In the media: "Public spaces, private interests"

News Review, Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 29 March 2014

The body managing prime harbour sites faces a funding crunch, writes Deborah Snow.

‘It’s not our task to make a lot of money.’  Geoff BaileyWhen a man fell to his death after toppling over a Cockatoo Island cliff face last March, it capped what had been a horror stretch for the island’s owner, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.For months there had been internal angst over another, less public disaster for the trust: the staging of what was meant to be the inaugural Cockatoo Island Film Festival in October 2012. On paper the idea looked brilliant. Proponents said the festival would draw tens of thousands of visitors to the former penal establishment and shipbuilding yard, now tourist attraction and culture hub, which sits in the Parramatta River west of the Harbour Bridge.Trust chief Geoff Bailey wrote excitedly in his 2012 report that it would be a “cinematic extravaganza”, allowing patrons to gorge on all manner of filmic delights over five days. But several months later, the dream had turned to dust. Despite a heavily promoted opening night, paying visitors turned out to be less than a third of the number predicted. The trust lost heavily on trying to run its own ferry service for the festival. And the company which partnered with it to run the event collapsed, leaving the trust bearing total losses on the venture of nearly $600,000.Some dissenters on the trust’s staff had tried to warn of the financial and reputational risks involved, former insiders say, but were seemingly ignored.The couple behind the operating company, Allanah Zitserman and Stavros Kazantzidis, had previously run the smaller Dungog Film Festival, but had no experience of the island, and underestimated the logistical difficulties of getting people and supplies there. A creditor’s report blamed both sides for the fiasco, finding there was “very little documentation that shows any agreement behind the company and the trust in regard to the terms of the festival and sharing of costs and responsibilities”.“It was a clash of cultures,” says one film industry source. “It was a fabulous idea, but how were you going to get those people on and off the island?”Eighteen months later, a lingering  question remains for those trying to make sense of the trust’s latest moves: is there a link between the film festival failure, and a recent pitch to Chinese investors to avail themselves of prime leasehold spots in some of Sydney’s most well-known headland parks?As Fairfax Media revealed a week ago, the trust was recently advertising – via the NSW Trade and Investment office in Shanghai – several sites on Middle and North Head for long lease and development. The online brochure talked glowingly of “unique development opportunities” for “the creative investor” and highlighted the spectacular Sydney Harbour outlooks and lush parkland surroundings as having potential for things like a boutique hotel.The revelation caused uproar among those who insist the trust’s primary responsibilities are not commercial, but enhancing the amenity of the former Defence land it has custodianship of, with an emphasis on conserving environmental and heritage values.The trust’s vision statement says its prime role is to “provide a lasting legacy for the people of Australia by helping to create the finest foreshore park in the world and provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation”. This sits in jarring contrast to the minutes of a trust meeting of June last year, which said “the trust will   be focusing on its core business – leasing – in the coming months”.Set up by the Howard government in 2001 to take over the former defence sites around the harbour, the trust now has stewardship of Cockatoo Island, the Headland Park at Middle Head, the North Head sanctuary, Woolwich dock and parklands, Snapper Island, and sites at Watsons Bay and Neutral Bay.Many of these require extensive remediation. But capital grants from the federal government ceased several years ago, putting increasing onus on the organisation to be self-funding. So far, it has done this from interest earned on the original government grants, supplemented by putting small-scale tenants in many of the ex-army buildings scattered around the former defence sites, and temporary event revenue.Yet it is still feeling the squeeze. As the June minutes last year warned, “all efforts are being made to reduce the trust’s dependence on interest revenue as the trust’s cash reserves reduce”. Its bottom line was also hit by losing a healthy income from TV show The Biggest Loser which recently vacated a site it had been leasing at North Head.This week a spokesman insisted the film festival losses and the exodus of the show had had “minimal effect” on the trust’s capacity to self-fund. The accounts suggest otherwise. Annual   surpluses went from $3.8 million in 2011, to $1.2 million in 2012 and just $49,000 last year. It seems no coincidence that the trust recently hired former investment banker Tim McKay to put more grunt into its leasing division.Bailey says the trust has – for now – pulled the sites being marketed in China because “we had enough on our plate already”. He insists the trust is in a healthier financial position. “It’s not our task to make a lot of money – ideally we would be line-ball each year because the purpose of generating the revenue is to put it back into the sites,” he says.But defenders of the original vision for the trust fear it is being forced to pursue ever more aggressive commercial leasing opportunities to keep itself running. Fierce local opposition to a proposal for an aged care home on Middle Head on trust land has been another sign of the mounting tension between the the body’s original goals, and its increasing financial constraints.Bailey insists “we are not doing anything differently to what we have always done”. But Linda Bergin, president of the Headland Preservation Group, says the trust’s recent floating of a “greenfield” development opportunity for a boutique hotel at Middle Head is evidence to the contrary. “That plus aged care would be a completely inappropriate use for public parkland,” she says.

Breaking News: Harbour Trust marketing sites for lease and redevelopment to Chinese investors

WATCH TV COVERAGE TONIGHT ON CHANNEL 10 (5pm) and CHANNEL 9 (6pm)Today, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, it was revealed that the Harbour Trust had been marketing, since the middle of last year, the availability of 3 sites for lease and redevelopment. Two of the sites are in the Headland Park and 1 is on North Head..The document can only be found on a Chinese government website and was still live on the internet as at 4pm today. The contact email address in the document is shanghai@sydneyaustralia.com.cn. The document is entitled “Investment Opportunities: Tourism and Property”Apparently, the Trust ceased to market these sites around December 2013, which is around 1 month after the HPG aged care campaign began. However, Geoff Bailey, Executive Director of the Trust stated to the Herald reporter that the sites were “still in prospect”.Further, the marketing document was apparently produced and was/is still being marketed by the NSW government, not the Trust, out of 2 NSW government offices in Guangzhou and Shanghai. The text is in both English and Chinese. You can see it HERE. It also contains NSW heritage properties for sale and lease, some of which have now been sold. You can find the Trust sites starting on page 8.Both Headland Park sites are on the ridgeline with stunning views.One site is a 3,500 square metre site located on Middle Head Road which presently contains 5 original and occupied former Defence houses. One resident says they were stunned to learn about this and was interviewed by Channel 9. This site is earmarked in the document “to build a boutique accommodation offering.” The site has stunning harbour views.The other site is the fuel tanks site on Georges Heights. Available on 6,000 square metres of land “for purchase” and with “generous scope to reimagine these structures.” Apparently the words indicating "for purchase" were a “mistake”.HPG members and President Linda Bergin OAM and Vice President Julie Goodsir were interviewed today in Headland Park by TV reporters.Linda Bergin was quoted in the Herald and said that “the Trust had a duty to preserve heritage and open space and it is wrong to consider proposals which would alienate the public by long-term leases for private purposes.”NEWS FROM SENATOR BIRMINGHAM’S OFFICEWhile HPG members were being interviewed today by tv news, Senator Birmingham’s office rang Linda Bergin and revealed that no “amended” proposal for aged care had yet been received. The applicant, Middle Head Healthcare, has flagged an amended application for one side of Middle Head Road and that it would be sent to the Minster for his consent prior to obtaining consent from the Trust.URGENT - WRITE TO POLITICIANS NOW!In light of these developments, it is urgent that you write AGAIN to our elected representatives and the Trust asking them to reject any aged care proposal as unsuitable on public parkland and to withdraw any consideration of development on the additional Trust sites revealed today and to find suitable adaptive reuses for the former fuel tanks site in Headland Park.

The principle of not allowing private development on public land stands

Jim Slavin sent us a copy of his letter that was published in the Mosman Daily today:I do not speak for the Headland Preservation Group, but David Fosters’ comments on the proposed development at Middle Head for an aged care facility (Mosman Daily 6/3/14 ‘Sense is Needed’) demonstrates a growing trend in our society. Attack the opposition, misconstrue the facts and generalise to make your point.His reference to zealotry, propaganda , narrow- mindedness , greenies and fairies at the bottom of the garden, in relation to the Headland Preservation Group, is the attack. His assertions that access will be improved and the footprint of the existing facilities not greatly expanded is either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misconstruction of what are the demonstrable facts. And finally, his points that opponents of the development are against free enterprise, which they are not, unless the word FREE is literally interpreted, and against SUITABLY located aged care facilities in Mosman, are the generalisations.The proposal is such a radical departure from what was envisaged when the facilities were handed over to the community by then Prime Minister Howard (a closet greenie?) and what has already been developed, unopposed, at the headland, that it requires amendments to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Trust’s Management Plan, and most likely Ministerial approval.The opposition is mostly about protecting prime public parkland for everyone’s enjoyment, not just members of the Mosman community. Nothing more than was envisaged when the Trust was first established.Opponents of the proposal come from a wide cross section of the community and the political spectrum. A reported application for a smaller development , yet unseen, may change some people’s views. But for me and others the principle of not allowing private development on public land stands.Jim SlavinMosmanReproduced with permission

Letters to the Editor

Elizabeth Farrelly's article 'Peat Island sale is a bridge too far', Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 6 February 2014, was met with a wave of dismay and disbelief at the tone and inaccuracies with regard to the Middle Head aspects of the story.'Rainer the cabbie – Darlo and beyond' 6 Feb commented online "This piece of National Park is today the pearl of the harbour, to be enjoyed by locals, Sydneysiders and tourists alike."Fran Lester's Letter to the SMH Editor 7 Feb  'Harbour's beauty is for everyone, so let's protect it' got right down to the bottom line in more ways than one "It makes no difference whether it's for aged care, a cookery school or a red-light brothel. It's just the wrong thing to do."Then came the carpeting of Ms Farrelly's article with a stream of Letters to the SMH Editor on Saturday 8 Feb. The high number published was clearly the tip of a very cold iceberg of responses to what Ms Farrelly had to say. Read on!'It's about parkland for all, not just a few'SMH Letters, February 8, 2014Nearly two decades ago, communities came together to oppose the sell-off of Defence land in a legendary ''Battle for Sydney Harbour''. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust resulted from this clamour. The original vision of the community - ''a world-class national park for all Australians'' - has been achieved. Elizabeth Farrelly (''Let Mosmanites fight for Peat Island'', February 6) is right to applaud the trust and its executive Geoff Bailey.I was one of those people all those years ago. Sadly, it is deja vu because of the trust's apparent support of a development application (by a private company) for an aged-care home on the ridge line of Middle Head, one of Australia's most loved heritage sites.Ms Farrelly is well-respected and thoughtful. This time, however, she has got it wrong. The scale is indeed large - it is nearly double the existing gross floor area. The 25-year lease is a long one and would likely be renewed if it's elderly people living there. It is akin to a sale.The trust has lost our trust.Linda BerginPresident, Headland Preservation Group, Mosman

Elizabeth Farrelly's piece on the future of Peat Island was interesting. Like many Sydneysiders, I have driven past that geographical feature of the Hawkesbury many times. With its bleak-looking buildings and towering smokestack, I'd often wonder what went on there. I can recall 20 years ago saying ''wouldn't the developers love to get their little hands on that piece of real estate''. It's taken a while but sadly looks as if it could be around the corner.Ross MacPherson Seaforth
Elizabeth Farrelly overlooks the objectives in the 2001 act establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The proposal for the aged-care home contravenes all four of the principal objectives of the act. The proposal is also not possible without major amendments to the trust's management plan 2007. Finally the proposal is inconsistent with the trust's notice board outside the Terminal 10 building stating the original intentions.David Clarke Mosman
Elizabeth Farrelly focuses on the argument that a ''heritage-listed building needed a use'' - as if that somehow should override the fundamental principle of preserving the public parkland as public parkland in perpetuity.If it came to that, Centennial Park has much more public parkland than Middle Head, is much closer to the inner-city neighbourhoods that Farrelly raved about in a recent column and could make a much bigger contribution to solving the aged-care needs of the city.Farrelly's articles are usually well thought out and interesting. But for someone who has railed against the planning fiasco of Barangaroo to be so glib and dismissive of a proposed land grab of iconic Sydney Harbour foreshore land is both surprising and disappointing.Robert Bagnall Mosman
Elizabeth Farrelly misses the point. The proposed aged-care facility at Middle Head is all about a privatisation agenda that threatens public land that rightfully belongs to the people of Sydney and the nation. Why should we hand over our harbour foreshores to private profit?Janine Kitson Gordon
Elizabeth Farrelly should consider the words of Prince Charles: ''It seems to me that some planners and architects have consistently ignored the feelings and wishes of the mass of ordinary people in this country.'' By making demeaning comments about the ''burghers of Mosman'', Ms Farrelly clearly fails to realise that this issue goes far beyond the immediate environs of Mosman and shows that, by Prince Charles' definition, at least, she is not a good architect.Michael Robinson Cammeray
Oldies living in high care at Middle Head will have their hands too full managing medication, ravenous commercial operator and existential heebie-jeebies to appreciate one of Sydney's signature headlands. Build the facility on Allan Border Oval.Patrick Fletcher Mosman
Harbour's beauty is for everyone, so let's protect it (published 7th Feb)Elizabeth Farrelly (February 6) says the Peat Island issue ''could use some implacable Mosmanites'' to fight the cause.As a Mosmanite who lives next door to Middle Head, I'd be happy to fight for Peat Island.Ms Farrelly might be surprised to know that among all those Mosman burghers who are out rampaging on Middle Head with their pitchforks, there are quite a lot of George Smiley-like characters. They harbour other Smiley-like characteristics: industry, tenacity, intelligence. Most come from somewhere else; I am a Kogarah kid.A lot of mud gets slung at Mosmanites, so Ms Farrelly is not alone, just predictable. Mostly it's just sour grapes - look at all those toffs over there, ''latte sippers patronising popular cafes and restaurants''. But the truth is that the people who park in my street on weekends are not Mosmanites. They're from everywhere. Two Frenchmen I met here couldn't get over the beauty of the foreshore parklands. And that's great. Why? Because what matters is the parkland is for everyone.The bottom line? The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust needs money. To get it, it's prepared to forsake its charter and give a private developer the go-ahead to construct a very ugly large building in national parkland. It makes no difference whether it's for aged care, a cookery school or a red-light brothel. It's just the wrong thing to do.Fran Lester Mosman
'It's about parkland for all, not just a few'Comments, February 6, 2014The one thing overlooked in this article is the passion most Mosmanits have for their district.When the Army moved out of George's Heights the government of the day had plans to sell off the land to fill their coffers.To prevent this the local residents formed an action group and fought long and hard to return the land back to the general public and include it in the Harbour Nation Park.This cannot be written off as Nimbism. The land was then handed over to the Harbour Trust which made great use of the exciting facilities without causing any environtmental impact. The walking tracks were restored and extended to take in the unique beauty of this area.This piece of National Park is today the pearl of the harbour, to be enjoyed by locals, Sydneysiders and tourist alike. All this was achieved without any change to the existing framework of the buildings, the best compromise if ever I've seen one.This principle should never be altered so the future for one of Sydney's unique spots is secured for all in the future.Congratulations to the so called " Pitchfork brigade", your work was not in vain and keep on going for the benefit of all.CommenterRainer the cabbieDarlo and beyond
Dear Dr Farrelly,As a long time fan of your social and architectural analysis articles I am very disappointed at the lazy passion-aggressive effort you've made in this case.It was community action by the so-called 'burghers of Mosman' and the Headland Preservation Group in the late 1990s which saved Georges Heights, Middle Head and Chowder Bay from sale by the Defence Department for private residential development.It was the Headland Preservation Group and Linda Bergin OAM, Phillip Jenkyn OAM and Peter Jones AM who constructed the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust not Geoff Bailey. He is a tenant of the Harbour Trust not its architect.Cockatoo Island is a Biennale of Sydney venue because community action kept the land in public hands not because John Howard bestowed the Harbour Trust on it. Community action > public land > Harbour Trust.How about coming over to Middle Head for an alternative tour. You might see Middle Head from another perspective. We might even buy you a burger :-)Michael MangoldCommenterMichael MangoldMiddle Head, Mosman