Public Forum

Evening, councillors, general public. I'd like to acknowledge Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharugung people as the 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 Islanders people as First Peoples of the country. General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the public forum this evening are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with clauses 4.2 and 5.34 of the Code of Meeting Practice, public forums 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 public forum. 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 public forum.

The gallery can be seen in the livestream video and if you do not wish to be recorded in the livestream, please move to the foyer and we will turn the foyer speakers on for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the forum tonight, it is expected that you refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this public forum. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors.

Finally, it is also requested that if any person tonight you've got your mobile phone on you, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager.

This forum is, there's a list of speakers from the public to speak. Is there any declarations of interest from any of the councillors that they're aware of?

Thank you, councillors. There's four speakers this evening. The first one is 9.3.1. It's Mr Andrew Thomas, with the submission that he wishes to speak on. Mr Thomas, you have five minutes to address us here

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor

Councillors, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening in support of Council's submission for the draft Sydney Plan, particularly in relation to the industrial land and the strategic importance of the Mulgrave Industrial Precinct. For transparency, I note that tonight I am speaking on behalf of landowners within the Mulgrave Precinct, in particular and including 181 Mulgrave Road. My comments this evening, however, I believe, are directed towards a strategic planning framework and Council's submission to that State Government new plan. Council's proposed submission appropriately supports the State's direction on protecting industrial land and securing long-term employment land pipeline.

The key issue now, in my opinion, is ensuring that Hawkesbury is clearly positioned within that framework. The draft Sydney Plan will shape where future jobs, infrastructure and investment are directed for decades to come. If Council do not clearly articulate where it considers industrial growth should occur within the LGA, there is a real risk that those decisions will be made elsewhere. That is why, in my view, clarity matters. On the evidence before us, the Mulgave Industrial Precinct represents Hawkesbury's most strategically aligned location for future industrial expansion. Mulgave builds on an established industrial area, supports construction, logistics and trade-based industries that support housing delivery and growth, and benefits from strong road and rail access, with fewer land use conflicts than alternative locations throughout the LGA.

The state's own evidence, in my opinion, supports the broader context. The draft Sydney Plan forecasts significant employment growth and identifies a need for ongoing pipeline of serviced employment land across the Greater Sydney. In Western Sydney, industrial land is almost close to being at full capacity, and intensification alone is unlikely to meet future demand. In that context, I submit that some level of orderly expansion will be required.

Supporting future growth at Mulgave allows Hawkesbury to deliver closer jobs to where people live, support housing and construction supply chains, and contribute to a sustainable employment land pipeline aligned with the state's broader overarching objectives. Importantly, land within the Mulgave Precinct, including 181 Mulgave Road, has already been identified through Council-led LEP processes as a potential future expansion site. Notably tonight, Council is not being asked to rezone land today. The request is simply a strategic recognition so future decisions are guided with clarity and policy direction. Accordingly, I respectfully ask Council to consider strengthening its submission to the draft Sydney Plan through five targeted refinements.

And a number of these refinements were outlined in a written submission that I circulated earlier today. I trust that was okay. But briefly, to summarise those points, it was firstly, to clearly frame Mulgrave's future growth as supporting state objectives, including jobs closer to where people live and resilient supply chains. Secondly, link any future expansion at Mulgrave to coordinated infrastructure planning, including through the Employment Lands Development Program. Thirdly , support the orderly expansion of industrial land, not just the intensification of existing sites. Fourth factor, or point for refinement potential, is explicitly identifying Mulgrave as Hawkesbury's priority location for future industrial expansion.

And finally, if I may submit one other additional refinement is to acknowledge land such as 181 Mulgrave Road as having strategic merit for future investigation, noting that it has already been examined through Council-led processes and aligns with broader state policy. Taken together, I believe that these refinements do not seek special treatment. They align with state policy, they build on Council's own strategic work, and they protect Hawkesbury's long-term economic role within the Greater Sydney. Council has already invested in substantial planning studies, including the 2020 Industrial and Employment Lands Study. Reflecting that work clearly in the submission to the draft Sydney Plan, State Government will help ensure that Hawkesbury's position are properly understood in the final Sydney Plan when it comes out.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Just a question. Have you read the submission that Council's opposing to put in? Yes, yes, Mayor. Yep. Okay. The matters that you've discussed, we've discussed at length and, yeah, your submission has been passed on to the staff as well. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Bucket.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Thomas. I was just wondering, that was very interesting, thank you for presenting that to us. What do you see as potential challenges or obstacles that could prevent the expansion? I know some of that area is flood impacted, and transport obviously has some limitations. Can you just outline what you see from your perspective might be the challenges going forward? Yes

Certainly. I think you mentioned flooding. Flooding is certainly one issue, but I think that's an issue within the broader LGA, as we're all very well aware of. I think that having a flood constraint over a particular area is not in and of itself a restriction for future development. I think that's very clear from the state's recent rezoning of, I think it's Marsden Park, 960-odd apartments for residential use. So I certainly think there are ways to mitigate and manage that particular risk. In terms of access routes, I mean, it has very good access routes through to the Hawkesbury Valley Way, through Windsor Road, and obviously has the train line that goes through there as well. So I think that a lot of those potential constraints within that area can be mitigated and managed effectively as part of an expansion plan, an orderly expansion plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Thank you, Mayor.

The second speaker is Mr. Patrick Conolly. It's on notice of motion 11.1.

I'd also recognise that Councillor Conolly is the former mayor of this council.

Thank you. Thank you everyone for your time tonight. I'm speaking on behalf of Windsor Leagues Club. I'm one of the directors on the board there, and I'm speaking specifically in regard to the notice of motion that's been brought forward. The club is in favour of council taking a greater interest in the allocation of sports fields. Essentially, we think that only good can come from that. I know from my time on council that the biggest source of conflict around sports fields is always around the allocation. That's what all the questions are always about, is who's getting what field, who's playing where, that's where the conflict happens. And yet I've had a look at Hawkesbury Sports Council's user guide.

Clause 2.1 of the user guide is the only clause that deals with allocation, the allocation of sports grounds. It's two paragraphs that are just procedural in terms of how it happens. The only criteria listed explicitly are grounds are allocated on a preferred previous user basis, with no definition of what that means or any of those terms. We recently, Windsor Leagues Club recently requested to share Deerubbin Park in Windsor. It has three full-size football fields and a mini field. We were told that it's not possible to share this park at any time during the week during the season. No other justification provided, just it's not possible.

We understand it's being used by Hawkesbury Valley Rugby Union. We assume on a preferred previous user basis. For context, Hawkesbury Valley Rugby Union had five teams last year. We had 56. This year we're looking like 61 teams based on the current registrations. We are allocated one field, being Colonial Reserve, which has one full-size football field, no mini field, and often has problems with drainage. With the closure of Norwest Magpies, there are only two football clubs located east of the river, being us and Hawkesbury Valley Rugby Union. So with 8% of the teams, and roughly you would say the same players, they are currently being allocated 75% of the available fields, and our club is being given one field for 61 teams to train on.

We're currently using it. If you go down to Colonial Reserve, you'll see the issue. We've sort of divided it up into tiny little boxes, and we've got about 12 teams training at any one time, five nights a week, over two sessions, to try and make that work. I would be surprised if this is the kind of outcome that councils would expect the sports council model to deliver. It does make sense to us that there should be some weighting given to previous users of each field. If you didn't have that, there'd be no incentive to invest. Clubs wouldn't spend any money on the field if they had no guarantee they'd be there long term. It's more continuity for families if they stay in the same place. However, it can't surely be the sole criteria if that's in fact how the guide is meant to be read, because clearly that's delivering distorted outcomes like this one.

As such, I'd support the motion before you, which seeks to bring more information forward, and would also suggest that council, if it's thought appropriate, could add a further resolution that the Hawkesbury Sports Council user guide be reviewed by council with a particular focus on the criteria for the allocation of sports grounds. Big supporter of the sports council. There's no way council could possibly replicate the services that they deliver without it costing three times as much. There's no question there. But I think there's a question of public policy and practice here of who should be making decisions as to how the community's infrastructure is being used. It's hugely valuable community infrastructure for the whole community, and at the moment we've got one sentence in a user guide being administered by unelected people with no oversight from anyone.

I think you have to have buy-in, and I think it's perfectly appropriate for the sports council to be making the decisions and implementing the policy. I would question whether it's appropriate for them to be making the policy, and that's why I would suggest that council should be looking at making the policy for them. And I also just wanted to take a quick moment to address a common objection that we get. We are obviously a licensed club at Windsor Leagues Club, and the perception would therefore be that we have plenty of money and it shouldn't be a problem; we have our own field. So to dispel that, Windsor Leagues Club has struggled for several years with financial sustainability. It is still struggling.

We have losses in hundreds of thousands of dollars in four out of the last five years. We do have a new board as of a couple of years ago. We are turning that around. We broke even last year. It will be okay. But it's not like we're flush with cash and can do whatever we want. We've got huge deficits. We've got literally millions of dollars in debt as a result of successive boards being very, very invested in football, wanting to continue to support junior football at the detriment of the long-term sustainability of the club. So the answer is not going to be that we have lots of cash. We are going to need a fair share and a fair consideration by Council of what community resources we should be provided for the 900 local players that we're supporting.

Thanks.

Councillors.

Councillor Spokett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Mr Conolly. Did you say colonial reserve? Is that what it's called? Colonial Reserve. And the drainage issues, are they being addressed by Council?

I believe so, yes. It's not sort of beyond my knowledge, but they're certainly, on my time on Council, they were always being addressed. But there's still, when it rains, it's still, you can't train for a week. Yeah.

Okay. All right. And of your 61 teams, do your teams, are they people from all over the Hawkesbury playing there?

So I tried to get that data. We don't have it really well segmented. They are anecdotally, I can tell you, I would say 90% Fly Park, South Windsor, Windsor. Okay. But they are from everywhere as well. Yeah. Okay

All right. Thank you. Yeah

Mr Conolly, the club's been offered other grounds, Dounton, Vineyard Park, Richmond Oval

Are you aware of that? I'm certainly aware that that offer was made verbally, and then when we inquired about using Vineyard, we were told yes, it should be ready by October, which is the end of our season. Also, it would be with mobile lighting, we understand, which is fine with us if someone else wants to do it. But I also am aware from my time on Council that someone's been trying to use Vineyard Oval for about 10 years and not getting anywhere. So I don't know that that's the solution. We've never been offered Dounton on any permanent or even semi-permanent basis. It's always been call us and we'll see. And generally when it's been heavily raining, we are fit in, don't worry, as an alternative to Colonial, not as an addition to Colonial. And Richmond Park's the

Same. Yeah

Richmond. Yeah, Richmond. And I guess it's not exactly fit for purpose. I think we'd try and make that work if we can, but it's also not fit for an exact purpose, and it's also a fair way from our families as well.

I appreciate you making those points. Thanks very much. Thank you.

Thank you .

The next speaker we have is a speaker on 21 Dyte Street, Richmond. It's Katie Distick

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, and ladies and gentlemen. Thank You for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Katie Anstis, and I live on Dight Street. I appreciate your time and would like to share my and the residents of Dyte Street's ongoing concerns about the proposed roundabout at Dight Street and Hill Court intersection. To provide some background, a roundabout was approved as a part of a DA in 1997. Though later professional reports prepared in 2019 by Thomas Strappery and Associates, including a traffic impact statement and road safety audit, concluded that the priority controlled intersection was the most suitable treatment for this location. This recommendation followed standard Austroads and Maritime Services guidance, with generally reserved roundabouts for locations with higher traffic volumes and more complex operating conditions.

At the time, traffic volumes were low, capacity problems were not identified, and a T intersection was considered appropriate. Importantly, this was not presented as opposition to roundabouts in general, but a practical and proportional response to the site conditions. In more recent assessment prepared by Barker Ryan Stewart for Hawkesbury City Council, it is noted that the roundabout requirement originated from the older development consented back in 1997, and that study largely reviews an already approved design and decision, rather than reassessing options from the beginning, even after stating it would be an independent assessment. The ratio of discussion was heavily weighted in favour of the roundabout at approximately 85% to any other options discussed in favour of 15%.

Unfortunately, this report seemed to be used as a justification, not an independent assessment. But even so, the modelling again shows that both the roundabout and T-intersection options perform equally well. Operating at level of service A, with low level degrees of saturation. In simple terms, congestion and capacity was not the issues driving this decision. The main constraint identified in the report is restricted site distance to the west. Drivers exiting Hillside Court can only see approximately 45 metres of approaching traffic on the roundabout, whereas typical design guidance for a 50 kilometre road environment expects closer to 90 metres. This limitation is caused by the exiting road geometry, the crest and the alignment, rather than driver behaviour.

Importantly, the report does not conclude that the roundabout is a safe option in the form of just a roundabout and the design that was set out in 1997, though the report refers to and has also identified that it is not compliant with AusRoads standards. In recent report commissioned, it recommends a range of additional treatments to make the roundabout a safer option, including traffic calming devices, modifications to splinter and median islands, revised line marking, signage upgrades, no stopping controls and lighting improvements. This is a key point, as it shows that the safety benefit depends on further works rather than the roundabout itself. The roundabout does not solve the sight distance problem that still remains.

Due to design, the intersection would be 2.4 metres or so forward from the median strip of the roundabout design, which would have better sight distance to the west. But in recent report that was not explored. Please see for yourself with the photos that has been supplied to you. Photo one, roundabout sight distance to that of photo B, approximate sight distance of the intersection. You can see for yourself it's very clear. Further consideration needs in the potential use of a stop or a give way control at the intersection, particularly given the restricted sight difference. AusRoads guidance recognises stop control or a give way as a standard treatment when visibility is limited, as it requires drivers to come to a complete stop or allow time to assess approaching traffic.

It reduces reliance on extended sight distances. In low volume traffic, which Diet Street is, environments such as this location, stop or give way control can provide a direct and predictable safety benefit by simplifying driver decision and removing the need to merge while moving. At the main safety concern here relates to visibility rather than capacity. It is reasonable to ask why stop or give way controlled arrangements were not more thoroughly explored or compared in the recent assessment. Given that the primary safety issue is restricted sight rather than congestion, a stop or a give way controlled T intersection may offer more direct and reliable safety response. Stop control forces a full halt, giving drivers additional time to judge gaps and reducing the pressure of making decisions while moving

Thank you, Katie. That's five minutes. Sorry. Any councillors? Councillor Zamprogno, do

You have any answer questions? Yeah, of course. I have a question for Katie, but I've also got a point of procedure since we're new to this. In this setting, when somebody addresses us on a matter that's not on the business paper, is it also proper for that to prompt questions of staff? Can

I

Ask questions

Of staff? No , there's no format for questions of staff in this session. All right then, Katie, I'm going to put the question

To you, and you can answer as best you can. Yes. When I looked into this, the thing that concerned me, among the things that concerned me, was if a DA is approved many, many years ago—we call them zombie DAs—correct—and then the appropriate standards have changed,

Whether

There is a mechanism to force the reappraisal of elements of an application, for example a roundabout. There are Australian road standards. You mentioned that the roundabout is not conformant to the current Australian road standards. Could you just amplify on that?

Yeah, look, it's not. With the calming devices, which may I mention is an extra—it was priced at $159,000 at the council's expense. Now it's down to $85,000—it becomes compliant, but that is with extra cost, and that was something that I was going to address because this is also not just a safety concern, but it's also a cost concern as well. So with those extra calming devices, it becomes compliant, but at a cost.

Sorry, follow-up if I may. Is there any professional advice that's been received that suggests that a regular T-intersection is an acceptable solution to this problem?

Yes, absolutely. 2019 in the report, it was suggested that the T-intersection was the ideal candidate for the road, and if anyone's been down there, it's actually at the crest of the big dip. And I implore everyone to come and visit because as soon as you go there, you go, This can't have a roundabout there. It's so unsafe. So yeah, it becomes cost, and it becomes about that it will be compliant with extra cost involved. Thank you. And

I think certainly in this current environment, you know, it needs to be looked at.

Any further questions? Thanks very much. Thank you.

The last speaker we have this evening is Ethan McInerney.

Okay. G'day, everyone. My speech is going to sound a little more selfish than everyone else, speaking on behalf of the community, so I do apologise in advance. My name is Ethan McInerney. My wife and I are the owners of 10 George Road, Wullaware. We are seeking to complete a renovation and extension to our dwelling. We've been experiencing some ongoing issues with stormwater requirements, which is the only barrier stopping us from proceeding with our project. Our home is on the high side of Wullaware shops, for context. We lodged our DA in early 2025. We hired a surveyor, an architect and a hydraulic engineer. From the start, we proposed a rear discharge via an on-site detention and level spreader.

We have written confirmation from our engineer that the discharge from that level spreader would be less than the site in its undeveloped state, meaning it improves the existing situation. We were then told to explore other options. Council insisted on an easement pathway. Given the costs involved, we spent around six months going back and forth looking at alternatives. Eventually, Council's instruction, we pursued the rear easement. We paid around $15,000 in easement costs. The pathway was later stopped when Council, as the landowner, did not give consent. Most of the money was refunded, the time and the consultant fees were not. We then resubmitted the level spreader and OSD option. It was again rejected.

By this point, we're almost 12 months from when we first lodged our plans. In December '25, we were told to dig a trench 100 metres along the Council strip to connect to a pit further downhill. That trench would have crossed multiple driveways and public verge areas. We were running out of workable options, so I emailed councillors. We were told the matter had been escalated and that Council wanted an outcome suitable for all parties. We were then formally directed to discharge the front kerb using a charged system. We followed that direction. Our engineer confirmed that the levels were too low to push the water uphill. Instead of arguing, we redesigned our home. We changed our layout so we could fit two OSD tanks along the side boundary to create enough head to make the system work.

That meant more design time, more engineering and more cost. We then resubmitted a plan that met everything Council's engineers had asked for. Three months later, we were told that that method was no longer supported. We are now being asked to discharge to the rear of the property through an easement, the same method previously instructed and also later rejected by Council. At this time, we are being asked, but only this time we are only, we are being— let me start that sentence again, guys. Only this time we are being asked to upgrade a council-owned drainage line, around 50 metres of large pipe, new pits, reinstatement works, and the purchase and creation of the easement. This cost could exceed $200,000.

That is more than the rest the cost of the renovation itself. Despite following the rules and meeting every requirement asked of us by Council, we do not believe that we have been given a realistic or fair pathway forward. This is not a subdivision. This is not a commercial project. This is a renovation and extension to build our family home. Our soil report confirms the site consists of shallow topsoil over clay with minimal absorption rates. That means the natural runoff from our lot has always been accounted for in Council's existing stormwater system within the Wilberforce shops.

We followed every direction. We redesigned our house to comply. We have a letter stating that the level spreader and OSD will improve the current condition

We've paid for new engineering each time the goalposts have moved. And today we're being asked to spend more on the Council stormwater infrastructure than the value of the renovation itself. At some point this stops being about compliance and starts being about fairness. We're not developers. We're just a hardworking family trying to get ahead. So all we're asking for is a practical and reasonable solution. Nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan. Any questions,

Councillors? Mr. Mayor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for highlighting your situation in front of the elected body. I definitely appreciate that. We've got a very difficult line here in terms of talking about DAs and development applications. What I'd like to do to get some answers for you, I saw you reading that from your phone. Could you email that to us as Councillors so that I can get a comment from our Department of Planning and then we can get back to you? Absolutely . Lovely .

Thank you. Further on that, I've got a— Email back from Council just as we were walking in today. So he has addressed a couple of the questions asked. Doesn't change how we've got here and the path that Council want to continue forward. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the level spreader, which is more or less a reverse strip drain. So rather than letting water in, it lets water out, and combined with the on-site detention , the flow to the rear of the property would be less than what it is now. That as well as the Easement upgrade to the existing system. I feel like Council hasn't, well they haven't allowed for an on-site detention with that upgrade. So I don't see the reason why we should be upgrading infrastructure when we can mitigate on-site throughout the detention system. Just to add, but thank you.

Ethan, how do you dispose of the water off your main roof that you have done for years? How does this dispose of it?

So we bought this property close to two years ago, and it's pretty run down. I've got trees growing out of the gutters at the moment. So currently the water sheets off, and I don't think it's going anywhere beneficial for anybody. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. If you don't mind, I reckon we might just try to set up a meeting and sit around a table and try to sort out your issues maybe

That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

No promises on the outcomes, but a discussion is a good start. Thanks

Thanks for those comments, General Manager. Appreciated.

Councillors, that concludes the speakers for this evening.