11 August 2026 - Ordinary

Sorry about that, little IT problem. I'd start by saying the Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders past and present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people as First Peoples of this country.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.3.4 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. If you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, 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. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of Council. Finally, it is also requested that if any person participating in or attending the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillors, before we continue with the meeting, you would have got an email late this afternoon, five o'clock actually, for four months we've been working on a project, and that project's been a new general manager. And I can announce the chap on my right—on my left, sorry—Will Barton. Will Barton has been appointed as the General Manager of Hawkesbury City Council . And look forward to the work we've got in front of us. While it's challenging, I have no doubt at all that he can't do it. I would thank the panel that gave support , Mary Lyons-Buckett, our Deputy Mayor, Sarah McMahon, and myself. There was another panel member that was seconded that gave us help, along with the Office of Local Government. It's been four months with a lot of protocol to achieve that. Good cand dates, and I think we've chosen the best one. Thank you.

There's no apologies. Declarations of interest, Councillors.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.3.3.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.5.1.

Thank you, Councillors . Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of the 21st July. Councillor Reardon. Councillor Weigel. Those in favour. Those against. Councillor Creed, did you— sorry, it's unanimous It's Councillor Durey, Councillor Creed, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Weigel, Cotlash, McMahon, Ryan, Lyons-Buckett, Wheeler and Zambrogno and Sheather. The motion is carried

Agenda item subject to public address. There is none this evening.

Exception reports. We've got, in block, we've got three, which is 10.3.2, 10 .4.2 and 11.1.3

I move that way. Those in favour. Against. It's carried. It's Councillors Zambrogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan. McMahon, Cotlash, Weigel, Reid and Creed, Duke and Sheather.

The first item on the business papers, 10.2.1, Local Government New South Wales Conference. Move it, Mr Mayor. Councillor Creed. Councillor Weigel. Discussion Conference?

Yes. Sorry, I was just checking on something. I just had a question. Does the $1,650 in point one include the workshops?

No, I don't

Think it does. I refer that to the Director Corporate Services.

I'm sure it doesn't, Councillor. It's a day earlier, and I think it's an additional $200.

Okay.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, it appears that the workshop would be additional to that. It would

Be additional . Yes, I see the costings there of the dinner. Well, I would rather attend a workshop than the dinner, is the point if I was going. So it would sort of work out a similar price. I'm just wondering if this is the point to finalise the actual payment, or if, given it's a similar cost, at what point do we indicate whether we're keen to attend the workshops as well?

Councillor, if we do with this recommendation first, we'll come back to who's going to go and who the delegates will be, and whoever those people are going, we want them to get the best out of the conference, and if that means— Different choices for different individuals for that purpose, that'll be fine. Is there any discussion in relation to the recommendation? We'll come back for those to address those first item one and two. No further right of reply. Those in favour of the recommendation? Those against? It's carried. It's Councillor Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Cotlas, Veigel, Reardon, Greed, Djuric and Sheather. Councillors, there are five voting delegates. It's not restricted to five councillors, by the way.

There's five voting delegates. So first I would ask for nominations to go . Don't feel out to nominate yourself. By all means put your hand up. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Sheather. Was that it?

Question

Councillor Wheeler. Oh,

I think we might get an extra bite at this cherry in that Councillor Creed gets a vote as a member of Local Government NSW. So I think council is obliged to pay his conference costs, but we are actually, as a council, entitled to six votes as a result.

Thank you. Council will sort that out. Yep. Councillor Zembrogda, you were there last year.

So I'm happy to be the non-voting delegate from Council, but I still will need to go. Okay.

Okay. Is there need to be any discussion in relation to anybody wanting to go or not wanting to go ? Fine. Okay, then those people will be attending. Can we put your hands up again just to see those who are going? One, two, three, four, five

Yeah

And six. How's that situation in relation to voting delegate councillors, did you

Know? So because I'm on the board of Local Government New South Wales, I'm a voting delegate already. It's just that Council, I would need to go through the Council to attend.

Okay. In that case, there's five councillors going, five delegates.

Okay. Sorry, can I just clarify? There's six going, and the five voting delegates are yourself, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, who was the other one? Councillor Ryan, and Councillor Maher . They're the five voting, and then I'm the non-voting, so it's six.

Thanks for that clarification, Councillor . We'll vote on that, councillors. There'll be a motion that the nominated five councillors go and they are delegates for Hawkesbury City Council. Someone like to second that? Councillor Weigel. Those in favour? Six. Six delegates. Five voting delegates .

Mr Mayor, I would just like to clarify, because it is an expenditure around the additional $100 per delegate per workshop , do we have to itemise that? I would have thought that to have the money spent, we could do that, I suppose, on the 13th of October when it comes back to Council. Would that be more appropriate? It's just that if all of us, if six of us want to go to three workshops and they're $100 each, that's another $1,800, if my maths is correct.

Thank you, Councillor

General Manager. Through you, Mr Mayor, the wording of the resolution is approximately $1,650 per delegate, so that gives us the flexibility, and it's allowed for in the operational plan for Council conferences, so we don't need anything further to action this .

Thank you, Councillor. I'm sure we'll talk amongst ourselves in relation to the best outcome for the money that's been proposed. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. On a similar topic, I think the dinner is another issue that I'd much rather go to. I know that makes me very nerdy, but I would much rather go to a workshop than go to a dinner. Yep

Thanks, Councillor. Well, if there's no further debate, we'll continue with the voting. Those in favour? Those against? It's carried unanimously. Thank you.

The next item we've got is 10.3.1, Council lines bucket. I'll

Move that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Weigel.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the motion. I'm aware this is going to public exhibition for 28 days, and I'm happy with that. I think this is, I know these are guidelines, etc. There's some changes, but I think there are people in the community interested in, so I'd be happy to hear their feedback . In particular, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the changes to our recently adopted planning proposal, which means they can no longer be published. And just around that, I had a question. I think I may have asked it previously, but I didn't see it answered here, and that was, in the direction that we cannot publish the planning proposals, which I understand is the various documents, etc., does that in fact mean they are confidential as such, or can people be alerted to their presence and directed to the planning portal where they may find more?

I just couldn't understand from the direction.

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, we can direct people to the Department of Planning's planning portal where the information will be displayed on there.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, because I was going to say, given our role, given it is our role to set the strategic direction, that I found that a bit unacceptable that, you know, we wouldn't be able to be aware of strategic changes being brought about by planning proposals if we didn't know they were happening. I'm very pleased within these documents that there's stronger safeguards around rural and flood-prone land. They are advantageous and in line with our strategy . The set of documents appear to simplify, and simplify the whole process, and I think that the— Input from the state agencies coming earlier in the process is a positive step. Tightened timeframes, that should please a lot of people.

And I think that what was really clear to me in here was that it specified that we want increased housing choice, and especially that we want to concentrate housing in well-located areas using existing infrastructure. We know we've got infrastructure deficits in many places in this area, and that is a good directive that we shouldn't be going ahead with putting more housing in areas where that infrastructure doesn't exist. The protections for rural land and conservation land are much stronger, and we know that the retention of rural land is very important. And so we need to see probably some more definition around what actually constitutes an existing town and village, so that people don't sort of think that 10 kilometres from a village is within a village.

I think there probably is a definition, but I couldn't see it in amongst what was there, because we don't want to see continued fragmentation of rural land, which is what we've seen. Also, land use conflicts emerging when we're putting subdivisions in amongst farms and ad hoc rural residential developments. I think the most applicable area to us in this area, as it always is, is the information around flood-prone land. The flood risk is a central constraint on rezoning and future development capacity, and that's just something we have to live with. So whereas sometimes we see analysis of our council against big councils in other areas, we have significant constraints that are quite unique to this area, and I think this document and these documents and guidelines reflect that very well.

So the other thing I think is the changes around the requirements of expenditure of developer contributions, and I think that's probably just something we'll have to see how that plays out as we go along with that. So I do urge those in the community who are interested in this area to give their thoughts within the exhibition period, and we'll see it back here, I expect, after that. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Mayor . As ever, I look at these guidelines that come out of the state government and wonder why they always mean that the community has less say in the places that they live in and care about, and the pathway to developers seems to be smoothed. I've got real concerns with this legislation with regard to threatened species conservation, and I know that the information that's come back from the department says that the Biodiversity Conservation Act will allow councils to refuse serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity. But I have to say that that has not been the experience with that Act since it was released in 2016. In fact, it's been very much the reverse. So it remains to be seen if this will actually be the case, but I'm not hopeful.

I find the prohibition on exhibition of planning proposals prior to gateway an outrage, frankly. It's undemocratic, it lacks transparency, and it is anti-community. I will prepare a motion to Local Government New South Wales voicing council's opposition to this, which I hope is supported in this chamber. But I also think that council needs to do a media piece so that people know what's happening and who is responsible for this change. It's yet another of these state government changes that council will bear the anger for when we have been rendered powerless yet again. A question to the staff, if I may: is it possible to list planning proposals with significant DAs in the business paper so that people can use that as a flag and then pursue that through the New South Wales Planning Portal?

Through you, Mr Mayor, we can certainly list planning proposals as part of that report post-gateway. The question is whether we're able to list them pre-gateway .

Can we find out if we can list them pre-gateway? We're not publish— as far as I can tell, we're not publishing them. We are merely listing. Whether that gets around the prohibition, I don't know.

Yeah,

We'll take that on notice and come back with an answer. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno Zamprogno Zamprogno Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to add to Councillor Wheeler's remarks. I share her concerns about the non-publication of planning proposals. I brought my own proposal to this chamber, you'll recall, to see if we could get scoping proposals into the public domain sooner, because the public have a right to know. We settled on being able to publish planning proposals, and that was a kind of, you know, interim step that I was happy to live with. It's the most that we can do. A question for staff, if I may. I mean, having had it previously confirmed that scoping proposals were amenable to freedom of information applications, GIPA applications, would it also be the case that if somebody knew the existence but not the content of either a scoping or a planning proposal, that it would also be amenable to a GIPA application? Through you

Mr Mayor, I might refer that to the Director of Corporate Services. We'd have to take that on notice.

All right then, because I'd previously had it confirmed that scoping proposals were amenable to GIPA applications, which I suppose just shows what a mockery — This regulation is because all it means is that the flow of information to the public is constrained . If there's a genuine right to know, it might very well be amenable to a freedom of information application, but that's a tortured and bureaucratic way of getting access to something that should be in the public domain and takes up staff resource. So I'm very unhappy about this, and I agree that we need to make it abundantly clear that this diminution of democracy isn't something of our making; it's being foisted upon us by the state government.

Councillor Cotlash

Thank you

Mr Mayor . I wasn't— I can see the reasoning that the state government uses for not allowing planning proposals to be— well, scoping proposals, definitely— planning proposals being put out into the public when they're not suitably kind of developed so that there's not confusion in the community . I think that I don't see it as a decrease in the democratic process or, you know, or it's not hiding things from people. It's a process of people who want to put in a proposal. They might want to do, you know, I don't know, a hundred dwellings somewhere. It's not suitable. They negotiate. They come back with 50 and/or different sorts of housing or whatever is negotiated. That is a good process for the community not to get confused, or to spread rumours about what's happening in certain areas, creating all sorts of division and anger in the community.

For what? For not a lot of benefit in some situations. I can remember when there was rumours about what was happening, and I'll get this, I hope I don't get the number wrong, 372 Bells Line of Road , where the proposal is now for a McDonald's, a KFC and a childcare centre . Good on you, Jill. Thank you, 291 . When that first landed in the community as a rumour, it was going to be a cemetery. It was going to be— look, there were so many ridiculous rumours going around . That's not helpful to our planning processes. So I think we have to sort of just hold that this is terrible and, you know, you're hiding everything from the community. I think we just have to think about people's right to be able to suggest that they want to do something.

It's not necessarily, you know, developers aren't necessarily all bad, you know, scheming, secretive people. And I think we have to allow people to have the right to do , to put in a proposal and to have that negotiated, possibly without that sort of— You know, community rumour and what I just described before. I mean, I wouldn't have minded if we had kept the system the way it was and that we put it on our system. But I don't think it's as bad as it's being made out to be . I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett about the flooding and the mentioning of flooding. It seems to have tightened up . There's— what else was I going to say? Sorry, I've got a loss of train of thought. It's interesting in the flooding, one of the guidelines is that when the agencies deal with an application, it can be spread across so many agencies that I think that is a really good step forward to have agencies look at a proposal, and that's efficiency, and I think that the state government should be commended for that .

I'll leave it at that. It's quite complicated, but once we get used to this, we might be able to see the good side. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? Councillors, in relation to some of the comments that were made, there can be motions that can go up to the conference. The date must be run very close to being short. If there's motions that councillors want to put up, just be mindful they have to be a resolution of council that the motion has to support that direction, or otherwise it needs to come as a motion of council to be dealt with. We're probably going to run short of that time. So, sorry . The general manager just said to the 18th of September. So if there's something you have in mind that's not a council resolution and you want to bring it to a council meeting , the next meeting, I'd think about a notice of motion. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think from what we've heard, we can see that one of the issues with these sort of changes are really that we're given a bundle of guidelines, and they've really got different purposes. And yet it's presented to us that they're about addressing the severe housing affordability, housing supply issues or construction bottlenecks. But when we're talking about planning proposals, that's a lot different to talking about a DA. And just to refer to the item that Councillor, the example that Councillor Kotlash raised, which was very unfortunate with all the rumours, et cetera, around it, but that was a development application, not a planning proposal. So I think that when we're talking about wanting our community to know, in our limited amount of powers that we have, and so for any of those, well nearly all of us here, I think have sat here when councillors had planning powers, where we were able to determine DAs and various things, and now our powers are limited to strategic planning.

So one of the few roles we have is to set that strategic planning and, of course, planning proposals and rezoning of land fall within that. And so I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for the community in those examples to know if their immediate area is going to be significantly impacted by a major change to what is surrounding them. I don't think— That the planning proposals really are what is going to change housing affordability and housing supply issues, because we know that government will do land release in large segments, should they address the housing supply in that manner. So, as I said before, we've already heard some views here tonight, and I imagine there are some community views along various lines.

So I look forward to having that community feedback. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillors, the motion before you is 10.3.1. The recommendations is on pages 23 and 24. Those in favour? Those against? It's carried unanimously. Councillors Ambrogno, Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Cotlash, Veigel, Reardon, Creed, Durek and Sheather.

The next item is 10.3.3. Councillor Wheeler, you have a declaration.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.3.3, the draft Conservation Management Plan for the Australiana Pioneer Village. I'm a life member of the leaseholder, the Friends of the Australiana Pioneer Village. I have no interaction with the management committee of the APV, and my interest is therefore— or not meet the threshold for significance, so I remain in the room.

Thank you, Councillor.

Do

We have a motion?

I move the recommendation.

Councillor Reardon. Councillor Durek.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to make specific mention of the wording at the beginning of the executive summary, and that's where it states that the APV is of state heritage significance for its replication of pioneering cottages dating back to the early 19th century. This is actually incorrect, and it's a common misconception about the village that we need to be really careful is not promulgated in our documents. It's not a replication of the cottages; it's a replication of a streetscape. The cottages are original, and that's really important. It's why the site is heritage listed, and it's why it needs a CMP. This shouldn't be appearing in our documents. I'm not quite sure how many times I've corrected this misstatement, but frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of it.

This CMP is long overdue. This is a really, really successful site, but increasing pressure from that success, as well as changes to the volunteer base and management team over time, which is perfectly normal, reasonable, and actually very healthy and encouraging. I have to say, I'm not making a criticism of the volunteers there. All of these things mean that the CMP is vital to ensure that the site remains viable, not as a theme park, but as the listing states, an open-air heritage museum. Funds need to be used for conservation, not just for visitor experience and aesthetics. And there's, and I think that's one of the difficulties with a site like this that's open to the public and that is volunteer managed, is that there is a push for what people think a heritage village should look like and the experience that people should have.

And very often that is based around everything looking a little bit twee, a little bit English village, all very pleasant. This is not the period of Australian history that's being shown. The significance of the village is that it shows the buildings that ordinary people in the Hawkesbury lived in, and that's its real power. Instead of going to somewhere posh, you know, like Rouse Hill House or Vaucluse House, the places that historic houses were willing to take on, this council was willing to take on a site that showed where very ordinary people live, two-room cottages where 11 people made their home, cottages that were adapted to flooding, cottages that were frequently moved, cottages that were all moved on the back of a Bedford truck.

If you've not seen the footage, it's just extraordinary what you could get away with in 1972, but also what the community was willing to do to save its own history. That's the real significance of this site. It makes me very proud that I was part of saving this place for the public. But we have to make sure, as the custodians of both this heritage and this site, that— That there are significant safeguards in place, and one of those safeguards is the CMP. I'm very interested to see what the friends come back with. We need to make sure that there is ongoing resourcing for this in terms of training and supervision. The village has been so successful that it now has significant resources itself and is able to maintain that site.

We have to make sure, as the owners of that site, that that maintenance is consistent with conservation, not misplaced or misguided restoration or representation of something that this site isn't. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. With the notes that have been taking on my left and right, I don't think you'll have to repeat the first part of your conversation again. And well spoken, thank you. Any further debate ? Thanks for that, Councillor. Right of reply, Councillor Reardon. Thank you. Mr. Chair, the recommendation for 10.3.3 is on page 56. Those in favour? Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Councillors Ambrogno, Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Cotlash, Veigel, Reardon, Creed, Durek and Sheather. That motion is carried. The next item, Councillors—

I'll move that, Mr. Mayor.

Is 10.4.1. Councillor Lyons Buckett. Councillor Weigel.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just note that the recommendation is to recommend this policy for adoption. And just to explain to the public, the objective of this policy is to ensure that councillors have access to information required to do their job without overstepping the boundaries which exist to maintain a distinction between decision-making, strategic direction and scrutiny of performance from day-to-day operations. I think this policy needs to ensure promotion of respectful interactions between staff and councillors while allowing councillors to ask questions to receive information. We did receive a submission from a business group, and they raised some issues about the policy, which, in response, the council has indicated, I think quite clearly, that, and very important to point out, that this policy is one in a whole suite of policies that apply to councillors and staff and how interactions occur.

So it's only one component of a wider governance framework. It operates alongside the various codes that are issued by the Office of Local Government, the Code of Conduct, the Code of Meeting Practice, and the definition of a councillor's role in statute, which is in the Local Government Act. That Act puts an obligation on councillors to review council performance and service delivery, which we do regularly. So this policy provides a practical guide, and we know that it's not intended to reproduce or replace every aspect of our role. So we have to draw on our role from various legislation and from various other guidelines that apply to how we behave. So this one's quite distinct to how we engage with our staff and how we obtain information.

There are other avenues, of course, to obtain information, such as through our councillor requests or notices of motion. I liken the councillor requests when we copy everyone in so that everybody gets back that information, and I hope that we always do all get that information because one of the requirements, of course, is that all councillors are provided with equal information. I think the list in the attached schedule of who can be contacted is reasonable. I'm sure there could be instances where that could be added to, or I can't imagine why anyone would be removed, but I've not had trouble seeking information through those sources to date. Often I would rather just receive information, though, than having to actually ask.

So I think at some point, if we could frame what degree of information around things that we just actually expect to receive without having to ask would be a really good exercise to go through. What is it that some councillors may think they're not receiving that could be automatically given to us when it becomes available? I think that would be a good thing to go through. I think that that list, I see that it's the general manager would be altering that list if it should be altered. I don't think it should be changed without councillors being consulted. I'd be very surprised if it was. I know we would be advised by email, but I expect that if there was to be any changes made, that we would be consulted around it.

I know that years ago, and Mr Mayor, you were probably a recipient of this, councillors had a booklet with all the staff names and phone numbers and, you know, the laws around engagement have changed significantly, however, since then. And in part, or mainly, I would say, after too many examples of misuse of that privilege of people who overstepped the line, several ICAC reports examining that sort of interaction, and newer updated legislation, it's no longer allowable or practical for councillors to have access to all staff. We know there has to be a governance framework around that. It's clear within this chamber that respect for confidentiality is not universal. It's been breached numerous times.

We know that, despite what instructions are being given about what is confidential and what isn't, we have seen the breaches here. And I find that very disappointing because confidentiality is applied in a legal sense for a reason. It's not just to protect secrecy or keep people locked out. It's got its absolute reasons, and it's to protect individuals and aspects of the council. And if someone disagrees with the application of confidentiality, the answer is not to breach it and try and make some sort of point, because it doesn't do anything except cause grief for various people. But the work should be to reform it and to do something about it. I had another half page, but I shall stop.

Thank you, Councillor.

You are.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I welcome the inclusion of operation of Council at 0.6.3. It's a common complaint of councillor colleagues across New South Wales that councillors are prevented from asking questions because they relate to operational matters, and this is almost always seen as a fob-off by the councillor involved. It's rarely been my experience at Hawkesbury, and I really do appreciate that. I think it's worthwhile noting that this isn't about Council and Council staff's interaction with the public. It's about the interaction between staff and the governing body, and it's mostly about preventing corruption, based on ICAC findings, as Councillor Lyons-Buckett has stated. It's also about preventing the overreach of councillors into staff time and work, while ensuring that the governing body remains adequately informed.

I have to say that the two greatest risks to that at this time are not this policy. They're twofold. The minister's restrictions on briefings really do present the greatest threat, I think, to the governing body being informed about Council's work and councillors having a say, and also the lack of trust that exists due to the continual leaking of confidential information and the repeated attacks on Council by the confluence of a business group and a media, and a group purporting to be a media outfit. And that, I think, is really regrettable because it is having a long-term detrimental effect on Council operations.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? Just to make a comment, Councillors, this is reviewed, excuse me, with every new council and, as indicated by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, if there's changes, it'll be brought to our attention, which will be dealt with appropriately. And indeed, later on this evening, Councillor Lyons-Buckett has put a motion up that deals, to a degree, in relation to what we're talking about tonight here, so that we'll be discussing that later. Right of reply, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Not really necessary. Just a question maybe, if I could just refer—it's not a question to be answered now, it's a statement really, but sort of a question. Would it be possible for councillors to have an updated contact list with the various contacts on it from that schedule with this going in? And just to reiterate that Councillor Wheeler raised a very good point in that we are incredibly restricted with the latest, I don't know what you would call it, of the local government minister. Thank you.

We all know where you're coming from, Councillor. The motion before you, Councillors, is 10.4.4—sorry, 10.4.1. Yeah. The motion before you is 10.4.1, the recommendations on page 60. Those in favour? Against. It's carried.

The next item is 10.4.3, review of Council investment policy. Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the motion in the business paper, Mr Mayor. I'll second, Mr Mayor. Mine's

Second. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, look, I'm happy to move this so that it goes out on public exhibition, but I'm really hoping that it comes back with some comments from the public. about the lack of increase in environmentally and socially responsible funds. I think, as a council that is now so frequently impacted by natural disasters and is again likely to be very heavily impacted by heat again this summer, the fact that we are still happy to just invest in something if it earns us a bit of an extra buck whilst ignoring the environmental consequences is really short-sighted. I would really like us to explore taking a harder line on fossil fuel-free investments and also taking into consideration things like modern slavery and the like.

It is not good enough for us to continue to invest with banks like Westpac and NAB when they are clearly complicit in fossil fuel companies, in coal mining, in gas exploration, and in the devastation of the climate that leads us to flood and fire on an increasingly frequent basis. You've only got to look at the devastation in Europe to see just how short-sighted our endless pursuit of a fast buck is. Yeah,

Thank you, Councillor. Council's got a policy in relation to the direction that we do invest in different organisations and businesses. If that's to change, that would need to come back to council rather than just public comment. Further comment? Councillor Cotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I was going to suggest that, I mean, I agree to an extent that we— have been slow to transition away from fossil fuel investors and banks. But it's up to us to decide on how much of that, whatever you call the money that we get, whether it's fast or not, we have to decide on what we're prepared to not earn to make those transitions. And I think that I was just trying to find where it says that in this report, is that our responsibility to remain , I guess, fiscally responsible is important as well. So it's all very well to say, yes, we shouldn't be doing this and we should be doing something else, but we've got to start as a council to articulate what that change and what that transition is actually going to look like .

And I don't think we've done that. I think maybe we should call for a report. Instead of—sorry, I just can't find—oh, here it is. A defined minimum percentage of environmental, social and governance investments has not been included because council's investment portfolio must first meet its core objectives of capital preservation, liquidity and competitive returns, da da da. So let's say, let's agree to what we forego. And in this climate, with our SRV that we've decided on , it's going to be hard to do any sort of dramatic changes at the moment. But I think we should try to move towards and transition quicker. I'm not saying that I don't think it's a good idea. So, can I might, if I can, add a— no, I can't do that now because it's going out on public exhibition.

I might put a separate notice of motion in to get some figures on what that transition might look like if we completely ditched every fossil fuel company and we went completely one way, and a transition that's, you know, halfway, or we could do it in a staged way. So I'll do that as a notice of motion because this is going out on public exhibition. We'll see what the community says. Thanks.

Any further discussion?

Sorry, Mr—

Councillor Weigel.

Just to ask a question, table 5 of page 74, are we not investing in investment portfolio and ESG funds? Sorry. Yeah

Councillor, if Council's proposing to head down— The track that's been discussed either way, it's probably appropriate for a report to come in relation to the questions that have been asked tonight, in relation to how much money is being invested in particular areas of the concern that's been spoken about.

Well, I just asked the question whether the summary of the investment portfolio in terms of ESG, it's on that page, does that stack up or not? Yeah. I'm sure it is. It wouldn't be in there. Yep . All right. The only comment I'll make, which was important, I think, from Councillor Wheeler about modern slavery or slavery, all I can say is that 80, 90% of our solar panels come out of prison labour out of China, so maybe we need to think about that as well. Thanks. I'm

Sure there's much debate about that, Councillor. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm happy to work with Councillor Kotlash to put something together on this, and I'm really hoping that we get some information back from the community on what their expectations are here. My point is that there's no point making money on one hand to have to spend extra money on the other when the inevitable climate-inspired disasters hit us. If we want other people to make changes, we have to be willing to make those changes ourselves. Our current policy, and I know what it says because I put the clause in three council terms ago, basically says if we get a better return on the investment, that we go with fossil fuels. If we can get a better return, then we do something ethical.

Profit wins. There's a reason that that's in there. It is far more palatable. It met with community expectations around the need to steward their money carefully, but I think we have to talk about what that stewardship actually looks like. We were for a while at 80% fossil fuel free. We're now down to 53%. So we're clearly not keeping up with where we once were. That's in large part a function of the market, but I think we do have to—it's worth having a discussion about how we proceed from here. I am quite comfortable with the idea that we have to be very good stewards of the community's money, that we need to maintain liquidity, and that we need to be careful to stay above inflation. You know, wherever we see our investment returns sitting below the CPI, we are losing money, and that's been really hard to balance, particularly in the last few years.

But we also need to be cognisant of the fact that we play our part in the global problem of meeting climate change, and in the ethical use of council money with regard to how people who aren't here are able to live as well. As a first world country with a reasonable level of resourcing, we need to be responsible members of the broader global society as well

Thank you, Councillor. The matter before us, Councillors, 10.4.3. The recommendation is on page 68. Those in favour Against? The motion is carried unanimously. It's Councillor Lambrogno, Wheel, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Scott-Lash, Feigel, Reardon, Creed, Djuric and Sheather. The motion is carried. Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I'll

Move the recommendation. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Codlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just speak to this, and it's a very interesting report, and I felt it was important to point out that the allocation of council's investment funds is prudent, conservative and appropriately diversified . The structure reflects a responsible approach that prioritises protection of public funds, albeit at the expense of increased ESG opportunities, which I may just note that a discussion around that is extremely important. The notion that we must be training and looking towards climate change adaptation was also raised in the ARIC, I notice in the audit committee, that that is something that we have got to progress. So regardless, this report shows how it has been invested in Shaw's liquidity for council commitments and reasonable investment returns rather than excessive risk taking.

So while this is nowhere near an overall snapshot of council funds, it's an indicator that investment is well managed, contrary to what some armchair experts might like to say publicly. The fiscal responsibility is something taken very seriously, and reports like this show the complexity of what local government financial operations entail. That is not the expenditure of overall budgetary spending, but investment of public funds. So as we've just gone over the investment policy, which is revised annually, we use an external investment advisor to ensure alignment of the long-term financial plan and matching investments to forecast capital expenditure. We understand public scrutiny about how public money is managed.

I really understand that, and so many people want to know where every dollar goes, which is great. However, all too often, particularly within the last year or so, we're seeing blanket statements that Council is plagued with mismanagement. And if people are going to continue with these slogans and baseless claims, they should identify a specific issue. What is it? Is it the expenditure, the project overruns, the restricted funds, debt, or long-term sustainability? If people actually read the reports available, of which there are multiple, or use the opportunities to come in here and raise these things, address what it is, then that would be a much more productive environment to be working in.

Because genuine accountability is advanced through evidence-informed questions and constructive engagement, not unsubstantiated online assertions that generate heat but no practical improvements. So here we show our investment, our investment where everything's invested. When the quarterly budget review comes four times a year, we show any variations on our budget, and our annual operational plan, of course, shows that. So if we want to see democracy in action, what I'd rather than reading forever that Council mismanages its funds, which is not true, is to see the people saying that actually read these documents and identify which things are giving them an issue. We know we're not perfect and we know we can improve, but constructive criticism will get us so much further than just constant slamming.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Well spoken, Councillor. Any further debate? Councillor Veigel.

If you'll permit me, Mr Mayor, I concur with Councillor Ian Buckett just said. If I had every dollar I found a rumour or innuendo on what this council does off the back of a cubicle door, I'd be a few dollars richer. Let's deal with the facts, and that's not what you say. So thank you for saying what you said

Any further debate? Do you need a right of reply, Councillor?

Not necessary,

Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor . The motion before us is, sorry, the matter is 10.4.4 and the recommendations on page 72. Those in favour? Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Councillors Ian Brogden, Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon, Greed, Djuric and Sheather.

The next item, Councillors, is 10.5.1. Councillor Wheeler

Mr Mayor, I have a declaration. Would

You like

To read it? I could just read that. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.5.1. I'm the owner of a property within the Richmond study area. The reason for no further action is it does not meet the threshold of significance, so no further action is required. Thank you.

Thanks for that, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the recommendation in the business paper, but I'll seek leave to add a point four after I get some clarification from the staff.

Okay. I'll

Second

That, and I'll tell you if I change my mind Thank you.

I'm sure you will, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. Look, I'll just ask my questions first. When, um. I'd like for this to come back to Councilors for a workshop. Is there a problem with that running concurrently with the public exhibition? Would it be more appropriate for it to come to us to discuss after public exhibition? If we make changes, will it have to go back out on exhibition?

General Manager. Through you, Mr Mayor, given that it will be coming back to Council, I don't know that we can workshop it.

I don't know that that's a briefing .

Would you like to talk on it, Council, and we'll work through this while you're discussing it? Sorry Would you like to discuss it? We'll work through that while you're—we'll work through what you're proposing

At the moment, we have a study from a consultant that has made recommendations about changes to our town centres that we are, I suspect, more familiar with than the consultant. Some of the changes that are proposed are fine. Some of them could do with some tweaking. And I am concerned that if we go out on exhibition, the community is going to suggest a whole lot of changes. Then it will come back. We will have our own changes that we would like to make to this. I'm wondering at which point in this new glorious age of Councilors not actually having input but having to sign off on everything, we actually get to have input on what the town centres that we are supposed to be managing actually look like.

So I would like to move this to a workshop. It's the timing of the workshop that I'm concerned about. I'm happy to wear us having a workshop on this and the Minister coming after me with a big stick. I frankly don't care. But — It's the timing that I'm questioning.

Sorry, through you, Mr Mayor. If my memory serves correctly, one of the carve-outs, if I can be so generous, is for the purpose of preparing the budget, so we could incorporate this ahead of that, so that no decision is made on the final what it looks like. Work this through the budget process, and that's how we can look at it, and that's also consistent with point three, that we stay true to that recommendation as well. Could we,

Could I suggest that we start those budgetary discussions very early, like October, for example,

When

It comes off public exhibition?

Through you, Mr Mayor, without overcommitting, I think given the changes back in June that we need to revisit our program of budgeting, and when we engage with councils, so certainly we will take that on board.

Okay. In which case, I'll add a point four that this comes to Council for a discussion of the results of public exhibition and resourcing required as soon as possible following the public exhibition phase. Then we'll at least have the public's input. We may have to go back on exhibition, but I don't think we can avoid that. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, are you happy with that? Yes, I am happy with that. Sorry

Do you mind if I just ask a question? You can ask a question. Just in what Councillor Wheeler suggested. Will that allow us— Sorry, can you pull your mic down? Sorry, just in relation to what Councillor Wheeler has just added, will that allow councillors that once it comes back on public exhibition to have any sort of input into this? Yeah, I just want to — yes or no. Sorry, Councillor, can you repeat your question? I was conferring with the Director of— That's okay. Just on the point that Councillor Wheeler has added, I just wanted to make sure that councillors will be able to have input into this once it's back from public exhibition, and not a sort of a— yeah, it's come back from public exhibition and there's not really an opportunity. Like, I just want to make sure that we, yes, we will be able to have input into it. Yeah

Through you, Mr Mayor, absolutely. And it still remains available to councillors through the public exhibition period to provide comments as well. So that's not to say that there isn't the opportunity. So to your question, yes, but also that through the public exhibition period, and that would be useful for staff also to receive that ahead of time so that we can consider it alongside the public exhibition or the comments that come through the public exhibition as well.

Councillor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. In 10.3, it's got feedback from the public exhibition and from the local traffic forum will be considered. Is the local traffic forum the last in the process? And is their job to make sure that what we've suggested fits in with our standards and traffic laws? I mean, so we could do all of this work and if we're not— They might knock it on the head. So I just wanted a little bit of clarification about the process and who does

What. Yeah, certainly through you, Mr Mayor. The Local Traffic Forum is a requirement prior to Council exercising any of its delegable functions with respect to traffic management facilities. So any regulatory signage has to go through that process. It isn't a carte blanche review the entire thing and give us your feedback LTF. It's about, are we putting in things like no stopping zones, no parking zones, et cetera, in accordance with standards, customer practice, et cetera, et cetera.

Thanks. Thanks for that. That was my understanding. So one , yeah . So I'll just say that reading these traffic parking, sorry, studies was really fascinating because I think a lot of the time there's perceptions that we don't have enough parking, and it was surprising that it was actually surprising to read that we have quite a lot, more than I expected actually. And to have that sort of data and have it all, you know, in one place, and for somebody to actually give us some real numbers and some reality was just really wonderful. I thought they were really, really excellent, a long time coming, no doubt. I'd support a workshop or some sort of feedback session, and I think, like Councillor Wheeler, let's just do that because that would be really sensible.

I think all of us have... have had contact with our community and have information, and we understand what people need and want, hopefully, and we're here to represent them. So I think we should be able to have that opportunity, as long as it doesn't change, you know, it too dramatically, because I think that we have to sort of be driven by the data in this instance. I wanted to ask, one of the things that came through in the public consultation that our consultants did, there was a comment that in Richmond, the trees along the main street have been planted in parking spaces. And I am frankly sick of hearing this snowballing urban myth, because my understanding was, and I'll just get some clarification from staff if I can, is that there were a couple of parking spaces along that strip in Richmond that were reduced, but not because of trees, but because of the pedestrian crossing and the standards that we now have to abide by in the design of pedestrian crossings.

Just for the public record, can I get somebody just to state that no trees, or just the facts about trees and parking spaces?

There is a number. I'll refer that to the Director Infrastructure Services.

Through you, Mr Mayor, that's correct. There are only two parking spaces. Removed , and that was to allow for the pedestrian crossing to be widened. The parking configuration was realigned to ensure the trees and garden bed didn't reduce the number of parking. You were correct

Thank you. Overall, these studies are really good. They'll give us an opportunity, they'll give the community an opportunity to see how this works and how they can contribute. Yes, I think this is going to, I think when we go through this process, I think we will be able to improve parking right across the city. So I urge people to get hold of these reports and give us some feedback. Thanks.

Councillor Veigel. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I welcome the report too, and I also welcome the amendment. I know we're at the Hawkesbury, and I know we're just talking about here at Richmond South, South Windsor and Windsor, but I'll just slide it back to the metro. A few short years ago, they had enough car parking spaces. If you don't get there before about 8 a.m., you're stuffed. You can't get into town and they're full. Even on Saturday is pretty stretched. Best I've done was on a school holiday and I had to move out of Tullawong and move a bit closer to Bella Vista or Kellyville to get a space. And by 12 o'clock by that date, they're all full anyway. You have to try and look into the future somewhat.

I don't know how far you can go and how clouded the binoculars will be, but I think there should be some future planning for additional parking, whether you like it or not, Mr Mayor. We're not going to get rid of cars tomorrow, I guess, so, and we'll be beholden to them anyway in the Hawkesbury, dare I say. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Whilst the report is valuable, I feel the report falls short with an appropriate way forward, as the recommendation is to refine some of the parking times, but to do nothing in terms of increasing parking spaces. The study was done at a time of decline in Windsor, with the mall awaiting a revamp, stores closing in Thompson Square, and now 50% of stores shut in Riverview, and the beginnings of a cost of living crisis. To say we might be able to avoid increasing any parking spaces might be fine if we were continuing a managed decline of the Hawkesbury's shopping precincts. Last Sunday, which was a wet, cold, dreary day, at 11 a.m. there was not a spare parking space on George Street from the lights at Bridge Street all the way to Tates Hotel.

Cars were lined up in Cable Street trying to get into Woolies. Macquarie Street car park was full. Cable Street car park was full, as was behind K Hub. New Street and the Terrace was full, with some homeowners struggling to park in front of their own homes. Only under Riverview, at a rough estimate, there was probably 5% of spaces available. The study arrives at its recommendations by stating there is a projected growth in the Hawkesbury of only 11% by 2041. Where I feel the study falls a bit short, it fails to consider that our neighbours in Box Hill are expecting a growth of 120% by roughly a similar time frame. Sundays are a good indication that our neighbours come to see what we are all about, and if it's a struggle to park, then they certainly won't be back during the week.

And whilst our shopping precinct declines, we have a bustling shopping centre at Rouse Hill that is in the middle of a $200 million expansion, a new centre at the Hills of Carmel, and an upcoming centre or two in between. We even have shops now at Terry Road as well. I spoke to community members on the weekend who said they have been avoiding the parking difficulties in Windsor, some as far back as 1998, and councillors have previously stated that the questions around parking improvement have been asked well before I even come to council. So to do minimal changes because our retailers decline to a point that it now matches our parking availability is likely not good enough. And if we don't manage a way forward, then we'll certainly continue to manage a decline.

So I'm happy to see the matter come back for discussion and hopefully try and give the community something with vision to strengthen our businesses and catch some of the potential benefit of our neighbouring developmental growth, if possible. So I'm happy to support the matter as presented, and I thank Councillor Willoughby for the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Ryan. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I've had a pretty good read of this, and I'm just looking particularly at the coach and taxi ranks areas. We do have in Windsor three coach parking areas. That's at Thompson Square, front of museum, and Fitzgerald Street. And I have not seen many coaches in town for a long, long while. Perhaps we could do a bit of a review on how often they are used, how many spaces they take up, because that's areas that we need. When we come to taxis, the use of taxis has changed, where taxis used to line up in the taxi rank and people used to sit there and wait for them. Now it's all done on a mobile phone. The taxi just pulls up and you're standing there.

You order the taxi to the rank, to where you are virtually, to your location. I feel the taxi ranks are becoming a little bit non-used , and I'm not saying let's get rid of them. Let's see if we can find another purpose to be used there, and as particularly a drop-off zone where we're able to do that if you're an able person, you've got, I think, two minutes to drop someone off, and you can't leave more than three metres of your vehicle. If you have disabled people, you can stay there for five minutes. I think for places like in front of the Kmart and that, where people are picking up and that, and that's a taxi rank or a bus rank there, I'll have to double-check with the taxi ranks around the place.

If we could permit this to happen, this would give the opportunity for picking up people with private vehicles. And I pick up on Councillor Durick's that we have to do some forward planning in relation to not just Windsor, Richmond, North Richmond and South Windsor, because the problem's expanding. Where I live, Pitt Town, we're having problems with parking there because we've got a community there with a lot of people working in it. They're parking on the streets, parking across—people are getting parked in their driveways and all that. And we need to be able to come up with an idea of how do we deal with these people. Our state member spoke to me a number of times about getting the bus to go to Tallawong and those places.

We have a lot of people from there going to Tallawong, and now they can't get parking. I've just got a report back, which I should have brought that with me, about the upgrade of Mulgrave railway station. They're more or less telling us that's not going to happen, and the people that are parking there are actually illegally parking. Which I think all the councillors might have got that. My idea, do we put in some, have a look, forward plan to put some parking areas in places like Pitt Town and Kurrajong, where the people can drive their cars to there, get one of these bus and goes, even ride their push bikes. There's areas there so that we aren't putting these cars in car parks like Tallawong, Mulgrave, Windsor and that, that we're actually shipping them in and we're supplying them areas in the outside of the wagon wheel, say, and building up something like that.

I'd really like something to do with that. We could even go as far as we can bring them into Windsor and stop clogging up our parking. And there's plenty of towns, there'll be Vineyard, Maraylya, even Glossodia, where these ideas can work. And I think we've got to start bringing the ideas to state government because from what I've read and what I can see, they're not really thinking along the lines. I thank you and I will support this. Councillor Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for adding on because it's quite apparent that a further conversation is needed around this issue, just in terms of innovation that was possible. I know quite a few years ago, probably 10 years ago now, I suggested an electric driverless pod to be going from the station up to the other end of Windsor, and I'd still like to see that at some point. I think that we need to get this right. I mean, we can have a report that says we've got sufficient parking for now, but as people have alluded to, we need to be catering for the future. And also , given that the notice of motion I brought about this was from 2022, we will have plenty of time still to get it right and to bring forward, I guess, from 2022 onward, I'm sure we've all got additional contacts from people, and they come in such different forms.

Like parking is such a diverse and broad topic that , for example, on page 83 around North Richmond, where 99% of respondents drive to the shops, well, of course you will drive to the shop when there's no alternative. It's not necessarily safe to walk. There's no public transport to speak of. We all do drive. So. That we do have to do something about public transport. Not that you necessarily catch public transport to go shopping. And I don't think that we've seen, even with the increase in online shopping, that people aren't going to the shops. They're still going, whether they're going for supermarket shopping or other shopping. So then we have the whole issue around the trees in the street.

And may I just say that come summer, people are going to be bumping other people out of the way to park under those trees when it's a 45 degree day, if we get what the northern hemisphere is experiencing. The issue around single business owners who work in a shop and they park in time parking. They have to lock up their shop. They have to go out and move their car. They come back. That was why, I don't know if it was in the last motion or the one before, that I had asked about the permit parking schemes. Now that may not be feasible in what's been studied here, but, you know, if there's more unrestricted parking within a reasonable distance, I think that would be good. Another parameter I think we need to investigate at some point is to revisit our DCP around parking in dwellings, because we know now there's multiple households that have multiple car households everywhere, and people often have a boat and a caravan, a trailer, and they're often parked on the street.

And if, on the one hand, the government is directing us to concentrate our growth within the areas where there's existing infrastructure and within town centres, we're going to have an increased population, and we need to have the correlating investigation into future car parking needs. So I think there's still a bit of work to be done, even though this is a good start for the report. I agree with Councillor Ryan that we're going to have to extend this to other villages and— In towns beyond that, I know parking is a hot topic in Kurrajong. Mind you, there are a proportion of the population that like to stop outside every shop they're going to. That's not me, by the way. I'm prepared to walk.

But I think that we will have to look at that as well. So amongst the other issues, and I did have a bit of trouble seeing the map, even when I expanded it on my computer, I had a bit of trouble with the colours. I'm not colourblind. I just, they were very similar. But around the accessible parking, particularly at North Richmond, I know this is something we've been contacted by a lot, and it's really, really important that those spots are outside where the doctor's surgery and the chemist are, because simply that's where the people are going. And I think that that may need a little bit more work to be going there. I just think, you know, we've got to find balance around this too. I mean, I think if we were to think that we're going to invest in providing car parking, I think we'd see the case of build a car park and they will come, as Councillor Veigel was saying around Tallawong, that's what's happened.

So I welcome a workshop or whatever we may call it to discuss this further. I think that's the best way forward. But I do think it's good to have a study available to us that we're working with to be able to work from that foundation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Vote

On the... Just briefly, Mr Mayor, not to rehash what my colleagues have said. I read this. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed because I think that this is something that we could look at future-proofing. The way I read it, it was sort of like, no, no, we're all good. We'll just stay the way we are, with Western Sydney Airport coming through and all that sort of stuff. Like, we have real opportunities to make us a bit of a tourist destination with the airport coming through. We've got all our neighbours visiting. I don't want to see us what happened with places like Penrith Council, where they didn't sort of future plan for parking, and now in their CBD they're having to try and create temporary car parks, you know, one and a half, two kilometres away from the CBD just to be able to maintain, you know, workers and people who need to get on the train and all that sort of stuff.

I just think this is an opportunity where we can go, okay, yep, we're okay for the moment, but who knows what impositions the state government's going to put us in the future, whether it comes to development or anything like that. I think this is just a good opportunity for us to go, yep, let's actually look at what we can do so we don't get caught on the hop and are reactive. We can be proactive in this space. Thank you. Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Also, with regard to North Richmond, where there is a Woolworths supermarket planned, so that will mean we'll need more parking for

That. Thank you. I guess most users have heard of my persistence about parking, mainly around sporting fields, but it's no different in town. The Wilberforce, you go there during the day, you won't get a car park. You have to do a lap around and wait for someone to pull out. Kurrajong's the same. North Richmond's the same. And as Councillor Zurik spoke of, in Windsor on Sunday, we're in the middle of winter, and we've got, you know, a less than attractive, I guess, in relation to spring and summer town, and last Sunday the streets were full. Apart from the housing, and Councillor Zurik spoke of it well about only a couple of k's down the road, they've got to get out on weekends, so they're coming our way.

If we make it difficult for them to park, they'll keep driving. The next stop, Lithgow. The car parks won't be full all the time, but at the moment we've got shops are going broke and finding it hard. They're put people off and the likes. The parking is down. Six years ago when I first got on council, I was on about parking, and my view hasn't changed. And a couple of years ago I was the director of Windsor RSL, and they were doing a car park, and we looked, we got consultants in and spoke to them about it, because we were looking at putting tiered car parking in there. One of the things that the consultant said to us at that time was, by the time you get it built, there'll be driverless cars.

He said if you build something like that, you'll want it for accommodation more than you will car parking. Now six years ago, when we spoke about electric cars. In the Hawkesbury, you didn't see a lot about. Well, let me tell you, every second or third car is passing these days is hybrid or electric. So we need to take into account driverless cars and the like. And with driverless cars, one person might not own it. It can drive all day, carrying different people in different directions for different purposes. But something happens on a weekend. It's called a tourist town, where people do come and they park. And if we don't accommodate for that, because we're not going to get the development, the housing and the like, and with housing and that these days, anyone that's looked at DAs in relation to any approval will see that the requirement for parking and housing and the like is adequate for new development.

But what we've got in places like Windsor and Richmond, there's not a lot of change for big parking. We've got to take advantage of it. And in this report, one of the things it doesn't address is the opportunities we've got within our local car parks. Extend on them, go up or down, whatever the case may be. And when I spoke to a previous general manager about it, she said we didn't have the money. Well, there's a thing called private enterprise. If there's money in it, it can get built. And we need to look at those options. So, Councillors, the suggestion for a workshop, I think, is extremely valid. And the opportunities that we have are residents expect it all over. And when I was on the, you know, with the playing fields, with the parking area, we just finished a beautiful car park out at McGrath Hill at Colby Park.

Park's just over 100 cars. There's three playing fields and a BMX track. There's over 400 vehicles there. When they're playing. So they're parked in people's driveways, they're parked across the road, on people's gardens and lawns and the like. And the sporting groups encourage people to come to pick people up, so they're doubling up in the vehicles to try and minimise the car park space because they know there's a problem. But we sit here and we need to talk about these things, as we're doing tonight, and in a workshop that's what'll happen. As Councillor Ryan said, we need to look to the future. But we need to be fully informed that it's not just a percentage of our growth in our city we need to be looking at.

Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I relish the opportunity to give an opening address to a motion. Now everybody else has butted in.

You can have both, Councillor.

Gee, thanks. Look , I think the fact that everybody has chimed in on this topic shows how concerned councillors are and how many representations we have all had over the time that we've been elected. Parking was supposed to be addressed under the liveability study way back in 2017 when we first began that work, and, you know, nearly 10 years later we're still here. It's clear that we've got lots of ideas. Following years of input from residents and businesses, a few things that have been said to me. Richmond, in this study, Richmond has a number of four-hour parking lots. That looks like Windsor only has three-hour parking. We've heard repeatedly from people that that's, for example, not enough time to get your hair done.

I know that wouldn't bother some of the people around this table, but it is of importance to others. There's a clear need for an advocacy piece on public transport. We can't deliver public transport; it's a state government responsibility, but we can certainly advocate for it. There's, I think that we need to have a discussion about how we manage parking on a Sunday where there are no restrictions and we don't police any parking, and how that impacts on local residents who sometimes struggle to get in and out of their houses and in and out of their driveways. We need to, I think we need to talk about, we really need to talk about North Richmond. It's increasingly unsafe to get in and out of the parking areas in North Richmond.

We heard that at the last council meeting, and that's having an impact on the businesses that are in there as well because people are deliberately choosing not to go there. We also need to talk about how safe and comfortable our parking areas are. So that means they have to be reasonably well lit at night. They have to be clean. They have to feel like they are safe for people, particularly women and younger residents to move around in, certainly older people as well. The surfaces of those car parks have to be safe. They need to be clean. There needs to be shade over them so that they're a desirable place to park in the summer. I don't go into Riverview Shopping Centre because I don't use any of those shops, by and large, but I'll park under there and walk because I can get out.

I can get back into a cooler car at the end of it. There's a problem with the parking mix. I think there's a problem with the parking location. For anybody who has difficulty walking a long distance uphill, some of our car parks don't work for those people, and we need to make sure that the hours that longer-term parking is also a possibility for people who have trouble walking a longer distance if they're off to lunch or something like that, or they're off to a medical appointment . The parking spots need to be within reasonable access to toilets for people to use and for people to take their children to. That's an ongoing problem in our major town centres. We need to do a balancing—there's a balancing act, I think, between weekday business use and shopping and weekend tourism.

They're very different uses, and how we combine those, I think, is really hard. We know too, and Councillor Durickas has talked about the impact of Box Hill and luring people from that burgeoning Hills development into our town centres rather than them going to the shopping centres on the other side. We know that when people are out walking, when they can park, when they can walk, when they can spend a bit of time in a town centre, that's when they spend money. We know that parking is key to street activation and has a knock-on effect for smaller businesses that people weren't necessarily coming to. When they come to the doctor or the dentist or the hairdresser, they'll go into a shop and buy bread, fruit, a candle, whatever it is that people buy when they go to the shops.

But we also know that our activity increases during cost of living squeeze periods where people are reticent to go somewhere where they might stay overnight. So instead of going to the Southern Highlands or the Upper Mountains, they'll come out to the Hawkesbury because it's a day trip and they don't have to pay accommodation. We need to have access to that market both during the week and on the weekends. And if people can't comfortably park and safely park and return to their vehicles after staying for a while and having a meal and doing some shopping, we're going to lose those people, and I would contend that we often do. The other piece is that we need to talk about disability inclusion and access, and I would hope that after we've all had a say, this also goes to our newly formed Disability Inclusion Committee.

Thanks.

Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you,

Councillor. The item before us, Councillors, is 10.5.1, the recommendations on page 81. Those in favour? Those against? It's carried unanimously. Councillor Brogden, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Kotlash, Veigel, Reardon, Creed, Djuric and Sheather. The motion is carried.

The next item is the risk audit 11.1.1. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Veigel.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I always find this very interesting to read through. There's some of the most important matters that are being addressed through the council are occurring there, and I always like to see the responses from the expert committee members who are on there because they're very skilled in this sort of work. Many of them are on multiple audit committees, and they do raise things that are very pertinent and often things that maybe have not been recognised internally. In this last report, they're actively reviewing controls across contracts, risk, finance, cyber security, compliance, governance compliance, and internal audit follow-ups. What I particularly was interested in is, and I always sort of monitor it through there, is around our work in the cyber space and what we're doing.

And we all know from those of us who attended the AI presentation the other night that any of these advancing technologies that are occurring are things that we really need to make sure that we keep up with, with our policies and our frameworks around them. In that way, the cyber action uplift plan is well structured and is moving in the right direction. That's very good. On page 20 of the minutes of the ARIC, the Chair has praised the staff for the large amount of work and the strong progress achieved by the continuous improvement program to date. And that's a really pleasing thing to see because I know that's an ongoing thing that the staff are moving to, you know, tick off and get through all of these various actions that they've identified that have to be done to make us going better.

The governance compliance arrangements need an update, and I'm assuming that's happening. That's one of the things that's going on. And it was questioned the date of when the land register is likely to be finalised, and I'm hoping we'll get that information shortly. One of the audit committee did notice, and I raised that in a previous item in the risk management update, that climate risk is something that will have to be considered and how staff are trained going forward in that area. So something to be looking at there. I did look at the fraud and corruption policy to see if there was anything raised by the audit committee members around that particular policy. The Chair had said that Council had developed a level of maturity in the area of fraud and corruption, and of course the fraud and corruption policy was largely based, I understand, on the outcomes from various ICAC inquiries into inner city councils who shall not be named.

But we— Not we, just I. I was reading it myself. I just thought that I would raise that update. I note that, and I think Councillor Wheeler may raise it around an alternate for that committee if we don't have one, because it is very important. And I think it's also very important that everyone in the chamber realises what is being looked into in the internal audit framework. It's a really important part of the organisation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. General Manager, with these audit reports and the like, how might the public be informed in relation to these issues?

Through, Mr Mayor, it is through the minutes that are presented to Council via the business paper.

Yeah. The comments that were made by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, if anyone thinks that Council falls short in relation to risk in any manner, they really need to have a look at these reports. It must drive the staff mad to conform to the risks that are associated with the legislation that's got to be followed by this Council. And the staff have to make sure that those policies and that are in place to provide us with the right and legal direction on decisions we might make. It makes pretty boring reading, but let me tell you, it's something that an extreme lot of work and effort's put into. Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I have some comments and a number of questions, so I'll just run through them if that's okay. Look, I think we've got an issue, clearly, and we've discussed this before with having a single councillor representative on a number of committees. Can I just ask that, I know we don't renew the representatives on committees when we do the mayoral election, but can I ask, having flagged it previously, if we can discuss if we can vote on alternative representatives on committees where there's a single councillor. Is that in place for the September meeting, please?

Through you, Mr Mayor, as part of the reports associated with the election of the mayor and the deputy mayor in September, committees are up for nomination, so we can address it at that time.

Thank you, because I think this is a very big committee. It has a lot of work involved with it, and I think it's really unreasonable for one councillor to feel like they have to do it every month with no backup if they need it. Everyone is busy, and I think we really need to have more than one person carrying this load. Following on from that, particularly given the loss of formal briefings, we really need a reporting mechanism for those of us who are on either external bodies or on these committees where there isn't an easy reporting framework to report back to our colleagues. So I really appreciate some recommendations from staff. At some point on how we do that, because otherwise we just exist in silos, and it becomes very difficult for the rest of us to get access to what happened in these discussions.

I think that that would provide us with a means of some more collegiate discussion and some better teamwork around some of these issues, particularly with the restrictions on the staff now conveying that information to us. Just a few questions on some of the things in the report. The proactive conflict of interest management suggestion that was raised , could we get some more information on what's happening with that, if possible? I'm happy to take that on notice if required. Could we also get some information about the ICAC recommendations around that and around that when they become available, please? I note that debt and liquidity were both raised in the meeting, and I think that might be a prudent discussion or some prudent information for people who are concerned about our liquidity to have a look at.

But I also note for those people who are concerned that Council is out selling people's houses because they haven't paid rates, that in fact it's not what's going on, and that we have taken a very softly, softly approach to debt recovery since the 2019-2020 black summer fires, and that that approach continues. The cyber security, the cyber steering committee seems to be doing excellent work. Are we going ahead with a public session on AI, and when is that likely to happen?

Through you, Mr Mayor, yeah, we're working through the details of that. Great,

Thank you. Do we have an idea when the land register will be reported to Council?

Refer that to the Director of Corporate Services.

Through you, Mr Mayor, still working on the land register. It's a very complicated piece of work, and it's being developed so basically it will try and capture every parcel of land that Council either has ownership of or has some sort of role as far as management of that land goes. Ordinarily, the land register will be a register that is used by Council staff, and ordinarily that wouldn't be reported to Council. However, certainly once the land register is completed, it can be circulated to councillors.

Thank you. And I think that we're probably more aware of it than many councils because we've had all those problems around Crown land, land of the Crown, land that belonged to four dead people in St Albans. So this is, forgive us for our curiosity in the land register. I also note the compliance monitoring report, and I think that probably feeds into Council loans buckets notice of motion later. The climate risk training is of great interest to me, and I'd love for some of, if we could have some discussion of that at a councillor workshop, I would appreciate it as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? The motion is 11.1.1. Recommendations on page 100. Those in favour? Those against? Motion is carried. Councillor Zambraga, Councillor Wheeler, Lyons, Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Clock-Rashfeigl, Reardon, Creed, Europe and Sheather. Motion is carried.

The next item is 11.1.2, disaster recovery.

I'll

Move that way,

Mr Mayor Second, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler. Seconder? Councillor Ruden. Councillor Wheeler.

Very briefly, Mr Mayor, look, this was a really, really useful meeting, I think, and I really would encourage members of the public to go back and listen to the presentation given by the person from the Insurance Council regarding insurance, and also regarding flood levels and their impact on insurance, i.e. Council's flood planning level does not impact on insurance, was the very clear message from that. That does mean for Council that we have further work to do on that issue. But there are some really useful things that came out of that meeting, including some guidance around how to get a better deal out of your insurance, or for your insurance. Is it possible for Council to make that piece into some sort of FAQ or guideline for residents to follow up on?

We don't have—we're not allowed to cut Council's video; we're not the intellectual property holder, Council are, however. So perhaps we could use that, or we could use the excellent information given by the presenter to pass on to our residents. It's really valuable, but it's also really important. There's yet another round, I noticed this week, of people saying, How do I get— you know, why is my insurance so high? How can I get it down? Who do I talk to? Should I drop flood insurance? What should I do? So this is clearly an ongoing topic for discussion. Thanks.

Councillor Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree with all of the above. I just wondered, on page, well, page six of the minutes, or page 140 of the business paper, are three questions on notice. I'm just wondering, will we be able to have any answers to those prior to the next Disaster and Emergency Management Committee meeting, which are often a long way apart, or could we, once that information is compiled or, you know, put together by somebody, could we receive that in some other format perhaps, or would we need to convene another meeting? I'm happy to have another meeting of it, but I just wonder.

Through you, Mr Mayor, we've passed those questions on to the representative from the Insurance Council and awaiting the answers. Once we receive them, we can circulate them in a memo format. Okay,

Thank you. Question number two. I mean, yes, question number two about point number two on the committee recommendation was about the letter to go to the Premier and to the Minister for Emergency Services and the local member and the Minister for Recovery. Have those letters been sent, and has there been any response to date?

Through you, Mr Mayor, no, the letters haven't been sent. Awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the Disaster and Emergency Committee meeting, so they'll go out very shortly. Okay

Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that. Just to reiterate what Councillor Wheeler said, this is an ongoing issue. Every single week we have people who are hit with a massive increase when their insurance premium renewal comes. And we also know we are paying the government millions in the emergency services levy, not to mention the millions we're paying in the waste levy, but that's not really to do with insurance. But nevertheless, the government is getting a lot of money from our residents, and then our residents are being slugged again with really high insurance premiums. So I hope we'll continue working on this. I would like to see us have more of these, you know, these meetings. I know it's a work to convene them, but, and I think we've got to bring something forward, which I'm happy to do.

But we need to continue as we move into a summer where we could be very vulnerable to the conditions that we're seeing currently in the Northern Hemisphere. I would like to have another one before the summer comes. So if that requires a notice of motion, I'm happy to bring that forward. Thank you.

Councillor Ryan. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. You may remember probably last December I moved a motion in relation to writing to the Premier, to GHDIB, and I can't remember the other chap, but I got a response back from GHDIB in relation to the emergency service levy and more or less gave me some figures. They raised about approximately $1.3 billion a year out of that. And people like us who are in a disaster area like this, we pay the biggest premiums. And actually, I got my insurance this week. The emergency service levy is $1,000 on my insurance policy. That's horrendous. And we live in an area where we are affected the most, and we're really hurt the most too. It's something that we have to do.

The Labor Party did say in its lead-up to the election it would live up to all its promises, and it also said that it would address this issue. And the people of the Hawkesbury also got to remember, I think when I brought that to Council, our general manager then said that Council itself in that levy was paying straight out of the ratepayers' pockets $1.5 million, straight up. I'd really like to see that levy dropped off Council insurance at least to give us a bit of a chance. You know, we're getting hit with garbage levies there from the Environmental Protection Agency. See, when are they going to give us a rest? I think we got some assistance with the Red Fleet servicing recently, and we're still waiting to find out how much that was.

But please put in these letters strong, because the people out there, okay, my rates went up 87 cents a day. I can live with this. But this has gone up— A thousand dollars this year just on my insurance. And people are not insuring the major asset that they have. They can't afford to insure. And I think in a budget speech that [unclear] did give, that he's saying that approximately a quarter of the people in New South Wales are not insuring their asset, their house, because of this levy. And it's 18% for households and 34%, from memory, I could be corrected on that, on businesses. What an impost. So please put those letters in and just tell them we're not happy, and let's get it fixed. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Durek.

Mr Mayor, I've just got a quick question, if I could. It's just an accounting issue. On page 138 it says I was absent, and page 140 it says I supported the motion. It probably should be rectified for the minutes next meeting. Thank you.

What page, Councillor? Page 38

It records correctly that I was absent, and page 140 in the minutes it says I supported the motion, which is an interesting feat, but incorrect all the same. I was much later than that.

We'll deal with that, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Weigel. Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I've got to confirm what Councillor Ryan just said about, you know, the emergency levy. How is that not double dipping? Ratepayers are paying that on their insurance premium, and then councils, we're paying our rates to council, and hence they're paying it again. Seems a bit immoral to me, but then again that's how the state government performs. That's what's been said in this council, and I won't steal the words of the general manager. We're just a subsidiary of the state government. Take it or leave it. I'm getting tired of it, though, I must say. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I thank the other councillors for their input, and it shows really what a hot topic this is for our community. One of the things that's helpful, I think, with this report is the more detailed minutes of that committee meeting, so I want to thank the staff for that. The meetings can be hard to synthesise into a short list, so I think what this does is give the community a really good understanding of what they might find if they go back and listen to this meeting, and I hope that that's helpful. Councillor Ryan is right in that the emergency services levy is set up so that those of us who are at greater risk pay far, far more than those who don't. And Councillor Veigel is almost right in that it represents a double dip, but in fact what it does represent is a quadruple dip.

It's worse than that. We pay in insurance, we pay in our rates, and then we pay for recovery when the disaster hits, and in the loss of time and resourcing. But we also pay for the RFS, and then we volunteer as well for the RFS and the SES, and in all of those community organisations and our volunteers like Hawkesbury Helping Hands, all of those organisations who go out and help people in their recovery. So communities like ours pay through the nose again and again and again, and it's really quite disgraceful, I think, that the state government is running this racket where we bear the brunt of this for development actually that we currently have less and less control over as well. It's the , I think we have to, I think we have to make stronger representation to local government New South, at Local Government New South Wales.

If should the minister actually hang around for questions this time, he didn't last year, I think this is something that really needs to be put to both the government and the opposition, that the current situation with the emergency services levy and with its impact on insurance is simply untenable for communities like ours. One of the real issues is not just the impact on individuals with underinsured and uninsured properties. If we have, if we have a flood of the magnitude or a fire of the magnitude that wipes out multiple properties in an area where a lot of people are uninsured or underinsured, we are looking at really, really widespread economic and subsequent social collapse in those areas where places just simply may not recover.

That's an impost that our community can ill afford. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kolash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to say that the state government realises that that way of raising that levy is unfair. It is , my understanding is that it's quite hard in transitioning it to a fairer system. Now, I just can't sit here and hear people say that they're double dipping and they think that that is okay, because that isn't the situation. The government has stated that they understand that it is an unfair system. So I'll just leave it at that. So I just want that to be put on the public record. It is a ridiculously unfair circumstance. I don't know the history of it, but it is being fixed. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Right of reply.

I just had it.

I thought the first one was questions, Councillor. No, you didn't. Not necessary. The motion before you, Councillors, is 11.1.2 on page 134. Those in favour? Against? Carried. Councillor Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, McMahon, Kotlash, Weigel, Reardon, Creed, Juric and Sheehan. The motion is carried.

The next item, Councillors, is 12.1.2. It's the notice of motion.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 12.1.1, I think it is. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion as it is.

Councillor Kotlash, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to it, although it's quite self-explanatory. Really, it is about acting early, acting proportionately, and using council resources intelligently. Too often, we're all contacted, mainly on weekends, by people with various examples of what they perceive to be unlawful or behaviour that is being carried on. And we increasingly, I guess, feel powerless to help these people when we have to enable these matters to be looked at through the week, when perhaps if they've been on a weekend, they have subsided by then. The most effective outcome, of course, is preventing avoidable damage before it occurs, not only in monetary terms but environmental and in terms of impact on neighbours and communities.

So this notice of motion asks for practical, costed options so council can assure our community that compliance is not only a nine-to-five thing, but implemented in a way that addresses and deters unlawful behaviour. Whether it's activities proceeding without a DA or issues about activities being carried out with adverse impacts on neighbours, we need to address it and how we deal with it. We heard tonight around parking, and occasionally on weekends we have issues with people being parked into their properties, etc. We need our community to trust that our role as regulators will result in regulatory action that benefits the community. So I'm pleased that we are able to get a report about what our options are, the targeted responses that we need to have, whether they end up being a roster, a priority response model, or coordinated operations.

The report requests that that info is given to us. So when the report returns, we can better assess what the best model is and how to allocate resourcing to that. Innovation doesn't necessarily mean a 24-hour service. We can have lots of different things, things like risk-based triage, specific operations at known high-risk times. Improved reporting technology and public education can all assist. We need to understand the priorities and how priorities are set to deliver the best public value, and flexibility would be paramount. Delay can lead to situations which could be improved or avoided if swift action occurs. Of course, we know an impact within a neighbourhood can mean different things to different people.

Some people are overly sensitive to noise or to anything that they think shouldn't be happening, whereas other people are genuinely inconvenienced. Timely compliance is not about being punitive. It's about protecting neighbours, preserving amenity and environment, and most importantly, that those that do the right thing are not disadvantaged by those who do not. My motion seeks a practical, evidence-based response to a real gap in the timing of regulatory compliance. We need flexible and innovative options. Ideally, given we are expected by other government bodies to carry out regulatory functions such as the EPA, we should be funded to do so, but sadly we're not. The aim is not to increase compliance for its own sake.

It's about prevention of harm, fairness for our residents, and better protection of our community and environment. And I will look forward to getting a report that outlines what we can do. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Just in your notice of motion, Councillors, the word missing, or one too many, with point two.

Which page is that?

Thank you.

Just leave the B out.

No, that Council—well, we are the Council. The Council be provided this report as soon as possible. I don't have an issue, grammatically speaking.

Your motion, Councillor. Any further discussion on the motion?

Councillor Ryan. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I fully support this motion. For too long, far too long, people have said, We'll just let it go to the weekend while the Council's asleep. And I've had quite a few reports since I've been on Council about this. I've brought it forward through the week to staff. They've gone out and dealt with it. Lo and behold, I get a call the next weekend. The people are doing it again, and this was with some excavation work, and they corrected. Lo and behold, the next weekend they're still doing it. We have to get some permanent way of dealing with these things. A lot of these people, a slap on the wrist to them is nothing. A monetary fine is nothing. Yeah, they'll say, Well, I'll just take some photos, tell the council it complied and pay the fine.

It's the easy way out. We really have to get solid on these sort of things. If you've done the wrong thing, you've got to live with it. So I fully support, and I thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for bringing this forward. It might give some of us a little bit of peace and quiet on the weekends too.

Thank

You.

Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I welcome this report. This has long been a bugbear of mine. As the Greens councillor, I get a lot of calls about particularly land clearing or tree removal. It's too late to fix things once they're already damaged. It's too late on Monday morning after that piece of habitat has been removed or a whole block has been underscrubbed. You can't replant the bush. You can't replant habitat and have it be the same as it was before it was touched. On the one hand, we're propping up bush care, things like the fantastic Love Scrub launch that we saw last weekend, and on the other, we're failing to stop land clearing, burning, illegal fill, all of those things. Very often they get to the point where the magnitude is so great that we have to hand it to the EPA.

We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time waiting and collecting evidence, and then we have a full-scale disaster on our hands. And the resolution to that seems to be a slap over the wrist and, Oh dear, it's too bad, we can't possibly fix it. That's simply not good enough. I'm not interested in parking fines. That's not the sort of compliance I'm concerned about. I'm interested in fairness and preventing any further devastation to our precious and really vulnerable environment. Too many people in the Hawkesbury think that they're Ned Kelly. Too many people subscribe to the idea that it's both easier and cheaper to ask for forgiveness than permission. This has to stop. The people who are doing the right thing, who are paying their money, who are engaging with council in good faith and going through the normal processes, are currently basically disadvantaged by people who just do whatever the hell they like and continue to get away with it.

That's just not good enough.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? Councillor ?

Not necessary.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion before us, so that's the motion 12.1.1, and the motion's on page 166. Those in favour? Those against? The motion's carried.

Councillor Brogner, Wheeler, Lyons, Bucket, Ryan, McMahon, Cotlash, Veigel, Reardon, Creed, Djuric and Sheed. The motion's carried. Questions without notice? Yeah, I've got a question from last month's meeting. I'd like to speak on this, Mr Mayor. It's 10.1.4 in relation to the original barn study and producing a promotional material that should be published to increase the knowledge and application of the historical barns and outhouses in the Hawkesbury. I've got quite happy with what council staff have produced here. I would basically perhaps they could go over that section of the study. It's on page... 98, and we could go from there. And I would just like a timeline on when that can be produced and delivered. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. If I may, Mr Mayor, just in response to my question at the last meeting, 172, item 6, 11.11, based on the Winterfest festival, I thank Council's reply, but I think you're saying they liaise directly with the police. I would say that wasn't good enough. What I can understand is that the showground usually puts a plan in for the show, and it's comprehensive. I get it because there's a lot more people. The Winterfest choked up the arterial roads in and out of the Hawkesbury. So what I'm asking is, can we trigger a traffic plan for next year? That's all I'm asking for. Now, I don't know how many people that they get in. I mean, I know this type of stuff, this medieval stuff, is big business, right?

Because it was a national event. I can Queensland eventually is going to come down here, dare I say, which is great for us. But I just thought I'd just come back to Council and just ask them, can they please have a look at the traffic plan?

Thank you, Councillor

And the other reason I'm raising this too is I can remember when we were doing the Gaslamp Festival, they were putting in a traffic plan, didn't go to police, came to Council, and Council was adamant that they wanted the traffic plan. This can't be any different to me. So please, if we can do that for next year, we've got 12 months to think about it, slightly less. Thank you Councillor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have a question with relation to Councillor Ryan's question 10.1.4. It's sort of a spinoff or a subsidiary question, if I may. I was just wondering if councillors could be advised of the protocol of people getting information into the visitor information centre. I've been approached by a couple of people lately who had material that was published and relevant. I know someone would have to ascertain how appropriate and everything it was, but if we could just have a direction about how we would advise people to submit that, that would be very good. Just another couple of those questions. 14.1.1 about the waste levy. All I can say is I'm appalled we give the government that much money and get nothing back for it.

And the 14.1.1, which is about the number of clean-ups performed, I am quite surprised to see only 25% of people use one because I can just state categorically that 90% of people on Hawkesbury Facebook groups want 12 pickups, and I'm wondering if they're so offended by only being offered one that they don't use any at all.

Thank you, Councillor. This is a question session. Any further questions, councillors? Okay.

Hello.

Councillor Wheeler, would you like to ask a question?

I would. You'll be unsurprised to learn that I'd like to ask more than one. Just regarding Councillor Ryan's question about information into the tourist information centre, there is an excellent app that was developed some years ago that Council was part of that goes by the unfortunate acronym of HORSE, Heritage of Western Sydney. Does Council still have access to that, and is it marketed through the Visitor Information Centre? It allows people to pull up little tours that talks about our buildings and things. We paid to be part of it originally, and I think we were limited to five buildings. It was then expanded. If it's still going, it's actually really useful. It talks people through. You can play it through your phone, and it talks you through a little tour.

It's still around. Yeah. So are we marketing that through the Visitor Information Centre, given that we already paid to be part of it? We might as well get our money's worth. Regarding the traffic plan for the showground, is it possible to put some trigger in place with the lessee where if they know that an event is likely to attract a certain number of visitors, can they then push them to a traffic management plan? I know we've recently renegotiated the lease, but how do we build a trigger into the— obviously the lease would be the easy thing, but we're past that point. The EPA, I'll just say it out loud, 4.278 million dollars from the TIP to the state government for general revenue. That's really, really extraordinary.

We need to be taking this to Local Government New South Wales and jumping up and down about it. I think we need to get councils across New South Wales to gather that information and start bludgeoning the state government about this. But in the meantime, could we investigate putting up a big fat sign at the TIP that says to people, Thanks for using Hawkesbury City Council TIP, and thanks for making a 4.278 million dollar donation to the state government to put your rubbish... On to land that you own, using our own staff. And could we do a social media piece encouraging people to use their most excellent and apparently highly desirable one hard rubbish collection a year, please? Maybe turn off the comments while everybody screams at us that while they're not using one, they would really like 12.

Thanks.

The comments are taken on board, Councillor. I don't know how some are going to be dealt with, but they're taken on board.

That's the end of business tonight, Councillors. Before I close the meeting, we've been going nearly three hours. With future meetings, how long before you want to have a break? A couple of hours? Two and a half hours?

Just like driving, two hours and then take a break.

Yeah. Well, it's just there's a lot of people in the room, and some people might need to take a break for a minute, so I thought it worthy of asking. Councillors, thanks for your attendance and the staff this evening, and congratulations again to our General Manager, and the meeting is closed.