14 February 2023 - Ordinary

Good evening, everybody. I'm Sarah McMahon, Mayor of Hawkesbury, and welcome to our meeting on the 14th of February 2023. 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'll 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'll 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 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In 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 any persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected you will refrain from making any insults, allegations 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 any person participating in or attending the meeting this evening has a mobile phone that they either turn it off or switch it to silent. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Are there any apologies? And I can see that would be a no, seeing as we have the other 11, and we do have one leave of absence from Councillor Paul Vigel, which I'll just read on the record. The General Manager received from Councillor Vigel a written request to attend tonight's ordinary Council meeting by audio-visual link, as he is travelling interstate for business. Councillor Vigel has been admitted to the meeting and is able to participate until Council decides by resolution whether to accept his request. Does someone want to move that Councillor Vigel be permitted to attend the ordinary Council meeting on 14 February 2023 by audio-visual link as he is travelling interstate for business? Thank you, Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Carried unanimously. Thank you.

Councillor Vaigel, you're able to stay.

Thank you, colleagues. Appreciate

It.

Okay, declarations of interest. Has anybody got an interest to declare in tonight's meeting? Councillor Conolly.

I've got a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 4.11.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 4.11. Thank you. Anybody else? No, I also have a— Oh , sorry, Councillor Vaigel, I apologise. I'll try and keep note of your hand, virtual hand. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 4 .11. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll also declare an interest, a pecuniary interest in item 4.11. Are there any further declarations? No. Thank you, councillors.

Confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder please? Councillor Reardon, seconder, Councillor Conolly. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Carried.

Thank you.

Okay, we move on to the first item. The first item, we will need everybody who has registered an interest in item 4.1.1 to read their interest into the record. I will be vacating the chair and handing the chair over to the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Conolly.

My interest is a significant non-pecuniary interest in that the owner is a relative of a close friend.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest. The subject site is in the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area. I live in that area. Although Council voted against adopting those plans, I have myself an outstanding administrative and potentially legal issue associated with that matter and so will not participate in the decision.

Councillor Veigel.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest in this matter of 4.1.1 and my association and possible friendship with a person linked to the proposal. So I'll be leaving the meeting as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I'm declaring a pecuniary interest in the item as the landowner is a relative of my partner and I'll be leaving the meeting. I'll now hand over to the Deputy Mayor to chair this item. Thank you.

Thank you

Everyone. Item 4.1.1, I believe we have one public speaker, Amy Sutherland, please.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. As the applicant for the planning proposal related to Lot 6 of 21 Vincent Road, Kurrajong, I'd like to express my support for the recommendation that the planning proposal proceed to the gateway. The planning proposal aims to address an anomaly which has arisen from a Land and Environment Court decision that approved 19 seniors housing dwellings on the site as part of Stage 2 of the Talarwood Seniors Housing Development and an extension of the private cemetery on the site, but found that the community title subdivision of the development was prohibited. This means that the approved houses on the site, which are due to start construction later this month, cannot be individually owned, unlike the existing houses within the Talarwood development.

Instead, future occupants will be required to enter into complicated lease or licence arrangements, which will offer less certainty for occupants in terms of the length of housing tenure provided. Since the Land and Environment Court decision was handed down last November, we have worked with council staff and the Department of Planning and Environment to identify the most appropriate pathway for addressing the anomaly and refine the suggested wording for the LEP amendment. We appreciate how responsive and agile council staff have been in relation to this issue. The planning proposal before you tonight relates to an amendment to the LEP provisions to allow for the community title subdivision of the approved development so that each dwelling can be privately owned.

The amendment will not have any impact on the built or natural environment, as the subdivision relates to an approved development that is due to start construction later this month. The amendment does not increase the density of development on the site, as it only reflects the density established by the approved development. The suggested wording for the additional LEP clause ensures that the community title subdivision of the site relates only to the approved seniors housing development and does not allow the subdivision of any other forms of housing on the site. There are several benefits of the planning proposal. First, the planning proposal will result in positive social impacts. The amendment will allow each dwelling to be privately owned, which is desirable for owner occupiers to downsize and age in their current local area.

The planning proposal will also avoid the need for complicated long-term lease or licence arrangements, which offer reduced certainty for occupants. Second, the amendment will allow the Bennett Family Private Cemetery on lot six to be owned and managed by the family. Third, the amendment will enable Council and the relevant authorities to directly manage and apply rates and charges to individual dwellings. Finally, as noted by Council staff and the local planning panel, the planning proposal has strategic merit, as it is consistent with the relevant State and local planning strategies, and that it has site-specific merit based on its relationship with the existing Tallawood Seniors Housing Development on the site.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the planning proposal. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there indeed any questions? Councillor Sheather.

Yes. Thanks for accepting, Mayor. How did we get to this situation?

It was a long road to get to this situation. As you may know, there was a Tallawood Seniors Housing Development approved, and that has been constructed quite some time ago. The community title subdivision was approved in 2012 for that. There have been numerous changes to the planning provisions that apply to the site and this form of development. And when you combine those factors together, we had a very long and complicated Land and Environment Court matter, which found that there were existing use rights, which enabled the approval of the 19 seniors housing dwellings on the site. But then we have this rather strange situation where you can't subdivide the dwellings and sell them privately, even though the current housing policy, which covers seniors housing, would allow that.

But unfortunately, because the policy has been amended over time, we can't rely on the current policy. So it is quite complicated, and it is something that has evolved and emerged over time, and it is a very unique situation that is specific to the circumstances of what has been approved on the site and the site itself.

Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Sam Bronda.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. You've listed the advantages... Of this planning proposal, which will permit private ownership, what you haven't addressed are arguably the advantages of a seniors living development under one title, which is what would happen if we denied this this evening. You've admitted that there will be a seniors living development on the site. The Land and Environment Court have confirmed that. When we in this chamber look to the merits of this planning proposal, I need to be convinced that a seniors living development with multiple titles, private ownership, is objectively better than a seniors living development under one title. You could say, for example, that a seniors living development under one title attracts a different socioeconomic class of clientele. Could you address that? Because I'm not convinced about that . Okay,

Thank you for the question. By allowing the subdivision of the site, you will enable both people who are owners-occupiers who want to downsize to occupy the dwellings, but also there can be investors who choose to purchase the dwellings and make those dwellings available to renters. So under the planning proposal, there are both options. There are possibilities for renters to occupy the dwellings and also for owner-occupiers. The housing strategy, the LSPS, the Western District Plan all note that there is going to be a significant increase in the proportion of the population over 65 up till 2036. And so there is a need to provide appropriate housing for seniors and people with a disability, and — At the point that we are making through this planning proposal is that it will allow for an appropriate type of housing to be provided for both owner occupiers and renters, and it also removes a lot of the complexities about managing these dwellings, applying rates, and ensuring the sewer can be properly managed as well for the site.

So there's sort of management issues that it would assist with, but also it will allow a greater diversity of the community to occupy the housing. Okay,

Thank you for that question. I've just got one further question. Could you describe the role of the company called Bencorp in this development?

I'm not familiar with that company. No, I'm not familiar with that company. Camilla Bennett is the owner of the site.

On page 23 of the planning proposal is a site layout map. It's a site layout map which is also included in Attachment 3 to the documents that were issued to Council. On the attachment that was given to Council, the bottom of the document was omitted, but in the planning proposal itself, if you zoom into the corner, it says that the site plan was prepared for the client called Bencorp. So I'm trying to understand the role of Bencorp, and you're acting for the client, but you have no knowledge of that name?

Sorry, I'm not sure what page you're referring to.

It's page 23 of the PDF and page 21 of the planning proposal, as the page numbers are enumerated within the document, and— It's a site layout map, a subdivision plan, and what I'm trying to work out is who, in truth, the proponent of this development is. Well

Councillor Sam Prognow, I think Ms Sutherland's already answered that question.

I'll accept the answer that's been given. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. Ms Sutherland, I'm not sure if you can answer this question. What is the ownership arrangement for Lot 1 in this development?

So that would be a community association land. So Council have added in a clause which will basically ensure that all the land will be amalgamated with the current Lot 1, which contains roads, the sewerage treatment plant, the community centre. So all of those facilities will be under community management.

And is the intention then that the 19 new purchases will also share in that community title of Lot 1?

Yeah, that's correct, which will enable the various costs related with the subdivision, the management of the sewerage treatment plant, the management of community centre and the minibus to be distributed amongst a greater number of people.

And has consent been given from the existing owners of that lot for this?

Yes, and that's confirmed by the approval of the housing on the site.

What's confirmed? Their consent?

Yeah, owners' consent was a requirement for lodgement of the development application for the 19 dwellings, if I'm understanding your question correctly.

Thank you.

Any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Sutherland. Thank you.

The matter is open for discussion. Ms. Councillor Zamprogno.

Mr. Deputy Mayor, I'd like to move that the matter be deferred to a council briefing and then returned to Council after the briefing.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'll speak to that. It is clear that we have a need for seniors living developments in this area. It's an area of distinct need, and in many ways the development that's been proposed here is sensitive to the landscape and praiseworthy, subject to some things that I would have questions about down the track, for example whether the development will be single storey and sits in its landscape lightly in that sense. But the matter before us tonight is whether we're going to advance a planning proposal that requires an ad hoc amendment to our LEP, and as a matter of principle, I'm very leery of ad hoc changes to our LEP. I'm also extremely cautious about something that has, in my opinion, been rushed to the chamber.

If the Land and Environment Court ruling was handed down in November, certainly we in the chamber, and by correspondence that I've received today alone, clearly the broader community are grappling to get their head around this, and I'd like to know more so that I can be satisfied that I'm making a decision on this planning proposal on its merits. My questioning to Ms. Sutherland earlier was geared around what I think is the central question for us in this chamber, and that is we're going to get a seniors living development on that site. The Land and Environment Court have ruled that way. But there is a difference in character between a seniors living development under one title that might be run by a consortium or a company and which would attract a certain socioeconomic profile of clientele, I suspect possibly lower socioeconomic clientele, people that are in need of that kind of accommodation but can't afford it.

And a living development that is owner-occupied as a result of a subdivision. Now there's a place for that too. It's just a case for us in this chamber as to which of those two models serves our community best.

So I'd like this to be deferred to a briefing so that we can talk through those issues and hear not only from staff and proponents, but also have more time to hear from members of the community who have serious concerns about the way that this has come to the chamber. And, you know, I'm mindful of the Land and Environment Court ruling. Unlike Ms Sutherland's characterisation that this is merely an anomaly, the Land and Environment Court, in my opinion, was fairly clear in saying yes to the seniors living development and no to the subdivision. It was not consonant with our planning instruments, and the community would be right to ask questions of us if we rushed into an ad hoc change to our LEP just to change the character of this development, which it's admitted will still go ahead with precisely the same scale.

So the community's interest in securing a facility like this will already be matched . What this does boil to is the profitability of that development for the proponent, and indeed who that proponent is. I'd like to see more time for us to work through those questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Sheather. Yeah

Question to the staff through you, Mr Deputy Mayor. With developments as this, and we've got a few within our city, is it... What involvement do we have in relation to some of the comments that Councillor Zembrogno spoke of in relation to how it's managed, community title or individually, and with the approval that's been given of those units, do we have a say now whether they're two-storey or the like, as the question was asked a while ago, or is that part of the

General Manager, handing it over to Mr . Kurtz.

I'll refer to the Manager Strategic Planning.

Thank you. So in terms of the actual development, so the development itself will be as per the Land Environment Court approval. So that's what the court has approved is what is permitted on the land as part of that approval. So any change to, I guess, to the built form of that would obviously be subject to separate modification if it was proposed, but at this stage is just what the Land Environment Court approved, yeah. And then in terms of— so we're dealing with a planning proposal, so we're not dealing with a development application for this matter. So we're considering whether the proposal goes to Gateway, which is essentially the starting point for consideration by the Department of Planning and Environment, also for community consultation and public agency consultation as well as part of that process.

It's only when that process is completed and it comes back to Council to consider whether Council does indeed finalise an amendment to the LEP.

And in relation to management of developments like this. Have we stipulated in the past with the ones that we've approved within the city how they're managed, like in community title or otherwise?

Mr . Kearns.

So obviously each application is assessed and it's either determined to be approved with conditions or refused. So the conditions of approval are relevant to any development that is approved, and, you know, the ongoing management and operation of that facility would have to be in accordance with those conditions of approval.

Mr. [unclear]. Yeah, the question was more directive, is have we directed development of this nature on how to be managed in relation to community title or otherwise?

General

Manager

Yeah, I might take that through the chair. I think the simple answer to that is no. So Council's responsibility is to assess, in this case, the planning proposal, previously the development application on its merits. Okay, so it's not necessarily for Council to dictate to any proponent about the type of management model, typically. So we have to be satisfied that all of our obligations to consider the planning proposal and the development application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, purely, and our obligations under that are met. But it would be, I think, an exceptionally rare circumstance for Council to dictate the management model of a particular development like this.

Okay. I guess my question was through you: would a briefing change what the position of the recommendation is?

No, it wouldn't, and I would alert Councillors to the fact that the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel have considered this proposal on its merits and has provided advice to the Council that the planning proposal should be supported.

Councillor Sheather.

In that case, Mr. Mayor, I'd move an amendment, and that be the recommendation.

Councillor Reardon, the recommendation in the business paper on page nine. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

I'll speak against the amendment, Mr. Mayor.

The findings of the Land and Environment Court are quite clear, I think, with regards to this judgment. And I, as much as I appreciate the advice of the planning panel, the right to determine subdivision is still a power of local councils, not the planning panel, and we should not give that responsibility up lightly. The question here isn't about whether a seniors living development can be facilitated on this site. The question is one of subdivision, subdivision that we have heard repeatedly in this chamber is deeply unpalatable to residents. This is, in fact, the very definition of a spot zoning. What the Kurrajong-Kurmond Investigation Area was prepared for was to stop this sort of spot rezoning in exactly this area.

And unfortunately, it was dropped by members of the previous Council, and I think we see, in fact, the— The detriment of that. The Land and Environment Court finding states really clearly that permission for subdivision can't be granted under the EP&A Act. So because we can't grant a subdivision. So instead we've got this dinky little clause specific to this development, which flies in the face of our own LEP, and the Land and Environment Court describes as falling well short of the standard. Can the DA proceed without the planning panel? Yes, it can. Yes, 19 dwellings can be built on there. They can't be sold. That's the point. They can have very long leases, and that will provide security to the residents.

That's a very common model that's used in seniors living developments across New South Wales. There's been no appeal to the judgment of the commissioner in the Land and Environment Court. So the applicants have accepted the outcome that they can have 19 self-contained dwellings. The judgment identifies the lack of power in the Hawkesbury LEP to approve a subdivision of less than 10 hectares, and it states categorically why, because it violates the clause in the LEP.

So we've got a court-issued valid development consent. It's possible to have 19 individual dwellings. We have this report that recommends subdivision, but we've got no grounds on which we are to justify this planning proposal. We haven't got a submission from the proponent that the development is inviable as 19 dwellings with long-term leases. We've had, I certainly have had, I don't know, it's the reason I was late this evening, I've been contacted by numerous residents of Tallawood telling me that they are really unhappy with this proposal. These are the joint owners of Lot 1, and they are not happy and they have not consented, they don't believe, to the use of their property and the services on that property for this development, this subdivision application.

That should give us pause. They have asked us to defer this so that they can be heard, so that they can understand the judgment that has been handed down that affects their property.

We're talking here about a planning proposal that is for the commercial development of a single landowner.

We need to know why it has to proceed to subdivision. This is not about seniors living. This is about the profit of the developer involved, and that's what we should be using to determine our decision. The idea that this can't proceed without subdivision is incorrect. It won't proceed with the vision that the applicant had.

I'm not satisfied that we can approve this and remain within the constraints of both the Land and Environment Court decision or the requirements of the EP&A Act, and I find that really concerning.

Thank you. Further discussion. Councillor Cotless.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. It concerns me a bit that we've had some information in the chamber about whether the people that are existing residents of the, I believe it's the Tallawarra 2 development. We've had two conflicting pieces of information. Can I get staff to confirm whether , well, to confirm whether these people had consented to this?

I

Find that a bit troubling. Thank you.

Mr. Kearns.

So it was a matter that was raised as part of the statement of facts and contentions at the start of the appeal matter, and the court deemed that it wasn't in a position to approve the development based on its considerations of those statement of facts and contentions, yeah.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. Could you just—

So I guess the issue of consent to the application was considered by the Land Environment Court, and they determined that they had everything in place to issue their judgment and approval.

So what Councillor Wheeler has said is that some of those people believe they haven't given consent, so that's clearly not true. Through the courts, they have given consent.

The court considered it and determined it was appropriate to— it was in a position to, based on the facts, to issue the approval, yeah.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks for stepping in, Mayor.

If other organisations, companies, property owners alike have control of their land, then they've got the right to say no. There can be resumptions and the like that might take place, I don't know. But from the comments that I've heard across the room, and I don't know a lot of the background of this, the information we've had for a few days, and I've read it thoroughly, and the comments I've heard from our staff, the comments that have been made in pursuing a briefing, would they not be addressed by the panel at a later date and come back to Council? A question for staff. That was a question.

I think the simple answer to that is yes. I think we've given Council every conceivable piece of information that we possibly can on that. If Council desires a forum to do that, I might offer a suggestion that that might be best placed after we have actually consulted the community about their views on it before the matter is brought back to Council for final adoption or otherwise.

Put your light on, please, Councillor Sheather.

Sorry. Just to follow on, the issues that need to be addressed to make this happen, we're talking about an anomaly, and it is an anomaly within the structure of the planning to get sorted. The courts have approved it. If there's issues there that... That the development as it proceeds happens, then it's up to the applicant to negotiate, both with other businesses and council, if they want to pursue it to make it happen. What's before us tonight isn't those issues, and if it's going to go to the panel, that they'll be dealt with then. And as the GM just said, there'll be further community consultation on it. I would hope that all businesses are out to make money, and I don't see that in any way, shape or form any of our business at all.

To make money, you go broke, and that too is none of our business. So those sorts of things, I can understand people around who have lived in Kurrajong or other places where you're getting development like this might not be as keen for it to happen as other places. But

I can probably tell you when they hit 70 or 80, they'll be looking for just such a place, and so it's got to happen somewhere. So we're dealing with something before us tonight in the business paper that's going to pursue a course, and apparently it's going to come back to us later. And so I speak against the motion and support the amendment and would ask other councillors to do so.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. There seems to be some confusion about the process and where the community consultation aspect will occur. I presume that by saying that it will come back to Council, the general manager is referring to the post-gateway determination that will come back to Council. Could I ask that the process for those playing at home who are not as familiar with the planning system be outlined, including at which point the relevant community... And particularly the owners of Lot 1 who do not believe they have consented to this will be consulted.

General Manager. Through you. So the decision before Council tonight is, one, to effectively send this particular planning proposal to what's known as Gateway, the Gateway being the process now is that the Department of Planning, in order to progress the planning proposal, gives Council and/or the proponent the tick of approval in order to progress, okay? What will happen then, so we will send it through to the Department of Planning. They will take as long as they need to in order to then write back to Council and either say, yes, thank you, Hawkesbury City Council, we have given you a Gateway approval, and please proceed. It might come back and say, please proceed with a suite of conditions attached to that; that can be typical.

Or they will say, we don't think this has strategic merit, and will say we refuse to grant a Gateway determination. So on the assumption that we get a Gateway approval, for want of a better word, that will then come back to Council staff. They will then formulate all of the relevant documents, and then we will proceed through to community consultation at that particular point in time. That will obviously include all the adjoining landowners, including those current residents and the community association at Tallawood. Then, sorry, I'll look back again. So then, of course, our strategic planning team will then formulate a response, prepare a report. We will then typically then brief Council on the outcomes of that community consultation and prepare a final report for a decision to be made by Council to effectively give effect to the change in planning instruments.

Any further questions or Councillor Zambr... Councillor Dogramaci, sir.

Well, I was going to speak again, but my light wasn't on yet.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Please, you always say that my ignorance in these matters, all these plannings going forward and coming back, costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars, court cases, going to government department, when Madam General Manager explained that, you know, has to go to certain government departments and then has to come back and to the panels and all these things. I mean, is this the normal procedure that the days that, you know, we are living in, and from that lady's point of view or company that doing this development, do they not know, you know, all these details that, you know, they could sit down and discuss with someone from the council or a panel, or does everything has to be like, you know, backward and forward and going and coming back and then community consultations?

Could somebody tell me, you know, why does it take, you know, so long for this kind of applications and then so much money, so much time? Is it to keep, you know, people occupied so we could pay them? I just cannot understand. Could somebody please tell me? Thank you.

Councillor Dogramaci, it can be very frustrating, but this is the way our system works. This is what gives the public the best opportunity to get involved and be consulted. And the system has been worked out over a number of years. I know it bounces backwards and forwards several times, but that is the idea, so that it bounces one way, you refine it, it bounces the other until eventually you get something that most people are happy with. If you make a decision very quickly... Often that decision can be wrong and based on the wrong information. So taking a longer time is actually usually gives better outcomes for the community.

Councillor Sam Brogden. Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I'm speaking against the amendment. Firstly, to correct something that Councillor Sheather said, and through you, sir, the court has not approved this. The court has approved the seniors living development, but the court was quite specific in saying that what's being advanced to us now as a proponent-initiated planning proposal was not consonant with our planning instruments. What's been suggested to us tonight is that we have to bend or break our own rules to make this legal. And it's perfectly sensible for us to say, right, well, sometimes we do that, sometimes we do amend our LEP, but there's got to be a jolly good reason, and I haven't been presented with that reason here, and I want to learn more, especially when members of the community are saying, well, we're key stakeholders in this and we haven't been asked and we don't consent and we don't like the idea.

I want to hear more from those people. If a matter is sufficiently controversial as that it immediately causes four councillors to recuse themselves, something that's almost unprecedented in the six years that I've been on council, one of them with a significant pecuniary interest, despite declaring that her associates are not property developers, then it behoves us to take our time and to have a briefing and to hear from the community and to have more time to discuss this. I'm acutely uncomfortable about being pressured into making a significant decision of this type with this much notice. Councillor Sheather says, well, Councillor Sheather asked whether we have ever prescribed a developer in terms of what kind of management structure they impose, whether it's community title or owner-occupied.

But the thing is, although it is rare, that is precisely what we are being asked to do here. We've been invited to make precisely this adjudication. And even though we might be curious about whether this change is more profitable for the developer, our role here is to secure the best result for the community. And there is an open question, an unanswered question, about whether a seniors living development under community title would be a better outcome from the community, and that is the only thing that I'm interested in. And I don't have the information in front of me to be able to make that. Judgment . I think we have to have a care about how we proceed, considering how controversial this and the protagonists involved in this story are.

I don't think that at the moment, if we were pressed to make a decision tonight, that it would pass the pub test, and that's why I'm urging everybody to caution. If we have a briefing and it comes back to the chamber, then,

You know, I will yield to the chamber's decision. But at the moment, I think we're on dangerous territory to rush to a decision. Therefore, I hope that we vote to have our briefing.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I have, I agree with some things that Councillor Zamprogno has said, but I also agree with some of the things that Councillor Sheather has said. And I think that it's, I think we have to take the profitability of the development off the table. That is, I agree with Councillor Sheather. That's just nothing to do with this. What we have to do here is make a decision that is going to benefit our community and the people that are going to be able to use this development and have access to it. And I think that the information that we've received tonight about the diversity of that development, that it can be owned outright or rented, to me gives much more diversity in the marketplace, and I think that would be a huge tick for this development.

I also hear the concerns that the owners, it seems, and some in the community have. But I can't see how a briefing is going to fix that. In fact, a briefing won't. A briefing will just kick the can down the road. And I think we have to be mindful of the process that we're working under. And I think that it's perfectly acceptable for this to go to a gateway determination, as the general manager has said. After the gateway determination, whatever that is, whether it comes in yay or nay or has conditions, we'll then be going out for community consultation, so we can get all of those things that Councillor Zamprongo has said. But we can get it in such a way that it's structured, everybody gets a fair go.

I don't know who's going to be talking to who prior to a briefing, but that's not the kind of information that I want to base my decisions on. I want the information to come in a process that's fair and a process that we have at our disposal. So I think we should use that, and I'm perfectly comfortable with supporting this amendment . Thank you.

Anything further? Well, can I add that in the business paper it tells us, page 10, the last paragraph, on 15th of November 2022, the Land and Environment Court, the court, in brackets, concluded that the subject site is a resultant lot of the previously approved 19 community title subdivision and therefore enjoys existing use rights. And on page 24, under the heading consideration, the first sentence says, The Land and Environment Court approved the proposed development other than the community title subdivision of the seniors housing development. So my understanding of what's going on here is it has been approved. The only thing that hasn't been approved is the system or the model of ownership.

And also my understanding is that the court said that is not our jurisdiction. It's not up to us as a court to decide the ownership. And where you're reading that they decided not to support it, my reading is they decided not to support a model of ownership and sent it back to us. I think that's the way it is, and I'm open to suggestions either way. So what we're doing here tonight is not choosing whether this development goes ahead, because it's already been approved. What we're talking about is the model of ownership. And if we were to have a briefing session, and at that briefing session, hypothetically, we come up with another model, which might be leasing the property, and send that forward to Gateway, what's the difference between sending that model forward and sending this model forward?

In both cases, it'll go to Gateway, it'll be discussed there, and Gateway will get back to us and say yay or nay on the model. So really it doesn't matter which model we choose to send forward. And having a briefing session won't answer that question. And I don't think we can answer that question. We have a model here which has been recommended to be approved by the staff. I think we should send it forward, see what happens, and when you do send it forward to Gateway, it comes back for public consultation. People haven't been left out of this process. There's a lot of public consultation yet to happen. And so by sending this forward now, it's not closing that door, it's actually opening the door for more consultation.

So with those things said, I'm very happy to support the amendment moved by Councillor Sheather. Any further discussion?

If not, I'll put the amendment. The amendment by Councillor Sheather is the recommendation in the business paper. If you support that, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Calvert. Those against? Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Declare it carried. The amendment becomes the motion. Is there any further discussion? If not, I ask for a right of reply, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. That's disappointing. I think the judgment of the community will be rendered .

Mr Deputy Mayor, quite simply, you're wrong. I mean, if we send this to Gateway in this form, the horse is bolted. And those people who have said this is very precipitous, this is suspiciously precipitous. This flies in the face of what the Land and Environment Court said. The Land and Environment Court may have said that it falls to us to make the decision about the model that this seniors living development, which will proceed, will take. And yet we have not been presented with the information about which of those two models would be best. And I'm sure that staff or experts could speak to us with some wisdom about which of those models would be best. There are differences in terms of the socio-economic profile, in terms of the cost to the end user, in terms of the tenure or security that is conferred to the end users of this facility.

All of those questions have been swept into the bin.

Because despite the fact that the Land and Environment Court said this is in your court now. You choose wisely. We've said we don't care. We've been given this with a few days' notice, and we'll push it off to Gateway, and that's it. I think that's a disgraceful state of affairs for us to be telling the community who are watching. So unfortunately, I can't support the amended motion that is now before us. Thank you.

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

Thank you. If we could get the other councillors back in, please. Okay. Hope the mic's on. Okay, thank you. I'll just get myself together. Okay, the next item on the agenda is 4.1.2, planning proposal for 7 and 9 Fitzgerald Street. Do I have anybody willing to move anything, please? Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. Seconder? Councillor Reardon

Councillor Conolly. No, I'm comfortable with the report.

Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Sorry, I'll just find my notes.

Can I just ask a couple of questions?

From reading the report, will the rest of the — is the intention that the rest of the commercial zone of Windsor becomes C2 commercial centre zone? Oh,

Sorry. Thank you, Councillor. I'll pass to Director of Strategic Planning— no, not Director, Strategic Planning Manager.

Thank you, Madam May. So the proposal is for the E2 commercial centre, yep, for the rest of Windsor. So that's, I guess, why we've recommended that this zone be applied to be consistent with that, with the remainder of what Windsor town centre will be. So

This will come in a bit earlier than the rest, and the rest will be normalised next year.

So the rest will be undertaken as part of the Employment Zones reform. So the state government is obviously going through the process of amending the existing business B zones and industrial I zones to the E zone. So that automatically happens by the state government, and that'll be happening in April.

Thank you. And one further question, if I may. While neither of these buildings have been determined to have any heritage value, we have discussed on the Heritage Advisory Committee a number of times the use of heritage precincts, and there are a number of heritage items in close proximity.

What would be the interplay between a heritage precinct and this zoning?

So heritage considerations will obviously be a key part of any future applications over the site. The actual— LEP amendments that we're also proposing, this is a maximum building height of 10 metres. So the overall scale is contained in terms of that overall height, so still in keeping with that precinct.

Sorry, I've got a broader question, I guess at the end, but one of the things that this

Shows is that we don't really have a cohesive plan for the Windsor town centre that considers heritage and flooding impacts, integrates commercial and residential uses, and highlights or connects with the river beyond the work that we've done along that central strip from Thompson Square down George Street. What I'd like to do is flag that we need to do this. The LEP reviews are nice from a planning perspective, but in terms of

Sorting everything out so that people can put in applications and there's some certainty around that, but what we haven't got is a plan for how we want Windsor to continue to function into the future. We've got all of these layers of Macquarie's plans and then later plans and ad hoc evolution of Windsor, but we know from the livability work that we have very poor connectivity with the river, for example. We make poor use of it from a tourism and commercial perspective in terms of drawing people to come to the river and then come up from the river into our town centres. We still, despite having some money to chuck at Windsor at the moment. Lack a broad, cohesive plan for that whole site. And when we have these little bits of rezonings coming up and these standardising processes through the LEP, it highlights that the town, like many colonial towns, has grown like topsy, and we probably need some sort of overlay over the top.

So I'd like to know how we can facilitate this. How do we want these side streets and these riverfront streets to look and function? What other LEP zoning changes are anticipated? We need to get ahead of this process so that we can evolve the community in these bigger picture plans and changes. And state government will hand down this zoning change, but I think we have a responsibility as the current custodians of this space to get ahead of that curve, or at least have some future vision, because otherwise it will just continue to slide along in this ad hoc process. I don't know if that's something that we could discuss at a later workshop, or we could facilitate through some process or some funding.

But it just seems to me that this constant tinkering around the edges does not give us an optimal outcome for either the economy or the commercial uses or the residential and tourism uses of our main town.

Would you like that to be answered, Councillor, or is that a question or rhetorical?

I'd love to hear some ideas on what we could do. Thanks.

Acting Director of Planning.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, the City Design and Economic Development team have actually been working on a series of place plans that's been developed through consultation, review of the Place Score survey that was previously undertaken by Council. Those place plans will be presented to a Council briefing in March, following which they'll be reported to Council and subject to public exhibition. But it does certainly describe the intent of broad planning, I guess beyond legislative planning for areas, and talks to the community vision as has been identified through the consultation process and outlines future directions for town centres across the Hawkesbury. Thank you, that's wonderful news.

Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak?

No right of reply, Councillor Conolly. Thank you. I'll put the recommendation. 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, Councillors Improgno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare that carried.

Before moving on, I might quickly do items on block, which is items 4.4.3. Could I have a mover? That's Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Reardon. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor McMahon, declare that carried.

Thank you, councillors. Moving on to the next item, item 4.1.3, planning proposal Bells Line of Road, Kurrajong Heights. Councillor Lyons-Buckett moves that way. Seconder, please. Councillor

Sheather. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm very pleased to see this come forward. It's been a long process. It took a while for the planning proposal to get to this stage. I think that this is the obvious solution, of course, for the people in that position. It was difficult, as if they haven't had a difficult enough time as it is post-fires and with the various challenges of the pandemic. So it's good to see that this will be progressing and going forward to solve something that's sort of got a bit of history and an anomaly that can be rectified.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Just a question. Councillor Sheather. For you, Madam Mayor. I think it was 2008 when the application was first made, and I can't see the date here just in front of me, but it was only recently they were asked to withdraw their proposal.

Why was it that long, and/or was it everything sort of just fell apart at that time? And I thought that such a proposal didn't have that latitude .

Thank you, Councillor. I'll hand over to our Manager of Strategic Planning.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, yeah, the original application was in 2008, and the issue, the determination couldn't be issued because it actually relied on the council-owned controlled land. There was obviously a number of discussions with the applicant in terms of that 2008 application, and that finally did lead to that application being withdrawn by the applicant. There were amendments made to the LEP to allow the temporary structures, and that's in place. So, I guess, a process of ongoing dialogue and discussion with the applicant in terms of that 2008 application, which led to the withdrawal.

Just further to that, Madam Mayor, was there consistent backwards and forwards, or was there—did the owners of the place back off, I guess, for the want of a word? Because it seems a third of a lifetime, and there's got to be a reason for that. So, did they just not do anything, or was the process just took that long?

I'll hand that question over as well, Manager of Strategic Planning.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, the issue was that Council was never in a position to determine the application, and that's, I guess, a process of trying to highlight that to the applicant, and obviously that there's various processes that need to happen in order to regularise the actual use, and that's the pathway we're seeking to go now.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

No. Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Not necessary. 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 Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare that carried.

The next item is item 4.4.1, the quarterly budget review statement. Do I have anyone wishing to move anything? Councillor Sheather moved that way. Seconder, please. Councillor Conolly. Did you wish to say anything, Councillor Sheather?

No Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a few questions. There's a reference in the item to Mitchell Drive, Glossodia and bringing forward works. Could I get an idea of the new timings for those works, please? Director of Infrastructure, thank you.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the works have been brought forward. So, sorry, if I take a step backwards, the works were to be staged over a number of years. For a few reasons, predominantly given the rising escalation of construction costs, we've brought those forward. I'd have to take on notice the exact timing. I don't have that at hand at the moment.

So not slower than what the community has been informed previously, which I think was staged over three years in the operational plan? Oh

So certainly, certainly our anticipation is that we're either about to go to tender or we've gone to tender. I think that's correct, yes. So it would be sooner than that three-year horizon, definitely.

Excellent. Those people that we met with, I'm sure, will be very pleased. Next question. There's a number of changes to the, or there's mention of changes to works under the multi-year reserve, and I'm happy for this to be taken on notice. Could we get some indication of what works those are and the new timings for those works, please?

Did you want to take that one on notice, or are you happy to answer? Okay, Chief Financial Officer.

Through you, Madam Mayor. So the list of the works are actually within the report underneath the multi-year reserve. So in most likelihood, they would be done next year, or once we've got a plan in place for some of the flood recovery work. Some of those are better to be done together, or might be reprioritised, but we're expecting most of those would be in next year's program.

Thank you. There's a reference to the staff numbers. I'm curious as to how many staff vacancies we're currently carrying.

Through you, Madam Mayor, currently 67. We just did them this morning, funnily enough. FTE

Equivalent? Yes . Ouch. Yeah, we're very busy. Right. And final, final question. There's reference here to us receiving a $20,000 grant for the Australia Day on the River event . Could councillors be, and again I'm happy to take this on notice, could councillors be given a costing for that event? I don't believe we've ever received one.

Just bringing that up now, Councillor.

We'll take it on notice if that's okay, Councillor, and provide that in due course. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Just in relation to the question from Councillor Wheeler, is that the Australia Day thing that you're talking about?

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to the staff preparation of this document. I just had some questions also regarding to what's in there. I did send a couple of questions to Chief Financial Officer, and I got those answers, but these, when I re-read it, I had some more. Regarding the Sackville Mission exhibition, you might not know this, but I was just wondering, is that something that will be on site at the mission site, or will it be a public exhibition? Just if someone could tell us what that's about. Just there's money for it, and some people have asked me, so that would be interesting to know.

Did you want me to answer that one by one as we go? Yes

But I

Don't expect anyone to know the answer. Happy to answer it, Councillor. Oh, sorry. I'll get that right. I could see Vanessa.

Oh no

I thought

She was nodding

Yes.

I was a bit mortified by that question. Thank you. The next one is regarding the funding for the raised pedestrian crossing near Kurrajong Public School. If there's a time frame on that, is that additional money to have brought that forward, or— Director of Infrastructure?

Through you, Madam Mayor, I'd have to take that one on notice.

Okay, okay. The next one is regarding the reserves from Redbank VPA for the North Richmond precinct of a million dollars. Is that the money for the upgrade of the fun factory and the preschool?

Through you, Madam Mayor, that is for the community facility. So that will go towards now the new Western Sydney project and be combined through that process.

So does that mean that then we're waiting for Western Sydney to do any work there?

Oh, it's not Western Sydney doing the work, but the whole site, the whole precinct, will be reviewed under that aspect in line with those plans that were submitted under the Western Sydney. So, yes.

Okay. It was just that I was under the impression that the fun factory and the preschool were going ahead to be upgraded reasonably soon. Is that not the case? Director of Infrastructure.

If I may, the two centres , the after school care and the childcare centre, are programmed for works in this financial year, and they are separate to the Western Invest project.

Yeah, I thought that. Yeah that's correct. Thank you. And the other one, I think Councillor Wheeler asked about the staff vacancies. I see that there'll be regular updates and reviews around the staffing. Is that a sort of an evaluation of efficiency of staff increases? Like, is that what that review is?

Chief Financial Officer.

Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor, it's more a reflection that as things occur—for instance, at the moment we're looking at the scaling up for Western Invest. So there's always something going on. It just enables us to be a bit more agile, so as things pop up, we keep reviewing the resources. Yeah.

Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Sheather. Not needed. Thank you, Councillors. 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 Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare that carried.

The next item is 4.4.2, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'd like to move a motion, Madam Mayor, that I've given to Charles. It sort of incorporates the original one with just one change and one additional point.

Thank you. We'll wait till that's on the board for a seconder.

Item 1 and 3 in the recommendation, and item 2 is the same except the resolution around the third party review of the Sports Council, and the additional point is to refer it to the Audit Committee for advice on how to proceed with that. Do

I have a seconder? Councillor Willer, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think this is good that we're sorting through these resolutions and that we're getting this information... Sort of put together, I'll speak to the changes in a minute. The first thing was there was just a couple of resolutions where I read those and I had questions around that. The first one was resolution 05122, which is about parking, and I see that the answer relates to the livability project, but the intent of the resolution was for all of our shopping precincts. So that includes things that aren't in the livability centres. So it includes North Richmond, Kurrajong, anywhere where there's a retail precinct. I thought that was the intent of that. So if that could just be maybe checked for that, that is also going to be done.

The second one was around a time frame regarding the strategy that's being done to enable us to proceed with the memorial for the late John Miller. If there's a time frame on that strategy that we're waiting on policy, I haven't got the wording in front of me, a memorial. Are you

Asking that now?

Yes, please. Yeah. Director of Infrastructure?

Through you, Madam Mayor, I've requested from staff an update on the timing, which I'll circulate once I have. Okay,

Thank you for that. Okay, so a lot of what we're seeing in this document, in these well set out documents where we've allocated things to other projects or other in-house work is really good, that it does hinge on us completing several key strategies that we need to complete. But when I read through, I thought I couldn't really understand what the status was for the third party review, where it said that it could just be incorporated into something else, that the council's activity or study. And I just don't find that. That that is a possibility. So I've therefore included to have it sent to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee for advice on how to proceed, because I think it's very important that we deal with this.

It's something that I get a lot of questions about. A lot of people ask about this, and this is a significant amount of our ratepayer funding going into this. It's public money from the Council and from our residents who pay ground fees and other sporting fees. So the users of these have demanded of me more transparency. They have asked about details around the allocation of funds, how that's decided, which grounds get what, which particular sporting facility gets upgraded. I've had questions around tenders and contractors, and I think the public are calling on us to deal with this. This was why this was brought up initially, and I did first bring this up at my very second Council meeting ever, and we've never got the answers.

And I think that, you know, we're here. We stand up. We all say we stand for openness and transparency, and I think that we need to see this focus as the original resolution brought forward, which was to focus on compliance, governance and the management of risk, because we need to understand how this body is operating. And it's not about whether they do a good job of maintaining the grounds or whatever, because that's the way it is, and that's what they do, and that's wonderful. It's about the expenditure of public money and the fact that this information is not in the public domain. It's not someone who runs a sporting club can just look up on the internet and see where, you know, why was this decided to be done in a particular place, you know, where were the tenders?

Who were the people tendering for it? I think it's time that we pass this on for someone to give us advice on how we look at this, because we have done it with Peppercorn and with the River County Council, and we've seen— There's been things implemented, that's been done, that's how the governance is working and how that's going ahead. So I think that we need to get some more advice. I'm not sure why it's come to a standstill, but it was a, I think it was a unanimously supported decision back when it came up, and I just, I wouldn't like to see it drop off the radar through this process where we're just allocating outstanding resolutions. I think it's more important that it gets still looked at on its own.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I might just see if the staff are willing to give us an update on where that's at.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the review is being proceeded with. There has been some delay. There's been no change to, as far as the decision that Council made to proceed with a review, a governance compliance type review that the Council adopted to take that course. There have been some delays to cause, largely by competing priorities and at times some difficulty in having a full complement of staff in the governance area, which is where this work is emanating from. The consultants have been engaged in discussions about the scope. That's the thing that needs to be finalised, which can be done fairly soon if some appropriate time can be dedicated to that action, which is what's proposed. And then the review will take place, and the actual doing of the work by the consultant, once it commences, can be done relatively quickly.

It's just a question of getting the scope in order so that the review can proceed. But there's been certainly no change to the proposal that the review be carried out as adopted by the Council.

Thank you very

Much. Madam, could I ask a question on that? Because the resolution status in the document says that it's noted to be incorporated into an existing Council activity or study, etc.

Is there a further response?

The Council previously, some time ago, adopted the position that a series of reviews would be carried out in accordance with a methodology that was adopted by, or recommended by, the consultants on the back of a review of Council's risk register. So, and that hasn't changed. It's proposed that a review be carried out in accordance with the direction of the Council as to what review that is. And my understanding of that comment in the report is that it's simply confirming that it's an ongoing piece of work that will be undertaken in accordance with what Council directed be done when it was previously before the Chamber.

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

Thank you. Just want to confirm that, just on the resolution status, I read the resolution detail, which said that this is all happening and it's underway. I just wanted to check, though, the intention , my understanding is the intention would be for that resolution to remain on this report every time it's published until such time as that review is completed. Whereas I think maybe there was a suggestion that that was going to drop off the list. Could we just have clarity on that? Because I agree it should stay on the list until it's done.

Thanks, Councillor. Who wishes to speak? General Manager.

Yeah. Good question. I guess what I would be telling you is that if there's a desire from Council to keep tracking it, let's keep it on there. It's a significant piece of work, so we're more than happy to keep reporting back to Council on that.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I just wonder if there's a suggestion here that we could change—I don't know that there's anything to be gained by referring it to the committee before the scope and consultant have finished their initial work on it. Could we just change it to change the motion to the recommendation plus an additional point that this continue to be reported back to Council until it's completed?

I'll ask the mover of the motion. I'm not sure how you'll do that, though, because the motion is to allocate all these things as they're set. Like, would you just be reporting on that? Is that what you mean?

So, through you, I think the status column, the very last column, says either that it's completed or Council note the status update. So my understanding was the ones that are completed are off this list. The ones that we're noticing the status update, noting the status updates will continue to be on there. So we're not— my understanding was we're not allocating all those away. We're only allocating the ones where we've said, Council note this resolution is completed.

Did you wish to move an amendment, Councillor?

If we could avoid it, that'd be better, but— No

I think that it needs to stand alone. It's just been too long now. I think that we need to take it out on its own and get some more advice on it. Councillor

Yeah, I'll move the recommendation as an amendment then. Okay,

Thank you. A seconder for that? Thank you, Councillor Reardon. The amendment is on the floor, which is the original recommendation in the business paper. Anyone wishing to speak on that? Oh, sorry, Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I probably don't need to. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't— like I said, I don't think we want to delay this any further by referring it to a committee just so we don't lose sight of it. It will go to a committee anyway as the standard practice for all of those third-party reviews was. But why would we refer it to a committee before we've got the scoping, everything done? Like I said, it's going to stay on the list, so if it's still there in the next report, we'll know.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Oh, you did have your light on. Just— There you go. There it is. Thank you. Yeah,

Thank you. The review committee has made an appointment with the Sports Council to do what they're going to do, which I certainly don't have a problem with. I do have a problem with the comments that Councillor Lyons-Buckett made in relation to the— Well, the expenditure and the like. I think it was probably two years ago, Council requested the minutes of the Sports Council from 1990. And the boxes of all those minutes are— and you've seen them, Madam Mayor—they're in the office of the Sports Council. Those minutes include all expenditures, all the plans, all the works that are done, who does them and how it goes about, and there's 13 people that sit on that committee that make sure that happens. An administrator that looks after 36 grounds and does an excellent job. It's not a bureaucracy. We work with the community, and to suggest that those monies are spent improperly— Point

Of order, Madam Mayor. Misrepresentation. Yeah,

Thank

You.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yeah, Councillor Sheather, we'll just stick to the point you're trying to make, thank you.

I thought I was. Without

Probably the personal innuendo. Let's just stick

To the minutes. Well, it is personal, Madam Mayor, and I don't know who might be listening, but if they are, I feel that they would be offended by the comments that were requested, because none of the Sports Council's got an issue with anybody reviewing or coming up with anything that's going to make the progression better. I do have issues with bureaucracy. And one of our councillors has expressed that fairly well this evening. The process that are used and the methods that's used has been available to council since day one. And to councillors, every one of them. Those minutes were recorded and are in council's archives now for any councillor to look at. I've spoke to all the councillors in this room about sport and their access to the Sports Council for any and all information they require.

We have a staff member that attends the council meetings, that hears everything that's said, and in the past there's been some of the directors that have attended some of the meetings as well. And I don't recall one comment , and I haven't been approached by the public. And let me tell you, I have a lot to do with all the sporting groups. If there was issues there, I'd hear about them. I hear some whinging occasionally from people that aren't involved and don't have an understanding and don't want to ask, don't want to seek information, but continue to make comments in error to what the case is. And I can assure you that if there was any concern, that I would bring it to you straight away, as I would have done to previous mayors.

So no one's, no one's that has an issue with the direction that's being proposed by council. I do have a problem, though, where it goes, where it may go to an organisation like the Auditor Committee that, in my view, already has a view that I don't agree with. If there's issues there to address a better outcome and process for Council and the community, I will absolutely support it. If it's anything other than that, I certainly won't.

Thank you, Councillor. Are you wanting to address your misrepresentation?

I will do that, but I'll speak against the amendment as well. I can do them at the same time. There was no suggestion that money was being misspent. That's not what I said. There is a perception within the community that this information isn't readily available to the public, and that's true. And it's not readily available. The last minutes, the councillors on the council hub are from 2021, so it's now 2023. So I'm sure there's been a meeting between then, and it's not about that sort of thing. The audit committee doesn't have a position on it. I don't know why that would be said. The audit committee is a new committee. It's only had a couple of meetings. The people in there are experts in governance, in how these sort of things should be done.

I think we would have value. We have sat here and heard people say, When we need advice, we go to a committee. So that's what I'm suggesting, and that is the committee that would have the advice on how we can proceed. It's not an attack on the Sports Council. It's a request from the public for more information around it. And maybe they don't contact you because they know you're connected to the Sports Council, but they contact other councillors, and we all know that we've had them from time to time. We have had various groups contacting us with just questions, not condemnation, not criticism even, just questions. And when we are the caretakers of public money, when it is public money, we have to have the utmost transparency.

And I just think that I can't understand any resistance to this because I'm sure it's doing a wonderful job, and I'm sure if the public could see all of that, that would be great. But it's not about having something in boxes in a room that people can look at. It's about having publicly available information when we are putting public money into a particular group. So it wasn't an attack, but it is, if I sound frustrated. It's because there's some sort of resistance to doing this, and I don't understand that. I just think we should get the advice of how we move forward. We have been told over and over for a long time that the scope is still being defined. I think we need to push it forward and to see what we can do in terms of looking at the issues, finding out how we can have this information more open to the public so that there aren't questions around it.

And I think that would be good all round, good for the council, good for the Sports Council, and good for our residents that have questions about it.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. A question, if I may. Could we get some indication of how the monthly summary process will work? In particular, this six-monthly process that we've had to date, where we sit around and eyeball the resolutions and what's outstanding and work out how we're going to move them forward. How will that happen?

General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor. So the intent here, Councillors, is for us to be providing much more frequent reporting on our council resolution tracking online so that our community, we're also accountable to them about how we're going to manage those. And then from that particular, remembering this one you've got before you tonight has a suite of actions on it. Obviously, what we would report online wouldn't have those actions necessarily. And then at that particular point, particular questions may then either be raised with staff, or we could bring them to a councillor briefing semi-regularly if there was a desire for council to oversee them.

Certainly, I think that semi-regular... Discussion at at least a briefing level, and it can only be a discussion. The beauty of this, you know, we can't make decisions by law, we can't make decisions in briefings. The advantage of this process is that while we might kick ideas around in a briefing or in a council roundtable, the decision is made, as we are doing now, on the floor of the chamber, because that's what the Local Government Act and the Code of Meeting Practice demands.

So I would like to see that monthly reporting have some inbuilt mechanism for it to come back to council for regular review, because otherwise I think these things will drift off. I know that there are resolutions that this council has passed that have never been acted on. I can think of one where we have a resolution in this council that every council event will have at the bottom stipulated what the disability access capacity is for the venue involved. I have never, ever, in six years, seen that on a document, never. So these things do disappear, and they make me wonder why I bother sitting here, and why we bother bringing these things forward when nothing happens. I would like to see, I would like some advice on Resolution 51/22 on the subject of parking, the need to— I'd like some advice around how we then facilitate moving this from review to action.

Do we need to deliberately seek funding to do this? Do we— what actions will facilitate this? We can have all the reviews of parking in the world. Every resident of the Hawkesbury will cheerfully tell you that our parking doesn't work. And that we should do something to fix it. Reviewing it isn't making it any better. We've known that for a long time. We've known for a long time that parking— it's not the number of spaces, I don't think. It's the management of those spaces that isn't working. So we need to move from discussion to fixing. So I really would like some advice on that. I'm happy for that to be taken on notice. I can't support the amendment because the previous motion—I think that pushed this to the ARIC, I think is quite useful.

We've seen the use of audit committees; they are new. We've seen the use of audit committees now—well, I have in both the HRCC. Well, HRCC has just resolved a mechanism for using Blacktown's ARIC, and Peppercorn is currently under an audit process. And by all accounts, that's proving very helpful, even when it doesn't turn out that you're doing a great job on all measures, that those corrections and having those anomalies brought to the attention of everyone is actually a really useful process. So if this is viewed positively as a good way forward for governance and for the use of public money, then by elected or appointed officials, then it's only for the good, I think. And that's how we should be approaching this.

This isn't a means of castigating people, of catching anyone out. This is about improvement of governance and the reduction of risk. And I think we should be doing everything possible to make sure that that happens. I'm quite concerned by Councillor Sheather's statement that the audit committee has a view that I don't agree with, was what he said. That's not how auditing and risk assessment actually works. You don't get to not participate in it if you don't think you're going to like the outcome. That's really troubling. We're about to spend millions upgrading facilities that are managed by the Sports Council. I think that— It's only reasonable and entirely sensible that our audit and risk committee, Council's audit that we pay for, that looks at how we spend our ratepayers' money, has a look at the management of those facilities.

Not as a witch hunt, as a means of all of us knowing that we are doing our fiduciary responsibility under the Act when we sign that money across each year.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. While I agree that the audit and risk committee is appropriate and good, and I agree with what Councillor Willis said, I think in the case of the Sports Council and the current resolution that we have, it seems to me that if we're almost on the cusp of having that work done, that's what I was hearing from staff , I think it's going to hold that work up, and I agree that that work is really important for all of those reasons that people have spoken about. But I don't think I can support actually holding up the work that we've already scoped out and we are just about to do after we have waited an awfully long time to go to the audit committee at this stage. That doesn't mean to say that in the future that we start to put that process of using the audit committee in a much more proactive way.

It can't happen, but I can't support that we just stop the scoping process, because it was my understanding that it was just about to happen, and I'd like that to happen sooner rather than later, for all of the reasons that have been said, you know, for the community to have confidence in that process. If the report comes back from the report that we've already got in train comes back and there's all sorts of issues that we need to respond to, then we can ask the audit committee to deal with those and advise us on those. But at the moment, I don't think I can support holding up our original report into the Sports Council.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? I've just got a question. A question, yes.

Question, Madam Mayor. Well, what is the likely timeframe? Because I think we've been told at least, you know, over and over several times that it was imminent and it hasn't happened. So otherwise I will insert a timeframe of, if it's not by a certain time, then it go to the audit committee, if we can have an update on when it's likely.

I'll just check with staff. For

You, Madam Mayor, it's difficult to say with certainty when it's likely to be done, but I anticipate that it's something, once the scope has been sorted out, which I suspect is something that could be done within the next probably two to three weeks, being cautious, then we would embark on the real work of the review itself, which would take us into March and then into April. So I suspect I'd like to think sometime in April, perhaps towards the end of April, that work would be coming to conclusion.

Okay, Madam Mayor, well, can I perhaps have included then that if this work is not completed by the end of April, that we—

It's a point of order. Yes. We're dealing with the amendment. We

Are

Dealing with the amendment. Can I ask a question Yes. Councillor— oh, sorry, I couldn't see if Councillor Linesbucker has concluded.

I hadn't, but we are speaking on the amendment. Well, maybe in the amendment you'd like to amend the amendment, Councillor Conolly, to include a couple of points from the motion, given that you've probably got the support for the amendment. And that's because I don't want to see this drop off the radar at all. And I mean— all right, no, I'll leave it. Don't worry.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Oh, you had a question?

I just wondered whether we could have a concurrence role with the Risk Committee and the scoped-out proposal for the review of the Sports Council to come together so that we get what we want. And I'm not saying that I'm happy with the delays in this at all. I'm not happy with that, but it just seems that I don't want any more delays, so that might satisfy everybody. I'm not sure that that's possible. It's that we carry on with the scoping that's happened so far. I'm assuming we've got some consultant doing some work and they are given a scope, that we can involve the Audit Risk Committee in that now as well. So we do both. We don't

Hold up either one. Thank you, Councillor. I'll refer to the General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, there is absolutely no question, Councillors, that the final report prepared by our consultants will go through our Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee for them to consider, provide feedback on, and provide that level of rigour that you all seem to agree is necessary. What we've just got a pinch point on timing at this particular point. Our staff have indicated that the delay has been Predominantly because of our internal resourcing concerns at this point. And so there's going to be a challenge in order to prepare an audit risk committee report by its next meeting on the 27th of March, when we probably, as Mr. McRoy indicated, could have just had the scope landed by that particular point in time.

The other possibility, albeit unlikely, is that Council's already resolved what you want out of this review, and that's what we're working towards. The question is what happens if Audit Committee want something different,

I would say.

Thank you, General Manager. Is there any further commentary or questions from the floor?

No. In that regard, I'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment as it stands on the board, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon. I can't see Councillor Veigel. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, and Councillor McMahon. Those against the amendment, please raise your hand. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Zamprogno. The amendment becomes the motion. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Right of reply

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, I'll be hoping that we get this report by the end of April. I'll be very, very concerned if we don't, because I will just feel that 11 years later, after first asking about it, it has been ignored , and all we're asking for is transparency. The idea I had raised about going to the Audit Committee was to get some advice around the scoping, because that seems to be the big delay. So never mind. We shall just tell the public that hopefully it's coming and their questions can be answered this decade.

Thank you very much. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Those 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 Zamprogno and Councillor McBarn. I declare that item carried.

Okay, we move to item 7.1.1, response to Councillor questions. Is there any response?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks , Madam Mayor. I have to say I wasn't

Much wiser after reading the answer to the question, which tells me that I don't quite understand the process that's going on here. So I'm hopeful that we can have this either a briefing on the study or a briefing on it at the next Disaster and Emergency Management Committee, please.

Thank you, Councillor. We'll take that on notice.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I think we'd be more than happy to provide an update through the Disaster and Emergency Committee. Lovely.

Thank you, General Manager. Okay, moving into confidential— Oh, sorry. I

Also had a similar comment, and I'm glad Councillor Wheeler asked for that, because this 2D flood study has been promised for close to five years now. We have been told over and over there appears to be some resistance to completing that as well, and I look forward to it. I hope that we will be briefed on it at the next meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. We move into confidential now.

Can I have someone move— sorry, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, just in relation with this, what's-name that I spoke of, with the three EISs that have been done in relation to the Racing Horse at Gambier Dam, this is aside from the other work and the work that's been done at Manly. Each of those documents that go back to 1990 cover the Gross, South Creek, Colo, McDonald, and every other tributary that runs into the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. All that's available and has been for decades. It concerns me that when things come up that all of a sudden we don't know about and are so important. It is out there, and it's accessible.

Thank you, Councillor, appreciate— yes, I think it's meant to be. I appreciate your commentary. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, moving into confidential. Can I have someone move that way, please? Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All in favour? Thank you, Councillors. We'll move into confidential.

Thank you, everybody. We have now resumed the meeting from confidential, and I will just hand over to the General Manager to read the result of those items. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In regards to item 8.3.1, Expression of Interest, Provision of a Code of Conduct Review Services, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that Council establish a panel of conduct reviewers in accordance with Council's procedures for the administration of the Code of Conduct; two, appoint the following applicants to Council's panel of conduct reviewers for a period of four years: Nick Iorfino, O'Connor Marsden and Associates Pty Ltd; Peter Moroney, National Workplace Investigations; Marion Parnaby, O'Connor Marsden and Associates Pty Ltd; John Renshaw, Noble Shore Pty Ltd; Kath Roach, SINC Solutions Pty Ltd; Michael Symons, O'Connor Marsden and Associates Pty Ltd; Kathy Thane, Train Reaction Pty Ltd; and Chris Wheeler, Centium Pty Ltd.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, McMahon, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno, with no councillors against. In respect of item 8.3.2, Administration of the 2024 Hawkesbury City Council Local Government Elections, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Reardon,

That: one, pursuant to section 296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993, New South Wales, that an election arrangement be entered into by contract to the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of Hawkesbury City Council. Two, pursuant to sections 2962 and 2963 of the Act, as applied and modified by section 18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of Hawkesbury City Council. Three, pursuant to section 2962 and 3 of the Act, as applied and modified by section 18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Hawkesbury City Council.

Four, contact the New South Wales Electoral Commission seeking justification for the increased costs. And point five, prepare a motion for the Local Government New South Wales Conference raising concerns about the escalating costs of conducting the local government elections. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, McMahon, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno, with no councillors against the motion. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. That's all of our business for tonight. I declare the meeting closed at 8.32 p.m. Thank you, everybody. Good night.