The Headland Preservation Group ( HPG ) is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the report of the Independent Review ( the Review ) of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust ( Harbour Trust ).
HPG has consulted extensively with the wider community and has been supported by the breadth of community submissions and community attendance at the many forums held and in particular, the forum held on February 18 this year. HPG has also met with community representatives from the major Trust sites, with those who fought the original battle to save Trust lands, with Mayors from affected councils, with Trust Board members past and present and various politicians.
HPG is broadly supportive of the 21 recommendations to government on the future of the Harbour Trust and its operations, subject to our real concerns outlined in this response and more particularly in respect to the following:
• ‘Whole of Harbour’ strategy – Recommendation 9
• Partnerships with the Commercial Sector, in particular leasing policy – Recommendation 13
• North Head Sanctuary – Recommendations 17,18 and 19
• Funding the Harbour Trust – Recommendation 21
HPG is concerned that at this stage that details of the recommendations that the review considers necessary and the implementation of those recommendations are yet to be determined. Clearly, detail is fundamental to the community’s full acceptance of the recommendations.
It is essential that the community is widely consulted in the planning process and that their voice is heard. The community is the Harbour Trust’s first and foremost stakeholder. HPG and the wider community fought for the establishment of the Harbour Trust 20 years ago and the ultimate success or otherwise of the Harbour Trust rests with the community’s acceptance of its future planning and direction.
CUSTODIANSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
Recommendation 1 – endorsed
The objects of the Harbour Trust set out in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001, which focus on public access and amenity, and the protection, conservation and interpretation of environmental and heritage values, should remain unchanged.
Recommendation 2 – endorsed with amendment
The Harbour Trust sites should remain in public hands. Existing protections to achieve this, such as s. 24 of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001, should be maintained.
HPG considers that this recommendation must be strengthened by deleting the word ‘should’ and inserting in its stead the word ‘must’.
‘The Harbour Trust sites must remain in public hands.
Recommendation 3 – endorsed
Whilst Snapper Island is included in the Harbour Trust’s Comprehensive Plan, any handover of this site or transfer of any other new sites to the Harbour Trust will need to be accompanied with sufficient funding to allow for remediation and ongoing maintenance and management of the site.
TRANSFER OF LAND TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
Recommendation 4
The Harbour Trust sites should remain with the Commonwealth. The transfer of any sites to New South Wales would be premature at this time.
The Review considers that collaboration between the two levels of government should be strengthened and welcomes the proposal from New South Wales that a significantly closer relationship between the Commonwealth, the Harbour Trust and the New South Wales Government is needed.
HPG endorses the recommendation that Harbour Trust sites should remain with the Commonwealth and emphasises the ‘strongly expressed majority stakeholder view that the sites should not be handed back to the New South Wales Government.’
The Review further recommends ‘a significantly closer relationship between the Commonwealth, the Harbour Trust and the New South Wales Government’. Please refer to HPG’s response to Recommendation 9.
THE FUTURE OF THE HARBOUR TRUST
Recommendation 5 – endorsed.
The Harbour Trust should operate as an ongoing entity:
a) The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 should be amended to remove Part 10 and other provisions related to the scheduled repeal of the Act.
b) The Harbour Trust’s legislative, financial and operational framework and capabilities should reflect its role as an ongoing entity.
HARBOUR TRUST GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
HPG supports the review recommendations on Page 16, Paragraphs 45, 48 & 49. HPG emphasises the importance of a skills based independent board. It is vitally important that the Trust gain the confidence of the community in its vision and strategy for Harbour Trust sites in its management and care and engage with the community on protection and interpretation, heritage, environmental and cultural values.
Recommendation 6
Membership of the Harbour Trust’s Board should reflect the skills and expertise required for the future:
a) The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 should be amended to further specify that the appointment of each member of the Harbour Trust should be based on their expertise in one or more of the following areas: law, finance, asset management, commercial leasing, architecture, public administration, Indigenous engagement, heritage, environment, tourism and marketing.
b) When an appointment is made to the Board, an explanation of how these competency requirements have been considered and addressed should be published.
c) The Board should maintain a skills matrix and conduct regular reviews of its capacity and performance.
d) Representational positions for the New South Wales Government and Local Councils should be retained. These positions should be filled by senior officials with appropriate expertise from the relevant jurisdiction.
HPG considers that Recommendation 6 must be strengthened by deleting the word ‘should’ in the first line and inserting the word ’must’ in its stead i.e. ‘Membership of the Harbour Trust’s Board should must reflect the skills and expertise required for the future’.
Recommendation 6 (a), (b), (e) – endorsed. Recommendation 6 (c) – endorsed with proviso:
HPG endorses the recommendation that the Board maintain a skills matrix. However, it is essential that the requisite range of skills and expertise include asset management, indigenous engagement, environment, planning and heritage conservation.
HPG recommends that the Board appointment process should be transparent, and details of the appointments, tenure and fees earned, be available on the public record.
Recommendation 6 (d) – endorsed with amendment
HPG recommends that representational positions for New South Wales Government and Local Councils be retained. Whilst one position from New South Wales Government should be filled by a senior official, the Local Councils position on the other hand, should be filled by the elected Mayor in accordance with Part 3, S. 12(3A) of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.2001. The position of Council representative should be on a 3-year rotation basis shared between all affected Councils.
Recommendation 7
The organisational capabilities and structure of the Harbour Trust management and staff should be updated to reflect the expertise and focus the organisation needs into the future, including by:
a) Establishing a dedicated site manager and staff for complex and work-intensive sites - in particular North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island.
b) Reorienting the structure of the Harbour Trust towards three key streams of activity;
• place based management;
• finance, asset management and commercial operations;
• heritage, tourism and site activation.
c) Refocusing staff capabilities and skills to better match future operational requirements, including place-based planning; strategic planning; stakeholder engagement; asset management; financial management and accounting; environment; heritage; tourism; visitor services; and precinct and site activation.
Recommendation 7 a) – endorsed with amendment
Headland Park and Sub-base Platypus are complex and work-intensive sites which also require a dedicated site manager.
Recommendation 7 b) & c) – endorsed
PARTNERSHIPS
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE COMMUNITY
Recommendation 8
Community involvement in the work of the Harbour Trust should be strengthened by:
a) Greater use of Technical Advisory Committees, to supplement the expertise of the Harbour Trust when dealing with complex tasks or issues.
b) Reconstituting and refocusing the Community Advisory Committees as consultative forums so that they are more directly involved in priority-setting by the Harbour Trust. This should include the attendance of at least one Harbour Trust Board member at each meeting.
c) Establishing a dedicated annual budget for community, volunteer and Indigenous projects aimed at increasing site visitation, enhancing the visitor experience or improving public access.
d) More active engagement by the Harbour Trust Board and management with volunteers, community groups and others at a site-by-site level.
Recommendation 8 – endorsed with amendment
There should be a CAC sub-committee in respect of complex and work-intensive sites, in particular, North Head, Headland Park, Sub-base Platypus, and Cockatoo Island.
PARTNERSHIPS ACROSS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Recommendation 9
Collaboration and partnerships need to be strengthened across strategic, management and operational levels, and across all levels of government, to establish a stronger ‘whole of Harbour’ approach to planning of the Sydney Harbour foreshore.
The Commonwealth Government should therefore establish a formal taskforce or partnership with the New South Wales Government that fosters collaboration and joint planning, supported by a Memorandum of Understanding that includes:
a) The inclusion of Harbour Trust sites in the development of a wider Sydney Harbour vision;
b) The development of a joint visitor and tourism program of year-round activity that includes financial contributions from the New South Wales Government, recognising that this will provide long term economic benefits for New South Wales; and
c) Opportunities for further enhancing and interpreting the Indigenous values of the sites.
Recommendation 9 – endorsed in principle, subject to the following qualifications
The Review recommends that ‘collaboration and partnerships need to be strengthened across strategic, management and operational levels, and across all levels of government, to establish a stronger ‘whole of Harbour’ approach to planning of the Sydney Harbour foreshore.
The Commonwealth Government should therefore establish a formal taskforce or partnership with the New South Wales Government that fosters collaboration and joint planning, supported by a Memorandum of Understanding.’
1. A Memorandum of Understanding would require a joint vision between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government for the management of Trust lands.
The vision of the Trust and purpose of the lands differ from other harbour sites. Trust lands are unique with enormous environmental and heritage value – they stand alone under their own specific Act of parliament with statutory requirements which must be observed.
The Trust’s vision focuses on preserving and creating a national legacy of the finest foreshore park in the world and providing places to enrich the cultural life of the city and nation. This focus is on preserving, interpreting, education, culture and caring for our indigenous heritage.
The New South Wales Government vision on the other hand is specifically interested in the development and enhancement of Sydney as a global city and the State generally and is not necessarily focussed on or aligned with the Trust’s vision.
Trust lands are part of an integral wider Sydney Harbour vision, but must not be dictated to by it.
2. The Review further states that ‘this ‘whole of Harbour’ approach should be LED by the New South Wales Government’. Page 21, paragraph 20.
Who then would be accountable for the management of Trust land – New South Wales or Commonwealth? The Trust’s obligation to fulfil the terms of the Act under which it was established and operates, and to comply with the Comprehensive and Management Plans, must not be diminished.
Stakeholder views (Page 6) very definitely want custodianship, and that includes management of the lands, to remain with the Commonwealth.
HPG supports the retention of the original vision, purpose and objects of the Trust Act. These lands have an enormous public value as they are. This is evidenced in the important natural breakout they provide in the current pandemic.
The Commonwealth must have sole responsibility for the protection and management of Trust lands. The ‘whole of Harbour’ vision, only to the extent that it delivers visitor and community experiences, transport, marketing and tourism, is supported by HPG
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
HPG endorses a MoU between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government subject to the following qualifications:
Transparency of decision making followed by timely publicity of any decisions made.
NO interference in management of Trust sites. Trust lands are part of the whole but stand- alone under their own Act of parliament the provisions of which must not be diminished.
The partnership NOT to be led by the New South Wales Government but by a joint committee of equal representation from the Commonwealth and NSW Governments. The Community has no confidence in NSW track record on managing public parkland and heritage assets in and around Sydney Harbour.
Provide for community representation and consultation.
The ‘wider Sydney Harbour vision’ must not compromise the vision, objects and purpose of the Trust Act and MUST endorse an emphasis on heritage, preservation, interpretation, indigenous values and education.
Promote public interest in each Trust site in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and each sites respective Management Plan.
Recommendation 10
The Harbour Trust should consult appropriately and facilitate a more joined up approach to the management of contiguous public lands and facilities held by neighbouring Local Councils and explore opportunities for additional collaboration, such as a joint calendar of community events on Harbour Trust sites
Recommendation 10 – endorsed subject to the following
The Trust should ‘consult’ and ‘collaborate’, with Local Councils. However, in doing so, it must ensure compliance with the objects of the Trust Act and the vision, core values, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Management Plans.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR
Recommendation 11
The Harbour Trust should strengthen its capability in commercial leasing and consider realigning its Leasing Policy to adopt a separate approach for each site, with additional detail on maintenance requirements, lease renewal and sub-leasing.
Recommendation 11 – endorsed subject to the following comments
The reviewers noted that in the review process there was strong public concern about the tension between protecting environmental and heritage values and pursuing appropriate commercial activity. The reviewers also noted that ‘there are a range of controls currently in place… ensure that the right balance is struck’. These important controls are set out in the objects to the Trust Act (S.6) and must be maintained.
The object of overriding importance is S.6 (b) ‘to protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land.’ Whilst HPG supports the adaptive re-use of existing buildings for commercial purposes, this must be done in accordance with S.6 (b) of the Trust Act, the Comprehensive Plan, Management Plans and policies. The desire to make money from the adaptive re-use of built assets on Trust lands should never compromise these values.
Recommendation 12 – endorsed
The requirement for the Minister to approve contracts of greater than $1 million should be revised to a $5 million threshold.
Recommendation 13
The Minister should have the authority to approve leases of between 25 and 35 years on Harbour Trust sites.
Leases of longer than 35 years should remain possible but subject to the following controls:
a) The site management plans and/or the commercial leasing policy should identify buildings or areas for which 35-year leases or longer are potentially available.
b) The Harbour Trust must publish a statement of reasons outlining why the grant of the lease is consistent with the objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001.
Leases of longer than 35 years should continue to be subject to Parliamentary disallowance. The Harbour Trust should retain authority to enter into leases of less than 25 years.
Recommendation 13 – not endorsed
Another control in protecting the balance between commercial activity and environmental and heritage protection is the length of lease entered into by a lessee.
Currently, the maximum length of lease is 25 years with a requirement that a lease of more than 25 years is disallowable by Parliament.
HPG endorses:
Leases up to 25 years to be determined by the Trust, and
Leases between 25 and 35 years to require:
the approval of the Trust
the approval of the Minister, and
to be a disallowable instrument by the Parliament.
HPG does not endorse leases over 35 years.
To avoid uncertainty the definition of the term ‘Lease’ must include ‘options.’
Leases up to 25 years are appropriate for most Trust sites. Trust lands, with the exception of Cockatoo Island, have a soft footprint on the land, being suitable for less intensive uses requiring shorter term leases. Many existing major tenants including restaurants, function centres, Sydney Institute of Marine Science with leases less than 25 years, have achieved solid outcomes.
Leases between 25 and 35 years are reluctantly agreed to by HPG. They require a high degree of accountability by the Trust and should only be entered into in exceptional circumstances where:
In addition to Ministerial approval, Parliamentary disallowance provisions are applicable.
The leasing proposal complies with the objects of the Trust Act, the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, public access is maintained to the site and environment and heritage values are protected.
The buildings or sites have been independently assessed by individuals with expertise in heritage architecture, quantity surveying, building evaluation and have been identified in site management plans as being potentially suitable for leases up to 35 years.
The leasing process is independent, transparent and competitive, meaning that ‘unsolicited proposals’ will not be accepted.
HPG recommends that any discussions regarding commercial partners, lease terms in excess of 25 years, or high intensity development on Trust land should be monitored by an Independent Probity Auditor from a major accounting firm, not involved with the subject transaction.
This would provide the public with the confidence that all negotiations and discussions are being totally transparent and that outcomes will be in accordance with the Trust Act and supporting plans.
Leases ‘of longer than 35 years’ ARE NOT endorsed by, and would be strongly opposed by the community. The recommendation ‘of leases of 35 years or longer’ allows for an undefined term which may result in long term leases that effectively result in the privatisation of public land.
Leases longer than 35 years are not endorsed for the following reasons:
• The Trust has an obligation to protect and conserve these lands for future generations of Australians. There is an intergenerational equity consideration in determining the length of a lease. A lease of over 35 years alienates public land for well over a generation. The Trust must not burden future generations with leases which after 35 years may not suit community expectations.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances is a lease of more than 25 years required for commercial purposes.
The reference to Woolwich Dock at paragraph 26, page 22, of the Review Report is a good example of a successful partnership based on a lease term of 22years and 11 months. The HPG, and the community, are strongly of the view that most appropriate activities for Trust buildings are of a similar intensity to the Woolwich Dock example. These uses do not generally require lease terms of more that 25 years and in most cases will be sustainable on a shorter lease term. In any case a good tenant whose activities contribute to the Trust vision for its assets could always expect a lease renewal where appropriate.
There will always be a balancing act between attracting suitable uses to the properties and making lease terms so long that they encourage and attract the wrong type of uses. Limiting lease terms to a period of up to 25 years (with up to 35 years possible only with Ministerial approval and Parliamentary disallowance provisions) would avoid approaches for inappropriate development. Further, the higher the intensity of use and capital expenditure incurred, the longer the lease term, the greater the risk of alienation of Trust land. Naturally, many private sector investors would always prefer a long lease term - however this is likely not to be in the best interests of the Trust properties.
To improve the leasing and revenue generation of Trust assets, it is recommended that the Trust seeks the input of experienced commercial leasing agents to assist in identifying suitable tenants and to negotiate on current market terms and conditions including rent and capital expenditure. This would expand the marketing base well beyond the Trust website which is where leasing opportunities are currently found.
External experts could also be engaged from time to time to assist in the Asset Management function. This would facilitate the strategic planning for each asset to ensure that:
The asset is as attractive as possible to tenants,
Lease terms available suit the style of tenant being targeted, and
That each tenant adds to the fabric of the precinct and benefits other tenants through the customers it attracts.
Overall the Trust operational activities should be more commercial and professional to broaden the activities, enhance the tenant experience and in doing so optimise revenue.
PARTNERSHIPS TO SUPPORT HISTORY AND HERITAGE
Recommendation 14 – endorsed
The Harbour Trust should establish a partnership with the Environment and Engineering Branch in the Estate and Infrastructure Group of the Department of Defence, to support the interpretation of the Harbour Trust sites in respect of their military history.
Recommendation 15 – endorsed
Indigenous heritage of Harbour Trust sites should be recognised and celebrated through improved signage, storytelling and the provision of information at the sites, particularly Headland Park, North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island.
Recommendation 16 – endorsed
The Harbour Trust should employ a Development Manager to work with its existing volunteer network, engage with Indigenous, military and veterans’ organisations to promote the heritage of the sites, encourage visitation and a greater interest in activating sites, progress relevant projects from the dedicated community fund and encourage relevant sponsorship and philanthropic investment for the Indigenous and other historical activities on the sites.
NORTH HEAD SANCTUARY
Pathways to complete rehabilitation and reactivation.
Recommendation 17
The Commonwealth and New South Wales should convene a working group of senior officials to collaboratively identify a shared long-term vision and way forward for North Head Sanctuary.
Until there is clarity around the future of North Head Sanctuary and a decision is made as to whether
the site is to be transferred back to the New South Wales Government or retained by the Commonwealth under the protection and management of the Trust, OR
long term arrangements are agreed pursuant to recommendation 19(b), then recommendations 17, 18 & 19 are not appropriate.
The Review notes p.30 Paragraph 27, ‘that the prospect of a transfer of North head Sanctuary to the New South Wales Government, in accordance with the Deed of Agreement, may concern some community members. HPG would suggest that it would alarm many community members. Any transfer to New South Wales would put at risk the very strong legislative protections of environment and heritage, which are currently in place which cannot be found in equivalent NSW legislation.
Recommendation 18
The existing Deed of Agreement for the North Head Sanctuary should be amended to include an agreed rehabilitation plan, with particular emphasis on the School of Artillery complex.
Recommendation 19
The amended Deed of Agreement for North Head Sanctuary should:
a) remove the requirement for New South Wales to approve leasing arrangements that extend beyond 1 January 2032;
b) clarify long term arrangements for the site – that is, whether the site is to be transferred back to New South Wales, and the preconditions and processes for doing so;
c) agree on the objectives for the future state of the site, including appropriate site activation;
d) identify the pathways for achieving the shared objectives, including funding requirements; and
e) be developed with community input.
Recommendations 18 & 19 – ENDORSED ONLY if it is agreed that North Head Sanctuary is to be transferred back to the New South Wales Government.
If it is proposed that the transfer to New South Wales does take place, then and only then, does HPG endorse Recommendations 18, 19 (c), (d), and (e) with special emphasis on (e) and with the proviso that any collaboration undertaken by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Governments must be undertaken in accordance with the vision and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the North Head Sanctuary Plan of Management. These plans must form the foundation in respect of any further planning for North Head Sanctuary.
COCKATOO ISLAND
Recommendation 20
A fresh look at Cockatoo Island is required, including:
a) an immediate injection of funding to address the backlog of critical repairs and maintenance works to ensure at least current levels of public access are retained and significant heritage assets are not damaged beyond repair (note this funding is included in recommendation 21);
b) the development of a masterplan should be undertaken in consultation with all stakeholders, including the New South Wales Government, together with a refresh of the Comprehensive Plan if necessary;
c) an audit of buildings and structures on the island to determine heritage value, suitability for future use and required investment, to be conducted by individuals with expertise in heritage architecture, quantity surveying, building evaluation and Indigenous heritage;
d) appointment of a site manager to supervise the development of the masterplan and audit, identify and address priority works, and develop a site-specific approach for leasing and rehabilitation;
e) consideration of the role of Cockatoo Island in a broader New South Wales Government vision for Sydney Harbour, and nearby sites such as Goat Island (Me-mel), as part of a wider Harbour tourism experience;
f) keeping a range of activities on the site to maximise public access and the opportunities for different kinds of visitor experiences;
g) seeking to lease out the glamping/camping/accommodation facilities to a commercial operator;
h) a staged approach to rehabilitation over time; and
i) Tasking and resourcing the Harbour Trust’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group with developing options for an Indigenous engagement strategy for the island.
Recommendation 20 (a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (j), (i) – endorsed
Recommendation 20 (c) – endorsed subject to amendment
to include individuals with expertise in military, maritime and colonial heritage.
Recommendation 20 (b)
In developing the Masterplan it is important to consider the strong interest from the community and stakeholders in reflecting and interpreting the multi layered history of the site. HPG would be reluctant to see a refresh of the Comprehensive Plan which was developed after extensive community consultation. If the Plan is to be amended in any way, it must be with proper community consultation and only in respect of Chapter 5 pertaining to Cockatoo Island.
Recommendation 20 (e) – endorsed with the following proviso
The ultimate decision on uses and management of Cockatoo Island must remain with the Trust.
FUNDING
Recommendation 21
The Government should provide immediate additional funding to the Harbour Trust to supplement the revenue it generates.
a) This should include urgent funding of $47 million across the forward estimates commencing in financial year 2021 for maintenance and upkeep of the sites, including addressing a backlog of repairs and maintenance.
b) Immediate one-off funding of $3 million should be provided to the Harbour Trust to enable the development of the masterplan for Cockatoo Island, an asset audit for Cockatoo Island and a rehabilitation plan for North Head Sanctuary, providing a basis for site-specific capital plans.
c) The Harbour Trust should engage with the New South Wales government, along with the private sector, to identify opportunities for additional funding for the activation of plans for North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island.
d) Further funding for major rehabilitation should then be based on the processes contemplated by Recommendations 17-20 and, in particular, site-specific capital plans which set out the heritage significance of each building, works to be undertaken, the cost of those works and options for adaptive reuse.
As things stand, the Trust is not generating sufficient revenue to maintain Trust sites. The reviewers explored five scenarios for funding pathways based on the 2018 Deloitte Report which was updated in 2020.
The five scenarios considered are:
Scenario 1 – continuation of business as usual, with no additional government funding
Scenario 2 – sites are maintained as is, with some additional government funding
Scenario 3 – delivery of highest priority rehabilitation and Adaptive Re-use
Scenario 4 – delivery of Comprehensive Plan in full
Scenario 5 – private sector collaboration options
The review concludes that further investment in remediation is required and a prioritised approach is needed.
The review also recognises the urgent need for funding to carry out essential repairs and maintenance on the sites and the need to develop a pathway to activating North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island.
The reviewers have concentrated on the activation of North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island. They have recommended scenario 5 in respect of these sites, that is, private sector and New South Wales Government collaboration with the Harbour Trust to identify opportunities for additional funding. They have also recommended pathways for identifying and assessing funding requirements for these sites.
All sites and specifically Headland Park and Sub-base Platypus should also be included in an assessment for funding as this is the only sensible way to determine a budget and to accurately allocate available funds between all the sites.
Headland Park has been largely rehabilitated with the exception of 10 Terminal and the fuel tanks. 10 Terminal, the largest building at Headland Park and is of huge military and historical importance. What are the plans for its rehabilitation? Sub-base Platypus likewise has only been partially rehabilitated. Will the Commonwealth complete its vision for this site?
Recommendation 21 (a), (b) – endorsed
HPG welcomes the review recommendation 21(a) that the Commonwealth Government provide urgent funding of $47million for repairs and maintenance to help halt further dilapidation.
HPG further endorses the one-off funding of $3million to develop a rehabilitation plan for North Head Sanctuary and masterplan and audit for Cockatoo Island.
Recommendation 21 (c) – not endorsed
As evident at the recent forums, the community overwhelmingly favours the Commonwealth funding the future rehabilitation of Trust lands to a condition whereby the Trust can make sufficient income from the adaptive re-use of building and sites to enable it to be on a solid footing for future self-sustainability. The financial success of the adaptive re-use of buildings is evident at Headland Park.
On this basis, with wide community support, HPG endorses Scenario 4 where additional Government funding is provided to enable the Harbour Trust to deliver the Comprehensive Plan in full. This scenario contemplates buildings being rehabilitated to soft shell. Government funding to the level contemplated in this scenario would limit the need for capital injection required to facilitate the adaptive re-use of the buildings, thereby reducing the need for long leases, inappropriate developments and alienation of land. The community has made it clear at all forums held, that it supports scenario 4.
Scenario 4 is supported for the following reasons:
$345million, being the figure mooted as necessary to rehabilitate sites to deliver the Comprehensive Plan in full, could be paid over a number of years, for example $100 million up front followed by $250 million over 5-10 years. By doing this the Trust will be able to bring more buildings online to generate increased future income and be more self-sufficient financially.
Commonwealth funding would mean more control of Trust lands by the Trust.
Long leases lead to private interests may result inappropriate high density uses and potential alienation of land.
Private/Public partnership may still require additional Commonwealth funding ie Cockatoo Island Foundation proposal.
If soft shell rehabilitation is funded by the Commonwealth Government- then buildings won’t need long leases – Trust gets rental return - less capital expenditure is required by the tenant resulting in shorter leases.
Any building that requires long term leases must be identified.
In the wake of the COVID crisis, expending capital immediately on Trust properties has the potential to benefit not only the Trust, but also the community and parliament. Jobs restoring and rehabilitating property in Trust lands now will give immediate employment for many and has the potential to generate future revenue as more buildings come on line for the first time to be leased by businesses.
Scenario 5 poses a danger to the Trust’s original vision for these lands. The Trust and the private sector may not be aligned in their vision. In the quest for a commercial opportunity, private interests may be driven towards an intensification and use that is inappropriate for the lands, requiring long leases and resulting alienation of public land.
Headland Preservation Group
3 July 2020