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.
As noted above, Cr Rob Mills and Cr Eva Campbell were absent, leaving both of the major parties to contribute to the discussion.
There were no declarations of interest but there were a significant number of public addresses — 11 in all with four tentative speakers added to the usual maximum number of seven.
Speaker 1 - Mr Phil Mallam (Asset Manager for Boral): Mr Mallam, spoke in support of Item 01, the development application for the concrete batching plant. He opened by providing a list of details about the proposed plant. These included that:
- The US-built plant would be state-of-the-art.
- The concrete from the plant was a perishable item that had to be delivered in 60 to 90 minutes.
- The product stored on-site would be stone, cement, water, and admix.
- All the actual mixing would be done in the concrete trucks.
- The development would permanently employ 13 people.
Mr Mallam said Boral was an Australian leader in this area and the company had 80 concrete plants in NSW alone. He said the plant would recycle its water and waste, and would have noise and dust mitigation measures. He noted the plant does not require an EPA licence because it is a small operation. The location was selected to supply concrete to critical infrastructure in the local area. Boral wanted to develop the site because it was suitable and the only site available in the local area that would allow them to optimise their resources.
He then moved on to discuss the increase in trucks on the road, which was a concern of residents. He said the peak time for trucks would be from 8am-10am. Mr Mallam noted that if batching plants were further away from the destination then more trucks would have to be on the road. He said if they were, for example, to supply concrete from the Prestons plant it would require another six trucks to be on local roads because of the 30 to 40 minute travelling time. By contrast, if the plant was at Bringelly those additional trucks driving in and out of the Camden area would not be needed. He then asked rhetorically who would be responsible for that additional risk and additional cost. He said Boral hoped to work with the community to bring in additional services and to build infrastructure local area. He said Boral would like to continue its relationship with the community as a responsible corporate citizen.
Speaker 2: Luis Valarezo on behalf of Seskui House. Mr Valarezo spoke in support of item 05 – construction of 12 two-storey dwellings at two Longview Road, Gledswood Hills. He was responding to objections regarding, in particular, the drainage basin from the subdivision. He noted this objection related to the estate itself and the 12 houses that were proposed were not directly related to this issue. He noted that the approval for the estate and the drainage were made back in 2014 and the drain under Camden Valley Way and was constructed by the Roads and Maritime Service.
He noted they had met with the objector to try and solve the issues but unfortunately it was not within their power to change the discharge point of the drainage basin. He noted they were eager to commence construction of the houses as soon as possible and agreed with the Council officers assessment of the development application.
Speaker 3: Ms Casey Hails on behalf of the Australian Foundation for Disability (AFORD). Ms Hails spoke in support of Item 03 — a group home development at 58 Valley View Drive, Narellan. Ms Hall started by saying that AFORD was one of Australia's longest serving not-for-profit organisations that provided specialised and industry-leading disability support. She said as the area grows, the need for this type of support has also increased. The intention of this development application was to put in place a permanent group home for people with disabilities.
She noted that the home helps people live fulfilled lives and to be a part of the broader community. She said the home would include five housemates and be staffed around the clock. The aim of the home was to allow them to live comfortably and develop their economic independence. The housemates were between the ages of 18 to 30 and male. None of the housemates drive. Ms Hails expressly said that this was not halfway home for people with drug issues but for people with disabilities who wish to live a long and happy life. She said there would be no increase in noise and no risk to families and children in the local area. Ms Hails also said they chose the location because of the quiet environment and that the home would in no way devalue the street. She noted that they had never had complaints from the neighbours in other similar homes and they had great relationships within the community. "We try to get to know our neighbours," she said. Ms Hails noted that at another house in Penrith they hosted a weekly walking club where the community got to know the housemates and also hosted neighbourhood Christmas parties.
She explained that these types of homes were long-term investments with very positive outcomes and concluded by saying that they saw the south-west as a great community and felt that their housemates would add value to it.
Speaker 4: Mr Walter Traush Cobbitty resident. Mr Trausch spoke against item 02 –the development application for the use of an existing farm building as a depot associated with the construction company at 238 Cobbitty Rd, Cobbitty. Mr Trausch started by asking permission to pass around an email from Mr Brett Guthrie with supporting photos. He said that the failure of the development application to meet the zoning should lead to refusal.
He noted the non-compliance with the conditions over the previous three years had continued and said the applicant had shown a total disregard to the Council and neighbours.
Mr Trausch said the only valid undertaking in this area for this building was for primary production and that had clearly not been the case when it was being used as a storage facility for offsite construction. He further noted the access road may not have been allowable under the R1 zoning, describing it as dubious. Vehicle movements, he said, disturbed the amenity of the area with vehicles moving from 7am to 6pm and there was no safeguard around these movements on the development application. Mr Trausch concluded by calling on all counsellors to unanimously reject the proposal and to add as a further reason that the development does not meet the objectives of the local area.
Speaker 5: Mr Nicholas Harvey Narellan resident. Mr Harvey spoke against Item 03, a group home development at 58 Valley View Drive, Narellan. Mr Harvey said he spoke on behalf of a number of community members who will be directly affected by the group house. Their concerns were that no community member was informed of the 15-day extension of the public exhibition period, which meant they were adversely affected in bringing their concerns to the Council.
They were also concerned about traffic and parking and that this had not been factored in to the development application. He said that while the parking currently meets the requirements that with five adults added to the house who are free to associate with family and friends this will change. He said there would be no regular parking and traffic would increase.
Mr Harvey said the response from the applicant in terms of concerns about security and safety were "abhorrent at best". He said they were unaware that this group home presented any essential service to society. Mr Harvey said that the fact that the applicant has group homes in other parts of Sydney has no bearing on this DA and to suggest that it has is biased assessment. He said in the opinion of residents the company had selected an inappropriate property in a compromised location. He said some of the aspects of the application did not meet FAC guidelines for group accommodation.
Mr Harvey said the estate was unique and that no other home had adults in such numbers. He said the addition of five adults would be immediately obvious and a lack of privacy was the likely result. Mr Harvey said that the changes to the interior of the home suggested the outside area was going to be used more and the living areas would not be just confined within the home. The reality of a group home would be very different to the comments, he said. He said that it clearly changes the neighbourhood and that the residents did not choose to live near a group home. He concluded by saying this was not a case of discrimination but a concern about providing the residents with choices and giving voice to the community. He said this was of extreme concern to the community and the type of environment they wanted their children exposed to. He said in their opinion the issues raised had not been considered properly and that the development application seemed to be one-sided.
At this point he was interrupted by the Mayor who said that was the second time he had suggested improper development advice. She said the development was based on planning controls and that it had not been treated any differently to any other DA. This was a first warning.
Mr Harvey then resumed saying that the Council’s well-being policy states there should be good communication between the community and the Council. As a community they felt they had not been sufficient communication with the release of the business papers just three days before the meeting. He felt that full communication had not been met in this case and that they requested that the DA be refused.
Speaker 6: Mr Jeremy Swan (Town planning consultant) Mr Swan spoke in support of Item 02 – the use of farm building for the depot of a construction company at 238 Cobbitty Road, Cobbitty.
Mr Swan said he was the town-planning consultant assisting the owner of the property. He said the owner was supportive of all the recommendations made by the Council officers, including:
- A time limit of 18 months whereupon they would have to submit a further development application;
- That the activity only occurs in the eastern shed and all loading occurs inside the shed with the doors closed;
- A maximum number of four vehicle movements a week and
- Hours of operation from 9am-5pm with no work on the weekends or public holidays.
He said the client realised they would need to comply with all of this for a further extension to take place.
Mr Swan then wanted to specifically address the reasons for refusal earlier this year. He said the applicant recognises they did the wrong thing by going ahead without approval and they realise it is imperative they comply with all conditions of consent. He said the zoning of RU01 land meant the application was permissible and no works were proposed for the R5 land. The vehicle movements restriction means only two vehicles will go in and out during the week. Mr Swan concluded by saying the owner wanted to live in a harmonious environment with his neighbours and that he didn't believe this application would adversely affect those neighbours.
Speaker 7: Mr Brian Stratton Bringelly resident. Mr Stratton spoke in opposition to Item 01 — concrete batching plant at 60 Greendale Road, Bringelly. Mr Stratton said he had been a Camden ratepayer for 45 years after purchasing his land in 1972. He recalled how he had visited Camden Council offices many years ago to find out more about Clark Bricks when it was proposed. He noted that during the visit he was told that the Council wanted more to be done to disguise the presence of the factory. He recalled when he first bought his land that he had to count fence posts to even find where it was and that the real estate agent told them there was no town water and probably no sewerage. He noted that even today there is no water and that it is still a truly rural community and would likely remain that way for another 20 years before the Lowy Creek precinct is established.
Mr Stratton recalled how he had been invited to visit Clark Bricks in 2012 as part of a public relations exercise and how he had been astonished at its size. He thought it was remarkable that in all the years he and other residents had never seen the industrial site because it was so well hidden following the Council's recommendations.
He remarked that it was impressive how the Council 50 years ago had the foresight to insist on a significant setback and a 200m wide buffer zone running 0.8km with a thick line of trees.
By contrast, he said Boral now intends to spoil this with a batching plant that is so close to the road that it cannot be hidden and has three six-storey high silos that will become a dominant part of the landscape. He said Camden Council had set a gold standard with Clark Bricks and that former council would have rejected this application out of hand because of the location.
Mr Stratton also pointed the councillors towards the hours of operation. He noted that according to a briefing by Boral, one of the reasons the company wanted to increase the hours of operation was because to work fewer hours would not have made the site commercially viable. He noted they did not get these increased hours, so therefore a "reasonable" person would ask why Boral does not recall it's application as by its own admission the plant would no longer be commercially viable.
The public address section had now reached it's total of allowed speakers. However, there were four "tentative" speakers who still wanted to address the council. The mayor, Cr Lara Symkowiak, noted that of those four speakers, three were speaking on issues that have been addressed for and against in the normal session. Therefore the mayor proposed that Julia Musico addressed the Council in relation to her opposition to Item 5 — the application for 12 two-storey dwellings at 2 Longview Road, Gledswood Hills.
This was agreed to by all of the councillors.
Speaker 8: Ms Julia Musico resident of Camden Valley Way. ms Muscio spoke against item 05 — 12 two-storey dwellings at 2 Longview Road, Gledswood Hills. Ms Musico said that for the past five years she had been trying to warn the council about the volume of water flowing from Gledswood Hills subdivision into their dam. She said as a result of being ignored there is now a major problem for themselves, the Council and the developer because the drainage does not flow downwards but detours sideways. She noted there had been a large release of water from the Hermitage basin into their term on February 27 this year, even though it had not rained. The dam on their properties were now at full capacity but the water is muddy and sediment laden. In addition their driveway was in danger of collapse if the flows continued.
She thanked the council for it's recent monitoring of the flow and noted they had met officers number of times to work out how to overcome the problem. The developer, Seskui House had also met with them and requested a little more time to come up with a permanent solution. Currently the water flow has been blocked, which is a temporary measure that could end with the next rainfall when the basin is refilled. Her concern is that the additional 12 houses, along with what is already occurring at the subdivision, will increase the run-off into their property. She asked for the council to defer the decision until Seskui House had come up with a solution to deal with the water overflow and quality issues.
She noted the Council report that the water release should meet environmental standards but in the meantime they could not use the dirty, muddy water.
The addresses were noted. However, a woman by the name of Mrs Newell did ask to speak to the Council but after an exchange that included support from Cr Cindy Cagney this was refused as the item she wanted to speak about had already included someone in the public address section speaking for and against it.
The minutes from the council meeting of June 27 and the local traffic committee meeting of June 20 were accepted.
There was no mayoral minute, so it was straight down to business items.
Item 01: Construction and operation of a concrete batching plant at 60 Greendale Road, Bringelly.
The recommendation by council officers is to approve.
Cr Cindy Cagney immediately proposed an alternate recommendation. This was a detailed recommendation that was passed around to all councillors prior to the meeting that called for the development application to be refused. You can see the full detail of the recommendation in the minutes of the meeting (page 4, 5) including the ten points showing why it should be refused.
Cr Ashleigh Cagney seconded the alternate recommendation to refuse.
Speaking to her point, Cr Cindy Cagney said she had not even touched on the issues of run-off and water quality in her recommendation. She said as somebody who works in areas of social justice and equity that this development did not meet the guidelines. She noted that if one of the residents in the same area had put in that development application for their land there is almost no way that it would be approved.
She noted that the growth area was expanding and that industrial areas were coming on to line five minutes up the road. Cr Cagney said that perhaps the applicant could instead consider buying into the land further up the road where it was likely to have industrial zoning.
Cr Cagney was concerned about truck movements. She said there were already concerns when the sun was low in the sky, trucks were moving up and down the stretches of road in the area at 80 km/h. Putting additional trucks close to the school and a community would not be wise.
She noted that the long-term future for the area was probably for it to be zoned residential and that the development would not be suitable in such a location unless you wanted the whole area to be deemed industrial. Considering an area up the road with better access would-be zoned industrial, she felt this did not make sense.
A letter from the EPA in relation to air quality studies said more studies would have to be done in regards to the plant. She noted that the same letter said that if there were any issues on site, the EPA would have to set up a complaints hotline. She said this was the equivalent of asking local residents to police environmental issues.
Cr Cagney asked how a non-compliant development, such as this one, could be made compliant. She said it doesn't actually comply but has been “made to fit” and it seems that according to the EPA guidelines, it would only meet these six months out of 12.
Finally, she said we are looking at the future of Camden and that the Council needs to start valuing its rural areas in the northern parts and outskirts of Camden in the same way that the southern areas are valued. (This was greeted by scattered clapping in the audience).
Cr Peter Sidgreaves spoke against the alternate recommendation, saying he would prefer the application was deferred rather than outright refused. He said he had two reasons for this. The first was that the development application was being assessed under the State Environment Planning Policies (SEPP) not Camden's Local Environment Plan (LEP), which makes it a permissible development.
Secondly, again because it was being assessed under the SEPP, concrete batching plants work permissible. So, he asked for this to be deferred for two weeks, so that Council officers could ensure that all of the information was correct and the alternate recommendation could be debated based on facts.
Cr Theresa Fedeli had a question. She asked if going to the land and environment (I assume in this case she means the Land and Environment Court) would a decision approving the concrete batching plant make it worse for residents?
A Council officer replied, saying the original operating hours went up to 10pm. The amended proposal now only operates up to 6pm with trucks returning up to 7pm. She noted that if this was to go before the Land and Environment Court the operating hours could conceivably revert to 10pm.
Cr Lara Symkowiak also spoke against the recommendation to refuse the development application, saying that she would rather defer the item and allow the Council officers to address each of the points made in the alternate recommendation. She noted an email raising these points was only circulated a day or so earlier.
She also asked Cr Cagney if the points made in the alternate recommendation had been supplied to the Council's planning department for their advice.
Cr Cagney replied that they had not. She had said she spent a week trying to put the alternate recommendation together.
Cr Symkowiak said she would prefer to defer at this point in time. She said in her opinion that the first three points outlined by Cr Cagney did in fact comply with the State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) of 2007 for extractive industries and the SEPP overrides the Council's local environment plan. She said she would prefer the councillors had all the facts before them prior to making a decision because it was an important development and there was a fair amount of community concern.
She also took issue with the suggestion that the council had a north versus south mentality in regards to protecting rural areas.
Cr Cagney called a point of order, saying that she did not suggest a north versus south mentality but that this kind of development was the first that she could recall in this area. She said it wasn't a for-or-against statement but one of being aware of the north's rural values.
Cr Symkowiak said, "if I would be allowed to finish my point". She made a distinction between this area and Bringelly being part of the Southwest growth centre unlike other areas within the local government area. "We need to compare apples with apples not apples with oranges," she said.
She said that she believed that compared to the original development application put forward by Boral, the current application with amendments was an improvement. She expressed concern that if the development application was refused in its current form that it would go to the Land and Environment Court where a "city judge" may very well approve the hours of operation up to 10pm. Cr Symkowiak used the Camden McDonald's as an example noting that they were able to make the fast food outlet design more in keeping with Camden whereas had they refused outright the company would have taken them to the Land and Environment Court, where they would have lost and not had the ability to reduce the size of the building and signage, and select colours. "Council as the consent authority was able to get a better outcome," she said. Cr Symkowiak said she was concerned that this application by Boral was along similar lines and somebody who did not live in this area might not listen to the Council's concerns. She then asked a Council planning officer for their opinion on the likelihood of a refused application being taken to the Land and Environment Court and approved there.
The officer said she could not comment on the likely outcome of the application. What she did say though was that the development was approvable from a Council officer perspective and hence they recommended approval with reduced hours and additional amendments. The court, she said, would have access to that report in any decision they made.
Cr Symkowiak then asked what the future land use (zoning) of that area was likely to be.
The Council officer said the land is subject to the Southwest Growth Area but at this stage there was no indication of how it would be zoned. An early draft suggested that it was likely to be business or enterprise zoning and close to a railway line. However, at this point there were no formal plans for this.
Cr Symkowiak said that for the reasons she had discussed she would support a deferral.
Cr Cindy Cagney then asked if anyone was considering moving deferral.
Cr Peter Sidgreaves foreshadowed deferral and Cr Cagney said she would support this.
The ten-point amendment by Cr Cagney was lost along party lines, with Labor voting for it and the Liberals voting against it. Without either of the independents in the room the amendment was defeated with the mayor’s casting vote.
Cr Peter Sidgreaves then moved that the item be deferred and returned to the next meeting. This was seconded by Cr Michael Morrison.
Cr Paul Farrow had a question for the Council’s staff. He noted in the papers supplied the zoning was for RU1 primary production. He asked if the development had permissibility under the SEPP because it was an extractive industry and whether, as mentioned by one of the speakers during the public address portion, the paperwork from the original conditions for the brickworks beside the site for the concrete batching plant relied on the LEP as the instrument?
The Council officer said they had looked at the consent for the brickworks and noted they did have an existing approval. This approval was through the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.
The vote to defer the item was passed unanimously.
Item 02: Use of an existing farm building as a depot associated with a construction company at 238 Cobbitty Rd, Cobbitty.
Background: This development application was returned to the council after originally being rejected on February 14. There were a range of issues at that time both around the lack of correct zoning for the activity and the suggestion that the applicant had ignored Council regulations and the amenity of his neighbours. This time around the application was brought before the council with a number of amendments and Council officers had recommended approval. Prior to the meeting photos were distributed to the councillors, which indicated the building was still being used as a depot despite not having permission to do so.
Moved Peter Sidgreaves. Seconded Michael Morrison.
Cr Peter Sidgreaves immediately called for an alternate recommendation, calling for the application to be refused as the photos indicated the farm building was still being used as a depot.
Cr Morrison agreed to the alternate recommendation.
Cr Sidgreaves noted that nothing had changed since the last time this application had been brought before the Council. He noted the photos from two days ago continue to show a lack of compliance and that the applicant was clearly not working with his neighbours to resolve issues.
Cr Cindy Cagney had a question for the Planning Director. She asked if this was to go to the Land and Environment Court, how likely was it for the application to be passed?
The Planning Director said, similar to her previous response, that if the Council offices considered it to be a completely compliant development application the Court would take note of the Council's report and would decide according to the merits of the DA. She noted the Court may have a different opinion.
Cr Cagney said that she did agree with the concerns of Cr Sidgreaves and would support the community. However she noted that it was interesting that it didn't matter that this particular item could go before the Land and Environment Court whereas it appeared this was a concern on the previous item.
Cr Lara Symkowiak spoke in support of declining the application. She said that if the property had direct access to Cobbitty Road then she may have considered approval but with the zoning, the fact that vehicles went past other residents this was not acceptable. While the shed was at a distance, access to the site was close to other houses. She felt the number of vehicles was inconsequential and the history of non-compliance was a concern. She felt an off-site factory unit would have been more appropriate for use than the depot. Had the development application been for an extension of an agricultural building or agricultural use she would not have had a problem with it. However, she said, it is clearly for commercial use in a residential area.
Cr Symkowiak then responded to the comments of Cr Cagney. She noted the contrast between the size of the multi-million dollar concrete batching plant and the shed on the Cobbitty property. If the Court approved the concrete batching plant without Council amendments, the impact on residents under the original proposal would be significantly greater than the final development application that had been brought before the Council. By contrast, if the shed was approved without amendment there would certainly be impacts on residents but the difference between the original application and the amended application before the Council at this meeting would not be as great. She claimed Cr Cagney was not comparing apples with apples. Cr Symkowiak said in light of this she was quite prepared to take the risk for this application.
The alternate recommendation was supported unanimously and the development application was refused.
Item 03: Alterations and additions for an existing dwelling to be used as a group home — 58 Valley View Drive, Narellan
Background: This item refers to a group home proposed by AFORD for people with a disability, so they can live independently in the community. There was a petition and a significant number of individual residents who were opposed to this.
Cr Paul Farrow immediately asked if he could move an alternate recommendation to defer the item for a later date. The aim of the deferral was for the Council to facilitate a meeting between the applicant and affected residents.
This was seconded by Cr Cindy Cagney.
Cr Farrow noted that while there was a recommendation to approve the application it was very apparent that there were a lot of unresolved issues between the applicant and those people who had to live close by. He hoped that by arranging such a meeting that they may be able to bridge some gaps and misunderstandings. He said he didn't want to take away from the fact that there was a need for this home but that because of the substantial number of people close to this who had some concerns it suggested to him that there may have been insufficient consultation. "Maybe we can get the two parties together to narrow some of the gaps," he said.
Cr Theresa Fedeli said she was quite happy to go along with the recommendation but had a question. She agreed there had been a lot of misunderstandings with the item but wanted to know how they would arrange the meeting on site.
Cr Farrow said that he imagined that a meeting would be arranged in a manner similar to the meeting that had been arranged around item 01. He suggested that the applicant and residents be invited to a meeting within the council building.
Cr Michael Morrison asked if deferring this item to the next meeting would allow enough time to bring the parties together.
A Council officer said that it would be preferable to have a longer time.
Cr Lara Symkowiak then suggested changing the recommendation to say the next available council meeting.
Cr Farrow said he was amenable to this, he just didn't want this item to drag on.
Cr Lara Symkowiak spoke in support of the amended recommendation agreeing with Cr Farrow that they would like to bring this back to the Council chambers as soon as possible. She also agreed that there had been some misunderstandings around the use of the home and it was important to aim for as little animosity between neighbours as possible going forward. "The more understanding there is between neighbours, the better," she said. The mayor then thanked those who had spoken during the public addresses and noted that some good points had been made.
The recommendation to defer this item was supported unanimously.
Item 04: Home business — beauty salon, 10 Peisley Court, Harrington Park.
Moved Theresa Fedeli. Second Peter Sidgreaves.
Cr Theresa Fedeli said she was quite happy to support the recommendation for the beauty salon and noted that only the owner would be working from the salon during daylight hours. Therefore should not see a problem with traffic as there would be single appointments on the basis of coming and going.
Cr Michael Morrison had a question. He noted that the applicant had originally asked for the opening hours of the saloon to include Saturdays until 5pm. He asked why these hours had been reduced.
A Council officer said the hours had been amended to be in keeping with the development control plan, which specifies these times.
Cr Morrison then asked for some clarification, noting that it was his understanding that if it could be demonstrated that the additional hours would not negatively affect members of the neighbourhood that these towers could be extended. He also asked, would not be reasonable to assume that neighbours would not be affected in this case?
The Council officer said that this would be for the council to decide and that they could change the hours if they wished to.
Cr Morrison then asked the mover of the recommendation, Theresa Fedeli, if she would be open to extending the operating hours on Saturday from 9:30am to 5pm.
Both Theresa Fedeli and Peter Sidgreaves accepted the amendment to extend Saturday operating hours to 5pm.
Cr Morrison then continued, saying he commended the applicant for working with the council and that anybody who wants to develop their own business deserves the assistance of the Council.
Cr Cindy Cagney spoke against the amendment, saying she was not against the application but had some concerns about going outside the development control plan. She said she imagined the opening hours had already been agreed to in-principle by the applicant.
Cr Lara Symkowiak spoke in favour of the amended recommendation. She said there would be minimal impact with new hours and that given the nature of the business the ability to see clients over the weekend would be an advantage to the owner/operator. She said the council could consider variations where it was appropriate and that every application needed to be treated on its merits. She noted that the applicant had liaised with the neighbours and explained the operation of her business. There was also a petition supporting the business as well. This combined with the low number of clients — around one per hour — meant the impact would be minimal and therefore she supported the amended recommendation.
The amended recommendation was passed with Paul Farrow and the Liberals voting to support it. Cindy Cagney and Ashleigh Cagney voted against it.
Item 05: Development application for 12 two-storey dwellings at two Longview Rd, Gledswood Hills.
Moved Peter Sidgreaves. Seconded Michael Morrison.
Background: The issue with this development is not so much to do with compliance but to do with the drainage and spill water from the estate, which is having a big impact on the property opposite. From the following discussion and the public addresses it is quite clear this has been an ongoing issue.
Before he spoke on the application, Cr Peter Sidgreaves asked if the Council officers could tell them what had been done and what was being done in relation to the drainage issues.
The Council officer noted that the issue of the drainage was before the Council's compliance team. They had inspected the retention basin to ensure that it was still blocked and not spilling onto the land across the road. The inspections are planned to continue on "numerous" occasions and particularly after high rainfall events.
Cr Sidgreaves wanted to know if there was more that the Council could do.
The Council officer said the basin on Seskui land was fully compliant but that the contractor who had worked on the basin had not complied with the conditions and the Council has issued compliance orders against the contractor. The council was satisfied that the basin could accept drainage but at this time there was not a lot more that the Council could do.
Cr Sidgreaves said he was supportive of the development application because all of the proposed buildings were compliant.
Cr Cindy Cagney spoke in support of the application, noting that Seskui House had been very supportive and worked well with the Council, so she implored them to make every effort to deal with the sediment problem. She noted the issues for the residents on the other side of the road and that the Roads and Maritime Service had constructed the road adding to the difficulty of correcting the problem. She hoped that as the land was developed issues of drainage would be dealt with.
The development application was passed unanimously.
Item 06: Tender for the provision of plumbing, electrical and general building maintenance services.
Moved Theresa Fedeli. Seconded Michael Morrison.
Cr Theresa Fedeli said she was happy with the process taken to select the organisations for this tender.
Cr Cindy Cagney asked the Council officers if the Council had a local preference policy for tenders.
The council officer replied that at this stage they do not.
The item was passed unanimously.
Item 07: To note the minutes of the business assurance and risk committee meeting of May 17.
Moved Peter Sidgreaves. Seconded Theresa Fedeli.
There was no commentary on this item and it was passed unanimously.
Item 08: Closure of meeting to the public for the appointment of an independent member to the Business Assurance and Risk Committee.
The meeting was closed with no debate. When the meeting was reopened it was announced that an applicant for the Business Assurance and Risk Committee had been appointed unanimously and they would be notified in writing.
The meeting then came to a close.