Save Rushcutters Bay Park logo (image)

Save Heritage-Listed Reg Bartley Oval & Timber Picket Fence

Reg Bartley Oval (image)

Sydney Council's heritage listing for the Reg Bartley Oval states:
"Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original."
(Source: final paragraph of this document.).

“The original fencing to the oval would have been in timber”
-- John Oultram Heritage Report 2012, section 6.2 para 2, page 16.

See Chronology for a photo of the 1910 white, pointed timber picket fence.


NEWS
FLASH!
News Flash (image)


Council met tonight, 5pm Monday 23 June 2014, and decided the fate of the oval.

Despite our best efforts it  APPROVED a tender for the new fence. 

Works on the SCG-style lighting tower continues. 

The vote was 6-4 in favour, with four councillors, Mandla, Forster, Vithoulkas and Scott voting  against the motion. 

All Clover's  team [CMT] and Cr Doutney [Greens] voted in favour of the Motion.

Clr Kemmis [CMT] tried to claim the fence was in line with heritage council rules.

Mandla was staggered: staff were overruling council's March 2013 decision for a DA.
Clr Scott moved an amendment to ensure more consultation occurred before a DA was lodged.
Her Motion was defeated 6-4.
Clr Jenny Green [CMT] said consultation was adequate and people wanted a new fence and security lights.

Mandla said "the inmates are running the asylum".

Clr Vithoulkas supported Scott and Mandla etc saying Clrs need to keep to the original March 2013 resolution. 
A DA may not be needed but nothing prohibited one now. 
Council is breaching a public promise. 

Clover Moore was contemptuous saying "the issue was a beat up." The fence was rotten  and must be moved to save a tree.

We note that - still -  no heritage report has been published on-line as promised by Clover Moore or Clr Kemmis at last week's' committee meeting!

Click here to read full transcript

Mega Light Towers in Reg Bartley Oval, Rushcutter Bay Park (image)


CLR EDWARD MANDLA'S SPEECH ON REG BARTLEY OVAL

Clr Mandla spoke to the Council meeting of 23 June 2014 on the Council's Reg Bartley Oval development. He was not able to deliver his complete speech. Below is the full text of his speech as prepared:

On the 18th of March 2013, Councillors unanimously resolved three key outcomes for Item 7 for the Environment Committee.

The first was a DA for the Reg Bartley Oval Lighting and Fencing Upgrade.

The second was to upgrade lights to meet Australian standards.

The third was to replace the existing timber fence with a new timber fence.

What is actually going on, beggars belief.

Staff decide a DA isn’t required dispute Councillors voting unanimously for it.

Who’s elected here staff or Councillors?

This is breakdown in governance.

Under no circumstance is it acceptable for staff to go against a Council resolution.

I don’t care what technical loophole is found.

The fact that Councillors are defied is made worse that the result is to deprive citizens of having a say.

This item starts and stops on this point – the vote can only be "No".

But it get’s worse. The benign upgrade of lights to meet Australian standards hid an out of scale and out of character change of lighting strategy.

The current lights are standing at 12 Meters. It’s just a number and it doesn’t mean much. Go out to Reg Bartley Oval and you realise 12 Meters towers into the sky. You then imagine the increase in height to 21 Meters and you are staggered. Immediately, you can see that the residents won’t need lights in their own home for dinner.

On inspecting the fence, I noticed that metal pickets have already been introduced (on the gate and for repairs) with incorrectly matching tops in some sort a do-it-yourself style.

So the idea to sneak in metal has clearly been running for a while and Councillors resolving to replace the existing timber fence with a new timber fence have been again ignored.

There’s been a lack of transparency on the metal fence and Councillor concerns seemed to be brushed aside last week.

I’d like to point out that the NSW Government Environment and Heritage website says:

"There has been a fenced cricket oval within the park since 1885. The timber pickets around the oval is a distinctive feature of the park."

With regard to Recommended Management, the page directs that "Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original."

Had staff simply followed the Councillors resolutions we wouldn’t be in this mess and the community wouldn’t be in uproar.

The only decent thing to do is vote "No" to this tender, halt works and start the DA process as directed.



CLR LINDA SCOTT MEETS LOCAL RESIDENTS AT OVAL

Clr. Linda Scott meets residents at Reg Bartley Oval 16 June 2014 (image)


Councillor Linda Scott meeting with local residents in the Reg Bartley Oval on Monday 16th June 2014. She visited us there to hear our concerns direct.

Clr Scott moved an amendment to stop works and reconsider a DA [defeated] at the full Sydney Council meeting of 23rd June. She voted against the proposal for a metal/timber hybrid fence and spoke against the lighting towers, as did three other councillors.

Also present in the above photo is Elvis, the mascot of the Friends of Rushcutters Bay Park.



REG BARTLEY OVAL UPDATE

This was our final action update before the Council meeting of Monday, 23 June:

COUNCIL has responded to questions raised by Clr Edward Mandla

Council's responses are inadequate. Many responses contradict what it states elsewhere.

Promised documents are STILL NOT provided. For example, we cannot see the Heritage Report promised last Monday.

The full list of Clr  Mandla’s questions and Council responses together with our comments is provided further below.

Now what?

Please email your objections as suggested:

To Lord Mayor Clover Moore

To All Councillors

21st June 2014

Item 6.15 Reg Bartley Oval tender: Council meeting 23rd June 2014

The tenders proposed should be rejected, as the works scope is inappropriate, and works to mega-light towers halted.

• Public notification has not been sufficient: no images of the proposed poles have been provided
• Councillors have been misled
• Lighting towers (including light brackets) will be over 21 metres and twice the height of current poles - see similar poles in Redfern oval: http://www.saverushcuttersbaypark.com/images/redfern-oval-lights-2.jpg
• Lighting intensity will increase ten-fold from 10 lux to 100 lux
• There are likely to be more events and increased oval intensification
• The timber picket fence is required to be put back as per the original size, colour and style for this heritage-listed oval. We request a white, all-wooden and gates to match with wooden posts and rails set into the ground with concrete foundations below ground level to prevent rot. No steel. Maintenance costs are not an issue as any fence will need to be repainted and repaired
• NSW Heritage Inventory recommendations state unequivocally: “Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original.” See final paragraph
Source: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2421400 Images of the original fence with its white, pointed timber pickets are shown here dating: c 1910, 1927, 1930s, 1953 and 1961, spanning over continuous years 80 years. See http://www.saverushcuttersbaypark.com/reg-bartley-oval-chronology.html
• No use of metal gates etc is allowed for
• The existing fence is not a precedent for ignoring its heritage
• There will be adverse heritage impacts. No heritage report has been produced despite John Oultram’s heritage report being available since July 2012, a report council relies upon. Council staff refuse to provide it.
• A DA is now required in the absence of any external legal opinion as the works are not maintenance as claimed and are to a heritage-listed item.

Yours sincerely

Name

Address
Email


COUNCIL'S ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY CLR EDWARD MANDLA (AND OUR COMMENTS ON THOSE ANSWERS)

Councillor Edward Mandla’s questions to Council and Monica Barone’s, CEO, reponse in her Memo relelevant to Item 6.15 Reg Bartley Oval tender Council Meeting 23rd June 2013

1. [What are the current] Lighting Levels (including comparison with Redfern Park)

Council answer: Currently there are 8 x 12 metre light poles at the oval. Under the contract, these will be replaced by 6 x 21 metre light poles.

The current lux levels on the sporting field average approximately 10 lux across the oval. The contract provides for 100 lux, which is in line with Australian Standards, which recommend lighting levels of 50 – 100 lux for training. The light poles at Redfern are 24 metres high and the lights have a lux level suitable for semi-professional competition of 200 lux.

Our comments:
The light intensity will double what it is now with light poles more than double the curent height when heights of the light brackets are included. This is excessive.

Council admits the current levels are adequate and within the 50-100 Lux range.

The lighting works are unnecessary with details not provided to Councillors or the public.


2. Lighting Spill Impact

Council answer: The City’s Urban Ecology Co-ordinator has advised that this project has appropriately minimised light spill in or near habitat areas. Further, the higher poles allow lighting to be directed downward onto the oval and the lights have been designed to minimise glare. These poles are the same poles installed in other parks.

Our comments:
No eco-habitat report is provided.

High light poles will shine directly into apartments three storeys and higher. Lights at Redfern Oval referred to above in question 1 are 24 metres and are out of scale and out of character with the park - see image – where light spill is a major problem for locals.


Redfern Oval lights (image)

Powerful lights on very high light poles at Redfern Oval


Councillors and the public have insufficient information to properly assess the impacts or approve the tender.


3. Lighting Base Design

Council answer: The footings have been designed to support the light poles taking into account the existing ground conditions. The concrete bases will be covered over with soil and grass.

Our comments:
The fence line will be demolished to accommodate the size and scale of the poles and their concrete bases.

4. Need for Limited Grass Removal

Council answer: Narrow trenches are being dug to install the lighting conduits. This has necessitated the removal of some areas of grass. The grass will regrow following completion of the works.

This work is temporary in nature due to the construction work and will be completed by the end of June.

5. Compliance with Relevant Heritage Requirements

Council answer: NSW heritage inventory recommendations in relation to the retention of timber pickets have been complied with. The design of the fence was approved by Council Heritage Officers and an external heritage consultant. The fence is made with stainless steel post and rails and timber pickets to match the existing fence.

Our comments:
This is clearly incorrect. NSW Heritage Inventory recommendations state unequivocally "Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original." See final paragraph
Source: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2421400

No use of metal gates, etc. is allowed for.

No heritage report has been produced despite John Oultram’s heritage report being available since July 2012, a report council relies upon. Council staff refuse to provide it.

Images of the original fence with its white, pointed timber pickets are shown here dating: c 1910, 1927, 1930s, 1953 and 1961, spanning over continuous years 80 years.
See: http://www.saverushcuttersbaypark.com/reg-bartley-oval-chronology.html

Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead by this Memo.

Ms Barone’s Memo also notes:

"In addition to the issues raised at the meeting, at the request of the CEO, and with the consent of Councillor Mandla, an advance copy of Councillor Mandla’s Question of Notice relating to the Reg Bartley Oval was provided for incorporation into the [Memo] Relevant To.

The answers to each of the questions asked by Councillor Mandla are detailed below:"

1. Councils’ Environmental Impact Assessment Checklist (EIAC) has been referred to but not provided to the public or Councillors. Why not?

Council answer:
It is not ordinary practice to provide this document to the public or Councillors. Council reports include a summary of the officer’s assessment of the planning requirements for such projects where appropriate.

Our comments:
This does not answer the question. It should be provided now. The reasons it has not been provided is perhaps because it is not favourable to the scope of works.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead.

2. On what basis is the legal view about DA exemption made?

Council answer: The categorisation of the works as a complying development not requiring a DA was undertaken by an external planner and reviewed by Council’s internal planning assessments staff.

Our comments:
A DA is required. No external assessment has been seen or provided.

Sections 65, 20, 20A and schedule 1 of the 2007 State Infrastructure Planning Policy provide that such works are required for heritage items.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead.


3. Why has an independent legal opinion not been provided?

Council answer: It is not considered necessary to obtain an independent legal opinion.

Our comments:
This not an answer: it provides no rationale for not providing an independent legal opinion.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead.


4. Why hasn’t the July 2012 John Oultram heritage report been provided? When will it be released?

Council answer: A copy of this document can be provided to Councillors, although it is noted that it is now superseded.

Our comments:
If it is superseded why council still rely on it to claim heritage impacts are minimal? So why hasn’t it been released now?

5. Will a new, more relevant post February 2014 Heritage report now be provided?

Council answer: Yes, the relevant heritage reports will be published on the City’s website.

Our comments:
But when? In 2020?

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead.

6. Council’s EIAC admits light spill compliance AS/NZ rules have not been shown to be met regarding: "light spill and artificial sky glow is minimised in accordance with AS/NZS 1158: 2007". Isn’t the project therefore illegal or at the very least creating adverse amenity impacts for adjacent residents whose properties abut the park on the northern side?

Council answer: The sports lighting complies with the relevant Australian standard AS4282. AS NZS1158 2007 is not the relevant standard for the purpose of field lighting, this applies to path lights.

The path lighting complies with NSWS1158 2007.

Our comments:
The path lighting may comply BUT the standard relates to lighting "in public spaces" generally, including the oval generally. Council is wrong.

There is no evidence the light pole emissions comply.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead over the true nature of impacts.

7. Why hasn’t the Generic Plan of Management for this park been provided to Councillors? How do we know if the project complies?

Council answer: The Generic POM has been on Council’s Website since adoption in June 2012. A Plan of Management is about the use of the public open space. No changes are proposed to the current nature or extent of the use of the park.

Our comments:
There is no guarantee that uses of the park won’t become more intense.

The grounds Director of the Dunbar Rovers, Ben Prag, with fourteen teams, anticipates his teams will probably do more training when the lights are installed on Wednesday’s between 6 till 7:30pm. They don’t use the ground now. See email below:

Subject: Re: Reg Bartley oval upgrade
From: grounds@dunbarrovers.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:01:55 +1000
To: heritageandconservation@hotmail.com
Hi Andrew

We currently have the ground booked on Wednesday evenings from 6 till 7.30 April - August. We don't use the booking though due to the quality of the lights. Next season with the improved lighting we will give our teams the option to train there at this time. Please let me know if you have any concerns regarding this?

Ben 0406 333 742

On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:34, Andrew Woodhouse <heritageandconservation@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr Ben Prag
Ground co-ordinator
Dunbar Rovers
Ph 0406 333 742

Hi Ben

Sydney Council is installing new lighting at Reg Bartley Oval.

How many extra night games or events do you think this will mean for the club?

Thank you
Andrew Woodhouse
local resident
0415 949 506

And Mr Mack Vasavi, CEO Maccabi NSW says "unless they can find some more hours between 4-and 9 afternoons / nights I can't see how anyone can even think it will increase use of the ground" in his email of 17.6.14. This also foresees the possibility of extra usage.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts.

8. Page 2 of the EIAC notes: "description of project" box 2: "6 new 21m high poles to support new flood lighting" and "installation of 14 new pedestrian lights".
However, the Council’s sign displayed in the park refers to "21 new led lights" and it indicates the total height of each lighting podium construction will exceed 21 metres after the height of the lighting platforms is added. Why is there a discrepancy?


Council answer: An EIAC has been prepared for the final scope of works. This refers to 21 new LED park lights. Council was advised of the new total of LED lights (21) in the tender acceptance report of 17 February 2014.

We can confirm that the new poles will be no more than 21 metres high.

There is no discrepancy.

Our comments:
There is a clear mathematical discrepancy. On the one hand council says there will be 21 new lights. On the other hand it says there will be six new light poles and 14 new lights = Total 20 lights.

Council can’t count.

More confusingly, council has also said "On 25 March 2013, Council approved the scope to improve Reg Bartley Oval’s lighting, including replacing the eight poor-quality sports lights with six new 21m light poles; replacing the timber picket fence with a new fence; and installing eight standard park lights along the storm water canal" = TOTAL14 lights.

Source: point 5 February 2014 http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/194867/140217_CFPTC_ITEM20.pdf

Council can’t count.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts.

9. Why were Councillors and the community not advised that the proposed new lighting for the oval with its increased height and light intensity will change the use of the oval at night from a passive quiet training oval to an intense active oval, hosting professional or amateur sporting fixtures, causing light spill, noise, people and traffic to the most densely populated area in Australia?

Council answer: There is no proposed change to the existing arrangements with current sporting bodies using the facility.

Our comments:
Current sporting bodies are anticipating more light and more events – see email above re: our comments to question 7. New sporting bodies may also use the oval. According to Ms Barone's comments at last week’s committee meeting, the AFL will be using the oval to train umpires, a new use?

Because current changes are not locked in current changes may alter.

Site intensity will be increased.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts

10. How can Councillors reasonably be expected to make a full and fair assessment of the proposal if we feel or have been misled and even the exact number of lights proposed is unclear?

Council answer: Councillors were kept fully informed of the development of the project scope via Council reports and CEO update.

Our comments:
Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts.

Its previous decision of March 2013 has not been formally rescinded and still legally applies: it calls for a DA.

Councillors were not properly informed about:

• Increased light intensity from 10 lux to 100 lux
• Full height of towers [about 23m] and their height, which arr above the height of proposed poles [21m] compared to current 12 m
• Heritage Impacts
• Independent external assessment about need for a DA
• Spurious justifications suggesting the scope of works is all only maintenance
• Fauna impacts
• Light spill and non–compliance with AS 1158 re: public places including pedestrian spaces [1158.3.1]
http://www.epa.govt.nz/resource-management/NSP000033/NSP000033_BoD_Volume_2_15_ASNZS_1158.1.1.2005_
Lighting_for_roads_and_public_spaces_Part_1.1_(Category_%20V).pdf
• Details of the design and height of black, permanent cricket nets are not given anywhere. The level of public consultation, which has not been sufficient: one unclear map with dots on it and brief text description of the fence is completely inadequate. No images of any light poles were given or visual light spill analysis have been given.

11. Is Council still intending to replace the heritage listed timber picket fence with a metal replica, even in part?

Council answer: Council is proposing to replace the existing fence, which currently consists of both metal and timber components, with a new metal and timber picket fence replicating the existing fence. The existing all-metal fence between the grandstand and cricket practice nets will be replaced with the new metal and timber picket fence. The fence complies with NSW heritage inventory recommendations.

Our comments:
This is clearly incorrect. NSW Heritage Inventory recommendations state unequivocally "Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original." See final paragraph
Source: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2421400

No use of metal gates etc is allowed for.

The existing fence is not a precedent for ignoring its heritage.

No heritage report has been produced despite John Oultram’s heritage report being available since July 2012, a report council relies upon. Council staff refuse to provide it.

Images of the original fence with its white, pointed timber pickets are shown here dating: c 1910, 1927, 1930s, 1953 and 1961, spanning over continuous years 80 years.

See http://www.saverushcuttersbaypark.com/reg-bartley-oval-chronology.html

Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

Both Councillors and the public are being mislead by this Memo.


12. Did plans given to the community with letters show the fence would be replaced with a metal replica? Were they distributed 2,045 notification letters were sent to local residents and property owners inviting them to comment on the plan (see Attachment C).

Council answer: The community was provided with a notification letter, fact sheet and plan of the proposed works. The plans show the proposed alignment of the new fence. The fact sheet refers to a new hybrid timber and metal fence.

Our comments:
No. No images or plans of the new fence have ever been provided until last Wednesday: locals were promised and many are still waiting for a DA with detailed plans as promised in March 2013.

No images of the light poles have ever been provided.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts


13. What negotiations or agreements have been reached with sporting clubs? Does the Council propose to rent the oval to parties for sporting fixtures, and if so to whom?

Council answer: There is no proposed change to the existing arrangements with current sporting bodies using the facility.

Our comments:
Negotiations have occurred on a one-to-one basis according council’s own background notes.
"31(e) regular sporting groups and Oval hirers were contacted one on one to discuss the project and asked for feedback" See point 31(e) February 2014: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/194867/140217_CFPTC_ITEM20.pdf

Council won’t provide evidence of any agreements or contracts or behind-the-scenes deals proposed future changes.

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts

14. Given the number of unresolved issues and the potential legal and liability risks to Council, will the CEO authorise an immediate halt to all works until all outstanding issues are resolved and required approvals are granted?

Council answer: Council resolved unanimously to accept the tender for the supply and installation of field lighting at the meeting of 24 February 2014. Works are timed to accommodate the needs of the users of the Park.

Our comments:
Nothing prevents council passing a resolution to halt all works and call for an independent assessor. Previous decision can be rescinded.

Future works and acceptance of tenders is not justified considering the number of breaches of section 8 Local Government Act, namely:
Local Government Act 1993 No 30
Section 8 The Council’s Charter
(1) A council has the following charter:
• to provide directly … and ensure that … services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively
• to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area…
• to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions
• to engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community
• to exercise its functions … consistent with … principles of equity, access, participation and rights
• to facilitate the involvement of councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of local government
• to keep the local community … informed about its activities

Council is being evasive. Council is not being transparent, open and honest.

It is not providing an upfront assessment of impacts.


RESIDENTS ADDRESS COUNCIL MEETING ABOUT OVAL DEVELOPMENTS

There was a real show of community concern about Council’s proposals at Monday afternoon (16 June)'s Tender Committee meeting to discuss the fence, lighting and changes to this heritage-listed oval.

Former Deputy Lord Mayor Ms Dixie Coulton, distinguished architect Ms Tina Engelen, Mr Paul Wagner, Ms Teresa Kiernan and Mr Andrew Woodhouse -- all local residents -- spoke.

They spoke in unison and as part of a mosaic of concerns, concerning adverse impacts on fauna, residential amenity, heritage, design, and poor community consultation.

This followed a successful on-site meeting at the Reg Bartley Oval with Councillor Linda Scott at 12 noon on Monday where 13 locals attended to express concerns.

And this followed yet another meeting on Saturday 14 June at 4pm where Dixie Coulton addressed 14 locals about major changes in use issues and “commercialisation-creep”.

In the Tenders meeting Clrs Mandla, Scott and Forster raised concerns about Council's Reg Bartley Oval development.

Clr Edward Mandla  pointed out council had voted in March 2013 that a DA would be provided with detailed plans and the picket fence would be replaced with another timber fence adding “that’s it as far as I was concerned”.

Clr Linda Scott asked for a light output (lux) comparison between the current light output and proposed lighting output of 100 lux.

”We need more, not less green space,” she said, expressing concern about fauna behavioural patterns and the evening eco-system.

Clr Forster pointed out the extent of works made it difficult to claim the works were “routine maintenance”. Legal advice should be obtained about any DA exemption.





HOW TO OBJECT

Council's plans have not been publicly exhibited until now. They include replacing the heritage timber gates with stainless steel gates and a timber picket fence of the wrong style and colour, all raised on a concrete plinth.

These heritage-listed burgundy timber gates (see photo above) are to be bulldozed for modern stainless steel replica replacements.

See council’s plans for the replacement fence here:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/205068/140616_CFPTC_ITEM15_ATTACHMENTN.PDF

This is not in accord with council’s own heritage recommended management which states that
"Any replacement of the existing fencing to the oval is to be with timber pickets in keeping with the original".
Source: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2421400

The original pickets were white and pointed and widely spaced – see images in Chronology section. Click here.

Go to How to Object page to lodge an objection by email. Click here.


2011 RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION OBJECTS TO FENCE AND LIGHTS

Letter sent to all Councillors on 7 May 2014

Letter sent to all Councillors on 16 June 2014


WHY IS RUSHCUTTERS BAY PARK IMPORTANT?

Former Deputy Lord Mayor, Dixie Coulton, a local resident for over 20 years who uses the park daily, says:

"
Rushcutters Bay Park is the people's backyard. It should remain a passive park for sports and the quiet enjoyment in one of the most densely populated areas in Australia. Its heritage should be properly and sustainably maintained as Crown Land for passive uses, not over-developed or exploited for commercial profits."

The
Friends of Rushcutters Bay Park group meets on a casual basis in the park for coffee by arrangement to discuss issues of amenity, heritage conservation and maintenance.

See how to join us. Click here.


COUNCILLOR EDWARD MANDLA QUESTIONS COUNCIL

At council’s March 2013 meeting to discuss this project Clr Edward Mandla was the only one at committee that raised an eyebrow. He said he doubted the residents would want a mini SCG in their background.

We agree.

He said this is a dramatically over-engineered project and that things like building some high-tech gutter around the fence to stop it rotting for a couple of hundred grand is ridiculous.

He asked how long the last fence lasted and staff advised 20 years.

When he mentioned a ROI [Return on Investment] calculation someone mumbled that he should stop speaking "tech jargon". This is an insult to a councillor who is also a business industry leader looking after our rates.

See his profile: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council/councillors



Credit re top Reg Bartley Oval photo: Sydney Media



HomeAbout UsContact UsPrivacyTerms of Use

© 2013-14. Save Rushcutters Bay Park. All Rights Reserved.
This website is maintained by the Friends of Rushcutters Bay Park.