Pittwater Online News

Proposal to Reinstate Pittwater Council on its former boundaries: revised s215 document

s215 Proposal to Reinstate Pittwater Council on its former boundaries

Protect Pittwater have revised the previous proposal document and are encouraging all electors of the former Pittwater Council area to sign the s215 proposal addressed to the Minister for Local Government, asking him to refer the proposal to reinstate Pittwater Council to the NSW Boundaries Commission for a full review and report back to the Minister.  

''This was how Pittwater Council was formed in 1992 and now we need to do it again to Protect Pittwater and restore local democracy.'' Protect Pittwater states

The document is available at: protectpittwater.org/pp/proposal

If you are enrolled to vote in the former Pittwater Local Government area you are invited to print the 2 page proposal document (double-sided printing if possible), sign it and encourage up to 9 other Pittwater electors to do the same. Please return the fully signed form to Protect Pittwater – PO Box 402 Avalon 2107 or to a Protect Pittwater volunteer staffing tables at shopping centres and other prominent locations.

If you can’t print off a proposal sheet, you can sign in person at one of their volunteer tables that pop-up at shopping centres or during business hours at the office of Dunn Legal – Suite 4, Level 3 Gateway Building – 1 Mona Vale Rd, Mona Vale.

The document reads:

We, the undersigned electors of the former Pittwater Council area, currently part of the Northern Beaches area, initiate this proposal to the Minister for Local Government under section 215 of the Local Government Act 1993. We propose that:

 the part of New South Wales which formed the Pittwater Local Government area immediately prior to its amalgamation on 12 May 2016 (see map on reverse of this page) be constituted as an area in accordance with section 204 of the Local Government Act 1993 and be named the “Pittwater Local Government Area”

 the newly constituted Pittwater Local Government Area be divided into three wards named: North Ward, Central Ward and South Ward and that three Councillors be elected from each ward with the Councillors electing the Mayor of the new Pittwater Council.

 those three wards are to have substantially the same boundaries as existed for the wards of the same name which existed immediately prior to 12 May 2016, those boundaries adjusted only to the extent required by section 210 of the Local Government Act 1993 to ensure the number of electors in each ward does not vary between them by more than 10%

 the remaining portion of the Northern Beaches Council area continue to be known as the Northern Beaches area and the Northern Beaches Council continue to govern that remaining area without dissolution – such that this proposal only applies to the former Pittwater Council area.

Protect Pittwater is a not-for-profit incorporated association formed in 2017 by residents of the former Pittwater Council area who were committed to restoring true local government by re-establishing Pittwater Council and with it the strong environmental protections which made the preservation of Pittwater's natural environment a top priority.

''Pittwater Council was formed in May 1992 following a long battle by residents of the Northern portion of Warringah Shire Council, known as 'A Riding'. It was dissolved by the NSW Baird Government in May 2016 under its fundamentally flawed and undemocratic policy of forced amalgamations.'' the organisation states

Find out more at: protectpittwater.org

Map on reverse of this page

Simon Dunn, president of Protect Pittwater, in addressing the April 30 Council Meeting in support of Cr. Korzy’s Motion, for a demerger poll at the 2024 September Local Government election, stated:

Madam Mayor & Councillors, I am the president of Protect Pittwater.

After 8 years of an amalgamated council I think it is fair to say that the honeymoon is well and truly over and the myth that achieving ‘scale and capacity’ will solve the real problems facing NSW Councils is well and truly busted.

In tonight’s agenda you are presented with the touching euphemism of an “an emerging financial sustainability issue” – which is really a forecast deficit of $5.8M for 2025 – and more alarmingly a funding gap of $151 million for infrastructure over the coming years – all leading to the likelihood of a 7.7% special increase in rates.

Already in June 2023 Council approved borrowing of $4.6M from the Mona Vale Cemetery Reserve to overcome cash flow pressures and to the shock of many in the Pittwater Community.

More recently your CEO has seen fit to create a new Executive Role of Chief Operating Officer which appears to be in response to the inordinate volume of ‘back office’ operational work taking up the CEO’s time.  Clearly, trying to manage one of the largest Councils in NSW is proving to be a far more challenging and costly task than the well-paid consultants, expert accountants and former NSW Baird Government all anticipated when they set scale and capacity as the only real criteria for forcibly merging NSW Councils in 2016.

As Cr Korzy notes in her introduction to her motion, even former members of the NSW Government have conceded the policy was fundamentally flawed.

Let me be clear Councillors, none of this is a criticism of you or your CEO or your hard working staff who are trying to make the best of an impossible situation.

In fact, Councillors, I think most of you are all community minded people who give up your leisure time and want to do your best to serve your local communities.  But how can do that effectively when all 15 of you need to vote of each issue brought before this Council – not just those effecting your particular wards.  This means you each have to have a detailed background and be across community views in each of the other wards – you don’t just say; ‘well that’s in Curl Curl Ward – I don’t need to know or understand that issue – I ‘ll leave it to the Councillor from that ward’ - you have to know every issue.

And this bring us back to the fundamental problem with a Council set-up to serve 250,000 residents across more than 25,000 hectares.  No matter how hard you work, you cannot be across every important issue which occurs in this region and inevitably many important issues will not be properly addressed.  Pittwater Council had 9 Councillors serving a community of only 60,000 and the workload on each volunteer councillor was incredibly burdensome.  

It is really an unfair ask to put this on you Councillors to vote for a poll that exposes you to the criticism, potentially, of your community. But unfortunately, the state government politicians have not passed legislation that gives us any other choice and Cr. Korzy’s Motion for a poll is the only option available.

Protect Pittwater secretary Anna Maria Monticelli also addressed the Meeting in support of the Motion, stating:

We all know, Pittwater residents never wanted to be amalgamated into a mega NBC.

The merger was forced upon them and they were never given a democratic choice.  

In fact, the process was done without their consent and with various deals behind the scenes.

The present situation to me is overwhelmingly obvious. 

Pittwater residents want their democratic rights to be restored and their destiny to be returned to the people who live in Pittwater.

In my experience, over the years the discontent has become enormous. 

You all know, Pittwater  residents are constantly in this chamber or emailing - complaining about council policies, DA’s- and the way their area is being governed. 

Yet they have NO REAL SAY - Which is a basic flaw in the way local government is supposed to work.

This issue is not going away, it is only going to become bigger and bigger as more people are thrust into a small area.

So, the discontent that you feel now, will turn into utter  rage – which you as a council, will have to deal with on a daily basis.   So will the state government’s back flip - on their promises before the last election. 

Surely, everyone here believes in democracy.

Surely you want the community to voice what they want. 

And surely you want to act on their wishes.

I urge the council to end this dispute – We’re not asking for a demerger. 

We’re asking for a Poll at the September election -  as to whether the majority of residents wish to demerge from the NBC.

I’m sure, if the results are  below 50%(only in Pittwater)  then the issue is settled and we will remain in the NBC.

If results are above 50% (only in Pittwater) then authorities and the political will from all parties must ensure Pittwater council is restored.

NSW Labor encourages councils to listen to their community who want  a Poll to solve the issue one way or another and be able to decide their own futures.

It is only fair and ethical because our rights were previously ignored and shanghaied into a council that we had no choice in.  

I’m sure everyone in Pittwater will respect the Poll result. 

Equally important  - It will give council a chance to test its sincerity in the eyes of the residents. And an opportunity to solve the issue and bring peace to the area.

Mr. Dunn further said afterwards;

‘’Pittwater Council was born from a community movement to establish a true community based council. In 1992 there was a real sense of ownership and pride in the Council which was built on the values of the community which established it.  Sadly, such a sense of community ownership is not possible across the entire Northern Beaches.

Inevitably, such an organisation has to be run more and more like big business and the possibility of Councillors being true local community representatives becomes more and more remote.

Then, what we end up with is at best a regional arm of the state government clashing with local communities and nothing like the model of Local Government which was intended to be the bridge between local communities and government.

Although not admitting it publicly, I think this underlying problem is recognised by many Councillors and staff who are struggling against the enormous size of the organisation they serve in.''

‘I have heard from people from Pittwater and other people who want to demerge, that they have submitted previously in 2016, 2017 or 2008, or they have submitted proposals under section 215 to the Government and have been told that they need 10 per cent of an entire area, and that is how section 215 is being interpreted. If they were told that, it is wrong. If it is an approach to the Office of Local Government while I am the Minister, I will proceed in accordance with the Act. I have a sneaking suspicion why they might have been told that and why they think it is accurate, but it is wrong.

I thought I was clear at budget estimates that there is an opportunity to proceed under section 215. I do not need to read the words to the House a third time for it to be clearly understood. I say clearly to all those who think that they do not have an opportunity that they can proceed under section 215. If 250 people in Pittwater signed a request under section 215, I am not sure on what basis they would persuade a Minister for Local Government to refer that to the boundaries commission, but the opportunity is there to have the Minister at least consider it, as a Minister is required to do.’

• Failure Of Demerger Poll Vote Shows Problem With Labor Proposal
• Labours' De-Amalgamation Bill Passes With Help From The Coalition: Pittwater Residents Still Signing Up To Restore Pittwater Council
• Restoring Pittwater Council poll update: Desktop Analysis By Northern Beaches Council States There Is 'High Customer Satisfaction' - Recommends 'Take No Further Action' Re; A Poll At September Council Elections
  
• De-Merge Of Councils Delay/Obfuscate Shenanigans Continued Under New Labor Government: Communities Have Run Out Of Patience 
• De-Amalgamation Bill Delivers Certain Uncertainty For Residents Still Campaigning To Get Their Councils Back