DEAR News Of The Area,

TWO letters about the Jetty Foreshores in NOTA on 2/8/24 demand comment.

Michael Wallace says: “Not many people would want to see 250 residential units, but many want to see some commercial development.”

There is no better illustration of how duplicitous the public consultation run by the government and their consultants has been.

Here we are approximately six years into the consultation and we have never been told that up to 250 residential units was a possibility.

We only learnt this figure through questioning of politicians at a budget estimates hearing in parliament.

Tellingly, the questioning was not by our local member Gurmesh Singh but from a politician from out of our area. Surely the honest approach would have been to advise the community that this was what was proposed, before we were presented with the last survey.

Many people who did that survey may have answered differently if they were aware that this was what was being proposed.

It is for this reason that many of us support the Council spending $70,000 to establish the community’s true thoughts on the matter.

In his letter, Martin Pundyk tells us that “not all government owned land is public or community land, not all government land is Crown Land and not all Crown Land is for public recreation or allows public access.”

(Phew).

This is a surprising observation considering the land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure and RE1 Public Recreation.

The object of the infrastructure zoning is self-evident and obviously refers to when it was required for railway and ancillary purposes.

The Council Local Environment Plan lists seven dot points for the objectives of the Public Recreation Zone.

The first three of these objectives are: (1) to enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes; (2) to provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses; and (3) to protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

Space doesn’t allow me to list the remaining four objectives but they are available on the council website.

So obviously the thought was that once the land was no longer required for railway purposes it should become available for community recreation and enjoyment.

Martin also observes that the railway land under discussion is not covered by the 2008 Jetty Foreshores Plan of Management (POM).

That is absolutely correct but what he omits to say is that the POM states: “it is to be noted that Lands (Lands Department) has intentions to acquire the surplus railway land to provide additional lands to be added to the (adjoining) Management Precincts” (the Jetty parklands).

Hence the Public Recreation zoning.

In relation to similar circumstances on the foreshores of Lake Illawarra, none other than the State Minister for Lands, Steve Kamper, says: “The government, where appropriate, has a responsibility to make sure public land remains in public hands and is used to benefit the community.”

Well said Mr Kamper! It is a pity that you don’t apply the same thinking in relation to our foreshores.

Regards,
Bruce WEIR,
Coffs Harbour.