Tag: Developer Contributions

Kiama Council’s Gaslighting Didn’t End with the Report, It Got a Standing Ovation

 

Kiama Council’s latest report into 7.11/7.12 developer contributions might have skipped the $970,000 loss, but some councillors didn’t just let it slide, they applauded it. And now the video message tells us everything’s fine. The gaslighting hasn’t stopped. It’s evolving. I imagine the internal conversations, “Is this the hill I want to die on?” “Is it worth rocking the boat?” But every time that question wins out over accountability, the damage deepens. Not just to public trust, but to the reputation of anyone who stays silent. When do they call it out? When is enough finally enough?

What Happens to a $1 Million Developer Contribution That Was Never Collected?

Recently, a councillor dismissed community concerns about Kiama Council’s lost $1 million developer contribution from the Golden Valley project by saying, “Jamberoo didn’t need any extra roads.”

Let’s be clear: that’s not how Section 7.11 contributions work. And it’s not an excuse.

What Are Section 7.11 Contributions For?

Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows councils to charge developers for local infrastructure needed as a result of new development.

That includes:

  • Roads

  • Footpaths and cycleways

  • Drainage and stormwater upgrades

  • Community halls and libraries

  • Open space, parks and playgrounds

  • Traffic calming and local safety improvements

It’s not just about roads. It’s about ensuring our community services, infrastructure, and public spaces keep pace with population growth.

What Would Have Happened to the $1 Million?

If Kiama Council had maintained a valid Section 7.11 plan and the $1 million contribution had been collected from the Golden Valley development, here’s what would’ve happened:

  • The funds would have gone into a dedicated infrastructure reserve, separate from general council revenue.

  • The money could only be used for works listed in the adopted 7.11 plan, local projects identified as needed due to growth.

  • Even if the infrastructure wasn’t needed immediately, the money would remain in reserve and be used when the demand appeared.

  • Councils usually have up to 10 years to use the funds. If nothing is built in that time, they must return the funds, but that rarely happens with well-managed plans.

So Why Didn’t Council Collect It?

The developer had agreed to pay the $1 million. They considered it reasonable. But while the development was in the Land and Environment Court, Council repealed its 7.11 plan.

By the time the court made its final ruling, there was no legal mechanism to impose the original $1 million contribution. Instead, the court applied a Section 7.12 levy, which is capped at 1% of the development cost. The developer paid $30,000.

That’s a $970,000 shortfall to the Jamberoo community. Not because of a court loss. Not because of a loophole. But because of Council’s own failure to manage its planning instruments.

Why This Matters

This wasn’t a technical error. It was a preventable governance failure. And it’s been compounded by a refusal to explain what happened or who was responsible.

The community deserves more than a shrug and a video saying “Council did nothing wrong.”

The Jamberoo community  lost $970,000 in infrastructure funding and we’re being told not to ask why.

#DeveloperContributions #CouncilAccountability #GaslightingBySilence #InfrastructureFail #GoldenValley #KiamaCouncil #PlanningMatters #WhereDidTheMillionGo #ReputationByAssociation #WhenIsEnoughEnough

Are we being gaslit by our own Council?

Moving On Without Looking Back Isn’t Leadership. It’s Evasion.

There’s a growing call within Kiama Council to “move forward” on developer contributions, to focus on new frameworks, technical capabilities, and future improvements. That instinct is understandable. For newly elected councillors, the pressure to defend decisions they didn’t make must be exhausting. No one expects them to carry that weight alone.

But the issue here isn’t the future. It’s the refusal to face the past.

The latest Council report into Section 7.11 and 7.12 developer contributions presents itself as a review. It’s not. It’s an administrative summary, a carefully curated narrative that avoids the most troubling questions.

  • It does not explain why Council allowed legally required contribution plans to lapse without replacement.
  • It does not acknowledge the nearly $1 million in lost infrastructure funding from developments like Golden Valley. See previous blog post: How Kiama lost $970,000 in developer contributions and no one explained why
  • It does not explain why staff continued applying 7.11 levies after the plans had expired, resulting in $1.5 million in overcharges.
  • And it certainly does not address why this information was omitted from the CEO’s public statements earlier this year.

Instead, we are told that everything is under control. That staff have the skills to prepare new plans. That forward planning is happening “across all departments.”

But if no one inside Council can admit what went wrong, how can we trust that the same systems and staff will get it right this time?

While the report confirms the repeal of the 7.11 plans and notes that overcharges have been refunded, it still fails to address the most critical issues:

  • Why the required five-year review process was ignored

  • Why Council allowed the plans to lapse without any replacement

  • Why the Golden Valley development, with its $1 million 7.11 condition, is excluded entirely from the analysis

  • Why the CEO’s earlier response omitted this development

  • What steps are being taken to prevent this kind of governance failure from happening again

  • Why the review ignored key issues raised by councillors and the community, including those I raised in good faith

  • It also fails to acknowledge the damage caused when a CEO publicly undermines the credibility of an elected councillor, then commissions a review that examines only what suits the executive agenda. This was not a full or independent review. It was a tightly controlled exercise in reputation management, not truth-telling.

The people responsible for these failures should not be allowed to rewrite history with a few carefully worded lines in a report.

If Council is serious about moving forward with the community, it must first confront what went wrong, tell the truth, and start rebuilding trust from there.

BTW If you’ve ever read a council report and found yourself more confused than when you started, don’t worry, it’s not you. It’s working as intended.

#KiamaCouncil #AccountabilityMatters #DeveloperContributions #GoldenValley #PlanningFail #Governance #LocalGovernment #TransparencyNow #CommunityDeservesBetter #InfrastructureFunding

When Kiama Council stops listening, the community steps up

In Kiama, we pride ourselves on being engaged, fair-minded, and not afraid to speak up when something feels wrong. So when members of this community take the time to submit formal complaints to Council -backed by evidence, dates, and clear requests for action – it’s not done lightly.

It comes from a belief that our local democracy still matters. And that someone, somewhere inside the system, will listen.  to put their concerns in writing, cite documents, ask for a review  – there’s a basic expectation: that someone, somewhere, will respond.

 

A simple acknowledgement.

A record of receipt.

A sign that the system is functioning.

But that didn’t happen here.

 

I submitted a formal complaint to Kiama Council about the handling of the ICAC referral. So did others. We raised questions about process, timing, and accountability. We asked for a review.

 

The response? Silence.

Not even a note from the Public Officer to confirm the request had been received. No response from the CEO. No indication that the concerns were being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

And this is what makes people give up. Not disagreement. Not debate. But the sense that no one is listening.

 

So let me say this clearly:

We are listening to each other.

We are keeping records.

We are not going away.

The community sets the standard.

We expect better.

 

We expect that when three councillors are referred to an anti-corruption body and then cleared, someone in Council will have the decency to correct the record — not leave a misleading notice online for months, casting doubt long after the facts are known.

 

We expect that formal requests will be logged, replied to, and dealt with transparently – not ignored.

 

And we expect that those tasked with upholding the integrity of the system will do more than protect it when convenient. They will protect it when it’s hard. When it’s messy. When it means holding powerful people to account.

The question is not whether councillors or community members are brave enough to raise these issues.

 

We already have.

The question is whether Council is willing to deal with the answers.

 

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CouncilAccountability #ICACReferral #GovernanceMatters #CommunityVoice #TransparencyNow #PublicTrust #LeadershipStandards #CivicEngagement

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

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