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

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

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

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.

Nobbys and Newcastle’s Coal River Precinct: Birthplace of a City

Nobbys (Whybaygamba), which was cutdown to half its height to form a base for the Nobbys lighthouse, and the convict built breakwater connecting Colliers Point, are distinctive Newcastle landmarks and unique colonial artefacts within the Coal River Precinct at the entrance to the Hunter River.

The integrity of the Nobbys Lighthouse must be preserved protected and promoted in a professional plan of management for the whole Coal River Precinct (SHR 1674)

The precinct is a nationally significant landscape and the birth site of Newcastle and of convict coal mining.

Recognition, protection and public access urgently needed.

Letter below to Premier of NSW re Nobbys Lighthouse decision and Coal River:

Friday, 30 May 2008

The Hon Morris Iemma MP
Premier of NSW and Minister for Citizenship
Governor Macquarie Tower
Level 40, No. 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000

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

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 Application was incorrectly assessed as a Crown Development.

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
President Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc.

Nobbys Development - Congratulations to Minister Garrett

Congratulations to Minister Garrett on his courageous decision to reject the Nobbys Lighthouse development at Newcastle, NSW.

This is the Minister's first decision as federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in relation to built heritage and he has resisted pressure from local and state politicians, and developers to consider the Heritage impact statement (HIS) by independent international recognized heritage architects Clive Lucas and Stapleton pty Ltd. This report clearly states that there would be permanent and irreversible damage if this proposal was to go ahead.

Nobbys Lighthouse is a Commonwealth Heritage place and any change to the headland should be in accordance with section 26 of the Environmental, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPB&C Act). The proponents had failed to refer their development to the Commonwealth until requested to do so in 2006.

Minister Garrett’s decision will encourage future protection of the cultural heritage values of the lighthouse. The Hunter Regional Committee of the National Trust supports that the headland be open to the public. The development that the Minister has rejected would have destroyed the most significant historic lighthouse on the eastern seaboard. Minister Garrett’s decision enables the public to potentially visit the site and understand its meaning.

Nobbys 'Whybaygamba' is an Aboriginal dreaming place, of special significance to the Aboriginal community, and important to the wider community and the history of Newcastle, and the nation.

Banging the Table for Nobbys?

Back in June 2007 I wrote to our State Member for Newcastle to seek her support for our Mater Hospital.

A representative from her office wrote back to say it was not in her electorate and to write instead to the Member for Wallsend.

Given the reported $50,000 in undisclosed donations from property developer Buildev (NH 14/4), and her recent ‘banging of the table’ for local developer Neil Slater’s redevelopment proposal for Nobbys I would like to know why she wasn’t prepared to ‘bang the table’ for our besieged Mater hospital?

And why, for that matter, couldn't our Region’s elected representatives come together, as they did so majestically in support of the restaurant and love nest for Nobbys, to support our public hospitals, transport, police and renewable clean energy future?

Is it that political donations have rendered those in the community as mere ‘non-developers’, as Wollongong MP Noreen Hay said in this week's ABC Four Corners program (14/4/08)?

Could it explain the divisive rhetoric that was this month placed into NSW State Parliamentary Hansard by Jodi McKay that all who opposed the Nobbys redevelopment ‘have done their best to delay and stop Newcastle's growth’?

Nobbys Lighthouse redevelopment

To: The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Dear Mr Garrett,

I refer to your request for comments on your proposed decision in relation to the Nobbys Lighthouse redevelopment.

Your proposed decision is definitely the correct one and I commend you for it.

Refusing this proposal is the only way of protecting the Commonwealth Heritage values of the Nobbys lighthouse and ensuring the continuation of its freestanding character and iconic significance.

You should consider the following when reviewing your proposed decision:

1. The proposal will damage the protected Commonwealth heritage values of Nobbys lighthouse.

The following facts have been objectively established by the Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners (CLS) report and confirmed by your own department's Recommendation Report:

i) Nobbys lighthouse meets assessment criteria A, B, F & G on the Commonwealth Heritage List and has the corresponding protected Commonwealth heritage attributes.

ii) The impact of the proposed restaurant building will damage every one of the heritage values

While the proponents have claimed that the damage will be minimal, their arguments are weak as the assessment of your own department indicates: "the proposal to construct and operate a restaurant facility in very close proximity to the Commonwealth Heritage listed Nobbys Lighthouse will result in significant degradation or loss of Commonwealth Heritage values".

It is essential that your decision protect these values from damage.

2. Your department's assessment of the proposal in relation to criterion G (social value) is weak.

* There is a focus on the architectural aspects of the proposal and a lack of information about (and therefore assessment of) the cultural heritage impact of the proposal. The CLS report identifies that there has been insufficient consultation on this aspect and correctly notes "Simply advertising a scheme and seeking public comment does not test the community's regard for the place, nor how the proposal would affect that regard."

* There has been a particular lack of consideration of the value of Nobbys Lighthouse as the one surviving connection between the modern landform of Nobbys and the original rocky island (known to the indigenous Awabakal people as Wybagamba) which was cut down specifically to provide the platform for the lighthouse building.

* The proponents' disagreement with the characterisation of Nobbys Lighthouse as "remote" misses the point of the lighthouse's iconic significance as identified by the CLS report – it was and is perfectly correct to characterise the iconic lighthouse structure as being "remote" in so far as it was, and is, freestanding in the most prominent seaward position on top of a 'recaptured' island headland, accessible only via a long causeway, jutting out at the edge of an historically stormy ocean. Your department's assessment does not give this sufficient consideration – the 'remote' character of the lighthouse, properly understood, is a fundamental aspect of the social heritage value and one which will be most damaged by the proposed restaurant building.

* In relation to public access the department's assessment places too much weight on the "verbal advice" from the Newcastle Port Corporation that no public access would be allowed if you refused this proposal. Your department fails to assess the significance of the fact that the Port Corporation is actually one of the proponents of the proposal before them and that their advice to you on this matter is therefore fundamentally conflicted and unsound. It would be equally possible to argue that unless you refuse this proposal there will be no opportunity to apply public pressure to the Port Corporation to bring forward a more appropriate proposal that would allow greater access AND maintain the Commonwealth Heritage values of the lighthouse.

* Your department's report fails to assess that the undeniably huge support for public access to Nobbys does not automatically imply approval of the wrap-around restaurant building aspect of the proposal. It also fails to acknowledge that the majority of the public still may not know the objectionable specifics of the intention to wall-off the lighthouse from the sea and deprive it of its freestanding character and prominence as the most seaward building.

* In relation to public access and interpretative signage the department fails to consider that no amount of signage can replace some heritage values such as the loss of the premier seaward position and the ability to appreciate the unique freestanding character of the lighthouse "in the round". The comment above in relation to 'remote' nature of the place is also relevant. The character of the lighthouse would be fundamentally altered in a way that no amount of new interpretation could correct.

* In relation to public access, the department's report does not identify or analyse the fact that the "exciting new views" available to the public will consist of new privately controlled spaces in and on the proposed restaurant building. The existing possibility for truly public views from the historic parapet (ie the views from the foot of the lighthouse) would be utterly lost. The uncritical acceptance of the proponents characterisation of their new viewing platform as 'public' is not appropriate either since access to it will be at the grace and favour of the managers of the private restaurant facility and may easily be restricted for private functions and other purposes from time to time.

The significance of the Commonwealth Heritage values, and the degree of their loss if the proposal were to be approved, are greater than your department has identified. In addition, your department's uncritical analysis of the public access benefits of the proposal is a significant flaw in their Recommendation Report. Both of these things confirm that your correct course is to persist in your decision to refuse the proposal.

3. The chronology detailed by your department fails to document the actions of the proponents that show disrespect for the Commonwealth Heritage values of Nobbys Lighthouse.

* Significant community pressure had to be applied before the proponents acknowledged any Commonwealth jurisdiction (they were in breach of the EPBC Act for a considerable period). It is clear that there was an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the impact of the proposal on the Commonwealth Heritage values of the lighthouse.

* The delay caused by the failure of the proponents to comply with the EPBC process earlier has been perversely cited in the local media as an example of bureaucratic, pettifogging obstruction. Alternatively the current process is sometimes mischaracterised in the media as being the result of "an appeal to the Commonwealth" by those objecting to the proposal. This irrational public criticism should not sway your decision in favour of the proponents.

* Your department has not documented or analysed the significance of the fact that this development was originally processed by NSW authorities as a private proposal in 2005, subjected to conditions limiting the controversial restaurant building by the NSW Heritage Office, but then withdrawn by the proponent and resubmitted with the Port Authority as a "Crown development" (thus avoiding the imposition of the previously unwelcome conditions).

4. Your department's conclusion that the social & economic benefits outweigh the loss of heritage values is extremely weak and unsupported by any assessment or evidence.

* The second part of the conclusion to your department's report does not flow from any of the analysis that precedes it and therefore does not seem to be a technical judgement based on any objective information discernable to the public. In fact the report's abrupt conclusion seems consistent with it having been politically re-written, possibly in reaction to the lobbying orchestrated through the local media, particularly the Newcastle Herald which attacked the department as "bureaucrats poised to end the dream" in December 2007.

* The cynical manipulation of public opinion in favour of the proposal (through the 'management' of the local Newcastle media) has reached a blatant level of intensity. This has a direct bearing on your consideration weighing the 'social and economic benefits' of the proposal because you are likely to receive public comments on the issue that have been generated by mischievous disinformation. For example the following myths seem to be in wide circulation in Newcastle:

i) anyone who objects to any aspect of the proposal is against public access to Nobbys

ii) anyone who questions any aspect of the proposal is against any development on Nobbys

iii) your proposed decision has been motivated by an irrational anti-modern conspiracy to ensure nothing ever changes, or is whimsical and without proper reason at all

iv) if you refuse to approve the proposal, Nobbys lighthouse will become a crumbling relic and a burden on the local council

It would be inappropriate to uncritically credit support created by such disinformation as evidence of the proposal's "social and economic benefits".

* Important questions remain unanswered in relation to your department's conclusion: What social & economic impact studies were done to justify the department's recommendation? Why haven't these been released to the public? What is the department's expertise for assessing these matters and making such judgements? What analytical method did the department use to balance the degree of heritage value to be lost against the economic and social benefits to be gained?

In the absence of evidence or analysis it would be most unsound for you to accept the subjective recommendation of your department that the economic and social benefits outweigh the loss of heritage values – all the evidence and analysis in your department's report apart from the final few words in the conclusion actually confirms you in your proposed decision; that is to refuse permission.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nobbys Lighthouse and its surrounding compound is one of the most significant public sites in Newcastle. It deserves a development that is consistent with its historic character and enormous iconic importance - all the social and economic benefits of the proposed development identified by your department could be achieved by a better alternative or modified design that did not destroy Commonwealth Heritage values. The people of Australia are entitled to nothing less.

If you refuse the proposal we will be able to lobby the Port Corporation for a better development in future – using the interest generated by this controversy to demand the public access to Nobbys that all are in favour of achieving. If, on the other hand, you changed your decision and allowed the proposal to destroy the Commonwealth Heritage values of the lighthouse the damage will persist for the foreseeable future and may prove permanent and irreparable.

Please stand firm.

Yours sincerely,

(temporarily exiled, but previously a proud resident of historic Newcastle)