The Skydive the Beach administration block at Stuart Park may still not be allowed to be built even with development approval, opponents say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The latest legislation governing the use of the park may never have been approved by the NSW Government, according to campaigners who oppose the plans.
After an explosive Wollongong council meeting dealing with the controversial building on Monday night, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge says he will be approaching Lands Minister Niall Blair to raise concerns about the park’s Plan of Management (POM).
Opponents of the Skydive building believe a document adopted in 2000 – which could restrict any new permanent buildings in the park – is the relevant piece of legislation guiding the use of the land, and not a 2008 document which would allow for the expansion of skydiving operations.
They say the later document – the Wollongong City Foreshore Plan of Management, which was adopted by councillors in January 2008 – may never have been signed off by a state minister and may therefore have never become legally binding.
Mr Shoebridge, who opposes commercial operations on public land across the state, said he would be asking the minister which plan of management was in effect.
He also raised concerns about the 2008 POM because it was adopted by councillors just before they were sacked.
“I think there are good questions about whether a Plan of Management passed in the last few months of a council before it was sacked should ever come into force,” he said.
Despite these concerns, a council spokeswoman said both plans were applicable to Stuart Park: “the 2000 Plan of Management directly in the context of the Crown Lands Act, and the City Foreshore Plan of Management for other legislation and operations”.
“In terms of going forward, Council is very conscious of the existence of both Plans, and will seek to operate in accordance with applicable legislation and adopted policies,” the spokeswoman said.
She also said the council had “at the invitation of Crown Lands has requested that the Crown rescind the 2000 Plan of Management given that it has been superseded by the 2008 Plan of Management”.
The later plan was referred to the Crown Lands division in 2008, but, according to the council, was not adopted as the department preferred to favour a then 123-year-old definition of the park over the council’s new plan.
“[Crown Lands] stated that at that time they were preferring to rely on the purpose of the Crown Reserve Gazettal unless the Minister specifically requested a Plan of Management,” the spokeswoman said.
“The purpose of the Stuart Park Reserve is ‘public park or grounds for recreation or a place for bathing’ as gazetted 29 September 1885.”
Labor councillor David Brown, who on Monday moved a motion to end further debate on the Skydive DA, said he did not hold strong concerns about the park’s management plans.
He said councillors would be given the chance to consider and again debate the adventure company’s use of the park during future negotiations over the terms of a lease for the new building and licences for drop-zones
“I don’t hold any concerns until I see the report from staff which details all legal parameters,” Cr Brown said.
“The quality of reports we get are excellent and I’m a bit disappointed that people are trying to imply otherwise.”
After Monday night’s meeting Vicki Curran said she thought “this council still does not welcome transparency” and believed the council was acting “contrary to the Acts and our responsibilities as Trustees”.
She issued a media release saying “councillors [had] been left in the dark, misled, inadequately advised and making decisions that appear to be legitimising the questionable decisions and processes of the past”.
Like her state counterpart Mr Shoebridge, Greens councillors Jill Merrin invoked the council’s pre-ICAC days when arguing for the DA decision to be delayed due to concerns about the legality of the building and Skydive’s use of the park.
“I’m sure we all remember Wollongong council’s ignominious recent past and the reasons the previous council was sacked,” Cr Merrin said at Monday’s meeting.
“There was an infectious ethic within the old council which lacked clear separation between private interests and those of the public.”
Kate McIlwain
For more than a decade, I've helped the Illawarra Mercury set the news agenda across the region. Currently I'm the paper's health reporter - covering the stories of Illawarra workers and residents in the wake of a global pandemic and at a time where our health systems are stretched to the limit.
For more than a decade, I've helped the Illawarra Mercury set the news agenda across the region. Currently I'm the paper's health reporter - covering the stories of Illawarra workers and residents in the wake of a global pandemic and at a time where our health systems are stretched to the limit.
