29 July 2025 - Ordinary

Thank you, Councillors.

Evening, Councillors. I start off, Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Dharug and Dharug people as the traditional custodians of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Peoples of the country.

Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.3 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this means involves the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and livestream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The gallery can be seen in the livestream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the livestream, please move into the foyer and we will turn our foyer speakers on for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior approval of the Council. For the benefit of any persons who will be addressing us tonight, it is expected you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested if you forgot your mobile phone on you this evening, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager.

Excuse me. Apologies. We've got an apology for Councillor Dogramaci. Everyone else in attendance, would someone like to move that way? Councillor Reardon.

Councillor Creed. All those in favour? Against? Carried.

Declarations of interest.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 11.1.2, the Heritage Committee. 11.1.2.

Councillor Weller.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in 11.1.2.

Thank you.

We have speakers for. It's item 10.3.1, the Krupp field gun. We have two speakers that are going to speak tonight. We have one speaker that's going to speak tonight, Mr. Brett Wyle.

Mr. Wyle, you have five minutes if you can come to the microphone there.

There'll be a buzzer at four minutes, Mr. Wyle.

Thank you, Mayor, Councillors,

General Manager and staff. Brett Wild is my name. I'm the chairman and founder of what we firstly knew as Hunter ANZAC Memorial. Later we changed our name to Task Force Veteran. We are the organisation that currently has a 20-year licence over part of the Skyville site, and we were successful in receiving a $5 million grant to refurbish that site, which we're in the process of and have spent $3 million. I'm here tonight to talk about the Krupp gun and the importance of it. I would like to just quickly note that we've had extensive conversations with the War Memorial, and we have updated information. Just quickly, the Battle of Beersheba took part commencing in October 1917, but prior to that, the 4th Light Horse was raised here in New South Wales.

They trained here in the Hawkesbury. They also trained in Lower Belford in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool. The unit, being a predominantly New South Wales regiment, was part of the 4th Light Horse Regiment, which was responsible or tasked with the job of attacking Beersheba wells. The unit had 25 officers, 497 other ranks. It had a regimental headquarters and three squadrons with six troops apiece. They were predominantly armed with infantry weapons, and their main goal initially was to be mounted cavalry. During the Gallipoli campaign, they left their horses in Egypt. They were used as dismounted infantry to support the Gallipoli campaign, and we all know about the Gallipoli campaign. They were then returned to Egypt and remounted, and were ultimately tasked with undertaking the important task of taking on Beersheba Wells, which was held by the Turks at the time.

The interesting part about Beersheba Wells is that we were running out of water. Water was quite critical, obviously, to horses because they consume an exorbitant amount of water. It's interesting that the current place of Beersheba Wells is in the middle of Palestine and Gaza, and I'm not going to elaborate on that at this stage. The charge of the Light Horse was undertaken, as I said, by 800 members, the entire mass of the 12th Light Horse. And just on a side issue, the 12th Light Horse's history still resonates in New South Wales with 12 16th 100 Riverlances, which are based in Tamworth. They currently still use the colour patch of the 12th Light Horse. The speed of the attack was the key element of the capturing of the wells.

It was over a four-mile charge, initially starting off at a light gallop, and when they got closer, went into a gallop, a full gallop of four miles, or 6.4 kilometres. The significance of the Wells and the capturing in them, we've already talked about. The courage and sacrifice of those men who were given a task which the British thought was impossible. The later part of the war, we began to realize under the leadership of General Monash that Australians were a formidable force, and we still are today. The ANZAC tradition started with those people in Gallipoli and the Light Horse. The capturing of Beersheba Wells ended up with the death of 31 Australian Light Horsemen, 70 horses were lost, and 36 Australian soldiers were wounded, with another 80 horses were incapacitated as well.

You would say that that's a significant sacrifice, but in the light of the task that was handed to the 12th Light Horse, it was deemed to be impossible. But we did it.

On capturing the Wells, we captured 38 officers, 700 Turkish soldiers, and another 2,200 support staff. The interesting part about Beersheba is that nine Krupp guns were captured. There's full documentary evidence of that in the War Memorial, which we've managed to uncover. The Krupp guns were made by the Krupp company in Germany. They were made for the King of Romania, and what happened, typical of Germany at the time and in later years, they reused all the equipment from another army. The Krupp gun that you have was captured at Beersheba. It is only one of three surviving guns. There's one in the main street of Dungog, in the middle of the roundabout with its tiller. And there's one with no wheels in a park at Merriwa.

So what you have here is a significant piece of history. We are very happy and pleased to be afforded the potential opportunity to store the gun. It will be stored in the eastern SAR hut, and I invite all of you to come out. Request another minute.

Keep

Going. I invite all of you to come out and look at the restoration work that we've done. The Krupp gun will be stored in the eastern SAR hut, which is going to take part of our military sort of preservation and the museum aspect, and we'll have a huge migrant aspect attached to it as well because you cannot elevate the status of one period of occupation on the Schievel site over another. So we're very much keen, and if I can address for a minute, in 2019 we undertook the Greeter Army Camp celebration. World War II was declared in 1939, and 60,000 men of the 6th Division were raised in Greeter in the Hunter Valley. That site went on to become a migrant camp as well, and we held a celebration for the military aspect and the migrant aspect.

So we have form in this area, and we cannot discount that period at all because migrants have gone on to achieve so much for us as a nation. So the gun, although it's from Germany, I think that its history overrides the issue in relation to people having emotional attachments or, you know, not having a great love for things of German militaria. So I think the precedence and the sacrifice of Australian Light Horse overrides that. It will be stored inside. It will be insured. The building has security cameras, back-to-base monitoring, so it will be in good hands with us. We do open every four to six weeks for public to come and view, and some of you have already done that.

Thanks, Brett.

All right. Happy to take any questions, and sorry I've run over time. Questions?

That's what happens, guys. I talk too much and answer all the questions.

Mr Wild, I've been out to your establishment a couple of times, and I'm very impressed with the work you've done. Moving on, what are your intentions to do with this site? I know it's a little bit away from the Cropp gun, but it's such a significant thing for the Hawkesbury, and it's probably a lot to do where our multiculturalism started and all that. And I know the Cropp gun will be there as a reminder. They're classed as a war trophy, but what do you feel you could do for the younger people, the next generations coming on? Look, our

Thing is always about past, present and future for veterans, and we have a heavy influence on education. Duncan, one of my directors, is very focused on the educational aspect. Australians at War is taught to school children Year 9 to 12. And look, there's much controversy and much written about the Skyeville site. What I want to say is that not every government department gets the appropriate amount of funding to do what they've got to do. I think the long-term, and you can shoot me down in flames, whoever you want, but I think the long-term aspect of the Skyeville site, it needs to come back to private—sorry, into public hands, whether it's managed by us in perpetuity. There is provisions in the National Park Act and the Heritage Act, and I believe that site needs to be maintained as community access.

We need to reinstate the sporting fields. It's got huge sporting infrastructure on it. I've got the time, I've got the money, I've got the expertise. I just need the support to do it. And please don't take this the wrong way, guys, but I have battled personally, and my board will tell you, there's been much debate over the Skyeville site. But I think because it trained, you know, it had World War One prisoners of war, it was probably the first start of equal rights for women, because during the shortage of men in World War Two, women were taught how to drive tractors and drive trucks on the farm. So do we call that the evolution of women's rights, you know? You've got the migrant period, you've got the Dreadnought scheme, right?

We cannot just obliterate our history. If we don't understand and appreciate our past, we have no future. If I go back to the Greta Army camp site, there's not a single building left on that site, which is a disgrace. We as a government, and, you know, or the government, has a moral obligation to ensure that they preserve this stuff. If we allow them to destroy the place, no matter what place that is, the onus is on us as the people not to stand up. It's our history. We need to educate our children about all those aspects of the Skyeville site, and I think Hawkesbury should be immensely proud of the effort it's gone to to defend the nation in a time of crisis. Greta Army Camp, as I said, raised all the men of the 6th Division under Thomas Blamey, the first response to World War Two.

When the Vietnam War comes, we train over 1,900 men, volunteers under the officer training unit, Skyeville, 22 weeks of immense training, and then we send them to Vietnam. 363 officers trained at Skyeville who volunteered to go to war, right, and of those, eight second lieutenants died. Gordon Sharp being the first one who trained at Skyeville. Right, was a Channel 7 cameraman from the Blue Mountains. He went to Long Tan. He was in Vietnam 77 days, shot through the neck, trained at Schofield, right, and all we've got is a tiny little plaque at the front gate to eight Second Lieutenants. I'm 25 years ex-Regular Army. I think it's a natural disgrace, to be honest, and that we collectively have the power within us to stand up for that site, you know, and we need to educate our people.

Sorry. Yeah, sorry, Les.

We're probably in another forum.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your

Discussions are well worth it. Is there any further questions in relation to the crop gun?

I'll keep them short.

Thank you, Brett.

Thank you, guys, and I appreciate the time, extra time.

Councillor Ryan.

Do we have another speaker or not? No. Look, Mayor, I'd like to move the motion, if I could get a seconder, please.

I'll second it.

Councillor Reardon

Councillor Ryan. Thank you very much. Look, I have been out to Schofield a number of times, sorry, went out there one of their open days, and I've seen the passion these people have, and to present this crop gun to them is really recognising their efforts and their efforts into the future. And I commend Councillor Reardon for your idea. That was a great idea. Andrew turns up there for all the legwork he did to get it over the line, and the Mayor's been out there a number of times. It's going to be magnificent. But to me, the crop gun— We had these sort of things in our little halls, and they were classed as war trophies. Things have moved on, and we can't change that. But to me, these war trophies are something that we should honour, because it reminds us of history .

And history is something that we can't change that we must learn from. And if we don't learn from it, we're doomed to make the same mistakes again. So I think to put that up there and to see our young people, I would really like to see this happen. So my motion would be— I got a little bit lost there, didn't I?— a formal recognition and commend the excellent work of the Hunter ANZAC Memorial.

Yes, I have sent it in. Yes, so it's additional.

This is additional to what's in the business paper. I'm learning as I run.

So you're moving what's in the business paper and an additional— Yep. Point three.

Point three. Go on, Councillor.

That we formally recognise and commend the exceptional work of the Hunter ANZAC Memorial Limited Task Force veteran in their dedicated efforts to acquire and revalidate the camp precinct within the Skyeville National Park, and commemorate the community proposal. The comment to the activities and exploring the identifying the opportunities of the collaboration with Hunter Valley, so Hunter Valley Limited Task Force in their ongoing endeavours undertake to provide— With where possible and appropriate support for the activities of the camp precinct and site, and their plans include facilities which the community identify and implement in future. Use and benefits.

Do you got that, Councillor Redden? Yep.

I'd certainly like to second that.

That , yeah .

Go on, Councillor.

You wish to speak? Yeah, I will speak on this. Look, a couple of times I've been out to Skyeville, it's been great to see the camaraderie, and this crop gun going to these people will, to me, be something great. We have a lot of men out there that go out there, they're ex-Army or have been involved in Army, and I can see the mental health that this place supplies for these people, these men. We have other groups now joining in, and I think it's a tremendous thing that we have here, a piece of history. We have a chap there is taking young people out there, and he's teaching them a lot of things. He's going to train them, exercise them, and he's going to teach them respect. He's going to teach them leadership.

And one big thing that he did mention to me, he's going to teach them respect for women. They're all young chaps, and I think that's where these chaps have built will have a great impact on all our young people. And I think this is nearly a recommendation we all should think about it, because it will help us in the future. I believe that we should advertise it as much as we can, perhaps out at the Ham Common, at the information centre, when these people get some information going and all that, and make our crop gun probably the headline act for it, because it's a great thing. And having that there will remind people of history and also remind them that history should not be learnt from and not made mistakes of again.

Thank you very much. Councillor. Councillor.

I'd just like to say it's fantastic that this gun has found a home. It's a war trophy, and I'm so pleased I was able to help with it.

So we.

Councillor, well done.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to be very cheeky and correct Brett on his history. The best credit doesn't go to Sir John Monash. The credit goes to Henry Chauvel, and it was his genius at the Beersheba campaign. And I know that because at that time, General John Monash was serving on the Western Front with my son's great-grandfather, because my son's great-grandfather was John Monash's cook, and his contribution to the war was to not give John Monash food poisoning. I thought that I knew all I needed to know about the fascinating artillery of the Hawkesbury, because I've had a thing for that story of the cannons out at Richmond and how they were buried on the Oval. And I know that story backwards, and I love telling people as we walk past.

But I never knew that that rather unloved artifact that we had at the old memorial was so incredibly significant. And if I, a history teacher, can learn something new that's just so wonderful that we have custody of this artifact, I take my hat off. Thank you so much. And I'm glad that it's been restored, and I'm glad that it's going to be kept and seen by people who will now appreciate its history even more. What a great win. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. My grandfather served in Palestine, and it's possible that he faced down a Krupp gun. I actually have to say I didn't ever make the connection. I was aware of the Krupp gun from 2016 onwards when we were working to restore it, and I want to acknowledge the work of Craig Johnson, who got the grant funding and organised the restoration. But I never made the connection until today between the Krup Gun and my own family history. And I didn't associate it with Beersheba either. And I'd long used, when I was a young corporal instructing recruits, I often used the Battle of Beersheba as an example of getting that , it's become mythology and certainly reinforced by the movie The Light Horsemen, where the Australian Light Horse was said to have got under the range of the guns.

And that's attributed in the movie to a German officer's arrogance and ignorance. But in fact, it appears more to do with the Turks' misunderstanding the speed at which the Australian Light Horse were capable of travelling on that day. And in fact, they moved so rapidly that the regimental accounts seem to show that the Turks were so demoralised that, to a degree, they were quite surprised by the attack. There was cooked, when the Australians arrived at the camp, there was cooked food, hot drinks waiting that naturally they partook of and thoroughly enjoyed. They'd had a long day. But it did seem to have surprised the Turks, and certainly the speed with which they were able to travel allowed them to get under the range of the guns, which meant that they were met, as they got closer to the position, by machine gun fire rather than artillery fire.

And that seems to be one of the contributing factors to what is now considered to be the last great cavalry charge. Thank you for giving us the context that this gun belongs in, rather than just being a war trophy. I think you've now firmly placed it in the heart of Australian military history, and in a way that I think people can relate to. And that's where having the Krupp gun sited at Skyville, I think, is better than having it just in a council building. It's better than having it at the museum with a whole lot of unrelated things. It's better than having it outside the library, where it looked lovely and kids, you know, we were forever telling kids not to climb on it. But this puts it in context.

It's where it belongs. As a side thing, my father also was posted to the Greta Army Camp. So, or Greeter, as he called it, in the lead up to the Korean War. I'm really pleased to see you balancing both military and migrant aspects, and I think that's really important, and that will continue to be important for our, I think, for the Hawkesbury's future as we move forward as well. So thank you. Councillor Scott Lash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have a quick question, and I'm sorry if it's in the business papers or the attachments, but how quickly can we get this happening? Because I thought it'd be really good if we could have it installed. And I'm sorry, I don't know what stage you're up to to coincide with the RAAF

Everyone's keen. Yeah

Yeah. I just wonder, because it doesn't sort of say anywhere in the documentation as far as I can—

Mr Coons.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So in discussions with Task Force Veteran, they've indicated they can collect the gun, if successful tonight in Council's discussions, and within two weeks. So the loan agreement is by mid-August to have the gun at the site.

Councillor.

Yeah, sometimes difficult with this screen here, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Look, I'm not going to add too many of the comments of my colleagues, I'm only around the Council, fully support it. It does go to the respect of our command. It took a long time to recognise them, dare I say, that would have been my notion. Councillor, who organised the charge. But I just want to make a point that that whole site trained a lot of lieutenants for the Vietnam War. A lot of them came out of the conscripts and the NCOs, dare I say. One in particular I can remember was Tim Fisher, who went and took a long distinguished career, I think, in Canberra, just to name one. And I think many of them were commemorated with bravery during that campaign in the Vietnam War. I've been lucky enough to be Guantanamo Dad. I did that purposely with my family back in '16 and went down to where the memorial was at Long Tan.

I always thought it was just a small acre, about the size of a football field. It isn't. It's vast. And to protect that whole site by themselves, and what the boys did over there, most of them conscripts. But I thank you for your efforts and have my vote in the affirmative on this one, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to thank Mr Wild for that very interesting lesson in history around that. It was really fascinating, and it's great when we hear in this chamber the background to things that have occurred like that, and it enhances the story. I'm also pleased to hear of the ongoing plans for what may be done at that site. It's great to see that site being utilised so well and certainly supportive of anything that we can do to, particularly around the mental health and young people attitudes there. It was really, I always knew Skyville was significant, but I hadn't realised just quite how significant. And as a small part of trivia to go with that, I actually attended Gordon Sharp's funeral when I was a very little girl.

He had been a student at the Christian Brothers College, and at the primary school I went to, and we made a guard of honour. And I remember it was probably one of the first things that made me so sad about the Vietnam War. And, yeah , it was just interesting that that connection is there. But thank you for your work, and I hope to get out there to see it as soon as the gun is in place. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to Brett and all everybody on his board, people here tonight from the board, for your tenacity in making sure this happened. And if tonight was the first time you've heard Brett speak, let me tell you, he is certainly a very convincing man. And if anyone doesn't know the story of how this actually came about, and I hadn't even remembered it till Brett mentioned it just before the meeting started, when I was the federal candidate for Macquarie in 2022 election , I was driving back down from the Blue Mountains to Hawkesbury, probably exhausted and not really knowing what was going on, and I never answer phone numbers I don't know. And for some reason, this number came up on my screen on my Apple Play.

I didn't know it, and something said, Answer that call, and it was Brett. And I've told him that story many times, that I do not answer phone numbers I don't know, but for some reason I answered that call. Next thing he's telling me his whole story. I had not heard of the Hunter Anzac Memorial Group before, heard the whole story. I think we had coffee a week later or two weeks later, something like that. Fully convinced me to go and advocate for $5 million of funding, which we did. Was very proud to announce that funding through the coalition. However, the coalition didn't win the election, so Brett then began his advocacy on the federal member for Macquarie and didn't stop. So well done to Brett and the team for ensuring that that five million dollars was delivered, because as you've heard tonight, the extraordinary amount of work that they have done to that very historical site here in the Hawkesbury is amazing.

And I did just agree to go out on the next open day, which is on the 10th of August, if anyone is interested, and just see where that's up to, because what the site was when I went first had a look and bought, I think it was Alex Hawke we took as the government minister at the time, to what it is now is remarkable. And when you can see those sorts of sites come to life through the volunteerism and the passion of people who are dedicated to helping our veterans and ensuring that facilities like this do not go to waste, and also providing programs that provide positive mental health benefits for our veterans. And everyone knows how passionate I am about veterans with my dad. So it really is a remarkable thing in the Hawkesbury, and I think as an elected body, if the 12 of us can ensure we promote the facility and sing its praises, I think that would be a lovely thing moving forward.

And what was interesting tonight, just from hearing Brett's five-minute, was more than five-minute speech, was the stories of connection that other people around the chamber here have had. And not only was, I suppose, my connection through taking that random phone call on a random day to leading to the funding, but Also hearing about the Light Horsemen, and through my dad's military career, he joined the Light Horsemen, and he was part of the military convoy that brought home the body of the unknown soldier from France and laid him to rest at the War Memorial. And so we all have these little stories of connection, as I just said, and I think that that's really important because here in the Hawkesbury we are a military community, and growing up here on the RAAF base myself, we know how important preserving and respecting our military personnel is in this area.

And I think having a RAAF base here is an amazing thing. You know, we love our aircraft flying over. We've got the air show coming up. It really is a wonderful thing. And to see this site at Skyeville connected now to our military roots here in this area is just remarkable. So I want to thank Brett and his team, Task Force Veteran and the Hunter ANZAC Memorial Group for what they've done. As I said, when we first heard about the idea, I thought, who are these groups from the Hunter Valley and why do they want to come to the Hawkesbury? But sometimes when you just believe in something, it can happen. And I think the last words that I want to put on the record are, do not underestimate the hard work that went into this.

There were plenty of times where Brett and the team could have given up and walked away. Plenty of times where the government was telling them, no, just leave us alone. This isn't going to happen. And they didn't stop. So thank you so much to all of you for what you have done, and for the legacy that you leave for the Hawkesbury. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Any further discussion? Just a couple of points I'd like to make. The gun's gone from pillar to post a bit. After Council had the work done on it, it's been in a container out the depot for some time, and it's been looking for a house, and people have been trying to help that along with no real gain at all. And Councillor Reardon got involved a little bit with the group and seen the opportunity, and it sort of grew from there. I was with our state member today, and she passed it on the best wishes in relation to this. She's aware of exactly what's happening and the like. We discussed that today. The sites we'd looked at was inappropriate. At RSL at Windsor, we were looking at putting it there somewhere, but it really needs to be outside where it can be properly presented, and then you've got to cover it and the like.

It just didn't suit. We looked for other places on Council land. Out there's appropriate and well looked after. And during the discussions, it's been fruitful, quick and directive from our staff and the organisation that's worked to make it happen. They've already been out there, measured it up to make a plinth for it to sit on in an appropriate fashion. They're keen, and what their proposition to do with is any indication from the work they've done out there already, we don't have a lot to worry about in the sense of how it's going to be looked after. They've done some really good work out there, and those of you that may not have been out there yet, it's worth a trip. In saying that, I'd like to thank the group and all those that have been involved in making it happen.

Councillor Ryan, right of reply. Oh

Mr Mayor, I think everything's been said, and we don't need a right of reply.

The motions, one and two in the business paper and three, part three, four, five is on the screen. Those in favour?

Those against? It's carried unanimously, apart from Councillor Dogramachi, who's absent, as Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Cree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Martin, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ambrogno, and Councillor Sheather. The motion's carried.

Item is 10.3

2. Councillor

Creed. Move the

Recommendation

Sorry , Councillor Creed. Oh, sorry, which one is it? 10.3.2. Yep. Yep . Beyond Resilience. Move the recommendation. I'll

Second that. Councillor Redden.

Excuse me. Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor . I think this is a really good document. I'm really keen to see what sort of feedback we get on it. It's a very wide-ranging document, and I think it belongs at a very high level amongst our other integrated planning documents. This should feed what we do as part of our operational and delivery plans. There's quite a lot of priorities that are set in here, including around embedding First Nations knowledge and practice in land management. Councillor Lyons-Buckett and I attended a really interesting talk put on by the gallery about First Nations land management and its relationship with bushfire management on Saturday, which was really worthwhile, and fits in with Council's resolution to use First Nations management practices to reduce bushfire hazard.

There's a lot of stuff in here about increased tree canopy, habitat, energy transition, solutions to the waste crisis, improving resilience. Active and public transport and inclusive access. And there's also an excellent, I think, and really valuable section about shocks and stresses, including stuff that we don't talk about enough: growing inequality, affordable and sociable suitable housing that's accessible, food security, something that we tend not to consider probably as well as we should in an area formerly and still with remnant and hopefully increasing food-growing land, drug and alcohol abuse, which appears to be on the rise in the LGA, physical and mental health, which is firmly linked with poor planning in many instances, other stresses that we need to be ready for, like racism and racial vilification and further threats to social cohesion, and things that we are already dealing with that I think we need to put more firmly on the radar, and having them named in a report like this I think is useful.

Things like low trust, environmental degradation, and increasing social isolation. So what we've got here, I think, is a great action plan. But if you look at the back of the document where the rubber hits the road, there's lots of unfunded opportunities, and I think that's where we come in. I think we need to have a really robust discussion now about what our next steps are coming out of this report. So once this report comes back from public exhibition and it's adopted by Council, depending on what changes are made, I would like to see us go to a workshop within the next three months so that we can focus on how we include these actions or these opportunities as they're put. So that we can be prepared to include some of these in our budget discussions going into next year.

So if the mover would be willing, I'd like to add a clause that this comes to a councillor workshop within the next four or five months. Yeah

I'm happy with that

Seconder. Yes, I'm happy for that too.

Thank you. Gavin,

Verylands Park.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the staff or whoever made the decision to exhibit it for 42 days. I think that's a good length of time because I actually do think this is something that many, many people care about within our community . Post the various disasters that we've had, there's been a number of projects done by organisations like FRRR and by the Sydney Environment Institute, which I've actually worked on some of those various projects around community-led resilience. And it's a really great thing out there in our community when people can identify the gaps that they see in the systems, and we always need to capture that information and feed it into things like this. And having a strategy overarching all of that is a really good way that we can support the community-led initiatives that evolve and that come forward.

Having the systemic cohesion between all of council strategies is a really good thing so that things aren't done in isolation, that everything overlaps, and if we can access resources to see tangible outcomes coming from a strategy like this, it would be a really good thing . It's important to have. The document aligning with the overarching work that Resilient Sydney does and the Reconstruction Authority, because there's been a huge amount of work done in many areas by those organisations. I think the term resilience potentially is sometimes overused. It's a bit of a buzzword now, but I just don't want to see it used in a way that allows council and other organisations to actually abdicate their responsibilities, particularly around disaster management, by translating too much onto individuals.

I still think that we have to make it very clear which areas of support and responsibility council takes, and then which things we expect the community to pull in and take care of themselves . It says in the report that people don't simply want to be resilient; they want to have control and influence over their circumstances. And I think that's an incredibly true statement. I think that our community is so diverse in what the needs are and what the capacities are of the individuals within each community, that tapping into things such as the existing social networks that exist, the relationship within certain little pockets of areas that are completely vulnerable, is something that we can do through a strategy like this.

And this will only strengthen our community. It's amazing what little gaps will show up. Like in some small communities, I remember around Cumberland Reach, their main thing after the floods was that they had no central meeting place, for example. So they didn't have a hall, or they didn't have anywhere where everybody could congregate when they were seeking information or getting together to support each other. And I think that the more that we can filter all that sort of information in, the stronger we can be as a council to support our community to be quite self-reliant, but also to work with us to make them more resilient. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any other councillors

Councillor Ryan.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be supporting this to go out. As you know, I come from Pitt Town, and we seek, sort, leadership out there, and I think that's a great thing that we've got to develop. And Council, I think, can really help with leadership. We've got our groups out there, like our Progress Association, our soccer and all that, and we've had our disasters out there more than we expected it to be quick. And I think Council needs to be coming on board with these groups more, perhaps even set up a way where we teach them how to approach Council, how to work with Council, and so we develop the best groups we can out there to deliver the best results for us. This strategy will go a long way towards that, but I think we've got to really push it a bit harder, especially on the community level, because they're our people.

They need guidance, they need leadership, and we've got to show them strength, and we've got to give them guidance. And I think if we give them those things, our communities will pick them up and run quite quickly with them, and we'll go a long way to achieving these goals that are in this. So thank you very much.

Thank you , Councillor.

Just a question to the staff. In relation to this coming on exhibition, we've got a newspaper now. It's not a question, I guess, in the sense that with that document, when you read it, it could be written by three or four people. And it's concerning, and I know the effort that went into it around the place. And there's lots of people in the community that we're simply not getting to. And how we do that, I'm not sure. But this is going on exhibition, and I really think that whatever we're capable of doing to encourage people to have a say, we should be. Because the comments that were made by the previous speakers about the workshop and the comments that Councillor Wheeler made, they're extremely relevant.

But there's other things in our community that people have concerned issues and would like to discuss that we're simply not getting to, and for lots of reasons. With the comments that Councillor Wheeler made in relation to some of the, I guess, issues that are going to come before us in the future and the like, the workshop, we need to talk about how we're going to approach these things, because we can set good examples and bad examples in the regards to move forward with programs within Council, within the structures here. And if we don't get it right , we're not going to achieve a great deal out of the very things that we've been trying to achieve, what the Councillor Wheeler spoke of. Yeah, so the only thing that I'd ask of the staff that, and, you know, I know how hard they've tried, but not to give up on trying to get to the rest of the community.

Any other speakers? I put the motion before you, and it's on your tablet. So it's the recommendation and items one, two and three. Those in favour?

It's unanimous, apart from Councillor Dogramaci, who's absent from the meeting. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Feigl, Creed, Cottlash, McMahon, Durek, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather. The motion is carried. The

Next item is 10.3.3, inclusion of a freeboard with floodplain planning level. Councillor Creed . Thank you, Mr Mayor.

It's unanimous, apart from Councillor Dogramaci, who's absent from the meeting. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Feigel, Creed, Cottlash, McMahon, Durick, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather. The motion is carried.

The next item is 10.3.3, inclusion of a freeboard with floodplain planning level. Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would like to move some different wording. I believe the staff have got it.

I'll second it. Who

Was that, sorry?

Thank you.

So I just would like to move that Council, to further consideration of the adoption of the inclusion of the 0.5 metres freeboard to Council's existing flood planning level, till the finalisation of the land use planning work underway by the New South Wales Reconstruction Authority, which may result in changes to the planning legislation. So the reason this isn't about saying yes or no tonight, it's we've heard in the previous item, councillors have expressed their desire not to be making things

You know, we need to look at the whole picture here and not just little bits and pieces and changing little bits and pieces. I think one of the other issues with all of this is that I have with the state government and continually putting this onto local councils and essentially changing all their planning levels so that they don't actually have to do the work. I think the Hawkesbury is very unique compared to other local councils in New South Wales. We are very— You know, we have different topography. We have different types of flooding compared to most places that the state government is trying to get us to do these things, and I would prefer us to actually wait for the outcome of a previous council resolution, which this is about, before we actually decide on these things.

So I do hope councillors will support it. I'm not a big fan of deferring things, but I think this is important that we don't just do things hodgepodge. I think that's probably the technical term. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor. Thank

You, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. I think this is one instance where I can't see any logic in deferring it. The recommendation that was put forward in the business paper was quite broad in the sense that it was really about adopting the inclusion of a 0.5 metre freeboard to Council's existing flood planning level. If the flood planning level were to change, then that resolution wouldn't change. That would just be 0.5 metres on whatever the flood planning level is. So I think that it's time we took some of the lead in these flooding issues. We can't. We've been waiting since 2018 for a regional land use study, which the Liberal government didn't deliver, which hasn't been delivered since.

And I don't know what this land use planning work underway by the Reconstruction Authority is, but we can't keep waiting when this is something that nearly every other council has already implemented, and which very clearly is set out in the report as being something that simply just gives us, you know, compensating for some of the uncertainties that we may be faced with flooding. And I think that we should have had it a long time ago, and it was resisted in the past. And I think that we should just simply go ahead with having it as part of our planning controls so that whatever our flood planning levels end up being, if that happens to be changed, you know, possibly upward. To something or whatever, then we've already considered that having a freeboard of 0.5 of a metre is the way to go to compensate for those uncertainties.

I really think that there's no—we don't know. There's no time frame of when this may be completed, unless Councillor Creed has some inside knowledge on it. But forever with things around the flood studies of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, we wait and we wait and we wait. And quite frankly, I don't think we've got time to wait.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Scott-Leish.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking very much against this motion. I'm just horrified that something like a 0.5 metre freeboard, which is considered to be best practice across the state, is being used as a political get-back-at-you moment. This is really, really irresponsible. I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor Lyons-Buckett. It is our responsibility to show leadership here. It is our responsibility as the local council who have worked on flood planning for what seems to be forever. Ever since I've been in this chair since 2016, we have been trying to improve the situation around flooding for our community.

Kicking this can down the road like this is just unbelievable and irresponsible. I just don't understand why you are doing this. Are you— look, it just, we just have to lift our game. I understand that we're waiting for the Reconstruction Authority to deliver the disaster adaptation plan. I get that. Part of that that's going to be delivered and, okay, I get that we don't know when that's going to be, hopefully at the end of this year , it will contain the land use planning mechanisms that we can adopt. And in all the reading that I've done on what the state government is doing, it's always tempered as a partnership with local governments and other agencies. And what we're doing now is we're sending the state government a message to say, Oh, well, you know, it's really up to you.

We're almost relinquishing our responsibility and saying, Oh, we'll wait to see what you think. Well , no, we have to say to the state government, we aren't going to wait any longer. We want this to happen. And I also agree with Councillor Lyons Buckett. We were talking about this years ago. This is just best practice. We should have been doing this all along. I am disappointed that in March we didn't take the advice of the experts and raise our flood planning level to a one in 200-year frequency flood. Adopting this 0.5 metre freeboard would have at least got us a little towards the levels that are going to be experienced if all of the modelling turns out to be accurate in 2030. It's 2025 now.

2030 is going to be here in a blink. We have to get a move on on this, and this is just irresponsible. And I'm just— I'm not having anything to do with it. I'm just really disappointed that this has been put up. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Move an amendment, Mr Mayor. The recommendation in the business paper. Second that, Mr Mayor.

That was moved by Councillor Wheeler and seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the recommendation is to include 0.5 of a metre freeboard to Council's existing flood planning level. This is a recommendation that's consistent with the advice from Council's floodplain risk management committee. We should be clear, though, that this represents a compromise, that the recommendation from the expert floodplain management study was for the adoption of a 1 in 200 flood planning level with half a metre freeboard. We are still well below that height, and I— And I am deeply disappointed that this will be, if we can get it, the closest to a safer flood planning level that we seem to be able to manage in this council. I agree with Councillors Kotlash and Lyons-Buckett.

We have spent hours in this chamber moaning about the state government telling us what to do and our lack of agency. And yet here we have this option, opportunity to actually do our job, the thing we were elected to do, the thing that the local government Act demands of us. And we just go, Oh no, that's a bit scary. That might upset somebody. Let's all hide under the desk and wait for the state government to make the hard decisions.

This is at best a compromise. In reality, what this is, is council wilfully ignoring its expert opinion based on the perceived workings of the expert floodplain risk management report and management plan. The advice that we received on the Floodplain Management Committee from department staff with expertise in the use of the floodplain manual was that any variations from the flood study's recommended flood planning level should only occur with clear reasons. What reasons would they be exactly? And what reasons would there possibly be to put this off any further? We have a very high risk to life. We have a very high risk of damages. We cannot continue to ignore in the hope that the state government might finally get its act together.

We're supposed to review our flood planning levels every five years. We've waited seven years for the state government to give us one. Are we going to wait five more years? We'll be up to another review. By the time something happens, we'll be at another point. We will have all those impacts of climate change that many people are happy to ignore because they don't understand the science or are unwilling to accept the science. We've already been told that by 2030, the one in 100 will be the current one in 200. How high a risk do you want to put people at? While we dicker around, we are leaving more than 2,000 properties at increased risk.

When will we take responsibility for that?

Thank you, Councillor. Any other councillors?

Councillor Brogner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just so that I've got this right, there's no freeboard currently applied, so this resolution is to introduce a freeboard for the first time.

The resolution is to defer the

Amendment. Well, the amendment, if we adopted the recommendation. So here's the thing. You know, I was conspicuous about voting against moving us from the one in 100 to the one in 200. At Windsor, that's a difference of about a metre. And as you know, my concern was the signal that we send to insurers. I know that many of my colleagues fiercely disputed that it would send precisely that message, but I felt that, you know, I was on safe ground. Now we're talking about adding half a metre, so this effectively splits the difference. And I am so acutely aware of the fine line that we walk here. I don't want people to build on the floodplain because they're going to get wet feet and it's going to end in tears, and it has for years.

And I'm acutely aware of what we say and do in this chamber, sending a signal that makes life even more difficult for people who, through historical anachronism, are on one of those 5,000-odd houses that are below the one-in-100 level for historical reasons.

But I think that this is reasonable, and I'm opposed to Councillor Creed's motion, and therefore I will support this amendment because it doesn't set an end date. I mean, Councillor Creed is, I'm sure, well aware that the event that he's pinning the ability for us to readdress this is off to the never-never. If he'd given us an event that we knew was coming, that would happen within six months, then I might have been more favourably disposed to it. But the land use study that he cites has been so interminably delayed, it's tantamount to saying never. But it puts that fig leaf over it, and I'm not prepared to countenance that. So despite my previous view, I'm happy to split the difference and impose a freeboard and say that we're being responsible in terms of sending a signal to people that we don't want them to build.

where there's going to be a likelihood of flood, but at the same time. Try and do something to do to ameliorate the poisonously high insurance that people are paying. I'm conflicted, but I think that's the way through. So I'll support the amendment. Thank you, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I still haven't really got my head around the words I kind of want to say when it comes to this motion, because it's well beyond my knowledge, and I think that we can all admit when we have our strengths and weaknesses in subject matter. What is within my knowledge is the last few years as the mayor and as a councillor, dealing with this community and the impact of floods. And I understand the reasons behind the freeboard, even though that's a new term for me to get my head around. I understand what it is. What I don't understand particularly, and I need to do more reading on it, is the impact to how that impacts an average mum and dad putting in a DA or things like that, or what that means to potential applications for industrial land or employment land, applications that people want to build in those kinds of areas.

So I want to get my head more around that, I suppose. I think I just want to take this opportunity to express, and I hear what the other councillors have said, but I do want to put this on the record, and I'll be potentially bringing a motion to the chamber in the next meeting or so regarding the disappointment of the New South Wales State Government with prioritising the Hawkesbury after they ripped out the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall once the new government got elected. Tossed around ridiculous ideas of levies into our community that never saw fruition, haven't even had community consultation, and would have been the biggest I saw, let alone had an impact on the floodplain and the flood flow that would have been detrimental to our community, and then promised, after a year of advocacy trying to meet the Premier, Chris Minns came to our chamber and spoke about a disaster adaptation plan, the DAP, and that the Hawkesbury, along with the Northern Rivers, would be the two prioritised communities in New South Wales who would have the first DAPs, which would be plans for their particular communities as part of what would be a broader plan for New South Wales.

For all intents and purposes, we got told on multiple occasions that would be public or at least delivered in June. It's now July. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Chris Minns Labor government doesn't care about the Hawkesbury. If our community goes through another flood again like we have gone through, and we still have no resilience, we still have no money on the table to make our community safer, I find it absolutely appalling, and I've said it in multiple TV interviews to the camera, staring down the barrel of that camera, that that will be on Chris Minns, and I'll say it over and over and over again. He took away from our community the one thing that independent studies had said would make a difference to this community.

There were two flood studies done after one of the 2021 and 2022 floods that showed that had that dam wall been raised by 14 metres, floods in Windsor alone would be three to four metres less.

I'm not going to talk about the constant voice on my shoulder. That is absolutely unacceptable. However, I want it noted that not having the disaster adaptation plan delivered to our community yet for us to review, for our community to see what is the government's plan to keep us safe is unacceptable. We need to push for that DAP to be released immediately. We need to then study that DAP and ascertain whether that's going to provide any further protection for our community. The state government has a responsibility here. It is in their domain and they are doing nothing for the Hawkesbury. They don't even bother turning up when our community looks like an inland sea. I just wanted to put that on the record because the motion, which is now the amendment here tonight, is part of what is a broader abandonment of our community by the state government.

I'll still consider how I'm voting and I'll listen to any further arguments. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillors. I'd just like to clarify a couple of things that's been said by a couple of speakers. First one by you, Deputy Mayor, in relation to the planning proposed, if those levels to be lifted, we haven't discussed whether they're not in place and won't be until after Council does adopt them. So we don't know the consequences in that regard. In relation to Councillor Zembrogno, the difference of a metre is two metres, a quarter. In relation to 2,000 properties going underwater, it's 750. That's the difference. In relation to the 0.5 of a metre, I don't know because it's not in the document, and I haven't read it anywhere. The concerns that I've got touched on a bit by the Deputy Mayor.

Forty years I've been arguing about flooding in the Hawkesbury. We've looked at everything from people carrying buckets of water over the goddamn mountain. There's not an issue that hasn't come up in 40 years, let me tell you. There's been three EISs, and what's been proposed now without is probably another one. Heaps of study's been done, and all about our community by different governments, and nothing is going to minimise the water levels that rise in our community when it rains, to whatever level they may be. And we're proposing now, at one level, a one-in-a-hundred-year event to raise it by half a metre. We haven't had a one-in-a-hundred-year event in 240 years. We've had a one-in-200-year event in 1867.

But we've had 99% of our floods have been around the one-in-20 years. And this half a metre does nothing for any development that may proceed down the track. It's incorporated within our planning powers with things that are restricted in that regard, and the caravan park policy is a good example of that. But we're proposing to put something in place that's going to protect 850—well, it won't be 850 properties; it'll be a lot less than that— by half a metre. No, it does not protect them. But what it does do is give us the opportunity to have the structures built in a way that is somewhat resilient. The only thing, there's, out of those properties, there would be hardly any inundability areas.

We're talking about areas of predominantly still water, backwaters. So they're going to get wet, and within a few days they're going to be dry again. And for us to wait for a government decision on where we're going with this, is it put back on us? It's our responsibility. We've got no say over insurance companies, we've got no say in evacuation or the like. That's dealt by all government authorities. But we're going to make the rules that imply that our residents and the people that pay our way today, not the 850 that's coming in years to come, that's forward planning. We're responsible for the people here today and their livelihood and the like. And whatever decision we make here is going to limit their activities on that property, whatever they are.

We are not going to stop the water from coming up. When it rains, it rises. The only thing that stops that is mitigation, and we all know about Warragamba in relation to mitigation. If you don't want the water to come up, turn the taps off. It's the only option. So, Councillors, I support the motion that was put forward on the basis that I do believe the government's got a responsibility. They can direct us and should do in relation to policy. For us to go in in front of them, I think they're looking an easy way out because it's gone on for so long, and they want our support. The fact that other councils have done it, they're not in our situation. The difference between their one in 100 and PMF, in most cases, is less than a metre,

And ours is 10.

It's a big difference. And for Ward to get there in the first place, we're talking about a one in 100-year event. Like I said, we haven't had one. But that doesn't mean to say we're not. It will happen one day. We've just got to be aware of it. And there's things that we can do to make it a bit safer for people. I don't know that making the house out of steel is going to fix that. So, Councillors, I'll leave that to you to decide. Councillor Linesbarker.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in support of the amendment.

I don't think we can rely on the state government giving us any definitive, you know, action around this. They may or they may not. They may impose another level. It may not resolve the issue at all. So I support the amendment, as was the recommendation in the business paper, because it refers to whatever the flood plan level is. It says the existing flood plan level. Now, that may change, but that will always mean it has a freeboard, a 0.5 metre freeboard on top of that. So we may not. I think we have to stop saying we haven't had this sort of a flood in so many years. That is just out the window. We know from everything that's happening on the entire globe that the unpredictability around natural disasters is just at a real peak at the moment.

We don't know, and so saying that is just really not an appropriate thing to be letting our community hear, because we saw people who would say we haven't had a flood for 30 years, and we've had a whole run of them. So you can't say we haven't had it before. We've just seen a one in 500 event in Taree. We've seen a one in 500 event in Texas, which had a lot of parallels to what the Hawkesbury is like. And sadly, they had had various places taken out of their flood planning mapping that then exposed those areas to really tragic consequences of children camping in a camping ground. I don't want to sit in this chamber and be liable for what is going to happen to people because we fail to take a stand and to lead the charge.

Instead of hanging around waiting for the state government to tell them, we know what we need here. We've got a whole lot of experts telling us what we need. The fact that some people choose to ignore that is the problem of people who choose to ignore that. I choose to accept it because these people are experts in floodplain management. They're identifying the risks, and we need to be seen to be acting on those risks. We need to send a clear message on it. We can't just simply sit here and say somebody may not be able to extend something or do something like that. That is not a responsible way to frame it. We've got to weigh up all the things. We know that with any changes to flood planning levels, that's relating to new development, not existing, that people can work around it.

And we know from all these flood studies that have been done, there's two ways we can save lives in this floodplain. One is to stop building in the floodplain. The second is to be able to get everyone who's in the floodplain out when there's an incident. And they're the things we need to focus on. And that is what those flood studies have said are the ways we save lives, and we reduce, you know, any risk to loss of life. I don't like flooding being politicised at all, and it's been taken over within the political sphere, and I think that's a real shame. We know that we get recommendations from experts, people who work every day, just like you go to your doctor and trust them or your mechanic and you trust them, we have flood experts tell us what they think we should be doing.

Now, I think we ignore that at our peril, and in a later item , we'll probably perhaps touch on some legal advice that we've had. But I think we have to take a stand. We have to make us, we have to utilise the tools that are available within the suite of planning documents and planning tools, we have to utilise them effectively to make people safe. I don't know how it can be any clearer, to sit in here and not want to go down that path to assist our people to be as resilient as possible. We've just passed a resilience plan, and yet here we are doing the complete opposite. I mean, I'm really quite taken aback that this is even up for discussion. It would— Not up for discussion. It's up for discussion that anybody would want to not proceed with this as part of our planning.

Councillor Vogel.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I know this was brought to Council about the 500 millimetre freeboard some months or so ago, and I'm on the record that

I was against it then and I'm against it now.

So I'll just leave it at that because my comments were based before that. For all the reasons I noted before, my sore thinking of terminal influence insurance costs on people. I still believe that if people want to sell properties and they're well above the one in 100, it may well affect them too until I get some more information. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thanks

Councillor.

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. As we all know, I'm a long-time resident of the floodplain, been through more floods than probably all of us. And one thing I was taught, that we're one day closer to the next big flood, and we must prepare for that. I don't believe that we can control Mother Nature, so we've got to work with her. It's a thing that I keep hearing, you know, are we going to put insurance prices above safety? I am very much for the safety of our communities, the safety of our people. And when we talk about this 1.5 of a metre, you and I have experienced the waves that we can get in the Hawkesbury across the—coming from the west, they came into my town, they did a lot of damage in McGrath's Hill, and they raised it by half a metre.

And that was tragic for some people to think that, you know, at that time they were at the flood level, and then these waves came through and destroyed their property. So as far as I'm concerned, we must now err on the side of caution with these things. We must think of people's personal safety rather than looking at their properties first. We look at them first, and we look after our residents and give them the best ability to survive this. We can go back and rebuild a house, but you cannot bring a life back. And this was shown back in the 1867 flood, how many people we lost there, and from what I've read, there were waves in that that caused a considerable amount of damage. So I will be supporting the amendment.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Councillor Kotlash, you speaking for the motion?

Yes, I'm speaking for the motion.

For the amendment, sorry. For the

Amendment. Look, I just want to add what we're actually making a decision on in this item. I think we're straying a bit out of focus, I think. What we need to consider... is whether to add freeboard to our current flood planning level. That's it. That's really what we, and I appreciate number two as well, but basically that's it. Now, it says in our business paper on page 41, a floodboard of 0.5 metres above the designed flood level is the adopted industry standard for residential development as detailed in the Flood Risk Management Manual of 2023. This is not controversial. It's not, it's not, it's just the best practice of what you do. It's got nothing to do with the Minns government and how they're dealing with anything.

It's got to do with our responsibilities. We have the responsibility and the power to make this decision to add that to our flood planning level now. And I can't say it enough. We must do this. We must do at least this. As I said before, we don't think we've gone far enough, but this is the least we can do. And I wish everybody would stop talking about, you know, how certain floods do certain things, certain, you know, other floods do this, that and the other. If you go onto the SES website and their Facebook pages, all of their media, what they will say is the reality of flooding now is that you can't rely on past experience. I think we all have to just underline that, pack it away somewhere in your mind, and just remember that going back and saying, oh, well, that won't happen because it's not— A high velocity area, da da da da da, means nothing.

We can't think like that anymore. We have to move on. We have to take the best possible decisions that we can make. And I think it is really irresponsible if you vote against adding this freeboard to our existing planning level. That's it. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

We have an amendment which is on your tablet,

That Councillor adopt the 0.5, and that relevant planning policies be reflected. For those in favour of the amendment, raise your hand. Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Isa Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Kotlash. Those against? Councillor Zurek, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Vogel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. The amendment is lost.

The motion.

Can we get the motion on the screen?

Those in favour? Councillor Durey, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Redden, Councillor Sheather. Those against? Councillor Vrogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan and Councillor Kotlash. The motion is carried.

The next item, Councillors, probably most of it's been said, but it's 10.3.4. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'll move the

Recommendation in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. Second, Councillor Kotlash. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Of course, like all of us, we've waited a while for this flood study from the McDonald Valley catchment. This flood study has been done in conjunction with the guidelines of the New South Wales Flood Risk Management Manual, which we know we are obliged to act in accordance with. I'd like to thank the community for their input. It's been very valuable and clearly points out the deficiencies in mitigation measures , some of which can easily and hopefully will be rectified or implemented, particularly around ensuring that the river gauges are working and that we can do whichever ones of those things. They may seem reasonably small, but in a community that is often cut off and isolated and which is reliant on ferry crossings to get out of there in many cases and has the issues around isolation and poor telecommunication, that is— it is very good to see this study.

I support the recommendations within it. I think it's been a very comprehensive technical investigation, which has the objective to inform the management of flood risk in a very unique, may I say, catchment area, the McDonald Valley. Well, it assists Council planning for the future development and to provide information to the SES for emergency management planning. I think I do support the recommendation within of adopting a one in 200, especially in the Colo and Macdonald rivers, which will improve resilience for that existing and future communities. And, you know, that would be a really valuable improvement down there.

We do, we have received some legal advice, which I understand has legal professional privilege around it, and as such is confidential in a sense. However, the principles that apply to the various good faith exemptions which exist in the New South Wales Local Government Act clearly indicate that we must implement in accordance with the principles in the relevant manuals. And in this case, the relevant manual is the New South Wales Floodplain Development Manual. It may have a new name now, I think, since 2023, but the Flood Risk Management Manual, I think it's called. So if we comply with those principles, then we act in good faith. If we don't, then we're not. So we know that setting flood, implementing recommendations from flood studies falls within that gambit.

I think that we should think really carefully about not adopting what the experts are recommending to us. I think it's incredibly important that we implement what we are being told. And I note that the Floodplain Committee had wanted to implement a one in 100, but I think in this case we should go with what the recommendation of the experts is. Previously we— hang on, it's about— sorry, I've got a lot of notes everywhere. Ah yes, the clause 5.22, I think that is still being recommended not to be adopted at this stage, but I just wanted to clarify that is a clause which can be opted into at any point, isn't it?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, that is, yep.

Okay, so that could still be done in the future if that was deemed necessary.

I'm not quite sure how an advisory committee is advising against expert opinion. I do find that problematic, and I think that there is an absence in the minutes from the floodplain committee of what the agencies in that meeting actually said about the situation, as they're not voting members, although I don't know who voted because it wasn't recorded like that. I think I'm going to listen to what people say around this, but what I would just say [is] that in this era of changing land use patterns and changing climatic conditions, we do have change flooding. Mr Mayor, you were saying it was cyclic before, and of course there are cycles within patterns, but there's overwhelming evidence that things have shifted.

We've had a shifting point, and we've moved into an era where those cycles may no longer be relevant, and they certainly cannot be relied upon when we're managing risk in a floodplain. We can't expose our residents to greater risk, and when we're told we must make changes, then that's probably what we should do. We just need to acknowledge that we have had many changes with the land use in this area that has meant that we're not having water absorbed in the same way that we used to, and I'll leave it there because I will speak again. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I was just clarifying with the staff, in relation — it was a recommendation of the staff in relation to 5.2.2, the special flood considerations, but it can be addressed at a later time if that's required anyway. But at this stage, it wasn't the flood committee necessarily that had that put there.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Creed.

Just a question through you, Mr Mayor. Given the last item that we moved to defer the freeboard of 0.5%, can someone just answer me a question with the line on page 50 recommends a flood planning level of 0.5% AEP, 1 in 200 AEP plus 0.5 metre freeboard to ensure a robust level of protection into the future, given the flood range extent and depths of flooding and climate risk. Given what we just passed, how does that affect this?

Sorry, I misposed that, Councillor.

So given what it says in here and what we just passed in the previous item, and that we didn't adopt that, but then in this particular section it's got the recommends a flood planning level of 0.5% AEP, 1 in 200 AEP plus 0.5 metre freeboard to ensure a robust level of protection into the future, given the flood range extent and depths of flooding and the climate risk. How is that affected given that we've just deferred — we didn't say yes or no to the previous item, we've just deferred it, contrary to what was said. How does that affect this particular item now? Does that have an effect on it? I just don't want us having two separate. Yep. Because if it's going to be two separate, then I'll move an amendment.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So obviously, with respect to the previous item, that applied across the entire local government area. This study applies to the catchments mentioned within the study itself, okay? So whilst it's open to have two separate matters, I'm imagining that that could be articulated in the flood policy. For, I guess, if you're, as you've indicated, you're after one consistent approach, the appropriate amendment there would be to remove the freeboard requirement out of this work.

Sorry, can I just clarify that, Mr Mayor? Yes Ask for some clarity. If I've heard you correctly, we can take that plus freeboard out, or we can leave it in for these catchments. Is that what you were saying?

I mean, there is no— I'll ask you a more straightforward question. It's not a requirement to have the same freeboard for the whole catchment, for the whole LGA, when we have different catchments that have different characteristics. That really wasn't an easier question, was it? No, I'll grant you that was harder.

We've got the gist of it, Councillor.

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor, and I have conferred with my in-house expert, that yes, in fact, because the freeboard sits within a flood policy, it is open to Council as to have differing freeboard arrangements for different catchments. So hence, the prelude commentary from Councillor Creed was about being uncomfortable having two separate arrangements. So hence my comment that it is open to Council to have that.

Further discussion?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, speaking in favour of the recommendation, I think we should leave the Freeboard in because it makes sense. It's been studied. It's laid out here. It's benefits. And I think that in these sorts of decisions, I think if we're going to make statements about whether something's appropriate, inappropriate, you know, not a good idea or whatever, and you go against expert opinion, I think we really need to have some reasons why we wouldn't have that freeboard in this particular catchment, because from reading all of this stuff, it's obvious that these catchments are different from the Hawkesbury-Nepean. They're just, they're just, you know, and hence why we had to have these separate studies. So unless somebody can come up with a really good idea why we would take it out, I think we should leave it in.

I'll also comment on some of the things, the so-called advice that came from our floodplain committee. I, well , the same thing applies to our floodplain committee. If they're going to recommend something that's different from all of the stuff that they have been briefed on and all of the reports that they have received and noted. I have to give reasons, and I could not find any reasons given in their minutes. I know that's a different item on our business paper. But just as a matter of concern, can we get somebody from that committee to just give reasons why they recommended that that not be adopted?

The

Recommendations of the experts and from the expert reports in the floodplain management committee, it says on page—I don't know what page it's on.

Sorry.

I can give you an answer to that,

Councillor

Yeah,

Sorry, it's here somewhere.

It was moved by someone that it be incorporated together for council's discussion and was supported by the members.

Yeah, and my point is, that's all well and good, and that's terrific, but why? I mean, they're supposed to be there to give us frank and fearless advice. What's the advice?

It was a view of the committee that come before council to discuss the matter, that it was important enough to come here.

But what's the basis of their decision? What were they thinking

Councillor Wheeler, would you like to speak on the matter?

I'd be delighted, Mr Mayor, because I took very good notes, and what Councillor Kotlash has highlighted here is an inconsistency between the terms of reference of the floodplain committee and the terms of reference that the heritage committee is subject to. The heritage committee is recorded

And you can

Yes, I'm getting

To that. I'll take it up with you later.

So the question, things that were raised were: why should Hawkesbury be the first to change? It doesn't affect new development much—sorry, it'll affect new development, but not much—and existing residents. Sorry, there are not much new development, and there are lots of existing residents, lots of existing properties. The regional flood study wasn't supportive. Preliminary guidance around—so there was comments about climate change, and climate change being based on historical levels, and people not viewing the information about climate change as being. Either relevant or useful. There were discussions about rainfall intensity, frequency and duration. There was disbelief at some of the modelling.

There was discussions around low versus high velocity areas and how they could have different flood planning levels, that half a metre provided some protection, but we needed the state government to override the decision, and that the manual recommends that floodplains are reviewed every five years, so we could put it off till then , and that we should be just getting some information, that the state should give us a disaster action plan, and we could wait until then. There was also advice given from

The committee representative from the Department of Climate Change, Energy and Water, which was at odds to all of these discussions, who emphasised the issues with climate change, with council's responsibilities, and the urgent need to raise the flood planning level.

Thank you, councillor. Is there other words that wasn't much different to the debate around this room?

Council, questions, please. Question. Well, I apologise for asking it though, because I'm getting older and my memory is starting to lapse a tad on occasions. This is one of them. What's the actual metre height for the 1 in 100, 1 in 200 AEP, please, in metres? whereabouts, sorry? Flood planning level. This is the— Page 55, draft floodplain management recommends flood planning level of 0.5 AEP, 1 in 200 AEP.

We're about—

Page 55.

Yeah, but where are you referring to that?

Well, it's risk management considerations.

What am I missing something here, or what? Yeah,

So the level depends on the location of where we're talking about. So the one in 100, sorry, but downstream of Goricks Creek is 20.2 metres. At St Albans, it's 15.86 metres. At Wrights Creek, it's 11.55 metres, and then Lower Macdonald is 5.16 metres. So it depends where you are in the catchment. No,

Thank you.

Have I spoken, Mr Mayor? Sorry, I'll get you a bit— No

You haven't spoken on this matter. You've asked a question.

Sorry, I know I've spoken, but I meant— Yep. Since we've had a few

Sorry, Councillor, you did speak on it. You're second speaker. Yep

Councillors, just taking on board some of the comments from Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'm not proposing to support this, as I haven't with the others, but with the information that come back from the residents there, and they've got concerns about raising the levels, of course, as everyone has. But some of the information that come out of there, because that communication and consultation with the staff about it was really good. We did do a mail-out down there to all the residents, which was, the response was excellent. But there's a couple of things of concerns that's been brought to my attention after this. The slips and the works that we're doing at the bridge, which is called

Thomas James. Don't get old. The Thomas James Bridge, we're referring to them as the word floodings, they're landslips that's caused by rainfall. Hardly any of those slips, if any, were caused directly from flooding. And that creates a view, I guess, in the community that the water got that high. So there's little things that come out of this that will have a big impact. They spoke about things that, in relation to resilience in the valley, even more dredging up some of them. That was a first for me. They usually want to lynch people up there when you talk about dredging, but it was discussed along with quite a few things. So I attended the community meeting up there, and it was extremely good, and there was no hostility about people had different views or the likes.

It was a good exercise, and some good things have come out of it. And those things, irrespective of what happens here tonight, will be addressed in other ways within other structures with some of the resilience stuff that, again, Councillor Lyons spoke and spoke of. Okay. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to raise a couple of things that haven't been discussed so far that came up in this study, and also in the submissions. One of them is the matter of the St Albans fire shed, which is well and truly below flood level. And I think we would all agree that the cost of fixing that is outside Council's reach at this point. But the other issue that came up strongly is communications, something that is not within Council's remit to fix. What I'd propose is that we, and I know we attempted to do this with the previous Council, and I think a variety of natural disasters and COVID all got in the road, could we make another attempt to arrange a dinner discussion with both our state and federal MPs to bring up issues like this?

If we're going to shift that fire shed, and I think, you know, we need to have that as a medium-term project at the very least, we're going to need land, which means we're going to need money for land because we don't have anything that's suitable, and we're going to need money to build, and they're going to require a kick-in from either or both the state and federal government. And fixing the communications issues in the valley, as far as is possible, is also going to require the federal government to do more. The other things that are raised here are around monitoring flood levels, which is a shared responsibility between the Bureau of Meteorology and the SES, and again that requires— Other tiers of government to get involved.

If we could set up a discussion, I know we've got plenty of other issues that we want to discuss with our federal and state members. So instead of one of our perhaps council or workshop evenings, if we had, if we could get some sort of round table, they're probably want more than our delivered pizzas, but if we can have some sort of meal and discussion with them, I think that would be useful. Thanks. Yeah

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. What you're asking is probably near impossible to get them together at the same time. But in saying that, the general manager and myself, there's a meeting organised with the both of them, but they're both free from parliament. We can certainly put that on the agenda and discuss the opportunity to maybe meet with councillors in some sort of format to discuss some of the issues that you may have. Thank you.

Am I allowed to ask another question? You

Are.

I think one of our councillors may have said that might be in confidence, but the advice was sought that advice concludes that council may be liable to rejects if we reject the recommendation. Nothing's been elaborated on by whom has said that. Are you allowed to disclose it or not?

I'd certainly give you an indication who might be a bit cross about it.

The advice subject to legal professional privilege was provided by in-house counsel. Yeah. Okay

Thank you. But if there was an email, I was told it might have been an email, went around and a question was asked of that, and I didn't get it anyway, so I apologise.

Was the question, Councillor, who did that, or who would make Council responsible?

Another question, Councillor?

Not at the moment, thank you.

Councillor Ryan. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I've got a couple of people from down at St Albans have spoken to me, contacted me, and they do have some concerns around their historical village and the impact of these raising these levels on there. But the one that did concern me, that the Macdonald Valley wasn't included in the BOM alert monitoring. What can we really do about that? Now, that's unbelievable in this day and age, that a place that is in such threat is not under that. I can't believe that. I'm gobsmacked. And is there some way we can put pressure on the government or whoever to get this addressed? Because there'll be people up there, like they say here, therefore the SES does not provide specialist flood alerts.

That's basic safety for our people. We have to have that. The St Albans fire shed, well, yeah, it was built in the wrong place to start with, and we really have to address that because it is a communications base. It is a base for everything that we do there. It might be a fire shed, but it is really a disaster centre, and I think calling it a fire shed really probably gives it the wrong flavour. But I'm sorry, I've got to go on this matter. I've got to then, I've got to keep with the experts. If the experts are giving me advice and I go against that advice, I don't think I'm a smart man, and I do consider that we are here for our wisdom and we should be looking at this wisdom. Thank you.

Councillor, what I'll do, there's a document that indicates the roles and responsibility of different authorities, including Council, in relation to flooding in the Hawkesbury. I'll make sure you'll get a copy of it so that particular aspects, if we make requests to Council, we can refer to them. So I'll make sure all councillors get them, get that. It's a previous adoptable policy of Council document.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for that input. I do hope we can proceed with getting some of those measures, particularly some advocacy around the fire shed and certainly the inclusion in the BOM's warning system, or I can't remember what it was called. Stephen Brown had alerted us to some of those things. I hope this will be supported. We've had advice that we may be liable if we reject or fail to implement or adopt the recommendations of the study, unless we can establish the decision to reject it was made in good faith. That is, in reliance of alternate sound expert evidence supporting not adopting it. Where is that evidence and where is that advice? It's not here to be seen, and I doubt it exists.

I'll not expose our community to any increased danger when the expert opinion is that we should adopt a revised flood planning level. There's been valid points from the community. They have acquired knowledge through their experiences in the valley, and they've worked really well to build their resilience up. But nevertheless, more is required, and we must act on the things that they've told us. I'm a little bit concerned that there really is quite a limited understanding around flood issues within this chamber, and it may be something that we probably, I think Councillor Wheeler was alluding to having more sort of sit around talking about it, but it is something we probably should do a bit more about, given the importance of it and how many decisions we are responsible for making around it.

Of course, when flooding occurs, the public sector subsidises the relief and recovery, so as well as safety aspects, we should be managing the risks around damages. Having experts recommend an altered flood planning level is essentially advising us of a foreseeable risk. That increased risk requires us to take action because we know about it, to minimise that risk. Part of that, in fact the major part of that, would be to implement the recommendations to lift the flood planning levels. That way, we would be acting in accordance with the floodplain development manual, which we are compelled to do, to show that we act in good faith. By not doing so, we do not act in good faith, and in that case, we could be liable.

So I hope this will be supported, and I hope that when we resume to look at the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood study, that we also act in accordance with the expert advice. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion before you, Councillors, in the business paper on page... On page 46 , those in favour?

Councillor Brogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lonebuck, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Cotlach, Councillor Durek,

Councillor McMarn, Creed, Vigel and Councillor Reardon. Those against?

Councillor Sheather. The motion's carried. Did I not call out Councillor Cotlach again?

The motion is carried. Did I not call that Councillor Cartlidge again?

Yeah, thank you.

The motion is carried, Councillors.

Councillor 10.4.1 is the next item.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion in the business paper, but I have a question and a potential addition to that motion.

Do we have a seconder?

I'll second

Thanks, Councillor Lyonsbucken. So

I'll

Start with the question, if that works the best. I just wondered, there's no mention in the policy—the borrowing framework is solid, and so are the core objectives—but there's no mention in here around intergenerational equity. I wonder if we could include a clause that intergenerational equity be considered. There are things that go a bit of a way towards that around the term of the loan will not exceed the expected economic life of the asset being funded.

Is there a particular area that you're looking at?

Well, I think it fits under the borrowing framework, and my preferred inclusion would be that Council consider the principle of intergenerational equity before — Or with before borrowing, or when borrowing. It's one of those—I know we discussed it at our strategy weekend with the previous Chief Financial Officer. It's one of those principles that means that we don't heap debt onto future generations. Similarly, we don't make sure that future generations have grand infrastructure that current generations pay for, and vice versa, that current generations don't have great infrastructure that future generations can't afford the payment for. And I think it fits well into this policy too . I see that the current policy meets all the legislative requirements.

It sets down who we can borrow from, only from Australia in Australian dollars. Strategic objectives of Council are met, long-term financial plans and things. But nowhere is there a mention of intergenerational equity when we look at borrowing, apart from that one clause where we talk about how

If we borrow for something, that the borrowings don't outlast the term, the life of the asset. So if I could get some advice on some potential wording that would be helpful. Otherwise you'll have to put up with me making something up.

Mr Mayor, can I— Yes, Councillor. —have

A

Follow-up?

As long as you don't need something from the General Manager at the moment; she's busy.

No, no, I just thought I'd keep the — I agree about the intergenerational equity . But one of the things that struck me when I read this is that when we had the accident at Rising Main C, that was never going to be able to be covered by, you know. And when you said that, I thought, yeah, I know, but. So in that framework, have intergenerational equity considered, you know, whenever possible? Because with Rising Main C, we were never going to.

We would cancel our policy if we did that

Can I just jump in and say I think we've got a solution in that if you look at the proposed policy, there's a— the general manager has suggested there's a clause that says that— sorry, and I'll just find the clause.

Third point. Yeah. So the third point under borrowing framework: all borrowings must be considered within the context of the strategic objectives of Council, its long-term— turn the and into a comma— its long-term financial plan, and the principles of intergenerational equity. So it doesn't sit as a separate thing. The strategic objectives and the long-term financial plan sit in there and, you know, perhaps have precedence, but it's still a consideration

Is there wording that you're proposing to put in there, Councillor, or— Yes,

The general manager has the words. Obviously

That, if you can respond, investigation. If you'd like to respond to what's going on. Institutions depending on their, you know. But you're

Welcome to suggest

Thank you, Councillors.

Through you, Mr Mayor, having regard to Councillor Wheeler's amendment, we would see no particular issue with that amendment. It's in many ways something that Council would turn its mind to always, I would think, in taking out loan borrowings, so that's no problem. It's sort of enshrining it in that policy context.

Councillor Wheeler, are you happy that the general manager will add that wording, or did you want to put— No,

I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor.

I've got a different screen than you've got.

Okay. Any further discussion on that?

As the Councillor's got it on this screen at the moment . Okay . Would you like

To amend your— Motion to

Incorporate that,

Councillor?

Sorry, yes, please.

And this Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you're happy with that?

Can I make a suggestion?

Remind me, maybe staff can remind me whether we have a policy relating to the triple bottom line. I don't know what the appropriate acronym is; it's escaping me at the moment, but the ethical, social. We might have it in our procurement. We might specifically seek to divest in our

Investment

Policy. Well, I mean, acquiring a debt is a gesture of trust in a particular lender. Could we insert, where we're adding a clause, all borrowings must be considered within the context of the strategic objectives of Council, its long-term financial plan, the principles of intergenerational equity and Council's triple bottom line, or an appropriate acronym?

Or is that covered by Council's strategic objectives?

It is, because in the CSS.

Yep. Okay . Well, so long as at the point of application, staff remember that strategic objective of Council means that we're not investing in polluters and arms traders and such.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. I think the important word there is consider. I think we need to turn our mind to that consideration in the context of what might be a significant financial difference, potentially, if, for example, we were to say we're not going to take a loan out with a particular bank because they might be loaning money or funding some investments that we perhaps, that aren't in that ESG bracket. So I would be loath for us to bind ourselves in without seeking further advice on what, for example, which banks that may preclude our investments from, for example. So I think as long as we've got that word consider there, then that's what we'll do.

Through you, Mr Mayor. It sounds to me as though if Council has a stated policy, is that we can consider that policy unless it's inconvenient, in which case we can ignore it. I'll just leave the comment hanging there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussions? Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Not necessarily, Mr Mayor.

The motion is on your tablet, Councillors. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Briden, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Cree, Councillor Cottrell, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Irons, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Brogno, Councillor Sheehan, Councillor Dogramachi is absent.

The next item is 11.1.1.

Councillor Buckett, Councillor Wheeler.

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

Thank you.

Councillor Veigel.

Discussion?

Look, we've discussed, I think, the goings on of the floodplain risk management committee.

The next item is 11.1.1

Councillor Wheeler.

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

Thank you.

Councillor Veigel.

Discussion?

Look, we've discussed, I think, the goings-on of the Floodplain Risk Management Committee at length already. The committee has asked also for the legal advice provided to Council, and it will be interesting to see what discussion ensues as a result of that. One of the things that I mentioned in a previous item, there's an inconsistency between the Floodplain Management Committee and the Heritage Advisory Committee, in that the Heritage Advisory Committee is recorded, filmed and recorded, and the Floodplain Committee is not. I think those two terms of reference need to be brought into line. It does affect the discussion that's had, I think, but what it also does is affect Councillors' ability to understand what's happened in that meeting.

So I think it's unreasonable to expect one group of committee members to be subject to the scrutiny of what is effectively a public meeting and another group not to. Both groups are about to receive some governance training, which I think will also be useful.

One of the things that the Floodplain Committee asked for was a briefing on the state government's disaster... Action plan. If we could arrange that for both councillors and the floodplain committee as soon as possible, I think that would be really helpful, just so that we know where it's up to and what the various responsibilities are within that. People will have a better idea of what's going on. I think also the minutes, if we're going to rely on the advice from that committee, the minutes need to be more fulsome. So we need to have, given that it's an advisory committee, we need to have more information about not just the resolutions, but what discussion has taken place in that committee meeting.

I know that that's an additional burden on staff, but in the absence of a recording, it's really essential that councillors receive that information so that councillors who are not present can understand what's been said, what advice has been given, and by whom. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I'll get the staff to address that. In relation to the briefing , the staff are looking into it. When a date becomes available, we'll email out to all the councillors to know exactly when and how that's happening. Thank you.

Councillor [unclear].

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had some similar questions to what Councillor Wheeler just raised. Can I know who voted on these recommendations and amendments? Who are the voting members in that committee? And did anyone from an agency vote on that? There's no record of who voted, so I don't know.

All the committees listed in the front of the business paper, there are agencies that attend, probably three or four. I wanted to know

Who the voting members were and

Whether anyone

Who was not a voting member actually voted.

It's only the state representatives don't vote on the matter. They're asked and they're in the debate and the like, but it's only the members that are listed in the front of that business paper that vote. Okay,

Thank you. It's not recorded who voted, that's all, and I was just checking. So when we see a recommendation of the committee, as Councillor Wheeler alluded to, we don't know what expert opinion from the agencies who are present, including people like Kevin Jones from the SES, and if Stephen Yeo and people are there, we don't know what expert opinion may have been raised contributing to support the recommendations in something like a flood study. So previously we used to include what discussion came up, even if it wasn't part of a resolution. So we would say such and such from Department of Water raised something. It would be very good to know that because, as has also been raised, there isn't a broadcast of it, so we can't see how the voting took place.

Given it's only an advisory committee, it's important to know what whole discussion went on, not just one little bit to come out of it. So if we're ignoring the flood experts who did the modelling and study, it would be extremely questionable to put any weight on the opinion of people that don't have qualifications in that area when we've got an alternate point of view, given that we should only be rejecting the expert opinion if we have justifiable alternative expert opinion. And I don't think that that's what that opinion necessarily is. In terms of what the committee also discussed, I agree on any mitigating measures that are readily achievable should be implemented, and of course we've already touched on the advocacy around the relocation of RFS sheds under the 1 in 100.

I also think that when we're looking at these things, when people are looking in there, we should be applying the precautionary principle around this type of decision because it's embedded in the floodplain development manual. I didn't mention that before, but it's another really important aspect, as well as legal obligations that we should be looking to when we're making decisions. A further question: was the meeting of the committee held on the 16th of July, and if so, what was the outcome of the investigation around flooding at Railway North Road?

Nothing's happened as yet apart from the reporting of that, and the meeting was not called that day.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I'll just make a comment. In relation to the committees that we have, we call for community consultation and the like, something that I support strongly. And the voice in the case that— Councillor Lyons-Buckett spoke of. I chair that meeting, so if the experts need to speak more than once, they're allowed to. And so are some of the other speakers that speak. It's fairly robust and the like. If we're going to ask community people to be on committees and then only take notice of professionals , then what are we asking them for?

Mr Mayor, could I just clarify that? Yes, you can. That wasn't my intent. It was that if there— that I didn't consider it an alternative to expert opinion. Of course, I'm very ready to accept what their opinion is

As

Part of the consideration.

Thank you, Councillors. Yeah, that's only— well, I'm glad that's clarified because it's concerning to me. The professional opinion's fine, and it's as fine as local information is. And the result is, in most cases, and as the chair, I've said to the committee, and all the time there's robust debate there, but if something's close to being that would seem as these flood levels are and the like, my view was that it

Go to Council so that the matters can be discussed here and should be brought forward, not that there's an opportunity to cut it off and throw it out. So the comments that Councillor Lyons-Buckett made in relation to how the meeting's conducted, I'll discuss that with the staff and see how we go. Council will be informed.

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to touch on Councillor Wheeler's earlier point, can I just ask two questions through you, because I only just found out this evening that you could actually see the Heritage Committee, their meetings. Is there a reason why the two of them aren't, like, filmed? And secondly, to change that, is that a simple staff procedure or would we have to bring up a notice of motion to change the terms of reference? Sorry, just so I understand

Yeah, thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. The Floodplain Management Committee was originally a subcommittee of the Emergency Management Committee, and it was just simply a different practice when it was changed from a subcommittee to be a standalone committee that it wasn't live streamed. As I understand it, we can make a constitutional change to that committee. Staff have the delegation to do so and could choose to do so. Okay

Thank you. Councillors, just in relation to that, we had discussed the question that you asked, Councillor Creed. The people that represent the different authorities speak very openly because it's not public. There's some things that they can't speak about. Their own confidentiality doesn't allow that. But in saying that— They would speak openly about the matters before them, which may not be interpreted if it was to go public from that. So, the last floodplain meeting, I said it was open to councillors, to invite councillors to listen in any time they can. I would offer the same again, rather than head down the track, that may restrict the information that could be available to councillors in such a meeting. So I'd ask you to think about that. No

That's fine. I

Was just asking what

The actual procedure is. What's the difference? That's all

Thank you. Sorry, and apologies through you, Mr Mayor. Look, I've actually received advice from the governance team that it would actually require a resolution of council. Sorry, no, no, apologies. We are actually providing some induction sessions to those committees, and also, I guess, to have a discussion with committees in terms of live streaming or recording or otherwise. And if certainly there is an appetite from councillors, and also the committee members, to have that change in the constitution, we would make the amendment and report it back to council for consideration.

Thank you. Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

One, I was just going to bring up the idea of the recording of the minutes of the meetings as well. I think that'd be really useful because really what the floodplain management committee are dealing with are very, very important issues, and they're there to provide us with advice and a perspective.

It'd be really, really helpful if it was recorded. Also, I'm not that happy with these minutes. I don't think they are, I don't think they are sufficiently detailed, you know, with regard to the gravity of the issues that are being discussed. You know, this is sort of, this is, these highly important areas. And to just say that somebody just, you know, put up an amendment that would just halve a planning level is really quite confronting in a committee situation. In

All my working life, if I made a comment or made some recommendation and didn't have any backup for it, I mean, I just don't understand how people

Who aren't experts flip the advice that we get from people who are experts. I mean, I think there has to be, we have to demand a level of respect for professional advice. That's, we alluded to this before. We take expert advice in good faith, and rightly so, because people that are in this field. cover so much ground that we wouldn't have a clue about. I mean , I get, I just get a little bit anxious when I hear people say that they understand everything about flooding. They know it. They've been there, done that for years. That is a really worrying position to take , and I think we've just got to stop relying on our perceptions. It's part of the mix. I get all that. But it frightens me that we have minutes from a committee that just completely changes a really important aspect of our planning.

I mean, we have all sorts of, you know, controls around who makes planning decisions, and it seems that these recommendations can be made without any supporting reasons . As Councillor Lyons Buckett said , I am prepared to take people's opinions on , but I'm not prepared to take those opinions as expert recommendations and advice. And there's a difference to it. And it's not—I'm not disparaging anybody's right to be in that committee and to have the opportunity to express their views. That's the nature of that committee process. That's what we've—well, I didn't, because I didn't think that was a good idea at the time, and it's probably coming out that it wasn't. But anyway, that's the process that we have.

But we really have to tighten up when we're talking about things that have been proven to be correct or are based on

Expert advice, thorough modelling. You know, we have lots and lots of information , and I mean, it's a bit tragic to say, but the eight floods that we've had in the last few years have given us a wealth of information because every time we have a flood, we learn something new, and we are able to sort of match that with what we're learning about climate change and how things are getting, how our atmosphere is changing and how that — manifest itself in floods. So, you know, I think we have to revisit what we're asking people on this committee to do.

The other thing I wanted to say is, Councillor Wheeler said before, and I think, I don't know whether it was,

It had been amended that we ask the state government to give us a briefing, and this was what the committee wanted, the Floodplain Committee wanted. They wanted a briefing on the disaster adaptation plan. Having confirmed that

The planning approach, the land use planning approach will be partitioned from that, can we also get the people from the whatever that's called now to also come? Because these things we're making, these decisions we are making are planning. That's the land use planning. It's, you know, it might not come under that other umbrella. I just need this committee and us, for that matter, to be informed. That would be great. Thank you.

Councillor, which item are you referring to that the information needs clarification or isn't quite right? Well

No, I didn't say it wasn't quite right. I said when a committee makes a decision—

You're referring to a particular item? Yeah

Hang on.

In the actual minutes of the committee.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

In item, hang about and I'll get that. No, it was 3.1.2.

Yep.

And it was that the Floodplain Management Committee and the recommendation that I think the staff included in the business papers for this committee was that they note the outcome of the community engagement. They consider matters outlined in the report, okay? And three, they recommend that Council adopt the draft McDonald River study and plan, which is really what we were doing in the item we spoke of before. That was moved and seconded, and then there was an amendment put in, and that amendment was to not consider the 1 in 200 level plus freeboard.

The amendment was that it was the 1 in 100 level plus freeboard. That is a big, big call for a committee to make, full stop It's a big call for a committee to make without any recording in the minutes, like they can do that. That's fine. They can say, you know, let's not have a planning level . But they have to say why that is. And if it's political, that's great.

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. We need to

Know that it's political.

Yeah. Just when it does come on page 77 and 78 when those matters come before Council, they're written up there, and the recommendation is note that the committee, it's not endorsed. And the like, things that are endorsed, and indeed there's some in the next item with the Heritage Committee, it's got endorsed by Council. The ones that are noted, I would suggest if councillors don't read, that you read well, because it's noted for a reason. It's recommended, in other words, by the staff not to support that, and the like. So it's scrutinised by our staff , by both of these committees, both the minutes of the floodplain committee and the heritage committee. The matters that come to us go to the staff first, and it'll be recorded in the document whether or not the staff would support such a direction.

With respect, Mr Mayor, we have a committee that's presumably its purpose is to help us make these really tough decisions. What you've just described is , they , you have minutes, then the minutes go to the staff, and the staff work out what we hear. Is

That what I

Heard?

No, what I'm suggesting, Councillor, is that if there's stuff there that the staff do not support, that it's recorded within the documents prior, and that it's for information for us to make a decision on, and that's what's before us tonight.

Okay. No, sorry, I thought you were saying something else. My point was, though , whatever decision that the committee make, that it's backed up and it's minuted. That's it. Yep.

Okay. And that's taken on board, Councillor. Yeah, and that backup

Because this recommendation was made by experts, we have to—and look, I think Councillor Lyons-Buckett said this before—this is a fundamental

Need for us as a council to

Have good decision-making processes, and we need to know why that committee decided to recommend that

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Zembrogner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I find myself in a surprising place in feeling the need to say this. My worthy colleague has done this on a couple of occasions, expressed an allergy for a risk of hearing an opinion that she doesn't agree with.

Point of order, are you talking—? Sorry

I don't know who you're talking about.

If there was any—I'll rephrase. I'll be more circumspect. If there was a councillor around this table— Councillor Zembrogner. Councillor

Scott, I suggest

I was just wondering whether Councillor Zemprogner was talking about me. Felt like it .

I've barely built a head of steam. Is there

A point of order,

Councillor

After I heard allergy or allergy— Councillor,

Is there a point of order?

Thank you. Councillor Zembrogner. Thank you. Look, these are advisory committees, and we're paid the big bucks even if it means that— Sometimes we get an opinion from an advisory committee that isn't exactly consonant with policy or the views of staff. The last time I checked in on the floodplain committee, or at least it was the case many years ago when we had a number of voluntary committees where people donated their time, they were there in the room because they had a passion for this. Normally they had huge institutional memory and a chest full of good sense. And if they said something that was at variance with another view, we're paid good money to divine from those alternative points of view.

I wish sometimes that there was a greater diversity of points of view because we're encouraged to make weighted decisions and with the greatest respect to the staff, I like to hear contrasting views. If we're getting contrasting views from an advisory committee, may a thousand flowers bloom . That's what I wanted to say.

Could I say my point of misrepresentation, please, Mr Mayor?

Yes, Councillor.

Councillor Zamprogno misrepresented what I said. He inferred that I didn't want other points of view. What I actually said was that if we have a committee that makes big decisions, I want to know why they had that point of view. That is not saying I don't want to hear people's diverse views .

You

Misrepresented

Me. Okay, Councillor. Your point of order is taken. I'm sure Councillor Zamprogno meant no offence.

Sorry

Councillors, we won't be debating around the room.

Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. We've gone into the weeds a bit, I think, but there are a few points that I think need to be brought back to the forefront. Councillor Kotlash is correct in that this is an advisory. The Floodplain Management Committee is functioning in the capacity of an advisory committee, and in fact many councils have very strong roles for their floodplain risk management committees. If you look up the terms of reference of the Floodplain Management Committee, it clearly states that one of the objectives, there are five, is to assist Hawkesbury City Council in the review, development and implementation of one or more floodplain risk management studies and floodplain risk management plans for the Hawkesbury region in accordance with the New South Wales Floodplain Development Manual.

Now that is a pretty weighty role, and I think it's reasonable to expect that when that advice comes to this council, and there are other roles for the committee, including to provide broader community, to facilitate broader community consultation, to assist in providing input into known flood behaviour, to inform on education and public awareness,

That very— Specific advice is only one of the objectives, and there is an authority piece as well to recommend to council the review, development and adoption of one or more floodplain risk management studies or floodplain risk management plans. This is a weighty role, and if councillors are to be expected to take on the advice that comes from that committee, Councillor Kotlash is correct in that we need to know where those pieces of advice are coming from and what that advice actually is beyond a simple recommendation at the bottom of the discussion. That is not sufficient. The difference between this committee and the Heritage Committee and the minutes of the Heritage Committee is that if I want to know how the Heritage Committee arrived at an opinion or a resolution, I can watch the webcast.

I can't do that with the Floodplain Management Committee. It's the reason why, when I was not a member of the Floodplain Management Committee, I attended the meetings online, not as a participant but as an observer. Not everybody has the time to do and the opportunity to do that, however, which means that if we're not going to film those meetings, then we need to have more fulsome minutes. Filming the meetings isn't necessarily the best option. It has fundamentally changed the discussion that is had by the Heritage Committee, and frankly not for the better. It's stymies discussion. It makes people uncomfortable about giving their opinion. It makes professional people even more uncomfortable because they feel that while they're acting in a community advisory position, they will be pressured professionally to stand behind that opinion, and it is quite difficult for people to sit in this chamber, in the case of the Heritage Committee, and Add adhere to a tighter code of meeting practice that seems to just be imposed by the fact that they're in here and the camera is on.

So I don't know that that's the solution, but the alternative is that there has to be much more fulsome minutes. We used to receive those, and I think it would be really useful for us to go back to that. I also concur with Councillor Kotlash that there is a difference between expert opinion and anecdote or lived experience. That's not to say that lived experience is not valuable or that it is less worthy, but it's different. You have three scientists sitting around this table. Our idea of expert opinion with data and references that sit behind it is vastly different to the value of anecdote and lived experience. They are just fundamentally, for three of us in this space, not the same thing, and they never will be.

And we ask, I think all the three of us would ask that you respect that that is where our decision-making comes from. The other thing that was made clear in the committee meeting that is not reflected in these minutes is that expert members of the committee stated that if we were to deviate from Council's floodplain risk studies or risk plans, we needed justifying reasons, and we have not given any of those. The other thing that I think we probably should look at if we're doing this again, if we're playing this game again, it would have been really helpful, I think, to discuss these minutes before we discussed the previous two flood-related items, because we feel a bit like the discussion has gone all over the place.

If we'd started with the floodplain committee minutes and then moved on to those two items where we looked at flood levels, this might have been a more coherent discussion.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion's in the business paper. Those those in favour?

Against? Carried. Councillor Beaton, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lesbaker, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Brogdon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci is absent. Councillors, before we go on, it's not a full moon tonight. There's no moon. So we're getting way off the subjects that are in the business paper, and we need to pull it back a bit. We're not talking about—this is minutes of meetings that we're talking about here. If there's issues that come up within the minutes, there's processes to do that, either through questions, requests, or notice of motion. We need to stick to what we're supposed to be talking about. Thank you. The next item is 11.1.2, Heritage Committee. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in item 11.1.2, the Heritage Committee minutes, in—

Thank you. The next item is 11.1.2, Heritage Committee. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in item 11.1.2, the Heritage Committee minutes, in that my home is included in the heritage listings project, so I'll be leaving the meeting.

Thank you, Councillor. I need a— Councillor Durey. I'll move,

Thanks, Mr Mayor I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in the matter, in the Heritage Committee matter. I'm a client of a business that operates out of a building that's mentioned in the report, but I believe I'm far enough removed from whoever owns it so that I'll stay in the meeting. Thanks. Thank you,

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

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The second was Councillor

Kotlash.

Kotlash.

Mr Mayor, I thought there were some very important things done in that meeting and I'd just quickly run through a summary of what they were, so councillors are aware. The council, the committee, is asking council to endorse the following recommendations around making a submission to the draft New South Wales Heritage Strategy, and the Heritage Committee contributed quite a few points towards that. That council is to develop an Aboriginal cultural heritage interpretation strategy using grant funding from the Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan Caring for Country Strategy. That should be an exciting document to see unfold. That we adopt the following strategic priorities for heritage-related matters, and it was considered by the committee overall that the potential heritage items project remain the top priority, and that is a big volume of work that has been done around potential listings for various properties within the Hawkesbury to be listed as heritage items.

And also that we acknowledge the severe funding constraints which are limiting further heritage work. Additionally, to make representations to the state and federal members about the high number of heritage items in the Hawkesbury and ask them to give us some more money, given that people generally use our area as an example of being one of the oldest European heritage areas, and they need to give us some more funding to be able to identify, protect and conserve that. And to allow the Heritage Awards working group to continue working on the Heritage Awards. We also want the endorsement of the Local Heritage Assistance Fund, which was to maintain dollar-for-dollar funding up to $5,000, and to allow non-dollar-for-dollar funding in cases of financial hardship.

We looked at issues around the analysis of options for the Windsor Toll House, which was to investigate adaptive reuse options and to allocate funds for minimum maintenance to ensure it's safe and secure, and to explore how the site could be used as part of a wider active transport precinct and serve as a gateway to Windsor. It's a beautiful building that's sort of tucked away under the bridge there, and we need to do something with that, and to recommend it for State Heritage listing. And we also have an acknowledgement, and we had an acknowledgement and a condolence motion for the passing of the late Steve Rawlings, who was a very integral part of the Heritage Committee here for a long time.

He was also somebody who loved the environment and the Hawkesbury area. He was on my council ticket in 2012. He also loved his rugby, and he really loved his whiskey. So he's a great loss to the area, and the committee passed their condolences around him. So that was what happened at the Heritage Committee.

Thanks for that, Councillor. Councillor Creed Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions. Just a point out for the staff on page nine of the minutes. So page 108 of ours, the spelling mistake that the Heritage Committee recommends. What page was that, Councillor? Page 108 in our business paper, page nine of their minutes, in resolved on the motion that the Heritage Committee recommends — so two Cs and missing a G. Just a quick question in regards to the recommendations. Staff have reported that five items, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, contained within the Heritage Committee have policy or financial implications to Council. Staff have recommended that we essentially adopt all of those points, but is this, like, how much is this going to cost us?

Like, don't get me wrong, I'm not not in support of what they're recommending. I'm just — we're asking, normally we're very specific about adding to the financial budget, but there's nothing in here of like staff time and all that.

Which particular item was it, Councillor?

So 3 .1. 1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 — oh, sorry, 5 — and 3.1.6 . So , yeah, if you go over and have a look at page 90 — where is it? Yeah, page 95, it starts from there. So the proposed Hawkesbury Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Interpretation Strategy, the strategic priorities for heritage related matters, the potential — no, that wasn't it. Yeah. Also the Draft New South Wales Heritage Strategy, the Local Heritage Assistance Fund Program — that's got a dollar figure — the Windsor Toll House. So I don't have, like, I'm very supportive of it. I just, it just seems to be there's potentially a lot of staff time and money, and normally we're very specific about how much money we're spending and what the implication is on the budget.

So I just wanted to, if it's not going to be a big issue, then that's fine. I just, I wanted to actually ask and have it on the record, that's all. Sorry to the GM, putting you on the spot.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. With regards to those specific items, they are a combination of staff time required to prepare a submission, for instance, to the New South Wales Draft Heritage Strategy. That would be something that would be negotiated with the ordinary business process. There are other matters that do have financial implications, but the recommendation is specific that we would seek and utilise grant funds or actually agitate state and federal government for additional funding for those works. Where there has been ones with either really significant financial implications, you'll see that the recommendation under that specific action is that Council not adopt that recommendation, and I can pull out those specific items as such. No

That's fine. I just wanted — and yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to get clarification . Yes, certainly. Staff hours and that. That's fine. Thank you.

Councillor Michael. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. This comes back to the questions of money, dare I say, and what gets on the list of the heritage. So firstly, I'd like to thank the Heritage Committee for doing this as well. So, considering this is the third most significant historical site since European settlement , Horsbury, and there's been a lot of money put into Macquarie Street and other historic buildings, and then again look at Parramatta, for instance, as well as the Farm, Hamilton Cottage, old government housing, experiment farm to name a few, which is under the trustee of the State Government, dare I say. Why wouldn't the significant buildings of the Horsbury be taken over by State Government?

For example, like the Rocks Authority did when that was run down during the 70s, throw the money into it and restore these buildings back to their original status, and then do what they did, lease it out to people who wish to be there and to draw people into these buildings to make them commercial. So I guess the question is, why don't we make representation for them just to do that? That's clearly when you do a heritage [unclear], you've got to have deep pockets. You know, I know a couple of examples in there that have privately been done, and that's seriously deep pockets. Council hasn't got those deep pockets. They've got to go and take those funds out and they've got to split them around the community where they think it's most

Important,

While a lot of the heritage buildings around Richmond and Windsor and [unclear] town are decaying. Yeah, that's the question on notice if you want it to be. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Any further discussion? So it's a question on notice, is it? Yeah.

I'm happy to perhaps have an attempt to answer it. So the short answer is that there is not a To the best of my knowledge, a fund sits in New South Wales Government's to acquire heritage properties per se, they would say to us that they are a council asset and it is the responsibility of council. And why would the New South Wales Government necessarily take on that burden if council wouldn't? I think the particular challenge with this one, with respect to the Toll House, is that there's not an easy adaptive reuse, and that was born out of the work that was presented to the Heritage Committee through that. So it's clear that council is the owner of that building, and that building clearly does need some investment in its maintenance to upkeep it.

But there is not an easy adaptive reuse for that because it is sitting at such a vulnerable flood level and is not readily adaptable because it doesn't, for example, have ready street access and those sorts of things. So that Toll House building is a particular challenge for us.

Yeah, but it's just not that building, is it? It's all the buildings that are out of flood risk, especially through the mall.

Yeah, you're talking about buildings in general, Councillor. If council money wasn't going to Fort Dennison, do you think Fort Dennison would be the way it is today? Would the rocks be the way it is today? It took significant state government money to bring that back up to a point. Now I go back to the point here is, is not Richmond-Windsor and Pitt Town a significant area that shouldn't be renovated properly,

That the freeholders taken over by the state government sort it out. That's the question I'm asking. I think it is. I think there's great cause there because it's our history.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I like Councillor Feigl's passion. I hadn't seen him as probably a supporter of the BLF or the Green Bans that preserved the rocks and the heritage buildings. But nevertheless, I'm pleased to hear it. Sadly, Jack Mundy has passed away, so I'm not sure that we would have a repeat of that.

Yes, I think in terms of also the heritage funding, there is a budget allocation that we give annually for that heritage assistance fund, which is already included in the budget. So the reason of what you're saying, Councillor Feigl, in part, the advocacy to the state and federal governments is to acknowledge not necessarily to take over freehold properties, but to certainly acknowledge the significance and to put funds corresponding to that significance into the area.

Thank you, Councillor.

The recommendations on page 93 and 94. Those in favour? Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Feigl, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Durack, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Sambrock, Nallan, Sheather, Councillor Ogemarchi. Sorry, Councillor Wheeler has declared an interest and has left the room. Would someone...

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, is 13.1.1.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And largely I put this in as a question with notice rather than a notice of motion at this stage, just to get some clarity around it. I'd like to see us addressing this as we know the early adopters of solar roof panels, etc., are looking possibly for options to recycle them around this time. It's been a number of decades since they first were introduced, and I was spurred on by this as Mr Barton probably noticed in his local government area that the Blue Mountains City Council recently introduced an initiative aimed at diverting solar panels away from landfill. Thank you. So given that 95% of solar panels can actually be recycled and reused, assisting our community to achieve this and to divert it from landfill was what I was looking at.

The one at Blue Mountains, you pay $15 for undamaged or $20 for damaged to dispose of the panels, which go into a joint initiative with Sursol, who do the recycling. And so far Sursol have diverted 8.5 million kilograms from landfill with recycling of e-waste. So it's a really valuable sort of initiative. So my question was clarifying a couple of things around it, and we know there's big challenges ahead around e-waste. So I'll just use the information I've got and may come back with a notice of motion around how we can incorporate that maybe into our waste strategy into the future.

Thank you, Councillor. The next item is— 14.1.1,

And the last item is— sorry, the last item is a confidential

Item.

Move we go into confidential, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I'd just like to have a bit of a discussion on 14.1.1, if you wouldn't mind. 14.1.1. Yes, Councillor. It was a question that was asked some time ago and has taken a reasonable amount of time for that answer to come back with. I think it has significant impact, that answer, on everyone, every decision we make, and I fully believe that we should get a full briefing for every councillor in the near future to give us a good foundation on how we should address this issue in relation to taking these studies and what we should take on and why we do it the way we do. Would you please take that on board. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for your question, Councillor.

There's a motion

Moved by Councillor Creed, second by Councillor Kotlash.

Those in favour?

Against Carried.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In respect of item 16.3.1, outstanding receivables, bad debts write-off, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded by Councillor Kotlash, that Council write off the following debts as at 30 June 2025: 1. The debt owed by debtor account RAMS CDC 0002/12 in respect of the sewer connection charges totalling $5,319.24 be written off as a bad debt. 2. The debt owed by debtor account RAMS CDC PC1055/11 in respect of the sewer connection charges totalling $5,596.84 be written off as a bad debt. For the motion were Councillors Improngno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Durick, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Virgil, Reardon, Sheather. Absent for the vote was Councillor Dogramaci. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. That concludes the meeting this evening. Thanks for your attendance.