A classic case of furphies

In relation to the letter from Susan Dean of Ettalong (Peninsula News, September 5), I take great exception to her statements that the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club is in some way making the beachfront an "enclosure of the Club" and that the Club is allowing Section 94 Contributions to be diverted to the foreshore walkway.

Ms Dean talks about "lies and furphies" and the Council being more "circumspect" about the fast ferry service.

Ms Dean should be more circumspect and ensure that she checks her facts before making statements that are clearly incorrect and misleading.

My first point is to the issue of the beachfront being an "enclosure of the Club".

At no point has the Club ever suggested, or proposed, that the beach or the foreshore be enclosed and certainly not for the sole benefit of the Club.

It has always been the position of the Club that the foreshore should be restored, beautified and upgraded so that the area between Beach St and Picnic Parade is made safe and accessible for the entire community and visitors to our area - as it used to be.

In its current condition, the beachfront is an utter disgrace, devoid of any public amenity, without safe access and completely lacking in any significant maintenance. The club has been working, for the benefit of its members, with the Ettalong Beach Heritage Committee and local businesses and residents to have funds directed to the upgrading of the foreshore including the provision of pedestrian boardwalks, the cleaning up of the overgrown vegetation and the removal of toilet block at the end of Picnic Parade which has been a safety risk and eyesore for years.

This latter certainly is of no direct benefit to the Club.

This brings me to the second point and Ms Dean's assertion that the Club, or anyone, is allowing Section 94 Contributions to be diverted to the foreshore upgrading works.

This assertion clearly demonstrates that Ms Dean has made no inquiry as to the history of the Club's development or the operations of the Council.

It is a classic case of the "furphies" also presented by others.

I am presuming that Ms Dean is referring to the voluntary contribution of $300,000 made by the Club as part of its development consent for the new resort complex in 1998.

No Section 94 Contributions were payable as part of the consent as such contributions do not apply to the Ettalong Beach CBD.

However, the Club agreed to make a voluntary contribution to Council for the upgrading of the Ettalong Beach foreshore based on specific works that were incorporated into a Deed of Agreement with Gosford City Council.

It did not have to make the contribution but did anyway.

Further, these funds have not been diverted to the foreshore upgrade as they were always intended for that purpose.

Certainly Fast Ships Limited has nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

People should be more careful about statements to the media to ensure that they are not acting as they are alleging others are and thereby spreading "lies" and "furphies" around the town.

Peter Hale General Manager Ettalong Beach Club