This Council meeting focusing on the Orbital submission by Camden Council was proof that you could have disagreements without getting in to political mud slinging. It was a relatively large crowd of around 35-40 people made up of Camden and Wollondilly residents and one of the largest groups of Council officers to have attended a meeting. 

Cr Eva Campbell and Cr Ashleigh Cagney were absent from this meeting and, because of pecuniary interests around the Orbital, Cr Rob Mills had to leave during this discussion. 

The admin of the Outer Sydney Orbital Macarthur Action Group Facebook page, Andrew Simpson, made a heartfelt public address, which he kindly provided. You can read his full address here (pdf). 

In the final result, the majority of remaining councillors supported the Council's submission, which also included an additional amendment by the Mayor, Cr Lara Symkowiak, to carve out a separate section that related to the importance of rural land for Camden. 

Cr Cindy Cagney and Cr Paul Farrow did not support the submission for different reasons. Cr Cagney was completely opposed to the Orbital going ahead while Cr Farrow asked for an amendment to call on the NSW Government to restart the process again, only this time with greater community involvement. 

Along the way we found out that not one State Government Minister had bothered to reply to the Council's request for them to come and talk to the community. I have included a full run down of the discussion, including the answer to the question that provided that information, below based on my notes. 

This should have been simple. Two votes for notices of motion that were clearly going to pass unanimously. But, no, thanks to political parties in our Council this went off the rails, fast. The mayor led the debate into the mud and it got messier from there. This is why I opposed political parties taking over our Council - suddenly political games become more important than getting down to business that genuinely matters to this community. 

You can make up your own mind who was playing politics. To make it as dispassionate as possible I have reproduced as closely as I can what was said direct from my notes. It rambles a bit in places, but I've left it that way because our community needs to know exactly how our representatives are behaving
 
This post focuses on item 5 and item 6, which both relate to the Orbital proposed by the New South Wales government. 
 
It is important to note that Cr Rob Mills had to leave the room for both notices of motion because he had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Orbital as the corridor passes through land he owns.

Numbers may not tell us the nuance of each Camden Council debate but over the course of a year they are very useful for detecting trends and alignments. So, at the end of each year I like to go over the votes to get a sense of whether what I thought I saw in the Council Chambers actually matches the statistics.
 
It also helps us look past the spin. One thing I often see from the Council and certainly by councillors come election time is how quickly they take credit as individuals for something voted on by all of the councillors. In the great majority of cases the things voters like most – such as new parks, the good financial management of Council affairs and donations to arts and sporting groups – were supported unanimously.
 
It is worth noting that in terms of the financial affairs of the Council, these are almost entirely the responsibility of Council officers, not councillors. So, if a councillor starts talking about how good they or their party are with Council finances, take it with a grain of salt. Council officers often make those decisions, councillors just vote to support them. In almost every case, financial items pass through unanimously with little comment. The one exception was back in 2016, when the ALP councillors and Eva Campbell questioned the amount of money set aside for the new netball courts and Macaria Art Gallery, saying it was too little.  A few months later an additional $1.2m had to be found. 

In what may be one of the most surreal scenes since the election of the new Camden Council, the small audience witnessed a major developer oppose subdivisions that would generate $50,000 in revenue for each lot and the mayor, Cr Lara Symkowiak, become the second Liberal councillor to break ranks and vote against her own party colleagues since the 2016 election. (Michael Morrison was the first back in June 13, 2017)

Early in the proceedings we should have guessed we were in for an extraordinary item at this meeting when the General Manager of Greenfields Development Company, Mr Mick Owens, spoke in opposition to ORD 02, the subdivision of a lot at 42 Bourne Ridge, Oran Park. You can read his full address here (minus one sentence he asked to be redacted).
​
The backstory to this opposition is quite interesting.

That was a question Camden Councillors had to address at Tuesday's meeting (Feb 13, 2018) when the Liberal councillors – with the support of Cr Rob Mills – voted in Debby Dewbery to the “Independent” Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for Camden.

The Camden IHAP is a vital planning panel that will decide on DA’s valued at $5m-$30m in our area. 

​One of the primary stated aims of these panels is to depoliticise the assessment process. 

Ms Dewbery is a former Liberal councillor who served with the current Liberal councillors and is a current employee of Camden Liberal MP and State Government Whip Chris Patterson.

Following this vote, unless the Planning Minister knocks it back, Ms Dewbery will be the community representative on the Camden IHAP for South Ward and its many heritage precincts. In this role she will be paid $1000 per meeting, according to the Council's business papers.

On the IHAP website, it says: “Councillors, property developers and real estate agents will be ineligible to be panel members as this undermines the objective of having DAs determined by independent experts, depoliticising the assessment process” (my emphasis).

Debby Dewbery manages to qualify for selection because as a "former" councillor she is not among the excluded group. She also meets many of the criteria in terms of knowledge of the local area and public administration due to this background. But does her selection meet the spirit of those rules?

Despite the Grima Bros decision - which you can read all about here - one of the less noticed aspects of tonight's meeting was how all but two of the councillors went against their own Code of Meeting Practice, effectively passing a rescission motion via an amendment. A rescission motion must be notified in advance of a Council meeting (see section 3.18.1).

A notice of motion brought by Cr Peter Sidgreaves to install a shaded area and a toilet block in a playground located at Burrel Rd, Spring Farm, led to an interesting discussion around why these were not automatically included in parks and is likely to see these standard issue for new parks from hereon in. 
​
However, one of my favourite parts of the night was the celebration of a small family in Elderslie, who were allowed to lease land from the Council that would them to extend and make safer the front yard of their home for children and a dog. There was lots of hugging and cheering there.
​ 
You can read the full meeting account below. 

​Grima Bros pulled a crowd of around 160 supporters that spilled out the doors tonight as they looked to the community support to see their shop continue in Gregory Hills. As many delighted local residents now know, Grima Bros were successful in chasing that dream.
 
This article will just focus on the Grima Bros debate that led to the win. I've tried to catch every detail of what was said but apologise in advance if I have missed or misinterpreted something. 
 
Before the debate itself however there were two public addresses — one opposed to the shop and one in support.

In one of the most bizarre debates seen in the Council chambers for quite a while, the Liberal councillors - Cr Lara Symkowiak, Cr Peter Sidgreaves, Cr Theresa Fideli and Cr Michael Morrison – voted down live streaming and even the mere transcription of debates for reasons that seem a little confused.

Cr Rob Mills also voted against live streaming, but he was an upfront and consistent opponent to this from the beginning, whereas the Liberals claimed they agreed with the idea in principal at an earlier meeting. Whether or not live streaming went ahead therefore depended on the Liberal vote.

One of the reasons they included in the argument against live streaming or transcribing of meetings was that it would reduce transparency (I kid you not).

It was even suggested that somehow, while speaking in the Council chambers without parliamentary privilege our councillors would be able to have an open and robust debate without fear of defamation. However, simply by streaming or transcribing meetings the defamation act that had been in abeyance would suddenly switch on. This is just not true. The only difference I could see would be potential damages depending on how widely the defamatory meaning might have spread but I don't recall this being brought up by anyone. 
​
In addition, some of the points made in the report by Council officers, which were used as the basis of the debate seem to be questionable.

• As I noted in my public address on the night, the definition of defamation was sourced from this 2000 document, while the new act came into force five years later in 2005. By using this strict definition it completely ignored the primary defence of truth and the other nine defences that are part of the 2005 Defamation Act (see Part 4, division 2 of the Act). Under section 32 of that Act, Camden Council (though not the councillors) is protected from a defamation action if a meeting is being streamed live. The defences were not part of the final report that was presented publicly, giving creedence to Cr Paul Farrow's contention that this was a particularly negative report.
• Port Stephens was used as an example of a council that had turned its back on live-streaming. I phoned that Council on the day of the meeting and was told they intend to bring back live streaming before Christmas.
• The cost of live-streaming estimated by Council officers also seemed excessive, especially for a new state-of-the-art building with modern infrastructure in an area with broadband. According to Council officers it would cost $85,000 to set up live streaming (plus around $30,000 of training for councillors and council staff) and then $20,000 a year thereafter. Maybe they should put out a tender like Wollondily Council, which achieved live-streaming earlier this year at a setup cost of $7000 and an ongoing cost of around $1000 a year.  

Beyond live streaming, we had a host of other interesting matters in the meeting. A petition for a new skatepark in Narellan or Mount Annan, the usual battle of ideas around 350sqm subdivisions in the South West Growth Area, some new industrial zoning on the borders of Smeaton Grange to make life easier for businesses and residents, and a bit of a battle over the potential loss of views caused by a development application in Kirkham.

Click read more to find the full details of this meeting.  

Car trouble meant I couldn’t make this meeting, but it showed in spades why I support streaming of Council meetings. Sadly, judging by a recent recommendation from Council officers not to support live streaming, it appears we won't get to see why councillors make decisions any time soon.

The reason I want meetings streamed is to hear the discussion around why decisions are made. Attending Council meetings has shown me that the discussion around items are often more telling and important than the final decisions.
​
A perfect example of the importance of discussions around decisions is the first item of this meeting that I missed, the proposed concrete batching plant at 60 Greendale Rd, Bringelly (although it is not the only item in this meeting where it would have been great to hear the discussion). The residents out near Greendale Rd would have been delighted to see the plant proposed by Boral was unanimously knocked back but the grounds for knocking it back were fascinating.

This was an interesting meeting more for what wasn't decided than what was. Two key items were deferred, much to the chagrin of the proponents, so the councillors could engage more closely with the community. Both deferrals made good sense.

Interestingly, this meeting included only councillors from the major parties, as both independents were absent for the first time since last year's election.

It was a packed house, primarily because of three key items – a development application for a concrete batching plant in Bringelly, the return of a development application for storing construction components on a property in Cobbitty that had previously been rejected, and the conversion of a Narellan house into a group home for the disabled. There was also an application for a beauty salon run out of a residential property in Harrington Park that got the nod, opening the door for similar services run out of other homes in the region, and a revealing look at how a drainage issue from Gledswood Hills has created difficulties for house on green space on the other side of Camden Valley Way. 

In terms of the number of items this meeting should have been a relatively short but, with 11 people lining up to make public addresses, it went on for longer than expected. Fortunately the mayor was able to reduce the number of public addresses to eight with the support of the councillors.

​Now let's get down to the meeting.