Will you walk to Phillip Island?

SENTINEL-TIMES COMMENT

WANT to know more about the proposed $7.7 million shared pathway, running 14km through farmland between Inverloch and Wonthaggi?

The Bass Coast Shire Council has put up all the information it has to hand on the shire’s website https://www.basscoast.vic.gov.au/services/projects/wonthaggi-inverloch-shared-pathway

But, oh dear, you know you’re in trouble when the Council makes the following statement in its first paragraph:

“Council was thrilled to hear the State Government will be contributing $3 million for this vital connection between Wonthaggi and Inverloch. There are a number of Tracks and Trails in our Advocacy Priorities document that have already been funded and this one is a much-needed link that now means people in Inverloch can travel by bike or foot to Cowes, and vice versa.”

“Travel by… foot to Cowes and vice versa?"

Come on! How many people will actually walk from Inverloch to Cowes? Will you?

How many are walking from Cowes to Wonthaggi on the existing trail now? You could measure it!

At worst it’s a ridiculous statement. At best, it would represent such an insignificant number of people as to make it irrelevant.

The next paragraph of the Council’s justification for spending $7.7 million reads as follows:

“The remainder of the $7.7 million project is being funded by Council.”

That’s $4.7 million from ratepayers, or from borrowings ultimately to be repaid by ratepayers, which requires the Council to provide exhaustive justification where such large sums are involved.

Unfortunately, the required justification is still not forthcoming.

The Council goes on to say: “The Wonthaggi to Inverloch path alignment originates from Bass Coast’s Aspirational Network Pathways Plan which was created as a result of community workshops held in 2015 and was adopted by Council in 2016.”

But there were 52 pathways on that list, and many more proposed paths, like the $2.8 million Guys Road shared pathway, between Corinella and Bass Valley Primary School, which is now going ahead, but delayed by some Aboriginal Cultural Heritage issues.

The shire claims to have consulted on the list of 52 trails at the time, but how many of them received detailed feasibility studies and consultation?

One of the landowners affected by the inland route says they were never consulted, that they only found out about the proposal by accident.

In fact, if you read right through the Inverloch-Wonthaggi Shared Pathway report on the shire’s website, just one paragraph stands out with specific data on the actual 14km section between the two towns to support the proposal.

Under the heading: “What are the economic benefits? How many people will use it?"

Comes the answer: “The REMPLAN Impact Summary Report identified this project will create 31 jobs and generate $14.54 million in direct economic benefit to the region.”

So, we asked the Council for a copy of the REMPLAN report and were initially told it wasn’t available, but two weeks later, after numerous requests, the ‘REMPLAN Impact Summary Report’ dated August 2021, complied by a shire ‘Business Support Officer’, was supplied.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t say what the Council says it does about the Inverloch-Wonthaggi Shared Pathway, which is crucial as it’s the only specific piece of data about this project so far supplied to support $7.7 million in government and Bass Coast Shire spending.

• The Council says the project will “generate $14.54 million in direct economic benefit”. No. It is loosely modelled to provide “up to $14.549” in direct and indirect “output” of which the $7.7 million makes up the lion's share of the $14.54 million, so up to $6.84 million is “generated”.
• They also claim the REMPLAN report says “this project will create 31 jobs”. In fact, the report says the project will create 10 jobs. The report estimates that another 13 jobs will flow from the purchase of goods and services, and eight from the new wages spent in the economy, but the report acknowledges that typically only “a proportion of this expenditure is captured in the local economy” and therefore only a proportion of those jobs as well.

There’s also a key disclaimer at the beginning of the report by the developer of the REMPLAN modelling software, Compelling Economics, warning the accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed.

Compelling Economics says the shire must do its own “detailed feasibility studies” before proceeding:

“Compelling Economics advises any party to conduct detailed feasibility studies and seek professional advice before proceeding with any action and accept no responsibility for the consequences of pursuing any of the findings or actions discussed in the document.”

That's all we ask... that the shire prepare its own "detailed feasibility studies and seek professional advice before proceeding with any action".

At the end of the day, if the inland route doesn't stack up, the shire should throw its weight behind the coastal route proposed in the November 2021 Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park Access and Infrastructure Plan and ask the State Government to redirect its generous $3 million grant to the development of design and construction plans for what could be a region-defining link between Prom Country and Destination Phillp Island.