Tag: Kiama Council

Ron Hoenig just put Kiama Council on notice

The Hon. Ron Hoenig MP, Minister for Local Government has given Kiama Council more time to fix its budget. That means there is no longer any reason to rush decisions about the holiday parks, Blue Haven Terralong, or waste collection. The community has until 24 May to make a submission, and this post explains what to ask for and why it matters.

Today the Minister for Local Government Ron Hoenig sent out a media release proposing changes to Kiama Council’s Performance Improvement Order. His office made sure it reached the community directly.

Here is what it says and why every person in Kiama should read it carefully.

First, the good news

The minister is giving council an extra twelve months to balance the budget. The new deadline is 2027-28 instead of 2026-27.

That sounds dry. Here is what it actually means.

The reason council was moving so fast on the Reflections holiday parks deal, from a Friday proposal to a secret Tuesday night vote, was budget pressure. Get a deal done, fix the deficit, move on.

That pressure has just been reduced by twelve months.

And the extended deadline means council will not have to cut libraries, youth services, the Leisure Centre, the Visitor Information Centre or the Pilot’s Cottage Museum. That matters to a lot of Kiama families and it is genuinely good news worth acknowledging.

So the community can now reasonably ask why council would keep rushing a decision about its most valuable community assets when the minister has just said there is time to do this properly.

Blue Haven Terralong

The minister is requiring council to get an independent business case done for Blue Haven Terralong. Not a council business case. An independent one.

Why is this distinction important? Because Blue Haven Terralong needs $51.2 million in maintenance and capital works over the next ten years just to get from a poor condition rating to an average one. There are fire safety compliance issues. The people who live there are some of Kiama’s most vulnerable residents. It is their home.

Council already sold Blue Haven Bonaira, its aged care home, to a Perth based operator last year. The community needs to watch carefully what the independent business case recommends for Terralong and whether residents get a genuine say before anything changes.

It is also worth knowing that the draft Operational Plan currently on public exhibition opens its Retirement Village Operations section with the phrase “pending market sounding.” That language sits in a document about a service for vulnerable residents, and it is a fair question to ask what market sounding has been done, with whom, and on what terms.

An independent report recommending a sale or transfer to a private operator is not the same as the community agreeing that is the right outcome. One is a document. The other is a decision. Do not let anyone confuse them.

The waste services question and why this stands out

This is the part of the media release that deserves the most attention and has received the least.

The minister is explicitly requiring council to keep domestic waste services in house.

In November last year council’s CEO issued a public statement saying council was not outsourcing domestic waste services and that anyone suggesting otherwise was wrong.

Then the minister put the prohibition in writing as a formal condition.

Those two things do not sit comfortably together. And here is what makes the gap harder to explain away.

Council’s own draft Operational Plan for 2026-27, the document currently on public exhibition and inviting your submissions, contains the following deliverables:

2.3.2.4.1 – Undertake planning work and design for merged depot at Minnamurra

2.3.2.4.2 – Prepare for regional/testing market for waste collection services. Undertake testing and document results

4.1.3.2.1 – Specifications for waste collection trucks reviewed and ready for tender, including improved telematics and data capture technology

Testing the market is the language councils use when they are sounding out external providers. It is the step that comes before a tender. Reviewing truck specifications ready for tender is the step after that.

These are not hypothetical. They are scheduled deliverables in a draft plan dated 30 April 2026, published by council, sitting on the council website right now.

The minister’s prohibition is not addressing something theoretical. It is addressing something council had written down.

The community deserves a straight answer about how the CEO’s November statement and the deliverables in the draft Operational Plan are meant to be reconciled. One of them needs to be revised. The community is entitled to know which one.

The holiday parks. What the media releases have not told you.

The minister’s proposed variation includes one line about the parks. It says the extra time will allow council to investigate opportunities for the long term management of its tourist parks which could improve its budget position over time.

Notice the words. Investigate. Over time. Not rush. Not this year. Not before 24 May.

It is also worth noting that the draft Operational Plan contains a deliverable under holiday parks for “new management contracts developed for upcoming year and Management Model review as per the Service Review to be progressed.” That is council scheduling new management contracts for the parks within the financial year covered by this plan. The minister has just said investigate over time. Those two timelines do not match.

Here is the context most people in Kiama do not have.

Four of the five holiday parks are on Crown land. Under the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 the state government can remove council as manager of those parks for no reason and pay council nothing in compensation. That is not a worst case scenario. That is what the law actually says.

This means the Reflections proposal is not a straightforward commercial negotiation between two equal parties. It is a council that knows it could lose the parks anyway sitting across the table from a government owned corporation. That changes everything about how you assess the deal.

Here is the part that should make every ratepayer sit up.

If the four Crown land parks go to Reflections, the revenue from those parks goes to Crown Lands, not to Kiama Council. The only financial benefit to council is that it no longer has to pay to run them. That is a cost saving, not a revenue generator. It is a very different thing from what the mayor has been saying about eliminating the deficit and generating revenue.

Council’s own published financial statements show exactly how much the parks earn each year. Those figures are in the Special Purpose Statements. The community should be asking council to explain, using those actual numbers, how handing the parks to a government owned corporation improves the budget when council stops receiving the income.

And then there is Kendalls Beach.

Kendalls Beach is the only park not on Crown land. Council owns it outright. It is the only park where council keeps all the money regardless of what happens. The community deserves to know what is being proposed specifically for Kendalls. Because if Kendalls is being bundled into a deal with the Crown land parks, council is giving away the one asset in the group it actually has full commercial control over.

The Snowy Valleys precedent. Read this carefully.

There is a precedent worth knowing about and every Kiama ratepayer should read it carefully.

Snowy Valleys Council ran a similar EOI process for its caravan parks. Reflections put in an offer. The council’s own assessment panel looked at all the offers on the table and found Reflections’ offer was below market rate compared with what other operators had submitted. The panel recommended council reject it. Council followed its panel’s advice and said no.

Then the Minister removed Snowy Valleys Council as Crown Land Manager of the parks. Not because council had done anything wrong. Because the Minister can. The law says so. Reflections was appointed in council’s place.

The council said no. The minister overrode them anyway.

That is the legal reality sitting behind every conversation Kiama Council is having with Reflections right now. A voluntary deal that is the alternative to an involuntary one is not genuinely voluntary.

The bigger picture

The PIO extension gives council time and it gives the minister political cover. If council rushes the holiday parks deal anyway that is council’s call to make and council’s consequences to wear. The minister has put the careful path on the record.

The community’s job is to make sure council takes it.

Update: Council has now responded

Council welcomed the minister’s proposed variation today and the mayor confirmed he met Minister Hoenig directly at Parliament House last week before this announcement was made.

But the CEO’s response raises a question that needs a plain language answer before 24 May.

She says the holiday parks deal is the mechanism for clearing the deficit. Her words: our ability to clear the projected deficit is certain, provided we can get through the tender process with a successful outcome.

If that is true, the community deserves to understand exactly how the deal clears the deficit when revenue from the four Crown land parks would flow to Crown Lands rather than to Kiama Council under the Crown Lands Management Act.

The numbers are in the published financial statements. The community is entitled to a straight answer before the submission window closes on 24 May.

The CEO also thanked the United Services Union for lobbying the minister directly to include the requirement that waste services stay in house. The union that represents waste workers felt it necessary to go to the minister themselves to get that protection in writing. If outsourcing was genuinely never being considered, why did the union need to do that?

And one more thing. Premier Chris Minns and his ministers are coming to Kiama next Tuesday for a Community Cabinet at The Pavilion. That is a direct opportunity for the community to ask the questions that have not yet been answered about the holiday parks, Blue Haven Terralong and waste services.

Be there. Bring your questions.

What the community should be asking right now

Before any decision is made on the holiday parks, council should answer these questions publicly.

Using the actual figures from the published financial statements, how does handing the Crown land parks to Reflections improve the budget when the revenue stops coming to council?

What is being offered specifically for Kendalls Beach and why?

Were there any discussions between Reflections, Crown Lands or the NSW Government and council before the unsolicited proposal arrived on 17 April? The mayor has confirmed he met the minister at Parliament House last week. Were the holiday parks part of that conversation?

Will there be a dedicated community engagement process on the Crown land parks before any lease is signed, separate from the current budget submission window which closes 24 May?

How are the waste collection market testing and tender preparation deliverables in the draft Operational Plan to be reconciled with the CEO’s November statement that domestic waste outsourcing was not being considered?

What does the independent business case process for Blue Haven Terralong look like, what does pending market sounding in the draft Operational Plan refer to, and how will residents and the broader community have a genuine say before any decision about its future is made?

The bottom line

The minister has done several things today that are genuinely in this community’s interest. He has required an independent assessment of Blue Haven Terralong. He has explicitly stopped council from outsourcing waste services. He has slowed down the holiday parks process and named it as something to investigate properly rather than urgently.

He has also, without quite saying so, raised a serious question about the gap between what community members were told about waste services in November and what is written down in council’s own draft Operational Plan today.

The community now has more time and more information than it did yesterday. The question is whether council will use both honestly.

The information exists. The honest conversation about what it means has not happened yet.

A step by step guide to making a submission on the current budget and Delivery Program before 24 May is here 

Want to go deeper?

Kiama Council released its next meeting agenda today. All 1000 pages of it. A community member has analysed the key sections relevant to the holiday parks, the budget and Blue Haven Terralong. Read their analysis here

And if you want the devil in the detail:

Crown Lands Management Act 2016: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-058

Kiama Council Annual Financial Statements (Special Purpose Statements are in Part 2): https://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/Council/Community-Reports/Annual-Reports-and-Financial-Statements

NSW Office of Local Government Performance Improvement Orders: https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/councils/performance-improvement-orders/

Kiama Council – Two big plans. One deadline. Not enough time.

This morning I sent a formal submission on the Draft Employment Lands Strategy and yesterday on the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 to Kiama Municipal Council. Both close for public comment on 24 May 2026.

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27  went to Joe Gaudiosi, Director Corporate and Commercial and Kimberley Norton, Head of Implementation, and every single councillor.

The Draft Employment Lands Strategy submission went to the Director of Strategies and Communities, the Manager of Planning and Development, the Strategic Planning Coordinator, and every single councillor.

Here is what I said and why it is important to you.

On the Delivery Program

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan is a new document. The community has had no prior opportunity to respond to it. It directly controls how every rate dollar gets spent this year, including the annual budget, revenue policy, rates, fees and charges.

I asked council to extend the submission period by a minimum of four weeks so residents can engage with it properly, independently of the Employment Lands Strategy. Two documents, one deadline, is not genuine consultation. It is a timetable designed to exhaust you.

On the Employment Lands Strategy

The community already submitted on this document in round one. Eighty-five people. The plan changed. The word UPDATED on the council website is proof that submissions work. Here is what they said

Three issues from round one were noted by council and left unresolved. I raised all three.

Businesses are leaving Kiama. Round one submissions from business owners said directly that the lack of suitable industrial land is forcing them to relocate to other LGAs. Council noted it and made no change. I asked council to include a clear business retention commitment in the final strategy, including how they will measure whether businesses are staying, growing, or being forced out.

The Shoalhaven Street rezoning creates a new problem on the Minnamurra River. The proposed rezoning of the Shoalhaven Street precinct removes existing industrial land from Kiama. To offset that loss, council is proposing to rezone the Minnamurra Waste Depot to General Industrial. The Minnamurra Waste Depot sits on the banks of the Minnamurra River. Rezoning land in that location to General Industrial raises serious environmental questions the engagement report does not address. I asked council to confirm in writing exactly how no net loss of industrial land will be achieved, including the site, the zoning pathway, the environmental assessment, the timing, and the replacement capacity. Proposing to solve one planning problem by creating another on the banks of the Minnamurra River is a question the community deserves a direct answer to.

63.2% of Kiama residents travel outside the LGA for work. The NSW Department of Planning told council the strategy should make a stronger case for change on this. I asked council to include measurable targets and a review timeline for improving that figure, rather than treating the loss of local jobs as something that just happens.

What the plans actually say

Before you submit, it helps to know what you are dealing with.

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 is the document that decides how your rates get spent this year. Think of it as council’s budget and to-do list rolled into one. An independent review found that a lot of the promises in it are written in a way that makes them impossible to check. How do you know if council did what it said it would? Often you can’t. Several items also depend on money council hasn’t got yet. And while it talks about getting finances back on track, there is nothing in it that shows how Kiama stays financially healthy for the long haul. One good year doesn’t fix years of problems.

A step by step guide to making your own submission, including a template and the questions worth asking, is here

Read my submission here.

The Draft Employment Lands Strategy is the document that decides where the jobs go, where businesses can set up, and what gets built where for the next 20 years. If you run a business in Kiama, want to work closer to home, care about what happens at Bombo Quarry, or live near the Minnamurra River, this document affects you. Read it here

Both close 24 May.

A submission on its own is a paper trail. Many submissions on the same issues are a pattern council cannot dismiss.

Have your say here: yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.au

Why I am sharing this

I am not a lawyer or a planner. I am someone who lives here and got fed up. If I can do this, so can you. Pick one thing that affects your street, your kids, your business or your back pocket and write it down. Five minutes. 24 May. That’s it.

 

 

Kiama locals have a chance to make Council listen, use it

The Kiama Municipal Council  Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 is open for submissions. Here’s why this one needs your voice and how five minutes of your time can make it harder for our council to pretend nobody cared.

You have until 24 May 2026 to be on record. After that, you handed your say to someone else.

Every four years, a newly elected council makes promises to the community. The Delivery Program is where those promises get written down, funded and turned into actual actions. The Operational Plan is the year by year version, spelling out exactly what gets done, when, and what it costs.

This is not a planning document for planners. This is the document that decides whether the footpath outside your house gets fixed, whether the community program your kids rely on keeps running, whether council is actually spending your rates on what it said it would.

The NSW Office of Local Government sets out what a Delivery Program must contain. It must demonstrate commitment to the community. It must show how services will be prioritised and measured. It must address ongoing improvements to efficiency, financial management and governance. It must identify services council will review during its term.

This draft falls short of those requirements. This is a question of whether the document meets the standard it is legally required to meet.

“If your accountant handed you a budget this vague, you would find a new accountant. Kiama deserves better than this.”

This is your moment. Your name belongs on this. Get in the room

Maybe you’ve submitted before. Maybe you’ve spoken at meetings, written letters, shown up. And maybe it felt like your words went nowhere.

Submissions that name specific items, in your own words, from real residents, create a paper trail that cannot be buried. They go on the public record. They get read aloud at meetings. They become evidence.

And if you’ve never done it before and don’t know where to start, that’s exactly why this post exists. We’ll walk you through it, step by step. It’s simpler than you think.

Look at the draft sitting on the council website right now. See that word: UPDATED.

That happened because people spoke up, council listened, and the plan changed. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. And it worked here, in Kiama, because residents chose to show up.

So when you submit this time, you are adding your name to something that is already moving. You are part of a community that has already proved it can shift things.

And there is a second reason, just as important. Every submission goes on the public record. If any decision in this plan is later challenged, reviewed, or examined by the Office of Local Government, by a journalist, or by a future council, your submission is proof that the community was paying attention. That the people of Kiama saw this, understood it, and said something about it.

That record belongs to all of us. Make sure your name is in it.

Check  yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.au for confirmed dates as these can shift.

What to write

You don’t need to be a planner, a lawyer, or a political scientist. You need to be a resident who has noticed something.

Here’s a simple submission template (adapt freely)

  1. Who you are. Your name and suburb. If you want to remain anonymous to the public but not council, say so. You can request your name be withheld from published submissions.
  2.  What you’re responding to. Name the specific item, project, or section of the plan you’re commenting on. Vague submissions are easier to dismiss.
  3.  What you want changed or protected. Are you asking for something to be added? Removed? Better resourced? More transparent in its reporting? Be specific.
  4.  Why it counts. One or two sentences. This is your voice. Use everyday language. 
  5.  What you’d like council to do. End with a clear ask. “I ask council to…” is a sentence that’s hard to ignore in a formal process.

Things worth asking about

When council says it will improve community wellbeing, how will anyone know if that actually happened? What does success look like in a way a normal person can check?

When a commitment in this plan is not delivered, what happens? Who is responsible and what does the community get told about it?

When plans change mid year, how do residents find out? Is there a phone call, a letter, a post on Facebook? Or does it just get dropped without a word?

The plan talks about financial recovery. But is this council on track for long term financial sustainability, or just a one year result that looks good on paper? A single year back in the black is not a strategy. The community deserves to know the difference.

What does the executive leadership of this council cost, and how is that performance measured and reported to residents?

Is the community engagement in this plan genuine, or is it a checklist? What changes when the community says something council does not want to hear?

If those questions don’t have clear answers in the plan, that’s your submission.

The plan doesn’t just describe what council will do. It describes what council thinks the community will accept.

Should this plan go back to the drawing board?

Yes. And you are allowed to say so.

The NSW Office of Local Government sets out what a Delivery Program must contain. It must demonstrate commitment to the community. It must show how services will be prioritised and measured. It must address ongoing improvements to efficiency, financial management and governance. It must identify services council will review during its term. This draft falls short of those requirements.

Councillors have the power to send this back for a rewrite before it is adopted. This is exactly what the process exists for. If you believe this plan is not good enough, tell council this. Tell your councillors this. Use these words:

“I ask council to defer adoption of this plan and rewrite it to meet the requirements set out by the NSW Office of Local Government.”

More voices, harder to ignore

Individual submissions are powerful. Collective submissions are formidable. Both count.

If you have neighbours, friends, or a local group who share your concerns, coordinate. Not to copy each other (unique submissions carry more weight), to ensure the same theme appears multiple times from multiple people. That volume is hard to dismiss as a fringe view.

Share this post. Print it. Leave it where people will see it.  The consultation period is short. The plan is long. But you don’t need to read all of it. You just need to find the part that affects your street, your family, your community, and say something about it.

That’s democracy. And it works best when people actually use it.

How to submit

1. Visit yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.auand find the Draft Delivery Program 2026 to 27 listing.
2. Download the draft plan. You don’t need to read all of it. Use the search function to find topics relevant to you.
3. Submit via the online form, or by email to council@kiama.nsw.gov.au AND councillors@kiama.nsw.gov.au.
4. Keep a copy of your submission so you can to refer to it later.
Your name on the record is harder to ignore than your opinion on Facebook
UPDATE – a great deal has happened since I wrote this post. A week can make a big diference to the political landcape. Get the lowdown here

Council thought they’d close the lid. But you can’t lock out a community that knows right from wrong

“Integrity is doing the right thing even when the process is stacked against you.”

It has been in the newspaper. It has been on TV. All of Kiama knows about it and, thanks to WIN News, most of Wollongong does too.

And still, somehow, this simple matter became secret squirrel business. Council pushed it behind a confidentiality motion and the community was shut out. What happened behind those closed doors that led every councillor to vote against giving the Kiama Woodcraft Group two and a half thousand dollars. It is a question that deserves an answer.

The Kiama Woodcraft Group never asked for a fight. They asked a simple question. What happened to their library module. A heavy, lockable box they were told would be kept safe during the Joyce Wheatley Centre refurbishment. They returned months later to find it gone. Read the background story here 

What followed is a study in how a straightforward problem becomes something much bigger.

They were given shifting explanations. First, that the box fell over and burst open. Later, that it was opened with keys at the Works Depot. Books were placed in a skip under a disposal order. Some were salvaged by a staff member who recognised their value and later returned them. Others turned up at a Lifeline book fair. The rest were lost.

Throughout this, the outdoor and maintenance staff who were involved have been honest about what happened. Leadership has not shown the same clarity. That contrast is at the core of this story.

When the Group tried to find out what had happened, communication slowed, then stopped. Emails went unanswered. Calls were not returned. Councillors said they could not discuss the matter because it had been declared confidential.

A councillor reportedly suggested the library may never have existed. That is the moment a small loss becomes something much larger.

The Group was later told no books were taken, despite the fact that several had been returned and identified by the Group’s own library markings. They were told there was no liability. They were told the matter was closed.

They persisted anyway. Not because they enjoy conflict, but because they know right from wrong and they were not prepared to be dismissed.

 “Council controlled the motion. The Woodcraft Group controlled their character.”

When an organisation struggles to admit small mistakes, everything becomes harder than it needs to be. Staff learn to defend decisions rather than discuss them. Questions that could be answered in a day get pushed into process. Confidentiality becomes a default shield, even when openness would resolve the issue instantly.

The community sees this. People know when they are being stonewalled. They know when a simple problem has been made complicated.

They know when they are being treated as the problem, rather than people seeking a fair response.

This case shows what happens when the balance of power leans too heavily to one side. When a major venue raises concerns, partnerships are formed to resolve the issue. When a volunteer group raises concerns, the doors close. You cannot miss the contrast.

It is enough to make any resident wonder whether the Kiama Woodcraft Group should hire the same professional negotiators or public relations support that Jamberoo Action Park used. The difference in response is striking.

At one point the suggestion was made that the Woodcraft Group had invented the entire story. As if a community group would spend months gathering evidence, obtaining legal guidance, retrieving returned books and speaking to media outlets for the sake of two and a half thousand dollars. The idea does not withstand a moment’s scrutiny.

When an elected representative accepts a story like that, it reveals a deeper issue. It shows how easily people adopt the most convenient version of events. It shows how uncomfortable it can be to challenge information presented from within the system. This is not personal. It is cultural.

I am not a lawyer or the police but I know people who are and this is what they told me

Fault Clarification

  • Police role: Police investigate whether a crime has occurred (e.g., theft, fraud, misappropriation). Their conclusion that council was not at fault means they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
  • Council responsibility: Even if no crime was committed, councils can still be responsible in a governance or civil sense. For example, failing to manage property properly, poor communication, or not resolving issues with the previous council.
  • Key point: Police findings clear the council of criminal fault, but they don’t resolve questions of administrative responsibility or duty of care. Those are matters for the council itself, or potentially civil claims.

Insurance Responsibility

  • Community group insurance: Councils often require groups to insure their own property when stored in council facilities. That covers risks while the group has custody or use of the items.
  • Council custody: Once the council removed the property and stored it at their works depot, the risk shifted. At that point, the council had custody and control, so they assumed responsibility for safeguarding the goods.
  • Damage at depot: If damage occurred while the property was at the depot, it would generally fall under the council’s insurance or liability – not the group’s. The group’s insurance wouldn’t reasonably apply to items outside their possession.
  • Key point: Responsibility for insuring and protecting the goods transferred to the council once they took possession. Damage at their depot becomes a council issue.

Summary:

  • Fault: Police cleared the council of criminal fault, but governance responsibility remains a council matter.
  • Insurance: Once the council took the property into their depot, they assumed liability for any damage.

I think often about councillors who entered public life because they wanted transparency, fairness and a better way of doing things. Many ran on that promise. Many told me they wanted to lift the standard. Yet here we are. A simple matter spiralled into silence. People with good intentions have found themselves surrounded by the very habits they hoped to change.

The Kiama Woodcraft Group’s experience is not isolated. It is part of a broader pattern in which bureaucracy attempts to control the narrative and shut down dissenting voices instead of addressing the issue directly.

I know this pattern well. I raised concerns of my own in the past. I was assured the matter would be investigated. I provided every document and every detail. Council already held information confirming what had taken place. Yet when a councillor tried to raise fair questions, they were silenced. That was the day I realised what I was dealing with. I left a job I cared about because it became clear that truth was negotiable and silence was preferred.

I will not be silent now.

The Woodcraft Group has shown what accountability looks like from the ground up. They stayed calm. They stayed factual. They stayed polite. Their account has been consistent and supported by several sources. They kept going when the system hoped they would give up.

They were treated as if the real problem here was their persistence rather than the mistake that caused it all. Yet they kept going. And that, more than anything, is why this story matters.

Addendum

A councillor reportedly said to the Woodcraft Group, “You cannot even prove the books existed.”

For the sake of accuracy, here is what the Group can prove.

They have a full catalogue list maintained by their librarian, showing every book and magazine stored in the library module. They have long term members willing to sign statutory declarations confirming the library’s existence and contents. They have 45 books returned by a Council employee, all carrying the Group’s own library markings. They have another eight books retrieved from Lifeline, also marked as belonging to the Group. They have staff witnesses who saw the module opened, saw the books inside and saw what followed. And they have a valuation list that was shown to the CEO, who agreed it was fair and reasonable.

If the books never existed, none of this evidence would exist either.

The Woodcraft Group has provided everything a reasonable person would accept as proof.
The issue was never the evidence.
The issue was the willingness to acknowledge it.

#KiamaCouncil #CommunityAdvocacy #LocalGovernment #Transparency #Accountability #Kiama #Jamberoo #KiamaWoodcraftGroup #CouncilCulture #NSWLocalGov #CommunityVoices

Respect is not selective. Accountability applies to everyone

Every community conversation reveals patterns. Some are constructive. Some are revealing. And sometimes the contrast between past behaviour and present claims becomes impossible to ignore.

Recently, on Facebook, former Kiama mayor Neil Reilly responded to one of my posts in a way that questioned my integrity. His comments were the only personal remarks made in the entire thread. All other community members stayed focused on the issue at hand, which was the impact the Akuna Street development will have on Kiama’s CBD.

What makes this notable is not the comment itself, but the context.
Several readers have reminded me of something important. In 2019, Kiama Council formally censured Councillor Neil Reilly under the Code of Conduct. This is a matter of public record. The investigation substantiated multiple allegations, including social media comments that were disparaging of Councillors and disparaging of Council staff.

The relevant report is found in the Council agenda of 22 October 2019.

It documents:

• social media comments that were disparaging of Council
• comments that were disparaging of other Councillors
• comments that were disrespectful to staff
• conduct that brought Council into disrepute

These findings make his comments to me in 2025 all the more striking.

On one hand, the public record shows he was formally censured for disparaging comments about Councillors and staff. On the other hand, years later, he is telling the community that questioning Council decisions is “disrespectful” and that raising concerns is inappropriate.

The Bugle’s December 2023 article also raised serious concerns about the way Mayor Neil Reilly publicly characterised Councillor Karen Renkema Lang’s comments to ABC Radio. The article shows he initiated the complaint that led to her censure, despite her simply raising community concerns about the Blue Haven reclassification and incomplete or unclear information provided to Councillors. His public statements criticised her personally, yet the ABC audio makes clear she neither blamed staff nor claimed to speak for Council. This pattern of misrepresenting legitimate scrutiny sits uncomfortably beside what happened next, when the Supreme Court found her censure to be invalid and Kiama Council was ordered to pay more than two hundred thousand dollars in legal costs, as reported by the ABC.

and lets not forget As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald

Source  

So a clear pattern emerges.

  • 2016 “inappropriate” text messages
  • In 2019 he was formally censured for disparaging remarks about fellow Councillors and staff.
  • In 2023 he pursued a censure of Councillor Karen Renkema Lang that was later found to be invalid, costing ratepayers more than two hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.
  • And in 2025 he chose to question my integrity rather than answer a straightforward planning question about parking and CBD disruption.

This is not about personalities.
It is not about revisiting old grievances.
It is about consistency and credibility.

When someone with a history of breaching Council’s Code of Conduct for disparaging comments, and someone whose actions have cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, publicly accuses others of disrespect, it raises a reasonable question.

What standard is being applied, and why does it only seem to apply when the questions are directed at them?

For me, the issue remains the same as it always has been.
The community has the right to ask questions.
The community has the right to expect answers.
And the community has the right to be treated with respect by anyone who has held public office.

Accountability is not a one way street.
Respect is not selective.
And the public record matters.

Please see my blog post responding to former  Mayor Neil Reilly’s Facebook comments here

#KiamaCommunity #Accountability #PublicRecord #LeadershipMatters #CommunityFirst #AkunaStreet #KiamaCBD #RespectInPublicLife

Akuna St Development. When progress pushes people out of town

Image Illawarra Mercury 

When the Akuna Street developments go ahead, Kiama’s main car park, the one locals and shoppers rely on, will effectively vanish. In its place will come a major construction site that could choke the town centre for years.

Parking gone. Roads blocked. Dust, noise, and heavy vehicles moving through streets never built for this level of traffic.

It is hard to imagine anyone choosing to shop in Kiama under those conditions when there are easier, quieter, and more accessible options just up or down the highway. I already avoid the CBD unless I absolutely have to, and I know I am not the only one.

Kiama Council had a duty to plan for this before selling off our main parking area. They could have created alternative parking, staged the development, or at the very least communicated a clear plan to manage the disruption. None of this has happened yet.

For years, the car park served locals, shop owners, and visitors alike. It was more than a slab of asphalt, it was what made the heart of Kiama accessible. Selling it without a real plan for what comes next feels like a decision made with eyes firmly on developers, not on residents.

We were told the Akuna Street sale would help Council fix its financial mess. It was sold as the big solution, the quick cash injection that would ease the debt burden and set the books straight.

But nearly 20 percent of the 28 million dollar sale price has already disappeared in legal settlements and court costs before a single wall has gone up. That is not revitalisation, that is reaction.

This is what short term thinking looks like.
It is selling off an asset before you have a plan for what replaces it.
It is banking on one deal to fix years of mismanagement.
It is hoping that a private development will save a public balance sheet.
And it is assuming that the community will carry the cost quietly, in lost parking, lost access, and lost trust.

If Council had thought long term, it would have staged this project, planned alternative parking, and protected the town’s economic heartbeat during construction. Instead, we face years of disruption for a payoff that might never reach the people who actually live here.

This development is also  a prime example of what happens when the  leadership culture is fixated on the PIO and financial manoeuvring above all else, instead of focusing on what really matters to residents, liveability, services, and sensible planning.

Progress is not about shiny buildings or quick financial fixes. It is about protecting the fabric of a town while it grows, making sure people can still live, work, and shop here without feeling pushed out.

Right now, Kiama’s future is being built on lost parking spaces, lost patience, and almost one fifth of the sale price already gone in litigation. The question is no longer whether this project will revitalise Kiama, but whether Kiama can survive the cost of Council’s short term thinking.

You cannot build a thriving town on empty streets.

Thanks to everyone who has shared questions and comments on this issue. I have added extra detail as I received more information to help answer those and keep the community in the loop.

Read my follow up blog Kiama Is Sleepwalking Into a CBD Meltdown. Here’s How We Could Stop It.

Read previous blog posts here and here

#KiamaCouncil #AkunaStreet #KiamaPlanning #CommunityFirst #PublicTrust #LocalBusiness #RatepayerRights #ParkingCrisis #ShortTermThinking #TownCentre #CivicAccountability #Kiama

“We’ve Already Told You Once:” Kiama Council’s Bizarre Response to CCTV Questions”

You couldn’t make this up……

Last week we were talking about Council silence on the CCTV issue. This week, out comes a media release titled “CCTV in Kiama and Public Vandalism”  complete with a reminder that “we’ve already told you this once.”

Apparently, we’re all meant to have memorised the August business papers.

For those catching up, Council’s CCTV along Terralong Street has been broken since a storm. in 2024 It hasn’t been repaired, and they’re now seeking grant funding to replace it. Meanwhile, vandalism across the LGA has increased, including toilets, post boxes, and disability-access facilities, one repair alone costing $8,000.

So after a week of public chatter about missing cameras and mixed priorities, Council has spoken, by telling us off.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe we should have paid closer attention.
Or maybe, when the community has to raise an issue twice before it’s addressed, it says something about who’s actually listening.

#KiamaCouncil #CCTV #LocalGovernment #CommunityVoice #Accountability #PublicSafety #CivicEngagement #Transparency

Get the Lowdown on Kiama Council’s Akuna Street Dilemma and How We Got Here?

Kiama Council is again facing the courts over the Akuna Street site, with mediation between Council and developer Level 33 collapsing in August. A three-day Land and Environment Court hearing is now scheduled for 10–12 December 2025.

This is no ordinary block. It is the largest redevelopment parcel in Kiama’s town centre, sold to Level 33 for $28 million in 2022. For years, it has been a decaying eyesore, attracting vandalism and complaints. What gets built here will set the tone for the town centre for decades.

Many will remember that this is not the first time Akuna Street has been at the centre of developer disputes.

From Daoud to Level 33, a site with history

  • 2016 to 2018: Developer Nicolas Daoud, trading under Traders in Purple, pursued a mixed-use proposal including a supermarket and apartments. When Council refused a final extension to secure approval, the sale collapsed.

  • 28 June 2022: Council ran a new selective tender process for the Akuna Street land. Both Level 33 and Traders in Purple (led by Charlie Dowd) put in bids. An alternate motion to negotiate with Traders in Purple was debated but lost. The tender was awarded to Level 33 Property Group Pty Ltd with settlement terms of 42 days (Kiama Council, Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting, 28 June 2022, Item 20.1, pp. 36–37).

  • July 2022: Within weeks of that decision, Nicolas Daoud’s company filed Federal Court proceedings against Council, alleging breach of contract and misleading conduct.

  • Late 2022: Level 33 completed the purchase of the Akuna Street site for $28 million.

  • 14 August 2024: The Federal Court matter Nicolas Daoud v Kiama Municipal Council was finalised. Under a Deed of Release, Council paid Daoud a settlement of $1 million. Council also disclosed legal costs of $3.73 million (excluding settlement), bringing the total cost of the case to $4.73 million, equal to 16.9 percent of the $28 million sale price (Kiama Council, Agenda of 20 November 2024, Item 14.1 p.146 and Item 15.8 p.604).

Why the DA is stuck

The state government planning panel has already said Level 33’s design does not fit the site rules. The main problems are simple. The building is too big, too bulky, and it blocks views.

Council’s Director of Strategies and Communities has been clear on this point. The design is not in step with what Kiama has agreed should be built in the town centre.

Could this have been avoided?

Looking back, there are two lessons.

  1. With Daoud and Traders in Purple:
    Clearer timelines, a stronger dispute-resolution process, and more transparency could have avoided the Federal Court. Instead, councillors were left making rescission and tender decisions midstream, which frustrated both sides.

  2. With Level 33:
    A design-led settlement, shaped by independent review and supported by a planning agreement for things like streetscape, laneways, and heritage, could still produce a better outcome. Mediation is designed for compromise. If used well, it could save years of delay and large legal bills.

What a VPA could do for Akuna Street

A Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is a tool that lets Council and a developer agree on public benefits as part of a development approval.

A VPA can include:

  • Streetscape works, laneways, and public spaces

  • Contributions to affordable housing or community facilities

  • Heritage protection or conservation works

  • Design commitments that go beyond the bare minimum rules

Why it matters here:

  • When Council sold Akuna Street to Level 33, there was no chance to negotiate a VPA, because VPAs can only be tied to development approvals, not land sales.

  • Now that a DA is on the table, a VPA could still be used to settle the dispute and guarantee public benefits.

The win–win would look like this:

  • Council secures design improvements and commitments to protect views and heritage.

  • Level 33 gains certainty of approval without the risk of court.

  • The community finally sees the site cleaned up and used, with a development that gives something back.

The bigger picture

There has been talk of Kiama as a possible Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site, with six-storey buildings near the station. But here is the reality.

  • Kiama is not on the official TOD station list. The mapping covers Sydney, the Hunter, the Central Coast, and some Illawarra stations, but not Kiama.

  • Train service is a barrier. With only one train an hour south of Kiama, the service falls well short of what TOD is meant to be built around.

  • Community concerns remain. Without upgrades to the rail line, higher-density housing risks creating congestion and frustration rather than better liveability.

So for now, the rules that matter are Kiama’s own Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan, which set expectations for height, scale, and streetscape.

The six-storey question

In November 2023, Council approved Local Environmental Plan amendments that raised height limits in parts of the CBD. This means six-storey buildings are now possible in selected locations.

On top of this, the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, which took effect in February 2025, encourages mid-rise housing near transport hubs. On paper, Kiama fits.

But in practice:

  • Land is limited. Only a small amount of R3-zoned land is available within 800 metres of the station.

  • Lot size rules apply. Kiama’s Development Control Plan requires a minimum lot width of 25 metres for residential flat buildings.

  • Costs are high. Construction expenses, compliance reforms after the Opal Tower, and levies that can take up 40 percent of costs make apartments hard to deliver in most regional towns.

  • Community concerns are strong. Overshadowing, traffic, and loss of character remain front of mind.

That is why analysts say Kiama, Byron Bay, and possibly Shell Cove are among the very few regional towns where six-storey projects might actually happen. High land values in these places make it viable where others cannot.

The upshot is that six storeys may be allowed on paper, but the real opportunities are narrow. Without land assembly, high-quality design, and community support, most sites will not reach that height.

Where to from here?

The worst outcome would be to let the Court decide in December, which would leave the community with little say in the outcome.

The best outcome would be for Council and Level 33 to come back to the table, work towards a design that fits Kiama’s principles on size and scale, and guarantee public benefits through a planning agreement. That is the common-sense path.

But here is what we cannot ignore. By November 2024, Council had already spent $4.73 million on the Daoud litigation. That is close to 17 percent of the $28 million sale price. Nearly one-sixth of the community’s return on this land has already been whittled away in legal costs and settlement payments, before a single brick has been laid.

This raises serious questions:

  • How much more are ratepayers willing to lose on court battles?

  • Why is a developer pushing ahead when both Council and the State have concerns about compliance?

  • Should Council bring in independent negotiators to prevent more losses and protect the community’s interests?

The community deserves straight answers  and a future for Akuna Street that does not drain our finances any further.

Thanks to everyone who shared questions and comments on this post. I’ve added extra detail to help answer those and keep the community in the loop.

#KiamaCouncil #AkunaStreet #Level33 #TradersInPurple #KiamaPlanning #CommunityVoice #LandAndEnvironmentCourt #BulkAndScale #ViewSharing #SixStoreys #KiamaDevelopment #PlanningTransparency #IndependentNegotiators

Kiama Council Reads the Blog… and Sends a Warning Letter

After publishing my recent blog post about Kiama Council’s handling of community-raised concerns, the following is part of an email I received  from Council’s Public Officer. It relates to the inclusion of links to two Council emails. One from the Director of Infrastructure and Operations, the other from the Acting Manager of Engineering and Technical Services. Both responding to the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association.

“The unauthorised publication of these emails constitutes a breach of copyright. Further, these emails were not addressed to you and Council has not authorised the publication of them on your blog. The original recipients of the emails, the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, have also been placed on notice.”

“Accordingly, you are requested to immediately remove the published emails in full from all public and private facing platforms and notify me once this has occurred. In addition, please confirm you will not publish, quote or otherwise distribute any Council email, or part thereof, without obtaining prior written consent. Failure to comply with this request may result in legal action.”

There are many things I could say in response. But let’s start with this:

These emails were sent in response to public concerns, to a community advocacy group, about public infrastructure.

They were shared with the community in good faith, as part of a transparent effort to keep residents informed about the issues affecting our community. It is standard practice for organisations like JVRRA to share “correspondence in and out” with their members. That includes responses from Council.

It is not private. It is not confidential. And it is not a breach of copyright.

What it is, frankly, is overreach and and a telling one.

Council’s objection appears to be more about controlling public narrative. And in that context, the threat of “legal action” reads like a small-town SLAPP  – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,  where the goal is not to win, but to silence.

This is what abuse of power looks like.
This is why unions matter.
Because to hold power to account, you need powerful supporters.
Not because you’re weak – but because they expect you to be alone.

And yes. As you would expect from any formal reply to a residents’ group, the names and contact information of the staff responding were included in their email signatures, the same contact details publicly available on the Kiama Council website.

Their inclusion does not render the correspondence confidential. If anything, it reinforces that these were professional communications, sent in an official capacity, on matters of public interest.

My response to Council is this:

Thank you for reading the blog. I hope it marks the beginning of more open, engaged, and respectful communication between Council and the communities it serves.

But I will not be removing the links.
I will not be retracting the quotes.
And I will not be intimidated into silence.

Because transparency is not the problem here.
The problem is a system that seems to find public scrutiny more threatening than poor process.

 The attempt to suppress, intimidate, or discredit those who ask legitimate questions is part of a broader pattern that needs to be called out. If a council is confident in its processes and decisions, it should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. I won’t be stepping back into silence, and I’m not alone. Every time one person speaks up, others find the courage to do the same. That’s how change begins.

📝 Footnote:

If you’re new here, welcome. What you’ve just read is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a broader pattern.

This Council has demonstrated time and again how far it is willing to go to silence dissent. From formal complaints against journalists, takedown demands, and Press Council,  ICAC and Code of Conduct referrals  to copyright threats and legal warnings over publicly shared emails, the message is clear: scrutiny is not welcome.

But here’s the thing. Communities don’t function when only the quiet voices are tolerated. Local democracy relies on people asking questions, challenging power, and expecting answers, not repercussions.

You don’t have to stand for Council to stand up. You don’t have to publish a blog to care about how decisions are made. And you don’t have to accept a culture of intimidation dressed up as process.

The deeper question isn’t how much pressure one person can withstand. It’s how much silence a community is willing to accept.

#LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #CommunityAdvocacy #SLAPPResistance #PressFreedom #TransparencyMatters #CouncilAccountability #PublicInterestJournalism #DemocracyInAction #PowerOfMany