NSW Minister for Planning, Mr Rob Stokes MP, has been asked to personally intervene in heritage issues relating to the redevelopment of the old Gosford Primary School site on the Gosford waterfront.
Local historian, Ms Kay Williams has written to Mr Stokes about her concerns that the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation (CCRDC) “has failed in its duty to consult widely with the local community with regard to heritage issues.” On Saturday, December 14, 2014 NSW Planning and Environment approved Gosford Council’s application for a Gateway determination to include the site of the former sergeant’s residence/police station and the footings of the police stables as heritage items. The Gateway Determination meant that Gosford Council was required to hold community consultation for at least 14 days and to consult with the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation, the Offi ce of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Education and Communities. Mr John Neish, director of planning and demography for the NSW Department of Education and Communities wrote to Gosford Council on Monday, March 9 and said the department was “disappointed that previous comments provided to Council were not appropriately addressed in the compilation of the planning proposal”. In the letter, Mr Neish said: “The Department does not support the listing of the footings of the old sergeant’s residence/police station and especially the listing of the police stables footings as a heritage item as there is little evidence of how much of the footings, if any, remain.” Ms Williams said she was “dismayed and disgusted” by what she considered to be attempts by the NSW Department of Education and Communities to “lay blame, hasten and suppress due consideration, and misinterpret and mislead regarding the facts”. According to Ms Williams: “There has demonstrably never been a receptiveness by CCRDC to listen or discharge its heritage responsibilities, and its planning has frequently been in contempt of heritage responsibilities and our local heritage.” “It has been formally and publicly advised since …1998 that the entire Mann St South area needs to be assessed and studied as a signifi cant heritage precinct, the most signifi cant site of Gosford’s social history.” Ms Williams said the issue of the heritage and archaeological items within the Gosford Primary School site has been dealt with late because of the CCRDC’s own delaying tactics. “Had CCRDC not constrained any offi cial advice it was forced to get, and suppressed any matters it did not want to be bothered or inhibited by, despite its responsibility to do so, the matter would not have arisen so late,” she said. As a relatively recent owner of the Gosford Primary School site, the Department of Education and Communities would know very little about signifi cant buildings, including the sergeant’s residence, she said. “No-one consulted the two historians who have been working to uncover primary records on this area for over a decade now,” she said. “The comments in the letter are more a refl ection of your government’s continuing ignorance of Gosford’s history and its agencies’ determination to ignore and diminish our heritage, despite regulations, legislation and Charters surrounding its identifi cation and protection,” she said in her letter to the Minister for Planning. She asked the minister how he intended to explain the CCRDC’s decision to “ignore” the advice of distinguished anthropologist Mr Edward Higginbotham when demolishing the school’s demountables based on the signifi cance of the land beneath them. Ms Williams said it was not diffi cult to fi nd evidence of the early occupancy and heritage signifi cance of the land based on primary sources such as the 1839 town plan or parish maps, but she did not believe the Department of Education and Communities would have consulted such sources. “It is impossible to adduce the history of this area and its heritage signifi cance unless heritage and archaeological studies are done,” she said. “Now government attempts to defl ect criticism and evidence by accusing Gosford Council of not raising issues they were made aware of and had a direct responsibility to investigate for themselves,” she said. Ms Williams asked the planning minister to refer the actions of the CCRDC to the State Ombudsman, particularly its decision to go ahead with the demolition of the demountables and to ignore the need for archaeological investigation. She said she also wanted the minister to examine why, in spite of overwhelming community support for the school site to be the cultural precinct, the regional development corporation had supported the site being “sold by the state for commercial gain, and then proceeded to dismantle heritage protected lands, to build the Performing Arts Centre in a totally inappropriate location.” “The entire exercise has been a cynical grab to capitalise on Crown Lands and public sites for fi nancial benefi t to the state and the reuse of Crown Land for commercial interests, a process recently declared to contravene the Crown Lands Act 1989,” she said. ”I would urge you to investigate the network of vested interests and confl icts of interest inherent in the processes of CCRDC and its advisory committee. “I would draw to your attention as Minister for Planning, the developments currently approved for the CBD of Gosford, and those in train, and suggest to you that if the Gosford PS site no longer needs to be used for residential and commercial development, it can return to the original proposal that it be used as a Performing Arts precinct.”
Email, 14 June 2015 Kay Williams, historian Letter, 9 March 2015 John Neish, NSW Education and Communities Letter, 9 December 2014 David Rowland, NSW Planning and Environment