Tag: local government transparency

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

When power pushes back, who speaks for the public?

More than 20 percent of Kiama’s adult population now reads this blog. That tells me one thing loud and clear, people want to know what’s going on. They want facts, context, and the confidence to ask questions that matter.

Which brings me to what’s happening now.

On 28 May, I wrote to Kiama Council to raise a formal complaint about a public statement titled “Bugle article correction” that remains live on their website. That statement discredits a piece of reporting I wrote about developer contributions, reporting that was based entirely on public documents, and which no one has ever asked me to correct.

 I’m speaking as someone who has spent over a year digging into Council reports, explaining how local decisions are made, and making civic processes easier to understand.

Council told me I’d receive a response to my complaint within ten days. It’s approaching three weeks. Nothing.

What makes this harder to ignore is that the article Council tried to discredit contained facts that the Mayor found concerning enough to launch an internal investigation. The Deputy Mayor also backed the call. In fact, both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor formally asked for the correction notice to be taken down. It’s still there.

Which raises a question, not just for the public, but for every councillor.

How does it feel to be elected to represent your community, and then discover you have no power to correct a public statement you believe is misleading?


How does it feel to know your request can be ignored, even when it’s clear the original article was accurate?

Since then, Council has added its Media Policy (April 2025) as a reference under the statement. If that’s meant to justify keeping it online, it misses the point. I’m not a Council official. I’m not bound by internal media rules. And if the policy really does promote “accuracy and professionalism,” Council should be asking itself why it’s still hosting content that undermines both.

 This is not just about process. This is about power. Someone is using their position to silence voices that challenge them, and they are sending a strong message to others, including councillors, that getting in the way will have consequences. That is not leadership. It is bullying.

The best way to shut that down is not to wait for external bodies to act. It is for councillors to step up. The community is watching. So are others in the media.

If this can’t be resolved properly within Council, I’ll take it further, through the union, through formal complaints, through national media. But we all know that everyone’s time is better spent improving transparency, not justifying the unjustifiable on ABC radio.

I have a voice. Let’s make sure the community has one too.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #PressFreedom #CivicEngagement #TheBugle #RegionalMedia #PublicInterestJournalism

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