This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
Welcome everyone to the Heritage Committee meeting for the 25th of September 2025. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respects to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. Committee members and members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that meetings of Council committees are recorded. In 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 streaming of Council meetings. The provision of any information that's recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The gallery can be seen in the live stream video. If you don't wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to the foyer and we will turn on the foyer speakers for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's records management system and uploaded to Council's website.
For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the committee, it's expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates both to your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. It's also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silence.
As required by the Code of Conduct, committee members are required to disclose any pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary interests in relation to matters on today's agenda. Are there any interests to disclose?
Thank you. And I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 3.1.3. Anyone else? Thank you. And there are no registered speakers for the committee meeting. Yes.
Sure. Could I have someone move the apologies for Councillors Amprino and Calderwood? Thank you. Jill and a seconder, please. Michelle. All in favour? Carried. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Page 17, which is page 12 of the minutes, point 3, this is in relation to Windsor Toll House. And point 3 reads, the committee recommends that Council allocate funding to undertake minimum maintenance. My recollection was the word was to be urgent maintenance.
So that read as, so I think that's point three. The committee should read, the committee recommends that Council allocate funding to make urgent make safe repairs.
This report seeks to advise the Heritage Committee of correspondence received from Mr Frank Holland, a member of the Kyrajong Cumleroy Historical Society, concerning the latest research on the most likely provenance of the Singleton Watermills millstones.
It really is fascinating material to read, and the upshot of the report is those stones are much rarer and more highly significant than I think anyone really ever realised. And the recommendation accordingly in the report is that we undertake a review of the safety and security arrangements for the highly significant Singleton Watermills millstones that are currently on display at the Memorial Park, Kyrajong. And depending on the results of that review, the Council potentially explore grant funding opportunities in conjunction with discussions with the Kyrajong Cumleroy Historical Society and Heritage New South Wales for the funding of revised display arrangements for the Singleton Watermills millstones that provide satisfactory safety and security measures, pardon me, for their ongoing preservation.
For the benefit of members, there was photos of who haven't been there, but I'm sure you all have been at some time. They really are open to vandalism, and the protection is of concern. So hence these recommendations.
Madam Chair, I've long been concerned about these millstones. Not necessarily for the vandalism, but more importantly for how they're actually set into the end of the soils or whatever they're set onto at the moment. I suspect they're probably into concrete, and that, of course, is a no-no when it comes to sandstone within a substrate like that, leading towards deterioration. And if these are so important, then that sort of thing should be remedied, and I certainly wholeheartedly agree with looking at this matter a lot further and a lot more carefully in the future.
Testing of the mineral testing of the actual stone, like the discussion has been that they originate from Norfolk Island, and I just wondered if there's been any discussion about perhaps testing that theory with, like, a geological— Christopher.
The actual website of Les and Anne and Les Dolan. It is very compelling. I don't know the term of the tests that have been done, but they've— it's non-invasive. It didn't affect the actual stones, but they have— I'm not sure of the actual term of how to look at it microscopically. They've done that. There is almost irrefutable evidence here in this document, this research, that proves it's come from Norfolk Island. And it's not sandstone. It's actually the— I can't say the word properly— calcarenite. Yeah .
Sorry, Chair members, I just want to add one other thing. I looked up the State Heritage Register, and I was curious when I was preparing the report for you all, what other listings are there for millstones, and there is nothing comparable to this. There's something of a much later period on the State Heritage Register. There's nothing else. So that just shows just how rare this is.
And how important it is that we protect them better. Graham, did you want to modify— I'm looking at the recommendation there , and I think there's probably a couple of things that we need to add. I think the committee should pass on our thanks to the Dolans for their work on this, because it really is an excellent piece. They've gone to a lot of effort to research this well. If we could add a point three that the Heritage Committee thanks
Les and Dr Ann Dolan, for their work. I'm looking at point one in light of what you've—recommendation one—in light of what you've said, Graham. It talks here about the safety and security arrangements, and to me that speaks to preventing vandalism. But I think we may need to add an additional clause into that recommendation, that we also look at how they're stored.
I guess, Madam Chair, it's really about fabric conservation, what it's all about, and I would like to use those words within clause one, if we could. So
Anything further, Jill? Also, it says in the report that the well where the stones are is being used as an ashtray by people who are going through the park, so that's not very good. So perhaps,
So, Graham. Actually, there's one other thing, Madam Chair. I'm not sure whether the committee is aware, but these millstones have actually been moved many times. They were at the corner of Conroy Road and Bells Line of Road for many, many years, certainly when I first came into the area, sort of 45 or more years ago, and they were there then, and not in a particularly... Safe and secure location . I'm not sure how long they've been in their current position, but
Yes, well I think we can look at that when we look at the safety and security arrangements . I'm loath to make too much noise about moving them because otherwise we end up with everything sitting at the museum and nothing, you know, nothing closer to its original context. Doesn't say? No, that's fine. So, Graeme, are you happy to move that recommendation with those changes? Yes
Could I have a seconder, please? Cheryl, thank you. Is everyone happy with that? So that's now a three-part recommendation with thanks to the Dolans included and conservation of fabric added to the first point. All in favour? Carried, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The purpose of this report is to advise the Heritage Committee of a request to de-list the locally listed heritage property at 2 David Street, Wilberforce, from the Windsor Uniting Church Church Council, and to advise of the results of the subsequent investigations by Council officers into this matter. So , we received the request from the Windsor Uniting Church Church Council. They made it on the basis that the former historic church on the property, which was the subject of a listing in the schedule in the LEP, is no longer there. And they basically said, Look , there's only a church hall there. It has no significance. It's been there since the 1980s. So, can you please remove it? We told them there's obviously various methods you could put in a planning proposal, but we've absorbed that task as part of our potential heritage items work.
As you'll see in the report, aerial photos prove it's probably been there since much earlier. So, we thought due to due diligence and to get an historian to have a look at that matter, we engaged OCP Architects to have a look at it for us. And you've got the report as part of your committee report, and it basically recommends That we don't take the listing off, that we actually include in the listing the Wilberforce Uniting Church Hall as an adapted former Air Force hut.
Madam Chair, thank you. Look, I'm all for maintaining the integrity of heritage listings on Schedule 5, and I think that there is certainly utility in amending the listing to reflect the fact that the very thing that was listed is no longer standing. I don't agree that the listing should be removed. I think it should be amended to reflect the potential significance that's imbued in the former Air Force hut that's on the site there. And as an interim, you could also look at updating the inventory sheet to reflect that as an interim measure while you're waiting for a housekeeping planning proposal to amend the listing. But, yeah, very supportive of maintaining the integrity of Schedule 5 and heritage listings generally.
Else? Venetia. On the title of that property, there's actually a notation that there's cemetery rights pertinent to the land. So do we know anything about whether there was any burials actually on the land or whether the cemetery next door? Because it seems odd to have put that on there. Christopher.
And I think the bulk of the Methodist burials have been up at Sackville. So it's a trifle damp for burying anybody down on David Street, I would think.
I've got a question. Sure. Where does heritage stop at ground level, or the footings and the foundations that's clearly visible under the ground, and one of those photos you can see the outline, the footprint of the building, do they still bear significance if they do any work there? Are they allowed just to dig it up and throw it away?
It's something we can certainly look at. Yeah, things that are below the ground are significant. It's a whole idea of archaeology. So, yep, it's something we can certainly look at.
Chair? Yes. Councillor Buckett, Lance Buckett has something to say. I just want to check if her audio is working, otherwise she sent me the message. Sure.
You. Really? I'm so sorry. Okay, I'll just read that out. So she says, I had two things and others might mention. One was the demolition of trees and a barn at 118 Francis Street, Richmond. I understand not listed, but definitely old. The other is any updates on what is happening at Alambie. Thanks. Alambie
Madam Chair, I guess this is not a criticism, but if OCP have actually done a study on that particular site, then the sorts of things that have been brought up about archaeology and also potential graves, that should be within the report, I would have thought.
This was done, Graham, just to give you context, it's part of the Heritage Advisory Service, so it's an extension of the Heritage Advisory Service. It didn't form part of their brief that I gave to them. I was really focused on that hall. I wasn't aware of those other issues, and I certainly didn't ask them to look at that particular matter.
We can certainly look at these matters and include them as matters to be considered in any further work to be done on this site, but that was—it didn't form part of their brief.
So the recommendations in the business paper are that the listing not be removed, that in fact it be replaced with the following description: Wilberforce Uniting Church Hall, adapted former Air Force hut. And the second part of the recommendation is that the property owner be advised of the outcome. So they're decisions for Council to make, but the committee is being asked to recommend that to Council. Could I have someone move that way? Jill and a seconder, please. Richard, thank you. All in favour? Carried. Thank you.
Involved here. Graham, you and I have both declared interests. My interest relates to the Australiana Pioneer Village. I'm assuming that yours does as well. I propose to deal with the three different items separately to allow you to participate in as much of this item as possible. So if we can just park the Pioneer Village briefly while we deal with the other two items. So the recent representation to the Australian Government Heritage Body seeking financial support for the restoration of Windsor Toll House. Andrew?
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sorry, Madam Chair. That's not going to happen. So based on requests from the Heritage Committee to make representations about the Toll House, I guess to both state and federal levels of government in terms of seeking funding for, I guess, its upkeep and works to preserve the Toll House, we received a response from the federal government, which is included as part of your business papers. And basically, to sort of run through that response, they're saying that, given the Toll House is only locally listed and is not currently on the register of the National Estate, as it previously was, but then closed in 2007, they're not able to assist. And they have sort of indicated if Council was of a mind to nominate the site again for listing on that register of National Estate, there's a process to go through there.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In the last meeting minutes, there was recommendation to nominate that for state listing. So has that progressed any further? Before we're talking about national listing, I think at a minimum we should be looking at state listing. And so has there been any action by Council staff to pursue that nomination, please?
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Not directly in terms of being in a position to lodge that application in the immediate future. Obviously, focus has been on completing the inventory sheets and nominations for other matters that the committee's advised on and recommended. So still work to progress with that one yet.
And unfortunately, the last feedback that we received from the State Government regarding listing of the slab barns, state listing of the slab barns, was that they wanted to see us tidy up our LEP before they were willing to take on any other state listings, which is again disappointing. I think that things are just being parked in the hope that councils will provide some level of protection when we are all well aware that it's the State Government with the clout and the money.
Madam Chair, I read that slightly differently because my reading was that they weren't going to progress state listing until they were locally listed, rather than general tidying up of the LEP. Is that correct?
Madam Chair, this is the same old, same old. And it appears that Hawkesbury Council isn't really treating its heritage properly in the way that it should be. I guess we've been saying this for a long, long time, that the heritage study is not complete, so we don't know what we've got. But we also don't know what we've got, to what levels of significance they are. And this is a prime example of that, that if they haven't already been identified as being either local or state significance, then, you know, what chance does any owner have of actually receiving any dollars from any grants or whatever, or even true recognition and protection? Sure
Through Madam Chair, the response that came from Heritage New South Wales related to slab barn studies, our timber slab barns and outbuildings that had been properly investigated and identified for their level of significance, so they can't use that as their excuse for not progressing the state heritage listing of those items. We put comprehensive sheets that had come out of the study, properly assessed, properly investigated. There is no reason. It is not the level of the non-proper identification of significance as the reason for them not progressing that matter. They have no grounds to not progress those matters. It is difficult to understand how something that is also of local significance and clearly of state significance cannot be progressed. At the same time, concurrently, I cannot understand why, when they've been properly identified.
I don't think that— now, I'm in a difficult position because I was out of the chamber for that item when it came with the last round of the Heritage Committee minutes because I had a pecuniary interest in another item on the minutes, so I had to leave the room. I don't know if Jill or Shane want to speak to what happened, or Mary, who we can't hear, want to speak to what happened in the chamber, but I wasn't there. I think you are now in a position as the committee to make a recommendation to Council about what they should do next. That's the expertise that we value from you. And I think if we can't— if the state bureaucracy doesn't want to progress on state heritage listings, then I think we have to turn that into a political matter, which is something that the Council Chamber can then progress.
Madam Chair, I think one approach we need to take is to stress the vulnerability of these structures, and that the funding that Council has available to undertake urgent repairs, preventative maintenance, to make safe, to stabilise these vulnerable structures is not going to achieve the level of conservation works required to protect them so that future, even the current generation, can appreciate and enjoy. And I am concerned that by the time the state government decide, let's heritage list them now at the state level, what condition will they be in at that time? Will they even still be standing? When in the meantime, were they on the state heritage register, those property owners could be availing themselves of state funding to undertake more substantial conservation works that could not be enabled through Council's existing funding with a small, potentially $5,000 grant when you've got to do tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of work.
So I would be going back to Heritage New South Wales and stressing these are extremely significant structures, and they are also extremely vulnerable, and there is a need to protect them and safeguard them.
Madam Chair, as a preamble to that, I agree with Michael with what he has indicated. But as a preamble to that, I think we need to stress that the Hawkesbury is the richest, the richest area within Australia that actually houses many of these buildings, or many of these structures, and that,
The barns . At the moment, we started on one item, which was the Toll House, and now we've drifted into slab barns, and that's making life a little bit confusing, I think. So the Toll House will have to fall out as a separate thing.
Madam Chair, could I suggest that neither of them, neither the slab barns, rather, or the Toll House, are Victorian in nature. No. Certainly the slab barns are vernacular in nature. In other words, they're rude timber buildings, what it comes down to. So
My suggestion is that Council should respond to Heritage New South Wales and express strong concerns at the indifference shown by Heritage New South Wales to proceed. With consideration of the nominations for state listing and request Heritage New South Wales to urgently review and progress the nominations to ensure the significant and vulnerable structures are afforded due and appropriate statutory protection, and property owners are able to apply for funding for urgent conservation works.
Thank you. Can we have a seconder for that, please? Sorry, your name has just fallen out of my head. Carl. Carl Robinson, thank you. Okay. Is everyone happy to move that? No, we've moved, we've jumped.
We've jumped to the third item in this, which is the slab barns. Is everyone happy for that to be the recommendation for the slab barn stuff going forward? I'll just ask you to pause before you make your final decision. Christopher or Andrew, did you have anything further to add on the slab barn listings? No
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Only just as an update in terms of obviously the local listing. So we're progressing with that. Public exhibition of that is scheduled for probably around mid, yeah, third, fourth week of October, and we have a number of site visits that we've got our heritage advisors going out to a number of those property owners just prior to that exhibition.
Thanks, and I'm skating on very thin ice here because I've got a pecuniary interest, so I don't want to discuss. I want to hold the discussion to the state listed items, or I'll have to leave the meeting. Graham.
Madam Chair, could I actually ask that the word urgently be actually put into that notation that Michael was putting there, so that it doesn't drag on for months, that they actually have to respond.
They're just typing the motion in, and I'll get them to read it back, and you can decide where you'd like urgent inserted, seeing Michael still doesn't have his paper copy
Madam Chair, while that's happening, would it be appropriate as an item two to that to perhaps suggest that a delegation of the Heritage Committee or of Council actually meet with Heritage New South Wales to further this?
I'm certainly happy for that to go in as a— if you'd like that added to the recommendation, I think that certainly has— whether they take up the offer of a discussion with us, we can give it a try.
So you can see the words on the screen that the Heritage Committee recommend that Council should respond to Heritage NSW and express strong concerns at the indifference shown by Heritage NSW to proceed in consideration of the nomination for state listing, and request Heritage NSW to urgently review and progress the nominations to ensure these significant and vulnerable structures are afforded due and appropriate statutory protection and property owners are able to apply, that should read, for funding for urgent conservation works. Is that sufficient? Where would you like more urgency inserted, Graham?
Thank you. Is everyone happy with that? So that was moved by Graham , Graham Eds, and— did I have a seconder? Michael Edwards. All in favour? Carried. Thank you.
Yes, Madam Chair, I seem to be saying a lot, but I guess it needs to be pointed out that this Toll House is only one of two remaining in Australia. Both of them actually have heritage listing from the National Trust and have done for many, many years, and both have listings from their local council. So I guess I would be pushing to actually have both of them, as a serial listing perhaps, included for state listing.
So you could make a recommendation that Council investigate, begin the process of applying for a state listing for— That's, yeah, well, but we don't have a state listing on this item either. Do we need to have one before the other?
Right. Yeah, which wasn't a formal—yeah. So do we want to put this item forward for a state heritage? Do we want to begin the process of state heritage listing? That will incur an expense that Council will have to find the money for, and so that won't be a swift—I'll warn you, that won't be a swift process, finding that money. Nor do we have staffing allocation for it, because we're working on the slab barn stuff and then the next tranche of the local listings. But you can make the recommendation, and Council can then choose what they do with that recommendation.
Madam Chair, state listing, I guess, is an onerous task, but it's nothing that would be out of the realms of members of this committee to actually undertake that or assist Council in undertaking it, so I guess I just pass that comment.
Would it be more feasible that we, in the same way that the Pioneer Village was listed due to efforts of community members, specifically Jan and Ian, would that be a better route? For this, than waiting for Council to allocate resources, if we have willing and skilled community members.
Well, anyone can put an application in for state listing on any item, is my understanding. But then, of course, if you don't have the consent of the owner, then that becomes a bit more difficult. But certainly there needs to be some sort of liaison between whoever is doing the application and Council in this instance. So
One possibility would be to get a working group started to work on a state listing for the toll house, and then that could come back to this committee and go to Council. Council would have to approve the formation of that working group, but that working group could work independently of Council and wouldn't rely on resourcing from Council staff. The working group doesn't need to have a formally minuted structure to continue with its work. So that's one option that you have. The other option is that you just put a recommendation to Council that Council finds the resources to do it.
Madam Chair, I wonder if there would be an advantage, though, to actually include the other toll bar as a serial listing, whether that would actually be more palatable to Heritage New South Wales. I don't know the answer to that, but I just put that out there for advice. I think you could
The other one's up in the Blue Mountains, Mount Victoria. Yep, right next to the railway line on Mount Victoria. It's a residence. I'm pretty sure it's still owned by the National Trust.
Madam Chair, I think a working group could collaboratively produce a heritage assessment to determine the significance of the Toll House, which could then be used to support a listing, and potentially produced at no cost to Council. And then, with the endorsement and support of Council, that could then progress to a nomination for state listing. As Graham has said, it doesn't have to be progressed by Council for listing; it can be brought by any member of the community. Yes. And so, armed with a robust assessment that demonstrates that it meets the criteria and the threshold for state listing, that could be progressed through that manner.
Michelle . There is also an extensive document in the local studies collection that was done by Justin O'Connell in the late 1990s on the Toll House that would be very useful.
Madam Chair, I guess the other thing that could be useful is that I actually did a study on the Toll Bar when I was actually undertaking my master's course back in 1980 and did a full analysis of it then. And that also included a document which came from the National Trust of Australia, which was full measured drawing by David Sheedy from way back when, and it is quite a comprehensive set of drawings and very detailed. So we have all of that background information, I think, to be able to do the task.
I think Michael actually recommended that a working group be established to further the nomination of either the Tollbar in Windsor or as a serial listing for both tollbars. And I guess in saying a serial listing, it would be worthwhile actually contacting the National Trust of New South Wales, of course, to meet their concurrence.
Working group be established to progress the state heritage listing of the Windsor Toll House, and so that would go to Council. So the process now, so if you all agree with that, the process would be that that goes to Council with the minutes of this meeting. Council approves the formation of that working group, and then you can get started. I'd suggest that people who want to be on that working group, we collect those names now so that we're ready to go as soon as Council gives it the green— I'm assuming that Council will give it the green light, but if Council does, then they're good to go. So if, Michael, are you happy to move that way and Graham second that? Is everyone in favour of that as a motion?
Yes, and then I'll add to that that that working group consists of the following people who would like to be on that working group: Michelle Nicholls, Michael Edwards, Graham Eds. Anyone else? Venetia Wilson,
Item 3.1.3. CP - Response to a Question Raised at the Heritage Committee Meeting of 3 July 2025 and Updates on Various Heritage Matters
Danielle Wheeler
The last part of this item, which is the Conservation Management Plan for the Australiana Pioneer Village, I'll declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in that I'm a life member of the Friends of the Australiana Pioneer Village, the leaseholder. There's no further action on the item because my involvement doesn't meet the threshold for significance. Graham, you had— Yes
Graham, it's an associate. My company with Carol actually undertook a study for Council, which actually looked at the entire Australiana Pioneer Village and prepared a conservation management plan for that, and I guess that's my interest. But I would like to be in a position to speak to this item.
Thanks, Graham. So normally with a significant non-pecuniary interest, you would leave the meeting, but you are, as a member of the public, entitled to address the meeting whether you have a significant interest or not. So I'm happy for you to address the meeting, and then I'll ask you to leave the chamber when we debate and come to a decision. So go ahead if you'd like to address us.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I guess at the outset I should actually say that I don't believe that I have a significant pecuniary interest because we actually completed the study some years ago and have been fully paid for it, so I'm not actually expecting or— Any further renumeration in regard to that study, that's why I've actually determined it to be a significant non-pecuniary interest. And I guess, Madam Chair, what I am reacting to personally and on behalf of the whole consultancy team is the response within the minutes is that Australiaana Pioneer Village is a series of amendments to a draft conservation management plan for that precinct. Well, I guess I certainly object to that straight away because of the understanding, and certainly we have received and been paid out for that study, both ourselves as primary consultant and also all of the other sub-consultants have been involved with that.
I did actually table a document for everybody to have a look at, which sets out the time frame of the entire project, which started back in November 2020, and as on the second page, the final claim for payment was on the 15th of March 2022. Now that's more than three years ago,
This conservation management plan, when it was in its draft form, went actually out to an external reviewer being OCP Architects. And they came back with particular recommendations. It also had an internal review by council staff, which also forwarded particular recommendations for considerations and change. Now, all of these were attended to prior to the final document being presented to council, as I said, and with our final claim for payment in 2022.
It wasn't until, I guess, what further compounded this is that it took another over 12 months for us to be contacted by council asking us to come to a meeting. And it was at that meeting that we were asked if council would be able, if we would let council actually change the document. Now, I find that really peculiar and unprofessional for somebody to come and ask for a review that they have made internally to actually make any changes, which we wouldn't have any dealings with, being the consultant. Nothing that goes out under our name, we just wouldn't allow that to happen. So I'm finding this quite stressful and disturbing that council staff would even consider coming back to a consultant and asking if they could actually change the document. That's just unprofessional, and I think it's quite distressing. Madam Chair, the document is
Quite substantial. I did actually bring a copy of— Just the small part of the document, and this is actually the bones of it all. There was actually a physical and biological environmental study, which is this one, which actually came out as an appendix. There was an additional title search that was prepared by Terry Cass, historian, because there were some anomalies that came out with this historic information on both what was then determined Salter's Barn and also the ownership and whatever came from that. And we proved that it wasn't Salter, but it was actually a Cobbcroft barn, which made it a lot earlier than the 1860s, brought it back to something like 1820. There was also a traffic management plan which council actually had prepared.
That was included as an appendix. And there was also a flood risk assessment by Flood Mit, which council again asked us to include within the document and actually look at it. There was also a site business planning recommendations by the Sparrowly Group. That was also part of the document. So this site has really been investigated in depth. And ourselves, we looked at every building, every window, every door, and all of the artefacts that were actually in there. We couldn't actually determine a list of what was there, but we actually photographed as much as we could out of every building, and this all forms part of that document. Now, for council to come back and say— It's a draft document.
That's just absurd. And I guess I'm quite distressed in that regard and asking us now, or asking it to be presented to the Heritage Committee for review, perhaps. I find that disturbing as well, because as far as we're concerned, it's done, finished, and accepted.
It's a clarification, really, about in the papers it says a series of amendments to the draft, and we take Graham's point about it being— This is the paper that Graham handed
Madam Chair, perhaps I should actually refer you to the second page, 21st of July 2023, when this was the email that came from Council to us. I'm requesting, in terms of your availability, to meet, to actually meet us in terms of the Conservation Management Plan for the APV site. There had been recent changes in terms of the management structure of the site that had been reformed by a suite of work had been undertaken, and importantly the CMP prepared by ourselves. In light of the changes of management structure of the APV site, we would like to discuss with you the Conservation Management Plan. Well, when we did meet with Andrew and also Miyang,
Thank you. So, Graham, I'll ask you to leave the meeting. And under the code of meeting practice, you need to be away from hearing of the meeting. I'll send someone to find you once we're done. Thank you.
Right, so the question that was asked at the last meeting was the current status of the CMP for the Pioneer Village, and that there is this series of amendments. Is someone, Andrew, are you speaking to this? I'm
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Happy to speak or answer questions. Yeah, so, yeah, we were responding to the question asked at the meeting and sort of identified that at the present time, I don't have approval to present the document to the committee to consider. And, you know, there were some amendments that were required , and just highlighting that we would like to make those amendments and then present the document to the committee for consideration.
And I think in the past when we've received conservation management plans, for example, for Tops and Square, the committee wasn't signing off on those conservation management plans. We were receiving a noting, and that would be my expectation, that what came to this committee would be a receive and note. I think it needs to be on the public record that the Pioneer Village has been operating—it's run entirely by volunteers, some of which have some understanding of heritage work and many of whom don't. They have a passion for heritage, but their passion is for the presentation of heritage, not for detailed conservation works. This is a complex and unusual site in that the listing is for items of movable heritage.
Most of the buildings were moved to the site; they're out of their original context and placed in the context of a 1970s open-air museum, and that is the nature of the heritage listing. And they are full of artefacts that have been donated, gathered. Magically appeared on the site since the early 1970s. It's a very unusual site, and actually was quite a landmark heritage listing when it occurred. It's a site that's had a really— it's been owned by council for several decades. It's had a very checkered past with council, and I think it's fair to say that there is still significant animosity amongst some of the friends and council itself. And so it's a very difficult space to navigate for everybody involved.
It also has, up until fairly recently, run on the smell of an oily rag. And now it's really, it's a massive success story in that it's now making enough money to sustain itself well into the future, and that's a good thing. But with that additional money also comes an additional level, I think, of vulnerability in that there's now money to do either great good or great harm, and that's where the conservation management plan is just so important for this site, which is why we've pushed for one for a long time. It's also to remember that this is a council-owned site, and that it's a responsibility of the owner of state-listed sites to have a functional conservation management plan. The volunteers are working off a maintenance plan that was developed about 10 years ago, and it really needs an update in order to keep the place going and make sure that awful things don't happen.
It's also a very flood-affected site, and that gives another, an additional layer of responsibility. And it's run by a committee, which changes every 12 months. The AGM for the APV is on Tuesday night. If anybody wants to go and have a piece of cake and a sticky beak, you can go on Tuesday night, or you can go any Sunday you like, as long as you pay your 10 bucks. But the new committee, I think, would really benefit from a CMP that guides their understanding and maintenance and conservation of the heritage. So I don't think that getting into the weeds over where the CMP currently is is necessarily helpful. But I think it's fair to say that this committee would like to get their hands on it, and I would like to know what the timeline is for that coming back to us, with or without amendments.
Be excellent. Well, I'd like the CMP, yeah, and I think we're going to have to make —have some discussion about the nature of those amendments and how long we hold this process up waiting for those amendments. I can see—I saw a light over here briefly. Cheryl first, then I'll do Jill and Michael. Yeah
I'm just, I guess my question is, why is it considered draft? Is that because it hasn't been given approval or that , you know, it hasn't been accepted? And I just wonder about the nature of the amendments
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Yep, I can respond. So, considered draft because it's not actually been formally considered by Council as yet. So that's the only reason why we've termed it as a draft. I guess the series of amendments, I don't have a full list of them with me tonight, but there's, I guess, a number of amendments. And part of that was to reflect that there has been, I guess as was highlighted already, there has been a change in management structure. You know, there were the two bodies previously. So the CMP was drafted, it was, you know, quite rightly at the time reflected the management structure that did exist, but that has changed. Yeah, there was a
Two-tiered management structure with the business group that formally held the lease and the Friends of the APV who managed the property. That was collapsed into a single—Council insisted on that management structure before they would issue the lease to the village, and that structure was collapsed into a single-tiered management structure a couple of years ago. But that should be a fairly seamless—it could be an addendum, really, if it allowed us to move on.
And then I've got Jill, Michael and Venetia. I'd just like to say that it's so educational. It's really wonderful for children to go out there and take it in. It's , it's, it's quite interesting to see the different people who attend that site. There's a lot of visitors to Australia who come. There's a lot of new migrants to Australia who come. There's a lot of repeat customers with their children, people who came to the village as children come back and bring their children. There's a surprising number of young adults who come as well. Michael.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Cheryl asked pretty much the question I was wanting to confirm, was the nature of the amendments: were they administrative to reflect the management of the site rather than technical in terms of conservation management? It sounds like it's the former, that it's the administrative structure of the APV rather than the conservation approach and methodology and the technical management of the conservation. Is that correct in saying?
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Yeah, no, none of the amendments were around the, I guess, the assessment of the significance or, you know, technical aspects of it. It was around other elements of the CMP. So
Thank you. So in that vein then, assuming the amendments could be made relatively simply without any substantial delays to the finalisation of the CMP.
My question would be if the final CMP was handed over to Council in 2022, we're now more than halfway through 2025. And I want to know why it has taken so long to get this document in front of Council to be approved. Because, as we know, I mean, surely an administrative change,
More than a year after the final document was handed to Council by the consultant, should not have resulted in a delay of more years before it even goes to a Council committee or it even comes to a Heritage Committee meeting. I'd just like to say that it's no wonder our heritage is falling into the dust.
Madam Chair, if I can just add to that point, it's not uncommon for a conservation management plan to have a conservation policy written into it that the CMP should be reviewed every five years or so, and that is to allow for changes in legislation, changes in the structure of the management, changes in condition of the fabric. So Venetia's correct in saying it has been unnecessarily delayed, and there's no impediment to why the CMP couldn't be finalised. And, okay, there's a structure change. Well, that could be incorporated in a housekeeping amendment to the CMP, just as we've been talking about housekeeping amendments to the LEP. It doesn't need to be done immediately, but can be done as a review.
Thank you. So the recommendation is that a report come back to Council—sorry, to the next committee meeting. I would really like to see the CMP come back to the next meeting, but I think we've all made our thoughts clear on this matter. Could I have a mover for the recommendation? Shane and a seconder, Cheryl. All in favour? Thank you, carried. Could someone just run down the hall and...
Mary, that brings us to general business. Does anyone have any items of general business? And I'm sorry, it is now nearly quarter to eight because we had that late start.
Venetia? I'd like the Alfresco area in Thompson Square and the drainage issues which are part of the new structures and which are causing damp problems to the heritage buildings now to be discussed in general business, please.
Okay, so the first item was something that Mary raised, which is, yeah, 118 Francis Street demolition of trees and barn. I don't think we can get Mary to speak to that. Did you just want to raise that as an item of interest for the heritage advisor to look at, Mary? You can nod, wave your hands, give me a thumbs up, all of the above.
I'll have to take you on notice. I need know part of the picture. It was expressed to me at council that the property owner was seeking to demolish those structures. I contacted the owner, knowing that the property isn't currently heritage listed. I contacted the owner through email correspondence and advised them of all the benefits of heritage listing and what things they could tap into currently and all the benefits of it. As an alternative view to demolition, I have heard no further, but I don't have the other parts of the picture, and I will take that on notice and can provide that at the subsequent meeting.
Madam Chair, I think this speaks to highlighting the urgency again and underlining the urgency of continuing with the heritage study, because as an unlisted property, there is no statutory protection afforded to that, and a complying development certificate could be obtained for demolition. And then there is no recourse for Council to consider listing. If a valid consent has been issued for demolition, you can't put an interim heritage order on the property. So is Council going to consider an interim heritage order, knowing that the property is under threat with the partial demolition of structures?
Well, I don't know. Not that I'm aware of. Last, we very rarely issue interim orders. They're very expensive, and that's, again, another reason why keeping heritage listings up to date is an outstanding idea. The last interim order we did cost Council $20,000 and was really possible only because the owner was agreeable to the interim order being placed, and he was agreeable to basically reviewing what he did with that property once the public outcry had been brought to his attention. So you could...
I'll just give some brief comments. The barn study resolved in the investigation that it couldn't be saved, the barn, so that wouldn't be the subject of an interim heritage order.
I believe because we're already aware that, or there's probably already in the workings that the CDC is probably already in council system, we couldn't issue an interim heritage order.
They can do the consent and then they just have to notify us of that, because I know when I was dealing with 3 New Street, I had someone checking every day that it wasn't in the portal. So they could have already issued it and they're just going to put it in the portal . So we may find it's already been issued.
Through the Madam Chair, the barn was investigated as part of that 500-page study, and they resolved that it wasn't able to be kept or saved. That was the comments from that assessment. That doesn't stop us from still trying to save it, but that was the assessment from that. So it would be, that information's in the public realm, so it would be very hard for us to submit a— if it was only about the barn, it would be very hard for us to put an interim heritage order on a barn that we'd already assessed couldn't be saved. Yeah
It goes to the heart of local listings, that we don't have the power that the state does for minimum standards of repair. It goes to the very heart of it. And I've had in my past property owners demolish properties by neglect and laugh at my face as a heritage officer to say, Well, that's okay, I'll let it fall down.
Madam Chair, yes, it is quite distressing, I guess, that we have lost something like that. But more importantly, I think Council actually embarked on a Richmond archaeological study way back when, I can't remember how long ago now, probably 30-odd years ago, and I believe that study has been parked up on a shelf. Maybe some of the planners actually look at it, but it's not out there in the marketplace. Like, it really hasn't been accepted, to my mind, by the councillors. So it actually isn't a document that's referred or can be referred to by others as a statutory thing. So I guess it really leaves these properties vulnerable and not really— or owners... Or developers not able to achieve make a full assessment if they don't know about these things that are out there. Sure.
I can only talk as a practitioner at council. I regularly use that study. I've recently used that study as part of my work with the adaptive reuse of the Richmond Police Courthouse building. I specifically used the inventory sheet from that study in my discussions with the property owners. So it is my understanding it is regularly used. That's all I can say as a practitioner.
Yeah, well that's the study I was referring to, Madam Chair, the one done by Ted Higginbotham. Yeah . But my understanding is it's not like council's LEP. It's not something that Joe Bloggs will actually look for to actually understand what they've got.
The problem now, I think, is that it's a 30-year-old study that wasn't adopted at the time, and while it's, as you've heard, is useful and used by practitioners, it would be, I think, quite difficult for council to be moving it as some sort of, if that's what you're proposing. I don't know what council could be doing with this 30-year-old study that wouldn't be challenged due to its age.
Well, Madam Chair, it's really just a compilation of history. So I don't know what can be wrong with actioning it, to be truthful. It's really just telling us what was there since the first land grants, what sort of development was on particular sites within the township. So,
Madame Chair, it is currently actioned. It is every sheet that is from that, every inventory sheet linked to that study is attached to all the electronic property files, so there's always a sheet there that someone can access. It is utilised. I personally can't see any benefit of doing anything other than using it for what it was intended, which is what I myself and I know others do at council. We currently utilise it.
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
No, other than that we're still waiting for advice from the minister's office in terms of the determination of the development application to demolish the cottages. So remembering that the regional planning panel, probably best part of 18 months ago now, had made a recommendation to refuse the application for demolition, but because it's a Crown development application, the minister has to sign off on that, and I don't believe that actually happened as yet.
This was triggered because a skip has been dropped outside Alambi. And people were wondering what was going on, whether they're just having a bit of a cleanup or they're up to something else.
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
I'll also highlight that I've just, just before the committee meeting, I've received contact details for a relevant officer at Transport for New South Wales to understand what's happening on site. Good
Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. There's a message from Councillor Lance Buckett. She says someone said the fence was being redone. Has anyone heard that? Does that require any approval? Is that
Does anyone know anything further? Deb? I don't really know anything further, but that comment came from, on Facebook, from a local who I assume went over and spoke to the workmen . Right. There've been people running around there and the skip is there.
It's not really helping me. Okay. I guess we'll hurry up and wait on that. And then, Venetia, you had the Thompson Square alfresco area. Did you want to speak to that, to the drainage? Yeah
I'm sure Councillors are sick to the back teeth of hearing me whinge about the drainage in Thompson Square. The new alfresco deck has been constructed. However, nothing has been done to clear drainage. Therefore, every time it rains, the entire thing fills up with water and half the actual deck area itself is underwater. Because there's nowhere for the water to drain. We still have no chairs and tables or shade or anything else up there. But these drains are just beyond a joke, and something needs to be done about it. I've been asking for something to be done about that for about 10 years now. So we can forward that as a
I had a discussion with the mayor quite a few months ago now, and he was quite concerned about the runoff from the road that actually comes down through the proposed Alfresco seating area and collecting in that drain. And it was his opinion at the time, if I remember correctly, that he thought that that water should be diverted or sent elsewhere, or shouldn't actually slope towards where it slopes, so that it can be managed in an appropriate way. I don't know if anything will or has happened since that discussion, but I concur with Venetia that it's not a nice thing to be having to deal with in a state significant precinct.
I'll follow the clearing of those drains, whether it is a matter of the drains being blocked or whether it's actually a broader issue of the—I suspect that there's been irreparable damage done to the drainage network that Services Tops and Square, because the RMS has filled it full of concrete. So, but council can do what it can to clear the drains that are our responsibility.
The old seating area. Yep . It runs on level with the footpath, like a bridge across the drain. That is completely— Completely clogged up with garbage. The other issue is, once again, where the RMS, where the drain used to go around the corner, that water would run around the corner. It was a rounded corner into the, into the drain cover outside 17 Bridge Street. RMS initially closed that in, and then after some woman went out there and screamed at them, they put two little tiny metal pipes in. Nothing fits through them. It's always blocked. So that entire area. And the problem is the water is seeping down through the ground underneath those state heritage listed buildings.
Madam Chair, can I just add the bridges or platforms that Venetia is referring to, it's what I would consider a congenital defect, in that the way that they've been constructed has a very narrow aperture to the underside of the deck and the top side of the gutter, such that any leaf litter or street litter is just going to block that, and it's going to be a problematic maintenance issue for council in perpetuity.
It needs a redesign because it is acting like Sackville does in a flood. It's retaining the moisture and the water back, and it's a bathtub, and it's only going to lead to systemic issues, ongoing and delayed heritage impacts with the stone and the corresponding buildings. We need to ensure that we're diverting water away as quickly as possible, and this is doing the very opposite.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to raise the ongoing community concerns about heavy vehicles traversing Thompson Square. We've recently had damage to the doctor's house to the point—I don't know how bad—but to the point there was an insurance claim to rectify the building. And I would have thought it inappropriate for heavy vehicles to continue to drive through Thompson Square. And I've heard the community complain about it quite a few times before. Is there anything we can do about that I'll put forward to Council as a recommendation to consider? No,
I think that ship sailed. After several of us sat in the square for the better part of four years trying to get a bypass , the RMS have made it very clear that they were quite happy to have heavy vehicles travel through Thompson Square for certainly the rest of our natural lives.
Can I just add, the doctor's house is in that little street that's called Thompson Square, so the heavy vehicles down through there and around to the terrace maybe to Woolworths or somewhere, if they could be prevented from there.
I think that might be within our power, but I think it would be very difficult. I remember, for those of us that remember the reorganisation of Windsor and the bus route and everything when Coles went in at Riverview, it's all been carefully— yeah, it's all been carefully planned to allow traffic flow. We can certainly, the committee can certainly ask that Council discuss the matter. I don't know how much is within our power.
Yeah. We've already replaced the fence in Thompson Square, I mean, in part because it was rotten, but in part because the Woolies truck smacked into it.
Yeah, council can put load limits on roads. The committee could recommend that council consider stopping heavy vehicle traffic through that section of Thompson Square if you want to, and have a report come back to council— sorry, to the committee or to council. The other option is that you put it up as a notice of motion for council to discuss, and with the backing of the heritage committee.
Here or with council? With council. So a recommendation would be that council discusses ways of limiting heavy vehicle traffic through Thompson Square. Do you want to make it— what would we specifically
Call that so everyone doesn't— Thompson Square Street or whatever. It's called Thompson Square. It's a street that curves down around to that terrace. Yeah.
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Yeah, just highlighting the council lines buckets highlighted. She's asked before about the big trucks, and the answer was nothing we could do. That was after a large truck was wedged on the roundabout that was there before the traffic lights.
Madam Chair, should we also add that the reason to do that is to protect the significant building, to reduce vibrations in the substrate and mechanical impacts and pedestrian—
I'm sure there would be other routes they could take away from the heritage things and those narrow streets. I mean, if they have to get to Woolworths and things, there would be other way
Any — or just, I'll just wait to see that. Shane, do you want to move that, or Cheryl, do you want to move that? And Shane can second it. Yep. Yep . Is everyone in favour? I know you haven't seen it, but you've heard it, and it's five past eight.
Is everyone happy with that? All in favour? Carried. Thank you. I think that's the end of the business paper, and I'll declare the meeting closed at five past eight. Thank you all.
