The vote to proceed was passed at the February council meeting, and forms part of the council's special rate variation 'Property Rationalisation Plan' to realise a $10million dollar fund with two out of three of the assets to be sold located in Pittwater.
Prior to the vote residents stated this is not the council's to sell, it belongs to Pittwater, and that any money derived from the sale of Pittwater assets should be spent, in whole, in Pittwater.
The sale comes on top of the council taking $4.6 million out of the internally restricted Mona Vale Cemetery Reserve Fund to pay for a new software management system for the Northern Beaches Council, following a vote at the June 2023 council meeting. That has been described as 'stealing form the dead' by one respected community member.
Staff estimated in 2023 the loan would be paid back by 2028/29, including interest of $900,000.
The news service asked the council to clarify and confirm where it intended to spend the funds raised.
The response was:
''Council considered the potential divestment of underutilised properties as part of our commitment to IPART during the application process for the Special Variation to Rates. While any final decision to sell a property rests solely with the elected Council, Council has a target to raise $10 million from property sales within the next five years, consistent with Council’s IPART submission.
Council’s Property Management Framework (p27) notes that the proceeds from the sale of a property are placed into a restricted financial reserve. This reserve has been established to reduce reliance on rates to provide for the future requirements of the community with the intent that the funds are used for:
- Community infrastructure
- Environmental acquisitions
- Commercial development projects
Any future use of these funds, in line with these purposes, would be determined by Council through the normal annual budget process.’’
So no confirmation that what is taken from Pittwater will be spent in Pittwater.
As Pittwater residents are also doing the heavy lifting in the permanent rates rises of over 24 percent secured through the Special Rate Variation, the vote to 'steal' yet another Pittwater asset, paid for by Pittwater residents, and spend it elsewhere, is considered 'on the nose' in the community.
Those in Pittwater continue to say they have been placed back under a 'Greater Warringah Council' [through the May 2016 forced amalgamations] where the culture is to destroy the Pittwater environment and extract money from Pittwater which will be spent in Warringah, while 'treating residents objections with contempt'.
As reported in 2025, page 32 of the council meeting agenda booklet of January 28 2025 lists the bulk of the sales to realise this $10 million is to come from Pittwater, and includes:
‘Property Rationalisation Plan
Council will continue to focus on the rationalisation of its property portfolio to realise a transfer of underutilised assets from property to cash, including:
• 194 Lower Plateau Road, Bilgola Plateau (immediate opportunity for sale)
• 2 Bangaroo St, North Balgowlah (immediate opportunity for sale)
• Unit 9, 5 Vuko Place, Warriewood (3 to 5 years for opportunity of sale) -$200,000 (indicative potential loss of rental income) (will realise $3-4 million)
To realise; Up to $10,000,000 (1 to 5 years)’
Land for sale in Bilgola Plateau at present is on the market at present. Lot 6, 5A Wollombi Road, Bilgola Plateau, size: 1,102m². Residential land; is listed at $1,950,000 - $2,100,000
A smaller lot at Newport is on the market Price Guide $1,500,000: 103 Grandview Drive, Newport, NSW 2106, size: 499.5m².
Selling Unit 9 at 5 Vuko place is estimated to realise between $3-4million.
Other Places that could be sold
Cr. Miranda Korzy stated during the debate on this Item:
''Unit 9/5 Vuko Pl was the original council building for Pittwater Council - and as such has historical and social significance. The building housed all the original staff on two floors of office space, with the warehouse space downstairs used for storage. For many in Pittwater, this site is comparable to Manly Town Hall or Dee Why Civic Centre.
So I think it’s unfortunate that this proposal has come to a meeting where we have no public address.
I know IPART requires council to make $10 million worth of property sales to satisfy conditions for the Special Rate Variation. However, despite staff having determined the “best utilisation" - meaning financial use - of this building is to sell it, I believe it’s also the council’s duty to consider the best social outcome.
Last week, I visited the site and the building is in good, solid condition, with no leaks. The warehouse, which makes up 30 per cent of it, has a set of accessible toilets, installed for the use of the Peninsula Bridge Club which is currently using the office space. There’s also a shower and a driveway with 7 metre high roller door plus parking outside. Part of the warehouse also houses a staff gym.
This warehouse sounds perfect to me for a Community Shed - or workshop, previously known as a Men's Shed - and one such group has asked me to help find a space for them. I’ve also had other groups, like the Avalon Historical Society, approach me but staff have been unable to identify a space. ''
''I’m also concerned that at the moment staff accommodation is in flux. The Mona Vale Place Plan is not yet finalised - and we know Mona Vale will be forced to service perhaps 8,000 or more extra residents in the future.
What this will mean for office space requirements vs community space in Mona Vale has not yet not been determined. Selling a site at this stage, seems to me to be jumping the gun.
So before the decision to sell this building is made, I want to understand the demand for staff and community spaces - what other requests has council received from community groups, for what kind of spaces, and how many are still waiting.
I’d also like to see details of how much our other community spaces are being used and whether any of them are appropriate for groups looking for a home - or candidates for sale.''
Councillor Korzy tabled a motion to defer this item until a review could be compiled but this was voted down by all except Crs Singh, De Luca, Korzy, Harvey, Hrnjak and Glanville.
The council then voted again, to sell what was bought by and belongs to Pittwater, with only Crs. Singh, De Luca, Korzy and Glanville voting against this.
What was bought by Pittwater Residents Should be Spent in Pittwater
The campaign to have a Pittwater Council to look after the people of Pittwater commenced soon after the Warringah Shire Council was formed in 1906. Residents of Pittwater paying for assets and infrastructure in Warringah was the first and an ongoing theme.
Pittwater Council was officially formed on May 1, 1992, following a successful secession movement by residents of the then "A Riding" of the former Warringah Shire Council.
David Lyall PSM recalled in his 2018 Profile:
''... when residents had finally gained the right to split from Warringah Council, I was seconded out of Warringah two months before Pittwater was formed and my job was to set up and create Pittwater. So I had to set up all the infrastructure for Pittwater and move everybody over from Warringah to Pittwater.
It wasn’t a happy split. There were some bad discrepancies of charges levied at the new council. At one stage, just to try and stop or end this, I was moving people into Vuko place at Warriewood and had them sitting on packing cases rather then keep up the charges being levied to have them sitting in Warringah offices, unable to anything.
The main desk for Pittwater Council when we started was trestles with a rug over the top of it.
That was possibly one of the hardest jobs I did and I give credit there to all the line managers – these blokes worked their guts out to make it work. It was a success, we created a great council, which won the Bluett award. Up until two years ago we were the most financially viable council existing. Now all that money saved and well managed has been taken.''
Former Pittwater Council General Manager Angus Gordon OAM recalls that when Warringah Council staff came over in 1992 some were initially moved into the second floor at Mona Vale.
The new council needed more space for staff.
Brian Hrnjak, then General Manager, leased then purchased 5 Vuko Place Warriewood, at market value, soon afterwards.
This was the first major purchase by Pittwater Council.
Unit 2 was purchased in Angus's time as GM and was used by Planning and Corporate Services, along with providing an office for the Mayor and Meeting rooms.
Level 1 was utilised for Accounts and IT - it was under Angus that everything was taken online in Pittwater Council, the first local government council in NSW to do so, which also reduced the costs associated with a paper only regime.
''We wanted to make it so residents didn't have to go to Council offices to access documents, so they could look at everything online.'' he explained last week.
Unit 9 was used by the Reserves Manager but mainly for storage of paper documents. It is basically a factory and although it has been utilised by the Peninsula Bridge Club while the Warriewood Community Centre on the old Nelson Heather site is being built, that is due to be officially opened on March 9 2026 - heralding a return to this new space for the community group previously ensconced there.
However, Angus Gordon is among the hundreds of residents who have contacted the news service since the agenda for the February 2026 council meeting was made available who state:
''This [Vuko Place] was purchased by Pittwater ratepayers and should be spent in Pittwater''.
Members of community group Protect Pittwater attended the February 2026 meeting, stating in a release:
''Residents expect funds raised from Pittwater assets be reinvested locally.''
''Every time another local public asset is ticked off for sale, residents are left asking: where did our investment dollars go?
NBC took $4.6 million from our Mona Vale Cemetery fund to finance computers. The intention is to return it, with interest. However, given NBC’s recent history of deficit budgeting, we remain sceptical. If it’s not coming back to Pittwater, then this is not equitable treatment of our community
The Pittwater community is calling for...
- - Immediate suspension of the proposed sale
- - Transparent accounting of any sale proceeds allocated
- - A guarantee that any funds raised from Pittwater assets remain in Pittwater
“Pittwater has already lost enough. We say NO to the sale of Unit 9, 5 Vuko Place". Anna Maria Monticelli, Protect Pittwater Association’s Secretary, stated.
Dismantling Pittwater's Ability to look after Pittwater Residents: Avalon Council Office Closed too
The council has concurrently been looking at ways to reduce costs through divesting itself of office spaces and centralising these. Pittwater lost its council office in the Avalon Community Centre in November 2023.
Staff had been calling for closure of the customer service centre on the grounds that it doesn’t serve enough residents: the statistics said it averages only 13 visits per day.
At the December 2022 council meeting it became apparent while the centre staff are not serving visitors, they are answering calls and solving residents’ problems on the phone - that is, the Council Customer Service Line.
Running costs for the centre were $270,000, the majority of which was spent on staff costs, council executives said. Yet, they told councillors at that December meeting that no staff would lose their jobs if the centre closes - so savings would be limited.
The Avalon Council Customer Service Centre had been operating since opened by Pittwater Council in 2003. A total of 4,344 visits were received at Avalon between March 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023 (averaging 13 visits per day), Mona Vale saw 10,322 (31 pd), Dee Why 12,706 (38 pd), and Manly 17,486 (53 pd). This worked out to an average cost of about $87.50 per day at Avalon compared to an average cost of $15.90 in other centres, the council papers said.
The closure figures were based on three staff stationed at the centre - residents had never seen more than two under the newly named council.
The space was then rented out to direct more $ into council coffers, subsuming a previous community facility, built to house council community services for helping residents, into a money streaming asset.
Residents of Pittwater view this disbursement of Pittwater assets as an attempt to minimise a smooth transition, once again, by the residents of Pittwater working to reinstall Pittwater Council.
A Pittwater Council For Pittwater Residents
Protect Pittwater has been working to present the Business Case for the reinstatement of Pittwater Council, which they anticipate should be ready for the NSW Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Ron Hoenig, imminently.
The current Labor Government has already supported and facilitated the return of councils forcibly amalgamated that worked since then to get their councils back.
In fact, members of the current NSW Government have been supporting Pittwater residents since they commenced their campaign to get Pittwater Council back.
On February 19 2026, Minister Hoenig posted on social media, a post that once again was the target of derision, laughter and 'I don't support this' replies by ex-Warringah Council employees and Warringah residents, that:
''I recently met with the Member for Pittwater, Jacqui Scruby, who came to speak with me about the future of local government on the Northern Beaches.
The question of Pittwater’s council boundaries has a long and complex history, and it remains an issue of strong interest within the community. Jacqui put forward the views of residents who are seeking a separate council, and we discussed the process available to communities that wish to pursue de-amalgamation from Northern Beaches Council
I have made it clear that if sufficient community support is demonstrated — including the threshold I’ve publicly outlined — I am prepared to refer the matter to the Boundaries Commission for proper assessment.
These are important conversations. Whatever view people hold, they deserve a clear process, transparency about the financial implications, and a decision grounded in evidence.
It’s always constructive to engage directly with local members who advocate respectfully and responsibly on behalf of their communities.''
When debating the Local Government Amendment (De-amalgamations) Bill in May 2024 he Hon Ron Hoenig stated:
''I have heard from people from Pittwater and other people who want to demerge that they have submitted previously in 2016, 2017 or 2018, 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.''
The return of a council For, About and By Pittwater and a voice for Pittwater is particularly relevant given the Northern Beaches Council has worked since 2018 to remove the ability of residents to address their elected representatives on the night of the council meeting.
Under changes to the Code of Meeting Practice councils could choose when to hold Public Forums to address Items on agendas for meetings. The State Government, which was updating the Code, stated Key changes to the Model Code of Meeting Practice include, among others, are:
- Encouraging councils to hold public forums preferably before committee meetings, ... to enable community engagement in local matters
However, the Northern Beaches Council, unlike nearby Mosman, North Sydney and Hunters Hill Councils, which have maintained the Forum prior to the council meeting, chose to remove it all together.
A Rescission Motion, tabled immediately by Cr Vincent De Luca OAM, sought to restore this community voice function. This was listed to be debated at the February meeting. However, that was relegated to the March 2026 meeting as the first council meeting for 2026 ran until 11:43 and this was one of two matters held over, effectively silencing residents.
See: Northern Beaches Council's 'Ban on Residents Voices' Extended Across First Quarter of 2026
Council meetings running too long, and becoming less productive, was listed as a reason for removing hearing from the community prior to meetings.
However, not wanting to listen to Pittwater residents has a long history - and isn't too complex to those who live here.
''They've effectively banned residents voices...'' one email stated this past week, ''... which they had wanted to do since they got to take over Pittwater again. Not that they listen to anyone anyway - every 'consultation' is actually a statement of intent, which can be gamed to fulfil the wants of a few over the rights of the everyone else.''
Another said simply:
''Give us back our council!''
The Hon. Hoenig meets with the Member FOR Pittwater, Jacqui Scruby. Photo: Instagram/FB, 19/2/2026
From: Outraged Pittwater Community fights to stop rising costs of failed merger; Renews Call to reinstate Pittwater Council - February 2025 report