Blue Mountains City CouncilMeeting: 15 December 2010
Councillors, the next item that members of the public wish to address us on is item number 14 commencing at page 94 of the business paper.
There are three speakers. Two against and one for.
The first speaker - I'm just calling them as they're on the page in front of me - the first speaker is Pamela Smith who is against the recommendations.
Hi. Mayor, General Manager. My name is Pamela Smith and I'm a resident of Springwood. I'm a member of Springwood Historians, an independent group who write and publish local history, and a member of Save Our Springwood. I have an advanced diploma in local history, a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and I've just finished honours. I'm speaking against the recommendation outlined in Item 14 because I don't believe the consultation thus far has been broad enough to set the direction of this process, nor provide a list of priorities as set out on page 99 of the report.
Just to give you one example, Springwood Historians, who are heavy users of the Local Studies Collection were not invited to contribute to the Cultural and Community Needs Assessment even though we use the Local Studies regularly and have donated valuable resources to the collection, the most recent being a thousand dollars' worth of old World War I service records.
Furthermore, the thrust of this report indicates that consultation will be more of the same, and if you read the second last paragraph on page 103: the poll will only afford residents the chance to vote on detailed options put forward by the three proponents. If, however, the residents reject the proponents' detailed options Council still retain the capacity to move forward to the next steps because the poll will not be legally binding. This process puts the cart before the horse, and even though the community of Springwood has not been privy the proponents' concept drawings this report clearly implies the direction the detailed options will take.
The bulk and scale of the development or developments as indicated by this report will cause negative impacts on traffic, local business, resident amenity, and the cultural heritage of the area, especially in the main street.
Consider, for example, the type of building that might be wedged between the heritage listed Braemar and the Oriental Hotel. It does not bear thinking about. Nor does the demolition of a perfectly good and functioning building like the Civic Centre, and even though some around this table would argue otherwise, the Civic Centre is part of Springwood's built heritage, and sits comfortably those two buildings. Incidentally, the sandstone for its construction was quarried at Yellow Rock.
The community of Springwood has an emotional and cultural attachment to the Civic Centre, a building which only came to fruition in 1966 after many years of public fundraising, a levy on rates, and a government grant. In essence, under the terms of the Local Government Act, 1993, our civic precinct, which includes the property of Braemar, was automatically classified as community land on the introduction of that act. Both properties were never meant to be operational assets that could be disposed of to commercial interests.
I urge you to stop this process now.
Any questions for the speaker? Councillor Mays.
Mrs Smith, what would you like us to do as a Council in respect to the Springwood Town Centre Project?
I would like it to halt and go back to the start. We would like to see a withdrawal of the commercial interests, and go back and have meaningful consultation with the public - with the residents of the area.
Mays: So what do you mean by "meaningful consultation"?
Broader consultation, not just the chosen people, but a much wider consultation process because there hasn't been one up to this point in time.
Searle: Any further questions?
If not, thank you very much.
The next speaker is Alan Crooks.
In favour of the recommendations.
Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors, Council staff. I'm Alan Crooks, 6 Lugano Court Springwood. I'm here as the owner of a main street business in Springwood. I'm also the current Secretary of the Springwood Chamber of Commerce, but I'm not speaking on behalf of the Chamber tonight.
My wife and I run the Turning Page Bookshop in Springwood, and having purchased it just over 18 months ago.
Currently, Springwood is an active commercial centre and we know from talking with our customers that there's and appetite for a greater range of services to be available in the town, and we welcome the interest of the Councillors supporting the Springwood Community to make this happen. However, most people we speak to would prefer that this be achieved in the context of preserving the current village atmosphere and shopping focus around a main street commercial structure.
One only has to shop in High Street, Penrith, to see the devastation that uncontrolled imposition of a huge shopping mall can have on the main street precinct, such as High Street, in Penrith.
We support the recommendations that are set out in the business paper, in particular, the early exposure of the content of the needs assessment paper, but question the need for the urgency implied by the timetable set out in recommendations 3 and 4, and in the body of the business paper.
In particular, we can't see how sufficient community consultation could have taken place by February to allow what surely must be a very complex request for detailed proposals to be prepared by April, especially given that very little work will be able to be done in the next month due to Christmas and the holiday season.
Given that this is likely to be a private-public partnership, and given the reported issues arising around the same kind of commercial structure being used in construction and operation of the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre, we believe it would be better to give plenty time for the community consultation to happen, so that, in parallel, a better understanding can be gained to the challenges and opportunities that arise out of a private-public relationship or partnership.
We believe that the current Springwood Civic Centre represents a valuable community asset, with significant heritage values, and that a significant majority of the Springwood residents and business people would object strongly to any proposal to remove it in the context of a large commercial development.
While supporting the recommendations, we would ask the Councillors to respect the wishes and opinions of the people of Springwood and ensure adequate time is given to enable a fair and balanced proposal, supported by the broad community, to be developed and implemented.
Thank you.
Any questions? Councillor Mays.
Mr Crooks, what sort of timeframe do you think would be more appropriate?
My work experience has been project management, project director type of things; I would have said 6 to 12 months would be a reasonable timeframe.
From now? From now.
If you published the needs assessment tomorrow, I think it would not be unreasonable that within somewhere between no less than 6 no more than 12 months from now it could come to a reasonable conclusion about what a community consensus was on what would be the best way forward.
Mays: Thank you.
Searle: Any further questions? If not, thank you.
The next and final speaker is Margaret Buchanan, who is also opposed to the recommendations.
My name is Margaret Buchannan; my address is [deleted]. I'm here as a representative of the Springwood Neighbourhood Centre Cooperative.
We're opposing the recommendations as they are put tonight, somewhat, perhaps, counter-intuitively, because they are due to go towards making significant recommendations in terms of what might be developed in relation to important community facilities.
The reason why we oppose it in some ways is an echo of the previous speakers around consultation. We're very conscious, as a community organisation, that the proposed manner of funding and proceeding with the project has generated a strong community reaction.
As a community organisation we get a lot of people walking through our doors needing urgent assistance and immediate assistance, and this has increased over the past 12 months. In that light, a project of such significant financial implications, in order to undertake genuine community consultation, should, in fact, include a component that looks at how much it costs, and what process that will be undertaken by.
In terms of turning to the report itself, there's also some confusion, we think, in the way that the report is so - perhaps this is my unfamiliarity with the way Council papers are prepared - but the recommendations do not really reflect in full what the report is proposing. So, for example, the recommendation talks about releasing the consultant's report, but when you go to the detailed tables set out in pages 100 and 101, you see it talks about that a more general proposal is provided about what is provided, and that includes the consultant's report. So, reading into that seems to be that what's being proposed is that the other views that are expressed in the report that have come from Councillors and, in our case, those Councillors haven't consulted with us as a stakeholder here, have put forward a number of other issues that also compromise one of the priorities that we think is really important, which is the co-location of community facilities.
You don't want to separate welfare oriented facilities from cultural facilities. If you do so, you're just creating ghettos. So the cultural and welfare community aspects really need to be co-located, and that's a strong view that we have.
We're saying, by all means release the consultant's report, but don't muddy the waters by adding other comments at this point.
In terms of the other recommendations, we support the previous speakers' point of view that it's too soon too fast, and that there needs to be a more of a staged process including the overall issue of how it might be funded and how that will be done. Thank you.
Any questions for the speaker? Councillor Gibbs.
Thank you Ms Buchannan.
Just wanted to touch on a point you raised about the services that you provide at the Neighbourhood Centre and costs. I just wanted to clarify what you meant in terms of whether it was an equity issue of your clients accessing the proposed new facilities, and the cost for them personally, or whether it was an implication of the cost Council may be impacting on our ability to fund welfare type services?
Yes, I meant in terms of costs to the Council and in turn to the community.
Any further questions? If not, thank you for your time.
Councillor McLaren, you wish to move something?
McLaren: I wish to move items 1 to 4 plus 5 and 6 that I've sent to the Executive Officer.
Searle: Seconded by Councillor Myles.
McLaren: I'm very pleased to see this report come up tonight, and I congratulate the staff, in particular Mr. Turner, for his work in delivering this report.
The first thing I'll address about community consultation is this report proposes community consultation up until April. My view is that community consultation is about quality, not about quantity. It is about delivering appropriate community consultation.
Every time that you delay a project, the costs blow out even further, and the chances of the project going ahead decrease. As I've said many many times, my motivation in supporting this process is to get better community facilities.
It was interesting to hear speakers talk about the merits of the Civic Centre. When I attended the last performance of the Blue Mountains Musical Society, in the break, I had no less than 9 people come up and have a go at me about the inadequacy of the Civic Centre as a facility for the performing arts. I understand that several ambulances were called during the last performance of the season of the Blue Mountains Musical Society on the basis that people had collapsed during the heat. That facility is not adequate for the needs of the community.
The aim in this process has always been to deliver facilities that far exceed those that we have now. It's not about reducing community facilities; it's not about selling off facilities to developers.
In fact Councillor Myles and myself have stated on many occasions that we will not support a proposal that involves the sale of land.
This has always been about improving Springwood, and I absolutely agree with the second speaker. It has to retain the village feel, and it has to have that main street aspect about it.
But one thing that's really concerned me lately, the closure of the NAB, the number of complaints that I've received from local business people and local community members who now have to change banks because it's not feasible to do their banking with a bank that is no longer located in the local area. And banks only leave town when things are bad. They don't leave when things are good. And it's really concerning that there are businesses in Springwood that are closing.
So we need to do something that provides better economic outlooks for the area - that does something and improves our community facilities.
Number 5, which I have put is up, is because I think - and we've often heard from several people that we need to be open and transparent. Well tonight, I'm being open and transparent. I'm putting my comments and my views and those of other Councillors around the table on full public display. And I invite my other Councillor colleagues to do the same. Put the comments that you've made in relation to this on public display.
I'm not saying that what we've put there is entirely right, but what it says is what we're not prepared to accept less than what is in that document.
This town needs a library that is three times the size of the current one. We don't have adequate learning spaces, particularly for children who are studying. There's often assumptions made about the kind of people that live in Springwood, that they're middle class, that they all have computers at home, and they can all afford to study. That is not the case. There are children every afternoon queuing up to use those internet facilities. There are students studying for their HSC who do not have a quiet place to go. And we all know that learning outcomes are tied to having an adequate place to study. As a community and as a Council we have a responsibility to provide those facilities.
As our population ages the needs for our services will increase. We already can't fit all the demands into our current neighbourhood centre. These are very valuable services - The Vietnam Vets, the Respite Service. Organisations like them, and many others that we cannot provide accommodation for, deserve to be looked after.
This process is about moving forward to find a way.
But I'll address one final comment that one of the speakers made - that a poll is not binding. It might not be binding, but people around this table - we're politicians - we listen to what a poll tells us.
[Sounds from the audience] Searle: Members of the public were allowed to speak and able to address Council in silence. Please extend the courtesy to all the speakers around the table tonight.
McLaren: It's interesting that people, if your view differs from theirs, that it's not the majority view. That this poll will allow on this process people to be informed, and to have a full understanding of exactly what is coming. But to do a poll prior to knowing exactly what's on the table is dishonest. You should absolutely tell people exactly what's coming. Not some "you may or may not get blah". And those same people who oppose a poll coming at this stage will be the people who will winge if the poll is not a specific question. So in order to make sure that this is a fair process we need this process to be followed.
Searle: Does the seconder wish to speak?
Mays: Foreshadow an amendment, Mr. Mayor.
Searle: Certainly.
Searle: Any speakers in opposition?
Another Councillor: [Inaudible]
Searle: Well there's one motion before the chair.
Mays: Look, I just have a question if I may. What is the vision for Springwood that has been endorsed by some Councillors and not others?
McLaren: It was the paper I sent around inviting all Councillors to put their name to it.
Mays: So just so I'm clear, Councillor McLaren, that is the document that had the consultant's priorities and Councillors were asked to offer their opinion on that prioritisation.
Mclaren: Yes, it's the opinions that I circulated.
Mays: Right, but I just want to be clear. I think I know the document you're referring to. So we received the consultant's report. It had a priority listing. And you then produced another document that had another priority listing.
McLaren: I'd say a complementary priority listing.
Mays: But it was a different priority...
Mclaren: It was a different document.
Mays: Yep. Thank you.
Searle: Any further debate? Councillor Luchetti.
Luchetti: Thanks, Mr. Mayor.
To begin with I might ask a few questions through you to the General Manager and the relevant staff member please.
Mr Turner, how much did the Springwood Cultural and Community Facilities and Services and Needs Assessment cost Council?
This is a question I had put to you in an email some weeks ago, so it effectively has been on notice, and I never got a response, but look, I'm happy to let that one hang.
Turner: I just don't have the information at hand [inaudible] on notice.
Luchetti: My second question is: What weighting will be attached to community comment on the priorities listed in this report?
Turner: Clearly, the consultation process and the process for the poll will be reported back on the 23rd of [Feb?], and that's the intention to bring that in terms of shaping the process going forward. So you will be briefed prior to that and the process will be [inaudible] thereon.
Luchetti: And on that same topic, how will the community's comments on priorities be weighed against those of Councillors, for example the Vision of Springwood, which I've just discovered the title of?
Turner: That will clearly be a decision of the Council to ...
Searle: If Mr Turner would just pause I think the General Manager wishes to say something.
GM: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a point in terms of the questions. If they are questions that the officers can readily answer off the top of their head, that's fine, but please appreciate that some of these things are not black and white issues and it may require them to be taken on notice.
Luchetti: How many Councillors responded in detailed emails to your request for feedback on the priorities listed in the report?
Turner: We received two separate emails in response.
Luchetti: OK. The comments and priorities on page 99 of the business paper were provided by how many Councillors? Or which Councillor?
Turner: The preliminary priorities schedule starting 98 through 99?
Luchetti: So the comments on page 99. Whose comments are they?
Look, the point I'm trying to make here is that from my observations of this, an email was sent from Councillor McLaren which seemed to be her own work, and she asked for people who agreed to endorse it. Now, the issue I have with this page is that it says "other comments from some Councillors", but, anyway, it might be semantics. I'm happy to move on.
It would be fair to say that the other detailed email response you received was from myself?
That's correct.
Why were none of my comments included in the report in the business paper?
Apologies. I thought we had made reference to those earlier in the report.
Not really, but I'll get to that when I speak.
As someone who was present at all the workshops, like myself, are you aware that there is strong disagreement among the Councillors as to when the poll of community opinion on this matter should be held?
We're aware there's a variance of opinion. Yes.
All right. Therefore, why then does this report make repeated references, on pages 95, 100, and 101 to this poll being held after a request for detailed proposals? Who made that decision?
What we've clearly tried to sort of set out is a staged process that engages the community at various points through the timeline, and provides ...
GM: Mr. Mayor, I think it's important to say that it's not a decision. This is an officer's report that's been put forward based on their professional opinion. Now, it's for Councillors to consider, to agree with, to disagree with, to modify. That's Council's prerogative. But I don't think the officers should be criticised for something that they put forward as their professional opinion, because it's not their decision.
Luchetti: All right then. One more question, because it looks like the issue of this poll is going to be forced, and I'll address that in a moment.
Looking back at the Mayoral minute, Recommendation 3 of the Mayoral minute states: "that if all the proponents", and if you want to look at this in the paper it's on page 94-95, "indicate an intention to continue in the process, a public consultation on the Springwood Town Centre Project will take place, and this consultation will include a poll or referendum of community opinion."
We move to recommendation 6, and it states: "That no further action be taken on the Springwood Town Centre Project until the above matters have been actioned."
Based on a literal interpretation of this, how can we be progressing towards a request for detailed proposals before a poll is conducted?
Turner: Recommendation 5 calls for the reports to Council on the exact process and approaches.
Luchetti: OK, but that's sort of dealing with, again, the consultation, but my interpretation of this Mayoral minute is that the poll is one of the above matters, and until that's actioned we can't proceed.
Searle: Well, that's not my understanding, but in any case, there's a report before us. It's a matter for this Council to determine however it sees fit. Councillor, do you wish to address now? The floor is yours.
Luchetti: I think you can tell from the tone of my questions that I have been none too pleased with this report. In fact, if this meeting had been a week earlier, I probably would have been dragged out of here, as I had a fair degree of anger when I first digested the contents of this report.
I have gone out of my way in numerous occasions when I have been bailed up in public by people who may be running a little on the paranoid side and have said to me there's a set agenda, Council staff are sort of controlling this; it's not balanced. I've never subscribed to that. I've been impressed, deeply impressed, by the professionalism and the competence of the staff ever since I've got up here. Reading this report shook me, and it shook some of the strength of those convictions, when I had a sense that there has been a direction pushed in this report that was not the will of the Councillors, and certainly was not the will from the workshops that I left.
I expected the report towards the end of this year to put on the table the options for a poll, when we couldn't agree with it at a Councillor workshop, and there were two strong points of view. One was that we should have the poll based on the information contained in the summaries from the three proponents, and do it as soon as possible, and, when I supported this Mayoral minute, that's what I believed the intention of the Mayoral minute was.
The other school of thought and strong arguments in their camp too, was that the poll should take place after more information was on the table to give people a greater choice of options.
Two schools of thought. The way this should be decided in an effective democratic system and process is that that argument should have been shaped and scoped in a business paper so the community could go through in some detail about what we might be talking about at a meeting on such a contentious issue, and an issue that's important to so many people in Springwood, and then have the opportunity to contact Councillors and express their point of view on the matter, to help shape and influence the minds of the Councillors before they come here to debate it.
And yet, I get this business paper. It's a foregone conclusion. If these recommendations get up, there is no debate about when we have a poll. I fully accept that this debate might not go the way I like. But I would be deeply aggrieved if we were ruled out - if we did not have the opportunity to have the debate in this chamber, because I do not think that is democratic, and I think that is achieving means by stealth. I refute entirely the notion that we support the timeline on 101, because that will be approving a poll after we go to RDP [Request for Detailed Proposals], and I know, maybe not half, but there would be a good number of Councillors around this table that would support me in that.
So, in not supporting this, and again, I know there has already been one amendment foreshadowed, I would foreshadow another one, or certainly urge the Councillors who put this up to take on board that at the next opportunity that the poll is put on the table and we do this properly.
Because I think people need to see that this process is above board, and that there are no shadows, there are no opportunities for people to say the fix is in. We've got to do this properly.
Obviously, I'm going to run out of time too, but I was deeply aggrieved by the fact that I opened this and read Councillor McLaren's comments, and I am not attacking her here, because she has put a lot of time, energy and thought into this, and it's very well-constructed, and she's made some very valid points. If she's entitled to a page in the business paper representing her point of view, I'm really upset that the alternative point of view that I put forward is summarised in about a line and a half.
I will read in what time I've got left some of what I thought that I contributed to Mr. Turner that should have got in the business paper, or, at least, should have stopped Councillor Mclaren's comments going in until what I brought up was actioned and addressed.
I raised questions. How much did we spend on this report? What weight is to be attached to it? Will the opinions of Councillors weigh more than the public? I can't give my list of priorities until I'm allowed to discuss the report with my constituents, which won't be until tomorrow because they haven't been allowed to see it. I asked that the deadline for his list of priorities be extended until public exhibition could be considered, so then I could respond properly. And yet it's all been ignored. And there's plenty more there. But when I wrote this, it wasn't even a given that that report would even see the light of day.
Searle: Councillor, you're entitled to move any amendments if you wish.
Any further speakers?
Gibbs: I just wanted to clarify that we will be voting on this and it will be coming to the two foreshadowed amendments before we come back to the original recommendations? Is that correct?
Searle: No. At the moment there is a motion, which is before the chair, which is currently being debated. If it's not passed, then there's no decision. If it's passed, then it's passed. If you wish to amend it, the opportunity is now to put up an amendment. You're not obliged to do so.
Gibbs: ... foreshadowed ...
Searle: Your foreshadowed amendment. Does the Executive Officer have the text?
Yes.
Searle: We'll pull that up, and you can address it now. You're actually moving the amendment; you're not foreshadowing it. Often what happens is people foreshadow a new motion if a motion isn't passed.
Gibbs: Here's what I wanted to clarify, because Councillor McLaren had amended the original motion.
Searle: She's put up something slightly different than the business paper, but, it's her motion. So you wish to move an amendment to what is currently before the chair, and this is your amendment. Councillor Mays, but seconded by you. Councillor Mays, do you wish to address on this amendment?
Mays: Contrary to the comments from some of my Councillor colleagues around table just then which I share for the community that Springwood misses out, that is not the intention of this amendment.
This Council faces serious fiscal problem. Every Councillor around this table knows that. And here we go on this project potentially embarking on a third major project at this time. This Council needs to complete Lawson town centre redevelopment. This Council needs to undertake the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre project - the first public-private partnership for this community. And already we know that this Council, this community, may face an operating cost subsidy of up to a million dollars. Now there are cynics around this table who can constantly remind me: "Oh, it's not a million dollars. You're scare-mongering." Well, let's halve it. Half a million dollars per year is probably a conservative estimate of an operating subsidy for the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre Project. This is not about "Springwood misses out". This is about cutting your cloth to the purse. And the purse of this Council, as Councillors around this table know, is stretched. We spend an inordinate amount of time juggling the budget, to deliver the services that this community rightly deserves. Now I ask Councillors tonight to actually think a little more logically on this matter, and suspend the Springwood Town Centre Project until we've completed Lawson and delivered to the people of Lawson, and until we've delivered the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre Project. A massive project. And frankly this Council at this time is unproven in public-private partnership activity. And if we look at some other councils around the country, sometimes these things don't pan out as is expected. I urge Councillors to put aside inter-village rivalry, and to actually lets deliver on the two largest projects we have on the books right now, and then revisit the Springwood Town Centre Project in unison with the community.
Gibbs: One of the things I've constantly heard around Springwood is that people still feel they are not being heard. They are still feeling that Council is not listening to them. They are not having an opportunity to participate in this process. Everyone in the Mountains wants stuff. Wants things to be better; wants things to be more fantastic. One of the things that I think we have learned about things like Lawson is the positive outcomes that you can get by bringing the community with us. Lawson has been an incredibly contentious project. It has been something that has, I know, hurt a lot of people over time. But, through the process of community consultation, and great community consultation in the end, some of the outcomes have been fantastic. I know I got a pin here two weeks ago, and was very dismissive and upset about the next stage of the project. But at the same time I did say again that the town square there, I am constantly hearing from everyone, all over the Mountains, what a great idea it is. And that has come from the staff having the time, and taking the time, to work with a while huge range of people in the community to get it right. And now the community is incredibly happy. It has actually turned out fantastically. And it think it is one of those things that we've learned lessons on how to do this well, through Lawson.
We don't want to start doing this badly when we've actually got the opportunity to take the lessons that we've learned from Lawson in how to do it well, and translate that to Springwood, and give the people of Springwood what they want, and not what they feel is being foisted upon them.
Searle: Councillor Myles, and then Councillor Greenhill.
Myles:
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
I wasn't sure what line of attack would come. I certainly didn't expect this. That Springwood should miss out. That's exactly what that says. Springwood does not proceed until Lawson is sorted out and until Katoomba has the Cultural Centre. That is an absolute disgrace. Springwood deserves a library three times bigger. Councillor McLaren made that reference; it's in the report too. It needs that for the size of population we have. No, you don't get it until Ward 2 has Lawson sorted out and Ward 1 gets Katoomba Cultural Centre sorted out. Until it gets a library significantly bigger than the one we currently have. Well, that sounds like Springwood missing out to me.
We have a building in Springwood that's referred to tonight as perfectly good and functional building, like the Civic Centre. The same building that was build ten years previous to the Katoomba Civic Centre that we are currently upgrading. Springwood misses out once again. Springwood has a building ten years older that is going to remain there for a significantly period of time while Katoomba gets what it needs, an upgrade, a good and genuine project that would deliver a much much bigger library for the people of this area.
That is outstanding, and that has been an achievement that has been opposed by some people, but has been supported by myself and others around this table for ten years at least.
Now I'm absolutely flabbergasted that that would be the way you would want to frame the debate. How you would want to approach the people of Ward 3 is to say all these other things that are happening that you don't actually have any particular use for, the Lawson Town Centre, well you just don't get what you need in your area until that gets sorted out. That's dismissive in the extreme, and I reject it absolutely.
We have sat in that Civic Centre on any number of occasions, Mr. Mayor. We did so during September. Technically spring, but it was a freezing night as I recall. When all the candidates were in there for this Council election, they indicated we should have a town poll. We should consult the community in the most extreme form available: one vote one value.
Who could oppose that, I asked myself. Well, now we're here. Have a poll on a specific proposal. Councillor McLaren was absolutely right when she said it is dishonest to ask a question without giving people the full facts. It was dishonest a decade ago for people to ask a question about the Springwood Town Square without giving all the possible options. All the facts before the public, and they can make their point of view known.
That is what we should be doing.
And we are going to do that, I hope. Put the vote to the people. They are the power and they will make the decision. We have had umpteen consultations. We have had this issue on the boil since 2003. We have had any number of complaints about our main performance space in Springwood, the Civic Centre, being too hot, and people being carried out of there.
I spoke to a member of the performing arts group just a matter of weeks ago who told me there had been ambulances called because the atmosphere in there is so stifling that people, particularly the elderly, are uncomfortable to the point of having to leave, or even be carried out.
As SOS member Diana Levy once famously or infamously said, on the front page of the Gazette, "We can just be hot." No, and no again.
Our community deserves the best, not after two communities have had their go.
People in the lower mountains have this perception, rightly or wrongly, that all the money goes to the top of the hill. And I've said for a long time, well, that's not exactly the case. There's a lot of areas that don't have kerb and guttering, some areas that don't have some and various facilities that this Council should provide. Now we have it here in blue and white that Springwood will miss out, if some people around this table have their way.
We are going to consult with the community yet again, next year, in May. Councillor McLaren's motion makes that very clear. We are actually going to Springwood, to that infamous Civic Centre. It will be a cold night, I'll tell you that. If it's in the middle of winter, unfortunately. It would be nice if it was stiflingly hot, I suppose. Some people could get the medicine that seem to be happy to inflict on others. But we will go there, and we will consult with the community, and they can come in, and they can say whatever they want, and they can sign up at the registration table, and tell us exactly what they want.
I'm inclined to think they might say something like they did 15 months ago, when 52% of them voted for candidates that support the process, and 48% didn't. Now, 52% is a majority, usually. It has been suggest it is not around this table. 52% of people voted for candidates who support this process. This process here puts the matter to the people. What is wrong with that?
"No. Stop everything. Stop everything. Don't do it. Stop what you're doing. it's no good."
Well, Councillor McLaren was right. Springwood is suffering. We have lost the NAB. A bank has left our town. Not only that, Delush Accessories has had to close down. We have a situation that Mr. Crooks absolutely identified in High Street, Penrith, of having a facility some distance from the main drag. We have that right now in Winmalee. Winmalee Coles is killing Springwood. It is drawing people away. It has been doing so for several years. [Sounds from audience] And we hear catcalls, and yet that very statement was made by shopkeepers in Springwood at the famous meeting that we had at the old bolo [Bowling Club], in 2005.
Searle: Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Greenhill, you had a question.
Greenhill: Mr. Mayor. Through you to the General Manager. I'm just wanting to understand an item in the process going forward. In respect of the report to be brought to Council in February 2010, do you envisage that, in terms of the scope of that report, there will be an opportunity to further debate the issue of the form and content of the poll?
GM: Yes, I believe there would be. Something that I'm not sure has been adequately highlighted is that the Electoral Commission runs a poll, and has to satisfy itself as to the question that is asked. And generally speaking, that means a very specific question has to be asked.
Luchetti: I rise in support of Councillor Mays's amendment, because it comes down to a question of financial prudence from this Council. We are deeply committed, in tough times, to several other major projects, and for Council to do full justice to the Springwood Town Centre Project, we would be in a much stronger and more capable position if the finances and the staff time that are devoted to other projects could indeed be devoted to the Springwood project. At the same time we have ongoing would be better served with our staff resources and financial resources being poured into them, which would give them a greater chance of successful completion on time.
Like Councillor Mays has said, it would also be prudent to see how successful our foray into the PPP world is, to see if we do it on budget and whether the operational projections are accurate, and that we can manage our commitments there.
As she has discussed, one million dollars potential operational costs to maintain Katoomba is quite a commitment. One million dollars a year to be spent in Springwood would probably take this project off the table, because we could fund and repair and do everything that needs to be done without having to go to the private sector.
Just to address a few other things that have been said. I hear time and time again the rationale for this whole project is the climate control in the Civic Centre. We had rash estimates that ranged from $500,000 to $1,000,000 thrown around in this chamber. At the first opportunity I had, where I sat in a meeting in one of the back rooms before a Council meeting, and Councillors were asked their opinions on how some money we had received from the Federal Government should be spent. On that list was $250,000 for air conditioning and climate control of the Civic Centre. Knowing how important that is, to so many people, I voted for it. No one else did. One vote in that room to make that our number 1 priority. That was me. $250,000 might make a lot of people very happy. If that is what is driving this, for me, that is a very easy solution. Maybe we don't have $250,000, but it will come again.
The other thing I will say, just in relation to some other things that have been said. We have heard a lot about the percentages in the election. It's fairly well known to everyone that I campaigned very extensively on this issue, to the point where I was considered a one issue candidate. I would challenge both my colleagues here in Ward 3, and anyone else they claim to have been in their camp, to produce some election material from that campaign and show me where it said "We support the Springwood Town Centre Project in its current form". I can't remember seeing glowing endorsements for that on your material.
McLaren: I will bring it next meeting.
Luchetti: Please do. I don't doubt you. OK.
I certainly went on the campaign with that. I don't believe that you probably took it to the people as much as I did. And anyway, we're here now; let's work with what we've got. I would really, for one, like to see this debate just moved through new ground, like what's in front of us on any given night. We continually find ourselves just kicking the can around in ever decreasing circles, and I don't think that's getting us anywhere, because we all say the same things, we all disagree, and we all go away and say "how long before we get up and do that again".
So I would encourage everyone when we get together on this like let's try and just keep the debate fresh. Fresh material. And that's why I was pleased tonight to see some speakers here representing key stakeholders in this process - shopkeepers, member of the Chamber of Commerce, and the Neighbourhood Centre, expressing their views, because those views are indicative of some of the key views. These are the people we're doing this for. These are the people we are representing. So, we need to take on board what they are saying very seriously. And I think their views have as much weight as anyone else's who get up around this table and bang on, much like myself. Thank you.
Searle: Thank you. Councillor Greenhill, and then Councillor McLaren.
Greenhill: Mr. Mayor, I intend to limit my comments tonight solely to the issue of the poll. In so saying, I pick up on a point that was raised by Councillor Luchetti early in the debate, and that was that we should hope for an opportunity in February to debate the poll. That debate is needed. And that debate will no doubt be a reasonably fulsome one. That is why I asked the question of the General Manager in relation to the February report to Council, and I'm encouraged by his answer, and encourage by the fact that there will be some scope for not just debate, but significant debate, about the fundamental principles of the poll to be put to the people. That that opportunity presents itself in February when the report comes back is something that is pleasing, and I think it is a challenge we all have to engage in because it is a debate we need to have.
It's a debate that's been waiting to come, and it's a debate that we need to embark on and get out of the way. I'll finish by simply saying this. I've said this before, and I wish to make the commitment on the public record again. I reiterated my stated public commitment though I personally will bind myself to the results of the poll. So let there be no misunderstanding, while I understand that the legal position in respect to a referendum doesn't support that occurring, I will regard the poll as a referendum, and I will bind my vote to the results of the poll. That's why, obviously, I don't want a poll result that is one that is open to interpretation. I'd hate for us to go through the process of having a poll and debate what the poll said. I think that would be a disaster. We need a clear poll, and I, this Councillor, will use the poll to guide my hand in this chamber, not just to guide my hand but to direct my hand in the chamber, when the matter comes before us relevantly.
Councillor McLaren:
You are speaking in relation to the amendment?
McLaren: I'm opposing the amendment. I'm very pleased, though, to see that some Councillors have acknowledged that this project cannot be funded from within Council's resources, which is what has been used in the past that Council should do this. Well, clearly, Council can't. But I would like to ask Luchetti for the name of his builder, because if he can get all of that done for a million bucks, I want that builder on my housing project, because I reckon I will get a much better deal.
Luchetti: Bit by bit, piece by piece, over a period of time.
McLaren: One million dollars buys you two and a half public toilets in this city. That's all it buys.
Luchetti: That's a million dollars a year we're talking.
Searle: Councillor Luchetti, no one interjected. Please extend the courtesy.
McLaren: Check the budget papers. Every year we raise this as a major concern but that is how much public toilets cost to construct in this city. And I'm not going to buy a "we'll take 13 years to redo these facilities" bit by bit, piece by piece. There's not a spare million dollars. That's absolutely a furphy, and to put that out into the community is really quite dangerous. There is not the money to do this. But this, if this was to be carried tonight, it would be twenty years before we finally got this. My parents moved to Australia in 1975, remember one of their first things being "Lawson's going to be redeveloped". So it's taken more than my lifetime for that to occur. I'm not convinced that these are going to be finished shortly. And I'm not prepared to ask the residents of the lower mountains to miss out while these projects are finished. That is the reason why we went to the private sector in the first place. We acknowledged that we do not have the funds to do this. And I know it's a great catch cry: "PPPs are bad. Look at the Cross-city Tunnel." But, you know, there are some really successful PPPs in NSW as well. The M7, the Royal North Shore Hospital redevelopment, many schools, there are a whole lot that are really positive, but you don't read about those in the papers because the media doesn't like to pick up on any positive comments.
So, to compare one with another is not the way to do it. The Cultural Centre Project is very different to what we are seeking in Springwood. I've supported the Cultural Centre Project. Some years ago when some Councillors were trying to have it knocked off, I stood up and backed Councillor Hamilton with money coming from the state government, something that isn't going to be coming to Springwood. That it was too important a project to lose.
And we need to have some important community facilities in Springwood. We need a decent performing arts space. We need a library three times the size that it is. We need some decent Council offices that offer people a little bit of privacy so if you are going in two days after a family member died as my family had to, you're not confronted with an irate person who has just had a default on their rates. So what you're dealing with, having to arrange a burial plot, someone's screaming at the Council staff about their paid rates.
So, the situation in Springwood at the moment is that that office is not a conducive environment to good customer service. Our staff down there exceptionally hard, in very difficult circumstances, and they deserve a better facility as well.
This process is all about improving the facilities. It's about improving Springwood. It's not about changing the character of Springwood. It's not about killing anything off. It's about providing economic sustainability. It's about providing jobs, which is something that really, I would have thought, all Councillors would have liked to have done. Jobs in construction. Jobs when it's completed.
That to me seems like a win-win for an area. Were in an area that's facing increasing unemployment, and there are not jobs close to home. The majority of people leave the Mountains to work. The majority of Councillors sitting around this table do not work in this local government area, because that is not an option. So I would have thought any project that brings jobs to the area and improves community facilities is a win-win. This amendment puts it on the back burner. It's a way to kill it off for at least this Council term, if not the next two Council terms. So then it's not our problem. Let's wash our hands of it.
Searle: Any further speakers on either side of the debate?
[To Councillor Mays] As a mover of an amendment, you don't get a right of reply, but because there are two things being debated, you can speak on each. I think you've spoken on your amendment, Councillor Mays; you can speak against the original motion. It's a matter for yourself.
Any further speaker on either side of the debate?
If not, then I guess technically Councillor McLaren has the right of reply, but she has just spoken.
All right, we will call the vote on the amendment first.
[Inaudible from another Councillor] I think Councillor Luchetti foreshadowed a further motion if nothing ended up being passed, or if this amendment wasn't carried.
McLaren: I'm actually happy to take on board some of the Councillor Luchetti's ...
Searle: OK, we'll deal with this first and then we'll see what Councillor Luchetti suggests. We have an amendment in the name of Mays and Gibbs, which we can no longer read [not on the screen]. Which now we can read again.
I'll call the vote on the amendment.
All those in favour: Councillors McCallum, Luchetti, Clark, Mays, Gibbs.
Those against: [inaudible] Councillors Creed, Hamilton, Greenhill, Myles, McLaren, Van der Kley, Searle.
Declare it lost.
Councillor Luchetti, you had a further amendment?
Luchetti: It's with the executive officer.
It's essentially what's in the business paper, with a couple of additions.
The first one being that the report is also in hard copy or printed copies in Council offices for those people who obviously don't have computers to access.
McLaren: I take than on board.
Searle: I think the mover and seconder are happy to take that on board.
Luchetti: And in 3, we're coming back here in February I would like to add that the report and the business paper leading up to it detail the options available to Council on the timing of the community poll and that we can have that debate with it being better framed, for the community ...
Mclaren: ... accept that ... number 3
Luchetti: OK. Thank you.
Well 5 is really just sort of looking to cement 3, and that the proposed timing of the poll as indicated on page 101 is not adopted prior to the matter being deliberated in February.
McLaren: I'm comfortable with the timeline in the business paper as such, however when this is debated in February it is possible it may be moved again at that time, so I'm not prepared to take 5 on board at this time, but I'm very happy to take number 3 on board.
Searle: Councillor Luchetti, do you wish to speak to your amendment, or what's left of your amendment, given that most of it has been ...
Luchetti: I think it's all been said, Mr. Mayor, and I won't take too long this time around, but effectively what I'm really trying to do here is what I said when I spoke the first time, is to not endorse the timeline on page 101, because I don't believe that is there through due democratic process and I believe that by debating this in February then that timeline - look - if the poll is going to be after RDP1, well then it is there by due democratic process. The fact that it stays there without that being sort of open fair and effective debate with good community disclosure, I can't support it.
Searle: Councillor Luchetti, just so I understand it, are you still moving item 5 as a stand-alone amendment, or are you just indicating you are going to vote against the new motion?
Luchetti: Because 5 is not taken on, I'd like mine to stand alone.
Searle: So you are moving 5. Is there a seconder for that 5? Seconder in any number of places, but Councillor Mays.
Any further speakers in favour or against the amendment of Councillor Luchetti?
Councillor Greenhill.
Greenhill: I take it that with the exception of 5, the amendments suggested by Councillor Luchetti have been take on board and do form part of the motion?
Someone: Yes
Greenhill: Right.
Searle: Any further debate on Councillor Luchetti's amendment - 5?
Someone: [inaudible]
Searle: I think so, and then you, Councillor Gibbs, have foreshadowed a further amendment.
I might just ask the question. I know there's a time limit on debates. Could I just ask the Executive Officer how much longer we have on this debate, just so we ...
General Manager: Nine minutes
Searle: We've got 9 minutes to go.
I'll call the vote now on Councillor Luchetti's
[Inaudible from someone]
Searle: Yes, I agree.
It's number 5, I think, because the earlier bits have been taken on board. It's 5 only.
That a report on the requirements
[Inaudible discussion]
Searle: Well, as I understand it, Councillor Luchetti had a five point plan, and points 1 to 4 have been taken on board. And so the only point of difference between Councillor Luchetti, and the mover and seconder, is paragraph 5. Unless I've missed something.
McLaren?: ... paragraph 7 ...
Searle: Yes, I understand that, but, just for the purposes of what's on the paper. So, now 7, of course.
Luchetti: Having said that Mr. Mayor, there still could be some issues here because, if you go back to what Councillors Myles and McLaren moved - 1 to 4 we'll agree on, but their supplementary points ...
Searle: ... but I'm just indicating ... for the purposes of trying to manage this debate, you have put up a series of amendments, almost all of which have been absorbed into the original motion. What we're dealing with is the residue, if I can use that term.
General Manager: ... practical difficulties ...
Searle: Please, General Manager.
GM: Just a practical difficulty, Mr. Mayor, because if the amendment is purely point 5, and that is hypothetically carried, then that becomes the motion, and is put, and you're just left with 5.
Searle: No, I understand that - Oh, I see.
Mclaren: ... 1 to 6 and ...
Searle: OK, that's probably ...
GM: Councillor McLaren is right. So we're all clear. If that goes down then what's left is McLaren and Myles' [?] ... exactly, exactly.
Searle: OK, let's just get a little bit of clarity because I think it's now more than just point 7. I take the point. Because 7 isn't the only thing that was dealt with. No. So we need to put it back on the screen.
[discussion] But those other things have been taken on board. So what Councillor Luchetti is moving is what's now on the screen - what was on the screen. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and there's a new 5. Or not. And that's 5. So let's just take a moment to read what is there. So this is Councillor Luchetti's amendment. And there's a further foreshadowed amendment. And it was Luchetti and Mays, as I recall it. So it's essentially 1 to 4 in the business paper plus a new 5. Councillor Luchetti, does that accord with your recollection? [inaudible discussion] OK, I understand. But it's still going to form part of his amendment. ... No, no. We want to get this right.
Mclaren: We accepted Councillor Luchetti's amendments.
Myles: Shall I read 3 as I have it here and as I understand it.
Myles: That a report on the requirements for provision of community and cultural facilities and proposed further consultation is brought to the Council in February 2010 and that this report also details the options available to the Council on the timing of the community poll.
Searle: Well, that's been taken on board, but it's also part of the amendment. ... But we have one more foreshadowed amendment, in the next 4 1/2 minutes, I think.
Greenhill: Mr. Mayor. Procedural Motion?
Greenhill: ... I move an extension of time by 10 minutes, should we need it to get this right.
Searle: Can we do that?
Someone: Yes, we can do it.
Searle: So we can do that. ... We don't need the extension of time just yet. ... I think we may get there.
Searle: [After long pause] Councillor Luchetti, does this now [another pause] Is there anything missing?
Someone: ... facilities. We're not moving that we do something about the facilities. ... After the Christmas cheer.
Searle: Councillor Luchetti, you're comfortable that's now your amendment?
OK, I'll now call the vote on Councillor Luchetti and Mays' amendment.
All those in favour: Councillor McCallum, Luchetti, Clark, Mays, Gibbs.
Those against: Creed, Hamilton, Greenhill, Myles, McLaren, Van der Kley, Searle.
Further foreshadowed amendment? Councillor Gibbs.
Gibbs: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The further foreshadowed amendment is that Item 1 stays the same and matters 2 to 6 in the current amended motion or lines to 4 in the business paper, depending on what we're up to and what we're talking about, are deferred ...
Searle: ... 2 to 6
Gibbs ... 2 to 6 are deferred until the community has had an opportunity to study the consultant's report.
Searle: Seconded by Councillor Mays.
Do you wish to speak to it?
Gibbs: Very very briefly. Just that I think there's a lot of interest in see what's in the consultant's report, and I think it's in the interests of our [?] commitment [?] commitment to community consultation that we allow the community to see that, and we defer the rest of the matters until the community has had an opportunity to study the report.
Mays: Thanks, Mr. Mayor, just to echo Councillor Gibbs' sentiment there. I was of the understanding foolishly that this report was going to be printed in this business paper, but it wasn't. And I think it would be disappointing tonight if we voted for this process to continue and the community hasn't even been afforded the opportunity to view the needs assessment, and indeed the 18 stakeholders who were consulted have not been afforded the courtesy, dare I say, to see the report, to see that it accurately what they had said to the consultant prior to Councillors around this table voting on the matter. So I would urge Councillors to just defer items 2 through 6 until we actually get this document out in the community.
Searle: Any opposition to the amendment?
McLaren: Yes
Greenhill: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. If we're going to do that, I'll press my motion.
Searle: indeed.
Greenhill: We're going to run out of time, and it'll look really stupid if we do. I move again and press the motion: an extension of time of ten minutes.
Searle: Moved Councillor Greenhill, Seconded Councillor Gibbs. All those in favour. Against. Declare it carried unanimously.
McLaren: The only comment I want to make is: will all the Ward 3 Councillors who were offered the opportunity by Mr. Turner to speak to him about this report. Councillor Myles and myself took him up on that opportunity, at which time he told us that the 18 people [stakeholders in consultation] had been told afterwards so they have been given that information.
Searle: Councillors, this is not an interrogatory amongst yourselves.
McLaren: As Councillors are aware, there is a long lead time for these business papers, something which I didn't support at the time but we now get them a week before, so therefore Council staff are very pressed on the time they have to deliver these reports. These reports are written almost four weeks before they appear in this business paper. So I'd suggest that might be the reason why it's not included. But I don't support this amendment because it's yet another delaying tactic so that the people of Springwood miss out. We're going to community consultation.
Searle: I'd ask everybody who is in the audience here tonight just to remember that all speakers should be given the opportunity to speak uninterrupted.
McLaren: It's OK, Mr. Mayor; I understand that some people have the view that you're only allowed to hold one view, as long as it accords with theirs. But [murmurs from audience] Point proven. And, in the interests of transparency, I've moved that Councillor comments be made available to the public. So, I can't support this amendment, because I just feel we're going to consistently have delaying tactics like we have had with Lawson, like we have had with other projects, and, if we are serious about delivering for the community, we do it to a timetable, and we deliver on time.
Mays: A question through you to the General Manager. Could I please have some clarity around the issue of the consultation of the stakeholders who have assisted in the preparation of this report? Have those stakeholders been spoken to? Have the stakeholders received a copy of this report? And when did that happen?
GM: Mr. Mayor, I'll refer this to Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner: Through the General Manager. The reports were distributed last week, as I understand it, back to those core stakeholders for their feedback, and I think it was last Thursday, or Friday. Clarification - it was last Friday.
Mays: They were distributed last Friday? Yes. To all the 18 stakeholder groups? Just reached by mail on Friday. So, I just want to be clear, we distributed them by mail last Friday, and today is Tuesday, and we're at Christmas post. I just want to be clear on that point. Thank you.
Turner: That's right.
Searle: Councillor Myles.
Myles: Again, just briefly. I know we've had the debate. I'm just amazed, or, maybe I should say delighted, by what some people are prepared to put their names to. We've heard about Springwood finishing last behind Lawson and Katoomba. Now we have a proposal to delete 3 and 4. Four, I particularly like, that the Council proceeds to provide information and to consult with the community on the requirements and options for the provision of improved community and cultural facilities in Springwood town centre, and that the results of this are reported to the Council. Consult with the community and report, in a transparent means. Well, what's wrong with that?
Searle: We have one amendment. Anybody else wish to debate for or against that amendment?
Searle: If not, we have one the amendment from Gibbs and Mays is that items 2 to 6 of the original motion are deferred until the community has had the opportunity to study and make submissions on the consultant's report.
All those in favour. McCallum, Luchetti, Clark, Mays, Gibbs.
Searle: Now we have one motion still. Are there any further amendments?
If not...
[inaudible from Councillor]
Searle: Yes, I agree that we need to check to make sure that those things that have been taken on board in earlier interactions remain there.
Councillor Myles, are you content that that is your motion?
[inaudible discussion]
Councillors are content that that's what we're left with?
Searle: I'll call the vote now on the substantive motion.
All those in favour: Creed, Hamilton, Greenhill, Myles, McLaren, Van der Kley, Searle
Those against: McCallum, Luchetti, Clark, Mays, Gibbs.
Declare it carried.
Searle: That concludes Item number 14.