8 April 2025 - Ordinary

Thank you, Councillors. Excuse my voice this evening. I've got a bit of a chest cold I'm trying to get rid of. Good evening and welcome all to Hawkesbury City Council meeting of the 8th of April 25. I'd like to welcome those who are attending the meeting in the gallery and those tonight as well who are attending online.

Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharugung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging. Acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples as First Peoples of this country. I'll now hand over to the General Manager for some comments.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.33 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 also be seen in the live stream video. If you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to 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 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 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 on them, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Apologies. We have Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Dogramaci, who's tried to get online. He's having some issues with electrical, so he may come on a bit later. I'll let you know if that's the case. Could we have apologies for those two councillors? Councillor Vygor, Councillor Reardon. All those in favour? Unanimous

Carried.

Mr Mayor, a procedural matter. If Eddie Dogramaci was subsequently able to join online, we would still have to pass a motion to permit him to attend online. Should we do that preemptively?

No , we'll leave it, Councillor. He's having trouble where he is, and I don't know that he's got to rectify the problem, but I'll do that. Those in favour was Councillor Reardon, Vygor, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather.

Declarations of interest, councillors. Is there anyone that has any declarations tonight of the matter? Councillor Ryan. Yeah,

In item 10.2.2.

10.2.2. That's the council event program.

Yep.

Thank you.

Could I have confirmation of the minutes, please? Sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

I've got an interest in 10.1.1.

10.1.1? One. Yep.

Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Item 10.2.1 and 10.5.1.

Thank you.

The second one, Councillor was?

10.5.1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Items subject to public address, we've got three tonight—two tonight. The first one is 10.1.2. The second one is 13.1.1. Mr. Glenn Apps, would you like to address us? You have five minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you and good evening. I'm speaking tonight for the recommendation, so I can be mercifully brief. I'm also the author of the voluntary planning agreement. The voluntary planning agreement supports a development application which is currently before Council for the subdivision of land at 14 Angophora Place, Kurmond, into seven lots. That subdivision follows from a planning proposal to amend the minimum lot size applicable to the land, and that was gazetted in December 2021. That planning proposal was the result of extensive consultation with various government agencies, particularly with regard to ensuring the protection of biodiversity across the land. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the layout that was endorsed by the gazettal of that planning proposal.

The recommendation is that the VPA should be placed on public exhibition, and obviously we support that recommendation. Otherwise, I'm basically here just to answer questions that councillors may have. Thank you.

Any questions, councillors?

Thanks, Mr. Apps. Thank you.

Can I have a motion, Councillors?

Yes. Can I move the recommendation, Mr. Mayor?

Thanks, Councillor Reardon. Deputy Mayor

Councillor McMahon. Any discussion? Councillor

Reardon . Any discussion ?

No.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Thank you, Mr. Mayor

I've just got a

Question. Can

We just have an idea, perhaps, of what this money would likely go towards? It's seven lots, I think, at $35,000, so if my sum's correct, that's $245,000. What do we think this would be utilised or go towards, given in the absence of having a Section 94 plan for that area?

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. I refer to the General Manager.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Look, as we've outlined in the report, there's no specific set of works that this contribution would be attributable to. However, rather, we would always prefer that there is a nexus between the contribution that is made through the Voluntary Planning Agreement and where we are spending it. So, as we've indicated, we would be suggesting that it would go towards a variety of local infrastructure upgrades in the vicinity of the Kurrajong and Kurmond area.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So we're talking about $245,000, which, as we all know, doesn't buy very much. When it comes to infrastructure, can I ask, when we decided on $30,000 per lot originally , that was the legislated limit at the time. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, that's correct.

And has that changed, the legislation for that, has that changed? Are we now able to set our own limit? How is it, are we able to pick $35,000 because this is a VPA?

Do you want to take that? I would suggest that, as it is a voluntary planning agreement, that it is open to Council to levy above and beyond that which a contributions plan would come to. What I would say is that a voluntary planning agreement is a voluntary agreement, so we need to be mindful that we are entering into a two-party agreement.

Indeed, and therein lies the problem, I think, in that we have this very low amount set by the State Government that has remained ridiculously low now for quite some time. And we've seen, as we see in Vineyard, where we can't levy sufficient funds to produce the infrastructure, our ratepayers elsewhere in the LGA end up stumping up for that. The issue with this lot is that it's yet again a spot rezoning in the area, albeit one previously approved. And so we see these knock-on effects with a reduction in infrastructure funding or a reduction in our capacity to deliver and maintain infrastructure, and then this ongoing deficit that it's our job to fix. And I lament yet again that we once had a very good plan for the Kurrajong Kurmond investigation area, and the councilors in a previous council threw that out.

And here we are with this spot rezoning and an insufficient amount for the infrastructure to provide what the new residents will no doubt assume , quite correctly, that they are entitled to. This leaves council in an invidious position and our ratepayers in a worse one.

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. The idea, having areas where VPAs can be spent, I think is something we've discussed informally amongst ourselves, and perhaps an appropriate time that we need to discuss that further.

Sorry, Councillors, if I can just clarify that the agreement is set at $35,000 per lot. My apologies, I should have clarified that.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Councillor Veigel, right of reply.

Readen was it? I've got it back to front. Sorry, Councillor Reardon.

I think $35,000 is

Quite fair.

You have a question, Councillor?

Sorry, Mr Mayor, no, I was going to speak on it. Sorry, is that all right? You've finished now. Okay, that's all right.

Thank you.

The motion is the recommendation. Those in favour?

Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, excuse me, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric , excuse me, Deputy Mayor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against?

Those against, Councillor Wheeler. The motion is carried.

Councillors, I jumped confirmation of the minutes. Would someone like to confirm the—

Councillors, I jumped confirmation of the minutes. Would someone like to confirm the confirmation? Councillor Reardon.

Councillor Creed. Any discussion? Put the motion. Those in favour?

Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Not in the chamber is Councillor Dokramarchi and Councillor Kotlash. The motion is carried.

The mayoral minute, there's a matter that's come up that's a legal process that Council needs to deal with, and I'd ask for your indulgence that the mayoral minute's withdrawn. Could I have a motion in that regard, please? Don't need it.

Thank you, Councillors.

Thank you, Councillors.

Items—

Sorry,

The second speaker for this evening is in Questions with Notice. There's two speakers. One is Jared Bruce Arnold. There's one speaker. You have five minutes, sir.

My name is Jared Arnold. I'm representing myself and my wife. We're residents of Oakville and wish to question the response to Item 13.1.1 and ask what the status of the new LEP is. I note the response to 13.1.1 speaks to the proposal having been submitted into the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a gateway determination, and then goes further to indicate once the determination is made, public agency and community consultation will be undertaken, and that could occur in 2025 with a review to finalise in 2025. I question this as my wife and I contacted the DPHI planning portal, and they noted in a reply to us on the 18th of March that it has not progressed to formal gateway process and remains with Council.

And we have a letter to that information . We contacted the Council in February this year, and as we received no answer directly, we asked our State Member, Robyn Preston, who made a representation to Council on the 14th of February on our behalf. We haven't received a reply to that either. I visited the planning proposals portal on the 7th of the 4th 2025, which is yesterday, and I can see that the Hawkesbury LEP 2012 review and update was submitted on the 17th of the 3rd 2023, and it was returned to Council. It was then resubmitted on the 25th of July 2023 and returned to Council, and then resubmitted on the 23rd of November 2023 and returned to Council.

I'm confused by the answer in 13.1.1 because it would seem to indicate that the LEP review was in flight and with DPHI, and when DPHI and all evidence publicly available would indicate it's been with the Council since December 2023. Does the Mayor know the actual status of the review, and is the suggested finalisation in 2025 achievable?

If that can be addressed.

It's not in the . . . practice doesn't comment on speaking rights questions to the Council .

Okay. Fair enough. I've just been informed that you can't ask questions. You can submit.

Is that— No, that's it. Okay.

At the very least, if Hawkesbury Council thinks it submitted the LEP to DPHI, DPHI don't believe so.

Yeah . Thank you.

Councillors, I'll take those questions on board, but we don't need a resolution. It's questions with notice, so I don't need a resolution on that.

There is another speaker on the same item, Troy Myers.

Mr Mayor, Councillors, staff, and people of the gallery, as you probably know, my name is Troy Myers. I'm a proprietor of Urban City Group. I'm a member of the Hawkesbury Business Group and a lifelong resident of the Hawkesbury. I've also had the privilege of serving with Hawkesbury Council's own Planning Department many years ago, so I have a good understanding of the planning challenges from both within the organisation and the broader community.

This evening, I speak not just as a planning professional, but a lifelong resident who cares deeply about the future of the Hawkesbury. For over a decade, we've been told that a new LEP is on its way, but it hasn't arrived. And in the meantime, the current system feels inconsistent and reactive, leaving families, business owners, and residents confused about what's possible and how long that might take.

This situation is more than just inconvenient; it's having a real and a measurable impact on investment being discouraged, development is stalling, and confidence in the community is eroding. A simple walk through Windsor Mall compared with other neighbouring communities might be a good example of that.

And while frustrations have been raised before, the pattern is often the same: concerns are acknowledged, and the system is defended, and the progress... Stores once more. In relation to Council's [unclear] question about the status of the LEP review, it has been confirmed with the Department of Planning. We've made contact with the Department of Planning for the LEP review that has been submitted, has never actually been accepted by the Department because it lacked the necessary information required for the Department to assess it.

This flies in the face of what we've been told many years, and that the Department has been holding up the application when, in fact, the Department is waiting on Council to provide the necessary information.

But tonight, rather than perpetuate the discussion around what we already know, I'd like to offer constructive and achievable solutions.

Firstly, I'd urge Council to consider setting clear and measurable KPIs for our planning teams. This should reflect the urgency of the housing challenge in our region. We believe realistic, accountable timelines, such as a one- to two-year delivery period for a revised LEP, would provide clarity, direction and much-needed momentum.

Secondly, we ask the Council to give serious consideration to supporting detached dual occupancies on rural land.

These types of development are practical, family-orientated options. They allow for multigenerational living. They support ageing in place and offer modest rental income opportunities for landholders. The planning controls for such developments could comfortably sit within the existing DCP, and there's no need to start from scratch. Councils like Byron Bay, Ballina, Penrith, and the Blue Mountains have successfully implemented the detached dual occupancy frameworks in areas with similar constraints to ours. These could be adapted to suit the unique character and needs of our own community.

Despite strong community support and ongoing advocacy, Hawkesbury remains one of the few councils where this type of housing remains out of reach. To compound this, Council's February 24 decision to opt out of the housing SEPP for dual occupancies in R2 zones was, in our view, a lost opportunity, and we respectfully ask that this decision be reversed. We would also encourage to explore short-term and practical amendments, such as minor LEP changes to land use tables on rural housing provisions, that could deliver real outcomes without the need for a prolonged full-scale LEP review. Finally, I'd like to highlight what we are seeing in neighbouring councils. At a recent developer forum hosted by Penrith and Blue Mountains councils, both demonstrated clear advocacy strategies, and I've got some here tonight if you wanted to look at them.

I was very impressed with them. Proactive plans to champion their communities with interests with state government and other stakeholders. Hawkesbury Council lacks such a strategy, and as a result, we risk being left behind. So tonight, I respectfully ask: let's take a cue from our neighbours. Let's set achievable goals. Let's adopt the SMART and proven planning policies. And take steps that generally reflect priorities in the community you were elected to serve. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Myers. Any questions? Thanks,

Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Mr. Myers. You are aware that our current LEP that's been submitted or will be submitted, which was delayed back when the reference group was around and councillors voted—some councillors, not myself—voted to delay it for some time. You're aware that that does include dual occupancy in rural areas? I am.

Okay. All right, so that is being addressed, hopefully.

I don't agree with the constraints put on it, but I know that it's in the LEP.

Yeah, okay. All right. So there was one other thing. I just wanted—and maybe this will have to be taken on notice—but a clarification around the R2, the dual occupancies in R2. I was under the impression that Hawkesbury was a prohibited area to have dual occupancy in R2. Was that our doing, or was that the department? It's in the legislation that we are a prohibited area.

It's because in the business paper from February 24, you agreed to be excluded from the SEPP. So if you look at February 24 business paper—and if I could speak to that for a moment. That's a question. Well

I'm not in charge.

Just to explain, I'll answer your question methodically. So what we've seen and what happened with the— The R2 requirement was that it had been brought in two stages. So stage one came in August last year, where you could allow dual occupancies in R2 zones right across the state, which we used to be able to do 20 years ago. But since we had multi-unit housing zones that excluded a lot of those areas. The second stage, which only recently came in in early March, was the TOD SEPP, which had to do with high rise around transport hubs within railway stations, 800 metres railway stations. So instead of having to adopt all of it, you could have adopted part of it, I believe, because I know that our towns are unique and that we don't really want multi-level residential flat buildings in Richmond or Windsor, but I still think we could have had an opportunity where we had dual occupancies in R2 zones, which many of our surrounding councils have.

Okay,

Thank you.

I've got a question, Mr. Myers. What were the areas of frustration to you in relation to the second house on rural areas?

I don't. My frustration is, I know it's been included in the LEP,

And even pointing to the answer in the question, I think by including it with everything else, we have made it too complex. I think it'd be best served if we had a planning proposal to be able to just change dual occupancies in rural zones to, and the simple change would be at the moment, if you look in a rural land zone table. It says dual occupancy attached, and in brackets attached. All you have to do is just delete attached and just have dual occupancy. And, you know, we're not talking about a whole new development here. We're just talking about whether we attach them or we detach them. And I think there's way more opportunity if we do detach them. And I know this because being in business here for 22 years, I reckon nearly every day I'd have someone come in and ask if they could do it because they want to give the kids a start or they're getting older and they want the kids to look after them and so forth and so on.

So we hear it all the time. The community is really frustrated, and they just want to be able to— I mean, I think this would be a really good short-term measure in terms of our housing. It doesn't affect subdivision. We've got separate clauses that deal with subdivision, so it doesn't put pressure on subdivision because they're not related at all. So I don't really see much of a downside to it. Everything would be a DA. There's no complying development for it. Yeah, that's been my frustration because I think there's not many downsides to it. Thank you.

Any further questions? Councillor Brogden. Not a question. I wish to foreshadow a motion. Any further questions?

Thanks, Mr. [unclear].

Councillor Brogden. So I'm acutely aware that this is questions on notice, so it's not an item that would normally be the subject of debate amongst councillors or a vote. So for the sake of prompting a debate, I've suggested a form of words that I've sent to staff, and I'm only seeking a seconder to get a debate started.

Do we have that?

You haven't seen it yet.

Yeah, a motion's not in order . With respect, I'll need more information than that as to why it would not be in order to debate.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor.

Can councillors see the motion in question?

It's not about the motion itself, Councillors, my apologies. What we would be saying is that the appropriate mechanism for you to move a motion in relation to this matter would be through a notice of motion to the next meeting, because councilors haven't— the code of meeting practice contemplates that council must not consider business at a meeting unless you've given notice of that business. So we would be saying that the appropriate mechanism to move any motion, you can certainly have the discussion, that's perfectly in order, but to move the motion itself would require notice.

It's not my desire to die on this mountain, but I was assured before the meeting began that because an item was on the business paper, a motion arising from something that is on the business paper was in order. Clearly I've been misinformed.

I'd seek further information.

Unless it was dealt with as an urgency motion, that would be the only alternative.

I doubt that it would rise to that threshold,

Mr. Mayor. Do you wish to foreshadow a motion to the next meeting? I'll

Do that through the appropriate channels.

You can have the discussion.

Yep. Or else, on your indulgence, we could just have a brief discussion about what's been discussed. That's been confirmed, Councillor.

Well, if that's the case, I'll make some brief remarks. Again, acutely aware that there's no motion before the chair. We were first informed in this chamber that the new LEP would be needed in October of 2018, seven years ago. At that time, we were presented with a matrix, a timeline that predicted that that process would be completed by the middle of 2021. That's four years ago.

And considering that it is a frequent point of correspondence between me and constituents that the LEP has not arrived and the good things that people expect with that LEP have not arrived, like dual occupancy, I'm wondering when otherwise it might become the appropriate subject of debate within this chamber, because we've dropped the ball badly. Now, I hasten to add that this is not an attack on staff. The buck stops with us as councillors, and I lay part of that blame at the feet of those councillors who voted to pull a completed and submitted LEP back at the beginning of the term in 2022 without ever really adequately stating a good reason. And it's for those councillors to perhaps give their reasons, but I doubt that they would pass the pub test.

So I'll confine my remarks merely to this. There's a significant amount of disappointment and a lack of reputation on the part of council that we have not been able to deliver a new LEP in seven years. And when I put the question as specifically as I could about when it might arrive, I didn't receive a date. It's maybe by the end of this year. And as we've heard, there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the community about whose ball the court is in. Thank you.

No further discussion on that.

Okay, Councillors, I don't need a motion for that. The next matter is exception reports, and there's— I'll read the items out. There's 10.2.1, 10.2.3, 10.4.1, 10.4.2, and 11.1.2, and there's a confidential document that we need to bring back into the chamber, which is 16.3.1. It's all on block. Yep

Council

No, sorry, before we vote, sorry, I've got an interest, Mr Mayor, in 10.2.1, so it will have to be pulled out. Sorry, I did 10.2.1. 10 .2.1. Sorry, thank you, Mr Mayor.

Yep.

Sorry, Debbie, what number was that?

10.2.1. 10.2 . The first one in the— the first one on the list.

Okay. Excluding 10.2.1, Councillor Creed?

I'll move that, Mr Mayor. Thank you. I'll second it.

Councillor Reardon.

In discussion, those in favour?

It's unanimous. That's Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against? Carried.

Okay.

The next item is 10.1.1, slab barns.

Council Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in item 10.1.1, the slab barn at Outbuilding Study. My home is included in the study.

Thank you.

Can you just—this is Councillor Wheeler's button.

I don't mean hit a button, I mean turn the light off. Oh, I was thinking.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor, the recommendation in the business paper.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm pleased to see, of course, obviously we're all probably pleased to see this study having been done, and I support the recommendation around noting, adopting, and proceeding with the state listing nominations, which of course will then require the preparation of a planning proposal.

We know, we can see from the conversations that have been around this study and the submissions put in, that people do value the retention of this early colonial heritage. The study, of course, providing a comprehensive information and identification of various structures that require listing. The very rare town barns, and we, I guess we all notice over time how many we've seen just diminish , just be left in neglect, and then actually just fall down. The ones that are left provide the very tangible evidence of the colonial policy of land tenure and the inseparable links between town allotments and farming lands, which were established in our early colony, of course. I do note, and it's noted, I don't only note, the study has really clearly articulated the survival of many of the barns along our floodplain dating from the 19th century, which are a testament to the effective design and robustness of these structures to survive flooding, which is probably something we could actually learn a bit from.

The submissions show that the slab barns are valued by the people that own them and by the people who get to see them, and there is definitely a desire to preserve them. I do think that Council needs to lead by example in this case, and it's quite shameful the state of Tibbetts Barn, which is a Council-owned barn, which is in a bad state of disrepair. That's not at all good. We need to do better. If we expect people to put their own resources and commitment into preserving the barns on their properties, Council needs to do that for the properties that we own. The increase to 100,000 of the annual heritage funding is an appropriate start in assisting to retain and conserve and preserve these various buildings.

If we want to protect our history of European settlement, we need to actively contribute to it and display the commitment in a genuine manner. So not just using words, but we need to take action. When we own a property that needs to be rectified and fixed, we need to be proactive in trying to do that. I've just returned from a trip away where in the UK and particularly in Switzerland, where the commitment to preserving the heritage, of which of course there is just a massive magnitude, is a real priority. And it's so well done, and it pays off in so many other benefits, not just tourism and things, but just the aesthetics of places. And it's really something that we could do and become better at.

This sort of a study, adopting this is a really good start, and we hope to see come out of that enough sort of support for people to start preserving and, you know, keeping the barns becoming state listed and keeping them in good repair. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Reardon. Mr Mayor, I'm very pleased to see this, and I'm looking forward to the educational campaign that the Heritage Committee is planning for it.

Thanks for that. Any further discussion?

I'll put the recommendation in the business paper. All those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? Carried. Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Wheeler is out of the room. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Ryan. Councillor Djuric. Councillor McMahon. Councillor Creed. Sorry, Councillor Creed is out of the room also. Councillor Veigel. Councillor Regan. Councillor Sheather. Councillor Kotlash. Creed and Wheeler absent.

The next item we've got is 10.2.1, Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just read out a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm a member of the Hawkesbury Communications Rural Fire Service Brigade and funding is discussed. I'm only a volunteer, so no pecuniary interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I have a non-significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm also a member of the Communications Brigade, Hawkesbury RFS, and my son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, Hawkesbury RFS. Thank you.

Councillor Veigel, you're moving.

Seconder? Councillor Djuric.

Any discussion? Those in favour?

Against? Carried. Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McBarn, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Regal, Councillor Sheather.

10.2.1, Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just read out a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm a member of the Hawkesbury Communications Rural Fire Service Brigade, and funding is discussed. I'm only a volunteer, so no pecuniary interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a non-significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm also a member of the Communications Brigade, Hawkesbury RFS, and my son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, Hawkesbury RFS. Thank you.

Councillor Veigel, you're moving.

Seconder? Councillor Djuric.

Any discussion? Those in favour?

Against? Carried. Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Regan, Councillor Sheather.

The next item is 10.2.1.

Sorry, that was done on block. No, no , no, that's the one we pulled.

10.2.2.

10.2.2.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor McMahon . I'd like to move something a little different to the business paper. Please. Thank you, Councillor Ryan

Thank you very much. I've got to declare an interest in this. I'm the chairman of the Pitt Town ANZAC Planning Committee, and it's mentioned in the report, so I will be leaving the room.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. I'd like to move something a little different to the business paper. I haven't provided it at the staff with anything yet, but it would be point one, to hold Savor the Flavour and Light Up Windsor annually over the next four years.

Point two, options for the additional funding required in the 25-26 financial year annual budget to hold the full event program be presented and discussed at a councillor workshop whilst the budget is on exhibition.

And then points four, five, six, seven remain from there. But they become three, four, five, six, if that makes sense.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. I'll just need a seconder.

Councillor, your seconder.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Discussion Thank you. The reason for doing this is because I think our events here at Hawkesbury City Council are something that we can really be proud of. And when you look at the way the community interact with our signature events when they are on in the community, they really bring a sense of positivity, a wonderful vibe, a sense of community to the area. And that goes hand in hand, of course, with the hard work that our staff do. I think our events team and our communications team are second to none. And I think the work that they do has really brought our four key signature events to the forefront. So whilst I appreciate the idea to alternate Savour the Flavour and Light Up Windsor, I think both the townships of Windsor and Richmond have come to rely on those events actually as part of the annual calendar.

So the reason I put that recommendation forward is for the staff to give us that, to give them the chance to provide the additional funding required to us so that we know what that would cost to be able to keep the pattern of program that we currently have. Now, when we introduced in the last few years both Light Up Windsor and, of course, Savour the Flavour, they were really big things to add to the calendar and the workload of our staff. If people can really just try and understand the gravity of what it takes to put on one of those events: the coordination of the space, ensuring that the market stalls are there, the insurance, the getting all the food there, the food trucks, ensuring that there's entertainment for the kids.

It's — The parking, let's go into the logistics. The parking, the toilets, everything like that, the traffic management plan. It really takes a lot of work for our staff to put these events on. And so while I appreciate, as I said, the idea of holding Saver and Light Up Windsor every two years, each one there, I think that we really need to find a way to hold those events annually. If there is obviously going to be an increase in our budget, we need to work out what that is first. I hope that the motion I've put on the board gives us an opportunity to head into that direction. But that was the main difference to what was in the business paper. Keeping and holding Australia Day on the Hawkesbury and Hawkesbury Fest, I'm glad that that was part of the original recommendation.

I don't think there would be anyone out in our community who would want to remove those two events. Hawkesbury Fest really is a celebration of our area and, of course, local government, and I think it's fundamental to keep that. And if you see the amount of small business stalls that we have at those events, it really is a showcase of what we make and create here in the Hawkesbury. And as for the Australia Day event, if you go there every single year, which I think I have ever since we've put it on, it is just sensational. Everyone gets in the spirit of the day. We have all of our emergency services people there, so we really celebrate our volunteers in the community, and we of course celebrate what it means to be an Australian on the most iconic part of our area, which is the banks of the Hawkesbury River.

So I'm glad that they were part of the original recommendation, but the main change I did want to make is to keep those other two signature events that are in Windsor and Richmond and really showcase, as I said, what we make, create, and our small businesses. I think that's important. And the reason I wanted to say not just Saver, but if I can just touch on very quickly on Light Up Windsor and why that needs to remain an annual event and not be— I'm trying to find the right—not be de-scoped or not be... Less than what it currently is in any way, shape or form. People have come to rely on the quality of what we deliver as a council to our community. I think if we did it every second year, there would probably be a little bit of discontent in the community because they really love Light Up Windsor.

So, I don't think we can make it any less than what it is. So, the options that I've asked for for that additional funding to come back to us while the plan is on exhibition would be a way that we can move forward and keep all of our events. Thank you.

Councillor. I'd like to move an amendment, Mr Mayor. My amendment is that the recommendation in the business paper.

Do we have a seconder?

Do we have a seconder?

We do.

Councillor. Councillor. Okay. We have a raft of events that we could and are proud of. I agree with Councillor McMahon on that point. But council is facing a financial crunch, and I refer to the email that we received only this afternoon from our Director of Corporate Services that said, look, there are a few options. One is the alternate option, and that's what I believe is in the business paper. The option to retain the annual schedule of all of the events, which I believe is what Councillor McMahon is proposing, will cost significantly more money. And we are told in that email this afternoon, councillors would need to identify where to fund this shortfall. Councillor McMahon has not identified how that shortfall would be funded.

I think it will become, I think it will become clear. To members of the public, over the remainder of this year , the serious nature of Council's financial situation and the good work that is being done by staff to keep the ship on an even keel. I wish that we could have all of these events every year, but I have accepted the argument that that is not sustainable. The events that I would prefer to see maintained on an annual schedule are in the recommendation. That is to say that we will hold Australia Day on the river every year, and that we will hold Hawkesbury Fest every year. The ones that we're proposing to now alternate, I think, is a reasonable compromise, and this was debated at length at a recent Councillor workshop, where we were told just how significant the shortfall of funds would be.

I don't believe that there's much merit in rehashing a very comprehensive briefing that we were already given. I do not believe that it would elide any new or relevant information, which is why I'm prepared to support the recommendation that's in the business paper.

Thanks, Councillor.

Any further discussion?

Councillors, we did discuss at a workshop. I just make a couple of comments. With the light-up Windsor, for instance, we would hope that the mall is done and dusted by Christmas. If it's not, though, we would be inviting a lot of people into an area that could be a construction site, which is not very good. And we've got a similar situation with the Gaslight Festival, one of our councillors is involved with. So I don't know that we should be supporting something this year on the basis that it might happen, as much as we'd like it to. I don't think there's any of us in the room who don't want these things to happen, and most of us attended these functions and seen the satisfaction in the community of the people that attend them.

But the bottom line of it is, I guess, as Councillor Zamprogno spoke of, is that we've got to look for alternatives to foster these programs. And I believe they're out there. I don't know how we're going to do it, but I think it's something we need to work on. And I think a resolution, as the amendment indicates, might encourage people to step up if they're going to miss out, or they think they're going to miss out, to look forward to working with Council to achieve these outcomes. We can't do it on our own. We can't keep doing it on our own . And it's $28,000 we've got to find. Not a lot of money in anyone's books, certainly not ours. But we're looking at a budget in our business papers here that a lot of work's been done by the staff to accommodate our wish that we want a budget on track, online, that we can support and deliver.

And it's been done on the basis of that from the discussions with the workshop that alternate to was the preferred option of the councillors. So, as much as I would like to support the motion that was put up by our Deputy Mayor, and I'm sure that all of us would, I personally feel that with the discussion we've had at this stage, and we certainly need to discuss it further to achieve the outcome that the Deputy Mayor is trying to achieve. But with the budget in place that it is, and we're going to decide that tonight, that I think it should be left there.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Creed . Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm sorry, I actually have to disagree with you. I know a number of councillors actually didn't agree at the briefing session, so I just want that stated on the record. We didn't all agree on that. So that's why I think the Deputy Mayor's put up this. So I just want that on the record. Thanks.

Councillor Michael

Yeah, thank you.

It's additional $28,000. That's the true cost, I gather, because we've done the work on this. Just if I could just ask a quick question, please. We're not retaining any Christmas tree lighting at Richmond Park, are we? We're just going to leave it in Windsor Mall? If we retain the present program? Through you

Mr Mayor, under the retain option, the Christmas trees will be included in the light up winter budget.

Okay.

Yeah, right. This is where I sit with this. Okay, there's a fiscal cliff coming very, very quickly within council . I am very cut. I'm somewhat

Anxious over this a little bit because $28,000 is $28,000. We need to save it . I thought the recommendation in the paper of alternate two, which has been, I think, recommended by the staff, which I thank them for because they've done a lot of work and they've done a lot of hand-wringing to get this money out of, to save some money, dare I say. Although I think all the events are very worthy, but

I have to be fiscally responsible on what's coming down the line. If we don't see it in this next four years, or the next term, Mr Mayor, I suspect there's going to be very much cost cutting and a whole raft of areas, especially in areas which I don't really want to approach. But the community is going to be taken on a journey that you can't have everything because we just haven't got the money. And the way things are going at the moment, just considering where a lot of our funding comes from, either through Feds or the State, they haven't got the money at all, all right . It's going to be very difficult to get funding, dare I say. So we have to live within our means. So as much I would like to say yes to the deputy mayor, I'll have to go with the business paper in this case. Thank you

Councillors, just to clarify, when I said we need to find $28,000 if we go with the motion, that's on page 48. On page 49, there's a saving of $285,000 to do it. Bicentennial, so. The motions in the business paper.

Councillor Creed, did you want

Yeah, I actually have a question, because I asked this question in the briefing. Given that if we do reduce the amount of events that we're holding from council, does that mean that we will have a reduction in event staff? We have a reduction in event staff if we're reducing the amount of events that council's putting on.

I pass that to the general manager. It's not something that we've discussed.

I think the reality is, is probably not. Actually, no, because given that the format, what we're talking about here is a reduction of effectively one event per annum. Councils need to be cognisant that the program that we are running, events-wise, is far more significant than the four major events. We have a range of community events and a whole suite of other minor events that are held throughout the year, like citizenship ceremonies, park openings, and a whole suite of other events. So I would think it unlikely that it would reduce the need for our staff component there in the events team.

Councillor Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. I think, as Councillor Veigel has just pointed out, we do have severe financial constraints. We've got financial challenges ahead, as all local government does have, and we've been very fortunate in the past to have some significant grant funding for the events that we have held, which has made it much easier and certainly probably allowed us to get some systems in place that have helped with future ones. But we need to remember what we are here. We're a— We're a service delivery organisation, and we can't just talk the talk about, you know, trying to manage the finances and not work towards special rate variations and things like that.

We can't talk about that and then decide that we're going to have all these things just because we decide we want to have them. There's nothing wrong with our community taking ownership of some of these events or doing similar things that could, you know, slot into where Council has been doing it, and of course for Council to facilitate in other ways those events without being the sole provider of who has to put the event on. We really need to focus on what benefits our community get from them. You know, we can support other initiatives which raise the profile of the Hawkesbury, and we do. And as was just mentioned, there's a lot of other events we have throughout the year, smaller events. We support a lot of youth events.

We support various, you know, specific days, Harmony Days, and various things within the community, the Wellness Festival, etc. So I think the priority is to put the funding behind events which assist our local people to access social, cultural and economic opportunities. We really need to drill down to what the objectives of these events are. And I just note that the objective of the Australia Day event, for example, is a community celebration to activate the Hawkesbury River and highlight our relationship with emergency services. So I'm surprised that that is an objective for an Australia Day event because It's on the river, but it doesn't activate the river. There are no activities on the river.

There is nothing specific to the river about the event except you can see the river, and it's a beautiful location to hold it. But it's not really river activation in that sense. There's, you know, I just, I think when we're talking about the objectives, what is it we are really trying to deliver for these specific events? I'm also not convinced around all the figures are really truly representative of the economic flow-on into the other townships and so on. And of course, as I raise so often, the events are very Windsor-centric and Richmond-centric and need to be spread across the whole LGA if and when possible. And I know we've had various events in the outlying areas, and that's great, but I think that we can do better on this.

And I'm not prepared to support the motion, and I just realised we've had an amendment and I should have been speaking on that, but I've spoken on the motion, so I'll leave it at that just for now. And I think there may be a foreshadowed amendment coming as well.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Lynsbockett for the segue. I'll speak against the amendment and foreshadow another amendment. I think there's a potential middle ground here. What I would really like us to focus on is what the purpose of these events are. We are not an entertainment committee. When we devise these events originally and, you know.. . Light Up Windsor had been going for quite some time, and they wanted additional support from Council. The purpose of these events was to showcase the Hawkesbury, not just to Hawkesbury residents, but to people outside the LGA, and to activate our major town centres and support the businesses in those town centres, particularly those that had hung in through some pretty lean years in our main town centres where rents are high, like Windsor and Richmond.

And so Light Up was a request in part from the community and from the Windsor Business Group at the time for support, and fitted in with Council's plans to revitalise and reactivate Windsor and the mall. Savor the Flavour was designed as a showcase for Hawkesbury, and Hawkesbury Fest has originated and has certainly become a means of showcasing community organisations and making connections across the Hawkesbury. What I find particularly interesting is the attendance figures at those events, and so we're frequently assured that Australia Day is the big thing, but in fact it has some of the lowest numbers. More people attend Hawkesbury Fest, in fact, than attend Australia Day.

Councillor Veigel is right, we are heading for a fiscal cliff, and we have to be really responsible with our money. The retain option isn't just $28,000, it's actually the $87,000 that's lost that Council could use elsewhere if we don't move to option two or something similar. I'd like to see us discuss whether we continue to run Australia Day on the Hawkesbury. I don't think it should be off the table. Our staff already run two events in the morning, and we have a local community group, the Friends of the Australiana Pioneer Village, who have for decades carried out a highly successful Australia Day event at the Pioneer Village. Council is in fact competing with a dedicated community group that has run this event successfully for years.

This isn't the Greens cancelling Australia Day any more than it is any one of you cancelling Christmas every second year. So let's not go to the media with that nonsense as has been done in the past. If we're going to have a fair income discussion about this, then everything has to be on the table. What I'd like to see is Light Up retained to showcase in Enliven Windsor, Savor the Flavour retained to showcase in Enliven Richmond, and these should be allocated strict budgets that councilors sign off on. That means that the staff then don't have to go out to the community and get into that argument about how much money they can have. The staff aren't left looking like the bad guy. We take responsibility as the leaders of the council and do that ourselves.

And what I'd really like to see is Hawkesbury Fest be the event that can do the rounds. Hawkesbury Fest could just as successfully be run in Hanna Park, or Woodbury Reserve, or Woodlands when there's room around sporting events, and really go out into the community and allow each area of the community to showcase itself on an annual basis. We could also use that event to highlight community services — sorry, the emergency services — and make up for that loss from the Australia Day event.

Thank you. Councillor Buckman. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be speaking against the amendment on the board. I just want to say I understand both, and it's not something I particularly think we need to be too bitter about. But by and large, I suppose with my small business hat on and advocacy for small business, and something I'm obviously been passionate about over my time as an elected representative, I fundamentally think we'd be letting down our small businesses if we took these events off the calendar every single year. I might quickly just pause my speech to ask the staff, how many small businesses in the Hawkesbury are at both Savour the Flavour and Light Up Windsor every year, just roughly please

Three .

They mostly are, Councillor Zamprogno. Yes they are predominantly—

You should know that.

They are predominantly from the Hawkesbury. At Savour the Flavour, we had 35 stallholders or businesses come along, and 30 of those were from the Hawkesbury. At Light Up Windsor, it's — we sort of have to look at balancing what stallholders are selling, so we can't have 10 candle businesses, but we do try and get as many from the Hawkesbury as we can, and they are always our first preference. I think it's around about 20 to 30.

Thank you very much. And I know I'm not putting you on the spot — the staff — on the spot with this, but there's obviously a lot of turnover at those events, small businesses who put stalls on at those events. I have been there when they have sold out a product. They have been that successful that they have sold out a product. I have had conversations with— Hawkesbury small business owners who have said, with absolute smiles on their faces, jumping up and down with glee, how excited they are to have this opportunity to showcase and sell their products, and that so many people from out of the Hawkesbury come to these events and find their products for the first time, and they develop a brand new customer base from that.

I want to make the point that fiscal responsibility is absolutely vital, and we have, as councillors, sat through briefing after briefing, discussing the budget, looking at our expert staff who are trained and educated to deliver these number-crunching exercises to us, and we have to sit here and make those really tough decisions about what we do. We've sat in this chamber before and put up motions to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars that were not in our budgets, that we have then put on staff to find that money. In this circumstance, we're talking about $28,000. If we were talking about hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you had to look at the cost-benefit of that, it's definitely something you would consider.

But this is $28,000 for the sake of giving our small businesses these opportunities. Now, we have had people stand in here, members of the public speaking, basically screaming for this council to support small businesses. There's been the establishment in the last couple of years of small business advocacy groups who want council backing small business, want council giving opportunities to small business. We currently have an events program that absolutely does that, and it's not just about supporting the businesses who sign up and have a stall, but it's bringing people from out of town who come and stay in our area and spend more money in our town centres and our villages. And the incidental positive benefits from that, I don't think we could even start to quantify.

For the sake of $28,000, I want to make sure that the community knows I am backing our small businesses and I am backing this council to continue to provide those potential opportunities to our small businesses, both who come to the event and both who are in our town centres and villages, because it brings such an economic benefit to our area that I don't think we can even quantify. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, I've already spoken, so this is in the form of a question. You've

Got an motion and amendment.

Yeah, well, we're addressing the amendment and I'm asking a question. We discovered this morning that the Hawkesbury will host what is arguably the biggest event this district has seen in 30 years in September. Yep. I'm wondering that if we opted for the alternate option that saves us $87,000, whether some of that money would be needed or could be put towards activities arising from the hosting of a major international air show.

The General Manager .

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. I think the answer is yes, Councillor. Certainly the staff and I had some limited advanced knowledge of the air show coming. We have already set about a little working group internally, exploring options for what that could look like so that we can certainly maximise the economic and social benefits that would come from that air show. So we're working on that now. It was our intent to come back to Council once the events manager and her wonderful team and others have pulled together a program to come back to Council seeking funding for some sort of an event allied there.

I mean, this is a very welcome situation to be in. Just to drive that point further, there'll be a logistical cost regardless. Then there will also be opportunities to the local economy and to tourism and to accommodation that an extra sum of money, I think, could be very wisely pledged towards. Do you agree?

We would say that the logistical costs that you spoke of wouldn't be necessarily borne by Council at all. We would be thinking that would be borne by others. What we are looking at is what are our overarching objectives. So we want to maximise economic benefit to our town centres initially, but also enduring economic benefit to the Hawkesbury. So if people don't necessarily want to stop and have dinner in Windsor or in Richmond, how do we then leverage in the accommodation and the , yeah, how do we leverage into that enduring? So that's why our wonderful team at the Visitor Information Centre, we've got them in on the loop and we're sort of brainstorming ideas at this point.

Councillor Creed. Sorry, just to clarify, this event that Councillor Zempilas is talking about is a once-off. It's not an annual event.

No, it's not an annual event. It's one-off So

Whilst it's welcome that we have such a large event, it is a once-off. We're talking about annual events here in the Hawkesbury that supports small business

Is that correct? Yes. It is only a once-off. It's been a long time since it's been here. It is a once-off. Yep.

Sorry, and just to clarify, the last time was 2006, not 30 years ago. Is that correct? Sorry.

Yeah

It was a long time ago. I'm not sure. But it was 2006 the last time we had it. Yeah, okay, thank you.

Council Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Can I just ask a question? Have we had any conversations with, for example, the Windsor Business Group or associated groups about the possibility of them taking on events like Light Up in a greater capacity?

I've spoken to a lot of groups individually about just what we're talking about tonight, to look for and ask them if they know of opportunities or want to be involved in opportunities. I don't know that any have approached the staff about it. Through

You, Mr Mayor, no, not of recent times. And I do think we have to be realistic and practical about small not-for-profit community groups delivering events the size and scale of those community events that we are running now. Simply put, the reason why we run them is because they are beyond the capability of those groups.

Yep.

Okay. Any further debate?

Thanks

Mr Mayor. I was just going to say that I was struggling to reconcile the figures on this matter. In looking at 23 and 24, I mean, I've just added up off the cuff, just saying it's roughly 295,000. The budget for 25-26 is roughly 290,000. And considering the state's had 2.8% inflation, it's a pretty good bang for buck. I'm not particularly seeing in the figures presented there's a massive blowout. There's an anomaly in 24-25 where we've got a budget and an actual. The budget was 17% less on the other figures, yet it was a blowout by 37% on the actuals. I don't particularly think we've got a rogue events team that's just got to blow budgets by 37%. There's no lead-in, no information on what happened.

I mean, if I was to make up what went on, it looks like we've got a state government grant to run— Light Up Windsor event further down Windsor for about $30,000, but there's no specifics. But I guess I'm just saying I can see why the Deputy Mayor's put forward the matter as she stated, and it would be nice to keep the events. But if you look at the bigger picture, I think we are going to run into a problem financially if we're not careful further down the track. So I'm going to support Councillor Zembrodno's amendment. Thanks.

Yeah, Councillor, some of those figures you spoke of, there was an email went to councillors this afternoon from our finance department to clarify some of those figures you were talking about.

Any further debate?

Okay, we have an amendment.

The amendment is on the screen in front of us. That was moved by Councillor Zembrodno and seconded by Councillor Djuric. Those in favour of the amendment?

There's four, five:

Councillor Zembrodno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Djuric and myself. Those against? Those against? There's four. Deputy Mayor, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel— Sorry. Sorry, did I miss you on the first one? Sorry. And, and Councillor Reardon was against it. That's three against. The motion's carried. The amendment's carried. No the

Amendments become the motion,

Mr Mayor

Yeah,

But we've got a foreshadowed amendment.

Yes, yep. But ,

Am I missed

No

There's a foreshadowed amendment.

So, I think if the amendment has been adopted, you move on to the motion. It becomes the motion. Yeah.

And now I'm— And now I'm with a

Foreshadowed amendment.

Yes, and so I'd like to move an amendment, Mr Mayor.

Yes, Councillor.

I've sent some wording to the staff earlier.

I'll second the amendment, Mr Mayor. I have seen it.

Would you like to speak to that, Councillor?

I don't think any of us can read it

Yes.

So the effect of the amendment basically is, as I said previously, to lock in Save the Flavour and Light Up Windsor annually, rescope those events to match the allocated budget, and showcase only businesses from within the Hawkesbury LGA. Now, that word showcasing is quite deliberate. It means that if something can't be delivered by a local business, then it can be delivered, for example, traffic control, then it can be delivered by— could be delivered by business outside the Hawkesbury. Hold Hawkesbury Fest annually and investigate moving the event around the LGA, including areas west of the river. The point of that is to get around this idea of a Windsor and Richmond-centric events program.

I think there's been a mistake in the amendment. Three and four and five need to be removed.

And

That three needs to go.

Yep. And then three, four and five are from the original motion, which talks about reshaping the events policy . So, as you'll see, the event that I would drop is Australia Day. As I said before, the Australiana Pioneer Village already runs a very successful Australia Day event, and Council already holds two events on Australia Day in the morning. It would mean that Council is no longer competing with a community group who, week in and week out, manage a Council facility that celebrates our origins as a farming and settler community. And it means that our staff can concentrate on the citizenship and awards events without knocking themselves out in the heat in the afternoon.

Councillor, sorry to interrupt, did we get a seconder for that?

Yes, I seconded.

Thank you.

This allows Light Up to continue to showcase and enliven Windsor. It allows Save the Flavour to showcase and enliven Richmond and showcase local Hawkesbury products. But these events need to be allocated a strict budget and be limited to local businesses wherever possible. It retains Hawkesbury Fest as an annual event, which brings local organisations and not-for-profits together, but allows it to move to other parts of the LGA on a rotation. And Hawkesbury Fest could also take over the highlighting of emergency services, which is one of our stated uses of the Australia Day event. The emergency services already attend, and they would then not have to attend an event in the middle of the fire season.

They can instead do it on a cool weekend in the middle of the year. This would cost about the same as the alternate option, which is currently the motion on the business paper. If you look at the events that are run, the lowest spend and the lowest attendance, and the lowest knock-on spend of the four events that we have before us is Australia Day. So if we're going to be really hard-nosed about how we do this and support events based purely on returns to and people attending, then Australia Day is the one that goes, in my opinion.

Just a question to you, Councillor. In relation to part one and two of your motion, what's different to what we do now to those you're proposing that we—

It's the recoping of the events to match the allocated budget , and the biggest change is that we drop the major Australia Day event.

Okay

Councillor Zamprogno? I oppose this amendment. I cannot support any amendment— That diminishes the importance and celebration of Australia Day. So I would prefer the previous amendment, which became the motion, which is the recommendation in the business paper. Thank you, Councillor.

You're waiting for me and you knew I was coming. Absolutely not. Dead body. Very reliable. I'm reliable. Yeah, no, this is a surprise tonight. I did not see this turn of events coming to have a discussion about Australia Day in terms of the event that we hold here at Hawkesbury City Council. I will absolutely never, ever, ever, times a thousand, drop the Australia Day celebrations that our staff and our Council, our entity, our organisation hold on the 26th of January and have done for a number of years. The amount of joy that comes from that event from our community, they love the fireworks. I know I made a speech in here recently about how much the community loves seeing that. It is done professionally, it is done safely , and it is a damn good show.

And I think for the last couple of years I've filmed it and put it on my page to much applause from the community. Now, something I didn't touch on before is when I spoke about the events that we offer to the community, our four signature events. People know that members of the public get quite mad or irritated with Council when we're talking about potholes or roads or parks or anything like that. But you try and find someone when we hold our events, especially on our social media pages, and I'm sure our staff who admin our pages can confirm, you will rarely find someone who criticises. In fact, they're probably the four occasions where our staff get the absolute utmost praise for what they do for our community.

Having said that. I am just, I mean, I understand personal opinion with Australia Day, fine, but that's just not how it has to be here in the Hawkesbury, and I will never support dropping something where we get to show our national pride. We talk about what it means to be an Australian. Earlier that day we held our citizenship ceremonies, and I know that's not up for discussion here tonight. But what that whole day brings for us as councillors, we love it. We love being in our community. We bring in new citizens. The whole atmosphere is euphoric. We know that we're going to finish the day on the river with our small businesses. You know, the last few years with Farmer Dave as inappropriately entertaining as he is, it's hilarious.

We have our thong throwing competition, which really builds up a rivalry, not just with our youth or our adult competitions, but definitely our emergency services personnel who have developed a really strong banter about participating in that. But as I said, it's more about just really celebrating what it means to be Australian. It is a tradition. It is something that we look forward to every single year. You know, you see the amount of families on the river there in the Hawkesbury. They park there early to get a good park. They set up a picnic. They're there for hours on end. I would be absolutely appalled if Hawkesbury City Council dropped its Australia Day celebrations, and I cannot emphasize that enough.

I will never support an amendment along those lines or a motion ever. Along those lines, thank you.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support this amendment because I think that the points Councillor Wheeler raised are very valuable, and I can hear Councillor McMarn's passion around that. But I mean, what does it mean to be Australian? For different people, it means different things. So that's not a universal attitude. And when we speak about the community loves it, time and time again I've been told in here that when we say the community, what does that mean? That you cannot speak on behalf of the community. I don't personally know anyone who goes. It's probably a demographic for younger families and things, and that's great, but we do have other events for that. But you don't see people flocking from the outer regions to it.

You see people from neighbouring LGAs coming in, and that's fine. But when we come to having an Australia Day celebration, we're certainly celebrating it with our citizenship and with our awards ceremony. And if anything, I would rather see our awards ceremony raised to give a profile to really show the community what people in the Hawkesbury do, what these wonderful people that get awards, who essentially are given them in a private little ceremony that the public isn't even really included in. I would rather see that raised. That would be, being Australian and being Hawkesbury to me, would be to celebrate the great achievements of people who contribute to our society here. I have no desire to throw a thong or do anything like that at all, but that could be some people's idea of what it means to be Australian.

With regard to things such as the air show, I think that's a wonderful thing, and even though it's intermittent, it presents us with this golden opportunity of having ancillary events around our gallery or our museum or our local artisans and producers that can capture people for revisitation, and that's really what we're talking about here. We want people to be coming back and boosting our economy by revisiting, by knowing this is a place that they can come back and explore in greater detail after they've been to a single event here. And I think that's where, as a council, we should be looking. We shouldn't have a repetitive thing where each year we have the same, same thing going. We should be having things that can build upon what we're offering people.

And I think the possibilities in that regard are endless because we have such an amazingly diverse artistic community, cultural community. We can bring people back when we offer them something that is a reason to come here in the first place, and then they can come back again. I think that scoping the events into the allocated budget is a great idea. As Councillor Wheeler said, that takes pressure off the staff having to explain things. We set a budget; the event runs to that budget. It doesn't mean that we have to have every single thing at every single event that comes up. We have to tailor it for what we can afford if we're going to hold these events. I definitely, as a big proponent of having things spread across the LGA, I'd be more than happy to see Hawkesbury Fest, which is a wonderful, wonderful event and enables people access to all the various agencies and services and other little entities around.

Particularly, people love things around the nursery and the animal shelter, and we can could move that around. I don't know logistically. I'm sure the event staff are probably thinking, Oh no, we have to go and do it all over the place. But there are various venues across the Hawkesbury that are well equipped, and also other events such as the Thrive Wellness Festival in Kurrajong that people could tailor, could tap into and join onto, and then that brings new audiences. It makes it accessible to people who may be a little bit more isolated. And I think that that would be a very practical way to do that. So I'm happy to support this amendment. I think that—is that the final dong? Okay. I think that—

I

Feel like it maybe. I just think that this is almost a work in progress, that we're working towards, partly driven by financial constraints, but we're working to formulate what will be a future ongoing role of events by our council, bearing in mind that our core services are not events delivery, but we do have all the various community-based events that we always deliver. But I think with these major events, we need to review it. This, to me, looks like the most sensible way to proceed, and I'm fully in favour of also facilitating discussions, for example, with the Chamber of Commerce or various other organisations that could help the businesses to run similar styles of events, taking the onus off the council. In other words, in other areas, that's who does the events running. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other councillors? Councillor Bygle. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't be supporting the amendment either. Australia Day, for me, on the 26th is non-negotiable. I can see other savings in other areas. I'll never, ever have my opinion changed on that one. 26 is the day, and that's the national day that's been handed to us, and that's the day that I'll be celebrating Australia Day. So I'll be going back to

The business— Mr Mayor, Mr Mayor, I think there's some misrepresentation here.

I don't agree. He's made a comment that he's quite entitled to, Councillor. I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Mr—

I'm still entitled to address misrepresentation.

Address it.

I'm not calling for us to cancel Australia Day. I'm calling for us to cancel Australia Day on the Hawkesbury. That's two very different things.

I heard you loud and clear, Councillor.

And I was going to say, just along those lines, the Pioneer Village does an excellent Australia Day, and we've had Australia Day out there before. The only difference, they charge for people to go there, and I doubt that it can accommodate the amount of people that attend the Australia Day that we've had down at Governor Phillip Park. As much as I would love it to, I don't think they're big enough to do that. And even though I think it's a more appropriate place, I don't think they can just accommodate the amount of people that would go there. So we need to do a bit of work there. But I reflect back, just prior to bringing this item up, I spoke about 10.2.1, which we're going to go back to, where Councillor McMahon declared an interest in.

It's a draft delivery program, operational budget, and we're going to support that tonight, unless someone's got—well, it was going to go in blocks. No one's got any issues about it. It's only come to the point because Councillor McMahon declared an interest in it, but it's a budget that's been put together. And also this has been put together by the staff. And we're commending them on all the things they do and suggesting from the discussions we had at the councillor briefing that they didn't hear it right and they haven't got this right. Now, I think they have, and I think that all of us want better than what we've got in the business paper tonight, including our staff. I've discussed this with them and the like.

They would light up Windsor every day if they could. It's not practical, the like. It's our role to offer the direction and guidance for that to happen and how it should happen. And I don't know that 12 of us sitting around for half an hour, three-quarters of an hour is going to do it justice. So we need to discuss it in other places to get the best outcome we can, because it is passionate, obviously with the discussions that all of you have spoken. Councillor Creed.

So, the first amendment that now has become the motion has in the recommendation in the business paper that you run biennial and major events, save the flavour, and light up Windsor over the next four years. The problem is we've seen this happen before in here, different areas. You start to hold them biennially. It's almost like you're just saying death by a thousand cuts. It's a slow death for these events. If they're not held on a regular basis, they do end up not getting the patronage, and then it becomes, you know, well, we're not going to do it anymore. It's not getting the people there. So I can't support the amendment or the motion in its current form. That's why I was happy to put up with the second, the Deputy Mayor's original recommendation.

I think turning around and saying that you've got one councillor now turning around and saying, we'll move the recommendation, save the flavour and light up Windsor. We have another councillor saying, you know, we'll do— no, we're going to do those ones annually. We're going to move the Hawkesbury Fest around the local government area. I mean, there's no cost. Associated with doing that, and I'm pretty sure that staff would say that there's a high level cost in actually meeting that around the local area. And then cancelling Australia Day on the Hawkesbury River, I just, like, the community, you know, for the people that I speak to, and I speak to a lot of people, they won't be happy with that.

I get that Council is not in the service of doing events, but I think it's just something that the community expects us as a council to be able to put these things on as a free way of being able to bring out their families and their kids and their dogs in some of these events. And it actually is a social thing for our community. It brings people together. Turning around and saying we're going to cancel, and essentially, I mean, you are essentially saying that you're going to cancel Christmas, you know, every two years. So you're going to have it on once a year, and then we're going to cancel it the next year, and you're going to have it on again, and then you're going to cancel it again. It just, the businesses, they're struggling as it is, they're holding on by their fingernails, and we're just saying, no, we're not going to support you, we're just going to cut back the services.

It's 20 grand. I'm like, the budget is in the hundreds of millions. Like, we have a big budget. I just, this is just silly. I cannot, it just is not common sense to me, and I just, I can't support the amendment, and I won't be supporting the motion either.

Any further debate?

We have an amendment before us moved by Councillor Wheeler, which is on the screen. Those who vote for the amendment.

There's two. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Those against? Councillor Brogden, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Regan, Councillor Sheather. The motion is lost.

The amendment is lost. The motion is the recommendation moved by Councillor Zen Brogden. Right of reply as Deputy Mayor.

Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. I will not be supporting what is on the board, which has now become the motion, which I understand is what is in the business paper. I'll be voting against that because I wholeheartedly back the remarks that I've made throughout this item about supporting our small businesses. I do want to reiterate that we definitely are having to tighten up the purse strings here to make sure that we are a fiscally responsible council. But there are many ways that we can do that, and I don't think that this is the right way to do that. I think our events need to stay within the expectation that the community has now, and they need to stay annually. Councillor Creed, I think it was Councillor Creed, made the point that if they are not annually, people will start to lose interest, they will fade off, and we will be spending money on events that probably don't get the numbers that we are used to seeing at these major events.

I think people in the Hawkesbury over the last few years have come to know, expect and love that we hold our four events. They are high quality. And they deliver an outcome to the community that I don't think we will ever be able to quantify. I want to make it very clear, I want to keep the current calendar and I want to keep the current scope. And for $28,000, as I've said, when we've sat in this chamber time and time again debating much higher sums of money than this for things that were never even on the agenda, yet these things have always been since they've been introduced individually on the agenda, it honestly blows my mind. I won't speak too much longer. I've made my points clear, suffice to say that I have to touch on the fact that particular councillors tried to stop our Australia Day celebrations on the Hawkesbury River this year.

I don't think, you know, I'm not sitting here being vicious, but I'm sitting here being very politically minded that that is absolutely, in my mind, not okay. And the sector of the community who votes for me and my team certainly will want to hear about this, that this was tried in this council to drop the Australia Day and the Hawkesbury celebration, and I don't think it was for a fiscal reason. I wholeheartedly believe it was politically motivated.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. I'll withdraw my remarks. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

But I still will hold firm to the fact that that was attempted today, and it was not something that I came into this chamber anticipating.

Sorry That is part of your remarks, Councillor.

No, Mr Mayor, I withdrew what I said about politically motivated. The next sentence I said was this was not on the agenda today, and it was a new topic that we discussed based on a foreshadowed amendment. I think I've made it very clear in that regard. I won't continue speaking, but I will not be voting against what is on the board for the reasons I've made clear. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, can I just clarify? Sorry

We did discuss this in a briefing that Councillor McMahon was not present at. We discussed whether we would give...

Yeah. Yeah.

And it was on the agenda. It's on the business paper.

Yeah. Thanks, Councillor.

That was already replied, Councillors. Those in favour of the motion, which is the business paper. Councillor Brogner, Councillor Zurek ,

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Veigel, and myself. Those against?

Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Reardon. The motion's carried. Thank you, Councillors. We'll go back an item Sorry? We did the budget. No, we didn't. Yeah, we did. It was pulled out. Yeah

And we dealt with it. We

Dealt with it. Okay.

Okay, the next item is 10.2.4.

It's the Floodplain Management Australian National Conference.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Mr Mayor, I'll move the—I don't have a business paper in front of it. My iPad's being a bit slow, but I'll move the amendment, but move the motion in the business paper regarding the conference. But I wanted an additional point around that, and that was a second point, that councillors be briefed on the presentation that's being done by our council at the conference, if possible.

It's had a point three. Point

Three, yes . Thank you, if we could.

Someone like to second that? Thanks, Councillor Reardon.

I'll just speak briefly to it, Mr Mayor. As you know, the floodplain conference is something I've long attended since 2012 or '13, I think. It's a bit unfortunate, this is such late notice, seeing it's on in a few weeks. But I think, having seen on the program that the council flood officer and representative from Water for New South Wales are presenting at the conference on flood planning levels, I think it's really quite imperative that we— It's a shame we weren't briefed on that before we had to make the decision around the Floodplain Risk Management Plan and study. I think it's really important that we get to hear that. I won't be able to go to the conference this year, and I have to be quite frank in saying I would be very embarrassed to go to a conference and have that presentation when this chamber has not voted to support what I'm guessing that that presentation would say.

So I think that we have a real problem here, and I'm really sorry to see things unfold like this.

I'm sure our staff won't be promoting something that this council didn't support.

Do we have a seconder?

Sorry, Councillor did second it, sorry about that. Is there any other speakers?

Sorry , are

We still talking about the Floodplain Management National Conference? Yes Yeah, I would only suggest if we could just constrain the number of delegates, please, to work within the budget.

And looking at that, I know—well, it's more of a question, if not, and somebody can give me some direction on it. There's $19,200 in the training, the full training budget is $31,000. Expenditure to date, the amount of $19,000 to be adjusted to. If you keep the numbers correct for $7,500 to $7,000 to spend, it'll be able to attend delegates for that. And is two delegates enough to represent our council on the Flood Management Committee? Close. It's fair dinkum about holding the money. You've got to be fair dinkum about how many delegates we send to these things.

Yeah, thanks. I just get the general manager to touch on the finances, because there's other stuff in relation

To that. Yeah, in short, Council Veygel's mathematics is broadly correct, yes. The budget is particularly tight this year, Councils, because not only the training budget and induction budget for councillors onboarding, but particularly ALGA was held in July and then it's being held in June, so we're holding two large conferences within the one financial year. That has caused the financial squeeze here on the council's conference budget in particular. So yes, loosely two councillors would be able to go within budget. Alternatively, we would need to do an adjustment at the next review.

To that point, Mr Mayor, I mean, I don't want to path anything for me unless you think it needs to be, but from my colleagues on council can restrict the number of delegates to two, if that could be considered, please.

Yeah.

Yep. Do we have an indication who would want to go?

I'm certainly one.

Doesn't look like we need anything. But as I say with all the conferences, and Councillor Buckett and Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, they attend regularly, and Quite often offer their experiences in relation to those conferences and the benefit they are. It's not imperative that councillors go, but it's certainly enlightening in lots of areas. And with the budgetary constraints in relation to this, it has been looked at with other sections that involves finances directed to us, and as the general manager indicated. So, okay. Speakers?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, normally I would put my hand up for this conference, but it is short notice. The budget is tight. And frankly, having seen what Council determined at the last Council meeting based on expert recommendation about the flood planning height, I can't see that there's any benefit in going and listening to three days of expert opinion on floodplain management when this Council blithely ignored the last piece of a quite expensive opinion on floodplain management. This is always an excellent conference. I think it's a shame that the hybrid format that was introduced during COVID hasn't been retained by the FMA. I think it would be perhaps useful if we contacted them and asked them if they could consider reintroducing.

These are very technical presentations where someone just stands up and gives a PowerPoint presentation. And there's four streams; they tend to be in small groups. It would readily translate to at least recording of the presentations so that people could watch them, even if you didn't have the capacity to ask questions. I think that would be really useful if we could make some representation to FMA based on that. But then I think that might help in the long run. I think it would be really good for us to be briefed on the presentation that Hawkesbury Council, that the staff are making at the conference. And I assume we're sending at least one staff member. Ideally, four people from Council should go to this conference.

There are four streams, and you can divide and conquer. We've done that in the past with three councillors and a staff member at the conference. That worked really well.

There also is a presentation from Blacktown around their floodplain management that would also be useful if we could get access to. Perhaps we could have a chat to Blacktown's planning staff. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. One of the things that I'm not, Councillor, is blind. Flooding's been a passion of mine more than half my life, and while there might be different opinions, and I don't begrudge different opinions at all, but I can assure you the vote that I took a couple of weeks ago wasn't a blind vote. It might have been indifferent to people in the chamber, but it certainly wasn't a blind one. In relation to the comments that were just made by the Councillor with the conference, she's spot on. Any further debate?

Okay. I wanted to go. Do we need someone to—

We've got the motion then

Councillor Buckett, you'd like to amend your motion to accommodate— To appoint

You, yes, that's fine.

Councillor Reardon, you're happy with that? Any further discussion? Those in favour?

That's unanimous in the room. Councillor

Brogdon. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those opposed? Councillor Creed. The motion's carried.

The next

One, is

That 10

5.1? Oh, sorry, 10

3.1, Redbank Creek. If someone would like to move the recommendation.

I'll move it.

Councilor Creed.

Here, I thought we put our light on

No, clearly not.

Thanks

Mr Mayor. I would ask the mover if they would be willing to add an additional point to the motion, that council has been provided with detailed information and costings required to conduct a floodplain risk management study in addition to the flood study. I know it was one of the things that didn't make it onto the budget, was on the list of things that didn't make it onto the budget. If we could get some details so that we know what sort of money we're looking at and what we're actually looking for, then should something come up, if we've got the costings and it's ready to go, then should some money come up from somewhere, we might be able to jump on it.

Happy with that, councillors?

Repeat it. That council has been provided with detailed information and costings required to conduct a floodplain risk management study for Redbank Creek. Is

That through you, Mr Mayor, is that — Can you just check with the staff that that's not going to cost the staff and

Thank you, through you, Ms. Mayor. That information can be very simply provided. I think the staff, in preparation of the budget, actually prepared the business case with a whole lot of costings and that sort of information around it, so we can certainly get that. Yeah, no, that's

Fine. I'm happy to add that on. You happy with that?

Thanks. Yep

Councillor Michael. Yep.

You happy as a seconder? Yep.

Councillor Will.

Thank you. Look, I think there's some notable things that have come out in the submissions to this. One of the things that the flood study details is that there's about one and a half million dollars of annual damage on average from Redbank Creek. There was a bit of talk about the poor response to the questionnaire that went out, and I think we should bear in mind some of the information that's come back in the submissions, and that looks very much like people chatting with their neighbours. Certainly one of the submissions stated that they had gone deliberately to talk to their neighbours, and what these responses reflect is a lack of trust, unfortunately, in council. People didn't do the questionnaire because council did not care or they had had a bad experience.

That's something that we have to work really hard to remedy. These are people—the people who have been impacted by flooding in Redbank Creek are just as flood impacted as the people of Macdonald Valley and the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, where the Hawkesbury-Nepean has impacted their houses. And we need to treat them with the same care and caution. They talk of having their properties destroyed and their lives ruined. There's a real need, and this is, and I'll use the words from one of the submissions, for trust and collaboration between the community and council, and for that to be rebuilt. There's also some really useful information here around the loss of buffer and riparian zones, and the declining—there's information about declining values of property, and there's a genuine— A clearly articulated belief from the residents that they believe that the Redbank development has changed water flow and creek behaviour.

Now, whether that is true or not, these people are part of the North Richmond community, as is Redbank. This, going forward, this doesn't make for a harmonious community, and that's something that Council really needs to be mindful of. What I think we could get a better handle on is how do we measure if all the assertions from Redbank in their submission are true? How do we measure that the drainage system does its job? Do we measure it? Do we just take it for granted?

I want us to look hard at the drainage information in the Redbank submission, because this will be handed to Council in the next few years, and it will become Council's problems. There's a lot of reliance on dams and detention basins, and we know from experience elsewhere in the LGA that these work optimally when they're dry, but they don't work in repeated events and in very wet years. And we know that those wet years have increased. The public meeting, I think, was a cautionary tale in what information you give to the public. It was that we used a consultant. We probably would have been far better to just use our own staff, who are much more familiar with the community and much more familiar with that area.

It was a highly technical presentation that was really ill-suited to its audience, and when the staff tried to intervene to redirect the presenter, she just ploughed on, and it became quite uncomfortable in that space. We need to be careful that we don't use that form of community consultation again, because it didn't work. The key themes of this study are around property values, insurance, trauma and property damage, and that's what I'm hoping we can get some better information on the management of through a risk management study. I guess the question for Council really is where to next? If we've identified this, what do we then do? What do we do for the people whose backyards are washing away?

What do we do for those lost riparian zones that mean that that whole corridor is now far more vulnerable? And what do we do about keeping up our end of the drainage maintenance and the repair and management of that area? And how do we mend this now broken community?

Thanks, Council. Councillor .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think that the way this is presented in the business paper is really good. It's really well explained, particularly about the role of a flood study, which I think people are very confused about, because as Councillor Wheeler has just alluded to, the next step will be actually making a floodplain risk management study, which the flood study in itself identifies flood behaviour within the catchment. And I think it was really important that we did go down that path of getting additional public consultation, even though it could have been done a little differently. But what it enabled us to do was to capture that information from the locals who were at the start feeling very disenfranchised from the process and not actually wanting to engage, to them ending up actually having various conversations not only with council staff, but I believe some had spoken with people from Redbank, and also they got together as a community so that they had a lot of discussions door to door and in their neighbourhoods.

And that was a very beneficial thing to come out of it and something that we should be very conscious of, that when we get a feeling or a poor response, it doesn't necessarily mean disinterest. It may mean that people just need to be prodded and given a few more avenues to actually be able to present their information . I'd like to thank those very interested community members who attended that session, but also who made submissions, all the people who made submissions, and who raised matters relevant to flood behaviour on an extremely localised level. So we know that individuals are being impacted quite severely in some of those areas, but we know North Richmond as a whole gets impacted because of the flood behaviour of Redbank Creek.

So the next step would be getting the costings. I had also written that down to ask about, to get the costings on doing an actual management strategy, because that's what we need to know. How can we manage? How can we mitigate to limit the impacts that these people are currently being impacted with? And by acknowledging this study, by adopting this study, we're acknowledging the data that's presented within it and identifying the bits of it that needs to be managed. So we don't want to see that just sit as a study on its own. We need that to then move towards the next step to get the risk management plan so that we can actually ensure in an area where there's projected further development, which may impact, we really need to be looking at how we can manage flooding in that area because it's not going to go away.

It's very, very prone to the localised level of flooding, as well as the overall catchment flooding. So I think that the process we went through enhanced it as a study. I think it ended up better in the end than it was initially. So I thank the staff for the work they did on it.

Any further debate?

Yeah, I sat that meeting. There was 47 people there, and there was only seven submissions that was put in, which was disappointing. And with the document, there's a lot in the document, and what it does do, as the two councillors just concluded, that what comes out of it, the piping system in places is inadequate, the money in the old area, so we've got overland flooding, and that's reflected in the likes, and— The concern they got is not just avel and flooding. It's the creek itself that needs attention. How we go about that, I'm not sure, but if you've got a half blocked up creek, you can expect only half the water to go down it. It's got to go somewhere. So there's some things we need to look at. This study indicates all those problems, and what's proposed to come out of that is how we fix it, I guess.

Any further discussion?

It was moved by Councillor Buckett, was it? Councillor Creed, sorry. Sorry. Right of reply? Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Those in favour?

Those against? It's carried. Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Sheather.

10.5.1, Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program. Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I declare an ongoing declaration when talking about this infrastructure program, and that is the fact that if and when Turnbull Oval is raised, I declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest as my son plays for the Hawkesbury Hawks, which is a club based at that field. No pecuniary interest in this matter. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor.

Councillor Ryan, you asked this to be

Brought forward.

Thank you very much, and I've been a part of this for far too long and gone through far too many exercises in relation to delivering of this.

Yes, I'd like to remove the recommendation. Seconder

Councillor Bickel.

Councillor.

Thank you. A little rookie mistake there at the start. Thank you. I've been a part of this process since the start of many, many years, and our progress association put through a really good, strong recommendation to the start of this. And one of the things that we did do was that we wanted it to be more than just a community centre. We wanted to be a hub where our people, community could go and use it. We went to many other different community centres right around New South Wales, in western Sydney, Ultimo and out to Bassendean and all those places, and we really had a good look, and we did come back with what we really wanted is so that we can make this a viable... An usable community centre.

We were fortunate to have a lady who's no longer with us ran the one down at the Ponds and actually ran it at a profit. And she was able to get things in there that really made the community come together, like small events. And her planning was that we could run more than one event in these rooms at a time. They had doctors, specialists coming in using some of the small areas, and they also had areas where they could use the kitchens outside . And this is where my issue is today. I have discussed it with Will, but what the community has said, and I've discussed it with a few more of the members of the community, they would like the kitchen area. If you have a look on plan five, the floor plan of it, and if you look in the top left-hand corner, you'll see that there is a toilet area there.

And our request is that we move that kitchen area up to where the toilet area is to facilitate the use of that kitchen when people are on that area above, which is a covered area, which has play areas in it, and it's really a community area, so that we can then engage with the kitchen and engage with the people outside. So that that is also a separate area. We could also run a function inside while that kitchen is working in there, where we could also, the deliveries would not have to go into the main hall area, that they could come straight into that area. The people I've spoken to are younger mothers, and a lot of them do things like their bake and cake and those sort of days where they'd be able to like to go up there, set it up for the families and Put out coffee and that sort of stuff.

And to me, that is just another function of the community centre where we would get our people there. We have clubs there called Sip and Stitch where actually they're making all the poppies for our Anzac Day this year, where they all get together in a location. At present, they're going to Windsor and different places where they would really like to be able to produce these here in Pitt Town. So my real request is that can we redesign those toilets perhaps so that they run along the back? We take advantage of all the area that we have under the roof there so that we can then increase the sizes of our storage spaces. Because in these halls, the main complaint I got from a lot of people was we can't store everything.

We start off with where we want 100 chairs and 20 tables to we'll need a stage, we'll need this, we'll need that, and we can never have enough storage area. I know what happens at my home. I never have enough storage area with Tamil and my wife. I just can't understand what goes on there. And I'm not going down there because it's my wedding anniversary tonight, so I'm not going to spoil that. Yeah, it's finished. But anyway, if we could really seriously have a look at moving those toilets and running them along the back, and then putting the kitchen area in there so we can have service outside, move the bubbler section to running along the back there. Parents will be mentioned—sorry, Director of Infrastructure did mention that there could be an issue there with children going to the toilet going out of the view of the parents.

The parents have only got to take another three paces and they can see their children all the time. So I'll put that forward that we could have that variation done. And the rest of it. The people I've spoken to in the community have said this is great. They're really impressed. They wanted to get moving, and I've put some other questions forward which have been answered on notice to really get this project going, and the community really want to support it. But that is their only real hiccup with the project . Have

You

Put a request in that regard, or are you looking at question answered now?

Look

I have had a meeting with the Director of Infrastructure. He hasn't come back with an answer at the moment. I would like to know, is it possible to have these alterations put forward, variations?

Through you, Mr Mayor. Look, it's a consideration that was, or a matter that was considered by the project team, and I've followed up with them following our meeting. So firstly, on the matter of the toilets, the movement of the toilets from where they currently are to either the— I'm trying to track my north, east, south and west—moving it to where the kitchen currently is, or in that location, would present an issue through the lens of crime prevention through environmental design, as we discussed on the day in that meeting. You would have to have a recess or an inset for those toilets. That cuts sightlines, and it wouldn't simply be a matter of parents taking a few extra steps, fundamentally, to ensure safe delivery of kids to the toilets and ensure that nothing happens to them.

The parents would need to be standing outside the stalls, which isn't ideal if parents have more than one child and they're having to look after another one out on the terrace. The orientation would also mean that it's a less efficient use of the space, so they did draw up a schematic. I didn't have a chance to mention this to you in our meeting. I wasn't aware of it, but when the designers had a look at it, it did take up a larger floor area for the same number of toilets, so there was a loss of space. The implications for the kitchen. So through the development of the plan of management and master plan, it was never intended that the kitchen would focus as a commercial cafe, that it was there primarily to service the hall and users of the facility.

So connections into the multifunction hall, into the corridor for the receipt of goods and equipment and ingredients and so forth are key considerations, and that would be lost through shifting the kitchen to that corner of the building. And it would also increase the cost of construction as you move the kitchen further away from all of the utilities, so the distribution boards, the electricity , gas, hot water, et cetera, et cetera. So there are the implications with respect to the movement of the kitchen and the toilets.

Thank you for that. And look, I've been in the building trade for a little while, and I know when the best time to design these things is when they're on the drawing board and not when we're pouring concrete. I'm still quite insistent on sort of running the toilets parallel with the back wall, and I'm just a little bit miffed of how we are losing space, especially if my suggestion is to move the wall up parallel without external wall and not have that step back in because that's no longer required. We're after the best result for a long time, and our people are going to be using this for a long time. They're pretty adamant what they want. They have put that forward a number of times. In fact, the first kitchen, first design, they had the kitchen over there in the middle of the building , and we asked that it be moved over to that side again.

And I don't think you were here then, Will. So we have sort of insisted on that all the time. And I think we really need to speak about this just further because I think it's a community want. It's something that will bring our community together more so that we can have these people, rather than having our kitchen around the back where we can't access it, where we have a lot of people who do these bacon, cake and all the mothers turn up. I notice we have another kitchen in the middle there for coffee and that sort of thing, which is a tremendous idea, which will service those other rooms, and they won't be required to use the kitchen because we have small... Councillor,

Your time had expired. Okay,

So I would like to that we look at moving those and look at the costs and look at the viability right into. I'm pretty stubborn on this one.

Councillor

Councillor, Mr Mayor, can I just ask a question? Can we have some detail around how this sort of thing is to be dealt with with these various projects, when there are questions that have come from community representation and the responses? Can we have a mechanism, is what I'm asking, I guess, because we've seen this ongoing back and forth with the Livability, for example. Now we're going to have it with West Invest. I think it's really important that we have some sort of a framework around how people can still raise this. We know that it should be done initially, but of course these are evolving things. So can we have something around that, please, is my question.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the short answer is that yes, we can. We do have the community engagement plans which have been adopted by Council, and we're following the processes set up by those. We will, of course, review those as we... And Fernadell is the first one kind of through the gates, so we'll certainly review that as we proceed. I think in this instance, we have taken—we went to the community with the, if you will, what they needed from this sort of a space, and that followed the development of the, I'll call it a very, very high-level concept plan through the master plan and plan of management process. Those needs were then reflected in the functional design brief for the architect to develop the final concept designs.

The final concept designs were then put out to public exhibition, and changes were made to the extent that were reasonable, considering costs, considering things like crime prevention through environmental design, and considering input from architects who are subject matter experts. The plan before you is the amalgamation of all of those things. Through the consultation in 2024 on the final concept design, which informed this detailed design, those comments were raised about the movement of the kitchen to that far corner of the building, and it was through the review by the project working group and consultation with our architects that the recommendation against that was made based on those items that I outlined.

In my answer to the question by the councillor. So this is an evolving process as we deal with these projects. We've certainly taken a lot of what we've learnt from the experience with livability, and that's the primary purpose of bringing this level of design back to the chamber so that we can get a firm direction and a solid direction and a confident direction from councillors moving forward. But at the end of the day, there will be always a case of having to make compromises, and there will be members of the community who don't get exactly what they want for a range of reasons, and that's why we bring it to the chamber for a decision.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. And so, in other words, when there's a series of questions or things raised by the community, and then there's a response, had that question not been asked here, would that community have been directly told that sort of thing, or how does that work? Yeah

So in future community consultation, that is one of our actions of our engagement officer, is that receiving the feedback and the suggestions and everything is one thing; having that reflected to the greatest extent that it can in the design is another. But then closing that loop and closing off the consultation to say, this is where we listened to you and made changes, this is where we listened to you and couldn't make changes, and these are the reasons why we couldn't or didn't. And then this is the process forward, is something that we've flagged as a requirement for all our future consultation and engagement.

Thank you for that. Thanks. Mr Mayor, I'll just speak on the motion, if I may, and thank Councillor Ryan for raising those various issues and so that we could get that clarification about what we're to expect with these other projects. I think it's really unfortunate to see the Rickerby's Creek cycleway, the costing on that, and that there's such a shortfall there, given that connectivity is so crucial. Safe access between Windsor and Richmond is so overdue, and it's so vital. I mean, it's something that is going to really increase connectivity for so many people for so many different reasons. So I have a question. What are we going to do? Because is the intention, and I did read it, but is the intention to just build the bridge and then hope we get funding for more, or is it to stall the whole thing until we can get adequate funding to do the whole lot?

Through you, Mr Mayor. As with all of these Western Sydney projects, we have to progress them to a certain point before we can assess the viability of the project and determine the way forward with respect to what funding is available. Unfortunately, and it was disappointing that we didn't receive funding under the recent, and you'll have to forgive me, I can't remember the name of the program, but the recent Active Transport Funding Program. We understand that there is another, I think it's a state government Active Transport funding opportunity coming up later this year, and we will certainly be putting in a grant for that. Notwithstanding this, the endorsement of the concept will allow us to take us through to a detailed design where we can start to get better quality quantity survey estimates of the cost of the project.

With that information, then we can present that to Council with whatever the funding available is at that time for a decision on whether we proceed, how we proceed, or indeed whether we— Cease to undertake the project. Okay,

Thank you for that explanation. I think this situation, however, nothing to do with our staff, of course, but it's quite symbolic of the flaws of this grant funding being foisted upon us in the way that it has. It's really unfortunate to have thought that we were, you know, so close to getting an item of active transport infrastructure, which would be so vital, and then for it to be twisted into something that perhaps may never eventuate. That is really unfortunate and out of our control, of course. But hopefully, I guess all we can do is keep progressing, as you've said, with the process, and hope that somewhere down the track on that matter, would there be a likelihood of any regionally based transport infrastructure that we could apply for funding that we could apply for?

Look, it's pure speculation about whether there could be in the future. We note that that link has been identified in the Western Parkland City's Greater Active Transport Plan, or whatever the title is, I'm not too sure, which is, of course, a state government document. So the state itself has recognised that this is an important link to continue the active transport corridor from Rouse Hill up through to Windsor and then through to Richmond, and of course with the new Richmond Bridge and the active transport component of that, then on to North Richmond, and with our Kurrajong to Kurmond Western West Project ultimately all the way, you know, halfway up the hill. Whether there's the opportunity to pursue funding, as I said, we understand that there is a state government funding program coming, but it's a— Not a guarantee, there's no firm details or timeline to that.

I've certainly raised it with my counterparts at Transport for New South Wales to try and agitate from at that level. But we wait to see what opportunities come our way and while we do that, we continue to work and develop the plans.

Thank you for that, appreciate that. And just one final question on that. Do we have, I know we have an active transport plan, but do we have a document as such that could be presented that puts forward all of those various little items of connection, connecting in? I know it's in the Western District Plan or a Western Transport Plan, but do we have something ready for any funding that could, you know, be put forward so that people see the full picture, that we're not trying to just do one little bit, it's all part of a whole thing, bearing in mind that people flock to our area on the weekends to use these very sorts of things.

I don't think we have, through you, Mr Mayor, I don't think we have a single document, as it were. What we have is two pretty solid business cases, one for the Rickaby's Creek cycleway and one for the Kurrajong cycleway. And we have the benefit of all the work that was done for the Western Invest program and the active transport grant application that we submitted last year. So I'm not aware in our active transport plan whether it's as distinct and concise as that. It certainly identifies and I think points to the regional plan, but not a single document that we could. .. Hand over.

Thank you. I would like to see something like that in the future. I think that would be really beneficial for us. And just my last point on the matter regarding the issues raised about storage by Councillor Ryan, I think that's a really important thing, as we know, to factor into all of those things. And just putting on the record that Councillor Ryan has a large shed.

Thank you, Councillor. Just to comment on that, with nearly all the buildings we've got, we've got room problem. We just haven't got the space with what the expectations and the way the setouts have got to be for the kitchens, for the want of a word, or bathrooms and the like these days. Nearly all the projects we've done, there's issues with size. So, and, you know, when we've got a building envelope, I guess, and I know I've put it up on nearly every one of them, but when we've got a building envelope of a certain size, it makes it pretty hard sometimes to accommodate. In saying that, we've got designers design one things and community use it, and sometimes there's differing views on how that should be.

Just a question. With the Fernadell, that's not in the drawings, and I checked today and was given the map today. The lighting for the playing fields and the multipurpose courts and everything, they're not on the drawings, but they're certainly there. They're happening. So that was confirmed today. In relation to Woodbury Reserve. The proposed facilities in the Gosford Playground multipurpose courts, pump track, new amenities building, that's the one over near the pump track. My concern was when the car park might be done in relation. The sporting grounds themselves get very little done. There's nothing done on the building. There's a bit of access and one new storage area. But the car park is something that needs attention, and I would like to see, not on the end of the list, but further up the list.

But with the new amenities that's proposed, when might that be programmed? Because we've got a thousand kids out there riding bikes and skateboarding, and the closest toilet is locked and is 300 metres away. So unless they've got a key to get into the toilets on the sporting grounds, there is no facilities. It's something we need to. We've built the skate park and the pump track and that out there, but we haven't got a toilet. So when might that be looked at?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So the items that we have identified as being, for want of a better term, sacrificial are the car park near the RFS, so closer towards Spinks Road, the dog off-leash area, the outdoor fitness, the works around the dam picnic area and lookouts, stairs and retaining wall construction. So everything else is intended to be delivered and sits as a primary objective of delivery. So all the amenities are a part of that. What I can't provide at this point in time is where in the program those amenities sit. We would have to wait for a contractor to be brought on board and receive their construction program to understand where they've scheduled those works. Okay

Would it be appropriate for our staff to have a look at that and see whether a mobile toilet or something is practical, with the amount of children that's using it? We need to address it in some form, or maybe organise with the sports council if someone's there on a regular basis access to the toilets or something. I'll take that on notice and we'll work through that. Thank you. Councillor Veigel.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. You're right to have a shed, Councillor Ryan, and there's never enough storage, especially when you're married to an art teacher. And your children still come back home and they're still going and load stuff into the shed. As my son's got his car in there for the next eight months while he travels China on a bicycle for about 20,000 kilometres. But having said that, let me just move on. The cycleway at Rickabys. It's more of a question, if I may. It's clearly an active transport—

Well, we put the proposal for active transport and it's there. So I'm a bit miffed why the funding didn't come through. Did they give you a reason why you didn't get the funding?

Through you, Mr Mayor, no, unfortunately we haven't had any indication or feedback on our application or why we didn't receive any funding. Okay ,

So basically we put another application and we're flying blind again, and if they favour us. Keep at it. I've got faith that you'll probably get it because it's a lost connection and it's just silly to go and put the bridge across Rickaby and do all that, and it's going nowhere and you've got to get across the road there, dare I say. Yeah, just further the point, you probably do need more storage over there at Fernadell. I don't know if you can do a virtual fly-through and let people have a look at it, well, but, you know, I'm not sure whether it's worth it or not. But the story with commercially as well, that when you do anything, and I've been building manufacturing plants for a long, long time, I'll give you a set amount of money and I'll give you a building, and then you've got to try and fit 14 sardines into a can that can only take 12.

And it seems to be the case. Instead of the actual services fitting, or the building fit for purpose, it's always you've got to go and fit the manufacturing into a building which is not fit for purpose. Anyway, I'll leave it with you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a shed. If my husband has a shed, it's not the same as me having a shed. I've got a laundry. Apparently that's supposed to make up for not having a shed. We did have a discussion about that.

This is, regarding Fernadell, this is a multi-million-dollar project that the community has waited years for. We're now at that point where do we just get on with it, which I think is, you know, a real motivation of the community really wants this now. They're tired. Or do we delay a little bit to try and do we let the perfect get in the way of the good, I suppose is what we have in front of us. I think there's some principles here. When the community tells us, as they clearly have at Pitt Town, this is a very well-organised community that's very good at advocating for itself, that they want something, we probably should do our level best. To deliver it. The other principle is that no one ever has enough storage.

And I think, you know, I see storage rooms like this, and, you know, and it looks like it's a storage room for the tables and chairs. And, you know, never has Tetris been played so hard and so well by community groups who are trying to get the tables and chairs back into the room provided in the community centre, because they might have fitted on the plan, but they never ever fit in real life. And so that actually isn't any storage in this building. You know, if we look at this, you know, that's a tables and chairs room. That's not a storeroom. And we know that these are pivotal parts at our community centre. If it's possible to rejig this, that would be fantastic. But I'm also acutely aware that the community just wants this done.

I have to say, I think it's a really ugly-looking building that doesn't, that doesn't fit into much of Pitt Town, some Macquarie Town. You know, it has some really notable buildings past in the slab barn study tonight for state heritage listing that are actually really extraordinary examples of what the Hawkesbury has looked like for 200 years, and this building reflects none of them. And I think that's the other thing that we need to be cognisant of as we go forward with these West Invest projects, is that where possible, they need to— these are huge pieces of infrastructure. They're once-in-a-generation pieces of infrastructure. It would be nice if we could build something that was beautiful and functional at the same time.

I'm not an architect. I don't have the power to redesign these. That's just my wish. It's a shame that Rickabys is looking so tenuous. I think that that's a really important linkage, and it's important to people who like to exercise, but actually these linkages are incredibly important to people who rely on them as their form of transport, people who need to walk or ride because they don't have a car. And with increasing financial pressures on families, we need to be acutely aware that people need to get around sometimes not in a comfortable air-conditioned family vehicle. And there's a lot of people walking and riding into Richmond, and that's a particularly difficult patch to navigate where there's, you know, multiple turns and things.

I was at the City Talks for City of Sydney on Wednesday night last week, and one of the things that City of Sydney, who obviously have buckets more resources than we will ever dream of, but one of the things that they've been really successful in doing is pushing cycleways and those green linkages or active transport linkages. And really they've done it in part through just sheer dogged determination to get that stuff through, in part because they can afford to pay for some of their own infrastructure, and they've not got the big buyout like we do all the time, but also because they had a plan, and I think that's what we really need to have. It's much easier to get these things funded when you've got a plan than when we're just doing them piecemeal.

Okay, Council.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Ryan,

Right reply.

I'd really like to see this go ahead with the toilets. I'd like to see some more information. We did speak about this at length. Perhaps we could get together again and go through it and make sure, because I've got a number of people in the community asking, I want to be able to give them the correct information and not be held to the sword that I didn't do that. So I'd appreciate if we could get together and do that and go right through it. Thank you.

Question

Could I ask a question, please? I've got three, actually. Sorry. Firstly, is it intended that those, that block of toilets are accessible to the public throughout the day, that they're not toilets that have to be opened by the Sports Council? Are they on some sort of timer or locking system?

Through you, Mr Mayor, to confirm these are the toilets associated with the community centre. Yes, I'm

Sorry, yes. Yeah ,

The intention is that they've got time locks.

Thank you. And another question, and I looked for this and I couldn't find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there, so I'm sorry if it is. What is the floor height relative to the flood level of the community centre?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I don't recall the level, but I do recall that it's sitting above the contour. Just on seven. So

Just above the one in a hundred?

Yep. Yes.

And is there, what of the materials that we're likely to use for the build, how many of those would meet council's, sorry, the recommendations for flood resilient building materials?

I'd have to take that on notice. And sorry, I've just got the figure, so it's, the floor level is sitting at 18.8 metres, which is about half a metre above the one in 200.

Okay. The motion is the business paper. Those in favour?

That's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Councillor Brogden, Wheeler. Lyons Buckett, Ryan, Durek, McMahon, Creed, Weigel, Regan and Sheather.

The motion's carried. Item...

Item 11.1. Flood Management Committee. Someone might like to move the recommendation.

Councillor Reardon

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Any discussion? Those in favour? Sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I have to say this was a very interesting meeting. The bulk of the discussion was around the flood risk management study, and there was some quite lively feedback around council's refusal to increase the flood planning height. There were some quite serious, as you'll see from the minutes, serious questions about the potential loss of indemnity for council, given that we've wilfully ignored the recommendations of the expert report. And I'll quote one of the participants from the Department of Climate Change, Energy and Water, who said that on the most dangerous floodplain in the country, you now have the lowest planning level, and you have ignored the recommendations of Australia's foremost expert in floodplain risk management.

And I think we should just sit with the discomfort of that decision for a minute, because that is a really grave thing that this council has chosen to do. There has been a denial of the science of climate change and a belief, based on hearsay and media commentary, that flood planning levels somehow affect insurance premiums. And this council, on the most dangerous floodplain in Australia, has refused to raise the planning height to even that of our neighbours. We now have the lowest flood planning level in the country. Everybody else has at least the one in a hundred plus half a metre, and we haven't done even that. And so the very strong recommendation from the Floodplain Committee is that we at least adopt that half a metre freeboard to raise us to at least the same as our neighbours, who are at far less risk than we are.

I'm not delighted with that as the way forward, but it's a whole lot better than the nothing that we have now. And it should be borne in mind that all the modelling shows that by 2030, that's five years' time, the one in 100 risk will be at the same level as the one in 200. So should you ignore these expert recommendations, you will be condemning more people to live on a dangerous floodplain with no protection for their homes. And you will exacerbate the need to evacuate and the impacts on people who already live here.

Thank you, Councillor. Not everybody agreed with those comments. I didn't. I won't get further; we discussed this at length. You know my views and the likes. I will make one comment, though. In most areas that have changed their floodplain levels, the difference between one in 100 level and PMF is probably less than a metre. Ours is three. And if you look at the PMF, so ours is a massive difference. No one else has got the housing involved that we have, and I know that's the argument that the council just used, that because of that many houses, we should have a different view. And in relation to insurance, if I was an insurance company, I'd go by the best information available, and if the council was pushing a particular level, that's what I'd be working off. And if you had a business that didn't do that, you'd be stupid.

So at the moment, they're not working off that because it's not there, and they are coming up with their own assessments. Stuff like postcodes, that's real good business sense. But the implication is that the issues that are below 17 metres now would eventuate below 19 metres, and it would prohibit a lot of activities that are there. And indeed, if the insurance companies say that there's an issue with insurance under that level because it's a level that seem to be at risk, then the information that I've got, not only from insurance companies but from people around here under 17 metres, they're paying high insurance premiums, and it's getting worse. And if that level, planning level was lifted to 19, the banks took the same attitude, and I don't know.

I don't know they will or they won't, but I suspect from history that I've been involved with that that's exactly the case. So I'd like to be proven different. So if someone's got information in that regard, I'd like to see it.

Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think everyone's insurance is increasing. We just had a 25 increase, nothing to do with flooding, nothing at all. There's a problem with the insurance industry, and that is the issue. They are increasing premiums anyway. You know, so the scaremongering around that. The ultimate thing is that if you can prove you've got a safer dwelling, then that can assist your insurance. I would just have two questions on the timelines on how long it would take for these things that the Floodplain Management Committee has requested.

How long would a timeline be around getting the legal advice, and how long would it be around, you know, what mechanism will we have about considering adding the freeboard?

I would have to discuss it with the staff. I'll pass it on.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Look, we have already made a referral for external legal advice. We're expecting that back within the next fortnight. I think would be a reasonable time frame. With regards to the investigation of implementing the freeboard, also that work is underway, but I would take the timeline for that on notice and get back to you. Okay.

Thank you for that. Yeah, I think it was good. I think that the— The Floodplain Committee has clearly had a lot more discussions around this as well, and I think that's reflective of the diversity of the points of view, as you pointed out, Mr Mayor. But nevertheless, the various recommendations coming out of that committee, I think, are extremely good, and I think that we do need to consider those things that have been raised. I know that the appointment of people to the Floodplain Committee was based on their expertise in various areas, and I know there's also representatives of the various agencies. I really look forward to that information coming, both things, but particularly about the increase, at least in freeboard.

I do still think we do need to have it put out publicly about what a flood planning level is, the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding around that, and connected to insurance. You know, many people can't get flood insurance now who are at 17.3 metres, and they magically think not raising it to 1 in 200 is going to help them. I mean, how is that even something people could think? So clearly what people have been told is , or what they've been led to believe, is not true. There's a perception in the community that not raising that level is actually going to help the people at the lower level, and that's how that's come across. Now that is people not understanding what a flood planning level is, or what they've been told either by councillors or publicly.

So we do still have quite a bit of work to go around educating our community about what sort of a tool a flood planning level is, as opposed to a flood risk and a flood height—actually what flood heights are as opposed to flood planning levels. So I think there's still—I'm glad that the committee seems to be across it, or the majority, seeing these recommendations have come forward. Obviously the majority of that committee see that there's some sort of an issue around this, and that's a good thing . particularly as, you know, we are a council who's committed to considering all these things when we're making decisions. We have very clear policies about considering the impacts of future climate change, etc.

Nobody has moved to change those policies, so when we're making these decisions, that is something that we must be factoring in. So I look forward to seeing that information come. It sounds like it may return— that was my other question. Does it have to go back to the flood committee before it comes to council, or will it be coming? I think this says to council, so I'm assuming it would come directly to a council meeting.

I assume so.

That would be

My understanding, Councillor. It's actually a fairly straightforward amendment. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that.

Just to clarify and commend the floodplain committee, where there's issues like a couple in this business paper, when the vote was taken it was unanimous. They're not about to withhold a view that is controversial from this council. They're there to offer a direction, and that's what's proposed within the recommendations within this, and that's how the discussion took place, even though it was quite indifferent on the floor. The bottom line of it is that it needed to come to this council, and that's where it's come.

Any other speakers? God bless.

Councillor Reardon, you moved it. Would you like to reply

Also, I thought the importance of the evacuation routes was highlighted too. By the committee

Those in favour?

Against?

Carried. You're not voting, Councillor Creed. Sorry?

Councillor Creed, did you vote? Sorry?

No.

The vote for was Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Reardon and myself. Those opposed were Councillor Creed and Veigel. The motion is carried.

The last one we're going to deal with is the confidential item, which is 16.3.1.

We need to go...

The confidential. We need a motion to Councillor Brogno.

Excuse me, Mr Mayor.

Councillor McMahon. Question?

There's a Councillor discussion on item 15.1. Sorry? There's a Councillor discussion listed on item 15.1.1.

Or is that in confidential?

Sorry, Councillors, that shouldn't have actually been listed in the table. It's not a matter for debate.

Okay. Those in favour?

Against? Carried. That was unanimous.

That was Councillors Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather.

Did you get the seconder?

The seconder was Councillor McMahon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 16.3.1 regarding a lease to the Minister for Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue, road reserve adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Impragno, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that: one, Council agree to enter into a deed of lease with the Minister for Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue, New South Wales, in regard to the road reserve adjoining 43 March Street, Richmond, as outlined in this report. Two, authority be given for the lease and any other necessary documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution will be conveyed to the proposed lessee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion were Councillors Impragno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather, with Councillors Kotlash and Dogramaci absent for the vote, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillors. That concludes the meeting for tonight. Thank you.