MEETING WITH SYDNEY WATER re BELLAMBI POINT SEWERAGE WORKS LAND
31.7.13
PRESENT
Sydney Water (SW):
Gwendy Arnot (Manager of Group Property), Carolina de Wolff (Senior Project Manage, Property Transactions) Yvonne Kaiserglass…… (SW archaeologist), Penny ……. (SW Property management)
Northern Illawarra Residents Action Group (NIRAG):
Ross Dearden, John Croker
Neighbourly Committee 4 (NC4):
Carol Nance, Ray Robinson.
MAIN POINTS
1. Explanation of Sydney Water’s refusal to transfer the land to Illawarra Local Aboriginal Land Council.
The main reason given was that the land has to be disposed of with a positive covenant, to ensure that the environmental management plan (required for the contaminated areas) is followed, and statutory bodies, such as city councils, are those on whom positive covenants can best be enforced. Other, less legally substantial bodies, such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils, were not felt to be liable to the same legal regulation.
It was also felt that a city council would have better access to the resources (mowing, collection of litter, etc) which ongoing management of the land would require.
2. Future uses of the site.
Sydney Water’s long term view of the future of the site has always been public open space. They have no objection to an Aboriginal cultural centre or offices on the site, but felt that this had to be arranged with the formal owner, such as a city council.
The previously existing Sydney Water buildings on the site have been demolished, but it would be possible to build new structures in these areas and other areas where there is no contamination. Such structures would have to be relatively small.
Facilities such as footpaths, BBQs and picnic shelters were part of SW vision for the site, and there would be no problem with their construction.
The contaminated area would be a good site for a carpark or other structure which would protect the underlying soil from interference. Skate park structures would be acceptable.
3. Wollongong City Council (WCC) position.
According to SW, WCC were reluctant to undertake the responsibility of managing the land and implementing the environmental management plan. Financial constraints had not been mentioned specifically, although they have been in correspondence with NIRAG.
4. NIRAG/NC4 position.
The basic NIRAG/NC 4 position in favour of a combination of public open space and an Aboriginal cultural centre was reiterated, including the possibility of options such as a skate park, restaurant, picnic areas and BBQs. There are differing positions on the retention of perimeter fencing.
5. Other ownership options.
Other options for official ownership of the land were considered and National Parks (Office of Environment and Heritage) and University of Wollongong (UOW) were suggested. None of these options were seen as precluding the possibility of an Aboriginal function centre or similar, on the site. SW said they were already holding discussions with National Parks and would open discussions with University of Wollongong.
The State Aboriginal Land Council was also suggested as able to fulfill the role of landowner.
The possibility of a number of bodies (such as WCC and UOW) taking joint ownership was discussed, but this would require subdivision of the land, and SW would only undertake this if they were approached to do so.
6. Possibility of disposal to property developers.
Sydney Water felt that this was near to impossible, in view of the existing contamination and the fact that the site is a declared Aboriginal Place. The limitations imposed by these factors make the site very unattractive for property development.
7. Existing contamination of the site.
The area of existing contamination was indicated, mainly covering the grassed area, with some smaller pockets toward the headland. In these areas the land has been remediated to a standard suitable for use as public open space, but other work, such as construction of buildings would require further extremely expensive remediation. Significant areas of the site were free of contamination, and the possibility of small scale constructions in these areas still exists.
8. Ongoing SW management of the site.
SW pointed out that they still had responsibility for the site, including issues such as mowing and public safety. They are considering renewing the perimeter fencing in order to prevent public access. It was pointed out that this would be a substantial expense, and a more economic use of SW money may be to subsidize WCC in their takeover of the land.
Meeting closed approx. 12.30 pm.