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.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Submission to Senate Standing Committee re Commonwealth & State funds for passenger Transport with reference to Honeysuckle BBC funding
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
Cadman's Cottage at Circular Quay, Sydney
Cadman's Cottage Photo Max Herford
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
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)