Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
5 December 2013
By Antony MacCormick
Reproduced with permission
To: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Dear M/Ms
I am writing to express concern about the proposed Residential Care Facility (“the development”) for the Middle Head Precinct. My concern is threefold;
- The nature and size of the proposed development
- The apparent lack of community consultation
- The precedent it creates if proceeded with
Size and scope is out of keeping
The proposal is superficially appealing, particularly for older wealthy Mosman residents. Like many my initial reaction when first hearing about the proposal was positive. However, the Headland precinct has been preserved for all Australians. After visiting the site and appreciating the immensity of the project I have had second thoughts.
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust) has done an excellent job to date in opening up the natural and heritage value of Middle Head. Their commercial development of existing building is architecturally and environmentally sensitive. The Residential Care proposal is very different. It is a large scale permanent private development covering 7 to 10 acres on the ridgeline of the most beautiful part of the Headland.
The area under consideration currently includes a number of buildings which the proposal aims to incorporate sensitively. However, some existing building such as the wooden barracks should be removed rather than replaced by a new larger structure. The site that the wooden structures occupy should be opened up for visitors to Middle Head so they can appreciate the beauty of the location and the spectacular views of Middle Harbour from the ridgeline of the headland.
I also have great difficulty in understanding the logic of allowing the development of a Residential Care facility on arguably the most significant headland in Sydney harbour. It may aid Trust cash flow but does little to further the vision of the Comprehensive Plan "….. to create one of the finest foreshore parks in the world and provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation".
Unlike a tourist attraction, museum or cultural centre the Residential Care Facility will not encourage general public access to the Headland nor appreciation of this unique environmental and heritage place.
Community consultation
Having recently returned to live in Mosman, I have come to appreciate the wonderful legacy left to future generations by formation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT), the work the Trust has done to date, and the years of effort undertaken by the Headland Preservation Group in persuading the Federal Government to gift the surplus Defence Department land for the people of Sydney in perpetuity.
I was therefore surprised to learn about the proposed Residential Care Facility via letter box drop and in the Mosman Daily.
I am disturbed that a development of the size and sophistication proposed can reach the stage it has without wide community awareness. Either the Community Advisory Committee were not fully briefed, or they were asked to keep the proposal confidential, or both.
The Trust’s website outlines the proposal in excellent detail. Judging from the scope of architectural and consultant reports commissioned to document this proposal the proponent would have spent heavily. To do so would suggest they had in principle support from Trust management and the Board.
I am concerned that this can happen without a transparent consultation process. I understand the business sensitivity of single invitations to bid, however Trust land on Middle Head is uniquely valuable. This places great onus on the Board to adopt due process.
Approval would set a dangerous precedent
Surely one must question how a private commercial project of this size and nature could develop in a "national park" to the stage it has, before becoming widespread public knowledge. If approved the approval process sets a deeply worrying precedent. If a large private commercial ("non tourist") development can obtain approval in preserved urban space like Middle Head it will encourage commercial promoters to adopt similar tactics in other parts of Sydney’s precious parkland.
Quite frankly a proposal of this commercial magnitude in the Prime Minister’s backyard when he personally was instrumental in the Howard Government’s decision to gift the Headland to the people of Sydney is politically disturbing.
In short, I believe a private commercial development on Middle Head (a heritage national park) of the type proposed is inappropriate. Further, the manner in which the development proposal became public knowledge without transparent community consultation is wrong. Together they pose a dangerous precedent and threaten other priceless urban parkland and heritage sites. That this could occur in the Prime Minister’s electorate damages our democratic system.
Antony MacCormick