13 October 2026 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome to this meeting of Hawkesbury City Council. Thank you for attending. Before we begin, I would like to outline the standards of conduct that apply to everyone in the chamber this evening. These apply at every meeting and to all attendees, including members of the public and the media. Council meetings are conducted under Council's Code of Meeting Practice. To ensure the meeting runs in an orderly, respectful and safe way, I ask that everyone in the public gallery remain seated in the designated public and media seating areas, refrain from interjecting, calling out or making comments while the meeting is in progress, not approach or attempt to speak with councillors or staff during the meeting unless invited to do so, including during any adjournment.

Treat councillors, staff and other attendees with courtesy and respect, without intimidating, offensive or threatening behaviour, words or gestures. Not record, photograph or live stream the meeting unless expressly permitted by resolution of Council. Follow any direction given by the chairperson or by Council staff. Members of the public who are registered to address Council will be invited to speak at the appropriate time. If anyone does not comply with these requirements, I will first ask them to stop. If the behaviour continues or is serious, I may adjourn the meeting and leave the chair. Upon recommencement of the meeting, and if the behaviour continues in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, I may expel the person from the meeting.

These expectations are displayed in the public gallery and on Council's website. This evening's meeting is being webcast and recorded. Thank you for your cooperation. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of the country. Pass over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Madam 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 5.3.3 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 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 only with the prior authority of Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the public forum tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this public meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if 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, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr General Manager. We have all councillors present, so there's no apologies. Councillors, are there any declarations of interest?

Councillor McMahon. Thank

You, Madam Mayor. Item 10.3.1

And item 10.3.2, which is on block and will need to be taken out of block. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. 10.3.1, 10.3.3 and 11.1.2. Thank you. Councillor Ryan.

10.3.2.

Thank you. Councillor Sheather.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Mine too is 10.3.2.

Thank you. Councillor Djuric.

I have an interest in 10.3.2 as well. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Creed.

And just to be different, 10.3.2.

And just myself, I also have one in 10.3.2. So let's see how that goes when we cross that bridge. Thank you, councillors. Confirmation of minutes from the last meeting. Moved Councillor Reardon, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillors and public, I'm just reading a statement, a public statement onto the record here tonight. The purpose of this statement is to place on the public record the matters and outcome related to the allegations made at the ordinary council meeting of the 12th of May regarding bullying. As required by clause 6.1.2 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct, an external reviewer has completed a preliminary assessment of a complaint made in respect of the allegations made at that meeting.

The outcome of the preliminary assessment was determined to be that no further action be taken, as no adverse findings were made against any councillor. With due process having been followed and the matter settled without any adverse findings against any councillor, this is an opportunity to focus on performing our duties for the benefits of the Hawkesbury LGA, its residents, businesses and visitors, and to move forward. Thank you. We'll

Now move to items subject to public address. We have two items for public address, 12.1.1, Notice of Motion 1, and our speaker is Mr Bill Snedden. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Notice of Motion 1, Solid Panel Collection, Reuse and Recycling. I am speaking in favour of this notice of motion. This would have ideally been dealt with in the now defunct Waste Management Advisory Committee processes of years gone by, for which I was on many years ago, as was you, Lady Mayor. I agree with the coverage of issues in this motion and its potential for Council to be adversely affected as a waste management site operator. Photovoltaic panels have valuable recycling materials in them, let alone other renewable materials that aren't being covered in all of this regarding batteries, electronics, cabling and more, which also already have some recycling routes, but not the PV panels at the moment.

PV panels have significant amounts of silver, tin, copper and aluminium of real value and infinitely reusable if recovered. Crushed electronics could easily also assay , as a laboratory analyst, which I'm initially trained as, they would have a... An ash value that would make any miner salivate to see what was there, the levels of tin, copper, etc. So silver, to get them off the tracks on the silicon panels, they might have to be processed chemically of some method. Also, the panels, once you strip other major things like aluminium, glass, etc. away, could be crushed, and that would be one way of processing them. There are multiple range of possibilities. We're not here to pick commercial winners.

Glass, plastics and silicon cells are more problematic, but they do have their uses. Low iron glass in panels isn't suitable to glass package manufacturers, but it could be reusable as glass sand if correctly milled, just amongst one of the items that could be used in road bases, building materials for concrete, etc. Sand is a problem now environmentally, and it's becoming more expensive. The problems in panel recycling are several. One, they're bulky. Two, they're relatively low value as they come off the roof. Three, they're widely dispersed across Australia, meaning that transport to what will probably be a few centralised large processing operators will be required. Next, the recycling has to be commercially profitable for long-term sustainability.

Uses will need to be developed for the difficult recovered materials such as plastics, silicon, it's of low value because of N and P, so it's no longer high purity. Also the glass material. Building and road uses are possible for many of these materials, but Australian standards are required for commercial uses long term. The federal government has started enforced recycling, but has had start-up problems right at the outset, as witnessed in July Sydney Morning Herald, with the tender process being challenged right at the start. Start before even start-up. So you already are having problems getting a new industry up and running, and it's also going to be a disruptor to some extent because these materials will replace other materials that people have markets for already.

The intended mandated industry project has stalled at the commercial start-up tender stage, as I've just mentioned with that Sydney Morning Herald article. Very sad, with millions of panels per year to recycle. That article goes through that, and your staff would have that information. A bright light, to some extent, is that the life of solar panels has been noticeably extended from an initial 10-year forecast. Quality panels now are considered to go to possibly 20 to 25 years routinely. Council has given good comment on where to— Council staff have given good comment to here from where you go to, and the panel handling at the waste depot, etc. But not discussed in this paper is a potential federal net zero Royal Commission with a change of federal government possibly upcoming.

If it gets up and it finds net zero is not correct, then all of what I've said and this item in the notice of motion is illusory. If all of Council's and my recyclables are inappropriate, as found by a Royal Commission, what do I get government compensation for wasting my money on a mirage, as would Council with all of your renewables that apparently aren't appropriate? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Sneddon, and I think probably not would be the answer to that. But thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. Are you happy to take questions? Any questions for Mr Sneddon? No questions. Thanks, Bill.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Mr Sneddon, for your address. I'd like to say that—

Now you're moving your motion. We'll just get a seconder for you. Oh, sorry, move the motion. Yeah, sorry. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you.

I will try not to lose my voice. I was motivated to put this notice of motion in, even though I think it is something that the state government is going to do, unlike Mr Sneddon. I think that there is a pathway that's been mapped out to be able to make this a success and to make it happen . What I would also just like to say is that our old waste management committee would not have been able to address this particular issue . What the state government is proposing here is a scheme that is a mandatory product stewardship scheme, and that requires a lot of negotiation, possibly legislation as well, to make that happen. So it's not something that one council can do. My intention when I brought this notice of motion up was for us to be in a position to be able to quickly jump on opportunities that come our way and to sort of be prepared to— Be prepared to be able to move quickly and to, not, well, not left by the wayside, but make sure that the state government understands the capabilities that we have.

And our capabilities in our waste management facility are quite broad. And I think they're exciting. They're exciting from a point of view of creating a new industry. They're exciting in that we can start to move closer to the circular economy that we all talk about and we all desire. It is, in our region, it will boost our space in the economy of this new industry. I'd just like to say that there are a lot of people that need to be negotiated with: unions, industry, recyclers, manufacturers, researchers, local government, workers, and the community. There's a lot of people that— Need to be consulted on this, and it's, as I said, I want us to be ready to flaunt our wares at the waste management facility, for want of a better term.

We have the opportunity to make it possibly an income-generating project . I think we have to also remember that there are a lot of stages to this project. It's not just, you know, we'll get a whole bunch of solar panels and we possibly won't be doing the actual recycling. But we can play a big role in all of the things that need to happen, like the collection, for instance. We might be able to charge other local government areas for accepting their solar panels. We might be able to make arrangements with the manufacturers. There are so many different things that need to happen. So collection, storage, handling, transport, administration, infrastructure costs, and I suppose we really have to be mindful that our infrastructure costs don't come down to the Hawkesbury residents paying for what essentially is a necessary statewide project.

So we have to kind of make sure that we're up for that challenge. There are—what other things did I want to say? I think that the timing of this was disappointing, and this is another reason why I brought this notice of motion. I would like to give the general manager The go-ahead, the authority to negotiate on our behalf. And we have a very, I think, sophisticated waste management strategy, and we are coming to that pointy end where I think we're going to be able to start moving on all of the benefits that we have noted before. So I think this is a really exciting project. I think we have to be positive about it. It's a big opportunity, and I hope that my fellow councillors can agree that we give the general manager this authority to at least put our best foot forward.

And it has to happen by something sorry, I didn't highlight the date—it has to happen

Quickly. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Normally I'd opine that something like this was kind of out of our wheelhouse, but I like the way that Councillor Kotlash frames this so that any elements that are relevant to local government are front and centre. It is true, for example, that there is a national pilot scheme for the recycling of solar panels, some $25 million that was announced by the federal government at the beginning of the year, but the procurement process ground almost immediately to a halt with claims of mismanagement, and nothing has happened. And in the same way, what we call extended producer responsibility, or EPR programs, are gaining currency around the world. If only there were similar EPR schemes in the pipeline, and there aren't, for things like electric car batteries.

There is a co-regulatory approach that's been proposed, but no action has been taken and none is likely. Now, I agree with Councillor Kotlash that this might represent an opportunity for us. I don't know what form that that might take, but I think it's worth investigating.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. And I want to thank Mr Stedden for coming in and talking about some of the scientific aspects of this. I agree that the biggest issue with solar panels, particularly the older solar panels that we're now seeing removed from roofs, are really bulky. They are also very widely dispersed, and because of that bulk, they are expensive to transport. And that , I think, is where Hawkesbury does have an advantage. We have space, but we also have proximity to the market. This is, I think, quite good timing from the state government. There's been a huge uptake of solar panels under the previous rebate, the 60 cent per kilowatt-hour rebate system, and those panels, and I've got them on my roof, are largely coming to the end of their productive life and being replaced with more efficient panels under the new battery and rebate schemes.

And Hawkesbury has been a really high adopter of both of those schemes. We have a lot of panels out on roofs now that probably aren't churning out much power anymore. Most of them fully paid for under that 60 cent rebate scheme, with people now quite keen to replace them with something that will actually cut their power bills again. Any mandatory stewardship scheme that's adopted really has to link the manufacturers, the installers, the users and waste management in order to provide that closed-loop circular economy that Councillor Kotlash referred to. And I think this is a good opportunity for a council that can see across all of those aspects, particularly the waste management end , to talk about the role of local government and local government waste management in that space.

I think the processing would be quite complex. Perhaps it's something that could be done in conjunction with the university, given that the tip is largely on university land in part anyway. But certainly collection and distribution would be possible without much input, I think, from council. Processing, I think, is a much harder ask. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further speakers on this issue? Councillor Veigel.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, solar panels, they are difficult to recycle. Maneuvering the Chinese said they're spent panels they send to the Middle East because the Middle East wants cheap panels. They also say that getting the materials out and recycling it is far more expensive than getting virgin materials and putting them into a solar panel. The idea of recycling, absolutely, if you can get it out there, but it's huge import cost. We shouldn't be processors. Should there be a collection point? Yeah. But I don't know anybody. If I've just recently got a re-solar quote as Councillor Wheeler because the panels are getting older. But a part of that is a disposal of those old panels. Now, I don't know where they're going to.

Maybe somebody on one of our council offices can say, is there much dumping at our waste site when it comes to panels, and what are they doing with them? Are they going to landfill? I don't know where they're going to. A lot of them could be being transported into a central site like a lot of e-waste is, and it's going offshore to be processed, because the input to power is far much cheaper than input to power to this. So you can see the contradiction here. We have a very high input power, and manufacturing is on its knees because of it, and we're down to 5% of GDP in manufacturing because the cost to do manufacturing and the power to do this is prohibitive, and that's why they're all looking overseas where they're getting it much cheaper.

The same applies to the recycling industry. I say, yeah, okay, but why? I'm indifferent to it because I don't want any cost imposed onto the ratepayers, because a lot of the ratepayers don't have solar panels and they're already subsidising through their taxes to a solar panel on their roof, because it's not 100% taken up, as we know, those who can afford to do, or whatever. So if you want to recycle, great, but I would say no. I'm just saying, if council wants to pick them up and the cost is borne by somebody else, great, let them do it, but not across the board. But I can see, I thank Councillor Kotlash for putting up, unless we can discuss it and maybe get a decision on this, anyway. So I thank her for that.

Thank you, Councillor Veigel. Any further discussion? I'd just like to thank Councillor Kotlash for bringing it. It's a very comprehensive notice of motion, and I think that with all of these emerging technologies, we need to be on the front foot. We need to be seeing what our role is, and as Councillor Veigel has just said, he wants to see a clearer picture. But we need to be both looking at the opportunities for our waste management facility and what we can do there, and we also need to deal with what will become a growing problem. So thank you for that, and I'll go to right of reply. Thanks, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you everyone for your contribution to this discussion. I think it's really important and timely, as the Mayor has said. One thing I'd also like to say, which I didn't say before, was that there's another element to what we do with solar panels that aren't actually defunct , that they're solar panels that still have some working life. I don't know what form that might take for us to actually reuse before we start recycling. But we have to be in a mindset that allows us to think across all of those sorts of things to make it worthwhile and to make it as circular as we can possibly be. I think if we don't get organised, and I guess I'm speaking really from a New South Wales perspective as well, we have to get a grip on what we're going to do with all these solar panels, because the last thing that we want is to see them go to landfill, because they do have, as our speaker Mr Sneddon said, some incredibly valuable materials in them.

We just have to make that pay and work and not be a burden on our ratepayers. So, yeah, it's complex, but, you know, I think that we have to be on board and we have to be first in line knocking on the state government's door in this one, because we have lots of potential and I want to see it. I want to see it, you know, to maximise that opportunity.

That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. I'll put the motion, which is the motion within the business paper for item 12.1.1. All those in favour? For the motion is Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Djuric and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against the motion, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Creed. The motion is carried.

Thank you. Our next item also has Mr

Sneddon as our public speaker, item 12.1.2, Notice of Motion 2 on the Climate Compensation Fund.

Thank you, Mayor and Councillors.

Thanks, Susan. Sorry, I was speaking in favour of the notice of motion. Shame it couldn't have been well worked through under the now defunct Sustainability Committee that I was on at one time, as well as the Waste Management Committee. It would have been an ideal forum to cover the range of issues involved before coming here. Council is really facing financial problems for meeting expectations of what I was taught in high school was the social contract of citizens in our democracy: expect something from the government in return for being that mythical creature of law, the reasonable person. In other words, you obey the law and the laws of the land, et cetera, but you get something in return from the government, be it police, legislation, laws, et cetera, and a stable society.

The dilemma for council and other government levels now is to what extent does the social contract extend and the cost. As outlined in this paper, steadily more costs than crisis funding can be expected to be needed under Council's part of the social contract. Councillors, you are getting hints at what costs can be coming up with adverse environmental events, with worse to come potentially compared to the last five to six years. And I particularly mention here fires, floods, urban heating, which we have been doing some things on, adverse extreme weather events, and more as outlined in this notice of motion. Your staff have given you very good advice in the back of this item from my experience in my life, but also with my science training.

For politicians wanting to be re-elected, the social contract with your voters is a very potent item to consider to getting back after next election. However, there could be a bright light coming that's not mentioned here. A new federal government and a net zero Royal Commission could find the subject of this notice of motion is all entirely delusional. If so, is all the money Council and myself have spent on renewables totally wasted? Could I be compensated if all of my renewables cease operation and their current savings to my budget are lost? Will my nearly 10-year-old electric car that's done 75,000 kilometres off my rooftop solar simply stop working and I have to buy six litres per 100 kilometres to keep it running on its range extender motor?

There are some real things to consider for Council. If we think that we're having budget problems now, let some real climate change events possibly start hitting, and you'll think that you're living in easy times at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Sneddon. Are there any questions for Mr Sneddon? No questions. Thanks, Bill. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll move the motion in the business

Paper.

A seconder for you? Councillor Ryan.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you, and thank you again to Mr Sneddon. He is completely correct when he says that what we've seen, the cost of climate change that we have seen so far is merely a drop in the bucket. And this Council knows very well just how much a climate-related disaster can cost us. What we've also seen, and I think what we are not able to determine even yet, is the cumulative impact of five years of natural disasters, both on Council's budget, but also on the budgets and the mental health of the people who live in our community. I'd like to say that this was all my own work. It most definitely is not. It's the work of Tipping Point, the Communities for Climate Compensation.

They're a community-led movement that includes flood and bushfire survivors, first responders, scientists, and community members across Australia who remain concerned that climate change is not being taken seriously by other levels of government. It relies on the polluter pays principle that coincides with our work on the... On the ESL and insurance premiums, demanding a fair go for Hawkesbury residents who've seen some of the greatest cumulative impacts of natural disasters in the years since 2019 in Australia. It's based on the idea that sometimes the only thing big business understands is money. This motion, or similar motions, have now been passed by 13 councils across Australia, including our neighbours in the Blue Mountains.

And there will be motions to this effect at the upcoming Local Government New South Wales conference, which is what point three clumsily refers to. Could I just add an additional word to point three, where it says supports calls for a climate compensation fund submitted to LG New South Wales, that should read the LG New South Wales conference, and prepares information regarding costs detailed in point 1C to assist councils' voting delegates. We know that this will come up at the conference. It's been passed by a couple of other councils, City of Sydney, I think possibly Blue Mountains are taking this to Local Government New South Wales, Newcastle I think is another. So having some additional information as a disaster-impacted council, clearly City of Sydney and Newcastle have not been hit as hard as we have.

If we could have some costings that don't have to be complete, that would assist us when we're at the conference, that would be really, really useful. I thank the staff for the note that's been attached to this, detailing some of the impacts or the examples of impacts on council's budget, and they're things that I think we don't necessarily think of: the accelerated depreciation and shortened asset lives, particularly from heat. You know, I can remember the previous Director of Infrastructure saying that the more street trees that we planted, the longer the bitumen would last on our roads because they just didn't get as hot. And they're not things that we think about. Just as a routine management, and they're some of the things in our control.

But climate change is not completely in our control, you know. And just as people have sat in this chamber and said, if we can't fix all of it, then why should we fix any of it? This motion is an attempt to address the other side, the people who can address, because they produce or because they mine fossil fuels, because they profit from fossil fuels and mining. They can and should compensate communities like ours who are unduly impacted by the impacts of their business model. I'll leave it at that at this point, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Further speakers? No further speakers? Oh, sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Remember what I said only moments ago about councils taking on things that are above our pay grade. I applaud Councillor Wheeler for where this comes from, but one of the clauses in this calls on this council to be actively advocating to the Australian Government for what is effectively a carbon tax. And I suspect that there are many who , if they felt that we were engaging in a debate like that at our council, would tell us to stick to our knitting and that we should focus on issues of more pressing and relevant and direct concern to our ratepayers. And yet. I'm reminded of a very famous cartoon from Joel Pett many years ago about people at a climate change conference, and the thing up on the board says, Well, if we deal with these issues, we're going to have energy independence, and we're going to save our rainforests, and we'll have sustainability and green jobs and liveable cities and renewables and clean water and healthy kids.

And somebody from the audience gets up and says, What if it's all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing? And I have a certain sympathy with that view. I think that there are times where even if something is well beyond anything that we can change, we still have to weigh in. So I'm very interested in hearing the views around this table to see whether this sits in the former or the latter category. I'm on the fence concerning this, and I'd appreciate everybody's guidance.

Thank you, Councillor Sampragno. Further discussion? Councillor Ryan.

Yeah, no, thank you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Veigel, sorry. Sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, that's okay. No, thank you. I, look, I do thank Councillor Wheeler because I know people are concerned about climate change, if you want to call it that. But I do have a problem with the compensation fund specifically target so-called fossil fuel companies, the very industry in Australia that actually pays for a lot of our, whether it be the NDIS, whether it be Medibank, schools and education, et cetera, funding back to the states, you name it. Mining revenues and gas revenues do so. They've been doing a lot of climate mitigation anyway. If you look at Santos and Chevron, they're actually mitigating in excess of 12 million tonnes per annum that's going back into spent gas wells within the country, and it's expanding.

They're doing that because they have got a social licence to do it, and I'm glad they are doing that. The National Climate Compensation Fund, I do think it should be—I feel that it is outside local government, and it should actually be discussed at much higher levels than us, basically federal. If they want to come up to go and put a climate pollution levy on corporations yet again, then so be it. So leave it with them. So that's all I've got to say on the matter. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've got full support, Councillor Wheeler's motion here. I believe we've got to start somewhere, and I think politicians should listen to the groundswell that the people, especially the people of the Hawkesbury, are sick of being the consequences of flood and bushfire, and that this is going to be a long-term project. And to reverse these issues, and as Councillor Zamprogno said, why can't we produce a healthy, pure world? Well, we should be aiming at that instead of looking at lower standards and letting these things happen. I fully support this, and I will be voting for it, and that's where my thoughts are. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ryan. I'll just give my input on it while other councillors decide if they want to give some feedback. I think in respect of what Councillor Veigel has said, we aren't actually deciding about having any sort of tax or fund. What we're doing is joining a voice of other local government people who are calling on the government to address that deficit in available funding for when we face the consequences of climate change. Now, we cannot deny that as a council, we're carrying costs. There's costs shifting occurring within this. Space. And we can see here the, you know, the various rising costs which are listed, and they go to things such as being reactive in our repair when we have disasters, rather than proactive because we may not have the funding to deal with that sort of thing.

We heard in our Disaster and Emergency Management Committee from the RFS the other day about, you know, the stresses and the burden on maintaining a volunteer workforce around disaster management. So where we see, for example, you know, the cost involved in coordinating response and recovery efforts, our council does that, but we also are relying on people within our community to do that, and that is a cost as well that's coming to our community. So essentially what I understand this motion to be is to join a voice calling on the federal government to implement a mechanism that ensures that there's funding to deal with these consequences that we face when we haven't addressed climate change upfront.

This is really a cost of inaction. It's a cost of not having done enough previously, and that's not blaming the federal government or any government. It's joining the local government sector voice that is saying, can we do something about it? Because we cannot bear the costs of these sort of things going into the future. It's also impacting the insurances, of course, around because there isn't— there's not money going into enough preparation around mitigation in terms of securing people to be safer in these sort of disasters, and so on. We can see the amazing things that we are achieving within the council around this space, but there's also on page 277 that list of examples on council budgets is extensive, and it's real, and it's a cost our ratepayers carry.

So. I can understand people not wanting to feel they're in a position of actually dictating to the federal government what they must do. But what I think Councillor Wheeler's motion was directed at was having us join the voice, calling for a mechanism where there is some money set aside to deal with these very real impacts on councils and our budgets. We're in a domain where we have to ensure our financial sustainability going forward, and without having reliance on the other levels of government that are happy to cost shift, but aren't happy necessarily to have pools of funding sitting there for us to draw upon, then that is what this voice is all about. And I think that that's what it is.

It's a call to join other councils in fighting to get the money that we deserve to have the protection from the consequences of climate change. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I support a lot of this notice of motion, but there's parts of it that I think are too ambitious for us to grab hold of and be truly able to champion the things that have been mentioned. It's a good notice of motion. I think it's just not for this council or for a council. To try and illustrate and explain what I mean by that. Point five says calls for Hawkesbury Council to champion this motion and its broad adoption with our other networks. Well, that's fine. B , provide a workshop to councillors to discuss strategic planning work needed to identify gaps in current commitments and prioritise capital projects and operating initiatives that strengthen community climate resistance.

Now , I think that's where we should start because the notion of, well, the impacts of climate change are so insidious and broad-ranging and hard to partition out in terms of who's responsible for, one , trying to prevent damage and then, two , in how to repair that damage. I think we have to come to grips with something very, something ... Very focused that we can start to lobby on. If you lobby on all of this stuff, I think we get, we run the risk of being not ignored, because I don't think anybody in any government is going to ignore what we're seeing pan out in terms of what climate change is doing. But I think as a council, I would like to see us have that workshop. That's where I'd start.

Have that workshop. We decide on how best to communicate our needs from that, and we've done that to a certain extent already. I think we just have to frame it in terms of being specific and being asking for something that we can clearly identify. Now , I just for the record, I don't want there to be a flurry of people that are going to scream and say, Oh , that Kotlash, she's an environmental scientist, but she didn't vote for that. Well, I would champion all of these things. I'm just thinking how we do it in terms of our budgets and our ability to be able to get the best outcome. So I'm not going to support this motion, but I will definitely support us having a workshop and working towards this.

So that's my commitment. I will work towards that, and once we have that information, I will work. As hard as I possibly can to get that to be adopted by other levels of government that obviously have more money than we do, and for people and for every other council to recognise that this is what we're doing and why we're doing it. So, but I do commend Councillor Wheeler for this motion, and it's, as I said, it's a cracker, and I actually am hoping that people do realise that climate change is of concern . It's a huge concern. It's possibly one of our biggest, and I recognise that we have to work out ways of protecting ourselves from it.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Just clarifying, were you, just taking from what you said, were you suggesting a procedural motion to vote for in seriatim around the various points within this? Yeah, I was

Actually going to wait to see what everybody

Else thought,

But that is something— Okay. We don't foreshadow anymore, but yes, thank you. Okay. I think that would be good because that will move us forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor

Reardon.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to an email which came through yesterday from Local Government New South Wales, disaster funding retained in major win for councils and communities. And keeping the Commonwealth contribution at 75% gives councils greater certainty. To repair essential public assets in disasters. So I thought that was a win.

Well, that's good. They'll continue that, and as they should, may I say. Thank you for that, Councillor Reardon. Any further discussion? We'll go to right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. Thank you . Thanks.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Could I move that procedural motion that we vote in seriatim?

You may. Thank you. All those in favour? In favour are Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, against Councillor McMahon, Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Creed. The motion is carried. We will vote in seriatim after we have Councillor Wheeler's right of reply. Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Well, that was a fairly disappointing discussion, I have to say. I'm not sure how many more natural disasters you need to see in six years, and how battered you need a council budget and their community to be before you believe that it's time to stand up and fight for this. But I think it will be very, very disappointing if this council, one of the most consistently disaster impacted in the last six years, votes down this motion. I'm not sure that you've all read it and understood it. I think actually taking this in seriatum just might expose who is letting their ideology get in the way of their willingness to agree with what's written on the page. And if you think that you can't vote for this because it's a Greens motion, let me assure you that where it has been passed in other councils, it did not come from the Greens.

This isn't above our pay grade. This is a relevant and direct concern, as any of you sitting in this LGA would know over the last decade. Our pay grade has involved us dealing with natural disasters for every year since 2019. In fact, if you count the drought and many people who lived through it do, every year that I've been elected since 2016. It costs this council absolutely nothing to defend our community, to go to another level of government and say that we need a better distribution of funding, that existing constraints on local government revenue raising mean that we cannot meet the costs of rising natural disasters without compromising other essential services, that passing on climate-related costs to ratepayers is not directly possible, and that if we did that, it would be neither fair nor sustainable.

To acknowledge that the inadequacy of the National Adaptation Plan and the lack of additional funding for local government to deliver mandated adaptation responses. These aren't my ideas. You can see the backing of the staff in this. Are you seriously contemplating voting against the expert advice of our staff, who have said in the management note here that climate change is costing this council and this community, and that you think that that's all fine and dandy because you don't believe in some— because you've failed to understand the science. This isn't religion. You don't get to choose what you believe when it comes to science. Fossil fuel producers and miners don't pay to the extent that Council of [unclear] has outlined.

They are very heavily subsidised by our government to the tune of $16.3 billion in the last financial year, $31,000 per minute. And that subsidy is growing faster than the NDIS, if we're going to make comparisons. Can you really look at this motion and say that the things in points one and two are not true for our community? That asking the government to do more in point four is not a good thing? Do you really want to go on the record saying that you voted against asking for a better national adaptation plan, against voting for dedicated, equitable and ongoing funding for councils? Is that really the legacy that you think is fine to pass on to this disaster-affected community, for Hawkesbury City Council to go on record saying that it's fine?

For polluters to profit, for mining companies to send their profits offshore, and our community to take repeated natural disasters without incurring any cost. There is one point in this motion that calls you to back something around a climate compensation fund, and that is point three. By all means, vote against that. But if you think that state and federal governments should do more to compensate councils that are affected and communities like ours that are affected, that have years of cumulative impacts, both financial and mental, and to their own financial assets, then you need to vote for the rest of this motion.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'm just checking something regarding the vote, the voting.

Thank you, Councillors. We'll vote

In seriatim. I was just checking whether we would do the A, B, C within each, or whether we'll just go. But where to go with the one to six. So I shall put point one of the recommendation. All those in favour of point one, which is noting the concerns around costing, etcetera, all those in favour? In favour, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Djuric and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor McMahon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed. Is that six or five? No, seven-five. Seven-five. That part's carried. In part two, all those in favour of part two, which is the acknowledgement of those various things, all those in favour?

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Djuric and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Those against? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Creed. That part is passed. Point three around the Local Government Conference, those in favour? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno , Councillor Djuric and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Those against? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon and Councillor Creed. This is something I've never confronted before, that six all on an inceriatum.

I will use my casting vote to pass that point. Point four, all those in favour? Point four. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Djuric and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed. Point four is lost. Point five, calling for the workshop and to champion this motion. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor McMahon, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed.

Point five is passed. And point six, regarding writing to the various politicians. All those in favour?

Point of order, Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Point six is negated by the failure of point four. Oh

I'm sorry, Councillor Zamprogno. I was just going systematically. Okay, thank you. Well, point six is lost on that basis. Thank you, everyone, for that. We'll now move on to our next item, which is 10.1.1, planning proposal for Belmont Park. Someone to move the motion. Moved, Councillor Creed. Seconded, Councillor Veigel. Councillor Creed, do you wish to address— sorry, Andrew, you're just getting up here. Wish to address that, Councillor Creed?

Happy to reserve the right of reply.

Okay, thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor Veigel. Thank

You, Madam Mayor. Just briefly, thank you to the staff. The recommendations are thorough. I couldn't possibly understand how that could have 180 square metre block sizes. It's in Alloura, revisited at Marsden Park, and we've all gone through that. If you haven't, I urge you to. No nature strip, no parking, no trees, very little amenity, dare I say, although — Mullumbah further, tobacco is a lot better, dare I say, but if all they've got to do is look across the road to see how development should be done, and I've been on the record to say that's probably one of the best developments anywhere in New South Wales. So thank you, and I'll be supporting.

The motion on the paper, thanks. Up

Creek and Ferny. Thank you . Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, question, Madam Mayor. Where does an application like this go from here?

In terms of review, if it's rejected?

Yeah, if the applicant's gone to great effort for this, and so what's the likely outcome or direction that would come out? Okay, I'll

Refer

That to our Director of City Planning. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. As noted in the report, whilst the applicant has gone directly to the Department of Planning, we are seeking a resolution from Council tonight. The Department of Planning will take into consideration the report before Council, the advice of the Local Planning Panel, and the resolution of Council in their consideration of the application before them.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Ryan.

Yeah, look, I agree with Councillor Veigel that these 180 square metre blocks is just not acceptable. We're building new bridges and that there. We will have them completely full before we even start. I think we have to really pull up now and say, where do we go? What do we do? We're putting things there that will be flood affected, that will be bushfire affected, and that's my opinion. And if somewhere then they become uninsurable, and when something becomes uninsurable, it becomes un-mortgageable. You can't get a mortgage. Therefore, we will devalue these people, though people will not have an asset. And I think we have to be very cautious and very aware of that. So I will not be voting for this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ryan. Any further? Councillor Sempronia. I

Remember when this came to the chamber in June of 2024. But that's to say that it didn't come to the chamber in June 2024. It was on the business paper. Like tonight, we were handed a business paper that was inches thick. We diligently worked our way through that, only to discover that the applicant had withdrawn it at the eleventh hour and that it wasn't going to be considered at all. So now, more than two years later, it's back before us. Can I just say, considering that this is highly likely to be appealed, litigated or whatever, it was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now. This is not the scale or tone of development that the Hawkesbury community needs or wants. The blocks are too small.

It ruins the amenity of an area that has a historic character. And I can only marvel that an applicant can be so minded as that they sink what is clearly a significant amount of money into planning consultants and reports, thinking that they're going to get this up, clearly, as we've seen, almost pre-emptively assuming that they're not going to get the result that they want, and then asking the state government for a review when the time for that review hasn't even entered yet. So, you know, to the extent that Other bodies review the recommendations that were put to us by staff. I'd like it to be on the public record that I hope that this is a unanimously supported recommendation, but even if it isn't, that this is not the kind of development that the Hawkesbury is looking for.

Thank you, Councillor Zambrano. I'm just going to address a couple of points about it that lead out of that, which is that I think this is an example of where we see the application of the strategic plans from the State Government through the recently introduced Sydney Plan, and the inconsistency with things such as the urban growth criteria, and also with our local strategic plans, our local housing strategy and rural lands category. And this is exactly how strategic planning is to work. We have documents, and what we do is we have adherence to those documents so that we don't get development where it's unsustainable and where it's unworkable and where we already have a deficit of infrastructure and services in those locations. So I think it's been very comprehensively explained, and I will be supporting the recommendation to reject this planning proposal. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm pleased to see the recommendation that this isn't supported. And further to your comments regarding the strategic plans, I think the thing that we need to keep in mind is that these plans are only as effective as our adherence to them. And I think it's important for us to send a clear signal that development in the Hawkesbury has to be appropriate and fit for place. We've seen the impacts of development that is not on traffic, on biodiversity, on heat, on— Resource allocation. I note particularly that biodiversity has come up in this, biodiversity and bushfire as reasons to refuse to send this to Gateway. Flood, fire, biodiversity, agriculture and open space, they are all the things that set us apart from just being part of the Sydney sprawl.

And if we don't continue to acknowledge them and use them to clearly push for place-based planning within the LGA, we will just be sucked into the broader sprawl of Sydney, that our residents tell us doesn't fit the reasons that they live here. I think there's been a bit of media around this, including some scare campaigns, I think, where we've had it attributed to a previous owner as part of, frankly, a choice bit of race baiting, which really should be beneath any media organisation. I think it's clear that this, despite the very small block sizes, is unlikely to be for any sort of affordable housing, particularly given the location of it and the lengthy commute that anybody who lives out here and needs to travel outside the LGA to work experiences and the financial and time impacts of that.

But at the end of the day, this isn't consistent with the strategic direction set by this council or the state government, and I'm pleased that both the planning panel and the staff agree that that should be the end of this, at least for the time being. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler

Any further discussion? Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just very quickly, I agree with the staff's recommendation and will be supporting it as such. The staff have recommended not to proceed, as have the planning panel, and I think that that needs to be taken into account. Based on the discussion around the chamber so far about strategic merit, I just wanted to put on the record the planning panel's own words, which were that the proponent has not demonstrated to the panel's satisfaction that the planning proposal should proceed at this stage, given the new current strategic planning framework that applies to the Hawkesbury LGA. And I think— It's important to send a message that I don't think any of us in this chamber don't support proper development that ticks the boxes.

We can't have a stagnant LGA, and I've made that clear over the last decade in this chamber. There needs to be things done to create that growth, to create that interest in our area, to bring in new housing stock, to give opportunity and choice for families. But it also has to be the right proposal, and this one does not tick those boxes for me, and clearly it doesn't tick those boxes for the planning panel or the staff who are qualified and have credentials in that manner. I just wanted to make that clear, that I will not be supporting it tonight. I'll

Be supporting

The recommendation, not the planning proposal

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor

McMahon . Councillor Potts

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a few points. I am supporting the recommendation in the business paper. I think that, I'll say it as my other fellow councillors have, this is a good report. It's very comprehensive. What I think is happening, though, is that people are generally speaking more attracted to smaller properties because they're less maintenance and they have a, you know, they just want a house, basically. So to say that people don't want this sort of housing, I think is incorrect. They do want this sort of housing. It's just this one is in the wrong place. And it's like somebody has thought, Oh, this will be wonderful, and in any other, well, in a more appropriate landscape, it would be, and it would be wonderful, and people would be really happy, and communities would thrive.

But it's next to the river, and it's just the wrong place. It has a creek running through it. This is not a good setting for this sort of development. I think we have to, I think , and I think the state government has come to grips with the fact that we now have to infill development more and not have this sprawl, because of all of the things that have been said about the natural environment and capacity of people to evacuate from clusters of development like this. I mean, this is some... I hope we don't get any more of these sorts of developments that seems somebody thinks it's a great idea and they're just sort of, that's the land we're going to put it on. I think it's a factor of the land is probably cheaper than doing infill development in closer to the metropolitan area.

We have to resist this as much as we can. Like Councillor McMahon said, the local planning panel was not impressed either. So I think it's a pretty, I hope it's a pretty unanimous decision to reject this sort of thing. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is my very first one this year. I know that the place for over 30, 35 years when late Ted and Margaret McCabe, I don't know if you knew them, they were very kind with me. I have done lots of business with them. My question is that what prompted this family, Kavanagh family, to buy that place, with what kind of intention they had, knowing that I really feel sorry if they have anyone in here from that family or their representatives. Were they expecting us? Apparently, you know, this has been brought before the council previously. Do they know something that we don't, so, you know, they could bypass us and go to state government directly? Is it possible that if we could invite them, you know, to tell us, you know, what's happening, what they had in mind, that they couldn't get our okay and, like I said, bypassing and going directly to the state government?

Is there something that they know and we don't?

Thank you, Councillor Dogramaci. I'll ask the Director of City Planning. Of course, we can't speak on behalf of other people's intentions, but I'll pass over to Director .

Thank you, through you, Madam Mayor. Yes, we can't speak on behalf of the landowners. What I can say is that the state government has had in place an alternative pathway that bypasses council that has been in place for about 18 months to two years now, and it is being taken up by many applicants all across metropolitan Sydney. So it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something out there that we're not aware of. It is a pathway that is available to landowners at present.

Thank you. Thank you. Do you finish, Councillor Dogramaci?

Yes. I just feel sorry for the family.

Yes. I guess that comes with speculative development. Thank you. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just briefly, I think the councillors that have spoken have pretty much said that all needs to be said. I've always said that we do need better and more housing stock in the Hawkesbury for young families, young people trying to get into the market. But in this case, to me, this is in Marsden Park, and I've always said that that sort of development, it just doesn't work here, especially west of the river. We have barely any sort of emergency services over there. Public transport is severely lacking. It just is not going to work there. It's not a suitable location for it. And to be honest, when we've seen these sorts of developments pop up in other council areas where, you know, some of these houses are almost on top of each other that you can't even get a lawnmower down the side of the house, and they've got to take it through the actual inside.

Like, to me, that's not, you know, I don't know, maybe there's a market for it, I'm sure there is, but I just don't think this is an appropriate development for the Hawkesbury, especially west of the river.

Thank you, Councillor Creed. I'll put the motion as the recommendation in the business paper. All those in favour? That's a unanimous decision. Thank you, councillors. I've just been a bit of a naughty mayor and forgotten to move— The items on block, which I will do now.

I'll take out item 10.3.2, which has declarations of interest. Aside from that, the list is on your page, and that's 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4, 10.4.5. Goodness, 10.4.6, 10.4.5.1 and 10.5.2. All those in favour?

Unanimous decision. Thank you. We'll move on to item 10.1.2, which is the voluntary planning agreement for Kemsley Park.

I'll move it.

Moved, Councillor Creed, seconded Councillor Veigel. Councillor Creed, would you like to speak?

Just briefly. You know, Redbank has always been a controversial development. We've spoken about this at length over many years, back when some of us were first on Council in 2012. We've spoken about it when we sent this out to public exhibition, all that sort of stuff. I don't think there's much more to be said, except I've always said with VPAs, which are voluntary planning agreements, I have a strong feeling that you should always try and support a VPA over a developer contribution, because I feel that the community does tend to get a lot more out of a VPA than the, I think it's, I mean the general manager, well the director of city planning can correct me, is it about 1%, the developer contribution? What's the— It's not a—

I'll refer

To staff for that answer, Director. Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor, yeah, for 7.12 it is about 1%. That's

Correct. So I feel that, yeah. I would say most of the time, the community is getting more sort of bang for its buck out of a VPA than a 1% developer contribution. And usually developers are trying to make sure that they're not overspending, so they tend to do these projects a lot cheaper than, unfortunately, levels of government can do it. So I would recommend the recommendation in the paper, and I do hope that the councillors will support the VPA.

Thank you, Councillor Creed. Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks , Madam Mayor. Look, I won't be supporting the VPA or the DCP. I'm concerned that the VPA is dependent on the VPA for the rest of Redbank, the tripartite agreement for the rest of Redbank. I don't think that that's a particularly good position for Council to place itself in, that a VPA that still hasn't been fully carried out should then function as a jumping-off point, I guess, for the next one. That doesn't seem to be a wise position for Council to enter into, to me. I'm concerned that the issues that I raised in the DCP still haven't been addressed. There's still a lot of non-native trees proposed that don't provide any habitat, for example, Manchurian pears. There are trees that are proposed that are very unlikely to survive climate change, for example, English oaks, and that don't actually meet Redbank's own— Proposals under Principle 6.11 of their own policies.

I'm concerned about the ongoing costs of site management with Kemsley Park and the rest of Redbank. The water management, for example, while it keeps water in the landscape better than most, will still incur significant costs to Council for long-term maintenance and management once the management of the property is handed to Council, and that's a concern that we are all well aware of regarding the rest of the Redbank development. I'm concerned around the dual occupancy provisions that are prohibited in R2 zonings across the rest of the LGA, and I remind councillors that these are dual occupancy; they're not just granny flats that everybody else is entitled to under the SEPP. They are, in fact, a whole other dwelling on corner blocks.

And there's still no prohibition in the DCP on dark roof colours, which I would hope we are well beyond in 2026. It would appear not, so I can't support this.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in relation to some of the comments that Councillor just made, the ongoing cost was something that I was concerned about as well, and I took it up with the staff, and we went through all that. And it's going to be about $500,000 a year, probably declining as the works stabilise for some time. We do need to be mindful in relation to those sort of expenditures. But considering the, I guess, the flow-on from what's existing there, I don't see that as a major problem. I support the recommendation, Madam Mayor. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Pycock.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Maybe can I just start off with a question to the staff, if I may, through you. Is there a levy against the maintenance against this estate?

Director of City Planning. Through you, Madam Mayor, within the draft VPA, there is a proposed sum that would go towards the maintenance of the open space landscaping areas for the first five years while they're in their establishment phase.

Sure, and is that payable by those who buy the land and who pay the rates against council rates against that? Is that where it's levied?

No, sorry, that would come from the developer. It's part of

The contribution by the

Developer as captured as part of the planning agreement.

Okay, no, thank you. Yeah, well, I'll be supporting the recommendation in the paper. Look, I note the concerns with roof colours and such, and I guess that's a fair comment. But I would suggest, I would say that under the ratings , what is it, I can never get this right, is it the BASIX, am I pronouncing that correctly? It's a level six, right? All I can say is when I built 30-odd years ago, Thank you, Lord, for approving out of this area because it has been a godsend. Right, I built a house with mass in the walls because I wanted a double brick house so you can get some thermal regulation. But those days the insulation was probably R3 in the roof and R2 in the walls if you built brick veneer.

It is so much higher now, right, when it comes to thermal efficiency for any of these houses. And the other thing is, I haven't got a dark level roof, by the way. It is light. But I do have 30% of the roof covered black because of solar panels. So I think there's a lot of solar panels up in the Redbank thing, and I think it may be—they offer a very good price if not it's compulsory. So that's just my point on anyway, I'll leave it at that. So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Feigl. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, a question to staff. In July of this year, when the chamber voted to place this VPA on exhibition, the vote was passed by a very narrow margin of 6-5. If we were to assume that the complexion of this chamber has changed in several ways since that time, if there was a majority prepared to reject the adoption of this VPA and DCP, where does that place the entire development? Does it halt it as effectively as any other vote we could take, or does it place it in a kind of limbo?

Director of City Planning. Through you, Madam Mayor, it doesn't halt the development per se. What it does do is it has fairly significant financial implications for Council in that the planning agreement wouldn't proceed at this time. So it would then fall back on developer contributions to provide for the infrastructure. And in addition to that, without having a DCP in place, it would mean that there aren't detailed planning controls to assess developments against as each DA or application for individual housing comes into Council.

Thank you. If I can unpack that a little further, because I think this is very relevant. I opposed this then and I oppose it now, but I don't want to leave Council in a position where effectively work will continue, but matters are worse for the lack of a governing document that places some structure around it. If voting against this tonight halts the development, I will vote against it. If voting against this tonight allows work to continue and then has some other negative consequence, then I have to give pause. So could you just be even clearer about where this leaves us?

Through you, Madam Mayor. Yes, voting against this tonight would not halt development, and voting against this tonight would have significant financial implications for Council.

I'm glad I asked. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Question, Councillor?

Yeah, just a question, and if it's not a question, just correct me. If it didn't get up this morning, would you—

Tonight.

Tonight. Yeah, this morning, tonight, yeah, sorry, I'm a bit— Would Council not run the risk that it would go to 1% development contribution? And can I just proviso that? That happened at Vineyard, did it not? And Council had to go and find funds to develop that site at 1%. And is that not in the negative? And we had to finance 20-odd million dollars of it. We're paying interest on that at the moment

Director of City Planning. Through you, Madam Mayor, the vineyard example is slightly different, and with the vineyard example, we had to get a 7.11 contributions plan approved by Council, and in place, and development didn't occur until that happened. This is different, and if Council decided not to adopt the planning agreement and the draft DCP, tonight development would be able to proceed, and , yeah, there would be financial implications for Council.

Thank you. I'll just speak to this, and of course none of us wants to impose more costs on Council, but given that I did not support the expansion of this development, I'm going to put on the public record the reasons why I don't support this voluntary planning agreement, and Councillor Wheeler has touched on some of those. That I do find it quite problematic to have a VPA that hinges on the outcomes of the previous VPA, which, number one, isn't the same parties involved. It's a tripartite VPA , which involves Transport for New South Wales as well as the developer and Council. Therefore, we're depending on an agreement with different people at a different time frame to implement this VPA, particularly that 175 lots can be created prior to the opening of the Grose River Bridge.

That's quite a significant increase of traffic on our roads in that area before that bridge is complete. Of course, we all hope the bridge will be complete, that it's on schedule, etc., but I'm raising the concerns that people have raised with me along those lines, more stress on our local roads and the funding of these roads into the future, which will fall to our ratepayers. There's not been any contributions towards the upgrade of the wider local road network, and we all know that that's one of our biggest issues and one of our biggest challenges to financial sustainability in this council is the upkeep of our road network. We definitely need more housing, but not at the expense of increasing the burden on our existing population.

All too often we see promises in VPAs that vanish, and we see the impacts that our community carry. We've still got people living west of the river who rely on sullage collection because there's been an exhaustion of the allocated reticulated sewer connections in that side of the river. We see people buying water because they don't have access to a reticulated water supply. So many of these people feel very burdened when they see other sites of development going ahead, and I fully understand the impacts that has on people that live in those areas. And that was the reason why I had always had the mantra that we need the infrastructure in place before we have that increase in development. This isn't an attack on the existing development of Redbank.

That's a whole separate issue. This is about going down a path of adding more housing in a spot that we were guaranteed, when the original place was passed, that that would not happen. Within the DCP, the 2024 housing reforms, of course, by the New South Wales State Government specifically excluded the— Hawkesbury, along with Wollondilly and Blue Mountains, from having dual occupancy in R2 because of flood, bushfire and evacuation risks. And yet here we've got a DCP which has a site-specific exception to the normal LEP provisions, which is allowing R2 members in that development to have dual occupancy. The proponent specifies, in fact, within their application, that the special use provision of changing dual occupancy permissibility avoids changing it across all of the R2 zones.

And to me, that simply smacks of unfairness. Regardless of what development it is, when I see that one portion of our community is not able to do something and someone else, for whatever reasons, gets a special use for it, which of course you can apply for and see, but I oppose that because I know how much debate there has been around this, and I know the reasons that the state government disallowed it in those zones were valid. They were because of risks around getting people out, and intensifying the population within areas where it's been deemed unsuitable on those bases is not necessarily a good thing to do. I'm not criticising the fact that this has proceeded because I understand that that is the process, that a majority of people in this council voted to expand that development, and I respect that that is the decision of this council.

But I feel very strongly about it, and most of the controls, of course, in there are okay. I had raised about the dual occupancy previously, and I had raised about the VPA, but I simply want to record my concerns around this going forward. I have seen VPAs fail, and I have not liked what I've seen. Thank you, Mayor. I suppose I'll go on. Any further speakers? Right of reply, Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Can I just, if you don't mind, can I just get clarification? I thought I'd read it, I've read it somewhere, just through you, Madam Mayor, the, I think to whoever , understand that Grosvenor Road, is that meant to be getting upgraded as well as part of it? Because I was just trying to remember where I saw it.

But

Is that correct? Grosvenor Road's getting... I'm just trying to find where I saw it.

It's in the VPA.

Yeah, okay. All right. Yes, okay. No, that's a thumbs up. Yep, excellent. Thank you for that. Thank you for the contribution. I think staff have answered it quite clearly, that if this wasn't to go through tonight, that it would have a financial cost to Council and ratepayers, the extent of, you know, I guess we're unsure of. But this is what I was saying originally, that when we have a VPA, I think it's important that we, A, try and get as much as we can, but also to remember that the V stands for voluntary. Developers don't have to go down this path. They can just do their 1% and, as I said, I've always thought that most of the time the community does lose out if we don't try and go for a VPA and get amenities and structures or whatever it is that the community need.

I just... I think there was a mention about the Grose River bridge as well. My understanding from what I think I spoke to the previous acting general manager, I think one of the times this came up, that asked to see if we had a sort of an update on the timeline, if it was going to time and it was, you know, progressing the way it should be on time. I think from memory he said yes, as far as he was aware that it was. I haven't heard any different from staff at the moment. But I do think we need to put this through because I am worried about if we don't do it, the cost to council and ratepayers, yeah, it's just, I guess, how long is a piece of string. So I do hope councillors will support this and we can get on with it.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Creed. I'll put the motion that was in the business paper. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Djuric. Those against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is carried.

We'll move on to the next item, which is 10.2.1, the motions for the Local Government Annual Conference. Someone to move something there? Moved, Councillor Sheather, seconded Councillor Veigel. Do you wish to speak, Councillor Sheather? No. Anyone wish to speak on these?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I've put forward some words for the— For motion C, calling on the state government to remove the prohibition of the exhibition of planning proposals prior to gateway, I sent those words around to councillors and to the staff this afternoon. I don't know if it's possible to put those on the screen.

Just doing that, Councillor Wheeler, thanks.

So if the mover is willing to accept it, this motion can come in as point C, or it could be added as an appendix to the motion. I note that we don't have words for the other two motions, which is potentially problematic. So, so motion C is just restating Council's belief that planning and consultation should be of communities of New South Wales. And I think that should be a bit of a no-brainer for local government, New South Wales. We're not here to serve—we're here to serve our communities, not to serve the needs of developers. And that community participation is central to good planning. That LG New South Wales believes that the statewide Community Participation Plan ban on the exhibition of planning proposals prior to gateway determination doesn't meet community expectations or satisfy the EP&A Act principles under Section 2.23 regarding the rights of the community to be informed about decisions that affect them, and advocates to the New South Wales Government that councils be allowed to determine their own participation plans, provided they meet the minimum standards of the statewide Community Participation Plan.

I think it's unreasonable for state governments who don't have to front their communities on the same four-yearly cycle as us to determine how a legitimate level of government functions within this planning space. If we meet the minimum requirements of the state government Community Participation Plan, we should be able to exhibit whenever we like. And it's very clear, and we've seen—imagine the Belmont Park plan if we were not able to let the community know that that was before them, that they—it may be popped up with a picture of someone in a headscarf on the Daily Telegraph, and that was because someone had leaked the scoping proposal. You know, is that the sort of community consultation we are expected to be relying on in 2026 in New South Wales?

There's lots wrong with the Community Participation Plan, but this is the one I think. That impacts our community the greatest. Communities should be the ones who determine how their community looks and functions, and councils should be the ones who are able to help our communities view likely planning proposals in front of them. I think the state government is really out of step with this. I think they're failing to meet community concerns, and the problem for us is that because these are local planning decisions, the community believes that we have made them, that we have withheld the exhibition from them, and that it's our fault, not the state government's fault. And that should be unacceptable to every elected councillor across New South Wales.

So I'd like to put this to LG New South Wales and hopefully get support from the conference. Just following on from the other motions, I note that Councillor Zampronia has put up a motion calling for bringing certain property types into the rateable category, and I'd like to hear more about what that motion is actually going to look like and how it differs from existing LG New South Wales policy, which is for, I think, for fairness across different rating categories and an absence of cost shifting to local councils. I note that some years back for local government New South Wales, I had the former CFO prepare some information regarding the land value of unrateable land within the LGA and the rates foregone.

By the LGA, the unrateable land, about 80% of the Hawkesbury LGA is unrateable because it either belongs to a charity or an education body or another level of government, health, national park, religious organisations, state utilities. And I noticed, having handed the South Windsor sewage treatment plant, we're probably up to that value a bit more. The figures that I've got from 2023 are $2,241.5 million of land value that we can't charge rates on in this LGA. In 2023, we lost, or we did without, $4.2 million in foregone rates. So I'm keen to hear from Councillor Zamprogno which of these land types he would like to move into the rateable category. I know there legislation forbids national parks under the National Parks Act, but I would really be quite happy for the really , and that's, look, that's roughly $700,000 worth of— sorry, no, I'll try that again — $776 million worth of land.

I'd like to see, I'd be quite happy with all the rest of them moving into the rateable category and that $4 million flowing our way. That's more than each year of the SRV. And could we get some clarification on the federal assistance grants formula as well? I don't think we've got words for that either. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Whelan. Just before I go to the Deputy Mayor, I might just clarify with the staff , because we won't have another, I don't think we'll have another meeting—well, these have to be submitted anyway. So we need to approve the wording tonight. Is that correct?

Through you, Madam Mayor, the intention was that if Council was to adopt the recommendation, then we would develop those motions with the councillors involved and provide the background as part of those motions with those councillors involved.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. Okay, I'll go to Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would be delighted to just bring other councillors up to speed with the premise behind my proposed motion. It came to my attention earlier this year that Berrunda Council had called for a report where they tried to estimate the foregone revenue by having certain categories of land exempt from rating. And when I asked our staff to clarify that in our context, I was told that land that is currently exempt from rating, and yet where we provide some degree of service of one form or another, includes Crown land, national parks, water corporation land, churches, private schools, land vested in Aboriginal councils, rail infrastructure, charities, hospitals, universities, and so on.

And if we're providing a service, we should be able to levy rates. Some of these utilities are provided by the state government and enjoy a free ride and have for years at the expense of local governments that they don't deserve. Others, like private schools, post handsome surpluses in their own published annual reports. Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation had a surplus of about $45 million in their last posted annual report. So they've got money . And when I did some digging, I realised that what I'm proposing tonight is consonant with a position that this— Council has already adopted. There is a standing approval for us to advocate for a reform or more fairness in what properties qualify for rating exemptions that we passed in May 2016, when at that time there was a review of IPART asking councils what they thought about what kinds of categories of land were exempt from rating, and we weighed in at that time and we've dropped the ball.

So my motion, my proposed motion, simply picks that ball up again and says this is an established position of Council. It's a reasonable thing to ask for some reform of that. I will qualify what Councillor Wheeler said in one regard, though. This foregone revenue doesn't, if we magically had these categories of land now eligible for rating, wouldn't put a single extra cent in our pocket. It would allow us to redistribute the pie. The quantum of rates that the Council takes would, of course, stay the same. Of course, that's legislated. But it would mean that more sectors of our community would be paying their fair share and pulling their weight so that we could give rating relief to other people who deserve it, such as residential ratepayers.

And I don't think that there would be anybody around this table who wouldn't be in favour of that. So I've provided a lot of information to staff already about the form of words that this could take, and I look forward to the endorsement of colleagues for this as one of the motions that we will advance, and I'm sure we'll be able to come up with an appropriate form of words. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The question was sort of answered previously by the Director of Corporate Services. I'm just a bit concerned that we're voting on sort of a sentence. So when you say you're going to work with the councillors to put them up to provide the wording that's going to get sent to LGNSW, we're getting asked to vote on essentially something that we're not quite sure what we're voting on. Like, I get that there's a generic sort of sentence about what the motion's about, but I'm just concerned that we're getting asked to vote on something that we actually don't have the full information on what we're voting to support. I mean, the general ones that are in there, I don't have an issue with them, happy to support all three.

I'm just—we're the ones that are voting on wording that we don't actually know what's in front of us. That's—I'm just a bit concerned about procedurally the way we're doing this, because there could be something that someone puts in the motion that goes to LGNSW that actually I didn't fully agree with because I didn't see the words. That's all. I'm just—sorry,

Sorry to be a... Comment from the General Manager, thank you. Yes

Through you, Madam Mayor. What is presented to you is on the basis of what we had received from councillors when staff put out the call for motions. So it's not necessarily possible for us to then put words to those without additional information from councillors at that time.

Thank you. Any—Councillor Creed?

Sorry.

No, no.

Sorry. Okay. I've just, I've got— look, at this stage I'll support the three points on there, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for providing those extra words, and I thank Councillor Zamprogno for explaining his one. I just— I'm very, I'm a bit uneasy doing this without actual wording. I guess at the end of the day it goes to LG New South Wales, and they have a couple of the directors that are actually on the subcommittee that will then turn around and go through all the motions, and if there's a bunch that are essentially the same, they try and put them all together And I guess we can always turn around and call for amendments on the floor of motions at the conference, but— Would you

Be happy if they were circulated once

They're formulated? If that's okay. I just, as I said, I'm just a bit concerned that we're voting on something that, and calling on wording that we actually haven't seen, that's all. If we can look at doing it differently potentially next year, if possible

We can circulate them, so if there's

Any

Major objections that can be worked through with the councillors involved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank

You

Any further discussion? Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor

I don't support the motion C. I think I've voiced my concerns with this before. Unfortunately, I used an example that was a DA, not a planning proposal, but my point is still the same. It's just I haven't been convinced that it's not a good idea to get a planning proposal. RDA, for that matter, a little bit more worked and nuanced before you actually present it to people. Because in the 10 years I've been in this chamber, I have seen lots and lots of people in our community latch onto something that they've heard from whatever sources, I mean, you know, from wherever, and it tends to confuse their judgment about what is actually being proposed. I don't disagree with having rigorous community consultation, but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to have it too early in a stage of a project.

I use the example of the McDonald's and the KFC and childcare, but it was the same principle. People were saying that it was going to be a bloomin' cemetery, and then we had some other wacky idea. And it was just people just, I don't know why they do that. I guess it's the way we communicate, possibly social media is to blame, that things get sort of like Chinese whispers. Somebody says something and then it turns into, you know, quite a farcical kind of notion. So I know that's sort of, in one way, a trivial example, but there's another one. I'll remember another one. When we were doing the livability project in the early days, we had a very early report that gave us examples of where furniture was going to be placed.

Unfortunately , the consultant used yellow images of these boxy kind of bits of furniture. Somebody years later stood in this council and addressed us and said that they objected to that yellow furniture. Now, I know that's another possibly trivial example, but I think that it's a waste of time not to be really concise with our community. And that's no disrespect to them at all. I don't mean any disrespect. I'm happy and willing to hear people's sort of perspectives, but I want them to have an opinion on something that has had a little bit more work done on it to get it to be a little bit more permissible. That doesn't mean that it is terrific if it goes to Gateway. That's not how that system works.

So I'm not really comfortable with supporting C . So I guess I will move a motion that we do this in Siriatum as well. Gosh, because I think point A is good, and I think that we can work with that and figure out how we do that. The concept I agree with. The second one, the concept, well, I don't like it, but I agree with it. But the third one, I just don't think— I'm not convinced that that is actually such a bad

Thing. So, Councillor Kotlash, just to clarify, you wanted to move a procedural motion that this would be heard in seriatim with the broken up bits being points C between points 1, 2, 3 of point C. Is that what you meant, or point C altogether?

We only have A, B and C.

Yes, but I thought you were referring to within Councillor Wheeler's motion. Never mind, we'll do it just A, B or C. Thank you. All those in favour of that procedural motion, if you can raise your hand. Thank you. We're not doing the motion yet, just to see if the procedural will go in seriatim. All those in favour of that? Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Arn, all those against? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, and Councillor Djuric. Councillor Dogramaci, did you—

I'm not, because I don't know much about it, so I won't be fair to vote or not vote.

Well, we were just voting whether we would do them bit by bit. Okay, so you've abstained from voting. Thank you. That's a no. The procedural motion is lost. Are there any further speakers on the motion? Councillor McMahon, one moment, Councillor

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just to get some clarity on what I'm doing here, because I don't want to vote on a couple of things when I don't know the substance of what's going to be circulated later, because I might not like that. So I'm a bit uncomfortable. I'm happy with C. I'm not happy with A and B and not knowing what the formula is going to be. You want to review the allocation of the formula, but not say how. And the first one is too vague for me. I understand the explanation given by the Deputy Mayor, but you want to call on to bring certain property types. That sounds like it's been written by someone in U1. I just—I'm not voting on that because I don't know what it means, and I'm not taking that to local government New South Wales. I just, so I can't support any of it because even though I support C, I can't support A and B in the very primitive way they've been written. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McMahon. Councillor Sheather.

Just to clarify, Madam Mayor, I moved that. Councillor Wheeler spoke of adding that to it. Yes. I'm happy to do that, or did you move an amendment?

No ,

I think you

Yeah,

I am. Thank you, Councillor Sheather. Was your seconder, Councillor Veigel? Yeah. Happy to. Well

Second it if it helps the discussion or whatever, we move on.

Okay Yeah, Madam Mayor, just speaking to it, taking on board Councillor McMahon and Councillor Creed's comments, I too sat here concerned about it. There's a couple of things, though. Council staff's not going to put something in that's against the council policy or direction. It needs to be worded in a proper fashion. The staff have offered to promote that motion in relation to the people who proposed it in a proper manner, to be forwarded to a local government conference. While I take on board and feel similar, in future we need to get our act together a bit earlier, I think, in that regard. If we're going to put motions up, they need to come before council and be read and adopted in a proper fashion.

In saying that, we've run out of time , and the proposal to send out those motions, it can be done before the shutdown time. And if councillors have a different point of view, I'm sure they'll express that to you and you'll take appropriate action.

Most definitely, Councillor Sheather. I'll just check if there's a time frame to advise you of. General Manager?

Through you, Madam Mayor, insofar as the submission of the motions, I can't recall the date it's in the business paper, but I think it's by the 25th of October.

Oh yes ,

Sorry, it's not even the 25th. And further to that, Madam Mayor, LGNSW does provide for further evidence of Council support of a motion by way of a letter signed by both the Mayor and the General Manager, which could follow the circulation of, or of the wording of the motion. So one possible way might be to amend it to be the motion to, in principle, support these subject to the final wording being circulated or some such.

Happy with that, Councillor Sheather? Councillor Veigel, are you happy with that? Yes. Mover and seconder are happy. Councillor Kotlash, question? Yes, please, Madam Mayor

If it would make my colleagues feel more comfortable, could we have just a point to say that we will finalise it by flying minute or, you know, whatever they call it, we take it out of the chamber and— I think it is if you put it in the— if you say you're going to deliberate via that mechanism. I don't know. I think we

Just— That's

A

Question because, sorry, I don't know that. Okay, all right. Do you want to answer that, or Laurie?

I'll refer the question of a resolution by circulation to the Director of Corporate Services.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So just understanding what the question was. It was

Sorry, I haven't, I haven't heard of a flying minute and somebody said that they had used, a councillor, another councillor said they used. And I went, flying minute, like that's pretty out there. So I think the

Question is, do

We need to

Include in the resolution, do we need to include that it will be circulated and dealt with in that way? Through

You, Madam Mayor, I would think the words suggested by the General Manager, where Council is agreeing in principle to the approval of submission, subject to the finalisation of those motions being presented to Council for, or the councillors for approval

Yeah, I think that covers it pretty well. Councillor Wheeler. Could I potentially suggest a way forward that I will attempt to do via question, because that's all that's left to me, given that I've spoken. Would it work if we set some parameters around A and B? Would that make life easier for the staff? And if that is the case, would it help if we stipulated that it's the loss of funding to disaster-affected councils that seems to be the major problem with the financial assistance grants? General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, with respect to part B, Council has submitted a submission to the Local Government Grants Commission, so you could word it to be consistent with Council's submission on the assumption that that was circulated to Councils prior and didn't generate any discussion, that rather than trying to put all of this into a resolution.

Thank you. And then could I, through you, Madam Mayor, ask Councillor Zamprogno to provide some parameters for point A to satisfy those of us who are not sure what— Which specifics? Okay. Councillor Zamprogno

Could you please provide something to clarify certain property types?

Now or prospectively? All right then. Well, the advice that I received from staff when I was researching was that there was 800 properties at our LGA that enjoy some kind of exemption or not. Now, we could explicitly call for certain property types to be brought into the fold, such as hospitals, universities, rail land, Crown land. Then there are the ones that we could argue about, like private schools, churches or charities. But I think it would be safer, particularly considering that we're going to be dispatching a number of our colleagues to effectively defend and advocate for these motions to the conference, and I won't be among them, to leave that out of it and to just call for reform of exempt property types through a mechanism like IPART.

And I think that would be not only palatable to the chamber, but palatable to the conference, and provide a direction to LGNSW to perform their advocacy.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. And I expect it would, though. I'm sure Local Government New South Wales has policy positions on non-rated land. I've heard it debated numerous times, so it may well depend on that. But how are we going with getting it to a state where people are happy that there'll be a process where this is further worked with between the councillors who've submitted those motions to go to the conference and the staff, followed by circulation to all councillors with the opportunity to give feedback should you have any major objections. Is that making people happier ?

Given I was the first one to sort of, and Councillor Wheeler, I'm happy with this. I'm just, as I said, if we can do it a bit differently next year, because I don't remember us ever doing it this way. Okay

Take that on board. If there's going to be further discussion, we'll move into Committee of the Whole because we're losing our flow of how our meeting's going. But is there any further discussion now? Are we happy with what's before us? The mover and seconder are happy with those words. Thank you, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel. If there's no further discussion, we'll go to right of reply from Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. We get in a little bogged down with this technicalities of motion. There's 153 councils that's going to have motions in there. We're not going to be the only ones that's going to be in any one of these, and we'll probably get lumbered in as group voting. Very seldom is there motions go up that's outside of a motion that hasn't been put forward before. So it'll either go up to the conference as supporting a previous motion, or they can go up individually, very seldom do, or they will go up in a block that other councils have similar proposals that's what's to us. So, you know, the wording, I think, can probably be a bit—we can play with it too much. Madam Mayor, that's all I've got to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor McMahon, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zambrano, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Durick, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, those against? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Dogramaci has abstained. The motion is carried. Thank you , everyone. We'll move on to 10.3.1. We've got some declarations of interest in that, I believe. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks,

Madam Mayor. I have a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in item 10.3.1, in that I am the owner of property that is listed for heritage listing as part of the Hawkesbury LEP. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Councillor McMahon

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest with particular reference to LEP 0426, as an individual I was associated with is involved in that planning proposal, and I'll be leaving the room. Thank you. Thank

You, Councillor McMahon.

Councillor Wheeler, what's your interest? A special declaration. So you're staying in? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Yes

I'll second it for you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I ask council staff to give me some clarity around LEP 03/2543, Boodles Lane, Pitt Town? As this is a five-lot subdivision that did come before council, we did ask the developer to do some revised plans, and that. Could I ask the staff to provide us an update on the revised plans, please?

Through you, Madam Mayor. Yes , the planning proposal is currently with the applicant, who are still revising the planning proposal to address advice from the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel and the previous Council resolution. So the ball is still with the applicant.

Okay, copy that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. We had some questions come through from the community regarding the Kurrajong Heights Caravan Park proposal . Kurrajong Hills.

Hills.

Kurrajong Hills, I'm sorry, planning proposal that I'm just hunting for now. I'm sorry.

Sorry. Could I ask, just particularly for the sake of the community who are listening and are wondering how this process works, how does the SEARS function in this space? It's taken a long time to be issued, is my understanding, which is quite unusual. What happens after that's been issued, and what does that mean for the community, particularly those who have really strenuously objected to this?

Director of City Planning. Through you, Madam Mayor. So the SEARS, which is the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements, is a list of criteria, I guess, issued by the Secretary of the Department of Planning, and that criteria is what the EIS has to address. So it's like the heads of consideration for a DA, but for a state significant development application. For people who have previously objected to this proposal, what will happen is once the SEARS are issued, the applicant will go and prepare the environmental impact statement that will have to address those heads of consideration. And then once the environmental impact statement is ready, it will then be exhibited. So it's a process that Council is largely outside of. But members of the community will get the opportunity to comment on the EIS at the appropriate juncture down the track.

Thanks. And do those agencies that have already been consulted, so I think there's been some significant changes to this in terms of, I think the glamping area is the same size, the number of other cabins and things within that space, the number of sites within that space has been reduced, but the footprint remains the same, is my understanding, and the one road in and out remains the same. Do the agencies that have previously responded, do they respond again once the SEARS is out, or where does that fit in to this process?

So the agencies have already provided comment, as you've said. So they've provided input into the SEARS, so for the Department of Planning's consideration. Whether the department takes those comments on board or not, it is a matter for them. Once the environmental impact statement is on exhibition, agencies can obviously make further submissions, but that's on the actual content of the EIS as opposed to the issues that they believe should be ahead of consideration for the EIS.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion on that? Just to follow up, do the SEERS appear on the planning portal?

Yeah, that is correct. Well, they certainly appear on the Department of Planning's website, so they're publicly viewable once they've been issued.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that. Councillor Wheeler. Sorry, a further question. Does Council normally—would Council normally respond then once the— would Council normally put in a submission once the EIS has been issued?

Yes, we often do that, and we also often make comment on what we believe should be considered in the SEERS as well. And have we done that? Yes

We have. Thank you. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Sheather. Not necessary. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor everybody, and Councillor McMarn is out of the room. Unanimous. Councillor McMarn is absent. Thank you Our next item, we also have—we'll wait till Councillor McMarn comes back in because I think she has a conflict of interest, although we could start reading around that. Councillor Creed, you can lead off there. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm declaring that I have a significant non-pecuniary interest. The nature of the interest is I know someone that's mentioned on the list who would I call as friend, so I just want to make sure I'm not doing anything, so I'm going to leave the room.

Thank you, Councillor Creed. Councillor Ryan.

Yes, I am a—I am known someone who is on the list who's made a request for the financial grants. They've known to me. I have no knowledge of what the grant was until I received the information today. I believe this is a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, and I will remain in the chamber.

Thank you, Councillor Ryan. Councillor Wheeler, did you have one in this item? No. Councillor Sheather.

Sorry, Shane. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Applicant number 12 is a brother-in-law. The recommendations are made by a committee that I don't sit on, and no further action. I'll stay in the chamber.

Thank you. So that's a less than significant non-pecuniary. Thank you, Councillor.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in that I published a book through the assistance of one of the property owners seeking a grant, and I'll be leaving the room. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 10.3.2. I know an applicant in the list of recipients. The reason for no further action is that it does not meet the threshold of significance given the nature of the decision that is before the Council. And did Councillor McMahon have— Oh, you couldn't find it. Will I give her the ding dong thing? I think she did.

Yeah

There was quite a few. Calling Councillor McMahon to the foyer

Yeah

And if you leave— Which I am leaving. Oh

Okay. One, two, three. Yeah

Through there. Is that my turn

Yep.

Thank you, Councillor McMahon, your turn to read. Thank you

I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in 10.3.2 because I am friends with an applicant of the fund, so I'll be leaving the room. Thank you

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, I'll move that way, Madam Mayor.

Moved, Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Veigel. Is there any discussion? I'll

Just speak to it really, really briefly. This is an excellent program, and I want to particularly thank Council's outgoing senior heritage advisor, who we very sadly lost—not lost in that we can't find him, but he has gone somewhere else, probably because we overworked him. He has administered this fund for the last few years, and we've seen a massive growth in the use of this fund and in the capacity of this fund to deliver real and lasting improvement and conservation of heritage in the LGA. And I'm really very grateful for all his really hard work, and very sad that he is no longer with us. He will be extremely difficult to replace. Just a couple of things for the future. I think we need to review this policy for two reasons.

One, we have a number of repeat recipients. Given that we are now oversubscribed, I think we need to look at that. We also have a few recipients who are applying for commercial buildings. The fund currently allows that. In the past, we have had specific rounds for commercial facilities, but I think we need to be really clear about how we're spending that money. I'm not saying that either of those things are necessarily bad, but in a fund that's oversubscribed, which is where we, for the first time, we find ourselves, I think we have to be very clear about where we want that money to go. I also note that, unfortunately, the relevant minister refused our request , so that's Minister for Planning.

Refused our request to tour the heritage of the Hawkesbury and, while captive, to listen to our appeals for more money. I can't think why she would knock that fine offer back. Surely she didn't anticipate some ulterior motive. But I will note that $95,000 of this fund comes directly from this council, and only $5,000 comes from the state government, the same $5,000 that's given to every other LGA across the state with far less heritage than we have from all periods of heritage, from First Nations heritage through first contact, colonisation, between the wars, all the way up to some really quite unique and extraordinary heritage. I do, though, thank my fellow councillors who have approved what is now a substantial fund that's capable of doing some reasonable work.

As you can see, some of these numbers are not—some of the figures are not insignificant, and I think that speaks to the commitment of this council to maintain the heritage that the Hawkesbury holds so dear. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Excuse me. I did welcome a discussion about how we decide on who the recipients of this money. I would have thought that it was possibly better to work out what our most valuable heritage assets were. Irrespective of who owns them. And we apply that money so that we get the best outcome in terms of the heritage outcome of this program, because that's the objective, I would imagine. Instead of being fair to a whole range of people that have the responsibility of maintaining or improving or conserving heritage items, that seems to me like we're diluting the objective. I realise we have to work out what is an equitable way to— excuse me— an equitable way to provide this money, but I think it has to be, the decision has to be made on what we're actually putting the money towards, not who we're giving it to.

And it doesn't need to be divvied up that way, because I think that's diluting the whole thing. It's a hard thing to do, but I think that I would look forward to that discussion. We might have to come to grips with the fact that we can't help so many people who have that responsibility, and we might have to actually make some decisions about what we really want to protect. This sort of— this is the same notion I use when I assess environmental work. You know, you want to actually get the best bang for your buck , and you want it to be the objective that you want it to be. So I'll just, I'll leave it at that. I mean, this is wonderful, and I'm so glad that these people are getting involved in restoring our heritage.

So I look forward to that discussion about our policy and hopefully making it a bit more effective

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Just to capture what both you and Councillor Wheeler have said about reviewing the policy, Councillor Wheeler, were you suggesting any form of amendment here around it, or will you take that to, for example, the Heritage Committee? Just to point out that the decisions around this, this has been assessed by an expert panel and the senior heritage officer. So as councillors, we aren't looking at the individuals and apportioning the money. This is an endorsement of the list. But it sounds like various points of view around the policy are what is being raised. So did you, just before I go to you, Councillor Reardon, is there—were you suggesting an amendment in what you said, or will it be a Heritage Committee-based—

I think we could certainly add a point that the Heritage Committee discusses how the policy, or a review of a potential review of the policy. That's probably the easiest way to begin, and then that policy would come back to Council

For review. So that would be a Council resolution directing the Heritage Committee to look at the review of that policy. Okay, that's a point. I can't find the other end of the recommendation. 8.5. Thank you. Councillor Reardon. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I note that six of these applications are for restoring slab barns, which is great, and I notice we've left the door open for other people to apply if they weren't successful this time. That's in the report. I was glad to read that.

That's very good. Yes. Councillor Veigel.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. You're quite welcome with this report, but I bet a guess we're going to get five grand out of the state government. Five thousand bucks. My wife would spend that like yesterday, which— Well, she doesn't, but she just— I'm not suggesting she's heritage. Not

Suggesting she's heritage.

But, you know, look, I stand here, and a lot of the heritage around the city—you can laugh all you like, General Manager—but I think you might have some sympathy. Let's just move on a little bit. You know, I can remember years ago when I was growing up, you had the rocks basically in ruin, and Macquarie Street wasn't far off it. But they had to bring legislation to bring in the rocks—what was it?— the Sydney Shore... foreshores, which was gazetted anyway to control it, and they brought that whole area back to life, and how good is it today? So let me just cast my eyes back to Windsor. There's significant buildings there are in disrepair. Significant. And eventually it's going to get to the point where the state government will have to step in, and they'll have to take some control or take it off the landlords and just put this right to bring back what this should be, a very proud part of Australia's heritage, should I say.

So anyway, let's hope we can get some more money, and I do think that we have got this on the operational plan, and next operational plan, if there's any more money to be put into the fund, then so be it. So let's see how we go. And thank you for the report. It's very good. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor

May I just ask one question before I go? Yes. Do we audit or look at where the money actually gets spent on the recipients, that it actually is going to the maintenance and towards what they want to do, you know, to make sure that the heritage is there, but gets spent wisely and what they're targeting in the right areas? Director

Of City Planning. Through you, Madam Mayor, yes. The recipient needs to undertake the work first, and then we inspect the work, and then they receive the funding. The funds after. That's great. Thank you.

Good. Thank you

Councillor Ryan .

Look, thank you very much. Look, I'm in full support of this grant system. I have very many connections with these historical buildings. I was an apprentice carpenter in Windsor and did a lot of work on many of these. I know these are small amounts given to the— being forwarded to these people, but a lot of times they have like a seeding amount that start these projects off, and the people then do tend to take them over themselves, or they may come back the second year for them. But I think if we can continue to seed these and make significant— and do what we do, inspect them before and after the works and all that, I think it's a great step forward, and we should be continually encouraging this.

They are expensive to repair. I've done quotes on some, and they are expensive. They are hard work, and we do need specialist trades to do this. And this funding will probably keep our specialist trades in the area to work on our buildings, which are extremely— I'm very interested in the barns. I think we should advertise and push them through as much as we can, because I do know people who do come here to look at barns and the older buildings, and we should be really putting them forward to get our tourism as a tourism interest for people. So yes, fully support it, and thank you very much for bringing it forward, staff.

Thank you, Councillor Ryan. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler, if there's no more discussion.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in response to a couple of things that have been raised. Regarding Councillor Kotlash's comments about trying to get the— determining what are the most valuable assets, I think there's a role, I think, for council laws to determine what we think is a good place to put this legislation, but really— sorry, this money. But I think really the main— the best people to determine that are council's heritage officer, the heritage advisor, and the members of the heritage advisory committee, and that has happened in the past. So we've had specific funding rounds a few different times. Last year we had the slab barn funding round where the— All the money went to shoring up slab barns, particularly five or, I think it was five or seven really significant slab barns that really wouldn't have survived without council's input, that it is expensive and specialised work.

We've had another round in the past that was for commercial property in the town centres. What we have seen in the most recent rounds, I think, and we've not actually had the numbers of applicants to determine, we've basically given money to everybody who applied up until the last few years, even before we had such a big pool of funding. You know, we joke in the Heritage Committee that in 2017, which was my first year of being elected, With this fund on the ground, we were literally going and dragging people in off the street to put in applications to this fund. So what we've seen is a fund that's now really well regarded and really successful, and has turned around the perception of heritage listings and having council's heritage officer on people's property.

So where they would normally lock the door and close the curtains and pretend they weren't home, they welcome the heritage advisor and the heritage officer with open arms. So it functions as a carrot rather than a stick. We've had, in the past, we've given money for things that have advanced the heritage streetscape, and I know that's still popular with a number of councils, particularly where they have heritage conservation areas where they'll fund a whole lot of front fences, for example. You'll note in this report we're not doing any fences, because what we've really focused on this time around is keeping buildings upright, watertight, and functional. And it's that real use-it-or-lose-it mentality that's probably the most effective part of heritage conservation.

It's great if it looks pretty, but if you can keep the weather out and you can keep people living in it, it's far more likely to be still standing in five or ten years' time. As you correctly stated, Madam Mayor, it's determined by panel and endorsed by the council, and I think that's part of the success of this. It's not open to lobbying of us. It's determined by a more expert panel. A couple of other things that have come up. This is indeed a carrot. Local heritage listings have no minimum standard, unlike state listings. So it means that where people raise concerns about buildings like the Jolly Frog, the Fitzroy Hotel in Windsor, council really has very little power to compel those owners to make those buildings safe , habitable, attractive, any of those things, you know, unless they are a danger to the public because people can get in and hurt themselves or there's asbestos blowing around or whatever.

Council's power to compel the owners of a locally listed heritage item to do the right thing are virtually non-existent, and many owners, unfortunately, engage in demolition by neglect. Part of this program is trying to get well-meaning owners over the line so that they can chuck some of their own money at fixing this. Councillor Ryan has also raised the issue of trades, and I would like to think that a little bit of council's money is going towards keeping those artisan painters, plasterers, carpenters, slab builders in a job, because much of this work is time-consuming and doesn't pay in the same way that it would if they were just slapping paint on with a roller or, you know, or being able to knock up something quite quickly.

And it's that loss of artisan skill in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales with the loss of much of the public works department in the last couple of decades, that really means that many heritage items... properly conserved , and a lot of mistakes are made. And I think, as a fine example of that would be St John's Church in Wilberforce, an incredibly significant Blackett-designed building, the twin of Pitt Town and then designed by the same person who designed some of the major public buildings in New South Wales, bodged up with a sandstone mortar, bodged up with a cement mortar mix that is now causing the sandstone to just fall away and will be the death of the foundations and much of that building, impossible to remove without damaging the sandstone.

Had a stonemason who understood the difference between cement mortar and lime mortar done that work, that damage would never have happened. And hopefully this fund helps keep some of those skills alive. Thanks.

Madam Mayor, can I just raise a point of clarification, please? Is it a point of order? Well, a point of order. Yes. Sorry, I was flipping through the code of meeting practice. Councillor Wheeler implied that, I think she implied that I was advocating for Council to make decisions on what was more important. I don't think that's a point of order. But it's still— she's misrepresentation Excuse me. That's not what I meant to— well, that's not what I said, and I don't— and I just want everyone to know that I think that would be ludicrous for us to do that because we don't have that expertise. What I was trying to say, and I was saying it because you made a point about people not getting multiple recipients of grants, and I thought, well, if their particular heritage item is significant enough, then that decision should be based on what they have to do, not that they get that grant over and over.

So that's kind of where I was coming from. But I agree with everything else that's been said. I just

Didn't want to be— Thank you for that clarification.

I didn't want to be misrepresented. Thanks. Okay,

Thank you. We'll put the motion. All those in favour? In favour, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is carried. Can someone do a councillor retrieval and bring in the other three councillors back? A short break. We will adjourn for seven minutes. We'll return at 9.15. Go. Thank you. We will resume our meeting. Councillor Dogramaci, you did have a conflict of interest form to read out, a declaration of interest, if

You could read that. Yes, sorry, I do apologise

Thank

You. It's

Item 10.3.1. It's less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I do have business association with those people, just like so many of them I have in here

Thank you.

Thank you for doing that. We'll move on to our next item, which is item 10.3.3, which is the Conservation Management Plan. Councillor Wheeler. I'll move the recommendation. Seconded by Councillor Creed. Well, we won't have a war about it over there. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Sorry, I've had some back and forth discussion with the Friends of the Pioneer Village. Sorry, you have an interest. I do. I'm sorry. Please read. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in the Australiana Pioneer Village, in that I'm a life member of the current lessee, the Friends of the Australiana Pioneer Village. The reason for no further action is that I'm not an active volunteer, nor do I have any active role in the current management of the village. Thank you. So I think there were a few concerns around some of the items in the CMP, particularly around policies that arose from the Sparrowly Group recommendations from 2021 or thereabouts that are no longer relevant. So they're items 1.1.9 through to 1.2.3, and also 1.2 .6, which predominantly relate to the structure of the lessee, which originally, as Council required, was the Friends of the Australiana Pioneer Village as the day-to-day managers and the business group as the lessee.

Some years ago, as members of the business group largely became too old to continue with that group, the business group was collapsed effectively into the Friends of the Village and it became a single entity which holds the current lease and is looking to take on the new lease. I think there was some concern that their discussions with the manager of strategic planning have resolved, and you can see that from the comments in the report around how that might impact their capacity as an external group to determine their own management structure and— And approach , and there were concerns that the CMP shouldn't determine the structure that the lessee adopts in its, as a not-for-profit community group.

I think it's very clear in the time that the Friends have held this lease that they have the best interests of the site at heart. What they need is a document of the calibre of a CMP to guide them in their management of the site. It's a really unique site, and I know that word gets chucked around a lot, but this is a state-listed open-air museum made up of predominantly 26 original buildings. So unlike Old Sydney Town, that was created for a purpose to showcase a vision of a version of history, the Pioneer Village is made up of original buildings collected from around the Hawkesbury and surrounds and put into a created streetscape. That's quite a remarkable thing to have happened, and it's further remarkable, I think, in that it continues to have a life of its own.

It's one of those places that's much bigger than the sum of its parts, and it does that because it's so cherished. It is, however, very easy to love a site like this to death, and that's where something like the CMP comes in, in that it will give guidance to the current generation of volunteers and to future generations of volunteers that Who can manage the site so that it remains what the state listing has determined is its greatest worth, an open-air heritage museum. It's very easy to see these sites slip into theme park mode rather than really showcasing the heritage that they are supposed to represent. So much less about personal vision and more about the collection of parts. This is a really unusual heritage listing.

It's listed as a collection of movable objects because the buildings were moved, apart from a couple of them, the most, probably the most prominent of which is Salter's Barn. It was a landmark listing at the time, and it means that the CMP is a bit of a landmark piece as well that will probably be picked up and used to apply to some other spaces as well. This will be a jumping-off point for not only the Friends, I think, but also other holders of movable heritage. The fact that this is so readily open, readily accessible and readily affordable to the public under the management of the volunteers, I think is both a leap of faith, but also a really significant way for people to understand and access their heritage.

Thank you,

Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply. All those in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. The motion is passed. We move on to 11.1.1, Floodplain Management Committee. Someone to move that. Moved Councillor Sheather, seconded Councillor Reardon. Discussion, Councillor Sheather.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. There's a covering document in front of the minutes that covers most of the issues that have been discussed, but in general business there was a question—well, it was a resolution that was put, and it was in relation to the committee was after a copy, I guess, of the legal advice in relation to the study that had been done on the Hawkesbury floodplain that Council didn't adopt. If that can be addressed, and it only needs to be addressed in relation to the committee, I think, but it's just not reflected in the comments

Through you, Madam Mayor, we will respond to that at the next committee meeting.

Thanks very much.

Thank you. Further

Discussion?

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I did hear from one member of the committee that they would appreciate getting access to the minutes of the committee earlier. Apparently they didn't receive them until they'd arrived at the meeting. I don't know what— Happened. Normally, committee members have access to the meeting, to the minutes prior to that, so I'm not sure what happened in that instance. In relation to the information around evacuation routes, the Railway Row North, the Jim Anderson Bridge, it might be helpful, I think, to have the SES and whoever the other relevant agencies are to run Council and the Floodplain Committee members through the flood evacuation routes. I know some of us are reasonably familiar with these, but there are some weird and wonderful flood evacuation routes, for example, up through the middle of Windsor Mall functions as an evacuation route for some residents down on around the peninsula end of Windsor.

I think we all need to know, as the governing body, where those evacuation routes are, and I think it would probably be both interesting to and helpful for members of the Floodplain Committee to understand those as well. There's a nice phrase in here, a time-dependent network operability problem. That's, I think, government speak for can't get everybody out of all the places all at once in as fast as we need to, and I think that's something that we really need to keep in mind. But it's also a fancy way, I think, of saying that evacuation routes are really highly event- and situation-dependent, and it's a really good reason why evacuation needs to be carried out when it's requested. And we heard a bit of that in the Disaster and Emergency Committee meeting during the SES update last week.

It's also why we need to stop shoving more houses onto evacuation routes, something that I wish that our neighbouring councils, and most particularly the state government, would pay attention to, which brings me to item B of the general business, which is approval in low-lying areas of Windsor. I am looking forward to having a discussion about the approval of some of these DAs. This has been raised with me from other community members as well, and I think we perhaps need a discussion amongst the councillors regarding this matter too. I think we need to better understand how we're passing, or passing some of the DAs that come to us that are particularly low-lying. They really concern me.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? Right of reply, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in relation to the last comment that was made by Councillor Wheeler, those questions were brought to the committee by a town planner, or a previous town planner.

Oh yes, you have. I can't

See it

Behind there. I can't hear you very well. Sorry

Those questions were brought by a previous town planner, and it's written in here that it'll be addressed at the next meeting, which is fine. In relation to the early response for the business papers, they do go out a couple of weeks early, so there might have been just an issue with that particular member because I got mine early enough. Okay. So thank you.

Thank you. No, because we've had right of reply. Sorry. We'll put the motion. All those in favour? Unanimous. The motion's carried. Sorry, Councillor Kotlash.

Item 11.1.2, Heritage Advisory. Councillor Wheeler moved. No

I've got a conflict. I've got yet another conflict, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Just need to find the right one. I've got a special disclosure of pecuniary interest in 11 .1.2, in that I'm the property owner of a property listed for heritage listing under the Hawkesbury LEP.

Thank you. And were you moving as well? Okay. Councillor Creed has moved. Councillor Veigel has seconded. Councillor Creed, you wish to speak? No. Any discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Creed did want to say something.

No, I just had a question. Apologies. Just in relation to, I think it was in general business, point A, with regards to the sign at McQuade Park. Can we just—I understand you'll come back to an answer with that for the committee, but can councillors just also get an update on that? It's just to do with whether Council reconsiders the location in the park of the Windsor sign in McQuade Park due to its incompatibility with the quality of existing finely works sandstone and its poor placement with the clutter of nearby objects. That's what was in point A. If we can just get updated. Thanks. Okay.

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes. Council's got an adopted signage strategy that relates to signage in towns and parks, and in particular signage in heritage towns, and this sign has been constructed in accordance with that. In terms of the commentary around the rough sandstone versus the smooth sandstone of the cenotaph elsewhere in the park, the cenotaph was a project that was undertaken by others separate to the signage strategy, and the signage has been delivered as a consistent package across the board.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam

Mayor. It's perhaps, perhaps it is worthwhile to consider the matter of the signage during the detailed design for McQuade Park, which I think is still ongoing. There was a fairly robust discussion amongst the Heritage Committee around this issue. People are really quite unhappy about both the placement and the style of the design, and the comments range from things like, It can be quite hard to read, so that raised background signage is quite difficult, particularly people who are visually impaired are struggling to read the raised writing. But the real concerns from the Heritage Committee relate to the quality of the sandstone that is inconsistent with the rest of the stonework across McQuade Park, so not just the cenotaph, but also the Macquarie statue and sandstone work up the top of the park closer to St Matthew's.

The bulk of the stonework, and also the fact that it sits on a corner with some really ugly stuff, so there's a whole lot of utilities sitting around it, which are not lookers, let's face it, and it looks like a bit of a jumble was the prevailing opinion. So we agreed to bring it back to Council for discussion. I suspect that the detailed design for the park may be the best place to do that, given that the funding for that wayfinding signage has now finished, or that part of that project has now finished. So perhaps in the detailed design work for the park, we can look at that sign and perhaps potentially look at—I think there's real confusion about what the purpose of that sign is. So we understand, because we've been part of the wayfinding project, that it's a sign for Windsor.

A number of people think that it should be the sign for Macquaid Park. And then it goes into the argument about whether we should be calling it Macquaid Park or whether we should be calling it the Great Square. And so there's this much—it's part of a much bigger piece, I think, about what we do with Macquaid Park. And that's part of a discussion that I think this sign and the jumble on the corner really epitomises, and that's that since Macquarie , Macquaid Park has tried to be all things to all people. And now we've got it happening again in another corner of the park. What we desperately need, I think, is a detailed design for the entire precinct that takes into account its importance in the beginning of Windsor, which we now know more about thanks to the work of Jan Barkley-Jack and her PhD, and also how it looks going forward, because it really is, you know, it has—you could pick, really—it's got a monument to all eras, Macquaid Park.

I'm not sure that a big fat sandstone sign is the monument that we want for this era, but that's how it's evolved. We need to get a handle on that or we're going to keep having this discussion over and over. Otherwise, you know, a fairly good heritage committee meeting focused very much on getting heritage listings through, which has been the focus of the committee. And again, you know, all credit must go to Council's outgoing senior heritage officer and to Mr Kearns's team. They've done a lot of work to get us to this point. We have a backlog of, you know, 30 years of heritage listings that— At best, two staff are trying to clear, as well as all the other heritage noise and visits to people's houses and education and, you know, and all the heritage assistance scheme.

You know, every one of those heritage assistance scheme recipients has received a visit from the senior heritage officer, and they will again when we've got one. And so this is a tiny team pumping out a huge amount of really important work, and I think we need to really pay credit to them. And I thank the Heritage Advisory Committee for their work as well. Sometimes bringing these things to the attention of Council is a bit of a thankless task. You know, everybody thinks, Oh, well, here we go, they're whinging again. They really do want what's best for heritage in the Hawkesbury, and we should take any comments with that front of mind. I will say that some of these things are readily preventable if we speak to the Heritage Committee as the first part of the consultation process, not as the afterthought, which we have unfortunately has happened a few times, and it always, always costs us money.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler

Councillor— Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to say that we've just done a master plan for McQuade Park, and the very area where Macquarie used to march his troops, there was a blue sign which spoke about the history of the area for people to see, and they say that that is missing, and they would like to have that restored.

Thank you, Councillor Reardon. I'm sure that will be followed up on. Any further discussion? No. Right of reply, Councillor Sheather. We'll put the vote. All those in favour? Unanimous vote. Oh, sorry, Councillor Creed, right of reply. I'll even let you have that. Thank you, everyone. That concludes our meeting for tonight. Thank you for the gallery for coming along. And just before we go, I'm sure you'll all join us in wishing our General Manager a very happy birthday today. What better way to spend one's birthday than at a council meeting? Thank you, everyone .