Expansion of the Museums Discovery Centre

Please refer to the attachment.

As a nearby business premises with little natural landscape left intact around us, we strongly object to the proposed overdevelopment of the mueseum site at Showground Road.
What is the good of saving things from the past in a mueseum if you do not protect our future?

False values are promoted with compliant expert reports that justify destroying the few natural remnants of the Showground Road landscape. With the intended road widening of Showground Road ther will be nothing left. Even this small amount of forest will be lost for no good reason. We need to locally preserve and protect what areas of vegetation are left.

There are several alternative broadacre sites around the Hills locality - why not find a better site and show some wisdom about the sustainable future you talk about. The words of the experts are not convincing in this case.

How shameful the due process has become! What a disasterous outcome for the local area and Hills Community!
Why does this already overdeveloped site need more large buildings crammed into the precious open space.

Yours faithfully
John G Bourke
Architect
Civc Designer and Urban Planner

I live just adjacent to the development. I have reviewed the proposal. My concerns are;
1. Reduction of trees and shade in the area leads to loss of habitat for birds and other species that occupy and share the area.
2. Noted that there are Cumberland plain species that will be impacted and no plan to replace or create equivalent green space including replacement of these trees.
3. Note the overall reduction of trees and open areas in and around the Hills and in particular this area has been huge.

My family is concerned that development in the Hills is stripping trees and green spaces at a far greater rate than any proposed replacement. Biodiversity and the impacts of this is felt by introduction of feral species, rats, pigeons, foxes, weeds and other non native fauna and an increase in the rate of fatalities for native species (bats, possums, birds).

Whilst this proposal is seemingly a small impact given the wider destruction in and around the area, what is being planned, proposed to replace, regenerate or recreate spaces that have trees, shade and green equivalents to what is being destroyed?

Why can't the development include solar panels on the rooftops to provide energy to the Tafe and museum which are largely used during daylight hours?

Could Trees be planted on the boundary to shield our area from the sight of the new buildings?

I object to this project on the following grounds:
1) One of the main stated objectives of this expansion is to provide this Sydney Region and, indeed, all of Sydney with greater access to the MAAS collections. This is a nonsense since the highest and best access for the general public is to the present Ultimo museum site which lies at the centre of Sydney's transport hub system. For specialist visitors the Castle Hill site is remote and far less accessible than the Harwood Building in Ultimo [see below].
2) The transport assessment report predicates a relatively steady state in respect of Castle Hill visitation which directly contradicts the propaganda circulated by boosters of this project that its extension/creation will much expand access to the MAAS collections. In particular, the 54 parking spaces [less perhaps 10 for weekend staff vehicles] clearly underestimates the demand for parking by families who wish to visit on weekends and holidays. This material contradiction would suggest that either MAAS really is not going to increase visitation and access, or there will be major issues of overloaded parking requirements at times of peak demand. Most families and especially those with disabled members need to travel by automobile especially when the children are young or elderly family members are included. Parking is a critical factor in facilitating visitation and the lack of a SURVEY of visitors establishing what they need and want in terms of access is a major flaw in this planning aspect.
3) Access for Very Large Objects is entirely sub optimal and yet it appears that most of the VLOs will be removed from Ultimo and sequestered here in Castle Hill. Just inspecting the floor layout and road angles would indicate this critical aspect has not been properly analysed
4) The overbuilding of this site is self evident. Such over development should not be permitted since it has long term implications for the people of the area.
5) The destruction of the unique essential oils plantation- a core part of the heritage of MAAS- which was instituted in the late 1930s into the 1940s and may well be the last extant such example -is simply wanton. Replanting elsewhere around the site is no substitute. No serious research has been undertaken into the social, economic and cultural heritage of this remnant and it is simply being destroyed in an unacceptable fashion.
6) Difficulty of access for specialist visitors and staff is effectively white washed by the supporting documentation attached to this EIS. A serious SURVEY of interested parties would show that the facile assumptions underlying the transport report and by the MAAS management appear just amateur and self serving in the opinion of this objector. The collectors, donors and experts who have for forty years accessed the collections in the Harwood Building will, effectively, be faced with far greater challenges of time and distance than at present. If they are in any way physically disabled or elderly it will be much more challenging.
7) Although perhaps not germane to this EIS the very real increase in cost, time, distance and handling of objects and services will result in long term damage to MAAS efficiency and effectiveness.
8) The increased risk to the public caused by movement of VLOs/other objects and goods and by much increased visitation into and within the site has been powerfully underestimated in this collection of documents. Impacts on TAFE operations are also underestimated it seems.
9) the complete lack of any B C Analysis and any Business Case with stated visitation assumptions makes comment on this EIS documentation exceptionally difficult which, presumably, is the intent of Government and MAAS management. Critical and contradictory assumptions appear to have been made which seem to demonstrate a parlous level of planning ability and a cavalier disregard for operational best practice and sound and effective/efficient management of this facility linked, as it will be, at a significant distance to Ultimo and Parramatta.

PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED SUBMISSION

See attached.

Please find attached EES response

Please find attached Council's comments on SSD-10472 for your consideration.
Thanks.

Please refer to the attachment.

Please find our attached submission

OBJECTION
I object to the project because:-
1 - it will require the destruction of Castle Hill’s historic eucalypt plantation at a time when so much of Sydney’s green space and trees are being destroyed to make way for the concrete jungles of modern suburbia. High rise everywhere and rows and rows of grey tiled roofs on houses with no backyards or greenery.
2 - there are sufficient facilities for curator works at the Ultimo Powerhouse precinct and appropriate storage at Castle Hill if these facilities are used efficiently. Or is the Government’s ultimate plan to continue selling off the Ultimo sites for apartment developments already agreed to many years ago and which the government has been failing to come clean on for many years now?
3 - Curator works and exhibition preparations at Ultimo reduce the need for transport between sites and possible damage to fragile exhibits as well as the additional costs incurred in appropriate transport.
4 - The Castle Hill site is not easily reached by public transport and is not as conveniently located for the greater proportion of Sydney’s population as the centrally located Ultimo precinct which is a short walk or light rail ride from Central.
5 - The money could be better used in providing other facilities for needy areas.

To whom it may concern,

We live at 4 Peppertree Place, Castle Hill, (behind the museum) .

we have been noticing the noise coming from the outdoor unit condenser has been excessive, when the weather is hot and air conditioning is operational. We can hear the condenser noise from inside of our house throughout the day and especially at night time when its everything else is quiet and it has been disturbing us ever since.

Is there any way that museum can minimise the noise such as providing an acoustic screen to warp around the condenser?

Currently it’s just a see through metal fencing around it which I don’t think its help with reduce noise in anyway.

I am happy to provide access to our house and measure the decibels and hear it from our perspective.

I trust you will understand and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,

I write to further object to the Museum Discovery Centre at Castle Hill.
My earlier objections were not responded to.

I was the Founding Director of the Powerhouse Museum [1979-1988] and later Director of the Royal Ontario Museum- Canada's 'Smithsonian'- and
London's Science Museum Group with over five separate museums and museum sites- the largest such group in the world.

My career stretches from the Science Museum in London [1976] until now, as a consultant.
I specifically know about Castle Hill being the Founding Director of the PHM and having instituted Castle Hill's redevelopment in 1982.

Like other objectors to this development such as Ms Kylie Winkworth, Ms Jennifer Sanders, Mr Lionel Glendenning and Mr Andrew Grant-
together we combine over 205 years of museological training, management, planning expertise and experience- I know whereof I write.
Each of them has specific knowledge of Castle Hill through direct involvement with MAAS planning over decades.

I object to this project on the following grounds:

1) One of the main stated objectives of this expansion is to provide this Sydney Region and, indeed, all of Sydney with greater access to the MAAS collections. This is a nonsense since the highest and best access for the general public is to the present Ultimo museum site which lies at the centre of Sydney's transport hub system. For specialist visitors the Castle Hill site is remote and far less accessible than the Harwood Building in Ultimo [see below].

2) The transport assessment report predicates a relatively steady state in respect of Castle Hill visitation which directly contradicts the propaganda circulated by boosters of this project that its extension/creation will much expand access to the MAAS collections. In particular, the 54 parking spaces [less perhaps 10 for weekend staff vehicles] clearly underestimates the demand for parking by families who wish to visit on weekends and holidays. This material contradiction would suggest that either MAAS really is not going to increase visitation and access, or there will be major issues of overloaded parking requirements at times of peak demand. Most families and especially those with disabled members need to travel by automobile especially when the children are young or elderly family members are included. Parking is a critical factor in facilitating visitation and the lack of a SURVEY of visitors establishing what they need and want in terms of access is a major flaw in this planning aspect.

3) Access for large and Very Large Objects is entirely sub optimal and yet it appears that most of the VLOs will be removed from Ultimo and sequestered here in Castle Hill. Just inspecting the floor layout and road angles would indicate this critical aspect has not been properly analysed

4) The overbuilding of this site is self evident. Such over development should not be permitted since it has long term implications for the people of the area.

5) The destruction of the unique essential oils plantation- a core part of the heritage of MAAS- which was instituted in the late 1930s into the 1940s and may well be the last extant such example -is simply wanton. Replanting elsewhere around the site is no substitute. No serious research has been undertaken into the social, economic and cultural heritage of this remnant in preparation of this development and it is simply being destroyed in an unacceptable fashion. A recent paper by Mr Chris Betteridge [attached] demonstrates conclusively [like in other areas and issues raised above] that this suite of sub-optimal 'expert' reports and statements is drivel.

6) Difficulty of access for specialist visitors and staff is effectively white - washed by the supporting documentation attached to this EIS. A serious SURVEY of interested parties would show that the facile assumptions underlying the transport report and by the MAAS management appear just amateur and self serving in the opinion of this objector. The collectors, donors and experts who have for forty years accessed the collections in the Harwood Building will, effectively, be faced with far greater challenges of time and distance than at present. If they are in any way physically disabled or elderly it will be much more challenging.

7) Although perhaps not germane to this EIS the very real increase in cost, time, distance and handling of objects and services will result in long term damage to MAAS efficiency and effectiveness.

8) The increased risk to the public caused by movement of VLOs/other objects and goods and by much increased visitation into and within the site has been powerfully underestimated in this collection of documents. Impacts on TAFE operations are also underestimated it seems.

9) the complete lack of any B C Analysis and any Business Case with stated visitation assumptions makes comment on this EIS documentation exceptionally difficult which, presumably, is the intent of Government and MAAS management.

10) It is self evident that Government and MAAS leadership have presided over a profoundly sub-optimal development application and 'supporting' documentation in the full knowledge that, as an SSP, this project will elude correct, forensic and detailed expert analysis and contradiction demonstrating its many faults and failings and its evasion of key health and safety issues threatening the public both visitors to the site, public servants as site visitors and surrounding citizens- part residential and part 'exogenous' travellers alike.

Critical and contradictory assumptions appear to have been made which seem to demonstrate a parlous level of planning ability and a cavalier disregard for operational best practice and sound and effective/efficient management of this facility linked, as it will be, by tenuous and ineffectual transport systems at a significant distance to Ultimo and Parramatta. Above all, th risks still extant are paramount and deeply concerning health and safety

I understand that you are still receiving submissions on the matter of the Castle Hill museum developments. Thank you for receiving this late submission, which I had previously decided not to make, for the reasons explained below.
I realise that, as usual, there is absolutely no hope that democratic processes will apply to the proposed Expansion of the Museum Discovery Centre. No rational reasoning process will be advanced to support the degradation of the Harwood Building and of the museum itself, and certainly there will be no input from any person with significant museum experience and / or qualifications.
But for the record, I oppose the planned works.
You could persuade me otherwise by, as a first stage, releasing such documents as the following:
• An explanation of how major exhibitions can be efficiently prepared from Castle Hill for a retained Ultimo Powerhouse (and also for the proposed Parramatta riverside establishment. Obviously, the idea of having a proper world-class museum at either site has been abandoned.
• A proper explanation of the financial benefits of destroying Harwood and erection of the new facility, even allowing for the gross inefficiency outlined in the preceding point.
• A proper assessment of the heritage value of the Harwood Building and also of the historic eucalypt plantation that will be destroyed at Castle Hill.
• Proper examination of alternatives and evidence that this is not just another thought bubble by the unknown and thoroughly incompetent people who are still making the basic decisions in this entire disastrous project. The July 4 announcement re Ultimo is just a small step towards remedying the situation.
• Evidence of involvement at a basic level by people with museum expertise and experience. So far we have been able to identify about six hours of such involvement over the entire process since November 2014. I admire Ms Havilah’s leadership style, and the work she is doing under near-impossible circumstances, but she is not a museum person: her expertise is in other areas.
If these documents are released (they won’t be, because they do not exist) we could assess the process and see if it does by any miraculous course of events constitute a rational and viable project.
The secrecy and incompetence of the planning process is an affront to democracy. This is even more significant than the disastrous vandalism that constitutes the total project.