The various members of FroQS have brought their individual expertise to this consultation process and therefore the sections to follow have different authors. The FroQS submission is divided into the following sections:

The Friends of Quarantine Station (FroQS) considers the Draft North Head Quarantine Station Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to be a comprehensive document which, when corrected for inconsistencies and with policies improved, will become a very important tool for conserving a site of immense national and international significance. The following comments on the draft prepared by FroQS are to ensure the final adopted CMP will be effective in its application to all kinds of management options that may potentially arise in the future.

FroQS is impressed by the amount of work undertaken by Peter Freeman Pty Ltd in the very short and impractical time frame provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). Most weaknesses in the draft, such as inconsistencies primarily between the policy sections and the preceding sections, may not have occurred had adequate time been given to the Consultants to prepare what should be regarded as a crucial document. We are concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to some of the themes arising from the first public exhibition and request that these be revisited.

The draft CMP is an entirely new document, vastly better than the 1992 Conservation Plan and with its core refreshingly different to the earlier plan. Nevertheless, a number of issues raised in previous submissions to the 1992 Conservation Plan exhibition have not been adequately addressed and opportunities to integrate the CMP with the Defence and Australian Institute of Police Management lands have not been pursued.

The recent and premature signing of the Agreement to Lease has not only cast a shadow over the CMP but also highlighted a number of significant weaknesses in the draft plan. Given that the Mawland development proposal is on public exhibition, our comments also identify where weaknesses and gaps in the draft CMP could allow inappropriate development.

In the FroQS submission to the 1992 Conservation Plan we called for the Study Area for the Conservation Management Plan to be increased to include "all that area which is pertinent to the full and proper assessment of natural and heritage significance and its management as well as its surroundings". This required including the whole of North Head in the Study Area if the CMP were to be truly comprehensive. The reasons for this are important to understanding significance; both natural and cultural, as well as to identifying future opportunities and constraints.

The Introduction, Section 1.9, page 9 of the CMP states that; "The brief specifically requested consideration of the 'broader' North Head area i.e. beyond the defined 'Study Area'...To this end aspects of 'Quarantine Station within North Head' were discussed in the context of the surrounding 'use' precincts:

Regrettably, the CMP, despite its encouraging assurances in the Introduction, has not discussed adequately these other Precincts in the body of the document. Some of the Precincts listed have been omitted altogether.

What in particular is of fundamental importance to the proper appreciation of future opportunities and constraints is the relationship of the Defence and other lands occupied by the Commonwealth to the Quarantine Station (QS). The CMP has not considered that the vacated Defence lands (pursuant to the 1910 conditional transfer) will be handed back to the State and most likely become part of the Sydney Harbour National Park.

These Precincts are vital to a proper understanding not only of access and circulation opportunities and constraints but crucial to how adaptive re-uses of the QS can be integrated with future adaptive re-uses of the former Artillery School land. For instance, what inter-relationship and impacts would occur to the QS if the Artillery School land were to become, let�s speculate.... a major eco-hotel or environmental educational facility under the auspices of NPWS?

To ignore potential opportunities and constraints for both sites, in terms of their conservation, financial, management and planning implications would result in the current CMP becoming an inadequate document or at the least, render it out of date in a short time. Implementation of a proposal such as the Mawland one would compromise proper planning for the whole of North Head.

The changes in land use will bring enormous and dramatic impacts to North Head. The major implications that these changes will be bringing about were identified in the North Head Advisory Committee Section 22 recommendations. These have not been referred to at all in the CMP.

The Interim Sydney Harbour Federation Trust offer in its letter of 3 December 1999 to Peter Freeman Pty Ltd provides an opportunity for NPWS to work with the Trust "in arriving at the best outcome for North Head." This offer should be pursued vigorously at the earliest opportunity to ensure that proper master planning is developed.

The CMP General Conservation Policy 3 (page 240) does not place enough significance on the importance of pursuing a master plan for North Head as a whole. The hasty introduction of the Mawland proposal prior to any master planning for North Head highlights the need to ensure North Head master planning is undertaken as a prerequisite within the implementation timetable.

The ambiguous reference on page 214 to the authorship of the North Head Planning Study suggests the Study was prepared by the NPWS North Head Liaison Committee when in fact it was prepared for the North Head Advisory Section 22 Committee. This error also confuses matters with respect to who should be the on-going group for overall management issues at North Head described later in the CMP.

The reference to the North Head Liaison Committee fulfilling this role (Policy 2) is not appropriate. The Committee has met infrequently and has merely focused on relatively minor management and staffing issues. The appropriate management group is that based on the recommendations and on-going work of the Section 22 Committee which represents all stakeholder groups on North Head, Manly Council and community members.

The Section 22 Committee recommendations, prepared by the Manly community in 1999, call for a ministerial level Memorandum of Understanding and a high level Committee to implement the recommendations of the Committee and the Clouston Report.

A more appropriate recommendation of the CMP would be to endorse the Section 22 recommendation for a high level committee of all North Head stakeholders, Council and community representatives. Without this it will be hard to bring any of the recommendations to fruition.

The assessment under Criteria for State Heritage Significance, Criteria A to G, is well written. The assessment would imply that the QS fulfill every one of the seven criteria for State Significance. One wonders how many other sites in NSW meet all the criteria, and also note that only one criterion needs to be met for a site to be of State Heritage Significance (p. 199).

The Primary Statement of Significance, Section 7.8.4. (p. 205) does not convey the same degree of objective significance as that described under the individual criteria. There are also notable omissions such as its relative international/national significance, public health and treatment of disease and the importance of the buildings. Further research and analysis, particularly of individual items, may well lead to changes in the assessment of significance.

The format of the Primary Statement of Significance does not conform to that recommended by J. Kerr in The Conservation Plan, who prescribes that the primary statement should not exceed one page or repeat the factual, descriptive or historical material.

The Primary Statement of Significance, otherwise, is a substantial improvement on previous ones. It is noteworthy that the Sydney Harbour National Park Plan of Management 1998 (SHNPPOM), by contrast, provides a very weak Statement of Importance with respect to the Quarantine Station and North Head. When the draft CMP is adopted, the NPWS should undertake to revise the SHNPPOM with respect to QS and North Head in order that it reflects the high level of significance attributed by the CMP.

The draft CMP Conservation and Management Policy Issues: Statement of Significance, section 8.2, though written differently to Section 7, does not exhibit the same general high level of significance when it is compared with the earlier section. This is unfortunate as some readers may read Section 8 without reference to Section 7 and therefore not appreciate the high level of significance.

The Heritage Council critique of the 1992 Conservation Plan requested that "the levels of significance should be clearly derived from the preceding investigation sections, notably the comparative analysis." (see p 181). A fundamental question, therefore, is how the QS compares in both a national and world context. This is not answered adequately by the CMP due to constraints placed on the consultant by the NPWS which "limited the scope of the CMP study" (p 189). This section needs to be completed to permit a proper comparison analysis to fulfill the Heritage Council's requirement.

The draft CMP does makes it clear that "the Sydney Quarantine station can be seen by this comparison to be the oldest Australian quarantine station; to be [together with Melbourne] one of the two largest quarantines in Australia; to have a comparatively high degree of survival of quarantine structures and evidence, and to have been a seminal influence, again with Melbourne, in the design of the Commonwealth quarantine function." Also on P. 204 "Quarantine Station has the best representative collection of quarantine related buildings, equipment and human memorabilia [in the form of the inscriptions] of any Australian quarantine station."

Research by FroQS shows that Sydney QS is the largest, oldest, most intact and best preserved quarantine station in Australia, and most likely in the world. This needs to be verified before any major decisions are made about the future of the site. This analysis should be undertaken in the first year of the implementation schedule.

The most appropriate approach would be to recognize pre-eminent position of the QS until further information should prove otherwise. At present there is no evidence to contradict this assertion so the precautionary principle would dictate that no premature action be taken which could impinge on the intact condition of the site until further evidence is gathered.

The significance of the site is greatly enhanced by the intact nature of the site (p 216, p 227) which demonstrates the class structure of the day, the methods used to quarantine the ill and the healthy and the amount of space necessary to do this to be experienced by modern day visitors. A proposal such as the Mawland one would destroy this important aspect of the site.

The consultants have not yet classified individual buildings in the draft CMP. The brief should be expanded to provide a comprehensive recording of the various elements and their structures to be included in the final CMP to permit an assessment of individual significance. The individual elements will better describe how they are an integral part of the harmonious whole. They are all part of the whole quarantine history. Modifying areas of precincts by adaptive re-use will diminish the significance of the whole. Restricting access will also significantly diminish this value to the visitor.

The Friends of Quarantine Station submission to Peter Freeman et al was highly critical of the 1992 Conservation Plan as it paid scant regard to the Aboriginal heritage at the QS. Section 6.0 of the �92 Plan, Statement of Significance, did not mention Aboriginal heritage at all under any of its criteria of assessment. Indeed, under section 6.4.2 �Other Elements� it categorized Aboriginal sites as being of �minor scientific/research value� with some educational potential and �social and contemporary significance to the Aboriginal community�. It totally dismissed the significance of these sites and their contribution to Australia�s cultural heritage as a whole.

The new draft Conservation Plan for Quarantine Station

The new plan should be commended for its strong references to indigenous heritage throughout the document. For example, on p. 188 we find �The North head area is one of the first within the Sydney Harbour environment, that is within an important urban setting, where Aboriginal heritage values have been retained in a physical setting that is substantially intact.� There is an excellent historical section that provides a sound overview of occupation and lifestyle of Aboriginal people around the Sydney foreshore for over 20,000 years. Section 8, Statement of Significance, makes strong comments on the importance of the Aboriginal sites at QS, the need for their conservation, and calls for further investigations into the archaeological remains on the site. There are one or two minor queries in relation to the text, which have been noted below.

However, there are some major concerns in relation to additions, sometimes in brackets, which are inconsistent with the general intent of the strong statements in the plan on Aboriginal heritage values, conservation and interpretation activities at QS. These have been detailed below:

The weakest section of the Plan is Section 9, Conservation Management Policies, which requires strengthening with explicit statements. This section requires strengthening statements which reflect the Statement of Significance and which set out clearly defined policies on the conservation of Aboriginal heritage at North Head.

8.2.2 Statement of Significance : Aboriginal Heritage

Aboriginal people have occupied the Sydney Basin for at least 20,000 years. The Harbour has been a focus for habitation since its creation around 6,000 years ago. There are few sites on Sydney Harbour that recognize Aboriginal ownership, and their former occupation of the Sydney Basin.

The policies which arise from this significance are the recognition of Port Jackson and the Harbour as one of Australia�s most important Aboriginal cultural landscapes as the first location of sustained �cultural� context from 1788 onwards; and the development of an integrated approach to the management of foreshore lands taking into account sites and localities, along with opportunities for contemporary interpretation.

Our query relates to the use of cultural context from 1788 onwards � surely this cultural context extends beyond 1788 � so we would insert the words �from before� 1788 or similar wording.

The following statement is quite strong in direction and in significance yet there are some peculiar anomalies in paragraph two.

North Head was a site where the Cameraigal Aboriginal clan first saw the European settlers. The sense of Port Jackson in its �pre-contact� days can be felt at North Head for there are views from the Quarantine Station to the southwest, which are still free of urban development. These landscape elements and characteristics are considered valuable in providing a context for contemporary Aboriginal interpretative work.

An interpretive policy that is based on the landscape �values� of North Head could be the development of an Aboriginal Cultural Centre at North Head [or alternatively, at Middle Head] from which interpretative projects, education programs, employment and training and Aboriginal site management can be delivered. Such a centre could be a focus for visitor experiences such as tours, performance, displays and Aboriginal community development projects.

There has been a curious insertion /addition of a comment in brackets which seems totally out of context with the rest of the section. Questions arise here; what investigations have been undertaken for the centre to be located at Middle Head? On what basis is this suggestion made � and is it in the brief for such a comment? One wonders has this comment been added by someone other than the heritage consultants?

There is another example of an anomaly. The plan states the need for cultural tours to be run by Aboriginal people and in consultation with the Land Council. The Plan is definitive on the need for Aboriginal involvement in any programs and work on Aboriginal heritage interpretation. It also states that �Sub-surface archaeological deposits with QS study area may include Aboriginal materials. Yet section 8.8 (p237) states that tours need not extend up into the QS - Surely Aboriginal people walked all over the site at North head and did not keep to the parameters � this again hints at marginalization of the Aboriginal cultural content.

There are strong statements on the need to access and consult with the Local Aboriginal Land Council for all interpretive work. The provision of Aboriginal training and employment (with Government funding support) should be encouraged and made a requirement of any cultural tours of QS. (Section 8.2 p. 215). This is not reflected in this Conservation and Management policy section (9.3 p 242)

The comments on the need for consultation with the MLALC are linked to formal NPWS policy and procedures on consultation with Aboriginal communities.

Comments on interpretation of Aboriginal Heritage are strong � yet are again confused and become ambiguous with the addition of one sentence on page 243.

The MLALC wish to develop and run an interpretive program allowing them to give an Aboriginal view of Aboriginal history in Australia. This program may be appropriate for the Quarantine Station but other harbour locations will be investigated.

This seems an odd addition � and it may not have been a recommendation of the consultants as it sits in contrast with other comments made about QS as a site of importance in regard to Aboriginal heritage.

The question needs to be asked � particularly since the typeface is different from that of the previous paragraph � has this been added by NPWS? Is it not outside the brief of the consultants to note these other investigations?

A more direct requirement on the need to involve Aboriginal people in the Environmental Assessment procedures should be written into the section on Aboriginal Heritage values and Environmental Assessment � page 247. This is crucial in the EIS process.

Extracts from 10.2

That the Quarantine Station should be conserved and managed by NPWS in accordance with its outstanding significance as a place that retains and evokes powerful cultural meanings for a large number of indigenous, resident and newly-arrived Australians.

That the Aboriginal, Colonial / Modern and Natural heritage values of the Quarantine Station, which are integrally related to the values of North Head as a whole, should be seen in that context. Conservation and management planning for the Quarantine Station should be undertaken in conjunction with planning for North Head as a whole.

Continue liaison with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Council and other Aboriginal organisations. This liaison should encompass Aboriginal interpretative programs and use the Aboriginal sites database.

While this section sets out clear guidelines for consultation and interpretation and the presentation of an Aboriginal view of Aboriginal history in Australian, the offending sentence again makes an appearance. This program could be centered on NHQS or at Middle Head.

The question still remains � under what pretext is this sentence included � what consultation with the Aboriginal community has occurred in inserting this sentence? It seems totally out of context.

Conclusion

Our overall impression is that while the intent is there for strong statements on heritage values, interpretation possibilities and consultation with Aboriginal people the CMP must transfer into explicit policy direction. � It should not contain throw away lines about Middle Head - which divert the significance of QS as an area of Aboriginal historical significance - but also which appear to be totally out of context and without sound foundation in research or consultation with the Aboriginal community.

The new plan consistently calls for consultation with MLALC in any educational and interpretive program. The Mawland proposal makes no comment at all about such consultation, nor does it comment on cultural tours with Aboriginal content � this is a serious and debilitating omission of the Mawland plan. In this aspect the proposal does not and will not comply with the EIS if it is based on this new CMP.

A further point of concern � the CMP strategies are predicated upon compliance with other statutory obligations attached to a number of legislative Acts � such as the NPWS Act, the Heritage Act, The Sydney Harbour National Park Plan of Management. This must be clearly delineated with a clear statement in Section 10, implementing the Policies.

Overall the first sections, the bringing together of all the material is comprehensive and well researched and gives a good description of the site. The analysis is quite thorough, though important material in certain areas was insufficient to enable positive assessment. This was particularly so in regard to other national quarantine station sites and especially international quarantine stations, which prevented firm determination of the position of North Head QS on the world stage.

According to the draft CMP, limitations of time prevented more detailed survey, assessment and plans of the individual structures and features. The Quarantine Station CMP, therefore, does not achieve the standard required by J. Kerr in The Conservation Plan, the generally accepted base document for all conservation plans. These omissions should be included in the final draft of the CMP.

We note that the very important maps of the evolution of the site in the 1992 CMP have not been brought forward to this document. These maps, although inadequately annotated, are a valuable record of the site and should be incorporated in the final CMP.

In Section 5.5, under the sub-headings "Conservation Implications" for each individual area, the conclusions are without justification and appear biased towards strict conservation of some areas but not others. The assessment generally accorded high levels of significance and intactness of fabric and artifacts to a number of areas, but others such as the First and Second Class Areas, despite displaying elements and attributes to a similar level of significance, were dismissed as being appropriate for adaptive re-use.

Despite these restraints and limitations, the evidence presented a site of high significance. This is borne out in the analysis of the significance under the State Heritage Significance criteria, where the site would appear to meet all criteria. However this understanding is not carried through to the policy sections of the document.

The draft CMP lacks important continuity whereby assessment is translated into policy that can be acted upon. These should be checked to ensure that individual assessments correlate with a particular policy. For instance, the Conservation Implications for each area and precinct in Section 5, which clearly state limitations on adaptive re-use for an area are not restated as policy in Sections 8 or 9. Failure to translate the Conservation Implications into appropriate policy leaves the door open for different interpretations of the text and opportunity for inappropriate development or adaptive re-uses to be justified over time.

The problem arises, for example, where Mawland's current proposal provides for a large restaurant in the Luggage Sheds on the Wharf. Clearly, this would be an inappropriate use for the structures given the strong conservation statements made in the CMP which say on p. 101: "The re-use of the Wharf area buildings for any purpose other than for site interpretation would introduce problems since the interior fittings and cleansing systems occupy the interior spaces and there is little room left for other activities." Similarly, on p. 228, the CMP says "The Wharf area has a high degree of significant specialized contents and fittings relating to quarantine process, and uses which respect these contents and fittings are appropriate uses for this area."

But because the CMP fails to provide either a detailed assessment of each structure within the Wharf area or a strongly worded Policy that corresponds with the Conservation Implication statement, the opportunity arises for the original assessment to be reinterpreted and reworked to permit a restaurant..

Another example of lack of continuity is for the Second Class area. Page 121 states "that the majority of the rooms should remain substantially intact." Also on p. 227 it states "providing the contemporary demands of accommodation do not compromise the conservation of significant building fabric." This then is contradicted by the comment that the "robust nature of these buildings offers opportunity for change." FroQS challenges the correctness of this last statement.

A further instance applies to the Third Class/Asiatic area (p. 112) The draft CMP makes it clear that; "It is simple to conclude that continued use of the buildings for accommodation and dining purposes would be both compatible and desirable. However the high degree of intactness of the interiors of the buildings determines a high level of significance that must be protected. Any attempt to upgrade the accommodation to modern-day standards would introduce a high risk of permanent damage to the authentic finishes and detailing of the rooms". It goes on to caution against disturbance of the sites of earlier structures. Yet, this fails to get a mention in Sections 8 and 9 and leaves the question of what constitutes an appropriate interpretation and usage for this area.

The Conservation Implications for the First Class area seem almost dismissive of its significance.

The Conservation Implications for the Administration area, which states that it �could accommodate substantial change� implies low significance. This view is challenged.

It is impossible to make proper decisions about sampling, new buildings, adaptive re-use or management issues such as leasing until the supplementary area conservation plans are completed and the interpretation plan prepared. This is down for year one of the Implementation Plan but should form part of the CMP itself.

If any agreement to proceed with a development proposal or adaptive re-uses is taken prior to the preparation of interpretation plans and supplementary conservation plans, and issues such as carrying capacity or management structures are not fully resolved, the opportunity to properly conserve this site for future generations may be lost.

Any new buildings, even on original footprints, will change the atmosphere of the site as it has been experienced over the last couple of generations. Increased building capacity will increase pressure on the site, which is already acknowledged as fragile. The section on Visitor Use Impacts highlights the need to assess current impact before adding any new activities.

Section 8.4.4 (p.229) CMP clearly concludes "that no new buildings should be introduced into the developed area of the Quarantine Station" but provides for "new buildings outside this developed area" if they can be clearly justified and with certain constraints. Given the restrictions of access, impact on archaeological remains and bushland preservation, it should be clarified where such a new building could be located.

The constraints placed on the new buildings by the CMP are inadequate. There is no mention of controls in relation to density, height, scale and appearance and materials, all of which are essential for good conservation guidelines.

FroQS, though, strongly considers no new buildings should be permitted anywhere on the site as this will result in an intensification of use and have a detrimental impact on the natural heritage which should be conserved within a National Park.

Re-building of demolished buildings may be acceptable only if archaeological research can be justified and then in accordance with articles 25.1, 26.1 and 26.2 of the Burra Charter.

�Management requirements� is not a justification for reconstruction. The Burra Charter states "reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete...sufficient evidence to reproduce to an earlier state of the fabric. In rare cases reconstruction... of a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place."

The site is rich in buildings and education activities based on the site could be carried out in existing buildings with the minimum of change. The Mawland proposal to reconstruct two buildings for education purposes is not justified under the Burra Charter criteria.

This issue is at the core of what can really happen in the future to this site. The draft CMP early sections, up to and including Section 7, indicate the importance of the site, its intact nature and its opportunities for interpretation and education. However, if unsuitable adaptive re-use is allowed to occur, the integrity of the site will be damaged.

Section 7.4 (p. 187), under Colonial/Modern Heritage Assessment: Limitations, comments on the lack of time for the writers to "assess the full significance of the place through detailed, and comprehensive site analysis."

Section 8.2.3 (p. 216) Policy no. 2 refers to the need for supplementary conservation plans.

Section 8.4 (p. 227) Policies 4,5,6 place clear limitations on the future use of the site and in bold is the statement "All developments or use must be compatible with the retention of the significance." This brings into question how this rather subjective criterion will be met. What methodology will be used to assess proposed changes?

Section 9.5 Compatible Adaptive Reuse, Policy 2 (p. 249) is lightweight considering the importance of this Section. This section proposes that accommodation, interpretation and conference/functions are the most appropriate uses for the site. The "other uses "clearly indicates that the new use should be a continuation of the old use. This section could be strengthened to ensure its spirit is respected.

There is no clear guidance under "accommodation" as to whether ensuites are acceptable and if so where and with what limitations. A statement such as "majority should remain substantially intact" is insufficient. The Mawland proposal, which provides for extensive ensuiting is an example of where the CMP lacks adequate teeth to ensure the right outcomes are achieved in the interests of conservation.

The draft CMP does not face up to the big question about the future of the site, and given that the consultants were briefed on the Mawland proposal, this is a significant omission. The first paragraph on p. 227 raises the spectre of "viability". This matter will be dealt with in more detail in a management section of this submission. However, placing this issue up front, but not looking at the big picture of adaptive re-use, nor ensuring that supplementary precinct plans are completed within the context of the CMP prior to decisions being made, leaves the reader unsure of exactly what adaptive re-use is appropriate.

Furthermore, the breadth of change suggested in Section 8.4.5 (p 230) gives rise to concern that "change or addition to the fabric" would be internal only and of not significant fabric.

The current situation, whereby the NPWS run interpretation tours and a conference centre, fits well together and complies with the draft CMP. A hotel, however, with the inevitable exclusive areas and changes to buildings to accommodate its accoutrements would impact negatively on the significance of the site.

FroQS would like to highlight the fact that the Mawland proposal contravenes these sections of the draft CMP.

The practice of sampling as a conservation technique figured prominently in the 1992 plan, which gave rise to considerable concern about the integrity of the site. The only reference we have found in this plan is under Public Access in Section 8.7 (p 236).

The repetitive nature that is so fundamental to these buildings and their association with shipboard accommodation could be lost through sampling and we put the argument that it is inappropriate for this site. If it has relevance in very limited and specific areas or subjects this should be clearly enunciated.

FroQS expects that the moveable heritage would be accorded appropriate conservation, cataloguing and display in accordance with article 10 of the Burra Charter.

There are some significant omissions from this section. For example, we note that the Boatman's Cottage appears in a photograph on pages 91 and 119, taken circa 1940 without any comment on its history or significance. This raises several questions about the thoroughness of the archaeological analysis in the CMP. We suggest that this section needs a thorough review prior to finalisation. Further research and expansion of the military use of the site the identification and locations of any rubbish tips also need undertaking.

The statement on page 85 "An unusual aspect of the collection of historical archaeological evidence at the QS is that it all contributes to the understanding of this one theme of quarantine, and a large amount of evidence appears to have survived. This vests the archaeological sites with a very high research potential".

Any decision to lease this site for uncontrolled usage, such as the Mawland scheme, could severely impact on the archaeological opportunities and responsibilities under the Burra Charter.

Under Implementation, (p. 263) reference should be made to the Burra Charter. The Archaeological Management Plan must, of course, be completed prior to any change of use of the site. Strategies such as sampling should only be permitted under very strict guidelines and if necessary for repairs and maintenance of existing structures.

The Draft Conservation Management Plan provides a vastly improved perspective on the natural heritage values of the Quarantine Station and the context, within which the site occurs, than does the existing 1992 Plan.

However, concerns remain that within the draft CMP many of the outstanding natural values identified in describing the natural heritage values (Section 6) and their significance (Section 7) are not adequately addressed in Policy and Implementation strategies (Sections 8-10). The draft CMP quite correctly is not directed to addressing specifically the recently released announced accommodation, tourism and restaurant development proposed by Mawland Hotel Management. However that proposal does provide some specificity against which to consider the adequacy of the Draft CMP in providing clear direction as to management requirements to ensure that the cultural and natural heritage values of the site are adequately protected.

A review of the Draft CMP suggests that these issues are addressed to varying degrees within both Sections 8 and 9 of the Plan. Strengths and weaknesses of the Plan as it currently exists are as follows.

As identified in Section 6.3 of the Draft CMP, North Head, because of its native bushland, has some of "the most precious parts of Sydney Harbour National Park", with "the most extensive heath and scrub vegetation around Sydney Harbour, much of it in undisturbed condition." The Draft CMP also identifies (Section 6.2.2) that the plateau sand dunes on North Head are "the only examples of undisturbed, vegetated high-level dunes in the Sydney region".

As the Statement of Natural Heritage significance states, the natural biodiversity consists of isolated, remnant and disjunct communities, populations and species, six of which are scheduled on the Threatened Species Conservation Act [NSW] 1995. In addition to the threatened plant species there are over 450 other species of vascular plants and ferns representing 109 plant families. This level of genetic diversity is scientifically interesting and aesthetically pleasing.

Furthermore, as the Preamble to Policies (Section 9.1) recognises, the natural features of the place are also rich and many layered. All, except for some aggressive species that have been introduced accidentally [such as the rabbits and lantana] make a contribution. "Accordingly the policies are directed towards protection of the existing values and retention and interpretation of the many layers of its history and significance"

As reported in the Draft CMP (Section 6.3.3.), five rare plant species have been recorded in the Sydney Harbour National Park, four of them at North Head. A subspecies of Sunshine wattle (Acacia terminalis ssp. terminalis) is a listed endangered species and both the regionally rare ground orchid Erythrorchis cassythoides and Camfields stringybark (E. camfieldii) are listed as vulnerable, giving them all recognition and defined mechanisms for protection. However, neither the Wet heath shrub Rulingia hermannifolia found on the cliffs of North Head, nor the raspwort Gonocarpus salsoloides, which is found in wet heathland on North Head, has such legislative commitment to protection.

Protection of biodiversity & relatively intact native vegetation communities

Conservation Practices Policy (CPP) No. 4 acknowledges the need to protect these important features and provides a general strategy for doing so.

The native vegetation, plant and animal species and their habitats, fragile soils and geological features, springs and streams are to be conserved. No introduction of exotic or native plant or animal, soil, sands or building material which will adversely affect native species or their habitats on North Head should be considered.

The design and management of works, including landscape management, should ensure that exotic or new native species are not introduced to the place. Established hazardous, invasive animals and plants should be removed. Eroding soil and sand areas should be stabilised in a way that protects the natural values and any archaeological evidence at the location.

General Conservation Policy 10 states, the natural bushland areas of the Quarantine Station will be managed as part of other natural areas of North Head particularly the adjoining areas of Sydney Harbour National Park and consistent with the management of other natural areas in this Park.

The management of natural areas of North Head is the responsibility of a number of agencies. Liaison processes should be developed to ensure compatible management across North Head, to ensure appropriate conditions for species and habitat conservation, and a unified approach to natural landscape management. This is particularly important in relation to patch burning for habitat management so that food plants and critical feeding areas are not burnt at the same time.

� That the natural features, cultural features and ambience of QS should remain accessible to the local, state, national and international community.

� That the NPWS, as manager, should be primarily focused on the conservation and public presentation of the place, and ensure that the requisite skills for this task are available.

� That the NPWS should ensure that the values expressed in the statement of cultural significance will be retained and that the natural resources, historic fabric, artifacts, sites and meanings of the place, which are essential to the interpretation of its outstanding significance, will be conserved.

As noted in Section 8.3.3. and General Conservation Policy No. 14 of the Draft CMP,

Statutory obligations are identified under the provisions of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No. 203 [EPAA]. These apply to NPWS and to any developments at the place in relation to one or more of the environmental planning instruments [EPIs] , including, but not limited to, SEPP 56 and The Manly Local Environment Plan 1988 [LEP] . The EPA Act [refer above] requires the assessment of all impacts to items of Heritage Significance.

Where development consent is not required, the environmental assessment provisions of Part 5 apply to activities carried out directly by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. A simple interpretation of these provisions would indicate that NPWS would be required to consider any environmental impacts that may arise from any proposals for use of the site. Substantial proposals will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS].

Other planning instruments relevant to North Head and the Quarantine Station include the Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP] No. 23 and the current Sydney Harbour and Tributaries Waterside Control Plan.

The Quarantine Station is scheduled as an Item of Environmental Heritage in the Manly Municipality Local Environment Plan, which identifies permissible uses as those authorised by the NPWS Act. Under the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and especially SEPP 4, there is a requirement for the Service and its lessees to inform Council of the development works to be undertaken at the Quarantine Station.

However, the Draft CMP does not provide clear direction as to how future land use changes at the Quarantine Station might be regulated and managed so as to ensure the integrity and diversity of species and ecological communities across the site are protected.

Using but one example from the Mawland proposal, the Conservation Practice Policies fail to delineate how increased visitor impacts associated with greater numbers on site and their greater mobility will be addressed for either:

i) hotel guests with considerable free time available (rather than the present on-site visitors, who are generally occupied in conference activities); or

ii) large groups (up to 60) of school children staying on-site over 3-4 day periods

Furthermore, there are no clear Conservation Practice Policies delineating how the impacts of night time visitors on tours that include visits to the Second cemetery (which requires access through existing bushland) should be managed.

As noted in Section 7.4 of the Draft CMP, comprehensive information about the flora and fauna of the site is lacking. There is no detailed vegetation mapping, species of flora and fauna of national, state and regional significance have not been identified, nor have threats to their survival. Similarly, detailed information about habitat, movement and other aspects of use by threatened or endangered species is also lacking. The need for research to address these gaps in knowledge is recognized in Section 8.6.4, where it is acknowledged that this is "essential baseline information""

The Draft CMP recognises this in part through General Conservation Policy No. 11 and provides as a Strategy. Research into geodiversity and biodiversity should be encouraged with appropriate safeguards concerning destructive sampling and reporting methods.

However, if decisions about future use and management of the site are to be adequately guided by this CMP, then much more is required by way of Policies and Strategies. As noted in the North Head Planning Strategy (Clouston, 1996), 37 plant species of significance have been identified on North Head (several of them likely to occur in the Quarantine Station area). While only three of these are of national significance, the others are of regional or local significance. In order to ensure that the natural heritage values of the site are properly considered in assessing the Mawland proposal or any future planning and management, this CMP must provide Strategies to ensure that the necessary mapping and other information about the distribution etc. of these and other species are collected prior to any major impacts resulting from the changed use.

As pointed out in Sections 6.2.2 to 6.2.6 of the Draft CMP, North Head, and the Quarantine Station component of it, contain various geological and geomorphological features of considerable interest and importance. These features have, as a result of "low numbers of people, concentration on areas of maximum scenic value, resilience of some geological elements, and restrictions on access imposed by 'historical' land management", suffered relatively low human impact and are as a consequence in relatively intact condition.

And, as noted in Section 6.1 of the Draft CMP, several of the major soil types present in the area and supporting significant native vegetation of different types, are highly susceptible to erosion. The Draft CMP identifies that the dune sands, gully soils and springs are both vulnerable to increased human impact and also the "components which require further study and survey to determine their occurrence, boundaries and extent."

The importance of these features is recognized in the Draft CMP through the Statement of Natural Heritage significance (Section 8.2.4).

Considered alone or ecologically as part of North Head, the Quarantine Station area includes significant geodiversity and biodiversity components of the natural heritage of New South Wales.

The Station is part of an isolated cliff-bound tied island complex formed by the interaction of strong bedrock and erosion associated with changes of sea level tens of thousands of years ago. The headland is capped by Pleistocene high-level sand dunes that also occur in the Station complex. The stream at Collins beach is one of the few perennial streams entering Sydney Harbour and was a primary factor in the selection of the site for the Quarantine Station. Springs feeding the streams at Collins Beach and Quarantine Beach are unusual in rising at the boundary between high-level dune sands and largely impermeable Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Conservation Policies within the Draft CMP address "respect for the natural heritage values of the site" (General Conservation Policy (GCP) No. 1), "custodianship" (GCP No. 5), and scientific research" (GCP No. 11) of the site. However, no clear Conservation Practices Policies are provided to ensure that important geological and related features, including those that are erodible, the springs, and seasonal wetlands, are adequately protected.

The change of use proposed by Mawland brings with it a stated intention to increased visitor numbers, greater mobility of hotel guests on site with free time to 'explore', intended increased access to bushland areas such as those en route to the second cemetery area, and increased presence of visitors in close proximity to the beaches. Yet, the Draft CMP gives no clear direction as to how risk of increased erosion from visitor impact should be minimized.

As the Statement of Natural Heritage significance (Section 8.2.4) states, the endangered population of Little Penguin is significant as the only population of this species, which breeds on the mainland of NSW. The characteristics which have enabled this population to persist in one of the busiest commercial harbours in the world are interesting for scientific study. The endangered population of Long-nosed Bandicoot is also scientifically interesting as a remnant population of a species that was formerly common and widespread in the Sydney region. The few remaining trees of Camfields Stringybark are a significant component of the entire genetic resource of this vulnerable species. The preparation of Species recovery plans need to be continued with future long-term assessment of species primarily protected in conservation reserves.

Section 8.3.9 of the Draft CMP identifies statutory obligations under the provisions of the Threatened Species Act 1995.

The Threatened Species Act 1995 amendments to the environmental assessment provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [EP&A Act] require that consent and determining authorities consider relevant recovery plans when exercising a decision making function under parts 4 & 5 of the EP&A Act. Accordingly the NPWS, Manly Council, the Environment Protection Authority, NSW Fisheries, the Waterways Authority, the Office of Marine Administration and the NSW Heritage Council must consider the conservation strategy outlined in specific Recovery Plans when considering any development or activity which may affect threatened flora or fauna species.

Furthermore, Section 8.3.3 of the Draft CMP identifies statutory provisions of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Further provisions under Part 5 of the EPA Act may apply in relation to the species of flora and fauna on the site if proposed activities are likely to have a significant affect on the environment, any critical habitat or threatened species, any populations or ecological communities or their habitats. Since one or more species in the study area could be affected, a Species Impact Statement [SIS] may be prepared and it must be taken into account by the approving authority.

Conservation Practice Policy No. 5 of the Draft CMP (p. 246) states; "Prepare and implement Recovery Plans for endangered species, under the Threatened Species Act as required.

Implement the Draft Recovery Plan for the Little Penguin Endangered population Manly - released for public comment. Implement the Draft Recovery Plan for the Long-nosed Bandicoot North Head - in preparation

Recovery Plans should be developed for the following species, either as discrete threatened communities or as parts of wider populations:

Exotic flora and fauna which could adversely affect native species are to be prohibited.

Recovery Plans and adaptive Reuse and adaptive Reuse and Approvals, also states; "New uses should be compatible with the objectives of the Recovery Plans for endangered native species on North Head. These may limit, for example, the nature of nighttime activities on Quarantine Beach in relation to the nesting of Little Penguins, which may in turn determine compatible new uses for that area. All proposals for new or altered uses will be subject to approval in principle by the NPWS Director-General, the final decision on uses to be guided by environmental assessment processes."

While these aspects of the Draft CMP appear sound, no account is taken of the relative silence of the Quarantine Station at night, and the implications of this for threatened species, including both the bandicoots and penguins coming ashore to nest and feed young.

Even the requirements of the Policies outlined above would appear to negate the possibility of progressing rapidly (as indicated in recent briefings) with the proposed Mawland development. None of the listed species yet has an agreed Recovery Plan in place, and for most, distribution mapping is incomplete.

The Draft CMP, Section 6.3.4, (p. 156) notes that "those areas in Sydney Harbour National Park which still contain native mammal fauna such as bandicoots and ringtail possums, are particularly precious culturally and for scientific study." The importance of the Little penguin and Long-nosed bandicoot is reflected in that the Draft CMP describes the Little penguin as "probably the signature bird species for the Study Area", while the bandicoot population is identified as "a 'flagship' species used to further the principles of ecologically sustainable development on North Head."

The Draft CMP, Section 6.3.6, (p. 158) acknowledges that "in the case of the four species in this study area [Long-nosed bandicoot, Little penguin, Red-crowned toadlet and Powerful owl], the decline is the direct result of human activity and therefore can only be reduced or removed by humans." The Draft CMP (p. 159) goes on to note that "Fragmentation of habitat is a major threat to all species as it results in 'islands'", with implications both for foraging animals and for their shelter.

In the case of the Little penguin, it is noted in the draft CMP that "The Little Penguin is exposed and at risk when moving between the water and its nest" (Section 6.3.6). Urban pollution and recreational activities are identified as major threats.

As reported from the Draft Little Penguin Recovery Plan the draft CMP (p. 162) quotes; "boats coming close to nesting areas may also have an impact particularly during dawn and dusk and boats shining lights onto nesting areas may disorientate or even prevent birds from returning to shore" . In discussion of Specific Use Opportunities and Constraints in Section 8.4.3 the Draft CMP notes that "Evening and/or early morning activity at the wharf could impact on the nesting activities of the Little Penguin" and could also impact on nocturnal animals such as the Long-nosed bandicoot." However, it goes on to state "Impact on natural heritage will be assessed through environmental assessment processes."

An additional consideration not yet included in the draft CMP, is the proposal by the NPWS (through the Recovery Plan team working with the Service on the Recovery Plan for the Little Penguin) to use the shore in the vicinity of the Quarantine Station as a site for relocation of penguin nesting sites affected by urban developments in other parts of Manly.

There are concerns that relocation is a last resort approach to habitat conservation, and that such a technique may well fail even in the absence of further disturbance associated with change of use at the Quarantine Station. Thus, further relocation must not be seen as an option for overcoming any problems created by the proposed development at Quarantine Station.

In the absence of an agreed Recovery Plan for the Little penguin, and without more specific guidance through Conservation Practice Policies in the Draft CMP, it is difficult to see how these issues will actually be addressed.

It should be noted that spoil barges servicing the construction of the Northside Sewage Tunnel have an NPWS-imposed curfew on their hours of operation in order to avoid nightime noise, light and physical disturbance to the penguins. No such policies exist in the Draft CMP.

These are issues of considerable concern, given the stated intention of the Mawland proposal to move ahead quickly and to have at least 60% of visitors arriving at and leaving the site by water, many of them evening visitors to the restaurant or for night tours.

As the draft CMP identifies "Long-nosed bandicoots are exposed to a high risk of death or injury when moving between habitats separated by roads." (Section 6.3.6). The Draft CMP goes on to observe that "The amount of available habitat for breeding and foraging seems to be the main limiting factor affecting the distribution of the Long-nosed bandicoot population at North Head." Further "The 'core' Quarantine Station area is habitat for Long-nosed bandicoots which are often seen at night foraging on grassy areas and are therefore vulnerable to road traffic generated by NPWS staff and people attending residential courses in the Conference Centre."

Work to date on the Recovery Plan which is in preparation suggests that the juxtapositioning of grassy feeding areas and areas with greater understorey providing shelter and nesting sites, might be critical to the survival of this population, which is already identified as being at risk through the adverse effects of inbreeding resulting from the small size of the population.

Given these factors and again, in the absence of a completed Recovery Plan for the species, it is again difficult to see how the Draft CMP guides management of the increased risks associated with increased human activity in forage areas at night, and the likely increased traffic (either private vehicles accessing the planned car parks or people movers proposed for the Mawland development) associated with increased night time visitor numbers.

As is clear from the Draft CMP, both weeds and other introduced exotic species are already present at the Quarantine Station in significant numbers. The Plan seeks to address the issue of weed management as follows:

"Prohibit further intrusion into, or alienation of, remaining native vegetation i.e. any physical developments must occur only on existing disturbed sites with no reasonable chance of rehabilitation to their former condition or by replacing existing structures with no identified heritage value.

Prohibit introduction of exotic or native plants, animals, soil, sand or building materials that could possibly adversely affect native species or their habitats. Soil and sand are included specifically to assist in reducing the introduction of weed seeds and propagates, exotic slugs and snails and soil borne pathogens. Ensure boundary fences are adequate to exclude cats and dogs from the area."

"Exotic flora and fauna, which could adversely affect native species, are to be prohibited."

Citing work by Clouston (1996), the Draft CMP notes that four factors have resulted in weed invasion of native plant communities on North Head. "These are:

Disturbance associated with buffers to urban and developed areas on the headland;

'Natural' spread of wind-blown/bird spread species into disturbed communities; and

Modified soil hydrology and elevated soil nutrient levels arising from stormwater and sewage discharges." (Section 6.3.3)"

With increasing usage of the site as proposed by the Mawland development, it is not clear from the Draft CMP what Conservation Practice Policies will ensure that increased site disturbance, and at the same time increased risk of new introductions either from people traversing the site or from increased numbers of vehicles coming onto the site (approximately 40% of visitors being expected to arrive by road), do not exacerbate this already significant problem.

Further, no mention is made of the need for ongoing bush regeneration across the site to ensure that neither existing nor newly introduced weed species become even more significant problems.

As has been noted in various documents relating to wide scale weed removal, it is important to ensure that this is done in ways which do not leave substantial areas of bare, disturbed ground. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, areas left in that state where the soils are as erodible as most are at the Quarantine Station are left vulnerable to serious erosion during major rainfall events (such as are becoming increasingly common in Sydney). Where this occurs not only is topsoil lost, it is also redistributed downstream, and in the case of the Quarantine Station, this runoff will have significant impacts on the Sydney Harbour Aquatic Reserve and its flora and fauna.

Furthermore, as is now widely recognized, such exposed areas are vulnerable to invasion by other robust undesirable species, thus exacerbating rather than adequately addressing weed control. With several invasive species already identified in the Quarantine Station area and its vicinity, this risk must be minimized.

The additional problems associated with rapid removal of weed invasions over substantial areas is also of particular relevance to the Quarantine Station and its mammal species, and particularly the endangered bandicoot population. This species is clearly reliant on understorey as protective habitat and with wide areas left open, the bandicoots become more vulnerable to predation.

For each of these reasons, the CMP should provide Conservation Practice Policies in which removal of invasive weeds in ways that are appropriate to conservation of the natural heritage, both during and beyond the development phase of any new proposal such as that being negotiated with Mawland.

Section 8.3.8 of the Draft CMP identifies statutory obligations relating to The North [Sydney] Harbour Aquatic Reserve, which extends from Cannae Point [North Head] in the east to Kilburn Towers [Middle Harbour] in the west. It was gazetted for protection in 1982. As the Draft CMP reports "it contains a great variety of habitats and marine life, including seahorses and sea dragons, grey nurse sharks and juvenile tropical fish." As noted in Section 5.9 of the Draft CMP, the Reserve also contains "essential sea grass beds."

The draft CMP reports that "NSW Fisheries whose role it is to protect sensitive and representative fish habitats manage the Reserve. They impose limits on leisure fishing activities in the Reserve, although commercial fishing is allowed."

"The Aquatic Reserve contains sheltered bays and inlets that provide seagrass and algal habitats for the juvenile tropical fish and the sea horses and sea dragons and other important species. These areas are under great stress from pollution and run-off, which affect the health of the seagrasses and hence the sustainability of the species. Human activities such as the commercial fishing, waste dumping and boating are causing a negative impact on the marine bio-diversity in the Reserve. The ferry wash at Manly pier is disturbing the sea bed and the commercial fishing activities are responsible for a reduction in numbers of species due to by-catch. Stormwater run-off is responsible for nutrients in the Harbour, which is affecting the health of the sea grasses from all areas of North Head."

"The Aquatic Reserve will be represented as an important conservation area in the planning and management of the Quarantine Station.

Site interpretation at the Quarantine Station will include conservation values of the Aquatic Reserve. Stormwater run off from the Quarantine Station site will be managed with the aim of preventing nutrient from entering the Reserve. The implementation of policies regarding site access and referencing of water access will be preceded by studies and the collection of base data to ensure that the impact of any new or altered access arrangement can be carefully monitored and, if the impact is found to be unacceptable, stopped altogether. NPWS will work closely with the NSW Fisheries to monitor impacts in the Reserve. NPWS will discourage all activities in the immediate vicinity of the Quarantine Station that could have a negative impact on the Aquatic Reserve."

As the North Head Draft Planning Strategy (Clouston, 1996) identifies, seagrass habitat is protected under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 - Habitat Protection Plan No. 1. A study by Australian Water Technologies, conducted for Sydney Water as part of the assessment of the aquatic environment in the Little Manly Point area clearly demonstrates that seagrass beds occur at Little Manly Point, Collins Beach, Store Beach, Quarantine Station and Little Manly Cove, with the declining Posidonia species occurring primarily in the Quarantine Beach area. Manly Council's State of the Environment report highlights the vulnerability and importance of remaining seagrass beds in the area, noting that "80% [of seagrass habitat] has been lost over the last five years." This loss has been due to stormwater and the nutrients and sediments delivered by stormwater systems. Various studies in other regions in which seagrass beds remain, clearly demonstrate that increased siltation is a significant factor in the loss of these important breeding and feeding grounds.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the Weedy seadragon is a species protected under the Fisheries Management Act, its status being of concern because of increased impacts of human activities on the habitat of the species.

Yet, while General Conservation Policy No. 12 requires that Site interpretation include the conservation values of the Aquatic reserve, and that "Stormwater run off from the Quarantine Station will be managed with the aim of preventing nutrient from entering the Reserve", Conservation Practice Policy No. 6 addresses introduction of species in soil and sand, and Conservation Practice Policy No. 3 is an "infrastructure control plan", there are no Conservation Policies controlling siltation resulting from construction (eg. from upgrading of wharf or structures close to the shore.)

"Access by water via the Quarantine wharf should be encouraged. The timing and frequency of boat access, and the size of vessels allowed access, should be informed by environmental impact assessment on the conservation of seagrass and marine species; the Recovery Plan for the Little Penguin population; and ongoing monitoring of sea-bed impacts."

These are important requirements. However the earlier step of ensuring that no initial impacts are caused to these important species as a result of construction or other activities associated with preparation for the proposed development must also be included.

It is difficult to see how the proposed Mawland development can proceed on the timeline indicated by the proponent, without disregard for the baseline data requirements outlined in the Draft CMP. Furthermore, it would seem that the proposed development is not compatible, on several accounts, with conservation management of the marine values identified.

To suggest, as the Draft CMP does (p.243) that ; "The implementation of policies regarding site access and referencing of water access will be preceded by studies and the collection of base data to ensure that the impact of any new or altered access arrangement can be carefully monitored and, if the impact is found to be unacceptable, stopped altogether." [Emphasis added].

No consent authority is realistically in a position to stop a major commercial operation reliant on public access, such as that proposed by Mawland (whose stated intention is to have at least 60% of visitors accessing the site by water), if the impacts of that access are found to by unsustainable.

Various sections of the Draft CMP, including the primary statement of significance, address the importance of intactness and the undisturbed integrity of the site to its heritage value, and as noted in General Conservation Policy No. 2;

"The significance of the Quarantine Station and its bushland and coastal surround is difficult to separate from the significance of North Head as a whole".

The interim Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has also identified the importance of an integrated and cohesive management, planning and conservation approach to North Head.

However, there is little among Conservation Practice or other Policies to guide how this might be achieved.

Furthermore, as the Draft CMP observes, both the long period of 'isolation' of North Head as a 'tied island' and low levels of use more recently have contributed to the value of the site "to science of the biodiversity of North Head" (Section 7.8).

The Draft CMP identifies a need for determination of carrying capacity for the site and proposes a mechanism for preparing such a determination:

"NPWS will manage the visitation and use capacity of the Quarantine Station site through an active and rigorous program of on going research that focuses on the following five sequential steps: establishing the context, identifying the risks, evaluating the risks, limiting the risks and monitoring the risked associated with the site use in relation to numbers of visitors, access to the site, cost of maintenance and income.

A review of site usage, visitor numbers and maintenance expenditure since 1984 will be undertaken prior to the full consideration or adoption of any activities or increased number of visitors to the site, in order to establish a background context for the site. NPWS will seek input in order to identify the areas where, according to local knowledge the wear has been substantial of where the invasion of vegetation, growth in population of species or site erosion has been greatest in order to identify the risk of continuing present uses before considering new uses. New uses will then be assessed with reference to this data. Steps will be taken to ensure that risks will be properly managed and the results will be assiduously monitored and reported.

It is recommended that the NPWS make contact with the Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism to discuss monitoring techniques for heritage sites.

While it is not clear that the methodology applied by the CRC for Sustainable Tourism is the preferred method for determining carrying capacity of a site such as the Quarantine Station, it is clear that no matter which recognized methodology is applied to determining carrying capacity, baseline information for this must be collected prior to any change in use. Several steps in the process outlined in General Conservation Policy No. 15 and the related Strategy must be completed prior to any change of use, rather than after Mawland have been permitted to begin that change.

And, in determining visitor impacts and carrying capacity account must be taken of the likely changes in leisure time and mobility of proposed users of an accommodation and tourism facility, as compared with those currently visiting the site for conference and related activities which occupy much of their time indoors.

Given ongoing commitment of successive Commonwealth Governments to development which is ecologically sustainable, and the stated intention of the NSW Government that ecologically sustainable development "has emerged as the chief objective of environment protection in NSW" (NSW SoE Report, 1997), an absence of commitment to ESD as an underpinning principle of the Policies and Strategies contained in the Draft CMP is a serious omission which underpins several of these deficiencies.

In discussing Opportunities and Constraints on use of the area (Section 8.4.2), the Draft CMP clearly identifies that; "The overall strategy to achieve these objectives for Sydney Harbour National Park is the preservation, and where necessary restoration, of the Park's natural vegetation"

In all sections of Sydney Harbour National Park the protection of the existing natural and cultural values will be given priority".

It is clear that the protection in perpetuity of the natural values for which the Park was declared is a primary objective. The corollary to this is to prevent, or fail to allow, any activities or developments which might reduce or destroy the natural values."

Throughout the Draft CMP, there are statements highlighting the important natural heritage values of the Quarantine Station and surrounding precincts, yet the Draft Plan fails to provide adequate Policies and Strategies to ensure that these obligations are met.

The major concerns in relation to the CMP�s handling of the management and leasing issues are:

� it does not acknowledge that a management structure has already been decided on by NPWS (as evidenced in its tender process and agreement to lease). As a consequence, it does not adequately consider the opportunities and constraints in relation to management options which arise due to the path taken by NPWS. The tender process and agreement to lease provide significant constraints on the options available for management structure, with consequences also for implementation of the policies.

� the CMP takes as given the assertion (which must have been made by NPWS) that it has inadequate funds to undertake conservation works. This assertion is not documented nor is any factual basis for the assertion set out.

� it is a major problem that the consequences of NPWS�s assertion as to lack of finances is in fact the central driving force for the management option already decided on (and implicitly accepted by the CMP) by NPWS. If the CMP will not propose the most appropriate management structure to implement the plan, it should at least set out a range of criteria for assessing the options and determining the most appropriate management structure. These criteria should be weighted. Finance should be one of a number of factors to be taken into account.

� the CMP does not take full account of the statutory limitations and obligations on NPWS.

More detailed comments on specific aspects of the CMP in relation to management issues follow.

There are several sets of guiding considerations for management issues set out in the plan. These are the Conservation Management Plan Objectives at 1.1.2, the Methodology at 1.2.1, and the Burra Charter guidelines, referred to[1] though not directly quoted in the plan.

According to the NPWS brief, considered at 1.1.2 Conservation Management Plan Objectives, the Conservation Management Plan must address:

� NPWS management framework, legislative requirements and other stakeholder issues related to the conservation and management of the place;[2]

1.2.1 Methodology[3]

. . . One aspect of the Council�s September 1999 comment related to the concurrent leasing proposal. . .

�It would be useful for this [use constraints and opportunities] discussion to also include some discussion of the currently proposed lease process � how the lessee will undertake further work on CMPs, who will be paying for them, how the lease process will ensure conservation of the site�s cultural and natural values, what will be responsible for NPWS and lessee respectively for conservation matters and commercial matters. Other management options could be canvassed, with their positives and negatives, from mothballing to disposal by sale.�

�. . .not intended to present or discuss the specific detail of the leasing proposal being negotiated . . .Heritage Council requires clear provisions to be included in the CMP to ensure that future leasing or any other proposals are to be consistent with the revised CMP. Secondly conservation issues that are likely to arise from a range of potential leasing or use proposals should be adequately addressed in policy formulation for the CMP. (emphasis added)

Discussion

These objectives are not adequately met in the Plan. Detailed comment in relation to legislative requirements are considered below. The plan does not directly address conservation issues �likely to arise from a range of potential leasing or use proposals�.

The current NPWS management framework is not considered in the Plan � yet this is the actual framework within which Quarantine Station is now managed. This presumably gives rise to some opportunities and constraints.

Nor does it canvas other management options in any detail, although it does provide a limited list of some possible management alternatives. Instead it leaves this job to an EIS � this is an implicit assumption that an EIS will be carried out under the current tendering/leasing arrangement. These assumptions need to be spelt out.

Given the government�s assertion that the agreement to lease is not a guarantee that a lease will be signed, the report should stand on its own independent of any particular proposal (current or future) for use, conservation or development of the site. Any consideration of management option should be thorough and independent of the current concurrent leasing proposal.

In addition the NPWS brief sets out guidelines for the contents of the report. One item in the recommended contents is �Report Limitations�[4] , however this has not been included. This section could address the issue of the current tendering and leasing proposal and any limitations this places on the report.

At 6.6 the NPWS brief also sets out matters to be addressed as policy guidelines. A couple of these points are not adequately addressed in Chapters 7 � 10:

� Ensuring management and conservation are achievable objectives given resources

The question of resources is not actually addressed in the CMP at all, other than to mention (with no reference to the source) that NPWS does not have sufficient funds to manage Quarantine Station. There is no discussion of what resources exist within NPWS, what the actual costs of achieving conservation objectives are, or why NPWS resources are considered inadequate.

This is a point that has been contested many times in public debate on the issue, and any information provided by NPWS on financial resources should be independently assessed by someone with financial expertise.

NPWS corporate values are not adequately addressed in the CMP. The 1998/99 NPWS Annual Report sets out the Mission Statement and Roles and Functions of NPWS.

Although the Methodology section states the CMP will be prepared in accordance with the Guidlines to the Burra Charter, it does not adequately address the issues set out in these guidelines, which are as follows:

The conservation policy should identify a management structure through which the conservation policy is capable of being implemented. It should also identify:

(a) those to be responsible for subsequent conservation and management decisions and for the day-to-day management of the place;

As mentioned above the CMP does not appear to address the issue of management structure, nor points (a) and (b) above. If this is because the authors are uncertain as to the management structure to be determined by NPWS, they should spell this out as a limitation to their ability to recommend a management structure.

B. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

At 8.3 the Plan considers Statutory Obligations �binding the management of Quarantine Station�.[6]

Although the CMP does canvas a number of statutory obligations, it does not look at any statutory obligations in respect of management options. Further, this section is not adequately reflected in the later policy statements or implementation sections.

A serious consideration of management options requires a consideration of any legal limitations on the options. Some �options� would be limited by law.

For example, s.40[7] and s.151[8] and s.152[9] set out the position on leasing National Parks. On the face of it these appear to allow leases on National Parks for wide purposes, however a number of cases have interpreted the power to lease a National Park, and read these provisions very narrowly. For example in Woollahra Council v Minister for Planning the NSW Court of Appeal considered the licensing powers of the Minister under the NPW Act and held that the powers are to be used to advance the objects of the Act, namely the protection and preservation of national parks. The court found that the use of part of a park to conduct a private university was not an activity which promoted the use of the park by the public. The fact that the activity would produce money capable of improving the amenities and facilities in the park did not validate an act which was otherwise beyond the power of the Minister.

There are also other legal issues �binding the management of Quarantine Station� . It should be specifically stated if the current agreement to lease binds the management of Quarantine Station to any particular management option, and if there are any limitations or repercussions if the government does not proceed with the lease.

C. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICY ISSUES:
NHQS OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

At 8.4.1 the Plan considers Conservation and Management Policy Issues: NHQS Opportunities and Constraints.[10] After quoting the leasing policy set out in the Sydney Harbour National Park Management Plan, the Plan states:

The Plan of Management does not specify the type of lease proposed, however the intent of the NPWS �actions� is that a new lessee could take over management of the Quarantine Station, albeit under NPWS oversight and monitoring. The Service has been engaged in the current negotiation of a head lease [within detailed and strict oversight conditions] for over forty years. Implementation of lease proposals will need to be considered as a development by an EIS. This will need to consider, among other matters, alternative possible management scenarios such as:

The policies provided within this Conservation Management Plan must be capable of implementation by any management proposal, i.e. any of the above management profiles.

This is the full extent of the Plan�s consideration of management options for Quarantine Station. It conflates the issue of financing the conservation works with management structures.

Despite the sugggestion that an EIS could canvas options for management structures, the conservation plan once more adopts leasing out to private interests as a fait accompli management option. This is despite concerns to this end being previously raised in submissions to the Plan.

There are other management options � for example including Heritage Houses in conservation works or the management structure in some way; or establishing a trust to manage the site as was done with the Centennial and Moore Park Trust.

Criteria for assessing management options � and for weighing the advantages and disadvantages � are needed.

The consideration of the leasing and management �options� does not acknowledge the constraints arising form NPWS� actions to date in pursuing a lease � such as being locked in to a management option, the costs of changing, the unlikelihood of changing etc.

The consequences of breaking the agreement to lease should at this point be spelt out � any financial or other implications for NPWS which also limit the consideration of alternative management structures should perhaps be included.

The related policy (9.3) does not mention management structures or options. This may be appropriate.

At 8.4.2 the Plan considers Opportunities and Constraints : Appropriate Uses. This section begins with the statement:

A major constraint on the management of the Quarantine Station is that the Service does not have the resources to operate and conserve the place without offsetting at least some of the management and maintenance costs with site-specific income. The Service needs to find uses for the Quarantine Station which will generate some or all of the revenue required for its operation and conservation. .[11] (emphasis added)

This statement is unsourced and reflects a number of assumptions. There is no reference in the Plan to the NPWS financial situation, budget or accounting arrangements. Instead, the authors have presumably taken on face value an assertion by NPWS to the effect that it doesn�t have enough money. This also indicates an assumption that the funding situation of NPWS should dictate the management structure and conservation outcome for Quarantine Station.

If adequacy of funds within NPWS is a matter for consideration in the conservation plan (which this section indicates it is), it should be independently assessed, not simply repeating NPWS�s position. This is because several considerations apply � firstly, a consideration of the current income of Quarantine Station. Secondly, the NPWS accounting system, which pools funds (including income from Quarantine Station) for use across parks within a region. Thirdly, the level of government funding to NPWS, and in particular funding to NPWS for heritage conservation.

The question of funding should be separated out from management, rather than driving the management proposals. The foremost management issue is management policy � the implementation of the policies and recommendations for further planning and studies in the conservation plan. A preferred management plan should be developed and adopted. Out of the question of how best to implement the conservation plan arises the question of costing out and funding the management. A separate management issue is how to fund the implementation of the management plan. Once a plan is developed it can be costed. Cost effective ways to implement the plan can be developed, with a prioritization of tasks. The appropriate management structure to implement the plan, given the funds required is the next issue � the question of leasing Quarantine Station has only arisen because NPWS contends it does not have sufficient funds to undertake required conservation work.

Any one of the Leasing options outlined in this Conservation Management Plan may provide an appropriate mechanism to allow compatible and adaptive reuses to be implemented.

However, the plan has not gone into any detail about what these options are, nor has it assessed the management implications of the broad arrangements that are thrown up merely as suggested examples of management structures earlier in the report. This comment is inappropriate.

The point which has been missed in the draft CMP is that a major limitation to implementing the plan is the current tendering process and agreement to lease. If the developer�s EIS is approved, the development will be undertaken in a timeframe that is concurrent with many of these strategies to be completed in the two to three year time frame.

Quarantine Station has been, by its very nature, isolated from the rest of Sydney. Its intermittent usage over the years has contributed to its intact nature. Public access has been controlled but allowed through tours and the conference centre. Public access is desirable to this unique public site so that as many people as possible can enjoy it and learn about our heritage.

However public access must be balanced with the fragility of and conservation of the site. The draft CMP does attempt to address this issue in the Visitor Use Capacity sections. Section 9.3 policy 15, 9.9 (p. 255) and 10.4 Implementation (p.260). The intent of these policies is supported and FroQS recommends research overseas to ascertain the best current method of assessing visitor impacts. Of course, the current usage impacts since 1984 must be assessed prior to any management decisions being made. The signing of any lease with a developer prior to this being carried out and properly assessed will compromise the future wellbeing of the site.

The level of use proposed in the Mawland scheme raises serious concerns about the degradation of the site and the health of the seagrass beds. Nocturnal water access may also impact on the Little Penguins. FroQS suggests that nothing should be changed at the site until the current use impacts are assessed.

Access to North Head by vehicle is through Manly Town Centre and Darley Road. Studies for Manly Council have clearly indicated that the road system cannot take much more traffic. Therefore it is essential to coordinate the limits of road access to North Head as a whole. FroQS would like to see a policy direction on coordinated access planning for the whole of North Head.

Access by vehicle has been discussed elsewhere. Briefly the impacts of unrestricted water access on the Little Penguins, the seagrass beds and the Aboriginal sites around the Wharf are of great concern.

The Mawland proposal, with unidentified numbers of people wandering the site, arriving by both water and road, gives rise to concern. With careful planning public access could be greatly improved without damage to the site, or the environment.

Interpretation

It is our understanding that NPWS have prepared one, if not more, interpretation plans in recent years. However, the draft CMP confirms the view that the NPWS have simply taken a caretaker role since 1984. The development of an interpretation plan in Year one is supported, but the financial backing must be in place for its implementation. Interpretation is the highest and best use of the site, and the parameters for the Interpretation Plan must make this clear.

Plans, such as the Mawland proposal, deny access to much of the site for tours which considerably reduces the interpretive value of the site. There is also a concern that their approach will trivialize the rich and deep history of the people who lived and died at QS.

While the draft CMP is an improvement on previous documents, FroQS sees that further work is necessary before any decisions are made as to the future management of the site. We are presented with the opportunity to set an example of excellence in conservation that will help with the management of other Sydney Harbour foreshore sites. The conservation and management of QS must be based on ESD and precautionary principles.

FroQS suggests a way forward which will lead to a more robust set of policies and implementation of the policies in an open and accountable environment, which will ensure first-rate conservation of Quarantine Station. In summary we suggest:

1. NPWS should contract the consultants to finalize the CMP ensuring that the issues raised in submissions to both this exhibition and the previous public exhibition are fully addressed. These include the supplementary precinct plans, individual structure and element assessments and clear mapping. The policies should be clarified and strengthened to ensure that they adequately protect the site.

2. Following the above, the Implementation Plan Immediate [One Year] Program should be carried out to maintain the site in the short term. Income from the tours and conference centre will help support this program.

3. The Archaeological Management Plan, the Visitor Impact Studies, resolution of the Defence site issues, recovery plans for the endangered colonies, etc. should be completed.

4. The third stage is for the preparation of management issues paper. The decision can then be made, with all the relevant information to hand, as to how the future management of the site should be undertaken. In the preparation of this document reference should be made to ICOMOS Policy on Cultural Tourism and Heritage.

We thank you for reading this submission and hope our comments will be useful in protecting the Quarantine Station.

[1] Referred to at 1.2.1 Methodology: �The CMP will be prepared in accordance with the philosophy and definitions as set out in the Burra Charter and Guidelines to the Burra Charter. . .� CMP p.1

[2] CMP p.1

[3] CMP p.2

[4] NPWS Revised Quarantine Station Conservation Management Plan Consultant�s Brief, September 1999, p.4

[5] Australia ICOMOS Guidelines to the Burra charter: Conservation policy

[6] CMP p.218

[7] s.40 Restrictions on disposal of or dealing with lands within parks or sites

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 or any other Act, no lands within a national park or historic site shall be sold, leased or otherwise dealt with except as provided in this Act or in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Agreements Act 1958.

[8] s.151 Leases of and licences over reserved or dedicated lands

(1) The Minister may:

(a) grant leases of land within a national park or historic site for the purpose of:

(i) the erection thereon of accommodation hotels or accommodation houses, or

(ii) the provision thereon of facilities and amenities for tourists and visitors,

(b) grant leases of lands within a national park or historic site on which accommodation hotels or accommodation houses have been erected or

facilities and amenities for tourists and visitors have been provided,

(i) the erection of buildings thereon, or

(ii) the occupation or the use of buildings erected thereon, for use in connection with:

(iii) the protection or preservation of the park or site from fire,

(iv) the provision of services relating to the work of rendering first aid to, and the transport of, sick and injured persons,

(v) a surf life-saving club, or

(vi) any purpose of a like nature,

(e) grant leases of lands within a national park, historic site, nature reserve, state game reserve or karst conservation reserve on which buildings have been erected for residential occupation, or

(f) grant licences to occupy or use lands within a national park, historic site, nature reserve, state game reserve or karst conservation reserve.

(4) Subject to this Act, any lease or licence granted under this section or section 149 or 151A shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine.

[9] 152 Trade within a national park or historic site

(1) The Director-General may grant licences to carry on trades, businesses or occupations within a national park or historic site.

(2) Subject to any regulations, the Minister may prohibit the carrying on of any trade, business or occupation within a national park or historic site otherwise than by some person licensed by the Director-General.

(3) The Minister may grant a franchise to any person, on such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine, for the sale of goods and services, the provision of public transportation or the supply of other facilities and amenities within a national park or historic site.

(4) Any franchise granted by the trustees of the whole or part of lands reserved after the commencement day as a national park or historic site, and in force immediately before the lands were so reserved, shall be deemed to be a franchise granted by the Minister under this section and to be as valid and effectual as it would have been if this Act had been in force when the franchise was granted.

[10] CMP p. 224

[11] NPWS, 1998A

Manly Quarantine Station

Submission regarding
the Conservation Management Plan

FroQS

The new draft Conservation Plan for Quarantine Station

8.2.2 Statement of Significance : Aboriginal Heritage

Extracts from 10.2

Conclusion

1.2.1 Methodology[3]

Discussion

B. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

Interpretation

[1] Referred to at 1.2.1 Methodology: �The CMP will be prepared in accordance with the philosophy and definitions as set out in the Burra Charter and Guidelines to the Burra Charter. . .� CMP p.1

[7] s.40 Restrictions on disposal of or dealing with lands within parks or sites

[9] 152 Trade within a national park or historic site

This page was created 16th February, 2000, by Judith Bennett, Friends of Quarantine Station,
and was last modified 20th January, 2007.

Manly Quarantine Station

Submission regarding the Conservation Management Plan

FroQS

The new draft Conservation Plan for Quarantine Station

8.2.2 Statement of Significance : Aboriginal Heritage

Extracts from 10.2

Conclusion

1.2.1 Methodology[3]

Discussion

B. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

Interpretation

[1] Referred to at 1.2.1 Methodology: �The CMP will be prepared in accordance with the philosophy and definitions as set out in the Burra Charter and Guidelines to the Burra Charter. . .� CMP p.1

[7] s.40 Restrictions on disposal of or dealing with lands within parks or sites

[9] 152 Trade within a national park or historic site

This page was created 16th February, 2000, by Judith Bennett, Friends of Quarantine Station, and was last modified 20th January, 2007.

Submission regarding
the Conservation Management Plan

This page was created 16th February, 2000, by Judith Bennett, Friends of Quarantine Station,
and was last modified 20th January, 2007.