Middle Head is not right area or place for aged care/retirement facility

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
11 December 2013
Name withheld by request
Reproduced with permission

Dear Sir,

I am a registered nurse, semi-retired, still working permanent part-time one day a week in nursing homes/aged care, and have many years experience in this area. (Many years ago I was actually a director of an aged care facility in SA, when living in SA).

I submit: Middle Head and the Headland Park is not right area or place for aged care/retirement facility.

1. Many people in such facilities are already into their 90's +, therefore don't drive, and their relatives are also elderly. Mobility (to shops etc etc) a concern. +visitors access and ease of visiting a concern.
2. Parking (approx 50 in proposal) totally inadequate. Apart from residents cars, continual visitors, medical specialists, tradesmen, service personnel, etc, etc, etc.
3. Staff – very many staff in this profession /occupation are students and/or people who are not paid well. Many come from western suburbs. Need to be near regular bus/train transport.
   Facility at Middle Head will probably have difficulty attracting required staff.
4. Financial – some research indicates such facilities now charge bonds upwards of $400,000, and monthly payments upwards of $5,000/month.
   Have proponents done due diligence on whether proposal will be able to attract such fees?
   Have the SHFT cross checked such information, and/or done their own independent analysis?

Yours faithfully,
Name withheld by request

Trust should reject the commercial development of our public land

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
10 December 2013
by David Henderson
Reproduced with permission

To the Harbour Foreshore Trust

Firstly you should be thanked for the stewardship of the Trust over the last 13 years. You have held true to the philosophy of the Deed and delivered to the Australian public a special place on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. The idea of public space for the Australian public today and for generations to come, I consider is the essence of your charter. My objection to the redevelopment is based upon the following issues;

1. What is being proposed is illegal.
2. The Trust’s plan clearly states it should be your endeavour to deliver the maximum amount of open space to the Australian public. Not to hand over to private enterprise key areas for development with restricted public access.
3. It should be up to the Australian public to have sufficient time to review ALL proposals and come to a decision based upon the goal set out in the plan.
4. There is a distinct sense the discussion has been going on for some time without open consultation with the community.

There are many other reasons including traffic congestion , heritage , pollution etc, but for me this proposal would betray the essence of the vision that lead to the forming of the Harbour Trust in the first place. I believe you are custodians of the Trust not the architects and as such you should be rejecting the commercial development of our public land.

David Henderson

Middle Head Development proposal seeks to turn Public land to a Private enterprise

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
10 December 2013
Name withheld by request
Reproduced with permission

RE: Proposed Aged Care Facility in Middle Head Road, Mosman

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed Aged Care Facility at the end of Middle Head Road, Mosman.

My reasons are not purely personal but on a good practice planning basis which takes into account the silent majority.

My concern is that the following have not yet been thought through deeply:

• The proposal seeks to turn Public land to a Private enterprise. What kind of a Trust does that? What next?
• Whilst an Aged Care facility is laudable, how easy would it be to change the use to unrestricted Residential? This nearly happened in Woollahra.
• There has been steady amplification of uses by the Harbour Trust in this area over the years. It was established to: “conserve and preserve land in the Sydney Harbour region for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians”. This does not include indulging in property development. The legislated objectives of the Harbour Trust must be the guide when considering any proposal.
• Intensification of the uses of the Harbour Trust land has already increased the traffic in the area – not just Middle Head Road. Observe the sole feeder road, Military Road, even outside peak hours. The AADT trend in Mosman has not been considered in this proposal.

In summary my objection is that the Harbour Trust proposes to stealthily destroy the very reason for its existence simply because of cost pressures to its own budget.

Please acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that you will place it before Ms Anthea Tinney, Chair of the Harbour Trust Board.

Yours sincerely,
Name withheld by request

Save Middle Head – development is not acceptable

Letter to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
10 December 2013
Name withheld by request
Reproduced with permission

Mr Daniel Sealey
Manager, Planning

Residential Care Facility
Middle Head

With regard to the letter sent to us by you about this development application, we would like to object to this overdevelopment  in such a sensitive area.  This is not the right place for a development of this magnitude, 93 units plus all the ancillary buildings that will have to be built as well.  The Harbour Federation Trust is supposed to be keeping this area in as natural a state as possible and this is not the right kind of development on many levels.

Traffic up and down the only road available is already at a premium with all the development already there, and it would become a nightmare when you factor in ambulances, many staff cars, deliveries etc , etc.  It is already hard enough to try and exit from Methuen Avenue into Middle Head Road where it is impossible sometimes to see if any cars are coming, usually at speed too.

The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust have to disallow this development and other amendments to it that would surely follow.  This is not acceptable.

Regards
Name withheld by request

LInda Bergin Submission: The Trust and the Minister must not approve this proposal

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
10 December 2013
by Linda Bergin OAM
Reproduced with permission

Re: Comment on 1. Draft Management Plan and 2. Proposed Development

This is a submission on the Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct (Amendment 1) and the Proposed Development – Residential Care Facility, which the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has posted for public comment.

I am the Coordinator of “Save Middle Head” (www.savemiddlehead.org), which is a group of concerned citizens who oppose the Proposed Development and the associated Management Plan Amendments. I was one the founders of the Headland Preservation Group, Inc., which was formed in 1996 to oppose the sale of surplus Defence land on Sydney Harbour.

The Howard Government established the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in 1998 to convert this land into a national park for all Australians saying “... that the maximum advantage be derived in open space and recreational purposes...” These same sentiments are found in the preamble to the SHFT Act, which states: “The Parliament intends to conserve and preserve the land in the Sydney Harbour regions for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians...Suitable land with significant environmental and heritage values will be returned to the people of Australia.”

I object in the strongest possible terms to the present proposal, which is totally contrary to the vision of former Prime Minister Howard and the Objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act.

The scale, form and type of development are exactly what the Trust was set up to prevent.

I would respectfully ask the Trust and the Minister to

1. Not approve the present aged-care proposal or a scaled-down version.
2. Establish a new fully-open and transparent process to consider the fate of the sensitive “10 Terminal” site.
3. Fully involve the community in this new process, including the establishment of a special purpose “10 Terminal” community consultative committee.

Residential occupation of public land

Sensitive commercial uses presently on Trust land are not seen as proprietorial, i.e. they are not full-time users operating 24/7. All present uses align with the Objects of the Trust. However, a full-time residential care facility would be seen as “squatting” on public land and asserting proprietorial rights over what is regarded as belonging to the community as a whole. A 25-year lease would reinforce that perception.

This residential accommodation would be used by people towards the end of their lives. The residents would be expected to pay bonds in excess of $550,000 to be able to reside in the proposed development. We could safely say that there would be considerable pressure placed on the Trust at the end of the 25-year lease to extend the term of that lease because of the impact of moving vulnerable, elderly people from their accommodation, and the scale of the investment (over $30 million) by the developer. Therefore this proposal is clearly inappropriate on public land.

There is no genuine public element in a residential aged-care use.

Scale and Form

The size of the development “site” is large, between 30,000 and 40,000 SM, or 7 ½ to 10 acres (not 11,000 SM as stated by the proponent). The development essentially covers this entire area, when you include the increased footprints, the enclosed gardens, and the parking lots.

It is located on the ridgeline, and will be visible from Sydney Harbour.
This is large-scale new development not adaptive-reuse of built heritage. Presently the only buildings on the site with significant heritage value are the red-brick “10 Terminal” complex.

The proposed development aims to replace and expand non-heritage buildings and parking lots. Therefore this is in fact a LOSS of potential open space. There would be an increase in gross floor area from approximately 4,200 SM to 7,500 SM, the vast majority being new floor space. The application also includes 122 car spaces. The cost of the works is over $30 million.

Some demolition and adaptation of existing buildings has occurred in the past, but there has been nothing on Middle Head of the scale of the proposed development. That the proposed development would restrict access to the existing buildings is not the issue – that is often to be expected with many types of adaptive reuse and lease of buildings that are otherwise considered to be acceptable. What is different about this proposal is that extensive new buildings are to be constructed over land that could become open space. Also, the landscaped areas around those buildings will not be accessible open space. Therefore there is a loss of potential public open space.

Public Consultation

On June 18, 2013 the Trust Board resolved to proceed with the Middle Head Healthcare Pty Ltd proposal, and we assume the proponent started the detailed planning process at that time. The proponent Teelia Peploe states that they first approached the Trust in early 2012; however Middle Head Healthcare was not incorporated at that time.

The proposal was also mentioned mid-2013 (no Minutes appear to be available) at a meeting of the Community Advisory Committee, which we understand included around 20 persons from that Committee. However we are told that it was brief and at the end of a 2 hour meeting relating mostly to North Head and Cockatoo Island.

The vast majority of the local public were not aware whatsoever of this proposal until November 14 by way of a news story in the Mosman Daily. Although the Trust had previously placed a relatively small ad in the Mosman Daily on October 31, this was not generally seen (page 34 in Lifestyle section). Deadline for submissions was December 4.

Sometime in the first week of November the Trust letterboxed residents closest to Middle Head about the upcoming Trust Information Session. However I am not sure how many.

It was primarily because of the publicity provided by the Save Middle Head group that around 160 people attended the Trust’s Information Session on November 26 and the proposal became more widely known.

The deadline for submissions was extended to December 11.

Another public meeting by our group Save Middle Head was held on December 5 and attended by well over 100 people.

The proposal is very complex and the plans, while completely available on the Trust’s website, would be hard going for most people.

Legal

I have sought legal opinion from Jennifer Hughes, Partner, Baker & McKenzie. Summarised from that opinion as follows:

2.2 In our opinion, the Draft Amendment and the Development Application are both inconsistent with the objects of the SHFT Act and the objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust ('Trust') and the Trust would not be acting in accordance with its functions if it were to make the Draft Amendment or approve the Development Application.

2.3 Further, the Development Application is not consistent with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Comprehensive Plan ('Comprehensive Plan'). Nor is it consistent with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Management Plan - Mosman No. 7 - Middle Head ('Middle Head Management Plan'), even if that plan were to be amended by the Draft Amendment.

2.4 As a result, it is our opinion that:
(a) the Trust does not have the power to make the Draft Amendment or to approve the Development Application;
(b) the Trust would be acting ultra vires if it were to make the Draft Amendment or to approve the Development Application; and
(c) any such decision of the Trust would be appealable in Court.

2.5 It is also our opinion that the Minister must approve the proposed activity under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ('EPBC Act') before the activity may commence.

Yours truly,
Linda Bergin OAM (0498-744-299)
Coordinator, Save Middle Head
www.savemiddlehead.org
savemiddlehead@gmail.com

Private development on Middle Head will have a major adverse impact on the use of public land

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
9 December 2013
by Robert Tobias OAM
Reproduced with permission

Dear Sirs

I write in respect of the Development Application from Middle Head Health Care for an aged care facility in the Middle Head Precinct involving the leasing, modification and adaptive reuse of existing buildings at 10 Terminal and the demolition and construction of new buildings in the location of the timber Barracks Buildings.

The excellent work done by you on the former military land at Middle Head dedicated by the Commonwealth Government risks being undone by this proposal.

10 Terminal and the timber Barracks Buildings do need to be demolished as they do not appear to me to have any historical or architectural merit and certainly subtract from the excellent restoration of other buildings in the vicinity. Replacing them with even larger buildings and especially buildings for private commercial purposes is not in keeping with land that was specifically given over for public space. I suggest they be demolished and turned over to grass land.

The Sydney foreshore area is precious. It is a limited resource and once developed will be lost to both the people of Sydney and its visitors. Sydney Harbour and the public will be best served by preserving as much of the Harbour's natural landscape as is possible.

The introduction of a private project with little or no community value defies the logic of a public space and the purpose for which the Precinct was established. Although there is a need generally for aged care facilities throughout Australia this facility will hardly have a material impact on that need but will have a major adverse impact on the use of public land by the public over generations as well as the visual environment of the area.

I would also mention that the access to the area is inadequate at present being serviced by a third rate roadway between Cobbitee Street and Chowder Bay Road which is already being used by the Navy, visitors to the area and commercial traffic servicing the commercial enterprises already established. Apart from the construction vehicles that will use the road there will also be the long term additional commercial traffic needed to service the aged care facility should it be built.

I am hopeful that your consultation is not a 'whitewash' that ignores the public interest over commercial interests.

Yours sincerely
Robert Tobias OAM

Letter to the Prime Minsiter the Hon Tony Abbott

Submission to the Prime Minister
9 December 2013
Name withheld by request
Reproduced with permission

The Hon Tony Abbott
Prime Minister,
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives, Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister,

Proposed Development – Residential Care Facility Middle Head Park

We write to request that you intervene in the above proposal to build a major commercial development in Middle Head Park.

The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has, till now, done an excellent job in preserving the heritage and environmental value of the Park.

The current proposal does not fit with the Trust’s stated aim of creating “the finest foreshore park in the world”. It is contrary to the objects of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act enacted by Prime Minister Howard’s government. You played a pivotal role at the time in securing this legislation.

This proposal ties up public land for at least 20 years, effectively eliminating it from the Park.
This is not merely a local issue. It adversely affects the future of the Sydney Harbour Park which has historic and cultural significance at a national level.

We have also written to the Minister for the Environment on this issue

Your sincerely
Name withheld by request

Proposed development on Middle Head is not in line with the vision and intent of the SHFT Act

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
8 December 2013
By Jillianne Weekes OAM
Reproduced with permission

Ms Anthea Tinney
Chairwoman
Sydney Harbour FederationTrust

Dear Ms Tinney,

Submission re Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct
Proposed Development – Residential Care Facility

I am writing to express my concern in regard to the proposed plans for the Residential Care Facility for the Middle Head Precinct.

I have 3 main concerns:

1. This development application is not consistent with the SHFT comprehensive Plan, nor is it consistent with the SHFT Management Plan – Mosman No. 7 – Middle Head, even if that plan were to be amended by the Draft Amendment.
2. This development application is not in line with the objects of the Trust as set out in section 6 of the Act.
3. Nor are many of the functions of the Trust as set out in Section 7 of the SHFT Act upheld in relation to this development proposal.

The vision of the Trust is set out in the Comprehensive Plan.  It is stated to be:
‘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.’

The proposed development is not in line with the vision as set out above and should therefore be stopped immediately.

The Draft Amendment and the Development Application propose a development that is contrary to the intention of the SHFT Act, as set out in the preamble of that Act as the development would detract from the conservation and preservation of land to the detriment to all but a small number of Australians – the Draft Amendment and Development Application propose the use and extensive development land for commercial interests that are inconsistent with the public nature of the land.

The Draft Amendment and the Development Application propose a development that is contrary to the objects of the Trust as above because they would:

• detract from the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region
• not protect, conserve or interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land
• prevent all but very limited public access to 11,000 sqm of Trust land.

I urgently request that the SHFT Board under your leadership, stop this development and look at more suitable opportunities in line with the vision and intent of the SHFT Act.

Yours sincerely
Jillianne Weekes (Mrs) OAM

No to Aged care facility!

Comment
8 December 2013
By B Worrall
Reproduced with permission

I want to commend the Harbour Trust for the good work they have done in Mosman thus far. But I am opposed to the proposed aged care facility.

In my experience with a family member at such a facility I can vouch that views/harbour are totally irrelevant to residents. So why build this development  on one of the prime spots in Mosman. It's an outrage! Residents in these facilities generally pine to be in their own homes and often spend their time watching tv, playing cards or sleeping. Bets are on they won't be sitting on the lawn overlooking the harbour waxing lyrical about the beauty of nature.

The west coast of California with its fabulous coastline is now nearly invisible and inaccessible to the public because it has all been built out and sold to private individuals. It's a crime. Don't do this to Mosman.

B Worrall
Mosman

the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust had a mandate to protect the beautiful foreshores of Sydney Harbour

Submission to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
6 December 2013
By Kate Rae
Reproduced with permission

Dear Trustees,

RE: Draft Amendment to Management Plan and Development Application for Aged Care Facility

It was my understanding that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT), had a mandate to protect the beautiful foreshores of Sydney Harbour and “create a lasting legacy” for all Australians to enjoy “the pristine natural bushland” (quotes from the SHFT website).

The recent proposal at Middle Head for an Aged Care facility seems to be totally contrary to this purpose and suggests that THE TRUST (SHFT) has deviated from it duties and responsibilities on behalf of all Australians and, hence, betrayed our trust.

I wish you to reconsider your governance of this Sydney Harbour parkland and withdraw the above amendment and development application.

Yours faithfully
Kate Rae
Mosman

The land held by the Trust belongs to ALL Australians

Comment
5 December 2013
Name withheld by request
Reproduced with permission

[I] fully support the objections as set out in the letter from Baker & McKenzie dated 2 December addressed to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.

In particular I most whole heartily agree with the comments that the Trust does not have the power to make the proposed amendments, the size and value of the development is inappropriate for a short term use and it amounts to a 'sale' of public land for NO consideration. The land held by the Trust belongs to ALL Australians and hence the outcome should be for the benefit of ALL Australians and not an alienation, for who knows how long and without compensation, for the benefit of one family at the expense of ALL Australians.

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