The NRMA has crunched the numbers on what it would take to repair poor road surfaces in councils across the state, finding South Coast councils had some of the biggest backlogs. Wollongong was found to have a backlog of $79.8m, Shoalhaven, $43.9m and Eurobadalla, $35.5m.

The funding shortfall was revealed as part of the NRMA’s Funding Local Roads report, and it’s not the first time Shoalhaven City Council has been criticised for its management of local roads. 

In the 2018 Community Satisfaction Survey, residents voiced their displeasure with Shoalhaven City Council’s upkeep of the region’s roads. Just 21 per cent of those surveyed were satisfied with the ‘maintenance of sealed local roads’. The result for Shoalhaven was significantly lower compared to the benchmark for comparable councils. 

READ MORE: ‘Road’s so bad, Australia Post won’t deliver parcels here’

Kiama MP Gareth Ward was also quick to criticise council for the backlog, and said while the state government had helped out significantly, it was council’s turn to inject extra funds into the Shoalhaven’s roads. 

“Councils need to get on with the job of making sure they improve local roads, and do the things they are meant to do,” he said. 

“Councils are often very good at offering advice to everybody else about everything from federal, state issues, but when the acid is put on them to actually do their own jobs they tend to squirm a little bit. 

“I say to them, get on with it, do what we are doing on the Princes Highway and get on with the job of upgrading your local roads, which are your responsibility.”

Mr Ward said council should use funds from Section 94 contributions, which allow them to levy contributions for public amenities and services as a consequence of development, to clear some of the backlog.

“They are squirreling it [the contributions] away and they need to start spending it, because often communities have paid for those contributions through the purchase of new land and that’s come at a cost,” he said. 

“Communities expect those services and councils are burrowing these funds away, they should be spending them on the sorts of services [the community] rightfully should expect.” 

However, a council spokesperson denied “squirreling the funds” and  said while roads were a top priority, Section 94 funds could not be used for their maintenance or construction. 

“The S7.11 funds [Section 94], are specifically for the provision of new infrastructure related to a specified development, road maintenance is not covered by the fund and cannot be used for these purposes,” they said. 

The spokesperson said council was aware of community concerns about the current road situation, and funding had been allocated to improve them. 

“Our budget and long term financial plan contains an additional amount of $6.7M over the next 10 years that was included through last year’s Special Rate Variation application, and specifically allocated to roads maintenance,” they said. 

“This is on top of an additional $58.4M for Roads and Transport Renewals that was also part of council’s Special Rate Variation application and is now contained in our financial planning.”