Draft Master Plan for Middle Head
OVER 160 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED BY THE HARBOUR TRUST
HPG members and supporters have shared the following submissions and comments, made in response to the Harbour Trust’s Draft Master Plan for Middle Head, and given us permission to publish them.
Brigadier K J O’Brien, CSC, Rtd
Submission
Introduction
I am shocked by the almost total lack of any effective action by the SHFT at Middle Head over the past ten years.
There is now a once in a lifetime opportunity to get it right. This is an opportunity to help shape the character of our great city and educate generations of young Australians in our Aboriginal and Military heritage.
This plan fails this test.
Defending Middle Head
It seems that Middle Head is under threat once more. Not this time from anticipated French, Russian or Japanese invaders of previous centuries or from developers, but from our own government appointed body - the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT).
The SHFT was established in 1998 by then Prime Minister John Howard in order to preserve the land and its unique Aboriginal and military heritage for future generations. This proposed plan indicates that the Trustees have forgotten the reason for their creation.
The land has important Aboriginal connections. Hunter and Bradley and a small crew of sailors first landed here on 29th January 1788. They were welcomed by a large party of Aboriginals who guided them to the best landing place. Bradley’s diary described the arrival as: ‘… all hands danced together’. It was the first ‘welcome to country’ in our history. Not long after, these same Aboriginals perished from the smallpox virus from which they had no natural defence.
In 1801 the newly arrived Governor King ordered that a major fort be constructed at Middle Head to defend the new colony from the French. Convicts hacked out the gun emplacement from the solid sandstone. It is the oldest remaining convict-build structure in Australia. The gunners lived on the flat ground above the fort and utilised the original Aboriginal track down to Cobblers Beach for resupply. The fort remained manned until the end of war with France in 1815.
Governor Macquarie then chose this same place for his experiment to ‘civilise’ a group of chosen Sydney aboriginals. 16 families from around Sydney were settled here at Bungaree’s Farm and provided with huts, seeds, fish-hooks and a fishing boat. With great ceremony Macquarie proclaimed Bungaree as ‘King’ and gave him the land of Middle Head to farm. He even passed on one of his uniforms. It seems that this early experiment to make the Aboriginals farmers failed and within ten years they had drifted back to their own country. But they had lived there at Middle Head, even selling fruit to ships entering the harbour.
In 1851 and then in 1872, after the British Garrison was withdrawn, this peninsula was again chosen as the best site for the defence of Sydney. Military Road was constructed in order to bring up the heavy guns. These guns made entry by any ship of the day impossible. Sydney Harbour was one of the best defended harbours in the world.
Today Middle Head contains the oldest and most complete array of coastal defence facilities in Australia. Except for almost all the early accommodation buildings, much of the construction survives. It retains a complete heritage military village.
After the end of WW2, Prime Minister Menzies decided this would be the home of the first regular artillery regiment to be raised in Australia - a composite unit comprising field, air defence and locating artillery subunits. Subsequent adaptive reuse by the Army saw the gunners replaced by the Army Intelligence Centre. It was here that Sergeant Ray Simpson undertook his ‘Code of Conduct’ course before departing for Vietnam as part of the first contingent of the Training Team. Simpson was later awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Victoria Cross. The military village was finally adopted by the 10th Terminal Regiment.
This military village is the only remaining intact such establishment in Australia.
Centred on a small parade ground, it has three large, two-storey, residential buildings on one side (northern) which have amazing views of the harbour. These barracks represent the last of a continuing use of Middle Head for military construction in response to a perceived threat. Starting in 1801, when gun pits was built to protect from the French and, then, again in 1851 in response to a Russian scare. This military construction was repeated at numerous time from 1871 through to the end of WW2 (1945) in response to perceived threats from Germany and Japan. What is little realised was that the 1951 barracks were built in response to a perceived Chinese threat by housing a mobile air defence battery for the defence of Sydney. This was our first regular air defence battery and that unit still exists to this day.
On the opposite (southern) side of the small parade ground is the earlier brick-built building that was adaptably reused for the regimental headquarters and the provision of messing facilities. Just to the western side is a wonderful intact oval built by army engineers in 1952 for soldier’s sports and recreation. The gunners decided to make their new cricket ground rival that of the great Sydney Cricket Ground and bought in Bulli soil for the pitch using their own labour and army trucks.
In the late 1990s, Defence decided to vacate Middle Head for both military and financial reasons.
Importantly, although none of these military threats materialised (with exception of the Japanese raid in 1942), the long military occupation played an important role in defending these lands from inappropriate development. Without the continuous military occupation these lands would have long been lost to the Australian people.
It is of major concern that the SHFT briefed press has reported to all Sydney-siders that:
Middle Head near Mosman will be revamped with a new headland walk, food and beverage options, music events and a postcard wedding spot in a bid to attract visitors and breathe life into one of Sydney’s most significant lookouts.
A draft master plan … proposes to demolish several derelict dormitory buildings at the former military site, and reconfigure or resurface the concrete car parks to open up the site for community festivals, sporting events, concerts and conferences. (SMH)
This proposal completely fails to realise this, once in a lifetime, opportunity to make Middle Head a world-class example of heritage conservation and public space.
Rather it dumbs down the significance of this historic place to that of a lookout and a postcard wedding spot! It is as if military heritage is invisible to the SHFT.
The military village must be retained. This proposal will destroys our rare heritage and simply replicate numerous entertainment outdoor spaces in our city.
We need to build an international standard interpretation centre for visitors and schools groups. We also need to adaptably reuse the rare heritage buildings to provide overnight accommodation for walkers on the Bondi to Manly walk; and/or to utilise the accommodation for schools camps. We should certainly not tear it down for community festivals, concerts and conferences. Additionally, this Trust proposal makes no commercial sense.
Part 2. Specific comments on the Plan – (In sequence as per the Plan)
P 6. Failure to meet the Trust Objectives
It is ironic that the Introduction to this plan states:
‘…Conservation, protection, and interpretation of these nationally-significant places are our primary objectives.’ p 6
This plan fails to do any of these. Rather it proposes demolition of heritage buildings, relocation of sporting facilities and wholesale destruction of the landscape for the construction of carparks and event spaces for ‘community festivals, sporting events, concerts and conferences’.
P 8. Funding
‘In 2019, the Australian Government provided the Harbour Trust with $14 million in funding towards the upgrade, conversion and adaptive reuse of the brick barracks precinct at Middle Head. A limited portion of these funds has been expended on protection and conservation of the primary built asset.’
The identified $14m in the plan is additional funding to redress the regrettable lack of action by the SHFT at Middle Head. This additional funding came about after the abject failure of the SHFT management when it proposed the long-term leasing of the lands for a commercial aged care centre. It is noted that the Australian Government has provided funding for all overheads in staff costs and management of the Trust for almost 25 years. In addition, rental returns from existing Middle Head properties (ASOPA) are considerable and should be available for re-investment. Alarmingly, there seems to have been a complete lack of preventative maintenance conducted on the heritage buildings as was proposed in the 2006 Conservation report - resulting in potentially greatly increased remediation costs. This lack of remediation has resulted in a considerable loss of revenue from adaptive reuse. The lack of any commercial acumen in SHFT decisions is surprising, given many Trustees come from a commercial background. Earlier, the Signals Camp complex was refurbished and is now well maintained. It provides a heathy return on investment. Why have the remainder of the buildings not been similarly treated?
Taxpayers might rightfully have expected some return for their considerable investment. That return should include a priority on tangible steps to meet the ‘primary objectives’.
P8. Purpose
‘This draft master plan has been prepared to provide the guiding principles for future redevelopment of both the lands and the built assets within the context of the Harbour Trust’s Middle Head Management Plan and the considerable cultural, natural and First Nations significance. It outlines the full potential, rather than what current funding permits, so future decisions on projects and staging can be made strategically.’
This proposed ‘Purpose’ looks like a poorly disguised grab for more funding. And, unsurprisingly, this is what the plan does. It is rather like proposing to buy a submarine with no torpedoes - it proposes building carparks and other unessential activities but leaves the essential Interpretation Centre unfunded - probably forever.
There is a simple path to redress this error of judgement. Build the Interpretation Centre and remediate the accommodation as a first priority. Economics is defined the allocation of scarce resources. The SHFT needs to address priorities not operate in a vacuum from financial reality.
P 9. Master Planning
‘Firstly, a site of national significance demands that key values are examined, elevated, understood and documented. These values form the core of what makes place important and as such will be used in the future to guide. A master plan provides this guidance.’
I note that after exhaustive consultation with Stakeholders over many years that the key values identified are not listed here. Rather the author has leapt forward into a Vision. This means that the first step in the methodology has been ignored. This has lead the plan in a completely inappropriate direction and helps us to understand why it is so lost in purpose or direction.
P10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
‘The stakeholder engagement process outlined in this plan illustrates an enhanced relationship with stakeholders that have actively contributed to development of the key actions, design response and draft master plan.’
The author of this plan is delusional if he believes this plan reflects either the community or stakeholder views. The Stakeholder process could only be described as being fundamentally disingenuous.
I attended every stakeholder meeting and presented at several sessions. At every session the input concerning heritage values was accepted by all attendees. Yet the plan completely disregards everything that was accepted and agreed by the community. Somehow outcomes like: demolition of heritage buildings; relocating of sporting facilities; creation of open air markets and multiple carparks have crept into the funded plan. None of these ideas came from stakeholders. It appears that some of these ideas must have come from commercial consultants or marketing staff with no stakeholder status.
P 11. Draft Master Plan
‘This is a draft master plan, presented and published for exhibition and feedback. This feedback is an essential part in the process of master planning. Community and stakeholder views are a critical component.’
The plan states that community and stakeholder views are a critical component. Are they? Or is the reality that the SHFT have made up their minds and have shaped the plan to meet a pre-conceived outcome. It seems the SHFT will do everything in their power to ignore the community.
The evidence: the very limited time for comments on the plan and the incredibly biased ‘have your say’ marketing strategy. Only after direct intervention by the Minister has some additional time been allowed for community input. Secondly, the Trust have proposed just three weeks to consider submissions, surely an indication that submissions will be ignored.
For some time after the SHFT was created, the phrase: ‘…you can put your trust in the Trust…’ gained traction. The response at public meetings, at that time, to this statement was very gratifying. Today there is simply no trust in the Trust. For example: at the recent public meeting at Mosman, 160 attendees agreed there is no Trust - when this was proposed by a member of the public. I was shocked. What has gone wrong? It seems that the Trustees and senior SHFT staff have just stopped listening to the community and have forgotten that they are there to meet the objectives of the Act.
Some General Comments on the Plan
Given that the plan proposes to demolish or relocate all buildings (and even the Parade Ground) north of Middle Head Road, I would have assumed that a balanced and detailed argument for all these actions would be included. However the evidence in the plan would suggest otherwise. There are only arguments for demolition, yet the original heritage documentation tells a different story, but is conveniently ignored. I understand that another consultant has recently been hired to claim that the buildings are no longer heritage. It seems that the heritage buildings have not been maintained; and as it is now clear that there is insufficient funds available, so the SHFT have decided that these buildings must now be demolished.
Some counter arguments:
Given that my book: ‘Defending Middle Head – a short history’ is listed as a Reference to the Plan all errors and omissions in the Plan can only be assumed to be deliberate.
Below are some specific comments and observations on errors of fact:
P 25. ‘The 1941 brick barracks form the centrepiece of remnant military structures. Designed in formal symmetry, the buildings were constructed to house the Anti-Aircraft and Fortress Engineering School (most recently the 10 Terminal Regiment site) and the Army’s Signals Camp (now the ASOPA buildings).’
This paragraph is completely meaningless and also misrepresents the facts. A more correct description is:
The 1941 brick buildings form the centrepiece of remnant military structures. The brick buildings were built to house the School of Military Engineering (Fortress and Anti- Aircraft). Later these buildings were used by the Headquarters of the 12th Lines of Communications Unit and then, after the war, temporarily utilised as the HQ of ASOPA. Army took back the barracks from ASOPA in order to raise the new 1st Field Regiment in 1952. This regiment was the first ever Australian regular artillery regiment (prior to this all regiments were part-time militia or wartime AIF). 1 Regiment survives as the oldest continuously serving regiment in the Australian Army today - now serving at Enoggera in Queensland.
P51. Heading: 1945-1997 – Post Second World War military and institutional use
‘In 1946, a total of 160 AWAS signallers occupied quarters at the brick barracks. From 1947 to 1950, the Army’s strategic signals in NSW were provided by transmitters and receivers situated at Middle Head / Gubbuh Gubbuh. By 1952, ASOPA had moved out of brick barracks. This allowed the Army to provide better accommodation for its permanent military personnel, with proper amenities and kitchen areas.’
Again, this paragraph completely misrepresents the facts. I have no idea what the author is trying to explain or why. The author needs to read p 106-8 of my book for the actual history.
Here is an extract of my book (with highlights in relation to the barracks buildings):
On 10 June 1950, encouraged by the Soviet Union, the communist North Korea invaded the South. The UN immediately branded North Korea as the aggressor and Australian troops then stationed in Japan were committed. This deployment comprised one battalion of Australia’s entire three battalion sized regular army. The army then continuously served in Korea until the Armistice was signed on 27 July 1953. In total 339 men were killed and a further 1210 were wounded. Interestingly for later Middle Head developments, 23 men were taken prisoner - where brain-washing techniques were employed against them.
It was against this background that the extraordinary decision was made to raise a new light anti-aircraft battery in Sydney. The strategic threat could only have been communist China. One can only wonder what was in Prime Minister Menzies’s and the Defence Department’s mind. Perhaps the need was seen for a deployable anti-aircraft asset for use in Europe. The cold war had well and truly commenced, and Chifley had established the Australian Security Intelligence organisation in 1949. He also provided aircrew to assist in breaking the Berlin Blockade. However Menzies exploited our anti-communist sentiment better and became a popularly elected Prime Minister in December 1949.
The Menzies government introduced a number of controversial anti-communist proposals, seeing the communist party as a potential Fifth Column. His attempts to ban the Communist Party were defeated in the High Court but he firmly held onto power. At a time when the Defence Force was of a very small scale and its infantry fully committed to a war in Korea, the decision to expend considerable sums to build a home for a newly raised anti-aircraft battery at Middle Head is amazing.
The building program for the anti-aircraft battery at Middle Head is perhaps now one of the only physical reminders of Menzies actions in the early 1950s. The plans for new barracks buildings for 111 LAA battery were developed during 1951. In 1952 ASOPA were requested to move out of the brick Engineer School and centralise in the wooden buildings now fully vacated by the signallers.
In 1951 the 21th Construction Regiment, who were experienced in airfield construction from WW2, held a training camp at Middle Head. One of their training jobs was to construct an oval for sports on what was now the only remaining part of the golf links.
This is a very important issue in relation to the proposed demolition of the then newly built barracks.
I am amazed that this important heritage factor has been completely left out of the discussion.
To make the point:
the first military construction on Middle Head was in 1801 – in response to the French threat;
Middle Head forts and facilities were constructed in 1851-1942 – in response to threats from Russia, Germany and Japan; and
The mobile air defence battery was constructed at Middle Head in 1951 – in response to the perceived threat of China.
This demonstrates a continuous use of Middle head for the defence of Australia. Note that 111th Light Air Defence Battery did not require physical fortifications. It was mobile battery, armed with Bofers 40mm anti-aircraft guns operated out of the hard standing, brick garages and workshops. The 111th Air Defence Battery exists to this day as a battery in 16 AD Regiment based at Woodside, South Australia. Its then parent headquarters 1st Regiment is now based at Enoggera, Queensland.
Other Heritage values that are ignored in the Plan:
VC winner – Sergeant Ray Simpson.
The School of Military Intelligence utilised the brick building for its headquarters and training with course student accommodation in the adjacent barracks buildings. A notable student on the first AATTV code of conduct Course was Sergeant Ray Simpson. Simpson is one of the most highly decorated Australian soldiers of all time, receiving both the DCM (Distinguished Conduct Medal) and the VC (Victoria Cross) when deployed to Vietnam. These are the two highest awards for gallantry. His photo, with many other Australian heroes on that course, taken outside the brick building, is at p 115 of my book.
Accommodation at Middle Head
Middle Head as a ’village’ has a very long and almost continuous history.
Aborigines, believed to be the Gai-mariagal nation (variously spelt as Gayemagal or Cammeraygal or Cameragal), were certainly living there when the first colonial contact was made in 1788. They gained their protein mainly from fishing and would have occupied bark or grass humpies on Middle Head, It was called Kuba Kuba, according to William Dawes (See Notebook B, p 46 - written prior to his departure in 1791), in addition to utilising the many rock overhangs along the escarpment. It is not clear where they obtained their fresh water – perhaps relying on pooled water on the sandstone. We could expect that they had lived there for many years prior to colonial contact. After the Smallpox pandemic, it seems probable that Kuba Kuba was evacuated by the survivors of the Gai-mariagal nation who we know fled the entire Sydney basin.
In 1801 Governor King directed the fort construction. A party of convicts and guards lived there during construction and the soldiers, who manned the guns, remained for a considerable period -perhaps until the end of the Napoleonic war in 1815.
In 1815 these soldiers were replaced in residence by Aboriginal people from many tribes that were enticed there by Governor Macquarie. Bungaree was proclaimed king and given the land. We know they were still there in 1821, when Governor Darling visited as part of his handover from Governor Macquarie.
We have paintings of Lieutenant Viger’s construction party there in 1851. And we know the area was occupied by the NSW artillery from 1871; and the Australian army from 1901, including the WW1 Mobilisation huts and the WW2 Construction of the Signals Camp.
The building of the new buildings in 1951 (described earlier) for the 111th Anti-aircraft Battery followed this long tradition.
Military Village.
The creation of the 1st Field Regiment Military village in the early 1950s demonstrated sensible adaptive reuse of older facilities. By the time the regiment moved to Holsworthy in 1957, the village was centred on the small parade ground, with a grass cricket oval, accommodation, headquarters offices, class rooms and planning rooms, as well as a functional garage and workshops and a hard standing park for its equipment. As well officers, NCO and soldiers had quality kitchen and messing facilities.
Amazingly this format has survived the test of time and was still operational until 1998, when handed over to the SHFT. There is no similar surviving facility in Australia. That the SHFT has allowed these buildings, in their care, to deteriorate is bad enough but to propose to demolish this military heritage village in this plan is vandalism on an industrial scale.
P 56. Heading: Context
This section needs a complete re-write. Instead of actually giving any Aboriginal context or history, it focusses on unsupported recommendations, such as:
An open, accessible and activated Middle Head / Gubbuh Gubbuh will encourage greater connections across the region, and particularly for western Sydney, where a large First Nations community resides. Middle Head / Gubbuh Gubbuh also has the potential to benefit from interregional and international tourism.
Cultural motifs should be integrated throughout the site. This can be done through prioritising culturally inspired way-finding mechanisms, language names, public art and built form.
P 59.
The current Management Plan for Middle Head / Gubbuh Gubbuh was made in 2017 following extensive community consultation.
This statement is simply not true. The 2017 plan was pushed thorough despite consultation that indicated that the Community were outraged at the SHFT intention to provide a long term lease to a commercial aged care provider that would have resulted in the destruction of much of the heritage.
It is doubtful if this plan is legal. The 2007 Plan remains the only Trust plan that has any credibility.
P 62 Heading: Conservation Management Plan
This section refers to certain aspects but fails to mention any details on the heritage of the barracks. This is a startling omission, reflecting that the SHFT are producing a biased report based on preconceived decisions.
P 64 Heading: Section 3.4 summarises the key redevelopment principles that exist within the Harbour Trust’s Middle Head Management Plan 2017.
As pointed out previously this Plan was rushed through without community consultation. Most of the content was never agreed, indeed there was considerable objection from the entire Australian community to the Trust’s Aged care plan. The SHFT seem to have not heard community wishes and have again chosen to ignore them. These proposals were never agreed:
allow some buildings to be modified or removed
allow some sensitively designed new infill buildings and a replacement facilities building at Middle Head Oval
find uses for the buildings that help their conservation and that are sympathetic to their simple, institutional form and the need to open up the site to the public
selectively remove some of the less significant landscape elements within the former bases to reveal views of the surrounding waterways and headlands, and to improve the clarity of the setting of each of the elements that make up the site and its history: the fortifications, the timber buildings, ASOPA and former golf clubhouse.’
P 78
‘The precinct was once a vibrant military ‘village’, activated by its various uses over the time of Defence establishment. Perhaps the primary remnant of this use is the existing brick buildings that are formally arranged in symmetrical fashion around a common courtyard. The high heritage significance of this built form is an important factor in expressing the military heritage values’
This is just not true. The whole military village still exists (as explained previously). All of the village is important, not just the brick bits.
Comments on Section 4 – the Draft Master Plan
It is a pointless exercise commenting on the detail of the draft master plan as it is not based on the values of the place.
One tenant of the SHFT described it as follows:
‘First we had demolition of the heritage for an aged care facility; then demolition for the reimagined plan now we have demolition for scorched earth.’
However, I note that on p 129:
‘The decision to retain or remove buildings has to be made through careful consideration of a broad range of values both natural and cultural.’
This conclusion is completely is at odds with p 6.
‘…Conservation, protection, and interpretation of these nationally-significant places are our primary objectives.’
Secondly, the Masterplan does not at any stage consider, or even discuss accommodation. On numerous occasions I have met walkers on the peninsula, many of whom were attracted there by the Bondi to Manly Walk. Without exception their only complaint was the lack of accommodation. Clearly the barracks buildings provide a solution. This has many advantages.
The heritage value of the buildings in the context of the military village is retained.
The rental return, in the long term, would far outweigh any costs involved in refurbishment.
Walkers and Schools camps could easily utilize these buildings for education and recreation activities.
It is beyond comprehension why the SHFT cannot see this.
Conclusion
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) is proposing a plan to demolish several dormitory buildings and reconfigure sporting facilities, car parks and roundabouts at Middle Head. The proposal claimed that this will attract visitors and provide an area for community festivals, concerts, and conferences. However, the proposal has raised numerous concerns with this historically significant site with important Aboriginal connections, dating back to the first welcome to country in Australia's history. The site has important military heritage and contains the oldest and most complete array of coastal defence facilities in Australia. The military village is the only remaining intact establishment of its kind in Australia. Rather than destroying the heritage site, the priority should be to build an international standard interpretation centre for visitors and schools groups, adaptably reusing the rare heritage buildings to provide overnight accommodation, and preserving the military village for future generations. These steps will attract and educate visitors and defend Middle Head for the future, meeting the Trust’s objectives in full.
Julie Goodsir
Submission
The Middle Head Precinct is unique. On this one small headland many aspects of Australia’s history can be discovered from the first welcome to country by Aboriginal warriors to a European fortified military base. There has been continual European military occupation from 1801 to 1998 - almost 200 years. We have only one chance to get the planning of this unique site right.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this submission and the extension of time to better consider this plan.
The definition of a Master Plan (as given by the SHFT on page 182 Word version in the document) includes analysis, recommendations, proposals for the site’s population, economy, housing, transportation, community facilities and land use. The difference between a master plan and a concept plan is (1) extent and depth of study (a master plan is bigger and will have financial modelling) (2) a master plan is considered an approved statutory document that sets the rules of future development. A concept plan focuses more on vision and values of place and is less technical in its scope.
Therefore, by the Trust’s own definition this is NOT a Master Plan:
there is no financial analysis,
there is no in-depth analysis of public and private traffic that will be generated,
there has been no proper consultation with HMAS Penguin re-entry and egress of heavy transports with the proposed removal of the roundabout,
there has been inadequate consultation with the general community,
there has been no transparent consultation with Mosman Council,
there is no consideration of the expected increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the Bondi to Manly 80 km Walk. Middle Head is the halfway point in this walk.
This is a Draft Concept Plan, not a Draft Master Plan.
Effective community engagement is crucial for the successful implementation of a master plan. If all stakeholders are not adequately consulted, or if their concerns are not addressed, this will lead to opposition. The general public, especially the local community who know and visit the headland on a daily basis, are most important, and probably the most knowledgeable, stakeholders.
The only SHFT public consultation with the wider community were 2 pop-up sessions, one in the garage showing rough sketches of the plan and the other on a Saturday morning on the high street while people were shopping. A handout of proposed walking trails was distributed but this did not include many of the other details of the plan.
A large general public meeting where questions could be asked and answers heard by all, was lacking. It would have served two purposes – to have informed the public while also informing the Trust as to the main concerns of the community.
In this Draft Master Plan there is inadequate infrastructure, including transport links and parking facilities.
The SHFT’s plan to demolish the existing sporting changing facility/pavilion rather than simply refurbishing and modifying the building to make it fit for purpose, lacked public consultation. Many people consider such a plan to be wasteful and unnecessary.
The subsequent plan to rebuild the pavilion on the site of the popular Middle Head Café, with construction spilling over onto the surface of the oval, was not made obvious in the plan. This café provides a huge community benefit.
Mosman Council in their Ordinary Meeting Agenda, 4 April 2023, stated ‘Council has no appetite to move the location of the current pavilion ‘. ‘Council and the community are being shown one outcome in the Master Plan but the intent of the Trust is actually different and one which has only now become apparent.’ (Page 53).
Mosman Council as well as the local sporting groups are also against this proposal.
Over 3000 signatures against the SHFT Plan (adding online and hard copy petitions together) were written in a community public petition to save the café from demolition.
Keeping the existing location of the pavilion avoids felling mature trees, it is closer to the parking area and to HMAS Penguin who regularly use the oval. The location of the present pavilion is a minor impediment to the view. In fact, when descending the hill, the building is not visible until the HMAS Penguin gates are reached. Relocation and rebuilding of the pavilion would require statutory permission.
Cultural and military heritage is a most important aspect of Middle Head. One of the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 is ‘to protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land’. The Middle Head precinct is a Commonwealth Heritage Listed place. The barracks are classified as ‘Moderate heritage’ (Robertson and Hindmarsh 2007) in the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan. It states that the ‘the relationship of the buildings to each other and to the site are important considerations.’ I therefore find it unacceptable that the Trust, established to ‘protect, conserve and interpret’ this military heritage village and headland, plans to demolish these 1952 heritage listed buildings.
Their removal will wipe out forever the stories they tell e.g. accommodation for a new light anti-aircraft battery in Sydney authorised by Prime Minister Menzies 1951 in response to a perceived threat from China, training of special Vietnam forces in intelligence and terror. One of those soldiers so trained was Sergeant Ray Simpson, who went on to be awarded the VC. The barracks could be restored to an adaptive reuse either for veterans, the 80 km walk, or a NSW Environmental Education Centre. The barracks would make a very suitable location for these purposes.
The plan to demolish the wooden barracks because they occupy land too sensitive to First Nations for their retention, is disingenuous. The Draft Plan proposes having events for hundreds of people on this land.
The Parade Ground is bitumen and currently used as a car park. In a military establishment the parade ground reflects the levels of rank of the soldiers with the higher rank on one side and the lesser ranks on the other side. The parade ground is the gathering place of all the ranks for general purposes. So, it was at Middle Head.
The parade ground as shown in the Draft Master Plan is too small and in the wrong area. The SHFT is commissioned to ‘conserve, protect and interpret’ this precinct. Having the parade ground in the correct location is therefore very important historically. If interpreted correctly as the military village Parade Ground with a gravel surface, it could be multifunctional as a performance area and as overflow car parking for events.
Medium Sized Events for of up to 500 to 2,000 people per day lasting until 10.00pm for up to 3 days is a concern. Has the generation of traffic, its’ movement and parking, noise and degradation of heritage value been considered?
The proposed reactivation of Building 1 in 10 Terminal is also of a concern. The plan recommends this building as offering advantage accommodation to the small workforce of people who work for the Trust. However, this will not activate the building as is patently obvious when visiting the ghostly Trust offices in Best Street. Such an unsatisfactory scenario must not be permitted to be repeated in 10 Terminal.
Rather this building, which is public facing to Middle Head Road and connecting to the central square of 10 Terminal, is ideally suited to use as the office space for the reactivation of this entire precinct. It could be the welcoming Reception Centre for the headland with information distribution, organisation of tours, talks in one of the large rooms.
This should be done in association with NPWS. One of the major recommendations of the recent SHFT Review 2020 was there should be greater co-operation between government departments – federal, state and local. A ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ to facilitate this is being established. Such co-operation would benefit all. An Information Centre located in the entry of Building 1 would act as a welcome to the whole headland. This would mean that the Interpretation Centre in the garages will be able to concentrate on its primary purpose and become a world class interpretation centre as originally planned and expected.
The restaurant in the southern end of 10 Terminal Building 3 replicates the original use of this space as a officers dining area. With the right caterers and managers this will be a very popular and a successful commercial establishment. It will also help fund the Precinct’s ongoing operational costs.
The eastern wing of Building 3 would make ideal accommodation for the proposed NSW Environmental Education Centre which is currently planned to be in the Soldiers Institute in NPWS. The education proposal was written and presented to the NSW Department of Education by HPG, envisaging its location in some of the vacant and highly suitable rooms of 10T. The Soldiers’ Institute is far too small and will involve erection of a CODA on the surrounding historic area.
The location of an education unit in the eastern wing of Building 3, would have a symbiotic relationship for both parties. It is ideally located with adequate room space for students also allowing them to spill out eastwards onto the headland and be adjacent to the proposed Interpretation Centre in the present garages. The presence of young people throughout the week would be beneficial to all and activate the site. These young people would come from all NSW schools and therefore many communities around the State, especially those geographically isolated, would benefit.
Alternately one/some of the wooden barrack buildings could be reused and reactivated as the Environmental Education Centre as mentioned previously. This would be a very suitable use for the buildings and provide an ‘anchor tenant’ of the NSW government for the Trust. Rather than demolish the buildings, use them as a financial generator for the Trust.
The location of such an education centre in the 10 Terminal Precinct would be directly in line with the Objects of the SHFT Act 2001 –
to protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land,
to maximise public access to Trust land and
to co-operate with NSW ….and the community in furthering these objects.
Antony MacCormick
Submission
BACKGROUND
The vision for the Middle Head Precinct as a unique place where people can understand and appreciate heritage value was enunciated 20 years ago in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Much has been done to realise that vision, but 10 Terminal remains vacant notwithstanding recent external renovation.
Other parts of the vision are not yet realised.
Middle Head is first and foremost a heritage place - a unique blend of military, environmental and indigenous value. Visitors can experience the ambience of a military village built in response to war and threat of invasion. They can feel the natural environment, the Angophora Forest, the harbour views, the sounds of bird life.
The Draft has much to say about First Nations engagement but unlike Uluru* for example, it says little about how visitors can experience, understand, and appreciate indigenous culture**. The emphasis is “blue sky”. There is no detail. This leads to a concern that landscapes will be urbanised with terracing and playgrounds and with a risk that natural and heritage values are diminished.
Visitors experience the Middle Head Military Village and adjoining natural landscape.
Much of the precinct is a military village - the only intact military village in Australia.
It was built between 1940 and 1952 and was operational until 1998 when Defence departed.
Its long military occupation has prevented urban development and preserved much of the original landscape that Captain Phillip saw as he entered through the Harbour heads.
The village is Commonwealth Heritage Listed so visitors can see how a military base operates. The design, construction (some quick and temporary), materials used, incorporation of barracks, and defence housing, fortifications, gun batteries and defensive works integrate and operate as a whole.
The site has partly developed in a haphazard manner. There was no overall plan. As need for new buildings arose or new functions or processes were introduced, the topography, road layouts and precinct boundaries and fences were modified to accommodate them.
The juxtaposition of barracks, fortifications, industrial infrastructure (such as fuel tanks) and native bushland in such a strategic position overlooking entrance to Sydney Harbour is an eye opener. It is unique and experiential. It must be preserved for current and future generations to understand and appreciate.
No Genuine Community Consultation
The Draft is NOT a master plan but rather a Concept Plan (5.5 Terminology and abbreviations, Page 74). It excludes the mandatory analysis and data for a master plan on which an informed opinion/review can be based.
The Trust claims the Draft Master Plan has been “… informed through enhanced engagement with key stakeholders …” But it seems to me that the Community’s engagement, as distinct from other Stakeholder engagement appears minimal. The Headland Preservation Group (HPG) is unquestionably the most credible voice of the Community but from the packed crowd at their public meeting it is clear they are not being listened to.
The Trust’s two page HAVE YOUR SAY document is a carefully worded sales pitch. But the devil is in the detail. In contracts their Draft Master Plan is 185 pages long (WORD copy which is much easier to read than the small print PDF copy). Ensuring one understands the logic, has absorbed the necessary detail, and is confident that conclusions are correct (for example the Executive Summary is incomplete) is very time consuming.
Before loud protest the Community were given 35 days over Easter and School holidays to comment.
It needs to be emphasised that members of the Community have years of cumulative experience visiting places of heritage value in Australia and overseas. They also have expertise in planning, commercial development, traffic management, leasing, marketing, and other relevant areas. Countless examples show that the Trust continually fails to engage productively with this rich support base.
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
I support much of the Draft Master Plan, particularly the activation of 10 Terminal, but am concerned about a number of aspects.
Relocation of existing Sporting Facilities is unnecessary, inappropriate, and wasteful.
The need for upgraded sporting facilities is agreed. But why the existing pavilion must be removed and not refurbished is not well justified. Surely this would be quicker and less contentious than their removal to the other side of the Oval. I attended the Mosman Council Meeting when this proposal was discussed. It is clear that;
Mosman Council has “no appetite to move the location of the current pavilion …”. The sporting community are also unsupportive.
Council would prefer to upgrade the exiting pavilion. This would avoid demolition of the Café, loss of oval space, and added traffic congestion and pedestrian safety concerns. The proposed eastern location faces directly into the afternoon sun during the peak use times during winter.
The existing location involves no loss of mature trees, it is not within the Bushfire zone, it is closer to the parking area and provides a more accessible location for disabled toilets.
I understand the Comprehensive Plan for Middle Head provides only for renovation and additions to existing buildings. Demolition and rebuilding may require statutory approval and is unnecessarily costly.
The existing sports facility is not a major impediment to the view corridor. I took a video while my wife drove down and along Middle Head Road shows. It shows that the visual entry point to the Military Village is adjacent to the oval’s southern edge and not the roundabout. Middle Head’s spectacular views, of which there are many and better, are appreciated on foot rather when driving.
Demolition of Guard House and Middle Head Cafe
The proposal to relocate the sporting amenities block to the southeast of the oval will require the demolition of the Guard house and with it the popular Middle Head Café. Over the last decade this café has become synonymous with Middle Head and the Military Village
The 2017 Middle Head Management Plan - Amendment 2 says “the guardhouse is now a café that provides a much-valued life and amenity to the precinct”. It does not seem appropriate to unnecessarily demolish a much valued and flourishing business.
It appears no consideration has been given to the huge community benefit created by Middle Head Café. It is a very successful adaptive re-use of a military building. It does not make sense to demolish a flourishing business that brings people to the Precinct. This is evident by the Community’s response to a petition to Save Middle Head Café which I am told now exceeds 3,200 signatures.
This petition demonstrates the measure of latent community feeling and the potential influence that can be mustered. The Trust’s intention to demolish the Café simply does not pass the Alan Jones Pub Test.
The Trust saying a café can be incorporated in the proposed Interpretation Centre (the garage buildings 6 and 7) is ingenuous. The clientele who use the current café, and their expectations, will not be the same as those who visit a cafe in any proposed Interpretation Centre.
New Sports Pavilion
Upgraded sports facilities are essential but I cannot support new building in the historic Middle Head precinct which will diminish its heritage values. Particularly when there is a better option available.
There are no other new buildings on Middle Head except for the nonintrusive toilet block at the artists precinct.
There are no plans on exhibition for the new sport facility – no indication of size or exact location (see Mosman Council papers for 4 April 2023 meeting). There are no costings compared to upgrading the exiting pavilion. There is no guarantee the new pavilion will not impact the view corridor.
It will require the removal of mature trees.
It seems more logical, quicker and cost effective to upgrade the existing facility.
Demolition of Barrack Buildings 1, 2 & 3
The Trust says that removal of the Barrack Buildings was the intention in the Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Master Plan says removal “will create a natural public domain with curated First Nations walk overlooking the harbour”.
But the Comprehensive Plan under Building Retention and Demolition (Page 120) reads, The relationship of the buildings to each other and to the site, are important considerations. Figure 7.7 on Page 121 reads “Remove or adapt barracks”.
Page 124 says “Removal of the central barrack building would open panoramic views over Middle Head, whilst allowing the remaining structures to be adapted for park visitor facilities”.
Further, the Barracks are classified as “Moderate Heritage” by Robertson Hindmarsh in the 2007 Conservation Management Plan. Reading about people who lived in these very basic accommodation style buildings is not the same as seeing the physical thing.
Just like visiting the tunnels on Middle Head seeing how the service personnel lived generates understanding and appreciation. It brings their stories alive.
I believe the Trust could and should retain at least 1 Barrack building to complete the story of the military village. “The adaptive re-use of former defence buildings will assist in the conservation and interpretation of their heritage values” (Comprehensive Plan – Page 119). I can see a number of solid reasons for retention.
The juxtaposition of a temporary timber building on land as it was for millennia is an eye opener.
Perhaps one building could provide simple overnight accommodation for the 80 km Bondi to Manly walk.
Why not propose that the community establish a campaign which they would fund to revitalise one of the buildings for this purpose. In this regard it is interesting to note that excluding the recent Celebratory Fundraising Dinner last November, HPG has raised $238,000 to protect Trust lands from inappropriate development.
How much better could HPG's network and fundraising ability be used, not to fight the Trust, but to work with the Trust. HPG can mobilise Community philanthropy in a way the Trust cannot.
Events pose traffic, noise, and Heritage site degradation problems if not managed.
The Draft Master Plan incorporates activation of various Precinct sites for events of different type. Events of concern are medium events being community festivals, sporting events, concerts, and conferences. There are few details other than,
Characterised by 500 to 2,000 people per day.
Duration of up to 3 days
Operation up to 10.00pm
Possible public access restrictions confronting people not attending the event.
The Community needs to know details such as,
How many and what type of events are expected per year.
Details of study undertaken to identify what activity the Precinct can sustain.
Major impact of parking, and car, bus, and pedestrian movements.
Public and Private Vehicle Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Numbers are major Unknowns.
As pointed out, the Draft is not a Master Plan and lacks the people numbers, transportation, and other analysis necessary to provide informed comment, let alone approval.
The lack of essential Traffic study is notable. Specific issues are.
Insufficient bus turning circle. In response the Trust consultants say bus turn-around can occur at Chowder Bay
Sports and other drop off zones appear unworkable and dangerous.
Traffic impact on the Middle Head Road neighbourhood will be a major concern – not only increased traffic, but car and bus parking up and along Middle Head Road
The proposal to remove roundabout suggests no proper consultation. For example, HMAS Penguin requires roundabout for movement of semi-trailers.
What impact will walkers on the 80km Bondi to Manly walk have on pedestrian traffic and the need for facilities.
Parking needs closer investigation.
Is shared use of HMAS Penguin parking possible for specific periods on the weekend. If so, how would this be supervised?
Re-configured and added parking in space 1 & 2. The loss of parking adjacent to Space 2 would be a real loss. It is currently a peaceful, Trust provided BBQ area under mature trees frequented by “greedy’ kookaburras.
Removal of parking on the north side of 10 Terminal. The logic is understood but why not build it below the road level. I understand underground parking for this area was proposed in 2012.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
It is encouraging that Middle Head and 10 Terminal are receiving serious attention. The Draft Master Plan is the fourth attempt by the Trust to implement the SHFT Act to protect, conserve and interpret Middle Head’s heritage value.
I do not argue with the process of stakeholder and community consultation/engagement, however the who, how and when of Community engagement is largely absent.
All three previous attempts to activate 10 Terminal have failed. Each time the community has forced a justifiable rethink. It appears that the Draft Master Plan again fails to adequately engage the community.
The Trust’s “Have your say" document claims that the Draft Master Plan has been;
“… informed through enhanced engagement with key stakeholders who actively contributed to the development of key actions, the design response and the draft master plan.
These stakeholders include members of the First Nations community, Elders and knowledge holders, community state and local government agencies, NPWS and Defence.
But the local community’s role has been minimal. HPG is unquestionably the most credible voice of the Community. It’s huge support base and its 25-year history of saving Middle Head, is unmatched. Unlike other interest groups, such as the sporting lobby who have an immediate vested interest. HPG’s purpose is to uphold the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act, “To protect, conserve and interpret” Middle Head’s Heritage Value for future generations.
I hope the Trust listens to the Community.
– – – – – –
Footnotes:
* Visitors at Uluru can take walks, join groups, visit galleries, etc. to learn about and taste aboriginal foods, try playing a digeridoo, take a dot painting class, interpret the stars through ancient stories and a lot more. It’s all about bringing indigenous culture alive.
** Key element 5 in the Trust’s “Have Your Say” is a natural public domain with curated First Nations walk.
Tom Sherlock
Submission
Dear SHFT
Commentary on the draft Middle Head Master Plan
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
I have summarised my submission into the table below.
Overall, I would respectfully suggest that the draft Middle Head Master Plan should be withdrawn and re-done.
Kind regards Tom Sherlock (former Mosman Councillor)
Dr Peter Duffym & Mrs Winsome Duffy, Mosman
Submission
Thank you for your exhibition on Tuesday 21 March and follow up on Saturday April 1st.
Middle Head Café, new pavilion and Middle Head Oval: Our particular personal interest in your Masterplan was precipitated by news from our very regular hosts at Middle Head Café, Dany and Christelle Bertrand, that the Harbour Trust had unexpectedly given them six months’ notice of termination of their lease, after being established there for 10 years or more.
We have subsequently been informed by your representatives that such action was not taken!!!!
Who do we believe?
On review of your published draft plans the main and major item is an expensive and unnecessary revamp / re-orientation of the football field – marked as an AFL ground - and construction of a new pavilion / change rooms on its approximate south half way mark.
Such requires demolition of the old military guardhouse – an icon of former times – and the site of the Middle Head Café.
As we understand it, Mosman Council has no interest in moving the existing pavilion with change rooms, toilets, kiosk etc to the site of the Guardhouse as proposed by the Trust.
Other plans: Nearly everything else in the Master Plan is relatively minor or fits in with known ongoing activities except there is no mention of ongoing military related activities such as the RSL proposal for a Veterans Support Centre: proposed demolition of the 2 story barracks buildings, but you plan to remove parking in that area, close to the existing café and proposed café in the Garage, meaning a much longer walk for us regular local visitors, some of whom are disabled; completion of the headland loop walking track with NSW National Parks; the existing satisfactory commercial activity is not mentioned; Terminal 10 is not really mentioned, despite previous controversy; Shared pedestrian spine – it is so used currently; Arrival, entry and drop off point – currently is the Middle Head Café, not the existing sports change rooms / pavilion area as proposed; Interpretation centre: no mention of 200+ years of Australian military history, only suggestion of adding aboriginal history / culture: CONCLUSION: The significant functional aim of the draft plan appears to be an expensive make-over of Middle Head Oval by AFL with replacement of the Guard House / Middle Head Café by an AFL pavilion, with consequent displacement of the leaseholder and us regular local customers. Proposed removal of the Guardhouse reflects the Headland Trust disregard for Middle Heads significant military history, also reflected in the Trust’s disregard of the proposal for a Veterans Support Centre. Yours sincerely Peter & Winsome Duffy
Barry Woods, Mosman
Submission
I have the following comments on the Draft Master Plan:
It is not in fact a plan. A plan is a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something (Oxford dictionary) This “plan” is very much a concept document. There is little or no actual detail. It should be reworked and re-issued for public comment once it has been fleshed out with detail.
The removal of the roundabout is ill conceived. It serves an important function for bus and truck turning which would have to be catered for in some other way. The supposed domination of the roundabout could easily be eliminated by remodelling it to include small shrubs and flowers, making an attractive entry point to the park. The issue of pedestrian safety is overstated. It can easily be addressed by providing four pedestrian crossings similar to that at Mosman Junction roundabout.
The justifications for demolition of the existing pavilion are tenuous. That the pavilion prevents “almost any visual connection to the Harbour” is not factual. The building is small and is only in any way obstructive of the view for a minute or two as walkers enter the park. It is drawing a long bow to say the “existing buildings (only one in fact) are highly visible from Balmoral and across Middle Harbour. The bulk of the building is small and presents the much smaller end on aspect. It is insignificant compared with the enormous bulk of the adjacent Penguin buildings. It only becomes visible from the Balmoral promenade when viewing from close to the island (see attached photo). Even then it is difficult to identify with the naked eye. These “justifications” for the building removal smacks of an idea looking desperately for reasons.
Lack of pedestrian safety, amenity and continuity. A footpath could easily be built at the left hand side of the road entering the park. Speed bumps could be constructed on Middle Head Road to ensure cars slow to a safe speed. The transformation of Middle Head Road into a resurfaced urban pedestrian shared zone would further detract from the preservation of the historic military function of the site by detracting from the look of the original military precinct comprising ASOPA, the Guard House, 10 Terminal and the Barracks Buildings.
Middle Head Oval and community sport. I strongly object to the demolition of the Guard House and hence the closure of the cafe. The term ‘café’ does not do it justice. It is not simply a run of the mill burger and smashed avocado joint. It attracts hundreds of loyal repeat customers from Mosman and beyond. Over 2500 people have signed a petition to retain it. It is disgraceful that the Trust has indicated that it will not consider the petition when deliberating over the fate of the Guard House. By far the majority of the people who have signed the petition are regular visitors to the café and the park itself. To ignore the voice of such a large number of people in the community is indefensible.
Lack of detail or indicative costings. There is no indication of the potential costs involved in the concept plan. The Trust is short of funds and not likely, in the current economic circumstances, to receive more capital from the Federal Government. So how does the Trust propose to fund the concepts and over what time frame? The community has not been told. It would be far more sensible, in the current financial circumstances the Trust finds itself, to conserve limited funds for the fit out of the 10 Terminal buildings with particular focus on the military interpretation, education and visitor information centre. The history of the site is far more important for visitors to understand than cosmetic changes that urbanise the Park at the expense of the historic reality of what an army base looked like.
Conclusions
The plan is simply conceptual, not detailed enough to be called a plan.
There are no indicative costs assigned to the various proposals or, in the one of the oval reconstruction and new pavilion how much Mosman Council and/or sporting bodies would be expected to finance.
The Trust lacks the funds to address completion of the concepts in a short to medium time frame.
The demolition of the Guard house and loss of a much loved cafe and outlook is clearly opposed by the community and would consume funds better directed to visitor understanding of the military history of the area,
The impact of the existing pavilion on the entrance view of the oval and the view from Balmoral is overstated. (see attached photo) Its demolition would be expensive and unnecessary. The building can be refurbished with a flat roof to reduce its bulk and with the footprint partially moved away from Middle Head Road towards the Harbour to open the view of the oval on approach. This view is in any case only available when walking or driving past the old HMAS Penguin main entrance.
ABOVE: The “view” of the pavilion from near the island, Balmoral Beach.
Mosman Parks & Bushland Association
Submission
The Mosman Parks & Bushland Association (MPBA) was formed in 1964 to protest against the destruction of bushland at Bradleys Head. The Association’s main objective continues to be the protection of bushland and public land in Mosman for the benefit of current and future generations. Our members have taken a keen interest in Middle Head since 1996 when the lands were first vacated by the Department of Defence, through the early planning stages of the Harbour Trust and then the Amendment in 2021 to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act which converted the Trust into a Federal Agency in perpetuity.
Planning for Middle Head has taken a long time to be developed. There is much to like in the draft Plan, and it is evident that careful consideration has gone into such matters as place, orientation, connections, continuity into the NPWS land and into making the visitor experience meaningful and enjoyable.
The Mosman Parks & Bushland Association is of the view that some aspects of the draft Master Plan need to be rethought. However, we are hopeful that with some changes made, the plan will be one to inspire future and current visitors while supporting the needs and enjoyment of the community – local and wider.
Community Engagement
The Association thanks the Harbour Trust for the chance to express its views and in particular we were pleased that the period for public comment was extended.
We note that the Master Plan is not a statutory document. Changes resulting from the Master Plan to the statutory Middle Head Management Plan of 2017 will require further community consultation. We hope that such consultation will be well advertised locally as well as through the normal channels for genuine local engagement.
A personal comment: This response to the draft Middle Head / Gubbuh Gubbuh draft Master Plan is the response after discussion by the MPBA committee, of which I am the president. I was included in the Stakeholder Group in a personal capacity. I would like to comment that I consider the spirit of engagement was informative, genuine, and that stakeholders were heard. However, although the dot points listed as Themes on P16 were indeed raised in meetings and walking tours, it is my opinion, that the implications of some of them were not fully understood and that not all of them were agreed to and supported as stated.
This submission will indicate some of those differences.
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND PLACE
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
The built environment of Middle Head/ Gubbuh Gubbuh, including that within the Harbour Trust’s land is surrounded by a natural environment that is the wonder of Sydney Harbour. The buildings and open space are nestled within a bushland promontory. We are pleased that the draft Master Plan recognises the significance of this natural setting and plans for its preservation and care.
FIRST NATIONS Connection with Country
It is entirely appropriate that Aboriginal culture should be celebrated and shared here at Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbah.
Backed up by archaeology and geology, where better could the First Nations oral history of the formation of Sydney Harbour be told, and spiritual concepts of Country be understood?
COLONIAL HERITAGE, the Federation and 20th Century significance
Bungaree’s Farm is acknowledged as a critical story of the area, but it has not been given a physical place in the plan. If Linda Bergin’s findings about the location of the farm are correct, this is a serious omission. The proposed covered terrace to the south of Building 3 may deny the interpretation of the farm and will need to be rethought.
Defence of Sydney and Australia
The buildings and spaces of the Harbour Trust precinct and the adjoining NPWS tell the story of the defence of Sydney and Australia. They are significant in themselves and are particularly valued by the people involved in the relatively recent defence of Australia.
The precinct is included in the Heritage listing under the EPBC Act and on the Register of the National Estate.
DRAFT MASTER PLAN (PART 4)
Key Actions
We appreciate the recognition of the site’s values – First Nations, military and natural, and the thoughtful approach to enhancing these values for the visitor. We have already indicated our reservation regarding the location of Bungaree’s farm.
First Nations Master Plan future design actions (4.2)
Protection, rehabilitation, connections with the harbour, equitable and educational access are appreciated. An Acknowledgement Walk on Country would add to understanding. Fostering of initiatives and enterprise that share art, dance ceremony and food is also appreciated. We question whether all of these activities could occur in the open air. We would not like to see the construction of a new building. If shelter is required, we hope that somewhere within the brick Terminal Ten buildings would be found.
Pedestrian Movement and Walking Tracks (4.3)
We like the concept of Middle Head as a pedestrian friendly area for walking on country.
Links with the NPWS tracks will enhance a variety of concepts
of a largely vegetated promontory with views to the harbour for everyone’s enjoyment
of an area for walking on country
of a military area throughout the headland representing the defence of Australia albeit during differing periods
Within the ‘Plateau Walk’ area the concept of an attractive heritage village will be encouraged by
the creation of a shared walking area of Middle Head Road and the control of traffic
the secondary paths and links through the precinct
permeable paving on paths and parking areas and native vegetation
interpretation by revealing the prior materials of the road construction
A DIFFICULTY WITH ONE OF THE PEDESTRIAN LINKS
Whether or not the oval’s current configuration is maintained, a walking track around the northern perimeter of the oval poses difficulties, particularly if the intention is to make it accessible for people with disabilities. A track would open up views, but although the bushland below has become mesic and is somewhat weed infested, it would be a shame to lose the natural vegetation. The surface and runoff from an accessible path would exacerbate the problems.
Visitor Experience (4.4)
This is the key objective, and this section of the draft plan has explained how the Trust aims to enhance visitor experience with the Summary of potential visitor journey. “What’s it all about?” is a question that we are asked and that needs to be answered.
Very much appreciated are
the journey through the key points of interest that will interpret the First Nations, Military and natural features (Concerns about the entry and arrival are addressed in 4.9)
the integrated approach and the collaboration with NPWS
the provision of a centre
the various methods of interpretation (We would like to remind the Trust of the value of film – particularly for rainy or hot days!)
We address the Education programming with NSW for an Education Centre in 4.7, but the general principle of seamless movement of groups between the Harbour Trust land and the NPWS land is well recognised.
EVENTS
Events for cultural and interpretive purposes are desirable. Others need careful consideration, particularly if public access is to be denied.
The draft plan proposes to explore the possibilities for events of medium and small scale within the constraints of the site.
MPBA suggests that ‘medium’ scale events involving up to 2,000 people would be well beyond the capacity of the site and the roads leading to Middle Head. The traffic generated by such events will have a significant and adverse impact on the safety and amenity of the area. The traffic and parking implications are likely to be unmanageable. A well-publicised event early in the life of the Trust,
“Seafood Day at Chowder Bay”, intended to display the delights of Chowder Bay and the Headland sites created a nightmare of traffic queues and disappointments.
The Oval and Community Sport (4.5)
The proposal to move the current changing facilities, thereby improving the sense of arrival at Middle Head/ Gubbuh Gubbuh involves changing the configuration of the oval’s playing surface and diminishing its size. At the Council meeting when the issue was discussed we spoke in support of Council’s objection, while expressing our understanding and sympathy for the ideas of the draft Master Plan. MPBA’s president’s words at the Council meeting are in italics below.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and Councillors and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Mosman Parks & Bushland.
My personal relationship with this issue began in the very early days of the Harbour Trust when Don Goodsir and I worked on a brochure for the Headland Preservation Group. In the list of points for the vision for Middle Head and Georges Heights is Retention of existing sporting facilities.
As the EP/12 Agenda item explains, the licensing arrangement goes right back to 1997.
There are occasions when Mosman Parks & Bushland crosses paths with sporting groups. Thinking back to our support for natural turf on this very oval was one, which happily for all has satisfied both environmentalists and the sporting groups.
Protection of natural assets and open space are core values of MPBA, but we are not blind to the needs of sporting groups and the benefits to children and adults, and we are only too well aware of the lack of extra space to satisfy those needs.
So the last thing we want is for users of this oval to be pushed off and create pressure on other ovals, or for demands for the conversion of other green space currently enjoyed for passive recreation.
We therefore support the very vigorous protestations of Council at the loss of playing surface to accommodate new change facilities.
But I would like to add that we are sympathetic to the Harbour Trust’s desire to make something of the arrival point at Middle Head. “Here you are. You’ve arrived at a significant area”.
Also understandable and appealing is the idea of a walking track to link up with other parts of the precinct and with the NPWS walking tracks.
So, is there a chance for a rethink of this concept – possibly achieving the arrival point for Middle Head but also preserving the playing surface intact and in its current configuration and providing a new or renovated change facility.
Traffic and parking and tree preservation are further difficulties.
But are the problems insurmountable?
--------------
Our understanding is that the upgrade to the sports facilities proposed by Council is modest. It may be possible to retain the existing facilities, renovate them and include female change facilities without increasing the scale of the building and perhaps even making its appearance more sympathetic within its surroundings and not detracting overly from the entry to Middle Head.
An additional concern is that the reconfigured oval could impact bushland to the North.
Regeneration and adaptive reuse (4.6)
The principles of regeneration and adaptive reuse have been well considered and are agreed, particularly that of finding uses that will assist in the conservation and interpretation of their heritage and enhancing understanding of the natural and cultural heritage.
Building retention, relocation and removal
The three wooden barracks
Although the three wooden barracks, built after the end of WWII, probably in 1952, are not listed as heritage items, they form part of the military reserve and defence lands described in the Robertson Hindmarsh Conservation Management Plan 2006.
The barracks are proposed for demolition in the draft Master Plan. Mosman Parks & Bushland has consistently advocated the retention of ONE of the barracks buildings. There are very few, if any, remaining examples of this type of military building. They exemplify construction during the constrained economic circumstances of their time. We understand the problems and expense involved in restoration, but we are of the view that the retention of one building and its adaptive reuse will contribute to an understanding of the entire military precinct. We are not experts in fire management, but it has been suggested to us that a sprinkler system on the roof would mitigate the danger of fire.
If the remnant evidence of First Nation occupation is not proximate to the single barracks building nearest to the oval, we consider that the First Nations values may be able to coexist with the military values.
Guardhouse and café
Middle Head café is an extremely popular venue. Its many clients love its relaxed character, its position in the trees, overlooking the oval and the choice of seating – outside in the open air, on the veranda or inside. It has played and should continue to play its part in activating the area.
The Ten Terminal brick barracks (Buildings 1,2 and 3)
Noted that their reuse will facilitate the conservation and interpretation of their heritage values.
We note the intention to add covered walkways around the courtyard and a covered dining area beyond the existing southern extent of building 3.
The Garage Buildings (Buildings 6 and 7)
Mosman Parks & Bushland is delighted that the intended use of these buildings is for interpretation and education with the addition of a linking building to facilitate their function. The Association has long held the view that Middle Head, including the NPWS section, and Georges Heights need a centre for interpretation. A physical space need not be the only form of interpretation but there is an advantage for visitors to have a central locality. Their proximity to the NPWS area of Middle Head will provide a seamless focus for the whole headland.
Functional Use of the buildings (4.7)
We understand that functions cannot be prescribed at this stage.
We agree that keeping the linking connections and the courtyard in the public domain is important.
As previously stated, we are pleased that there will be a specific area given to Interpretation.
Noted in 4.4 that the Harbour Trust is negotiating with the NSW Department of Education to support the educational programs proposed for the Environmental Education Centre at Middle Head.
Mosman Parks & Bushland advocates that the Education Centre should be located in Ten Terminal where uses and appropriate tenancies are still to be found, rather than at the heritage Soldiers’ Institute in the NPWS precinct. MPBA opposes the construction of a new building (the COLA) in this heritage precinct. The Education Centre would be a good fit with other interpretive material in the Garage Buildings. Other buildings or sections of buildings in the brick Barracks may also be suitable for use by the Education Centre.
Architectural design and language (4.8)
We are not architects, but we like
The link between the garage buildings and the ‘light touch’
The cover around the courtyard
The covered terrace to complement the possible use of Building 3 South as a restaurant and to open the complex of buildings to the South. (Note that not all of our members agree with a quality restaurant being housed in a heritage complex).
Proposed vehicle access and movement (4.9)
Entry and Exit and Arrival
We understand the wish to create a sense of arrival at an interesting place. However, the actual proposals to alter the road configuration at the entry are not considered to be practical given the three-way directions for traffic – to Chowder Bay, to HMAS Penguin and for some limited access to Middle Head. At periods of heavy use, for events and sport for example, problems will be intense.
Parking
As previously stated, the size of events will need to be limited.
There are beautiful trees in the existing parking at parking lots 1 and 2. We would be very concerned if the proposal for extra parking there involved the removal of trees.
limiting the visual impact with vegetation and providing permeable surfaces if possible
Environment, sustainability and energy
MPBA is pleased with the consideration given to the natural environment, and with the intention to achieve a conserved and accessible natural quiet place - in particular
intentions to revegetate and regenerate degraded areas
the protection of rare and endangered species
weed management
managing the spread Phytophthora cinnamomi
light pollution is sometimes overlooked particularly in parking areas.
TO CONCLUDE
Mosman Parks & Bushland appreciates the thought that has gone into the many aspects of the draft Master Plan, the spirit of recognition of the various components of the interpretation of the headland and generally of the direction the planning is taking.
We recognise that its implementation will be staged. This will allow for assessment of the impact of developments as they occur and for review of the plan’s components.
Further consultation with stakeholders and the community as adjustments are made will be essential.
Kate Eccles OAM
President
Mosman Parks & Bushland Association
Mosman RSL sub-Branch
Submission
Mosman RSL sub-Branch’s Response to the Middle Head Draft Master Plan The Mosman R
SL sub-Branch was established in 1918. Since our establishment, we have proudly constructed commemorative sites, facilitated military parades and services, sporting events as well as participated in the maintenance of Mosman’s unique military heritage and its stories.
The Mosman RSL sub-Branch is pleased to respond to the Middle Head Draft Master Plan. Middle Head has extensive military history which underpins the story of place in regards to the establishment of forward defensive locations situated in Mosman since 1801.
The Draft Master Plan (DMP) must be sympathetic to retaining and reactivating all military heritage buildings in Middle Head. All of the military buildings identified in the draft plan do indeed form an important function of connectivity within Middle Head and beyond. More importantly, the barrack buildings tell the story of military heritage as well as its personnel and this must be respected.
The Mosman RSL sub-Branch members support the repair that protects, conserves and interprets Middle Head military heritage (s6 Objects Clause of the Trust Act). It is the Mosman RSL sub-Branch position that military buildings should be repaired, repurposed and reactivated and not be demolished for grassed parkland.
Threat to Heritage listed Timer Buildings
For over 200 years, there has been a continuous military presence on Middle Head. Since the end of WWII until the end of the 20th century, Middle Head has functioned as a military barracks that has included but is not limited to the following military elements: the Signals Corp, Australian School of Pacific Administration (ASOPA), Light Anti-Aircraft Battery, 1st Field Regiment, 30 Terminal Squadron, Army Intelligence Centre as well as the recent 10 Terminal Regiment.
The defence personnel of these military capabilities occupied the timber buildings as a place for work, rest, training, contemplation as well as recreation. As such, Robinson and Hindmarsh stated in the Middle Head Conservation Management Plan of 2007 that all of the timber buildings are of ‘Moderate’ heritage significance and thus, are to be repaired and protected.
The timber buildings represent the regimental way of life in Middle Head. The DMP supports this on page 53 where it states that “the remnant buildings present some military heritage significance this is noted as of lesser significance to the high heritage values of the heritage listed brick barracks. The timber buildings provide evidence of the ‘military village’ that was once the headland military precinct of brick barracks.” Therefore, all timber buildings should be repaired and repurposed to ensure the memory of those who served our Country here is preserved.
However, the SHFT seeks to demolish the Commonwealth and State Heritage listed buildings. In the DMP on page 43 the SHFT infer “with consideration to being sensitive to the natural values, …… the removal of the existing timber buildings and alteration to the existing adjacent car park (originally the parade ground) enables this {consideration}. The buildings and car park occupy a parcel of land that is considered highly sensitive in terms of First Nations and natural heritage values of place.” Additionally, the DMP on page 49 says that once all timber buildings are demolished, the area will be prepared for concerts. It states the “significant open green space can allow for medium events such as seasonal cultural events or festivals to take place. Infrastructure considerations include 3 phase power, in-ground capacity for additional toilet facilities and access to services (water, data and communications).” It seems that the SHFT aim to destroy military heritage to build a toilet block and hold concerts on a grassy area where the Commonwealth and State Heritage listed buildings currently stand. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch does not support the demolition of timber buildings for grassy areas to host events.
The Commonwealth and State Heritage listed buildings have also been assessed to be at risk from bushland fire. The DMP uses a very conservative assessment of a fire hazard coming from the small nearby bushland scrub that is more than 15 meters away as a means to not repair and repurpose these timber buildings. The DMP asserts on page 38 that “no vulnerable uses (accommodation use) are {to be} provided on the site above the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) 12.5 threshold.” Consequently, this assessment has strategically placed the barrack buildings into a zone of vulnerability. Importantly though, this assessment is in complete contrast to the neighbouring NSW Parks fire risk assessment of that same area. NSW Parks uses a heritage listed timber building for accommodation purposes in a nearby adjacent area to the barrack buildings. Surely, these SHFT Commonwealth and State Heritage listed buildings are not at any risk of fire, otherwise, the NSW Parks would not be operating its very successful accommodation facilities in the neighbouring bushland area. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch does not support this assessment being used to refer to the timber buildings as vulnerable in the DMP and thus, not to be considered as places for accommodation or general use buildings.
The referencing of First Nations heritage is consistently integrated throughout the DMP and this is problematic to the story of place for Middle Head. The DMP makes explicit on page 44 that the SHFT seeks to “develop and integrate a sensitive system of First Nations cultural motifs that binds the visitor to their experience of place, generating deeper meaning and connection to Country.” Additionally, the DMP asserts on page 45 that there will be “welcoming signage including cultural motifs and the site’s language name - Gubbuh Gubbuh. Cultural motifs are repeated throughout the site’s wayfinding mechanisms.” It is the opinion of the Mosman RSL sub-Branch members that the DMP is attempting to remove the unique military heritage of significance within Middle Head. For example, the DMP uses terms such as ‘First Nations’ and ‘Country’ throughout its text. Interestingly, the term First Nations is used 130 times compared to the word ‘Military’ which is only used 65 times. It seems that First Nations heritage has been elevated above and beyond the military heritage to become the primary focus of the vision for Middle Head by SHFT. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch does not support the elevation of First Nations above the military values.
In addition, the timber guard house was repaired and repurposed as a cafe in 2013. As a result, this cafe facilitates morning and lunchtime gatherings for many members of the Mosman RSL sub-Branch. The cafe provides a place of social connection and reconnection for ex-serving and currently serving defence force personnel of Middle Head. Many of our members have served at Middle Head, Georges Heights as well as HMAS Penguin and often share their stories of yesteryear at this cafe. However, the DMP has also removed the guard house from the vision just like the barracks buildings. For instance, the concept drawings and maps on pages 42, 43 ,44, 46, 49, 50 and 64 make all of the timber buildings invisible.
Additionally, the vast majority of text excludes these heritage buildings in the desperate attempt to hide them. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch does not approve of the removal of any timber buildings.
Overall, to the disappointment of the Mosman RSL sub-Branch membership, the DMP has attempted to make the military heritage of significance within Middle Head invisible. As such, the idea of demolishing Commonwealth and State Heritage buildings should be abolished and authentic consultation with the Mosman RSL sub-Branch members should be a priority.
Reconnect, Repair, Repurpose is the Way Forward
Mosman RSL sub-Branch membership of serving and ex-serving members seek to work with SHFT through meaningful consultation. Mosman RSL sub-Branch have numerous suggestions that will indeed assist SHFT to regain community support for reactivating Middle Head. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch supports SHFT with the ongoing remediation works of bricked buildings at Middle Head but more importantly, we advocate for retaining, repairing and reactivating all timber buildings within the military barracks.
The repair and repurposing of existing timber buildings must be appropriately reimagined. The Mosman RSL sub-Branch is interested in accessing ways to retain the timber barracks through philanthropic trusts and foundations as well as Ex-service Organisations if repairs can not be publicly funded. Furthermore, the Mosman RSL sub-Branch sees the potential for utilising the Commonwealth and State Heritage listed timber buildings as accommodation to alleviate the prevalence of ex-service members experiencing homelessness, to mediate separation anxiety and depression experienced by ex-service members through an in-house transition out of the Defence program, facilitate Veteran Artist in Residence initiatives as well as to accommodate all travellers along the Bondi to Manly 80 km walking track. Overall, the Mosman RSL sub-Branch is committed to supporting SHFT with preserving, conserving and interpreting Middle Head through appropriate ways and thus, upholding the legislated objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001.
Alan Toner
President
Mosman RSL sub-Branch
Sue Wagner
Submission
Middle Head, and the other lands managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, are protected by law: their heritage, Aboriginal, military and environmental, to be preserved and interpreted for the Australian people.
I believe that the Draft Master Plan needs to be re-examined in terms of these principles. Some of the changes suggested in the draft seem to be “change for the sake of change” – certainly not preserving our heritage or improving the natural environment.
General comments
I like the idea of blurring “the boundary of land management [between SHFT and NPWS], seeing the headland as a singular entity and visitor experience”. To some extent the distinction between the two areas is defined by their historical functions (C19 defence and WWII defence), but smoothing the boundary could help visitor experience and understanding of the history.
Removal of the roundabout adjacent to HMAS Penguin would cause more problems than it solves: buses would still need to access Chowder Bay Road; HMAS Penguin still needs access for very large vehicles; NPWS needs large vehicle access, and fire safety vehicles need urgent access to be always available; garbage and other services also need convenient access. I enjoy the view across the oval to the harbour as I drive down the hill; at the roundabout I’m watching the traffic. I can’t see how this will change.
The “new interpretative pedestrianised shared zone” already exists, as Middle Head Road. In making it a pleasant walkway it is important to keep in mind that there will be a continuing need for vehicles to use it, and this need will increase over the years.
The road is already well used by bicycles, and this traffic too will increase. Landscaping that encourages pedestrians to see it as “theirs” could cause problems.
I note that high grade telecommunications have always been a challenge to business owners at ASOPA. The plan should include improved telecommunications for all tenants.
Middle Head Oval
The oval was built and maintained by the military. It is enclosed by very solid-looking kerb-and-channelling and a low fence appropriate to the general style of the oval. Currently managed by Mosman Council, the playing surface has been meticulously restored in an environmentally sensitive way, and lighting extends the hours of its use.
It is extensively used by sporting groups and local schools for training as well as matches, particularly at weekends and during school holidays. This demand will surely increase in future years. It is also used by HMAS Penguin, both for sport/exercise and for helicopter manoeuvres.
The sports change facilities and public toilets adjacent to the roundabout are dated and do not meet current/future needs. Mosman Council has been keen to upgrade them for some years, and this is urgent. They should remain in their current location, as should the adjacent car parking.
The idea of reducing the actual playing area of the oval in order to move the change facilities onto it is extraordinary, as is the proposal to build a walking track on the oval. How could this possibly work? Though it is not shown in any of the many sketches, there would have to be a fence of some type to protect players and walkers from each other – a further reduction of the playing area.
The suggested alterations to the oval are both wasteful and unnecessary. If a walking path is needed on the north side of the oval, it should be built outside the existing fence, where walkers could enjoy the stunning views.
Middle Head Café
I am delighted that the Trust has responded to the outcry to preserve the café in its present building and its present site, looking out through the trees across the oval. It is one of Mosman’s special places, and the proposed “function centre/food and beverage facility” within the Ten Terminal complex would in no way be a suitable replacement, though it may have its own, separate advantages as the site is restored and its functions clarified.
Many patrons of the cafe are of advanced years, and retaining the parade ground/car park beside the café would be both practical and sensible. The surface needs to be upgraded. Urgently.
Ten Terminal Complex
The Trust has restored the exterior of the complex at considerable expense, and it looks good. The refurbishment of the interiors and landscaping of the surrounds should be prioritised so that these spaces can be leased and become a source of future funds.
An Interpretation Centre
I endorse the establishment of a centre in Buildings 6/7 to tell the many stories of this wonderful site.
I note that NPWS is proposing to change its plan of management for Middle Head to permit the construction of a large “covered outdoor area” for an Environmental Education Centre within a small group of buildings of historical significance.
It seems unfortunate and wasteful to be planning two separate but similar information centres within a stone’s throw of each other, when one is proposing to add an inappropriate building and the other has potential access to adjacent existing buildings.
Surely this could be a shared or somehow combined facility? Especially when the “Master Plan” of each organisation emphasises cooperation with the other. It could also have advantages of shared larger spaces and even staffing.
The Barracks Buildings
The views from the first floor of the barracks buildings (which I saw years ago) are superb! I can’t help feeling that if one building were retained it could be adaptively reused for veterans or for simple accommodation for people doing the Bondi to Manly walk.
Elizabeth Britton
Submission
PREAMBLE
I first want to make the point that to give adequate feedback on this draft master plan required a personal great amount of dedication and concentration to focus on 78 pages of mostly dense complicated text, illustrated where appropriate by photos and sketches.
So I want to acknowledge the enormous amount of time and effort that has resulted in this draft master plan. In itself the production of this draft master plan could be the source of a small illustrated book focussing as it does on the many interesting features of this important area.
However the projected plans need to be commented on.
Page 1, Figure1: "Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh from above and surrounding lands, water and sky". Source: Harbour Trust
What a magnificent photo, capturing so much that the draft master plan refers to in so much detail, current situation and planned. Words come to mind. Beautiful. Special. Unique. Vulnerable. Isolated.
I'll refer to some of the projected plans that I agree with, and some that I take issue with later.
But now I want to make my own note, my contribution as it were, to an overlooked way of approaching this magnificent jutting headland into Sydney Harbour. Just look at page 24, point 3.1 "Context". Look again at Figure 32, a small sketch with the heading "a story of three headlands". The context is so apparent, the connection across to North Head, over to Dobroyd Head, with South Head just into the space.
Road access to this area of Sydney is just so difficult, so problematic. There's just too much already happening in the small area starting with HMAS Penguin, then Middle Head oval, then onto the National Park, plus access to Chowder Bay, and then the beaches, cafes, restaurants, walking tracks, etc. The draft master plan devotes pages of painstaking detail on parking, transport, more walking areas, more car spaces, as its proposed plans will inevitably create more demand for vehicular access, car, bus, cycle.
I'm long ago from Hobart, that beautiful city squashed between a huge mountain and wide river with increasing traffic problems. Then I thought of MONA (Museum of Old and New Art), that amazing initiative that on its merits has drawn thousands to an out-of -the-way place. Yes. You can still go by car or bus along the choked highway to an overcrowded carpark. But the method of choice is by ferry, a delightful trip up the Derwent River.
So I thought, letting my imagination roam, a dedicated ferry trip, from Circular Quay to Balmoral, then by small commuter buses up to Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh. Possibly more could be included, like a brief stop at the Quarantine Station, and even Watsons Bay to walk to North Head. I am not detailing more.
As on page 62, under point 4.9, 'the problems of traffic movement and safety at this road junction, [needs no explanation], this somewhat complex traffic junction: issues require detailed traffic and civil engineering design'. The draft plan goes no further. Neither will I.
So I will refer back to page 2, point 3.2, "Statutory framework". 'The Comprehensive Plan provides a framwork for the adaptive re-use of Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh as "a gateway to Middle Head from land and water" Section7'.
Then "the sky" needed consideration. What about scenic helicopter flights landing on Middle Head oval? Again there are a huge range of considerations to be made but the problem of access to this area is such a major concern.
CONCERNS
TRAFFIC: The draft master plan does not adequately deal with the problems of extra traffic that will be generated by its emphasis on increased patronage of this area. There is only one road in and out, Middle Head Road. The topography of the area has squeezed the roads into narrow spaces. There's the narrow steep drive down past HMAS Penguin. Of necessity the entrance to this Naval Base has to be a high security one. Then there's the parking at times at Middle Head oval.
Page 32, Point 3.6 directly refers to this problem 'Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh is highly constrained in terms of access and parking'. Furthermore on page 34 '[it is] consistently recognised that environmental capacity (the relationships between traffic volumes, pedestrian safety, traffic noise and types of land use) inherently limits the opportunity for the precinct to effectively manage growth.'
Unfortunately although there are interesting ideas to encourage more people to this area the traffic concerns overshadow these.
DEMOLITION total, and/or RELOCATION
There are numbers of buildings targetted for demolition totally, or for demolition then relocation. These are expensive operations, with not much apparent practical benefit. Mostly the reason for these costly demolitions, and some relocations (read re-builds) focus on the improvement to view lines, removing 'existing built form' that is causing 'limited visibility'. Page 29, Point 3. "Existing Conditions Analysis".
APPROACH to area
The plan wants to improve the entrance to this area by the demolition and removal of the Middle Head oval change rooms. Again the problem of traffic and access needs to be dealt with as a first priority.
RE-DESIGN of EXISTING BUILDINGS
This is too detailed for me to comment on individual buildings but keeping to a reasonable budget to improve these buildings does not appear to be a consideration. It is hoped that these are "architectural ideas" only, and to keep in mind that these buildings are located on a headland and not in New York (page 9, figure 96) or Riga (page 58, figure 93).
LANDSCAPING
There seems to be too much emphasis on formed pathways and paved areas. This seems at variance with the many statements of "natural" views, and native landscape. At present the area has a charm and atrraction because it is not "formed". In fact some time ago my grandson wanted to go on a "bush walk" so I took him to this area.
CHOSEN LANGUAGE
Language can be so emotive even in a draft master plan like this. See page 29. Point 3.5 "Existing site analysis". 'Problems identified. Problems that impact the integration of a holistic plan for future use.The term "fracture" is used or a "fractured site". This terminology refers to specific issues that the master plan design team considers of significance if the site is to be renewed and repaired within the context of a nationally significant and highly activated cultural heritage place.' Then follows a list of 10 "fractures", not in order, but the team considers are "readily repaired".
Already the focus has moved away from the more ordinary term "concerns", or "problems", but to the far more emotive word "fractures". This term denotes a high degree of worry, perhaps urgency to fix the"fracture". This language is inappropriate and detracts from the issues raised.
The term "vibrancy" page 6, in the Executive summary, under 'Vision of Place', 'life and vibrancy - a people place'. This term seems at odds with the reason many people want to go to this quiet, peaceful place, away from the noise and tumult of the city. The use of this term makes me concerned that the authors of this plan have not understood the real importance of this area in a major city. It cannot be the Rocks, or Darling Harbour. It's different, and its differences need to be promoted.
POSITIVES
This feedback process is welcomed so individuals and organisations can have their say.
The emphasis on involvement with First Nations people is so positive and well overdue. Some of us remember the debate of the establishment of a nursing home in this locality with no reference to First Nations people.
The involvement of National Parks and Wildlife is vital. Really this section of Trust land is very limited in terms of space and scope without access to Harbour land.
Stephen Renkert
Submission
I am writing regarding the invitation for submissions to the Draft Master Plan for Middle Head that has been released by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust with submissions closing on 9 May 2023.
I was closely associated with the community movement in the 1990s to try to protect the former Defence lands from private over-development.
In the 1990s there developed a wonderful community determination that these lands and buildings of historical significance should be preserved into the long term for all people to understand and enjoy.
This movement was not just for the people of Mosman or Sydney. It became a matter of significance for Australia and this is even more the case today.
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was formed and, I believe, has done a very good job (sometimes in difficult financial circumstances). Over the last three decades the Harbour Trust foreshore parks have become quite renowned.
Middle Head is a "natural jewel" within Sydney Harbour and must be preserved in its existing form for the benefit of future generations. Irreplaceable and incredibly important is the beautiful natural environment, the indigenous antiquity and the significant military history of the area.
For many years there has been a conflict between the need to preserve these treasures with a need to generate funds to maintain them. The answer has been achieved through selected adaptive reuse of buildings on a variety of leases as well as Government financial support.
Fundamental to this concept was that there would be no new buildings and some limited historically insignificant structures could be removed.
Of necessity, for the principal objectives of preservation to be achieved, there must be a reasonably limited but open public access to the facilities. This is currently achieved by access being limited by available parking, bus services and walking access via the harbourside walking tracks. This approach has been very successful.
The recently released Draft Master Plan, however, indicates a concept of large public events with new buildings and developments. This represents a significant divergence away from the preservation of the Headland. Please can we reconsider this and involve the broad community on any future development ideas.
The Draft Master Plan is, in my opinion, a "thought bubble" and is way short of a Master Plan.
Middle Head needs to be preserved in its current form and the final Master Plan needs to reflect and reinforce this.
Elisabeth Veevers & Anthony Lo Surdo
Submission
Dear Madam / Sir
We purchased 2 Cobbittee Street in 1998 where we have lived continuously for 25 years.
We enjoy the quiet, green, open space offered by the area.
We have considered the Draft Master Plan (‘Plan’) submitted by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (‘Trust’).
We support Mosman Council and the Headland Preservation Group’s concerns regarding the Trust’s Plan for Middle Head Oval.
We oppose all actions proposed by the Plan that will increase traffic, parking, congestion and noise.
We raise for your consideration the following facts –
Middle Head Road
Is the sole vehicular access to Middle Head
Enjoys a shoulder in both directions from Military Road to Cobbittee Street
Decreases to single carriageway in both directions aOer Cobbittee Street
Feeds a peninsular - what goes down must come up
Middle Head accommodates
HMAS Penguin
NPWS
Middle Head Oval, operated by Mosman Council
Rehabilitated and built structures for commercial purposes
Sydney Buses route 111
Each of which generate traffic beyond the Trust’s control.
After Cobbittee Street
Parking is paid, limited and regulated by the Trust
There is no public parking available in HMAS Penguin or NPWS
The impact on Cobbittee Street is that
Users of Middle Head amenities prefer to park their vehicles on Cobbittee Street and walk down to Middle Head.
Exacerbated by
Visitors to Headland Park and Frenchies park in Cobbittee Street. They prefer this option in lieu of parking in Trust carparks.
A pilates studio operates at 1 Cobbittee Street. Its instructor and users park on Cobbittee Street.
Many houses on Cobbittee Street do not enjoy off street parking and are required to park on the street.
Conclusion
We seek that the Trust
Submit a traffic management plan that considers and responds to each of the factors listed above.
Removes and decreases vehicle traffic away from the funnel effect created by the narrowing of Middle Head Road.
Focusses on its vision and enhances green, open space by decreasing parking zones and commercial enterprise on Middle Head.
Ensures that Middle Head remains open to all Australians and does not become a commercial park and car park for those that can afford to work and park there.
Institutes a marketing and communications plan that emphasises access through public transport with no or limited vehicular access or expensive and restricted parking options.
Examples –
Taronga Zoo promotes access by public transport.
Barangaroo emphasises its public transport connections.
Mona Hobart presents the ferry as the only and obvious choice.Liaise with Sydney Ferries and Sydney buses to optimise the Circular Quay – South Mosman – Chowder Bay service.
Discourage vehicular access to Middle Head by signposting and directing all vehicles to Georges Heights parking zones. This should include the arrangement with the Sargent’s Mess shuttle service.
Encourage visitors to discover Middle Head along the ridge from Georges Heights, either on foot or by connecting with the 111 bus.
Maximise exposure to the Trust’s assets by incorporating its Mosman assets. For example – a discovery trail that starts at Georges Heights and takes in Georges Heights Lookout, the former golf clubhouse (Burnt Orange), Middle Head discovery and on to Chowder Bay.
Heather Hall
Submission
I am very concerned to read about the Draft master plan and what some of the proposals are.
Over the years my children and family and friends have spent many lovely days exploring and enjoying the natural beauty and the historical features of Middle Head , thereby learning of the development and history of this part of Sydney and its importance to all Australians.
I believe that some of the features of the Draft plan will utterly destroy many of those features which make this such a valuable area for people to want to come and visit and learn .
Events which will create excessive traffic and people coming into the area will have major detrimental impacts and cause further unwanted changes to roads and parking areas. And stop other people planning to come at those times. I don’t believe that there has been enough investigation into this probable impact.
I do not agree with the proposal to demolish the Guardhouse and Middle Head café . Visitors will need other outlets available for refreshments.
I do not agree with the proposal to erect new buildings in this Middle Head precinct.
I do not agree with the re-orientation of the Middle Head oval and the building of other new infrastructure.
I do not agree with the removal of the three Barracks and parade ground to create a landscaped area for large events and indigenous rituals. This will destroy a Heritage listed areaThere are other areas elsewhere and not far away that are more suitable and accessible.
The Barracks could be retained and re purposed to b more attractive to those who come to visit and experience the area or maybe for a small number of visitors who wish to experience an overnight stay in quiet , simple and peaceful surroundings.
Thank you for your consideration of this submission
Jack & Lynette Skipper, Mosman
Submission
I was shocked to find out the Trusts traffic management plan is based on traffic figures done during COVID lockdowns. Obviously they are flawed.The whole plan is unprofessional and flawed for this alone.
Middle Head Oval and the change room location should not be changed. Sure upgrade the change rooms in the existing spot.
The whole site has significant military history. I lived very close to Middle Head in 1942 and can recall the Japanese midget submarine attack, the noise, shelling, depth charges and sirens.
The buildings there should all be preserved and not left to rack and ruin. Especially the accommodation barracks to the east of the Oval that has not been maintained.
The Trust need a better plan to remove introduced weeds that dominate the site. They also block the view.
Thank you.
Joan Ayling
Submission
Having read and reviewed the Harbour Trust’s Draft Master Plan,
I am writing to oppose this document as inadequate to address the needs of the site.
I concur with the development plan for 10 Terminal but find the other proposals for the site vague, and less than suitable for the area.
I am pleased that the guard house has won a reprieve for now but suggest it should remain as part of the history of the site.
I disagree with modifications to the oval. I think it is fit for purpose and a waste of money . However the toilet block should be upgraded but on its current site.
As for the 3 barracks that have been left to deteriorate for quite some time, I would recommend that rather than bulldoze them they might be remodelled to accommodate Veteran soldiers . Particularly apt for a site than was used for army personnel in bygone days!
Another thought was to provide accommodation for overnight stays for walkers who are doing hikes through to other coastal areas.
Also accommodation for school students to study the area!
The idea of trying to accomodate 2000 for concerts etc seem rather
Incongruous given the lack of traffic feasibility studies on the immediate area and Mosman generally.
This site has a rich history and given that it also includes access to the National Park area I don’t see it as an attractive proposal. Please preserve rather than diminish the value of the area.
Margaret F Chambers, Mosman
Submission
I share the concerns raised by the Headland Preservation Group [HPG] in relation to the Sydney Harbour Trust [SHT] Draft Master Plan for Middle Head.
In particular I am concerned by the scale of the proposed developments in a very sensitive area. As custodian of the heritage site of Middle Head the SHT has an obligation to care for the site and maintain its historic value.
Pristine bushland: This is an area of largely pristine bushland not suitable to cater for large events and further building works.
In addition, as the HPG has pointed out, landscaping accompanying building works would be detrimental to the natural values of Middle Head.
Developments encouraging passive recreation such as walking tracks, on the other hand, would be compatible with the environmental value of Middle Head.
Access: Access is available through a single thoroughfare, Middle Head Road, which is quite inadequate to cater for the crowds envisaged in the Draft Master Plan even in normal circumstances, but in the case of unforeseen problems (eg bushfire, car accident or medical emergency) such a plan is, in my mind, irresponsible.
Events for around 2000 people over several days would cause considerable access stress and pose a major threat to the environmental quality of the area.
Proposed building: Fortunately it appears that the proposal to demolish the Guard House, at present functioning as the Middle Head Café, in favour of a new building (pavilion), has been rescinded. This is a very welcome decision. The Café is one of the delights of Mosman and very popular with residents and others from further afield.
I consider that the proposed demolition of Barracks Buildings 1, 2 and 3 is unacceptable. The buildings are listed on the Commonwealth Heritage register and have major historical value.
There are other problems with the Draft Master Plan in addition to those identified above, in particular proposed new buildings instead of adaptive re-use of existing structures.
I urge the SHT to review the planned development of Middle Harbour in line with its responsibility as custodian.
Michael McEvoy
Submission
I can see many good ideas and concepts in the DMP. The plan is more conceptual than being a master plan since there are some many details missing. It demands that a more detailed actual Master Plan be prepared and some consensus reached. However, I see the potential for many drawbacks as well.
Comments:
It is not necessary to remove the change facilities at Middle Head Oval and seems to be a waste of money just so a view from a vehicle can be opened. It does not invite the observer to exit a vehicle and seek the view. The DMP does make it clear where the change facilities will be located but in the totally wrong location in terms of the sun/shade aspect. At the HPG (Headland Preservation Group) public meeting on 12 April 2023 the Mayor of Mosman announced that the change facilities/toilet block will be brought up-to-date and is not in favour of their removal. The local sporting bodies and the community is clearly not in favour of any change to the facilities nor to the oval itself. Apparently, they are intended under the DMP to be relocated to provide a “Gateway” Yet there is no mention of the form of that Gateway. How will it “improve the sense of arrival at the headland”? A whopping great commercial sign? I understand that, as set out in the DMP, the buildings and walkway encroach on the oval. Surely this is a drafting error which must be rectified or the whole DMP is suspect as to the information contained in it.
How will the outcome of the DMP affect local traffic when events attracting 2000 + people arrive at the Headland? The DMP is not clear about what improvements will be made nor the parking spaces. It is noted that the traffic survey was conducted during the COVID pandemic when traffic was minimal.
There is no clear case for demolition of the guard house on Middle Head Road which houses the very popular Middle Head Café. Especially if it is merely to provide more open space and grass area. In item 2.4 of the DMP the guardhouse is referred to as having limited or no heritage significance. This is not relevant to the continuation of the Café business which has provided activation to the site. The upright canons on each side of the road are of military historic significance.
The space used as a car park just east of the guardhouse is proposed to be established as a modern day parade ground. For what purpose? This is not made clear.
Nowhere is the presumed link to the Sydney Harbour Scenic Walk made apparent in the DMP.
Item 3.1 of the DMP refers to interregional and international tourism as though they are objectives of the DMP. The road access to the site is already crowded and an increase in tourism will simply make the traffic situation worse, especially for a dual use carriageway. Any local resident in the south-eastern part of Mosman can attest to the huge volume of traffic in Summer coming through Mosman to Balmoral, the Zoo, and Middle Head. Luring more tourists to the area will compound the problem, especially with the current and predicted changes at Taronga Zoo.
While there is significant emphasis on Indigenous past occupation of the Headland but very little actual evidence; the military heritage is significant and there is little emphasis on that aspect. I am aware through friends locally who served in the military before and during the Vietnam War who were stationed at or did courses in the military establishments on Middle Head. They could supply information as to the military village aspect and other historic information. I myself served in the Drill Hall in Cross Street Mosman adjacent to the Headland site, during the Vietnam War.
I can appreciate the Trust’s need to provide ongoing income to fund the maintenance of the Trust site on the Headland but query the return on capital from what is in the DMP. It reads more like a fairground than an historical place of indigenous, military and cultural significance.
In summary, the DMP is too high level and we, the community, deserve to see a detailed Middle Head Master Plan and have the opportunity to comment on that Plan for at least three months. After all we will have to live with the Trust’s decision.
Pamela Roberts
Submission
Areas of concern
1. Maintaining the natural beauty of the area
To propose events that might bring 2000 people into the area for up to 3 days would lead to increased urbanisation of the area
2. Planning for traffic and parking
These events would lead to a large increase in traffic to the area and an increased need for parking. Already there is a proposal for increased numbers at Penguin.
Mosman has enormous problems with traffic already with ever increasing development at the Zoo and Balmoral a destination for Sydneysiders.
The proposal has not provided an adequate analysis of the impact the increase in traffic would make on the surrounding neighbourhood.
3. In a time of many demands on limited finances it seems completely unnecessary to demolish and relocate the change facilities.
It also seems again unnecessary to reorientate Middle Head oval.
It is important to keep the entire area of it for sport with many teams using the facility.
Mosman Council has already registered their concerns on both these issues
4. The guardhouse is an integral part of the Middle Head precinct and is used as a much loved café. Apart from destroying the building it would be a great loss to the community to lose the café.
5. It is very important to increase the connection, understanding and appreciation of the area from a natural, cultural, and military standpoint. To introduce any new buildings and playgrounds into this very historical area is inappropriate.
6. The use of the Southern lookout area to be used for events like weddings and then linked in with a food and beverage venue, is not an appropriate use of the area.
F. Taylor, Mosman
Submission
I write to express my very strong opposition to the so-called Master Plan for Middle Head.
I strongly object to the:
Reorientation of Middle Head Oval
Relocation of the existing toilet block
Demolition of the Guardhouse/ Middle Head café
Demolition of all the Barrack buildings would be a disgraceful breach of trust. The buildings are part of military history, they could be restored and put to good use. Removing them to open up the view is unnecessary. There are more than enough places from which to admire the view.
Urbanisation/destruction of the natural landscape.
It is ridiculous to build a facility to enable 2000 people to attend a” festival” on the Headland. A three-day festival, as has been foreshadowed. is not in keeping with the quiet peaceful Headland. It is incompatible, inappropriate and inconceivable that it was even considered. There is only one road into Middle Head, the traffic and parking for 2000 people would be a nightmare and would severely, negatively impact the quality of life of a huge proportion of Mosman residents.
The extension of the walking pathway is a good thing, and the establishment of the Interpretation Centre has merit.
Preserving the natural and military heritage values of the Precinct is the paramount consideration. That appears to be lost on the Harbour Trust.
The current plan is insensitive to the military history and will eliminate it.
There is no need for the Harbour Trust to interfere with this beautiful Headland.
The exceedingly poorly developed plan they have put forward is unacceptable.
Except for the Interpretation Centre, please leave the headland alone for people from far and wide to enjoy the natural surroundings and military history.
A previous attempt to destroy this beautiful Headland failed. This attempt must also fail and maybe then the Trust and all others will go away and leave Middle Head alone.
John Wakefield
Submission
The Draft Master Plan is lacking in analysis of transportation and traffic impacts both
within the Middle Head Park and in the approaches to the area. It is important to note that there is only one road which accesses the Headland and this is fed by only one major arterial road, being Military Rd, with secondary roads of Belmont, Rangers, Avenue and Queen being increasingly used to access the area.
The Draft Master Plan proposes events attracting 2000 people lasting up to 3 days, yet there are no details. No study has been completed to identify what level of activity Middle Head can sustain. There may be major impacts on parking, car, bus and pedestrian movements on Middle Head and neighbourhood streets. The access roads detailed above are heavily used and during peak periods are now at gridlock.
The Draft Master Plan proposes demolishing the change facilities and constructing a new pavilion in place of The Guardhouse now occupied by the Middle Head Cafe. This is ill- conceived as a Pavilion is inappropriately set facing the sun. Further, this loss of the very well used Middle Head Cafe is against the public interest and is commercially ill- conceived.
Overall, the Draft Master Plan lacks essential details to enable informed assessment.
Janet, Mosman
Submission
For me it is essential to preserve the natural beauty and simplicity of Middle Head with its rich history of home to the First Nations People and then the military since the landing of the First Fleet… who in reality trod lightly on the site. There are many magnificent view corridors in the precinct.
1. Relocation of sporting facilities is unnecessary, inappropriate, and wasteful.
Upgrading the existing pavilion will avoid demolition of the Cafe (former Guardhouse) loss of oval space, and concerns about added traffic congestion and pedestrian safety.
Middle Head Cafe is a successful adaptive reuse of a military building providing not only undercover seating but also outdoors, direct access to the car park on the old Parade Ground, but also spotlessly clean accessible toilets.
The food is consistently good ..a simple high quality French Menu…even affordable!
2. Demolition of Barrack Buildings will destroy the stories they tell eg accommodation for special Vietnam forces training in intelligence and terror in the subterranean passages just down the road.
The retention of at least one building tis important o complete the story of the Military Village.
3. In my opinion there is insufficient information about the overall wonderful work that has been done to date with all the National trust properties on the harbour, how they could « connect » with their own unique stories as MODERN tourist destinations by FERRY….
Mosman does NOT have roads to cope with even todays traffic and there is only 1 way IN and OUT ..a nightmare if we had a large concert catastrophe.
Finally let’s keep it inclusive eg a section for people with dementia eg Exeter UK
or for people with limited mobility, wheelchairs etc Blue Mountains
Patricia Robertson
Submission
I consider that the best use for the Ten terminal complex would be the establishment of an Interpretation Centre where the Indigenous, natural and military heritage values of the precinct could be shared.
I also consider that at least one of the barracks buildings opposite Ten terminal should be retained for historical reasons. These military buildings have a lot of historical significance and form part of the total military village. To retain the officers’ buildings and demolish the soldiers buildings entirely would in my opinion be a big mistake.
Although tired after over 20 years of neglect by the Harbour Trust at least one should be restored for its historical and cultural significance to the men who served in the Vietnam war.
I vehemently oppose the reorientation and decrease in size of the Middle Head oval and the relocation of the existing amenities block. This building clearly needs a major renovation to include female toilets but it should remain on the existing site. I believe that there is or was a prohibition on the erection of new buildings on Harbour Trust land, I see no reason why an exception should be made for the amenities block which is also in a very convenient location to the oval and passing traffic both vehicular and pedestrian.
I consider the proposal for events having the capacity for up to 2000 people to be poorly thought out and possibly dangerous in terms of the traffic up and down Middle Head Road. That portion of the road from Frenchy’s cafe to the bottom of the hill at the far end of HMS Penguin is narrow and winding. I see no proposal in the draft plan for any improvements such as widening the road. I understand that a survey of vehicle traffic and parking was conducted over a period of two years. That survey was conducted in the middle of the covid lockdown and cannot be relied upon. There is already a very large amount of traffic daily on Middle Head Road to the offices/ restaurants and other amenities on the Harbour Trust Land and other areas of Georges Heights. An increase in traffic for the number of people suggested, ie up to 2000 a day, would in my view be unsustainable. There would be insufficient parking and the road would become a bottleneck. As a resident of Middle Head Road. I do not wish it to become another Balmoral where in summer residents cannot move for the congestion.
It is not clear to me from the Master Plan whether a new building or stadium is part of the plan for a centre capable of holding 2000 people. If it is then I object to the construction of a new building on the historic site. It should be retained as such.
I understand that the cafe in the guardhouse has been given a new 5-year lease. I trust that removes the necessity to object to the proposed demolition of the guardhouse which I also strongly oppose. In my view the whole of the Middle Head area should be retained for its historical value and it’s natural beauty.
I support the proposed walking tracks but I do not support the urbanization of the natural landscape. It should be left in its natural state with the removal of all non indigenous species of trees and plants.
Glyneth Moll
Submission
I am devastated to learn of the scale of the proposed alterations to this beautiful and precious unspoilt natural area of Sydney. Its quiet, low traffic scenic splendour is enormously valued by many, many of my friends. We frequent the pretty outdoor restaurants of Frenchy’s, Burnt Orange and Middle Head Cafe and enjoy the walks and artists’ studios.
In particular we love the Middle Head Cafe, it is a charming, small family-owned business that serves delicious food and has easy parking. The family are a real part of our community. We know their names, enjoy their news, look forward to new items Christelle has added to the menu, like seeing the kookaburras in the trees as we eat. Please allow our much-loved Middle Head Cafe to stay.
Throughout the pandemic we could frequent Middle Head Cafe and Frenchy’s because they are quiet scenic outdoor venues. Sydney has precious few. Heavy traffic down that lovely quiet road will totally spoil the area. When we have visitors we can take them to this still unspoilt part of Sydney with pride and share something of the history of the city with them too.
Surely using some of the old buildings for a small history and environment museum would be of greater value than a stadium! Please think of the whole community.
I ask you to please take note of these strong objections to the draft plan.
Julia King, 2644
Submission
It would be good to see the buildings restored and used appropriately. A very well- executed interpretation center is much-needed. I support the plan for the Southside hospitality area, but:
You minimise the importance of the total military heritage of the area.
I do not agree with demolishing the Middle Head Cafe.
The increased traffic will be a real problem and you have not thought this through properly or given a workable solution. This is a major problem.
I spent 20 years of my life living in Mosman and enjoying Middle Head. I would love to see the heritage and natural landscape protected, but do not overthink this. Your plan makes Middle Head too ubiquitous and structured. Please, please retain its true character! I want to take my children back there to enjoy the beauty and the history that I was privileged to experience. I visit every time I come back to Sydney.
John Sullivan, Neutral Bay
Submission
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Master Plan for Middle Head.
I am disappointed that the Trust is clearly not interested in community views on the plan - just ticking the box. Releasing such a lengthy and important document over the period when people were distracted with the NSW elections, Easter and school holidays is not in the spirit of true community consultation, even if an extension was granted - under pressure.
It’s difficult to comment on important parts of the plan without any detail, eg the new sports facility is just a white dotted rectangle with no height specifications, size etc. The Trust approves its own developments, so who knows what will eventuate.
The plan should focus on what is really important about Middle Head - fixing up and making good use of 10 Terminal. A very good visitors and interpretation centre is sorely needed. All the visitors I take to Middle Head want to know about the history and they can’t believe such an important site in Australia’s history has been allowed to deteriorate.
Do not demolish the Guardhouse/Middle Head Cafe.
Do not spend funds on unnecessary landscaping, changing the oval etc..
Martin Skipper
Submission
Dear Minister
May I bring to your attention the Harbour Trust Draft Master Plan for Middle Head.
Although considerable taxpayers money seems to have been expended on this Draft Master Plan, to me this is a concept plan at best, with no actual facts upon which to gage/visualise the final outcome or to provide informed comment. Little detail is provided throughout.
Importantly, a considerable number of objections have been raised locally including the process followed leading to the promulgation of this Draft Master Plan.
The SHFT Operational Mission states: ‘to partner and collaborate to deliver mutually beneficial outcomes with community that foster long-term relationships’ and further the Draft Master Plan states that in February 2021 quote ‘following initial community consultation the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust executive board instructed the creation of a Development Program Master Plan’
I am aware of a focus group walkabout and zoom meetings were conducted in 2020, this may have formed the initial community consultation however I am not aware of any public community meetings taking place since. If this was indeed the extent of the ‘initial consultation’ it would seem remiss of the SHFT not to include public meetings, since this plan will obviously impact the public greatly.
As was highlighted at a recent Mosman Council community meeting, locals are very concerned by any planned future development of the Headland. Military Road, the only entry to the Headland is beyond saturation point now. You would be aware that Taronga Zoo is planning a major tourist expansion, the enlarged school and new the new Woolworths will all add further to the Military Road gridlock; should regional tension/conflict increase in the SE Pacific region, the ‘operational tempo’ of HMAS Penguin would certainly be ramped upbring unimaginable pressure on Military and Middle Head roads and to the local community, both businesses and residents. All of these facts must be taken into consideration and included in the draft planning stage. A new traffic impact study must be considered.
I am sure that by now you will be aware of community objections including, but not limited to:
Middle Head Oval should be left as is, re-orientation and all that is involved, is a complete waste of tax payers money and unnecessary, the sports pavilion simply needs a major upgrade, not a relocation as proposed;
The Middle Head Café, the old guardhouse, serves an important community meeting place and is a thriving business and should never be demolished;
Planned live concerts and the like for 2,000 patrons, lasting 3 days;
There should be NO new built form on Middle Head and all existing buildings must be properly maintained and adaptively re-used as was originally planned when the SHFT was established. There are buildings that have been vacant and left to deteriorate for the past 25 years.
Now let me say just a little about my perspective of this unique Headland. It has been the home to the indigenous peoples of this area for tens of thousands of years. Archaeological digs at Balmoral tell us that First Nations peoples were here for at least 4000 years prior to white settlement, it has a history dating back beyond our imagination. To wander around this Headland you get a ‘Sense of Closeness’ to its past, its solitude, its natural beauty and to the peoples who called this home. Sit quietly and reflect upon a way of life now lost, of collecting sea shells or trapping the next meal, of youngsters frolicking around in the crystal clear harbour waters…. and imagine the convicts and soldiers who toiled to build these historic fortifications for us and more latterly of our own defence personnel who served here in the military hospital and the soldiers and sailors who trained here and left to serve and defend us, and those who never returned…sit quietly and reflect, let the pounding of the surf below and the chatter of birdlife above take you back…...
But now the SHFT our Trust, is planning to rebuild and reshape this Headland to add new buildings to reshape/widen roads to accommodate concerts for up to 2,000 patrons and to add congestion to an already saturated overcrowded peninsular.
May I ask, that before the Trust goes ahead with this ‘draft concept planning document’ that it promulgates the results of its survey and the public feedback and then to conduct a series of public meetings ‘to partner and collaborate to deliver mutually beneficial outcomes with community that foster long-term relationships’ as per the SHFT Operational Mission.
May I compliment the SHFT on much of its work since 1998 and plead that it listens to the community before proceeding further. The Headland is a very special place.
Graham Kells
Submission
Introduction
I have lived in Mosman since 1984, when I was transferred during my Regular Army service to command the Army’s Operational Deployment Force’s Logistic Support Group. My family resided in an army married quarter at Georges Heights during this time until I retired from the army in 1987. We then moved into our current home at the above address.
One of the many units under my command was a Terminal Squadron located within 10 Terminal Regiment. During this time (1984-2000), my wife was employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs with the International Training Institute (ITI), formerly the Australian School of Pacific Administration (ASOPA) and subsequently the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB). Our three children were brought up in this area with Georges Heights and Middle Head virtually being their playground/ backyard.
So, I am very familiar with the area from both professional and personal perspective’s, including local, national and international significance.
The” Master Plan”
Upon my reading of the” Master Plan”, I was shocked to find it is not a Master Plan at all. Having some experience with precinct master plans in my post military careers, my perception was one of bewilderment. It read like a “thought bubble “written on the back of a cigarette paper, lacking cohesion, relevance and detail. To be frank, I found it insulting to the average reader. Any request for Commonwealth assistance for such a project would, and should be, rejected on any professional basis. There are so many errors and omissions, such as
No traffic control plan to cope with such a proposal to stage events to be attended by up to 2,000 people, events which are out of character with the national and heritage significance of these lands, let alone questionable within the charter of the Harbour Trust
Desecration of the parade ground which hosted the Japanese Prime Minister following the end of WW11. This is a site of high national/international significance which must be preserved with a plaque commemorating such a significant event.
The destruction of all the three barrack buildings is overkill when one could be refurbished for use as very short term back packer accommodation and /or walking trail tour accommodation attracting revenue for The Trust.
Any features towards urbanisation should be disregarded as an afront to heritage and national significance of the precinct.
The proposal to move the change sheds and toilets from their present location to the south-eastern end of the oval is perplexing and financially irresponsible when all that is needed is to upgrade the existing facilities to adapt to current standards and requirements.
The intrusion onto the oval is bewildering. Why? Is this just a drawing mistake? Any other explanation beggar’s belief.
Strong Recommendations
The refurbished exteriors of the expansive10 Terminal brick buildings are ideal for fit out of a 50 bed not for profit residential aged care facility (RACF) with preference for veterans to reflect the gratitude and debt of the local community and the nation for their service. The ideal provider for such a facility would be RSL Life Care which should incorporate a museum and interpretive centre commemorating the military and ASOPA legacies. Lease negotiations, which should include a revenue arrangement for the Harbour Trust, should commence with RSL Life Care and the Commonwealth. This is a topical area of concern and would be compatible with the charter of The Trust. These buildings should be accommodated as soon as possible before they deteriorate. It is difficult to imagine any more suitable use of such expansive number of buildings which would guarantee revenue to The Harbour Trust. Traffic implications for such a facility would be minimal with parking areas for staff, small number of service vehicles and visitors at any one time readily available.
A second strong recommendation is to afford the Mosman community “skin in the game”. An introductory method to achieve this is with a fund-raising campaign by the Mosman community to fund the refurbishment and fit out of the one barrack block retained as mentioned above. This gives the community a sense of “ownership” (involvement) and pride as opposed to negativism and opposition. Furthermore, I propose that the Woolworths Corporation be approached to initiate this process with a substantial contribution. Such a contribution would be beneficial to both Woolworths and the community to redress a perceived acceptance/trust issue lingering in the community. Additionally, local community volunteer involvement within the RACF (as is normal for RSL Life Care operations) also recommended above, would serve similar purposes of “ownership” (involvement).and pride. *
Conclusion
It is gratifying to hear The Trust has shelved its plans to demolish The Middle Head Cafe. By its own admission this facility is highly regarded not only by The Trust, but by the local community, the small businesses in the precinct and visitors to the area. Well done.
I trust these comments will be helpful in The Trust’s deliberations in collaboration with the local community and the Commonwealth.
In the interests of transparency, I request acknowledgement of receipt of this email.
Yours sincerely
Graham Kells MC
*Disclaimer: Between 2001 and 2017 I was the Honorary Treasurer, Financial and Military Advisor with RSL Life Care. I was instrumental in the exponential growth of the organisation between 2001 to 2017 from two locations and $65million in assets to 34 locations and $1.4 billion in assets throughout NSW and ACT achieving commendable levels of accreditation during the decade 2007 to 2017, commensurate with recurring $40 million annual surpluses. This was achieved as a result of incredibly hard work and dedication during 2001 to 2007 which saved the organisation from collapse and transformed it into the envy of the industry.
After 21 years military service (1966-1987) I was a Senior Manager ANZ Funds Management and then Chief Manager Commonwealth Financial Services.
Robert Guthrie
Comment
The draft plan has a major flaw. Any building that is to contain a viewing area for spectators (& players such as the batting side in cricket) should NOT be on the eastern or south eastern side if the playing field. The area would mean sitting in direct sunlight and looking into the sun at any time after about 11.00am. North Sydney Oval, the SCG Oval, Rawson Oval are examples of where a well designed building should be. Georges Heights Oval shows where it should not be. The only real use of the change rooms, showers are only used as a canteen are on winter mornings by Mosman Junior Football Club!
As a Cricket umpire for over 25 seasons, I am familiar with the placement of grand stands, incorporating change rooms & toilets and I am only aware of two grounds where the building is on the eastern or north eastern side of the field, and none on the south eastern area where the historical significant Guard House is located.