16 December 2024 - Ordinary

Good evening all. Welcome to Hawkesbury City Council meeting of the 16th of December. I'd like to welcome all those who are attending the meeting in the gallery tonight, as well as those that are attending online.

I'd also acknowledge Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharug Jung people as the traditional custodians of the land, and we pay respect to the Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Peoples 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 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting 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. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to the 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 will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting this evening has their mobile phone, can you please turn it off or switch it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. There's no apologies this evening. All Councillors are present. Is there any declarations in relation to the matter before us tonight?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, my declaration is less than significant non-pecuniary. I live in Redbank, but I own no land as I am leasing, therefore no pecuniary interest, and I'll be staying in the item. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Okay, the matter before us tonight is item 6.1.1, planning proposal of Kempsey Park, 322 Grossvale Road, Grossvale, and we have three speakers to speak tonight. You have five minutes to address Council. Richard Lauder, if you could approach. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillors. I'm very pleased to be able to talk to you this evening. If you don't know, vote no. We heard that phrase a lot a little over a year ago. It was a phrase that cut through and resonated with many in the public. The message that then came from some political leaders was that before we proceed, we need more details. And the same applies here. There is much we don't know, and if you don't know, say no to development. If you don't know the implications of development, don't support that development. We don't know the impacts of this development on flood mitigation. The analysis that was done was based on 2009 data that missed all the recent floods. And if you don't know, say no.

We don't know the impact of traffic on this proposed development. The analysis that was done was done on 12 to 13 year old data, and Transport for New South Wales say the actual traffic is now higher than what the proposed model says will happen after the development. So it's obviously wrong. And if you don't know, say no. We don't

Know the impact of stormwater on the

Suburbs below the development.

We don't know the impact on rural amenity. We don't know the impact on essential services. We just don't know enough. And if you don't know, say no to the development. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not against all development. I'm just against the wrong development. And this is the wrong development in the wrong place. Some may say that they want this development to help solve the housing affordability crisis and build homes for their children. But this is not the development to solve that. In the 2021 census, there was over a million unoccupied private dwellings in Australia, 300,000 in New South Wales. We do not have a housing crisis. What we do have is a housing affordability crisis, and building 300 expensive homes will do nothing to solve it.

Opening access to 300,000 vacant homes that are already built in New South Wales and building new affordable housing close to efficient public transport is what will fix the housing affordability crisis and provide affordable homes for our children. The new developments we need are affordable one bedroom and studio apartments in multi-storey towers attached to the new Sydney Metro train stations. If the Sydney Metro extended from Tallawong to North Richmond and had a terminus in Redbank, and the proposal was to build multi-storey developments attached to that terminus, you could well be approving more developments and more housing in that location, and it could well be fine. And with metro trains leaving every four minutes over the river into the city.

But that is not the development being proposed. And that is not the public transport reality that we live in, especially on the west side of the river. Here we have 300 expensive houses with the average of two or more cars per dwelling. This is the wrong type of development. It solves nothing concerning housing affordability. It does, however, stretch existing infrastructure and services to breaking point. And the community has had enough. It's a disaster in waiting to build the housing in advance of the infrastructure and services. If we are to have development, we need the infrastructure and services in place first, else all Hockley residents will suffer. I know I can see it coming, and I'm not happy, and I'm not alone.

I am here today as an individual Hockley resident, and I've had enough. We've reached a tipping point. I think we'll look back and view the tipping point as the recent destruction of the old growth trees along Grose Vale Road done because of Redbank. The destruction was grotesque. I know among my friends, the Redbank name, never viewed positively, is now toxic, and since those trees were removed, I probably wouldn't be here were it not for those trees being destroyed. You may well say that the Min State Government will push ahead with or without us, and we should support the development to retain some control. That is a lazy argument. This is the wrong development in the wrong place. There's a growing tide of resistance to it.

The choices with councillors today to side with the Hockley community and support today's motion to rescind the resolution 238 from last week's council meeting. If you do that, you'll have the public on your side, and together we can go to the Min State Labor Government and push to have these developments not progress. We can do this together. It's time for some leadership. So I urge you for strength and support this motion to rescind. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Lauda

Is there any questions, Mr. Lauda?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts this evening. You made a statement in there that we do not have a housing crisis, full stop. Is that a statement that you make for the Hawkesbury, for the state, or for the country, or in totality?

I said we don't have a housing crisis, we have a housing affordability crisis.

That's right, but you said we do not have a housing crisis.

We do have a housing affordability crisis.

Yes, that's right, but you said we do not have a housing crisis.

We have a housing affordability crisis.

No, I understand that, but I've just Googled some recent news articles where both the Australian Financial Review, the ABC, the New South Wales Premier addressed the current housing crisis. So I was just wanting to hear your remarks in contrast to those credible sources.

I have my opinions. My opinion is that we have a housing affordability crisis. With a million houses that are unoccupied and available, 300,000 in New South Wales, housing is available to be accessed, 300 houses west of the river will have dropped in the ocean compared to getting access to those 300,000 houses. No,

Thank you. The ABC reported on the 10th of September that New South Wales needs to build 377,000 homes under its housing target. Point

Of order, Mr. Mayor.

What's point of order?

Councillors are entitled to ask questions of the speaker. They are not entitled to debate with the speaker. No thank you for your opinion. I take that on board.

Thank you, Mr. Lauda. Councillor Dogmarci.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'm not your regular councillor. I supported Labor, Liberals,

Anybody else. Councillor, it's a question.

I joined Councillor McMahon on the same matter that she mentioned when you said that there is no housing crisis. My opinion, yes, we do

Have . You replied, it's affordable . You've got to ask the question, not give an opinion.

That's what I'm saying. When you said we have a problem with affordability, it depends, you know, who is buying the house.

There's definitely a housing affordability crisis that will be answered by gaining access to the unused housing properties that we have and building affordable housing in locations that are easy access to public transport and are cheap. Well

I don't agree with you. I'm not debating, I'm not questioning

Councillor Doganmarty, you are debating. You didn't ask the question.

That's it. I'm happy to debate as well. No, no, no, that's okay. Are you telling me that what you can afford, that I cannot? I've no idea what you can afford. So how would you know that it's affordability?

Councillor, you're debating.

Mr Mayor, wrong . We were told that, you know, wrong decision and wrong place. According to who? According to me. Well, I mean, what's your position? I mean, how could you talk on behalf of all of us? I'll have you again what

I said. Councillor, it's got to be a direct question to the speaker. It's unfair on him and it's against the protocol

Of the council. Well, sorry to say that, but I do not agree with you. I'm sure not everyone does. Thank you, everyone. Thank you

Mr Mayor. Any... Yeah, thank you for coming and presenting. You say that... A vast majority of the community is not supportive of it. What would you say to the people who do live in Redbank, who chose to live there and believe it to be one of the great estates in the Sydney Basin?

My query is not with the people who live in Redbank. It's with those who are building Redbank and those who are allowing and proposing the extension of Redbank.

Thanks. Any further questions? Thanks for the sort of presentation. Thank you. The next speaker we have is Sean Carroll. There will be no discussion from the gallery

During this meeting, thank you. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity

To talk, Mayor, Deputy Mayor McMahon. I appreciate it. As said before, my name is Sean Carroll. Some of you may know me. Some of you may not. Some of you may like me. Some of you may loathe me. I'm okay with that perception. My mission tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is to try and convince people not to go ahead with the motion, but rescind it and give Redbank more time to plan this correctly.

The planning that came forward had out of date. The developers rushed it through just before Christmas, and we all know that this development has had a cloud under it. It was conceived with Bart Bassett, Bill Dev, and

Bart Bassett and Bill Dev. And we know what happened to his career, and we know who worked for him. It was a sad tale. I believe this is a tale of what not a development should be done. We've got Celestino breathing down our door. We know that with Peel Farm and other Jacaranda Ponds. Sorry, let me just get my stuff together. Anyway, let me continue. Right. We have to show the state government and the federal government how it should be done. We know these developments are coming. We can't stop them, so we have to plan for them. My proposal is that we work with these developers. We go to state government, we go to federal government, and we obtain grants. The former mayor and deputy mayor did a fantastic job obtaining grants for street beautification, for street signs.

Why can't we now, at this council, go to federal and state governments to obtain grants to build arterials for these developments that are coming, instead of leaving it up to council? This is a two birds, one stone solution, where we fix the roads as well. We have a backlog, and I think, Councillor Zenprognate, is it a $160 million backlog of infrastructure projects that we have to do? I'm not sure. 163. Okay. If we can lighten that load, it would be a fantastic idea, and maybe we can get the state government and the federal government to pay for it with these proposed plannings. We all know here that developers are controlling a lot of the major political parties. It's not a hidden secret.

We have to get the developers to work with us at local council level to provide solutions for our community, to build a community for our future, for our future kids. That is what we want to do. And Sarah, I congratulate you on obtaining the half a billion dollars for the third crossing. Well done. And I'll be the first one to say that that third crossing is named Sarah McMahon Bridge.

I'm sorry, I must have taken it out of context last week. But anyway, I digress. The solution I've come down with is I think that is a viable one, and I think that everyone in this room would think that this is a viable solution. The state government will want this, the federal government will want this, and you guys should want it as well. Let's go back to them and say we need a deferral. Please vote this down. Think about it. Do the right thing by the community. We have to think of out-of-the-box solutions. Our council has that backlog. Let's solve these problems tonight. Let's do it. Let's go back to them. And I'm all for it to be rezoned too, but after they've put the infrastructure in, after we've got the plan together to get these infrastructures done.

Because let me put this picture in your head. Picture Christmas barbecue, Redbank Plains. As they said, old-fashioned community. We've all had a few drinks. None of us can drive. One of the kids goes into anaphylactic shock. The ambulance can't get there because it's gridlocked because we haven't put the infrastructure in. That kid dies. That is the reality of not planning. How would you live with that on your conscience, that a small child has died of anaphylactic shock because you haven't planned? That is the reality. That is the gravity of this situation. I appease all of you. Please rescind this motion. Think about it. Go back to the developers and say, we need to have a plan. Contact Celestino.

Contact these guys. Let's structure a plan. Let's go to state government. Let's go to federal government. That's the end of my time . I don't want to answer questions. I don't want to get in debate. Thank you for your time. Have a good night.

Thank you , Mr Carroll.

Excuse me. Our last speaker is Jeanette Hayden. Thank you.

Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight, Mr Mayor, members of the council, members of the public gallery. I'm going to start with a quote from Dwight Eisenhower when he made an address at Bradley University in Illinois in 1956. He said, You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plough is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the cornfield. This whole issue is exactly that. The people who voted yes have got their pencil and they're a thousand miles from the actual issue.

The basic issues are that the documents are out of date. For some reason, the members of the actual employment employed and members of council allowed that to get through to this stage, which should never have happened. These outdated documents would then go to the government, and that's false information. There was a very short time for the proposal documents that were made available to the councillors to be actually read. Due to the out-of-date documents, it therefore do not contain the current up-to-date data, and therefore proper decisions can't be made with data that's 11 and 15 years out of date. Many councillors voted not having read the documents, which is the same as signing a document without reading the fine print.

The Redbank community still have 400 unsold lots under the previously passed proposal, but are now asking for rezoning for another 350-plus dual occupancy, which is against the council policy. That will be 750 houses to come. The original proposal did not include an extension, as is now proposed. The fact that the vision and the final plan for the proposed rezoning for the developments is actually a great idea in the long term. I'm not against that. I'm against the fact that it's being raced through without the problems being addressed in the local community, so that we have proper infrastructure, proper facilities, and for emergencies people are catered for. The lack of infrastructure that people are entitled to have—police stations, ambulance, hospital, shopping, fire station, etc.—and in flood times, even though a short period, is still an issue.

Traffic volumes and bad road conditions and inadequate roads as well. Currently only one bridge crossing for some years to come until the other plans are underway, but they're not here yet. As revealed at the public meeting held on the 11th of December, the community's concerns about the stormwater being channeled into Redbank Creek, and this new rezoning area is planned for stormwater to go into Redbank Creek. That study only covered to the end of 2023 and did not include the 2024 April flood issues, and the fact that the flood study did not even cover the hard surface runoff, and there was limited data re stormwater pipes, etc. from council, and they had to make estimates. And the data, re the 1978 flood data for the creek, is inaccurate in derivation, as it was caused by a farmer who caused the dam to burst, resulting in a court case.

Also, the issue of failure by Council to keep the creek clean of debris. Even the hydrologist admitted they found blockages in the creek. Therefore, the flood plan's flawed, and also the Council needs to keep the creek clean to eliminate the damage. The issue is now serious, and serious erosion to creek itself, the creek banks, people's properties, and the flooding of properties and homes. With more homes, it's going to be worse. Then there's the toll on people's health, the stress levels and mental health, especially those whose homes are and will now be under threat, and the serious, quick, extremely high rise and fall of volume, height and velocity. One hopes this issue does not lead to suicides or other deaths because people cannot get medical help.

The issue tonight is that the previous motion be rescinded due to the points outlined, and that while the proposed rezoning development is a grand plan, it needs to be delayed until there are up-to-date, current and relevant dated documents, investigation on stormwater issues, infrastructure and traffic. Therefore, to quote, in the fine print, it also there needs to be transparency, transparency from Council, the Council members and everybody else. So to quote, in the fine print lies the devil's playground, and be aware of the fine print, for it hides the snares of deceit. And that's why you always check the fine print, and that's from Lauren Asher, from her dossier, The Fine Print. This is the same as not reading the presented documents and presenting out-of-date documents to Council.

Therefore, this motion for rescission should be passed. Thank you.

Any questions? Any questions of Mrs Hayden?

Thank you.

Yes, there's only three speakers to speak, either for or against it. Sorry, your name's not there

Do we have any documentation?

Sorry.

Sorry

I can put it to the council, yes.

There's a fourth speaker. You speak in favour or against? Against. I'll put a motion that those in favour of—

Mr Mayor, is this out of order? I don't believe this is in line with the code of meeting practice.

No, council can change it. Let them speak. I'll put it to the councillors, those in favour of a fourth speaker.

It's lost. Sorry .

Before we go into debate— Before

We go into debate —

It's lost. Before we go into debate

That's enough. I've made a ruling. That's it.

Before we go into debate, there's some questions asked by the speakers here this evening, and I want them clarified. The general manager is just coming back into the room

There's some questions asked by the speakers that I'd like clarified before we go into debate. One is the process of POW, and I've got a couple of other questions here, but first the process on why this is before us and where it goes from here.

Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so let's proceed with a hypothetical that the rescission motion is lost this evening. So the stage we are at, Council is that a planning proposal has been prepared and a preliminary assessment has been undertaken by Council. It is the process required by New South Wales planning law that we then to present, should Council support the process to do so, to send the planning proposal to the Department of Planning for what's known as a gateway determination. Effectively, the gateway determination is a stage gate in that process to ensure that— effectively the process was introduced to ensure that the Department of Planning Environment have early eyes over planning proposals.

So at that gateway determination, the Department of Planning Environment will ascertain whether they are of the belief that the proposal has strategic merit or not. And then proceed to either give it a gateway determination by way of proceeding or otherwise. On the assumption that a gateway determination to proceed is provided by the Department of Planning, that gateway determination will then outline the community consultation that is required to be undertaken through that process as the next phase. So the community consultation may then, as we see, will form the basis of that determination by the department, would typically be 28 days or greater, and they will articulate also which government departments and else others who we are to engage with through that process.

So having gone through that process, the planning proposal will then revert back up to Council for another decision as to whether, effectively, whether it wishes to make the plan , and then proceed back to the Department of Planning for Gazette. So that is the sort of clean line process there, Mr Mayor.

Thank you for that. There's a couple of speakers spoke of out-of-date documentation that there was assessment done on. Could you explain the background of that?

Yeah, I might pass that to the Manager, Strategic Planning, if I may.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the comments, particularly in regard to the bushfire and flood safety evacuation reports, based on the advice that we received from the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel was to consider whether that particular Molino Stewart report should be updated. The applicant was provided that advice and has provided a response, which was included in the Council report. So in terms of flooding, it's essentially saying that the site remains above the one in 100 and the PMF. So considerations in terms of the floodplain are basically up to the PMF. So this particular site is outside of the probable maximum flood, so it doesn't bring in the floodplain management considerations in that respect.

Also highlighted that the SCS approach in terms of residents west of the river is basically either to remain in place or to evacuate to the west, is not to come to point those people evacuating to the east. They've also sort of highlighted that the provision of further infrastructure, particularly in terms of the Grosvenor Bridge at a one in 100 year flood immunity basically improves the accessibility in terms of flooding from that particular area. So basically officers considered that response to have general merit and obviously as part of the planning proposal, some of those details will likely to be spelled out more as the matter progresses, both through public agency consultation and then community engagement as well.

So essentially, yeah.

In relation to the public consultation, when's that process? Should it have happened now or is it in the process through

Gateway? Thank you, Mr Mayor. So we're basically following the process that's set up or outlined within the New South Wales Government, and that's set out in the New South Wales Government's Local Plan Making Guideline, and that's coupled with the Minister's Statement of Expectations, particularly in terms of timeframes. So the guideline outlines that the public agency and community consultation process basically happens following the issuing of a Gateway determination. And that council considers that prior to the finalising of the actual LEP amendment. I guess in terms of the Minister's Statement of Expectations, I guess highlighting that importance, that that's the timeframes that council has to meet for each of the different milestones through the whole processing, and just highlighting then in meeting with the department today on unrelated matters that it was really reinstated the importance of that Minister's Statement of Expectations, that the department's going to be asking council to justify its compliance with those particular ministerial statement of expectations in terms of timeframes particularly.

Thank you.

And there's a couple of other statements or questions that were made that doesn't relate to what we're discussing tonight, but it's certainly a concern of the community out there. One of them was the maximum housing that would be proposed under this rezoning proposal, if it was to be forward, there was an estimate of up to 700.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the planning proposal is for between 300 and 350 lots. As part of that's also highlighted proposed some changes to planning controls that would allow dual occupancy dwellings on corner lots greater than 600 square metres, which, looking at the master plan proposed, would be in the order of approximately 20 lots as part of that. Total? Yep. That would have the provision for a dual occupancy.

Thank you. And the last one, who owns Redbank Creek? Good

Question

Through you, Mr Mayor, if I may, Redbank Creek, for a significant portion of it, is a Crown waterway, so it's the Crown. Do we own any of it? Are you aware of? To my knowledge, we don't own any of it, no. Thank you.

Councillor, there will be no discussion from the gallery or you'll be asked to leave the building.

Councillor, one more word and I'll ask you to leave. One more.

Could you escort the gentleman out, please? Yes, I am.

Can you please leave? Yeah. I'm happy to, gentlemen, I'm happy to discuss it with you. This is a council...

Sorry.

Council will have a five-minute adjournment.

Thank you, Councillors. Thank you, Gallery. Appreciated. Councillor Moonlines Bucket, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zed Brogner.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, second by Councillor Wheeler.

Mr Mayor, just before I start, I had a couple of questions, if they could be answered first before I start my five minutes. If this rescission motion fails tonight, which seems it will from the confidence of Redbank in their public statements, will the entire section of the minutes from the last minute be forwarded to the Department of Planning, including the original motion moved at the December 10th meeting, the amendment and the eventual motion which became the resolution?

Through you, Mr Mayor. We would normally send the entirety of the motion through to the department, yes. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you, just clarifying that. The second question was, did Redbank, if we could have this information, did Redbank use a lobbyist to engage with the Council regarding this matter, and at what level were discussions held between Redbank and Council? Just in terms of was it only Council officers or was it done through the General Manager or the Director? I'm just trying to ascertain what level we've arrived at this proposal being sort of accepted.

I can't speak for myself. I certainly haven't had any interactions with a lobbyist or the proponent of any substance. Mr. Kearns?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My interactions have been directly with Redbank and Council officers, so myself and my staff directly with Redbank and no other parties involved. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move this rescission motion. The reason for raising the rescission motion, and just to point out to the public that we did not call this extraordinary meeting. That was called by two other unknown councillors, not provided to councillors that information. And I just want to make that clear to the community before we get attacked yet again by certain people for costing a lot of money in holding a meeting such as this. The reason we've called this meeting is to hopefully seek more time to digest the rather lengthy documentation that was before us, and to request further investigation, to request updated data, and to avoid rushed decisions, particularly being done at the busiest time of the year.

I'll just address the information given around the process of going to the Department of Planning, because I expect some people will say that if we didn't look at this now, the Redbank may seek a review, a rezoning review, which of course they're entitled to if it weren't assessed within 120 days. The 120 days confirming that this must be in the category of a complex planning proposal, which is what 120 days is for. But I didn't see that ever sort of told to us what category of planning proposal it was. The Department of Planning, of course, when they ascertain the strategic merit, it's really important that they have the proper information to be able to base their decision upon. If we're sending them things that aren't updated and truly reflective of what the current situation is, then that could mean a very poor decision could be made.

So we can see the frustration and hear the frustration from residents around this matter, and that's why we're seeking more information, just to make sure. That the various information being passed on is actually relevant and that it's current. With regard to the local planning panel and the response from the applicant that nothing in the catchment has changed, I would really seriously challenge that because that is referring to prior to any construction occurring on that site, what those studies relate to. And I just cannot accept that there's been no change to the catchment. There's a lot more hard surfacing. There's dams that were water storage have been removed. There's been a lot of land clearing.

A huge amount of vegetation has been cleared off those properties. And we know that with climate change, there is the increase in intensity of rainfall. So we've been seeing events that have resulted in localised flooding. And to say that there's no change in the catchment, to me, is an extraordinary thing, that that is an acceptable thing, as opposed to saying there's no change, that the PMF is still where it was and that the site may be above that level, which of course is technically true. In asking for this rescission to be able to defer and look at this matter more closely is asking for our community to be heard, and that's what we've been doing. I know, Mr Mayor, you came to the public meeting.

Councillor Wheeler, myself and yourself attended the public meeting, and we heard from those many residents who are being impacted on Redbank Creek. Now, I know some people will say it's just because the creek's got some blockages that it floods. There's other people who are telling us they've lived there for, you know, 50 years plus, and they've never seen what's happening. Now, what we need to ascertain, what we need some independent verification of, is whether the pre-development discharge going into that creek is being maintained or whether the post-development discharge is causing an issue. And until we know that, we cannot know the full impact of putting even more development into that area.

And I think that's a very valid question. It's something that we simply have to know. And in fact, we are the responsible people making this decision, and it would be very wise for us to know that. I've never been a person that Redbank comes to when they've got an issue, but let me tell you, this week that has changed significantly. I've had quite a few people from Redbank contact me, to my surprise, and that was around people who feel they've been misled, perhaps in various ways, around what property they were buying into, because there's a belief there that the particular piece of land was not going to be developed. But that's something, I guess, for Redbank to deal with. We can't deal with that.

The question around fairness of giving some special use provisions with some dual occupancies is, I think, quite disturbing for many people. We know that when the housing SEP was changed this year, that it prohibits dual occupancy in R2 zoning. So that's all the R2 zoning across the Hawkesbury now cannot have that. But in a select part of Redbank, we are saying that's okay to go ahead with that. There's already 920 lots developed in Redbank, which means there's still..

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate? Just before you do, Councillor Wheeler, the Councilor Lyons-Buckett asked to call the meeting. I did.

A point of order, Mr Mayor. I did not.

Well, I'll make it clear that I did call it because you didn't know who did, and neither do. I'm

Sorry. I thought you said I called the meeting

Sorry. I called the meeting and contacted Councillor Kotlash in relation to the second author of that. You might recall I did speak at the last meeting. I didn't mention a date, but I did mention that if we don't deal with this matter, that the state government, there's an opportunity for the developers to go to the state government to deal with it. And that indeed, if it had gone to the 14th of February, what probably would have happened. And I did make comment about the sort of development that has been happening on our boundaries where it's happening in that regard. So just to clarify that question, Councillor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to begin by reading an email that I got today from a young lad called Lachlan Whiteley. I'm Lachlan Whiteley from Bowen Mountain and I'm 10 years old. I can't be at the meeting because I have my school carols on tonight. I'm against the development of Redbank. I saw it before when it was full of trees and animals, and now they've all gone. All it is now is houses. All I see now is houses. I don't want more built there. There's enough. We don't need any more in our community. What about habitats for all the animals like the goannas, lizards, koalas, possums, wombats, wallabies and so much more? I love nature and the land, and when I see the chaos of all the houses, I just want to cry.

When mum drives in the big roundabout, I'm annoyed at all the land that they have destroyed and the trees they have cut down. They've planted new trees, but that takes decades for the animal habitats to develop. Please listen to me and save the animals and keep the land for my future. Thank you for listening. And that's consistent with public opinion. Lachlan's mum bailed me up at the shops. She was one of many people who bailed me up at the shops last week. So many people, in fact, that I aborted the shopping run and I just went home.

People are really, really unhappy with this decision of Council. Let's be really clear about what we're doing here. We've just heard from the Mayor that if we hadn't had this meeting tonight and determined this resolution motion, that this proposal could have gone to the State Government without Council endorsement and we'd risk getting something like Vineyard. Vineyard isn't going to happen soon on the other side of the river because Vineyard is part of the Northwest Growth Sector. North Richmond is not part of the Northwest Growth Sector. It is not development determined predominantly by the State Government. But let's be really clear about what we're doing here. We are, when we decide to send a planning proposal to Gateway, we're stating that the rezoning proposal, the subdivision proposal, has strategic and site-specific merit.

They're not my words. They are the words from the Department of Planning's Guide to Planning Proposals. We are also stating that all ministerial planning directions have been met and that all relevant regional and district plans and local strategic planning statements have been addressed. So we are endorsing this proposal. It could have gone without our endorsement. The developer could have taken it directly without our endorsement. But by voting, as you did last week, councillors have endorsed this planning proposal. It is not consistent with the Hawkesbury Housing Targets. It is not consistent with the Hawkesbury Housing Strategy of 2020. It is not consistent with the Metropolitan Rural Lands Provisions or Ministerial Planning Direction 5.1 in that it does not improve access to housing through walking, cycling or public transport and will increase dependence on cars, the number of car trips and the distances travelled.

It is not consistent with Ministerial Planning Direction 6.1 in that it does not broaden the types of building choices and locations available in the housing market, reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban fringe, and is not consistent with a regional strategy or plan or district plan. It is not consistent with Ministerial Direction 9.1. The proposal seeks to rezone land from rural to residential and contains provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within the rural zone. It is not consistent with Ministerial Direction 9.2. It is not consistent with any strategy or plan. It does not adequately protect environmental values, minimise the fragmentation of rural land or reduce the risk of land conflict, and it does not consider the social, economic and environmental interests of the community.

It is unable to adequately be assessed for stormwater and flood impacts as the flood study is still in draft form and out on public exhibition, and today Transport for New South Wales put the Richmond Bridge ref on exhibition until the end of January. The flood study isn't complete. Councillor Lyons Buckett and I attended the public meeting last week. People are devastated. Their backyards are washing away. They can't get insurance. Their land values are plummeting. They can't sell their properties. Yabarnie under Keyline farming was an enormous sponge. Now it's covered in hardstanding. We here to govern for the whole of the community, not one developer. Mr Lauder is correct. This is not affordable housing.

It's high-end development away from public transport and therefore doesn't satisfy any of the requirements of affordable housing. Yes, it's housing. Is it affordable? Absolutely not. Will it fix the housing crisis? Absolutely not. There isn't actually a lack of supply from local government. There isn't a lack of subdivided land or land release. There is a lack of development of construction and a lack of sign-off on that construction for people to live in. They're not newspaper stories. That is clear evidence from academics across Australia. That is the fault. That is the problem with affordable housing in this country: lack of construction.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you

Councillor. Any further discussion?

Right. Councillor Brog next, hiding around the corner.

Thank you. I just want to echo Councillor Lyons-Buckett's remark. We did not call this meeting. So for those who might be inclined to wag their finger and suggest that we've wasted anybody's time, the intention, my intention as a signatory to the rescission motion, was that this would give us some time over the Christmas and New Year break, and that this would simply be returned to the Chamber at the next regularly scheduled meeting in February. I'd like to express my disappointment that this was rushed back to the Chamber within six days for a do-over, when the purpose of the rescission motion was to seek more time to read what was a very lengthy and detailed submission that contained a number of factual errors and outdated data.

Let me just paint a picture of where development stands in the Hawkesbury these days. A developer wants something, so they advance it in a way so that neither the community nor even councillors have more than about four days to review a very substantive submission. That submission can contain out-of-date data, incorrect data with simple factual errors. For example, the contention that traffic will go down as a result. When the Hawkesbury Social Atlas suggests that 65% of households in the Hawkesbury own two or more than two cars, so this 350-lot development, we could reasonably guess, would put another thousand cars on the road through Richmond and North Richmond. It does nothing for young people wishing to anchor their lives and secure a position in the property market because it is not that kind of development .

It does not include a new voluntary planning agreement. Page 52 of the proposal says that they would simply amend the existing voluntary planning agreement to provide additional local open space and community infrastructure without specifying what it is. And we're prepared to just wave that through without asking the question about what kind of community infrastructure we should get as our fair share. The last VPA included a new bridge and a variety of other sweeteners that didn't make it palatable but made it less unpalatable. We are so uncritical, we haven't even asked that question. In fact, the term voluntary planning agreement occurs precisely twice in the entire submission that's six inches thick.

That can come to a chamber where the councillors admit that they haven't read it or do not understand the citations in the motion that was advanced to reject it, which Councillor Wheeler has just reiterated. We could suggest sending it to Gateway, but some councillors will suggest that that doesn't necessarily mean that they endorsed the proposal, which has about as much plausibility as when a man says to a woman, just the tip.

Then a process will occur to curtail the debate, to bring it back to the chamber within only six days, when the rescission motion sought to have this extend over the Christmas break so that a very great volume of data can be considered at more detail, and the signal that it sends, not just to Redbank, but to other developers like Celestino, who want to propose a 7,000-lot subdivision nearby, is that council is a pushover, that council is supine, that council will not do its job. It won't read its business paper, it won't ask the necessary questions, and it will simply wave it through and confirm every negative stereotype that the voting public have begun to have about the quality of local government that they're given.

If this was rejected, we know that it would simply find its way to the Land and Environment Court as a refusal, or it would be sent to a three-member panel recently convened by the state government, whose remit is purely to advance housing at any cost, regardless of what mitigating factors might exist to say, probably not here, probably not now, come back later. And that's the standard of government that people are getting from this council at this time. I'm bitterly disappointed. I support the rescission motion.

Thank you, Councillor. Just before you do, Deputy Mayor, just a question of the staff in relation to the voluntary agreement. Is that prudent to discuss it at this time?

A voluntary planning agreement will certainly be brought back to Council at a later date. That's under discussion and negotiation at this point in time.

Yep. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would just like to clarify what I just heard from the last speaker. It's a rhetorical question, Mr Mayor. We have a councillor here who seeks credibility, who seeks praise from the community, but uses a decision tonight for a planning matter where he has used a grotesque sexual analogy to prove his point.

I didn't raise it, Mr Mayor. You let that go when that was said by Councillor Zamprogno, and that was one of the most appalling things I have heard in this chamber in my time here, and that was let slide. A sexual analogy for a planning matter. You have really scraped the bottom of the barrel, and you're grinning about it. That's sick. That is some really sick behaviour. Now, Mr Mayor, the points I made in the last Council meeting stand valid tonight. We are in a housing crisis. We have here an opportunity to put a piece of the puzzle together, as I said last time, for a master-planned development rather than a piecemeal development like Vineyard. We have a bridge paid for by the developer that is likely to be built before the construction of the first house in this new area.

I have read the documents. That is my job. And I have made an assessment on the merits, and my decision from last time will not be changing. There were comments already made here tonight that there are rushed decisions at this time of year. So is every decision at this time of year rushed? That's again one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Should we cancel all meetings in December because rushed decisions around Christmas are not okay? Funny enough, Councillor Wheeler talked a lot about consistency. It was the buzzword of her speech. Well, let's be clear. This rescission motion was raised by the three councillors who consistently say no to almost anything that brings about changes in the Hawkesbury.

Point of order,

Mr Mayor. Yeah, Councillor, we'll keep the debate.

That's my opinion, thank you, Mr Mayor. I've sat here and been participating. Point

Of order, Mr Mayor. Your point of order?

Councillor Richards is insulting other councillors. If she can't— sorry, Councillor McMahon is insulting other councillors. If she can't make her point without impugning other councillors, then—

Thank you, Mr Mayor, I'll withdraw it. Another point that was made by a speaker already says that this rescission motion has come six days later after— sorry, let's get this right. The extraordinary meeting has come after the rescission motion, when in the past those same councillors have called extraordinary meetings to deal with issues they don't agree with very, very quickly. So how do you pick and choose what decisions require urgency and what decisions deserve to wait to appease a political agenda? I don't have an answer to that, but it's worth considering. Now, something else that happened to me during this week. I was out and about in the public, like Councillor Wheeler, I've had people raise this matter to me, asking for the reasons why I supported the proposal in the last meeting.

I live in Redbank, as I've very much declared, but I am renting. But I spoke to someone who lives in Redbank. They approached me, and they own a block of land in Redbank. They asked me how I could support this planning proposal. They raised the issue, and they said to me, I don't want this part of the development to go ahead because I want the cows to stay in the paddock. And I asked this gentleman about the fact that there were cows in the place where his home is now built. So why was it okay that the cows could be removed for his home, but the cows could not be removed to allow someone else to have a home? I was met with silence. There was no answer to my question. Now the last thing I want to touch on, I can see I've got just over a minute left, is wanting to, in these situations, not have the community angst that we have when these issues come to the chamber.

As I said before, the 12 of us, 11 here tonight, we have been elected to do a duty. Most of us have lived here our entire life. We have kids that go here. We understand the importance of the decisions that we are making. But to hear things and see things like this said by people, I don't know how some people sleep at night. And apparently the response to that was, In a rental property in Redbank, where a single mother now gets what she needs for her family. That's disgusting. You need to appoint an administrator. We are dysfunctional and disconnected. They don't give a crap about the current residents or the traffic congestion. What's wrong with this council? Get rid of them. They just want extra rates and a pay rise.

Meanwhile, the developer and various corrupt councillors are laughing all the way to the bank. Please tell me which councillor sitting here tonight, whether you do or do not support the rescission motion is actually corrupt. There is not one councillor. It is because we are here and we are doing our jobs. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will not be supporting the rescission motion. Thank you

Thanks, Councillor.

Councillor Vickel. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. I've been in the Hawkesbury for 30-odd years, and when I came to the Hawkesbury regarding the floods, I was told, Oh, we're never going to get a flood again. That was back 30-odd years ago. We get to 2021, 22, and it flooded. I remember the gold guard that used to live in the Hawkesbury for a very long time, if you believe that, you believe anything, and it will flood again. And we've got, I think, six catastrophic floods, I think, with that time. Now we come down to the creek, and I think you were answering the question because I asked the question after the last meeting, who owns Redbank Creek? Council, developer, or the Commonwealth, or Crown?

Thank you for clarifying it's the Crown. Now I get it, it needs maintenance and needs to be unchoked, and I get that probably the Bells Line of Road needs to be opened, and I get that there's got to be some maintenance there to put at ease those who choose to live on the creek. So we'll leave that the way it goes. When it comes to reading the papers last week, I spent a good afternoon reading them, not across some of it, all of it, but a lot of it. But I would have to say to you, taking out of Council's hands, and there's been two instances have been raised by you, Mr Mayor, and I think there was another issue. One was Vineyard, and the other one that everybody keeps forgetting about was Pitt Town.

Frank Sartor stepped into that many, many years ago and gave nothing back to this Council when it comes to grounds, playgrounds, or anything else. My concern with this is that could well happen again. If it goes directly to the state government, they just want to see housing on blocks at the moment. That's how they see it. That's how they perceive it. Now we're talking about the infrastructure and everything else. Before they turn a sod of land up in this place, if they get zoning, we are talking about probably three years, because that's how long the bureaucracy takes. That's how I see it, probably three years. And guess what? By that time, the bridge will be gone over the Grose, and I suspect the work that's been doing on the Driftway and the new routes to get over the North Richmond and make it hopefully flood prone will be there, okay?

As the Deputy Mayor has said, there's $400, $500 million that's been put aside, and they are working towards it. Now the other thing I take umbrage on, there's a dark shadow over the Redbank development. Now I come back to the ICAC report. Did anybody get prosecuted through the DPP? No. Nothing to see here. But I just have to say to you, apparently if you get accused, you have to prove your innocence. And dare I say, you're still guilty no matter what, because it's still up on this stupid website that both governments have been bereft in changing. That could happen to anybody here, full stop. Now I gather there's been a comment that's been made about, oh, some councils who support the redevelopment up there and take it out to the gateway is corrupt.

Well, I take personal umbrage on that, right, and I will defend every other councillor and my colleagues to the left and right of me, that the integrity is absolutely non-questionable, and people should be very, very careful on what they make in public in a forum like this because it's becoming slanderous, and I get particularly tired of it, especially over the last number of weeks in this matter anyway. So let's just get back to the housing side. People choose to live at Redbank, good on them. And I know that a lot of people have gone and built, then they developed it for their forever home. So they've moved out to another place and have sold that onwards to people who can afford that, and they've come into Redbank.

So that alone must be freeing up some land for those who want it. I can only go for personal experience, that happened to my daughter. Her and her fiancé bought a house in Penrith about a year ago. Somebody moved, built a bit larger house, the block became available and they fought for it and they won it.

So, just to conclude, the independent panel looked at this, right, and have recommended to go to Gateway. It'll come back and we'll be able to make the changes and it'll come back to consultation, okay? Everybody around this table cares about the community. Say that anybody doesn't, well, you've drawn a long bow, in my opinion. Thank you.

Any other councillors? Yes I have. Councillor. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

I'm very much disappointed, very much disappointed from both ends, Redbank and the opposition, the people who are opposing this. Similarly, I have received some phone calls too, I think, but I have received seven emails from different people, people that, you know, I have never met. Very much disappointed. By the way, in this room there is nobody, another single one of the individuals, not me more than Councillor Zampronio and you, I'm sure that I never use foul language. I never accept anyone to swear at me, which is very easy in this country. Maybe they joke and call you all sorts of names. I have to say this: please, do please accept my apology. I'm not a bastard, but the bastard is outside.

Maybe his father is a bastard as well. I cannot control myself. That's coming from our backgrounds. It's a big insult. That's for that. Now, as to this matter, thank you, Councillor Buckett , regarding the bushfire certificate being old . I understand that it didn't change, but might be somehow it will be upgraded or it will be presented to us. As you all know that, you know, I, from day one, fought to save this council money , ratepayers' single cent. And for my outburst, I have received many code of conducts.

Again, we are here wasting all these people's time, our money.

Something had to be done. I also have to mention that some people , the emails that, you know, some of the emails I have received, somebody said— I'm not going to mention that, I never do that—whatever I discuss with anyone, that stays with me. It said people will remember you during the election time. Who gives a damn? I don't. Whether I get 400 or 4,000 votes, I don't give a damn. It doesn't matter. I'm not doing this for votes. I am doing this to make sure that, you know, everybody in Hawkesbury will get a fair deal, justice will be served. Some people, and just as Deputy Mayor mentioned, came to me and said, What about the animals? What about the fauna? I said, Are you crazy or what? 100, 200 years ago, 50 years ago, maybe this place wasn't here.

It is called progress. Human beings have a habit of multiplying. What do you do? What are we going to do? And it was mentioned that 350 homes and 700 cars.

I don't know why do people sometimes, you know, use this kind of tactics to scare people. 350 homes are not going to be put overnight. 700 cars are not going to be driven 24/7. It's not going to happen overnight. It will take years. And for that reason, are we going to stop importing cars? Go outside and have a look at Windsor Road, Richmond Road in the morning or in the afternoon. Have a look what's happening. What are we going to do?

The way that it looks like, this development is going to go ahead this way or the other. Who is guilty? I don't know. People don't, or certain people, won't allow us to clean the creek beds. Federal government, state government, local government, we don't know who owns what. I bought my place in Pitt Town, you know that, and I knew it was going to be flooded, but I still bought it and I loved it, and I have other properties as well—well, we have, I should say— and I don't want to move from there and flood hit us bad, real bad, all the way up to the power poles. But I love the place. So my understanding is that the area is not prone to flooding. So what is it? What I want to ask these people, please, do you have some kind of a spokesperson to come to me, even come tonight?

Last week, you know, I begged, you know, someone to come and to tell me what is it that you want. You cannot have it both ways. I mean, I don't know. Some people are doing this, you know, purposely. Some people are jealous because... I don't have it, so you shouldn't have it. Like I said, I'm representing Small Business Party. We'll have people working there. We'll have more people moving into that area. We will generate more business. Certainly, I don't want anything like Box Hill or, you know, around that kind of areas. So whether you like it or not, I'm not going to support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate?

I've got a couple of questions to the staff. It was .. . Councillor. Councillor.

That's enough. That's enough. That is enough.

The next one's out the door.

In our business paper, just to comment that Councillor Zembrogno made that it might have been close to Christmas. The date received was on the 24th of August. Can you explain why it took four months to come to the meeting, the process?

Simply because that's the length of time that it takes to undertake a comprehensive and thorough assessment of these types of matters. As has been outlined, we've got an obligation under directions from the Department of Planning and the Minister that these types of proposals should be sent to Council within 120 days of their lodgement.

Okay. If the rescission motion was supported tonight. What avenue through the Land Environment Court has the developers got?

There's no direct avenue through the Land Environment Court at this stage of a planning proposal.

Thank you. Yeah , councillors, this proposal before us tonight is extremely sensitive in the community, but we're looking at a rezoning proposal that's going through a process. A lot of the issues that have been discussed here tonight have nothing to do with the rezoning. They've got some to do with the voluntary agreement into the future. They've got some to do with the organisations that's going to address these issues with merit and give either argument for or against any proposal that's likely to be put forward to us into the future. To knock this back now, it's pretty simple. We just say we don't want it, and that's the end of it, because that's the last say we'll have in it. And to suggest that the state government won't come in and allow it, the development is right around the proposal there now, right around it.

The roads lead up to the fence. There's going to be no extra roads onto Grossvale Road. It's always intended that that was going to be rezoned. I would suggest that the state government, with the suggestion they got in relation to housing, irrespective what sort of housing it is, would support anything that would have the integrity of what's been proposed here. We talk about, we want the infrastructure in first. I don't know anywhere else in the state where the sewer's been upgraded, the water system's been upgraded, the roads all around it have been upgraded. There's two bridges proposed before any development happens. You know, so the council has been very mindful of how to proceed with this development, and I think that it's one of the best around.

And to maintain that quality of lifestyle and what we expect, there's a process to go through. And the issues that have been addressed by some of the speakers tonight, and I know independently I've spoken to some of them and some of the emails that we've received, that as councillors we need to deal with those. They're requests from the councillors. But that's not what we're talking about here tonight. So

Councillor Buckett, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do just take issue with you just saying it was always intended to rezone that land. In fact, I was here at the meeting when the original approval for the 1,399 lots went through, and the mayor of the time and all the councillors who supported it, as well as Redbank, or as they were called back then, Buildeth, they were quite adamant that they would not come back. Seeking more lots on that land. That was a promise to that community then, so that may have changed since, but I'm just saying that that was not always the intention. No, but if you listen to the, or read the transcript of that meeting, you would see that. The other thing is that the issues here aren't all to do with the VPA.

Issues around housing, what sort of housing, what sort of zoning goes there, stormwater management issues, et cetera, they're not part of the VPA. They're what determines what would be best to be having this rezoned to, and I think that's where we're coming from. We're looking at whether that is the best zoning, whether that's the best use for that land into the future, because it needs to align with what we've said in our various strategies. And Councillor Dogramachi is right, it will go ahead anyway, but what we're seeking to do by having it looked at better is trying to get a better outcome overall by trying to make sure that all the available information going to the gateway process is current and accurate.

And I think that what Councillor McMahon said about the angst in the community, we could avoid that angst in the community by bringing the community with us. We could listen to them instead of just having a meeting like tonight, which I think has been quite shameful, to be honest. And I think that I refer to how when we did Jacaranda Ponds and their willingness to engage the public at the start of that process, and that did make a big difference with how that proceeded at the time. It's unfortunate that it comes to these situations. So just recapping why we brought this meeting. For a development where there's 920 lots now, there's still 479 from the original approval that haven't been built, plus then an extra 300 to 350, bearing in mind that Redbank itself doubled the size of North Richmond, that you're then doubling the size of what's there now again.

And my question to the other councillors around that is, does what was before you in those documents in the business paper reflect how that number of people and that number of vehicles, the stormwater discharge into a creek, and the environmental impact is going to be managed? To me, it does not. We're always playing catch-up with infrastructure. We're always telling people it doesn't matter because they won't be built overnight. But what we see is growing discontent, whereas we could do this in a better way. We could actually really put our minds to it. We were hopeful that the CSP weekend would allow us to discuss issues around our common goals around development and where that may be. We could really work with the community and say to them, what is it that you can live with?

What is it that the developer wants to deliver? How can that best be delivered to minimise any impact so that we don't have people who are fearful of going to sleep at night because, you know, half of their backyard might fall off or something like that. There's too many unanswered questions. There's not enough certainty around promised infrastructure. There's the potential to place a burden on ratepayers further down the track and doubt about whether this proposal aligns closely enough with our strategies for future growth. So, in seeking to rescind this, so we can properly examine and fill the gaps in information or data and send a message to our community that we don't want them to feel frustrated and angered by how we're behaving.

We want them to think that we're going to listen to them, that we're going to take their concerns on board, that we're going to try and deliver future growth in this area in a way that people can live with, in a way that means that we get the best result for our people. We can be a thriving, growing place. You know, we don't have to have this adversarial behaviour all the time, especially when it comes to Redbank. And I think that that's really unfortunate. We brought this in good faith to hope that people would reconsider and try to spend a bit more time just maybe ensuring that the various strategic direction that we have promised our community we're taking was being adhered to in this instance.

Unfortunately, I think this will not succeed, and I think it will go down the path as we've seen other things happen, and it's a really sad day, I feel, when that happens.

Thank you, Councillor Lines Buckett. The matter before us tonight is a rescission motion,

6.11, that

As written is a rescission motion on page 9.

Those in favour of the rescission motion?

It's Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lines Buckett, and Councillor Chew. Those in favour. Those against?

Councillor McMahon, Councillor Cotlish, Councillor Green, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Dogramachi, Councillor Reardon,

And myself. The

Motion is lost.

Thank you, Councillors. Before I close the meeting, there's one question that I was going to ask of the staff to be reported to the next meeting, and that's in relation to the discharge of Redbank after the development is not greater than what was proposed in the agreement.

There's not proposed to be any further discharge than what was on the property. If Council could be told if that's being monitored, if it's being dealt with, the like. Councillors, this will be the last meeting before Christmas and the Gallery. I wish you all the very best for the new year. Meeting closed.