14 March 2023 - Ordinary

Okay, thank you everybody. Good evening, I’m Sarah McMahon, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, and I welcome you to our meeting tonight, the 14th of March 2023. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharuginjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to 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 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 this evening has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or switch it to silent, please. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. The next item to do is apologies and leave of absence, but as we have all Councillors present, we won’t need to go down that path. Declarations of interest, are there any on the floor please? Councillor Feigel. Yeah,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm declaring a disclosure tonight in this meeting. It's item 6.1.1, planning proposal LLEP 005/22, 21 Vincent Street, Kurrajong .

Councillor, you can read your declaration in full when the item

Is presented. Thank you, Councillor Conolly. 6.

1 .1 and 6.1.4.

Thank you. Anyone else? Councillor Calvert.

Item 8.3.1.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Item 6.1.1 and item 8.2.1. Thank you, and I'll declare mine. Item 6.1.1, item 4.5.1, item 6.1.5 and item 6.1.2. Can I have someone please confirm the

Minutes of the— Madam Mayor. Oh, sorry, Councillor Wheeler. Item 8.2.1. Can I please have someone confirm the

Minutes of the last meeting? Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Conolly. All in favour? Thank you. Declare that carried.

Okay, the first item tonight, our agenda item subject to public address. Now, as per our list, that is item 6 .1.1. I will read out my declaration. I will be removing myself from the item with a pecuniary interest, as my partner is related to the applicant, Councillor Vigel.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. 6.1.1, significant non-pecuniary interest. I'll be removing myself from the meeting as well, in association with the personal link to this proposal as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Yep, significant non-pecuniary interest. The applicant is a relative and a close friend.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Item 6.1.1, a significant non-pecuniary interest. The subject site is in the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area. I live in that area, and I am currently awaiting an outcome of a review being done by the Office of Local Government into a matter relevant to the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area. So my interest is due to that, and I will not participate in this debate.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor, I'll ask if you can please take the chair while we vacate the room. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. First item was the item we're looking at is item 6. 1.1, and we have one public speaker, Mr. Stephen Duncan. If you'd like to come forward to the podium, please, Mr. Duncan. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I am here as the chairperson of Tallawood Community Association to reinforce our support in rescinding the motion agreed to at the council meeting on 14th of February 2023 . We are the registered owners of Lot 1, as per our title deed that many of you have cited. We are concerned that you have been misinformed regarding the ownership of Lot 1. We are troubled that at the previous council meeting on the 14th of February, you were incorrectly advised that we had given consent in relation to Lot 1 and its associated essential services. Let me state categorically, not only do we own Lot 1, we have never given any consent. Furthermore, we are appalled to learn of the proposed amalgamation of the remainder of Lot 6 with our Lot 1 without our knowledge or consent.

Lot 1 is our common property with all associated essential services. It has appreciable value and is an integral part of our community. It is very concerning to see this proposal being considered. It is our community property. In summary, we as a community have been very poorly treated through this whole process and request this motion be rescinded. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr Duncan. Are you happy to answer any questions, should there be any? If I can. Any questions, Councillor Wheeler?

Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor.

Mr Duncan, can I just clarify? You are the members of the residents' association are the owners of the subject lot under community title. Correct. And you have not given consent. Correct. Now, we've been informed that you represented the community association at some conciliation hearings ordered by the Land and Environment Court. Is that correct?

If it was a Zoom meeting in December, perhaps. I'm not sure what it was called. Okay

And did you understand that your actions in that meeting would be taken as—

I was— I did not present any. I did not give a presentation at that meeting. So that's what you're suggesting? No.

No.

Another member of the community did.

And what was the—

If you're saying I was nominated as the speaker, that would be incorrect. That might be because it was a Zoom meeting and maybe there was a misunderstanding, perhaps. I don't know.

And what was the upshot of that meeting in terms of the understanding of the residents' association?

The resident that did the presentation was basically closed down and, from my recollection, was that he wasn't even able to complete his statement of concerns.

So was it made clear in that meeting that the residents didn't consent?

We never gave consent at that meeting, yes.

Thank you. When you purchased into the development, was it your understanding that it was a staged development? No. No. So there are references in your community management—

Sorry, clarify that. It was brought to my attention that it had been created staged, as in the original development. There was three stages to the original development. I wasn't there, by the way, but I've been advised by previous residents, and that's how we understand the staging of the development, yes.

Could you explain to me how you understand that staging? Does that include this stage two that we're

Yeah, the land is sort of divided into three sections, started at the top, and even the numbers of the lots reflect the staging of the completion of the stages, if that makes sense.

So do you understand stage two to be this development?

Stage two has got nothing to do with Tallewood.

So what was stage two?

The lot six development.

Right.

We was originally advised that lot six consisted of one property being built on lot six. There was two outstanding properties to be completed on the original development . That's one house on lot six and one house on lot 22. Lot 22 has actually started at this time, which is fine. We haven't got any problems with that. But there's been no— at the time of me purchasing the property, I had no understanding of this massive development that's been presented to us.

I would say so, yes

Any other questions?

Can I ask you, Mr Duncan, you said that your association should have given consent. Consent to what exactly are you talking about?

We haven't given consent.

You said they should have been asked to give consent. Yes. Yes, to what?

To the proposed proposal, to the development.

To the development.

Yeah, I would have thought it would have been only proper to be involved in the process, especially from Council at the beginning.

But as you know, it's been approved by the Land and Environment Court, not by Council.

Yeah, I think on false premises. I think there should have been more in-depth investigation by Council, in my opinion, prior to Land and Environment Council proceeding down the path that they have.

So you think the Land and Environment Court was misinformed?

That's your words.

No, that was a question.

I don't know. I don't know what transpires between the Land and Environment Court and Council, but they certainly come to the wrong conclusion, as far as I'm concerned.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks, Mr Duncan. Thank you. The motion has been submitted by three councillors. Who would like to move it? I'll move

That, Wayne.

Councillor Wheeler, seconded. Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. So I thank the speaker for coming in and highlighting these issues to us. I think it would have been quite helpful had we had a greater understanding of what was going on before we determined this... This matter at the last Council meeting,

I have spent the afternoon trying to unpick this. I've had, I've spent quite a lot of time getting legal advice, and I have to say that the more that's come out, the murkier this has become. Instead of becoming easier to understand, it's become more difficult. It's very clear that the owners of the subject lot have not consented to this development, and therefore I think it behoves Council to withdraw our approval of this development and either to refuse this application or work out exactly what has gone on in this process so that we can come to a reasonable conclusion where everyone is treated fairly. Because at the moment, I don't think that's what's happening. We have a decision from the Land and Environment Court that has found that subdivision is not possible under Council's LEP or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and that point is quite clear.

We have an attempt by Council to do yet another spot rezoning in our LEP that isn't consistent with the requirements of that LEP, the objectives of that LEP, nor is it consistent with the objectives of the revised LEP that we are hoping to bring into force in the next 12 to 18 months that has now been sent on after a lengthy holdup. And we have a group of residents who are dismayed that their The main investment for them, their principal place of residence, their home, is now subject to a development that they have not consented to on a block of land that they understand that they own, that they have not consented to this use of. I don't think in good conscience that Council can proceed to approve this, and that's why I've brought this rescission motion forward.

I'm interested to hear how other councillors feel about this, but this is not consistent with good governance, nor is it consistent with us adequately representing the community that we have been elected to represent. This is not a reasonable use of our planning powers to act in this way without the full information in front of us and with a deep sense of confusion, I suppose, that we have over this whole decision. So I hope that my fellow councillors will reconsider and that we can move forward either with a refusal or a deferral to gain some more information so that we can actually work out what's going on with this planning proposal.

Any further speakers? Councillor Semprogno.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. A month ago, when this planning proposal came to Council, I did not speak against it. I said that seniors living facilities, even of the type proposed here, was something that there is a need for in our LGA. And that position was reiterated when I went up to the Tallawood Village and saw what a lovely facility it is and what a credit it is to its pioneers and residents. But what I did say last month, when this came before us, was that there was clearly contradictory information circulating about a range of issues. I said that we should slow down and receive a briefing before making a decision about the planning proposal. I and others saw issues about necessary adjacent landowner consent, about whether community title or subdivision represented a better outcome for the community, about the way in which the litigation was defended by Council, about the completeness of information presented to Councillors by staff, and questions about the speed with which this was being brought to the Chamber.

With the benefit of a month, I concur with Councillor Wheeler. All I can say is that we should have voted for that briefing. This has become an unholy mess, and there are more questions now than there were then. To be responsible representatives, it behoves us to be satisfied that both the outcome and the process have integrity and are in the public interest. And at this hour, I cannot be satisfied of either. Last month, the developer's representative addressed us and told us that all relevant landowner consent had been obtained. There was even an admission that this consent was a prerequisite to the development proceeding. We have heard tonight that this is fiercely contested. The applicant is not the owner of Lot 1.

The owner is the Tallawood Community Association. I was concerned when the developer's representative claimed that they had never heard of the development company whose imprimatur was on dozens of the plans and reports associated with the scheme. A particular pre-lodgement document with Council made a very specific and disputable claim about the ownership of Lot 1. The form even warns that misrepresentation. Is a breach of Section 10.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I don't know why, if that statement was false, it was not proactively referred to the known title holders of Lot 1, why it wasn't referred to the authorities, who are the people who determine whether the breach was an honest mistake or a crime, or why the issue of the lack of consent of the owners of Lot 1 was not advanced with more vigour.

In the Land and Environment Court action, and where it is possible that had that information been provided, could have changed the outcome of that case. Council staff had been informed and reminded of this lapse in April 2021 and again in August and thereafter, when the title holders of Lot 1 warned Council that their consent was needed and had not been given. I don't know if it's wise to charge Council staff to expend time and effort in preparing a Gateway application or spot amendment to our LEP when it may be that future DAs for the construction of a dwelling, for example, may founder on the issue of the Lot 1 owner's consent. I don't know why, when the Land and Environment Court ruled in mid-November, why this unsolicited planning proposal was ready to present to us on the 14th of February, over the New Year slowdown, when many other planning proposals, often with arguably greater merit or urgency, languish on our planning department desks for vastly longer than this.

I don't know why tricky assertions that this development is stage 2 of Tallawood have been allowed to go unchallenged when the original prospectus for Tallawood never gave any indication that an additional 19 lots on Lot 6 was ever part of the staging. Tallawood is complete. This is a new proposal, and if Tallawood had been advanced those years ago as a 38-lot development, it may never have been approved. I don't know why the community management statement is claimed by some to confer enduring existing use rights, when the same document states clearly that Lot 6 can be the subject of exactly one dwelling, and that those developer rights of access end when the original dwellings were built. I don't know why some clauses in that document are considered sacrosanct, while others seem to be subject to the whim or claims of the applicant.

I don't know whether the framing of the decision that we were invited to make last month, which was that the development was going ahead in either case, and that we were merely being asked about whether it would be better for the community if it was a subdivision or not, was correct at all. If that were the case, then why does the legal advice procured by the developer and appearing on one of the documents uploaded to our DA tracker state that the proposed development is fundamentally dependent on the ability to subdivide the site? And if the site can't be subdivided, the purpose of the remainder of the proposed development application is effectively altogether frustrated and our client would be prevented from making the application to Council as a result.

It sounds to me like the wool has been pulled over our eyes. If the whole scheme was unviable or impermissible unless subdivision was granted, then I think councillors were entitled to that information when we were considering it last month. The only way that we can make this clearly impermissible planning proposal work is to break our own rules. And remember, the Land and Environment Court said that subdivision as proposed was a breach of not only of our LEP, but likely also the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as well, a far higher and more controlling legislative control. Your time is

Up, Councillor

On indulgence, 60 seconds, Mr Mayor.

Finish off, please.

I don't know if it's proper for us to endorse an application which forces the owners of Lot 1 to take responsibility and the costs of upkeep for the residue of Lot 6 when there is no legal obligation or mechanism to require them to do so against their will. I don't know why the applicant is banging on the doors and dispensing legal threats to the retirees of Tallawood Village and to others simply for asking questions about the integrity of this process. And I have also been bullied as a result of the questions that I have asked. Colleagues, how can we possibly be party to this when these questions remain unanswered? For those who will reiterate your position from a month ago, how can you, when I am told that the Tallawood residents have sought contact with each of you individually, repeatedly, only to find that you have not returned their calls.

Unless you feel that all of these questions are either answered or irrelevant, then you must reconsider, and you should join me in supporting the rescission motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further

Speakers? Councillor Sheather. Yeah.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillors, it's embargoed, sent a lengthy request to the General Manager during, or early in the week addressing most of the stuff he's just spoke of. And I know there was legal meetings with our staff in regard to those letters. Could the General Manager comment on some of the comments that’s appropriate that Councillor Zambrogno asked? And secondly, is there anything to come out of that legal information that you had that would change the recommendation you put before Council last month? General Manager.

Through you, Deputy Mayor. To just perhaps talk councillors through the advice that staff provided to councillors this afternoon. The substance of the advice was that at the time that the development application was made, the EP&A Regulation, so the necessary overarching legislation, didn't require owners consent to be provided, but needed to be provided prior to the determination of the development application. The application was, however, supported by a letter from the proponent identifying the by-laws of the community management statement that gave the developer certain rights to develop and access the community property, being Lot 1. Having looked at the matter and assessed the application quite early on, Council staff certainly shared a concern about the appropriateness or lack of owner's consent on the development application.

And as a consequence of that, when the matter was appealed to the Land Environment Court, so when the Land Environment Court became that consent authority, Council commenced a process whereby we are obliged to file a document, what is known as a statement of facts and contentions. So what are we arguing about, effectively? And staff had certainly identified that issue of a lack of owner's consent at that particular point in time. However, as we progressed through the Land Environment Court process, Council, through its solicitors, our in-house counsel has reviewed this, agreed with the lawyers of the proponent that the community management statement was effectively sufficient for providing owner's consent and wasn't necessary.

So as a result of that, it's clear to staff and all of our legal advice, and indeed the Land Environment Court in then making a judgment on the development application, that explicit consent of the Tallawood Owners Association wasn't required for the development application. So now what you have before you, councillors, is the reality that those dwellings have been approved, okay? What we are facing is the question of whether you should amend the local environmental plan to permit a smaller lot size than what is currently permissible. That's what we're dealing with at this particular point in time. I think, you know, in terms of some commentary around good governance and, you know, use of our planning powers, the reality is, councillors, you're operating under a legal framework under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The matters to do with the development application are not relevant to the matter that you've got before you with respect to the planning proposal. So I think we're at a point where we all have to acknowledge that the Land and Environment Court has approved that development application, and what we're now dealing with is a separate sort of piece of work around what's the appropriate subdivision mechanism at this point.

Thank you, General Manager. Councillor Sheedy, you had more to say, was it? Any other speakers?

Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I am disturbed, really, and you all know that I'm a practical person. I have no time for fancy language. I have no time for legal words or whatever. I use common sense. My questions are, before I go further, when this matter being brought before the council, how did it go ahead, and who was present and who voted for and against? That was before my time, and if you remember last time when we discussed, I directly asked you a question. I said, why all this haggling and court cases, solicitors and upsetting people? These people are coming in here, some of them retired people, you know, going through, you know, all these things. Why couldn't they, you know, just sit down at the beginning? And

So did you want that question answered?

Yes. My question is that last month I voted, and I admitted here I was misled, and I'm not very happy. And when the rescission motion was put by Councillor Zampronio, I really didn't know what to do. I have met both parties. I'm not a detective, but when I was asked, you know, to come and sit down, I discuss, and I don't discuss the details with anybody else. Now,

Your question about when did Council make this decision, did you want that one answered?

Well, I'll jump from there, you know, to something else. I'm disturbed. Well, you don't want it answered. The email I received this afternoon, apparently there is some kind of a threat.

It doesn't say confidential, so I'm sure that, you know, everybody in this room has it. And I don't know what are we going to do. I mean, is this Hitler's Germany? Is this Wild West? If you don't agree with me, so I have to shoot you. So whoever made the allegation must come in here and say what? Who made such threat? And if there was no such threat, then that person, you know, should be thrown the book at his face. So I really don't know what to do. Mr Deputy Mayor.

Do you want your questions answered or not?

Well,

I

Don't know your questions, but, you know, this is how I feel. I don't know where to go from here.

Not my questions, your questions. You asked, when did this matter come to Council?

That's right.

Would you like that answered?

Well, I wasn't here. I only joined about a year ago.

Yeah, well, you'd like an answer. General Manager, do we have an answer?

Through you, I might need to take that one on notice unless Mr Johnson knows from the DOJ was approved.

Thanks, Councillor. I mean, if you are referring to the original— sorry, Councillor, if you are referring to the original development application, that was determined by the Land and Environment Court.

If you're referring to the original development application for the construction of the seniors' housing development, that was approved by the Land and Environment Court.

That's the first application, so that's the application for the construction of this development. And so that was approved by the Land and Environment Court on the 15th of November 2022. It was not presented to Council. It was a matter that was subject to a Land and Environment Court decision. So

It was made behind closed doors, is that what you're telling me?

It went through the Land and Environment Court process. You know, there were residents who attended the Section 34 conference, for example.

I don't know that Section 34 or 35. Has any one of these people have been notified about what was happening? Yeah

I'm happy to take that question, Councillors. So in the advice that was distributed this afternoon, within that advice was a note that— The Tallawood Community Association and its residents were notified of the development proposal when it was initially lodged. The matters raised by the residents in response were then considered and Council summarised these issues. The Section 34, the conciliation conference, was held as part of the court proceedings. Council solicitors advised the residents of the Tallawood Association and invited them to attend that conference, so they were invited, which was held remotely on Zoom. So that would have been the meeting that Mr Duncan attended. Mr Duncan appeared on behalf of the Tallawood Community Association, and the court notes from that, from the acting commissioner confirmed that Mr Duncan did appear on behalf of the association.

Thank you, Madam. My question is that when Mr Steve Duncan, when he said

That it was—we confirmed that it was a Zoom

Meeting, and he apologised. I think, you know, he told us that, you know, maybe he couldn't understand. I don't know whether we should give him or give the community another chance to come and to tell us, you know, what actually had happened, what else he wanted to say, because we've got a basket, you know, two baskets in here, you know, this way or that way. But my real question is that I'm very much worried with the threat made. That's what I'm asking in question: who made that threat? You know, where did it come from? Who is doing what? I mean, if I disagree with anybody in this room or with the fellow councillors in any kind of motion, does that mean that I'm going to hit them or use force in any way? I

Want to find out about that. Councillor Dogramaci, getting off the topic a bit here, I think— People threatening each other is a terrible thing, but it didn't happen here, and here tonight we are discussing something very different to that. So if you want to bring that up, bring it up later on, but not here tonight with this topic, please. Does I, you understand that? We're discussing here whether to rescind the motion from last month. That's what we're discussing. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to talk?

A couple of questions, if I may, Mr Deputy Mayor. So a portion of Lot 6, which is owned in community title and therefore subject to the Community Land Development Act of 2021, will be transferred to Lot 1 under this plan, is my understanding. Is it the staff's assertion that that land can just be transferred to Lot 1 without the owner's consent?

General manager.

I'll refer to the acting manager, strategic planning.

Yes, Councillor, the land will be dedicated to be part of Lot 1, and that will go through a title transfer. In a normal case scenario, there should be a conversation between both parties because it's a transfer of land. And obviously it's understandable that the management of that piece of land has to be under some organisation. So in an ideal situation, there should be conversation between both parties before the land is transferred as being

Part of Lot 1. I don't understand what conversation means in that context. Can I have a reference from the Act to say how that land is, the legality of the transfer of that land from a community title lot to a lot that is going to be subdivided for the private use and private profit of the developer in question? So

Just to respond to that, that would be subject to the development application for subdivision.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have any more questions?

Yeah, I do. Another question. So,

Can the land then just be added to the community title with double the amount of people using it and the services on it? And here I refer particularly to the roads and the sewer and the other services on that lot without the owner's consent. Is that Council's contention?

The community management statement gives particular rights to the developer, okay, and lot six is a development lot. In terms of adjusting the community association, the community lot, the entitlements of that lot, that would be subject to particular agreements being in place. Now, again, that would be something that would need to be demonstrated as a part of that development application

Councillor Wheeler ? I'll pause. Thanks. Pause

Any further discussion? Councillor Dogramaci?

Yes, I have two questions. One of them, again, I'm going back. When you said that, you know, we are discussing something else in here, what if I have been threatened to use my vote for or against, and if I've been put under pressure to this, are we going to wait for it, like you suggested? And the second question is that,

What if I joined.. . Councillor Zamprono, and then what will happen?

What do you mean, joined?

Well, vote alongside with Councillor Zamprono. Then what? That's your choice. It's not a matter of choice. I'm asking then what? We have to invite them back again? Do we have to spend, or people have to spend, thousands of dollars again? Then what?

We'll see how the vote goes and see what comes out of it . I can't predict what the council's going to decide. With

Your experience in this business more than anybody else?

My experience is that I can't predict what the council's going to decide. We need to wait and see. In terms of threatening, if you feel that you've been threatened, then that's a police matter. This is not a court of law. This is a council.

Shall we call in some security people?

If you feel threatened, then you should follow it up. I agree with you. But I'm not a chief constable, okay? Any further discussion? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor . This item has caused a lot of angst, and it just seems to me that we've gone around in circles and we're back now to where we were a month ago. I'm just going to ask a few questions, just so I'm absolutely clear about where we're at now. Both Councillor Wheeler and St Progno have made some assertions about the improper process that they think has occurred and that- Their understanding is that consent should have been given for this transfer from lot 6 to lot 1. So it's my understanding that there is no requirement for consent at this stage of this planning proposal. Is that correct?

I'm sorry to labour this, but I just want to be absolutely sure. Yes

That's correct.

Thank you. So if the people that are in the gallery tonight are concerned about whether they will get an opportunity to have conversations with what it will mean in the next stages of this process, if this gets accepted to go to Gateway, in the next step of the process, will the residents that own lot 1 in Tallawarra get an opportunity to have their say, give their consent or not

Sorry. I

Apologise for conferring with some staff. That's

Fine, because this has been

Around, I want to make sure

I'm on the right track.

Yeah, please. I refer to the senior town planner. Thank you.

Should a development application be received, the application will be notified and residents and other affected people would be able to provide comment and we would review those submissions.

Thank you. And in terms

Of the planning proposal, Councillor, once the planning proposal is submitted for gateway determination, we receive the determination, there will be an exhibition period under section 3.34, and that's when we will be sending out letters to the adjacent and all affected neighbours, and that's when they have the opportunity to put in their support or objection towards the planning proposal. Okay, that's an

Interesting one because that will be in the next stage of this, what's happening in this particular item that we are looking at now .

So that won't have to do with the additional maintenance issues. That's further down the track. This is about whether this is a good idea for the LEP to be changed, because that's all we're doing here. If the LEP is changed, that doesn't necessarily mean that this will happen. It will just mean that it will be enabled. Yes . I think that that is a really important point that I think everybody has to understand. I think that some of the commentary that has occurred in this chamber tonight has muddied the waters. I don't think that there is as many issues around this particular item that we need to make a determination on. I think the issues that might come in the next stages of this planning will be when people can have their say.

I can't see that there has been any change in the last month , other than a lot of people getting a lot of information from people that probably don't know anything about the process. That's unfortunate, but that's where we're at. And I think that I'm satisfied that this proposal should go ahead as it did last month. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Sheather, question ? Speaking . Mr.

Deputy Mayor, what's the implication towards council if the proposal is rejected? What's the process that may happen after that, for instance

You mean if we don't amend the LEP?

I can tell you that the development will still go ahead

Look, the substance of it is, from our discussions with the proponent, is there are a number of other alternatives for achieving a very, very similar outcome, as we understand it. What I might just rely on the advice of the staff is, should council effectively not make a decision, so we're asking you tonight to send the planning proposal to get a gateway determination from the Department of Planning . Should you either make a decision not to do that , that would then open up other avenues. I just wanted to consult with the staff about what sort of rezoning review rights that the proponent might have, and through the Department of Planning and other independent bodies. But we're at a point where it's going to be in the applicant's hands, I guess, as to whether they wish to come about the outcome in a different way. But I might just ask Sonella

So in the event if council doesn't support this planning proposal at this stage, the applicant has the option of going through the rezoning panel. Just like the applicant went with a DA to the Land and Environment Court, he can go to the Department of Planning and they have a rezoning panel, and he can put this matter to them, and they will then make a decision for the planning proposal.

Anything further? I might try and clarify a few things if I could. First thing I wanted to say was that Council did not approve this development. Council refused the development through what's called a deemed refusal . A few people here tonight have said, how could Council have approved this? Well, Council didn't approve it. We never did. When it was deemed refusal, the applicant or the owner took it to the Land Environment Court. The Land Environment Court disagreed with Council and said, yes, it should be approved, and they approved it. And now we have that development, and it's going to go ahead no matter what Council says or does. It's already been approved by the Land Environment Court.

What we're discussing here tonight is whether the area in question should be allowed to be subdivided . Subdivision just means that the people who live there actually own the properties; they don't rent them. So at the moment, that area could go ahead with a whole lot of properties that people could rent, and that could go ahead, and you can't really stop that either. But to go to that stage, the first thing that's got to happen is the owner has to put in a development application. So if this goes through tonight, the owner then can— oh, sorry, I'll go back a step. If this goes through tonight, the Gateway process will come back and seek public consultation from everyone who's interested about whether the LEP should be changed.

All the public will have the ability to give their opinion on that. After that, the next stage is the— Owner puts in a development application and says, I want to put in this subdivision. If they do that, then that also comes back to here, comes back to you for public consultation. Once again, you'll all be invited to participate at that stage as well . That's the process that has to be followed. Tonight, we're not discussing whether the development should go ahead. That's already been decided. I saw that

Councillor Wheeler said that we should withdraw our approval of this development, and we've actually never approved this development. Land Environment Court approved it. And Councillor Sam Brogno said that we should have another meeting, we should defer before making a decision about the proposal. And I didn't get all his words, but he was talking about the proposal to have the development, I believe. The only thing we're discussing here tonight is whether to resend the motion that was put up last month. The motion last month was to send this to the Gateway process. If it goes through the Gateway process, then the owner can put in an application for subdivision. We are not here tonight approving the subdivision.

That's not on the agenda, and we're not here approving the development. All we're looking at is sending it to Gateway to change the LEP so that the applicant might, if they want to, put in an application for subdivision. I believe a subdivision gives the people who live there the chance to own their dwellings. I don't believe we should be making it so that seniors can only rent their dwellings. That to me is You retire to one of these places. You have to rent it, and then when you die, you don't own the property. You've got nothing to hand on to your family. If you own it, it's a much better position for those people to be in, and that's why I personally would like to see the area subdivided so people can own it.

But that's down the track. We're not even discussing that tonight, okay? But this is the first step to allow those sort of things to happen. A lot of people have been making a lot of noise on Facebook and elsewhere about how could Council approve this development. Well, I'll get back to where I started. Council did not approve this development. Council refused it, okay? Land and Environment Court approved it, and we're all stuck with it, whether we like it or not. What we need to do now is make the best out of the situation, and all we're asking in this tonight is, do we rescind last month's motion that we send it to the Gateway process to allow the LEP to be changed. That's all we're discussing tonight.

I won't go over that again. Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. Let's really clarify what we voted on last time and what we are rescinding here. Council voted to support the planning proposal with the addition of a clause that, and I read from the business paper, enables amalgamation of the remainder of the land with Lot 1, DP 270827, to create an association property for the entire seniors living development within the meaning of the Community Land Development Act 2021. Now, I refer to that Act, which expressly states that— The transfer of land under Clause 25.3(c) must be accompanied by a certificate under the seal of the association to which the land is to be transferred to the effect that acceptance of the transfer was authorised by special resolution.

We do not have that information. We are being told that the residents now have to wait in limbo until the DA stage. Now, I don't think that that is the spirit of the community of the Act in question, and I find that I'm frankly dismayed that Council would proceed in that fashion. I'm also dismayed that we are just basically being presented with this as some sort of box-ticking exercise to get

Us in— Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Can I— I'm just a bit worried that Councillor Wheeler has brought up new information in her right of reply, new information that I would like to ask questions about.

Yes.

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, I didn't want to interrupt you, but I don't know what you're talking about, so— and I'd like to get staff, the comments from staff—

Okay, we're up to right of reply, so Councillor Wheeler, can you restrict yourself to commenting on things that have been said here already tonight, please? I

Have, Mr Mayor. I am addressing your comments that Council did not approve this development, that in fact all Council did was send it to Gateway. That is not the case.

Well, I could argue with you on that, but— Well

I'm sure you might, but it's my right in right of reply, as is defined by right of reply, to reply to your comments, and I am by referencing the Act that is referred to in the motion that Council passed. So forgive me if that appears to be new information, but had Councillors actually read what they were approving, it wouldn't be that much of a surprise. The issue here is

What happens is around ownership and consent, and this incredibly volatile emerging concern that we have from residents. It's clear that this is a volatile situation, and it's going to escalate if proper consideration of both sides isn't undertaken. There are clear anomalies between the community association's understanding and the proponent's representation, and the proponent is expecting his side to be taken at face value. We can't take the words of a developer, any developer, over the words of the community, of a community group of title owners who really appear to be quite confused about what is going on with a piece of land that they own. As responsible decision makers, it behoves us to ensure that we understand exactly what's going on here, and we must not proceed any further until all the issues around the original approval are clarified.

We've been presented with information that the staging that has been used to justify this proposal, particularly to justify it to the Land and Environment Court, is not consistent with what the actual owners of the site understand they have bought into, and that is really concerning. What we've got is duelling solicitors and not enough time to consider the information that's been given to us. These emails that came to us with additional information came at half past three this afternoon, three hours before most of us have to get here. That's too quick for us to consider this information properly. We've got a court finding existing consent, but no subdivision approval. We've got the people who own the property saying that they didn't consent.

We've got a certificate of title that says that Lot 6 is included. What we need is a fine detailed consideration of what the stages were, what the approval was, where Council stands with this approval. And can I go back to the assertion that Council refused this development? Council did not refuse this development. There was no determination by council staff for this development. It was deemed a non-refusal. It was a deemed refusal because of the time expended sitting in council. That's the very definition of a deemed refusal. It's not a refusal. It's a non-refusal. We're being led up the garden path here, and all we are asking for is for time to draw breath and really understand what council is approving in this change, yet another bloody change to our LEP that we all sat here repeatedly and said we would not allow any more spot rezonings to.

And yet here we are back again.

I am incredibly frustrated by this process. I am incredibly frustrated with the speed that we have been asked to deal with the information before us. This is not responsible decision-making.

Thank you. I'll put the motion now. I'll put the motion, Councillor Dogramaci. Yes

I'll be very, very brief.

No, you can't be brief. Why not? We already had right of reply.

Well, she has.

She had right of reply because she moved the motion.

I think they should deserve another chance.

No, this is the process, Councillor Dogramaci. Well

I'll be supporting Councillor Zamprogno.

We're about to put the motion, okay? The motion is that we rescind last month's motion. If you think last month's motion should be rescinded, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Djuric , Councillor Dogramaci. If you think last month's motion should not be rescinded, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert . Mr

Deputy Mayor, I'm Councillor Wheeler and I did not have my hand up. Sorry? I think you need to go back through the names

For the record. Councillor Reardon. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Sorry, that's four votes all. I'll declare the motion lost on the casting vote of the Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

If we could get the missing councillors back, please

Okay, thank you everybody. The next item subject to public address is item 6.1.4, loss of street trees in Bligh Park. Councillor Conolly.

I'll declare a pecuniary interest because I own a property on Porpoise Crescent, which is one of the streets being discussed.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll wait till you leave the room.

Okay, he's left the room. Councillor Wheeler.

I thought there was a speaker listed, Madam Mayor

Oh, sorry. That's exactly what we're doing. Thank you. We do have a speaker registered to speak,

Rebecca Thorne. Thanks. Hi, I'm just here just to voice my concern about the removal of the street trees in Bligh Park, and just speaking for the recommendation that's been put forward for Council to provide an appropriate streetscape plan for my suburb, or our suburb. We've recently had many trees cut down on Porpoise Crescent, which is a main thoroughfare and some also in Peter Place, with no intention of replanting, according to the arborist that I spoke to that was responsible for the trees being cut down. So approximately 10 years ago, all the trees were removed, all trees were removed on the east side of Porpoise Crescent due to the roots impacting the footpaths, and we were told at the time that appropriate street trees would be planted in their stead, but nothing eventuated.

There's been a large planting of trees in the gully parallel to Porpoise Crescent, and as beautiful as they are, they won't do very little to shade roads, footpaths or homes. As we all know, temperatures are regularly reaching into the high 30s and it's getting hotter, and we all know the cooling effect, along with providing much-needed habitat for our fauna that trees provide. Also, with the shade, with the loss of the trees goes the shade to the homes, hence the increase in using air conditioners and cooling appliances, and also the increase in water for lawns.

I've recently been to nearby councils where I see many streets with large amounts of trees that have been replanted and feel saddened by the fact there seems to have been so little thought given to the future beautification of my suburb. And I really do hope that in conjunction with council and the community working together, we can rectify this situation. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Ms. Thorn, for coming in and speaking to us. If council provided small trees, would you and your fellow residents be willing to care for those trees?

I don't see why not. Like, I'm just speaking on my behalf, but I have had other folks, like through our community Facebook page, and that say that they would love to. But then when I rang council because we were told that there will be no replanting. It's that simple. So when I asked whether we could actually do that and fund it ourselves, we had to lodge an application. That may probably not be approved, but if it was, we would be responsible for purchasing and also for taking care of the trees. Sorry ,

So you were told that if you wanted to plant a tree in your nature strip—

We had to lodge an application, but it was suggested to us that, because there was one particular tree that was taken off the front of my main street strip, one was left. Yeah, one was left, but we were asked whether we could replant an appropriate tree because the trees that are there were not appropriate. The arborist admitted that the ones that were planted many years ago on my side of the street were not an appropriate choice. So we said even if we consulted with council, lodged an application to put a tree in, then it may or may not be approved, sort of thing. And we said that we would be happy to fund that and look after it, but that didn't seem to be— He made the suggestion we put it on our land instead of putting it on the nature strip.

So to me that indicates that it's more of a maintenance issue as far as looking after the trees. Yeah, that indicates a maintenance issue because if it's on our property or if on home owner's property, then it's not a council's problem. It's not council's problem. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Sorry. I'll second. Oh, thank you. Two are jumping in

Move the motion in the business paper, Madam Mayor.

And Councillor Lyons-Buckett seconds that.

Do I find it? Yep.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, I'm just struggling to find the right page in the business paper, which serves me right for having the electronic version and saving the paper. So I put this notice of motion is fairly straightforward. I put it in response to a number of people who contacted me because they were really upset. I've actually had people on the phone in tears and many email messages and Facebook messages, and I guess that's the— What

Happens when you're the Greens councillor is that if there's a tree issue, it's yours. People are really upset about the loss of these trees with what they, with—and it's not just the loss of the trees that they're concerned about. It's—and some of them admit that the trees were dead or dying or inappropriate. The species selection was inappropriate. What they're concerned about is that there's no plans to put these back, so that once these trees are gone, they've lost that tree canopy and the shade and the beautification of their streetscape. This is an area with a lot of hard standing and much smaller blocks than some of the other suburbs in the Hawkesbury, where people can use their own space to plant a larger tree.

That nature strip space in Bligh Park is precious because of the limited land there. So the concern is not just around taking out trees that aren't working anymore. The problem is with the fact that council has no plans to put them back. And I think that's made very clear by the note from management that we actually don't have any plans to put them back, and we've put it in the too hard basket and the too expensive basket. I really dispute the idea that it's going to cost us a thousand dollars per tree to put this back. It would be very easy for us to facilitate, and as we've just heard from Ms Thorn, facilitate the community planting trees. We have a community nursery. They've got a bucket load of trees.

Some of them might even be appropriate for street trees. They're all local endemic species. They should stand up to climate change and insect attack. Why don't we just give everyone a tree, and if they need it, the loan of a shovel, and get these plants in the ground? The faster we plant them, the faster they'll grow and the faster they'll provide habitat, shade and a nice place for these people to live. In fact, the — The cost per tree, I think, overstates the cost of planting the tree and understates the value of the tree. There are many studies that value trees. The latest shows that a decent-sized street tree is worth around $43,000 in value to the people who live in that community in terms of shade, reduced air conditioning use, increase in land values, etc.

What this also highlights is the likely canopy loss due to climate change and the increasingly problematic weather events, and I think that's something that Council needs to take quite seriously as well. If these trees are dying because the soil is waterlogged, we're going to see more of this, and we have to have a plan. Taking them all out and just going, Oh, that was sad, is not a plan. By the time we get an audit, places like Bligh Park will have no trees left, and that's not what I want for the LGA that I represent or live in. Smaller trees are actually better than planting larger trees in these instances. They grow faster, they have much better root growth, which makes them more resilient to weather extremes.

We can use local endemic species and engage with the residents to care for them. We also need a succession plan for our street trees, and again, removal and looking sad is not a succession plan. We need to have a plan to start subbing out these species so that we're not looking at full-scale removal across whole streets. We've got here a list of reasons why Council has removed the canopy with no clear plans to replace it in one of our hottest areas and our most densely populated. And I'm really quite dismayed by this defeatist attitude. If this was a sports ground, we'd find the money in a heartbeat. But because it's just the general health and comfort of the residents here, as well as their visual amenity in one of the most populated towns, apparently we can't find the money.

It's also not consistent with our environmental sustainability strategy that's before Council this evening. So I urge Councilors to support this so that we can act to start replacing these trees, but also to get a plan to increase the canopy across the LGA. We are well below the 40% target. in our urbanised areas that's stipulated by the State Government.

Thank you, Councillors. Oh, no, sorry. No, sorry. Thank you, sorry. We have to, under the code of meeting practice— no, I'm sorry. Unless anyone wants to hear. Is anyone opposed? No , that's fine. Yeah, thank you. Councillor— no, thank you very much. Thank you. We are continuing with the Councillor debate. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I just ask staff when they think— it says in the later notes from management under this item that it is intended that we have a street tree audit, which will be the first stage of developing a broader urban street tree plan. Could I get an indication from staff when that might be on the agenda, please? Who'd like to— okay, Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Kotlash, there is a briefing scheduled, I think, for next week looking at the urban canopy greening strategy that sets out or proposes to set out a number of recommendations, including the work referred to in the note by management. I'd suggest that it is an activity for next year's operational plan, the actual audit. However, noting that we have put it out to market twice, we have the budget there to do it, and we've been unsuccessful in finding a suitably qualified company to do that work, to undertake that audit and develop that plan for that amount.

So that means that it's not on the cards for at least until 2020. The second half of 2024.

Through you, Madam, no, second half of this year.

Oh, this year.

Okay. 2023-2024.

Okay, okay, okay.

I'd like to move an amendment, if I could, please, that we ask Council to bring

Forward the audit, if we can, for the whole of the LGA.

Oh, sorry, I'll ask another question. Is the audit separate to the urban street tree planning that you just referred to?

The strategy. It's a recommended action out of the strategy.

Right, okay. Thank you.

No, I won't put that amendment. I'll just talk to this one. I don't think that I'm going to support this because I think that

It is a better idea to get an idea of the street tree environment and the characteristics of our street trees through the rest of the whole of the LGA, if that's possible. I find this sort of just— Particularly concentrating on one suburb, even though it might come out in an audit as being the most appropriate and the most , it might be the best one to do first. But I think we have to, if we're spending ratepayers' money, I think we have to base our decisions about where to start and what to do, I think we have to base that on some data and some plan. I don't really accept the first point that notes that the community is angry. Well, that may very well be the case, but I don't think there's any, I don't think that that is a thing that I would , I'd be saying yes they are because I have no knowledge of that.

It seems to me from the management note that there was people that were actually concerned about the trees dying and causing public safety issues, so I don't think that that's necessarily to do with anything. Acknowledging the loss of wildlife habitat, tree canopy and shade in the area, I think that's, you know, that's something that the urban tree street canopy plan will have to address, and I think that's legitimate. I don't think that we

Can actually, we can actually say what is a suitable local endemic tree if we haven't done the audits and we haven't figured out why these trees are dying. I think we have to do this from a much more strategic base. I'm not really happy to support this, but I am happy to support an urban tree plan, but just not in this fashion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler, for bringing this forward. I think that this is a very concerning issue. I can understand, I believe there is community anger and concern at the removal. I've also been contacted and have also noticed the anger that people have been expressing, which we all should probably notice if we're keeping an eye on the community and what they're saying. I think that in this case, well , probably I really feel the concern from Ms. Thorn because probably one of the reasons I sit here today is because a number of years ago, in the early hours of the morning, the council came and removed all the street trees from Kurrajong. They just came and they chopped them down.

And so that led to a lot of angst in that community and within here. I wasn't on council for another few years after that, but it began a lot of watching what goes on and getting involved in community things. And what that did was it stripped away the character of that place and it stripped away the shade from a very hot location. And after that time, of course, the council did street tree policies. They committed to replacing trees. They did all of this sort of thing, and that's a long time ago. So obviously that does need updating. But I think in this case, it's about replacing what that particular location has lost. And I don't think we do have to wait for another strategy to be able to replace what has been taken from those people in that community.

It's very hypocritical of us if we go on to vote for an environmental sustainability strategy in a moment, when that comes up, which actually contains within it a commitment to greening our streets, to cooling our streets, to looking after our environment here and to making sure that we're addressing the impacts of climate change to the utmost that we can do. It's very critical that we act on this. We don't have time to always wait for a strategy. It's getting hotter all the time, and these people have been left exposed. The habitat of the animals in those locations have gone. Now, sometimes trees have to go, but every time a tree has to go from a street in this local government area, there should be replacements.

That is the simple fact of the matter. And how that's done, I think we have to move on these things. I'm really concerned in here that we're dropping the ball on the commitments we have to our residents. We spend so much time going around doing announcements about things and jumping up and down and going on about other projects that we've got money for, that we're forgetting that we have core functions in this place that we have to address and that we have to deal with. And when our residents are asking for us to do something, we have to look at it. We can't just push it down the road all the time. It's crucial that we deal with replacement of street trees. There's so many strategies we've said we're committed to, and I think that we should be able to replace something that Council has taken out because clearly it's important that we do that when we're saying that that is a commitment of this Council.

Councillor, Councillor Sheather.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Two questions of Councillor Wheeler. The first one, the commentary she gave doesn't sit with point three where , excuse me, we've got commitment of replanting and then identify funding. If we're having a briefing next week about this across our city, it would be prudent to include Bligh Park in that, or certainly suggest to the staff that we look in conjunction with Bligh Park. But I'm not prepared to support it as it is. It's only 29,000, if we're only replacing 29 trees, but there's 12 of us around here. If we come 29,000 each, it's not in our budget to do that. There's a process we need to go through, and Council lines budget expressed that very well just a second ago.

So I don't know whether Councillor Wheeler is prepared to change that, but the question is, is she, on the basis that we look at it as part of an ongoing program? And I don't care if it's in there as a priority, but to commit to funding and looking at a particular part of our city in isolation to others, I don't agree with. That's the first question. Well

Councillor, if Councillor Wheeler does not want to amend the motion in that regard, you can put up an amendment.

No, I don't.

Would there be an appetite, Councillor Wheeler, to have a look at this in the budget process?

Well, I think we would have to look at this in the budget process. That's the point of putting the motion forward, is that we identify funding sources to achieve this. That's what that means. I didn't imagine that we would be handing around the hat and each chipping in 20, you know, a couple of grand on its way past. And I really dispute

This thousand dollar figure. Thank you, Councillor. Please

Continue. That's not what I was suggesting. And the second question is, I was wondering what was suggested by Councillor Wheeler, and she does it often in relation to sport, that we get it as a matter of course, and whatever the answer is

I'd like to know exactly what she's talking about, because I don't know about it, and I'd like staff to clarify what her answer might be. We won't

Be going in a debate back and forth, but I thank you for putting your remarks on the record.

Very much so. I didn't do it last year. I only intend to take it

This year. Thank you, Councillor. But if you did want to move an amendment and you had a seconder, you're very welcome to. Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else? Councillors and Progno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of questions. In terms of the trees that were removed from Bligh Park, were the stumps ground?

Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I'd have to take that on notice. I do recall seeing a photo with the stump that looked as though it had been ground, but I'd have to take that on

Notice. Okay then. My next question arises from a principal… Called , It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. If a resident went to a piece of public land, which was previously the location of a tree, and planted a similar tree, would that be illegal? Would it be removed? I mean, okay, what we're talking about is whether council endorses or assists or resources this process. But if a resident went to a public nature strip where there had previously been a tree and planted another suitable tree, and then undertook to look after it from the goodness of their own heart, we wouldn't go and tear it out, would we? I'm just wondering what people are able to do out of the well of common sense that all Hawkesbury citizens naturally possess. That is a question.

Thank you. I'll just refer to Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor. Look, I wouldn't speculate what regulatory response council may or may not do in response to a complaint or otherwise becoming aware of an activity on the nature strip, keeping in mind that the nature strip is a road and under section 138 of the Roads Act, it is illegal to undertake works in the road without the approval of the roads authority, which council is.

So Hawkesbury residents should do it at midnight. I didn't say that.

Any other councillors wishing to speak? Deputy Mayor. Oh,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm just wondering whether the councillor Wheeler would consider just deferring this to the briefing session next week when we're actually going to discuss the whole business of the urban street tree plan. And if she likes, you could make it so that when we discuss it, Bligh Park is given priority or something. But I think it'd be silly for us to move about Bligh Park this week and then next week discuss our whole urban street plan. So I was wondering whether Councillor Wheeler would like to consider that.

Would you consider that, Councillor?

I can't see anything in this notice of motion that is inconsistent with an urban tree plan, apart from the fact that we are talking about replacing some species that have— some plants that have already been removed. So I can't see that they can't coexist, particularly when we have yet to identify the funding to achieve it. I'm happy for this to be part of the discussion and to add a point five that the issue of the removal of— the issue of the replacement of street trees in Bligh Park be considered in Council's briefing on the urban street tree strategy . But I don't see how points one to four are inconsistent with that.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Well, in that case I'd like to move an amendment, which is what I just said, that this matter be deferred to the briefing session on the urban street tree plan.

Second that. Second that. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Deputy Mayor.

Madam Mayor, we all realise that trees are important, and I want to see more trees. That's something I've been working on for many years, and I don't want to see what's happening in Bligh Park continue. But the problem is we need to do a bit of research and look at why these trees are dying. If the roots are being eaten away by something, we need to find that out. It's no good just sticking another tree in the hole and hoping for the best. This is a much bigger process, and we need to consider also what kind of trees we're going to put in. I think we need a long discussion on which trees provide the best canopy, which trees are more likely to survive in that situation, et cetera. And if we do that, then we'll have the best outcome for the people in Bligh Park.

But to just rush ahead now and try and stick a few trees back in the ground, I think that is poor policy. It's not going to solve our problem. We need to have a longer discussion, and there's one scheduled for next week. Let's do it then.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett on the amendment. Yes,

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment. I think the two things can coexist. The notice of motion is calling for a commitment to replant in that location with endemic trees and to engage with Bligh Park residents to ensure the right choice and ongoing care of street and park trees occurs. This is in an area where Council has just removed all their trees. I can't see why we have to discuss that at a briefing. We'll be discussing a tree strategy at a briefing, but why would we not proceed when we've been approached by people who've had this loss there? I just can't understand why people have a problem supporting that. Councillor Wheeler's notice of motion does not say that we're going out planting trees.

She's seeking to identify funding to do so and to commit to replace the trees that have been lost from that community. I really can't understand why we would just ignore this and simply have a briefing, because this is to a specific location. It would obviously be part of a strategy once the strategy was being undertaken, but this is a preliminary identification of a specific area that needs a particular response because of what the Council have done there. I really don't see why it would be fobbed off and just pushed down the road.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Anyone else wishing to speak on the amendment? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor, and thanks, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. That's exactly what this is. This is a commitment to replant these trees as soon as possible. It's not a commitment to spend $29,000 or $1,000 per tree. It's a commitment to replant. It's not a commitment to just go and stick the wrong tree back in a waterlogged hole. Nowhere does it say that. We have a highly skilled community nursery. who grow local endemic trees, who can advise Council and local residents, and they do it every week on what trees are suitable to plant where, many with seed harvested from those sites so that they are highly adapted to the places that they're being planted. They're cheap. Most of them cost $1.65. A dollar sixty-five.

And most people in Bligh Park have probably got a spade. It's not $29,000, is it? Instead, but that's too hard, it seems. That's just too difficult to allow our residents that amount of agency over the place that they live and for us to commit to. I'll happily purchase the trees and donate them if money's the issue. I'll dig the holes and put the trees into them if that's the problem. I'll help with the species selection. There is tons of information from highly respected research organisations talking about the appropriate street trees for use in a warming climate, and we're talking about an area where it got to 52 degrees measured outside the school in 2019. We haven't got time to kick this to yet another talkfest with the hope that we might get someone who can count how many trees we've got.

We need to stop counting and start planting. I don't know why this is difficult.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the amendment?

Know that I'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment as it appears on the board, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, sorry, just get here, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Cartlidge, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zamprogno.

The amendment now becomes the motion. Anyone else wishing to speak? Right of reply. Oh, sorry, Deputy Mayor.

I wish to speak on the motion. I've been accused of not caring about the people of Bligh Park, as have some of the other councillors, which is totally untrue. Of course we care about Bligh Park. What we're trying to do here is have an integrated process so that all the trees in the area in the whole LGA are worked out on a plan, and we don't just go willy-nilly out to the first person who says, Chop my tree down. Yes, we should get on with Bligh Park, and we should make that a priority. And when this goes to the briefing session, that's what we should be saying, all right? How do we make Bligh Park a priority in this process? And if the staff say, Look, we've got the trees available, let's do it straight away, then I'll be all for that.

But we really need to integrate it, and I'm finding that it's unfortunate that some councillors don't want to work with the whole of council on this matter through a briefing session. That's where this belongs, for all of us to work together on getting better trees and better outcomes environmentally.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, or we'll go to right of reply. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm a bit surprised by the selective use of briefing sessions tonight. That's quite remarkable.

What we're setting ourselves up for here with this failure to engage with the community is something that Councillor Zamprongno's really referred to, and that's the idea of gorilla planting. Now, I don't know that most residents know that they're supposed to fill in an application to plant a tree. I certainly wasn't. I've got six whoppers outside my place, and I didn't ask for permission for them. So, look, they've been there for 20 years. Make of that what you will. When you don't act, when the community clearly tells you that they want trees to be planted and they want them quickly because they're mourning the loss of the trees that they had, and the mourning the loss of nature is actually a real phenomenon.

That might come as a shock to some lovers of concrete, but it's a thing. What you end up with is gorilla plantings. So this idea that you will get some sort of controlled planting grand plan across the LGA is a furphy. What you'll get is hot, frustrated residents with their air conditioners cranked up. And those who can do it will just pick their trees at their whim, and they'll pick them based on all sorts of criteria that Council wouldn't necessarily want, like whether they have nice flowers or whether they grow fast. And you'll end up with trees that are really inappropriate for the space, trees that don't provide habitat, trees that are actually listed weeds, trees that foul gutters, trees that cause a slip hazard, and trees that have continuous work, usually by the...

by the energy companies to regulate their size. We don't need to do a great deal of research to whack a hundred trees into Bligh Park tomorrow. We really don't. Someone's done that work already. But by all means, let's go and have a talk fest while the residents of Bligh Park continue to swelter. Well done, Council. Well done.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vaigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Conolly is absent from the room. I declare the motion carried. The next item.

Subject to public address is item 6.1.5. Did anyone need— oh, sorry, I need to get Councillor Codling back in.

Okay, councillor's back in. Thank you very much. Item 6.1.5. Was— is there anyone who needed to declare an interest? Because I do, but I'm just wondering if there's anyone else. No, that was just me. Excellent. I'll read that out. My interest is less than significant non-pecuniary. As many people would know, I previously played no part in the discussion or adoption of the livability items due to my partner having a building in the main street of Richmond. However, as this component refers solely to Windsor, I have no conflict in the item and will be remaining in the room. I therefore call on the first speaker registered to speak tonight, Mr. Darren Pead.

Good evening, everybody, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak here tonight. I might point out this is the third time I've been at the council addressing this project, and I'm hoping this is going to be the last time because it is taking too long to get results in Windsor. So, for the people that don't know me, I own three buildings in the Windsor Mall, and I run three businesses from those buildings in the Windsor Mall. I've had a business in Windsor since 2005, so I've been involved in Windsor for the last 18 years. And I want to point out that the Windsor Mall is a huge success story. Despite the condition that it's currently in. So every week, thousands and thousands of people come to Windsor, visit the Windsor Mall, visit the river, visit Thompson Square, visit the train station, walk between the train station and Windsor Mall.

And that's thousands of people every single week, and it's been that way ever since I've had a business in Windsor. This is despite the fact that the Windsor Mall is currently in a pretty poor state. The maintenance has been almost non-existent in the last 18 years that I've been around Windsor. And we still get thousands and thousands of people visiting the Windsor Mall. You might ask, why do the people come to visit Windsor when it is in urgent need of attention? And I believe the reason people come to Windsor is because of the look and the feel that exists in Windsor. I've been involved in the livability program and the Windsor rejuvenation program since 2017. I was invited, I believe, by Councillor Wheeler right back in 2017, and I believe I had a lot of input in the original project.

But unfortunately, a lot of what I would like to have seen in Windsor was not included in the project. So on the 23rd of February this year, business owners and property owners in George Street were invited to the council to be given an update of what the latest proposal is for Windsor. And I must say that the majority of people did not like what they saw. I think what was pointed out, what was dished up to us at that meeting had many, many unacceptable errors. And , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I just listened to your very emotional talk about what happened in Kurrajong before you were a member of council, and one of the— to quote you, you said that when the trees were removed from Kurrajong, it stripped away the character of Kurrajong.

That was your words a few minutes ago. I believe the proposal that's been put forward for Windsor is going to strip away the character of Windsor, and I'm not prepared to sit back and let that happen. And there's a lot of business owners and property owners in Windsor that are not going to sit back and let the character of Windsor be stripped away. The other thing that Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, to quote you again, is that when the community asks for action, the council needs to act. So, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, here is your chance to do what you just said: to act and make some changes to the plan that's going to be put forward to Windsor.

This project that we've got is the first time since 1984, which is when the Windsor Mall was put in place. Now we're at the point in time where we've got the first opportunity since 1984 to do something absolutely outstanding and world-class for Windsor, and the plan that's been put forward so far is far from world-class and the best option for Windsor. I've been involved in Windsor, like, as I said, for 18 years, and there's a reason why I have a business in Windsor, and it's because I love Windsor, and I love the look and feel of Windsor. And I've travelled extensively around the world looking at historic and heritage towns, and there is so much world's best practice that we could put into Windsor that is currently not in the plan.

The gas lamps is one of those things. Windsor has the largest network of gas lamps in this entire country, and the heritage towns that I've been to around the world have similar gas lamps to ours. They are functioning gas lamps, and they've also supplemented those gas lamps with electric and solar-powered gas lamps. I went to a town in England called Malvern, and they have a hundred original gas lamps. When I say original, like lamps working on gas, and they also have hundreds and hundreds of electric and solar-powered gas lamps to supplement the gas lamps.

When we were shown the plan at this, just here we were, we were shown a video of what was going to happen to the Windsor Mall. I was horrified at what the plan was. There's a lot of—some of the things in there are good. I support some of the things that have been proposed, but overall I'm horrified at what the plan was. And I discussed that with the general manager, and the general manager told me that she didn't like the look of Windsor and it needed to be modernised. I don't believe that—

Mr. Pead, yeah, that has been discussed here, that that is not the case. But what I'm going to do regardless is wrap you up because your time has expired. And I'll just remind people that at the start of this meeting, we do say that you can't make any allegations or things like that about anyone in the room tonight. So just reminding people of the rules under our code of meeting practice. Were there any questions for Mr. Pead? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Pead, and thank you for quoting that. That is how I feel, but as you all do see, the majority of councillors didn't vote for what the community had presented us with. Regardless of that, what I'm hearing from you is your valid opinion, but I can't really see that translated into this notice of motion before us. Did you have a part in writing, putting this together, or I'm just not quite sure. You seem to be speaking about one thing, and then we've got a set of other things about birds and things like that here. Were you a party to this notice of motion?

Look, Les didn't ask me to. Contribute to the notice of motion, but he did ask me to support the notice of motion, and the notice of motion, I believe, is to make some changes to the existing plan for Windsor, which is what I'm speaking about.

Okay, sorry, it was just that I was getting from you that you were speaking about different things. That's okay, thank you.

Not at all

Thank you. Any further questions?

If I may, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for addressing Council. Is there a specific point that you're objecting to on the plan?

Yeah, there are several points I'm objecting to on the plan. A large percentage of the expenditure is to remove all the existing pavers from the Windsor Mall and replace them with new pavers. I don't believe that the existing pavers in the Windsor Mall are at the end of their life, and the sandstone sections of the Windsor Mall, I believe, add character to the Mall, and the fact that the gas lamps are proposed to be pushed to the side and taken from their existing locations and moved to the side of the Mall, I object to that. The Council in 1984 had a good plan of why the Mall was built the way it was, and I don't see why we need to destroy the way the Mall is now, but I totally support refurbishing and rejuvenating the Mall, but not changing the nature and the look and feel of the Mall.

Thank you, Councillor. One more question.

Thank you. Can I just address the truths, please, if I may? As a question. What was brought to Council in my term is the, I guess they're plane trees, have I got that right? Somebody can correct me if I'm not right. Right, the larger ones, and there were an issue with the alfresco dining because it sheds flowers and they're a hazard anyway. Are you proposing to keep those trees as a streetscape within the mall?

Look, I'm not an arborist. I'm not an expert on trees. The Windsor Mall needs trees. I'm sure Councillor Wheeler would agree. We've just listened to the last 10 minutes of talking about trees. The Windsor Mall needs trees. Exactly what type of trees, how they're maintained, etc. Look, I can't answer that. I'm not an expert on trees. All I know is the Windsor Mall needs trees.

All right, Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Peed, we met some time ago, and you mentioned about Gret Mall, on which I also have been there and I have spoken with the ladies. In fact, I searched for extra gas lights and I couldn't find them anyway. Now, last time that, you know, we went there some six, eight months ago, and we took some photos of those disastrous flower pots, if you remember. Although I have visited Windsor Mall on a couple of occasions, are they still in that dreadful condition, or did our Council, or did something, you know, have they replaced them? And also, you know, those benches, are they in the same condition or what?

Look, the Windsor Mall at the moment is in a terrible state of maintenance. The chairs are damaged. The chairs are dangerous. Some of the chairs have screws and bolts sticking out of them that actually cut people. The trees haven't been maintained for many, many years. The pavement, the pavers have not been maintained. So look, overall, the Windsor Mall is in a poor condition. Due to subsequent councils, including the current council, not carrying out thorough maintenance on the mall. I don't believe that, because of the state of the mall now, I just have a feeling that because of the state of the mall, it's easier to scrap it and start again, which is not the case.

Well, it cannot be, of course. I mean, you know the financial situation of the council. I don't think that, you know, it's—

I don't think that, you know, we should change the tiles. Maybe we should clean them and —

Councillor, may I remind you this is just a question, and you can make that commentary in your

Okay, I will do that, Madam Mayor. But whatever you do, whatever you are proposing, on behalf of the business people, I'm 100% behind you. Thank you, Councillor.

Any further questions? Councillors, I'm— Sorry, Mr. Paird, you're—

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Darren, for your trenchant support for the economy of Windsor and for the preservation of the heritage of Windsor. Our briefing note here says that, you know, that the current plan was developed after a great deal of consultation and planning.

Obviously

I've held similar concerns to you about the adequacy of that consultation and the ability of that consultation to engage business owners and take them on that journey. And I'm wondering how we got to this place. I mean, can you recall whether the consultation that took place at the very beginning, when we were first aware of receipt of this funding, did it engage business owners? I'm trying to work out whether I should be more supportive of the plan as it's been presented to us, because it was the product of consultation. Or not.

Okay, well, I guess there's two answers to that. Was I consulted personally, and was I part of the project? Yes. Were some of my suggestions and recommendations accommodated? Yes. Were some of the major recommendations and suggestions I put forward accommodated ? No. The other businesses, I know some businesses had some consultation, some businesses had no consultation. I speak to a lot of just about most of the business owners in Windsor, and a lot of them are still in the dark about what's happening. So I guess the answer is partly yes and partly no.

Councillor Djuric.

Thank you, Mr. Peat. You're very active in the business sector there in Windsor. I imagine you network with the other businesses regularly, is that correct?

Yes, all day,

Every day. Your general feel as a whole, do you feel the businesses on average were, they feel consulted? No. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Can we go the whole 12? No? All right. Thank you, Mr. Peat, for your contribution. Can

I just show this before I go. This is the local phone book that was just distributed around the town, and the front cover of the local phone book now has the Windsor Mall in its current format. Thank you, Mr. Peat

I now call on the next registered speaker, A. J. Papandrea.

I'm on. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight. Sorry for my faux pas and informalities. It's my first time. But I'll begin, of course, by championing what Mr. P just said, and of course what Ms. Templeman said in Parliament about this issue just last week. I support that idea of refurbishing Windsor Mall rather than modernising it. But I'm here in particular to speak more about Stage One of the project and to encourage you to support Councillor Sheather's motion to reconsider the elements of this project. Specifically, I can speak to Stage One of the plan because I own a heritage-listed building on George Street, just a stone's throw from here. I think you can actually see it from out the front.

You might know it as the old Hinchy and Cross building. It's an old pub from 1838, once known as the Royal Hotel. And despite owning a heritage-listed building and being a landlord for a thriving small business downstairs, at no point did I or my tenants receive any correspondence regarding this plan whatsoever. I only heard about the livability project when I began inquiring about the state of the bitumen out the front of my house, or as they call it in the UK, temporary bitumen, both because of its abhorrent state just out at the front of my place alone. There are two cracks which are 30 millimetres deep each and two potholes which I've had to fill myself. And of course, because it's a material that is entirely intended to be temporary.

And even then, when I did inquire about it, I heard about it from other locals. The current plans from Place Design Group on this matter are nonsensical . The livability project indicates that this bitumen that I've been repairing myself is acceptable to remain permanently, whilst the bricks on the south side of the street should be replaced with thinner modern pavers, which I think is rather hypocritical considering the bitumen frames a number of heritage buildings in this area that require council approval for changes in order to maintain their heritage beauty.

Upon speaking with the project leaders at the business information session last month, we could not entice a reasonable justification for this decision. Rather, the project leaders were uninformed or misinformed at best. I also brought up a tree that is planned to be planted in the permanent shade of my building, which is off-centre under my balcony, that according to professionals will cause significant damage to the timber and clay brick of my heritage building due to the heavy flow of water it will impede. My insurance company also tells me that this is something for which Hawkesbury Council will be liable. Considering the ideas and the expertise of the local residents and businesses in Windsor that could be utilised to improve this great town, I know that I speak for far more than just myself in saying that there was significant disappointment with the lack of community consultation for this project, and I of course hope that we can be included in the future.

Currently, I feel that the livability project will result in modernising a town that benefits most from its historic value, and as such, I'll end by urging you to support this motion so that we can at least reconsider the plans for this project. And thank you for the time to speak about this matter.

Thank you very much. I'll ask if there's any questions from councillors. You got off

Scot-free. Darren covered

It all. Thank you. Exactly. Thank you very much.

Okay, I'll now call on our third registered speaker, Mr. Noel Bridge.

How's that? Okay, I responded to Sarah recently, and prior to that I'd sent an email to all the councillors saying to work on giving us the biggest heritage result you can give us. Okay, so I said to Sarah in this little email, minimise disruption. This is what the community wants, and the businesses. And I have a historic house, 1841, that I own in the main street, and I'm also a tenant there. Minimise the disruption, especially up in the mall. By wisely using existing good structures and paving, replace areas of need with appropriate heritage materials, as was there. Create character of yesteryear with gas and electric heritage-style replica lamps. Replace the tar-sealed areas with solid brick or solid pavers, not granite, and appropriate colours.

Robust new or restored heritage chairs and tables. The rotunda and the pergola refurbishing and/or rebuild. Some of this I know is being done. Only trees that are a problem, i.e. the London plane trees, to go will be sorted, plus planting more trees along George to the railway. Not too many on corners because of sight lines to block traffic, which are very dangerous. Sandstone, preferred to be the stay, except for those that need repair or replacement. We need this delayed for the future of Windsor as a historic heritage precinct, meaning don't go ahead with what this modernisation is. We have seen many historic buildings pulled down in Windsor and Richmond to make way for new modern developments.

If these were trees, as Denny L would have said, we would have tied ourselves to them.

The same applies to the rustic character made up of bricks, sandstone, lights, old-style benches and tables. And of course, as you know recently, when they put the lighting of the lights up, people went mad, and that really convinced me beyond doubt that Windsor could be an amazing place to come. So I thought—no, hang on a second. So I thought, what was the problem with part of the decision-making in this process? And I thought maybe it was just the original vision. And then later on, I thought maybe there's more to this. What's the word heritage really mean? And so I had a bit of a look today on Google. Thanks, thanks for Google. And this is what came out, and I thought this was fabulous. And I think anybody who's interested in sustainability, anybody who's interested in the character and the atmosphere of your town and your locality should be able to really get hold of this.

So it says here, the ability to meet the needs of present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet theirs. Okay, that's sustainability. Okay, so just an example of cultural heritage: an expression of ways of living developed by a community, passed on from generation to generation. In addition to buildings, the definition of heritage span places, customs, practice, values and artifacts. And in terms of sustainability, according to recently published policy, it says here that it identified numerous advantages of heritage preservation can achieve in developing sustainable cities in hopes to demonstrate why communities must exert every effort to safeguard this non-renewable asset for themselves and for future generations.

And it gave some examples why. The wave of globalisation, and you'll see it in Box Hill and in Marsden Park, 225 square metre blocks of these little houses, right, right, is steadily eroding national identities and local cultures. Urban spaces have largely lost their sense of place and diversity, informed by their geographical, social, economic and environmental uniqueness. Conversely, heritage in its rootedness in centuries-old spatial practices can safeguard and nurture the cultural specifications of location and fend off the uniformity of global standards. In other words, the change in the way of modern, okay? And Windsor is one of those places. A little bit further. Climate. Historic buildings are climate-friendly.

So my building, for example, is very climate-friendly. You can go to a hot spot in the morning or a cool spot in the morning in my building, and it's got four windows in some cases, so you can get a breeze from any direction, other than the fact it's got big walls and other things like that. And it's two storey. We even get the air in the afternoon that you don't get on the street, except we do get pollution from cars. Preserving climate-responsive buildings. Okay? First, they employ passive design techniques such as optimal solar orientation, compactness, room layouts, as well as high insulation envelopes, right window sizing for locations, courtyards and other perfected building practices.

These techniques aim to improve building environmental performance, energy demand, and this is no different to the mall, right, and indoor air quality and personal health using natural daylighting, ventilation, etc. Now, I know we're not here about specifically buildings, but these things can be impacted up here. If you come down my end of town, there's no trees, right? It's pretty hot. You get up in that mall and it's magnificent.

Mr. Bridge, I'll just remind you your time's up. If you could just wrap up

One little bit. Thank you. Okay. Traditional architecture is much more than physical form; it embodies a complex web of communal meanings, values, beliefs, practices, traditions that have been cherished by many and passed on across generations. Therefore, recent best practices involve regenerating and converting these historic districts into areas where local cultural practices can be incubated, disseminated and even developed. Examples are cultural activities, programs includes art, craft, food products, culinary culture, theatre and performance, music and visual arts. I'm getting there.

You'll have to wrap up, Mr. Bridge. It's only fair that we give everyone the same amount of five minutes, so I'll get you to do one more sentence,

Please. So finally, what it also does, it actually enables employment and economic benefits. So the employment side of it is people want to come. The other thing is businesses will start and they'll employ young people. But on top of that, they'll have to have different skills to what other people have today, because it's a different type of business.

Thank you, Mr. Bridge. So we

Ask each councillor, because we're in your hands to some degree, even though you know that we are not totally, right, and we ask you to support the change to remaining in the heritage, doing all the corrections that need to be corrected, and change the whole thing so that this town becomes a very, very special place, even more than it is.

Thank you, Mr. Bridge. Any questions? Mr Bridge, would you be open to questions?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr Bridge. I think that's very true what you say about the heritage buildings. Of course, I know that to be true, and I think that's great. But that isn't what this notice of motion is about. Do you consider the points that are in this notice of motion address what you have just told us?

I think it does, because it's saying that although it wants to go ahead, for example, in the second one with the work there, but it wants some change. And in the first part it's saying, as far as I'm aware, that we want these things to remain and to be fixed. So, for example, if you have a, whether it be a building or whether it be an infrastructure thing like that mall, why? Because there's a few things that are wrong, would you wreck the whole thing and start again?

Okay. I'm just interested, do you consider that the mall, and I know you would have been around when it was put in in 1984, do you consider that to be of heritage value?

I think, well, put it this way, it's about, what can I say? If it isn't a heritage in terms of 200 years or 180 years, right, it's certainly got quite a few years on the board already. And the reality is that irrespective of, well, the materials, by the way, most of them would have been considered heritage-type materials. If anything, I would like to see where all those damaged ones are, that the beautiful new bricks in Richmond, right, which are more that heritage style, be put right in the middle of that mall. Okay,

Thank you. Just one other thing. What do you understand about modernisation? Is there something in Windsor that you would consider has modernised Windsor, particularly?

The bridge, perhaps? Of course. Yeah.

But so what? I mean, you know what I mean? What I'm saying there is we've seen so many buildings pulled down, right? A lot of them actually were sound buildings.

Yeah, I don't disagree at

All. I can remember seeing these buildings, right, in the old days and go, wow, that was a nice little building. Why is it gone, you know? But now it's getting—so Richmond, for example, has lost most of it . This is the last precinct.

It was the last precinct.

This is the last precinct, and we need to preserve it

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Mr Bridge, sorry, you can't go yet. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, just one, thanks. How many businesses do you have in Windsor?

I only have one business that I run, but I do have a building that's got four tenants as well, and I represent four owners.

Okay, I think that's finally over for you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Sheather.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Move your motion.

A question first, Madam Mayor. The motion that's before Council, I've spoken to councillors this evening, and there's issues that have been concerned to both the residents and myself in relation to how we might proceed with this. And I have a proposed motion. Would you accept that in— In lieu

Of this . Could you read that out for us, please?

Yep. It's the council expresses dissatisfaction with the current plans for the livability project in Windsor, one, and two, hold a briefing next week to discuss a way forward, including financial implications.

Do I have a seconder for that? Thank you, Councillor Reardon. Councillor Sheather, continue.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. The reason that I've changed the motion that is in the business paper, the residents are as concerned with the direction that we're going with this. It's late. There's financial implications. We don't want to miss out on money and the like, and that things need to be addressed. And the discussion I've had, not with all the Council, but certainly a few, I haven't been pushing a motion. We're discussing something that's really important to our city. And it seems everybody's got the same concerns, and we're looking for the best way forward. So the discussion that I'd be having next week would certainly be along the lines of the motion. But in saying that, we're responsible for what happens here and the outcomes, while we might feel they're important, there's a lot of people in this city that own buildings and businesses up and down George Street, that the outcome will have a

Big impact on. I start off , Madam Mayor, by tabling, there's about 32 bits of correspondence there. It's from businesses in George Street. When I was approached by a variety of people, not only from George Street, but South Windsor and Richmond, with concerns of what was happening to our city. I'd spoke to the then mayor, Councillor Conolly and Calvert before I was elected about my concerns with what I'd seen. And there was a public process and all that. So after that discussion, I was really fairly comfortable that this process would go to the community, and I didn't have to be that involved. I live at Ebenezer, not in George Street. And as it went on, it didn't seem to happen. And the information that I was getting from people, and it was all over the place, I suggested that there might be a survey of George Street.

Those thirty-odd are that. Now , I don't know exactly who did them and the like, but the questions are there. And one of them are, were you consulted in relation to the works proposed in Windsor either by Council or the consultants? And there's 29 of them, I think, that says no. And the ones that haven't said no, a lot of them— well, a lot of them, there's only a couple in there—that have had involvement with Council or staff, but it didn't seem to go anywhere from there. So it concerns me that when we're going to do so much to change the style of Windsor that it is, with the businesses that it's going to affect, considering that we've had a pandemic, drought, fires, floods. And individual councillors around this table, and the council itself, has gone to great lengths to support businesses in those environments that were impacted and hurting.

And it would seem to me, with what's being proposed, and without the consultation of the people it's going to affect, that we're going to do the same as those environmental impacts on the community had, that we're going to do the same. Some of those businesses will not survive when we close off more for periods of time to interfere with the very people that use them all to buy products and sometimes just visit Windsor. So, again, I go back to the discussions and the comments that have been made, and I

Think everyone that I've spoken to has concerns that there's a better way to do it. And I think if the councillors put their mind to it, that it can be done better. And that is that the things that are put in Windsor, or renewed, like the asphalt, for instance—now, I don't know whether it's practical, and that's why I had a motion that needs to be addressed and further investigated, because we've got a responsibility to council on how we spend the funds. There's implications anyway in how we spend the funds, and timelines and the likes. The staff can advise us what opportunities we have in that regard. And I'm sure with the discussion that's been had in our community over the last few months, I don't think they're at all behind the scene in what's been expected of the community in George Street.

And the more. So, Madam Mayor, I would ask the Council to support it on the basis that all of us will have a fair say in how we go. If someone wants a paramatta bus shed there instead of the likes of what I would like to see, and certainly a lot of the community, where you have heritage values that support the buildings and the likes, then they've got the opportunity to say that. So, Madam Mayor, I'd ask the Council to support it. And the reason that I said next week, there's implications in relation to timing and funding and contracts and the like. It needs to be dealt with as soon as practical. And not only that, whatever comes out of it, I really hope that the community is much more involved.

They're certainly keen in relation to what happens to our community.

Thank you very much, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the motion on the board? Councillors and proponent.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm glad that Councillor Sheather has taken this approach. I spoke to him this afternoon and I said that my heart was in what he was proposing, but I had many misgivings about how late it was to be making substantial changes to an established plan, whether there was a risk that we would lose the grant funding. But I do agree with his general principle that it is never too late to do the right thing. And we shouldn't fall for that sunk cost fallacy that, you know, because we've spent time and money developing the plan to a particular point, is that we shouldn't readdress that because it's clear that the community, including those people who have the biggest stake in the health of Windsor. have repeatedly expressed serious concerns that the plan that was assembled misallocates, or rather

Misprioritises the funding towards things that probably don't do the good that we want them to do. Too much of that money was consumed in paving. Other opportunities to progress improvements down George Street and towards the station were missed. What we ended up seeing, I think, looked like the Westfieldisation of Windsor and was not suitably reflective of our unique and significant history. So I think that if there's an opportunity for us to have a workshop, my own opinion about whether we lose the grant money is I understand completely that when we ask council staff, they will quote chapter and verse from a grant deed that says you will acquit the funds by this date. They're obliged to give us that advice based on the plain reading of the funding that we've been offered.

The political dimension is our department. If we feel that it's sufficiently important to take a punt about readdressing something, even if there's a risk that we will exceed that deadline, then we're making a bet that there is no political will to take that funding from us. But I do understand that council staff will answer in the way that they do and that we take the risk politically that we could lose that funding. I don't think that we would. So I'd like to think that through this process, we can properly engage those stakeholders in Windsor and get a better outcome that's reflective of our heritage. So I'll support the amendment while I'll support the motion as it stands.

Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Councillor Djuric.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be supporting the motion. There's a massive gap in what the community expects in regards to what's being delivered. It's so much of an issue that our federal member spoke on it in Canberra this week.

We definitely need to relook at it. We're delivering something that's not what the community, the greater community, expects. And I think taking a breather as a project isn't unusual. We certainly won't own the precedent on delaying a project. And in fact, only just recently, Wollara held over grant funding because the project was at odds with the greater community sentiment. So I'm supporting the motion.

Thank

You.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Of course, no need to go into detail. Small business carry Windsor. These people employ staff and they contribute. And while we are having financial problems, just because we have this grant, we don't have to spend all of it. It's just like someone giving you three courses meal and you can only take one. Just because it's free, you don't have to indulge and put it all and then end up in hospital or something. This council, to me, from day one, it's a council of no. When you walk in, when you say good morning, they say no. I don't know why. Why do they hate these small business people? I don't know. What do they have against these people? Next they will tell you we have to put more flowers or plant more trees.

And the people who are coming to Windsor to visit, they're not 15, 18, 20 years old. Elderly people who love heritage, who wants to have a look, you know, what's happening in Windsor. And then they'll have to park right next to the river, you know, the parking areas, with walking sticks on, you know, walk and have a look at it. Why do we have to replace them? I mean, to me, it's just like, you know, someone suffering from cancer and give him an aspirin so his headache will go away. But like I said, we don't have money, you know, to spend. We can, or we should consult with these people more and more. And unfortunately, I don't know who makes the decision downstairs or upstairs or wherever it is.

Maybe they've never lived in Windsor, and some of them, I really don't know, you know, who hires them. You know, it looks like, you know, they just touch. If it's warm, get in.

Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much. Well, I

Haven't finished.

No, you've been called to order, Councillor Dogramaci.

Madam Mayor, it's unfair to lay blame on Council. We sit around this table and make decisions. The Council enforces those decisions. If there's any blame, it's around this table. Yeah.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Councillor Dogramaci, I'll remind you of your obligations as a Councillor and to not cast allegations across—

I'm not alleging. I'm just telling the truth. Anyway, whoever is making this decision, they have no idea what's happening. Maybe, you know, they are jealous because they don't have shops, you know, like these people have. They don't know how to hire people. They never wake up at 5 o'clock— Councillor—

I'm the Chair and you must remain silent if I'm speaking. I'm going to call you to order. Beg your pardon? What finger did you just put up?

No, I said that, you know, I'm carrying on. Okay,

Thank you. I'm glad that that wasn't a gesture.

No, no, no, not to you. I'm going to call you to order. No, no, no, I never do that.

I'm going to call you to order, and please speak about the motion that's on the board.

Well, okay, yeah, I will support 100%.

That's all you needed to say. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Can I ask some questions in clarification, please?

Why are we replacing the pavers in Le Mall?

I'll just refer that to the General Manager. I'll take that one.

Question, Councillor. Probably those councillors were on the former Council would be well across the project brief there. But clearly there's two pieces. So one is the entire purpose of the grant was around livability. So improving places that, in instance of town centre upgrades, are both good for business and local residents to come and enjoy those locations. The second piece, and it's been really strongly provided to us in a lot of feedback, is around the current state of the brick pavers, the undulated trip hazards, and certainly needs to be, if Council's of a mind to want to retain them, we're going to have to do a fair bit of work levelling out underneath those and relaying them.

And we did some of that relaying and levelling work a couple of years ago, I think, in spots too, because we had trip hazards. And given the current condition of the pavers, it would appear that that has not been all that successful.

Council did resolve, though, to retain and clean the sandstone, so we are doing that. That's correct. Why are we moving the gas lamps?

General Manager, and I'll ask the Director City Planning to jump in if I've got this wrong, but ostensibly a number of the gas lamps are to be retained in situ. I think there was about four or five of them maybe up one end. The remainder are being relocated in order to facilitate the through the central path of travel down through the mall and to allow emergency access vehicles and the like through a path of travel down the mall.

My understanding is that that has been designed to make, because one of the purposes of this project is to connect the mall with the rest of Windsor, to create a sightline from the top of the mall down the main street and make that a desire line as well, so that people don't stop at the end of the mall; they in fact keep walking. And that's part of the reason why the, is my understanding of why the gas lamps are going to the edges of the mall rather than being clustered in spots as they are now. Could we get some information on what consultation has been done already with businesses?

Thank you, General Manager. So at our, the session that Council provided for the small business owners last month, we provided an outline at that session on the consultation that has been undertaken to date, and that commenced back in 2018. So we are talking five years ago now. So that in itself, when we are talking extended project timelines, creates some continuity issues. But there was an initial consultation undertaken by a firm called PlaceScore in 2018. That was an initial consultation completed that then informed the livability grant itself.

And then in March 2020 , a firm called Urbis completed our urban design and place analysis, and that there was community and stakeholder engagement completed at that point. There was Indigenous engagement completed in July of 2020. The key piece of community engagement was September 2020, when there was a public exhibition of the draft master plan and the public domain plan ahead of that being briefed to Council and its ultimate adoption. And then in June 2021, there was another community engagement piece on the designs at that particular point in time. And that they were the main pieces of community engagement. There have been obviously engagement with other more narrowed stakeholders and agencies throughout that process, but they were the main pieces of community engagement, Councillor. Thank you.

So we've got, before us we have a suggestion that we go to a brief or a motion that we go to a briefing. That will delay us by at least a month for this to come back to Council. Or if it does, I guess we can, at the briefing, we can just—well, we can't decide at a briefing because we're not allowed to. So we're looking at a delay of at least a month before this could come back to Council if there are any changes. What are the impacts of that delay?

General Manager.

Look, it's a good question. Probably not a lot, if I'm being straight about that. I think we are keen to get out to tender on the Stage 1 works quite soon. I had a feeling that was about April, so that made a delay going out to tender on the Stage 1 works. And then, quite honestly, we'll put pens down on this until such time as we get a clear direction from the Council. It's not prudent for us to continue to spend staff time, money, and potentially money that is not ours, we don't have, until such time as we get a clear direction from Council.

And on the subject of that funding, the management note in the notice of motion states that we may have to pay back if we don't proceed, or we don't proceed within the time frame that we have, we may have to pay back the monies already spent. Can I have an idea of the likelihood of that and the estimated cost, please?

I think we'd like to probably take a pause on that. What we've probably got,

Based on Council's Chief's original motion, is unders and overs. So, for example, if we de-scoped the mall back, there may well be significant savings as a result of that. That said, the gas lamps will come at a significant cost, okay, so there might be an under and an over there. There might be money to be saved. There might be money to be spent paving the section of the southern side down at this end. So I think what would be prudent for us to just have a look at it holistically and try to get a read on that. The question is, am I going to get an answer out of the funding agency quickly? I think maybe our challenge, but we'll do our best to get that advice, because not only does whatever works we do to the mall needs to meet those funding guidelines, but if there was advice that that's no longer eligible, then all of the probably several hundreds of thousands of dollars, I would think at this point, that we have spent to date on developing the analysis may or may not be foregone.

So that's why we'd like to probably get that advice.

Thank you. And then a final question: given the antipathy towards doing anything in the mall, is it possible that we pivot the funding so that it picks up at the end of the mall and continues closer to the train station, or are we past the point of no return?

That's what I think we'd like to ask them about. So if we had a hypothetical saving at the mall, could that effectively fund the $650,000 required to pave this end of the southern side of George Street?

Thank you, that's helpful. And I am reassured by the fact that this hasn't gone to tender, and, well, I'm not really reassured that we haven't gone to tender because we were supposed to be finished. But, and I want to make the point that the continual hold-up of this project, for the sake of Windsor Mall, is not just impacting on businesses in Windsor Mall. It is impacting on businesses outside the mall. So all those businesses in Thompson Square that have that rotting veranda and the terrible awnings covered in mould, and the disaster that is the spot we now refer to as the ashtray at the entrance to Windsor, in Australia's oldest public square, are effectively being held to ransom for this little patch between Baker Street and Fitzgerald Street.

And that should be of deep concern to you, because this is putting this project at risk and those businesses at risk. We have gone over and over this. This is the sort—we've just been told on two other motions, on two other items before Council, that we can't do the spot decision-making stuff, that we have to have a big plan, and yet here we are, when it's a pet project, we can do spot decision-making. In fact, we can do it not once; we've done it about six times now. It is a massive project, yes, but we've also been consulting on it since 2018.

I'm now at the point

I’m now at the point where I actually wouldn't mind us just— Moving on from the whole mall idea, and I thank Mr Papandrea for bringing up the issue of the areas outside Windsor Mall, because they have been largely ignored in this project. The point of this project at the beginning was to increase connectivity through Windsor, and what instead we've got is this constant massaging of Windsor Mall and a continual pulling of resources up into the mall. Each time we change something, each time we fiddle with something, we have to pull funding away from something else in somebody else's part of Windsor. And at the moment, that's the part of Windsor that most needs help, because Mr Pede is right, the mall is thriving.

We've done some excellent revitalisation work there already, and, for example, the murals in the mall, which have been a real tourist drawcard. But we have the rest of Windsor to consider. I'm reassured by the General Manager's comments that this can go to a briefing, but I'm really starting to question how much consultation will ever be enough on this project before we can actually implement what we're doing. I'm not sure that we will ever reach that point.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm also happy to go to a briefing. I'm not sure that we have to express the dissatisfaction with the current plans because I don't know that when it comes to these sort of projects that everyone is always satisfied with the plans. I mean, I inputted into the consultation as well, and my suggestions weren't taken up, but that's the way it goes. I don't think that anyone should think that their particular individual suggestions should necessarily be taken up because it's all about balancing what we go forward with and what we come up with. And as Councillor Wheeler has just said, this is a livability project. It's not a heritage project.

It's not to enhance the heritage of Windsor. It's to open up the space. It's to make sure we're compliant with various things when we make changes in the mall. And of course, it is about the connectivity from one end of Windsor to the other. But when I saw the original motion, I realised that there's another issue in there and that really we're not addressing, and it's nothing to do with the project. And that is around the issues around the cleanliness of Windsor Mall, which is the main thing that business owners there have approached me about, including someone, as I was driving down tonight, who's a business owner, a building owner there, and rang me about the state of the mall. So I think that we've tied that up into this whole thing, and yet all of those issues around the cleanliness and the maintenance and how we deal with the birds and everything, that shouldn't be tied up in this.

That's an entirely different thing, and yet we're consuming everything into it. As Councillor Wheeler said, all about the mall, but we want to get this project delivered for all of Windsor, for the continuity from one end of Windsor to the other. And I've spoken to business owners down the end near Mr Papandreou, and they are really fed up that it keeps getting changed, that they believe something's happening. Things happening and happening soon, and then it stops. Now, that's not to say that we don't respect the heritage. Of course, those of us who've sat in here and fought around it for a long time, of course we do. And if there's changes, minor changes that need to be made, then that's what we can do.

But we can't hold up a whole project inevitably until everybody's ideas of just exactly trying to replicate the 1984 mall can be put into there, because we have to move on from that. What we want to do is have a clean, liveable mall where those beautiful buildings are exposed, that people can see the architecture and the history, and encourage and hope that the clean mall will make the people who own those buildings want to fix up their buildings so they're a showpiece for Windsor, so people come and enjoy all those sort of things. That they can sit in their mall and enjoy the history that is there. Now, we can argue about pavers. I don't know a lot about pavers, so maybe there's an argument there, and we can discuss this at the briefing.

But we can't hold this project to ransom over and over and over again. If there was inadequate consultation, then we've revisited it multiple times. We've had people speak in council, so that is no longer a problem. There is some onus on people responding to the invitations to participate. If they haven't, then that's unfortunate. But if they have been invited and then haven't participated, then they really can't come back later and say that—unless they really weren't notified, but I'd be interested in seeing who was notified. But you can't come back later and say that, you know, you didn't have input if you had that opportunity. And so I think a briefing is fine. We can go through all of this again, bearing in mind, of course, that, you know, I don't—these claims about modernising, I don't know.

I haven't seen it in that context . I think there are certain things that we have to be careful. For example, Councillor Dogramaci said there are a lot of elderly people come to look at the heritage. Then we want an accessible place where they're not tripping over or where they're not having to step up on certain things. There's certain changes, when you make changes to public infrastructure, where you have to comply with whatever the modern laws are. That is a requirement that we have. So if we have to make something accessible for people to get to, then that's what we have to do. It's not as easy as just putting it as if this is a heritage project that some people are having concerns around.

My biggest concern is that if we set a precedent by doing this, what's going to happen when the next council comes? Are they going to come in and want to change all the WestInvest projects that we've agreed to? Are we going to really not stick to what we've done when we're acting on grant funding that has specific criteria? I think we need to be really careful around that. And I welcome another chance to talk about it, but I hope that that will finalise it so that it can proceed.

Thank you, Councillor. Is there anyone wishing to speak against the motion on the board? Councillor Jurek, you've spoken. Do you have a question? I

Have a question, if I could please, through you, Madam Mayor. The other week we held an information session. Why was that?

I'm happy to answer that. After the businesses that were present, some of them in the room tonight, asked for a consultation with the staff.

Can I just ask one last thing? Was everyone who applied to attend allowed to attend?

It was for the business community. That was made very clear in the invitation.

So, were some people that were South of the mall that had businesses, were they stopped from attending?

I'm not sure about that process, Councillor, and if you're alluding to something, you may as well just say it rather than beating around the bush.

Only that, was everyone that applied to get that information, were they allowed to attend?

There was the business community and then a couple of actual homeowners down the other end of the mall that were allowed to participate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Yes, Councillor Dogramaci.

Very simple question. How much money did we pay to consultants' firms or consultants?

I think that would have to be taken on notice, Councillor. There's a whole different range of consultants for the three different town centres. Why

Does it have to be taken on notice? I mean, we've got the people in here know about the figures and facts.

They don't have it in front of them, and you can be presented with that at the briefing if you turn up, Councillor, which I urge you to turn up to the briefing this time.

All right.

Okay. If there's no one speaking against, I just want to make a couple of comments before I'm going to put the motion. Just to say that it was very clear that this decision on the liveability project was decided by the last Council, and personally was something I could not participate in at that time while we were talking about all three town centres, and I've made that very clear. However, now that South Windsor and Richmond are done, and since becoming Mayor, it is part of our duty to listen to the community and make sure we get this project right. What that ends up being, I look forward to discussing that with the councillors. I do believe it's never too late to change something and get it right.

However, Councillor Sheather has put a motion that is exceptionally cautious, and I thank him for that, because we do have responsibilities to the financial implications of changing things this far along. So I just wanted to make that clear. I look forward to participating in the briefing and hopefully get a consensus amongst councillors about a way forward for Windsor. So therefore I'm going to put the motion. Madam Mayor, could I just— Oh, sorry, Councillor? Yes.

No

Worries Could I just ask that I move that we address this in series, please? In seriatim? Yep, that's fine. We can do that. That's not a problem at all. I will— If no one else is wishing to speak, actually, I will just go to right of reply, Councillor Sheather

Yeah. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, the weather custodian is this city, and there is a big responsibility.

The comments that have been made about people being involved and the likes, I don't sit here and make stories up or even distort the situation. The people that own shops, there's telephone numbers, shops, 32 of them there. They've got their name and telephone numbers on them and say they haven't been contacted. Now, for councillors to say there's adequate consultation, these are people in George Street where we're doing the work, not from Pitt Town or somewhere. And I would certainly take them at face value that there's a better way to consult with our community than what we've done. So, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett mentioned about when we change things, we need to bring things up to speed.

We all know that, and that's one of the lights, one of the reasons that I said I want the lights where they are. Because when we start pulling them up and the likes, it puts in place opportunities to enhance, for the want of a word, things differently to what they are.

The emergency vehicles can get through there now, so we don't need a corridor up the middle of them all. People come there because they meander amongst the trees and everything else that's there. And if we start changing the lights around, then we've got obligations because of access policies and the likes to do something different to what's there. On the other hand, we've also got a responsibility for a thing called maintenance. Weathers pavers that have been put down poorly, or the like, and the trees that haven't been addressed since they were planted. And there's things like softfall. We've got them under all our kiddies' playgrounds and the likes, and, you know, appropriate things to make things safe.

With the replacement of anything that we've got up there, there's opportunities to put things in keeping with what that is. We're the third oldest colony in the nation, and Pitt Town's gone, Castle Ray was never there, Wilberforce is just houses now, Richmond's not much better. Windsor, George Street, is the only place left that there is any value for anybody that appreciates,

You know, the history of what we've got in Windsor. And it's not detracting from anybody else; it's what people live here for.

With the replacement of any stuff up there, whether it's pavers on it, they will be done different. I'm assured, and I can provide the information in relation to the pavers that's required for patching, for doing the works down George Street, that there's a process and a method and accessibility to do the project as it should be done, without the likes of the pavers and stuff that have been done in South Windsor and the like. I haven't progressed that, but I don't want to hear other

Than if it comes up that we can't do it because pavers aren't available, I'm going to hit the roof. One of the councillors over there don't know much about pavers. Well, let me tell you, I do, and I associate with people who do. And it irritates me sometimes. Point of

Order, Madam Mayor. What is your point of order? I'm not sure what the targeting of councillors who might know anything about pavers is about, but that's the second go Councillor Sheather has had at me tonight. I'd like

To just— I wasn't sure that it was even Councillor Willard said it.

If you

Just withdraw your comment, we can move on.

Yeah, well, it was just a comment and it wasn't meant to be offensive, but it was indicated the concreters don't know much about stuff too, I might add. So, yeah, but, you know, I'm not here to have a shot at councillors either. We're here to represent the community, and that's what I'm trying to do. And, Madam Mayor, I'll leave it at that, and I hope that councillors do have productive comments about it, and the staff tries to give us a way that we can move on in relation to the support that I've requested here.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll put the motion to the vote. We've had it requested to do it each point on its own. So those in favour of point one, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. Those against point one, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler, I declare that one carried. In relation to point two, if you are 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. I declare that carried. Thank you very much, Councillors.

That finishes all of our items subject to public address tonight. We have no condolences, no mayoral minutes. I will put the items on block. The items on block, oh sorry, thank you, I'll just call them out, are items 4.4.1 and 5.1.1. Moved that way, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yes, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno and Councillor McMahon. Madam Mayor, could I request a five-minute break, please? Can I have a seconder for that? Yes, all in favour? Yep, five-minute break. We will return to the chamber at 9.20 p.m.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. While we took a break there, thank you for returning to the meeting. Meeting resumed at 9.22-ish or 3, looking up there. Now, Councillors, I will just make a comment after seeing the length of the agenda and realising last month we had a second meeting after finishing at 11. There isn't a lot of time in the calendar to do that this month, and the only time would possibly be tomorrow night. So I just wanted to make the point to Councillors, if you have in the back of your minds to try and get through the agenda this evening, that would be great. There is also one item in confidential that we must decide upon tonight on a time factor. Okay, with that said, we will now move through the agenda in order of the business paper.

The next item is 4.1.1, Vineyard Release Area. Can I just make a note, sorry, Councillor, please be aware, and I'm sure you all are because you've all read your business paper, is that part of this motion is also in confidential, so please don't discuss anything that is in the confidential part of this item. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually thought that the recommendation meant that we had to have decided on the confidential sector first. So I was going to suggest, could we do that either after, or could we do the confidential now?

I'll just refer to staff.

You would certainly be adopting recommendation 0.1 if that's what Council sought to do, and then once you got to the confidential session, you would then make a resolution at that point, and then once, when we compile the minutes, we pull those together.

If Councillors are happy, I can move a procedural motion to go into confidential now, and we can deal with those matters, considering we have the timely one in confidential as

Well. Move that way, Madam Mayor. Move that way,

Councillor Sheather, seconded Councillor Veigel. All those in favour to move into confidential? Declare that carried. We'll move into confidential, please.

Thank you everybody. We have now moved out of confidential session back into general session. We will read the outcome of the confidential session at the end of the meeting. We therefore move to the items in the business paper in the order as they appear. The first item is 4.1.1. We have discussed the confidential parts in confidential, so we'll now discuss the recommendation as per the report. Anyone wishing to move that way? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Reardon. Anyone wishing to discuss anything? No? Right of reply

Needed? Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that we have just dealt with this in confidential session. There were just a few things I wanted to raise on the public record about it, which is a few of the concerns around the cost shifting really, which has occurred by the state government leaving council with a shortfall on funding for various things. But I guess more will come out about that. I think it's important that the community reads about these sort of proposals so they understand what is involved when areas of development come and the provision of various infrastructure that goes with those and how that could possibly impact on the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury moving forward. Thank you.

I'll move that

Thank you. You should bring it up. I'd like to move an amendment, a motion to defer this to the next council meeting.

Sorry, continue, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you.

The reason is I think there's a little bit more work to do on this before we put it onto public exhibition. And since it's quite late in the day, I don't think it's appropriate that I go through the issues that I think need addressing. But just to be, just as a guide to how I'm thinking, I think there needs to be a bit of work done on how the themes that we've got in the sustainability strategy map to the sustainable development goals. There's a few things that don't quite match up, and that needs a little bit of work. Also , there needs to be a bit more work done on the themes under the natural environment section , theme one.

For instance, there's some odd statements made throughout the document. Also, I would like to have a bit of a go at doing a bit more about what we are calling in this strategy the desired future state. And it seems to me that we haven't been ambitious enough with saying what we really want to get out of this strategy. And for an example, in the bushland section . The desired state is to continue to implement Council's bushland management and education programs, to continue to collaborate with community groups, research organisations, etc., and increase the number of bush care volunteers. Now , whilst those things are all good, they're not very ambitious, and I think we're missing an opportunity to make this strategy much more precise and punchy, and that goes through the document.

So, as I said before, I think it's a bit late, and I think there's, as I said, I've got a lot to say. So instead of doing it in this way, I think if the Chamber doesn't mind, if we just defer it for another, to the next meeting, and I can send those comments and those particular corrections to the staff, that might save us some time. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the item? Anyone against? Councillor.

Sorry, my light's a bit slow. I've got no problem with that, although I'm not quite sure, should we all send something in? Because I also had a couple of things. I did think they were minor enough, though, that we could have put it on exhibition and we could have just made some changes. I think there's a lot of it is a really, really good document. It's, I mean, aside from perhaps some strengthening in areas, but the point I was going to make was that it's really important for residents to engage with us on a strategy like this because we really need them to understand both the purpose of the document and how, you know, what's contained in it. And what I particularly liked in it, and something that I think we all need to bear in mind whenever we're making decisions, are the statements around caring for country and from the next generation in particular, which are calling on us to act responsibly and ensure that we preserve and conserve resources for future generations.

So I wouldn't like to see anything changed around those sort of issues, but . I'm not averse to it coming back. I don't know if there's a timeline on it, but I imagine if — I think it needs to be said what will happen besides just deferring it, because for staff, I guess they need a timeline or something if people are submitting anything that they think, because then of course we'll all have to vote on whether we think those changes are adequate or not. So it's not just a matter of one person making changes. I'm sure that we probably could have gone through some of them. I also had that issue about the bushland management program written down as well, but we did have a workshop on this and I know some things were raised and some things were changed then.

So could perhaps the motion, the mover of the motion, include, like, getting some information of when that would have to be done by and what sort of feedback other councillors can give, because we don't want to overwhelm staff with a whole lot of changes from 12 people again after we've already, you know, been through this before.

Councillor Kotlash, were you willing to perhaps share the document around councillors for a week to make edits and then send—

Yeah, yeah, I don't mind how it works. I just— it's just the changes and the points that I wanted to make would

Maybe you could add to your motion, just a suggestion, defer this matter to the next council meeting after seeking an amended report— That's fine. —after seeking amendments to the report. Yep, that's— Yeah, okay

Yeah, I think if we can have some input, that's probably good. There's some really nice stuff in this. A couple of things I'd like clarification on, though, is the use of the term traditional owners and whether that came directly from the Darug community asking for traditional owners to be referred to rather than traditional— I think it's got traditional custodians and traditional owners. Current thinking, as I understand it, is that we refer to custodians rather than owners because the ownership model is not consistent with the way we consider ownership . So if someone could look into that, it might expedite things now rather than me sending it in a week. There's some picky little editing things that I don't think need to hold up the document.

Things like figure five needs a number, not an asterisk in the text, and there's a comma instead of a full stop in a couple of spots. But the things that concern me are that we're talking about climate change like it's in the future, and it's not. It's now. So page 15, for example, talks about climate change will do. Climate change is already doing. So we need to pivot that thinking. If there's an LGA in Sydney that understands that, I think it probably is us after the last three years. And there's lots of long-term things that I'd like to see medium term if we've got any chance of retaining a sustainable, liveable Hawkesbury, like tree cover monitoring and green infrastructure and active transport.

So my concern with this is that it becomes an excuse to put some stuff on the never-never rather than a reason to bring it forward. But the use of this, and I don't want to see it deferred beyond a month, is that this strategy needs to be integrated across all our operations, especially as we deal with the huge cash splash of WestConnex. Some of those projects are not consistent with this strategy. So the faster we have the strategy in place, this month needs to be a meaningful month. It needs not just to kick it down the road month. It needs to result in some substantial changes that That give us a reason to have held it up for a month, rather than edits that could have been done in the exhibition phase, because this strategy needs to be set in place so that we can start measuring everything else we do against it.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. A right of reply, Councillor Kotlash? No, 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, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried. The next item is item—

4.4.2, 2023 National Assembly of Local Government. Do I have anyone wishing to move anything, please? Councillor Sheather, seconded Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. Over to you, Councillor Sheather. Oh, sorry. Thank you for identifying that. It's the recommendation as per the supplementary report, which has the additional motion included in it. So that supplementary report you received is the entire item.

The motion, the recommendation.

Is that attachment one in the business paper?

No, it was entitled

Supplementary report. It's the same as the business paper with a point five. With a point five, correct. It's an addition to the

Recommendation.

It's the same with the addition of a motion that was left out.

Sorry?

Just make sure you're happy to move that way, Councillor. That's

Exactly what I'm doing.

I could ask while we're waiting, Madam Mayor, and I think this is what Councillor Sheather is asking, is point three in the recommendation talks about raising the dam wall as set out in attachment one.

Yes , but there was a supplementary report sent out because a motion had been— Oh, you've got that there.

This is fun.

Supplementary point three.

Let me just find it.

So that's—

I'm just trying to clarify.

Clarify what's going on. And

Also point four talks about the 2022 National General Assembly.

Was it supposed to be attachment two ?

It's part of the business paper, Councillor Sheather. So if you flick over to page 36, attachment one is inside the business paper, and that's the part about the Warragamba Dam wall. Madam Mayor,

The motion— And we'll

Change that date as identified by the Deputy Mayor.

But are you happy to move— sorry, to move it as per the supplementary business paper with the point five?

As the point five, Madam Mayor, yes.

I'm sorry, it is a little confusing.

I'll just make sure Councillor Sheather is happy with that last motion.

Sorry, Mayor, Madam Mayor, I didn't get this.

Okay. Just take a moment to have a read.

Okay. Yeah, let's just— let's go down

That path .

Move the recommendation in

The supplementary. Councillor Conolly, seconded by— sorry, someone, please? Councillor Reardon. Councillor Conolly, did you wish to speak? No. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for that. I think this is a good opportunity. I think we've spoken about it at the last meeting where we foreshadowed there'd be various motions coming in. I understand that these have just been put forward as they are, so they haven't been. I'm not sure if they've been looked at by the guidelines. My understanding is that they haven't, and that that's what we would in fact do now. And I do have concerns about the Warragamba Dam wall motion because I understand it is a policy of this council. I'm not saying anything about that. But when I looked at the guidelines, I saw there was quite a bit of contradiction with the guidelines, and my concern would be that it doesn't comply with that, even though if it goes ahead, I'm not saying that's problematic.

But I don't think it fits the criteria where it says that it can't be focused on a specific jurisdiction or a location, and that it must complement or build on the ALGA policy objectives which exist. And point nine, which is to—it's not to seek to advance an outcome that would benefit one group of councils at the detriment of the other. So I think this is a problem because there are councils that oppose the raising of the wall, and I think that the forum where it would be best suited would be the Local Government New South Wales conference, because I don't think it fits the criteria of being a national issue . Because when I read about that, those things are things that the Commonwealth Government can deliver.

All can do. And this, the motion here seeks to have the Commonwealth Government, just to direct the New South Wales Government to do something, which may or may not be contrary to the New South Wales Government policy platform. If we have a change of government in a few weeks, then that would be contrary to their platform. And so I don't think that that would get the support of the conference. But also, I think that I'm only saying that to, I mean, we can submit it, and I guess they tick it off against whether it fits the guidelines or not. But I think it's the Warragamba Dam issue is much more a political issue rather than an issue around the policies of what the whole body of councils, as a local government association, is seeking to do.

So that was my concern with that one. I don't have concerns with the others,

But I would be concerned around that, that it is too specific, particularly in the format that it's in. I mean, I think if it was something generally about dams or something, that would be different. But it's specific to a specific political decision that's been made, and one that could be contrary to the government of the day, in which case I think it would be a futile exercise because they will state a policy position, and that will be what they do. I would also like to have see if we can, after these conferences, when people go to them, whether the other councillors can see what's written, not to analyse what people have, but if we could have some points that people pick up at them. I know we do reports and we submit them.

I've got no problem with anybody seeing the reports that I've submitted over the years, but I would like to read them because if we don't get to go, then at least we can get to hear about what other councillors may have learnt or picked up or issues that were raised that are of importance to us. The supplementary motion was one that I submitted, and it is, of course, around the funding and trying to lobby for that. I have spoken to the Australian Local Government Association and Local Government New South Wales president about that, and— I did submit that on that basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have a tiny point to make from point two, where it says consider submissions, motions about biosecurity management, and in brackets it's got weeds. Whilst I appreciate that weeds are a major problem, I would prefer that we took out the reference to weeds and have a motion that's about biosecurity in general. And the reason I say that is because we had some information from the Invasive Species Council about deer. We've had cane toads found coming down from Queensland. We've had the varroa mite impact our bees. I mean, biosecurity is really a whole lot more than weeds, and we might as well take this opportunity to say and to advocate and lobby for the Australian Government to do something about this because it's not a state issue.

We're a big island and it's an island issue, and I think the federal government needs to be aware of that and step up from a national level. So, I mean, I know that's a bit nitpicking, but if

That could just— I'm happy to see if the mover and seconder

Are happy to delete

The word

Weeds. That would be good.

Thanks. Councillor Conolly and Councillor Reardon. Yep. Thank you. Excellent. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So I wrote the biosecurity motion, and I'm happy for that to encompass— More than weeds. I think that's, as long as Councillor Kotlash helps me write the background, I'm quite happy with that. We can do it on prepoll. This is a motion that's come from the Hawkesbury River County Council, who can't submit a motion themselves and rely on a constituent council to do it. And it's largely based on the containment actions that were taken for frogbit, a waterweed in Oakville a couple of months ago. So frogbit is often sold as an aquarium species. It's a very highly invasive priority weed, and it spread merrily through Oakville. I think it was found in one dam, and then all of a sudden it was found absolutely everywhere.

And there was a really good piece of containment action that was carried out using the resources of a number of agencies and the Hawkesbury River County Council and a number of surrounding councils as well. It was very successful. But what it relies on, that big activity , is that it remains a priority weed. It's likely to be removed from the priority weeds list in other states, and then that puts pressure on New South Wales to remove it from our priority weed list as well, which makes it very difficult for small organisations to get the resources to get rid of it.

According to the HRCC staff, one of the key points for infiltration is— is borders where, so freight vehicles particularly, and that's where cane toads seem to be coming in, they're in whatever's being freighted. Weeds are particularly problematic when they're trucked across state borders, and that lack of conformity, or uniformity, sorry, across state borders means that what's a priority weed in some spaces isn't a priority weed in others. So, for example, in the ACT, fireweed is a priority weed, and I learnt last week that Hawkesbury turf can't be brought into the ACT anymore because it's considered to be infested with fireweed. That's really bad news for our turf industry. So we need to get on top of these weeds, but we can't do that if the same stuff is being trucked everywhere.

The inland waterways safety was also mine. We've discussed that repeatedly. We agreed that we would take this forward. I don't agree with the dam wall motion, unsurprisingly. It simply doesn't meet the objectives. It's not nationally relevant, points one and ten. It's not focused on a specific region, point two. It's a state issue, not a local government issue, so it's not consistent with point seven. It doesn't improve the capacity of local government for the benefit of all of Australia, point eight. It benefits one group of councils over another, point nine. It doesn't provide for direct work between local and federal government, and it's not a new program idea to deliver national objectives.

So it is simply not consistent with the program objectives, and to that end, I'll move a procedural motion that we take this in seriatim. Thanks

Okay, councillors, we also need to— I'll just seek a... Discussion. Would you like us to select the councillors before we put to the vote, or put to the vote and then select the councillors? Is that what's the standard practice? Nominate now? Yeah. Done. Okay.

I want to speak on—

Oh, sorry, Councillor. Yep. We can also nominate the councillors after you speak, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I take on board the comment by the councillors in relation to this might not be accepted, but I see things a little bit different, and I have done for 30-odd years. And it's been in our face flooding for, well, not most recently, but certainly last year and prior to that. And we were lucky we didn't get hammered like Lismore. And if the motion's going to be turfed out, so be it. I can tell you in 30 years, I've seen a lot of turfed-out stuff. But recently, there was a report, this one that came to us, and in the business paper on page 37 For the love of me, I can't understand how someone would not support, in their elected area, in our City Council, the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam would have reduced the flood peak at Windsor by 3.4 metres.

That means it'd be within the riverbanks and delay outflows from Warragamba by three to four days, all the way down the river to Wisemans Ferry and the like, would benefit from that. The number of impact dwellings would have reduced by 80%. 80%. There's nothing else. I know the arguments that have been put up about straightening the river and levee banks, all the rest, but there's 21 options. I know them all by heart. I know what the outcome is. I know what the percentage and the cost of it is. And none of them worthwhile doing. This is an option. When we talked about 80%, we're not talking about 80 millimetres, the height of a pack of cigarettes, that when it's coming into your house. People talked about sandbags, and some of you councillors went to great length to make sure people got sandbags.

What for? Point of order,

Madam Mayor. What was your point of order? Point of order is regarding relevance, that we're debating whether a motion goes to the conference. It's a set policy of the council to support the wall, so we're not debating the wall. Yeah,

Thank you, Councillor. That is correct. So we'll debate the motion in front of us to whether we're putting the motions or not. Thank you, though, Councillor. If you could please continue. Yeah

Yeah. Yeah, we know the pros and cons, but what's before us is a document, and that makes up the motion that would go, and that's what I was talking about. Madam Mayor, when we're talking about 80% reduction,

That's what the motion would indicate. I just can't understand why a council would not do everything in its power to minimise a devastation in our city by 80%. It just loses me. And I know there's issues. And good argument that comes from other places, and relevant.

But you tell someone who's lost their house or their cattle or their property, and see what their comment is in relation to other opportunities or not. So, Madam Mayor, I would ask the council to support the motion. If it gets turfed out, so be it. But we've got an obligation, I believe, to take all opportunities we can to minimise flooding in our valley. And that's why I'd support it.

Thank you, Councillor. I may halt at this point the debate to nominate councillors. I would ask councillors to be very conscious of the fact what's remaining in the budget, which is on page 34 , $6,458. Looking at the costs listed on page 30, if someone wants to go in person, that's fine. Just have an approximate estimation of about $1,500 per person after attendance costs of travel and accommodation. Would anyone like to nominate to attend? I would, Madam Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I

Would also be request to know if there's a shortfall on the funding, are we able to use the money allocated to our professional development to attend a conference?

I'm getting a yes from my left. So yes

So I would suggest if that— because I know it is, and I do know there's a virtual option, but I think in this instance, it is better to attend in person for the networking purposes.

Thank you. So that's Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Anyone else wishing to attend the conference? Councillor Wheeler.

Anybody else? Councillor Sheather.

Yes, Madam Mayor. On the basis that that particular part of the motion gets up, I'm not —I wouldn't be suggesting I would move or nominate for the other motions that are there. I

Understand. All right. I'll put your name there. We will be voting on each item individually in the recommendation—sorry, each point. Councillor Conolly.

I just had a question, if possible, through you. Just to those people that nominated, I just wanted to clarify, if we were to send, in particular Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler, who have indicated their opposition, if we were to send them to the conference as our delegates, would they support the motion to call in regards to Warragamba Dam?

That's a very good point, and it would probably put those councillors in a very tricky

Position. I would like to say that I've never voted against something that wasn't a policy. I mean, I've never voted contrary to what our council policy was. I would have to see what motion ended up being accepted, and I would certainly not vote against it. But I don't know. If it was something I really didn't agree with, I abstain, but I'd have to see what was there.

Well, at this point, we will be putting in the recommendation forward for Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Sheather, and see how we go on point three when we're voting. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, sorry.

It's worth noting that, unlike the Local Government New South Wales conference, council only gets one vote. And so it's possible to just give the voting apparatus to the person who has put the motion forward for them to prosecute that motion. So in the past, where something has come up that hasn't been consistent with council's position, Mary and I have abstained. In order to abstain, though, you have to leave the room. You can't stay in the room and not vote. They get quite cross because they can see from the machine who hasn't voted, and so they do track you down. So you have to go outdoors. All

Right. Well, that answers that.

Councillor Conolly. So just to clarify that, so we get — We only have one voting delegate, but we can alternate who that is throughout the conference. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. And there'll be an undertaking that Les would be the voting delegate for that? Yep.

I think Les will want to press the button for that one. Yeah. Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak, Councillors, or I'll go to right of reply. Councillor Conolly? Not necessary. Okay. We will vote each point individually. Those in favour of point one, which includes Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Sheather, please raise your hand. Those in favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMann. Those against, Councillor Dogramaci. I declare point 1 carried. Those in favour of point 2, please raise your hand.

Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMann. Those against, Councillor Dogramaci. I declare point 2 carried. Those in favour of point 3, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMann

Those against, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Declare that carried on the casting vote of the Mayor. Point 4, if you are in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMann. Those against, Councillor Dogramaci. Declare it carried. Those in favour of point 5, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMann. Those against, Councillor Dogramaci. I declare that one carried as well.

Thank you, Councillors. So, Councillor Sheather, you will be voting on—you could potentially vote on the dam wall motion. There you go. Breathe a sigh of relief. Okay. Next item is item 4.4.3, review of council committees. Do I have anybody wishing to move that way?

I'd like to move points 1 to 3 in the recommendation, with an additional point 4. Yes. The council nominate Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Sheather as the councillors on the floodplain working group, whatever the correct name is, sorry.

Thank you. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Vigor.

Councillor Conolly.

No discussion on that otherwise.

Councillor Conolly, I might see if you're happy to add a point 5, which is to, if we are adopting a terms of reference for working groups as the template,

The floodplain risk management is not called a working group; it's called an advisory subcommittee. I think that the name of that as a point 5 will need to be changed to reflect a working group to therefore fit into the template of the terms of reference. Can I have staff some

Feedback

On that? We're just going to clarify that. It's got its own terms of reference. Okay, so it is a subcommittee

Okay. I thought it may need to fit into the working group template because it's a underneath the disaster and emergency committee , but that's fine. So no point 5 needed. Did you want to make any points, Councillor Conolly?

No, if I could just foreshadow that we're approaching 11 p.m., and so we'll need to decide if we're going to extend and for how long. Thanks.

Yeah, you're raising it. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the item, Deputy Mayor?

Following on from what you were just saying, the constitution for the Disaster and Emergency Committee does not mention subcommittees. It only mentions working groups. So, even though it might have its own separate constitution

Or terms of reference, according to this, it must, according to this, be called a working group. So, I would like us to clarify that. If we don't want to call it a working group, then somewhere here we need to mention that, because at the moment that's all that the committee can do, is set up working groups.

I'll refer to the General Manager. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is something that the staff grappled with because we've called it a couple of different things over the last few months. What we landed on was that it was a discrete subcommittee of the Disaster and Emergency Committee. So what I would be recommending in that case is an amendment to alter the terms of reference, or the constitution, sorry, of the Disaster and Emergency to acknowledge the existence of the Floodplain Management Subcommittee. And

Further question, if I might, if we do that, does the subcommittee have the same kind of terms that the working group is working under, or is it totally separate? Inasmuch as a working group has a starting date, it has a goal to reach and then has a conclusion, whereas a subcommittee is something that has no conclusion, just keeps going.

General Manager?

No, very, very similar. And in fact, though, we were guided in the drafting of those terms of reference by the earlier Council resolution where it was explicit, if I recall, about time period and the nature of the work that you wanted that subcommittee to look at.

Basically, it's just the name that's different.

Effectively.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak on the matter? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, after your speech, we may have to vote on extending the time. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think I'm glad to see that councillor who voted consistently against having a floodplain committee at all is keen to be on the subcommittee, and I do just want to publicly state that there's an element of pettiness around— Point of order, Madam Mayor. Oh, sorry. —titled to that opinion, Councillor.

I don't know, under the code of meeting— I haven't actually made my

Point of order yet. Oh, sorry.

What was your point of order, Councillor?

Just relevance. This is just petty personal attacks rather than talking about the motion before us. No

I do agree. We won't be name-calling or casting—

I'm not name-calling. I just said

An

Element of pettiness, and I mean, I think the people who watch these meetings and follow what goes on will draw that conclusion for themselves, so I won't go on. I do think in the constitution of the disaster and emergency management, there's quite a lot of ambiguity around the setting of the agenda items. The agenda items have to be a resolution of Council, which delays the whole process when we only have one meeting a month, or the Chair can raise matters, but it still needs to be a resolution of Council.

I think the initial changes to the committees were all meant to be about open interactive forums, and we still haven't ended up with that. I mean, I'm quite disappointed with what we've ended up with, and I don't really see the point of having this committee. It's structured like a Council meeting. It's got five minutes speaking time. The agenda is set by a Council resolution. I don't know why it isn't just part of our general Council meeting, a section in that. I think that would have been a much better idea. And we don't meet anyway. I mean, when's the last time we had one? So I just think it's very disappointing overall. And I think the terms of reference around the subcommittee are quite good.

I look forward to—I wouldn't dare propose to be on it myself, but then again, there's a lot more that some of us can do with some of the other people who are very interested in flooding out in the community. So I'll be putting my efforts there. And I think that the— I just don't see a point really to the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee if we have the subgroup on flooding, and if we can set working groups, which is exactly the same process as we would set one in a Council meeting.

Thank you, Councillor. I might need to move a procedural motion just to suspend debate so we can vote on whether we extend past 11 p.m. Do I have anyone wishing to move that way?

Yeah, I'll propose that we extend till 11:30 p.m., and then any other matters are left to the April meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Does anyone else move to— sorry, second that? Councillor Reardon. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Carried unanimously. Thank you, councillors.

Could I just say something on that matter? Would it be possible each meeting, because these tend to go so long, if we have marked on the paper which things have to be decided tonight, so that we can deal with them first? Yeah,

I'm hearing that's possible, seeing that's possible. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move back into the item now that we've resolved extending past 11 p.m. Councillor Wheeler.

Just very quickly, there's the mechanism for establishment of working groups, and this is probably most relevant— what's relevant only to the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee and to the Heritage Advisory Committee. They currently need to be reported to Council following the meeting. That can take two to three months on our current cycle, by the time the minutes are prepared, particularly if the meeting is held close to the next Council meeting. It takes usually a month at least for the minutes to be prepared and sent to Council. So it's possible that we may, at the moment, I guess we can live with what we've got, but it's possible we may need a quicker mechanism to establish a working group should we need one for a more urgent matter.

We may have to have some mechanism where it comes to Council outside of the normal business paper reporting. And then a question: the Heritage Committee has three working groups already. As the chair, should I just— Fill in those templates at the next Heritage Committee meeting and then bring them back to Council. They're already in existence. Council's already voted on them. Council's already voted to approve the committee putting those working groups in place. People are on them. One of them has already met more than once. What am I supposed to do with them? And this terms of reference. Thanks.

Thanks. I'll just seek feedback from staff.

It was always our thinking on this that the Council would endorse those working groups by way of the committee meeting minutes. So if there's a process whereby in the Heritage Committee you can prepare those template documents and bring them up through Council through the minutes, that might be the cleanest way of doing that.

The issue is that we've already approved those committees, so we'd just have to backtrack. Then I don't think the committee would be looking to reappointing or any of those things. It would just be the formality of completing those templates.

And

Then it becomes a matter for this chamber.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the committees? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to say that I

Whilst I didn't agree with having a subcommittee for the Floodplain Management Committee , I respected the Council decision that was made. Just because I don't agree with that doesn't mean I don't want to be involved in the process of looking at all of the issues and the things and the work that we need to do. I just find it a bit disappointing that it seems I should have taken my bat and ball and gone home and not been involved in that. And that's something that I won't do. I've actually.. . Contrary to what some council has said about me and the old Floodplain Management Committee, I was very committed to that committee and making it work. And just because I thought it was a good idea to bring more people in, more people from the community into that process of decision making , doesn't mean that I can't be involved in what Council has resolved to do.

And I will work as hard as I ever have in that capacity, even though I disagreed with its structure. So I just want to put that on the public record because I think that it's, I, you know, my integrity has been

Questioned a number of times, and I'm not having that. I am actually quite passionate about getting this right, and I will work very hard on this committee if I am elected to it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak before we go to the vote? I just want to make the point the General Manager had mentioned we may need an additional point about altering the terms of reference for the Disaster and Emergency Committee. It's covered in point two. Excellent, it's been added. Thank you very much. All right, write a reply. Councillor Conolly, not needed. All those in favour of the motion as per the board, please raise your hand. Those in favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. You're not voting, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Oh, okay, Councillor Lyons-Buckett was voting for it. I declare the item carried.

Okay, the next item is 4.5.1, West Invest Program Assurance. I just have to read out my declaration. Won't be a moment. Less than significant non-pecuniary. I'm staying in the item. I do not have any pecuniary interest in any of the West Invest projects at all, but I am declaring that my son plays for a club that plays at Turnbull Oval. Okay, Councillor Conolly moving that way. Seconder, please. Councillor Reardon. Any discussion?

Question. Trying to see if any of my kids benefit from it. Well

As I say, it's not really, because if he wants to play golf tomorrow, then he's not playing there. That's what kids do. Councillor Sheather, you had a question? Yeah,

With the steering committee, would it be appropriate to have the administrator of the Sports Council on that?

I'll refer to

General manager. It's a matter for the council, but my thinking is probably not, if I'm being honest. This is an internal body, and we may well find ourselves in a situation where the Sports Council may in fact have a conflict, and this executive steering committee is certainly charged with governing the entire program, and I think that may or may not, but may pose a risk.

Yeah. Yeah. We get back to the discussion that we had earlier tonight about the people that some of the parks that are going to have works done on them, they've got five uses, multi-purpose uses, and I know from the plans that we've done in the past with our plans of management that— The consultation in relation to the use of the park, the opportunities for the park and that aren't taken, and it's frustrating. That's why I ask the question. And whether it's appropriate to have someone there, it might be appropriate to have that person there from time to time if there's particular discussions. We spend a lot of money, as we're doing with them all,

And sport and floodings about the, they're taking up half my life, and it frustrates me to see where there's opportunities that are missed. We don't get the opportunity to sit around and discuss the line items that I believe we should. We've got people in our community that's got experience and like, and we're not taking advantage of it. So I expect that we can expect mistakes. Well, not get it right perhaps. Mistakes is not the right word. And that's why I ask the question. If you're going to paint a house, you don't ask a plumber. And I'm not suggesting the consultants and the likes, and our staff indeed, aren't experienced. But I can tell you the people that I associate with in relation to the sport and the like are experienced in the sense that they are involved in an array of activities on our sporting grounds and predominantly and continually work with other groups and organisations.

To achieve what's the best outcome from a variety of sports, not just as one in particular. So that's what the question was about, and I would hope that our staff take advantage of it because, as I said, sport's been a passion of mine, and these opportunities don't come up very often, and we need to get it right. So that's what the question was for, and I hope the opportunity, if it comes up, is taken advantage of.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I had a couple of questions. The first one was around how many resources and how much time will this be taking away from daily core business functions within the council? I know it says just once a month.

Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, all of the projects that were nominated for WestInvest included resourcing for project management, project administration, contract administration, and so forth. Perhaps with the exception of my time and the general manager's time plus the rest of ELT, it's anticipated that the majority of staffing resources will be covered via the grants or within the grants. Okay,

Thank you. I also had a question about reporting back to council, but I think Councillor Wheeler might have a point about that, so I'll leave that. I am concerned. The biggest complaint I hear at the moment is that around our local government area, there are things that have always been done that are not being done. I am concerned about that. I know we've got a backlog. I know we've had disasters, but as councillors, we're constantly getting requests around attention to car parks and roads, questions from residents, questions around whether we've had input into certain things, and our ratepayers have expectations that we'll prioritise what they pay their rates for. So they want to see what they're paying their rates for.

Now, the WestInvest announcements are political announcements. They're welcome funding going into infrastructure, but— We do have to make sure that we don't lose sight of the other things that we're doing and put all the effort into talking about West Invest and to delivering specific projects, while the day-to-day things that people expect that they're paying for are not maybe being done to the level that they would wish. It's another example, in my opinion, that the expectation on council from the state government to put the resources towards these things—if you get a prize, you have to put something in and do it, that's fair enough— but we'll be footing the bill one way or another, either by the things that aren't being done that then have to be done, or to contribute our actual resources, such as the Turnbull Oval project .

So I do have concerns around that. I've got no issue with a steering committee being set up to do that. I think that's a good idea. But I do have real concerns about how this is all playing out, and I do feel that there's been a huge amount of emphasis put on it. They are big projects, but I am concerned that there is a growing discontent within the community, that many of our core functions—which for years we've heard certain people in here go on and on about— that they are maybe not being met in the way that we anticipate them. And also I do think there's a growing gap in the information that sometimes council has received, and so I would be really keen to know about the reporting back to council when things are happening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I've written an additional point four that relates to a reporting timeframe and triggers for reporting, and I've sent that through to the staff, so hope— I'm

Hopeful that the mover of the motion will take that as an additional point four. If not, I'll move the existing point three with point four as an amendment. It basically just states that a timeframe for reporting and triggers for reporting to Council be proposed for determination at the next Council, at the April Council meeting. So that's what's missing from this report, from what's proposed here, I think. There's no clear trigger for what we'll see the committee bring it back to Council and how that's reported to us. These are projects with really significant ongoing costs to the community. We haven't seen sufficient detail for each project yet. I don't think many of them are still at more or less a design and concept stage.

And what we've seen, certainly from the livability project, is just how fast that can derail when you actually try to turn a sod. So to avoid that, and this will span two terms of Council, so I think, you know, we really need some clear mechanism for how and how frequently this comes back to us to determine, because at the end of the day, we are the ones with the financial and governance responsibilities for this project. Just a couple of picky points. Could we please refrain from delivering the state government's spin in our own reports and refer to the line improving the lives of the community. How delightful. I'm sure that's great as an election pitch, but can we leave it out of our own documents, please?

I'm also, well, we do, of course, we want to improve the lives of the community, but really, I don't think we need to deliver the state government's spin for them. Pleased to see, I’m pleased to see, though, the challenges of the huge scale of these projects noticed and discussed, and I think if that’s anything, if we’ve learned anything from the Liveability Project, is that these much larger projects really can tie us up in knots for a lengthy period of time, and particularly when they happen around the change of Council and the back and forth that then ensues. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly and Councillor Reardon, were you happy to move that as a point four? I’ll just check with Councillor Conolly to come back to us with a mechanism to report the outcomes of the committee and triggers to report back to us. Yep. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question: will this committee have the ability to call experts to the committee to give advice, experts such as Sports Council or whatever ?

Thank you

Because if we do, it’s not mentioned in there.

Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, below the executive steering committee is a whole structure that progresses down through the organisation, as it were, down to the technical working groups. That is the place where, for example, we get the expertise of sporting experts, whether that be via Sporting Council or consultants or our own staff, indeed. It’s at that level that the, I suppose, the grunt work is undertaken, a lot of the decision making and the application of that expertise is made. This executive steering committee is really about Ensuring that there's that accountability at the highest level, that the program is being delivered to achieve the objectives that the investment is essentially being made for.

Its remit is predominantly focused more on ensuring that adopted processes are followed, that risks are adequately managed, and that there is that accountability and that public oversight and reporting to achieve that level of transparency that I think is expected within the community.

Thank you. Any further comments? I'll go to right of reply. Councillor Conolly, not needed. Okay, put the vote. 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, Councillors Amprogno and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried.

We have 20 minutes left. I will move to the next item, notice of motion 1— I'll move that. I'll just declare my interest, sorry, 6.1.2, less than significant non-pecuniary interest, same as before. My son plays for a club that plays at Turnbull Oval, and I'll be staying in the item. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll move the motion. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler, seconder? I'll just speak briefly because I have raised it previously, and I do understand that this is quite a bit of work. I appreciate the notice by management. I agree, it's— I know it's a lot of work for Vanessa to prepare, and I also understand that it doesn't likely impact this coming budget or even the next year's budget. However, given the nature of the amount of money and the need to be on top of it all and to have the information that we need, and to ensure that any impacts on our asset register or our long-term financial plans can be dealt with if we see them emerging, and that it's all running hand in hand with where we're looking for the budget.

For many of the reasons that Councillor Wheeler had just outlined about when we have these big projects, and it's good that we'll be having a steering committee to keep us updated on that. But I think it's really important, given our obligation under the Act to be making these decisions, bearing in mind what the impacts down the track may be, that we have an obligation to make sure we're not taking decisions that are going to unfairly burden people into the future, that we understand exactly how this fits in with all our other financial planning, and that when we do have councillor workshops and briefings, that we are bearing in mind that we have this money sitting there and that we have these projects unfolding and how that's tying in with our other operating revenue and so on.

It's mainly to do with, obviously, we have to have capital expenditure reviews before committing to projects, and I know this is early stages. But the reason I've brought it up now is that I think that we start with a plan like this to have this information so that we don't get lost down the track. And because we have to acknowledge the capacity to deliver—

The capacity of Council to deliver—is something we need to monitor. And the priorities that we've already planned for, we need to monitor so we don't displace various

Priorities already planned for, so that we monitor so we don't displace other projects down the track, and that we understand all the financial implications. So I do apologise to staff if it is a lot of work. I'm not expecting it immediately, of course, but I gather a lot of it has to be done anyway. So I think that it would be a good way to approach this hand in hand with the steering committee looking at that side and for us to have a grasp on the financial side of it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly.

Just a question. Obviously, I support the motion. I think probably everyone does. But I just have a question about, just from an administrative point of view, it's not the first time we've had a notice of motion come with a note from management saying, Yeah, we fully agree and we're doing it anyway. I just wondered why that still comes to Council. It just seems like extra admin and extra meeting time. Could management not indicate to the Council that they would do that rather than have a motion?

General Manager. We can ask. I suspect in many instances, though, the Council may want the motion presented to the Chamber. But I'm happy to ask.

Right. Okay.

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

I think this is actually about not getting surprises down the track, and we already know that we've got big impacts on our depreciation with regard to disaster recovery and the funding for that. There is an issue of intergenerational equity here, and I find this whole project, excuse me, really concerning in terms of ongoing management costs, and I've stated that before. I think we need to start being mindful at this point in the council term as well that the next council is only 18 months away. This is an extremely short council term, and it's very difficult for councillors when they come onto council.

Did we have a ruling about not speaking when other councillors are speaking, or did I imagine that?

That's fine, Councillor. You have the right to be heard in silence.

The next council is only 18 months away. I think if we've got these systems in place and these become the norm, it makes it much easier for new councillors to transition into these projects, therefore avoiding some of the issues that we've had with the Liveability Project. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Right reply. No , Councillor. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. 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. I declare the item carried. Uh.

Less than 15 minutes. Just keeping track of our resolution. Notice of motion 2, 6.1.3, free sanitary products in council buildings. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Sorry, I was going seconder. Seconder, thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I sent around an amendment earlier this afternoon to all councillors and to the staff

That I hope came through. Everyone's looking at me vaguely.

Yeah

Goodo. So I'll read it out for those who haven't found it. It's to receive a report from council officers on a pilot program of supplying free sanitary products, tampons, pads and continence pads in council-run libraries, pools, community centres, sporting ground change rooms and highly utilised public toilets. The report should include an assessment of the need for the service, costs and opportunities for funding partners. And two, that council include funding for a pilot program to supply free period products in council-run or owned community centres for consideration in the draft 2023-27 four-year delivery program. So it's a— I wrote the initial motion extremely quickly while trapped in a car park in Castle Hill, and I apologise for its brevity.

And I note that the note from management refers to a number of mechanisms for providing this. There's a number of issues that this seeks to address. The first is what's known as period poverty, which describes the effects of girls and young women missing out on community engagement and educational opportunities because of being unable to afford or ask for menstrual products. It's particularly detrimental for women who are homeless and women of very low socioeconomic status, whether that means sleeping rough, couch surfing, or staying in unstable or overcrowded accommodation, which further excludes them from employment and social opportunities. A number of governments have taken actions to address this.

In Scotland, free menstrual products are provided in all public buildings. In New Zealand and in Victoria, they're provided in schools, and the New South Wales Department of Education is trialling a schools program in 2024. Melbourne Council agreed in April 2021 to fund a year-long pilot program, and it's my understanding from Melbourne City Council that that cost in the order of $10,000. That's a much larger LGA than ours, dealing with a much larger population, so we wouldn't be looking at a similar cost here. Inner West Council, I think, have voted to do something similar, and Albury also voted to do this last week. I've included—now, they're all running products for pads. They're all running trials for pads and tampons.

I've included incontinence pads. That's a growing area of need in an ageing population. It's something of concern. It has come up as a concern for library staff, and it's one of those things that I think unless you're confronted with the issue, you often remain blissfully unaware of this being a problem for people. It's incredibly embarrassing, very socially isolating, particularly our library and our— Our museum and gallery are listed as dementia-friendly environments. We've gone to great pains to ensure that people with dementia can move about those places easily. And this is the final missing piece. So I hope Council can support this and we can get the ball rolling in addressing some of the inequality and some of the difficulty that some members of our community experience.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the motion? No. Right of reply? Not needed. Okay, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vargoul, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Duric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Sheather and Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Calvert is absent from the room. I declare the motion carried.

We have questions without notice and responses to Councillor questions. We also have to read out the confidential outcomes as well. We may have to extend another five minutes. I believe we can probably get all of this in if we try. Item 7.1.1, questions without notice. Was there to be any discussion on that,

Councillor Wheeler? Thanks, Madam Mayor. So this is the matter of the Wilberforce Shops garden. Could we point out to the, and I thank the staff for getting back to me with this information, there's no way that gardens maintained weekly, frankly. I'm a frequent visitor to that shop, to that shop, and I've never seen anyone maintaining that garden since it was put in. They might blow around occasionally, but there's been no maintenance on that garden whatsoever. The function of mulch is as a weed suppressant, not a decoration. Can we get a layer on it that actually suppresses the weeds? Because it's not doing the job there either. One of the problems with this site is that the picture of works that was used bore little resemblance to the final works.

I don't know why we did that, but it led to vastly differing expectations from what the community thought they were getting and what they actually got. So when we do this stuff, we need to better communicate with the local community.

I don't understand why we had a proposal, and I would really like some justification. I'm happy to take it on notice given the time as to why we thought that local businesses would lease something that was previously provided for free while they're already paying market rent. I don't know where we got the brainchild that we would take the tables away and they would pay to lease them back again. That didn't come to council, and I don't know how we ended up in that position. I'd love some clarification as to why we ended up there. And $7,000 for two tables is quite extraordinary, frankly. We should have just cleaned up the ones that were sitting there that were perfectly good. That's all on that item, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Item 7.1.2, responses to Councillor questions taken on notice at the Council meeting 14 February 2023. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I noticed the cost of the Australia Day event is $99,510. That is a lot of money for one evening. Could we get a breakdown of those costs as to, I know $20,000 was received as a grant. Could we get a breakdown of the cost of that met by grant, grants and the cost to Council's budget? And do we have any idea of the postcodes of the attendees? And if not, could we perhaps collect those in the future? Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

I will now move and invite the General Manager to read out the items in the confidential session. Can I please just ask Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler to read into the microphone their declarations for item 8.2.1,

Please. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Item 8.2.1, I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I know some members who have submitted expressions of interest. One person was on my ticket for the council election. As these are persons known via community organisations, they do not give rise to private interests.

Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, I'll start again. Less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 8.2.1. I know some of the people who have applied to be members of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Subcommittee. The reason for no further action is that I do not share any private interests with any of the people involved.

Deputy Mayor, item 8.3.1.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 8.3.1. The group that is mentioned there is a radio station, and I am also a current executive member of another competing radio station.

Thank you, General Manager .

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In respect of item 4.1.1, acquisition of 40 Boundary Road, Oakville, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor O'Connell, that: one, Council approve the acquisition of 40 Boundary Road, Oakville, being Lot 1 in DP 1274576, comprising an area of 2.348 hectares for the purposes of creating a retention basin. Associated infrastructure and park, for the amount detailed in this attachment. Two, authority be given for any documentation associated with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three , Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of the Council associated with the acquisition process, which do not require the seal of Council to be affixed.

Four, details of Council's resolution to be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put the resolution into effect has been executed. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, McMahon, Reardon, Sheather, Vargel, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion, Councillor Dogramaci, and there was nobody present.

In respect of item 8.2.1, Community Representation on Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Subcommittee, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Vargel, that: one, the Council endorse the terms of reference for the Floodplain Management Subcommittee included as Attachment 1 to this report. Two, appoint the following community representatives to the Floodplain Management Subcommittee: Andrew North, Christopher Bell, Lawrence Rose, Murray West, Rosemary Scott, Troy Myers and Wayne Mitchell. And three, advise all applicants of Council's determination with thanks for their interest in floodplain management. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Kotlash, McMahon, Reardon and Sheather and Vargel.

Against the motion were Councillors Dogramaci, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler and Zamprogno. In respect of item 8.3.1, Licence Agreement to Hawkesbury Community Media Association Incorporated, part of 142 Walks Hill Road, Kurrajong Heights. Whilst in closed session, Council resolved by Councillor Sheather, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno, that one, Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed licence agreement with Hawkesbury Community Media Network Association Incorporated for part of 142 Wilks Hill Road, Kurrajong Heights radio tower, as outlined in the report in accordance with sections 47 and 47A of the Local Government Act 1993. Two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part one above, the following action be taken: a, should submissions be received in regards to the proposed licence agreement to Hawkesbury Community Media Network Association, a further report be submitted to Council; or b, should no submissions be received, one, Council enter into a licence agreement to Hawkesbury Community Media Network Association Incorporated for part of Lot 1, DP 1007671, part of Wilks Hill radio tower, as outlined in the report.

Two, authority be given for the licence agreement and any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed licensee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation, such put resolution into effect, has been agreed to and executed by all parties. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, McMahon, Reardon, Sheather, Veigel, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Lastly, in regards to item 8.4.1, waste collection and processing tender, whilst in closed session Council resolved by Councillor Sheather, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that Council: one, accept the tender offer from Cleanaway Pty Ltd to undertake bulky waste collections and processing for the period of 10 years commencing 1 July 2023, with the option of a further five-year period, and that the collection is for one free bulky goods cleanup per year.

Two, accept the tender offer submitted by JJ Richards and Sons Pty Ltd to undertake recycling and organics collection and processing services for the period of 10 years, commencing 1 October 2023, with the option of a further five-year period. Three, delegate to the General Manager the authority to execute documentation relating to the contract for the bulky waste collection and recycling and organics collection and processing services for Council. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, McMahon, Reardon, Sheather, Weigel, Wheeler and Zamprogno. That's it from me, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. I declare the meeting closed at 11.30 p.m. Thank you. Good night.