This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
Welcome, Formalities, Apologies, Declarations Of Interests, Confirmation Of Mintes
Sarah McMahon
Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Hawkesbury City Council's meeting for the 21st of November 2023. Thank you to all of our guests who are here today in the public gallery. Lovely to have your attendance and involved in our meeting tonight. And to those watching at home, thanks for joining. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In 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 meetings. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council this evening, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors.
Finally, it is also requested that, for those of you carrying a mobile phone, could you please turn it off or switch it to silent. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you very much. We do have one apology this evening. There's one councillor who is absent. That is Councillor Shane Djuric. I'll just confirm that's been received. Yes, lovely. Thank you very much. Any declarations of interest, councillors?
Oh, sorry, we need a mover and a seconder to accept the apology. Sorry, moved Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour? Thank you, carried. Declaration of interest, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, item 4.1.1, significant non-pecuniary interest. Thank you very much. Councillor Veigel.
8.1.1. So we will address those declarations of interest as they arise. Can I get someone to move the minutes from the last meeting? Thanks, Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Veigel. All those in favour, please raise your hand.
Those in favour of the minutes? Councillor Zamprogno. Yep, thank you. Declare that carried unanimously. In favour? Councillor Dogramaci, yep. Carried unanimously.
GM - 2022/2023 Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements for year ended 30 June 2023
Sarah McMahon
Now, normally we would move on to the agenda item subject to public address first, but if I have the councillors' acceptance of this to move a procedural motion, if someone from the floor could do that for item 4.2.1 for our auditors to speak on Zoom for
Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Seconded, Councillor Veigel. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. Carried unanimously. Therefore, the first item we will proceed to is item 4.2.1, the annual report and audited financial statements for the year ended 30th of June 2023. If you look up on screen, we have our auditors online. We have James Winter and Kenneth Luong. Thank you very much for joining the meeting. Who would be speaking first on that item?
Okay. So good evening, Mayor and Councillors, and thank you very much for the pleasure to once again present on the conduct of the 2023 audit. We are pleased to announce that the audit of the 2023 financial statements is complete, and we've issued a clean, unmodified audit report. And I would like to start by thanking management, in particular Vanessa and the finance team, for the professionalism and cooperation that has been extended to the audit team throughout the years. Before discussing the conduct of the audit, I'd like to just make some short general comments about the Auditor-General's upcoming reports to Parliament. So in August, we released our annual work program, and the key theme is the integrity of the systems, which is essential to both good advice and good governance, and this will drive the main topics for our upcoming performance audits.
Some of the planned performance audits in the following years will include cybersecurity in local government, which is very topical at this stage, road asset management, coastal management reforms, park and pay, managing climate risks to assets and services, the Western Sydney Aerotropolis, performance management and monitoring, audit of governance issues within a particular council, as well as amalgamated councils. There has also been an update to our mandate, which now includes the ability to conduct follow-the-dollar audits and our ability to trace the end source of spending. This also ensures that the public money is being spent efficiently. And in addition, our ability to gain access to information has been strengthened to assist with our audits.
I'll probably hand over now to James, who will take Council through the conduct of the audit itself. Over to you, James.
Thank you, Kenneth. Again, I just reiterate Kenneth's comments in terms of the audit process we went through with Council this year. As Kenneth mentioned, we issued, or the audit office issued an unmodified opinion, and we issued the engagement closure report to Council, to management, and we're just going through and finalising the management letter as we speak. Overall, in terms of the operational performance for Council in the current year, as you'll have seen in the numbers, I guess consistency at the rates and annual charges level. Obviously, a significant increase in the grants and contributions, which was expected given the impact of the ongoing funding to assist councils' recreation around those infrastructure assets, which has occurred in the current year, significant investment by Council in that in the current year, and the overall operating performance from Council was obviously impacted by those grants and contributions.
But having said that, the operating performance of Council after the grants and contributions was again positive in the current year. The, I guess, key things in terms of the cash flows and the financial position of Council, again, the positive cash flow and the ploughing of that operational surplus into the infrastructure assets, but also then some buyings in the current year as well. But an operational surplus at the cash flow level to then allow Council to invest into the infrastructure assets. As we reported in the Conduct Authority report, the Council's cash position is up in the current year. And that's including of those external restrictions and also accounting for internal allocations as well.
And then that's covered by the cash increase in the current year. Overall performance of Council in the current year, the operating performance improved at an operational performance ratio level. I guess the impact of additional funding from government in the current year meant that the benchmark of own source revenue was below, but then that was an impact of those grants and contributions in the current year. And overall, the operating performance of Council was impacted by, in terms of the unrestricted funds and other areas, then again, Council compliant. Again, not inconsistent with other councils, just the charges outstanding slightly outside the benchmark range, but which again, not inconsistent with other councils.
And that's been, I guess, a slight increase in the current year. The cash expense ratio cover was well and truly covered. So overall, from an operational performance perspective, Council's operating performance, we didn't have any issues there. I guess in terms of the engagement closure report, in terms of any governance matters or other areas, there is not significant matters to report. In fact, so it was quite a clean opinion in terms of how that was issued. So overall conduct of the audit was very smooth. Obviously in the current year, again on the back of last year, as I mentioned, significant, again , the flow-on from the July flood and the update of the impairment taken into account the revaluations.
We've seen significant changes in community land valuations across local government areas in all cases this year, and that's been reflected as well in your financial statements. But again, the overall audit process was smooth, and we certainly acknowledge management's assistance in that completion of that process. Lovely.
No questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Very much appreciate your time. Oh, sorry, there was a question. Sorry, I couldn't see your light there, Councillor Sheather.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. In relation to the key performance indicators, you said there's a couple of other councils that are suffering in the same areas we have. With those issues that are there, you don't see any implications or complications with those figures that have been presented?
No, again, it's, it's, with the impact of the own-source revenue, that's an outcome simply of the grants. And that would be, in a normal year where you didn't have such a level of capital grants, then you'd be close to that benchmark, and you were there last year. The rates and annual charges outstanding, that's grown a bit, and that's something for Council to keep an eye on. But given the, again, particularly around the economic circumstances that we're in at the moment, it's one to keep an eye on. But we've seen some other councils where that's consistent as well.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to the auditors for delivering that statement. I think they've raised, they've pointed out some of the anomalies that have occurred over the last few years, the big amounts of grant money, the increase in outstanding rate payments, and a few things which seem to be being suffered by multiple councils. But that's really due to the irregular years that we've had preceding these statements, which actually go up to the 30th of June 2023. So I think that they are a good document for the public to read, to be aware of the expenditure that the council is undertaking, and to also be able to see areas where we can, of course, still make some improvements, which there are a few of those, mainly being a bit behind in our flood studies, our third-party reviews, and a few of the strategies which are underway and which will be really good when we have our reconciliation action plan and our social infrastructure strategy and things like that.
The annual report I wanted to draw attention to because I think it is a really good document, and I thank the people who prepare it because it's, as well as the financial statements, they're lovely too. The annual report is really a great snapshot of what goes on in a council. It's got a lot of information in there. For the community to see everything from how much goes on around how many plants we might give out or how many potholes are filled, a lot of information like that, as well as explaining the Council structure and how we are adhering to the things we're trying to obtain through our Community Strategic Plan and the various strategies. So I think that it's really good to look at and to be able to follow the things that the members of the public may be interested in seeing when they will come to fruition, particularly around various works.
And if you look at the annual report, you can get a snapshot of what's been going on, as well as seeing sort of valuable statistics around how many freedom of information, or GIPA as it's called now, how many applications there are, how many legal cases. And the one thing I wish we had a little bit more of in the annual report is around when we're speaking about the facilities that Council has, it would be nice if, for example, around some of them, we sort of gave a little bit just more information of what they did and what capacities they had, instead of just doing lists of them. But that's only a minor thing. I just don't think it's that easy for people to understand that. But it has a great use as a document for people to look through and have an overview of Council.
So it would be really good to encourage people to read the annual review, the annual report rather, and if you're into financial statements, which many people are, to read those as well.
Thanks, Madam Mayor, and thank you to the auditors and also to the staff that have done all this work. It's one of those things that happens in the background that I think takes— A lot of time for a document that I'm not sure. I think there's a really specific subset of the community that reads these things, and they often read it to criticise, and I think that's a shame. As Councillor Lyons-Buckett has said, there's a lot of information in here about what's on offer in the LGA, and it's the same, I think, when we go through the delivery plan and the operational plan, where it's one of those documents that, you know, it's a doorstop. No one really wants to read it, and yet hidden in it is all this really good stuff that councils do, and I think this is another one of those documents that shows that this council, as other councils across New South Wales, working far beyond roads, rates and rubbish, and our community depends on that.
Those of us who went to the local government conference last week heard repeatedly from speakers about how councils are continuing to plug the gaps that are left by other levels of government, particularly in areas of social gaps, that stuff that's really difficult to cost. It's also very difficult for us to fund often, and it shouldn't go unnoticed. We almost need a summary of the annual report, like the A3 flyer or A5 flyer of the— of the annual report that details what's actually on offer in this LGA. We do some remarkable things here, really things that seem small to us that are actually, that other councils look at and wish they could have, like the free community rooms in the Darubbin Centre.
We are one of very few councils that provide that. City of Sydney, a really cashed-up council, has just had a bitter dispute about opening up some community rooms for free, and we've been doing it for more than a decade. There's little pieces. We don't fine people when they don't bring back their library books because we know it stops them darkening the door of the library again or bringing their kids back into the library. There are some things that we do well here, and we should celebrate them. I think it's very clear that the grant funding can't be relied on, and that's something that we have to be really mindful of, that when we have a grant idea and we say we'll look for a grant, I think it's becoming clearer that in the current economic circumstances that grant funding is drying up.
And I also think we We need to be mindful that when we post a surplus and it looks great, it means that it actually means that we've got plenty of services or infrastructure that we need to deliver. You know, we, it's, I think it's prudent for us to have a rainy day fund. We've certainly got a number of restricted reserves for projects that are in the pipeline for specific purpose funding, but we should be using our community's money to plan for the future with targeted projects and then delivering services and infrastructure rather than socking money away. That's not our, we are not a profit-making entity. We are a service delivery organisation, and that should be the key focus of our work.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. In the attachment of the annual report, there's some, there's an error in a couple of the words there. I'll speak to staff about later. Excuse me. Just taking on board the comment that Councillor Mary-Lynne Buckett spoke of in relation to a little bit more information. We talk about the things that we do well, but we support organisations, and there's 24 of them, hall committees, for instance. And when you look at the area of volunteers in our paper, we go over the ones that are involved, like in the library and the likes, but there are literally hundreds of our community that are involved in community halls, and we make no reference to that voluntary process. I don't know how we do it, but whether the annual report's the place for it or somewhere else, but— I think they need to be recognised.
On page 75, and this is not the first year it's happened, the review premiums and goals of the Hawkesbury Sports Club, in brackets Council. It's not a club. I'd like that word club taken out because there are also volunteers in that group as well. And it talks further about activities on page 77 in relation to things that are still closed where they haven't been for a couple of years now, certainly not the last 12 months. So with the other things, I'll take it up with the staff later to deal with those.
I'm sure that the auditors have done a very good job. The area that I would like to ask a question, and please be kind enough to correct me, given the time to go through all these papers, plus I don't know what's happening with my hub. As a matter of fact, I have discussed with Director Mifsud and the IT people. For some reason, I'm not getting that, besides the point. What I want to know is that everything is okay to me personally, except on page 35 on the attachment. When I have a look at the expenses, I don't know whether it was intentional, and forgive me for saying this, but everything is nice, but nowhere I could find the money that we have lost on that... Up to 40 million dollars. Everything is nice, beautiful, how much money year we spent on this and that.
It also doesn't mention 33 and a half million dollars that we borrowed, partly to offset that money that this council wasted to me. Now, very conveniently, it says borrowing cost. If you borrow money from bank or financial institutions, you also know how much money you borrowed. And here, I'd love to have seen that, you know, 40 or up to 40 million dollars that, you know, we wasted, and 33 and a half million dollars that we borrowed to offset. And here it only shows $522,000, whatever , that's the borrowing cost. Is it possible that, you know, we could include somehow, or I have, you know, some kind of a documentation confirming that, you know, we lost that much money, and to offset that, we had to borrow that 33 and a half million, or 32 million.
Through you, Madam Mayor. So the borrowing costs are just in relation to the interest expense only associated with that loan. We only had one repayment due for that. But there is an overview on page 57 of the borrowings, which shows that the loan reconstruction of Sewer Rising Main C there. So you can see there, so the borrowing was 32 and a half million, and then the balance there is between what's due next year and what's due in outer years. So that's the difference between current and non-current. So that's the second line down, Councillor Dogramaci, on page 57. So that's just reduced by the one prepayment that we made last year. Thank you.
That's okay. As it relates to the annual report, councillors and members of the gallery would remember that in March 2022, very early in this term of Council, I proposed a motion that would have statistics collated about councillors' attendance not merely at chamber meetings, which is recorded and does appear on page 13 of the annual report, but also would have added to that, for the purposes of transparency and accountability, our attendance at workshops, briefings,
And which would also report councillor expenses in a more detailed fashion. When I moved that, it gained some praise from the community, and in fact many members of adjacent councils, including, as an example, Hills Shire Council, expressed surprise that I should need to do so because they told me that it had been their habit to report to that level of detail for many years. In May of last year, that initiative was overturned. So I'm simply pointing out for the benefit of the broader public who are present or who are tuning in that this annual report could have contained additional information that aids in public trust in our ability to do our job and our diligence, and it does not do so. Because a majority of councillors were not interested in that mode of accountability, and I think that's a shame. Thank you.
Right of reply? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just briefly, I just would like to pick up on what Councillor Sheather said, because I think that's a really important part. If we're painting a picture of an annual report and how we manage to deliver the diversity and the quality of services and events that we do, that our volunteers do play a really big part in that, and I think that in the future it would be really good to acknowledge them, not only to thank them, but to actually document, for history's sake, just how, you know, when someone in years to come is looking back at how this council operated, to actually include the contribution of volunteers, which keep particularly our cultural precincts going. That would be a really important thing to be able to refer to. Thank you.
Thank you very much. All those in favour of the recommendation, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Against, Councillor Dogramaci. Absent from the room is Councillor Shane Djuric. I declare the motion carried.
Proposed Sale of Part of 7 Fernadell Drive, Pitt Town
Sarah McMahon
We now move on to item subject to public address. Now moving in the order as per the agenda, the first item subject to public address is 4.4.6, Proposed sale of part of 7 Fernadell Drive, Pitt Town. We have one registered public speaker, and that's Peter Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak tonight on this matter. As a number of the present councillors were not on Council when this matter was developed, I believe I should give them a brief background on what has happened. Pitt Town originally had a school of arts located on Bathurst Street on flood-affected land, and in the 70s the building fell into disrepair and was demolished and the land was sold by Council. This left the town with no community hall, and the community was encouraged to move forward and build a sporting club. There was issues around this with licensed clubs and community centres. Personally, I was not in favour of having children introduced to licensed premises at an early age.
The community was happy to see that within the development plan of Pitt Town back in 2008 there was a community centre included. When the plans were revised with the revised 7 .11, it is called now, 2015, the community requested a timeline on the delivery of the sporting fields and the community centre, along with another infrastructure items. We were informed that the Council was using the bucket method of collecting funds. This is when funds from land sales were given to Council and a percentage of the money would go towards each of the projects. And when the bucket was full, the project was then... Delivered . This meant that the larger projects would not be funded until the end of the development.
It was explained also that there was a likelihood that large projects like the community centre and the sporting fields would not have enough funds to go ahead. After a lot of discussion with the community council, we felt that the only way we could guarantee the delivery of a community centre in a reasonable time frame was to sell the land that was allocated and construct the
Community centre on a portion directly across the road in the sporting precinct. Now the state government has assisted with funding of the sporting fields and the community centre. We believe we have to make a decision in regards to the sale of the land here tonight. And I'm not opposed to the sale of the land. Please don't think that. In the report, Council has stated that the sale procedure of the land sale will be held in an interim restricted property reserve and used as a contingency money for any over-expenditure of the Fernadel Park master plans work. Any surplus funds after all the work is completed in the Fernadel Park could be used for further property investments. Now, this money for the infrastructure for this has been collected from Pitt Town.
You know, we still have a large number or a few large projects which need to go ahead in Pitt Town and need to be funded. This is the rehabilitation of the riparian zone along the river from Punt Road through to Hall Street, the boat ramp, and that's just to name a few. And we would like to see— That perhaps rather than these funds go into an investment account, that they could be then moved and used to deliver this infrastructure for Pitt Town, where the land is sold, where these funds are being taken or developed. Look, it's been a long, hard process here in Pitt Town with this development. It's gone on far too long. The infrastructure has been very difficult, and I give Will and his team—they've done a good job, and we're starting to see some things happening.
But to say that we will then put these funds that have taken from the sale of this into the property investments, and I'm not quite sure what that means, really won't sit well with the people of Pitt Town, because it's money that has been raised in Pitt Town, and I believe it should flow on and deliver the rest of this infrastructure for Pitt Town. So it would be a really good thing and go a long way to restore some real good faith with the people in Pitt Town that we are now getting on with the job that has taken far too long, and we will not go down this track again of where the funds are taken from Pitt Town and used.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. With your indulgence, Madam Mayor, my question is for staff, but I'd like to keep Mr Ryan at the lectern for his response. Is that okay? So my question for staff is this wording that's in the discussion of the business paper, that the proceeds from the sale will be held in the internally restricted property reserve. Is that wording insufficient to guarantee the Pitt Town community that the total of those proceeds will be held for the benefit of the Pitt Town community specifically for works and programs? Shall
Thank you, through you, Madam Mayor. I think, in a word, yes, it's not. So we haven't made a formal recommendation around what to do with that funds yet, Councillor. As we've suggested in the report, what I guess we would like to do initially is to just hold that money there in the internally restricted, so we can't spend it on anything else, specifically for potential cost overruns at Fernadell. And then what we had envisaged out of that is for it to be retained in a property reserve. That does not necessarily mean it has to be spent in Pitt Town, but it is something that we would obviously be having discussions through quarterly budget review processes with Councillors about where that would then get allocated to.
All right then. Mr Ryan, would it satisfy you if the recommendation was moved with an extra point that tries to cement the proceeds as remaining with the Pitt Town community?
Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr Ryan. That was really good to give that comprehensive outline about the history of that. I'm just wondering, do you or does the Pitt Town Progress Association still maintain an updated list of the outstanding or the undelivered works that the Pitt Town community had paid money in to have done?
That would be the current 7-11 account, which we do keep a good record of everything that is done. And yes, we are pretty well right on the ball with it. Okay,
Just follow on from Councillor Zamprogno, that apart from the use of those funds of the sale of the land be further reported to Council, would that satisfy your concerns?
Our concerns, or my concerns at the moment, are that we went through a long process to get the community centre up and going by really the community said, okay, we can accept that we have to lose this to get our community centre built. Now the government, thank heavens, have come on board, and it's great. We really appreciate that. But the sale of this land is still going ahead. And realistically, we would like to see the money that is of this land spent in Pitt Town, because that's where it's come from. If we wouldn't have gone down that process with people like Patrick and all the councillors that were present then, even our friend over here, Councillor Payne was involved. That's how far back we went with it.
And we really got a good feel from the people. And they, I can tell you now, they will feel pretty well under the pump if they find out that this money will then just go into Council revenue and not be spent on our town.
Well, at present we have had the development has started. The roads have been the main thing, and I thank Will for that because the roads were appalling. They've been addressed. Community infrastructure I'm talking about. Well, very little at the moment. There's the Bonavista Park's been constructed, and we had a great day out there the other day there, but ... in the rain. And that's probably what ... in the rain. Pitt Town, there's a flood ceremony, so it rains. Yeah, great. We loved every minute of it. But, yeah, that, and there's probably a lot of other things behind the scenes that Will's probably right onto too, but we do keep a good list of things.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, another question? No, no, sorry. Okay. Something to move. Oh, sorry. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr Ryan. Appreciate that. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I did send through a motion, which is the motion in the business paper with a fourth point. I just sent that through before, and I hope it was received. Yes, it was. And the fourth point is around the surplus funds after the works are completed at Fernadell Park be used for undelivered Pitt Town infrastructure works.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think it's very clear, those of us who have gone over and over the issues around Pitt Town, I think it's very clear that the development was undertaken with people paying contributions in for specific infrastructure, all of which has not been developed. And as Mr Ryan was just pointing out around the community infrastructure, the decision was made around the changes with the community centre, and this residual bit of land that's being sold, I think in fairness should be dedicated to being spent in Pitt Town, perhaps saying specifically infrastructure works, because I don't know how widely that ... Definition will go, but I definitely would like it specified and supported that it be spent in Pitt Town, given it is Pitt Town people's money, basically.
Thanks. Oh, the typo has been fixed. That's good. The only thing I'm concerned with here is that if point four gives us some liability to provide these works that we have always maintained were the job of the developer. So just some advice from staff would be helpful, please.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure of the question, Councillor. I'm just a little bit concerned. I have no problem with this motion. I have no problem with this money staying in Pitt Town. It's money that was raised as developer contributions by direct payment from those residents. I'm just concerned that I already feel like we're on the hook for the delivery of a lot of this infrastructure that we received no payment for, and I just want to make sure that point four does not leave Council on the hook for works that we can't necessarily deliver into the future.
Through you, Madam Mayor, no, I don't think it does that, Councillor. The biggest single inhibitor at this point in time about completing the works in Pitt Town is the development of that Thornton precinct and obtaining the revenue that comes from that. And until that happens, there is always going to be a shortfall in those reserves and that funding for Pitt Town. So I guess hypothetically, if the plan was working as it should, you may result in a surplus at the end of that, but I think that's probably a stretch.
So items like that riparian zone restoration and the boat ramp, which I know has been a longed-for piece of infrastructure, are we likely to be able to deliver that if the Thornton precinct comes on board?
Sorry to the Director of City Planning. I think we are inching closer on the boat ramp and those associated works with the proponent. I don't think that this would leave us in any way carrying the financial burden for that necessarily, or any more than what we would have otherwise.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? No. Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Not necessary. Thank you. All those in favour of the recommendation as per the board, please raise your hands. Those in favour: Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. Councillor Djuric is absent from the room. I declare the motion carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno.
That:
1. Following the subdivision of Fernadell Park, 7 Fernadell Drive, Pitt Town the surplus land known as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1291976 be sold at Public Auction.
2. The reserve price be set in accordance with current market valuation prepared by one of Council's Panel Valuers.
3. The Seal of Council be affixed to the Contract for Sale and any other relevant documentation.
4. Any surplus funds after works are completed at Ferndell Park be used for undelivered Pitt Town infrastructure works.
Francis and West Market Street Traffic Calming Project
Sarah McMahon
The next item subject to public address is item 4.5.1, Francis and West Market Street Traffic Calming Project. The first registered speaker is Jacqueline Leal.
Obviously, I spoke recently, and Louise did as well, regarding this issue of the proposed roundabout on Francis Street, as well as the fact that there is a rather large concern on my part about that this has been seen as a, or this has been put forth as a black spot. So I'm just going to go through my notes. It's probably the best way to do this. So basically, to begin, the first heading, RE 4.5.1 on the meeting notes has the title Francis and West Market Street Traffic Calming Project. Then in paragraph 3, it becomes the Francis and West Market Streets Black Spot Project. I think this really sums up the issue we have here. This is not a black spot project. It is a traffic calming project that has been nominated by the council as a black spot project.
This black spot program was set up by the government to save lives, not to slow down traffic on a residential street. When we go to the executive summary on page 100, and these are all responses obviously to the issues that we raised at the last meeting where we spoke. And we do have the first paragraph, which I'd like to respond to regarding it being identified as one of a number of black spot cluster locations. I'd like to ask, and these are questions I really would like an answer to if possible, did council officers take into consideration that the Hawkesbury reaches from St Albans to Bilpin when they identified Francis Street as a black spot? Any resident that has any knowledge of our area is well aware that there are so many roads that are known death traps, which I did touch on last time.
I am sure that each of us knows someone who has been killed or seriously injured on our roads. I know off the top of my head a fatality on The Putty and one recently on Wilberforce Road. I have lived on Racecourse Road, Clarendon, for most of my childhood. If you said that this is an emerging black spot, I would concur. It has become so busy and the traffic flies along there. Overlooking the lowlands, the P-Platers use Benson's Lane and around to Owner's Lane to see how fast their vehicles can go. No lights, 90 degree turns. We've already had one go through the fence. That would be an emerging black spot. This is why I am shaking my head that this has gone through. I'm very cranky, to be honest.
I'm sure that the families that have lobbied to make roads safer would be horrified that funding is being wasted in such a way. I would also like to know where is the crash history from the preceding five years? I still haven't seen the data, and can someone please provide me with a copy? I also would like to know, were these accidents motor accidents or were they medical incidents?
I would also like to note where exactly are the cluster of crashes that are along the length of Francis Street, because I still don't have that information. We go to paragraph 2, which we speak about the existing funding criteria, and I also strongly agree that this street actually does qualify as a black spot when they go into all the things that make it a black spot situation. We're talking about high fatalities, we're talking about dangerous sites, 66 dangerous sites across New South Wales. I'm not seeing that with this residential street in the middle of Richmond. You know, they're there to reduce serious injuries and deaths on our road. We're supposed to have widespread community consultation. All of these are in the black spot funding conditions.
Is that me finishing, is it? Okay. All right, then I better hurry up. So, look, if I just continue to move forward, there is a real issue for me that this has been classed as a black spot. There is also a real issue with them putting a roundabout here. As you know, we're all aware that Francis Street is the only road that trucks can access the lowlands for stock and fodder delivery and removal. We have spoken to the gentleman that came out here and spoke about that they would have access with this roundabout, and these works for a 19 metre articulated truck access. I actually made some phone calls, and I put out some phone calls to people that do drive trucks and do deliver feed down there.
You would want to be very, very sure that that information is going to carry, because those trucks, that is their only access. That is our only way to get out in this situation. And I just don't think it's something that we can take the risk. They even said, even as is, with the cars parked along each side, truck access as it is can be an issue. There's so much more I can say, but I know I'm going to be cut off with this. But basically there is a lot of questions. I did leave those with one of the councillors that I really would like answers to. I really would like full disclosure on this, and I don't feel, after looking at what I have received, that we have had full disclosure as to how this got through as a black spot program-funded project .
Thank you. Your time has expired. Appreciate that. I'll just see if there's any questions from councillors. Any questions? No. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. The next public speaker for this item is Louise Ross.
Thank you. Good evening, everybody. As Jackie said, she's taken some of my about the proposed roundabout, and that we haven't had any evidence of any fatalities or serious crashes along here. Also, I'd like to...
The business paper on the 21st of November states that there was a misunderstanding and that there was no commitment from staff to paint the splitter road in the middle. I really, really object to that comment because it was made on our first meeting with a SACA from the council that he was the one that proposed for the island in the middle of the road, out the front of my place, 113, that that would be painted. And it's been put in here that it's a misunderstanding. That is incorrect. That was actually stated by him, and then I was not notified until this, until our second meeting, that this was actually going to be a concrete island, which means I have no access to my hat property at all in and out of my driveway.
So I am very, very angry about that statement. Also, we've all discussed how we get in and out of our driveway with the roundabout, which is not acceptable. We've still not had any disclosure on the light, the reflection of the light of the hue coming into our properties. It's going to be an LED light, but there is still nothing in this paper that says that the hue will impact the inside of our house and what light that will stream. Also, I've also found out that the New South Wales State, the standard state criteria for a verge or a median strip is 3.5 or 5.5 metres. If you cut into that verge, you have now gone over the criteria for a verge for the standard for New South Wales. Then if anybody walks along that side of the strip, whether on foot or with a pram, how do they access going down Francis Street on that side of the road when there's a roundabout cut into the verge?
So that— is already a default in the roundabout. Also, I propose that on West Market Street, instead of a give way sign, that is actually a stop sign, so everybody has to stop, and where there is a no standing sign, just up from there, that that is then taken just another 10 metres up the road so nobody can park there. Parking is restricted already in Richmond due to all the shops, and there is not long-term parking in any of those parking for any businesses within that area. We've already touched on getting in and out of the driveway, as you know, with our last paper. And I'd also like to say that Jackie and I are actually— you might think that there's only two people that are opposed to this roundabout, but Jackie and myself actually represent all the residents that the roundabout will impact their houses.
So it's just not our houses; it's about six houses in that area that this roundabout will impact, not only with the trucks that are coming in and out of Francis Street as well. And that's all I'd like to say, but you all know, and you've all been out there and you've inspected the roundabout, and then taking that verge—and I have never seen a roundabout in the Hawkesbury where you've taken a verge to actually complete a roundabout. So if you take that roundabout and you take that verge, you are actually now in breach of the New South Wales Standard Act of 3.5 to 5.5 metres for a verge to happen. That's all I'd like to say. And I'd just like to consider whether we do a pedestrian crossing, a raised one, or whether we make it that West Market Street is actually a stop sign, that people then have to stop.
And then the wheels are in motion as having a give way sign. And I'd just like to make sure that that gets favoured consideration in this event with this roundabout.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to— I'll see if there's any questions. No. Lovely. Thank you very much, Miss Ross. Can I have someone move something, please? Councillor Conolly.
So the motion is that we don't proceed with the installation of the roundabout at West Market and Francis Street, but we support the rest of the measures included in this black spot funding and ask the staff to go and renegotiate the terms of that funding to include— to be able to go ahead without installing this roundabout.
Having inspected the area and stood on that verge and imagined what that would be like to try and get out of those driveways if that roundabout goes ahead, my conclusion was that you would only do that if you were in a really dangerous spot that absolutely needed this traffic calming. The statistics, in my view, don't support that kind of imposition on private residences that have been there a long time. There's not a history of fatalities. There's not a history of dangerous serious incidents at that particular spot. And I wouldn't want to go and put that onto somebody's properties in the absence of that sort of justification.
Else wishing to speak? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I just get some clarity? I thank Councillor Conolly for bringing this motion. I was hoping to put some sort of a motion similar to this. I just wanted some clarity around the status. It says seeks to renegotiate the terms of the black spot funding. I had raised this previously and was told that wasn't possible. Is there a likelihood that this can be renegotiated? Director of Infrastructure.
The short answer is we're not too sure until we engage with the department. We've previously sought extensions of this grant whilst we dealt with the floods of last year, so we've certainly had conversations in the past about amending some of the terms of the grant funding, but we really wouldn't know until we've had that conversation. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Director. I think that this is the best way forward. We've heard multiple times now about the concerns of these residents, and they're not confirmeds that are without real justification for what is wrong with this proposal. It would impact severely on them, and I really want to thank them for their advocacy. It does impact them, and we know that whereas not people can't always have the outcome that they really want, we know that when they're so severely impacted that we have to listen and take every step that we can do to find a solution to what is being imposed upon them. And I think this is the best way forward at the moment. And I really do hope that there can be an alternative traffic calming, as there is up the other end of the street some other strategies being put in place around traffic calming, and that we can find a solution so that we both get an improved solution for safety within the street, and that we also do not impose a roundabout on people that's going to severely impede their ability to enter and leave their property and to have the enjoyment of their property.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Councillor Conolly, for putting that amendment up. I support it wholeheartedly. I do have a question concerning the line marking. We are—we're talking about... Line marking on the roadway in lieu of concrete dividers , are we not? It's just, it's a slightly ambiguous term, because I know there's a concern with fixed concrete dividers inhibiting people coming out of the drive. Putting a medium strip, painted, fine, you can cross it, but I'm just concerned it might be a concrete barrier there as well.
Through you, Madam Mayor, I'd have to look at the specific detail, but my reading of the resolution as it's currently written would be that the line marking would be associated with pedestrian refuges, so that's extension of double barrier lines, and that's pretty well it.
Can I be specific, please? We can't inhibit any cars coming in and out of people's driveways. A number of us were concerned, well, the last time this was raised, I'm wholeheartedly supportive of this, not for the roundabouts, I wasn't going to vote that up like many councillors. So, look, if we can come back and be specific, because I don't want to block access to anybody's personal property. This is a part of what the residents have brought to us tonight, and beforehand, by the way. Thanks
Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. This is the third time we've discussed this, and I would have thought after the briefing there might have been some resolve. I speak in support of the motion, and I went back through the documents and I was surprised with the documents supplied over those three times that there's very little difference in it. The only difference there is is the last paragraph in relation to the successful tenders have been placed, which surprises me that— It's before Council and we've allowed a tender to happen. The things that are proposed in part two of the motion, we've got pedestrian crossings, we've got some up the other end of the street, raised pedestrian crossings that can work.
As one of the speakers indicated, we can put a give way or a stop sign there. Again, indicated by one of the—both the speakers, the amount of areas where we have got problems, and that we've chosen this one for some reason. With some of the documentation we've got in relation to the accidents in the area of Francis Street and Richmond, there was one document we got that you could read. I haven't got that now, so I don't know which one it was, but the others we got, you can't see them. And one of the speakers indicated they'd been asking for that information. It's not confidential or anything. Can that information be provided to the speakers?
Through you, Madam Mayor, that information is publicly available on the Centre for Road Safety's website, which has been made available, or which has been circulated, as I understand. Yep.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd find much better if information was asked for by Council that provide the information. The... There's lots of websites. I don't know how the community—I'm not that good with them. And with something that's been contentious with all the people that I'm aware of in Francis Street, no one wants what was proposed, that information could have been given in relation to overflow of lighting from the proposed lights. We've indicated the lights and the area they covered, but if I lived there, and there's a big difference between the street lights of the past and what we're putting in today. They're LEDs. You can see them for 10 k's away. The old lights, you could see a dot, but they weren't bright.
But LEDs are much different, and those that drive them at night time when cars come into you, it's not hard to tell which is an older car and which is a new one. So, Madam Mayor, I commend Councillor Conolly for the motion, and I would hope that when the residents ask for information, that the best information is provided and the easiest to alleviate them of some of the frustrations that they have.
Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm wondering if Councillor Conolly will consider a minor change to his point 2, where it says pedestrian refuges, in line with Councillor Veigel's comments, pedestrian crossing, which I think would probably allow for—I think within the scope of a pedestrian crossing, you could have a refuge or something similar. But I think a refuge... is usually some sort of concrete blob, for want of a more technical term.
I think there might have been some confusion about this point two and where it came from. So point two is saying that the rest of the project can proceed, and that's the exact wording from the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee. So it's not talking about this intersection. It's on the assumption that nothing is happening at this intersection right now and that anything would have to be designed and funded elsewhere.
So this—so point two, sorry, Madam Mayor, through you. So point two actually refers to the other works to proceed. Would it be possible, do we in that case need to add a point three? So three would become four, and a new three to be consider traffic safety measures at the West Market and Francis Street intersection to include pedestrian crossing and stop sign.
I might seek some advice from the staff on including that. I hadn't thought that we were doing anything new in this. I was just—the intention of the motion was to pull out the problematic part and let the rest of it proceed. I've not given any thought to how that would be funded, or asked that question. Thanks
Thank you, through you, Madam Mayor. I don't believe that any location along that part of Francis Street would qualify or meet the warrants for a pedestrian crossing. There would be the option to examine a— The installation of a stop sign and a small concrete median in the throat of the intersection of West Market. That would be part of our conversation with the department, the funding body, to attempt to continue to uplift or to maintain that benefit-cost ratio, addressing that crash at the intersection.
Yeah, okay. I guess it doesn't solve the problem of people scampering across West Market Street at that, across Francis Street at that intersection. There is a staggering absence of pedestrian crossing in that, and people come, that's the shopping end. I know there's pedestrian crossings near the club and there's pedestrian crossings near both of the schools, but there isn't any provision for pedestrian crossings at the other end of the street, near the shopping precinct. And people do cross there. I don't know that they need a large piece of concrete to stand on when they do,
But, yeah, all right, look, I'm willing. Okay, I'll move on. My next question is about the financial impacts of this. There's a reference in the report that if we are to change, we're likely to see a financial impact. Do we need to make some provision for that or refer that to the next quarterly review, or will we just suck it up when it comes to us?
Through you, Madam Mayor, it really depends on what happens from here, and that question pivots on the response we get from the funding body. So if we can proceed, then we would likely see a variation on the contract. If they don't allow us to proceed, then we would deal with those consequences as and when they arose, which may require an amendment at the QBR.
Thanks. Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Conolly not needed. All those in favour of the motion on the board, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno and Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room is Councillor Djuric. I declare the motion carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett.
That Council:
1. Not proceed with the installation of a roundabout at West Market and Francis Street.
2. Support the provision of other traffic safety and traffic calming treatments which include Speed Humps (Watts Profiles), Speed Cushions, Pedestrian Refuges, with associated linemarking, signage and lighting, to improve the safety and functionality along Francis Street, Richmond between Onus Lane and Toxana Street, Richmond as endorsed by the Local Traffic Committee.
3. Seek to renegotiate the terms of the Blackspot Funding to allow for the other traffic safety and traffic calming treatments to be delivered.
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter. I've lived in Berambing for the past 32 years. I've never experienced anything like the fireworks that took place on Friday the 3rd of November. I had to yard all my horses, including a mare that was due to foal next week. The mare in foal was extremely distressed, and trying to contain an animal at 600 kilos in distress is near impossible. I had to cancel engagements to be home this Friday night because the event's going to take place again. Three of my horses have played polo for Australia and represent some value to me. I wrote to Council on the 30th of October about my concerns with no reply. Given the complaints from residents, why did Council not contact SafeWork about this matter?
It presents a huge fire risk with the bush surrounding Chapel Hill. Given the unprecedented windy conditions we are having so late in the season, I have lived through many fires in the mountains in the past 32 years. Council was notified in February about the proposed fireworks. Neighbouring residents were only informed on the 2nd of October by a letter drop by the fireworks company. Why? Whilst I have no objections for Chapel Hill to be running as a wedding venue or a function centre fit for purpose, the fireworks need to stop as it impacts so many people in our normally quiet rural setting and benefits so few.
32 years ago when we moved there, there was very little livestock. It was nearly all orchards. That has changed. There's very few orchards now. The people, families have moved in. Rural blocks have now become, you know, for horses, for dog breeding facilities, whatever the case is, but it has changed. And, you know, while I don't think anyone has any objections to the facility being used for what its purpose is, this is not acceptable. I have to stay home on Friday night, which I had prior engagements for, to make sure. I have to yard all my horses to do this. I hardly think it's fair.
Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions? Councillor Kotlash. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Grutter. I was wondering, do your horses respond to all sorts of fireworks?
Just— We've never had to have them at fireworks And there's been breaches from the fireworks company because they proposed five minutes, and it went a hell of a lot longer than five minutes.
There was a big aerial display. You know, it's just not fair that we should have to put up with this. I'm in the Rural Fire Brigade, and a lot of our members, we've got better things to do than fight fires that are potentially caused from this type of action.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Mr Grutter, I've seen some of the footage of these fireworks. Could you just outline for people who haven't what the display was like? Was it the normal thing that you would expect someone to set off in the park
No, it was enormous. It was huge. It lit the sky up. It was thundering. It was just, it was like the fireworks that would happen in Sydney at the Harbour Bridge. I spoke to a woman in Kurrajong that saw it from her place on
Good evening, Mayor and Councillors, and thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I believe the current process with regard to the fireworks is outdated and flawed when it comes to dealing with residents' objections to the fireworks displays. In the lead-up to us being here this evening, we've been deceived and blatantly lied to. I am now familiar with the application process, but I'm still at a loss as to understand why, when so many objections are lodged, that it's not automatically forwarded to SafeWork NSW. The SafeWork guidelines for councils when an application for fireworks is received covers many areas of the grievances we have repeatedly written to Council to address in order to have these fireworks stopped.
I do, however, understand they are only guidelines. Moving forward, I believe these guidelines must be consulted and introduced as legislation, as the fireworks display we endured presented us with unfair, unacceptable and unassessed risk. As I alluded to in my letters to Council, it's unfair that my business is incurring extra expenses for the benefit of out-of-town wedding guests and lining the pockets of a couple of businesses. I have no choice but to pull in all available resources to ensure the safety of my horses and my clients' horses, all at my expense. My public liability is put at unfair risk due to these fireworks. If my horse escapes, my control and breaks through a fence and gets hit by a car or a truck on Bells Line of Road, who's held accountable?
And it's not just limited to horses. We've got dog breeders, cattle, everything that don't respond well to fireworks. The fireworks present considerable risk to the environment, the sensitive bushland and wildlife, the total fire bans in the lead-up to the event, animal and human welfare, the extra costs and inconvenience to individuals and businesses, and the elevated public liability risk are sure enough reason to stop the next display and ban any future fireworks displays. Along with the title of the SafeWork NSW guidelines being changed to the procedure to be followed by Council when objections to fireworks are received, I'd like to add that the zoning laws could slash should be changed to outlaw fireworks in an area such as this, where the venue is completely surrounded by residents given that no assessment of any of the points in the SafeWork document have been carried out prior to the first display.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll just see if there's any questions. Councillors? No. Thank you for your time. Thank you. The next registered public speaker is Diana Thurgood.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thirty years ago, I moved to Berambing. Back then, as now, I was drawn to its incredible beauty and peace, and I believed it would be a safe place to raise my family and create an animal sanctuary. After all, it was 30 kilometres from suburban Richmond and nestled in between two World Heritage National Parks. Since that time, my property has been home to my family and many animal companions, which currently includes six horses, five of which are aged 18 and over. I'm sure you can imagine my surprise when I received a letter informing me that there would be two fireworks displays to be held at Chapel Hill, less than a kilometre away. I naively believed that there would be no way this would be allowed to go ahead, given our proximity to the national parks, the number of horses in the surrounding area, and Berambing's devastating experience with the Gospers Mountain fire in 2019.
However, locals' concerns around the fire risk and the safety of approximately 60 horses around the venue were repeatedly dismissed, and we were told to just hold them, drug them or move them. Holding horses is fraught with danger, and virtually none of us have the facilities to lock them up. While our fences are secure, they are no match for a frenzied 500-kilo horse in full flight. Dragging horses is also not as effective as people seem to think. I used a calming paste on our horses at considerable expense to no avail. We would literally need to get an equine vet incurring huge after-hour fees to sedate them. Likewise, moving horses is absurd. First, you need to have somewhere to move them to, and then you have, if you have multiple horses, you're looking at multiple paddocks.
Then there are multiple trips, as our horse float only holds two horses. Then you have to bring them all back the next day, so another three trips down the mountain and back up. It's an enormous amount of time, easily a full day plus a huge fuel bill. And some of the people affected by this have 14 horses. And we are expected to do this every time the business decides to allow their guests to have a fireworks display. So the fireworks went ahead on the 3rd of November, and on that night I experienced flashbacks to the fires of December 2019. On that day, myself and my 18-year-old daughter stayed, as we had in 2013, trying to defend our property. We did not receive any warnings from the RFS due to communication breakdowns.
By late afternoon, the fire had engulfed us from three sides, and we were forced to drive through fire on Bells Line of Road to safety, as the fire destroyed two-thirds of our property and much of the infrastructure. The roar of that fire, the deafening roar, and the glowing sky are all etched in my memory. After the fires, we and many other residents received counselling from Step by Step. On Friday afternoon before the wedding, we were told of the recommendations placed on the display: reduced noise, mainly ground displays, and no long-shot aerials. Upon hearing this, I thought that my horses and animals would be okay. I could not have been more wrong. The fireworks that night was equivalent to being in a battlefield.
There was absolutely no respite, just a constant barrage of explosions. They were basically all long shots. The noise could be heard as far away as East Kurrajong, and the display went for well over six minutes that I counted instead of four. That night brought back many terrible memories and feelings of panic from the fire. I cannot believe that the council, RFS and WorkSafe think it is okay to subject a traumatised community to this experience, and they have undone so much of the valuable counselling we received. I gave all six horses calming paste at considerable personal expense, but this did nothing. I had one thoroughbred gelding run full speed into a gate twice. This was fortunate though, because if it had been a fence, he would have been tangled.
I am also appalled that this venture was allowed to go ahead given the majority of the wildlife around Bilpin and Berambing was obliterated in the Gospers Mountain fire. It was months before we saw any bird life, and much longer than that before the marsupials began to repopulate. To submit these also stressed animals to this terrifying and totally unnecessary experience borders on professional negligence. It is nesting season with many fledglings still in their nests. I wonder how many abandoned birds and juvenile animals were in the bush surrounding Chapel Hill on Saturday morning after the fireworks. I would like to conclude by saying Chapel Hill and Dazzle FX's flagrant flaunting of the recommendations laid out for the previous event surely indicate that they have lost whatever social licence they thought they had with our local community.
Madam Mayor, could I just move a procedural motion to request that a fourth speaker be allowed to speak? She had registered and it didn't go through, and then when she went there was already three more registered. Would that be? I
I'll just, I'm happy to put the motion and test the councillors' appetite for that. There's a fourth registered speaker, councillors. Would you be in favour of moving a procedural motion to allow that speaker to speak? Those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's Kelsey Thurgood.
I would like to start by telling you about one of my best friends from Kurrajong Pony Club. Six years ago, Hannah and her mother Jodie Turner were at the Bathurst Royal Show. They had had their show jumpers with them, Rocket and Ash. The horses were in steel yards attached to the horse truck, and Hannah and her mum were inside the truck about to eat dinner when the fireworks started. Jodie opened the door of the truck just as the horses went berserk, pushing the yards apart and fled. These horses were professional show jumpers, who had competed every weekend and were used to noise, people and stimulation. They ran out of the showground onto the main highway and galloped for five kilometres before being hit by a car.
Rocket died instantly and Ash died eight hours later, despite expert veterinary care. There is no way to guarantee a horse can be contained when fireworks explode around them, and no way to ensure the safety of motorists and horses themselves. I would like it to be brought to the council's attention that the community of Berambing was ignored and dismissed on issues pertaining to our community, as well as our livestock and property safety. The fireworks were not low or quiet as promised and well exceeded the proposed four minutes of display. Our animals, who are unable to be moved to safe locations, suffered both physical and psychological trauma, also amplified by our community's history with the bushfires.
I would like it to be noted that I have not felt fear like I have on that night, driving to ensure my neighbours were not injured or unconscious after trying to control their horses since driving through the 2019 bushfires. Council's dismissal of our community's concerns proves that they do not have the community's best interests at heart. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just first like to ask before I start speaking if there was—I had sent a request during the week on an update on compliance around the last event that occurred. I'm just wondering if staff could give us an update on that.
Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. Look, council staff have been requesting that any property owners who experience adverse impact as a result of the fireworks display to actually forward those in writing so as they could all be forwarded in their entirety to SafeWork New South Wales to enable SafeWork as the regulator to consider all information prior to the upcoming event. In terms of the follow-up from that, it'll really be a matter of council officers working through the reports that it's received from all of the community with regards to the fireworks display and , yes, working with SafeWork New South Wales in terms of ensuring that that's been noted and considered in the upcoming display.
So given that's on in a couple of days, is that occurring? I believe they all sent in after the event; many people had sent that in. So would it be likely that this will be dealt with tomorrow or the next day? Yes . Okay, thank you. I brought this notice of motion in response to the concerns raised by the community, which you've heard is causing them a lot of distress and a lot of fear, which we don't like to see. But it also showed a noticeable gap in our policies and procedures in not having a fireworks policy, and this notice of motion seeks to address this gap with regard to the compliance issue. That's a separate issue, and I do hope that's dealt with prior to the next scheduled display .
However , It's when we have activities in rural areas, specifically in an area like Berambing, which borders the World Heritage area and is a pristine environment, which suffered greatly, particularly that particular road suffered greatly in the 2019-20 fires. We really need to manage those competing interests, and we need to have sufficient guidelines in place and policies in place to enable us to do the assessment, to be a part of the assessment, so that we don't have a situation where our community members feel unheard, where there is not certainty around these matters, and where we ensure that we can both have the activities that are permissible there, but have them in a way that isn't impacting on the neighbours, and particularly on other businesses in the area, whether it's horse breeders and horse agistment, there's dog breeders, there's other businesses as well.
So it's not like saying that one business should be able to do what they like while it's impacting on other businesses. As with every decision we make, we have to come to a balance. And so having a policy to direct us around that, I've put forward an example policy from another council, which seems to pretty much cover the way we could perhaps go forward with being involved in the assessment process. As we know, the person who's making the decision is SafeWork New South Wales, and we can't change that at the moment, but we can certainly have input. And we can do this in a way where we are making sure that we don't hear that somebody is not carrying out fireworks in the way, if fireworks are permissible, that they are done in line with the conditions.
I did contact Chapel Hill because I thought it was important that I got their perspective as well, as they are the people who were holding these fireworks. I spoke to someone there who was to pass it on to the owner to see if— See if they were interested in speaking to me, but they were not, or they didn't contact me back. So I did want to hear from them as well, because I think everyone in a community, especially a small community like that, should be involved in the process to reach a manageable and a balanced state around how we operate function centres in that area. And you heard the speakers say they do not oppose the function centre. It's the aspect of these aerial photographs, and as Councillor Wheeler said, we saw the footage, as others of you may have said.
We had a meeting with the concerned residents and they showed us the footage. And in a quiet, dark, pristine environment like that, you cannot even imagine unless you see it the absolute impact. And as one speaker said, you could see it from Comleroy Road. That's quite phenomenal. So you can imagine for the neighbours in close proximity, the impacts from that are very significant. And so it's not people being overly emotive. It's people with genuine concerns about themselves. As they have said, a number have said they suffered a lot of stress during the bushfires. And of course we've had predictions of a very bad fire season potentially ahead. And so it's on everyone's mind to be very mindful of protecting their property, of protecting their area.
And we have a role in our emergency management capacity to ensure that prevention of anything like that is well and truly on our agenda. So we should be doing that. One of the speakers mentioned the phenomenal loss of wildlife that we saw during the fires up there. And when we think of the wildlife up there, it's all sorts. But of course much of it is the nocturnal wildlife that's out and about trying to recover still from the fires and out and about at night in particular. And I can't even begin to imagine what the impact on those poor creatures would have been when there was this explosive… Display. We also know that fireworks can be done in a variety of ways, so it's not necessary to have the big rockets and the aerial displays, and so also different times of year could be different.
So my hope is that we can work around something, whether any areas, you know, which areas, and this is for the whole local government area. And of course we do have an area where most of the talk has been about horses. We have many equine areas in this local government area, but this can impact people in different ways. And so having a policy that addresses how we minimise impact and yet how we can allow some activities to go ahead in the right place at the right time is a really good step forward. And I hope councillors will support it so that we can move forward and engage and have some feedback from all members of the community around how we can put a policy in place that will allow us to have these things carried out safely.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, did you think of a Part 3 that might, that the council would take action to whatever actions feasible to not allow the next proposed fireworks to happen? I
Didn't include anything about that because of the proximity of the meeting to the next fireworks display, and I had not received the update on whether there was any compliance action in place or what had happened. If staff could perhaps, I don't know what we can do aside from what the director has said is already being done, but if anybody has a suggestion of anything that we can do between now and Friday, I'd be happy to include it.
Madam Mayor, I'd ask the staff, considering the comments that were made by one of the speakers in relation to a role that we can play, the practicality of Council stopping such an event happening.
Certainly, through you, Madam Mayor. Look, the general licensing conditions, and this is on SafeWork New South Wales website, actually specifies that Council is able to raise an objection to the display, but it also says that the other requirement in terms of SafeWork withdrawing approval for that to go ahead is that it is and the licensee has not been able to resolve those objections with the authority. So, in short, ultimately it will be at SafeWork's ultimate discretion in terms of whether to withdraw proceeding of the application, or permission, if you like, for the fireworks display to go ahead, irrespective of Council's objection.
Madam Mayor, we're here to represent the community and— In this case, we're not doing a very good job of it. With the work that's been done in relation to the Quimbyan policy, and I thank the councillors for doing that, I suspect it's got to go into our DCP before it's effective anyway. So it's quite a process to go through before we can have the policy, but we've got to be able to implement it and the like, so it's going to take some time. And I don't think time's on the side of the people at Brambry. You know, fireworks at Christmas Day or New Year's Eve at Sydney, most of Australia watch it, I guess, and around the world. And I dare say there's complaints in Sydney as well. And the same with the lights throughout the city.
It brings tourists and the likes. Melbourne's not Sydney, nor is it the place for those activities. If they're indicated that they were going to have low-impact fireworks, and I dare say they probably could and wouldn't get the response they've got now. But it doesn't seem that that's the case at all. They exceeded their time by the people that I've spoke to and the comments that were made tonight, exceeded their time and the expectations of what was presented to authorities and others was going to take place. So my guess is they've burnt their bridges, and I'd like our staff, and that's why I asked the motion to put that way, to express those concerns in that regard. And if they come back with a different proposal and it's supported by SafeWork with minor stuff, at least that's a bit of a start.
But I'm not suggesting that we argue. At all, it'd be minor. I'm suggesting that doesn't happen. And I think a motion from Council gives a clear indication to the staff that the Council, the community, simply don't want that to happen up there. And I'd suggest that if there's other applications come through as far away as February, that it doesn't take eight months to respond to the community, and it gives time for Council to properly assess whether or not it should happen in that location.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm supporting this notice of motion, and I thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for bringing it, and I thank the speakers for their information. One thing I would say is reading the policy that you gave us an example on the fireworks display policy from Queanbeyan, it just seems to me that
It presents like Council has a bigger role than we actually have here. And I caution us because I don't want the community to think that Council is able to stop this because it clearly says that— WorkSafe New South Wales is the authority that makes the determination and the conditions. So, for instance, it says that in this Queanbeyan policy that the council can put in an objection letter, no objections with conditions letter, or an objection to the display. So if we were to say that we assess something and we had conditions, it then says that where council issues a no objections with conditions letter, any conditions by which council contradict the operating requirements set by SafeWork New South Wales will be void, and the operational requirements of SafeWork New South Wales will take precedence.
I just think that this, whilst I think we need a policy, I think we have to be really careful to clearly understand our role so that the community knows our role and how far we can go. Because when it says if we can object with conditions, the types of conditions that we can suggest, only low-level aerial fireworks are permitted for use. Well, clearly that's what the conditions were, but clearly that was breached. So I think we have to be mindful that what we put in place doesn't lead to SafeWork New South Wales giving all of these conditions, thinking that that's fabulous and nobody will be, you know, as one of our speakers said, they thought that that would be, you know, okay. We have to be careful not to go down the path that Queanbeyan's gone, because I think this is ingenuous.
I don't think that that policy really gives the council any more say in this situation. And I'd like to see that the policy that we develop to have other things about how the community get involved earlier in the piece and how we can possibly suggest to WorkSafe New South Wales that certain areas in the Hawkesbury are no-go zones for particular reasons. I hope that's possible. I'm going to support that we develop a policy because I think that that's the right way forward. And hopefully the policy will give the community a bit more
Guidance in how this happens and, I suppose, comfort. But it's about the conditions and it's about compliance, and we have to be really mindful of that. Thank you.
Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll support the motion, but with a couple of notes of caution. I largely agree with Councillor Kotlash. I'm just old enough to remember Cracker Night and miss it. I remember famously David Elliott, a minister in the previous government, brought a private member's bill. I mean, he went on to become the Minister for Police. He brought a private member's bill to bring back Cracker Night. I also remember that, you know, people who cared for animals in those past decades were equally well motivated to look after their animals, and yet we were able to coexist alongside Cracker Night reasonably well. We were regarded as commonplace that we have loud fireworks displays at country shows like the Hawkesbury Show or the Easter Show, where you, by definition, have a large contingent of animals that aren't even in their normal and comfortable environment, but are in a strange and potentially frightening environment, and yet we have fireworks in those environments nightly and don't regard that as a mortal danger.
So I don't want to devalue the accounts that we've received, and I want to acknowledge and honour the fact that, you know, if this is done inappropriately, bad outcomes can happen. But equally, I don't want us to arrogate to ourselves, as Councillor Kotlash warns, a sense in which we become a consent authority when we are not. And I agree with Councillor Kotlash's assessment that the policy that's offered to us as an example really has a lot of language that creates a perception in the community that we are a consent authority and we are not. I'm prepared to support this on the following basis, that if the current rules state that Council can have some input into SafeWork's determination about whether to grant a licence, is that there should be some structure about how we do that thinking.
And I think it should be limited in its scope, because otherwise all we're doing is creating a layer of bureaucracy and a perception in the community that can't be realised with the structure of the legislation that governs the granting of fireworks licences. Thank you.
Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think we really need to keep in mind that the purpose of having a policy is to provide a transparent, consistent treatment for residences, businesses and Council across the LGA. I mean, we should be subject to our own fireworks policy.
The purpose of a policy is not for us to pretend that we're the consent authority. It's very clear, I think, in the Queanbeyan-Palerang policy that they are not the consent authority. What they have laid down, though, in response to an incident similar to this one, as I understand. is how they will act when applications for fireworks come to them, so that they are clear and consistent and transparent each time. And people who want to use fireworks for whatever reason can then fit within those parameters, and those parameters are clear. And who will do, who will make the determinations is also clear. And I think that that's, that's been an issue here, in that the community feel let down. They feel that we haven't gone into bat for them in this, in what for them has been quite a difficult month.
The Queanbeyan-Palerang policy lays out the size of aerial shells and who will make the decision based on the size of those shells, and the complete banning of aerial salutes, for example. Aerial salutes are those very loud single-shot
Fireworks that come up in a single arc and make a really loud retort. And it looks to me from the footage that I saw that they were certainly in use at Berambing a couple of weeks ago. We, I think, in answer to a couple of the other things that have been said, you know, I think we can reminisce about the joys of cracker night, but, and I, look, you know, I enjoyed them as much as anybody. We all saved our pocket money and went down in a little pack and bought them from the local newsagent long before they only sold lottery tickets, and went back and set them all off in the vacant block. But I'm also the child of two nurses, and I remember the Queen's Birthday weekend for my parents not being home because they were patching up kids where fireworks had gone wrong.
And that's why cracker night is banned, not because of a whole lot of wowsers, but because kids and animals died and were maimed for life in those events . We heard how distressing it is. We've heard about a show. You can get animals conditioned to extremes of noise, but that takes a lot of work. It's not something you do when you get a notice on Tuesday, getting ready for Friday. And as we heard from Kelsey, it's not something that you should necessarily rely on either, because you never know what's going to happen with an animal. It's a bit hard to explain it to them and tell them that it's supposed to be over in four minutes, but it went for six and a half. I saw those fireworks. The last time I saw a display like that, I have to say, was at a firepower demonstration at Puckapunyal.
This was a significant fireworks display. This was not three Catherine wheels and a couple of bangers. This was quite the significant event. We have a responsibility to make sure that we represent, we, the people who know our LGA the best, represent to SafeWork our concerns about this. This is becoming a very clear conflict of use issue, and it's our job then to get in place policy and perhaps a consideration of zone objectives about where this is an appropriate activity based on who lives there and what they do with that property, but also the surrounding areas. When we let fireworks off at the river at Windsor, there are real concerns about wildlife. And about the residents' animals. People hate them.
People hate those fireworks, as many people who enjoy them loathe them. But they are not on the edge of a World Heritage-listed national park that has been obliterated by fire. And to sit here and have the residents come in and talk about the relived trauma that they felt from the Gospers Mountain fire. I was in RFS comms when that fire hit Berambing, and I am still not over it. And I was in a nice air-conditioned building at Wilberforce. I was not fleeing from my house at Berambing. We have to listen to these people. We have to give them a policy framework within which they can object, and we have to then take their objections to SafeWork and tell them that this is not an appropriate activity in that area.
Councillor Carver. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also support this notice of motion. I think this fireworks on November the 2nd was a very unfortunate event for our area, and our residents shouldn't have to go through this trauma, this trauma for themselves and for their animals and basically for their way of life. Although I do share Councillor Kotlash's concern that some people might be thinking that if we bring a policy in that somehow we, the Council, can suddenly stop these displays. Well, no, we can't. We could not have stopped the one on November the 2nd, and we can't stop any others because it's SafeWork NSW who make that decision. All we can do is object, and this policy here from Queanbeyan says that quite clearly.
All they are suggesting is that they object, and I suggest that we do object in future. We object very strongly on behalf of our residents, and we say, We don't want this. We don't want this in our area. And I agree with point 3 up there about the one due on 24th of November. We need to say it very strongly and very clearly that we do object to this. And hopefully when we have a policy in place.. . The residents will understand that we are on their side. We as a council did not condone these fireworks. We just weren't in a position to stop them. And even with a policy, we still won't be in a position to stop them. But I believe we will support you and object as strongly as we can to SafeWork New South Wales in future and work with you to see if we can not let this happen again.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Of course, I agree with every single one of the councillors and the residents. It should not go ahead. But my question is that what if the people who are going to, or they were going to go for these fireworks, if they decide to go ahead with their fireworks, are we going to ask police or RFS to go and to man them? And if they go ahead, what's the punishment?
Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, look, it's my understanding that any consent or a licence is needed to actually proceed with that. In terms of how that is addressed at the time, that would be a matter for New South Wales Police in the first instance, following which there would be further discussions with council as a local regulator. But in terms of what actual fines or resulting action that might be, I would need to take that on notice.
Perhaps if I can jump in on that, council is not the regulator. So SafeWork New South Wales are the issue the licence. Council does not have enforcement powers, you know , as we understand it, because they're not an approval issued under the Environmental Planning Assessment Act or the Local Government Act. So it's very much in the hands of SafeWork.
Our local people are there aware of, you know, what's happening, because there is no police in here to know what's happening. Would it be possible if we could simply inform them, you know, what was going to happen? At least, you know, they could send, you know, somebody.
General Manager? The conditions of the licence issued by SafeWork New South Wales have a range of mandatory notifications that the fireworks operator, we'll call it, are required to notify. I'm not sure off the top of my head that the New South Wales Police would be one of those, and, you know, it would be a matter for the New South Wales Police as to whether they felt that that was an appropriate resource.
I'm in support of the motion. The pyrotechnics display policy that's brought from Coorumba Yena is probably a good basis to start, but I do support other councillors that we develop our own policy. I do sit here and I wonder about SafeWork New South Wales being the licensee, based on they've got right of passage anywhere on any building or any industry anywhere in this state, but when it comes through a source of ignition in a bushfire zone, they have no say or they won't prohibit it, although nobody can go and burn off anything without an RFS certificate. So I find it a complete oxymoron argument by both of these two government bodies anyway, dare I say. I think a couple of the directors used to say it's a probably utopian moment with regards to this, and it is .
Taking away from all the noise and the echoing through the valleys there, I can see the point when it comes to equine and any other animal . So on that basis here, I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? I'll just say a couple of words, and this is completely— I was unprepared to make a speech in this regard tonight. I will be supporting the motion, so let me get that clear. However, Councillor's Kotlash and the Deputy Mayor... And Councillor Zamprogno have been correct in trying to make sure the community is aware we are not the consent authority. And a lot of us are on social media, some of us aren't, but there is a lot of misinformation in the community about who is responsible for these licences, and we need to get that straight. And as the mayor of this organisation, I will protect this organisation. And council is not responsible for these fireworks.
Let's get that very, very clear. I understand that the community, of course, are able to advocate to their elected representatives to do what they can, but you must understand that our hands are tied in terms of consent for these kinds of things. Now, I've been elected since 2016. This year, and I had another fireworks situation, a question come to me as the mayor a couple of, oh, probably a month ago, and it was the first time ever in my history as an elected representative that I got asked about fireworks, and I didn't even know the answer because it had just never come across my desk before. So it was an interesting exercise for that first application, which was in Pitt Town, for me to learn what council's roles and responsibilities were in those situations.
At the end of the day, we can make an objection or we can agree, but we have no authority. And I just wanted to make that very, very clear that I guess this motion tidies up what council's request will be, but I really despise seeing the abuse towards this organisation in the community for something that we don't control. And I know it's frustrating because in other circumstances, when someone comes to us about a road and we go, Oh look, it's not council's road, it's a state road, and people roll their eyes and get frustrated. Unfortunately, that's the bureaucracy that we live in with different organisations or levels of government having different powers of authority. So I did want to just make that very, very clear.
As I said, I will be supporting this tonight because part of my job and all of our job as elected representatives is to listen to the community. There have been conversations and I've seen things about the business owner. And their perspective. And other—there's a business group in that region who have advocated for this to continue to proceed, based on the business owner not doing anything wrong.
I'm pleased to hear that people aren't going to be targeting the business owner in terms of her normal operations. And I thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for her attempt to try and contact the business owner to see if there was a way forward, knowing that this notice of motion was coming to Council. I'm not sure whether they knew about it or not. It's a shame they haven't had a chance to have their say here because there could have been a negotiated outcome where everybody was happy. It's a little hard to know what the terms and the conditions between the business owner and the wedding couple were, and I think with that knowledge we would have been better informed, but we don't have it and we have to make a decision tonight.
In that regard, I will be listening to the advocacy of the community here tonight, and we will be— I can see that there looks like unanimous support from this Council in that regard. But I do want to make it very, very clear that even if that request is made, please understand that it could still proceed because we are not the consent authority, and I need people to be very clearly aware of that. Okay,
Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I thank the councillors for input into that. I think, you know, it's a very unfortunate position for us to be in, which is why I've brought the notice of motion, because we could have raised an objection, but we didn't know about it. Part of what this policy does is make it very clear about when an application is submitted that the various different sizes of shells and things like that would enable different courses of events. So for large displays, then it would come to a Council meeting or there's parameters. And of course this, as it says in the motion, is only an example, something to start with, because we have to start somewhere where we've got a massive gap in not having any policy at all.
It's unfortunate that it was submitted in February and it was almost November when anyone heard about it. And I think that if we have something in place that says the minute something is submitted, then a certain sequence of events takes place, will really assist in the situation. And I think that SafeWork probably, they undoubtedly probably appreciate an additional layer that can give them some direction. There's someone sitting in an office somewhere signing off on something. They don't know where Berambing is or what special qualities it has or what impact it's going to have. But if we give some local content of why it's not suitable to have something there, then that's a really advantageous position for our community to have us advocating on their behalf, even though we are not the consent authority.
And I think that without us having anything we can say to our community, this is our role. It's very hard to stop them being upset and thinking that Council should step in where they would expect us to be stepping in. I don't miss Crackenight one bit. I've got three brothers, and I spent half my younger years trying to get around a corner without having a bunga or something thrown at me. So I don't miss it one little bit. The other thing is that now, of course, there are alternatives to fireworks. There's amazing technological advancements of laser lighting shows and of holographic things and all sorts of things. So there also are other opportunities to explore that people who want to have some sort of startling display of light can actually use.
But of course, in such a pristine environment, you would have to be very cautious of the actual light pollution. I think what Councillor Kotlash was outlining was actually what we have now, what we had on the 3rd of November, which was a SafeWork permit that was largely ignored. And a policy would at least give us an opportunity to ensure that Council saw each of those various applications and could put some input into it. And it would be tailor-made to cater for our very diverse area, which we have in the Hawkesbury. So we have to cover many areas and many functions that may want to hold such specific events , if indeed they do. I think ultimately what it comes down to, and I think it's really nice to hear everyone listening to this community that we know has suffered so much.
But a lot of it is about respect. So respect from us to our community that we do really listen and we translate that into the best thing we can deliver for them. But it's also about respect within that community that they can try and work together so that we can have various activities taking place that don't impact on a neighbour or don't impact on a community. And it would be really nice if we, and I echo what the Mayor has just said, it would have been nice to hear from the business operators, but they did not. They were aware this meeting was on. Well, someone at that facility knew. I don't know if the owners knew, but that opportunity, I did extend that opportunity to them. So thank you for supporting it.
I hope it can allay some of the concerns of the community, and I thank them very much for coming down and telling us their stories. And I hope they feel the support from everyone here, that as we know that they do have fears around the fires and a repeat of what's happened before, that they feel some comfort in us listening and trying to move this forward so that they don't suffer any more. Thank you.
Thank you. Those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Semprogno, Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room is Councillor Durick. I declare the item carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Sheather.
That Council:
1. Compile data regarding the number of annual pyrotechnic display licences issued by SafeWork NSW for the Hawkesbury local government area.
2. Prepare a Fireworks (Pyrotechnic) Display Policy which is concerned with the process of notification to Council, which must be followed by licensed pyrotechnicians who plan on conducting fireworks displays within the Hawkesbury local government area. The Policy would require all proposed pyrotechnical displays are reviewed and assessed by Council, and that appropriate controls are imposed to limit their impact in relation to safety, noise and potential to generate pollution.
3. Request that SafeWork NSW revoke the licence for the fireworks event in Berambing on 24 November 2023.
NM2 – DA 0173/22 Demolition of Heritage Item Allambie Cottages –
Sarah McMahon
There is only one more item that has a registered public speaker. That is item 6.1.2, Notice of Motion 2, Demolition of Heritage Item, Alambi Cottages. The registered speaker will be joining us, there he is via Zoom. That is Mr Jeremy Braithwaite. I'll just check that he can hear us and that we can hear him. Mr Braithwaite,
Jeremy Braithwaite(public speaker - Heritage advocate)
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address Council. I think every councillor will have received a submission that we prepared, a group of us here on Kurrajong Heights prepared, in relation to Alambi and the DA proposal to demolish it from Transport for New South Wales. We brought a group of people together to study all of the issues surrounding this DA, and that was at the instigation of Christo Akin, who was the council's appointed heritage architect in relation to Alambi. So we looked at things like the heritage value, and quite clearly, and we went back and looked at things like Graham Ed's original thesis that before became part of DCP Part E, and this clearly stated that Alambi is critical to achieving the village green concept that Graham talked about in his thesis, and we therefore want to see Alambi.
In its present position, not moved back, which is part of the discussion surrounding the DA, we want to see it in its present position with the lightning tree beside it. The reason it's called the lightning tree is it got hit twice, and that's the reason why it grew up with two trunks, not one. And that is a fundamental part of our heritage in Kurrajong Heights. So absolutely, I've read the motion from Councillor Wheeler. I've read Council's excellent presentation that's now on the planning panel site, and it states quite clearly that there is no valid reason for Allambi to be demolished. But I think when we step back and look at some of the other issues, there are some other things that I would like
Jeremy Braithwaite(public speaker - Heritage advocate)
Councillors to take on board, and that is we've had over the last 15, 20 years, we've had a total of three major proposals to put a super highway through Kurrajong Heights. And the first one of those was in 2006, and it was called the Bells Line Expressway. And it basically was going to bulldoze half of the buildings up here on the heights, based on the map that I've got. And it fell at the first hurdle, which was that the traffic volumes that were proposed for Bells Line of Road were 3,000 vehicles per day, and 3,000 vehicles per day is what the road did back then, and it's what it is doing today, and it is the likely future volume on the road for one very, very simple reason: we have less than 1,000 people who live alongside the road.
So nobody could cost-justify building a major highway to service less than 1,000 people. It's never, ever, ever going to happen. So the reason for Transport for New South Wales to own part of Kurrajong Heights and try to demolish it by neglect is not a valid reason for them to do so. There is no reason for them to continue to own Alambi, and we would like, from the point of view of our committee, we would like to see Alambi restored to private ownership, restored to the original condition before the verandas were closed in. It was famous for having these 10-foot wide verandas, particularly on the southern side, and we want it retained in its original position. So that is, I think, the key thing.
When we look at the economics of it, the land value is $498,000. We've had three major studies, which must have cost tens of millions, to prove that 3,000 vehicles a day does not justify a major highway. And I have no idea how much the department has spent on preparing not only this DA, but the previous one which they withdrew before resubmitting this one in 2022, and then another whole lot of money to demolish something that they could get half a million dollars for. The numbers just do not stack up. We took local real estate advice, and a properly restored Alambi has a potential value of 1.6, 1.8.
Jeremy Braithwaite(public speaker - Heritage advocate)
Local builder could restore Alambi to being something that was a credit to our entire community, and it would be a profitable exercise for them. So we're not talking about black holes for public money here. We're talking about a sensible future for a major historic part of our village up here at Kurrajong Heights, and one, if we could all work together to achieve, has the potential to make it absolutely a jewel in the crown of the Hawkesbury. Well,
Thank you, Mr. Braithwaite, for addressing Council. I know you're not well, and you were at pains not to come into the chamber and breathe on anybody . Look, this is one of those motions, I guess, where I'm seeking to get us back into some sphere of influence as an elected body over planning matters that affect our local community, and having had our planning powers removed from us and our capacity to call things up for determination in the chamber. I think there are very few avenues left to us to influence those who now get to make the decisions. This will go to a regional planning panel, and I'm hoping, if this motion passes, that one of us, and I'm happy for it to be me if Council is willing for that to happen, although I am fully aware that it would normally be the Mayor's role to represent Council, and that's also fine.
I am happy to prepare speaking notes if that's the case. But we cannot sit here—I've been very careful to word this as being a motion that comes from the councillors, not the council staff. Council staff have provided a written report . It was loaded yesterday, is my understanding, and I've read it. It's an excellent report. It has a lot of information about why council staff don't believe that demolition is justified, both from heritage grounds and from structural grounds. And that this building still has a life. To reduce it to something that would be a $45,000 demolition, I think is a really sad reflection on the value placed on heritage in that part of the LGA. This is a part of the LGA that is considered to be significant enough to have its own chapter in our DCP.
And I know we malign our DCP as being out of date, but that's actually a part of the DCP that's probably well ahead of its time. And something that we've talked a lot about, the creation of heritage precincts as a means of preserving the unique, what makes the Hawkesbury unique. And here we have one, and one of its really significant parts is now slated for demolition, not by anybody, but by a state government authority who have engaged in demolition by neglect, in clear breach of the New South Wales Heritage Office's State Agency Heritage Guides for management of heritage assets. Those guidelines put a high priority on corporate planning and budgetary processes to maintain heritage. They require state agencies to lead by example, something that clearly has not been done in this instance.
They state that heritage assets should be conserved to retain their heritage significance to the greatest extent feasible. Now, clearly that hasn't happened, and that state agencies should aim to ensure that items are adaptively reused. Fencing it off, letting it rot, and hoping that it is so far gone that it's too expensive to fix does not meet any of these guidelines. The conclusions are that alternatives to demolition remain possible. I know that Mr Braithwaite has a proposal for potential adaptive reuse. The consultants that Council used certainly believe that alternatives to demolition remain possible and that adaptive reuse is possible and desirable. But it should be noted
That this proposal is contrary to Council's own LEP. I'm really pleased to see the Council staff standing up to maintain this building and to attempt to save it. But I would like us to go one step further as an elected body and for us to also stand up and attempt to save this before it's too late. If Transport for New South Wales doesn't reconsider, then this vital piece of the Kurrajong Heights heritage precinct will be lost for good. We only get these chances once. Thanks.
Thank you. I'm not going to be able to support the motion, and I don't disagree with anything that Mr Braithwaite said. And I don't have any problem with the principles being communicated. The issue I have is that it seems like we're trying to get around the planning system and have a go ourselves, which is fine except that when we were involved in planning matters, we received advice from professional staff because none of us are planners. None of us have the knowledge, for example, I would argue, to resolve that Council has decided that the State Government is not meeting its obligations under the Heritage Act and the state agency heritage guidelines. That might well be the case, and it sounds like it probably is the case, but I'm a tax agent and accountant.
I'm not going to go and say that I know that for sure without seeking any professional advice from anybody in a position to give it to me. And that's the difference between the planning system now and back when Councils were involved, is that when Councils were involved, we made decisions after receiving professional advice from our professional staff, not just based on our own opinions. And I think— Whilst I understand this has been moved only with goodwill, I look at point five, for example, that Council prepares a verbal submission to the November meeting of the Sydney Western City Planning Panel. Nobody could force any councillor to do that, and nobody could stop any councillor from doing that.
You don't need a resolution of councillors to do that, and even if there was one, no one could make anyone do it. I communicated to the General Manager that I felt this was out of order. The General Manager advised that, in her opinion, it wasn't. But the idea that Council can resolve that councillors resolve something, to me is nonsensical and disorderly. Whilst I understand it might seem inconsequential, I'm not at all comfortable resolving these things that are outside our area of expertise that we haven't taken any advice on. For Hawkesbury City Council to resolve that the State Government has not met its obligations under the Heritage Act without receiving any advice to that effect, I think is not a good idea.
And so whilst I would encourage Councillor Wheeler and potentially the Mayor as well to go and make this submission if they feel strongly, they don't need our permission and we couldn't stop them if we wanted to.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. I see things a little bit different to my colleague, and it's not dissimilar to one we spoke about just a few minutes ago about the representation of the community. Just a question to the staff: have we ever taken action against anybody that the staff can recall of dereliction of a building, which is repeatedly said under the Act that people can't do that? Have we taken any action where a building's falling down and we've taken no action?
Through you, Madam Mayor. I'd have to take it on notice. To my extent, no, and I must admit, off the top of my recollection, there's actually nothing in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that sort of sets out demolition by neglect actually as an offence. Whether there is under the Heritage Act is a different situation. As Councillor Wheeler's pointed out, there are obligations for state government agencies under, I think it's, they've got their own register of heritage items. But I don't know that it's got that necessary legal provision for Council to enforce. It is— Certainly the case that where Council wants to pursue a State Government agency, that is next to impossible in planning law.
Thank you. But I'm going to support the motion because I would expect the intent of legislation to protect heritage homes would be right up there, and if it's not, it should be. And could we get some information down the track just where that sits and our role in that? Because if someone wants to do something to a premise of heritage value, we're fairly strict on how that happens, and costly in most cases to the owner, because we want to protect that heritage. And we've got policies in place to make sure that happens, and indeed council officers to make sure that happens. But if someone decides just to walk away from the place and let it fall down, will we allow it to happen? I don't know. I've been around a while and I don't know of council taking any action against anybody that's allowed dereliction of a property because of that.
And it's not just in relation to houses like we're talking about tonight. There's other things around our city that probably need protection. I'm not suggesting that we go out with a big stick and write out notices for people who neglect it, but there's documentation we're going to talk on later on tonight in relation to funding opportunities and the like. Because there's avenues from a variety of directions that are attempting to preserve heritage aspects of our city that I suggest are supported by most of our city. And so I'll support the motion, and on the basis that what Councillor Conolly spoke about, I can understand exactly what he's saying, but if we don't play a role in this, we should be.
And we do represent the community. Heritage is our community, and there's people feel strongly within that in relation to certain aspects, and in particular this one, that it's likely if we do nothing, it's not going to be there. So Madam Mayor, for those reasons I'd support that.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to support the notice of motion and suggest that this raises a broader issue. Those of us who were at the Local Government NSW conference recently and having a chance to confer with our colleagues around the state, one thing that I heard independently and from more than one colleague was for those councils who have had their planning powers trimmed, mostly Sydney urban councils, our powers have been devolved to planning panels, and there's still this ambiguity about what role an elected chamber can have in expressing an opinion when we are no longer the consent authority, and are we entitled to even express an opinion. One solution that was suggested was that Council resolve or request that any matter going to a planning panel meeting is that the business paper be prepared such that a Council meeting falls between the issue of the business paper and the subsequent planning panel meeting.
And on those issues where the Chamber may wish to weigh in, is that we can provide some guidance, understanding entirely that we don't have a go-no-go right; we have no veto over such things, but that there is some formalisation of the Chamber, as representatives of the community, to weigh in when something is going to go to a planning panel. Now, there is no more eminent domain that I can think of than a piece of heritage that's part of our history, where it's owned by a state agency who, as Councillor Wheeler has said, are engaging in demolition by neglect, and where, if this is going to come before a planning panel, that certainly the community feel that we're going to be representing their concerns.
So not only should we do so on this occasion, but we should move towards a situation where no planning panel meeting occurs without the ability of this elected Chamber to offer some opinion or guidance on behalf of the community to help the planning panel in their own deliberations to understand whether a particular proposition has the support of the community or not. That is not an unreasonable assertion. And what we're doing on an ad hoc occasion here, I think, should become more formal, and it isn't too much to ask that the agenda for a planning panel meeting, instead of coming out merely a week or less than a week before the relevant planning panel meeting, is that a Council meeting falls in between.
And we won't weigh in on everything, but we'll want to weigh in on some things, and this would be a very good example. Thank you.
Councillor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I haven't had the benefit of seeing Council's actual submission, so I'm just wondering if anyone can enlighten us as to whether it refers to the neglect or it just actually refers—so it does refer to the neglect. I'll
Just get confirmation from staff if that's okay, so it's on the record properly. Does the staff submission against this DA include references to the neglect of the building
All I can suggest, Councillor, is that the very comprehensive assessment report has been prepared by officers and is currently available on the Regional Planning Panel's website. Given the length of it, I probably don't off the top of my head have the ability to read through that right now to answer your question. I'm sorry.
That's okay. That's what I was pointing out, that I hadn't read it, so I don't know. But I suspect that if it is supporting retention of that building and opposing the demolition, that that would acknowledge that, you know, that it hasn't been preserved in line with the Heritage Act of 2004. I think that what Councillor Wheeler's motion has here is that she's referred to the numerous objections from the community, and this includes people like the National Trust and the Kurrajong Comleroy Historical Society and the various submissions that people like Mr Braithwaite have forwarded to Councillors over time and also put out publicly. It's in the public domain in various places. And I think when we know that previous studies have been done, for example, the one by Graham Edds, and so these are the sources that we consider experts, people having expertise when we refer matters to the Heritage Committee.
So for me, I think that's enough when we're translating the information from them. I think that is, in this instance, enough for Council to take a stand and say that, as Councillor Wheeler's motion has put forward, I think even if we're not experts, it's quite evident to anyone who drives past that building that it is first of all a heritage property. It's also very evident it has been left there to just rot away, basically. It's been fenced up for years. I've actually been in it years and years ago in the 1980s. It was flats. People lived in there, and there could have been parties and things going on there, etc . But what we're doing here tonight, and Councillor Zambrano just alluded to that, that we are really, you know, moving forward with having an opinion on things that are very important to our community.
And we've seen that on several items tonight, that we are listening to our community and translating the various concerns and the various wishes that they're putting forward, and we're translating that into parameters around actions that we can actually take and that are actually within our power to take. And I think that it's not something we're doing on the spot. I would share Councillor Conolly's concerns if we were doing this on the spot and just saying during another item, if we were saying, Let's do this to the panel. But this has been out in the business paper, it's been in the public domain for some time, and the council staff have already done a submission that is opposing the demolition.
So I'm quite happy to support it, and I hope that it will get up because I think it's a good step to take. We shouldn't have to fight to preserve our heritage, but unfortunately we do, and let's hope this is one where we can
Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Our Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to congratulate Mr Braithwaite on the work he's been doing to try and save this property. It's a very important part of Kurrajong Heights, and at the moment it's just an embarrassment when you drive up there to look at that place. And I have seen in other parts of Sydney examples of where Transport for New South Wales and other government departments have deliberately had a strategy of neglect so that they can sell something and get rid of it or demolish it. I can't say that that's what's happening here. But if you add it all up, it looks that way, so I don't know whether they are or not And I also think, Councillor — Councillor Wheeler, sorry for bringing this up — it's an important issue, and Kurrajong Heights at the moment is going through a bit of a phase where people are looking at that side of the road in particular as not being very pretty.
It is a pretty area, but at the moment it's not looking that way. So hopefully we can get something done with this place and restore it to what it should be.
Thank you, through you. I've just been working through, Councillors, the operational procedures for the regional planning panels make provision for councils to be able to forward submissions to the panel and make representations verbally at the panel meetings. What it does say, though, is that those submissions should be made seven days in advance of the panel meeting. And by my reckoning here on the website, that meeting is scheduled for the 27th of the 11th. So in effect , we're already outside of that. What we would need to do is make a particular special representation tomorrow, and then it will be up to the discretion of the Chair, I'm assuming, or the panel Secretariat at that point in time as to whether they wish to accept that submission
Was a question, but you can finish what you're saying. Just a question regards to what Councillor Zamprogno was saying earlier. I think we're actually on a similar page, which is what I was saying, was we didn't have the report to make any determination on. What would we have to do if we wanted to have this information in enough time to be able to make submissions fully, you know, with all the information in front of us?
What I'd prefer to do, Councillors, actually bring you back potentially some options. I know of some councils that don't bring it to the chamber, but will circulate the advice by way of memorandum with the comprehensive report attached to it in advance of it being considered at the planning panel, and providing Councillors the opportunity in that way, if they wish to make representations to the panel. It's up to those individuals if you wish to do so. There may be other options, but that is one.
Thank you. I just want to make remarks that I obviously support this notice of motion, but I do have concerns with points three and five. And the General Manager, obviously with that last piece of information, has said that point five is going to be fairly impossible unless we get, obviously, the Chair to allow us to put in a late submission. So I was hoping that I would have someone second my desire to vote in seriatim for this item. I take on board Councillor Conolly's concerns about point three, and I have concerns about point five, where that would obviously enforce me as the Mayor, unless I delegate that to someone else, to force me to have to do that. I don't believe that the Council should be making that decision.
I strongly agree with points one, two and four, and I want to make that very clear to, obviously, our speaker tonight and to the broader community that that's the case. So if we can vote in seriatim, if someone could second that. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour to vote in seriatim? Lovely, thank you very much. So that's all I needed to say. I just, I really wanted that sentiment that this notice of motion is on the right path, but I can't support points three and five. So thank you very much for that. Was there any other councillors wishing to speak? Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.
Thanks, Madam Mayor, and I thank those councillors who have spoken in support of the motion. I want to make it really clear that this isn't an attempt to get around the planning process. It's an attempt to get back into the planning process in a way that we have, you know, I think we've gone soft, you know, we've gone quietly on this, on what I think is a travesty, you know, and a robbing of our planning powers. The community expects that we are able to have a say in this, and they're dismayed when we tell them that actually these things are taken out of our hands and that we get, you know, this occasional moment to talk about subdivision, and everything else is completely off the table. And I think we really have to find some workarounds.
We've done this once before. We did this in the last term of Council with the concrete recycling plant that was proposed for Ebenezer, and I addressed the planning panel in that instance. And the Chair was very keen to hear that council laws had come to a position against that, and he really took that into consideration , which was gratifying, I suppose, to hear that someone felt that we had a say in what our LGA looks like. Councillor Calvert is correct in that, you know, this has become an embarrassment. It's... and look, the staff's own report, the council's own report, and I've been very careful not to involve the staff in this notice of motion . The only correspondence I've had with the staff has been around the dates when a report might be available.
I've not been privy to the content of that report, and I hadn't seen the report when I prepared this notice of motion, which is why it doesn't have specific points of objection attached to it, because I really wanted to make sure that our staff who had made that assessment to the panel could comfortably state that they hadn't discussed it with me and that I hadn't asked them for any input into those matters either, because this is still a complex and difficult area. But I think we need to stop going quietly around these issues. Page 17 of a 23-page report clearly talks about the neglect of this building, that it has been let go contrary to the state agency obligations, and it lays out the eight obligations that are not met by the RMS, or by Transport for New South Wales.
They've owned this site for 40 years, and there's a clear statement at the bottom of page 17: The application has not satisfied the objectives of clause 5.10 — that's clause 5.10 of our own LEP — with respect to conserving the environmental heritage of the Hawkesbury and the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, due to the following reasons: A, there has been insufficient consideration made to the significance of the heritage item listed. B, there has been insufficient compliance with the legal obligations to maintain the building. And C, availability of alternatives to demolition remain possible. Now, based on that statement, which I had not seen when I wrote the notice of motion.
I'm quite comfortable with the notice of motion in its entirety. If councillors choose not to support, a majority of councillors choose not to support point five, then I will request the ability to speak despite having missed the deadline. Although the deadline for individuals is not till Friday, so it's possible that we could still request to speak without that being completely problematic. I think it would be possible for me to state, or for whoever addresses the planning panel, that Council had come to a specific position and get in under those provisions. So I don't think that we are rendered unable to speak, but this is a— I mean, we moved a council meeting. We would have had this resolved without citing the staff report in that instance had we met last week.
But here we are. I hope that people can support this notice of motion. It's our job to represent the community, to stand up for the things that make this place unique and special. And if that includes standing up and calling out the behaviour of a state government organisation when they have failed to live up to their responsibilities, then so be it.
Thank you, Councillor. We will vote on each individual item number in the notice of motion, starting with number one. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno and Councillor McMahon. Those against ? Councillor Conolly absent from the room is Councillor Djuric. Point two, if you're in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Calvert , Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, and Councillor McMahon.
Nobody against, and Councillor Djuric absent from the room. Those in favour of point three, please raise your hand. In favour of point three are Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Zemprogno. That is eight. Those against, please raise your hand. Against are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Conolly, and Councillor McMahon, and Councillor Djuric is absent from the room. I declare that point carried. Those in favour of point four, please raise your hand. In favour , Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno, and Councillor McMahon.
Nobody against, and Councillor Djuric absent from the room. Those in favour of point five, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Sheather, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Zemprogno. That was six. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Cotter, and Councillor McMahon. That's five against, and Councillor Djuric absent from the room. I declare point five carried. If that does fall to the Mayor, I'll make it clear now I'm happy to hand that over to Councillor Wheeler to make that submission.
RESOLVED on the Motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Reardon that the Council Meeting be adjourned to Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers, Windsor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:59pm and was reconvened on Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers, Windsor.
The meeting reconvened on Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 6:30pm.
ORDINARY MEETING
21 November 2023
Minutes:
MEETING
Minutes:
21 November 2023
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting reconvened at the Council Chambers, Windsor, on 28 November 2023, commencing at 6:30pm.
Welcome
The Mayor, Councillor Sarah McMahon acknowledged the Indigenous Heritage.
The General Manager addressed the Council Meeting, mentioning:
- Emergency Procedures
- Recording of the Council Meeting
- Mobile phones
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT: Councillor Sarah McMahon, Mayor, Councillor Barry Calvert, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Patrick Conolly, Shane Djuric, Eddie Dogramaci, Amanda Kotlash, Mary Lyons-Buckett, Jill Reardon, Les Sheather, Paul Veigel, Danielle Wheeler and Nathan Zamprogno.
ALSO PRESENT: General Manager - Elizabeth Richardson, Director City Planning - Meagan Ang, Director Infrastructure Services - Will Barton, Director Corporate Services - Laurie Mifsud, Chief Financial Officer - Vanessa Browning, Manager Corporate Communications and Events - Suzanne Stuart and Council Committee Officer - Amy Birks.
APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR ATTENDANCE BY AUDIO-VISUAL LINK
There were no apologies or leave of absences received from Councillors.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Conolly declared an interest on Item 8.1.1.
Councillor McMahon declared interests on Items 5.1.5 and 8.1.1.
Councillor Reardon declared an interest on Item 8.1.1.
Councillor Wheeler declared interests on Items 5.1.3, 5.1.4 and 5.1.5.
Acknowledgement of Official Visitors to the Council
There were no official visitors to Council.
Mayoral Photograph Gallery Unveiling Celebration
The Mayor, Councillor McMahon, acknowledged the Mayoral Photograph Gallery Unveiling Celebration which occurred on 28 November 2023 welcoming the former Mayors of Hawkesbury City Council. The Mayor, Councillor McMahon, acknowledged former Mayor, John Horrex who attended the Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
The Mayor, Councillor McMahon adjourned the meeting at 8:45pm for a short break. The meeting resumed at 8:55pm.
This page 29 of the Minutes of the ORDINARY MEETING of the HAWKESBURY CITY COUNCIL held in the Council Chambers, on 21 November 2023.
I've got the items on block next, and then I'm going to ask for a procedural motion because there are some people in the room who are waiting on a particular item, and it's ten past nine, and I'm just being courteous that they may wish to have that item proceed. Before we just look at adopting the items on block, Councillor Wheeler, just on the heritage ones, hold on.
Yeah, I'm just going to take them out of block while we adopt block, and then we'll come to them later. So I'm taking out 5.13 and 5.14, and just making sure that I've got no one else on anything else, which I don't. Okay, the items on block to be moved are items 4.2.4, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5 and 5.1.1. Can someone move that away, please? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour, please raise your hand.
Oh, confidential block items on block. Thank you, 8.3.1, thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and General Manager. I'll just— thank you. And confidential item 8.3.1. Still happy with that mover and seconder, yes? All those in favour of those items, please raise your hand. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno, Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room is Councillor Djuric. I declare all those items carried.
If a councillor would be kind enough to move a procedural motion to bring forward item 4.2.3, event sponsorship round one. Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Veigel, all those in favour please raise your hand. Thank you, Councillors, declare that carried. Item 4.2.3, event sponsorship round one. Oh, I have to declare an interest in that one. Okay, let me just get my paperwork. 4.2.3. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. One of the clubs mentioned is the Richmond Lions Club. The mayor, whoever the mayor is, is a patron of that club, but I am not a member. Therefore, I do not have a pecuniary interest and I'll be staying in the vote.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, I'm a little bit concerned that we have got money for a market at a church, but not for Scouts to entertain kids at carols. We're one point off eligibility there, and I would like some information. We can't see the scores on this, so we don't know why the Scouts are one point off. It's not clear to me. I wonder if we could get some information as to why that event in particular, which would appear to me to meet the majority of the criteria, was not successful, given that we've got money left in the pot.
The colleague to my right — sorry to throw you under the bus — in which case I've got a similar concern with the other item, which I now can't find my notes for because life's like that, where we're funding a number of organisations that benefit businesses, and I know that that meets our criteria, and that's all well and good. We're funding two events at Light Up Windsor, and yet when two of the items that we're not funding would appear to me to have a lot of social benefit — the NAIDOC lunch and the Christmas party for homeless people — and I find it concerning that these have fallen off our funding allocation when they appear to me to be good and worthy events . And I question the optics of this, frankly, that we are funding business activity and good cheer, but not respect for Elders, First Nations people, or food for the homeless.
And I don't know how that fits with our community strategic plan or our goals as a council to support those who need it and to support reconciliation.
Through you, Madam Mayor. So we did recommend that the Morana Aboriginal Community Association and the Jeremiah Project, who were unsuccessful on the event sponsorship criteria, would be better placed to apply for community sponsorship. And the Morana Aboriginal Community Association did do that, and I believe they have been recommended to receive sponsorship. The Jeremiah Project didn't apply for community sponsorship, from what I understand. But the type of event that they were proposing, it just doesn't rate on the event sponsorship criteria because of the scale of those events and the type of criteria that are in the event sponsorship.
Do these organisations come and have a chat and say, is it worthwhile us doing this? Or do we just wait for, you know, do most of them wait till they are just not successful? These take a long time, I think, for community organisations to put in when they don't have dedicated time to do that, for really not a very large amount of money.
It does vary. Some groups do approach us and we, you know, we go through it and we do have pretty lengthy conversations, and other groups we don't have that dialogue with, but we do email them or we call them and let them know that they may not be successful based on our criteria that we have set. So it does vary.
Good cheer and not for the most needy in a climate where people are really starting to do it tough. And I think we probably need to have a rethink of where our very limited resources go.
Yeah, just briefly, Madam Mayor. We've got a criteria we need to stick to, and I know from comments that I know a few of these organisations have got funding, and all the ones that I spoke to have got a relationship with the staff in submissions and the like, and commend the support they've had in relation to the applications because in some cases in the past and the like, it's been indicated to them that they wouldn't qualify for that and been directed to one that's more appropriate for their application. So I was asked to pass that information on and to thank the staff for that. But, you know, we've got policies all over the place. They're there for a reason, as frustrating as they are sometimes.
But I think that if there's issues with particular groups that probably on face value look as though they need more support than others, I'm sure our staff in that regard, you know, considering some of our staff recently got awards for that community consultation and support with community groups, I think our staff do a good job.
No, I do share Councillor Wheeler's concerns on this one. Two very worthy groups. I understand one group, we've heard information about that. But I also understand, Councillor Sheather's point that we have a matrix for a reason that we adopted and that we use. And, yeah, if there needs to be adaptations to that, then let's do that. But we have to stick to our policies, which is the way that we should be voting, even though Jeremiah Project does do valuable work in the community, and I did want to state that. Okay. Without any other councillors wishing to speak, right of reply, Councillor Connelly, not needed. Those in favour of the recommendation, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vigor, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor McMahon.
Those against, please raise your hand. Against, Councillor Wheeler. Declare the item carried.
Okay, we now move to the top of the list and go down. The next item on the agenda is item 4.1.1, Planning Proposal 6/21 Vincent Street, Kurrajong. We have a multiple list of declarations here, including my own. I will go first. I am declaring a pecuniary interest in this matter as the applicant is related to my partner and I'll be leaving the room. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest. The subject site is in the Kurrajong Kermond investigation area, and I live in that area. I'm still pursuing reviews around an issue connected to the investigation area, which gives rise to a conflict in this matter. Councillor Veigel.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I am declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest. I won't be in the meeting for the vote. Nature of interest: possible parties with interests in this item.
Madam Mayor. Oh, sorry. Earlier I should have foreshadowed that I too wish to declare a conflict of interest and recuse myself. Can I read that into the record? So I'm declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest and will recuse myself on this issue because of an ongoing and unresolved matter.
Thank you. The advice from the General Manager is to suspend standing orders on this item and continue on the agenda until we have some advice that the General Manager is ready to share. I'll just double check if that needs a vote
That's actually a good idea while we obtain that advice, because I'm not even sure who can vote on this or not. So we will get all of the advice that we need. Councillor Conolly has moved for a 15 minute recess. Someone second that. Councillor Veigel, all those in favour? Thank you. Move to a 15 minute recess. We'll reconvene at— what are we up to? 9.40. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you for that break so that some advice could be obtained. My understanding is that for item 4.1.1, we will now need to allow the Councillors with a declaration to again read the declaration into the microphones. Then we will need to leave the room, and the Deputy Mayor will need to resume the chair for the procedure from that point onwards. I will read my declaration for item 4.1.1, a pecuniary interest. The applicant is related to my partner, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.
My interest is significant non-pecuniary interest. The subject site is in the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area, and I live in that area. I am still pursuing reviews around an issue connected to the investigation area, which gives rise to a conflict in this matter. Councillor Veigel.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor, yes. A quorum for the meeting is seven councillors, and we only have five. In relation to the situation we find ourselves in, section 370A of the Local Government Act essentially authorises the minister to allow or permit councillors to vote, either conditionally or unconditionally, on matters where they have a pecuniary or, by extension, significant non-pecuniary interests. Given this, so effectively what this would mean is, as you will be aware from the recommendation in the business paper, that is that council has not been nominated as the relevant plan-making authority on this planning proposal. That is the Department of Planning and the minister in this case. You'll also note from the business paper that that needed to be back with the Department of Planning by the 4th of December.
What I would expect, that is that we will need to forward that planning proposal, effectively without an opinion of the councilors, to the Department of Planning by that 4th of December deadline. What we can do, in seeking advice from both the Office of Local Government and the Department of Planning, is seek approval from the Minister for Local Government for councillors to deal with this matter. Should the Department of Planning want or be willing to permit councillors to consider the matter further. So with that, councillors, I think we draw the matter to a close. There is no resolution of the council, and we move on to the remaining business.
Excuse me, it would read, the Council set dates for the holding of ordinary meetings of Council in 2024 to be two meetings each month alternate, and monthly meetings on the remainder, and Council to return to face-to-face briefings.
Sorry, you'll have to clarify that, Councillor Sheather. What do you mean two meetings a month, and what was the next bit? Sorry? Have you supplied words to the staff? No, I have not Then we'll need to clarify that. So two meetings that Council adopt a schedule of two meetings a month?
And I understand there's a cost involved and the like, but without briefings, even online, most of the staff are about for that period of time, even though they may not be necessarily in the building. And I understand that. But as councillors, we've got a role to play in the community. And one of the things that I've been on about since I've been here is about the time that we spend together as councillors. It's not very often, and I don't believe often enough at all. Because there's more to making decisions than sitting here just talking about. There needs to be an understanding amongst the councillors and all that sort of stuff. We did have two meetings a month, and we went back to one a month.
And I guess the opportunity to come about tonight to present this was from the 850 pages of documents that we've had four days to assess. And I know it doesn't happen often, but it doesn't have to happen often. All the matters that are before us tonight are of importance to the community. The staff have put a lot of work into it, and for councillors to properly read — it took me all day Sunday to read them, all day — and then most of the staff have meetings on Monday, so if you need to chase something up, you can't. And the access, I was not denied. I spoke to some of the staff today on the matters, but if someone's working or the like, that's hard. But to go to the work to present the papers that we've had, to properly assess them, and to deal with that amount —
Because it just so happened after I read them Sunday night, I was watching a documentary on TV about J. F. Kennedy being shot. It took six years to do the report, and there was 880 pages. And we've got 850 and we need to deal with them in four days and assess them properly. That's not fair to the staff, it's not fair to the councillors, and it's not fair to the people who we represent that in these documents that we're supposed to make good decisions. Now, I'm not suggesting that the extra meetings a month is going to alleviate completely all that, but I don't believe, in all the time that I've been on council, I've ever had that many papers before. And it might be a one-off situation.
But we put our hand up to get elected, work hard to get elected, and I think to do our job properly, we need to spend time and appropriate time in council meetings debating properly the matters put before us. And over the last period of time, we've had the one meeting a month. There hasn't been any great issues, but there doesn't have to be. People in our community expect decisions and direction and the like. And so if it plays up with anyone in there, or indeed stuff that we need to consider that needs to be postponed, we've only done that a couple of times. But we shouldn't have to be doing it at all. So I'd ask the councillors consider it and see how we go with that. We've tried the one meeting. I don't believe it was as successful as we thought it might be. And I'd ask councillors support it.
That this matter be deferred for discussion at a councillor round table. We know we've got one next week, and be reported back to the next meeting of Council for a decision.
The reason I think that's a good idea is because I think we've discussed this a number of times, and each time a majority of councillors decided that one meeting a month is good enough. But each time I also acknowledge there's been a significant proportion of the council who has not liked that and has brought it up again and again. And I think there's a couple of options here. We can push this to a decision and, again, it'll be a majority of rules and a number of people will be very unhappy. Or we could have a discussion in a more informal setting about what the actual issues are with the current meetings cycle. Try and work out, rather than just arguing about two or one, as if those are the only alternatives or what you suggested, work out what the actual issues are and then a way forward.
Certainly when we introduced this, it was very much at the suggestion of staff that we were an anomaly having so many meetings. They demonstrated to us the expense and time that involved. So I would like to hear whether anything's changed in that regard to understand more in terms of where that request comes from before we change it back again if we were going to. So I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that we've had any actual issues from one meeting a month. Potentially, if we're only having one meeting a month, maybe we could get the business paper out earlier if that's an issue when we've got a big meeting. Potentially, we could look at maybe giving a bit more direction to staff about how many items we're going to accept in a single meeting.
This meeting tonight is probably a good example of a meeting that could have been over two meetings, maybe. There are other things we can do rather than just say, commit ourselves to a great big cost that we don't currently have. And I would like to discuss all of those rather than make a decision.
The seconder was Councillor Dogramaci. Yes, thank you very much. That means the amendment now becomes the motion that we are discussing, and that is now on the board and moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Reardon. Councillor Kotlash.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I've just forgotten what I was going to say. Oh yes, that's what I was going to say. When we changed our meeting frequency from fortnightly to monthly, we did so on the proviso that if we did need extra meetings, we had that flexibility. So I can't really understand why we would go back to fortnightly meetings when we have that flexibility. It seems to me a win-win if we have monthly meetings and extra meetings when required. That saves us money, and it also allows us not to be here, you know, way into the evening or the wee hours of the morning. So I support this motion, and I think we can have a really good discussion and get—so, you know, most councillors are happy with that.
I'd actually urge people who are going at this meeting to try and articulate what the problems are because, like Councillor Conolly said, people say, Oh, it's not working, it's not working, but I actually don't quite understand why it's not working. I did a bit of research to say that, you know, the number of pages that we have to read sometimes is extraordinarily long. But it's nothing —we haven't got any more pages of reading because we were in monthly meetings. That's not the case. So I think we have to, you know, rely on some facts when we talk about this thing. And I think at a briefing, or a roundtable rather, that would be a really good idea. So I urge everybody to support that motion.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm also happy to have a discussion around it. I think that we touched recently, I think when we were having some sessions together, around how some people feel, you know, that they are under pressure. You know, we get told, speak briefly in meetings, don't speak too long. I mean, we have five minutes, and technically we could all do that if we wish to. We have to remember, I think this isn't a bureaucracy. I think some people think it's a bureaucratic institution. It's actually a chamber of representative democracy where we should be able to debate and to raise issues that not everyone will always feel the same level of importance attached to it, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy or valid.
I'm flexible around the number of meetings, but I am, as Councillor Sheather has said, often it's a big burden. Sometimes in the past, the business paper hasn't come till a Friday. If you've got a weekend plan and you have to work on Monday and Tuesday, there's very little time to get through it. So whether there's some scope, if the things are prepared, if something's a big report or something, if it's ready earlier or something, if we could discuss that, like maybe we could be given that. It's not good to be making decisions under pressures. The other thing is around certainty. It's hard to make plans when sometimes we all have a Monday meeting and then if we would have a second meeting, would that always be a Tuesday or might it be a Thursday?
It's—I'm just looking for some certainty. We've made the proviso around school holidays, and that's fair enough. I understand that. We're going to adjust a bit around that, but the lack of certainty doesn't allow for people who want to make other plans if we don't have things actually scheduled in. And I certainly would hope we could discuss the return to face-to-face briefings because I believe that that would allow us to have more discussions on matters between each other and improve, you know, how we understood the perspectives of other councillors on various issues, which you just can't get from the online meetings. I'm not sure how big the cost was because I think whether it's prepared fortnightly or monthly, I don't know how it would cost a lot more money.
I know one time there was an extraordinary meeting held and there was a huge fuss by certain people about the cost of it, and yet nobody could ever say how much it cost, and I don't think it really cost these huge amounts of money. I'll look forward to the briefing, and I wonder if we should perhaps all make some points or make a list of points or something to be discussed so that, you know, the time—because also the briefings are always so short—that we maybe should send forward our ideas or something. I couldn't see in Councillor Kotlash's figures, I did look at them and I couldn't understand what they were intended because we did see that in November of 2021, which was a very big meeting, that was because it was the end of the council term.
And of course we had to get through a whole lot of reports and end of council term. And I don't think we should be basing decisions around random hours of what it would—how many hours we'd be here if everyone spoke for five minutes. I think we should understand what it is that people feel we are missing as elected representatives, not things around time. And I mean, if cost is a factor, then if the staff can provide that, that would be good.
Thank you. I just wanted to say that when we have this discussion, we should also add to the mix items on block. I don't think we are using that or utilising it the way it was meant to be. There are always, every meeting there are a number of items that come up for discussion and no one speaks against it, which means we must have all agreed with it in the first place, in which case we should have all just let it go through on block. I know there are some councillors who will disagree with that statement, and I'm happy to discuss it at that meeting, but I think it should form part of the discussion. Thank you.
Yeah, well I think that's some good points there we've got for our discussion. I think when we talk about cost, it'd be good if we had some information, but it's also worth remembering that the costs we're talking about are executive time, which is a finite resource, and we can put a dollar value on it, but it's more about what else is not being done, rather than a dollar value. We can't go and buy another two hours of a particular person's time, but we can discuss all of that at our roundtable.
Councillor Wheeler. So, as I incorrectly raised previously, I'm a bit concerned. Firstly, we can't see why the Scouts were one point off. This is an event that's been going for a long time, the Carols at Hannah Park, and the Scouts do
Really nice work in that space and are asking for some funding to help them along. We've got money for a market at a church, along with another activity, but not money for the Scouts to entertain kids at carols. They're one point off the eligibility. Is there some way that we— I understand that we've got a criteria. I think it's excellent that we have a criteria. I'm not sure how subjective that criteria is, however, and if that subjectivity is the reason that the Scouts are one point off getting funding for a community activity at a community event.
Thank you, through you, Madam Mayor. The application was assessed, as you said, against the adopted criteria. It was determined that the application didn't address any outcomes in the Community Strategic Plan and also had limited relevance to other adopted social plans that are within the adopted criteria. Furthermore, the application actually specified that the funding was to provide sponsorship to the Hannah Park Carols event, and so it was determined that the benefit was deemed to be more in terms of what the carols might provide the Scouts in terms of promotion at that event, rather than any broader impact or benefit to the community, which is part of the requirement or the criteria which community sponsorship applications are measured.
Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, there was discussions with the applicants, and that was indicated that that was their intention to use the sponsorship money should they be deemed successful—sorry, successful—for that purpose. If the Scouts are deemed not to be successful for community sponsorship in this round, staff would certainly work with the Scouts in terms of grant writing support and also assistance to apply for an alternative activity in upcoming rounds.
That won't get them to carols, though, will it? So can I just clarify, when you spoke to them afterwards, they said that the money was for carols, not for the Scouts at Carols. Is that the
Thank you. Those in favour of the recommendation, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor McMahon. I declare the motion carried. The next—
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Veigel.
That Council:
- 1 Approve payments for Section 356 Financial Assistance to the individuals and organisations listed in this report and at the level of funding recommended in this report.
2. Approve the execution of Council's standard Sponsorship Agreement for those applications where the approved level of funding is over $500.
3. Advise the two applicants, Hawkesbury Racing Club and Hawkesbury Scouts, that their applications were not successful as listed in this report.
Which item number is it? 4.4.1. 4.4.1. I’ve just written this note, just myself saying there’s questions in the business paper. I’ve got... 51 . Okay, thank you. I just had some questions around some of the ... I just wondered if we could have— it’s a good outcome of the increase in the financial assistance grants. I was just wondering, was there a specific reason that we got that much more, and is that likely to continue?
So the indexation is now applied, so that would help with the base increase. Okay. But it all depends on all the multiple criteria that’s input into it. So, yeah, it would just... And they haven’t applied a floor at this stage, so that could potentially in future years actually reduce what we would get, depending on growth across the state overall
That was that. My next question was, is it likely to always be up that much? The second one was the increase in general rates due to increased development. Is that just something that happened to occur, that things were ready and the ratepayers were starting to pay rates, or why did that occur?
Through you, Madam Mayor, that's as a result of supplementary levies, so predominantly in Redbank and Vineyard. So it's more that the tempo of the assumed growth was higher than we projected when we developed the budget.
Okay. The next thing is the recommendation that a reserve be established to fund any future shortfalls in the Western Invest programs is, of course, something I think is a wonderful idea, and we had those motions that both passed that were put in at the Local Government and the Australian Local Government conferences and passed through those. There's no sort of, it just says it as a statement. So when is, how would that work and when would we do something like that?
Through you, Madam Mayor. So basically it's a contingency fund that's more specified than the general contingency reserve at this stage. So we're acknowledging there's likely cost escalation changes that have happened since the applications occurred. So we're likely to see that we're in the process of engaging a quantity surveyor, going through the design processes for the Western Invest projects. At that stage, we'll understand any opportunities that may arise as well as any cost pressures, and therefore we would report back to Council in that respect.
That's great, thank you. And the last one was just around the Central Coast Council remediation of landslip. The amount of, is the amount of the contribution $3 million, is that part of that?
That's only part, so that's the first initial stage for those works. We're expecting an increase on that to complete a section that actually enabled our community greater access and quicker access. So it was in our interest to sort of assist Central Coast with that portion of the project so that we could get that temporary bridge in place while we fix up Thomas James Bridge. Sorry
I did have one question, sorry, Madam Mayor. Just in regards to the establishment of the land acquisition and capital contingency reserve, it kind of read to me like we are taking this hit before we really know what it is, in a sense. We're booking an unfavourable adjustment without any real knowledge of what that would be. Just wonder if we got an explanation of why we would do that ahead of actually having that problem.
Through you, Madam Mayor. So what we're really doing is putting aside a surplus. So while it's reported as an unfavourable variation, what we've actually done is, like, we've got this opportunity. We know there's going to be a problem. We don't know the quantum of the problem. We've already seen that we were seven million dollars behind just in one land acquisition at Vineyard. So we know there will be a problem, but it's very hard to quantify until we get all those works and kind agreements in place. We know whether it's us or developers delivering the works. Until the Western Vest preliminary works are undertaken and the business case models are reviewed, it's incredibly difficult to know.
But we know, for an instance, IKEA assumption was cost escalation at being 2.5%. We know at the moment that's more like 5, so we know there will be a shortfall just in terms of that. The funding conditions are quite restrained in terms of how much scope adjustment we can do also. So we're just sort of, you know, shoring ourselves up for future issues. But obviously, because it's internally restricted, at some stage, should that not eventuate, then we can take opportunities as we see fit at that point.
And sorry, this is a silly question, but I don't totally understand. Does that have any impact on the operating ratio, or is this just movement of capital items on the balance sheet? No, so that's, it's on
Thanks. Just a question regarding, or two questions. First, and the person who keeps asking me about it has now gone home, and it's a shame she's not here to hear the answer, how park restoration works. Do we have a timeline on that?
That would be great if we could get that. It's a frequently asked question at the moment, and it's nice to see that that is under CLERP funding, because that is one of the community's concerns, that council is not doing it because we can't afford it. I've been telling people that we're not doing it because it's not as higher priority as getting people back on the road is. And I see here that we've deferred some work on the Bligh Park cycleway, as well as three other projects, but they're certainly not listed here as site specific. When are we deferring that to, do we know ?
Yeah, we've rejigged it, basically. So just an idea for members of the community who are keen on that piece of infrastructure, if we can just get a timeline for both of those projects, that would be helpful. Thanks .
Yes, through you, Madam Mayor, a question to the Director for Infrastructure. Where there's reference to the deferral of works on Old Stock Route Road, Oakville, $153,000 worth, a result of unavoidable delays, an allocation is required. Does that mean that we had grant funding, that grant funding has lapsed because of the delay, and that we're now using our own general funds to do this? What was the story there, and what was the cause of that delay?
I understand that to be the case, but I might just check with our CFO. Yes, that's the case. I'd have to take on notice the cause of the delay though. Nothing to add?
In regards to the Howe Park embankments, it's actually covered on page 109 of your business papers in respect of the quarterly capital works update. So those Howe Park bank stabilisations are funded through what we call the CLERP program. The design of the embankments is expected to be completed March 2023 , and the procurement, 2024, and construction before middle of next year.
Any other comments, Councillors? Therefore I'll put the motion. Right of reply, Councillor Conolly? No. Right, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno and Councillor McMahon. Absent from the room is Councillor Djuric. I declare the item carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Kotlash.
That Council receive the information contained in this report regarding the September 2023 Quarterly Budget Review, and that the Budget adjustments, as summarised in the report and detailed in Attachment 1 to the report, be adopted.
Code of Conduct Complaints Statistics Report - 1 September 2022 to 31 August
Sarah McMahon
The next item is item 4.4.3, Code of Conduct Complaints Statistics Report. Anyone wishing to move? Councillor Connelly, seconder? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Connelly.
Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, I looked in vain, and I know it's in there because I've read it before, but there's a, I think there's a clause, and I tried to find it in our procedures document , and I just ran out of time today, where we can, where if there are repeated codes of conduct, and I can't remember the exact three, there's the potential of sending it to the Office of Local Government and leaving them to process the lot or something. Can we look into that as an alternative? It's the, I think councils have an option to basically state that the costs are onerous and that they need assistance. If that's a possibility, that might be helpful. I don't know, because I don't know the nature of the majority of the complaints.
Because such is the, you know, because of the confidentiality around codes of conduct, there was a lot of talk about codes of conduct complaints at the Local Government Conference last week. I think there were, I think the previous, the Office of Local Government under the previous minister did quite a lot of work — is it the Klepper Review?
Review — into the code and made a series of recommendations, and I think many councils were hoping that those recommendations, flawed though some of them were, would come into effect. The new minister seems to feel that the system is so broken that it needs to be thrown out completely. That's what he said at the conference last week. So I guess that means that any hope of review is further down the track than we previously thought. So we're stuck with... We're stuck with the system as it exists. There was, I think there were a couple of motions put to the conference, including having them taken out of council's hands and a separate review authority set up at the Office of Local Government so that complaints went directly to the OLG and therefore the cost was removed from councils.
And I think that that may be a welcome end for a number of people. I mean, there's two ends to this, isn't there? There's the stop putting in the code of conduct, putting in codes of conduct because they're expensive, but then there's also stop carrying out the behaviours that require the codes of conduct. You know, one of those we can fix and one of them we can't.
Yeah, Madam Mayor, 23 complaints. All the numbers are on the page, I won't go into them, but if you look at, on page 67, on the bottom square there, there's a cost of nearly $100,000.
Absolutely. We talk about expenditure and putting rates up, and we waste money like this. And I say waste because of how we conduct ourselves sometimes.
Thank you, Councillor. For my two cents' worth, I tend to agree. It's a complete waste of money for a code of conduct that has no teeth. You have findings of misconduct on councillors who get to sit here and still make decisions for the community because there's no teeth. And I find that it needs a complete and utter overhaul. That money there, and again it's very hard to talk to most matters because we're not parties to them and we don't know the confidentiality. But from any that I know of, it's based on very poor behaviours that should not be in this council. So it is disappointing to see that those number of complaints are there. I just wish it had a stronger enforcement at the end of the day. Anyone else wishing to make a decision? Sorry, discussion.
Right of reply, Councillor Conolly? No. If you're in favour, please raise your hand. Those in favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vargor, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor
Yes, I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm an RFS member and a volunteer at fire control, and my son is a member of Wilberforce RFS. Both items for discussion here. The reason for no further action is that it doesn't meet the requirements of a significant interest under 5.9 of the code.
Thank you, Councillor. I do wish to make a declaration, less than significant non-pecuniary for a couple of items, and I mustn't have brought my piece of paper in. That is less than significant non-pecuniary based on the fact that I am a member of the comms team at RFS fire control, that we also have listed in this report Turnbull Oval, of which my son plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks, and I'm just double checking that there is nothing else on there, and that is it. Due to them being both non-pecuniary, I will be staying in the room. Do I have someone move that way, please? Councillor Conolly. Seconder? Councillor Reardon. Councillor Conolly.
No discussion, but just questions. Can we get some explanation of what's going on with the fire control centre and the Wilberforce Rural Fire Brigade station? Because both these matters have just been going on for a really, really long time, and we are getting questions, and we need to be— yeah, we just need to know what's going on.
Through you, Madam Mayor. Certainly. So, beginning with the fire control centre, it was identified some time ago that it had to go through a development application process, or Part 4 process through the EP&A Act. That triggered a requirement to look at the biodiversity impacts and triggered the need to look at the biodiversity offset scheme. The nature of the impacts on the area that had previously been identified as being suitable was such that, in the view of the ecologists and others, including Public Works, Council and the RFS, was that the— Significant and irreversible impacts arising from the development would likely result in the development consent not getting approval. At that point in time, we switched to looking at an alternate site, which was the northern part of the lot known as the Woodlands Park Pony Club.
Initial due diligence looking at the same ecological impacts determined that there was no difference, plus there was an increase in the level and exposure of flooding from the one in 500 year event. That essentially rendered that block not suitable, and we're in the process, or Public Works are in the process, of looking at the viability of another site on Putty Road at the present time.
To the Wilberforce Brigade, that was progressing through to concept design when we obtained an opinion of probable cost, so a quantity surveyor's report, that identified that the contribution from Council was far in excess of what was available and what anyone could deem was a reasonable use of money, stood at something in the order of $1.3 million to provide the suspended slab. So we've reviewed the site and identified that it's probably a better outcome, in all honesty, to move the site of the brigade station to the western end, so that's the Putty Road end of the Council's depot site. That's progressing through the concept design as we speak, so it's only a bit of a time delay of four to five months, but it would appear that it's progressing without any significant barriers.
Thank you. With the Hawkesbury Fire Control Centre, obviously it's been going for many years. How is it that nobody knew there was a biodiversity problem until we went to that point?
Through you, Madam Mayor. From what I can gather, the previous assumptions had been that the development approval, or the approval pathway, was through Part 5 of the EP&A Act, which essentially allows Council to access the—the name's changed slightly—but the old Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy. With the benefit of some advice, it became apparent that that was not the case, and in fact the Infrastructure SEPP expressly, I think, prohibits the Infrastructure SEPP, or Part 5, being used for the provision of rural fire service facilities.
Can I share what there is concern in the RFS community that they may lose funding, and that's come from a number of councillors at the last RFS long service award. They're deeply concerned that that funding may be siphoned off and go somewhere else outside our local LGA.
Through you, Councillors, I think Council is 100% committed to building a fire control centre. We need to find a piece of land that will allow a fire control centre to be approved. I think that's our inherent challenge at this particular point in time. The unfortunate, you know, the situation is that, as the Director Infrastructure Services has outlined, the Rural Fire Service and their administration buildings does not, expressly in legislation, does not benefit from the same planning pathways that other state government agencies, such as the SES and other combat agencies benefit from. It excludes it, and that has opened up the need for this investigation. And irrespective of where this chamber sits on irreparably damaging and forever threatening ecological communities, the reality is our best advice is telling us that it will not get approved on that site, and Council does not have a say in that.
That is a regional planning panel who will make that decision. So our best endeavours at this point are to find a site. We've had Public Works looking through every piece of Crown land. We've been through all of Council's property portfolio to try and identify. The reality is, on that side of the river, we do have only very, very limited land holdings, and if we can't come up with an arrangement using public land, there may be a need to acquire land in order to facilitate it.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to point out that this is the sort of issue. This is where I disagree with what the Deputy Mayor said before about if nobody's going to speak against something, then we shouldn't be debating. We shouldn't be having these items come before Council. I see so much value when other councillors raise particular questions and draw things out that may not be apparent, even though we're not speaking against it. So I don't support that things that nobody's speaking against are withheld from being debated. I understand the limitations on the reporting within this system, but I think limiting it, there's specific things that will be reported on and priorities. I'm just wondering if there's an avenue for, if there's a specific project, particularly the ones that will be going over various times, if we can notify of such projects and have them included in the update so that if there's a particular public interest, if they can follow on with that.
That would be wonderful because I think sometimes that can alleviate a lot of the angst within the community when they think something's dropped off the radar, if they can at least see some progression along there. I share Councillor Conolly's concerns around the Rural Fire Service headquarters, but hopefully we will find a block of land. I'm a little concerned of the long time before councillors have had any feedback from the Executive Steering Committee around the West Invest, given some of the actual points that were raised in there and some of the actions around that. Is it always going to be such a long period of time before we hear anything, or will we hear more frequently once—I know a lot of the delays was getting the deeds of agreement in place. Director of Infrastructure.
Through you, Madam Mayor, the intention is to report the minutes of the Western Steering Committee along with this report, which ties in with the QBR, so the quarterly budget review. So on a quarterly budget, what I would stress, though, is that where there's a decision for Council to be made, then that would be the subject of a separate report. Okay
That's good. Some time ago in a meeting or briefing, I asked whether we would be reviewing the West Invest projects, and I wondered, it seems that that isn't really the case, that they're just proceeding as they were. Have there been changes in the parameters around that funding? I spoke to two different general managers at the conference, and both of them told me there had been some changes, and therefore they had reviewed their projects. Is that the case for us?
Through you, Madam Mayor, I'm not too sure what you're referring to by parameters. What has become apparent since we've had the detail of the deed is that there is a far greater impost on Council in terms of the reporting that's required. My team did a count, and from memory, it is something like in excess of 180 separate reports over the term of the program. That was unknown at the time that we made the application. It was unknown really until we got the draft deeds. That hasn't given us cause to review the projects. The next stage for that will be once we have sufficient information to provide to a quantity surveyor, and we can start to get some informed opinions of probable cost back from quantity surveyors, that we can start to re-survey and review what we're doing and how we're going.
I don't know what I just said. That probably addresses, in the status reports for the various projects, the potential financial issues that are listed with quite a few of them. Is that down to that sort of thing as well?
Okay, great. Thanks. With regard to Turnbull Oval, how is the ratepayer funding component of that going to be factored into work in with how we're reporting on this? It's not.
You, Madam Mayor. So the projects will be reported on the complete funding allocation. So as you'd be aware, Fernadell has a couple of grants in there, so does Woodbury. So you'll get a report based on the financials of the
Whole . Okay, great, great. Thank you. Hang on, sorry, I've chosen to write on every page . I saw in the committee there was a request for a map of the Kurrajong-Kurmond cycleway . That map has since been provided, but will councillors, or when will the public or councillors get to see that?
Through you, Madam Mayor, we can provide that to councillors as a general course of action, certainly. In terms of the question in relation to when the public, when we're ready to start engagement, we're looking to engage with residents immediately adjoining the path relatively quickly and, you know, out of respect of those people who are probably most impacted by that. We'll consult with them before we release it more generally. Okay,
Thank you. Yep, that makes sense. When the details of the operational costs associated with the big projects like Richmond Pool and North Richmond, which has a library and which will require staffing, etc., at what point will we be given the details of the operational costs to operate these facilities?
Through you, Madam Mayor, that's a piece of work that still has to be done. So when we received—sorry, we have now received the deeds, I think as of this morning, for the Richmond Pool and North Richmond Community Centre. So now that we have those, we can start to actually expend some funds and get detailed—sorry, get concept designs, more detailed engagement. All of that will start to inform an independent review of the operating model that will then guide us on decisions around what sort of an operating model we employ for those facilities. And then any additional scope, for example, a leased-out cafe, for example, that we may be able to either employ or omit from the design to help with that. One of the deliverables of that body of work would be the operational costs into the future
So the projects can be still tailored or amended to a point to enable us to ensure that we're not placing a burden further down the track on our ratepayers.
Through you, Madam Mayor, to an extent they can be. So the Western Invest Program Office have been very clear that they're looking to achieve outcomes. How we deliver those outcomes, there is flexibility for Council to look at. For example, if we've said somewhere that we are going to increase the capacity of a sporting field, they're not particularly interested, nor do they care a lot about how we do that, just that we're going to be able to demonstrate and measure that we have done that.
Itself. I never knew that. Sorry, too much zooming. With the Cornwallis project, there does seem to be a lot of issues, so there's potential issues for all the categories. Are they able to be overcome? This looks concerning to look at it on face value.
It is a complex issue, and it is largely one that has been taken out of Council's hands, with the New South Wales Government and its agencies taking the lead on the restoration of the drain and Cornwallis Road. The question of whether it is possible to address the issue fundamentally rests with, I think, all three parties, so Council, the State, and the adjoining landowners. And that is a body of work that we're progressing through, led by Infrastructure New South Wales and Public Works at the moment.
Madam Mayor, I'll start off with the washout as well. With the, I haven't seen the final design, and I'd like to. The lifting of the road and the embankment that'll be around the road, it will finish as high as the riverbank. Yes.
The designs that have been developed to date restore the function of the drain. The function of the drain is dependent on having something, whether that's a riverbank or a road embankment, at that level of approximately 13 and a half metres Australian height datum. If that can be achieved through the complete restoration of the riverbank, then there's no need to raise the road level. If the restoration of the riverbank cannot be achieved, for whatever reason that may be, then the design at the present time would default to a raising of Cornwallis Road to that 13 and a half metres, and then a continuation of the— pseudo levy bank, if you will, to ensure that there's a continuous level of earth that would prevent that early ingress of floodwaters.
Yeah, thanks very much, Madam Mayor. It's good to have that clarified. On page 108, the general manager picked up the date on that should be the 24th instead of 23. The other thing that concerns me, that's been spoke of already, is the fire control centre. I'm of the belief that we're going to have a real problem next week. The areas that were looked at, and one is near the SES, which is our land, and it probably needs a bit of private ownership off the corner of it. I know that there wasn't a view to amalgamate that situation in the first place, but I believe we're into a situation where we're in a push comes to shove situation. If we don't come up with a— that'll work—
That if we don't come up with a solution, that it's likely to go to another local government area. Now, I would hate that to happen. It's been going on for a long, long time, and— It's, well, too long. And I guess, and I've spoke about it before, the role of councillors. We make a decision and leave it to the staff, and in some cases, I don't think that's fair. We need to be beating the drum. And I'm not saying you haven't. I know you've had meetings personally with people about it. The bottom line is we haven't got a piece of land, and there's going to be a meeting this week with the department to look at the valuation of where this is going.
We're the biggest local government area in the metropolitan area. We've got the biggest woodland area, and where most fires start. So where is it most appropriate to have that? And I know there's ongoing costs down the track and the like with that. But again, we get back to the things we were talking about earlier about representing our community.
I think our community would feel extremely safe if they had such a facility in our city. And I feel that they would be extremely disappointed knowing that there's an opportunity here and we've lost it. And so I don't know just how we go about dealing with it, but it would seem the piece of land that's probably most prudent is the one alongside the SES. Because all the other land we've looked at has got complications with it. And even if it means resuming a piece of land on the corner of that land, I think that's what I seen in the original drawings.
And I don't know whether it would fit on the site, and perhaps it could be a question. The existing site, would it accommodate that building now, with the opportunity to, at a future time, more expedient than not, to acquire that land?
Through you, Madam Mayor, the existing council land holding at that site isn't of a sufficient size to site the fire control centre with all the capability that has been designed into that centre.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to echo, I have also heard rumblings from the RFS expressing concern about losing the funding. At the risk of stating the obvious, we are clearly in an environment where other tiers of government, both state and federal, are looking for reasons to pull funding. It's a contractionary financial environment, and if a council is dragging their feet on selecting a site or doing their due diligence, the funding will disappear and the community will lose out. My more specific questions are these, and I couldn't think of any more appropriate place to ask this, so forgive me. Is that gouge out of the riverbank on the pathway along the terrace part of any schedule of works for repair?
Yeah . Because it's very unsightly. And my last question is, can you confirm that the Paddle Sports Club has now formally lost the $801,000 grant to build a clubhouse in Macquarie Park? And if so, provide some explanation as to how that happened
Yes. Right, well, I'd like to express some displeasure on two fronts. One is that it required a question for me to elicit that. I think councillors should have been informed at the earliest opportunity. I know it's not our grant, but it is for a substantial facility that's being constructed on council land, and I think we should have been informed. And then secondly, to say that it is my view that we bear— Some of the blame for the loss of that funding. I know that the applicant may have stumbled at times in doing things that they needed to do, but the buck stops with us and the community expects that the buck stops with us. And it is a great shame that this wonderful facility will now not proceed. Is there any indication that there are other opportunities, other funding sources to resurrect this, or is dead, dead?
Your commentary, Councillor, that somehow Council was culpable in the loss of the grant, and I would disagree with that. We've been in an unfortunate situation where, you know, as we discussed last time this matter was before the Council, there was a number of pieces of legislative change around Crown lands that ostensibly found us in the position that we're in. So firstly, I would reject that assertion. Secondly, we were notified late last week about the Paddle Sports Club, Thursday I think, and what the Office of Sport have communicated to both Council and to the club themselves is that there is a grant opportunity live at the moment for, that closes next Friday. My staff have reached out to the Paddle Sports Club to offer assistance in the formulation of that grant.
The club we have met with today, they are actively working towards that grant. As it happened, you know, we were advised the cost of works, that $800,000 grant is less than half of what the club actually required to construct what they were looking for. So there was a substantial funding shortfall regardless of whether that grant had been lost. And what this current grant opportunity does provide is a grant opportunity for up to $2 million for community-based organisations without the requirement for a co-contribution. So that is what we're actively working on with the club at this point in time.
Well, I'm certainly heartened to hear that other avenues are being.. . pursued . The only unanswered part of my question is why councillors weren't informed earlier, but I'll let that pass as a comment. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just some brief questions on West Invest. We've got a deadline in the business paper. It states that the deadline for— and that's not our deadline; it's the funders' deadline of December 2026, and there seems to be some concern around meeting that. I certainly can't see us meeting that. And I think, given the things that we have had to fix, you know, getting to the point where we're building, you know, additional things is probably still not the mindset that we're completely in. I am concerned, though, about leaving this as a potential hospital pass for the next council. And I think what I would be looking for— this is probably more of a comment than a question— what I would be looking for, I think, is some
More defined timeframes for this council so that we know what we're handing on in September next year. I think, you know, having come into a council in 2016 that had a lot of outstanding— had a massive backlog and a massive funding shortfall for that backlog, I'm really conscious of not handing that to another elected body. I think that's very poor governance on our part if we're doing that. So. I'm a little bit concerned that we're very, I feel very removed from this process that is about to pump $100 million of external, admittedly external funding into infrastructure that we still have no evidence we can fund into the maintenance and staffing of, we can fund into the future. And that makes me very, very uncomfortable.
And we wouldn't be doing our jobs, I don't think, if we didn't question that frequently. So I know that it seems tedious and that we, you know, but I think we need to understand what we're signing up for. It sounds like we might have a bit more flexibility in the execution of these projects than we originally anticipated. Is that— so, and I'll use Tamplin Field as an example, where the idea of astroturfing Tamplin Field has a really high ongoing cost. Is it possible then for us to— it sounds like from what the Director of Infrastructure said previously that we may be able to go back to the funder and say we're not doing synthetic, we're doing grass. Is that fair?
Through you, Madam Mayor, yes, that's a good example of where, as long as we can continue to demonstrate that the outcomes are being delivered through a high-use playing surface, whether it's grass or synthetic is not a matter that the Western Sydney Program Office is necessarily concerned with.
Great. That makes me feel much better about all of this. And just a final question then, consultation with staff at the affected sites, for example North Richmond, what stage are we at in that consultation?
There's no one answer because it's dependent on the funding deeds and the timing. So, as I mentioned, the funding deeds for North Richmond and Richmond Pool were received today. That effectively allows me to start to bring on resources to deal with all of these questions and these processes around developing plans, consultation plans, needs analysis and so forth. At the moment, it's a little bit too early to be starting to talk about specific timelines for when consultation will begin with any particular group for those two projects. We've commenced consultation on other projects that we've had the benefit of having grants earlier, such as Fernadell Park and Woodbury. But at this time, it's too early to say for those two particular projects.
Thank you. So I think what this discussion shows today is that councillors probably need more information on West Invest as a whole. You know, I understand that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are on the Executive Committee, but the rest of us are not privy to this information, and we have to wait for these quarterly reports. And that currently doesn't feel like it's sufficient for us to get this lumped in with the rest of the business paper with time pressures on both reading and then questioning what's going on. So I would ask that this comes back to us more frequently and in a more fulsome fashion for discussion at briefings at the very least, because we're in the dark here and we're signing up future councils for a lot of expenditure, and that's not something I'm comfortable with. Thanks. Any
Thank you, Madam Mayor. On the matter of the emergency centre west of the river, this was something that became obvious—it was obvious that we needed this during the 2019 fires. Even the RFS commissioner made it very clear that the Wilberforce headquarters was not fit for purpose, and he put pressure on the government to provide the money to get us a new fire centre, fire headquarters. At that same time, I put through a mayoral minute in 2019 which said that this council supports the creation of an emergency centre, and the then general manager.. . And I discussed that it could be co-located with the SES in Wilberforce, and he went out and did a lot of negotiation with various groups, including some of the neighbours, to buy the land.
And he told me that he discussed this with the RFS and the SES, but the RFS then came on board and said that they hadn't been involved in the discussions, and they insisted that the headquarters should be down in Woodlands, not co-located with the SES. So the Woodlands site was then followed through, and money was granted. We even turned the sod. Now, I think we can all sit around and point fingers at who should have done what, but I think I'm with Councillor Sheather and Councillor Zamprogno. That's all history. We need to do something now. Whether it's the SES site or some other site, we really need to get on board. There's bushfires looming, and we're still going to have the same not-fit-for-purpose headquarters.
And the idea was in 2019 that when the next bushfire came, we would be ready, and it looks like we won't. And I feel very bad about that . Co-locating the SES has a lot of advantages. For example, you can put in the one helipad for both, you know. And the other idea about the emergency centre was that it was going to be available to the police and the ambulance on that side of the river, because they don't really have anywhere to go at the moment. So I think it's something that we should make a priority, and as I said, it was a mayoral minute. It's still on the books. It is Council's position, and I think we should push it through as quickly as we can. And I thank Councillor Sheather for the work he's been doing lately in pursuing this matter.
Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. Just pause the item for a moment, looking at the time, it's almost 11. Do I have someone wishing to move something, what we might do in that case, Councillor Conolly?
Next Tuesday would be fine. Anyone wishing to second that? Councillor Reardon , thank you very much. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Varga, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly , Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Amprogno and Councillor McMarn. I'll resume this item and then I will conclude later about the next Council meeting. Any other councillors wishing to speak on this item? Just
Any other councillors wishing to speak or I will go to right of reply? Not necessary. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Varga, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Amprogno and Councillor McMarn. I declare the item carried.
Now, Councillors, we have a motion that that will be the conclusion of tonight's meeting. We still have various items up for discussion. They will then be on the agenda for Thursday, the 28th of November 2023 at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. The 28th. Did I say the 28th?
I? I don't know what I said. It's 11 o'clock. Tuesday the 28th for clarification at 6:30 p.m. to resume the business and the items on this business paper. This meeting is concluded at 10:59, and I thank everybody for their time. Good night.
Reconvened November Council Meeting Welcome, Formalities, Apologies, Declarations Of Interests
Sarah McMahon
Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Hawkesbury City Council meeting for this evening, which is a continuation of the meeting from last Tuesday night, the 21st of November. We are finishing off the items that we did not get to address at that meeting. Madam Mayor,
That would be very frustrating. Oh, there we go. I think that's fixed. Whatever button you pressed, it worked. Thank you very much. So thank you, councillors, those in the gallery and those watching at home. We are here to finish off the business, as I said, from last week. So I would like to start by acknowledging the Indigenous heritage. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. I'll just 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'd also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.3 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.
If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. We don't have anybody addressing the meeting. Finally, it's requested if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone that they are to switch it off or turn it to silent, please. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you very
Much. There are no apologies or leaves of absence tonight because we have all councillors in attendance. Can I please ask the councillors to read out any declarations of interest from the remaining items, starting from item 5.1.2 on the way down. Councillor Wheeler.
Thank you very much. I'll also declare my less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 8.1.1. We have already confirmed the minutes last week in that meeting. However, before we begin our first next item on the agenda, I'd like to acknowledge a lovely ceremony that we just had here in the Hawkesbury City Council chambers. We actually have a very special guest sitting in our gallery this evening, and that is former Mayor John Horrocks, who has travelled from Queensland for the very special event we just held here. We have unveiled this evening a wall here in the chamber, and I encourage the public to come and have a look at that when they are in the building, with every mayor since the amalgamation of Windsor and Colo Councils, and we became the Hawkesbury Shire Council originally before becoming Hawkesbury City Council in 1989.
So we have had almost every living mayor attend the ceremony this evening from the history of that amalgamation, and unfortunately four previous mayors have passed away since that time. What I'd like to do is just acknowledge all of the former mayors of the Hawkesbury by reading out their names. Those previous mayors no longer with us were Cecil Sullivan, Bruce Brown, Geoffrey Michael and Rex Stubbs. The mayors in attendance this evening were John Horrocks, Wendy Sledge, Robert Calvert, Bart Bassett, Barry Calvert, Patrick Conolly and myself. Unfortunately, our former mayors Kim Ford and Mary Lyons-Buckett were unable to attend. But I did want to acknowledge that there's a lovely tribute now in our council chambers for the former mayors.
I thank John, who is sitting here, for his contribution to the Hawkesbury in the past, which is really significant, and I thank you for the legacy that you have left. And I'd like to thank Councillors Les Sheather and Jill Reardon for assisting with the idea of making that happen because it is something wonderful that will continue on forever here in the Hawkesbury. I also want to thank our staff for making it look the way that it does. It is very professional and, as I said, a lovely tribute to the former leaders of our city. So thank you very much. We'll now proceed with the outstanding business on the agenda.
Seconded by Councillor Conolly. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll just be brief, but I did just, because it's such an important committee, I'd firstly just like to thank the staff and compliment them for the standard of the reports that come to the committee. They're extremely comprehensive, and the committee members there offer really valuable expertise around them. It's a very fascinating process. And just a couple of things, just to draw attention to that were of interest probably to the other councillors, are around, well, basically the committee is working through the set program of audits, and it's great to know that there were positive findings in there around our emergency management and business continuity plan when an audit was done of that, because that's such a fundamental plan for us to have to continue on in times of emergency, that we have good plans in place.
The chief financial officer answered some questions that were raised around the financial statements, particularly around the outstanding rates payments, and we went over that last time, just about how after hard times there were some more outstanding rates and the process in place for catching up on that. And our reconciliation action plan is still outstanding, but hopefully we're not going to be waiting too much longer for that. Aside from that, I think that was basically it. But the next meeting is on the 1st of December, which is Friday, and I would urge everyone to read through the various audits and the information that comes forward on this because it's very important. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? No right of reply needed then, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those in favour: Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Zamprogno and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried.
I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 5.1.3, the Heritage Committee of the 3rd of August 2023. I am part owner of a property in the Slab Barn Study. The reason for no further action is that the Slab Barn Study is not subject to decision or discussion in the Council business paper.
Thank you, Councillor. Do I have anyone wishing to accept or move the recommendation? Thank you, Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Sheather. Councillor Reardon, any comments you'd like to make? Any other councillors?
That in relation to the Minutes of the Heritage Committee Meeting held on the 2 November 2023:
5. Council arrange a teleconference between members of the Heritage Advisory Committee, the Liveability consultants and Council staff to provide advice in regard to the paving in Windsor.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 5.1.4, the Heritage Committee meeting of the 5th of October 2023. I am a part owner of a property in the Slab Barn study, and the reason for no further action is that the Slab Barn study is not subject to decision or discussion in the business paper.
Comments? Anyone else wishing to speak? No right of reply. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Collash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Improgno and Councillor McMahon. I declare the item carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett.
That in relation to the Minutes of the Heritage Committee Meeting held on the 5 October 2023:
1. Council receive and note the Minutes of the Heritage Committee in respect to items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3.
2. Council note the Committee Recommendations in respect of 3.1.4 (Windsor Bridge Artefacts Working Group September Meeting), namely:
3. (i) Receive and note the update on progress of the Windsor Bridge Artefacts Working Group.
4. (ii) Recommends that Council:
- a) Takes immediate action to undertake an inventory and providence of what artefacts Council has in their possession from the Windsor Bridge Project.
- b) Considers urgently taking measures to protect the artefacts in Council's possession by storing in shipping containers or adequate protective covering
- c) Undertake a series of tool box talks with relevant staff to assist them with understanding what the various artefacts from the Windsor Bridge Project are, their significance, and how they should be treated.
- d) Commission a Heritage Interpretation Strategy, including assessment of material and interpretation.
- e) Consider consulting engineering heritage experts with respect to the artefacts.
3. Council endorse the Committee Recommendations in respect of 3.1.5, namely:
- a) That the report on the 2023/2024 Local Heritage Assistance Fund Program be received and noted.
- b) That Council consider resourcing studies that ensure that heritage items are listed at the right level (local versus state listing) so that owners of heritage items have the opportunity to be better supported financially.
ORDINARY MEETING
Minutes:
21 November 2023
4. Council note that in respect of General Business items:
- a) An update on the condition, protection and planned improvements to the Council owned barn near Tebbutts Observatory in Windsor will be investigated and reported back to the Heritage Committee at a subsequent Meeting.
- b) A pre briefing of Heritage Committee members was arranged for Ms Jan Barkley-Jack to present her PhD paper on the Green Hills Village on 2 November 2023.
I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 5.1.5, the Heritage Committee meeting of the 2nd of November 2023. I'm the part owner of a property in the Slab Barn Study, and the reason for no further action is that the Slab Barn Study is not subject to decision or discussion in the Council business paper.
With the recommendation, there's a Part 5 in that, on page 179 , on the top of the page, it says Council not endorse the committee's recommendation in relation to item A in general business. My motion would be for Council to endorse it. I'll just read what it is: that the Heritage Committee requests a roundtable discussion between committee members, Council's Livability Project consultants, Council's Heritage Advisor and relevant Council officers that are involved with the project to resolve the outstanding issues and avoid deterioration of building fabric as a consequence of the Livability Project.
Yeah, I thought so. Councillor Conolly. Does someone want to second the motion by Councillor Sheather? Councillor Wheeler. Over to you, Councillor Sheather.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I come up in discussion with a group with the general manager the other day, or last week, and the comment from the general manager was, It's a bit late. The problem I've got, that we haven't started Stage 1 and 1A yet, and we certainly haven't started them all. So, on that basis, I would suggest that it's never too late. I don't know what the outcome would be, but the Heritage Committee
Haven't really discussed the issues since the pandemic. And while an advisory committee some time ago, that sort of advisory committee has gone by the way a bit, and it's more, well, I don't know what it is now. But these people are professional people that deal within this. And while we've been told that it's been signed off by the Heritage Council,
I haven't seen any engineering details that the Heritage Council has signed off on. And indeed, I've seen letters back and forwards between the Heritage Committee and Heritage Council and others that suggest that there isn't any. Irrespective of that, a roundtable discussion between the people involved with this can alleviate, if there is problems, problems, rather than us debate the rights or wrongs around this table. We've got people who have a good understanding. There's the Heritage Council of New South Wales, obvious what they're for, and we've got a Heritage Committee within our city that looks after the things that sometimes we don't have time for. And I think they do a great job, and it was moved by this committee .
To have that discussion to see what the issues may be, or how, if there is issues, how they might be resolved. And so that's why I've moved that part five, as that matter, Mayor. Thank you.
If there's a problem with process, I can kind of, I did kind of consider whether it was direct negative, I thought, because there's so much else in the motion, but would phoning in Syriatum achieve the same thing if Council just didn't comment on that point of the committee? Would that have the effect of not endorsing that recommendation and putting us in the same position?
So I certainly understand that there's an intention there only to make sure that things are being done properly and that concerns are being heard . My concern with that is similar to what's in the business paper about the committee being outside of its jurisdiction. The Heritage Committee exists to provide advice to Council. It doesn't exist to provide advice on Council's behalf to third parties. And I imagine if we're convening a meeting for the Heritage Committee to talk directly to other stakeholders, including the consultants, it does seem like the Heritage Committee is trying to provide advice on Council's behalf to third parties without Council knowing what that advice is. And that troubles me as a matter of process, so I'm more comfortable with what's in the business paper.
Thank you, Councillor. I will just get councillors to raise their hand if they are happy to vote in seriatim for those items. I declare that carried. Thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. This was quite a quick meeting, in large part because the bulk of the business was transacted in the previous two committee meetings. But I didn't speak on either of those because this is really where the decisions were made by the committee. So the resolutions that have come out in the meetings of this meeting are probably certainly the most up to date, but probably the most fulsome, I suppose. I'll deal with the livability project first. There are a number of members of the committee who are heritage experts in their own right who are concerned that the works that were done in Richmond with regard to the paving—so there are really only two major issues here. One is with the sandstone.
That's a fairly Windsor-specific issue about how the sandstone curbing should be handled and where possible, where the sandstone curbing could be replaced, potentially with the curbing out of Thompson Square. And that's a broader discussion about what we do with the artefacts out of Thompson Square that are now in Council's custody. The major issue with the livability project is the laying of the paving in Richmond where concrete has been used underneath the pavers, and that's for ease of laying, it's for longevity. But the problem is where that concrete abuts a heritage building that is built out of soft brick and lime mortar that provides a conduit for moisture to enter the building and for deterioration of the heritage fabric.
Now, we don't own these buildings. We know that we've done this. It was discussed. It's on the public record. By not endorsing this recommendation of the Heritage Committee, I believe that Council is leaving itself liable for the owners of these heritage buildings. I own a similar building. Many of us are well aware that if you put concrete up against our brickwork, our buildings will slowly crumble. This needs to be remediated. The Heritage Committee has been updated with regards to the liveability project. We had an additional workshop before a meeting. Nearly all the members of the committee turned up and discussed the matter with the staff, and we had a really useful updated discussion.
The committee members are aware of where we're up to with regards to the works in Windsor, and they have this particular concern. This isn't about going back to the drawing board. This isn't about making things difficult. This is about the preservation of heritage fabric, much of which is privately owned in a precinct that Council is about to do significant works to. I think we should set this meeting up as a way of making sure that we don't repeat or make a big mistake in an area that actually has more heritage in it than Richmond. So I think we need to. This is free advice from people who are very well qualified to give it. We shouldn't be looking at this as the Heritage Committee getting out of its box or as an embarrassment or as a hold-up.
This is free advice that could be quite easily and comfortably done with the consultants there so that we're not going back and forth, back and forth. Can you do this? No, we can't. What about this? How about that? Back and forth. Have a meeting, sort it out, move along. We've got people from the community coming in and talking to us about what should be happening in this. We've changed the entire project for one community group. I can't believe that we would balk at the free expert advice of a council committee. These people are all bound by our code of conduct. This seems to me to be a no-brainer. With regard to the artefacts, another part of this motion is for Council to take some active role in the preservation and then the display of the artefacts from Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge, Windsor Bridge in particular.
They're currently taking up space at two of our depots, Wilberforce and East Kurrajong. I'm sure that the infrastructure staff would be very happy for them to be rehomed somewhere useful. One of the issues is that many of them, they're lying out in the paddock. Some of them are in shipping, the bricks particularly, those really precious bricks out of the tunnels, or the drainage system, are in a shipping container. But much of them are still sitting outside deteriorating. The committee is struggling with, or the working group is struggling with, ideas around how these can be reused and displayed so that the community can understand the rich history that they represent. Discussing things like a partnership with the university, for example.
There's some money that Council received from Transport for New South Wales that's just sitting in a reserved account that we are hoping can be used for implementation and preservation.
Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll start with a couple of questions. Is the livability project and the area that it covers, is all of the area impacted by this concrete up against Rickwork issue? I mean, is what we're proposing to do some paving, will the paving, the refurbishment or the relaying of the pavers, will that happen in all areas that we have concrete up against these particular soft brick walls? Thank you, Director of City Planning. Thank you through you,
Yeah, and the reason I'm asking is that it seems to me that this might be a problem that's broader than the scope of works that has already, my understanding is, has already been gone to tender. So I'm just trying to figure out whether the problem that has just been described by Councillor Wheeler, whether that's a problem that stands alone from the livability project that might have to be rectified in other areas if indeed we have been responsible for doing what has been alluded to might be an activity and a building practice that has undermined the heritage value of the houses it butts up against.
Sorry, yeah, thank you through you, Madam Mayor. The— Proposed paving works will be the same manner in which paving was installed in Richmond. Stage 1, which is the stage that is currently out to tender, will see works delivered from Windsor Train Station up to Fitzgerald Street. As a result of earlier inquiries from members of the Heritage Committee, Council did seek independent heritage advice with regards to the works, and it was identified that an additional treatment was optional. It was identified by that consultant as nice to have, not necessary, because the works proposed had been signed off by Heritage New South Wales, and the manner in which paving would be installed is considered to be standard practice.
So, in response to that independent heritage advice, there is a heritage treatment being installed on heritage buildings that aren't protected by an awning or a veranda. There are some sites that have been identified in Stage 1 to receive that treatment , but as I said, that's currently out to tender. But there's certainly an opportunity for that to be discussed further in terms of Stage 1A, which is Thompson Square, and prospectively Stage 2, which are yet to have the final designs brought back to Council. Okay,
Thank you for that. That's good. The other question, and the problem that I have with this 0.5 and having this round table is, it says in the notes from on page 180 that the Livability Project has been finalised and has proceeded to tender already. So what you've just described is we have an option in that tender, which is already happening, for some sort of protection mechanisms that might satisfy some in the Heritage Committee about this.
Problem. Yes, yeah. Through you, Madam Mayor, that's correct. It's not so much an option in the tender, but it is actually a design that's been specified outside of heritage buildings that are in Stage 1 that don't have the protection of an awning or a veranda.
Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that, I mean, I can see if it really is too late, but I can't really see how it's too late because apparently the issue is that if you don't treat it wherever there's access, you know, like if you don't put it along all the buildings, if you just put it in front of one and not the next one, then there could be issues to the next one, even if it's got an awning. And I don't understand all the intricacies, but I was in the heritage meeting and I understood from them that they're just treating one little bit is not necessarily going to alleviate the issues that can occur when the concrete is up next to the fabric of the building. I'm wondering if we
Were going to check on anything that had been raised by, in the heritage briefing when we had that, which I think that came up in, although that could have been a meeting. I'm just a little surprised that there's a resistance to take advantage of hearing about this when it is such a precious precinct. And Councillor Wheeler's right. We have listened and changed things on the basis of individuals and other groups coming in, and here we have a committee that has a great deal of expertise. And I don't think they'd, to what Councillor Conolly said, I don't think they would be providing specific advice on behalf of Council. I think they would just be advising on specific heritage aspects of this.
And maybe the wording where it says to resolve outstanding issues leaves it a bit too open, and it could perhaps be just to maybe have a discussion with them around the avoidance of deterioration of building fabric, because I guess resolving outstanding issues could lead to other points that aren't. But I think the main thrust was about the concrete up against the fabric of the building.
I think that, yeah , I’m just a little bit surprised that we couldn’t have this meeting because, of course, we had a long period of time when we didn’t have any heritage meetings or any committee meetings or any engagement along that line. So there were opportunities missed around that. And then when there were the changes, I’m not sure how much interaction there was with the Heritage Committee around that. And even though it does have specified tasks around feeding into policies, it does also give us access to people who do know what they’re talking about. And we should take advantage of that because Councillor Wheelers quite right; if we leave ourselves exposed to issues from building owners, then that will be a problem into the future.
Were to have this Heritage Committee roundtable and their advice was to put some, I don’t know what their advice will be, but just for the sake of argument, would be to treat the interface of the concrete and heritage, is there scope in the tender that we’ve already called for for anything to change? So what part of the project are we up to in terms of the tendering and procurement? Thank you.
Through you, Madam Mayor. The stage one is out to tender based on an agreed design, which includes the heritage treatment outside of those specific listed buildings and the rest of the paving as in the design. There’s not necessarily scope in the tender for flexibility, but should there be a determination by some means to have the design revisited, it would require a change to the scope that’s currently out to tender at the moment being advertised.
Okay. Next question, and I think you already said this. The heritage office okayed our scope of works for this project, said it was standard practice, best practice.
Okay. Has this situation been, have we had this situation where we've had this particular potential problem? Has this been around for a while? When were the pavers laid in the mall?
If I may, I'm not sure. I think that what we're challenged with here, Council, is not necessarily the paving works on top, but a concrete sublayer that sits underneath, and that's the new element, the new question that we're talking about. Okay.
What's the moisture—what are you putting for the moisture proofing for those buildings without an awning over it? And I guess the other question, and this might go to Director of Infrastructure Services, why can't you just put a black plastic under the concrete and just butt it against the brickwork and that'll suffice?
I'll just refer that to— I can respond. I'll take it. General Manager. The first answer, I think, is the first question is what does that treatment look like on the buildings that don't have awnings? And it's effectively—I might flub this—but I think it's a 150 mil gap, effectively
There was a second part. Who would like to answer that part? Well, the second part was a simple black plastic barrier that most building practices use, and I guess one final question.
Through you, Madam Mayor, look, from my understanding, the concern is moisture moving across the top of the slab rather than from the underside. So the black plastic wouldn't assist in that situation. Okay,
Through you, Madam Mayor, didn't we just as a council do a study on rising damp, and does this fly in the face of that study, or is this contradictory to the study that we just done?
Through you, Madam Mayor, you're correct. Council has prepared some advice with regards to treating rising damp around heritage-listed properties. As to whether it addresses the specific nature of works, I'd need to take that one on notice.
Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. I can answer some of those questions, if that's helpful. Very quickly yes. Council has done—council has prepared some information sheets on both roofing and rising damp. The rising damp pamphlets, which are best practice, state that concrete is not to be placed up against buildings of heritage fabric. The issue is that the water wicks into the building, either under plastic—the plastic doesn't work. The only thing that works is leaving a space. We're not talking about putting some really expensive treatment between paving and the building. We're talking about leaving a space, stopping the concrete under bed before it gets to the building, and laying the pavers on top of that.
So it'll look exactly the same on the top. It's just that underneath, the concrete will stop 150 mil short of the building itself, which allows the water to escape and the building to breathe. A soft brick and lime mortar is incompatible with concrete, which is much harder and causes a salt build-up in the building, which causes the bricks to crumble. The moisture gets in the salt crystals fracture and/or swell, and they cause the bricks themselves to fracture and the building fabric to fail. So this is why this is an issue. It sits dormant for a number of years or till you get a very wet year, and then it bites. And just having an awning won't fix the problem. This happens inside buildings, it happens in cellars, it happens in the walls of people's lounge rooms, and that's what we are condemning these buildings in Windsor to if we don't heed the advice of the heritage advisory committee
If we're open to sort of an ongoing question-and-answer session here, I just wondered, I guess my questions would be, and primarily to Councillor Wheeler since we're driving this, if this is the case, why would Heritage NSW and the independent heritage advisor missed it? And secondly, if this is what we know, I mean, why didn't the committee just give us this advice rather than ask for a roundtable?
The committee, I think, did give the advice when we had that, and the committee, a couple of members of the committee have been screaming this since the work had begun in Richmond, and we've been resistant, I suppose, to taking that advice. We also had 12 months where the committee didn't meet, so there was no capacity for them to state that officially. I don't know. I can't speak to why the heritage office missed this. It is unfortunately something that is done to, you know, that heritage buildings suffer from repeatedly, that incompatibility of concrete and soft brickwork and stonework. Sandstone is also particularly vulnerable. I don't know. I don't know if they did a site visit. I don't know if they really looked hard at these works. I suspect that they were caught up in pavers and gas lamps and all the other bits that went into this project.
Sorry, can I ask another question? I'm not sure who it's to. If we were to agree and endorse this recommendation, I'm just not sure what would happen next. You know, we'd have a meeting where the heritage advisory committee would talk to the consultants, but if we want to change anything, I imagine that's got to come to a council meeting and then— I'm probably not a massive change in this consultation again, but then has to be re-tendered. I'm just wondering what the envisaged process is here
Thank you, Councillor. General Manager. Yeah, thank you, Councillor. So what I would envisage us proceeding with is that we would continue on with the current tender process. In fact, we're committed, so by law we have to push through. That's not really an option for us at this point, now that we've kind of come this far. What I guess, having been through, as the Director of City Planning has indicated, we've actually sought our own independent planning heritage specialist heritage advice on this that provided us the guidance that has made up that tender. What the predominant concern at this point, Councillors, is around variations. Once we've awarded the tender, that's what we will be in, is providing variations.
So there will be additional costs in that and potential extension of time claims and all of those sorts of things. If we're sitting around faffing around trying to work out what we're doing and we've let a contract, then the costs of that start escalating fairly rapidly, potentially.
Sorry, I appreciate that advice. I guess my question was more around — well, you've answered part of my question, but the other part of my question is really, I don't know if it's for the General Manager or for Councillor Wheeler or for someone else, but if we were to endorse this recommendation, how would any change of decision happen?
We'd just push on. I mean, unless you all have a different point of view, but I don't think it's — we're talking a 150 mil gap in a piece of concrete under the ground. I think it's the sort of thing that we would deal with operationally.
I'm happy to support it on that basis. If it means it's a conversation, then an operational decision based on that conversation, I have no issue with that.
Thank you. I wonder if we could, if we could put something in this motion that changes a little bit to Council's Heritage Advisor, relevant council officers. So instead of a roundtable, suggest a phone call or a Zoom meeting to have this discussion . That would occur quickly, and that then, I'm not sure how to say that exactly, but I don't think we need to have a roundtable on everything to do with this whole project. But if that's the particular issue, if we could have a meeting that can occur quickly, limited to that issue.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. And like most of us, I welcome the professional input from the Heritage Committee. I know there are people there that know a lot more about these things than the average person does. I just don't understand why we need this process that's on the board. I would have thought that the Heritage Committee would have just given us the information. Which is what we asked them to do. We have committees and we ask them to give council information. Now , maybe the problem then was, as Councillor Wheeler seemed to say, that they did give it to us and we chose not to listen to it. Well, that would be the problem, and that's something we would need to fix. And I know some of us here did try to introduce a better reporting system between committees and the council, but most people were of the opinion that the minutes was all we needed.
And I always disagreed with that because here we've got the minutes coming to us and the minutes don't give us the full report of what should happen and how it should happen. So I'm sort of in a crossroads here, but I don't want to dismiss the information that the Heritage Committee is going to give us, and I'm happy to hear it, and I think our staff should hear it as well. But it appears to me that it should have happened earlier, and the fact that it hasn't is a fault in our system somewhere.
Also, if this matter was brought up earlier, that might have been a very good opportunity to set up a working party, a working party which involved all these people that could sit around and talk about this issue in particular. But apparently that was not considered, or maybe it was, but we don't know whether it was considered or not. And so once again, as I pointed out maybe three years ago, there are weaknesses. There are weaknesses in our committee system, and now and again those weaknesses bubble to the surface, as this one has here. And what we're doing now is arguing about how to get around that problem when really the problem shouldn't have been there in the first place if we'd anticipated this.
And I'm not trying to give lectures to people. I'm just saying, I just think we need to reconsider once again how committees report to Council, and the minutes system to me is not adequate. The minutes system gives you a list of what happened at the meeting, whereas it should be more in terms of advice. And I'm just going to throw that out there for further discussion. And I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to the heritage people. I think we should. I just would like it to be an easier path for them to get their message across. Now, salt in walls, walls in general in houses in Western Sydney is a big problem. Wesrock has brought this up a few times. I remember 10 years ago we were talking about this.
Many of the houses built around Blacktown, Mount Druitt, those areas, weren't built properly. They were built on a slab, and the
Membranes that were used were not sufficient, and there was no gap left. And there are many brick houses now in areas of Western Sydney that don't have much life left in them because of the salt rising up. And I hate to see that happen to our heritage buildings, and I'm all for us fixing this. Because of that, I will vote for the motion as it stands on the board. But I would just like us in future to consider a way we can get around this so that it doesn't bank up like this, and we don't have—and I appreciate what Councillor Wheeler said. They did tell us, and they probably told us a long time ago, well, you know. That shouldn't happen. If they told us a long time ago, why wasn't something done back then? And that's the thing I think we should be focusing on.
Which is the recommendation points one to four plus a point five, which I've sent in to Amy, but I don't know if that's the right person to send it to right now.
I can't see her. That council arranges a teleconference between members of the Heritage Advisory Committee, the livability consultants, and council staff to provide advice in regards to the paving in Windsor.
I think this allows the Heritage Advisory Committee to communicate their advice without council taking a position tonight on what the outcome of that will be. I think the point being made is reasonable, that there's experts who want to provide free advice before we go ahead and do something. I don't think there's any problem with having an outlet for that advice and making sure that council staff responsible for the decisions hear that advice prior to finalising how we go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I suppose I'm speaking against the amendment because I preferred the stronger form of words that preceded it. The point that I wanted to make was very briefly to state that some councillors have expressed some misgiving about the role of committees or the role of the Heritage Committee in particular, and whether it has a remit only to provide information to this chamber, or whether it's transgression of its principles to give advice to any outside body. Can I encourage councillors not to be precious about that? A heritage committee or any other committee can take on whatever function we devolve to it in this chamber. And because I spent five years on that committee in the previous term, I just want to remind councillors how exceptionally lucky we should feel ourselves to be because of the world-class expertise that gives its time freely and voluntarily on that heritage committee.
If they're minded to give advice on behalf of council, I think we should thank them rather than trim their wings.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. As always, my number one priority is the money. And maybe this, my question should go to the management. When the tender is out, I hope that, you know, we have learned from the past mistakes and understanding that there will be some kind of variations or whatever. What kind of guarantees do we get, or can we get from the company that's going to, well, when it wins the tender, and what kind of guarantee we can get that they are not going to jack the prices up like the motion that, you know, I have moved? And who is going to check? Are we going to check diligently so we won't be hit five, 10, 20, or maybe 50 times more when the job is concluded?
Yeah, I think that's the case. I'll take that on notice, Councillor, because there can be no guarantees to me under any contract. I know what you're saying, but who knows when you dig up a hole what you're going to find? So that's the problem, and that's why contracts have variation clauses. I'm not sure if the staff can answer that because no one knows what possible variations there could be. So, yeah. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? Councillor Wheeler.
Speaking against the amendment, Madam Mayor. Look, I think we're splitting hairs. This is a discussion. I don't think we should be telling people whether they should be there face to face or on Zoom. There are a couple of very, very knowledgeable members of the Heritage Committee who do not do well on teleconferences for a variety of reasons, including health reasons. We would be excluding them from this discussion if we specify teleconference. Just allow a meeting. I don't know what we're nervous about here. We have a group of well-regarded, well-qualified experts who would like an hour with the consultants and our staff to discuss ongoing issues that is likely to damage the building fabric in our major heritage township.
And they've made this claim based on the work that we did in our other major heritage township. They have advised Council on the public record that we are leaving ourselves open to serious problems down the track if we go ahead with these works. One of these members has been telling us this for more than two years and we have ignored them.
Have a meeting. I don't understand what the issue is with getting a group of people in a room. We've got another group of people not sanctioned by Council at all who are meeting freely with the General Manager to discuss this project. The rest of us have. If you want to talk about reporting of committees, at least this committee is recorded and the minutes come back to Council. We've got some other group of people that I don't know who they are, I don't know what they're discussing. Nothing comes back to us that are free to meet with the General Manager and discuss all their own issues. Why can't members of Council's own Heritage Committee come to us? Come to the staff, come to the consultants, and tell us what we need to do to make this project a success. We've been dicking around with it for years now. Just allow one simple meeting. It's not that difficult.
Thank you, Councillor. I would just like to put on notice myself, sorry, that I will declare it has just come to my attention a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in this matter, as it is a livability project, and I have made the same declaration every time we've spoken about the livability project. But obviously my previous declarations were around Richmond, and this is only around Windsor, so I just needed to get that on the record, and I'll fill in the appropriate form. Councillor Kotlash.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Question: when did the Heritage Committee give the advice to Council officers about this issue? Because it seems to me that, and I think Councillor Calvert alluded to it, we've had this advice. Where did it go? Why do we need another meeting now to give advice on a project that's gone to tender? That's what's annoying me about this whole issue. It's not the meeting. It's not the Heritage Committee. It's the process. When did we get—does anybody know when we were told that this was a problem and it would lead to these problems in future? Thank you, General Manager. Does anybody know?
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I can't speak to the exact date of when they were first raised with us. There was certainly one member of the Heritage Committee raised this issue with us, I would say earlier this year, maybe, I don't know, I'm going to have a stab, six months ago, maybe nine months ago, something like that. And that is what prompted Council to go and get its own independent advice on this project. So to say that we have ignored the advice of this particular member of the committee is factually wrong. That's not accurate. It prompted us to go and get our own independent advice. That own independent advice, as the Director City Planning has said, has said that this is good practice but not really necessary, was the advice, but then came back with a list of maybe 20-ish properties where this particular treatment, if Council was of a mind to do it, would be appropriate.
And that is those heritage properties that don't have an awning over the footpath. Okay, so on that basis of that independent advice, Council then proceeded with the works, all the design works, to get us to a point where we're out to tender. We are very aware of the issues that have been raised by the particular member of the Heritage Committee. The point we're making at this point in time is that stage one, so not stage 1A and not stage 2, that stage one has proceeded to tender, and it is not good practice at this point in time to revisit the design of the project.
Councillor Kotlash. I'd like to talk on the amendment. I'm willing to support the amendment. It's okay if it's not a teleconference. I think the essence of the amendment was that we submit that advice. But I am worried that we're getting into the territory of professional opinion and having— Being a practising scientist in past life, I have had many occasions when eminent scientists have butted heads over issues, and they have different opinions on different things. So I think, from a council point of view and from the information that we've got in front of us, I think the only avenue I can feel comfortable with is that we have that independent advice that presumably we paid for, which I think will stand us in good stead for any
Issues that might happen in the future. I don't particularly want to take on or comment on that because I'm not an expert in that area. So I have to really take on face value the reports that we've got from the independent people plus our heritage committee. So I think we're in dangerous territory here because we might never get anything done if we keep going with, you know, getting more advice, getting other people's advice, getting, you know. But I want it to be fixed if there are, you know, error on the side of caution. So this is a very irritating problem to have at this late stage of this project. I'm really disappointed that these sorts of things are coming up after we've proceeded to tender.
I'll support the amendment. I think a round table gives me, when I first read that, it just gives me the idea that we are going to be endlessly talking, you know, about issues and getting nowhere. So I think the pointness of this amendment suits me. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment, although if that's what gets up, I still think that's better than not doing anything. I don't think it hurts to still get the advice. I understand the time constraints around tenders and so on, but because this is something that is around perhaps leaving a gap between a building and something, I'm not sure how much that would actually change in physical terms. It's not changing the materials. It's not. I would imagine if there was any form of advice that actually restructured the whole entire thing, that would be unachievable. But if it's about where something's laid or gap sizing and so on, even though that may be a variation from any submitted plans or whatever, it is still something that I think we could know if that was going to be a reasonably easily achievable outcome to have.
And I think that having that conversation is a really important part. It is unfortunate that the Heritage Committee, I know Councillor Wheeler was asking for Heritage Committee meetings or sending information asking for meetings, and it was just unfortunate we hadn't had one in that time frame. And I think this is the next best thing, but because it's not like actually changing an entire... plan of how things will be done. I think that regardless, we really should take the opportunity to at least hear, because sometimes out of discussions comes an actual solution, and that solution doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be detrimental to the process that's already been done.
I will put the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment? Councillor— Sorry, I didn't see your microphone. It's after we vote to see if the amendment becomes the motion, then we get right of reply.
Well, okay. This is not something we've been discussed for five minutes. We've been here, what, three years or something, and it was brought up early in the piece. The motion doesn't say, can stage one to start with. The information in relation to the Heritage Council and the like—I know people in the community that are good with computers can chase up latest information sent requests to council. They have not got the documentation that supports their argument that this is a problem that would be contrary to their argument. We've got some buildings that aren't heritage listed, but they come under heritage . We're telling them what colour they can paint, what they can do to the building, how they can do it, and not to do it any other way.
And now we're putting a pavement out the front of their properties just how we want it, and they've got contrary information. This is going to be damaging to the facility. As far as the awnings go, and in relation to going out to tender, I know one property owner that wrote to council in relation to this problem, the concrete problem, prior to the tenders going out. And got information back that— Point
This, but the amendment, and the difference between the amendment and the motion is whether or not we have a teleconference in this format or a round table. That's the only difference. So all this talk about whether or not paving, it's irrelevant to this motion at this point in time.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. The report that come back in relation to the, from council, that what had been said by the staff, they got information that supported exactly what's been talked about with the staff today. But we had a storm here a couple of months ago, so I rang the chap up and said, Take some photos under yawning. Well, let me tell you, the awning in relation to weather makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, and he's got photos to prove it.
Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Before I put the vote, I'll just make some of my own comments. And Councillor Kotlash was correct in saying it's a very difficult situation to be put in because, well personally for me, I am not in the subject matter expertise of this situation, so it's very hard to know what to do. But the concerns that I have, and I'll be supporting the amendment, are a couple here. If this issue was brought to our staff, and I can only assess that on good faith of what I'm told has happened, and independent expert advice was sought and paid for by the council after that issue was raised, then— To say or to imply that council staff have done nothing when it was raised to them is incorrect, because that independent advice was sought. So I take great offence to that implication, or to imply to our staff that they've done something wrong in that regard.
I'm also concerned that we are at tender for this stage, and we have changed the project and things have occurred in that regard, but we are at tender, and I don't want to see any more delays in this project. So the reason I'm supporting the teleconference over a round table is again going back to the comments made on page 180 in the business paper about what is the role and the authority of a committee. And I think we really need to be sensible about that. Had this issue not been raised previously and had council not sought independent advice on this, then I would probably have a different point of view. But the fact that we have,
I'm not happy. I don't think the round table is the answer. And if it's a teleconference that gets that additional element of being heard by a particular person and council and the consultants take that on board in a teleconference, then I'm happy with that. But at some point, we're all going to have to be happy with the fact that we just have to proceed with this project, and it is at a tender stage. It's not something we're still umming and ahhing about what we're going to do without to tender. And there are going to be elements of our community who will continuously be frustrated if we keep delaying this project. And of course that goes back to the funding body being gracious enough to continue to allow us to stretch it out. So they are my comments. If there are no other councillors wishing to speak, then I will put
Thank you, Councillor. I'll put the amendment forward if no one is wishing to speak. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert and Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno. I declare that carried on the casting vote of the Mayor. The amendment now becomes the motion. Was there anyone else who hasn't spoken wishing to speak? No. Right of reply, Councillor Sheather.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. One of the things I find strange with these changes to the Local Government Act is that I'm speaking on a motion that's been lost. I think that's stupid. But being able to, I'm going to. As I was saying in relation to the buildings, that we've got and demand our works done in relation to heritage buildings, we're going to put concrete past buildings that aren't heritage listed but are heritage buildings, and put concrete up to the face of the sandstone buildings. Now, I've been a concreter most of my life. Believe you me, I've done lots of work, considering most of the work I've been done in the Hawkesbury's, been around sandstone buildings,
And I'm still alive. I mean, all that shot at, screamed at, run over, anything. There's different processes on how you can do it. The design that we've incorporated within our structure of heritage in council is one. There's many ways to minimise and stop water from being attracted or getting into sandstone. And the reason that I was moving this and had on it the unresolved outstanding issues,
The group that Councillor Wheeler was talking to, there's five business groups up in Windsor that I've got together that meet regularly with the mayor and the general manager. I've attended those meetings to discuss issues that they have. They range from furniture and parts of the mall and stuff like that. That hasn't yet been attended to, nor has it gone to tender, and there's still ongoing issues on some of the designs and how some of the things are going to happen. Sitting around talking about it before it happens is a good way to resolve issues. Wait till you load the truck up and then find out the kids want to come along is a bit of a problem. And we seem to be doing that fairly often.
We've got a heritage committee, and we're responsible for the heritage in this city. The decisions we make around this table have impacts and has has impact for 230 years, and we can bugger that up pretty quick if we don't be mindful of what we allow to happen. Now, if you have heritage buildings and the work you want to do on it, they're pretty stringent. And in the main, people buy those buildings and want to live in them for the purpose to keep those structures.
And we now, with the livability program, are going to make it all right. Well, from the outset, from the very outset of this, there's been dispute in the community that hasn't been dealt with properly. Well.
It could have been dealt with better. Changes to the tender. The motion doesn't indicate that we're going to change the tender. As the general manager said, if the tender's let, that's the way it goes. But there may be things that they can discuss that can minimise the works, and be incorporated within the tender as a process. If contractors want to do the job, we've still got two stages to go that hasn't got a tender yet. I'm sure that there's some negotiation there to get things done. And if not, perhaps we haven't got the right people talking to them. So there's different designs, there's opportunities and the likes. And the best part about it, we can take the community with us. The information that Councillor Wheeler spoke about, those five groups, there was an indication that there was confrontation between the groups. Well, we're not going to get them together tonight.
The issues were the information and designs that were coming to us were frustrating the community, and they wanted to talk and have a good understanding of exactly what it was. And the Heritage Committee , and as I said before, we should be pleased with the information that comes from them, where our staff or us haven't got the ability to see issues down the track that can be resolved and put in place well in advance of problems. And instead of that, we wait until it comes before us. It becomes political. We haven't got the money, can't get done, we're unpopular. You know, all that can change if you work with the people and they've got an understanding that there's a process to go through and they can be part of it.
And that's what the round table stuff was about. Some of the stuff wouldn't be changed and couldn't be changed. So I hope with this teleconference that those issues might be somewhat addressed to resolve some of the issues. The only thing I have is in relation to the paving, and some of the things they want to discuss were things outside the paving. There's trees to be removed and pavers and style of furniture and all that sort of stuff. And the community want to know that we're on the same page. And at the moment, they're unsure.
Thank you, Councillor. I'll therefore put the motion as per the business paper and point five as per the board. Those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert—
That was for the original part, not the amendment. Okay, no, that's okay. If we're happy to all have seriatim for the amendment then now, then that is totally fine. Those in favour of point one as per the recommendation in the business paper, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel—
No, just point one as outlined on page 178. So there's five parts. Points one to four are the same as per the business paper. Part point five is as per the board,
Okay. So those in favour of point one as per page 178, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Linsbucket, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against? Councillor Sheather declared point 1 carried. Those in favour of point 2, please raise your hand. In favour of point 2 are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno and Councillor McMarn.
I declare point 2 carried. Those in favour of point 3 , please raise your hand. In favour of point 3 are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno and Councillor McMarn. I declare point 3 carried. Those in favour of point 4, please raise your hand. In favour of point 4 are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zemprogno and Councillor McMarn.
Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare point 4 carried. Those in favour of point 5, as it appears on the board, please raise your hand. In favour of point 5 are Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Zemprogno and Councillor McMarn. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare point 5 carried. Thank you, Councillors.
Okay, I'll carry on. I'll carry on. Well, after the election, Madam Mayor, you know that this matter came before the council's attention, and from day one, I have alerted certain people. I'm not going to mention names, as I mentioned, and I promised I would not be volatile. I will just refer to them as management. They did not listen. Just as a few minutes ago, we mentioned about this heritage matter, when it comes to money, it's not our money. We are the custodians of that money. And my time with this council, I have observed several issues from my perspective, my salesman perspective, and things that, you know, I have witnessed influenced my philosophy. And in here, I am very much grateful to every single one of the councillors. I have learned a lot. One thing that, you know, I'm a little bit disturbed is no
One should perpetuate bitterness, abrasiveness and malice against each other. As a professional salesman, I believe that mastery in any field results from venturing into it. And this principle I have demonstrated perfectly in Australia, and I have made it. I appreciate those councillors who work diligently, whatever they are doing. But this rising main NC hurt me a lot on behalf of the ratepayers. And it seems in here,
Management have worked it out that the initial tender, $2.7 million, to be concluded within two months. Despite my numerous attempts , you know, to talk to management — again, I'm not mentioning any names — I was ignored, and I guaranteed that it wouldn't stop at $2.7 million. It went to four, eight, twelve, and when it was $18.5 million with the KPMG's matter, which I received another code of conduct, and it's all recorded. I said that it would go beyond $20 million, and indeed it did go beyond that, and no questions were asked. And I'm sure that every single one of the councillors in this room are worried, at least — at least one who agreed with me — that I'm not saying $40 million, $37.5 million, because it was tendered for $2.7 million.
Sorry, Councillor, can I just stop you there? It's just come to my attention, and sorry, that was my confusion with you asking not for time not to start. I do need a seconder. Sorry, for the notice of motion, Councillor Sheather. Please continue, Councillor.
Okay. All right. So when it comes to squandering our hard-earned money, it affects all of us. It seems that Section 232 on the local government rules, regulations, or whatever it is, we are simply ignored. I have witnessed in the last two years that staff downstairs, you know, sometimes make a decision, and the policy comes in front of us, you know, to okay it. I find it very difficult that this council, or management I should say, for some reason that we are neglected, and some people in the management, it seems that, you know, they have no upper limit on spending and wasting our monies.
Now we are told that the investigation is going to cost us $30,000 or more. Who cares about $30,000 when we spent $17,000 to a retired Lismore mayor, you know, giving us a lecture on how to shake hands, and this recently about this courageous or brave council or whatever it is, you know, coming in here, which is going to cost us up to $20,000, $30,000
Well, that's what I'm saying, that, you know, if we are going to spend, you know, $20,000, $30,000 on some people coming in here and telling us how to snort like horses or whatever, so that $30,000 is a—
Okay, okay, I won't mention in front of the management, but what's $30,000 when the question is $37.5 million? So I think that we should appoint, or everyone in this room, if they are re-elected, you know, they should support this motion, and we should get an investigator to go right into it. And I suggest that at least two of the councillors, you know, should work along with the investigator.
Thank you, Councillor. Your time has expired. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the notice of motion? Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'm speaking against this motion for a number of reasons. The first one is that I can't agree to—oh, thanks—I can't agree to spending money on asking for information that essentially we already have. And when I reviewed the things being asked in this particular motion, it came, from my memory, I thought we know all of this stuff. For instance, in point one, the failure of rising main C.
And also, before I start actually those points, on the 10th of May 2022, we had a notice of motion that asked very similar questions: why did Council experience the failure? Can Council provide a maintenance schedule? Details of the rising mains maintenance schedule?
Just et cetera. Very similar questions to what's being asked now. On the 17th—or no, I think it was the 19th of July—we had a response to those questions, and it's here on the 19th of July, the response... To those questions, so we already have this information. We have information on the cause of the failure, maintenance schedule, and by the way, the maintenance schedule, we were told in July of 2022 that the assessment, the physical modelling and the economic modelling for this particular rising main was about in the middle of its expected lifespan. So, you know, so we had that information that there was no neglect or oversight on the maintenance. It also, the business paper addressed the cartridge costs .
It also addressed the mitigating future failures. So now we have another notice of motion that's asking for very similar things. So I can't see the point in us spending $30,000, or however much it costs, to investigate something that we already have quite a good handle on. This whole project, or this whole incident, was a really unusual incident, and if it was something that we thought might happen frequently and, you know, it was something that we really had to get a handle on, maybe we could look at it in that way and learn from how we dealt with it. But the circumstances that brought about this leakage of the sewer main was just a combination of so many floods, so much saturated soil, and it was reactive soils as well.
So then we had trouble trying to figure out how to fix the problem . The way the staff handled it, actually, I felt at all times throughout this project that the staff briefed us very well and kept us informed about how they were having to deal with a situation that was changing virtually every, you know, by the day. We had weather conditions. We, you know, we had another flood in the middle of trying to fix this problem. We had a site that was unsafe to go into. So we had all sorts of, you know, and then we had the public health issue of trying to stop the sewage going down the creek and the environmental problems that we had. So a very complex project. And to be fair to the staff, I think they did a really good job.
And I am confident that we are going to learn lessons from this. Everything is always better in hindsight. We all know that. But the , you know, the assumption that because we spend a lot of money, there must be something wrong. Well, the reason we spent a lot of money was because it was really, it was a bugger of a project. I mean, you know, a leaking sewer main under a creek is something that, you know, you really have to pay attention to. And I don't think we had any choice but to go down the avenues that we went down. Okay, maybe we could have made some, you know, different decisions, but I want to compliment the staff on a job well done. And I know it took a long time, and hats off to you.
I think you did really well, and I'm very comfortable with how it was handled. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Conolly.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I really dislike the way that that motion was put to Council, the language used, and— The impugning of improper motives and so on, you know, the use of the word squandering and so on. However, I am inclined to support the motion, but I wanted to make that clear that I'm not interested in a witch hunt, and I don't think that anything on the paper actually reads like it would be a witch hunt. I think that's been impugned by Councillor Dogramaci, that someone's definitely done something wrong and that that's what we're looking for. I think if we spend $ 35 million in an unplanned way, it makes sense for Council, as good governance practice, to spend a little bit of money making sure that it was handled correctly.
And there's no suggestion it wasn't. That's not what anybody is saying except maybe Councillor Dogramaci. And similar to Councillor Kotlash, from all the information we've been given, I feel like we were regularly updated. I feel like we were kept abreast of what was happening. What I think has to be acknowledged is that this is way out of the expertise of any of us, and we're not here to make a judgment on whether best practice was followed, because the reality is we have absolutely no idea, any of us. The point being, though, if I'm on a board or a council and the organisation spends $35 million it had absolutely no plan on spending the year before, I've got no problem spending $30,000 to do a review of that to make sure that we've learned anything we could learn.
To that point, I'd like Councillor Dogramaci to consider adding a couple of extra points to the motion. I think we should add a point C to point 1 that, and I'm not sure this is the correct wording, so I'll take advice from staff, but that the request for quotations be reported to Council for a decision, so that when we request for quotations for this investigation, Council appoints an investigator. And then 2E, we add an extra term of reference, which is the efficiency and effectiveness of Council's response. I think the points A to D are good, but they're very specific and maybe missing the overall picture, where if we put in there a bit of a catch-all that a suitably qualified investigator would understand what the question we're really asking and actually focus on what we need to know, if those are additions you'd be willing to make.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Conolly just raised some of the points I was going to raise. I'll also support the motion because I feel very similar when there's such a big expenditure of money and there is some unsettled commentary within the community. I've heard it from different sources, and I think this is the problem, from, you know, from people connected maybe to, you know, contractors or from people from other areas, just general rumblings. And I think that when there's some doubt within the community, and I'm not saying, as Councillor Conolly said, this isn't to cast any aspersions on anybody in here, but I think that it is good to be accountable. And I've just got a question around external audits or investigation that are being undertaken. Do they normally require a council resolution?
Thank you. No, just from interest's sake, because I know that in the past we did have one, and it was a council resolution about a park a couple of years ago.
Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. There was an independent, or a peer review of the design and the design assumptions that was undertaken at the time, and a, how do I describe it, a post-event analysis of the probable failure mechanism that was completed in support of our application to the New South Wales Government for funding.
Okay, that's what it was. Yep. Okay, thank you. So that would be information for anyone looking at it through another lens. I think that unlike what Councillor Kotlash said, this would be somebody who was independent and removed from the information we've already had to date. And I think that is a really good layer of transparency that could be done in this instance. So I'm happy to support the motion.
Thank you. It appears to me that there's a small typo where we refer to the flood events of 2020 and 2022. And I think it might be more accurate if we say 2020 through to, or just turn the and into a hyphen, because we did have some significant flooding in 2021. In fact, it was much worse than 2020. So if we could just correct that, I think that might be helpful. I agree with Councillor Conolly that once we've spent $35 million on this, it certainly wasn't our intention. $30,000 looks like a drop in the bucket. I know that our budget is tight, but I think there's a public expectation that, and there's a lot of rumbling in the public about this project. I would like this to be the opposite of a witch hunt, frankly. I would like this to be the thing that
Gives some certainty around Council's actions and to perhaps future actions on as well. But I think the public has a right to know where their money has been used and whether that was used well. If we're confident that that is indeed the case, then we should have no issue with this, apart from where we find that $30,000.
I think what I would like to see out of this as well is some evidence for the case that council should have been given natural disaster funding, like other councils across New South Wales were, and that our ratepayers shouldn't therefore be burdened with the costs of this failure. But I think if we have evidence that we did act correctly and, you know, within the parameters of what we could do, given the really difficult circumstances over what were a very difficult three years, then perhaps we mount a better case and also add weight to our argument that this council is overburdened by the provision of sewerage treatment and sewerage collection in a way that no other metropolitan council in New South Wales is.
I don't think we should shy away from this study, from this work. I think we should embrace it as a means of clearing the air and allowing us to move on. I think the initial information that we have, the peer review design and the post-event analysis, will hopefully be useful in this process. And I guess that information does alleviate my concerns about point one, because I think some of this is about engineering solutions, and I'm not sure that your average lawyer or auditor is qualified to give that opinion. Thanks.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to support the motion, and I thank Councillor Kotlash for her comments, but I'm not going to go and repeat what's been said on the timelines. But from the very minute, I'd appreciated the feedback from the general manager. And the Director of Infrastructure, when that main failed, it was a busted pipe based on subsidence. That's what came to the chamber. That was the reason, right? That whole floodplain area experienced probably three, if not four floods, where the contractor had to move off site, back on site, off site, back on site to get the job done. There was unprecedented supply chain issues within this country, and there still is. There's unprecedented labour shortages in the country, and there still is.
What has that done? Raw materials, the basics of building construction in particular, has increased in some respects to 100%. Not only that, this council is in competition with the state government, other LGAs, and also the federal government for raws, people, machines, contractors to get the job done, right? I absolutely agree that we should be going after the state government, if not federal, to go and come and provide funding for that repair. I thought we would have been there. I thought we would have had a representation and would have been smashing down the doors of at least state government to get the funds to do this, but we've not seen it, and we're burdened with this.
I don't know what another audit would do here. It's been done and it's been transparent. We spent $30,000 by all means if the motion gets up, but I won't be voting for it.
It was bizarre times, if you remember, people going through the supermarkets because I think they were going to get toilet paper. Supply chain issues there. Try and get steel. I tried to get it, doubled. Construction sites were stalling, as I've already mentioned. Anyway, from me too, I'd like to thank the staff for being absolutely transparent. They kept everybody in this chamber and on the public record about what was going on with rising main C. A sewer pipe broke. Pipes break. This is no different. And I guess we're going to have pipes break in the future, and we'll go back and fix it. And hopefully there won't be reoccurring floods that stops the contractor getting in to fixing the site. So yet again, just to reiterate, I won't be voting for the motion.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will be supporting the notice of motion. I think it makes sense to support this and spend the $30,000 to try to resolve this issue. So I will be supporting it.
And the last report that come to us was 32. I just mention that we're chucking six million bucks around here as though it's a conversation. And I guess I'm speaking in support of the motion. And the reason that I do, we borrowed $20 million, and we're looking at future councils that are going to pay that off.
And it's a great burden on the council, this council and councils in the future. I guess part of the frustration that I've got, and Councillor Dogramaci is, some of our work, a lot of our work in the past has been similar to what's happened. And not being involved with the Gumboods on the site, it would seem that it's an expensive project. To have a audit investigated and come back with a decision from an independent view does a couple of things. If there's opportunities to assess the way we do it, then they offer that information. If it was done with the reports we got, that at the time the best opportunities and that were taken and the like, then we're justified. But we're looking at nearly half our budget in one problem.
And as a council, we need to be responsible that the money that's spent is spent in an appropriate way. Now, we've had professional advice from the staff, we accepted it, and we got on and did the job.
I think it's demanding on us that when we spend that sort of money, that we can say to the public, this is the justification. It's the major problem with all the implications that were spoke of and the like, and this is what happened. If there was ways that other things could be done, then there's opportunities. But again, that information . I say that as, Madam Mayor, you're well aware that the RSL that we're directors of, we had an investigation that was done up there from an independent audit, and it was one of the best things we've done. They give us direction, they brought us up to speed with particular projects and opportunities, all that sort of stuff. So when we spoke about it, there was reluctance because I guess when you've got people checking on you, you feel a bit out of place.
I found with the audit that we had, that was one of the best things, as I said, that we did. So again, taking aboard Councillor Conolly's comments, I would hope we're not looking at throwing spears or any of that sort of stuff. We're looking at accountability as a council, and if there's opportunities to rectify it, we've got a lot of mains in a lot of areas. A lot of it goes on the floodplain, it goes to South Windsor, McGraths Hill. If we need to readdress it, we've talked about other opportunities and stuff that might need to be readdressed and the likes. Such an audit would give us that opportunity and give us some history and support to perhaps head down directions that we've spoken about or ones that we haven't spoken about.
So, Madam Mayor, I ask the councils to support it on the basis that we manage our money the best we can, and that with the projects, and we're not talking about a small amount of money, you know, it's massive, and it must have been a headache for the people involved with it. But I think that in saying that, with all the information and stuff we've got, for an outside person to assess it is proper and hopefully helpful with any such major projects down the track.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be voting against this motion. What I was waiting for is for someone to tell me why we should do this. I was waiting for someone to say we should do this because. I still haven't heard that. What I've heard so far is that we should do it because there is some grumbling by some people in the community, and the other reason people said we should do it is because it costs a lot of money. To me, those are not reasons for investigating this or having an audit. It sounds to me like what's being put forward here is, let's have an audit, and when we finish doing that, then we'll know what the reason was for having an audit. To me, that's backwards. I mean, if there's no reason coming at us, then why have the audit? In terms of what I've seen, it's all been handled very well.
We've had a report back from Council, as Councillor Kotlash explained, it went through everything. We've had a peer review, which went through everything as well. What is it we are now hoping to uncover? What is it we are looking for? Looking for a reason to have the audit? That's about all I've got out of this discussion. Are we looking for incompetence? Are we looking for some kind of conspiracy? I don't know what it is that we're looking for, and I've got my doubts that anything will come out of it anyway. But when we do uncover things, or I don't think we will uncover anything, but what could it be that we shouldn't have fixed it? We should have let the sewage run down the creek and go into the river.
Is that what we should have done? We've got engineers and they, our engineers spoke to other engineers, and this was the only thing we could have done. And they did it well. What are we trying to find out? Could they have done it any other way? Well, maybe they could have, but that's an engineering problem. So what? They did the best they could with the evidence and information they had, and I don't think we should be poking around with this just because a couple of people are grumbling or because it costs a lot of money. As Councillor Veigel said, a pipe broke, and that's going to happen again. Roads deteriorate, pipes break, bridges get washed away. We have to deal with it when it happens.
There's no conspiracy. There's no incompetency. It's all about reacting to the situation. We don't know what's around the corner. We might have some giant flood next week which washes away six bridges. We're going to have to deal with it. It's going to cost a lot of money. We don't then need an investigation as to why we fixed the bridges. And it's the same here. We don't really need to look at this any more than it's been looked at already. And I think the staff did a great job, and I'm worried that this notice of motion implies that they didn't. And I don't want to be associated with that kind of implication. So I'll be voting against it.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just because something costs a lot of money doesn't by itself justify throwing extra money after that. That's called the sunk cost fallacy. But let me try and give a different angle on this.
The expenditure of over $30 million would have to be regarded as a catastrophic financial event in the life of this Council. It is an astonishing amount of money, and it's deeply regrettable that it fell to us to fix it under the challenging circumstances that Councillor Veigel was talking about. I can't imagine that we would be discharging our duty if, in the face of such an unprecedented and catastrophic financial event, is that we didn't engage some kind of arm's length investigation of every aspect of this, and I think the notice of motion does this. I'd invite councillors to consider the optics of being the councillor that votes against a measure that's seeking to establish whether everything occurred as it had to. Councillor
Madam Mayor, I can reflect on the optics that the community sees when it observes this debate in this chamber about whether councillors are committed to every conceivable measure that ensures that there was probity. Now, I believe there was, and like Councillor Wheeler, I hope this is the very opposite of a witch hunt. But it will uncover things, it will uncover learnings. I don't believe that this thing happens very often, but it's also true that it's a totally unacceptable situation that having approached the state government to ask them to take this cost on is that they've refused us. Despite the fact that the same concessions were offered to communities in the Northern Rivers, and, you know, the tone that we've taken, the way in which we've approached the State Government, the response that we've had probably lay outside the scope of this investigation.
But certainly, having this report would certainly bolster the argument should the argument come back to us, well, the reason it costs this much is because you botched it. Well, if we can demonstrate through this kind of report that we didn't botch it, is that it was just an extraordinary and unfortunate circumstance . Were there things that could have been done better? Absolutely. I mean, it was only in retrospect that we probably learned that it was probably cheaper to just buy the trucks, employ the staff, and to do the cartage for that length of time. Could we have anticipated that in advance? Probably not. But I'd be consoled if an arms-length report was able to draw those conclusions and then present them back to us.
Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wishing to speak? I'll just add my final remarks then to the debate. It's been a perplexing one, this one, and I guess as the Mayor during the time of this as well, and the fact that I have written to the ministers asking for this money to be reimbursed to Council, and I make it clear it's not the cartage, it's the infrastructure damage, and we haven't had a response from the New South Wales Labor Government on that is severely disappointing. I need to make it clear to people that this does not fall under the DFRA guidelines. It is a separate bit of money that we're asking for based on what they gave to the Northern Rivers Council. So I need to make it very clear.
This does not fall under what the State and the Federal Governments drew up as guidelines to help councils repair their communities' damaged infrastructure. So we are in a very difficult situation. As Councillor Wheeler rightly said, it is a very precarious position we are in where we have to deal with a sewer system where most other councils—I think, are we the only council in the Sydney Basin? Yes—to have a sewer system. Look at that impost it puts on our ratepayers, on our business, as a service provider, when other councils don't have to deal with these things. You know, other councils don't have to deal with tips. We have a tip. There's so many things that we operate that other councils don't have to deal with.
So not only am I seeking, and I'll make this point here, that I want the State Government to reply to my correspondence about trying to help to reimburse that money so that we can put it off the costs that we've had to pay. But I'll just remind everybody that we currently have a motion on board for this council to start the process of divesting that sewer system, and we've written again to the Ministers for that in a separate correspondence to ask them to please meet with us to discuss this situation and how we're going to do that. So I need to make it clear those requests have gone in, yet we've heard nothing. I do appreciate the remarks made by councillors here that this should not be a witch hunt.
The staff are human beings, as are the councillors. We're all human beings who, in the last few years, whether it's been bushfire, COVID or flood, have had to make really challenging decisions. And I know that's why people are put into these roles, to make those challenging decisions, but it doesn't mean that they're easy. And with such a dynamic and changing environment that was Rising Main C as it came to play. Making those decisions would have been exceptionally hard. Now, I agree with Councillor Kotlash that we were briefed the way through. Every time there were changes, we were briefed, we were updated. Of course, we absolutely, you know, our mouths dropped when we were told about the rising costs of doing this.
Every time something went wrong, or there was another flood, or there was a delay, it was extraordinary. It's on that point alone that I'm supporting the notice of motion. Again, on the basis that it is such a large expenditure of money that I believe, and I'm hoping the only reason I'm supporting this is to put the matter to bed once and for all. Because I— there have been very unreasonable things said about some councillors, about the staff and this organisation. I have seen participation in online debate about the staff and this organisation that is appalling online. And the only reason I'm supporting this, as I said, is to put this to bed once and for all. So I am hoping that whoever is engaged to undertake this review does so in a swift way.
I will then have to digest the outcome of that review, as we all will as an elected body, and deal with it then. But in any event, regardless of what that outcome is, I believe that needs to be the end of it. And this will be the last thing that I will be supporting in regards to Rising Main C to have it looked at. We've done everything we can, and I believe staff have done everything they can, as I said, in a dynamic and changing and challenging circumstance to get through this and $240 worth of other damage flood infrastructure in our community. And I think that's being kind, that term. I think it probably blew out to be a lot more. So I'll support it on that basis, but I want to make it very clear.
That I don't expect, while this independent review is being undertaken, that people of this elected body go online or in this chamber and make inaccurate statements about our staff or our organisation. Thank you.
I was just wondering, because you referred to it not being in the criteria of the DRFA funding, if we could just have it put on the public record why that, why it wasn't funded. I'll ask the
Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. The DRFA, the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, exclude assets which are the benefit of a charge for their use from the definition of a central public asset, so water, wastewater, and other assets where there is a charge to the users.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. A couple of things that I'd like to address too. Number one, when Councillor Bucket asked if there was an audit carried, and the reply was on design, yes, on expenditure there was no audit carried out. So nobody knew how much money was spent and what was the projected amount.
I hope I pronounced correctly. Now, regarding the shortage of material, this is where, and also, you know, this will go to, with respect to Councillor Kotlash, theory versus practicality. There was absolutely no shortage of high-density polyethylene pipes. Tube makers, they make it in Dubbo, and at that time I contacted them because they were my customers in Yennora. Wool dumpers next to Woolworths, they also manufacture exactly the same polyethylene pipes. It was available. And the council, when they, the management, when they came and when they briefed us about this sort of things, they told us, you know, what the construction company told them. And I remind every single one of the councillors in here, if it's going to assist them, when initially we were told the problem wasn't the breakage, it wasn't the crack or whatever it was, if you all remember, ductile cast iron clamp, which when I asked that question to management, they had no idea what it was.
The construction companies and similar companies, which I know, that particular companies, using fancy words, and naturally the management were afraid of asking,
Councillor Dogramaci, you can't say that about staff when you don't have evidence of that. Okay, how can I put it that one? Don't put it anyway. Be factual,
Please. All right. There was no shortage of polyethylene pipe . And the water, the flood, the mud or whatever it is, it was done before with a helicopter. It could have been organised and a couple of hundred metres of
I'll uphold your point of order. Please stick to your notice of motion, Councillor Dogramaci, and what has already been discussed on the floor in regards to it.
Okay, all I am saying is that there was no shortage of material. There were plenty available, and I have contacted at least three of my customers, manufacturers. The last one was Cromford, which they are in Moss Vale. They also confirmed at that time, you know, they did have that pipe, and that could have been fixed with no problems at all until the situation, or the water subsided. And the interesting thing is that this company that came and, you know, they gave us again, this should have been done. We should extend to this area. We should have done this. And naturally, the management fell for it, so they simply
Councillor, you can't say that. I don't know how many warnings I have to give you about your behaviour and what you say in this chamber. You can be held responsible for defamation if you continue down this line.
I'm not saying the staff. What the people, you know, told me. Okay, all right. Well, just excuse me for my ignorance in these matters. But all I'm saying is that— Spare parts were available. There was no shortage. And this, as a matter of fact, when it was mentioned, when Councillor Zompronio mentioned, when I suggested initially to buy two or three second-hand tankers, we could have been saving at least five million dollars during that project that would have costed us one and a half million, 1.7 million.
Thank you, Councillor. I will allow you to finish. In note, you've got 47 seconds on the clock. Your comments are whether or not we proceed to investigation.
Thank you, Councillor. Good idea. Those in favour of the notice of motion, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Calvert. I declare the motion carried. The next—
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Dogramaci, seconded by Councillor Sheather.
That:
1. Council engage an independent and suitably qualified probity investigator, auditor, lawyer or project manager, to investigate and prepare a report on:
- a) The failure of Rising Main C, following the 2022 flood event;
- b) The procuring of the contract to repair, replace and reconstruct Rising Main C;
2. The requests for quotations for the investigation be reported to Council for the procurement decision.
3. The terms of engagement for the requisite investigation, shall require, at the least, the engaged investigator to review or examine:
- a) Council's maintenance schedule and logs specific to the care and maintenance of Rising Main C, prior to the flood events of 2020-2022;
- b) All or any precautions or damage mitigation measures implemented by Council to protect Rising Main C prior to the flood events of 2020-2022;
- c) The likely cause for the failure of Rising Main C;
- d) The procurement process followed by Council when engaging the relevant contractor to repair, replace and reconstruct Rising Main C;
- e) The efficiency and effectiveness of Council's response.
The item on the agenda is item 6.1.4, notice of motion for Valley Way Road, Glossodia. Councillor Dogramaci, I'll just see if you have a seconder. Councillor Sheather. Thank you, Councillor Dogramaci.
As I mentioned in my notice of motion, that while I was in Chestnut Drive, a couple of people stopped me and asked me about that part of the road. A couple of days later, I have received a call from an extremely respected, well-known person, an engineering company, a concreter, asking me to meet him at Valley Way, which I did. I did go and we met, and we saw the devastation, and we saw the exposed Telstra cables. And we were told that Telstra was about to come in and repair their part of the project so the work could start. I have contacted Telstra, and after being put from one section to the other one, finally I managed to get hold of some people, and they said they would immediately attend so the road could be repaired.
Within a couple of weeks' time, they have repaired their part, and I have conveyed these details after I spoke with the concreter, with the businessman. He confirmed that he would repair the whole project for no more than $50,000. Couple of— That's what he told me.
Okay. That's what he told me. And a couple of days, or maybe a week later, you know, when we went there, we saw—I saw traffic controlling people, of course, a short exchange, and I was told that each one of them, you know, were getting $3,600 per week, two of them, which became 24/7, and it went weeks after weeks, months after months. I couldn't understand why nothing was done, and my understanding is when the job was finally completed, that $50,000, which I was told that, you know, the road would be repaired, I'm not sure the exact figure, but I was told it's well over $1 million. Could we —could I again ask councillors to support me on this motion, so, again, whether it's $10,000 or $15,000, some kind of investigation to find out, you know, what delayed that construction, why no responsibility was taken from, if I say it, management again, or whoever is going to do the job.
So basically I feel that, you know, another million dollars was thrown for what reason, I don't know.
Thank you. I won't be supporting this motion. I think the obvious and key difference is that council's not spent any money on this project, so it would be very foolish for us to go and spend our money investigating whether the state government spent their money effectively. As is laid out in the business paper, the state government has funded this project after council put a business case to them explaining why it was best practice and needed to be done. They have found it was a reasonable way for them to spend their money. I think it would be insane for us to go and spend ratepayers' money investigating whether the state government spent their money appropriately.
Thank you, Councillor. Anyone? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a few questions, and then hopefully a potential way forward. Some of the rumblings in the community have been around the need for 24/7 traffic management on that site. Could we have a comment on why we needed to do that? I'm clear in my head why we needed to do that, but I think it would be useful to have that on the public record. Director of Infrastructure. Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. With the damage to the culvert and particularly the washaway on the upstream side, the width of the carriageway across that culvert was such that it wasn't safe for two-way traffic to flow without any sort of controls. Initially, traffic lights were installed.
As mentioned in the business paper, they were damaged on more than one occasion, which resulted in Council engaging a traffic control officer person to monitor their use for the duration. Thank you. So because we, so we, that was a necessary cost for public safety by the sounds of that. Could we also have an explanation of the betterment funding model that this works were carried out under? Director of Infrastructure. Certainly.
Thank you, Councillor. So under the DRFA, the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, the funding is either for the restoration of a like-for-like function, so that's restoring the asset to how it previously functioned and the service that it previously delivered, or the modern engineering equivalent. Where there is a case that the
Or is going to lead to ongoing issues, such as the case with Valley Way, Council can make a case to Transport for New South Wales, which is then considered, I understand, by the Reconstruction Authority and in some instances by the National Emergency Management Authority as well, to increase or to implement a solution which is classed as betterment, that is a better asset than what had previously existed, not necessarily in condition but in function, in the way it operates. To do that, a council has to prepare a business case to identify the costs of the like-for-like treatment and also then the costs for the betterment treatment, and then it's on the basis of the increase in costs that the business case essentially is determined by the state government and potentially, I'm not entirely sure on this, the federal government as well.
Thank you. And I assume that frequently these betterment projects take longer on the ground and require far more design work than bodging up what was damaged originally.
Yes, and there's also the question of due diligence around undertaking reasonable investigations into the stability of not only what has been left by or following the natural disaster, but also what is proposed in terms of the design and what that must meet to ensure that what we are left with is a properly designed solution based on adequate and reasonable investigation.
Thank you. So , I think this is another one of these projects where there is a need to clear the air, and I say that because I think we have done the right thing in this instance. And for me, it's quite clear why we have carried out the mechanisms that we have. I think it's worth noting around betterment funding that at the Local Government New South Wales conference, the IPART recommendations were a focus on betterment consistent with recommendations for coping with climate change and also for the long-term financial health of councils. And I have to say the new Labor government seems much more aware of this, and I think that's good news for a council like ours, where we have a number of quite precarious assets over a very large LGA that is very disaster-prone.
And so I think the ability to access and therefore use betterment funding, I think, is very helpful. I'm going to attempt an amendment, which is instead of this going out to an independent investigator, for Council to simply have some more information by way of a briefing. So I've sent some words through, but they are basically that Council receive a briefing about the works carried out on Valley Way, Glossodia, that provides the information in points A through F of the original motion, and that Council then decides on further actions arising from that information.
It will allow us, I think... To put this issue to rest, it will give all councillors the information that should, I hope, settle this issue. If it doesn't, if there's something, if Councillor Dogramaci fears that something has not been done correctly in this process, or if there are learnings from this that Council should work with, then as we move forward, then so be it. I think this should be, I hope , a fairly short and circumspect process. I think we probably know many of the answers to this, and I don't think we need to pay an external body to tell us those answers. But if we've got them in a written form that councillors can refer back to, then hopefully we can put this issue to bed.
Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was going to actually move an amendment that would have been just to simply have the questions answered by staff and sent back to us. But a briefing, if we can slot it into a briefing, I guess is a similar thing. I don't see a need for a real forensic examination of the situation, given the note from management that's been provided. I've just had a question. Where it says this report was received in June 2022, that wasn't to councillors, was it? That was to the Council, I'm assuming, because I couldn't find it if it was to us. I'll just refer to— It's in the note for management on page 199.
Yeah, okay. All right, so that was to just inform, putting in the information, the business case. I think that the explanation there is quite well presented, and I do follow it, particularly around the Betterment, which I'm a huge supporter of anyway. I think that, yeah, I'll support the amendment. It would be just good to see that those answers were given to councillors and, yeah , as Councillor Wheeler said, if there is anything else that requires being asked, it could be done through that motion. I don't think we need to spend money on it. Thank you, Councillor Conolly .
Thank you. Just very briefly to say I'm going to support the amendment on the basis that I think it's a lot better than the motion. If it successfully becomes a motion, I'm still not going to vote for it on the basis that my original comment still stands that we're investigating something that the state government agency who paid for it is happy with. I wouldn't want to in any way go and find out what we've done wrong. I don't think we've done anything wrong, but if we did find we've done anything wrong, what are we going to put our hand up to the state government and say, Hey, look at what we did that you paid for? I think this is in no way in our interest at all, and it's not our money, so why are we doing it?
I was asked to go out there by some residents around the same time that I found out later Councillor Dogramaci had gone out there. And I've done that sort of work myself, and the people that rang me knew that. My estimate was similar to this. And we talked in briefings and the like, and that it was going okay apart from the time that it was taking to do. And I was getting reports back regularly about the traffic control and the like. And then I seen in the estimates what it was going to cost to fix it, and it was 1.4 million. That blew me away. We've got notes by the management here. Says it's going to cost $15,000 to have it assessed, but it doesn't say anything about how we spent the money and the like.
That's the questions that I'm getting asked. And the frustrating part for me is the people that ring me know that I do that work, and I gave them an estimate to fix it up like for like. That's not what the outcome was. I understand that. So , Councillor, there was clearly betterment involved in this, so that estimate would not have been accurate. Absolutely, and I explained that. But initially that wasn't the case. It was a blowout, an overflow and the like. But that was caused from blocked drains. And so, and the fact that it wasn't our money, well, let me tell you, it was our money. I don't care where it comes from, but they don't make it anymore. People got to provide it. And so whether it comes from state or federal government or council
It's all about those increases in prices and costs, rates and taxes and all the rest of it. And whether we're spending our money or government-supplied money, then we need to deal with it. And I'll support the amendment on the basis that I would hope that the process that we went through has been addressed to look at opportunities if this sort of thing happens again to use to construct. It wasn't a big job , but the process and the outcome, I've seen it, is a good outcome, a good project. But for two years we've got people sitting at a stoplight 24/7 and inconvenience to the public, and we can say, well, now we've finished the project, and that's terrific. But the process and how we went through that and the funding of those processes and the timeframes that took to do it, and if there's a better way, then , and we have to approach the government or the ministers.
Departments in relation to how the money is acquired and expended and the like, then that may be something that comes out of addressing these issues. Because time's money, and it was obvious because of the time it took for this process to happen that the costs blew out considerably . So I would like the staff, when they're addressing these things, that if there's opportunities where council needs to resolve, we've got the local government conference heaps of things, we're not the only one with these problems, that we approach government in relation to, if it's a feasible direction of how we do future projects, so that blowouts because of time doesn't happen and that we can get on with it and appropriately address the issue of funding.
Councillor. Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I need to correct 1F where it states that the delay in repair cost council over a million dollars. I believe that that's incorrect and that council hasn't been the funder of this project. So could we, could that just
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the matter? No. We'll put the amendment as on the board. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor... Veigel , Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly , Councillor Calvert, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Impragno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand.
No. Those abstaining? Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. The amendment now becomes the motion. Is there anyone else wishing to speak, or are we happy to go right to right of reply? Right of reply, Councillor Dogramaci.
All I would like to say is that when it comes into money, I will be chasing right to the end. I don't care who is involved, you know what is involved, but I'm happy so far. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather , Councillor Dogramaci. Hold on, so raise your hand again. Hi, everybody, please. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillors Impragno, Councillor McMahon. Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, and Councillor Calvert. I declare the motion carried. Now, councillors, the next—
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Dogramaci, seconded by Councillor Sheather.
That Council:
1. Receive a Briefing on the works undertaken on Valley Way, Glossodia to include:
- a) Provide the details of the collapse of the road, investigation and repair process.
- b) Investigate the flood history, particularly the events leading up to the flood incident involving 'the collapse' of the road above examining if any precautions taken.
- c) How did the Council know about the collapse of the road.
- d) Examine the repair process including the precautions taken by the Council.
- e) Determine the appointment of the traffic controlling operation and extensive delay in repair.
- f) Investigate the initial cost estimate $45K-50K against the delay in repair and increased cost.
2. Following the Briefing, determine the actions arising.
Next part portion of our meeting is to go into confidential. I do need to let you know that last week we moved one confidential item on block, which was item 8.3.1. We will have to reconsider that item in confidential again so that it can be read out by the general manager once we come back into the open session. Considering it was on block, it should all be the same , but you never know. But we do have to reconsider it legally for the general manager to read out the response onto the microphone. Therefore, can I have someone move we go into confidential? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Reardon. All in favour, raise your hand. Declare that one carried. We'll now move into confidential. Will we have a two-minute break? A two-minute? Yes. You can have a—we'll have a five-minute break,
Thank you, Councillors. We are now back live , and I thank everyone who was watching while we went through our confidential session. Just one moment while we ensure that we are going to have accurate recordings . What I will get first of all, before the General Manager reads out the outcome of the confidential session, is every Councillor who has a declared interest to please read their declaration into the microphone.
Councillor Reardon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to declare a non-pecuniary interest in Category 4, as I was the nominator. Lovely. Thank you very much. Councillor
Thank you, and I am making a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 8.1.1 for Categories 1, Category 3, Category 4, as I am the patron of an organisation that has a nominee. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. In regards to item 8.1.1, the 2024 Hawkesbury Australia Day Awards, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Veigel, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that Council adopt the confidential recommendation developed in closed session of Council in regard to the recipients of the 2024 Australia Day Awards. For the motion were Councillors Calvert, Djuric, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, McMahon, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno. Against the motion was Councillor Dogramaci, who abstained, and Councillor Conolly was absent for the vote.
In regards to item 8.3.1, acquisition of part of 331 Commercial Road, Vineyard, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Reardon, that: one, Council approve the acquisition of part of 331 Commercial Road, Vineyard, being proposed lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1286630, comprising an area of 722.2 square metres, for the purpose of construction of a roundabout and road widening, for the amount detailed in this report. Two, authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three , Council grant delegation to the General Manager to execute any documents on behalf of Council associated with the acquisition process which do not require the seal of Council to be affixed.
Four, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the affected landowner together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put the resolution into effect has been executed. For the vote were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, McMahon, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno.
Lastly, whilst in regards to item 8.1.2, General Manager's Performance Agreement, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Conolly, that the Council receive and note the General Manager's Performance Agreement for the 2023/2024 financial year. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Djuric, Dogramaci, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Veigel, Reardon, McMahon, Sheather, Wheeler and Zamprogno.
