How SHFA Treats the Community Interest
Is SHFA following State Government Policy?
SHFA's behaviour in relation to the Water Police site is not an isolated instance. It seems to be the approach for all SHFA's developments.
The NSW Government's principle of Triple Bottom Line (TBL) reporting requires that the social, environmental and financial improvements of a proposed development are measured and reported.
From the very outset SHFA's plans for the Water Police site were driven by financial considerations. This seems to be the pattern set for all sites with which SHFA is involved. The Auditor -General's report of November 2003 on Disposal of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Land (page 4) states, among other things:
"The disposal of foreshore land appears to be considered largely at a project level, with inherent emphasis by the proponent on financial returns. For example, State Environmental Planning Policy no. 56 - Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries - requires only a consideration of aspects such as public open space and working harbour, with few specific requirements and no indication of priorities."
Community interests are a long last in SHFA's order of priorities. For example, at a meeting with SHFA between Friends of Pyrmont Point and SHFA Chairman Gerry Gleeson and CEO Rob Lang on 15 September 2003 SHFA were asked for a stay on the development application for the Water Police site so an independent study into community open space, parking, traffic and related issues could be conducted. Gerry Gleeson said emphatically that a stay on the development is "not on."
Such arrogance seems to be a product of the control exerted by SHFA and its Minister over the development of sites within SHFA's responsibility. On 4 August 2003 , Minister Knowles transferred to SHFA the power to assess its own development applications. Thus, between them, SHFA and Minister Knowles control the whole development process, from inception to final approval. To counter SHFA's bias towards development for short-term financial gain, concerned citizens such as green ban legend, Jack Mundey have called for a review of SHFA's charter to remove its current emphasis on development.
SHFA's behaviour is in stark contrast to the enlightened approach shown by the federal government on the former Defence and other special Commonwealth lands, most of which have been hidden away from the community for many years, including:
• North Head Artillery School
• the former Defence lands at Georges Heights , Chowder Bay and Middle Head in Mosman
• Woolwich Dock and Parklands
• Cockatoo Island
• Snapper Island
• Macquarie Lightstation
• the former Marine Biological Station at Watsons Bay
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was set up by the Commonwealth Government to plan the future of these lands. The lands are not to be sold and will remain in public ownership forever. The Harbour Trust has the job of creating something truly special for these lands - to enhance the harbour and leave a lasting legacy for Sydney .
It is ironic that Premier Carr fought for these lands to be retained as an asset for the public of New South Wales . At the same time SHFA, apparently with the full support of the State Government, is hell bent on selling off public foreshore lands held by the State.
At the National Trust Summit on Working Harbour of 24 October 2003 , SHFA CEO Rob Lang said that SHFA looked forward to working on the 33 hectares of foreshore to be released by the demise of the working harbour and to providing a 10 metre path around the harbour. Presumably the rest is to be a real estate development. Is that the extent of SHFA's vision for the harbour?
If unchecked, what sort of legacy will SHFA's one-dimensional approach to foreshore development leave to current and future generations of the Sydney community?
