David and Paulette Fiddes
Published with permission
Re: Objection Submission to both of Middle Head Precinct – Draft Management Plan Development Application – Aged Care Facility
And re: The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust)
We object to the draft management plan upon the following grounds:-
It appears to be solely for the purpose of facilitating the proposed commercial aged care facility and is solely for the benefit of the applicant in the development. At the information meeting held 26/11/13 (the meeting) the General Manager of the Trust, and his deputy, both said that there was no financial imperative for the development so far as the Trust is concerned and that the Trust was financially viable. There is therefore no need for any change to the management plan.
The original community vision for the Trust and for the Headland Park which surrounds the proposed development area was that it be a national park for all people. This vision became a statutory obligation, now embedded in the creation of the Trust. Mr Geoff Bailey constantly repeated this theme at the meeting, as did his deputy. What is the imperative for the change of plan? Is it solely for the self-aggrandisement of the trust, for something to do?
There is no scope under the existing plan for any type of residential development. Opening the park to one type of residential development, albeit a managed type is the thin edge of the wedge. How will the Trust resist further proposals for residential development once it has opened the door to one?
The intention of the existing plan was and still is that there never be any residential development in the area
Residential development of any type is totally unacceptable, and against general community interest. At the meeting lip service was given to traffic management, but there appears to have been no serious study or feasibility examination of the issue.
Middle Head should remain a natural precinct to be enjoyed by the community. In course of the discussion at the meeting Mr Bailey commented, in response to a question, that the existing buildings subject to the proposal had heritage value and listing. He subsequently observed that substantial alterations and additions to the buildings, not to mention a second story over part (as proposed in the DA), did not breach or affect the heritage factor. When asked “If that is so, then why do you say the current heritage value prevents demolition” no reply was given.
In relation to the management plan, much was made of the preservation of existing buildings because of heritage value. It was then explained that existing buildings were contaminated by asbestos, which required major removal works, and other alterations and upgrading would be required. When a member of the public (an experienced and respected local architect) commented that once such substantial alterations and additions commenced the usual result was substantial demolition and new construction, his wise remarks were brushed aside.
It was frequently stated that the objective of the Trust was to maintain the national park for the benefit of the public, the use of the public and for the general amenity of the community. This would be best attained by demolition of the old dilapidated buildings, the subject of these proposals, and turning the area into grassed, landscape parkland enjoying wonderful views over Middle Harbour and its environs.
There is no need for further commercial development within the park. There is in no need for a change to the existing management plan.
And so we object also to the development application upon the following additional grounds:
a. The development is a commercial development, solely for profit which will be made by the developer and/or the end owner of the complex.
b. The letter 20 November 2013 to residents inviting them to the meeting refers to the Harbour Trust and Middle Head Health Care, without correctly identifying the latter as a privately owned corporation, raising the implication, by the name, that the development is in somehow under the umbrella of the trust, and for the public benefit. This was deceptive and misleading.
c. The proposed development is a gross overdevelopment of a site presently dedicated for the public, not for private commercial interests.
d. Much of what has been said above in relation to the management plan applies to the development application aspect, and should be read as such.
e. The site is isolated, particularly for an aged care facility. There are risks for wandering residents in adjacent bushland, cliffs and natural hazards. The public transport is abysmal. Except for one or two extra services in peak hours, there is a bus service (route 244) only once every hour and it ends at about 6pm most days. There is in no evening or night-time public transport at all. It is too optimistic by far to expect the developer or the operator of the aged care facility will provide scheduled transport into the Mosman commercial/shopping area.
f. Three Mosman Councillors attended the meeting. It was stated that they learned of the two proposals (plan and building) from the newspaper a few weeks earlier. The Councillor who made the statement is reputable, and is to be believed. This is reprehensible, as Council will be responsible for providing the majority of services needed by the facility. That it may have been discussed with council staff is no excuse
g. The issue of inadequate road access was raised at the meeting. The applicants had no proposals presented to deal with this, and the presumption may be drawn that they had not even considered it. The access road to the area (and there is in only one), is steep, narrow, traverses bushland and is dangerous. It is not possible for two large vehicles (such as buses) to pass without one edging off the paved surface.
h. The facility is in in a bushfire prone area, exposing aged occupants to additional risk.
i. The facility is near to a beach (Obelisk Beach) which could, depending on attitudes, be called ‘alternative’ and/or ‘notorious’.
All in all the proposed development of an isolated aged-care facility within a national park is inappropriate. By any standards of common sense, which is in generally uncommon where money and profit is involved, an aged-care facility should be located near to entertainment, shopping, service facilities, healthcare services, transport and the like –- facilities available to assist the residents in the enjoyment of life. Isolation is not appropriate.
The Sydney Harbour National Park must remain just that, a national park of the people and for the people.