Council Meeting - 10 October 2023

And welcome to Hawkesbury City Council's meeting for the 10th of October 2023. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First People of the country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In 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'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 this evening has a mobile phone, that you kindly turn it off or switch it to silent. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. I welcome everybody in attendance in the gallery this evening and also those watching us online. Are there any apologies or leave of absence? Requirements here tonight. Councillor Wheeler, does anyone know if she's on her way? Okay, well, we'll wait and see if she arrives. Any declarations of interest in any items tonight, Councillors? Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. 4.3.2, significant non-pecuniary interest.

Thank you. Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. There's two. There's one, 4.2.2, and 4.3.1.

4. — sorry, what was your first one?

It's in the traffic committee report. Oh, yep. 4.2.2.

There's no 4.2.2. Traffic 5.1.1? That's the traffic committee. Yes. Yep, that

One, yep. It's the second item in that. Oh

Yep, no, warrant. Thank you, Councillor. I am also declaring an interest in item 4.3.2 and 4.3.1, and we'll read them out at the time of the meeting. I just note Councillor Wheeler has now arrived to the meeting. Any declarations of interest? No. Thank you.

Confirmation of the meetings of the last minute, please. Someone move that way. Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Veigel. All in favour, raise your hand. Declare that carried.

The next item, items subject to public address. We have three items with registered speakers tonight. The first is item 4.1.2, Fall Hall Street Pitt Town Post Exhibition Report. The first registered speaker is Christian Pollock, and I call him forward. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillors. I'm representing Sydney Water, just to speak in favour of the resolution. The report by the planner, Lachlan, is well written and covers all the issues. The land used to be residential , in fact, before Sydney Water sort of built on it, acquired it. So essentially, we're just returning it to the zone that it was. We fully support the recommendation, but are happy to take questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr Pollock

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr Pollock. How long ago was that, do you recall? I'm sure it's in the report.

It's in the report.

It was pre-2007, though,

Wasn't it? I believe so, yes.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No further questions.

Thank you, Mr Pollock. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Oh, sorry. Oh yes, I'll

Call him next. Okay.

Thank you. He doesn't necessarily need to talk unless— Oh, he doesn't want to talk

There you go.

He's our planning consultant, but— Sorry, that was

Mr Nigel White,

So you don't need

To speak.

Nothing more to add

We felt that most of the questions would be directed to Sydney Water rather than on a planning basis, but if there are planning questions, then we'll call Nigel White.

I'll just ask the Councillors, were

There any planning

Questions, Councillors? No, thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillors. Thank you.

Thank you. Any councillors wishing to move that way? Councillor Reardon, seconded. Councillor Sheather.

Councillor Reardon, were you wishing to speak on the matter?

No.

Okay, just pop your mic on, Councillor. No? No, thank you very much. Any other councillors wishing to speak on the matter?

Councillors and proponent

Thank you, Madam Mayor. My view has not changed since last month. I think the mistake that we made was to leave this issue dangling. I think there was clearly a majority within the chamber that was prepared to reject the request from Sydney Water to subdivide or to convert the zoning. I hope that that remains the case. But what we shouldn't do is what we did last month and leave council staff dangling with no fixed resolution in terms of what we want this to be. I want us to reject this and reject it firmly. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other councillors? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll also speak against on basically the same basis as before. I know another report was called for and there was a few questions I had around that report. The first question was why the objectives from the Community Strategic Plan were altered. In fact, the objectives included in the plan now are not from the current plan . They may be from the previous plan, I didn't check, but we don't have a 5.1 or a 5.11, etc. in our Community Strategic Plan as adopted. And it was changed to objectives about council decision making, whereas the previous objective was around to encourage informed planning, balanced growth and community engagement. And the omission of an objective from the strategic plan is to enable a shared responsibility for community resilience, community safety and disaster management.

Now, given that we have raised at the last meeting issues around the lack of evacuation capacity in Pitt Town and no foreseeable evacuation route coming forward, unless somebody has an update on that, I still maintain that I'm not happy to rezone something based on old data from so long ago, when we have actually seen what happened in Pitt Town during the last flood, couple of floods. On top of that, we have a community in Pitt Town where they have not had delivered the promised infrastructure and the promised things that came with that development from 2007. They're still waiting on things. They're waiting on things that they paid contributions for a long time ago. And so I would rather see all of that fixed and to have an evacuation route in place.

We only have the existing evacuation route, which was problematic during the last flood episode. And I think we have to really, if we're going to take a stand around flooding, we really have to start to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. We've got a situation where the data from the SES from 16 years ago has been used to say that 1,100 lots could be added to that area before the evacuation factor of safety reached zero. But since then, we've seen dramatic changes, and we've seen the issues around localized flooding, and we've seen the issues around riverine flooding. The letter from the SES also designates that location as being a low flood island vulnerable to isolation in a 2% AEP flood.

And they continue to outline issues around evacuation, even though the site itself might only contribute by a small amount. It may set a precedent for future increases across the floodplain, and we have to avoid that. That's what we've committed to. And I'm a little concerned that we're not acting consistently with our strategic plans in the sense that we are ignoring some of these issues, which in the past, I know we rejected a proposal in South Windsor on this very basis in the last council term. So low flood islands also offer— they might require mass rescue, and this isn't always possible during events due to a number of factors such as availability of equipment and resources and personnel, weather conditions for the operation of boats and helicopters, and potential public health concerns and risks to personnel.

We're urged by the SES to consider the cumulative impacts that any development may have on the risk of life on existing and future development. And I feel that— I don't feel that this adequately does address that in that sense. We're relying on old data. It's inconsistent with council's long-term objective in point 1.1, which is going over our resilience and community safety. And at this point, I would not like to see a rezoning occur, and then for any applicant to have issues with a development application which came before council, which may then be stopped on the basis of flooding, depending on what the various flood controls that may come in in the future are. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Just a question first, if I could, through you, Madam Mayor. If this were to go ahead, would Sydney Water be making a development contribution?

Thank you. I'll just refer that to the Manager of Strategic Planning.

Any applicant for a future development over the site would be subject to developer contributions, yes.

Thank you. I did engage with people from the community of Pitt Town yesterday , and they found it a bit rich. The report says that it's only one additional block and won't have an impact on road network. Sydney Water is a government agency, and the government seems to care little about the people of Pitt Town. They're still procrastinating over a bypass, which is a promise that is now over 70 years old. The community is still calling out the long neglected promises of widening of the main thoroughfare from Mitchell Road to Windsor Road, the revamp of Mulgrave Station, and the widening of the flood evac route. The government now asking the people of Pitt Town to overlook all that and still have the hide to ask them for a favour in rezoning the block so that they can capitalise on the nicely manicured surrounds and the beautifully curb and guttered edging of Four Hall Street that the community fought so hard to achieve.

In talking to the community, they wanted to make sure, they wanted to make a point clear, that they don't want to set a precedence where we see an increase in any residential blocks without the delivery of the long overdue needs of the community that already reside in Pitt Town. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to ask a question, if I could. Does the special purpose to zoning allow for something like a community battery?

Manager, strategic planning, or maybe another staff member?

We'll just have to check the LEP, but my sort of initial reaction is probably no. It's for the designated purpose of, you know, for water supply purposes.

Okay. When I checked today and read that zoning, my understanding—sorry, I'm not taking you on, since you're the manager of planning—but my take on it was that the special purpose was for infrastructure, and since the writing of that zoning, community batteries have come to the fore , I guess. And it'd be interesting to see whether that comes under that or another clause, because I would like to see that block of land be able to help the existing people in Pitt Town, and especially those people that are cut off in small to medium floods and presumably have less access to power. I'd like to see us possibly use that land for that purpose, but I'll just keep contemplating for the minute. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm also speaking against the motion and will foreshadow that if the motion fails, I'll move a motion to refuse. This area is just out of the one in a hundred flood area. If you look at the SES flood mapping, and if, given that our role here is to determine the potential use of this property, I would hope that my fellow councillors have looked at that mapping as it pertains to that particular site. Shelter in place won't be possible in a one in a hundred flood in this part of Pitt Town due to lack of services: power, water, access to food, functioning sewer. All of the things that we take for granted that are required for shelter in place will not happen on this block. The SES states that development which increases evacuation requirements is not supported.

These are the very people that we rely on to get people out in a flood. One development won't necessarily make a difference or break the SES, but we keep saying this about more and subsequent developments. It's volunteers who conduct these rescues, often at great risk to their own lives. Frankly, I've lost my appetite for risk and regularising if it means putting more people at risk. The SES has also stated that there's a spare capacity of 142 lots in Pitt Town,

But

That it should not be used simply because it's available. There is no shortage of land in Pitt Town. There is no shortage of property in Pitt Town. This planning proposal will do nothing to alleviate the poor housing mix or the lack of social and affordable housing in the Hawkesbury, so it shouldn't be a priority for this council. The rezoning permits childcare. Now, it may be unlikely, but it will still be allowable. And I don't know how many times I've sat in this chamber and heard someone say, Oh, well, that won't happen on that site, because it'll have to come back to us. It'll have to come back as a DA, and that won't allow for it. This is the point where we get to determine, as elected representatives, as the custodians of the Hawkesbury and as the carers for the people of the Hawkesbury, what land gets used to do.

This is our only bite at that cherry. If we decide that we allow this to remain, to become another residential lot, we are the people responsible for putting more people onto that dwelling, into that floodplain. You could have 15 people feasibly living on this block of land. Are we willing to leave the SES to evacuate them in times of a larger flood than we've recently experienced? Not only are we not acting consistently with our own strategic plans, we aren't acting consistently with the recommendation of the 2022 flood inquiry either, which stated that the single biggest driver of flood risk in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley is development on the floodplain. Now, we can't stop the land already released.

We can't stop the state government in its land releases, but we can stop what comes to us. We shouldn't be releasing land that's below the one in 500 flood level. We definitely should not be releasing land in a flood island that's owned by a state-owned asset that wants an upzoning to divest itself of an asset to profit. We have to draw a line in the sand if we want change on the floodplain, if we want to keep people safe. This is one of those lines.

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

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I guess we'd all like an insight into the future and what's going to happen and decisions we make around the table here, but the fact of the matter is we've got a resounding before us and a system of how we deal with that. If we don't like the system, change the system. What's before us is proper and correct. What's proposed on the end of the future, I don't know, and no one sitting in this room does either. But that'll come to this table or a panel to deal with in an appropriate manner. With state requirements in relation to the floodplain, I've got issues with that, and I take on board the comments made about evacuation of Pitt Town. And I name a dozen other places in our city that's in a similar situation where we had floods like the last ones, which were minor.

Major would be a major problem to our community in lots of areas. But we've got standards, and you can build on a piece of land and rezone where it's over one in a hundred event.

The comment that was made by Councillor Wheel about one in 500, that's likely to come in because of the issues of flooding that's been seen most recently in the last couple of years. And it would seem over the last probably 30 or 40 years, very little's been done to minimise the impact that she spoke of. But that's not the case today, and I don't know that it is going to be the case tomorrow. It certainly will be discussed. But what it does do, if we start pre-guessing the future that anybody who's got land close to the one in a hundred is not going to be able to build a house on it. That's the sort of precedent that we'll be setting here tonight. This zoning is all it is, a zoning. If changes are made between the rezoning and an application made for whatever use, and the rules change.

They'll be applied at that time. But at this stage, that's not what we're dealing with. Madam Mayor, the issue that the state government own it, does that make a difference whether you or I owned it or someone else? I don't think that it does. The fact that they're a state government authority, you can rattle off a dozen, and I doubt they even talk to one another, let alone know what their financial structures or the like is. And to indicate that Sydney Water is responsible for some of the actions that have not been carried out in Pitt Town, long overdue, I don't think we have to go far past this room to start point and blame of why that hasn't happened. So, Madam Mayor, we've got an application before us that's been through a vigorous system to get to where it is, and I think that it's proper that the recommendation is supported, this recommended.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. I did think long about this because I can definitely see both sides, and that's why I was probably guilty, like some others, of procrastinating when this came to us last month. I have come to the conclusion it is not appropriate for us to consider who the applicant is and let that influence how we determine a planning application. It's just fundamentally inappropriate in our system. And whilst I can, I definitely get the temptation— Point of order, Madam

Mayor.

What was your point of order?

I think, I'm not— I suspect that Councillor Conolly is imputing incorrect motives to the councillors that have spoken about the owner of the property, that no one has put that up as a reason for refusal.

Oh, sorry. Part of the basis of their decision, a councillor has talked about who the owner of the land is.

I don't know that they've said that that is the reason that they're refusing

No, it's part of the reason. Thank you. Dismissed. Councillor Conolly.

Sure. Certainly wasn't my intention to say that anybody else said anything, but that was certainly my perception of the discussion here, was that there was an element being incident to the discussion that because it's a state-owned, I think was the terms used, it was a state-owned piece of land, we should think about it differently, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think that ultimately I would be reluctant, if I was unsuccessful here, like I probably wouldn't be too upset, but I think I would do the right thing, and I think the right thing is to follow the correct process and to look at the information before us. I'm also not keen on setting a precedent that you have to have an evacuation route higher than the one in 50 flood level to be able to develop an area.

I think that's incredibly problematic, given the Hawkesbury, that every single hill is now, now can't build a house on it because somewhere to get to a main road, somewhere there's going to be a crossing that's below one in 50. You know , in context, the whole of McGrath's Hill has to be evacuated before we get to one in 20. So one in 50 is not a small flood, it is a major flood, and I certainly wouldn't suggest we build on one in 50, but to say that everybody has to have a clear path completely out of the Hawkesbury Valley above one in 50, it basically means you can't develop anything anymore, you can't build a house anywhere if that's the case, and that's the view we take, and I think that's incredibly problematic.

This is one property. It was already included, as the report says, it was already included in the evacuation analysis. I take the point that that evacuation analysis is older, but you can't just disregard the only study we have and say, Oh, it's too old to worry about it, we'll just make up our own minds. That's inappropriate as well, in my view.

Thank you, Councillor, and I will remind other councillors that while someone has the microphone and they're expressing their point of view, please stop whispering to those next to you with your disagreeing comments. We will respect the rules of the chamber. Point of order, Madam Mayor. We

Were looking for

Reference to the one in fifty flood

Evacuation. You were still discussing the matter, so the councillor has a right under the code of meeting

Practice to be heard in silence. But thanks for continuing to talk over me. It's very much नोटiced, Councillor Lyons' bucket. Councillor Veigel. Yeah,

Thank you. More of a question that was previously asked. Does Council know if we made any progress on the construction of the flood route at Pitt Town, please?

Thank you, Councillor. Director of Infrastructure.

If I can just clarify the question, the reconstruction of the flood route or the upgrading of the flood route?

The upgrading, where the easements are predominantly the state government's for the last two decades or more have been talking about it.

Yeah, as far as I know, the upgrading of the flood route, that is the construction of the flood route where it currently doesn't exist, as far as I know, there hasn't been any progress with that.

Can I make a comment, please, Madam Mayor?

Absolutely.

The current flood level at one in one hundred above the PMF. Many of you know that I live in Windsor Downs, and my home is at 20.4 metres, which is just above the one in one hundred but below the PMF. If we prescribe the limit here to then, back when the development was occurred, you wouldn't have anybody on that land, dare I say. I tend to concur with my colleagues to my right here that you'd stop all development in the Hawkesbury, and I think in due course, and I do hope you will get an evacuation route out of Pitt Town, and we can all move on. I think it's its own residential, and I think the planning.. . Documents are pretty fairly comprehensive anyway, and I support that application, and I'll be supporting it too. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? I might just say a couple of points very quickly, and I would have to agree with a couple of the councillors who have made the point that the applicant should not matter in an assessment of a planning matter. I'm not imputing anything towards any other councillor, but I actually find that someone would decide a planning matter based on the applicant's name absolutely abhorrent. Whether it's a rezoning or a DA, the applicant has every right to be judged on the merits of the application. There was a couple of other things that were discussed tonight as well. There might be an idealistic reasoning to have something that's below the one in 500 not be approved, but the current planning instruments in front of us are a one in 100 planning level for residential, and this is not a DA.

There is no application in front of us saying what they want to put on the land. This is a rezoning, and we need to be understanding what's before us. The system currently says that based on every principle we have available to us that's in the reports, in the documentation, that this is allowable. And as the deciders of these things, the 12 elected in the room, we have to look at that and base it on merits. I can't stress that enough. I also find quite abhorrent the notion that someone might make a profit off doing something. I mean, we don't go to work every day not to make a profit to then pay our bills. So I don't know why making a profit is also, as well as the applicant's name, something considered when we have been elected here to judge something on its merits.

That is our task. I just wanted to make that very, very clear. I take on board the flooding concerns, and obviously, as the mayor, I'm fighting tooth and nail every single day for this area to ensure we get the right flood mitigation and resilience that we deserve from the state government. And it is very clear right now that we are not getting answers from this government, despite the fact that the ministers were invited to this community. Came out and visited this community. I specifically walked the Pitt Town evacuation route with the planning and the emergency services minister to show them. They told us there'd be information forthcoming after the budget, and we still have heard nothing.

Now that is up to me now to follow that through and say, you promised to get back to us on a range of issues. They were given a folder of that much information from Hawkesbury City Council about what we needed for our floodplain, for our community to be safe, and we haven't heard boo from that state government. But that's not a reason to deny a planning proposal. I just wanted to make those points very clear, and I'll be supporting this tonight. Any other councillors wishing to speak?

No. I'll put the recommendation moved by Councillor Reid and seconded by Councillor Sheather. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the recommendation: Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, and Councillor McMahon.

Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Zamprogno. I declare the motion carried.

The next item subject to public address is item 4.5.1, Kangaroo and Driver Safety on the Driftway, and I have a registered speaker, Dr. Anne Marks, if you'd like to come forward, please.

So I'd like to start by thanking councillors and council staff for putting together this really important report. I know it's taken a bit of their time, and so I really appreciate that. I've been a licensed wildlife volunteer specialising in kangaroos for five years. I thought I'd just set the scene of our discussion by sharing a story about a rescue on Londonderry Road in Agnes Banks. That's the area we're talking about tonight. So at 4:30 in the morning, a young tradesman was driving to work. He saw a kangaroo that had been hit by a car, it was laying on the road, so he stopped, which was really great, and he called WIRES for help. And I think that's really important to note that people call us for help.

So it's not just the wildlife that are affected, it's the people who actually witness these things as well. So I got out of bed at 4:30 in the morning as a volunteer, drove down to meet him. He stayed the whole time. He called his work and said, I'm going to be running late, because he didn't want to leave her, which was just really, really nice. When I got there, I saw the biggest— Pool of blood I probably have ever seen in my life on the road, which was pretty awful. And he'd put his jacket over the kangaroo to try to keep it warm, which was really, really nice. And her skull was fractured, so her bone was sticking out of her head, but she was still alive there, moving around, and this poor tradesman was there, you know, witnessing this whole thing.

So obviously that's part of my role, to go and help that kangaroo, to help the person who called, and to try to look at ways of preventing this from happening again. It's not just the kangaroo, as I said, that experienced that horrible impact of that collision. It was the motorists and any passengers that were in that car that are obviously at risk. There were lots of parts of the car all over the road, so it was obviously a pretty big collision. Kangaroos are very large animals, so they pose a huge risk to human life. Obviously the tradesman who decided that work could wait, and he was going to, you know, spend time here because it was really important, that's going to impact on his employer and anybody else who had to cover for him until he could get there.

And then there's myself as a volunteer, you know, losing sleep, getting out of bed every, you know, every time these rescues occur, and they do occur mostly at night because that's when kangaroos are out doing their thing. And then after that rescue, I have to go home, feed lots of orphan joeys because their mothers have been killed by car collisions, and that's all before I start my real job where I actually get paid. So it's a huge impact, and it's a really important issue to look at prevention. I get called to the same place over and over again, and I just feel like it's a duty of care to actually say there's a big problem here. There's a huge risk to human life, and obviously we want to protect our wildlife as well.

So . I just thought I would just mention I've done 600 rescues in my time with WIRES. That's a lot, and almost half of those are in Agnes Banks and Richmond area. Now, I cover the whole of the Hawkesbury area, so any calls that come in from WIRES, I go wherever that happens to be. And I'm called to Agnes Banks the most. Almost half of those rescues, and most of the calls we get are from motor vehicle collisions, so it's a huge, huge problem. If it's okay, I've just got a map of the area that I'd like to display just to sort of put that out, if that's all right.

It's a bit small, so I don't know if you've got it on your screens. I just thought I'd explain to people who maybe aren't as familiar about the area. Basically , the key roads I'm talking about is Castle Ray Road, the Driftway, and London Derry Road. And you can see the bush. I don't know if you can see the bush area there. But basically, the key areas where kangaroos are getting hit by cars are areas where they cross. So they come out from the bush and they cross to go over to another paddock where they've got really nice grass to eat. They've got corridors that go across through the Driftway over to the quarry and go through London Derry. And then they go across London Derry Road over to the university.

So there's specific pathways that kangaroos cross. And what I've noticed with data I've collected over the last five years is it's like a rotation with their grazing patterns. So what I found just in a two-week period in September, so I've got from the 1st of September till the 17th of September, there are 11 collisions just on London Derry Road in a 500 metre section, so just near the aged care facility and the Driftway. So that's 11 in two weeks, which is a huge number of people. You've got to keep in mind too that this data is only the ones that are reported, so it's likely that it could be double that. People don't always report. Also, sometimes the kangaroos are hit and then they go off into the bush and I don't see them.

So it's not just the data from when people call. I go nearly every single day, or I ask somebody to go and patrol this whole area to check for kangaroos that could either still be alive or joeys in their pouch or any of those sorts of things. So I collect data from reports, but also from observation. And as I said, it's probably possibly another, you know, double that number that we're seeing. Then on Castle Ray Road, which is a small section, I do have a pointer, but I don't know if you can see this little section here. So just from the Driftway here, it's only about 800 metres, 500 to 800 metres. They cross just to go across to this paddock here, which is really nice. So for that section between July and August, there were eight kangaroos that we saw.

And then on the driftway, so this whole section here, when they go across this bit and go across here, there were 14 between March and August. So that's just for this year. I've got statistics for the past five years, and it's the same pattern. So what we find is it's very concentrated for two weeks where there's just lots of kangaroos, and then it goes to another section of the road because they let that part where they're grazing rest and then move to another area. So what I'm asking is, I know that we need to look at long-term solutions. Obviously this isn't something that can be fixed overnight, but I'm just asking councillors to consider some of the low-cost measures temporarily until we can explore sort of longer-term strategies.

So one of those is painted road markings. You know, we've got some really great painted road markings now in Pitt Town with the speed signs. They look really good. Having some painted road markings with a big giant kangaroo, and they've used in other areas, will just alert the drivers that they're coming into an area where there's more kangaroos around, and it's hopefully more effective than just the yellow kangaroo signs that are static there. The other thing that's a big issue is all of these areas are 80 kilometres an hour, and we know that. The speed has a huge, obviously, influence over any collisions, any motor vehicle collisions. And for what I'm asking is, although Council don't have the authority to make those changes, they could recommend speed zone changes to Transport for New South Wales.

And I'll just show you a little bit here. So if we look at the Castle Road bit, the 60 kilometres actually stops here. And if it was just extended an extra 500 metres, that's not very much, that's exactly where the kangaroos cross. The same thing happens on London Dairy Road, so near the aged care facility. So where are we over here? Just 500 metres after that, if it was extended, you would actually encompass where the kangaroos are crossing. And the other issue I have, I know that's going to be developed later, but coming into the Driftway crossroads where there have been fatalities, I'm just surprised that we've allowed that to stay as 80 kilometres an hour, both on London Dairy Road and the Driftway that comes into that high risk crossroad.

As I said, I'm only asking for an extension of an existing 60 kilometre an hour. The other part, obviously, is the Driftway, and this is all 80 kilometres per hour. And that ideally, even a reduction to 70 kilometres would be ideal. So I'm asking for Council to consider that, obviously, in their planning. My biggest issue was — I've only got a couple of seconds left. I was going to say, Dr

Marks, your time has expired

If you just want to wrap up. Yeah, yeah. The last quick thing is just when I saw these kangaroos, and there's 11 in two weeks, I wanted to do something about it straight away. Something like variable message boards, something we can just quickly put up until there is a bit more of a permanent strategy would be really helpful. They've got those now up on Bells Line of Road for the koalas, if some of you have seen that. But just something for two weeks where I know this is going to be a big problem for two weeks, can we just put some alert for the drivers? That would be really helpful.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr Marks. Are there any questions? Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Dr Marks, for that, and that's very tragic how many incidents there are. So your preference — For the long term is, I'm just clarifying this, is the painted road. I've seen those up at Tarree, the big animal on the road painted, and the speed reduction extension. Did you have an opinion on the yellow triangular signs that are, I gather that's what the warning signage included in here are? I mean, I've read they're ineffective. What's your opinion on that?

Once again, it's just my opinion from watching these animals and their behaviour. But I guess just in general, we know that for all road signs, most of them are now digital. We look at our phones; everything's digital. We just don't pay attention anymore. But look, at the moment there aren't very many kangaroo signs along the driftway, particularly over one section. So anything's going to be helpful. But obviously something like painted on the road is just something that's going to jog people, you know, coming into that area, something different that they don't see usually. So that I think would be more effective than the yellow kangaroo signs.

So that's when I was looking at the data. So usually winter is the worst. So it's when it's dark because kangaroos come out at dawn, come out at dusk, and they graze until dawn. And so usually they get hit more because that's when traffic is still on the road. Once it starts to get hot and daylight savings, people aren't on the road. Well, they've gone back to the bush before people start to drive in their cars. I have noticed since COVID, when it was a bit quieter on the roads, the numbers were a little bit better. And now that everyone's back to sort of normal business, it has increased a little bit. But generally there's at least 55 reported in that section every year, but it's probably much more than that that actually occurs.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other councillors?

No. Thank you very much, Dr Marks. Appreciate your input

Councillors, before we begin debate, I was wanting to move an amendment to the recommendation. I was hoping it might be a councillor willing to do so. I wanted to keep point one as is. Point two will become point three, and I wanted to insert a point two, and I'll say I haven't given it to staff or anything, that council progress painted road markings, just ensuring they're getting it, on the road surface to the local traffic committee for the driftway.

Happy to move that.

Thank you. Happy to move that, Councillor Conolly, and second, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you. Madam Mayor. Yes.

Could I suggest another point?

Yes, I'll just clarify the reason I've only said the Driftway is because that's the only council road out of those roads mentioned, and the other roads would have to be part of our advocacy to Transport for New South Wales. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just wondering if you could add an additional point, which is to put forward the request for the extension of the speed reduction for that 500 metres, as mentioned, from 80 down to 60.

We could add point three to include, which includes at the end of that—

Hold on, I'm just getting some advice.

Oh yeah, that becomes point three, sorry. The painted road markings becomes point two. Yep, so that would become point three. Yep. So I'll just look at the staff for that now point three at the end of Council Road, comma, including— and sorry, what was your

Wording? It was to request a reduction of speed from 80 to 60 for 500 metres, as Dr Marks had outlined in that specific area coming in off—

On Council rate road, yeah. I'll just make sure that's... I think everyone's got the gist of that. Are you happy to still second that? I

Want to ask a question before you— just in regards to that last part. Yes Just in regards to what that process would look like. I wouldn't want to give Council's endorsement to something just on the basis of that one suggestion without doing something. Director of Infrastructure?

If I can clarify the process for the speed reduction. So we'd lodge that request with Transport for New South Wales. They'd undertake their assessment of the speed environment, so the roadside environment, and essentially come back to us with the determination.

Are you happy to move that then?

Just to clarify, if I can, sorry, are we sending it there with our endorsement, this is what we want to happen, or are we sending it with a, hey, we should look at this?

Look, members of the public can lodge requests to Transport for New South Wales. The process is no different for Council to do it, so it doesn't come with any implicit endorsement or support necessarily. That's generally through other advocacy means that that support or endorsement would come.

Councillor?

Can I ask one more question? Yes Would it be suitable to change that wording very slightly to say that, so we've got staff liaised with WISE and Transport for New South Wales and provide guidance and support for WISE to make an application in regards to speed limit changes.

Would you be happy with that?

Well, it could be, but they might not do it. I would rather we ask for— I mean, the answer can be no. It's only asking them to look at it. It's a request to look at it. It's not saying we demand it or anything because we can't. Councillor?

Yeah. If that wasn't suitable, I probably wouldn't support that last part at all. Just on the basis that I'm not prepared to go and take a position that council supports this, we're doing no consultation with our residents in that area at all.

Okay. Well, based on the fact that we've sort of got a collaborative approach, would there be someone willing to move what's on the board? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Oh, sorry, hold on. We have we've got a motion, that's correct. So the motion was the motion that staff had originally discussed. If you'd like to move an amendment, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, we will put that as amendment. So at the point in time we're stopping here, that was what Councillor Conolly and Councillor Kotlash agreed to. Councillor Conolly, did you wish to speak further?

Do you want me to withdraw my motion? Can I do that?

You can withdraw your motion . Yeah.

That won't be—sounds complicated.

Thank you. Yeah, but that was procedurally correct. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll move that, but I would, yes, it's to request investigation into a reduction of speed. I'm not suggesting we say it's the right thing to do. It's to say we've had advocacy for that as a possible solution, and we could request an investigation into that.

Okay. So now that there's no one moved anything, you're willing to move that one which you have. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you,

Madam Mayor.

Question, Madam Mayor.

Sorry, we have a mover, and is it to do with wanting to tweak the motion? I'll need to leave it till after the mover has spoken, and then I can come to you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll speak for the motion, and I thank Dr Marks for coming along and telling us that information about what we all know is a very distressing thing to see roadkill on our road, particularly our iconic species. Well, any animals in my mind, but when you see a kangaroo, it can be particularly distressing. I think that we know that there's been an increase in some areas of the Hawkesbury, and I also note that Dr Marks referred to the flashing signs at the foothills and the top of Bells Line of Road at Kurrajong, Kurrajong North. And I think I'll be interested to see if that is evaluated in any way to see if that's effective, because I've read some reports out of Griffith University which state that because of habituation of the yellow triangular signs, that people pretty soon see the signs and then they don't act anymore, and that in fact when we're putting messaging out to people about being careful about wildlife, it's really important that we actually indicate what sort of action we want the people to take.

We want you to slow down or beware. It's not just saying these animals exist in that area. It's actually saying what we want people to do. So something that says reduce speed or look out will have more impact than simply an imagery of the particular wildlife that's present in that area. I think that the RMS may—I don't know if they have any control over what happens, well obviously over the speedway—the speedway, the speed limit. It is a bit of a speedway. I think they are starting to move to some smart signage and I hopefully, in time to come, that sort of thing will become available in years to come. Like it's obviously the way signage will go to be the sort of digital signage that comes on when things are present.

I'm not sure about in the future the virtual fencing. I've read things on both sides, so I guess that will continue to be investigated. I did mean to ask Dr Marks if, as part of the previous Your Meral Minute, Madam Mayor, there was a supporting letter going to her for funding, and I'm not sure if that was obtained or not. Do you happen to know?

I'm happy to report that the grant, and I'll just check with Dr Marks, we have been emailing. It's not ready for that point yet, but when it is, we'll provide that letter.

Thank you. That would be good because I do think this is a growing area as we see more land clearing and more animals on our roads and more vehicles on our roads, that we have to address this situation. So I think asking for an investigation into the reduction of speed from 80 to 60 is just something that we can do. We've had it identified by somebody who knows the situation that that could be something that could contribute to less animals being hit on that section of road, and that would be good. It is also dangerous heading into an intersection to have it still 80 like that, and I know that is an area where there have been accidents in the past as well. I'm looking forward to—I don't know the cost of painting the big animals on the road, but hopefully that's something that we can actually achieve down the track as well.

So I thank Dr Marks for enlightening us about that, and for Your Meral Minute, Madam Mayor, and I hope that we see some positive outcomes coming from what we can implement into the near future. Oh, the other thing was about, do we have any capacity... For a short-term interim of the virtual signs.

I just refer that to the Director of Infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, look, anything is possible. We'd have to look at our budgets. It would come out of the road maintenance budget. So yes, if it's possible, we'll look at that with staff.

I think that Dr Marks suggested that as an interim thing. If we can do that, that would, I guess, be something I'm assuming would be supported. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Oh, sorry, I did say Councillor Sheather. I just wanted to ask a question on the motion. I just had it come to you, sorry. Thanks

Madam Mayor. Make and recommendations or motions on the trot doesn't usually work, and this is one of them. Part 3 reads that the staff liaise with WISE and the transport target approach to reducing kangaroo mortality on the Driftway, Londonderry Road, Castlereagh Road, including the request to investigate the reduction of speed from 80 to 60 on Castlereagh Road. It doesn't say where. It needs to be north of Agnes Banks, and it doesn't mention Londonderry Road, which needs to be north the same about 500 metres. It doesn't say that either, and it doesn't say anything about the road that we're responsible for, the Driftway. So I don't know how you want to address it, but I think the staff need a bit more. If we want to do it properly, it needs a bit more than what that motion says it does. Yeah,

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. They're valid points, and we can tidy that up. I will say, though, I guess the whole point of the mayoral minute and asking for a report means the staff give us their advice, but we don't have to necessarily agree with it. So we can amend as we, the elected 12, see fit, and that's what we're trying to do right now, to get a position that the community, we believe, is going to be happy with to address this big issue. But based on clarifying the roads, I absolutely take that on board, and we may just want to clarify— I know which part of Castlereagh Road we're referring to, which is that bit between the 60 zone in Richmond and the 60 zone in Agnes Banks. So we might just tidy that up, if that's okay, as long as the mover and seconder are happy with that.

I'm happy with that, Madam Mayor, and I was going to say what Dr Marks did show it on a map and indicate it. So however it was indicated was what I meant. 500 metres . Yeah, I'm happy with that description.

Just pop your

Mic on, Councillor.

Sorry. And to continue the driftway be investigated for a speed reduction as well.

You would like to add that as well? Well

It was certainly part of the discussion, but it's not part of the motion.

I'll have to see if the mover and seconder are happy to add that. Yep. So it'll be 80 to 60 kilometres on Castle Ray Road from the 60 kilometres that—I don't, I'm sorry, Councillor, about north, south, east and west—but the 60 kilometres that ends at Richmond and then where it starts again at 60 at Agnes Banks. There's a stretch of road in between that's 80. It's that stretch we're referring to. Yeah. Between the two 60 zones of Richmond and Agnes Banks. There you go.

Can I suggest that saying that we request an investigation will cover most of that? I think we're being a bit too pedantic here. I mean, the spirit of that point three is clear to me, and I think it would be clear to anybody that we are trying to investigate what will reduce kangaroo mortality. It may very well be that it's 10 kilometres something, you know. Either way, let's just leave it at that. I think we're being a little bit too pedantic at this stage. No,

Thank you, Councillor. I'll ask the mover, and I know you're the seconder. Perhaps we ask for an investigation of the roads surrounding the vicinity that belong to Transport for New South Wales in specific reference to kangaroo mortality, or whatever other word you may wish to

Use. Well, include all those roads because I don't think we set speed limits anywhere, do we? So they would be looking at the speed limit on the driftway as well. So yes, I'm happy to just go with it to be looked at in line with what could reduce mortality.

Okay. So why don't we say including a request, and this is only a letter, everybody, it's only a letter to Transport for New South Wales, request an investigation into the reduction of speed limits where they are 80 kilometres down to 60. On Castle Ray Road, London Derry Road, and what was the other road? I don't have that map in front of me.

Just stop, full stop after 60

Because it mentions the driftway, London Derry Road and Castle Ray Road, including requesting an investigation into the speed limits from 80 to 60 kilometres. We could just put some

Just

That mentions all the roads, the Driftway, London Derry Road and Castle Ray Road. Yeah. Yeah.

Are you happy with that, Councillor Kotlash? Yes. Okay. Were you wishing to say more, Councillor Kotlash? Yes,

Thank you. Thanks. I was wondering about the flashing signs on page 98 of the business paper. We've got an indication that the flashing signs that are activated dusk and dawn, and it says moderate cost of less than 5,000 per sign. Do we— I'm sorry, this might have been asked before, but I would have thought that we have those sorts of signs used for all sorts of things, all sorts of roadworks, and I was wondering whether we could dedicate a couple of signs to have them used for these sorts of situations. Different seasonal aspects might be that they are actually used quite often for different animals, for instance, koalas are now moving. And I think Dr. Mark said that the kangaroo population is more active in winter. So is that— I thought that seemed a bit expensive. Director of infrastructure.

Through you, Madam Mayor, that's different to a variable message sign. So these are signs which are augmented, the yellow diamond signs. They're essentially a large sign face with two flashing LEDs, similar to the school zone signs, and they're activated depending on the time of day. So through the day, they would be just a normal sign, no activation. And then in those higher risk times around dusk and dawn, they would be triggered to start flashing on and off. So they've got solar panels, batteries, a little bit of computing technology behind them, and that's really where the cost comes in, as well as having appropriate poles and so forth. So they're a permanently installed sign.

The one I'm thinking of, which is up the Bells Line of Road, is on a trailer. So we just wheel it in. So now, so that cost is talking about actually having a permanent sign? That's correct. For maybe a season that lasts a month or whatever .

I mean, I can't speak to seasonality, but I mean kangaroos are throughout the year. It's

Just a high-risk... Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I don't know. Okay. That's what I thought. I thought a trailer with a flashing sign for... I don't know, I just wanted to clear that up. Thank you. Now I know that they're permanent signs. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

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

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I mentioned to you in your office before the meeting tonight, I travel out west quite a bit, and to put up permanent fences, as some of the property owners do, to keep animals off their property certainly works. But the problem is, if you haven't got a continuous fence, you've got an end, and the kangaroos will go along the fence to the end of it and then all cross in the same place. On a public road, that's not advisable. But what they have been doing up there, the drought's pretty bad up there at the moment. They've got electric fence that's just cow electric fences, two strands along the roads to keep the cattle off the road. What it does do, though, the kangaroos leave in the property where the cattle are.

They'll still go through the electric fence, but they'll stop to go under it, or some of the bigger ones jump it. But most of them stop and just push under it. It don't take them long to know that a bit of a shock is not the best thing to hit, so they literally stop. And so that's in close proximity of the road. So while you might have a car doing 80 k's, the kangaroos are physically stopped for a few seconds, and it gives the motorist time to see the animal, rather than the animal coming on the road at 30 or 40 k's, and that gives you no time to stop or the like. I don't know how practical it is to have fences along there. It doesn't keep animals in, but what it does do is stop them running onto the road at speed.

And it's that speed that the driver has not got time to react to. It doesn't hurt the animals. They get a whack, it's no worse than a cow bump. They learn pretty quick not to touch it. So that way that you can slow the animal down to practically a zero speed, which gives the driver, you know, warning to avoid an incident. So all the other issues aren't ones that I support with the signage and stuff like that. That's fine. But as the doctor said, we've got too many darn signs about the place. People don't take notice of them. The flashing signs that we spoke of are probably the best when you come up to them, and they're on the driftway already, indicating when, as you get to the crossroad, that sign illuminates and tells you the crossroad's right in front of you to slow down.

That sort of thing with a kangaroo on it would certainly indicate that there's present danger there. So I don't know, but if some of the issues have been looked at, maybe there's an opportunity with that sort of fencing. I don't know how practical it is or the like, but you're not going to stop kangaroos and you're not going to stop drivers. But you can slow them both down. We can put the signs on the road to slow the driver down, and those fences will stop the kangaroos running at speed onto the road.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm hoping that the mover and seconder will accept a couple of additional points. A point four being that Council work with WIRES to share information about preventing and treating wildlife accidents on our roads, and a fifth point that Council seeks funding for electronic signage, either through Council's internal funds or through grant funding.

The mover and seconder happy with that? I am happy to do that, Madam Mayor. I'm also mindful that there were other parts of this motion which haven't been included in this report from last time, which were about ongoing other things that we were doing. There was another couple of points that aren't included in this, but no, I'm happy to include those.

Councillor Collash. I just need a bit of clarification on the first point that Councillor Wheeler said, if I can through you, Madam Mayor. What sort of information were you referring to? Sharing information? Like what sort of information were you—

So I would consider Council using its, say, for example, its social media platform to share information about how to prevent collisions. So these are the months that are particularly problematic. They would be the months that we would be likely to share the information. These are the times of day. This is what you can do to help. This is what you can do if you hit an animal or you see an animal that's hit. So I've had come into my feed recently local wildlife carers recommending that people, for example, carry a can of pink spray paint so that if they've— and I remember that period that Dr Marks talked about along Castle Ray Road. I drive along Castle Ray Road once a week, and there was a period where I think there were five kangaroos along the side of the road, and each one I thought, has someone checked that for a joey?

And until someone has painted a pink cross on them, I don't know how many motorists stop and check. So that's the sort of information I would

Seek to— If I can just clarify, I think Councillor Collash, I understand what your question was, because it sounded like when you said share, it meant share between Council and Wires, not distribute to the public. So that, yeah, I knew exactly where you were going. So that needs to be tidied up. But we might just pause, because we need to get the staff some time to put these points four and five on the board. If you can just read out point four again, Councillor.

Oh, sorry. That council work with wires to publicly distribute information about preventing and treating wildlife accidents on our roads.

The mover and seconder happy with that now on the board?

I'm happy with point four. I would have thought we'd do that anyway, but, you know, if we don't, we probably should. Yeah, that's fine. Happy with

That? Yep. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So I've probably talked enough about four. I just think, you know, if people are better aware of what to do, then we stand a chance of making some difference. I'm pleased to see that this expanded to Castle Ray and Londonerry Road and the driftway around the speed limits. The answer will probably be no. We've asked in the past for speed limits to be reduced for human safety, and no change was the reply that we got, but we can only ask, I think.

We've got another area of another hot spot of kangaroo deaths, which is around Cattai, and apparently a number of signs have been put up there, and the problem seems to have slowed slightly. So whether they're making a difference in the short term or whether the animals are just not using the same area with the same frequency, I don't know. There also seems to be an increase in the number of wombat deaths in both this area and in a couple of other places as well. So again, I think the more signs that we can have that people pay attention to, there's—I think if you see the same sign every day, you just pay no attention, and we're increasingly getting cluttered signage along our roads. If it's not attention-grabbing and it's not novel, people don't pay any attention to it.

I think there's also a need in this area for permanent fencing. If WSU is going to have a big sign on that fence that says biodiversity— refuge or hotspot or whatever they've called it, and not make any acknowledgement of the fact that it's right near an 80 kilometre an hour road that's about to get a whole lot busier. This is the wildlife deaths that we're seeing on the Driftway before it becomes part of the Windsor Bridge duplication route. It's only going to get worse, which is why we need to be flagging this with Transport for New South Wales now. Then I don't know, that's really not responsible. I think we have to have a robust conversation with WSU about permanent fencing in that spot that discourages kangaroos, and maybe some moderation of habitat that means that kangaroos aren't looking outside the fence for a feed all the time.

You know, we've got quite thick woodland on the safe side of the fence, and all the desirable feed on the other side of the fence. And I think these are the difficult conversations we're going to have to have. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Just on some recommendation of staff, if you don't mind, the point five talks about, when you're talking about grant funding, that would also be an advocacy piece to Transport for New South Wales. So if we conclude at the end of point three, because seeking that grant funding for the electronic signage would be part of the prospect of a targeted approach to Transport for New South Wales. So if we can include at the end of the 80 to 60, comma, and, or just say, and grant funding for flashing for electronic signage there. And then on the point five, in lieu of no potential grant funding through the state government,

Seek funding for electronic signage through Council's internal processes, a budget review process. Quarterly budget review process.

And federal government, which I think the ones at Corajong are federal government funded.

Because that, if you're talking about grant funding, that is part of liaising with in point three, yeah, because it's a suite of things. Happy mover and seconder? Excellent, thank you. If no one else is going to speak, I'll just say a few words to wrap up the debate. And I do want to thank Dr. Anne Marks for her advocacy. And this has been a few months now we've been in correspondence with each other, and something sort of triggered with me, and I must say that Dr. Marks is relentless in her pursuit of this matter, and that is something that you should be very proud of, because when you sort of didn't like the answer that was provided, you kept fighting. And that's what people do when they have passion about a particular matter.

So thank you for that. I do just want to say that I happened to be going to dinner at Penrith on Saturday night with the family, and we were just driving along London Derry Road through the driftway, London Derry Road at dusk, and the kids in the back seat were screaming, There's another kangaroo, there's another kangaroo, there's another kangaroo, and I was kind of like, Oh my goodness. And there was a whole bunch of them actually just waiting at the fence, just looking out at the road. And I could not believe, I mean, I've lived there, you know, my whole life, nearly whole life in the Hawkesbury, but there seems to be, based on, you know, verifying what Dr. Marks is saying to us, there is an increase in the kangaroo population.

They were everywhere. And it's not just about kangaroos. So if anyone's stressing about, you know, why are we talking about kangaroos, which are important, we're actually also talking about human lives, and that's why the heading is what the heading is, because they're vehicles hitting these kangaroos, causing distress to the animal, but of course the potential to lose a human life. And I think that when, as elected people, we have an issue come to us through an advocate who's attended, you know, 600, in her own words, kangaroo accidents and 300 in the vicinity we're discussing, I don't think we can ignore that information. So. I think we need to do our best to protect not just our wildlife, but our community members as well.

So I did want to just send a personal thanks to you for not giving up. It's a very good example of relentless pursuing of your elected representatives for an outcome. And I do want to thank my colleagues for working on a recommendation on the board that seems to touch on some very important points. Councillor Dogramaci.

Yes, it's a very— thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Mayor. A very short question. What happens to a dead kangaroo? Whose responsibility is it to remove?

I'll just see if any of our staff know the answer. Director of Infrastructure.

In the event that the kangaroo is in a location where it poses a hazard to motorists, so it's on the carriageway or within the laneway, then it would be removed from the laneway and left in the road reserve generally. In built-up areas, from— I haven't had any here, but in past experience, in built-up areas where it's likely to cause concern for residents, then we'd take it away and dispose of it at the tip. The council takes it away? The road authority, so either Transport for New South Wales or council.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Those in favour of the motion as it stands on the board, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor McMahon, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vogel, Councillor Sheed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert , Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogné, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Conolly. I declare the motion carried.

The next item subject to public address is

Item 5.1.1, Local Traffic Committee. Now, Councillor Shea, though, you needed to declare an interest.

Yes, Madam Mayor. It's second — it's 4.2.2 further in the document. It relates to an application made by the Waterski Association in relation to the bridge to bridge. I'm on that committee and the finish organiser.

Will you staying in the room?

No, I'm leaving.

Leaving the room. Oh, thank you, Councillor.

Okay, thank you, councillors. We have one registered speaker against, which is Jennifer Hogan, but it has been brought to my attention that there were two other residents who believe they had registered in time, but it didn't come through our process. That's Jacqueline Leal and Louise Ross. I would like to see if there was council appetite to allow both those people to speak. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reid, and all in favour? Thank you, councillors. I'll call on the first registered speaker, Jennifer Hogan.

Hello, everybody. I'm new to this, so bear with me. I'm briefly talking about the roundabout, proposed roundabout on the corner of West Market Street and Francis Street. I've recently bought the property right on that corner, and I know, you know, a roundabout's useful for where they are to be put, but I just can't see the benefit of putting that roundabout in that position. I could further up where the school is, but where it is there, I've been going up and down the road since I purchased the property for the last three months, because the talk was a while ago they were thinking about putting that roundabout there. So I've just been checking it out myself to see what I thought.

When I bought the house, the front door is actually on West Market Street, and the plan was, obviously I come and go all day, to put my car next to the front door. Well, where this roundabout will be, obviously I won't be able to do that. So I'll have to use my garage, which is right at the other end of the property, and open gates on a regular basis. So I was just sort of, as I say, speed humps, I've got no objection at all to having speed humps, but the thought of having the roundabout outside my place that I wasn't anticipating when I bought the place. So I'd just like to give someone a bit of consideration into rethinking that option. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll just see if there's any questions, Ms Hogan. No, thank you very much. I'll now call on Jacqueline Leal.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors, rather nerve-wracking. Okay. This is probably a more personal approach, so I've actually written this down so I can read you my concern. So my concern is that the proposed roundabout location opposite both 111 and 113 Francis Street, 2 Market Street and 112 Francis Street will cause major entry and exit issues for residents. We have expressed to council staff in person the problems that the owner occupiers of 111 and 113 have in visibility and reversing out of the driveway. We've even demonstrated this using our vehicles. The residents of 111 Francis Street only have parking space for two vehicles. The residents have two vehicles, so they have no choice but to reverse.

111 will be reversing uphill straight onto a roundabout. The access is a further issue as there is a telegraph pole to the right, which causes the tenant to have to go further onto the road to see incoming traffic. The council staff has assured us it is fine, but they don't live there. We've even demonstrated, as I mentioned, to show that it's not safe. And unless the occupiers of 111 are reversing straight over the roundabout, they actually can't get out onto the road. The T section from West Market Street to Francis Street is being impacted primarily by parked cars obstructing the view either side. I do agree with Ms. Hogan and Lou, Louise, that it's necessary to slow the traffic that is using the Francis Street to bypass the main street.

However, there are so many areas that need a roundabout and better traffic flow than a street that is not a major thoroughfare to either Windsor or the mountains. I personally have lived on Francis Street for 35 years, and I cannot recall one fatality in that T section, nor can the residents of 113 or 115, all of which are owner occupiers and long-term ones at that. Whilst every resident that is adjacent to this roundabout opposed this decision, 109, 111, 113, 115 and 2 West Market Street, at least four of these residents have expressed this in person to council employees. And in the ordinary meeting, it stated that only two residents responded. We only became aware of this roundabout when the line marking commenced.

It was also stated that the residents adjacent to the proposed facilities did not object and that the consultation was undertaken by door knocking. None of the residents that I am aware of received this verbal consultation. If door knocking did take place, why wasn't a note left to contact council with regard to this issue? I mean, we certainly do if we're getting a package delivered by a courier, so I found that a little bit unusual. So I do have a couple of questions here, if that's of interest. I would be interested to know who actually deemed the area a black spot and applied via the black spot application form. If it was council, and I am unsure, why weren't areas that are extremely dangerous and have had numerous fatalities, which we all know are shown by the amounts of crosses by the wayside within our Hawkesbury area, considered more suitable to be funded?

I'd really love to know when this form was filled in, what the actual nature of concern was to put a roundabout there, and why, or who decided that the intersection of Francis and Market Street was the area to place the roundabout and that it was the most effective treatment solution. I'd be also interested to know, because as you can see by the minutes of the meeting, when you go to page 109, the crash diagram on Francis Street is actually unreadable. I tried to expand it on so many occasions, I could not make it readable. That is very difficult when we are trying to respond to a situation like this.

There is also an issue of a telegraph pole. They have spoken about in this paper that they have addressed the impact to House number 113, but it seems to have been missed that they're addressing the issue that relates to 111, my apologies, and that is the actual residence that is completely opposite West Market Street that is in the oncoming road of the roundabout. And I'd also like to know who's going to be responsible if the residents of 113 or the adjoining parts of the roundabout do have an accident that's directly or indirectly caused by entering the roundabout from their home.

Thank you very much, Ms. Leal. Were there any questions from councillors? No? Oh, Councillor Conolly.

Thank you, sir. Sorry, which property was yours?

111 Francis Street.

Okay. And have you been presented with, as it says in the consultation section, presented with diagrams to show how you could get out safely?

We actually met with members of council, with employees of the council, to address these concerns, as you can see. They mention how they feel that they have addressed the concern to 113, which Louise will speak to you about because that is her property. They are not directing the concerns that we are asking about. We actually hopped in our vehicle to try and show them. We have a black spot, which is a telegraph pole, and to actually try and reverse up a hill, level out, you have to go straight onto oncoming traffic, which is the roundabout. At present, if you imagine when you're going up a hill on a reverse, you can just ease out a little bit, even if there's car parking. You can ease out a little bit, which allows those vehicles coming along straight, and then that allows you to see them, them to see you to come out. That's not going to happen with a roundabout. It's as simple as that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. The next speaker is Miss Louise Ross.

This is my first time too. Evening, Mayor and Councillor. Thank you, Jackie. Jackie's discussed everything about the safety concerns, but mine is about the letters that I have written to Council, and I have not had any proper written or verbal statements

Back. Now on this, I actually went to the Road Safety Authority, and it says here, road treatments to reduce types of crashes in a common area, section of the road that are marked high crash incidents. We've never had a high crash incident in that, and we've never had an ambulance called. I've lived there, and I had a business there for 35 years. And this never has been. I did the exercise yesterday morning. I stood on that corner from 5.30 to 7.30 yesterday morning. Not one car came out of West Market Street. That's quite a busy time for people that are going to and from work. I also stood out there between 4.30 and 7 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Five cars came out of West Market Street. So it's not a high volume traffic.

This morning I did the same incident. One car came out of West Market Street, which was, I can tell you, was a red Jeep. That's because there was only one car. Also, when I first had a meeting with the council, with the councillors that came out, I addressed the situation with the island that was going to be in the middle of the road, which I cannot get out of my property because it crosses over my driveway. Then, so I proposed, and one of the council workers proposed the solution, which has now been revoked, but nobody has written to me, that the solution was that the island in the middle of the road would be painted on so I could get out. Now I've been advised, and I still haven't got anything written.

This was done on the 8th of the 5th, that meeting, and still to this day. And then somebody, now I've been told that it's going to actually be a high concrete island in the road, which I cannot get out of my driveway. We did the exercise, as Jackie said, and I've had a councilman stand where the island was. And my back tyre touched that island , and then I had to go forward a bit, and then I had to come back a bit, and to clear that power pole. I don't think that's safe. I can't see up and down. We can't see up and down the road. I know Jackie did the safety issues, and I'm also going to address that in these letters. There are several attachments, which there is no attachments in this, in your, what's it, business paper today.

There is no attachments. This says attachment, if you see attachment, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven in here. So I don't know what those attachments are , because they're not included in this paperwork. Also, they've written in here, which I don't know where they get this from, in this edition, the existing available space within 113 Francis Street to turn and leave the property in a forward direction. I do not have available space or a turning circle in the front of my yard, so I don't know where this information has come from either. The concern is also that the lighting is, I've asked about the lighting several times, which hasn't come forward, that the lighting is going to be changed, and I haven't had anything about the illumination of the lighting and whether it's going to actually be any restriction, like any illumination into my house or Jackie's house.

With this into any of the bedrooms. Also, I have also asked on several occasions, because it says as a result of this injury crash history, I've asked several times for a police report on the incidents and the serious incidents that have happened on the corner of West Market Street and Francis Street, and nobody—I have written four times, and I have had four meetings with the council, and nobody has given me any of those written reports to say that there has been severe accidents on West Market and Francis Street. So I'd like to know why this hasn't come forward. I'd like to know also why we still haven't got any report on the illumination of the lighting, whether that's going to affect and going to be coming into our houses.

We haven't had any of those questions at all answered in this, and I can't get out of my street, and I want to know why on the first occasion on the 8th of the 5th that we actually agreed with council that there would be the island in the middle of the road outside 113 would actually be painted on, and now that's been revoked. Nobody has still come and answered those questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Elsie. If there's any questions from councillors? No, that's all good. Thank you. Anyone wishing to move something? Councillor Conolly.

Thank you. I'd like to move the recommendation, except change it to that the council adopt the recommendations contained in the minutes of the Hawkesbury Traffic Committee for Council, other than for item 4.1.2, I think it is. And point two, that this matter be referred to a briefing of Council to— this isn't, that could be the motion, I guess. My thinking would be that briefing of Council would cover the justification for the roundabout, including the crash history and why it's required, the consultation with residents, the paths that have been provided to residents to show how they can get in and out of their driveways. And I think we also, you know, we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but we have some sort of review or explanation as to the transparency in this process, because if, as it's been explained to us tonight, does raise some concern.

If people have been asking for data and not being given it, and there would be no reason that would be secret. So if we can have a briefing to look at those things.

I think Councillor Cutler had indicated, thank you, Councillor Veigel, that she would second that. Councillor Conolly.

Well, that was it, sorry.

Okay, whoops, sorry.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to Councillor Conolly for putting that forward, because I had written down that same thing, although I was going to suggest perhaps if Part 4.1.2 needed to be adopted without the roundabout to ensure the other works went ahead. I don't know. It's grant funding, and I'm not sure about that, but is that a possibility? Because there seems to be no objection to the other bit of it

Yeah, I'm happy with that. So what we're— other than the installation of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Francis Street and West Market Street.

Thank you. I'll just refer to the Director of Infrastructure if that's possible.

On the question of whether we can pull out the roundabout and leave the remaining traffic calming facilities in, it's a whole package. So the crash history of the site is along Francis Street between Bosworth and East Market Street. The crash information is publicly available on the Centre for Road Safety. Any member of the public can visit that website and have a look at the crash history. The funding is through the Black Spot Program. That funding is due to expire, I believe, at the end of this year. So whilst we've gone into tender and procured the services, this is the last approval to do that. If we were to delay, there's a risk that we'd lose that funding. If we were to withdraw the roundabout from the whole treatment that's been proposed, we'd have to resubmit that through Transport for New South Wales and for black spot funding to reassess the benefit-cost ratio and essentially see whether we can still obtain that funding.

So is the suggestion that we leave the motion as I've got it and have a really quick briefing?

With the intention to report it back at the next meeting.

Yeah.

I guess I'm asking for some advice. It's obviously the advice as we should adopt it, but in the case that I don't feel comfortable at all that we could just adopt that right now, is that the next best thing? I refer to the general manager

Yeah, if you don't mind through you. What the Director of Infrastructure Services has indicated is you can't extract the roundabout on its own because it forms part of a networked sort of solution as such. So in that regard, we're better off going off to a briefing and we'll bring a report back as soon as we can do that. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to support that as a motion as well. There were some questions raised. This matter has been going for some time. There was a meeting held with council staff and the mayor, and myself attended with the residents. And at that meeting, they were told that it would be reviewed and looked at, and that they would go back to the residents with that information and further consultation. I was a little disappointed to see it appear in the local traffic committee business paper with that not having been done, and it was explained that it had to go to that committee, and it went through that on the proviso that this was the place for the decision to be made, that what was passed at the traffic committee was for if it were to go ahead, that is what it would be, which explains why it has passed in the traffic committee.

I think that I am disappointed around the consultation process that has gone on with these residents. They raise very valid points, and they have asked repeatedly. I think to hear when people don't get a response when they've written to council is very— it's not good. We've been over this before, and we had Ms. Leal ask around some questions, which I will ask put on the record, in who applied for the Black Spot funding? Was it council? I'm assuming it was. Yes,

That's correct.

Yes, and was it based on a specific something underpinning that? Like, why did it come up? Was it based on a specific incident? Was it based on an advocacy from any particular business or person bringing it forward?

I'd have to take that on notice. It's often the case that Transport for New South Wales, who are the holders of this data, will inform us just through our normal connections with staff in that agency that there's a black spot and that that should be looked at. On other occasions, we identify— Identify that through the normal analysis of the data that we receive from the Centre for Road Safety.

Okay. I'm happy for it to go to a briefing because I think we do need to look at the situation around this so that we at least sort out what may have not proceeded so well with our engagement with the community on this issue. Also, I think we probably as councillors could better be informed around how these decisions that are into agency and with other levels of government, how they may actually arise and how we best can ensure that any of the concerns that are raised are not—you know, we know that not everyone gets what they want, but what we like to show is that people have been listened to and that the information they're getting is correct and it's timely and it's given to them when they seek and answer.

So I'm happy for it to go to a briefing and particularly would want to see the issues of the information provided around illumination from any lighting that may have to go in for the roundabout, that that definitely be provided to the residents. And I think it was fairly evident from the meeting that we had gone to that everybody was happy to see some traffic calming occur in that stretch of road, as it is used as a rat run for people bypassing the main street, but that a roundabout there, from the residents' perspective at least, didn't have any perceivable benefits for that location. So I look forward to the briefing. Thank you.

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

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm pleased to see this will come back as a briefing. I think we need to be conscious, though, that when we take matters like this into a briefing, that that is behind closed doors. Dealing with between the elected members and the public aren't privy to those discussions, and I think it behoves us to make sure that we then take — we've had three residents come and give very clear indications of their concerns, and we need to make sure that they are well addressed in that briefing, and that then they are given the satisfaction of hearing back from Council as to how we've made the decision to go forward. Because I think, given that they've already voiced concerns about our consultation, I think it doesn't help with an understanding of Council's either Council's processes or Council's commitment to transparency and accountability when those decisions, on those discussions are had not in the public, in the public realm.

There's a few things going on here, I think. Firstly, the need, the real need to justify this project. And while it may feel very clear to the traffic engineers, it's not clear, obviously, to anybody else. There's — we've also got some questions, I think, to answer about our consultation processes and the perception of those. We've clearly got a spot here that requires some traffic moderating. The comments, I think, about parked cars on Francis Street blocking visibility are very reasonable. That isn't a problem that just affects Francis Street and those intersections. It's a problem throughout areas of the LGA, particularly as cars get larger and higher, and it's becoming a particular problem at the East Market Street and Windsor Road — sorry, Windsor Street intersection in Richmond.

That's becoming really hard to get out of . Perhaps we need to look at, particularly on Francis Street, firstly our policing of the parking and whether the distances from the kerb are long enough to allow people to see whether they can get in and out. I think particularly if you drive a low car, that's becoming much, much harder to do. With, I think too, I'm not a fan of roundabouts as the main means of slowing traffic. I know that they have uses in intersections. I think we've seen with the ones, for example, in North Richmond, no one's using those as a means of allowing more people to get out of the road. Is it Sunshine Boulevard? Sunnyside. Sunnyside, I'm sorry. No one's using that as a means of those vehicles getting out of that.

That's just an embuggerance for the motorists going straight ahead, and frankly you take your life into your hands if you hurl yourself out thinking that someone might believe that the traffic in the roundabout has the right of way. That is not how that roundabout works. That is clearly a give way to the right intersection, and God help you if you don't. There are other means of slowing traffic that we should be looking at. Roundabouts have big impacts, as we've heard, in terms of access, lighting impacts on residents, but also with respect to noise and people gearing up and down as well. There are studies into how you can slow traffic down without what we consider to be the standard traffic calming devices, and I don't know that those traffic calming devices calm any drivers.

They irritate me and probably make me more aggressive than when I started out. Probably shouldn't admit that publicly, but yeah, it's just me, right. But I think we have to be careful that we're not using a sledgehammer to bang in a pin in some of these instances. So hopefully we can get a better resolution. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else

Wishing to speak? Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, just a really quick question, and I've said this on multiple times in the past. On page 109, and I think one of our registered speakers noted this, Figure 2, the crash diagram, is unreadable, and I really get frustrated when I see figures like this in business papers. It's not acceptable that we can't read them. And that is, I mean, I know I have glasses on, but I defy anybody to read that. It's, you know, we've got plenty of room. Let's, we've got to, please, can we not, can we put a stop to having unreadable figures, please? There you go. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? No, I'll put the recommendation as is on the board. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Read, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? You're abstaining, Councillor Dobrumaci. And Councillor Sheather is absent from the room. I declare the recommendation carried.

That is all of the items subject to public address.

The items to be moved on block are— oh sorry, we'll wait for Councillor Sheather, sorry. I've got to get him back in the room.

Welcome back, Councillor. I believe Councillor Conolly has left the room for the moment. The items to be moved on block are items 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3 and 4.4.4. Do I have someone wishing to move that way? Councillor Veigel, seconded Councillor Lyons-Bucket.

All those in favour, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Bucket, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room is Councillor Conolly.

The next item.

Item on the agenda is item 4.1.1, 7 and 9 Fitzgerald Street, Windsor. Moved, Councillor Kotlash . Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Veigel. Do you wish to speak, Councillor Kotlash? I don't think it's necessary, thank you, Madam Mayor. It's quite clear that it's an anomaly that needs fixing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other councillors wishing to speak? No, no right of reply therefore needed, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried unanimously.

The next two items I have declarations of interest in, but I'll do them obviously one by one. The next item is item 4.3.1. I will read out my declaration.

I have a pecuniary interest. This report discusses potential funding from the Windsor RSL, of which I am a current paid director, and Councillor Sheather, if you'd like to read your interest into the microphone, please. Yeah

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Mine's the same. I'm the director of the Windsor RSL that's likely to be funding part of this project.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, if you could please come up to the Mayor's chair and chair this item, that'd be lovely. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 4.3.1. Would anyone be interested in moving something? Councillor Cocklash.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with the second dot point including option two. Which is expanding the existing Windsor Mall scheme to South Windsor.

Okay.

Anyone wish to second that? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Coddle, do you wish to talk to that? Briefly,

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I think that since we have this funding available and we have the opportunity to find out whether we can use this funding in this expanded way, I think it's sensible that we ask the question of the Windsor RSL at this stage and then go from there. So really, I think that's the most sensible way forward. And it'd be lovely if we did get all of the 19 businesses to participate. And it seems like if we do get the go-ahead from the Windsor RSL, that we'll have plenty of money to do that. So I think we've got nothing to lose here. And I'd also like to thank staff for the revised the draft South Windsor shop front and facade improvement guidelines, which has some much more realistic images and photos. So I was very grateful for that. We seem to have gotten rid of the one that looked like our street in Barcelona, which is great. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Sorry, glasses are very limited in scope.

We do look a bit alike.

Oh, definitely, yeah. I'm sure the Mayor will be delighted when that's pointed out to her. I can't support the recommendation in its current form. I really commend the South Windsor shop owners. They know their market. They are incredibly busy and highly adaptable. They've dealt very well with council being in their space and the work that council has done there, which I think has made a real difference. But I can't justify a spend of this magnitude in one small shopping strip when council has already spent quite a lot of money in that area, and we have so many other shopping strips that are looking worse , frankly. We've got really limited resources, and we need to ensure that we use them across the widest area.

I'm also a bit concerned about the way the money from Windsor RSL has been presented. This was not a gift from Windsor RSL. This was a payment required from the Liquor and Gaming Authority to offset the negative social impacts of additional poker machines applied for and gained by Windsor RSL. They didn't voluntarily give this money to council. They were told to give this money to council. And frankly, I don't see why we should go cap in hand and ask them for the right to spend it. I think it should be used in areas where it does offset that social disadvantage, and so South Windsor is the likely spot. But there are also the lower end of Windsor, which wasn't able to apply for any of this funding.

The funding previously was confined completely to Windsor Mall. We have other areas of Windsor that could use this funding, Bligh Park shops, for example, all of the areas that have been impacted by the social impacts of additional poker machines. And to allocate it to this one small strip, I can't justify. I agree with Councillor Kotlash that the report is better than when it first came to us. What I would really like to see is that it be rewritten so that it's relevant to the whole LGA, because this isn't the only strip where we've got work to do. And I think that is potentially a lost opportunity. Thanks.

Thank you.

Any further

Speakers? Councillor Conroy. Thank you. I just want to point out that this has come to Council because I believe Council has raised the South Windsor shopfront facades in particular as a particular point of concern. I actually don't agree, respectfully, that there's other shopping strips that have worse facades. I'm trying to think of any. South Windsor is , as far as I know, as far as I can think of, is by far the worst in terms of—I don't want to talk it down because it's a great shopping strip—but in terms of having facades that don't match and many that are run down and old, South Windsor is being let down, which is why Council wanted to look at this funding. I think there's no area in the Hawkesbury that's impacted more by poker machines at Windsor RSL than South Windsor, and it's one of our most disadvantaged areas.

And I think all those reasons give credibility to going ahead and Council spending a little bit of money—it’s not our money, we're spending some grant funding—at South Windsor to try and bring it up to the same standard that we have elsewhere across the LGA.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I think I've got a few concerns around it. Mainly, and I do like the guidelines. I agree with Councillor Wheeler. They're great guidelines ready for when we do do other, hopefully, when we do do other areas. What I'm thinking is, though, if this isn't taken up, then we've still got that money, and then we've got a resolution, and we've got it designated to South Windsor. Then what do we do? We have to come back and go through this again with something else. I would have rather seen us going to the RSL with a question, which was, can we reallocate that money to something Council decides on by advising you or with your agreement. This money is not connected to the livability project.

It was a specific revitalisation pool of money that came forward. I don't see why it needs to be restricted to Windsor. And as Councillor Wheeler said, we do have other areas, some areas which never get anything allocated to them at all. And I'm thinking if we only get two businesses take it up, and then we've still got $54,000 left, what will we be doing with it then? I just think that we're moving forward on the assumption we may get 19, and it seems whereas the businesses may be keen, the landlords themselves aren't necessarily keen, and I'm not quite sure how that's going to pan out because you would, of course, need your landlords' permission to do it, and they may not wish for it to be done.

So I don't think it's— it would be nice to think that everybody had the resources to pay the balance of what would be needed for this, but these are fairly tough times, and $2,000 isn't going far in terms of doing an upgrade to a facade. So I've just got some concerns around it. I've got no objection to South Windsor getting money for this purpose as such. I just have concerns with how we're confining to— You know, to that specific thing when there's no real evidence it will be taken up.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Connor. Yeah, question. If Windsor RSL agreed to expand the scheme to include both Windsor Mall and South Windsor, and we didn't get significant take-up at South Windsor, are there existing programs in Windsor that we'd be using those funds for?

Through you, I think, Councillor Conolly, the intent of staff, I don't think staff are under any expectation that we're going to get a full take-up in South Windsor, in the same way that there was a very limited take-up in the Windsor Mall. What I think, and I'll ask the Director of City Planning to contradict me if I'm incorrect, but I think the thinking was following the livability program works is that there may be some renewed interest from shop owners following the public investment that comes through with that, that there may then be some renewed interest on some of those private properties at that particular point in time. I think that was the thinking.

Any further discussion? No . Councillor Wheeler, yes, thanks.

Could I move an amendment? Certainly. So, point one to stay the same, endorse the program, and then point two, similar to option two, but an expanded version. Expand the Windsor Mall scheme to the rest of Windsor and South Windsor shopping precincts.

I don't see the obvious difference

The difference is that this is, so the current Windsor Mall scheme is for Windsor Mall. It begins at Baker Street and it ends at Fitzgerald Street, bounded by the mall itself. It doesn't extend to Windsor as a whole, to the shopping strip of Windsor as a whole, and it certainly doesn't encompass South Windsor. If we could run the scheme from South Windsor shops all the way up to the top of Thompson Square, then I think we might get enough buy-in to actually make a difference.

Right. Yeah , I understand.

Can I suggest

That we just,

As the mover of the original recommendation, that I just change that. There's no need for an amendment. You just

Take that off. Is that fine? Yep. Councillor Connelly. Staff noted that change, I believe.

Any further speakers then?

If I may, Mr Deputy Mayor. The guidelines of $2,000, I agree it's a bit cheap. How did we determine two grand, or has it just taken a pool of money, dividing it by the number of shopkeepers? Because if you're going to go back into Windsor and they're all going to put their hand up, they've got to take it down to something which is insignificant. Wouldn't even pay the council rate for a month.

You want an answer to

That? Well, I would like an answer to that. How was that determined, if you could do it. If not, take it on notice.

Somebody got an answer to that

Deputy Mayor, I'm happy to respond as to how we did it in Windsor and how it's done with the Heritage Assistance Scheme. It works along the same. It was basically modelled on the Heritage Assistance Scheme, and there should be still some background information from when the program was run in Windsor. And in Windsor it was to use a — I've lost the words, sorry.

It was to use a designer to help redesign the shopfront facade so that it was both appropriate to the business and more appealing. And then it's a component of the works required. So in some instances it would pay, you know, it would pay towards paint, for example, but it's never going to pay for the entire re-jig. And that, of course, is one of the problems with the uptake, is that council isn't funding the whole works. It's a small pool of money with a small buy-in, and you'll see from the Heritage Assistance Fund it's exactly the same thing. It requires the owner of either the business or the shopfront itself to make some payment towards the works, and that is fair. These are commercial properties being used for commercial purposes. It's not council's job to pay for all of that work, just as it's not council's job to pay for people's upkeep of their normal residences.

Councillors, Councillors Kotlash and Wheeler, are you happy with what's on the.

And Councillor Conolly Councillor Wheeler wanted to change, so just checking.

Are we all happy?

We are, thank you,

Deputy Mayor. Good. It's good to be happy. Any further speakers? Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I didn't know about this amount of money until last week that was available to us. Are they in a position to dictate to us that this money will only be spent in South Windsor shops?

Do we have an answer to that?

Through you, Deputy Mayor. As I understand it, and as I think Councillor Wheeler outlined, Councillor Dogramaci, the money was provided to Council offsetting... Some through the liquor, gaming and racing, some gambling harm impacts, as I understand, something along those lines, but that it was dedicated or given to Council for a particular purpose, which was the upgrading of facades in the Windsor Mall alone. So, hence why what we outlined in the business paper is that we would actually just go back to the Windsor RSL and request that they allow for the expansion of that existing Windsor Mall program now, as the motion stands, throughout the remainder of George Street from Thompson Square right down through South Windsor. Okay

Thank you. Another question.

Has anyone, I don't know how many hours have been spent downstairs and how much we paid for the company that, you know, prepared all these photos, MEC, whatever it is. I'm sure that, you know, it's thousands of dollars we spent. I'm always against this kind of, to me, waste. What about other shopping centres, for example, after, you know, if we go ahead, you know, with this plan, Kurrajong or Bligh Park or any other shopping centres, McGraths Hill , their signs, their facades are not like Christmas time shining and that sort of things. What if they start, you know, coming back and demand , you know, that they should also be treated the same way that South Windsor Mall that we are going to treat?

I think it's a waste of money. I don't know whether Windsor RSL are... Demanding or dictating us that, you know, this money should be spent in there or not. Perhaps we should negotiate. Well, to me, to me, if I was in a position to negotiate, I would spend that much money on 74 kids that they sometimes, you know, go to bed, you know, hungry, and over 100 people doing it tough along the riverbanks. We've got Aboriginal kids, you know, they hardly eat something during the day. So I don't know why staff downstairs, you know, to me, wasting money and putting, you know, flashy photos, all these things. Forget about the political correctness, but we all know about South Windsor. It doesn't matter what you do.

It doesn't matter what kind of gold 22-carat letters, you know, you put up there. You are not going to double the amount of visitors in that area. I think the money should be spent somewhere, to me, if I had the power, I would look after the hungry kids and the homeless people not far from here. In fact, across the road at the grandstand. Go and have a look at the three families they've been evicted.

That's my argument. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, it's always better to spend someone else's money than your own. And if that money is there needing to be allocated, then I think it would be remiss not to grab it and try and use it for what we want it to be used for. And I believe, Councillor Dogramaci, the money was allocated for Windsor Mall, and I don't think we can stretch it and say to the RSL. We want to move it a long way away because that's not what it was originally intended for. Although I do share your concern about people being hungry and homeless, what you argued can be true of anything that council spends money on. You know, why fix the roads when we should be feeding the hungry? So , I do share your concern, but in this case, I don't think we can divert this money to those kind of needs. Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. The value of $2,000,

I perceive, is calculated to be enough to do some good. Also, it's not so much as that it requires a co-contribution, some buy-in from the shop owner. All of those are sensible. But if we don't get a complete subscription, and there's money that goes begging, because as is suspected, we won't have a full subscription, should that amount be changed? I'm not sure how we arrived at $2,000. Could it be $3,000? Could it be $4,000? Is there a threshold at which we get more buy-in and we get the funds expended and they do some good? I don't want us to cut our nose off to spite our face. Can I put that question to staff? Certainly.

Have an answer?

I think we're in your hands, councillors, on that. As Councillor Wheeler has articulated, the $2,000 comes about largely because it's consistent with the Heritage Assistance Fund sum of money, and the points that have been made here tonight around balancing public money on private land is something that council does need to be mindful of in that respect. So certainly the largest amount of— Grant funding that we would issue

To private entities is probably through the community events sponsorship space, maybe, and that would be capped out at about $4,000. So you certainly wouldn't be wanting to look at any more than that, in my view. But we're in your hands.

Well, if that's the case, I'd like to put this out there as a suggestion, not even as a potential amendment, to just encourage discussion around the room. If we're not likely to get a full subscription and that the end of this program money is going to go begging, and we could have otherwise brought people on board by being slightly more generous, could we change the wording of this to make it up to a different amount? I don't mind whether it's $3,000 or even $4,000. For many shop owners, it may still be the $2,000. But if Moore's going to get more people to sign on, and otherwise money is just sitting in the pot at the end of the program, I'm wondering how we might encourage people.

If you wanted to put that forward, I would regard that as an amendment, Councillor.

Well, okay then. Let me put that as a proposed— well, I'll ask the mover whether they'd accept a point three, and that is that the maximum grant be raised to $3,000.

I can't really say yes to that because I'm not really sure that we've got enough information to justify that increase. I thought $2,000 was quite adequate because remembering that that needs to be matched dollar for dollar, so that's a $4,000.. .

Bucket of money, yeah, bucket of money on a shop facade, I would have thought that that was adequate. So, no, I don't really agree with point three. But, look, I truly understand your motivation and, you know, maybe in future fundings we can have this conversation and maybe it's something, an inflation factor could be put in. But at this stage, I just leave it at 2,000. Thank you.

Councillor Sam Proctor, you wish to

I'm just listening to discussion around the room, and I'll consider my position, Mr Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Bucket.

We've only got 58,000, so I've just done a little quick arithmetic, which 19 times 3 is 57. That would take almost the whole amount. Now that we have, we still probably would be unlikely to have everyone take it up. I've got no objection to it going to three. I don't think two is enough in this current pricing of various, you know, materials and so on. But I'm either way, two or three. I don't think it makes a huge difference, but if people have an appetite for three, I'd support that.

Councillor Wheeler.

Just, I know I've already spoken, so I'm trying to work out how to do this. Yes, we don't

Have an amendment. No

We don't.

We had one round of the Heritage Assistance Scheme, I think in 2017, where we didn't have a full complement of subscribers and we doubled the funding that was available just as a decision of Council. So that's a possibility. The other possibility is that when we go to Windsor RSL to ask them to expand the scheme, that we also ask to be able to acquit the rest of the money. To either some business improvement, or I would favour, as you will hear in the next item, that money going to the heritage assistance scheme, which is oversubscribed and underfunded.

Councillor Codless, you don't wish to change it. You don't have to, I'm just asking.

Was I being asked to change something? Sorry.

It was someone, another councillor suggested you should change it to 3,000. Oh, right. And then it was also suggested we should talk to Windsor RSL about—

Oh, sorry, yes. I didn't realise that was a direct question to the mover.

On the subject of the 3,000, which I thought I'd covered, but I'll go again, I think we need to be mindful that we've already got a 0.2 which we've expanded the extent of the funding. So I'm not sure, in the business paper we talk about 19 businesses. If we expand, and I'm not sure whether the staff know how many businesses are in Windsor Mall , but we've expanded it from Windsor Mall right down to South Windsor. So presumably, I don't know, it's about 30 businesses. So I think we've overextended ourselves already . So I would be, I think we should just keep it to 2. Asking the Windsor RSL, I think we, at this stage, ask them if they're willing to just expand it to other areas, and that would probably suit us. But I think we can, if nobody takes this up, well, we'll have to have a different discussion.

So the motion

Stands . Councillor Conolly. Quick question to the General Manager. Do you need a resolution from us to negotiate with the RSL, or could you quite easily ask them about what they feel about a whole lot of things, and then if we wanted to come back and ask them to use the heritage, we could at some point

I would only need a resolution of Council to have a discussion with the RSL if there was an initial resolution of Council to accept the money in the first place and allocate it to a particular purpose, which if Councillor Willis says there isn't, I will take her word for it, so not strictly.

Any further discussion? Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I don't know whether a discussion with the RSL will make any difference or not, but could I put my name on? Can I offer my assistance if I could, if I'm allowed to, go and discuss it face to face with whoever is in charge of allocating this money to be distributed not only for South Windsor, but like it was mentioned from Windsor Mall all the way to South Windsor?

I don't think that would be appropriate.

On what ground? Why not?

Well, Council is requiring the staff to do that on our behalf. I don't think Councillors should be looking at getting money or even discussing the money with the RSL in this case.

Let's speak to three councillors. Well, you could go

Together. If you want to move that, but— Councillor Conolly, did you want to respond to that?

I want to move a point of order. Sorry? Sorry, I just raised a point of order. Yes. That this has got nothing to do with what we're talking about right now, and I think it would be more appropriate to take that discussion offline rather than have to explain in the public meeting the role of councillors again. If we could just— I think we should just move on, in my opinion.

Yes. Well, I did suggest that it's not appropriate, and I have to leave it at that, Councillor Dogramaci. But you may talk to the general manager at some point about how you might get involved, but I'll leave that to you, okay?

Any further discussion? Councillor Vile. I don't want to labour the point, but I significantly think $2,000 is not enough. So what's been recommended, if it does fall over and you don't get the normal quota, I think Council should be allowed to double it. I think $3,000 is not enough. I would suggest, I was thinking $5,000. That was the onus of my question prior to when we started this debate. But since we need to move this on, I just want to get that on the record. Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor.

So you're not suggesting any change? Thank you.

No , not at this present point of time

Dare I say. Any further speakers? If not, Councillor Kotlash, right of reply.

Not necessary, thank you. Not

Necessary. I'll put the motion then. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand in favour as Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vile, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Samparogno, and Councillor Calvert. Those against? Councillor Dogramaci. Absent is Councillor Sheehan and the Mayor, Councillor McMahon. I declare it carried.

We need to invite the Mayor back for the next motion so she can declare another interest, I believe.

Musical chairs.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, for that. The next item on the agenda is item 4.3.2, Local Heritage Assistance Fund. Councillor Conolly, would you like to read out your declaration? Yeah

It's a significant non-pecuniary interest in that one of my clients is the applicant for an application being considered in the report.

Thank you. You'll be leaving the room. I also have a significant non-pecuniary interest that a relative of my partner is a recipient of funding. I'll also be leaving the room and handing back to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

Item 4.3.2. Does anyone wish to move anything? Councillor Wheeler's got a light on, so.

I'll second.

Moving the recommendation. She

Hasn't heard what I've said yet.

Are you moving the recommendation?

Well, given the bonhomie of the last item, I thought that I might add a point four, which is that Council looks to significantly increase the amount of funding available under the Heritage Assistance Fund in the 2024-25 budget. I would

Agree with that.

Councillor Lyons' bucket is seconding that, okay.

Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak? Thank you. I was going to hold that until the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee last week came back, but seeing that we've all decided that $2,000 is not enough money to do anything, I thought I'd leap on that bandwagon. So,

And actually that is what's going on here. You know, if you look at the amount of funding that's allocated to most of these properties, it's two grand. In a few instances we're allocating $ 500, $550. The funding is capped at $2,000, and that really doesn't buy very much anymore. You know, I don't know if you've bought paint recently, but you're not buying a lot of paint with $2,000, particularly once you've got to look at specialist materials and tradesmen.

This is a success story, though, the Heritage Advisory Scheme, and we really shouldn't lose sight of that. We take the paltry sum of five grand from the state government, and we add another fifty-odd grand of our own, and somehow, with the assistance of the owners of these properties, we spin that into nearly half a million dollars' worth of works to heritage properties. That five grand from the state government hasn't changed in more than a decade. It's a tiny sum of money, particularly when you consider the density of heritage in the Hawkesbury LGA, and it really hampers what we can give as a small disaster-affected council, the assistance that we can give to our heritage item owners. I looked at a couple of other councils and what they hand around: Blue Mountains, two and a half grand per property; Lake Macquarie, four thousand; Shoalhaven, five thousand; Cumberland, four thousand.

Where I'd really like to live with my heritage item is Ryde, where you can apply for fifteen thousand dollars. Which would be quite tidy, I'm sure. They've probably got about six properties left, and that's the real issue for us, that we're being shortchanged by the state government here. And I think that's something that a recommendation will come back from the Heritage Advisory Committee following last week's meeting, that we approach the state government again and ask for a greater allocation of funding based on the number of items that the Hawkesbury has and their importance to both the state and national heritage portfolio.

There is a big incentive for owners that goes beyond the $2,000, and that's the advice of Council's heritage advisor. If people had to pay for that upfront, that would be quite expensive. They're highly skilled and highly sought after, and our heritage advisor is run down to the minute interval when he is galloped across the LGA to go to heritage properties and speak to people. It's a fantastic service that we provide, and we've also now got a heritage officer on board who can answer day-to-day queries as well, although tends to be bogged down, I think, in dealing with development applications and similar stuff . Some of the work that's being funded here, and I think of particularly the work to the Hawkeshead ceiling, which I presume is a lath and plaster ceiling, is not stuff that if there isn't an assistance fund and there isn't an advisor to help people out with this stuff, this work, it doesn't get done anymore, and that fabric is just destroyed because it's too hard to keep up.

It'll fall down, and people will shovel it out the door and replace it with gyprock, and it's gone. Many of these works, as you can see, are about keeping water out of properties, decent guttering, those weedy gutters that are on Fairfield House. There's hardly any of them left. They're really, really important pieces of the Hawkesbury fabric and of the state fabric. What this also does, though, is incentivise heritage owners so that they don't see their heritage item as a nuisance; they see it as an asset. It also gets our heritage advisor in the door to talk about the scope of works, the order of works, so instead of prioritising pretty things, we prioritise things that keep the building structurally intact.

And it also makes sure that people do things properly, so that they, instead of taking off short-sheet, old short-sheet corrugated iron and replacing it with long-sheet Colorbond, the old iron stays on or is replaced like for like. It's a really important thing that this grant achieves, and the amount of money that it costs us is tiny in comparison to the benefits. Thanks.

Councillor Wheeler, I believe you talked about getting greater funding from the State Government. Does this point four that's on the board actually

Meet what you said? I think that that will be a recommendation that comes back from the Heritage Advisory Committee, so that we're certainly seeking further funding, but Council needs to do both. I think we need to seek funding from the State Government, and we need to search our own coffers for some money as well.

But it doesn't say that. No

I can add it, if you like. Look to significantly increase the amount of funding from State Government, and from State Government funding can just tack on after operational plan. Okay. And seconder, you're happy with that? Yes. Yes .

In short, I want more money from both. Of course.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. I think this is good. I think that's a good addition to the motion. I had noted down for both this and the South Windsor item that those funding contributions are quite minimal in this economy. Building and maintenance costs are very expensive, well, particularly of a heritage building, and we really need to keep pace. With these contributions to be meaningful rather than tokenistic. Otherwise, you know, I'm interested in the figures from the other councils, but I think, as Councillor Wheeler said, they may well, particularly Ryde, have a lot less heritage buildings less. I think it's important that we do put pressure on the state government around some of these things that haven't budged for years being increased to also reflect the increases in cost and so on.

A little like the pensioner rebate for rates, which has been the same since 1993, and we need to start doing a bit of advocacy around that. And I think Councillor Wheeler said there'd be something in the Heritage Committee minutes about that. It's good that so many owners are investing. Obviously, it's their own asset, but the fact that they're putting the money into retaining the heritage integrity of their buildings is good, and that we are very fortunate to be able to get that educative value by having a heritage officer who is engaging with these people and going through, you know, how the various methods and the various ways that they can do this to keep their buildings as in line with the various provisions.

And of course, we know there are quite a few provisions around heritage that need to be adhered to. So it's really good to see some of the— when we get a list like this, I guess it shows us just how many places we've got. And I note number seven there, which is Encourageong, which is the old theatre in Encourageong. It's really good to see that somebody is going to be replacing the roof there. It's a wonderful thing, and it's wonderful that it's gone into the hands of someone who wants to regenerate it as a wonderful thing. So thank you, and good luck to all those heritage owners.

Councillor Sutherland.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. I commend the report and the work that's gone into it. To have that amount of people that wish to contribute to the heritage of our city, I think is pretty good. Well, it's more than pretty good. And with the comments that were made by previous speakers, I know what a significant increase is. And with the matter, I guess, that where I had to leave the room, that those sorts of things to be taken into account that will address some of the matters within this report. Something that's in this report that I'd like to see on the pages of the projects one and two for Windsor that's in the making at the moment, and that's the under discussion, under the word discussion, on page 67, where it says, The special character of the Hawkesbury derives from its unique heritage background and the expressions of the background in its interrelationship in buildings, places and heritage significance and their settings and landscapes, and it goes on for another four or five lines.

It's that, I guess, that that's been, that paragraph there has certainly been the drive of my view and direction, and I'd commend whoever wrote that. But to see it in this document here is encouraging, and I would ask that that particular paragraph go into perhaps the format of any information that's in documentation that goes out to give a clear indication to the community that the council does care about the heritage of our city, and the things we do either to protect it or enhance it. So, in reading the report, as good as it is, that particular paragraph, I think stands out and gives a good indication of Council's attitude to where we stand on these matters.

Thank you. Further speakers?

Nobody? Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Thanks.

Mr Deputy Mayor, I've done it again. I've still got my glasses on. I can't see my computer, and that's it. Look, I'm really pleased to see this supported and to see a likely support for an increase in funding. I will remind you when we get to the budget discussions of how keen you all were to support heritage at the time. I'll also remind you when the heritage listing sheets for additional heritage items start coming to this Council that you were all keen to protect heritage, and that's part of this need for additional funding. If we're looking at adding to our heritage inventory, and we're looking at adding to it significantly, we're going to have to beef up this funding in order to make it worthwhile.

That's a significant incentive for heritage item owners. Council Lines Bucket referenced the Currajong Theatre. One of the successes of this program is that a new owner can purchase a heritage item and be shepherded through this process of successful application quite quickly, and that, I think, the staff need to be commended for their ability to meet with new owners and members of the public and get them through this process. In 2017, when I started as the Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee, we were, and I am not joking, pulling people in off the street to listen to the spiel from the heritage officer about this program, and we couldn't get enough subscribers. We doubled the money we handed to individual item owners because we couldn't spend it.

Now we're oversubscribed, and that's a huge success story. What we've got to do now is beef up the funding so it really does some more good. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favor please raise your hands. In favor, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheeder, Councillor Kotlas, Councillor Dogramachi, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Conolly and the Mayor, Councillor McBarn. Declare it carried.

Would anyone like to suggest a five-minute break?

Or do you want to keep going? No? Keep going? All right.

I gave you the opportunity.

Thank you

For your assistance there, Deputy Mayor. The next item on the agenda is 7.1.1, response to questions with notice. Anything councillors wish to add to that item? Councillor Wheeler.

Just to state, Madam Mayor, that I'm a bit concerned that we have to compile information about whether we're up to date on our fire safety statements. I would hope that we had a system that was robust enough to have that information at the ready. If we need to invest in some better software management or something, then if that could come back to Council, that would be helpful. I do want to ask when I'll receive an answer to a question that I asked some months ago, which was regarding the number of properties that have been rendered unlivable by flooding. I don't recall seeing an answer to this question, and apologies if I've missed it. I've not been very well recently, but if the answer could be provided, that would be good.

And the reason that I'm asking now is that two of the homes that I have in mind in Wilberforce appear to now be ready for demolition, and there's another that's undergoing extensive works to shore up its foundations and veranda and hasn't been lived in since the flooding more than 18 months ago.

We were excluded from any possibility of buybacks, and I have no idea of whether the owners of these properties have funding, whether they were renters, whether they were owners, whether they've been rehomed. We don't have any information as to what's happened. And because the state government hasn't included us in those same packages that were offered to Lismore, I think we really need this data so that we can go into bat for our residents that have been—these are properties that have been severely impacted by flooding. I also think we need to know whether they are likely to be built on again, these sites, because they will go under again. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

The next item is 8.1.1, which is in confidential. Have someone move that way, please. Councillor Veigel, seconded Councillor Zanprogno. All in favour? Yes. Thank you, councillors. We'll move into confidential.

Madam Mayor, the Deputy Mayor attempted to give us a five-minute break before confidential, and we held it over. Would it be possible to have that

Five-minute break now? Okay, we'll go a five-minute break.

Thank you, everybody. We are now back in open session of Council after being in confidential. In the closed session of Council, the councillors discussed item 8.1.1, staff matter. The recommendation was that the Mayoral Minute regarding the General Manager's performance review for 22-23 by the General Manager's Performance Review Panel be received and noted. The councillors resolved on this motion, moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Reardon. For the motion were Councillors Reardon, Councillors Bygall, Sheather, Conolly, Kotlash, Calvert, Dogramaci, Durick, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zemprogno and Councillor McMahon. There were no councillors against the motion. Declare the item carried. That was our final item tonight, councillors. Thank you to everyone who participated in tonight's meeting and goodnight. Meeting closed at 10. 06 p.m. Thank you, everybody. Goodnight.