3 February 2026 - Ordinary

Okay, Councillors, we shall start our meeting. I'll start off with the condolence motion we have to this evening. The first one's the Bondi Beach terror attack. On behalf of Hawkesbury City Council and the Hawkesbury community, I extend our deepest condolences to the victims, their families and loved ones, and all those whose lives have been profoundly affected by the senseless attack at Bondi on Sunday the 14th of December 2025. I convey my gratitude for the bravery shown by those who responded with courage and selflessness and risked their lives in aiding the victims, including members of the local surf lifesaving clubs, first line responders such as New South Wales Police and New South Wales Ambulance, and of course the brave members of the public.

This deliberate act of violence against innocent people has had a devastating impact on the Jewish community, and the impact is felt across the state and across Australia. It stands in direct opposition to the values that we share as a society and community. We stand firmly in support of the right of all faith communities to worship, gather and celebrate their culture in safety and security. Violence has no place in our society, and acts of terror and hatred have no place in Australia. As leaders of the community, we have responded. We have respectfully responded with compassion, integrity and resolve, supporting those who are grieving, reaffirming our commitment to safe, respectful and inclusive communities.

As a mark of mourning and respect to the victims of this tragic event, which took place on Bondi Beach, the flags at Council Administration Building were lowered to half-mast on Monday the 15th of December 2025. The flags were also lowered at half-mast the week later on Sunday the 21st of December 2025 for National Day of Reflection. In addition, the Day of National Mourning on Thursday the 22nd of January 2026, the flags at Council Administration Building were lowered to half-mast. On Thursday the 18th of December 2025, Mayors and elected representatives from across New South Wales gathered at Bondi for a wreath-laying ceremony at Bondi Beach Pavilion. Councillor Michael Creed, representing myself and Councillors, at the ceremony, which was led by Mayor Waverley, Will Nemesh, and the President of Local Government New South Wales, Mayor Darcy Byrne. And thank you, Councillor Creed.

Was anybody wish to mention anything before I read the second condolence? Thank you, Councillors.

The second condolence is Professor and Honourable Dame Marie Bashir

AD CVO. Excuse me.

Do you mind

A bit of water, thanks. I'd like to acknowledge the passing of Professor Dame Marie Bashir, AD CVO, who passed away on the 20th of January 2026 at the age of 95, surrounded by her family.

She served the state of New South Wales as the 37th Governor from March 2001 to October 2014, and was the first woman to be appointed to the role, bringing immense dignity and compassion to that position. She was a distinguished physician, along with standing advocate for mental health, education, social inclusion. She was a former Chancellor of the University of Sydney and held various medical positions with particular emphasis on the health of people. She was appointed as the Clinical Director of Medical Health Services for Central Sydney Area Health Service, which was a position until she was appointed Governor on the 1st of March 2001. In 2001, she was appointed a Companion of Order of Australia, and in 2006 the Queen appointed her a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.

In the 2014 Queen's Birthday Honours, she was made Dame of the Order of Australia. For extraordinary and preeminent achievements , the merit in service, administration, public life, the people of New South Wales to medicine, particularly an advocate for the improvement in medical health outcomes for the young,

Through the promotions of cooperative health programs, and as a leader of the community and education . She was held in great respect and admired by the people of New South Wales, reflecting the trust and goodwill she earned over the time of her life. A state funeral for the Professor will be held on Wednesday the 4th of February 2026 at St James Church, King Street, Sydney at 10:30. Council extends our condolences to the family of Dame Marie.

Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm very supportive of your mayoral minute. We were very lucky to have her come out to our 2010 celebrations, and her knowledge of Macquarie's history was absolutely amazing. I think she was the most distinguished person who did a lot for our community and mental health, the young people, and encouraging people, and she will be sadly missed. I was very sad to hear we lost her.

Thanks for those words, Councillor. Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support both of these motions of condolence. I think the losses are profound. It's a very big scar on our community of what has happened, and a really large magnitude of loss. Of course, Dame Mary was a great friend of the Hawkesbury, as Councillor Ridden just said. She did come out. She came out to the 200th anniversary of St Matthew's Church a few years ago, and she was a wonderfully intelligent and incredibly warm person in a role such as that, and widely admired. I guess when we hear of these losses, we think of the relevance to the Hawkesbury, and we know she was a great friend. In terms of the Bondi massacre, I think that impacts—well, I think it's a global impact really from what had happened, and I certainly share my condolences.

I would just like to mention the efforts of the lifeguards at Bondi, in particular a locally born and bred lifeguard, Wally Eagleton, who was on duty there that day in the tower. And from what they have seen and experienced, the first responders, as well as the Jewish community, of course, and of course everybody who was in Bondi that day, and everyone who goes there from here on in, the absolute senselessness and really the despair that many people are feeling at this time. So I fully support these motions of condolence being put forward. Thank you.

Thank

You, Councillor. Councillor. Mr Mayor, before I make some remarks, I'd just like to clarify a procedural question. Would you sanction me if I chose not to stand during my addresses? Yes. Would you prevent me from speaking if I decided not to stand? Yes.

I will yield. Thank you. Dame Marie Bashir was a great friend to the Hawkesbury. I remember two occasions, only two of the very many occasions that she came to the Hawkesbury to attend various functions. One was in 2010, which was at that time the bicentenary of the visit of Governor Macquarie, her predecessor, to visit the five Macquarie towns. And there was a lovely dinner held up at Loxley and a historic reenactment that I played some part in. And she expressed her warmth for our love of history and for the district. On another occasion, she came to the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Richmond School of Arts and came to a dinner that we held at the School of Arts. And again, she was pinpoint accurate.

She knew her subject matter and she could speak about the history of this district in some detail. I'll end by just relating a story that was given to me by a friend, a teacher friend, who was at Government House because a member of their family was being given a public service medal. So my friend wasn't even there as a recipient of an award. Dame Marie picked him out of the crowd when she was doing her rounds and said, And what do you do? And he confessed that he'd just started as a science teacher. My friend relates to me that at that point she just abandoned all of the other dignitaries and people that were pressing her for a word or some time and then spoke to him solidly about being a science teacher because science was her degree.

And she was more interested in that than in greasing the palms of the other people around. And he was greatly affected by that and saw the particular genuineness of her interest. And I always loved Dame Marie for many things, but among them was the fact that she came from a background in science, didn't come from a background in the law or the military, as many of our governors are. And that made her one of the people, Vale Dame Mary. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Ryan. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just request that all the councillors stand for a moment's silence due to the horrific circumstances at Bondi and Dame Mary's passing, just to show some respect from this Chamber

Thank you, Councillors. Thank you, Councillors. As we started the previous meeting, Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Dharug and Dharugan people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First People of the country. General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. For those who may not have been in the chamber at the commencement of the public forum, you are advised that in the event of an emergency you'll be asked to follow our wardens in an orderly manner to the nearest exit. I'd like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.3.4 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 to the foyer and we will turn our voice speakers on for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and these 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. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager.

We have no apologies. Declarations of interest, Councillors? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have an interest in items 9.3.1 and 10.1.1.

9.3.

Yep. Do we

Have a .

Any other declarations ?

Councillor Ryan .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant pecuniary interest in item 4.2.1.

Who was that?

Could you repeat that please, Councillor? It is item 4.2.1. It is a local traffic committee item. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr Mayor, just before we go on, there just seems to be a bit of a numbering issue with our speakers list.

It sort of starts at six, then goes to nine and just jumps around. I just wondered whether that was a bit confusing too, just that I draw that to your attention. No

The first item, six, was condolences.

My mistake.

Okay.

Okie doke. The minutes of the previous meeting, dated the 9th of October.

Yes, I'll move those.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Cribb.

Those in favour?

Against, it's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ambrogio, Councillor Sheather. Motion is carried. Items of exception. Okay

Councillor Creed. Councillor Reardon

Heritage Committee, Heritage Committee . 10. 1.4. Yep.

Okay.

Okay. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ambrogio, Councillor Sheather.

Okay. May I ask a procedural question, Mr. Mayor? Yes, Councillor. We haven't faced this situation, but we may, so it's better to just get this out now. Under the new model where — Under the new model, where we have speakers addressing us at the beginning of the meeting, yes, if those people who have come to spend their, you know, out of their own time to do that, and then the matter on the agenda to which they speak is buried deep into the business paper, are we still amenable to procedural motions to move them up the agenda so those people can hear the debate and leave sooner? Yep

Good

Okay. Okay, the 9.2.1. 9.2.1, councillors. I'll move that, Mr Mayor. I'll second it.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll second

It.

Thank you. Yeah

There's a seconder, Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to move this recommendation. I think this is a very good document that has come from ALGA to go through the various criteria about submitting motions for the conference. I actually think that we should really be— Because we're in quite a unique position as a small council and facing such challenges, I think we should really be taking these opportunities to bring things forward and to also speak in these forums. We, of course, have had motions before, but I think it's particularly important now that we, you know, apply our mind to it to be able to give our unique perspective in this larger forum, particularly at the National Assembly, because we have a number of things as the changing face of development areas around us, et cetera.

We have a number of growing challenges that other areas don't necessarily face, and they may not be actually in the national sphere, but it's a really good forum to actually start to raise these issues around financial sustainability, infrastructure, et cetera, because, as you will know in this document, the various positions that ALGA are calling for to increase our seat at the table as local government, to have our voice being heard more at the federal level, I think we need to be a part of that, to put our particular things forward that are peculiar to the peri-urban regions, which would be outside all the capital cities, not just here. And I urge councillors to read through this document and to come up with some motions.

I'll be bringing one on financial sustainability, but I urge everybody to do the same and to get them in by the deadline listed here. Thank you, which is Friday, is it? Okay, great. So you've got a lot of time. On with it.

Thank you, councillor.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to start off with a question to the staff through you to the general manager. I was just having a discussion with Councillor Kotlash before. We've previously tried to put motions up. To ALGA, and I think from Councillor Cotlash's memory, it was knocked back because it wasn't almost generic enough at a national level. Given that we have to have— no, it was Council at the time. Given that we have only three days to get this, any sort of motions in, because I've got some ideas that I was just discussing, and one of them is looking at areas that don't pay rates, so facilities that the state government, the federal government use in our area and use all our services, but we don't actually sort of collect any sort of rates from them.

Given that we don't know how other councils work and it needs to be generic, are we able to get advice from staff over the next three days if— I just, I don't want us putting up motions and then they all just get knocked back because they're not— if possible, if we can, who would we need to go to? Just the GM or— yeah,

Sorry, just — Councillor,

The date here is the 6th of February that it's supposed to be in there, not having a meeting of Council before the 17th is a problem. If there's a motion coming from councillors and need the support of the staff, and it's a policy or direction of Council, it's fine. If it's a more personal matter, it needs to go to Council, and that's why it's recommended here that— To

Council on the 17th.

The 17th.

No, sorry. We have to get our motions, any draft motions, to the General Manager by the 6th of February, which is Friday, and usually I would say that they are not personal matters; they're to do with Council, for the 17th to get into the business paper for the 17th. That's what I was asking, if we have any— Questions . Can we come through to staff? Who would we go to?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So certainly there is the six-point criteria sitting at the bottom of page 18 of your council meeting agendas, Councillors, that should inform motions. We, as staff, are certainly happy to provide as best a guidance as we can over the next couple of days on those draft motions, noting that ultimately ALGA are the ones who will make that final decision. So, yeah, happy to.

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think Councillor Lyons-Buckett is right. There is a lot of stuff that we can look at doing. We just have a very tight timeframe. One of those was that I mentioned that I've been talking to other councillors in other areas was about the fact that we have all these massive land uses from the state and federal government, but we don't actually seem to collect any sort of rates. But they use the roads with trucks and all sorts of stuff, and they do a lot of damage. Even if we can, one of the motions we put up, whether it's at ALGA or coming up to another Local Government New South Wales conference, I think we need to actually sort of look at other ways that we can sort of increase the rate base without putting an extra burden on top of ratepayers.

I just want to look at bigger picture type stuff. So that was good to know that we can sort of come to council staff. My query is about ALGA's process, is that not all of us would know how other states handle their councils and the way, you know, state and federal governments in their states do certain things. And with ALGA, you've sort of got to make it almost like a national problem for all councils. That's why I was asking if we can just sort of get some advice and help from council staff. So I think, councillors, if we can sort of work together over the next three days, even if it's just through emails, just trying to get some sort of good quality motions up that we might be able to submit, I think that's a good idea.

So looking forward to it.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Scott Lash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As an ex-employee of a cooperative research centre for freshwater ecology back in the day, when we had federally funded public good research centres, I was thinking, this is in its an idea form at the moment, because I haven't read this fully as yet, but I was thinking that as a way of trying to restore having those sorts of organisations that were able to really do deep dives into issues that do affect

The nation,

I would really like to see us put some time and effort into advocating for their reinstatement. When I was employed with the CRC for Freshwater Ecology, it was— we dealt with all sorts of issues that were, you know, generic to the nation. At the time there was a CRC for weeds, again biosecurity. We could have a CRC for biosecurity, we could have a CRC for waste management, we could have a CRC for roads or for building roads. I mean, it's one of those things where, as a federal government, I think they lost their way when they started to make CRCs commercial. CRCs, Cooperative Research Centres, should be— Public good, because that's where you get a collective bang for your buck. And I'm going to try and put down some ideas by Friday, but I might rely on a bit of extra time to nuance that as a motion.

But I just wanted to flag that with everybody. That's the sort of thinking that I would like to get to on the national agenda. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Further to Councillor Creed's comments regarding a motion, I think you would have to focus on Commonwealth land and the cost, or the cost offset for councils regarding Commonwealth land. There are some figures that I think I've shared before that I received from the previous Chief Financial Officer relating to council's lost revenue for rates for church organisations, TAFE, university. So some of that may be relevant. It's now a few years out of date, though, whether you could use that, I don't know. But in order to have, my understanding is, in order for ALGA to take up the debate of the motion, it has to have not been debated for two years. It has to have broader relevance, so it can't be relevant to a particular, to a small geographical area.

So I think if you did a Commonwealth pitch, you'd probably be fine. And it also has to be an alteration or some alteration to ALGA's existing policy, so you would need to see what that policy is. I'd also like to flag that I think we need a motion about state government interference in local government, and particularly local government's capacity to continue to do our work where we are continually undermined by the New South Wales Government, both in terms of financial sustainability. Planning powers, et cetera. And I think you see before you tonight the result of that interference, where we are now standing up to speak of God knows for what purpose, I must say. We have lost the ability for public speakers to address council prior to an item.

We have lost the capacity to determine how we run our own level of government, and we have further lost planning powers. One would wonder even why we bother turning up, frankly, given the state government's obvious contempt for local government in New South Wales. Part of this surely must be a greater push for constitutional recognition, which is also an ALGA policy, but has had no ground covered in as long as I can remember, for more than 15 years at least. There's been no word on constitutional recognition for local government. So I think it's time to revisit that, and I'll try and put something together in the next three days. The other thing that's sadly lacking, I think, in Australia is some sort of broader heat-safe design, particularly for development, where we now have people cooking in their houses if they can't afford or don't own an air conditioner.

So two things that I'll attempt to put something together for. One of the other things, I think it was from talking to councillors from other councils, one of the things that we struggle with sometimes is accommodation, and more affordable accommodation. It's come to my attention that other councils are booking their accommodation 12 months out. We book ours a few months out, which leaves us with either the dregs or more expensive accommodation where we could come in on a middle tier and save council some money. This is a really useful conference. I urge councillors to attend. It's only a few days, and it's only Canberra. It's a conference that allows us access to... To federal decision makers and access to ministers, it's really worth going to, and it's worth spending time mixing with other councillors.

It's not a junket, it's hard work, but it's well worth going. Thanks.

Thanks for those comments, Councillor.

Any further discussion?

I agree with the sentiments that have been spoken by the councillors. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, right of reply.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

The motion is 9.2.1. All those in favour?

Against

It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reid and Councillor Vojic, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Malone, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Mary-Louise Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zembrodno, Councillor Sheather. The next item is 9.2.2.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move that, but with a slightly different wording, which I apologise, I haven't sent through. It's the motion in the business paper, but I just wanted a change in point 2, that after participating in the conference, delegates provide a written report to the General Manager detailing the proceedings and findings, et cetera, et cetera, and to add on, and for that information to be presented to the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee. Sorry, did you got that? Yeah. Councillor Wheeler

You second that?

I'll second , Mr Mayor.

Thank you.

Can we both be up at once?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak to the value of the Floodplain Management Conference, another wonderful and extremely relevant conference. It's something that the theme this year is from risk to resilience, advancing flood management, which I believe is a really important thing at this point of time. We've had our array of floods. We are now in a phase where we should be preparing for what's to come. We need to be strong in that particular sphere of emergency management to make sure we're ready for next time. Flood management is a very evolving space. We know that there's a lot of advancements, and to go to the national conference about that enables us to hear from the other states what they're experiencing and also to have access to the latest technologies that are being employed, particularly around warning systems and around measurements, forecasting, and also to actually get the updates on the impacts of climate change with relation to flooding.

So I think it's a valuable conference to attend, and I think it's really important, though, that the information that councillors who go, that they get from the various sources is delivered back into this chamber in a meaningful way. There's no point going if we only, you know, if we don't hear about it. And the important thing is if we have several councillors go, we can bring back several perspectives, which covers the broad range of what is spoken about at those particular conferences. I'll put that forward, and you seem to have more time when you stand up. I can't really understand that, but anyway, I'll sit down now.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussion? Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just as a little aside, I just wanted to add to Councillor Lyons-Buckett's address to this item. Back in the day we had a CRC for freshwater hydrology, and a lot of their work was groundbreaking modelling

And work with how you measure floods, you know, a whole lot of things about flooding, a whole lot of things about urban areas and how to build in urban areas. That's where it all started. So I just wanted—I forgot to mention that before. I think I mentioned weeds and freshwater ecology, but the hydrologists were gathered together in Melbourne. They were based in Melbourne, but they were so effective at doing all of that sort of really high-level work that no one organisation can do. So sorry that's not terribly related to this item, but I just thought I'd augment that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is a really worthwhile and relevant conference for us. I think we haven't had a decent attendance at this conference for some years. I know you went last year, Mr Mayor. I didn't attend, and I haven't attended since prior to COVID, which I regret. There was a hybrid model for COVID, which didn't work as well. I regret not attending as often. It's one of the few conferences where you have not just elected representatives, but specialists in the field that elected representatives have access to. So it's a good conference for sharpening your awareness about what's happening elsewhere, but also for us as decision-makers to come in contact with people who really understand the risks of floodplain and particularly our floodplain.

I'll never forget the first conference I attended in Newcastle in, I think, 2017, where I mentioned that I was from Hawkesbury Council and people laughed. And it wasn't that gosh, you've told a funny joke laugh; it was that nervous laugh that you give people when you know that they're really in a sticky spot. It was that my God, you're stuffed sort of laugh. And as someone who was at that stage deciding on DAs, that was really useful as a fairly raw, fairly new councillor. I think we've lost that awareness of the bigger picture. We've also lost access, the way things have panned out, we've lost access to the subject matter specialists in that area and who talk about the risks of the floodplain.

But we've also lost access to people who are making the decisions about rolling out further subdivision on the areas surrounding the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain, and I think that is enormously problematic. So when I see developments like that slated for North Marsden Park, and I think about the impacts of that on the South Creek catchment, that doesn't just magically evaporate when it hits the border; it runs into the Hawkesbury-Nepean, which runs into the lounge rooms and kitchens of the people of the Hawkesbury. Then we need to be in front of those people. We need to be in front of the decision-makers in the Department of Planning, asking them what on earth they think is going to happen to all the water that comes off that hard standing and what they are going to do to get the people of the Hawkesbury.

Hawkesbury, Nepean floodplain to safety because at the moment they don't have any answers.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate?

I'd just make a comment along the lines that Councillor Wheeler just made. Those of you that got the information most recently about the Marsden Park, the extension of Marsden Park and the area, the amount of— I'm not sure just what the outcome is, but the amount of fill that was talked about some years ago is massive. And we're not talking about fill on the top of a hill. We're talking about fill something down as low as six metres. And as Councillor Wheeler said, it's right on our boundary, and it's a state significant stuff. So, you know, we're talking to a wall here a bit. But it's frustrating when we've got residents of our city that's been aware of flooding forever, that put an application in for minor works and doesn't get a shoe-in because of policies in how we develop the floodplain.

It's grossly unfair when a neighbour in clear vision, if anyone that drives along Backtown Road, sees what neighbouring adjoining councils get away with at the expense of not just not allowing minor matters here, and I'm not suggesting that we change that. But existing development, as Councillor Wheeler said, the water doesn't stop running. It comes right past our door. And if it's hampered in some way in relation to detention basins where the water was stored along South Creek. That no longer can be stored there. The impact may not be great, but I'd suggest any impact to people who have got water lapping their door is an impact. So these conferences allow discussions, workshops, all that sort of stuff, with the people across this country who deal with matters of flooding.

And there's politicians, ministers that go to these conferences, and their representatives, they hear the stories, they see and listen to the information provided, you know, from people like the Mayor of Lismore and the likes. You know, so it doesn't go unnoticed. And one would hope that there's some commonality across flood plains that protect us, whether it's existing or future development.

Thank you, Councillors. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I'll have you write a reply, and we'll move this, and I'll take a motion after yours in relation to who might wish to go

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for raising that. And thank you for the staff for sending out the submission for the Marsden Park development. I hadn't read it, I just saw that it was emailed today. I think that that definitely, in terms of the flood impact from that development, it's showing a little bit of confusion with the state government for having denied that and then for allowing it. It also will involve the loss of significant wetland there, which will impact flooding and also carbon losses when that's disturbed. Mr. Mayor, thank you for— Well, I don't know what I'm thinking at all, but thank you for

Going on with the next bit where we can see who wants to go I'm finding this really odd. Yeah

You're not on here, Councillor.

The motion is 9.2.2. Those in favour?

Those against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Vial, Councillor Greig, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dura, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ambrogno, Councillor Sheehan. I'll accept a motion for nomination of councillors who wish to. Councillor Lyons-Buckett?

Councillor Wheeler.

The motion is for nominations for the conference, Councillor. Thank you.

Do you want me to do something ?

Yes.

What's your interpretive day? I'll move the motion that— do you want to go to? Move the motion that Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Sheehan go to the motion— go to the conference. Somebody just said the air's thinner up here. I don't know if that's true. You wouldn't.

I move that motion and I fully support it. Thank you.

I'll second, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Cox.

Any further discussion? Any other councillors? Councillor Crew.

Yeah, it... Sorry. Jeez. I'm happy to put my hand up to attend, but I just need to check something, so if I can, I might have to withdraw. That's okay. Later

If that's all right. That's okay. Thanks.

Okay. Any further? Councillor Scott-Lash.

Mr Mayor, can I just ask a question about the

Sorry

I know, you think we're— sorry. Just ask a question about ALGA. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler's point about getting in early, are we— is that coming at the 17th, at the meeting of the 17th, or— so that'll be in time? I thought we could knock it over now, but that's okay. Thank you. Thank you.

It's

Like the sound of music. Thank you. Thank you. Running towards— It's

Yeah, I've just been informed it will be on the 17th, yes. Councillor Veigel. Yeah

Thank you. Just a question, Mr Mayor, how many delegates have we got going up to the Gold Coast for this please now? What's the count? Yeah, I'll accept that, because it's just under the budget by about $20. Be careful of the expenses, councillors. There's not a great deal of money in there.

I like a man about money. Thanks, Councillor.

Councillor Wheeler.

Mr Mayor, can I just respond to that? It's a useful conference to send multiple people to. It runs usually across four concurrent sessions, and if you don't have four people, you miss out on information. So it's actually four is the ideal number to have, and then you can just get together and you can divide and conquer, basically, and then compare notes at the end.

Thank you. No further discussion? Right reply, not necessary.

Those in favour? That's the attendance at the conference.

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather.

The next item is 9.3.1, development application. Councillor Wheeler, you had the declaration.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 9.3.1, in that my son is a member of Wilberforce Brigade, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, which one of the DAs relates to. The reason for no further action is that it does not meet the threshold for significance. Thanks.

Thank you. Was

Someone else that was on that one or not?

Okay. Someone like to move?

I'll move it

Mr Mayor. Councillor Djuric.

I'll second it.

Sorry, I missed that. Councillor Kotlash.

Any discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is the first time that a list of significant DAs has come to Council, and I think it's the result of a motion that I put to Council last year. The point of it was so that the public could have a better idea of significant DAs that were coming to Council, rather than relying on their own trawling through the DA tracker, which we receive a list at the conclusion of each week, but members of the public don't. So unless they're aware that something's coming, this now provides a means for them to keep an eye on larger DAs at least. My question relates to DA0388/25, the development at 1 Walker Street, South Windsor, and I'm happy to take— The response on notice, or to just make a statement about it.

My concern, and I realise that in this process councillors don't have an ability to influence these DAs. This is largely a heads up for the community or a capacity for us to make some comment and maybe to galvanise us into action if we want to make a submission and go from there. But we are not the consent authority on these DAs, and by bringing them to Council, this in no way infers that Councilors have the capacity to stop or alter these DAs. I just want to raise the point that the Walker Street development application refers to the removal of 15 trees. Now I've looked at that from an aerial photograph, and there are some trees in the middle of the block. It's an industrial development. It's likely to cover the entire block, and all of those trees are to be lost.

But there is a run of trees that fronts the footpath just on the boundary of the building, and I think it should be. What I would like to see going forward, that's a particularly hot area of the LGA with much lower tree canopy than many others, if we let every DA that goes ahead for an industrial space remove every tree from a block like that, particularly trees that shade the footpath where workers walk to and from work, to and from lunch, and park their cars, then we'll lose even more tree canopy in those areas adjacent to residential spaces. So what I would like to have some feedback on is whether we have a mechanism in our DCP or our other planning documents to prevent DAs from removing, at the very least, the trees that front the roadside and provide some tree cover around the areas of active transport.

Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Further report.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. I would suggest that that may be best simply answered through a memorandum of advice to councillors perhaps, outlining which suite of the planning controls would apply in those circumstances.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I'm assuming all of these, well from what I've read, all of these were destined for the Joint Regional Planning Panel, which has now been disbanded. I'm just wondering, application DA054225, is that for our community centre?

At the North Richmond, yes.

Yes, it is. So does— I was unsure, and I didn't have time to look up what our policy was. Do we assess our own DA, or the planning panel assesses our own DA? Is that— oh, because it's under the five million. Okay. All right. Sorry, thanks, just clarifying that. Thank you

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do welcome this report. I think it's a wonderful, comprehensive way, as Councillor Wheeler said, to be able to demonstrate to the community the large DAs that are before our council. And we have never had this kind of information before, prior to— after we lost our ability to vote on DAs. So I think this is wonderful. The only suggestion I would ask, please, to make it easier for councillors who are reading the business paper, may you please add the applicant and the landowner to this table so that we can assess any potential conflict of interest a little more easily than Googling each DA. Thank you very much.

Taken on board, Councillor.

Any further debate?

Righto, reply?

Not necessarily, Mr Mayor, thanks. Okay ,

The motion is 9.3.1. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Bogue, Councillor Crewe, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McLarn, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, and Councillor Sheather. 10

1.

1

Sorry, yeah, Councillor Wheeler, you'd declared an interest in that.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in item 10.1.1 in that my home is subject to heritage listings discussed in the minutes of the meeting, so I'll leave the meeting.

That was one that was pulled out of block, Councillors. There shouldn't be any other further discussion. Someone like to move that, 10.1.1? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously, with Councillor Wheeler was out of the room. Those for the motion was Councillor Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Sambrook, Nguyen and Sheather.

And

The next item is 10.1.4, again it was on block. Councillor Ryan, you've declared interest in the matter. It's withdrawn from the block. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm on the committee in relation to the Anzac Day road closures there, and I feel that I have a less than significant interest, particularly interest, so I'll remain in the chamber.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor, otherwise, if it's determined on block, I don't suppose there should be any discussion on it. Could have a motion

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Veigel.

Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Reardon, Veigel, Creed, Kotlash, McMahon, Djuric, Ryan, Buckett, Wheeler, Sambrook and Sheather.

The next item we have is 11.1.1. It's a notice of motion. Councillor Zamprogno

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've added an additional dot point, and I telegraphed that to staff, and I will wait its appearance on the screen and then seek a seconder for the purpose of debate. Thank you, Councillor. It's right there.

I'll second it, Mr Mayor. Councillor Creed. Thank you. This is a perennial issue. I was talking to Councillor Lyons-Buckett about this even over dinner, and she said, This is, you know, so old it's got hairs on it , and suggested that I should know more about this, and I completely agree, because I don't have an EnviroCycle septic on my property. But I do know that this is a very, very frequent piece of correspondence, common correspondence that I get from ratepayers, especially on rural properties who have septic systems that are subject to inspection, and particularly, and the focus of this motion, are those people who have more than one septic system on their property that are subject to some inspection either on a yearly or a three-yearly or a five-yearly cycle.

In my research, I discovered that the policy that we're currently acting upon was penned in about 2019, and we were given it in a draft form as far ago as 2019. And then for some reason, and I can't recall, it took until 2022 until we enacted it. But it's certainly true that the wording of the policy that we're currently having as our active policy is— Seven years old, and I know that it's best practice for us to circle back and to review all council policies in some time frame, sometimes on a per term basis, sometimes with some other frequency. This was one of those policies that was never earmarked with a time where we should circle back, and I thought I'd start the conversation by saying, well, maybe it's time that the chamber prompted a review and perhaps some improvement to this particular policy.

The situation that's described to me commonly is this. A person has, for example, a dual occupancy or a secondary dwelling, and the construction of that dual occupancy required the installation of an additional septic system because the septic system associated with the primary dwelling was too old or didn't have the appropriate capacity, so another was put in.

Council then requires that those systems to be inspected with some frequency, and the council man comes out with his clipboard, gets out of his vehicle, has a look at one system, walks what is usually a very short distance to go and inspect the second system, and then leaves the ratepayer with a bill for the inspection of two systems. And it's been suggested to me by a number of people that this is not particularly fair. Another reason why I think that it would be timely for us to initiate a review of this policy is that there is an upper house inquiry currently underway that I'm told on good— Authority, which will report before the end of March about secondary dwellings and rural dwellings.

And one of the recommendations that it may well make is to suggest that if detached dual occupancies are permitted, that there is also a change to the rating structure of those properties. Because if you effectively have two dwellings that might represent one family unit, but could represent two, that it is an impost to Council and that those properties should probably pay higher rates, and that that would be a cost impact to them. It's the quid pro quo for being able to have more than one dwelling on your property and the draw on Council resources that it represents. And if that's the case, we can get in ahead of that curve by being a little gentler with precisely those same properties, by being a little fairer in the way that we bill people on that periodic basis for the inspection of their septic systems.

Now , the dot point that I added that wasn't in the business paper, which I added through the afternoon, could be a hard no from the get-go. And I'll accept that. I think when the Council staff come back to us with their answers, it might be that the answer to question two is no, because private certification of septic systems is simply something that the Act will not permit, although that's what's been conveyed to me. And that's fine. Although maybe that should be the spur of some advocacy on our part, because we're perfectly happy to accept private certification for development applications, and we recognise that the presence of private operators in that space, if they're appropriately qualified and accredited, are capable of doing as good a job as Council's own certifiers and tends to drive costs down.

So I'd like people to take this motion in the spirit in which it's offered. There are a lot of people—in fact, the Director of City Planning gave me some figures—that says that potentially the cost impact to Council is relatively low, but it would make a substantial difference to those people who are paying double the fee for one visit. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Just a clarification on a comment you made, Councillor, through you, General Manager. Do we accept where we've got some sort of treatment system where there's an arrangement for professional people to inspect and make sure that they're operational, and who gives the certificates to the property owners? Do we accept that if they provide those as an inspection or not?

I can answer that on behalf of the General Manager. In accordance with the performance standard requirements of the guideline, which I accept postdates Council's current policy in relation to onsite sewage management systems, there is an obligation upon the landowner to maintain their onsite sewage management system in accordance with the relevant performance standards under that guideline, which includes the need to have quarterly inspections undertaken by someone who has some reasonable or appropriate form of accreditation, and we accept that as a means of, I guess, establishing that the system is operating accordingly and there is no risk to the environment. Yeah

Thank you. When I was on council yesteryear, the state government put that impost on council, well, an impost, that requirement on council to visit all households that had absorbed, you know, septic systems or the likes. Our council here was one of the cheapest. The fee that we charged at the time was $45. Most councils would charge way, way more than that, and a lot of it was on the basis that Councillor Zamprogno spoke of during his talk. The proposal that's before us tonight is to be further investigated, and it's timely, as been indicated by the speaker. The system, while it's been in place, it's only been reviewed once that I'm aware of, and it's probably time that we did that. In relation to the fees and charges, though, I wouldn't necessarily be supporting it to look at either increasing or decreasing those fees that are there.

It's $182.25 for the first system and $135 for a second one, because a lot of these premises aren't in town, they're out of town, and it's not just the inspection. And one would hope that the inspection is fairly quick, that they're working and operating well. But if they're not, there would be considerable— Dialogue between the, you know, the landholders and Council, just with the feeders being proposed. And as I said, they're out of town. Most of them, you're looking at any amount of time to get there. And even though they might be doing house after house, that might not always be the case. But the review, as the Council has indicated, to look at those aspects and the like, I think is probably appropriate.

Councillor Creed,

Did

You want to go first

I wanted to move an amendment.

Well, we'll go for the amendment first if you

Have. Okay. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment that Council review the policy, the exact name of which I don't have in front of me, but the specific septic inspection policy, and I would ask the General Manager for a potential timeframe in which that could be done, so that we can attach a timeframe to it. If I could move that amendment, please, just as broad as that, which we'll look at.

I'll second that.

Councillor Kotlash,

Would you like to speak to it, Councillor

Yes, please, Mr Mayor, and I would like to put that time frame in. I do think it's timely to review, obviously, all our policies, as we have to do. But I think to go into any more detail at the moment is unnecessary, because to have a review of that policy, we've got to remember that it doesn't only cover the aerated systems, which are the ones that have the inspections. It covers the septics, it covers the pump-out connections. It covers everything. So I think to update the policy, anything like that would be captured. Of course, our setting of fees and charges is a budgetary process, so that's part of when we do the budget, so that is when we would look at that. I think that just a broader look at this at the moment would be much more pertinent.

I'm concerned with making changes around things that may happen when the state government make their Upper House inquiry findings. Until we've seen that, I think we need to see what may be happening. This is a small number of properties we're talking about with two sewer systems. It's quite rare in the Hawkesbury. I think it's around 400 altogether, and it's quite likely that many of those exist where there's an older system and a newer system has been put in. So it's not necessarily the case that both systems would be operating at the same level of capacity or efficiency, and therefore may require individual inspections to be able to. They could also have things like a septic and an aerated treatment, which means that they've got two different regimes going on.

So I think that it's better to have a policy review. We did review it in 2018, I think it was, and made some changes then. But with our changing landscape around the various development and lot sizing, etc., it's probably very pertinent to be looking at it in a holistic way and to look at all of it overall. rather than just to be looking at specifically a few people who may make a small saving. When, Councillor Zamprogno, when I spoke to you before, it was about the issue. Nobody has ever contacted me about two sewer septic inspections being done. I've never had, through all my correspondence, which goes back over a decade, I've never once had anyone ask that. But we've had many questions about the quarterly inspections and how that works and how council does it.

And I was speaking to Councillor Ryan about this today, and he was saying that somebody had once said to him, it's about like servicing your car every quarter. Well, you don't do your car that often, but servicing your system, and that's one thing. That's looking after how the system operates. But what the council comes and does is gives a licence to operate. So that's the actual, that's a different process. It's not substituting one or the other, and it is only the aerated systems that have this quarterly inspection. So I think adjusting it without a full understanding would be a little bit—I know the motion was calling for a report, but I think a full policy review can allow us to actually cover that.

And the state government did a survey, and they actually found that over 70% of sewer systems were not operating effectively. So even if someone's inspecting them, because that's largely an unregulated industry, that doesn't mean that they're actually operating to their maximum level. So I think that I would prefer just to see a policy review down the track if we know things are changing with detached dual occupancy. We also know things are changing with new technologies and with people perhaps retrofitting their systems that they've got to modernise them and to make them more efficient. So I think there's many things that we can look at when it comes to looking at these systems. And I would be going for probably having this done in a way that at the same time we do it, we can actually explain to the community just what it's all about, because there seems to be a perpetual misunderstanding of what these systems are for, why they have to be licensed, how the risks are actually apportioned to any particular property, which of course can go to—have I run out of time?

No. Fifty seconds. How the risk is to do with how many people in the household, the location and type of system, the vulnerability to flooding in that area, the type of soil that it's in. So there's many things that actually contribute to how the risk is. So I think there's a lot more to it than simply just deciding that some people could save some money. And we all know in this chamber we want to save every penny we can. You know, to suggest that we would be losing revenue at a time when we have, you know, decided to go for an SRV and some people didn't support that, to suggest that we would be cutting council revenue is really not a good look in the public's eyes. So I think a full policy review is a much better way to go, a much more responsible way to look at it.

Thank you, Councillor. General Manager, first, Councillor, can you just have a look at the policy by—there's a date, if you want a date, or… I

Would like a date, yes.

Yeah. Just have a think about what that might be

I was asking the general manager of a reasonable date.

Okay, sorry. You're

Right through you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, staff share the view that the policy requires revision. There's no doubt about that. What our preference is to is to revise that policy alongside the strategy that sits with it. Now, bearing that in mind and accounting for existing workloads within that rather small team, we think that we would be able to deliver both of those revised documents in about a 12-month period, so about February of next year.

Thank you. General Manager, I think that would be suitable because I do think that it's actually quite a lengthy process. And given that we only review this policy every six or so years, it would be pertinent to do it thoroughly, and that also gives us time to embrace those other changes that may be coming. So within 12 months is fine.

Thank you, Councillor. Question to the general manager. The motion that was proposed by Councillor Zamprogno in relation to the systems, the time, the costing and all that, with a review that's been proposed in the amendment, would those things be looked at as a matter of that policy and process?

Yes, they would.

Thank you. Okay. Councillor Brogno, did you wish to—

We're discussing the amendment, so I don't know if I can reply yet.

No, I'm just wondering whether you

Wish to

Withdraw on the basis

Procedurally, Mr Mayor, there is an amendment to my motion. That debate will ensue. Yep. If I withdraw, then you're amending nothing. It's an amendment to my motion.

Yeah, the amendment becomes the motion if you withdraw

That's debate

That's fine. Okay

Councillor Cree, you've got the floor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions. Can I just get clarification from the Acting Director of Planning on what he said about the point two of Councillor Zampronios? So with the quarterly reviews and every three— They get the private assessors. You were saying, did I hear correctly that council accept those certificates, or whatever you call them, at the one-, three-, five-year period? Or do council have to then turn around and— because from the correspondence that I've had from community members is that council don't accept the private certifiers' certifications , their systems, and that that's why they have to then turn around and get council to come in and do their one-, three-, five-year, whatever it is, for council to come and do it and then provide them a licence.

Can I just get actual clarification in layman's terms on with the certifiers versus the councils? Sorry

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. There are two different regimes that we are dealing with here. One is, as Councillor Lyons-Buckett mentioned, the licensing regime. So that is an approval to install and operate. What we're dealing with here specifically is the approval to operate, which, in accordance with the Local Government Act, has a lapse period of five years or up to five years. So you have an approval to operate for five years before you need to gain a further approval. During that five-year period, there's a performance standard requirement that imposes an obligation upon the owner of the system to engage a private contractor to service the system on a quarterly basis. Part of that servicing regime requires that servicer to provide to council within 14 days of the service being conducted records in relation to his or her inspection and confirmation that the system is operating in accordance with the performance guidelines, to include pH levels, toxicity levels, bacterial levels within the water or the system itself.

It also confirms that the irrigation system is not blocked and is operating effectively and the irrigation area is capable of accommodating the amount of liquid that is being disposed within that irrigation area. So council has to accept that as part of a condition of approval, as a servicing requirement under the ultimate licence that's granted.

Thank you. Just a follow-up, and I'm no expert, so this is why I'm asking these questions, just so I can actually understand it, because you get told different things. So in saying that, Council accept all those things from the private certifiers. It's been done over a period of time. The residents pays the certifier. Is there a reason why council staff, are we required by state to go out and inspect it ourselves, or are council staff able to just accept those without — can you see where I'm coming from? I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to make sure that we're not wasting staff time if you can accept it, but is there an extra requirement? Is there something staff do with these inspections that the certifier is not?

Through you, Mr Mayor. I think there may be some uncertainty in relation to the two processes. As I said earlier, one is an approval process which approves a certain system to be utilised on site for a certain period of time as a means of disposing of waste. The second is a maintenance requirement under that approval process, which requires someone to confirm, independent of the council on a quarterly basis, that the system is operating in accordance with the licence and is having no impact upon the environment or the locality, generally speaking. So the quarterly inspection regime is part of the condition of the licence that's ultimately granted by the council, who is the regulator in relation to the system

No, thank you. And I'm sorry if they were dumb questions or whatever, I just wanted to get my head around it. I'm a little bit on the fence because I'm happy to support the review, and I was happy to second Councillor Zampron's motion to get it to debating, because I have to admit, I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I haven't actually had anyone talk to me about multiple systems. It's more about what we discussed in the added bit. So I'm happy to support the amendment because I think a review is always important to our policies. Actually, just a quick question: when was the last time we reviewed this? It was 20... sorry, I'm getting all different numbers around the table. I believe it's 2022.

2022. Okay. This is why I ask you guys, because I just heard 16, 17, 2018. No, that's good. So I think it's due for a review anyway, given the fact that state government is bringing all sorts of new things with their inquiry and we don't know what it's actually going to bring. But if the amendment goes down, I'm still happy to support Councillor Zamprogno's motion, but I'm more than happy to support the review. I mean, is the mover of the motion willing to put it together and say, review it, and also look at these things as part of the review? I'll seek a call shortly. Okay.

Councillor Scott-Lash,

Thank you, Mr Mayor . I'll just be brief because I think that there's some flawed logic in Councillor Zamprogno's original motion, and I'll be supporting the amendment because of it. And it's because when we apply the logic that we have a particular fee for a particular service or a particular inspection, and somebody says, Well, that's not fair that I have to pay two because I've got two systems, and the reasoning that Councillor Zamprogno gave was that there's no extra effort and it's not fair and etcetera, I think that logic is flawed . As councillors, we have to look at our budget and our service fees. In terms of fairness across the board, I'll give you an example of why I think this logic is flawed.

If you live on a street and your garbage collection means that the garbage truck only has to stop every few metres to collect your garbage, a fairer system with that sort of logic would mean that you should pay less because it's a lot less effort, because the garbage truck only picks up your rubbish every few metres. Let's not go down that path. Let's just have the types of discussions about our fees and charges when they occur. Let's have them in total, like let's do all our fees and charges. I can't see why just this section of the community is getting such a bad deal. I don't think that's the case . I just don't think that that's logical. I think what Councillor Lyons-Buckett has proposed is that we do a policy review, and hopefully that policy review will start to flesh out some things that we might be able to do in terms of efficiencies.

That's always a good place to start with efficiencies across the board. But when I hear some person has a clipboard and they just wander around and it's not much effort, they don't really have to do much, and we charge them double, I find that a little bit troubling. There is a lot to septic systems . Assessment. It's not just about the initial property, it's about the surrounds, it's about, you know, it's about a lot of things. So, flawed logic, sorry, in the original motion, so I'll be supporting the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think there's a variety of points of confusion here, and one of those points, I think, relates to the use of the term septic when what's meant is the broader on-site sewage management. A septic and on-site is a subsection of on-site sewage management. If you have a septic, no one comes out and services your septic. Council comes, depending on your risk profile, and checks on your septic. And if it's not up to scratch, they give you a love letter and you have to go and either—they'll tell you that the crust is too thick, for example, or that your trenches aren't, your absorption trenches aren't working effectively enough. And that's on you as the owner of the septic to fix.

But there is no service agent. There is no quarterly servicing of the septic. If you have an aerated wastewater treatment system, then as part of your contract to whoever you purchase that system from, they must service that at a particular service interval determined not by this council, but by whoever sold the product to them. And that ongoing service is part of that contract at purchase. That is not on council. That is on the company that you purchased that aerated wastewater treatment system from and is part of their license process from the New South Wales EPA. Nothing to do with council. Nothing. The only thing that's to do with council is the required regulatory inspection. It's like me taking my car to— Jacks at McGraths Hill to have a service and then taking it to another mechanic for a pink slip.

They’re different things. They don’t overlap. They are different. So this idea that just because someone’s ticked it off as part of a contract that you signed five years prior to buy that system, and Council should then waive your fee, shows a lack of understanding of how this system works. I get that it’s complicated, but it’s that difference between servicing and regulation, and inspection and regulation. And look, there are horror stories where some of these inspections aren’t done. These service inspections aren’t done well. I knew of one person who took over a system when they bought a new house. They got a new service agent in because they thought the system was a bit stinky, and they discovered that the previous service agent had been coming, doing a tick and flick, not touching the system at all.

Chlorine tablets hadn’t been put in the system, and contaminated water was being sprayed across their garden area where their children played. These are the things that Council staff check when they look at systems. This isn’t a revenue raiser for Council. It’s a safety system that’s required by the NSW EPA for very good reasons. This is sewage that, in some instances, is being sprayed around in areas where animals and children play. So the potential for contamination is very high. I’m in favour of the amendment because I think we’re putting the cart before the horse here. We have an Upper House inquiry due hopefully in March. We can’t pre-empt the findings of that Upper House inquiry. That’s not how democracy works.

But we need those findings before we progress with what this Council chooses to do. I also think we need to know exactly what this Council will do as part of the work done post the gateway determination that we’ve recently received. So February 2027 is probably a reasonable time frame. It will then feed neatly into our budget for the 2027-2028 year, and any changes can be incorporated in that . I don't think that there is a significant economy of scale with inspecting two systems. They may be different. They may not even come due at the same time. But if we're going to talk about economies of scale on a single property, firstly, I think we're inferring that the owner of the property and the occupants of both those dual-occupancy properties are somehow related, or that you may have a tenant who's been playing around with the other system.

The owner of the property shouldn't have to be responsible for that.

Why don't we give a discount to people in Bowen Mountain, where we might inspect 10 properties in a row with 20 metres between each of those properties? Council is the regulatory authority here. We have a responsibility to the EPA. We don't get to change that. We, as the council, set the pricing. We have the opportunity to do that. But I think we need to be mindful that we need to have all the information in front of us before we make the decisions. Yes

Thanks, Councillor. Choose my words, you know your stuff

Councillors, just for information, the staff just had a look at adjoining councils in relation to the cost-wise. We're $2 dearer than the Hills and substantially cheaper than the other councils around us in relation to this matter, just from a financial perspective . For debate.

Mr Mayor.

Councillor.

Thank you. I'll be speaking against the amendment. For a number of reasons. Councillor Lyons-Buckett suggests that it's not a good look to be taking revenue off council. Charging lower taxes is always a good look for councils , for any tier of government. Well , my motion asked for, within a reasonable time frame of a month or two, specific information relating to the number of septic inspections that occur, the number of households that are in that minority situation of having more than one septic system and are therefore being double charged. You could then multiply that by the fee for the inspection of a second or subsequent system and get some sense of what the impact on council's revenue would be.

I'd like to see that in a report. Councillor Lyons-Buckett's amendment does no such thing. I'm heartened to hear that the review might include those things, but I asked for it specifically and now they're gone . I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on some figures that the Acting Director of City Planning gave me just before the meeting and calculated— That if we give some relief to those people who have second septic systems, which would make a substantial difference to them, it would represent 0.05 percent of council's revenue. So it's not going to break the bank.

There are many things that represent kind of double dipping. We're used to seeing examples of double dipping, of tiers of government. And, you know, if there's a theme that's emerging by representations to this chamber, it's about trying to target fairness wherever we can. We pay fuel excise on our fuel, and yet we will still pay tolls on our roads. We will fund the Medicare levy, and yet many of us still pay for private health insurance. We will fund national parks, but sometimes we will have to pay to get into those national parks that we're paying for through our taxation. What some of the speakers have done is make the mistake of thinking that I'm talking about abolishing inspections or abolishing a fee for inspections.

I agree that some systems are not functioning very well, that there may be a risk of contamination to local watercourses or to their neighbours. That's not what I proposed. I proposed that on those rare occasions where somebody has somebody come out and inspects one system and then another system, is that they get charged one fee, or that the fee for those second or subsequent systems be lower than it is now. People are still going to be charged $180-something for the inspection of a single system, and I'm not proposing to change that. Instead of getting a report back within a couple of months with that specific data, Councillor Lyons-Buckett's amendment puts this off more than 12 months and may not include any of those.

Pieces of data that relate to the fairness of the charges that we are levying. That was my point. Thank you. Councillor

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got notes everywhere and I'm so not used to this standing up when I've got everything spread out, but I'll do my best. Thank you very much. I will be supporting the amendment on the board tonight. I think that is a very sensible way forward. I think the 12-month time frame is also a sensible way to ensure that we get the accurate information, because as some other councillors touched on tonight, we are currently in the midst of this potential SRV with an IPART application, where some of the debate has been about looking for other ways to cut costs. But here we are looking to cut revenue, and I think this may not be revenue, and the staff may correct me that this probably just covers itself, I'm not sure.

But in this sense, I would not be supporting the notice of motion on that basis at this point in time. And in fact, the right time to do that is when we are debating our budget and having our discussions about the upcoming budget and the fees and charges that we are putting in that budget, which will become our policy on what we charge to the community. In my almost 10 years on council, I have never once had this issue raised with me. In fact, Councillor Zamprogno actually said in his speech just a minute ago that he called this a minority situation. He called those who are encountering this. Situation here, a rare occasion.

In that regard, I say the following without allegation. I would just hope that holistically, when councillors put forward notices of motion, there is a consideration and a declaration if that notice of motion could potentially financially benefit members of that councillor's family, and if that is the case, they would say so. What I further want to talk about is the fact that we are the regulator. We have regulatory obligations. They are statutory obligations. They are legal obligations. We have to inspect these systems. If we don't inspect it, if we don't follow due process and something happens and there is an environmental catastrophe, then we could be responsible. And not only that, we will have damage to the local environment area.

Therefore, the amendment put on the board tonight is the absolute sensible approach. To try and cut the cost of doing this means we are also undervaluing the skills, the education and the qualifications of our staff who perform these inspections. When we hire those individuals to partake in these inspections, we are paying a wage equivalent to their qualifications. And those qualifications mean they have undertaken education and experience to be able to safely inspect and deliver reports on these systems. Therefore, we cannot expect that residents will not be charged a service or a fee accordingly. In that regard, I will be supporting the amendment and I thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for putting it forward.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Point of order, Mr Mayor. Yes. Point of order. I would hope that when another councillor has chosen to make a veiled allegation about another councillor's motivations or potential financial impact to members of their family, is that you would not let that pass unchallenged.

If there had been a name mentioned with that allegation, Councillor. Well, I was mentioned. You were mentioned in the conversation. You weren't mentioned in that particular allegation, Councillor. And I take your point. It's not a point of order.

Any further debate?

Okay, we're dealing with the amendment, which is on your screen. Those in favour of the amendment

Is Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Marn, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Those against is Councillor Djuric and Councillor Zamprogno . Councillor Sheathers in favour.

The amendment becomes the motion.

Mr Mayor, I'd like to foreshadow an amendment, or propose an amendment to what is now the motion before the chamber, and that is to add a second point that the review places some focus on the fairness of fees and charges in this space. I could ask the now mover whether they're happy to just have that included. Please do.

Mr Mayor, I'm not entirely happy with that sort of wording because it's very, you know, who determines what fairness means? We see this coming up all the time, people saying something's fair, something's not. What I would suggest was, and ask the feasibility of perhaps in the budget process reviewing the specific charges for all related sewer management fees and charges within the budget process, which is the correct place to do it.

Would you be happy with that, Councillor? Well, I'd need a seconder for that amendment. So do I have an amendment for that? If I fail for want of a seconder, I yield.

No, the question was that Councillor Lyons-Buckett has amended what you offered. Are you satisfied with her wording? I'm satisfied with the

Wording that's on the screen.

Well, I'm not, so it's an amendment.

I would need a seconder for that amendment.

Councillor Goddard?

Mr Mayor. Is that a seconder?

I was the seconder of the amendment . This is another amendment.

No

No, but when you said you didn't agree, I was about to say I don't agree too, and you sort of overlooked...

We haven't got that far yet. Oh, sorry. On I'm prepared to second it, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Djuric, thank you. Thank you, but I won't any additional debate. That's now a new amendment, and I'll seek a vote.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you amended—we need to get this squared away first. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you amended—

I suggested an amendment that wasn't acceptable, so I'll hear the debate on this amendment. This is Councillor Sam Prono's amendment, seconded by Councillor.

You changed the wording. Did you wish to leave that wording on?

That's not my wording.

Right, okay.

My wording is the first point, and I haven't changed that yet.

Okay.

This is an amendment from Councillor Sam Prono.

That's fine. Thank you. Sorry, I was— can I ask a question? Councillor— Councillor— Councillor Lyons-Buckett, the wording you just said, would you be happy to, like, your wording, to include it as part of your motion? She didn't accept that, Councillor. No, she didn't accept— no, she didn't accept Councillor Sam Prono's wording. Councillor Lyons-Buckett came up with her own wording, which said about the budgetary process. I'm asking for clarification if Councillor Lyons-Buckett is going to include that bit as well, because I'd be even more happier with the wording, if that were.

I may, but currently there's an amendment on the table which we are debating.

I'll withdraw my amendment if Councillor Lyons-Buckett wishes to add a sentence about examining fairness and having data presented to us during the budgetary process.

I am not including the word fairness, Mr Mayor, because I don't think that we are the arbiters— You

Don't need a reason, Councillor. Well

I'm giving one because it makes sense, but I was happy to include the

Wording— The wording that's on the screen now, that we review focus on the fairness of charges associated with the service. Is that—

That is not my

Wording. Would you like to clarify? I

Don't like that wording.

Clarify what you do like.

What I do like? How long have you got? I just think that I would be happy to include something that we review all sewer management fees and charges during the budgetary process.

Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Yes, I know we've got an amendment

I don't think that we have provision under the new code of meeting practice to be having this back and forth discussion. We had an amendment on the table. There is no provision under the new code of meeting practice to foreshadow an amendment. So we have an amendment. We had an amendment. Councillor Zampronio withdrew the amendment. We are now at the point in the discussion where we can either debate Councillor Lyons-Buckett's amendment, which has now become the motion, and vote on it, or simply move on. But we don't have another amendment to debate. We only have the original

Motion. I have not withdrawn my amendment.

In which case, we are now debating the new amendment.

Councillor Brogner, you did withdraw. If— No, I heard withdraw, and that's what it is. Councillor Wheeler, thanks for your point of order. There is no point of order. Thanks very much.

Mr Mayor, can you please clarify? Okay. Now, that is an amended motion of my other amendment that became a motion, so it is now the motion

It's another

Amendment.

When you're satisfied with that point two— Yes. — that will be the motion before Council tonight.

No, that will be an amendment.

No, it's not.

Yeah, it is.

It is. We've got a motion that you're changing that will still

Be a motion. We've got a motion that was my original amendment became a motion, but now I am amending that, so it's an amendment. So we've got to vote on this.

That wording is acceptable to me, Mr Mayor.

Councillor, you're entitled to move your motion without an amendment. You're adding to it, which is an amendment, but it isn't.

It is. I've added to it. Therefore, it is an amendment.

We've got one matter before us, which is a motion on the board that's been moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. That's what we're discussing. There is no amendment. That's the motion. Would someone like to speak either for or against it? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Could we just add a clarification to that point too, that we do that review in the 27-28 budgetary process, which will be when we have that report in our hands. At the moment it reads like it's the upcoming budget process.

I think that's an amendment, but I'm happy to have...

Thank you, Councillor. You happy with that, Councillor Buckett, Lyons-Buckett? Okay. Righto. I know where we are.

It's not an amendment. It's the motion. The motion's been amended. It's not an amendment. Thank you, councillors. Okay, any further debate? And we're talking about a sewer scheme at the moment. Yep. Okay. The motion before us tonight is 0.1 and 0.2 of Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Is there any further discussion? Councillor Creed.

No, sorry, I was pre-empting debate

Right I wanted to vote, so... Any further discussion? And the right of reply actually goes to Councillor Zmbragno.

I regard this as watered down, but I'll take what I can get. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Those in favour of the motion on your screen?

It's unanimous. It's Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Creed, Councillor Kotlasch, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Ryan, Councillor— Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Brogden, Councillor Sheather. Those against? The motion's carried. Thank you, councillors. Really needed that tonight.

13.1.1, it's information in relation to questions from a previous meeting. Any further— there is a question, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Regarding the first question, and I've got questions on three of the questions, for Bushells Lagoon, could councillors be provided with a contact for issues relating to Bushells Lagoon, so someone from Crown Lands that we could refer people to, or would council staff prefer that we refer people to council, who can then refer them on to Crown Lands? I often get calls about Bushells Lagoon, and it's a confusing space, I think. I'm not entirely sure that Crown Lands owns all of Bushells Lagoon. I think Little Bushalls is much more complicated with them, and it's further complicated by the fact that the size of Bushells Lagoon fluctuates quite a lot. But I think Little Bushalls is owned as part of very early land grants by the owners that surround it.

But if we could have some sort of contact information for who to call about dead pelicans, rusting kombi vans, et cetera, in Bushells Lagoon, that would be helpful. The second comment relates to question two regarding the resolution for the report on the status of free sanitary products in council buildings. That was my question, not Councillor Zampogno's . Could I have that corrected for the record, please? And then relating to question three, and I'm sorry, I'm really struggling to read whilst standing up all of the things, and I would like to put on record that this process of standing does not advantage anyone with a disability. I don't have one, but as someone with fading eyesight due to middle age, I'm finding that quite a pain in the neck, literally.

One of the comments here from Sydney Water, that the wastewater from the Riverstone Wastewater Treatment Facility is all discharged to South Creek via Eastern Creek and ultimately ends up in the Hawkesbury River. I think it's lovely to have that articulated. Perhaps we can refer that to the next floodplain, to the Department of Planning at the next Floodplain Committee, as to what that's likely to do in times of flood, and particularly as it relates to the additional 960 additional dwellings that are coming to North Marsden Park, and what impact that might have on flood heights in Windsor. Thanks.

Taken on board, Councillor. Thank you.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to raise a point in question five. The cost to conduct advisory committee meeting is largely made up on staff resources and operational resources. Can I just get clarification that the two-hour duration is $9,000 per meeting? I'm assuming we've calculated, like, you know, the staff salaries as part of that. It's not, because general public would read that and go, What? $9,000 for a two-hour meeting? Can we just clarify that? Thanks. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, the $9,000 is inclusive of all staff, labour, including administration staff and senior executive staff and managers and the like. That goes into the preparation of reports, creating the agendas, and inclusive of meeting costs as well.

Thank you. Councillor

Lyons-Buckett. Are we to still go by lights or do we just stand if we want to speak?

If you turn your light on, I'll respond to you, Councillor. Okay,

Thank you. My question related to question five as well, as Councillor Creed just raised. I think that I understand that that is what it could add up to, given printing costs, et cetera, et cetera. However, it reads in this paper that that is a cost to council, like, you know... I mean, if we're paying staff, obviously, yeah, an additional cost to Council. Does anyone know off the top of their head—I don't want to put anyone on the spot—but does anybody know off the top of their head what the cost, for example, of having tonight would be for a two-hour council meeting, just comparatively? I just, I'm just interested in, you know, would it be double, would it be triple, because there's more people here? Or it's just I don't want the public to get the impression that people are being paid specifically additional money to go to a committee meeting.

Yeah, Councillor, we'll take that on notice because it is a public meeting and that is, as you do, the right answer and not a stab in the dark.

Okay, councillors, the last item that we've got tonight is a confidential document. That document is 14.3.1. We need to close—

I'll move that we go into confidential.

Thank you, Councillor, and Councillor

Kotlash, Councillor Creed.

Okay, councillors, while we're in closed session, the matter of 14.3 was discussed, lease to McDonald's Australia Limited. General Manager.

Thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reardon, that: one, Council enter into a new lease with McDonald's Australia Limited in regard to 242 Windsor Road, Vineyard, in accordance with the proposed proposal outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. Details of council's resolution to be conveyed to the proposed lessee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties. For the motion was Councillors Improgno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather.

Thank you, councillors. That concludes the meeting this evening. Safe trip home.