Government accused of blowing millions on Jetty consultants and marketing

FORESHORE For All has accused the NSW Government of “blowing” millions of dollars on consultants and marketing to “sell our community a lemon it doesn’t want”.

Documents obtained under Government Information Public Access (GIPA) – a freedom of information request – reveal that since July 2020, there has been an active $20 million publicly funded program for developing “public infrastructure” at the Jetty Foreshore.

Of this, almost $17.5 million has been spent, with several million dollars going on consultants and marketing.

“With this money we could (and should) have had our public parklands, we could have had organised parking, we could have had improved access, we could have had beautification and activation,” said Bruce Weir, spokesperson for Foreshore for All.

“Instead, a bunch of consultants and advertisers got rich trying to sell us a lemon that 70 percent of our community rejected in a formally constituted democratic poll.

“It is of great note that many more formal votes were recorded in this poll than in either the Mayoral or Councillor ballots at the Local Government elections last year.

“Simply, no means no.”

Mr Weir also said it is alarming that more than $1.6 million was tagged as “contingency”.

“This sounds like money in a sock under a bed somewhere,” he said.

“It appears that the only public infrastructure actually built with this funding is the community building or Vendetta building. “This building sat empty for years and has recently been leased out by Council under a private confidential arrangement with indications of significant costs and losses to ratepayers.”

The Member for Coffs Harbour Gurmesh Singh, said, “The community building at the TS Vendetta site has been a part of the council plan of management for over a decade, and I’m glad that funding was found to build the building, as well as locating the lighthouse optic at the foot of the Jetty.

“This has created a great focal point for our local community.

“The money spent on planning underscores just how much red tape has embedded itself in our system – whether you’re trying to build a family home or transform a precinct like the Jetty.

“Critics of the spending have been quick to complain but slow to say which reports or consultations they’d cut.

“The truth is, any government – state or local – would face the same requirements, produce the same documentation, and spend roughly the same amount.

“Claiming otherwise is either naive or deliberately misleading.”

A spokesperson for Property and Development NSW said that the Coffs Harbour Community Building and a new display housing the South Solitary Island Lighthouse Optic (SSILO), along with the infrastructure and landscaping to support them, have been delivered.

He pointed out that major works require planning and approvals, all of which require significant work and funding.

A number of consultants have also been engaged through the past four to five years of the Coffs Harbour Jetty Foreshore revitalisation project – playing important roles in enabling public exhibition, producing necessary technical reports and addressing issues raised by the community.

The spokesperson said the government’s investment promises to deliver:

–  enhanced public open space, including features to advance Coffs Harbour’s standing as a tourist destination

–  recognition of significant Aboriginal and European heritage, including significant sites adjacent to Corambirra Point

– activation of land that has been inaccessible to the public for decades and leased to freight operators

– the creation of hundreds of jobs through the planning and development phase and ongoing as new tourism and hospitality businesses are established

– opportunities for Aboriginal cultural experiences and eco-tourism operations

Mr Weir remains skeptical, adding, “Our community has no trust or confidence in anything that the NSW Government is doing at our Foreshore.

“We stand united in calling for the protection of our public lands at the Foreshore for public uses and not for private residential high-rise developments.”

By Andrew VIVIAN