David Innes, Group Manager Works and Services at Council says that “The whole proposal is still in its preliminary stages and we have suggested to the proponents that they need to identify and understand community attitudes and support, before lodging any applications”.

The Trust appreciates the club’s need to have a place of its own to keep gear and gym equipment and where members and friends can go after the game to have a drink, a bite to eat and to socialise etc.    However there is a level of concern in the community about the location of the building which may be due to a lack of information.  So in the interests of getting some clarity, we have written to the club with a number of questions about the plans displayed at the September 13th meeting:

SOME RESERVATIONS REGARDING THE PLANS DISPLAYED AT THE 13 SEPTEMBER MEETING

•  Is the proposal intended to be licensed premises for eating and drinking?
•  Can the proposal be financed and maintained without a commercial income stream generated by operating a licensed facility?
•  How has the site location been determined and were any alternatives considered? 
• Has an environmental impact assessment been made of the site prior to determining how such a facility would impact on the current usage of the park, and on the health of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest along Princes Street and the riparian bushland communities below Princes Street?
• Has Council’s own Bushland Management officer been consulted, considering the substantial amounts of money, both from Capital Works and government grants that have been spent over previous years and ongoing, on stream remediation projects and protecting the remnant STIF?
• What are the views of Boronia Park Bushcare and related voluntary  organisations who have been maintaining  the  bushland  adjacent  to the proposed site for many years.
• Has The Rugby Club canvassed the economic viability of such a proposal in the light of its proximity of the HH Hotel, The Gladesville RSL,The Gladesville Sporties (a few hundred metres up Ryde Road) and The Hunters Hill Club which is also not very far away?
• Has the impact of the proposal on the patronage of these existing club and hotel facilities been assessed?
• Has a heritage report been prepared in relation to its impact on Boronia Park, which is a schedule 6 item in the LEP?
•  What will be the impact of all the additional vehicle traffic coming into the park?
•  Vehicular access to the area is currently restricted. How will the opening of the facility change this?
•  What will the proposal look like from Princes Street onto which the scheme seems to turn its back?
•  When will the facility be used and during what hours of the day?
•  Will there be any additional street lighting in association with the proposal?

BACKGROUND

The Plan of Management for Boronia Park allows for the construction of a Community Facility in the general area proposed.  Such a term implies a building for the use of any community group operating within the Boronia Park/Hunters Hill community. 

 Being remote from the existing grandstand and associated facilities, such a Community Facility would need to be supplied with water, power  and sewage, making it an expensive project.  Such a Community Facility could well include storage and changing facilities for sports played in Boronia Park, but not for the exclusive use of any particular sport or sports. 

 The proposed building, as described at the meeting on 13^th September, appears to be intended primarily to provide facilities for the Rugby Club, plus dining and drinking facilities (with a potential to be licensed).  Meeting the requirements for licensed premises would greatly increase the cost of construction and maintenance, and therefore decrease its availability to other community groups.

•  The site of the building is on a steep slope at the eastern end of oval No 2
• There is a dotted line, which suggests a large parking area over and above the small existing carpark beside oval 3.
• The cost of the building and associated furniture etc is estimated to be around $4 million, plus the cost of deep pile footings, which will be required because of the nature of the site.
• 69% of the building is given over to eating and drinking and the rest consists of an underground gymnasium and briefing room, rugby store, grounds equipment store and changing rooms for visitors and home teams on the lower level.

 The Trust is waiting on a response from the Club and we will keep members informed of any further developments.

New 2 storey classroom and toilet block at Hunters Hill Public School

 Hunters Hill Public School has plans for a new 2-storey classroom block at the school.  It is to be designed and built by Bovis Lend Lease under the Federal Government’s economic stimulus plan – “Nation Building”. 

Under this plan there is no requirement for the builder to submit a Development Application to Council. 

Hunters Hill Trust has expressed a number of concerns:

•  It is a great pity that a site-specific design was not commissioned for this location, which is in the heart of Hunters Hill Conservation Area No 1 and has a number of heritage items in close proximity.   An opportunity for a building of excellence has been lost.
•  Tanner Architects’ heritage impact statement is incomplete in that it does not assess the impact of the new building on adjacent heritage items and did not make any analysis of its impact on the conservation area.
•  The proposed building is large in scale compared to existing buildings on the site that are adjacent to it and compared to the existing buildings that are to be demolished.
•  Proposed materials are not sympathetic to the heritage buildings adjacent or the general locale
•  Because of the demolition of two existing single storey buildings the new building will be very apparent from Stanley Street and will have a major impact on the appearance of the site from that direction
•  An existing unsightly demountable building is not necessarily go to be demolished
•  The Conservation Advisory Panel made number of suggestions as to how to reduce the impact of the proposed building including:
  • make the roof form hipped rather than gabled, which would reduce its bulk when seen from Alexandra Street
  • introduce some windows into the Alexandra Street elevation to relieve its stark quality.
  • Increase the distance of the building from the side boundary to allow for more landscaping and trees to separate it from the adjacent heritage item.
  •  A colour scheme was not seen, but dark recessive colours would help lessen the impact of the building.

The Trust has made submissions to the school, the builders and both State and Federal Government arguing that a Development Application should be submitted to Council so that a proper assessment of its impact can be made.    Here is some of what we wrote to Judy Goodsell, the Principal of the school:

Hunters Hill Public School is located in one of the most historically important precincts in Hunters Hill.  It also has two Schedule 6 Heritage Items within its grounds and these are displayed on the masthead of the home page of its website.  Clearly the school has an interest and pride in its own architectural heritage.

 The school is also within Hunters Hill Council’s Conservation Area No 1 and there are a number of other Schedule 6 heritage items in the near vicinity.  Under Clause 19 of Local Environment Plan No 1, for any proposal within the Conservation Area or in the vicinity of an item of environmental heritage, Hunters Hill Council is required to assess its impact on both the Conservation Area itself and the heritage items nearby.  This is the process that was followed when the school most recently applied for approval to build additional facilities.

 The Hunters Hill Trust fought to have these heritage protection clauses included in the LEP.  Over the last 4 decades we have continuously campaigned to maintain the unique character of Hunters Hill through the conservation of its heritage.  We work both as a lobby group representing our 300 members and through our representation on a number of Council committees including the Conservation Advisory Panel, which advises Council on matters to do with conservation.

 We urge the school to insist that Bovis Lend Lease does submit a Development Application to Council so that a proper assessment of the proposal can be made.  This is something that would only be expected from such a long-standing and respected institution in the Municipality.  It would also set an example to its junior citizens that the school is as interested in heritage conservation as its website masthead would suggest. 

There was an informal meeting on site, which was attended by representatives of the builder, the school, the immediate neighbour and Council, but to date no formal DA has been lodged with Council.  On Wednesday 11 November, Council’s Conservation Advisory Panel had a look at the A4 notification drawings and made a number of comments, which the Council will no doubt forward to the builder and the school.

A site of more than local significance

The site at Cunninghams Reach has significance for the whole of Sydney not just Lane Cove.  It contains a public park used by people from all over the metropolitan area and beyond.  It is part of the Lane Cove River, which flows through a number of local government areas.

The site is directly opposite Boronia Park, which is a major bushland park in Sydney and contains a section of the Great North Walk.  There are many aboriginal sites in the vicinity.

Cunninghams Reach makes a significant contribution to the character of this part of the Lane Cove River.

Notification of the proposal

In light of the wider significance of this site, Lane Cove Council has been remiss in its notification of the proposal.  Hunters Hill Council and Hunters Hill residents in the immediate vicinity of the site were not officially notified of the proposal and were not included in the consultation process.  Unofficially we have become aware of it only this week, which is well after the closing time for submissions.

The Hunters Hill Trust, which last year celebrated its 40^th anniversary, has been involved in many battles for the protection of the heritage and character of Hunters Hill and its immediate surrounds.  We have also been involved in a number of battles to keep public land in public ownership and use.  Recently this involved the fight to keep the Defence Lands around the harbour in the public domain.  This battle ended with a significant victory for the combined resident-action groups, with the creation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.

Back in the 1970s a major battle was fought to prevent the extension of the freeway from the Figtree Bridge across the river to the western shores of the river in Boronia Park.  This road would have been directly opposite Cunninghams Reach and would have destroyed the mangroves and bushland along much of the western shoreline of the river.

The Trust continues to maintain a deep concern for any development along the Lane Cove River.

Because we only became aware of this proposal in the last few days, we hope that Lane Cove Councillors will consider our submission.

The Hunters Hill Trust is opposed to this development application

We believe it will have a significant adverse impact on the river and its surrounds that is shared at this location between Hunters Hill and Lane Cove as itemised below.

a) The alienation of Public Land

• The proposal involves the alienation of public parkland for a private use.
• The use of the alienated land will be restricted to a very small, elite group – the Sydney University Rowing Club.  This is clearly not in the public interest.

The retention of public land in public use should be one of the main tenets of proper governance for local councils.  It is shameful that Lane Cove Council is even considering this proposal.

b) The destruction of parkland and bush

• The bushland character of the site will be adversely affected through loss of trees, lawn and garden areas.
• The passive recreational use of the park will be adversely affected by increased usage, particularly by increases in vehicular traffic volume.
• Any building on this site will be an interruption to an almost continuous green belt that runs along the foreshores of both sides of the Lane Cove River from Figtree Bridge to Fullers Bridge.
• The proposal will have an adverse impact on Boronia Park, which is directly opposite.
• The bushland character of the site as experienced from the river and from Boronia Park will be adversely affected by the proposed rowing facility and its associated works.

Much of the bushland you now see along the river has been gained through the closure of many polluting activities that lined the river for most of the 20th century and the regeneration of those sites. These sites included the sand-dredging infrastructure at Kitty’s Creek; the Council dump at Buffalo Creek, the sewerage station at the bottom of Barons Crescent, the Clifford Love factory at the Epping Road Bridge etc.

Cunninghams Reach itself was won back from private use as part of a sand-washing facility some decades ago and landscaped by Lane Cove Council for a public park, which ironically included the removal of a boat ramp in order to address the adverse impact of boat trailer parking.

The park is now considered one of the jewels along the Lane Cover River both for its contribution to the unique bushland character of the river and for its use for passive recreation.

c) The impact of the building itself and associated works.

Even if it were considered appropriate to construct a public building in the public park at Cunninghams Reach, then this particular proposal would be entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:

• Its bulk and scale are entirely inappropriate for the site.

The scale of buildings along this part of the river is domestic.  The proposed Sydney University rowing club facility is more than 57 metres long and, for much of the elevation that fronts the river, is more than 10 metres high, which is way beyond domestic scale.  The attached photos (taken from just in front of the proposal) shows the heritage-listed former boatshed* across the river timber in Hunters Hill in the top photo and the same building with the Sydney University rowing club facility superimposed on it in the photo below.

• By showing its back to the river, the building at ground floor level becomes a severe and unwelcoming structure

This is epitomised by the location of a number of rainwater tanks along the northwestern façade so that the building seems to thumb its nose at the river.

• The 3 metre wide access road will allow vehicles and trailers deep into the site.

This is a further alienation of the site, both in the area taken up by the road and with the introduction of vehicles into what was previously an entirely pedestrian domain.

• The destruction of existing landscaping for additional parking

The proposal is for the creation of 6 additional car spaces in the existing car park in areas currently occupied by landscaping, which has been specifically designed to soften the car-parking area.  The removal of this landscaping will turn the car park into an unrelieved and ugly asphalt tarmac.

• The alienation of the general public’s access to the site by denying them parking.

There are 19 existing parking places on the site.  The proposal adds 6 more spaces (at the expense of the landscaping) for a total of 25 places.  This will leave just 1 additional place if only 3 eights’ crews arrive at 5.30 in the morning for a training row.  The coach will snap this up and so there will be no parking left for the general public.  In reality the parking facilities are totally inadequate for the scale of this proposal and its anticipated usage, making the point very clearly that the proposal is way out of scale with the site.

• The alienation of the public from the whole of the northern end of the site.

While the proposal belatedly introduced a couple of facilities for public use, including public toilets, a fish cleaning table and the supposed access to the pontoon and ramp, the reality is that the public will not feel welcome in that part of the site north of the new access road, particularly when rowing boats are being moved up and down from the pontoon.

d) The “working harbour” justification for the proposal

The working harbour concept is all about retaining existing maritime facilities on the harbour foreshores rather than replacing them with high density housing, as is happening up and down the Parramatta River and elsewhere. Some supporters of this proposal have used this argument to justify their support for it.

The idea that replacing a beautiful little park, much used by picnickers, dog walkers, fisher folk, and baptism and wedding parties with a privately owned facility for a tiny, elite group of rowers is somehow part of “the working harbour” is entirely spurious.

Tony Coote

President of The Hunters Hill Trust

*My own house

In it we point out that the big picture planning issues of global warming, an unsustainable “continuous growth” economy, peak oil and population growth have not even been acknowledged let alone planned for. We also point out that the plans are out of step with the NSW Department of Planning’s latest advice regarding the health impacts from living near major roads.

As well, the Plans do not contain any details as to how an objective such as “provide an elevated connection across Victoria Rd to Council and RTA satisfaction” is to be achieved. Effectively all the Plans’ objectives rely entirely on private developers being prepared to accept a couple of carrots to leaven their proposals with a teaspoon of public benefit. This is much more like wishful thinking than planning.

Our submission did not address the fact that the Plans make no allowance for a possible railway station at Gladesville, which may or may not be part of a State Government “Metro” scheme. But this may be a unique example of the Plans’ foresight, particularly when you read yet another example of Metro madness like the one that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of March 24, 2009:

MORE than 20,000 people an hour could be stranded at Rozelle in the afternoon peak when they get off the proposed $4.8 billion CBD Metro.

The state’s top transport agency has revealed no examination has been undertaken on how the metro will integrate with a separate $162 million upgrade of Victoria Road,

potentially creating bedlam at the end of the metro line at Darling Street at Victoria Road, one of the busiest intersections in the country.

The metro will be able to carry up to 30,000 people an hour to Rozelle. But when they get off the metro, the Government only has room for about 3100 people an hour on buses to take them home.

In a letter to the Department of Planning, the Ministry of Transport has raised concerns about “potentially competing objectives” between the hurried metro proposal and the plan to duplicate Iron Cove Bridge.

Planning documents used to justify the road upgrade were prepared while a different metro proposal – for one along Victoria Road to Denistone – was policy.

Putting all this together, it is clear that the planning process in NSW is in a state of disarray and Barry O’Farrell is right when he says that Premier is: “making it up as he goes along, scribbling notes on the back of lemon- squash coasters and presenting that as some hope for the public of NSW.” This is not to say that Mr. O’ Farrell has any plans of merit himself, which only further adds to the sense of gloom.

On top of all this comes the Downturn. But there may be a silver lining in these dark economic clouds. After all, much of Sydney’s existing heritage, including the 19th century houses of Paddington, Woollahra, Balmain and Hunters Hill have survived because of neglect during periods of economic downturn when scarce development money was spent elsewhere. This of course is the do- nothing option, an option that was not canvassed in any of the planning proposals above, but one that is often the best and the cheapest.