Heritage Committee - 1 February 2024

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Heritage Committee meeting of the 1st of February

2024. My name is Danielle Wheeler and I'm the chair of the committee and an elected councillor.

Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. I'll hand over to Erin Wilkins to do the welcome.

Thank you, Danielle.

Just acknowledging that we are standing on, sitting on, living on, playing on, working on Aboriginal land, so has never been ceded. Hawkesbury LGA sits across the Darug and Darkinjung nations . Our culture and our heritage is deeply embedded in our landscape. Our ancestors and our stories and our sites are still here. We just need to learn to listen, to sit and watch, and to wait for guidance from our old people. So as we're discussing the heritage of the Hawkesbury LGA, also remembering that Aboriginal culture predates colonial history. Unfortunately, it hasn't had as much recorded information as colonial history, but we're still here, we're still viable, and we're still living strong. Thank you.

Thanks, Erin. I'll just run through some housekeeping. Committee members and members of the public attending the meeting in the Council chambers 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 committee meetings of Council are recorded. In terms of Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recordings 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 committee meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person doesn't wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's records management system.

I don't think we have anyone addressing the meeting. As a courtesy to others, it's requested that all mobile phones either be turned off or turned to silent. We have apologies from Michael Edwards and Deborah Hallam. Do we have any other apologies?

Apologies from John Moxon and Cindy Laws.

Thank you. As required by the Code of Conduct, committee members are required to disclose any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in relation to matters on today's agenda. Does anyone have any interests to disclose? And

I'll just reiterate that it's expected that if you address the committee, you will refrain from making an insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at the meeting. This request relates to both your address to the meeting and any answers given in response to questions from the committee.

Okay, let's move on to the meeting itself. Now, sorry, I'm just getting to the top of the... We've got the minutes from the

Previous meeting, confirmation of minutes. Does anyone have any questions or comments on those minutes from the previous meeting? It's the meeting of the 2nd of November 2023.

Could I have someone move that those meeting, that Jill, and someone second that? Thanks, Shane.

All in favour that the minutes are a true and accurate record. Thank you.

Item on the agenda for this meeting. This is an extraordinary meeting of the committee, as recommended by the teleconference that the committee had in December last year, looking at the livability project and particularly the treatment of Windsor under the livability project. So Council resolved that the committee would meet and discuss particularly paving treatments and some other issues that came to light at that meeting, and

At the meeting the Heritage Committee requested that we hold an extraordinary meeting of the Heritage Committee to pass advice via committee resolution to Council. So here we are. We have had an informal discussion about the treatment so that everybody knows exactly what we're looking at and so that we're all on the same page. And a number of issues came up at that discussion that I'll attempt to bring out in this meeting. So the recommendation that we have in front of us is that we note the information provided, note the information contained within the report on the proposed paving for stage one, and that we provided advice on a preferred option. So I'll get us to deal with recommendation two in the business paper before we move on to recommendations three and four.

So we're now discussing the proposed paving substrate for stage one. And stage one, just so everybody understands what we're talking about, is the section of the project from Windsor Station up to Fitzgerald Street.

Who would like to speak to this?

Anyone? No one. No one wants to speak to it. So we've got, I think the two options that were put to the committee were the original proposal was for a concrete substrate for the majority of the space, with a slightly different treatment in front of the heritage buildings. The recommendation from the committee at the meeting last in December was that we have

I've lost the proper name for it and I don't have, conveniently, a compacted substrate, that we have a compacted substrate underneath the paving for the duration of the run. So now we're talking about footpath treatment, footpath treatment to be clear. We're not talking about the road area of this section because we're not touching that in this part of the project. So this is the treatment underneath the footpaths in the area to be repaved, which again is not the whole section of stage one. Questions or comments, please.

Madam Chair, comment from myself .

Graham, could I just get you to pull your microphone down? Thank you. Okay

Comment from myself. I guess I'd like to understand within the compacted base and subgrade, that's referred to in engineer's detail, as to whether what is proposed will allow the free percolation of moisture up and down through that fabric. This to me is a most vital part of the alternative to a concrete substrate.

Anyone else? Any other comments?

So is the recommendation from the committee that the compacted substrate be chosen for this site, for this section of the project, over the concrete substrate, with confirmation that the compacted substrate allows better percolation of moisture at those sites?

Yeah, I can move that way, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Is everyone in agreement with that? Excellent.

So that's our recommendation for point two. And then, so—

Madam Chair, just clarifying, do we need a seconder for that, or I know you've put it—

Yes, we do. Sorry. Thanks. Jan is seconder, and everyone is in agreement. Thank you. Sorry, I've gone into greens mode rather than council mode.

Okay, point three. Recommendation three is to note the additional information will be provided to the Heritage Committee for Windsor Stage 1A and Stage 2 of the project as they are progressed. Now, we had some additional discussion around these matters, and I think it's fair to say that the committee prefers the compacted substrate option for the duration of the project from

Fitzgerald Street up to Thompson Square, and that would include the area in the middle of them all at this stage. Is that correct?

And then, could you say that again, Madam Chair? Was that the entire area between the front of buildings on both sides of what used to be the road?

Yes.

Madam Chair, if I could speak to that, I don't think that would be my preference. I think the previous tarmac area, if I could call it that, which is the area that used to be the road, may well be better served by a concrete base rather than a compacted fill base.

So you're talking about the road in the mall?

Talking about the road in the mall only,

Yep. Erin, can I get your opinion of that?

It depends on how far we're going down, I suppose. I said, like, we— I don't have an issue with what the substrate is. I have an issue with the depth of what excavation will be to put whichever is the preferred substrate

Down. Sure . So we're not required to come to a hard decision at this point, I think it's— but I do think it's helpful for the scope of the project that the committee indicates its preference at this point. It doesn't have to be a hard preference, but I think it's helpful if we have some recommendation that states that in the area adjacent to the building, we would like the compacted substrate, and we need consideration of the road area in Thompson Square, we need further information about the depth of excavation. Is that fair? Does that work for everyone? That's correct. Yep

Great. I think leaving as well with a compacted substrate, whatever it's called, substrate, sorry, allows for what, as a cultural level, allows for the DNA to flow and to be not compressed of the country itself as well. So I think there's multiple sort of levels.

So a permeable compacted substrate would be more culturally appropriate.

I think so.

Thank you.

But we're looking at areas that have already been disturbed. Absolutely. So

Yeah, and that's where that depth of excavation is really important. Shane, did you have something you wanted to add?

I just wanted to say that I think through the entire project, up against the buildings, the heritage buildings, I'd definitely like, I think we'd prefer the compacted substrate over the concrete substrate because the old buildings run right through that.

And I think the point that came out clearly in the December discussion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we need this compacted substrate to run through the length of the project, not because of the wicking effect and because of the infill development. So if we put the concrete in front of the infill, the modern infill buildings, that will still have knock-on impacts on the heritage buildings that are adjacent to them. So that's why the committee's recommendation is for the compacted substrate throughout, regardless of whether it's in front of a heritage building or not.

Okay. So are we— so I think what we've come... That's the first part of point three, I think, is that we've, I think the committee appreciates the opportunity for additional input into stages 1A and stage 2, that the committee's recommendation is for compacted substrate through the paving area at this stage, and a further discussion is required of the treatment of the former road in Thompson Square with regard to Aboriginal cultural heritage, with the current recommendation for compacted substrate as more culturally appropriate. Is that a reasonable recommendation ? This is the first part. I'm going to add another bit in a sec. I'm going to take us into the second phase of our discussion about this space, but I'm just trying to get through this bit before we move on to the second bit, because this is complex.

Madam Chair, if I can add something there, I'm a little bit perplexed in respect of what we discussed at the Zoom meeting, because it was my understanding, and I think from a couple of others around the table, that we were going to get some sort of recommendation from council's advisors or council designers of this project as to what they thought was possible. I know we've been given a brick paving substrate and two options, but I understood it was going to go further than that, that we might actually have something that we could either consider, assess and agree with or not agree with.

Could I ask one of the staff to speak to that, where we are in the process, so that that's on the record, please.

Through you, Madam Chair. At the moment, we obviously, as discussed, there is a tender that went out, which was with the concrete substrate. And then post discussions that we've been having now, there isn't a full detailed design because we were awaiting general advice about the preference to the substrate before doing a full detailed design.

So we're at the preference phase, and a detailed design will come back. Yes. And that's part of recommendation three, that the detailed design will come back to us. Is that the staff's understanding of what's happening here?

Through you, Madam Chair. My understanding was just that we were getting advice and then we would do a detailed design. The step after that with regard to, I would have to take advice from the director.

Do you want to speak to that? Stage one . Stage one. No, stage— Graeme, are you referring to stage one or?

Yes, I'm referring to the Zoom meeting that we had, yes, stage one, and I understood that we were providing advice at that Zoom meeting, although it wasn't formally recognised at that point. And I did make that point at the time that I thought that we were going to go a bit further. Clearly that hasn't happened, and this is where we're at.

Megan, do you want to speak to that?

Yeah, certainly. Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair. The teleconference, the purpose of the teleconference was to give effect to Council's resolution from the 21st of November, which was to hold a teleconference between the Heritage Committee, the Livability Project team and Council officers to provide advice with regards to the paving in Windsor. The matters, or the key issues, as you note, there were other items that were discussed at that meeting, but the purpose of the information that's being provided is to obtain a preference on the substrate treatment. But there's no intention to make any alteration to the paving design for stage one at this stage. It remains as it is out to tender.

Does that answer your question, Graham?

Well, that wasn't quite my understanding, Madam Chair.

So recommendation two, which we've just all agreed to, relates to stage one, which is that the committee recommends the compacted substrate under all the paving. That is now—we'll be fed back to Council next week in a briefing, and then it will come to the next Council meeting in a couple of weeks' time. And at the same time, the tender documents will come back, I assume. And then, is stage one coming back to this committee at all?

Through you, Madam Chair, no. It's anticipated that the tender would be awarded under delegation by Council staff, but the tender has been asked to be returned with all viable options, inclusive of the alternate substrate, as recommended by the committee, pending endorsement by Council. Sure.

So we have a clear recommendation about that substrate from the committee. We won't have the detailed design because it's part of the tender process. So that's why we needed a clear statement about what the committee was happy with. Now, there were some concerns regarding the area between the paving itself and the building. Do we want to discuss those before we move on from this?

Mary? I just had a question. Given that this is the last opportunity for input around stage one, which I think was what Graham was concerned about, with regard to the design, and excuse my ignorance on compacted substrates, but is it likely that that is suitable for the existing design, or does it have to be redesigned, I guess is what I'm saying. So you're just literally changing the substrate, nothing else changes at all? I think that's the—

Through you, Madam Chair, that's the understanding that we have as officers from the design company.

So what we see above the ground will basically be exactly the same. It's only what's underneath.

Okay. So we've never actually seen the paving design, we've never seen an actual design for all of that. Is that correct?

Apart from—

Through you, Madam Chair, it's a public tender, so it would have been available with regard to when the tender went out, and I'm not sure, obviously with my longevity at Council, if that was supplied to the committee previously.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want to speak? Yeah, certainly

Sorry, just to further that, it's consistent with the design that was reported to Council last year in terms of the herringbone pattern and the paving as is laid in Richmond Town Centre.

So I'm going to double back. Is everyone comfortable with the recommendation we have made about stage one, which is for the compacted substrate?

Madam Chair. I'd like to clarify. Yes, I am satisfied with that proviso that I mentioned, that the percolation is the most important thing of the substrate, and that we aren't actually providing a granular substrate that is going to be the same as putting a concrete base down. And I think that is really the assurance that this committee would need to actually be able to ascertain prior to our full acceptance of that. I know we've voted on it, but it seems to me that that is the critical bit

That

Is fundamental to the workability of that particular alternative. And I guess when it comes down to what the consultants actually accept or recommend to Council, I guess I would say within stage one, that's fine, but in other stages, it may well be that they recommend that a more stable base, if I say it that way, in other words a concrete slab, may be worked within the central section of the mall areas, and that may well be acceptable as far as fabric deterioration is concerned. And I think I explained the way that that would be acceptable at the last Zoom meeting.

So let's leave that as part of point two. I want to make sure that we are all sorted on stage one, because this is the last bite at that cherry. Let's be clear. This is out to tender. We can't and will start in April. This is the last go at this. So we are calling for a compacted substrate that allows the free percolation of moisture from the buildings on site. Now , there were additional comments made in the discussion around checking drainage of the buildings involved, and there was some discussion around a permeable space between the compacted substrate with the paving on top and any heritage buildings in that space as well. So I think they are probably additional to the recommendation for the compacted substrate, that the buildings are checked for drainage, or the drainage of the buildings is checked, and that there is a permeable space between the paver and the building.

Are we happy with that?

You raised, Graham, that if the paver was hard up against the building, the fabric of the building, that that could be as detrimental, either you or Michael, as detrimental as concrete. So there will — and we can't see that in the design. Sure

I agree with that. But if we're going to a compacted substrate that does what we've asked it to do, then that's not an issue, is it?

Well, if we agree that that's not an issue, then we don't need to worry about it

Yeah, well, that's why we've said that the paving must allow free percolation of moisture. That's that clause in the recommendation. Are we happy with that recommendation?

Madam Chair, it's not exactly circulation of moisture, it's absorption of moisture, I would think

Up and down. Why is there up?

Yeah, for— Oh, right. Yeah, particularly at the bottom of, particularly at the bottom down near McQuaid Park, it will be a — the lower we get down the hill, the more that will be a problem.

Okay. Are we good on one? Excellent, let's move on. So recommendation three is around the Heritage Committee receiving additional information. So the discussions that we had are around the depth of excavation. So the issues we had are the depth of excavation, the concrete paving— sorry, the preferred substrate in both the road and the footpath areas of Stage Two, the interpretation of the original village that has come to light very recently, and the summary and the treatment of Aboriginal artefacts.

And the final issue is the reuse of sandstone curbing. I want to discuss those items now so that we have a clear discussion on the record with recommendations made at this stage before we progress further along. Firstly, so that we don't have to have it all again. So we'll get it on the record once. And then that way we can give the staff some guidance when this goes out to tender so that, again, we don't have to unpick this and make it more difficult as it goes forward.

So, the discussion we've had so far is around whether we would use the— so I think we're all agreed that the compacted substrate needs to be up against the buildings.

We need a further discussion about the road area that will be repaved, about how that is handled, and the recommendation from an Aboriginal cultural heritage perspective is that compacted substrate is used there rather than concrete. Now, I don't think we need to come to a firm decision on that at this point, but I think we should note, as a committee, that the recommendation from the Durrag member of this committee is for compacted substrate for cultural reasons. So I'm going to build that into the recommendation. The next issue is around heritage artefacts. Erin, do you want to speak to that?

Thank you. I think the only issue that we had was the depth of the excavation was going— how far deep it was going to be. We understand that it is already extremely disturbed areas, but if it's going to go below an existing disturbance level, some sort of monitoring needs to be allowed , whether it be monitoring at certain points or whether it be constant monitoring, which we've done on other projects where somebody just sits, and every time an excavator or every time a load of dirt has been removed. Someone just steps through it very, very quickly, just to see and make sure there's nothing that comes out of that particular part.

I think we just need to know exactly how far they're going to go. Like, we can say as a committee or as council to whoever wins the tender that this goes to this level. When the excavation actually happens, we cannot guarantee that they will go to a particular level, and that is my concern, especially up around the mall. However, the whole area, stage 1A and stage 2, really need to be kind of thought about on that level, especially if there's tree removals because of roots.

Okay, so , I don't want to put words into your mouth, but we need something for the record. Would you be comfortable with that the Heritage Committee requires information about the excavation level for stages 1A and 2, and notes that any excavation below the existing level will require inspection?

I think yes, that we would like to know. I'm not going to speak for all of you, but I would like to know the depth that they're going to go, and I think it's the monitoring, if they do go below that level, the monitoring of that excavation is to be handled.

Yeah. Should be monitored?

It should be

Monitored

If we're going to

Go below that level. By monitored by whom? Aboriginal people,

Dharug people. I can't.

Okay, so it looks like the committee requires information about the excavation level, excavation depth. Notes that any excavation below, an excavation or tree removal below the existing disturbance level should be monitored by Dharug people.

By a Dharug person or by a registered Aboriginal party belonging to the Sydney Basin. By a, sorry? A registered Aboriginal party

With connection to Sydney Basin.

Okay. Madam Chair,

I support what Erin is saying, but I don't think any of us know what is under the paving currently within the mall . Like, is the road surface still there? Is, you know, where is the paving now? Is it actually sitting on top of that road surface? We don't know these things, and until we do know these things, then we really can't comment, surely.

So would we like to know? Well

I would like to know, Madam Chair, and I think the committee should know before we can make prudent decisions.

So would the committee like information about the likely excavation depth?

And perhaps what is existing, Madam Chair.

Do you want to ask for a site visit once they've uncovered it? Is that workable? Well

No, I think there needs to be some trial excavation, surely, so that you actually know the depth of whatever it is that's under there.

Michelle?

Just out of interest, on one of the local Facebook pages—

Can you put your microphone on? No, the other one. Other one. Turn that one off.

It's high tech in here, I tell you.

On one of the local Facebook pages in the last few days, somebody has posted some photos of the construction of the moor, which I have not seen before, and they're quite interesting. And it looks like—I can pass them around—it looks like they've actually dug up the road. It looks like they've gone down quite deep , and there's, like, sand and dirt. So that— I've never seen those pictures before, and they're quite interesting. I can save them and send them around.

Madam Chair, my question related to that is what sort of a watching brief is going to be kept for any European artefacts that are found as well?

Do we have— can I ask the staff to respond to that, if we have any plans? Yeah,

Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair, as committed to at the teleconference in December, there's been a large number of planning reports, permissions— thank you, sorry —and documents and applications made as part of the Windsor Liveability Project. Now, some of that includes excavation permits, which would certainly address, and excavation supervisors, which would address what is uncovered during the works in terms of identification and documentation . The committee will be provided with access to all of these documents post this meeting, but it does include applications for an excavation permit and some test excavation to occur in George Street, Windsor. So we can certainly take it on notice in terms of what material may be underground and what is known to date, and provide further advice back to the committee.

Sure. So would people be comfortable then if we add to this recommendation, so following the clause about the monitoring by an Aboriginal person , that the committee seeks further information about the results of test excavations in the Stage 2 site.

And also, if anything else is turned up accidentally, and not just a report on it, but I think if it's something that's reasonably interesting, we need it kept.

So you need some sort of watching brief if things are being turned up. It may never happen, but it may.

Through you, Madam Chair, the heritage protection plan, although I'm not across all of the detail, it does outline all the different processes for that to occur, and that will be something that the committee will get access to.

So will the committee, the heritage protection plan will come in that suite of documents? Thank you. So I'll just note for the public record that the committee will be provided after this meeting with a link to an electronic suite of documents that will include previous reports and that heritage protection plan for the site. So if you can't access that, please get in touch. We will also work out a way where you can come and access a hard copy for some of those documents, which may be difficult to read in electronic form. Graham?

Madam Chair, yes, just, I guess taking on board what Megan has advised, and it does say the document is an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit, AHIP number whatever, Winter Public Domain Upgrade, tree installation and test excavations. Do we know that—are they already done, or is that something that's proposed within the approval process? And I guess the other thing, just in regard to what my colleagues are asking for as far as oversight, if we actually—if Council already has an excavation permit, then all of those details are already identified, and this information should come to us.

Do you want to speak to that? Yes,

Certainly. Through you, Madam Chair, with regards to the status of testing, that's something that we'll need to take on notice and provide an update to the committee. But yes, as previously mentioned, all of this documentation will be made available to the committee.

It's been done for both, for general excavation and for Aboriginal excavation, from what it looks like on here, because there's two permits.

So I need a recommendation from the committee that we can take to Council. So is that recommendation for further information about the test excavations and heritage treatments? Some of that will come in that report. Are you comfortable with that as an additional recommendation, or an additional clause in this recommendation? Yes

Madam Chair, I think that's particularly important, and I think Jan Barkley-Jack would know as well that there was a section that was excavated up in Thompson Square many years ago during Gary McCully's general manager time , where I think it was found a historic subgrade to the road, which was obviously quite important. Now, I don't know what happened to that, whether any further work has exposed that or got rid of it, or whether it still remains, and whether that subgrade, depending on how significant it is, whether that should actually be retained and preserved.

So, do we have document—does anyone have documentation of that that they could share? No

Madam Chair, but I saw it. It was cobbles. It was wooden cobbles.

Could you tell us the location of that?

Between the top of Thompson Square and the fish shop and the other shops in that, directly opposite Thompson Square.

Right. So, Stage

1A.

It was quite close to the surface. They found it, and I think they just made the road over the top of it and left it, but I'm not sure about that. But Gary called me up to have a look at it.

Right. So, it's possible that that is still there and will come up in this excavation. I think this is particularly important because we've had a number of projects where people have sunk excavators into bits of Windsor and then gone, Oh look, never knew that was there, when it had been quite clear that it was there all along. The museum might be a case in point. So, I think anyone who has this information, I think it would be really helpful to bring it forward in whatever form you choose, because it really will save a lot of bother and a lot of loss, I think, when we hit the ground.

Madam Chair, there's also not that far below the surface has been revealed a brick barrel drain in the terrace at the bottom of Fitzgerald Street, and that was quite close to the surface because the road just collapsed and made it obvious. Yes .

And again, even bits outside the project area, if you're aware of them, please report them to Council, either through the Heritage Committee or through some other means to the Heritage Officer, so that we can make a record of them, so that we don't— Because we know how these things disappear in the night, unfortunately.

Yeah. And the other thing, Madam Chair, is that Macquarie started drainage on the corner of Cross Streets in Parramatta and Sydney in the 1810s. And whether or not he extended this into the other towns is an unknown factor. But he certainly put drainage on the corners of the main streets in Sydney and Parramatta.

Okay, let's move on to the next bit. We've dealt with excavation . Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure we get everything covered before we break up. The interpretation of the original village, which is the subject of Jan Barkley-Jack's PhD, which shows Windsor to be older than previously thought , there has been a suggestion that we use some of the paving or some of the treatment of the paving , the paving treatment or some other treatment in the project to delineate the original village markings . Now, that would be something that the committee would like to flag for further discussion in Stage 1A and 2, but also flag that the paving stage of Stage 1 would be a useful time to have that flagged as well, given that much of the Much of the original, much of that original town is in that Stage 1 section. Jan, do you want to speak briefly to that?

Yes. Well, the original village went to an auction. The lots went to an auction in May 1806, and that was related to the land from Fitzgerald Street down to Rickaby's Boundary, which was almost to the current McQuade Park. So that that Fitzgerald Street down would need to be part of that interpretation and a very integral part of it, being the oldest. In terms of what we know, it would probably only be four lots. I only know of four definite locations for lots. So it's not a massive lot of signage that we'd be asking them to consider. But the Cross Street, Fitzgerald Street, is important because it's not just the town layout; it signifies the village layout. And I think we should be talking to the consultants about this now for Stage 1, so we don't just later on have to dig it all up if it's possible to incorporate it in the paving.

Yes, Madam Chair, if I can add to that, I believe that this is quite important because this is pre-Macquarie. So this is pre-1810, 1811. And so the formation of Windsor wasn't fully by Macquarie; it was already there. He just manipulated it a little bit and went from there. Like, there's been— I've heard of other people saying, Well, you know, it's all Macquarie's fault. Well, the bones had already been laid out prior to his time.

I think it's fair to say that there were definitely people there well before Macquarie's time, hence the very notable corroborree site up in what will become Stage 2. So I think these are discussions that we need to have. Unfortunately, this information has come to light very, very recently, and so that's why it hasn't been built in previously. Jan, did you want to speak again? I just wanted to say

That what Graeme was saying, and say that the village was left absolutely intact. Macquarie did nothing to the village except straighten a few streets, which meant getting rid of a couple of small houses and things. But the village was left intact, and Macquarie planned the town around it. So the town was actually planned around it.

The village remained intact.

Thank you. So, an additional, I guess the clause here is that, well, could someone feed me a recommendation for the treatment of this section?

Madam Chair, I would like to see

The entire development from the entire livability project from Thompson Square down to almost to the Reekerby's boundary at the southern end, be interpreted in the paving in some way . And not just stages 1A and 2. And for that purpose, it's important that we get the information to the consultants so that if it can be incorporated from the beginning in some form of interpretive paving or circular, the circular in-ground notices, then the consultants could consider that for stage one.

Okay, so let's pull it out as a separate recommendation that the committee recommends information regarding the pre-Macquarie village layout of Windsor. Sorry, Graham?

I'm pulling this out as a separate item. So, sorry, now I've lost my train of thought now. Sorry. That the committee recommends that the information regarding the pre-Macquarie town of Windsor be incorporated into— Village, please call it a village, or an urban area. Yep. —be incorporated into the interpretation plan for Windsor. Is that fair? For all three sections. For all three stages. Now, that may be very difficult for stage one, which is already out to tender, and I suspect the plaque option is going to be the easiest to do as almost an add-in. Because some sort of paving delineation, I think, is probably stretching the friendship a little bit much.

Through you, Madam Chair, I think if we get the information as quickly as possible, and that gives us the best chance to consider it.

So what information exactly do you want?

The information that was referred to in the briefing from Jan with regard to location. That is, okay,

So you want the location, and I think we'll need that in as digestible a format as possible for the—given that this is a whole PhD worth of information, I think you'll want a fairly digestible bit of stuff for the consultant. All right. So that can come out as a separate clause. I'm sorry to the minute secretary. This is—okay, next

Excuse me, Madam—sorry. Yes, Madam Chair. Through you, Madam Chair, I'm just wanting to clarify, given that the village that predated Windsor was actually not called Windsor; it was called Green Hills. But the village

In the Green Hills, because the Green Hills was the wider area with all the hills, but we just nowadays just conflate that to the Green Hills Village. So, you know, the only name that's written down for it is the village in the Green Hills, but I think it would be acceptable to call it the Green Hills Village. Yes

So what I was—the point I was making was should that be named in any interpretation, the name used.

So, Jan, could we ask for a recommendation for the name used to come with that information to the consultant? That's a good point. Thanks, Cheryl. Okay . Next.

Could I also ask when we do that, that we are conscious, and I'm not going to add this to the recommendation, that we are conscious that when we use the words original village, and I know I've used them myself this evening, that they are not the original dwellers on that site, and that we be really careful with the language that we use to acknowledge that, you know, that we whitefellas are Johnny-come-latelys on this space.

All right, next. So we've done that.

Now we're up to the sandstone. So we've had lengthy discussions in the working group for the Windsor Bridge artifacts group around what's appropriate for reuse from the artifacts that we've obtained from Thompson Square and the Windsor Bridge replacement project. And I wanted to have a discussion on the public record and a recommendation from Council about where we have to replace sandstone in some of these spaces, whether it's appropriate to use the sandstone that we obtained from those other two projects or not. And so I would seek your guidance as to how the sandstone should be treated and what we could do where we need to replace that sandstone. We've had a recommendation from Council's heritage officer, which I will get him to repeat now on the record, about what happens when the top of the sandstone is less than attractive.

Madam Chair, I was just saying in the previous meeting briefing that my experience is that sandstone that is there, it may have had the top portion of it, like an iceberg, broken, but there is a large portion of that stone which goes well below the road level. And my experience is, working with other council employees in another council area, is that you can readily flip those stones and redress the top of the stone, and you've got the original material in situ, unchanged. But there is a difficulty, which I didn't mention earlier, is that over time, council may have replaced those stones that have been broken, and with concrete. So I've no easy solution for those. There may be like teeth missing in a mouth. You may have to replace some of those stones with sandstone if you want a consistent sandstone effect in your streets.

Which brings us to this part of the discussion. So where the teeth are too far gone, what do we replace them? So in the case of the sandstone of Windsor, and we know that some of that, I mean, look, it was designed for horses and carts and now deals with, you know, trucks and heavy vehicles. So some of it isn't up to, you know, some of it is no longer attractive and some of it's just gone. So we do have this collection of sandstone at the depot from various other things , but particularly from the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project and Thompson Square. Can I have some comments from the committee around what is appropriate to be reused out of those, given that we don't have recommendations from the Windsor Bridge... Replacement project artefacts group at this stage. Jill.

Yes. What springs to mind is the walk along between the museum and Howe's House. I think they were the bricks reused from Macquarie St Matthew's Church when Macquarie wasn't happy with the workmanship and he had that work redone. I think that wall there, and it looks quite interesting, is an example of something like this. Okay. Any other comments? Shane.

Do we still need to identify in storage what's less significant in the sandstone, and possibly look towards utilising some of the less significant pieces of sandstone?

I think we are still waiting for the full inventory to come back and a list of actually what's what and where it's originally from, and so I think it would be fair for the committee to ask for that inventory to come back to the Heritage Committee before we can make a full recommendation. Mary

Yes, I was going to say a similar thing, but yes, certainly ask for that list to come back. But even preempt, like, to save, because of the delay between meetings and everything, just to preempt that we would categorise, on the advice that's given, sorted into whether, you know, things are from significant locations or whatever, just to save a step. And Jill, were you talking about the wall of the Macquarie Arms?

No, I was talking about the wall next to the path when you go out the back way from the museum and walk over towards the bridge. There's a whole wall there, and I think they were the sandstone bricks which were—

I

Thought that was the Macquarie

Arms wall.

No, no, this one. It's interpreted there. There's a sign there to say that it came from St Matthew's Anglican Church because apparently Macquarie wasn't happy with the workmanship and he asked for it to be redone. Yeah, and it's quite fascinating. Very good condition.

Graham?

Madam Chair, if I can add to this discussion, look, I think there's two documents that are appropriate for anyone to actually look at, and one is the Conservation Management Plan for Thompson Square that was prepared by Lucas, Stapleton and Johnson. An incredibly detailed and good document, but I don't know whether it actually gives recommendations as to any excavated material or removed material of sandstone origin, where they would have proposed that to be utilised. But that, I think, is probably stage one. The next would be the ECHMOS Burracada provides guidelines for appropriate use and reuse of material, and I think that is fairly self-explanatory. But I did say at the meeting, I think I would—this is my personal preference—I would prefer to see the stone reused within Windsor , if it came from Windsor, rather than to stay in council store and just degrade.

And I would have thought that that should be the basis of any reuse of material, that it be appropriately used as close as possible to its original position. Obviously, if If the hewing of the stone is able to be achieved by the size that is already there, then that becomes an alternative. But if the size is too small or can be better utilised elsewhere because of its size, then so be it. That might be another option for another project. But I guess my

Intention would be, within the livability project, for this committee to be recommending that, yes, sandstone replace all of those bits that aren't sandstone as far as curbing and guttering now, and, or certainly curbing, so that we don't have the mouth with bits of teeth missing, like has happened at Richmond. There's bits in in there that are sandstone, and there's bits there that are concrete, and there's bits that are broken away. So what you've got there is a dog's breakfast. I don't want Windsor to end up being a dog's breakfast too. So that would certainly be my recommendation at this point.

Thank you. And I did ask Michael Edwards for his recommendations before he left, and he— so I'll just read those onto the record. The Windsor Bridge Working Group previously made the recommendation to take an inventory of the

Something store to enable identification of possible provenance and significance, which will then enable informed decisions on the reuse and interpretation. Generally, reusing stone in a similar manner to its assigned use is acceptable. SESNOC Council has guidelines for salvage and reuse of curb stones, which may be of benefit. So based on everything you've said, is this a reasonable recommendation that the Heritage Committee recommends — Rehuning where possible, and that sandstone replace missing sandstone through the kerb and guttering of Windsor. That where rehuning isn't possible, that an inventory of the Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge replacement project sandstone be provided so that its provenance and significance can be assessed.

That Council refer to the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan and Ecomos Borough Charter regarding reuse, and that reuse within Windsor, in as close a manner as possible to the original use of the stone, is preferable.

Does that encompass the discussion adequately?

Madam Chair, I'd like to see not just the Thompson Square stone, but if there were generic kerb stones that have been previously taken out that are in store, that they be included, and also that we need the listing particularly so that we can see any unique kerb stones that need to be kept and distinguish between those and the generic stones which would be easily used.

So where I've said an inventory of the Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge replacement stone, an inventory of heritage sandstone held by Council. Well, yes, I

Think they've got to have been generic kerb stoning. That would be my term.

Sure.

From other side. Are

People happy with that now ?

Excellent. What's left of my long list of things we had to tackle? What have I left out?

Madam Chair, this whole project actually gives Council and others the opportunity to actually reinterpret George Street as a street.

And

I think that the utilisation of some of these bits that may not be worthwhile for kerbing and need the depth of the kerbing could be utilised as facings or a different material appearance within the interpreted streetscape. And I think this would be important as an, sorry, as a Macquarie Street as such, because I'm sure it's actually changed a fair bit since then. Certainly, I think the sandstone came much later, in the later 19th century, so that we're not looking at disturbing original fabric, but we're looking at reintroducing what used to be there at a very early stage of Windsor's development.

So are you talking about delineating the original street in the mall itself ?

Well, I think this gives, I think there's an opportunity for that to happen. And I think I had mentioned at the previous meeting that it also gives the opportunity for drainage from From the paving to that sort of curbing or that sort of delineation of the street. But it also gives a little bit of variation to the central section of the roadway for whichever design the consultants come up with, it would be appropriate.

So would you be happy with an additional recommendation that the committee recommends exploring the use of heritage sandstone to mark out the original street through the mall? Yeah

That sounds fine to me.

Okay .

And the original cross streets and the intersection with the original cross streets, which is only Fitzgerald and Baker. Yeah, okay.

All right. I'm going to apologise in advance to the minute secretary who has to unpick this. Is everyone comfortable that they understand what we're about to vote on?

Because we are relying very heavily on the fact that this is taped, although I can see the minute secretary typing frantically over there. So I'm just going to go back to the original recommendation in the business paper now. I think we have covered Points two and three adequately. The final, but I will note in point three that additional information will be provided to the committee for Windsor Stage 1A and Stage 2 of the project as they progress. And I think we've had that, that we appreciated that at the beginning of the recommendation. So we will note that that is the committee's expectation, that we will have further input into those stages as they come to light. But what we have tried to do this evening is give some guidance so that we're not blindsiding the staff and the consultants as we get to those stages, and it doesn't become even more difficult to unpick.

Recommendation four is to note the director city planning will coordinate future consultation as required on Dharug heritage and the Windsor stages of the Livability Project. Erin, do you want to speak to any of that further?

Sure. The director city planning will coordinate future consultation as required on Dharug heritage and the Windsor stages of the Livability Project.

I think it needs to be, so the point of contact period is also quite important. So yes, we want information about Dharug and any Aboriginal heritage, but I think point of contact or point of settlement or whatever we want to call that,

That actually can feed into pre-colonial and post-colonial or post-settlement eras as well. So I think, yes, we want as a Dharug community... We need to be fully across everything, but I think it really still needs to come back to the entire Heritage Committee because of that point of contact period that

Will be discussed at that time as well. So do you want to change that recommendation to reflect that, to make that point more strongly? I think so. I don't know how to. Okay. So maybe we keep the original note that the Director City Planning will coordinate future consultation as required on Durrie Heritage and the Windsor stages of the livability project, and note that Windsor is , that Windsor,

Or that the project site is an important area for first contact , and further discussions will be required with the Heritage Committee to deal with both pre-colonial and post-settlement heritage . Is that reasonable? Yep Yep.

Cheryl? I'm just, when I read point four, it wasn't clear to me that it refers to future consultation with the Heritage Committee. Is that what it means?

Through you, Madam Chair, the original resolution was written as a base on the teleconference to actually have pre-emptive communication prior to getting into the other stages with regard to those areas of concern we'd been discussing.

So it refers to future consultation with this committee. Okay. It doesn't say that. I think it would be good to make that really explicit.

Yeah. So that's the second part. Yep, and I think that's important, that we are dealing—we actually have several really important periods going on in Windsor, and I think that's something that we learnt from the Windsor Bridge replacement project, that we tend to think of heritage in this pre-European, post-European dichotomy. And I think we are now expanding our understanding that Windsor— one of the things that was uncovered by the Windsor Bridge replacement project was that extraordinary first contact period and the information that was yielded there. And that, I think, that's part of a much bigger area of understanding around contact, but also around First Nations heritage in this country as well.

Are we happy with that? Could I have someone—Erin, are you happy to move that? Cheryl, can I ask you to second that? Great. So now we have this lengthy series of recommendations. Is it possible for the minute secretary to read those back?

Madam Chair, before we do—

Graham

I think we've missed something .

Good. Tell me what

We've missed. And I think it is the realisation that it's the committee's view that verandas and awnings in front of heritage items will not prevent rising damp deterioration.

Would you like that added to recommendation

Two Yes, I would, please.

Okay. Sorry. So could you just repeat that, please? So, point two, which — Oh

It's the committee's view. If I can say it that way, that verandas and awnings in front of heritage items will not prevent rising damp deterioration, or the effects of rising damp, it should be.

So we now have a lengthy series of recommendations that we have come to consensus on throughout. Do you want to hear back everything that you've consented to, that you've reached consensus on, or is that possible, or do you want to wait for a written

Well, you have progressively. You have voted on each recommendation progressively Can we get it up? Oh, she's good.

Look at that.

You get one each, Graham. You don't have to sit on Cheryl's lap. Oh, it's not on. Okay. Oh.

So I'll read them out for the record. So the committee's recommendations are: one, note the information provided; two, note the information contained within the report on the proposed paving substrate for Windsor Stage One and request the Heritage Committee provide advice on a preferred option. So, and the advice is that the compacted substrate option is preferred treatment pending confirmation that this option provides for better percolation. The drainage of the buildings is checked. The committee's view is that the veranda and awning in front of heritage items will not prevent damp . Rising damp

We could probably take out heritage items and just have rising damp, because there is concern that the rising damp will spread. Are we happy with two?

No.

No , just that I don't think it should say, and request the Heritage Committee. I think it's a recommendation, so it's just that the Heritage Committee advises the preferred option is. So note the— Note the recommendation and the preferred.

And that the— sorry, take out the and. That could be a full stop after stage one. Full stop. The Heritage Committee provides the following advice.

Advises. Yeah, the Heritage Committee advises the following.

Colon. Take that out, the next bit out. And then there's probably three points there: that the compacted substrate, that the drainage of the building is checked.

Yeah, so there's a third. Just go up to, yeah.

Yep. Great. Are we all happy? Yes . Okay. Point three. Note that additional information will be provided to the Heritage Committee for Windsor Stage 1A and stage two of the project, other as they are progressed. So that, I guess the committee will be noting that additional information. So we're noting that that information will be provided to us and that that's now our expectation. The Heritage Committee requires information about the excavation depth. Notes that any excavation or tree removal below the existing disturbance level for stage one and two should be monitored by Darug people and/or a registered Aboriginal party with connections to the Sydney Basin. Erin, is that wording? You comfortable with that wording?

There'll be a bit, well, stage...

Yep .

So stage 1A1 and 2. Yep. 1A1 and 2, and if we could change that to stages.

Yep. Are you happy with the rest of that clause, Erin? The Heritage Committee seeks further information about the results of the test excavation in the stage 2 site. Are we happy with that?

Yes

Stage 1, so 1A and 2

Sites and stages.

Okay. Point 4, the committee recommends information regarding the pre-Macquarie village of Windsor be incorporated into the interpretation plan for Windsor at all stages. Do we want to change the name of Windsor there, the pre-Macquarie village of Green Hills? Yes.

Oh no, leave that as Windsor. Second Windsor is okay. It's the first Windsor. Yep

Is there a... you've got pre-Macquarie twice. It's all right, she's getting there

Happy with that? Capital H for Hills.

Yep. Yeah, we'll tidy up. We'll tidy up all the...

Happy with point 4? Point 5. The committee recommends rehuning that are EW.

W. It's a W rather than a U.

Madam Chair, could I just make one quick suggestion that it be in situ, the words in situ.

Whereabouts?

So, well, you've got rehuned sandstone, it should be in situ.

Following

Sandstone? No, you've got

Recommends in situ sandstone.

Oh no, rehuning.

In situ sandstone. In situ. Okay, you'll have to tell, can you tell, point at them rather than... Okay, so we've got rehun, rehun in situ.

In brackets, in situ.

Sorry. TU, close brackets. And replace missing sandstone where rehuning isn't possible. That council referred to the... This is probably a multi, I think this is probably a multi-clause recommendation , so the committee recommends

That council refer to the Thompson Square Conservation Management Plan, that needs to be capitalised,

And the Ickamoss Borough Charter.

Borough

Charter. That, now I think in here we're missing the clause around council, about the committee receive an inventory, that the committee receive an inventory of heritage sandstone held by council.

And that— sorry,

Sorry, just go back — to consider provenance and significance

And that any heritage sandstone

Reused within Windsor

Is as close to the original use as possible. Is that fair? Too long, that's.

It's earlier position.

Earlier position

Earlier, yes. Earlier use, thank you.

We might end up sending some of it back.

We might end up sending some of it quite a long way back.

From where it was taken. I

Know.

So that last sentence can come out.

And where original is in that sentence, it's earlier use

And take original out.

Are we happy with that? I

Know it's a very long sentence. No, I'd put a full stop after significance and have another last sentence. All right. So you want a full stop after significance.

Stop. That any heritage sandstone. Is that right? Are you happy with that?

Just any

Heritage sandstone.

Any

Heritage sandstone. All right. Take that out. Now are you happy?

It should be rehuing, not rehuning.

So take out the N.

Have we got any other school teachers in the room? I'm not a school teacher, just an advocate. How are we going?

Are we going to write as close as earlier use and location as possible? Or are we worried about putting it back where it came from?

Do you want to put earlier use and location?

Now are you happy? This is your last go. Yeah, we'll do the tidying up. It's okay.

Six. The committee recommends exploring the use of heritage sandstone to mark out the original street through the mall and the original cross streets. Earlier. earlier streets.

You'll be accused of being woke, and it will be all the Greens' fault. I know.

Happy? Seven.

Note the Director City Planning will coordinate future consultation as required on Durag heritage and the Windsor stages of the liveability project, and note that the project site is an important area for first contact. I think first contact should be capitalised. And further discussions will be required with the heritage committee to deal with pre-colonial and post-settlement

Artefacts, finds, heritage... Pick a word,

Please. Matters. Thank you. Matters. Sure. It was your word. It makes it clearer. I'm just going to be very pedantic, and I'm putting my councilor shoes on and thinking when this comes to the chain, for

An

Explanation

Would it be better, number seven, to begin with a statement around what first contact actually is? Like, just something just saying that, and then saying that because we want to, you know, like, I just think where you read it, unless somebody's going to give a big explanation, because it sort of looks like the Director of City Planning is having some sort of first contact with someone.

Okay. I think it might be useful to pull the bottom sentence out and put it first. Note that the project site is an important area.

Just lead into it, and then to address that, the Director of City Planning will continue the consultation as appropriate. Do you now feel like it

Needs a word about first contact, or you're happy? No, because— no, it's referring to it though rather than the other way around. Yep. Okay. Is everyone comfortable with that?

To address this comma, the Director City Planning. Lovely. Now are you all happy? No, Erin.

For— yes

For Durrag people. Yes.

Comma, first contact.

And first contact, yep. Great. Comma after first contact, please.

Matters was the suggestion, because it's all-encompassing, and hopefully you can't argue about it

And Heritage Committee needs capitalising. Happy? Can everyone see all the

Recommendations? I have one further amendment, if it's possible. It's in three, and I think it's clause two, where we're talking about Heritage Committee requires information about the excavation depth and da da da da, and the Durrag people being involved. I would have thought that that is— should that not already be identified within the Section 140 excavation permit? Because that's already identified the process.

It is, but it is, but I think we want to reiterate that we want that done

Well, I don't think we want to look stupid either. I don't think— and if we've already got an approved process, then..

Process that has that the register. Erin

Put your microphone on.

I'm not sure what is exactly in the one you're talking about,

But yeah

Registered Aboriginal parties don't always have to be on site for monitoring, so that's what I'm distinguishing.

So you want an additional layer of protection. Yeah. Yeah, that's, I think that's fine. Are we now

Comfortable with point three? Should we say then, in addition to Section 140 excavation permit then, if that's the point you're making.

So, comma, in addition to the Section 140 permit.

While you're on number three, registered Aboriginal parties all have capitals, RAPs or RAPs.

Did

You get that, Andrew?

Madam Chair, was that where we were going to put the European heritage artefact?

I think that's where we get up to the stages 1A and 2 excavation test results.

That's the European heritage

Where is the European heritage? It seeks further information about the results of the test excavation.

Are

We good

Now

Are we all happy now? This is your last call.

Did you need that change, Jan?

The European artefacts, for any European artefacts found? Yes. I think we should include it. I don't think that's very clear.

So what do you—? All results.

Heritage Committee seeks further information about results of the test excavation in stages 1A and 2 sites, and the

Provision to be made for keeping European artefacts found

The artefacts, yeah. But , I mean, it's not specified that it's European.

Sorry, where's that? Sorry, Erin, can you put your light on and say it again?

The Heritage Committee seeks further information about the results of the test... I think it just needs to be, Heritage Committee seeks the provision of, like, the result of the... We want the report. The Heritage Committee

Requests the report of... The results of the test excavation. Yeah.

Unless you put the word European in, it looks like it's still referring to the clause above, which is just Aboriginal. The results of the

So

Maybe we put Aboriginal and European artefacts

Test excavations relating to Aboriginal and European artefacts

Yes. I think the word European should go in as well. I'm putting it in, Jill.

Test excavation for Aboriginal and European artefacts.

For the stages, so ‘for’ instead of ‘in’

And information about the provision made.

About provisions to be made for keeping any artefacts. Are we happy with that now? Yes. Right. Are you happy with all of them? Yes . Can I have someone please move this job lot? Cheryl. Can I have someone second it? Jill. Thank you.

Right. That concludes

I move to give the minute secretary a round of applause. Yes.

And thank you.

This committee is renowned for working its minute secretaries very hard. Michelle.

I just, I just wanted to flag as well through the Chair that this type of project — I didn't say it before, but I just wanted to say — this type of extensive public works project has not really, on such a large scale in all of those parts, has not really been done before, and I think... I know people might find that the committee's being pedantic, but we may never get an opportunity like this again. We've been in the past with what's happened around the bridge and Thompson Square. We just want to make sure that this is the importance of this, and recognising what might, what could happen if we don't do it properly, but what we might discover if it's recorded and that. Because there's also, like, except for the pedestrian mall and then probably the Great Fire in George Street, there's never been anything that's been so extensively that's affected such a large area.

And I just want to just, like, the unique Aboriginal and European history that might be located. It's really important.

I think it's a really, really valid point, Michelle. I'm wondering if you want to add that as an opening to the committee's recommendation. It does Yeah. I think that's a— do you want to put that into some words, and instead of one, I think note the information provided. Note the information provided,

And that the committee just wanted to flag in regards to this project that this type of extensive public works has not been done on such a large scale covering— Just slow down a tiny bit. Only a tiny bit because she's good. — covering a large area of Windsor since the 1874 fire and the construction of the pedestrian mall, and we need to be— Very mindful of the very unique.

Slide down. Go back. Go back to the 1870... 1874.

And the construction

Of the pedestrian mall. And we need to be very mindful of the unique Aboriginal and European heritage that may be discovered.

Michelle, would you like to add in, and the detail that has to be considered in such projects? Yes.

Well done.

Happy with that? Okay. Are the movers and seconder happy with the addition of that? Cheryl? Yes. Great. All right. Thank you, everyone. That concludes the meeting, unless the staff have anything they'd like to add. They probably just really want to go home. Thank you, everyone, for your input. I think that was really valuable. I think the more we stay engaged with this process, and the more we have this free flow of information between the staff and the committee, the less difficult this process will become as we go forward with the detailed design, particularly of the remaining stages. And hopefully then the project can roll out more easily. So thank you to the staff for making time for the discussion, and thank you to all of you for coming and giving your input and expertise. It's very much appreciated. It will be probably—will it come back to the next council meeting?

So they're coming to the briefing next week. You'll have to rely on the forumers to remember everything

You've said. No, look, through you, Madam Chair. The resolution that was made at the meeting on the 21st of December specifically provided for the teleconference for the committee to provide advice regarding the paving. That is the advice that will be coming back to the council meeting on the 13th of February, and it's anticipated that this Heritage Committee meeting minutes would come back in full when the recommendation of the committee report is prepared, but it definitely wouldn't be in February.

Okay, so this recommendation will come to council, but not the minutes. Is that what you're saying?

No, the recommendation on the substrate will be included in the February 13th meeting report. So just the substrate. Just the substrate, but the recommendation in full would come back, and we'd endeavour to get that to the March council meeting. Okay

So you are all welcome to come to that meeting, and you are able to speak on that item when it comes to council if you choose. So do keep that in mind. You do need to register by 3 p.m. You can address the meeting via Zoom if you've registered in advance, but again, by 3 p.m. via council's website.

You can address the meeting via Zoom if you can't get here in person.

Yeah. Yeah.

13th of February.

And then the— that's only the substrate. The rest of it will come probably in March. Which is the 12th. Yeah, which is the 12th. It's the second Tuesday of the month we meet.

I'll now declare the meeting closed. Thank you all.