The part 3A approval by the former Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to allow Rose Group to build 600 dwellings at Catherine Hill Bay and 187 dwellings at Gwandalan is presently being challenged in the Land and Environment Court . The basis for the challenge is bias on the part of the Minister. The Gwandalan/Summerland Point Action Group is being represented by the Environmental Defenders' Office NSW and barrister Mr Jeremy Kirk.

For further information check out the EDO website: http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/casework_key.php#catherine

Read the EDO NSW Bulletin . Read the chronological list of Rose Group history

See latest newspaper coverage

The Federal Government still has to sign off on the Rose Group proposal for 600 houses.

The clock is ticking!! Please email or write to Peter Garrett. Form letter attached

Attached ... This is an up-date from the WPA and as we have received contradictory information in a previous meeting with the Minister and the Department CHBPA is awaiting the formal Minister's determination to confirm details. We anticipate this to be made public in the coming days and will immediately provide the community and supporters with further information at that time.

Click here for  Rose Group's project web site: www.chbconceptplan.com.au

IHAP finished their report to the Minister of Planning, Mr Frank Sartor before Christmas. Their report has not been made public and sits on the desk of the Department of Planning or the Minister of Planning. However the decision from the Minister is IMMINENT.

On Tuesday 30th October the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel came to Catherine Hill Bay . The Community Reference group presented their objections to the latest Rose Group Concept Plan. These submissions were in addition to the 3000 objections that have already gone to the Planning Department.

This latest proposal continues to have significant adverse impacts on the heritage and environmental significance of Catherine Hill Bay . Attached are some of the presentations made by the Progress Association

Planning (16MB)
Heritage (16MB)
Environment
Public Access
Traffic
General
Visual Impacts

The development committee has now reviewed the multiple documents which comprise the current Rose Group submission and presents the points attached as key deficiencies in Rose's Moonee Hamlets concept plan.

WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL 12TH OCTOBER TO LET THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KNOW THAT WE OBJECT TO THIS NEW CONCEPT PLAN. DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE USE THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT TO FORM YOUR OBJECTION LETTERS

LAST CHANCE TO SAVE CATHERINE HILL BAY AND MOONEE BEACH  

THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH ROSE'S NEW PROPOSAL

The new proposal still builds on the Catherine Hill Bay headland. This is against the government's own coastal policy. The development proposed will be highly prominent on the headland.

The Rose group development can only be considered together with the Coal&Allied's proposed development. The town will be increased tenfold in size and so will the number of cars. Traffic access and impacts have to be dealt with as a whole because currently each developer is proposing contradictory access strategies from the Pacific Highway .

The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Planning Minister Frank Sartor and RoseCorp states very clearly that the maximum quantum of development is 600 dwellings. One of the key principles of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel states that commercial development should be “only for daily convenience needs(general store or the like)” this doesn't mean 6oo houses + 9 shops + shoptop housing + tourism accommodation + apartments in the Bin Building on the headland!

Your letter counts. Last time we had more than 2000 submissions against RoseCorp's proposal and the Independent Hearing and Assessment panel took notice. We have to keep up the fight at this last critical stage. Submissions have to be in by 12 th October. If you want to see the new concept plan go to www.chbgconceptplan.com.au/chbgconceptplan/#1

Sign and send off the following letter or write your own, being careful to include the project name and location, stating that you object and giving reasons for your objections.

Also attached is an additional typical letter, one of many objection letters sent to the Planning Department, objecting to the new Rose Group concept plan. Please feel free to use any part of this letter in your own objection letter.

Send your objections to:
Director, Strategic Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

For more information please contact Sue Whyte 49762310 suewhyte1980@bigpond.com.au

RoseCorp's new proposals for development at Catherine Hill Bay and Gwandalan are expected to go on public display in mid-July, followed by a 30-day minimum period for public submissions.

The Independent Assessment Panel, which ruled that RoseCorp's initial proposal was “unacceptable”, organised a preview briefing of the new proposal for the Community Reference Group on 30 May. Public hearings of objections are planned for 27-28 August (dates may change).

Snapshot of the new proposal:
•  reduces development footprint by 9ha
•  still aims at maximum 600 dwellings in a series of “hamlets”, separated by green corridors, at Moonee Colliery, Snake and Possum Gullies and the Coal Prep. Plant.
•  Traffic: new intersection for Montefiore St and Pacific Highway and traffic management measures to encourage use of this route rather than Flowers Drive . Hale St to carry local northbound traffic and attention to be given to impact on houses in Lindsley St and Middle Camp.
•  20m wide green buffer on either side of Montefiore St
•  Extensive use of vegetation for screening and re-establishment of native species
•  New headland park
•  Heritage precinct for Wallarah House and Jetty Master's Cottage; no hotel beds.
•  No ridge development; new “village centre” (shops) on Prep Plant site; possible re-use of Bin Building under investigation (otherwise as a viewing platform)
•  Height of buildings varies in the hamlets generally 1 to 1.5 stories but higher in places; Panel to determine exactly what this means.

This “snapshot” is neither complete nor comprehensive because RoseCorp has much more work to do. The Community Reference Group raised some issues of concern and undertakings were given that these would receive attention. New studies to determine how much development the site can reasonably take will be available when the new Concept Plan goes on display.

The Progress Association continues to have concerns about the proposal and these will be open for discussion at the next Association meeting. This meeting will also review the outcomes of the Community Workshop on the Coal and Allied proposal held on 20 May. Date to be advised.

The Independent Assessment Panel has damned the RoseCorp proposal and vindicated the community's case against the development. The RoseCorp development, in its various forms, has been a dud since was mooted in 2002. (Click here to read the Independent Assessment Panel's report. Click here to read the Minister's Office Media Release)

There is widespread and increasing community opposition to it,  Wyong and Lake Macquarie Councils spurned it, and it failed to stand up in the Land and Environment Court on appeal.

Now it has failed to clear even the first hurdle of a State Government assessment process designed to facilitiate such developments.

It is a shocker of a development and  the Independent Panel deserves every credit for baulking at giving it credence.

The Panel says that there is scope for development on the RoseCorp site, and the Progress Association has always accepted this. But the Catherine Hill Bay community wants quality development in scale and sympathy with the village and landscape, not a dud.

RoseCorp has been invited to prepare an amended proposal, consistent with statutory planning requirements.

The Progress Association remains sceptical of the developer's intentions and believes that an amended proposal should be re-exhibited for public scrutiny and comment to ensure transparency, before any decision is made by the Minister.

Brian Cogan - hon Secretray Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association

RoseCorp withdrew its application just prior to the meeting.

Click here to download the Progress Association's presentation to the Independent Assessment Panel advising Minister Sartor (27nd February 2007)
Click here to download Heritage Issues - Jennifer Hill (3MB)
Click here to download Planning Issues - Dr. Deborah Dearing (15MB)

The formal objection by the Progress Association is available to download below:

Objection letter
Attachment 1: Community Profile
Attachment 2: “Core Position” of the Assoc
Attachment 3: Chronology of planning protection 1969 – present
Attachment 4: Coal and Allied undertakings on land use after mining
Attachment 5: Extract of the Mine Rehabilitation Plan
Attachment 6: Rehabilitation Progress map and photos
Attachment 7: Visual Impacts/photomontage

The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel states that any development in Middle Camp should be located only on land that has been previously disturbed and that is visually separate from the existing village. There will be no development behind the houses to the west of the village (area C) or in Slack Alley (area D). Read more from the CHBPA. Click here to read the the IHAP report.

Below is the formal objection sent to the Department of Planning by the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association to the development proposed by Coal & Allied.

C&A submission main text
Attach 1 - Core position of the Association
Attach 2 - Community profile
Attach 3 - Social Infastructure and Developer Contributions
Attach 4 - Review of Ecological Bushfire Assessment (2MB)
Attach 5 - Traffic Assessment Advice
Attach 6 - Heritage Assessment Advice
Attach 7 - Heritage Assessment Advice
Attach 8 - Heritage Advice on Development Area D (2MB)
Attach 9 - Community Consultation Comments
Attach 10 - Illustrated Analysis of Proposed development impacts
Attach 11 - Chronology of Planning Protection - 1969 to present
Attach 12 - Previous undertakings to Government and Community by C&A

Some of the presentations from the Progress Associaiton to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

Middle Camp (29MB file)
The Threat to Middle Camp
Heritage Impact Study Objection

These reports were prepared for the Progress Association on the impacts of the Coal&Allied development in Middle Camp. - 22nd February 2008

Environment impacts
Traffic report

Please note that you must let the Department of Planning know by the 7 th of February if you wish to make a presentation before the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel. The panel will be meeting with the community on the 12 th of February. Even though we have been granted an extension until Friday 29 th February to put objections into the Department of Planning against the Concept Plan proposed by Coal&Allied for Middle Camp, the times that the community can meet with the Panel have not been altered.

If you wish to make a presentation to the Panel contact Paula Poon  Paula.Poon@planning.nsw.gov.au

A concept plan by Coal and Allied Operations Limited has been submitted to the Department of Planning. Details below. This development proposal will have severe impacts on the village of Middle Camp.

The proposal entails building houses to the north, south, east and west of the village and, as such, will be highly visually intrusive. 300 new houses on top of the existing 54 will smother the heritage village

YOUR LETTER COUNTS. For the last Rose Group proposal there were close to 3000 submissions, and the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel took notice. We do not have much time as our submissions have to be in by the 29th February 2008. Please send in your objections now, and send in as many letters as you can.

Further details
Objection letter 1
Objection letter 2
Objection letter 3

Details of the Coal and Allied concept plan can be viewed by going to the Department of Planning website. Click here. You can scroll down or search for the Middle Camp proposal.

Details are also available on the Coal and Allied website. Click here.

Attached are the briefing notes C&A provided to the Community Reference Group on Thursday 23 rd August. Community representatives are engaged in a 3 day workshop at the moment with C&A where they will be endeavouring to explain that the 300 dwellings that C&A want are not appropriate or achievable.

Rio Tinto Briefing handout (1 MB)
Rio Tinto Briefing Slides (8 MB)

Coal and Allied, part of the massive Rio Tinto group of companies has begun its push for development on the Wallarah Peninsula

The company has proposed 300 dwellings in an arc around Middle Camp, the northern most of the two villages at Catherine Hill Bay .

Middle Camp itself has about 60 houses, and is the access way to “Graveyard” a popular surfing beach overlooked by a heritage cemetery.

The proposed development is five times the size of Middle Camp and more than twice the size of both Catherine Hill Bay settlements. Coal and Allied's proposed 300 is in addition to a 600 dwelling development proposed by RoseCorp at the southern end of Catherine Hill Bay, overlooking Moonee Beach.

More than 60 people attended the company's consultative workshops about the proposal. A detailed proposal is expected to go on public display for comment soon. The Progress Association will circulate an analysis of the proposal when it becomes available and invites your support in responding to the proposal.

In the mean time the State Planning Department has made public the requirements which the company has to satisfy before it can get approval for its development. These are known as the Director General's Requirements (DGRs) (click here to view)

Coal and Allied also plans a new development of 90 dwellings adjacent to Nords Wharf which is on the Lake Macquarie side of the Wallarah Peninsula . For the DGRs for this development (click here to view).

COAL AND ALLIED has begun its community consultation program with the distribution of a brochure about its broad intentions for land it owns at the Bay, Nords Wharf , Gwandalan, Minmi and Black Hill. The brochure was re-lettered boxed at the Bay this week after the first delivery was damaged or misplaced in wet weather. An electronic copy has been distributed in association with our newsletter.

If you don't have a copy of the brochure or if you want to register for the company's planning workshops in early August call Coal and Allied on 1800 551 560, or email communityworkshops@rtca.riotinto.com.au .

Colour versions of the maps in the brochure are available at www.coalandallied.com.au

ALL RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS ARE URGED TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF THE COMPANY'S PLANNING WORKSHOPS, WHICH WILL BE HELD IN SWANSEA RSL CLUB IN EARLY AUGUST. YOU MUST BOOK A PLACE. DATES AVAILABLE ON 1800 551 560.

The Save the Bay campaign has thousands of supporters throughout Australia and overseas. They all want to Save the Bay because they know it is "a special place" unique in Australia .

They support our campaign financially and by making their protest known in objections to the NSW Government, through letter-writing campaigns and lobbying.

You can join this campaign. Click on Things you can do to help Save the Bay.

This web site will keep you updated. Click News and Events for latest news.

We will provide advice during February on this web site on how to make your protest most effective. You can join The Friends of Catherine Hill Bay and receive updates direct to your email.

1. Join The Friends of Catherine Hill Bay to keep informed up to the minute. Click here to download the membership form.
   
2. Help financially. The Progress Association has launched a fund raising campaign for its Fighting Fund to enable it engage professional consultants to strengthen it objection. Click here to read how you can help.
   
3. Donate to the Heritage Trust Fighting Fund. See attached information.
   
4. Visit the Bay - and enjoy it!
   
5. Catherine Hill Bay residents have initiated other lobbying efforts which are being taken up by supporters. See below.

Catherine Hill Bay is a heritage village of about 100 mainly small miners' cottages, whose scale, character and appearance is much as it was in the 1890s and early 1900s. soon after coal mining was established.

The development proposals being considered by the State Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, and for

1. 600 houses and 150 tourist beds at the southern end of Catherine Hill Bay , intruding onto the headland and into the heritage village (the RoseCorp proposal)
   
2. 300 houses at the northern end of the Bay, in the vicinity of Middle Camp about 1km north.

In other words the heritage village would be hemmed in between new development which would increase the place's size by 10 times.

Despite their combined impact on the community, the Government is treating these as separate projects, with about eight months between publication of the two concept plans.

You can check details of these plans, with maps by clicking here

The community's reasons for fighting and what we think is reasonable development are available in full by clicking on these headings in the side bar (left)

The Government has jettisoned its own established planning policies to force intrusive, overwhelming urban development on the heritage village of Catherine Hill Bay by Coal and Allied and RoseCorp.

Updated Rosecorp plan showing 600 houses! Click here, then scroll down to the "State Significant Site and Major Project (concept plan) application for redevelopment of Catherine Hill Bay and Gwandalan" section. Hard copies are on display at Lake Macquarie and Wyong Council chambers and Department of Planning offices in Newcastle , Central Coast and head office ( 23-33 Bridge St Sydney ).

One man - the Planning Minister Mr Sartor - has the power to

1. Push aside the advice of the Planning Department and Heritage Office.
2. Ignore the protests of two Councils and the decision of the Land and Environment Court against the Rosecorp development plan.
3. Harm the unique heritage value of the Bay's village and landscape -- just to keep the developers happy

Attached is the full article

"...the Planning Minister and Premier's office appear to have misled the community about their intentions, indicating support for heritage protections but not delivering in the face of developer demands for development rights where none currently exist.

Not a pretty picture and not good news for public policy, or for good government or for fair dealing with the community. "

In the following documents, obtained under FOI legislation, the Department of Planning ranked 91 possible sites in the Hunter in terms of suitability for development. Catherine Hill Bay was ranked the second least desirable location for development. In approving development in the Bay, Mr Sartor has ignored his own department's advice, and pushed it to the top. (Click here to download all files - 3MB)

(We gratefully acknowledge the Hunter Community Environment Centre as the organisation which lodged the FOI and provided this material)

Department of Planning Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) for assessing potential development areas in the Hunter.
Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 (right click to save to disk and view in more detail)

Department of Planning tables for each of the 91 areas. Note that Catherine Hill Bay is area RS253, and this area came in second last.
Table1 Table2 Table3 Table4 (right click to save to disk and view in more detail)

Department of Planning map showing the area numbers Map (right click to save to disk and view in more detail)

Rally Against Inappropriate Development on Sunday, 19th October 10.00 a.m. – 2.00 p.m. , Hyde Park near St James station marching to Parliament House. Be part of state-wide action.

Attached ... Due to the presence of threatened species at Catherine Hill Bay, development has been deemed a ‘controlled action’ under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Final development approval is required from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett.

Additionally, the Trust has nominated Catherine Hill Bay for the National Heritage List on the basis of its environmental and built heritage significance. Minister Garrett may decline development approval under the Act or place an emergency National Heritage Listing on the site to protect it.

We also now have some new people in the NSW Government to whom we should be writing. Please write letters to Peter Garrett backing up the call from the National Trust to intervene to save Catherine Hill Bay. Attached are some addresses.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts held a meeting on the 10 th July that representatives of the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association attended. This committee is inquiring into and reporting on issues related to climate change and environmental pressures experienced by Australian coastal areas, particularly in the context of coastal population growth. It was interesting that of the 10 members of the House of Representatives, who are on the committee, only the 5 Labor Party committee members attended.

Barry Laing, a long time member of the CHBPA, made a presentation and commented that “the committee were listening well and understood how CHB illustrates the predicament of people wanting to protect coastal communities and environments in NSW under the Part 3A regime. They made it clear that they felt powerless to do anything about the current developments but they were interested to hear our suggestions as to what they could do at a Federal level, as in our submissions (federal coordination of coastal policy, research and data collection, reinstatement of the coastal projects terminated by the Howard Govt, education campaign, new laws for coastal policy).  They are interested to know how far the federal endangered species laws extend into controlling whole developments such as the CHB one”

 The Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association submission and Barry Laing submission are attached.

Attached ...The National Trust is strongly opposed to the current proposals from two developers (Rosecorp and Coal & Allied) to build 900 homes. Mr Quint says the developments, one of which will dominate the coastal headland of the village, will increase the number of homes at Catherine Hill Bay 10 fold. “The Trust has major concerns about the environmental impact of the development, and the destruction of the historical value of the tiny village.”

The lack of transparency which surrounded the government's dealings with large landholders in the Lower Hunter in 2006 still persists.

Planning Minister Frank Sartor in May 2007 released the first report by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel on the Rosecorp concept plan in Catherine Hill Bay , to the public with such comments as:

“Today is an important step in the on-going process of consulting with the community and ensuring the proposal is subjected to a rigorous assessment process.”

“Clearly the process is working as it should and the panel is doing its job to examine the project in a thorough and transparent way”

Where has this “transparency” gone?

For the last six weeks we have been trying to get the subsequent reports on the second concept plan put forward by the Rose group and the report on the concept plan by Coal and Allied by the Panel released. One of these reports was with the Minister four months ago. We have made multiple requests, some under FOI. Attached is some correspondance from the Department of Planning. DOP1 DOP2 DOP3 DOP4 DOP5

On Tuesday Sue Whyte from Catherine Hill Bay, Kevin Spencer from Gwandalan, Sue Wynn and Peter Morris from URGE went to State Parliament to ask the cross benches to support a call for papers by Sylvia Hale of the Greens.

The documents that were requested from the Department of Planning relate to any application by Rosecorp and Coal and Allied for approval under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to carry out residential subdivisions of sites at Catherine Hill Bay, Moonee Beach, Nords Wharf and Gwandalan. As well documents relating to any proposal for listing sites in these areas as State Significant and any reports on the ecology of these sites were also requested.

This call for papers went through today with no debate. The documents will be available on the 24 th April, at State Parliament

The three communities of the Wallarah Peninsula , Catherine Hill Bay , Nords Wharf and Gwandalan met on Sunday 20 th January to discuss the proposed developments on the Wallarah Peninsula .  The deadline for public comment draws near for the development proposals that will add 1090 new homes to these areas. All objections have to be in to the Department of Planning by the 1 st February. Many residents have concerns about environmental impacts, traffic safety and damage to heritage areas.

The Mayor of Lake Macquarie Greg Piper and the Federal member Jill Hall attended and offered their support.

A decision on the Rose Group proposal for Catherine Hill Bay , which will add another 600 houses plus1800 squares of retail and further holiday accommodation plus apartments on the clifftop, is still waiting a report from the Planning Department before going to the Minister for Planning Mr Frank Sartor for a final determination. As part of this Rose Group proposal a further 220 houses will also be built at Gwandalan.

Altogether nearly 2000 new homes will be built on the fragile Wallarah Peninsula , an area that for the last 40 years everyone including the Council, all Planning Bodies and the State Government said should have NO DEVELOPMENT.

Rosecorp's solicitors have written to the Association demanding that the "before" and "after" images of a notional schematic development. The company threatened legal action if they were not removed. The Association has removed the material Rosecorp complained about, and has invited Rosecorp to provide information in response to specific questions within a specified period. The Association's solicitors rejected the Rosecorp demands as spurious.

Read the Rosecorp letter and our letter in response.

On Tuesday tiny Catherine Hill Bay, in the Swansea electorate, had its true worth recognised when it was named by Keep Australia Beautiful as the friendliest beach with the best "beach spirit" and winner of the KAB Clean Beach Challenge in the Hunter.

On Friday it will be fighting for its life and its rich heritage of coal mining, beach and bush when it faces up to one of the world's largest coal/mineral companies, Rio Tinto, which has development plans for the tiny heritage village (of only about 100 dwellings, mainly miners' cottages).

The Planning Minister, Mr Sartor, has made a deal with Rio Tinto and another developer, RoseCorp, to divide up the conservation-zoned land around the village for housing --- in total 10 times the size of the existing village, bigger than Charmhaven, three times bigger than Swansea Heads, and a third bigger than Pelican and Nords Wharf combined.

The first round on Friday 17 November will see Coal and Allied, the Rio Tinto subsidiary, hold an "information session" for residents from Catherine Hill Bay and Nords Wharf to outline its intentions under Mr Sartor's controversial Part 3A of the planning act.

The briefing, in the surf club, begins at 6pm .Residents will meet at 5.30pm in the main car park at the beach to march to the information session with banners -- reminiscent of the protest march in 1958 through the village to the mine in support of miners engaged in a 203-hour underground sit-in against sackings and the failure of the State ALP Government to provide relief.

The State Government has sacrificed the unique heritage village of Catherine Hill Bay to create a half billion dollar windfall for a developer, the town's Progress Association said today.

The comments followed an angry residents' meeting at the weekend in response to the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy which was announced last week.

The Strategy provides RoseCorp, a Sydney developer, with a "development footprint" for about 600 dwellings adjacent to and intruding into Catherine Hill Bay village, which has only 100 houses, most of them miners' cottages dating from the 19 th and early 20 th century.

"The Premier's Office assured us last month that it was the Premier's personal wish that the 'working class heritage' of the Bay be protected under the Strategy," the Association Secretary, Brian Cogan, said.

"The Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, told me last month that he was prepared to list the village on the State Heritage Register. This is now unlikely because his negotiations will result in the town's heritage values being overwhelming by new development."

"In NSW today, it seems that such undertakings by even the Premier and Planning Minister are sufficient to stand in the way of coastal development."

"Broadly speaking we endorse the broad vision of the Regional Strategy but at Catherine Hill Bay it will give development rights on coastal land where no such rights currently exist and the land is zoned for various forms of conservation.

"Mr Sartor has changed all that at a stroke of a pen, and the beneficiary is not the communities of the Lower Hunter or Central Coast , but a development company.

"With 600 dwellings at about $750,000 each the windfall gain to the developer is about half a billion dollars for a development which otherwise is contrary to all relevant established planning policies, including Coastal Policy, and against the wishes of the local councils," Mr Cogan said.

Mr Cogan said the Association decided to support the National Trust which has called for a "proper, independent and thorough heritage and environmental assessment" of the area "to preserve the historic, aesthetic and landscape of this very special part of the NSW Coast ." The Trust opposes any development within the visual catchment of the heritage village. (see attached).

The Progress Association also will ask the Premier and Mr Sartor to act on their stated "best intentions" and rescue the heritage village from obliteration by development.

Catherine Hill Bay celebrates in 2007 the 140 th anniversary of the discovery of coal in the cliff face near the surfing beach. The discovery initiated an underground coal mining industry that continued until 2001, first in primitive tunnels and then through industrial scale mining.

"Government jettisons Coastal Policy, planning rules to facilitate development at the Bay"

This week or next the State Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, intends to announce that about 10,000 hectares of privately-owned land in the Hunter Valley are to become parks in public ownership.

The announcement is likely to meet general acclaim. But there is a worm at the centre of this rosy apple, a worm that signifies something is rotten at the core.

What has happened is this:
In February word leaked out in the media that Coal and Allied, Hardie Holdings and "various other big developers" had offered to Government large tracts of land which they own in exchange for development rights in "key areas".

The "key areas" include places that are so environmentally significant that they provide their owners with inconvenient obstacles to development.

Among the developers is Rose Corp, whose 380 hectares stretch across the Wallarah Peninsula from the ocean to Lake Macquarie , wedged between the Catherine Hill Bay heritage village and Munmorah State Conservation Area.

Rose Corp's "key area" for development is partly in Lake Macquarie city and partly in Wyong Shire. The Councils have imposed various forms of conservation zoning on the lands because of the area's strategic and environmental significance.

Rose Corp's 2004 proposal to Lake Macquarie Council included five storey units on the south headland, a "super" sports and licensed club and other residential.

Lake Macquarie Council rejected the development on 13 grounds one of which was that the proposal was "not in the interests of the public". It was also contrary to the NSW Planning Act, to five State planning policies, two regional planning instruments and five council planning and management instruments.

Undaunted, Rose Corp appealed to the Land and Environment Court , which rejected all the company's claims and dismissed its appeal.

By the time the Court announced its decision Rose Corp had already prepared a proposal for negotiation with the Government. Notwithstanding Council and Court decisions the amended proposal included the club, tourist accommodation, two storey residential and 150 houses tacked on to the heritage village between the sea and extending onto the headland.

Its proposal for adjoining land in Wyong Shire was for unspecified hundreds of dwellings on land currently zoned for nil development except at the discretion of the Minister, Mr Sartor.

Nobody is saying how many houses or how big. The actual scale of what is intended is hidden by the parties' preference for an unspecific "development footprint" for the "key area" rather than an actuality which would dismay the public, some of whom believe that NSW has a Coastal Policy to guard against this type of deal.

All that is needed is for the Minister to change existing zonings from environmental and coastal protection to something which accommodates the developer's ask.

The same convenient stroke of the pen is likely to give Hardie Holdings development rights at Sweetwater, an environmentally contested locality, and Coal and Allied rights to develop bush facing Crangan Bay , the last unspoiled bay left in Lake Macquarie . All this occurs, of course, without the transparency and public scrutiny (including assessment by the Court if required) that due process normally requires of ordinary mortals.

Mr Sartor has explained that his priority is to take advantage of an "historic opportunity" to turn privately owned land into parks and to strengthen the viability of the Lower Hunter Planning Strategy which is soon to be announced.

This is a reasonable political objective. But is such an aim, where details are scant , consequences sidelined and established planning policies cast aside, to the credit of the Government or consistent with open government in the interests of the community? In our view it signals yet another corruption of public policy and weakening of planning policy in the interest of developers.

The precedent it sets for Coastal Policy anywhere in NSW is disastrous.

In 2003 Rose Corp foreshadowed an extension of the existing Catherine Hill Bay village by 35 homes and a "coastal village" of 220 homes in Wyong Shire. Rose Corp has not won a single point of support from the community, Councils or Court since that time.

Despite its lack of success through due process its June 2006 proposal to Government upped the ante to almost 150 new dwellings at Catherine Hill Bay and unspecified hundreds more across the road in Wyong Shire.

At Catherine Hill Bay the state government is about to give wing to an "historic opportunity" which a year ago was correctly defined as being against the public interest.

COURT REJECTS ROSECORP DA AT THE BAY!

The Land & Environment Court today dismissed RoseCorp's appeal against Lake Macquarie City Council's refusal of its development proposal at Catherine Hill Bay .

The proposed "super-club", to be operated by Swansea RSL, and five story units on the Bay's southern headland was rejected by LMCC in July 2005 as being contrary to 13 State, regional and City planning policies.

In January the Court's preliminary judgement dismissed RoseCorp's claim that it had "existing use rights" and that the 7(4) zoning permitted the proposal. Today's decision (7th July 2006) related to whether the total development (including units) could be classified as a club (clubs are permitted in the Zone). The Judge considered much legal argument and decided that there were no grounds for appeal against the Council's decision and dismissed the appeal.

THE PROGRESS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS:

The Court's decision today (7th July 2006) is a significant win for coastal protection in NSW. If the Wallarah Peninsula , with all its protections and special qualities, falls to developers, no coastal site in NSW can consider itself safe from development.

The Progress Association has always believed that this proposal was a colossal try-on and could only succeed if the planning laws were subverted to accommodate it.

Lake Macquarie City Council officers and Councillors had the courage to stand up for State and city planning policies and to very ably defend Council's decision in Court. Council is to be commended.

The battle for the Bay is not over, however.

This developer has a DA before Wyong Shire Council for about 1000 medium density units on an adjoining block which is zoned for NIL development and for coastal acquisition in the interests of the whole community.

Wyong Council is expected to move on this matter quickly now that the Court has ruled on the adjacent RoseCorp development in Lake Macquarie .
Further information from the Association Secretary, (02) 49725081 or click on "Contact us" for details.

Download Word document
Download PowerPoint document

Download Word document
Download PowerPoint document

Download the 10MB movie file (courtesy of Channel 10)

Catherine Hill Bay has reached the national airwaves. Ian McNamara, from the ABC's national program Australia All Over, visited Catherine Hill Bay on 6th February 2008. He recorded conversations with a number of locals and played these over the following two Sundays. The plans by developers Rose Group and Coal&Allied  for Catherine Hill Bay he thought were “criminal” and would destroy this special place on the coast of NSW . Telephone calls came from Tasmania , Western Australia and Victoria wondering how such destruction was being allowed to take place.

Attached ...An expert panel has knocked back plans for a major redevelopment at Catherine Hill Bay on the Hunter Coast.

Locals claimed the proposal would have destroyed the area's unique features, special significance as a heritage and environmental site, and public access to the beach and lake

Download the 5MB audio file excerpt from the show (courtesy of 2GB)

Catho's Castle
Time To Think On Planning
Land Checks Undermined
Newcastle Herald Cartoon

Attached ... CATHERINE Hill Bay residents are hopeful their village will be added to the state heritage register in the near future.

The listing would strengthen the community's campaign against large-scale development in the area, such as that proposed by Rose Group and Coal & Allied.

The State Government's develop monitor for the past year shows 5,500 submissions were received for the Rosecorp and Coal and Allied proposals. That is 30 per cent of the total submissions received by the Government for all projects.

Carrying banners and donning shirts that read "Save Catho", the protesters want to scrap Part 3A of the state's planning legislation.

One of his last decisions, just days before he was axed by his own party, was to approve a major development at Catherine Hill Bay the last unspoilt and undeveloped gem on the Central Coast. It was, you might say, a symbolic end to a reign of terror.

Greens MLC Sylvia Hale says the development should not be allowed to go ahead under any circumstances. "Once again the Minister for Planning has failed to listen to the community," she said. "The people he appears to listen to are the major donors to the Labor Party. Rosecorp, in the lead up to the 2007 state election, donated $143,000 to the ALP."

Rosecorp Pty Ltd donated $143,600 while seeking State Government approval for its projects at Breakfast Point in Sydney and Catherine Hill Bay south of Newcastle.

Heritage listing prompts call to ban Catherine Hill Bay housing plan - ABC 21st April 2008

The National Trust has listed the township among three rare heritage sites in NSW that it believes should be protected.

Mr O ' Farrell said the real problem with the Hunter Regional Plan was that it was a deal done behind closed doors by Mr Sartor and developers with no transparency or community involvement.

Just one place above it on the list was Catherine Hill Bay, an old mining village on the Wallarah Peninsula, 80 kilometres south-east of Sweetwater. Surrounded by coastal heath and bordered by unspoiled surf beaches, it is the last barrier holding back Sydney ' s suburban sprawl in its relentless march north to Newcastle.

"It would set a precedent along the entire New South Wales coastline, raising developers' expectations that they could develop headlands and conservation areas and precious places like this."

Attached ... SOME of the business world ' s biggest winners from NSW Government decisions have emerged as the Labor Party ' s most generous donors.

Rosecorp, which is involved in controversial projects such as Breakfast Point and Catherine Hill Bay, gave $110,000.

However, concern remains about the prospect of more than 800 new houses being built around the old mining village.

Documents marked "Cabinet in Confidence" show that the Department of Planning advised the minister in May last year that "no development occur at Catherine Hill Bay ".

In fact, the Department of Environment and Conservation thought land in the area was so important it should be bought by the state.

Mr Sartor appointed an independent panel to study the plan and Mr Cogan presented the association's objections to the panel yesterday.

Mr Cogan said the developer had not made a "comprehensive case for the size and design of the proposal".

But Barry and Pauline Wiltshire fear they will end up living in a suburb they dislike.

They say plans for 900 houses in the village of 100 homes will destroy its character.

"There is not one sound planning principle applying to the agreement," Cr Piper said.

The assessment criticised the plan as misleading for referring to land that had been rehabilitated as "despoiled".

A confidential draft cabinet document, obtained by The Herald, concluded that: "No development [should] occur at Catherine Hill Bay."

Attached ... Mr Cogan was not convinced the government was serious about addressing public concerns.

“People feel as if the government has just walked over them and they're angry,” he said.

Attached ... LAKE Macquarie City councillor Laurie Coghlan will stand as an independent candidate at the March state election in the seat of Swansea....He was outraged that NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor had stripped the council of its planning powers over development plans at Catherine Hill Bay. "Somebody needs to stand up in Parliament and say his decision was wrong and it needs to be revisited."

A traffic nightmare - Bay report `devastating ' - Daily Telegraph - Thursday 4th Januray 2007

Triguboff calls it "sensible" city building. In fact, though, sensible cities protect wilderness by keeping humans corralled. He believes Sydney has "too many forests and parks . we should be building on this area". Well, here ' s his chance.

Attached ... NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor has been accused of giving developers Hardie Holdings, Rosecorp and Coal & Allied preferential treatment in striking deals with them for housing at Branxton and Catherine Hill Bay . Critics claim Mr Sartor has ignored his own department's advice in negotiating the developers' housing plans...

POLICY POSITION – Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association ( 24 September 2006 ; amended 24 th February 2008 ).

1. This Catherine Hill Bay community meeting supports the intention of government to create a National Park on the Wallarah Peninsula comprising areas in each of the large land holdings held by Coal and Allied and Rose Group.
2. The community acknowledges that such an outcome may involve some limited, sympathetic development, as per the Lake Macquarie Council Heritage and Conservation guidelines as they stand today. Any development is to be resolved through detailed planning and community consultation.
3. Careful location of any proposed development is crucial, and this meeting believes that any proposed development should be restricted to south of Montefiore St and at the western end of Colliery Road . The community's support is conditional on separation of the development from the heritage village and conservation areas, and preparation of appropriate Conservation and Land Use Management Plans for the proposed development sites.
4. In this regard the community again notes and endorses the undertakings of the Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, to appoint a community reference group and a design review panel (with professionally qualified nominated representatives of the Progress Association) to oversight development plans. The community notes and endorses the Minister's confirmation that Catherine Hill Bay village and adjoining landscape, from coast to western ridges, will be given State Heritage listing.
5. We will continue to press forward and operate in good faith with Coal and Allied even though reports on community consultations as conducted by Coal & Allied at workshops, regional forum and charette process misrepresented community views and the results of these were misleading. The community expresses our disappointment that Rose Group has made only minimal attempts to consult with the community.
6. Again the community asserts that the current negotiations to achieve the outcomes sought by Government and community should not be subverted, or corrupted, in a way that permits development similar to that which has been properly rejected by the local Councils and/or the Land and Environment Court .
7. At Catherine Hill Bay Rose Group and Coal & Allied Pty Ltd have proposed development in the heritage village and Coastal Zone, similar to that rejected by Lake Macquarie City Council, the Court, and community. RoseCorp's proposal for the Moonee Colliery site and Coal & Allied's proposal for Middle Camp appear to be contrary to all relevant State planning policies.
8. The community believes that an ”historic opportunity” to provide an outstanding environmental and conservation outcome for the Lower Hunter will be lost if the Government permits development that is contrary to a raft of State regional and planning policies and is against the public interest.
9. The community is grateful for the widespread support it has received for its campaign to protect Catherine Hill Bay and acknowledges its role as caretaker of a place that is special to many thousands of people.

In early September Minister Sartor chaired a briefing at Catherine Hill Bay during which two large owners, Coal and Allied (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and RoseCorp, made over view presentations of their intentions (with no detail).

The briefing was attended by representatives of Lake Macquarie and Wyong councils, and representatives of the Catherine Hill Bay , Nords Wharf and Gwandalan communities.

On 24 September the Catherine Hill Bay community met to consider the issues and carried a resolution setting out the community's views on what was reasonable development at the Bay, and how to go about it.

Neither the community nor Progress Association is opposed to development.

The resolution was conveyed to Government three weeks before the announcement of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, and is shown in the Resolution of 24th September 2006 below

Attached

Attached

All coastal communities face potentially dire consequences as the State Government changes established planning policies and processes to give development rights to coastal lands where no such rights exist under "the rules".

The Wallarah Peninsula Alliance put the case for the coastal communities at the NSW Coastal Conference at Coffs Harbour on 7 November 2006.

Read the speech, and view the powerpoint presentation (10MB)

The WPA protest letter is attached

Read the resolution of the Nature Conservation Council condemming this development

Read their letter opposing this development

Sydney Morning Herald - 11th June 2008

Is it possible that the Robert and Margaret Rose who were appointed members of the Order of Australia for "service to the building and construction industry … particularly in the area of sustainable urban development and planning" are Bob Rose of RoseCorp and his wife, whose Breakfast Point development is mired in controversy and who are planning the inappropriate overdevelopment of Catherine Hill Bay?

Elisabeth Goodsall Wahroonga

Sydney Morning Herald - 17th April 2008

Bob Rose (Letters, April 16) continues to promulgate the myth that having a green buffer between Sydney and Newcastle is somehow contingent on him winning approval for his outrageous development at Catherine Hill Bay. The land is already zoned for primary conservation - let's leave it that way.

Ian Roffey Oyster Bay

Sydney Morning Herald - 17th April 2008

So nice to read that the State Government has done a "swap" with the Rose Group of environmentally sensitive coastal land at Catherine Hill Bay - apparently to the great benefit of the people of NSW.

Does it then come under the control of Lands Department? That would mean it can lease sections for 50 years to Babcock and Brown to build 200 "eco-friendly" units, because the department alleges it cannot afford to maintain the area? This is what has happened with the beautiful Killalea State Park at Shellharbour on the South Coast.

Helen Harle Wollongong

Sydney Morning Herald - 17th April 2008

Courting the public with the name Rose Group eh, Bob? That a property developer by any other name should smell so sweet.

Seth Richardson Enmore

Sydney Morning Herald - 14th April 2008

Assault on planning process leaves councils vulnerable

Since late 2006 Hardie Holdings has been trying to impose a large, dense development on the small town of Dunoon, 20 kilometres north-east of Lismore. Some of the methods you reveal ("Paving paradise to save it", April 12-13) are familiar to us: going for the maximum lot yield (nearly 60 lots compared with a recently developed 16 lots on an adjacent site of similar size); seeking to cross zoning boundaries to accommodate lots; alienating prime agricultural land (in this case, for a sewerage plant within 200 metres of the town); and bombarding the local council with consultants' reports.

The Hardie technique seems to focus on outflanking the planning authority while ignoring community concerns and legitimate objections. After the company first lodged its development application a packed meeting in the town expressed overwhelming opposition. Our letter requesting consultation was ignored.

What alarms us is the modus operandi, revealed in your article, of assaulting the planning process and then pressuring and isolating planners who are trying to do their job. If the company can do this to a state government department, what pressure might it exert on a local council?

Paula McDougall Dunoon Community Group, Dunoon

Sydney Morning Herald - 14th April 2008

Not only was the NSW Government completely stupid to trade off unsustainable development and the clearing of sensitive bushland in return for a measly bit of undeveloped land that it could have zoned open space anyway, but thinking that no one would ever spot the link between this deal and Labor Party donations is incredibly naive ("Secret files expose sway of developers", April 12-13).

It's as if the Government doesn't care any more, and will happily offer planning approval or dish out any other benefits in exchange for party donations.

Brad Ruting Woolloomooloo

Sydney Morning Herald - 14th April 2008

Frank Sartor's credibility is shot. His claim that "A lot of these people don't get their own way" is like saying that a child who gets nine ice creams when they want 10 is not getting their own way. Developers, like other pests, are resourceful, adaptable, unscrupulous and absolutely determined. They are to be tolerated, not encouraged. Having said that, if Morris Iemma wants to rebuild his Government's credentials, the first thing he should do is to show his Treasurer, Michael Costa, the door. When in doubt about the source of the sickness that infects planning, and other public policy areas, look no further than Costa, the man who thinks planning is a "waste of time".

On a more positive note, it is heartening to see that there are still public servants like Steve Brown.

Michael Hinchey South West Rocks

Sydney Morning Herald - 14th April 2008

Why don't we save all that money spent on organising and running elections and just hand over the running of the state to developers? This would cut out the middle man, reduce the need for lobbyists, and achieve the same result.

Don Leayr Albury

Sydney Morning Herald - 1st March 2008

Tina Jackson (Letters, February 28) provides cogent reasons why Frank Sartor should not provide approvals for developers to make millions from the destruction of Catherine Hill Bay. But what matters more than how much money the developers poured into Labor Party coffers, is the minister's belief that there is one man alone who exceeds the collective wisdom and expertise of the Heritage Council, the Land and Environment Court, two shire councils and their officers, those who zoned the area as a conservation area, those who nominated it for heritage listing, the officers of his own department who opposed the development proposals and sundry community groups.

James Thomson - Dooralong

Sydney Morning Herald - 1st March 2008

As a society, we must choose between money and morality. The proposal for 900 new homes in Catherine Hill Bay is morally bankrupt.

Governments are elected to serve the people, not to blatantly accept donations that enable them to stay in power. Jack Mundey, where are you?

Ashley Berry - Toolijooa

Sydney Morning Herald - 29th February 2008

The planning deftness of Sartor continues to astonish

I was not at all surprised to learn that Frank Sartor rejected the advice of an independent assessment panel in approving the rezoning of land in Queanbeyan for a housing project built by Village Building Company. It seems he likes to ignore the advice of his department as well. In 2006 the Department of Planning ranked 91 sites in the Hunter region in terms of suitability for development. Catherine Hill Bay was ranked second-last.

Why then is Mr Sartor considering rezoning to allow proposed developments that may result in a tenfold increase in the number of dwellings and the destruction of the character of this historic former mining village? The land in question is zoned Conservation (Primary). Again, an independent panel has been appointed but if the minister can ignore its recommendations, what is the point?

Morris Iemma reminds us it is not a crime to make or receive political donations. However, the deftness with which Mr Sartor is able to set aside all impediments to contentious projects continues to astonish.

Sirpa Poyzer - Warrawee

Sydney Morning Herald - 28th February 2008 - First Word - Letters to the Editor

Attached ... Under the current state planning laws, 900 new houses may soon engulf Catherine Hill Bay. This idyllic Central Coast coalmining town from the 1870s comprises 100 historic homes and intact heritage streetscapes nestled in rolling green hinterland on a pristine surf beach. The area is rich in social history and abounds in biodiversity and endangered species...

Tina Jackson - Executive Director National Trust (NSW) Sydney

Sydney Morning Herald - 25th February 2008

I hope the donations to ministers involved with the Gwandalan/Catherine Hill Bay development proposals will be given back to the developers, their ridiculous proposals scrapped, and that sanity returns to these unique bushland areas so endangered plants and animals will be spared. Tell Frank Sartor to back off for starters, Mr Iemma, and then we'll know it's not all hot air.

David Sayers - Gwandalan

Sydney Morning Herald - 22nd February 2008

Challenge for Sartor

Frank Sartor must demonstrate he is not in the pockets of the developers with whom he wines and dines at Labor Party functions ("Developers coughed up to dine with Sartor", February 18).

He could do this by putting heritage values over donors' profits when he decides whether or not to approve the construction of 900 houses around the historic coastal mining town of Catherine Hill Bay.

Virginia Munro - Clovelly

Sydney Morning Herald - 15th February 2008

David Sayers Gwandalan

Newcastle Herald 9th October 2007

Two Friends of Catherine Hill Bay took out the full page advertisement attached in the Newcastle Herald on Tuesday, 9th October asking for local people to write to the Department of Planning demanding that the proposed new development in Catherine Hill Bay be stopped. This shows the depth of feeling that people have for this unique area. Neither of these people live in the Bay, but they do not want to see it destroyed by massive overdevelopment.

Sydney Morning Herald - 30th August 2007

The timing of Jeff Angel ' s letter (August 28) is pertinent. Not only does Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act sidestep existing processes such as local council, community groups, the Land and Environment Court, the Heritage Office and even the NSW Department of Planning, it belittles recommendations and decisions made by previous generations of these organisations.

It so happens that this very week Coal & Allied, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, is sponsoring a workshop to produce several master concept plans that will become part of a submission to justify the construction of more than 1000 homes on lands that are now zoned conservation. The lands affected include the heritage village of Middle Camp next to Catherine Hill Bay and valuable bushland and wetlands of Nords Wharf and Gwandalan at Lake Macquarie.

Coal & Allied is rightly proud of its long connection to the lands through the extraction of coal, which provided local employment and healthy profits for the owners for about 130 years.

The fact that development was mainly underground has meant that the above-ground flora, fauna, indigenous occupation remains and the historic mining village has stayed almost untouched and is now of state significance - a gem on the doorstep of Sydney ' s suburban sprawl.

The workshop comprises about 30 advisers on Rio Tinto ' s payroll, about 12 people representing various government departments but only seven community representatives.

Thus concept plans in favour of this development are assured, even though the majority of community representatives have categorically said they do not want any development whatsoever.

For more than 35 years, people have debated and negotiated the eventual use of these lands after mining ceased, resulting in the existing conservation zonings, yet Part 3A now puts in place the means by which this may be overturned in a matter of months.

Previous generations don ' t always get it right but we should at least pay them the respect of having attempted, through due process, to preserve a heritage coastal village and the adjacent, almost untouched bushland for future generations and not allow it to be overturned by the self-interest (for money) of a few and formalised by what is little more than a kangaroo court.

Graham Healy Nords Wharf

Newcastle Herald - March 15th 2005

A bridge too far on consultation

WHEN the second bridge was built over the channel at Swansea then road minister Laurie Brereton told us it was the bridge the people of Swansea wanted.

Now we have a minister telling us that we will have a development at Catherine Hill Bay that people strongly object to.

It seems arrogance, not consultation, is the way of dealing with people of the state seat of Swansea.

In 12 years of Labor I would like to know what they have actually done for the area.

Ian Atkins
Caves Beach

Published in the Pelican Itch Community Newspaper - March 2007

Through your pages, may I wish the residents and supporters of Catherine Hill Bay every good wish in their endeavours. I returned to this area after a 5 week absence & was delighted with the huge Unification Display presented by all the residents. Rarely does such a public display of community solidarity need to be called upon, but it cheers the cockles of the heart of this ancient crone to see, alive & well, the tried & true old fashioned community support & unity, now so rare & often not found in big cities or even the vast new urban areas filled with the MacSplendouramas & the miseries of huge debts, the owners too consumed with their own egocentric problems to consider anything such as the “big picture, long term”. I encourage all who are able to take a spin down Flowers Road to the Catherine Hill Bay hamlets & see a very special, magical & once in a lifetime, greatest public display or community support & love. My sincere congratulations to all residents of Catherine Hill Bay , & may you enjoy your homes & your beautiful & unique environment for many generations to come. Zoe Russell

Published in the Newcastle Herald Saturday 3rd March 2007

I think NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor has let power go to his head. That sort of action can be dangerous, especially to sensitive areas like Catherine Hill Bay. Historical Catherine Hill Bay will be lost forever if this proposed development goes through. I wonder how many projects have been pushed through in his childhood area of Yenda-Griffith.

Jan Holley, West Wallsend

Published in The Daily Telegraph, Page 018 (Tue 27 Feb 2007)

The proposed Rosecorp development at Catherine Hill Bay reflects poorly on the nature of the relationship that the State Government keeps with industry bodies such as the Urban Taskforce (The Saturday Daily Telegraph, February 24).

The inappropriate nature of large-scale development in this historic mining town makes it surprising that NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor would muddy his name by getting involved. If the two local councils and the Land and Environment Court saw fit to reject the development (even quashing an appeal), one could safely assume that expansion by way of 600 homes, shops and a hotel is clearly inappropriate for the Heritage-noted village.

It is patently clear what has gone on here. Frank Sartor must have some gall to think that people would not notice.

Renee Ward, Beacon Hill

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald - Wednesday 15th February 2007 - "First Word" Letters to the Editor

If we don't stop our heritage from being bulldozed, who will?

I agree with S. Poyzer (Letters, February 14) that it was gratifying to see people demonstrating in Hyde Park against the NSW Government's Part 3A planning powers. However, the small number present and the feeling that a Liberal government, judged by its past and present record, would change little, left me, for one, in deep despair.

A total of 316 development projects have been approved by the NSW Government in the past 12 months or so using the Part 3A legislation. This has occurred despite unequivocal rejection by either the Land and Environment Court, the Heritage Office, a local council, the NSW Department of Planning or a local community organisation.

In the case of projects such as Catherine Hill Bay, the proposed development was rejected by each and every one of the above over a period of five years. Yet just six months after the NSW Land and Environment Court's rejection of the development, the Government reversed that decision through the Part 3A planning powers.

The Department of Planning had earlier assessed Catherine Hill Bay as one of the least favourable locations for residential development in the Hunter region (91st out of 92 locations assessed).

The evidence is overwhelming yet the greed factor is so high that all common sense is put to one side so that a few very wealthy individuals can become a little more wealthy. Meanwhile, the environment, natural or man-made, is possibly lost forever.

The Rocks and the Queen Victoria Building (with huge financial gains in mind for a few) were destined to be demolished as recently as 1970. They were saved essentially by a small number of people who gained nothing financially but gave the city of Sydney its soul. A soul that today nobody would advocate removing.

Each of the above 316 projects has been through a rigorous assessment process over many years and, if saved from the rejected development proposals, could very likely become the soul of their region in much the same way as The Rocks and QVB are for Sydney's CBD.

I call on all to stand up and be counted, for our children's sake.

Graham Healy Nords Wharf

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald - Tuesday 14th February 2007 - "First Word" Letters to the Editor

It was gratifying to see so many people on Sunday protesting in Hyde Park against the abuse by our Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, of the Part 3A planning powers ("Despite Frank objections, Debnam stays silent on ban", February 12). Peter Debnam spoke convincingly and promised, if he is elected, that project planning decisions would be judged on their merits.

Oh, how I wanted to believe you, Peter. But can I trust you? Early last week your planning spokesman said a Coalition government would dump the Government's plans for high-rise in the redevelopment of East Darling Harbour. By Friday this had been watered down to an undertaking to conduct a thorough review.

Tellingly, there was no promise to repeal the abhorrent Part 3A legislation, only to limit its use, and no promise to ban political donations from developers, only the promise of an independent review.

Under the Part 3A legislation, the planning minister can declare any project a "major project". In 2005-06, Mr Sartor declared 350 major projects and approved 316 of them, despite objections from residents and councils (the latter effectively having had their planning powers stripped from them).

Why is this Government approving just about every project that lands on Sartor's desk, bypassing normal planning controls? I believe the main reason is that this Government is terrified that the "Premier State" will lose its title as a result of our slowing state economy. The Government, short on ideas, is naively hoping for a housing-led recovery. With this mindset, environmental, heritage, coastal protection, amenity and equity concerns are easily set aside.

Naturally, the big end of town is delighted to be profiting from the Government's decisions. The losers, the people of this state, are left to watch as their heritage is squandered.

Can anything be done to control the excesses of this Government? Will the Liberals be any different, as they helped pass the Part 3A legislation? I would say the best hope lies in electing minority party representatives and independents. Voters disillusioned with both major parties can take what little is left of our democratic processes and use their votes to effect change at the election.

S. Poyzer

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald - Thursday 8th February 2007

Save the hill

Many thanks to Elizabeth Farrelly ("A little bare-faced cheek from the right people works wonders", February 7).

Catherine Hill Bay is a treasure to be preserved. I have spent many days surfing there and always relished the difference this community holds in the modern world. To develop it would be un-Australian - and for once I use the term advisedly.

What seems to be apparent is that Rose Corp can make a quick buck from cheap land.

Frank Sartor, think again.

Paul Healy - Potts Point

8th December 2006 - Cr Keith Parsons - Newcastle City Council

Recent comments by Planning Minister Frank Sartor (Star, Nov. 1) to justify approving 1000 new homes at Catherine Hill Bay (and in doing so destroying its unique character} were outrageous.
His decision overturned a Land and Environment Court decision, ignored Lake Macquarie City Council’s opposition as well as his own Department of Planning and NSW Heritage Office advisors and he reneged on his commitment to add the Bay’s two settlements to the State Heritage Register.
Sartor claimed that “people concerned about losing the town’s heritage needed to take their place in the queue”, implying a hierarchy of issues to consider. He cited these as “environmental, planning, infrastructure, urban design and heritage”. The issues should be complementary, not competing. It’s obvious that heritage was at the bottom of Mr. Sartor’s queue. The unsaid issue at the top was profit maximization by the developer, Coal and Allied and his Government’s indebtedness to the property development industry.

Sartor called on objectors to “take a cold shower and come back and talk”. Why bother? He has made his decision. The next step has already begun. It’s called “community consultation” by Coal and Allied but in reality it’s nothing more than damage control and public relations.
If Mr. Sartor’s Honeysuckle and Royal Newcastle Hospital site developments are anything to go by, community consultation means calling for public and council submissions and subsequently ignoring them.

The overarching issue here is the absolute powers Mr. Sartor has given himself under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. They allow him to, without justification, become consent authority for any development he chooses. He anoints them “major projects” and then do what he likes (with no right of appeal and the public be damned).

At our Newcastle Greens Local Group meeting on Saturday 18 November, 2006 it was resolved that:

Newcastle Greens congratulate the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association on its campaign to defend the integrity of the Bay's natural and built heritage.

Newcastle Greens condemn the unethical actions of Planning Minister Sartor in brushing aside the appropriate and legally based planning decisions of the Lake Macquarie City Council and the judgment of the Land and Environment Court.

Newcastle Greens call for the abolition of Part 3A of the Planning Act that has allowed Minister Sartor to take hundreds of decisions that favour developers at the expense of the community.

Newcastle Greens reiterate NSW Greens policy that calls for the banning of developer donations to political parties. They urge the Iemma Government to withdraw its opposition to, the Anti Corruption (Developer Donations) Bill introduced by Greens MP Lee Rhiannon to amend the Election Funding Act.

We note that the NSW branch of the ALP has received $7.4 million from the property industry since 1999.

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald - Friday 10th November 2006

A louder voice needed

While allegations against the Swansea MP Milton Orkopoulos are yet to be tested in court, his arrest confirms my long-held fears that the Swansea community has had inadequate representation at state government level.

With the Iemma Government's proposals to sacrifice the historic town of Catherine Hill Bay to developers, on top of so many other overwhelming developments in the Lake Macquarie area, I wonder if we've had any meaningful representation at all. The Government needs to redress the situation by reviewing the recent decisions relating to the Swansea region.

D. Poyzer Catherine Hill Bay

Published in the Newcastle Herald - Saturday 4th November 2006

Merit over money, now that is a development!

The NSW Urban Taskforce- a group representing influential property developers-has given democracy in this state a chance to regain some lost ground.

The group has called for a ban on corporate donations to political parties, citing concern at the public perception that money from developers is undermining the planning approval process.

Members of the group include Hardie Holdings (which has a major profile in the hunter) Macquarie Bank, Meriton ad Multiplex.

Critics of the development industry have written off the call as a piece of insincere public relations, arguing that the suggestion has so many strings attached that the donation addicted politicians won't take it seriously.

For example, the developers say the ban ought to apply not only to themselves, but also to mining companies, the gun lobby, timber firms and other interest groups.

And politicians have been quick to urge that any ban would have to apply nationally. Otherwise, donations could be made in a different state and funneled over the border in disguise.

Personally, I'd be happy just to have property developers banned from making political donations in NSW, for all the reasons that former Labor prime minister Paul Keating gave the other day when he addressed an audience of local government representatives.

Criticising the centralization of power in the hands of one person, Mr Keating described "the NSW planning minister-whoever that may be from time to time "as "the mayor for the...developers who've got projects over a certain value".

Here Mr Keating was bluntly referring to the current practice of the minister "calling in" developments over a certain value, taking them out of the hands of local councils and beyond the reach of meaningful public input to make his or her own decisions.

In the Hunter in recent times many projects have been called in, leading one to wonder what is left for the region's local government to actually do, other than fix potholes and pick up garbage.

Apart from being allowed to make some impotent observations and remarks on anything from coal mines and industrial infrastructure to office blocks and subdivisions, the councils and ratepayers have become virtually irrelevant.

Some worry that this may also apply to the salaried experts in the Department of Planning and other branches of the public service.

Cynics point to Minister Frank Sartor's recent decision to strike deals with Hunter developers Hardie Holdings, Rosecorp and Coal&Allied over their land at Branxton and Catherine Hill Bay .

Documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Hunter Community Environment Centre showed Branxton and Catherine Hill Bay were at the bottom of the Department of Planning's 91-site list of development priorities, based on social and environmental factors.

Hardie Holdings's Huntlee site at Branxton, formerly known as Sweetwater, was ranked last, and land at Catherine Hill Bay , which Rosecorp and Coal&Allied want to develop, was second last.

The sites were exclude from the draft strategy but Mr Sartor offered the three companies development rights in return for them donating land for environment protection.

For his part, the Minister said he was trying to "achieve a solution that delivers benefits that would far outweigh the impact of any proposed development".

I am not for one moment suggesting that any political donations which may or may not have been made by these developers had any effect on the Minister's decision.

But the developers' own Urban Taskforce has pointed out in its call for a ban on political donations, that the industry faces a "perception-rightly or wrongly-from the community that we're getting preference in exchange for money".

If donations were banned, that perception would largely evaporate.

Mr Keating said this week:" The wall of money coming at a minister in these jobs is phenomenal because as you know, the industry is into political donations, which in my opinion should be outlawed"

Greg Ray

Published in the Newcastle Herald - Monday 6th November 2006

This is a job for a Super Premier

Paul Keating's recent comment that the NSW Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor has become the "mayor for Triguboff" echoes a growing dissent in the community. The unfettered powers of the NSW Minister for Planning could go to his head. His recent deals at Catherine Hill Bay with developers have ridden roughshod over the wishes of Council, residents, National Trust, Heritage Office and even the Land & Environment Court.

In proposed deals with Rosecorp and Coal & Allied, the historic coastal mining village of Catherine Hill Bay is to be sacrificed to developers. Mr Sartor is dressing up the deal as a win for the environment with the developers handing over the majority of their lands for national parks. However, the obvious flaw in that argument is that Rosecorp had NO zoning for residential development in the Bay anyway as its plans had been rejected in the NSW Land & Environment Court. In other words. Rosecorp had NO leverage until Sartor provided it!

Premier Morris Iemma should intervene at Catherine Hill Bay before this unique, 140 year old coastal mining village, a jewel of our heritage, is destroyed.

S. Poyzer
Catherine Hill Bay

Published in the Newcastle Herald 30/10/06

"A well written piece in your editorial of 24th October 25, 2006 on "Mr Sartor's Deal".

It is quite frightening when one person - Mr Sartor - becomes the almighty in such matters, and history should have taught us better not to let this happen.

How is it that in the case mentioned in Catherine Hill Bay that an area rejected by councils, residents, and the Land and Evironment court, is an environmentally sensitive coastal area, has a unique heritage spanning over 140 years, an area at the bottom of the list of 90 potential sites for development assessed by the Department of Planning is suddenly the top spot for a new overwhelming development by Rosecorp and Coal And Allied?

Now I understand that projects of "statewide significance" should be interpreted to mean those that are significant to developers in terms of profits, and significant to the people of NSW in terms of loss.

David Poyzer
Catherine Hill Bay"

Published in Newcastle Herald - Wednesday 14th February 2007

I agree with the protesters ("Village joins in protest" Herald 12/2). What is planned for Catherine Hill Bay is outrageous. Planning laws allowing the State Government to seemingly run roughshod over local government are absolutely ludicrous and a scourge taking our urban areas. There should be a law passed to cease such plans in order to protect this idyllic, tranquil suburb and others like it against such over-development.

Dawn Grimshaw, Cooks Hill

Published in Newcastle Herald - Wednesday 14th February 2007

A child can see more clearly

"THAT would be wrong, Dad."

Those were the words uttered by my 11-year-old son on the way to the idyllic Moonee Beach, south of Catherine Hill Bay.

It was in response to hearing about the proposed development earmarked for the very land we were walking on.

The statement surprised me as it illustrates concern for the environment from someone so young.

It is a shame that our political leaders do not share the same foresight.

To have a beautiful and unique landscape, with significant conservation and Australian heritage value for all to marvel at, replaced with dwellings to cater for the elite few is abominable.

The people of Catherine Hill Bay are screaming, yet the silence from the politicians and developers is deafening, choosing to turn their backs and be blissfully ignorant of the cries of concern emanating from this community.

The Labor Party appears intent on fulfilling developers' dreams.

If only they could look through the eyes of a child at our country's future and see that for this particular development to forge ahead would indeed be wrong.

Stephen Prior

Belmont North

"I really appreciate your cause...I lived on the Central Coast for around 30 years, and just loved Catherine Hill Bay...the lovely old miner's cottages etc....please keep up the good work you are doing, I would hate to go back there and see the damage these 'development' companies are doing to such a great place.

I don't live around the district now, but am right behind you in your fight."

"Rosecorp and Coal and Allied's proposed development will obliterate the unique heritage value of the Bay's village and surrounding landscape."

"Your Government's (NSW) approach to consultation with the Catherine Hill Bay , Wallarah Peninsula , and Lower Hunter Communities doesn't show leadership. It shows an abuse of leadership, and contempt for those communities. It is bad government."

"Rosecorp's slogan "Developing tomorrow's heritage" seems most innapproprate, when within the Bay their development will undermine the current heritage of our historic village.

The Catherine Hill Bay Community Survey has been conducted every four years since 1994 and provides an informed and comprehensive record of community attitudes over almost 15 years. Click here to view the results.

Available now : A booklet "Protecting the Wallarah Peninsula" is available. Please click here for more information about this booklet, and how you can obtain your free copy.