Advice to members and supporters – The Harbour Trust Revised Draft Master Plan
The Headland Preservation Group is pleased to advise that the Harbour Trust has taken note of some community concerns about the Draft Master Plan for Middle Head and has updated key actions in the recently released Revised Draft Master Plan for Middle Head.
HPG supports the following key actions updated in the Revised Draft Master Plan
There is no change to the configuration of Middle Head Oval
Middle Head Oval changing facilities to remain in the current location and be upgraded
No change to the existing roundabout
Retain the Guard House/café building with car parking
Clarification on proposed activations and events
Amendments to the proposed extent of car parking and bus drop-off
Headland Loop Walking Track
The inclusion of an interpretation centre
To conserve and reveal the Defensive Ditch and fortifications
HPG still has remaining concerns:
Please click on links to read specific sections on this page.
REMOVAL OF THE TIMBER BARRACKS BUILDINGS
HPG is very disappointed that the Harbour Trust still proposes to demolish the three timber Barracks buildings and not even retain one to complete the Middle Head military village story.
The Barracks buildings are an important element in a series of buildings that make up the Middle Head Military Village. These buildings tell the social heritage of the precinct, that is, the stories of those who served there. HPG advocates retaining one of the Barracks, B1.
HPG questions the Harbour Trust's reasons for demolishing The Barracks as follows:
The Harbour Trust says the Barracks do not have significant heritage.
HPG disagrees for the following reasons:
The Barracks are rated moderate heritage. They "form an exceptionally rare collection of such barracks at the National level" – Conservation Management Plan 2007.
The Barracks are referred to in two Commonwealth Heritage listings.
The Barracks have significant social military heritage. The personnel who lived in these barracks played important roles in the Vietnam and Cold Wars. Their stories must be told, including those of significant attendees Sergeant Ray Simpson, DCM, VC, and Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Peterson, Military Cross.
The Harbour Trust says the Barracks are at the end of their life.
The Barracks had been in continuous occupation until 1998 when Defence departed and, when handed over to the Harbour Trust in 2001, were in pristine condition.
The Barracks have deteriorated through the neglect of the Harbour Trust.
Restoration of the barracks, while difficult, is not impossible. The ASOPA buildings were successfully restored from a severely dilapidated state.
The Harbour Trust says they were only meant to be temporary buildings – is this a justification for demolition?
Most military accommodation is temporary – quickly built when necessity demands, as was the case at Middle Head – for example, ASOPA, WW1 Hospital at Georges Heights.
Thus, temporary construction for accommodation does not justify a heritage building's demolition.
The Harbour Trust says that the Barracks occupies a parcel of highly sensitive land regarding natural heritage.
The buildings occupy a site, which was Beilby's Farm in 1837. From around 1854, the site was occupied by the military until the 1830s when it was used as a golf course in the inter-war years. None of the original vegetation exists on the plateau where the Barracks are located today.
The Harbour Trust Says that the demolition of the buildings will provide significant public domain benefit that supports and enhances the core heritage values of place.
The core values of the precinct are Indigenous, military heritage and environmental values. Interpretation of these values must be balanced. The public domain benefit must be secondary to these values. The demolition of two Barrack buildings and the retention of one would still allow for an enormous public domain benefit.
The Harbour Trust says that bushfire risk presents a constraint on using the Barracks other than for storage purposes.
HPG's bushfire consultant advises that the Bushfire risk can be mitigated and the buildings can be potentially adaptively reused for commercial purposes. He suggests that subject to further analysis of bushfire constraints and subject to appropriate use, adaptive reuse of Barracks B1 appears viable. Further investigation of the bushfire risk is required before a decision is made to demolish the barracks.
Adaptive reuse
Significantly, the Revised Draft Master Plan does not address the potential heritage and commercial value of retaining Barracks Building B1. The restoration of the ASOPA buildings has provided the Harbour Trust with a significant income.
Restoration of the Barracks building would enable it to be used for commercial or community purposes. Further analysis as to appropriate adaptive reuse needs to be undertaken by the Harbour Trust.
THE PROPOSAL TO REVIEW THE RETENTION OF THE GUARD HOUSE / CAFÉ IN THE LONG TERM
Earlier this year, in response to the Draft Master Plan, over 3,000 members of the public signed a petition to save the Guard House and Middle Head Café from demolition.
The Revised Plan has taken on board community response and states, "The Guard House/café will remain in place for years to come, BUT ITS RETENTION WILL BE REVIEWED in the long term consistent with the Middle Head Plan of Management."
As you can see, there is a sting at the end of the statement, but its retention will be reviewed. The lease term for Middle Head café is only five years with no option; other cafés on the headland have longer-term leases.
Although The Plan of Management 2017 states that the Guard House may be removed – this was to provide for the possible relocation of the sports Pavilion to that location. We now know that the sports Pavilion will remain in its existing location.
The Plan of Management also notes that 'the Guard House is now home to a café that provides a much-valued life and amenity to the precinct'.
The community, by way of petition, has endorsed the importance of this asset to the community.
The Guard House is part of the defence site of Middle Head, which is Commonwealth Heritage Listed. The site is important for telling the complete and comprehensive story of the development of military use of the site and the development of military structures and architecture. The guard house is integral to the Middle Head military village, and HPG does not support its demolition. The decision on whether to retain or demolish the Guard House should, as a matter of clarity and certainty, be made now.
UPGRADE OF SPORTS FACILITIES AT MIDDLE HEAD OVAL
The Revised Draft Master Plan proposes that Middle Head Oval's changing facilities "remain in its current location and that it will be upgraded to improve the facilities".
The definition of "upgrade" is "improve by the addition or replacement of components" ( Oxford Dictionary).
The Comprehensive Plan 2003 ( Pages 119 – 120) specifically refers to sport and recreation facilities at Middle Head and provides that "Improvements and additions to these facilities will be accommodated" subject to strict criteria.
HPG supports the 'upgrade' only of sport and recreation facilities at Middle Head. It does not support the construction of new buildings in the precinct.
SHARED PEDESTRIAN SPINE / RECONFIGURATION OF COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LISTED MIDDLE HEAD ROAD
The shared pedestrian walkway reconfigures the Commonwealth Heritage Listed Middle Head Road (Place ID 105572). This road is part of a historically important road system that developed from 1870. "The road system was a strategic link between gun batteries, barracks and associated defence works and is a major component in the relic landscape".
Changes to the carriageway width of Middle Head Road east of the roundabout are proposed to facilitate a shared vehicle, pedestrian and cycleway. HPG traffic consultant Peter Twiney advises against widening the shared zone. Peter is adamant that 'shared zones' should be narrow. It is commonly agreed in the industry that a narrow thoroughfare forces vehicles to slow down and is considered to be safer for pedestrians.
HPG suggests that the existing footpath to the south and adjacent to the roadway be upgraded to take some of the pedestrian traffic.
HPG also suggests that in the interests of pedestrian safety, cyclists should dismount in this zone.
The Harbour Trust states that the “alignment and character of Middle Head Road will be retained as part of the historical access…” The visuals of the spine in the Revised Plan show a very different Middle Head Road than exists today. It is important that the spine has a soft footprint on the landscape and is not an urbanised construction of paving and curbing.
The Harbour Trust's own Conservation Management Plan 2007 (CMP) states that 'given the history of the roads and their importance …. The alignment of the roads should be retained.
The Plan also states that the carriageways should not be enlarged (i.e., they should not be widened). The bitumen surface of the carriageways should be retained (i.e., they should not be replaced with concrete or segmental paving).
Retaining the width, edging and surface is important as the carriageways are currently visually subservient to the landscape. They are remnants of the military road network recognised by current heritage listings and are of a scale suited to the park-like setting.
TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS
HPG contends that understanding potential traffic (car, bus, truck) and pedestrian volumes is fundamental to ensuring that the natural values of Middle Head are preserved. To determine what activations the lands can sustain and the impact on surrounding streets, recent detailed traffic data must be used as a basis for estimating future volumes. This is only partially addressed in the Revised Plan.
Access and drop-off
HPG is pleased to see that the Harbour Trust has responded to community concerns, and the roundabout will remain. A wider bus turning circle and safe bus drop-off point have been added, and this seems a reasonable solution. However, there is no change to the dedicated MHO car drop-off zone and no indication of how vehicles would turn around. Would these cars be forced to travel east through the shared precinct to turn around, or is it proposed they enter the carpark? This point requires clarification.
Traffic volumes and flow
The Revised Plan, informed by Stantec's Traffic Access Management Plan (TAMP), acknowledges that there will be increases in traffic. The TAMP concludes that "additional traffic generated by a revitalised 10 Terminal is expected to have minor impacts on the surrounding road network". HPG believes that future volumes may be underestimated.
The TAMP estimates that only an extra 30-60 vehicle movements per hour will occur along Middle Head Road. The Revised Plan does not appear to quantify some key contributors to increased vehicle movements:
The planned doubling of daily traffic levels to HMAS Penguin. This is only mentioned in relation to congestion at the entry point, not the impact on Middle Head Road west of Chowder Bay Road.
A fully tenanted ASOPA complex (currently only partially occupied).
The traffic, parking and logistics requirements of the commercial tenants, food and beverage outlets and event organisers in the precinct at capacity.
The impact of events in the function centre and smaller events in the public spaces.
Additional NPWS movements created by the planned Environmental Education Centre.
Headland Park visitation statistics show increases of 11% for 2020-2021 and 13% for 2021-2022 (collected during COVID). This upward trend would indicate an increase in traffic.
The anticipated increase in pedestrian traffic generated by the well-publicised Bondi to Manly Walk is briefly mentioned; however, estimates of foot and vehicular traffic from the 80 km walk still need to be included in the Revised Plan.
A more accurate analysis of what Middle Head Road and the surrounding streets can sustain is still required. The traffic counts relied on in the TAMP (undertaken during COVID) indicate that traffic flows on Middle Head Road in peak periods (east of Effingham Street) are already higher than 'desirable' in environmental capacity terms.
Coach Parking
HPG notes that the Revised Plan does not make allowance for coach parking while they wait for the return journey. By not estimating actual coach volume, the Harbour Trust cannot assess the impact on surrounding residential streets of coaches parking to await pick-up. This is already a problem on Mosman residential streets.
Public transport and cycling plan
The objective of the Master Plan is to reduce vehicular traffic, yet no alternative plan is provided despite TAMP recommendations for increased bus services and Green Travel Plans to reduce traffic and boost non-car borne travel. Assumptions are made in the Revised Plan, but no estimates are included. HPG believes it is essential that such a plan be developed as a priority, as more than car parking spaces will be required for demand once the precinct is in full use.
Car parking
HPG supports the Harbour Trust's decision to retain the parade ground as a multi-use parking area.
It is pleasing to see the extended car parking on the south side of ASOPA has been reconfigured in the Revised Plan, thereby maintaining open green space for passive recreation.
HPG notes there is no recent parking data specific to Middle Head to use as a basis for projecting future demand.
HPG suggests that the allocation of parking for The Sergeants Mess be reconsidered since functions at The Sergeants Mess occur all week, not just Fri-Sun evenings. An alternative location at Georges Heights would alleviate traffic along the spine and parking on the eastern end of the precinct.
PROPOSED INTERPRETATION CENTRE – MORE DETAIL IS REQUIRED
A key objective of the Trust Act and Comprehensive Plan is to interpret heritage values – the values of First Nations, our colonial past, military activity, and our unique environment. To that end, establishing a WORLD-CLASS Interpretation Centre at 10 Terminal should be a central component of the Master Plan for Middle Head. It was always envisaged that the interpretation would be “world class”. Sadly, these words “world class” have not been included in the Revised Plan in any discussion regarding the Interpretation Centre.
HPG supports the proposed Interpretation Centre, "the heart of place", in Buildings 6 and 7, but would like to emphasise the following:
An Interpretation Centre will be the primary public engagement building within the precinct. An Interpretation Centre of excellence requires dedicated space, not shared with other functions. This will be necessary in order to convey the key interpretation themes of First Nations, military and natural heritage values.
Other supporting visitor requirements such as a cafe, public amenities, community meeting spaces, organising guided tours, cultural events and open days must not impact on the space allocated for interpretation and could be located elsewhere in the 10 Terminal complex.
Both physical and digital resources are needed for presenting information displays, exhibits, education and stories to a broad cross-section of visitors. For example, an original searchlight, which was developed by the former School of Engineering, previously located in 10 Terminal, may be made available for exhibition. Also, it is important that First Nations' intangible values be explained to visitors in a tangible way.
With this multi-resourced approach, the Interpretation Centre can be engaging and will encourage all visitors to stay, learn and appreciate the historical and current significance of Middle Head/Gubbah Gubbah.
Estimates of visitor numbers at peak times are important to allow for easy access and movement in the Interpretation Centre. The proposed Environment Education Centre and the well-publicised Bondi to Manly walk are expected to boost visitor numbers.
Apart from the dedicated Interpretation Centre, HPG supports other methods of interpretation across the site so that casual and out-of-hours visitors can understand the significance of Middle Head and its history. These might include signage and availability of specific information at individual buildings and locations throughout the precinct.
The Revised Master Plan should provide more details as to the type and style of interpretation envisaged.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTRE
The Harbour Trust is working with the NSW Department of Education to support the proposed Environment Education Centre (EEC) at Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh. HPG wishes to address the issue of where the planned NSW Department of Education (DofE) Environmental Education Centre is to be located.
HPG contends that Environmental Education Centre should be housed in 10 Terminal for the following reasons:
This would obviate the need for a new building on a highly sensitive and historically important area in NPWS.
It would provide an anchor tenant for the Harbour Trust while fulfilling a most important role in helping to educate our future citizens about the history of our country and the value of heritage.
The location of the proposed EEC in 10 Terminal would greatly complement the Interpretation Centre and align with the 'cultural heritage values of place.'
Having young people from all over NSW visit the Centre daily would reactivate the whole headland.
It is also much closer to the agreed bus drop-off point for the children, and they would not have to walk the length of the shared pedestrian/vehicular zone.
There are ready-made areas in 10 Terminal very suitable for learning, ablution, and storage spaces to accommodate an EEC without the need for major structural changes or building.
HPG suggests the EEC could be located in either the east or west wings of Building 3.
EVENTS – THE HARBOUR TRUST'S PLANS REQUIRE FURTHER CLARIFICATION
HPG is pleased to see that the Revised Plan clarifies, to some extent, the Harbour Trust's position regarding medium events, which the plan proposes will be held in the area north of Middle Head Road. The plan proposes that 'significant open green space' will be created with the demolition of the three timber barracks buildings (and laundry), opening up a 'spectacular outlook across Middle Harbour'.
HPG opposes the demolition of Barrack B1 for the reasons stated. HPG's view is that retention of B1 will not impinge on events occupying the open space or on the view.
HPG still has concerns about the Harbour Trust's plans for events and seeks further clarification in some areas:
Number of medium events
The Summary Document is clear that only two medium events are to be held per year. Most of the community will have read the Harbour Trust's Summary Document and support this proposal. Furthermore, the Summary is an entirely separate document from the plan.
This wording has not been replicated in the Revised Plan, where the language used in reference to the Trust's commitment to its medium event plans is loose and, therefore, worrisome. "The intention is that the Trust will deliver two medium events per year…". If the Harbour Trust wishes to reassure the public that it will not increase the number or scale of events in years to come, HPG advises the use of definite terms, e.g., restricted to two events per year.
Number of visitors to medium events
The information in the Trust's Summary Document is different from that in the Revised Plan itself. The Summary Document states that visitors will be "capped at a maximum of 500 at any one time". The plan states that there will be "no more than 500 people per event day, up to 2,000 over the course of an event". Moreover, the plan contradicts itself: if there will be at most 500 visitors per event day and a maximum of 3 days, that would equate to 1,500 over the course of an event.
Restricting numbers as agreed could be difficult. Presumably, the events will be fenced off, as the public will still have access to the Loop Walk/Plateau Walk and other areas of Middle Head for the duration of such events.
Alienation of serene public land (normally used for "passive relaxed recreation") for ticketed and restricted-access events could well be an issue, even for only two events of three days. Such events require several extra days for bump-in/bump-out and will generate significant heavy traffic using the shared roadway, as trucks unload and infrastructure such as portable toilets is installed.
Environmental impact of creating space
From images in the plan, it appears that trees in front of the Barracks will be removed. These trees are mature (many at least 100 years old, per early photographs), and many have hollows that provide important wildlife habitat. Middle Head has a paucity of such trees, and the removal of any has significant environmental implications. A robust tree management plan should be established prior to any development of this area.
Types of Medium Events
HPG reiterates its position that yet another venue for concerts, plays (Shakespeare by the Sea, as suggested in the plan) etc., is not needed. Only relevant and appropriate events should be considered, such as the heritage open days mentioned in the Revised Plan.
PARADE GROUND
The Parade Ground is an integral part of the Middle Head Military Village, it is a place of ceremony and celebration, morning roll call, drill practice, dress inspections and a platform for giving end of day orders to soldiers retiring to the barracks buildings at night.
Whilst it is proposed that the Parade Ground be an area available for multi-use, including car parking, it must be authentically interpreted as the Parade Ground for the precinct.
The Revised Master Plan ( p.42 & 61) makes no attempt to interpret the parade ground or to interpret it in the correct location. This omission must be rectified.