Questions from the Public Meeting - 15 October 2015

What does the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) want to achieve from this proposal?

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) wants to increase access to the Gap Bluff Precinct of Sydney Harbour National Park and improve the visitor experience. The adaptive reuse of this site was flagged in the 2012 Sydney Harbour National Park Plan of Management(PDF 8MB) as a creative way to breathe new life into these historic buildings so they can be enjoyed by more people and taken care of into the future.

The six buildings proposed for adaptive reuse are currently empty and have the potential to become contemporary spaces that maintain links to the past.

Protecting these heritage assets requires investment for restoration and maintenance. The private sector is well placed to deliver certain services that government is not in a position to deliver efficiently.

Any revenue from rent or licence fees is required to be reinvested into the Parks.

What is the mechanism for notifying people that their REF submissions have been received?

People who make submissions through the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) website get an automatic message confirming their submission has been received. NPWS were made aware that early in the public exhibition period there was an error with the system and some people did not receive this message. This has now been fixed and responses to formal submissions, including those sent when the automated response was not working, have been sent. If you are concerned that your submission was not received, please email comments.gapbluffref@environment.nsw.gov.au

Who is the proponent? We need more transparency

Gap Bluff Hospitality Pty Ltd (GBH) is the proponent. GBH is owned by Christopher Drivas who is also the Principal Partner and CEO of Dockside Group. NPWS are advised that GBH does not have any affiliation with the Dockside Group beyond Mr Drivas role.

What is the length of the proposed lease?

The term of any lease if approved will be reflective of the level of investment required to bring the buildings up to a usable standard. In this case the proposed lease would be at least 10 years.

It is a myth that some of these buildings are heritage items.

The South Head Conservation Management Plan (2006-7) prepared by the Government Architects Office and Otto Cserhalmi and Partners provided a detailed independent assessment of the heritage values of the precinct as a whole and the individual buildings. The Conservation Management Plan (CMP) states that overall the Gap Bluff precinct is likely to be of State level significance. It is also noted in the report that alterations and additions have occurred to a number of buildings.

The CMP details the Officers Mess as an important part of the site of the former Gunnery School and is one of only a few remaining buildings from that establishment. Gap Cottage is also noted as the earliest remaining cottage in the Gap Bluff area. The cottage was originally constructed as the Workshop for the Practice Battery erected in 1895 on the top of the nearby eastern cliffs.

Have the Aboriginal community been engaged - with their strong connection to the site?

NPWS required the proponent GBH to prepare an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage report as part of the Review of Environmental Factors (REF). NPWS understands that as part of this process, the proponent engaged heritage consultants who made contact with and requested comment from the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

What percentage of area in the average NPWS park is allocated to parking and public/private enterprise across NSW? Let's take Kosciusko National Park - the parking would maybe make up less than one per cent of the park?

NPWS Metro North East Region (including Harbour, Ku-ring-gai Chase and Valleys areas) comprises 73,999.25 hectares of national park. Within the boundaries of the national parks in this region, 7.547 hectares or 0.010% is dedicated to car parks.

NPWS manages over seven million hectares which is almost nine per cent of NSW across 868 parks. There are a number of leases across the national parks system which comprise less than one per cent of the total area. These include significant leases in Kosciuszko National Park (lodges, ski fields, cafes etc.), and in other parts of the state (restaurants, cafes, accommodation, kiosks, camp grounds). NPWS also partners with commercial tour operators to deliver a number of recreational and educational experiences.

Constables Cottage proposed use as restaurant - who will manage/police noise and people movements late at night?

The proponent GBH has indicated to NPWS that it will make staff contactable via a publically available phone number for guests and residents to report any noise issues (during business hours).

The lease provisions for any approved use of buildings in NSW National Parks dictate the processes and requirements for noise limitations. Any breach of lease conditions may constitute a breach of the lease and will be treated seriously by NPWS.

Why were no road safety studies conducted?

It is the proponent, GBH's, responsibility to address road safety issues in their proposal and this forms part of the REF. OEH has engaged a consultant, GTA Consulting, to conduct an independent review of the proponent's traffic report including safety issues.

Why isn't parking in the proposal? The current 35 parking sites is totally insufficient.

This will be considered by the traffic consultants in the independent review of the proposal.

Road infrastructure does not have capacity to support proposals.

This will be considered as part of the REF determination. OEH has commissioned independent traffic consultants to assess the adequacy of the REF submission.

Proposal documentation mentions 'event' … what is an example of this event - will it require substantial parking, resulting in parking on lawns and walkways?

The terms 'events' and 'functions' have been used interchangeably by the proponent GBH in the REF. It is anticipated that an event may be a wedding, birthday or other group activity that requires forward planning and booking. The parking arrangements for the Gap Bluff precinct are outlined in the REF. Under the proponent's proposal parking is confined to designated parking spaces and parking on walkways or lawns is not permitted.

Does the proponent actually plan to run a restaurant at Constables Cottage or is it just another front for more wedding receptions?

The proponent's proposal for Constables Cottage is for a restaurant, not a function centre. GBH made a commitment to the community at the first meeting (19 August 2015) that function bookings would not be taken for this site. This can be made a condition of the lease.

Can you explain the dollar value of this national park and the business case for this proposal?

There are a range of values provided by national parks which are difficult to quantify in dollar terms such as conservation and heritage values. In terms of the business case, NPWS benchmarked the EOI proposals received against each other, against previous in-house operations, and against potential returns from alternative uses to inform the assessment of the proponent's proposal.

GBH business case is is commercial in confidence. Leases once registered are public documents and details are available at that point to the public.

NPWS has given assurances that access to the park will not be restricted but this seems unlikely due to the increase in cars and wedding guests. We feel that we won't be able to access Gap Bluff when functions are occurring.

The proponent's proposal won't constrain community access to the precinct. It will open up access through Constables Cottage by allowing visitors to walk through the cottage garden onto the South Head heritage track. The proposal allows for public use of all of the buildings, two of which have never been available for public bookings (Gap Cottage and 33 Cliff Street).

Can we propose full time residency alternative uses for these houses?

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) precludes permanent residencies.

Better examples of commercial partnerships must exist … can NPWS steer this site this way?

The Plan of Management (PoM) process explored commercial options for use of the buildings across the Gap Bluff Precinct. An open expression of interest that was nationally advertised received 14 responses. The responses included proposals for accommodation, function centres and a restaurant. All responses were assessed by a panel with representatives from NPWS, Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Heritage Division within the Office of Environment and Heritage and Destination NSW. Of the 14 proposals, GBH presented the proposal which best met the selection criteria including consistency with the Sydney Harbour National Park Plan of Management and the Conservation Management Plan.

An independent probity advisor was engaged to ensure the process met all probity requirements.

What are other examples of similar sites where a restaurant is within a 'stone's throw' (10 metres) of private residences?

NPWS manages a number of leases for restaurants in National Parks near residential areas (e.g. Nielsen Park Kiosk, Sydney Harbour National Park). A number of local government areas have restaurants in close proximity to residences.

What were the other (unsuccessful) expressions of interest (EOI) received?

There were 14 EOIs received relating to different combinations of the nine buildings originally offered as part of the proposal. The submissions that related to the buildings in the proponent GBH's proposal included privately run accommodation, group accommodation, wedding, conference and event venues, short stay accommodation and a restaurant.

Can the Watsons Bay community put up an alternative proposal?

There is no scope for alternative proposals to be presented for consideration at this point.

What is the approval and appeals processes? What is the community's appeal rights?

Any person may bring an action in the Land and Environment Court if they consider there has been a breach of either the National Parks or Wildlife Act 1974 or Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In general terms, this means legal review is available with respect to the legality of any decision, including the process of decision-making. Individuals or organisations seeking further information on this matter are encouraged to obtain expert legal advice.

What controls do you use in regards to deciding if this is actually an appropriate use and do you utilise Council's controls when assessing these proposals as well?

Development consent from Woollahra Council is not required for the proposal. This is acknowledged in the zoning of the land as E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves under the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan.

Consequently, environmental assessment is required under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This requires all matters likely to affect the environment to be considered prior to deciding whether to proceed to grant approval. The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) is the mechanism used to document the assessment of potential environmental impacts, and measures proposed to minimise and mitigate impacts.

While not required to do so, the REF process also includes consideration of plans and policies that would be relevant if the proposal were occurring outside the National Park system. In this case, it includes consideration of relevant environmental planning instruments and Council's development control plan (DCP).

Has NPWS asked for a very large scale project with the plan to scale back and get community support?

No. An open expression of interest that was nationally advertised received 14 responses proposing a range of different uses for the buildings.

What is the opportunity cost of NPWS changing the use of the Gap Bluff Function Centre? What is the current dollar contribution of the site to NPWS?

Currently the sites are making no financial contribution to NPWS as they are not in operation. The potential return to NPWS from the current proposal is commercial in confidence however all funds will be returned to support the management and conservation of our national parks. The proposal includes a capital upgrade to the buildings and landscape as well as an annual indexed rental return. Ongoing maintenance will be the responsibility of the proponent under this proposal.

What is the maintenance cost for these buildings? What do you hope to generate in revenue per annum?

When the buildings included in the proposal are being maintained to a useable standard the combined annual maintenance cost is more than $220,000 per annum. Below are the maintenance costs over the past four financial years. Please note, as use of the facilities reduced from 2012 onwards, maintenance costs also reduced.

Maintenance costs Gap Bluff Sites

No guidelines apparent for the assessment process … request that NPWS contract architects to assess the proposals

The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) considers all potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal, to meet the requirements of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The REF and an accompanying Sustainability Assessment have been prepared by the proponent in accordance with guidelines published by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

The guidelines state that the REF must take into account:

• reduction of the aesthetic, recreational, scientific or other environmental quality or value of a locality
• effect on a locality, place or building having aesthetic, anthropological, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social significance or other special value for present or future generations.

In addition the Sustainability Assessment guidelines require the following matters to be considered:

• height and siting
• separation and setbacks
• density and footprint
• form and style
• orientation, solar access, ventilation
• amenity
• materials choice, embodied energy, energy use
• water use and management
• thermal mass
• controlling moisture
• passive heating and cooling
• existing heating systems
• sustainability during construction, operation use and deconstruction
• contribution to park management objectives.

To assist in assessing the proposal detailed in the REF, OEH has engaged independent traffic and noise consultants to provide expert advice.

Does NPWS have sympathy for this community?

NPWS are committed to maintaining long established relationships with the community and our neighbours. In this case we appreciate that the proponent GBH's proposal has a direct impact on local residents. That's why NPWS are strongly encouraging people to submit feedback on the proponent's proposal. NPWS want to make sure this feedback is heard and fully considered.

Why are the Minister and the proponent not present here tonight?

The proponent GBH were not invited to the second community meeting on 15 October. NPWS held the meeting to hear directly from the community their views, concerns and issues with the proponent's proposal. The Minister's Office was also not invited to attend, however a representative from the Ministers Office was present on the night to observe.