Pie-in-the-sky masterplan

doesn’t ring true

Last week, approximately 7500 rural property owners received a letter from Central Coast Council informing them of the opportunity to participate in the ‘Connecting to their water and sewer network project’. But according to investigations carried out by the Grapevine, it is nothing more than a ‘head-trip’ of ‘ladder-climbing’ public servants.

31 January 2024

ALAN HAYES

 

IN a media released received last Wednesday (24 January) from Central Coast Council Water and Sewer, they said they were seeking feedback regarding potential water and/or sewer connections from people who occupy, own, or operate a business from an ‘unserviced property’ on the Central Coast. According to Council, 60% of the unserviced properties (4500) are east of the MI and the other 40% (3000) are west of the M1, in the Central Coast hinterlands.

 

Council Director for Water and Sewer Jamie Loader said the community consultation ensures that Council develops knowledge and customer interest for including connection of ‘unserviced properties’ into future plans.

 

“This survey builds upon earlier engagement with the community. It ensures that we understand the interest of those who are directly impacted by not having a connection to the service network,"Mr Loader said.

 

Council said that this was the second phase of consultation, following an earlier consultation phase, which was open to customers who are already connected to Council’s water and/or sewerage services on the Central Coast. This statement is grossly untrue and nothing more than an attempt to cover-up their ineptitude when, in November 2023, they first sought information from rural residents living on ‘unserviced properties’.

 

In November 2023 Council’s website page said, “The aim of the survey is to develop knowledge across the community of Council’s water and sewer systems, and understand community interest for including connection of ‘unserviced properties’ into our future plans.” They then invited rural residents to ‘have their say’ via an online portal. Having your say turned out to be an abysmal failure. As reported by the Grapevine on 29 November 2023, if you tried to complete the survey form then, and answered the question that you ‘did not pay water and sewerage rates’, the reply from Woolcott Research & Management was: “Thank you very much for your time. Unfortunately, we are only able to speak to those who contribute to water/sewerage bills.”

 

The current survey, which again has Woolcott Research & Management financially tapping ratepayers funds, is designed to elicit manipulated answers from those completing the survey, without allowing a true picture being presented from rural property owners. The Grapevine editor commenced the service and found this to be true – it was no more than a contrivance to fit Council’s agenda.

 

Dooralong Valley resident Andrew Thomson said that he did the questionnaire on Council's website as requested in the letter he received. Mr Thompson said “The Questionnaire is biased with generalized assumptions on specific questions that are more complex than described! Council wastes money with this rubbish!"

 

In Council’s current letter to unserviced rural property owners’ they claim that “unserviced properties have the potential to impact on the following community values:

 

• public health (infectious disease transmission and exposure to pathogens)
  
  

• environmental (odour, surface water and groundwater quality)

 

• land capability (soil characteristics) and

 

• amenity (aesthetic values)

 

The environmental impacts of onsite sewage waste may not be confined to the property where it originates. Onsite sewage systems that have failed, or systems that have been installed in  inappropriate soils, may result in wastewater being discharged into waterways and rivers, contributing to the pollution loads in natural environment. Connecting to our network can minimise problems and doing this can help keep your home, surrounding environment and our waterways clean and safe for everyone.”

 

Mr Thomson said "This (scheme) will cause more environmental damage by ripping up 1000's of kilometres of native land to install such a system. Costs to build and maintain will be extreme.

 

"A dedicated Environmental Health resource can check on septic hazards at a far cheaper cost.”

 

In 1998-1999, the Grapevine’s editor Alan Hayes was a member of the ‘Onsite Sewerage Management Committee’, which was formed to implement local regulations in the line with the new State Government legislation to effectively manage unserviced properties. Mr Hayes was one of the three architects of the local scheme adopted by then Wyong Council in 1999. Included in the scheme was an annual fee for the monitoring of onsite sewerage systems to ensure that they remained compliant and did not propose a risk to public health or the environment. Council continues to collect this annual fee but continues to do little else – relying on the diligence of unserviced property owners to make sure that their onsite sewerage-management systems remain compliant, which they do.

 

Yet now Central Coast Council is embarking on a scheme that will do nothing more than waste ratepayer’s money. A scheme that has been ‘cooked up’ by some of the same ‘Kids in the Candy Store’, dipping their hands too far into the lolly jar, which caused Council’s financial crisis in 2020.

 

The hinterlands west of the M1 are an enormous area, encompassing the Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys, the mountain districts out as far as Kulnura to the west, Calga and Mount White to the south and Spencer, Gunderman, Bar Point, Cheero Point and Mooney Mooney on the Hawkesbury River, which are all primarily difficult and steep mountainous terrain with connecting narrow valleys and inaccessible gorges.

 

The Grapevine spoke to former councillor and mayor of Wyong Shire Council Bob Graham about such a fanciful scheme. He confirmed that such a scheme it would cost billions and would be an untenable project.

 

So, why is such a scheme, which would not only be a logistical nightmare, and more than likely push many ratepayer’s into penury, even being considered? To justify the existence of public service ‘boffins’ is not could enough – nor is the excuse ‘Improving your water and sewer services’.

 

Mr Mike Campbell of Jilliby, who spoke at last November’s council meeting said at the time, “Tonight, we are talking about a grand and unknown forward plan to spend billions of ratepayers dollars on a breathtaking scheme to urbanise the rural regions of the Coast. Imagine if this hit the chamber of an elected Council - just how many months or years of debate would ensue.

 

“It has risen from someone’s brain snap.

 

“Of course, if you are looking at development in the catchments and rural areas it makes sense to first oust those lazy rural dwellers from their properties by threatening massive disruption from digging up the landscape, polluting the catchment streams as you go, and imposing eye-watering water rates for the whole population.

 

“This, Mr Hart, would only suit some future developer, say, wishing to build an urban development within a rural enclave near to town and then have everybody else pay for water and sewer connection. This forecasted plan would embellish their plan very well.

 

Go back to the Customer Charter Edict of September (2023) and treat us all with respect and remove this grand plan from your Strategy.”

 

Council Administrator Mr Rik Hart said to Mr Campbell, directly after his address to Council, that the Masterplan was a requirement of the State Government.

 

The Grapevine contacted the Minister for the Central Coast, David Harris, and put Mr Hart’s remarks to him. Mr Harris then spoke with the Administrator who told him that he’d made a mistake and that it was a requirement of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

 

Mr Harris also told the Grapevine’s editor that Hart had said that it would be financially impossible for Council to provide reticulated water and sewerage west of the M1.

 

So, why then is Central Coast Council moving forward with a masterplan that includes unserviced hinterland properties?

 

Kevin Armstrong, who lives in one of the rural pockets east of the M1, said that this scheme “Sounds more like a plan for Central Coast ratepayers to pay for infrastructure ... allowing the NSW Government to then rezone the land for residential.”

 

Mr Thomson said that the only motivation for this ludicrous proposal is to “facilitate more property development opportunities for developers with Council subsidised rates - nothing has been done to stop this developer’s circus from running rampant in the Administrators office of unelected officers appointed by the last Liberal State Government.”

 

“I contrast Central Coast Council and what happened with the merger of North Shore and Manly Councils. It was backed out of and compensation paid to deconsolidate the plan. Why? Because the local members started complaining loudly,” Mr Thomson said.

 

The Grapevine contacted IPART via email and said “Central Coast Council are developing a masterplan, they say, to connect approximately 7500 rural properties west of the M1 to the sewer and reticulated water.

 

“When this scheme came up before the one-man council (administrator) meeting in November 2023, it was claimed that the masterplan development was a requirement of the State Government. I spoke at length with The Minister for the Central Coast, David Harris, who said that it was not a requirement of the government to develop such a masterplan. David Harris then came back to me and said he had spoken to the Administrator, who then claimed that the remark at the Council meeting was a slip-of-the-tongue and that he meant to say IPART.

 

“Quite frankly, Central Coast ratepayers are ‘fed-up’ with ‘pie-in-the-sky’ schemes that cost an enormous amount of money, at ratepayer’s expense, which can never be achieved, because of the machinations of senior management. Such a masterplan scheme as this should not be allowed to even be considered until there is a democratically elected council in place.

 

“What I would like from IPART is comment on whether you do require such a masterplan to be developed before the election of councillors in September this year, or to be developed at all?”

 

A senior spokesperson from IPART rang the Grapevine and said that they had no knowledge of Council’s masterplan and that it wasn’t a requirement of IPART. They said in an email “The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal does not require councils to develop masterplans for the provision of waste water services in specific areas.”

 

The IPART spokesperson also confirmed in a subsequent telephone conversation that it was not a requirement of the Tribunal to develop the inclusion of sewerage connection west of the M1 in Council’s masterplan.

 

Phase two survey is open until 14 February. To have your say visit yourvoiceourcoast/UnservicedPropertie