0°C | Tuesday February 3, 2026 
21 June 2024
North Sydney Council management have been asked to actively rescind the impression that they potentially gave the State Government that the council supported inclusion of Neutral Bay Town Centre in a register of locales earmarked for development.
The action was directed in a motion passed unanimously by North Sydney councillors this week after it was revealed that staff had sent a document to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure stating that Neutral Bay be included along with other locations such as Crows Nest and St Leonards in a list earmarked for relaxed development rules and higher density mandates. This was contrary to a resolution passed by the councillors in February which expressed the strong direction that Neutral Bay was not be included on this list.
Council CEO Terese Coles acknowledged in a note to council that her officers had written ‘yes’ next to Neutral Bay on a state government planning survey due to the fact that it satisfied some of the criteria for inclusion. “While consistent with a planning assessment of the criteria, the wording of ‘yes’ for Neutral Bay inclusion is inconsistent with Council’s resolution adopting a position to refrain from identifying MU zones as ‘town centre’ precincts. This has understandably created concern within the community that the content of the form is to be used as a nomination or endorsement of Neutral Bay as a ‘Town Centre precinct’,” Coles told councillors in a report.
“It is acknowledged that the response to the form should have been ‘NO’ regardless of the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria to ensure clarity regarding council’s position,” she added.
A number of concerned residents fronted the council meeting to express their criticisms of what had happened, including Meredith Treveyllan-Jones, who has led the campaign against over-development in Neutral Bay for several years.
She said she had been fielding phone calls from angry residents for several days. “Without exception they’re appalled and angry about what has happened,” she said. “Why didn’t (Council staff) seek a direction from someone at a more senior level or why didn’t they say I’m not prepared to fill this out at this point of time?”
“Council officers supposedly did not complete the form on the basis it was to be an official and formal nomination form. Well I’m sorry it’s in writing. It’s official and it’s formal.”
“The word yes looks like a clear recommendation,” she added. Other concerned residents also echoed these sentiments in the public forum.
Cr James Spenceley, who called the council extraordinary general meeting after becoming aware of the situation at a precinct meeting, said “This form is live now within the Department of Planning. It has a circle around ‘yes’. We need to rescind this document formally and follow our community’s desire, which is to defend and proactively and transparently document why Neutral Bay is not suitable.”
Cr William Bourke seconded the motion, stating “It came out at a precinct meeting, which was not an ideal way for us to find out about these issues. We weren’t told clearly as councillors, that’s not acceptable.”
“I believe if we give this DPHI an inch, they take a mile. So we have to be very careful about that. Every action of council, including this agenda, needs to really reflect the resolution of council and strongly reject the inclusion of Neutral Bay.”
Cr Jilly Gibson echoed these sentiments and said the mayor should also be across detail and take responsibility for what happened.
However other councillors, while conceding the gravity of the error, were critical of Spenceley and Bourke for giving it public oxygen.
Cr Maryann Beregi said “I’m not sure really what’s going on here except what does appear to be a witch hunt in my opinion, where you and Counselor Bourke took no opportunity to contact the CEO, even contact the mayor before issuing a notice, a motion of urgency that you were proposing to move, which was then circulated on social media.”
She added: “It is my opinion that running this in the media without coming to the actual head of the council, the general manager, the administration side and asking before you did any of this is actually almost worse than what we’re dealing with.”
Cr Shannon Welch said: “In my opinion, this was a sickening form of bullying towards a group who are unable to publicly defend themselves,” in reference to the impact of the motion on council staff.
Cr Godfrey Santer criticised the North Sydney Sun, suggesting our initial coverage had inferred that Council had supported the inclusion of Neutral Bay for increased development over the opposition of just some councillors, this implying that only Spencley and Bourke opposed it, and that we were thus guilty of creating a false impression.
This comment appeared based on a misapprehension that our reference to North Sydney Council in the article’s lede was a personal reference to him and nine other councillors, when it was obviously a reference to the organisation as a whole, from which the erroneous document was sent. The body of the article made this distinction clear, as Santer conceded, as would a typical reader who associates references to North Sydney Council as being to the entire organisation and not just its governance group.
Mayor Zoe Baker took a more conciliatory tone, stating that upon learning about the situation “I immediately wrote to the secretary of the Department of Planning and clarified and corrected the record.”
“The submission of the form was wrong and I understand entirely why residents would feel appalled and angry. And Cr Spenceley is also right. It’s the context in which these forms are read, but it is a single form that was required for discussion … but as Councillor Beregi said, this is the terrible process and strategy of divide and conquer that the Department of Planning offers the state of New South Wales on all of these housing reforms. It puts council officers in a particularly onerous position.”
In the end, councillors united to pass the following motion:
1. THAT Council notes the invalid response provided by Council staff to the Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure (DPHI) on 15 May 2024 in response to the Station and Town Centre Selection Form and the failure to implement a lawful resolution of Council made on 12 February 2024.
2. THAT Council notes the response fails to positively implement Council’s resolved position and serves to undermine Council’s resolved position.
3.THAT Council writes to the DPHI to formally rescind its earlier response to the Station and Town Centre Selection Form, requesting acknowledgement of the recission from the DPHI.
4. THAT Council resolves to submit a transparent and authorised response to the Station and Town Centre Selection Form, that represents the Council resolution dated 12 February 2024, including justifications to demonstrate that Neutral Bay is unsuitable for inclusion, including addressing the DPHI criteria as well as the assessment of the town centre including: • transport capacity including: o lack of train service o the quality and capacity of bus service • the extended linear nature of the Village and resulting difficulty in access • Council’s existing and further commitment to high quality place-based planning.
5. THAT the CEO facilitates an urgent industry-appropriate review of the internal process that resulted in a submission on the Station and Town Centre Selection Form that was contrary to Council’s resolved position. 6. THAT the CEO urgently reports back to Council on all appropriate measures to rectify the relevant contravention and documents actions and improvements to strengthen Council processes. 7. THAT North Sydney Council strongly write to apply for the same relief as other Councils seeking exemption from mid-rise housing in the R3 zone to avoid jarring transitions between the lower and mid-rise zones. 8. THAT Council provide an urgent supplementary submission to the DPHI seeking that they abandon low to mid-rise housing reforms in circumstances in which housing targets were issued on 29 May 2024, and task Council to work with communities to plan to meet those targets. 9. THAT Council publish on its website all current and future correspondence between Council and the DPHI on housing reforms.