| |
Why is this building gaining so much opposition?
This building stands as a symbol of the council's defacto development
by
development approval of a gold coast like Newcastle, witha boxed in harbour
and beaches. There is no reason that this high rise development will not
continue along the coast - beware of the council selling the large bar
beach car park for instance. Because council has no policy on what the
post-BHP Newcastle should look like we are bound to fighting development
by development.
What is wrong with the Building?
This building and other ike it - the catholic education site, the hotel
and conference centres on the harbout, the $12 million marina - are wrong
for Newcastle. These sorts of buldings exist anywhere and everywhere else
you should choose to look. Newcastle has not to the is point been
overdeveloped and we could use this fact to our social and economic
advantage.
But aren't developers being granted this building so that they redevelop
the heritage listed North Wing of the Royal Newcastle Hospital?
Councillors and developers are concerned to re-design and rebuild the
hisotric Northern wing of the hosptial and that considerable concessions
concerning such aisses as shop-top development have been made in order
to
entice developers who are willing to do this. These developers are going
to completley gut the North Wing Heritage building of its 1938 art deco
interior in order to make maximal profit from the block of land.
Councillors and developers, in considering this proposal have neglected
both the heritage of the North Wing of the hospital. They have, more
importantly, totally neglected the HERITAGE of the beach.
How is it then that Council is able to even consider a building this tall
on the beach?
Good questions. The building does not comply with the council's own guidelines
especially with regard to height. it overshadows the beach to low tide
mark beginning at the time of surfest and is maximal midwinter when sun
is most wanted on the beach. the heritage and environmental issues concerning
the beach have not been considered.
Is this development necessary for restoration of the heritage North Wing
of the Hospital?
No. in fact this development means destruction of the whole interior of
the building dating from 1913 and 1938 and will involve destruction of
the majestic, stand alone icon along with views of the beach from the
building. There will be a developer who can manage capital more wisely
and invest in the North wing without the need for an additional an incongrous
buillding on site. The argument of the curent developer is that they need
to build the York building in order to make a profit from the site, even
thorugh their figures are not able to be viewed. If these developers made
bad economic judgement and paid too much for the land that is their fault.
The people of Newcastle should have to compensate them by allowing this
building.
Who is the Developer?
No one knows. This was raised at council and it was stated that the company
NWAI is covered by the Privacy act. The Developer is named as NWAI (pronounced,
ironically, No Way) Pty Ltd. We do not know who these people are though
there are rumours that they include at least 2 real estates, some developers
from Sydney, a local doctor who lobbied state government on the selling
of the land in the first place, a solicitor and well known property developer.
An application has been lodged with the Australian Secuities Service (ASIS)
to find out who NWAI is but this takes a while to process.
NWAI is the applicant for the development application. The company is
said to be a group of Newcastle Businessman. Would it not be beneficial
for the community to know who these people are? An Australian Securities
search has been launched but this takes time (and money) and we will very
porobably only know the identify of the developers after the project has
been approved by counicl.
What is the Developers Stategy?
These developers are not stupid. Their strategy may well be to have the
most ugly building proposed for the site, in terms of size, scale and
aesthetics. their strategy may be to have the most ugly building proposed
for the site so that nay compromises made by them because of the will
of the people fo Newcastle, through their Council, would mean that the
final project was not the worst possibel or good, but simply a bad bad,
but still profit making compromise. Is the extreme ugliness fo this building
a tactic to make us accept the plain ugly?
The building planned is uglier than ugly (see 'what it will look like').
it looks like Jamsine Allen, the tenemnt in the TV show 'the Bill' or
a stack of milk crates. The architect is famous. But Leonardo da Vinci
and Picasso wer c apable of mediocirty. Both of them burnt their worst
art at the planning stage. That is what should happen here.
Will the developmetn mean more money for the Hunter region?
No, in fact, directly the opposite. If Newcastle is developed alkong the
lines of the God Coast then we will be in an already competitive environment,
competing for the tourists who might otherwise go to Queensland, Coff's,
Port Macquarie or Sydney. If we were to develop a tourist based economy
built upon small boutique businesses showcasing produce from the Hunter
Valley alongisde our natural assets, our only competitor would be Byron
Bay which allows no large businesses or multi-storey development. We would
develop a far more successful economy because our only competitor has
a huge share of the market (Byron Shire ran second to Sydney in terms
of number of tourists and tourist dollars spent in 2000) and we are much
closer to Sydney. Most of Byron Shire's toruists come from Syendy or are
overseas tourists who enter the country here.
Will the development mean jobs for hunter people?
At the meeting of council ont he 5th of June it was mentioned that the
building contractor could easily be a firm from out of town. There is
no guarantee that any jobs will come of this, all jobs that do will be
short-term for the duration of building. This does not compare with the
economic boost that would far more predicatable and long term which would
come from the thinking developmetn of an economy based upon small business
and preservation of the environment as outlined above.
So, how should Newcastle Develop?
Newcastle should develop as the people of Newcastle want it to.
Post BHP there has been no re-writing of vision staements for the council.
Yet, since this time there has been a massive influx of development applications,
chiefly from people outside of the hunter (sho are no longer allowed to
propose 12 storey buildings on beachfronts elsewhere).
Section 2, Chapter 4, Part 3 Divison 3 of the Local Government Act 1993
by which the Council is consituted, sttes taht a council poll may be undertaken
on any Satruday off an election "for information and guidance on
any isseu". Ont he Saturday of the Federal edlection to be held before
the endo fthe year, the people of Newcastle could say how they want their
city to develop, what they want their c ity to look and feel like (there
are a number of questions which mght be put to gauge the response). This
would cost less than the council ahs already spent on the Yrok Building
as mcuh fo the Federal Election infrastrcutre could be utilized. A moratorium
on all Developmetn proposals would need to be put into place fore this
to work. It would also allow the council to put into place such things
as the Parking Development Conterol Plan currently being prepared by council
which includes proposals for monetry contributions from developers to
fudn new partking facilities in the city.
Have the environmental concerns with regard tot he beachfront been considered?
The Total Environmetn Centre has made representations to the minister
for the Minsiter for Planning and Urban Affairs, dr Andrew Refshauge,
on this issue. But there has been no official response. All indications
are that the State minister will rubber stamp the proposal should it be
approved by council.
So what are the State government doing about it?
Nothing, representation have been made to the Minister for the Environment,
, the Minister for Local government, Francis Woods, and the Ministr for
Planning and Urban Affairs and there has been overwhelming silence. People
should, however, continute to lobby them (see who to contact page).
What do State parliamentarians think about it?
Given that the issue has been aired in the Sydney Morning Herald (Geraldine
O'Brien 4-5th May 2001, p.10) Sydneysiders are aware fo the issue. Sydeny,
where most State parliamentarians live, have always looked down upon Newcastle
as its poor working class cousin. we have been the testing ground for
much of Sydney's infrastrutres over the years. We tested 50km zones, bus
tickets, new busses and did without public services for the duration of
the Olympics. developemtns such as the York Apartments are no longer allowed
in places like Coogee or Bondi. We would be silly to follw the example
of Sydeny and box in our bechs and harbour with metal and glass. We are
doubly stupid and wil confirm our status as poor stupid cousins to Sydeny
if we not only follow their exmaple but follow their example 20 years
after they have ceased becasuet it is wrong, because it is ludicours and
just plain stupid.
Why is Newcastle considering a develpemtn which will not be allowed anywhere
else?
good question. No one here can think of a good answer which does not involve
allegations of corruption at the highest level.
What Law governs this?
The Laws that pertain with regard to development are The Environmental
Palnning and Assessment Act. In particular this states that the council
must respond to objections raised in submissions. Get down to the Council
shopfront in Hunter Street before next tuesday night, ask for the agenda
of the meeting for the 12th which will inlude a report on the issue. See
if you think the objections herein (all of which have been raised with
Council) are adequatley covered. If not, then any independent thrid party
can apply to the land and environment court for a hearing under secion
79c and section123.
The Newcastle Council is bound by the Local government Act 1993 No 30
which states that Council must
- "properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve
the environment of the eare for which it is responsible".
The council must do this "in a manner that is consistent with and
promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable developemnt".
The council must "have regard for teh long term and cumulative effects
of its decisions" and "bear in mind that iti s the custodian
and trustee of public assets and effectively acocount for and manage the
assets for which it is responsible.
If the Council does not act in this manner with regard to Newcastle Beach
then the matter may be referred to the Ombudsman or the Director General
of the Department of Local government.
The NSW Ombudsman
Level 24, 580 George St
Sydeny NSW 200
Ph: 1800 451 524
Fax: 02 9288 2911
Garry Payne
The Director General
Deaprtment of Local Government
66 rickard Rd
Bankstown 2200
Ph: 9793 0793
Other addresses:
The Hon Andrew Refshaugeminister for Planning and Urban Affairs
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
Minister for Houseing
GPO Box 3451 Sydney 1043
Ph: 02 9228 4499
Fax: 02 9957 2145
The Councillors
Cr John Tate (independent)
Lord Mayor of Newcastle
190 croudace St
New Lambton Heights
NSW 2305
Ph: 49742233
Fax: 49 74 2202
Cr Marilyn Eade (Labor)
45 Parry st
Cooks Hilll NSW 2300
Ph: 49 29 3198
Fax: 49 29 6249
Mob: 0411 644 742
Cr John Fahy (Citizens Group)
48/215 Darby St
Cooks Hill NSW
Ph: 49 25 3334
Fax: 49 25 3585
Mob: 0416 137 499
Cr Barbara Gaudry (Labor)
15 Cram St
merewether NSW 2291
Ph: 49 69 4625
Fax: 49 69 1487
Mob: 0413 754 136
Cr Bill Hanley (Citizens Group)
78 Grandview rd
New Lambton Heights
NSW 2305
Ph: 49 57 0508
49 53 7989
Fax: 49 57 5286
Mob: 0407010378
Cr Margaret Henry (Greens)
PO Box 176
Wickham NSW 2293
Ph: 49 61 1063
Fax: 43400891
Mob: 04110749596
e-mail: mhenry@ncc.nsw.gov.au
Cr philip Jackson (Labor)
23 Lenox St
Beresfield NSW
PH: 49662114
Fax: 49641508
Mob: 0413940146
Cr Ian McKenzie (Greens)
7/156 Bequmont St
Hamilton NSW 2303
Ph:49624412
Fax: 49698084
Mob: 0414682001
E-mail: mcleishpeter@hotmail.com
Cr Yvonne Piddington (Citizens Group)
17/50 Wolfe St
NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
Fax: 49742403
Mobile: 0409226016
E-mail: ypiddington@ncc.nsw.gov.au
Cr Paul Scobie (Labor)
40 Queens Rd
New Lambrton NSW 2305
PH; 49570458
Fax: 49572196
Mob: 04130754073
E-mail: djps@hunterlink.net.au
Cr Barry Scully (Independent)
136 Springfield Avenue
Kotara NSW 2289
Ph: 49575200
Fax: 49576821
Mob: 0413753806
Cr Hans tol (Independent)
Ph: 49556944
Fax: 49556946
Mob: 0413751126
E-mail: hanstol@ncc.nsw.gov.au
|
|
