Who Can Stand in the Way...?

Stu Nettle picture
Stu Nettle (stunet)
Surfpolitik

Shouting slogans is a hell of a lot of fun. Yelling at the suits and waving placards too. In fact, everything about protesting is a hoot, so give me a good cause and a red megaphone and we'll get this march started.

The sober truth, however, is that the success of community action is dictated a long way from the picket line. The beating heart of any right-minded campaign is the core group of people who operate when the TV cameras aren't running. The people whose energy propels it forward and whose knowledge guides it.

And if a campaign is opposing a multi-million dollar development involving various levels of government and backed by a dogged proponent, then those people better have a wide-rangeing knowledge of policy and process. A bottomless supply of motivation would also come in handy.

Sue Whyte is the President of Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association. For the last eight years they've been fighting a proposed development at the bay.

Swellnet: What is the latest on the development at Catherine Hill Bay, Sue? Sue Whyte: We recently had a rally to bring attention to the latest threat because so many people think Catho has been saved.

I'm one of them. I thought the community won. No, it's not finished. It's not over. They're coming again and even worse than before.

We've been fighting these developments since 2002. In 2003 he (the developer) put this development into council and they knocked it back on 13 grounds and then he convinced the Planning Minister at the time, Frank Sartor, to take it up as a Part 3A.

Part 3A removes it from local government planning, is that correct? Absolutely. Part 3A allows the minister to overrule zonings, to overrule heritage listings...everything. And once it gets listed as 3A council doesn't have any input at all. In fact our council doesn't want this development, because this is a heritage listed village. It's a destination area for tourism and council doesn't want that destroyed.

So in 2006, following the 3A ruling, there was a concept plan and even Frank Sartor said 'this is terrible, go away and get new architects.' Which they did and they came back in 2008 with another concept plan. That one really was a lot better but it was still on the headland, and still destroying Moonee.

You know, Moonee Beach is this pristine beach and what the developer wants to do is put fill in so all the houses have this really proud view over Moonee. So we've been saying all along 'you've got to get it off the headland, you've got to pull it back from Moonee Beach.' But that's where the developer will make his big bucks. So he's been refusing that.

Anyway, it got taken to court and the approval was overturned and because of that people think that we won. However, Kristina Keneally wouldn't retract the zonings, because she was the Planning Minister at the time. Since then the planning department has put through a new State Environmental Planning Policy which allows this new subdivision plan. And it really is hideous. It's a 1970's, scorched earth, back-to-back subdivision. No buffer zones, no tree ridge, nothing. It's just appalling.

I saw the plan. It's the one with streets spreading out like concentric circles, right? No, that was the first one that got knocked back by Frank. That was better than this one. This plan is a straight subdivison that makes no allowance for landscape and would be inapropriate anywhere in NSW. But right on our coast...?

The developer though, he will make all his money by building on the headland and on the coast. Then he'll take the money and run.

You keep saying 'he' Sue, who is he? Bob Rose. Rose Group are the developers and they are a private company, a family company, and Bob Rose is the head. He's Daddy, and he's got two boys, Stuart and Brian. Brian is actually running this project but whatever Daddy says goes.

He owns the land, but the thing is we've got a coastal protection act, we've got coastal policy, coastal design guideleines, and all of those have been overlooked to allow this.

So Bob Rose actually owns all the land? He does. He bought it...and this is where it all gets very shady. This is a coal mining area and BHP had the mine and it wasn't making the required 15% profit so they put it up for sale and valued it at $12 million. But it never went on the market and Rose Group ended up buying it for $4.25 million in a deal done on a golf course.

It's an enormous block of land, it goes from Lake Macquarie over to the ocean. It's a very big area. And all he's ever wanted to do was develop right on the coast.

How long ago did he acquire it? The mine closed in 2002, and suddenly he owned it and the development plans were in. Well, I mean OK, speculators are speculators, and why expect them to do anything else? I don't mind that, but this was land that was so valuable it was zoned coastal acquisition. So why would you let a private developer develop on land that the government considers so valuable?

It's just this rampant greed. You say to yourself, what do these developers want out of life? Sometimes it seems like it's not even about the money but who got the best deal. He's doing some very dirty tricks and we have to keep an eye on him.

The development has been back and forth for 8 years now, do you fear that Rose Group won't take no for an answer and keep trying to push the development through? Bob Rose was a chairman of the Urban Task Force, which sounds terribly official but it's not. It's a group of big time developers who have very, very close links to the Labor party and give a lot of political donations. That's why all these deals are really stinky. Anyway, the Liberal Party wont even talk to the Urban Task Force. They've said they are going to get rid of Part 3A. So what he's trying to do is get through as much as he can before the government changes.

Which it inevitably will at the next election... Absolutely. So what we're trying to do is get the planning minister, Tony Kelly, to not tick it off. To send it to a planning assessment committee. And we want to convince him to do that.

A funny thing is that our local member is a Labor guy and up until now he's been all for the development. Very cosy with the developer he's been. But now the election is coming and it's going to be a tight one he's now all for the community. He even came out to our big rally wearing a 'Save Catho' t-shirt!

Keep up to date with the fight at Catherine Hill Bay by visiting this site. The title of this article is a direct rip-off from the Midnight Oil song 'Who Can Stand In The Way' from their 1984 album, Red Sails in the Sunset.

Comments

surfnbull's picture
surfnbull's picture
surfnbull Wednesday, 9 Feb 2011 at 5:52am

Sorry Sue but is not just about the developer making a buck. It is also about making a new community - just like old Catho (that she needs to be reminded was once upon a time not there either). Unfortunately Newcastle is both growing at a rapid pace and is also land locked in nearly every direction except that of Catho and people need to live somewhere. Just beacause sue manged to buy a shack before the property boom or has a crap load of money to afford a house there shouldn' mean i'm not given the same opportunity.

I also haven't heard Sue complain about the piles of coal that are clearly visible from the beach (that was ther alot longer than when I'm guessing Sue was there). So what is so different between the coal and houses. Yes there are environmental impacts that need (and I'm sure have been) addressed. Unfortunately it is just too close to Newcastle, Gosford and Sydney which makes it different to the likes of Seals Rocks (god bless Treach).

I surf (and have sufed Catho for 25 years), I work hard and pay taxes so I should be able to buy a property on the coast like many of the generations that have done before me.

Or does Sue think we should all go and build a new house in a retired salt ridden paddock.

Sorry Sue but it sounds more like you just want it all for yourself. Communities start from somewhere and Catho would surely end up being just as good - if not better - than what it is now.

kneepete's picture
kneepete's picture
kneepete Wednesday, 9 Feb 2011 at 5:55am

On the wings of a six pack will we ever learn?

gromfull's picture
gromfull's picture
gromfull Thursday, 10 Feb 2011 at 1:31am

wow i used to go to catho n moonie in the eighties, can't beleive it hasn't changed. Well this is something we should all support to stop the developers, enough is enough.

seabreeze's picture
seabreeze's picture
seabreeze Thursday, 10 Feb 2011 at 3:34am

I fully understand the comments of surfnbull. Whilst it is important to protect some areas from development(Australia is well served by its National Parks and other reseves),there is often a strong element of self-interest in the attempts of those seeking to preserve an already settled area in which they have a vested interest:'Come and visit, but your not welcome to stay the night. It's ours!'

I am not familiar with Catherine Hill Bay, and I can understand the resistance coming from those who have been privileged to enjoy its unique features throughout the years; but population is growing, and we should all be given the opportunity to participate in the Great Australian dream'.Communities have to start somewhere. I am sure many of the first residents of the Gold Coast, or any other developed portion of Australia's coastline resited inevitable growth, but there are now communities that provide wonderful opportunities for more than the select few.
With proper planning, and equipped with knowledge derived from past mistakes, it's tinme to move forward, not shut the gate on your fellow citizens.

monk's picture
monk's picture
monk Thursday, 10 Feb 2011 at 4:15am

There are a couple of major problems here. Firstly, many local governments do not want further development in their area as their view is that it compromises the values that make their region and community special – this is the case here, and this is why the Part 3A was established. The fundamental problem is that in Australia we have an aging baby-boomer population, and if the economists are correct, we need a hell of a lot more people to breed or to come to our country so we can all pay taxes and support these guys: “The Big Australia Strategy”. I personally don’t like the idea of this at all, but apparently it is absolutely necessary. So where do we put these people – an undeveloped coastal community close to an urban centre seems like a pretty good place to me.

Then come the faceless developers who appear as monsters to the community (this is often an accurate description), who generally have no community interest and are only after maximum profit margins.

It seems to me that the only answer is “responsible development” – development that takes into account environmental and social buffers, community lifestyle, and still manages to turn a profit. Who is responsible for this type of development? It is the regulators – the state and local government agencies who need to impose the restrictions on the developers (as the developers will inevitably get away with what they can). To me, the underlying problems involve apathy or corruption within these agencies, and individuals that either allow or facilitate this kind of unsustainable or inappropriate development. The community needs to target the regulators, not the developers, as the regulators are the guys with the powers to change things – and after all they are supposed to represent us. To do this, the community needs to understand policy and legislation (and strive to make changes to these when they are inadequate), to expose, name and shame corruption and dodgy political lobbying, to be prepared to go home from the picket fences and do some serious homework, and to lobby for sustainable development, rather than no development at all.

non-local's picture
non-local's picture
non-local Friday, 11 Feb 2011 at 12:37am

Good luck with the fight, but I don't see a win in the long run though. Gouvernments are good at fucking up the coastline. I used to love surfing there a long time ago.

batfink_and_karate's picture
batfink_and_karate's picture
batfink_and_karate Sunday, 13 Feb 2011 at 6:32am

It's a bit naive to think that this development will somehow open up beachside residences for the battler.

From an environmental perspective it is a no brainer. The public (you and I) will pay multi-millions to get basic services in there to support the sort of numbers they are looking at. It is subject to subsidence, the development covers areas that will flood (yep, we're still lining up to make those mistakes) and the likelihood of coastal problems from erosion are huge. And let's not even get into sea level change.

This is just another classic "developer take the profit, socialise the losses story.

An unnecessary incursion on the coast. Such a weird place Catho. Got a vibe like no other place I know, but I've never been to Adelaide.

shaun's picture
shaun's picture
shaun Sunday, 13 Feb 2011 at 8:05pm

On ever been there once to check it out on the way through, but that that was a while ago. Probably should put a heritage thing on it to snooker everyone, be a shame to see it developed, but also it would be a shame to see yuppies buy it up and rip down the cottages to put up mansions. There aren't many of these little seaside towns left, it's nice to drive back in time occasionally.

billposter's picture
billposter's picture
billposter Sunday, 13 Feb 2011 at 11:28pm

We'd all like to live on the coast, wouldn't we? Unfortunately Mr Surfnbull simplifies the requisites for doing so. No Mr Surfnbull, just 'working hard and paying taxes' doesn't reserve you a piece of coastal real estate. I mean, we all do that don't we? And if we all lived on the coastal interface what an ugly place that would be.

Mistakes have been made in those other areas you cite, Sydney, Newcastle and Gosford, and it's only community pressure that will avoid them being repeated at Catho.

I've been watching this development from a respectable distance (1200 kms!) but I grew up at Blacksmiths and know the area well. Unlike Mr Surfnbull I don't see it as an either/or argument. There is a middle way and it involves community involvement, compromise and close scrutiny of the developer.

spongebob's picture
spongebob's picture
spongebob Sunday, 13 Feb 2011 at 11:53pm

Said,precious moments,precious few.

kneepete's picture
kneepete's picture
kneepete Monday, 14 Feb 2011 at 2:21am

When the dollar's more than me and you

marcus's picture
marcus's picture
marcus Tuesday, 15 Feb 2011 at 6:17am

We love the vibe at catho so much we got married on the beach there.

boogo's picture
boogo's picture
boogo Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011 at 12:18am

I think the majority of residents that own houses in Catho are not the original community. More wealthy out of towners that snapped these small miners cribs in hope of a secluded holiday house and solid investment. I would love to know how many of the local surfers in the boardriding club own houses in town??? How long has Sue lived in the town. Is she or many of her supporters part of the original people that lived in Catho. The original miners sold their cribs for profit and it seems like it happening again.

They are more concerned that the value of their investment will be reduced once more houses are built. I love catho but I think the development is ominous. Whether it is good or bad is the big question. I wish the world stayed like it was in the 70's but it is a little naive to think this way in 2011. Look up and down our coast. Sandon Point, Lennox Head to name just a couple.

marcus's picture
marcus's picture
marcus Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011 at 1:36am

check out the ugly murrays beach development accross the highway. not really a beach, and tiny houses built on top of each other like lego land. i would have thought people moving to a country town would want some space from thier neighbours.
its pretty ugly really.

zane's picture
zane's picture
zane Friday, 18 Feb 2011 at 1:24am

Some facts:

1) Developers pay millions in infrastructure expenses even though they pay for the majority of the infrastructure themselves. Councils then make a killing from the rates they get. So don't think that society takes the bill for these developments because thats a fallacy.
2) Coastal councils are generally anti development, not because of the financial equation but because of political persuasion. You have one developer vs a hoard of protesters, its easy to see where the council will tend to side with, popular opinion.
3) It is not true that new development hinders the price of property growth. When new people move into the town they spend money, the economy improves, more jobs are created and towns flourish. This isn't even included all the construction jobs created because of the development itself.
4) Section 3A is necessary because our councils do not always get it right, it is that simple really. For example, in Brisbane Campbell Newman won't let developers build towers where the car parking is above ground. He wants it below ground, so developers have to spend millions more in building car parks under ground. The expenses are past on to the buyers (because developers can't take it off their profit line otherwise there is no point in taking the risk to finance such a big job) and people are worse off, particularly when it floods. So councils sometimes impose silly regulations which the government needs to keep in check. Section 3A is also needed so the State Government can dissaprove projects the councils approve.
5) The environmental sustainability argument is strong but we all need to remember that if you go build a development back from the water on say a hill instead of a headland the effects are going to be generally the same (unless they are building on Sand Dunes etc). I don't think you should wipe out a hill with housing or a headland, it should be in spread out pockets with plenty of green space.

I believe the problem in this case is that the proposed scheme is probably too high density and doesn't feature enough green space and sustainability features. If he paid $4.5m he will probably make his money back on it if there is about 60 + houses or say 90+ units. If he is pushing for more than this you know there is breathing room to scale back whats been done.

Sorry for the extended commentary, I work in the industry and its a delicate balance.

mel-anoma's picture
mel-anoma's picture
mel-anoma Sunday, 20 Feb 2011 at 10:59pm

Having lived on the Sunny coast for 25 years, I have seen all the "pro arguments" for rampant development. A beautiful collection of hamlets have been turned into generic urban sprawl wastelends, a golden arch and a coffee club on every corner.
The remaining east coast towns who can keep their "originality" will be the ones who prosper in the future.

killvan-com's picture
killvan-com's picture
killvan-com Monday, 14 Mar 2011 at 10:40pm

The wrath of an ignorant family dynasty. The Rose clan reads just like the Holt and Breen families whom should also be publicly shamed for the exploitation of the birthplace of modern Australia, Kurnell Sydney. It's simply greed, our modern social cancer. How big does ones footprint and bank balance need to be until satisfied...

jasons's picture
jasons's picture
jasons Monday, 21 Mar 2011 at 5:21am

Hate to say it...but Zane is right. It's a delcate balance but one that will be made eventually. Sooner, later, its a little matter.
I lived and surfed in Barwon Heads once. Stil surf it and play cricket there but would no longer wish to live there or could afford to live there. Thats the balance I had to live. I survived

jasons's picture
jasons's picture
jasons Monday, 21 Mar 2011 at 5:21am

Hate to say it...but Zane is right. It's a delcate balance but one that will be made eventually. Sooner, later, its a little matter.
I lived and surfed in Barwon Heads once. Stil surf it and play cricket there but would no longer wish to live there or could afford to live there. Thats the balance I had to live. I survived

batfink_and_karate's picture
batfink_and_karate's picture
batfink_and_karate Monday, 21 Mar 2011 at 10:47am

Sure it's a delicate balance, but there is nothing delicate about these developments. Environments are routinely trashed. Sure, councils don't get it right all the time, but the state government gets it wrong much more regularly.

Zane, read your own script. Point 1 directly contradicts point 3. Developers don't pay for infrastructure, the buyer does. The developer profits from an investment in infrastructure.

Respectfully, developers don't go into these things to lose money. You may be in the industry, but you aren't across the business. If you believe the spiel from developer that 'they' pay for the infrastructure, you really don't know how it works.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 5:30am

Well, the ruling came down yesterday and it appears the Rose Group won, the Catherine Hill Bay development will go ahead: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220561.htm?site=centralcoast

pal's picture
pal's picture
pal Friday, 1 Jun 2012 at 10:06pm

almost half of the catherine hill bay "residents" do not live there full time. In the community survey results of which the survey was conducted by Sue Whyte show that only 75 (67%) out of the 112 houses are occupied full time. Many are owned by sydney residents as weekenders or for renting. I think that many of the protesters are simply business men protecting their valuable assets. The survey also shows that 60% of the residents have only lived there for under 20 years.

rh-taxi's picture
rh-taxi's picture
rh-taxi Saturday, 2 Jun 2012 at 9:25am

I don't think you can look to the gold coast or sunshine coasts over developments as any model to follow in this situation, unless you want to stuff it up that is. imo there is enough coastal areas developed already and some areas should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and access not just the fortunate few.
A pox on all dodgy developers and the officials that let them get away with it

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Sunday, 19 Oct 2014 at 9:19pm

Land at the Catherine Hill Bay development has gone onto the market. I noticed an ad in yesterday's Herald for the controversial sub-division.

Here's a pic of how it will be divvied up (Catho Hill Bay at top of pic, Ghosties out of frame to south of photo):

screen_shot_2014-10-19_at_9.10.41_pm.png

Now the protest is over it's time to pack up your principles and lay some coin down for a prime position.

The website is here.

Yendor's picture
Yendor's picture
Yendor Saturday, 22 Aug 2020 at 4:21pm

Went there last year on holiday from NZ. Looked ugly as hell hadn't even left any parking for non residents at Monee beach. From an NZ perspective I couldn't believe they had gotten permission for such a thoughtless development. Sad. Got some fun waves though

uplift's picture
uplift's picture
uplift Friday, 24 Oct 2014 at 9:36pm

Don't fight it any longer dawg. Cashed up, ocean front, boutique pie shop, 'perfect' waves, 'sustainabliity', 457 visas, the rave chained to the oven... 'Savouries by David.'

http://beacheschb.com.au/home2/

upnorth's picture
upnorth's picture
upnorth Saturday, 25 Oct 2014 at 9:10am

Was there ever any doubt? This is Australia.