SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON FRED CATERSON RESERVE
A MAYORAL MINUTE AND UPDATE
What is a Mayoral Minute and what was this one about?
The Mayor has the power to put forward a Mayoral Minute, without notice, on a topic within the juristiction of the council. It takes precendence over all other items on the meeting agenda and does not need to be seconded by a Councillor. If adoped, it becomes a resolution of the council. Mayoral Minutes are to be used only for urgent matters where decisions are required before the next meeting, or for non-routine matters. This Mayoral Minute moved:
Recognising the NSW Government has abandoned the 5000-dwelling cap in the Showground precinct, the new playing fields identified for Fred Caterson Reserve be prioritised, and
Council encourages residents to get its information on the proposal for three sports fields at Fred Caterson Reserve from official sources, primarily our (Council's) website.
It isn't clear in the Mayoral Minute who is being accused of deliberately spreading mistruths on this issue in order to divide the community for their own benefit, but the ensuing discussion mentioned the Friends of Fred Caterson Reserve and our petition several times, so we are providing a response to this document and discussion.
The Friends of Fred Caterson Reserve are dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the biodiversity of Fred Caterson Reserve, and this proposal will have a significant impact on it.
Our volunteer working group has been working to inform the community about The Hills Shire Council's Master Plan, because more than two years after it was approved, residents were complaining that they had no idea it existed. To do this, we provided information on our website, started a petition, and distributed more than 9,000 flyers to letterboxes in The Hills.
On 19 March 2023, we held a Meet and Greet event and invited speakers to attend, including Sue Martin of Cattai Hills Environment Network (CHEN), who spoke about platypus e-DNA discovered in the reserve, Dr Kim Loo of Doctors for the Environment Australia, who spoke about the benefits of trees to human health, and upcoming State election candidates Mark Hodges (now MP), Tina Cartwright, and Tina Kordrostami. All three candidates were given opportunities to speak, as was Mayor Dr Peter Gangemi who attended with Mark Hodges (MP), and who answered questions the attendees asked about the Master Plan. Other speakers included Hon. Peter Primrose MLC (ALP) and Sue Higginson MLC (Greens).
We planned to hold this event at Fred Caterson Reserve, but Council informed us that we could not use any public land within The Hills Shire for our event until after we had a permit. This permit could have taken several weeks, so we hired a private venue.
Our public Meet and Greet was NOT a Council event, and when a motion was raised at a council meeting on 24 October 2023 for Council to host its first public briefing on its Master Plan, it was refused. More on the council meeting and the Mayoral Minute is below.
MAYORAL-MINUTE-NO.-22-2023-SETTING-THE-RECORD-STRAIGHT-ON-FRED-CATERSON-RESERVE.pdfCOUNCIL MEETING (VIDEO) 24 OCTOBER 2023
BELOW ARE SOME STATEMENTS FROM THE MAYORAL MINUTE AND COUNCILLORS (with our comments below them)
From the Mayoral Minute
The (recent NSW Government) removal of the dwelling cap within the Showground precinct will see up to 20,000 people living in the area.
Comment from FoFCR
In 2018, the Contributions Plan no. 19 for the Showground Station Precinct quoted 21,819 additional residents, so this number had been planned for some time. A temporary dwelling cap of 5,000 was placed on the precinct, but this cap has recently been lifted.
The removal of this dwelling cap is not a reason to fast-track the development of the rugby union facility now, especially when there is no evidence to suggest the new residents will require an elite rugby facility.
This space in a bushland setting with Critically Endangered Ecological Communities present can be used to benefit the whole community, including new residents, without bringing the severe impacts that an elite rugby facility would bring to the entire reserve.
From the Mayoral Minute
The final design is to be informed by further studies including site survey, geotechnical assessment, ecology, traffic, noise and heritage assessments, as well as a review of Environmental Factors. An assessment of the proposal would be carried out under the State Environment Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021
Comment from FoFCR
We now know Council intends to use the SEPP (Transport and infrastructure) 2021 using a Review of Environmental Factors, indicating that a less-stringent pathway will probably be used when assessing environmental impacts.
It is of our view that this is insufficient where Critically Endangered Ecological Communities are known to be present, and where the community holds great concerns about the development.
The Friends of Fred Caterson Reserve asked, in their Open Letter in May 2023, for a full Environmental Impact Statement for the entire Master Plan and for a Biodiversity Management Strategy for Fred Caterson Reserve to be prepared. This request was not acknowledged.
From the Mayoral Minute
The planning and design of the playing fields as well as the associated infrastructure are well in progress
Comment from FoFCR
This conflicts with the previous statement.
From the Mayoral Minute
Council is committed to pursuing a proposal that minimises impacts to the environment and surrounding residents
Comment from FoFCR
We note that a (now abandoned) concept plan in August 2022 showed the placement of a field over a large stand of Critically Endangered Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest near Gilbert Road.
Also, residents to be impacted maintain they were not sent letters when the Draft Master Plan was on exhibition in 2020, and also that a public briefing was denied in October 2023.
If Council understands that the reserve holds areas of high ecological value, it should have prepared a full Environmental Impact Assessment and a Biodiversity Management Strategy for the reserve before preparing a Master Plan, and well before advertising for a partner to develop the new facility to an elite level.
Council's approach to planning the elite rugby facility is not consistent with this statement.
From the Mayoral Minute
The proposal being carried out by Council is for a base level facility. Should Eastwood propose further works to bring the site to a higher standard – these would have to be funded by them and be subject to a future Development Application
Comment from FoFCR
Council advertised for a partner in 2020 to help develop this facility to an elite level, with the first stage of the development being the community-level facility funded by them. This would be in readiness for the next stage of the development, being the intensification of the facility by their partner.
While their partner ('Eastwood') might be funding some of the proposed infrastructure as part of the partnership, it is Council's decision to develop these fields to an elite level, not Eastwood's, and not the assessors of future development applications.
Not only would the final agreement between Council and Eastwood have an expectation that Eastwood fund development to an elite level, this agreement would be unlikely to allow Eastwood to use the site as a community-level facility indefinitely, even in the unlikely situation where they might want to.
From the Mayoral Minute
Contrary to the opinions of some, a hotel or pub are not permissible within the zoning.
Comment from FoFCR
FoFCR have not suggested that a hotel or pub would be built, but there is an expectation that liquor will be regularly served at the venue using temporary licencing. This article gives us an idea of how liquor might be served at Eastwood games.
From the Mayoral Minute
I strongly encourage residents to keep up to date with the proposal for three fields at Fred Caterson Reserve through official information sources, in particular our website, which contains significant information on the project and our latest concept plan
Comment from FoFCR
Council's website is the official source of information, but has been updated only a few times since January 2023. When it was created it provided a link to the approved Master Plan, but sometime before April 2023, this link was replaced with a link to the obsolete Draft Master Plan. This error still exists on the page (as at 15 December 2023).
We encourage you to visit Council's official website, but also to supplement this information with more comprehensive and up-to-date sources of information about Fred Caterson Reserve. The correct link on Council's website to use for the approved Master Plan is available here.
Statement from a Councillor
I have asked repeatedly that Council point out the inaccuracies, where they occur, and including on the Friends of Fred Caterson website and this has been declined, or at least not responded to adequately. I haven't heard of a pub or a hotel and I would appreciate being shown where that is printed or pointed out where that occurs or who has said that.
Comment from FoFCR
We also asked Council (in January 2023) for further details about which inaccuracies they continue to refer to, specifically in relation to our petition, but they did not respond to this question.
Statement from a Councillor
At the previous meeting there was a lot of confusion as well and a lot of comments about transparency from people that have put up a petition that was started with a claim of 55 hectares of bushland to be cleared or somewhere in that order and as the Mayor has pointed out that actually should be written as 0.7 (hectares). That would be an example of very bad misinformation that led to a lot of people signing a petition...
Comment from FoFCR
The petition was for the entire Master Plan which lists 52,821m² of vegetation loss and will bring many other impacts.
On its first day, the petition incorrectly stated '52 hectares', being almost 10 times the total vegetation loss listed in the Master Plan. This error was corrected the following day when it was brought to our attention by a petitioner, and after the petition had received 84 (of 16,193) signatures. This error with units of measure appears to be the only 'mistruth' identified to-date, but we are still seeking information from Council about any other information we might have misrepresented in our petition.
The 17th March 2023 concept plan shows a reduction in vegetation loss, primarily from the removal of a secondary access road to Caterson Drive at the Pony Club site. On 18 March, we updated our website to add information and images of this new concept. A link to this information was added to our petition, and the next day, an image of the new concept was projected on a large screen at our Meet and Greet event for all attendees to see.
This was only one of several concepts, and since the petition was based on the Master Plan document, the petition was not changed. It is not reasonable to expect petitioners to sign a new petition every time Council releases another concept, as the actual vegetation loss figures are only a single issue. As of December 2023, expected total vegetation loss is approx. 36,112m² and this will likely change again as the developments within the reserve proceed.
There will be greater impacts to the biodiversity of the reserve if development of an elite facility proceeds, including edge-effects, light pollution, noise, traffic, synthetic turf pollution into the Cattai Creek Catchment, and increased traffic and parking congestion in the reserve and surrounding suburbs. We will seek to continue to provide the most up-to-date information about expected vegetation loss and other developments regarding Fred Caterson Reserve, from all sources including Council, on this website.
Statement from a Councillor
For anyone to find out that, they'd have to use the Wayback Machine which most people don't do and most people wouldn't think they should.
Comment from FoFCR
Here, the Councillor is referring to the '52 hectares' quoted incorrectly for a day on our petition. Wayback Machine is a good tool, and we encourage readers and petitioners to use it to check the facts for themselves. Wayback Machine can be accessed using https://archive.org/web/ or by clicking on the logo. The petition URL to use for your search is
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-destruction-of-fred-caterson-reserve-castle-hill
The URL for Council's Fred Caterson Master Plan website is
https://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Initiatives/Fred-Caterson-Reserve-Master-Plan
Statement from a Councillor
There is also confusion once again that we are talking about that fields will be at Fred Caterson. We are not talking about it necessarily being rugby fields.
Comment from FoFCR
This appears to be in conflict with the Master Plan and previous statements made by Council and Councillors.
However, sports fields have been planned for the Pony Club site for many years. The 2015 Hills Corridor Strategy, for example, listed it as an opportunity for 'One (1) cricket oval including two (2) fields plus one (1) small synthetic surface for short format games'. By 2018, CP19 listed '3 single playing fields (allowing for 1 cricket oval)'.
Statement from a Councillor
I don't know how this would come back to Council because Councillors set the strategic direction last term of what's going to happen here and Council no longer assesses DAs ... it has to go to the Local Planning Panel. The Councillors set the strategic direction but we can't assess DAs.
Comment from FoFCR
If Councillors have the authority to set a strategic direction, they also have the authority to amend or rescind it. This is not related to their ability to assess development applications (DAs).
Council also has responsibilities as the Crown Land Manager for Fred Caterson Reserve. Its consent would be required for a DA for an elite rugby union facility and it will be the lessor if any lease is to be granted to a future operator of a facility.
Statement from a Councillor
There will be sporting fields there of some kind. So its not, 'are there rugby fields or not'. The plan for fields has been committed to by the previous Council.
Comment from FoFCR
Councillors have mentioned the possibility of the plan being changed if the environment reports show that this option is not possible. There are many issues with allowing an elite facility to be built in this location, some unrelated to the environment. A commitment made by Council, before all assessments have been completed, is not sufficient to lock in any further infrastructure at the site, including community-level playing fields.
Statement from a Councillor
I think there are still some questions, some more information that the community wants. I know some of us have referred to that when talking to the community around the ecological impacts and further reports and I think we want further reports. We want to see what the issue is.
Comment from FoFCR
The Hills Shire Council is not giving residents unrestricted access to the environment reports. This was the subject of a NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) hearing on 14 December 2023. NCAT has reserved its decision which can be expected in the new year. This means that the Tribunal will consider the evidence and submissions privately and publish a written decision and orders at a later date (to be determined).
Statement from a Councillor
The community wanted a further consult and I have a preference of the community being heard. Obviously there's impacts to those residents. The Master Plan went out during COVID, significant issues around that. The existing residents around Fred Caterson weren't consulted, in terms of Master Plan, when that was first put up. So I think we need to, love it or hate it, acknowledge there is from all across The Hills Shire concerns about this proposal, not just those in the immediate vicinity. We need to acknowledge that, give them a fair go ...
Comment from FoFCR
A Motion put forward by Clr Dr Mila Kasby and seconded by Clr Ryan Tracey on 24 October 2023, including for Council to host its first public briefing on the Master Plan, was refused.
Statement from a Councillor
There was in fact community consultation and indeed there was actually letters sent to the community ... in 2018. Item 4 on the 28th of August 2018 when CP19 was discussed. It refers to, I think, 1,461 letters sent out to landowners which contains CP19, and CP19 refers to the three rugby fields. So in fact there was actually direct correspondence.
Comment from FoFCR
Residents surrounding Fred Caterson Reserve maintain they did not receive any letters about the proposed developments in the reserve, so we are under the understanding that these 1,461 letters were sent only to residents of the Showground Precinct to which the plan applied (see map).
Note: Fred Caterson Reserve is to the north of the area shaded in red.
Statement from a Councillor
We were not informed as a Council how many of those petitioners the people had actually signed from our particular LGA. The petition, I might add, and I have had a look at it now, has 16,193 names. We heard rumours and statements that maybe it is 8,000. I tell you what, it is actually 1,594 names of people who have put their name or their names are recorded, with a postcode within The Hills Local Government Area. Less than 10% of the 16,000 names.
Comment from FoFCR
The tabled petition was a printed list of names, postcodes (where available), locations (where available), and dates of signing. It was sorted in order of postcode, beginning with Hills LGA postcodes for petitioners who had entered a postcode when setting up their change.org accounts. The analysis provided by this Councillor was derived using only Hills LGA postcodes for petitioners who had entered a postcode in the change.org system. These petitioners did not make up the majority of signatures located in the default postcode for Greater Sydney (2000).
Whether it is 4,000, 8,000, or 16,000 Hills residents that do not want this development to proceed is irrelevant and a distraction in our view. A very large number of Hills LGA residents do not want this, and indeed a very large number of non Hills LGA residents do not want this. Our petition sends a strong and clear message that the environment is of concern for all, as it should be, particularly concerns about the impacts to Critically Endangered Ecological Communities protected nationally under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Statement from a Councillor
But wait, of that 1,594, if we had time to look at it, it will tell us that in fact there was only 652 names were placed on the petition between the 19th of March and the 22nd of October. Now, why is that relevant? Because on the 18th March this Council published a revised concept plan, so once that revised concept plan was published we see 652 people have recorded their name within this LGA. Nothing like 16,000.
Comment from FoFCR
Our petition was heavily promoted to local residents via the distribution of approx. 9,000 flyers in the lead-up to our Meet and Greet event. The day before the event, Council published to its website the latest Concept Plan for the rugby fields. After this date, flyers were no longer distributed and promotion of our petition was minimal.
Many Councillors are failing to recognise that whether it's elite rugby Concept no. 1 or 4 makes little difference, because the impacts of adding an elite rugby facility to Fred Caterson Reserve are not limited to vegetation loss. Most impacts have not been addressed.
Statement from a Councillor
And I might add, and I'll say this one as well. On the 19th of March there was a public forum. Mr Andrew Tonkin who was then the Spokesperson of Save Fred Caterson Group at a public forum described the new concept plan as quote “brilliant”. I was there, and you were there Councillor Kasby and you heard him. So there you go, so the new concept plan was described by the Fred Caterson spokesman at that time as “brilliant”. Now, he may have had other issues, but that was his word to the community.
Comment from FoFCR
Mr Andrew Tonkin does not recall describing the latest concept as "good" or "brilliant". One week after the Meet and Greet event hosted by Friends of Fred Caterson Reserve, and after hearing that this Councillor had quoted something similar, he reaffirmed his position by stating:
I do NOT think the latest part of the masterplan is a good thing. It is not. It looks better on the surface but as I have said before you need to look at the detail.
They are squeezing 3 fields, carparks, roadway and buildings in between Old growth vegetation that their report indicates needs to be protected. How can that happen when there will be thousands of people visiting but even before that just constructing the facility would to damage that fragile, valuable area. It will not lessen the congestion in the reserve because those thousands will enter looking for parking. They will flood the roads surrounding the reserve, parking in back streets. The noise, light, congestion will not be any less. It will still happen during the day and at night.
The objections we have are no different to when we started. (26 March 2023)
Statement from a Councillor
So, I must say we have had consultation. Just on the issue of consultation, back on the 24th November 2020, and I rely upon what the Councillors said on the 24th November 2020. I wasn't on Council. Councillor Tracey on the 24th of November quote “the consultation has been outstanding” end quote. So I rely upon Councillors what they told me on that occasion. Councillor Tracey described the consultation process as outstanding. Councillor Tracey voted to adopt it as all Councillors on this motion did back in 2020.
Comment from FoFCR
It has since come to the the community's attention that some consultation was not adequate, with many neighbouring and nearby residents complaining they knew nothing of the plans.
We note that that year, all of Council's Draft Master Plans had several 'Have Your Say' Facebook reminders, but the plan for Fred Caterson Reserve had none.
Councillor Tracey supported a Motion tabled on 24 October 2023 for Council to host its first public briefing on the Fred Caterson Reserve Master Plan, and during this Mayoral Minute had also stated, 'the community wanted a further consult and I have a preference of the community being heard'. This would indicate that he is of the view now that further consultation is required.
Statement from a Councillor
Regrettably I wasn't present for the last meeting but some of the information that I'm hearing tonight and in tonight's debate on your Mayoral Minute concerns me a little bit ... particularly I think what was delivered by way of petition was a printed version of an e-Petition and under the Model Code, there is no provision for petitions. It is our custom and practice to receive them and present them. There's also no e-Petition guidelines, and I think that's something we need to look at seriously given what Councillor Hodges (MP) has said in relation to misdirection and the forensic analysis of having to divest who were the actual names that are identified with a postcode, how those names are clarified in an e-Petition, and perhaps have a look at the Legislative Assembly in regards to dealing with e-Petitions and the procedures that are able to qualify, and qualify those in relation to how people are identified...
Comment from FoFCR: On 4 December 2023, a Model Code of Meeting Practice was placed on exhibition by Council proposing, among other things, to prevent e-Petitions from being tabled. Submissions close 1 January 2024.