Central Coast Council’s Draft Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan is the latest example of residents and ratepayers being “kept in the dark and fed peanuts”, according to the Central Coast Community Better Planning Group (CCCBPG).
Chair Gary Chestnut said CCCBPG strongly objected to the lack of information provided in the documents, which were exhibited until September 20, as to why significant projects have been deleted and others subject to large cost variations.
Chestnut said the draft plan identified $28M in new projects that were not included in the same plan in 2007 or 2019.
The new projects include money for play spaces and reserves, sportsground improvements, boat ramps, jetties, swimming enclosures, tennis courts, skate parks, floodplain risk management and community facilities.
“That sounds impressive but $22.5M of that figure has been allocated to expanding the existing cycleways project from $25M to $42.5M,” he said.
“The truly astonishing news is that the total spend on infrastructure under this plan will shrink the contributions income from $245.7M to just $92.5M in the exhibited draft.
“This contributions plan should be an opportunity for the Council to think about the shape of the future community of our large stand-alone region and it is difficult to understand why their thinking has been so short-sighted.
“We give our in-principle support to the new projects listed in the plan, but we are concerned by the lack of detail and question whether the small amounts of money allocated to projects across the whole local government area are realistic.
“Only $400,000 is allocated to upgrade boat ramps, jetties and swimming enclosures, for example.”
The CCCBPG submission in response to the exhibition of the draft plan says a shopping list of street trees, improved disability access, lighting, street furniture, public art, paving, car parking, traffic and transport upgrades is listed under the LGA-wide project “local centre upgrades” but allocated only $1M.
“In the 2019 plan $1.8M had been allocated for public art in the former Wyong Shire only,” Chestnut said.
“By our estimate that means the allocation for public art across the whole LGA should be at least $3.6M but it has been thrown in with all the other local centre spends and capped at $1M.”
Chestnut said $5.22M to be spent on bushland and environmental conservation works in Gosford City Centre had completely disappeared and CCCBPG was calling for its reinstatement.
Other examples of crucial projects that have had funding ripped away without any explanation or justification included: Gosford City Centre open space and public domain upgrades, which had been reduced from $3.3M to $1.5M.
“As this project was deemed essential to ensure that Gosford, with all its new towers and high-density living, remained a liveable city, we strongly recommend project cost be adjusted to $5M to account for CPI increase,” he said.
A spend of $15.27M on the Gosford Regional Library had been stripped back to $10M, with CCCBPG suggesting $18M would be more realistic, accounting for CPI increase.
Similarly transport and access management works had been stripped from $85.34M to $5M, when $150M would be more realistic, Chestnut said.
Implementation of the Gosford City Centre flood and drainage studies was also stripped from $23.3M to $5M, with CCCBPG recommending $40M.
And the spend on the Gosford waterfront precinct was down from $15M to $10M, when instead it should have been adjusted to $16M, he said.
Allowance for a community and cultural centre in the Gosford City Centre had been cut from $15M to $10M, with CCCBPG suggesting $40M would be more realistic.
“Comparing the exhibited draft plan to the existing plans, Council has reduced project costs and excluded projects to the value of $134.7M,” Chestnut said.
“Developers will be laughing all the way to the bank about the proposition of paying less in respect to the total infrastructure contributions than they were expected to pay from 2007 to 2019.
“Meanwhile, residents and ratepayers will be expected to foot the bill for infrastructure as basic as flood and drainage studies for Gosford City Centre.
“Either that or projects simply will not go ahead.
“It is also perplexing that, having allocated a budget of $42.5M for cycleways, the $1M for local centre upgrades also includes an allocation for cycleways – talk about double-dipping.”
Chestnut said of the $134.7M infrastructure cost reduction, the Gosford City Centre loses out on $120.9M of essential infrastructure.
“The question arises, with such an excessive loss of essential infrastructure, is the future of Gosford City going to be liveable?” he said.
CCCBPG has called for a clear explanation from CEO David Farmer to the community for the cuts when the matter is considered at a public Council meeting.
“It is our hope estimated costs are restored and developers are required to pay their fair share for this community’s future infrastructure before staff present the final plan to Administrator Rik Hart for endorsement,” he said.
“If that doesn’t happen, Mr Hart should reject the plan.”
Source:
Central Coast Community Better Planning Group
Although I understand the frustration and concerns raised the council have a budget to work from and limitations for funding. The CCCBPG however seems to be only really focussed on Gosford, nearly every example relates to Gosford spending cuts. We have a further near 300,000 population on the Coast not related to or to be fair even probably bothered about Gosford. It does not act as a centre or a place we wish to visit yet it appears to have the greatest focus on spending vs the rest of the coastal population areas. Gosford needs something attractive for private investment to revitalise it but I’m not sure what that will need to be.