Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

TO ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?

2012-01-31T15:51:00.001+11:00

A statement from Doug Lithgow President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement.

In the early hours of the morning (Tues 31 Jan 2010) a large contingent of NSW Police were unleashed on the embattled citizens of Newcastle and their most significant landscape feature in the cultural heart of the city. (14 healthy innocent fig trees that have been quietly providing the Cultural Precinct in Laman Street with shade shelter and beauty for 50 years)

Newcastle people who love their city and appreciate the fine cathedral arch of trees in front of their Cultural Centre are perplexed that their new General; Manager and local Member of Parliament have called in a small army of police to subjugate the locals and ensure that they were not going to be given a lawful and formal chance to have say in the planning of their cultural precinct.

We had hoped that the Premier of NSW and the Minister for Local Government would have intervened long ago to bring good governance to the Council of the City of Newcastle rather than take it out on our notable trees and their noble defenders today.

Sadly for our City there are no minds being ennobled in this pointless and unnecessary exercise of brute force?

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement had asked the Newcastle Council to decide on a plan for the Cultural precinct as long ago as Aug/Sept 2010 and place their plan on public exhibition to allow public scrutiny. At this date Feb. 2012 the Council still hasn’t formally decided on a plan or placed it on exhibition for public examination. The people of NSW have a perfect right to have a say when a community land plan of management is affected but not in Newcastle!

Doug Lithgow
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement
For further Comment Ring 041922 6897 or 49431781

Ministerial Enquiry Called Over Fig Fiasco

2012-01-23T20:37:00.001+11:00

The Premier of NSW the Hon Barry O’Farrell MP
Tim Owen MP Hon Member for Newcastle
Mr Andrew Cornwell, MP

Dear Mr Premier, Tim, and Andrew,

Please find the letter to the General Manager as images below. Sent to the Lord Mayor and Councillors. You will see I have also attached the 1968 letter as evidence of our longstanding efforts.
This letter follows on from matters placed before the Premier and Directorate of Local Government. RE Previous letter copy below.

Cheers and hope you all are well
Yours sincerely
Doug Lithgow

________________________________

Mr Ross Woodward Chief Executive
Local Government Division, NSW Premier’s Department
50 Keefe Ave
Locked Bag 3015
NOWRA NSW 2541

Saturday, 17 December 2011

Dear Mr Woodward

Newcastle’s Civic Precinct Planning untruthfulness & Council’s Fig fiasco

This is a very serious matter requiring your attention. A bizarre situation has developed in Newcastle due to Newcastle Council’s public half-truths about the Newcastle Civic Precinct future development. This situation has been exacerbated by Council’s misinformation, inappropriate procedure and Councillor Intransigence. A breakdown of public confidence in the elected Council has occurred and requires appropriate investigation by the NSW Division of Local Government and possible intervention to correct the situation.

Newcastle citizens wonder why Newcastle Council has persisted in bullying their way into the Laman Street Fig fiasco. Council’s behaviour has caused heartache and inconvenience to the lives of those who care about the city and its amenity. There is also the unreasonable cost, inconvenience and waste that Councillors have unreasonably foisted on to the city ratepayers. As you know the Parks and Playgrounds Movement has given more than fifty years of service in the public interest to the Hunter Region, especially to the City of Newcastle and we are distressed by this bizarre situation that has been allowed to persist.

This unsatisfactory situation cannot be resolved if this important cultural precinct is to be stripped of its attractive mature trees without the a proper review of the exaggerated risk assessment that certain Councillors rely on to form an opinion that the trees need to be felled for the purpose of removing a traffic hazard.

General Background

By apparently not wanting to amend the official Civic Precinct Plan of Management (POM) in a transparent way and by their clandestine development proposal the Newcastle City Councillors have created a fig fiasco. All Public Parks are required to have Plans of Management and Council is required to implement them. The 1993 Local Government Act introduced Plans of Management in an effort to provide better management of parks and public lands in NSW and to allow the community to have a say. In the year 2000 Council adopted an official Civic Precinct plan which included Council owned land at Civic Park, Laman Street, Christie Place and Church Walk Park. Council may amend the plan but certain rules are expected to be followed for public exhibition, public submissions and a public hearing.

Council’s proposals that required the removal of 14 fig tress from Laman Street should have triggered the Plan of Management provisions of the Local Government Act and been lawfully exhibited to the citizens of Newcastle for their consideration.

The situation as it developed.

The exhibition of Council’s plans was not going to happen in the Civic Precinct because Council, as we now know, was secretly developing proposals for an under Laman Street building and major engineering works to level and extend Laman Street into Civic Park to create a wide mezzanine plaza that was to be called ‘Anzac Centennial Place’. The proposal was predicated on the removal of 14 trees in Laman Street and the obliteration of the existing Memorial Grove and changes to Civic Park Fountain. The proposal should have been exhibited as an amendment to the Civic Plan of Management but was not. Nor was it honestly introduced to Council’s two day workshop in May last year that was supposed to be considering the future of the Civic Precinct. The time and energy of the seventy participants that had given up their weekend in good faith to consider the issues was misused and wasted. Unfortunately there are other recent examples of the disregard of transparency in parkland planning at Nobbys, Merewether and King Edward Headland Reserve with Newcastle City Council and it may have become a systemic problem.

The proposal for an Anzac Centennial Place in Laman Street was registered with the Commonwealth Anzac Centenary Commission on the 17th of September 2010 in the name of the City of Newcastle, (Submission Number 290 Commonwealth Anzac Centenary Commission from Website

Name/Organisation: City of Newcastle
Submission Summary: The creation of a new public space called Anzac Centennial Place at Laman Street, in the cultural and commemorative heart of Newcastle. The project consolidates and reinforces the commemorative efforts of a previous generation, thereby giving continuity to the community's acts of remembrance.
Date received: 17/09/2010)   

Council did not resolve and Exhibit their proposals & we had to commence Legal action.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc. made an application to the Land and Environment Court in the public interest for an injunction to restrain the Council from their precipitous intention to remove the trees without first resolving and exhibiting their Plan of Management for the precinct.

We obtained the injunction but were unsuccessful on the wider issue because we were prevented from considering matters of merit. Furthermore Council did not disclose to the court evidence of their Centennial Place development proposal. Newcastle Council had not made this proposal public even though they had registered it with the Commonwealth Centenary Commission prior to the court hearing.

In that court case Council, in their Respondent’s Submissions lodged with the Court 5/11/2010 claimed that there was no broader activity proposed other than tree removal. (Paragraphs: 76, 77, 78, page15 see attached Respondent’s Submission L&E Court 05 Oct 2010).

They repeat this claim in the following paragraph (77) that no works beyond the removal of the trees has been sanctioned, or were presently proposed. They further claimed that to the extent that any works were envisaged to be undertaken beyond the removal of the trees, those works would be in consequence of the removal of the trees.

Paragraph 78 goes on to maintain that it is the tree removal that has necessitated further works in the future.

The future works proposed but not made open and clear in public arena were for the building of an under-Laman Street Library building and the extension of Laman Street into Civic Park to create a wide plaza. Normal Council transparency would require that such proposals affecting public land need to be exhibited to the public for consideration as provided for in the Local Government Act.

Far from being transparent, Council has insisted that these fourteen trees are a traffic hazard and must be removed as a matter of public safety.

The Council’s Exaggerated Risk Assessment requires independent review
Why are Councillors reluctant to review the risk analysis for the fig trees when they know their analysis has been fairly challenged as being exaggerated and unscientific? They have been offered help or funding for an independent assessment by the Insurance Coy, a citizen donor and by the Premier of NSW but certain Councillors have frustrated Council by resorting to technicalities of meeting procedure to evade this logical resolution. In this way they have caused a deep rift to develop between the community and council and caused much inconvenience and extraordinary costs by their intransigence.

The Newcastle’s fig fiasco is no doubt the result of a mixture of public misinformation, inappropriate procedure and Councillor Intransigence. We request that the Local Government division of the Premiers Department intervene as a matter of urgency to defuse the confrontation and institute a clear open process for the planning of the Newcastle Civic Precinct.

Yours sincerely
Doug Lithgow

President Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Copy to:
The Premier of NSW the Hon Barry O’Farrell MP
General Manager & Lord Mayor Newcastle City Council
_________________________________

Points of Contention in the Fig Debate

2012-01-18T18:43:00.000+11:00

Dear Colleagues,

Re the contribution to the Fig Debate from Council’s web site:
http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/about_newcastle/news_and_events/media_releases/media_releases/fig_forum_light_on_facts/_nocache

These issues are in contention from the Council’s point of view and can be answered formally.

The issues will not go away (trees or no trees) and the Council should show “Reasonable Cause” for their resolution to remove the trees under section 88 of the Roads Act 1993. (The question is: 'If a Councillor has' can mean 'If a Councillor thinks he has'. I believe that Council cannot now have a reasonable cause for the opinion that the trees are a hazard to traffic.

In the case Parks and Playgrounds Movement Vs Newcastle Council September 2010 it was presumed that General Manager Lindy Hyam had the opinion that the trees were a hazard to traffic.
However this week’s Forum demolished the basis for such an opinion to be held by the Council. Elected Councillors should show “reasonable cause” for their action in forming the opinion that the trees are a Hazard to traffic.

I have listed the issues in dot points below:

If you wish to understand the proposal for the widened Laman Street Plaza, Called Anzac Place in Council’s submission to the Commonwealth Commission, it is attached below. The proposal was exhibited euphemistically as a Design Framework and has Council’s Logo on the front page. It claims to be from the two day workshop in March 2010 but was not.

Council states on its web: Last night’s fig fact forum included a number of statements that were false. These are addressed below. (I have paraphrased the 14 points. Full text on Council’s web site)

§         Council is a public body proud of its openness and transparency- it has conducted public forums, voice etc and provided information on Council Website.
§         Offensive to claim Council withheld Radar reports- request processed under Government Information (public access) Act.
§         Council has obtained 4 independent Arborist Assessments.
§         Council’s insurer will not cover risk beyond 31st Jan 2012.
§         Irresponsible statements that trees safe- 35 out of 135 removed failed and removed from the inner city.
§         Anzac Plaza is not reason for removing figs it is an idea sent to Commission –not funds application.
§         No tree reports have anything to do with Anzac Plaza.
§         Not the first time the Roads Act has been used to remove hazards - decision upheld by Court.
§         Behaviour of SOF people has required the Police.
§         A detailed response to Prof Stewart is on the Council Web.
§         SOF refers to arborist reports that contradict Council’s advice- they are not legally accountable Council’s advice based on knowledge of the site.
§         No ulterior motives and Council will replant 4 metre high trees in vaults to prevent root problems.
§         Council acknowledges that Trees have become contentious but acts for whole community.
§         Council desires to concentrate on Core Duties.

Cheers to all,
Doug Lithgow

Who is responsible for Council expenditure?

2011-12-09T13:24:00.001+11:00

The Letter below was published by the Newcastle Herald 9th December. It should be made clear to everyone that Local Government Councillors can delegate some functions to their administration but they cannot delegate responsibility and they are barred especially from delegating financial responsibility. They cannot escape their legal responsibility although many do try to hide their responsibility by loudly claiming it is someone else’s fault. See Section 377 of the Local Government Act for matters that Council cannot delegate. DL.

Doug Lithgow

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Letters Editor
The Herald
Bolton Street
NEWCASTLE 2300

Dear Sir

Who is responsible for Council expenditure?

Letters (Newcastle Herald 7/12 The other belligerents ) suggests that the community is responsible for expenditures of the Newcastle Council. This is wrong.

The Local Government Act 1993 makes it mandatory that only Councillors have the power to vote for expenditure of moneys or set Council Rates. It is only Councillors that can be responsible and must be held responsible.

For instance, certain councillors consistently vote that the trees in Laman Street be felled knowing full well that the risk analysis has been challenged as being exaggerated and should be reviewed. Furthermore councillors know that the cost of removing the trees is in excess of one million dollars plus the further costs of unpublished and un-costed proposals for refurbishing the street.

Some councillors have clearly not acted responsibly.

Doug Lithgow
See Section 377 of the Local Government Act for matters that Council cannot delegate.

BACKGROUND

Some background to the Laman Street Trees Issue.

These documents provide information to show how Newcastle got into the 'Fig Fiasco'.

The aim now should be to close Laman Street, have it Classified 'Community Land' and save the trees within a Civic Park Plan of Management. But by the article in the Newcastle Herald it appears that Labor has pulled out of the Laman Street Issue.

Dear Colleagues,

Some points from history of council strategy to destroy the old trees at Civic.

The removal of older trees from the City began with General Manager Janet Dore. It was her policy and she employed a specialist to carry it out.

His name was Phil Hewett (just retired and kept on as a consultant I believe). The only thing that put a brake on the destructive tendencies was the Community Land provisions of the Local Government Act especially the Civic PoM that included Laman Street (Council owned Land) Civic Park Christie place and Church Walk Park as a unit. (Adopted by Council April 2000)

Janet’s policy is set out in general terms in her article in the Herald 26th Jul 2002. (See below)

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement have been involved in promoting conservation and protection of parks and landscape going back to the 1930’s.

Parks and Playgrounds voiced our objection to the Civic Framework Exhibition that included the Laman Street Plaza plan and the Under Laman Street Library building proposals that immediately threatened destruction of the Laman Street Figs and initiated the current crisis. It is all in the Design Framework documents the Council exhibited at the start of the year.

Great efforts have been made but the Newcastle Council remains intransigent and new directions are needed.

The last Council had all the opportunities to set clear goals to guide the next Council. It had 4 Greens and a strong ALP group.

When Newcastle got a New Council and a new Gen Manager, most Councillors were new and had never been to a Council Meeting. The new General Manager had been planted in the job also with no experience in Local Government. Somewhere there is the backing of the ALP right wing in the last days of a corrupt Government. The right wing undermined and felled Bryce Gaudry and planted Jodie also with no experience.

With all new directors in the Council and the right wing hatchet men in control what can happen?

The Truth, Transparency and fiscal intelligence have been the first casualties in this bazaar political melee.

I look forward to a shake up and I hope SOF continues to claim the high Ground. Out of his will come a few decent Councillors?

Cheers
Doug.

If you want a stating point re: removal of old trees including the Laman St Figs see the article below which was published in the Herald. It involves the newly appointed Arborist Mr Hewett.

It is nicely written but cannot disguise the intent to get rid of the veteran trees. Janet wrote the article after we challenged the Council for cutting down the first Fig in Civic Park. The Fig tree root in the electric cable trench that features on Council’s web site is from that first tree felled on the corner of Auckland and King Street. No doubt Council could claim to be using the Roads Act. However the real reason for that removal was for a new widened cement foot path around Civic Park which was part of the 2000 POM).

Old trees pay for past malpractice - Janet Dore Newcastle Herald Published: 26-Jul-2002 

Newcastle City Council now faces difficult decisions about the management of old trees in a changing urban environment

While the city plans for future urban forests, Janet Dore explains why old plantings and old practices continue to cause problems.  

As a city that prides itself on policies based on sustainability, heritage and culture, the removal of Civic Park's ageing fig was a difficult and sad task.  

Newcastle City Council planted 4500 trees last year.  

We are committed to providing urban forests that beautify our city, promote sustainability and protect public spaces for future generations.  

Those thousands of trees planted last year will one day shade our grandchildren and their children.  

Removing the fig in Civic Park has raised issues that as a community we all need to consider. Our city has changed and will continue to grow around trees planted many years ago.  

So how should we manage veteran trees in an urban environment that has changed dramatically over their lifetime?  

Newcastle has many hundreds of large mature fig trees on public and private land, most of which were planted between 60 and 80 years ago.  

If we reflect on past tree maintenance practices, we will discover that most are no longer in vogue today.  

For instance, it was common to cut the tops off trees, almost as if they were rose bushes, and then to continue lopping as a routine practice. At the time, lopping seemed to solve the problems of growing large trees in confined spaces.  

What we have found today is that lopping exposes the inner wood of trees to the elements and the bigger the exposed area of wood, the greater the risk that decay will severely weaken the tree at maturity.  

At the same time, branches that grow to replace lopped branches are poorly attached and prone to falling.  

It was also common in the past to install infrastructure and other civil works by open trench excavation, regardless of the presence of tree roots.  Technology today allows us to bore underneath tree roots and to repair infrastructure such as cables and pipes without open trenching.  

However, since trees may take many years to decay, past work damaging the tree is often forgotten.  It has been suggested that we look to the issue of figs in Hyde Park, Sydney, and adopt a similar approach. However, this is comparing apples to pears.  

The figs in Hyde Park have enormous space for root stability and have grown on a sandstone soil base. Their stabilising roots have found support in rock sandstone fissures.  

By comparison, the figs in Newcastle have to contend with soils built of industrial waste with considerably less space to develop stable root systems.  

This is not an issue unique to Newcastle. The management of veteran trees has become problematic for communities in Sydney and Melbourne and internationally. For this reason, a focus on urban tree management has become critical for future sustainability.  

Unfortunately, urban living puts stress on our trees. A tree that may live many hundreds of years in natural conditions can reach its aged life after a mere 80 years in urban conditions.  The tree removed from Civic Park last weekend illustrates the problems we have in dealing with our past practices.  

So, how should we be treating our trees in the future?  

Newcastle City Council has introduced a pro-active approach to selection, maintenance and replacement of our urban trees.  

We have surveyed 53,000 street trees and recorded their statistics on a database. We are currently auditing these trees, identifying their maintenance needs and setting an inspection regime for each tree.  

We are also investigating the benefits of looking at the trees of Newcastle as an urban forest. An urban forest is simply the total of trees and large shrubs that grow on public and private land in any urban area.  

Urban forests contribute significantly to quality of life for urban residents, by capturing stormwater, shading bitumen and buildings, reducing the risk of skin cancer and absorbing fine pollution particles that affect asthmatics.  

Newcastle City Council is presently working with the Local Government Association to review software for calculating the benefits of urban forests. We are also developing a more integrated approach to design of new infrastructure so that civil works and trees do not come into conflict in the future.  

Newcastle City Council will continue to plant trees in the city and manage these responsibly. Our tree selections have been made with due regard for the future and we do not anticipate the next generation of Novocastrians will have to experience the unexpected and heartbreaking loss of its veteran trees.

Janet Dore is general manager of Newcastle City Council.

Open Letter to the Honorable Barry O'Farrell MP

2011-10-16T21:16:00.000+11:00

Open Letter to the Honorable Barry O' Farrell MP,
Premier of NSW

Dear Premier

Plan of Management identified Trees: Civic Cultural Precinct - Newcastle

The State must intervene at Civic Newcastle because of the Council's wrong conduct in inappropriately using Sec.88 of the Roads Act to clear Laman Street for widening into Civic Park to progress an unortherised development.

Every park in Newcastle is governed by a Plan of Management (PoM) indeed every public park in NSW has a PoM. This is a statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 1993. Crown Reserves in Newcastle like King Edward Headland Reserve have a PoM under the requirements of the Crown Lands Act.

Newcastle Council is morally and legally bound to respect the official plans of management and only approve complying developments. If a Council wishes to carry out other developments they must lawfully amend the PoM.

This machinery is there to bring a transparent and open approach to the management of public lands and parks and to give citizens a chance to make formal input with an independent public hearing.

The PoM for the Civic Cultural Precinct identified the Fig Trees in Laman street as a principal landscape feature and to be only subjected to minor pruning to maintain the vista.

By invoking the Roads Act to circumvent the provisions of the PoM and remove these significant trees is wrong conduct as there are no road works being done and there is no credible traffic hazard.

Newcastle Council should be caring for the trees and carrying out minor pruning as required by the Plan of Management.

Newcastle needs help to provide an independent risk assessment of the trees because the Council's risk reports are extravagantly exaggerated to justify a basis for invoking the Roads Act S88.

The people of Newcastle are outraged and need honest help.

Yours Sincerely

Doug Lithgow Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Newcastle City Council ‘Civic Precinct Design Framework’ & Laman Street

2011-10-11T22:40:00.000+11:00

The Design Framework for the Civic Precinct included many proposals including those illustrated below. They were bundled into a confusing item in the Council Resolution of the 17th ‘of August 2010 that caused the current problems at Laman Street Trees.

Now a year later, after more than $200,000 Dollars have been wasted and the Community’s trust and confidence in the Council shattered it Council hasn’t resolved what it is trying to do.

Laman Street is part of the approved plan of management for all the council owned land in the Civic Precinct. This land includes Civic Park, Laman Street, Christie Place and Church Walk Park. The management Plan controlling the area was adopted by Council in 2000 and is still the official plan. The Laman Street Trees are charted on the official PoM.

There is a lawful process for amending the Plan. It requires the public exhibition of the amended plan and the invitation of public comment and transparent resolution of the plan.

Newcastle has never formally included its framework ideas into the official POM for the Precinct. Ideas including a Library under Laman Street have been touted. (See below)

This proposal would require massive earthworks in Laman Street and the destruction of the fig trees to create a widened plaza extending into the park

COUNCIL MUST DECIDE WHAT IT IS DOING AND GIVE THE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO MAKE COMMENT BEFORE FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF THE LAMAN STREET.

Doug Lithgow at the Laman St Figs Protest 07 October 2011

2011-10-08T10:16:00.000+11:00

OPEN LETTER TO NEWCASTLE COUNCILLOR BOB COOK

2011-09-18T12:19:00.004+10:00

Councillor Bob Cook

Newcastle City Council

16/09/2011

Dear Bob,

Open Letter in the public interest to Councillor Bob Cook

You have placed yourself in the position of chief advocate for the destruction of the Laman Street Landscape and Architect and engineer of a scheme to level Laman Street. It would be much better if you were to honour and respect your elected role as an unbiased Councillor prepared to impartially review the evidence the citizens of Newcastle wish to place before you. You so openly show your bias even to the extent of arguing against independent assessment to protect certain staff and other experts from 'potential reputational damage'.

I note in the press you seem to be considering litigation. The Law is a blunt instrument Bob, as we found out last year. The court would not allow us to place before it, the professional evidence regarding the exaggerated risk reports Council was using. No matters of merit were allowed to be argued. Council won their case by arguing that the S88 of the Roads Act was a stand alone law and the General Manager by using S88 in this instance was not required to consider the provisions of any other Act. She only had to form the opinion that the trees were a Hazard to traffic in Laman St..

The situation is entirely different now and S88 of the Roads Act is an inappropriate instrument to use in designing a landscape future for Civic Park and Laman Street. You can't realistically claim a hazard to traffic now.

The 3 trees cut down after the Pasha Bulker Storm had not been blown over as claimed and the 14 trees currently being considered have not fallen over in the last twelve months.

Too many citizens now know that Council cannot in good faith rely on the earlier unscientific and exaggerated risk claims of the past and must obtain an independent assessment.

I do also wish to remind you that you, no doubt unwittingly, caused confusion in the first instance by bundling risk assessment with your advocacy of your own development proposal for the levelling of Laman Street and extending it into Civic Park.

With development proposals there is a simple rule that should be followed: Developments require an approved Development Application and Assessment. Council's own Developments of course require an independent assessment. Furthermore if you wish to develop Community Land you are required to ensure that your development complies with the official Plan of Management and if it doesn't you must seek to change the Plan of Management in a lawful way.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement is a pubic interest body and we would suggest that you take a step back from this issue and allow independent assessment. You are going to have to ultimately submit your Development Proposal if it is brought the Council to public scrutiny and independent assessment.

Yours sincerely

Doug Lithgow President Parks and Playgrounds Movement

FOUR SIMPLE QUESTIONS

2011-09-14T16:33:00.001+10:00

From Doug Lithgow to Newcastle City Councillors and News Editors

You are no doubt aware that Newcastle has hot summer days and that the people of Newcastle appreciate the shade and beauty of the cathedral arch of the Laman Street Trees.

To understand the Laman Street issue

You must first ask yourself:

1. Do you want to develop Laman Street?

2. Do you have an idea of the way you would like it developed?

3. Do you need to remove trees to develop the area in the way you wish?

4. Does the development you propose require the alteration of Council’s Plan of Management: Civic Precinct “Heritage Places Strategic Plan published by Council 1/6/2000?

Were you able to answer ‘yes’ to any of the four questions?

If you were able to answer ‘Yes’ to any of the questions then a Development Application (DA) and an Assessment of your proposal is required by law.

Why is Council able to disregard the law?

Only by pretending that there is no development proposed and by claiming that the trees are a hazard to traffic and have to be summarily removed.

If Council told the people of Newcastle officially about a specific development that was adopted they would have to prepare a Development Application and have a transparent assessment. Council would then not be able to use s.88 of Roads Act to escape lawful Public Exhibition and Assessment.

Public probity demands that an independent assessment of the risk factors is needed to assess the unscientific inflated risk reports relied on by Council. Any development proposed will offcourse require a lawful DA.

All Councillors should be demanding a transparent independent reassessment of the Hazzard or risk?

From Doug Lithgow President Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.
Phone 49431781 Mobile 041922 6897

Where is the DA for Laman Street?

2011-08-28T11:02:00.001+10:00

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to request our supporting Councillors to move in council as a matter of urgency that a Development Application be prepared for the proposed redevelopment of Laman Street which may involve the removal of the trees and the planting of new trees in different locations together with ancillary works new pavements and new grades? It is important that the new developments proposed do not affect the Civic Park Community Land or the curtilage of the famous Civic Park Fountain designed by Margel Hinder. With all the Council spam over the past 18 months there has never been a detailed plan or DA that could be professionally assessed. Just vague proposals and lies about trees falling over in Laman Street and exaggerated danger claims.

This would mean that a proper plan showing what is actually proposed would have to be made and open for public display. The 'Cook' Plan recently published illustrated massive reshaping of the streetscape to make a flat surface at the floor level of the Cultural Centre and widening into the Civic Park which would have a major effect on the Fountain and its curtilage and the Memorial Grove.

Proper plans showing finished levels pavement treatment and planting positions for new trees are essential. Any effect on Community Land would automatically trigger the Community Land provisions of the Local Government act: which incidentally Council has been trying to get around with the unreal danger argument and undocumented proposals since day one.

Cheers,

Doug Lithgow

2011-07-04T20:57:00.005+10:00

King Edward Headland Reserve Newcastle
The Headland Reserve is in King Edward Park Newcastle's Premier Park 1863

Development Application No. 10/1735 (Amended Plan)

1 Ordinance St Newcastle

Development application 10/1735 for land at King Edward Headland Reserve No.1011189 . The Parks and Playgrounds Movement placed an objection to the earlier DA which is still relevant to the amended Development Application and this submission is in addition.

We reaffirm that Council has a responsibility to make sure that the official plan of management is implemented for this important Headland Crown Land Reserve. The current DA submitted by Annie Street Commercial P/L as amended, fails to meet the vision and objectives of the official Plan of Management. It does not suitably address the management strategies as set out in the plan 3.14 and it fails to respond to the design principles which have been embodied into the Concept Plan 4. and the Park Reserve Concept Plan illustrated in the Plan of management (Page 37).

Above: Park Reserve Concept Plan King Edward Headland Reserve Plan of Management

The development of this Headland Public Reserve is of great concern to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter Region and the detail and principles of the official Plan of Management must be applied to any proposed development of the reserve.

The current DA should be rejected and the proponent asked to prepare a new DA that allows unfettered public access to the scenic Ocean and Parkland views from the Headland Public Reserve along the southern boundary as clearly required by the official Plan of Management and by the published call for Expressions of Interest documentation (below).

King Edward Headland Reserve 1011189 comprises Lot 3109 DP755247 and is a Crown Reserve dedicated for Public Recreation by notice in the Government Gazette of the 23 December 2005, Folio 11250. In the same Gazette the Management Corporation Lands Administration Ministerial Corporation was established as the Trust for the King Edward Headland Reserve. (Gov. Gaz. 23 Dec. 2005 Folio 11250)

Lot 3109 DP755247 was formerly occupied by Newcastle City Bowling Club under a Special Lease 64-46 (Bowling greens and clubhouse) subject to conditions Notified NSW Gov Gazette Feb 1966 Folio 963. The Crown Survey Plan registered 18/2/1963 N. 8454- 2111 charts Lot 3109 as an in-holding within the boundary of King Edward Park dedicated for recreation in1863. The whole Park was further dedicated for Public Recreation as King Edward Park 10^th March 1894 and the headland reserve land again dedicated for public recreation in 2005. The land has always been zoned for Open Space and Recreation since planning began in the Northumberland County.

Newcastle Heritage Corridors

2011-05-17T21:44:00.001+10:00

The schematic diagram above links the Newcastle Heritage Precincts with identifiable Heritage Corridors, and I have used some of Charles Martin’s line drawings from the Heritage Guide Map Charles prepared for the National Trust.

Newcastle Heritage Corridors:

- Harbour Foreshore Heritage Corridor – Lee Wharf, AA Coy. Wharf Queens Wharf,
- Transport Heritage Corridor -Rail and Road transport Spine: Newcastle Railway Station Signal Box.
- Coal River Heritage Corridor - Convict Lumberyard, Nobbys, Macquarie Pier, Convict Mines, Fort Scratchley, Coal River Precinct,
- Pacific Park Heritage Corridor – Newcastle Beach, Ocean baths, Royal Newcastle Hospital.
- Government House Heritage Corridor – Convict wharf, Customs House, Council chambers Coal Shafts.
- Courthouse Heritage Corridor – Newcastle Post Office, Newcastle Herald Building Cohen Warehouse, Grand Hotel, Newcastle Courthouse, Fletcher Hospital, King Edward Park
- Cathedral Heritage corridor – Queens Wharf, Market Square, Cathedral Cemetery, Christ Church Cathedral, Obelisk Hill.
- Civic Heritage Corridor – Maritime Centre, Museum, Civic Station, Civic Theatre, City Hall, Civic Park, Capt. Cook Fountain, Cultural Centre.

Draft Laman Street Civic Precinct Design Framework. Objection

2011-02-28T20:33:00.000+11:00

Mr Rob Noble General Manager
Newcastle Council PO Box 489 Newcastle 2300

Attention Mr Ian Rhodes.

Dear Mr Rodes,

Draft Laman Street Civic Precinct Design Framework. Objection

The movement is pleased that Council has exhibited the Draft Design Framework that Council had developed last year. As you know we believed that the Draft Framework should have been exhibited before precipitous action was taken to remove the Laman Street group of trees.

These trees are much loved by the people of Newcastle and are the principal landscape feature in the Civic Precinct. Council has on a number of occasions been preparing proposals for the Civic Precinct (Cultural Precinct) and all of the proposals have identified the importance of the landscape structure the Ficus trees provide. The Draft Laman Street Civic Design Framework is the first proposal that has focused on the removal of this important landscape feature. The argument of Risk Management has been poorly assessed and there has emerged another reason subsequent to the recent costly and unnecessary litigation in the Land and Environment Court.

Your attention is drawn to the ‘Internal Memo’ sent to all Councillors from the Executive Leadership Team 23 Sep 2010 signed by Judy Jaeger with the Subject Title ‘Commemorating the Anzac Centenary’.

It is rather disconcerting for a community group that has positively worked in the public interest for this city since 1952 to feel that the Civic Charrette was a charade and that Council had the proposals already formed which were not stated openly. As a member of the Charrette I was at the time concerned that we were going over the ground that many councils had previously identified. However there was one vaguely expressed proposal that really alarmed me concerning the building of an underground entrance into the Library.

It was put by the Facilitator and glossed over Judy Jaeger. I rejected the idea outright at the Charrette because even though I was not privy to the proposal that the Leadership Team was obviously preparing, I could see all the aesthetic and engineering imponderables hidden in the idea. Not to mention the problems with the Civic Park Fountain, the removal of the Memorial Grove and cutting the established Civic Axis and the destruction of the principal landscape feature the Laman Street Trees.

Of course the Parks and Playgrounds Movement want to see a high standard of Landscape and a unified scheme for the precinct. Our actions since 1968 when we prepared the first concept for the Civic Area are clear public evidence of our bona-fides. We have positively commented on every proposal for the area that Council has brought to the public.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement is conscious that the elected Councillors are the current trustees of Civic Park for the general public and we are pleased to submit the document Civic Park – Civic Precinct Design Framework 24/2/2011 as a contribution to help advise their guardianship. We would be pleased to make further submissions as required.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

COMMUNITY ALERT - KING EDWARD PARK

2011-02-23T08:28:00.000+11:00

COMMUNITY ALERT

Alienation of Crown Land
1 Ordnance Street Newcastle -Newcastle City Bowling

Application for a Private Commercial Function Centre with 41 Car spaces;
Hours 7am -midnight, 7 days a week.
Facilities for 500 people.

Once again Newcastle is threatened with inappropriate development.

The former Newcastle Bowling Club is part of King Edward Park and forms part of the Hill Heritage Area. The club existed from the end of the 19th Century, and in 1966 was granted a lease in perpetuity as long as it remained a bowling club. Approval for parking was never given.   It is zoned RE1, which prohibits the building of a function centre.

The area has been allowed to deteriorate, so that the enormous value of this site is obscured. It is a landmark site with magnificent views that anyone who has lived in or visited Newcastle will have appreciated.

The proposed building which claims to be on the original foot print is approximately three times the size of the original building and of a considerably larger volume. Viewed from the south, the two storey structure will present a severe visual intrusion into the park compared to the previous single storey building. A small kiosk at the S.E. end of the proposed structure is the only part accessible to the public. The rest of the building will be used for private functions. This is contrary to the principles of Crown land management.

This site should be returned to the Park for the enjoyment of all.

Our convict and colonial heritage is reflected in this site as it was here that the Nation’s first coal shaft was sited in the 1820s. With the old Government House, the James Fletcher site (that housed the Military Barracks and the first Hospital) and the Park, this precinct is important to all Australians.

Consultation with the community found that the community wanted the land returned to the park or at most, minimal development. However, these views were overruled in favour of the commercial alternative. A Plan of Management was produced by the Lands Department in 2007. It is interesting that the Government’s own Plan of Management still proposed a much smaller development than the current proposal. The Current DA does not relate in any way to the Plan of Management.

Strong community support is essential in combating this proposal. You can help by adding your name and address to the objection letter on the back and by mailing or e-mailing to:

The Hon. Tony Kelly, Minister for Lands, Level 31, 1 Farrer Place, Sydney 2000, or
(landsquery@lpma.nsw.gov.au )

Please be quick: Also note that the Minister takes more notice of individual letters than they do of form letters. If you have time, write your own letter.
It is important to forward a copy of your letter to:

The Premier of NSW (premier@nsw.gov.au)
The Hon Jodi McKay PO Box 1816 NCLE 2300   newcastle@parliament.nsw.gov.au
The Lord Mayor Cr John Tate, City Hall, Newcastle 2300 kmcpherson@ncc.nsw.gov.au
The Leader of the Opposition LOP@parliament.nsw.gov.au
The Shadow Minister   michael.gallacher@parliament.nsw.gov.au

The Honourable Tony Kelly
Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 34, 1 Farrer Place Sydney 2000

Dear Sir

Re: DA No 10/1735 No 1 Ordnance Street

I am deeply concerned about the above proposal. In spite of this application being put before the people over the Xmas holiday period and Council’s failure to advertise it on its Web page, hundreds of objections were submitted.

This priceless site is dedicated park land; Crown Land since 1863 and part of the Hill Heritage Area. It is zoned RE1 which prohibits the building of a function centre. When the bowling club failed, and its lease was revoked, the site should have been incorporated into King Edward Park according to the terms of that lease. Any future use should serve the Park and allow the Public unfettered access according to the principles of the Crown Land Act.

We ask that you re-examine the Conclusions of the Plan of Management (2007) which states that the community wanted the land returned to the park, or a development within the scale of the bowling club buildings.

We would like you to investigate why the Annie Street P/L proposal was awarded the tender when, without good reason, it deviates so far from the Expression of Interest.

This function centre holds 500 function guests and is available from 7am to Midnight every day. Its footprint (understated in the DA) is almost twice the size stipulated in the POM and almost three times the footprint of the old bowling club. It relies on street parking. The Public has access to a small Kiosk on the S.W corner with limited views.

The State Government has a responsibility to the community to ensure that the DA currently before the Council complies with the Plan of Management and that the Plan of Management reflects the views of the community. The consultative process between State, Local Government bodies and Community Groups should be respected. The developer has ignored the constraints imposed by these documents, adding fuel to the fire of public resentment to the perceived and well publicised unsavoury relationship between Government Instruments and developers.

We ask that any lease agreements or MOUs you have with the proponent should be held- over or cancelled so that the matter can be reconsidered.

Yours Faithfully

King Edward Headland Reserve DA 10-1735 Letter to General Manager

2011-02-20T08:32:00.001+11:00

Mr Rob Noble
General Manager
Newcastle City Council,
PO Box 489
NEWCASTLE NSW 2300

3rd February 2011 with supplementary document 16.02.2011

DA 10/1735
King Edward Headland Reserve for Public Recreation within King Edward Park Newcastle.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement resolved at our January Meeting to submit an objection to the Development Application 10/1735 for No.1 Ordinance Street Newcastle, Proposed Function Centre Kiosk and associated carparking and landscaping with an exhibition period: 29 Dec to 3rd Feb.

The Movement has a long association with the Newcastle City Bowling Club and was party to the campaign to have the 1967 perpetual lease of the site revoked because of the irregularities in the running of the club and the fact that there had not been a bona- fide bowling club operating for many years.

Copy of P&PM Inc Letter re the alienation of the Park and irregularities re the Lease

Saturday, 7 July 2001

The Honourable Richard Face MP
Minister for Gaming and Racing and
Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development
23 Smith Street
Charlestown 2290

Dear Richard,

Newcastle Bowling Club Licences – King Edward Park

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has requested that the Minister administering NSW Crown Lands to revoke the 1965 lease of the Newcastle City Bowling Club and return the land to King Edward Park and people of Newcastle. We trust that you will agree with this aim.

Newcastle Bowling Club which has been occupying the leased area of the Newcastle City Bowling Club has been in financial trouble and in the hands of a Receiver for sometime. It was recently voted that it be placed in liquidation. Two applications are currently before the Liquor Administration Board, one to change the name of the club back to Newcastle City Bowling Club (App No 196544 15/6/01) and the other for the appointment of a liquidator (App No 196644 19/6/01).

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is opposed to the transfer of Club Liquor and Gaming Machin e Licences to the Newcastle City Bowling Club and we seek the abandonment of the existing club.

King Edward Park is Newcastle’s premier coastal parkland dedicated for public recreation 1894

The official lease for Newcastle City Bowling Club was granted in 1965 with the condition that the leased area be used for “bowling club buildings and recreation, bowling greens”.

The land is crown land and is zoned for open space and recreation.

We believe that the Newcastle City Bowling Club is no longer a bona-fide bowling club and that the lease should be revoked and the area revert to King Edward Park.

Members of the Bowling Club have alleged that the directors of the club have not notified members of meetings and have acted in a manner that has not been in the interests of the club.

We request that a public hearing be held before any transfer of the licence is contempt.

The Movement would be pleased if you could establish an inquiry into the activities of the club and ensure that this important part of King Edward Park is not permanently alienated.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

The 40 acre Reserve which was to become King Edward Park was gazetted for Public Recreation 16 July 1863, on the request of the Newcastle Borough Counc il. The alienation of Newcastle’s premier park is of great public importance and deserves close scrutiny.

We base our objections on the heritage of the Park and the convict mining History.

· The previous submissions re the termination of the Bowling Club Lease.
· The Newcastle Coastal Study 2003
· Our concerns with the Coastal Revitalisation Doc.
· The Plan of Management 2007
· The Expressions of Interest Doc 2008
· The failure of the proponent to meet the spirit of the documents and the need to integrate any development into the King Edward Park of which the Headland Reserve is an inholding.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement submits this letter as a statement of objection and we reserve the right to forward a detailed submission early next week when members have had more time to attend the Council Administration Centre to see the documents We are disappointed that they are not easily accessible.

Yours sincerely

Doug Lithgow
President Parks and Playgrounds Movement.

Attention Wesley Wilson Senior Development Officer:
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc hereby submit this 7 page submission in the public interest and without any pecuniary interest whatsoever.

King Edward Headland Reserve – Mar 2010 showing former Club Buildings

King Edward Headland Plan of Management - Concept Plan (Aug 2007)

King Edward Headland Reserve: Ugly club buildings removed (Oct 2010)

King Edward Headland Reserve No R.1011189 Plan of Management - Concept Plan (Aug 2007)

Proposed Function Centre wrongly located to dominate reserve and coastal scenery
– Southern Elevation.

King Edward Park – Former Bowling Club Building dominating the Park – 2005.

King Edward Park including the Headland Reserve dedicated for Public Recreation.Parish Map 1916 Note Watt Street Park Entrance, Park Drive and Bowling Green.

Entrance Gates to King Edward Park donated by Joseph Wood to mark 50 years in Newcastle. Officially opened 1907. Note entrance and location of the Park Drive on Parish Map above.

Important public walkway and promenade linking and integrating the Headland Reserve and the King Edward Park and Fletcher Park. Formal concept featured in Plan of Management.

General Layout contrary to PoM provides no pedestrian promenade vantage points

Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc. believes that the principle matter that is required to be considered in the assessment of development application DA 10/1735 is that the layout proposed is contrary to the intention of the Plan of Management for King Edward Headland Reserve No.1011189. The PoM is dated August 2007 and the concept plan summing up the provisions of the plan is located at the end of the Plan of Management document.

Subsection 114 (2) of the Crown Lands Act states.

(2) If a plan of management is adopted:
(a) the reserve trust shall carry out and give effect to it, and
(b) no operations may be undertaken on or in relation to the reserve unless they are in accordance
with the plan.

Council Council’s attention is drawn to the fact that Reserve 1011189 for public recreation is controlled by an adopted plan of Management and that the PoM is relevant to the provisions of the Newcastle Council LEP 2003 and the Draft LEP should be considered. The diagram in the Expressions of Interest reiterates the principles underlying the Plan of Management concept plan.

Heritage of the Park and the convict mining History.

The function centre as proposed is principally a private commercial venture sited in a position contrary to the PoM that denies the public the right to its headland reserve and public vantage points.

The development proposal does not relate to the development to the cultural needs of the Newcastle community or address the interpretation of the unique military and convict colonial mining heritage of the site. Special acknowledgement should be made in the development to the Aboriginal cultural heritage of the location known to the aboriginal people as Yi-ran- na- li.

The earlier park entrance with its ornamental gates donated to the Newcastle Borough Council by Joseph Wood and the alignment of the carriageway should also be reflected in the layout.

Furthermore the location of the original Bowling Green and Club House as shown on the part of the 1916 Parish Map enclosed should be integrated in the design.

Failure to address these significant principles together with a layout that does not truly develop the headland reserve as a place of public recreation with public vantage points is sufficient reason to reject the current design. Council is also reminded that the Headland Reserve is within Newcastle ’s premier Public Park originally dedicated and notified in the Government Gazette July 16 1863 folio 1545 on the request of the Municipal Corporation of Newcastle conveyed to the NSW Legislative Assembly by Mr Hannell MLA Newcastle’s first Mayor.

The importance of this significant site and of the requirement to conserve the natural advantages and character of the land for the enjoyment of the general public cannot be overstated. The current proposal would permanently alienate the reserve the coastal scenery and deny the general public full
access to their reserve.

The former Bowling Club Lease was revoked because of the corrupt operation that had been allowed to develop and because the Club had not been operating within its lease conditions. It was in conflict with the reserve dedication, the local community and the Department of Lands.

We believe that Council and Trust Managers are obliged to follow the sound concepts of the Plan of Management in accordance with the Crown Lands Act 1989.

The Newcastle City Bowling Club had occupied and enjoyed a privileged position in the park but there has not been a Bowling Cub for many years and the derelict buildings were allowed to dominate the King Edward Park for far to long. We object to the erection of new buildings contrary to the Concept Plan that would dominate the King Edward Park to an even greater extent than the former dilapidated buildings.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is pleased to submit supplementary information and illustrations to further explain our objections by reference to the points made in our principal objection submitted by Email on the 3rd of February 2011 and kindly acknowledged by Senior Development Officer Wesley Wilson 8/2/2011.

The Movement thanks the Newcastle City Council for the opportunity to comment on the Development Application 10/1735 for the dedicated King Edward Headland Reserve.

Yours sincerely

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

The Closure of David Jones

2011-02-19T22:51:00.003+11:00

The closure of the David Jones store in the Citycentre of Newcastle this weekend is further evidence that Newcastle's Revitalisation strategy may be wrong.‏

The letter enclosed was published in the Newcastle Herald recently and answered by Councillor Buman but he missed the point that David Jones had been trading in the area for more than 50 years and GPT was never more than a vision.

Please look at the enclosed Herald cutting from 1988 establishing the Citycentre and the Local Rate.

The City has been aggressively hammering the same rail target for more than twenty years.

Yet City Rail has been bringing the same number of passengers to the city with a modest increase every year at no cost whatsoever to the city ratepayers.

The visions of rail removal are just visions unless there is an economically viable replacement.

The citycentre local rate mentioned in the article has been collected for revitalisation probably to the tune of many millions of dollars with little effect.

By 1992 $399.000 plus was being collected annually.

Is there something wrong with our revitalisation strategy? The loss of David Jones may be evidence of that.

I ask each and every Councillor to examine: are funds being collected by the CBD Local Rate and how are they being expended?

Letters Editor
Newcastle Herald
Newcastle

Friday, 28 January 2011

Dear Editor,

RE: The closure of the David Jones store in the Citycentre.

The closure of the David Jones store in the Citycentre of Newcastle is evidence that Newcastle’s Revitalisation strategy lost its way.

Newcastle has been revitalising in earnest for twenty years now. The news report of June 1988 summarised the revitalisation vision that Honeysuckle embraced in their approved scheme four years later.

“Newcastle’s central business district (CBD) was renamed Citycentre and aggressively promoted, with money raised by way of a local rate. High-rise apartments a privately funded Technical College with fee-paying students from overseas and federal offices were among the high priority proposals aimed at getting the City back on its feet”. An extra department store was to be established but now there is to be none.

It seems that far too much hope and money has been expended on pursuing ponzi visions of railway removal rather than sound incremental commercial development.

Ratepayers may ask has the money collected from the local rate for revitalisation been wisely spent.

Doug Lithgow

Bogey Hole

2011-02-19T22:47:00.000+11:00

The Honourable Jodi McKay MP

Minister for Tourism
Minister for the Hunter
PO Box 1816, NEWCASTLE NSW 2300

Dear Jodi,

You asked me to have a look at the LPMA proposal and comment re the Bogey Hole. I am sorry that I have only been able to get back to you at this time.

It is all a bit over the top as I said and unnecessary but thanks for arranging for me to see the proposal.

What is really needed is the repair of the stairway and renewal of the hand rails. This old photo shows the stairs when they were new and they just need renewal now. Note the handrail at the old dressing shed or cubicle level. That hand rail needs to be reinstated with access to the rock platform.

Regular maintenance is needed in such proximity to the ocean. The platform proposed is likely to be more dangerous that no platform.

The ocean side safety chain of course should have been replaced when the Council broke it.

You may have noted that all of Newcastle’s safety fences need renewal: Shepherds Hill the Obelisk etc. Thank goodness the fence above the bogey Hole has been repaired now.

Doug Lithgow
President, Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Filching Public Parklands

2011-02-19T22:43:00.000+11:00

Newcastle people should be very concerned at the efforts of certain interests over many years to filch public parklands

Newcastle people should be very concerned at the efforts of certain interests over many years to filch Newcastle’s public parklands for their own sectional or private use.

In recent years we have seen efforts to build around the Historic Nobbys Lighthouse in contravention of the Australian Constitution and the Commonwealth EPBC Act and by the misuse of the EP&A Act to allow the proponent to virtually approve own development. Merewether Beachfront Land was recently alienated for private Development contrary to the 1930 Deed of Conveyance from the Merewether family that the land be used for public parkland and no other use whatsoever.

Now part of King Edward Park Dedicated for Recreation Reserve in 3 July 1863 is in danger of falling to private hands under the title of ‘revitalising the coast’. We must now also try to ward off the private interests wanting to take part of Dixon Park for commercial uses. Dixon Park is another Merewether family owned land parcel transferred to Newcastle 1960 the deed is attached as a pdf.

Newcastle Council has before it in the form of a draft Civic Precinct Design Framework a proposal that would widen Laman Street into Civic Park remove the trees and the green terraced area and further despoil the Civic Park Fountain and its surrounds.

The Note below commencing ‘2/12/2008 Council Committee direct GM to sign a MOU’. That committee resolution was never adopted by full council and Council never properly authorised the expenditure to fund this new euphemistically titled Coastal Revitalisation Masterplan. (I did sight the committee resolution and searched in vain to find the adoption of the Minute) I found that that Committee was disbanded at the next Full Council Meeting.

The letter below was sent to the Minister for the Hunter and Member for Newcastle when we first heard about the attempts ant the MOU. No satisfactory explanation has ever been received to this letter which was sent on or about 13th of January 2010 12 months too late. A copy of the MOU was not made available.

I would be please if Colleagues would help get the word out about Public Parkland Alienation.

Cheers and best wishes

2/12/2008 Council Committee Pdf directs GM to sign Memorum of Understanding

MOU A pdf in Newcastle File

Mon 25/01/2010 12:21 PM Why a new secretly hatched Coastal Masterplan?

Minister Jodi McKay MP promotes a Masterplan for the Newcastle Coast (Letters The Herald 25/1/2010).

Parks and Playgrounds Movement warns the people of Newcastle: Beware!

The Coastal Masterplan MOU was signed by the Newcastle Council over twelve months ago but never officially adopted by full Council. The Masterplan has been hatched outside the normal transparent and open planning framework that has protected Newcastle beaches and its foreshore since statutory town planning began.

It is especially worrying when it is clear that alienation of coastal parkland is proposed.

Our coast is a scarce and priceless resource held in trust by our councillors for all the people of NSW. Newcastle Council already has a fully researched an openly adopted Coastline Study and all its parks and reserves are subject to official plans of management with open processes for change.

Why is this covert masterplan being promoted by the State at the unnecessary cost to the people of Newcastle?

Doug Lithgow
President

The Hon. Jodi McKay MP
Minister for Tourism Minister for the Hunter
Minister for Science and Medical Research Minister for Women

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Dear Jodi

Bogey Hole, King Edward Park & Coastal Management

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is pleased to note your article ‘Coastal development to fund infrastructure’ in today’s Herald 12/1/2010 and the previous article by Cr John Tate Lord Mayor about the Bogey Hole and coast published in the Herald 8/1/2010.

Cr Tate indicated that the Bogey Hole and the coast are owned by the Government and Council needs assistance in its management and that the Newcastle Council gave the Land & Property Management Authority $150,000 to prepare a land use plan.

Our coast is a scarce and priceless resource which is held in trust for the people of NSW. Elected Councillors and Members of Parliament as Trustees are expected to do all in their power to protect that scarce resource for the benefit of all people and tomorrow’s people.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is concerned that the terms of reference for a new ‘Newcastle Coastal Masterplan’ and the basis for its preparation have not been transparently published. Your article refers to a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) which to our knowledge has not been made public. Land use planning in the Hunter since 1952 has aimed to protect waterfronts from alienation and make them available for the public in coastal and foreshore reserves.

In regard to the Bogey Hole (SHR 1678) it is an integral part of the existing King Edward Park Crown Land parcel. It was formerly part of the 87 acres of the 2000 acre Coal grant to the AA Company retained by the Crown in 1824. King Edward Park including the Bogey Hole was dedicated for Public Recreation in March 1894. The Park has an absolute water frontage and Newcastle Council has exercised care control and management for the whole area since dedication.

We are pleased that the collapsed cliff top fence is now being reinstated and have requested that the safety chain around the pool be also restored. Furthermore we want the rusted out picnic tables to be replaced and the stairway to the pool be cleaned and drained at the side. These are simple day to day maintenance matters that do not need master planning.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement believe that it is important that a clear working relationship be maintained between the Department of Lands (Now named NSW Land & Property Management Authority) and the Newcastle Council as in the past.

However we must point out that we are appalled that Newcastle Council has allowed itself to be a party to a $300,000 dollar plan the reason for which seems to be aimed to alienate scarce coastal lands against the interests of the people of Newcastle. Your attention is also drawn to the Newcastle Council’s plans of management for its parks and the ‘Coastline Management Plan’ 2003. These adopted documents should be steering Council’s management of the coastline and attracting State Funding.

We would be especially pleased if you would make public the details of the Newcastle Council owned land at Merewether and the reason why it was transferred to the Minister for Lands by gift on 21st Aug 2008 (AE199231N) in contravention of the covenant running with the land. The Deed of conveyance clearly states “That it (The Council for its part and its successors and assigns) will at all times use and maintain the said land as a park or public reserve as defined by the Local Government Act 1919 and will not permit the same to be used for any other purpose whatsoever” (Book 1617 folio 944)

We request that you make available to the Movement a copy of the MOU and the terms of reference for the preparation of the Coastal Master Plan. Furthermore we trust that you will make sure that our coastal reserves and distinctive coastal heritage are protected from vested interests.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President, Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc

King Edward Park Proposed Development

2011-02-19T22:34:00.002+11:00

King Edward Park - Annie Street Commercial Pty Ltd do not have a lease or any tenure re: DA Function Centre on Former Bowling Club Site

Certainly the old convict Coal Mine Shaft (one of the earliest coal shafts in the country and southern hemisphere) should be accurately located opened and properly documented?

The proposal to cap it and hide it under a building should be rejected.

This land is Crown Land dedicated as Public Park and zoned as parkland openspace and recreation or RE1 in the draft plan.

The Minister for Lands is the owner Trustee for the people of NSW who are the beneficiaries of the trust.

The Minister as a Minister of the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament the Crown Lands Act 1989.

He must abide by the appropriate Objectives of the Act when deciding the management of this land: Section 10.

Section 11 sets out the principles that he should follow in the management of this parkland site.

The company proposing the DA is Annie Street Commercial Pty Ltd they do not have a lease or any tenure at this stage.

The company is a shelf Company with a nominal value of only a few dollars.

To have placed this DA before the Council they must have had a wink or nod from a Minister of the Crown probably not the Minister for Lands who is bound by the act.

What is going on and is there a MOU somewhere that should be made public for this public land?

Annie Street Commercial Pty Ltd has no tenure of the site and the alienation of this public land should be challenged now.

Perhaps any decision should be left until we have a new government and a new Minister and hopefully new ethical standards.

The Bowling Club had a perpetual lease but it had to be revoked because of the interlopers on the site and the unlawful deals.

Now is the time for appropriate development on the site serving the public interest?

The objectives of the Crown Lands Act are being flouted and the principles as set out in the act for management of Crown Land Reserves are not being considered. The development is too large and intrusive as a park development that should serve the park and public interests not merely private and sectional interests.

One storey is sufficient for this locality and it should not be placed over the mine shaft. The public must have free and unfetted access to the park side of any building on the site. The building is particularly objectionable when viewed from the south. It is the complete privatisation of this coastal location and should not be countenanced by Newcastle people. There has not been a bona-fide Bowling Club for more than a decade and it is time the area was returned to the people with a low key use of the site.

This sort of commercial development should be in Hunter Street Not King Edward Park it would permanently alienate the people’s land!

Cheers
Doug

Objects of Act
10 Objects of Act

The objects of this Act are to ensure that Crown land is managed for the benefit of the people of New South Wales and in particular to provide for:

(a) a proper assessment of Crown land,

(b) the management of Crown land having regard to the principles of Crown land management contained in this Act,

(c) the proper development and conservation of Crown land having regard to those principles,

(d) the regulation of the conditions under which Crown land is permitted to be occupied, used, sold, leased, licensed or otherwise dealt with,

(e) the reservation or dedication of Crown land for public purposes and the management and use of the reserved or dedicated land, and

(f) the collection, recording and dissemination of information in relation to Crown land.

Principles of Crown land management
11 Principles of Crown land management

For the purposes of this Act, the principles of Crown land management are:

(a) that environmental protection principles be observed in relation to the management and administration of Crown land,

(b) that the natural resources of Crown land (including water, soil, flora, fauna and scenic quality) be conserved wherever possible,

(c) that public use and enjoyment of appropriate Crown land be encouraged,

(d) that, where appropriate, multiple use of Crown land be encouraged,

(e) that, where appropriate, Crown land should be used and managed in such a way that both the land and its resources are sustained in perpetuity, and

(f) that Crown land be occupied, used, sold, leased, licensed or otherwise dealt with in the best interests of the State consistent with the above principles.

This letter was sent to the Newcastle Herald

The Letters Editor
Newcastle Herald
Bolton Street
Newcastle

Dear Sir,

Development in King Edward Park

The attention of the citizens of Newcastle is drawn to the under-the-counter ‘public exhibition’ of development in King Edward Park, 1 Ordinance Street, Newcastle. (On exhibition until 3 February)

The objectives of the Crown Lands Act are being flouted and the principles as set out in the Act for management of Crown Land Reserves are not being properly considered.

A firm commitment in the public interest is needed against the commercial over development of Newcastle’s premier public parkland. The current proposal is too large and intrusive as a park development that should be designed to serve the park and public not merely private interests.

The general public must be guaranteed free and unfetted access to and around any building placed on this important scenic coastal location.

Now is time the area was returned to the people with a low key public use for the site.

The sort of development proposed by the company Annie Street Commercial Pty Ltd should be in Hunter Street not King Edward Park.

Doug Lithgow
President Parks and Playgrounds movement

A Rail Based Solution to Historic Newcastle Station

2011-02-19T22:14:00.000+11:00

A Rail Based solution must be stressed to maintain cityrail services to historic Newcastle Station and protect Newcastle's foreshore from greedy property speculation. All rail crossings removed in recent years should be restored and new ones crossings created where needed. Rail is the way to go to Newcastle. See Cate Faehrmann’s question on the last day of Parliament.

NEWCASTLE RAIL SERVICE

Page: 23

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister confirm the Labor Government's current position in relation to cutting the Newcastle train line? Given that the Newcastle city renewal transport management and accessibility plan proposes to terminate the Newcastle line at a new Wickham station, will he rule out today, on the last day of sitting for the year, cutting the line at Wickham and maintaining the current service right through to the Newcastle terminus?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The New South Wales Government is committed to the revitalisation of the Newcastle central business district for the benefit of the people of Newcastle and the entire Hunter region. On 15 November the New South Wales Government released two transport studies that will contribute to the development of an Infrastructure Australia submission for the revitalisation of the Newcastle central business district. Both studies have been commissioned by the New South Wales Government and prepared by transport experts AECOM. The two studies have been provided to the Newcastle Central Renewal Steering Committee, which will develop the submission to Infrastructure Australia in consultation with local councils and the local community. The Government remains committed to a rail-based solution for Newcastle but recognises that work needs to be done to improve connectivity in the city centre. These reports provide some options for the steering committee to consider in consultation with the local community. Further questions on this process should be directed to the Minister for the Hunter.

Laman Street Trees and the Civic and Cultural Precinct Newcastle.

2011-02-19T22:10:00.000+11:00

Letters Editor
Newcastle Herald
Bolton Street
NEWCASTLE

Dear Sir,

Laman Street Trees and the Civic and Cultural Precinct Newcastle.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement were recently involved in litigation against the Newcastle City Council. Our action was taken in the public interest because it was manifestly unreasonable for Council to remove the Laman Street landscape without planning consent. Justice Biscoe however in his 36 page Judgment found that Council has power to remove the trees without planning consent. The case was a Judicial Review of Council’s decisions and did not consider the merit or otherwise of the removal.

The importance of the trees was identified at a design workshop earlier this year but a detailed plan for public exhibition was never prepared. A more experienced Council may have proceed in this instance with the planning of the precinct rather than remove the iconic trees before a plan acceptable to the community could be adopted.

It is now clear that there is no officially acceptable plan and that the risk factor for the trees was distorted by the belief that certain trees were “wind thrown” in the 2007 storm which was not the case.

Doug Lithgow

Blackbutt Reserve

2011-02-19T22:03:00.002+11:00

Blackbutt Reserve Didn't Just Happen - Speech Notes
(Saturday, 9 April 2005) by Doug Lithgow

It is important to realise that the Newcastle Foreshore and Blackbutt Reserve or Barrington Tops Civic Park etc didn’t just become parks they had to be fought for by the Community.

· Blackbutt had its beginnings in the economic recession of the early thirties.

· Unsuccessful auction of Kotara subdivision land. Area known as Blackbutt relatively untouched.

· It was owned by the London based English and Scottish Mining Coy. 4 blocks sold in Reserve. 2 to Returned Sailors & Soldiers, 1 each to Tom Farrell and Thomas Marshall. Tom R.E. Farrell originated the Blackbutt Reserve concept. Tom Farrell’s block Lot 51, 17acres 3 Roods became the first official part of the Reserve Gov. Gaz.March 4 1938. There was slow progress through the thirties efforts made by the Parks and Playgrounds Movement of NSW (Charles EW Bean Sec. David Stead, Dorothea Mackellar Vice Pres.)

· All local Councils were urged by Cardiff Heights Progress Ass.1937 to help buy a further 144 acres total cost 3,500 pounds. Lands Dep. paid 2,500 pounds.

· Final payment 730 pound paid 1940 by the City of Greater Newcastle (Greater Ncle formed 1938)

· The war intervened. Our Tom RE Farrell was a P&PM NSW member and started a branch here the Northern Parks and Playgrounds Movement. NP&PM started the Barrington Tops National Parks 1952 project split in 1956 to form the National Parks Ass. with Rod Earp as Pres.

· 1949 Blackbutt Res. Special Committee -new plans then shelved. Plans for a Trust, Aviaries a Zoo, Gardens etc. Council continued to block extensions to the 131 acres. Northern Parks and Playgrounds Movement formed 1952 Matters came to a head in 1956-7 with proposed subdivision of adjacent 266 acres of bushland purchased by Newcastle Council from the E&S Mining Coy.. P& PM called public meeting July 56 to have the 266 acres added to the Reserve. Widespread support. National Parks Ass formed Rod Earp P&PM President and Newcastle Alderman Joe Richley & Tom Farrell President. spoke strongly -Three of competing plans.

· A new Council 16 Nov 1959 adopted in principle the Special Committee’s proposal that the 270 acres be added 9 votes to 8. Full Council adopted the park plan 11 vote to 9. New plan prepared by G. Baddley, Engineer, E. Wilmot County Planner R. Earp NPA, J. Richley P&PM.

· Permanent workforce appointed to Reserve 1962 - one man and a youth. Picnic area and roads built.

· 1963 High School proposed for Reserve Alienation of 22 acres– Protest meeting and huge public Meeting in Town Hall. Conflict resolved when Minister for Education withdrew proposal. Lots of activity and development.. By 1966 Blackbutt described as a “Little Eden” ‘enchanting bushland’ a great blessing to City.

· August 1966 the Highway 23 proposal to cut through 3 of the valleys of the Reserve. The Blackbutt Action Committee set up under the leadership of Dick Woodgate as secretary. ‘Save Blackbutt” fight starts in earnest July 1967 when City Council reaffirms its support for the expressway through the Reserve. The fight raged on 800 people at a City Hall Public Meeting declared no expressway in the Reserve and the Expressway should be routed to the West of Lake Macquarie.

· Further meetings 1972 and 1973. By Dec 74 there was overwhelming support for the Reserve. Federal Parliamentary Committee found that in no circumstances should Highway 23 violate Blackbutt. Peter Morris as Federal Transport Minister initiated the west of Lake as part of the National Highway Scheme.

· Blackbutt Landscape Study prepared 1976 proposed restoration Mine site implemented Nov. 1983 by Lord Mayor Joy Cummings. Comprehensive Plan of Management 1989.

· Improved Wildlife and aviary exhibits proposed 1992 and constructed.

· Continuing improvements to Blackbutt. Blackbutt is now ingrained as part of the folk law of Newcastle. ‘Dick became the Chairman of the National Trust Hunter Region

· 79 Newcastle organizations supported in writing the Reserve Proposal in 1957 and support is continuing. 180ha or 449ac still not dedicated until the 80’s.

Doug Lithgow

Laman Street Civic Precinct Design Framework

2010-10-18T12:24:00.002+11:00

Parks and Playgrounds Movement calls upon Newcastle City Council to officially exhibit the Draft ‘Laman Street and Civic Park Precinct Design Framework’ and resolve the design framework before contracts are entered into for implementation of the Laman Street section.

TO DOWNLOAD THE REPORTS CLICK HERE:
http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/news__and__events/laman_street_-_civic_precint

Please see the information provided below which sets out the history of Council’s action on the Precinct and explains the importance of resolving this design matter so that the design can be transparently determined and professionally implemented.

This is a very important matter in the heart of Newcastle and must be implemented in an open and transparent way and not by the clandestine techniques being used currently by the Newcastle Council which denies the people of Newcastle a voice in the determination of the design process.

The Civic Precinct is another project started by the Parks and Playgrounds Movement so many years ago and we have had to watch Councils over the years not really know what was important in the project and now move in a ham-fisted way to widen Laman Street into the Civic Park and cut the trees down before finalising a workable design acceptable to the community.

We are adamant that the design be properly and professionally determined implemented in a transparent way now.

We have had to urgently seek a remedy in the Land and Environment Court to prevent the Council misusing the Roads Act to widen Laman Street into the Civic Park and cut down trees.

I would appreciate your help in reading the statement attached and making representations to your member of Parliament and the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for the Hunter and the Minister for Planning and shadow Ministers too.

This is a very urgent matter.

Please Help.

If you would like to kindly make a donation to help defray court cost we would be very appreciative.

Thanks

Yours Sincerely
Doug Lithgow.

Laman Street Civic Precinct Design Framework

Parks and Playgrounds Movement calls upon Newcastle City Council to officially Exhibit the Draft ‘Laman Street and Civic Park Precinct Design Framework’ and resolve the design framework before contracts are entered into for implementation of the Laman Street section.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement have a long term interest in the Civic Precinct. We first placed a concept for the Civic Precinct before the Newcastle City Council which was received at the Works Committee Meeting of the 16/4/1968. Council did not have a professional Town Planner at that time and the concept languished. We had to lobby over many years to get Council to appoint a Planner. However Council began acquiring property around Civic Park and implemented projects such as the Administration Centre and Wheeler Place Plaza.

In the past decade and a half we have seen Council involved in proposals for the precinct:

1. the Allen Jack and Cottier Civic Design 1995,
2. Council’s Plan of Management for Civic Park and Laman Street 2000,
3. The Government Architect Newcastle Civic Cultural Centre Master Plan 2003.
4. The Civic Precincts Park Plan of Management Review and Public Domain Plan 2005,

The Civic Park Plan of Management (Point 2. above) was the only plan officially exhibited and formally adopted. (A requirement under the Community Land provisions LG Act 1993)
The professional development of the latest Precinct Design Framework and its implementation following official exhibition has been hijacked by the Council’s Asset Management Group with its exaggerated tree risk analysis and what appears to be the General Manager’s ambulatory powers under delegation to remove trees and widen the Laman Street into Civic Park.

This has prevented the proper resolution of the Precinct Design Framework in a transparent way with public scrutiny and ownership of the ultimate overall scheme and is to be deplored. Council’s own report of the 18th May 2010 recommended public exhibition of the Precinct Design Framework. This transparent process is absolutely essential in order for the Design Framework to be professionally resolved and transparently adopted for implementation.

The public may remember the way the Newcastle Council closed the unique Fernleigh Tunnel in 1996 on exaggerated risk grounds. This delayed the implementation of the Fernleigh Track for many years. The Track with its distinctive historic tunnel is now open and well used and is a much appreciated part of Newcastle’s public infrastructure.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement calls for the Public Exhibition of the Draft Design Framework for the Civic Park Precinct and its transparent resolution.

Does Civic Park Really Need Fixing?

2010-09-25T20:53:00.005+10:00

Dear Colleagues and citizens of the planet,

Please have a look at this Youtube clip:.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahYGhHlP3w

This short Video puts the finger on the Newcastle pulse and is clearly critical of the negative myopia of the Newcastle Councillor’s who on the 17th August 2010 decided:

“ The Hills fig trees in Laman Street Newcastle between Darby Street and Dawson Street be removed as soon as possible and replaced with a central line of Hills Figs as soon as suitable trees can be provided"

Such an action would put our Cultural Precinct back in the fifties.

It will take thirty years for the replacement trees to reach a mature form and a row of trees in not the cathedral quality we enjoy in Laman Street now.

Hardly the action of mature men and women with the city at heart.

Look about you see and acknowledge what is good and work to protect it for all to enjoy.

Doug Lithgow

Other videos:

Save the Figs: The 8 Stupid Reasons to Cut Down Nice Trees">Save the Figs: The 8 Stupid Reasons to Cut Down Nice Trees
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=uuDGEQn4wrw

The Perilous Figs of Laman St
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtlqyd3cojY

"HONK to save Laman Street Figs" , Newcastle.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6Paljl0sU

GPT Pullout Provides City with a New Opportunity

2010-08-28T20:49:00.002+10:00

GPT pulling out of Newcastle gives the city a new opportunity to identify the real issues and think of real people not just property speculation.

People with the future of Newcastle at heart may be interested in this letter P&PM sent to the Minister for the Hunter in July 2009. With GPT pulling out of their proposed Newcastle operation there is another opportunity to look at the real issues and the real people and not just the property speculators.

I think this letter is just as relevant as it was when it was written. It was the P&PM submission to the HDC Report. The HDC is not the sort of body that should produce such a report and it would be a disaster if this is to be their revised Approved Scheme under the Growth Centres Act slipped through as the 1988 Hurst CBD POM was. It sets out our attitude to the Report

Please read and forward on to friends if you think it a fair statement.

Doug Lithgow

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

The Hon Jodi Mckay MP Minister for the Hunter.
Governor Macquarie Tower
Level 37, 1 Farrer Place,
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Minister,

HUNTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report to the NSW Government
March 2009

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wish to respond to the Report on the HDC Web Site and a News Release from the Member for Newcastle and NSW Minister for the Hunter titled Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report to the NSW Government March 2009

The Movement does not share the News Release enthusiasm for the Report on the HDC web site.

The Movement has seen many visions and rejuvenation reports come and go over the past fifty years. Sadly it is at the time of crisis as with the current World Financial Crisis and the December 1989 Newcastle Earthquake that vested interests promote visions and reports with little consideration of the interest of the general public. City planning must serve the general interest of the public and not be based on property speculation and arbitrary individual wants.

To be effective planning must be based on a realistic understanding of needs and the morphology of the City and this is best achieved by sound incremental development that identifies and protects the essential heritage features that give meaning and understanding to the development pattern while recognising the potential and problems of the future.

Minister for the Hunter Jodi McKay said there is no hiding from the issue of rejuvenating the Newcastle City Centre and the NSW Government wants the community to help shape the future of inner-city Newcastle and the Hunter region.

The HDC Report is full of motherhood statements that it then denies in its detail.

The Report is unmistakably biased and prejudiced against passenger rail services which are in reality crucial to the 21st century liveable city.

The report boils down to a plea for more money for the HDC and for the Commonwealth to finance the arbitrary movement of facilities to new locations.

A perfect example of this faulty thinking in action was when the Royal Newcastle Hospital was removed after the 1989 Earthquake from the Newcastle East where it had an excellent location and public access, to New Lambton Heights where it was sited on the Highway 23 road reservation causing intractable problems such as the requirement for a new and more environmentally destructive highway relocation and transport and access problems. The removal of the hospital from Newcastle has been the single most debilitating action in the old town. The HDC and City Council have been hiding from this fact and blame everything else but themselves for their action. No amount of residential redevelopment can return the activity that had evolved in that area around the Hospital over nearly two centuries.

The report makes a plea for money to finance four principal projects:

    * relocation and expansion of the University of Newcastle’s campus in the city.
    * relocation of the Court house and legal offices to the Civic.
    * removal of railway infrastructure from the city and construction of interchange facilities near Wickham.
    * redevelopment of Hunter St Mall.

None of these wish list projects really require the removal of the rail infrastructure from the city to be initiated. Indeed all of the projects if really needed would benefit from the retention of passenger rail services.

Ironically it is the Madison Wing at the Hospital site that was the first real university push into the city and that is earmarked for demolition! Of course the university should be encouraged to consolidate its city campus and student accommodation but that will be much more successful with passenger rail services are retained.

The existing Court House precinct has a logic and distinctive presence that is capable of expansion where it is rather than be relocated at Civic. It would be far more logical to return the NSW Department of Planning to the civic where it would have a logical presence as it used to have when the Northumberland County Council and the SPA were located at the Civic.

The GPT suburban mall type proposal should never have been facilitated by the LEP for the CBD. It will destroy permanently the historic Dangar Axis which defines the old cathedral town and will overpower the pedestrian scale of the existing Hunter Street Mall area with its ugly elevated carpking structure. This elevated parking structure will also obliterate the historic panorama from the Cathedral. The existing Market Street –Queens Wharf –Cathedral (Dangar Axis) link should be emphasised by any new development in the Mall area. Newcastle Council had an excellent proposal recently before it that satisfied this important criterion.

The removal of passenger rail services from Newcastle as proposed would wipe out the opportunity of Newcastle to show off its unique sense of place and prevent the Newcastle Lake Macquarie and Maitland urban area from having a transit orientated future.

The following check list is provided to help understand what is happening to Newcastle.

Living City – since HDC the city has declined, principally because of the1988 CBD Business Plan which was meant to revitalise the city has unfortunately become a blue print for its demise.

The $100 million dollars Building Better Cities funding which should have been used to create a public domain foreshore park extending the Joy Cummings 1981 Harbour Foreshore Scheme through to Throsby Creek was not well used. The public domain foreshore parkland is still needed as the centrepiece of the Central Honeysuckle development. The Honeysuckle Approved Scheme Masterplan proposed a rail overbridge crossing at Wickham which should have been built at the same time as the Carrington Bridge with ‘Building Better Cities’ money.

Economic Diversity - should be encouraged by developing the natural and heritage advantages of the City Centre. The positive promotion of the city has never been attempted and it is always stories of woe. We have a magnificent theatre in the Victoria Theatre but it is empty and we never have promoted and developed the positive advantages of the Old Town.

Revitalise retail – It is not practical or in the public interest to try to make the Cathedral town of Newcastle a Charlestown like suburban shopping mall. It needs to retain its traditional character and be a speciality market orientated place something like the university Cathedral town of Durham in England or like the Rocks in Sydney.

Commercial Investment- since HDC and the city centre Committee, the inner city has fallen prey to property speculation rather than to sound commercial development. This HDC Report unfortunately is heavily skewed in favour of property speculation rather than practical public interest planning for a future city that will feature Transit Orientated Development.

Public Transport – the report as shown above struggles to thwart the creation of a public transit orientated city by being prejudiced against our existing passenger rail infrastructure. Passenger rail services have been an essential and distinctive feature of the city of Newcastle for over 150 years. Yes the services should be improved and modernised and trains should not be stabled in the open foreshore corridor. Improvements should be made to Newcastle Station. The grand entrance reopened and an arrival and departure concourse developed.

Criticism of 8 car rail sets with only a few passengers have been made but Newcastle is currently the end of the CityRail electric service and 8 car sets will only be full when special events are planned in the city on the foreshore. There is no reason why sets could not be more often split into 4 car sets at Gosford for services on to Newcastle. Special daily excursions should be organised from Sydney and the Central Coast to visit Heritage sites, the Convict Mines, Macquarie Pier and Nobbys, Fort Scratchley and Christ Church Cathedral. These things are merely operational details that can be altered to fit circumstances. Newcastle never promotes its natural and historical advantages. We hope that the current passenger bus fleet will be replaced by lighter electric powered vehicles in the new city of the future.. If there is an interchange to be constructed on the City Rail network in the northern area it should be as planned at Glendale in the Lake Macquarie Local Government area where it is more central and supported by all the local Councils.

The proposals for public transport in the report are not well conceived and are not in the interests of the public who use public transport.

Revitalising the Hunter Street Mall, Celebrating the special character of Newcastle and improving the quality of the public landscape and obtaining a better standard of architecture in new buildings are matters we all strive for but they will not be achieved until we truly identify the problems and potential of the existing city and promote the city in a positive and practical way.

Yours Sincerely,

Doug Lithgow Freeman of the City of Newcastle
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

GPT Announcement

2010-08-24T20:14:00.000+10:00

The GPT Group (GPT) announced it will withdraw from its proposed $600 million Newcastle development.

I realise that GPT is starting to open part of the new shopping centre at Charlestown this week but It could be thought that their strategy may have been to hold Newcastle until Charlestown was ready to be on line and not allow it to be in competition.

I can recall when the earthquake hit Newcastle in Dec 1989 the new Charlestown Square was being opened and the inner Newcastle was actually closed off with road blocks and a police cordon put in place.(This was a silly idea not of their making but was to their advantage) This gave Charlestown’s new Square a free start without competition. They have been able to steal a march on Newcastle this time with this latest body blow.

However it was always doubtful if their huge elevated car park slap bang in front of Newcastle’s Cathedral and the proposed internal shopping Mall replacing the open Hunter Street Mall would ever be a viable proposition with or without passenger rail connection.

GPT has actually had a strangle hold over the old historic City for too long and the City should now move to encourage a more sympathetic development as was proposed with the excellent Dangar axis stairway shopping and apartment project.

NEWCASTLE'S CIVIC PARK FOUNTAIN

2010-07-01T21:33:00.001+10:00

Ms Lindy Hyam
The General Manager
Newcastle City Council

Friday, 25 June 2010

Dear Ms Hyam,

Newcastle’s Civic Park Fountain

As you are aware the Parks and Playgrounds Movement has been concerned about the damage that was done to the Fountain by the Council at great cost in an ill-conceived effort to restore and maintain the fountain.

We were appalled when the fountain was stripped down and the copper forms annealed in a foolish effort to remove the dints that the forms had suffered since the fountain’s erection by Margel and Frank Hinder.

The Fountain is a work of art and the symbol of the Newcastle City Council used on every item of correspondence sent out by the Council. It is the central cultural embellishment in the Civic Park.

Other wrong things were done and even the surroundings of this unique sculpture of metal form and dynamic water jets were laid waste without careful thought or proper care.

I noticed as I passed the fountain today, Friday 25th June 2010, that the jets were still not operating correctly and that the patina has not yet been restored to the copper forms.

Council should restore the patina immediately and landscape the surroundings. This is something that can be done with minimum technical skill.

Also the ugly signs placed near the fountain could be removed forthwith and the intruding electrical control box painted an earth colour if it cannot be hidden.

I have enclosed a 1967 photo of the fountain showing one of two street Lights and white hand rail that council removed because they detracted from the sculpture. Past Councils did care about the city and its public spaces. It is disappointing that recent Councils have been uncaring and your Council needs to show that it has the City at heart.

The patina technique is explained by Frank Hinder in the attached excerpt ‘Hinder Fountain Patina Civic Park Jpg’ File.

It must be five years since Parks and Playgrounds Movement drew Council’s attention to this sad matter and for the sake of our city we would be pleased if these things could be attended to expeditiously.

Yours faithfully

Doug Lithgow President
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

KEEP OFF THE GRASS - HONEYSUCKLE OPEN SPACE

2010-06-14T18:39:00.004+10:00

The Editor

The Herald

NEWCASTLE 2300

Dear Sir,

Honeysuckle Openspace

Parks and Playgrounds Movement welcome the openspace push of Minister for the Hunter Jodi McKay MP (Keep off the Grass 12/6 The Herald).

However we would be more impressed if the Hon. Minister clearly directed the Hunter Development Corporation to prepare and publicly exhibit a Varying Scheme under Section16 of the Growth Centres Act. The HDC Growth Centre now includes every Local Government Area in the Hunter Region and their 1992 Honeysuckle Master Plan is utterly inappropriate for their extended Growth Centre.

What Ms McKay mentions as city planning errors of the past were in fact straight out flagrant disregard of statutory planning by the Honeysuckle Dev Corp at Central Honeysuckle! This was only possible because there was no effective oversight of the Corporation after 1997.

We need to revisit the vision of the former Lord Mayor Joy Cummings AM

Doug Lithgow President

Parks and Playgrounds Movement

To our conservation colleagues

It is clear that we need to begin setting out the issues and our views on maintaining the statutory zoning of our foreshore openspace and the protection of existing parks.

Furthermore the disregard of planning by the Honeysuckle Development Corporation and their non compliance with their own Act - i.e. The Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974, the foolish mistakes made such as:

- the buying the longshore Wharf and then demolishing it.
- not carrying out Geo-technical work at the early stage,
- wrongful advertising for Merewether Wharf development before rezoning in place,
- tearing up Wharf Road,
- building out the Flinders Cove without re-planning for the change,
- building out the views to the harbour while claiming to be opening up the harbour,
- not building the planned overbridge at Stewart Ave,
- removing rail crossing overbridges and level crossing.

Not to mention the complete disregard of the Joy Cummings foreshore initiatives of the 1980's.

The talk about light rail is just talk and the real agenda is the to grab the public harbour front including the Newcastle Railway station. (The HDC aim is to get rid of rail commuters first!)

There is a lot of work to be done just to get the above information out to the general public over the next 2 years.

We all need to take the time to understand the concept of the Honeysuckle Masterplan and the earlier Joy Cummings Foreshore Design with its protection of the public domain.

We need to write every couple of months on one or more of the issues otherwise the truth will never be told.

Cheers
Doug

WHO'S BANGING THE TABLE?

2010-06-11T22:48:00.001+10:00

I recently asked the questions in my letter (Copy below) and received the heavily padded answer with the essential confirmation.

"In May we mentioned that Council was partnering with Bang the Table to provide an independently moderated online community space for discussing public policy”

Is this an independent organisation?

Lobbyists are behind community forum site Bang the Table, see:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/02/lobbyists-are-behind-community-forum-site-bang-the-table/

That is bad news and the parternership should never have been entered into. Please click on the Crikey Hotlink above to read all about it.

We should see the Council Resolution authorising this action and the details of the contractural arrangements with Bang The Table should be placed on the public record. This is a very serious matter that needs further investigation to reveal the extent of what is going on and why.

What is Bang The Table is doing for the Council and why?

Also, what is the cost to the ratepayers.

Cheers,

Doug

____________________________________________________

Dear Newcastle Voice,

I notice that an article in a recent issue of the Sydney Morning Herald stated that Newcastle Council was using an internet company known as Bang the Table.

In what way is Newcastle using the services of Bang The Table?

I noticed their logo on a recent Newcastle Voice Email.

Is information from Newcastle Voice site being provided to private internet companies?

I would appreciate your immediate reply.

Yours faithfully

Doug Lithgow

Copy to General Manager’s office

__________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----

From: Stephanie Prouse [mailto:sprouse@ncc.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2010 10:10 AM
To: 'douglithgow@bigpond.com'
Subject: RE: Bang the Table

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your email dated 9 June and your interest in Newcastle Voice.

The Panel Satisfaction survey, sent to all members in December 2009, revealed that panel members are very satisfied with the operation of Newcastle Voice in many areas. However, specific suggestions for improvement were also received, including:

    * Feedback on consultation results
    * Feedback on impact of community consultation and how contributions are influencing decision-making
    * Survey design to ensure that the survey questions were clear, unbiased, straight-forward and not open to misinterpretation.
    * Timeliness of surveys and newsletters
    * Request online discussions as another consultation tool

In May we mentioned that Council was partnering with Bang the Table to provide an independently moderated online community space for discussing public policy.

We started hosting discussions in June on a number of projects. The discussions are open to Newcastle Voice members as well as the broader community. The online discussions are branded Newcastle Voice, as are all of our consultations – workshops, focus group sessions, information sessions, where the broad community is invited to attend along with members from the Newcastle Voice reference panel.

Newcastle Voice members were invited to join the online discussions and can decide not to participate/join if they wish. They are not automatically signed up to join the online discussions. Council manages the panel data and for privacy, and confidentiality reasons, rest assured we will not be sharing the panel information with Bang the Table or any other organisation. We are bound by our Privacy Statement. I am enclosing the link for your review.

Stephanie Prouse
Stephanie Prouse
The City of Newcastle
Community Consultation
P.O. Box 489, Newcastle 2300, NSW
Phone: (02) 4974 2144 (02) 4974 2144
Mobile: (02) 0428619778
e-mail: sprouse@ncc.nsw.gov.au

TAKE THE LEAD FROM HISTORY

2010-06-11T22:27:00.000+10:00

The Hunter Development Corporation (HDC) should be disbanded if they continue to operate without an appropriate approved scheme‏.

Dear Conservation Colleagues,

Parks and Playgrounds Movement have watched the Newcastle rail debate wax and wane since 1952.

There may have been some justification in down grading passenger rail then but it makes no sense in the emerging future. Balance between private and public transport in a transit orientated urban pattern is essential for the modern urban city.

Regarding the Newcastle situation I have enclosed the two concepts that have some statutory expression.

1. The Joy Cummings concept that is embodied partly within the current (in force) planning scheme. (Never properly implemented)

2. The other has statutory expression under Growth Centres Act 1974 in the 1992 Approved Scheme of the Honeysuckle (Hunter) Development Corporation.

The HDC should be disbanded if it continues to operate without an appropriate ‘approved scheme’ that has real relationship to their Growth Centre which now includes all of the Hunter Region Local Government areas.

Parks and Playgrounds policy regarding the Newcastle Old Town and the foreshore is simple.

Parks and Playgrounds movement supports the retention of rail services to Newcastle and the revision and full implementation of the Joy Cummings Newcastle Harbour foreshore Scheme.

We call upon the NSW State Government to vary the 1992 Honeysuckle Masterplan using Sec 16 of the Growth Centres Act and retain rail services to the historic Newcastle station. All the previous rail crossings, pedestrian and vehicular should be re-established and new crossings built as needed.

We oppose the removal of rail services and the closing and redirection of Wharf Road and the alienation of the Harbour Front and railway station area for Hotel, Retail and Mixed uses as proposed in the Honeysuckle approved scheme Precinct ‘D’

Doug Lithgow President
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

SAVE OUR RAIL

2010-06-03T09:35:00.000+10:00

Remove the Coal River section from the Masterplan

2010-05-21T23:25:00.000+10:00

Ms Lindy Hyam General Manager
Newcastle City Council
PO Box 489 Newcastle NSW

Dear Ms Hyam,

Coastal Revitalisation Master Plan: Remove the Coal River section from the Masterplan

I have been completely distraught by the so called Coastal Revitalisation masterplan and disheartened after a lifetime of work on the foreshore and the Coal River Precinct in particular.

I commenced consideration of this area as Secretary of the P&PM in 1968 when Council began planning for a car parking area around the southern edge of the Nobbys Headland with the Macquarie Pier to be used as an access!

Parks and playgrounds had been involved with supporting the National Parks Legislation through the Parliament at that time and we supported the Historic Site provisions of the Act. I used them to develop the proposal for the Newcastle East Historic Site including the Nobbys; the Convict built Macquarie pier and the first coal mine under Fort Scratchley. Countless thousands of hours of work have been expended on this area by me and by so many other citizens of this city over the intervening years.

Having been kept in the dark about the existence of the current Coastline Masterplan process for 12 months and being refused the Memeorandum Of Understanding (MOU) except under FOI, I am so disappointed to see the Council has spent public money on this document especially as it affects our public coastal parks and public reserves.

The whole masterplan process was a fraud against the public from the start and should never have been started let alone kept secret the way it was.

Public reserves and public parks are established for the benefit of the public not for vested interests and a public processes should only be used for their management. The unnecessarily devious approach to the whole process by locking out the public has tainted the resulting document and it should be set aside.

With regard to the Coal River Precinct, Newcastle Council has an adopted plan “The Pizzey Plan” and any proposed developments must arise from that plan not some new arbitrary planning approach.

The Pizzey plan had public drafts before adoption by Council and was funded by the Council $20,000 with the NSW Heritage Council picking up the remainder of more than $20,000. Mr Pizzey consulted with all authorities and people having an interest in the area of the precinct.

The Coal River precinct should be removed from the coastal master plan and Mr Pizzey brought back to address the Councillors and advise on the Coal River Precinct and the implementation of the Coal River Plan proposals as a matter of urgency.

I had requested that the General Manager do this previously because our new Councillors don’t know the amount of work already done and how non contributory development should not be countenanced in this area.

I would appreciate you informing the General Manager of my deep disappointment and distress at her allowing this tainted document being put to the public and asking her to remove the Coal River section from it because of the existing planning framework that should be used.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement reserve the right to make further submissions to this document.

Yours Sincerely
Doug Lithgow President

Call to the Minister to Stop Destruction of Merewether Surf House and Public Reserve

2010-05-18T03:22:00.001+10:00

The Honourable Tony Kelly ALGA MLC

Minister for Planning and Minister for Lands
Minister for Infrastructure
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council
Leader of the House in the Legislative Council

Dear Minister,

Stop destruction of Merewether Surf House and Public Reserve No. 56681

Parks and Playgrounds Movement urgently request that you call in all matters dealing with Merewether Surf House and Public Reserve No 56681 Newcastle.

The Newcastle City Council are Trustees for this public reserve and are proposing to destroy the Surf House building. This is an activity that should only be performed if there is a proper publicly available registered lease containing guarantees that the Crown Lands Act 1989 will be complied with and the Merewether family Deed of Transfer honoured.

As Minister for Planning and Minister for Lands we call upon you to consider the architectural and historic association of this property with the Merewether and Mitchell families who gave the land to the Council for public recreation.

The Trustees of the will of Edward Christopher Merewether transferred most of the Merewether beachfront to the Merewether Council in 1930 (Deed No 944 Book 1617). The Deed binds Council and its successors and assigns at all times to use and maintain the land as a public park or public reserve and not permit it to be used for any other purpose whatsoever.

As Minister for Lands you have held the title to this land as Public Reserve No. 56681 since it was transferred to you in September 2008 and would be aware of the Deed of Conveyance. As Minister for Planning your Heritage Branch will be able to inform you of the negotiations with the City Council and the required restoration of the Surf House building.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement respectfully asks that you will call in this matter and allow the Government to assess this matter within the principles stated in Sec. 11 of the Crown Lands Act of 1989.

Yours faithfully,

Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the city of Newcastle
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Sailor’s Rock Pty Ltd does not have a lease of Surf House land at Merewether

2010-05-10T15:50:00.001+10:00

A Title Search of Merewether Beachfront reveals that Sailor’s Rock Pty Ltd does not have a lease of land Lot 100 DP1130581 for the proposal in DA No: 08/1741.

You will recall that Newcastle Council in an effort to avoid responsibility for the restoration of the Surf House transferred the land to the Minister for Lands. The Movement is concerned that Council wrongly approved the development as a restoration/redevelopment of Surf House when clearly the proposal was an alienation of a Public Reserve dedicated for Public Recreation. Also the DA was inconsistent with the terms of the Deed of Conveyance of the land from the Merewether family.

The Trustees of the will of Edward Christopher Merewether transferred most of the Merewether beachfront to the Merewether Council in 1930 (Deed No 944 Book 1617). The Deed binds Council and its successors and assigns at all times to use and maintain the land as a public park or public reserve and not permit it to be used for any other purpose whatsoever.

The Minister for Lands now holds the title for this land as Public Reserve No. 56681 and is required to honour the Deed of Conveyance and consider the proper restoration of the Beach Pavilion.

The letter above was sent to all Councillors last weekend.

We had a FOI request into Council June 2008 but was not determined until 9 Nov 2009 (even then it was very much blanked out so much for transparency!)

However, we were able to establish that the Deed of Agreement between Sailors Rock P/t was signed by GM Lindy Hyam and Lord Mayor and Keith Stronach & Stan Panteleos in September 2008.

No lease had been registered up until last Wednesday therefore at this stage (last Wednesday) there is no Lease by any company or person.

The Transfer of the Merewether Land to the Minister was made by the Council on the 21 st August 2008 as a gift under Sec 134 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 under the signature of the GM and Lord Mayor.

On the 25th of September 2008 the Newcastle Council was made a Trustee of the gifted land. (Council was already the Trustee of the Baths area)

The Crown holds the Title and Council has been made Trustee for the public. So what was Community Land under the LG Act is now Crown Land and Plans of Management are no longer obligatory.

You must wonder what this is all about as we do.

Clearly Sailors Rock P/L has not taken up the Lease?

What Guarantees did Sailors Rock give to honour the Merewether Family Deed of Transfer to be offered a lease?

We hope that they were made because of the condition imposed by the Deed of Transfer from the Merewether Family in 1930. But we do not know.

The public interest has been left out of this matter since Newcastle Council began doing deals.

Enclosed is information about the building which is just a simple little building and could have been restored to its simple form donkey years ago.

Alienation of Public Land for sectional use has always been a problem in Public Park Management but has taken on a new drive by this Government.

Alienation of Public Parkland should be for a reasonable term 21 Years (No Bank would lend you funds for a commercial venture for such a long time).

Development in Public Reserves dedicated for Public Recreation must only be for uses that improve the public recreation and the test is, “what is the public access that is being served”?

The Merewether Beach Pavilion when it was in use was a public facility serving the recreational amenity of the beach area.

We are still waiting for answers?

Merewether covenant must be honoured

Parks and Playgrounds Movement believe that the Newcastle Council has dishonoured the legal covenant with the trustees of the will of Edward Christopher Merewether who gave most of the valuable Merewether beachfront property we now enjoy, to the Merewether Council in 1930. (Registered Deed No 944 Book 1617)

The covenant binds the Council and its successors and assigns at all times to use and maintain the land as a park or public reserve and not permit it to be used for any other purpose whatsoever.

Newcastle Council in its effort to avoid its responsibilities at Surf House transferred the land to the Minister for Lands as a consolidation of Land Title. It then encouraged and approved a commercial DA for the land which was clearly a denial of its responsibility under the covenant. Council claimed the development as restoration/redevelopment of Surf House when it was really alienation of a Public Reserve for private uses.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement endeavoured to reveal the truth by requesting freedom of information but our efforts were frustrated.

We call on the Newcastle Council and the Minister to honour the Merewether Covenant of 1930.

Doug Lithgow
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement
A Freeman of the City of Newcastle

National Park Newcastle

2010-03-18T15:16:00.001+11:00

To the Councillors of Newcastle City Council
and the residents and ratepayers of Newcastle

Dear Councillors in the first instance,

Newcastle Council needs clear Title to National Park Newcastle and the whole park must be Categorised as Park 36G as well as Sportsgrounds 36F.

It was brought to my notice that Councllors were concerned about Newcastle Council’s tenure of the land known as National Park.

I searched the Title yesterday, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 and I can report that Council does not hold a clear Torens Title of the land conveyed in the Indenture and possibly never will.

I don’t know what Council did last Tuesday night but I hope that they clearly resolved to obtain:

1. An accurate land survey of the area we now regard as National Park and apply for a clear title with the Council of the City of Newcastle as proprietor and to;

2. Crategorise the whole of the park as Park and catagorise the whole park as Sports ground to show good faith and clear responsibility for the park in the terms of the principal Indenture.

These things should have been done before the Council decided to enter into discussions about further leases and licences with anyone.

The land is Old System Title and is actually smaller than the area described and conveyed under conditional title in 1913. It has been alienated with encroachments since the original grant to the Council by the AA Company.

Council has however made an application for a Title to land at National Park on the 3/2/2009.

No doubt it will take some time to obtain clear title to the unincumbered land. The park needs a modern survey to identify the land and the encroachments. Agreement will need to be reached between the various parties that have an estate in the land before Title can be issued.

In the PPM response to the exhibition of the POM I referred to the conditional title of the land at National Park which was agreed and declared by the Council and the Company that the land would hensforth be used as a Public Park and Recreation Grounds. I also enclosed part of the original 1913 hand written Indenture which in legal terms is still the principle indenture..

The AA Company gifted many parcels of land to the former Newcastle, Hamilton and Waratah Municipal Councils but was unable to trust the Councillors to abide by the their agreements and declarations and therefor included provision within the indentures for the Company to reenter the lands if the Council should default.

On the 21/9/1972 The AA Company and the Council agreed and declared that the principal indentures could be varied to remove certain rights of reentry etc for the parks described in the various indentures. But the lands have never been accurately surveyed and clear title issued.

Sadly the area of land conveyed to the Council in 1913 was much larger than the actual area that is National Park today.

National Park Newcastle Dedicated for Park and Recreation Grounds (2/5/1913) http://tiny.cc/DP986

Yours Sincerely,

Doug Lithgow

IS THE NEWCASTLE BEACHES COASTAL RESERVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD?

2010-01-16T19:22:00.007+11:00

Newcastle City Council Coastal Reserves 2008 - Coastal Lands Plan from Fern Bay to Glenrock Lagoon - http://tiny.cc/24lCp

SPC 02/12/2008 DRAFT NEWCASTLE BEACHES COASTAL RESERVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - http://tiny.cc/1iQT8

Attached is also the draft Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) relating to coastal lands and binds to some extent the Department of Lands, Hunter Surf Lifesaving Inc. and the Newcastle City Council to create a new type of reserve (see the Map included in MOU) that allows commercial development opportunities to fund infrastructure and provide security of tenure for commercial operators to assist Surf Clubs. (One of the parties to the MOU).

This document needs close legal scrutiny as it seems that it aims to bypass the Crown Land and Community land plan of management procedures in contravention of the dedication of the existing reserve status of the

lands affected.

Furthermore it seems to combine the parties in a clandestine way into activities that may be against the public good.

Is this being done across the State? Many people are concerned in Newcastle.

I have requested that the General Manager of Newcastle Council provide me with the date when Council dealt with this matter and the details of the Council Resolution authorising the expenditure. ($150,000 for the Management Plan)

The draft document is dated the 19 November 2008 and documents a Memorandum of Understanding between NSW DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, HUNTER SURF LIFESAVING INCORPORATED AND NEWCASTLE CITY COUNCIL

DOWNLOAD THE MOU HERE (1 MB PDF) Direct link here: http://tiny.cc/dMgIR

Doug Lithgow

President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc

Freeman of the City of Newcastle

2010-01-10T21:42:00.002+11:00

Councillors
Newcastle City Council
City Hall Newcastle Friday, 08 January 2010

Dear Councillor
Bogey Hole & King Edward Park are part of one Land Parcel & are Heritage Items

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is pleased to note the excellent article by Cr John Tate Lord Mayor about the Bogey Hole and coast published in the Herald today 8/1/2010.

Cr Tate indicated that the Bogey Hole and the coast are owned by the Government and Council needs assistance in its management and that the Newcastle Council gave the Land & Property Management Authority $150,000 to prepare a land use plan.

Our coast is a scarce and priceless resource which is held in trust for the people of NSW. Elected Councillors and Members of Parliament as Trustees are expected to do all in their power to protect that scarce resource for the benefit of all people and tomorrow’s people.

In regard to the Bogey Hole it is an integral part of the existing King Edward Park Crown Land parcel. It was formerly part of the 87 acres of the 2000 acre Coal grant to the AA Company retained by the Crown in 1824. King Edward Park including the Bogey Hole was dedicated for Public Recreation in March 1894. The Park has an absolute water frontage and Newcastle Council has exercised care control and management for the whole area since dedication.

We are pleased that the collapsed cliff top fence is now being reinstated and we ask that the safety chain around the pool be also restored. Furthermore we request that rusted out picnic tables be replaced and the stairway to the pool be cleaned and drained at the side.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement believe that it is important that a clear working relationship be maintained between the Department of Lands (Now named NSW Land & Property Management Authority) and the Newcastle Council as in the past.

However we must point out that we are appalled and outraged that our Newcastle Council has allowed itself to be a silent party to a $300,000 dollar report aimed to alienate our scarce coastal lands and change their use against the interests of the public of Newcastle.

We also ask you to make public the details of the Newcastle fee simple land at Merewether that was transferred to the Minister for Lands by gift Aug 2008 in contravention of the covenant running with the land.

We Trust in your help to make sure that our distinctive coastal heritage is protected.
Yours sincerely.

Doug Lithgow Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc

Newcastle Earthquake - 28 December 1989

2009-12-16T10:54:00.016+11:00

AFTERMATH

Aftermath was written by Doug Lithgow one year after the Newcastle Earthquake

"It is vital that local government and the normal processes of the law are maintained and available to all citizens especially in the aftermath of an earthquake"

CITIZENS' EARTHQUAKE ACTION GROUP
December 30th 1990
Doug Lithgow a spokesperson

The first anniversary

The first anniversary of the Newcastle earthquake has passed and we remember the tragedy of those who died and express compassion for their families and friends. We remember the damage and the distress.

However, we also need to examine the aftermath of the earthquake from a community perspective to gain an appreciation of the special questions that were raised by the community at the time and the best way that these can be solved in the future.

The Newcastle community was unprepared for an earthquake and an appropriate and generally accepted emergency plan was not immediately available. Inappropriate police powers had to be used and normal local government did not function. The city administration used delegated authority, and with the Lord Mayor assumed civic responsibility. Some sections of the State Government were intent on demolitions and real estate development while the state opposition seemed unable to express constructive ideas. The normal processes of the law were found wanting in certain instances.

Unofficial Proposals for disposal of public land in Newcastle,
Most citizens were unaware that the Police Regulations Emergencies (Amendment) Act, 1988, had changed the law and given police power to arbitrarily remove people from areas that police think may be dangerous even private homes or business premises. Citizens were also unaware that proposals existed for the City Council and the State Government to dispose of many large areas of public land in Newcastle, demolish public buildings, cut the railway to Newcastle at Broadmeadow, and target the disposal of certain private land to developers.(Download link below: Hirst 1988 CBD Business Plan )

Concerned citizens knew that the earthquake was a disaster of national proportions, but to some in government and the administration, it was a golden opportunity. Extra police powers coupled with the unofficial proposals for disposal of public assets for development compounded the disaster and in the absence of normal public scrutiny, created conditions of irresistible temptation for opportunists and a disregard for the views expressed by the community.

On the day after the earthquake, the Minister for Health, Peter Collins, visited the city and announced that three wings of the Royal Newcastle Hospital would be demolished using the excuse of earthquake damage. The State Government also immediately took the opportunity to stop the railway at Broadmeadow and close the inner city. Many publicly owned buildings were emptied and demolitions proposed.

The community was alarmed.
Three days after the earthquake, on Sunday the 31st of December at 2 O'clock about two hundred concerned citizens gathered for a public meeting in National Park at the corner of Parkway Ave and Union Street on the edge of the cordoned off city. Newcastle historian, Margaret Henry, convened the meeting and each of the following resolutions were adopted unanimously:

1. The people of this meeting express their grief at the loss of life incurred in the earthquake and convey their condolences to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

2. That the meeting thank the police ,the State Emergency Service and other emergency services for their good work which has been very much appreciated over the past few days.

3. The meeting resolved that Council, as the community's representatives, be recalled immediately to regain control of the city.

4. This meeting expresses its concern at the threatened demolition of residential and commercial buildings in the city and asks the authorities to ensure that all buildings are secured and made safe so that work can be started on the proper assessment and restoration of these buildings, such assessment to be undertaken by qualified heritage architects and structural engineers. Further that owners of those buildings be advised of their rights concerning the preservation of their buildings.

5. That this meeting of concerned citizens request that the obviously dangerous buildings in the city be cordoned off and that the normal business life of the city be allowed to proceed as soon as possible.

6. Furthermore ,that all citizens be given the freedom to move in the city to visit friends relatives and loved ones that have been affected by the earthquake.

Other resolutions were carried requesting a moratorium on the demolition of the Royal Newcastle Hospital and public school buildings and requesting that proper assessment be made of the damage to all heritage buildings. It was further requested that methods of demolition used be such that materials from buildings could be saved for reuse.

The resolutions from this public meeting were immediately faxed to the city administration, the Premier of NSW, Nick Greiner, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, state and federal members of parliament, and the media.

There was no direct positive response from any organ of government and we now know that communications to the city administration were redirected to a public relations firm.

Citizens' Earthquake Action Group.
On 2 January, 1990, twenty representatives from community groups and from the Dec.31, public meeting met at Adamstown Heights. They endorsed the resolutions of the December 31st public meeting and formed the Citizens' Earthquake Action Group. They also adopted a submission to be sent to the Premier, the Prime Minister, and our parliamentary representatives, requesting urgent funds for detailed assessment of damage and the establishment of a Task Force to oversee the allocation of the funds and the procedures to be adopted during restoration of the city. A special submission was sent to Senator Graham Richardson, the Minister responsible for the National Estate, concerning the restoration of heritage buildings. The Meeting also elected Keith Parsons, Margaret Henry and Doug Lithgow to be spokespersons for CEAG and nominated representatives on any Task Force that might be established.

CEAG held three large public meetings in the first three weeks following the earthquake, and a further two meetings in conjunction with the Association for the Preservation of Technology. The last two meetings were held to advise householders on techniques in repairing earthquake damaged buildings.

Members of the Action Group were involved in heavy personal expenditure for phone, fax, photo copying and legal services. The group also letter boxed the inner city and the Hamilton area on several occasions advertising the meetings. The Citizens' Earthquake Action Group as well as advocating the protection of Newcastle's heritage, was busy helping people affected by the quake, endeavouring to protect their civil liberties and campaigning for funds from State and Federal Governments.

The first three public meeting held by CEAG generated a large number of actions and representations that had to be implemented. The group continued to carry out the wishes of the community as expressed at the public meetings even though there seemed little positive response from the authorities.

Demolition of the George Hotel and the Carrington Chambers
The extraordinary circumstances surrounding the demolition of the George Hotel and the Carrington Chambers on the 6th and 7th of Jan 1990, demonstrated the depth of the problems confronting the city. The council administration would not recognise the buildings as heritage buildings although they were listed on Council's Urban Design Study nor would it make available for public inspection the reports on the damage to the buildings or allow the buildings to be inspected by heritage and structural engineers. The Lord Mayor claimed that there may be an aftershock and the buildings were in danger of falling into the street. He had previously stated in his press release on the 1st of January that there had been no significant aftershocks in Newcastle's two previously recorded earthquakes and the risk of an aftershock was diminishing. (CEAG had been advised by earthquake experts that there was little likelihood of an aftershock) Many people were allowed to enter these buildings and remove fittings and material without being stopped by the policeman on duty.

Report of Structural Engineer 31st December 1989

Order to Demolish from Town Clerk 5th January 1990

George Hotel and Carrington Chambers Herald Photo 15 X 1990 162 Photo taken 9 days after earthquake and before demolition commenced ( City had been closed to the public)

Workmen spent most of the Friday night before the demolition removing material from the George Hotel. Other property owners were not afforded this courtesy.

Buildings demolished to prevent inspection by Heritage engineer
It seemed as though the buildings were demolished to prevent the National Trust's structural engineer and Heritage expert Colin Crisp from inspecting them to give an authoritative opinion on their condition. In the case of the Carrington Chambers, an injunction had been issued by Justice Stein in the Land and Environment Court to restrain all parties involved from demolishing the building.

The issues raised by the demolition of these two buildings were of such importance that a further public meeting was held at 4pm on the 7th of January at Cooks Hill. That meeting condemned the demolition of the buildings and insisted that all documents be made public. Twenty one resolutions were carried and the circumstances surrounding the disregard of the injunction were later referred to the ombudsman for investigation.

Royal Newcastle Hospital buildings
CEAG had the Royal Newcastle Hospital buildings, the North Wing, York Wing and Wheeler House inspected internally and externally by two independent structural engineers. The buildings had been stripped of all equipment in readiness for demolition even though they were subject to Heritage protection and were repairable. The York Wing was subsequently demolished before it could be officially inspected be the National Trust's structural engineer, Colin Crisp.

The 31 December public meeting had asked that a moratorium be placed on the demolition of the hospital buildings so that ways to preserve and recycle these buildings could be considered. The Mater Hospital at Waratah had also been badly damaged by the earthquake but the authorities there had only removed patients from the damaged wards so that they could be repaired.

Demolishers had free run while citizens were denied access
CEAG was concerned that demolishers had free run in the closed off city while ordinary citizens were denied access and made feel like interlopers in their own city. Citizens were unable to exercise their normal right to protect or salvage their own property. This was particularly damaging to those people who did not have insurance cover or had their property in rented or leased premises. A police officer in charge of Hamilton told the CEAG public meeting at Hamilton on the 14th of January, that he thought demolishers had the rights of salvage. CEAG's legal advice was that such actions would be larceny.

Post earthquake Construction Authority proposed
The January 14th public meeting of CEAG held at Hamilton, called for the establishment of a post earthquake Construction Authority to provide overall funding and asked that a Task Force be set up comprising representatives from federal, state, local government and the community, together with appropriate professional experts to initiate the required local projects. The meeting also requested that Newcastle Council's City Centre Committee be widened to include members of the community, the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, and consumers.
Newcastle City Council should have met
In the circumstances, CEAG, did all that could be reasonably expected of ordinary citizens and played a useful role during the aftermath of the Newcastle Earthquake. However, when we consider the problems that confronted the inner city community, it becomes obvious that the Newcastle aldermen should have met as a full Newcastle City Council immediately after the earthquake at a place accessible to the community.

The earthquake demonstrated that the City should be divided into wards as it used to be with aldermen representing each ward. Newcastle East, the City, Cooks Hill, Broadmeadow and Hamilton areas were all badly affected by the earthquake and had no local Alderman to represent them. We have no doubt that if the inner suburbs had been represented by aldermen the City Council would have been recalled as was requested by the first public meeting on December the 31st.

Newcastle people have shown their resilience and patience during and following this ,Australia's first, major earthquake. The costs have been high in life and property and are still mounting.

A special disaster plan is needed to meet the particular problems that arise in the aftermath of an earthquake and an urgent response from state and federal governments is needed to establish an authority that has the power and resources to bring together recognised professional structural engineers, architects, geologists and heritage experts to accurately assess damage, set standards and direct government funds for restoration.

An earthquake is a particular type of disaster: it can strike without warning, it is widespread and immediate in its effect, random in its choice of victims and extremely costly to individuals and to the community as a whole.

It is unwise in the aftermath of an earthquake, to have police, using powers that are more appropriate for emergencies like fire or flood, effectively deciding on engineering matters which relate to the structural safety of buildings. There should also be a simple way of allowing all owners to salvage their belongings or make safe their property at their own risk or with the advice of a structural engineer. An earthquake Reconstruction Authority and local Task Force as suggested by CEAG should have been assembled immediately following the earthquake. This would have allowed the SES to concentrate on their special role of rescue and protection of life. The authority would have provided an clear accountable avenue for the disbursement of federal and state funds to achieve specific publicly acceptable goals. ( See CEAG's suggested structure dated 29 Jan 90.)

There was absolutely no excuse for the authorities to disregard the injunction that would have allowed Mr Colin Crisp to inspect the Carrington Chambers or for their failure to use the legislation designed to protect our heritage. It is vital that local government and the normal processes of the law are maintained and available to all citizens especially in the aftermath of an earthquake.

DOWNLOAD THE 1988 HIRST PLAN

Doug Lithgow. December 30, 1990

MEREWETHER HERITAGE PARK SUBMISSION

2009-12-08T20:10:00.001+11:00

To:

Councillors and General Manager of the Newcastle City Council
Newcastle City Hall
King Street
NEWCASTLE 2300

Dear Councillors and General Manager,

MEREWETHER HERITAGE PARK SUBMISSION

Parks and Playgrounds Movement have nothing but praise for the wonderful work that has been done by the Merewether Landcare. We are conscious of the philosophy of the overall concept of their new initiative that they are placing before you this evening.

We acknowledge the work that has and is being done for the people of the City and for the Merewether environment.

Councillors and Council Officers are reminded that wrong things are done at times even with good intentions such as the planing of the invasive African Bitou Bush to revegetate coastal areas after rutile mining. The Bitou Bush escaped to become a scourge of the coast. The Merewether Landcarers have with their project shown the way to restore a much changed coastal landscape.

In our praise of today’s Merewether Landcare we would like to bring to your notice the Deed of Conveyance (Book 1617 folio 944) in which the trustees, William and Edward Merewether, on the 28th November 1930 conveyed to the Merewether Municipal Council much of the foreshore openspace we enjoy today.

The Deed of Conveyance states in part:

“That it (The Council for its part and its successors and assigns) will at all times use and maintain the said land as a park or public reserve as defined by the Local Government Act 1919 and will not permit the same to be used for any other purpose whatsoever

We trust that the Newcastle Council as the successors of the former Municipal Council will also honour the Deed of the former Council and appreciate the work and the Heritage Park initiative of the Merewether Landcare.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Lithgow
A Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Newcastle's Convict Legacy

2009-11-30T14:51:00.004+11:00

Dear Newcastle Councillors,

Item 44: DA 08/ 1160 Newcastle Council Meeting Tuesday

I hadn’t thought that I would have to write to you so soon after wishing you each the compliments of the season - but this matter is of National importance as well as being germane to Newcastle’s image.

With the work and vision of previous Councils in mind we call on Newcastle Councillors, the General Manager and the Council officers to consider the importance of our convict legacy and its contribution to the foundation of our City and to the wealth of our Nation and to protect the integrity of this uniquely Newcastle site.

Doug Lithgow
Parks & Playgrounds Movement Inc

Dear Councillors,

Item 44_ DA 08/1160 Newcastle Council Meeting Tuesday

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention, it is of great importance to the City that we follow through with the vision of the 1990's Council policy and plans for the site. Subsequent Councils have been strangely unable to give direction to the future and have lacked policy direction. The present council by making determinations at officer level have been remiss and further muddy the vision.

Our letter Attached and its addendum showing the Council plan and its Axonometric View for the layout of the site Dated 1994 together with the details of the funding that has produced the significant parkland area demonstrates the progressive nature of that former Council.

Our advice at this stage is that the building on the area proposed as Lot 4 be refused and the proposal be referred to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts under the EPBC Act for their consideration given the area's potential National and World Heritage significance and the fact that the Commonwealth provided the major share of the funding for the restoration and landscaping of the site. Parks and Playgrounds Movement ask Council to positively implement the vision so clearly presented by the former 1990’s Council for the Convict Stockade/Lumberyard. The vision and strategy are shown in the illustrations in our July letter and in the extract from ‘The Newcastle Experience’ A Newcastle Council Publication included.

We hope Councillors will be appreciative of our submission and give earnest consideration to this important matter and bring the vision of the Convict Stockade/Lumberyard site to fruition by beginning the process of acquisition of the new Lot 4 which is vital to the future image of the city.

Yours sincerely
Doug Lithgow

Convict Lumberyard - Objection to Building on the adjacent Lot 4 to the east [PDF format]

2009 - 57th Annual Report of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement

2009-11-27T08:54:00.007+11:00

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

57th Annual Report Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must thank my committee for their tireless work in the past year especially our secretary Pat Hide and Treasurer Suska Scobie also committee members Helen Smith David Horkan David Griffin, Robyn Millington and Bev Southern.

Every conservationist knows of the threat of global warming to our environment. We have known of it since being warned in 1959 by Australia’s eminent CSIRO upper Atmosphere research scientist David F Martyn in his ABC lectures “Society in the Space Age”. We the people of this planet seem powerless to change our carbon footprint and bring human populations and their demands on earth’s resources into a sustainable pattern. Does our civilisation just have to wait for environmental disasters and be ready pick up the pieces?

We believe that conservationists must redouble their efforts to protect our local and regional environments for tomorrow’s people and support those leaders who are working to see we have a future global environment worth living in. I would say we have only this generation to become sustainable.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement have over its life dedicated itself to that task. We acknowledge the wider threats and we do what we can but as a Parks Movement are in despair that the hard day to day conservation work of stopping alienation of public lands and parks and protecting naturalness and supporting altruistic planning is being made more difficult by so-called reforms like Part 3A which are about facilitation for speculators and not planning.

The Movement has kept in touch with our colleague conservations in the peak organisations: National Trust of Australia the ACF and the Total Environment Centre the Nature Conservation Council. And we have continued to support the Save Our Rail people and the Port Stephens Environment Lobby. It is good to see your committee members at the Green Corridor meetings.

We have been particularly active on the University Coal River Working Party.

I have represented the Movement on the Fernleigh Track joint Committee with the Newcastle and Lake Councils and on the Newcastle Environmental Advisory Panel and the Green Point Reserve Committee. Newcastle has restructured its committees under two committees of the whole with ten advisory committees to be appointed. The Movement has not nominated for representatives on any of the ten committees but the new committee should review this.

To give you some idea with the problems of park alienation you need to look no further that Enterprise Park / Convict Stockade and the Foreshore at Lynches Prawns which were surreptitiously zoned for mixed commercial in the CBD LEP 2008. The new buildings at Fort Scratchley that had no Local Council approval and at the Merewether Beach Pavilion and Beach front land are matters indicating wrong conduct. These issues are reminiscent of the problems the community had at Green Point with the Cardiff Coal Company interlopers.

The extent of the Merewether Estate Old System Title Land including Beach Pavilion Site

This year was the 150 anniversary of Local Government in Newcastle. The Movement is disappointed that the Newcastle Foundation Monument concept has not progressed and is embarrassing that there is no public place dedicated to the foundation stories which are so mixed up in the public mind. We had proposed that the monument reflect the concept of the 1909 Borough Council Jubilee Monument (Coal Monument) by symbolising the four foundation stories. How can Newcastle present itself to the world if it is confused about its foundation.

* Muloobinbah – Aboriginal dreamtime and place of sea fern.
* Coal River 1797-Shortland’s discovery of ‘a very fine coal river’.
* Coal Harbour 1801–First settlement at Colliers Point
* Newcastle 1804-Permanent settlement established under Lieutenant C Menzies.

Councillors are the trustees of Enterprise Park at Watt and Scott Street which is a crown reserve R97943. They were appointed Trustee for the reserve and notified in the Gov. Gazette 23/11/90.
Enterprise Park was the first part of the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore Scheme landscaped and dedicated in 1986 to mark the centenary of the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1886 – 1968. These lands are held for the benefit of the General Public of Newcastle and the historic Convict Lumberyard actually extends into Enterprise Park. An amendment to the City Centre LEP 2008 to correct this matter is absolutely essential.

Enterprise Park and the Convict site perform important roles in the life of the City. The area provides a distinctive setting for the surrounding historic buildings and also protects the archaeological relics of early Newcastle. The park is well managed by Council in keeping with an approved Plan of Management. We want the Council act as true trustees and protect the parklands for the benefit of the City and the community.

The Movement reinvigorated its work on the corridors for conservation concept following the successful Judgment in the Gwandalan Action Group V Minister for Planning, which sets out a clear chronology of events. We also adopted the Newcastle Old Town Strategy which has been widely circulated. We must work hard in the New Year for a new lower Hunter Strategy and:

(a) Campaign to have the NSW State Government recognise and establish a biodiversity corridor for conservation from Stockton Bight through the Hunter estuary to the Sugarloaf Range, and a biodiversity corridor for conservation in the Wyong/Lake Macquarie buffer zone from the Wallarah Peninsular to the Watagans.

(b) Urge the NSW Government to amend the existing statutory Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989 and any future Lower Hunter Planning Strategy , to include these corridors as inviolate conservation zones and to dedicate Nature Reserves, National Parks Regional Parks and State Conservation Areas within these corridors.

(c) Reaffirm its support for the retention of passenger rail services to the historic Newcastle Railway Station and recommend to the NSW Government that the Regional Planning Strategy encourage urban development adjacent to railway stations in the rail transport corridor.

In response to the divisive HDC Renewal Report March 2009, Parks and Playgrounds Movement decided to promote the Newcastle Old Town Strategy. This strategy should not be construed to suggest that existing university facilities that relate to the Civic Area be relocated. However it does make it quite clear that we firmly believe that the Legal facilities should remain in the old town and that the rail must stay as part of a Transit Orientated future city and district and that the unique unity of the old town must be identified maintained and promoted.

Acknowledgement: Architectural illustrations by Charles Martin

Newcastle needs a City Strategy that combines the completion of the Area 1 of the 1981 Joy Cummings Newcastle Foreshore winning design public domain and the identification and promotion of Newcastle’s proud heritage and history and the formation of a Cathedral, University, and Legal sector within the Old Town Newcastle serving a modern transit orientated and multi centred Newcastle urban district.

The Movement notes that the URGE ‘United Residents for the Environment of Lake Macquarie’ is to disband. The Movement has been very active through URGE and well represented on their Management Committee. Our former Treasurer the late Jack Shield was Chair of URGE. However like many voluntary groups it has to fall to a small band of dedicated people to keep it working. Peter Morris the current chair and his wife Vicky have done sterling work with URGE and we wish them well for their hard earned rest and challenge ahead.

It was during Heritage Week 1987 (8/4/87) that the Movement called a Public Meeting at Warners Bay which was attended by over 200 people. That meeting established a working party to co-ordinate the many interest groups with concern for the welfare of the Lake Macquarie Environment and formulate a constitution. Another public meeting with over 200 people on the 24th of July, 1987 officially launched URGE.

On this 20th anniversary of the Newcastle Earthquake it is interesting to read the Aftermath Report I made for the Citizens Earthquake Action Croup and the Movement exactly one year after the event and the problems that faced the city and its people. The City was closed off, the railway was cut at Broadmeadow and the many buildings arbitrarily demolished. The issue was brought to a head with the George Hotel and the Carrington Chambers court injunction but the buildings were razed to the ground to prevent them being assessed by the National Trust heritage engineer Colin Crisp.

I thank my Committee and all members for their support and wish you well in the future.

Click here for the PDF version of this Report - http://tiny.cc/EUJrq
Click here for the TEXT only version of this Report - http://tiny.cc/MoIIb

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc

http://parksandplaygroundsmovement.blogspot.com/

Enterprise Park

2009-11-16T17:07:00.003+11:00

Councillors and Officers of the Newcastle City Council
Newcastle City Council;
City Hall and Administrative Centre
King Street
NEWCASTLE NSW 2300

Dear Officers and Councillors,

Council is trustee for Enterprise Scott and Watt Streets Newcastle

Parks and Playgrounds Movement are sharply aware that probity and good management are the hallmarks of successful Local Government.

Councillors as the Newcastle City Council are the trustees of Enterprise Park at Watt and Scott Street which is a crown reserve R97943. Council was appointed Trustee for the reserve and notified in the Gov. Gazette 23/11/90.

Enterprise Park was the first part of the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore Scheme landscaped and it was dedicated in 1986 to mark the centenary of the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1886 – 1968 in appreciation to its service to the Newcastle Region. These lands are held for the benefit of the General Public of Newcastle. The historic Convict Lumberyard actually extends into Enterprise Park

The current problem was caused unintentionally during the drafting the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008. The error was only discovered at the end of the last Council’s term and I understand that an amendment to the City Centre LEP 2008 to correct this matter has been proposed.

Enterprise Park and the Convict site perform important roles in the life of the City. The area has been landscaped to provide a distinctive setting for the surrounding historic buildings and also protects the archaeological relics of early Newcastle. The area is well managed by Council in keeping with an approved Plan of Management.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement asks Council to inform the NSW Department of Lands that it intends to remain the trustee of Enterprise Park and continue to maintain the area as a historic park for the benefit of the City and its community.

We trust that Council will continue to remain trustees for this historic area of Newcastle.

Yours Sincerely,
Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the City of Newcastle
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Newcastle’s Convict Lumberyard and Enterprise Park are important city parks

Enterprise Park was the first part of the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore Park completed in 1986 to mark the centenary of service to the Newcastle Region by the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1886-1986. It was zoned for openspace in 1960 and the Open Space 6 (a) Zone should be restored as the appropriate zone for the park.

Convict Stockade Lumberyard

More than a million dollars has been expended by Newcastle Council, The Heritage Council NSW and the Commonwealth Government on the site archaeology and restoration. A $700,000contribution from the One Nation initiative of the Commonwealth was made in 1992and the Site was officially opened by the Hon Bob Carr Premier of NSW

The Convict Stockade Lumberyard provides a unique openspace setting for important historic buildings and is an especially important part of Newcastle’s convict past. It is of National significance and was Gazetted as 7 (d)Environmental Protection Heritage Site Zone by the Minister for Planning in 1992.

Under the modern planning scheme the Convict Lumberyard and Enterprise Park should be zoned 6(a) Openspace the same as the Fort Scratchley area.

Cardiff Coal Company Land was sold by Company interlopers

2009-11-11T21:32:00.007+11:00

Dear Minister,

I would be pleased if you would read this document because it is important that your Government shake itself free from the taint of inappropriate land dealing.

It is an outrage that justice had not been done in this particular matter and there is a lesson to be learned regarding the need for transparency and openness generally in land and zoning matters.

I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you or any Member of Parliament without prejudice and in the interests of good governance and judicial fairness.

Yours faithfully
Doug Lithgow

11/11/09

The Hon Ms Jodi Mckay MP
Member for Newcastle Minister for Tourism
Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Science & Medical Research

Dear Minister for the Hunter,

Company fraud and 20 year delay for justice.

Important dates and actions from evidence & research: Lunn V Savage Supreme Court NSW- Equity Division -. 3047/89.

Magna Carta, clause 40

"To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice” 1215.

I write to you as my Member of Parliament and request that you help your colleague Mr Robert Coombs MP, of Swansea place information before your cabinet colleague the Hon. John Hatzistergos, MLC Attorney General and Vice President of the Executive Council.

I laid information with the police in about 1995 regarding this matter and I was shocked when I recently heard that the Lunn Family were still seeking a remedy to the wrongs that had been done to them by the misuse of the Cardiff Coal Company.

After twenty years it is high time that this matter was properly settled, the Lunns compensated and that those people responsible for making false declarations brought to justice.

The Lunn family had won their actions in the Supreme Court even though the litigation was allowed to stretch out over ten years. They received a favourable principal judgment in April 1997 with wide ranging orders being handed down. These were tested in the NSW appeal courts and later by the High Court of Australia.

I specifically ask that you request the Hon Attorney General to use his fiat to direct that those people concerned with Company Law investigate and prosecute those responsible for the false declarations that have caused all the trouble in this matter since the early seventies.

I know about the activities of the Cardiff Coal Company because the Parks and Playgrounds Movement together with the Lake Macquarie Shire Council in 1957 had a proposal for parkland on the shores of Lake Macquarie. The proposal affected land Portions, 35A and 36A which were registered in the title of the Cardiff Coal Company. The Movement supported the Shire in evidence to the Ministerial Inquiry into the County Plan 1957.

A colliery named Belmont Colliery P/L had been operating a coal mine from a small Mineral Lease area on Por. 35A of the Cardiff Coal Company land from 1938 and the park proposal was not progressed partly because of the difficulty of locating people connected with the Cardiff Coal Company. Consideration of the park was not expected until after underground mining had ceased beneath the property.

In 1984 a large development proposal was announced by a person who was reported to be the owner of the land. A planning study was requested of the proponent by the Lake Macquarie Council and there was considerable public discussion about the land and the proposed park over many years. The proponent was protected at all time by the corporate veil.

About 1990 a development company announced its intention of buying the land for development. Prior to this in 1989 the Lunn family who were shareholders in the Cardiff Coal Company had started proceeding in the Supreme Court because the persons claiming control of the Cardiff Coal Company had relied on shareholding transferred to them through bogus share transactions. The Lunns sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the land to the development company but were unable to obtain the necessary order. However Justice Bryson handing down his judgment stated that there was a prime a facie case of forgery in respect of share transfers and that if those operating the Company had no warrant for what they are doing they may be liable to the Company and others for damages.

The Lunn family continued their action even though the land which was the principal asset of the Cardiff Coal Company was sold to a Development Company, McCloys Pty Limited

Ultimately Lake Macquarie Council purchased for about 3 million dollars part of the land for the proposed foreshore reserve and initiated the rezoning of the remainder for residential development in an agreement with the Development Company.

The Lunn family continued with their action and have had Judgments in their favour restoring their name to the share register, appointing a receiver to the company and ordering that accounts be made back to 1973. The defendant’s appeals were dismissed.

From the court hearings and judgments it seems that:

Interlopers may have been operating the Cardiff Coal Company.
Minutes had been written for meetings that were not held,
A bona-fide Board of the company had not held a meeting since about 1910,
Interlopers moved assets of Cardiff Coal Coy to their family company.
Share transfers had not been validly made,
The Cardiff Coal Coy had not keep books between 1973 and 1992.
The interlopers had not protected the interests of the company.
A typed Deed of Settlement to replace the original was adopted in 1916 at a bogus meeting.
The Deed had been typed with a typeface that had not been invented in 1916,
A “Cardiff Coal Company Pty Ltd” had been registered about 1976,
A trade name “Cardiff Coal Company” was registered about the same time.
A letterhead bearing the name Cardiff Coal Company was printed,
The Cardiff Coal Company was claimed to have been recommenced in 1976 but the General Meeting of Shareholders required was never called.
Conflicting affidavits were tendered to the court by certain persons.

I know from searches I have made at the Land Titles Office of NSW and by Freedom of information from the Hunter Water Board in relation to the 1948 water Tower erected in Crown Street Belmont and the Croudace Bay Road reservation in 1934 that the registered owner, the Cardiff Coal Company, could not be discovered and that the Belmont Colliery P/L had no title to the land. Both 1934 and 1948 parcels of land had to be resumed by the State Government.

A detailed Chronology of events up to recent court appearances is attached. Documents relating to each step indicated should still be available on the public record. I trust that the above summary of events relating to the Cardiff Coal Company is sufficient to convey the gravity and unexplained delay of justice in this matter.

It is exactly 17 years since interlopers sold the property and it is time that Justice was done and seen to be done. Furthermore there is a lesson to be learned regarding the need for transparency and openness generally in dealing with land and zoning matters. Please ask the NSW Attorney General to use his fiat in this matter.

Yours faithfully
Doug Lithgow

CHRONOLOGY:

CARDIFF COAL COMPANY (1863) FRAUD RE: POR. 35A & 36A PARISH OF KAHIBAH

Important dates and actions from evidence & research: Lunn V Savage Supreme Court NSW- Equity Division -. 3047/89.

Interlopers sold the Cardiff Coal Company land 35A & 36A at Lake Macquarie without warrant to a development Company McCloys P/L on 11/11/1992

Cardiff Coal Company Incorporation Act of NSW Parliament assented to 1863. (Deed of Settlement)

15 April 1910 ,19 April 1916, 22 August 1916, 5 October 1916, 22 November 1916, Were bogus Cardiff Coal Company meetings.1910 to 1938 –Minutes contained forged signatures and meetings that were not recorded in Wigram Allen (Company Secretary) diaries.

New Deed of Settlement bogusly adopted 1916. The Deed was typed on an English Imperial Typewriter manufactured between 1930 & 1967: (Tytell expert witness) Typeface used was not available in 1916.

5 April 1917 & 6 April 1938 Cardiff Coal Coy meetings are bogus entries in minute book.

5/4/1917 bogus date of transfer of Lunn & other shares to Blackwood.

17/12/1919 Caveat entered on title L. Blackwood, / V. Geary 13/1/1920 & J. Fletcher 24/8/1923.

2/2/1934 notified Gov. Gazette. Resumption part Por.35A CCC land for road purposes Lake M Shire.

7/4/1937 incorporation of the Belmont Colliery P/L. (Coy. obtains mining lease on Cardiff CC land)

10/5/1938 bogus transfer Blackwood shares to Belmont Colliery P/L - Stamp Duty paid in decimal currency on Transfer document. (Decimal currency was not introduced into Australia until 1966)

17/9/1948 Gov. Gaz: Part Por. 35A resumed by HDWB for water tower–Cardiff Coal Coy not found.

29/11/1971, 24/4/72, 22/5/1972, 27/11/1972, 12/2/1973 24/2/1975. Dates of Yacht Club Meetings where discussion of Cardiff Coal Co land was mentioned. - Copy of relevant Minutes available

22/12/1972 Belmont Colliery Propriety Ltd. shares acquired by Mr. Savage

17/2/1975 a company named Cardiff Coal Company Pty Ltd incorporated.

29/7/1975 a “Cardiff Coal Company” Business Name was registered.

31/7/1975 Cardiff Coal Co. Pty Ltd name was changed to Caralco Pty Ltd.

9/6/1975, 22/12/1975 22/3/1976, 10/6/1976, 23/6/1976, 23/2/77, 28/2/1977 (Yacht Club (Minutes)

17/5/1976 Mr Savage collects Cardiff Coal Company Records from office of Allen, Allen & Hemsley.

23/2/1977 Cardiff Coal Co. ‘reactivated’ by members of Savage family. L. Savage made Chairman.

25/2/1977 Application for new Certificate of Title Statutory Declaration by LH Savage Director.

1/6/1979 Real Property (Possessory Titles) Amendment Act 1979 proclaimed.

15/5/1980 Savage buys 25 Cardiff Coal shares from Harris Wheeler Williams, (T. Fenwick Estate)

13/11/81 Caveats lifted from Title on Request of LH Savage Director & JW McGregor Secretary under a seal of Cardiff Coal Company with Statutory Declarations of LH Savage & PJ Anicich.

Nov. 1982 Mr. Savage began writing to Lloyd family saying he was researching family tree. He obtained 50 Lloyd’s shares 1982). (Copies of letters are available)

3/11/1984 ‘Proposed $100 million development at Lake Macquarie’ Newcastle Herald (Cardiff Coal land).

10/11/1992 Injunction hearings to stop sale of land, See judgment Justice Bryson. (Pgs.5, 9 &10)

11/11/1992 Date when Company Interlopers sell Cardiff Coal Co. land to McCloys Pty Ltd.

14/10/1994 Interim Judgment Lunn V Savage case Finding: Forgeries proved.

10/11/1994 funds were withdrawn from Cardiff Coal Company. (Detail in Receivers Report)

11/11/1994 Date Court put a hold on withdrawal of Cardiff Coal Co funds

12/6/1996 Police charge Mr Savage with Perversion of the Course of Justice: dismissed on technical grounds.

6/9/1996 Judgment Lunn V Savage case Orders made: Shares restored, Receiver appointed, Account of dealings with property of Cardiff Coal Company to be made.

15/4/97 Receiver’s Report submitted to the Court

24/4/97 Judgment Hulme J: Part 1 & 2 Belmont Colliery never owned shares in Cardiff All transfers were forged Orders Part 1 &2 All documents be produced to Mr A Lewis Receiver.

9/3/1998 Judgment 1st Appeal CA40564/96 Dismissed

10/11/1998 Judgement 2nd Appeal CA 40564/96 Dismissed

18/6/99 Application for leave to appeal by defendants to High Court Australia Dismissed

25/10/02 Application to wind up the Cardiff Coal Company published Company Notices SMH

20/12/02 Lunn V Cardiff Coal Coy (5095/02)- Judgment Barrett J - Application Refused on technicality that NSW Law did not now recognise Cardiff Coal Company as a company.

29/8/03 Cardiff Coal Company Application to Wind up granted and liquidator appointed.

21/3/04 Supreme Court NSW No.04068 Cardiff Coal Coy in Liquidation V Sparke Helmore.

4/4/06 Supreme Court NSW No 3047/89 Order discharging the Receiver.

16/6/2009: The Cardiff Coal Company matter is still unresolved because the assets have been disposed of and income disbursed by interlopers. Liquidator & lawyers use last available funds. All Funds syphoned off between 1975/1992 have not been recovered.

For the pdf version click here: http://tiny.cc/10CD7

Proposed legislation that would allow arbitrary alienation of rail easements must be abandoned

2009-10-20T20:18:00.003+11:00

See ABC TV News Report:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/10/20/2719416.htm

T0:

Members of the NSW Parliament
Parliament House,
Macquarie Street,
Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Member of Parliament,

Thirty years ago the people of Newcastle campaigned to have their Harbour foreshore landscaped and the Coal River Convict Heritage site recognised and promoted. Progress was made but when the Honeysuckle Dev Corp was established in the early 90’s to take up the $100 Million Federal Building Better Cities money it wrongly focused on removing the whole railway when it should have concentrated on just removing the redundant industrial aspects. The improvement of the passenger rail corridor and restoration of the beautiful Newcastle Railway Station was a firm policy outlined in the official 1981 Harbour Foreshore Scheme and should have been promoted by the HDC.

The people of NSW are crying out for efficient and improved services. Not lengthened travel times and more inconvenience! The old steam Newcastle Flyer provided a more speedy connection to Sydney than the electric train services in the latest timetable!

The concept of removing passenger rail services is foolish and makes any plan that would make it easier to bypass parliament and remove rail easements is not in the public interest. Please oppose the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails) Bill 2009.

Yours faithfully,

Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the City of Newcastle

Click below for Old Town Newcastle Link
http://tinyurl.com/yzomtbf

Stockton Bight To Be Transformed Into A Wasteland

2009-10-01T16:28:00.005+10:00

Please find below my notes for an address I gave to the Port Stephens Council back in 1994. Less than 15 years later the World famous Sand Barrier and its historic and scenic treasure is being transformed to a waste land and its sand turned to land fill and concrete by the very people who we were told would want to conserve it as their heritage.

NOTES FOR ADDRESS TO PORT STEPHENS COUNCIL
February 1, 1994

What will we call it?

Hunter River Coastal Park?
Stockton Bight Coastal Park?
Newcastle Bight National Park?
Port Stephens National Park?

Sydney Harbour has its National Park.
Gosford has its Brisbane Waters National Park.
Port Hacking has its Royal National Park.
Botany Bay has its Botany Bay National Park.
The Hawkesbury River - Broken Bay has the Ku-ring-gai National Park.
Sydney also has Blue Mountains National Park, 247 000ha
Dharug National Park 15 000ha and more.

Newcastle Bight is the Hunter Region's miniature Fraser Island - A sand dune wonderland.

It is our only chance of obtaining a national park near to the lower Hunter centre of population. Action is needed now because the threats of development could obliterate the area in the next ten years.

The pressures are: sand mining rutile, sand extraction building sand and foundry sand also silica sand for glass making, fires, urbanisation, off road vehicles.

The Challenge is :

To incorporate and dedicate all the Public Land and Crown Lands in the Bight and the areas of high conservation value over the Hunter Water Corporation Tomago Sand Beds and to prepare a plan of management that will protect.

1. not just the unique surface with its magnificent fore dunes and forested hind dunes and closed heath lands its wetlands and miniature lagoons.

2. but also the open aquifer and ground waters that are our insurance policy for the continued supply of water in times of drought or when green algae makes pumping from dangerous. The urban habitability of this area into the long term is dependent on the protection of this easily accessible ground water supply.

It is important to ensure the provision of potable fresh Water - in Drought or when there is an infestation of blue green algae (Microcystis aeruginosa)

A National Park is a special public park that is of sufficient area to protect the scenic beauty and the natural quality or unique interest of an area and make it available for all to enjoy without impairing its distinctive qualities.

Port Stephens is an attractive area and the Newcastle Bight the sand dunes, sand beds and volcanic hills are its distinctive scenic features.

The holiday wonderland of our region - clear skies, clear water, and natural beauty.

The Challenge of the future is to keep it wonderful.

The fresh water in our open aquifer needs it protecting mantle of nature.

The trees shrubs and wild places that have constantly replenished it and protected it since time immemorial.

We can enjoy the natural beauty of the landscape and still maintain the quality of the underground water supply if we are able to establish a National Park and manage it properly.

The Challenge is to manage all our activities with a comprehensive plan of management that acknowledges the sensitivities and the potential but ensures that our activities do no permanent damage.

We have reserved land for military, water and forestry purposes but we have no reasonable sized National Park.

Sydney's great National Parks - Royal National - 15 h Dedicated 1879 1.3million people visited last year

Ku-Ring-Gai Chase - 14 838ha Dedicated 1894 1.2million people visited last year

The population of Sydney was less than the current population of the lower Hunter when these parks were dedicated.

Sydney's 2 great National Parks can be reached by public transport and are within a 23km radius of the harbour bridge.

We have Glenrock SRA - 478ha Not 4 000 or 15 000 and

Tomaree NP - 896ha Not 8 000 or 15 000

Why are there no reasonable sized National Parks in the Lower Hunter.

Do we not care about our great assets for some reason?

Perhaps we are unable to make our voice heard in the corridors of power. Perhaps Sydney has been lucky to have so many local government councils?

The Challenge is the establishment of a Coastal National Park in Port Stephens before the pressures become to great.

We would like to establish a centre for coastal management on the Bight.

We need to study the whole Bight.

We all need to get to know the facts about this unique natural system in its wholeness - solve the incompatible use problems - and together we will make sure our voice is heard.

Doug Lithgow
President
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Stockton Bight Sand Dunes by Mr Kevin Markwell [Newcastle Herald Thursday, 1st March 2001]

2009-09-09T13:46:00.001+10:00

STOCKTON BIGHT
by
Mr Kevin Markwell
[Newcastle Herald Thursday, 1st March 2001]

The somewhat belated announcement by Premier Carr last week announcing a conservation area in the Stockton Bight was bound to be met with a mixed response, given the range of stakeholders with competing interests in this valuable area. Aboriginal groups, recreationists including four wheel drive enthusiasts, fisherfolk, birdwatchers and bushwalkers, conservationists, tour operators and mining companies each value Stockton Bight for different reasons and each seeks a particular form of relationship with it. Some of these relationships are in direct conflict with others and are difficult to resolve. There has, however, been a long standing intention by various conservation groups to have the area reserved as national park as far back at the early 1970s. Whilst Bob Carr signaled his intention to create a national park there in his first term of office, he may well have been rather too optimistic about resolving the various interests in this area so quickly.

However, by creating a conservation area comprising three types of protected natural area, that is, national park, state recreation area and regional park, together with land leased back from the Woromi people, the Government has recognised the complex task of accommodating competing interests while at the same time attempting to minimise environmental impact, as well as disturbances to the various user groups. No doubt, these ideals were also tempered by a generous dollop of political reality – four wheel drive enthusiasts and fisherfolk are becoming as politically astute these days as conservation groups, and to have proposed a form of land tenure which effectively ‘locked’ these groups out of the Stockton Bight area altogether would not have been very wise electorally. Significantly, the government has also recognised the interests of local Aboriginal people through the 800 hectares of land which will be leased back from the Woromi people, the guarantee of five field officer jobs for local Aboriginal people, and in the establishment of a Management Board which will involve both Aboriginal people and NPWS personnel. Whilst such arrangements have been in existence for some decades in the Northern Territory, NSW has only begun to formally involve Aboriginal people in park management comparatively recently.

For those of you who have not had the pleasure of visiting this incredible landscape stretching for about 30 kilometres from just north of Stockton, where the Sygna wreck lies quietly disintegrating, up to Birubi Point in the north, it might be difficult to understand what all the fuss has been about. I’m sure many of you will have glimpsed the peaks of the dunes as you drive up through Williamtown on your way to Port Stephens, but to really appreciate the area you have to venture into the active dune system itself. For most first-time visitors to the area, it would be the sheer size and extent of the sand dunes which would probably have the greatest impact. These massive forms, sculpted by the forces of wind and rain, immediately impose a sense of scale which one doesn’t easily experience in other local environments. You truly have a sense of being in a wild place made up of mobile sand dune, freshwater wetland and the cooler calmer woodlands and forests on the more sheltered and stable inner dunes. A diversity of native animal species inhabit these ecosystems, the presence of many given away by the impressions left by their feet as they move across the dunes in search of food or each other.

A group of students I took to the Bight last year as part of a fieldtrip investigating recreational use of natural areas in the Hunter region were literally staggered to think that such an awesome landscape existed so close to Newcastle, and yet virtually none had ever known that it existed. The spectacularly crisp contrast of the crest of an enormous white sand dune in stark relief against a cobalt blue sky is something that has to be seen to be believed. Imaginations are often magically liberated in such wild places, and my students spent their time on the dunes prowling over them trying to identify the marks left in the sand by the various animals which live there (the camel footprints really had them stumped), playing as if they were

young kids again, and sitting down in quiet contemplation, looking out across dune and scrub towards the Pacific Ocean. As a place for recreation and tourism activities, the Stockton Bight area has much to offer.

Managing the area will be far from an easy task, and ensuring the correct form of activity within each of these ‘zonings’ is likely to pose considerable problems for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, especially over such a relatively small piece of land. For example, dogs are permitted within regional parks, but are not permitted in national parks, so efforts to exclude dog owners from walking their pets within the national park, when they can do so in adjoining land designated as regional park will be difficult to enforce. Of course the native birds and lizards won’t understand the subtle differences in land tenure!

At the moment, however, the area is largely unknown by the majority of its residents. But, with the designation of the conservation area, this could change dramatically over the next few years. The area is bound to increase in significance to tour operators based in Newcastle and Port Stephens, and already camel rides, expeditions in huge four wheel drive trucks and trike rides are available. The demand for activities which involve a bit of risk in such an awesome landscape will no doubt grow rapidly, and there are dangers in this. Uncontrolled and unregulated, tourists and recreationists can cause severe and lasting damage to natural environments, particularly those which for whatever reason are a little more fragile than others. The Stockton Bight ecosystem is one such fragile environment, which is so vulnerable to the natural erosive powers of wind and rain, the effects of which can be exacerbated through unsuitable activities such as inappropriate vehicular access and use, overcrowding, and even trampling from too many bushwalkers. Of course the sense of being in a wild place is also shattered immediately by the sounds of four-wheel drive vehicles and by RAAF jets flying so low overhead, and it is no easy matter, as the government well knows, to manage the intrusiveness of sound!

Given that the local tourism industry (and the broader economy generally) is likely to benefit from the declaration of the conservation area, I would like to think that the local industry declares its support for ecologically sustainable forms of tourism in this area. I often feel that the tourism industry doesn’t play an active enough role in lobbying for the establishment and management of protected natural areas, even though it gains much from these areas. There are of course some innovative examples of tourism and environmental conservation working in partnership, and here I am referring to The Dream Project sponsored by key players in the Dolphin Tourism Industry of Port Stephens, and some of the more environmentally aware accommodation providers in the Dungog area, but I think there is more room for the tourism industry to support conservation efforts. Greater involvement by representatives of the tourism industry in the earlier stages of such proposals would I think establish a commitment to sustainable tourism and recreation initiatives. I remain optimistic that an achievable partnership between the various interest groups and stakeholders involved with Stockton Bight can be negotiated and that management of the variety of recreational and tourist activities can occur in a sustainable way, so as to ensure the long-term protection of this area’s significant natural and cultural values.

Kevin Markwell

Newcastle Old Town - Response to the 2009 HDC Renewal Report

2009-09-08T22:39:00.002+10:00

In response to the divisive HDC Renewal Report March 2009, Parks and Playgrounds Movement have decided to promote the Newcastle Old Town Strategy. This strategy should not be construed to suggest that existing university facilities that relate to the Civic Area be relocated. However it does make it quite clear that we firmly believe that the Legal facilities should remain in the old town and that the rail must stay as part of a Transit Orientated future city and district and that the unique unity of the old town must be identified maintained and promoted.

Newcastle needs a City Strategy that combines the completion of the Area 1 of the 1981 Joy Cummings Newcastle Foreshore winning design public domain and the identification and promotion of Newcastle’s proud heritage and history and the formation of a Cathedral, University, and Legal sector within the Old Town Newcastle serving a modern transit orientated and multi centred Newcastle urban district.

Download the illustrated response here:

Newcastle Old Town - Response to the 2009 HDC Renewal Report (1MB)

Open Letter to the NSW Planning Minister

2009-07-26T17:26:00.005+10:00

The Email letter below and the attachments have been sent to the Minister for Planning the Hon. Kristina Keneally MP.

* What are the planning and development roles in the Hunter Region that have been given over to the HDC?

* Why did the HDC fail in the past to vary their Approved Scheme in accordance with their statutory obligations?

* What regional representation on the Board has been provided for?

* What actions have been taken by the Board to meet their statutory obligation to their total Growth Centre as constituted?

* What is needed to make their actions responsive and more transparent to the regional electorate?

The public interest requires that these matters are professionally and transparently investigated and publicly resolved.

The rail issue was made intractable by the failure of the HDC to comply with Hunter REP Central Honeysuckle amendment 3 over the past decade and HDC’s apparent unwillingness or to respond to the Government or the people of the region. This has been made worse by the recent HDC Revitalisation Report being so biased in considering the role of the railway and provision of passenger rail services to historic Newcastle without any consideration of their obligation to the Growth Centre as constituted for the region. HDC has allowed rail crossings and overbridges to be removed and not replaced and criticises lack of connectivity.

P& PM resolved at its last meeting to request the Minister to hold an inquiry or for the parliament to hold an Legislative Council inquiry into the HDC.

July 26, 2009

The Hon Kristina Keneally MP
Minister for Planning & Minister for Waterloo
office@keneally.minister.nsw.gov.au

Dear Minister,

Reference is made to my Email on 12/5/2009 and your kind acknowledgment and your letter dated 3 July 09 - D09/2844

Our Email 12/5/2009 Email read:

You can readily understand how this cut rail stupidity which has gone on since the Newcastle Earthquake 20 years ago has destabilised the city and damaged the ALP in its heartland. The enclosed letter reveals how this situation developed. It is in your power as Minister for Planning to direct that a legal varying scheme be developed by HDC and approved. This is essential if this matter is to be properly resolved.

Minister, the Parks and Playground Movement was pleased to receive you letter which we believe means that you have directed the HDC to submit a varying scheme in accordance with the Growth Centre (Development Corporations) Act 1974.

Newcastle had been poorly served by the HDC Honeysuckle Board operating without a proper Scheme even after the Minister Craig Knowles made Hunter REP 1989 Amendment 3 Central Honeysuckle Dec 1997. We were outraged when we heard recently that the Minister for the Hunter had asked the HDC Hunter to prepare a renewal report for Newcastle. We knew that HDC had no legal scheme for their Growth Centre which as you know includes every Local Government Area in the Region.

Since our Email the HDC has displayed a report titled Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report to NSW Government March 2009 and we are pleased to attached a pdf file of our letter to the Hon Jodi Mckay MP Minister for the Hunter. We ask you to consider our letter to the Minister for the Hunter as a submission to the HDC report.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement request that you initiate an inquiry into why the HDC did not comply with the strategic direction of the Hunter REP 3 Central Honeysuckle made by the Minister for Planning in Dec 1997 and why the HDC (Hunter) did not prepare a scheme for the Growth Centre as required by statute when they were constituted by parliament.

Furthermore we would be grateful if you would direct that the HDC Board act in a transparent way and seek the views of the people of the Hunter Region when preparing the their revised Scheme for the Hunter Region Growth Centre as set out in the Schedule 1 of the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 Viz. Hunter Development Corporation: All those pieces or parcels of land within the local government areas of Cessnock, Dungog, Gloucester, Great Lakes, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Muswellbrook, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Singleton and Upper Hunter as at 1 January 2008.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement would be pleased to participate in the preparation of a Scheme with the HDC and to place evidence before a public inquiry into failure of the Corporation to comply with the REP Central Honeysuckle or prepare a Scheme for approval.

We trust that you will enquire into HDC so that they are better able to fulfil their statutory responsibilities to the Hunter Region in the future.

Yours Sincerely

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Open Letter to the Minister for the Hunter

2009-07-22T22:51:00.005+10:00

The Hon Jodi Mckay MP Minister for the Hunter.
Governor Macquarie Tower
Level 37, 1 Farrer Place,
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Minister,

HUNTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report to the NSW Government March 2009

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement is a community organisation established in the early 1930s. Its secretary was the C E W Bean, the historian, lawyer and journalist. It was brought to Newcastle in 1952 by R.E. Farrell, and continues the work to safeguard our Natural and Cultural Heritage. The Movement’s early work included the protection of the openspace provisions of the 1952 Northumberland County District Town and Country Planning Scheme.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wish to respond to the Report on the HDC Web Site and a News Release from the Member for Newcastle and NSW Minister for the Hunter titled Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report to the NSW Government (March 2009).

The Movement does not share the News Release enthusiasm for the Report on the HDC web site.

The Movement has seen many visions and rejuvenation reports come and go over the past fifty years. Sadly it is at the time of crisis as with the current World Financial Crisis and the December 1989 Newcastle Earthquake that vested interests promote visions and reports with little consideration of the interest of the general public. City planning must serve the general interest of the public and not be based on property speculation and arbitrary individual wants.

To be effective, planning must be based on a realistic understanding of needs and the morphology of the City and this is best achieved by sound incremental development that identifies and protects the essential heritage features that give meaning and understanding to the development pattern while recognising the potential and problems of the future.

As Minister for the Hunter, you said there is no hiding from the issue of rejuvenating the Newcastle City Centre and the NSW Government wants the community to help shape the future of inner-city Newcastle and the Hunter region.

The HDC Report is full of motherhood statements that it then denies in its detail.

The Report is unmistakably biased and prejudiced against passenger rail services which are in reality crucial to the 21st century liveable city.

The report boils down to a plea for more money for the HDC and for the Commonwealth to finance the arbitrary movement of facilities to new locations.

A perfect example of this faulty thinking in action was when the Royal Newcastle Hospital was removed after the 1989 Earthquake from the Newcastle East where it had an excellent location and public access, to New Lambton Heights where it was sited on the Highway 23 road reservation causing intractable problems such as the requirement for a new and more environmentally destructive highway relocation and transport and access problems. The removal of the hospital from Newcastle has been the single most debilitating action in the old town. The HDC and City Council have been hiding from this fact and blame everything else but themselves for their action. No amount of residential redevelopment can return the activity that had evolved in that area around the Hospital over nearly two centuries.

The report makes a plea for money to finance four principal projects:

* relocation and expansion of the University of Newcastle’s campus in the city.
* relocation of the Court house and legal offices to the Civic.
* removal of railway infrastructure from the city and construction of interchange facilities near Wickham.
* redevelopment of Hunter St Mall.

None of these wish list projects really require the removal of the rail infrastructure from the city to be initiated. Indeed, all of the projects, if really needed, would benefit from the retention of passenger rail services.

Ironically it is the Maddison Wing at the Hospital site that was the first real university push into the city, and that has been earmarked for demolition! Of course the university should be encouraged to consolidate its city campus and student accommodation but that will be much more successful with passenger rail services are retained.

The existing Court House precinct has a logic and distinctive presence that is capable of expansion where it is rather than be relocated at Civic. It would be far more logical to return the NSW Department of Planning to the civic where it would have a logical presence as it used to have when the Northumberland County Council and the SPA were located at the Civic.

The GPT suburban mall type proposal should never have been facilitated by the LEP for the CBD. It will destroy permanently the historic Dangar Axis which defines the old cathedral town and will overpower the pedestrian scale of the existing Hunter Street Mall area with its ugly elevated car parking structure. This elevated parking structure will also obliterate the historic panorama from the Cathedral. The existing Market Street –Queens Wharf –Cathedral (Dangar Axis) link should be emphasised by any new development in the Mall area. Newcastle Council had an excellent proposal recently before it that satisfied this important criterion.

The removal of passenger rail services from Newcastle as proposed would wipe out the opportunity of Newcastle to show off its unique sense of place and prevent the Newcastle Lake Macquarie and Maitland urban area from having a transit orientated future.

The following check list is provided to help understand what is happening to Newcastle.

Living City – since HDC the city has declined, principally because of the1988 CBD Business Plan which was meant to revitalise the city but unfortunately became a blue print for its demise.

The $100 million dollars Building Better Cities funding which should have been used to created a public domain foreshore park extending the Joy Cummings 1981 Harbour Foreshore Scheme through to Throsby Creek was not well used. The public domain foreshore parkland is still needed as the centrepiece of the Central Honeysuckle development. The Honeysuckle Approved Scheme Masterplan proposed a rail overbridge crossing at Wickham which should have been built at the same time as the Carrington Bridge with Building Better Cities money.

Economic Diversity - should be encouraged by developing the natural and heritage advantages of the City Centre. The positive promotion of the city has never been attempted and it is always stories of woe. We have a magnificent theatre in the Victoria Theatre, but it is empty.

Revitalise retail – It is not practical or in the public interest to try to make the Cathedral town of Newcastle a suburban shopping mall. It needs to retain its traditional character and be a speciality market orientated place something like the university Cathedral town of Durham in England or The Rocks in Sydney.

Commercial Investment- since HDC and the city centre Committee, the inner city has fallen prey to property speculation rather than to sound commercial development. This HDC Report unfortunately is heavily skewed in favour of property speculation rather than practical public interest planning for a future city that will feature Transit Orientated Development.

Public Transport – the report as shown above struggles to thwart the creation of a public transit orientated city by being prejudiced against passenger rail infrastructure. Passenger rail services have been an essential and distinctive feature of the city of Newcastle for over 150 years. Yes the services should be improved and modernised and trains should not be stabled in the open corridor.

We hope that the current passenger bus fleet will be replaced by lighter electric powered vehicles in the new city of the future also. Criticism of 8 car rail sets with only a few passengers have been made but Newcastle is currently the end of the CityRail electric service and 8 car sets will only be full when special events are planned in the city on the foreshore. There is no reason why sets could not be more often split into 4 car sets at Gosford for services on to Newcastle. Special daily excursions should be organised from Sydney and the Central Coast to visit the Convict Mines, Macquarie Pier and Nobbys, Fort Scratchley or Christ Church Cathedral. These things are merely operational details that can be altered to fit circumstances. Newcastle never promotes its natural and historical advantages. If there is an interchange to be constructed on the City Rail network in the northern area it should be as planned at Glendale in the Lake Macquarie Local Government area where it is supported by all local Councils

The proposals for public transport in the report are not well conceived and are not in the interests of the public who use public Transport.

Yours Sincerely,

Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the City of Newcastle
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

HDC Report Threatens to Remove Passenger Rail from Newcastle

2009-07-20T21:36:00.003+10:00

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wishes to place the following supplementary submission before the inquiry because since our submission made on 23rd of February there has been a report made public by the HDC, that threatens to remove existing passenger rail services from the historic city of Newcastle NSW.

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Dear Sir,

Supplementary submission Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wishes to place the following supplementary submission before the inquiry because since our submission made on 23rd of February there has been a report made public by the HDC, Hunter Development Corporation that threatens to remove existing passenger rail services from the historic city of Newcastle NSW.

The Movement would have liked to place evidence before the Senate Standing Committee Inquiry showing that it is a misuse of the Hunter Development Corporation to have it prepare a Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report that removes passenger rail services to Newcastle.

The Corporation was previously named the Honeysuckle Development Corporation and had been operating without an Approved Scheme since 1997. We can show that it has not prepared a Varying Scheme pursuant to Sections 14-16 Growth Centres (Development Corp) Act 1974 even though its Growth Centre has been extended from time to time and now extends with its name change to include all of the Local Government Areas in the Hunter Region.

In our earlier submission we wished to show how the $100million dollars directed to Honeysuckle under the Building Better Cities Initiative of the Commonwealth Government in 1993 was allowed to be misdirected by an endemic bias against the provision of rail services to historic Newcastle. The Corporation had continually denigrated the importance of rail services to the City and allowed the removal of three pedestrian overpasses and two at-grade controlled vehicular and pedestrian crossings in their development area whilst at the same time complaining that the rail services created a barrier. The 1993 Honeysuckle Scheme proposed the construction of a road over bridge across the rail at the Stewart Avenue. This bridge should have been constructed using Building Better Cities Funds but was not.

Furthermore we believe that the HDC did not fully achieve the purpose of the $100million dollar Building Better Cities Program which was ‘to promote improvements in the efficiency, equity and sustainability of Australian cities and to increase their capacity to meet the following objectives: economic growth and micro-economic reform; improved social justice; institutional reform; ecologically sustainable development; and improved urban environments and more liveable cities’.

Any new passenger transport funding initiative from the Commonwealth Government should be clearly directed to genuine transit orientated development and funds should not be used for removal of rail infrastructure or degrade the provision of passenger rail services to Newcastle as proposed by HDC Report to the NSW Government March 2009.

The Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report prepared by the HDC March 2009 is clearly biased against the provision of rail services to Newcastle:

* It is not fair in that it denies social justice to public transport users and those that rely on passenger Rail services.

* It is arbitrary in its promotion of the construction of a new transport interchange at Wickham for its development without proper regard to the wider region and the already proposed interchange for Glendale in the Lake Macquarie Local Government area which is more central to the lower hunter urban area and on the main line.

* The Parsons Brinckerhoff Identification of Preferred Scheme used to justify the general recommendation to cut passenger rail services to Newcastle is wrong in claiming Railcorp policy on level crossings (page 9) means that no new crossing for vehicles or pedestrians can be built to replace those removed. We are not aware of any policy that would prevent the construction of controlled railway crossings in NSW.

* HDC frails to promote Ecological Sustainable Development by their failure to support the continued provision of passenger rail services to historic Newcastle.

* The argument that the railway is a barrier to linking of the CBD to the harbour cannot be sustained because it is the HDC that has allowed the removal of crossing in their original Growth Centre Area and has not promoted their replacement.

* The HDC Report is dominated by unsubstantiated claims blaming the Newcastle railway as a straw man argument. It claims to promote an integrated transport concept which it also denies by its lopsided and narrow focus against passenger rail services to Newcastle

Future urban development will need to be based around sustainable innovation and increased efficiency that replace oil and herald a renewable green and polycentric City. The transport options that support this new resilient urban pattern will have to be new electric passenger rail services for fast cross and inter-city movement and a series of small scale electric bus and hybrid electric vehicles and a resurgence of cycling and walking.

The HDC Report sadly takes the wrong and arbitrary attitude to the future of passenger rail services to Newcastle and should not accepted as a base for Commonwealth funding.

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement would be pleased to provide the Inquiry with documentation and oral evidence if called to the public hearings.

We trust that the inquiry will give weight to our submissions in its report to Parliament.

Yours Faithfully,
Doug Lithgow Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Below is our February Submission

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Dear Sir,

Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has been deeply concerned at the way funds from the Building Better Cities Initiative of the Commonwealth Government were allowed to be misdirected by the NSW State Government with respect to the Honeysuckle Development Corporation at Central Honeysuckle Newcastle.

We are totally opposed to the misdirected activities of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation over the past 15 years in continually denigrating the importance of rail access to the City and for allowing the removal of 3 pedestrian overpasses and 2 road crossings in their development and the current outrageous push to have the commonwealth fund the removal of direct railway access to historic Newcastle.

The Honeysuckle Approved Scheme 1993 adopted under the NSW Growth Centres Act of 1974 was flawed in that it did not acknowledge and blend with the 1988 Bicentennial harbour foreshore work which was partly funded by the a Commonwealth Grants used to implement features of the Winning Design from the International Competition that informed the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore Landscape and Urban Design which was published in 1982. The Competition was assessed by a team of noted Architects and landscape Consultants lead by Lawrence Halprin the internationally renowned Landscape Architect and Urban Designer of San Francisco.

The principal characteristic of the Foreshore design was the landscaped rail corridor providing a uniquely attractive rail entrance direct to the Historic Newcastle Railway Station.

The Movement would be pleased to present evidence to the Senate Standing Committee outlining why and how future funding can be properly targeted to improving all aspects to the railway access to historic Newcastle and promote historic Newcastle as a destination. We are adamant that commonwealth MUST NOT USE scarce public funds to further debilitate public railway access to Newcastle from its hinterland and the Central Coast and Sydney.

The enclosed essays are provided to demonstrate the Movement’s attitude to this issue and its opinion that Newcastle’s 150 year rail access and distinctive railway station is a boon to the city of Newcastle and can be integrated with future transit orientated development of the region.

Yours Faithfully,

Doug Lithgow Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Damaging Motion put and resolved by Newcastle Council without proper notice at Council Meeting 16/6/2009.

2009-06-18T22:30:00.005+10:00

Kirsty Ruddock Principal Solicitor
NSW Environmental Defenders Office
York Street SYDNEY 2000

Dear Kirsty,

Damaging Motion put and resolved by Newcastle Council without proper notice at Council Meeting 16/6/2009.

Please find the enclosed Draft Minutes for the Newcastle City Council Meeting 16/6/2009 dealing with proposed action regarding the Bullock Island Rail Corridor. The Notice of Motion moved and seconded by Councillors Osbourne/ Claydon was duly advertised for debate in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

As you can see from the Draft Minutes, an unrelated Motion was moved during the debate by Councillor Buman proposing adoption of a Report of the Hunter Development Corporation and certain other actions. This unrelated Motion was accepted by the Lord Mayor for debate as Part B of the Bullock Island Motion that had been properly placed on notice by Councillors Osbourne/Claydon.

You will note that the matter caused confusion in the meeting when the mover and seconder of the Motion on Notice objected to the extraneous motion being debated as part of their motion. Part B was carried after five of the Councillors walked out of the chamber in protest.

I would pleased if you could give the Parks and Playgrounds Movement legal advice on the whether introducing an unrelated unadvertised matter into a properly constituted Council Meeting is lawful and whether there is a legal remedy available to the Community and the Councillors affected when actions introduced in this extraordinary way are adopted by the Council.

Is the decision made in this way null and void or is the Council bound by this decision on the adoption of the minutes at the next Council Meeting as a true and accurate record of the meeting?

Your urgent help would be appreciated as the HDC Report adopted proposes the closing of the railway to historic Newcastle as well as many wide ranging matters concerning the future of the City.

Yours Sincerely
Doug Lithgow
Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President Parks and Playgrounds Movement
http://www.geocities.com/parksandplaygrounds/
Blog: http://parksandplaygroundsmovement.blogspot.com/

Subject: NOM 16/06/09 - BULLOCK ISLAND RAIL CORRIDOR

Councillor Crakanthorp had declared a non pecuniary, non significant interest earlier and retired from the Council Chamber prior to the commencement of the item.

MOTION: (Councillors M Osborne/S Claydon)

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1 the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park

2 the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and

3 the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (Councillors A Buman)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1 the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park

2 the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and

3 the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1 Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,

2 The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;

3 The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;

4 Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M King)

RESOLVED: (Councillor M King)

The meeting adjourn for a five minute recess.

The Council reconvened at 8.19pm.

POINT OF ORDER

That Part B be ruled out of order and is not relevant to the Notice of Motion.

The Lord Mayor advised that Part B addresses incorporates information which addresses Part A which addressed transport in the City so therefore he did not uphold the Point of Order.

Councillor Osborne moved dissent regarding the Lord Mayor’s ruling.

MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)

Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

The Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.

Against the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, M Jackson, M King, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor declared the Chairman’s ruling be upheld on the result of six votes to five votes.

RESOLVED: (The Lord Mayor)

Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

POINT OF ORDER

Councillor Nelmes raised a point of order in relation to the Foreshadowed Motion and that Councillor Crakanthorp had declared a non pecuniary, non significant interest due to his parents-in-law owning land adjacent to the Bullock Rail Corridor but he has not such interest on Part B which would not let him vote on Part B.

Councillor Nelmes stated that the HDC report is not just about transport. It was about very positive things such as moving the University to the City and how would such a topic have anything to do with Bullock Rail Corridor.

The Lord Mayor ruled on the Point of Order and declared that he did not uphold the Point of Order.

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion defeated on the result of four votes to seven votes.

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (Councillors A Buman)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1 the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park

2 the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and

3 the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1 Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,

2 The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;

3 The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;

4 Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M Osborne)

The matter be dealt with in seriatim.

A show of hands was called for which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: 7

Against the Motion: 4

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the results of seven votes to four votes.

RESOLVED: (Councillor M Osborne)

The matter be dealt with in seriatim.

MOTION: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1 the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park

2 the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and

3 the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Claydon, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes, M Osborne and S Sharpe.

Against the Motion: Councillor B Cook.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of ten votes to one votes.

RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1 the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park

2 the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and

3 the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

Councillor Crakanthorp returned to the Council Chamber at this point.

MOTION: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1 Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,

2 The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;

3 The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;

4 Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

Councillor Jackson moved a motion of dissent on the Lord Mayor’s ruling that Part B be considered.

The Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

A division was called and which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

Against the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion to uphold the Chairman’s ruling was carried on the result of seven votes to five votes.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor N Nelmes)

Part B lie on the table.

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Jackson called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion defeated on the result of five votes to seven votes.

Following the discussion Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne left the Council Chamber.

The Lord Mayor put the Motion to the meeting and declared it carried.

RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1 Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,

2 The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;

3 The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;

4 Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

Following this item Councillor Buman retired from the meeting at 9pm.

Submission to Senate Standing Committee re Commonwealth & State funds for passenger Transport with reference to Honeysuckle BBC funding‏

2009-06-08T22:11:00.000+10:00

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Dear Sir,

Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement is a community organisation established in the early 1930s. Its secretary was the C E W Bean, the historian, lawyer and journalist. It was brought to Newcastle in 1952 by R.E. Farrell, and continues the work to safeguard our Natural and Cultural Heritage. The Movement’s early work included the protection of the openspace provisions of the 1952 Northumberland County District Town and Country Planning Scheme.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement has been deeply concerned at the way funds from the Building Better Cities Initiative of the Commonwealth Government were allowed to be misdirected by the NSW State Government with respect to the Honeysuckle Development Corporation at Central Honeysuckle Newcastle.

We are totally opposed to the misdirected activities of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation over the past 15 years in continually denigrating the importance of rail access to the City and for allowing the removal of 3 pedestrian overpasses and 2 road crossings in their development and the current outrageous push to have the commonwealth fund the removal of direct railway access to historic Newcastle.

The Honeysuckle Approved Scheme 1993 adopted under the NSW Growth Centres Act of 1974 was flawed in that it did not acknowledge and blend with the 1988 Bicentennial harbour foreshore work which was partly funded by the a Commonwealth Grants used to implement features of the Winning Design from the International Competition that informed the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore Landscape and Urban Design which was published in 1982. The Competition was assessed by a team of noted Architects and landscape Consultants lead by Lawrence Halprin the internationally renowned Landscape Architect and Urban Designer of San Francisco.

The principal characteristic of the Foreshore design was the landscaped rail corridor providing a uniquely attractive rail entrance direct to the Historic Newcastle Railway Station.

The Movement would be pleased to present evidence to the Senate Standing Committee outlining why and how future funding can be properly targeted to improving all aspects to the railway access to historic Newcastle and promote historic Newcastle as a destination. We are adamant that commonwealth MUST NOT USE scarce public funds to further debilitate public railway access to Newcastle from its hinterland and the Central Coast and Sydney.

The enclosed essays are provided to demonstrate the Movement’s attitude to this issue and its opinion that Newcastle’s 150 year rail access and distinctive railway station is a boon to the city of Newcastle and can be integrated with future transit orientated development of the region.

Yours Faithfully,

Doug Lithgow Freeman of the City of Newcastle
President of the Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Merewether Surf Pavilion - Development Application No: 08/1741‏

2009-06-08T21:25:00.002+10:00

22 January 2009

Development Application No: 08/1741

The General Manager
Newcastle City Council
P.O. Box 489
NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
mail@ncc.nsw.gov.au

Dear Ms Hyam,

Development Application No: 08/1741 5 Henderson Parade, Merewether, Lot 100 DP 1130581

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wishes to lodge an objection to the proposed Development Application No: 08/1741 for the demolition of the Merewether Beach Pavilion/Surf House and erection of a three storey building fronting Merewether Beach on public parkland at Merewether.

Our objection is based on the fact that the development would be a gross overdevelopment on this public parkland. The proposed development makes no attempt to respect the heritage values of the site and introduces land uses and activities which have no place on this scarce ocean front parkland.

The Movement is particularly concerned because the Pavilion is an important example of the few surviving inter-war Art Deco public beachfront buildings in NSW and is the last surviving public building from the Merewether local Government Municipality.

The Beach Pavilion is Classified by the National Trust of Australia (NSW); Listed in the Heritage Schedules of exhibited Newcastle Local Environment Plan 2003; and listed as a heritage item in the official Heritage Places Plan of Management for the beachfront - Merewether Baths Precinct. Furthermore it is identified in Newcastle Coastal Management Study and Plan.

The Merewether Beach Pavilion (Surf House) was planned in the year of the Golden Jubilee of Merewether Municipal Council in 1935. It was designed by the leading Architects Pitt and Merewether; and was on land now partly owned by the Newcastle City Council, Merewether Family Estate and Crown Reserve. Mr. E. S. Spooner Minister for Works and Local Government opened the Beach Pavilion, in November 1937. The building cost 7,000 pounds to build and the State Government gave Merewether Municipal Council 3,500 pounds of that amount.

The building has accommodated the Merewether Surf Lifesaving Club, dressing rooms for the bathers, a Café, picnic bench and seats under the colonnades and a caretaker’s residence. It has been used as a soup kitchen by the Army during the war WWII. After the war it became headquarters for the Newcastle Life Saving Association and the venue for community functions and meetings.

The pavilion is elegantly and prominently positioned on the side of a sloping bank above Dr. James Mitchell’s old Burwood Colliery Railway line. The line was later used by the Newcastle Coal and Copper Colliery. It emerges from a tunnel still in existence south of the Surf Pavilion which connects through to Burwood Beach now Glenrock State Conservation Area. Dr. James Mitchell’s Coke Ovens foundations are also adjacent to the railway to the south. The concrete Merewether Ocean Baths were also opened as part of the Merewether Municipality Jubilee Celebrations. The importance of this site as part of a unified precinct cannot be overstressed and it is important that a design for the new building development be chosen that respects and contributes to Newcastle’s beach culture and the heritage of the precinct.

The Local Municipalities in the Newcastle suburban area including Merewether were united in 1938 under the provisions of the Greater Newcastle Act, 1937 and the Beach Pavilion became under the control of the city of Greater Newcastle.

Newcastle City Council organised two public meetings in 1998, for planning to develop a Management Plan with the public supporting the Council’s intention to respect and restore heritage and brick Pavilion. The current advertisement at the site calls for restoration and redevelopment –not destruction.

In 2003, the then Minister of Planning, the Hon Mr. Andrew Refshauge M.P. placed and Interim Heritage Order over Merewether Beach Pavilion/Surf House for further investigation which lead to a report by the NSW Heritage Office that the building has Regional Heritage Significance and recommendation was made that the building be retained and preserved. Council must refer to those agreements and correspondence between the General Manager and Lord Mayor and the Heritage office of NSW as part of this assessment process.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement wrote to the General Manager, Lord Mayor and Councillors in an effort to have the building restored to its original state and recycled. The existing pavilion is the most well designed, robust and attractively sited building in the immediate Merewether precinct yet considerable funds have been spent on repair and refurbishing storm damage less important beachfront buildings but nothing has been spent on the Pavilion. Surf House with its attractive colonnades with rectangular two tone brick openings has survived many decades of storms, cyclones and earthquake. The recent storms which severely destroyed adjacent buildings made no impact on Pavilion.

We are concerned that the development proposed will also impact the former Dr. James Mitchell’s railway and embankment which was owned by the Merewether Family Estate and is now part of the Newcastle Bather’s Way walking path. It will be closed off to the public and built over.

We do not want this public land to become another alcohol sales outlet in competition with the nearby hotel with more noise, late hours and possible vandalism affecting the public’s enjoyment of the beach the baths and the precinct. Furthermore we are particularly concerned that the overdevelopment of the site will exacerbate car parking problems at Merewether.

The further alienation of scarce ocean front parkland for narrow private development should not be countenanced by the Newcastle City Council. A clear view to the Merewether beach front has been acquired at great expense since the gazettal of the Northumberland County Plan in 1960 and the proposed development is directly contrary to the intention of every planning scheme that has been proposed for the area.

Newcastle can ill afford the loss of this regionally important Art Deco Pavilion building which was designed by Pitt and Merewether Architects: the grandson of Mr Edward Christopher Merewether of the Merewether Family who once owned and named the suburb of Merewether.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Doug Lithgow, President.
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Save Planet Earth – The famous Earth rising photo of 40 years ago

2009-06-08T21:20:00.002+10:00

Not long after WW2 in 1946 Americans fired a V2 rocket through the earth’s atmosphere with a movie camera attached. I remember seeing these images at a newsreel Cinema. Being able to see the curvature of the earth and the dynamic atmosphere revealed from 60miles above the earth for the first time was a remarkable experience.

Forty years ago last December we all saw for the first time the view from the Apollo Lunar Module of the living and evolving blue-green planet set in the black depths of space with the pockmarked barren surface of the Moon in the foreground. Astronaut Bill Anders photographed that famous scene for us all to see.

We had known the geometry of the globe since ancient times and circumnavigated and settled every niche but seeing this unique green planet as a finite speck in the depth of space is essential to a base understanding of our responsibility to care for and protect our planet.

Doug Lithgow
Parks and Playgrounds Movement

In October 1946 a captured V-2 rocket launched from the US Army Ordnance Proving Grounds in New Mexico, reached space by achieving an altitude of 342,900ft (104,600m).

A mounted camera, provided by John Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, secured a continuous motion picture of the Earth's surface to an altitude of 65 miles (105km).

Flight International

This is the way Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders saw and photographed that famous scene on their fourth orbit of the moon December 24 1968. It is not an earth rising really. It is the view from the lunar module circling the Moon.

The Sciences Nov/Dec 1998

What should become of Nobbys Headhead?

2009-06-08T21:05:00.005+10:00

We believe that the Nobbys Headland should be transferred to the National Parks Service for care control and management. They have an act of Parliament that charges them with the responsibility to manage areas for the public whilst protecting and promoting natural and cultural heritage values. This would require the state to bear costs rather than just the Newcastle Ratepayers. Nobbys is a nationally important site and even the Commonwealth could be asked to help. There are a number of other ways of doing things too eg .Cadman’s Cottage at Circular Quay in Sydney or Pinchgut Fort Denison both under the National Parks Act in Sydney Harbour.

Fort Denison - Sydney Harbour National Park

Fort Denison Photo Max Herford
Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour

Through the centuries Fort Denison went by many names. The Aboriginal people called the island Mat-te-wan-ye, Governor Phillip called it Rock Island, and later it became known as Pinchgut. When the fort was built the island gained its current name after the Governor William Denison.

Ever since the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, long before the fortification was completed in 1862, the island was used to imprison, punish, and execute criminals.

Today Fort Denison hosts a museum and Sydney's only island café, which caters for guests of the National Parks Discovery Tours as well as weddings and dinner parties.

Fort Denison is one of the Foundation’s for NP’s major cultural heritage projects. Through sponsorship from EnergyAustralia the Foundation helped fund the restoration of the buildings, the installation of the museum and the restaurant facilities. The project preserved this icon of European history and made it accessible for the public.

Cadman's Cottage at Circular Quay, Sydney

Cadman's Cottage Photo Max Herford

One of Sydney’s oldest buildings, Cadman’s Cottage was once the head office of the Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife and serves now as the Sydney Harbour National Park Information Centre.

It was built in 1816 as part of the Government Dockyard and served as a base for the supervision of Government boats. Cadman’s Cottage is named after the third and longest serving Government Coxswain (the master in charge of small vessels) John Cadman, who retired in 1845. Some time in the following three years Cadman’s Cottage became the office of the water police, and in 1849 it was gazetted as a Court of Petty Sessions.

In the following decades Cadman’s Cottage was used as a Police lock-up, office of the charitable Sailors’ Home Trust, a home for retired sea captains and until the 1960s it provided accommodation for officers of visiting merchant ships.

The Foundation provided funds for the restoration of the building and for an archaeological dig to preserve all heritage values of this important historical site.

Nobbys

With regards to Nobbys Headland, yes, there would be scope for commercial licences to operate at the headland but it is such a restricted site that it is unsuitable for a Motel Style Development which is currently being considered. It is a much smaller area than Fort Denison but it has a more fascination history and it is Newcastle that must be promoted not just one restaurateur.

However a DA has been lodged and may even come before Council again. Councillors will be obliged to consider it and either reject the DA or approve the DA or to Approve the DA with conditions of consent.

However It should never have come to the Councillors in the way it did last time.

It was submitted as a Crown Application under S116C which limits Council as the Consent Authority to just making comments on the development. Rejection is not allowed and Conditions can only be applied with the written consent of the applicant. Nobbys Lighthouse Pty Ltd? This was ethically wrong and may have had no legal base.

I think you would agree that it is outrageous when the Media present only a partial view with pages of information presenting one proposition before Councillors even have a chance to consider a proper DA.

At this stage we believe the invitation for Expressions of Interest published by the Port Corporation must prevail or a new invitation of EOI be published.

I would love you to read the document attached which is basically a request to the Commonwealth Minister to declare the project as a “Controlled Action”

(That would allow for the exhibition of the project and professional assessment).

That is all we can do at this stage.

People of Newcastle spend all their time bagging one another rather that looking for ways and means of presenting the city as Newcastle a special place.

Yours Sincerely
Doug Lithgow

Letter to Councillor John Tate Lord Mayor circa January 2009
Newcastle City Council

Dear John,

Re: Nobbys and Coal River Precinct

In reference to Cr Scott Sharp’s letter published in yesterday’s Herald.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is anxious that the headland be open to the public as part of Newcastle’s true Coal River Birth Site and recreation area.

There are important public interest matters that must be observed.

You should know this matter was submitted at the State Level as a Crown Development under S116C of the EP&A Act and that there is no evidence that it should have been submitted as a Crown Development. Furthermore the proponent was also in breach of the Commonwealth EPBC Act.

Any development of the Headland at this stage should be in accordance with the Port Corporation’s Invitation for Expressions of Interest and be properly assessed.

The public interest must prevail over private vested interests when considering the development proposal for public land and especially when considering an area such as Nobbys which is of such vital significance to Newcastle and the Nation.

Wishing all Councillors the very best for the New Year.

Yours Sincerely

Doug Lithgow
President Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Nobbys Redevelopment Proposal - Submission to the Minister: 2008/4672

2009-01-07T10:33:00.007+11:00

Approvals and Wildlife Division
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Dear Sir.

Nobbys Lighthouse Pty Ltd/Tourism and recreation/adjacent to Nobbys Lighthouse, Newcastle/NSW/Nobbys Headland Redevelopment Date Received: 22 Dec 2008 Reference Number: 2008/4672

The Parks and Playgrounds Movement request that the Minister for the Environment Heritage and the Arts the Hon Peter Garrett MP MA assess the development proposed at Nobbys Headland as a Controlled Action. In view of the history and misinformation in the media regarding this development previously it is important that the development proposal be transparently assessed at the Commonwealth Level.

The peak conservation bodies of NSW appreciate the action the Minister and his professional advisors in respect to the previous proposal which would have made a serious impact on Nobbys Lighthouse and its Commonwealth Heritage Values.

The current proposal whilst an improvement on the previous proposal would unnecessarily impact on the public amenity and potential National Heritage values of the Nobbys Headland which is an important Aboriginal Dreaming Site Whibayganba of great significance. This Aboriginal site was noted in Sir Thomas Mitchell’s Fieldbook 1828 and the Aboriginal story of the abode of the immensely large Kangaroo was documented and published in the Christian Herald February 1855 at the time when Whibayganba was being cut down for the erection of the Lighthouse.

Nobbys or Whibayganba from Sir Thomas Mitchell's 1828 Fieldbook

Nobbys Lighthouse, a Commonwealth Heritage Place and Nobbys Headland, are part of a threatened potential National Heritage site. The headland and the convict built Macquarie Pier 1818 – 1846 are integral parts of the Coal River Precinct SHR 1674 and must because of its significance and threatened impacts be assessed at the National Level.

As can be seen from the aerial photo 1.1 Page 1 0f 17 and the Mitchell 1828 Fieldbook above, the headland is a remote site and it is an inappropriate location for a motel style development which this new project is. We ask that the Commonwealth exercise its power and responsibility to assess this development on the grounds that it impacts a Commonwealth Heritage Place, its context and heritage values.

James Johnson Newcastle’s famous lighthouse Keeper and only survivor of the Dunbar 1857 photographed at Nobbys Lighthouse 1902 Nobbys Lighthouse Newcastle NSW
(State Library of NSW)

The protection and promotion of these Commonwealth Heritage Values is absolutely essential in relation to the tourist potential of the whole Coal River Precinct and potential National Heritage site. We draw your attention to the history of the company that is proposing this development. It is a shelf company that was previously known as Jacksons on the Park Pty Ltd and The Hunter’s Ark Pty Ltd. Both these company names were used as a vehicle to promote proposals that would have alienated important public parkland and heritage places Jacksons on the Park P/L at King Edward Park and The Hunter’s Ark P/L the convict built Macquarie Pier. Public authorities should ensure that the directors of companies such as this are required to indemnify their company if they wish to make development proposal over public land.

We also bring to your attention as stated in Description of proposed action, 2.2 Context planning framework and state/local government requirements “ The governing local statutory planning control in the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008. Site is located in Council’s Newcastle East Heritage Conservation area and located within the Coal River Precinct a State Heritage Listed site.

The former proposal (EPBC 2006/379 was assessed by relevant local and state consent authorities against applicable planning controls and guidelines. Development consent has been obtained from both Newcastle City Council and the Heritage Council for the previous scheme which was similar in many respects to this one”.

The fact that the State Heritage Council and the Newcastle City Council assessed the previous Nobbys Lighthouse P/L proposal wrongly as a Crown Development under Section 116C of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which prevented any Assessment Authority rejecting or placing conditions on the proposal without the written approval of the applicant or the Minister means that this matter requires qualification. Because of the heritage importance of this site to the Nation it is essential that the proposal be assessed in a transparent way.

In respect to the use of the Section 116C the development has no relationship to the Newcastle Port Corporation’s operation of the Port. It was claimed that the Newcastle Port Corporation and the Nobbys Lighthouse were in some sort of consortium but we were unable to find any contractual arrangements advertised as is required in such matters. Furthermore it is not recorded that the development was contrary to the Newcastle Heritage Places Strategic Plan and Plan of Management approved June 2000 – Nobbys Headland page 86 or that the Heritage Council adopted a former proposal with conditions. The proponent rejected the conditions and resubmitted the exact same proposal as a Crown Proposal under 116C which of course was not open to rejection or the imposition of conditions of consent by either Consent Authority without written approval from the applicant. (See copy of The Herald cutting 7/2/2006 Page 4)

I note that the proponent’s referral has not informed the Commonwealth that the Coal River Precinct SHR 1674 is now subject an adopted Conservation and Cultural Tourism Management Plan 2008. The new development must address the philosophy and aims of this plan which states:

With its indigenous associations the Coal River Precinct is a true ‘birthplace’ site. Its land, buildings and subterranean remains concentrate elements of the Newcastle story from pre-history through the first hundred and fifty years of European settlement and beyond. In the beaches and the Nobbys Beach Pavilion the all-embracing questions of the Newcastle character are exemplified. It is difficult to think of another major city which can point to such a rich mix of important heritage themes in such a special landscape environment.

The plan with regard to Nobbys 5.2 states that:

Nobbys is a key contributor to the precinctual heritage. It is directly relevant to all the proposed heritage themes.

We maintain that the Commonwealth has an important role to play with respect to this significant site and the previous approvals are not applicable to this new development which should be assessed transparently as a new development.

Nobbys is a proposed Historic Site. The Movement first nominated this area as a Historic Site in 1968-9 when the Hon Tom Lewis as Minister for Lands in the NSW Government brought down the first National Parks Act. Mr Lewis was very supportive but the Maritime Services Board was opposed the proposal and it lapsed at that time. Had the area been brought under the Parks Service then it would have been the first Historic Site in Australia. Now in the new proposal we note that the Newcastle Port Corporation and Maritime NSW have abandoned the site and have no need to station personnel at the Headland and we propose that the Headland be transferred forthwith to the NSW Parks Service as is supported by the conservation movement of NSW. Please note the NSW NCC resolution below.

The 2006 Annual conference of the Nature Conservation Council resolved unanimously:

THAT the Nature Conservation Council of NSW:

(a) object to the Newcastle Port Corporation’s plans which will virtually privatise Nobbys Headland and construct buildings that adversely impact on the historic Commonwealth Heritage Listed lighthouse; and

(b) request that the NSW Government arrange the transfer of the headland and Lighthouse from the Port Corporation to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has the statutory power to conserve the heritage character of Newcastle's distinctive headland and provide safe access for the people of NSW.

This motion clearly states the policy of this organisation.

It is important that the proposed glazed safety fence is not constructed just inside of the existing heritage wall. Glazing in this location is most inappropriate and would create a large and unnecessary maintenance problem and impact on the heritage wall. We totally approve of the proposed removal of the modern motor car garage currently alienating the Lighthouse and its historic easement for access and was used as an excuse for further alienation of the lighthouse context in the previous development proposal. The general public must be allowed to visit Nobbys Headland walk freely around the Lighthouse and its environs. As a site the area is not anymore dangerous that other sites that are higher and looking over steep cliff faces to the rocks and the sea below. Council has normal park safety fences at such places as Shepherds Hill and Bar Beach, King Edward Park Bathers Way and at Ordinance Park (Fletcher Park) these areas are much higher and more foreboding. We would favour a new simple stainless steel pipe and wire safety fence constructed beyond the weather station and in the grassed area but well away from the cliff edges.

Nobbys was always open to the public but restricted to the open area around the lighthouse within the walled area and Along the road up to the summit. It was only denied to the public completely in about the year 2000 when the former CEO of the Port Corporation Mr Glen Oakley had the electric gate constructed. There is no real reason why the headland could not be open to the public now.

With the previous proposal the whole headland was to be leased for the proposed private development. The free access to the headland was to be denied to the general public and all natural views from the headland only open exclusively to paying patrons of the motel rooms or the restaurant. A stairway to the roof of the restaurant was to be available but public use was at the pleasure of the proponent.

The proposed Lease of the Headland must be detailed and be part of the transparent assessment of this new development.

We would be pleased if you would consider the joint submission from peak environment organisations re the previous Development Proposal which is added as an attachment to this Email. It contains much relevant material including all the points on page 3 including We propose that:

We would appreciate a proper public enquiry so that evidence could be made available for all to see in an impartial way free from the extravagant media and political interference that this issue has been subjected to in Newcastle.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this new development which we ask be assessed as a new development and Controlled Action.

The Movement would be pleased to provide further information and evidence at the assessment stage.

Yours Sincerely

Doug Lithgow

The Nobbys Redevelopment : The Issues

2009-01-04T19:08:00.013+11:00

In the Public Interest

To the Councillors of the Newcastle City Council

Dear Councillors,

Nobbys Headland (Whibayganba) and Nobbys Lighthouse (1857) at the entrance to the River, Newcastle NSW.

1. I apologise for not sending this material to you earlier and for not sending it to you individually. (It is the holidays and I have family commitments).

2. I am trying to let you know the issues regarding the Nobbys Lighthouse and the significance of the Coal River Precinct birth Site of Newcastle.

3. The previous Council behaved badly regarding this matter and allowed the proposal to slip through as a Crown Development using S.116C EP&A Act without transparent assessment.

4. The proponents were also in breach of Commonwealth law and the Port Corporation ultimately widened the roadway without development consent.

5. The Conservation Movement of NSW will have to start campaigning in the New Year to have the Headland transferred to the Parks Service or a Community Trust so that it can be opened to the public without further delay. (The Headland should be open to the public now)

6. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is inviting public comment on the latest proposal by the 8th January 2008. Documents are below. (Reference Number: 2008/4672)

Title of Referral: Nobbys Lighthouse Pty Ltd/Tourism and recreation/adjacent to Nobbys Lighthouse, Newcastle/NSW/Nobbys Headland Redevelopment Date Received: 22 Dec 2008 Reference Number: 2008/4672
Notification from EPBC Act	Date of Notice	Documents
Invitation for Public Comment on Referral	22 Dec 2008

Doug L.

NOBBYS - THE ISSUES

1. Nobbys Headland should be a National Park and freely open to the public as are other lighthouse sites in New South Wales.

2. It is of National significance and could be administered by the Parks Service or a Community Trust but must not be privatised.

3. The recently built brick garage against the lighthouse should be removed and no new houses built.

4. It is the most widely recognised symbol of the City of Newcastle and an Aboriginal Dreaming Place of great significance.

5. Nobbys headland (Whibayganba) is Newcastle’s unique heritage landmark:

5.1 Nobbys was formerly an island.

5.2 It was connected to the mainland by a convict built breakwater Macquarie Pier (1818 -1846) and is an integral part of the Heritage Listed Coal River Precinct (SHR1647).

5.3 Newcastle’s Coal River Precinct is a cultural landscape of national significance and has Nobbys Headland (Whibayganba) at its focal point.

5.4 Its landform, heritage places, relics, and buildings symbolise major events in Australia’s journey to nationhood:

5.4.1 The discovery of winnable coal, the first coalmine in the southern hemisphere and Australia’s first export industry. The founding of Newcastle and the transition from convictism to free labour and from government industry to private enterprise.

5.4.2 The establishment of the first coal fired beacon on the Australian coast and its replacement by the still operational Nobbys Lighthouse.

5.4.3 The protection of the port with the construction of Macquarie Pier 1818 and the building of the fortifications at Fort Scratchley 1882.

Nobbys or Whibayganba from Sir Thomas Mitchell's 1828 Fieldbook

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the former Premier of NSW the Hon Morris Iemma MP on the 30th May 2008:

Dear Premier,

Nobbys and Newcastle's Coal River Precinct: Birthplace of a City

Parks and Playgrounds Movement is pleased to report the decision, of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment , Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, to reject the development that would have adversely affected Newcastle’s unique Nobbys Lighthouse.

I feel sure you would agree that we must all take care that the historic Nobbys Lighthouse continues to stand proud and free as shown in the historic photograph below in any future adaptive reuse of the signalman’s cottages.

1902 view of Nobbys Lighthouse Newcastle NSW
(State Library of NSW)

We had been perturbed by the shelf company, Nobbys Lighthouse Pty Ltd proposing to alienate the lighthouse in breach of commonwealth legislation and that the private development was incorrectly assessed as a Crown Development Application.

Nobbys and Nobbys Lighthouse are the cultural symbols of Newcastle and should not have been dealt with in this way. The Lighthouse is an important aid to navigation and is the successor to the first light on the Australian coast which was a beacon fuelled by coal mined by convict coalminers at Colliers Point beneath what is now Fort Scratchley.

The lighthouse is of particular significance to Newcastle and is seen in the old and the new city Coat of Arms and in the Newcastle City Hall clock tower which is a representation of the ancient Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement have a continuing interest in this notable place dating from 1969 when we first proposed the statutory recognition of the area as a historic site. The proposal including Nobbys, the convict breakwater and the convict coal mines, Fort Scratchley and Shortland’s camp location.

In 1999 we prepared a Prospectus for the Coal River Historic Site and a ten point plan for the Newcastle Lord Mayor, John Tate, to take to Canberra but were disappointed when the funding gained was not used to prepare the Masterplan as envisaged.

The lighthouse controversy and the intervention of the Commonwealth Minister has saved Nobbys lighthouse and given the Coal River Precinct the national focus it deserves and has highlighted the need for a guiding overall conservation plan.

We appeal to your Government to look with new clarity at Newcastle’s Coal River Precinct which is the birth place of our city and has made an immense contribution to the history and heritage of Australia.

Furthermore we particularly ask that your Government favourably endorse the Department of Planning and the Newcastle City Council’s draft Conservation and Cultural Tourism Management Plan for the precinct.

We trust also that the redevelopment of the Port Corporation’s valuable waterfront land around the Pilot Station and Cornish Dock area will be coordinated and professionally managed as an integral part of the whole precinct and that public access be made to the Nobbys headland without further delay.

Yours Sincerely,

Doug Lithgow,
Freeman of the City of Newcastle and
President, Parks and Playgrounds Movement

Escutcheon attached to Nobbys Lighthouse
Lighthouses Act 1911
(Photo taken 2008)

Crown Plans of Nobbys Headland showing military works
and Lighthouse Station

Nobbys Headland (Whibayganba)
Photo taken in 1984.

Chambers for the blowing up of Nobbys with gunpowder were dug by convicts at the base of Nobbys under the direction of Colonel Barney in 1854. Public protest halted the plan to blow up the headland but its height was reduced from 62 metres to 28 metres for the erection of the Nobbys Lighthouse.

Honeysuckle should revise its irrelevant 1993 Scheme

2009-01-04T18:40:00.004+11:00

Why has the Hunter Development Corporation (HDC) been allowed to operate for over ten years without a relevant Scheme for its Growth Centre as constituted?

Hunter Development Corporation General Manager Craig Norman explains some of the proposals for the New Year (HDC manages to keep all the gloom at bay The Herald 31.12.08) but we are left in the dark about the Corporation’s relationship with its “Scheme”.

The HDC formerly Honeysuckle Development Corporation is a ministerial corporation constituted under the Growth Centres Act and is required under Sections 14 and 15 to prepare a Scheme and Section 17 to implement an Approved Scheme within the framework of the law. Its scheme was prepared in 1993 and is irrelevant to the currently proclaimed Hunter Growth Centre. HDC has done good work but has been shackled to a non-conforming 1993 Scheme & Masterplan at Central Honeysuckle.

HDC began with a $100 Million dollar windfall from the Commonwealth’s “Building Better Cities” program but we believe it blundered at Central Honeysuckle by disregarding the 1981 winning design from the Newcastle Harbour Foreshore and Urban Design Competition with its landscaped foreshore and rail corridor entrance into the city. HDC failed to integrate the new Honeysuckle with the existing city structure:

The Masterplan was approved without the planning research and the geotechnical investigation needed.
The wharf fender line is the cadastral boundary and the HDC acquired the longshore wharves from the port authority and demolished them leaving much of the planned foreshore and openspace under water!
The Masterplan proposed a cove and bridge at Civic that had no relationship to the original Honeysuckle Point foreshore or the historic railway buildings and built out the whole area anyway.
The sensible wharf road was ripped up and a contorted road layout constructed and reconstructed.
HDC advertised for a hotel before the planing framework was in place. The Minister blamed the Council and used the excuse to gazette his Hunter Regional Environmental Plan REP Central Honeysuckle and remove the Council’s consent powers.
.The HDC failed to vary their Scheme to conform to the Minister’s REP 1997 for Central Honeysuckle.

The HDC is required by statute to prepare a “Scheme” and should start by deleting the irrelevant 1993 honeysuckle master plan and establishing clear transparent parameters to guide the HDC in its widened Growth Centre role for the Hunter Region.