Presentations to Public Forum ESC 10th March 2026
Johanna Weaver
Public Access Presentation 10 March 2026
I make this presentation in the public interest in my capacity as the public officer of the Congo Community Association (the CCA) and our members.
At the public access presentation in February, Mayor Hatcher, you undertook to provide an update to the community, & public by the end of the month. This has not occurred.
We are grateful that a meeting has been scheduled with the CCA, but a private meeting does not replace the need for a transparent update on the public record.
It has now been
- 19 months since the court judgment,
- 55 months – or 4 and a ½ years – since the track in use was closed, and
- 313 months – or 26 years – since Council approved a resolution to formalise Congo Road (including with respect to lot 197 Congo road).
Activity at the site
Activity is happening at the site. The CCA wrote to Council on 28 January 2026, followed up on 10 February, asking for clarity about the works on the site. We have not had a reply.
Photos of the works are attached. One interpretation is that the area has being survey and preparations for a road are being made.
However, with zero communication from Council to the community, or the public, many are understandably concerned that the activities may have another purpose.
So, my question to Mayor, and to each councillor:
- Are you aware of the activities on the site?
- And are you confident that the activities comply with the DA, or are otherwise are authorised by council?
I remain optimistic. I am hopefully that the landowner is preparing the ground to facilitate a land swap & reopen the road. Something the community would welcome and applaud.
But, if that is the case, why the secrecy from Council? Why is this progress – which we would all celebrate – not being communicated to the public?
Council’s obligations
I have heard it said that Council has no obligation to provide the public with access to crown/paper road. I am not going to go into this in detail today, as I hope that we are close to making a breakthrough. However, I think it is important to address this at a high-level, so that Councillors are aware that the CCA does not accept this position.
In various communications to CCA, Council has said that it cannot provide public access to the crown road reserve because of ‘obvious hazards’ on the road reserve. We accept that hazards exist. However, as you know, Council has obligation to monitor the site. Had Council met that monitoring obligation, the hazards you now rely upon to justify exclusion would not exist. Any independent arbiter would take this into account when consideration council’s obligations to reopen the road.
Beyond this, Council has a duty to take all reasonable steps to avoid creating an unacceptable bushfire evacuation risk. Permanently closing Congo Road, which provides alternative access for the community, would do precisely that. This is not a trivial concern – it goes directly to the safety of residents in a bushfire-prone area. And goes against the recommendations of the Black Summer Bushfire Royal Commission.
Council also has an obligation to honour the many representations it has made to this community over many decades regarding the formalisation of Congo Road North. Those representations made over decades, have been made publicly, and have been genuinely and reasonably relied upon by Congo landowners. That reliance is also relevant to any assessment of Council’s obligations.
So, while, as a matter of general principle, it may be true that Council does not have an obligation to provide access to crown roads – any obligation must be considered in context. And, because of the reasons I have given, and many others, in the case of Congo Road, Council does have a clear obligation to provide public access.
Next steps
Mayor Hatcher, Councillors, I am generally perplexed as to what is going on. The Landowner has made an offer of a land swap. The community is supportive of this. We seem to have a solution on the table. Why is Council not acting to make this a reality? Please let’s work together to reopen Congo road.
Steph Chiu
Presentation on PER26/003 Batemans Bay Masterplan – Probity Report
Djamaga bumulaga – good morning Councillors, General Manager, Council Staff and the community, I pay my respects to the land and waters of the Walbunja, Brinja Yuin, Djirringanj peoples which we meet on and are speaking about today, the relationships of living things that depend on the health of this place, and the people that have, and now tend to this Country, as we together aim to make good decisions that will impact our community.
My name is Steph Chiu and today I am speaking to you as a local Architect on the Batemans Bay Masterplan – Probity Report, bringing to you motion recommendations in response to the Probity Report. These motion recommendations have been synthesised in consultation with another local who is an Architect, Urban Designer, Consultant to Regional and Urban Councils on planning like the Batemans Bay Master plan.
The Probity Review gives us an opportunity to pause and reflect on how we move forward with planning for Batemans Bay.
Importantly, the report does not question the aspirations we all share for the town. Everyone in this chamber wants Batemans Bay to thrive, to provide housing for our community, and to grow in a way that protects the qualities that make this place special.
What the report does highlight, however, is that the planning process to date has not followed the normal sequence that is expected in NSW planning. In particular, it notes gaps in governance, the expansion of the project scope without formal direction, and the absence of some of the technical and demographic studies that should normally inform a masterplan.
That is not about criticism or blame — we are where we are. My main concern, and that of council should be to recognise that attempting to simply patch up the existing process would risk repeating the same problem.
A more constructive approach is to take this opportunity to re-establish the proper planning sequence: starting with the strategic evidence for the whole local government area, and then moving to place-based planning for Batemans Bay and other centres.
The motion before us simply asks that we acknowledge the findings of the review and ask staff to come back with a clear program for doing that work properly.
That approach will give councillors, the community and investors greater confidence that the future planning of Batemans Bay is grounded in good evidence, good process, and a shared vision for the town.
The motion recommendations are that Council:
- Notes the Probity Review of the Batemans Bay Masterplan (February 2026) and in particular its findings that:
- the inception and governance of the master planning process were informal and not supported by a clearly documented Council direction;
- the scope of the project expanded from a CBD masterplan to a broader Batemans Bay masterplan without formal Council approval or documented rationale;
- the evidence base for the draft masterplan is incomplete, including the absence or inadequate consideration of:
- population and dwelling projections
- infrastructure capacity (water, sewer, energy, communications)
- geotechnical constraints
- climate change, coastal erosion and flood risk
- environmental constraints including biodiversity;
- the proposed building heights and density settings were not adequately supported by the necessary technical studies;
- documentation of community engagement undertaken during preparation of the draft masterplan was not available to the review; and
- governance arrangements relating to Council’s dual role as planning authority and landowner required clarification.
- Notes that the Probity Review identifies fundamental deficiencies in the planning process undertaken to date, and that these deficiencies mean the draft Batemans Bay Masterplan cannot presently be relied upon as the basis for strategic planning or statutory planning amendments.
- Recognises that strategic planning in NSW is intended to follow a structured sequence, including:
- Community Strategic Plan
- Local Strategic Planning Statement
- Housing and settlement strategies
- supporting technical studies and evidence
- place-based master planning
- and subsequent LEP and DCP amendments.
- Resolves that the future planning of Batemans Bay should proceed in accordance with this established planning framework, beginning with a strengthened strategic evidence base for the whole Eurobodalla local government area.
- Requests that Council staff prepare a revised Housing and Settlement Strategy for the entire Eurobodalla LGA, including:
- robust demographic and population projections;
- realistic housing demand analysis;
- identification of housing needs for different community groups including seniors, key workers, tourists and seasonal residents, low-income households, people experiencing homelessness, and general residents;
- consideration of the different housing needs and settlement patterns across towns and villages within the LGA.
- Requests that the strategic evidence base include updated technical assessments relevant to future settlement and urban development, including where required:
- infrastructure capacity and servicing • transport and accessibility • flood risk and coastal hazards • bushfire risk • climate change adaptation • biodiversity and environmental constraints • geotechnical conditions.
- Resolves that future master planning for Batemans Bay and other towns should occur only after the completion of the above strategic work, and should then proceed as place-based planning processes that include structured and transparent community engagement.
- 8. Requests that Council staff report back to Council with:
- a proposed program and timetable for undertaking the strategic planning work outlined above;
- indicative budgets and resourcing requirements;
- advice on how this work can align with the next review cycle of the Community Strategic Plan and associated Integrated Planning and Reporting documents.
- Requests that Council staff provide advice on the status of any State Government funding provided for planning work relating to Batemans Bay, including:
- funds received and expended;
- whether the current program satisfies the conditions of that funding;
- and any implications for Council should the planning program need to be revised.
- Requests that Council staff provide regular progress updates to Council on the above work.
Dr Brett Stevenson on behalf of ABE
~ Batemans Bay Masterplan – Probity Report
Good morning, Thank you for the opportunity to address Council. I am presenting as Co-convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum working to achieve open, accountable and responsive government in Eurobodalla.
My focus today is on PER26/003, the Batemans Bay Master Plan Probity Report. ABE, along with many other concerned members of the community, has taken a sustained interest in the draft Batemans Bay Master Plan (BBMP), and have identified a variety of serious deficiencies in the plan. These include significant flooding, erosion and sea level rise hazards associated with Batemans Bay, as outlined in ABE’s presentation to Councillors on the 14th October 2025 (copy attached). Taken as a whole, the deficiencies in the BBMP pose significant long term financial, environmental, social and planning risks for Eurobodalla residents, ratepayers and visitors.
In view of these widely expressed community concerns with the draft BBMP, ABE and other community members commend the recent action by senior Council Management to promptly release the probity review for public consideration. This welcome move builds on Council’s recent release of all BBMP submissions for public scrutiny. Both of these steps are encouraging measures of transparency, which help to boost community confidence that significant governance problems are being seriously addressed and that a new course is being set for Eurobodalla Shire Council.
ABE also welcomes Eurobodalla GM Mark Ferguson’s recent appointment to the NSW Government’s Local Government Expert Advisory Panel, and extends congratulations on his appointment to this new group. The panel will provide technical and practical advice on the implementation of reforms aimed at maintaining council’s independence while ensuring their long term financial sustainability.
ABE notes that the 24 page independent consultant’s probity report strongly validates community concerns regarding serious governance deficiencies with the draft BBMP,
as outlined in the following key findings :
1) Inception and governance of the Masterplan appears to be informal, without reasons for the need for an updated master plan and clear direction being provided by either the Council or the General Manager;
2) The draft Masterplan horizon of 75 years is extremely long in comparison to typical master planning horizons of 25 – 30 years;
3) Estimated resident population projections are not supported by past experience and nor by general overall trends observed Australia-wide;
4) The supporting studies and other documents reviewed indicate that the proposed height increase did not take into account the associated geotechnical, environmental and climate risks;
5) The draft Masterplan has not considered any potential future limitations on current infrastructure (water, sewerage, power, telecommunications etc);
6) The draft Masterplan has not taken into account geotechnical feasibility of the plan to assess developability of the site;
7) The draft Masterplan has not considered the impact of climate change and coastal erosion, and the limitations on Masterplan options as a consequence of management actions by the Council, and State and Commonwealth Governments; and
8) The draft Masterplan does not elaborate on or explain variances between expert studies and recommended settings in the plan.
This is a damning catalogue of failures embedded in the Masterplan, and these deficiencies mean the Masterplan cannot be relied upon as an adequate basis for strategic planning or statutory planning amendments. The current Masterplan process needs to be curtailed, in order to provide an opportunity for Council to undertake a reset and compile strategic evidence for the whole Eurobodalla LGA, consistent with NSW strategic planning practice, which proceeds through an established sequence of strategic policy, followed by evidence-based studies, and then place based master planning for major centres. This approach would also allow Council to more effectively respond to the Regional Housing Strategic Planning Fund grant secured in 2025, as well as expedite progress on the Eurobodalla Housing Strategy.
One puzzling aspect of the Probity Report is the anomaly that after defining the key criteria used for “probity” on page 5 (i.e. Fairness − Impartiality − Accountability − Transparency − Value for money), none of these are mentioned again in the report, with the notable exception of transparency. It seems odd to specify key “probity” criteria and then ignore them throughout a report. This suggests that a more accurate description of the review may be a “redacted and abridged probity report”, rather than just a “redacted probity report”.
ABE also notes that the probity report fails to provide answers to the unanswered questions posed in Councillor Mayne’s original QoN25/001 in May 2025, which led to the Probity Report being commissioned. This is at odds with Council agenda papers for the May 2025 meeting, which state that “Clr Mayne’s remaining questions will be addressed by the probity review.” This undertaking has not been delivered, and the community is still in the dark where the projected 8,000 additional dwellings for Batemans Bay are going to be found.
It is also notable that the probity report finds that Council’s “Conflict of interest/Conflict of Role” issue relating to the old Bowling Club site has been completely resolved by simply excising the site from the Masterplan process. The report is completely incurious how the site became a key element of the Masterplan process for over 3 years without this fundamental issue being meaningfully addressed. The Council needs to put clear governance measures in place to ensure that these circumstances cannot be repeated in the future, at further great expense to Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers.
In light of the report’s findings, ABE does not support the motion currently before Councillors to endorse the probity report, and then conduct further work to finalise the BBMP. ABE considers that Councillors should note the serious governance failures outlined in the probity report, and cease further activities on the BBMP in order to undertake a strategic review of planning priorities, information and evidence across the Eurobodalla. This review should have a particular focus on housing issues, consistent with current key community needs and in alignment with the Eurobodalla Local Strategic Planning Statement.
Thank you for your attention, Dr Brett Stevenson Co-Convenor, A Better Eurobodalla
Frank Ross
Bateman’s Bay Masterplan – Probity Report by Centium Pty Ltd
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission in regard to Item 5 above. I do so on behalf of the South Coast Health and Sustainability Alliance.
Introduction
We commend the General Manager Mark Ferguson for commissioning the Probity Report. We commend also Councillor Mayne for initiating the Probity Report process through a Question on Notice, the Councillors that supported him; and Councillor Pollock, also through a Question on Notice, for obtaining information on how the previous General Manager, without due consultation, instructed consultants developing housing policy options for Bateman’s Bay to prioritise high rise apartment blocks on the foreshore – which became a fundamental component of the Masterplan.
The agenda paper’s Recommendation (p.1) is, “That Council endorse the Probity Report and that future work on the BB Masterplan be guided by the findings and recommendations…” ; and under Considerations (also p. 1) it states “the key finding was around project governance to ensure the objectives and goals of the project are well understood by all stakeholders”…. .” Unfortunately, a basic check of the Probity Report shows that the issues with the draft Masterplan are much more numerous and complex than “governance”; and reveals that it fundamentally questions the validity of the processes and evidence that led to the development and content in the current draft Masterplan. This is shown in each stage of the Report, as follows:
- Governance and Transparency (pp 7-8)
The Report found, in summary, that: “Inception and governance of the masterplan exercise appears to be informal without reasons…and clear direction being provided either by the Council or the General Manager.”
- Community Engagement (pp 9-10)
“The Review was not provided with documents to demonstrate the formality, level of involvement of stakeholders, issues covered and/or outcomes of these consultations.” (p. 9) Furthermore, “Information on the outcome of community engagement … was not made available to the Review” (p. 10).
- Strategic Alignment (pp 11-12)
“The draft Masterplan horizon of 75 years is extremely long compared to typical master planning horizons of 25-30 years; and …Estimated resident population projections are not supported by past experience and also by general overall trends observed Australia wide.” (p12)
- Land Use and Development (pp13-14)
The conclusion on page 14, contains 5 findings which state that the draft Masterplan, in summary has not:
- taken into account the associated geotechnical, environment and climate risks for its proposed height increase of buildings;
- considered any future limitations on current infrastructure;
- considered the impact of climate change and coastal erosion; and
- not elaborated on or explained variances between expert studies and recommended settings in the plan.
The Report’s Recommendations (p.17) states, in summary, there should be a revised Masterplan for exhibition to the community and stakeholders which should include:
“A Council endorsed direction for the preparation of the Masterplan…; An explanation for the adopted increased population growth rate and number of dwellings that the masterplan will need to address; Consideration of climate change impacts including bushfire risk and coastal management…; Infrastructure services limitations…; Geotechnical limitations…; Clear description of the approach to be adopted for the former bowling club site at 2 Vesper Street…
Addressing these recommendations – and all the other issues listed earlier in the Report – together with the submissions from the community, will clearly take considerable time and resources from Council.
Conclusion
As stated in the previous section, there are serious time and resource implications for Council in addressing the Recommendations from the Centium Report and associated issues. In this context it may be more prudent for Councillors to selectively address priority issues while referring the Masterplan review to a consultant when there are resources available. This will enable Council to address priority issues for the community such as housing and related environmental policy. There is clear evidence that this is the preferred option for the community; and that there are significant opportunities to address issues through medium density and other developments in appropriate locations.
Recommendation
Given the complexity of planning and resources issues to be addressed, it is recommended that Councillors move forward by:
- propose a motion for addressing priority issues such as housing and environmental policy relating to it:
- listing other priorities in sequence as they see fit; and
- with a review process built in to update all of the above on a scheduled basis they consider to be appropriate.