20 June 2023 - Ordinary

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Hawkesbury City Council's meeting for the 20th of June 2023. I'm your Mayor, Sarah McMahon. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.3 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, and 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'll refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors.

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

Madam

Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Apologies tonight, we have one apology from Councillor Kotlash. Recording

In progress.

Thank you, while we get used to the new system, everybody. The General Manager has also received from Councillor Dogramaci a written request to attend tonight's ordinary Council meeting by audio visual link, as he is overseas for work commitments. Councillor Dogramaci has been admitted to the meeting and is able to participate until Council decides by resolution whether to accept his request. Does someone want to move that Councillor Dogramaci be permitted to attend the ordinary Council meeting on June 20, 2023 by audio visual link, as he is overseas for work commitments? Thank you, Jill. Seconder for that? Thank you. Oh, sorry, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Conolly. All in favour, please raise your hand.

Thank you, Councillors, so carried. As that resolution has been passed, Item 4.2.1 on the business paper is a request for leave of absence from Councillor Dogramaci. As Council has resolved to permit Councillor Dogramaci to attend tonight's meeting by audio visual link, Item 4.2.1 is no longer required to be considered. I'll just cross that off.

Do any councillors tonight have any declarations of interest, please?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Item 4.5.1, hosting Landcare.

Thank you, Councillor. Anybody else? No, thank you very much. Confirmation of minutes. We have two lots of minutes to adopt tonight. The first one is the ordinary meeting of Council on the 9th of May 2023. Do I have someone move that way? Councillor Reardon, second please. Councillor Veigel. All in favour, please raise your hands. All in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Declare that carried. Oh, Councillor Dogramaci, thank you, sorry. It's a new system here. I'll get used to watching the screen. The second set of minutes are the extraordinary meeting minutes of the 17th of May 2023.

Someone present wish to move that way? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconder Councillor Reardon. All in favour, please raise your hands. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Dogramaci, and I was absent for that meeting. I declare that item carried.

Thank you, councillors. Okay, we will move on tonight to the agenda item subject to public address. There is one registered speaker for this evening. That is in relation to the item 4.1.1, Redbank Voluntary Planning Agreement, proposed Grose River Bridge Crossing. We have a speaker against the item. That is Marian Wilcox. Mrs Wilcox, if you could please approach the speaker's podium there, that would be lovely. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Firstly, I would like it noted that surprisingly, we as one of the affected property owners were not formally notified that this item was being discussed at council tonight, and therefore we have not had a chance to consult with our lawyer. Also , due to lack of explanation of exactly how the proposed route will affect us and our property, we don't know whether to speak for or against this VPA, as we are unsure of the details. We also want to say that the past four years have been very difficult for our family. Having the threat of losing our home and farm has been extremely distressing. It has taken both an emotional and financial toll on us, and the lack of transparency has not helped.

Whilst we were advised by the RMS and the previous general manager to seek legal advice and that this would be covered by the government, we now find that we are left to cover these costs.

Whilst for us there was never going to be a good outcome, I want to thank everybody who has worked to support us over that time to come to option one, which is now in front of council tonight. I am sure no one here tonight would like to find they were having their life and home impacted by a busy road all of a sudden appearing next to their home. Whilst this proposed road and bridge will have a negative impact on our life, Option 1 is certainly the best solution under the circumstances. At the January Council meeting, Option 1 was favoured in the vote by the majority of councillors. The general public have been led to believe that Option 1 had been chosen and that the other options discarded, and we believe that would explain the reason for there being only three submissions received by Council.

Understandably, we need confirmation that Option 1 is definitely the only option being considered and that Options 2 and 3 are off the table. We also want a better explanation of what is proposed. The map provided to us of the proposed route does not show any measurements of the distances from our house and farm sheds, and we have not been informed if any of our land will be acquired. We need to be given better details than this, and believe a planning person should come to our property and walk us along our boundary, explaining in detail what is proposed so we can visualise the impact. We also want written communication confirming these details so there are no misunderstandings. We would also appreciate a timeline of the proposed works and what recourses available to remedy any negative impact that may occur to our home and property.

Again, thank you to all those friends, councillors and community members who have supported us to come to Option 1 and allow us to keep our beloved home and farm.

Thank you, Mrs. Wilcox. I'll just ask if there's any questions from councillors. No? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, and thanks for coming to address us, Mrs. Wilcox. I understand that this has been incredibly distressing and that you're still quite anxious about the outcomes of this project. So how much information have you been given about the impacts on your property to date? Just

We'll just wait for the microphone.

I've been emailed a map, which is basically like a line drawing, but it's very hard to see any details. There's no measurements as to how far it's going to be from the house or the sheds or how much encroachment there is going to be on the boundary. I haven't been told if any of our property is going to be acquired or whether it's going to miss our property. Formally , like I've had discussions, but I haven't had any confirmation of anything in writing. We're sort of not aware of the height of the road. We've been given some cross sections, but I don't understand them. I honestly got no idea how to interpret what we've been given. And neither does anyone else in our family. I feel like we need a much better explanation of the height of the road, where it's going to come over the boundary if it is, or what embankments are going to be built.

Basically, yeah, how we're going to be affected — noise, dust — what impact it's going to have on us while it's being built, if there's any recourse, if there's any damage to our foundations, or the noise we're going to have to put up with. Yeah, so we haven't had those discussions, no. Yeah.

And has anyone, aside from the information given to you by Council, have you been approached by anyone else, the RMS or the— No. So the only information you've had from Council has been

That written information? Yeah.

Thank you. Let's hope we can get a few answers for you from that. Okay.

Yeah. No further questions? Thank you, Mrs. Wilcox.

Do I have someone ready to move something? Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation with an additional point, that when a Part 5 application is lodged that includes the detailed design, Council offer affected property owners a meeting to ensure they can answer any questions during the consultation period.

Thank you, Councillor. A seconder? Councillor Sheather. Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. This has obviously been a very long process with lots of changes to get to this point here. As I've said throughout, I think it's vital that we remember our obligations to the wider community, and we ensure that there's no more delays in this project, and we do everything we can to ensure that people are driving on that bridge as soon as possible. I think there's a lot of valid questions that were just asked, but they are to be answered when there is a detailed design, and that obviously is the next step in the project, in the process, after we have approved a VPA. Yeah, sorry, approved the VPA. So I think, yeah, I don't have anything else to say other than we've just got to ensure there's no further delay, we can get this going.

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

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm struggling with voting for this VPA because I'm not keen on moving these milestones for the developer yet again. And I think the milestones that we've got around the bridge building, we're now looking at releasing something like 1,200 lots before the bridge is started. That's very close to the final almost 1,400 lots. We're getting closer and closer to the developer having the entire land release without having to deliver this really significant piece of infrastructure for the community. And I really don't find that acceptable, given that the traffic impacts are being felt by the community now.

The quandary that I'm in, though, is that I want the developer to build something, and I want them to deliver the rest of the requirements that are listed under this VPA, and I want the best outcome that we can achieve for the Wilcox family, who really have been through the wringer for the last four years since they attended a public meeting and had a bombshell dropped on them inadvertently. I think it is concerning that the Wilcox family feel that they don't have sufficient information to know of the continuing impacts on their property. So I'm hoping that I can get some answers to some of the questions that were asked. And the first question is, how locked in is option one once this VPA, this amended VPA, passes?

Thank you, Councillor. I'll just ask who would like to answer that. General Manager? Thank you.

Through you, Madam Mayor, certainly we've reached a level of detail in the attached drawings to the voluntary planning agreement that will set that route, save for, I would think, very, very minor deviation subject to detailed design. That route is locked in and cannot be moved again without subsequent agreement to all parties of the VPA. Okay,

Thank you. And the next questions, I guess, are around the land acquisition itself. Will a portion of the Wilcox's property be compulsorily acquired under the current plan?

That is not the intent, no. Certainly in terms of a permanent acquisition, the drawings that you have before you tonight have been purposefully designed so as to not require any permanent acquisition of the Wilcox property. What about temporary acquisition? That will be subject to further work through. We get through the detailed design, but I would think it would be inevitable that some temporary leasing of land on the Wilcox property in order to construct the road may be an outcome.

So that would be a lease, there would be a financial agreement?

Correct.

Thank you. And what about information about road heights, levels,

Whether there's any noise abatement, embankments, that sort of thing? At what stage will that information be available?

A level of detail that you have before you attached to the voluntary planning agreement has been provided with somewhat clarifying details has been provided to the Wilcox family. That gives you an indication of where the new road will sit relative to existing ground levels. Certainly, once the proposal forms itself up in terms of detailed design, that would be the appropriate time for Council to sit down and explain those impacts more fully. We certainly don't have details around acoustic walls or anything of that nature at this point in time.

And one of the other requests from Mrs Wilcox was that someone from Council's planning department come out and explain what those diagrams mean with the level of detail that we currently have so that they can understand the impacts as proposed. Could we organise that, please?

I think that would be the substance of Councillor Conolly's amendment.

The amendment appears to me to be for a public meeting. I think, given the

Sorry, do you mind? Maybe I could clarify. I did mean that to be a private meeting for each affected landowner, being those three or four affected landowners. Yeah.

Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just to pick up on a point that Councillor Wheeler was making, for clarity's sake, there are no further movements of the milestones beyond those that were previously agreed to by Council in September and appearing on page nine. Is that correct?

General Manager? That's

Correct.

Right. Okay then. So those milestones are as they were as of September's meeting. My next question is, now that we're a little bit further down this road, could I get some sense as to how big a job it is to make an amended Part 5 application? Is this a massive body of work, or is this tweaking of an existing application?

General Manager? Look, it's not a matter for Council. That's a matter for Redbank Communities. However, certainly in discussions that I have had with them, the level of additional reporting required in terms of environmental reports and archaeological reports, all of those sorts of things, there is a substantial level of additional work to come in and to be prepared prior to the lodgement of a Part 5 application. But

Is that work that this change to the route has necessitated, or which was always necessary?

That this change has necessitated.

Right. Okay. Thank you for those points of clarification. I'm speaking in support of the adoption of this VPA. I'm equally unhappy about the movement of milestones, but that was dealt with last September. It's also true to say that this is a very pleasing outcome that certain people said could not be achieved until it was. There was a time where the Wilcox home was going to be bulldozed, and if you look at how straight that line is on the map, I mean, it was an act of sheer bloody mindedness to think that a house in the middle of farming land needed to be bulldozed to accommodate this, when subsequently it proved really easy to get around if we just had the right will to do that. Oh, a question that I did have for you, Madam Mayor, was several meetings ago, you gave an undertaking to the Chamber to get to the bottom of why certain lands were excluded from consideration, and you agreed to pursue that matter.

Could I ask for an update on that?

Thank you, Councillor. I don't have an update at this point in time, but we'll take that on notice.

Right. Well, that's disappointing, but because I'm sure we'd all like to know.

This shouldn't be contentious. I only wish that we'd been here several years ago. I've cited a letter that purports to support my ejection from the Liberal Party because I supported saving the Wilcox house.

If anybody wants to know why I'm still a member of the Liberal Party and yet sit very happily as an independent in this chamber, that is why. Because that is no reason to call a person's membership of a political party into question, especially considering that there were Liberal colleagues of mine who were pleased to support saving the Wilcox farm at that time.

Councillor Zamprogno, that is misrepresentation. That is not the reason that you were being asked to have an inquiry to remove your membership from the Liberal Party, and I'd like to correct the record on that. Thank you. Well

Thank you for confirming that you're the instigator of that letter.

Sorry, I don't think anything I just said then was, but if you want to infer that, Councillor Zamprogno, we can have a great debate here now about the reasons why you should be out of the Liberal Party, but that is not what's on the agenda. So please stick to the agenda.

I'm sorely tempted, but I think others would prefer that we'd stick to the business at hand.

I know you love a controversy, but what we're going to do is keep to relevance. There is an item on the agenda with a recommendation, Councillor. I urge you to stick to it.

I shall. This is more than the Wilcox house. This is the provision of an essential piece of infrastructure that should have been provided years ago and, as I often point out, should have been provided by now based on the terms of the original VPA. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the matter? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, too, think that this is probably the best outcome we were ever going to get from what originally began as a very questionable VPA many years ago. I think that the pointy end of this development was always going to present challenges around this because the VPA in its initial form didn't necessarily consider all future aspects of the delivery of infrastructure and its associated ongoing costs to ratepayers into the future. There's many issues that remain unaddressed around this, particularly the burden that our ratepayers may face around our local roads network. We have no information about that. This, of course, is a— It's a project that is aimed to deliver for the additional Redbank traffic.

It's not a solution for the existing congested roads in general, and I want to see it delivered as promised because it was something that allowed this to be passed in the first place. Like Councillor Wheeler, however, I'm concerned about pushing the milestones having been pushed out, and I didn't support that in September because I think it could have been done faster. Actually, that was my question. What's the current number of lots that subdivision certificates have been issued for?

Thank you. I'll just refer that to General Manager. I

Would have to take that one on notice, I'm sorry.

It's quite crucial. I'm surprised it's not in the report . Sorry, my sciatica is choking me. I'm surprised it's not in the report because for a comparison to know time-wise, we would need to know how many the current, how many subdivision lots had currently been delivered. Anyway, so I'll hear that on notice.

Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, we do have an answer now for you, if you don't mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's 901 lots that have been completed and subdivision certificates issued for.

Okay, so there's only 14 more lots before the development approval has to be done.

That's correct, yes. So the VPA has also got a time in terms of getting the approval in place by December this year as well. Yep.

Okay. All right. Okay, thank you. Yes, I think this is the trouble that we have around a VPA when things are done by lot number rather than by timescales, because the general public don't really know how many lots have been issued, and that makes it difficult for us to understand exactly, in terms of projects being taken to these different stages, just how that will play out. Nevertheless, that seems like there's not a lot of time to get that development approval before 14 lots are issued. I think it's a shame. It would have been nice to have someone from Redbank speak because there were quite a few questions that we have around this, and we've not had an opportunity as councillors, I guess, to ask them about it.

Anyway, it is what it is. I'm hoping that Mrs Wilcox will get the answers that she so is requesting. I am a little surprised that we would not notify impacted parties that this was being heard again because we know how much of an impact it has had on these people. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak tonight? No? Right of reply, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. Just very briefly, I said it the last time this came up. I think the biggest problem with this VPA was that it was never anticipated that council would be the one that would try and pull out. The VPA was written to protect the community from a developer not delivering infrastructure required. It was never anticipated when we voted on that VPA all those years ago that it would actually be council that would try and pull out and change things. And the VPA is really not set up for that, which is why we're in this position of having to move lot numbers around. It's always , everything always takes a lot longer than we expect it to in this process. As we've just heard, we're at 901 lots already.

I remember when this was debated in September last year, we were saying how some people were saying it was unnecessary to move them by this March. And here we are, all these months later, and we're just ready to agree with the VPA so we can start the development application process. This is why I think it's vital that we don't get in the way anymore and we let this project happen. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll put the recommendation motion as it appears on the board. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dogramaci via visual link, and Councillor Cottlash is absent. I declare the motion carried.

Madam Mayor— Oh, sorry, I didn't have my hand.

Oh, sorry, I apologise. I just wasn't reading names, my apology. Councillor, those against the motion, please raise your hand. Against the motion are Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler. I declare the motion carried.

Okay. Next on the agenda, we have no condolences, no mayoral minutes. Now we move to items on block. As Councillor Wheeler has declared an interest in one of the items on block, being item 4.5.1, that is removed from block. The items to be voted on block are 4.3.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 5.1.1. Do I have a mover for that, please? Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Conolly. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vygor, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dogramaci. Absent from the room was Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and absent from the meeting was Councillor Kotlash. Thank you for that, councillors.

The next item for the report for determination is item 4.2.2, Operational Plan and 2023 to 2033 Long Term Financial Plan. Do I have anyone willing to move the recommendation? Councillor Reardon, second that. Councillor Sheather. Councillor Reardon, did you want to say any remarks? Lovely, thank you, Councillor Reardon. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you.

I've got a lot. Firstly, Tamplin Field and the items listed under the West Invest project funding. We still have this synthetic centre field where it's been raised a number of times now that that isn't appropriate, firstly for co-location with the synthetic track around the outside, and that's been raised by the users of both.

When we were at the Local Government Conference last week, we had a chat to a couple of other councils who have received West Invest funding, and they both said that they had had some further negotiation with the funding body and suggested that we That we attempt some negotiations about perhaps changing what we've intended to do with that , with Tamplin Field. I also note that since we put in funding, that funding application, that the New South Wales Chief Scientist report has come out, and it's not really very good news for synthetic turf. In fact, the Chief Scientist report appears to recommend best practice natural turf management over synthetic turf. And there's some notable things in there that it's not been particularly well assessed in Australian conditions, that there's a seven-year warranty if it receives 60 hours of use per week.

If it receives 10— sorry, 40 hours a week, it gets a 10-year warranty. That's not very long for something that costs so much and will cost so much for such a lot of money for disposal and provide a very significant waste burden. And in fact, in Australian conditions, particularly in Western Sydney conditions, it's not tested and it's expected to have a much lower performance life. Other things raised in the report are its high flammability, particularly if there is embers from bushfires, that the rubber crumb is likely to be contaminated by heavy metals, and that there's increased heat stress, abrasions and foot stress for people who use synthetic turf. So I think it's a long time we abandoned the entire Tamplin Field project in its present form, and I would really like to see us moving towards doing that.

There is some interesting information in the rest of the operational plan, including, and I've got a couple of questions around the plans for the hot water pump at Oasis and the heater system renewal. Are we looking, what criteria are we using for the selection of the replacements of those, and will they be fully electric or are we looking at gas in any of those?

I'll just see if anyone wants to answer that question. Director of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd have to take those on notice, Councillor.

If you could please. Another piece of information we picked up from the Local Government Conference in Canberra was the push to electrify in terms of efficiency and also in terms of emissions reductions, and the distinct possibility that there will be federal government funding to do just that, which is probably a bandwagon we should be jumping on. There's a reference in here to nutrient offset works, and I wondered if we could have some more information about that. It doesn't need to be tonight, but if we could take that perhaps on notice and that could come back to us at a briefing, so that we understand that's quite a significant amount of money allocated in the operational plan. And I don't think we really—I know it's a government requirement and we don't have a choice, but it would be nice to know where that money is going because it's a lot.

I can't support the operational plan in its current form because I'm not content with the rate structure, which is still using low-value properties to subsidise higher-value properties. We need to have a more robust conversation about the sullage and the sewer costs. We did hear again last week in Canberra about how we shouldn't be releasing any land without sewer connections, and people mentioned that they had some land releases where people would be required to pump—they would be required to pump the sewage for a period of a couple of years, and that was in a meeting on urban planning. And I laughed heartily and pointed out that we'd been doing that for more than 20 years in Bowen Mountain and it was costing people a fortune.

And people around me from other states were shocked that that's what we were living with in the Hawkesbury and that's what people were still paying for. We need to make a much bigger noise to the state and federal government about what our residents are putting up with. There's some lovely other bits and pieces in this operational plan, and I always think it's a useful read to see what else council provides. There's one of the things that I think is worth drawing attention to is some of the cheap and accessible things that council provides. Plants at the community nursery, you know, they vary in cost between $1.35 and $2.60. You're not picking up prices like that at Munnings. The Richmond pool costs, I think, are still reasonably low.

Many of our community halls provide really good facilities for very low costs. Cost, and I think it should be noted that the Derubbin Centre and Hawkesbury Council is one of the very few councils in New South Wales that provides free meeting rooms for community groups. Many other community groups incur significant costs in other LGAs where their councils won't come to the party. And I know many people who have, and councillors on other councils, who have waived the Derubbin Centre community rooms policy at their councils, asking them to come up with something similar to Nooa Vale. Thank you.

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

Thank you. I'll support the recommendation, but I did actually have an additional point that I sent through to staff that I would ask the mover to consider including, if that could be brought up.

Just in regards to the clearing of swamp land that Council has spent some time discussing on Pitt Town Road, be included in the schedule of works somehow

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. I'll ask the mover and the seconder if they're happy to include that. Councillor Reardon? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Sheather?

Question. Yes . There has been some indication of what needs to be done. To what degree can we put that in there?

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. I think it was mentioned on page—let me just click— page 19.

I've read it.

Yeah, so if that was to be included, it mentions here that it could be adjusted through the quarterly budget review process.

Yeah

I'd have to more of the costs

At this point, are you happy to accept that, or would you otherwise, Councillor Conolly

Need to move it as an amendment? If it can be done before the report, yes. Sorry If it can be done with— Yes,

As per page 19, I'm sure that's the— there, here you go. Yes. Thank you. So therefore that is now included as per the mover and seconder. Is there any other remarks you wish to make, Councillor Conolly? No

It's probably fairly self-explanatory to the business paper.

Okay, great. Thank you. Anyone

Else? Councillor Lines-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just some questions first. Just regarding that land at Pitt Town, is that that land that some time ago you brought a motion about snakes in?

It is the same block of land. The snakes, the vermin, the mosquitoes— It's at McGrath Hill then. At McGrath Hill .

And is that swamp land or wetland?

Goodness me, I don't think I can diagnose that. What does it mention in the report, Councillor? I'll just have a look. I think it's called a wetland.

Yeah, so if it's a wetland would be different. We don't necessarily just clear out wetlands. So I think that probably needs a bit more work to be looked at before it's touched, but that's okay. The other questions, and thanking the public for their submissions, but the questions were, with some of the things that people are raising, what mechanism do we have for capturing these suggestions? So, for example, asking Transport for New South Wales about widening Buttsworth Creek Bridge. I know it's not within our jurisdiction, but how do we translate that when people are feeding that in? Do we just tell them to do it, or do we have something that captures that so that we can then put that into something where we ask questions on their behalf?

Thank you, Councillor. I will refer to the General Manager.

Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. We're having an interesting discussion about this very point today, actually, and it would be helpful for staff if there is— Perhaps broad agreement from councils about any of those particular submissions that you wish for us to forward off, council would be happy to act as the intermediary on those and forward those pieces of feedback and submissions onto the relevant agencies. But it's something that I would prefer to understand if the council has supported prior. Okay,

Thank you. So we can work on that. The next question was: how and when will we be communicating, for example, about how much of Wealbarrow Ridge Road is actually going to be sealed, if and when? What sort of timeframe are those people who are anticipating this happening, when will that prioritisation be done and when will they be notified? Thank

You, councillor. Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the asset systems and planning team are currently working up their roadmap for the redevelopment of the roads asset management plan as the priority. We are in the process of receiving the road condition audit data. That's going to inform that prioritisation work and will also provide us with an indication and the underlying data to calculate the unfunded renewals. That will all go into the mix in terms of what the longer-term asset management approach, particularly to roads, looks like. And I don't have the exact month we're targeting in front of me, but I can certainly take that on notice.

Is it, like, imminent though, or is it, like, you know—

It's in the first half of next financial year.

First half of next financial year. And the other question was, we had two emails. One was a submission about the clean-up of the police slash military site in Windsor. Can someone clarify if that request was to the exterior of that location, which council controls, or was it for the entire site?

Thank you, Councillor. I will refer that to...

Thank you, sorry, what was your title?

Corporate Planning and Performance Strategist. There

You go.

Through you, Madam Mayor, that was pertaining to the external site, so the small garden bed, which contains the ruins of the wall within it as well.

Okay, so that is Council's responsibility, so will we be doing something about it?

I think we'd have to take that on notice at the moment, but we're working out a solution. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. That was my questions. There's quite a few things. There's some really good things, as Councillor Wheeler said. There's some really good things in this operational and long-term financial plan, but there are several things that cause me concern that I'm probably well on the record of speaking about, and that is around the rating structure, which we have seen just recently, and I don't know how many people took the opportunity to avail themselves of the online tool, but some people who did had sent me the outcome of their results, and we see the same pattern that the lower-value properties have had increases in rates and some higher-value properties decreases.

We know that will happen under the existing structure that we have. With regard to the 9% interest rate, which I queried via email, I do, I really understand that we have to do that, and of course it's a deterrent for people, but I don't like it. And I think the problem that I have with it is that it's likely to impact those who are already struggling to pay anyway. And then I just hate the thought of that compounding into a really difficult situation when people are under such cost of living pressure and potentially, because they maybe have lower-value properties, that they have also got an increase in their rates. Many of the lower-value properties, of course, are in the areas that have the sullage collection, so they've got an increase there as well.

So I do have concerns around that, and I think that we need to be really mindful of conveying to people that we do have hardship provisions, because it's unfortunate that we can't incentivise anything around rate payment, and of course we can't do that because that would advantage well-resourced people who can pay up front. So it's just a shame that we have to have such a thing. I also have concerns around the risks to council through continuing to direct public funds to third-party organisations where we've not completed the third-party reviews we committed to taking, and I think that when we do complete this, it'll benefit all parties to ensure... Sure, proper governance and accountability procedures are in place, and that in turn will reduce any risks to Council along that line.

But my greatest concern lies within the long-term financial plan and the fact that this is no reflection on staff or anything, but this is a reflection on the local government sector, where we know long financial sustainability into the future is a really key challenge. I'm really concerned that we don't include Western Sydney and disaster recovery in our long-term financial plan. I understand why it isn't there, but I think we know that we're going to have increased issues around climate change and increased frequency of disasters, and that will expose us to more damage. And with Western Sydney, we know that we have the potential for ongoing operational costs, maintenance and upgrades, which may place a big financial burden down the track.

I don't support using $4 million of ratepayer money to be diverted to get a project to simply get an advantage of $4.8 million more grant money. I think that each Western Sydney project needs to be carefully scrutinised so we don't proceed with something which is unsustainable into the future. The federal assistance grants, we heard the other day from the Prime Minister that they are going to be given early this year, but that is no guarantee that they will be given early each year, and that in turn could translate into pressures that we've seen before. They're still only at 0.55%, and neither the current government nor the previous government would return it back to the 1%, which is the sort of the minimum sustainable level that we could have.

We've seen in the long-term financial plan that the key challenges around the next four years rest on the current developments we have in this area around Redbank, Vineyard and Jacaranda, and that that is because of the uncertainty around delivery of infrastructure. However, just increasing rate, the number of people that live here and having more development is not the answer. And we heard the Hills Mayor this morning saying why that's not the answer, because in their area they have congested roads, overcrowded schools, pressure on playing fields, etc. And he's calling on the Premier not to impose that on councils to force them to have more development. Of interest, I think, is the other day the various IPART decisions around special rate variations that councils have had to have, including Strathfield having a 92.83% over four-year SRV, Lithgow 45.78% over a year, Queanbeyan 64.3% over three years.

And I think that's indicative of the sector overall, that there's such backlogs, and having an SRV is a usual thing for a council, not necessarily something to invoke mass hysteria. Rate pegging and cost shifting are things which constrain us quite a bit in what we can do into the future. And I just think that we need to have these ongoing conversations, which we will, I assume, into the future, because long-term financial sustainability, unless we have some changes around how the funding from other levels of government come, is going to be our biggest problem and the biggest problem of all of local government. Thanks.

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

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in relation to the West Invest, at the local government conference, there was discussions on the floor and privately where monies had been moved around, I suppose, in relation to opportunities particular councils put forward. I've got a concern similar to Councillor Wheeler in relation to Templin Field, as you're well aware. If the staff could see if there is any opportunities for that to happen, there may be special circumstances with the councillors we spoke of, but it didn't seem that way. But the staff have indicated in the past they've checked those opportunities and they weren't there, but if they could be relooked at, and that if those opportunities are there, to have an informal discussion, certainly in relation to Templin. Yeah,

Thank you, Councillor. I think that is the plan once the deeds have been signed and once we go to the community to seek feedback, those discussions are certainly paramount, and we have had other feedback like yours brought to our attention. Yeah

I'd like an informal discussion with the councillors on the matter as well, if the opportunity is available to us to shift some of that.

I'll just refer to the general manager through you. Thank you, Councillor Sheather. So in respect of Templin Field, the documentations that you've got before you in the operational plan have been quite careful to talk about not a synthetic but an all-weather playing surface. Okay, so what... The concerns around the synthetic are we're obviously acutely aware of. What we haven't done is engage with our community to understand how they, how all sectors of the community feel about that. The discussions that we've had with the funding authority have been quite positive in that if the objectives of, and all were the playing surface, i.e. increased usability, greater resilience in times of flood and the like, are able to be met, if those objectives are able to be met, it is likely that the funding body won't have any particular concern associated with not delivering a synthetic, but delivering a natural turf playing pitch with, for example, increased drainage cells and improved surface, for example.

So it is our intention as we work our way through each of those very significant community projects, of which Templin Field is one, all of those key decision points before we proceed will come to this group, potentially before and after community consultation, to get endorsement of the council as we proceed. And clearly the issue of the synthetic at Templin will be one of those key decision points.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. My issue was not whether it's synthetic or whether it's an ordinary field. Mine are about what they call sprigs on boots, which aren't compatible to an athletic track. So whether you've got synthetic in the middle or just an ordinary playing field, you've still got to get to the darn thing and you've got to cross the track. We're going to spend a lot of money there and the two of them can't work together. So that was my concern, and as you're aware, has been all the time. In relation to synthetic, I'll just take up some of the Councillor Wheeler spoke of. I've read the report that she spoke of. It's fairly non-conclusive, makes a lot of statements and references. But with synthetic, it's something that is all over our state, and in relation to foreign objects in the materials and stuff like that, they've got cleaners and all that sort of stuff, and they've got a protocol on how they play on those facilities in relation to safety and other aspects.

And they're things that we would deal with if indeed we're going to look at a synthetic track. In relation to the rest of the document, Madam Mayor, I have a concern about Packer Road, as you're aware. I'd rather see the funds distributed throughout our city. We've got 1.9 in the budget to do it. We need another 1.9 at the moment. That's where it is. And by the time we finish that road, we will need funds around our community, certainly out my way. The roads are dangerous to drive on at night time. When you've got headlights coming to you, you can't see the edges of the road, and you can't drive more than a few car lengths without the car shifting on the roadway. And we're going to need funds to fix that.

There's a lot of road out there. Gravel road, as much as we mightn't like them, is pittance to maintain compared to our— Our existing road surfaces. And we've got some around our city that probably should be ripped up and put back to dirt because they're in a state where they're nearly untrafficable. The rest of the document, Madam Mayor, I'm happy with. There's some issues that have been discussed by councillors over time, and I guess we've all got our reasons why we view those. But overall, I think the document's a good document. Thank you.

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

No. If there's no other speakers, I'll go to right of reply, Councillor Reardon.

Thank you. Then I'll put the vote. All those in favour, as per the motion on the board, please raise your hand. Oh, sorry. Before I read out your names, I will just declare Councillor Dogramaci left the meeting at 7.08 p.m. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. I declare Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Kotlash absent from the vote.

Okay, thank you, Councillors. Moving on to the next item, item 4.3.1, Koala Plan of Management cost and funding. Do I have anyone wishing to move? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll move the recommendation of the business paper with an additional point that I've sent through to the staff.

I'll

Second it, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Just taking that point.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Very pleased to see this, the proposal to begin vegetation mapping. It's as the beginning of work towards a koala plan of management. It's very clear, however, from the information sent to us from the Total Environment Centre and the Sydney Basin Koala Network, including the advice from the Environmental Defender's Office, that Council has jumped the gun on the Rural Boundary Clearing Code and that we are already, through that decision, having an impact on koala habitat. And I quote from the letter that we've received, they're concerned that safeguards for koalas in the code have limited application because Council does not have an approved koala plan of management in place. Now, Council was cautioned when we adopted the code that without a koala plan of management, we were leaving habitat and biodiversity vulnerable.

They further go on to point out that the Hawkesbury LGA contains an area of regional koala significance and has been identified by the New South Wales Koala Strategy as an area requiring the filling of knowledge gaps. And certainly vegetation mapping and a koala plan of management will go a long way towards filling that. The issues centre around the vegetation in the Hawkesbury. Fifty-seven percent of vegetation in the Hawkesbury is preferred koala habitat, and the Gospers Mountain fires in 2019-2020 impacted on 78.66% of this habitat. So we're looking at a really significant area. We also are looking at potentially the widest genetically diverse koala population in New South Wales and possibly in Australia, which means that that could be a critical climate refuge, as is quoted to us.

They further go on to say that council, it's not clear to the extent to which council considered the principles of ecologically sustainable development or the long-term and cumulative impacts of actions on future generations in deciding to opt into the code. That's a pretty damning comment on this council and our ability to undertake our responsibilities.

It also makes mention of our inability to carry out compliance actions around the code, something that council was well aware of when we opted into it. That in 2021, we noted that loss of koala habitat was a potential impact; that it could cause land being cleared indiscriminately due to landholders' lack of knowledge, leading to irresponsible land clearing; and that Council was not sufficiently resourced to meet the additional compliance obligations. And therefore, it appears that we are undermining koala protection. Now, moving forward with a koala plan of management and vegetation mapping, I think is the very least that we can do to protect koalas across the LGA. And it should be noted that by providing vegetation mapping and a subsequent koala plan of management, we will be saving people who wish to do any further work on their properties the expense and the time of providing their own koala strategies for particular tracts of land.

So, I think this is a particularly useful piece of work for the whole LGA and also for the future. It's part of our responsibilities under the Act that we carry out this management. But I think it's also part of our responsibilities under the Act that we contact the relevant department. It's a new government and hopefully with a different focus and a greater focus on the environment and inform them that we have moved too quickly, that we do not have the capacity to either inform and guide people in their use of the code or to police whether the code is used correctly or incorrectly. I draw your attention to a block of land in Bowen Mountain, or what is now three blocks of land in Bowen Mountain that have been completely cleared under this code and are now being resold as cleared property with a subsequent large uplift in land value.

Koala habitat gone under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. That's what we've signed up for. That's why we need a koala plan of management, and that's why we need to pause the code. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. As you've raised issues within your speech, I declare that I will have to leave the room based on matters you have raised with a conflict of interest. Deputy Mayor, you will need to come and chair the remainder of this item. Thank you.

Thank you .

Do we have any further speakers? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. In relation to the comment that was just made by Councillor Wheeler about total clearing of property and claim it was a rural boundary clearing, is staff aware of that, or maybe Councillor Wheeler might like to enlarge on what she spoke of?

I didn't quite

Understand

The question.

There was a comment made in relation to total clearing of blocks of land in part of our city that was done under the rural boundary clearing.

Okay. General Manager, do you have an answer to that?

Through you, Deputy Mayor, I'd have to look at the specific details of the property. We are aware of some lands that have been cleared under the rural boundary clearing code, but without knowing the specifics of that property, I'd need to take that on notice.

Was that that total property that you're talking about, or on a boundary?

General Manager?

I think the point that the Director City Planning has made is we haven't been provided with the specifics of the property address in order to be able to answer your question, Councillor. Okay.

Thank you. I move an amendment, Mr Deputy Mayor, and that's the recommendation. The recommendation?

You're moving an amendment?

Sorry, you're trying to move an amendment. Yes. Okay, the amendment is the recommendation. Yep. Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Reardon. Councillor Sheather, you wish to speak to your amendment? No. Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment because I thought that the inclusion in the motion of the additional thing to pause the rural boundary clearing code would actually have enabled us to come up with a situation where we weren't opting out, which we can't opt out of the code, but that would have meant that we could have at least had appropriate measures in place around koala habitat.

Of course, I support the first part in the amendment, but I'm speaking against it because I believe it needs the other part of the motion to make it complete and to really do what we need to do, which is to ensure that when we have a unique situation in the Hawkesbury, where we know that we have a unique koala population, that we have to protect it. Not every area gets to have something so unique and special, but we do. And so it's really important that we use whatever mechanisms we have to support it. Going ahead and doing the fine-scale vegetation mapping is a start, but it doesn't go far enough. We need to have the jointly combined attack on this so that we can really get some long-term benefits.

And that it suits everyone all round, because it delivers some certainty to people who, you know, want to implement that code, by removing that and just doing the mapping. We're losing the time where we could actually be implementing some protection of this valuable habitat. In terms of the first part, which is around the fine scale around the amendment, which is just to do the fine-scale vegetation mapping,

The combination of, well, the utilisation of the funding, the $100,000 which was put aside for the natural conservation strategy would be utilised to do both of those. Both of those. Well, to cater for both of those plans of management, I guess, or strategies at the one time, which would be a good thing. But if we're going to be doing all this, it's going to be too late if we get to a situation where we don't have the habitat that we're trying to protect if it has gone, because we have not moved to pause the rural boundary code. So, whereas in principle I support the amendment as being part of a wider plan of action, I can't support it on its own.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the amendment?

No further speakers on the amendment. I will put the amendment. The amendment is the recommendation that's in the business paper. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather , Councillor Conolly, and Councillor Djuric. All those against, please raise your hand. Against, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert. Declare the amendment carried.

So the amendment becomes the motion. Any further discussion on the motion?

No.

Well, I'll ask Councillor Wheeler for a right of reply.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think it's unfortunate that some councillors don't seem to have understood what they've just voted on, which I think is a real shame. Point of

Order.

Yes

I think that comment was clearly out of order and should be withdrawn. It's talking to the understanding of other councillors rather than the matter before us. It's inappropriate. Councillor Wheeler, can you please consider that?

I'll withdraw the comment and state instead that it

Probably should be clearer to councillors that when they vote on an amendment that only contains part of the existing motion, they can usually have their cake and eat it too. So we are now in the unfortunate circumstance where we are yet again backing in the rural boundary clearing code, which we have been very clearly told is a bad thing for this LGA, for the habitat and biodiversity, and particularly for the survival of koalas in this LGA. I am deeply ashamed to be a member of a council that continues to vote against the protection of an endangered species. Those of you who think that you stand for the environment and who think that those of us who move against matters that don't protect the environment should be accused of grandstanding and other derogatory terms probably need to do a little bit of reflection on what you are actually facilitating in this chamber.

I'm very pleased to see that we are getting some vegetation mapping, but we could have had vegetation mapping and a pause on the rural boundary clearing code at the same time, and it's really unfortunate that we don't.

Thank you. I'll put the motion. The motion is the recommendation in the business paper. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Kotlash and the Mayor. Declare that carried. If someone could invite the Mayor back in, please.

Okay, thank you, councillors.

Just see where we're up to. I will just declare on the record that my leaving of the room for that matter had nothing to do with the rural boundary clearing code, because I can smell a Facebook post a mile off, and had everything to do with the fact that a councillor listed a block of land currently where my family member is the selling agent.

Okay, the next item for discussion is 4.3.2, 2022-2023 Community Sponsorship Program Round 3.

Do I have any councillor wishing to move that way? Councillor Sheather. Seconded, Councillor Reardon. Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Would you like to make some remarks?

One of the organisations that we've invested funds into to help support us, our band, they represent us, and you were there on the weekend as an invite to see them play. It was really good to see the amount of young people that are taking up the band, and they've represented us all over the place. They've been overseas, New Zealand a few times and the like. And in past years it's been light on. The funding is to help them with some of their utilities they need for their music, and it was good to see them, and it's good to see that they... Put in and ask for it, and indeed we've seen fit to offer that

Thank you very much, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak on the item? Councillor Lyons-Buckett

I have a question. It's just around the category, the participation category. Is it regional, national or international? I thought it was state, national and international.

Thank you. I'll refer that to the Director of City Planning.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the community sponsorship strategy does make provision for regional representation as well as state and national.

Okay, it doesn't mention state, but it says regional. I think that's new. Do we have a cap on that category?

Director of City Planning.

Thanks. Through you, Madam Mayor, we do. There's 750 per team. I think it's 150 per individual.

Yes, well, I'm just thinking if it's regional , that could be thousands of kids a year, that's all. So do we have a cap on how much we spend in this and how

Would

We—

Yes, yeah, certainly. Sorry, yes. Through you, Madam Mayor, the cap is defined by the budget that's set each year. I can say that the sponsorship strategy is currently being reviewed. In light of that, we do have quite a finite budget. I think it's just over 42,000 per year, and we are seeing multiple applications come through from the same individuals to represent in different categories. And currently the sponsorship strategy prospectively could make provision for that and as such will be reviewing the strategy come 2023-2024 financial year.

Sorry, so that's under review. Presumably within that review, we would be looking at the criteria for the participation category. Okay, thank you. Yes, that's correct.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Look, I may have missed this, and I'm very happy for you to point out where it is if I have, but I couldn't find a blurb about each event that was included. I know that I was swimming through a lot of information in a fairly short period of time, so I may have missed it. I did find the scoring categories , but I couldn't find a blurb about what each of the events were. Was that provided, or was that just me?

Just a moment, Councillor.

Thank you.

Sorry. Through you

Madam Mayor, there is a—it's quite a short, if you like, but a referral in terms that captures what each proposal was received with regards to. It's in the body of the report. Yep, thanks.

And I did find that. It's a little bit difficult to— and I'm satisfied that the staff have reviewed them thoroughly and consistently, and that's not my concern. My concern is that if we're going to continue to use the process, we can't evaluate the appropriateness of our checklist and our system of funding if we don't have the full picture. So I'm a little bit confused as to why something like— and I don't know anything about this program apart from what I've seen on the internet, so I need to be clear about that— but something like Reunited, which states online that it's a program for boys which aims to improve mental health and reduce suicide and is backed by Rotary International, but scored zero on all of the measures, including priority health needs.

And I don't really understand why that's the case, and it's a bit hard without seeing any further details of the application. I mean, I know we may not read the applications if we get them because the staff already have, but it would be, I guess, it would be helpful for us to assess whether we're meeting the needs through our systems and whether we need to reevaluate, and we could do that if we had a little bit more information. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the item? No, right of reply, Councillor Sheather? Not necessary. Okay, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room are Councillor Hotlash and Councillor Dogramaci. I declare the item carried.

Next item is 4.3.3, draft urban greening strategy. Councillor Wheeler.

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

Seconder? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'm very pleased to see this. I proposed an urban tree canopy strategy several years ago, and I'm really pleased to see that this has evolved to be an urban greening strategy. And there's some key differences, I think. You know, we're not focusing just on trees now. We're looking at both canopy and understory plantings, general greening work within the landscape, and also water-sensitive urban design and green infrastructure. I'm also very pleased to see that we haven't cheated with this proposal. It would be very easy for us as an LGA with 71% national park to just count that tree canopy and go, yeah, look, you know, we've done it. Go us, 70% tree cover. Woohoo, you know, which would be lying.

And it would mean that our urban areas were just as hot and dry and unlivable as they are already. We have, for an LGA that has a lot of trees, we have very low tree cover in some of our areas, and you can see that on the heat maps, which are really pretty disturbing, I think, in some areas. I'm pleased that as a council we have added to our tree canopy, and I know some of those projects have been controversial. Richmond, for example, where I think at the moment people are seeing the trees as something that's a bit difficult to navigate that's potentially made parking not as— As

Easy as it was for those who aren't great at the parallel park, my husband among them. But I think, you know, in five or ten years, we're going to see the real benefits of those projects. And I think we're already seeing things, say in South Windsor where people are quite pleased to have that work done. Forty percent should be our aim across the urban areas of our LGA. We are much hotter than even much of Western Sydney, and so tree canopy and water-sensitive urban design, more greenery and more water in the landscape is going to be one of the key things that will bring our temperatures down significantly. There's a very clear correlation between heat and low canopy. This, I think, this should actually be viewed as a health strategy as well as a biodiversity strategy.

And it also, I think, is worth noting that the areas where we have some of the lowest tree cover also tend to be some of our lower socioeconomic areas as well. So those impacts of heat are felt more strongly by people who can't afford cooling devices in their homes. It would be nice to see us focus on planting habitat, nectar, and also some food trees in this proposal or in this strategy. Food trees are difficult in areas where fruit fly is endemic, like ours, and so we have to consider clean up, but that still allows us to plant a number of fruit trees.

I would like us to view this strategy and the emerging policies that come out of this as goals to achieve rather than hoops to jump through, that this becomes a positive and something that increases our liveability and makes living here more desirable, rather than something that's onerous, that people feel that they have to, that stops them from doing things. So opportunity rather than a negative. I would also like to see some targeted consultation with the Hawkesbury Environment Network. They did have strong views at the time I suggested a tree canopy policy. Our Landcare and bushcare groups, who have lots of experience in this space, Aboriginal groups. We've heard previously from Uncle Wes, for example, that he's really struggling to find apple blossom for ceremonial burnings.

If we could get some of those planted that they could access, that would be terrific. The Sydney Koala Network and also Western Sydney University, who I think are doing some research on climate-appropriate species and their impact on climate change. We know that will impact on some of the species we've got in the LGA already, particularly the plane trees that have become so iconic. If we start to lose those, we'll be in real trouble. Thanks.

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

Councillor Reardon. Yes, I'd like to see some more trees in rural areas for animals, for cattle and horses. When we bought our property at Grose Vale, I immediately planted some trees in one of the paddocks, and those are the trees the cattle take shelter under. So I think that needs to be considered as well, because we have more horses than people in the Hawkesbury. So they say, so that would be good.

Thank you very much, Councillor. Anyone else? Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just from what Councillor Wheeler was saying about groups that we should be including, I would think WesROC could be a group that we should be working with on this. It's a policy that they've been working on for some time, so I'd like them included in that list, please.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No, then I'll go to right of reply Oh, sorry, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, on page 32, just something of interest. The area that we irrigate along South Creek and over to the sewage treatment plant, when you look at the area around it, there's three to six degrees. That's Windsor, McGraths Hill and the like. That particular area drops by three degrees where that permanent irrigation and stuff is.

Thank you, Councillor. No one else wishing to speak? I'll go to right of reply. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor, and I'm pleased it looks like this will get broad support, which is excellent. And Councillor Sheather raises a good point that it's not just the vegetation, it's the water that the vegetation holds and that sits in the landscape that makes that really key difference. And that's what I think we should be aiming for across the LGA: less concrete, more permeable surfaces, more trees and more vegetation will help on those days where we know that we've had a couple of much cooler, wetter summers, so they're not going to last. We're going to be back to plus 40 degrees before we know it. The sooner we can get some trees in the ground, the better. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. All those in support of the motion, please raise your hand. In support are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno and Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room are Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Kotlash. I declare the item carried.

The next item was on block but is pulled out with a declaration of interest from Councillor Wheeler. That is item 4.5.1, hosting Landcare. Would you like to read your interest into the microphone, please?

Thanks. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 4.5.1, the hosting Landcare. The outcome may have a financial impact on the Hawkesbury River County Council, on which I'm a councillor, so I'll leave the room. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Do I have someone to move that way, please? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Seconder? Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I

Did just have a question around the part two of the resolution, and I could have asked the representatives, but I didn't have time. Did those discussions take place between our representatives to the River County Council and that body? Because the report says it only relates to

The part of the resolution, the first part of the resolution.

Thank you. I will just determine who would wish to answer that.

Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I don't know that we're in a position to answer that. We haven't asked the question of the representatives on the

County Council . Okay. I just wondered where that part of the resolution went. I have another question, which is why have we not had someone on the Hawkesbury-Nepean Landcare Steering Committee for two years?

Director of Infrastructure. Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. I'm not sure why that is the case. I don't know the history to why we were no longer represented on the steering committee, but it's something that we can certainly undertake further investigations into.

That would be good, thank you, because I think it would be really important. I'll just speak to the motion briefly. I think it's good that this has been looked into and sort of clarified from the point of view that around the Landcare and how Landcare operates, because I think many people wouldn't understand the distinction between Landcare being on private land and Bushcare being on public land. And we know we have wonderful local Bushcare groups across the Hawkesbury who are doing a fantastic job, as is Marty from the nursery and so on, and Landcare operates somewhat differently. And it seems that if we were—I can see that there were some benefits to perhaps council taking it over, although one of the main detriments would have been that there would be a risk to the amount of time that the Landcare officer could be employed, and that there would be a significant cost per year to us to actually assist in that way, a minimum cost of sixty thousand per year.

I didn't really feel all that much wiser about what the River County Council thought about it, although I got from the report that they would want to —seems at a staff level—that it appears that the River County Council would want to maintain the role. And given that there seems to be no additional opportunities for any other bodies to gain access from the funds, regardless of who hosts it, and that it would cost us money, I don't really see any point in pursuing it, and I think it's best to leave it with the current setup. But it was interesting to read the report and to understand a bit more about it and see how it's going, and hopefully with the additional Landcare funding from the other levels of government, that will manifest in a positive way for all the councils who are a part of the current Landcare setup.

And it would be really good if we could investigate and possibly get somebody back on that Landcare steering committee.

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Every year or two, somebody gets a bee in their bonnet and wants to kind of unwind arrangements that have worked really, really well for our LGA. In July 2021, there was a motion before the chamber to basically unwind our membership of the Hawkesbury River County Council and to try and accession its functions to council. On that occasion, we were told that it would cost us an extra $610,000 if we wanted to do that. We put in $200,000 or thereabouts into our membership of HRCC, and in the last financial year on which I sat as chair, we get $471,000 worth of value back.

Point of order

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. What is your point of order?

I think the motion is whether or not we receive or note this report. I'm just wondering how this debate is at all relevant to that question.

You are correct, Councillor Conolly. Please stick to the item and the business paper, Councillor Zamprogno.

I will be relevant, Madam Mayor. The motion before us that generated this report, that cost time and energy of our staff, might have been worth looking at, but again, the answer has come back, no. It will cost us an extra $60,000 if we wanted to bid or accession functions that are residing and functioning perfectly well with HRCC on our behalf rather than doing it ourselves. After this came up at the last council meeting where this report was commissioned, members of the local Landcare community approached me, knowing my previous association with HRCC, expressing their grave concern that this was a wrong-headed move. And I expressed confidence that the report that would come back would indicate the value that the current arrangement was delivering council.

It would appear that that's the case. I'm just reminding the chamber the next time somebody has a thought bubble like this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Not necessary. Thank you. All those in favour of the motion to receive and note, please raise your hand. Those in favour: Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. I declare the motion carried. Absent from the room is Councillor Cotlach.

Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Wheeler. If someone could please ask Councillor Wheeler to come back in.

Thank you very much. The next item is item 7.1.1, responses to councillor questions taken on notice at the council meeting. Do I have anyone willing to move that way? No, don't need to move that way actually. Any responses, sorry, councillors? Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. So we've got a little bit of information there about the Argyle Bailey Bridge. I understand that the community is receiving regular briefings. Could we get some— could we also be provided with the information that's in those briefings that goes to the community? It's uncomfortable for councillors to be approached by members of the public when we don't know what we're talking about, and they know more than we do.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other responses? No, thank you, councillors.

Sorry, my microphone wasn't on. Moving into confidential, moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. All those in favour? Thank you. Declare that carried.

Now ask that Council be moved into confidential, and I'll thank the members of the public gallery.

Thank you, Councillors. We have now moved out of confidential back into ordinary session, and I'll ask the General Manager to read the results of the confidential items. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Whilst in regards to item 8.3.1, regarding acquisition of part of 302 Commercial Road, Vineyard, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Calvert, that: 1 . Council approve the acquisition of part of 302 Commercial Road, Vineyard, being proposed Lot 6 in DP 1286632, comprising an area of 50 square metres, for the purpose of road widening for the amount detailed in the report. 2. Authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. 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.

4. Details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the affected landowner together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of this resolution until such time as the appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed. In regards to item 8.3.2, acquisition of part of 284a Commercial Road, Vineyard, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Conolly, that: 1. Council approve the acquisition of part of 284a Commercial Road, Vineyard, being proposed Lot 1 in DP 1286632, comprising an area of 5,000 square metres, for the purpose of creating a drainage channel for the amount detailed in this report.

2 . Authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. 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. 4. Details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the affected landowners together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of this resolution until such time as the appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed. All

Of voting, sorry. Both of those items were, in support of that motion, were Councillors McMahon, Reardon, Veigel, Sheather, Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno. Absent were Councillors Kotlash and Dogramaci. In respect of item 8.3.3, regarding a licence agreement for the New South Wales Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Services Incorporated, part of 10 Mulgrave Road, Mulgrave, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Calvert, that: one, Council agree to enter into a new licence agreement with New South Wales Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Services in regards to part of 10 Mulgrave Road, Mulgrave, in accordance with the proposal outlined in the report.

Two, authority be given for the licence agreement and any other necessary documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution to be conveyed to the proposed licensee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put the resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. And four, the motion were Councillors McMahon, Reardon, Veigel, Sheather, Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno. Absent for the vote were Councillors Dogramaci and Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, General Manager. That concludes our business for this evening. I therefore declare the meeting closed at 8:16 p.m. Thank you everyone for your attendance.