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.
Good evening and welcome to Hawkesbury City Council meeting on the 10th of December 2024. I'd like to welcome all those, this person in the gallery and those maybe watching online. I'd also acknowledge that Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharugung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and we pay respect to the Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nation people of this country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.3 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream 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 gallery can be seen in the live stream video. If you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move into the foyer and we will turn the foyer speakers on for you. 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 and uploaded to Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you'll refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.
This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is requested that if any person participating or attending the meeting has their mobile phone on them, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Okay. There are no apologies. All councillors are present, and the absence seat we'll discuss later in the meeting. Declarations of interest, councillors?
Can I have confirmation of the minutes. Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon. Any discussion? Those in favour? Against? Carried. It's Councillors Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Dogramaci and Sheather.
With the public address this evening, there's two items, item 10.1.1 and 10.1.2. There's three speakers in relation to 10.1.1, four the proposal and two against it. Mr. Jock Douglas, could you approach the podium, please? Mr. Mayor, may
Thank you. My interest is a less than significant non-pecuniary interest and I'll be staying in the item. I live in Renbank but do not own any land as I'm currently leasing, therefore there's no pecuniary interest. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Hawkesbury City Council. This evening I have the pleasure of hosting three speakers from Redbank, who will address various topics and areas of interest. Firstly, my name is Jock Douglas. I'm the development manager at Redbank, and I'll begin with a brief overview of Redbank as a whole and some of our achievements to date, and also talk a little bit about the future direction of Redbank. Secondly will be Matul Huck, who will be discussing the community contributions and some of the active programs he has within it. And finally, Matt Cooper will be talking more about the technical aspects and the planning aspects of the proposal. Redbank was conceived with the aim of creating a master-planned community that not only honoured the legacy of the Hawkesbury region but also set standards for innovative design and housing options in Sydney.
The current ownership of Redbank has been there since 2012 when it purchased the property after its rezoning and has been responsible for what you see there today. It's been responsible for the delivery. The master plan of Redbank is 180 hectares. It's a $1.8 billion project and is contributing over $65 million to the local community. No shortcuts have been taken and no dollar was spared to produce what everyone sees at Redbank today. We are proud to offer properties with an average block size of 650 square metres, which is double all of our competitors, along with over 35 kilometres of integrated open walking space and access to 85 acres of heritage protected parklands. I think the success of our vision is evident as many sections of this heritage protected parklands and bicycle networks are open today for the community and are widely used.
We have identified the intrinsic elements of each neighbourhood and precinct by creating spaces that are functional as they are beautiful. We have developed a unique personality and working very closely with all of our stakeholders and respond to the natural attributes of each of our sites that we develop.
We are very proud to say that every one of our promises to the Hawkesbury Council and the local community on this project has been kept to date, with all of our VPA contributions and Redbank contributions separate to VPA. This is what we're following with. This is not limited to, but some of the items that we have done so far. We have made a $2.4 million contribution to the North Richmond intersection, which has been completed. We built a 1.2 kilometre footpath from Peel Park to Richmond Public North School. We have developed six parks that are now open to the public, including a $6 million Peel Park upgrade recently completed. We have contributed over $1.8 million to the North Richmond Community Centre upgrade.
We have constructed a centrally located 80-head childcare centre, which is now operational. We have built a 300 metre footpath along Grose Vale Road, enhancing connectivity in the area. We directly and indirectly employ 540 people every year in the project. Finally, we have recently gained approval from the Hawkesbury City Council for the Grose River Bridge approval, which we are extremely grateful for. We will commence construction of this bridge as soon as Transport for New South Wales acquire the site over the next 12 to 18 months. These are only some commitments that we have. I'm only sort of scratching the surface. There are many other financial commitments that we have done over the past 10 years.
Now this all leads us to the Redbank expansion area, the final missing piece. It's quite unusual for a small parcel of land like this to be surrounded in residential zoning all the way around it. And I suppose a brief history of the site was the original owners, Len and Margaret Peel, sold the property in 2007, and they decided to keep a small section for themselves to see out their days on a property that they had lived on for more than 50 years. Originally, the original concept was Redbank was going to be the entire project, but they decided to keep that piece, and we honoured that arrangement with them. Following the Peel family passing on, the family then on-sold it to a new owner, of which we've entered into a joint venture agreement with many years later, which leads us to today.
The Redbank expansion area offers an opportunity to deliver approximately 300 to 350 new homes, surrounded by the existing residential estate. This expansion area is essentially the missing piece of the larger Redbank master plan. Developing this site would basically finish off the comprehensive master plan of the entire area and also allow residents of this expansion area to benefit from the existing infrastructure that it's already provided at the area. This site unlocks additional housing capacity on a site that is relatively free from constraints, has easy access to utilities and connections that is already provided at Redbank. The quality and attention to detail seen in Redbank will be exceeded in this final stage.
What sets Redbank apart from its competitors will be at the forefront of this proposal: larger lots, quality housing, and open space in a walkable and connected community. We consider this missing piece the final jewel in the crown of Redbank, and we thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, Mr Douglas.
Councillor Craig. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that, Mr Douglas. I just wanted to ask, you touched on the new approval of the bridge, sorry, the new approval of the bridge. What is the timeline for that being built with regard to what's in front of us here? Sure . Well, to give you just a bit of
A rundown, there's not a clear answer. I mean, the short answer is that the bridge is now approved. So Transport for New South Wales will start the acquisition process next year. They tell us their acquisition process takes between 12 and 18 months. We understand that the property that is most affected has been recently sold and the owners are on board with what's taking place. So hopefully that process doesn't take that long. And the construction of the bridge is about 12 to 18 months. So in theory, it should be under construction in 2026. But again, you've got to remember it's linked to linen releases and block sales, so I can't predict sort of what the market's doing. But if you keep on the current track we're doing, it'll be under construction in 2026.
Mr Mayor. Just a quick question. All this thing had started before my time, so I don't know, you know, what transpired between. Am I correct to say that, or was there a reason that, you know, this block of land, it was part of the big area, wasn't it? Like, you know, when the company purchased, it was part of it.
Yeah, I think when negotiations originally started—now, we weren't involved in those; it was a different company. We subsequently bought the project out in 2012 after the rezoning. But I know when they were originally talking to the family that owned the property, they were looking at the entire piece, the entire property, you know, including the AT acres.
But subsequently the family, the Peel family, decided that they wanted to keep that land, and Margaret Peel, and decided that they wanted to see their days out at that piece of property. So that was carved off and it was developed all around them.
Very much. I mean, that was our plans internally. We've allowed all of our services, we've allowed for that, all of our planning, road connections, everything in our head, we have planned for that to happen, obviously in the hope that one day that that would happen.
As I said, Mr Councillor, the original owners who owned the property decided that they wanted to keep that, so that they basically, essentially, all around that property was carved off for the Redbank development, and that section they decided to keep for themselves and keep it as a rural property. So we weren't in control of that piece of land. They decided that they wanted to hang on to that for themselves. Ideally, we would have liked to have done the whole lot. I mean, originally, I mean, in an ideal world, that was what would take place. But, I mean, it was their property to make that decision, not ours.
Councillor Brogden. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Jock, for coming this evening. Thank you. The decision this chamber has to make this evening is about whether this is in the broader public interest, and that speaks to not merely the merits of your application, but the cumulative effects of congestion. And we're acutely aware that neither the Grose River Bridge nor the second Hawkesbury River crossing have been built or are about to arrive. What answer do you have to the contention that it would be in the broader community interest for this to go on ice and for you to come back and have a conversation with us after both of those bridges are built?
I can't talk for the North Richmond Bridge because I'm not in control of that timeline or what's happening there. But in regards to this bridge, if you actually look at the timeframes and how this plays out, so if Transport for New South Wales start the acquisition process, call it, let's just say we're subject to an approval here tonight, the gateway process itself, when we go into a gateway process will take anywhere from 18 months to two years. In Redbank's instance, it took six. So if you go in best case scenario, that might take two years. You then have to run a DA, which is another 12 to 18 months. You then have to build it, which is another 12 to 18 months. So on the current proposal, this bridge will be under construction in 2026.
By the time we have the first house on the ground, best case scenario, and if everything runs to plan, would be late 2027, probably more like mid-2028. So I think our bridge, which we are proposing, would be in place before one house is built on this new proposal.
I appreciate that the— New Hawkesbury River crossing is beyond your wheelhouse, but the congestion from Richmond and North Richmond is what I'm speaking of, and I note that there's no answer to that.
There actually is. I forgot one thing, Nathan. This , in all the studies that were done for this application and also the original Redbank application, this piece of land was accounted for within that. So the numbers, the traffic flow information, and all that information, the impact that what Redbank would do in a totality was taken into account with our Grose River
Bridge. I'd have to dispute that, sir, because I'm looking at that study on my screen right now, and it only references the 1,399 dwellings that were asked for in the totality of that development. It referred to it as a master plan, never referred to it as a staged development. I'm just asking for the gentleman's response because I think what you've said is incorrect. Well
I'd be happy to pass it to our planner, Matt's coming up in another speaker's time. He might have more information. That's my understanding. My last question
Sir, is what percentage of the existing approved Redbank has been sold? Approximately just over 900 lots, 920 lots . All right then, so 900 out of nearly 1,400. Correct. But close on. So if a person wanted to buy at Redbank, there are still plenty of lots that they could purchase in the existing part of Redbank.
Good evening, councillors and members of the community. I'm Mitul Haque, the head of the community at Redbank and also a proud Redbank resident. And it is also great to see so many Redbank residents in the audience tonight as well. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Redbank expansion area. This expansion represents a significant step forward in our commitment to fostering engagement and integration. Many developers talk about community, but how many actually mean it? Here at Redbank, we have always stayed true to our vision of making meaningful connections and delivering a thriving community. Our success is built on the seamless integration of our sales, marketing, and our dedicated community team, a distinction that sets us apart as one of the very few residential developers with such a strong focus on community.
Our shareholders have developed many residential communities around Australia, and they have always believed that it is the human connection and belongingness that make a residential community successful. At Redbank, we have created a place to retreat to simpler things in life, where people know their neighbours, they make new memories, feel like they belong, and enjoy a lifestyle like the good old days. Now, how do we deliver this? Since our inception, we have implemented two core strategies that underpin our success. Firstly, a community building strategy that incorporates an extensive community journey for the newcomers. While almost half of the community members are from the Hawkesbury, in Redbank I mean, and 25% of them are referred by friends and family, a lot of them come from far and wide, unfamiliar with the rich culture and strong sense of belonging that defines the Hawkesbury.
We actively promote local businesses, recreational spaces, tourism in the Hawkesbury, and connecting newcomers with local community interest group and like-minded individuals. Secondly, our community engagement strategy fosters seamless integration between the existing members of the area and the new community members who are calling Redbank home. There is no invisible line between the old and new here. The community event we host are a big testament to this statement. I know a few of the councillors has had the opportunity to experience that a little bit. If you have not been to one yourself, I cordially invite you all to come and see it for yourself. The Redbank expansion builds on years of collaboration with local schools, churches, sporting clubs, not-for-profits and charities to create spaces and initiatives that bring people together.
These programs are about building relationships and ensuring that every community member feels welcome. The proposed expansion will further strengthen these efforts, enabling us to support more initiatives that enrich our community and foster inclusivity. At the proposed Redbank expansion project, our approach will seamlessly integrate the new development with the existing Redbank master plan, finishing off that bigger master plan. So we'll have open space that will connect up with our existing open space. Our pathways, the new proposed pathways, will connect up with the existing 35 kilometres of pathways, further linking to North Richmond town. This completes a cohesive system of off-road bike and pedestrian paths and fulfils the objectives of the Hawkesbury Active Transport Plan by strengthening connectivity for our community members.
This also successfully addresses Western Sydney's physical inactivity crisis where over 40% of people are insufficiently active. The partnership between Redbank Communities and Hawkesbury City Council has already demonstrated success through the ongoing delivery of $65 million of community infrastructure. The infrastructure and services we have invested in over the last decade will cater to the needs of the proposed expansion. The Redbank expansion reinforces the destiny of our LGA remaining in the hands of this council. What you have seen in Redbank so far is exactly what you'll see in the expansion area.
Alignment with Hawkesbury's Community Strategic Plan 2022 to 2042, Redbank embodies the values and goals that make the Hawkesbury a great place to live. Our community building efforts nurture social responsiveness, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity, while our extensive recreational spaces and initiatives encourage healthy lifestyle and cultural connection. By providing open space, water features, and parks, we contribute to the well-regarded leisure facility of the area. Finally, we support a strong economy by fostering growth in the local businesses, retail diversity, and employment opportunities, reinforcing the prosperity of the LGA. In closing, Redbank is more than just a development; it's a model for inclusive and forward-thinking community building.
The Redbank expansion area is not just an addition to our estate; it's an investment in the future of the Hawkesbury. Together, let us embrace this opportunity to continue the legacy of connection, prosperity, and belonging for generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, [unclear]. I'm just wondering, you just said there's no new community infrastructure with the new expansion, so nothing else coming for more people. We've had the issue where the North Richmond Community Centre was going to be expanded with money from Redbank, which hasn't occurred. How are you coping with the absence of a community centre? Has that been a problem for you, or are people accessing the existing one, even though it's a bit short of space, etc.
Thank you, Councillor [unclear], for your question. I don't think I've ever said that there's no community infrastructure. We have plenty of open spaces, pathways; there's also form part of the community infrastructure. The North Richmond Community Centre that you're referring to— We have obviously, we have committed to the financial contributions that we had to make, which we made, I believe it was four years ago, and we still haven't seen anything. And we really, really hope that something happens very soon because, as you said, there is need for after-school care, and we do know that our local primary school has plenty of capacity. And if, you know, you guys being part of local government or state government, if you look into that and add some more facilities there, of course that will service the needs of the community.
But yeah, we really, really hope that the contribution that we made gives us something fruitful that everyone can benefit out of. Okay,
Thank you, councillors, for the opportunity to be before you tonight and present, I guess, what the technical and merit aspects that I believe this proposal has for Hawkesbury. Further to my colleagues' representations, I had planned on talking about part of any matters that have been raised by the community as well, should they have arisen, just to provide points of clarity. I'd make myself available at the end as well for any questions that you may have that I can give refinement around. But similar, I guess, to Council's Local Planning Panel, I'd reached this same conclusion that Kemsley Park represents a logical conclusion to Redbank community. As its final stage. It has been on Council's Growth Agenda since circa 2011.
It did fall off out of Council's local housing study and strategy in 2020, but I guess it falling off the radar out of that point of time is the opportunities for growth that Council had identified essentially to manage growth going forward to 2036 have now started to disappear. Not by Council making of doing all of this. There has been significant change around how we do planning for floodplain risk management, and also, I guess, key things around the growth centres. Vineyard Stage 2 has disappeared as an opportunity for planned growth to occur. There is also an exemption to the low-rise housing diversity initiatives that State Government had been progressing. Really, that was hoped to provide relief of short-term supply to help Council to get to that number of 10,000 homes by 2036.
What is sold on the case for other Greenfield developments that I get to work on is that infrastructure has been planned for from an early point in time. It is seldom that you get to see Sydney Water is aligned to turn on services at this point of process. You have development servicing plans that have been much maligned in terms of ability to service land in other Greenfield release areas. We are going to have our last part of water and sewer infrastructure commissioned and turned on by March 2025. There's not often that you have pipes in the ground ready to go and make use of. You also have the Grose River Bridge that we talked about earlier about its commencement date in the near horizon from there.
Now that it has been approved, this should be in place well before homes start to manifest within Kempsley Park. I think importantly, this rezoning presents the opportunity and provides housing supply for Council in the short term. What that does is, as I see it as a planner, it gives Council the time to take stock of other opportunities to, I guess, get to that 2036 growth number. 350 homes is a modest contribution to supply in Council, but it gives you a moment of pause to figure out where you want to set the growth agenda going forward from there. I guess more recently, State Government has tasked you with a more immediate goal of completed homes by 2029. Council has to find 1,300 new homes by 2029.
Whilst Kempsey Park isn't the saviour of all of that, it does make a good contribution to do that. And as I kind of track through a rezoning process that would say, hey, best case, you have a rezoning in mid to late 2026, what it does is afford opportunities for DAs to be approved, land to be readied, and people to be able to lodge DAs for their homes so that you have some of those completions, a good number of them occurring by 2029.
I guess in terms of its continued viability as agricultural land, it has started to diminish in that it is not part of State Government's strategic agricultural land resource. Its opportunity to be consolidated with broader land holdings continues to dwindle, particularly, I guess, as it sits on Grose Vale Road, as it falls back to a Redbank community. Opportunities for any intensive occasion of that use just perpetuates greater land use conflict with that existing Redbank community. Where we get to with all of this is that you don't have a significant loss of landscape impact because its neighbours are essentially sheltered from Grose Vale Road and the Redbank community to its northern sides from there.
So I guess at that point, I could just bring back to talking of level of service and functionality of bridges that was raised earlier, if that's of assistance. Otherwise, I can jump to question time. Really, the supporting documents that go with this planning proposal includes a traffic study. It notes the original planning proposal didn't account for the expansion of Kemsley Park. But what it essentially does at the end of this is saying that, well,
By planning for 350 new homes, what it's able to demonstrate that there is no significant impact to level of service of these intersections and functions of road. It is detailed quite comprehensively through there, and there are a number of reasons that go with that. These centre around historic— Thanks, Mr Cooper.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Cooper. I'll just ask some questions. I did ask Mr Douglas in an email, and he kindly provided some answers, but said you'd be here to speak, so I might ask you. First of all, could you just run people through point four in the planning proposal, which is around an amendment to Schedule 1 to allow an additional permitted use over the subject site for dual occupancies, provided the lot requirements are met. Could you please just articulate exactly what that's referring to?
Thank you, and certainly, Councillor. The purpose of that provision is essentially to create a greater form of diversity in what is a low density area. Primarily for the purpose of creating an opportunity for affordable housing. This is within the meaning of State Government side of definition. Getting back to that affordable rental housing product that is often not provided for in Greenfield release areas. The intent would being that this housing product, it would be limited to circa 5% of the total number of homes we would deliver. So that's 17 or 18 homes, would be utilised, say, on corner blocks that met a minimum area of 600 square metres to allow this form of development. Really as a response.
To getting a price point and ability to deliver that kind of product in a more conventional family home size, rather than usual unit and studio dwelling kind of components. As part of this, Redbank has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Link Wentworth, who is a community housing provider that would ultimately go on to manage these homes for Redbank as it was rolled out from there. With that, what Link Wentworth bring to the table on that is ensuring the people that get access to these homes are the kind of key workers and the people in need that need better access to homes and more sensitive to rental prices. Okay,
Thank you for explaining that. So, just to recap, because you answered the next question I was going to ask, which was about affordable housing. But so, is this in a specific zoning, or your— I'm just trying to understand, that's all. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me how it's worded, that it would be for any blocks that satisfied this corner position or 600 square metres, regardless of their zoning. So, in other words, giving a specific permitted use to some particular people in a particular area that may not exist in the rest of the LGA. Is that correct?
Essentially, it's just trying That's what I thought it meant. So, thank you for that. Just on the 5% affordable housing, that's really good to know. That would have been good to have a figure committed to. I'm not quite sure that's a guarantee that's included within here, but that is good to know. What's the current percentage of affordable housing in Redbank now?
I guess where Redbank currently delivers more affordable product, though, has been in the type of zones and the product they've delivered. So if you looked at their R3 zone, for instance, how they've been able to unlock different market entry points for people is to say, well, look, here's the 220 square metre reloaded terrace version. Here's up to a 380 square metre product version that I guess is a lot different to their average, which is circa 645 square metres for the majority of the R2 zone. That was all about being able to encourage and enable people to enter the community from a whole different spectrum of price points and community.
Thank you. Sorry, Mr Mayor, one more question, if I may. Just regarding the Sydney Water upgrades that have occurred, has that been done— are you speaking about the water tanks that have appeared on Grosvenor Road? Is that the Sydney Water upgrade, or is there something else that's happened?
There were two key aspects to Sydney Water upgrades that get undertaken. One was around wastewater capacity that has been completed, going to the water servicing side of things through there. I understand that though— The last aspects of the water tanks plus the commissioning part is where it's at now. So the assets have since been completed. They're now in the ability to, I guess, make sure that it's all running and operating well before providing that capacity back to the network that had been planned for Kempsley Park.
No, it's not only for Redbank, but it had been planned redundancy as part of the system to say, hey, this seems like a logical point for growth that should be accounted for. It provides greater redundancy in the network, not just Kempsley Park. Okay, thank you.
First, when you started this project, I don't know how you operate. In my case, as a small, tiny businessman, I always rely on something in life. You always don't get, you know, what you deserve, but what you negotiate. Was there any time that, you know, you have spoken with representing people to sit down to see what they want and what you are going to... Like in any business, you will have some people for and you will have some people against it. That's the beauty of democracy, what we live in. Was there any time that, you know, you have sat down and discussed what they wanted, what you were going to offer?
Look, not me personally, no, Councillor. I've taken this from a purely technical planning aspect side of things. I do know, though, that the Redbank community had made representations and talked to members of the community as well, as well as council staff from a strategic point of view to ensure that this makes sense as a proposal and to make sure that what we're providing on the ground meets the needs of the community. When it comes to, I guess, the planning pathway side of things, where we're not bound to do scoping studies, we go through that process of canvassing early with state government agencies, particularly around the SES, Infrastructure New South Wales Council itself, at the time the Greater Cities Commission and the Department of Planning to make sure that this aligned, I guess, with the strategic direction of the Hawkesbury.
What we've done is essentially design a master plan that builds on what we think is a very successful community at Redbank and the types of amenity and lifestyle that it offers its residents.
My second question, if you allow me, please, and thank you, Councillor Bucket. Thank you very much. To me, I think it's disturbing, and if other councillors, you know, can have a look at that attachment 11 to item 10.1, flood evacuation and bushfire safety report. Do you know what was happening in year 2009?
That's the question, Councillor. I assume you're referring to the date of when the report was prepared and why you haven't... 2009. Yes. So essentially, at that point in time, where we've got to is there hasn't been a significant change in the way that people are managing floodplain evacuation or bushfire evacuation in this part of Hawkesbury.
Has, one, there have been improvements to, I guess, the road network that has occurred. You also have improved telecommunications abilities than even back in 2009. What they're saying is we haven't changed the direction we're expecting people to evacuate out of Redbank and this part of the community. They're sitting above the PMF, and we haven't started saying that those not affected by a PMF need to leave. They're saying that it is okay to stay in that situation. Where these people go is to continue to go west. Lithgow remains as an option. Yes, it is a drive, but in a point of a flood emergency is within the acceptable norms from there.
I guess one of the luxuries that comes out of a planning process is that there can always be an ask for additional information at this point. It may come out of should this be a favourable decision tonight, and this proceeds to a gateway determination, that the Department of Planning ask for an update to that point. Where we've taken the line through is this though, is that there hasn't been significant impact into the way we are managing evacuation events out of this part of North Richmond. Well
Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, if I could, back on the topic of affordable housing. So the change to the LEP that you're requesting would be in addition to the SEP that allows granny flats in residential zonings.
That is correct, Councillor. So, as you probably appreciate, the housing SEP allows for a degree of secondary dwellings to be done as complying development over certain lot sizes. What this is, I guess, a more targeted approach to how we wanted to ensure a component of affordable housing that Redbank would maintain the right design standards for to ensure that it's a good product. And is often, I guess, what we're trying to deliver through here is not just a one-bedroom secondary dwelling response to affordable housing. This is a family form of affordable housing that we think we can control well and provide as part of this offering. Correct. These would be typically, say, a three- to four-bedroom home.
In the Hawkesbury, a three- to four-bedroom home usually has at least two cars, and if the children are 16 and over, it has three or four cars. What additional provision will be made for parking of those cars on those blocks if they're 600 square metre blocks? Are they expected to park on the street?
Fair point. When it goes to parking, typically it is something that would be managed through on-street parking plus double garages per dwelling. There would typically also be opportunity for parking in a driveway itself, so I could see we could get to, say, three car parking spaces at dual occupancy quite comfortably through there, supported by what's provided on street. It is something, however, we're more than happy to work with Council from a DCP perspective, of course pending a favourable decision .
I think you're looking at a lot of hard standing. And then the final question on this issue, and then I've got one more, Mr Mayor, if I could. Those 5% affordable housing provisions, are they in perpetuity, and how will you manage that?
So, State Government's approach to affordable rental housing is to ensure that they're provided for a period of 15 years. That is the obligation that goes with it. That is rolled off cross-statewide. That's what we would be committing to through here. In terms of managing these properties is why we've gone specifically to Link Wentworth, who is already an operator within the Hawkesbury, neighbouring Blacktown as well, to make sure that we have the capabilities to, one, find the right people and manage these properties as well.
Thanks. And then just a question on the keyline system and the dams. This property, it appears that this property isn't covered by the heritage listing that sits across the rest of Yarraburnie. Is that correct? And it looks from the plans that those dams will be removed. What's intended to do with the runoff then that is normally stored and mitigated through those dams?
Councillor, you are correct that it doesn't have a heritage listing through it as well. Out of, I think, I believe there's three dams remaining on site. One of those will be retained and reformed to make sure it is, one, safe as an asset to detain and treat stormwater prior to discharge. That same approach is essentially how Redbank has been based on. Redbank didn't retain every dam; it provided the selected most viable versions of the dams that could be, one, an appropriate interpretation of its former use as well, as well as serving that stormwater management function for council. So as our strategy currently has it is that that dam at the northern end of the site is essentially there to detain to match pre-development flows and treat stormwater prior to discharge.
Good evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. I am here speaking on behalf of the Hawkesbury Environment Network tonight. We first became aware of this proposal on Friday afternoon when the business paper came out, and given the size of the item and the number of attachments, we all thought that we'd be coming here this evening to ask for some more time to consider the item. Like, rezoning is a critical time for any development, and so we thought that we wanted to really consider and research this item. That was also one of the reasons why we decided on the weekend to put a survey out to the community. We thought that there'd be a lot of community members, like, quite overwhelmed by the volume of information and want more time.
So we did put out a survey, three options being for the proposal, against the proposal, and needing more time. I'm here tonight speaking against the recommendation of the business paper because there was an overwhelming response against the proposal. There was 520 participants, and of that number, I believe there was about 15 who wanted more time, which is, like, I actually thought that was really low. There was 19 who were in favour, so there was about 487 who were decidedly against the proposal in that survey.
One, like, quite fascinating thing about the survey was the amount of comments. I don't know how many people, like, here try and get surveys out to people and participate with, but it can be really challenging to get people, you know, connected and participating. But we had— Yeah, over two days, like from Sunday evening to this morning, we had, as I said, like 520 people completing the survey, and of that, 41% completed an optional comment. So what that really said to us was that this is, like, a really important issue in the community, and people really want a voice and they want to have a say. What was also interesting about the comments, there were 213 in total, and we collated them and we've sent them to all of the councillors this afternoon so that they could read them.
But there was, like, we were really surprised at the flavour of the comments. So there was, you know, a lot of, like, comments about habitat loss, rural amenity protection. But probably the commonest thread was frustration about transport, traffic and infrastructure. So it wasn't criticising Redbank or what they've been doing, but it was really just saying, like, hold on, guys, like, you know, we're not ready yet. We're dealing with, like, traffic infrastructure issues right now, so please just hold off on anything. Like, people didn't even want to look at the details because they're just frustrated with the current situation. So, I mean, I had a couple of comments just to read out tonight for those who didn't receive them.
But for example, you know, before we allow more housing, and I'm not against housing per se, but before we allow more dwellings, we must build the infrastructure needed to support the existing housing developments. So, like, that was, like, a really common thread through the comments. So I suppose it's, like, interesting for me standing here this evening because I am— Representing Hawkesbury Environment Network, but what I feel like I'm really doing is just relaying a broader concern in the community. And I think that what is important to note is that, yes, there will be a public exhibition period, but that will be so late down the track. It's the second last step in the process. And I think it's really important to understand that any time a matter is before Council, that is an opportunity for community members to have a say.
And so I'd really like you to, you know, everyone who's, like, making a decision tonight, and also, like, you know, staff of Redbank, to really consider the feedback of community members, like just the average person. And, yeah, I'd just like everyone to consider, like, the survey results and the community sentiment. So thank you very much
Members of— sorry, Mr Mayor, members of the Council and members of the general public. Well, what we've heard tonight has been absolutely wonderful, but let's look at the reality. It's with serious concern that I raise these issues in opposition to the Redbank Communities proposal. I'm fully against this proposal for rezoning at this particular stage in time until further investigation of many issues of the development and the improvement of the infrastructure that needs to be undertaken before any such rezoning development can be approved. This I will now outline. Every public body and government body, council, etc., has the duty of care to those they are paid to represent, and that is, in this case, the ratepayer regarding any decisions of further development of the Redbank communities.
They also have the responsibilities under Soil and Water Conservation Act and the NRA Act. They must be mindful of repercussions of the impact of such a proposal development upon both persons, the community, and those dwelling under threat, i.e. those on Redbank Creek if the stormwater is not handled adequately and improved from what it is currently. I'll cover this later in a little bit further. It is the council's duty to take responsibility for the welfare of those where homes are already established, already under threat, damaged, and approved by council. These people, the wildlife and their habitats, and is a legal and moral responsibility that should be verbalised here in relation to the issues that this development will incur upon an already stressed and over— sorry, underserviced infrastructure community.
It is an issue that the Redbank communities decided to table that this council meeting tonight, the night before the public information meeting relating to the draft report for the Redbank Creek flood report, to which they have been invited to attend. But will they? I'm also concerned is that the council meeting where the flood report was tabled, it was discussed by the councillors that maybe there should be no further development within and by the Redbank developers until there is an investigation into the increase in the erosion, the damage to property and flooding, and the sudden extreme rise in height and velocity that is impacting properties downstream from the estate development. I know, I now have three-quarters of my backyard gone.
These issues are the lack of infrastructure in the area to support any further development. As per the Redbank Flood Report Study 11.3, pages 80 and 81, it gives list further proof of the lack and limited infrastructure to the area and states it is exacerbated during flood due to the possibility of road closures. Before any approval, there needs to be serious investigation into how the proposed estate would dispose of any extra stormwater plus the stormwater at current time and to where, so no further damage is caused to houses, property and people's lives, the native wildlife and habitat, or to Redbank Creek, especially the very fast rises of volume. The last one in April 2024 was up to 15 to 20 feet rise in a few hours, about three hours, and then the very quick fall.
But in the meantime, causing havoc, serious damage to property and homes. This has only happened in the past four years since the development has really gone ahead. The original overland drainage has been altered by development and thus, with Redbank Creek taking the stormwater as a very tiny, narrow, windy creek, it cannot handle it. When persons approached the Redbank Communities for information re this issue, they are fobbed off. No answers are given, no response to correspondence, and no response to the public concerns re the issues.
There is no police station, no SES base. All help has to come from the other side of the river, which is an emergency in a time of delay. In flood times, no hospital to handle emergencies. There's no ambulance, very limited public transport. Roads are at an overcapacity now. Road conditions are not up to the traffic and in constant state of disrepair. Road networks cannot handle the numerous amount of vehicles on the roads now, and the bridge issues are still years down the track. The current public transport service to the area does not and will not alleviate the congestion on the roads due to its sparsity. This forces even heavier traffic loads due to the housing development.
Janette, I only have one question for you. Yes. Given where you live, when the traffic's really banked up and you're trying to get out of or back to North Richmond, how long has it taken you to do that short drive from North Richmond to Richmond?
Realise that this motion is lengthy. I've unfortunately been out all day with various council responsibilities and didn't have the opportunity to either prepare or circulate it until basically I walked in the door here. I have tried to be as precise as possible with the problems with this planning proposal as it stands. I think that is the very least we can owe to an applicant who has put a development proposal to Council.
But I think this planning proposal, in its current form, is not sufficiently consistent with either the Hawkesbury's housing targets and the Hawkesbury's planning documents, or sufficiently consistent with the State Government's housing plans and documents, and therefore we need to refuse it in its current form. We're not debating whether or not Redbank is a very nice development for the people who live there. What we're here to do is determine whether this is a good development for the Hawkesbury. And I think it's quite clear from the information in front of us, when that's cross-referenced with the Ministerial directives and the various planning strategies that the State Government still has in place.
This is not a good development for the Hawkesbury at this time. It is not consistent with our housing targets. We have been told repeatedly that we are able to meet our housing targets in the Hawkesbury with existing developments, with the developments that we already have in the pipeline, including Jacaranda and the development at Vineyard, and also with infill development, which is much more preferable because it takes advantage of existing infrastructure and existing transport links. This isn't consistent with the State Government's transit-oriented development strategy, which excludes the Hawkesbury largely because our transit options are really poor, and we've heard that repeatedly both through the survey and from the community since Redbank itself was mooted.
It's not supported by adequate infrastructure, especially with respect to transport and public transport, and it's not supported by the Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Strategy without completion of additional roads projects. It's all well and good to say that people can just stay in North Richmond or they can go around through Lithgow. Anyone who has lived on, live west of the river in the last six floods understands the impost of staying put and the difficulty of getting services and food and other provisions through to the community. The reason that we have been able to stay west of the river through several bridge closures is because the power has stayed on. If the power was to go out, west of the river would rapidly become a very difficult place to be, particularly with respect to food and sewage.
It's not consistent with a number of ministerial directions, and I've outlined them in the motion. But it particularly is not consistent with the Metropolitan Rural Areas provisions that still hold, despite some mucking around the edges by the Minns government. We need to be really careful that we are not embracing this idea of affordable housing, and we're not embracing these housing developments as a panacea, whilst ignoring the problems that are caused by pushing people further and further onto the urban fringe of Sydney. People who live west of the river, and I do, are stuck with very long commutes. That has huge impacts on people's physical health, people's mental health, their time with their families, and it has a big economic impact.
Not only are people driving more, providing more than one vehicle per household. In many instances, if you've got two adult children, you've got four cars at home. You're paying for all of those cars. You're paying for petrol, paying for the toll. You're paying for additional childcare because you're away from home for the commute. You are missing out on time with your family. Studies show that you are eating more fast food and more convenience food. That has a health impact. All of these things are impacting on families and making housing on the urban fringe less affordable. This is not a proposal for affordable housing. This is not a proposal that will fix the housing crisis, and it should not be taken as one.
It does not increase housing diversity, and therefore it's not consistent with our housing strategy. It doesn't provide dwellings that are suitable for older people closer to towns and transport. That's something that is stated clearly in our housing strategy of 2021. Thanks , Mr Mayor.
I'd just like to ask for clarification. You mentioned about dwelling houses that were up to speed. On page 30 in the report, it indicates here that we've only achieved a third over the last five years. Have you got other documentation there that would clarify that?
Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just through you, I've got a question for staff. I'm not sure who to send it through to. If Council support Councillor Wheeler's motion tonight and not send it through to the gateway, like, is there any sort of appeals process? And what are the— if there's an appeals process and it's successful going through that way, is there any sort of, what's the word, where does that leave Council in all of this?
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Thank you, Mr Mayor. So basically the planning proposal process and timeframes are already set by the New South Wales State Government, and that's essentially through the LEP plan-making guideline and more recently by the Minister's Statement of Expectations, particularly in terms of timeframes. Now they have basically trigger or milestone points within there that councils need to reach in terms of timeframes. So if either Council doesn't make a decision or determines not to proceed with a planning proposal, an applicant has the what's known as a rezoning review process. Especially the right to go to the Department of Planning to seek that the matter is considered by the Department of Planning.
Typically, the Department of Planning will send the planning proposal to the Independent Planning Commission for consideration. And then basically there's potential then that the whole planning proposal process is then outside of Council's consideration moving forward. Okay.
Thank you. Mr Mayor, I'd like to move an amendment, and the amendment will be the recommendation in the business paper. It's a director. This motion would have to be lost. You can foreshadow a motion. Foreshadow then. Thank you.
Yep. Do we have a speaker in favour? Against? I'll just make a comment. The comments made by the staff just now are very relevant. There's a process on how these matters are dealt with. Tonight we had more papers given to us than any other council meeting I've been to, and most of that was information that supported the recommendation in the business paper. Because that process that was just spoken about by the staff, if we don't follow that process, and it happened in Pitt Town, and we all know what they got out of that, why Council planned the development. From there on, it was dealt. The council couldn't agree. It was taken off council, and the state dealt with it.
Every councillor sitting around this table has got the right and obligation. They stand on a platform, and they've got the right to speak in relation to that stance they take. But as a councillor, you've got a responsibility that we've got practices, codes, legislation, policies and the like. And as a councillor, and every one of you spoke to me during the election and prior to the election that we want a better council. The community demands that we do things properly, and this process that's before us is one of those challenges. It's a process to go through. It goes out on public exhibition after it leaves here. Well, it goes to the government departments. All the information will come back.
The documents that were given to us were impossible to read in the time we had, but they were there if we needed to look at particular aspects of the recommendation and what's in the business paper. If we fall short on our obligations, then we can look forward to the future that applicants won't come to council. They'll go straight to the government if they've got over 100 homes, and we'll get the Blacktown and Windsor Road developments here.
We've got a community that's mobile, that will speak their mind and the like, and there's a place to deal with that. Our staff get to hear it, as has been explained tonight, and the process is the proper one. So , I don't begrudge any councillor having a speech, but we have our informal meetings, and where there's issues that need to be taken on board in relation to some that were spoken tonight, that's the place to do it. We can do it through notice of motions, or we can do it through council policy through the staff. So I'd ask you to think seriously about the process and the obligations of this council.
I'll start with a question. With the gateway process, so if we send this to gateway tonight, wouldn't the gateway process evaluate whether the proposal was inconsistent with ministerial directions? I'm having trouble sorting out the motion that's on the table at the moment. I mean, I'm not that familiar with those ministerial directions, you know, at the drop of the hat. Could I just get clarification from the staff whether the gateway process, will the gateway process review those ministerial directions?
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Mr Mayor, short answer, yes, it will. So the Department of Planning, if Council did send this particular planning proposal for a gateway determination, the Department of Planning would assess against a number of provisions, including the ministerial directions, and they would make a determination based on that. And that determination may be to proceed, or maybe to proceed with certain conditions, or maybe to not proceed.
Yeah, I'm going to speak against the motion then. Okay. I'm going to speak against this motion because it's—I think that in the situation we have, you know, across New South Wales, not just the Hawkesbury and Sydney, is we have people not being able to get adequate housing. And I think we have to take this opportunity to send this to Gateway and get it reviewed if we have a chance of being able to provide more housing for people. That's another side of the coin. I understand all of the things that have been said tonight about, you know, adequate infrastructure and all of that. I understand that, but there is a bigger issue, I think. For, you know, for everybody that says they're sick of the traffic, I have ten people saying, My kids can't find anywhere to live.
I'm going to be homeless in, you know, in four weeks. I'm just going to stop at that and say that I'm happy for this to go to Gateway, and we might be able to get some sort of, you know, considerations from Gateway and some things that might address those issues that we've been speaking about tonight and that our speakers have brought up. So I'll leave it at that, and I'm just not going to support this amendment. Thank you.
Councillor Zamprogno, are you speaking in favour? I'm speaking in favour of the motion. I can't sit idly by when the argument from some of my colleagues is, Look at how thick this business paper is. It must be a good idea. Therefore, we are obliged to support it.
Nor is it acceptable to say, I'm not familiar with these ministerial guidelines, therefore I'm going to punt this through to another umpire and let them decide on this. Tonight is it for this chamber. The obligation that we have isn't merely to look at the merits of the specific proposal. And I'm on the record as saying I've been to Redbank and I think it's a lovely development. It's a lovely place to live. It's very lavishly developed. Once many of those assets vest to Council, it's going to cost us a small fortune to maintain that. But that's not what this is about. This is about the broader question about whether this is in the broader community interest for the whole of the Hawkesbury to accept this.
And we cannot ignore the cumulative impacts of congestion and a lack of infrastructure and delayed infrastructure and a now dangerous inability for emergency services to get through at peak times, that this community on the western side of the river have endured for years, and it will be getting worse. And if we say yes to this tonight, we're giving our assent to this to get worse. It is not acceptable to state, Look, I'm happy to send this to Gateway, but I'm not necessarily in favour of the development. No. To say yes to this proposal tonight is to be in favour of this development and to be on the record as being in favour of this development. There can't be any equivocating on this. We did a misoscopic traffic study in 2019 that rated a lot of these roads between Richmond and North Richmond at the intersection of Bells Line of Road, Grose Vale Road, The Terrace, Bosworth Street at F, which is the lowest rating that we can give them.
Because of the ongoing congestion that was being caused by development.
One of the representatives from Redbank this evening said that, you know, the traffic incurred by this new development was factored into their original studies. I don't believe that that's true because I'm looking at that study here from AECOM in March of 2013 that was advanced by the North Richmond Joint Venture, and it had projections of the traffic at that time and in the future, and they paint a dire picture. I mean, there is the Richmond Bridge duplication preferred options report that Transport for New South Wales, not Council, but Transport for New South Wales brought out in June 2021 that said that travel times between North Richmond and Richmond would rise for between, say, 14 minutes coming this way or 22 minutes going the other way to 38 minutes going home.
To get from Richmond to North Richmond, to drive that three-kilometre distance, that it will take on average 38 minutes. And that's without the extra development that's being proposed. This is just the thin end of the wedge. This 350-lot development pales into comparison to the other things that are in the pipeline, which we will discuss if they come to this chamber. But the cumulative impacts of traffic and the social cost, the emotional cost, is something that we cannot ignore, and it's our duty to look at this broader picture when we say yes or no to something that was not in the original master plan for Redbank, which was not part of the 1,399 dwellings that they asked for. This was never a staged development.
And I think that many people assume that elected chambers just have short memories. Is that if, you know, to use round numbers, if somebody came to Council and says, I want to build 200 houses, and we said, That's way too many, the answer is no, and they say, Well, we'll build 100, and then they come back to us, you know, six or 10 years later and they say, We'd like to build another 200. It's still 200. If it wouldn't have been approved at that number in the first instance, you can't have two bites of the cherry and kind of bring it up to that level and assume that the proposal is any more feasible, any more wise than it was when it was going to be knocked back the first time because it was too much.
It was too much then. It's certainly too much now. And to add to this, I think would be most unwise.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I hope we've all calmed down from the veiled threats in that speech, but I certainly won't be taking them on board about the fear of being on the record . I will not be supporting the proposal on the board tonight. Some of the arguments, quite frankly, made here tonight are frustrating, and I would expect better from people who have been elected to this chamber for quite a long time. On one hand, from the very same mouths, there is a constant cry for more housing, whether that's affordable housing or standard housing. There is a national crisis for housing right now. We therefore have a proposal here on the table to deliver more housing to an area here in the Hawkesbury where other than Mr Mayor, of course I expected the gallery when I opened my mouth.
If you could please make sure and keep a note of the gallery while I'm speaking. This is a professional workplace and that noise, quite frankly, is not professional. Here we have a proposal to deliver more housing, as I was saying, on a timeline if, when built, the Grose River Bridge would already have been constructed. Therefore, the infrastructure would have been delivered to accommodate for that added housing. Now , I've also made an argument in this chamber consistently about the political involvement that caused the delay in the Grose River crossing coming to fruition, and I will hang my hat on that till the day I die, that there was 100% political intent to delay that necessary infrastructure that has not been paid for by the ratepayer or the taxpayer, but paid for by the developer under a VPA when I was not elected to this chamber.
It was a council before me, and they made sure that should this development go through, it came with developer-paid infrastructure. So honestly, to have the argument that we need more housing and a proposal on the table to deliver more housing and then say no, to me is ridiculous. Not only is it going to deliver more homes for the Hawkesbury, but it is clearly just simply a missing piece to the puzzle for this intended precinct. The argument of consistently saying no simply because it is easier or more politically convenient to say no lacks foresight. There are people that want to take a snapshot of the Hawkesbury and never see it change, and that therefore means that we watch council areas around us.
Grose Vale have better sporting fields, have better infrastructure, have better parks and playgrounds, and I hear the same people complaining that we don't have the nice things that the Hills or Penrith or Blacktown have. And that's because they want to take a picture of the Hawkesbury as it is and never see it change. Well, without change, things don't get better, and we need to be able to balance those priorities. Now, in this instance, the Mayor has raised a very good point. If you want to stop these kind of proposals from coming through, then change the plans and the policies that this council has that allows people to make applications like this and tick the relevant boxes to put them through.
Tonight is just Hawkesbury City Council saying we support this, but we are not making the final decision. For anyone who wants to investigate the planning process and have some knowledge of how it works, it therefore after this goes to a gateway process where it is assessed by the state government, and that is an important part in making sure. Now, when we talk about traffic, I 100% am so proud of my candidacy in the past as a federal candidate that delivered the biggest investment this area has ever seen, and I will absolutely be so happy to say that I was able to deliver that: a $500 million, half a billion dollar bridge with the funds locked in, 80% federal government, 20% state government.
That bridge is happening, and that bridge is happening because I took a proposal down to Canberra and the ministers listened, and they allowed me to make that announcement as the candidate. When that bridge is built, and it will be built because the funds are locked in, and when it is constructed and it goes hand in hand with the Grose River crossing that is paid for by this Redbank developer, there will be two more bridges in that area that will allow for that increase in traffic, that will ease that traffic congestion, and I am very proud to have been associated with that infrastructure and its soon-to-be delivery. If done properly, these are the kind of developments that you want to see happen to this area.
Look at the piecemeal development happening in Vineyard right now, where we have a state government who decides to impose development upon us, where we as a council have to resolve to spend money on the drainage and the infrastructure necessary to support a planning proposal that was a development that was dumped on us. Mr Mayor, does Councillor Richards get longer than everybody else? Oh, I knew you were watching the clock. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm against the proposal. On the board. Wow, a big clap for watching the clock. That's a big one. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm finished.
Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against this, but ideally I'd probably like to see this, a matter such as this, actually really properly debated. You said yourself how many documents there were. I'm speaking against— oh no, sorry, I'm speaking for the motion. I'm sorry , I was
You forgot it. Mr Mayor, as Councillor Wheeler said, this isn't an analysis of the existing Redbank, and it was very lovely of the speakers to come and tell us about it. You know, it is a development that we have, but what we're considering tonight is something , a proposal that is on a piece of land that could— It's really important. I accept completely there should be some development there. That's an obvious infill development site to do. But what is done there is what can make the difference between whether North Richmond does look just like an outer suburban suburb, or whether it looks like something that pays respect to the agricultural history, that gives a buffer from the density of the development that's there, and that can give us a better outlook overall in that location.
I think that I agree with it does not deliver what our housing strategy was asking for. It relies on the Hawkesbury Residential Land Strategy to say it's part of future development, but that strategy also said what we do not need is more detached dwellings. What people want are smaller; they want villas. They want things they can downsize to . It's just not meeting. It's one thing to use a strategy when it benefits you, and yet if you're not going to take everything on board, then that defies the purpose of doing so. I am concerned about the outdated studies included in this, and I cannot for a minute accept anyone would say that that catchment has not changed. We have had within that area, the 2009 flood study was done at a time when we were coming out of the millennial drought.
That isn't a time to have a study that's still applicable in 2024. That simply isn't possible. That should have been updated. If any of us put an application in with a 2009 study, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be accepted as evidence for our application. What has happened there, the changed catchment conditions. There's been so much land clearing. There's been so much increased hard surfacing. Dams have been removed that stored water there. And we know that rainfall has intensified over the last decade or so. So there's a lot of really different conditions that exist. And we heard Mrs Hayden say about the impacts downstream from what's happening there. Now we can fix that if we do the proper study and if we manage all of this properly, rather than going headlong in and just rezoning for more of the same sort of housing to go somewhere, where perhaps there's a solution within that block of land that can mitigate.
For those particular problems. I just think that we're being very short-sighted in not really looking at this. My other concern is around the special treatment for dual occupancy in that area, when we know there are councillors in here who would support this, who voted to delay our LEP, which would have delivered dual occupancy to the rural areas of our local government area, and we still don't have that LEP back. And I don't support giving special treatment to one group of residents over the rest of the LGA when that's the situation. So I would want to wait until our LEP is finalised and when we know where exactly dual occupancy is going. As much as we know it's a part of the housing solution, we also know that with it we've got to realise how many people are in an area, what impacts that is having, how our effluent is disposed of.
In Redbank there would be sewer, which is another issue of inequity, because there's a lot of upgrades for people in one area that there's still—we've got a massive backlog. We've got the people of Bowen Mountain, you know, who have inadequate sewer and, well, no sewer, who, you know, don't have the water provision or the sewer provision. So we've got to be looking at how we bring all our people to get a better quality of life. And I don't resent people in Redbank having that; that's part of their development. But we've got to be mindful when we're pushing forward more development that we're not leaving people even further and further behind, because we represent a whole local government area.
So we have—I just think my real— The thing that I would really like is I would really like to see something that really suited the area, that something was done with it. I don't know if Redbank would have been open to it had we had this earlier. I did ask Mr Douglas some questions, and I would have liked to engage more around it, but it's come to us at the busiest time of year, just before Christmas. It's massive, as we said. I've actually read those documents. I don't know if all the councillors have read them all, and there's a lot of anomalies. There's a lot of contradictions within there, and I think it needs to be understood. The other thing is that we can't go with this myth that having more ratepayers means we've got more money and that we can do more with it, because our chief financial—well, our former chief financial officer, who's just left, she made that quite clear, that simply increasing the number of people here does not solve the problems that we have.
And we know with more public recreation areas that that comes as a future cost to council as well, as we know.
I was going to move an amendment, Mr Mayor. Amendment's fine. Thank you. Mr Mayor, I would like to move that we defer this into the new year so that we could discuss some of these issues that have been raised, and that we could perhaps have, you know, essentially what I really want to do is to understand whether R2 and R5 zoning is the best sort of zoning that that piece of land can be used for, and we're in the dark.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak briefly, although I could finish what I was saying before. But I think that it's—I don't think there's anyone in here that's really adamantly saying that nothing should go there. I don't think that's the case. I think what happens is that things are foisted upon us where we've had no chance to really look at the impacts. We have people coming from all sides, from different parts of the community that may be impacted downstream, that may be impacted through not understanding what's proposed. And because I can't see a consistency with our strategies and our plans, where we go out to people and say, you know, we're a council, we listen to the community, we do our community surveys, people say, you know, they value the amenity of this area, they value this, they value that.
What I would like to see is a translation of that into the sort of development that we have, particularly in an area where it's quite significant in its location, in the impact it has on the surrounding, you know, outlook. And I just think that, you know, I mean, obviously it would come back or it would go to the other process, as you alluded to, for a review with the gateway. My concern with that is—I share your view that we don't want to lose it—but my concern is also that the gateway doesn't necessarily understand specific local specific issues, that we could perhaps better have addressed ourselves as a group of councillors and with council staff, to perhaps have this looked at in some other way or have things clarified or inconsistencies actually dealt with, and various things like the commitment to affordable housing actually built in as a guarantee rather than, you know, just being said here tonight.
So I think that to save it all sort of being lost or to have it, I don't know. Just to give it a go, I guess, and I think that you nailed it when you said how overwhelming the size of the business paper and everything was, that unless everyone's read it, they may not have seen the inconsistencies that exist within there.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thirty seconds, not more. I was going to support the motion, but I have two things. I'm a man of principle. Number one is maybe it's a tiny problem that the report that you and I mentioned, which was prepared in 2009. And secondly, I don't know whether this council
Has ever convened with 11 councillors. As a council, we are 12 councillors. Whether we make a decision right now or until that chair is filled with a new councillor. So for that reason, I'm not going either way. Thank you. I'm representing people. Even if it's one person who voted for me, there's no debate on the floor. That chair is empty. So what are we going to do? The chair empty is fine, Councillor, but if you choose not to vote either way, it's a negative vote. You vote no. Councillor Zamprogno.
I'm speaking in favour of the amendment for the following reasons. It is true that we were delivered an unprecedentedly thick amount of documentation barely days before we make a very, very consequential decision. And it would appear that the data that we've been presented is incomplete or incorrect in a number of respects. The 2013 traffic study made some assessment of the traffic volumes at that time and then some projections about what the traffic volumes might be in the future. The new traffic study, the one that we've been presented to justify supporting this proposal tonight, makes the audacious claim that surveyed traffic volumes along Grose River Road — by the way, it's misspelt the word Grose — are generally lower than the forecast demand by TMAP.
Well, I'm looking at the TMAP report, and that's simply not a correct statement. There is also a trend of traffic decrease on Grose Vale Road in the vicinity of the site. I would defy anybody to show me anecdotally that the amount of traffic on Grose Vale Road has gone down. But despite making such an audacious claim, The new traffic report suggests that as soon as 2031, that the traffic volumes on the intersection of Grose River Road and Grose Vale Road will increase from 423 vehicles per hour in the AM peak to 1,099, which, if you crunch the maths, is one vehicle every three seconds. If the studies that we've been given contain such basic and gross factual errors to embellish the claim that this will be fine for traffic, that this will be fine for congestion, that the panaceas of the Grose River Bridge or the new Hawkesbury River crossing will fix all of those, no.
These studies show that even Transport for New South Wales' own study says you could bring all of this capacity online, and many of these roads will still be at D, E or F level because of the congestion that is being incurred by the new development. That's why I think this is irresponsible, and beyond that, I will support the amendment because, like Councillor Dogramaci, a decision of such consequence should be made by the full chamber. I know that we're capable of electing, you know, voting on this with only 11 people present, but I would be far more comfortable if there were 12, and that process will resolve itself across the Christmas New Year break, considering the volume of information and how even a cursory examination shows that there's a lot in here that is cause for concern that deserves stronger scrutiny.
I will not rush to this, and nor should you. Therefore, we should defer. Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm speaking against the amendment. I'll just be very brief. I think my arguments have been made quite clearly previously. Suffice to say how disappointing it is to sit here tonight when two of my elected colleagues have said that they will not exercise properly their democratic right to have a vote here tonight because one councillor is missing from the chamber. Suffice to say, you must now stick to your principles because you have set a precedent that every time a councillor is sick, every time a councillor is absent, you are not going to exercise your democratic vote that the people who elected you to your position chose to do because there's one person away. It is the most ridiculous and, quite frankly, the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this chamber in eight years, and very disappointing for the people who elected you to use your vote, your voice and your platform.
Now, if I can please ask a question to the staff, and I'm sorry to put you on the spot, but this is quite important. In terms of the Vineyard development, if you could please give me the dollar figure that we as a council have had to resolve to cough up to pay for the drainage and the infrastructure. I know we voted on it last term, I think it was, and I can't remember the dollar value.
Thank you, Vero. Well, the mayor answered it. Fantastic. So this is the difference, and I want to make this very clear, between having a master planned development come to the chamber from someone who we as a council can enter into a VPA, and for those who don't know what that is, that is a voluntary planning agreement, where, as I said, the previous council to the one I got elected to entered into a VPA with Redbank, where part of that delivered the Grose River crossing paid for by the developer, also brought about the brand new parks that our kids are able to enjoy and play in, and also a contribution to the North Richmond Community Centre. Or the other choice is you cop the state government telling us and forcing us to accept new housing in piecemeal development in Vineyard, for example.
Which has been bought by multiple developers who are not building consistently for a grander view, where we, as a council, where you, as ratepayers, have had to fork out and we've had to find $19 million to fill the gap because the state government imposes that development on us, rather than working with someone where we can negotiate a VPA, where we get community benefits for our entire area. And I need people to understand the difference in that. And as elected representatives, we sit here with the ability and, of course, the burden on our shoulders to make decisions that are really hard. But we have to make them knowing what our council will cop, or you will cop as a ratepayer, to the tune of millions of dollars for a development forced on you, or something like this, where the alternative is that we get community infrastructure and community benefit.
And I think it's very crucial for people to understand the difference and the magnitude of the decisions that we have to make in front of us, where the community either benefits or the council and you as ratepayers either cop a multi-million-dollar bill. I just wanted to make that point very clear in addition to the points I'd made previously, Mr Mayor, and again show my disappointment to those in the chamber who now I'll look forward to every time there's a council away, they're not using their democratic right. No, the time is not up. Will not be using their democratic right to have their voice heard. Thank you.
Some really bogus arguments going now. I think we've been presented with this idea that we either take Redbank or we get more vineyard. That isn't how it works. Vineyard is part of the northwest growth sector. It was approved by the previous state government. It was foisted on us not because council didn't want to do something with vineyard, or chose to have, as, you know, as basically been inferred, chose to have a piecemeal development at Vineyard. We were stuck with Vineyard. Just like all the development through Hills and all the development through Blacktown, the northwest growth sector has been imposed on this part of Western Sydney by the previous state government. We simply didn't have any choice in the matter.
We do have a choice in this matter, and it's our job not to give it a tick and flick and say, Gosh, that was a lot of stuff to read. We better just send it on because it was a lot of stuff, and it's an approve it or else thing. We're not just handing this on to the state government. And in fact, those people who have put forward the argument that if we refuse this, the state government will make us do it anyway, are effectively just saying that—are on one hand saying that if we're giving that threat, and on the other hand saying, Excuse me, saying we should just pass it on to the state government to make sure that it's all all right. We're not handing it on. We're voting to approve it in its current form.
There is no turning back from that. If you approve this subdivision, these 350 lots with an additional 17 or 18 dual occupancy blocks and the provision for granny flats across most of this development, so the potential of five or 600 houses on this lot and a thousand cars from them on the road, you're approving that tonight. Be really clear on what we are doing as a council. We need to send a strong signal to both the state government and developers that the Hawkesbury deserves better. Windsor Road is the growth sector. North Richmond is not the growth sector. Conflating them is an unreasonable presentation to the community that only confuses them further.
There's been talk about all the things we'll get out of these developments, all the things we've got from Redbank. All that infrastructure should make the quality of life of everyone living in that area better. No one's arguing that it hasn't made things better for the people who live at Redbank, but it has not made things better for the people who live at North Richmond. And those people have joined us in the gallery today to tell us that they are gridlocked by traffic, that they can't get out in a timely fashion just to the shops at Richmond, which is less than five kilometres away, that their backyards are being washed away by runoff from hard surfacing on properties above them. Life is not getting better for these people.
It's getting significantly worse. And that's on us if we approve any more of it. We've been told to change plans and policies. Well, we tried that. This council, the previous council, spent a considerable amount of money trying to do just that, and they were thrown out in this chamber without any justification, frankly. And the LEP that should have provided clear signals to developers was also held up, and we still don't have it. So all those people who'd like a dual occupancy on their property can't have one, but we have this case of special pleading in this proposal before us. We've got this notion that this is affordable housing. Affordable housing requires public transport. North Richmond doesn't have any.
Affordable housing is being conflated with key worker housing. Affordable housing shouldn't be for people who need to have— shouldn't require a car to get to and from it. But if you live in North Richmond, you need a car. We've got, and what, that's going to get 15 years of affordable housing? That's not going to house people. Redbank is not providing entry-level housing for people desperate to get into the housing market to house their families. It's not. It's providing beautiful homes on a very well landscaped and currently very well cared for block, but it's not providing affordable housing. And it has the potential to cost council millions of dollars every year in maintenance. And any councillor who sits around this table and pretends they don't know that is lying to the community.
Being a mayor for so many years and the council for so many years about rules and regulations about one councillor missing. Do we have to have two, three or four? What if five councillors are missing? What are we going to do? Mr Mayor,
Any further debate? Sorry, I just wanted to clarify something. Yes. Councillor Lyons-Buckett's put up the amendment, and Councillor Wheeler had the original motion, and then Councillor Wheeler's spoken in favour of the amendment. Has the amendment become the motion? Did Councillor Wheeler accept it? So we've got an amendment before us, and we've got a motion before us. Yeah. And a foreshadowed motion from yourself if they're lost.
Yeah. Is there any further debate ? What we have before us is an amendment, and that amendment is on the screen. The amendment is that the matter be deferred. It was moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor, do you want to reply?
Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think it's really disappointing that much of the information that has been given here doesn't pertain, in refuting this motion , doesn't pertain to the content of the motion. It's basically Redbank's really nice, and some ad hominem attacks, and a bit of fear-based, you know, take this or we'll get something really awful like Vineyard. Approve it or else is basically what we've got. And this notion that you can just flick it along to the Department of Planning with council's approval, because that's what you're going to vote for after this motion fails. Be really clear: what this chamber is about to vote for when this motion fails is to approve—
Is to approve. The extension of Redbank. So all the people who've come here because Redbank now has made their lives worse can expect this chamber to vote to approve more of that.
We've just been to an election, and a number of candidates who are sitting around this table talked about appropriate development and how they wouldn't vote for development without infrastructure, or development that wasn't appropriate for the area that it was going in. If that's what you really believe, then you need to vote against this proposal.
But it's already been approved by this chamber. So we'll be tweaking what comes back to us. We won't really have—there won't be much approval. And we'll get the same old, the developer's gone to so much trouble, the developer has spent so much money. It's so far down the process, how could we possibly unwind what we've done? We get one chance to demand better for the future of North Richmond, and this is it. And I urge you to go with it.
There is a foreshadowed motion . Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to add a point five, and maybe the staff can help word this. There is no point five in the recommendation.
Written all my questions on that page. There we go. All right, sorry. Can I add point one that we, the flood and evacuation and bushfire safety report be updated as part of this process. So the 2009 report
There you go. Oh, as in they're writing it the wrong way. I don't know. Just switch it. The staff can just switch that to point one to point two, we just reverse it. Yeah.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. And for the life of me, I cannot cope with that point two, because what on earth ? When is it meant to be done before it goes to Gateway? Is it meant to be done when it comes back? The fact that you would ask for another flood evacuation and bushfire safety report, which is actually a flood study around flooding, not just evacuation, that could inform what you were doing with the planning proposal. So if you really wanted to do that, we could have deferred and done that and then come back forward with it. But anyway, I'll speak against it anyway, largely for the reasons I gave before around both— I guess a disappointment that we've had a missed opportunity around something.
I don't believe that those two zonings proposed are the best zoning for that particular area. There's no reason why we can't be trying to deliver what we know our housing strategy has told us people want, which is, in many instances, quite small, not detached housing. People want options. This isn't giving options. This is more detached dwellings, some with maybe have a secondary dwelling, some people will get to have a secondary dwelling, some people won't. I just think the inequity around that. I can't believe that we're accepting that we would be doing that, that we're actually passing something where some people can do something and some people cannot. To me, that's a really sad day in here.
You know, who's going to come in with another proposal and say, well, these people that live over here can do this thing, but these people over there, even though you're in the same zoning, even though you're in the same suburb, you can't do it. So that's a really poor precedent, and I'm really, really disappointed that that would be going ahead in this chamber. It is inequitable and it's distressing. The not getting it right around what's happening downstream, we are responsible for those people. We have an obligation that the people downstream from this are safe and that their lives and properties are not at risk. I'm very, very, very disappointed that we can't have been more mature in either putting this back to speak about it more, to work with Redbank to get something that maybe could address these issues.
Instead, we just go down that path and, as Councillor Wheeler just said, we know once it's gone, all of this, you send it to Gateway and they fix it all up. That isn't how it works, and we know how it works. And to put it in under the guise that this is going to fix the housing crisis, or somebody said that putting more houses there will drive down the prices. Whoever said that, that is not how market forces work. And we know that it's the market that's driving the property prices, that's driving the construction prices, and we are ignoring all of that, and we're just going for what some people see as a quick fix. And we are missing a really good opportunity. One day I would like to be proud in this chamber that we've done something that respects the history and the opportunity in this area and delivers something to the Hawkesbury that we can all be proud of.
No, probably best I do, Mr Mayor. I'm not going to sit here and be lectured to by someone the way I was just lectured at, who is the only councillor in Hawkesbury's history who's had a misconduct finding.
Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. What I was referring to was a finding in relation to the Karadjong Kermond investigation area. The reason I— Point of order, Mr Mayor.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. The point I was making, when other people are bringing about other developments in this area, the point is relevant. You had a proposal come to this chamber in the last two terms of council where the Liberal and Labor councillors tried— well, actually did kill it off. That was more development west of the river. This is why this is relevant to the topic I'm making. Point of order, Mr Mayor.
Wrong claim. The discussion— just a minute. The discussion by the last few councillors, I wonder what the residents or the applicants think we're doing here.
But when councillors— We've got a matter before us and we need to stick to it. There might be precedents in the past. We're hopefully talking about the future here.
That's right, but we're talking about development west of the river, which has been raised by multiple councillors tonight, Mr Mayor, and that's the point that I'm making. Correct. Thank you so much. I'll continue. The Karadjong Kermond investigation area study was a very controversial proposal that would have resulted in a lot of extra houses being built west of the river. You had half a chamber last term kill that off because it was the wrong— Mr Mayor, it's relevant because other developments have been brought up in this discussion tonight. We're now talking about a proposal on the table that's bringing extra houses, a proposal that has been done right, where you had councillors like myself say no to the other proposal because it was not done correctly.
That point needs to be made clear that I am on the record saying that when something is wrong, we have to kill it off. When something is right in this circumstance, and I believe this one is right, then we support it. So there needs to be that clarification. I did also want to refute a couple of other points that were made, quoting specifically that North Richmond doesn't have any when it comes to public transport. I do know specifically there is one bus that does the North Richmond, Kurrajong, Richmond loop, Bus 680. So, and I'm sure there's another few different bus routes that bring public transport to that area. So I think we need to speak in facts here tonight. The other point I do wish to make is there was an accusation that any councillor who sits around this table and doesn't know that Redbank will cost us money is lying to the community, which was met with a round of applause.
Not one councillor that I have heard tonight has sat here and said that tonight . Not one councillor has said that. Therefore, not one councillor has lied to the community. To just sit here and say your fellow colleagues are lying when that discussion hasn't even been raised is quite deceitful. Mr Mayor, I'll summarise very quickly by saying that I support the foreshadowed motion on the board. As I said in my other comments, I think this just makes sense, and I'll leave it up to the chamber to decide. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. That's enough of that. Councillor, before you go on, we're going to matter before us. It's important to our large section of our community, indeed all our community. And while we feel very strong and passionate about it, there's no one sitting around this chamber, or indeed on my right or left, that doesn't want a good outcome of what we've got here. And some of the comments have been misleading. It does come back to Council. The decision we make tonight is not fait accompli at all. Not by a long shot. And the opportunities, and I hope the councillors take advantage of the time between now and when it comes back to council with the issues that we've got that we might be able to address them, certainly in relation to the staff, in relation to the voluntary agreements, and any other things.
We've got the applicants sitting in the gallery. If you think they're not going to talk about this tomorrow, they are, and they don't want a bad development. They want a piece of community. And with Redbank Creek, we spent thousands of dollars on a study that's been done for Redbank Creek, and the storms are different. We didn't have any for 30 years. It's half choked up. Of course the creek's going to be different. So there's all those issues need addressing. But tonight, we're not talking about that. We're talking about what's before us with the proposal, and with the documents that were given us. I didn't say everyone should have read them. I just said we were given documents. If you need to clarify something, the document was there to do it.
So, councillors, just think about the role that we've got, the players, councillors, and motions can still run high. I'm not suggesting they don't. But be conscious you've got a bigger decision than sometimes a personal one. Thank you.
Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm always reminded of the aphorism before I speak: to check, is it true, is it kind, and is it necessary. Perhaps we could be more mindful of that. Thank you. I can't support the motion before us because nobody has been able to answer the question that I asked Mr Douglas at the top of the debate. And that is, even if we're one to accept that this is a good idea, why does it have to happen now? I suspect that the answer is that there's profit waiting, and don't stand between a developer and their potential profits. I also want to dispel the furphy about, you know, this isn't being paid for with public money or government money. It's being paid for with development money.
I wonder where that developer money comes from, because it's a levy that's placed on the sale of each block. Generally, it's not enough to supply the infrastructure. That's the bitter lesson that we've learnt in Vineyard. But that money is paid for by the people who buy those properties, at least in part. And where there's a shortfall, guess who has to put their hands in their pockets? It's us. Anyway, that's what I wasn't—I'm not going to opine on that. I'm simply going to say, I think many people in this room, certainly... The majority of my friends in the gallery would see that it would be a matter of eminent common sense to say, you know what, come back to us when the Grose River Bridge is built.
Come back to us when the new Hawkesbury River crossing is built. If, as some of my colleagues have suggested, that that's the panacea, that it will bring sufficient capacity online to solve these problems, why don't we just hold them to their word? It's certainly been delayed long enough. I think some people will die before they see that infrastructure. They'll die waiting. Maybe they'll die waiting for an ambulance to make its way from Richmond to North Richmond at a peak time. But if that is indeed the solution, wait till that infrastructure is built, then put forward this proposal. Nobody's been able to suggest to me why this absolutely has to be endorsed tonight . Therefore, I'm voting against the motion.
Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. I've articulated why I think this current proposal is not up to scratch, and it's not consistent with a number of ministerial directions on planning, particularly the Metropolitan Rural Lands or the Metropolitan Rural Area, the district plans, which do not include additional development west of the river, a number of flood studies, and there is no support from existing infrastructure, particularly with respect to transport and public transport. I'm glad there's one bus. That's not really— there's one bus to Wilberforce as well. That's not working either.
It has— there appears to be some confusion around the Currajong-Kurmond investigation area, and that was not a planning proposal. That was not a proposal for additional development. It was a place-based plan which sought to identify which land could be developed. It wasn't a proposal in itself, and getting rid of it has resulted in the continuing spot rezonings and development in Currajong and Kurmond that may not have been approved otherwise. Which brings me to the problems around the traffic study for this proposal that's before us, which doesn't take effectively into account all of those spot rezonings that just keep on keeping on through the Hawkesbury. This is very, very bad planning. And this 350 lot is effectively another spot rezoning .
When this comes back to us from the Department of Planning, we won't get to change the zoning. This is our chance to change the zoning . We don't get to do anything with that. If you haven't read this, or you haven't understood it, or you haven't had the time to digest all of the information in what is a lengthy proposal that we have only had since last Wednesday, and a bit prior for a briefing— certainly the community has only had it since Thursday or Friday— then you probably shouldn't vote for it. Because it's our responsibility to act in the best interests of the whole of the LGA, not for one patch of the Hawkesbury and not for one developer.
We're not debating, as I said before, whether or not this is a very nice development. We are debating whether this is good for the Hawkesbury. And with what we currently have in terms of infrastructure provision, in terms of flooding, in terms of evacuation, and in terms of emergency services for flooding, for fire, for medical care, for hospital care, this is not in the best interests of the Hawkesbury.
Thanks , Mr Mayor. I'll be brief because everybody's had a lot to say tonight, and I thank everybody for their input . I don't think anybody can accuse me of being pro-development and just automatically vote for any development that comes up before Council. I've got serious concerns about some of the developments that are coming up. I've got concerns about ones that were approved by majority—actually, I think it was almost unanimous—by the previous Council term. I think with this particular one, sending it to Gateway, getting more information, I think it will finish off this particular master plan. And to be honest, Councillor Lyons Buckett and I were actually the only two around this chamber that actually voted against the original rezoning of Redbank back in the day when it was first proposed.
Going ahead, it's actually, my concern was the lot sizes. And back then, I think it was, what was it? It was a hundred and something, the minimum. It was a hundred metres something. Yeah. Anyway, so that was one of the reasons I originally voted against the rezoning. I think this is fine to go to Gateway. I understand some of the concerns, but that's the entire point. And to turn around and say that this will be a done lot when it comes back, I don't believe that. Like, I still reserve the right to vote against it if it comes back. So I'm more than happy for it to go to Gateway to get some more information, including get the flood evacuation and bushfire safety report updated, if people support this tonight.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded by Councillor Veigel.
That:
1. Council support Planning Proposal (LEP002/24) Kemsley Park, 322 Grose Vale Road, Grose Vale and forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.
2. The Flood Evacuation and Bushfire Safety Report be updated.
In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 a division is required to be called whenever a planning decision is put at a Council or Committee meeting. Accordingly, the Chairperson called for a division in respect of the motion, the results of which are as follows:
I have a pecuniary interest in item 10.1.2, the draft Hawkesbury Slab Barn and Outbuildings Study. I own a property in the study, and so I shall leave the room. You shall leave
Is called a mental switch. I'd ask you to think about something that's pretty much outside your door and people that are involved in it. We're speaking of something that is quite remote in theory, which is to say the draft Hawkesbury Slab Barns and Outbuildings Upgrade Study. But it's much more relevant than these outlying buildings because of who the council has very, very commendably— Engaged .
Why do I say that? No one here is unaware of the phrase location, location, location, and I'd say to you that with regard to what takes place in all these heritage-involved items, however distant or far they are, it is an extraordinarily fine resource, and whoever was behind this should be congratulated, because Lucas, Stapledon, Johnson—if the people in Perth had that, if the people in even Melbourne had that—these people arguably are the premier resource for anything to deal with heritage. And do we care that this is arguably, incomparably superior to another group which we won't mention? And I'm stressing this because not only do we have Graham Edds, who's done remarkable work and he's associated with them, but these two entities , I really put this to you, have to be—I implore you, when it was in the selection process—these people have to be central .
They really should be foremost, not just central. Nearly ending.
The idea of the Greenway Awards, another name that I do know rings a bell. The point of this is, and I really believe That there should be a contrast privately among you councillors to who decided that these two entities be involved in this study, as contrasted to a previous entity. And here's the punchline. I've spoken with some heritage people at length about this, and for sure in the community, five and a half days a week I spend on this. If this group, which incidentally a credential, last credential, and I'm not suggesting they're shortlisted for the Nobel Prize, but I am suggesting that someone who has been involved, that's Lucas Stapledon Johnson, for two decades with this area, did a study perhaps never surpassed, over 605 pages on just one area.
That's Thompson Square, must always be, must always be consulted . Why? Do not doubt that if they had been involved with what is happening outside the door, here's the punchline: stage one, stage 1A, stage two, there is no way in the world that the community wouldn't be so alarmed and therefore causing these extensive delays had these people been involved. So I urge you, if you can privately as visitors , but particularly you councillors, to get to the bottom: who decided that these two entities be chosen, and who decided the previous entity, as inadequate as they are, was chosen? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I totally support this going out on public exhibition. As we know, our barns, we're very special to have these particular sorts of barns, very important agricultural heritage structures. And this is a very comprehensive study that's been done. Hopefully the barns that were unable to be done will eventually also be included into it. The recommendations for state and local heritage listing, I think, you know, may be open to some public feedback. I'm not sure how much people, you know, get into it and have an opinion on that. But I think, more importantly, in terms of how documents go, this is a really, really valuable document that acknowledges the importance of our agricultural evolution over the years.
And we're really lucky in our area that many of these barns are still used for their original purpose, which is amazing. It's very rare to find some of the really early examples that are around the Castle Ray area and Agnes Banks, and it's fantastic that we have some of those here. So it's good that we have a document like this that provides information, support, and that gives us more opportunities with grant funding and for individuals to access grant funding when we have this all contained in a comprehensive document. So it will be good to see what the public feedback comes back on this. Thank you.
Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I commend the authors of this report. It's well done. There's a lot of work behind it, and it's documenting the history of the Hawkesbury, the slab barns as well. And as Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, a lot of them are workable, but they need to be preserved. So this is a no-brainer. So thank you. Thank you. Councilor Reardon.
No. I'll just quickly speak in agreement with Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Veigel and concur with what they said. I think this is really important. There's a lot of heritage around these old buildings, and you can see some of them where they've actually redone them up and given them new life, but have still managed to maintain the sort of heritage factor around them. I think this is fantastic and absolutely support this recommendation in the business paper. So well done to the staff. Thank you, Councillor.
I'd just like to make a comment. I remember, I know it must be nearly 40 years ago now, Graham Edds stood there and he said, You people are the custodians of the city. Something that stuck with me all that time. The effort that's gone into that document is exceptional. It's detailed and the like. It's going out on public exhibition, and if we've got people who have barns, and there probably is, that might not want to be associated with the heritage aspect of it, I think that we need to make a special effort to work with those people to achieve the outcome of what this document is trying to achieve. And indeed, I think what the community expects of us to do that. We don't have to go wheel and big sticks.
There's other ways to do things, and you work with people, you can achieve good outcomes. And I think that we should excel in this regard if there's opposition in relation to what's proposed with the document.
Councillor Lyons-Buckett, right of reply. Those in favour? Against? Carried. Mr Mayor, can I just— just sorry about that. ... Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Councillor Dogramaci abstained, and myself. The motion is carried.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded by Councillor Creed.
That:
1. Council endorse the Draft Hawkesbury Timber Slab Barn and Outbuildings Update Study included as Attachment 1 to this report, for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days.
2. The matter be reported back to Council following the public exhibition period, including any submissions that are received and Council Officer responses to these submissions.
In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 a division is required to be called whenever a planning decision is put at a Council or Committee meeting. Accordingly, the Chairperson called for a division in respect of the motion, the results of which are as follows:
Sorry, Mr Mayor, for interrupting you because you're just getting the vote. Can I, through you, can I just request you that we do the condolences motion, please? It's going to— yep. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I acknowledge that Mr McGuire's daughter Angela is in the audience, and his wife Trish was here but has had to go. Thank you for hearing this condolence motion. Now I'm going to call.
The business paper has a short summary of what was a long life for Mr McGuire, and what we see is a sad loss of someone who cared very deeply for this area, and was saddened by the loss of much of the agricultural land, and what he saw as the opportunities that could flow from that. John was a great conversationalist. He liked to talk. He loved to chat, and was a fierce promoter of the Hawkesbury and its capacity to be great. He encouraged decision makers to look to the future, to avoid us setting out on a path which would diminish our capacity to retain our uniqueness and special qualities.
Sorry, I've got a really dry throat. A passion he had to identify the need to protect our food security into the future gave John the drive to spread the word around that, whether it was at the orchard, at the markets, or at any gathering he happened to be at. He was happy to talk about that and many other things. And he really liked to talk . So I was thinking about John and what I'd like to say, and I think to capture the influence John had on me, I thought of one of my favourite poems, which is called The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost, which was written in 1915. Half of you probably studied it at school. I didn't, thank you. It's a poem about choosing a pathway, and it's about decision making and the importance of choosing which path we'll follow, and whether we stay with the status quo or whether we bend to pressure and be forward thinking and follow your gut feeling.
So it's very relevant to the decisions we make in here, and that we make here tonight, and that we'll make for the next four years. And it's very relevant to John and how he was a visionary with so much wisdom. And the final paragraph after the decisions made in the poem, to take one path over the other, concludes with the words, and I'll read it. I was going to read the whole poem, but I can't with my voice; it's gone funny. And it concludes with this: I shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages hence, two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference. That's the end of the poem, if you get that significance. As John promoted and lived by, making a better Hawkesbury was a really admirable pursuit.
Thank you, John, and hopefully we'll make decisions to reflect that legacy. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr Mayor. I met John not long after I moved here, I think about the time that I was running a food co-op out of the Earthcare Centre, and it was a— We used to have some pretty good arguments. John and I assumed that we were on the opposite side of the fence. I do remember one cracking argument we had about the treatment of flying foxes that were one of his great banes, and having a lengthy discussion about how shooting at them was probably not the best way forward. He, I think, he ended up with quite a lot of nets, actually, and we moved on from that argument. So it was an unlikely pairing, the arch conservative and the green. But John really was a true conservative in that he really wanted to conserve what made the Hawkesbury special.
He had a really strong commitment to the food culture of the Hawkesbury and was such an early member of Hawkesbury Harvest, a founding member of Hawkesbury Harvest, with a deep knowledge of why the Hawkesbury is so important for food security for Greater Sydney, something that unfortunately is increasingly being lost. That understanding that food growing takes two really quite precious things: good soil and good water. And we have both of those here, and they can't be replicated in many other places. And that was, I think, it was that very simple argument that John put forward to anyone who would listen that was really powerful. He loved a chat. He was a very persuasive talker. Lots of people used to go to the Richmond markets and buy apples from John.
I always bought things that I didn't need from John. He was remarkably good at selling you all the things that you didn't think you wanted to take home from the markets before you got there.
A great lover of his wife's jams. I always went away with at least one jam, even though I make a lot of jam myself. But he is one of those characters that wasn't just interesting or entertaining. He was someone who had a real passion for protecting the Hawkesbury and protecting something that should be incredibly important to everybody, and that's food, fresh local food. He really was a man before his time, and I think down the track we're going to realise his extraordinary impact, and we will continue to miss him. I think we already miss him. I want to thank the McGuire family for sharing John with us. He spent a lot of time volunteering on different causes. I'm sure he was absent quite a lot as a result.
As we all know, being part of public decision making or public advocacy is an impost on your family, and it takes the time and effort from family to back that person while they're doing that. And the McGuire family always have. They are a really close-knit family. I think their dedication to each other is quite commendable, and that has been evident in the care of John in his last few years. It was clearly evident at the funeral, and I hope they are aware of the legacy that they've left for the Hawkesbury.
Mr Mayor, if you permit me. I'd like to say only a couple of words about John. I met the gentleman on three occasions. Calm, very nice, quiet person, I found it. And in my life, it takes only a few seconds to judge someone. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I always refer an individual to an animal. And in my eyes, after that three meetings, to me, he was a butterfly. Thank you.
Okay. The next item is the items on block, which are 10.2.1 and 10.4.1. I'll move those. I'll move those. Councillor Reardon. I'll second it, Mr Mayor. And Councillor Creed. Any discussion? Those in favour?
Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, if I may. Is it possible to build affordable housing contributions provisions into a plan like this? So, like an affordable housing levy, for example.
We have a separate proposal to have an affordable housing scheme that we're undertaking with Western Sydney Councils, and that's the more appropriate mechanism to go through that way
Sure. Thank you. Thanks. I'll just speak briefly then, Mr Mayor. There's— this is, I think this is one of those things that it's easy to give a tick and flick to and for the community to miss, that actually there's a lot of information in here sitting under the works program that it really would be useful for the community to cast their eyes over. They're not big things. They're quite small things like place-based upgrades, shade over play spaces, shade over the play space in Peel Park at North Richmond, for example, shade over a play space at Macquarie Park in Freemans Reach that are paid for by— that are paid for by developments. It's useful for the community, I think, to look at these projects and see whether it's what they want, to look at the timing of them, and to look at the often really high costs of what looks like a fairly minor upgrade.
The other thing that is worth noting is the inclusion of the catastrophic loss provisions, which I think Councillors Zamprogno brought forward in the previous term of Council, which means that you don't have to pay a 7.12 contribution if you're just putting back a building that was destroyed through some form of disaster or catastrophic loss. And I think that will hopefully save people some angst should they ever be in that awful position, but also is one of those lessons that we've learned post fires and floods that makes us, I think, hopefully easier to deal with. There's also an interesting list in here around population development growth and the spatial distribution of population growth and associated demands, which does speak to our expected population growth, local infrastructure demand, and the likely need for affordable housing in particular spots.
It might look like a long and boring read for people in a fairly large business paper, but I find it's by chewing through some of these less exciting reports that you get a better feel for where the LGA is headed rather than piecemeal spot rezonings where we might end up otherwise.
Thank you, Councillor. I too spoke to our staff about it. On page 62 at the top, there's the opportunity to review the plan every two to three years with a major review every five years, and it was something that I was happy to bring to the workshop with plenty of notice to the councillors to have a think about the sort of things they might wish to discuss with the staff in that regard.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor McMahon, seconded by Councillor Kotlash.
That Council:
1. Note the outcome of public exhibition of the draft Hawkesbury 7.12 Contributions Plan 2024.
2. Adopt the Hawkesbury 7.12 Contributions Plan 2024 included as Attachments 1 and 2 and repeal the Hawkesbury Section 94A Contributions Plan 2015.
3. In future reviews of the Hawkesbury 7.12 Contributions Plan 2024 where there are only changes to the work program and mapping, Council will report and exhibit the reviewed work program for adoption.
In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 a division is required to be called whenever a planning decision is put at a Council or Committee meeting. Accordingly, the Chairperson called for a division in respect of the motion, the results of which are as follows:
Only to say that I think this is a good blending of our monthly meetings with our fortnightly meetings when we need it. I think this is, you know, we had last year to sort this out, and it seems to me that the table on page 73 of the business paper satisfies that need for extra meetings when we need it and monthly meetings when we are able to pare back on all of the staff work and the preparation that inevitably goes into these meetings. So that's really all there is to it. I think it's straightforward and a good way forward. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm a little bit concerned with no meeting in January and, so not kicking off until the 4th of February. That leaves us with at least seven weeks between meetings, and that is, I think, a long time. I would, I have to say, I would prefer to see a meeting in the last week of January. I know that Australia Day makes that quite difficult, and I guess the two meetings in February is a compromise, but I don't think it's ideal. The other comment that I've got is that we used to have, up until about 2018, I think, we used to have separate meetings for when the development plan and the operational plan came to us, and they were quite short meetings usually, but it had the advantage in that you only had one big batch of information to chew through rather than the OP and DP coming at the same time as you had the normal meeting minutes , which meant that the community
Were able to examine the DP and OP in more detail. It appears that that won't be happening again this year, despite us flagging it last year. Can I just say again that I don't believe that that's the optimal way forward for considering that amount of information. And can I also ask when the CSP, or the amended updated CSP, is likely to come back to Council?
Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. So it's intended that the Community Strategic Plan will be brought to Council at the March meeting, at the 11th of March, to be placed on exhibition through March and April. The intent there is to have that public exhibition ideally close, or go close to closing, before the delivery program, the four-year delivery program and operational plan are then brought to Council in April, if possible. So we're just trying to sequence that out in a logical manner.
Councillor Kotlash. Just quickly, I'd just like to say that when the—I do remember what Councillor Wheeler was talking about. We used to have, I think they were called extraordinary meetings for the adoption of the operational plan and delivery plan. But I think we have enough time to go through the detail of that in briefings and workshops that we are going to have instead of meetings , because that was one of the things that we said. If we don't meet every fortnight, we can have more time to talk about it. And I think that lends itself to that kind of better decision making. Just to have it in a council meeting strictly, you know, with the rules of debate is not necessarily the best way to go. So I'm happy with that we don't move back to that situation. But that's neither here nor there. We can sort of keep debating it and keep refining this. So that's about it.
Just to clarify, Mr Mayor, it's not the process for the councillors that I'm concerned about. It's the community's ability to engage with that information that I'm more interested in.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reardon.
That Council:
1. Set the schedule of Ordinary Council Meetings for 2025, as outlined in this report.
2. Set the time of Ordinary Council Meetings for 2025 to commence at 6:30pm and to take place in the Council Chambers, or by audio-visual link in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice.
CP - 2024/2025 Community Sponsorship Program - Round 1
Shane Djuric
The next item is sponsorship round. Mr. Councillor Djuric. Thank you. I have a pecuniary interest in item 10.31, the Community Sponsorship Program. I'm a financial member of the Hawkesbury Beekeepers Association. They're a group seeking assistance in the funding program, so I'll be leaving the room. Thank you, Councillor.
I too declared a less significant non-pecuniary interest. The mayoral Christmas appeal is a Jeremiah project, and the reasons for no further action, I don't have any personal relationship or financial interest in it, and I'll be staying here. Thank you. Okay. Would someone like to move?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I've raised this before, and I think that I don't recall, maybe we did do a review of this policy, but I don't recall it.
Please? Oh, sorry. I don't recall it. I just had some questions around the section called Participation Category, and I congratulate all these young people on their wonderful achievements. I think they're magnificent. But I'm just not sure, in clarifying them, I mean, I see that it's now including things that maybe are like dance competitions that are commercial operations and run in a different way. I'm just wondering how we have a limit on how far that goes, because we could end up with, you know, a thousand people going to these things, and that would become very expensive. That's just something to review into the future. The other question was around funding, whether we are setting a precedence by funding public school P and C, well, any school P and C.
I know the fact that P and Cs would have to be trying to get as much money as they can is probably a reflection on the poor funding system for public schools, and I think it's great that the P and Cs embarking on this project here for... to build their garden at the school. But I'm a little bit concerned that if that word gets around, we've got a lot of schools in the Hawkesbury. I've got no objection to the projects they're doing,
Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. Look, certainly to your first point in terms of limiting the number of applicants in the participation category, the community sponsorship strategy and the associated policy will be developed within the coming calendar year. As I think may have been previously discussed in the prior round reported to Council, that will, all commentary taken, particularly around the participation category and the eligibility criteria, will form part of the discussion at a Councillor workshop prior to a draft strategy being developed for consideration. With regards to a PNC, whilst I can't recall the exact amount, there has historically been previous PNCs who have been funded, including for small infrastructure projects, specifically where there's been upgrades to canteens.
That advice can certainly form part of what comes back as part of the Councillor workshop. And again, the eligibility criteria broadly across all three sponsorship categories will be reviewed in the renewed strategy.
Thank you. I spoke to the staff in relation to this. We've got a young lady going to Tokyo, and there's a criteria we got. I just need to think we need to have a look at it, whether it needs to stay the same.
And we're giving her $150. We're, and I mean they're all— Good at what they do, but some of them are very local and they get $150, and we've got someone, and I don't know whether they actually represent or they're playing in a team over there, what the case is, but they're certainly playing overseas. And over the page with access categories, we've got Hawkesbury Valley Baptist Church. We're giving them $61.
I thought that might have been a typo, but it wasn't. The application come in and the like, but we need to have a start and cut-off point. It would have cost the staff more than $61 to give it to them, and certainly their application for it. So they're just some twigging we need to do. The staff's aware of it, and as was indicated, it's going to come back for us to be talked about. Councillor Dogramaci asked me not to mention. He fell over laughing when I told him about that. Okay. Mr
Mayor, could I just add that when we look at that, is there just some way that that's obviously for the use, these are things just for the use of things, could we just not have a broad category of what made someone eligible or with a cap on the spending rather than looking at them all all the time?
Mr Mayor, just a couple of comments. I guess I'm pleased to see that the policy is coming back to us next calendar year. It's, the $61 does look a bit... Funny.
And I think the criteria for, I mean, 150 bucks is a drop in the bucket these days. I think we need to look at the criteria. I think we may also need to consider topping up the funds. Money isn't buying what it used to, and that has changed quite rapidly as well. So I think we need to look at how we're dealing in this space. I'm a little bit concerned, I guess it's similar to Councillor Lyons-Buckett's comments, I'm a bit concerned about the continuing need for Council to provide support to organisations that are providing work that's the responsibility of other levels of government. And in this instance, I'm referring to Link Wentworth and Windsor High. I've got no problem at all with those projects.
I'm very happy to see them funded, and we've funded far less beneficial things. But the core functions of state-funded schools and services should be paid for by the state, not by council grants. And so I think we have to be very careful that we are not facilitating more cost shifting and more money, that these should be a value add. And I think probably the gardening program run by the P&C at Windsor High is one of those value adds.
We're already cutting back the amount that we can give some other organisations. So I think we need to be really careful about where we put ratepayers' hard-earned money and make sure that our criteria is as tight as possible so that it's doing what we intend and not providing things that should be provided by the organisations that are... that are putting their hands up for ratepayers' funds. Thanks
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor McMahon, 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 unsuccessful applicant of the outcome of assessment of applications and provide feedback and offer assistance to support future applications for grant funding.
4. Commence a review of the eligibility and assessment criteria for the Community Sponsorship Program and update the Community Sponsorship Strategy, to provide greater clarity to the Community Sponsorship Program, including a review of the guidelines for working with Charitable Organisations.
This has to be delivered. We've been talking about it for such a long time. The whole mall, the precinct there is just crucial, the Windsor precinct anyway, dare I say. But it has to be delivered to plan. But I note that there may be a shortfall. By hook or by crook, we'll have to find that shortfall. I'm quietly confident that those monies may come from other areas.
I don't want to dwell on it because there's much to say on it, but I think Option 1, and it's detailed, that we proceed, get on with the tenders, see where we stand after the quantity surveying. I do recognise that the cost of construction has gone up enormously since COVID, and this is one of those things we just have to manage and deal with. But Windsor's a very worthy township, being third settlement in Australia, so let's deliver it. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thanks
Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Veigel that I think option one is really the only way forward. We need to complete this project, and there's a whole lot of reasons why we need to complete this project. And it should be noted that this was fully funded when we started it, and it should be fully funded if the funding authority agrees to forward fund the project or shift the deadline out another six months. And we need to acknowledge to ourselves that that is a long shot because it's taken so long to get to this point. So it's a possibility that there will be a $3.6 million shortfall if they don't forward fund or they don't extend the deadline. We are the only council who have not completed our City Deals works.
This project was fully funded at the outset with external funding, with a very small top-up from Council that was predominantly paid for by money that was going to be used to maintain the mall anyway. And so because of delays, because we've changed our mind and reduced the scale and changed the scope and did this and did that, we've ended up with a project that has— It's become a bit of a camel, I'm afraid. It's a horse designed by a committee, and I think the real challenge now is to pull it together so that it provides a holistic treatment of Windsor. But we can't leave the mall in the condition that it's in. It's not safe. It's run down. It's unsightly, and we've left ourselves, I think, over a barrel a bit.
We've got a reduced scale and scope to the project. We've got a much delayed outcome.
There are some serious risk management considerations outlined in the report that I hope everyone has read. This was all predicted at the time that we started to tinker with this project, and I'm deeply disappointed that we're having to compromise so much on what we're delivering. And particularly, I'm very disappointed by the treatment in Thompson Square. It really does deserve much better than we're giving it. The fact that we have to leave one of the worst parts of Thompson Square in one of the most significant public, or what was the most significant remnant public square on the mainland, with bits of crazy paving from the 1980s and a sign made out of coppers logs is really sad, I think.
We desperately need to push on with this project and get the best we can out of it, but we've— We're now at a hole that we have to work our way out of, and I hope we get, you know some of the stuff that we've done in Windsor looks great. You know, I think a lot of the trees look beautiful. The flowering crepe myrtles look lovely. There's real potential for shade down the track. The benches are nice. They're unfortunately all in the sun and on a bit of a slope, but they're very nice benches. But the paving is a vast improvement on what we had. But getting us to the finish line now is going to be a real challenge, and Windsor deserves better than it's currently got.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Veigel, seconded by Councillor Creed.
That Council:
1. Acknowledge the support of the Federal and State Government in supporting the finalisation of the Liveability Project - Windsor Town Centre.
2. Finalise the detailed design and tender documents for the Liveability Project - Windsor Town Centre Stage 2 (Windsor Mall) in preparation for tender in early 2025.
3. Continue to negotiate with the Funding Body to achieve provision of funding to Council prior to 30 June 2025, for the Liveability Project - Windsor Town Centre Stage 2 (Windsor Mall).
4. Include a project within the Draft 2025/2026 Operational Plan to fund a potential $3.6M project shortfall if the 30 June 2025 deadline is enforced.
At—will we have the, I guess the question is, will we have the costings when Option C comes back the next time this comes back to us to say yay or nay to specific bits of what's coming to us in a staged format, so that we can perhaps use up all the WISIG funding and hopefully meet the outcomes that we're presented with, and then maybe have a plan of works to move forward and deal with those. If we consider meeting the objectives that we said we would to the funding body as the have-to-haves, and some of those things that we said we would have that might be nice-to-haves can come in, you know, in later tranches. If we're having to pay for those have-to-haves with our own money, how much detail can we have presented to us when Option C comes back for us to make a decision?
Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, that's the intention. When we bring that report back would be to identify essentially the elements which meet those outcomes through the outcome logic map and the cost of those elements, as well as where they rank in terms of the nice-to-have versus the must-haves, to give Council the best information with which to make that decision on what are the core elements that must be delivered to meet the outcomes of the deed, and then where they rank in terms of community priority and desire.
Thanks. Is it possible, when this—to get a copy of those outcomes that we're measuring against? I know we got it at the strategic planning weekend, but the slide deck that's on the hub is abbreviated, and the outcomes for each project aren't visible. If we could have that, that would really help. I'm hoping to do some mulling over of this now we've got this seven-week hiatus and try and get my head around what we're trying to deliver within the parameters that we actually can deliver, particularly the financial parameters, and I can't do that if I can't see all the information. Councillor
Need the outcomes were on that slide deck that came to us, and I just need the full slide deck if that's possible. I also want to note that this whole Western Sydney Infrastructure Grant scheme was audited in February 2024, and a number of the problems that we were experiencing were flagged in that audit. So some of the comments out of the audit were there is risk that some councils will be overloaded and that existing issues in the market supporting infrastructure delivery will be exacerbated. Some councils received total funding amounts that exceed their typical annual capital works budgets significantly. These councils will need to quickly increase their project management capabilities. To facilitate a significant increase in the capital works programs, and must do this in challenging market conditions that have increased the price of labour and goods.
And in fact, the Premier's department identified that providing funding for multiple projects could increase risks to the successful delivery of projects and recommended that contingency funds were increased. This is exactly what we're experiencing as a council, and I would hope that the funding body is cognisant of that, and that the problems with what was a pork barrel in the lead-up to an election, a pork barrel to be delivered by councils, that councils will now not be held to some of this with using ratepayers' money to execute it. We need to get a value add out of this. I'm particularly interested in seeing this used to do things that we would not be able to do, but don't cost us huge sums of money, which is where we are.
You know, for the pool, we need an option that replaces the main pool and the plant and provides shading, change rooms and accessibility, and the other is add-on, I think. And that renegotiating, I think, is going to be the difficulty. You know, there was talk about a need for intergenerational equity, and I think, you know, we really have to have a discussion about what we're not funding in order to fund this and where the intergenerational equity is in that.
RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor McMahon, seconded by Councillor Creed.
That Council:
1. Proceed to detailed design for Option C for the Richmond Swimming Centre Redevelopment.
2. Continue with design development on the project, and that value engineering and staging options are explored during this process to determine if an optimised outcome is available within the parameters of the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grant Funding Deed.
3. Receive a further report when the project reaches 50% detailed design, to assess the anticipated project costs, prior to proceeding with or not proceeding with the submission of a Development Application and/or any relevant grant variation application.
14.1.1. - Responses to Councillor Questions Taken on Notice at the Council Meeting 26 November 2024
Paul Veigel
Question tonight on the answer to two that Councillor Kotlash asked, whether there's a comparison between the gas usage, please. Am I allowed to ask a couple of questions? Yes, you are. Well, I'm going to ask it anyway. I fail to see how this data of 4,099 tonnes of CO2 has come to 24 gas lamps, if that's how much we've got in the area. Now
Ask that, because having done a little bit of research on it, I looked at Berlin, and Berlin, since up to about 2014, they had 45,000 gas lamps , multi-mantled gas lamps that were basically fired on brown coal. Now, that changed because of their own climate change policies, and it's probably down to 22,000 at the moment. But they are moving towards a lower gas lamp, but there's a push to hold it for all the reasons that have been brought to our council, of its history and the ambience, etc.
So their estimate is that it was 900 kg per gas lamp on a multi gas lamp. So even if you say we're running at 24 hours, we've only got about 40 tonnes of CO2 emission, not 4,099, which is extraordinarily high for a gas lamp. Further to that, may I add, that they've got solar-lit starters on the gas lamps in Berlin and Dresden. So if we're going to quote these figures, can we have a reference to where they come from? Because that doesn't stack. I'll leave it at that. Look,
Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor, there was a previous assessment undertaken of the gas lamps and their emissions. Now, it was some time ago. It is on council records, but I will need to take it on notice and we'll provide that. Thank you.
Council Kotlash. Thanks. I was going to ask kind of a different question, so in the same theme, is 4, 099 tonnes of CO2 equivalent to the running of 891 RAV4s? Is that what that says? Is that a typo in a year? 891 Toyota RAV4 all-wheel drives, which are hybrids. Is that, like, that's unbelievable. Is that a typo? Can we have that confirmed? I mean, if that's the case, and if the gas lamps are actually using that figure, which is going to be clarified, I mean, even if it's half of that, that's just— and even the next figure is a little close to unbelievable. It's 4,099 tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to 20,044 LED lights. They're cheap cars. But they're not cheap. I mean, let's, you know—
Well, no, I was waiting for other people to finish. I'm just going to go through because I've got some different information that's been put through again, and I'm just trying to pull it up. Hang on a sec. Where are we?
So, I just, I feel like I'm in a— my head's a little bit going to explode in a second because are we actually— I'm trying to understand, are we actually, if we're not the managers of the land, and it's— So
So does that mean we just— so we can actually go and do the stuff we need to do to the park and get it underway, or are we still— or is all this red tape? I'm just trying to get an answer so we can sort of try and get stuff done, that's all. And I understand there's all this, but I'm getting a number of— and I can forward it on, I've just gotten it today, I think, to the director, but there seems to be contention in what we're saying from council staff that it is, and then private certifiers like the Land Registry New South Wales, it says — hang on, here it is. Sorry, the New South Wales registry title search attached was provided to the Hawkesbury City Council staff and councillors March 24.
It clearly states the land is dedicated for public use and placed under the care and control of HCC. So, sorry, I'm not trying to cause issues. I'm just trying to get it sorted so we can get on with it. That's all. And I just feel like there's— Yeah
I've actually got a copy of the land registry title. It's been attached to the email. There's a number of issues that I can forward on to the director, and I'm happy if he can take them on notice. If I can provide some
Clarity. So, the responsibility for maintaining the existing land as it currently is defaults to us as a council. When we start talking about considering doing works of a more significant nature, those works have to be supported by a plan of management. The issue is not whether we're responsible for the maintenance. I think that's fairly clear insofar as it does default to us. It defaults to us, and then we've delegated that through to the committee. The question is over, before we undertake capital or works of a capital nature, one of the preconditions to do that work when it is Crown land is that there has to be a plan of management and that those works have to be consistent with that plan of management.
Now, Crown lands have said we can't consider a plan of management because it's not Crown land; it's land of the Crown. That's the point, and I know that feeling very well. That is the point that we're trying to get resolved, and we need Crown lands to resolve that. Now, as I mentioned, there is a small risk in proceeding. We're deciding to accept that risk that we may do some works in terms of installing exercise equipment up there, which may be in contradiction or conflict with the future plan of management. But given it is so minor, that's what we've decided to get on with. Okay, but I'm still forwarding that email to you. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 15.4.1, regarding the investigation into Rising Main C, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reardon, that Council accept for the purposes of undertaking an independent investigation into matters related to the failure and repair of Rising Main C, the quotation from Centium Pty Limited . For the motion were Councillors Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Dogramaci and Councillor Sheather, and there were no votes against the motion. Thank you, Mr Mayor.
