[North Eveleigh] Waterloo South Concept Plan and other updates / Council: Where does Growth go? / State Participation / Alexandria Park

[Geoff Turnbull (REDWatch Spokesperson)]

Dear REDWatch members, supporters and agencies,
There is a lot happening so this is a long update so use the links at the top to dig into areas of interest.

REDWatch Meeting – Stockland on Waterloo South Concept Plan - 7 May

Waterloo Phase 2 Relocation and New Unit Availability Questions

Questions continue around proposed closure of Raglan Street Waterloo

Clover writes to Minister Jackson over People and Place & Relocations

Neighbourhood Centre Week Activities in May

Redfern Waterloo Pet Day – Saturday 23 May

City of Sydney Waterloo Social Housing Tenants’ Meeting – 26 May

Where does Housing Growth go in Sydney – Feedback until 19 June

Homes NSW sites and Housing for All

Did you miss 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo exhibition?

Proposed statewide Community Participation Plan – until 3 June 2026

Improving Alexandria Park – Feedback until 18 May 2026
Please note – this email contains hyperlinks. This means that if you see a blue underlined word or phrase that you can click on it and go directly to a document or to get more information.
REDWatch Meeting – Stockland on Waterloo South Concept Plan - 7 May
The May 7 REDWatch meeting will do an initial unpack of the Waterloo South Concept Plan for tenants and the community. As It looks like the exhibition will only be for 28 days and REDWatch will only have one scheduled meeting in the exhibition period, we are looking at this meeting potentially being a two-hour meeting dealing with both the built environment proposal as well as with the Social Impact Assessment (SIA). The SIA looks at the people impacts from the redevelopment as part of the exhibition and this information was not available during the pre-exhibition consultations.
As this email goes out, the formal exhibition of the Waterloo South Concept plan is imminent. Stockland has agreed to attend the REDWatch meeting to speak to the Concept Plan after the exhibition starts. In line with informing tenants first, Information about the exhibition has already been disseminated to all Waterloo tenants and is on the Homes NSW Waterloo renewal project site. This confirms the exhibition will be underway by the REDWatch meeting. So come and find out more about the proposal.
Stockland have undertaken pre-lodgement consultation with tenants showing what it was considering so there should be few major surprises in the key elements of the exhibited plan for those that were involved in the earlier consultation.
The exhibition will show how the heights and floorspace distribution changes proposed differ from the approved 2022 controls. It will also include as other information such as the distribution of different types of housing, staging etc. The plan will have lots of technical studies that provide detailed information that people will not have not yet seen – for example on shadowing. The plan will also have a reference scheme that shows that it is possible to fit the amount of floor space and unit breakdown into the proposed planning controls. This reference scheme is still not what will be built. Consultations on the design of buildings in Stage 1 are expected to start after the Concept exhibition ends.
This is a public meeting and everyone is welcome. You can join the meeting in person on 7 May from 6:00 pm at Counterpoint’s Factory Community Centre, 67 Raglan Street, Waterloo or join us on line by Zoom http://tinyurl.com/RedwatchMeetingZoom.
REDWatch meets at the local Community Centre and is pleased to celebrate Neighbour Hood Centre Week in May as your place to connect.
Waterloo Phase 2 Relocation and New Unit Availability Questions
The April issue of the South Sydney Herald carried the story Tenants in proposed Waterloo Park get relocation notices<https://southsydneyherald.com.au/tenants-in-proposed-waterloo-park-get-relocation-notices/> by REDWatch Spokesperson Geoff Turnbull. This article was based on questions raised by Evelyn Morris, an 86-year-old Waterloo resident and active tenant representative for many years, who has lived in Cooper Street for 27 years and received her 6 months’ notice of relocation.
Evelyn wanted to know why she is being relocated from the area that will become a future park when construction has not yet started in stage one to deliver the promised new social housing units for existing tenants like her to move into.
Following on from this article it might be helpful to provide a bit more clarification on the complex issues that make getting an answer to Evelyn’s question difficult in the short term. At the start it is probably useful to point out that Homes NSW is using the term “Phase” for relocations to distinguish relocations from the redevelopment “Stage”, as these may differ.
Firstly, there is currently no estimate public as to when the first Social Housing will be delivered by the redevelopment. As we saw in the case of the Redfern PCYC site, it can take a while to get through the planning stage, so until that is finished it is difficult for the developer to set a start point and time-frame. Stockland is trying to speed the process up, but it is dependent on what comes out of the exhibitions and the Department of Planning. The only estimate that was made public was when the consortium was announced. Managing Director and CEO of Stockland, Tarun Gupta said then he expected construction to start in 2027 and to start delivering new homes in 2031.
The timeframe for the park in the agreement between Homes NSW and Council is about 4 years. Two years’ notice to Council is required before the development application so Council can prepare concept plans to be lodged by the developer. The park development then needs to follow within two years. The park has to be delivered before half the floorspace in the development is ready for occupation. Stockland argues that any other part of the site in addition to the blocks it is starting on will take it over 50% of the site so the park needs to be delivered earlier rather than later – hence the relocations on part of the park site. There is a time difference here between when development is started (Stockland’s argument) and when a building has to be ready for occupation (in the Voluntary Planning Agreement) which remains unexplained.
The second part of this puzzle is how long it might take to relocate the people who live in the area of the new park. Homes NSW has been saying little publicly about relocations and how it is going – falling back on the argument that this is between an individual tenant and the Homes NSW relocation team. You can see information on relocations on the Homes NSW Waterloo South<https://www.nsw.gov.au/about-nsw/housing-and-infrastructure-projects/social-building-projects/waterloo-renewal-project> site.
The Homes NSW statement to the SSH said “Relocation of Phase 2 tenants has commenced to ensure Homes NSW has sufficient time to support tenants through this period of change and to identify suitable housing that meets each tenant’s individual needs. As many residents as possible will be relocated into newly developed homes, including new housing within Waterloo, as well as surrounding areas such as Redfern and Glebe”.
The notices tenants receive give them 6 months’ notice before tenants have to consider relocations. The first step in the process is for a housing needs assessment where Homes NSW determines with the tenant what housing the tenant needs and where the tenant wants to go. The next step is to match that tenant’s housing needs with homes that become available.
Homes NSW faces a number of problems, unlike in the Phase 1 relocations it has no new building on the Waterloo Metro site to move people into. This means that tenants who want to stay in the area will have to move into existing housing as units become vacant or into one of the new developments in surrounding suburbs. This is not helped by delays in the delivery of housing on the Redfern PCYC site. This will be a much slower process than for Phase 1.
In addition, the Waterloo walk-up area is where many people are housed who do not want to be in high-rise. So, it will not be possible to move some of those people into high-rise and Homes NSW will have to find low-rise locations for them. For others, once a suitable home is found, Homes NSW will need to have home modifications made for the home to meet the person’s needs and that also blows out the time needed to move. Based on an earlier Waterloo Human Services Collaborative survey a large number will want to move out of the area and the speed of their move will depend on housing becoming available in the desired location to which they want to move, as some areas have little housing availability and long wait times. A relocating tenant can also request a second offer if they are not happy with the first offer.
So the Homes NSW argument is that it might take a long time to move people out of the 99 units on the part of the park next to the Metro Station and then a long time to move the occupants of the 109 units on the east side of the park. There is little transparency about relocations at the moment, so it ends up with general statements like that supplied to the SSH, rather than more transparent explanations.
The more detailed answer to Evelyn’s question is that Stockland do not yet know when it will have new stock built for those who want to move into it and in the absence of enough suitable places to relocate people, Homes NSW expects it to take a long time to move people so it has started early.
At least now there is a Homes NSW Meanwhile Use Policy<https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/homes-nsw/housing-reforms-and-initiatives/meanwhile-use-policy>, that would see vacated homes, like one block in Stage 1, used for supported accommodation if people are moved out quicker than expected. Those who want to know when they can move directly into the newly built housing, they thought they were promised, will need to wait a bit longer for Stockland to provide estimates on when it expects homes to be available and for Bridge Housing’s delayed Redfern former PCYC site to be built.
Questions continue around proposed closure of Raglan Street Waterloo
Council has received a lot of submissions to work through from this exhibition and residents in Alexandria and Erskineville are also asking questions about how the proposed change might compound issues with other road changes being considered in their areas.
Stockland advised the Waterloo Redevelopment Group that it asked its consultants to do a technical traffic analysis of the proposed change. It found that the most significant impact of the proposal would be on the intersection of Wellington Street and Botany Road. Even without the renewal (under current conditions), if the Raglan Street closure went ahead this intersection would experience impacts in relation to delay times and queuing. Stockland will continue engaging with the City of Sydney Council to understand whether Council intends to progress with this proposal in its current form, or whether based on community feedback it is going to re-think the Raglan Street component.
Clover writes to Minister Jackson over People and Place & Relocations
Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore has formally written to Housing Minister Rose Jackson<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/stage1/260420cm> setting out Council’s concerns about the Waterloo People and Place Plan. The Lord Mayor included a comparative analysis of the issues raised by Council in its submission and final plan. The letter asks Minister Jackson to ensure that Homes NSW: -

  *   “Urgently resolves the City's concerns with the Plan, including by providing an implementation plan underpinned by clear leadership and governance, with defined responsibilities, timeframes and reporting mechanisms
  *   Resources independent local services and community organisations to support delivery of the Plan's recommendations, including local Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations to ensure culturally appropriate support.
The letter also raised concerns about relocation support and called on the NSW Government to:

  *   Confirm continued funding of the tenant advocate at Redfern Legal Centre and the community development worker at Counterpoint Community Services
  *   Provide a clear plan for residents impacted by Stage 2 relocations to stay in the local area, informed by lessons learnt from Stage 1
  *   Ensure that the Homes NSW Relocations Team works with City-funded organisations providing relocations support services to ensure service coordination and appropriate referral pathways for impacted residents.”
Neighbourhood Centre Week Activities in May
Counterpoint as the local neighbourhood Centre is organising a number of events throughout May to Celebrate Neighbourhood Centre Week as “your place to connect”. Events include:

  *   Neighbourhood Centre Week Morning Tea - Monday 11 May 10:30 am to 12:30 pm at Counterpoint Multicultural Centre, 73 Garden Street Alexandria NSW 2015. For more information and reservation please contact info at counterpointcs.org.au or call 02 9319 4073.
  *   Your Place at the table Community Lunch 12 May 2026 11am to 1 pm at The Factory Community Centre 67 Raglan Street Waterloo Please RSVP by Friday 8th May
  *   There is also an Elvis Festival over 3 Mondays with Music and discussion on 11 and 18 May from 10am-12pm and an Elvis Tribute show from 10.30am to 12.30 on 25 May, All Elvis events are at the Waterloo Neighbourhood Centre (Opposite OzHarvest Market)
  *   Redfern Waterloo Volunteer Awards are the area’s biggest annual indoor event where the volunteers who make our community function are celebrated. Nominations are open until Tuesday 5th May so nominate those you want to recognise. The Awards will be cerebrated on 19th May at Alexandria Town Hall.

For more information on any of the above events email info at counterpointcs.org.au<mailto:info at counterpointcs.org.au>, drop in to The Factory or Multicultural Centre or ring 9698 9569.
Redfern Waterloo Pet Day – Saturday 23 May
Access free vet services for your furry friends at Redfern Waterloo Pet Day on Saturday 23 May 10:30am–2:30pm Waterloo Green.
Pet health services are provided by RSPCA NSW, Cat Protection Society of NSW, Sydney University Veterinary Hospital and local volunteer veterinary clinics. Bring your pension or healthcare card to access free vaccinations, microchipping and desexing bookings.
There will be pet giveaways, information stalls, free face painting and pet tag engraving. Food trucks will provide free lunch and coffee while stocks last.
To book a seat on the free event shuttle bus contact Laura Kelly by 4pm on Thursday 21 May on 02 9246 7883 or at lkelly at cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au.
City of Sydney Waterloo Social Housing Tenants’ Meeting – 26 May
Council’s next Waterloo social housing meeting will be held on Tuesday 26 May at The Factory, 67 Raglan Street, Waterloo. The general meeting will take place between 11am and 12pm.
The Lord Mayor will provide an update to tenants, which will be followed by short updates from Homes NSW representatives and NSW Police. After this, tenants will have the opportunity to ask panel members from Homes NSW, NSW Police and the City of Sydney questions.
Following the meeting, between 12pm and 12.30pm, tenants will be invited to stay for a light lunch and speak one-on-one with staff from Homes NSW and the City of Sydney to raise any individual concerns.
Where does Housing Growth go in Sydney – Feedback until 19 June
City of Sydney Council is asking the community where it can put more housing that the city needs. It has put out a Housing for All Discussion Paper<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/-/media/corporate/files/projects/policy-planning-changes/help-plan-new-homes-in-our-area/discussion-paper_accessible.pdf?download=true> (PDF · 14.09 MB) which has some suggestions for where that growth may go on both Council and Government controlled sites. Council is looking for feedback by the extended date of June 19 on Have your say on future homes in our area<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/have-your-say-on-future-homes-in-our-area>.
This is an important exhibition as it will guide where Council may make changes to planning controls that will set height and floorspace controls over the next 5 years. So now is the time to get your thoughts in early rather than when something pops up next to you in the 2030s after all the decisions have been made.
Currently Council has enough development in the pipe line to meet state government targets, so this is longer term planning. This discussion paper is a useful place to understand the different sorts of housing that Sydney needs and how it might be delivered. Feedback on the Housing for All discussion paper will feed into an update of the Council’s planning strategies followed by more detailed urban design studies and planning before any rezoning.
Council argues that:
“If the City of Sydney doesn't lead this process, we risk uncoordinated development where the NSW Government takes over planning control. Under the Housing Delivery Authority, projects can be declared State Significant Development, bypassing local planning controls and overriding carefully master-planned areas. This has already happened across our area, from Darlinghurst to Pyrmont and Waterloo. We want to keep planning decisions where they belong: with the City of Sydney and our communities”.
The discussion paper asks three questions:
1. Where and how can we plan for more homes?
In this section Council lists 10 ideas as to where more housing could be delivered and provides details of what it thinks is possible. Included in this are:
Ultimo and Pyrmont with Wentworth Park returned; Connecting Green Square and Waterloo; Prince Alfred Park edges; Renewing the Supa Centa site near Moore Park; Renewing Broadway: UTS to Glebe Point Road; Renewing underused sites along Parramatta Road; More life (and living) on our high streets; Mid-rise living in Beaconsfield; Gentle density on laneways and; Park-side living for more people to enjoy.
2. What should the NSW Government do to support more homes?
As the NSW Government has significant land holdings in the Council area that are outside Council control, Council is also looking to push the state government to deliver housing on more of its sites. The discussion paper lists 15 government sites where homes can be built now – these cover sites with planning approval like Waterloo South, Explorer Street, Redfern PCYC site, North Eveleigh and above the Eastern Suburbs lines at Redfern Station.
Council also lists 17 other government sites “where planning is needed for more homes”. Council is looking at sites that previously have been looked at for housing by the NSW Government. In the REDWatch area this includes currently active rail use properties within the Eveleigh railway corridor that UrbanGrowth proposed should be used for housing. Waterloo North and Central are on this list as a result of earlier master planning that has not yet proceed to rezoning. Erskine Estate and Bowling Club are also on the list from being considered back in 2002. Council has also looked at how light rail delivered by the state government would transform Parramatta Road and how a light rail and / or metro station at Zetland could allow greater density in Rosebery.
3. How can housing better meet the diverse needs of our community?
The final part of the report argues “a socially and economically healthy city needs homes to rent and buy, at different price points and in a variety of types and tenures”. It has a useful housing continuum graphic setting out different types of market and non-market housing and Council’s role in delivering these. It then goes on to focus on Affordable Rental housing, social housing, Aboriginal housing, low-cost market housing, housing for renters, apartment living, housing for people needing support and alternative housing models.
For more information or to make a submission visit the Have your say on future homes in our area<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/have-your-say-on-future-homes-in-our-area> or contact Christina Heather, Senior Specialist Planner at cheather at cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au<mailto:cheather at cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au>.
Homes NSW sites and Housing for All
Questions have been raised about the inclusion of the Erskine Estate and Bowling Club in the sites where planning is needed for more homes by the City of Sydney. No recent plans have been publicly announced for this site so people are asking why Council has drawn attention to it now. There was a battle over the Erko estate in 2002 where the community saw off an attempt by the Carr Labor Government and local MP Andrew Refshauge to develop the site. This fight was documented in the Russ Hermann documentary Saving Erko Estate<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gLYl7qAphc>. With Erskineville on the list we suspect there will be a big push back from the local community about this part of the proposal including losing the Bowling Club.
Council’s argument is that it is highlighting sites that the NSW Government has earlier explored however on that basis Redfern public housing should have also been included but was not. The Redfern public housing estate was flagged alongside Waterloo for redevelopment in the 2004 cabinet leak. Land and Housing Corporation and the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority attempted to master plan both Redfern with Waterloo in 2011 but different parts of government could not agree on how to proceed.
One consequence from 2011 was that both public housing sites and sites on the railway corridor remained in the old South Sydney Local Environment Plan (LEP). Some sites that have since been rezoned or developed are in the process of being transferred to the Sydney LEP but others like Marian Park and the Redfern public housing estate remain in the South Sydney LEP until they are rezoned.
REDWatch is not suggesting that either site should be looked at for early renewal. The chances of that increase however if NSW Government requirements make it difficult for Homes NSW to develop new sites for social and affordable housing.
The Housing for All Discussion Paper<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/-/media/corporate/files/projects/policy-planning-changes/help-plan-new-homes-in-our-area/discussion-paper_accessible.pdf?download=true> notes that Council has, across 9 sites, sold or long-term leased its land or property to not-for-profit organisations, at a discount of more than $31 million, to support the delivery of hundreds of affordable and diverse dwellings.
In contrast the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 April 2026 ran an article on The policy getting in the way of improving Sydney’s housing supply<https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/the-policy-getting-in-the-way-of-improving-sydney-s-housing-supply-20260427-p5zrb6.html>. That policy is the “highest and best use” requirements under NSW Treasury rules. The rules require that the selling part of government must get best price for its sale of land. If the buying part of government cannot agree a price with the selling part of government, then surplus land goes to market to produce market rather than add to non-market housing.
This results in Homes NSW and Landcom needing to pay top dollar to obtain land which is surplus to government requirements. The SMH article states: “It is part of the reason neither Landcom nor Homes NSW have purchased more sites through the audit of surplus public land, despite having first and second call on identified land. Between them, they have acquired seven of about 60 sites”.
If we are to see more supported housing, crisis and traditional housing, or social and affordable housing delivered on surplus government land, then money cannot be the only way of defining “higher and best use”. If that cannot be changed then the government needs to find ways to give Homes NSW and Landcom more money to pay other parts of government for the land on which government wants non-market housing delivered.
One consequence of this absurdity is that Homes NSW will be incentivised to redevelop land it already has, like it did under the earlier Communities Plus policy. The problem with such redevelopments is that existing tenants need to be moved to allow the redevelopment, with the consequence that relocations have to be made into existing housing stock, which stops people on the housing waiting list from gaining housing for several years until the redevelopment provides any increase in the total housing stock.
Development of new sites does not create the same problems and if provided in conjunction with an estate redevelopment can provide extra housing without stopping new allocations.
Did you miss 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo exhibition?
If you followed REDWatch on Facebook you would have seen us flag this Bourke Street proposal on the day it went on exhibition. It was one of the first of the big developments in our area to only be on exhibition for 14 days. REDWatch did not do an extra email update just for this site as we do not want to bombard people with lots of emails.
This was an important DA because the developer used state mechanisms to over-ride the Sydney Council’s planning controls. Those planning controls were set after wide community consultation about where height and floor space are best placed. By going to the state government for a spot rezoning to over-ride Council the developer got significant increases in height and floor space over other surrounding properties and this will likely lead to other developers wanting similar controls for their sites nearby.
In the context of our earlier strategic planning item about Council consulting on where the community wants growth and then putting in place planning controls to make that happen, the Bourke Street concurrent DA and rezoning ignored that earlier process and used the NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) to argue for much greater height and density on its site.
State government has been over-riding Council strategic planning desires on mainly government sites for a long time, but the current HDA approach is doing that across private sites that have been the subject of Council’s community based strategic plans about what growth should be placed where.
In this case the proponent already had a Development Application approved with Sydney Council. In its exhibition documents the proponent detailed the changes it was making as:

  *   Young Street tower – addition of 16 storeys, introduction of retail tenancy at ground floor, introduction of communal areas, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Young Street plaza building – additional of 1 storey, introduction of communal areas, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Young Street north building – additional of 1 storey, minor reduction to the depth of the floorplate to increase separation from tower, individual basement, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Young Street south building – additional of 1 storey, introduction of communal areas, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Bourke Street north – addition of 18 storeys to the tower, introduction of communal areas, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Bourke Street south – addition of 4 storeys, reduction to northern extent of footprint with increased separation from Bourke Street north building, an individual basement, introduction of communal areas, various internal planning changes, refinement to architectural expression
  *   Refinement to the internal layout in the basement levels, to provide for an increase of 30 car spaces from the previously approved 346 to 376
  *   Increase of 233 additional apartments from 347 apartments to 580 apartments
  *   Provision of 57 of the apartments as co-living studios
  *   Increase of indoor and outdoor communal open space
  *   Provision of affordable housing contribution equivalent to 12% for the uplift
  *   Minor amendments to the ground floor landscape design
Given above, it is not surprising that Council in its Housing for All Discussion Paper references this development when talking about the impact of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) on its strategic planning.
Proposed statewide Community Participation Plan – until 3 June 2026
As part of the NSW Government’s planning reforms, the Department of Planning is seeking feedback on a draft statewide Community participation plan<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/environmental-planning-and-assessment-act-1979/community-participation-plans> “to ensure consultation is clear and consistent across NSW and that everyone has an equal say on planning decisions, no matter where they live”.
Some of the key changes that we’re seeking feedback on include:
•                     Extending minimum consultation timeframes on state-level strategic planning initiatives like Region Plans and the State Plan from 45 days to 60 days
•                     Standardising the process for notification of Complying Development and giving neighbours 7 days’ notice before any works begin
•                     Standardising and reducing the number of development application types that need to be exhibited by councils to those with the highest impact.
The Department says these changes do not stop councils from implementing their own tailored community engagement strategies to best meet local needs. Rather, it sets a baseline of consultation requirements on planning matters that must be met to give everyone in NSW an equal say, no matter where they live.
For more information visit the Community participation plan<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/environmental-planning-and-assessment-act-1979/community-participation-plans> website. You can provide your feedback at Have your say: Proposed statewide Community Participation Plan<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/draftplans/exhibition/have-your-say-proposed-statewide-community-participation-plan> until 3 June 2026.
Improving Alexandria Park – Feedback until 18 May 2026
The City of Sydney has a Concept Plan out for consultation for an upgrade to Alexandria Park. The upgrade includes: a new playground, new tennis courts, refurbished tennis amenities and toilet block, improved park furniture and signage, improved lighting and upgraded pathways for better accessibility.
You can view the plan and provide feedback at: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/proposed-works-maintenance/your-say-improving-alexandria-park. You can also chat with Council’s project team in Alexandria Park from 12pm to 1:30pm on Saturday 2 May, and from 2:30pm to 4pm on Tuesday 5 May, subject to weather conditions.
Regards,

Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Spokesperson
Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490  Mob: 0418 457 392
email: spokesperson at redwatch.org.au<mailto:spokesperson at redwatch.org.au>
web: www.redwatch.org.au<http://www.redwatch.org.au/>
FB: www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/<http://www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/northeveleigh/attachments/20260502/8cd87ccf/attachment-0001.html>