3 November 2026 - Ordinary

Thank you. Good evening everyone. Welcome to our meeting tonight. I'll begin by just reading our statement of expectations. Before we begin, I'd 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 livestream 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 commencement of the meeting, and if the behaviour continues in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, I may expel that 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 People of the country.

I'll hand 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 5.33 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 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 Council meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. And 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. All councillors are present, so no apologies needed.

Any declarations of interest?

Councillor McMahon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just in relation to the confidential item 15.2.1, I have a pecuniary interest and will need to leave the room.

Thank you. Any further declarations? I also have one in 15.2.1, a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. Thank you .

We need confirmation of the minutes from the last meeting. Moved Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Veigel. All those in favour? Unanimous. Thank you.

We'll now start. We have one item on the agenda tonight with public address, and that is item 10.3.2, Out of Hours School Care Facility, and our speaker is Brad Thurling. Thanks, Brad. Perfect.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you once again about the proposed out of school hours care facility at Richmond North Public School. My name is Brad Thurling. I think I've met most of you at school functions before, and I am the principal at Richmond North Public School. It's now been six months since I addressed Council on this matter. At the time, Council agreed to delegate $1 million towards this project. I certainly want to acknowledge that decision and thank Council for recognising the importance of this facility and taking that initial step towards making the project happen. However, following ongoing discussions with New South Wales School Infrastructure and Council, it has become clear that the project cannot be delivered for $1 million.

I am here tonight to ask Council to take the next step and support an increase in that allocation to the amount outlined in the current Council business papers, which is consistent with the original funding request we put forward in May this year. Quite simply, we're so close to getting this project over the line, and I would hate to see an opportunity that has taken so long to develop lost because we haven't provided the funding needed to deliver it properly. Let me briefly remind you why this project matters so much. Richmond North Public School is a growing school in a growing community, yet we are one of the few local schools without an on-site OSH facility. This is not just an inconvenience for families; it's having a real impact on our school.

We've already lost enrolments to other local schools because we cannot offer the before and after school care that families need. And the reality is that access to OSH is no longer a luxury or simply a convenience. For many families, it's the only way parents can remain in the workforce. With the increased cost of living and economic pressures facing households, two-income families are becoming increasingly necessary. Parents need to know that their children have access to safe, reliable and accessible care before and after school. An on-site OSH facility at Richmond North would provide exactly that. It would provide additional places for children in the growing North Richmond community. It would be centrally located, easily accessible and contained within the existing school security fence.

It would also make excellent use of existing school infrastructure, with opportunities to share playgrounds, open spaces, our bush tucker garden, basketball courts and school hall. This is a practical and cost-effective approach that would benefit both the OOSH provider and the school community. It would also provide a modern replacement for the older facility currently used by the Fun Factory, relieving Council of the ongoing responsibility of maintaining an ageing asset. Turning to the funding, I want to reinforce why increasing the allocation is so important. When we first raised this matter, advice from Redbank Communities indicated that approximately $1.8 million had been set aside for this project.

With accrued interest over more than five years, it's reasonable to expect that the available funds now exceed $2 million. School Infrastructure has provided a construction estimate which has been provided to you and is in excess of the original $1 million allocated by Council. It's clear that the original $1 million allocation is insufficient to deliver this project. I acknowledge Council has already made a commitment to this project, and I genuinely appreciate that. However, the subsequent work undertaken by both Hawkesbury Council and New South Wales School Infrastructure has confirmed the original allocation will not deliver the facility we need. Can I at this point acknowledge the cooperation of Council staff?

They have been fantastic and really easy to work with in the process of working through this, so I do acknowledge and thank them for their assistance. My request tonight is that Council support the revised funding amount outlined in the business papers so that the project can be delivered in its entirety. So thank you very much for allowing me to address you today, and I hope that you will consider supporting that increase in funding for this project. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Brad. Are you happy to take any questions? Of course. Any councillors have any questions? Of course. No, no question. Oh, sorry, sorry, Peter. Councillor Ryan

Thank you very much. Thank you for addressing us, Brad. What is the commitment from New South Wales Infrastructure in relation to funding? How much are they putting into this?

There is no funding from the department at all available. There is no— the funding would be entirely from the money that was set aside in the voluntary planning agreement from the Redbank funds.

Okay, so I'll just get this clear. This is a building that's coming from council funds?

Yes.

Built on education land? Yes,

Correct.

And it will be then transferred to the Department of Education when it's complete?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yep, all good. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. Thanks, Mr Turning. Could you just explain to us what the process is around working out who runs this facility once it's transferred?

The process would be— there's usually— I'm not involved directly in that process, but my understanding is there's normally a tender process. Now, in instances where there's already a community organisation that's operating in the area, that most likely they would be offered first right of refusal, so they would be given a period of time that they could then be the operator. They would be given first option, that's my understanding, and then that would be for a period of time, which I can't tell you exactly how long that would be, and then at which point then it would then go to an open tender process. That's my understanding of how that process works.

Thanks. That's consistent. Does two years sound right?

Two years sounds about correct to me. Yep.

Councillor Reardon. Can I move the recommendation, Madam Mayor? I'm very happy to see the fruition of this project.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Reardon. We'll just let Mr Thurling finish. Thank you. All good. Thank you so much . Thank you. Okay, Councillor Reardon is moving the recommendation in the business paper, seconded by Deputy Mayor. Discussion, Councillor Reardon?

Oh, just that I'm very happy to see this come together, and it's sad to lose the outer school hours facility up at Kermond McMans Park. So I think this one is real and truly needed. Okay, thank you. Councillor Veigel

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, my understanding is that the fundings are Council's. It was in the VPA and it was given by Redbank, so it's all fully financed through the contributions through the development, is it not? Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah, I'll be voting for the recommendation in the paper. So thank you very much, and thank you for negotiating, getting the scope right and getting the costs to where we needed to get them. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Veigel. Deputy

Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Question for staff. I'm looking at the quantum of the increased allocation that's being requested. It's in the confidential part of the business paper, so I won't mention the sum. But there's an opportunity cost associated with an increased allocation, and I appreciate that it comes from the VPA funding, but I'd like to ask staff what that opportunity cost is, in the sense that it's a substantial sum that will now not go to fund some other piece of infrastructure or improvement, and I'd like to have a better sense of what that is.

General Manager.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, as staff have reported in the previous two reports, there isn't a definitive list of other infrastructure. So the VPA, from memory, was quite broad in the sense that it was for community... Infrastructure, I think that was the term. So we, the staff haven't compiled a specific list beyond some cursory or some initial discussions with Redbank communities around what would fit within the spirit of the VPA. So I can't answer the question in terms of what wouldn't be funded. The recommendation does call for a future report to Council to determine that. All right then.

I'm somewhat heartened to hear that, in the sense that this is the world we live in now. We pledge a sum and then come back and realise that it's inadequate. And I lament that. But if one were drawing up a list of community infrastructure from scratch that would be desirable, a facility like this would be at the top of the list. And therefore, I'm happier to be able to support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

With the confidential matter, is that going to be discussed?

Through you, Madam Mayor, if Council wants to discuss any matters in the confidential attachment, Council would have to move a motion to move into confidential to discuss that. If there isn't, and the matter is dealt with, given that there's another confidential report—oh, sorry, that there is another confidential report—wouldn't enable Council to discuss the matters being resolved. Yeah

Thanks, Madam. I think I can discuss it without going into detail, but it's pretty hard not to support something like this. We started off with our five regos in the SES in similar fashion that is required by our community, and this is not much different. It concerns me, though, that we do these things and then turn around and look at state and government funding and say, you know, we're subsidising the work that you should be doing, and we got involved because you're not doing it. In relation to voluntary agreements, I don't believe that these sort of things should be involved in voluntary agreements. Money's hard to come by. There's a whole new community out there that require access to it, and I'm going to support this.

I'm just talking about some of the issues that have come before us that we need to consider. And I'll take the Turnbull Oval, for instance. We withdrew the funding from there. There's been no discussion from any of us about whether such funding should be used to prop back up, I suppose, some of the projects that have been put aside now because we're not heading down that track. That's used by the North Richmond community pretty well every day, by all the community, not just a portion of it. And I say that respectfully for the people who use OOSH. But something that concerns me a little bit, and I haven't had the opportunity to speak to our speaker, but he spoke about the money that was requested in the business paper.

It doesn't indicate how much money was requested. It's in the confidential stuff. And if the speaker's aware of that, I want to know how the hell he found out. We get confidential stuff and, like... This is a bit water off a duck's back in relation to confidentiality. We're talking about between a couple of figures. But what I suggested in the comment I just made, that somebody perhaps is speaking on matters that should not be addressed. I'll

Just ask the general manager to address that.

Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Thurling has been part of the working group with Council and Schools Infrastructure to build up this proposal. So Mr. Thurling through that process has been privy to, and in fact has had some very valuable input into the process, including into the estimate of cost.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That's

Always been just the public gallery here, the conversation where there's been someone in breast council

In relation and discussing a matter.

Sorry, and discuss the matter that's not available to the rest of the public. In speaking about this, one of the concerns I've got, we started off with a figure below a million dollars, and then increased it, and increased it again, and it's still not signed off on. That concerns me. We haven't got an open cheque, and we talk about the money as though it's not ours. It's a voluntary agreement. Well, it is ours. We're building a bridge at the other end of town, and there's activities and opportunities for us to expend those funds in other areas. We haven't even talked about that at all, which again concerns me. So while I think with the commitment that's been made, and this is a commitment that's been supported by Council for a long, long time, and a voluntary agreement, and I don't propose to go back on that, it just concerns me that the goalposts are being moved, and they're the sort of things as a Council we should talk about, especially after we've had a rate increase and the like.

There's opportunities to perhaps square matters up in relation to some of the projects we've got going that we have not discussed. In saying that, with all the issues that I've spoken about, I say that in regard to voluntary agreements in the future and some of the things we should discuss. And I support this on the basis that it's been supported by Council forever, and the people involved with it, and there's an expectation in the community to get on with it. I just hope that it doesn't come before us again asking for another increase.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather, and for those points that you raised. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Just for the record, could we have somebody confirm Mr Thurling's understanding about the possible transition of operation? Not casting any doubt on what he said, it's just that it would be good to get that clarified. And if I could start with that, thank you.

Through you, Madam, I might refer that to the Director City Planning.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, yes, verifying what Mr Thurling said, that is our understanding of how such a facility would then be, how an operator would be appointed to such a facility.

So we have carriage of that, or does the school, or does the department, or does Redbank

Have carriage of that? Council does not have carriage of that, nor does Redbank. It would be Department of Education, I imagine, yeah.

I did actually have a question along that line that I may ask now, just to clarify around that. My concern around that is that originally in the VPA, it was to deliver this as part of the community precinct, which was run by the people that run the North Richmond Community Centre in that precinct. And in other words, if there's a two-year period for someone to operate it, we have then lost any input whatsoever , whereas the agreement under the VPA was to have a community-run facility delivering that. I don't know that you can comment on that, but that is how I see just a discrepancy about what was agreed to in terms of it being community-run. Is there any mechanism Council has to put any requirement around how that may play out into the future?

Through you, Madam Mayor, we might have to take that on notice. There may be scope for Council through the deed of agreement, but we'd have to check that, so I'll take that on notice. Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash. Thanks, Madam Mayor. And that's, yeah, that's sort of where I was going with it, because in the early stages of this negotiation, that was definitely going to be a different beast. But all I'll say at this juncture is that we're getting more for— I know we're needing to find extra funds, but we are getting a better facility. Well, we're getting more places, I guess. And that's a good thing because of how long all of these projects take. It's, I think it was wise to move this way and to get a better facility, even though we might be not getting exactly what we wanted in that, as you say, that community-based precinct. But we're getting a lot of other things. So I think that compromise was wise at the time.

Look, I'll leave it at that. I'm happy with this. It's taken a long time, and I know that in this day and age, everything seems to be just going up in cost. But I think we have to not let good negotiation and good planning and trying to think into the future stop us from doing that because we're scared that everything's going to cost more. I think we just have to make sure that we're as frugal as we can be whilst trying to get the very best for our public money. Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion? Councillor Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I've got real concerns with this matter. We're constantly bombarded from every corner of the press that we should be looking after roads, rates and rubbish. We should be transparent. This came before us in April, I believe, and we were given a pretty firm commitment that the funds were going to be spent on this, and that was probably the limit of the funds that we could afford to put through. I remember going back, we had a— Per person come in and speak to us in relation to these things and about cost shifting, and that Council often is its own worst enemy when it comes to cost shifting because it does cost shift to state government, and then they become reliant on us doing it.

I'm quite concerned that we're setting a precedence that this can— people will say, well, if we don't get it right the first time, we can go back for another bite at the cherry. I'm not real happy about that. I think we can only do it once. You get one go at it, and that's it. I can see the value in after-school care. I have issues with perhaps in the future this will be taken over by a commercial body and a profit made of it for commercial reasons. I hope that doesn't happen because I think the school should be the schools and not something that's profited by outside agencies. I'm struggling to support this, to be honest. I think it's time the belt was tightened. We're getting tightened, told to tighten our belt and be frightened sent by the community.

And here we go again. We just can't afford to do it, and that's where I stand. I'm sorry, I won't support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be very brief, and the window I look is different. I don't know why are we not supporting without any discussions or anything for such a great project. If it was up to me, I would give them another $200,000 to make it $1.5 million so they will jump immediately without wasting any time.

Councillor Dogramaci, I'll just remind you that the figures are confidential. From the confidential section of the business paper.

Okay, thank you All right. I apologise for that. Just, I couldn't stop reading this. Whatever we could do, it's for the good of the people. So I would support 100%. Thank

You. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, like Councillor Ryan, I'm struggling to support this. I don't have a problem with the initial allocation of funds, but I think we're now, we are now looking at a problematic precedent, and we're all aware that costs are rising across the board. But this is, as Councillor Ryan stated earlier, a facility on a public school campus run by the Department of Education and probably run, in all likelihood, eventually by a private provider. So even if it uses the goodwill and the trust and the years of community skill and commitment built up by the Fun Factory to set up its program, it's very likely that, like most of the properties, most of the out-of-hours school care in that area of the Hawkesbury, it will go to a private provider.

In fact, most of them, if you look online, are the purview of a single private provider, which I think is also concerning not only from a financial perspective, but also from a resilience perspective. It is not the responsibility of this council to provide funds either through a VPA or through some other means for Department of Education facilities, and I think that is a really problematic precedent that we are setting. The original VPA, as it was, was to improve the North Richmond Precinct, the community- or the council-owned, community-operated North Richmond Precinct. This is not what this money is going towards. Yes, it's providing an— but it's not necessarily providing the full requirements of the VPA.

And the clash of the site that's happened was the result of WestInvest funding. This is the responsibility of the Department of Education. We currently have a trusted, respected, community not-for-profit running an OSHC at North Richmond. There's no guarantee of continuity of care for families or continuity of employment for existing staff. We basically will be, in two years' time, the tender process will be pitting a community not-for-profit against the private sector. I can't support that process, and I can't support the allocation of additional funding to that. I am quite happy to admit that an OSHC is necessary and that where out-of-school hours care exists, it is well located on Department of Education properties.

But we are not part of the state government's funding arrangements. This is yet another example of cost shifting, and Redbank State quite plainly in their letter of support that the remaining money would be well spent maintaining the Redbank precinct and the facilities there that we know are going to cost council a lot in the future. Thank

You, Councillor Wheeler. I do have another couple of questions. I'm not sure whether these answers can be provided, but if still our initial allocation was given, what would be the opportunities for alternate funding? Has this been examined? And does anyone know if there was any alternate arrangement? General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, my understanding is that the Department of Education has been pretty clear that there is no funding coming from State from them. In respect of alternate funding, I'm not aware, and I don't think there have been any other grant opportunities. The only alternate would be from Council's general funds, as opposed to the developer contribution reserve.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I hear the concerns that councillors have raised. It's not about the validity or legitimacy of having an OSH at a school, because we know that that is quite a regular thing now. My problem is that we haven't got the report about What other projects would fall by the wayside concurrently with making this decision? To me, that's quite an important thing because we know there's limited funds and we know that the Redbank development will cost other ratepayers in the area money into the future as well. I would have liked to have seen it all come in a way that we could see what else might not be able to be done when this goes ahead. I also share the concerns about the transition away from the community-operated OSH.

I know we don't have control over that, and we probably don't have control. I don't for a minute think that North Richmond Public School is not capable of running an OSH from their premises. I know they have the space, and I know that that would be quite a valid thing to do, and I agree that there is a need. I just think this becomes a problem when we have a discrepancy between what the original voluntary planning agreement committed to and, as Councillor Sheather raised, there's changes and return issues around it, and obviously those things can happen. But this is one where there's been a shift away from an allocation to have a community facility to an alternate facility which, in effect, should be run and funded by the Department of Education.

And as Councillor Wheeler just said, it is an example of cost shifting, and one that I feel for Mr Thurling that he has no control over the Department of Education, of course. But my concern is what other projects would have to be cast aside if we give a bigger allocation to this funding. However, I also would like to know, is there a timeline? Like, what is this all scheduled for? Again, it may say it in here. I think it said it in the last report. What's the timeline for when this would be up and running?

I'll refer that question through, Madam Mayor, to the Director of City Planning.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So School Infrastructure New South Wales are not able to go to tender for the facility until such time as they have the money in hand, so to speak. They've indicated in terms of, like, they would need to run a tender process and then the construction of the facility, it is modular construction, so I think it's like a four-month ballpark construction period. So, yeah . So should Council decide not to resolve this tonight, then we'd have to go back to the drawing board or convey the outcome to School Infrastructure New South Wales. If Council did resolve to go ahead , then the next step is for School Infrastructure to finalise the deed of agreement with us and commence the tender process. So the facility could be operational at some point in 2027.

Okay. And how does that fit with our schedule for what's happening at the North Richmond precinct?

Through you, Madam Mayor, the works at the North Richmond Community Hub precinct, funded by Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program, are now isolated from the hall where the current bush service is provided from. So there's no strict dependence. That was in effect broken when Council resolves in April this year to go down this path, and several decisions were made to then isolate the project so that there was no interdependency. So there's no, yeah, in short, there is no dependency or impact on the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants-funded project on the North Richmond Community Centre Hub and the OSH.

So it would continue, the OSH would continue to operate until an alternative arrangement is made.

That's my understanding, yes.

Okay, thank you. Councillors, I have a thought of perhaps maybe just deferring this for a short time to just get a couple of those outstanding questions answered. I know that delays a potential project. I would like to know the feasibility of getting the information through the negotiations around what other projects would have to be foregone in lieu of using the additional money, and also the question about any mechanism in the deed that Council could put regarding the ongoing operation by a community-based organisation, which may well not be legally feasible, but I would really appreciate that advice. We have another meeting in November. I don't expect it would be ready by then, but by December, perhaps, in which case I don't know that that— Do I need a seconder? Can I just do this? I think I do need a seconder.

Can I ask a question?

Seconder, Councillor Wheeler. It's an amendment. Yes, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. I'll ask a question on the amendment, just so I'm clear. What you wanted to know at the next meeting on the 1 December is a list of projects that will— It won't be delivered because we're delivering, we're reallocating this money. I thought that the general manager said before that we haven't matched this up with another project, so we haven't actually started that process. No, that's not— sorry, okay, I've got the wrong idea. So what you want us to do in that time is to choose projects that we will not fund.

Well, we won't choose because there'll be things that belong to the VPA, that are part of the VPA, I would expect, general manager, or other maintenance.

Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor, there is, as I mentioned, there is a list of potential projects that have been identified for the remainder of the funding that we have used in discussions and negotiations with Redbank. They would need to be finessed, given the quantum that we anticipate would be left over, or that would match the difference between the current amount resolved by Council and that proposed. So that work has been done. We would just need a bit of time to essentially run the ruler over it, make sure that things are still relevant, given that this has now been a few months since we originally resolved back in April. But I think that the timeframe for a December report would be achievable. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for that. So it's—the allocation is strictly out of one pot, so we can— Okay, I'm sorry, I had thought that we'd partition this off somehow because of the nature of the VPA. I think that would be really wise because now, I mean, we've done this project in so many stages, and I thought I was sort of up to speed, but obviously I just need to sit back and review that because I think we probably have to know what we're not going to get, even though I thought we had decided on what was acceptable. So I'll vote for the amendment to defer. I think it's probably a wise thing to do in this situation, this amount of money. So, yeah, I will be in favour of that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Do we need to specify within the amendment what exactly we would be deferring? The information that we wish to still have is the information around the other projects that may not go ahead due to an increased allocation and the potential mechanism for including in a deed a commitment to a community-operated provider rather than a commercial operator running the OSH on the site of the school, if we indeed do have any legal basis to do that. I'm not sure that we do, but I'll continue the discussion. I'll let that go up. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll now speak to the amendment. I'll support the amendment because it addresses that opportunity cost question that I flagged in my earlier remarks. But I want to be clear to the chamber, it puts us in a weird situation. Because imagine that we were given a list of projects that could have otherwise been funded with the money between the one million and the amount that we're being asked for. If we took a shine to those and we said, Well, we rather prefer that, then that means that the OSH project couldn't be funded because it can't be funded with only a million dollars. It's not enough. That's what brought us into this room at this time anyway. So if we liked the other projects that much, we end up with no OSH and an extra million dollars to float around to allocate towards other things.

So it's not merely the other projects that could be funded with the difference; it's the extra projects that could be funded with the million. Because if we choose anything over a million, then the OSH becomes forfeit. There is no OSH. We can't do it. And I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that outcome, but I'm happy to go through the exercise. And if it can come back to the December meeting, we'll be better informed.

Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, something we haven't addressed, that when we decided some time ago to, when there's the feasibility of going to the school ground, that that's at no cost to us after it's built. We would simply hand over and the school or the government would operate it. If it was to stay on our ground, what would be the running costs in relation to the management and ongoing maintenance? And that needs to be addressed in the conversation as well. I don't wish to have it addressed now. It's something that needs to be addressed in relation to your amendment. The other area that needs to be addressed, I suppose, that the costs of this building has gone up substantially since it was first agreed that we would move it to the school ground.

And if it's another six or 12 months down the track, what that might be and the consequences of that. I'm still not opposed to it going there, even though it doesn't sit comfortably with me at all, because of the promises we've made to people in the past. I think we should honour those. But in doing that, we need to be mindful of the comments that have been made around this table on how we spend money that's coming through one source only to progress our community in ways that we would otherwise not be able to fund it.

Thank you, Councillor Sheather. I'd just like to clarify, as the mover of the amendment, that the intention isn't to come back with an entirely new scenario. It's to give us more information for making a decision about allocation of increased funding. Another thing we may have to look at is what happens in the interim with the OSH facility, which is a 45-place one, with an expectation of a 60-place facility going in. But the intent is only to delay it briefly to have that additional information, which isn't currently before us, so that we can make an informed decision around that. Further discussion? Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't understand why all these meetings and meetings and meetings. If Bradley has got the power to negotiate, why not just give the money before I came in in August? I think I wasn't here. Whether he has the power to say yes or no, just give him the money that the council agreed, and if he accepts it, it's okay. Another meeting, another meeting, they have to discuss. us come back. Why are we not being practical? Just offer him to negotiate if it's okay and go ahead with it.

I don't know that that's the case that it is. We're talking about how much council funding is allocated from what council holds, not council funding, VPA funding, and that's a decision we're making. I think that the deferral is to simply give us better information. It's not a matter of just handing over money and leaving it to someone else. This is money that's been given for community facilities, and we have an obligation to understand what we're voting on. I think that is why I've raised the amendment. It's not an in-principle opposition to having an OSH, having obviously before and after school care is a really important thing, and I think we all agree with that. It's about how we make our decisions and how much information we have available to us to be able to do that. Do you

Not agree that— Do you not agree that, you know, it's more meeting, more time wasted, cost will go up again? I mean

Councillor Dogramaci, it's until the December meeting. That's in a month. Okay. Thank you. General Manager, did you want to say something? No. Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor— Just through you, Madam Mayor, just a question. Are the funds that are available for this project at the school at the moment, are you legally is it legally binding that those funds got to go into the OSH?

General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, no, I don't think it's legally binding that they have to go into the OSH. The wording in the VPA is for community facilities, but that is underpinned by, and I forget the name of it, a social infrastructure study that identified a gap in out-of-school hours care as a result of the development. Hence the contribution from the development goes to addressing that gap rather than that gap falling to the general ratepayer base. So I think it's quite wise to include as part of this what has to happen with the existing OSH if council were to— Divert away from providing the Yush as it's currently been presented and recommended to Council.

Councillor McMahon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm very sensitive about my questions touching into confidential, so if I'm going there, stop me. Okay. Yell at me. I'm struggling to see the problem here when there is X amount of dollars in the account, as at the figure, as at June 2026 figure, that's what's in the account, and we just want to top up what we'd already resolved on a little bit more, and there's still therefore the residual left in the account, which is quite good . What's the problem?

I think if I can answer that,

Because

I moved it, was not the allocation that we have already given of the million dollars. I've got no issue with that. It's the additional funding and the absence of knowing what else that would have been delivered in terms of that agreement that will not be delivered because of that, and we don't have that information. That's why I'm calling

It. So we've never been

Given a

List, though

No, we haven't. But we know that if we give more to something that there are

What was it alluded to that that gap was going to possibly go towards? General Manager

Sorry, if I understand the question in terms of the remainder, in terms of this type of projects, so there were some playground upgrades. I think there was some shared path connections upgrades into North Richmond and more broadly. Yep.

Thank you. Further discussion? Are we going to specify that we get an opinion on what, how we might fund the additional places if we don't proceed, or would we cross that bridge if we don't proceed? Oh, General Manager

Sorry. If I may through you, Madam Mayor. If I could suggest perhaps a Part C that details consideration of the ongoing demand for bush services in North Richmond and how this may be serviced. That will capture it.

Okay. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'm not delighted with Point C, I have to say. I don't think that there's anyone around this space who is keen to strip the million dollars that we've already allocated, and I think Point C infers that to a degree, and I find that a bit problematic. The difficulty that some of us are having with this is the additional funding that's requested. It's not an insignificant sum. I ask everyone to cast their mind back to the childcare centre debate. We are not receiving that sort of money in rent from our childcare centres, and yet that apparently was crucial. So , and yet we are seemingly comfortable with handing this money, money that is supposed to be spent on community facilities in North Richmond, to ameliorate the demand caused by Redbank being built and the impacts of Redbank on other residents, existing residents of North Richmond, to— A state department for a state-run facility.

That's my issue. This isn't an issue with the developer. This isn't an issue with childcare. This isn't an issue with the school or any of those things. This is an issue about council handing money that was allocated to a community facility on community land that council are the caretakers of to a state government department and the total loss of control of that funding. That's the sticking point for me. I think if we're having a point C, it should be that we go to the Department of Education and say, Where is the rest of the money for this facility that you will have on your facility that a private provider is very likely to profit from in the future? That's the problem here, not whether we give a million dollars that we've already allocated to North Richmond Public School.

I think everybody here is quite happy with that funding going to an OSHC. The problem is that this is council being asked to fund a state government responsibility again .

Councillor Wheeler, did you want to add a point?

Well, I'd probably move that this be taken in seriatim because I probably won't vote for C. Okay, you're adding a D. But D, I think, is that council approach the Department of Education and ask them to fund the gap.

Thank you. I'm happy with that as the mover of that, and you were the seconder, so you would be happy. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam

Mayor. Could I ask if you'd be— Prepared to expand point C because I think my understanding of asking for details regarding the consideration of the ongoing demand— sorry, sorry, B, sorry. Did B just change to C? No, sorry. Point B, investigate a mechanism to include in any deed that specifies a community-based operator for the facility. Isn't that what Councillor Wheeler has just— that was the sort of essence of what I was trying to get at before. Is it legal for us to say this is money that we were presuming would be a community-run facility, if that's the actual case? I'm not sure that that was a stipulation of the original deed, but could we investigate the original agreement and the mechanism that we might have to influence how that's operated in the future?

Because I kind of agree with Councillor Wheeler about it's a bit of a tricky situation when we're giving funds to another government department and it can be privately operated. That's a real weird situation. So if it's okay, could we, yeah, could we get that information in a month or so? General Manager?

Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll be honest, I was typing another note. To capture the first point.

You weren't typing my words.

Sorry. Okay

Sorry

Let me just catch up with the part

B. I might be able to explain. Yeah

I think I wouldn't change it. I think the original wording would give us the answer because it's about a deed going forward. The original agreement simply specified that certain community infrastructure had to be provided. The issue is that it's not proposed to be provided as part of a community precinct, which originally it was, and that would be the change, the legal change around a deed. I think so. I would leave it as it was, if that's okay.

Understood that. So you mean that you want an explanation of the original deed?

No, there would be a deed required going forward, and my request was for advice, for legal advice about whether that could include a mechanism that ensured it was operated by a community operator rather than a commercial operator. To get that legal advice as to whether that's a possible inclusion and whether that would be agreed upon by the parties.

Right. Okay. Councillor Reardon. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. It's 12 months since Mr Thurling spoke to me about this situation, and I understand from Redbank that the money had been given through the VPA five years ago. Now, there must be some interest, as Mr Thurling mentioned, so I won't be supporting the amendment. I think we need to get it go ahead with this. I think we've waited a long time and it's really needed.

Thank you, Councillor Reardon. Is there any further discussion?

Councillor McMahon. I don't know if this is inappropriate, you can tell me if it is, but I know we've done it before. Would it be okay to ask Mr Thurling about what he believes the impacts of this deferral may have or not? I know we've brought people up before and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just think to make an informed decision, I would like to know what the real on-the-ground consequences would be and the uncertainty about not delivering the project. I think that given it's

Coming back in a month, I think that it may be more pertinent to address that then, because the reason for deferring is to obtain more information. Not that I don't trust that Mr Thurling has an opinion on it and what he would say, but I think that if the delay would be four weeks, I can't, you know, we don't know that there couldn't be further delays down the track anyway.

I agree. It's just that, D, we're not getting a response in four weeks. That's not happening. There's no way the Department of Education is going to come back in four weeks, so that information won't be to hand. I don't see how C, I struggle with C being quantified. Anyway, that was the point I was— and then again, my issue is the more we drag this out, I'm not delegitimising the questions, but the more we drag it out, the more those costs are going to escalate anyway. And that's just my concern.

Thank you. Councillor

Wheeler, a question? Just an alteration to point two, that the Department of Education be approached to fund the gap. I don't care how they fund it. I'm not interested in their weasel words on funding facilities that occur on their property. There's a gap. This will be their facility. They need to fund the gap. There's an election coming. Let them stump up some money. I don't think we need to ask for them to think about it. I think we need to ask them to get on with it.

I'm happy with that change. We can ask them. We can't guarantee how they would answer that. Any further discussion?

Can I ask another question? It's very pertinent.

Yes.

In the original VPA , does providing community facilities mean providing community-run facilities? General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I would have to take that on notice. And I would also add that provision of community facilities, it could argued, would also be satisfied by the freeing up of the Chas Perry Hall, insofar as with the Ush moving out, Council then has a new community facility that it can offer to another community group or some other need. So that's something I think that is also pertinent to the discussion as well.

Thank you. With no further discussion, I'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment? In favour is Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed. Councillor Djuric, that being six all, I think I will use my casting vote to approve that and have it come back to us in December. That now becomes the motion, of course. So the motion is what's on the board, what's on your screen. All those in favour of the motion? Apologies, Councillor Reardon, right of reply? No, not necessary. Okay, thank you. All those in favour of the motion?

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, against? Councillor McMahon, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Veigel , Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, and Councillor Djuric. That being six all, I will use my casting vote to pass the motion, and we'll return to this in December. Thank you.

That was our only item with a public speaker. We will now move the items on block. I will move the items on block. No need. It's just this all-empowering thing I can do all on my own. Item 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, and 11.1.1, I move those items on block.

The next item is 10.3.1, Hawkesbury-Nepean River System. Councillor Kotlash, are you moving?

Yes, I'd like to move a motion that is slightly different from the one in the business paper. The first point in the business paper that we note the outcome of the public exhibition is good. I want to change the second point to that we don't adopt this coastal management plan. And if I— I'll ask for a seconder, and then I'll explain why, which might be good enough.

Have you got

A seconder ?

Councillor Veigel will second. Thank you. Councillor Veigel .

When we first started out with this coastal management plan— Sorry, it was just that, that

Just

Point two was that we don't adopt

It .

Oh, well, it would have to be tweaked that we don't adopt the draft pursuant to section 17A of the Coastal Management Act , and that we don't endorse its submission to the minister. And I'd also add to that recommendation that we don't adopt this until we get our disaster adaptation plan. And the reason that

So can we just clarify that, sorry, Councillor Kotlash, point three would be that— No, point two could be the—

Point two is that we don't adopt the draft plan until we get— until— and we don't endorse its submission to the minister until we are in receipt of our disaster adaptation plan. Okay. And whilst I know that there has been a lot of work done on this particular plan, it has been progressively getting less and less pertinent to the Hawkesbury as it goes on. And I think that the state government has to really, if they are serious about prioritising our— I'll call it the DAP, our disaster adaptation plan—they are serious about our DAP, well then I think it needs to be presented to us. At the moment, we're clucking around with this coastal management plan. It involves councils that aren't in the DAP.

So there's a different set of local government areas that are in the coastal management plan. There's Ku-ring-gai, there's Central Coast, Northern Beaches. They aren't in our DAP. So other councils like Penrith and Blacktown, and Liverpool, are in the wider Hawkesbury DAP. So I think that for us to endorse something that is actually voluntary—I don't think it's mandatory that we have a coastal management plan in this way—it's almost like the state government is sort of forcing us to pick this 10-year set of projects, and we might get a DAP that actually has some other priority because They are sort of, they come from two different pieces of legislation. One comes from the Coastal Management Plan, and one comes from the Reconstruction Act, the Catchment Management Act and the Reconstruction Act.

So I think that that is just crazy planning to do small projects that might not actually come out in the wash as actually being a priority for the Hawkesbury. Now, it's all, it says in the paperwork that this is a whole-of-system plan and it's all, you know, everybody's involved and it's all very cooperative. Well, that's just, that is actually not the case. It isn't. To not consider the fact that the Nepean River runs into the Hawkesbury and it doesn't really matter what it's called. I mean, it's just, it's, anyway, we had that discussion a few meetings ago. I'll put that aside because I think that that's, whilst it's relevant to the outcomes that the DAP might give us, and we don't know those outcomes yet, I think we're putting ourselves into a position where we're saying, yes, yes, we'll agree to that, and it gets certified, and then we get audited on whether we've actually done that.

And I think that is a really odd way of doing this type of planning. I also note that there was another part of it came out which actually talks about disaster planning. So it's sort of, the CMP has sort of dipped its toe in what I was considering would be what we were going to get from the DAP. And it's just a really confusing kind of set of, you know, of initiatives . Like, why are we— To me, the CMP was a lot of little coastal kind of estuary management plans, more pertinent to Central Coast, Hornsby, and other councils, much more pertinent to those councils. The DAP was supposed to be that sort of broader multi-hazard sort of framework, but it's still about adaptations and prioritising investment.

So, whilst it says that it's compatible and it's all terrific, I want to see the DAP before I make any decisions about actually committing us to do these projects. Now, I understand that the reasoning behind having a certified CMP is that it allows us to get funding, and it comes out of a different pot of funding than the DAP. I think that is a very bad way to spend public money, and I would prefer not to do it that way. I'd prefer to find out what the state government has in mind for us with the DAP, and then go back to the coastal management plan and really understand what we can get for the Hawkesbury, because at the moment it seems like it's predominantly for other councils that are more coastal.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Question first. Is there any particular project within this document that relates specifically to our council?

General Manager.

I'll refer that to the Director City Planning.

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes, there are 11 projects listed in the document that specifically relate to Hawkesbury.

Councillor Sheather Yes, thank you. I went through the document. I couldn't find any of them, and so we'll have a discussion

Further

About that. It relates to certain sections, but it's called the Draft Hawkesbury-Nepean River System Coastal Management Program. There is no coastal management in the Nepean at all, and as a matter of fact, the document only goes up as far as Yarramundi, tidal water. The area that— and they had a couple of community consultations that I attended in the early process, and we were hopeful that there could be projects that come out of it that haven't been well addressed, I suppose, by council and our community for some time. And the condition of South Creek is one of them. The colour that it's been and the condition it's been is generational now, and it's affecting other parts of our rivers, has been, and there's been nothing done about it.

We've just built an airport upstream on that particular creek, and with all the money that was put aside from that development up there. None of it has any effect on the betterment of that creek to this date. We were hoping that something might come out of that. And again, I couldn't find in there. I'm not saying it's not in there, but if it's there, I didn't see it. The other one is issues. We've got weed in our river, and the siltation in sections of it, that is mentioned in there, but with no activity that I could see to deal with it in an appropriate fashion, because that's got impact on everything from oysters, prawns, the salt coming up the river, the infestation of weeds has been created because of that difference in water flow.

And it is having a detrimental effect on the river, as we've known it in the past. And again, there's 27 photos and documentation in this document that relates to the Hawkesbury, and until you get into the back graphs of it, which indicate all the coast, all the other stuff that's mentioned is below Spencer, but the photographs show all above there. So they're taking advantage of the, I guess, the hard times of the catchment in our area, the floods and the problems we've had with that, to highlight some of the issues that is talked about with other councils. The other concern I've got, when I read the first page, and it's something I'd like to ask in relation to if we're proposing to do it with our councils, and it's called use of dual naming.

And it goes on just to say, it talks about the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system as the Derubbin. The Derubbin comes first, and in brackets it's the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. Now, the use of dual naming, I've never seen it written that way before. Usually it's hyphenated and comes after and the like. But if we're looking at—this is not, and this has only happened in the last decade and a half. We're all aware of the naming of the Hawkesbury River, and I have no issue with dual naming. I do have an issue, though, if we're proposing that a document that's written up as the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system catchment system is related all through the document as being the Derubbin, and in brackets where it is in brackets, it's got the Hawkesbury-Nepean system.

Are we proposing to do that with any of our documents?

General Manager.

The question is that I don't have an issue if Derubbin's in brackets after it. What I'm suggesting is it's the other way around, and while we've discussed it in the past, and I don't know that anyone's got an issue with it at all, but if we're going to be selective in relation to where we place the name of the river, I want to be involved in the discussions. So are we proposing to change it in that?

In this particular document, are you asking? No, I'm not. This isn't our document.

I know that. That's not what I asked. Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll refer that to the Director City Planning.

Through you, Madam Mayor, it's not something that I believe we're pushing very strongly. We will have a cultural report coming before Council in the coming months that might touch on this, and we can work that through further at that stage. But it's not something that we're proposing at this point. This is a document that's been prepared. On behalf of the six partner councils, so yeah, that's where that's coming from. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, when I looked at it, if there's ten items that we're involved in, I'd certainly like to know what they are, because anything that enhances the opportunity of our waterways is something we should be involved in. And so I'll support the amendment at this stage on the basis that I had similar views to Councillor Kotlash, but I would certainly be interested in perhaps a particular briefing on what opportunities the council has in that regard and the likes in the not too distant future, I guess, to see where we're going with this.

Thank you. I'm sure that can be arranged. Further discussion? Councillor Reardon. Yes, Madam Mayor. Of the

110 submissions, only three were from Hawkesbury, and only their concerns were with water quality.

Yes, thank you. Any further? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Madam Mayor . I'm not quite, I'm a bit conflicted about the amendment, largely because, as you've already said, this isn't really our document. We're not being asked to, we're being asked to endorse this and send it on. I think part of the issue here is that we've been brought into this process quite late and in a fairly piecemeal fashion. And I think rather than that being a criticism, I'd just like that to— To be taken on as an understanding that this council would like more involvement in documents that are this important to our ongoing management. I appreciate Councillor Kotlash's point about the DAP. I don't know that this is necessarily the trigger that will get the DAP off the minister's desk and into the actual space where someone might even read it, let alone act on it.

But maybe it's worth a shot. I don't know. I don't know what happens with the Coastal Management Plan if one of the councils doesn't sign off on it. And I think we're, in large part, a bit of a bit player. I know our staff have had quite a lot of involvement in the preparation of this document. There was a session run here, I think it's a good 18 months ago now, that I stumbled across, I have to say. It was hosted here, and councillors weren't invited to it. I found out about it through the Hawkesbury River County Council, and I think that's problematic in itself. I think had councillors had more involvement in the discussion of these things from the beginning, we might be in a better position to support and understand where this document sits at this point.

I know we've had one information session from the staff involved, but I think we're lacking the bigger picture and the bigger political picture. So that meeting, Councillor McMahon and I and Councillor Sheather, who was the mayor at the time, were all in attendance, and we heard from the staff from other councils who had prepared, or were in the process of preparing, the document around their commitment, what their councils needed out of it. And I think it's a difficult document because it's very much— Very much relates to the coastal impacts of the system, and I think there's a poor understanding of the impacts of upstream riverine areas on downstream coastal systems. And I think, too, the focus on those coastal management systems seems to be very heavily around erosion and the loss of property, both public land and private property, when that erosion occurs.

And I think that to a degree biases what goes into a report and the outcomes that are sought on the ground from a report. I note that the items that this council is responsible for start on page 168 of Attachment 1. So they're quite clear. They are very much geoengineering projects of areas. They're not environmental projects. They're about stopping erosion at various points along the river and making boat ramps better. Now, that's laudable, but I think for a document that purports to be a coastal management program, and I don't make that as a criticism of the people who prepared this program, I make that as a criticism of the state government bodies that have driven this document and the stuff that's supposed to go into it.

I think the focus is wrong. I think that it places too much focus on the river as—this is a business plan for the maintenance of business as usual on the Hawkesbury River. What we've seen is that 250 years of business as usual on the Hawkesbury River has left not only the businesses that depend on it in the Hawkesbury end of the river, the prawn fishermen, for example, pretty high and dry, pardon the pun. But also has increased the focus on the exploitation of the river and how the river and the interaction with the coast happens down the track, when this isn't looking significantly at the drivers of runoff, at the drivers of climate change. It's looking at plugging—this is finger-in-a-dyke stuff, and I think that's a bit of a lost opportunity.

I don't know that having the DAP in front of us will make any difference to whether I like the document or not. Maybe it's a useful trigger. I would like some advice, I think, from the staff who aren't listening to me because they're working on something else. I would like some advice on the staff as to what happens now if we don't endorse this document. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. We were just discussing it. And whether—I'm glad I've spoken into the void then—and whether what that does to this document, what that does to us, and what the relationship is between the DAP and this Coastal Management Program. Thanks. Thank

You, Councillor Wheeler, and we'll just give you an answer on

That. I'll refer that through to the Director City Planning.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, as we've noted in the report, there are potential risks that not all member councils will adopt the document. So I guess there is a risk that it won't proceed through to the Minister. However, it could potentially still proceed, say we were the only council, or maybe there's two out of the six that don't endorse it for whatever reason. It potentially still could proceed. It's hard to be more definitive than what we've put in the report at this stage, in that it's not a statutory document. And it is somewhat voluntary, as in the partner councils have worked collaboratively on that. So it's a difficult question to answer at this point.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Yeah.

Councillor Zamprogno. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry.

Oh, yield to Councillor Veigel.

Okay. Councillor Veigel. Go ahead.

All right, okay. When I looked at this, I thought, yeah, okay, we've got a plan here. It might be common cause to manage the system. But I, and that's not a bad thing, dare I say, when you've got a bunch of stakeholders that can't agree normally on most things. But dare I say is there is a cost impost that Council's already put their hand up for, and we don't know what it's going to be until next year if this did get up. To that point, I'll be voting for the amendment. I think Councillor Kotlash for putting it up. I think it should be in chitchy with the DAP, and then we can have a look at trying to cover what we need to do correctly, dare I say. So, yep, thank you.

I'll be voting for the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Veigel. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Tomorrow evening there's going to be a community meeting about flooding, and I suspect that one of the issues that might animate people is the refusal of the state government to release the disaster adaptation plan. And rightfully so. It was completed over a year ago, and not only have they not released it, media reports have pointed out that when invited to make a response, the state government has refused to answer those questions. So I think people are entitled to be. Now, if this is one way in which we can express our displeasure. I agree with Councillor Wheeler. It might not have the desired effect, but I'm prepared to give it a go. And to Councillor Sheather's concern about the dual naming and a certain tendency to kind of creep in a particular direction, I've looked it up.

The Geographical Names Board has a place naming policy that specifically says that where a geographical feature already has a well-established non-Aboriginal name, an Aboriginal name can be assigned along it through dual naming, but clearly the conventional or use name should predominate. So I think if we were going to be bouncing this back to express our displeasure, I would suggest we add a point three, and that is to express our concern that the naming conventions in this document conform to the Geographical Name Board place naming policy.

Are you requesting that be added to Councillor Kotlash's motion?

If she's amenable.

No, I don't think she is. No

I think that's just, I think throwing that in at this stage is a bit of a furphy because we've got a lot of issues that I think are way more need to be prioritised over recognition of a name. So I think we have to concentrate on actual things that make a difference to the Hawkesbury.

So that's a no. You would have to move an amendment if you were to change that in any way.

Look, at this point, I think I'll offer it as a point of information. I won't die on that mountain. Thank you. Okay.

Any further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm disappointed that we got to this point, and I'm disappointed that I didn't have enough time to sort of rein this in before it got to this stage, because I think our staff have put a lot of work into this, and I don't think it's reflected in the anticipated outcomes. And I think that's why I just got to the stage where I just thought, no, this isn't going to get us proportionate , any sort of proportionate good activities that will make a difference to Hawkesbury. Even the activities that we have mentioned, as somebody said, are upgrading boat ramps, you know, restoring riparian vegetation. There's a whole mishmash of different things that unless it's coordinated from a catchment-wide, and I mean the whole of the Hawkesbury-Nepean, it's almost, well, it's not measurable, and it's unlikely that it will actually get us to where we think we're going.

One of the things that I think We have to come to terms with is we're committing to a certified, we're committing by adopting this plan and sending it to the minister for certification, if that's the right terminology, we are committing to do these things. These 11 projects have not been put into a wider catchment plan that address the things that we're expecting to get from the DAP. Now, that puts us into a sort of a strange situation of what, does the DAP take precedence? Does the Coastal Management take precedence because it's under another Act of Parliament? Is certification, do we have to do that? We get audited. I mean, honestly, I think if you want a box-ticking exercise, this is a beauty, and I just don't think it is what we need.

It's not a modern way to manage a river at all. And , okay, it's gone down this track. And it's not to say that the things that are mentioned in this plan aren't worthy of doing. It's just that they are not put into any context of how it's actually going to achieve the outcomes that we think we're going to get. And most of the councils, the DAP councils are a different subset of councils. We don't have Central Coast, Ku-ring-gai, Northern Beaches, as I said before, in the DAP. So, I mean, is this just a way of getting grant money? Surely we don't have to have certification to get— Grant funding from properly worked out business case underlined project. That will do some benefit for something.

I mean, surely we can do that

On

A case-by-case basis. I don't want us to commit to this. I think this is—I think things can change. Climate change is changing our environment very rapidly. A 10-year coastal management plan might sound a good idea, but I don't think it's flexible enough to be able to allow us to adapt our very scarce funds to actually get some really good flood mitigation and repair from environmental damage. I remember when we had one of the floods, one of the many floods, and a lot of debris washed up against Richmond Bridge. And there was a really incredibly interesting dialogue with who was responsible for getting rid of this debris. And it went to the EPA, it went to, you know, it's council, it's this, it's that.

We have to start with working out what our responsibilities are to manage the river, to manage what flushes into the river, and do our share of the work that needs to be done. This is disproportionate. This isn't our document. Thank

You, Councillor Kotlash. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan— Councillor Creed's put his hand— oh no, sorry, I'll start again. I thought it was unanimous. Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Djuric. Against? Councillor Dogramaci. The motion is carried.

Did you mention your own name, Madam Mayor?

And Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

For or against, Madam Mayor?

I was for. Okay. I'm sorry.

Our next item is 10.5.1, the road naming proposal of Fairy Road.

I'll move the recommendation, Madam Mayor.

Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Reardon. Discussion?

None from me.

None.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Look, I've called this up because I just want to put on the public record my disappointment that we are still approving hard standing and the subsequent runoff this close to South Creek. Stone Edge is lovely, I'm sure, but frankly I think floodplain views would be more appropriate, or perhaps there's a Dharug word for runoff we could use in this circumstance. At some point, we are going to have to take seriously the impacts on the floodplain. We can't expect to be taken seriously when we complain about runoff from other LGAs like the Hills and Blacktown when we're putting more hard standing in ourselves right next to South Creek. I know that we've got industrial zonings on some of these sites, but if we're serious about managing this floodplain into the future and preventing the risks to our residents who are already stuck living on the floodplain, we need to take a really hard look at just how much infill we are putting on the floodplain itself.

That's the end of my rant. Thank you. Thank you,

Councillor Wheeler. Any further discussion? Councillor Sheather.

Yeah, question, Madam Mayor. Just take into account Councillor Wheeler's comments. Wasn't there a dam associated with that property, both to minimise the amount of fill? Well, there wasn't any fill coming, I believe, but there was a dam proposed to collect such runoff water.

I'll see if somebody can confirm that.

Through you, Madam Mayor, my recollection is that there is a detention basin associated with the development.

Yeah. Yeah, and I mentioned that because my comments, my viewing of what happened was very similar to Councillor Wheeler's, and the information that I asked of the staff of how something like that might be approved, the information I got back that was along the lines that the General Manager just spoke of, in relation to detention for runoff and the likes.

Okay.

And I do also believe that the material that was used to level the site also come from that dam, so there's no, excuse me, imported material.

Any comment on the naming? Okay, thank you. Any further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Zamprogno? None. None needed. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Juric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Councillor Wheeler. The motion is carried.

11.1.2 Local Transport Forum. Someone to move? Move, Councillor Creed. Seconded, Councillor Reardon. Thank you. Any discussion? Councillor Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I did call this up. I've got just one thing I'd like to mention on page 116, the third point down. I would just like to add— There, that they start to pack up their goods and shackles around 5 p.m. About 9 o'clock, I think the fireworks go off, and then our road people finish up at 9:30, I think. No, 10 o'clock. I'd just like to have that monitored this year to make sure that we are assisting these people who are leaving that function, that they are getting proper traffic management, especially when they're getting out onto Bridge Street and into Macquarie Street. So if we could have that monitored this year to make sure that we are covering the people leaving this function properly. Thank you.

Just get a comment from the general manager on that. Is that possible?

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes, that's possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Councillor Ryan, your light is on. If you could turn it off, thank you. Absolutely.

I'm happy to take this on notice, and it may be confidential, but can I just get some information about how much traffic management costs us for that event? Thanks. General Manager.

Through you, Madam Mayor, we'll take that on notice.

Thank you. Any further discussion? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Djuric, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Against? Nobody against, but Councillor Dogramaci is abstaining and therefore against. Thank you.

We will now, that's the end of our open session. We now will move into confidential. Move, Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Creed. All those in favour? Thank you. Thank you, Gallery, for attending.

Thank you. We've returned to the meeting. Councillor McMahon, would you read your declaration of interest, please?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a pecuniary interest in item 15.2.1, as an individual listed in that item is associated with my employment. Thank you. Thank you. And I left the room.

Thank you, you did. I'll read. I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I sit on the board of one of the organisations mentioned. The reason for no further action is that I have no involvement in the day-to-day operations or organisation of that particular organisation. So I remained in the debate. Thank you. General Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Sheather, that Council: one, appoint the following community members to the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee for the November 2026 to September 2028 term, being Diane Russell, Berinda Karp, Charlotte Sangster, Danielle La Puerta Van, Kieran Watts, Rachel Privitera, and Tim Cochran. Part two, following the initial meeting of the committee, the committee consider how to fill the vacancies from a seconded targeted request for applications to fill any identified gaps, including but not limited to First Nations people and people with lived experience of hearing impairment, vision impairment, and age-related disabilities.

And three, appoint the following councillors to the committee. Mayor, Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Peter Ryan, Councillor Mike Creed and Councillor Danielle Wheeler as the alternate. For the motion were Councillors Amanda Kotlash, Danielle Wheeler, Councillor Peter Ryan, Councillor Eddie Dogramaci, Councillor Nathan Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Creed, Councillor Djuric, and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Absent was Councillor McMahon.

Thank you, General Manager, and some people got a first and second name and some only got the last, but that's okay. It's the end of the night.

Thank you everybody for attending tonight, and we'll see you in a couple of weeks for our next meeting on 17th of November. Thank you.