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.

Attend our 3rd public Meeting to save Middle Head

Dear Community Member,We urge you to attend our 3rd public meeting to Save Middle Head to will be held next Thursday 20 February, 6.30-7.30pm at the Mosman Senior Citizen’s Centre (next to Mosman Town Hall, Mosman Square, Spit Junction).

Agenda

  • Mr David Shoebridge, MLC NSW Parliament, Australian Greens, will speak to the proposal to build a large private aged care residential facility on Middle Head.

  • Special Counsel Ilona Millar, Baker & McKenzie, will speak and take questions about why the proposal is unlawful.

  • We have uncovered some mistakes and inconsistencies in the proponent’s documents and will give a short slide presentation.

An Advisor from Senator Birmingham’s office will attend (but not speak).

Headland Preservation Group Inc was Re-formed

Following the meeting we will celebrate the re-instatement of the Headland Preservation Group Inc re-registered on 6 February 2014.Please join us for celebratory drinks and snacks.WHEN: 6.30pm – 7.30pm, Thursday 20 February 2014 WHERE: Mosman Council Senior Citizen’s Centre, entrance next to Mosman Town Hall, Mosman Square, Spit Junction.

View/download a PDF flyer for our meeting announcement here.

Letters to the Editor

Elizabeth Farrelly's article 'Peat Island sale is a bridge too far', Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 6 February 2014, was met with a wave of dismay and disbelief at the tone and inaccuracies with regard to the Middle Head aspects of the story.'Rainer the cabbie – Darlo and beyond' 6 Feb commented online "This piece of National Park is today the pearl of the harbour, to be enjoyed by locals, Sydneysiders and tourists alike."Fran Lester's Letter to the SMH Editor 7 Feb  'Harbour's beauty is for everyone, so let's protect it' got right down to the bottom line in more ways than one "It makes no difference whether it's for aged care, a cookery school or a red-light brothel. It's just the wrong thing to do."Then came the carpeting of Ms Farrelly's article with a stream of Letters to the SMH Editor on Saturday 8 Feb. The high number published was clearly the tip of a very cold iceberg of responses to what Ms Farrelly had to say. Read on!'It's about parkland for all, not just a few'SMH Letters, February 8, 2014Nearly two decades ago, communities came together to oppose the sell-off of Defence land in a legendary ''Battle for Sydney Harbour''. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust resulted from this clamour. The original vision of the community - ''a world-class national park for all Australians'' - has been achieved. Elizabeth Farrelly (''Let Mosmanites fight for Peat Island'', February 6) is right to applaud the trust and its executive Geoff Bailey.I was one of those people all those years ago. Sadly, it is deja vu because of the trust's apparent support of a development application (by a private company) for an aged-care home on the ridge line of Middle Head, one of Australia's most loved heritage sites.Ms Farrelly is well-respected and thoughtful. This time, however, she has got it wrong. The scale is indeed large - it is nearly double the existing gross floor area. The 25-year lease is a long one and would likely be renewed if it's elderly people living there. It is akin to a sale.The trust has lost our trust.Linda BerginPresident, Headland Preservation Group, Mosman

Elizabeth Farrelly's piece on the future of Peat Island was interesting. Like many Sydneysiders, I have driven past that geographical feature of the Hawkesbury many times. With its bleak-looking buildings and towering smokestack, I'd often wonder what went on there. I can recall 20 years ago saying ''wouldn't the developers love to get their little hands on that piece of real estate''. It's taken a while but sadly looks as if it could be around the corner.Ross MacPherson Seaforth
Elizabeth Farrelly overlooks the objectives in the 2001 act establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The proposal for the aged-care home contravenes all four of the principal objectives of the act. The proposal is also not possible without major amendments to the trust's management plan 2007. Finally the proposal is inconsistent with the trust's notice board outside the Terminal 10 building stating the original intentions.David Clarke Mosman
Elizabeth Farrelly focuses on the argument that a ''heritage-listed building needed a use'' - as if that somehow should override the fundamental principle of preserving the public parkland as public parkland in perpetuity.If it came to that, Centennial Park has much more public parkland than Middle Head, is much closer to the inner-city neighbourhoods that Farrelly raved about in a recent column and could make a much bigger contribution to solving the aged-care needs of the city.Farrelly's articles are usually well thought out and interesting. But for someone who has railed against the planning fiasco of Barangaroo to be so glib and dismissive of a proposed land grab of iconic Sydney Harbour foreshore land is both surprising and disappointing.Robert Bagnall Mosman
Elizabeth Farrelly misses the point. The proposed aged-care facility at Middle Head is all about a privatisation agenda that threatens public land that rightfully belongs to the people of Sydney and the nation. Why should we hand over our harbour foreshores to private profit?Janine Kitson Gordon
Elizabeth Farrelly should consider the words of Prince Charles: ''It seems to me that some planners and architects have consistently ignored the feelings and wishes of the mass of ordinary people in this country.'' By making demeaning comments about the ''burghers of Mosman'', Ms Farrelly clearly fails to realise that this issue goes far beyond the immediate environs of Mosman and shows that, by Prince Charles' definition, at least, she is not a good architect.Michael Robinson Cammeray
Oldies living in high care at Middle Head will have their hands too full managing medication, ravenous commercial operator and existential heebie-jeebies to appreciate one of Sydney's signature headlands. Build the facility on Allan Border Oval.Patrick Fletcher Mosman
Harbour's beauty is for everyone, so let's protect it (published 7th Feb)Elizabeth Farrelly (February 6) says the Peat Island issue ''could use some implacable Mosmanites'' to fight the cause.As a Mosmanite who lives next door to Middle Head, I'd be happy to fight for Peat Island.Ms Farrelly might be surprised to know that among all those Mosman burghers who are out rampaging on Middle Head with their pitchforks, there are quite a lot of George Smiley-like characters. They harbour other Smiley-like characteristics: industry, tenacity, intelligence. Most come from somewhere else; I am a Kogarah kid.A lot of mud gets slung at Mosmanites, so Ms Farrelly is not alone, just predictable. Mostly it's just sour grapes - look at all those toffs over there, ''latte sippers patronising popular cafes and restaurants''. But the truth is that the people who park in my street on weekends are not Mosmanites. They're from everywhere. Two Frenchmen I met here couldn't get over the beauty of the foreshore parklands. And that's great. Why? Because what matters is the parkland is for everyone.The bottom line? The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust needs money. To get it, it's prepared to forsake its charter and give a private developer the go-ahead to construct a very ugly large building in national parkland. It makes no difference whether it's for aged care, a cookery school or a red-light brothel. It's just the wrong thing to do.Fran Lester Mosman
'It's about parkland for all, not just a few'Comments, February 6, 2014The one thing overlooked in this article is the passion most Mosmanits have for their district.When the Army moved out of George's Heights the government of the day had plans to sell off the land to fill their coffers.To prevent this the local residents formed an action group and fought long and hard to return the land back to the general public and include it in the Harbour Nation Park.This cannot be written off as Nimbism. The land was then handed over to the Harbour Trust which made great use of the exciting facilities without causing any environtmental impact. The walking tracks were restored and extended to take in the unique beauty of this area.This piece of National Park is today the pearl of the harbour, to be enjoyed by locals, Sydneysiders and tourist alike. All this was achieved without any change to the existing framework of the buildings, the best compromise if ever I've seen one.This principle should never be altered so the future for one of Sydney's unique spots is secured for all in the future.Congratulations to the so called " Pitchfork brigade", your work was not in vain and keep on going for the benefit of all.CommenterRainer the cabbieDarlo and beyond
Dear Dr Farrelly,As a long time fan of your social and architectural analysis articles I am very disappointed at the lazy passion-aggressive effort you've made in this case.It was community action by the so-called 'burghers of Mosman' and the Headland Preservation Group in the late 1990s which saved Georges Heights, Middle Head and Chowder Bay from sale by the Defence Department for private residential development.It was the Headland Preservation Group and Linda Bergin OAM, Phillip Jenkyn OAM and Peter Jones AM who constructed the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust not Geoff Bailey. He is a tenant of the Harbour Trust not its architect.Cockatoo Island is a Biennale of Sydney venue because community action kept the land in public hands not because John Howard bestowed the Harbour Trust on it. Community action > public land > Harbour Trust.How about coming over to Middle Head for an alternative tour. You might see Middle Head from another perspective. We might even buy you a burger :-)Michael MangoldCommenterMichael MangoldMiddle Head, Mosman

Phil Jenkyn OAM – why the proposal should not proceed

Phil Jenkyn OAM is a retired barrister and former alderman. Over the years he has been involved in many environmental and heritage battles. He was the first Chair of Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores and the Joint Convener of Protectors of Public Lands. He was awarded an OAM (2005) for services to the protection and preservation of the environment, particularly heritage sites on the Sydney Harbour foreshore. In 2010 he received the National Trust’s Lifetime Achievement Award for his contribution to heritage conservation. He is a member of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust’s Community Advisory Committee, and a member of the Sydney Harbour National Landscape Steering Committee.Above: Phil addressing the large public meeting re Middle Head 23 January 2014 1. INTRODUCTIONA Development Application has been made to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust for a private 93 unit aged care residential facility on public land at Middle Head in Sydney Harbour. It is proposed to convert and enlarge the ‘Ten Terminal’ buildings, and to demolish and build on the Barracks site on the other side of Middle Head Road, so as to accommodate the facility. Middle Head is well recognised nationally as being a very significant and special place.In order to objectively and appropriately assess the merits of this application, one needs to go back in time to see how it was that the Trust was established, to look closely at the Act governing the Trust and the various plans that it has made, the heritage values of Middle Head and the particular site where the development is proposed, and to evaluate the actual proposal and any impacts it may have on those heritage and environmental values. It is then and only then that one can make a proper assessment as to what should happen to these buildings on Middle Head. That must be done in accordance with the obligation under the Act to protect, conserve and preserve the environmental and heritage values of this significant place.Middle Head one of a number of significant sites in Sydney Harbour saved by the community 2. THE BATTLE FOR SYDNEY HARBOURA real and desperate battle was fought by the community between 1996 and 1998 to prevent the Commonwealth Government and the Defence Department from going ahead with their decision to sell off former Defence sites in Sydney Harbour to private developers. These sites included nationally significant public land at North Head, Woolwich and Cockatoo Island, and in Mosman at Georges Heights and Middle Head.A coalition of action groups from around the Harbour was formed called ‘Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores’ and as a result of a very vigorous campaign the Prime Minister John Howard in September 1998 announced that the Government had recognised that these public lands were in fact “the jewel in the nation’s crown” and stated that “they would be protected for the people of Australia”. The Headland Preservation Group inMosman played a leading role in the campaign. It has recently re-formed and established this website.After the election of 1998 it became clear that while the Government was to establish a Trust, funding would be limited to the planning stage and remediation of sites. It produced a Bill in Parliament that would require the Trust to be self-funding and gave it the directionand power to sell off significant heritage sites to fund its operations. This led to a further battle that resulted in a Senate Inquiry and the drafting of a proper Bill protecting the lands, drafted not by the Government but by a coalition of ‘Defenders’, Opposition Parties and a number of Councils. In the end the Government gave way and in early 2001 the community got its ‘Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act’, legislation that really does protect and preserve these sites. The self-funding clause was deleted.From 2002 departmental funds were appropriated for capital works and operations. However since 2009 the Government has no longer funded capital works or operational costs. This has meant that the Trust has not been able to complete the necessary works on its heritage buildings to a level that would enable it to find the best adaptive reuses for these buildings. Buildings such as the Artillery School at North Head and Ten Terminal at Middle Head and some buildings on Cockatoo Island do not now have the funds to be restored and renovated to an appropriate level for leasing. This is indeed a very shortsighted view of Government and is to be condemned in strong terms. The Trust is the leader in good public planning in Australia and with a reasonably modest injection of funds would achieve world’s best practice status and self-sufficiency. These funds must be provided.3. THE ACT AND PLANSIt is important to consider and understand a number of the provisions in the relevant Act and in the Plans prepared by the Trust.In the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 the Preamble states: “The Parliament intends to conserve and preserve land in the Sydney Harbour region for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians.” Important sections of the 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”.In the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan for all the sites, there is 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.”One of the aims of the Management Plan for Middle Head is “Regenerate and expand the bushland so that the sense of a ‘green’ gateway to Sydney Harbour is reinforced”.4. MIDDLE HEADThe natural values of Middle Head and Georges Heights are of national and international significance. This applies to both the Trust’s lands and the adjoining Sydney Harbour National Park. Middle Head is a wonderful natural headland dominating the entry into Sydney Harbour. The foreshore areas between Manly and the Zoo – the bushland, harbour beaches, water vistas and much more, have been identified as exceptional places to be experienced by visitors and the community.The Sydney Harbour National Landscape (SHNL) was launched in February 2013. Its boundary follows the foreshore areas of Sydney’s harbour and coast from Barrenjoey in Ku- ring-gai Chase National Park to North Head, on through Middle Head to the Harbour Bridge and to Parramatta Park, back to South Head and down into Royal National Park. SHNL was chosen by Tourism Australia and Parks Australia as being one of the 16 best destinations to experience Australia’s outstanding nature and culture. Middle Head is a critical part of this assessment.Above: Ten Terminal and Barracks site at Middle Head proposed for aged care facilityThe Australian School of Pacific Administration (ASOPA), the 15 weatherboard ‘huts’ on the right as you proceed east along Middle Head Road past the oval, was built in 1941 and is of considerable heritage significance. It recently has been ‘restored’ and renovated keeping its heritage values and leased. This has been done to the Trust’s best practice standard. Public access has also been maintained.The School of Military Engineering (later Ten Terminal) was built c1941. During the Second World War it was occupied by the School of Military Engineering Anti-aircraft and Fortress Wing. The School of Military Intelligence occupied the buildings from 1958 and the Ten Terminal Regiment from 1974 to 1998. In 1998 it was handed to the Sydney Property Disposal Unit. The community battle prevented its sale to private developers. It remains unoccupied and has not yet been ‘restored’ and renovated.The three timber Barracks buildings and laundry are on the left hand side of Middle Head Road just past the Oval proceeding east. Apart from the small ‘Guard House’ close to the oval which is to be kept, there are no other structures on what is a natural area abutting the National Park. The Barracks were built 1951-55 and are not occupied.Above: Ten Terminal is comprised of the buildings at top left centre, the Barracks are the three buildings in lower part of photo and ASOPA is the collection of light coloured ‘huts’ top right5. HERITAGE ASSESSMENTThe applicant for an aged care facility on Middle Head has lodged a ‘Heritage Impact Statement’ (heritage report) with the application.The heritage report in relation to the Ten Terminal precinct states:“The former brick and tile World War 2 School of Military Engineering buildings at Middle Head (later Ten Terminal) form a relatively rare collection of such buildings at a National level. Within NSW only the almost contemporary School of Artillery at North Head and the former 12 Lines of Communication complex at Boronia Park (Gladesville) are known to survive outside military establishments.”“Although used variously for training and administration, substantial documentary and physical evidence of the original configuration and detail of the building survives, including window joinery, doors and partitions.”Ten Terminal is listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List. Clearly it is of considerable heritage significance given its design, rarity, intactness, history and setting on significant public land adjoining the national park. It should be restored with appropriate uses.Appropriate uses for Ten Terminal could involve the interpretation of that site and ASOPA adjoining, interpretation of the natural values of Trust land and adjoining national park, and of the important Aboriginal occupation of this area. It is the only site that could give direct information to visitors who wish to enjoy and learn about Middle Head.The Barracks buildings on the other hand are of low, if any, heritage significance. They are considered in the report:“The assessment of significance of III Anti-Aircraft Battery Barracks Precinct concludes that it does not, as a specific part of the Middle Head and Georges Heights military area, reach the thresholds of the Commonwealth significance assessment criteria.”In my view the natural values of the northern side of Middle Head Road past the oval heading east far outweigh any argument for the retention of the Barracks buildings. They must go.6. THE AGED CARE PROPOSALThe application is for a 93 unit private residential aged care facility on public land at MiddleHead.It is proposed to be on both sides of Middle Head Road, the route that leads directly to the Middle Head entrance of Sydney Harbour National Park.Above: Blue is the existing footprint and Below: Red is the proposed footprint and yellow is private open space It is intended to add a second storey, slightly set back, over the existing single storey buildings of Ten Terminal. In doing so the whole character of Ten Terminal is visually and factually changed. Its heritage values are seriously adversely affected.The footprint of the new facility is greater than existing, as can be seen in the plans and drawings and in the model. There is to be ‘screening’ landscaping around the facility which will also include a secured outside area for dementia patients. Instead of being able to walk through the collection of buildings and into some or all of the buildings, the public will be kept out of what would become a private facility. This is contrary to the object of the Act “to maximise access”.Above: The applicant’s model of the proposed aged care facility showing the significant adverse impacts to the character and heritage values of the existing Ten Terminal buildingsThe applicant’s heritage report states:“The proposed adaptation of the former School of Military Engineering to provide an aged persons' health care facility will cause significant physical changes to the fabric, form and interiors of some building elements and the setting of the precinct.”The extended and enlarged footprint and an underground car park for a new building to replace the three Barracks, all this in an area that should become a natural place, means one thing. This building must never happen.The aged care facility is clearly contrary to the object of the Act to protect, preserve and conserve the environmental and heritage values of these significant lands.It is also contrary to the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan, to the way it is obliged to go about its planning and the way to date it has gone about its planning. The record of the Trust is without equal in Australia. What it has achieved at Chowder Bay, at Woolwich, at Georges Heights and to date at Cockatoo and elsewhere is truly remarkable and has brought great credit to all involved. It is also one of the few Government bodies that genuinely listen to community. What the community asks is for the Trust to maintain its high standard.7. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN(a) The application or proposal should not proceed. Alternatively, if it does proceed it should be rejected. It is simply not appropriate.(b) The Barracks must come down. This area adjoining the national park should be natural. (c) Ten Terminal must be restored given its significance.(d) Appropriate uses for Ten Terminal, after further consideration by the Trust and community, could include the interpretation of its significant values, interpretation of ASOPA and the natural areas of both the Trust’s lands and the national park. It could also provide information for visitors and others who are coming to Middle Head.(e) One matter that I also have a very strong view on is that somewhere on Georges Heights or Middle Head there should be a place that recognises the incredible culture and history of the Aboriginal peoples, generally and as it relates to this particular area. The site of Ten Terminal or part of it or nearby land may or may not be an appropriate place. What is or is not appropriate must come from Aboriginal peoples. No other way is acceptable.(f) The Trust and National Parks should work very closely in the way they welcome people to Middle Head and how they interpret and care for Middle Head.(g) The call from the community to the Trust is clear. Keep your high standards. The community fought hard for this. The Act is clear and insists upon it.(h) The call to the Government is also clear. Properly fund the Trust. Get it to the point where its buildings have been restored to a level for appropriate uses or leasing. Then it can truly be said that the Trust is self-funding. It can then also be said that the Trust’s sites embody world’s best practice.Phil Jenkyn OAM4 February 2014

Astounded the Trust is considering development proposal

Submission reproduced with permissionTo: The Directors, Sydney Harbour Federation TrustPO Box 607 Mosman 208826 January 2014Re Aged Care Proposal MiddleI attended the Save Middle Head meeting on 23rd January and it was only then that the full magnitude of the aged care facility was revealed in graphic detail showing the increase in scale of the proposal relative to the footprint and bulk of the existing buildings. I have to say that I was astounded that the management and board were even considering such a proposal given my understanding of the Trust’s mandate.Although I know the area well, yesterday I took the trouble to walk right around the site and make a closer inspection of the harbour foreshore on both sides of Middle Head Road. Although heavily screened by trees it is apparent that this land has magnificent views on both sides that are ideal to establish for public recreation which is the very essence of the Trust. There is a notice outside the Terminal 10 buildings stating the Trust’s objectives in relation to the side of the road adjacent to the Oval; to adapt or demolish the barrack buildings and to open up the views to Middle Harbour. I fail to see how it can be possible to open up the wonderful views to Middle Harbour without demolishing the barrack buildings. It is the creation of open space to enjoy such views which is the Trust's objective in creating a park for public access. A new residential construction simply cannot be reconciled with the objectives shown on the Terminal 10 notice.On the Trust’s website, "Middle Head Aged Care Facility FAQs", No 6 states; "The proposal is consistent with the Harbour Trust’s objectives" That statement is an egregious fabrication and by endorsing it the Board is in dereliction of its mandate from the Commonwealth Government. I refer you to the objectives as stated in the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 2001.Objective 1. "To ensure that management of Trust land contributes to enhancing the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region."The construction of buildings with double the footprint and bulk of the current buildings could not in any circumstance be construed as enhancing the harbour foreshore. I have stated above that the site encompasses some of the finest views on the Trust’s property and as such provides the perfect amenity for public access and recreation once the vegetation is cleared. The construction of residential buildings will eliminate the opportunity to create such an amenity. The Aged Care Facility therefore contravenes Objective 1 of The Act.Objective 2. "To protect conserve and interpret the environmental and heritage value of the Trust land."A building development of residential units with ancillary facilities for 93 people and associated support staff could not in any circumstances be construed to protect nor conserve let alone interpret the environment or heritage of the land. The Aged Care proposal therefore contravenes Objective 2 of The Act.Objective 3. "To maximise public access to the Trust land."The Trust’s website FAQ No 3 states that the enclosed area is 9400 square meters or approximately 1 hectare. How can closing off 1 hectare on one of the most scenic sites on the Trust land be reconciled with maximising public access. It is self evident that the Aged Care proposal contravenes Objective 3 of the Act.Objective 4. "To establish and manage suitable land as a park on behalf of the Commonwealth as the National Government."As stated above the site under consideration for the Aged Care Facility includes some of the finest panoramic views of the Harbour on Trust land. As such there is no site more suited for establishment as parkland. To block the establishment of parkland on such a prime site in favour of residential development is a clear contravention of Objective 4.The stated facts provide irrefutable evidence that the proposed Aged Care Facility is in contravention of the four prime objectives stipulated in the Act establishing the Trust. The Aged Care proposal is quite contrary to the stated objectives on the sign currently displayed outside the Terminal 10 buildings. Finally the proposal must be contrary to the Trust's Management Plan 2007 if the Trust sees the need to amend it.I challenge the Trust to publicly repeat its statement that "The proposal is consistent with the Harbour Trust's objectives", substantiating such statement in relation to the four prime objectives stipulated in the Act 2001. If the Trust is unable to substantiate that statement in relation to the proposed Aged Care Facility, each member of the Board should consider their position.DTH Clarke

Large turnout for public meeting held on January 23

Turnout for the public meeting to Save Middle Head held on January 23 was unusually large and we counted 180-190 with many standing and some unfortunately being turned away.

There was no evident support for the aged-care proposal at the meeting, and much applause in opposition to the proposal.Our President Linda Bergin OAM returned early from overseas to be able to Chair the meeting, in light of the urgency of the campaign.

The Harbour Trust did not attend with the exception of Board Member Peter Lowry OAM, however we did receive apologies from Board Members Clr Jean Hay AM and Leo McCleay.

Guest speaker Phil Jenkyn OAM, barrister and founder of Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores, the original Defence land coalition formed in 1997, spoke eloquently and forcefully in opposition to the aged-care proposal. Phil visited the Trust and researched this proposal independently. He has concluded that the proposal is in violation of the Trust’s duty to conserve and care for its sites. Phil proposed the demolition of the 3 barracks and the adaptive re-use of Ten Terminal as aligning most with the heritage values of the site.

Also attending were members of “Save Little Manly Beach” and the President Jacqueline French spoke about their recent victory in the NSW Land and Environment Court against Manly Council’s attempt to sell foreshore land. (The Harbour Trust is not under this jurisdiction). Save Little Manly Beach expended around $200,000 to win its battle.

URGENT PUBLIC MEETING 6pm-7pm Thurs 23 January 2014 – Seniors Centre, Mosman Council, Spit Junction

Linda Bergin OAM has cut short her trip to Italy to return to Australia to address an urgent public meeting 6pm-7pm Thursday 23 January 2014 at Mosman Council Seniors Centre, entrance next to Mosman Town Hall, Mosman Square, Spit Junction. PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

  • Aged-care campaign update
  • Launch of Headland Preservation Group and new website
  • Excerpt of documentary film “Battle For Sydney Harbour”
  • Guest speaker Philip Jenkyn OAM Founding Chair Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores, 
barrister and legendary campaigner
  • Discussion proposed Indigenous Memorial Park and Cultural Centre

"We must continue to work to stop the development of 10 Terminal site on Middle Head in Headland Park," Linda Bergin said. "If this development is allowed it would be a large scale new residential development instead of adaptive reuse limited to open space and park objectives stated in the Harbour Trust Act. "Please attend this important public meeting to protect public land. Your continuing support is critical to the success of this campaign." At the public meeting Linda Bergin will be urging the Hon Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia and MP for Warringah to personally intervene to suspend the development application for the development of a private residential aged care complex at the 10 Terminal site on public land on Middle Head. The Sydney Federation Harbour Trust's head office and the site of the proposed development are in the electorate of Tony Abbott. The then Prime Minister John Howard and Tony Abbott were instrumental in the original decision to establish the interim Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in September 1998: "On announcement of the establishment of the Interim Trust, the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, reminded Australians that Sydney Harbour is ‘…probably the world’s greatest harbour. It is one of the great natural beauty spots of our nation. It is the cradle of European settlement in Australia and it is one of those parts of our country which gives immense pride and immense pleasure, not only to the residents of Sydney, but also to all Australians because it wins such wide acclaim around the world.’ "Prior to this it had been proposed to sell portions of the sites for redevelopment. This resulted in vigorous community opposition and as a consequence the Government decided to establish the Trust to devise a long-term plan to return the vacated land to the People of Australia, ‘…not just to the people of Sydney, not just to the people of the suburbs around Sydney Harbour but to all of the people of Australia.’" [Reference]

Standing Up For Middle Head On Boxing Day

Julie Goodsir* and a team of volunteers organised a massive effort at Georges Heights and Middle Head on Boxing Day to alert visitors from all over Sydney and beyond of the threat of private residential development facing a large section of the historic headland.
The visitors, many of whom travel to Georges Heights and Middle Head each year to gain unique vantage points on the Sydney to Hobart yacht race fleet, were shocked to learn public land and open space within their view could be overshadowed by private development.
"1500 people signed our petition to save Middle Head," Julie Goodsir said. "We only found out about the proposed development in mid-November and did not have much time to get our 'Save Middle Head' petition organised. It was so heartening to see so many people from all areas of Sydney wanting to sign our petition.
"In little more than a month, and at a very busy time of the year, our support base has grown to 2000 members. Tony Abbott was the Member for Warringah when the Headland Preservation Group campaigned to save this public land 17 years ago.
"Now Tony Abbott is not only the local member he is also our Prime Minister. I have heard he sometimes rides his bike down to Middle Head. Therefore he is familiar with this headland. What is at stake here is not a local issue but one for all Australians.
"The public land on Middle Head where the development of a private aged care facility is being proposed is an integral part of all the former Defence sites around Sydney Harbour that Linda Bergin, my late husband and the Headland Preservation Group, fought so hard and so rightly for, so long ago.
"We are not going to allow their legacy, and the time with their families that they sacrificed for all Australians, to be taken away forever.
"We would like a meeting with Tony Abbott here on the site. I think he is unaware of some of the issues at stake particularly the worrying precedent that approval of an aged care residential development would have for other parts of our iconic foreshore."
 *Julie Goodsir was heavily involved in the Headland Preservation Group led by Linda Bergin OAM and her husband the late Don Goodsir OAM. A sandstone bench was placed at Georges Heights in his memory after he lost his battle with cancer in 2010.