The Northern Beaches Council resolved to apply to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for a Special Variation of rates based on its formulated Option 3 ‘Improve Services’ at an Extraordinary Council Meeting held on January 28 2025.
It is worth noting that IPART does not always grant the full amount of an increase applied for.
As shown in the first report on this then proposal, some councils that have applied for SRV’s are given a lower percentage increase than that applied for. Some have been refused altogether; although that occurs less frequently.
However, with the annual increases atop that proposed, Option 3 will permanently increase, residential and business rates by almost 40% in the next 3 years.
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) requires councils considering making an application for a Special Variation (SV) to rates, to do so against criteria set by the Office of Local Government. These criteria require councils to:
- demonstrate a financial need for additional revenue
- provide evidence that the community is aware of the need for and extent of a rate rise
- demonstrate a reasonable impact on ratepayers
- exhibit relevant council documents to the public; and
- explain council’s productivity improvements and cost containment strategies
Although the report tabled to this week’s Council Meeting lists selling two Pittwater properties, a block of green park with trees and boulders at Bilgola Plateau, and part of Vuko place Warriewood, and one larger block at Balgowlah to funnel a few millions into the coffers, this has not attracted objections since that report was made available a few days before the Council Meeting.
What residents have objected to is a); the amount they will be required to pay and b); the manner in which the consultation was conducted.
Many have referred to the structure of a survey they were directed towards, stating it was ‘gamed’ to supply the answer required to increase rates paid by residents and businesses.
On that consult webpage – under FAQ’s – and in explanation to ‘Why do I need to register to complete the survey?’ the response reads:
‘’One of the goals of this project is to measure local community awareness and this data will help us in understanding if we achieve that.’’
A community engagement plan presented to Councillors at the 12 November 2024 Council meeting outlined a variety of consultation methods and communication tools that would be used to ensure ratepayers and residents were made aware of the financial problem the Council states it is in and the alternative solutions (options) being proposed to address the shortfall and provide financial sustainability to the Council for future years.
The Council then conducted an 8-week community consultation program in accordance with those IPART requirements and its own (Council’s) Community Engagement Policy and Strategy.
The strongest response is residents calling foul on the council having ‘demonstrated a reasonable impact on ratepayers’. – i.e.; affordability.
Council’s report, tabled at the meeting, responded to this criteria with:
‘’To assess the affordability of a rate increase within the LGA Council engaged an independent analysis by Morrison Low Consultants. The analysis considered a wide range of socio-economic factors and other data and evaluated the general financial capacity of ratepayers to pay the proposed rate changes. It also considers the financial vulnerability and exposure of different community groups within the local government area (LGA). Overall, the report found that there is capacity to absorb the additional rates payable, particularly if this is supported by an appropriate hardship policy.’’
The council’s narrative has repeatedly stated ‘the proposal will equate to an increase for the average residential ratepayer of $2.70 per week next year, $3.12 per week in 2026/27 and $3.60 per week in 2027/28, on top of the usual rate peg increase’.
Residents have pointed to the fact that land values in the Pittwater area, and the way business rates are calculated, will see an increase of thousands of dollars above this amount for some. People who have lived here for decades, gone without such things as milk in their coffee for years to be able to afford paying off their mortgage, will now have to go without again – some may lose all they worked to afford.
For instance, business wise, a Beach road Palm Beach business, which is already paying almost 19k a year in rates, will be required to pay an increase of $7,397.00 a year if IPART passes the full amount applied for.
A few examples, using the provided by the NBC Special variation for rates calculator:
2 Beach road: a $7,397.00 permanent increase
10 Park street; a $28, 354.00 permanent increase
How about the E J Shaw site, recently closed due to, in part, 'being a land-intensive operation in an area with skyrocketing property values' and with a land value of 1.5 mill, and business rates paid at $5, 527.00 per annum - want to start someone else up there? - that will be an extra $2,190.00 per year:
Or those paying rent as tenants in Frenchs Forest business parks:
Or a little cafe in North Narrabeen:
Business premises owners who were already struggling to keep providing places, and have ‘tax bills they cannot jump over’, will not be able to absorb the increases and will pass this on to tenants.
Small Business owners who are their tenants may not be able to afford the increases that will come; they will lose their business.
Those whom they employ will lose their job.
Another example: 37 Old Barrenjoey Road Avalon Beach; land value: $3,560,000, your current rates 2024/25: $12,614.00 and you will see an increase of $4997.00 per annum by year 3 or an extra $96 a week required.
Even those trying to meet the rates costs for what many consider community institutions - the RSL's, the bowling clubs, are paying the business rates.
There will also be residents who won’t be up for just 'a few dollars more each week' under residential rate increases.
Those who bought a little waterfront property in the 1950’s or 1960’s because here was where a young family could afford to buy, and have passed it along through successive generations, now find the land value is $10 million and their rates will increase by $4,500.00 a year.
Even those who haven't taken the cheek by jowl fill the whole block with concrete route, and don't have a waterfront and still have that weatherboard cottage, have a land value that will increase their rates by hundreds and in some cases, thousands each year:
A tiny cottage in Bardo Road Newport, no water view in sight, a land size of 765 m², which sold in 1996 for $206,000, now has a land value of $1,970,000 and current rates 2024/25 of $2,049 - the SRV will add, by year 3, an extra $812 per year of total rates increase (rate peg + variation).
Add another thousand atop that for the garbage run + the, in comparison, miniscule $25 'Stormwater Management Services Charge' annual bill.
According to available information, the average land value in Pittwater, is relatively high due to its coastal location with median house prices ranging from around $2.5 million for modest homes to tens of millions for quality waterfront properties; suburbs like Newport, Avalon Beach, and Palm Beach see particularly high values, but all others do as well. There's millions of dollars properties in Bayview, in Mona Vale, Narrabeen and Warriewood.
Residents in 'estates' in Warriewood are already paying strata fees equivalent to their current rates charges annually and state they don't receive the council services others do - that's double for nothing already. They will end up paying close to or more than 5 thousand a year for their little retirement life townhouse.
The pension won't cover that.
At an average of $2.3million in land value for homes along Avalon Parade the increase by year 3,(the rate peg + Variation), will be an increase of $952 a year.
This would also point out that the amount of rates that will come out of Pittwater, or the former Pittwater Council LGA, will exceed that of other former LGA’s.
As there are just over 25,311 private dwellings in Pittwater, x an average increase of $1000.00, = $25,311,000.00 extra per annum coming out of Pittwater in residential rates only by year 3. The amount of business properties could not be determined – just examples of the whole cumulative increase in business rates some will incur that run above via Council’s SRV calculator.
As business rates paid went up substantially in Pittwater under the 'rates harmonisation', and was implemented from July 1 2021, a further rise of several more hundreds or thousands just a few years later may be too much for others as well. The 2021-2022 Budget increased Business Rates for Pittwater and Manly from between 42% to 25% as part of a 'rates harmonisation' process required by the State Government that had forced the merger of the councils. This accrued to over $5+ million more coming out of Pittwater, based on that proposed in 2021.
Page 28 of NBC’s report for the Council Meeting on the SRV states:
‘’ Option 3 – Improve services, proposes an SV of an 8.3% increase in addition to the rate peg each year for 2 years and 8.4% in year 3. The additional cumulative increase will amount to 29% over 3 years, raising an additional $56.8 million in rates income per year by the 3rd year. The proposed annual increases, including the rate peg, are set out below:
• Year 2025/26 – 12.1% increase (8.3% + rate peg of 3.8%)
• Year 2026/27 – 11.7% increase (8.3% + assumed rate peg of 3.4%)
• Year 2027/28 – 11.5% increase (8.4% + assumed rate peg of 3.1%)’’.
NB: NBC has calculated an assumed rate peg rise – it may exceed this.
According to the 2021 census, there were approximately 60,766 residential dwellings in the Warringah Council LGA.
There were approximately 19,018 residential dwellings in Manly via the same 2021 census.
“Following the challenges met by businesses this year (due to Covid), we are now facing increases in rents due to a 24 per cent rate rise on top of the usual per annum rate rises,” one prominent local business owner told Pittwater Online News prior to the rates harmonisation being passed by the council.
“We do not have a (Mona Vale) place plan despite all of the effort and expense in putting one together five years ago.
“Hence we have almost unbounded developments across A Riding (the name for the Pittwater Council area when it was part of the former Warringah Council), the worst scenario being the closure of Newport Kindergarten next to the school to make way for yet another over 55’s village.
“In my recollection, prior to secession, the A Riding constituents were paying a high per capita rate contribution to Warringah with swathes of the community lacking key infrastructure such as sewerage, community centres, kerb and guttering, playing fields etc.
“This rates harmonisation smells a lot like the way A Riding was treated under the Warringah fiefdom.”
The news service has had emails and very long phone calls about the Council’s SRV since November 2024. People have vehemently pointed out the roads the Council are responsible for are full of holes and have been for years, branches that were blown down into parks 2 weeks ago are still there, a wharf that was funded for repairs by the state government in 2016 didn’t see a lick of paint and has since collapsed, budget after budget announces the exact same things for Pittwater and none of them have ever appeared.
One sent in after the council meeting encapsulates points raised by others:
Council 40% Rate increase.
The Council Option survey was a blatant exercise in deception. It was a bureaucratic sleight of hand, a trick to justify what council had already pre-determined was their desired outcome. It totally ignored the community’s wishes for Option 1 and only confirms what many of us have suspected for years – that Have Your Say is just an expensive PR gimmick and a waste of time.
All we’ve learned from this insult to our intelligence is to never trust a word that comes out of NBC.
The financial debacle we’re in is the result of those that have run the council for years. Now we have to pay for their incompetence because they’re not taking salary cuts or cost saving measures. No, it’s up to us to foot the bill and suffer the cost.
Amalgamation was forced on us by the Libs. They promised rate cuts, more services and an efficient bureaucracy.
We got none of it! Instead, last Tuesday we got a rate hike of 39.6%.
But what many haven’t realised is - this is just the beginning.
You may pay your annual rates but it doesn’t stop there.
Landlords will raise their rents to cover it. Shops, restaurants, offices, in fact, any business premise in the Northern Beaches will pass this rent increase onto you. When you leave your front door, you will start paying extra – for bread, clothes, meals, hairdressing, food – you name it. The council has created a cost-of-living crisis all by themselves. Inflation in the Northern Beaches will rise.
All because the idiots at council have unthinkingly and in their gross ignorance given business the following choices - increase your prices or suffer financial loss or just go broke. I’m sure many will just go broke.
Of course, many of council’s senior managers don’t live here and won’t be affected, so it’s not a problem for them. Just for the 267,000 that pay their salaries.
Finally, Tuesday night’s council meeting was full of angry residents who felt betrayed, yet a majority of councillors ignored their shouts of outrage and, stony-faced, tried to justify an increase that props up a dysfunctional and bloated institution that needs radical overhaul and accountability.
It should be noted the vote was close and our Pittwater Councillors - Miranda Korzy or Rowie Dillion - could have voted against the rate rise and we may have avoided this looming catastrophe.
But they didn’t!!
So much for their election promises of listening to the community and fearlessly acting on residents behalf.
In my opinion, they didn’t represent the people of Pittwater, they represented the Northern Beaches Council. And they should resign. ‘’ – Steve J.
Pittwater representative Councillor Miranda Korzy, aware of the response in the community after the council meeting in which she voted for the Option 3 SRV, sent in the following Statement – (which runs in full):
‘’Special Rate Variation comment for Pittwater Online News
February 1, 2025
It’s for one reason alone that I voted for the proposed Special Rate Variation at Tuesday night’s council meeting: to guarantee funding for maintenance of critical infrastructure and services called for by the Pittwater community.
This was a very tough decision because I’m very aware of the cost of living crisis everyone is living through at the moment. And I understand that thousands of residents across the Northern Beaches opposed the rise in the council SRV survey and made submissions against it.
However, the bottom line was I did not want to let our infrastructure and facilities decay further. It wasn’t a choice I made lightly.
The condition of council’s assets is ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning excellent and 5 that they’re on the point of collapse. A few weeks ago I asked staff to send me a list of all the assets across the Northern Beaches in conditions 4 and 5. When printed that list came to 130 pages.
I tallied up the figures from the spreadsheet, and found we have more than 1,100 built assets in Pittwater Ward alone that are in either poor or very poor condition. Stormwater infrastructure in our ward accounts for 971 of these assets - which most of us don’t see but are many decades old. With Pittwater’s hilly landscape and ever present drainage issues, I am concerned that failures of these pipes and culverts could be disastrous.
Similarly, for other built infrastructure around Pittwater. Just to mention a few:
- Retaining walls (which can be deadly if they collapse) at Irrubel Rd, Newport, and Whale Beach Rd.
- Roadways at Florida Road, Palm Beach; Surfside Ave, Avalon; Terama St, Bilgola Plateau; The Serpentine (from Nth Bilgola Headland to Barrenjoey Rd); Robertson Rd, Newport; Narrabeen Park Pde, Mona Vale; and Booralie Rd, Terrey Hills.
- Footpaths including at Coles Pde, Newport; and Jubilee Ave, Warriewood.
- Seawalls at Elvina Bay and Church Point Reserve, as well as the tidal pool at Bayview.
This list doesn’t even include Pittwater’s rockpools, which are crumbling away and leaking. Neither do they include our footpaths through our village centres - Avalon, Newport and Mona Vale, which are uneven and shop keepers have told me they pick residents up off after falls every week.
Nor does it include our environmental assets - our bush reserves and parks - which accountants unfortunately don’t classify technically as assets so they are not depreciated - but which are highly prized by the community. They also provide homes for a range of endangered species.
Residents and local bushcare volunteers in particular, who have spent decades weeding, planting and watering, are dismayed by the state of bushland such as at Irrawong Reserve and Governor Phillip Park. The heavy rain of recent years has spurred weed infestations in these areas. One volunteer told me last week that they couldn’t bear visiting the Avalon dunes anymore because of the state they’re in.
Similarly, sufficient funds have not been available for tree management. Even the Tree Canopy Plan, first called for in 2017 and finally passed at council in September 2023, has been stalled due to lack of budget. Just as with built assets, bushland becomes more expensive to rehabilitate the longer it’s left - so putting off a rate rise to fund this work would create an even bigger bill in the future.
If the SRV is approved by IPART (the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal), I will be focusing on securing funding for the following :
- More compliance officers
- Road and footpath renewal
- Bush regeneration
- Tree management
- Rockpool renewal and
- Coastal management programs (which will then trigger funding from the NSW government for coastal works) and
- Widespread notification of the council’s hardship policy.
Over the last term on council, I never received emails or other feedback from residents asking for fewer services or less maintenance on assets - however, calls for the items on the above list were frequent.
Reducing council costs
I’m well aware we’ve had some monumental council stuff ups since amalgamation, with the Avalon Shared Space coming to mind. I’m waiting for a report into this from staff, but clearly this is a waste of council money. However, this also illustrates one of the council’s problems: that money provided as state grants are tied to a specific projects that can’t be re-directed elsewhere.
Residents have also called for:
Staff costs
Calls for cuts to staff numbers and executive salaries have been prominent in responses to the SRV proposals. I support the council’s ongoing review of this expenditure but note the new CEO Scott Phillips has already reduced the number of council divisions from six to five last year, with the loss of one top level executive by attrition. Executive pay is set according to NSW government guidelines and other staff are paid in line with the Local Government Industry Award. I am loath to cut staff as a short term measure, which incurs redundancy costs. In fact the proportion of the budget spent on staff costs, at 39.1 per cent, is spot on the NSW benchmark of 39.12 per cent.
Further, I note as one of the founders of the Protect Pittwater demerger group, that a number of economists, including Professor Joseph Drew, have written that the large, merged councils are more expensive to run because they need a bigger layer of middle management. (Al: Please link to )
Like many other councillors, I have already asked that we particularly review funding for events such as the World Food Markets, as well as how council communications and surveys are conducted.
An Independent Audit
I’ve also heard calls for an independent audit of the council. However, the council has an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, with four independent external members who have voting rights - and one councillor, who does not. It’s objective is to:
“provide independent assurance to Council by monitoring, reviewing and providing advice about the Council’s governance processes, compliance, risk management and control frameworks, external accountability obligations and overall performance”.
The NSW Audit-General also reviews the council’s finances once per year.
Government role
Ultimately, I think it puts things in perspective to know both merged and unmerged councils around NSW are struggling financially, to the extent that the NSW and federal governments have been inquiring into the financial sustainability. The state inquiry reported last November, with 17 recommendations, including increasing developer contributions to council for infrastructure, a redesign of the rating system - and special variations if the current rates model continues. The government is yet to respond.
Hardship Policy Finally, I would like to reassure anyone experiencing serious financial problems that the council already has a hardship policy, that would help reduce the impact of any rate rise. ‘’
Pittwater MP Jacqui Scruby stated this week she will call for structural reform of Local Government funding and for the NSW Government to implement the majority of the 17 recommendations of the recent NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the ability of local government to fund infrastructure and services. These recommendations include reversing state and federal government measures which shift costs to councils, reviewing rate exemptions and doubling of federal government funding.
Ms Scruby is concerned about the Council’s (NBC) proposed rates rises, especially in a cost-of-living crisis.
"As a state MP, my focus is on how I can keep rates down from a state perspective. I will be strongly advocating for the NSW Government to act on the recommendations, so ratepayers are not left with rapidly rising rates.
"I will be raising the issue in Parliament when it resumes, and I have already requested the government directs the Audit Office of NSW to undertake an independent performance audit for NBC and regulate senior bureaucrat salaries."
Ms Scruby highlights that requesting a special rate variation (SRV) is not unique to the Northern Beaches Council and clearly shows local governments are in crisis and need structural reform.
"Northern Beaches Council is not alone. Across NSW, over the last two years, 25+ Councils have applied or are applying to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for special variation rate rises. Councils are facing similarly increasing costs. These costs include general inflation, above CPI increases to construction and insurance costs, the financial impact of extreme weather (the cost of climate change) and cost-shifting to councils from the NSW Government, including the Emergency Services Levy.
"The issue is so ubiquitous across the state that it has already prompted parliamentary inquiries at both a state and federal level.
"Here we want public money used effectively and we want a demonstration of austerity measures. We don't want waste, such as shoddy workmanship in the Avalon Shared Space. Additionally, people are frustrated about spending on 'solutions in search of a problem', such as new traffic calming measures or shared space plans. Although projects like these are often funded by the NSW state government through grants and not by council rates, people would prefer money is spent on local priorities such as maintaining our pools, roads and reserves, or building footpaths. It's my job to push to allow councils to use that money where it's needed most.
"Ratepayers are already feeling under pressure, and I will be working hard at state level to advocate for practical solutions for this community."
Warringah MP Zali Steggall stated:
''Local governments are experiencing the same pressures on their budgets as residents and small businesses with insurance premiums, wages, energy and construction costs continuing to rise.
It’s essential that in considering the proposed rate rises, local governments reach the right balance between transparency, accountability and meaningful community consultation and financial sustainability.
The NSW Parliament’s report Ability of local governments to fund infrastructure and services has shown that local governments are finding it increasingly difficult to fund critical infrastructure and essential services for the community.
Local Government NSW said the report’s recommendations “Reflect recognition that the financial sustainability of councils is being persistently eroded and that, without improvements, all communities will suffer."
Given this, it’s disappointing to see local state Liberal MPs focusing on political posturing rather than fighting for increased funding for our local governments from State Government.
I agree that the current model is unsustainable and unfairly falls on residents. It’s essential that NSW receive a fairer proposition of GST revenue, and I will continue to advocate for that with Federal Government.
It is also essential that state, territory and federal governments address the growing costs to local governments from escalating climate risks. To that end, I am in discussion with the Federal Government, banking and insurance sectors to all come to the table to support smarter solutions.
I’ve prepared a Private Members Bill [Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation) Bill 2025] to establish a national framework for adaption and mitigation for climate change, hosted a roundtable in parliament with key stakeholders, including local government representatives and met with all three local governments’ mayors and general managers to discuss how to best support our communities.
I urge all local governments proposing rate increases to do so in a manageable way so that residents are not unfairly burdened and prioritise cost savings.’’
The Results of the NBC's SRV Option 3 voting were:
In favour of the Motion were Mayor Sue Heins (YNBIT), Deputy Mayor Ruth Robins (YNBIT), Cr Nick Beaugeard (YNBIT), Cr Jody Williams (YNBIT), Cr Rowie Dillon (YNBIT), Cr Miranda Korzy (The Greens), Cr Candy Bingham (Good For Manly) and Cr Sarah Grattan (YNBIT).
Voting against the Motion were Cr Vincent De Luca OAM (Independent), Cr Bob Giltinan OAM (Independent), Cr Kristyn Glanville (The Greens), Cr Ethan Hrnjak (The Greens), Cr Bonnie Harvey (The Greens), Cr Sunny Singh (Independent) and Joeline Hackman (YNBIT).
A public submission opportunity directly to IPART will occur in February, before a final decision will be announced by IPART in May 2025.
Information on how you can have your say is available at: www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Reviews/Have-Your-Say and for the 2025/2026 SRV's at: www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Special-Variations-and-Minimum-Rates-2025-26
A ‘heads up’ as soon as that webpage is available on IPART’s website will run ASAP.
It should be noted around 11% of those that shunned the survey then emailed in their ‘feedback’ – many of these choosing a Pittwater residents' tabled ‘Option 5’ – reinstate Pittwater Council.
For those who STILL want to see a smaller local government returned to Pittwater, bear in mind the third petition to apply to reinstate the same has amassed enough signatures to present this to the Minister for Local Government.
You can add your name and find out more about the s215 Proposal to Reinstate Pittwater Council on its former boundaries at: https://protectpittwater.org/pp/
can be sold immediately to realise some NBC $ - 194 Lower Plateau Road, Bilgola Plateau
