30 November 2013
By Rob Bagnall, Mosman
Reproduced with permission
Preliminary submission re Draft Plan Amendment and Proposal for Residential Aged Care Facility at Middle Head
At the conclusion of the information session at Middle Head on 26 November to discuss the above proposal, Mr Geoff Bailey agreed to extend the time for making submissions regarding this proposal beyond the previously advertised closing date of 4 December 2013. However, he was not able to specify a new closing date and, when I advised that I would be overseas for the first two weeks of December, he suggested I lodge a preliminary holding submission now and a fuller submission after I return. Accordingly, would you please accept this as a preliminary submission briefly setting out key concerns, which I hope to be able to elaborate upon on my return.
As discussed with Mr Bailey immediately after the meeting, I believe the proposal is deficient on a number of grounds:
1. Residential occupation of public land
a. In the eyes of the community, Middle Head is essentially public land - parkland preserved for posterity and managed by the Trust for the benefit of the public now and for future generations.
b. It was primarily to preserve Middle Head from residential development that the community gave such strong support to the Headland Preservation Group when it campaigned against government attempts to sell land at Middle Head for housing.
c. The successful campaign by the HPG was instrumental in creation of the Trust and preservation of the land it manages.
d. The current proposal runs counter to that community perception of what the Trust and the land are all about.
e. Sensitive commercial use of existing buildings on the land is generally accepted because that is not seen as proprietorial –
i. the tenants are not 24 hour a day 7 days a week operations (except for any short-term visitor accommodation arrangements)
ii. the tenancies are seen as part-time users, not as full-time occupiers of the land
iii. the tenancies are not seen as proprietors “squatting” on public land.
f. However, the full-time residential care facility which is being proposed would be seen as “squatting” on public land and asserting proprietorial rights over what is regarded as belonging to the community as a whole.
g. The fact that residents of the proposed facility might have no proprietorial rights themselves and would not be living in their own houses is irrelevant. Either they, or the proprietors of the facility, would still be seen as residential squatters on public land.
h. A lease of up to 20 years or more would reinforce that perception.
i. [Somewhat similar issues were behind the community campaign about 15 years ago against the proposed redevelopment of the Bathers Pavilion at Balmoral Beach to include in effect of a boutique hotel in the Bathers Pavilion. It was not until the residential component of that proposal was removed that the community opposition lifted. The community there accepted the adaptive reuse of the building for a restaurant and café on public land, but did not accept the perceived “squatting” on public land inherent in the hotel aspect of the proposal.]
j. In summary, residential use of buildings (existing, altered or new) on the Middle Head land will be seen as contrary to the essence of what the Trust is understood to be about and the reason for its existence – namely, the preservation of the land as community land for the public.
2. Perceived prioritisation of building re-use over the objectives of the park
a. Rightly or not, the proposal appears to prioritise the desire to “use” the remaining buildings at Middle Head over what the community perceives as the overriding objective of the Trust to preserve Middle Head for the public.
b. That perception was reinforced by comments at the information session to the effect that the Trust had managed to find uses for all the other buildings there except the ones involved in this proposal.
c. Precedent exists for the demolition of buildings in the Trust’s management – eg, the former commando building at Georges Heights. So demolition of some or all of the buildings the subject of the proposal should be considered as a preferred alternative to the proposal.
d. That some buildings the subject of the proposal may have some heritage listing should not be insuperable if the overriding objective of the Trust is the return of the Middle Head land to the public.
3. Undesirable precedents
a. Although the architectural design of the proposal may be attractive, the demolition and replacement of existing buildings by buildings of considerably greater footprint entails further encroachment on public land. That would set an undesirable precedent.
b. Creating a long-term private residential facility on public land at Middle Head would also set an undesirable precedent.
4. Inappropriate application of the desire to encourage diversity of uses
a. The objectives of the proposal’s proponents sound admirable.
b. However, that should not come at the price of changing the character of the Middle Head precinct by the intrusion of long term residential occupation into public land.
5. Safety issues
a. Middle Head Road from Cobbittee Street to the entrance to HMAS Penguin is already narrow and, from personal experience, uncomfortably so for the considerable number of cyclists who use it every day.
b. Additional traffic to and from the proposed development, particularly heavy vehicles, will exacerbate those safety issues unless the road there is considerably widened.
I would be happy to discuss or comment further if you wish.