12 August 2025 - Ordinary

And welcome the gallery to the meeting of the 12th of August. Thank you. I'd like to start by Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to the Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First People of the country. And thank you, General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting this evening are advised, in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.33 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

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

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

Thank you. We have no apologies this evening. Excuse me. Declarations of interest. Any matters tonight, Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Item 10.5.3, less than significant non-pecuniary.

10.5.3? Yes , thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Councillor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. 10.5.3. Thank you

Confirmation of the minutes. There's two lots of minutes: the 22nd of July and also the 29th of August.

Yes, I'll move those.

Councillor Reardon. Councillor Veigel. All those in favour? Against? Councillor Willie, you've got your light on?

Sorry, Mr Mayor.

Carried .

Yeah .

The items that we've got to address tonight with public address is 10.1.1, 11.1.1, and 11.1.2. The first item is occupancy—

And 11.1.2. The first item is occupancy in rural and environmental zones, Mr. Troy Myers, if you'd like to address that item. You have five minutes. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councillors and members of the gallery. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion tonight. I have reviewed Council's planning proposal for the detached dual occupancy development in rural and environmental zones, and it's pleasing to see the speed at which this proposal is moving forward. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise that Council's planning proposal is very much in line with recent events in State Government, with the formation of the Select Upper House Committee on Rural Housing and Second Dwelling Reform, with unanimous support from all sides of the political spectrum.

In reviewing the Council's planning proposals, there were just a couple of issues that attracted my attention and worth mention. There seemed to be some concern in relation to fragmentation of agricultural land. In my view, I believe that detached dual occupancy will not be responsible for fragmentation of agricultural land, because there's no relationship between dual occupancy and subdivision.

The other was there was some concern about development controls whereby people may take advantage in relation to the number of dwellings that could be on a parcel of land. I don't believe that this should be a concern. One of the concerns that was raised was about second dwellings. Second dwellings are not permissible in any of these zones, and they will be dealt with under the council's LEP.

Other land uses also will be subject to applications and relevant development controls. So uses such as, I know, rural workers' dwellings, tourist and visitor accommodation, they're all subject to development controls, so I don't think that should be a concern. This is about creating opportunities for our community on rural lands with flexibility to provide desirable outcomes. It's not about creating more restrictions that will stifle opportunities and reduce favourable outcomes. I would also like to acknowledge that this proposal is consistent with the Hawkesbury Local Strategic Planning Statement, which commits to providing housing with choice to meet community needs. Detached dual occupancies will allow families to live together while maintaining privacy and support rural landholders and provide diversity in housing stock without undermining rural character.

It is also important to note that detached dual occupancy will not increase environmental risk in terms of flooding, bushfire, biodiversity and any other constraints, because they will continue to be assessed through the same rigorous planning processes that we already have.

Development will still need to comply with all the relevant environmental planning infrastructure requirements. This is a great opportunity to take a step that is both progressive, responsible and aligning with state policy, meet pressing needs for housing and protecting what makes our rural lands so valuable. It's a win for the community, for landholders, or landowners, and for the future of the Hawkesbury. I look forward to Council resolving to adopt the recommendation for the planning proposal to be submitted to the Department of Planning for Gateway determination. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Myers. Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you. We have another speaker, Mr Lionel Bucket. Yep.

Councillors, Mr Mayor, I'd just like to congratulate the Council on pushing through the detached dwellings change for the LEP. It's been a really good thing for creating work and for people retirement, a lot of the things that Troy mentioned, and I suppose that we all know because it's a common sense thing. The only thing I'm opposed to with it is that a whole lot of red tape and conditions aren't wrapped around it, so it slows everything down the way we've been having to deal with nearly all changes.

And I don't see there's any need to limit the number of houses that are under, you know, different approval regimes.

I also noticed on the document the LEP review was mentioned at the bottom of page 18. It was indicating that Department of Planning is waiting on Hawkesbury Council to provide documentation. So I’d urge the councillors to be as progressive with the LEP review as they have been with the detached dwellings. But just in conclusion, I should thank Nathan for all the effort he put in to get everybody to agree to push this through.

Thank you, Mr Buckett.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Councillor Brogden Your light.

I’d like to move the item in the business paper, please.

Seconder?

I’ll second it.

Councillor Reardon.

Thank you very much, Jill, and thank you, Mr Mayor. This is a very pleasing juncture. This is light speed as far as our council staff are concerned, and I say that to offer praise because when we want to move on something that’s appropriate and desired by the community, we can do it, and this is proof of that. Having read through the wording of the particular planning proposal that’s now going to be sent to the gateway process, I think it ticks all the boxes, especially where it relates to the things that I would otherwise be concerned about, such as the fragmented land use or the potential future pressure that this might pose for future subdivision, which I am, of course, completely opposed to.

The very specific measures that we might choose to put into our DCP aren’t discussed here, but this isn’t the appropriate vehicle for that. It foreshadows that, and then down the track we can talk about the kinds of things that will mitigate against that future pressure, such as, for example, ensuring that even detached dual occupancies share one driveway, one letterbox, one water meter, that there are covenants on any DA that goes through to mitigate against the future pressure for subdivision. And I think indeed, and I think Troy— Foreshadowed this, giving landowners more flexibility to site another dwelling on their own land potentially mitigates against future and less desirable forms of subdivision, because it means that it puts the landowner back in charge, or it gives them more flexibility in terms of building a dwelling for farm workers, which might be the difference between them regarding their agricultural allotment as remaining viable or not, or to build to rent.

And under the previous condition, if you had to build a dual occupancy that was right next to the primary dwelling, that mightn't have been what you wanted to do if you were building to rent to get some additional rental or perhaps even tourism income, being able to site that more flexibly elsewhere on that block is also desirable. And as Mr Myers also mentioned, there have been some very pleasing developments in other areas based on what we have started here. I immediately got calls from colleagues in other LGAs, from Port Macquarie-Hastings, from Wollondilly , saying, This is such a good idea. Can we do this down here? And in the case of my colleague Mark Cornshaw, who is himself a former Hawkesbury resident, he brought an almost identical motion before his council and passed it.

So the ball is rolling now. Then I got contact from friends and colleagues in the New South Wales Upper House, specifically John Ruddick, who has now moved successfully with unanimous support, everybody, Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, the crossbench, to set up a— Select Committee on Rural Housing and Second Dwellings Reform to look at this at the highest level and potentially incorporate this into the SEP, which means that it takes these decisions out of the hands of moribund councils that drag their heels very badly on putting desirable reforms like this into their LEPs. So I'm pleased that it's received that recognition, and I certainly exhort my colleagues to vote this through tonight.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate? Councillor Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak in favour of the motion, but firstly, I've got a few questions, if I may, Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering if we can be advised what the smallest lot size we have in rural land. With that, I'm thinking of in rural village zoning five. What is our minimum lot size for that zoning, if anyone can tell me offhand or maybe?

It would depend on location, so minimum lot size depends on not just the zoning but the location. So we'd have to provide some analysis of the LEP maps to get the actual minimum lot size, yeah. Okay

So, for example, Bowen Mountain, which is generally, it's rural zoning. It's quite small blocks of land. I'm just leading into, there's no specification of a minimum lot size. I'm just wondering if that's going to be considered. It's alluded to, but there's no definition around that.

Yep. So I guess this planning proposal was prepared based on the Council resolution to prepare it to remove the, or to essentially allow the dual occupancies through the process of preparing the planning proposal, and then, consideration in the gateway, there may be requirements for Council to provide additional provisions, and there may be a DCP chapter as part of that, and that'll obviously depend on what the outcome of the gateway determination is.

Thank you. Just regarding another question, and just regarding the way the provisions would be worded around this in the LEP. For example, in the event that a property was deemed unsuitable for a detached dual occupancy, in that where the proposed siting of a dwelling was not suitable, which often it will not be due to constraints on the land, will the removal of the word attached mean that people are limited, like that they're left without an option, so to speak, if they— I'm trying to explain this as best as I can. So we're removing an option that people currently have, which is to have a second dwelling on their property, a second house if it's attached, and we're removing that word and that will just be specified as detached.

Obviously, you could say you're going to put it right near the house, but my concern is someone may put in an application that's rejected. Will there be provision for encouraging people they could still do an attached style of thing if necessary? Because we're essentially changing what's there now. Yes,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the definition will allow both attached and detached. Oh, okay So it's both. Okay ,

That's all. And sorry, I have one more question. If you've already done a dual occupancy and we bring in clause 5.5 around secondary dwellings, will that enable people to have a secondary dwelling on the property as well, or potentially two secondary dwellings?

Potentially, that is, and obviously that's assessed when the application comes in, unless through the gateway determination there's a requirement to have an LEP clause that limits the number of dwellings. Okay,

Thank you. So all of these additional things will come through the DCP chapter, or when only if Gateway says? Like, are we going to have an opportunity to work through perhaps some of these more clarifying aspects of it once it comes back from Gateway?

Definitely, yes. Yep. So if Gateway is successful and we progress that planning proposal, we want to make sure that we have some planning controls to guide that particular development within the DCP. Okay,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll speak in favour of the motion. I just wanted to raise a few concerns because my main concern about this planning proposal overall, whereas I support it going ahead to Gateway, is that when I read through it, and having been here when the other proposals went into the government previously and also taking a deep dive into the reasoning today as to why they were rejected, I'm a little concerned we're not sending in a lot of supportive material in light of what the planning panel has asked for. So around the cumulative impacts of the development in rural zones, I know this has been explained in a couple of paragraphs, but there's not any sort of documentary style of evidence in terms of how many— there's a bit around how many lots are potentially above the one in 100 or are above the one in 100.

There's nothing really specific around which areas may be fire impacted, or any mapping to actually show. And I know this was a criticism from the one in 2014 or 2015, that there was no mapping—Councillor Creed and Councillor Reid may remember—there was no mapping provided with it to show the extent of where it may or may not be particularly suitable. I know there's a push with government around housing, but I still think that, given what we recently heard when our slab barn study went in and the gateway said to us that it was such a wonderfully supported document with all the information they needed to make the assessment straight off, I'm just thinking the more information we provide, the easier it may be for them to do an assessment and a decision.

Because still, if there's some inconsistencies with the ministerial directions and things in there, and also around the evacuation capacity, I understand that the Hawkesbury Nepean flood study has been done, but that doesn't necessarily show that we actually have that capacity. So an increase in density in those areas is not necessarily shown in this proposal that we can get the people out. So it's not that I don't support the notion. I do, and I have previously, and I do now, but I'm just a little concerned that we know things can go down a planning hole, and in my mind, the more information we provide, the better off we are for having it expedited so that all the boxes are ticked. I think there are benefits in this with proper controls.

I do draw the point that using all the time about agricultural land and having workers live nearby, that's already covered in our LEP. You can have rural workers' cottages for people who live on farms. That's already permissible. I'll be keen to see what happens with the secondary dwellings because, personally, I think often secondary dwellings on these type of properties would be a much better fit. It's a much faster planning process pathway. Also, there's existing controls around that, and if people want to keep elderly parents or teenagers or someone in a secondary dwelling, then I think that will be good for people wanting to do that. Also, in the previous times that we submitted this, the first one, I think it had to be on land greater than or equal to two hectares, and the second time it went in, it was greater or equal to four hectares.

So I don't know whether, obviously, the Department of Planning may have something to say about the size limitation on that.

I don't really know what else to say. I asked about the smaller lot. We know from in the past when we've discussed rating and things, we know that in our rural zoning, we have some quite small properties. So I just think that if it isn't size limited, there will have to be some controls around what size of a property. You simply can't have a small building block with two houses on it. I can't see how you could do that, given that most of our rural land does not have reticulated water or sewer. But I look forward to seeing what the feedback is. My only feedback from me to here is that I would have liked to see more supporting documentation with it.

Thank you, Councillor. Through you, General Manager, just a question to the staff in relation to some of the comments that Councillor Lyons-Buckett made, and Mr Buckett when he spoke, with restrictions, the difference between an attached and detached, that wouldn't have the same effect, or it would be assessed the same? So in relation to flooding or fires that are already in place?

Yes, so for consideration of a number of matters like flooding or bushfire protection, the same provisions, whether it's attached or detached, would apply. And

What about the small blocks that were spoke of ?

Small blocks would obviously, you know, particularly if it's on-site systems, obviously then depends on the capacity of the land to service the proposed development, and that will obviously have to be assessed in terms of, you know, the appropriate size for that. Would

It be assessed the same as an attached as a detached in relation whether it would go there? What I'm suggesting, that does it give a preference to detached on the same piece of block if it wouldn't support an attached? Well,

Yeah, so coming back to the servicing of the land and whether the on-site sewerage treatment, if it's an attached dwelling, then it's likely to be serviced by a single system, whereas a detached system may not be serviced by two systems. Thank you. Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor . The last time this was in the last meeting, I was the only councillor that didn't vote for this to go ahead . However, since the work's been done and we have quite a good planning proposal, I'm going to support this. But I just want to say, just for the record, that this is one of about 18 areas that we had included in our combined proposal back in 2021. And when the process started, I think it was about 2018 when we started to look at all of these things. I wasn't really that— I wasn't in agreement with taking just one section of that out of that planning proposal. But now we have it, I'm prepared to vote for this to go to Gateway. But can I just underline the fact that this may go the same way as the proposals that we put in in 2015 and 2016.

I hope it doesn't, obviously, because I am for allowing detached dual occupancy. I always have been. I think it's a must-have solution to our housing predicament that we're in. But I realise also that things have changed since those times. We've had flood studies, we've had various different policies come from the state government. So there might be a chance that this will get up .

One of the things that I was thinking when I was reading this today, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett has touched on it, is that in the original multi proposal that we put in for, you know, the review of the whole of the LEP and those 18 different things that we wanted to change, did we do mapping? Did we address evacuation? Did we address infrastructure? Because some of those other things that I talk about, the other 18, I think there was 18, don't quote me, it was seniors housing,

Mental block, there was a few, but there are a few that would have the

Pick Your Own and the boutique farm gate industry things were also included. Now they've all got the potential to put more pressure on our infrastructure. So whilst the proposal that we're sending now seems like a mini version that doesn't have those maps and doesn't talk about the impact on infrastructure or the cumulative impact . Did our, and I'm sorry I didn't have time to look it up, did our original proposal have that information in it?

Thank you, Councillor. Sorry

You

General Manager. Thank you, Mr Mayor

So just to clarify, we're talking about the LEP review, not the 2015 and 16 planning proposal? Sorry, yes, the big review. 2021. The 15 and 16. Yep. So those types of issues were looked at as part of that LEP review as much as we could with the information available. There's no specific maps as part of that, but the information was analysed as much as possible. Another

Question for Ken, to follow that up. If this particular change occurs, this will be part of a change to the 2012 LEP. What then happens to the proposal that we put in? Does that just get overwritten? And, I mean, do we have the same— did we say the same things in the last? I

Hope not.

Well, pretty close.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the LEP review is to amend the 2012 LEP. It's not a new LEP as such. So if this detached dual occupancy is successful and leads to an amendment, then obviously changes would have to be reflected in the LEP review. You know, it's either remove that component or adjust it as suits. So we could assume that the changes wouldn't be reviewed again? Correct, yeah. So if an amendment's already been done, then that would be it. Excellent . Have we got any idea of how long it might take for Gateway?

Is that a question, Councillor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So obviously it has been a challenge to get to the Gateway determination, so we do have a requirement to provide some additional information to the department, and we're aiming to have that by the 29th of August, and that's as a consolidated package with everything that they've asked for. And very hopeful that after that we will receive a Gateway determination.

There you, Councillors. No further debate? Right of reply, sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm not as delighted with this as I would like to be. It feels a bit half-cooked to me. It's lacking in detail. It doesn't have any mapping. It doesn't have any conditions in it, particularly things around size limitation and limitations and mitigation measures. And it's sorely lacking in subdivision prevention controls. And this is the information that I would like to see before it leaves this council and goes to the state government. But I think given that That the upper house is about to embark on this select committee, that's probably less of a concern than it otherwise might be, because I think we're going to end up being sucked into a bigger process. I think it's really important, though, that people understand that this is the beginning of a process, not the end of a process.

And even if these controls are included in our LEP, this isn't going to be cheap. These are not secondary dwellings. These are not covered under complying development like granny flats are in residential areas. They're not cheap, they're not quick. And I think we have to be very definite: this is not a panacea. We are selling people a pup if we are selling this as some means of solving the housing crisis, of making it all better. This doesn't come with any infrastructure. So these additional dwellings will put pressure on infrastructure that we already know is inadequate. And it is only available to people who already have land and already have means. So it's not providing anything to people who have nothing now.

I have to say I'm far more interested in secondary dwellings. They're cheaper, they're faster, and they have less impact on surrounding development. And I am really disappointed that we haven't had a discussion and therefore haven't included no subdivision prevention inclusions . I'm not sure that we're going to get anywhere while our flood planning level is still one in a hundred, which is against the express advice. of the Department of Planning, and I would won't be at all surprised if this is sent back to us with that as an issue . I note that the Select Committee's report is due on the 13th of February 2026, and I note that the terms of reference of that committee list particular considerations, including flood mapping, dwelling size, pathways and adequacy of infrastructure, including on-site infrastructure like sewage treatment.

It behove us to have this better sorted before we went to Gateway, and that we were moving from a position of information, not urgency. Because what I suspect is going to happen now the Select Inquiry is up is that our application to Gateway is going to get tied up in the Select Committee discussions. What I would like to see us leading on this, but I would like to see us leading from a position of information, not urgency. I'll support the proposal as it is, but I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed in the detail that's lacking.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion?

Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you

Mr Mayor, and thank you for everybody who's contributed to the debate. It gives to answer a couple of concerns that were raised by Councillor Wheeler. Yes, it would have been nicer had we been able to move our motion to send off to Gateway with all of the information that the Select Upper House Committee was going to consider first. I think what she needs to appreciate is that the Select Upper House Committee wouldn't have been proposed unless— We led. We're leading in terms of trying to bring this kind of reform, and it's come to some higher attention. I'm very gratified to know that our Labor councillor is on board. It doesn't pass my observation that this had the, well, I can't say the warm endorsement, but certainly the Chief of Staff of the Planning Minister, and even the Premier's Chief of Staff, was perfectly happy to facilitate and permit this to get to the Upper House selecting inquiry stage so that the conversation can take place.

So I'm glad that she's in line with her colleagues now. This is something that I think that the state government will appreciate. I mean, I only wish, like Councillor Wheeler said, that we could have done more in the area of secondary dwellings or granny flats, but all of that's waiting for us in the LEP. I mean, the state government made a change to the standard instrument years ago, doubling the size of granny flats from 60 square metres, or 10% of the size of the primary dwelling, to 110 square metres, or 20% of the size of the primary dwelling, whichever was larger. Hills lost no time in moving that as a dot point amendment to their LEP, and they're enjoying the benefits to more flexible and enlarged definitions of secondary dwellings and granny flats even today.

We decided that we were going to fold it into the LEP, and it's disappeared into a hole. So, you know, we can't do much about that, but we can do something here. And I suspect that the state government will look favourably on this because there are 7,098 rural allotments that this could apply to in our own LGA. But I'm quite sure that the state government is aware that there are 241,826 such allotments that are categorised rural, and rural by the way means six acres and up, let alone four or five acres and up, to which this could apply, and that it's in their mind that this kind of initiative can do its part, not solve the whole problem, but can play a part in solving the state's housing crisis.

I do commend it to you. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Stambrogno. I'll put the motion. Those in favour?

Thank you, Councillors. Councillors unanimous. Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Isbacher, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Stambrogno, Councillor Sheather. The motion is carried.

The next item we have is 10.5.2. It's the service level agreement between Hawkesbury City Council and Hawkesbury Sports Council. There's one speaker, Mr. Troy Myers.

I promise you there's no more after this.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councillors and members of the gallery. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the members of the Sports Council tonight.

The Sports Council would like to acknowledge all the work that council staff have put into the SLA documentation. Having said this, I'm here to speak against the motion, from the point of view that the Sports Council understands that a documented SLA is necessary to ensure the roles and responsibilities are clear for all parties. The Sports Council is of the belief and understanding that creating the SLA is not a simple exercise, and there is much to consider. To this point, we believe that good progress has been made to date. However, we do not believe that the job is finished or we've reached our destination and there's still work to be done.

Some of the concerns that we have relate to the change process, a governance process. There's some discrepancies that some of the members are still concerned about, and they have a couple of recommendations, such as some workshopping that could be done to clarify these. They wanted to put more work into a defined change management process, so forth and so on. So tonight, I'm here asking on behalf of the Sports Council that Council receive the report and that the Sports Council and Council continue working together to come up with an SLA that all parties are satisfied with. Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor

Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with the exception of point two, and that point two be changed to endorsement of the draft service level agreement be deferred until after a meeting can be held between Councillors and members of the Sports Council.

Is there a seconder?

Councillor.

Thank you. I'll speak to that. Points one, three and four are innocuous. We note the progress, we acknowledge the annexure as a working living document, we give the Sports Council explicit permission to waive or reduce fees in accordance with Section 5, don't stand in the way of that. Point two is the sticking point, and that to endorse the draft service level agreement, what I want to do is owe the, I think we owe the Sports Council and its members collectively the courtesy of sitting down with them. Who all give their time on a voluntary basis and are very dedicated and do a wonderful job, but I think nothing takes the place of sitting around a table and giving them the sense of respect and to ease their concerns so that the service level agreement is something that all parties can agree to as being beneficial .

It protects our obligations to place good governance over the Sports Council, but it also gives members of the Sports Council the dignity of knowing that they've had the chance to sit down with us, and they have not had that opportunity. And I've had enough independent outreach from members of the Sports Council to express their misgivings, as that I'm now of the view that we just need to sit down. Not everything needs to be mediated exclusively through staff. I'd like to sit down with them as members of our community and as human beings and have a yarn. Thank you.

Councillor, just excuse me in relation to the point too, you've got endorsement of the draft level agreement be deferred until the meeting. So our meeting's held and then it's adopted.

No, no, we'll hold the meeting and then it will return to the Chamber for.

As long as

That's clear.

No, no, I'll take that point. So, and the report come back to Council. There we go. Thank you for that clarification. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. Mr Mayor, we did have an opportunity. The Sports Council representatives came in last year to a briefing and spoke with us. Councillor Zamprogno may not have been there. I think that it's very beneficial to have this in place. The need for the service level agreement was identified in the third-party review, something that we resolved to implement the recommendations from, and they need to be implemented. We've got a duty. It's been through the ARIC. When I was on the audit committee, we went through everything on there, and it was encouraged that we implement this as we should be doing. The staff have balanced the need to address the risks and gaps—I'm gasping—and constructed a set of two documents around asset management and governance.

So the annexure being a working document allows some of these things that Mr Myers raised to still be shaped into place between the Sports Council and the council. So I think that that allows us to implement the document, the service level agreement around the governance, which is very important to do. We've got to remember when we're discussing this, oops, that all the sports council funding is public money. This is public funding. Whether it comes from council contribution, from government grants, from the members who pay into it, it is public money. And the accountability and transparency around this is a fundamental requirement that we have an obligation around. And having a framework which delivers such transparency delivers protection for all parties involved.

It's really important. The sports council is protected by this agreement. The council is protected by this agreement, and we fulfil our obligation, which we resolved to implement some time ago. This has been a long process. We know and appreciate the work done by the sports council. That's clearly outlined in the agreement. But operating without a firm structure around it leaves it open to some of the criticisms we occasionally hear about it. And when we speak about members of it, I'm not sure who Councillor Zambrano was referring to, but members are all the people who belong to it, and many of those from time to time raise concerns with many of us, I'm sure, about various things connected with the sports council.

And this is the aim to put a level of governance and transparency around it. That means that we can be certain that everything is being done around the way it should be done. The two- and five-year plans of proposed works, I understand from what I've read that they're still under discussion about whether they're incorporated into council's capital works program or not. Regardless of the outcome of that, these should be publicly available documents. Everyone contributing to the operation of the sports council should be able to see such plans. They should be readily available that we could see because, again, public money is being used for this and there needs to be accountability around it. I think this document gives a good balance of protections while allowing for things to evolve as the discussions continue around certain aspects on the operations of it.

I note in particular the provision of section 3.7 around record keeping, and I think this is a really important part of the document because it's about accountability so transactions can be traced, and there's a full story around what work was done, where it was done, when, and by whom. And I think that is something that the public is entitled to see as well. So I think it's a really good document. I think the staff have come up with a really good balance to enable that ongoing discussion to be done. I can't understand why people want to defer it. It's not our job to be involving ourselves in the Sports Council. There's a process for that. If we suggested involving ourselves in other things with organisations, there'd be an almighty outcry in this place, but not around this.

So I would suggest passing this and allowing the annexure to take its—not passing this, but I'll foreshadow a motion if this fails.

The annexure is there to continue being worked on, and that could have a briefing and discussions with the Sports Council. We have resolved in this chamber to implement the recommendations of an independent third-party review, and that is what we should do, and that's what the motion that's in the business paper would do.

Councillors, I'm going to make a comment. Considering I've been involved with it for 40 years, And seen all the minutes of every meeting, attended all those meetings apart from two that I've missed since I've been mayor. The council, the questions that you ask can be asked any time by any person, and they're in council files. No one's ever asked for them, nor has there been a complaint to this building in 35 years on any matter, whether it be works done, finance, inappropriate actions, whatever. Not a one. In 35 years, there is no other action of this council that's not challenged practically every day. The work that they do is nothing short of excellent. In relation to this motion, when we set the Sports Council up, it started in '87.

It took four and a half years before they were established, three, five committee of council. Four and a half years. It was called a marriage with the community. And it took that long because there was issues to work through that both parties need to be satisfied that it was going to operate and work well. And it works that well, there has been no complaints. Not a one. And we've got this risk assessment that imposes on us. It's not a risk to the community; it's a risk to council. And those risks sometimes overlook the impact that it has on the community. And the community, in some cases, is not ready for those impacts. And the Sports Council, like NSW, is one of those. Our staff have worked extremely well, along with the Sports Council, to achieve an outcome that was rolled by this council and will be adopted by this council .

Inappropriate time. On the back of the documents you've got in front of you there tonight, there's a place for two signatures, the Sports Council and mine. Neither of them on there yet.

And I would suggest that time is on our side. If the wheel's not fixed and we don't break it, it's the same, it goes back forever. But it needs modified. It needs greasing. No one's arguing with that. Our staff have worked extremely hard to, and trying to, to fulfil a resolution of Council, and the Sports Council is asking for time to have that assessed. What's Councillor Zembrogno moved , and I'd spoke with a couple of councillors with my view on this. But if you've got questions, you'd need to ask to satisfy you personally. Other than the staff, there's an opportunity to do that, and that won't be backward. And the President and the rest of the executive give their apologies for tonight. They're volunteers, and all of them are involved in state activities and chair them all, and they're busy tonight.

That's why they can't attend. So, Councillors, I commend the motion , and I'd ask the General Manager, is there an issue in relation to time that this needs to be done?

Through you, Mr Mayor. No, not in particular. We were on an initial timeline to present this matter back to Council, having regard to the earlier resolutions of the Council, but if it's the will of the Chamber to defer the item for a couple of months, there's no issue at our end.

Thank you .

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am happy to support deferring this item as requested by the Sports Council, acknowledging the contribution that they make to this community and have done for decades. If they require more time to put a case forward, then that's fine, but I think that time does need to be capped at what is in this notice of motion. As the report suggests, this has been going on since 2018. We need to solidify the terms and conditions for both Council, for Sports Council, and additionally for the public. I think the service level agreement and its annexure, now that they are in the public domain, provide a lot of clarity for those three different bodies that I just spoke about.

I've had a lot of questions when I was the Mayor and previous to that about what are the rules around Sports Council in terms of their decision-making, who calls when a ground is closed when it's raining, what grounds does Sports Council control, and these documents are wonderful that they give that clarity to a lot of those questions that sporting groups and other members of the public want to know. I mean, still to this day, there's a sprinkle of rain and my phone will blow up, are the grounds being closed? Being able to direct people to the right body who's making that decision is really important. From a legal perspective, I think that this service level agreement really ties up a lot of loose ends about who has the decision-making capacity.

I think that the fact that it covers a lot of risk assessment in terms of who makes the decision to undertake maintenance works at certain sporting fields is important. And I do want to acknowledge that the Hawkesbury community has a wonderful volunteer basis here in terms of mums and dads and carers in sporting groups, and they can see a problem on the field and someone's probably got a friend who's a tradie or is a tradie and wants to go and fix it. And I think that that mentality is wonderful. But unfortunately, we're in a litigious age right at this moment where we need to ensure that we have the correct public liability insurance in place, so that if something does happen to someone, they are protected.

So I think that this document gives a great amount of certainty to the questions surrounding governance as well that we're perhaps lacking. I think this is a great way forward. I don't think anyone on this council wants to ever consider removing the Hawkesbury Sports Council. It has had decades of success in what it does. I like that this is going to tidy up those loose ends, but I'm happy to support the deferral. But as I said, that would be the limit of my support for a deferral, as it needs to be signed and solidified and become a working document so that all parties understand who is responsible for what. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Scott-Lees.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Is it possible for The service level agreement to be a working document?

It is.

So, and will be. So

It's

Not just the annexure? So it's the whole.

General Manager.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. In short, certainly the intent that the service level agreement be a fixed document, but we want to acknowledge that given the level of detail that is provided in the annexure and to an extent the fluid nature of some of that information, that that is the piece that we want the ability to amend as HCC on an ad hoc basis as we need to.

Okay.

It just seems to me, I'm not in favour of deferring this. I think that from having been at the beginning of this process when we were looking into our third-party providers , it just seems to me that we've been talking about this for a very long time. And I think we have to draw a line in the sand, and I think we have to

Acknowledge the Sports Council's work. I mean, I think we all are really grateful for the work that they do. But I think that in this day and age, we really have to make sure that the Sports Council is being operated under the same level of policies that Council is working under. And I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett, this is good for the Sports Council and it's good for Council. It's a protection of both parties. I— On page 11 of the draft, it's got council policies that it says that the Sports Council must comply with. Child safety policy. I mean, that's just so important. This is these sorts of things, and I understand that they might be complex to an organisation that is run by volunteers.

I get that. But it also says in the same page that Council will support this development of these policies. We have to start. I can't imagine why we would defer it. Another question , how long would it take, or is it envisaged to take for the Sports Council to be up to speed and compliant with these sorts of policies? I mean, we don't expect them to do it tomorrow, do we? So is there some sort of—we're talking about deferral for two months, I mean

Can I get a bit of an indication that that's possible?

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor. To the question of the period of time with which to comply and that support with the policies, there hasn't been anything firmly put in place in terms of a timeline. That would be part of the transition plans, I suppose, that we would continue to work with the Sports Council to ensure that we don't overwhelm them, but that we're still seeing progress with compliance with those policies.

Just further, other part of the question, that was in relation to what we're asking, aren't they up to speed on with the

Situation now?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that sort of detail on notice.

Another question, if I can, is

Are the problems for the Sports Council and council in the dealings that they've had, it seems to me that, are we at a stalemate? Is this, are we making the decision to move this process along? And if that's the case, then deferring it is kind of, is not really where we want to go.

Yeah

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor, my sense of it is that we've arrived at a point where the Sports Council have made their position clear and officers of council have made their position clear, and it is up to the chamber to make a decision on that. That's the way that the report is structured, the advice has been provided. So I would stick with or back up the advice in the report, and I don't think that in good faith that council officers would veer from that path. Okay,

Thank you, because that's the impression that I got from all of this. And I suppose that

What's going to happen in that meeting if we defer this and we sit down and, or not we, but the council staff and the Sports Council sit down to discuss this. Sorry. Councillor

They want to

Have a meeting with— oh, sorry

I thought you had your lights off, sorry. Yeah,

Got it. Okay. It's still the same question. What are we going to do? If you haven't had an agreement, is the purpose of that deferral, and I might have to ask that question through you, Mr Mayor, to Councillor Zamprogno, what is the purpose of the meeting of councillors and the Sports Council? I mean, I can't imagine that we would be able to sort out the complexity of this whole document. I mean, this has already been established and it's a way forward, and for us to sit down and try to negotiate any other way forward, I think is just— I don't think that's possible. Look, I'll leave it at that. I just hope we can get on with this, and I hope that if it does get through and, you know, this is a changing point, we can just work together and get these sorts of things done. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sent an amendment through to the staff.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor. The mayor relates to point 2, so points 1, 3 and 4 would remain the same. Point 2 would be that Council endorse the draft service level agreement, begin a transition process and review the agreement within 12 months

It seems to me that we are looking at this the wrong way. This service level agreement is supposed to be an agreement to create a better defined working relationship between Hawkesbury Council and the Sports Council. It's not a stick to beat the Sports Council with. And it appears to me that the comments that are coming around this table are that we have come up with a stick. That has never been the intention. This agreement is designed to protect both the interests of Council and our residents and the community that use these facilities, and the people who give their time voluntarily to manage those facilities as part of the Sports Council. In 2018, which I'll remind everyone is now seven years ago, Council was informed that we had a significant level of risk because we didn't have these systems in place .

We have now taken the information from an external consultant and legal information given to us around managing that risk. And still we are here prevaricating around carrying out that piece of due diligence. And I would put it to you that if we keep kicking this can down the road with the level of information that we now have about that risk, then we are being negligent.

We have a resolution to adopt the recommendations from the third party review in 2018 because of the high risk to Council.

We need—we have an action plan that's been suggested. We have an annexure that actually hangs off a service level agreement. So the motion that the original motion before, well, the motion that Councillor Zamprono put up actually has two points in it that can't come into effect because the annexure doesn't exist without the service level agreement. It's just words. It's just a list of lovely things we might aspire to, should we ever get around to developing the carriage to put in a service level agreement. This is our job. Why are we so reticent to do our job? Last meeting we were too gutless to put in flood planning controls. This time we seem to be too gutless to have a service level agreement to protect the very people that manage these major pieces of infrastructure.

The two- and five-year plans have to come back to Council. Council has to be in a position to ratify these. These are public assets paid for with public money for public use, and it's our job to balance the resourcing within the budget. Every organisation that comes to Council wanting a piece of the Council budget wants more. It's the nature of the beast that everybody wants more. The gallery wants more. The Sports Council wants more. The people who manage our parks want more, want more. The roads always want more. Everybody wants more. It's our job to work out who gets what. This isn't an adverse judgment on the Sports Council. If anything, it's a clear indication that Hawkesbury Council has taken advantage of a volunteer organisation, increasing the risks to both volunteers and to Council, and that this approach now has to be at an end.

There's no reason to defer.

Councillor Bogdan. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just read two sentences from the report that came to us this evening. Perception of diminished autonomy. Some members of the Hawkesbury Sports Council Committee have expressed concern that the evolving structure and requirements may reduce their role to that of a delivery arm of Council, rather than an independent advisory and operational body. Representation in decision making. Hawkesbury Sports Council has raised concerns about not always being consulted on matters affecting the facilities that they manage or the clubs that use those facilities. They believe there is a need for stronger organisational support to ensure they are included in relevant discussions.

That's what I'm acting upon. I don't take a view about whether this is a stick or, you know, I do take the view that it's part of our due diligence, but I think it's natural, logical, and definitely in our wheelhouse to sit down with these people and have a yarn. I don't like this to be mediated through the staff. I know it's a complex document. I prefer to sit down with people and talk. Why some of my colleagues think that that's a radical or undesirable objective, I do not know. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Veigel. I tend to agree with you, Councillor. Thank you. Just going back to what the Deputy Mayor said, are we able to put a stake in the ground and have this done within a two-month period and just come back to review it very quickly? And if there is still an impasse, then we just move on. Question.

That's a matter for the councillors as to when you can convene a meeting with yourselves and the Sports Council, I guess.

Yes, you can.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Zamprogno just read out some things about some members of the Sports Council feeling that they're losing autonomy and , if that was, I mean, and that's okay, that's a valid concern, what would change this document to rectify that ? Have we addressed those issues? I think I've read that we have. I'm not sure that there's anywhere to go with having a meeting. I'm all for having a meeting, actually, but it's just that there isn't any other mechanisms that I think that can give . I think this is an extraordinarily flexible document and I think that's all we can do. But I'd like to know, what could happen to make that less of a concern?

Well, if you have the meeting that's been suggested, you'll find out. I'm not about to sit here tonight and debate some of the frustrations that's been discussed. I'm not prepared to do that. I'm speaking against the amendment. Thank you, Councillor . In relation to some of the comments that have been made, there's always been a service level agreement. There's always been the insurance and everything else. It's just they were put together some years ago and need attention. In relation to the volunteers, the contractors, all that's been done appropriately and with council staff over all that time. It's just that this service level agreement's come up now that the rules are pretty stringent and pretty directive, and there's frustration in how we deal with those.

And I don't know that any—none of it in the document indicates we've got a problem with legal aspects or the like. It's how some of it's going to be interpreted to move forward . And if that does diminish the Sports Council and the like, now that can only be worked through consultation. And I haven't been part of that, as frustrating as it is . It's been worked through with staff and the like, and at this stage they're right on the ball. And I don't disagree with most of the comments being said around the table. There's merit in most of them. But to suggest that the Sports Council's been acting illegal, improper, or otherwise is about as false as you can get

They

Know it has made

Those accusations.

Nobody has said that.

I heard the comments that were made, thank you . And with the people that have come to and spoke to councillors over time, they're mums and dads playing around the field . The mayor, when she was mayor, may have had one that was an executive of a club that spoke to her. But most of them are people with a bit of a gripe on the day. The other issues are dealt with through the executive and through the Sports Council. And never once, and it's in the constitution, if it can't be resolved, the constitution says that it

Comes right here to this body. Never once has that happened, because they do sit down, as Councillor Zamprogno has indicated, and talk through a process and listen to the problem. If you're not satisfied with the discussion they have, fine . Councillors resolved a particular direction, and I'm not opposed to that. I'm just suggesting that we don't go pushing buttons when we don't have to, with people who have dedicated their lives, to make the very people that we serve in this city, to give them and their children an opportunity. And

With, as Councillor Kotlas mentioned in relation to involvement with children, the committee's got nothing to do with the children. We don't get involved in the politics of the sport. We don't go to the games. None of that sort of stuff. It's sitting around a room like this discussing matters. Not that I'm opposed to the condition of council, along with all the others. They're there for a reason, and we've agreed to them, either us or our predecessors. So there's nothing—I'm not opposing that, and they aren't either. There's just some spots that need working through, and it's been frustrating. And as was indicated to you, we've hit a bit of a wall, and it needs to back off a bit. And by endorsing this, I don't think that's a back off.

That means we dig our heels in and you get your act together. Well it's called an agreement plan. That means two people shake hands and say, yep, I agree in it. And at the problem, the hands aren't going out. And I'd ask councillors to support Councillor Zembrogno, and as soon as that meeting can be arranged, that it is. And if you still have the same view that some of you are, that we need to move forward, well, so be it. Thank you.

Thank

You,

Mr Mayor. I'll just draw attention to, I haven't heard anyone in here saying that Sports Council's not operating properly. What some of us have been calling for is a framework through which we know how they're operating, I guess is the thing, and how the public know how they're operating. I think that the sheer fact that this document outlines the roles, how can they feel they're losing autonomy when it's set out? This isn't an agreement that we sitting here made with it. The Sports Council is an entity, as you say, has existed for the last 40 years, so it knows its roles. The roles are captured in this document. If you can't sit there and tell us what their concerns are, then how are we to make a decision on it?

We had them come in and speak to us last year . We don't know any more than that. And from what it said is there is nothing to be gained by having another meeting, aside from the fact that there's a working document that can continue to evolve, that can continue to have discussions around it. I can't see how it could be any clearer than that, that we're putting in an agreement that delivers a framework, and then we have a working live document that is addressing outstanding issues that have been raised by the Sports Council. I mean, how can you not see that? It needs to be an ongoing. We want the Sports Council to be an ongoing thing, so it needs to be operating for the people who may not be on the committee next year or the year after.

We need things in place that will say exactly how it's proceeding . None of this is about the value of the Sports Council as an entity. As you just said, you don't talk about the day-to-day, what happens on the fields, et cetera, et cetera. That's done by the volunteers, and we all know a wonderful job is done, and that it's a great model that other councils have applauded. It's about the management of risk, and being on the audit committee really opened my eyes around risk management in an operation like a council. And it's really important that we take our role seriously, that we can't be selective about when we decide to be transparent. We're either transparent and accountable or we're not.

We can't choose that for this thing we are, for this thing we're not. It's got to be always, and this is a way forward. This is a real progression in showing our community that we can come up with something where there's been a lot of consultation and a lot of interviewing of the people on the Sports Council. It's fair, consultation is done. We can still have a meeting later on if there's issues around the annexure that we can be assisting with. But the bare bones of the agreement, I can't see, and it's been confirmed basically by things said here tonight, that anything with that is going to change. Unless you can tell us what is it the Sports Council want that is not in that document, then why would we defer to talk about any more?

We can talk about the annexure. We can work around those issues that I see about the two- and five-year plan and the capital works and all of that. I know that's open for discussion. They're things that can be discussed. But that can happen with the bones in place. I am committed to ensuring that we minimise the risk to this council as an operation. It's part of our duty. I took an oath when I took on this job, and that's what I'm going to stick to.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate?

Okay, Councillor Zamprogno . You've got to put the amendment, Mr Mayor.

I'll put the amendment. The amendment as it is on the screen, those in favour?

This Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett is out of line. No, she needs to apologise for saying that the councillors who did not support that have no accountability.

I didn't

Say that, Mr Mayor. Councillors—I was calling out names. I didn't hear what was said. I

Said transparency and accountability.

No, that's

Not correct, Mr. Mayor. Debate stopped. I apologise wholeheartedly, Mr Mayor.

Thanks very much, Councillor. Those in favour of the amendment? Those in favour of the amendment? This Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Ryan and Councillor Kotlash. Those against?

There's Councillor Brogno, Councillor Zurik, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Dogmaci, Councillor Shiva. The motion is lost. Vote reply, Councillor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am not suggesting.

The motion is carried.

Thank you, councillors. The next item is we have one speaker. It's the Local Traffic Committee. It's Mr. Kirk.

Thank you, Mr. Kirk. You've got five minutes. There is a bell one minute prior to that. Thank you.

I wish to thank Mayor, Deputy Mayor and all councillors this evening. For many of you, this is the first time that I've actually met you face to face. My name is Ed Kirk. I'm founder and president of a not-for-profit volunteer group called Go For Broke. This year, in six weeks' time, we're preparing for our tenth Go For Broke event, which goes from Broulee to Broke, hence our name. That event is limited to 100 riders due to logistical issues, police requirements. But ultimately, that small event has managed to kick much above its weight, with approximately 850 riders over the last nine years, managing to raise over half a million dollars for Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury Sydney. I originally started the event after my own personal experience with mental health, when we had the unfortunate situation of having a builder go into administration on us.

We got through it, but I was lucky enough that I was surrounded by family and also my mother, who was actually a Lifeline volunteer, phone counsellor. So pre-COVID, no one was talking about mental health like they are these days, which has been one improvement since that debilitating issue hit our community. So since that time, we've been raising funds. But in addition, the ride and the riders themselves actually are forming and building communities on a monthly basis, as we also include monthly training rides. So on the back of that success, we've been planning for the last three years to organise a new event, which we're calling VIC100. This is a 100-kilometre cycling event that starts in Penrith and then finishes at Mount Victoria, going via Bells Line of Road.

For the last three years, we've been doing extensive consultation with Transport for New South Wales, councils, New South Wales Police, especially Blue Mountains Police, as well as communities the length and breadth of the course.

We have had one group of people address some issues with us, which we hope we have addressed in correspondence with them, because ultimately, in addition to the funds we hope to raise, not just with our small event, which is planned in six weeks' time, but if council look favourably upon our new event, VIC100, planned for the 16th of November this year, the $500,000 that we've managed to raise for the last nine years, we hope to raise in this year alone. Now who are we funding? We reached out to Lifeline Australia some years ago, as we thought they would be the most appropriate body to fund. One of our main goals with our current organisation and our fundraising is to ensure that we raise funds for frontline mental health services, and especially in the areas that we've been running our current event.

Hence, with our new event, for the first time, three Lifeline offices have managed to coordinate and sign off on a memorandum of understanding so that those three Lifeline offices get an equal share of those funds. Those Lifeline offices are Central West Bathurst, Macarthur Western Sydney, and Harbour Hawkesbury Sydney, all of which cover different sections of this course. As I said, I started this event after my own personal experience with mental health, and our primary goal has always been to develop funding revenue streams for people that need help now, people that ring at three o'clock in the morning. I can categorically say that the funds that we've raised have saved lives. All we're looking to do is to increase that revenue opportunity , but in addition, we also see opportunities for the local community and region.

Speaking with interested cyclists that are looking to do this event, I'm already aware of cyclists travelling this route, Bells Line of Road, because they're not even aware that that road exists. They live on the southern side of Sydney, eastern suburbs or elsewhere in the state, and they're visiting the area for the first time. So in addition to the mental health benefits that our event hopes to raise funds for, and the benefits it will bring, we also look forward to the opportunity of actually helping to put this region on the map to a new group of people that aren't familiar with this area and making it a destination within itself. So it's not just about the benefits of the day, but also visitation and people acknowledging that this area is a new area of the Blue Mountains.

Thank you.

Any questions, Mr Kirk? Deputy Mayor? Oh.

Any questions, councillors? Councillor

How many, other than riders, how many other people do you expect to be involved with this ride, travelling along with them and so forth?

So part of our volunteer planning, and obviously working very closely with all the councils, as well as Transport for New South Wales and New South Wales Police, we'll have approximately 120 volunteers on the day, 13 user pays police, 12 St John's ambulance volunteers, as well as

Police rescue on course. I'm not sure of their numbers yet. We are planning, as we have done with our current event, we plan for every worst case scenario. To date, we have never had an accident on our events.

Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate it, and I wish you all the best.

Thank you. Former police officer. Thank you, Mr Kirk. Deputy Mayor.

I'd like to move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

That's on page 115. I'll second

The traffic

Report.

Councillor Reardon

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Kirk, for your speech here tonight to give some further detail to the elected body about the event that you wish to undertake here in the Hawkesbury. I had obviously received your correspondence over time and participated in one of your community consultation meetings. And I can hands down say that your level of consultation is out of this world. The way you have put on a multitude of community meetings, letterbox drops, etc., is to be commended and should almost be the example to be followed by those who want to undertake such a task in our community. I want to thank you for choosing the Hawkesbury. We don't get a lot of new things coming into our area, and I think that something of this magnitude has the ability to be an annual event that not only raises funds primarily for Lifeline in line with mental health initiatives, but also raises the profile of the Hawkesbury to people who don't quite know what exists.

And as many of us, and all of us in fact, know, the unique amount of small businesses that we have along the Bells Line of Road in Bilpin, Kurrajong Heights and Berambing is something that we want people to know about. We want people to know that on a weekend they can come to our area and visit the Hawkesbury and spend their hard-earned money in our small businesses, keeping them afloat and keeping locals employed. So I think having this event here ticks such a positive amount of boxes that I am thrilled that it's coming to the Hawkesbury. I think that we should be encouraging this kind of idea for our community, this level of investment to our community. I want to thank you for the amount of time that you have taken voluntarily over, obviously, the last nine years in raising such vital funds for Lifeline.

I think that that's astounding, and the fact that when questioned you could recall those statistics like you did was quite phenomenal. So therefore, I'll be wholeheartedly supporting that event. There are two other items that were discussed at the Local Traffic Committee, and they are listed in the report as well. The next one is the Raff Richmond Air Show, which I know we are all exceptionally excited about, including the movie night that we will have in Richmond Park, which I just can't wait to attend. I think that is just so exciting. I've been on the record about that before. But I think that the air show is something, again, that's going to bring a lot of interest into our local community, and we will reap the benefits of that for a very long time to come.

The other is the Windsor Rotary Walk, Run or Ride. It's a community day against domestic violence, and I'm glad that the Local Traffic Committee has supported that event going ahead. No one doesn't know my story, and I think that any awareness that we can do to raise more community understanding of domestic violence and the fact that it can happen to absolutely anybody is something that's really important. And to have the endorsement of a brand like Rotary behind that, I think is exceptionally wonderful. So I'm glad that the Local Traffic Committee has endorsed those three events, and based on my comments tonight, I therefore put forward the recommendation in the business paper. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion?

Right of reply.

Those in favour?

Against?

It's carried. Councillor Dogramaci in favour. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Sam Brogdo, and Councillor Sheather. The motion's carried.

Thank you. The last item.

Item we have to be addressed by public speakers is 2.1.2. It's a motion, camping at Governor Phillip Park. Nicole Sherry is the first speaker.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Nicole Sherry, and I am a resident of Hawkesbury Council and the treasurer of Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. One of my roles with the club is supporting event coordination and is leading the hospitality and entertainment areas for our one major event each year that we hold at Governor Phillip Park, the Windsor Powerboat Spectacular. I support the secretary and the commodore to meet the SCT MP requirements. This year, our spectacular will be held two weeks earlier than usual over the weekend of the 12th, 13th and 14th of September, so that we can avoid congestion in the area with the air show, as we've just talked about the traffic management at that time.

Race weekends have been occurring at Windsor since 1932, with major events at the current Windsor Marine Stadium, our current location, a staple on the river from 1984. We have thousands of people that attend our event, with a large majority of these people attending for the entire three days of that event. Unfortunately, the area is just not able to accommodate the number of people we have staying for the entire event. Through the 80s, we had approval requests from the council for overnight stays on the Saturday of a race weekend. Over time, this has grown with spectators, fans and teams arriving from the Thursday and staying overnight in their campers, motorhomes and rooftop tents till the Monday of a race weekend, and as such supporting not only our event but local businesses during their stay.

In recent years, we've had council talk to us about camping not being permitted as part of the permits, and we have reinforced to our competitors and spectators that camping isn't permitted and that they do so at their own risk. Due to the limited access to accommodation in the area, they choose to take that risk on, unfortunately. So as a club, we've attempted to work with council, sending emails in October '23 and again in September '24 and May '25 to the coordinator of open space services, who has contacted us multiple times about the camping. Each time, we've sought assistance and advice on what we could do to try and grant approval for our spectators to be able to stay overnight. In May '25, as part of the SCTMP, the response from council's customer experience team was that camping was not permitted for several reasons that were listed, and they did not foresee any change in that development consent.

As part of the motion, you'll notice that it says that the council is not in receipt of a development application, which I'm assuming that would have been from our club. Unfortunately, given the response we received in May '25, we just believe that there was absolutely zero possibility of that occurring. So, sorry,

We have not received any support or advice in what we would need to do to be able to lodge that development application for camping at the park. It also says that the council land is zoned RE1 public recreation, and that development for the purpose of tourist or visitor accommodation is prohibited. However, Oberon Council applied to change their showground to RE1 public recreation so that they could have camping at their showground. So whilst camping is not automatically allowed, it can be approved if development application is submitted and assessed by the council. That is what we are seeking. We're seeking the support to help us in how we can get that. So as part of that, we will ensure that all overnight stays are self-sufficient and contain all their grey waste water, as is a requirement if you're camping in any national park.

We hire portaloos, additional waste disposable for the motorhomes and caravans, and the old clubhouse used to provide showers, but now most vans actually have those showers inside them. In the local area, we also have partners who can provide additional grey waste water or waste disposable to their caravans, the Richmond Club and the showground, which would charge $10 to use their facilities. We'd like to partner with council to try and keep this significant amount of money in the local economy by managing it fully, and instead of telling people to camp at their own risk, establish strict guidelines to be able to manage the area according to council and club requirements. We'd also like to invite you all to attend our spectacular over the weekend to see the magnitude and the professionalism of the event.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, happy to answer questions.

Yes, sir, I've got one. We do have two other people speaking, so they may address your question as well, but yes.

I just wanted to know whether you had an idea of how many people—

So in 2025, we had, from an aerial shot over the weekend, we counted 70 campers.

Significant number of campers. Yeah, we will address a little bit more about what that does for the event with the next speaker

Thank you. Any further questions? The next speaker we have is Ricky Howard.

Mr Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors, thank you. My name is Ricky Howard. I'm current Rear Commodore of Hawkesbury Powerboat Club and long-term user of the boat race on the Hawkesbury River, including many bridge-to-bridges. Member of the River Users Group. Thank you for having me here to speak tonight. For our Winds of Powerboat Spectacular, competitors and spectators come from every state across Australia, many from New Zealand and some from America. With more than half a million dollars pumped into our local economy through our hiring of equipment from local suppliers, our competitors and spectators who we surveyed in 2024, with 77 respondents, said they spent their money on accommodation, fuel, food and drinks in the Hawkesbury area.

Starting with food and drinks, local pubs, restaurants within walking distance to the park to fuel purchases and automotive supplies for our race teams. Local hotels now in Augusta already mostly are unavailable. They were booked very quickly as soon as the dates were confirmed for the weekend. Teams that travel from interstate bring with them a whole crew of people that need accommodation and, of course, their equipment, their powerboat and tools, supplies for the three-day event. Even they we provide security over their entire weekend, many teams wish to stay in their own accommodation vehicle overnight at the park as added security for their boats and equipment. They pay for their crew members to stay in local hotels, first, we're trying to get accommodation is difficult

And then with the local hotels having limited parking, they can't leave their boats, tools and spare parts worth up to $400,000 parked on the streets of Windsor. Over the last few years, our club has not encouraged camping at the park and regularly stated camping is at the risk of the camper. But as local residents, we have ensured that those people camping do not leave an impact on the area, supplying toilets— sorry

Supplying toilets for the event and garbage disposal, which the camper utilises. We have cleaned up any fire pits that may have been used and will ban any fire pits if this is requested by council. Since last September, at the request of the council, we have actively discouraged overnight stays, with the smaller event in May having zero overnight stays in the paddock due to our management. Leading up to our next event in September, we have had many spectators messaging us in response to advertising and that there will be absolutely no camping in the paddock this year. As a result, they have informed us that they will be unable to attend as they are unable to get accommodation. Also, some competitors, we've concerns about not being able to stay with their boat and equipment.

The club has never had any complaints about the camping from local neighbours. The only complaint we have had is access to the kids' park, which has been kept open and accessible at every single event that we have run. We mail drop to all the peninsula residents and ask them to contact us directly if there are any issues, and we invite them to attend with free family passes for the weekend. We are happy to proceed with any paperwork and risk management with Council guidance to enable our overnight stays and caravans, motorhomes and rooftop tents. We are doing everything we can to continue our event and Club days made harder since the flooding and condemning of our clubhouse, working out of storage sheds and transporting everything to and from the venue at our own cost.

The considerable cost as a result of these things means we need to make the event as accessible as many people as possible to cover our costs. That is over $100,000 worth of expenses to make the event meet all requirements. Limited public transport, limited taxis makes it difficult for those to access the entire three days of the event. By keeping up to 70 motorhomes and caravans on site, we are keeping hundreds of cars off the road as part of a traffic management in the area over the weekend. Our caravans and motorhomes staying overnight will not take away from the local hotel motel businesses, as all accommodation is booked solid months in advance of each event. But it will add a significant amount of money into the local economy.

Thank you, Ricky. Any questions?

Mr. Howard, would you think it would be an advantage if there was a permanent dump point there for these caravans and motorhomes? I’ll admit I’m a grey nomad, and I like to go to towns where there are dump points. It really increases the number of people calling in.

I believe our district suffers from not having one for those people. Yeah

I did a search on whatever it’s called, and we do not have one in Windsor. No, we have one at Richmond and perhaps the showground. Yeah. To have a free dump point, do you feel it would be an advantage?

I think it would be. The only issue we have is obviously a location for it that’s outside of a flood zone area to put it is what that I see as finding the right spot for it. But the community as a whole, and it amazed me as a resident of the river and of caravan parks and campers and river users over the period of time that we don’t have one. I think it’s when you go to other communities that... That have them, it's quite amazing that we don't. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The last speaker we have is Alison James. Councillor

Sorry. Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of this motion. I am Alison James. I'm the secretary of the Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club, also competitor and a fellow river resident. I am today speaking on behalf of drivers, crews and spectators who have camped at this event for decades, as well as their sponsors, families and support teams, many of whom have also camped on site as part of a long-standing tradition that surrounds this iconic event. This is all information that I've gathered from people who have attended, who have raced, who have camped, who've chosen to camp even though we've asked them not to. This is not just another local race. The Windsor Spectacular is a key round of the National Drivers Championship, a nationally televised series with episodes broadcast on 7mate and streamed on 7plus.

This coverage has brought a surge in spectators, many of whom now travel specifically to attend our event. After discovering it through the five episodes aired over the past two years. These episodes don't just showcase the racing; they highlight the Hawkesbury region, the Windsor area, and our stunning riverfront, promoting the town to a national and international audience and encouraging tourism year-round. In the eyes of the sport, Windsor is one of the most prestigious stops on the calendar, and the atmosphere here is unlike anywhere else. This means even more people are coming through the gates and into the area with minimal places to stay. Allowing motorhomes and caravans would allow for increased numbers attending our events and visiting the area, therefore spending more money within Windsor's establishments.

This event is seen by teams as one of the most significant on the national powerboat racing calendar, with teams and competitors from across New South Wales, interstate, and even overseas attending. Many of these teams travel thousands of kilometres, bringing with them expensive raceboats, specialised tools and equipment that simply cannot be left unattended in an off-site location. And many of the accommodation options in the area do not allow for the storage of boats and big equipment. Allowing camping on-site provides teams with security and peace of mind, ensuring they can remain close to their valuable gear throughout the event. Accommodation in Windsor and surrounding areas is already limited, and for this September event, it is almost entirely booked out well in advance.

As Ricky had already said, most, if not all, are booked once our calendar goes out. Without on-site camping, some competitors would be forced to stay significant distances away, which is impractical when we need to be present each morning for race preparations and safety checks. Camping at the Windsor Spectacular is not a new concept. For many of the teams, it's a longstanding tradition and many of the sport hold dear. In fact, some have described this event as the Bathurst of boat racing due to its decades-old September race traditions. For many competitors, camping on-site is part of the event's magic, fostering camaraderie between teams and connecting generations of racers. While the council may not currently recognise the area as a formal camping ground, these visitors are entirely self-contained.

They bring their own facilities, manage their own greywater, and take their rubbish away for proper disposal. This means no burden on council services and no environmental impact beyond their temporary presence. The benefit to Windsor is significant. These campers don't just come to race, they spend money here. They buy their morning coffee at local cafes, enjoy meals at pubs and restaurants, fill up at petrol stations and shop at the local businesses. Many also purchase emergency spare parts from the automotive suppliers in Windsor and McGraths Hill. Every night they stay in town is another night they contribute to the local community and economy. If these campers are forced to stay elsewhere, that spending goes elsewhere.

They won't be in Windsor for breakfast. They won't be topping up their fuel here. They won't have the chance to experience this beautiful town and what it has to offer. The upcoming event has a huge number of interstate entries already. We already have more interstate entries than current state entries. These people have expressed that they wish to camp on site, even though we have advertised and said there is no camping. By approaching this motion—by approving this motion, sorry—Council would be safeguarding the continuation of a cherished tradition, supporting local businesses, and ensuring the safe and successful running of a major Hawkesbury sporting event. I urge your support in this motion for the good of our community, our economy, and the heritage of the Windsor Spectacular and Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Colash.

Thank you, Mr James. When I asked the question about campers before, I was sort of talking about tents. So is your—no, your seventy is tents, are tents? No, we're not—no,

We're not talking

Tents.

Question through the Chair, Councillor. Sorry

So you're asking permission for just the camper vans, and that—sorry, I just thought you were asking permission for tents. No. So

Got it. Ideally, we don't encourage tents at all. What we have been getting is rooftop tents. We have had camper vans, motorhomes, camper trailers, those kind of setups, not necessarily someone with their tent.

That's all right. I was confused. I was thinking that seventy tents were spread around in the middle of the camper vans. Thank you for that.

Mr James , most of the events aren't that big, and—but with events that attract the sort of— Big boats, big money, and how they transport those, and usually accommodate them in the same unit. If they were to be left out somewhere in the city to go in the morning, how much issue would that cause the club in trying to get them located, considering their size and the amount of them, to locate them on site that morning?

So, within the morning, we have security on the gate, so we all get checked in as we come in. If a competitor chooses to take their boat away, for example, some people live locally, they take their boat home to work on. There is a large queue that we manage as best as we can, and that is between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. in the morning. If we were to have everybody take their equipment and leave, and we have some people who actually transport their items in large semi-trailers, it would be a massive job. It would mean that we would take longer in the morning to be organised and be on the water. There would be a lot more movement and traffic throughout Windsor, and it would actually affect the community around, or the homes around. They would definitely notice the difference.

Thanks. Any further questions?

Councilor Lyons-Buckett.

No you go . Could

You just qualify exactly where these caravans and campers and that will be parked? Will they be, say, on the western side of the road or the eastern side of the access road?

So, as you drive into Governor Phillip Park, the paddock on the right-hand side is the overflow car park. Yes. They tend to set themselves up at the back end of that. So they always seem to go to that back corner. If you imagine, like, this is the rectangle, the driveway going in, they're always in that back corner. Okay.

Thank you. That's in the old turf farm? Yes , that's correct. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion. I'll second, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for the speakers for coming in and enlightening us about the situation that currently exists and telling us about the major event that is held annually, which I'm sure many of us have attended in the past. This motion comes very close to when the event is on, but it has come—I brought this motion after I was approached about it. It seems that despite engaging with council, there has not really been any guidance around what options, if any, people had had to perhaps put in a DA and to try and work through this, or what options we could do. This is a situation where we don't want to punish people who are doing the right thing. They're trying to do the right thing.

They've identified that people will camp there anyway and, you know, have sought to bring this forward to see how we can find a solution to this problem. There's a preparedness to partner with council to work within any conditions that would be put on there. And I guess at this point, I'd just like to seek—I note the note by management, and I know a long-term solution could be changes in provisions in the LEP, but I just wanted to know, is there any possible implementation going forward from this with the use of temporary use or existing use provisions, as is the case, as they said they once had approval to utilise the camping for this year's event?

Through you, Mr Mayor. The truth of it is that no resolution of this chamber tonight can overcome any requirement or not to obtain necessary approvals for camping associated with this event. That's the simple reality of it. In the motion you've got before you tonight, I guess officers have interpreted that as Council expressing its willingness to provide effectively landowner's consent and a willingness to support this notion. What is before us, though, admittedly at quite short notice over the last week, is that we've got a complex matter where, with a whole suite of various acts and legislation and plans of management, but also a little bit of a tricky question around, in planning speak, characterising the land use.

So when does camping become camping? When does it become tourist and visitor accommodation? When is it just somebody sleeping in a campervan? So there are some nuances there that would need to be overcome. And should a development application be required, so if development consent is required, that is not going to be able to be obtained ahead of this year's event.

Just a follow-up question. With that specific block of land where the camping is, is it the case that we have previously leased that block of land for use by other people?

No.

Councillor, you're talking about Governor Philip Park or the

Adjacent properties? I'm speaking about the section across the road where the camping is, which is where the parking, for example, Council events is on. I seem to recall that at some stage we leased, gave a short-term lease. I'm just wondering if it would be possible to any leasing style of agreement to the Upper Hawkesbury Powerboat Club under any provisions

I'm not sure whether the map's in there, but I've had a look at one in the last couple of days. The area of Governor Philip Park is the grassed land associated on the right-hand side of the driveway. The property that was leased for turf farm is on the other side of Pitt Street. So it's across the adjacent road, and that hasn't been leased by any of the sporting organisations down there for any purpose, and it's private. It wasn't

Necessarily for a sporting event.

Sorry?

Not necessarily for a sporting event, for any other

Use. I'm not aware of any.

When you say across Pitt Lane, do you mean the area where the parking is?

No. You've got George Street, which is the main drag into the car park, into Governor Philip Park, and to the right of that there's predominantly two areas divided by a causeway or drain in the middle with trees in it. That goes right over to the right as you go up George Street to Pitt Street, and that feeds the farms. And the properties on the other side of those are predominantly privately owned. Council leases two of them, and I don't know that they've been used or leased, those properties at all. The only adjoining property owner is Mr Keith Candy. He owns the far one adjacent to the boat ramp , and it's been used for the purpose of helicopter landing in the past, but not for, that I'm aware of, for camping or for parking.

Oh, does Mr Kennedy have a lease?

Mr Kennedy owns the property.

Okay, that's—we have some recollection that at some stage Council actually leased some part of the land down there to somebody.

That's true, Councillor, but it's on the right-hand side of Pitt Street, and it was to Mr Kennedy, and it is to Mr Kennedy.

Okay, okay. So, I guess my follow-up question is, or statement is that we—you're saying there's just absolutely no way that we can do anything whatsoever to assist this to occur

What I'm saying is we haven't fully explored or determined at this point, in the absence of anything from the Hawkesbury Powerboat Club, haven't fully determined whether, in fact, a DA is required initially, right? That's the piece where we're actually trying to characterise the land use here. What I'm saying is if a development application is required, that is not going to be able to be determined ahead of the event.

Okay, so that's a no. There's nothing we can do.

Okay. All right. So, for future events, can we be starting a process then, perhaps, to work towards future events to do that? And can we have something in place that when people come in with a complex issue like this to our staff who engage with them, that we work with these people to explain to them what may be required so that we don't get to nearly up to an event and have no way of resolving an issue like this. We may all understand terms when someone says, you know, put in a DA or something like that, but it doesn't mean that everybody immediately knows what will happen. I don't know what will happen now in this situation because— I'm assuming people will just camp there anyway, and then we'll have knowledge of that, and there'll be no conditions around that. But I'll hear what if maybe other councillors have an idea or something to raise, and okay.

Before we, before Councillor Creed, General Manager, would it be appropriate to amend the motion of Council Lyons-Buckett that the staff look at any opportunity to provide the service that's intended by the motion?

Sorry, back through you, Mr. Mayor. Is your suggestion that the motion be amended for —

Council to investigate.

For Council to— investigate whether it be used for this specific event or a more enduring long-term solution to this problem

Probably both, but we've got one's more immediate.

We can certainly investigate that and provide advice. That said, that relies on council being provided information from the proponents in this case, and we will certainly do our best to turn that advice around. As I said, it's somewhat of a complex question at this point, and it was not something that we were able to be answered in between the notice of motion being submitted and tonight's meeting.

Thank you. Very complex. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, would you like to amend your motion in that regard?

Yes. Look, I'm happy to do anything it takes to, unless Councillor Wheeler was going to raise an amendment. Councillor

Creed's got the floor next.

I'll just wait. Can we just proceed with the motion that's before us and then amend it accordingly?

Thank you. Councillor Creed. Sorry, I'm a bit confused as to why this notice of motion is actually in the business paper. I understand what Councillor Lyons-Buckett was doing, and it is a good notice of motion, but normally when a councillor puts through a notice of motion, if essentially it's not legal or it is, what we end up voting on is not actually legally going to do anything, I just feel like this has been, going on what the general manager has said, has been a waste of time. Three public speakers have come in here tonight with prepared speeches , thinking that, you know, councils were going to be able to do this. Normally, if it can't go through, it wouldn't be on the business paper.

The councillor would be told, can't go through because of these reasons unless you change it. Why... Why is it in here if we have no recourse ? This has just been a monumental waste of time and wasting time for the public speakers and also for the club, thinking that the councillors were going to be able to vote on this. I'm just at a loss why we're even debating this if it's not going to be able to do anything.

Without going to meeting practice, I'll let someone with a bit more experience cover that, General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I think in this particular circumstance, firstly, the note by management has covered all of the complexities associated with the planning laws here, that we have sought to bring that to your attention. As I said at the outset, we have somewhat viewed the motion is that, one, where Council, as an entity in this chamber, is seeking to effectively endorse it and provide its consent to making of an application so much, or the ongoing use in this particular circumstance. So it's distinct from you having the power to actually approve the camping in this circumstance, because that power obviously doesn't exist.

Sorry, just to follow up through you, Mr Mayor. So given the fact that the event is less than, what, three weeks, just on three weeks away, we council staff don't have an answer on whether they need to submit a DA or not. So I'm just at a loss as to what— where do we go from here within the event in such a short a period of time? And I understand that, you know, Councillor Lyons-Buckett has put this up as quickly as possible, but is there no way that this— sorry , I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to find out exactly what we can do here, because otherwise we're just wasting time.

Yeah, well, that's why I suggested that, Councillor. We're landowners of the land. I don't know what avenues there are there, but I've got people sitting beside me that do know, and if there's avenues of support, I suggest that they've got the idea that we'd like that to happen. And if there's a way that it can happen, I'm sure they'll find it. If it's not, then we need to deal with it appropriately at another time.

Mr Mayor, I'm happy for it to be amended to reflect what you've just said.

So I'm not sure if what you said before was captured or not, but it would be amending it for that council staff investigate or advise. Well, I guess the first thing—

We'll get the wording up, Councillor.

I'm just thinking the wording needs to include that immediately gather the information from the Upper Hawkesbury Power

Boat Club. I don't think they'll go home. Sure. Well

Happy with that, Councillor?

I am only— there's no framework around when this would— I mean, it's a very short time frame, and I do apologise for that , but it's out of our control. But I think that this would have to— we would have to somehow delegate a decision to be made on that, because our next meeting, I think, will only be just before that. Can we delegate for the decision to be —

You can, Councillor. Sorry, can I just suggest something? If you don't want to delegate, I'm more than happy— yeah, but I'm just saying that if it has to come back to council, then I'm happy for it to come back to a meeting. I don't care either way, whether you put delegate or we have an extraordinary meeting to deal with it.

Well, we could have a meeting or we could address

It. I'm happy to do either way. I'm happy to put either option, that's all.

Councillor. The general manager is fairly satisfied that if there's anything to be done, that motion will do it.

Okay. Through you, sorry, Mr Mayor. There effectively is no decision to delegate.

Of course. So— No, I wasn't going to delegate a decision, just that you carry it forward. Yeah, absolutely

Ahead of that time frame. And we're certainly conscious, and the Powerboat Club have done the right thing, and our staff have been liaising with them, as the first speaker noted, over quite some period of time here. And I think that the default position was initially that it was prohibited under the planning instruments. There are temporary use, what we call temporary use provisions under the LEP that may make that permissible. What we've then got to go and have a look at is what's the scope under the plan of management and whether it's permitted under that. And then, before all of that, in terms of characterising the use, does it actually—you know, this is one little piece—can we somehow pigeonhole it into something that doesn't require consent?

Thank you. I appreciate that being done. And just to confirm, obviously this information that you seek from them, they're listening. How will they be contacted? Will that be— do you want them to contact you tomorrow, or now, or any of the above?

Best just to simply send me an email, and I will make sure that that gets through to our relevant planning staff, who can give much more considered advice and detailed advice than what I can give tonight.

Thank you. Appreciated.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, it looks like we've got a potential way forward for— Next month at least. Can I suggest that we look at reviewing the plan of management for Governor Philip Park. It's part of a more generic plan of management, which was written in 2009 and adopted by Council in 2013. It's quite old, and it's particularly old given what's happened in that precinct: Windsor Bridge, Thompson Square, both vastly different to the way they were. But also the powerboat club is vastly different and about to be more so. I think we really need a new plan of management that's specific to Governor Philip Park and that allows that, and we need to work with the powerboat club to make sure that that meets everyone's needs. We're not— so could we have perhaps a point two? Point one could be investigate and point two, Council reviews the plan of management for Governor Philip Park.

Councillor, before I accept that, would you be interested in putting a motion up at a later date? We're talking about funding issues here and a bigger picture, the Governor Philip Park in relation to exclusive use and the activities.

I'll do it next meeting.

Sorry?

I'm happy to do it next meeting.

Thank you.

We can have the same discussion.

Anybody else?

Just a suggestion to the motion. I don't know what the exact words might be, but also not just for this September, but for every September moving forward. So there might be some sort of temporary use provisions for this September. But we need to have a look specific—not reviewing the whole plan of management, but specifically for this event—that they have an outcome for what needs to happen every year.

The staff's indicating that.

No further debate? Righto, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I appreciate the staff's willingness to, and your suggestion to alter it to that, to go down that path. It's just unfortunate when we have things where we know the value of them to our local economy. We know that they are things that have always been done, and we see a group seeking to legitimise and to do the right thing and work within the conditions they have to, and to give a major contribution to our area. So I'm really hopeful something can be worked out, and I agree with Councillor Wheeler and what Councillor McMahon just said, that we need to move forward and put something in place for the future in times to come. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion is 12.1.2. Those in favour?

Thank you, Councillors. It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Those for the motion is Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Cox, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Frogde, and Councillor Sheather. That's the end of the speakers, Councillors. We've got items on block.

Zamprogno and Sheather.

Right, the next item, the Local Government Conference. Move it, Mr Mayor.

Second, Mr Mayor.

Who was the seconder, sorry? Councillor Will

Hains.

Councillor Creed. Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor, and I think we've got to nominate any councillors as well, so I'd like to nominate myself.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Begging your pardon, Mr Mayor. I was wondering whether the mover might be inclined to edit point one to omit the word accommodation. I can't justify council paying for accommodation for council that's in a half-an-hour drive away, so I think we should just clarify that by removing accommodation .

I think it comes down to the general manager anyway, doesn't it? Because it falls within the Sydney basin.

Our code says that if it's in the metropolitan area, I think—

General manager.

Councillors, I tried to suggest at last year's conference in, I think it was Parramatta, that you didn't take accommodation and you duly amended otherwise. So hence we've put it in there for you to make a decision as to whether you wish to take up that option.

Can I just leave it in there and it'll be up to the councillor whether they choose, because I actually just want to make sure that staff, if they travel further than most of us , that the option is there for them, and it would be up to the councillor to either accept or reject. I think most of— pretty much would all reject, but that would be up to them. Thank you.

It would have a bearing on the cost though, Mr Mayor. I'm sure $1,600 doesn't include the conference cost and accommodation in staying in downtown Penrith.

It doesn't. Sorry, it does? Yeah. No, it doesn't. Oh, it doesn't.

Look, to be honest, if I'm voted in as one of the delegates, I won't be taking it, but just, yeah. I mean, I don't care, but it says councillors and staff, and I'm just the staff bit. But I would suggest that any councillors that put their hand up for it just don't take accommodation. It comes down to personal responsibility.

Mr Mayor, may I speak to the motion, please?

Yes, you can.

Thank you. I think this is good that there's a reasonably local conference. I think it's a good opportunity for councillors to attend who may not want to be away overnight at places. It's only in our neighbouring council. We show them our support by going along. I'd also like to nominate to go.

And I don't think that this—and we've got until the 26th of October, I think I saw, for the motions, for any motions to go in. I'm keen to put something in around local government election reform, which I understand the government are working on, but I think we could contribute to that. I think it's a good topic to raise, but I'll do that before that deadline. And yes, so I guess if anyone else is speaking, otherwise the nominations, they're going. And also, I don't think we staff may need the accommodation, because if some people live half an hour away, some people might live a lot longer away, and that may be necessary for staff.

Or a party bus could be an option.

We can just carpool.

Councillor Brogden,

You had your light on earlier.

No, it was only to suggest that amendment to the motion. But I also would like to nominate to go, since I'm a director of the organisation in question.

Councillor Creed, you wish to go? Yes. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I shall ask Yes. Councillors? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you?

Yes, please.

And Councillor Zamprogno.

Well,

Based on their very helpful suggestion, on a temporary basis until I work out that I don't need council to pay for it, because the organisation will pay for it. Thank you.

Councillor Ryan. I'd like to go along too, please, on the name.

Councillor Wheeler

Yep. Any other councillors? And myself.

Councillor, just on what was spoken of about accommodation. While it's pretty well only just across the road, conferences in most cases finish about four o'clock, and we go there to exchange ideas and look for opportunities. I think they're excellent value. I know some people think they're a bit of a junket. I've never thought that, and I'm glad to see there's so many councillors that have put up their hand up. But in getting back to the timing, you finish at four o'clock, and there wouldn't be any time that you would walk straight out. There's people there that you would associate with, with our neighbours or the like, and every night there's something on that you would probably be attending, and it would be starting at seven o'clock.

So if you leave over there at five, and you live at Windsor or further, you're going to be late or speeding. And conferences aren't meant to be confrontatious to anyone for any purpose. They're there for the purpose of councillors making aware of what's happening around the world and try and make this a better place. So just be mindful that if someone lives over Penrith way, that's fine, but for people that live outside of that, I'm suggesting that you think about whether or not you want accommodation, because the time lag is going to be between. So

Maybe we could have a Councillor Airbnb.

Yeah.

Thank

You. Councillor Veigel, thank you. Thank you, councillors.

Are you suggesting, Mr Mayor, that networking will outweigh the cost of the accommodation? Sorry? Are you suggesting that networking with other councillors will outweigh the cost of the accommodation?

Well, as an investment in the future, is that what you're saying? Yeah. Fair enough.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm going to chime in on this because I went to the conference a couple of years ago, and it was at Liverpool. And coming from Kurrajong Heights to Liverpool in the morning, and I was feeling terribly guilty about getting accommodation. No, it took hours to get there. We were late. I mean, no, let's just be serious. Conferences are actually hard work. If you really concentrate on the conference, there is so much to get through. Let's not be picky about accommodation. I think, you know, it's worthwhile.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr Mayor,

I don't care either way. Councillor Wheeler and I paid to stay in Parramatta last time when we went, funded ourselves to go. But the thing may be, I don't know how much accommodation there is in Penrith, so you could end up being further away than you were at home.

Okay

Councillors, we've got a bit to get through. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, we ratified the councillors' facilities policy last month, and I think, and I made the point then that we need to be, we need to make sure that our policies mean that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of their circumstances. And I think these, we've got a motion that says that councillors can apply for accommodation. That's up to you and your conscience. I'm currently in a position where I'm happy to drive to Penrith and back again, regardless of what time of the day it is. And I'm also in a position where if I choose to stay, if I go to the dinner and I've had a skinful, that I can afford to pay for that. But not all councillors will be in that position. And I think we need to be really careful about making moralistic judgments about the requirements for other people.

You know, not everybody has the same, we don't have equality of circumstances. People with other responsibilities, people with health issues, people at different ages and stages of their lives need to avail themselves of different aspects of councillors' facilities policy, and we should hope that it all comes out in the wash and that we do our best by the ratepayers. That's the most we can ask.

Thanks very much, Councillor. Councillor Ryan.

Yeah, Mr Mayor, in regards to 2.5 of the, over in relation to delegates providing a written report to the general manager detailing the procedures and findings, perhaps would these be able to be made available to the other councillors so that we could get an insight into what has happened and what is happening at these conferences, especially for the people that aren't able to go?

Yeah, councillors, these days, as this meeting is, everything's electronic. The presentations you get, the documentation, the opportunities you don't get are there. All that information is available from the time you book. It's there. Whether we go to a conference, if someone's keen to be informed about that, then you can look at it at your leisure. They're available and the like. So they're available to anyone that wants information after a conference is readily available. And I don't know the report from an individual councillor. They would certainly use that experience in debate around the room and the like. Whether you could sit down and talk through a conference or not, I'm not quite sure. But it can be made available, Councillor, yes.

Any further discussion?

Mr Mayor, I think we choose the voting delegates.

Councillor Zen Progno's— he will probably be part of— he will probably have the board pay for him anyway, because he's part of the New South Wales Government board. So potentially we avoid a vote, and if Councillor Zen Progno wants to withdraw, that way the other five that have nominated, because I would suggest that you're already part— Yeah, but we get up to five voting delegates. But Councillor Zen Progno, I would say, is already—

Oh no, he's the seventh.

Is he? Who's the six

Three, and are you going— oh, Amanda's not going. So there's— Councilor Wheeler. You're

Right

Sorry.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, myself, Councillor McMahon and Councillor Sheather.

And the general manager's got the name down here. Sorry.

Three, Mr Mayor. I've got Councillors Creed, Lyons-Buckett, Zamprogno, Ryan, Sheather and Wheeler.

And McMahon. Oh

Sarah and Councillor McMahon, sorry.

But you do have to stipulate which five of you are the voting delegates.

Sorry

I want to maximise our voting power. I'm on the list until I'm clarified with head office.

Yeah, councillors, in relation to voting, you get an electronic vote. With the conference that I've attended over the last four years, with some of the councillors here, that if they're to leave the room for some purpose, they would pass the voting tag to another councillor. The councillors vote in relation to council policy. If there's not a council policy, quite often they'll discuss amongst themselves. If it can't be resolved, they won't vote on it. If it can be, they'll vote that way. So to be nominated as a voting delegate, it'd be registered that way. But the tag would be registered, may not be pushed, the button might not be pushed by the registered person sitting in the gallery. So I don't think it matters who's registered. The mayor

Will be at the conference with four other electronic things doing five at once. Is that what you're telling me? Yeah, really.

We put our hand up for the five voting, which was yourself, myself, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler. So that's the five voting delegates. Are we happy

With that?

We already sorted it.

I'll forego my place if Councillor Zamprogno is not going to be there. As the councillor. Okay. We happy with that?

Councillor Creed, you happy with what's on the screen?

One, two, three, four, five, six. Yep. So voting: Sheather, Creed, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Wheeler. Yep, that's fine. Yep. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconder, you happy with that?

It's happy, thank you.

Any further discussion? Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Against? Carried. It's Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Regan, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, McMahon, Djuric, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather. The next item is the draft plan of management, Church Street 10.3.1. Councillor Wheeler, you've asked that to be pulled up.

Zamprogno and Sheather. The next item is the draft plan of management, Church Street 10.3.1. Councillor Wheeler, you've asked that to be pulled up.

Sorry, Mr Mayor.

I don't want to move it, seeing I've called it up. I've called it up because I want to.

Would someone like to move that way? Councillor Dogramaci.

And Councillor Veigel.

Did you wish to speak on the matter, Councillor Dogramaci?

Debate, councillors.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. There's two issues here that I think are important to put on the public record. The first relates to the scope of works detailed in the plan of management. It's likely that there will be a significant funding shortfall for the proposed works at Oasis, and the community needs to be aware of this. We may not be able to deliver all of what is proposed in this plan of management. The second is the statement regarding Windsor Preschool on page 36, and I'll read it out because I think it's important to put on the public record. Windsor Preschool is a not-for-profit preschool in a low socioeconomic area servicing the Hawkesbury with early education. We put forth that this building remains leased to Windsor Preschool Association Incorporated and is not put to tender, and that's From a submission received when the plan of management was put out on public exhibition.

Council is reviewing its approach to child care centre leases. Windsor Preschool is providing exactly what a council-owned childcare facility should be providing to a community with significant needs: high-quality early childhood education at low costs to families who will most benefit from it. And Council should ensure, in adopting this plan of management, that it stays that way. I want to now loop back to works on the site. On page 35, there are lists of high priority actions and key long-term actions. For my money, I'd prefer a focus on achievable key long-term actions like tree planting, shading car parks, and increasing connectivity over extensions to, for example, the fitness centre and upgrades to built infrastructure that will struggle to deliver and maintain.

I have concerns about continually support. I know that these currently for us perform the function of aspirational documents that give us wide scope so that we can put in place the plans that we've taken, in this instance to the WISIG program. But what concerns me is that we continue to overpromise, and I think that that leaves us in a position where we will therefore continue to underdeliver. This is consistent with what we've asked under WISIG, but we know from the Capital Improvements Report that we are really stretched in delivering these programs. And I think

We're setting ourselves up for a failure in the eyes of the community when we give them these grand Plan of management documents that we probably won't be able to follow through on.

Thank you. Further debate?

No further debate. Councillor Dogramaci, do you wish to speak on the matter?

Yes,

Provide a reply. Those in favour of the recommendation? It

Is Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Kotlash,

Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, thank you, and Councillor Djuric, and

Councillor Zamprogno. Did you have your hand up? Those against?

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and Councillor Ryan. The motion's carried.

Did I call out the name?

Yeah.

The motion's carried.

Did I call out the naming?

Yeah.

Okay.

The next item, investment report, unblock, update of Council's media release policy, 10.4.3.

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

That was Councillor McMahon.

A seconder?

Councillor Veigel.

Any debate?

Put the motion. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I can't support this policy. I've been unhappy with the policy since it was presented to us in the previous term of Council, and I can't endorse it with this change either. I'm very happy to disclose the accounts that I administer, which are my councillor page and the Hawkesbury Greens page, in conjunction with other Hawkesbury Greens members, but I'm not responsible for the opinion or affiliations of my spouse,

My mother— I'm sorry, I missed that, sorry. You're not responsible for—

For the opinions or affiliations of my spouse, my mother, my son, or my son's partner, and nor should I have to be. I don't canvass their opinions, nor should I be accountable for them. My husband is a Council employee and therefore subject to the Code of Conduct, which is a higher standard than anyone else's partner here is held to. I also add that I don't have and never have had a fake account or alias, despite insinuations to the contrary. If I've got an opinion, I say it using my own name on my own page, and people who vote for me and for the Greens expect nothing less.

This policy, from its inception,

Had a bias, and that bias continues.

That is not the place of councillors, and it's not the place of council to pick and choose which media it engages with, to make determinations about the biases of different media, nor is it this Council's role to hold the relatives of councillors to account.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the motion. I just can't see anything in here that adds any more to making us have a better media policy. Basically, I think most of it is covered under our current disclosure requirements. If anything comes before this chamber, or if any media articles or anything are being discussed, they could be, you know, the relevant declarations would have to be made anyway if it's a family member. I just, I agree with Councillor Wheeler about the overstepping. Unless we're going to clarify it. By including a whole lot of other people that we think might be having fake profiles or controlling people that either come in here to speak or who are affiliated with people who donate to campaigns, for example, unless we're going to specify that in our media policy, I don't see why we would specifically go down this path.

So I don't think it adds to making it a better policy. I think that we make disclosures about what we're affiliated with. We've just done our annual disclosures. If anyone's closely affiliated with a specific thing, there's a part on that form that people can mention that, and that's where I put things around if I'm a member of something or belong to an organisation. And I imagine that if you consider that somebody was so influencing what you did by what they ran on a Facebook page to do with council matters, then I would think you should declare that regardless of whether it's in this policy or not.

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I've come onto this a little bit late, and I'm a bit lost on how did this matter actually come before the chamber. Hang on, please. I'll talk through Mr the Mayor, if you wouldn't mind. General Manager.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. The matter is before you because it arose out of a motion brought to council, I think by way of a Mayoral Minute in May 2024, Councillor.

Thank you for that. And look, I read through, and I might be reading these things a little bit through different eyes, but councillors are saying councillors must advise the general manager of these people. I've got a huge amount of relations, and linear people, it'll get right up there. I already asked too, and they suggested somewhere else I could go, but they're not going to do that, and they're not going to provide me with any information whatsoever. So where do I stand if these people do do this? And, A, where does council get the powers to ask for this? I've looked up, I sent a question in, and I got a response from the code of conduct for members of parliament, New South Wales Parliament.

And the question was, do state and federal members of parliament have to declare if relatives are administrators of their Facebook page? It came back, no. There is no requirement for a member of parliament in Australia to publicly declare if a relative administers their social media pages, including Facebook, while MPs have the responsibility to act with honesty, integrity and maintain public interest, there is no specification, law or rule mandated to disclose a family member's involvement in their social media. Then it's why the explanation. The Australian Parliament rules and codes of conduct do not specify specifically address disclosures of family members managing social media. The focus of this ethical guideline is on the MPs' own actions and conducts, not the actions of their family members.

Requiring disclosure of family members involved could raise privacy concerns, particularly if the member are directly involved with the MP's duties. Public disclosure of family member involved in social media could potentially expose them to harassment and unlawful attention.

I'm not prepared to put my members of my family in this, or disclose what they do. I think that's up to them. I can't see where council gets the powers to demand it, whether you get it under the Crimes Act, do you get it under the whatever Act. I have to disclose it, but I can't see where it says I have to disclose it, disclose my family members' names, and I think we are potentially opening ourselves up for issues when it comes to privacy. There's no mention of privacy in this. Whether these names would be kept private, it's not attached to this document. So I can't support this in any way whatsoever. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just given the fact that we're talking about the media policy, I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. Given the fact that the Hawkesbury Gazette is now back up and running, what is the provision for council to do their advertising like they used to, with upcoming DAs and all that sort of stuff? I know they do some stuff in the Hawkesbury Independent, but given the Gazette's back and most locals use the Gazette, are we going to be—like, what is the procedure there? What is the policy?

I'm happy for you to take it on notice

You're talking about advertising?

Yeah, like you would do the council notices and all that sort of stuff, and the mayor's column, and what we normally used to do. And I get that it's in the Independent, but is there provision to do it in the Gazette as well? Because a lot of locals, they love the Gazette, and it's especially around the courts and all that sort of stuff, so— Are you

Talking about general advertising, or what's before us here?

Yeah, so no, I'm asking, the media policy would state that council advertises and does their mayoral column or that sort of stuff. Is there a provision in the media policy, because I couldn't find it in the attachments, is that a resolution of council or does that have to be changed in the media policy, or is it just a certain— sorry, that's what I'm just asking. I ask you for you to take it on notice.

Yeah, it'll be taken on notice.

Fine. The other question is, given the fact that we've now got the Gazette back and there actually— there were some, the Gazette people here, can we return the table back to the press the way we used to have it? We talk about transparency and all that sort of stuff.

Is that going

To be possible?

We'll take that on notice, councillor. Cool, thanks. We need to stick to the item in the business paper.

The table's not.

Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not particularly fussed if councillors don't support this tonight. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. But the irony does not escape me that the councillors who sit here and think that they support transparency and accountability won't support transparency and accountability for this item is not lost on me. I find it hilariously mind-boggling. This is not asking you to disclose what your relatives administer unless it is related specifically to council, this council or the council's officials. It is not asking you to put your relatives on a public disclosure, as I heard one councillor say before just a minute ago. It's asking you to disclose that information to the general manager.

Or the corporate communications and events manager. It's not asking you to put that onto a public record. Therefore, the privacy of any relative does not become public information. The reason this came about, as we all very well know, is there was a councillor who was clearly making content for a site where he was not disclosing that he was the creator until pushed to do so, despite then, after the fact, claiming that he did. I think that if councillors want to sit in here and there's 12 seats out of nearly 70,000 people, and be elected to this chamber, then stop lying. Stop running fake profiles. No, Mr Mayor, this is in line with the motion. Stop lying. Stop running fake profiles, and stop saying you are the voice of the people or you speak for everybody when you are lying.

It is just black and white. And if you've got nothing to hide, then say so. If this fails tonight, couldn't care less. Going home, I'll have a good sleep. But do not pretend that you are a person of credibility when you lie consistently to this community. And I don't see anything wrong if you or your relative are administering a page that talks about this body, this council, these decisions, and our staff, that you have a problem with that and you want to hide that. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

This is silly. There's only one person who wants this, and they've just spoken. One person. You know, I'm

Happy to wave this through. But it's an example of legislation that will never achieve the intent for which it was moved. For the record, I was always, and can prove that I was happy to disclose that I was behind Hawkesbury City Councillor Watch, which only dispensed factual information about councillor attendance and the motions that were brought before the chamber and which councillors voted which way, and drew a great deal of praise for precisely doing that and only that. The Deputy Mayor is entitled to her opinion, but it's just not the case. What I would prefer to reflect on, the Deputy Mayor might reflect that I have the floor at the time being, is that on another occasion there was another fake profile that was set up, that was very deliberately set up to comment on council matters and which was explicitly defamatory in its intent and which was registered to the ABN of the partner of the Deputy Mayor.

Point of order, Mayor.

Point of order. When I call a point of order, it needs to be heard. That's the code of meeting practice.

Yeah, you've got the floor.

Yeah, this is irrelevant and Councillor Zamprogno is basically tiptoeing on very dangerous territory here.

I think you'd be the

Judge of that

Mr Mayor. That Facebook page was spectacularly defamatory and was registered to the ABN of the then partner of the Deputy Mayor. I raise that to make this point: if this particular clause in the media policy had been in force at that time, could we have imagined that that would have compelled the Deputy Mayor? To have disclosed that she or her partner were behind that spectacularly defamatory fake page. The Deputy Mayor protests very frequently. Point of order, Mr Mayor.

No, Mr Mayor, this is going into territory that I swear to God there will be consequences for defamation for Councillors Zamprogno—

Deputy Mayor,

When he was supplying photographic and written

Content to Hawks Remade. Deputy Mayor, we're not going to debate about it. The point of order—you brought this up, and now Councillor Zamprogno is responding, and he's not calling anybody a liar.

Councillor Zamprogno did lie, Mr Mayor.

It's overreaching.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Just be mindful, Councillor. I am mindful, but I do take up your point, Mr Mayor, that the person who brought this on and who is disinclined to take the medicine is the Deputy Mayor. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Councillor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Excuse me, Mr Mayor. No point of order, sorry, not at you. Councillor Zamprogno just told me to fuck off.

I did no such thing,

Mr Mayor. It would be on the—yes, you did, Councillor Zamprogno. Now you've lied again. I honestly can't believe this is happening and you're allowing this to happen. He just said to me, F off, and now he's lied about it. That would be on the cameras. You need to do something about this because you can't hold me to one set of rules and everyone else to another relaxed set of rules.

Councillor, your point's taken. I will look at the camera.

Why would I make it up? He's just lied to you as

Well. Councillor, you just asked me to look—I didn't hear it. I don't know whether anybody else heard it , and I'm not going to ask them. You asked me to look at the camera, and if that's what happened, I'll speak to Councillor Zamprogno and take the matter up with you later.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, Mr Mayor. Other councillors are sitting in this room in our place of work while we have two councillors insulting each other across the chamber. We have just sat here and been subjected I am calling a point of order. This meeting is no longer safe for those of us who are sitting in this as a workplace. I've just sat here while I've heard a councillor call another councillor a disgusting human being.

Enough. We're here to do a job.

Yep. I appreciate the comment, Councillor. If anybody,

If anybody— if anybody's in a situation where they feel uncomfortable, are they at the moment?

Yes.

What exactly would you like me to do about it, Councillor?

Perhaps a five-minute adjournment while people get their tempers back under control.

We have five minutes, Councillors. Or we can adjourn the meeting. No, we're not adjourning the meeting, Councillor. Your request is warranted. We'll have a five-minute break, Councillors.

We resume the meeting. It's on the media policy 10.4.3.

Do we have any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'd just like to say that I understand why the Deputy Mayor, or the Mayor at the time, brought this mayoral minute. And it was because Councillor Zamprogno did run aside that was contrary, really, to what Council had determined. We all debated in this chamber about whether we would have certain statistics about our attendance, our— oh, I can't really remember all of the details. But, and whilst a lot of those things are collected and are par for course, we do that anyway. The intent of the notice of motion that Councillor Zamprogno put to us was about issues that I found to be really divisive. And this is what you get when you persist with being divisive and taking every opportunity to score points against your fellow councillors.

That notice, that was voted down, and then Councillor Zamprogno started— Developed this page, but he didn't front up as being the person that was running it. That came down to his partner. And I can see why the deputy, the mayor at the time, thought that that was, what's a good word, irksome. It was really divisive , just disingenuous about being a part of this council and a productive part and a cooperative part.

And further down the track, this is where we are. This is a result of that.

I don't think there were too many people in the community that thought that your scorecard was terribly useful, but you made it sound like it was, you know—

Through the chair, councillor.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Through the chair.

Sorry, okay, lost the train of my thought. Sorry. Yeah, so, you know, just be mindful that petting us off each other in that way leads to resentments being held for a long time. You have done that to me. You have done that to a lot of councillors. You have scored points off us for, you know, for little reason. So

Whilst I am not that comfortable with this media policy,

I'm going to support it because I want to send that message to any other councillor that wants to, and I'll have to say that this really just applies to somebody who wants to set up a Facebook page that is exclusively , I guess, about council, councillors and council officials. If one of your relatives thinks it's a good idea to do that and you feed them information, then I think you have a conflict. I don't think that we should all be worried about, you know, our extended families. That's not it because I don't think most people would do that. But I think this sends a good message, and for that reason, I'm going to support it. For

The debate, Councillor Creed. Sorry, can I just ask a procedural question? Given the fact that the Deputy Mayor moved it and has now left the meeting, does that matter?

It's okay.

Okay. Just quickly, I wasn't on council when this came up. I was a bit, you know, at the time, what is the point, all that sort of stuff, and so I actually went and had a look at this particular Facebook page. And from a glance,

Whilst data looks good and all that sort of stuff, we all know data can be skewed. My issue with it is that it didn't go into reasons for why councillors were absent from a meeting or a briefing or anything like that. And I think I remember seeing a comment from Councillor Wheeler also attesting the same thing on one of the posts, that the data was skewed a certain way, and even referenced, I think you were in hospital one... Meeting, and you still managed to try and Zoom in from your hospital bed. Through the chair , Councillor. Okay .

Through the chair. So I can understand why this was put up. I think it is purely based on, if it's to do with, you know, essentially to do with council matters and all that sort of stuff. I don't have a huge issue with having to disclose it because, let me tell you, I don't think my husband has any interest in what we do. I'm sure he likes most of you, but he just has no interest in spending all that time on it. But , I mean, we have to declare literally everything in this chamber that we do. You know, essentially if someone buys me a cup of coffee and talks council, I would declare it because I don't want any sort of grey area or anything like that, hence why I always buy my own coffee. So I don't have an issue with supporting it.

I think if you want to put something like this together, then just be upfront with it and just say, This is the reason. But actually give people the option of saying, you know, Well, hang on. What about this data? Can you fix that up? Because I didn't see that happening. And I understand the idea. I don't have an issue with doing meeting reports and all that sort of stuff. I think it's good for public to be aware and transparency and all that sort of stuff. But I think now we've got two local papers, I think we should probably leave it to the professionals and let councillors actually stick to what they're supposed to be here to do and represent the community and make sure that we ask the questions that need to be asked from the staff and we just get on and do it.

You know, there are parts of me there are regrets coming back on council because we sit here and act like children, some of us, and it just drives me absolutely up the wall. So I'll support this.

Thank you. Thank you, councillors. Before you go, Councillor, when this come to us before, there was issues that we were discussing. Some of those have been discussed tonight. And when we discussed it, we thought if we put all the relative in there, that that would cover things . And I guess in the scheme of things, if everybody's thinking reasonable and acting reasonable, it probably would. But the fact of the matter is, you're not responsible for your children. You're not held legally responsible for your children. How can you be responsible for your parent, your godparents, your brother, your sister, your uncle, and the like? We're here to conduct ourselves in a proper manner, which has fallen short sometimes.

And when the staff drew this policy up, it was to protect councillors and the staff, and then we go fiddling with it on the run. And this is what happens, to the degree that we've got to show in the council where the deputy mayor lives. That's the sort of thing that happens when we deal with things other than the business of council. And it's not fair in relation to anybody that's felt in a position tonight, whether being part of it or not. It is simply not fair, and we're doing it to ourselves, guys.

I don't propose to support this. What was in the media in the first place is probably appropriate. There's a lot more people know more about the media than I do. But I'd suggest that any action you take in this chamber, that if it's presented to the public or anywhere else, you are solely responsible for your own actions, whether you're encouraged by someone else or not. It's how you conduct yourself. And if tonight's an example, we're doing that fairly poorly. So we can put in place whatever we like. The bottom line is you make your own decisions and the consequences from them. So, councillors, I'd ask you to be mindful with comments we make. It's not scoring points; it's scoring a better outcome and how we might deal with that.

And I know sometimes it's not intent, but sometimes our feelings get the better of us, I guess, and we react accordingly. Well, we're supposed to be better than that. We've got the whole 70,000 people out there that put us in this position to do better than that.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had a question. Just clarifying, we're only declaring it—it's only to be notified to the general manager and the corporate communications and events manager anyway . Am I correct in reading that? Is that what it's about? So, in other words, it's not really giving any transparency to the community at all. It's only about telling the general manager, which I'm sure anyone is willing to tell. Mr Mayor, I can't remember if I spoke or not. I think I asked a question. I'll speak against it because I don't think it's necessary. What we're essentially doing is we're making a broad policy based on one specific individualised event about a Facebook page that no longer operates or exists.

We could all go back and talk about the fake profiles that we know people had that attacked us online or various things like that. That's gone on ever since social media's been here. And I think that our code of conduct dictates how we behave and what we must declare. I'm always happy to declare any involvement I have on social media. I can't speak for relatives because I don't know what they do, and that's a genuine thing. I don't know who does what, where. You know, my children comment about council at times. I wouldn't expect to control what they have to say. That's their opinion. They're ratepayers. One of them's a ratepayer here. And I just think it's overstepping the boundary without giving us any benefit.

It doesn't enhance this policy as a media policy. But then again, I'm more than happy to declare my involvement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any further debate?

Sorry, can I just ask—just to clarify, it's only if they administer a page. It's not if someone comments about council or anything. It's if they administer a page that's directly related to council. It's not attacking free speech or anything like that. It's about just administering any social media account that's essentially to do with council business. That's it. It's not to do with attacking someone if they comment or go, Council's rubbish, and it happens to be someone's son or relative. It's just purely about— It’s not about attacking free speech or anything, or if someone wants to comment, it’s not about that. It’s about a page, is that correct? Yeah.

That’s correct, and can I also please clarify, on the back of some comments that were made earlier, there is other provisions within the Code of Conduct, councillors, that talk about making disclosures when you reasonably become aware of them. So for the discussion about, well, I don’t know if Uncle Bob or, you know, Aunty Sally has an account, the clause sits there that says you make that declaration when you know about it.

Yeah, okay. That’s fine. Thanks.

Thank you, councillors. The mover of the motion’s not here for right of reply. The motion that’s before us is 10.4.3. Those in favour?

Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel—

Sorry, councillors. Councillor Sheather, Councillor Van Blarcom, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, and Councillor Djuric. The motion’s lost.

The next item.

The next item. The next item is 10

5.3.

Sorry, we've got — I've got

A declaration

10.5.3. Move it.

I've got a declaration.

There's two declarations. The Deputy Mayor's not here. She made one in this regard, and the other was Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.5.3, the Capital Projects quarterly report. I'm a member of Hawkesbury Communications Brigade, New South Wales RFS, and my son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, New South Wales RFS. The reason for no further action is that the involvement doesn't meet the threshold for significance.

Thank you, Councillor. The matter's on block. Those in favour?

Against? Carried.

Sorry. Who was the mover and seconder?

I moved it, Councillor McMahon, and then Councillor Wheeler did her declaration .

Sorry, could I have a show of hands again for support the motion?

It's unanimous. Councillor McMahon and Councillor Dogramaci's not here. Councillor Regan, Councillor Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, Djuric, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather.

12.1.1, Planning Proposal Policy. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor. Seconder?

The Reagan, Councillor Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, Djuric, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler, Zamprogno and Sheather

12.1.1, Planning Proposal Policy. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'll

Move that, Mr Mayor . Thank you, Mr Mayor.

A seconder?

Thank

You, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I note firstly the note that came round from the Director of Corporate Services today around this motion. However, I personally, I didn't consider it to be that similar. I mean, it is sort of similar content, but I brought this forward because I believed we needed to set a framework. When we had the discussion about this previously around scoping proposals, there was most people speaking wanting transparency and wanting to have something occur around this. And so I think having a policy to shape a clear pathway, which is understood by all stakeholders, is the way to go forward with this. That way we can address things like publication of the proposals, or just to really set out the process that's involved.

Given that we in this chamber set the strategic direction for the area in terms of future development, we have to do this in line with various overarching and integrated policies and open and honest consideration of what proposals are suggested is imperative. We've not always seen this in the past, which is unfortunate, but our community expect and deserve it, as do we as councillors. With a shift in emphasis around the housing crisis, the Department of Planning's made changes, and we need to keep in step with that. We don't want planning proposals first being learned of when they come to us at a briefing a couple of weeks before we have to make a decision in here about whether or not such a proposal should progress to a gateway determination.

Planning proposals are often mostly accompanied by many studies and documents, which can take time to absorb and understand any potential benefits and impacts. Prior to the proposals going to the local planning panel for advice, I believe that should be informed by the perspective and issues councillors may raise about locality-specific issues and also on behalf of residents who stand to be impacted. If there's not compatibility with our strategic direction, that needs to be very clear. To properly input into the process, we need to know about it at the time of lodgement to follow the process as it goes through. In the past, we've even had a proposal which had already gone to the planning panel before we were even advised of it, and then a briefing a week before a decision was to be made, and that's not good enough.

We can't have that happening when these things impact areas. And given the significance that planning proposals are altering our LEP, these are mostly changes which essentially allow people to develop contrary to the current permissibility. So that requires upfront information for the public. The Hills Council have a very comprehensive policy, as does Dubbo. They're the two I just happened to look at. The Dubbo one's in draft, as this is all reasonably new. And policies like this can deliver clear guidance around the process and make sure each stage is underpinned by consultation as appropriate. This is different from the existing document which some councils have, which is a guide to preparing planning proposals put out by the state government.

And this policy, this would be different to that. That simply sets out the pathway for people putting in a proposal. But the Hills policy has a really good diagram of the process. That could be a standard diagram, I don't know, but it's in there. And it indicates all the stages of how the engagement happens throughout. So at which stages the public and the proponent can actually engage and have a back and forth about something. It gives the proponent the opportunity to address the councillors in a briefing up front , very early in the proposal, so that they can present their case. That allows councillors an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarity around aspects of what's being proposed, and it's held prior to council staff assessing it or the planning panel giving advice.

This process is clarified by statement from the general manager about the purpose of that exercise and clarification that councillors are not to consider it a decision-making forum but an information exchange. It's merely an initial part of the process which involves further steps, and then it goes into where the actual decisions are to be made . Dubbo has a draft policy which is an update of an existing one aiming to deliver guidance to the communities on the categories of planning proposal and how their fee structure works, and to ensure planning proposals are considered in a clear and transparent manner which can be easily interpreted and understood by all stakeholders. This motion commits us to developing such a policy which would enhance transparency.

I would anticipate our input into its development at whatever stage the staff felt was the right time for that, whether that was a workshop or whatever. But I think it would be a really good additional document, and it would allow us to move forward with how and when things would be published, etc. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor . Councillor Creed

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will have to preface this and say that I was a bit confused by the email that was sent around this afternoon. Almost I kind of felt like we were having to bet each way whether we had to put a rescission motion in or not. But the last couple of lines said that no, we can go through with this motion tonight, so I'm happy to support this. Councillor Lyons-Buckett tried to put something up. I won't say exactly the same, but somewhat similar, a little bit different, at the last meeting, and I — Both myself and other councillors have indicated that if it was up as a separate notice of motion, more than happy to support her in what she's trying to achieve here. So, more than happy to support it.

Councillor Veigel. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't like surprises in business. I don't like surprises when things come to Council or we hear about it outside of Council that they're making determination. I just need a heads up on it, and I think this is a good avenue to do that. So I'll be supporting it too. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you

Councillor Veigel. Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Mr Mayor . I'm speaking against this for a couple of reasons, and I'm not—well, I'll start by saying I'm not necessarily against us having a policy that makes it clear about the planning process. What I don't agree with is that I don't think that it is imperative that we as councillors or the public get to be informed about when a proposal is being lodged. And the reason I think that this is probably a good thing, that a proposal is put to Council, the staff get to sort of say, you know, are you kidding? You can't put a 21-storey block of apartments next to the station at Windsor. I know that sounds—I mean, I'm being ridiculous to make my point.

If that—look, I just made that up, but we'll just use that as an example. If they'd got put out into the public, we'd have everybody going completely tropo about it. And it would never have been—and it doesn't see the light of day. It gets sort of, it gets cut off at whatever stage of the planning process, that it's above our height limit, et cetera, et cetera. Other proposals are sometimes accepted, and there's an exchange of different amendments to the proposal, or the proposal might be indeed withdrawn. So there's lots of, you know, at that early stage of a proposal, I think we need to give the proposer a little bit of room to, I guess, test the water. And because planning proposals are usually more than not tied up with quite a lot of capital, I think that, you know, those sorts of decisions should be made without

The influx of people commenting on what they don't do or don't like about the proposal, which may very well change. I remember at the beginning—I know this is not a planning matter—but I remember at the beginning of the livability project, well, it was probably about halfway through it, there were some people in the community, and there were some people that actually addressed council, that thought that we were going to put big yellow bits of furniture into the Windsor Mall. The reason they thought that is that a very early design stage. Obviously used kind of generic graphics, unfortunately, that were chunky and bright yellow, and that's what they were addressing Council on. They didn't want that in the mall.

And I remember we were all sitting here, we were saying, We're not having yellow in the mall. That kind of thing. I know that's probably a bit of a silly example because it's not a planning proposal, but I think when we take a planning proposal, we should take it when it's in a form that is ready for us and ready for the public. Because if we don't , we run the risk of that sort of confusion being kind of perpetuated, and, you know, somebody will tell somebody this, and then we have this ridiculous sort of public perspective of what's occurring.

Misinformation in the community is really, is terrible, and we've seen it. We've seen it in our sewer divestment proposals. People get the craziest ideas, goodness knows where. But anyway, so my point is, I don't think we need this at the moment. I don't have a problem with waiting for planning proposals to come back. I don't know what the mechanisms would be if, for when somebody lodges a planning proposal, we don't have any mechanism at that stage to make any changes, make any comments. We can only just start to, you know, think about, oh, what would that mean? And again, we might be thinking that. On something that doesn't happen to be the proposal when it gets to that stage. I guess that's why, you know , we assess things on their merit, and if we think they have merit, that's why we send them to Gateway.

That's the process. And when they come back from Gateway, that's when the public, that's the process. We already have a process.

Thank you.

Thanks

Question to the staff. In relation to when this information is made public, would this enhance that? Or when we would make available this information to the public, would it be already there through other departments or the like? What I'm saying is the information that's available out there at that time

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor, I'm just considering. So at that point, when a planning proposal is initially lodged with Council, it's not immediately made available on Council's website. What I may defer to the Director of City Planning is whether at that point they are made immediately available on the Department of Planning's website, and I think the answer is yes to that. Yes, she's nodding. So that is the avenue there . So the information is always available at that point if you know to look for it.

Yeah. Yeah . I'll just make a comment. I've been of the view of Councillor Kotlash. Make them wait before we know what the repercussions are, I guess, or the implications. But if the document's public and the like, then it is public. If we choose not to look at it, that's our choice. But I recall when I was first elected a couple of years ago, the frustration—I didn't know what was going on and where, under , you know, and we've got information on our council website and on the hub and stuff . For those who can use it well, find it okay. There's a couple of us that don't, I might add. But if that information's made public in other places, probably the first place that it should be made public, not in advance, but right here, and for that information to be made available certainly to the councillors and people who...

Look at planning, rezonings and the like, and probably then give time for briefings and stuff for councils if a council so requires that sort of thing to do. So in saying that, I'll support the motion.

Can I ask another question, Mr Mayor?

A question, Councillor.

When the lodgement happens and it goes onto the planning portal, I imagine , not all of the proposal is put there though. It's only the initial.

Like, you don't have all of the

Information. It

Is just— I'm trying to think of when I've seen the last one. Happy to

Check that, Councillor. My understanding is that most of the material is made available on the website. I think what the delineation here, and where I think is probably a different scenario for staff, is if there becomes an expectation that we are effectively publicly exhibiting or sending out letters to adjoining properties, that would be where we would start to firm up a piece of advice, I think at that point in time, that said that is premature if we were to try to do that before we had an understanding of the impacts for a proposal, or even indeed its feasibility at the very most basic level. So in terms of putting it on a website, it's not, I don't think, particularly problematic, but, you know, more active engagement may cause us some troubles

The

Motion, part one of the motion, councillors, is develop a planning proposal to be reviewed as required.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I remind councillors that this motion is to develop a policy.

It

Isn't to put everything on Council's website next Tuesday. It's to develop a policy, and we can argue about, we can have a workshop about how to make that what we want in that policy. We can have 50 drafts of that policy until we are happy. But what we're voting for tonight is to develop a policy. One of the things that is apparent from this discussion is the confusion around planning proposals and where they fit into the whole planning sphere. And I think that was clear in our last discussion where some councillors seem to be talking about DAs rather than planning policies. So I think it's important for the public to understand that planning policies relate to rezoning for subdivision. They seek to change Council's LEP .

Councils have a limited time in which to process them, and they often result in major changes to an area and large, sometimes very, very large, windfall profits to the proponent. They often represent a once in a generation change to an area . And

The control of these and the control of how our LGA looks... is increasingly being taken out of our hands by the state government. Currently, the system is that a proponent puts in, they can put in a scoping proposal , what we term pre-lodgement. Following that, they put in a formal planning proposal submission. Then that goes to assessment and review. As part of that step, it goes to the local planning panel for advice, and finally then it comes to us as elected representatives of the community. Then it goes to the Department of Planning for a gateway determination, and only then, at step five, does it go out on public exhibition. One step before the final determination by council or the Minister for Planning does the community, who is most affected by this planning proposal, get a look in to the process

The legislation states that the process should be transparent, with opportunities for community input, and yet the community doesn't get a look in until step five or six. I'm not sure how that provides any sort of community input. A planning policy that informs the public at step two, the formal submission stage, would be consistent with the aims of the New South Wales legislation, but the current system isn't that. And I think the general manager hit the nail on the head when she said it's there if you know to look for it. Not even know where to look for it. That's a hard enough question, because the system is pretty opaque, even to us who've been working with it, some of us for more than a decade.

Not me, I should add . And yet it's only there if you know to go looking for it. Frankly, that isn't good enough . At the moment, we've got a process where the applicant knows about it and can lobby councillors, and the people most affected by it over the long term, the people we are elected to represent, have no idea until after the council, the unelected local planning and the unelected local planning panel have made their decisions, unless they picked it up in the business paper and happened to wander in and listen to our discussion. What I'd really like to see is a policy that puts planning proposals and significant DAs into the business paper before they're determined so that the public can easily find them .

That Canterbury Bankstown does this with significant DAs, so DAs where the authority is the Western Sydney Planning Panel, the authority is the Department of Planning, or the authority is the local planning panel. And

That would go some way, in the case of DAs, but still we've got planning proposals in this black hole. These planning proposals that really change the nature of areas. If we look at some of these significant planning proposals that we've seen, Redbank, Jacaranda, these change the face of our towns, and the public needs to be brought further along in this process. That's what I'd like to see from a policy. The Hills policy is excellent. It gives clear guidance to applicants and clear timeframes, but it is still biased towards proponent access to councillors, and it needs a much better balance with community access, both with information and with councillors, to increase its transparency.

Thank you, Councillor Sembrogna.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I completely concur with Councillor Wheeler's remarks. My intent... Last meeting, which failed, was driven by the impulse to just increase the amount of accountability and accessibility of this data relating to scoping proposals. The chamber wasn't with me. I fully accept that. When Councillor Lyons-Buckett foreshadowed another approach, and I do differ in my opinion with our Director of Corporate Services, with the very greatest of respect, this motion is different. My motion had to do with scoping proposals. This has to do with the reporting or public disclosure of planning proposals. So it's not exactly the same thing Ah, all right then. But my point is this. People deserve to find out about these at the earliest possible juncture, and these things are either not appearing or people cannot be expected to navigate and to closely monitor new developments on something like a planning portal.

I can't drive the planning portal, and I've been on council for nine years. And when people come to me saying, What is this thing that I hear is in the works? and to just choose one example at random, there is a proposal for a religious school on Saunders Road in Oakville. It appears on SBS News as a fait accompli, Grand New School opening soon. The federal government announces that they've pledged eight million dollars of funding towards it, and there isn't even as much as a DA. In fact, it takes a memo from the General Manager to remind us that because it's state significant development over twenty million dollars, it won't be considered by this chamber at all. It'll be considered by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.

So people hear about these things. There's nothing on the council website. There's no announcement from council about where this is up to, even if it's on a speculative basis. And people deserve to know. So if this moves us one step closer towards a broader level of disclosure, where people hear about these things that I agree with Councillor Weir, these are often developments that profoundly influence the tone of entire suburbs, and they're only finding out about it when it's almost too late. Not good enough. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Councillor Kotlash.

Yes, I'd like to ask another question if I could.

Question's fine.

I was always of the understanding that when a planning proposal came in, it was part of the process that we didn't have any ability to change, that it went from lodgement, or pre-discussions lodgement , staff review to the planning panel and then to us. But I think I've heard some commentary that this policy might change that and bring that to council before to change that process . Is that

Possible?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I think the response to that question may be better fleshed out in a later report about what is and isn't both lawfully possible and feasibly possible. So there are, for example, in practical terms, in most instances, council only has 90 days in between lodgement of a planning proposal and that first decision of council to..

First of all, to send the matter to Gateway, for example, that's one situation. So I'd be more than happy to flesh that out when a report on the policy comes back in. But the intent of the entire gateway system and the way that the planning proposal system is structured in New South Wales is that the Department of Planning want to have effectively the say-so on that before it does proceed to public exhibition

Thank you. Could I just ask another question about process? Because that's why, well, the reason is that I'm happy to have a planning policy if it just outlines what we already know, I guess . If that helps the community, I'm not going to stop that.

Question, Councillor.

Yeah,

It's the same sort of question I asked last time. They lodge it . We notify the community that it's on the planning portals, well, however we do that. How do we deal with the public's interest? How do we , what's the process of us going out to the public at that stage? Because that's what I heard Councillor Wheeler say that she wanted to see happen.

I

Don't think that's possible. Is that correct?

Well, Councillor, what this is proposing is develop a policy. That can be reviewed. It indicates what area to deal with that. But such a policy would come back to Council for approval, and I'm sure that the staff would clearly indicate the issues both for and against in Council's interest

Through you, Mr Mayor, I guess further to my answer in the previous question was that in any report back on any potential policy, we will flag any legal or practical impediments at that particular point in time. Any

Further debate?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Right of reply.

Right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's very important to note that this is referring to a planning proposal, not a scoping proposal. So at that point it's been lodged and obviously it wouldn't be a big building that you couldn't have or it wouldn't be lodged . I think that, I think this is the way forward. There's a gap in how people know. There's a gap in how we know about planning proposals. We need to know. Our one job that we still have in the planning space is to set strategic direction. And planning proposals essentially are put in to either do something where it's not permissible, to rezone something, to change, as other councillors have said, you know, whole landscapes, et cetera. So it is really important that we know so that we can give that local specific input that we represent a community for.

When we know that, I'm not suggesting this happens, but we know there's more desktop planning, there's things if, you know, somebody might be looking at it who doesn't know the local area as well as could be. It's important that it gets all the perspectives in in the early stages. Otherwise, sometimes we get things back in here and then we'll have someone say, Oh, but they've spent so much money doing all the reports. We've got to support it, and silly things like that. Whereas if we work together, if we're aware of it and we can have some input or we can assist the process, not—it's not the process in, for example, the Hills policy isn't going out to the public any earlier. It's allowing the engagement to occur.

That could actually seek to work together to get even a better planning proposal. I mean , it's almost like there's a thing of nobody in here has got anything to input that could be advantageous, but we do have, you know, we know this area, we know what people want, we know what people will live with. We know there are things that maybe should be raised that could assist the planners in how we get an outcome, and that may be a better outcome, and the proponent may well be happy with that improvement or something added to it . We can't avoid misinformation in the public. It doesn't matter. We live in a world now where that's going to come out no matter what. When something goes out publicly or not, the misinformation, you know, the misinformation about that particular development on Bells Line of Road near Colo High School, you could write a book on the suggestions of what's happening there.

So there's nothing we can do to stop that. I think that's not the issue here. The issue here is that we develop something that gives our community some guidance and also all the stakeholders, so the proponents as well, about a proposal that seeks to change something from what it is now, and I think that involves all of us, and it should involve all of us. I'm

Just thinking, I had something else to say. Oh yes, well, I don't think this was similar. The last motion was to publish something directly. This is to develop a policy, and I think that's an important difference because simply going out and publishing it, as opposed to developing something, is good. I mean, if anyone thinks planning proposals are on the website, I'd like someone to show me. The only ones I can find anywhere are the ones that have already been through this chamber. There's not one on there that has gone on there before we voted, and so we're not aware of it. People aren't aware of it. It's a rude shock to people. I think we underestimate that despite the noisiness of some people in reacting to these things, there's a lot of people who genuinely get a shock when something happens to them in the community, to their area.

If they know about it, they can accept it, they can adjust, they can mitigate, whatever. We can't bung surprises on people, and in particular, we shouldn't have them given here. Sometimes these proposals have, you know, 15 additional studies with them. The latest Redbank one had a lot of material, a lot of historic material to read. If we're only getting them just before, we can't absorb that and properly make our decision. I mean, in all fairness and transparency, we need it earlier in the stage , and I think that we should work together to get something that allows us to increase the transparency and the knowledge around it so that we can deliver better outcomes overall in our planning space.

Thank you, Councillor

Those in favour of the motion?

Those against? The motion is carried . Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Isbaker, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ambrogio, Councillor Sheather. The motion is carried . The next item, response to councillors' questions taken on notice

And the last item is— Mr Mayor.

Sorry ?

Just, it's—

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Brogden, Councillor Sheather. The motion is carried. The next item, response to councillors' questions taken on notice.

And the last item is— Mr Mayor. Sorry ?

Just , it's more a comment on the questions. It's just that that question appears to be— I know what it's about, because the meeting was only two weeks ago and it's still in my mind, but if the meeting was a month ago, I probably would have been scrambling trying to work out what item that was attached to. We probably just need to be, when a question arises out of a motion, it might be worthwhile just putting a reference to the motion that it magically appeared out of so that we can follow it up down the track.

Couldn't agree more. Thank you.

Councillors, we need to

Go into confidential

It was done on block.

Okay

Well, councillors, that's the end of the meeting. Thank you for your attendance. Good night.

Mr Mayor. Happy birthday for tomorrow.