KAREN FREYER Independent for Vaucluse

Concerns About The Draft Master Plan For Strickland Estate And Nielsen Park

Strickland House, a beautiful fixture in our community, has lived many lives. Built in 1856 by architect John Hilly, the site existed as a convalescent home in the 20th century, and then an aged care facility.

Now owned by the N SW Government, the House and its grounds serve as a reminder of the natural beauty Sydney is blessed with, as families, bushwalkers, and history fanatics alike admire the heritage it represents and the splendour that accompanies such legacy.

However, Strick land House is under threat. The Strickland Estate and Nielsen Park ‘Draft Master Plan’ seek to create a “tourist park” not in line with the principles of a National Park.

Complete with comm ercial-sized jetties, on-site private vehicle parking and a boutique hotel, congestion and overcrowding are simply inevitable. Further, environmental ha rms cannot be mitigated in the large construction plans detailed, especially with the indication that “future improvements” may be made, implying more overdevelopment possibilities.

Since const ructi on has been abandoned in rebuilding Nielsen Park’s 100-year-old seawall due to a dispute between contractors and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, it is entirely possible that history may repeat itself at the Strickland Estate, and this part of Vaucluse may also be closed over the peak summer months, restricting accessibility to a greater degree.

I am not, and will n ever be, opposed to Sydneysiders and tourists enjoying the natural beauty and heritage that Strickland Estate and its gardens have to offer. The site, along with Milk Beach and Nielsen Park have welcomed beachgoers and picnickers for decades and should continue to do so. However, the point where the community draws the line is when development turns into exploitation, ultimately risking ruining the beauty of the site and the heritage of the grounds.

The Strickla nd House Review Group set guiding principles in 1993, which included “preserving the site’s cultural heritage values and open space, while providing a framework for consistent decision-making in short and long-term,” as well as “retaining public ownership and appropriate general public use and enjoyment.” The Draft Plan lies in direct opposition to these principles. This