Astounded the Trust is considering development proposal

Submission reproduced with permissionTo: The Directors, Sydney Harbour Federation TrustPO Box 607 Mosman 208826 January 2014Re Aged Care Proposal MiddleI attended the Save Middle Head meeting on 23rd January and it was only then that the full magnitude of the aged care facility was revealed in graphic detail showing the increase in scale of the proposal relative to the footprint and bulk of the existing buildings. I have to say that I was astounded that the management and board were even considering such a proposal given my understanding of the Trust’s mandate.Although I know the area well, yesterday I took the trouble to walk right around the site and make a closer inspection of the harbour foreshore on both sides of Middle Head Road. Although heavily screened by trees it is apparent that this land has magnificent views on both sides that are ideal to establish for public recreation which is the very essence of the Trust. There is a notice outside the Terminal 10 buildings stating the Trust’s objectives in relation to the side of the road adjacent to the Oval; to adapt or demolish the barrack buildings and to open up the views to Middle Harbour. I fail to see how it can be possible to open up the wonderful views to Middle Harbour without demolishing the barrack buildings. It is the creation of open space to enjoy such views which is the Trust's objective in creating a park for public access. A new residential construction simply cannot be reconciled with the objectives shown on the Terminal 10 notice.On the Trust’s website, "Middle Head Aged Care Facility FAQs", No 6 states; "The proposal is consistent with the Harbour Trust’s objectives" That statement is an egregious fabrication and by endorsing it the Board is in dereliction of its mandate from the Commonwealth Government. I refer you to the objectives as stated in the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 2001.Objective 1. "To ensure that management of Trust land contributes to enhancing the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region."The construction of buildings with double the footprint and bulk of the current buildings could not in any circumstance be construed as enhancing the harbour foreshore. I have stated above that the site encompasses some of the finest views on the Trust’s property and as such provides the perfect amenity for public access and recreation once the vegetation is cleared. The construction of residential buildings will eliminate the opportunity to create such an amenity. The Aged Care Facility therefore contravenes Objective 1 of The Act.Objective 2. "To protect conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage value of the Trust land."A building development of residential units with ancillary facilities for 93 people and associated support staff could not in any circumstances be construed to protect nor conserve let alone interpret the environment or heritage of the land. The Aged Care proposal therefore contravenes Objective 2 of The Act.Objective 3. "To maximise public access to the Trust land."The Trust’s website FAQ No 3 states that the enclosed area is 9400 square meters or approximately 1 hectare. How can closing off 1 hectare on one of the most scenic sites on the Trust land be reconciled with maximising public access. It is self evident that the Aged Care proposal contravenes Objective 3 of the Act.Objective 4. "To establish and manage suitable land as a park on behalf of the Commonwealth as the National Government."As stated above the site under consideration for the Aged Care Facility includes some of the finest panoramic views of the Harbour on Trust land. As such there is no site more suited for establishment as parkland. To block the establishment of parkland on such a prime site in favour of residential development is a clear contravention of Objective 4.The stated facts provide irrefutable evidence that the proposed Aged Care Facility is in contravention of the four prime objectives stipulated in the Act establishing the Trust. The Aged Care proposal is quite contrary to the stated objectives on the sign currently displayed outside the Terminal 10 buildings. Finally the proposal must be contrary to the Trust's Management Plan 2007 if the Trust sees the need to amend it.I challenge the Trust to publicly repeat its statement that "The proposal is consistent with the Harbour Trust's objectives", substantiating such statement in relation to the four prime objectives stipulated in the Act 2001. If the Trust is unable to substantiate that statement in relation to the proposed Aged Care Facility, each member of the Board should consider their position.DTH Clarke