Ladies and gentlemen,

Your Parks and Playgrounds Movement has a magnificent record of service in the public interest to the lower Hunter community and to the environment.

However many of the initiatives advocated by the Movement require action at the executive government level which because of our total lack of resources is out of our reach.

None of the issues raised in the movement can be progressed without voluntary effort by the members and supporters. We have built up a mountain of good will in the community but with no resources it is difficult to make progress.

Too often even we understand the issues and the background but the only positive action we can take is to rattle our cage with the hope that someone will hear. We are also leaving a paper trail and an example for future educators, investigators and activists who will know that people did care about conservation and the people of tomorrow in the year 2000.

I think it is up to every member and supporter to make the initiatives of the movement their own and let it be known in their political parties and in the community by talking and writing to their members of parliament and councillors and friends. We are in the midst of an information revolution and we must be prepared to present our information and opinions to the whole world more clearly and positively.

My advice to all who care is to make sure that you have a computer, a modem and an Email address and get cracking. How many members bother to access our Web Site?

Web site: http://www.geocities.com/parksandplaygrounds

We owe our gratitude to Gionni Di Gravio who has kindly set up the web site for us. It is of course linked to the Nature Conservation Council NSW Site.

*     Community Land the community is on its own

The problem of alienation of public parks has always been with us and the community naturally expect their Community Land (public reserves and parks) to be guarded and protected by their local Council. 

Now the community must still be watchful and ready to act as soon as they hear the word reclassification !

NSW is facing widespread parkland alienation if the State Government allows Local Councils carte blanche use of the reclassification provisions of the Local Government Act.

The quiet rush to reclassify community land for sale or to escape the need for parkland management has begun.

The community land provisions of the Local Government Act were meant to usher in a “new approach to the concept of public land management” and “enable community land to be more appropriately managed” (2^nd reading speech of Minister)

We all need to make it very clear to your Council that Community Land is not free land up for grabs.

Operational Land is land temporally held and has no protection whatsoever. It can be sold or leased without restriction.

·      The ethics of retaining community land need to be stressed and good park management encouraged.

·      Parkland is not a temporary use.

·      Parks are acquired by Councils for future recreation or to protect the environment, public foreshores or to provide public access.

·      Parks are not convenient assets for sale to raise revenue.

·      Parks that have been donated to councils as a gift to future citizens, to protect open space or scenic views must be preserved.

·      Many parks are dedicated as required by statutory planning schemes others are dedicated by subdivision as a contribution to the public domain or have been required by past councils to provide for balanced development.

·      It is not satisfactory for councils to sell parks at the request of neighbours.

·      Acquiring private land for public reserves and later reclassifying them for sale or alienation is wrong conduct.

All Councils need to adopt strong protocols restricting reclassification of community land.

Mayfield Bowling Club like many other Bowling Clubs in the region have applied to buy their occupied areas with the view to mortgaging the land for development.

The Council is the registered proprietor of the Mayfield land but there is no registered Lease for the Bowling Club to operate licensed premises. We have asked the ombudsman to investigate the nature of the Club’s occupation of the land, why there is no registered lease and what are the conditions of the proposed sale. The Club may have negotiated a sale price that is below valuation.

Newcastle, Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie Councils are currently negotiating to change parcels of Community land to Operational Land.

We believe that these negotiations and the poorly exhibited change of parkland to operational land are not transparent conduct The movement has requested that the sale of parkland be suspended and that these matters be investigated with the view to establishing a protocol that will protect the public interest in its parks and recreation areas.

The Movement addressed Lake Macquarie Council on the Community Land Provisions of the Local Government Act with reference to the Report of the Public Hearing delivered to Council August 1999 (Facilitated by Key Insights Pty Ltd. on 28/7/99)

We had not been informed of Council’s decisions C99ST123 from the public hearing 28/7/99. We made the following points to Council:

1.    The Movement supports the principle of Community Land as outlined by Mr. E. Page Minister for L Gov. in the 2^nd Reading Speech (Community Land Management Bill).

2.    We maintain that Council should identify clearly the Public Interest in any reclassification of Community Land and therefore-

3.    Sales must be by Public Tender.

4.    Councils have a charter “to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible.”

5.    Community Land is set aside as parkland or public reserve to be held in perpetuity It is not for sale. Operational Land however is ordinarily acquired as a temporary asset to be sold or for council for facilities such as a waste dump, Council Chambers or a Library.

6.    None of the Community Land parcels that were under consideration at the Public Hearing were acquired by Council as temporary parks.

7.    We requested that the Council inform the movement of alienation proposed 16/2/99.

8.    Our submission to the 2020 Lifestyle Document states  if the strategy is to be effective in guiding the future, it must state clearly how Council will maintain and protect the Public Domain lands for which it is the trustee and custodian.

9.    ESD requires that we also consider tomorrow’s citizens.

10.Lake Macquarie is a young City having grown rapidly in the past 40 years to be larger in every way than its neighbouring city. Its openness and its potential for gracious living is inherent in its parks and reserves which are for the future. (We should have confidence in future improvement).

11.The Community provisions of the Local Gov. Act make better management the central criterion of the legislation and you will agree reclassification or sale is not management.

12.Clear Public principles are need for responsible management of Clubs on Community Land.

13.Councillors should accept the provisions of Council’s own established Local Environment Plan and prepare a Public Domain Strategy to effectively manage its precious parklands for which it is currently trustee and custodian.

*     Belmont 16ft Sailing Club parking station

The Movement believes that a multi level Car Parking Station on the lake Foreshore as recently proposed by the Belmont 16ft Sailing Club would be improper.

The Belmont 16 ft Sailing Club was established on the lakeside to provide facilities for the splendid sport of sailing. Public land was given to the club for this reason, but the Club now exists predominantly for non-sailing purposes, liquor sales, gambling, food hall, and entertainment.

Current club membership is over 29,000 and could be extended to 35,000 with only a small portion of the membership being involved in sailing as a sport.

Notwithstanding the changed membership, the existing licensed club car park has ample car parking facilities for all members both sailing and non-sailing without a parking structure.

The development application that was before council provided for 531 spaces which was 226 more than the existing capacity.

All multi-level car parking structures are by their nature ugly and to propose the erection of one on the foreshore of our magnificent Lake would be patently wrong. It would also be an inappropriate structure in a predominately residential area.

Adjacent Lots11,12,and 13 are zoned marine business, and Lot 10 is zoned Residential (2a). These zoning do not support the parking station proposal.

Furthermore the parking structure would create an intrusive barrier to public access to the lakeside and the recreation reserve and waterfront walkway.

Encroachment on the Lake foreshore and public areas must be resisted.

We have supported the local residents and friends of the Lake.

·      North Wallarah Peninsula

We are conscious of the spate of speculative development proposals ranging from fanciful proposed off shore coal loader and port, unapproved open cut mining and projected industrial and mining developments, widespread clearing on the Lake side of Dekagra Pty Ltd land and after 1988 the ill-fated Gordon Pacific Resort proposal with its promised $14 million dollar Botanical Gardens.

The last mentioned proposal was a grandiose proposal that was unrelated to the natural attributes of the area and without sufficient backing to make it a viable proposition even if it had been environmentally satisfactory. The resort project has long been defunct and the land holders, Anson Bay Australia Pty Ltd and Abrocup Pty Ltd in receivership with the land mortgaged to the Westpac Bank.

Ocean front land including Pinny Beach leased to Anson Bay Company $1.00 per annum

Furthermore, sensitive ocean front land including Pinny Beach was leased to Anson Bay Company (Australia) Pty Ltd at $1.00 per year for 21 years with the option for a further 21 years. The lease documents (Z523086) stipulated that Anson Bay company would construct a coastal walkway through to Pinny Beach within two years. The lease was mortgaged to the Westpac Bank (Z909425} along with all other lands in the area and has now been transfered to Projects NSW P/L of 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne Victoria.

The pathway as planned was never built and we believe the lease should have been revoked.

We were further appalled when the $2 shelf company James Mullan Developments Pty Ltd was allowed to propose a residential subdivision to replace the resort and carry out subdivision within the resort proposal area using the integrated resort zoning. Contracts to purchase blocks of land were sold even before the determination of the flexible zone boundary and the subdivisions had been considered or approved by Council.

Statement of the company structure and land title information needed

The current title to property in the area is held by a company, Projects NSW P/L whose $1.00 share is fully paid up and in the name of Pica Group P/L whose share holding is held by a company named Lensworth Group Limited with one 50cent paid up share and $7,799,536.00 dollars unpaid.

The Company search dated Dec.1999 states that the ultimate Holding Company according to the company’s annual return is Foster’s Brewing Group Limited.

Given the speculative nature of past developments in this area we asked Council and NSW Government to ensure that directors of the companies are required to indemnify their company whenever agreements are entered into or proposed.

A clear statement of the company structure and title information should be made available to Council.

Speculation a poor starting point for reputable land use planning

Speculation is always a poor starting point for reputable land use planning.

In future if planning is to be creditable in the Wallarah Peninsula it must start with a proper study of the land its form and the existing ecological relationships.

Buffer zone between the urban areas of Lake Macquarie and Wyong

It has been State policy since the late sixties that the area be part of an undeveloped buffer zone between the urban areas of Lake Macquarie and those of Wyong and the Lake Macquarie City Council very properly had included the peninsula in its Environmental Protection zonings.

Amendment No.16, 1989 prepared without LES or EIS.

The Movement had requested that Council commission a conservation and wildlife study to identify those areas that should be set aside as public reserves on the Swansea peninsula at the height of the controversy generated by Amendment 16 in 1988.

We recall vividly how the proponent was allowed to take over the administration centre at Speers Point for its display and how proper consideration of the Amendment was not encouraged and bona fide objectors were disregarded and refused a hearing.

In 1988 citizens were not only denied a Public Hearing by their Council but their requests to the Minister for Local Government and Planning, David Hay MP., asking for a Commission of Enquiry, were ignored.  The Roads and Traffic Authority later ploughed through the area for the proponent without bothering to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement even though it was obvious that the proposal would have a very significant affect on the environment. In 1988 it was difficult for interested members of the public to distinguish their Council who is the regulatory authority, from the proponent, Gordon Pacific.

Review the zoning and the development consents

The Movement wrote to the Lake Macquarie City Council on Oct 28^th 1991 stating that we would like “Council to review the zoning and the development consents for the resort with the aim of establishing proper public reserves in the area to protect some of the outstanding wildlife and conservation values of the Swansea peninsula”. It is therefore encouraging to see the long awaited review at last taking place.

The Movement made further submissions to Council in 1994 asking ‘that no further development or subdivision be allowed in the area until the revision of the planning scheme has been completed and the appropriate zones decided upon’.

Conservation should be the major land use in the peninsula

It is obvious from the studies that have now been done that conservation should be the major land use in the peninsula if ecologically sustainable development is to be achieved.

The Movement is adamant that the buffer zone policy of the Regional Environmental Plan must be restated and we stress that urban development must be restricted and concentrated and not allowed to encroach on the conservation areas.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement has been in support of the general proposal for the entire area to be acquired and dedicated as an addition to the Lake Macquarie or Munmorah State Recreation Areas as shown in the National Trust of Australia (NSW) publication ‘Hunter Region Landscapes’ 1984 Galgabbah-Pinny Beach SRA. Page 20 Map 11A.

We agree that a new plan for this area is now essential however we do want to see mistakes of the past remediated and ESD principles instituted for future development.

Objections

The Movement objected to the following specific items shown in the Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 1999 Sheet 1 of 1:

The 7c Coastal Lands zone.

The title to this land is held by the Minister Administering the EP&A Act and should be zoned 6(a) Openspace Public Recreation and the current lease for $1.00 per annum should be revoked.

The land must be categorised as Community Land and be subjected to a Plan of Management as required under the Local Government Act. There should also be no further development of this land except for a pathway, native vegetation planting and remediation works.

The 8(a) Existing National Parks & Nature Reserve

The existing National Parks and Wildlife zone should be extended to at least Quarries Head so that the whole Pinny Beach is included in the existing and the future National Park land.

The 10(a) Zone Sustainable Mixed Use Development

The 10(a) Zone over the Heathlands Sustainable Mixed Use Development and called Coastal Village Precinct with access from the Northern Sector.

The Yondaio Creek which skirts this area should have been fully contained within the adjoining 8(b) zone. The proposed 20 metre management buffer is unsatisfactory and should have been included in the 8(b) zone.

This creek environment is of high quality and must be maintained as a unit and not be disturbed with drainage, pollutants and encroachments from the 10(a) zone.

The 10(a) Zone at the southern end of the property styled Radar Hill Precinct is incongruous and intrudes the 8(a) zone and should be deleted from the plan.

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary

Development of this area would create damaging environmental effects. The old quarry is unsuitable for development and any development in this area would require considerable land shaping that would permanently scar the whole coastal precinct.

Development of this precinct would lead to pressure for similar development on adjoining land to the south. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary if development was to be undertaken on this site because of the significant effect on the environment.

Furthermore the elongated access along the Pacific Highway should be removed and included in the 8(b) Zone and the Radar Military Heritage Site should be included within the future National Park.

Every effort should have been made to eliminate or shorten the edge effect on the conservation areas. Finger developments or elongated development should have been eliminated.

The 7(e) Conservation Corridors:

Council has decided to acquire the 7(e) corridor. However they will need to be within the 8(b) zone to have any chance of survival.

The written Instrument

The 6(a) Openspace Zone objectives are cast too broadly and could lead to the development of a zone that is anything but a proper public openspace.

It is essential that the Lake side and the ocean front remain free from development and structures that would spoil their essential open character.

The following words should have been added to the objectives at the end of (a) to provide openspace types that meet a variety of community needs that comply with the Plan of Management prepared for the area under the community land provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

Comments on the Conservation & Land Use Management Plan (CLUMP) include

*     Nice well meaning phrases are not necessarily able to be enforced if the proponent is not fully in agreement or not able to financially implement them.

*     The previous Deed of Agreement should be made public. The deed was one sided, with Public Authorities tied to the agreement but Companies were the beneficiaries.

*     In future directors should indemnify their companies and be liable for non performance of their company.

*     The proposed Conservation Reserve should have been a dedicated State Recreation Area.

*     Urban Development should be confined to those areas most disturbed and those areas least disturbed or containing important natural attributes must be protected in dedicated reserves.

*     The Radar Hill precinct with its elongated urban connection to the north is unsustainable.

The Movement has requested that a representative of the Movement be included in any community consultation that may be initiated for the preparation of the proposed Master Plans for the village precincts.

North Wallarah Subdivision

Following Council’s adoption of the rezoning we had to object to the easements in favour of Lots 1 and 3 across the land proposed for conservation purposes and asks that they be delete from the Deposited Plan.

*     Lots 1 and 3 should not have been made the dominant tenements at this initial subdivision stage.

*     Council has already adopted an LEP that has extraordinary boundaries that will lead to management problems for the conservation areas in the future.

*     Council should not tie the hands of future land managers with a legally binding subdivision containing wide ranging unspecified easements as a lien against lot 2.

*     The creation of future easements before the detailed Masterplans have been determined will make it impossible for future land managers of lot 2 to have the normal rights of ownership over their land.

*     It was misleading to state that the subdivision does not involve any physical works because the easements proposed will have immediate legal force and could be acted upon. The easements being proposed are for drainage works, access roadways and service corridors which are physical entities.

*     Because the easements proposed are not adequately described there will be a danger that Lot 2 will be forced into the position where its owners (Parks & Wildlife Service) will have no control.

*     You should imagine how you would feel if your next door neighbour had the legal power to create drainage & access easements anywhere over your property.

*     Whilst the Movement supports the concept of the new LEP we are aware that the adopted layout has made management problems for the Conservation Area very difficult. These problems should not be exacerbated at this initial stage before any real site specific planning or development has been determined.

*     Newcastle Merchandising Plan

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wrote to the Newcastle Councillors asking, ‘why the recently displayed Merchandising Plan had been used as a vehicle for proposing the subdivision of the railway easement from Brown Street to Watt Street for Residential, Retail and Parking and for a proposal to erect buildings on Pacific Park along Telford Street?

We are totally opposed to those parts of the Merchandising Plan which are contrary to the currently existing statutory planning provisions and councils adopted Plans Of Management for its Community Lands. We asked Council to reject the plan. Council is still to determine this matter.

Concerning the railway corridor into Newcastle and the railway which has often been the “Straw Man” in the argument of property interests claiming to open the city to the harbour.

The stark fact is that the railway has kept the corridor open to the harbour and that the NSW State operates the railway. It is an excellent service and costs the City Council nothing in running expenses. We see no reason why the City Council makes no effort to encourage the use of the rail services for visitor to the city from the hinterland and from the Central Coast and from Sydney.

It is a pleasant entry Newcastle with views of the harbour on the one hand and the Old Town on the other is a very special experience that is not available in any other mode of transport.

The rail issue should be firmly put to bed and it be made clear by Council and by all sides of politics that you don’t destroy rail infrastructure especially if it is the intention of promoting sustainability in the new millennium. The use of trains to transport 91,000 spectators to and from the Olympic Opening Ceremony without a hitch should be proof of the importance and potential of rail to the future of historic Newcastle.

People need to know what entrepreneurs mean when they want to “open the city” to the beach or to the harbour.  Citizens think it means openspace whilst land developers think it means buildings.

In respect to Pacific Park in 1948 the Hospitals Commission wanted to extend Royal Newcastle Hospital down into what is now Pacific Park.  However the fledging planning authority, at that time was the Northumberland County Council and the county council objected and over the years developed the Pacific Park and hospital concept similar to what is now in place.

The County Council in essence stopped the city from being cut off from its beach and required the hospital to develop to the west across what was Pacific Street. After 1964 the Newcastle City Council became the Planning Authority and the County Councils were abandoned.

Newcastle CBD Business Plan, May 1988, like the current merchandising plan, was brought forward outside the planning legislation even though it included important land use proposals which affected the Royal Newcastle Hospital the Parnell Place Bus depot, the railway and other sites. We learned about them soon after earthquake when they were emptied and knocked down.

A City Centre Committee and a Special Benefit rate were also established by the CBD Business Plan and that Special Rate is still collected by the Council. A plebiscite of ratepayers should be held before a new body is established under the aegis of Council to use rate money.

Like the current plan the 1988 CBD Management Plan was skewed toward property development and was not a good vehicle for merchandising the city. Indeed members of the City Centre seemed to spend a lot of time and effort criticising the Council for not determining Development Applications quickly enough and even calling for the sacking of the elected council.

We believe that if Council approves the Merchandising Plan it will open itself to similar continuing negative criticism from the Newcastle Alliance which is the body the plan establishes to implement itself.

Council will always find itself in a conflict situation because it is required by statute to be the Consent Authority for its area and responsibility always remains with the elected councillors and can not be lawfully delegated.

The Newcastle Merchandising Plan whilst claiming to open up the city to Newcastle beach, actually proposes to build out the beach front and alienate Pacific Park with buildings and to extend Hunter Street through the park. This proposal is unacceptable.

Plans that could lead to the rezoning of important city parklands or closing off the open character of the city to its harbour and beaches must not be countenanced in this clandestine way. Planning proposals should be clearly and openly considered in a Local Environmental Study and Local Environmental Plan within the EP&A Act.

We have no objection to the Newcastle Alliance being established by those who wish to establish it.

However we are adamant that the Council of the City of Newcastle must not allow the Alliance to be established with moneys collected by a special rate.  It must be a separate body serving the business community and giving advice freely to Council as any community organisation would do and as happens with the Business Council of Sydney.

*     Newcastle Rail corridor clean up needed

Regardless of the constant argument about the railway to Newcastle the corridor must be cleaned up and managed properly.

The movement produced a detailed proposal for cleaning up the corridor from Brown St to the Newcastle Station and the movement is doing its bit in tending a garden strip near the Perkins Street foot bridge. We have a constant job of removing liquor bottles and food wrappers from the garden we established. Unfortunately the shrubs need to be replaced occasionally because of over-spray from the railways herbicide spraying and the latest problem has been from a fire burning the railway’s poisoned grass in the rail easement and killing our plantings.

The movement’s proposal for replacement of the fence with a more suitable barrier and for its sensible realignment for easy maintenance is essential and should implemented immediately.

·      Birdwood Park Highway 10A

The Movement congratulated all who helped in revamping the Birdwood Park landscape. It is good to see improvements to the area after all those years of neglect.

The Australian Agricultural Company’s original 1890 three acre grant was on condition that it be “used as a place of public recreation and for no other use whatsoever”.

The Deed of Dedication No.558 Book 440 reserves the right to re-enter the land if the dedication is breached. A previous Newcastle Council in 1973 with the concurrence of the Minister for Highways broke that trust and thrust a major highway through the park and reduced the dedicated area to a mere one acre.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement had prepared three detailed reports on Highway 10A and we called a Public Meeting in Birdwood park on the 2^nd of May 1971 to seek a less damaging alignment for the road but the council was adamant.

On the morning of Thursday 1^st of March 1973 all hell broke loose as Council began the destruction of the park. The Mayor’s home was picketed by protesters that night .

A huge Public Meeting was held in the City Hall on Thursday the 8^th of March which censured the Council and from that meeting the Newcastle Resident Action Movement was borne.

Now that the Hunter Street and railway over-bridge is not to be built, the Parks and Playgrounds Movement has asked council to dedicate the whole park as it now stands and classify the area as Community Land. The area should be managed with the landscape plan which has now been implemented.

We have also reminded the Lord Mayor of the letter from Mr. Burges which advises that an area of Council freehold land will be dedicated as Public Reserve to compensate for the area that was affected by road purposes. We are anxious to locate the area selected and dedicated by the Council.

*     Kirribilli foreshore and Spit Reserve

We have responded to the requests for help from the residents at Kirribilli and Mosman in Sydney.

In their endeavours to protect Irene Booth Park opposite the Opera House and the Spit Reserve.

*     Land and Environment Court

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has placed the following points before the Working Party considering the Land and Environment Court Review.

·      The Court has the task of interpreting and adjudicating on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which like all environmental legislation seems to be always in a state of change.

·      There is a desperate need for certainty in planning legislation.

·      Government is too quick to change the act when an adverse judgment is given by the Court.

·      The hierarchy of Regional Environmental Plans, Local Environmental Plans, and Development Control Plans need to be maintained and supported. Development Control Plans need to be site specific and able to be implemented within a reasonable time.

·      Stronger LEPs need to be made that protect the environment and the amenity of the areas under consideration. Unfortunately the trend is for flexibility which makes planning mere facilitation.

·      REP’s are now the Minister’s plans.

·      There are far too many amendments to LEPs Lake Macquarie and Newcastle eg. more that150?

·      The Local Environmental Study LES process with the proponent paying the cost should be used more often and as a separate document not as part of the LEP exhibition.

·      The recent change to the Newcastle LEP for the BHP Steel River project was announced as an improvement to the environment but actually was a step backwards with a complicated envelope being imposed but with less opportunity for council or public scrutiny. Automatic 28 day approval.

·      The EP&A Act needs to be changed so that it aims to protect the environment and the courts must be given the opportunity to development the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development.

·      The 1983 Aboriginal Land Rights Act re claimable lands should be made more clear and traditional owners given clear rights.

·      The adversarial court procedure is unworkable where a layman is arguing his own case.

·      There is a need for a ‘friend of the court’ process or ability for the court to call for documents or evidence.

·      courts need to know the full truth and Judges need to ask questions and be sure that the court is being told the whole truth. Evidence is sometimes untrue and Courts are not prepared to penalise witnesses.

·      Public Exhibition Process in NSW is a disgrace with most plans and EIS’s exhibited under the counter.

*     Honeysuckle the Merewether Street Wharf issue

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has a long standing interest in the development of the Newcastle foreshore since 1952 with the first exhibition of the Northumberland County Planning Scheme. The Movement proposed the Historic Site 1968 and harbour foreshore scheme published NH 1/1/74.

We have watched the development of planning over the years and the Movement have been the community voice supporting the planning process and a public advocate in support of the public domain.

The Movement was disappointed that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning did not accept the Movement's request for public participation during the preparation of the Regional Environmental Plan Amendment No.3. Notwithstanding the Department's failure to allow participation we staunchly support the Regional Environmental Plan amendment No.3 as

prescribed and believe that the letter and spirit of the plan should be complied with by the Honeysuckle Development Corporation who is the real estate agent or land owner/developer.

Our view is that the planning conflicts that have been revealed in the current development application should be resolved by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning establishing a Commission of Inquiry as was promised by his colleague the Hon Craig Knowles when he held the planning portfolio.(See letter from the Ministers office MRL 68579)

A Commission of Inquiry would allow the development to be considered on its merits in an impartial public forum and lead to a positive outcome.

Planning is becoming a dishonest charade.

*     BHP Steel River Tourle St 3ha. Park

One of the latest DA’s for the Tourle St / Industrial Drive corner if it were ignored by the City Council could wipe out the 3ha Ecological Park and see it replaced with a view corridor.

The Strategic Impact Assessment Study (SIAS) is the key controlling document of the much trumpeted BHP Steel River Project and should not be arbitrarily set aside.

However Council is obliged to reject the proposed DA as submitted because it cannot approve a breach of a statutory planning scheme. (No one will know until it happens if a Councillor doesn’t ask what is going on)

The SIAS adopted for Steel River in February 1998 is embodied in the plan made by the Hon. Craig Knowles, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning on the 23/2/1998. Page 28 of the Strategic Impact Assessment Study clearly states:

“ This strategy ,which is illustrated in Figure 8 (Coloured Plan of the South east Hill area between pages 28 and 29 of the SIAS) will be incorporated into the development of the site infrastructure as it proceeds in appropriate stages”.

If a Development Application can be used to change the Environmental Envelope (SIAS) and the LEP disregarded the concept of the Steel River Eco-Industrial Park will quickly become a planning farce and an embarrassment. (What’s new)

Statutory powers are included in the Steel River LEP for a proper review process and are set out in Clause 5 Sec.(c ) Sub Sec. (7) ‘Review of Standards’ and the draft review requires exhibition and public comment before changes can be made.

A Development Application is not a review process, it is a proposal that must fit into the environmental envelope if it is to earn an approval.

The Environmental Envelope should not be discarded even before it has been given a real test?

*     Stockton Bight Mining and the Promised National Park

Stockton Bight t mining proposals will mean more than half the entire length of Stockton Bight will be given over to mining with only scraps left for the promised National Park.

The Premier must set the boundaries for the promised National Park now as a matter of absolute urgency. More than half the length of Stockton Bight will be given over to mineral sands mining and with other mining and extraction operations only scraps of this great natural wonder will be left. The current mining proposal:

*     is too large an area of Stockton Bight. (Half the length of the Bight)

*     threatens irreversible damage to the geomorphology of the nationally significant dune system.

*     will encroach on the unique reversing dune field north of Lavis Lane which is to be included in the promised Stockton Bight National Park.

*     will lock Council into a mining regime that is far too long into the future and without review.

The EIS Oct 1995 (BHP Titanium Minerals P/L) was for a discrete mining project only taking up two kilometres of the Bight and was not intended to be extended to the north. The current proposal will stretch over half the length of Stockton Bight.

The Mining Reserves Nos. 3050 to 3053 covering the WWII firing range prevented any mining to the north of the 1995 BHP proposal.

These reserves were recently recklessly revoked by the Minister for Mining the Hon. Eddie Obeid and should be reinstated because there has been no examination of the danger of unexploded ordinance in the reserve areas not affected by mining.

The sustainable future for Port Stephens is tourism, provided we are able to preserve our unique environmental heritage. 

Stockton Bight. Mining cannot be regarded as a sustainable future and must be contained.

We asked Port Stephens Councillors to restrict the mineral sands mining to the southern extension area of the proposal and that the central extension only be considered after there has been a proper examination of the Mining Reserves Nos. 3050 to 3053.

The Port Stephens Council consented to mining the whole area.

However DUAP want only the southern and central areas considered and the Commonwealth has called in the Rifle Range area for assessment under the Protection of the Environment and Biodiversity Act 1999.

Stockton Bight is the most dramatic sand dune coastal landscape in NSW

This great natural gift should not be allowed to be frittered away by a do nothing Government.

*     Kooragang Airport and ADI Schedule X waste proposal

The Movement wants the long standing proposals for the extension of the Kooragang Nature Reserve gazetted and the Hexham Swamps ventilated and the catchment management plan implemented. The funds set aside will vanish when the commonwealth election is called.

The Movement has strongly supported the Stockton residents and kept them in touch with the TEC with regard to the ADI contaminated soil proposal. There has been no movement on this issue as we await a supplementary EIS.

Adamstown Rifle Range Land

Newcastle Council resolved that it support the rezoning of part of lot 1/827809 at Adamstown and facilitate the transfer of 25ha of bushland lot 2/827809 to the Glenrock State Recreation Area and provide for the creation of a 1ha public park in the 5ha rezoned area.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement supported council’s decision because in was in the public interest to broker a reasonable outcome but we did ask that an agreement be signed..

The previous council had received a request from the Commonwealth for rezoning of 5ha of Lot 1 and had placed the rezoning plan on Public Exhibition without proper consideration of the plan.

Councils should only place a Draft LEP on “Public Exhibition” after its opportunities and implications have been fully considered.

The rezoning took place early this year but those authorities that were party to the proposition are still to honour their promises and gazette the 25ha of bushland for the Glenrock SRA at this date.

It is hoped that Council will not allow any development on the 5ha until the full deal has been honoured and the 1ha park in the subdivision also achieved 

The military heritage of the rifle range the target butts and the natural values of the area are of high quality and need to be maintained in the Glenrock SRA..

Parks and Playgrounds Movement was represented on the Summer Hill Regional Park Plan of Management Committee, Green Point Park Committee, Newcastle Environment Advisory Panel and Fernleigh Track Committee Greg Wright is doing sterling service with the Belmont Lagoon Committee.

We have dealt with many other issues this year including

Bio mass burning

Coastal Conservation Crisis

Heritage natural and cultural issues

Selwyn Street vertical slab cottage

Customs House Sale

BHP lands ands

*     BHP Iron and Steel Making theme Park

The Movement is anxious that the BHP Newcastle redundant iron and steelmaking plant is not completely demolished and that some of the structures are protected and reclaimed for reuse for the establishment of a Newcastle Iron and Steelmaking BHP Theme Park. The Theme Park would feature the iron and steelmaking structures within a discrete area encompassed by No. 4 Blast Furnace, the Gas Holders and the remnants of the Open Hearth furnace in the steelmaking Department.

It is envisaged that the essential structures could be retained together with those significant items of infrastructure that can be conserved to heighten the interpretative experience of the site.

Ultimately the Theme Park would be financially self supporting through the leasing of commercial space within the Theme Park .

The essential features to be included in the Iron and Steelmaking BHP Theme Park are:

*     Gas Holders and a Blast Furnace with its adjacent stoves and Blower House, 

*     The Open Hearth Furnace and Charging Equipment, Teeming Ladles, Ingot Moulds and Bogie Car.

*     Existing railway lines, a Torpedo Ladle Car and Slag Ladle Car.

These features together with overhead pipes and other structures must be systematically identified and isolated in situ from any other site clearance that may be necessary.

It is essential that the structures identified within the discrete area proposed are considered within an integrated conceptual plan for the new developments proposed by the company and that they recognise and interpret the great contribution the BHP company has made to Australia.

Steelmaking on the Newcastle site has been part of the great sweep of world history flowing from the Industrial Revolution which reached the Hunter Region with the establishment of the convict settlement of Newcastle to mine coal and cut cedar.

The BHP Theme Park is an imaginative proposal that would provide the matrix for arts, drama and commercial activity and be an important tourist attraction, a fun place and an active reminder of the immense contribution BHP has made to the industrial heritage of Newcastle.

*     Coal River Historic Site an initiative of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement

The Movement welcomes the $38,000 funding that the project has received from the Commonwealth Government. - Of course it is only a start and we must thank Lord Mayor John Tate for taking our project to the Prime Minister John Howard.

Our name for the site comes from Shortland’s letter

“About twelvemonth since I went on an expedition in the Governor’s whaleboat as far as Port Stephens, which lies 100 miles from this place. In my passage down I discovered a very fine coal river which I named after Governor Hunter.”

The aim is to present our Convict and Industrial Heritage within a vibrant scenic, tourist and recreational setting.

The project should celebrate

à      Our Aboriginal forebears

à      Shortland's 1797 discovery of 'a very fine  Coal River' and of winnable coal

à      the establishment of the first penal out-station on the mainland 1801.

à      the founding of the permanent settlement at Newcastle 1804

à      the first coal mining in Australia (from beneath Flagstaff Hill)

à      the cutting down of Nobbys Island (the symbol of Newcastle)

à      the erection of a coal fired beacon (lighthouse) on Signal Hill

à      the establishment of the Stockade lumber yard to service the convict coal mines and the Hunter's cedar cutting gangs

à      the building of the Macquarie Pier and development of the Port of Newcastle and the massive fortifications at Fort Scratchley 1882 to defend Britain’s chief coaling station in the southern hemisphere.

Action urgently need

1.   Review Aboriginal, Convict, Military, and  Maritime, history of the Coal River Site.

2.   Document the policies and activities of the Newcastle Port Corp., the City Council, Fort Scratchley committees, and other stakeholders including State and Federal Authorities.

3.   Make a base action statement for the interpretation of the area and the co-ordination of activities and promotion of the site

4.   Indicate the gaps in our historical knowledge of the area & outline studies needed.

5.   Identify areas needing further archaeological investigation and prepare a programme of works.

6.   Prepare preliminary design for cafeteria and interpretation centre.

7.   Assemble and summarise all existing studies and policies and materials and make submissions for a the Heritage Masterplan.

Your Committee needs and appreciates your support and help.

We have worked hard for another year and I would like to acknowledge my reliance on our secretary Greg Wright and our treasurer Jack Shield in particular.

Special thanks must also be given to our deputy president Pat Hyde.

I thank you for your continued support.

Doug Lithgow President

Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Year 2000

Web site: http://www.geocities.com/parksandplaygrounds

Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

48^th Annual Report

September 21, 2000

Contents

*     Community Land the community is on its own

The problem of alienation of public parks has always been with us and the community naturally expect their Community Land (public reserves and parks) to be guarded and protected by their local Council.

All Councils need to adopt strong protocols restricting reclassification of community land.

·      North Wallarah Peninsula

We are conscious of the spate of speculative development proposals ranging from fanciful proposed off shore coal loader and port, unapproved open cut mining and projected industrial and mining developments, widespread clearing on the Lake side of Dekagra Pty Ltd land and after 1988 the ill-fated Gordon Pacific Resort proposal with its promised $14 million dollar Botanical Gardens.

We agree that a new plan for this area is now essential however we do want to see mistakes of the past remediated and ESD principles instituted for future development.

*     Newcastle Merchandising Plan

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wrote to the Newcastle Councillors asking, ‘why the recently displayed Merchandising Plan had been used as a vehicle for proposing the subdivision of the railway easement from Brown Street to Watt Street for Residential, Retail and Parking and for a proposal to erect buildings on Pacific Park along Telford Street?

*     Newcastle Rail corridor clean up needed

Regardless of the constant argument about the railway to Newcastle the corridor must be cleaned up and managed properly.

The movement produced a detailed proposal for cleaning up the corridor from Brown St to the Newcastle Station

*     Land and Environment Court

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has placed points before the Working Party considering the Land and Environment Court Review. The hierarchy of Regional Environmental Plans, Local Environmental Plans, and Development Control Plans need to be maintained and supported. Development Control Plans need to be site specific and able to be implemented within a reasonable time.

Stronger LEPs need to be made that protect the environment and the amenity of the areas under consideration. Unfortunately the trend is for flexibility which makes planning mere facilitation.

*     Honeysuckle the Merewether Street Wharf issue

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has a long standing interest in the development of the Newcastle foreshore since 1952 with the first exhibition of the Northumberland County Planning Scheme. The Movement proposed the Historic Site 1968 and harbour foreshore scheme published NH 1/1/74. A Commission of Inquiry is needed to assess the Merewether St. Wharf development. This would allow the development to be considered on its merits in an impartial public forum and lead to a positive outcome.

*     Stockton Bight Mining and the Promised National Park

Stockton Bight t mining proposals will mean more than half the entire length of Stockton Bight will be given over to mining with only scraps left for the promised National Park. The Premier must set the boundaries for the promised National Park now as a matter of absolute urgency.

*    BHP Iron and Steel Making theme Park

The Movement is anxious that the BHP Newcastle redundant iron and steelmaking plant is not completely demolished and that some of the structures are protected and reclaimed for reuse for the establishment of a Newcastle Iron and Steelmaking BHP Theme Park.

*     Coal River Historic Site Prospectus Initiative of Parks and Playgrounds Movement

The Movement welcomes the $38,000 funding that the project has received from the Commonwealth Government. - Of course it is only a start and we must thank Lord Mayor John Tate for taking our project to the Prime Minister John Howard.