Newsletter 57 – Cars and People
- Posted by IanMuttonAdmin
- On April 24, 2023
- north sydney, roads
All Roads lead to North Sydney – and that’s a big problem The potential for the Northern Beaches to develop has been present in the minds of planners for a century or more. The failure, the concerns identified by the planners have simply not been addressed. Moving people to and from the Northern Beaches has […]
Read More
 with the passage of the Luna Park Site Act (the Act).
The Act’s stated objective is
<em>Returning the Luna Park Site to the people of NSW and to ensure that Luna Park and its associated harbor foreshore remain accessible for the enjoyment of the people of NSW.</em>
The Government, recognising the iconic status of Luna Park, set up the Luna Park Reserve Trust to protect it – a critical element because the intention was to turn the operation of Luna Park over to the private sector.
At the time, the Minister for Tourism and Minister for Lands and Forests, on behalf of Mr Greiner, said:
<em>If the trustees (Luna Park Reserve Trust) conclude that a fun fair is not viable then turning the site into parkland is a possibility.</em>
The Act called for the Trust to put in place a Plan of Management which it did in 1998.
That Plan of Management in part reads:
<em>The Luna Park Site .. includes land on the cliff top which is physically and perpetually separate from the amusement areas. The Act now also allows the development of this land for commercial purposes. The development would be undertaken by the private sector on the basis of long-term lease from the Luna Park Reserve Trust. Revenue generated from this source would be used by the Trust in managing the Luna Park Reserve …</em>
<strong>A new era.</strong>
In 2004 the Luna Park Site was leased to Luna Park Sydney (now under the Brookfield umbrella).
What was done to extract value from the assets? It’s hard to work it out.
Back in 2005 our (then) local member, Mrs Skinner said in a debate in the House of Assembly:
<em>“Luna Park developers have been provided with four key sites on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour for the peppercorn rents of $1 each, that is, $4 for four key sites. They have made a motza anticipated to be $41 million out of the development of those sites.”</em>
That seems to not have been enough - in 2009-11 the Auditor questioned whether Luna Park could continue as a “going concern”.
More recently it sub-leased/forfeited the lease on the cliff top land resulting in total upfront payments to Luna Park of $8.2m
Luna Park is closing down its function operation – the fixed costs will have to be carried by the operation of the rides.
Clearly, a theme park is a hard business but with Luna Park we are dealing with one of Sydney’s icons.
So, what now? – We hear there is a review of operations.
<strong>Let’s pause for a moment.</strong>
When Luna Park entered into the lease it was covenanting that it would be the custodian of the Park until the end of the lease.
If Luna Park is not financially viable with its present configuration, the time may have come to turn the site into parkland in the manner foreshadowed back in 1990 and preserve what remains of the intra war theme park – preserving and keep operational the heritage rides.
Perhaps that’s something the Government, Brookfield and the community can come together and deliver.
Ian Mutton
<span id=){kind=link}
 in the (1976) film, Network
<img class='size-full wp-image-859 alignleft' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/peter-finch.jpg' alt='' width='244' height='183' />
Just like Peter Finch
“I’m as mad as hell ..”
.. but for me the cause is being ignored by the State Government; watching it plunder our open green space – even worse, watching our community being taken for granted and our assets trashed.
One of the things COVID taught us is how much we need to value our open spaces—a crucial public amenity where people can relax, exercise, play and enjoy the natural environment and in North Sydney we have just about the lowest ration of open green space to residents compared to any city local government area.
We are under attack by the State Government – eight examples
<strong>First – The First Sydney Harbour Road Tunnel</strong>
<img class='size-full wp-image-858 alignnone' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/sydney-harbour-road-tunnel.jpg' alt='' width='282' height='179' />
In 1987 the State Government legislated to take ownership of the Southern end of Bradfield Park to facilitate the building of the tunnel – the land was to be returned on completion. The land remains to be returned to North Sydney Council.
<strong>Second - Berrys Bay Foreshore</strong>
<img class='size-full wp-image-756 alignnone' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Picture-5.jpg' alt='' width='282' height='176' />
Second there’s Berrys Bay - back in 2017 our Premier undertook to make the land on the western side of Berrys Bay available to our community. A month later, the Member for North Shore (F Wilson) spoke in support of the Premier’s undertaking – in her maiden speech.
The State Government is still talking about it – not delivering!
<strong>Third Waverton Bowling Green</strong>
<img class='size-medium wp-image-849 alignnone' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/waverton-bowling-club-300x220.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='220' />
Third – Waverton Bowling Green; it could have, should have passed to North Sydney Council for re-inclusion into Waverton Parklands. The State Government’s dithering opened the Waverton Bowling Green up to a claim by the Metropolitan Land Council and saw it lost to our community.
<strong>Fourth the Sydney Harbour HighLine</strong>
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-562' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/highline-concept-small-300x168.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='168' />
Fourth - the Sydney Harbour HighLine (walkway from Waverton to Lavender Bay) was promised by the Premier in 2017 following the recommendations of the very Committee she set up that was chaired by Felicity Wilson.
Andrew Constance, when a State Government minister, “paused” the project and then resigned – now the State Government is not even talking about when it will be delivered.
<strong>Fifth - Cammeray golf course</strong>
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-855' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/golf-course-cammeray-300x225.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='225' />
The Cammeray golf course has been sacrificed to the needs of the Western Harbour and Beaches’ tunnels and the Warringah Freeway expansion – our community loses 1.5 hectares of open green space and gets nothing in return and gets nothing in return – <a href='https://www.ianmutton.com/2021/05/21/north-shore-community-newsletter-26-parks/'>Newsletter 26</a>
<strong>Sixth – The High Street “interchange”</strong>
Another loss to the needs of the Western Harbour and Beaches’ tunnels and the Warringah Freeway expansion.
Another tree eradication program brought to us by the State Government
<strong>Seventh Wendy’s “secret” Garden</strong>
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-753' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Picture-2-300x169.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='169' />
It’s on borrowed time!
The best the Government has been prepared to do is grant a lease for 30 years (with an option) – unless something is done at the end of the lease the Garden can be claimed by the Metropolitan Land Council.
We need a State Government that’s prepared to protect it for ever.
<strong>Eighth - Bradfield Park being carved up by Transport for NSW to build a ramp for bikes</strong>
The State Government is confronted with a problem – how to get bikes up to and down from the cycleway on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
It has options – both meet the design standards for bike ramps
One:
<ul>
<li>Requires the removal of no trees (the other, on the left, the removal of 8 trees)</li>
<li>Has a zero footprint on Bradfield Park (the other, on the left, is a 200m by 4m concrete velodrome)</li>
<li>Results in the loss of no parking space (the other, on the left, requires the removal of 23 parking space from Alfred Street).</li>
</ul>
<img class='size-medium wp-image-854 alignleft' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/cycle-ramp-map-158x300.jpg' alt='' width='158' height='300' />
Which one do you think the State Government has chosen
• the one that hardly interferes with Bradfield Park or
• the one that runs through the park and across the entrance to the railway station (aptly described as a scar across our Mona Lisa) and sees the removal of trees and parking spaces?
The solution put forward by the community
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-853' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/community-ramp-300x168.png' alt='' width='300' height='168' />
<strong>Conclusion</strong>
The time has come to push back against the State Government and our local member at every opportunity.
Our attempts to work with the State Government have yielded not a brass razoo and cost our community a lot of open green space.
Time to write to our State representative, Felicity Wilson, and tell her what you think about her performance.
Ian Mutton
<span id=){kind=link}
.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>The </span></span></span><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>ALC appealed the Minister’s decision to the Land and Environment Court.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>The Court sided with the ALC.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>The state government decided not to appeal this decision.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>It looks like the land will be sold and re-zoned.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style='color: #333333;'><span style='font-family: Calibri Light, serif;'><span>Parks everywhere are now at risk</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-849' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/waverton-bowling-club-300x220.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='220' />
<strong><span lang='en-GB'>Background</span></strong>
<span lang='en-GB'>In 1943, the land that became known Waverton Park was vested in the Crown and dedicated for public recreation. A part of Waverton Park was made over and became the Waverton Bowling Club – the Waverton Bowling Green.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>In 1967, the Waverton Bowling Green was leased to Waverton Bowling and Recreation Club and later to the North Sydney Club.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>In 2009, the Waverton Bowling Green was declared Crown Land and reserved for Community and Sporting Club Facilities.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>In 2019 the North Sydney Club was put into administration.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>North Sydney Council pushed the State Government to incorporate the Waverton Bowling Green into Waverton Park - the State Government dithered.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>As an interim measure, North Sydney Council pressed the State Government for a lease; was offered and accepted a licence in the belief that it was preserving the option for the land to be incorporated into Waverton Park.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>Now to the Land and Environment case - two questions fell for determination by the court</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>Was the Waverton Bowling Green:</span>
<ol>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>lawfully used or occupied and</span></li>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>needed, or likely to be needed, for an essential public purpose?</span></li>
</ol>
<span lang='en-GB'>The Minister, whose decision was being appealed by the Aboriginal Land Council, argued that North Sydney Council:</span>
<ul>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>was, by virtue of the licence, the lawful occupier of the Bowling Green; and</span></li>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>needed (or likely to be needed) the Waverton Bowling Green to increase the amount of open space available for public recreation which was an essential public purpose.</span></li>
</ul>
<span lang='en-GB'>The court ruled against the Minister finding that the:</span>
<ul>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>the licence gave a limited right to occupy and that did not meet the lawful occupier test and</span></li>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>requirement that the Waverton Bowling Green was needed for an essential purpose amounted to a sole need /purpose test – here we had:</span>
<ul>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>North Sydney Council wanting the Bowling Green for open green space and</span></li>
<li><span lang='en-GB'>the State Government actively looking for other users – e.g. Felicity Wilson introduced Knox Rugby Club as a possible acquirer.</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<span lang='en-GB'>Hard to accept the court’s decision that:</span>
<ul>
<li><span style='font-family: Times New Roman, serif;'><span lang='en-GB'>a licence for a specific purpose does not count as a licence to lawfully occupy</span></span></li>
<li><span style='font-family: Times New Roman, serif;'><span lang='en-GB'>North Sydney’s need for more open green space is defeated by the dithering of the State Government – especially since North Sydney is short of green space compared to all metropolitan Council areas, with 550 people per hectare compared to Ku-ring-gai’s 84, Willoughby’s 216 and Mosman’s 170.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<span lang='en-GB'>When the State Government talks about its commitment to open green space just think about its lack of commitment to protecting the Waverton Bowling Green.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>The State Government has decided not to appeal the decision.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>What next? Expect an application to re-zone the land for development.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>Parks everywhere are at risk of being lost to the broader community.</span>
<span lang='en-GB'>The court ordered that the Waverton Bowling Green be transferred to Metropolitan Aboriginal Land Council – the judgement is at <a href='http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2022/130.html'>http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2022/130.html</a></span>
Ian Mutton
<a href=){kind=link}
 to between Crows Nest’s metro station and St Leonards’ railway station?
The move by the “Crow Nest” Post Office to near St Leonards station is instructive and begs the question – which businesses will be next?
Then the next question - what will be the impact of the developments being planned for that part of Lane Cove just to the west of St Leonards station?
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-841' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/towerplans-300x170.png' alt='' width='300' height='170' />
With all that development in seems inevitable that the scales will be tilted with the epicentre moving toward St Leonards.
Saving Crows Nest - what can be done to prevent the eastern end of Crows Nest withering away?
A start would be to make the eastern end of Crows Nest attractive for people looking for a place to live, have fun and do business – a serious updating of the streetscape. Council is working on plans to rejuvenate the eastern end of Crows Nest proposal to update Crows Nest
If ever there was a time for our community to be heard on how the streets are divvied up between pedestrians, bikes/scooters and cars, it is now - one place to be heard is at North Sydney Council’s feedback site - <a href='https://yoursay.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/dcp-st-leonards-crows-nest-planning-area'>St Leonards/Crows Nest Planning Area</a>
Let me know your thoughts on how Council should manage parking issues going forward – <a href=){kind=link}
 rebuild and what it might cost – nothing like getting the facts sorted first.
North Sydney Olympic Pool was originally built in 1936; it has three major elements:
<ol>
<li>50-metre “Olympic Pool”;</li>
<li>25-metre pool; and</li>
<li>Grandstand (running the full length of the “Olympic Pool”).</li>
</ol>
<a href='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/olympic-pool.tif'><img class='alignnone size-full wp-image-822' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/olympic-pool.tif' alt='' /></a><img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-823' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/olym-pool-300x200.jpg' alt='' width='300' height='200' />
<strong>“Corporate” knowledge</strong>
The NSOP rebuild has been under consideration since 2013. Council is fortunate to have retained “corporate knowledge” with respect to the pool with:
<ul>
<li>three councillors (present Mayor Baker, immediate past Mayor Gibson and Councillor Beregi) being elected to Council prior to 2013;</li>
<li>me being elected to Council in 2017; and</li>
<li>the present head Engineering and Property Services serving continuously since before 2013.</li>
</ul>
<strong>Understanding what our community expected of the redevelopment</strong>
2008 the “Olympic Pool” was lined with a PVC membrane in large measure to reduce or eliminate the leakage which was causing the corrosion of the pool walls. The membrane had a design life of 10 years. In 2008 it was reported:
Corrosion of the pool walls is very severe and will most likely compromise the structural integrity of the pool walls in some areas. It is possible some reinforcement has totally lost its structural integrity.
The timeline:
<ul>
<li>2013 - Council “approved” the redevelopment of the pool and embarked on a process of community consultation.</li>
<li>2014
<ul>
<li>Findings of the community consultation process were presented to Council; they covered the views of:
<ul>
<li>1,145 respondents to a survey;</li>
<li>Stakeholders; and</li>
<li>Community groups (including Precinct Committees).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The findings of the community consultation process caused Council to have 7 options developed</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<img class='alignnone size-medium wp-image-824' src='https://www.ianmutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pool-chart-295x300.png' alt='' width='295' height='300' />
<a href='https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/Business_Projects/Major_Projects/Olympic_Pool_Redevelopment'>For more see Council’s website.</a>
<ul>
<li>2015 – Council decided to put all design options on public exhibition along with preliminary cost estimates ranging between $16m and $78m.</li>
<li>2016 – Outcome of the 2015 consultation process was reported to Council.</li>
</ul>
<strong>Choosing an option most in line with our community’s wants and our Council’s ability to fund.</strong>
Keeping the pool as an amenity in North Sydney was always a paramount concern. It won’t surprise to learn that every significant decision taken by Council was based on or guided by reports from consultants with expertise in the areas reported on.
The timeline continued:
<ul>
<li>2017 – Council decided to go forward with Option 2 by taking it to a detailed design phase and preparation of a business analysis of the costs and future revenue streams of the project.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>2019 – It was reported to Council that the Grandstand had reached the end of its useful life and that retention of the 25 metre-pool was subject to an assessment of its condition when construction commenced because the structural integrity of that pool’s shell could only be properly assessed once the grandstand had been demolished. At the time of the February and March 2019 reports to Council the option for the pool was referred to as Option 2(b)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style='list-style-type: none;'>
<ul>
<li>As to the:
<ul>
<li>Grandstand, the February structural engineering report concluded that the grandstand had reached the end of its useful life.</li>
<li>The 25-metre pool, when the grandstand was demolished and that pool emptied, cracks appeared in its shell; it was reported that the shell could not be re-used.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style='list-style-type: none;'>
<ul>
<li>The cost to deliver option 2(b) including complete replacement of the grandstand and a construction contingency which allowed for the potential replacement of the 25-metre pool was put at $57.9million - this was reported to Council in March 2019.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<strong>Delivering option 2(b)</strong>
Having determined that funding was available and decided to go forward with option, the tasks that then lay ahead were:
<ul>
<li>Prepare:
<ul>
<li>detailed plans and specifications; and</li>
<li>a contract for the construction.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Call tenders and let a contract to the successful tenderer.</li>
<li>Administer the contract.</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li><strong>Contract</strong></li>
</ol>
The construction contract is based on AS4000-1997 with amendments (e.g. expanded contractor’s warranties and a clear obligation on the contractor to inform itself) aligning the provisions with the scope of the project and that better protected Council.
A Committee was formed by Council (I was a member) to oversee the preparation of the contract.
Essentially the contract provided for a price for the work scoped (in the design and associated specifications) and allowed for variations for work not within the scope and movements in costs of materials.
<ol start='2'>
<li><strong>Selecting a Contractor</strong></li>
</ol>
The tender process was subjected to a probity review.
<ul>
<li>Probity review was carried out by Prevention Partners NSW – The reviewer found the probity hurdles all met.</li>
</ul>
The timeline:
<ul>
<li>2020 – contract awarded (December).</li>
<li>2021 – possession of site handed over to contractor (March).</li>
</ul>
<ol start='3'>
<li><strong>Administering the contract</strong></li>
</ol>
The drivers for variations are changes in input costs (e.g. steel), changes to scope and lost time:
<ul>
<li>Input costs - a lot of steel is used in the construction of grandstands and pools – during 2021 steel prices increased by around 24%.</li>
<li>Scope changes to those specified in the contract - these have been minimal.</li>
<li>Lost time - caused by adverse weather conditions and COVID has been significant.</li>
</ul>
The construction contract is valued at $53.5 million. Council has allowed for an overall final budget of $63.9 million, which includes the design and development costs, legal and specialist consultancies, project management for the balance of the project and an allowance for contingencies that may arise during construction.
At end 2021 approved variations are, given the size of the project, small – less than $200,000. Unapproved claims for variations (at values attributed by council) were within the amount allowed for contingencies.
Claims for variations are inevitable – the task is to vet them to ensure that they are for value and determine if they are to be accepted or rejected under the terms of the contract. This vetting process is in full sway now.
Ian Mutton
<span id=){kind=link}