Wrong recipe for the future

The exhibition of the Central Coast Council’s Draft Section 7.12 Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan, which closed on September 20, is the latest example of this region’s residents and ratepayers being kept in the dark and fed peanuts, according to the Central Coast Community Better Planning Group (CCCBPG).

27 September 2023

CCCBPG Chair, Mr Gary Chestnut said “We strongly object to the lack of information provided in the exhibited documents as to why significant projects have been deleted from the Draft Plan and others subject to large cost variations.”

The Draft Plan identifies $28 million worth of new projects that were not included in the same plan in 2007 or 2019. The new projects include money for play spaces and reserves, sports ground improvements, boat ramps, jetties, swimming enclosures, tennis courts, skate parks, floodplain risk management and community facilities.

“That sounds impressive but $22.5 million of that figure has been allocated to expanding the existing cycleways project from $25 million to $42.5 million,” says CCCBPG Chair, Mr Gary Chestnut. “The truly astonishing news is that the total spend on infrastructure under this plan will shrink the contributions income from $245.7 million to just $92.5 million 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-principal 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 LGA are realistic. Only $400,000 is allocated to upgrade boat ramps, jetties and swimming enclosures, for example.”

According to the CCCBPG submission in response to the exhibition of the draft plan, a shopping list of street trees, improved disability access, lighting, street furniture, public art, paving, car parking and traffic and transport upgrades is listed under the LGA-wide project “local centre upgrades” but allocated only $1 million.

“In the 2019 plan $1.8 million had been allocated for public art in the former Wyong Shire only. By our estimate that means the allocation for public art across the whole LGA should be at least $3.6 million but it has been thrown in with all the other local centre spends and capped at $1 million.

“$5.22 million to be spent on bushland and environmental conservation works in Gosford City Centre has completely disappeared so we are calling for that to be reinstated.

“Other examples of crucial projects that have had funding ripped away without any explanation or justification include:

Comparing the exhibited draft Plan to the existing Plans, Council has reduced project costs and

excluded projects to the value of $134.7 million.

“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,” Mr Chestnut said.

“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 $42.5 million for cycleways, the $1 million for local centre upgrades also includes an allocation for cycleways – talk about double-dipping.

“Of the $134.7 million infrastructure cost reduction, the Gosford City Centre loses out on $120.9

million worth of essential infrastructure. The question arises, with such an excessive loss of essential infrastructure, is the future of Gosford City going to be liveable?

“The CCCBPG sincerely believes Central Coast Council CEO, Mr David Farmer, must provide a clear

explanation to the community for these 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 the Administrator for endorsement. If that doesn’t happen, Mr Hart should reject the plan.”