Traffic projections are superficial and misleading

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

Dear Sirs,

This submission opposes the application and the proposed plan amendments.

TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS.

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

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

TRUST'S DEPARTURE FROM ITS DUTIES.

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

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

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

For your consideration,
John and Sandra Allen
Mosman

Vision of Trust to "provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation" threatened by proposed development

Linda Bergin addressed a well attended public meeting on Thursday 5 December 2013 to discuss next actions to save Middle Head and ensure that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust will continue to implement the original vision "To provide a lasting legacy for the people of Australia by helping to create one of the finest foreshore parks in the world and provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation."

Letter to Ms. Anthea Tinney Chairwoman, Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

Letter to Ms. Anthea Tinney
Chairwoman,
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust,
From Peter M. Wargent

Reproduced with Permission

Dear Lady,

Re: Proposal 10  Terminal to Aged Care/Retirement Facility.

I made my submission on the above proposal on 29th  November 2013.  After consideration, I have observed further details of the proposal and the Trust's position, and direct this missive to you because of serious concern.

Amongst many objectives, the SHFT Act specifically states:
"to maximize public access to Trust land"; and "to establish and manage suitable Trust land as a park on behalf of the Commonwealth---- II •  (Section 6).

Amongst many objectives, the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) specifically states a vision:
"To provide a lasting legacy for the people of Australia by helping to create the finest foreshore park in the world---".

Also:
The Plan, page 6, item 4: "The plan proposes the creation of an exciting Headland Park at Middle Head, Georges Heights and Chowder Bay. The Park will link the natural and cultural assets of the site. Regeneration will double the area of bush land, a network of tracks will link the various military precincts, and facilities and buildings will be adapted for educational, community and recreational uses".

Many other items clearly indicate the legislated vision, spirit, and intention of the Act and Plan.

I cannot state too strongly, it is the responsibility of the Chairperson, of any Board, to ensure that all Board members understand and ultimately direct their decisions according to the rules and responsibilities that govern any individual board.

Regardless of any technical and/or elastic interpretations, the above proposal contravenes the spirit of the Act and the Plan to such an extent that, with respect, I believe the Trust Board, in its entirety, fails to acknowledge and understand its core responsibilities.

(And, regarding a proposed amendment, I do not think it defensible, morally or otherwise, that the Trust should ever shift the goal posts set within its governing legislation, if such shift interferes with the original spirit of the SHFT Act and its Charter. The latter spirit should be non-negotiable).

----------------------------------

As stated in my original submission, I acknowledge the difficult compromise of balancing the conflicts of undisturbed bush and retention of buildings etc to provide income; but notwithstanding such income may be (and may always be) in short supply, the above proposal is a step too far.

----------------------------------

Assuming, as Chair, you are able to ensure all the Board of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust are able to attend upon their proper obligations, with respect, I suggest:

until such time as the Trust can comprehensively and transparently prove that its financial viability is in serious danger, and will in fact collapse, unless such large commercial developments are allowed to abuse the original concepts, spirit, and honour of the Act, it should unequivocally refuse to even contemplate any compromise to such concepts, spirit, and honour.

Yours faithfully,
Peter M. Wargent.
cc. Mr Peter Lowry OAM. Board Member.

Lack of transparent community consultation for Middle Head poses a dangerous precedent

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
5 December 2013
By Antony MacCormick
Reproduced with permission

To: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

Dear M/Ms

Submission Re Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct

Proposed Development - Residential Care Facility

I am writing to express concern about the proposed Residential Care Facility (“the development”) for the Middle Head Precinct. My concern is threefold;

1. The nature and size of the proposed development
2. The apparent lack of community consultation
3. The precedent it creates if proceeded with

Size and scope is out of keeping

The proposal is superficially appealing, particularly for older wealthy Mosman residents. Like many my initial reaction when first hearing about the proposal was positive. However, the Headland precinct has been preserved for all Australians. After visiting the site and appreciating the immensity of the project I have had second thoughts.

The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust) has done an excellent job to date in opening up the natural and heritage value of Middle Head. Their commercial development of existing building is architecturally and environmentally sensitive. The Residential Care proposal is very different. It is a large scale permanent private development covering 7 to 10 acres on the ridgeline of the most beautiful part of the Headland.

The area under consideration currently includes a number of buildings which the proposal aims to incorporate sensitively. However, some existing building such as the wooden barracks should be removed rather than replaced by a new larger structure. The site that the wooden structures occupy should be opened up for visitors to Middle Head so they can appreciate the beauty of the location and the spectacular views of Middle Harbour from the ridgeline of the headland.

I also have great difficulty in understanding the logic of allowing the development of a Residential Care facility on arguably the most significant headland in Sydney harbour. It may aid Trust cash flow but does little to further the vision of the Comprehensive Plan "….. to create one of the finest foreshore parks in the world and provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation".

Unlike a tourist attraction, museum or cultural centre the Residential Care Facility will not encourage general public access to the Headland nor appreciation of this unique environmental and heritage place.

Community consultation

Having recently returned to live in Mosman, I have come to appreciate the wonderful legacy left to future generations by formation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT), the work the Trust has done to date, and the years of effort undertaken by the Headland Preservation Group in persuading the Federal Government to gift the surplus Defence Department land for the people of Sydney in perpetuity.

I was therefore surprised to learn about the proposed Residential Care Facility via letter box drop and in the Mosman Daily.

I am disturbed that a development of the size and sophistication proposed can reach the stage it has without wide community awareness. Either the Community Advisory Committee were not fully briefed, or they were asked to keep the proposal confidential, or both.

The Trust’s website outlines the proposal in excellent detail. Judging from the scope of architectural and consultant reports commissioned to document this proposal the proponent would have spent heavily. To do so would suggest they had in principle support from Trust management and the Board.

I am concerned that this can happen without a transparent consultation process. I understand the business sensitivity of single invitations to bid, however Trust land on Middle Head is uniquely valuable. This places great onus on the Board to adopt due process.

Approval would set a dangerous precedent

Surely one must question how a private commercial project of this size and nature could develop in a "national park" to the stage it has, before becoming widespread public knowledge. If approved the approval process sets a deeply worrying precedent. If a large private commercial ("non tourist") development can obtain approval in preserved urban space like Middle Head it will encourage commercial promoters to adopt similar tactics in other parts of Sydney’s precious parkland.

Quite frankly a proposal of this commercial magnitude in the Prime Minister’s backyard when he personally was instrumental in the Howard Government’s decision to gift the Headland to the people of Sydney is politically disturbing.

********

In short, I believe a private commercial development on Middle Head (a heritage national park) of the type proposed is inappropriate. Further, the manner in which the development proposal became public knowledge without transparent community consultation is wrong. Together they pose a dangerous precedent and threaten other priceless urban parkland and heritage sites. That this could occur in the Prime Minister’s electorate damages our democratic system.

Antony MacCormick

Middle Head proposal is an alienation of public land

Submission – Middle Head Precinct

To: Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission re Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct

Proposed Development – Residential Care Facility – Middle head (‘Development Application’)

1. Background

My late husband Don Goodsir, OAM, and Linda Bergin OAM, were instrumental in raising community awareness and action to prevent the Defence Department selling the ‘surplus defence lands’ in 1996 for private development. They were founding members of the Headland Preservation Group (HPG) to protect these lands from development. The HPG became a powerful lobby group with over 3000 enrolled members. Over a period of 5 years it played a key role in bringing about the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act, legislated in 2001, and the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) to preserve and safeguard Middle Head from inappropriate development, for the benefit of all Australians. Up to date the Trust has done an excellent job in fulfilling this role. Approval of the current proposal is a backward step.

2. Future changes to the Management plan – Mosman No.7 - Middle Head

• There is concern about how easily the present amendment has been drafted and apparently become a fait accompli addendum to the original SHFT Management Plan. The community regards Middle Head as public land. This proposal I feel is against the vision encapsulated in the Trust’s establishment.
• This proposal is an alienation of public land, selling permanent residential accommodation to be used by elderly people until the end of their lives. This is essentially different from other commercial leases on the Trust land which are relatively short term and not residential involving 24hour permanent occupation. In essence this proposal involves residency in a public park for relatively few people plus the impact of all the associated infrastructure on the amenity of the park. It is permanent because it is a person's home. It could not be used for anything else; it is a special purpose use for the residents only. As such there is no genuine public element, which is the aim of the National Park. It would be a new development, not an adaptive reuse. The development would set a dangerous precedent. 
• Once purpose-built buildings are in place the provision of a so-called short term lease (25 years) will not be applicable as the developer will pressure the Trust to extend the lease rather than move out elderly folk. Therefore this residential care facility once established will be there in perpetuity.
• Allowing this development will open a Pandora’s Box for other future “commercial” development. A precedent of this nature would undoubtedly be used by other developers to argue for additional changes to the SHFT Management Plan with resulting further encroachment on to public land.  
• The scale of the proposed development on public land is very large both financially and physically. It more than doubles the size of the built area from 4,200 square metres to 7,500 square metres and with parking it is 9,452. It will cost over $30million. It is clearly a commercial development and I believe the overall development will cover between 30,000 - 40,000 square metres [7.5 - 10 acres] of public land!
• I feel this in an inappropriate commercial development for a site in the SHFT Comprehensive Plan. The park was established to preserve the historical, environmental and cultural heritage of the Headland. This development does not meet those objectives.

3. Traffic Concerns

• With the completion of an aged care facility on Middle Head, traffic will undoubtedly increase along Middle Head Road. This will include ambulances, delivery vans, buses, staff and doctors’ cars apart from those of visitors to the 90-100 people who will be living there. The application allows for 122 car spaces.
• There is only one road, Middle Head Road, for access and egress from the Headland. Vehicles often travel at high speeds along this road. 
• Beaconsfield Road is one of the main access roads from Balmoral to Middle Head Road and hence Mosman village. However it is already often difficult to turn into Middle Head Road from Beaconsfield Road, particularly at times of shift changes at HMAS Penguin because of heavy fast traffic and poor vision. Traffic through Mosman is a major concern for present residents and this proposal will greatly increase traffic flow along this road particularly and throughout Mosman generally.
• There is always the threat of bushfires in the National Park. With one narrow access road this must surely be a major consideration in relation to the housing of almost 100 old people in such a bushfire prone area.
• This is one of the most isolated areas of Mosman and it would be very difficult for elderly folk, who presumably would not drive, to interact easily with the community, which was one of the stated objectives of the proponent at the public meeting on 26 November.
• A new access road is proposed to be constructed along the lower side of the new building further encroaching on public land.

4. Recreational Facilities

• A significant area of public land will be alienated from the public, closing much of the site to the general public. This includes the buildings, the car parks and areas around the development that technically are available for public use but really unusable. The whole atmosphere of the parkland will be changed by having a large commercial residential facility in a prime part of the park. 
• The construction of one large new building across the whole area, at present occupied by the 3 barracks buildings, will effectively construct a continuous built wall, permanently cutting off magnificent views of Dobroyd Point to the general public. 
• I do not consider the proposed development to be the most appropriate outcome for the Australian public which was one of the objectives set out in the SHFT Comprehensive Plan. This area could be more appropriately reused for passive recreational purposes, the enjoyment of open space and interpretation of the heritage of the park.
• 10 Terminal would be an ideal site for an art gallery or cultural centre to house an indigenous art and artefacts collection, particularly considering the history of Bungaree’s connection with the area, the aboriginal carvings and middens located nearby. It is very close to one of the sites of first contact between indigenous people and the First Fleet sailors on Cobblers Beach, only 3 days after the British landing in Australia.

5. Environment

Some less common fauna species are found in the area of the proposed site and are considered vulnerable to numerous ecological threats. These include the Tawny Frogmouth, Diamond Python and White-striped Mastiff Bat. A development on the scale of that proposed will create a great disturbance to the habitat of these animals.

In summary, I do not consider the development proposal of a residential aged care facility in keeping with the stated aims and objectives of the Harbour Trust.

As stated on the memorial commemorating the community who worked vigorously to have this park and to establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust,

“it was set up to preserve this land and our Aboriginal, environmental and military heritage and to establish this park for the enjoyment of all in perpetuity.” 

Let us not approve any development that jeopardises this vision for the future.


Julie Goodsir

Not in favour of the plan

Comment submitted to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

From Norma Daisley
Published with permission

I am not in favour of the plan to build an aged-care facility on the former defence site on Middle Head.

Mosman does not have sufficient parks. We need to retain the current open spaces in Mosman.

The traffic in Mosman is as slow as a wet week. Think of the extra traffic burden a development such as the proposed development will bring.

Regards
Norma Daisley
Mosman

Proposal is totally unacceptable and incompatible with the site

SUBMISSION 'Middle Head Precinct'

By Brian Wilder
Published with permission

I write as a former Committee Member of the Headland Preservation Group over many years.

It has to be said that the SHFT have done a wonderful job cleaning up this huge site and restoring many of the buildings and adapting them for appropriate use in the Park. This has been done with great style and to a very high standard, and the community is in their debt.

This makes it even more puzzling as to why the Trust has come up with this proposal which will offend so many of their supporters and will be seen by many as not in line with the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

We only heard about this very recently and to the best of my knowledge, no comment was sought from any former committee member of the Headland Preservation Group, which seems very odd to many. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all about the need to raise more cash and establish a solid cash flow, but at the Meeting on Tuesday this week, CEO Geoff Bailey denied this at least twice.

I remain opposed to any development of the Barracks site and I would like to see the three existing buildings demolished and the area opened up for use as parkland, with that wonderful view up Middle Harbour towards the Spit exposed for all to enjoy.

The vision of the Trust is set out in the Comprehensive Plan.  It says:

"To provide a lasting legacy for the people of Australia by helping to create the finest foreshore park in the world and to provide places that will greatly enrich the cultural life of the city and the nation."

This surely is completely at odds with the proposed development of an Age Care Facility in a new purpose built building. And it precisely the fear of this kind of development that first brought the Headland Preservation Group into existence and the SHFT Act was designed to prevent.

Why not landscape this magnificent site to provide a substantial grassy area with a stunning Middle Harbour outlook for the passive enjoyment of the visitors to the Park ? This would surely be much more in line with the spirit and Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

A new building on this site, or a new building on any site for that matter, for an Aged Care Facility or anything else, is totally unacceptable and incompatible with this site and to my mind, clashes with the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

This would be providing permanent new homes for 93 people, staffed 24/7. There is no doubt that there will be an increasing demand for Aged Care facilities in the lower North Shore area, but this site is no way acceptable or appropriate for that activity. This would create an unacceptable precedent for other buildings to be demolished to make way for other quite alien activities for a National Park.

We’ve already got a substantial Business Park on Georges Heights, and another already on Middle Head with the ASOPA development – isn’t that enough income producing facilities for the Trust ? Why does Middle Head need to completely sacrificed for development ? Why has the concept of open parkland on this very special site been abandoned ?

Geoff Bailey, CEO of the Trust, stated several times at the meeting held on 26th November, that the Trust was not driven by the need for cash flow as a reason for this extraordinary proposal. If this is correct, then why not reuse the Terminal Building for some other community purpose, like an Art Gallery for example, or some kind of combined Art Gallery and Aboriginal Museum. Another possible use could be for temporary accommodation for visiting school children from the bush and underprivileged areas of the country and other cities.

Finally, there is the question of significant traffic increase through Mosman and Spit junctions, which are more often than not gridlocked in both mornings and afternoons and all the way down Middle Head Rd to the former ASOPA site.

Middle Head Rd itself from the Park entrance opposite Cobbittee St, will need to be widened all the way down to ASOPA– in fact that will be necessary even without this proposed development.

Draft Management Plan

Barracks Buildings

I am opposed to the proposed amended of the Management  Plan for development of the Barracks buildings site.

Terminal Building 

I have no problems with the proposed amended Draft Management plan for the Terminal Building in principle to meet other appropriate uses, but I do not support it becoming an Aged Care Facility.

Thank you,
Brian Wilder