first speaker. I'm ready when you are.

You're muted at the moment.

So I'm on the go. Can you hear me now? Yes . Right, thank you very much. I'm Rob Buchanan. I live in Richmond Lowlands, and I speak in favour of the motion. In the first decade of this millennium, Queensland endured a major drought. By Christmas in 2009, dams in Queensland were at an all-time low, with Wivenhoe at below 20%. The drought broke in 2010 as a result of a change in the La Niña weather pattern. The Wivenhoe Dam had been designed in response to a serious flood in the 1970s. Its purpose was part water security, part flood mitigation. Based on the drought experience, those operating the dam erred on the side of caution, as the rains came in 2010, resulting in an almost full dam by December.

As predicted by the meteorologists, the La Nina rains continued. As the rains continued, it became apparent there was a risk of dam failure if the water was allowed to overtop the spillway. A decision was taken to open the floodgates of the Wivenhoe Dam to reduce water levels to prevent overtopping. At the same time that an extreme rain event occurred, an already soaked catchment meant that all rain which fell flowed into the Brisbane River at the same time as the water from the dam was spilled. Thousands of homes were submerged. The Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry made many recommendations. Amongst these was that the operational strategy and operating manual be reviewed to ensure that if that situation occurred again, flood mitigation would be at the top of the agenda, above water security.

In Hawkesbury, an identical situation currently exists. The Warragamba Dam sits at 98.9%. La Nina is now converting into its wet phase, with the effects we have seen over the last few weeks. Last year we were sweltering in the dry. This year it's rained virtually every day in November. Rain in the Warragamba catchment has been significant. The only difference between us and Queensland is that the state government here has legislated the Warragamba is solely for water storage. So there's absolutely no discretion on the part of the operator to spill water to mitigate. Against the effect of rain events. In March this year, we had a trial run for all of this here. I don't need to describe to you the effects, because I've been in Brisbane in 2010 and 11.

In the lead up to our event, I made inquiries of Water New South Wales about when they intended to open the floodgates for our dam, which was already at 100%. They told me nothing and referred me to the Bureau of Meteorology, which has no information on dam operation, and the State Emergency Service, who could not tell me what Water New South Wales' plans were either. The SES did say that there was a prospect of minor flooding. When Water New South Wales opened the floodgates, there was little prior warning. I then, of course, we'd worked out that we were on our own and had evacuated livestock, machinery and ourselves from the lowlands. In my opinion, March was a man-made flood, which was made worse by a lack of advice from Water New South Wales about its intentions.

There's been a lot of spin from the state government since March about this, but there's been no action to mitigate the effect of a repeat performance. Times have changed since the state legislated that the Warragamba Dam was water storage only. We have a desalination plant, which can produce 250 million litres of water a day, and our understanding of weather patterns like La Niña and rainfall has developed. Right now, we can pretty confidently say that there will not be a drought in the next year. We need to use those advances in our favour. We need to empower the operators of our water assets so that they can act in our best interests. In March, we knew what was unfolding for weeks before the event.

Had the dam been drawn down prior to the March rain events, it would have given the community an extra few days of buffer to evacuate and mitigate the effects of flood on properties. Importantly, the water coming down the river would not have been what was falling in the catchment downstream of the dam, plus what was coming out of the dam. An agile approach to the March event would have saved the state and the communities a lot of time, distress and money. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions, Mr Buchanan? No . Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move this notice of motion. If I could get someone to second it. Seconder?

Councillor Ross

Thanks, Mr Mayor.

The purpose of this notice of motion isn't to — it's not really

To get involved in the issue of whether Warragamba Dam should be raised or not. It's about providing some mitigation for the Hawkesbury-Nepean as it is now . And as we face what is forecast to be one of the wetter summers some decades, we know that the dam is, I think Mr Buchanan said it's about 98 or 99 percent full. Now, Water New South Wales says that it is not allowed— it is not allowed to lower the dam level or draw down the water level. In preparation of forecast rain, it can only draw down the water level once the rain is falling into the catchment. Now, in their reasoning for increasing the dam wall, Infrastructure New South Wales has said that the advances in modelling the forecasting rain will allow them to operate an increased dam wall with reasonable accuracy. Now, the same thing could be done now with the dam as it exists.

We know that the government decided last year to double the size of the desalination plant in Sydney.

So there is no issue with water supply. All we want is the government to allow Water New South Wales to draw down the water level in Warragamba Dam when the Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting

Increased rainfall. It also does this just preparation, and I think it's a bit of a no-brainer, really. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll speak to the motion. Does somebody have YouTube open? Issue again. There we go there. I wanted to speak to the motion briefly and, look, I'm going to support the motion because there's nothing wrong with having some flexibility. It's not—I can't see anything problematic with the state government having that option. However, I did want to draw attention and just counter some of the things that have been said that I think are probably a bit incorrect in regards to what impact this would have. Back after the March flood, I got in touch with Infrastructure New South Wales about this exact issue, because many riverbank landowners had raised this with me, that this was the solution to flooding, was to be able to let water out sooner.

And through that contact, I had a really good educational experience, a couple of briefings and some conversations. And one of the documents I was directed to, which I think spells this out really well, is the presentation of Infrastructure New South Wales to the Upper House Inquiry into Warragamba Dam. And it talks about all the different options for flood mitigation: raising the dam, permanently lowering the dam level by 12 metres, permanently lowering it by 5 metres, and what they called an unrealistic pre-release and a realistic pre-release, and what impacts each of those measures would have had on the flood peak in the March flood. Noting that the March flood at Windsor, I think, peaked at 13.

5 something metres . So they modelled two scenarios. On the 18th of March, which is about 10 days before the major flood event, there was a 25% chance of more than 140 millimetres of rain at that point in time. If they went ahead and started releasing water based on a 25% chance of that rain, which is a questionable practice, obviously, and that's what they call an unrealistic pre-release, but if they went ahead and did that based on a 25% forecast and released enough water to be able to replenish it from that rain event, the hydrological modelling shows it would have released the peak flood height by 26 centimetres of a 13.5 metre flood. If they'd waited to the 19th of March, when the median forecast was more certain, and begun the pre-releases at that point, it would have reduced the flood peak by less than 10 centimetres.

So, yeah, I'll support the motion. There's nothing wrong with the government having this flexibility, but I think that any thought that this is going to solve the problem or have any significant impact is flawed thinking and is likely to give a false sense of security to residents. And I think we've got to be really clear about that. Nothing wrong with asking for it so they've got the option, but let's not kid ourselves this is a significant part of the solution either. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I certainly echo and endorse your remarks. Those figures are relevant and accurate. And look, I'm also prepared to support this, but like you, Mr Mayor, I don't want this to be seen as a substitute for activism to have Warragamba Dam raised. The EIS tells us that you would have to lower the permanent water storage level by 25 metres to have the same mitigating effect as raising the dam by 14 metres. The EIS also makes it clear that by 2041, the act of permanently lowering the water storage level, which would require substantial capital works to readjust the intake and outflow levels and so forth, would be three times less effective in preserving life and property than the current proposal to raise Warragamba Dam.

So I don't see this as an acceptable substitute, but I'll endorse this purely for the reason that we should never miss an opportunity to advance the debate on this issue and to speak on behalf of this community, which is at the greatest risk. I tend to agree with you, Mr Mayor, that these kinds of proposals aren't backed by the data, but they come from a good place. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll also support it. And just to that point about data, I would really love to see the raw data around some of the alternatives in the EIS that they say have been looked at, because I still don't think that we have seen the raw data despite asking for it. My concern with anything around this is amending the legislation to essentially make the dam dual use. I know that with the Wivenhoe Dam, the fact that it was dual use was part of the problem. I don't think that this motion is talking about the permanent lowering of water in the dam. I think it's about using release of water. Councillor Zambrano was just speaking about it as if it was going to be lowered over time, and I think this is a measure that is specifically related to when the dam's at capacity and that there would be some release from there.

I would be very keen to see what sort of legislative amendments would be required to enable that, because it does concern me. I have huge concerns around the water supply, as you would know, because I talk about it all the time. The water supply with the growing three-quarters of a million people coming into Western Sydney and how they're going to get their water, I think that desalination will be part of the answer to that. But I certainly support getting this underway. I would hope that at some point we see the actual data around why this was dismissed as one of the, obviously for flood mitigation, we've got to have a multi-pronged approach to it. We've got to have a number of things. I feel it's been remiss of — Not us, but the government, but of the whole thing, to not pursue various other flood mitigation strategies that we know, even if they're only minimal, that we know they can contribute to making everyone safer.

And I think that we also know that there's a growing unpredictability around the modelling with flooding due to climate change and so on. So I'm happy to support this, and I'll be interested, and hopefully I'll be around to see what the response is when this comes back. But I hope it would come with some actual data from when this was looked at before so we could see that, because it's easy to throw around just things that are in the EIS, but we also know that there were some omissions and some failure to support some of the information in there. So I thank Councillor Reynolds for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Councillor, were you speaking against?

On the bit ambivalent, Mr Mayor.

Okay.

My concerns relate to my understanding of the problems with dual purpose dams. So there's a number of issues involved here, I think, that the problem that we know is that people watch the dam levels, and they're either really anxious or reasonably comfortable depending on what that dam level is. Now, we also know that the flooding doesn't all come through the dam, and that that dam can rise and fall very quickly. But what we also know is that our modelling and our weather where the forecasting is now far better than it was. Wivenhoe showed that dual-purpose dams that try to both supply water and provide flood mitigation aren't workable. And I think what's really interesting, following from what Mr Buchanan said, is that Wivenhoe will now be used for flood mitigation over water supply, that its primary purpose, in fact, has been changed.

That's a really significant change for that dam. I know when the Deputy Mayor and I were in Queensland a few years ago at the floodplain risk management meeting , the expert commentary there from people who participated in that inquiry was that the fact that they were attempting to keep water in there to supply water to residents meant that it was not able to meet its flood mitigation requirements. And we know what the result was from that. It was disastrous. I think it's fair to say that 90%, that the dam being held at 90% or above, particularly in a wet season, is far too high when they know the implications of this at the tail end of the floodplain. Interestingly, on the weekend I was at the Pioneer Village AGM and Robin Preston was there, and of course the village is still recovering from the flooding in March.

And Robin made the comment that she would be visiting Melinda Pavey, the Minister for Water's office, on Monday morning asking her to get Water NSW to let out more water to help with flood mitigation because we're about to have two more weeks of wet weather. I guess I'm talking myself into supporting this notice of motion. I think at the end of the day we're going to find, if we look at— Excuse me. The evidence and the information dispassionately that there's no silver bullet for this floodplain, that it will be a combination of a number of alternatives: dam level evacuation routes, better warning, better modelling and responsiveness to forecasting, and much, much tighter planning controls and an ability to deal with the development that we have already on the floodplain.

But I think there's also no silver bullet to water supply either. But leaving the dam so full in a wet season is just not a reasonable way forward. If this is the mechanism that we've got to appeal for better management of that dam height, then I'm willing to support it.

Okay. So so far everyone's supporting it. Councillor Carby, are you going to try and change your mind?

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor. Okay, good. Look, when we discussed the raising of the dam wall, I spoke and voted against that because I saw it as a single response to a very complicated issue. And what I see here again is another single response. I've always said what the state government needs to do is put in a very comprehensive plan to address flooding right across the Hawkesbury. And as Councillor Wheeler just said, there are a whole range of things that need to be addressed. So I would be happy to support this if Councillor Reynolds was to change it in a way that said that we would like the state government

To develop a comprehensive plan to address this flooding in the Hawkesbury, and that the two points that he's put up should be part of that plan. So I'll leave that with Councillor Reynolds to consider. Otherwise, I'll be voting against it in its current form.

Thank you. I'll just note that there is already a comprehensive plan from the state government that's been developed in partnership with Council, and it does list a whole series of actions, many of which are already underway. Any further speakers? If not, we'll go to a right of reply, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Pat.

The

Issue is that if the government does decide to raise the wall of the dam, that won't be in operation as flood mitigation for at least five years, possibly eight years. What we have is an issue that we need to deal with now, where we have ample water supply and we're facing, obviously, a wet season. Even the local MP, Robyn Preston, is supporting the idea, and I didn't know that she was until now. So I think it's, again, it's a bit of a no-brainer. I think quoting the EIS is a bit rich when, you know, the Upper House inquiry has shown that it's flawed and information was left out of it. I agree with the Deputy Mayor when she said that we're still waiting on information regarding overland flooding, which we haven't received.

So, but that whole Warragamba Dam EIS issue is off to the side. This is about providing some mitigation now. And I know from helping people just down the road, not far from me now, that, you know... 26 centimetres is the difference between people having water in their house and not having water in their house here . So it's not something that, you know , should be dismissed as not being relevant. So I hope you support it anyway.

Thanks, Pat. Okay, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Brogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Gary, Councillor Ross, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards. Against? Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried.

We'll let Councillor Kotlash back in. So that was our final item with a public speaker. So now we go back up to item 225, the review of the LEP.

Interest declaration of interest, Mr. Mayor? Yep. I'd like to declare

A

Special pecuniary interest in that my property is mentioned in the LEP amendments. The property is my home. The land is currently under a land reservation acquisition by what was the RMS, now Transport for New South Wales. It was applied in 2012, and the EIS —sorry, the LEP plans to remove that land reservation acquisition. I'm using clause 4.36 , I think it is, because I haven't got my iPad open, to declare this interest. Thank you, and I'll be staying in the meeting.

Thank you, and I'll just note the record that that special disclosure form has been tabled by myself, the general manager. That the interest to be declared. Councillor Zamprogno?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper, but with your indulgence ask a question to staff first that may vary it. Through you, Mr. Mayor, the recommendation suggests that we— Endorse this LEP and then, subject to advice provided by the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, then submit it directly to DPIE for gateway determination. Can I ask through you, Mr Mayor, what kind of emendation that body may, or recommendation may make, and whether it would be better if that would be reported back to the chamber before going off to gateway? So I'm wondering what kind of advice they're going to make and whether it's worth us seeing this again.

Yeah, I'd refer that to the Director of City Planning. To note, Councillor Zamprogno's question, in addition to that, regardless of what kind of advice, is it up to Council to ask that to come back to us before it goes in?

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Essentially, we would be replicating this report to the Local Planning Panel, to all much effect, and if Council would prefer to have a report come back to Council following the advice sought by the Local Planning Panel, then that would be fine for Council officers to do that.

So, Mr Mayor, that doesn't quite answer my question, because whether I add a clause to this to specify that this comes back to the chamber depends on what kind of recommendations or small changes they make. I'd like to get this to gateway with dispatch, but if they're going to be suggesting things that are more substantial, then it should come back to us. So how do I know which way to fall?

I think the answer was that they'll get the same report that we will, and they'll consider it in the same way that we are and decide whether they need to provide us any advice or not.

Yes. All right then. So to apply a precautionary principle, I will move the three points in the recommendation. But amend point 3 to say that, subject to the advice provided by the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, that a report be returned to Council prior to submission for gateway determination.

Seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Further discussion?

Yes, I'll just speak to this briefly, Mr Mayor. I think this is vastly overdue, and it feels like we're doing this at the last gasp, at our last meeting of this term. I've, like many of my fellow councillors, have felt a particular sense of ownership over this process. There were eight different workshops that we participated in that some , but not all, councillors chose to avail themselves of, so that we were woven into the process of forming this document. It isn't without its flaws, but I think it's an excellent thing to advance at this point. I'm glad to see that design excellence principles are going to be written into our LEP, but I'm disappointed that those design excellence principles are likely only to apply to the town centres of Windsor, South Windsor and Richmond, not to North Richmond, not to Vineyard, where we're about to have substantial development, not to other areas.

I would like—I'm very pleased to see both secondary dwellings and attached dual occupancies in this LEP, which I perceive as a particular issue where the people that live on acreage properties would love to see some reform, and that we're actually adopting a very—

Sorry, I'm just reading a message from the general manager.

Sorry, I'll move on.

I'm very pleased to see this and want to see it endorsed. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you.

If I may, Mr Mayor, sorry, my message to Councilor Zamprogno was perhaps that we only report it back to Council if the Hawkesbury Planning Panel make an amendment to the endorsement that Council will be seeking tonight. Otherwise, we won't be able to send it to Gateway.

I agree. So perhaps I could further amend point three to say that if the Planning Panel recommend substantive change or significant change or relevant change, then it be reported back, otherwise that it be dispatched to Gateway, if people are prepared to take that form of words.

I mean, not just offer a comment, I would be more comfortable if any change, then it was reported back to Council so that we know what's going into Gateway, whether or not the staff think it is that significant or not. I'd prefer that Council members

Well, Mr Mayor, I mean, I think the General Manager makes a good point, is that if they recommend no change or very trivial changes of a typographical nature, then there's no reason for it to suffer the additional delay of having to come back to the Chamber.

So is there a seconder for that motion then? Seconded, Councillor Reynolds.

Okay. And my remarks stand. Thank you. Okay. Further discussion? No. In which case, Councillor Wheeler. Anyone else wishes to discuss, maybe just raise your hand on Zoom now. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Again, I want to thank the staff for their work. This is a really significant body of work. This is probably, this is certainly one of the most significant pieces of work from us in this term of council. This is the place-based planning that we asked for at the beginning of our term. This is what we committed to when we wrote our community strategic plan, and this is what many of us came to this term of council asking for, this level of high-quality place-based planning. I think it's, we've learned a lot about the makeup of our LGA by having to go through this process. I'm really pleased that, in many ways, we were forced into it by the state government. We were forced into allocating significant resources to get it to this point with the timeline that we found, the staff found extraordinarily difficult with the lack of resources.

And for anyone who is watching at home and isn't aware, other councils were given two and a half million dollars from the state government to carry out this work. We were given nothing. Larger councils with larger strategic planning units and more resources were given money, and we were given nothing. The staff have coped extraordinarily well with, I think, with the constraints of time and budget. We've had some pieces of work that all of us would have liked to get through that have been held off, and some of the heritage work, the urban tree canopy work, has all gone on the back burner to get these documents through because the same team provides all of that work. I want to particularly thank Mr. Kearns and Ms. Perrine for their work in this area.

I know that it's put them under enormous pressure. They have been incredibly good at working with us, at listening to us and involving us in the process. I talk to councillors all over New South Wales. There is not a single council where their council laws have been involved in a rewrite of both the LEP and the DCP to the extent that we have been involved. So I really want to thank the staff for allowing us to have such an input into this document. I know that often we're pedantic and not particularly well informed, and it can be really pie in the sky with some of the things that we want, and they managed to navigate that space very well. I think they put up with our arguments and our differences of opinion and our competing agendas and managed the process really well.

It was much nicer when we could all be in the same space. We had some really robust discussions. I think they were really useful. It was much harder by Zoom. But I think this is probably—I'm so pleased that this has made it to this last meeting, because I think this is one of the big achievements of this term of Council.

Councillor Richards

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, but had we as councillors seen this planning proposal before Thursday, when we were given access to the business paper?

I don't believe so, but General Manager, correct me

If I'm wrong.

I will refer to the Director City Planning if I've got this wrong. But no, not in its totality. My understanding was, though, that the local environmental plan was developed over the course of regular workshops with councillors and feedback was provided through that mechanism.

Yeah, and I intended, I think, pretty much all if not most of those workshops. But I believe—I mean, sorry, but this has been a significant flaw when we are considering such a significant document and something that, as councillors, we have all given quite a lot of criticism to what happened in 2012 and the amount of housekeeping amendments we had to make since then because of all the issues with 2012 LEP. That we were given this in a business paper on a Thursday to vote for on a Tuesday, where we didn't even have a briefing as a group of councillors and staff together to see this final document. I think that is a—sorry, I can't hide it—a massive flaw of this whole process. You know, we are the custodians of what's going to be the future of the Hawkesbury.

And, I mean, I just think that that should have, given the fact that we were running on a deadline, which we were told for months was June or July—forgive me again for not being accurate on that—and then all of a sudden there was a whatever, however long it takes until we get it right, and then it's just a rush through the door with the last, the actual planning proposal. And I'm, you know, I'm very respectful of staff and always have been, but I believe this is a significant flaw in the process of how we have done this. Secondly, where in this, the recommendation tonight, or in this process, if I may ask, where does the Hawkesbury public get to have their say? Refer that

To the planning or general

Manager, sorry, didn't hear who wants it. Yeah

Look, I'm certainly happy to take that one at a really high level. So the system in which we're working, obviously, is that Council endorses this planning proposal. We send it to Gateway. It will be with the Department of Planning typically for some period of months, usually. Once we've got that endorsement and got that Gateway, that is when we embark on a fairly rigorous and extensive community consultation program, once that has come back from the Department of Planning.

So what happens if any members of the public want to make significant changes along in that consultation period, even though there may be a gateway determination? And forgive me, I just think it's important that everybody knows process.

Yeah, and absolutely, and they can happen throughout that process. I think the manager of strategic planning is here, and he may have some advice on more detail there, Andrew. Yeah,

Thank you, General Manager. So yeah, a planning proposal can be changed at any time during the process of considering the proposal, and that could be as a result of a number of things. It could be a result of the gateway determination that has various conditions that Council has to comply with. It could be as a result of public agency comments and input, and it could also be as a result of community input and submissions as part of that process. So, yeah, essentially can be changed at any time during that process.

Okay, because I think the other thing that we've done, you know, pushing this through at the last meeting of Council, the other thing that we've been speaking about quite heavily throughout this term of Council is making sure the Hawkesbury community and the public have their say. So I think that, again , if it's the state government saying what this process is before it goes to gateway, they don't get a say, what can we do? But they do need to be able to have an opinion on this because, and I'm glad that you verified that if anyone in the community wants to make any changes, they can. I believe that we would have to go through a very big process with the community in terms of advertising, whether we're having public consultation sessions, in-person sessions, Zoom sessions, whatever it is, with the community, and know that they have the ability to give that feedback because otherwise that goes against everything that we've been standing for as councillors with transparency, accountability and— You know, public input into our decision making.

So, yeah, I'm sorry. I just found this was pushed through at the end. I'm not happy with the way it was pushed through. I wasn't happy that we weren't given this document at a briefing for us all to discuss together before we were just supposed to send it to the planning panel and to Gateway. I believe a report should come back to Council regardless from the planning panel, and then we can make a decision from there. Yeah, sorry. I'm just not happy with the way it's planned out tonight. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Richards. I too was quite disappointed in this process, given that it was originally—we originally did have a deadline of mid-year, obviously about flood, which we have to take into account. But at that time, when we still thought it was due mid-year, I certainly communicated my desire that we should have a public exhibition period, even though it wasn't compulsory at the start of this process, because no doubt when we get to, I think it's July next year, we're slated to be talking to the public, there will be pressure not to make significant changes and start the process again. And it would be much better if we had a chance to have feedback from people before we voted on it.

But we do find ourselves in the situation of this is the last meeting of the term. This is the first time we've seen it, and we really have to make a call one way or the other. So I think, like you, I would have preferred that it come back after it goes to the local planning panel. But if that's not what Council wants to do, then I guess this is the process. Councillor Reynolds?

Councillor Reynolds?

Oh, you're muted.

Yeah

I know. Yeah, sorry. Just trying to get it unmuted.

We've had access to most of this information , some of it for months now. We've had an LEP review panel. Comprising industry people, real estate agents, developers, whatever, who've had input into it. We've been involved in, I think it might be seven or eight workshops.

It came out on Thursday, and despite everything that's going on, I managed to read most of it. It's going to gateway; it's not locked in.

This isn't the end of the process. And public consultation on the final document is yet to happen when it comes back from gateway. I do not see the issue. I just don't see the issue. You've been involved from the get-go, and as Councilor Wheeler said, that's a rare occurrence in a council. So

I think any attempt to put this off is cause

For concern. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Cutlash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'd just like to ask a question about the process. I too am not that happy with it, only because this is a huge amount of work, and I think I agree with Councillor Richards. I wanted to have the whole document and go through it once again, and I've been involved in the workshops as well. But anyway, my question on process, just to start off with, is that what sort of changes, what degree of change would lead us to have to go back to gateway? Do we have to go back to gateway if we change this significantly? Or to what degree?

I'll put that to Mr. Cairns.

Yeah, we'd probably depend on, obviously, that level of change. So if there was certainly new elements added to the planning proposal, then it's highly likely it would have to go to gateway.

That's probably the main thing is if new elements were added.

Okay. The way I saw the process with the workshops was excellent, and I agree with what's been said about that process, and it was wonderful that we had that option to be immersed and be included in that process. But what I don't agree with is that we all had our input,

And some of us agreed on things and some of us disagreed. Now, the staff went away and put together what they thought was, I guess, a consensus, but we didn't really have that consensus. It wasn't our consensus. So I think we need a process that— like, I'm not happy with the design excellence. I don't agree with that. I don't think we should have that.

That's just part of it, and I think I expressed that at the time. So all of those things, I don't think we've had enough time to be able to discuss those and reach a consensus. And it definitely is not going to happen when we're all reading, you know, our business papers for four days, and it's a huge business paper. I haven't given it the time, the thought, and the process that it deserves. It's a huge document. It's a really important document. So no matter what, I want this to come back to Council, and that's why I seconded that motion, that it comes back irrespective of what the changes are. I think we need to have that extra level. Look, I'll leave it at that. I know it's— We’re on a schedule tonight, but I don’t think the process is quite there yet. Thank you.

And just for clarity, this is the first time we’ve seen the documents. We haven’t had the documents for months. We’ve had broad conversations around the proposed changes and things at workshops. We’ve not had the documents until Thursday. So we’ll go right of reply, Councillors then.

No need, Mr Mayor. I’m

Happy to endorse this. Okay, so put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Carwood, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garo, Councillor Cutlash. Against? Councillors Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Yep, against. Declare it carried.

So then we move on to, sorry , item 2.

30 on domestic sewage. Let me just move something there. Recommendation, Councillor Kotlash . Seconder for that?

Yes, I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with a tiny change . And I'm just, sorry, I'm just going down, what number is it? 2. 30. Sorry

Look, I think this is a really good report and— oh, somebody seconded it yet? No

Because we need to know what your change is. Oh

Change, sorry . In point 2, I'd like to change point 2 to read , review the sullage service prior to the expiration of the current contract in May 2023, and report back to Council. I think that should read report back to Council on services and contract options and associated financial and environmental regulatory considerations . I'd like to also add that one of the options that's explored is Council carrying out its own sullage collection. And I think there's a reference to that on page 106 of the business paper. And it says that that is another option. And I'd like that option to be explored. In terms of council being able to provide that service with net zero emissions, so I'd like council to explore whether we could get some grant funding to get an electric truck , whether we could supply power to that truck from some council facility that has excess power from solar panels.

I'd really love to see us make a really big statement and lead in this area of net zero emissions of our operations. We have the opportunity. Unfortunately, it's obvious that we have to wait yet another year , so there's not a lot of action on this, unfortunately, until then . But I think that that would be a good outcome. I don't mind if that's an additional point or it's included in point two

Seconded for that. Seconded, Councillor Calvert. Did you want to discuss further, Councillor Gotley, or that was kind

Of— No, no, that's it in a nutshell. I think the report has taken far too long , and that's just the reality of it. I was hoping to get some more movement on this, but it's here now, so that's good. And I think that the survey was interesting as well, and it's given us a bit more information. And it was startling for me to realise that a lot of people didn't realise that council does not have to do this service, and that they could, if they were concerned about— The cost of this service, they could go out and see if they could get a better deal. So that was fairly startling

No, I'll leave it at that. It's fairly straightforward. Thank you. Put

The motion then. All those in favour, please raise your hand . The motion: Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garry, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Next item is 232. Councilor

Richards. Move something, Mr Mayor.

Yep.

I've just got something here. Just a moment, I'll get it up on my screen. Okay. I'd like to move an amendment to what's in the business paper, as follows: that Council, one, receive a note the information provided regarding potential sites for a skate park or BMX track in Bligh Park and the associated costs and funding sources; two, commence engagement with the community on the option of either a skate park or BMX track and its preferred location within Bligh Park.

Okay. Do I have a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Tree. Discussion, Councillor Richards?

Not necessary at this point, thank you.

Okay, Councillor Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I had my hand up from before. I was just— I just thought some of the items were on block and they were coming up for discussion, that's all.

There was two emails. Sorry.

I see. Sure. Yep. Okay. In which case, I'll speak briefly to it, that I think this is a really good report, actually. I'm really happy with the report we've got here. It's a good analysis, done very quickly, so thank you. I'd like to start— I endorse what's in front of us. I think we need to engage with the community on the option and the location, and that's something we can do without expending any great funding to get this moving along, so that if there is grant funding or other available funding, that we can actually have something where Council can get to a position where we've adopted, in principle, what we want to do and where we want to do it, and the funding comes next. So I'm happy with that. So do you want to reply, Councillor Richards?

Only briefly to say that what's in front of us with this report and the motion tonight is what we do. That's our job. Our job is to listen to the community when they want and need something and put it to Council and test whether we've got the support of all the other councillors to do that for the community. So I'd like to thank the people in Bligh Park who approached many different councillors, saying that this was something that their children and their suburb needed.

Thank you. Thanks . Put the motion then. Just wait for it to come off the screen. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Carroll, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Carried.

Next item is 240, third party reviews. Just

Remove something there.

Recommendation is that we note the information and that we start with the sports council. Moved, Councillor Tree. Seconder? Seconded Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion? Councillor Richards.

Just a question. If any councillor is on these external committees, I'm not sure if that demands an interest declaration or whether it's considered part of our role.

Probably up to you, but—

Well, I'll make a less than significant non-pecuniary about the sports council, and I'll submit that form, Mr Mayor, but I'll stay in the vote.

Yeah.

All right, we'll put that motion then. Deputy Mayor, did you—

Sorry, yes, I just wanted to clarify. It was the recommendation in the business paper, was it?

Yes.

I'm just looking at that. Yeah, I couldn't really quite get my head around exactly what was going to be looked at, and I just wanted to put it probably in simple terms to ensure that that will be included. I know that some people wanted, like, an evaluation of whether we got our money's worth, and I think that we need to spend that sort of money on our sporting facilities. I think there's not an issue there. I think what the issue is, and this is something that I've had people approach me about since I was first elected to Council in 2012, and so it's an issue of transparency around this whole sort of thing. And when I think that we look at different user groups who are our community who are out there, they're paying their money weekly to play sport, they're all doing that, I think that as a council body, and I did ask for the minutes, which turned up late this afternoon, so I haven't read those, and there's no financial reports there, but we did get some other financial reports.

I think there's some perceptions within the community about how it's operated, and I would like that looked at. I think that as councillors and as the public, we should be able to see tenders. I've not seen any tenders. We should understand why certain people are doing the work. There is a perception in the community that people on the executive are being paid to do work that needs to be— there needs to be some transparency around that. That's very problematic. It's very widespread, and it's been brought to my attention, you know, probably at least a hundred times by different people who are sports council, I guess you call them members, they're groups from various places. I think that seeking the experiences people have with Sports Council would be good if we— there also seems to be, and I would like to see the information around the grants program, which particular grants they support clubs going for, because I'm told that some people want to apply for a grant and they're told, no, you can't because somebody else wants to apply for that as well.

So I'd like to know what the protocol— I want to see these protocols that exist for why these decisions are made. They don't— none of this impacts me personally. It's not a personal thing. I'm raising matters that have been brought to my, you know, to my attention, particularly around complaints made about it. So it's around perception. It's about how the money is apportioned between the different clubs that are covered by the Sports Council. So the decision-making around where the money is spent at this facility or another facility. And I think that it's really important. That's the sort of investigation I thought that we were heading for, and I think that's the investigation we should look at if we're looking at risk of something.

I think the Sports Council does, you know, maintains the grounds and does all of that. I don't have an issue with us putting money into the Sports Council, but I think we need more transparency and accountability about how that money is spent. And I think that it's public money. It should be all publicly available. And I'd also think that we— I would like to see whatever this protocol is that is referred to in here. I don't know what that is. I've never seen it. I know it's been asked for before and I've never seen it. Thank you.

I think that those things you've described are all part of what a governance review is, but I'll just refer that to Mr McElroy. Okay.

Well, I'm happy if that's what they are, but I don't know. I see all these things and they come back as different things in different guises, that's all.

McElroy, did you want to comment on that? Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, all of those things are things that could be dealt with as part of a governance/compliance type review, similar in scope to the reviews that have already been carried out.

Okay. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks. The Deputy Mayor is correct in that this issue is one of transparency and governance, and I think initially we asked for a governance review, and I think we then — the waters were muddied when people wanted more than we had initially asked for. I think we perhaps weren't particularly clear, or clear on what we had asked. But that still doesn't fix the fact that we haven't necessarily advanced the problems that we initially saw from those early reviews. I think we're well on the way to sorting out some of the issues with Peppercorn, and there are some solid recommendations in there, but I've still got really serious concerns about the Hawkesbury River County Council and the Sports Council.

We put councillors on these organisations as delegates of Council, and we— Send significant amounts of money to these organisations with the idea that they will perform particular tasks for us. I feel, I don't feel like we get sufficient feedback after we send those delegates in.

And in one case, those delegates are paid for the work that they do. We don't get any reports back. We, we don't. I know that the Hawkesbury River County Council has a legislative requirement to provide its minutes, but we don't get the minutes from the Sports Council. We didn't until we specifically asked for them, and then we had to ask again for the next batch. They need to be sent through to councillors and placed in the hub as a matter of routine, not because we've asked for them. It's not good enough that we have to go hunting for this information when we are asked to sign off every year on those financial contributions. It is, we are not able to perform our fiduciary responsibilities as elected representatives if we don't have the information about how that money is spent, and there are no reports that ever come back to us.

Those council delegates need to send through the minutes, and they need to report to Council at least every six months so that we know what we are sending them into, what parameters they need to function within as delegates to those organisations, whether we're getting value for money, and what is being done with our facilities that those third parties are required to manage.

I've got real concerns about the security and storage of equipment and consumables by the Hawkesbury River County Council after that theft, and finding that all the— All the herbicides washed away into the river because they were flood affected. We haven't resolved the issue of the Hawkesbury River County Council. I'm still not convinced that's our best weed management model. And so

I feel like I'm still sitting here having said for several years now that I'm not comfortable with the implications of us sending money into these organisations and simply not hearing anything back from the councillors that we send in with them. This is a process issue. This isn't a criticism of those councillors. This is a criticism of the process that we use. Our other committees, where we have the chair and councillor representatives, are reported back to Council following each meeting, and I've taken my responsibilities as chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee quite seriously and attempted to deliver a report with each time those minutes come back. And Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Zamprogno have assisted me with that.

But in this instance, we have people who go away to these third parties and nothing comes back to us. And yet we don't spend any money on the Heritage Advisory Committee, and yet we spend tens of thousands of dollars on these other organisations. We expect them to manage our resources, and we don't hear anything from them unless we specifically ask. That's not good enough.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Peppercorn is well on the way to sorting things out. The terms of delegation matter that should have been resolved, that hasn't been. That needs swapping. If we're to look at all businesslike in the face of what other government departments who are providing funds and are expecting services are to have acquittals based on a proper understanding of things. Hawkesbury River County Council , despite its known faults, has certainly pulled its shoes and straps up in the recent period, so that there is a level of response and ongoing improvement there, which I think is to the benefit. One

Might

Question what they're doing and how they're using their money, but at least there's a level of reporting now and access to information that was not previously the case. However, the most

Significant item is in regard to Hawkesbury Sports Council.

The Governance Officer has been good enough to provide information in the later part of this afternoon. I put together a very hasty reply just prior to this meeting, which I think everyone's received.

I would summarise that as being as follows. The information provided Council by its legal representative on this occasion, or one of them . was based on a set of informational questions, which I believe did not fully elaborate the

Conduct and actions of Hawkesbury Sports Council. And in so doing, I've pointed in my email tonight to some deficiencies in the

Elements of the legislation which have not been considered.

Now, I've put it to the Governance Officer

That the lack of consideration of those elements and the suitability, shall we say, of this so-called protocol

Revolves around the legislative items that have not been addressed and require addressing.

I believe that that should, frankly, be the first step so that there is a clear understanding by everybody of what the situation is in full knowledge of the facts. And I think if my colleagues would care to read that, and I hope the Governance Officer will as well. I think there may be a different light thrown on things. The statements made by my colleagues are correct,

Because I've had, what , nearly five years of involvement in the matter of non-compliance of lighting of the sport fields, and I've seen a lot of documents. I've also seen

Minutes of meetings, which other people probably haven't. And there

Is a great opportunity there for more economic operation of our sporting activities and support thereof, but under a different model. And I believe that it is now at a moment where this council is in a situation that more This to be done with less. Thanks, Councillor Austin

That's fine, that's quiet there. Councillor Tree?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to ask a question. Because it's a delegated authority with the Sports Council, what are the legal requirements that they have to actually report anything back to Council? Do we know that?

That's kind of the point of the review, I guess. But I'll throw that question to Mr McElroy.

Through you, Mr Mayor, there aren't any provisions in the legislation that require a particular kind of reporting in relation to those sorts of organisations to which authority is delegated generally. Council has processes in place in relation to how it sets its budget and allocates funds, but there are no specific reporting requirements or provisions around how information is provided back to this body.

So, in actual fact, what's happening is actually not irregular or a singular event, unusual in any way, because we've actually essentially just said, We don't want to deal with this. We're going to give it to somebody else to deal with.

That's what the effect of the delegation is, so that Council has another organisation, in this case the Sports Council, that is delegated by the Council to provide functions that the Council itself would otherwise provide. And so it's not necessarily unusual, as you say. However, the question is whether or not there should be an expectation about Information being provided back for the benefit of the council that's providing the funds. So that's, I don't have an expressive view on that. It's just that it's an issue.

Yeah, it's an issue because it's been made one. But I think, in general terms, when we give a delegated authority, we just expect the body to be able to do the job that we've, you know, given them delegation to do. Look, I'm happy to support a review into this because obviously there are a number of people who are a bit upset about it. But I do find it interesting that we have some councillors who are happy to cast aspersions about people who are involved in Sports Council regarding possibly making money doing work for them, but they actually fell over themselves trying to support heritage advisors to get onto a panel who actually get paid by us as the council to do work for them. So I just think that's another little bit of example of hypocrisy at work.

Point of order, Mr Mayor.

No, don't worry about your point of order, silly woman.

That'll be another point of order,

Mr Mayor. It's definitely, definitely out of order. Yeah, I hear you, stop talking there please, Councillor Tree. Councillor Reynolds.

Sorry, I just try to stop laughing.

Regarding delegated authority, when we pay, like, millions of dollars to these organisations to do work on behalf of us, are their finances audited at all? That's a question, I assume, to Mr McElroy or perhaps Emma.

So, Mr McElroy, is the Sports Council audited?

The CFA wants to answer that.

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, perhaps a question for the Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the Sports Council accounts get audited by the Sports Council auditors, so they engage their own auditors, and then their accounts are consolidated into our accounts.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Sorry, sorry, Emma, I didn't catch that last bit. You broke up. Their accounts are?

So the Sports Council accounts are audited by an auditor engaged by the Sports Council, but their accounts are consolidated into Council's accounts. So there is another opportunity there for our auditors to pick anything up as well if they wanted to.

Okay, so Councilors don't actually see the audited reports unless we go looking for them, is that right?

No, no, we actually ask for them before they get their final payment. So that's part of the conditions, that they have to provide them to us , the audited accounts. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you. Right of reply was for Councillor Kotlash,

I believe. Is that right? Yep, not required. All right, we'll put the motion then.

Thank you. Not

Required.

Okay, sorry. All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favourer: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lansbury, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, declared carried.

And our next item is 243, notice of motion. Excuse me, Mr Mayor. Yes. You didn't call for those who oppose the— Okay. I've got a good idea, but against? Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

Sorry about that.

Notice of motion two, Councillor Ross, do you want to move that?

Well, thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

I'll seek a seconder.

Yes, I'll move that way.

Seconded, Councillor Reynolds.

Discussion , Councillor Ross. Thank you very much, and thank you to the seconder. The reason I've raised this

Is, in a sense, fortuitous because we've had already quite a deal of debate, and what it has shown is that

There are particular difficulties that are being experienced in that locale. And the incidence of those is, I would put it to my colleagues, increasing and has increased in the recent month and months.

As I indicated to the Councillor briefing session,

Two recent rain events caused the existing structure to be overtopped, I estimate at about 400 mil, at which point I don't know whether it was a maximum or not. It could have gone higher. And

That led me to

Question what has basically been a PR campaign. In regard to the latter part of which has been

Some representation of a structure that is allegedly in the final design stages. Now, as I understand it, that structure

Is to be

Built with a

Traffic lane of approximately one metre elevation above the existing traffic lane on the Timber Bridge. That sounds fine in one respect ,

But no doubt the beams that are supporting the new structure, when it's in situ, will take up a degree of the one metre,

And it's unclear at what point the new structure would be closed as a viable transport option in the case of a rain event.

I also note that in my submission this evening that I am calling for what I would believe would be a reasonable

Degree of flood immunity at one in ten.

The staff report furiously Refused to discuss what the impact of a one in ten bridge would be on the structure. We've got one in fives, one in twenties, but not the one in ten. I sincerely believe that a one in ten is not immodest. It's not excessive.

And we're looking at a structure which is a substantial expense. It could be 10 to 12 million, I don't know, with all the other ancillary elements thrown in. This is a total project cost, I estimate.

And it's going to be there for another 100 years. Now, we don't know what the situation is. We can't foresee that to that degree into the future. But there has to be a structure there that is physically able to withstand that longevity , but it also has to be serviceable. Now , I question the interpretation that raising the height of the structure by one metre was done on a scientific basis or an

Acceptable engineering basis. I believe that there needs, and I'm hoping that the introduction of Public Works Advisory is more than just— In regard to Procure, if it was to be a little more rigorous in its addition to this project, I think that would be wanted, and I think that that would provide both a degree of greater confidence to the community and ultimately to the elected body here, which finally is going to have to sign off on the project and this sort of money,

Regardless of whether there's funding or no funding, and it has to be done.

The other

Complication that is— Time has expired. I've let it go on a bit longer, but that's definitely — Thank you

The other complication in this

Project— Sorry, Councillor Ross, you need to stop speaking.

My sort of input here would be that whilst I understand this has come from a very good place, I don't want to do anything here that's going to delay this project, such as stipulating a new design or asking for this to come back in a new way. I think this is very well advanced. Some of this I think is quite reasonable, like asking for project key dates, which I think we already have, but we need to get that clarified. I think we've dealt with some of the things in point E in our earlier item, but I'm certainly not in favour of dictating to the staff what they should be doing in terms of starting a breach, which is, I don't think, the job of the elected council, so I wouldn't support it. Councillor Ross, you've got your hand up.

That is residual. You've entered into argument, which I'd

Be quite prepared to rebut. You do have that right of reply, yes, if there is no one else speakers, which there aren't, so you can have right of reply, Councillor Ross. Thank you.

The significance of this project is the monetary cost and its efficacy in doing the job which the community and we would expect. Now, the element to which I had not been able to address through the debate was the difference in

Elevation between Upper Colo Road and the bridge deck. It is quite considerable. Now, there is comment in

The management report . Councillor Ross, right of reply should be directed to debating any items that are brought up during debate. So, I spoke for about 30 seconds, so any of the things that I raised in that 30 seconds you could rebut in right of reply, but not information. Thank you.

Okay

I honestly and sincerely believe, on behalf of the community, as a community representative, that just plucking a design out of midair like that, as it would appear, is inappropriate. It needs to be peer reviewed and based on the best available science and understanding of the environment in which the structure is to be put. And if this council does not do that , there is a great degree of risk involved. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds. Against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Garrow, I didn't record your vote. Were you for or against? So do you want to just tell me, because I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate.

Sorry, I was for. For.

Okay, Councillor Garrow, recorded as for. Declare it lost.

That was our final item, I believe, for this evening. So thank you very much, councillors. It's been a very interesting term and finished very differently to how we all saw it starting. So I appreciate having a chance to work with you all, and we'll see what happens at the election and some of us will be back, no doubt. Thank you, everybody. Declare the meeting closed at 10:46. Thank you.