Heritage Commitee Meeting - 3 July 2025

In response to questions from councillors. It's also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. We have apologies from Councillor Jill Redden, Mrs Carol Roberts, Councillors Ann Pronio,

And have I missed anyone else?

Yes, Deborah Wherland—Deborah Hallam, sorry, not...

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

Sorry , significant non-pecuniary interest in 3.1.4, the potential heritage items. Thank you. Anyone else?

Shane? Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 3.1.4, potential heritage items.

And I have a pecuniary interest in 3.1.4.

Madam Chair, I also have an interest in the slab barn study. So, Graham

Can

You just speak into

The microphone? I can't quite hear you.

I said I have an interest also in, as being part of the consultancy team that actually looked at the slab barn study. So, is that a significant non-pecuniary pecuniary? I would think so, yeah. We were paid money, so it's a pecuniary

Interest. And which item, please?

3. 1.4

Yes, I think so. All right, we shall be crowded in the foyer. There are no registered speakers for this committee meeting. So the next item of business is the minutes. Any questions or comments on the minutes from the meeting?

Yes, Madam Chair, I have one, and that's in regard to the General Business Item Australia and Apine Village Heritage Study progress. It was actually flagged that we would be discussing that item at the next meeting. Obviously it was noted as scheduled for the 1st of May, but that didn't happen. So I would have thought that it'd be on this one, but it doesn't appear to be on the agenda.

All right, shall we can flag that for discussion at the next meeting.

Anyone else?

Could I have someone move that the minutes be accepted in that case?

Thanks, Jan, and a seconder, Venetia, thank you. Okay, all in favour? Thank you. Right, which brings us to item...

Which brings us to item 3.1.1, the draft New South Wales Heritage Strategy. Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So basically, the New South Wales Government has released the draft Heritage Strategy for New South Wales. It basically aims to ensure heritage is valued and an integral part of both culture and well-being. It acknowledges Aboriginal cultural heritage is the foundation of all heritage in New South Wales, and there's actions and focus in terms of recognition and protection. Also indicates reforming of Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation and alignment between heritage and the planning system, essentially. So members of the public have up until the 13th of July to make submissions. So we've asked the committee to review the strategy and if there's anything from that, whether there's anything the committee thinks is worthy of including as part of a submission to the New South Wales Government on their draft strategy.

Thanks, Andrew. Questions or comments? Anyone? Venetia.

I think we should make a submission to it. I don't think it's strong enough in terms of assisting local councils and communities. First up, I don't know how we're going to embrace more diversity in our state heritage when we can't manage what we've already got. But that's their problem, I would assume.

I've written some suggestions down. By objective, I think under objective one, councils should be asking or putting in a submission to initiate a Minister's Heritage Roundtable program on an LGA basis to assist communities in discovering, preserving and activating the stories and places that are important to them.

One of their actions is increase the accessibility of our heritage system and places to ensure more people can participate in the heritage of New South Wales. I'd like Council to suggest that they implement an archaeology in the community program to encourage and educate communities about their heritage. Under objective two, support owners and the community care for heritage, read the third dot point under those actions. I would suggest New South Wales Heritage should host LGA-based forums for heritage property owners on a semi-annual basis, possibly, or an annual basis at least. Read the fourth dot point. I would say establish fund and resource and promote a Heritage Trades Centre of Excellence to assist with the preservation, maintenance and longevity of heritage places.

Under objective three, realise the benefits of heritage, I think they should support local councils to preserve, maintain and activate state-listed items. And I think they should review complying development and the use of private certifiers and strengthen local council powers to halt private certification of demolition of potential heritage items. And under objective four, I think they should support local councils to highlight, activate and promote state-listed properties by way of funding and resources.

Thank you. Are you happy to pass those comments directly to the staff? Print it out ready to go. Thank you.

Mary?

Thank you. Mine was, I just had some points from page 24 of the strategy, just some questions really about how, particularly under 4.2, around modernising the heritage framework to build community confidence. I just was wondering how will these actions take place? Like, what's the next— how does that go into a tangible thing that can assist, monitor and enforce compliance? Like, I know this is an overarching document, but what's the next step down? Is it,

For example, I'll refer to strengthening government's capacity to monitor and enforce compliance. We all know that's very well to say that, but we need, for people to have community confidence, we need to see that in action. So how does that translate, is my question.

Does anyone want to have a go at answering how the state government might action that?

Yes, well, I guess that's all very good questions, and it's not clear in terms of what the next steps are. And so I guess if the committee thought that they're questions that should be posed as part of a submission, then I think that has value, yeah, yeah.

Thank you, Andrew. I think that they should be, because if we're promoting frameworks to build community confidence, we need to have some relevant direction of how that would actually occur. Otherwise it's merely a statement. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I guess in part answer to the compliance section of Mary's discussion there, I am, and others around the table I think are aware that Heritage New South Wales does have a compliance team now, and they actually have been out to Hawkesbury City Council to look at the livability project, particularly around Thompson Square. So I gather that part of it is in place, Mary, but how good it is, I don't know at this point in time.

Madam Chair, the only other thing I was going to mention in regard to this draft heritage strategy is that the percentages of 78% of people responding to say that the protection of heritage places is important to them really accords very well with Council's own study when they did the place score. And I think we should be reliant on that study to actually, I guess, give heritage a forcible link to the Hawkesbury and the community's wishes .

For those who aren't aware, Place Score is an external evaluation tool that Council first used in 2018, I think. So it's an external organisation that comes out and asks, does a series of surveys, very well run and regarded, asking people what is of importance, is most important to them about the LGA. And the thing that scored highest when they came to the Hawkesbury was heritage, far and above everything else, and second was the environment. So, and then that place score was repeated a couple of years ago, and the results were the same. So we're on solid ground. I know we often feel like we're working in a bit of a vacuum, but we are on solid ground here pushing for better resourcing and promotion and protection of the Hawkesbury's heritage.

I had a couple of points from reading it as well. I think there's some of the things that this committee has been raising for a while, I think fit into some of these objectives. For example, under the empower owners section, the increase to the Heritage Assistance Fund. You'll note in a later item in the business paper that we currently receive five and a half thousand dollars from the state government towards our Heritage Assistance Fund, and the bulk of the money is made up by council. That I think this is a timely place to raise the fact that the state government, if it expects local government to carry much of the load about retention and protection and compliance, could put its hand into its rather deep pockets.

And I think it's probably an opportune place to make the point that you've made several times, Graham, that funding should be based on concentration of heritage items and their significance, not just a blanket figure of five grand trotted out to each LGA regardless of whether they've got five heritage items or five thousand.

I think it's also a place where we could raise the idea of additional state government support for both heritage planners and heritage officers, another load that local councils often struggle with.

Under 2.2. Where they talk about protection of heritage, I think it might be useful to raise that they could stop building infrastructure that impacts heritage items, something we know only too well in Windsor and now in Richmond.

And I would also like to see us make a point about removing the ability for state significant projects to turn off heritage protection. Again, something we're all too well acquainted with. If you have any further comments on the heritage strategy, you can make a submission yourself up until the 13th of July, so you've got about a week, or you can forward comments to the staff for council submission.

I know I didn't get much of a chance, working at the moment seven days a week, about ten hours a day to read all through, but the one thing I noticed is there's no reverse side of the coin. They all talk about preserving, but there's no penalty for people who wantonly destroy.

Yeah, okay, that's a really good point, I think, and something worth raising. I think because what we've seen for years as well is that people get a slap over the wrist with a wet noodle, and that that penalty not only needs to exist, but it needs to be proportionate to the profit that's being generated from the —

Anyone who does the wrong thing, the penalty should also go back into preserving heritage

It

Should be a round circle.

Good point.

So, Andrew, have you got all of those? They're all on the tape anyway.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think the recommendation is that council makes a submission. The wrong window . So it was review the Heritage Strategy and consider whether a submission should be made. So I think the committee's resolution is that a submission be made and include the points raised by the Heritage Committee. Is that fair? Could I have someone move that please? Graham and a seconder, Michael. Thank you. All right, the next item is the proposed Hawkesbury Aboriginal Cultural...

The next item is the proposed Hawkesbury Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Interpretation Strategy. Jack has joined us. Jack, do you want to just introduce yourself to everybody first? I'd do it for you, but I might muck it up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello, everyone. I'm Jack Enzi. I'm the Sustainability Coordinator at Council. I sit with the Strategic Planning, which is Andrew's team. And my role typically involves broad strategic development in the sustainability sphere and implementation of those strategies. And a lot of those strategic documents touch on heritage, cultural matters, environmental matters, social welfare, resilience. So it's a very broad spectrum role and leads me to why I'm here today to talk about the interpretation strategy. So on the 12th of October 2021, Council adopted the Hawkesbury Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study, and that study contains, very quickly, a geomorphological perspective of the Hawkesbury and some known Aboriginal cultural sites that already exist and are already known.

It also includes a thematic history of what has occurred in the Hawkesbury and the contemporary views of Aboriginal people today. Those contemporary views include a voice on how cultural heritage should be acknowledged and preserved for future generations, and what comes out of that is some pragmatic and achievable recommendations for Council to pursue. One of those recommendations with a moderate priority is the development of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Interpretation Strategy. Now, that interpretation strategy has really strong alignment to our adopted Council strategies, particularly our Hawkesbury 2045, the new Community Strategic Plan that's recently been adopted, but also touches on a few other strategies within My Will House, including the Environmental Sustainability Strategy that was adopted in 2023.

And what the strategy would provide us, the Interpretation Strategy, is a guide for Council on the planning, the design and the implementation of projects, really to improve outcomes of those projects for both the Aboriginal community and non-Indigenous communities within the Hawkesbury. And it will assist staff in being able to, as I say, plan and design those projects and to consider what needs to be going in up front. So there are expected benefits to come out of that to the environment, to the economy, to social welfare, social cohesion, so broad spectrum benefits. And it would display Council's commitment to good leadership, social cohesion and representative, responsible and accountable governance.

An opportunity has arisen for us to undertake this interpretation strategy. Everyone knows that Council has limited funds and resources, but through the Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan, and particularly the Caring for Country Strategy underneath that plan, there is funding available for projects that align with the Caring for Country Strategy. This interpretation strategy would align with the Caring for Country outcomes, desired outcomes, and so there is strong alignment to both the Caring for Country Strategy's grant funding outcomes , council alignment, and through the Aboriginal Heritage Study, the desires and the voice of the Aboriginal community within the Hawkesbury.

Thank you. Thanks, Jack. Does anyone have any questions first? Mary ?

Thank you. Jack, would the people that you're engaging with, because I'm aware in the heritage study there is a variety of local groups who were consulted, would you be going to the same groups? Because we know sometimes there's a bit of a diverse opinion on some matters.

When undertaking these projects, it is important to do collaborative co-design and try and be as inclusive as possible. As you mentioned, that can be difficult, particularly when there is conflict that already exists, but we would be attempting to be as inclusive of all community as possible, and whoever decides to participate would participate. However, that consultation would likely be led by an outsourced expert, so we would be looking to use the funding to hire a third party to undertake the strategy, that third party likely being an Aboriginal organisation with connections to the Hawkesbury. And so we should be guided by that process.

Thank you. I think this would be such a valuable thing to do. We clearly need it, and I think the role in having such a framework with these big projects and things we've got going on, would there be scope within that being said that for specific projects in specific areas, that the people who identify closely with those areas could also be consulted within the framework of what's there?

Yeah, so I would envision that the interpretation strategy would provide broader guidance, wouldn't be specifically targeting a specific project, but saying that when looking at projects, that the people that are key stakeholders should be consulted. So it'd be providing that guidance to council to say, when looking at these projects, you need to identify key stakeholders in this realm, and they need to be consulted in this particular way. Yeah.

Anyone else? Graham?

Madam Chair, through you, can I ask if this is proposed to be funded purely from a grant, or does council put money into this as well?

Jack?

Purely through grant funding. Okay, well that's encouraging, because otherwise I would be voting against this one, Madam Chair, because I think that council doesn't even have a comprehensive heritage study of European stuff yet, and if we're going to embark on an interpretation plan of Aboriginal study, although I go with Mary that this is warranted, I think there's other work that council needs to put its funds to.

So as far as I understand it, we've got a very high likelihood of obtaining this funding, which I think is good, and it does have the other study underpinning it. I think there's great advantage in moving on a study that we have the underpinning information while it's still really current as well, because that's often what happens is that we do one, we don't get to the next stage, and then we're told to repeat the original. So I think there's a lot of advantages in this. The other thing that I think is also advantageous is that it brings with it the involvement of another staff member and is not something that we are adding to Christopher's already rather overloaded plate. So thank you for your input.

For Jack, it's really good to have someone else on board doing this sort of work. For those of you who haven't read the Aboriginal cultural heritage study, I really urge you to read it. It's quite a detailed study. I found it absolutely fascinating. Even if, you know, just the geomorphology itself, the formation of the Hawkesbury, the area, the river, the mountain range after the river, it's quite extraordinary. And that centering then of place of the Dharug people is really, I think it's something that we can all be really proud of, that we are part of this place. Jan.

This is a comment, Madam Chair. The historian in me has a couple of things that I feel need to be pointed out. And I'm sorry, Graham, I can't agree with you on this one because the latest thinking amongst historians is that the two histories are interwoven in the contact period, and because of that, you can't look at them totally separately and get a perspective that is balanced . So I can't agree. I think that we need to do both, and we need to interconnect them where the interconnection comes about. The other thing I wanted to comment on, as purely as a historian, is that I want to encourage everyone, and this is nothing to say against Gordon McKay Logan, who are a very reputable firm who have done this study, and the history I'm not faulting.

But I wanted to point out to everybody here that just because there's a nice little composite history that a company has written doesn't mean that's the total story, because they're looking at keeping that history as brief while comprehensive as they can. And I urge you to try and think in this district beyond that, because otherwise you can get quite a generic look at what we're looking at. And just to give you an example of what would happen if you went a little bit deeper, I noticed they quoted my figures for how many Aboriginal people were thought to be killed up to 1802 and how many Europeans. Now that's perfectly accurate. I do say those numbers, but I have two pages of notes explaining that while these numbers are calculated from what the Europeans said,

Other people were saying equally important things, and the other half of the equation is not put into the sentences around my figures. So while I stand by the figures as being what the Europeans quoted, I'd like to just quote you Governor Hunter. He says, A host of evidence is brought forward to prove what numbers of white people have been killed by the natives, but could we have brought with equal ease such proof from the natives as they are capable of affording of the wanton and barbarous manner in which many of them have been destroyed, and to have confronted them with those of the white inhabitants, we should have found an astonishing difference in numbers. Now that is a whole different ball game when you start looking at what other people are saying, in that those numbers may be the very minimum, particularly for the Aboriginal people.

So just as a historian, I wanted to point that out, that go look further, go see what those references said in detail, and you might find a more nuanced story. But that's not to take away from the history because it is accurate within the framework of what they can fit in.

Thanks, Jan. I think you've just illustrated nicely why we need an interpretation strategy, as well as the strategy that underpins it.

So I think we just, so we're recommending that Council develop the strategy using grant funding. Can I have someone move that way?

Venetia, and a seconder, Mary. Thank you. All in favour? Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next one is 3.— thanks, Jack — 3. 1.1, which is strategic priorities. Now, this is a lengthy — this could be a really lengthy discussion, and I'm really reticent to curtail that discussion. I'm going to give you two options, I think. One is that we spend half an hour, or up to half an hour, discussing this now. The other option is that we can defer this to a workshop session where we sit in the committee room and have a more fulsome discussion about what you think the priorities are, and we could do that in conjunction with the governance training that we need to have before the next committee meeting. So I'm happy to be guided by you. We've got time to spend half an hour on this now, or we can defer that to a later discussion, or you can have a bit of both if you want to.

We can suck it and see. We can spend 20 minutes or so on it now, and if we need to put more time into it, we can shift to a workshop. What would you like to do?

Venetia? I'd like to have a bit of a discussion now. Yep Yep.

Is everyone else happy with that?

Yep. Yep. So one of the issues I have with this— I'll just pause you there. Yep. So before you get started, if everybody's happy to go with that, I'll get you to note the time, because there's quite a lot on the business paper. It's 25 to 6 now. I'm going to call a hard stop to this item at— Five to six and get you to give us some direction going forward, whether we go to either a workshop or we wrap it up after this evening. So just so that you're forewarned before the discussion starts, we're going to have 20 minutes on this. I'll get Christopher to introduce it first.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just give a couple of brief notes. Pardon me. So this report provides further comment on the former Heritage Strategy Report, which was presented to the committee in August 2024. That report provided an opportunity for the Heritage Committee and Council's Senior Heritage Officer to focus our efforts on priority strategic heritage programs over the next few years, having regard to the competing operational heritage duties of Council's Senior Heritage Officer role, which are also detailed in that report, which was attached to this current report. In response, the Heritage Committee subsequently sought additional Council heritage staffing support, which could not be implemented due to broader budgetary constraints for Council.

Accordingly, given the available heritage resources moving forward, it is recommended that priority be given to the two previously identified major strategic heritage projects,

And that was identified in my early days here talking to heritage stakeholders. So those are progress on the recommendations of the March 2010 Hawkesbury City Council Slab Barn Study, which has now been superseded by the 2024 Hawkesbury Timber Slab Barns and Outbuildings Study. And the second one is progress on the previously identified Potential Heritage Items Project. Now, to achieve these two key strategic heritage objectives, I've recommended that no further heritage or strategic heritage tasks, including the recently desired Heritage Awards Program, be progressed until the major component of the potential heritage items project is completed, and I expect that to occur by the end of 2026. Now, for me, the observed loss of potential heritage items during this project has highlighted the importance of completing this important project in a timely manner.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Christopher.

Venetia. First up, I just think it's really sad that we've waited decades for a heritage officer and he is so swamped with no resources and no support staff, no assistance, that he can't actually do what we want him to do.

That is just, I don't even know where to go with that. One thing I am concerned about is the number of, and I know there's all sorts of regulatory issues and

Land ownership questions and everything else, but I wonder about things like the convict trail project. I mean, that is a state item under the remit of Transport for New South Wales, so why are we even needing to put any energy into it? Why are we not just saying to them, do your job? It shouldn't even be in our remit to deal with the convict trail project.

Similarly, with state heritage listed items. Now I know I was the one that put up the request for Council to do urgent make safe repairs on the Toll House because it is urgent. But again, that's a state heritage listed item. So why is the state not doing something about it? So, I mean, there's quite a few things that are on this list that we seem to— Christopher seems to be bearing the brunt of, which really shouldn't be his job.

So I want to know what we can do about that. Christopher, do you want to comment on either of those?

Just a quick correction through Madam Chair. The Toll House isn't state listed at present. I know there could be an argument that it's worthy of it, but it's not state listed at present.

Is it not on the state register

No. Not to my knowledge. That's correct.

Well, I think the options report, which is on the agenda tonight, talks about re-looking at the statement of significance, and that might come out of that. But, yep.

And regardless, we're still the owner. Christopher confirmed that too because I looked it up on the heritage website, and no, it's not state listed. It is only in the local LEP.

Well, it does within the options report, and I think that's in error

Comment to make.

Now,

Putting the heritage awards off again

Doesn't make me happy, because we've been, I believe, at least since 2016 trying to get this to happen. It was planned. Funding's been approved three times. The heritage awards have been approved three times.

Funding hasn't been approved. That's why they've never happened. Funding hasn't been approved. That's why they've never happened.

I thought funding has been approved.

No.

Okay. So they're totally off the table then, at least until the end of 2026 or beyond. Is that correct?

That's what we're working out. We're determining what our priorities are. You get to make some recommendations about what the priorities of this committee are. The senior heritage officer has told you, from his perspective, what he is able to do, given his resources. It's up to you now to make recommendations about those priorities. And then that will come back to the council committee—sorry, to the council. Council will make recommendations based on the priorities, and the staff, we will be guided by what the staff tell us we have funding for. And if there is enough will in the chamber, then we have the potential to change that funding or attempt to change that funding. But I have to tell you that the stone is looking particularly bloodless at the moment. Christopher, did you want to speak? I

Was just going to add, it's an emotional topic for me because I want to be able to present to you, and I've spent time on my holidays so that I could come to you with potential heritage items. That's the reality of this work. I want to come to you and show— Results , and it is quite difficult with the operational load to do that. But just to let you know, and I do, it does pain me that I can't achieve everything that you'd like me to achieve, like the Heritage Awards program. But I've come into this role with a 40-year backlog of heritage studies that have been produced over a 40-year period, and I'm seeing those heritage items, as I'm working on the potential items project, falling one by one.

And I know that we have to prioritise that project, and we have to cut our cloth to what I have available to me. And I'm doing my darndest, I can tell you , to provide you with potential heritage items that we can move forward in planning proposals. I know that we're doing it with the Timber Slab Barn study. You can see things progressing in that area. I know if I can get some potential items to you in a heritage listings working group, I know that we can progress them. We have strategic planning staff which can take up those items once we've made a decision on them. We can move them forward. We can see change. We can make up for 40 years of not having things done. We can make that change in a space of a couple of years if we can just say, let's focus on these items and we can make a difference.

That's what I'm saying to you. I suppose emotionally I'm saying that to you, we can make a difference if we can just focus on the things that I can do for you in the short term, with the resources that I can provide to you. As you'll see in my report, and I'm going a bit ahead of myself, but you can see in that report on the potential items that I've only been able to provide a limited time on that, and I've done that generally in out-of-hours work. So that's the reality of the situation.

So I think you, and look, for those of us who've been on this committee for some time, I think what we have seen in the last six to eight years, we've increased the Heritage Assistance Fund from $20,000 to $100,000. That is now continuous funding. We have a full-time senior heritage advisor, when before we had a consultant one day a month. We have a heritage assistance fund that is now oversubscribed, where before we didn't have the staff resources to get people even vaguely interested. We have a fully booked heritage consultant a couple of days a month to assist heritage members, and we have the first suite of heritage listings that this council has submitted to the Department of Planning for addition to council's LEP in more than three decades.

Many of you have been part of that, and it's all been done in the last eight years. That's an extraordinary volume of work for an incredibly under-resourced section of council. What we've had is some, we've come up with a list of catch-ups that we've wanted from a council that has finally listened to its heritage advisory committee. What we're telling you now is that we are resource constrained. We don't want to throw any of those out, but we have to prioritise what we do. And the advice is that we go with those heritage listings because that's going to give us the biggest bang for our buck. That's backed up by the $100,000 a year for the Heritage Assistance Fund and the continued employment of a senior heritage advisor.

But Some of the things that

Are difficult to fund in the current climate, or that we don't have the staff resources for, are going to have to wait until that major body of work is being done. That's really what you're being asked to take on board tonight.

I understand all that perfectly well. What I want to know is, does Council actually have any capacity whatsoever to pivot any of this stuff, which Christopher really doesn't need to be involved in the heritage awards. There really isn't any need for him to be involved in it. So is there no capacity at Council whatsoever to pivot somehow and move this sideways so that it can actually happen? Because this is an important part of it as well

No one's disagreeing that this is important. I think you can... and look, this is what we're asking you: what do you want Council to focus on? Given the limited resources, you can potentially ask for additional resources for the awards that is outside the remit of the Senior Heritage Advisor, Senior Heritage Officer, but that's

What this session is about: you coming up with those. But you may not get what you want, is the short answer.

Graham. Chair,

Thank you. Look, I wholeheartedly agree that getting a rural heritage study finished is our priority, or should be our priority in it. And it hasn't happened. You know, we've engaged City Plan some years ago to actually undertake this study, and yet after a few hundred thousand of council's expenditure, got nowhere. And we've really got nothing out of that $300,000, which really, really saddens me. And I don't know who was the leading person behind all of that. I know this is before Christopher's time, and he certainly tried to resurrect something out of it. But wow, you know, that's a big expenditure for nothing. I guess I'm probably not going to be liked very much with what I'm going to say next is, but would it be worthwhile considering not having a heritage fund for the next 12 months and sink that money in, that $120,000, into another body that could actually assist Christopher to get this work done?

Did you want to respond to part of that, Christopher?

Madam Chair, I'll just respond to the part about the community heritage study. I am using parts of that study. A lot of the potential items I've been sifting through a lot of the draft sheets that were used, I've taken and utilised that information. So there has been some use of that information. So it hasn't been all gone to waste, that particular matter.

Thank you. Look, I would caution the reprioritising of the heritage assistance fund. That was a hard one, that money. I think if you give it back, you won't get it again.

Mary. Thank you. That's exactly what I was going to say, unfortunately. It's budgeted and it's in there, and I think the minute it moves, it could go altogether. I agree, and I mean we all agree that there's so much to be done, but I think ultimately, firstly I'd like to thank Christopher and Andrew for the work that they do because compared to when I first got on council, there's a lot more commitment around trying to get these things done, and I think that's a really good thing to see. And as with all things in local government, and Danielle and I, with others, have just been to the Australian Local Government Conference in Canberra, and to hear all councils, you know, there's a major issue around financial sustainability of councils.

No council has the money. Well, perhaps maybe Blacktown or somewhere, but no other councils have the money to do all the things that they both need to do. And we're living in a world where the cost shifting, and we even see that when Venetia says there's things in here that are state, perhaps state responsibilities. And there's a lot of cost shifting going on from other levels of government to councils, and to meet community expectations, as well as having to deal with the impacts of the increasing disasters that are occurring, does make it really hard. And I mean, I know that the councillors on this committee are committed to fighting to get as many resources as we can get into heritage, but that's not easily done.

It's not an easy fight, and there's only a certain bucket of money to go around to everything. And we're so lucky to have all people like yourselves to come and assist and to help us to work out those priorities. But I think in this case, if we're looking at how to protect what heritage we still have, we need to make the maximum effort. And I agree, a study, all of those things are needed. Trying to protect what we've got, because what we've seen over the last few years is an incredible loss of really valuable properties and valuable things that had no listing and that had no protections around them whatsoever. So I just think I've got no firm— I'm guided by what we're told and what people say, but I just think that I just want to reiterate just what a difficult situation it is to operate in at the moment around funding.

The council has a lot of funding, but most of it's grant funding for other things that can't be moved into this area. If we had any flexibility about how to use funds, that would be different, but we don't.

Jen . I think too we need to look at

The amount of money that each would lose were Christopher's priority not given that priority. All the money that those... Conglomerate of historical, of heritage studies have cost would be lost if we don't give it that focus. Whereas up to date, we haven't spent any money on the awards. And now, I'm not suggesting the awards aren't important, but I'm saying if you look at it in terms of getting the biggest amount of money for a result for our money, then we definitely have to go with the heritage

Structure. Thanks, Jan. I also should mention that the last round of council's budget, so for the next, and the operational plan for the next four years includes two lots of $90,000 for this financial year and the next financial year to complete those heritage listings. And so that will make sure that we can stay on track with that funding and hopefully get those over the line by the end of next year. And look, that's 18 months away, so that's really not a big— it's not a long time for that. And then they'll go off to the state government to hopefully to Gateway determination. We've seen very swift Gateway turnaround for the Slab Barn study, and so hopefully we'll see a similarly swift turnaround on the heritage listings.

Now, it's nearly five to six. I guess the first decision is, is the committee happy with the senior heritage officer focusing on the Slab Barn study—sorry, the Slab Barn study—the heritage listings for the next 18 months, and then moving on to the other priorities which perhaps this committee can work up in the next few months.

Madam Chair,

Somebody? Sorry, carry

On. I'll certainly agree to that, Madam Chair, but I would like to think that in conjunction with that, we've got item 74 resolution actually seeking further federal government funding, and I just wonder whether, and perhaps local government funding, whether they could be actioned within that time period as well.

Andrew?

Yes, I mean, we have made representations to both state and federal governments in terms of funding for, I guess specifically for our, or certainly to the state government for our local heritage assistance program. But for individual items such as later on the agenda we have obviously the winter toll house, so we've written to the government in terms of that one as well. So yeah, we have made those representations, obviously waiting to hear back on how those representations are received and whether further funding is available.

So, so far those representations have been from the staff to state government agencies. What I guess, what hasn't been done recently is political representation. So the mayor and councillors approaching the state and federal members, and certainly the committee is free to make that recommendation to council if you'd like to.

Could I move that way, Madam Chair?

You can add that to the recommendation, yes. We'll work on a recommendation shortly. Yep.

I'm just going to say that I would agree that it's important to protect the heritage first. Otherwise, you've got no need for an award because you have no heritage left, and you've got no need for the funding to help people to preserve it. So the protection of the heritage is first and foremost the important thing.

Thank you. What we could— what we do have is a resolution on the table that has been passed by Council for a working group for the heritage awards to be reinstated— instituted, I've lost all my words. We could— we probably need to revisit the heritage awards stuff. If we're not going to act on it until 2027

Which is closer than it sounds, we could do that, given we could do that work, I think, ourselves prior and not involve the staff in that work. Perhaps we look at that in six to 12 months' time so that we have that up and running, ready for 2027, and certainly ready for a funding application that the councillors could put forward, perhaps as a notice of motion. If it's a worked-up proposal, it's easier to put forward, and then we wouldn't be using up precious staff time for that. I think where we got up to with the heritage awards didn't involve staff time previously. Michelle, and then Mary.

Are there any other opportunities for the awards rather than Council's? Is there any other funding that could be looked at if people are keen for that to go ahead? Like there's often the, you know, the other grant, club grants and all those sorts of money that could be invested

Possibly, yeah. Mary, I don't know is the short answer, but I'm happy if other people do know, that would be great if you could let us know.

I was going to say a similar thing. I'm not quite sure why there's not a category in our Australia Day Awards for heritage. We've got environment, we've got volunteering . We don't have the sports awards anymore either, but we do have a Sports Person of the Year. So I can't see why we couldn't have something added in. It's probably too late for this year because the nominations have already started, but we could raise that again as a category within those awards.

Which would leave us ready for 2027 and would piggyback then a whole lot of the expenses of that award would go to the events team because the event is running already. So it's possible we could work up, maybe that's a soft start, that we work up an award that fits in with the Australia Day awards. And Andrew has reminded me that the business cases for the budget for each year are done in January of that year. So if we were to start meeting as a working group, we could start working up a business case for the awards and have that ready for submission, but leave the strategic planning staff out of it for the meantime while they catch up on all the listings and other endless... Heritage backlog. Jan

Madam Chair, maybe at the same time we can ourselves progress looking at sponsorship, because we have had generous sponsors in the Hawkesbury previously. For the bicentenary of European settlement at Hawkesbury, we had a $50,000 sponsorship of the Macquarie statue that's in the park . And we have had other sponsorships, so there may be that if we approach people ourselves initially, that we may get some totally independent financing.

That's an excellent idea, I think, Jan. We've hit six o'clock. Shall we work up a resolution for the committee? So it seems that the committee is— I haven't got any words, and now my computer's gone to sleep.

Number one.

Sorry.

Number one.

Number one Progress the recommendations of the Hawkesbury City Council slab barn study. Two, progress on previously identified potential heritage items. Graham, you had an addition.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes. The recommendation is not the one about the slab barn study. It's the heritage committee considers the proposed heritage-related strategic priorities and

Provides

Feedback

On the list.

Sorry, you're correct.

So

Is the recommendation that— That the committee recommends that progress on the previously identified potential heritage items remain the priority until

The end of 2026. Are you happy with that? And then, Graeme, you had a further

Recommendation.

Yes, I did, but I've got so many things wrapping around in my head at the moment. No, I remember

What it was, that Council makes, that Council notes the severe funding constraints of

Heritage—

God, if only I had some words— severe funding constraints

Preventing further heritage work , and makes representation to the state and federal member for additional heritage funding.

Madam Chair, probably with reference to... many state and higher items that we actually have within this city area. And I think that that's a sort of a flag that—

Yep

So Council makes representation to state and federal representatives, particularly calling to their attention the high number of heritage items within the Hawkesbury LGA and the urgent need for additional heritage funding

To ensure their protection and conservation.

Madam Chair, I was thinking more of the need for their identification and protection.

Okay, so identification and protection, not protection and conservation.

And then three, that any further work on the Heritage Awards be done by the working group.

Specify a meeting if that to be called.

I don't know that we need to, in that we have a previous resolution that says that the committees, that the working groups have been stood up and can meet.

But what I think we'll do is that we'll call that meeting ourselves rather than relying on the staff to call that.

Mary? Could I just make a point about point one? Rather than putting a time frame on it, that the Heritage Committee considers the proposed heritage— Whatever it was she said, as the top priority, and continues with other achievable priorities, because without putting 2026, because it might happen. Christopher might decide to spend 24 hours a day on it, might be finished.

No pressure, Christopher .

Which is what we're trying to avoid. No, I don't mean to be facetious, but I think that if we put a time frame, it does put pressure on the other way. But if it's listed as the top priority, then it's what's being done first and foremost. But there were other things that could possibly, as Jan raised, be, or somebody raised, as being achievable along the way, these smaller things. So , not to eliminate those

Is everyone happy with that? Christopher, are you happy with that?

Yes, Madam Chair.

So, number one becomes that the—what do we call it? —the progress of the potential heritage items project be the top priority.

Oh, we've got it on the board.

So what are we calling that,

Christopher? Just on the board, what are we calling that? Sorry, Madam Chair, potential heritage

Items project is what I've been calling it.

Okay, so the second line can come out. That next line can come out.

That Council notes the severe, instead of serve,

Funding constraints.

Can probably take out ‘of heritage’ — that was my ramblings — preventing further heritage work.

And then we could probably stop after work,

Take that next bit out, and then leave that bottom one as third

To state and federal members,

Take out representation,

And bring

Yep,

The high number of heritage items,

And request funding — request additional funding. Oh, sorry, heritage items, sorry. And then after LGA.. . And request

To ensure to take out and.

And then point four, sorry, stop after conservation,

And a point four, any further work of the heritage awards to be done by the working group

On the heritage awards.

Madam Chair, can we have capitals for the name of the project in one, please? We can

We can, but—

Also, Madam Chair, paragraph three

Hang on, just hang on a sec till that's done.

Potential heritage items to each be— yep.

Also potential and project,

And potential.

That heritage items in three doesn't need capitalising.

And Graham.

Yes, I was going to suggest it should be state heritage items in that particular paragraph. The number of state heritage items within the Hawkesbury LGA.

Madam Chair, can I add that we should also include potential state listed items too.

Potential number of..

For the number of state and potential. Number of state-listed items and potential.

State-listed and potential. Yep.

Anything further?

Last chance. Right. Could I have someone move that way, please?

I will move that.

You'll move, and you'll second.

Sorry, the mover is Michael Edwards.

I can't remember your surname, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Are we all happy with that? Excellent. It's only ten past six. You've done very well.

Thank you. This is a baptism of fire for the minute-taking staff, this committee.

Okay, next. Ah, sorry, all in favour? Carried. Thank you. Is the 3 .1.4...

Okay, next. Oh, sorry, all in favour? Carried. Thank you. Is the 3 .1.4, which is the potential heritage items project. I'll hand over. Several of us have interest in this item. I'll read mine first and leave, and then ask Mary to come and take over. So I have a pecuniary interest in item 3.1.4 in that my home is part of the— is listed in the study.

Hello. Thank you, Shane. Can you read?

Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in the potential heritage items in that I'm a client of a business that is run out of one of the buildings mentioned in this item. Thanks.

You're

Staying. And I will be staying, yes.

Okay. Cheryl. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in this item because my home is listed as one of the potential heritage items. So you'll be leaving. I'm leaving. Okay. Thank you. Graham.

Can you put your microphone on, sorry.

Madam Chair, I do have an interest as being part of the consultancy team involved in the study for

These buildings. Are you staying in or leaving?

I'd like to remain if it's appropriate, Madam.

Okay, that's your choice, and I can't adjudicate on that. That has to be your decision.

Okay, we'll move on with item 3.1.4, potential heritage items project. Christopher, are you to introduce that?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a collaborative project involving assistance from members of the public with historical information, Council's Heritage Committee members with previous potential heritage item nominations, historical research from Dr. Terry Cass, and supporting historical research assistance from Council staff. The important work of the Hawkesbury Timber Slab Barns and Outbuilding Study Team in identifying new local and state significant heritage items is also acknowledged. New significant heritage items identified in the Hawkesbury Timber Slab Barns and Outbuilding Study are currently being progressed via a Council-led planning proposal. This proposal has just received a gateway determination to proceed from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.

Council officers will action the requirements of the gateway determination before proceeding to community consultation, which includes further inspections and consultation with Heritage New South Wales. Identified state heritage items are being progressed via recently submitted state heritage nominations for 13 Hawkesbury barns. Further planning proposals will be prepared for the remaining recommended locally significant barns and outbuildings, some of which require additional site inspections. Additionally, two other barns post-study finds will be investigated for potential inclusion as local/state significant heritage items in the short term. The report details those locally significant potential heritage items that are to be presented to the next Heritage Listings Working Group meeting, approximately 67 items, with a view to a similar number of potential heritage items being presented to the subsequent Heritage Listings Working Group meeting.

Priority has been given to potential heritage items considered most at risk of demolition, e.g. items of timber construction and situated in desirable residential slash rural locations. The pending State Heritage nomination for 394 George Street, Windsor, is also to be presented to the next Heritage Listings Working Group meeting. We are now seeking a mutually accepted date for the next Heritage Listings Working Group meeting, ideally before the next Heritage Committee meeting in August.

Thanks, Christopher. I'm just wondering if you could—I find all of this fascinating, and the reading of it's fascinating. I'm just wondering, for people that don't know as much about the process, could you just tell us how these places are identified, like how you've come up with these listings? Have people put them forward, or have you identified them, et cetera? Just would be interesting to know that process.

I've actually got appended to that report is the previous report on potential items, and we explained how our approach was to halting the community heritage study, using—because its focus was mostly on refining existing listings, where the community advised me when I first came into this role that it wanted to focus on potential heritage listings. So what we did is basically trawl through—we worked through all the previous heritage studies that had been completed, which was about, I think, in the report attachment, I think it's about 10 studies that had been done, and a lot of those... That heritage items had not been progressed because Council didn't have someone in this role. So what we've done is said, okay, we've got a body of work of decades long.

Let's trawl through and actually make that happen, and that's what we're doing. So some of those listings have come from heritage committee members, with the most recent community heritage study. Some have been as far back as 1981, and it's basically a miracle that I can see that we've got so many potential heritage items that still remain, but the threat is, and I've witnessed that threat, that they could potentially be demolished. That shows to me the critical importance of this project. Wonderful.

Thank you, Christopher. Can we have a discussion on that? Anyone got something to say? Michael.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Acting Chair. A question for Andrew. First, I just want to say it's really encouraging hearing about the planning proposal advancing to gateway. Has there been any feedback from the Department of Planning or from Parliamentary Council on that process? Because in my capacity as advisor to a few other councils, the general feedback has been that they've been deliberately delaying planning proposals proposing the new listings and conservation areas, simply because their priorities are activating housing and development, and this is, in their view, going against that. Has there been any particular feedback given? Are they indicating support for the planning proposal?

Yes, so the gateway determination that was actually issued yesterday or day before was done in a fairly timely manner. So we got that back fairly quickly from the Department of Planning, and it is to support the planning proposal to proceed to the next steps. So that involves public agency consultation, including Heritage New South Wales, and then community consultation as well. So the conditions that we need to abide by, they're relatively standard conditions for a gateway determination. So there's nothing so unusual about them. So there is support from the state to proceed with that, and I think it was largely based on the fact that we did have the slab barn study as a strategic supporting document for that.

I think a lot of what we're hearing from the Department of Planning for any planning proposal-related matters is they're wanting to see the evidence in terms of strategic documentation as to why change is proposed, and having that did aid us greatly in that endeavour.

Okay , that's

Great

Thank you. Christopher's just adding to that.

I just wanted to add, sorry, they actually congratulated us on completing the study, and they're keen to see further planning proposals coming out of that study. They actually congratulated us, so they're very supportive. How good is that? Well done

Yeah, I think well done. I mean, it was a really comprehensively done document, and thank you to everybody who was involved in that. To be able to get that through and to see a planning proposal go through and come back without issue is something I've not seen for, well, probably ever, really. So well done. That was great. Any further discussion on the very comprehensive list of various properties?

Yes, Madam Chair, I wanted to stay in the room because I actually had a question, if I could, through you to Christopher. I'm looking at Attachment 5 of 3.1.4, which looks at the state items, and you've actually got various colours for those items with a status. And I was actually querying the status that you've got there for FPP slash P inspect, which means that I guess some of those items I'm referring to have been recommended for state listing, yet you say to be included with a future planning proposal and where relevant subject to inspection. So I'm a bit confused as to whether they've actually met the criteria to actually be listed now through the Gateway thing or whether it's being something else.

I apologise, through Madam Chair, I apologise for any confusion. For ease of colour coding and grouping them all together, some of those items won't need inspections, but I've had to group them to not have come up with multiple more options about where their status is. So some of those items they'll say an inspection may be required. Some of them are grouped together with ones where there's not an inspection required. Does that make sense or have I confused you further? No

You haven't confused me further. I just note that some are noted as PP, which they're included in the current planning proposal, but— A few in particular, referring to 121 Blacktown Road, 56 Fremans Reach Road, and there's a couple of others. Well, there's quite a few others there, where you've actually got them as FPP, which means a future planning proposal, not the current one.

Through, Madam Chair, am I reading

It correctly?

I know the table's correct in terms of all the greens are currently in the planning proposal. Some of the purples, or the purples, are the ones that are in the planning proposal right now, but they still require inspection before the planning proposal is finalised. So we've progressed with the planning proposal knowing that some of those will still require some inspections, just to—

Okay, but how about the ones that are actually a salmon colour, where you've noticed the status as FPP? Yep. That's my confusion.

Well, it's actually come straight from the study, where the study said, okay, these are all ready to go to the— I've actually got it here in my documentation, but,

So the study had— it's too hard to see from that distance, but the study had local heritage items recommended for local listing. It's then got, in a second table, recommended for local listing pending site inspection. So that would be those others.

Right.

But our planning proposal has gone ahead and done not only the ones— In the first table, but gone ahead in the second one, so we'll be picking them up as we do further inspections, the other ones.

We've progressed the planning proposal, knowing that we would have to inspect prior to the finalisation of that planning proposal.

Thank you. Any further discussion on this matter?

No. Well, we have a recommendation. The officer's recommendation is that the Heritage Committee note the update on the potential heritage items project and to request the Heritage Listings Working Group to meet and provide input to the proposed listings work. Does anybody want to add or change anything to that existing recommendation based on the discussion?

No. Would someone like to move that? Venetia moved, Venetia seconded Michael. All those in favour? And thank you. I'd just like to add thank you for that great document to read. I realised I'd known where nearly all those places are. It's amazing, and I hope they stay there and improve in many cases. Thank you. Andrew.

Can we also maybe, while we're here this evening, maybe talk about when that meeting may be?

We need a date. Yes, sorry about that. So we

Were looking at either, potentially either the 17th of July or the 31st of July.

Other people who are on that working group in the room?

Madam Chair, I'm available on the 17th, but not the 31st. 17 for the 31st.

And the main purpose of the next working group meeting would be to review the material that's been included as part of the attachment. So there'd be no further additional other than probably the state listing one. Yeah, yeah.

I can do both dates. You can do both dates. You can do . Yeah . Yeah, I'm

Not available on the 17th, that's school holidays, so I'll be away.

Okay, so were you available on the 17th and not the other one, Graeme?

That's correct. Okay

Okay. Andrew . All

Right, well, we'll work out a date and let group members know. Yep. Okay

Thank you. Thank you. Can someone call Danielle back in? Thanks, Shane

Thank you.

Okay, so next, the 3.1.5, the Local Heritage Assistance Fund Program criteria for—

Funding. Christopher.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks to the previously acknowledged efforts of Heritage Committee members, the 2024-2025 Local Heritage Assistance Fund program represents a significant milestone in the history of this important ongoing local conservation program, with the allocation of $121,000 of grant funding to nine Hawkesbury historic timber slab barns in critical need of repair. By comparison, for the 2023-2024 financial year, Council approved of Local Heritage Assistance Fund to the total value of $54,829. The current 2024-2025 Local Heritage Assistance Funding therefore represents a significant increase on previous yearly AF grant amounts. When the likely total amount of corresponding funds from property owners, conservatively estimated at $105,000, is added to those grant funds for 2025, this represents a significant investment in conservation works within the Hawkesbury.

This report provides a response to Council Resolution 67.5 arising from the report on the 2024-2025 Hawkesbury Local Heritage Assistance Funds, which was presented to Council's ordinary meeting on 6 May 2025. The resolution seeks that Council revise the framework used to assess applications received under the Heritage Assistance Fund to include the additional criteria that was applied to assess the slab barn funding applications in the Local Heritage Assistance Fund 2024-2025. This report recommends that Council maintain a flexible approach to the Local Heritage Assistance Fund for the next two years, where a $2,000 per dollar application limit still applies, but that Council can consider the following applications: non-dollar-for-dollar amounts where co-contributions funds are unavailable due to financial hardship, greater funding amounts than the $2,000 limit where it can be established that the subject heritage structure is in critical need of repairs, and three, that the 2024 Local Heritage Assistance Fund distinction and assessment criteria for historic barn-related and non-barn-related Local Heritage Assistance Fund applications be retained on a trial basis for the next two years and then reported back to this Heritage Committee.

Thank you. Questions? Comments?

Madam Chair, this is all really good and helpful, and I think it's fabulous to hear the significant injection of funding to the Local Heritage Assistance Fund. It's something that we've been advocating for for many years, and it's no mean feat, and I think that it can't be understated enough how important and welcome that is. One thing that we have said in the past is the limit of $2,000 as the grant is, we tend to find there's not a lot of appetite from people. I deal a lot with people who are considering applying, and often the feedback is it's just not worth the administration and the headache when you've got to get so many quotes, and I'm only getting $2,000 and I'm still having to put in $50,000 of my own.

I'm wondering if increasing the minimum to $5,000 would be better, and I know that we have an oversubscription to the fund, but with that sort of dollar as what you might be likely to get as a minimum, I think you'll find the quality of work would be better and the range of works would be broader, and it would lead to some better conservation outcomes rather than just a lick of paint on a gutter or fixing a doorknob.

Yes, I agree, and in fact I'd flagged the same, that a $5,000

Amount would be probably more useful, and I think you're correct, far more desirable in terms of, as we know, and as we all discussed on the previous term when we were pushed for the increase in funding, $2,000 doesn't buy much paint anymore. Anyone else?

Graeme?

Madam Chair, yes, I was also going to suggest with some of the funding, I'm not talking of council now, but for those items which are obviously state listed that want to apply, by all means, yes, a $5,000 limit would be great. But I think it would be nice for council to actually recommend that they actually look at state funding to actually further their work, and I guess it becomes a little bit difficult when the state funding only comes up every two years, for instance, and we might be doing an annual arrangement. But perhaps that's where I was flagging before. Some of that discussion with the state bodies might, you know, for really valuable projects like these state-listed barns, for instance, it might be worthwhile asking them if they'd be prepared to put some money in on an annual basis rather than biannual basis under their existing schemes.

I think that's a valid point, and it fits with Venetia's point previously that state items should be receiving state funding, and that local funding should be going to local items where, in particular, because owners of local listed properties are not eligible for that next tier of funding.

All right, we shall add that to our... Any other comments here? Is everyone happy with the criteria that's provided? And is it a two-year trial, Christopher, that we're proposing for the high, medium, low criteria that we're borrowing across from the slab barn to be used where we're oversubscribed?

And I ask the question, please, just in regard to when this work is being done, is there any thought given to how it is done? Because fixing a slab barn, if you just turn up with a nail gun and a bit of ply from Bunnings, is not going to be the same as it being done in a traditional method.

I think that's a really useful question. It's actually a useful question to have answered on the public record. Thank you.

So the process that we have with the Local Heritage Assistance Fund, people apply for it. They submit one quote. They submit a report about how the work is to be undertaken. Council then reviews those and, on the basis of the criteria that we've already mentioned, any successful applicant will then be required to have a meeting with Council's consultant heritage advisor and myself to go through the processes of what they're going to do. They're then given a letter arising from that meeting to say this is what the steps that you should be following, and that becomes the process. That becomes the guideline for where they head with the work. Yep.

So no funding for some nice hot pink plastic paint. No, just

Curious because the one thing, I mean, like my dad has built slab barns. He's 90. That knowledge is going to be lost with him, and, you know, this knowledge needs to be passed on so that other people can keep on doing that sort of thing. But I'm not sure where that lies with the greater scheme of heritage in training up people who can then continue doing that work.

I think that's something that Graham mentioned earlier, that piece with the state heritage priorities in terms of promoting, training and resourcing that training. And I think, in fact, we saw with the previous state government a genuine attempt to — Remove those skilled tradespeople, particularly in terms of sandstone. Anyone who knew what to do with sandstone was summarily sacked, and those skills lost. So there's a lot of ground to make up, I think. Graham.

Yes, Madam Chair, I think it's probably also worthwhile mentioning that after the event, there should be a compliance check, obviously, and I think that occurs with the Heritage Advisor, just to make sure that they have done it correctly, and otherwise they don't get paid the dollar amount. The other point I wanted to make, Madam Chair, was that there's been nominated for project completion within six months. I think that could be a little bit onerous for some of these projects, and I think that may well fall apart and not be achievable.

Do you want to comment on that, Christopher? Andrew, do you want to comment on that?

Well, I guess we're under quite strict requirements, being partly state-funded, obviously noting that we do provide the bulk of funding to deliver the projects basically within the financial year. So obviously we go out for, ideally we go out for applications around August, September of each year. As applications are made, we receive those, council decides those typically around November, December, and then people have until the end of the financial year to deliver those, and then we have to acquit that. So that's probably the pinch points for us, is the acquittal process through Heritage New South Wales on a yearly basis. Is

There a mechanism where people have had some... Good reason why they can't complete the project, that that funding can be extended, that time limit can be extended?

Yes, Madam Chair, there was obviously, with the flooding that this area experienced when I started here, we were given an extension of time to complete those works.

Yeah, I think unfortunately it's one of those use it or lose it.

Madam Chair, I think there's possibly another way of doing it too, is that people need to expend the dollars as far as the grant is concerned, and obviously their dollars that run with that. If that's expended within the six-month period, then that's probably okay. But if they're actually spending another 50,000 or something of their own, then that could happen outside that six months, surely.

Christopher ?

That is absolutely correct, Graham. If people have expended the funds that they've said they were going to expend on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and they may not have completed all the work they were hoping to complete, they've still managed to be successful and being paid for the work that they have completed.

So there's some discretion. Yeah. Great.

Anything further on that item? Okay, so it looks like we have a resolution that is saying something along the lines of— sorry, I'm just trying to find the relevant section in the business paper,

Which is far further up the item than I thought. Provide input. That's helpful, isn't it? You're not really, you're not giving me anything to run with here with these recommendations. I'll just note. That , I think so, that the Heritage Committee recommends that the criteria for assessment of future applications under the Local Heritage Assistance Fund

Include non-dollar-for-dollar funding .

Sorry, the, yeah, $5,000. Is that the $5,000 maximum with — can you give me those words please, Christopher, that you had before ? You had that—they're written on your piece of paper Read your words and substitute $5,000.

So, for the next two years, a $5,000 for dollar application limit will apply.

Yep.

But the Council can also consider the following applications.

Christopher will give you these words on a piece of paper. It's all right. You don't have to frantically type them.

So basically, as I understand it, it's $5,000 is the limit, but there may be circumstances where an amount higher is warranted in exceptional circumstances. Yeah,

Based on similar criteria to that used, based on the criteria used in the slab barn study.

Could I just ask, Madam Chair, would there be a limit if Council was to increase that amount of funding, would there be a cap on how much would be available? Would there be like a ceiling level so that that doesn't then take — The entirety of the funding. I think there needs to be some parameters around that so that it's still equitable for other applicants of the fund.

Do you want to suggest a ceiling? I think the highest we paid for this under the slab barn study, sorry, was $20,000, which was,

In some ways I'm a little bit reticent to— To

Hold the staff. I want there to be a component within that for the staff to use their discretion. Perhaps it would be easier to say that the committee would , that you would still like to see that funding shared across applicants rather than— Yeah, Madam Chair, I think that's

Better rather than putting a monetary figure to that, because if there was a monetary figure that was published, there might be the expectation of, well, I want that amount and I have extreme circumstances. But if it's worded in a way that it's still prioritised to be equitable to spread the funding widely, then that still gives Council the discretion, but keeps it in the back of mind that there's going to be this ceiling level of funding available.

Yes.

So what was the words we had for that? So it was $5,000. $5, 000

Application limit will apply, but the Council will also consider the following applications, and then you've got your list that are in the report

And then you could add an additional point that the committee recommends that funding be shared.

Do you want to have it as across as many as possible, or as equitably as possible, or we could simply say that no one application is to — I don't know how you want to put this, Michael.

You're thinking.

Are you comfortable with leaving that with us?

Absolutely. I think if you go back to the objectives of the fund, that should really be underpinning what it is, and it's to facilitate conservation and protection. I think that if you structure wording around making sure that that is still achievable, that will be fine.

Good. Okay. Did you want to add, in addition, Graham, that owners of state-listed items be encouraged to apply for state funding?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Great.

You may.

And just a note on that, we regularly support state heritage item owners with their applications for state funding through letters of support and also acting as the person that actually checks the work for them with those funding applications.

Are we winning with the...?

Madam Chair, can I then add, should there be, in the evaluation or the assessment criteria, should there be wording to the effect of preferencing local listed items?

Do you want to do that? It's possible that you will find a state item that has no funding. That's

Why I say preference, not exclusively for locally listed items. And that feeds into what Graham's suggesting of encouraging people who have state-listed items to apply for state funding, and that allows local funding to be available for owners and custodians of locally listed items. It doesn't limit it, but it just indicates that Council are preferencing it, like preferencing works that are visible from the public domain. So you

Want that into the objectives?

Not excluding works that are internal, because they can be equally important to protect significant interiors and protect the item. But it's not an exclusion. If you are proposing internal works, you won't be considered.

So where do you want to put that?

No, it could fit in anywhere in that.

So probably under, in under the criteria on page 47.

So under the criteria, add that local heritage items

Be the preferred recipients of funding.

Can we actually do that? Because there is a state component to this funding.

The state have kicked in five grand.

They can have five grand's worth.

It depends on what the grant says, I think,

Christopher. The grant description is local heritage assistance, so

Yep.

And in some ways it signals to the state government that they need to do their bit. How are we going?

Yep.

Did we? Yeah, I think we, that the funding be shared—

We could. We didn't come up with any sensible words, I think was the short answer to that. That the funding be distributed equitably. Yeah, we'll just leave that stop there. Equitably. Full stop. That the funding be shared equitably. Right. You can, yeah, you can make of that what you will.

So we'll just wait for the—

Madam Chair, just while we are waiting there, I guess this brings to the point that we've discussed many, many times, and it's so important for the heritage study to identify the correct level of significance of an item, so that whether it be local or state or whatever, so that they can actually achieve the appropriate funding. So that is really, I just wanted to add that.

Yeah, no, I think it's a good point. How are we going?

Sure. Do you want to— can you pop it up?

That's okay

Happy with that.

Madam Chair, can we use the term Local Heritage Assistance Fund in the first paragraph? First paragraph. Just to really, again, emphasise this is local heritage.

Yep.

Assistance Fund needs capitals. It does.

Instead of the comma, up to, the

Council can just be council and capitalise Council. Oh, yep.

And there's more. That's the criteria Christopher read out earlier

That applied to the slab barn funding . Is everyone happy with that? Could I have someone move that?

Madam Chair, could we just suggest changing in the second dot point, heritage structure to heritage item? Yes, because that limits it to buildings and structures. Yes

Could I have someone move that, please? Madam

Chair, if we're talking of the next two years, we've noted there 2024 to 2025.

Oh, yes.

I think that's wrong, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's talking about— it's about to refer to the slab barn study criteria, which is that critical, medium and low import criteria . So that is right. There's just more to come after criteria that you can all see in the report on page whatever it was, around 47-ish.

I've got a mover. Could I have a seconder, please? Thanks, Cheryl.

All in favour? Carried. Thank you. Right, Windsor Toll House 3.1.6. Christopher.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So at the 6 March 2025 Heritage Committee meeting, the committee...

Thank you. Right. Windsor Toll House, 3.1.6. Christopher.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So at the 6 March 2025 Heritage Committee meeting, the committee resolved that the Heritage Committee discuss options for the Windsor Toll House for both conservation and use at the next Heritage Committee meeting. Dr Rowan Day, historian and conservation specialist from OCP Architects, has completed an options analysis report of the Windsor Toll House, which looks at its history, its significance, current condition, and site constraints to inform the identification of potential adaptive reuse options for this historical building. Those three options are: one, do nothing; two, adaptive reuse; and three, restore, make safe, and for interpretation and periodically activate for events. Now, the option report states that option three is the preferred approach for the adaptive reuse of the Windsor Toll House. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Christopher. Questions or comments, please?

Great. Yes, Madam Chair. Look, I look at this options report and I guess I read that in 1975 a new high-level bridge was constructed over South Creek, almost concealing the Toll House from view.

Madam Chair, this is the issue, as I understand it, with the Toll House, that it can't be seen. It's in an area that is now a backwater, so to speak, and it gets vandalised. I guess I'm going to be bold and suggest that perhaps Council actually go to the Transport for New South Wales and say, let's get rid of the bridge and put it down to Torres level. It's useless. It shouldn't be there. And I did go back to Council before this was constructed and said exactly that, that it shouldn't be at a raised level.

When there's a flood, what have we got? We've got horses and cows sitting on top of a bloody bridge that's above the flood level. How stupid. So I'd advocate that for this building's conservation that we should get rid of that bridge.

I don't fancy your chances, Venetia.

There may not be much chance, but look at the viability of this. You know, look at the viability of actually adaptively reusing that building in its current situation. I think you've got Buckley's chance.

Venetia, and then Jen. I doubt very much they're going to get rid of it. They're just spending a whole heap of money on it. They've just installed a whole heap of gabions around the Windsor side pylons, which I can't find any information on the Transport for New South Wales website. I haven't had any response to emails from Transport for New South Wales either. I'm not sure what kind of changes in hydrology will happen from those newly installed rather large gabions, which are filled with very tiny stones, which I believe will just wash away next time we get a fresh in the creek.

But I went down there and climbed around as much as I could the other day and took a whole heap of photos. I'm still of the opinion that if the bridge is going to stay, if they won't remove it, that wall that's directly in front of the toll house, it needs a massive historical mural on it,

Because it is just hideous. Some attention needs to be paid to the toll house, to the grounds around the toll house themselves, to make it more attractive to people to actually go and look at it.

And I can't see any problem with adaptive reuse of it in potentially utilising the site for some type of, I don't know, kayak hire business or bike hire business. We have this magnificent cycleway that, you know, goes all the way, Windsor Road, which nobody ever uses.

There's more than enough capacity under the road bridge for pathway for small vehicles to get around there, and certainly push bikes if it's done properly. I mean, they've got a backhoe under there at the moment. It's parked right there. So

It's still quite difficult to

Locate the toll house if you don't know where it is.

Currently there's a construction fence around it prohibiting entry because it's a heritage exclusion zone for the bridge repair project by the RMS.

But that whole area really needs cleaning up. The drain on the other side, which is between the cycleway and the path that goes under the road bridge, is completely and utterly clogged with noxious weeds, trees, all sorts of stuff.

There is no encouragement to go anywhere near that area because of the state of the Jolly Frog Hotel, which I took some more photos of the other day. But not just the Jolly Frog, the weeds, the mess that is on the property.

I don't think it's actually the Jolly Frog land, you know, that other little piece of land right on the creek bank. Someone's been planting banana trees and pumpkin vines and all sorts of things down there. There's a lovely garden happening down there. And of course we have the Greenhills Burial Ground sign in the distance behind the fence that says, Private Property, Do Not Enter. So I think what needs to happen is there's actually got to be some attention paid to this. I recall one of the first—well, it may have been the first heritage committee meeting I ever attended in 2006, we were talking about the heritage walking trail signage. We still don't have any of that.

There's just been nothing done down there at all.

So I would like to—I can't really see how the Jolly Frog could possibly factor into... Any kind of relationship with the Toll House, since it's completely full of pigeon poo itself.

And even if it was up and running, I don't see how anything could work with the Toll House with the Jolly Frog Hotel. The Jolly Frog is subject to a DA,

And its likely next use is back to, well, what it was, but much larger, is the owner's wish . So

We'll have to chop the trees down inside it first. So I would just like to— So of those three options, which do you prefer: adaptive reuse?

I think adaptive reuse, definitely. Anyone else, Jan?

Madam Chair, I support that. But I think that you've got to look at the Toll House in conjunction with the burial ground. Now, several years ago, when John Miller wanted to get that burial ground listed on the Heritage Register, he had to admit that he'd been wrong with its location, and I'd been telling him that for 20 years, but that's aside.

And I did talk to Council about it. We had a meeting. Andrew, were you there at that point?

Yes, I was. Yeah

And I was able to give documentation that showed exactly where the burial ground was, and it was directly behind the Jolly Frog, not on the private land of storekeeper Baker, which is on a continuation line of Baker Street. Because the left-hand side of Baker Street was government property. So council has the actual documentation to show it was wrong. It was agreed that the signage needs to be moved, or the cheaper option of putting other signage up on the right side, saying that the signage beyond the fence is, you know, really on this site. But if you put the two together, then you've got some sort of a recreational place that fits into the walking activities or park-like structure, because it covers a much broader area.

So I really think that you've got to look at the two together, and if you're going to sort one, you need to sort the burial ground and make it part of that recreational area.

Mary? Thank you. I think this is a really interesting conversation. Just a question for staff: what would be the likelihood of incorporating something like this in with our active transport strategy , for example, and the various, you know, commitments we have to providing, you know, walkways, etc.? Is there a possibility that there could be funding somehow sourced through our other areas?

Andrew?

I think we'd have to take that on notice, obviously, to check what the active transport strategy has in this particular location and the funding that's sort of allocated to that. It does.

It is a potential additional source of funding, in that it comes not out of a heritage bucket, but out of a transport, a particular transport bucket.

Anything further? So is everyone agreed? Sorry, Michael.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Following on from what Mary was saying, that's how I was thinking too. And the adaptive reuse of this building is really important, otherwise it sits there as it deteriorates. But adaptive reuse needs to have a long-term viable solution. If we're just thinking short term, just to get an active use in there for 12 months, and it flounders because, lo and behold, no one knows it's there and no one goes there, it's going to flounder, and it's not going to be sustainable long term. There needs to be activation of that precinct, and so there needs to be a conducive element of drawing people down there so that it's highlighted and people know it's there, and there's a need to go there.

There's curiosity. What's down there? At the moment, it's closed off, and no one knows what's down there or how to access it. And I think there needs to be a master plan approach on trying to activate that precinct and incorporate it into the walkability of Windsor, and have it as a destination point that people know what's there and there's an appetite to go and explore it in that whole precinct. And without incorporating it into a placemaking approach, it just sits there as a pimple that gets forgotten about.

Yes, I think that's a fair comment, Venetia. I'd agree with Michael, except we've got to start somewhere. And what I don't want to see happen is for this to be another thing where we load up, oh, but this has got to happen, this has got— because that's what happened 10 years ago and we still have nothing. We've got to start somewhere. Put up a sign in Thompson Square and tell people where it is. Put up a sign in Thompson Square that tells people what Thompson Square is, for a start. We still have no heritage signage. But I think there can be—I mean, personally, I'd like to see the state government hand over the old police station to become, you know, a place where, you know, a heritage meeting point, a heritage trade centre of excellence, where people go and learn how to do things.

That can then tie into the courthouse. It can tie into the toll house. It can tie into the burial ground, the flats of McGrath's Hill, where there are still remnants of Armstrong's Farm, with the Old Hawkesbury Road, with Red House Farm, with Andrew Thompson's floating bridge across South Creek. With all of that stuff, it's all part of a massive picture. But we can't do the massive picture clearly because we can't even do little pictures. So we have to start with something. And I think— I totally agree with what Jan says. I agree with what you say.

But it's just completely unobtainable under this council. So something has to happen.

So we need a resolution so that this can progress. And I think this is probably the first stage in getting it back onto the radar, and that then has the potential for it to be picked up, particularly if it can be presented as a likely project when funding comes up. We know with the state government— When funding comes up, if you don't have something that's sort of well, well on the way to being envisaged, that we don't have the time to make it happen, to get it ready for funding. So I think this has the potential to move into that space from the dead space that it's currently in, Michelle.

Because I've worked here for so long, I remember when, in the early 1980s, that the general manager... I was quite keen at that time, Gary McCully, to open up that space and make it like a park area. And there was discussion about it being leased as a coffee shop, whatever, but there were problems with insurance and flooding, and that's why it went on the back burner at that time.

Which the report also talks about. It's very difficult to attract a business. It might have been easy to attract a business five or six years ago when we thought that, you know, we were dry. But this is always going to be a site that has problems, and that's very difficult for a business to swallow. Graham.

Madam Chair, the nigger in the woodpile here is that— We don't use that,

Graham. I'm going to stop you.

That is not a

Phrase that is acceptable in a public chamber.

Okay. Or anywhere

Else

I apologise. The issue that we have there to open up that whole area for good conservation interpretation as one of the key entrances to Windsor Township is that horrible high-level bridge. And I think for any of this discussion that is around the table, for that to actually be achievable, then we need to actually lessen the level of that bridge so that we can have sight lines across the street, we can have sight lines to the graveyard, we can have sight lines to the jolly frog between there and the toll house. Then you can open it up and you can actually have a viable use for the thing. But with that bridge there, I don't see that it's going to do anything other than flounder and not get support. So I guess my thoughts would be that that'd be the way that we go forward to actually advocate to have that gone .

Right. So you can put that in a recommendation to Council if you want to, that Council advocates for the removal of the Fitzroy Bridge. I would strongly suggest, however, that you have a second part of the resolution that suggests adaptive reuse, as per the report received.

Jan? Madam Chair, as the very first stage of an achievable, a possible achievable outcome, I think you've got to take the idea that Michelle was saying of having some sort of park area that leads from one place to the other under the bridge, and have at least the very ill ground and the toll house as the features of that park. At the very least, that's your minimum achievable first stage, I would think. Okay

So what I'll do, I'll take—Graham suggested a motion previously, or first, that the committee recommends that Council pursue the removal of the Fitzroy Bridge. I'll put that to you as a motion. Do you have a seconder, Graham?

You don't. All right. Venetia? I'm going to ask you to vote, because I think this is a bit controversial. So we'll do a formal vote, which is rare for this committee . So all those in favour, please raise your hand.

One, two, three, four, five. In favour. Those opposed? One, two, three, four, five.

Which means I get the casting vote, which I loathe.

Could we not word it that it's a suggestion and take it to the chamber? I think

We can.

If it's been brought up, it probably should be presented. Yes .

Okay, so, all right, I think that's a good idea. So we can have, as the first part of the resolution, that the committee suggests pursuing the removal of the Fitzroy Bridge to reinstate the historic precinct around the Toll House site lines. I would suggest precinct will be easier to get through the chamber.

Could I suggest we phrase it as a gateway precinct to historic Windsor? That

Is lovely. Thank you, Michael.

And then the second part of that resolution, that the committee recommends adaptive reuse for the Toll House as part of an active transport and park precinct

To mark the entrance to historic Windsor,

Encompassing the Toll House, the Green Hills burial ground.

Can you put your lights on because you're being recorded.

Sorry, I was suggesting even the police barracks and also the... Remnants of the jail and all those historic parts that are there. So,

What's that? Does that have a proper name, that area? The government precinct. Government domain, or

Government precinct? The government domain. Jan?

Can I say that the government domain was later— it was actually the government precinct from 1795 to 1815 . The government domain was the later name once they took over Andrew Thompson's grant. So I would suggest government precinct.

Does that fit with the toll house, though? The toll house came later.

No. Well, there was a toll house there, Madam Chair, in 1814, but that was swept off its legs, and that one was— or the present one was constructed, as you said, later, and so was the jolly frog, later, and those other parts. So I guess we're splitting straws, I think, Jan, if you go to

Well, not necessarily, because the government domain was part of the government precinct. So you're really looking— You see, the government precinct went from undealt from halfway down the hill to Baker Street. That was the whole precinct.

Where the original government house was at

The top of— Yes, from the government house to Baker Street. The civic square is what we now call Thompson Square, and it wasn't till 1815, after Thompson had died and the government had taken back the lease that he was on. That that became the policy of the government, and it worked at Parramatta and Sydney too, that that would become the domain of the Government House. So it's an ongoing process, and if it's part of the bigger area, then it's just part of the government precinct.

Mary Can I suggest, just to what Venetia alluded to before, that rather than making it really big at this point, we focus just on that direct area, because I'm gathering with a lot of these other things, they're going to be in private ownership and all sorts of other complicated things. But I think that's a worthy project to do a whole precinct plan of it. But to answer this question, which was the resolution about the Toll House, should we not just have a motion regarding the option around the Toll House, even if that is to include the one with the parkland and the burial site, which is within the vicinity, or I'm not trying to deter people from the other, I'm thinking of how these things pass through a chamber. And even if we divided it and had that as a decision on the resolution about the Toll House and an alternative thing to continue pursuing a wider precinct plan beyond that.

So two would be that the committee recommends adaptive reuse of the Toll House. Three would be that Council considers the Toll House as part of a wider active transport and park precinct around the Toll House and government precinct as the entryway to Windsor. And four, I think, should be that Council recommends the Toll House for State Heritage listing.

Are we all agreed on those?

Can I have someone move that? I know you can't see the recommendation in front of you, but it is on the tape. Venetia, seconded Graham. All in favour? Thank you.

Right, next.

Right, next, Thomas James Bridge.

Andrew. Yep

So at last Heritage Committee meeting, there was a request for an update on progress in terms of the Thomas James Bridge. So our Infrastructure Services section have provided the update in this report and the current status of construction. There was a conservation management plan that was undertaken by OTP Architects at the start of the project, and as the project has progressed, an updated conservation management plan has been developed, and that's actually been attached to the report. So basically the report provides the update that the committee had requested.

Thank you. Questions, comments?

As you can see, it's been a really extensive amount of work, and it's that very vexed space between conservation of heritage, the need to allow people to get home at night, particularly a community that has suffered significant disruption with repeated floods. And also, as soon as you start working, as I'm sure many of you are aware, as soon as you start working on a structure like this, you then need to bring it up to modern standards and the legal standards required. My first thought reading this was that the words restoration of the Thomas James Bridge were probably overselling the project a bit. I think this is the reconstruction of Thomas James Bridge, and I think it probably needs to be noted as such.

It is no longer the convict-built Thomas James Bridge, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. This is now a nice-looking bridge that we now have extensive information about how this bridge was built from an education perspective. It's been terrific in terms of conservation of a convict-built bridge. It's not that. And I think, you know, we have to be honest about what's happened on this site.

Any further comments? I think this is just a receive and note, isn't it? Yes . Madam Chair . Yes.

Could I ask that we go back to the previous item, the Toll House, because I think what I failed

To mention— Can I just finish this one, and then you can go back? Sure . So could I have someone move that we receive and note the report? Jan and Venetia second. All in favour? Thank you. Graham.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, what I didn't mention within this options study is that I think Council has a responsibility under the minimum maintenance provisions of the Heritage Act to actually do something prior to all of these other things that we talked of. And I guess I just wanted to bring that to the committee's attention as to whether we needed to change the resolution to actually say that. I

Think that's a really valid point because I have noticed in my own notes that I didn't read when I was juggling the meeting that I've recommended that we include some allocation, that Council allocate funds to make safe. And perhaps we refer to that under the basic standards of maintenance and repair. Is everyone happy to add that to the previous resolution as an additional point? So I'm not sure where that would fit, around point three, I think. Can we see those?

Can I just clarify, minimum standards of maintenance and repair only are required for state-listed items. Right. So if it's of potential significance at the state level, it's been identified as having potential significance. The provisions of the Heritage Act don't apply insofar as obligating the owner to minimum standards.

True. So

That would only become apparent if it was listed on the

State Heritage Register . But that doesn't stop us. No and I

Don't want this meeting to think that I'm not supportive of undertaking urgent conservation works and maintenance. It's a point of clarification that there's no current statutory

Obligation So could we have it as a point three, and then three becomes four, four becomes five, that the committee recommends Council allocate funding

To undertake minimum maintenance.

Minimum maintenance to make safe and secure, to make the toll house safe and secure.

Perhaps it needs a flood mitigation wall along South Creek.

I don't think that's going to make any difference once the water gets over

The top of

It.

Well, I mean, you know, the Turella, the Thames, the Seine, the Mississippi, they all have. It doesn't stop everything, but it does stop a lot of water ingress on the creek.

It won't stop the Hawkesbury-Nepean.

Then it will push it to somewhere else. Somebody else will cop it. Can I just ask a question about if it is state-listed, if it becomes a State Heritage-listed, would it have any more likelihood of being eligible for any Disaster Recovery Authority funding or anything as community infrastructure in any way?

Through Madam Chair, yes, at the moment, we talked about that heritage item earlier about the heritage strategy where the rules might change, but at the moment there is emergency funding. But the word I've heard from Heritage New South Wales is that may be less available in the future. But at the moment, I know that a particular property in Windsor has applied for that emergency funding based on storm damage, but we've been successful on flooding damage in Thompson Square. Someone there has achieved $10,000 help directly from the flooding.

Unfortunately, it usually only brings you back to the standard that you were of before, which for us isn't going to get us very far. All right, is everyone happy with that now? Last chance. So the mover is still happy, Venetia. The seconder is happy, and you're all in favour. Excellent. Thank you. Let's move on now to 3.1.8, which is—

Point 2, 3.1.8, which is response to questions raised at the Heritage Committee meeting on the 6th of March. Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So a series of questions were raised at the last committee meeting and responses to those have been provided, and that's particularly for McQuaid Park and the Thompson Square fence. So happy to take questions from those responses.

Cheryl, you had some additional information. Would

You like to put that onto the record? There was one question that isn't actually included in the table, the final one, which was to do with the interpretive signage on the Windsor side pier of the old bridge and the responsibility for that. And I had need to follow up on that since our last meeting to do with Engineers Australia and the recognition of the old bridge, and I contacted both Council and Transport for New South Wales, and I provided to Jess the response from Transport for New South Wales that could be perhaps tabled or made available today. Sure

So we can circulate that information, which basically says that— I have that here

Which the gist of it basically is that the bridge was demolished in 2020. Yes, we know that . So the remaining, the first span platform remains a Transport for New South Wales asset, and they inspect and maintain it , including supporting the retaining walls of the viewing platform. But Council is responsible for cleaning park furniture, signage, interpretive signage, rubbish and graffiti removal, and is responsible for the handrail . And the viewing platform on the northern riverbank is entirely council's responsibility. So all care and no responsibility from Transport for New South Wales is the short answer, which was our take-home message from the entire Windsor Bridge replacement project, I think . Thank you for following that up , Cheryl . Any further on those questions in the business paper?

One of the issues that has arisen in Thompson Square is the replacement of the fencing at the bottom of Thompson Square. Currently, council doesn't have a funding allocation for that fencing, and covetous eyes are being cast over the $100,000 that council still has in the kitty, or $120,000 that council still has in the kitty for the Windsor Bridge artifacts. And there are moves to use that funding for that replacement fence. I've been pretty firm on that funding being left for the artifacts, but we are going to have a fight on our hands. So watch this space, I think is the short answer . And we shall see. Any further on that point? It's Venetia.

I'd argue that the fence is a public safety issue and not a heritage issue So why should we hand over money that is meant to be used for the Windsor Bridge project artifacts? When this is a public safety issue. We

Have a much smaller pot that should be left alone, I think . Any further on those matters? Graham. I

Was just going to ask, Madam Chair, that could the responsibility be put back to Transport for New South Wales? Because I don't think that fence has actually changed dramatically since they did the work.

No, it's council's responsibility.

Unfortunately, it's council's responsibility. It's chosen just the right time to fall apart after Transport for New South Wales has moved on

I know we have general business here. Our next meeting is on the 7th of August, and it is half past seven. So I'm going to, unless anyone has anything urgent, I'm going to ask you to defer any items of general business until the August meeting. What I would like to do now, though, is move a condolence motion for Steve Rawlings, who passed away a couple of months ago and was a long-term member of this committee, who worked extremely hard on heritage in the Kurrajong and Kurrajong Heights area, and for whom we have now, as a lasting legacy, the State Heritage listing of the Singleton's Mill site. So if you would just all join me in a minute's silence to remember Steve

Thank you. So I'll move that . That the Heritage Committee

Pass on its condolences to the family of Steve Rawlings OAM, acknowledge his work for the preservation of heritage in the Hawkesbury,

And thank he and his family for their contribution.

Would anyone else like to speak to that

Motion? Could I have a seconder, please? Mary, thank you

Mary and I went to a lovely small service at Kurrajong that Steve's family put on, where all of his important and favourite things were put out for everyone, including his OAM, his guitar, his whisky , and the various reminders of his services to education, which were many . And then we all drank some very nice Glenfiddich that he had been given by his daughter, bottled at the source for his 80th birthday, which he decided was too special to drink . And so we all drank that on his behalf. So he was well remembered.

I'll call the meeting to a close on that note at 7.32. Thank you all for coming

You can

Just while I've got...