Col Geoff Browne (retired) Special Speaker on 10 Terminal history at Middle Head

Introduction by Julie Goodsir: Geoff Browne has been associated with Middle Head from when he was a young boy, he served 31 years and has a long association with 10 Terminal. Following his time in the Army Geoff then became Head of Education at ASOPA right next door to 10 Terminal. He has great qualifications to speak to us tonight.

Col Geoff Browne: Good evening ladies and gentleman, can you hear me? You can't hear me, all right.

10 Terminal Building Middle Head

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-10

Above: Col Geoff Brown as a bugle boy (far left) and his father.

Above: Col Geoff Brown as a bugle boy (far left) and his father.

When I was six years of age, here's where I stood. Right outside Ten Terminal regiment, and it was a corrugated iron hut, and I was there at six, so that's about 82 years ago, and my father was the battery Sergeant Major, of 1st 88th battery at Georgia's Heights. But we trained down there. And for 40 cents, four shillings, we lived there for four days, all on rations, it's on with the Army Cadets, and I was there, I was eight years of age.

 

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-10

1798, from 2004 then, my maths is not good but I think that's 226 years of military heritage at Middle Head, and Georgia Heights. And let me add, it is still continuing, because [inaudible 00:02:18] is currently operating. So there's no lack of military inheritance in that area.

 

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-13

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-15

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-18

The Middle Head area was of much interest to Captain Phillip. Now, you might know there was a very able Corsican who got Captain Phillip interested. Now you all know who the Corsican was, don't you? His name was Napoleon. He was born in Corsica, and he was in the middle of the Napoleonic wars, and many countries over Europe were worried. Britain was worried that he might have an invasion force to go into Britain, but they knew the Royal Navy would murder any attempt to cross, just like we know in about 1944.

 

So Captain Phillip sent a group of Marines, Royal Marines, to Cobblers beach, three days after he landed at Sydney Cove. So that's 1788, that's when it started. Now the entire area of Middle Head, Chowder Bay, and Georgia's Heights was historically significant as an important location of major defence-works for the defence of Sydney Harbour and Port Jackson. During the 19th and 20th century. When I was that little boy, I had the safeguard, Sydney Airways. My father put me on an outpost on the parade ground, I was eight, and because I knew the aircraft, I had great knowledge of aircraft, I was on the observation post on the parade ground with field glasses and a notebook tracking every plane that came across. Now I wasn't there on the big night, you know the invasion night, but my father was there firing guns.

Now, some of the military units that served in that area, you won't remember them, I can't, but were, the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy, the submarine miners, coastal artillery, the 1802 battery at Georgia's Heights and Middle Head, muzzle loaders of course, stuck it in the front end and got off of the road, the 1870 batteries at Middle Head and Georgia's Heights, because as you know, the British Army, British Navy as son on, left Australia to look after itself in that period.

The Army Maritime school at Chowder Bay, and when I was a little boy my father said, you can't go near that army signal depot, because everything is secret. So I walked around the road, never went near it, I was a good boy. The AWAS, Australian Women's Army Service, the school of military engineering, which ripped into the Ten Terminal building, which wasn't built until 1941, and the first people to occupy it were the school of military engineering. Generally, movement and transport and so on.

The army intelligence centre was in the back area of the side, and then Ten Terminal regiment went to the red big building that is of interest. Now there's some argument on the building notice. I went down yesterday, I go down every week by the way, but I went down yesterday and saw that it was built in 1958 on the notes. It was built in 1941. Ten terminal regiment, which is RAASC which I was a Colonel in that Corps or became, the Royal Australians Corps of Transport later on, and the Royal Australian Electrical Mechanical Engineers who ran the workshops.

So you can see that it has a long inheritance of military history and I'd like to think that it'll stay nice and open as it is now.

Shot mariners, miners, submarine miners, down at Chowder Bay, the hospital at Georgia's Heights in World War I was a hospital, part of a hospital. The guys in the hospital, no women in the services then, of course, but now, OK, the cadets my father taught, and that's 1936 when I was in utero. That is my father right there, the battery Sergeant Major, left for dead at the battle of [inaudible]. In a shell hole, for the war in Bavaria. He was there, left for dead with a sign around his neck, pinned on, which I have at home, dying, still honoured, they left him there, with the war in Bavaria.

And three days later, British stretcher bearers picked him up, and it was a long time in hospital, and the person first to see him naked was King George V. Naked in the bath because he was the first soldier to have the saline solution put through. And I have a photograph of King George looking at him, and there's my dad, cold.

That’s the cadets, there, and they won the Australian Gold Championship in 1935, 1936. My father, that's the Ten Terminal.

Oh, by the way, that's the Ten Terminal, that's the building where the Ten Terminal regiment is today, and that's where for four shillings, 40 cents, we lived in that building. I sat with the guys, my father, who was a battery Sergeant Major, sat somewhere else, but there is my father there. He re-enlisted and served in World War II after he consulted with the commanding officer, and they put his age down 15 years.

 

And he served until 1946. There he is, a boy. [inaudible] That’s the Sergeants mess, that's me there, but it shouldn't be about me, there's Ten Terminal regiment, the red building, built in 1941. Special tiles, special rig, Marseille tiles and so on. So it's a special building, even with the wartime restrictions. That's the front of the side of the building, and that's the side that's special I think, there, and part of the officer's mess is down that way. That is still there, I looked in the windows yesterday, Ten Terminal regiment, World War II, and that moved later to Townsend.

 

In the officer's mess, I looked in yesterday, all there. We used to sit by the nice fireplace heat. The officer's mess, Ten Terminal regiment, co-lines of communication, AWAS, in a different area. Supplies, the army intelligence, the army intelligence operated for the Vietnam war, and I think the Korean war. Army Intelligence, [inaudible] That's down at Chowder Bay, ah, down at Middle Head. And then I was the guy in charge of education in the '60's.

There's the buildings for ASOPA, and the intelligence centre, and barracks generally, and then the Italians, prisoners of war. In light of the...[laughter] Now Hallstrom, maybe you've, from Hallstrom, the refrigerator, the silent nightmare.

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-23

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-22

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-21

 

Now, current conduct. For the Korean war, officers went through particularly, [inaudible 00:12:58] went through the code of conduct down at Chowder Bay and down at Middle Head in the dungeons. Very hard training, terrible training. Taken away, [inaudible 00:13:12], kept naked, and so on. Because in the Korean War, a lot of information was coming from captured prisoners to the Koreans. The only country that did not have a prisoner leak to the Koreans, does anyone know? Turkey. Mainly because of the very hard upbringing the Turks had.

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-24

 

But one of our classes, we operated lots of classes for officers in logistics at Chowder Bay and at Middle Head. They went on for years and years until the terminal regiment went and forgoed it. I was an instructor then [inaudible 00:14:03]. Again, ten total engineers, ducks, you know the ducks? They're up at Surfers Paradise these days, the ducks – great, great vehicles. And workshops, writing, [inaudible] electrical, mechanical engineers, did the repairs right there. Engineer doing something.

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-27

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-29

10-terminal-history-Geoff-Browne-talk-30

in 1997, the Ten Terminal regiment marched down military road, down by the Buena Vista Hotel, and got the freedom of [inaudible]. I was there, but I was on the sideline. I was there yesterday, I stopped in here, looked in the windows, that was the officer's mess, where I spent a lot of time. Lovely spot, and looks out on a lovely room, and it's look over Sydney Harbour.

I think that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Key Points For Letter Writers

Download "HPG – Save Middle Head : letter writing – points for letters" PDF herePlease read our explanatory notes to the PDF below.

“popular protest and much letter writing to ‘save the parks’ have clinched most of the battles over Centennial Park.”

Pick and choose which issue or issues you want to write about. You may write about more than one issue in the one letter, or to write several letters about different issues.To the best of our knowledge the paragraphs are factual. Treat them as source material to be put into your own words.References are attached so you can research matters if you wish BUT there is no need to cite these references in your letter(s).Italicized headings are for your easy reference and not intended to be included in letters.So that everyone receives the same message, it would be desirable to send each letter to each of the following (see blog post for addresses here...):

  • PM Tony Abbott (at both his electorate office and Parliament House office)
  • Environment Minister Greg Hunt
  • Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment Simon Birmingham
  • your Federal MP (if not Tony Abbott)
  • Chair of the Trust Anthea Tinney
  • Executive Director of the Trust Geoff Bailey

Although it will take a little extra effort, please address each letter individually to each addressee (rather than just addressing it to one, with copies to the others). Except for letters to Tony Abbott, where the same letter can be sent to both his addresses.

  • Also send letters to the newspapers (listed here...), particularly the Mosman Daily and the Sydney Morning Herald.
  • Letters to politicians and the Trust would preferably be printed and posted, but if that is not feasible, email or fax is next best. Letters to newspapers need only be email (or fax)
  • Your letters to the newspapers will likely require some rewording.
  • Don’t forget to keep a copy of what you send! Please send us a copy of your letter, email them to savemiddlehead@gmail.com
  • If you have any questions relating to writing letters email savemiddlehead@gmail.com
  • More information will be added as the campaign progresses. Please check periodically for updated versions with new items highlighted for easy reference.

___________________________________________________________________________Note: Some of the suggested paragraphs refer to the Middle Head precinct.The 10 Terminal buildings are situated in what the Trust refers to as the Middle Head precinct.  This precinct is limited in size and only covers the area from Burnt Orange down to the gate to the National Park on the end of Middle Head.This Middle Head precinct has its separate Management Plan prepared by the Trust (“Management Plan – Mosman No. 7 – Middle Head 7 June 2007”).  It sets out how the Trust is to manage the Middle Head precinct.This Management Plan is on the Trust website under “Strategic Plans:”  There is a map of the Middle Head precinct after page 5: http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/planning-projects/strategic-plans#Management_Plans (go to this page and scroll down until you come to the heading “Middle Head”)In the public mind, “Middle Head” might often be thought of as extending up to Georges Heights, in which case an aged care home “up the hill” in the vicinity of say Georges Heights might not seem so outrageous.But the Trust is talking about a residential aged care home in Headland Park right down next to the National Park on the headland of Middle Head.

Save Middle Head Urgent Public Meeting 10 April 2014 – Please attend!

When: 6:30 – 7:30 pm Thursday April 10 2014Where: Mosman Council Senior Citizen’s Centre (next to Mosman Town Hall, Mosman Square, Spit Junction)The Headland Preservation Group will have its 4th public meeting next week, continuing our campaign against an aged-care home on Middle Head. We will also discuss other threats to public parkland.Special Guest Speaker: Colonel Geoff Brown PhD RAASC/RACT (retired) on the military heritage of the Middle Head precinctAgenda:

  • Latest news - aged care home campaign
  • Speaker to be confirmed – “Public Land Under Threat”
  • Guest speaker Colonel Geoff Brown
  • 7:30 pm light refreshments

Dear Sydney Resident,There has been much publicity lately about the alienation of public parkland on Sydney Harbour, particularly on Middle Head, which is owned by the Commonwealth Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.Back in 1996, there was a fierce battle to prevent Defence lands around the Harbour from being sold off for private development. The Headland Preservation Group was formed at that time.That battle was successful and the outcome was the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, a new Commonwealth agency to rehabilitate former Defence lands and turn them into public parkland, and to conserve and re-use/lease the heritage buildings.No doubt you have visited some of the Trust lands around the Harbour and seen the amazing parkland the Trust has created over its 16 year existence.Unfortunately the Trust is now considering a proposal for the development of an aged-care home on the ridgeline of Middle Head. I believe that this is an inappropriate use of public parkland that would exclude the public from enjoyment and understanding of the site’s significant aboriginal and military heritage.Following on from this, several weeks ago we discovered a 2013 NSW government sales brochure which earmarked (but has been withdrawn) several other Trust sites for development, including a 'greenfields' site for a boutique hotel on the ridgeline on Middle Head. Then last week, NSW announced it will release a white paper to audit and value all its land (42% of the state) and to consider "when to change use or realise value".The creation of the Harbour Trust was a bold and visionary step by the former Howard government. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in a speech in 2012:

"My next campaign was against the Keating government's proposed sale of former military land around Sydney Harbour. Largely at my instigation, the Howard government committed more than $115 million to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to preserve the natural and built heritage of places like North Head and Middle Head."

I hope you can join me at our meeting next week!Yours in support of public land.Linda Bergin OAMPresident Headland Preservation Group Inc.savemiddlehead@gmail.com(02) 8091-7743 (please leave a message)

Take Action Now!

It is important that you write to our elected representatives and the Trust to let them know your views. For their contact details, read the Take Action Now page. 

In the media: "Public spaces, private interests"

News Review, Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 29 March 2014

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

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

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

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

The principle of not allowing private development on public land stands

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

Linda Bergin address to Manly Council on aged care proposal for Middle Head

Address to Manly Council, March 10, 2014Good evening my name is Linda Bergin and I am President of the Headland Preservation Group.I have come to inform Council of a still-active1 proposal to build an aged care home on Middle Head. The development is called The Cove at Middle Head.HPG was formed in 1996 by local Mosman residents to oppose the sell-off of Defence lands on Sydney Harbour.All those years ago it was hard to imagine the amazing transformation that has now occurred on the former Defence sites.The Trust has successfully created what the community always wanted, which is “a world class national park for all Australians”. We have stunning heritage parkland which is open to the public.However, on October 31, the Trust accepted a development application for an aged care home on its very last un-rehabilitated site, which is a heritage site on the ridgeline of Middle Head and surrounded by bushland with stunning views. The site is called 10 Terminal.2The still-active proposal is for a $33m purpose-built aged care facility, apparently funded by the developer, on a 25 year ground lease. We think it is likely to be extended past 25 years and so is akin to a sale.This proposal is against the original vision of John Howard, Tony Abbott, the Trust’s vision and the Objects of its Act. The Howard Government said it would return foreshore Defence sites to the PEOPLE of Australia. An aged care home is a private facility which would be closed to the public and would benefit only a few.The proposal has been rejected by the National Trust3 and also unanimously by Mosman Council last week.4Now, due to strong community opposition, the Trust has flagged but not yet received a scaled-down version.5 HPG will oppose this for the same reasons – namely it is a private use on public parkland which would exclude the public.Governments should fund their significant public parklands, not hand them over to commercial operators for private uses. This is very short-sighted and betrays future generations.We are not opposed to some low-impact commercial activity in national parks to help pay for upkeep, as long as they are public uses and the activity contributes to park purposes.Manly and Mosman have been increasingly linked by walks which are of considerable significance to tourism, heritage and health, including the Manly Scenic Walkway. Middle Head will become an increasingly vital part of these important networks of walks.And beware this precedent Manly Council! You have significant Trust land at North Head.The provision of aged care facilities is one that is rightly important for policy and decisions makers, but building one on Middle Head is not appropriate.Linda BerginKeep public land for the public!Footnotes:1 Executive Director Geoff Bailey says that the present proposal is still active. However as of today all documents have been removed from the Trust’s site.2 10 Terminal is an intact collection of heritage buildings from WW2. It is also a site of great importance to Aboriginal people, being one of the first encounter sites.3 http://www.heritagespace.com.au/news/501-sydney-harbour-federation-trust-aged-care-development4 http://portal.mosman.nsw.gov.au/temp/ViewedDocs/10032014-3245669-145034-1.pdf5 http://www.headlandpreservationgroup.org/2014/mosman-council-unanimous/

Mosman Council Unanimous Against Proposed Aged Care Development

The Headland Preservation Group was well prepared for Mosman Council’s meeting on Tuesday evening 4 March 2014 at which it was to consider and vote on a Motion tabled by Deputy Mayor Roy Bendall and Councillor Tom Sherlock. The Motion was to oppose the proposed development of a residential aged care facility on Middle Head and proposed amendments to the Harbour Trust’s management planHowever at around 10.30pm Monday 3 March 2014 the President of the HPG, Linda Bergin OAM was alerted by Mayor Peter Abelson to a letter sent to him by Geoff Bailey, Executive Director Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.

Mr Bailey’s letter informed the Mayor that the proponent of the residential aged care facility on Middle Head intended to submit a revised proposal for only the 10 Terminal buildings and refer it directly to the Department of Environment and its Minister Greg Hunt for consent. The letter also requested Council not vote on the Motion at its meeting.

The Council meeting proceeded as planned with a packed public gallery. Mr. Bailey explained the proponent was revising their proposal but could not provide details other than that the revised proposal would be restricted to the 10 Terminal complex on the southern side of Middle Head Road and would be submitted directly to the Department of Environment. He also outlined the Department’s approval process.HPG members spoke clearly and concisely against the proposal currently with the Harbour Trust and rejected any revision of it on the basis that it would still compromise and conflict with the Trust’s Objects for Headland Park. Two members of the indigenous community put forward the concept of an indigenous centre as an appropriate adaptive re-use of 10 Terminal buildings.Each of the speakers from HPG had been assigned different community, heritage, legal and technical points to make against the proposed development. They each received sincere thanks from the Mayor of Mosman and rousing applause from members of the public in the gallery. A representative of the Save Little Manly Beach campaign and a Manly councillor were in the public gallery.All Councillors spoke to the Motion from very informed positions and high regard for the community’s continued opposition to the proposal. When the Motion (slightly amended) was put to a vote it was carried unanimously to great applause by the public gallery.

Mosman Council has no jurisdiction over planning, fire ratings or development proposals for Middle Head, 10 Terminal or any other Harbour Trust site in the locality. Nevertheless the unanimous vote by Council against the aged care proposal was a strong moral and political statement on behalf of the Mosman, wider Sydney and Australian communities in relation to the protection of public land.Linda Bergin subsequently sent letters of thanks to the Mayor and Councillors for the opportunity to speak and for their consideration of HPG’s speakers, the community’s opposition to the proposal and for the successful passage of the Motion by Council.Linda Bergin has now been invited to speak at Manly Council’s meeting on Monday 10 March 2014. The Mayor of Manly is Jean Hay who is a recent appointee to the Board of the Harbour Trust. Manly is also in the electorate of Tony Abbott, who is the Member for Warringah and Prime Minister of Australia.Addresses to Mosman Council Links:

HPG Comment on letter from Geoff Bailey to Clr Peter Abelson

To: Mosman CouncillorsMs. Veronica Lee, General Manager Mosman CouncilMarch 4, 2014Re: Comment on Letter from Geoff Bailey to Clr Peter Abelson, Mayor March 3, 2014Dear Councillors,Late last night Mayor Abelson forwarded to us a letter from Geoff Bailey at the Harbour Trust. The letter had 2 parts. First a request to defer tonight’s motion until some new foreshadowed amended application is received. Secondly, a defence of the present application from the Trust’s point of view.Request to defer the Motion (Paragraphs 1-4)The present application has not been withdrawn. There has been no amended application received, and the proponent has, according to Mr. Bailey, only told the Trust that it is its intention to submit an amended application.Although he has apparently not received any new application, Mr. Bailey has revealed that the applicant apparently has the intention of submitting a proposal for one side of the roadway. Further, that this new amended application would “enable” the Trust to remove the 3 Barracks buildings.This is only what Mr. Bailey says the proponent says it intends to do.There is no certainty that any new proposal will be submitted.The present proposal was released 4 months ago, is quite detailed, and has caused considerable debate in the community. We think it is entirely appropriate for the Council to express its view on the present application tonight and that it should not be deferred.Comments on Present Application (Paragraphs 5 – end)The second half of Mr. Bailey’s letter comments on the present application, the process so far, and also the need for aged care in the community.We believe it is highly unusual for the Trust, being a consent authority, to write to Council in support of an application that is still being assessed by the Trust.The present proposal relates to the 10 Terminal site and Barracks buildings, which are in what is called the Middle Head Precinct (see map attached). Middle Head Precinct is only one part of Headland Park, which covers not only Middle Head Precinct but also Georges Heights and Chowder Bay.Paragraph 5 references the range of uses in the Headland Park – but that is not really relevant as Headland Park covers a much wider area.The Middle Head Precinct has its own separate Management Plan. All the other precincts have their own Management Plan.According to the Comprehensive Plan for Middle Head (2003):“The Middle Head precinct is the culmination of the Headland Park: a gateway to Middle Harbour from the land and water.The precinct forms an important historic area within the proposed Headland Park.The key proposals contained in the Comprehensive Plan are:

  1. to retain and adaptively reuse the building clusters in a park with public paths through each cluster
  2. to remove, adapt or re-build the northern barrack buildings and
  3. to create a continuous band of parkland that straddles the ridge and envelopes the buildings

The more detailed Middle Head Management Plan (2007) states in relation the 10 Terminal buildings:“Potential for uses that suit the buildings’ character and location in the Headland Park including visitor facilities, places for refreshment, education and cultural studies and accommodation for visiting school groups.”Paragraph 6 of Mr. Bailey’s letter references the need for aged care in the community. However, that is not the issue. The issue at stake is whether aged-care is a suitable use on Middle Head, which is public parkland.His letter states “The proposal is for a residential clinical care facility with associated community day care set within public parkland open to all. It is neither a retirement village nor a gated community.”It is our understanding that this is a private aged care residential facility where elderly people will live out their lives. We believe that is not an appropriate use of the site. As stated by the National Trust:“Suggestions that the operation of the aged-care facility is somehow a ‘public’ activity and that aged-care facilities are ‘public assets’ are rejected.”We do not accept that the Trust has sufficiently consulted with the community for such a large scale development ($33m) and which was first proposed to the Trust in January 2012 (according to the proponent). The Trust has had only 1 Information Session in which the public were allowed to ask questions. The HPG publicised this Information Session more than the Trust did. The HPG has had 3 public meetings but no Trust staff attended to answer questions.Finally, it appears that the entire development is contained within a significantly dangerous bushfire Category 1 area, in which the buffer zone normally required is 100 metres, which would exclude the whole of the proposed development. The Trust admits that a Bushfire Protection Assessment for the proposed development has not been prepared.Yours truly,Linda Bergin OAMPresident Headland Preservation groupAttachment map of outcomes Middle Head Management Plan 2007

Middle Head aged care proposal: Letter from Geoff Bailey to the Mayor of Mosman

Below is the text from the letter sent by Geoff Bailey urging the Mayor to defer Mosman Council's vote on the Motion on March 4.See Headland Preservation Group's response to this letter here.Clr Peter AbelsonMayorMosman CouncilPO Box 211SPIT JUNCTION NSW 2088Dear Clr AbelsonRe: Proposed Aged Care Facility, Middle Head-Council's Notice of Motion 4 March 2014I refer to the proposal for an aged care facility at Middle Head currently being assessed by the Harbour Trust, and Council's Notice of Motion to consider the proposal at its upcoming meeting on 4 March 2014.I write to provide an update on the progress of the proposal, in order to inform Council's consideration of the matter. The applicant has advised the Harbour Trust of their intention to significantly amend the proposal and to refer this to the Minister for the Environment for consideration under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The proposal would only include the complex of 10 Terminal brick buildings on the southern side of Middle Head Rd. This would enable all the timber barracks to be removed and the northern side of Middle Head Road to be turned into parkland. As part of the referral process the Department of Environment will place the proposal on public exhibition. The Harbour Trust will notify the community of the exhibition by placing an advertisement in the Mosman Daily, as well as directly notifying all those who have previously written to us regarding the proposal.Subject to the outcome of the EPBC referral, the Harbour Trust may then consider the amended proposal, which would involve further consultation with the community. In light of these developments, it would be premature for Council to consider the present motion. I therefore request that Council defer consideration of the motion until the amended proposal is available, which I anticipate will be before the end of this month. I also request that the applicants be invited to address Council when it considers the amended proposal.More broadly, I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the Motion's claim that the proposal is contrary to the Harbour Trust's objects and plans. The Trust is considering the proposal because we believe it is consistent with our vision for the Headland Park. The Harbour Trust has always sought to reactivate these former Defence lands with a diverse range of uses that conserve buildings, maximise public access and enrich visitors' experience. The Harbour Trust has successfully introduced a range of uses including sport and recreational facilities, offices, restaurants, childcare centres, educational facilities, accommodation, health and wellbeing services, and artists precincts. Indeed, the Middle Head area has a long history of clinical and respite care, from the WWI hospital at Georges Heights, through to the recent $65m redevelopment of medical, residential and other facilities at HMAS Penguin.Moreover, the provision of adequate, quality aged care is one of the most significant challenges facing Australia's rapidly ageing population. Our community needs to develop better models for aged care. There has been a lot of research into the health benefits of parklands. "Healthy Parks Healthy People". It has been shown that availability and use of parks contributes to people's well being and natural settings contribute to the well being of patients and those in respite care. By being in landscaped public land, it would enable the elderly to be surrounded by life and activity as well as the soothing quality of the natural setting. The proposal is for a residential clinical care facility with associated community day care set within public parkland open to all. It is neither a retirement village nor a gated community.On the matter of community involvement I note that the Motion includes a claim that the Harbour Trust's public consultation on the proposal has been insufficient. The Harbour Trust refutes this claim. The proposal was on public exhibition for 6 weeks from 31 October-11 December 2013. During this period notifications were placed in the Mosman Daily on three occasions; local residents were notified by letter on three occasions; and a public information session and public Harbour Trust Board meeting were held. Direct notifications were made to a range of authorities and stakeholders; and the Harbour Trust's Community Advisory Committee was also informed. Following on from this there will be further consultation through the EPBC referral process, and the Harbour Trust's reexhibition of the amended proposal. This is an extensive consultation process that I expect would be at least as robust as the process that Council would undertake if it were considering a similar proposal.In regard to bushfire risk, the Harbour Trust has consulted the NSW Rural Fire Service, which has advised that aged care facilities must comply with the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. The Harbour Trust has required the applicant to engage a specialist bushfire consultant to prepare a Bush Fire Protection Assessment t hat specifically addresses the proposal's compliance with bush fire management requirements, including Planning for Bush Fire Protection.I request that this letter be tabled at Council's meeting on 4 March 2014, and that Council's consideration of the proposal be deferred until it has an opportunity to review the amended proposal.If you have any questions or would like to discuss any matter raised in this letter, please contact me on 8969 2164.Yours sincerelyGeoff BaileyExecutive Director3/3/2014CC - Ms Veronica Lee, General ManagerSee PDF copy of the letter here.

Key points about trees and bushfire risks at Middle Head

Address by Marta Sengers, HPG Committee Member, to Mosman Council Meeting 4 March 2014Before I start I must make the following disclaimer: at every stage of our campaign we have relied on the documentation given to us by the Trust. So if in interpreting the proposed actions we have made errors these are not intentional. To the best of our ability we are stating the facts as we know them.At our previous public meetings held in Mosman I have spoken around key points in the development application for the proposed private residential aged care home on Middle Head in Headland Park, and these form part of the argument why we want the Trust to disapprove this development application and why we want Mosman councillors to vote yes to the motion that is before Council tonight.Some of these points include:

  • size of the proposed site around 25000 square metres (6 acres)
  • the development of new larger buildings
  • footprints would almost double
  • 10 terminal a heritage building would be substantially altered with the addition of a 2nd story and infill buildings and overhead walkways joining them together
  • garden areas (as well as decks and courtyards) to be made private and fenced off as well as the creation of 'right of way' use and access of public spaces adjoining the development

We also highlighted the errors and inaccuracies in the proponents development application documents, these are too numerous to repeat and they are also listed on www.hpg.org.au, but they include:

  • "The buildings to the immediate west of the site have been adaptively re-used for temporary visitors accommodation.” – There is no (nor has there ever been) ‘accommodation’ anywhere in Middle Head Precinct. The inclusion of this statement suggests a precedent and that by association that a residential facility is acceptable for the site.
  • “Parts of the site have been used for dumping (illegal or otherwise)” – We don't believe this is evident, open spaces on the site are currently fenced off (for security and safety); spaces appear to be used for storage including stones and garden material. It appears to be a misleading statement designed to devalue the site in people’s minds.
  • “The site is conveniently located to public transport” – No NOT convenient, the site is really very isolated! Bus services run from 7am to 7pm and apart form a few extra services at peak hours, these are hourly.

We have also studied the environmental impacts and I would like to focus on two of these:First trees - the proposal states that “18 Trees will be removed” – a close study of the proponents plans (see diagram below) shows that in fact the trees to be removed stand at 59!

  • The landscape plan drawing number 001 C shows clearly marked in red a total of 49 trees that would be removed.
  • A further landscape plan drawing 100E also states that there are an extra 10 trees earmarked for removal for "open pace upgrading".

There are also other trees at risk these are located very close to the perimeters of proposed footprints they may be damaged or disturbed. The removal of this number of trees ail substantially alter the look and feel (i.e. open bushland) of the Middle Head precinct.Secondly the entire proposed development is located on land identified by Mosman Council as bush fire prone and will be located entirely within 100 meters of dangerous category 1 bushland.The proposed aged care home at Middle Head would include 55 high care places, designed for people who are incapacitated (presumably in wheel chairs) requiring 24 hour care. Locating aged care home (with 55 high places for people with disabilities who require 24/7 care) in dangerous bushfire Category 1 areas, would normally require a buffer zone of 100 metres, which would exclude the whole of the proposed development.State Environmental Planning Controls now restrict developments, especially aged care, where there is only one road in and out. This situation applies to Middle Head Road, where the proposed new facility would be built. For example Huon Park Aged Care on Bobbin Head Road Turramurra would not be approved today, because like Middle Head it is surrounded by bushland and it has only one road access.If the proposed development was not on Commonwealth land it could not be approved unless the RFS gave a special clearance certificate. But because it is on Commonwealth owned land there is a suggestion that these regulations may not apply. The Trust admits that a Bushfire Protection Assessment for the proposed development has not been prepared.Download Mosman Council's Bushfire Prone Land Map here...Middle Head is heavily wooded and has a history of bush fires. During army occupation the land at Middle Head and surrounds were subjected to regular reduction burning of bushland, we don't think this been done for decades.Gavin Souter's book "Mosman A History" mentions bush fires including:

  • 1826 – a huge bushfire swept through the area and 'burn't all before it till the sea stopt it at Georges Head. (Tommy O'Neil), 1859 and 1932

Newspaper archives reveal a history fires on Middle Head:

  • 1929 – " A bushfire which was raging over a large area at Middle Head last night provided a brilliant spectacle, particularly when viewed from ferry steamers travelling to Manly. Flames shooting high into the air from scrub and trees were visible for miles around" (SMH 2 Feb 1929)
  • 1936 – "a bushfire swept though hundreds of acres of dense bush and scrub from George's Head to Obelisk Bay near Middle Head." (SMH 7 Nov 1936)
  • 1937 – "10 Firemen from the Mosman station had a hard fight yesterday with a bushfire on Middle Head… the blaze was on the harbour side of the Mosman Golf Links, near the military Barracks" (SMH 5 Feb 1937)
  • 1944 – a bush fire at Middle Head where firefighters had "pumps running for over 4 hours" before the fire was under control. (SMH 11 Nov 1944)
  • And within the last 20 years we have had at least two bush fires very close by. One at Middle Head and one at Grotto Point.

The proposed development has not addressed bush fire safety, from the narrow access roads through National Park, to the placement of the aged care facilities near to a recognised bush fire safety hazard, nor has it taken into account local planning laws.

Mosman Council Motion on proposed Aged Care Facility on Middle Head

Mosman Council Revised motion v7 (4 March 2014)Motion:1. That Council recognises the excellent work done to date by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust2. The Council understands that the present proposal is in the process of being significantly amended. Nonetheless, at this time the original proposal remains3. That the General Manager convey the Council’s resolution to the Trust noting Council’s view that the previously proposed aged care facility should be rejected4. That Council welcomes consultations based on the as-yet-unseen amended aged care proposal and suggests that the Trust would need to be able to demonstrate a high level of public support for any significant aged care development, in preference to other options for the site5. That, in Council’s view, the previous proposal for an aged care facility on Middle Head has, on balance, entirely contrary to not been shown to be the best option to meet the objectives and mandate of the Trust, as defined by:i) the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 - Objects clause oblige the Trust “toii) the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan for all the sites, which includes a section ‘The protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land” and “to maximise public access to Trust land”. One function of the Trust is “to promote appreciation of Trust land, in particular its environmental and heritage values”; Trust’s Approach to Planning’. It states “The Trust, by contrast, is seeking the most appropriate outcome, inspired by the intrinsic values of the lands, one that will be of most benefit to all Australians now and for the future.”iii) the aims of the Management Plan for Middle Head, which include “Regenerate and expand the bushland so that the sense of a ‘green’ gateway to Sydney Harbour is reinforced”6. That Council writes to Mosman’s Federal Member and to the Federal Minister of the Environment to advise them of Council’s resolution.7. That Council request the Minister of the Environment to consider a full assessment of any aged care facility on Middle Head under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in order that the community is given an opportunity to express its views on the proposal.

Mosman Council Meeting Tuesday March 4 at 7pm – please attend!

Mosman Council Meeting Tuesday March 4 at 7pm – please attend!On Tuesday night, Council will vote on a Motion that the present aged care proposal should be rejected. Although Council is not a consent authority for this proposed development, a successful vote will send an important message to the Harbour Trust and government.Please lobby Councillors prior to the meeting and give them your views.Go to http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/council/about/councillors for contact details.If you wish to speak at the Council meeting you must register, see details below.Linda Bergin (campaign), Marta Sengers (trees and bushfire) and Rob Bagnall (legal) will speak briefly on behalf of HPG."If residents wish to address the Council on items, they need to register by either contacting the Team Leader Administration or registering with a Council officer prior to the commencement of the Council meeting."Go to: www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/about for more information, contact details are available here: http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/contact/Due the number of people expected to attend, the aged care Motion will likely be first on the agenda. Please try to arrive before 7pm.The motionThat:1. Council recognises the excellent work done to date by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust2. The General Manager and Cr Sherlock prepare a submission to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust noting Council’s view that the presently proposed aged care facility should be rejected3. While Council recognises that some public consultation has taken place, this is considered insufficient based on the scale and significance of the proposed development4. In Council’s view, the proposal for an aged care facility on Middle Head is, on balance, entirely contrary to the objectives and mandate of the Trust, as defined by:4.1. the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 -Objects clause oblige the Trust “to protect, conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage values of Trust land” and “to maximise public access to Trust land”. One function of the Trust is “to promote appreciation of Trust land, in particular its environmental and heritage values”;4.2. the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan for all the sites, which includes a section ‘The Trust’s Approach to Planning’. It states “The Trust, by contrast, is seeking the most appropriate outcome, inspired by the intrinsic values of the lands, one that will be of most benefit to all Australians now and for the future.”4.3. the aims of the Management Plan for Middle Head, which include “Regenerate and expand the bushland so that the sense of a ‘green’ gateway to Sydney Harbour is reinforced”5. Council writes to Mosman’s Federal Member and to the Federal Minister of the Environment to advise them of Council’s position.

Comments on errors in the Middle Head Health Care "Planning Assessment Report"

The Planning Assessment Report by Evolution Planning, October 2013 was prepared for Middle Head Health Care for the Development Application of the proposed residential Aged Care Home (The Cove at Middle Head).Headland Preservation has studied this document, at the recent public meeting on 20 February we highlighted the following errors and omissions in this report.

OMMISSION: 1. page 1 states: "the report accompanies an Action Application, made under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999."

COMMENT: No details of the Action Application were provided. The Trust says "the application form was completed by Boffa Robertson Group on behalf of the proponents, and submitted to the Harbour Trust as part of its application to the Harbour Trust.  The form is not related to any referral to the Department of Environment under the EPBC Act.  Application forms are not included in public exhibition material as they are for internal administrative purposes only, and may contain applicants’ private information such as home address and personal phone numbers." The form can be viewed here.

ERROR: 2. page 1 states: that the Trust is “the consent authority for any Action”

COMMENT: The Minister for the Environment is also a consent authority under the EPBC Act.

MISLEADING: 3. page 1 states: “This report has been prepared in the context of the amended Plan of Management”

COMMENT: The Draft Amended Plan of Management was put out for public comment and we were told in December no decision had been made. Therefore the report refers (and reads) as if it is being evaluated under a plan that has been adopted.

ERROR: 4. page 3 states: "The buildings to the immediate west of the site have been adaptively re-used for temporary visitors accommodation."

COMMENT: There is no (nor has there ever been) ‘accommodation’ anywhere in Middle Head Precinct. The inclusion of this statement seems to suggest a precedent and that by association a residential facility is acceptable for the site.

MISLEADING: 5. page 5 states: “Parts of the site have been used for dumping (illegal or otherwise)”

COMMENT: This is not evident, open spaces on the site are currently fenced off (for security and safety); spaces appear to be used for storage including stones and garden material. This seems like a misleading statement designed to devalue the site in people’s minds.

ERROR: 6. page 10 discusses tree removal and states “18 Trees will be removed – 15 being within the proposed building footprint.”

COMMENT: this statement is based on the tree assessment report which is using an incorrect footprint drawing for the new building on the northern part of the site (replacing existing 3 Barracks buildings), the orientation (the arc) of the new building was altered and the change will mean more trees will need to be removed. Together with other trees to be removed for open space upgrading and for the carpark on the western side of the 10 Terminal Buildings (page 3 of the Landscape Report Reduced) we believe the figure will be closer to 30.

ERROR: 7. page 14 & 17 the proposal refers to the development as: “adaptive reuse and interpretational reconstruction”COMMENT: We can find no such term “interpretational reconstruction” used by heritage authorities. “Reconstruction” has a specific heritage meaning which is “Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric. (Australia Burra Charter).” It is not true that the Barracks buildings are being returned to an earlier known state (barracks).

MISLEADING: 8. page 14 says: “Public access to the Trust land is not hindered by the proposed Action.”

COMMENT: “Hindered” is a misleading word, and could be interpreted to mean there is no loss of public access. There will be fenced private gardens; these are clearly shown in drawings and perspective drawings. The Trust has insisted that there will be no loss of public land, they seem to be including the current fenced off areas as land that would never have been made public yet in the original plans it clearly indicates that the fences were to be removed so that there would be access.

MISLEADING: 9. page 15 (and also page 16/17) states the “The site is conveniently located to public transport.”

COMMENT: No NOT convenient, the site is very isolated! Bus services start from about 7am with buses every hour, with a few extra services at peak hours. Last bus leaves Middle Head at 7.07pm.

ERROR: 10. page 16 states that “The overall Result (of proposed development) will be an increase in vegetated land.”

COMMENT: Under the present Plan of Management most of the carparks were to be removed and returned to parkland. Under this proposal they will be retained so there is a loss of vegetated land.

ERROR: 11. page 18 states that “The removal of the Barracks buildings is consistent with the preferred Outcomes contained within the Plan of Management which allows for the possible replacement of the buildings with car parking at the lower level.”

COMMENT: The proponent is (again) referring to the AMENDED Management Plan, which is not approved. The existing Middle Head Management Plan page 42 indicates demolition of one or more of the buildings to "open up the parkland" and says “If the buildings are adaptively reused, the architectural style, roof form, and choice of exterior materials should be sympathetic to the existing character of the precinct.”. The present proposal is not for the adaptive reuse of the Barracks buildings.

MISLEADING: 12. page 20: “The existing Barracks buildings are to be removed and a new building constructed which adopts a similar architectural style; will have similar massing and roof form characteristics”

COMMENT: Thus is highly misleading because the footprint is almost double the existing footprint and similar in height therefore it is much “larger” overall.

DISAGREE: 13. page 25 claims that: “The proposed development, being for the adaptive re-use and interpretation of existing buildings will have limited impact on the streetscape.”

COMMENT: There is little adaptive reuse at all. We disagree the proposed changes, including the new proposed building to replace the 3 Barracks buildings with its change on orientation thereby moving the building close to the road on the eastern side, access to underground parking, access roads for the movement of meals, laundry and other materials between the Barracks building and 10 Terminal ambulance bay, and removal of trees will have a big impact on the streetscape.

David Shoebridge: Save Middle Head from a fundamental attack on our natural and our historical heritage

Mr David Shoebridge, Greens MP NSW Parliament, spoke at our 3rd public Meeting, in addition to urging the campaign to continue to work towards fighting what he describes as a "fundamental attack on our natural and our historical heritage" he also brought up some important issues related to bushfire issues for the proposed development. Here is a transcript of what he said:Thanks for that. And I thoroughly enjoyed the traffic on the way here, and I'm sorry for being a little late.This is one of those moments when you realise that Sydney is bigger than just a little local area. It's bigger than just the headland, that in fact the heritage of Sydney, in fact much of Australia, is really colonial and aboriginal history. It's really typified in its quite unique and beautiful site there at Middle Head.For many people who don't, aren't lucky enough to live sort of close to Middle Head, their experience of Middle Head is when they fly past it on that Manly Ferry. They look at that beautiful, I think for a global city of the size and stature of Sydney, this truly unique part of our city which is we have that gorgeous national park, those amazing green fringes and that rich natural and colonial heritage which occupies the very centre of Sydney's harbour and really the very centre of Sydney.I've seen people criticising campaigns aiming to protect Middle Head from an extraordinary out-of-scale development as being NIMBYs, or Mosmanites or the little league, the passion with which they will apply to protect Middle Head, and I think they have fundamentally missed the point here about what Middle Head represents.When you go back and just look at simply the military history, the archaeology there from, I think, as early as 1801, I saw recorded archaeological and military history, we see those sort of waves of Australian coastline of history, first defending ourselves from the French, then the Russians, then the Japanese and the Germans. If you dig a little deeper and you a look a little bit more closely, you see that extraordinary aboriginal history that's on the sites, and the connection back to a continuous culture, the oldest traditional living continuous culture on the planet right there, right in the harbour of an amazing global city and protected by, I think, an extraordinary community campaign that existed 20 years ago.This is one of those moments where I think we need to revive that campaign and we need to dispel the myth that this is NIMBYs and narrow sectional interests. If this provides a go-ahead, if it's approved by the trust and then given a tick by the federal environment minister, it won't be about a little thing about Mosman, it's a fundamental attack on our natural and our historical heritage.What you're fighting for here, what you're struggling to protect is far bigger than just a little bit of Sydney. It is in many ways the heart of Sydney. It is something you should be proud that you're putting your hand up to protect. And I, I've got to say, when I look at the size of the gathering here today and I'm filled with real heart. I'm filled with real heart that if the Trust takes doesn’t listen and I do hope they do, then the minister must listen. Then surely the minister must listen. And if they don't listen, like previous propositions haven't listened, well then I think we need to continue to campaign, continue to pressure, because what you're struggling for, what you're fighting for, you should be uniting Sydney, not dividing Sydney.This idea that we must have an out-of-the-sky or inappropriately-located [inaudible 04:00] facility in order to make some economically-viable development in such a gorgeous heritage precinct, you only need to say that proposal to realise how ridiculous it is. Yes, the traffic is really killer. Yes, it is going to be really exclusive and limited-access, despite which all of the management plan documentation says it should be permeable and granting public access, instead we'll have a gated community for a privileged few. Too much of our harbour is gated communities for the privileged few.So I'd like to tell you I'm a Green [inaudible 04:43], but I think it should be well beyond Greens, or Liberals or Labor. Every elected representative, and I hope there's strong support on the Council, I've heard staff saying that, should be standing with you in order to protect it. I've put some of these thoughts into an opinion piece that was published just yesterday in New Matilda. I want you to go along and have a look at that. So stay united, stay strong, remember that you stand with people across Sydney, across Australia to protect this heritage. Thank you.

Headland Preservation Group Inc has now officially re-formed and incorporated

The Headland Preservation Group Inc (HPG) has been re-formed in response to the proposed large scale private development of an Aged Care Home at the 10 Terminal site on Middle Head (Headland Park). At the same time, the Sydney Federation Harbour Trust is also proposing amendments to its own Management Plan (for the first time ever since it was written in 2007) so that the aged care proposal can proceed. The proposal has been carefully studied by our group and also by people in the wider community (of all ages and backgrounds), many of whom were involved in the original battle to save these sites for future generations. It is not a proposal worthy of consideration and should not be approved in any form.Headland Preservation Group can now accept memberships and donations and we'd like to thank our community member and supporters who have already joined and and/or made generous donations to help us cover our costs to date.

The Headland Preservation Group seeks to:

  • Prevent private commercial development on public parkland.

  • Find better adaptive re-uses that are consistent with the environmental, cultural and heritage values of Middle Head and other Trust sites.

  • Establish a foundation to protect and support public foreshore parklands.

Save Middle Head 3rd Public Meeting

Almost 200 people attended our 3rd public meeting on Thursday 20 February to continue the campaign against the proposed aged care residential complex in Headland Park on Middle Head.

We heard about the campaign progress from Linda Bergin OAM, President of the recently re-formed Headland Preservation Group Inc, and reviewed errors and omissions on the proponents proposed development application documents. Guest speakers included Mr David Shoebridge, Greens MP NSW Parliament, and Ms Ilona Millar, Special Counsel Baker & McKenzie. We'll be making transcriptions of these presentations available soon. If you are not already on our email update list Please email us or register for updates on this page.

Key points on errors and omissions in the Planning Assessment Report blog post can be read here.