13 March 2026
Submissions opposing North Sydney Council’s proposed special rate variation of53–64% have been lodged with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), with critics arguing the council has overstated its financial need and failed to demonstrate that the increase is a last-resort option.
The submissions — from independent councillor James Spenceley, Liberal councillors Efi Carr and Jessica Keen, former independent councillor Ian Mutton and the Lavender Bay Precinct — were obtained by the North Sydney Sun and raise a mix of financial, governance and consultation concerns about the council’s application.
Councillor James Spenceley’s submission argued that the proposed permanent increase had not been supported by the detailed modelling expected in an SRV application.
“As a North Sydney councillor, I am not opposed to a rate increase in principle. Nor, in my view, are residents opposed to a rate increase if presented with a transparent and justified case,” he wrote. “What is opposed, is an exceptionally large, permanent, compounding increase that Council is yet to demonstrate to be necessary, proportionate, and importantly the last resort.”
Spenceley argued the application failed to show that the SRV was the least harmful option available.
“This SRV reads like a preferred outcome presented as a necessity, rather than a last-resort conclusion demonstrated by quantified options analysis,” he wrote.
His submission also criticised the consultation process underpinning the proposal, saying survey results suggested limited community support for higher rates. He noted that “only 31% were supportive or very supportive of paying more in rates to maintain or improve services” and that “80% of responses did not accept or want Council’s chosen 52.66–63.58% option.”
Spenceley further argued that the council had not undertaken the service level review requested by IPART when it rejected the council’s previous SRV application in 2025. While the council relied on consultation undertaken by Micromex, he said community consultation could not substitute for a comprehensive, costed service review.
The joint submission from councillors Efi Carr and Jessica Keen likewise challenged the financial basis for the rate increase and criticised aspects of the council’s decision-making process.
“Council recorded a net operating profit of $15.2 million — after accounting for all expenses including the $29 million depreciation charge. This is not a Council on the edge of insolvency,” they wrote.
They argued the council had generated an average net operating profit of $16.3m a year over the past seven years, with a net operating margin of 11.36%.
The councillors also criticised the infrastructure backlog figures used to justify the SRV, saying a change in methodology had increased the reported backlog from $47m to $157m.
“A genuine financial need should be demonstrable from actual financial performance, not engineered through a recalculation that conveniently triples the apparent shortfall,” they wrote.
Beyond the financial case, Carr and Keen also criticised the council’s community consultation process and governance practices, arguing that the strategic planning framework underpinning the SRV had been adopted despite widespread community opposition.
Their submission said the Community Strategic Plan supporting the SRV was adopted “over the objection of every resident who made a submission,” while the community survey overstated support for higher spending.
“The application establishes a pattern to be characterised as a ‘grab for cash’,” Mutton wrote.
Mutton argued that the council’s financial position remained strong, citing average net operating profits of about $16m over seven years as well as substantial investments and cash holdings.
“Council claims its financial position is unsustainable — the facts suggest otherwise,” he wrote.
He also criticised the proposed use of funds generated by the SRV, including plans to allocate $40m to reserves for unspecified future projects.
“Why such large and unexplained funds in reserves when there are claims of lack of funds for essential asset maintenance?” he asked.
Mutton further argued that the council had failed to seriously consider alternative funding sources, including potential asset sales or better utilisation of council-owned commercial property.
The Lavender Bay Precinct submission — the most detailed of the four — raised similar concerns about financial need but also questioned the transparency and governance of the SRV proposal.
“Council’s finances are strong and sustainable and the financial performance ratios continue to meet or exceed the Office of Local Government’s benchmark performance ratios,” the precinct wrote.
The submission also criticised the way the council presented the proposed spending funded by the SRV, noting that the increase would generate about $278m over ten years but that several proposed allocations lacked sufficient detail.
“The accumulation of $95M in reserves by Year 10 appears excessive in the absence of clear justification, defined project plans, and transparent timelines,” the precinct said.
The precinct group also argued that the council had misrepresented the results of community consultation and had not properly examined alternative funding options such as debt financing, asset sales or service reductions.
North Sydney Council is seeking IPART approval for the SRV to fund infrastructure renewals, reduce asset backlogs and support new projects over the next decade.
IPART rejected a previous SRV application from the council last year and is expected to make a determination on the current proposal after reviewing submissions and the council’s application.