Letter to the Editor: Council should do ‘what the community wants’

DEAR News Of The Area,

COUNCIL’S dogged pursuit of the redevelopment of the Jetty Foreshores illustrates the downside of voting above the line in elections.

It allows individuals, who, standing alone, would attract minimal votes, to gain selection based on a flow of preferences from a strong representative within the group structure, often then leading to the formation of a clique or coterie.

It would appear this is again the case for City of Coffs Harbour, where a select group appears to control the agenda, depriving the electorate of true representation.

The mayor’s seeming obsession with progressing the foreshore redevelopment, ably supported by what appears to be a coterie of fellow devotees, conveniently forgets her words in a “My first 100 days” article in January 2025, where she stated, “Our job is to what the community wants…”.

This brushes aside any reference to previous poll results, where constituents overwhelmingly voted against the proposal.

Perhaps this is a fitting time to remind all of the key responsibilities of a Councillor as outlined in the Local Government Act of 1999.

Section 232 and 233 states councillors should “represent the collective interests of residents and ratepayers, and act as a conduit between the community and governing body”.

It would appear we are once again in the control of a faction within the council, where voting on issues substantially follows party lines.

The results of decisions made under a recent previous council run in a similar fashion are still evident.

Most people want the foreshore developed; however, they want it for recreational use, not selective accommodation.

I am yet to see any justifiable reason to put accommodation in the area.

The previously quoted line for pursuing the foreshore development because the Government will do it anyway is rubbish.

Strong opposition by locals, including their representatives in all forms of government, can stop it.

It is a select piece of land, the importance of which will become clearer year by year as our population increases.

Once sold, it is never to be recovered.

Council and the state government’s pursuit of this project, requiring the sale of precious public land to assist in funding such works, begs the question: why?

Why, when redevelopment works such as those recently undertaken at Berry’s Bay on Sydney’s North Shore don’t include sale of associated land.

The issues surrounding inclusion of residential buildings at the foreshore, the loss of valuable recreation land notwithstanding, are numerous and ever increasing.

Property and Development NSW (PDNSW) are already changing funding promises.

Provision of infrastructure is yet to be investigated and costed.

Also to be confirmed are figures around building costs, impacts of on-street parking for accommodation, and the ability for developers to seek variations to building heights based on all sorts of obscure reasons.

Surely PDNSW along with a supportive council have explored these issues as part of the $17 million already attributed to this project so decisions made have a logical basis.

I urge the council to do the right thing.

Leave your political affiliations at home and heed the mayor’s previous remarks as outlined in her first 100 days commentary.

Remember, the vote against high rise accommodation was close to 70 percent against.

We have enough white elephants as a result of poor council decisions.

Let’s not have another.

Regards,

Bob CAMERON,

Coffs Harbour.