Dear Readers
Please find our latest newsletter which should be of special interest to our older residents.
Latest Precinct Developments – Special Investigation
Dear Readers
Please find our latest newsletter in the pdf attachment. It has extreme financial implications for every ratepayer, so please read the information carefully. Also ask questions of the elected members for the reasons that have guided their voting. Council Watch hopes to remind voters of the important issues that the Councillors have voted on when the Council Election takes place.
If you have friends that do not receive our newsletters, please pass on our contact details or get them to check our website at councilwatchvictorharbor.com
Regards Keith.
Council Long Term Financial Plan
.
Dear Members and Subscribers,
This edition of the Council Watch newsletter addresses matters that go to the heart of transparency, financial responsibility, and public trust in local government. Decisions taken at the City of Victor Harbor’s Special Council Meeting on 5 February 2026 — particularly concerning the Draft Long Term Financial Plan and the now seven-times-extended Heads of Agreement for the proposed Sporting Precinct — raise serious questions that require public scrutiny.
Please see newsletter attached.
Letter to the Premier Regarding Concerns Over Community Land Revocation
COUNCIL WATCH FLEURIEU INC.Accountability with Integrity
Publication Date: Monday 19 January 2026
Dear Premier and Minister,
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. writes to formally raise serious concerns regarding the governance, transparency, and sequencing of decisions associated with the proposed Victor Harbor Regional Community, Sport and Recreation Precinct on Lot 202, Armstrong Road, Victor Harbor.
Following detailed review of planning records, Council documents, and material that has since been removed from public access, Council Watch has identified matters that we believe require urgent State-level oversight.
1. Planning approval has been advanced ahead of community land revocation
Council has initiated and completed a Code Amendment rezoning Lot 202 to a Community Facilities Zone, which is now live in the Planning and Design Code. Under this zoning, a private proponent, Accord Property Pty Ltd, has obtained planning approval in principle for a development that includes indoor recreation, childcare, retail (“shop”), advertising, and food and beverage uses.
However, the community land revocation process remains undecided and is still awaiting determination by the Minister for Local Government.
While these processes are technically separate, the sequencing has the practical effect of:
- granting planning certainty to the developer,
- embedding commercial expectations,
- and placing material pressure on the Minister to approve revocation of public land.
This reverses accepted best practice for developments on community land, where revocation should be determined before planning certainty is granted.
2. The true scale of the development was not openly disclosed
Council Watch has identified planning and traffic documentation (including material later removed from public view) which confirms that the project has been assessed on an ultimate build-out, not merely an initial stage.
Key figures include:
- Recreation facilities totalling 10,600 m²
- Food and Beverage totalling 3,000 m²
- A childcare centre of 2,115 m²
- Approximately 476 car parking spaces
An expansion scale of 3,000 m² for Food and Beverage is not a café. It equates to a large hospitality or tavern-style operation, with significant commercial and amenity impacts.
This scale was not clearly or consistently disclosed during public consultation.
3. Public assurances conflict with planning reality
The Mayor, Moira Jenkins, publicly assured residents that only part of Lot 202 – approximately 30% – would be revoked, with the remainder retained as community open space.
Lot 202 is approximately:
- 11.5 hectares
- 115,000 square metres
- 28.4 acres
A 30% revocation equates to roughly 35,000 m².
However, planning approvals, impact assessments, and development elements apply across the broader site footprint, creating a clear inconsistency between public assurances and the planning framework now in force.
4. Prudential assessment and affordability concerns
The draft prudential material presented to Council was manifestly inadequate. It focused predominantly on process while omitting or understating:
- key financial assumptions,
- long-term affordability impacts,
- risk transfer to ratepayers,
- and the financial implications of future expansion.
This raises serious concerns as to whether elected members and the community were provided with the information required to make an informed and honest decision, as intended under the Local Government Act.
5. Undisclosed and removed documents
Council Watch advises that it is in possession of copies of documents that were previously accessible through Council processes but have since been removed from public availability. These documents substantiate the issues outlined above, particularly regarding scale, future expansion, and commercial scope.
In the absence of full disclosure and satisfactory clarification, Council Watch is prepared to release this material publicly in the interests of transparency and informed community debate.
Request for State oversight
Given the seriousness of these matters, Council Watch respectfully requests that the State Government:
- Review the sequencing of planning approvals and community land revocation undertaken by the City of Victor Harbor;
- Consider whether the integrity of the Ministerial revocation decision has been compromised by planning certainty being granted in advance;
- Require full public disclosure of all relevant documents, agreements, assessments, and financial analyses relating to the project;
- Ensure that any decision regarding community land revocation is made free from undue pressure created by prior planning approvals.
Council Watch is not opposed to a genuine community sporting precinct. Our concern lies with secrecy, lack of full disclosure, and a process that advantages the applicant while bypassing established principles of transparent and accountable local government.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or your advisers to provide further detail and supporting documentation.
This correspondence is provided in good faith as part of Council Watch’s public-interest oversight activities.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Andrews
Chair
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com/
Phone: 0451 140 543
Accountability with Integrity
Crozier Hill / Stock Road Floodplain – Governance Concerns, Public Safety, and the Need for Independent Oversight.
1. Public Safety is Paramount
Flood risks associated with Crozier Hill / Stock Road are real, documented, and publicly acknowledged by Council. Residents were at one point contacted due to “risk of isolation during storm and flood events”, confirming Council’s operational knowledge of exposure. Where development intersects with human safety, transparency and preparedness are non-negotiable responsibilities.
Council Watch asserts:
• Residents must be informed of all relevant risk information.
• Appropriate emergency planning must exist and be demonstrated.
• Public safety must take precedence over reputational management or risk containment.
2. Prolonged Secrecy Now Presents a Governance Risk
Council has held key components of the Crozier Hill / indemnity matter in extended confidential status for close to four years. While confidentiality may initially be justified, its prolonged continuation now creates governance risks. It undermines public confidence, increases exposure for decision-makers, and risks appearing to protect institutions rather than the community.
Council Watch believes time is no longer neutral. Prolonged secrecy now harms governance rather than protects it.
3. Independence Is Essential
It is a matter of public record that elements of Council’s handling of related matters were shifted under the control of Council’s Insurer. Insurers exist to manage liability, not to undertake independent governance or integrity investigations. While insurers play a valid role, they cannot replace external public-interest oversight.
Ratepayers deserve certainty that any investigation into this matter is impartial, external, and free from liability-driven influence.
4. The Community Deserves Clarity
Council Watch does not assert findings of guilt, wrongdoing, or criminal liability against any individual. That is the responsibility of appropriate statutory authorities. However, risk remains unresolved, governance questions remain unanswered, and the community has waited long enough.
A functioning democracy requires that serious matters of risk and governance ultimately be tested openly.
5. Position and Call to Action
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. believes it is now firmly in the public interest that:
(a) A genuinely independent investigation be commissioned, external to Council and independent of insurers, with full access to all documentation.
(b) Confidentiality surrounding Crozier Hill indemnity matters be urgently reviewed, with maximum practicable disclosure made.
(c) Council formally account to the community regarding what has occurred, what risks remain, and what protections now exist.
(d) Oversight authorities be formally engaged where appropriate to ensure governance accountability and public confidence.
(e) Affected residents, including Mr Blatchford, be treated respectfully and in accordance with natural justice, irrespective of all past disputes.
(f) Residents, such as Mr Blatchford, are allowed to ask the Council Questions from the Gallery, and also to make Deputations.
Conclusion
This issue is no longer simply a dispute; it is a matter of public governance, public trust, and public safety.
Transparency strengthens institutions — silence corrodes them.
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. will continue to advocate respectfully, lawfully, and firmly for truth, accountability, and community protection. We wish you all a very happy new year, and can assure you that we will continue to represent your best interests for this coming year. Please help us to do this by telling your friends about us, and letting us have their contact details so that they can go on our mailing list.
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Terry Andrews – Chair
Authorised by Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
PO Box 1753
Victor Harbor SA 5211
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com
Victor Harbor Horse Tram Bailout Exposes Deeper Problems
Accountability with Integrity
Victor Harbor
The Price of Paradise.
Now Among South Australia’s Least Affordable Regional Towns
Feature Story
Affordability strikes at the very heart of where people can afford to live, and the data now tell a confronting story for Victor Harbor.
Recent property statistics from CoreLogic and the SA Valuer-General show the median house price in Victor Harbor has reached approximately $725 000, compared with a regional South Australian average of $503 000.
That means Victor Harbor is roughly 45 per cent more expensive than the typical regional town in the state.
In plain terms, Victor Harbor has joined the ranks of the least affordable places to live within South Australia’s regional towns.
Port Pirie (~$353 000), Whyalla (~$400 000), Mount Gambier (~$505 000), Murray Bridge (~$523 000)
All remain within reach for working families and first-home buyers, while Victor Harbor’s rapid price growth now rivals many capital-city fringe suburbs.
This shift from “affordable coastal retirement haven” to high-cost lifestyle market brings both opportunity and strain.
Rising property values benefit existing owners, yet they lock out younger residents, hospitality and care workers, and even long-term locals seeking to downsize.
Essential services — retail, health, and tourism, depend on these workers, yet housing costs are pushing many to commute from neighbouring districts.
Council Watch argues that affordability must become a key measure of good governance.
Local planning, rate policy, and infrastructure priorities should recognise that sustainable communities depend on diverse and attainable housing.
A town cannot thrive if the people who serve it can no longer afford to live in it. As house prices are a component of how rates are determined this again is affecting residents abilities to survive here.
At a Glance
| Indicator | Victor Harbor | Regional SA Average | Difference |
| Median house price (2025) | $725 000 | $503 000 | + 44 % higher |
| Median rent (approx.) | $470 per week | $370 per week | + 27 % higher |
| Population growth (5 yrs) | + 8.2 % | + 4.1 % | ↑ High demand |
| Local median income (approx.) | $67 000 | $76 000 (State) | ↓ Lower incomes |
Sources: CoreLogic Property Market Update Q2 2025; NAB Regional SA Property Market Insights 2025; SA Valuer-General Quarterly Data Sep 2025; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Regional Profiles 2024.
Council Watch Comment
“When a coastal town’s property market outpaces its incomes by this margin, it stops being affordable for its own community.
Local government must treat housing affordability as a policy issue, not just a market trend.”
— Terry Andrews, Chair Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Evidence from Council Records
Affordability concerns are not merely an external observation — they have also been raised within council’s own governance structures.
During the Audit Committee meeting of 1 January 2025, Group Manager Governance and Finance highlighted that the debtor report was tabled “as an indication of whether people are having more financial hardship.”
This confirms that financial hardship and community affordability pressures were recognised internally as an emerging governance and risk-management issue. Tracking unpaid rates and debtor trends provides a direct measure of how rising living costs and rate increases are affecting local households — an important signal that affordability is not just a market statistic, but a real-time pressure within council finances.
(Council Watch source: Audit & Risk Committee Transcript, City of Victor Harbor, 1 January 2025.)
In the Audit & Risk Committee Minutes (3 November 2025) several passages confirm that the City of Victor Harbor’s outstanding rate debts (arrears) have increased and that the Committee reviewed this trend formally under Item 6.7 – 2024/25 Outstanding Debtors Report.
In the related Audit Committee transcript, Group Manager Governance and Finance noted that the “variance percentage [of rates receivable] has been provided … as an indication of whether people are having more financial hardship”. That confirms the committee was tracking an upward movement in rate arrears.
The Audit Completion Report (UHY Haines Norton, 2025) reinforces this context: it shows continued deterioration in financial sustainability, with an average Asset Renewal Funding Ratio of 61 % (below the 88 % target) and tight liquidity, both consistent with more households falling behind on rates.
Because the actual arrears figure (in $ or %) isn’t printed in these public documents, the safest and accurate way to present it in your report would be:
“According to Council’s 2024-25 Financial Statements and the Audit & Risk Committee discussion on 3 November 2025, the level of outstanding rate debts increased compared with the previous year. Administration confirmed this rise was being used as an indicator of community financial hardship.”
Council Audit Snapshot – 2024/25
(Source: City of Victor Harbor 2024–25 Financial Statements & Audit Completion Report)
| Indicator | 2024–25 Result | Context / Comment |
| Operating Result | –$822,000 (deficit) | Continued cost pressure and reduced grants income. |
| Asset Renewal Funding Ratio | ≈59–61 % | Below the target range (90–110 %), signalling deferred maintenance and long-term sustainability risk. |
| Outstanding Rate Debts | ↑ Increased from 2023–24 | Administration noted arrears were being monitored as a “proxy for financial hardship.” |
| Liquidity Ratio | Tightening | Indicates reduced cash available for short-term obligations. |
| Audit Comment | “Sustainability risk remains under watch.” | Auditor advised ongoing monitoring and improved transparency. |
Council Watch Observation
Rising arrears and reduced renewal funding point to one reality: affordability pressures are mounting.
As more residents fall behind on payments, Council’s future options narrow, either recover costs through higher rates or defer essential works, both of which compound the burden on the community.
The Takeaway
Victor Harbor’s housing challenge is now a regional warning.
Without deliberate policy attention, and release planning, mixed-tenure development, and fair-rate structures, affordability will continue to erode.
The dream of a seaside lifestyle should not come at the cost of excluding the very people who make that community function.
All sources independently verifiable as of November 2025.
Certification
This correspondence is provided in good faith as part of Council Watch’s public-interest oversight activities.
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc
Donations welcome
Bank SA — BSB: 105-026, Account: 076-284-940
Your support helps keep local government accountable.
By Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211,
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc Newsletter Feature – November 2025
The Town That
Forgot the Law.
In a small coastal city, not unlike Victor Harbor, there stood a proud building of steel and glass, the Council Chambers. Inside, the air was thick with ceremony and self-importance. The councillors spoke of “good governance” and “community outcomes,” while the people outside spoke of broken trust.
The Local Government Act was meant to be their compass, a fine and noble document crafted to guide democracy at its most local level. Yet, over the years, interpretation became invention, and invention became excuse. “It’s not illegal,” they would say, even as decisions bent the law until it almost snapped.
When councillors surrendered their delegated powers to the Chief Executive Officer, it raised a troubling question: why have councillors at all? If every decision is filtered, framed, or finalised by the administration, then elected representatives become little more than paid rubber stamps. The community could save a fortune by simply allowing the administration to make all the decisions themselves.
And if the State Government continues to pile its responsibilities onto local councils, perhaps the question should be asked more boldly: why have local government at all? Imagine the savings, one less level of accountability to worry about.
The people who bore the weight of biased decisions found no comfort in knowing they were right, for truth without enforcement is hollow. Those without deep pockets could never challenge a council in court; they simply learned to live with injustice disguised as “process.”
The burning question echoed from the gallery:
“If a road law is broken, the police come.
If a crime is committed, justice follows.
But if the Local Government Act is ignored — who comes for us?”
There was hush and then silence. No one answered.
When complaints reached the Ombudsman or ICAC, the replies were polite but distant. Reports were “considered,” “noted,” or “found to be reasonable.” The watchdogs seemed to guard not the people, but the comfort of the system itself.
And so, democracy in that coastal town became like a lighthouse with no keeper — still shining, but untended, its beam fading slowly in the mist.
The moral is clear:
Laws without enforcement are promises without meaning.
Until there are guardians for the guardians, until a body exists with real power to police the Local Government Act, the old saying will remain bitterly true:
“The law is an ass.”
Perhaps this may be catalyst for having no Local Government at all?
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Accountability with Integrity.
Terry Andrews (Chair)
PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com/
This newsletter will be able to be viewed on our website.
Please remember our banking details for membership subscriptions and any donations you may wish to make Bank SA. BSB. 105 026 Acc. No. 076 284 940
This correspondence is provided in good faith as part of Council Watch’s public interest oversight activities.
Drought Relief Program Raises Transparency Concerns
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. has written to the Minister for Local Government and the Ombudsman SA requesting an investigation into the City of Victor Harbor’s refusal to release the names and amounts of recipients under the Farm Business Support Grant Program (Drought Relief).
At the Special Council Meeting of 7 April 2025, Council approved the program with a $90,000 allocation from the Community Grants budget. The minutes show no motion for confidentiality, and the resolution authorised only that the CEO approve the recommendations of the Grants Panel within the approved budget.
Despite this, CEO Victoria MacKirdy has since declared that recipient details are “not publicly available information.” Council Watch has found no Council resolution or delegation granting authority for this secrecy.
Council Watch Chair Terry Andrews said:
“Transparency in public spending is not optional. Unless Council can point to a lawful resolution under section 90 of the Act, there is no valid reason for withholding this information.”
Council Watch believes the community has a right to know how ratepayer funds are distributed and will continue to press for the release of all grant data. The matter is now before Minister Joe Szakacs MP and Ombudsman SA for review of the City of Victor Harbor’s compliance with the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).
Media Contact:
Terry Andrews
Chairperson – Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Post: PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211
Phone: 0451 140 543
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
COUNCIL WATCH CALLS FOR MINISTERIAL INQUIRY.
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. has formally written to the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Joe Szakacs MP, demanding an investigation into the refusal of a local resident’s deputation on a critical public health issue by the Mayor of Victor Harbor, Dr. Moira Jenkins.
Resident Mr Keith Climpson was denied the opportunity to address Council on the possible link between beach wrack (decaying seaweed) and the ongoing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) event affecting the region.
“The Mayor’s decision to block this deputation is not just disappointing — it reflects a systemic suppression of public voices,” said Council Watch Chair Terry Andrews. “Mr Climpson has now been refused both a deputation and the right to ask questions from the gallery. This is not how democracy works.”
Council Watch alleges:
- The Mayor may have had a material conflict of interest and should have recused herself;
- Council administration undermined an elected member’s motion (Cr Quaremba) by inserting an “alternative recommendation” to shut down debate;
- All legal and reputational risks were rated ‘low’, yet public input was denied;
- The community’s right to speak on health and environmental matters is being stifled.
Council Watch is calling on the Minister to:
- Intervene;
- Issue new guidance on public participation;
- Refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation.
“Local government is not the private property of the Mayor or the CEO,” Mr Andrews said. “It belongs to the people — and we won’t stop until the people are heard.”
Sincerely,
Terry Andrews
Chairperson
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: www.councilwatchvictorharbor.com
Council Watch Victor Harbor 