Category: Behind the Byline

The zoning myth at the heart of the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club dispute

It started with a surf club and a sausage sizzle. Now it’s playing out like a civic version of Succession, a slow-burn war of words, process, and pride, where paperwork trumps common sense and collaboration is a forgotten art.

What should have been a community victory has turned into a saga bigger than Ben Hur. An undated construction agreement. A lease that was promised but never delivered. A Council that says one thing in public and another behind closed doors. And a surf club caught in the middle, trying to keep the lights on while navigating zoning laws and bathroom audits.

The question is no longer what happened? It’s why has it come to this? And who benefits from the chaos?

At the centre of Kiama Council’s standoff with Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club is a claim that the current zoning, RE1 Public Recreation, prohibits commercial use and therefore a lease for the kiosk would require rezoning. But that’s not the full picture. 🧐

✅ RE1 zoning does prohibit general commercial activity
🚫 Unless it’s ancillary to a permitted use
🏄‍♂️ Surf clubs are a permitted use
☕ A kiosk that funds lifesaving patrols and supports club operations is clearly ancillary

💡 Across NSW, surf clubs run kiosks on RE1 land without needing to rezone. What matters is not the zoning, it’s what the Plan of Management (PoM) allows.

📜 Under Section 46 of the Local Government Act:
📝 If the PoM permits it, Council can grant a lease to a not-for-profit like GSLSC
🔁 If the PoM doesn’t permit it, Council can amend the PoM
🚫 Rezoning is not required

🔍 So what’s the real issue?
Not planning law. Not zoning. It’s interpretation, political will, and public trust.

📉 The longer this drags out, the more it looks like a civic soap opera, not a land use dilemma.

🕊️ A lease is lawful and achievable if the will is there.

#GerringongSurfClub #KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernmentDrama #CommunityLeadership #PublicTrust #ZoningDispute #CouncilWatch #SurfClubSaga #CivicSoapOpera #RE1Zoning

Why I wouldn’t hire myself as CEO and why that matters

New here? Welcome.
This blog unpacks the inner workings of local democracy in the Kiama local government area. I am not a councillor or council staffer. I am a long-time community member, former civics writer for the local newspaper, and someone who has spent decades in leadership, founding a national charity, completing world-class leadership programs, and training hundreds of emerging changemakers.

What that experience gave me was not just confidence in my own skill set. It taught me something far more valuable. Great leadership is knowing what you bring to the table and then surrounding yourself with people who fill the gaps. It is building a team of “we” people, not “I” people. People who understand that progress is collaborative, that community outcomes are shared, and that leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room, but about listening to the smartest people in the room.

That is the standard we should expect from anyone who puts their hand up to lead.

This blog exists to ask hard questions, share hard truths, and shine a light where it is most needed.

Why I wouldn’t hire myself as CEO and why that matters

For 20 years, I led a charity that offered leadership training to hundreds of emerging voices across rural and regional Australia. I have completed extraordinary programs from the Melbourne Business School to global executive intensives and yet I still would not hire myself as the CEO of a major organisation.

Why? Because those courses taught me something uncomfortable and essential. Great leadership is not about confidence. It is about having the capacity to recognise the people who can deliver the outcomes our community deserves, and, most importantly, to identify the “I” people. The ones who have not done the work and do not understand what shared leadership truly means.

This matters because communities pay the price when leadership becomes about ego.

“I” people focus on self-preservation, not solutions. They stall progress, weaken trust, and erode the culture of shared responsibility. Real leadership ensures the right people are empowered, the community’s needs are prioritised, and decisions are guided by collaboration rather than personal ambition.

What I find deeply troubling is this. In all my observations of Kiama Municipal Council, I am not seeing anyone who has put themselves forward for any form of recognised leadership training. Not one. And we are expected to trust them to lead a one hundred million dollar organisation.

That is not brave. That is not capable. That is reckless.

So what should we look for in a 21st century leader, especially one applying to run a council?

Here is the skill set I believe should be non-negotiable.

  • Emotional intelligence and self-awareness

  • Systems thinking

  • Stakeholder engagement

  • Adaptive leadership

  • Transparency and accountability

  • Public value mindset

  • Commitment to lifelong learning

Let us stop accepting untrained leadership as good enough.

If you were hiring a surgeon, you would check their qualifications. If you were hiring a pilot, you would want to know they had done the flight hours. But with leadership, qualifications alone are not enough. The real test is capacity, the ability to bring people together, set a clear direction, and deliver outcomes with integrity.

Why should the CEO of a local government, responsible for planning, services, staff culture, finances, and infrastructure, be held to a lower standard? Communities need leaders who can demonstrate both the knowledge and the skill to lead, not simply hold a credential or a title. Anything less puts the community at risk.

It is time we asked for more. And it starts by asking one simple question.
Is the leadership we have what our community needs and deserves?

#LeadershipMatters #PublicLeadership #LocalGovernment #KiamaCouncil #CivicAccountability #CommunityFirst #EthicalLeadership

If Northern Beaches can handle 16 surf clubs, why is one too hard for Kiama?

Something as straightforward as a surf club lease shouldn’t become a political battlefield. Yet here we are.

In the Kiama local government area, the future of the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club’s use of public land has become the centre of a messy, public dispute involving councillors, council processes, and a great deal of confusion.

What should be a practical conversation about how a surf club continues to serve its community has instead become a saga, clouded by emotion, shifting positions, and power plays. And all of it is happening in full view of a community that deserves better.

It’s worth asking: why is this so hard?

When Northern Beaches Council needed to sort out long-term leases with its surf clubs, it did what mature, responsible organisations do. It opened a clear and public process. It asked the surf clubs what they needed. It invited community feedback. And then it got on with it.

Between July and August 2022, they put forward a plan to grant 20-year leases to 16 surf life saving clubs. Forty submissions came in. None were opposed. A few queries around environmental management and public access were addressed in a community engagement report. By October, the council had adopted the leases

With all their surf club leases online, Northern Beaches Council makes it easier for others to draw on or adapt agreements that may suit their needs.

The community knew what was being proposed. The surf clubs knew where they stood. Everyone moved forward.

Now compare that with what’s happening in Kiama.

We have confusion. We have emotion. Do we even have a clear ask? Without one, and without a transparent process, how can the community have any confidence that decisions are fair, lawful or in the public interest?

This shouldn’t be complicated. The Local Government Act sets out exactly how community land can be leased. There are notice requirements. Ministerial approvals in some cases. But it’s a clear sequence. A process. Not a drama.

So why is it playing out like one?

Why hasn’t an independent negotiator been engaged to steer this back on track?

Why are we not tapping into people who actually understand land use law, governance, and conflict resolution?

Why are we watching local democracy be tested again and again by a lack of clarity and leadership?

There are professionals, planners, facilitators, public land specialists, who do this work every day across New South Wales. If Northern Beaches Council could work it out with 16 clubs under the same legislation, surely Kiama Council and one club can figure it out too.

What we need now is not another personality clash.

It’s competence. It’s process. It’s respect for community land and the people it belongs to.

The answers are available. The legislation is clear. The question is whether there’s the will to stop the theatre and start the work.

In my next blog post, we will step back from the noise and revisit the core question:

Can councils lease community land to surf life saving clubs?

✅ Yes, they can. But only if they follow the correct process.

I’ll walk you through exactly how an expert explained it to me  very soon.

Background reading:

Manly Observer article

Northern Beaches Council – SLSC lease renewals 

A note of thanks
To the planners, governance experts, legal minds, and calm strategic thinkers who have been quietly contacting me. Thank  you. Your willingness to share knowledge, cut through the noise, and support a better way forward gives me hope. Collaborative leadership isn’t just possible, it’s already in motion. Let’s keep going.

#KiamaCouncil #Gerringong #SurfClubLeases #LocalGovernment #CommunityLand #GovernanceMatters #NSWPolitics

You had one job… and a pen. Council’s undated contract saga

At the 20 May 2025 Kiama Municipal Council meeting, something curious happened. Councillor Imogen Draisma tabled a construction agreement signed by both Kiama Council and the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club, a document that forms the basis of the surf club’s brand-new building.

The catch? It wasn’t dated.

So, in a very public moment, Councillor Draisma did what any responsible representative would: she asked if this was good governance.

The CEO’s answer? A flat “No.”

You’d think that would be the end of it. But in true Kiama Council fashion, that was only the beginning of the theatre.

Watch the drama play out here beginning at 33.52 m

In a follow-up question, Draisma asked why council staff and surf club members had signed an undated legal document.

The CEO responded with an air of formality: she didn’t know.

She then explained that Council usually keeps a record in the CEO’s office showing when documents are submitted and signed, and that “it is usual practice to date and document all signatures.”

Lovely. Except she didn’t say whether that process was followed. No dates. No names. No real answers. In other words, a masterclass in sounding accountable without actually being accountable.

This is not an isolated slip. It’s part of a broader pattern, where the optics of order are used to distract from a lack of follow-through.

Remember: this is a contract tied to a building that already exists. It has been physically constructed. Ratepayers are using it. And yet somehow, no one in the building remembered to write the date on the contract that allowed it to be built.

This, of course, is the same meeting where another question about developer contributions (from another councillor) prompted a response so conveniently selective, it skipped over the very document that first required a $1 million payment from developers. That small omission later turned out to be worth over $970,000 to the community.

If we sound sceptical, it’s because the pattern is hard to ignore.

Time and again, Council appears more invested in managing appearances than managing records. And while councillors squabble, raise eyebrows or ask fair questions, the CEO continues to maintain that everything is under control, except for the parts she can’t quite explain.

The community deserves better than this passive-aggressive pantomime. We’re not asking for Shakespeare. But we do think someone should write down the date.

One week later Cr Draisma found herself in the hot seat 

“One week she tables a contract that exposes a governance gap. The next week, someone’s asking if she should be investigated. That’s not accountability. That’s theatre, and the script is older than local government itself.”

It sends a message, whether intended or not:  “I have powerful friends. Tread carefully.”

Coming soon: a breakdown of how public access and proper motions can still be used to push for transparency, assuming someone in the room is still paying attention.

Disclaimer: This post reflects publicly available information and personal commentary on governance and community perception. It is not intended to suggest wrongdoing or impugn the integrity of any individual. All views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #TransparencyMatters #GovernanceWatch #CommunityAccountability #PublicInterest #Section711 #PlanningReform

We don’t need a hero. We need collaborative leadership.

Most of my recent writing has focused on the Kiama Council Section 7.11 development contributions issue “How Kiama lost $970,000 in developer contributions and no one explained why”

Today I’m stepping slightly to the side, not away, to show how that issue fits into a broader pattern. Because what’s happening with Section 7.11 is not an isolated event. It is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem in how Kiama Council handles complexity, conflict and community trust.

These moments of tension, whether it is development contributions or surf club leases, often follow the same script. And the script is familiar to anyone who has studied leadership dynamics or conflict psychology.

The Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club issue in the Kiama local government area has become a textbook example of the Karpman Drama Triangle. A well-intentioned community concern has been turned into a stage production. The roles are locked in. The hero has claimed their spotlight. The victim is entrenched. And the villains? They shift by the day.

The moment someone questions the process or raises a legitimate concern, they are quickly cast in that villain role. Not because they are wrong, but because they interrupt the script. We have seen this dynamic before. And we will keep seeing it if we do not name it for what it is.

This is not about surf clubs. This is about how we lead.

At the last Kiama Council meeting, Councillor Imogen Draisma supported Motion 20.1 relating to the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club. It was an emotionally charged moment, and like many, she likely acted with good intent.

But the motion itself was deeply complex. It involved land classification, leasing laws, native title implications and long-term planning risks, issues that most people in the Kiama local government area have not been given the time or information to fully understand.

Now, that decision has resulted in her integrity being questioned in state parliament.

This is exactly what happens when we let the Drama Triangle run the show. Someone is cast as the hero. Someone becomes the victim. And someone else gets labelled the villain, often unfairly.

It stops being about good governance. It becomes performance.

And good people become collateral damage.

More and more, the front and centre issues in the Kiama local government area are being played out through this lens, public theatre that pulls us into binary roles and distracts us from the real work of governance. The Section 7.11 development contributions issue is another clear example. Rather than work through complexity, we are fed simplified narratives that cast people as saviours or saboteurs.

It is too easy to get caught in it. The Drama Triangle has a gravity of its own. One person steps in to save the day. Another is painted as the problem. The community becomes the audience, applauding the performance but not always understanding what is at stake backstage.

But it does not have to be this way.

What if we stepped outside the triangle?
What if we paused before playing out the roles handed to us?
What if we chose something different?

In the Kiama local government area, we have the opportunity to lead in a more collaborative way. To slow down. To listen. To ask better questions. And to remind ourselves that not every story needs a hero, a victim and a villain.

Sometimes it just needs a group of people willing to work together, with honesty and respect, to get to the heart of the matter.

Let’s try more of that.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #LeadershipMatters #CollaborativeLeadership #CommunityTrust #DramaTriangle #PublicEngagement #Section711 #GerringongSLSC

How Kiama lost $970,000 in developer contributions and no one explained why

We live in a world where most of us are juggling a lot. We rely on others to shine a light on issues that matter, especially the ones buried in council reports or tangled in planning jargon.

For anyone trying to raise these issues, the first step is making sense of them. The next is explaining them clearly enough that people without a law or planning degree can understand why they matter.

This is one of those issues.

In February 2023, Kiama Council issued a  draft development consent for 15 Golden Valley Road, Jamberoo. ( Golden Valley Draft Consent Feb 2023.) That consent included a condition requiring the developer to pay $1 million under Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

That figure was based on Council’s adopted Section 94 Contribution Plans, also known as 7.11 plans. These plans require developers to contribute to local infrastructure that supports growth, in addition to the infrastructure built within the subdivision.

Later that year, Council repealed its 7.11 plans. The development was still before the Land and Environment Court. See previous post 

Because the 7.11 plans no longer existed, the Court applied a flat Section 7.12 rate of just over $30,000.

Section 7.11 contributions are calculated per new lot and paid by developers at the subdivision stage. In contrast, Section 7.12 applies a flat percentage to individual development applications, which means the cost is passed on to future homeowners when they lodge a DA to build.

As a result of the switch, the community lost around $970,000 in developer contributions that would have been collected upfront to support local infrastructure. While some funds may later be collected from home builders under Section 7.12, this shift places the burden on individuals and leaves the community with a major funding gap.

Kiama’s growth target is 900 new dwellings over the next five years. If each lot contributed $20,000 under a new 7.11 plan, that could generate $18 million for community infrastructure. Under the current 7.12 rate, the return is closer to $6.75 million.

The Mayor has committed to a formal investigation into how this happened. That is a good step. But transparency is not a one-time announcement. It requires consistent, honest communication.

In the next post, we will look at the December 2024 Council report admitting overcharges under Section 7.11, and how those errors were handled.

Disclaimer: I am not a developer, a town planner, or a property lawyer. My blog posts are written in good faith and based on publicly available documents, council records, and conversations with professionals who work in planning, development, and legal fields. Every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity. These posts are offered to support greater public understanding of complex issues that affect our community.

#Kiama #Section711 #DeveloperContributions #LocalGovernmentTransparency #CommunityInfrastructure #PlanningMatters #PublicInterest #AccountabilityInCouncil #IndependentVoices #KiamaCouncil

$1 million on the table, $30,000 collected. Let’s talk about why

Cr Erica  Warren calls for governance reform after developer contribution failures

We live in a world where most of us are juggling more than we can hold. Family, work, community, finances. In the thick of it, we trust that someone, somewhere, is keeping watch over the systems that shape our lives. We hope decisions are made fairly, money is spent wisely, and when mistakes happen, someone tells the truth.

But that trust only works when people are willing to shine a light on what is really going on.

That is what this blog is about. It is not written by a planner or a lawyer, and it is not written for them either. It is for people who care about what happens in their community, especially when public money and public trust are at stake.

This issue came to light after Kiama Municipal councillor Erica Warren asked a reasonable question. Why had Council shifted from one type of developer contribution to another, (19.4 7.11 20-May-2025-Ordinary-Council-agenda-3 ) and what impact did that have?

The response from Council left out a key fact. A Golden Valley Draft Consent Feb 2023  recommended a $1 million developer contribution under Section 7.11.

However, a majority of councillors at the time voted to reject the application, triggering an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

While the matter was still before the Court, Council repealed its Section 7.11 contribution plans. By the time the Court ruled, there was no valid Section 7.11 in place. Instead, a Section 7.12 contribution applied, which meant just over $30,000 was collected at subdivision.

Additional contributions, up to $350,000, may be collected from individual homeowners as they lodge development applications to build. But the community still faces a shortfall of around $650,000. And the cost burden has shifted from developer to future residents.

When this shift was reported publicly, Council issued a statement accusing the article of spreading false facts. It did not address the existence of the original $1 million contribution recommendation. And it did not explain the implications of repealing the 7.11 plan while the DA was still under appeal.

This is not about technicalities. It is about transparency.

You do not need to be an expert to understand why this matters. You only need to ask whether important information is being left out, and why.

In the next post, I will walk you through the documents and decisions so you can judge for yourself.

Disclaimer: I am not a developer, a town planner, or a property lawyer. My blog posts are written in good faith and based on publicly available documents, council records, and conversations with professionals who work in planning, development, and legal fields. Every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity. These posts are offered to support greater public understanding of complex issues that affect our community.

#Kiama #Section711 #DeveloperContributions #LocalGovernmentTransparency #CommunityInfrastructure #PlanningMatters #PublicInterest #AccountabilityInCouncil #IndependentVoices #KiamaCouncil