22 November 2022 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone, and welcome to Hawkesbury City Council's meeting for the 22nd of November 2022. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. I will now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.3.3 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. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors.

Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or switch it to silent, please. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Are there any apologies or leave of absence for this evening? I note Councillor Wheeler has not arrived. Is she on her way?

I don't know, but I would assume so.

Okay. We might note it as an apology for now, but withdraw it upon her arrival. Are there any declarations of interest for tonight, please?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do have one for item—sorry, item 199 , less than significant non-pecuniary. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. And I note Councillor Wheeler has now attended, so we will withdraw that apology and note she has arrived for the meeting. I will also make a declaration for item 205 , significant non-pecuniary. Can I please have someone to confirm the minutes of the last meeting? Councillor Reardon, seconded? Councillor Veigel. All in favour? Thank you, carried.

I'll just make an acknowledgement tonight of two special visitors, which we will hear from one of them very soon, and that is both James Winter and Shirley Huang from our auditors, Grant Thornton. Thank you for being here this evening, and I'll call upon you shortly to speak. Okay, now, as you would be aware, the item subject to public address do go first. However, I'd like to move a procedural motion to move item 201 to the head of the agenda so that we can hear from our auditors and deal with the annual report and audited financial statements for the year ending 30th of June 2022. Do I have someone to move that way, please? Councillor Kotlash. Second, Councillor Reardon. All in favour? Thank you.

In that regard, we will open up item 201, and I will call on Mr. James Winter from Grant Thornton to make his presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and GM and councillors and council. And I'd like to commence by just stating an apology from Kenneth Leung, the audit office director, who is at another council meeting tonight, so I'm happy to assist. As you know, we've worked with Hawkesbury City Council for, I think this is our third year, and in saying that, I do also want to acknowledge the efforts of management during the current year in what has obviously been a trying year for all of us, particularly the amount of work required to complete the audit process, and we acknowledge that and the professionalism of council in assisting that process, and we thank them for that. So tonight I'll go through a presentation, which is a presentation on Council's financial report and just some preliminary remarks around auditing, and then we'll go also to the performance audit.

So I think that should .. . Just get that clicker to... There we go, got

It. So thank you. So tonight I'll go through the presentation

On

The financial report, and then we'll proceed through that. Maybe if

I get you to click. That's better . Now I think I've got it.

Okay, thank you. So I just want to make some very preliminary remarks that just around the annual work program that is undertaken by the audit office. The Auditor-General releases her annual work plan for the purposes of the work plan is generally to explain how we decide to focus on various aspects of that work plan and what we intend to cover in the next couple of years. So there is a three-year schedule of performance audits completed between now and 2025. And the— I'll just go back. Yep, so that's the ones, the planned ones for now in 2025, and three scheduled performance audits planned, particularly of relevance is the cybersecurity in local government over the next 12 months, financial management and governance in local councils, and coastal management.

Particularly, cyber has become a much more higher profile and immediate issue that we're really reading in the press, and therefore that's applicable across local government. And we've certainly been paying attention to that in terms of the audits over the last few years and understanding councils' preparedness for cybersecurity issues, financial management and governance, again in local councils across the board. So the performance audits occur across all councils on a cyclical basis. So that's for the next 12 months. Then the—

I'll get that to move to the next one.

Then the— what is the, I think we've probably got maybe one back, sorry,

Yeah.

Yep. So the performance audits for 2025, in addition to the ones that I spoke of for 2022-3, managing the code of conduct, road asset maintenance, managing climate risks to assets and services, the Western Sydney Aerotropolis, and effectiveness of financial management, as I said, and performance management monitoring and audits of issues within a particular council. So these are part of that 2025 schedule that are planned of the next three years. Okay. In respect of June 2022, tabled the sector report to Parliament in June 2022. The commentary from the Audit Office is that this was a challenging report, but certainly consolidating the results of all the councils audited across New South Wales over that period.

But there are certainly identified issues around the financial reporting, sustainability, asset management, governance and IT. And again, that's across the performance audits tabling to Parliament. That report is for all councils across New South Wales. So there are some consistencies across that and some key aspects, and you'll notice, therefore, the flavour of some of those aspects are then repeated into the performance audit plan for the next 12 months, particularly around those financial reporting, the IT, and the financial performance and sustainability. Again, there's similar sorts of themes that have been worked on, and I guess what we're seeing across the sector more broadly is a continued improvement in response to those.

So that's generally the key items out of the performance audits. What I would like to do very briefly then is just to report to the meeting, to Council, on the report on the conduct of the audit. So as you'll be aware, Council completed the financial statements and signed off. We then issued through the Auditor Office the report on the conduct of the audit on the 7th of November, and pleased to say that we issued an unqualified, unmodified audit report on the general purpose financial statements. And therefore issued the report on the conduct of the audit, which I'll very briefly speak to. Overall, in the report on the conduct of the audit, we talked to the audit of the financial statements of Council and just make some brief references to some of the matters highlighted.

So you don't have a copy of that, but it's been tabled and circulated to Council and issued to Council dated the 7th of November. So the purpose of tonight is just to confirm that we issued the unmodified report. We noted in our report, pleasingly, the improved operating result of Council in the current year and made reference to that. Obviously, some turnaround issues there in terms of the support of additional grants and contributions revenue in the current year, a small increase in rates and annual charges, but certainly an increase in the overall operating performance to 42.1 million in the current year. The operating result before grants, the capital grants and contributions was also up 21.5, so up significantly against the prior year.

In terms of the overall, again in the financial statements, the cash flow was an improved operating cash flow in the current year, and as can be seen in the financial statements, the deployment of those funds into investing activities, but also some financing activities in the current year where there were loan funds taken out.

The overall financial position of Council in terms of the cash and cash equivalents did increase in the current year, and that was the significant externally restricted funds, including 18.3 million in developer contributions and 13.7 in specific purpose unexpended loans. So there was an increase in the overall cash and cash equivalents, an increase in both external restrictions and internal restrictions in terms of that cash and cash equivalent holding. We noted also the debt, there's an increase in the borrowing facility in the current year, that's taken out, the 16.5 repayable over nine years. In terms of the performance measures, the ratios which are included in the financial statements of Council, the key operating performance measures, so operating performance ratio was positive and met that benchmark.

The own source revenue ratio again met the benchmark from the OLG. The unrestricted cash current ratio, sorry, the unrestricted current ratio again was positive at 2.1 and above the benchmark.

And similarly, the debt service ratio was again above the benchmark. And I guess the only benchmark where the benchmark wasn't met was in respect of the rates outstanding and annual charges, and we understand that's the case because of various issues including the floods and COVID, and that's something which is on Council's radar. So other than that, the rates and annual charges outstanding percentage to Council met its performance ratios.

I guess that's really all we plan to say tonight. Again, I acknowledge, as I said a minute ago, the significant work that Council did, and particularly around the completion of the assessment of the impairment. That was a very significant exercise Council went through, and from an audit perspective that was an area where we, as we reported through to Council, that we spent a significant amount of time working through Council's assessment of the impairment and the condition of those assets post, because of the impact of the two floods either side of year end, and trying to assess the impact of the impairment and allocating that to the appropriate years. And again, the detail, the information that Council went through and the diligence that went through in that process was at a high standard and allowed us to work through that with Council to work through those numbers.

So again, very difficult work to work through and taking time, but it was certainly well done by Council, we acknowledge that. So I'm happy to pause there.

Thank you very much, Mr Winter. Are there any questions? No, thank you for your presentation. Do I have someone ready to move the recommendation, please? I'll move, Madam Mayor. Councillor Reardon. Seconder, Councillor Conolly.

Councillor Reardon, do you wish to speak?

Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Winter, for that presentation and to the auditors for their work for us. I'd also like to thank the staff. I think that the Chief Financial Officer and her team have done a wonderful job of preparing the reports, and in fact, in the Audit Committee, they were thanked by the auditors for their professionalism and also by the other Audit Committee members. And I'd like to say from a councillor perspective, it's really good to have people explaining to us and guiding us about the things to be aware of into the future, such as the cyber security risks and the other risks that are emerging. With regard to the rest of the item, I'd really urge residents to read the annual report, which is included in there as well.

It gives a good summary of the breakdown of council's operations and information around councillor attendance, allowances, many of the questions, in fact, that we probably get asked by members of the public. The information is quite possibly within that report, so it's a good thing for the ratepayers to have a look at and see just exactly what council's done in the past financial year. So thank you again for the presentation and for the auditing duties that you've done. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to speak? No? We'll all vote on the item then. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? You're abstaining? Councillor Dogramaci? Yep, thank you. I declare the motion carried.

We will now go in order of the items on the agenda that are subject to public address. The first item with a registered speaker is item 199, review of the Hawkesbury Local Environment Plan. We have one speaker, Robert Gribben, if you would like to come forward please. Thank you.

Sorry, sorry, before you begin, Mr Gribben, Councillor Lyons-Buckett has a declaration to read out.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Declaration for item 199, a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. It's because there's a property that we own is in the mapped area which is referred to, which is the subject to correction of an anomaly in zoning from the 2012 LEP. The reason for no further action is that there's no change to the zoning of our property or the ones next to it, and the changes are to standardise zoning in the area of Richmond which were inconsistent with the majority of the area. So I'll be staying in. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr Gribben, if you'd like to begin. Thank you.

Mayor, Councillors and General Manager, my name is Bob Gribben. I've lived in Oakville, lived in the Hawkesbury since 1986. I'm President of Oakville Progress Association, President of Zone 26 Pony Club, President of Rouse Hill Little Athletics. So I do get around the community, but here tonight I'm talking on behalf of the Oakville Progress Association and what we would like to see out of the LEP, and also some of the concerns that we have that are around the LEP and are affected by that. So I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to talk here tonight. Our concerns with the LEP are its lack of public input, its lack of addressing the issues and needs of the community. Our concerns relate to the residents of Oakville and Morelia.

The concerns they have, the stress they live with due to the cost of living pressures, the uncertainty of not knowing the future of the M9 and its potential impact on Oakville and Morelia, having to live with the new pressures as a result of the surrounding development, continuous roadworks, increase through the traffic, lack of coordination on roadworks between councils, Terry Road, alternative boundary road is closed until Christmas whilst Boundary Road still has multiple stop and go on it. It's not a good look. Cost of living, using the 2021 census, comparing Oakville to Kurrajong, Wilberforce, Pitt Town and Bligh Park, and I just picked the other ones at random. Bligh Park has the lowest disposable income, Pitt Town the highest, followed by Wilberforce, Kurrajong and Oakville.

Oakville is only $32 per week better off than Bligh Park. That's excluding rates. When you include council rates and disposable income, the pendulum swings. Oakville is $45 per week worse off than Bligh Park. Oakville and Morelia are not affluent suburbs. They have a high percentage of self-funded retirees who are struggling to make ends meet. The LEP references Wilberforce as being a low-income suburb. Oakville is $130 per week worse off than Wilberforce. We're not a rich suburb.

Nothing in the LEP addresses the pain being felt by the residents of Oakville and Moralia. The LEP does introduce dual occupancy, a positive move. However, limited in size, must be within 20 metres of the main residence. Why would you want to build what is effectively a granny flat so close to your house? We live in space. We should be able to utilise the space and build where it is appropriate to us, the resident, if that is the path the resident wants to go down. Most residents want the option to subdivide. Rob and Preston ran a survey, and 63% of the residents who responded wanted the ability to subdivide. The residents would like their current semi-rural lifestyle and would like to keep the lifestyle and could reduce to large blocks, like Windsor Downs.

In areas above 22 metres, we are well aware of the flood, so 22 metres so that we avoid the future floods. The LEP talks about sustainability. Large block development could be an example of what can be done to build a self-sustaining community. The LEP does not allow subdivision in Oakville and Moralia, which is an island surrounded by high-density development in Pitt Town, Box Hill and McGraths Hill. These are all impacts to Oakville and Moralia. The roads are in poor condition before the recent floods, and they just finished it off. The through traffic starts early in the morning and has destroyed the tranquillity we once enjoyed. What we ask is that Oakville and Moralia are rezoned to R5, large lot residential, a separate zone defined as to provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving and minimising impacts on environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality, to ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities. To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones. To provide primarily for low density residential housing and associated facilities. This is not a first of a kind for the Hawkesbury. R5 large residential is available today in Windsor Downs and near Sphinx Road. Let’s make Oakville and Maraylya the next to show what can be done for sensible growth. As it stands, the LEP does nothing to make us feel the Hawkesbury is concerned about looking after and supporting the residents of Oakville and Maraylya. The LEP does nothing to alleviate our cost of living.

It does not relieve local anxiety. The council will in February ’23 be requesting another special variation from IPART. The three-year SOV at 30 percent doubled the rates we pay in Oakville and Maraylya, turning us into struggle city. Today Oakville and Maraylya would pay $1,360 less if we moved to the Hills Shire. Bligh Park would pay $472 less in the Hills Shire. Please do not apply for a special variation in February. The residents can’t afford it. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight, and please consider our circumstances and support us for an R5 zoning . Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you very much. Oh, thank you. You can do my job. I like that. Oh, sorry.

It’s very, very good. My first time.

No, I love it. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for speaking. I hear what you’re saying. A lot of those, I think, don’t directly relate to the LEP, but I’ve got a question around the M9. I share your concerns about the uncertainty of that. It’s something we’re all waiting on. Has your group approached the state government specifically to get an answer on that?

We have, and we will be approaching again because we’re not happy with what we’ve been told. But basically the blue line’s been rubbed out.

Okay, so I note that it is referred to in this document, which is why I was asking you.

Yes, it's a road that just sort of comes to a dead end. It's going to have to go somewhere sometime in the future. The state needs the infrastructure. It's got to happen. And if it goes through Oakville, then so be it. But tell us. That's all we ask.

Well, I agree. From our perspective, I'd like to know what it's doing too. Okay, thank you. Any — Councillor

Conolly. Thank you. Just a question in regard to your comments on dual occupancies, and specifically in regard to the distance from the main dwelling. I think the idea of having a limit on the distance is to avoid the visual clutter of having second dwellings all over rural lots. From your point of view, what would a more reasonable limit be?

We may want your parents to move close to the house so that you can look after them on 73. So maybe we'll reverse it with my kids. But in other instances, you may want to build, say, a groom's quarters if you have horses. So you'd want to build it away, maybe over near the stable block , just away from where you are.

Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks ,

And thanks, Mr Grimman.

What would be preferable? Are five small large residential lots like, or better— Ability to put in secondary dwellings and granny flats. Do you have a feeling for what Oakville prefers?

Based on my Robin survey

They

Prefer the ability to have multiple blocks, subdivision. But not, heaven forbid, not like Box Hill We don't want that. I mean, to me, the vision would be a one acre. It must have envirocycle. It must have a 120,000 — I'll talk gallons because my age — water tank, where you could still be on mains water, but the mains water could trickle feed your large tank so that you're not overdrawing on the water that is there. Solar. You should have your own solar. You should have batteries so you're not drawing on the infrastructure that we've got. Let's do something sensible so that we've got something that we can show and set it up as a model little town to show what can be done to make things better for the future.

Thanks. And could you, do you have a feeling as well from Robin Preston's survey about what percentage of Oakville feels this way?

It's 63% of those who responded, and who responded, I don't know. But from our meetings, and again, the people that come to our meetings are the ones that want this to happen. If we go to a meeting and say, Put your hand up, 99% of people will put their hands up.

Personally, I would not — if I had it available tomorrow, I would not subdivide. My wife's got— well, she's recovering from breast cancer. I'm 73. In 10 years' time, our circumstances might change, and if I could still keep my house on an acre that I can manage and do something with the rest of it, that'd be fantastic.

And a final question, if I could. The people that you believe are pro-subdivision, are they clustered around what we think is the M9, or that proposed M9 corridor? No, no. It's a sort of, it's a spread.

The M9, it's basically spread, because that was what we wanted before the M9 appeared.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. No further—oh, Councillor Dogramaci.

Yes, Mr. Griffin, thank you very much for your time. My question is, I mean, you put it so beautifully, extraordinarily well, why did you have to wait until tonight?

I guess we have been talking. Oakville Progress Association has a history. When it first started, it was because of the 30 percent rate increase, and then it became very combative. And I think we've actually changed. We've changed management, and the approach now is to let's work sensibly. Let's look to do what is right. Let's not look at, ah, the other side of Boundary Road, they've got $9 million for five acres. Why shouldn't we get it ? Well, you don't need that much money. You might like it, but why not do something that's good? Why not do something that's good for our children? I mean, my daughter would kill me if I subdivided, like Box Hill, and she'd have every right. That's not what I want.

Yep

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. No further questions? Oh, one more, Councillor. Oh no, sorry. Thank you very much, Mr Gribben, for your detailed commentary tonight. Thank you. Someone to move, Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I've sent in a motion to put forward that I've sent around to all Councillors as well.

Seeing as Councillors have seen that, does anyone want to second that? Thank you, Councillor Reardon. Open for discussion, Councillor Conolly.

So the motion that I'm putting forward tonight is essentially very, very similar to the recommendation, just with a couple of small changes. One change is to clean up some of the zone objectives. We went into this process with an objective to have fewer and more meaningful objectives, and somehow we came out of it with a very long list of objectives, many of which are redundant, set out things that aren't possible in the zone, or are just words that don't mean much at all. So I'm suggesting that we clean that up, make it a document that's simple and can actually be used. Another change is that the original proposal as presented to us was that veterinary hospitals shouldn't be in residential zones, whereas I think that we've got a number of veterinary establishments in residential zones all around the Hawkesbury, and on the main they're not causing any land use conflicts that have come before us.

So I don't see why we would go out of our way to prohibit those. In terms of secondary dwellings, two changes. One, that I think that we should increase the distance in rural zones of secondary dwellings to up to 50 metres from the primary residence, or principal residence. Allowing for some flexibility, noting that the clause is a standard clause and we're required to have a limit. If we're going to use the standard clause, but we could have a higher limit than 20 metres, as has been proposed to us. I'm mindful and agree with the comments made to us in the recommendation that we should have some limit to the visual clutter of having new houses all over rural blocks. But I do think that if you had a 20 metre limit from the main dwelling, you might find some properties where there is no suitable place within 20 metres from the principal residence, and that would render that unavailable to that property, which I don't think is our intention.

And the second change is just a wording change, just to make it clear that in both rural and zones other than rural, that secondary dwellings cannot occur on land below the one in 100 flood level, and that's irrespective of their size. So that's the motion I put forward. I think it's up on the screen now. One other comment I do just want to make, to thank Mr. Grimmin for coming and speaking to us. I think there's varied views around the future of Oakville. I'd certainly be personally inclined to continue that conversation about an R5 or similar zoning that would achieve that. But I think, just to be clear, I don't think that's a route that's really open to us tonight, right now. There'd be some significant planning that would have to go into that in terms of looking at yield and contributions and all sorts of infrastructure required.

So that would need to be, I believe, a planning proposal on its own, and whether that's led by Council or somebody else would have to be yet to be seen.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Councillor Wheeler. I'm wondering if we can get some feedback from Councillor Conolly as to why he'd like to remove the various items from the different zone objectives, rather than just a broad-brush statement that he thinks they clutter up the document. I think some of these are highly significant statements. I'd like to hear from Councillor Conolly, if possible, why he believes that each one should be removed. And in fact, also why this has come to us at the eleventh hour when this document was... The previous Council have worked on this document for three years. It was dumped in January, and we've heard nothing about these changes until three days ago. That seems extraordinary to me. I'd like to hear why that's happened, and then I'd like to hear why each of these is to be removed from the document.

Because it seems quite fantastic to me that an area like the Hawkesbury would not say in its key planning document, the document that is used by an unelected, unaccountable planning panel to determine DAs in this LGA, things like ensuring that development occurs in a way that it does not have a significant adverse effect on water catchments, or on business zoned land to enable other land uses that strengthen the economic viability of the Hawkesbury, or in industrial land to support the health and wellbeing of employees by permitting facilities that provide daily recreation, or to ensure development enhances and delivers optimum public benefits, or to retain and enhance the river valley systems, panoramic and scenic landscape corridors, tree canopies, wooded ridges, escarpments and environmentally sensitive areas and other features of scenic quality in rural landscape zones.

Why would we not want these?

I'm very happy if you wish to respond, Councillor Conolly.

Sure. I get the two questions were why didn't I get these changes out sooner? And the second question was could I comment on every single zone objective change? To the first point, I'm just a councillor like everybody else here, and it was up to anybody to put forward any changes they wanted at any time. I did some work on this and put forward some changes I thought and circulated that to councillors well in advance of this meeting, which is often something not afforded to any councillors when amendments are brought up. They're quite frequently brought up and no notice at all. So I certainly did my best in that regard. In terms of commenting on every single zone objective that's changed, I don't intend to go through one by one if there's any specific questions, but I think to broadly answer the question, there might be some misunderstanding about— The purpose of a zone objective, because, for example, you know, to have—perhaps if we could just scroll up on the—thank you — to ensure that development occurs in a way that does not have a significant adverse effect on water catchments, including surface and groundwater quality and flows, land surface conditions and important ecosystems.

That's not a zone objective. That's something that would be assessed as part of a planning proposal or development application. It's not an objective of the zone. It's just a given that if it did have a significant impact, that it would be assessed as such and wouldn't go forward. Similarly, I think that the most obvious example is to ensure development enhances and delivers optimum public benefits. That's a bit of a nonsense as a zone objective. We would want the optimum public benefit in everything we do, obviously. You don't need to have it as an objective of one particular zone. And I guess I would throw the question back—the best answer I could give to this one is throw the question back and say, in which zones would you not like development that enhances and delivers optimum public benefits?

Because it was only an objective of one zone. So it demonstrates that's not required. It was just frivolous and added on as we were talking, and I think it ended up with a document that actually, when some of the zone objectives don't mean anything, it means that all of them are weakened and less likely to be applied diligently. And I think we should only say what we really mean, and we should only have objectives that are truly zone objectives.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm sorry, but that just isn't satisfactory. So we're in this document that determines how development is assessed in this LGA. Do we then have these things? Because I think it's pretty clear if you look around at the things that have been approved in the last 20 years, or that have been approved in the existing LEP, which was passed in 2012 and is staggeringly out of date and inadequate based as it is on the standard template. Put out by the then New South Wales government, that there has been plenty of things that don't meet these objectives. And I don't think that reminding either the staff or the planning panel, or people who put in development applications, that these things need to be met in these zones, and particularly in these zones, these things need to be considered.

I don't think that that's—I don't think that that in any way weakens the document, because I think if you look around the LGA, you can see plenty of examples where these things simply haven't been taken into account, or we wouldn't have the standard of development that currently has the community up in arms in many places across the LGA. So removing these seems to me to be a significant backward step. I would like to hear from the staff about the implications of increasing the distance between secondary dwellings and principal dwellings by more than double, in fact two and a half times the amount proposed . Thank you, Mr. Kearns.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the original proposal that was put forward was obviously for the 20 metre separation, and the thinking behind that was obviously to try and mask any particular development associated with the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling in the one location, so that they're sharing the common facilities, whether it's the effluent disposal, that type of thing. So that was, I guess, the rationale behind that. Obviously going to a larger distance of 50 metres, it's still relatively in close proximity to the principal dwelling. It's not as if it's completely the other side of a particular lot, and there is, at that distance, there is the potential to still share effluent facilities or disposal facilities as well.

So on the face of it, is it more likely to incur what we've considered to be a subdivision by stealth, that secondary dwelling that is so far removed from the primary dwelling, that it's more likely to be rented out as another property, in fact, which I will note earns council nothing in the way of rates and payment for the services that are then provided to the residents of that property.

So it doesn't allow subdivision per se. You know, the subdivision relies on the minimum lot size of particular lots, and there's no changes that are proposed in that sense. And in terms of the actual use, so obviously the secondary dwellings are, you know, by their nature are intended to be lower scale, and that's why the size is as it is, compared to, say, a dual occupancy type scenario. But it doesn't essentially increase the subdivision potential for a site. No

I understand that it doesn't allow for subdivision, but I think it does make it, say, more desirable as a lease property. Is there potential here? I know we have one of the problems, one of the reasons that we would consider secondary dwellings is that sometimes it results in the loss of a heritage dwelling, where that's the original dwelling, and it has to be removed because of the loss of that dwelling.

Is this, I guess you can't say if this is better or worse in that regard. With some of the sites that we've got.

I guess it takes that out as a bit of an issue for dealing with those particular sites, that in the past where we've had to sort of consider whether the older dwelling or the older structure is removed or not. But there—I will highlight there's still the heritage provisions that are in the LEP that sort of overrides the other provisions of the LEP, and we can consider heritage-listed items in terms of amending LEP provisions for, you know, giving it as a heritage item.

Thank you. Sorry, Madam Mayor, I realise I've taken quite a bit of time, so I'll just finish quickly. Look, I can't support the motion as it stands. I can't support the removal of these objectives . I think they're important. They're here for a reason, and we need them to go. We no longer have the capacity to look at DAs that come to Council and determine, based on the wishes of Council and the wishes of the community that we are elected to represent. What we have left to us is this document that I think needs to be as robust and as detailed as possible, and that is the point of these zone objectives. It concerns me greatly that this has come to Council not without time for councillors to process this, because we can and have, but without the community actually having a chance to see the documents that affect the way they will live in this LGA for the next 10 years, and that deeply concerns me that you've slipped this in without it going on public exhibition, and I find that deeply, deeply troubling.

It's, and consequently I can't support it.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wish to speak?

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to ask a question, if I can. When Councillor Wheeler was asking about the distances between secondary dwellings, can I flip that question around and ask staff, what's the greatest distance that you can have dwellings apart and still share effluent disposal? Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Coens.

I'd have to take that one on notice and talk to our SMF team in terms of that, but I'd probably think 15 metres is getting pretty close to that, yeah.

That's fine. I just wanted that indication. Thank you. Anyone else wish to

Speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had a couple of questions first. In the proposed changes to the land use table, the current LEP doesn't specify prohibited things. It just will normally have the things that you can do without consent, the things you do with consent, and then everything else is prohibited. So in this document, it has specific things that will be listed as prohibited. Is that something new? Is that in a new template or something? Or is this just basically saying what things are prohibited because we've made a change? Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Coens.

Yeah, so it's where we're making a change to the permitted uses. So we're taking out a use that's permitted, we're putting it into the prohibited column, and I guess the existing LEP is a bit of a mixture. Some is just the permitted with consent, and — And some don't have prohibited, but some do in terms of the existing LEP. So

The ones that have specified items, they would also say, and anything else not mentioned in the other sections. Is that correct?

Correct, yeah. Okay,

Thank you. Another question. I did ask Mr. Gribben around it about any updates on the M9. I'm wondering, has this Council had any updates about the M9 and any certainty around that?

Thank you, Councillor. General Manager, Mr.

Kearns. We're aware that the Department of Planning and Transport for New South Wales are looking at the corridor planning, but we don't have an update in terms of where they're actually at in terms of that planning yet.

So the assumption is that that will proceed at some point, and therefore that remains part of our plan. Is that why it's in here?

Well, I guess why it's in here is obviously highlight, you know, in terms of the planning for that general area is limited. Our ability to plan for that area is limited by the fact that there's uncertainty in terms of the corridor location at this stage. We don't have certainty in terms of the actual corridor location, so planning for that area needs to have that certainty before we can proceed with that.

Just your light, Councillor. Sorry. When this goes to the planning panel for advice and then subsequently to Gateway, are they provided with all versions of this, from the draft to what has come to us tonight, then if this is changed?

I would suggest that we would be putting whatever the resolved council position is in terms of the planning proposal, we'll be putting that to the panel.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kearns. I'll speak against the motion only because I share the concerns of Councillor Wheeler, but I've got a few concerns about the way this has come tonight. I've particularly got concerns around the B2 objective because, in fact, it is the objective for B3. If we are to adopt to have B3, it won't have an objective. That's one anomaly there. I also think around the water catchments, that's an absurd thing to remove. But the strangest thing I find of all is the ones that have been left there. Some of them have been left and removed from one category and not another. And I just don't think it's acceptable to have waited a year to have the outcome being that someone decides there's some superfluous objectives.

This came to us a year ago, and we resolved to send it on. And there's been a year of waiting, and as Mr. Gribben expressed, the community is keen to see if they can do things around dual occupancy. We've had a lot of people saying that it's not an up-to-date version, that we need a proper plan. And yet we've sat on it for a year, and the councillors that opposed it had every opportunity to request another briefing. We had a briefing recently, and nobody there said the objectives, there's too many objectives. It just doesn't add up. It's been delayed, and that is a problem when the community don't have any explanation why. We've had people refer to it as a flawed document in the past. If it's a flawed document, then what were the flaws?

We've sat for a year waiting to see why it's flawed, and I don't know why it's flawed. It had too many objectives, apparently. So I think that's very disappointing. When we had quite a process, an extensive process to go through it, and it's a year later. What I don't want to see is I don't want to see our staff blamed for this delay, because this was a political decision to delay it, not our staff. And the ratepayers have waited long enough. So I think it needs to move on to the next process. I'm hoping that if it is passed and it goes through with these changes, that when it's cross-checked against the various plans, it has to satisfy, and the studies that underpin it. So the actual studies that we're directed to have it compliant with, the Western District Plan, the regional plans, and the three studies that we undertook to support it, being the housing strategy, the employment land strategy, and the rural land strategy, that it will comply with that, that there are adequate objectives there to comply with studies that we've adopted, because we can't have our documents being contrary to each other, and that has been the problem in the past.

That was what we were trying to rectify, and that's how we should be looking at this. So for people to publicly call it flawed in meetings, and for people to suddenly want to remove objectives after a year of having the opportunity to look into it, is quite peculiar. Anyway, regardless, I think the other thing is it specifies in many places about the secondary dwellings and the dual occupancy being above the one in 100. However, that level, of course, is something that the state government may well have to look at post-flooding, and we may have to make changes to that at some point anyway. I think it's— I just think it's odd that in the past there's been a big fuss by the people who delayed it that it was to go to the community, and yet the very changes proposed were not publicised.

There were still two days, it could have been put online and people could have been alerted, but there was no publication of it whatsoever. I think that's disappointing. I'm not unhappy that it will go ahead to the next stage because it's well overdue, and I think that that's what we need to do. I assume that if we go ahead and we don't have a zone, an objective for a particular zone, that the planning panel will suggest amending that if it goes ahead. And I just think that it just is a little bit unfortunate that, yeah , there's a few things that are a little peculiar around it. But the objective around water catchments, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would object to that. If that's not something we're prepared to really put there as an objective to protect our water catchments, then we're going up the wrong path.

So I'm not prepared to accept it with that sort of random approach . After waiting a year, I would have thought that there was something sort of concrete that people were saying were wrong with it that would have been proposed to be changed. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I might just quickly ask a couple of questions, if that's okay. Can I just clarify, I don't know whether it's from Councillor Conolly or the staff, on point three of the amendment on the board it says, subject to the advice provided by the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel, submit the planning proposal. Is there an intention for that advice to come back to Council beforehand? I just wanted to clarify that.

I guess it's highly contingent on the actual advice from the panel. So if the panel, I guess, raises significant issues, then we'll potentially have to bring that back to Council to consider.

Councillor Conolly, are you happy with that? I just wanted to double check, or you wanted it to come back regardless, or— No

No, I wasn't seeking to change that part of the recommendation.

Just my other question. I did have the same concerns about going to the community first before sending to Gateway. In my head, that's what makes sense before we do something. Can I just clarify whether that's the set process by the State Government, and if it's not, why we've elected to go that way?

So the process with planning proposals is obviously they're considered by Council and obviously the local planning panel. It's sent to Gateway for a determination, and subject to the Gateway determinations, then that triggers then the need for public agency and community consultation. So that whole consultation process happens as part of the normal processing of a planning proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Kearns. And what happens if at that point anyone in the community decides they want something ultimately different, and therefore Councillors want something ultimately different? Does that have to start the process again? I'm only asking because I don't understand. I just need clarification.

No, there can be a number of touch points where there can be changes to the planning proposal. So there could be obviously, from the Gateway determination, the State Government may require changes to the proposal. There may be changes that are necessitated as a result of public agency comments, and also comments from the community in terms of various matters. Following Council's consideration of those issues raised by the community, Council can actually amend the proposal.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillors and Progno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Right. Firstly, I want to kind of take the big picture view and then kind of zoom in. Firstly, I'm unhappy that this process has taken a full year longer than it needed to. In the dying weeks of the previous term of Council, in November of last year, the Chamber resolved to dispatch the LEP to Gateway. It could have come back by now. It could have been our active document by now. But when the new Chamber was seated, almost the first thing that it did was that it pulled this ship back up onto the blocks, because I likened it to a boat being launched and then being unlaunched. And the reason that was given at that time was that we needed to get the reference group that we had commissioned to provide some initial direction to this process back into the room and ask them.

So we did so, and they said, We don't know why you're waiting. We don't have any particular showstopping objections. It's nice to sit here and have a chat, maybe a cup of tea. But they didn't really indicate that there was very much that was deficient in the document, that they had provided that guidance to, and why don't we just get on with it? And since then, I've asked staff, Tell me, what has the year's delay gained us? And the best I can ascertain, the answer is not very much. I mean, certainly there have been developments in the broader field. Maybe there are some clauses that we've been able to include. But I mean, we could have always dealt with those in time anyway. So I just want the community who are listening in to know that, in my opinion, this was a thoroughly unnecessary delay that didn't gain us terribly much.

And it's certainly true that the LEP and the DCP are badly in need of renovation. A decade out of date, the Hawkesbury has been waiting patiently for a new LEP that has design excellence principles, that has better floor space ratios, that deals with urban heat, that is reflective of our growing awareness of the need to build sustainably and in a way that we can be proud of.

In terms of Mr. Gribben's comments relating to Oakville, and of course I live in Oakville ,

I don't support the idea of rezoning Oakville from RU2 to R5. Some of the things that he might not have been aware of was the fact that we've worked carefully and in consultation with the Oakville community to have a more generous definition of granny flats, led by that change in the standard instrument at state level and also implemented at the earliest opportunity by Hills Shire Council so that granny flats could be 120 square metres instead of only 60 square metres. If we took up Mr. Gribben's suggestion and rezoned Oakville to R5, then that would simply mean that they would default back to the 60 metre definition and they wouldn't be able to build 120 metre granny flats. I do support Councillor Connolly's

Amendment to increase the distance between the main dwelling and granny flats to 50 metres. I'd have preferred to have seen that clause eliminated completely so that landowners have complete flexibility about where they put those granny flats on their property, but I can live with 50 metres. In terms of the survey that Mr. Gribben was referring to, I ran that survey out of Robyn Preston's office. I wrote the questions and I collated the answers, and I wrote the copy that ended up in Robyn's newsletter. There were 81 respondents over the entirety of the Oakville, Pitt Town and Vineyard area, and the split between people who wanted to subdivide and people who didn't was about 60-40. That survey reached 1.7% of the Hawkesbury's 27,113 households, and it bears remembering that over the totality of respondents that answered that survey to the State Member's office, 62% of them were against further urban development altogether.

Now, I don't agree with Councillor Connolly's position that we should remove those clauses relating to views and vistas, because the views and vistas report, the Kurrajong and Kermann Landscape Character Study that we did in about 2000, I think represented some of Council's best work. Clayton Associates did excellent work, and it bears remembering that the Hawkesbury Rural Land Strategy acknowledges in its section relating to site analysis that the— Sorry

Councillor. Just to, sorry to interrupt you there, I think the views and vistas you're relating to is part of the item on the DCP, not the LEP. Well

If I could just get staff to just scroll up in terms of what's on the board. The difficulty, Madam Mayor, was that what Councillor Conolly advanced by email encompassed both the LEP and the DCP

Correct, I do. So

I'm just saying what's before us right now. Yes, so

It starts off under Councillor Connolly's email. The beginning here is under local environment plan.

Well, that's okay. I'll hold my fire on further comment relating to views and vistas, which allows me to then move on . One of my objectives was to non-retrospectively remove caravan parks from RU1 zonings, and that would simply bring us into line with most of our adjoining neighbours. What we do in terms of caravan parks in RU1 zonings is genuinely an anomaly, and I wanted to see that corrected. I can see that Councillor Conolly wants to see veterinary surgeries removed from RR zonings, which then leaves the question, you know, well, where are those developments now permitted? And I think I have a parallel question relating to if we were to non-retrospectively remove caravan parks from RU1 zonings, I see in the LEP that's before us a whole heap of prohibitions on caravan parks in RR zonings.

Could staff just comment briefly on where caravan parks are permitted and whether there would be an unintended negative consequence if we removed caravan parks from RU zonings?

Thank you, Councillor. I'll hand that question to Mr Kearns, as well as get Mr Kearns to clarify your points on veterinary hospitals. Thank you.

Yes, so I guess the question in terms of caravan parks is, you know, in the order of 17 caravan parks across the LGA, they're all within the RU zones. They obviously do play a significant role in the visitor economy, and I guess by removing their permissibility, there is obviously a significant potential knock-on effect in terms of the economy, particularly the visitor economy. So, given that's where they are actually located. And in terms of the veterinary hospital component, the motion here is actually to retain veterinary hospitals within the R2 zone. So the original planning proposal had been to remove them. This motion is to retain them in the R2 zone.

Thank you, Mr Kearns, but that mostly answers my question. Let me be more specific. So in the case of caravan parks, if we wanted to non-retrospectively remove caravan parks from RU zonings, we're not intending to disadvantage any of the operators that have built caravan parks in RU zonings in our LGA, but if we were to non-retrospectively remove this, there are other zones in which caravan parks remain permissible?

Yes, but I would also highlight that in terms of those existing caravan parks, by removing the permissibility, it doesn't allow them to provide any upgrades to those existing caravan parks as well. Well

Any kind of improvement that would require a DA, for example. Yes, correct, yes. All right then. So when we say non-retrospectively, that doesn't give us the scope to provide improvements to existing ones. Non-retrospectively means they can do whatever they were able to do before, but we're not going to build any new ones. You're saying we couldn't do that?

Not in the way the standard instrument's set up, no.

All right then, thank you. So I'll conclude by trying to move this forward. The difficulty with what Councillor Conolly has advanced here is that it's in a fairly omnibus form, and I'd like to seek the mover's permission to just restructure that by, instead of having one and a whole series of dot points, say that that's 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D. All I'm seeking to do at this juncture is to have it reformatted so that instead of just a series of monolithic dot points, we've got 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and then we can deal with those individually, because I suspect that there's going to be a great number of things where we may agree or disagree. I see things on the screen that I agree and disagree with, and I'd like the ability for us to deal with them in seriatim and get the chamber's view about whether they stay or whether they go. Is Councillor Conolly amenable to that?

Councillor Conolly.

Well, whether we vote in seriatim would be up to the chamber, but I'm not inclined to change the motion and make that— No

No. I'm only suggesting a formatting change.

That first point, several points, no.

So you're insisting that if we were to take point 1, that we have to take all of point 1 as a monolithic block, even if there are things that we might agree with it? I'm just suggesting we break it down.

Councillor? Yeah

Understood the suggestion, but it will be my preference not to do it. Okay,

Thank you. Well

I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote against that, even though there are good suggestions there, but the council's inflexibility rather forces my hand. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Wheeler. I'd like to move an

Amendment, Madam Mayor.

Yes, you can.

I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with the addition of a point 4, which I've provided to staff.

I have a second

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. So as you can see, this is exactly what's in the business paper, the document that has been put out to the public since Friday, with the chance for them to read and to look at the changes in the zone objectives, to respond to, and we've had one response from a member of the public speaking, hence the point four, which doesn't commit Council to anything except beginning discussions. I think the advantage of this is that it puts Council in a proactive position to discuss with the Department of Planning whether what the future of Oakville actually looks like while they're still discussing corridors, and while residents are able to have a say in a process that determines the future of their town.

There's a danger in us not acting. I think one danger is that nothing happens. One outcome is that nothing happens, but the other outcome is that Box Hill happens, and I think we are quite clear as an LGA that that isn't what we want for ourselves, that that Cheekby Jowl housing and the subsequent runoff and the impacts on both the community in terms of quality of life . And certainly the environment and what we've seen recently in terms of flooding is not what we want. So this is a proactive move, I suppose. It's just a discussion of opportunities and constraints. It may amount to nothing. And I think the residents of Oakville need to be aware that releasing that land for subdivision is actually out of Council's hands because it doesn't have the services and it's not part of the growth sector, which is why it's not being flagged for development.

But it also allows us to do the sort of proactive planning that I've been pushing for since before I was elected that keeps us in control of our LGA, as does the rest of this document. And that's the whole point of the LEP. It's our ability to determine what is allowable where and why. And that's what those zone objectives do. Whether you think that they're wordy or clunky or too numerous or take a bit longer to read, the whole point of them is to control the way development evolves where we live and where our children hopefully will live as well. And so it's important, in fact, that they are as fulsome as they can be, because often people don't read all of them. They read the relevant bits when they're assessing a development application or when they're putting in a development application or when they're choosing to live where they live on a site based on what might happen around them.

And that's why these need to have this level of detail. I'm quite willing to discuss some of the additional amendments outside the zone objectives. I would be willing to discuss increasing the distance to secondary dwellings.

Although I do lament that it has come this late, it would be interesting to hear from the planning panel on that 50 metres, I think. The stuff around the one in a hundred flood planning level, could I just ask quickly how that compares, that clause, how does what we've written in the LEP now compare to those recommendations from the Upper Hawkesbury Inquiry and the O'Kane Fuller Inquiry about the use of risk-based planning, rather than falling back to the old one in a hundred, one in two hundred, one in five hundred?

Mr Cairns. So currently, the one in a hundred year level is the current flood planning level, and obviously we do have a flood policy that is a risk-based approach in terms of dealing with applications that fall below the one in a hundred flood level. In terms of the recommendations from the inquiry, the recommendations, and obviously the Department of Planning is considering those, and we don't have any further details yet in terms of how that may manifest into planning legislation.

So we can't completely integrate them into this document at this stage, but is it possible that that will come back as this document goes through Gateway?

There may be a number of scenarios. Obviously there's the resident value, resident communities strategy released by the state government talked about a strategic land use framework for the valley, so that may be advanced whilst this particular planning proposal is being processed, and there may be those recommendations from the inquiry may lead to subsequent changes in legislation, which will have to be considered. We would have to consider that in respect of this proposal before it's finalised.

Okay

Thanks. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the amendment? Councillor Sheather.

I speak to the motion. Yeah. And it's a question first, Madam Mayor. I spoke to the staff earlier in relation to the changes with the zonings and prohibited to be added, and I go to the rezoning of the lowlands to RU1,

And the last paragraph talks about allowing recreation facilities both major and outdoor, but restricted to show jumping, dressage and polo. It also prohibits entertainment. How does that affect a polo club or a competition as is held on the lowlands now? That's a question.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Kearns?

So in terms of existing lawful uses, that doesn't have any effect at all. They're continuous lawful uses.

So existing uses, forward uses are gone.

Well, no, so this planning proposal is to actually make those uses permissible on the lowlands.

With entertainment of that?

No, it's in regard to the recreation facilities component to allow the polo, the show jumping and the dressage specifically.

Okay Just recently, we were up at— Cessnock and entertainment on the grass up there is pretty full on. If we were going to have it in the Hawkesbury, this area here would be probably one of the best places for it, and as a matter of fact, in the past there has been a couple there. That sort of entertainment would be prohibited under the RU1.

Sorry, that's a question.

The question with that entertainment on the grass for outdoor night. Like

A concert on the green. Yeah Mr. Kearns?

There is the ability to apply for temporary use applications for various events, so that's still, that's always available to potential applicants. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. There is a definition of entertainment facilities, which are theatres and clubs and things like that, I think.

I think I support the amendment. I think we had this, we had a long, long wait for this, and then we got a document to us, as Councillor Wheeler said, that went to the public last week that they could have had a look at, and as Mr. Gribbin came and represented his group , I agree that coming from that presentation, we should be having those conversations, as we should always have conversations if the community raises something we should be discussing. I think that taking the — this to me is better than the random removal of what are perceived as superfluous objectives. The document is now going to the planning panel. I'm assuming that if they see things that aren't presenting as an objective, they would alert us to that, that if they thought it was superfluous or inconsistent with the other documents, that we must comply with, that we must be mindful that we're adhering to from the state government, which of course are the actual planning instruments that dictate what we are to make our LEP around.

So I think that this is a better way forward. They may well— Make changes. They may say if we put 50 metres, was it metres or, yeah, 50 metres, they may suggest less than that because they are the people that, you know, it's not really for us to sit here and say 50 or 20 because we're not planning experts. So it will be interesting when that proceeds to the next level to get the feedback from the planning panel and then from the gateway. We know previously in previous attempts to implement certain things, it has come back from gateway and they've said something is inconsistent with higher state policy. So I think that now is the time to move this forward as it was and as we had worked on. We had the briefing recently and any changes were to be sent by email, you know, by the week before the meeting.

So I think that we should stick with what the staff have prepared and then get the feedback from the next levels, which is part of the process. And of course it is logical that there's no point getting the public comment prior to that if we're sending it off to bodies which can actually tell us that something is inconsistent with higher planning documents and so on. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Zamprogno

Coffee, please.

I'll just speak to Councillor Wheeler's amendment. I'm going to support Councillor Wheeler's amendment because that effectively takes us back to scratch. That effectively takes us to the recommendation that was in the business paper. And I'd have preferred, I do prefer a model where we start with that, and then I'm very amenable to adding elements of what Councillor Conolly was attempting to do back individually. So I'd like to foreshadow that if this does become the motion, and I hope that it is, is that there will be further amendments that will begin to add back those elements of Councillor Conolly's motion that I'm prepared to support and which may have the support of the chamber.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not going to support the amendment because I think we

Can probably do point four as well as the amendments that Councillor Conolly has put forward. I just want to make a couple of comments, and I guess I'll start with a question to staff if I can. And it goes back to the discussion we were having on why wouldn't we want to look at waterway quality and why wouldn't we want to protect rivers and water catchments. But I find that those particular so-called objectives only seem to be in RU2 rural landscape, RU4 primary production, small lots. When you come to other zones such as, where will I pick, environmental living—no, that's okay, we don't need to have that objective apparently in that one. So my point is that I don't think that those sorts of...

Those sorts of additions are actually helpful. I think they just cloud the objective of having those zones objectives. So I think that most of the things that Councillor Conolly has suggested we take out are probably fair enough. So, you know, I think we have to be really careful about, again, what is truly a zone objective. This

Particular document becomes quite confusing when, for instance, in R3 medium density residential, it has an additional point to ensure that any development does not have adverse impacts on the natural environment and ecological systems. Well, that should be the case in any of these zones. So, you know, we'll see what the planning panel thinks. We'll see what happens when we take it to the state government and the gateway. But I'm comfortable that we take those out and our document is still relatively strong.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. Just a question. If we were to resolve point four, what practical actions would staff take and what would the outcome be, or what would the next step be?

Thanks, Councillor. Mr. Kearns?

Well, just looking at that motion, it was obviously then to, you know, would to kickstart discussions with the state government in terms of obviously highlighting that, you know, this is an area that council's looking at furthering planning. I guess to garnish some parameters and identify the constraints that need to be considered and obviously highlight the... You know, the planning for the corridor in particular is critical to that.

Thank you. I'll just foreshadow that should this amendment be unsuccessful, I'd be inclined to put an amendment to the original motion to include that point four in that motion.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Kotlash, is this a question? Yeah, it is, thank you. Have we been— I appreciate that Mr Gribben has suggested that the people of Oakville would like us to consider R5. Have we been approached by any other groups in the community that might wish to have us look at their particular situations? I'm just wondering whether we should actually expand point four to be a bit more inclusive if there are actually pockets of communities that would like us to consider their plight. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Mr Kearns.

We would have to provide advice to councils in terms of that, you know, not necessarily on the floor of Council in terms of identifying those. Obviously, the Oakville Moraylya area is obviously an area that has been subject to pressures, given growth that has been occurring in the vicinity, but we'd have to bring back other potential areas for consideration.

Thank you, Mr Kearns. The General Manager would just like to make a comment.

Yeah, if I may, Councillors, in respect of point four, it may be prudent for you to seek advice of staff before we proceed immediately to proceed to a discussion with State Government. Perhaps it might be prudent for us to provide advice back to this Council and this Chamber first about what we think some of the strategic content and strategic drivers might be before we proceed to talk to the State Government, perhaps.

Thank you. Councillor Dogramaci. Thank you, Madam Mayor. As you all know, I look at things from a different point of view and maybe practical. I don't want to make a comment about all these details and the changes or whatever, but why are we making things so complicated? Always takes time. I'm in state, okay, but seven of the councillors were here about a year ago. That's before my time. I mean, couldn't they think about all these things were coming? I'll leave that up to you. And now once all these things have been answered and when we go forward with the state government, with the councils, have you ever thought, and this question is to everybody, that somebody might suddenly bring koalas ?

What's going to happen if there is a koala, or maybe the rivers, or the creeks? Maybe they will have yellow-bellied frogs or whatever it is. What are we going to do about them? Has anyone made a comment?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. In light of the general manager's comments, I'm happy to change point four to receive a report regarding opportunities and constraints.

You happy with that, Councillor Lyons Buckett?

Yes.

And could I just ask a further question, please, Madam Mayor? Absolutely. Councillor Lyons Buckett asked a similar question, and I don't think I fully understood the answer.

If this amendment fails and we go with Councillor Connolly's motion, how will the planning panel know that we have taken out these zone objectives? There seems to be an idea that the planning panel will tell us to put them back in if they're important enough, and I'm wondering how they will know that they were there. Mr Kearns.

So the planning proposal would have to be amended to obviously reflect the council resolution. So if it's removing particularly existing zone objectives, then that will be reflected in the planning proposal.

These ones that are additional,

Do they just vanish? If I may, they will also see a copy of Council's resolution that has the amendments in it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillors. Anyone else wishing to speak on the amendment? No? I'll put the amendment then. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand.

Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zamprogno. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash , Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor McMahon. The amendment is lost. The original motion becomes the motion.

Councillor Conolly. I'd like to amend the motion to add the point four of that failed amendment.

With the starting words, receive a report, just to clarify. Are you happy with that, Councillor Reardon?

Anyone who hasn't spoken on the motion wishes to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Look , no actually, I don't think it's necessary. No, we've probably spoken about it enough. Thanks. Okay,

Thank you. The motion, I'll just wait till it comes up on the board

With the additional point four. If everyone's across that, I will put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor McMahon, those against please raise your hand , Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, I declare the motion carried.

Okay. The next item subject to public address is item 200, Redbank Voluntary Planning Agreement, Proposed Grose River crossing—Grose River Bridge. We have one speaker, Stephanie Calaborns. Thanks.

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak to this item 200. Firstly, I'd like to pay my respects to the traditional owners and custodians of this land, the Darug and Darkinjung peoples. Firstly, I'd like to state that the staff of Hawkesbury City Council have failed to follow the legislative responsibilities in relation to this VPA. I found the comment previously from the General Manager disturbing when I was asked by the General Manager to explain how they have failed. I believe, as a General Manager, that the General Manager of Hawkesbury City Council would understand how they failed, and I believe that the General Manager knows. Secondly, Mark Regent, the developer, sent an email to Transport for New South Wales in December last year stating that he did not want to contaminate processes by visiting with landowners.

Both the General Manager and the previous Director of Planning brought Mark Regent to dealings with landowners. It is my belief that to continue this VPA through extension of this VPA with this developer will lead to further matters of breaches of both ethics and the law. It is my belief that neither the State Government or Hawkesbury City Council

Are ensuring that this developer follows due processes. I also believe that Hawkesbury City Council have failed to ensure that all Acts of Parliament are included in this item. As examples of this, the Local Government Act has not been stated, and the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Molino Stewart report states that there are endangered animals that have been noted and identified as risk factors in their report. That despite ARUP being advised to avoid the Star property, Mark Regent, again the developer, used ARUP. I argue that serious thought needs to go into this decision tonight as to not only whether to extend further time to this developer, but in what ways Hawkesbury City Council will begin to follow procedures which place the community first and foremost.

This VPA seemingly allows developers more insight and time with staff and councillors that residents are not privy to, specifically when their home and land is on the firing line for projects. This is contentious and disrespectful, and I argue favourable to the developers instead of this community.

Who is overseeing community safety with regard to this bridge development? Trees being cut down recently has exposed crevices which pose a risk to both traffic and people. So much for us. On one aspect of this VPA, has meant that not one community project has been performed by MR Trust, Redbank Developments, Buildev. There needs to be accountability for this agreement to build community facilities. What staff have this responsibility, and why has this not been done in all of the years since this VPA has been signed and initiated?

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? No. Thank you very much, Ms. Calaborns. Madam Mayor. Yes, Mr. Sheather.

I've got a question.

Councillor Sheather, sorry. Oh, you have a question?

Sorry. No, of the staff.

Oh, okay. Sorry, sorry, Ms. Calaborns. Before we open debate, I'll just have to have a mover, Councillor Conolly. Someone to second that, please. Councillor Reardon. Just one moment, Councillor Sheather. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak now? No, thank you. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah. Do the staff wish to address any of the issues that were discussed then?

General Manager. Perhaps, councillors, only to reiterate, as I have done previously, that all of Council's community engagement activities have followed those statutory processes and have been yet to have identified any breaches of law, despite the assertions made by the member of the public

Thank you. Any councillors wishing to speak? Councillor Conolly.

Very briefly, Madam Mayor, just to say that I don't think we have much choice here. No surprise, I was very disappointed at the meeting on 13 September when Council decided to abandon the former plans, change our mind again, and delay this project. But we knew we were delaying the project. This is the result we all knew we were signing up for. So I think unless we've all had a change of heart, that we probably just have to accept this and hope that at the next meeting we have a report to us on the final route and we can get somewhere.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I hasten to add for people following along that this is not the resolution relating to the route. This is a related resolution relating to a further delay to the milestones. I'm going to ask staff a question that I put at a briefing, but I'm going to ask staff here so that the answer can be on the public record. With reference to the various changes of milestones, I understand the reason for citing it in milestone in terms of lot release, but in terms of what we can predict in terms of what the time delay that that is equivalent to, I'm thinking specifically of milestone 3, which is the practical completion of the proposed bridge. Could somebody speculate as to how much time it will take if we put out that milestone from the 1,100th lot out to the 1,214th lot, roughly?

Thank you, Councillor. General Manager. Through you, Madam Mayor. Councillors, we had anticipated, taking the advice of Redbank Communities, that the 1,100th

Allotment was due to

Be completed on or about June 2025, so that would have been the time at which practical completion of the bridge had been undertaken. We are generally expecting a 12-month slide in the program, so we would now expect that June 2025 to be shifted to mid-2026. Right,

Thank you. So with that question answered , I agree that this is— Unhappy but necessary. And as I've said before, I can only lament that this isn't the position that we were presented with a year ago, or more than a year ago. If only originally, when various routes were being considered, they were considered without constraints that have caused us to need to readdress this. If routes had been considered without those constraints, we could have been contemplating the completion of the bridge by the original deadline. Well, not by the original deadline, because by the original deadline that bridge should have been open by now, but I won't go on about that. So I'm happy to support this recommendation and reserve further comment for when the discussion about the routes comes back, which this is not. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. And I thank Councillor Zamprogno for pointing out that this isn't about the route for the bridge. It is about the timing for delivery of the items stipulated in the Voluntary Planning Agreement. I can't support this motion as it stands. We've had these milestones moved significantly on multiple occasions. Now, it's not consistent with community expectations. And I think we need to note that it's not just Redbank residents who are affected by these changing milestones. It's residents of North Richmond and of areas of Richmond as well that have seen the increased traffic through their areas and their impact on their daily travel times.

I think there's a lesson here too in that when we look at alternatives for proposals that are going to go away and be designed by somebody else, we need to set far stronger parameters so that we either don't have a delay, or we don't have an option come back to us that is so deeply unpalatable that Council can't support it. We should have looked harder at this. We could have saved some of the angst that the Wilcox family have been subjected to through this. I think had we looked harder initially. So I'd like to personally apologise for that, but I can't, in good conscience, push these milestones out any further. We've adjusted them multiple times now.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm just , I'm a bit concerned that we're deciding on this tonight. We've got the other report coming back in about 20 days or a couple of weeks. Our next meeting is the 13th of December, I think. I'm concerned because we don't know what the outcome of that meeting will be. We won't have the report, and so how do we know that these milestones will be adequate? How do we know that Transport for New South Wales is going to agree to be the acquisition party and fund if we go with another route? These are questions I would like to know before changing the milestones again. I'm not sure how it would matter if we decided tonight or if we decided concurrently on the same night that the route options are being decided on.

So I do understand, I understand how it works. I understand that the VPA has cornered us into a position where we are beholden to the developer to change the milestones when there's changes made. I do understand that. It's a less than ideal situation for a public authority like a council to find itself in, but I do understand that. But I don't know if there would be any appetite to leave it until the next meeting, until we've seen what the other report contains. But I'm uneasy making decisions when we've got something else coming that is going to inform something around the future.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

I might just make a couple of very, very quick remarks before moving on to the vote in that regard. We are in a less than ideal situation, but the only point that I want to make is with councillors being disgruntled about the milestones, let's be frank, it has been councillors who have consistently shifted the goalposts here. It has been councillors who have wanted the route in a different place from its initial inception, or where it was supposed to be in the initial VPA, which was before my time. It has been council that's consistently changed what they want, and therefore I am not defending the developer. I'm not defending anyone in this VPA, any party to this VPA. But let's be frank about who has been the party who has been shifting the goalposts, and that has been council.

And those councillors who consistently have moved and delayed that are the ones who need to look long and hard about who is responsible for the delay of this very significant infrastructure to our community. That extra 12 months in this circumstance, those extra couple of years prior to this, means that people who live west of the river do not have another bridge to cross. Well, what is there is the Grose River, but another bridge to get to the other side. That's council. That's councillors. So I'm very happy to let everybody know that, because there's no point hiding or pretending or casting blame on someone else when we have a very public record about who keeps shifting those goalposts. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

I'll put the motion. Oh, sorry, right of reply. Thank you, Councillor.

Yeah, I just wanted to say very briefly, in case anyone was thinking that way, that I think that the suggestion from one councillor that we don't move the milestones and take the cash is madness. We've put ourselves in this position. Our options are to move the milestones or take the cash contribution. That's the reality we're in because we have continually changed the goalposts. I think, whilst I said I'm very unhappy about the situation we're in now because of the decision council made, I think that to take the cash at this point, we're not going to get a bridge if we take the cash, and if we do get a bridge, it'll be more than 12 months delay if we build it ourselves. So I think it's obviously the best option to move the milestones rather than take the cash contribution.

Thank you, Councillor. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. I declare the motion carried.

Okay, the next item subject to public address is item 202, draft community engagement policy. We have one speaker, Stephanie Calaborns.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this item as well. Firstly, I'd like to state with regard to this community engagement strategy, we've seen some examples tonight where amendments are made to agenda items. My concern is that members of the public are not able to see matters with regard to amendments. We're not able to make decisions. We're not able to do a presentation to Council on exactly the entirety of any agenda item. So for me, this is again a perfect example of how Hawkesbury City Council is not following community engagement policies and strategies.

Excuse me, Ms Calaborns, I will just alert you to the point that when a public speaker does address Council, you must refrain from making potentially defamatory statements, insults or allegations.

This is not a defamatory statement. This is true. Everybody, everybody who's watching via video conference facilities can see this. This has been an ongoing issue since 2007. It's 15 years down the track.

Now, for example, the International Association for Public Participation states

Consultation needs to be cross-national, cultural, and include religious boundaries. And that forms what's called the foundation of P9 processes that reflect the interests and concerns of all stakeholders. We define public participation as any process that involves the public in problem solving or decision making, and that uses public input to make better decisions. We support public participation as a process to make better decisions that incorporate the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders and meet the needs of the decision-making body. As I've said, by failing to bring forward agenda items into the agenda and also amendments to the agenda items conclusively means that members of the public are not fully consulted. The spectrum

For participation, it states to inform, to consult , to involve , to collaborate, to empower. We support public participation as a process to make better decisions that incorporate the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders and meet the needs of the decision-making body. Say

The amount of consultation depends on impacts

To the community, which includes mandatory and best practice notification. Consultation needs to be accessible. It needs to be timely. It needs to be two-way. It needs to be proactive, integrated, supportive, transparent, powerful, diverse, local and clear. This is a document dating back to 2007, 15 years ago. It is nice to see that 15 years down the track that Hawkesbury City Council has managed to bring this out of the cobwebs and supposedly indicate to people in the Hawkesbury that you care, that you want to hear what people in the community have to say. It's about time that Hawkesbury City Council did care about what people in this community had to say, and all people, not just yourselves, not just making amendments to agenda items that we can't even in the gallery see.

It's time that Hawkesbury City Council started to represent the community, not the developers.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Calaborns. No questions. Do I have a mover of the motion

Councillor Conolly. Seconder,

Please. Councillor Kotlash Over to you , Councillor Conolly . Any other councillors wish to speak?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Since my election to council in 2016, I'd like to think that the way in which council engages its community is one of the things that I've focused on. And I've spoken on many occasions in this forum about how challenging it is when we need to engage the community and we use all of the traditional modes. We put surveys in with our rates, we might do phone polling, we hold community town halls around the district, we gather those statistics back, and still we find that we've only reached a small percentage of the people that are affected by any given decision. That's the challenge that's before us. And I've suggested many practical ways that wouldn't necessarily need to be codified in a document like this, but things that we could do to leverage our databases, to make our terms of service such that when somebody who is a local resident puts their name down at the gym, at the pool, at the pound, at the nursery, at the library, that there is a tacit expectation that we might add that to our mailing list and provide another means of providing a newsletter or some tailored information, or information that's tailored to a person's geography in a particular suburb, or their demography in terms of their age or their interests.

Unfortunately, when I look at this community engagement policy, this document is void of any useful strategy in the areas that I've just outlined. I'm happy to wave this through this evening, but unfortunately, I remain disappointed that this document outlines a dot point list of aspirational values, which is good, but it does very little beyond that, and I think that we still have a long way to go before we are Before we can say that we're engaging in best practice in terms of the way that we're engaging the community and empowering people to feel that they have a sense of participation, ownership and agency in the decision-making that Council does on their behalf. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, I have to agree with Councillor Zamprogno, and at this point I can't support this document. I don't understand what it means in a practical sense. It's a values and principles statement document. It's not an action document, apart from the nice graph

In the diagram, and the statement that staff will decide where they pitch their consultation based on the issue. I can't see any information about what Council intends to do on the ground in terms of making sure these objectives are fulfilled. It's a nice diagram of the spectrum of engagement, but there's no information about how we're actually going to do it.

For example, how will we be proactive so that the community doesn't need to seek out information, which is one of the things that's stated in here. If staff are going to use this document as a means of engagement, I think it needs a bit more meat on the bones. I think it could be called a community engagement principles policy, but in terms of a policy that we might actually base an action on, I think it's lacking. We had a discussion on this stuff last term, as I recall, and Councillor Treeb brought forward a proposal that we look at more deliberative democracy models, which I thought really had merit, and there's no reference to that in this. And I bring that up largely because I think we've lost some of the information in getting to this next step.

So I would really urge that this comes back to us with some meat on the bones. If this— I'll wait and see how the discussion pans out. I may move an amendment.

Councillor Lyons Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm happy for it to go out on public exhibition, but I do agree. I would like to hear from the public how they feel, you know, the modes of community engagement and so on. And I think that we can hopefully formulate it into something, as Councillor Wheeler says, a more active and a more measurable of how we're engaging into the future. But I think it's an important policy, and I think to get the public feedback is something really important. I'm a little bit concerned about the time of year it's going out in terms of it being close to Christmas, and I know how busy everyone is in the community. But I guess that if there was an issue that people felt they didn't have the time or whatever, maybe it could be extended. But I'm happy to see it go on exhibition, but I would be happy to then see it strengthened after that.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Calvert, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. My understanding is that this document is a policy document.

It outlines the policy that we will follow in terms of community engagement. I don't think it's meant to go through and explain all the different mechanisms that we will use. I think the mechanisms we'll follow and will be decided upon according to the circumstances. I think maybe we need another document that follows this one which talks about those mechanisms. I do agree that they're not here in this document, but I don't think they were ever meant to be in this document. This is just an overarching, overriding policy document. We will use these principles when we are consulting with the community. So I have no problems with it in its current form, but I do acknowledge that we do need something else which talks about the mechanisms we will use.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Anyone else wishing

To speak? Yes,

Councillor Reardon. Yes

Madam Mayor, I'd like to highlight that for the last few Saturdays, we have been out doing listening posts to all areas in the Hawkesbury. We've been down to Lower Portland, we've been to Bowen Mountain, we've been to quite a few places listening to people's concerns, and that is something that people are very appreciative of. I think it's a really good start.

Thank you very much, Councillor Reardon. You are right. They have been very welcomed by the public and deliberately done so that we run into people by chance and get the kind of comments that we need from people who are out and about, rather than them seeking us, we are seeking them, and it has been very successful. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Right of reply, Councillor Conolly? Not needed. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Wheeler. I declare the motion carried.

The next item subject to public address is item 2.04, Draft Macquarie Park Plan of Management. The first speaker listed is Christopher Jones.

Thank you for your patience as well.

Parish, Windsor, Madam Mayor, thank you for allowing me to address the meeting. Thank you for the work which has been done on the Macquarie Park precinct. Thank you for the acknowledgement that St Matthew's is part of what needs to be considered when we consider the precinct. I think I want to remind you again, we're just about to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the consecration of the building. There will be a celebration service this Sunday and a children's service on Tuesday. You have to stand at the end of Macquarie Street in Sydney to understand the significance of what we have. You stand beside Hyde Park Barracks, 1819, World Heritage UNESCO convict architecture building site. Next door, the Mint, 1816, Sydney's oldest public building.

So when you're talking about St Matthew's, you're talking about 200,000 convict handmade bricks being manufactured in 1816, the church beginning to be constructed, the foundation stone by Lachlan Macquarie in 1817, and finally the consecration in 1822. You have a complete overlap of dates. So when you talk about this plan and you talk about St Matthew's, the visibility of the site is really, really, really important. It matters that it be seen. And in the past, any traffic on Hawkesbury Valley Way, it was the church that sat on the hill. People who go past on Hawkesbury Valley Way these days do not even know it's there because it is hidden. We're not asking for wholesale destruction of trees or anything like that in McQuade Park, but we do think a corridor can be protected along the lines of the old Forbes Street, which was first marked out by Macquarie and was never constructed, which goes up through McQuade Park.

It would create visibility of the church in particular from the Hawkesbury Valley Way, George Street intersection, if you did it right also from about here in the council chambers. So visibility for us is really important. I think I want to commend Grant Garrish, who has had vision for this as well, and it might be that something like this can be achieved with a minimum amount of disturbance within the McQuade Park precinct. I'm going to refer you to page 68 of the item 204. There's a response here to some of the things that have come from the community. Some of it is us, but I want to say one of these comments is not from us. The request not to cut down trees so that people can stand in the church grounds can have a panoramic view of the park, that's not from us.

We're not looking for views from the church. We're talking about visibility of the church from the community. I think I want to say that in the seven and a half years I've been here, we have undertaken more than $400,000 worth of work on the site, largely because of dollar for dollar from State Government heritage, but also because we have had bequests from other sectors. So we see ourselves as custodians. We are a church, but we see ourselves as custodians of really significant colonial history, and we work really hard at having the site in good nick for the benefit of the entire Hawkesbury community. So that's how we see it. The other thing which is significant for me is the toilets, and I think I just want you to say, don't dismiss the toilets as just needing signage to direct people in the right direction.

On site at St Matthews, we have continual issues with toileting. There are a lot of sports events on Don't Worry Oval across the road, and guess where people send their kids to go to the toilet? Into the grounds of St Matthews. Now it's not just going for a wee, it's defecating and things like that. We closed our own toilets several years ago after spending $20,000 on restoration, and that's been great, but we've closed them so that our people aren't coming to use them when we've got things on at church and finding that they're in a terrible state because of what the community, not the community, but people in the community have been doing. So I just want you to speak to, really say visibility is really important to us.

Toileting is really important in McQuade Park as well, and provision of it some way, but I'm not telling you what the solution is. Madam Mayor, may I make one other comment unrelated? I've brought with me, hot off the press from the Hawkesbury Council print room, a revised brochure that we've prepared for the bicentenary of consecration. I've got enough copies in my hands for them to be distributed to councillors. They will be given out at the community service on Sunday and to the children. We're expecting 500 people on Tuesday for the school service. So adults aren't invited because we've got the place full with children, which for me in an old church and an old building, to have full of children and families is just a wonderful thing to be looking forward to.

Can I have permission to— thank you. There may be one or two left for staff as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah thank you. With the plan generally, there's a lot of passion about the corridor that you spoke of, but with the plan generally, are you happy with that?

I'm really happy that we've been considered, so I'm really grateful for the public consultation. We've been able to express things, and I don't think we expect more than that. But on these things, we want to bat a bit.

Yeah. Okay, and I apologise on behalf of the sporting people for your problem, and I'll certainly take it on board.

You probably didn't do it.

I take on board your problem, and I'll speak to people about it. Thank you.

Any further questions? No. And may I just say, Mr Jones, your front fence is looking fantastic. I drive past it every morning and see the workman on it, and it's looking brilliant. May

I add to that that if you look at the church windows, the restoration on them has been phenomenal. We've had praise from the National Trust for the work, particularly because it's been able to be done without all the money that would be wasted if you had to scaffold the tower. And we've also, the front fence is a Rolls-Royce gold plated and was very hard to sell to Parrish Council. But maybe within a week it will be in its finished condition, which means it will have palisades on it as well. So Sydney Restoration Company has done an outstanding job in this work. It

Looks beautiful. Thank you very much. Thank you. I now call on our next public speaker, Grant Gerrish. Now

Just have, it's called, we'll call it a Christmas card, your first Christmas card for everyone. There's one for everyone. They're A3 images going back a couple hundred years.

It's yours.

Thank you, Mr. Gerrish. If you'd like to begin.

I'm partly Scottish and I can't give you whiskey, but the Scottish saying, which I like very much, is to see ourselves as others see you. Chris knows that I wouldn't be here next Christmas, so this is my Christmas card to you. It's not something contentious. It should be something that makes you feel absolutely beautiful. You didn't have the 900 hours that I had to pore over, because I can see what you're swamped. But nevertheless, I'd like to go through this with you from the anticlockwise perspective. I used a Northern Hemisphere word, didn't I? Because everything I'm saying has to do with the Northern Hemisphere. And that is, there are 3,984, by my reckoning, parks in Greater Sydney. Hands down, which is the park with the greatest visual and heritage potential that is unutilized?

I say that it's McQuade. I note that there was a great emphasis in the meeting about Macquarie Park. I don't see a great deal in the 100-page study that wouldn't equally apply if this park were where Macquarie Park. It is not, and I put it to you from the Northern Hemisphere perspective, which is the only perspective I offer to any of you, that because of where it is, and we'll soon go around and show why, because those 100,000 vehicles and the 1,440 times a day that cars are stopped, you have, although Urbanstide acknowledged this partway by saying there's a gateway feature you could have in the corner of the park at the intersection, I put it to you that the park is the gateway feature for Windsor.

What's it worth? Well, a real estate agent has given the estimate between 60 and 120 million. Are you really determined to say we're going to take Northern Hemisphere views, which is to say the people that will soon be coming here, splice them onto our extraordinarily overloaded diaries, and say, what would they think? I have a view of George Street so many times, four times, 158 yesterday, last example, I see visitors trudging up and down. Unlike Richmond, that's what it is. It's a trudge. How can we not wonder what they're thinking? Is this the best you can do? I suggest to you that the park should be having that goal. And Mary, to great credit, some time ago I raised the word beauty. I can see that in 100,000 words tonight, beauty is a snowflake.

But please keep it in mind as the time runs out, and then those more 10, 20, 30,000 words keep going. It should be magnificent. I asked the Chinese, How do you say magnificent? Zong li de, and the Japanese not here yet, zong dai. I don't think they'll say it's magnificent. To her great credit, Sarah has said she'd spend an hour, and I will bet I can fill that, not from my own wisdom but overseas wisdom, on every aspect, every tiny particular of why, when people get there from the train station, over 180 trains a week, or the 1,440 times that cars stop, or the 100,000 times that vehicles are passing by, that they look at it and they say, It's magnificent. It really, really is magnificent. Take the examples here now of going anti-clockwise in the lower left-hand corner as we move along.

Even Urba says, This is the cone. Now we give great credit to Elizabeth Richardson because there was going to be about 70 grand worth of trees that would, what, block that. In response to a good letter from Chris, she acted quickly and responded by saying those trees aren't going forward. A lot of this is damage control. Not only are we talking about, as we move along here, that currently when you see in that front page, you see a lot of grass. The height of this ceiling is approximately four meters. If I hold this up as an example, the practice in a lot of Australia is four meters. If you do four meters, you'd be surprised how little trees you have to remove. You are just going to have the visibility.

But meanwhile, what happens is I've seen in the last four years, a lot of the tree growth now is only a meter above the ground, as you look over my head. And it has to say, This is the project. Four meters, we do this. Europe leads the way in this, and most other countries do too. But that's just the example. Then we go across the crosswalk. The plan calls for a crosswalk. You deserve better than that. Right? Fifty steps from where you're all sitting. Forbes Street, on the ancient documents and the map is sold by the council, led straight to the front door of St Matthew's. You should have this fine a crosswalk if ever there's a reason to have cobblestones. Surely it's there. How far do we have to look?

Look at Kiama. Later on, Sarah would have access to some beautiful examples: cobblestones and beautiful bollards, not just some crosswalk. You deserve better. The park deserves better. We move along. We have that last 30 seconds here, and that is look at Harvard. I couldn't get into it, but can we conclude that if this place is lit up like Harvard, which is one of hundreds of hundreds of Georgian-style buildings, it's going to be really, really magnificent. So if there's a question, that's fine. And then I await anyone who wants to go into the park and see how it can be: Zhongli,

Or

Saudi, or magnifique

Thank you, Mr. Gary. Are there any questions? No. Thank you very much. Thank you for your passion. Oh, sorry, Mr. Councillor Sheather.

Thanks, and I too thank you for your passion for our city. For someone who doesn't live here and leaving fairly soon, with the parks, you've travelled the world, and the opportunities that you see within the documents before us tonight, is that the vision that is possible out of that plan?

Well, I believe it's that case of aim higher. One example, when you go across the street, just one. Those are stock standard bargain basement tables and chairs. They should be relocated, not thrown away up to the top of the park. But there are splendid, fine, same price, couple of thou, ornamental iron benches. And when people go along, any visitor, any mayor, any fellow councilman, this should be the place people go, Gosh, those are the finest heritage benches I've ever seen. Why not? So it's just one example that we have time for now. Again, the 50,000 words will follow of other items. But that information would be available up to Sarah and anyone else who wants to see. Just visualize that.

Every time you leave this place, you go, God dang it, aren't they splendid? Beautiful wrought iron colors, filigree, various, various heritage treatments of them. They're in Australia. They're here, but we just can't do this.

Thank you very much. Any further questions? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Gerrish. The corridor that you're proposing is this one in the bottom left-hand corner? The Urbis

The Urbis proposes

I

Actually just put yellow lines. Their red lines are underneath. It starts from Hawkesbury Valley Way to about where we are.

So the

Dotted lines up the middle, is that the corridor?

That's exactly right.

That both you and Reverend Jones are referring to. Is that correct? Can I just confirm that that's what you're after as well, Chris? Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. No further questions. Thank you very much for your contribution and effort. Always

Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

Thank you very much. Our next public speaker is Jeffrey Brand.

Last 30 seconds, when you go to your car, you say that fast-talking bloke said, I have one of the finest tasks at the end of the year in my whole term of power to say when anybody comes, it is magnificent.

Thank you very much. Very cheeky, but thank you. Mr. Brand.

Madam Mayor, General Manager, Council staff and councillors, with all due respect to

Reverend Chris, the only way you're going to see St Matthew's from either Hawkesbury Valley corner or from these council chambers is if you tear down every tree in the park. That's the only way you're going to see it. I know that Reverend Chris and I do give him credit that he said he doesn't want to see trees taken down, but that vista is the only way it's going to become apparent is if all those trees are removed. I'd also just like to remind councillors here tonight that when the draft plan of management went through this chamber, there was a resolution put that the Windsor and District RSL sub-branch be permitted to build the cenotaph. That's another point, the cenotaph, in the position and of the design that has been put forward.

I'd also like to put to you that there's a lot of mention about memorials there. It is not a memorial. A memorial contains names and references to events. A cenotaph pays respect to all. That is what the proposal is for a cenotaph. Madam Mayor, I’m open to any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr Brand. Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr Brand. Have you seen the proposed management actions on page 59 of the report?

In this report, Councillor? No

On page 59 of the plan.

Sorry. Sorry, Councillor, if you’d just bear a second. Yeah, sure. Sorry, 58, sorry, as well. 58, sorry

Yeah. Top of page 58.

It includes specifications which appeared in the draft plan that we looked at earlier in the year and changed, and they’re now back in there as management actions, including that the cenotaph be small in scale and low-key in nature, it has removable elements, be designed by a heritage architect, and is contemporary in nature.

I can see what you are referring to now. We went through all the requirements of lodging the S60 application with the State Heritage, and when we did that, approximately five or six years ago, State Heritage came back and said the only reason they wouldn’t approve it was they were waiting on the DA from the council. That DA never went forward, as you are aware, because of the fact that it was suddenly decided, or found out, discovered by management that all parks and— sorry, McQuade Park was now heritage listed and it didn't belong to us as a community. It belonged to the state. And therefore we had to withdraw our S60 application. We did comply with the architectural architect , and when we put the plan to the council staff, they told us it was ridiculous because what they wanted to do was to tier all of McQuade Park and put a brick wall down here on the corner.

So that never got further than that. We did employ, at expense to us, an architectural investigator, if that's what you want to call them, who examined the area and declared that there was no Aboriginal artefacts or any items of significance in that area. And that went ahead with the S60 application. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr Brander, are you happy with the outcomes that are in this report?

Well, now that I see this, in the actual report that's been tonight

Yes. Yes. Okay. Just one thing I wanted to ask you, on that same page that Councillor Conolly was referring to, there's a section that says means of assessment of the actions, and it says new memorial, which should say new cenotaph, to be used only for large events such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. Are there any other official events that you would use that as opposed to the memorial on the corner, do you think? Maybe a major commemoration or something.

That would be the only time, and at that time we would apply to council as we do for every event. Apply to Council to use either the corner memorial or to have the one in the park for Anzac Day or Remembrance Day. Okay

Thanks for clarifying that.

Any further questions? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor.

Mr. Brand, part of this relates to honouring veterans of all conflicts and the like, including Indigenous, which were in conflicts with our forces. You mentioned earlier about a cenotaph rather than a memorial. That covers all active—

Sorry, it covers all members of the Australian Defence Forces.

Yeah. The question was just asked by Councillor, are you happy with the recommendation in the business paper is the council adopt the plan of management as attachment 2, this document's attachment 2. The resolution that was put to council back on the 22nd of December that you were aware of is not what's written here. And I'd ask you how you'd respond to things like the memorial will only be used on those two major days. Well, as I said to

Councillor Lyons-Bucket, the memorial will only be used on two occasions during the year: Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, unless there is a specific anniversary or commemoration of an event that occurs

So the word only is a problem there.

Yes, that's not a problem.

This morning, Scalen Low Key in nature with gardens, vegetation and soft, harsh edges, size approximately 16 square metres. I did a calculation of your proposal. It's roughly 30 to 35 square metres, which is more than—it's double the size that's recommended in the paper.

That overall size, you're talking about the base, including the base

The base,

Yeah. The surround Our estimates were not of using the base, it was just the actual cenotaph itself.

Right.

So therefore, no, I'm not happy with that.

No. Okay. Including incorporating removable elements, e.g. flagpoles, plinths and columns.

It also says that.

If that becomes the norm, then we don't need to have a memorial as cenotaph there.

Yep. Okay.

That's the purpose. We currently do have, as most councillors are aware, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, we have a—

What I call a—well, it is mobile, but a constructed copy.

It also says the design would need to be resubmitted to Council in the modification as follows, and it goes on to say, designed by a heritage architect with experience in designing memorials, which is not a memorial as you indicated. That's right. And it further goes on to say, the design in consultation with Council staff to endorse the formal application, which is what you would do normally anyway. Yes, so most of the things that's in this is in conflict to the proposal you put forward six years ago.

It now appears so, yes.

Yep, a question to the staff. I’m going to get them. I

Will save that for debate, Councillor Sheather. Further questions? Sorry, can I ? Thank you, Mr Brand. Can I just clarify, based on all of that discussion, which is very important , the cenotaph that you wanted to put in the park is exactly the one that you currently use temporarily?

Exactly the same size, Madam Mayor, except for a base that the solid construction would be on.

Thank you. It does appear that— I’ll save this for debate. Thank you very much, Mr Brand. I appreciate your comments tonight. Thank you, Madam Mayor . Thank you so much. Move

A motion, Madam Mayor . So, move a recommendation, move the recommendation with an additional point that item B24 in the Management Actions section be amended. I’d like some help from staff on the performance target. I’m thinking something similar to allow the Windsor RSL sub-branch to construct a cenotaph to honour veterans from all conflicts, including specific names of veterans, in accordance with the design previously submitted. The Management Actions to be changed back to what’s on page 64 of the business paper under section B from the resolution in February. The means of assessment to be changed to assessment of the proposal submitted by Windsor RSL sub-branch. Thank

You, Councillor Sheather

Could I just ask a question while that's being worked out? I don't understand how this has happened. We had a debate at council and changed it from what appears on page 58 to what appears on page 64, quite publicly, quite deliberately. From the report, there's been no submissions that suggested it needed to be changed back. I don't understand how staff have now just recommended the exact opposite of what council decided. I'd like to know how that's come about.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Who would wish to answer that question? Not me, but I just was— Sorry, I'm just putting the question to staff. Okay

So, who's written the plan of management, I guess, Mr. Cairns?

So, it's my understanding that the plan of management was amended to reflect the council resolution from earlier in the year, and that was the plan that was publicly exhibited. Pages sort of 28 through to 31 sort of highlight the cenotaph that was proposed, and my understanding that was the proposal that was put forward in terms of location and actual design of the cenotaph from the RSL. But yeah, so that's my understanding of that.

Thank you. I guess the reason I ask the question is because the items that appear in— The management actions section are almost identical to the staff recommendation to the meeting of 22 February, which was changed by council. And then so the main report references what council decided, but the part of this plan that's actually going to determine the assessment is back to the staff recommendation, and I think that's unacceptable. But we're probably going to move on from that. I think that this is a, this is, to me, we've just got to go back to what we decided in February, because there's been no public submissions that suggested otherwise. There's been no advice, according to the report from the Office of Crown Lands, that that needed to be changed.

So there's been no justification for changing it back. It's just been changed back to what staff thought was the best idea in the first place. But this is a situation where the community overwhelmingly, I believe, supports Windsor RSL sub-branch's desire to have this memorial. That can be seen at every Anzac Day service we've had, where thousands upon thousands of people are there. It is one of, if not the biggest event that happens in Windsor every year. There's a huge amount of community support for this. To slip in management actions that would require a new proposal that's drastically different for it to gain approval is, to me, unacceptable. And I think this is a case where council , as the community's representatives, has a right to make this decision.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I was just wondering if included in that, if it could just specify that the correct wording is used to describe what's being discussed, because there is a memorial on the corner. That's the difference.

Yeah, yep, happy with— so any reference to memorial in that should be changed to cenotaph. Yep.

Thank you, Councillor . Sheila ? Yeah. Yeah, Madam Mayor, I too am really disappointed. Reading through the document, and I see what was presented here, and it all reads pretty fine, till I got to page 58, and could not believe it. And it's a concern. Six years this has been going on, and the work that the sub-branch has done to—and I'm not saying that's council's fault. It's Crown land, and there's a process we had to go through , and that's fair enough. And the sub-branch recognised that, and as frustrated as they were, they did recognise it. But then to get a document like this that is going on public exhibition for people to read , and we spoke about objectives and performance and all that for an hour a little while ago, and then we get this here, and the staff sitting in this room know what council's resolution was and the like.

Someone who might be dealing with this may not, and if they read this page 58, the outcome would be very much different to the resolution of 22 February.

And as Councillor Conolly said, like ANZAC Day here just before COVID, there's over 30,000 people, and even during COVID there was large amounts of people there. 30,000, that's half our population , that turns up to what is a ply replica . That takes a lot of work to put up and then take down and take away, so that we can look at a piece of grass alongside of a piece of water. What's being proposed, and those of you who have been out to the university and seen the sandstone and stuff out there, would have some recognition of what this is proposed to look like. And in relation to the design, there was a lot of protocol that the sub-branch had to go through, and their members, to come up with what's proposed there.

And their members are Hawkesbury people. They don't want something that they're not proud of and the like. And in relation to anything on that stone, there'd be the three emblems of the services and probably words like perhaps sacrifice or that sort of thing. That would be it, and that reflects, as Mr. Brandt said , all people, Indigenous, women, newer Australians alike,

Who served our nation up to date, to be recognised by those 30,000 people that get out of bed at four o'clock in the morning to get there. So, Madam Mayor, I am disappointed this is here , and the fact— I'll leave it there.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've just got a question about the issue that— Mr Jones raised around the toilets, and is there a possibility for us to expedite something to be done around the amenities block there outside of this plan anyway? I know it's been an issue for some years, and I think we all know that there's a lack of public toilets in Windsor. It would be a good area, and I know the ones attached to the sporting facilities are locked a lot of the time, and I understand the issues around that, but we need some sort of accessible public toilet in that area. Can this be done as a high priority outside of this plan?

Thank you, Councillor.

General Manager? Yeah, we might just take that on notice, Councillor. It's something that would obviously need budget allocated towards it and a reasonable level of planning around it as well, so have to do that.

Thank you. I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that that's reasonable. I'll speak in— Oh, sorry. No, I think

That's just a request. I repeat the motion.

Oh, sorry.

But only if that's my turn. I was

Just going to speak to the motion, but yeah, repeat

Maybe I'll do that so they can try and draft it while you're speaking. Yep. Okay. If that's all right, Madam Mayor. Sorry. So it was point one being that Council adopt the McQuade Park Plan of Management attached as Attachment 2 to this report with the following changes: A, or change one, is the performance target relating to item B24 be changed to —and then delete the first few sentences and add, to enable a cenotaph to be erected in the park, similar to the proposal by Windsor RSL sub-branch, and then following on to honour veterans from all conflicts, including Indigenous, including specific names of veterans as is in the report. Next change , to change the management actions, and they should be changed to exactly what Council already resolved, which is on page 64, under 1B.

Just be those. And then final change being the means of assessment. Council should assess the proposal as submitted by Windsor RSL sub-branch.

Take that out.

I think they have to be there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll just confirm the staff have got that and are happy to continue drafting that for the screen. Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll speak in favour of the motion, and I really want to thank the community for their input. There was quite diverse input. I think what everybody would agree with is that we want a functional, beautiful park in one of our main townships, and that we, you know, we want to assist people to get the sort of park that they want. I guess with the plan like this, it does come down to prioritising it and looking for the funding opportunities that we can get to get reasonable parts of it done. There was just a couple of things I wanted to raise about it for when it does get done, and one of that was around if any of the trees that are removed from there can be reused, either for something within the park or in some way to have the continuity of those because they are very special trees there, and if they could be used in a public manner in something.

There was a lot of good ideas came up in the public feedback reading the submissions, and there was just one of them I wanted to raise that I thought was really important, that it was that somebody had written that there's no basketball court, and I think I know what it's like for kids that want to play something like that and they've got to get all the way to South Windsor to go to the basketball court. If there's any possibility of getting a half court or even just a basketball thing up there somewhere, because it's a really good activity for local kids to gather and throw a ball around and play like that. I think that, I know it's a more traditional area for sporting, it has the cricket and the football, but I think that sometimes there can just be a small area that could just satisfy that sort of informalised sport of kids gathering and throwing a ball around.

Maybe up near the playground or something would be a good spot. I'm really looking forward to seeing a detailed landscape plan. I think that would be a good thing to be able to have input in and to see. And another thing I wanted to raise is around the bins. I think that there's so many—I know it's a weird thing to probably look at—but I look at bins all over the place, and I think there's some really attractive bins that fit in with our sort of history and heritage. And sometimes something will look really good and then you'll see a bin, and that can spoil the whole amenity. So I think looking out for little details like that to make sure everything's appropriate and in keeping with the history of the park would be good.

And I think it is a wise move whenever we do this to test the appetite, pardon the pun, but with the cafe, to test it out in a mobile sense before committing to putting one there full time, depending on how that pans out. So I think I particularly wanted to thank the community for their diversity of ideas and for the people with the passion to make this a better park for all of us.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. And I wanted to thank the speakers for coming along and adding their different insights. This is a really fascinating little pocket of the Hawkesbury, I think, this park. It shows the 250 years of European heritage, or 230-odd years of European heritage in the Hawkesbury, in a really fascinating way. I think, you know, we've got the — We've got the site lines up to St Matthew's, that very earliest development. Its use as a parade ground, which I think makes it particularly poignant and relevant to be used for the cenotaph that's proposed. For those of us who spent a bit of time in the green suit, we know the importance of a parade ground to an army unit. It's the area that's seen as the sanctuary for fallen soldiers.

It's quite sacred ground, and, you know, you can't walk on the parade ground; you have to march. It's not a place that you'd loiter. It's a place that's treated with deep respect, and I think it's fitting that we have this site where it was traditionally a place where the army paraded from the early days of Windsor becomes now recognised as a place of commemorating the service of what were very small towns and who gave, during the times of the First and Second World War particularly, huge percentages of their menfolk to these conflicts, and that had lasting impacts on the community. Some of the things I think that have been raised will probably come up in the detailed design phase: the pavement materials, bins, signage.

I do notice that there's a comment from someone about not putting the sign to Windsor on the edge of the park. I really take Mr Garrish's point that this is the gateway to Windsor and should be seen as the gateway to Windsor, and therefore I think it's appropriate that we signpost it as the gateway to Windsor. It's no point having people get halfway to Clarendon and think, Oh, that was Windsor and I've missed it. I'd best go back, because they're gone if we don't grab them on their way past. The toilets, I think, are a really good point. It's a constant question for council, is where are the public toilets? Bloody long way from the station where the toilets are locked 99% of the time, up to Windsor to the public toilet that's down on Cable Street.

I mean, we really have a lack of public toilet facilities in Windsor, particularly.

The issue of trees, I'm wondering if we could get some feedback, and I'm happy to take it on notice, about how we could achieve that proposed corridor between St Matthew's and the corner of Hawkesbury Valley Way. And I think that map works best if you tilt it slightly and orientate it so that you could see what you might see if you sat at the intersection of Hawkesbury Valley Way up towards St Matthew's, with the cenotaph on the way through, I would imagine, through natural senescence of the trees that are in there, so that instead of actively removing trees, we are mindful of that corridor when we plant in the future. And those trees that are there that will eventually die, just through old age or disease, we don't put them back.

Rather than actively removing healthy specimens, we look at relocating shade so that we don't have a loss of tree canopy, but that we do slowly work. Towards reinstating that corridor. I think this is one of the things that I find fascinating about Macquarie Park is it's tale of one man's hubris, in fact, in that it had this history as the great square. It had this history as this Macquarie-era park, and I think COVID taught us the real benefit that we have from these Macquarie-era parks that still exist in our LGA. And Macquarie Park, I think, is well used and well loved, even when it's got bindis and even when it looks a bit daggy and even when you can't get into the toilet. But what I think, one of the fascinating parts of this story is a man in a position of power decided that this would be named after him.

And as much as I like the idea of going back to that great square, I think Macquarie Park itself has a tale to tell, and let that be a salutary lesson to those of us sitting around here when we've got the place naming policy coming back to us: don't name stuff after yourself. You'll be judged harshly. A few years down the track, you'll look like a bit of a tosser. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll just make a few remarks as well because I believe that this item is so fundamentally important. I do just want to, for the record, confirm with staff that the item in the attachment in the actual plan of management that Councillor Conolly highlighted was an oversight, because it does very obviously conflict with what's in the business paper.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, look, certainly the management actions on page 58 of the document should have been reflective of the content on page 31 of the same plan of management that aligns with Council's resolution of that. So apologies, Councillors, that that's clearly been an oversight on our behalf. Thank

You, General Manager. I know just time kept ticking for that question, so if I go over, I'm putting everyone on notice. I do want to thank Councillor Conolly for highlighting that. That's probably, from what's happened and transpired so far in this meeting tonight, that's been one of the most important things ever. So thank you, Councillor Conolly. I would have been horrified if that had gone to the Minister, I think it is, as per the recommendation, and that ended up being adopted and we missed that. You know, people know my dad's a veteran. He's for the second time this year in the veterans' hospital in the city, has been for weeks this time, and we don't have a date to come home. And I say to the sub-branch, RSL people from the Windsor RSL sub-branch, that you have my commitment that we will get that right, and that will be done properly.

And you have waited long enough, and you have been overly patient with this council as we have got all of our ducks in a row for something that is so very important to all of us, to our community, for our serving men and women. So, yes, Mr Brand

Thank you very much. No, I will fight for the rights of veterans forever because I don't think my dad's going to be fixed. So I know what it's like, and I thank you for all of that. So I hope we get that right. In terms of the other element of the park, which is, of course, Minister Jones has been speaking about and, of course, Grant is absolutely wholeheartedly committed to Windsor and to McQuade, and I thank you for all of that. I just want to put a question to the General Manager on that issue. Where are we at with the View corridor? I know it was mentioned that there had been correspondence back. Can you just confirm what that solidified about the View corridor? Oh, Mr. Kearns.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, item B1 in the management actions talks to the vistas matter, sort of unobstructed vistas across the park and obviously protecting, you know, I guess the upper northwestern and western portions of the park in that sense. So we're obviously talking about Moses Street and Hawkesbury Valley Way there. But essentially looking at that view corridor that's sort of been identified in the material that's handed down there. In a practical sense, what that really means is that, you know, we'd be looking to plant no new trees within that particular corridor, and then it's, you know, selective removal of poor quality trees that are within that particular corridor as well. And obviously that'll be detailed in the landscape plan that's provided, yeah.

Okay, lovely. Thank you. I guess I just want to quickly throw that out there. Are you satisfied with that? That satisfies your requirements? Look at this, two thank yous in one speech.

Lovely. Thank you very much. I'm just, we are here to try and make everybody as happy as possible because, as Councillor Wheeler rightly said, this is a very significant park. And I guess another question, so sorry, but I'm just putting it all out there. Some of the funding we've got so far under West Invest Stage 1 for livability, does that include signage at McQuade?

Through you, Madam Mayor, it certainly includes Windsor. Whether that goes as far as the park... Signage , I couldn't tell you. My instinct is probably not at this point. No,

Thank you very much. I do hope that when we then are able to expand on that funding under the liveability for our signage that we can include that, because I do believe in that same vision of every corner of that square having signage saying, The Great Square. That's what it was. And I can tell you how important signage is, and I'm going to go a bit over because the time kept ticking for questions. How important it is is every single morning, I think I've told a few people, I come to that intersection there. I've dropped one child off. I've got two to go. And I come to that intersection there and on repeat, because I'm a daggy mum, I say to my kids, Can anyone tell me what year Windsor was settled?

Because it's there by the colony. It's there very big for everyone to see on a sign, and they roll their eyes and tell me to be quiet. But, you know, they end up saying 1794. But the point is, because of that signage, that's become a routine in our car every single morning, and my kids now have that knowledge and that history. And I want to say that because that's how important signage is in a local area. And I was significantly distressed by some of the feedback from the community when we announced our liveability funding, and part of that was funding for signage. You look at the entrance signage to our community that has been there for a couple of decades. I think Councillor Calvert remembers way back when, back in the day when he was part of the decision to put that there.

And it certainly needs upgrading, and it has been also damaged in the floods as well. It looks mouldy. It looks daggy. And I believe that signage is so important to bring up the visual aspect of our community as gateway signage, as suburb signage, and hopefully down the track, signage for places like the Great Square. I believe that we have the elements here to get it right. I thank Councillor Conolly again for correcting the record there, and I hope that everyone who's made a contribution to this item tonight from the gallery and from the community in the business paper. know that we are working towards making this park here in Windsor something amazing, and that we continue to honour its heritage and its history.

Thank you. Any other councillors who wish to speak?

Councillor Jurek.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't have a lot to add. I mean, my fellow Chamber members have eloquently touched on all the important parts of the park. I just would like to add that if we're very clever in pruning, we can give a line of sight to the church from the lights, and we can give a line of sight from the chamber as it was originally meant to be, which incorporates the south car park of the chambers. There doesn't have to be much removal of trees. We've got a couple of problematical trees, some dead ones. There's one in front of the church in McQuade Park that's entirely hollow and probably very dangerous that we should probably look at. I just think if we're clever in what we do, we don't need to remove a lot of trees.

We can still have a line of sight from two positions, and from then, as trees die, we might at some stage have a solid view corridor. And in regards to the name of McQuade Park, McQuade Park is the Great Square, and the name of the Great Square is McQuade Park. I don't think we have to fight over which one it is. I think they can be synonymous. They reflect on each other and they can work together. Most importantly, it's great to see some much-needed effort being considered for McQuade Park, so I'd like to thank everyone involved in that. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Councillor Jurek. Any further comments by councillors? Councillors Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It doesn't reflect well on Council that something as simple as constructing a memorial, a cenotaph, I should say. That's frequented by tens of thousands of people, is caught up in bureaucratic paralysis for years and years and years. We should be able to do better than that. I reflect on many other Georgian towns that I've visited that have beautiful parks, botanic gardens. They've got wrought iron follies, they've got bandstands, they've got botanic gardens. We don't really have those aspects. This plan, I think, should only be seen as a beginning. I think it should remain an evolving space. I think we could still do more in terms of plantings, in terms of street furniture, in terms of those sight lines.

I concur with Councillor Djuric that there are some particularly problematic trees with bowls that are so hollow you could climb inside them. And I think with—I mean, I'm referring to page 67 in the business paper that says that we're not only going to retain and enhance the trees, but then we're going to engage in selective removal of poor quality trees. Can I just ask staff, I mean, has this plan engaged the services of an arborist, and does that mean that there's a concrete plan to remove particular trees, or is this as nebulous as it sounds? Can I just ask?

Thank you, Councillor Mr Kearns.

The further detail will come in the detailed landscape plan. So this is obviously the guiding document that guides future activities and plans within this particular precinct. So, as I say, that further detail will be in the— All right then.

My fear is that nebulous wording is the enemy of real progress, because it's just left at that, and we go no further. And the thing is, I love trees, and I'm loath to cut down any tree, but I think I recognise that in McQuade Park there are a large number of huge trees that are now or imminently going to be suffering from senescence, and which are either going to be a hazard or are getting in the way of the overall landscape of the park. And I'm glad that there's now a plan in place to manage that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor Zamprogno. Anyone else wishing to speak? I just do want to clarify one more point, and it was a point from Mr Brand. You have mentioned that this is not a memorial; this is a cenotaph. Can I just please confirm with staff that before this goes to the minister, those changes to the word memorial will be changed in this document to reflect that accuracy?

Through you, Madam Mayor, absolutely.

There you go. Got it sorted. So that will be done. Okay. With no further commentary, I'll put the matter to the vote. I'm just confirming that vote that's coming up on the board.

Do councillors need time to read that again, or they understand what we're doing? We all get it? Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Carried unanimously. Thank you very much, councillors, for your...

And thank you to our guests who have stayed back to discuss and talk on this item. We appreciate it, knowing the time is nearly 9.30. Thank you very much

Thank you. We do have one more item subject to public address, and that is item 208, the draft naming of roads and places policy. We have one speaker, Stephanie Calaborns. Thank

You for allowing me the time to speak on this item as well. This item 208 apparently is first dated back to 2018. So again, it's a document that's been in process for the last four years. Firstly, I'm concerned about some writing on page 30 between sentences 27 and 33 that indicate that there is a working group in process of community members of First Nation community members. So I'm a little bit baffled by how this working group has been formed and who is actually on this working group. So it's a question through the Mayor that I'd like answered tonight . Secondly, I actually find concerned about the statement, the final reconciliation plan, because I believe from reading this document that the current reconciliation action plan is still being formulated with regard to community members .

You also identify the best practice standards when we've already discussed tonight that there are concerns about the best practice standards with regard to community consultation . The other thing that I'm concerned about, the fact of the statement about council fees and charges for roads and for road naming. I'd like to actually request, with regard to this road naming, that if the roads are named through a past or present First Nation person, that the actual fees and charges are waived for this community . You also talk about war veterans names and consulting with a historian or a sub-branch of the RSL. There's no mention in this document that I can read, with respect to this, that you will actually consult with families.

For me, it's paramount first and foremost that the families are consulted first, rather than just going to the war veterans or a historian. That actually, to me, disregards a person's culture, a person's community and connection with family . So I'm concerned about a lot of this. In principle, I do support what you are trying to aim of this and whereabouts you want to go, but I think that there's so much work that needs to be done. The fact of, to me , not having representative First Nation people here to actually discuss this tonight identifies to me the lack of consultation that this council has done, and the fact that, to me, if there was a working group in process, there would be members of this working group here tonight, and I don't see any of them.

So I think going back to this consultation policy, because there is so much work to do with regard to your community consultation policy, it's evident that you again are lacking with regard to this agenda item. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Calaborns. Any questions? No

Thank you for your contribution. Councillor

Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move a motion that I've provided to the staff earlier today. I'm

Assuming councillors have read that email. Do I have a seconder? Second, Madam. Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks. So this follows on from our discussion last week regarding how we consult with First Nations people and what we consult with them on. And I take Ms Calabornis comments regarding the fact that we don't have First Nations people here tonight. I did do quite a bit of consultation during the week with First Nations people regarding this, that there's a real problem, I think, with the idea that was expressed last week that we need First Nations people to come in here and tell us this stuff. For many First Nations people , coming to an organisation like council, regardless of our best intentions, and talking to us about the impacts of colonisation, about how they feel about traumatic incidents and traumatic events, is re-traumatising.

And it's deeply disrespectful to expect them to do the work of finding out how we should best engage with First Nations people, rather than us going away and doing that research ourselves. They shouldn't have to come here and tell us what to do to make— Integration and reconciliation. Sorry, not integration, I don't mean that at all. Reconciliation

And our ability to go forward in a spirit of truth-telling and reconciliation easier for them rather than easier for us. So what I've done here is some fairly basic amendments where we check, basically, we check with First Nations people that the names that we have chosen for places meet with their requirements, so that we're not inadvertently picking someone who may have a history of

Abuse, very poor conduct, or that is really traumatic or unacceptable for First Nations people. For whatever reason they determine it's unacceptable. And so that's just a simple change of actually asking them before we put that name forward, because once we set this stuff in stone and the geographical names board approves it, it's really hard to undo, and we've seen that in some other places. This also asks that— That when we engage with First Nations people, we use a proactive engagement model. So that doesn't mean sticking the notice in the Gazette or sending out some flyers to the people who live around it. It means actually going to First Nations representatives or First Nations groups within the community and saying to them, Are you okay with this?

Is there something we've missed? So, for example, we had that name of the road up in the putty that came to us, where we called a First Nations person by his European name. Now, I'm sure that wasn't the name that his people knew him by, and we asked the librarian, and we went through our normal consultation processes, but until it came back to Council, and it was a chance discovery, basically, that I'd read it and then I called it up. I asked that we look into it. That's not good enough. We need to have more robust processes where we find these things out before they get too far down the track and then have to be unpicked, because it's time-consuming, but it's also hurtful . People don't want to have to go through this trauma.

We've seen from the Royal Commission the instances of institutionalised abuse of First Nations people, and they are ongoing, are absolutely extraordinary . This is part of our truth as a nation, and we have to acknowledge it. And if we are going to work towards reconciliation on this place, a place that is one of the earliest impact points for the colony of New South Wales and for Australia as a whole, then we have to start proactively engaging with the people who have borne the brunt of those impacts. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you . I think Councillor Wheeler's wording is a little strong. I would have preferred the recommendation that was in the business paper. It's worth pointing out that one of the sections in the policy that we're being invited to adopt says that local Indigenous groups will be consulted on proposed names as part of the usual consultation process, and I'm satisfied that that is adequate. I'm worried that by using the form of wording that Councillor Wheeler is advancing, that this effectively acts as a kind of veto, and I have no objection to First Nations people being consulted in a respectful way where the name proposed has some relevance, some historical resonance, or, you know, where an Aboriginal place name would be the most appropriate choice.

No objection to that at all. But I do worry that, you know, this form of words and this necessity to consult in all cases, even where the name being proposed has absolutely nothing to do with Indigenous history, problematic European history or otherwise, is that it's an extra layer of bureaucracy where in most cases there's no relevance, there's no comment that would need to be made, and if there were, then the consultation process that's laid out in this policy and which any member of the public can do when a proposed place name is gazetted is perfectly adequate to our purposes. So I'll be voting against this Councillor Wheeler's motion, and if it were to fail, I'll simply propose the recommendation in the business paper.

Thank you

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. I wonder if Councillor Wheeler would consider changing the word validated in section 2A . I think that speaks to what Councillor Zamprogno was talking about, which is essentially a veto. And instead of validated, potentially , you could just say checked, or I'm not sure what other word to put there, but validated suggests that they can find it valid or invalid. Whereas what we're really saying is we want to make sure we've asked

I'm happy to change validated. I don't love validated. I have to say I agonised over validated, but it was the wording that was in the rest of the proposal, which is why I picked it. It wouldn't have been my immediate choice of words. Perhaps, I think, consulted. Well , I think we want to do more than consult. Sorry, I realise I'm now chatting across the chamber

Consulting is the process. Consulted means we ask them and we don't pay any, and we can choose not to pay any attention to what they tell us, and that's not my intention here. So I think...

Agreed to by

May I then ask what happens if they don't? But we've already— Then we

Shouldn't use it, frankly. You know, if we, I mean, I'm trying to pick a scenario where we wouldn't, and I go back to that scenario in the Hills where, and I know that this is an historical thing, but it's what we— if we pick a road and we name it after somebody, now we're in the middle of, we're still getting the findings of a Royal Commission, for example, and we find that in fact the person that we've picked, because we all thought he was a top bloke, turns out to have a history of abuse that was directed at First Nations people, and they say, No, you can't. No, we don't want you to use this. Are we just going to say, Well, we asked you tough. We thought he was a good guy. You know, that's... Yeah, we do want to give—I do want to give them the power of veto. I'm quite open about that because I think that they should have it, frankly.

Sorry, Councillor, I'll ask a question after you

Trying to come to an agreement here rather than be divisive, and I guess I agree with everything you just said. In the 95% of cases, that would be exactly right. The extreme case that I would be trying to avoid would be, what if we wanted to name a park McQuade Park ? And that was quite troubling to some First Nations people in the area, but Council's have a view that we should name it McQuade Park anyway. We might still have a really big argument about it because it should be reported back to us that our local First Nations people didn't want that name. But I think there is a case here that the broader community should have some say on that as well. Council should be made to own that if Council makes a decision that is in contradiction with the advice we're getting.

I guess the way it reads now, I would hate for a staff member to interpret that to be, if we can't get an agreement, then we don't report it back to Council and we keep trying. It should be that —I think, like you said, in most cases, I think you're exactly right. Council wouldn't do it anyway. What about instead of validated, confer with? Stronger than consult. Can

I just ask a question? Is there an option for dual naming? But I'll

Just speak. Could

I suggest

Some other words? Please

Do. Sorry , Deputy Mayor, I'll just get an answer to that question

Through you, Madam Mayor, I think the answer to that is yes, and in fact it's defined in the back of the policy. What we haven't really clarified is when that would be appropriate or inappropriate

Which I think would be a compromise in situations if there was a lot of conflict around—not around what Councillor Wheeler has said— around the use of a problematic name, but more something like the park example. It could be McQuade Park with a First Nations name underneath that. But I'll just let Councillor Calvert say his name, then I might speak on the motion

How about

All names will be considered by First Nations, blah, blah, blah, who will then make a recommendation back to Council

No, that's great, Deputy Mayor. Your job is done for the night. Councillor Wheeler, may I just ask you a question as well? My issue isn't just about names of things. We had a debate in this chamber not long ago where we had a proposal in front of us to name the streets in Vineyard Stage 1. They were based on—was it plants? That's right, plants, and some of them were crazy, but based on plants. So not a person, not something that we would necessarily, I guess, consider in our minds as being offensive. I guess this goes to Councillor Zamprogno's point. If we all agreed on a series of plant or tree names, but they could be overturned, I guess that's where the sentiment is based. But I think the wording now changed by the Deputy Mayor gives that flexibility.

But that would have been my thing. We're not just naming roads and places after people; they're also just plants and stars, as Jacaranda Ponds was going to name—colour purple and galaxy, star items. So that's where I'm thinking. It's not just about names. We want to be able to call things after flora and fauna and not obviously have a roadblock

Can I just bring up another potential conflict there. There's a project going on at the moment, and it's going to have implications for Council, and that's the Darug language project, where they've now—the written form of that language is now being corrected through quite an extensive project. And our spelling and pronunciation of some words, and Darubin, as the Darubin Centre that we have, is actually misspelt and mispronounced. And we're going to have to get on. So some of that is consultation. It doesn't have to be adversarial. Some of it can just be them saying, look, you've just not got the spelling right. You know, we now know more, or you've got that wrong. And I think that's the sort of dialogue that we need to have in order for us to go forward together. Hence this consultation.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I think we've kind of gone loosely into a committee of the whole here, but I don't think any of us are minding too much. I just have one more question before I hand over to another speaker. Councillor Wheeler, the speaker tonight addressed the fact that there was—and I don't have the document open in front of me—about not consulting with the families of war veterans. Would you be happy to amend your motion to include that? Very happy, and I was actually

Hoping someone would put that up, because I haven't got it.

I'm not sure what point it is in the document, but if we could just make reference to it, or if you can find it while I allow the Deputy Mayor to make some comments. Thank you.

Oh, just another quick one. The word validated appears in 2B as well. So 2B would need to be changed

Yes, in A and B. And I did want to thank Councillor Wheeler for what she's done with this, but I remember when the Dharug Centre was opened, several people, local First Nations people, said to me, You know you've got the name wrong. And then we had it up in big writing, and it's been there ever since. So I'm looking forward to having that dialogue.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for her changes. I think that what this essentially comes down to is about respect and the true spirit of reconciliation. I think going forward, if we're really to commit to that, we have to go into a space where we don't say things like we should only ask people when we think it's relevant. It's always relevant. It's in our local government area. This is the area that our First Nations people lived . Chances are 90-odd percent, or whatever someone said, is there won't be an issue at all. But I think it goes a long way in showing respect. I'm not 100% sure of who will be consulted. That in itself opens up another situation in First Nations culture with which particular group, but presumably it would be people in the exact locality of wherever the naming is proposed to be.

I also think that First Nations people are very open to negotiation on a number of issues, and I think that they would always work for a solution, as we said, and potentially dual names. I think really what Councillor Wheeler is raising is that there are problems that are circulating in other areas around the impacts emerging from the intergenerational trauma that we see First Nations people living with daily, and that some things are triggering, and we can avoid that by simply going down this path and looking into doing— This and the language, of course. We don't know how much of that will change, but we had to learn in our choir a whole new song because of the language change, and we've coped with that using the now written-down Dharug language that is emerging.

So I thank Councillor Wheeler and the changes of having it considered on all occasions. I mean, we don't name a lot. This isn't something we're doing daily, so I think that that's good. And as the Mayor said, to include flora and fauna as well, we cover, and any other cultural aspects, we cover that as well.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Just a question . Yes, Councillor Sheather

The comment was made in relation to families, and it's not in the document. I thought it was when I read it. It might be somewhere else in the book, but it's not in the policy document. We talked about First Nations, but we're talking about a particular family or the like. We don't mention that we're going to—

We're just amending that now

That was part of that, was it?

It's coming up now. Councillor Wheeler just gave wording to the staff , and it's about to come up very soon. But that will be included as part of the motion, that if there is a reference to a particular individual or a serving or a veteran, that their family will also be consulted. And again, I do thank the speaker for highlighting that. That's very important. So that is coming on to the board. I think we as councillors can assume we know that that's coming up. So without any further speakers, I'll go to right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So I've added that point as a point D, which should magically appear when Tracy can read my writing. There we go . So it's section 2 and section 5.2 in the relevant paragraph, which will then read: War veterans' names will be chosen in consultation or validated.

With, sorry, with the family of the veterans, then with Council's local studies librarian or Council's heritage officer. So that gives the family a chance to comment on whether they feel it's appropriate. For some families, they won't want that, and that should be their choice. So I don't know that I would want to. Yeah, I'm the daughter of a veteran who's now dead and has been for 30-odd years, and I don't know that I would want a street named after him for a variety of reasons . That I may not want to have to discuss in an open forum or in a submission that I put formally to Council, should that be put up. So, and I'm sure I'm not the only person in that situation. I thank those of you who've added to these words.

As I said, I wasn't chuffed with validated. I was mimicking a language that was already in the existing document. Validated sort of confers that it's, you know, real or not somehow, you know, true or not. And, yeah, I don't think that's really what we're necessarily going for. And it does appear elsewhere in the document. The point is that really that we don't know what we don't know, and true reconciliation means that we need to do that. When we name something like this that lasts, that everybody sees, that becomes a really public acknowledgement of a person or a place or even an inappropriately chosen plant, we're making a statement about what we want for that space. And that has—it's one of the few things that we get to do sitting around this table that has a lasting impact.

And we should—we need to have some systems in place so that the things that we come up with are not the, you know, are not the subject of merriment at best or real pain at worst. So thank you. It looks like this will go through, so thank you for your support.

Thank you, Councillor. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Zamprogno. I declare the motion carried.

That ends all of our speakers' agenda items, sorry, with subject to public address. We have no condolences, no mayoral minutes. I might just put the items on block, and then we might have a 10-minute break if everyone's happy with that. The items on block are items 206 and 207. Can I have a mover for that, please? Councillor Reardon. Seconder? Councillor Calvert, just for something different. Councillor Conolly is just in my line of sight. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Improgno, Councillor McMahon. That's unanimous.

Okay, thank you, councillors. Before carrying on with the rest of the meeting, we will have a— let me look at the time. We'll come back at a quarter to 10. Oh no, sorry. Oh my gosh, I'm looking at the second hand. We will come back at 10 p.m. and we'll be starting from the top of the list now with item 198. Thank you.

Thank you, councillors, and thank you to the viewing public for allowing us a quick break. We are now up to item 1.98, Hawkesbury Development Control Plan. Do I have a mover?

I've sent a motion into the staff. Oh,

Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Oh, you did too. So all councillors have seen that. Do I have a seconder for that, Councillor Kotlash? Over to you, Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, just very briefly. Obviously, it's pretty straightforward. I think we should adopt the DCP. I think these chapters are definitely an improvement on what we have now, and I think most of it's fairly non-controversial and just outlines what we want to see happen in the Hawkesbury. A debate that we've had many times in regards to views and vistas and whether they're a planning control we want to see in the Hawkesbury. I believe it's just, whilst everyone would agree with the objectives that are being set out by the references to views and vistas, I think they're far too subjective. I can foresee all sorts of issues with development applications being assessed against clauses such as looking at important views and vistas that are not defined anywhere and left completely subjective to the planning assessment officer.

I don't think that that's the kind of power we want to hand over to staff members to determine things like that. I think we should just eliminate all those clauses. But I think most of the document is quite good.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett—oh, sorry, Councillor Zamprogno, you did have your light on first.

I'm happy to yield. All right then.

Like our work with the LEP, getting on with the job of renovating our DCP is, if anything, even more urgent, because I think the DCP is even more decrepit and is currently unfit for purpose. That process has been greatly delayed. That is largely not the fault of council staff, because many other LGAs received special resourcing from the state government to do that work. We were not, but we've made the best progress that we can. However, I'm distressed to find that Councillor Conolly wants to begin this process by eliminating some of the best work that's been done in the space about views and vistas. As I was saying before, before I was advised that it was better to hold my fire, when Council undertook the Kurrajong-Kurmond study, one of the reports that we received was from a mob called Clauston Associates.

It was authored in July 2018, and it was endorsed by Council in September 2019, and it was the Kurrajong and Kurmond Landscape Character Study. And I remember distinctly at the time that it came to us with acclamation. It was really good work, and it started to reflect on something that we understood had intrinsic value, but had never been properly codified. And I understand that Councillor Connolly's desire to eliminate clauses that reference views and vistas is, and he even says it in his opening speech, is because it's too subjective, it's too nebulous. It's unable to be codified in a way that is of worth to us as part of our planning code. I strongly refute that. And of course, the reason that it's in our new draft DCP is because it's one of the key things that we've been invited to take on by the Western Sydney The Western Sydney District Plan.

Its goal W16 says that we should be protecting and enhancing our scenic and cultural landscapes. And in fact, I'll read a little from that. Scenic and cultural landscapes encourage an appreciation of the natural environment, protect heritage and culture, create economic opportunities, particularly for recreation and tourism. Aboriginal culture is deeply entwined in the landscapes of Greater Sydney, and it goes on. Now, that clause in the Western Sydney District Plan was something that we were glad to incorporate in the Hawkesbury Rural Lands Policy that we adopted in this chamber within the last two years. Furthermore , when this was run by the LEP and DCP Reference Group, remember that was the group that we hauled the LEP back up onto the blocks so that we could get their valuable insight into this process.

When we ran this concept by that Reference Group, they endorsed its inclusion in the DCP. So we're happy to delay the LEP for a whole year so that we can get the wisdom of the Reference Group, and when the Reference Group was asked about the inclusion of views and vistas in the DCP, they said, Have at it. It's a valuable addition, and it's necessary for a well-rounded modern planning instrument.

The Clauston Associates report in the Kurrajong-Kurmond area said that this form of views and vistas study could be readily adopted for all other rural areas in the LGA, and I remember having a conversation with the then General Manager that this would be a very good idea. I would suggest that this is consonant with the community's broader expectation that we are mindful of the shape of an entire landscape and its aesthetic quality, and that it's readily codified through these kinds of reports and should form a part of our DCP. Therefore, I will be voting against Councillor Conolly's version that effectively kills it dead, despite everything that I've just said. And if this should fail, I'll be foreshadowing the recommendation in the business paper. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Sorry, start again. I agree with what Councillor Zamprogno said. Views and vistas, they're a part of planning now. They're one of the criteria that is part of the planning system, and visual and view impact analysis are regular reports done for development applications. For example, I've seen JBA Planning, I think it is, they've done them for major projects. They have the methodology. They show how it's selected. They show how all of that's done. And they're not unusual in DCPs. The Penrith Lakes DCP says includes views and vistas as one of their major things to protect the Penrith Lakes character and preserve views of important landscape elements and heritage. So there's something that is being incorporated as a thing now that needs to be considered to protect from anything that might mar the landscape, that might detract.

It's not about an individual's view or anything. It's about building across ridge lines that can be ugly, that can detract from a natural landscape. It's a good tool, I think. It's a good tool to be used because that's what we're aiming for. We, as Councillor Zamprogno said, we passed our rural land strategy. It was included in that, and the reference group didn't have an issue with it and in fact wanted it included. So I think it's a good thing. As to other matters of the DCP, I think this is so much improved. The old DCP, which is now 20 years old, I think, was a poor document that had so many additions and changes. It was not even in touch with the language used around planning and things now.

So it's imperative that we have this DCP to be functioning as soon as possible to assist both the community in understanding, and also for our staff in their assessments. It's really important that the community and the stakeholders understand how it operates and what its function is, and how it relates to the LEP. So how the hierarchy of planning instruments actually work, and how it is a guiding and yet very important document that we need to rely on. I do just want to draw attention publicly to the fact that we're waiting on the chapter on agritourism. I think that's really important to point out that that's still to come, because it's a topic that community members have been interested in and have raised, and will be keen to see, you know, the parameters around the agritourism sector.

I'm just wondering, and I'm assuming there'll be some sort of communications exercise around delivering the new DCP when it finally reaches its end, so that the community can get to hear about it and to understand it.

I'm just assuming that, so that's not really a question. And I think that the Western Sydney Engineering Design Manual comes after a lot of hard work, and it's a really valuable tool for assisting in assessment of applications to uniform those engineering standards, is a very good outcome to come out of the Western Sydney City Deal from the Joint Planning Committee that have worked on that for years. That's been going for a number of years. So it's good to move it on to the next stage. I think it's a much improved document, but I am speaking against the amendment. Put the motion.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

A question, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

In relation to the Western Sydney engineering design manual, and there's a lot of work gone into it, and it covers a whole heap of things,

But it doesn't cover grading roads. Is there a reason for that?

I'll refer that question to staff.

Sorry, can I understand the question in terms of Council's maintenance of grading roads?

Yeah. Well, it covers drainage, retaining walls, and a whole heap of other things, roads and kerb and gutter and the like, but it doesn't deal with the actual grading, either tarred roads or gravel roads.

Yep. So I just highlight what the manual is. It's construction specifications, not a maintenance specification. So it's the requirements for developers if they're undertaking development. These are the standards they need to meet in terms of building the actual development and the roads and various infrastructure as part of that. It's not a maintenance one. Right,

But it doesn't cover new roads. Like if you're doing any grading at all, it doesn't cover it in any format.

So it just relates to the construction of new roads, yeah, not the maintenance. Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler, do you have a question?

No, I just want to speak again. Oh, you do. Sorry, you haven't spoken yet. Sorry, I thought you had. I just want to speak against the motion. I think that the DCP broadly is a fantastic piece of work. It's well overdue, and I think it can have a real long-term positive impact on the shaping of the LGA. Over the next decade. But it also has big impacts on how people live within that LGA, because this is the nuts and bolts of the dwellings that people will live in,

And whether they are easy to live in, pleasant to live in, cool when it's hot, warm when it's cold , whether the communities that we create, or the buildings that we put as infill development in the communities that we already have, fit our sense of place and what the community wants in a sustainable and cohesive fashion going forward. Our previous DCP, I think, firstly, it's not a grand document by any stretch of the imagination, but one of its fundamental flaws has come out of the way it has been used over the last decade and the way it was continually disregarded over the last decade. And I would hate to see that happen again. I hope this is the turning of a new page. But I'm dismayed to see views and vistas removed from the document, or the attempt to remove them from the document.

And we're told that that needs to go because they're subjective. Now, views are subjective. I don't think that anyone is debating that. But there are methodologies used by both landscape architects and those who do visual impact assessments, which is now what's required. So there is an international standard for guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessments that have been developed to reduce the subjectivity, to make these more objective. It is inconceivable to me that you would take an area of the historic importance of the Hawkesbury and the agricultural importance, and increasingly the open space importance of the Hawkesbury to the Sydney landscape, and the Western Sydney District Plan recognises this, and remove our capacity to control the existing or the remaining views and vistas, because we're losing them fast.

If you drive over the river and you drive up Bells Line of Road, or you drive up Terrace Road and look down, you will see those views and vistas rapidly disappearing. That is not what people move here for, and it's not what people stay here for, and that's our responsibility as custodians of this place currently to maintain what people love. Now, we've just heard an impassioned plea from both— Reverend Jones and Mr Gerrish about reinstating a sight line through the middle of McQuade Park up to a single church, and everybody got behind that, and you thought it was a great idea. So why is it a subjective piece of nonsense that you don't want to shape the LGA? Do we want to see this as a planning control?

Absolutely we do, and absolutely our residents do, and we know that because they tell us. Why is that good for one piece of public ground in the middle of Windsor up to a single church from a single denomination and no good for anywhere else?

There is some lovely work in here, and I want to particularly note the chapter. There's two chapters that I think are, or two sections from the Western Sydney Design Manual that are particularly important. One of them is the urban heat adaptability, and the other is the chapter about water management. And I want to particularly comment on the introduction of rain gardens, which is really taking off in areas in the United States, particularly where parts of that very humid and wet coastal section of the United States, rain gardens are increasingly being used to deal with big dumps of rain such as we are now seeing. And I think if perhaps we had more rain gardens in certain areas of the Hills and Blacktown, we might be a little bit less soggy at our end of the catchment.

But I think some of this work is really lovely, and I'm really looking forward to the community being able to use it because it cuts down on a whole lot of design work that people would otherwise have to pay for.

Thank you

Councillor. Your timing was almost up. Now, I just want to reiterate — or actually confirm — the timer has ceased to work tonight. The general manager is running one on her phone, so I'm going to use my newly found little noise at four minutes for you, and then you'll know you've got a minute to go. Oh, that was accidental. Okay, I pressed the wrong button. Councillor Conolly.

Is that right of reply?

Hold on. Anyone else wish to speak on the item? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This whole idea of views and vistas, I've never been comfortable with it, even from the start several years ago. And what I said then, I think still applies today, that what is a view? What is a vista? How do you define it? And who decides? Who decides what is an important vista and an important view? And Councillor Wheeler just talked about Terrace Road and what you see from up on Terrace Road, that vista. How would you protect that vista down across the lowlands? I mean, are you protecting the fact that you can see it from the top of the hill, or are you protecting what's down there that you look at? It's not explained. And if up the top of Terrace Road there's this beautiful tree, is that the view, even though it's blocking the vista?

I mean, it's just ridiculous. There's no explanation of how it works. And we're just going to put this thing out there, and people are going to come in and apply for things, and we're going to say, 'No , it blocks the view, ' and that's just a subjective thing. I've been waiting since 2017 or '18, whenever it was, for this whole— Section to be explained and cleared up so that we could then use it. But we haven't done that. It's still in the same format it was four or five years ago, and therefore I can't support it. I'd be happy for us to revisit this at some time in the future and have a way of protecting views and vistas that actually works, but this doesn't work, and all it's going to do is create problems.

And that doesn't mean that I don't like the views and vistas. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means if we're going to protect them, we need to make sure we have a mechanism which does it properly, clearly and unambiguously. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillors and— I'd

Like to move an amendment. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper.

Second that, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Seconder?

And I'll just speak briefly to the amendment.

Thank you.

When this came to some public consultation before on this specific question about whether views and vistas should be included in

Our planning codes, there were zero objections. None. So, you know, I'm baffled to know where Councillor Connolly's objection to this is. It obviously comes from something other than an overwhelming sense from the community that views and vistas are so woolly as that they make for an imprecise document. Point of order.

Yes

What is

Your point of

Order? I think Councillor Zamprogno is actually quite explicitly referring to my motivation, which is a breach of the code.

It is a breach of the code. I'd ask you to withdraw that remark.

I withdraw, but I stand by the sentiment.

When we don't care about our views and vistas, you end up with Box Hill. If you drive down Terry Road, as I do as part of my daily commute, that's when the road is open, you're confronted with a sea of black houses, houses that are built without eaves, houses that are built cheek by jowl, higgledy-piggledy, scattered over the hillside. And the thing is, I remember when they were pleasant green hills with a ridgeline and a readily identifiable flow to the landscape. We have long since agreed in this chamber that we are better than that, and we do not want to repeat those mistakes in the Hawkesbury. Even when we're handed a poo sandwich like Vineyard Stage 1, where all of those planning codes are effectively taken out of our hands and we're given this as a fait accompli.

And yet here we have an opportunity to put into our core planning document some consideration of the way the landscape sits and the aesthetic quality of the landscape. And again, the Deputy Mayor has repeated the contention that Councillor Conolly did, and that is that the reason that we should excise it from our document is because it simply can't be codified and that it's hopelessly subjective. And yet you're ignoring the recommendation from the LEP and DCP reference group, you're ignoring the explicit recommendation of the Western Sydney District Plan, you're ignoring the fact that this has already been incorporated into our rural land strategy, and yet you think you know better? I can't accept that.

So I exhort Councillors to adopt the amendment, which is the recommendation in the business paper, and not to excise this from the DCP.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor

Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking against the motion .

One of the things that first struck me when we were talking about views and vistas is that there's a big difference between a view that goes over somebody's property that is deemed to be significant and stops them doing whatever they like to do because somebody thinks the view over their property is significant. That is unworkable. And I'll just reiterate, there is a big difference between the view from McQuade Park to the church. That is a public space, and I can see that that is probably where the sentiment in the Western Sydney Plan came from. Those sorts of things are worth considering: not having electricity poles on your escarpment, all of those sorts of things. But the work that we got done in the Kurmond-Currajong area specifically took photos from main roads over people's property and deemed them as low, medium and high quality vistas.

Now, that is just not right. That's not fair. You can't. You can try and manage the way that your landscape is managed by lot sizes, controls on types of fencing and all of those other things, and I think that's probably fair enough because we do that up front. But to take photographs of somebody's property after the fact and deem it, in somebody's opinion, as being, you know, just— it doesn't even matter if it's low, medium or great. That is an imposition that is absolutely unworkable. I can't imagine the problems and the strife that we're going to be in if that's the way we operate . Having that being a standard that we apply to all of our LGA is frightening to me. That isn't the sentiment that came from the planning documents that came down from the state government.

That is not what we need to do. It's— I agree with the Deputy Mayor. We have not thought this through and, you know, we are going to be in big trouble if we let this go through. It's unworkable and I cannot support it, I'm afraid. Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah,

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I remember having this debate 30 years ago, nearly in the same seat I'm sitting in now. We had a planner that was proposing types of development on our escarpment, the Blue Mountains, on the basis of visual aspect. And my question to him was, what if I live up there looking down this way? Because it was strictly related to the mountains. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You go down in the Blacktown; there's a bloke down there that's got a house painted in Parmaatic colours. I'm guessing he loves it. I don't know how many other people in the street would.

And if you drive down Macquarie Street in our town, we've got an orange building that stands out like a dead dog on the street.

Again, that can be controlled by planning powers. You don't need a vision to look at that and see that it's pretty ordinary.

Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett spoke about the water at Penrith. Well, you should have seen that 30 years ago, because it was a stinking great hole full of sand. And since then, through planning and good design, they've now got something that looks really worthwhile looking after, and it should be.

But another 30 years it'll be different, and 30 years after that'll be different again. And it's the role of our planners and what comes before us, of what we choose to be significant. And just a while ago we debated the church and across here, because it does stand out.

And with things up and down our river, and it relates to that in the document, it's people's homes we're talking about. It's a lifestyle. If you don't like what's alongside of you, there's two things you can do: buy it or move, and then you'll get over it. And when it comes to us as councillors, we need to look at a bigger picture, I guess. And that's why we have professional planners and advice and the like, and go through documents. But when we put in place words like — The former mayor's taken out. We have planners that would literally take that as, I like what's on your property and you can't change it. I don't agree with that at all. And in saying that, I take on board the comments that have been made by our councillors, who have a view of looking at the likes of vision and the like.

There are certain things that we need to protect, and our city's got good examples all over the place.

But when it goes in a document like this, and I know because I've been in the building game most of my life, it's black and white. And the interpretation sometimes of staff is exactly that. And, you know, so I expect our staff will look at all the options when applications come before them and see whether it's practical or the likes, or communicate that it's not a good idea or there's a better way, rather than no. So I support Councillor Connolly's motion.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that really is a very naive way to look at it, to think that the DCP is black and white. The DCP is not a statutory document. It's a guiding document. It's not something that is adhered to every word. And you would not have a planner go onto an individual's house and say, I like what you've got next door. You can't do that. That isn't what this means. This is a planning tool, and it will generally apply to planning proposals or bigger developments that are going into a place where there is an untouched view. If you're thinking about individuals and views, the courts are full of case law about people taking actions against neighbours about views and blocking views.

This is about when you look up to an escarpment and you see what's on the ridge top. Generally it just means that the housing may have to be further down the hill or something. It doesn't mean people can't do things. It's about preserving a particular way of looking at these very precious views that we have, and views that have been said here tonight are diminishing, and we don't want those to diminish. And this is one of those examples where one day someone's going to come in here and say, I don't want that really big block of units in front of me because I don't like how it looks. So if we don't have anything in place, that means that it's just— Councillor Sheather thinks it's just you either can or you can't do something.

When you have planning tools, they're part of a suite of documents, and it would be a report that would have to be done by people to analyse what the views and vistas, what the value of them was. On a base methodology, it's not one single planner going to a person's house and saying, I like what you've got, you can't do this. That is such a naive way to look at it. It won't even always come up as an issue, I wouldn't expect. But it's one of those things that if we take that out, when it's part of the state planning protocol, it's part of their plans, they may well think we should put it back in. It's a very naive and a very— Councillor

Lyons-Buckett, I will call you to a point of order. You've called Councillor Sheather naive three times, and that's against the code of meeting practice.

I said what he said was naive. I didn't call him naive. I said to say that an individual planner will go and say that is naive. You've

Imputed that towards Councillor Sheather, so I'll call a point of order and ask you to withdraw it. I withdraw.

Good. So I think that having, to support taking that out just shows that because a couple of people think that they know all about what views and vistas mean when they haven't researched how it is actually included in the planning system, maybe they should be asking at the Department of Planning what they think about views and vistas, because it's all through their plans and it's in many DCPs.

So another backward step for the Hawkesbury, I would think, if we go down that path, just when we've brought our DCP forward by two decades.

Thank you, Councillor. Got

The giggles, Councillor Conolly.

That was unacceptable, but we will move on. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, I'm left wondering if people have actually— sorry, I'm speaking for the motion. I'm left wondering if— amendment, sorry— if people have actually read the document that they're attempting to amend and now voting on

What is your point of order, Councillor Conolly?

I think that councillors should debate the issues we're talking about and stop imputing things about other councillors and just focus on the issue. I

Do agree with you. Point of order, Madam Mayor. There has been reflection upon other councillors in a negative way, and that does need to cease. We need to look at the matter in front of us. What was your point of order? My point of

Order was that councillors have a right to say what other people have raised. We can't— it's stifling debate by having Councillor Conolly raise a point of order every time he doesn't like something. It's not stifling debate. There is a difference between debate and

Imputing things against other

Councillors. That is an imputation. An imputation does not emerge by having a general opinion. Thank you for

Your point of order. I'll ask Councillor Wheeler to continue.

On page 14 of this document, under the title 4.2 Views and Vistas.

Point of order, Madam Mayor, I had enough of this garbage. Excuse

Councillor, you're leaving the meeting? Yes, yes. Thank you, Councillor

Good night, all of you.

Good night.

Could I have my time started again, please, Madam Mayor?

There's a nice table on page 14 entitled 4.2 Views and Vistas, where it stipulates a performance criteria.

P 2.1 states, respond to and protect important views and vistas, and then from there it details acceptable solutions. This isn't subjective. This isn't just someone, a member of staff going, I really like what you've got, you can keep it. This is clearly defined under five points of what acceptable solutions are to protecting important views and vistas. This is not subjective. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It states under acceptable solutions, you can, 2.1.1 D 2.1.1.1, maintain view corridors in a rural or semi-rural landscape, maintain view corridors in river corridors and to prominent landscape features and escarpments, maintain view corridors to areas of significant public open space, maintain view corridors to heritage items, and where appropriate, identify opportunities for new and vista corridors.

None of this is saying that you can't have what you want on your site because the guy next door or one of our planning staff doesn't like it. None of this says that you can just swan on in and tell somebody that what they've got is ugly or of low value. This is clearly defined as to what we're going for here. The idea that you would scrap views and vistas in areas where we have significant heritage, agricultural, rural, and views, for example, views to the mountains, highly prized for tourism and highly prized by residents, that you would ditch them because you can't work out how someone else would work with this document is fantastic to me. I don't know how you would assess a septic tank either, but I accept that this document details the way that it will be in a means that someone who knows how to assess a septic can work out whether it's appropriate or not.

Please don't do this. Please vote for the amendment that's on the table. The future of the Hawkesbury in its current form depends on us having some limited means of protecting what the people who live here value. This is a guideline document. It is over-ridden by the LEP and numerous state government SEPPs. If someone wants to put a full-scale development of the scale of Jacaranda Ponds or Redbank, they will not be put off by the views and vistas being mentioned in our DCP. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't do this.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly, is this your speaking against the amendment? Yes

I think that— A couple of things have been. Councillor Zamprogno mentioned that my objection was purely that this couldn't be codified, and that is partly my objection, that I do think this is subjective to the point that any attempt to codify it is futile. But I would also point out what's being suggested here is that, and I'm not worried about a full-scale development the size of Redbank or Jacaranda Ponds. That's not my concern at all. Of course, views and vistas would be considered as part of that. I'm concerned about mums and dads who want to put in DAs. I was absolutely shocked after the first flood we had in 2021, when I had people coming to me who wanted to build a retaining wall out the front of their property so that the rest of their house wouldn't collapse into the river.

And they brought me a letter, multiple letters, detailing over two pages all the reports and consultants that were required to engage just to build a retaining wall so that their house wouldn't fall into the river. What we're suggesting here is that we should add another consultant to the list, because as has been detailed by a number of councillors, there's consultants that do this. There's people that are landscape architects who can come and do a study for you, and there's an international guideline that they can bear against, and they can do a report and council, if they don't like, can do their own report, and we can all spend lots of money on these consultants arguing with each other, like we do on a whole range of planning matters already.

It's my contention that this will only ever be subjective, no matter how many guidelines you put into it, and that's my conclusion of the Karajong-Kermond experiment that we did, that I objected to from that very first time we were shown the results, because it was, in my opinion, purely subjective. I don't want to subject people in the Hawkesbury who are already having to deal with the most expensive planning system ever to even more reports.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor has a right to be heard in silence. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?

Excellent. I'll put the amendment then. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Those against, please raise your hand.

Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor

Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Dogramaci has left the meeting, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the amendment lost. The motion is the original motion put forward by Councillor Conolly. Anyone else wish to speak on the motion? No. Right of reply? Not needed. Thank you. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Dogramaci is absent. And Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Zamprogno. I declare it carried.

The next item is item 203, draft Macquarie Park Plan of Management.

Do I have anyone to move anything? Councillor Sheather.

That's the recommendation in the business paper. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Sheather.

Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. There's a few things in this plan of management that I find a little bit troubling. The first is the use of the word tribe to refer to Aboriginal people. They are the people of the Darug Nation. They are Darug people. They are not the Darug tribe. This is not a word that should be— sorry, I don't have the page. It's very early in the document. This is really outdated language, and we need to stop using it. I have consulted with Aboriginal people who have told me that they do not want that language to be used in council documents. We've also got history beginning in 1795, which I find remarkable, almost biblical, in fact, that we would be starting history so early— sorry, so late in the piece.

I think we're a bit better than that these days.

I am really disturbed by the fact that this document says that the warning signs on the beach, the warning signs in Macquarie Park that relate to people swimming, are poor in condition. This council resolved to fix this problem, the problem of poor signage. As part of an urgency motion in 2018 following a drowning, why is that signage still poor? Why do we turn up if the resolutions that this council makes aren't ever acted on? Why, four years later, is that signage still poor? I would like that question taken on notice. Why has the signage in Macquarie Park never been fixed? How many people need to drown before we get a wriggle on? Seriously.

We've also got a question in there asking for rubber under the playgrounds, and we've said that we'll use bark chip in some areas and rubber in others. Rubber is really contraindicated in flood-affected areas because it floats and it's heavily polluting. I know people think that rubber is the superior surface. It's actually not. It's bark chip or nothing there, I'm afraid, because we can at least put it back when it floods. It's also really expensive. What we need to be doing is moving towards the Chief Scientist recommendations around artificial surfaces in playgrounds and making sure that all our playgrounds, whenever we put in a plan of management and when we can seek funding for playgrounds, have shade sails as a matter of priority, because that really extends both the life of the play equipment, but also the capacity for kids to play on it comfortably without getting skin cancer in their later years.

There's comments in there about bins and the bins not being big enough. I know Council Alliance Bucket has raised in the past the use of compacting rubbish bins. This is a great site for those to be trialled on because of the volume of refuse that... That gets dumped there because it's a key picnic spot, and this is particularly a good site for them to be looked at because any rubbish that isn't disposed of correctly lands in the river.

I am really against any upgrade to swimming areas beyond safety and signage. No showers, no cabanas, nothing that encourages people to see that as a safe swimming hole. It is not a safe swimming hole. There are reasons that Aboriginal people won't swim at that site. It has never been a safe swimming spot, and that was before all the sewage treatment works went in upstream. We cannot encourage people to swim there. It's negligent. And sunbaking. Seriously, do people still sunbake in this day and age? Surely we're not encouraging that either. What I do like in this plan are the better walking paths, some infrastructure for people who bring their dogs down. We know people bring their dogs down.

We know people let them off leash. Let's put some infrastructure in so that that can be done safely. And the amphitheatre and nature walks, I think, are an excellent idea. I do want to flag in this section that the kayak facilities , the kayak ramp that people can roll their kayaks down needs looking at as a matter of urgency. We had a kid get his foot stuck in it a year or more ago, and I think Wilberforce RFS had to come and save him. Can we check that that is actually safe? If it's not safe, we need to remove what's there before we can put in something that actually is safe. I know kids aren't supposed to slide themselves down it. I know it's for canoes, but kids are kids. Oh

Thank you, Councillor, sorry, I thought you were still continuing. Some of those issues you raise are quite important. I just want to check with the staff that issues like the word tribe and the date of history beginning at 1795, are they changes that can be made without having to put that to the recommendation? Or do you need that as part of the recommendation? Yeah

I'd be certainly happy enough, Council, to make those types of amendments. In terms of the history piece, it was just something that we would need to have a bit of a look at before we exhibit the document, that's all.

Okay, so those changes can be made, thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Just very briefly, thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree with those points raised too. There was just one thing. It's a little bit like the point around getting the public toilets in McQuade Park. The access where people walk across down there, like, can we do something more immediate about alerting people to the dangers of that? It's a little bit like Yarramundi Reserve. People just wander. They wander as if there's not a road coming in. I've driven in there. My car is very quiet, of course, and so if people aren't looking, they can step out in front of you. But there's no— it needs some direction so that there's a safe crossing bit where people are walking from the car park to the playground and things like that.

That would be my only thing, if that could be sort of— it's in the plan, but if we could actually look at some safety around that at an earlier time would be appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I note the staff have noted that down. Anyone else wishing to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Sheather. Not necessary. Okay, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly has left the meeting, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci has left , Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. I declare that one carried.

The next item is item 205, Local Heritage Assistance Fund. Oh, you've got to— Yes. I've got to leave. Oh, sorry. Do you have to declare one as well? No, I was just going to

Say I didn't call it up, but I was happy to move it. It says I called it up, but I didn't, but I'm happy to move it. Yeah,

I'll have to let the Deputy Mayor take the item. So I will be declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest, to my surprise, upon reading the item. One of the recipients is my partner's brother. So I will be leaving the room and I'll hand carriage of this matter over to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'll just wait till you actually get out of the room.

Item 205, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, did you say you want to

Move it? Yes, I'll move it, thank you.

Do you have a seconder?

Yep.

Councillor Veigel. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you wish to speak to it? No,

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler wishes to speak to

It. Just really quickly, there's been a lot of work from the staff has gone into this. This is the biggest round of heritage grants that we've ever been able to run, 25 recipients. And if you look at the list there, it's quite varied and covers all parts of the LGA, which is nice. There's a slab kitchen in the McDonald Valley, right through to a commercial building in the centre of Windsor. This is some really lovely work. And when you look at how that small bit of funding we get, frankly we get a pittance from the State Heritage Office, and we have put to the State Heritage Office in the past that given the volume of heritage items and the concentration of heritage items in the Hawkesbury, they probably should give us a bit more than they give somewhere like Walcha, who doesn't have a lot left, but they don't.

So Council kicks in a significant amount of money towards this. We increased the budget to this funding. In the previous council term, which, as you can see, has been really well received by the community, six years ago we used to drag people in off the street to listen to the presentation about these grants. You know, we begged people to come and hear about what they could do with their heritage property. It's a really good education program because it makes the owners of heritage buildings feel good about the buildings that they have, and it's, in most cases, it's two grand. These days two grand doesn't go very far. It certainly doesn't go far on a heritage property, but it's magnified. I think it's, I think we're getting— I didn't look, no, I did look and I can't remember because I wasn't—I didn't call this up— but we're getting a far greater amount back in terms of the work that's done on these properties that are really important to people's sense of place in the Hawkesbury.

So this is really nice work. I want to thank the staff for this. One of the things I think that has been enormously helpful is the fact that council now employs a dedicated heritage officer who is able to run programs like this and then go into people's houses when they apply for this and say, you know, look, I would concentrate on this piece of work. Do it this way. Let's get the right roofing, the right paint, the right colours, the right windows. And you can see that this is restoration and preservation work rather than just tart up. And I think that's really important in our capacity to maintain the heritage of the Hawkesbury going forward.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. Through you to the staff, or maybe one of our councillors on the Heritage Committee. With projects such as these, where there's support financially, do we do anything, or is there a possibility to look at applications, a waiving of fees for particular projects on these, or some opportunity of finance, well, I guess council support in the sense of an application that would—$2,000, as Councillor Wheeler said today, when you start working on buildings, that's about how much you're going to pay to get rid of the rubbish. Is there an opportunity to further support applicants along these lines?

Is that a question for the staff? Yes, please. General Manager? Mr Kearns, sorry.

Thank you. So the focus of the Local Heritage Assistance Fund is to concentrate on minor works and maintenance. So one of the key criteria is it doesn't actually trigger a development application. So these are all works that don't actually trigger applications, and that's largely given the time frame for applicants to undertake the work. Obviously, we have reporting requirements to the Department of Planning in terms of acquittal of the grant, and it's such that, you know, we can't really have where we require applications because it's going to take time to assess the application and then deliver the work. So the focus is on those works and maintenance that don't require applications.

What about where we've got major repairs or works on these? Is there an opportunity? I guess it's more of a question without...

Yeah, I can probably take that. I guess, Councillors, there's options through your annual budget and fees and charges regime for you to, I guess, incentivise those property owners who have heritage listed properties through things such as reductions or the like, where they are being—one option is potentially where they are being unduly penalised by needing to lodge a development application because they own a heritage listed property. So there are levers that you may be able to pull under your fees and charges document, but at this particular point in time, we don't have that avenue available to us.

Further speakers? Well

As was mentioned a few times by Councillors, I'm disappointed in the amount of contribution from the state government in this case. When we have other matters where we seek assistance from the state government, they insist on matching it dollar for dollar. But here, no, it's $30,000 compared to $5,000, and the heritage properties in Hawkesbury are not just our properties; they're New South Wales and Australian properties. So I'm disappointed in that, and maybe we can try and do a bit more lobbying with the state election coming up to see if we can get dollar for dollar in this, if that's possible. Councillor Wheeler, would you like right of reply?

I do , and I would

You don't. Okay. No right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hands. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Conolly and the Mayor. I'll declare it carried.

Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor. The next item is—

Sorry, Madam Mayor, can I just interrupt?

Sure.

It's getting close to 11 o'clock.

Oh, you are correct, Councillor. Would you like to move a motion? Yeah

So we continue so we can conclude tonight's business, please.

Councillor Sheather, thank you, Councillor Sheather. Had his hand up there. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Against?

Okay, declare that carried. We'll continue on. Thank you very much.

The next item, thank you for being aware of the clock. The next item is item 209, rescission motion. Now all councillors will be aware that Councillor Conolly had sent through in writing earlier today a withdrawal of that motion. I will just confirm with Councillors Calvert and Reardon, who are remaining in the room as co-signatories, that you agree to that withdrawal. Yes. Thank you very much.

Item 2.10, notice of motion, bike racks in public places.

I'll move that, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Wheeler. Over to you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett

I think it's a reasonably simple notice of motion. It's just emerged from a number of people asking, and I'm, you know, quite happy if someone wants to change it or something. I think it's just, I first had a question about if there's a timeline on the active transport plan that's mentioned in the notice by management. Any idea of how long that is away?

Take that on notice? Yeah, staff will take that on notice. That's fine, no worries. I think that the way we provide parking options for people who drive vehicles, and we haven't got enough things around for people who cycle. And cycling to our villages and towns is a big activity here, and it's one that's very good for the local economy, particularly in the areas around where I live in Kurrajong. A lot of cyclists come to town, but it's becoming quite perilous when there's nowhere to put their bikes. So they can't really leave them on the road. They can't put them in the car park, and they tend to be stacked up against the wall of a cafe or a common place is to put them in some steps, near some steps, and that's actually near the exit from a doctor's surgery, which means quite a few frail people are coming out.

And I think that— Providing bike racks is a reasonably simple solution for something that could, you know, that can present a danger for the other road users. So I think that we really need to take the option to promote healthy activity and to promote people to continue their cycling. And the cafes around the area really love it when a group of cyclists come in. So installing bike paths is an easy option, and I appreciate that in some occasions that will be part of existing plans for things to go forward, that they'll be a part of that. But if there's any opportunities, any spare money that might be changed from one of these projects or something like that, just getting a few installed would be really beneficial around the place.

So I'm just hoping that that can go forward and this can be something that we can have. It's quite delightful to see a whole gang of cyclists ride in and, you know, go through the cafes and buy up all the stuff. But then you go out and there's bikes on the road. They don't do it deliberately, but sometimes they fall down, and a lot of those bikes, I'm told, cost a lot of money. So it would be just a really good service, and I think that we should provide that just as we provide for cars to be able to do that as well.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of points. If we are going to put in bike racks, can we make sure that they're in locations where they're visible? I know security is an issue, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett is correct. Most of those bikes are worth far more than my car, and I lock that. So I think cyclists often, when the bike is expensive, they keep it close by, which means that they keep it on the footpath in the front of the cafe. And anybody who's been up the main street of Richmond and seen the gaggle of bicycles that are all over the footpath some Saturday mornings. You'll have a fair idea of just how difficult it can be to navigate around one of these bike collectives. So there need to be locations where the people who use them are confident that their bikes will be there when they come back.

So either within view of the public, because I assume that, you know, you might give yourself away if you're hacksawing off someone's bicycle lock, or within view of CCTV. And can they be big enough to accommodate road tyres as well? Back in the day when I was younger and significantly thinner, I used to ride down to Wilberforce shops, and my bike only fitted in one of the sections of that bike rack because my tyres were too fat. So now it's just the rest of me that's too fat, but never mind. There also, the placement of bicycle racks can actually be quite a useful crowd control measure as well, because people do gaggle around their bikes. So when we put them in, we really need to consider where we're putting them, because that's where the cyclists will stand around and drink their coffee and compare their various bits and pieces, which I'm sure is what they do.

Thanks.

Thank you , Councillor . Councillor Djuric.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be supporting this notice of motion as parking is fast becoming a premium within certain parts of the Hawkesbury at certain times, and we should be doing what we can to support cycling within our LGA. However, when it comes to bike racks around the historical precinct of Windsor Township, community members have expressed opposition to shiny new stainless steel bike racks and have asked if consideration could be made toward wrought iron-style racks that would be more sympathetic to the heritage feel of Windsor. So I was wondering if the mover could consider amending the motion to include any bike racks within the Windsor Township to be sympathetic to the historic feel of Windsor. That's possible.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. That would be fine. I think that's a good point. I don't know if they make them like that, but if they're available, I think that's a good idea.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Councillor Veigel. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks for the motion. It's a bit of a no-brainer, this one. Only question, you haven't got any bike racks up in Kurrajong at present?

No.

Okay. Well, couldn't be that hard to get them, I wouldn't think. Just for your point, Councillor Wheeler, I've got two bikes worth probably about six thousand plus in my garage. I don't ride them, of course, my son does. So it's twelve thousand dollars sitting in my garage just sitting idle at the moment while he's doing something other thing. It's probably a dragster you're referring to when you were— they were the go thing in the day. Turn it

Up. That's a bit rude. Well— Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Well, that's okay because I'm not that

Old. I was going to say

Is that about your age

I had a dragster too, so, you know, it could have been a hand-me-down, I don't know. So forgive me if I'm here, I'll just shut up while I'm in front, I think. Yeah, I get it. So look, just going back to, yeah, thanks for putting it up because it's necessary because there's a lot of bike riders in the Hawkesbury.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, I do support the idea of racks, but the last line of the note from management where it says indicative costs can be provided to Council once an adequate level of primary investigation. If we're going to look at putting bike racks across, we haven't got a budget for it, and we need to be mindful of that. That's the only concern that I have. I don't have an issue with racks. As Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, there's places that do require it, and probably appropriate, but it's not in the budget, it's not in our works program, and we need to be mindful of that.

Thank you very much, Councillor. I do note that the motion doesn't commit to that, so, but I know you're just putting it on the record. Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll put the— sorry, right of reply?

Not necessary, thanks.

I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly is absent, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci is absent, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. I declare the motion carried.

Okay, on to our last item of the evening, item 2.11, Councillor question with notice.

I'll hand over to Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Two questions on this matter. Has Council, or does Council intend to commence any cost recovery action for this matter? And is the matter now considered closed? Thanks.

Confirming with the General Manager, they will be on the next business paper as answers, or will be answering tonight.

We’ve effectively got questions on questions at this point, and it’s unfortunate that the Acting Director City Planning isn’t here. All I can say, to the best of my knowledge at this point, it’s not our intent to recoup the cost expended. And, sorry , Councillor, what was the second part of your question? Is it now considered closed, the matter? Yes, we would consider so.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. That being the last item on the business paper, and with no further business, I declare the meeting closed at 11.11, which has been a big number for me lately. Thank you for your attendance, everyone. Have a good evening.