Traffic projections are superficial and misleading

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
5 December 2013
By John and Sandra Allen
Reproduced with permission

Dear Sirs,

This submission opposes the application and the proposed plan amendments.

TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS.

We claim the status of directly-affected persons, as residents of Middle Head Road, which carries all of the increased traffic which is generated by the Trust's tenants.

On 13 November we submitted to the Trust comments on the 'study' and report containing traffic projections which form part of the application. We renew those comments as part of this submission. As noted, the projections are superficial and misleading. The traffic report of no assistance in relation to the application, other than to demonstrate that the applicants - and the Trust if it goes along with this - are happy to embrace the principle of "socialising the costs and privatising the income" as an integral part of their business plan. The traffic implications must be taken seriously and properly addressed before the application progresses further.

TRUST'S DEPARTURE FROM ITS DUTIES.

The Trust was born out of a struggle between the then Commonwealth Government's intention to open the relevant land to private development and the community's resistance and demand for conservation of the land for the people's enjoyment.

The community prevailed and the Trust was established by statute which prescribed the Trust's primary function of conservation. Since its formation, the performance by the Trust of its functions has rightly gained the general admiration of the community. It has gained an essential veneer of public confidence without which it would find that its future operations would be difficult. One sure way of losing that of confidence would be for the Trust to compromise its essential duty of conservation  by taking the unprecedented step of opening Trust land to commercial property development, in the manner proposed. Approval of the development would signify a turning away by the Trust from its essential function of conservation and, once the precedent had been set, there would be no turning back and no restoration of the high degree of public confidence hitherto enjoyed.

We have read the legal opinion opinion recently distributed concerning the legality of the proposed approval of the development. The Trust will, no doubt, obtain its own advice on that. In that regard, we would only say that it is trite law that, when powers are conferred by statute, those powers in their exercise are also constrained by the limitations of the statutory functions for the furtherance of which the powers were conferred. Those constrains, imposed by the primary legislation, cannot be stretched by amendments to the wording of subsidiary legislation, statutory plans, etc. The primary statutory course required to be taken by the Trust is in pursuit of conservation and any deviations from that course will have the Trust sailing ever closer to the wind. We urge against any such change of course.

For your consideration,
John and Sandra Allen
Mosman