DPS Submission re Skatepark RBYF

Dear Heritage Council,

Draft Submission re:  Rushcutters Bay Park and Yarranabbe Park (SHR no.02041) proposed Rushcutters Bay Park Youth Recreation Area

The Darling Point Society (DPS) objects to the Rushcutters Bay Park Youth Facility (RBYF) as it threatens the Heritage Items of this Park.

Effects on Large Open Space (fundament element of the heritage listing of the Park – and given a grading of significance of Exceptional in CMS and HIS as it relates to the underlying landscaping principles of F.A Franklin)

The HIS claims the RBYF will take up less than 3% of the total area managed by WMC and is therefore inconsequential to the open space principle in the Park. This is highly misleading.

The total area managed by WMC is today segregated into distinct and non-contiguous sections. The CYCA, the D’Albora Marina complex, the Sayonara slipway and ex-naval facilities all visually and physically divide the area into smaller distinct areas and Parks. We note that even Rushcutters Bay (West) under control of City of Sydney Council (COS) is also physically and visually separated by a Rushcutters Creek and the large trees planted along the creek – today it presents as a separate park.

Of the original parkland, the only open spaces left are those found in Yarranabbe Park and in Rushcutters Bay Park (East.) The two Parks are visually and physically separated from each other.

Today Rushcutters Bay Park (East) also contains a children’s playground, a café with outdoor seating and toilets, an exercise station, a soccer field and a combined cricket/rugby field. The RBYF is 1225 square metres, total length including new pathways (approximately 130 metres) is longer than an Olympic pool, in terms of Rushcutters Bay Park East it will dominate the park and completely use up the only significant flat open green space left in this park.

The HIS also claims the bulk and height of the RBYF has little impact visually on the Park, other than at the southwestern entry point to the park. We note that this is the main point of entry for park users from Paddington, Darlinghurst and Potts Point. It is also the point where the park is most visible, given the road level relative to the park, to the thousands of vehicles that drive past the park every day. It is the most significant entry point to the park. It is the point by far, where most of the initial impressions of the Park are made.

Furthermore the plans include a shade shelter 3.595 metres high, 5.55 metres long and 4.05 metres wide ( total 80.8 cubic metres); skate ramp 201Q is 2.01 metres high x 2.995 metres long; skate ramp 201N is 1.5 metres high x 1.775 metres long (not including the transition footing) as well as a basketball hoop and backboard which, using standard heights, have a total height of 3.964metres - approximately 4 metres.

The shade shelter alone is larger than the standard bedroom in Australia which measures 3.2m x 3m. The standard ceiling height in Australian homes is 2.4m. This shelter being 3.6metres high is higher than the standard ceiling height and skate ramp 201Q being 2metres high, is not far lower.

The rendered images in the Report have been so heavily distorted that they are also misleading. The heavy shadowing is so strong that not even the existing trees can be distinguished (View B.) In View C the shade shelter is hidden behind a tree that does not exist in the actual photo, and the basketball hoop is absent. In View E, the tree along the pathway has been moved in the rendered image to be further away from the path and somehow, is now in front of the shade shelter. Similar faults pervade all the rendered images. Compare the rendered image on the cover of the HIS to the rendered images in View B. This should be the same rendered image, but the difference clearly illustrates how the rendered images within the report are not a true representation of what is proposed.

Hence, we disagree strongly that the facility will have little visual impact from viewpoints that are further than 100 metres from the facility. The size of the structures will dominate the park. The 935 square metres of hard surfaces will contrast, not complement the grass fields in the rest of the park. The RBYF will be significantly noticeable from every viewpoint inside and outside the park and we believe it destroys the historic open green space landscaping principle of the Park.

Effects on Significant Trees (fundament element of the heritage listing of the Park – and given a grading of significance of Exceptional in CMS and HIS)

The Aboricultural Impact Assessment Report (AIAR) on which all claims in the HIS regarding the effect of the RBYF on the significant trees are based, is defective in that its terms of reference are too narrow. The AIAR only assesses the specific impact of the RBYF without taking into account the significant pre-existing factors affecting the significant trees.

Specifically, the AIAR fails to consider the pre-existing effects of New South Head Road and the roadside footpath. Appendix 6 Sheets 3 and 4, clearly indicate that the footpath significantly effects the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of trees T11, T13 and T14. The road significantly impacts on the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of trees T10, T11, T13, T14 and T18. The limbs of these trees snap and fall onto the roadway in strong winds, last time was about February this year. None of this is taken into account in the AIAR’s assessments.

Therefore the % effects on the SRZ/TPZ of the trees in the AIAR do not accurately reflect the total cumulative effects of the RBYF on these significant trees (Heritage items- Exceptional value.)

Further the Report notes that the TPZ of the trees along the central pathway (T3, T4 and T5) are all encroached by the RBYF. However, the AIAR fails to take into consideration that these trees are already under stress. On 17 January 2025 one of these trees was blown over and was removed. Inspection by Woollahra Municipal Council (WMC) indicates possible cause to be a soil disease like Phytophthora (a fungal pathogen which thrives in poorly drained or waterlogged soil.) Two other trees are also showing signs of the same distress. The AIAR fails to consider the cumulative effects of the RBYF by not taking into account known pre-existing issues affecting these trees.

The regular flooding of the site is another factor not considered in the AIAR. To the south of the site is the embankment up to the road, to the east is a slope up to the pathway. This site is a low point which collects the majority of run off as there is nowhere for the rain to drain from there. This is significant because the RBYF with its 935 square metres of hard surface will exacerbate the problem and amplify its effects on the health of the significant trees in the vicinity of the site.

Finally, the Impact Assessment (Sect 9 page 12) in the AIAR notes that in the case of T13 the RBYF will necessitate “the removal of a lateral primary limb of 500mm in diameter and 20 metres in length at the junction with the trunk and the reduction of the primary limb immediately above it.” It also states that canopy pruning of T12, T13 and T14 will need to be done to facilitate pedestrian access and construction. None of this limb removal or canopy pruning is mentioned in the HIS. Furthermore, this pruning may well be within the acceptable limits of AS4373 but this standard is general, relating only to the survival of the trees.

These are significant trees of exceptional historic value and should be viewed in this context. FA Francis/J Jones could have chosen any tree to border the Park. They could have chosen the Palms used in other areas of the Park. Instead, they chose Moreton Bay Figs for a reason, that being the sculptural cascading structure which gives them the impressive, majestic appearance they have today. It serves to announce the Park borders, and it contrasts strongly with the open spaces which together work to further enhance the imposing presence of the trees. This is a basic design principle at play, by having negative space around an object you emphasise its importance. Pruning of these trees, especially of a tertiary limb 50cm in diameter and 20 meters in length changes the structure of the tree and changes the intended effect of the historic original landscaping decision, to use these trees, in this location.

Alternative Sites

Other than Trumper Park, WMC has failed to consider other parks in the municipality for this facility. In the initial stages, Trumper Park was considered but quickly rejected because it was considered too close to residents given the noise the skatepark will produce. At that time Rushcutters Bay Park was then chosen as it was considered that no residences would be affected by the noise from the skatepark. However today, the Vibe Hotel has been redeveloped as apartments and sits 60metres from the proposed skatepark. However, conveniently these residences are in the COS local government area and not within the boundaries of responsibility of WMC.

We highly question the necessity of this facility. Within the heritage listed park available activities already include a cricket fields, soccer and football fields, two children’s playgrounds, two exercise stations, tennis and water access for swimming and boating at two points. The Cruising Yacht Club of Australia also runs an affordable youth sailing program. Across the road at the Hakoah Club being built we have been advised by the Executive Assistant to the Board, that they intend to offer a huge range of activities and are wanting to encourage affordable youth membership and that they had a large gentile membership.

The half basketball court is a late addition to the RBYF. However, there are two full size basketball courts across the road from the Park in Neild Ave. They belong to Sydney Grammar School, but they can be access directly from the street without any need to access the rest of the school. Use of these by the public outside school hours has never been explored. Incidentally, the school is one of many that use the football fields of Rushcutters Bay Park.

In the 10 years since this form of the facility has been developed, WMC have redeveloped numerous parks. The latest being Lyne Park. This skatepark will be the only facility of its type in the Municipality. Lyne Park is centrally located within the Municipality and has toilet facilities as well as ample parking. Rushcutters Bay Park has no parking nor any ability to ever provide parking given it sits on a major section of an arterial regional road. Consideration of moving this facility to Lyne Park was never even contemplated.

In fact, in the last 10 years never has WMC considered incorporating this proposal into any of the many parks it has redeveloped – all of which are non-heritage listed.

Summary

The DPS believes the proposed RBYF is diametrically opposed to the significant Heritage values for which the Park was listed in the State Register. It is completely at odds with the original open space landscaping plan of the park still mostly intact today and it presents a threat to the significant trees in its vicinity both in terms of their survival and to their natural form, which was of primary consideration in their selection in the original landscaping plan of the Park. Furthermore, we do not believe WMC has made any genuine attempt to find an alternative park in which to locate this facility.

Yours Sincerely,

Robert Pompei

President

The Darling Point Society Inc