Newcastle Recreation Reserve under consideration for State Heritage Register of NSW

IMG_5221A nomination to have ‘Newcastle Recreation Reserve’ (also known at King Edward Park) is currently on public exhibition for consideration to the State Heritage Register of  NSW. In 2012 a small dedicated group the ‘Government Domain committee’ submitted a State Heritage Register (SHR) nomination to the Office of Environment and Heritage. The Heritage Council of NSW considers nominations for listing on the SHR based on an assessment of heritage significance and taking into account any submissions received from the public.

Submissions can be made to:-

Heritage Council of NSW
Locked Bag 5020

or email;

Further details about the NEWCASTLE RECREATION RESERVE’ nomination is available HERE.

Submissions close 12 July 2017.

2012 Nomination – Newcastle Recreation Reserve – Nomination to NSW Heritage Register

Particular acknowledgement goes to the late Dr Robert Evans who researched and published ‘History of King Edward Park’ in 2016.

2 thoughts on “Newcastle Recreation Reserve under consideration for State Heritage Register of NSW

  1. What can a person say about the “supporting documentation” submitted to the Office of Environment and Heritage?

    “May”be we can comment on the over use of word “may” in describing the importance of our heritage?

    “May”be we could consider that the authors of the nomination documentation “may” believe that King Edward Park deserves heritage listing but “may”be they have no understanding of reality.

    Shepherds Hill Defence Group IS heritage listed as it does have State heritage significance.

    There is no “may” in regards to this site “within” but not part of King Edward Park.

    There is no “may” be part of King Edward Park, it is a separately dedicated reserve.

    Currently Newcastle Council is constructing Bathers Way parallel to The Terrace, at the front of the Shepherds Hill. defence Group site.

    This work will remove part of the original 1890 driveway into Shepherds Hill.

    As King Edward Park “surrounds” the defence group the portion of driveway between the defence group western boundary and The Terrace is not heritage listed and therefore protected.

    As part of the “actual” (physical) Bathers Way pathway crosses through a 1 metre section of the defence group property then heritage listing protection became relevant.

    There is no “may” about what is of State significance inside of the defence group boundaries.

    Once Council crossed the boundaries, in regards to the Bathers Way works, the Office of Environment shut Council down within a day until the correct applications were submitted for approval.

    As King Edward Park is clearly not of State significance, on paper, Council can create Bathers Way in a form that cuts off the only legal access (easement) into the defence group.

    So, if I “may”, it appears the proponents of the call for listing “may” not know what they are talking about.

    The proponents/authors “may” not be aware that they “may” have repeated the same subjects to “bolster” the amount of information rather than the quality of the information supplied.

    Examples include:

    “May” be archeological evidence.

    “May” be the oldest.

    “May” be extent.

    “May” reveal.

    “May” be of State significance.

    The Office of Environment and Heritage “may” not consider the proposed listing of King Edward Park for some time as they have limited time and resources.

    Something you “may” wish to consider if you believe a listing will be granted.

  2. Almost a year later and still waiting to see if King Edward Park “may” be heritage listed.

    Here is a new bit of information while we wait.

    Newcastle City Council has stated the following on its website.

    A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) is to be prepared for King Edward Park.
    Due to limited resources this work has yet to be undertaken.”

    So what does Council consider to be “Limited Resources?”

    Having spent $60,000 to create a CMP for Shepherds Hill Council stated within the CMP it had no money to carry out research into the historical significance of the site.

    Basically the CMP does not contain a “history” of the site and as such cannot identify the heritage value of any part of the site in regards to retention or preservation of the “built/physical” history.

    The CMP was submitted to the Office of Environment and Heritage for endorsement in 2016 at a cost of, I beleive, a $2000 application fee.

    The CMP was not endorsed and Council again employed heritage consultants to prepare a new amended CMP to include a history. More money spent for consultants and another $2000 application fee for consideration for endorsement.

    The CMP was again refused endorsement and Council has again proposes to submitted (2018) the CMP for endorsement.

    So Council having stated that it had no funds to carry out research in regards to the history of the site has apparently spent $4000, with another $2000 yet to be spent, on nothing more than application fees.

    I have no idea what it has cost to create the new CMP documentation in 2017 and 2018 but as stated earlier the original 2016 CMP cost just over $60,000.

    The Restoration of Shepherds Hill defence quarters is being promoted as costing over a $1 million. Council budget papers records the cost as being around $250,000.

    The Council has demolished “original” parts of the built history having stated, without research, that the demolished parts are not essential to the “interpretation/story” of the sites history.

    This is the “advantage” of having “limited resources” when it is stated “a site is so historically important that it must be preserved at any cost.”

    Apparently the Bathers Way works, at South Newcastle Beach, will cost $11 million to create a skate park and beach facilities.

    These works must have been “cheap enough” to qualify for funding under Council’s limited budget.

    You have to wonder though as to how much a CMP for King Edward Park would cost if it is outside of the “affordable” $11 million limit.

Leave a Reply