Middle Head proposal is an alienation of public land


Submission – Middle Head Precinct

To: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

Dear Sir/Madam,


Submission re Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct
Proposed Development – Residential Care Facility – Middle head (‘Development Application’)

1. Background

My late husband Don Goodsir, OAM, and Linda Bergin OAM, were instrumental in raising community awareness and action to prevent the Defence Department selling the ‘surplus defence lands’ in 1996 for private development. They were founding members of the Headland Preservation Group (HPG) to protect these lands from development. The HPG became a powerful lobby group with over 3000 enrolled members. Over a period of 5 years it played a key role in bringing about the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act, legislated in 2001, and the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) to preserve and safeguard Middle Head from inappropriate development, for the benefit of all Australians. Up to date the Trust has done an excellent job in fulfilling this role. Approval of the current proposal is a backward step.

2. Future changes to the Management plan – Mosman No.7 - Middle Head

  • There is concern about how easily the present amendment has been drafted and apparently become a fait accompli addendum to the original SHFT Management Plan. The community regards Middle Head as public land. This proposal I feel is against the vision encapsulated in the Trust’s establishment.
  • This proposal is an alienation of public land, selling permanent residential accommodation to be used by elderly people until the end of their lives. This is essentially different from other commercial leases on the Trust land which are relatively short term and not residential involving 24hour permanent occupation. In essence this proposal involves residency in a public park for relatively few people plus the impact of all the associated infrastructure on the amenity of the park. It is permanent because it is a person's home. It could not be used for anything else; it is a special purpose use for the residents only. As such there is no genuine public element, which is the aim of the National Park. It would be a new development, not an adaptive reuse. The development would set a dangerous precedent. 
  • Once purpose-built buildings are in place the provision of a so-called short term lease (25 years) will not be applicable as the developer will pressure the Trust to extend the lease rather than move out elderly folk. Therefore this residential care facility once established will be there in perpetuity.
  • Allowing this development will open a Pandora’s Box for other future “commercial” development. A precedent of this nature would undoubtedly be used by other developers to argue for additional changes to the SHFT Management Plan with resulting further encroachment on to public land.  
  • The scale of the proposed development on public land is very large both financially and physically. It more than doubles the size of the built area from 4,200 square metres to 7,500 square metres and with parking it is 9,452. It will cost over $30million. It is clearly a commercial development and I believe the overall development will cover between 30,000 - 40,000 square metres [7.5 - 10 acres] of public land!
  • I feel this in an inappropriate commercial development for a site in the SHFT Comprehensive Plan. The park was established to preserve the historical, environmental and cultural heritage of the Headland. This development does not meet those objectives.

3. Traffic Concerns

  • With the completion of an aged care facility on Middle Head, traffic will undoubtedly increase along Middle Head Road. This will include ambulances, delivery vans, buses, staff and doctors’ cars apart from those of visitors to the 90-100 people who will be living there. The application allows for 122 car spaces.
  • There is only one road, Middle Head Road, for access and egress from the Headland. Vehicles often travel at high speeds along this road. 
  • Beaconsfield Road is one of the main access roads from Balmoral to Middle Head Road and hence Mosman village. However it is already often difficult to turn into Middle Head Road from Beaconsfield Road, particularly at times of shift changes at HMAS Penguin because of heavy fast traffic and poor vision. Traffic through Mosman is a major concern for present residents and this proposal will greatly increase traffic flow along this road particularly and throughout Mosman generally.
  • There is always the threat of bushfires in the National Park. With one narrow access road this must surely be a major consideration in relation to the housing of almost 100 old people in such a bushfire prone area.
  • This is one of the most isolated areas of Mosman and it would be very difficult for elderly folk, who presumably would not drive, to interact easily with the community, which was one of the stated objectives of the proponent at the public meeting on 26 November.
  • A new access road is proposed to be constructed along the lower side of the new building further encroaching on public land.

4. Recreational Facilities

  • A significant area of public land will be alienated from the public, closing much of the site to the general public. This includes the buildings, the car parks and areas around the development that technically are available for public use but really unusable. The whole atmosphere of the parkland will be changed by having a large commercial residential facility in a prime part of the park. 
  • The construction of one large new building across the whole area, at present occupied by the 3 barracks buildings, will effectively construct a continuous built wall, permanently cutting off magnificent views of Dobroyd Point to the general public. 
  • I do not consider the proposed development to be the most appropriate outcome for the Australian public which was one of the objectives set out in the SHFT Comprehensive Plan. This area could be more appropriately reused for passive recreational purposes, the enjoyment of open space and interpretation of the heritage of the park.
  • 10 Terminal would be an ideal site for an art gallery or cultural centre to house an indigenous art and artefacts collection, particularly considering the history of Bungaree’s connection with the area, the aboriginal carvings and middens located nearby. It is very close to one of the sites of first contact between indigenous people and the First Fleet sailors on Cobblers Beach, only 3 days after the British landing in Australia.

5. Environment

Some less common fauna species are found in the area of the proposed site and are considered vulnerable to numerous ecological threats. These include the Tawny Frogmouth, Diamond Python and White-striped Mastiff Bat. A development on the scale of that proposed will create a great disturbance to the habitat of these animals.

In summary, I do not consider the development proposal of a residential aged care facility in keeping with the stated aims and objectives of the Harbour Trust.

As stated on the memorial commemorating the community who worked vigorously to have this park and to establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust,

“it was set up to preserve this land and our Aboriginal, environmental and military heritage and to establish this park for the enjoyment of all in perpetuity.” 


Let us not approve any development that jeopardises this vision for the future.


Julie Goodsir