Proposal is totally unacceptable and incompatible with the site

SUBMISSION 'Middle Head Precinct'

By Brian Wilder
Published with permission

I write as a former Committee Member of the Headland Preservation Group over many years.

It has to be said that the SHFT have done a wonderful job cleaning up this huge site and restoring many of the buildings and adapting them for appropriate use in the Park. This has been done with great style and to a very high standard, and the community is in their debt.

This makes it even more puzzling as to why the Trust has come up with this proposal which will offend so many of their supporters and will be seen by many as not in line with the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

We only heard about this very recently and to the best of my knowledge, no comment was sought from any former committee member of the Headland Preservation Group, which seems very odd to many. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all about the need to raise more cash and establish a solid cash flow, but at the Meeting on Tuesday this week, CEO Geoff Bailey denied this at least twice.

I remain opposed to any development of the Barracks site and I would like to see the three existing buildings demolished and the area opened up for use as parkland, with that wonderful view up Middle Harbour towards the Spit exposed for all to enjoy.

The vision of the Trust is set out in the Comprehensive Plan.  It says:

"To provide a lasting legacy for the people of Australia by helping to create the finest foreshore park in the world and to provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation."

This surely is completely at odds with the proposed development of an Age Care Facility in a new purpose built building. And it precisely the fear of this kind of development that first brought the Headland Preservation Group into existence and the SHFT Act was designed to prevent.

Why not landscape this magnificent site to provide a substantial grassy area with a stunning Middle Harbour outlook for the passive enjoyment of the visitors to the Park ? This would surely be much more in line with the spirit and Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

A new building on this site, or a new building on any site for that matter, for an Aged Care Facility or anything else, is totally unacceptable and incompatible with this site and to my mind, clashes with the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

This would be providing permanent new homes for 93 people, staffed 24/7. There is no doubt that there will be an increasing demand for Aged Care facilities in the lower North Shore area, but this site is no way acceptable or appropriate for that activity. This would create an unacceptable precedent for other buildings to be demolished to make way for other quite alien activities for a National Park.

We’ve already got a substantial Business Park on Georges Heights, and another already on Middle Head with the ASOPA development – isn’t that enough income producing facilities for the Trust ? Why does Middle Head need to completely sacrificed for development ? Why has the concept of open parkland on this very special site been abandoned ?

Geoff Bailey, CEO of the Trust, stated several times at the meeting held on 26th November, that the Trust was not driven by the need for cash flow as a reason for this extraordinary proposal. If this is correct, then why not reuse the Terminal Building for some other community purpose, like an Art Gallery for example, or some kind of combined Art Gallery and Aboriginal Museum. Another possible use could be for temporary accommodation for visiting school children from the bush and underprivileged areas of the country and other cities.

Finally, there is the question of significant traffic increase through Mosman and Spit junctions, which are more often than not gridlocked in both mornings and afternoons and all the way down Middle Head Rd to the former ASOPA site.

Middle Head Rd itself from the Park entrance opposite Cobbittee St, will need to be widened all the way down to ASOPA– in fact that will be necessary even without this proposed development.

Draft Management Plan

Barracks Buildings

I am opposed to the proposed amended of the Management  Plan for development of the Barracks buildings site.

Terminal Building 

I have no problems with the proposed amended Draft Management plan for the Terminal Building in principle to meet other appropriate uses, but I do not support it becoming an Aged Care Facility.

Thank you,
Brian Wilder