This week’s council meeting began with a festive air, councillors donning Santa hats - supplied annually by Manly councillor Candy Bingham - before we delved into a number of controversial issues. On the agenda was a report into the proposed Special Rate Variation, a plastic playing field for North Narrabeen Reserve, and a Plan of Management for Mona Vale Beach South - which includes provision for an offleash dog area. Also up for debate was a review of the council’s Community Engagement Policy, a response to the NSW government’s shark management strategy, and moves to improve recognition of the Northern Beaches’ Surfing Heritage.
Community response to Special Rate Variation proposals
Pittwater residents - as with those across the Northern Beaches - have responded strongly to council proposals for a Special Rate Variation (SRV, see proposals below), of up to 46 per cent over three years. The proposal would be part of a strategy to deal with a funding gap of $24 million forecast for the next financial year.
Staff told Tuesday’s meeting more than 3,000 residents had made submissions since the proposals went on public exhibition on November 18. Meanwhile, councillors have also received numerous emails, many opposing the changes. Staff have also carried out nine drop-in sessions with residents, including at Mona Vale, Avalon and the Narrabeen Farmers Market, to let them know about the proposals. Some councillors, including me and Pittwater’s Liberal Independent Sunny Singh and Your Northern Beaches’ councillor Rowie Dillon, have attended to hear what residents have to say and help explain the proposals to them. (The last session will take place at the Berry Reserve Markets, at Narrabeen, on Sunday December 15, from 9am to 1.15pm.)
Three residents spoke against an SRV during the public address session of the meeting, including Protect Pittwater’s Frank Peylaire and Chantal Drey, as well as Pittwater resident Nicole Gastrell. Protect Pittwater is campaigning with a “5th option” - to demerge from NBC.
Included with the council papers was a report on the council’s productivity and improvements, which outlined where the council has made or intends to make “efficiencies” and funding cuts.
These included areas such as services (with proposed cuts of $1.2 million); workforce ($1.7 million); property “rationalisation” (possibility of up to $6 million over 10 years); car fleet ($580,000 over three years); and energy efficiency (up to a further $755,000 after three years).
However, it was hard to find raw statistics in the report (contained in the attachments), so Ms Bingham (an Independent councillor from the Good for Manly Group) proposed an amendment for staff to report on, amongst other things:
- cost savings since amalgamation, including through productivity gains, staff reductions, and debt payment;
- what measures the council has already undertaken to “‘tighten our belts”;
- the amount we pay the State Government in levies and fees; and
- success in applying for grants to achieve major projects, with examples.
This material was to be promoted extensively through the Mayor’s message, social media and council website, and consideration made of how to reach people who don’t use technology.
Ms Bingham told the meeting that the material supplied on the council website was excellent, but it was difficult to find where the council had made savings.
“The council has done the work but the community is still asking: ‘What have they done to tighten their belts,’” she said.
Pittwater YNB Councillor Rowie Dillon, who seconded the motion, told the meeting that: “We need to say: ‘This is what we need and this is what we have.”
Narrabeen Independent Councillor Vince De Luca amended the motion proposed by Ms Bingham, to include further details, such as possibilities to rationalise its property portfolio, other cost cutting opportunities, the council Asset Management Plan, and writing to local MPs about the issue.
I told the meeting that IPART requires staff to carry out this work before it will consider an SRV anyway - and that they have been doing so all this year. However, I was prepared to support the motion for the sake of transparency. I would not, however, support selling off property because it could be needed by the community in the future.
Curl Curl Greens Councillor Kristyn Glanville was also opposed to selling off property or “rationalising assets” for the sake of a short term “sugar hit”, and said it would be better to ensure council properties were securing commercial rents.
Also from Curl Curl Ward, YNB Councillor Nick Beaugeard said that in preparation for the meeting, he had “read a tonne of documents and attended briefings”.
“There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a meticulously prepared document,” he said, and encouraged all councillors to attend briefings.
In answers to questions from councillors during debate, staff noted that:
- Postcode registration for submissions was required and checked, which ensures submissions are sent from ratepayers, however the requirement for birthdate is an artefact of the system the council uses.
- Hardship provisions would apply for those who are eligible if the SRV went ahead.
- Every ratepayer contributes $379 towards state government levies, including the Emergency Services Levy.
- The mail out to inform residents about the proposal cost $140,000, and another $60,000 was budgeted for other advertising material and social media.
The final motion was carried unanimously.
Details of the SRV proposals
In response to our funding shortages, staff proposed the following four options:
Reduce services - the current path, with a rate increase from July 1, 2025, in line with the NSW Government annual rate peg of 3.8 per cent, or a cumulative increase over three years of 10.7 per cent (or $149 for median residential rates.)
Maintain services – fund asset renewal and maintenance gap, environmental and natural risk reduction. This would involve the rate peg plus an SRV, totalling 6 per cent each year for three years. The total cumulative increase would be 31.1 per cent over three years (or $546 over three years for median residential rates).
Improve services – option 2 + deliver larger renewal projects. This would involve an extra 8.3 per cent increase (rate peg plus SRV) each year for two years and 8.4 per cent in the third year. The total cumulative increase over three years would equal 39.6 per cent (or $769 over three years for median residential rates).
Increase services – option 3 + accelerate infrastructure delivery and increase services. This would involve an extra 10 per cent increase each year for three years, with a total cumulative increase of 46 per cent over three years (or $934 over three years over three years for median residential rates).
Plastic playing field proposal included in North Narrabeen Reserve plan
Councillors approved improvements for sporting and other recreational facilities at North Narrabeen Reserve on Tuesday night, however, these will include investigating a playing field with a plastic surface - known euphemistically as a “synthetic surface”.
Also described as an “all weather” surface, the plan includes a provision to:
“Consider conversion of sportsfield 2 to an all-weather (synthetic) field that meets required standards and implement if approved by council”.
Except for the synthetic sportsfield, the plan was uncontroversial. Over a period of 10 years, it provides for: upgrades of sportsfields 2 to 7, with new or improved surfaces, drainage and irrigation; new or improved lighting; and field 7 to be converted to a full size field.
It also proposes creating open space areas for play and other recreation, plus improving accessibility - including female and family friendly toilets, with new or improved canteen and bar facilities at the rugby park. It also foreshadows safe walking and cycling paths in the vicinity, as well as improved roads and road safety.
Council papers record the area, now classified as Community Land, as having always been an open landscape, originally a flood plain and wetland. From the mid-1950s it was used as a tip, and developed as a sportsground in the 1970s. A golf centre was established there in 1981, a Friday market also runs at the reserve, and the two storey Warriewood Park and Ride carpark was built to support the introduction of the B-line bus.
Councillor opinions were sharply divided on the issue of the plastic surfaced playing field, as were emails from residents - although most support was expressed in form letters, and many called for a synthetic hockey field. Staff confirmed at the meeting that no hockey field was planned for the precinct.
Two local environmentalists, David Palmer from the Pittwater Natural Heritage Association and Graeme Jessup from Sustainable Northern Beaches, spoke at the meeting opposing a synthetic field on environmental and health grounds.
Frenchs Forest Greens Councillor Ethan Hrnjak asked staff a series of questions about the plastic surfaces, including: what surface temperatures are deemed too high to play on; what strategies would be put in place to deal with the dangerous PFAS chemicals (known as “forever chemicals” in the synthetic turf; and how replacement of synthetic turf fits with the council’s circular economy strategy? Staff responded either that these would be covered by research into the proposed surface or they would have to get back to Mr Hrnjak about the issue.
I told the meeting that I was opposed to the inclusion of a synthetic turf field in the plan, and that the Chief Scientist and Engineer had found in a 2022 report on the surface that:
“Currently, there is insufficient information and a lack of standards about the materials and chemical composition of synthetic turf.”
However, many of its detrimental environmental impacts are already well known, including killing soil microbes under the plastic surface; run off carrying microplastics from “grass” blades and rubber crumb infill, if used, into stormwater, even with guttering around the field (given the area is flood prone); the heating effects of plastic turf, whose surface on a day of only 27 degrees Celsius, can reach 80 degrees; health impacts including burn injuries; inability to recycle the plastic mat to which the blades of “grass” are attached; and finally the restriction of use of playing fields to organised sports teams only, with their alienation from the general public - given synthetic fields are usually fenced off by councils to prevent damage to them or injury if they’re hot.
Deputy Mayor and Narrabeen YNB councillor Ruth Robins moved an amendment noting councillors’ concerns about the use of synthetic fields and calling for a briefing before any decision to install a plastic surface was made, that covered: the benefits, risks and costs of “the latest all-weather playing field options”; and “any learnings from other councils on the use of alternatives to synthetic surfaces”.
However, she also told the meeting she was disappointed greater consultation had not been carried out about accessibility and inclusion for facilities. While noting North Narrabeen Reserve was one of the most extensive areas of playing fields on the Northern Beaches, she was also aware that the LGA had a shortage of them.
Given Ms Robin’s amendment, I supported the motion along with all other councillors, except for Mr Hrnjak.
Public exhibition of Mona Vale Beach South draft plan for offleash dogs
Controversy continued with debate about the next step towards providing an offleash dog beach at Mona Vale South Beach. Staff presented the meeting with a draft Plan of Management for the beach, which the council has had to develop to enable a trial of off leash dogs at the beach. The development followed a decision at the August 2023 council meeting to prepare the plan.
The area identified for offleash dogs covers the southern end of the beach, allowing access through walkways across the sand dunes but not on the dunes. Improved fencing of the dunes, which are vegetated in the area, is also proposed.
Two local scientists, ecologist Jayden Walsh, and retired Marine Biologist Murray Macdonald spoke against the proposal for an offleash dog area, with Mr Walsh criticising the council environmental report and Mr Macdonald concerned about how a trial would be monitored and assessed.
Asked during debate if it was true the Review of Environmental Factors for the area had found there would be no significant impact on wildlife - that could not be dealt with by council - if dogs were allowed on the beach, staff responded: “Yes, consultants found there would be no significant impact.”
Asked to clarify how the outcomes of the trial would be reviewed, staff said:
“We’ll have to come back with this detail. It’s mostly about how the trial unfolds, (and the) responsibility of dog owners.”
And asked if a trial could be ended early, staff said: “That would be a matter for council.”
Mr Beaugeard said it sounded like we were voting on a dog trial and asked staff to confirm that instead “we’re voting on whether or not to put the plan of management on exhibition”. Staff replied in the affirmative.
Mr De Luca said he supported placing the Plan of Management on public exhibition, although he acknowledged there were concerns with it but thought these could be dealt with in public consultation.
Curl Curl Greens Councillor Kristyn Glanville said she was concerned about continuing to progress towards a trial, with the intent of establishing an offleash dog beach.
She would have more confidence in a trial if dog owners were required to train their dogs before taking them off leash on a beach, she said.
“I’m concerned about how we have framed this trial. I’m also concerned about metrics. (Our) measurement processes are not rigorous enough.”
Mr Hrnjak also opposed the proposal to include an offleash dog beach, saying: “I’d wager that Frenchs Forest residents won’t want to spend 35 minutes travelling to their favourite beach just to step in dog poo.”
Similarly, Manly’s Ms Bingham recalled a trip to Byron where a dog on the beach had urinated on her towel.
“I don’t support this plan. I have seen the impact on their beaches,” she said.
“Just walking down the track you can smell the urine and see dog poo bags thrown on the beach.
“I’m glad we’re going to have dog etiquette signs, but the trouble is, dogs don’t read signs.
“People will come from everywhere.
“There are two dog rangers on the (Northern) beaches.
“I saw multiple dogs swimming in a protected marine environment at Cabbage Tree Bay just the other day.
“We don’t have the context to have a dog beach if we don’t have enough compliance officers.”
I said I opposed provision for a dog beach in the PoM, and questioned how many residents actually supported the idea, given the numerous emails, phone calls and in person approaches I’ve had from residents who oppose it.
“The council knows that the top priority for residents across the Northern Beaches is the environment,” I said
“Multiple ecologists, marine scientists as well as environmentalists have told me they’re opposed to a trial because of the environmental impacts.
“The council commissioned an Environmental Report by a group called Niche Environment and Heritage - which incidentally isn’t included with this report, despite the dog beach hinging on a perceived lack of environmental impact - and the fact that this PoM would not be needed except for pressure from some quarters for a dog beach.
“But how can we trust the survey in this report and know the true impact of dogs on wildlife, when it was carried out with dogs on this beach - as well as Palm Beach - and only on two days at each beach?
“What will the baseline be for any measures of success or failure of a trial?”
Finally, I said I was not confident that further legal action would not be taken against the council as a result of the report.
A majority of councillors voted for the plan to be placed on public exhibition, with staff to report back on the outcome. Those in favour were: Ms Robins, Curl Curl YNB councillors Joeline Hackman, Mr Beaugeard, Manly YNB councillor Sarah Grattan, Narrabeen Independent councillor Bob Giltinan, Mr De Luca, Mr Singh, Ms Dillon, Ms Robins and Mayor Sue Heins (and Frenchs Forest YNB councillor).
Voting against the motion were Frenchs Forest YNB councillor Jody Williams, Mr Hrnjak, Ms Glanville, Manly Greens councillor Bonnie Harvey, Ms Bingham and myself.
Briefs
Community Engagement Strategy - policy review
Councillors voted unanimously to place a revised Community Engagement Strategy on public exhibition. With only minimal changes proposed despite widespread dissatisfaction in Pittwater about the way council engages with the community, I encourage all residents to let the council know what they think once the strategy goes on exhibition.
Council has its say on NSW Shark Management
Councillors resolved by exception (ie by passing a block of motions together unanimously) to make a submission to the NSW government’s current survey on shark mitigation measures. The NBC submission supported the use of drones, SMART drumlines, and tagged shark listening devices. However, the council once again opposed the use of shark nets.
Surfing heritage plan to be developed over 12 months
The Northern Beaches will develop its own Surfing Heritage Interpretation Plan, following a unanimous vote at Tuesday’s council meeting. Staff estimate the plan would cost some $60,000 but Ms Glanville moved an amendment that the council seek a grant for preparation of the plan.
The plan would include:
- Updating the Freshwater Surfing “Walk of Fame”.
- Updating and expanding the surfing heritage walk map.
- Modernising signage at existing recognition sites on the Northern Beaches.
- Ways to celebrate local female surfers and pioneers.
