Some take aways from the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 January..
Uni of Newcastle in Gosford — a great initiative — but did we need to sell a community asset?
The good news is that the University of Newcastle is planning to increase their presence in the Gosford CBD — and have indicated that they would like to convert the former Gosford Council building into student accommodation. Although universities operate very differently to the way that many of us would have experienced 20 or 30 years ago (with a lot of online teaching now) — I am hopeful that this initiative will increase activity in the CBD. This goal, together with recent announcements about a revitalisation of TAFE and the new Gosford Regional Library, is great for the town centre.
But there is a question about Council selling off community assets. Some might believe that selling off assets is a great way to get a cash injection into Council coffers and more potholes can be filled. For others, including myself, selling off community assets is short-sighted and unsustainable. Once it’s gone — then it’s gone.
A better way is to work on arrangements where Council retains ownership — whether it be joint management, leases or some other option that brings a long term return to our community. Of course, it will not be the sugar hit of a sale — but it would be long term and a more sustainable income stream.
I voted against the sale of the former Gosford Council Building — not because I oppose the University of Newcastle in Gosford — but because I oppose a sale of community assets rather than exploring other options.
Umina toilets — finally, Councillors support the reconstruction of toilets that are in high demand by disability groups
One of the strategies that had a lot of engagement in 2024/2025 was the Public Toilet Strategy. This was a long term plan for renewals, new builds and demolition / rationalisations of facilities.
Staff did a lot of good work on this strategy, there was strong community engagement and Councillors spent time working through the proposals. So, it is understandable that Council staff didn’t want to make changes now after the strategy was adopted.
However, the Umina toilets have deserved special consideration. What came to light in 2025, through the advocacy of local community groups — was that this facility was highly utilised by the Disabled Surfers Association (DSA) — and that facilities are inadequate for that sector and that purpose.
DSA is a truly amazing organisation. Its mission is to put “Smiles on Dials” by taking people of all disabilities surfing in a fun, friendly and safe environment. Being able to do that involves vast numbers of volunteers, policies, procedures and logistics. Council has also previously identified opportunities to promote the Central Coast for accessible tourism — where we cater to diverse needs including disability.
In raising these issues with staff, it was acknowledged that there had been a lack of awareness of the high usage of the Umina toilet block by the Disabled Surfers Association.
I believe that there was a strong case to bring forward the plans to improve the facilities and have been pleased to support Clr Neal in advocating this through motions to Council meetings. It took three attempts (at 3 different Council meetings) to get this motion supported. Although Clr McWaide previously opposed this initiative, I am pleased that at the meeting on 27 January he changed his vote and supported the motion put forward by Clr Neal and myself.
Is this leadership? — Mayor refuses to meet with Councillors to discuss improving committee structure
At the January meeting I put forward a Notice of Motion to change the Committee structure. The current structure involves a number of “Standing Committees” which only have a sub-set of Councillors as members: Environment & Planning (monthly); Economic Development (monthly); Community & Culture (bi-monthly); Governance & Finance (quarterly); Infrastructure & Assets (bi-monthly).
What has been demonstrated again and again is the inefficiency of this structure. The Standing Committees receive reports and presentations from staff — and then make recommendations to the full Council for adoption. Inevitably, the debate that is held in the Committee meeting is often repeated at the Council meeting.
Many of the Councillors voting on these items have not received the presentations provided by staff and often may not have read the background information provided to the Committee. This raises issues around governance and the responsibility of individual Councillors in decision making. Staff service these Standing Committees — which is inefficient and duplication of effort.
At the meeting, it became clear that the motion was likely to fail. In listening to the debate, Clr Neal suggested that there be further discussions amongst Councillors — and so I changed the motion to allow time for further consultation.
I requested that the Mayor — in his leadership role — facilitate those discussions. Initially the Mayor agreed. Disappointingly, it appears that after receiving a text message and reading his phone the Mayor flipped his position. Even with prompting, he refused to entertain the idea of having a discussion with other Councillors and used his casting vote to reject the motion — effectively using his vote to avoid meeting with his colleagues to discuss options of how to do it better!
Is it really a choice between heritage and potholes?
During 2025, Councillors have advocated for heritage — this has included a workshop with heritage organisations to identify priorities for Council to consider. As a result, a report came to the November meeting of the Environment & Planning Committee (E&P) with a number of recommendations.
Establishment of a Heritage and Culture Subcommittee: Clr Eaton nominated himself to chair that committee, and Clrs Neal, MacGregor and myself were nominated to also be on the Committee. There will now be a call for Expressions of Interest from community groups and individuals to participate in the committee.
Outcomes of Heritage Workshop — and a heritage event? The next item related to the outcomes of the workshop — and was deferred to allow participants a chance to review. Even with the deferral, I tried to add a recommendation that Council allocate funds to run an event as part of Australian Heritage Week (18 April – 18 May 2026). Unfortunately, the debate was about the allocation of funds for that purpose. I suggested an allocation of $10,000-$20,000 should be considered. Clr Wright, who moved the deferral, would only consider a maximum of $5,000 towards an event because, in his words, the community expectation of Council is to “fill potholes, build footpaths and maintain verges and parklands” — perhaps implying that the community would not want Council to also organise a heritage event. This was not supported in the vote — with the Liberal / Team Central Coast Councillors voting against it and the Mayor using his casting vote to make the vote fail.
Review of Heritage Conservation Development Controls: The last heritage item was about the Review of Heritage Conservation Development Controls in the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 — to go out on exhibition. This had been debated at the E&P Committee with Clr Eaton, Clr McNamara and Clr Mouland voting to change the staff recommendation to weaken and reduce the need for proper assessment of aboriginal heritage on a broad category of sites.
There was significant objection to this from a number of Committee members. Staff also highlighted that under the National Parks & Wildlife Act there was still a legal requirement to do the assessment. Unfortunately, Clr Eaton used his casting vote to push through this change.
This is deeply concerning as it has the potential to facilitate the destruction of heritage on sites. The proposed change to the DCP does not remove the obligation under other legislation, and in fact, could be seen as adding red tape due to the inconsistency.
I moved an amendment which was the original staff recommendation to go out on exhibition. Once again, the Liberal / Team Central Coast Councillors voted to block the staff recommendation and instead, support the motion from Clr Eaton and Clr Wright — with the Mayor using his casting vote on both occasions.
Clr Jane Smith, Independent
