Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Draft Plan of Management and Masterplan For Queens Wharf Morpeth and Lorn Riverbank
Draft Plan of Management and Masterplan For Queens Wharf Morpeth and Lorn Riverbank
Draft Plan of Management and Masterplan For Queens Wharf Morpeth and Lorn Riverbank
ATTACHMENTS
ORDINARY MEETING
27 JUNE 2017
27 JUNE 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 1
Number of Pages: 60
Plan of Management
Queens Wharf
Morpeth
Prepared for
Maitland City Council
Revision E
06 June 2017
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
5. Stakeholder Consultation 32
5.1. Stakeholder Consultation 33
5.2. Community Workshops 33
5.3. Online Survey 34
5.4. Additional Consultation 34
5.5. Online and social media feedback 34
5.6. Consultation Summary 34
5.7. Consultation Outcomes and Priorities 35
This Plan of Management (PoM) provides a The topography of the park is sloping down
strategic framework for conserving the sites toward the river with fairly steep and rugged
heritage and cultural values and to promote public banks down to the waters edge. There is a
The only access to the site is off Swan Street The key proposals of the Masterplan include to:
via Tank Street. This turns steeply down a Upgrade the access road by widening travel
slope to reach the site. There are no dedicated lanes and installing a shared path
pedestrian pathways to access the site. Vehicles
Improve access to the site by adding an access
and pedestrians are therefore forced to share the
road from Steamer Street
roadway.
Formalising and paving Queens Wharf Road as
Management Context it travels through the site
Install parking for cars and for vehicles towing
The Queens Wharf site is classified as Community
boat trailers
Land and is managed under the Local Government
Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act). This PoM has been Install a Heritage Display to promote the
prepared in accordance with Section 36 of the LG historical aspects of the site
Act and supersedes previous plans for the site. Highlight heritage elements within the site and
riverbank
Aims and objectives for Queens Wharf Provide a shared pathway network through the
The aims of this Plan of Management are to: site, linking activity locations
Install BBQs and additional picnic tables
1. Facilitate the management of Queens Wharf
Enhance native planting
to enable its development into a park facility
that serves a wide range of recreational and Install a substantial beach area for river access
cultural needs in the Maitland region Install a secondary location for swimming and
fishing
2. Guide the preparation of the Queens Wharf
Extend the existing jetty along the riverbank
Masterplan.
Extend the two-lane boat ramp further into to
More specific objectives have been developed in river to prevent trailers from getting stuck
consultation with Council and key stakeholders
Widen the top of the boat ramp to allow
within the local community. These objectives are:
vehicles to pull over and secure the boats and
Improve access to the park and circulation trailers before leaving the site
throughout the park
Increase native and indigenous planting
Improve access to the Hunter River
Install bank stabilising measures
Improve opportunities for recreation within the
Install a storage structure for community
park
group use
Enhance the aesthetics of the park in a way
Install a group picnic facility with BBQ and roof
that complements the identity of the Morpeth
structure
community and incorporates Maitlands long-
Provide a childrens play area near the group
term vision for the area
picnic facility.
Ensure the development and use of the park
is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.
0
Refer to Figure 1.1 and 1.2.
0
4
2
Hunter River 0
0
2
4
Que
ens
Wha
rf Ro
ad 4
2
Project Site 4
2
Project Site 6
6
8
10
12
Tank
12
14
8
t
Swan Stree
10 14
6
Street
d
th Roa
8
Morpe
16
12
16
16
18
14
18
20
12
16
7
20
Hunter River
2.8 Ha (approx)
Swan Street
h Road
Morpet Morpeth
Tank Street
Project Site
Waterways
Lot 1
DP169466
Lot 3 Lot 30
DP755237 DP543798
DP1108099
DP666772
Lot 1
Lot 3
DP1149223
Lot 3
Lot 3
DP755237 Lot 5
DP226025
Lot 4
DP226025
Land Ownership
Maitland City Council
Privately owned
Figure 1.3: Lot descriptions and land ownership diagram.
Source: Maitland City Council, http://mapping.maitland.nsw.gov.au/ Crown Lands
and https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/.
The objectives and principles of Crown land 2.1.2. State Government Policies and
Management are listed in Sections 10 and 11 of Strategies
the CL Act and form the starting point for the NSW Rivers and Estuaries Policy 1993
preparation of Plan of Management. The principles Regional Boating Plan - Port Stephens
of Crown land management are the following: Hunter Region 2015
Environmental protection principles be Hunter River Estuary Management Plan 2009
observed in relation to the management and
Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan
administration of Crown land
2013-2023.
The natural resources of Crown land (including
water, soil, flora, fauna and scenic quality) be
conserved wherever possible
Public use and enjoyment of appropriate
Crown land be encouraged
The objectives of RU1 zoning include to: Objectives of RE1 zone are to:
Encourage sustainable primary industry Enable land to be used for public open space
production by maintaining and enhancing the or recreational purposes
natural resource base Provide a range of recreational settings and
Encourage diversity in primary industry activities and compatible land uses
enterprises and systems appropriate for the Protect and enhance the natural environment
area for recreational purposes.
Minimise the fragmentation and alienation of
This Plan of Management and the Masterplan for
resource lands
the Queens Wharf Riverbank have been developed
Minimise conflict between land uses within this
to ensure all outcomes and recommendations are
zone and land uses within adjoining zones.
consistent with the objectives of the zones.
Hun
ter R
iver
Que
ens
Wha
rf Ro
ad
RU1
RE1
Tank Street
et
er Stre
Steam R1
LEGEND
Site Boundary B2 Local Centre
RU1 Primary Production Proposed RE1
RE1 Public Recreation
R1 General Residential
A sportsground Foreshore
An area of cultural significance The Queens Wharf site has been categorised as a
General community use. Park, Natural Area (Foreshore) and Natural Area
(Watercourse). Refer to Figure 2.3.
0
objectives are listed below.
0
4
2
0
2
4
4
2
4
2
12
10 14
LEGEND
6
8 Site Boundary
16
Park
12
16
16
14
20
Watercourse
Mining
Figure 3.4: Map of Morpeth dated 1869, indicating rail and coal staithes at Queens Wharf.
Source: Newcastle Region Library.
Figure 4.1: The river bank with the remnant scrub Figure 4.2: Current park area with historic building
and trees locations in the foreground.
4.2.4. Flooding
The Queens Wharf site is mapped in a floodplain
area and is subject to periodical flooding.
Figure 4.3: Debris carried downstream by flood Figure 4.4: Existing parking with amenities block and
waters. picnic tables beyond.
Description Condition
0
0
4
2
9 0
0
10
4
2 2
13
0
11 3
16
15 17 12
4 1 4
10
2
18
2
7
4 14
8
6
6
5
10
12
14
8
10 14
6
Legend
16
12
16
16
14
20
1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users & visitors
AIM: To improve safety for all users & separate uses where practical.
AIM: To improve & upgrade Queens Wharf for all the community to enjoy.
To acknowledge, protect and enhance the historical value of the site and the
AIM:
suburb of Morpeth.
Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up keep
AIM:
of the facility.
The following is a description of the core values The bank of the river is heavily eroded with the
and most significant attributes of the Queens seasonal flooding events
Wharf site. They were identified during the A two-lane boat ramp with associated parking
consultation process and background studies that are central to the site
have been conducted. These are qualities that A jetty is located adjacent to the boat ramp
should be enhanced and taken into account when and is connected by a footpath
formulating future management objectives. Grassy paddocks and park areas make up the
majority of the site
6.1. Visual Quality South of the site, the land rises again to
Visual quality plays a large role in creating a residential properties along Morpeth Road
first impression of a place. It therefore has an The site houses a toilet block and five picnic
important role in influencing a persons experience tables with roof structures on each.
and forming an opinion of the place. Since the
success of Queens Wharf is based upon tourist
and resident visits the visual quality must appeal
and create a desire to return.
6.4. Economic
There are currently no commercial operations on
the site. However the jetty is allows boats to dock
and provides access to the Morpeth town.
6.6. Accessibility
As one of the few places around Morpeth to
access the Hunter River, Queens Wharf is intensely
used during weekends and holidays.
Access to the site is via Tank Street, which
caters to vehicles only
Figure 6.5: Existing access path to the jetty.
Access for pedestrians and cyclists needs to
be provided if Queens Wharf is to serve the
community
Parking needs to be expanded to serve boat
trailers and possibly provide parking for those
visiting Swan Street
Pedestrian connection to Morpeth is needed.
5. Complete the internal shared pathway 8. Expand existing jetty to allow temporary
network docking of boats
6. Provide parking for cars and boat trailers 9. Investigate the opportunity for the extension
of the boat ramp further into the river to
allow safer access for trailers.
Outlines of former
structures in the YOU ARE HERE
Queens Wharf
Precinct dating
from 1833. 1850 Plan
NSW State Records
Figure 7.1: Panels from interpretive signs that were washed away in flooding events.
Source: www.maitland.nsw.gov.au./Heritage/WebExhibitions#queenswharf
Figure 7.2: Remnants of the wall under the historic Queens Wharf jetty.
Figure 8.1: Proposed parking and river access around the existing boat ramp.
15
16
6 16
21
NORTH
7
5 Scale 1:300 @ A0
6 12
11
13
22 19
15 23
et
er Stre
Steam
Tank Stre
Morpeth
20 Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication
49
8.3. Funding
There is a range of potential funding sources
from both the NSW and Federal Government, in
addition to revenue generated through Councils
rate process. These potential funding sources are
particularly relevant to parks or open space that
have a regional or state-wide attraction and that
benefit the community beyond the immediate
local government area. These arrangements are
often one-off or short term grants, with funding
usually awarded via a competitive process.
Successfully winning funding depends upon
priorities within the government department that
is offering the funds and how the applicant aligns
with these priorities.
Objective: Improve access to the Hunter River and the park, and the circulation throughout the park.
Table 9.2
Objective: Enhance the aesthetics of the park in a way that complements the identity of the Morpeth
community and incorporates Maitlands long-term vision for the area.
3.1 Install shrub planting around the boat ramp and parking area. High
3.2 Modify drainage channel to accommodate stormwater efficiently and use it as a High
landscape feature in the park.
3.3 Install fencing along the western boundaries with a gate at Queens Wharf Road High
3.4 Install sandstone inlays at historical building locations. Medium
3.5 Construct Heritage Installation with ruin walls, heritage displays and floor. Medium
3.6 Install entry feature at main entrance Medium
3.7 Improve the drainage channel with erosion protection and native planting. Medium
3.8 Create inlet at historic punt ramp location and tie into drainage channel. Medium
3.9 Create the historic railway display adjacent to Interpretive Centre. Low
3.10 Install and maintain separation device (edging, path, etc) between shrub and grass Ongoing
planting.
3.11 Establish and maintain lawn areas for recreation. Ongoing
3.12 Inspect and maintain bank stabilisation measures. Ongoing
Table 9.4
Objective: Ensure the development and use of the park is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.
City Wide Contribution Plan 2006-2016: Review of Regional Boating Plan Port Stephens - Hunter
Open Space and Recreation, Maitland City Council, Region, Transport for NSW, 2015.
2007.
Appendix B
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Queens Wharf
Appendix C
Archaeological Management Report
Appendix D
Preliminary Site Investigation (Environmental)
Queens Wharf, Morpeth, NSW
Appendix E
Queens Wharf Traffic Engineering Assessment
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 2
Number of Pages: 10
Queens Wharf
Masterplan
Prepared for
Maitland City Council
Revision G
06 June 2017
The Queens Wharf Masterplan has been research helped to inform the design of the park and
commissioned by Maitland City Council (Council) boating facility.
and prepared in conjunction with the Queens Wharf
Plan of Management. The diagram on the following page establishes
the site and design principles used, capturing key
The masterplan is a long-term visioning and elements to be included in the improvement of the
planning document. It translates the framework site. Importantly, visual and physical connections to
established by the plan of management into a the surrounding communities have been included.
document that can be used to plan, invest and
ultimately construct an upgraded facility. Character photos have been included on each page
to provide examples of how the masterplan could
It represents the communitys aspirations for be interpreted. Elements can be prioritised and
the popular community park incorporating new sequenced over the entire site to allow for staged
amenities and landscape for that area. Through construction.
a series of workshops and intensive consultation, 1 2
community members and stakeholders provided The concepts and designs identified are a result of
feedback on how they would like to use the the extensive consultation with a broad range of
riverbank now and into the future. That feedback stakeholders.
has been incorporated into the development of the
masterplan to meet Councils objective to improve Key to images on right.
recreational opportunities for residents, businesses 1. Beach and launch area (page 6)
and visitors alike. 2. Boat ramp (page 7)
3. Heritage displays (page 9)
Underpinning the masterplan were a series of 4. Boat parking and circulation (page 10)
specialist studies to guide the project. These
included:
Flood levels and currents
Heritage
Environmental
Traffic study
Preliminary costings to construct.
3 4
These studies, along with extensive site analysis and
Tank Stre
et
er Stre
Steam
Morpeth
NORTH
et
Swan Street
ad
eth Ro
Morp
Pathway connection
needed to Swan Street
risk
ng river
Heritage building
Potential locations
River
Que parking access
ens
Wha View to historic bridge
rf Ro
ad
Potential
parking
Tank Stre
t
e r Stree Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Steam
et
Design | Communication
Swan Street
NORTH
Date: 06 June 2017
eth Road
Morp Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 5
Site Plan
Design Notes
Potential future
Parking shared pathway
along riverbank to
connect to Swan
Lawn Street
Que Parking
ens W
harf
Road
Heritage building Lawn
sites highlighted
with stone inlays
Parking
Parking (page 10)
NORTH
Scale 1:000 @ A3
Tank S
Grass lined Entry Feature
drainage swale
t
er Stree Existing amenities block Historic interpretation
treet
Steam
location (page 9)
Secondary entry
(page 8)
Group picnic area with
BBQ and roof
Shared pathway
Childrens play area
paddle craft.
ounda
offers opportunity to
along
Car
parking
Native planting
Vehicle control
fencing
Sandstone inlaid in
grass to mark heritage
NORTH
Gated access building sites
Scale 1:400 @ A3
Footpath Trailer / car
parking
Trailer
parking
NORTH
Existing picnic tables
with shade structures Scale 1:400 @ A3
Existing
parking
on grass
Open lawn area known sites with the
Shared pathway exception of one location
that follows the existing
Paved terraces using road alignment.
Parking heritage building footprints
to provide gathering nodes The existing drainage
along pathway pattern is maintained
by using a grass-lined
swale. Near the river it
is emphasised by native
planting as it passes
Drainage channel under the vehicle and
Trailer
with grass batter pedestrian bridges.
parking
(1:4 max)
The higher ground along
Steamer Street offers the
opportunity to provide
a covered group picnic
facility and childrens play
area.
ary
ng bound
Fence alo
t
r Stree
Sandstone inlay to Steame
mark locations of
heritage buildings Childrens play area installed at
Steamer Road level to reduce
NORTH
flood risk
Scale 1:400 @ A3
Group picnic area with roof
structure and BBQ contained in
Secondary entry along Steamer Street with
heritage footprint
shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrian
access, accented with rail inlays
Rail cars as
historic display
Existing
amenities block
NORTH
Scale 1:400 @ A3
Main entrance to park with rails Ruin walls along a portion of historical Road improvements necessary to
embedded into the road and railway guest house to hold heritage educational accommodate 2-way trailer traffic,
crossing gates as an entry feature and interpretive signs and artwork guardrail and side bank treatment
Trailer
Parking parking
NORTH
Scale 1:400 @ A3
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 3
Number of Pages: 56
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Queens Wharf, Morpeth
MARA
CONSULTING
Design & Communication
Document Control
Senior Communications and
Issued By: Kelly Lofberg Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Revised By: Tadd Andersen Senior Landscape Architect Mara Consulting
Senior Communications and
Authorised By: Kelly Lofberg Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Signed:
Date: 27 April 2016 Mara Consulting
Revision History
Revision Date of Issue Details
Initial issue for comment by
00 16 April 2016
Project Team
01 26 April 2016 Draft for issued to MCC
Register of Changes
Page / Reference Details
Company Details
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
2 www.maraconsulting.com.au
C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary 4
Community Consultation 9
Consultation Results 13
Survey results 23
Online feedback 27
Consultation Outcomes Summary 28
Conclusion 31
Appendix 1 - Hunter River Access Factsheet 32
Appendix 2 - Social media advertising 34
Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer Edition 2015/2016 35
Appendix 4: MCC Media Release 36
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop 37
Appendix 6: Feedback from workshop 42
Appendix 7: Survey 43
Appendix 8: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board 52
Appendix 9: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board 53
Appendix 10: Invitation to Workshop 54
3 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Executive Summary
The Maitland local government area is a With this in mind, Mara developed a
picturesque and growing community within stakeholder engagement strategy to
our region. Situated on the Hunter River, understand the communitys aspirations
Maitland has a rich history and connection for the improved access and facilities at
to one of the major rivers in New South Morpeth.
Wales, connecting the Liverpool Range to
This document has been prepared based on
the Port of Newcastle. It was because of this
feedback received through the stakeholder
proximity to the Hunter River that the City
engagement process undertaken to inform
of Maitland grew and prospered.
the Plan of Management and Masterplan.
Accordingly, Maitland City Council (Council)
Consultation with stakeholders was
has identified the Hunter River as a
undertaken to identify current issues and
significant asset and as such has embarked
to generate ideas for potential upgrading
on a strategic plan to enhance the heritage
and future development of the riverside
and natural resource for the entire
location.
community to enjoy.
This report summarises the feedback
Council has engaged Mara Consulting
received through the engagement activities.
(Mara) to develop a Plan of Management
It also seeks to identify possibilities for the
and Masterplan for Queens Wharf
site and suggest next steps.
at Morpeth to improve recreational
opportunities for residents, businesses and
visitors alike.
Council has provided clear instructions to
guide the development of the site with
stakeholders as a key focus of the project.
4 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Overview Scope
The Hunter River is an iconic natural The initial stage of the project included
attraction, renowned for its historical and developing specialist and technical studies
economic significance to the region as to support the development of the Plan of
well as a popular location for recreational Management and Masterplan for the site at
activities. With its origin in the Barrington Morpeth. The preliminary studies include:
Tops, the river connects communities along Engineering - Flooding and stormwater
approximately 468 kilometres to the Port of assessment
Newcastle. Heritage assessment
Environmental assessment
Queens Wharf at Morpeth was identified by
Traffic assessment
Council as a priority site for improvement
Community consultation.
with upgraded entry points, public
facilities and recreational opportunities. The preliminary studies were then used
The surrounding area is a popular tourist to inform the plan of management and
destination, drawing visitors to its beautiful masterplan.
tree lined streets and many historical
The plan of management is an important
buildings. Accessed from Swan Street, the
planning tool, setting out the guidelines
riverside park presents an opportunity to
for how a site will be managed, used and
improve and upgrade the facilities for all the
improved.
community to enjoy.
The site is an important community asset
As a result, Council has engaged
with natural and heritage significance.
Mara Consulting to develop a plan of
management and masterplan for the The plan of management incorporates
Queens Wharf. A key component of this community values and guides how the areas
project is to engage with stakeholders to might be improved or enhanced.
gain feedback and input into the design
process.
5 www.maraconsulting.com.au
1850 Plan
NSW State Records
6 www.maraconsulting.com.au
The masterplan is an illustration of what Adjacent to the Hunter River, the popular
Morpeth would look like if the plan of recreational area is used for a range of
management is implemented. It is a scaled recreational and water activities. The boat
site drawing that lays out items such as: ramp on the site is the only one within a
Facilities 15 kilometre radius to service motorised
Access points craft. A variety of vessels including motor
Planting areas boats, canoes, kayaks and dragon boats
Walkways and pathways are launched into the river from the
Heritage items and memorials existing ramp. The wharf also provides
Parking areas and circulation the opportunities for larger water craft to
Open spaces and play areas moor and for people to participate in other
Signage recreational water pursuits such as fishing.
Jetties or launch areas
There is no formalised pedestrian access to
Other ideas through the design &
the site, which indicates that the primary
consultation phases.
method of reaching the site is by vehicle.
A staged works program is then prepared
Some pedestrian footpaths have been
with projects costed and prioritised.
installed within the site, but only between
Project Location the existing parking and the boat ramp.
The project site is located at Morpeth, a A shortage of parking spaces for cars and
suburb of Maitland with a population of trailers in the area has been identified
1260 (source: ABS Census 2011), located on as an issue. The site currently provides
the Hunter River. some parking, public amenities and picnic
facilities, seating tables, shelters and
The project site is has regional historical landscaping.
significance, being a major port servicing
the region during early European A detailed analysis of the site will be
settlement. included in the Plan of Management for
Morpeth.
7 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Workshop participants providing feedback.
8 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Community Presence of Maitland City Council
Officers at Maitland Taste Festival.
Consultation This report also contains a summary of
the feedback from the online survey and
Overview gathered at the facilitated workshops with
key stakeholders and users of the facilities
Consultation is a key component of the
at Morpeth.
project and a holistic approach to engaging
with stakeholders has been adopted Objectives
throughout the project. The consultation
component has included: The objectives of the Hunter River Access
Developing a consultation and Project community consultation were to:
engagement plan that identifies Make the community and stakeholders
stakeholders and lists planned activities aware of the project
to support the development of the Disseminate information to
Plans of Management and Masterplans stakeholders, residents and local
Consultation with the working group businesses
made up of representatives from Enable the community to provide
Council, TfNSW and RMS to update the feedback and ideas for the design of
group on the projects progress potential future facilities
A workshop held with the community Assist in the development of
at Morpeth (Thursday 03/03/2016) recommendations to be incorporated
An online survey (open on 01/02/2016 in the plan of management and
and closing 18/3/2016) with more than masterplan for both sites.
100 responses Community Consultation
A presentation to the Maitland Sport
and Recreation Advisory Board process
(15/02/2016) Consultation methodology
Door knocking of businesses in Swan
Completed between January and March
Street Maitland
2016, the consultation sought input from
Letter box drop to residents in Morpeth
a range of stakeholders including users of
adjacent to the site
the recreational area, residents, businesses
Targeted focus meetings with relevant
and sporting groups to determine how the
stakeholders throughout the process
riverside location can be improved.
Project fact sheet available in electronic
and hard copy format A number of activities were ongoing
Updates on Maitland City Councils throughout the project and included two
Facebook page, Your Say website and key streams of engagement. The first was
Your Say Facebook page seeking input and feedback through digital
Advertising to advise of workshops and mediums (online survey, Facebook, website
survey and email). The second was face-to-face
Email and telephone inquiries and discussions with interested stakeholders and
responses groups through the workshop, meetings
Maitland Your Say information and and presentations.
feedback page
9 www.maraconsulting.com.au
A media release officially launched the questions and accept feedback about the
consultation, inviting interested members project. A dedicated project page was
of the community to attend the facilitated also created on the Maitland Your Say
community workshop held on 3 March engagement hub to provide information
2016. Thirty-seven people attended the and online feedback options to all
workshop, and a number of activities were community members.
conducted to guide the conversation and
The website provided project information,
ascertain the communitys aspirations for
Frequently Asked Questions as well as a
the site.
link to the online survey and an ideas board
At the conclusion of the workshop, for community feedback. All upcoming
feedback forms were provided to attendees consultation opportunities were noted
at the meetings as well as a visual aid that on the site and updated as the project
allowed participants to indicate how they progressed.
felt about the consultation activities.
Consultation Timing
Social media was used to promote and
Stakeholders were able to provide input
encourage input into the project with a
into the project between early January
number of posts included on the Maitland
2016 and 18 March 2016. The online survey
Your Say Facebook page and on Councils
was closed on 18 March 2016, however
Facebook page. See Appendix 2 for
submissions beyond this time frame were
materials and posts.
accepted and included in the final report.
An online survey was shared and promoted
Further discussions with interested
to stakeholders, with hard copy versions
community groups were scheduled once
available to interested community members
draft concept plans were developed for
without access to the internet. A copy of the
both sites. The aim of this additional round
survey is included in Appendix 7.
of consultation was to gain feedback from
The project team attended the Maitland key groups prior to submission to Council
Taste Festival on 12 and 13 March 2016 as and the public exhibition of the plans.
part of the Maitland Your Say engagement
The project timeline in diagram 1 (below),
booth. During the two day festival, Council
illustrates that the consultation process was
team members were available to answer
ongoing throughout the project.
10 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Key findings and emerging themes
The Hunter River Access community
consultation report identifies the values
and aspirations that stakeholders have
for the recreational area. It also identifies
opportunities for those elements to be
incorporated or enhanced in the future.
There were a number of key themes
that emerged for the site, through the
consultation process, including:
1. Safety - Conflict of different uses
2. Access - Improving access for a range of
needs and users
3. Connections - Pathways, cycleways and
roads
4. Amenities & Infrastructure - Facilities,
amenities and structures
5. Maintenance - Regular and ongoing
maintenance of the riverside
6. Events - Hosting events, community
activities and tourism opportunities
7. Environment - Improvement of the
natural environment.
Ongoing design process. Technical reports and consultation input into design
11 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Participants at the community workshop
12 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Consultation Results
Overview
Engaging with stakeholders is an important Follow up meetings and discussions were
part of the planning process. Understanding held with stakeholders once a draft concept
what users and visitors value and their was developed.
aspirations for the facility helped to better
inform the future vision for this recreational Queens Wharf Stakeholders
area. The Queens Wharf is a popular and well
Additionally, engagement and consultation utilised community facility and provides a
provides Council with information to plan safe, central location for aquatic sports and
for new facilities and upgrades that fit with activities. A number of organised groups
the long-term strategic plan. regularly use the facility, however casual
users frequent the facility to enjoy the large
This document is designed to summarise open space.
the discussion and feedback gathered from
the engagement activities that were carried
out between January and March 2016 in
regards to the plan for Queens Wharf.
13 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Looking towards Queens Wharf, Morpeth
14 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Stakeholder workshop
In response to Councils desire to improve ideas about current and potential future
community facilities and access to the uses of the riverside park.
Hunter River at Morpeth, a stakeholder
This section of the report summarises the
engagement workshop was conducted
priority issues for those in attendance
with interested community members and
at the workshop held on 3 March 2016.
current users of the facility. As part of the
The workshop was attended by 37
process, stakeholders were asked to share
representatives from a range of user groups,
their thoughts on what is good, what needs
Councillors and Council officers.
improvement and also their thoughts and
Table 2: Attendees - Hunter River Access Morpeth Workshop
Name Name
The workshop was also attended by Amanda McMahon (MCC), Tadd Andersen (Mara
Consulting), Kate Bestwick (Mara Consulting) and facilitated by Kelly Lofberg (Mara
Consulting).
Cr Bob Geoghegan (MCC) attended for a short period and left so community members could
participate.
15 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Workshop process
The workshop was designed to elicit Report:
feedback from current park users and Identify opportunities that can be
provide an opportunity for participants to included in the Plan of Management
give their opinion on whats good and not and Masterplan for the Hunter River
so good about Queens Wharf. The aim of Access upgrade
the workshop was not to reach a consensus, Make recommendations based on
but to stimulate options and ideas for a the feedback.
future upgrade to the project area.
The workshop was ended prematurely
The workshop commenced with an initial and some visioning exercises were not
discussion including: completed as there was a level of distrust
Explanation of the project: held by some participants that was difficult
Developing a Plan of Management to resolve. This was in regards to the
and Masterplan for the site intention of the project, more specifically
Explanation of what the plans do the belief that the project was specifically
Plan for the future being undertaken with the intention of
Project phases and milestones. expanding the boat ramp. This lead to
Understanding why the area is spirited debate throughout the workshop
important: and ultimately forced the early conclusion
Current users of the workshop.
Future users.
It should be noted that this project is not
Generating ideas and start a
about the expansion of the boat ramp at
conversation:
the site, rather the improvement of the
Whats good and not so good about
project site for the entire community to
Queens Wharf
enjoy.
Generate ideas and what could be
included at the project site.
16 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Workshop activities
After a presentation about the purpose of Activity 2: Direction - Future uses
the workshop, participants were encouraged and facilities
to participate in four activities to generate a
discussion. Participants were asked to identify how the
park could be used in the future (should
It was the role of Mara to facilitate the improvements be made). What would they
discussion and record the outcomes. like to do, see and experience in the future?
Activity 1: Understanding Queens Activity 3: Wish list - Whats
Wharf Morpeth missing from the facility?
Understanding how people currently access Participants were asked to think about the
and use the project area helps to give a future - 5, 10, 20 years from now and how
good framework for improving the site. do we get there. What are the activities,
Three questions were asked: events, facilities, tourism opportunities,
Access: How do you get to the site? infrastructure needs and other ideas that
will make the park a venue for future
Uses: How do you use Morpeth
generations.
Riverside Park? Participants were asked
to identify how the park is current used. Activity 4: One important thing
Issues: Are there any problems or The workshop ended with participants
concerns? Participants were asked to being asked what is the one reason they
identify what are the weaknesses of the were at the workshop - one thing they
project site, what needs improvement wanted us to take away?
and what they dont like about the
facility.
17 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Analysis of Comments
Outcomes - Key themes
The workshop was structured to generate A number of people raised concerns about
a conversation to gain an understanding of children swimming around the boat ramp
what stakeholders value or feel is important creating a safety issue.
about the riverside area at Morpeth. It was
A summary of the feedback gathered
important that everyone in attendance had
through the activities from participants is
the ability to have their opinion heard and
included in the following pages and will
included in the discussion. This was difficult
be used in the development of the Plan of
during the workshop due to the ongoing
Management and Masterplan for the site.
and spirited debate in regards to the
projects objective. A number of recurrent themes were evident
during the conversation with stakeholders
All participants in the workshop were asked
and are summarised in Figure 1 below.
to share what was good and why the space
These will be summarised later in this report
is important to them. Everyone agreed that
with suggested priorities. Sub-themes will
they valued the heritage significance of
be included under the below headings.
Queens Wharf and of Morpeth township.
Participants talked about the size of the Themes are not ranked in any particular
boat ramp and the conflict of the different order.
user groups.
KEY THEMES
What participants said
18 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Current uses of Queens Wharf Morpeth
How stakeholders use the community space
According to participants at the workshop, capitalising on the historical aspects of the
Queens Wharf at Morpeth is used for a site.
range of activities, on land and in the water.
As the only public boat ramp in the
Participants said they used the site for Maitland City Council area, the site is
walking, exercising dogs, swimming, picnics popular for launching both motorised and
and passive recreation. non-motorised boats. Participants said they
regularly use the toilets and showers on site,
Many said that they visit the area to enjoy
with some traveling to the site because of
water sports and to use the boat ramp. The
the amenities.
space was also valued for its natural beauty
and river setting. Participants said that they often drive to the
river edge at Queens Wharf to show visitors
A few participants were keen on using the
the area to take in the natural beauty and
area for business and tourism opportunities,
get close the river.
Launching boats
Enjoying the peace & serenity
Walking
Fishing
Picnics & parties
Fun and activities with children
Picnics
Exercise
Stand up paddle boarding
Swimming & paddling
Tourism & business opportunities
Taking visitors
River gazing & chilling out
Dog walking & swimming
Paddling kayaks
Dragon boating
Ball sports
Water skiing & wake boarding
People watching.
Bird watching
19 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Issues for the park - whats not so good
What stakeholders said needs improvement
Safety was the most significant theme to participants talked about areas of the site
emerge from the workshop. Participants that were unusable after wet weather and
raised the conflict between different users, flooding events with some areas in need
particularly swimmers and boats as a of significant rehabilitation. Additionally,
concern. Getting into the site safely was concerns with the stabilisation of the bank
raised. This included vehicle, boating and and erosion along the river edge were
pedestrian access. raised.
Environmental issues also raised concern, Participants also identified the lack of shade,
particularly the erosion of the bank due to mature trees and covered picnic areas as
flooding and boat wash. Participants talked items for improvement.
about the original wharf and potential
Political influences and a lack of trust in
damage to the heritage items if the boat
Council were raised as issues in the general
ramp was enlarged.
discussion, although not recorded in the
Discussion about the boat ramp caused activities. Some participants felt that Council
passionate debate and the most angst had not shown any interest in addressing
amongst the participants. Some participants the issues previously raised by residents or
were adamant that any expansion of the in following through on previous promises.
ramp would compromise the site. Some
Stakeholders said:
along river
20 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Queens Wharf improvements
How the park could be used and upgraded
This activity was completed individually use the space such as additional shade over
and then each item or idea was discussed seating, boat storage, a pavilion and spaces
as a group. The aim was to find out what for children to play. Participants also wanted
improvements participants would like installation of signage to recognise the
to see at Queens Wharf and to identify history of the area.
opportunities to prioritise upgrades at
There was no clear third priority area with
the park for varying time frames - short,
other suggestions spread across a number
medium and long term.
of themes. Events for the community or
Connections such as shared pathways for tourism and improvements to the
was the highest priority upgrade that environment each received 3 suggestions
participants would like at the site. The each.
responses were predominantly related to
Also notable was the low priority
linking the main street and businesses to
participants gave to improving the boat
the community facility. People identified
ramp in the future. The boat ramp ranked
a walkway along the river edge acting as
as one of the highest reasons for why
a heritage walk that links the old tram
people currently use the site. The topic was
station and the bridge as important. This
also passionately debated when talking
project is identified within the Morpeth
about the current concerns of the space,
Management Plan 2000 with funds collected
however it was not raised as an area for
through the 2006 Citywide s94 Plan.
improvement in the future by participants.
However, Council is yet to acquire the land
A small number of participants commented
to enable the project to proceed.
that the workshop was filled with boat
Improved infrastructure and amenities owners or those with vested interests who
were also high on participants wish wanted the boat ramp expanded however
list. Participants were interested in this was not reflected in the comments
improvements that encouraged people to received.
Stakeholders said:
Sealed parking
Better road access to the site
Proper landscaped pathway to
bridge.
Heritage walk between bridge and
old tram station
Clubhouse for boat storage
Pavilion for groups
Walkway along water
Create a beach to the west of the
boat ramp for non-power boat use
Historical signs
Stabilisation works to the river bank Restaurant/cafe
Safe water access Access to shops
Disability/pram friendly access Sealed parking
Construct a kiddies play area More maintenance on existing boat
Historical events and tourism parking area
opportunities
Clean up ramp
Shade over seating and more trees
Heritage preserved, enhanced &
explained
Overnight RV camping area
tourist attraction
Larger or separate boat ramp
Reinstate the railway line as a
21 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Other workshop activities
Conclusion of the workshop
Mara Consulting has been engaged to Participants were encouraged to contact
understand the communitys desires for Mara Consulting should they want to
the staged improvement of a parcel of land discuss any element of the project or have
adjacent to the Hunter River at Morpeth. the opportunity to provide additional input
This area is known as Queens Wharf. It to be included in the consultation report. A
should be noted that this project is not number of community members took the
about the expansion of the existing boat opportunity to either provide feedback in
ramp at Morpeth, rather the improvement writing or organised one-on-one meetings
of the entire project site for the entire with Mara staff. These submissions will be
community to enjoy. Through consultation summarised later in this report.
and gaining feedback from stakeholders
Participants overwhelmingly stated at the
about their aspirations for the site, these
conclusion of the event that they wanted
ideas can be fed into the design process
to protect Queens Wharf precinct for all
and reflected in the Plan of Management
to enjoy. They also provided feedback on
and Masterplan.
how Mara staff facilitated the workshop.
However, some participants did not believe Participants indicated that the facilitation
the answers provided. There was a level of was delicately and respectfully managed
distrust that was difficult to resolve during given the differing opinions of those
the night, which lead to spirited debate and present.
ultimately forced the early conclusion of the
workshop.
22 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Survey results
An online survey was used to investigate were captured. One survey was conducted
options for improving access to the Hunter to cover two project sites (Queens Wharf
River. The benefits of using an online survey Morpeth and Lorn Riverbank), which reflects
meant that it could be shared through the large number of Lorn residents that
digital platforms such as Facebook, websites responded.
and email links to reach a broad section of
Demographics
the community. Many people find the time
to complete a paper survey cumbersome Approximately eighty-four per cent of
and fail to return the completed respondents were between the ages of 25
questionnaire. to 54, with most respondents in the 35 to
The survey was available to be completed 44 age bracket. Approximately twenty per
between 01/02/2016 and 18/03/2016, with cent of respondents lived in the suburb of
Lorn, seven per cent from Morpeth and
103 people responding. Only one paper
seventy-three per cent from elsewhere in
survey was completed and entered manually
the Maitland Local Government Area.
into the database to ensure their views
Age
Gender
23 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Where do you live
Stakeholders said:
I have been using this water at Morpeth for 50 years for fresh water fishing.
This is part of the Hunter River and a precious resource to EVERYONE in the Hunter.
24 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Upgrades to Queens Wharf Morpeth
Respondents where asked to indicate Improvements to infrastructure and
how important potential upgrades to amenities also ranked highly amongst
Queens Wharf were to them. The highest respondents. There was a strong desire
priority was to launch boats with ninety- for more picnic tables, shaded areas and a
six per cent of people indicating this was space for children to play.
extremely important (84%) or important
Upgrades to the boat ramp was the third
(12%). Launching kayaks and canoes was
highest priority. Respondents indicated
also important as well as a space for picnics.
that a separate area for launching canoes
Picnic areas and a safe swimming spot
and kayaks was an important upgrade.
were also identified as upgrades of high
Safety was raised as a concern, particularly
importance.
the conflict between the different boating
It should be noted that only 6 respondents types and swimmers that all use the ramp
lived in Morpeth. These results may be a area for access. Creating a sandy beach
reflection of the high proportion of people area for swimmers and separate space for
that live elsewhere in the local government non-motorised craft was an idea that was
area that completed the survey but travel repeated amongst respondents.
to use the boat ramp and access the Hunter
Of note, there were a high proportion of
River.
respondents that use Queens Wharf for
Open ended questions launching motorised and non-motorised
craft, however, only one person suggested
Survey respondents were asked what
widening the ramp. This does not seem to
changes would most improve the Morpeth
be a consideration for boat users.
site. After an analysis of the comments,
parking was the highest priority of those Safety and maintenance of the facility were
who completed the survey. People said raised, particularly after flooding and storm
that a specific parking area for trailers was events.
important.
Stakeholders said:
Establish a separate river sand/beach area to the west of the existing boat
ramp to provide a safe area for launching paddle craft.
Separation between power boats and non power boats. Launching area for
kayaks & canoes.
It would be lovely to use the picnic facilities but be able to see the river from
where you are sitting, it could be a beautiful view and picnic stop.
The wharf needs to be better designed as people dock their boats making it
inaccessible for others to gain access when they do.
The issue with Morpeth boat ramp is that it is not maintained and access
to the ramp at the moment is extremely compromised and dangerous. The
ramp is also not long enough at low tide with trailers regularly dropping off
the end. There is also no room to pick up the driver of the vehicle to board
or to drop them off.
Maitland needs an extensive off road shared cycle and walking pathway.
25 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Upgrades to Queens Wharf
Other responses
A number of people provided feedback via The separation of different uses, such as
email, letters or in person. Mara Consulting motorised boats, non-motorised boats
staff had one-on-one meetings with and swimmers was raised by a number of
interested stakeholders after the workshop. people. A dedicated swimming area with a
The feedback and suggestions presented beach was emphasised.
were very particular to that stakeholder
Protection of the heritage of the area was
or to the group that they represented.
raised. One submission raised boat wash
However, comments were not dissimilar to
and planting of trees along the water edge
those that were raised at the workshop, in
area causing issues. Another said that any
the survey or through social media.
development should be sympathetic to
Submissions were made by the Morpeth Morpeths heritage character and protect
Heritage Conservation Group, The Residents the river bank from erosion.
Committee of Closebourne Retirement
Maintenance and safety were of particular
Village, Morpeth residents including those
concerns to residents in the vicinity of the
who live adjacent to the park in Steamer
facility. Night-time antisocial behaviour
Street, Maitland City Offshore Fishing Club,r
and social problems are a concern.
representatives of the businesses in Swan
Improvements should consider increased
Street and a local land owner.
lighting and maintenance of the facility as
Covered seating areas with access to the area backs onto a number of residential
barbecues for large groups was a particular properties.
requirement. Lighting of the area and
Maintenance including bin pick ups, regular
additional parking should be considered.
mowing, cleaning of the toilet block and
Emphasis on family-friendly facilities for cleaning of the carpark especially after
everyone to enjoy was raised. heavy rain or flood events should be
considered.
Stakeholders said:
Constant boat wash and planting of trees on the edge of the river bank are
causing serious issues with the preservation of Morpeths history.
I would like to talk about maintenance of public spaces and the importance
of considering this issue in the planning strategies.
26 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Online feedback
Other Contributions
Social & digital media
The Maitland Your Say page is a digital Several posts were boosted reaching over
platform hosted by Maitland City Council 15,000 people. Many people expressed an
and used to engage with a broad range of interest in the project and provided their
stakeholders. An ideas board was hosted feedback and ideas for Hunter River Access
on the project page asking participants to improvements.
share their ideas for ways to improve access
The highest priority identified through
and recreation opportunities for both study
online engagement was the desire for new
sites. Six comments were shared on the
infrastructure and amenities. A number of
board and two votes were placed.
people compared facilities found around
Social media tools were identified in the Lake Macquarie as improvements they
engagement strategy as an effective way to would like.
seek feedback from a wide range of users,
Shared pathways for cyclists and walkers
residents and visitors to Queens Wharf.
were also another priority for Facebook
There are currently more than 2,500 likers users. Others wanted a water play or slide at
on the Maitland Your Say page, providing Morpeth. A designated swimming area away
access to a large stakeholder group. The from boats was a priority, with some saying
Maitland Your Say page was not only used its dangerous and they have had to cut the
as a method of directly seeking feedback motor when children jump out in front of
but also a means of circulating information them.
about the project, consultation activities,
(It should be noted that feedback through
workshops, ways to provide feedback and
social media included two sites: Queens
regular posts to encourage people to get
Wharf, Morpeth and the Lorn Riverside
involved. A total of eight posts appeared
Park. Some comments were specific to the
on the Maitland Your Say Facebook page
Morpeth site, however, many were common
about the project.
to both.)
Stakeholders said:
27 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Consultation Outcomes Summary
Specific key themes & priorities
This section of the report summarises the key themes or focus areas that emerged from
the workshop, through the online survey, Facebook feedback and individual responses.
Aims then outline ways to capitalise on the focus area and then a list of suggested
activities are included to help achieve these outcomes and a renewed vision to be included
in the Queens Wharf Plan of Management and Masterplan.
1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users & visitors
AIM: To improve safety for all users & separate uses where practical.
AIM: To improve & upgrade Queens Wharf for all the community to enjoy.
28 www.maraconsulting.com.au
3. Connections - Provide pathways & links
To acknowledge, protect and enhance the historical value of the site and
AIM:
the suburb of Morpeth.
29 www.maraconsulting.com.au
6. Events & activities - Activating the space
30 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Conclusion
The Queens Wharf Morpeth community consultation was conducted as part of a larger
project, which will see the creation of a Plan of Management and Masterplan for the
site. The community was welcomed into the design process and offered an opportunity
to provide feedback and highlight their concerns and aspirations for the site to be
incorporated into the project.
The consultation was at times difficult due to long-standing concerns held by the different
individuals. However, by separating the emotion from the debate and listening to the
desires of the broad range of user groups, the similarities were striking.
Through all the discussions and feedback received, people thoroughly enjoy using the
space at Queens Wharf. They value the historical importance of the site and want to
encourage business and tourism opportunities.
The creation of new pathways around the site, connections to the main streets and shops
as well as a walkway along the river edge were universally supported. More importantly,
there was genuine excitement when a member of the community said that they would like
to gift a parcel of land to Council to make this aspiration a reality.
The boat ramp was the hot-button issue, however there was no desire to expand the ramp
amongst any of the stakeholders that were engaged in this project. There was a desire
to improve the safety of the boat ramp by potentially extending it into the river to avoid
vehicles slipping off the edge into the water. There was also support for additional tie up
areas so users can safely leave boats while collecting their trailer.
This report will be used to help inform the Queens Wharf Plan of Management and
Masterplan being completed by Mara Consulting. Stakeholders will have another
opportunity to comment on the project during the public exhibition period of the Draft
Plan of Management and Masterplan.
This task completes the stakeholder consultation for the project.
31 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 1 - Hunter River Access Factsheet
32 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Page 2 of Hunter River Access Factsheet
33 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 2 - Social media advertising
34 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer
Edition 2015/2016
35 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 4: MCC Media Release
GET ON BOARD AND HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE HUNTER RIVER
Council is inviting the community to get on board and share their ideas about how to improve access and
recreation along the Hunter River at The Esplanade in Lorn and at Queens Wharf in Morpeth.
Councils Manager Community and Recreation Services Lynn Morton says, The Hunter River is an essential part of
Maitlands identity. Not only is it one of our citys greatest assets, but it has always played a central role in the life
and growth of the city.
The Hunter River has the potential to cater for a range of recreational activities, but as a community we dont use
it to its full potential. This is in part because access to the river is restricted by the lack of suitable entry points as
well as the absence of public facilities.
A study was undertaken by Council to identify potential sites for future development to improve access to the
Hunter River for recreational purposes. The study recommended that a Plan of Management and Masterplan be
undertaken for land adjoining the river at The Esplanade in Lorn and Queens Wharf in Morpeth.
These plans will set out how these reserves will be used, managed and improved over time to enhance access
points to the river and recreational opportunities for the Maitland community.
Council has recently engaged Mara Consulting to work with the community and seek input into the design and to
develop the plans for both sites.
This important project will direct future development along the riverbank, which will shape how we as a
community use and interact with the Hunter River. I encourage you to get involved because we want to make sure
the river has the best possible facilities so everyone can enjoy all it has to offer, said Ms Morton.
Mara consulting will be holding two workshops next week where residents can speak with the project team and
provide ideas and suggestions. The first workshop will be held on Wednesday 2 March from 6.00pm to 7.30pm at
Lorn Park Bowling Club in Melrose Street, Lorn. The second workshop is on Thursday 3 March from 6.00pm to
7.30pm at St James Parish Hall, 19 Tank Street, Morpeth.
Anyone interested in attending should contact Councils Recreation Projects Officer Amanda McMahon on 02
4939 1011 or email amanda.mcmahon@maitland.nsw.gov.au. Residents can also share their views through
Councils online engagement hub, Maitland Your Say, by heading to maitlandyoursay.com.au
36 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
37 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
38 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
39 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
40 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
41 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 6: Feedback from workshop
Images: Participants were asked how they felt about the workshop.
NOTE: Comments received indicated that particpants thought the facilititation was well
managed, however were disappointed in their inability to participate fully.
42 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 7: Survey
43 www.maraconsulting.com.au
44 www.maraconsulting.com.au
45 www.maraconsulting.com.au
46 www.maraconsulting.com.au
47 www.maraconsulting.com.au
48 www.maraconsulting.com.au
49 www.maraconsulting.com.au
50 www.maraconsulting.com.au
51 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 8: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board
52 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 9: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board
53 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 10: Invitation to Workshop
54 www.maraconsulting.com.au
This page has been left blank intentionally.
55 www.maraconsulting.com.au
MARA
CONSULTING
Landscape Architecture | Urban Design | Environmental Planning
Communication | Consultation | Government Relations
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
www.maraconsulting.com.au
27 JUNE 2017
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 4
Number of Pages: 94
Archaeological
Management Plan
Historical and Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage
Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth
10 June, 2016
Rev 1 (Final)
Report Details
Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage - Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth
Job #: J0150361, Folder #: F14193, Revision: 1 (Final), Date: 10 June, 2016
Filename: 14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx
Pr epared For
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Tadd Andersen, Landscape Architect, Environmental Planner & Urban Planner
Email: tadd@maraconsulting.com.au Telephone: 0458 233 001
5 Griffiths Avenue, Stockton, NSW, 2295
PO Box 100 Stockton, NSW, 2295
Pr epared By
Advitech Pty Limited t/a Advitech Environmental
ABN: 29 003 433 458
Viki Gordon, Senior Archaeologist
Email: viki.gordon@advitech.com.au, Telephone: 02 4924 5400, Mobile: 0411 756 283
Facsimile: 02 4967 3772, Web: www.advitech.com.au, General Email: mail@advitech.com.au
7 Riverside Drive Mayfield West NSW 2304 PO Box 207 Mayfield NSW 2304
History
Date Revision Comments
29 January, 2016 0 Draft for review
10 June, 2016 1 Updated draft for review
10 June, 2016 2 Final
Endorsements
Function Signature Name and Title Date
Viki Gordon
Prepared by 10 June, 2016
Senior Archaeologist
DISCLAIMER - Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this document
is made in good faith, but on the basis that liability (whether by reason of negligence or otherwise) is
strictly limited to that expressed on our standard Conditions of Engagement.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY All Intellectual Property rights in this document remain the property
of Advitech Pty Ltd. This document must only be used for the purposes for which it is provided
and not otherwise reproduced, copied or distributed without the express consent of Advitech.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Extract of T. Kasss historical summary from Higginbothams 2002 Archaeological Management
Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth, NSW
On behalf of Maitland City Council, Mara Consulting Pty Ltd contracted Advitech Environmental to
prepare this Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) for the Queens Wharf precinct in Morpeth, in the
Maitland City Council (MCC) Local Government Area. The NSW Heritage Council (2009)
recommends that all Archaeological Management Plans be reviewed regularly, and Higginbotham
(2002) recommends that his 2002 AMP for the site should be reviewed in 10 years time. A review is
considered necessary in order to account for changing community requirements.
This AMP is designed to assist and facilitate the archaeological heritage management for Councils
planning considerations, such as the Local Environmental Plan, and other related planning
instruments, as they pertain to the Queens Wharf Precinct. This AMP will form part of an overall Plan
of Management and Masterplan for the Morpeth Queens Street Wharf Precinct.
The Plan has been designed to accommodate an integration of the historic and Aboriginal cultural
heritage landscapes. This was not achieved within Higginbothams report, as it was based on an
historic aspect only. Brown (2007) noted that heritage management and planning is often focused on
historic aspects without taking into account Aboriginal cultural heritage, nature and biodiversity. The
cultural landscape of an area should not be considered spatially separate from the specific cultural
heritage sites within it. Instead, it should be considered that cultural landscapes are formed from
natural systems and shaped by history and culture (Brown 2007:34).
Aside from the largely unknown Aboriginal cultural heritage of the area, the Queens Wharf Precinct
has the potential to reveal a variety of information relating to the town of Morpeth and nearby Maitland.
This site is of State significance, as this location was home to the development and demise of the first
major shipping port north of Sydney, established shortly following colonisation.
Advitech Pty Limited (trading as Advitech Environmental) was engaged by Mara Consulting Pty Ltd to
provide a desktop review of the Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) for the Queens Wharf
Precinct, Morpeth (Higginbotham, 2002). In accordance with Section 3 of the Guidelines for the
preparation of Archaeological Management Plans (NSW Heritage Council 2009) (GPAMP), it is
recommended that all AMPs be reviewed regularly. Higginbotham (2002) himself expressed the
opinion that his 2002 AMP should be reviewed in 10 years time. A review is considered necessary in
order to account for changing community requirements and needs - different communities will
reassess what they consider valuable and important over time (GPAMP 2009, pg 22). As a result,
research frameworks and significance assessments can change.
This AMP is designed to assist and facilitate the archaeological heritage management for Maitland City
Councils (MCC) planning considerations, such as the Local Environmental Plan, and other related
planning instruments as they pertain to the Queens Wharf Precinct at Morpeth. An AMP is designed to
allow timely consideration of the archaeological needs and requirements of an area during the
planning process. This AMP will form part of an overall Plan of Management and Masterplan for the
Queens Street Wharf Precinct, which is situated on the southern banks of the Hunter River at Morpeth,
NSW (see Figure 2.1).
This AMP has been designed to accommodate an integration of both the historic and Aboriginal
cultural heritage landscapes. Brown (2007) noted that heritage management and planning is often
focused on specific historic aspects, without taking into account Aboriginal cultural heritage, nature
and biodiversity. The cultural landscape of an area is not spatially separated from the specific cultural
heritage sites within it. Instead, it should be considered that cultural landscapes themselves are
formed from natural systems and shaped by history and culture (Brown, 2007).
The Queens Wharf Precinct has the potential to reveal a variety of information relating to the towns of
Morpeth and nearby Maitland, and most importantly, the development and demise of the first major
shipping port north of Sydney.
Evidence of the once-important role of the Hunter and its tributaries in the life of the
region is clear, especially so in the cultural landscapes of the old river ports like Morpeth.
(King and Woolmington 1960, pg 3).
2. LOCALITY
The Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth is partly zoned RU1 Primary Production and RE1 Public
Recreation (MCCs Scope of Works, 2015) and is within the Maitland Council Heritage Conservation
Zone (MCC LEP 2011). It is irregular in shape, comprising approximately 4.7 Ha, on the southern
bank of the Hunter River and accessed off Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2).
The full title particulars, ownership, control and management for the parcels of land that form the
Queens Wharf Precinct are listed in Table 1.
Figure 2.2 Locality of Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth with lot boundaries and title details
(Source: MCCs Scope of Works)
In 2002, Mr Edward Higginbotham prepared an AMP of the Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth, NSW for
MCC (Higginbotham 2002). Higginbothams AMP in 2002 also included an archaeological historic
heritage assessment. The objective of the current AMP is to provide MCC and their representatives
with an update and review of Higginbothams AMP in 2002. This review was contemplated by both
Higginbotham (2002) in his report and the Guidelines for the preparation of Archaeological
Management Plans (GPAMP) (Heritage Council of NSW 2009). Particular regard will has been had to
the current development considerations for the site as identified in the MCCs Scope of Works, Plan of
Management and Masterplan for Queens Wharf Morpeth (2015) (MCCs Scope of Works 2015).
MCC is considering the improvement of recreational access to the Hunter River and its banks from
public land. The Hunter River is considered a significant asset within the Maitland LGA, but one which
is currently largely unused by the community. Access to the river is currently restricted by a lack of
entry points, as well as the absence of public facilities adjacent the river. MCC has identified a need
for additional facilities to be provided for non-motorised vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, dragon
boats, surf skis and paddle boards (MCCs Scope of Works, 2015).
In 1997, the Historical Survey of Morpeth Wharves was undertaken for the Morpeth and District
Progress Association Inc. (Hunter, 1997). This study recommended that a full archaeological
assessment and conservation of the remaining wharf sites be undertaken. In 2014, studies were
undertaken by MCC to identify potential sites for the future development of access to the river for
recreational purposes, including the launching of non-motorised vessels. This consideration is listed
as an objective in Councils +10 Community Strategic Plan (2013) and the Associated Delivery Plan
(2013-2017). The Port Stephens Hunter Regional Boating Plan (2014), also designates the area as
requiring investigation and assessment for the same purpose. The development of the Queens Wharf
Morpeth is considered a Priority Regional Project and eligible for funding under the NSW Boating Now
program announced by the Minister for Roads and Freight in August 2014. In February 2015, Council
endorsed the study and its recommendations, including that a Plan of Management and Masterplan be
prepared for land located at the Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth.
This AMP aims to provide an overview and understanding of the Aboriginal and historic archaeological
heritage of the project area. It will assist the development of management strategies for conserving
the significance of the site, which incorporates all facets of the Queens Wharf Precincts cultural
landscape and its significant known elements. It reviews, from a desktop perspective, Higginbothams
4. LIMITATIONS
This AMP has been prepared and the policies reviewed and formulated based on information
researched within the time frame and budget for preparing this report. The information contained in
this document was complete at the time of preparation of this report. It should be expected that further
information will come to light from time to time. This AMP is based on a desktop assessment only and
it is therefore recommended that the AMP be updated, prior to finalisation of the Archaeological Plan of
Management and Masterplan for the Queens Street Wharf Precinct, as follows:
To adopt the recommendations and results of a full and up to date Historical Heritage
Assessment as recommended in this AMP;
To adopt the recommendations and results of a full Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment
as recommended in this AMP;
As new historical or cultural evidence comes to light from community and stakeholder
consultation; and
If further development within the Queens Wharf Precinct is anticipated.
This report was prepared by Advitech Pty Limited for Mara Consulting Pty Ltd (the customer) in
accordance with the scope of work and specific requirements agreed between Advitech and the
customer. This report was prepared with background information, terms of reference and assumptions
agreed with the customer. The report is not intended for use by any other individual or organisation
and as such, Advitech will not accept liability for use of the information contained in this report, other
than that which was intended at the time of writing.
5. METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in the preparation of this AMP is consistent with the guidelines of the Australia
ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance and the Burra Charter, 1999.
The following diagram illustrates the normal methodology adopted for an AMP:
As previously mentioned, this review is based on a desktop assessment only. A review of the physical
analysis and constraints should be added once both historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage
assessments have been finalised.
Understanding
the place
Assessment of
significance
Other
Client needs and
constraints Conservation constraints
policy
Recommendations
and Implementation
Figure 5.1 Methodology used in preparation of this Plan of Management
6. HISTORICAL RESEARCH
There is little known, recorded or reported about the local Aboriginal people of the Morpeth area. A full
Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment should provide more information about the known historical
aspects of the area and a potential model of Aboriginal sites.
According to Elkin (1979), the original of name of Morpeth, Illulaung was the Aboriginal name for the
whole area south of the Hunter River, including the East Maitland hills. The Language from the Hunter
River and Lake Macquarie (HRLM) is thought to have been spoken by the people now known as
Awabakal, Wonnarua, Guringgai, and most likely Geawegal and Wonnarua. HRLM language belongs
to the Pama-Nyungan family of Australia languages. It is one of 35 languages once spoken in the
area, now known as NSW. HRLM has a rich collection of historical sources, the most important being
the grammar and wordlist published by Threlkeld in 1834. During the 1800s, Aboriginal peoples
across NSW bore the brunt of European invasion and their languages were an early casualty, with the
active suppression of languages and the emergence of English as a common language amongst the
different Aboriginal groups (Elkin 1979).
Henry Dangar (1828) noted that the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area, between 1822 and 1826, were
faced by a rush of development by the colonists between 1822 and 1826 (cf. Brayshaw). Resistance
to colonial occupation had ceased by c. 1830. The colonists took little notice of the Aboriginal
occupants or their cultural heritage and knowledge.
A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) reveals a registered
site, a midden, which is described and depicted as being east 50 metres of boat launching ramp
(NPWS Site # 38 4 0988) despite its erroneous GPS position as noted on the card. This site was
registered by a member of the public and it appears that no previous archaeological investigations
have been made and/or lodged of the study area.
Various early descriptions of Morpeth reveal that the area would have been rich with resources for
subsistence living. Brayshaw (1927:12) noted that:
Cedar trees once graced Patersons and Wallis Plains in the Maitland-Morpeth area
where there were also lagoons, silted flood channels and open swamps. The vine
brushes along the banks of the river were up to two to three miles deep in places .
A variety of sites have been identified alongside the Hunter River in low concentrations and include
grinding grooves, scarred trees, rock shelters, shelters with art and burials. The majority of sites
contain stone artefacts and are mostly open camps. This is expected due to the durability of stone in
comparison to other raw materials. On a general basis, mudstone is the most common lithic artefact
found in the region, followed by (but not limited to) silcrete, chert, tuff, quartz, quartzite, petrified wood,
porphyry, basalt, limestone, sandstone, rhyolite and European glass. Regional modelling commonly
indicates that the most common Aboriginal objects found are flakes, flake fragments, flaked pieces,
cores, edge ground axes, millstones, grindstones, hammer stones and backed artefacts, including
bondi points, geometric microliths and eloueras. The stone tool types within the region are generally
considered to be from the Holocene period (MCH 2004).
Moreover, an indicative analysis of regional sites indicates that the majority of sites within the Hunter
Valley are situated within 50 metres of water and the next highest proportion of sites are over 100
metres from water, with comparatively few sites present in between (MCH 2004). In general,
archaeological patterning of the region indicates that a wide variety of site types and raw materials can
be found within 50 metres and over 100 metres from a water course. In these areas, water courses
and nearby elevated landforms, such as crests and upper slopes, are the most common
archaeologically sensitive landforms, whilst stone artefacts are the most common artefact.
Conversely, the frequent flooding of the River has a destructive and significant effect on its
archaeological resources. The potential for finding Aboriginal objects or places is somewhat reduced
in the study area, at least from a ground surface perspective, due to the regular inundation of the
Hunter River onto the study area. As historically noted by Dangar (1828), the Queens Wharf Precinct
is certainly subject to changes in water level and inundation on a regular basis:
The banks of the river so low down as Morpeth are subject to inundations. The river
sometimes rising 30 or 40 feet above its usual level (Dangar 1828:44).
Since historical records began in the region, there have been more than 200 floods on the Hunter
River with 15 major floods above 10 metres (Hyde, Webber & Dewar, 2008; Hunter, 2006 cf Redwood,
2015). Another consideration in addressing the potential for Aboriginal objects or places within the
study area is the changing meandering path of the Hunter River and its foreshore locations.
Overall, the study area would have been a suitable location for Aboriginal camping sites and/or the
associated hunting and gathering of resources. It may even hold ceremonial significance to Aboriginal
people, given the importance of the Hunter River and its access to the Hunter Valley region as a
whole. However, information pertaining to Aboriginal culture should only be derived by consultation
with Local Aboriginal people.
A full cultural Aboriginal heritage assessment, including consultation with registered Aboriginal
stakeholders, should be conducted over the study area. The assessment should incorporate the
archaeological survey of the Hunter River and its banks. If the areas below the mean water level are
to be impacted by the development then, to comply with legislative requirements, it is recommended
that specialist marine archaeological studies of the underwater areas should also be undertaken.
It is further recommended that any workers, contractors or persons undertaking impacts to the site be
provided with an Unexpected Finds Procedure. This procedure provides an incident response, should
Aboriginal artefacts be found during works, and is limited to those types of Aboriginal artefacts that are
expected to be found within the Queens Wharf Precinct. The Aboriginal Heritage Unexpected Finds
Procedure has been developed to provide a consistent approach on how to proceed in the event that
of unexpected Aboriginal heritage archaeological find.
Interpretative and informative signage should be constructed to withstand flooding, and in a manner
complimentary to the proposed historical interpretative signage. Signage should reflect both the
original occupation of the area by Aboriginal persons and the ensuing historical phases of occupation.
The wording of signage in regard to Aboriginal occupation of the area should be approved by a
representative of the Local Aboriginal Land Council.
This AMP should be reviewed, particularly as it pertains to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, and
commented upon. It should then be completed in consultation with all Registered Aboriginal Parties
and stakeholders, providing a clear framework for the future management of the sites.
Between the 1830s and early 1900s, Morpeth, which was originally known as Illulaung (possibly an
Aboriginal word for wooded hills, and then known as Green Hills following initial colonisation), was the
first major shipping port servicing the Northern Region (See Figures 6.1 and 6.2). At the time,
Newcastle was a small mining port, which was a potential stopping point on the shipping route
between the major ports of Sydney and Morpeth (King and Woolmington 1960). Morpeth port serviced
West Maitland, which was the primary commercial centre of the area at that time. The Morpeth
shipping port was located at the point on the river beyond where only small boats (below 25 t) could
pass (King and Woolmington 1960). With the introduction of the railway branch from Morpeth to
Maitland in the 1860s, the terminus was also positioned in the Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth. This
precinct held a significant and commanding role in the development of commercial activity and
transport in the Hunter region.
Higginbothams AMP compiled in 2002 offered a concise and thorough history of the Queens Wharf
Precinct, which was prepared by Historian, Terry Kass. It would be repetitive and redundant to
reiterate the same historical investigation for this AMP, given the quality and quantity of the later
research (See Addendum I for Kass research on the Queens Wharf Precinct).
.
Figure 6.2 Early map of Morpeth and associated railway noting Queens Wharf as the site of the first
railway station between 1864 & 1870 (Source: Australian Railway Historical Bulletin 9,1953)
As noted in Section 6.1, no previous archaeological investigation has been conducted regarding
Aboriginal cultural heritage of the study area. In Higginbothams 2002 AMP, an archaeological
investigation of the historical aspect of the study area was incorporated. From a desktop perspective,
Higginbothams archaeological assessment appears to be correct and in order.
A full archaeological assessment pertaining to Aboriginal cultural heritage should be made of the study
area. An updated complete historical archaeological assessment, which pertains to the historic
significance of the study area, should support any works application.
The scope of works agreed to between the customer and Advitech consists of a desk top assessment
only. Therefore, a full physical assessment and analysis will be subject to further archaeological field
surveys as is recommended (see Section 7). However, it is noted that study area is within a flood plain
and possesses rich alluvial soils resulting from numerous flooding events arising from the Hunter River
(as noted in 1890, see Figure 9.1) and more recently in 2015 (see Figure 9.2) (Redwood 2015).
All the wharves and the flat land from the Queens Wharf to, and for some distance past,
Boltons stores has been under water since yesterday evening.
Figure 8.1 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners Advocate 21 February 1890
(Source: Newcastle University)
The area is now a recreational facility providing boat launching facilities and a gathering place for
public events. Complimenting this modern infrastructure and usage are picnic tables, public toilets,
drainage and open grassed areas. Queens Wharf Road, Tank Street and Steamer Street are sealed
roads providing public access to the area.
The main archaeological resources of the Queens Street Wharf Precinct are characterised by their
proximity to the Hunter River. From an historic perspective, the study area was highly utilised for the
transport of both goods and passengers along the Hunter River from its earliest historic settlement
time. Ancillary infrastructure, including but not limited to, wharves, punts, storage facilities,
From an Aboriginal cultural heritage perspective, and due to the lack of an archaeological investigation
of the study area on an Aboriginal cultural heritage basis, only a basic model of occupation can be
identified. A regional indication of potential modelling is indicated in Section 6.1.
The archaeological resources of the Queens Wharf Precinct have been disturbed by the following:-
Fundamental to any consideration of the cultural heritage values of a non-indigenous place or thing (a
relic see below) is an appreciation of the impact of the Heritage Act, 1977 (NSW) which defines
heritage items to be:
Essentially, the evaluation of the heritage values of a relic depend upon the assessment of its
significance, the level of its condition and integrity and, as a corollary, the potential it may possess to
expand the existing level of knowledge. An appreciation of these factors qualifies the proper
estimation of the impact that any disturbance, damage or destruction may have on such heritage
values.
In the context of this report, significance is the measure of the value and importance of elements of the
archaeological record to cultural heritage. While the fabric of the archaeological record is the subject
of the assessment of heritage significance, the assessment itself is conditioned by the environmental
and historical context of the site at the time of the assessment. In this environment, significance can
be seen as a variable quality. It follows that the evaluation of heritage significance is not static quality,
but rather is evolutionary as a function of changing community perspectives and cultural values.
The concept of significance derives from the Australia ICOMOS (The Burra Charter) under the Act.
The approach to the assessment of heritage significance affirmed by the NSW Heritage Office adopts
as a foundation the four values of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of
Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter). These values are broadly accepted Australia-wide, as
historical, aesthetic, scientific and social classifications of significance.
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra
Charter) adopts as the foundation of classification the four value types of historical, aesthetic, scientific
and social significance. The implications of these classifications are as follows:
Aesthetic significance addresses the scenic and architectural values of an item and/or the
creative achievement that it evidences. Thus, an item achieves aesthetic significance if it
has visual or sensory appeal and/or landmark qualities and/or creative or technical
excellence;
Social significance is perhaps the most overtly evolutionary of all classifications in that it
rests upon the contemporary community appreciation of the cultural record. Evaluation
within this classification depends upon the social spiritual or cultural relationship of the
item with a recognisable community; and
As a component of the holistic concept of significance, archaeological significance has been described
as a measure by which a site may contribute knowledge, not available from other sources, to current
research themes in historical archaeology and related disciplines. Archaeology is concerned with
material evidence and the archaeological record may provide information not available from historical
sources. An archaeological study focuses on the identification and interpretation of material evidence
to explain how and where people lived, what they did and the events that influenced their lives.
Whether a site, or the fabric contained within a site, contributes knowledge or has the potential
to do so. If it does, the availability of comparative sites and the extent of the historical record
should be considered in assessing the strategies that are appropriate for the management of
the site; and
The degree and level to which material evidence contributes knowledge in terms of current
research themes in historical archaeology and related disciplines.
In relation to current research themes in historical archaeology and related disciplines, the assessment
of cultural significance is conditioned by considerations of historical, scientific, cultural, social,
architectural, aesthetic and natural values:
Historical value lies at the root of many of the other values by providing a temporal context and
continuity, thereby providing an integrating medium for the assessment of social, cultural and
archaeological significance;
Scientific value depends upon the ability of an item to provide knowledge contributing to
research in a particular subject or a range of different subjects;
Cultural value attaches to material evidence that embodies or reflects the beliefs, customs and
values of a society or a component of a society and/or have the potential to contribute to an
understanding of the nature and process of change and its motivation;
Social value derives from the way people work(ed) and live(d) and from an ability to
understand the nature, process of change and its motivation. Social significance is closely
related to cultural significance, in its concern with the practicalities of socio-cultural
identification;
Aesthetic value addresses the manner in which an item comprises or represents creative
achievement, epitomising or challenging accepted concepts or standards; and
Natural value attaches to items that either support or manifest existing natural processes
and/or systems or provide insights into natural processes and/or systems.
In order to provide a ready reference to the degree of significance or the distinctiveness of an item in
general terms, the item may be described as being either Rare or Representative within its
community/cultural/geographical level.
The final denominator of significance is the level of significance of an item. Level is nominally
assessable in two classifications, depending upon the breadth of its identifiable cultural, community,
historical or geographical context. Thus, within a New South Wales context, a relic may be recognised
at the:
Local level which identifies the item as being significant within an identifiable local and/or
regional cultural and/or community group and/or historical/geographical heritage context; and
State level which identifies the item as being significant within an identifiable State-wide
cultural and/or community group and/or historical/geographical heritage context.
National level which identifies the item as being significant within an identifiable national
cultural and/or community group and/or historical/geographical heritage context; and
International level which identifies the item as having implications of significance for an
identifiable cultural and/or community group both nationally and abroad and/or a world-wide
historical/ geographical heritage context.
By the simple application of the principles outlined above, a subjective element was present in the
significance assessment regime that opened the potential for skewed assessment. As a counter to
this potential, the NSW Heritage Office has adopted a set of standardised assessment criteria.
The NSW Heritage Office defined a series of criteria that will be used by the Heritage Council of NSW
as an assessment format within NSW. The seven criteria address:
Criterion (a) the importance of an item in the course or pattern of the cultural or natural history of
NSW or a local area [ie: historical].
Criterion (b) the existence of a strong or special association between an item and the life or works
of a person or group of persons important in NSW or local cultural or natural history
[ie: historical].
Criterion (c) the importance of an item in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high
degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW or a local area [ie: aesthetic].
Criterion (d) the existence of a strong or special association between an item and the social,
cultural or spiritual essence of a particular community or cultural group within NSW or
a local area [ie: social].
Criterion (e) the potential of an item to provide information that will contribute to an understanding
of the cultural or natural history of NSW or a local area [ie: scientific].
Criterion (g) the demonstration by an item of the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or
natural place or cultural or natural environment within NSW or a local area. [ie:
representative degree of significance].
Within the framework of the same criteria, where this is relevant, the individual contribution of separate
elements or components of a relic may be evaluated according to a five-stage grading system, where:
Exceptional indicates that is a rare or outstanding element, contributing directly to the assessment
of an items significance at the appropriate level;
High indicates that an element exhibits an advanced degree of original fabric and is a key
element in the assessment of an items significance at the appropriate level;
Moderate indicates that an element has been modified or has degraded, with little individual
heritage value, but that makes an interpretive contribution in the assessment an items
significance at the appropriate level;
Little indicates that an element has been modified or has degraded to a degree that detracts
from the assessment of an items significance at the appropriate level; and
This section addresses matters that combine with the assessment of significance to allow a formal
Statement of Heritage Impact to be appropriately validated. It is essential to appreciate that in this
section, the words Condition and Integrity do NOT comment on bare physical attributes but rather on
the relationship between physical attributes and the potential they provide for accurate archaeological
interpretation. Thus:
Condition addresses the state of the fabric of the resource in terms of the physical impact of
ageing and external forces as well as its potential for survival; and
Integrity observes the degree to which the residual material evidence is an appropriate
representation of the resource in its original form.
The condition of heritage resources and/or individual elements that have been identified above is
assessed on a five-stage scale, that is to say:
[i.] Intact, where the material evidence allows a complete recording of the resource without
archaeological hypothesis;
[ii.] Substantially intact, where the material evidence is incomplete but the recording of material
evidence will be sufficient to allow an accurate archaeological reconstruction, with hypotheses
based on the archaeological record only;
[iii.] Standing ruin, where the material evidence is incomplete and the recording of material
evidence will be sufficient to define the footprint of the resource and some of its elevations and
features but will be insufficient to allow an accurate archaeological reconstruction of the
[iv.] Ruin, where the material evidence is incomplete and the recording of material evidence may
be sufficient to define part, or the whole, of the footprint of the resource but will be insufficient
to allow an archaeological reconstruction of the resource/its features, perhaps spatially and
certainly vertically, without hypotheses based on the archaeological record and on a range of
outside sources, and in circumstances where the validation of the reconstruction cannot be
assured; and
[v.] Archaeological site, implying a mostly sub-surface residue, where the material evidence
suggests the former presence of an archaeological resource that cannot be defined without
sub-surface investigation.
The integrity of archaeological resources and/or individual elements that have been identified is
assessed on a five-stage scale, that is to say:
[i.] Intact, where the resource has remained virtually unchanged its form and/or design and/or
function can be totally discerned from the material evidence;
[ii.] Minor Modification, where the resource has been modified or deteriorated cosmetically and/or
in a manner that does not inhibit the discernment of its form and/or design and/or function by
archaeological interpretation of the material evidence;
[iii.] Material Modification, where the resource has been modified so that its form and/or design
and/or function cannot be discerned only by archaeological interpretation and without
reference to external sources;
[iv.] Major Modification, where the resource has been so modified that attempted discernment of its
form and/or design and/or function cannot be achieved by archaeological interpretation of the
material evidence and requires a heavy reliance on external sources and in circumstances
where discernment one or more elements may be equivocal; and
[v.] None, where the integrity of the resource has been completely destroyed and the evidence for
its form and/or design and/or function is totally external.
Table 2 below indicates the items of heritage from Higginbothams 2002 AMP. It should be noted that
the degree of the items significance reflects the items importance in the significance of the overall
Queens Wharf Precinct as opposed to an individual statement of historical significance. Statements of
Heritage Significance should be compiled and, where applicable, updated in the recommended full
Historical assessment necessary for a State Heritage listing of the Precinct, which has not yet been
achieved despite Higginbothams (2002) AMP recommendations (see Section 9.2).
Higginbothams AMP (2002, pg 63-70) also notes that sites discoverable from historical research,
photographs and mapping cannot be readily identified due to discrepancies in mapping, no mapping or
because they may exist under newer structures. Some of these sites are:
9.4 Queens Wharf Precinct - Heritage Sites MCC Local Environmental Plan
The heritage items currently described in the MCC LEP 2011 as Queens Wharf and Railway Station
(former) and OPWS should be amended as they are incorrectly described and named as Queens
Wharf. The specific items and area referred to in these heritage listing are located at 90 Swan Street,
Morpeth, which is an area further east of the Queens Wharf Precinct and is actually another wharf and
railway station constructed later in the century and following the building of the Morpeth Bridge. A
further heritage item in Maitland LEP described as OPWS Morpeth Regional Office, also at 90 Swan
Street; Morpeth, is also referred to as Queens Wharf and Railway Station (former). This reference to
the Queens Wharf from this listing should be deleted.
Higginbothams AMP (2002) provides a Statement of Heritage Significance for the Queens Wharf
Precinct, which was prepared for the purposes of listing the site as State Significant heritage. This has
not occurred. The Statement of Heritage Significance needs to be updated and a submission to the
relevant NSW Minister should be made, as a matter of urgency, to include the actual historical Queens
Wharf Precinct as a State Heritage Item.
The options for conservation management available to address the issues, which may be raised in the
development of the Queens Wharf, range from taking no conservation management action to
preserving all elements of archaeological resource in situ:
Option 2: Preserving all elements of the archaeological resource would, on the other hand,
restrict or prevent any modification or the destruction of the resource and thereby
secure the archaeology at the expense of the projected re-development, in an
environment where the existence and implications of any such resource would not be
properly investigated, evaluated or recorded.
Option 3: Alternative courses lie in varying (where necessary) projected or future development
to minimise impact on the archaeological resource, with the result that either elements
of the archaeological resource would be conserved or that those modified or destroyed
It is recommended that the proposed overall Masterplan for the Queens Wharf Precinct:
Capture any potential body of data, thereby contributing to an understanding and interpretation
of the study area that would otherwise be unavailable;
Ensure the survival of material evidence of appropriate parts or the whole of the structural
resource in an accessible form for the appreciation and understanding of the public; and
Incorporate the relevant historical themes that have been previously identified by
Higginbothams AMP (2002);
The Queens Wharf Precinct, as part of the Morpeth Township, are within the Morpeth Conservation
Area and the following heritage provisions are applicable to the site under the Maitland Local
Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP):
Part 5.10 provides that development consent is required for any of the following:
Part 9 S33 provides the development controls for items within a heritage conservation area. The LEP
requires that any building work, relic, tree or place that is a heritage item will require Councils consent
Part 9 S34 provides that if an application is made to the Council for consent to demolish a building or
work that is a heritage item, other than a heritage item of State significance, the Council shall not grant
consent to that application until 28 days after the Council has notified the Secretary of the Heritage
Council of its intention to do so.
Part 9 S38 provides that the Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development
on land in the vicinity of a heritage item unless it has made an assessment of the effect the carrying
out of that development will have on the heritage significance of the item and its setting.
Part 9 S39 provides, clauses 32, 33 and 36 (other than clause 36 (1) (c)) shall not apply to a heritage
item or to a building, work, relic, tree or place which is within a heritage conservation area if that
heritage item or building, work, relic, tree or place is subject to a conservation instrument.
The following provisions are applicable to the Queens Wharf Precinct under the Maitland City Council
Development Control Plan:
Works involving sandstone drainage and swale drain systems in the Morpeth streetscape
should:
Retain all existing sandstone kerb and guttering and sandstone swale drains with
appropriate maintenance programs;
Avoid the replacement, damage or obscuring of in situ sandstone drainage systems;
Maintain grass or bitumen swale drains in minor streets. No new kerb and guttering in
minor streets;
Stormwater outlets from buildings to stone kerbs should reuse existing pipes to
minimise new outlets. Outlets should be contained within existing holes in the stone,
without any visible PVC piping;
Retain identification of archaeological evidence within kerb and guttering that allows
interpretation, including veranda post bases, stormwater outlets and kerb crossing;
and
New concrete kerb and guttering shall be done using the Morpeth Kerb and Gutter
Mix concrete to maintain compatible texture and colour.
Signage to key public spaces accessible from the centre, such as car parks and food courts,
shall be provided within the centre;
Signage to key facilities such as rest rooms, centre management, baby change rooms shall be
provided within the centre;
Car parking provision shall be in accordance with chapter C.11 Vehicular Access & Car
Parking of this development control plan;
Signage should include overall cultural landscape, including original vegetation, changing
positions and levels of the river;
All vehicles must be able to enter and leave any development in a forward direction;
Undeveloped areas of the site do not cause nuisance in terms of dust or erosion;
Undeveloped areas of the site positively contribute to the quality of the development;
Any portion of the site that remains undeveloped or vacant after development shall be
landscaped;
Water sensitive urban design facilities (such as swales, bio-detention ponds and rain gardens)
are used to treat stormwater for at-grade car parking areas;
Water sensitive urban design facilities are designed in accordance with Councils Manual of
Engineering Standards; and
Street furniture (including seats, bollards, signage, grates, grills, screens and fences, bicycle
racks, flag poles, banners, litter bins, telephone booths and drinking fountains) and
streetscape treatments are provided in accordance with Councils Public Domain Design
Manual or with agreement of the Executive Manager Appearance and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Act, 1977 (NSW) provides for the protection of historic heritage and provides the process
and criteria for listing of heritage deposits and/or relics that are of State significance on the State
Heritage Register and those that are of Local significance on the State Heritage Inventory (s. 139).
Archaeological sensitivity and the potential for heritage value may be indicated by historical research
and/or site-based archaeological study. Where historical research and/or archaeological study
indicate sensitivity, the discovery of relics is highly likely if the ground surface is disturbed.
The Act further provides statutory protection from disturbance/destruction of sites and relics in a range
of descriptions (ss. 4, 4A, 24-34, 35A-55B, 130, 136-7, 139) and for their registration or listing (ss.
26(2)(b), 35A,36,37, 44). In particular, it provides that no disturbance or excavation may proceed that
may expose or discover relics except with an excavation permit, and that an excavation permit is
required, if a relic is:
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) contains similar protective measures to
those contained in the Heritage Act. The act also provides for sites to be in Local and Regional
Environmental Plans, as sites in development control plans or subject to development controls and/or
as subject to planning controls or additional conservation provisions (ss.24-72, 76).
All related legislation, indicated in Sections 10.1 to 10.3, at Local Council, State and Federal levels will
need to be complied with in regard to the future development of the site. Permits required will depend
upon the finalisation of the specialised archaeological investigations and whether the listing of the site
Integral to the preparation of an AMP, particularly for the development of LEPs and concept designs
and plans is the preparation of GIS mapping.
The scope of agreed works with the Customer, for this current AMP, does not provide for field or visual
assessments of the study area. This is attributable to the anticipation of the need for an updated full
Historical and an inaugural Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment before finalisation of this AMP.
The Landscape Masterplan provided (see Figure 11.1) would seem to incorporate the historical
mapping component of Higginbothams AMP (2002) (see Figure 11.2). However, reliance on historical
mapping alone to ascertain the location of the archaeological historical sites is not advised.
A number of buildings and structures that once existed may not be indicated in any of the historical
maps, photographs or documentation. This arises due to numerous factors, which include:
A simple map overlay exercise for the purposes of demonstrating the inaccuracies has been
reproduced below at Figure 11.3.
Some of the historical maps used are reproduced at Figures 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6.
Figure 11.2 Higginbothams (2002) Composite plan of buildings as depicted on historical plans
From Figure 11.3, the locations and sizes of the historic structures at the Morpeth Wharf Precinct can
vary greatly. Due to these anomalies, it is highly recommend that all impact works in the reserve be
monitored by an Archaeologist(s) experienced in the monitoring of both historical and Aboriginal
heritage excavations.
Once full archaeological investigations, any related community consultation, and updated design and
concept plans have been drafted, this AMP should be updated or supplemented by the addition of the
following GIS maps:
It is highly recommended that both a Registered Surveyor and Archaeologist, in consultation, prepare
the updated GIS maps. Such an assessment is important due to the high Heritage value of the Queens
Street Wharf Precinct, future assessments for State Heritage Listing and to provide for the most
accurate identification of Historical and Cultural sites, which should guide development plans (which
will be reliant on both historical mapping and visual inspections).
As part of the archaeological investigation of the Queens Wharf Precinct, it is envisaged that the
following possible procedures or investigations may be required prior to, during and after any proposed
works at the site:
Any proposed works within or affecting the Queens Wharf Precinct should incorporate both the
recommendations arising from those further specialised investigations that have been previously
recommended, as well as the following site management procedures, listed below.
A Project/Contractor Manager should be appointed to manage the works and the archaeological
importance of the site. The appointee should have prior experience in similar works and will be
responsible for compliance with the following:
Responsibility for compliance with notification obligations under the following legislation:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW);
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW);
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act ,1984 (Cth); and
Coroners Act, 2009 (NSW).
Ensure that the procedures outlined in the AMP are followed including:
Arrange induction training of all staff and sub-contractors in both Historical and
Aboriginal cultural heritage management procedures and maintain a register of all
inductees;
Provide an Aboriginal cultural heritage induction (approved, facilitated and/or
presented by the Local Aboriginal Land Council and an Archaeologist) for all
employees and sub-contractors;
Ensure that the Unexpected Finds Procedures for Heritage are followed; and
Implement the procedures as outlined in the Unexpected Finds Procedures for
Heritage.
Any part of the study area that has the potential to be disturbed, damaged or destroyed by
development will require:
In order to update the archaeological perspective of the Queens Wharf Precinct Masterplan it needs to
be addressed as a cultural landscape that incorporates all aspect of both historic and Aboriginal
cultural heritage.
A full cultural Aboriginal heritage assessment, including consultation with registered Aboriginal
stakeholders, should be obtained over the study area. The assessment should incorporate the
archaeological survey of the Hunter River banks at, if possible, at lowest possible level and
viewed from the Hunter River. If it is envisaged that the areas below the mean water level are
to be impacted, then in order to comply with legislative requirements, it is recommended that
specialist marine archaeological studies of relevant underwater areas be undertaken.
If the area below the mean water level of the Hunter River is to be impacted by the proposed
development then it is recommended that specialist marine archaeological studies of the
underwater areas to be impacted take place. Impact depths to the river floor will need to be
available prior to any such survey.
A Registered Surveyor and Archaeologist, following the above further studies and in
consultation, should prepare the following updated GIS maps.
Study area location;
Historical mapping;
Physical condition of the archaeological resource;
Integrity of the archaeological resource;
Sites according to historic phases;
Archaeological research potential;
Significance of sites; and
Site Requirements.
A biodiversity study of the Project Area be undertaken in order to understand the interactions
between the natural environment and the contemporaneous cultural use of it.
A review of physical constraints should be added to this AMP once both historical and
Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments have been finalised and the areas to be impacted
under the proposed development of the site have been drafted.
This AMP, and particularly as it pertains to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, should be reviewed,
commented upon and completed in consultation with all Registered Aboriginal Parties and
stakeholders, providing a clear framework for the future management of the sites in
accordance with the related legislation;
This AMP, particularly as it pertains to historic heritage, should be reviewed, commented upon
and completed in consultation with local community members to provide a clear framework for
the future management of the sites in accordance with the related legislation and MCCs
community consultation policies;
The heritage items currently described in the Maitland City Council LEP 2011 as Queens
Wharf and Railway Station (former) and OPWS should be amended as they are incorrectly
described and named as Queens Wharf. The specific items and area referred to in these
heritage listing are located at 90 Swan Street, Morpeth, which is an area further east of the
Queens Wharf Precinct and is another wharf and railway station that was constructed later in
the century (following the building of the Morpeth Bridge). A further heritage item in Maitland
LEP, described as OPWS Morpeth Regional Office, also at 90 Swan Street; Morpeth, is also
The Queens Wharf Precinct should be listed, or at least a temporary heritage order obtained,
as a State Heritage Item;
The MCC LEP should be updated to include all items of archaeological significance recorded
within the Precinct; and
All related legislation, indicated in Sections 10.1 to 10.3, at Local Council, State and Federal
levels will need to be complied with in regard to the future development of the site. Permits
required will depend upon the finalisation of the specialised archaeological investigations and
whether the listing of the site as an item of State Heritage Significance is under an interim
Order or finalised. If the existing Aboriginal Heritage site is to be impacted, an application for
an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit will need to be made. No works should be undertaken
on the site until the regulatory requirements and applications relating to this site are made.
All on site workers, employees and sub-contractors shall partake in an Aboriginal heritage and
cultural induction as well as a historical heritage induction prior to any works being carried out
on site. This induction training is to be facilitated by an Archaeologist and an Aboriginal
Registered Stakeholder should present the Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural induction. The
relevant inductions shall include the provision of written information and training that will
include (but is not limited to) an outline of the legislation in relation to archaeological sites,
basic archaeological context of the area including general artefact identification and cultural
heritage awareness; and
Interpretative and informative signage should be provided, reflecting both the historical
importance of the Queens Wharf Precinct as well as the Aboriginal Cultural heritage. Signage
should be constructed to withstand the general flooding regularly incurred in the area, and in a
manner complimentary to each cultural perspective. Signage should reflect both the original
occupation of the area by Aboriginal persons and the ensuing historical phases of occupation.
The wording of signage in regard to Aboriginal occupation of the area should be approved by a
representative of the Local Aboriginal Land Council.
1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act , 1984 (Cth).
3. Bickford, A. and Sullivan, S. (1984). Assessing the research significance of historic sites, in
Sullivan, S and S Bowdler, (eds), Site Survey and Significance Assessment in Australian
Archaeology, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU Canberra
4. Brayshaw, H (1987) Aborigines of the Hunter Valley, A Study of Colonial Records. Scone
Upper Hunter Historical Society, Scone, N.S.W. Bicentennial Publication No 4.
8. Dean-Jones, P. and P.B. Mitchell. 1993. Hunter Valley Aboriginal sites assessment project.
Environmental modelling for archaeological site potential in the Central Lowlands of the
Hunter Valley. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
9. Elkin, A.P. Morpeth and I (1979). Sydney Australasian Medical Publishing Co, Sydney (first
print 1937).
10. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW).
11. Heritage Office, (1996 2001).
- Archaeological Assessments
- Historical Archaeological Sites
- Heritage Assessment Guidelines
- Assessing Heritage Significance
- Heritage Curtilages
NSW Heritage Manual. Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,
(NSW), Sydney
12. Heritage Act, 1997 (NSW).
13. Higginbotham, E. (2002). Archaeological Management Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct,
Morpeth, NSW. Edward Higginbotham and Associates for Maitland City Council.
14. Hunter, C. (1997). Historical Survey of Morpeth Wharves. Prepared for Morpeth and District
Association Inc.
15. Jervis, J. (1953). The Hunter Valley. In Journal Royal Australian Historical Society No 39
(1953).
16. Kerr, J.S. (2000). The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans
for Places of European Cultural Significance. National Trust of Australia (NSW).
17. King H.W.H and Woolmington E.R. (1960) The role of the river in the development of
settlement in the Lower Hunter Valley, In Australian Geographer 8:1, 3-16.
18. Local Government Act NSW (1993)
19. McCardle Cultural Heritage, 2004. Singleton Golf Course Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Assessment. Unpublished report to Overdean Group Pty Ltd.
21. Maitland City Council (2003). Queens Wharf Landscape Masterplan. Maitland City Council.
22. Maitland City Council (2011). Maitland Local Environmental Plan. Maitland City Council.
23. Maitland City Council (2015). Scope of Works, Plan of Management and Masterplan,
Queens Wharf Morpeth.
24. National Library of Australia Digital Collections:
- Map of Morpeth 1860 downloaded on 11 November, 2015 from
http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview/?pi=nla.map-f827b-e
- Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate 21 February 1890 downloaded from
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/138848986?searchTerm=queens%20wharf%20
morpeth&searchLimits=l-state=New+South+Wales|||l-availability=y.
- Newcastle Chronicle 18 March 1869 downloaded on 6 November, 2015 from URL:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/111158993?searchTerm=queens%20wharf%20
morpeth&searchLimits=l-state=New+South+Wales|||l-availability=y.
25. Newcastle University Digital Collections:
a. Map of Morpeth 1849 downloaded on 6 November, 2015 from
https://uoncc.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1849-morpeth-a6022iv.jpg)
26. NSW State Library. Town of Morpeth formerly called Illulaung c.1834. Downloaded on 6
November, 2015 from URL:
http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/albumview.aspx?itemID=975159&acmsid=0
27. Maxim Archaeology & Heritage Pty Ltd, (2011). Statement of Heritage Impact: Culverts at
chs. 211.944 and 213.158 on the Main Northern Railway near Greta, NSW, report to Pacific
National, unpublished.
28. Redwood, D. (2015) Can Australian Communities Become More Resilient to Riverine
Floods? The Experience of Maitland - A Flood City. Unpublished Case Study Report.
29. State Records Archives Investigator, Surveyor General Sketchbook, Volume 7
a. Morpeth - Plan of land at Morpeth the property of the H.R. [Hunter River] New S.
[Steam] Navigation Company [Company] [Sketch book 7 folio 31]
b. Morpeth - Pearse's land &c additional land applied for 6 feet wide for wharf [Sketch
book 7 folio 22].
30. Sullivan, S and S Bowdler (eds), 1984. Site Survey and Significance Assessment in
Australian Archaeology, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU
Canberra.
31. Wells, W.H. (1848) A Geographical Dictionary or Gazetteer of the Australian Colonies in
Elkin (1979).
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 5
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
Preparedfor:MaraConsultingPtyLtd
EP02722March2016
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
POBox100
Stockton,NSW,2295
2March2016
OurRef:EP0272
LIMITATIONS
ThisPreliminarySiteInvestigationwasconductedonbehalfofMaraConsultingPtyLtdforthepurpose/sstatedin
Section1.
EPRiskhaspreparedthisdocumentingoodfaith,butisunabletoprovidecertificationoutsideofareasoverwhich
EPRiskhadsomecontrolorwerereasonablyabletocheck.Thereportalsoreliesuponinformationprovidedby
thirdparties.EPRiskhasundertakenallpracticalstepstoconfirmthereliabilityoftheinformationprovidedby
thirdpartiesanddonotacceptanyliabilityforfalseormisleadinginformationprovidedbytheseparties.
ItisnotpossibleinaPreliminarySiteInvestigationtopresentalldata,whichcouldbeofinteresttoallreadersof
thisreport.Readersarereferredtoanyreferencedinvestigationreportsforfurtherdata.
Usersofthisdocumentshouldsatisfythemselvesconcerningitsapplicationto,andwherenecessaryseekexpert
adviceinrespectto,theirsituation.
AllworkconductedandreportsproducedbyEPRiskarebasedonaspecificscopeandhavebeenpreparedfor
MaraConsultingPtyLtdandthereforecannotberelieduponbyanyotherthirdpartiesunlessagreedinwritingby
EPRisk.
The report(s) and/or information produced by EP Risk should not be reproduced and/or presented/reviewed
exceptinfull.
QUALITYCONTROL
Executive Summary
EPRiskManagementPtyLtd(EPRisk)wasengagedbyMaraConsultingPtyLtd(MaraConsulting)
toundertakeaPreliminarySiteInvestigation(PSI)atapropertyknownasQueensWharf,Morpeth,
NSW (the Site). The PSI has been prepared in satisfaction of a requirement within a Plan of
ManagementandMasterplanbeingdevelopedfortheSitebyMaraConsulting.
SiteconditionandSurroundingEnvironment
TheSiteislocatedadjacenttotheHunterRiverandcurrentlyoperatesasrecreational/publicopen
space comprising of a picnic area with amenities, boat ramp and vehicle parking area. The Site is
underlain by undifferentiated alluvial deposits, Tomago Coal Measure and has a sloping gradient
runningnorthtowardstheHunterRiver.TheSiteislocatedwithinareasofClass1,3and4acidsulfate
soilsandoneregisteredgroundwaterborewasidentifiedwithin1kmoftheSite.
SummaryofSiteHistoryReview
Insummary,thehistoryoftheSiteisasfollows:
TheSitewasamajoroperationalportduringthemidninetiethcentury,usedforthetransport
andstorageofvariousgoodsincludingcoalandbuildingproducts.
InfrastructureattheSiteinthemidninetiethcenturyconsistedofwarehousestores,timber
yard,railwaystation,apuntwithkeeperscottageandcoalstaithes/shoots.
AraillinebranchwasconstructedattheSitein1862.
Thewharfundertookrepairsanumberoftimesduringitsoperation.
TheSitecomprisesofmultiplelotswiththreeseparateproprietors.
HistoricaltitledeedsindicatethattheSitehasbeenprivatelyowned,withtheexceptionof
theCouncilownedlots,sincetheearly1970s.Priortothis,thelotswereownedbyfarmers,
graziers,widowersandblacksmiths.
SomebuildingsinthesoutheasternportionoftheSitehavebeendemolishedandnewones
erected.
WorksafeNSWheldnorecordsofdangerousgoodsfortheSite.
Some clearing of the Site, predominately along the river bank, has been historically
undertaken.
AboatrampwithadjacentcarparkinghasbeenconstructedontheSiteduringthemid1970s.
PotentiallyContaminatingActivities
ThepotentiallycontaminatingactivitiesidentifiedintheSitehistoryreviewincludethefollowing:
HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.
Potentialhumanandecologicalreceptors
Potentialhumanandecologicalreceptorsareconsideredtobe:
CurrentandfutureSiterecreationalusers.
Currentmaintenanceworkers.
Futureconstructionworkersassociatedwithfuturedevelopment.
OccupiersofresidentialpropertiestothesouthandeastoftheSite.
TerrestrialfloraandfaunaattheSite.
AquaticfloraandfaunaintheHunterRiver.
Usersofregisteredgroundwaterboreswithin1kmradiusoftheSite.
RecreationalusersoftheHunterRiver.
Outcome
Based on the Site history review, the Site is considered to contain a low to moderate risk of
contaminationassociatedwithhistoricaluse.Therefore,itisconsideredprudentthatshouldfuture
landuseattheSitechangeormodificationstothecurrentinfrastructureinvolvingsubsurfaceworks
beundertakenthenadditionalassessmentormanagementofsoilandgroundwatermayberequired.
TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................................................i
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview...............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives..............................................................................................................................................1
1.3 ScopeofWork.......................................................................................................................................1
2 SiteIdentification...........................................................................................................................................2
3 SiteConditionandSurroundingEnvironment...............................................................................................3
3.1 CurrentLandUseandLayout................................................................................................................3
3.2 SiteInspection.......................................................................................................................................3
3.3 SurroundingLandUse...........................................................................................................................4
3.4 TopographyandDrainage.....................................................................................................................4
3.5 Geology.................................................................................................................................................4
3.6 SoilLandscapes.....................................................................................................................................4
3.7 Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................................4
3.8 AcidSulfateSoils...................................................................................................................................5
3.9 DrylandSalinity.....................................................................................................................................5
3.10 MiningSubsidence................................................................................................................................5
3.11 StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicyProtectedAreas..........................................................................5
3.12 StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicyMajorDevelopments..................................................................5
3.13 StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicyStrategicLandUseAreas............................................................5
3.14 ListofContaminatedsitesNotifiedtotheNSWEPA............................................................................6
3.15 RecordsofNotice:ContaminatedLand................................................................................................6
3.16 FormerGasworks..................................................................................................................................6
3.17 WasteManagementFacilitiesandUPSSSensitiveZones.....................................................................6
3.18 LicensedActivitiesUnderthePOEOAct1997......................................................................................6
3.19 DelicensedActivitiesstillRegulatedbytheNSWEPA...........................................................................6
3.20 FormerLicensedActivitiesunderthePOEOAct1997,nowRevokedorSurrendered.........................7
3.21 HeritageItems.......................................................................................................................................7
3.22 SensitiveReceptors...............................................................................................................................7
4 SiteHistory.....................................................................................................................................................8
4.1 SourcesofInformation..........................................................................................................................8
4.2 ReviewofHistoricalDangerousGoodsRecords...................................................................................8
4.3 HistoricalTitleSearch............................................................................................................................8
4.4 ReviewofCouncilRecords....................................................................................................................9
4.5 ReviewofHistoricalAerialPhotographs...............................................................................................9
4.6 QueensWharfArchaeologicalManagementPlan..............................................................................10
4.7 SummaryofSiteHistory......................................................................................................................10
5 PotentialContaminatingActivities..............................................................................................................12
6 ContaminantsofPotentialConcern.............................................................................................................13
7 PreliminaryConceptualSiteModel.............................................................................................................14
7.1 MechanismsofContamination...........................................................................................................14
7.2 PotentiallyAffectedMedia.................................................................................................................14
7.3 PotentialHumanandEcologicalReceptors........................................................................................14
7.4 PotentialandCompleteExposurePathways......................................................................................14
8 ConclusionsandRecommendations............................................................................................................17
ListofTablesinBodyofReport
Table1SiteIdentification....................................................................................................................................2
Table2ContaminatedsitesNotifiedtotheNSWEPA.........................................................................................6
Table3LicensedActivitiesUnderthePOEOAct1997........................................................................................6
Table4FormerLicensedActivitiesunderthePOEOAct1997,nowRevokedorSurrendered...........................7
Table5HistoricalAerialPhotographReview.......................................................................................................9
Table6ContaminantsofPotentialConcern......................................................................................................13
Table7PotentialExposurePathways................................................................................................................15
ListofAttachedFigures
Figure1 SiteLocation
Figure2 SiteLayout
Figure3 SiteFeatures
ListofAppendices
LotSearchEnvironmentalRiskandPlanningReport
PhotoLog
NSWWorkSafeDangerousGoodsREcords
HistoricalTitleDeedSearch
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
EPRiskManagementPtyLtd(EPRisk)wasengagedbyMaraConsultingtoundertakeaPSIattheSite.
The Site is located within the Maitland City Council (Council) local government area and is
approximately4.7hainsize. The Siteiscomprised ofmultiplelots,whicharedescribedfurtherin
Section2.
ItisunderstoodthatMaraConsultinghavebeenengagedbyCounciltodevelopaPlanofManagement
and Masterplan for the Site. The aim of the Plan of Management and Masterplan is to provide
improvedrecreationalaccesstothecurrentlyunderutilisedHunterRiver.
The PSI has been commissioned by Mara Consulting to satisfy a requirement within the Plan of
ManagementandMasterplan.
1.2 Objectives
ItisconsideredthatthespecificobjectivesofthePSIcanbesummarisedasfollows:
IdentifyallpastandpresentpotentiallycontaminatingactivitiesbasedonaSitehistorysearch.
Identify contaminants of potential concern (COPC) based on the identified potentially
contaminatingactivities.
DiscusstheSiteconditionbasedontheaboveandprepareasiteconceptualmodel.
OnthebasisofareviewofSitehistorydeterminethelikelihoodforcontamination.
2 Site Identification
TheSitecomprisesofmultiplelotsofwhichthedetailsarepresentedinTable1.
Table1SiteIdentification
Controland
LegalDescription Owner Zoning
Management
Lot3DP666772 Council Communityland RE1PublicRecreation
Lot1DP1108099 Council Communityland RE1PublicRecreation
Lot5DP226025 Council Communityland RE1PublicRecreation
Lot30DP543798 Council Communityland RU1PrimaryProduction
Lot1DP169466 AJandJIHines Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
Lot8DP52394 AJandJIHines Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
Lot14SecADP1684 AJandJIHines Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
MistletoeInvestments
Lot3DP1149223 Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
Limited
MistletoeInvestments
PartLot3DP755237 Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
Limited
PartLot4DP226025 AJandJIHines Privateland RU1PrimaryProduction
Waterways Crown Council RU1PrimaryProduction
Vehicleparkingareaadjacenttoboatramp(Plate1);
Boatramp(Plate2,3and4);
Smallchannellocatedwestofthevehicleparkingarea(Plate5);
OpenspaceareaintheeasternportionoftheSite(Plate6and7);
Slagandfillmaterialidentifiedunderneathatreetotheeastoftheboatramp(Plate8and9);
Vegetatedareaeastoftheboatramp(Plate10);
RemainingpiersfromtheoldQueensWharf(Plate11);
Thickvegetationalongtheriverbank(Plate12);
OpenspacearealookingsouthtowardsQueensWharfRoad(Plate13);
AccessareatoresidentialpropertiesrunningalongsouthernSiteboundary(Plate14);
ChannelrunningadjacenteasternSiteboundary(Plate15);
Publicamenitiesbuildingwithassociatedsepticsystem(Plate16and17);
Riverbanklookingeast(Plate18and19);and
HunterRiverlookingeasttowardMorpethbridge(Plate20).
TotheNorth
HunterRiveradjacent.
Rural/agriculturallandbeyond.
TotheSouth
QueensWharfRoadadjacent.
Residentialproperties.
MorpethRoadwithopenspaceandagedcarefacilitybeyond.
TotheEast
Residentialpropertiesadjacent.
Morpethcommunityandrural/agriculturallandusebeyond.
TotheWest
Rural/agriculturallanduseadjacentandbeyond.
3.5 Geology
AreviewoftheGeologicalSurveyofNSWNewcastle1:250,0000geologysheetSI/5602indicatesthat
themajorityoftheSiteisunderlainbyundifferentiatedalluvialdepositsofsand,silt,clayandgravel
with some colluvial deposits including some channel, levee, lacustrine, floodplain and swamp
deposits. A small portion of the southern Site boundary is underlain by Tomago Coal Measures
consistingofsiltstone,sandstone,coal,tuff,claystone,conglomerateandminorclay.
3.7 Hydrogeology
Oneregisteredgroundwaterborewasidentifiedtobelocatedwith1kmoftheSite.Thegroundwater
boreislocated127meastoftheSite.Nootherinformationwasavailableforthebore.
Biophysicalstrategicagriculturallandonsite.
Biophysicalstrategicagriculturalland70mnorth.
Biophysicalstrategicagriculturalland717meast.
Table2ContaminatedsitesNotifiedtotheNSWEPA
Distance
Site Activity EPAsitemanagementclass
fromSite
Formerservice RegulationunderContaminatedLand
Servicestation 37meast
station Management(CLM)Actnotrequired
Telstracable
Other RegulationunderContaminatedLand
installationandRTA 314meast
petroleum Management(CLM)Actnotrequired
bridgework
Table3LicensedActivitiesUnderthePOEOAct1997
EPL Organisation Activity DistancefromSite
10393 Council AllwaterbodiesintheMaitlandLEP Onsite
3.20 Former Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997, now Revoked
or Surrendered
FormerlicensedactivitiesunderthePOEOAct1997,nowrevokedorsurrendered,locatedwithin1
kmoftheSiteareprovidedinTable4.
Table4FormerLicensedActivitiesunderthePOEOAct1997,nowRevokedorSurrendered
Distance
No. Organisation Activity
fromSite
LuhrmannEnvironment
4653 WaterwaysthroughoutNSW Onsite
ManagementPtyLtd
4838 RobertOrchard VariouswaterwaysthroughoutNSW Onsite
SydneyWeedandPestManagement
6630 WaterwaysthroughoutNSW Onsite
PtyLtd
CurrentandfutureSiteusers.
Futureconstructionworkers.
OccupiersofresidentialpropertiestothesouthandeastoftheSite.
LocalfloraandfaunaintheHunterRiveradjacenttonorthernSiteboundary.
RecreationalusersoftheHunterRiver.
4 Site History
4.1 Sources of Information
TheSitehistorysourcesutilisedduringthereviewinclude:
SafeWorkNSWdangerousgoodslicencesearch.
Historicaltitlesearch.
Councilrecords.
Historicalaerialphotographyfromtheyears:1958,1965,1976,1983,1993,2007and2012.
ReviewofArchaeologicalManagementPlanfortheQueensWharfPrecinctMorpethNSW.
LotsOwnedbyCouncil
Councilhasbeenthesoleproprietorofthelandsincethetitlebeganin1971.
LotsOwnedbyAJandJIHines
AJandJIHineshavebeenoccupiersofthelotssince1974.
Priorto1974thelots havebeenowned byfarmers,graziers,blacksmiths,widowers,from
1932.
ThePermanentTrusteeCompanyofNewSouthWaleswereproprietorsofthelotsfrom1908
to1932.
LotsOwnedbyMistletoeInvestments
MistletoeInvestmentshavebeenproprietorsofthelotsfrom1972.
Priorto1972,thelotshavebeenownedbypredominatelyfarmersfromthetitlescreatingin
1823.
NodatesoftheDAwereprovided.
Table5HistoricalAerialPhotographReview
Year Description
Site:TheSiteisclearedandvacant.Sometreesarelocatedinthenorthwestcornerof
theSite.Aroadisvisiblerunningnorthwesttosoutheastinthecentralportionofthe
1958 Site.
Surrounds:Surroundinglandconsistsofrural/agriculturalland.Residentialproperties
arevisibleadjacenttothesouthernSiteboundary.ThetownshipofMorpethisvisible
totheeast.
Site:Thegroundsurfaceappearstohavebeendisturbedinthenorthwesterncorner
1965 oftheSite,inthevicinityoftheclusteroftrees.
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Site:ClearingofthenorthwesterncorneroftheSitehasbeenundertaken.Thecluster
1976 oftreeshavebeenremoved.Excavationworksappeartohavealsobeenundertaken
alongthewaterfrontwherethecurrentboatrampislocated.
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Site: The cleared portions of the Site in the previous aerials appear to have some
1983 vegetationcover.Theboatrampisvisible.
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Site:ClearingtheinthenorthwestportionoftheSitehasagainbeenundertaken.
1993
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Site:Theboatrampisnowconcretepavedandwider.Aclearedareatothewestisnow
2007 visibleandpossiblyusedforvehicleparkingarea.Somesmallrectangularstructuresare
visibleinthesoutheasterncorner.
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Site:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
2012
Surrounds:Nosignificantchangehasoccurred.
Thehistoricalaerialphotographicreviewindicatesthefollowing:
TheSitehasremainedpredominantlyrural/agriculturallandfromasearlyas1958.
SomeclearingofthelandhasbeenundertakenacrosstheSite.Predominantlyinthenorth
westernportionoftheSite.
Aboatrampwasconstructedsometimebetween1965and1976.Workstotheboatramp,
includingaddingconcretepave,wideningoftherampandconstructionofavehicleparking
areawereallundertakenatsometimebetweentheyearsof1993and2007.
QueensWharfwasdevelopedin1833andwentontobecomethemajorportintheHunter
Valley.
Duringthemid1840stheareaintheimmediatevicinityoftheSitebecameapublicwharf
withvariousbusinessespresentincludingtimberyardandstores.
Thewharfundertookrepairsin1848,1857and1870.
TheSiteincludedapunt,whichranacrosstheHunterRivertotheopposingbanktothenorth.
ThepuntkeeperscottageandthelockupforMorpethwerealsolocatedattheSite.
GoodssuchascoalandtimberaswellasnumeroussettlersboardedsteamboatsatQueens
WharffordestinationsuptheHunterRivertoMaitlandandPaterson,anddowntheriverto
NewcastleandSydney.
Abranchrailline,offthegreatnorthernrailway,wasconstructedin1862whichterminateda
short distance beyond Queens Wharf. The major economic use of the rail line was for the
deliveryandloadofcoalattheWharf.
ArailwaystationatQueensWharfwaserectedin1913.
Coalshootsandstaitheswereconstructedatthewharf,buthadlimiteduseuntil284tonnes
ofcoalwereshippedfromthestaithesin1875.
TheOldQueensWharfwasclosedinDecemberof1920,althoughwasoperationalforasmall
periodoftimeinApril1940forthetransportofcoal.
TheSitewasamajoroperationalportduringthemidninetiethcentury,usedforthetransport
andstorageofvariousgoodsincludingcoal.
InfrastructureattheSiteinthemidninetiethcenturyconsistedofwarehousestores,timber
yard,railwaystation,apuntwithkeeperscottageandcoalstaithes/shoots.
AraillinebranchwasconstructedattheSitein1962.
Thewharfundertookrepairsanumberoftimesduringitsoperation.
NorecordsofdangerousgoodsfortheSite.
TheSitecomprisesofmultiplelotswiththreeseparateproprietors.
HistoricaltitledeedsindicatethattheSitehasbeenprivatelyowned,withtheexceptionof
theCouncilownedlots,sincetheearly1970s.Priortothis,thelotswereownedbyfarmers,
graziers,widowersandblacksmiths.
Some clearing of the Site, predominately along the river bank, has been historically
undertaken.
AboatrampwithadjacentcarparkinghasbeenconstructedontheSite.
SomebuildingsinthesoutheasternportionoftheSitehavebeendemolishedandnewones
erected.
HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Publicaccessibleboatrampwithassociatedvehicleparkingarea.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.
Table6ContaminantsofPotentialConcern
HistoricalActivity PortionofSite Evidence COPC
HistoricaluseoftheSiteasa
TRH,BTEX,PAH,Phenols,PCBsandHeavyMetals
shippingportwiththetransport EntireSite Sitehistoryreview
(As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Pb,Hg,NiandZn)1
andstorageofgoodssuchascoal
Potentialuseofpesticides/
EntireSite Sitehistoryreview TRH,BTEX,heavymetals,OCP,OPP2
Clearingofvegetation
TRH,BTEX,PAH,Phenols,OCP,OPP,PCBsand
Importationoffillmaterial EntireSite Siteinspection
HeavyMetals
Centralportion
Operationofboatrampand
adjacenttoriver Historicalaerialphotography TRH,BTEX,PAH,HeavyMetals
vehicleparkingarea
bank
Totalcoliforms,E.coli,faecalColiforms,Faecal
Septicsystem Easternportion Siteinspection StreptococciandEnterococci,nitrate,nitrite,
nitrogen(TKN),sulphateandphosphorus.
1
TRHTotalRecoverableHydrocarbons;BTEXBenzene;Toluene;Ethylbenzene,Xylene;HeavyMetals(AsArsenic,CdCadmium;CrChromium;CuCopper;PbLead;NiNickel;
ZnZinc;HgMercury);PAHsPolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons;PCBsPolychlorinatedBiphenyls
2
OCPOrganochlorinePesticides,OPPOrganophosphorusPesticides,
HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.
CurrentandfutureSiterecreationalusers.
Currentmaintenanceworkers.
Futureconstructionworkersassociatedwithfuturedevelopment.
OccupiersofresidentialpropertiestothesouthandeastoftheSite.
TerrestrialfloraandfaunaattheSite.
AquaticfloraandfaunaintheHunterRiver.
Usersofregisteredgroundwaterboreswithin1kmradiusoftheSite.
RecreationalusersoftheHunterRiver.
Table7PotentialExposurePathways
AquaticfloraandfaunaintheHunter
Occupiersofresidentialpropertiesto
TerrestrialfloraandfaunaattheSite
associatedwithfuturedevelopment
CurrentandfutureSiterecreational
boreswithin1kmradiusoftheSite
RecreationalusersoftheHunter
Usersofregisteredgroundwater
Currentmaintenanceworkers
thesouthandeastoftheSite
Futureconstructionworkers
users
River
River
Sources Media ReleaseMechanism Pathway
FugitiveDust Airingestion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Soil SoilDermalcontact Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
DirectContact
SoilIngestion Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Groundwater Dermal
Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No
Historicalcoal DirectContact contact
storageand GroundwaterIngestion Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No
importation Groundwater
Vapourintrusion Vapourinhalation Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
offillmaterial
Dischargetosurface
Groundwaterdischarge No No No No No No No Yes
water
Surfacewaterand
No No No No Yes Yes No No
Surfacewater Overlandflow sediments
Ingestionbyfish/shellfish No No No No No Yes No No
FugitiveDust Airingestion Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes
Useof
Soil SoilDermalcontact Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
pesticides DirectContact
SoilIngestion Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Table7PotentialExposurePathways
AquaticfloraandfaunaintheHunter
Occupiersofresidentialpropertiesto
TerrestrialfloraandfaunaattheSite
associatedwithfuturedevelopment
CurrentandfutureSiterecreational
boreswithin1kmradiusoftheSite
RecreationalusersoftheHunter
Usersofregisteredgroundwater
Currentmaintenanceworkers
thesouthandeastoftheSite
Futureconstructionworkers
users
River
River
Sources Media ReleaseMechanism Pathway
Surfacewaterand
No No No No Yes Yes No No
Surfacewater Overlandflow sediments
Ingestionbyfish/shellfish No No No No No Yes No No
SoilDermalcontact Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No
Soil DirectContact
SoilIngestion Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No
DirectContact GroundwaterIngestion Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Groundwater Dischargetosurface
Septictank Groundwaterdischarge No No No No No Yes No Yes
water
Surfacewaterand
No No No No No Yes No No
Surfacewater Overlandflow sediments
Ingestionbyfish/shellfish No No No No No Yes No No
Notes:
HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.
Based on the Site history review, the Site is considered to contain a low to moderate risk of
contaminationassociatedwithhistoricaluse.Therefore,itisconsideredprudentthatshouldfuture
landuseattheSitechangeormodificationstothecurrentinfrastructureinvolvingsubsurfaceworks
beundertakenthenadditionalassessmentormanagementofsoilandgroundwatermayberequired.
Figures
Legend
ApproximateSiteboundary
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
Figure 1 SiteLocation
JobNo: EP0272 0 100 200 400 Coordinatesystem:MGA56
Date:29/02/2016 Drawnby:SLCheckedby:PS
DrawingRef:EP0272Fig1_SiteLocation Approximate Scale Only (m) Scaleofregionalmapnotshown
www.eprisk.com.au VersionNo:v1 Source:GoogleMaps
Waterways
Lot8DP52394
Lot1DP169466
Pt3DP755237
Lot30DP543798
Lot5DP226025
Lot14SecADP1684
Lot3 Pt3DP755237
DP149223
Lot4DP226025
Legend
ApproximateSiteboundary
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
Figure 2 SiteLayout
JobNo: EP0272 0 20 40 80 Coordinatesystem:MGA56
Date:29/02/2016 Drawnby:SLCheckedby:PS
DrawingRef:EP0272Fig2_SiteLayout
www.eprisk.com.au Approximate Scale Only (m) Source:GoogleMaps
VersionNo:v1
Legend
ApproximateSiteboundary
Vehicleparkingareas
Boatramp
Amenitiesbuilding
Picnictablearea
Approximatelocationofseptic
tanks
Approximatelocationofslag
material
Channel
HUNTERRIVER
Slopeofgroundsurface
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
Figure 3 SiteFeatures
JobNo: EP0272 0 20 40 80 Coordinatesystem:MGA56
Date:29/02/2016 Drawnby:SLCheckedby:PS
DrawingRef:EP0272Fig3_SiteFeatures
www.eprisk.com.au Approximate Scale Only (m) Source:GoogleMaps
VersionNo:v1
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices
Lotsearch
Disclaimer:
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of some of the site history, environmental risk and planning
information available, affecting an individual address or geographical area in which the property is located. It is not a
substitute for an on-site inspection or review of other available reports and records. It is not intended to be, and should
not be taken to be, a rating or assessment of the desirability or market value of the property or its features.
You should obtain independent advice before you make any decision based on the information within the report.
The detailed terms applicable to use of this report are set out at the end of this report.
Location Confidences
Where Lotsearch has had to georeference features from supplied addresses, a location
confidence has been assigned to the data record. This indicates a confidence to the
positional accuracy of the feature. Where applicable, a code is given under the field heading
LC. These codes lookup to the following location confidences:
LC Code Location Confidence
List of NSW contaminated sites Environment Protection Authority 07/12/2015 27/10/2015 Monthly 0 1 2
notified to EPA
Contaminated Land: Records of Environment Protection Authority 10/12/2015 10/12/2015 Monthly 0 0 0
Notice
Former Gasworks Environment Protection Authority 07/12/2015 10/05/2013 Monthly 0 0 0
NSW National Parks and Wildlife NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 10/08/2015 31/03/2015 Quarterly 0 0 0
Service Reserves
Hydrogeology Map of Australia Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience 08/10/2014 17/03/2000 As required 1 1 1
Australia)
Groundwater Boreholes NSW Department of Primary Industries - 10/09/2015 08/09/2015 Quarterly 0 0 1
Office of Water / Water Administration
Ministerial Corporation; Commonwealth of
Australia (Bureau of Meteorology) 2015
Geological Units 1:250,000 NSW Department of Industry, Resources 20/08/2014 None planned 3 - 3
& Energy
Geological Structures 1:250,000 NSW Department of Industry, Resources 20/08/2014 None planned 0 - 0
& Energy
Soil Landscapes NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 12/08/2014 None planned 2 0 5
Acid Sulfate Soils NSW Planning and Environment 19/06/2014 11/09/2013 Quarterly 4 - -
Dryland Salinity Assessment National Land and Water Resources Audit 18/07/2014 12/05/2013 None planned 1 1 1
Mining Subsidence Districts Land and Property Information 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 As required 0 0 0
SEPP 14 - Coastal Wetlands NSW Planning and Environment 01/07/2014 24/10/2008 Annually 0 0 0
SEPP 26 - Littoral Rainforest NSW Planning and Environment 01/07/2014 01/01/1986 Annually 0 0 0
SEPP 71 - Coastal Protection NSW Planning and Environment 01/07/2014 30/11/2005 Annually 0 0 0
SEPP Major Developments 2005 NSW Planning and Environment 09/03/2013 25/05/2005 Under Review 0 0 0
SEPP Strategic Land Use Areas NSW Planning and Environment 04/05/2015 01/05/2015 Annually 1 2 3
Local Environmental Plan - Land NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 3 5 14
Zoning
Local Environmental Plan - NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 1 - -
Minimum Subdivision Lot Size
Local Environmental Plan - Height NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 0 - -
of Building
Local Environmental Plan - Floor NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 0 - -
Space Ratio
Local Environmental Plan - Land NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 1 - -
Application
Local Heritage Items NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 2 5 24
Bushfire Prone Land NSW Rural Fire Service 15/06/2015 02/06/2015 Quarterly 0 0 0
Lower Hunter and Central Coast NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 28/02/2015 16/11/2009 As required 0 1 3
Regional Vegetation Survey
RAMSAR Wetlands Commonwealth of Australia Department 08/10/2014 24/06/2011 As required 0 0 0
of the Environment
ATLAS of NSW Wildlife NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 Daily - - -
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Aerial Imagery 2015 Google Inc, used Coordinate System: Date: 10/12/2015
with permission. Google and the Google logo are GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters registered trademarks of Google Inc.
1000m
E
899
1551
Legend
Site Centre Contaminated Land List
E
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Map Site Address Suburb Activity EPA site management Status Dist Direction LC
Id class
899 Former Service Swan Street Morpeth Service Regulation under CLM Act Current 37m East 3
Station Station not required EPA List
1551 Telstra Cable Northumberla Morpeth Other Regulation under CLM Act Current 314m East 3
Installation and nd Street Petroleum not required EPA List
RTA Bridge
work
The values within the EPA site management class in the table above, are given more detailed explanations
in the table below:
Contamination being managed The EPA has completed an assessment of the contamination and decided that the contamination is
via the planning process significant enough to warrant regulation. The contamination of this site is managed by the consent
(EP&A Act) authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) planning approval
process, with EPA involvement as necessary to ensure significant contamination is adequately
addressed. The consent authority is typically a local council or the Department of Planning and
Environment.
Contamination currently The EPA has completed an assessment of the contamination and decided that the contamination is
regulated under CLM Act significant enough to warrant regulation under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM
Act). Management of the contamination is regulated by the EPA under the CLM Act. Regulatory
notices are available on the EPAs Contaminated Land Public Record of Notices.
Contamination currently The EPA has completed an assessment of the contamination and decided that the contamination is
regulated under POEO Act significant enough to warrant regulation. Management of the contamination is regulated under the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). The EPAs regulatory actions under
the POEO Act are available on the POEO public register.
Contamination formerly The EPA has determined that the contamination is no longer significant enough to warrant regulation
regulated under the CLM Act under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act). The contamination was addressed
under the CLM Act.
Contamination formerly The EPA has determined that the contamination is no longer significant enough to warrant regulation.
regulated under the POEO Act The contamination was addressed under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
(POEO Act).
Contamination was addressed The EPA has determined that the contamination is no longer significant enough to warrant regulation.
via the planning process The contamination was addressed by the appropriate consent authority via the planning process
(EP&A Act) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).
Ongoing maintenance required The EPA has determined that ongoing maintenance, under the Contaminated Land Management Act
to manage residual 1997 (CLM Act), is required to manage the residual contamination. Regulatory notices under the CLM
contamination (CLM Act) Act are available on the EPAs Contaminated Land Public Record of Notices.
Regulation being finalised The EPA has completed an assessment of the contamination and decided that the contamination is
significant enough to warrant regulation under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. A
regulatory approach is being finalised.
Regulation under the CLM Act The EPA has completed an assessment of the contamination and decided that regulation under the
not required Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 is not required.
Under assessment The contamination is being assessed by the EPA to determine whether regulation is required. The
EPA may require further information to complete the assessment. For example, the completion of
management actions regulated under the planning process or Protection of the Environment
Operations Act 1997. Alternatively, the EPA may require information via a notice issued under s77 of
the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 or issue a Preliminary Investigation Order.
NSW EPA Contaminated Land List Data Source: Environment Protection Authority
State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority
N/A No
records
in buffer
Former Gasworks
Former Gasworks within the report buffer:
Site Owner Name Address Suburb Postcode Landfill Reprocess Transfer Distance Direction LC
Id
N/A No records in
buffer
Yes
1000m
10393
E
Legend
Site Centre Licensed Activities under POEO Act
E
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Former Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997, now revoked or
surrendered
Former Licensed activities under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, now
revoked or surrendered, within the report buffer:
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 10/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters and Services)
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Aerial Imagery 2015 Google Inc, used Coordinate System: Date: 10/12/2015
with permission. Google and the Google logo are GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters registered trademarks of Google Inc.
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters and Services)
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 25 50 100
Meters and Services)
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters and Services)
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 10/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters and Services)
150m
Legend
Site Boundary
Buffer 150m
Scale: Data Sources: Historical Aerials: Land and Property Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Information (a division of the Department of Finance GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters and Services)
AD
RO
PH
OE
NIX
PARK
R OAD
D
B
A
M
UNICO
O
R
S
M
RI
O
R
MC LA
CA WL
NN ER
S SR
RO
AD OA
PHOENIX PARK D
D
RO A
ON
HINT
AD
HUNTE R
RO
N S
YE
AD
MC F
R
IV ER
1000m
146712
BRUSH
FARM R 94004
146775 115988
SWAN STREET
E
OAD
91536
57394
9694 84124 MORPETH
91369
132729 ET
R EET CLOSE STRE 166514 146220
R ST AD 61578
EAM E RPETH RO 7283
HIGH STREET
7262
ST MO VE
7408
RI 7332 58465 REET
PRINCESS ST
NG D
101505 505153662
ET
JAM ES STRE
AU
TANK STRE
L
LA
IL
6266
O RTH AVENUE
ET
97415 162246
RAWORTH TYRELL ST
RE
ET
LON
D ON
RAW AV
E 504857115
NU
E
V E
D RI CA
IE NT E
E R BUR Y D RIV
UR
LA
ST LANE
ANTON
DRIVE BUTCHERS
AD
RO
RD
JE N N A
FO
LegendDR I V E
ET
M
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Points of Interest
What Points of Interest exist within the report buffer?
6266 Community Facility ST JOHNS COLLEGE MINISTRY CENTRE 454m South West
Tanks (Areas)
What are the Tank Areas located within the report buffer?
Map Id Tank Type Status Name Capture Method Feature Currency Distance Direction
Tanks (Points)
What are the Tank Points located within the report buffer?
Map Id Tank Type Status Name Capture Method Feature Currency Distance Direction
State Forest
What State Forest exist within the report buffer?
Reserve Number Reserve Type Reserve Name Gazetted Date Distance Direction
6
6
2
4
4
6
2 6
10
00m
4
6
4
6
2 4
4 2
4
E
10
6 6
12
6 6 6
14
4 16
4
6 6
6
6
8
12 22
20
8
18
16
36
34
32
30
28
24
10
6
4
2
26
30
32
22
20
34
18
4 6
14
36
8
10
10
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters Department of Finance and Services) 2015
1000m
21010138
E
Legend
Site Centre Site Boundary
E
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Hydrogeology
Description of aquifers on-site:
Description
Description
Groundwater Boreholes
Boreholes within the report buffer:
GW No. Licence No Work Owner Purpose Contractor Complete Final Drilled Salinity SWL Yield Elev Dist Dir
Type Type Date Depth Depth
21010138 6.48 127m East
Borehole Data Source : NSW Department of Primary Industries - Office of Water / Water Administration Ministerial Corporation
for all bores prefixed with GW. All other bores Commonwealth of Australia (Bureau of Meteorology) 2015. Creative Commons
3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
Driller's Logs
Drill log data relevant to the boreholes within the report buffer:
Drill Log Data Source: NSW Department of Primary Industries - Office of Water / Water Administration Ministerial Corp
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
Qa
Qa
w
1000m
E
Pt
Qa
Legend
Site Centre Fault Metamorphic Boundary
E
Structure
Report Buffer J Fold
Property Boundary Marker Bed ! Thrust Fault
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Geological Units
What are the Geological Units onsite?
Symbol Description Unit Name Group Sub Group Age Dom Lith Map Sheet Dataset
Symbol Description Unit Name Group Sub Group Age Dom Lith Map Sheet Dataset
Geological Structures
What are the Geological Structures onsite?
No features 1:250,000
No features 1:250,000
ALhu
ALhub
ALhub
ALhu
ALhu
1000m
ALhu
WATER
E
ALhub
REbe
SWhua
ALhu
Legend
Site Centre
E
Site Boundary
Report Buffer
Property Boundary
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Soil Landscapes
What are the onsite Soil Landscapes?
Soil Code Name Group Process Map Sheet Scale
500m
E
Legend
Site Centre Acid Sulfate Soil Class
E
Soil Class 1
Site Boundary
Soil Class 2
500m Buffer
Soil Class 3
Property Boundary
Soil Class 4
Soil Class 5
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 50 100 200
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
If the on-site Soil Class is 5, what other soil classes exist within 500m?
N/A
Acid Sulfate Data Source Accessed 03/06/2015: NSW Crown Copyright - Planning and Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
1000m
E
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Dryland Salinity
Yes
High hazard or risk High hazard or risk High hazard or risk 0m Onsite
Dryland Salinity Data Source : National Land and Water Resources Audit
The Commonwealth and all suppliers of source data used to derive the maps of "Australia, Forecast Areas Containing Land
of High Hazard or Risk of Dryland Salinity from 2000 to 2050" do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information
in this product. Any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Commonwealth and data
suppliers shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.
Any persons using this information do so at their own risk.
In many cases where a high risk is indicated, less than 100% of the area will have a high hazard or risk.
Mining Subsidence District Data Source: Land and Property Information (2015)
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
Biophysical
Strategic
Agricultural Land
10
00
m
Biophysical
Strategic
Agricultural Land
Biophysical
Strategic
Agricultural Land
E
Legend
Site Centre SEPP 14 - Coastal Wetlands Strategic Land Use - Future Residential Growth Areas
E
Site Boundary SEPP 26 - Littoral Rainforests Strategic Land Use - Additional Rural Village Land
Report Buffer SEPP 71 - Coastal Protection Strategic Land Use -Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land
Property Boundary SEPP Major Developments 2005 Strategic Land Use -Critical Industry Cluster (Equine)
Strategic Land Use -Critical Industry Cluster (Viticulture)
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Are there any State Environmental Planning Policy Protected Areas onsite or within the report buffer?
Dataset Onsite Within Site Buffer Distance
SEPP Protected Areas Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
State Environmental Planning Policy Major Developments within the report buffer?
SEPP Major Development Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
State Environmental Planning Policy Strategic Land Use Areas onsite or within the report buffer?
Strategic Land Use SEPPNo Effective Date Amendment Amendment Distance Direction
Year
Biophysical Strategic 2007 28/01/2014 Coal Seam Gas 2014 0m
Agricultural Land
Biophysical Strategic 2007 28/01/2014 Coal Seam Gas 2014 70m North
Agricultural Land
Biophysical Strategic 2007 28/01/2014 Coal Seam Gas 2014 717m East
Agricultural Land
SEPP Strategic Land Use Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
RU1
1000m
B5
RE1
E
B2
R5
RU2
R5
R1
E2
SP1
Legend
Site Centre
E
Site Boundary
Report Buffer
Property Boundary
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
Land Zoning
What Local Environmental Plan Land Zones exist within the report buffer?
Zone Description Purpose LEP or SEPP Published Commenced Currency Amendment Distance Direction
Date Date Date
RU1 Primary Production Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 0m Onsite
Environmental Plan 2011
RE1 Public Recreation Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 0m Onsite
Environmental Plan 2011
R1 General Residential Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 0m Onsite
Environmental Plan 2011
B2 Local Centre Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 21m East
Environmental Plan 2011
RU2 Rural Landscape Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 59m South
Environmental Plan 2011
R5 Large Lot Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 184m South
Residential Environmental Plan 2011 West
RE1 Public Recreation Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 334m East
Environmental Plan 2011
R5 Large Lot Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 424m South
Residential Environmental Plan 2011
RE1 Public Recreation Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 582m South
Environmental Plan 2011 West
E2 Environmental Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 609m South
Conservation Environmental Plan 2011
B5 Business Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 642m East
Development Environmental Plan 2011
RE1 Public Recreation Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 695m South
Environmental Plan 2011 East
SP1 Special Activities Cemeteries Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 912m South
Environmental Plan 2011
E2 Environmental Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 946m South
Conservation Environmental Plan 2011 West
Local Environment Plan Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
Symbol Maximum LEP or SEPP Published Date Commenced Currency Amendment Percentage
Height of Date Date of Site Area
Building
No Data
Symbol Floor LEP or SEPP Published Commenced Date Currency Amendment Percentage
Space Date Date of Site Area
Ratio
No Data
Land Applications
What are the onsite Local Environmental Plan Land Applications?
Local Environment Plan Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
C6
1000m
5051380
I205
I208
E
I210
I125
I201 5045646
I204 I203
I215
Legend
Site Centre Site Boundary State Heritage Items
E
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
What are the State Heritage Items located within the report buffer?
Map Id Name Classification Significance LEP or Act Published Commenced Currency Distance Direction
Date Date Date
I125 House Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 0m Onsite
Environmental Plan
2011
C6 Morpeth Heritage Conservation Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 0m Onsite
Conservation Area Area - General Environmental Plan
2011
I204 Avenue of Brush Item - General State Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 59m South
Box Trees Environmental Plan
2011
I203 Diocesan Registry Item - General State Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 59m South
(former) Environmental Plan
2011
I214 Former Campbells' Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 60m South East
Store Environmental Plan
2011
I197 St. James Parish Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 158m South East
Hall Environmental Plan
2011
I213 Former CBC Bank Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 190m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I190 Former Bakery Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 197m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I216 St James Group Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 230m South East
Environmental Plan
2011
I196 School of Arts Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 282m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I212 Commercial Hotel Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 296m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I205 Morpeth Bridge Item - General State Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 318m East
over the Hunter Environmental Plan
River 2011
I201 Morpeth House Item - General State Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 321m South
Environmental Plan West
2011
What are the nearest Bushfire Prone Land Categories that exist within the report buffer?
Bushfire Prone Land Data Reference - NSW RFS GIS Data Set
1000m
E
17
46
Legend
Site Centre
E
Site Boundary
Report Buffer
Property Boundary
RAMSAR Wetland
Land and Property Information 2015
Scale: Data Sources: Property Boundaries & Topographic Data: Coordinate System: Date: 11/12/2015
Land and Property Information (a division of the GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
0 100 200 400
Meters
Department of Finance and Services) 2015
What vegetation from the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Survey exists within the report buffer?
Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Vegetation Survey: NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
RAMSAR Wetlands
What RAMSAR Wetland areas exist within the report buffer?
Map Id RAMSAR Name Wetland Name Designation Date Source Distance Direction
Amphibia Hylidae Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable
Aves Meliphagidae Melithreptus gularis gularis Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern No Vulnerable, Protected
subspecies)
Aves Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella No Vulnerable, Protected
Data does not include records not defined as either endangered or vulnerable, and category 1 sensitive species are
also excluded.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage's Atlas of NSW Wildlife, which holds data from a number of custodians.
Data obtained 11/12/2015
The following terms apply to any person (End User) who is given the Report by the person who purchased the Report from Lotsearch Pty Ltd (ABN: 89 600 168 018)
(Lotsearch) or who otherwise has access to the Report. The contract terms that apply between Lotsearch and the purchaser of the Report are specified in the order
form pursuant to which the Report was ordered and the terms set out below are of no effect as between Lotsearch and the purchaser of the Report.
1. End User acknowledges and agrees that:
(a) the Report is compiled from or using content (Third Party Content) which is comprised of:
(i) content provided to Lotsearch by third party content suppliers with whom Lotsearch has contractual arrangements or content which is
freely available (Third Party Content Suppliers);
(j) content which is derived from content described in paragraph (i);
(b) Lotsearch does not take any responsibility for or give any warranty in relation to the accuracy or completeness of any Third Party Content included
in the Report;
(c) the Third Party Content Suppliers do not constitute an exhaustive set of all repositories or sources of information available in relation to the
property which is the subject of the Report (Property);
(d) Lotsearch has not undertaken any physical inspection of the property;
(e) Lotsearch does not warrant that all land uses or features whether past or current are identified in the Report;
(f) the Report does not include any information relating to the actual state or condition of the Property;
(g) the Report should not be used or taken to indicate or exclude actual fitness or unfitness of a Property for any particular purpose;
(h) the Report should not be relied upon for determining saleability or value or making any other decisions in relation to the Property and in particular
should not be taken to be a rating or assessment of the desirability or market value of the property or its features; and
(i) the End User should undertake its own inspection s of the Property to satisfy itself that there are no defects or failures.
2. The End User may not make the Report or any copies or extracts of the report or any part of it available to any other person. If End User wishes to provide
the Report to any other person or make extracts or copies of the Report, it must contact the purchaser of the Report before doing so to ensure the
proposed use is consistent with the contract terms between Lotsearch and the purchaser.
3. Neither Lotsearch (nor any of its officers, employees or agents) nor any of its Third Party Content Suppliers will have any liability to End User or any person
to whom End User provides the Report and End User must not represent that Lotsearch or any of its Third Party Content Suppliers accepts liability to any
such person or make any other representation to any such person on behalf of Lotsearch or any Third Party Content Supplier.
4. End User must not remove any copyright notices, trade marks, digital rights management information, other embedded information, disclaimers or
limitations from the Report or authorise any person to do so.
5. End User acknowledges and agrees that Lotsearch and Third Party Content Suppliers retain ownership of all copyright, patent, design right (registered or
unregistered), trade marks (registered or unregistered), database right or other data right, moral right or know how or any other intellectual property right
in any Report or any other item, information or data included in or provided as part of a Report.
6. To the extent permitted by law and subject to paragraph 7, all implied terms, representations and warranties whether statutory or otherwise relating to
the subject matter of these terms other than as expressly set out in these terms are excluded.
7. Subject to paragraph 8, Lotsearch excludes liability to End User for loss or damage of any kind, however caused, due to Lotsearch's negligence, breach of
contract, breach of any law, in equity, under indemnities or otherwise, arising out of all acts, omissions and events whenever occurring.
8. Lotsearch acknowledges that if, under applicable State, Territory or Commonwealth law, End User is a consumer certain rights may be conferred on End
User which cannot be excluded, restricted or modified. If so, and if that law applies to Lotsearch, then, Lotsearch's liability is limited to the greater of an
amount equal to the cost of resupplying the Report and the maximum extent permitted under applicable laws.
9. Subject to paragraph 7, neither Lotsearch nor the End User is liable to the other for any indirect, incidental,consequential, special or exemplary damages
arising out of or in relation to these terms.
10. These terms are subject to New South Wales law.
PHOTO LOG
AppendixB
Plate1
Description:
Vehicleparking
areaadjacentto
boatramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate2
Description:
Boatramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate3
Description:
Boatramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate4
Description:
Boatramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate5
Description:
Smallchannel
locatedwestof
thevehicle
parkingarea.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate6
Description:
Openspace
areainthe
easternportion
oftheSite.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate7
Description:
Open
space/parkarea
intheeastern
portionofthe
Site.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate8
Description:
Slagmaterial
identified
underneatha
treetotheeast
oftheboat
ramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate9
Description:
Slagmaterial
identified
underneatha
treetotheeast
oftheboat
ramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate10
Description:
Vegetatedarea
eastoftheboat
ramp.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate11
Description:
Remainingpiers
fromtheold
QueensWharf.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate12
Description:
Thick
vegetation
alongtheriver
bank.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate13
Description:
Openspace
arealooking
southtowards
QueensWharf
Road.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate14
Description:
Accessareato
residential
properties
runningalong
southernSite
boundary.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate15
Description:
Channel
running
adjacent
easternSite
boundary.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate16
Description:
Public
amenities
buildingwith
associated
septicsystem.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate17
Description:
Septicsystem.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate18
Description:
Riverbank
lookingeast.
Date:
29/02/2016
AppendixB
Plate19
Description:
Riverbank
lookingeast.
Date:
29/02/2016
Plate20
Description:
HunterRiver
lookingeast
toward
Morpeth
bridge.
Date:
29/02/2016
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices
PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices
EP RISK MANAGEMENT
G11/283 Alfred Street,
NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060
Note 1:
Current Search
Folio Identifier 8/52394 (title attached)
DP 52394 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
ANTHONY JOHN HINES
JENNET ISOBELLE HINES
Title Tree
-2-
Lot 8 DP 52394
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 8 DP 52394
Year Proprietor
(Lot 8 DP 52394)
1988 todate Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
(Lot 8 DP 52394 CTVol 12044 Fol 142)
1981 1988 Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
1974 1981 Mistletoe Investments Limited
1973 1974 David Mitchell, farmer
(Lot 8 DP 52394 and other lands Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol
5110 Fol 154)
1964 1973 David Mitchell, farmer
1964 1964 Clare Flanagan, widow
Mary Imelda Flanagan, widows
1940 1964 Patrick Flanagan, dairy farmer
(Lot 8 DP 52394 and other lands Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol
4555 Fols 39 & 40)
1932 1940 Alice Mary Bowyer, wife of grazier
Marian Laura Bowyer, spinster
(Lot 8 DP 52394 and other lands Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol
1907 Fol 52)
1908 1932 The Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Limited
****
Note 2:
-3-
Current Search
Folio Identifier 1/169466 (title attached)
DP 169466 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
ANTHONY JOHN HINES
JENNET ISOBELLE HINES
Title Tree
Lot 1 DP 169466
****
-4-
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 1 DP 169466
Year Proprietor
(Lot 1 DP 169466)
1996 todate Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
(Lot 1 DP 169466 Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol 3178 Fol 163)
1981 1996 Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
1974 1981 Mistletoe Investments Limited
1964 1974 David Mitchell, farmer
1964 1964 Clare Flanagan, widow
Mary Imelda Flanagan, widows
1926 1964 Patrick Flanagan, farmer
1921 1926 Herbert Henry Smith, blacksmith
(Lot 1 DP 169466 and other lands Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol
2083 Fols 213 & CTVol 2864 Fol 95)
1918 1921 John Edward Robert Campbell, colonel
Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales
Frederick Arthur Campbell, grazier
(Lot 1 DP 169466 and other lands Area 1 Rood 16 Perches CTVol
2083 Fols 213 & 218)
1910 1918 John Edward Robert Campbell, colonel
Frederick Arthur Campbell, grazier
****
Note 3:
-5-
Current Search
Folio Identifier 30/543798 (title attached)
DP 543798 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAITLAND
Title Tree
Lot 30 DP 543798
PA 47732
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 30 DP 543798
-6-
Year Proprietor
(Lot 30 DP 543798)
1988 todate The Council of the City of Maitland
(Lot 30 DP 543798 CTVol 11545 Fol 104)
1971 1988 The Council of the City of Maitland
****
Note 4:
Current Search
-7-
Title Tree
Lot 3 DP 1149223
CA 144635
****
-8-
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 3 DP 1149223
Year Proprietor
(Lot 3 DP 1149223)
2010 todate Mistletoe Investments Limited
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel Conv Bk 3081 No
918)
1972 2010 Mistletoe Investments Limited
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel Conv Bk 2713 No
521)
1964 1972 David Mitchell, farmer
1962 1964 Clare Flanagan, widow / administratrice
Mary Imelda Flanagan, widow / administratrice
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1960 1962 Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1952 1960 John Farrell Flanagan, executor
Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1939 1952 Harris Martin Flanagan, executor
John Farrell Flanagan, executor
Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel vide uninterrupted
possession)
1913 1939 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the younger
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel vide uninterrupted
possession)
1899 1913 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the senior
****
Note 5:
Current Search
-9-
Title Tree
Lot 14 Section A DP 1684
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 14 Section A DP 1684
-10-
Year Proprietor
****
Note 6:
Current Search
Folio Identifier 4/226025 (title attached)
DP 226025 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
ANTHONY JOHN HINES
-11-
Title Tree
Lot 4 DP 226025
IVA 4842
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 4 DP 226025
Year Proprietor
(Lot 4 DP 226025)
1988 todate Anthony John Hines
-12-
****
Note 7:
Current Search
Title Tree
Part Lot 3 DP 755237
uninterrupted possession
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 3 DP 755237
Year Proprietor
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (north side Queens Wharf Road) &
other parcel Conv Bk 3081 No 918)
1972 2010 Mistletoe Investments Limited
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel Conv Bk 2713 No
-14-
521)
1964 1972 David Mitchell, farmer
1962 1964 Clare Flanagan, widow / administratrice
Mary Imelda Flanagan, widow / administratrice
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1960 1962 Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1952 1960 John Farrell Flanagan, executor
Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
1939 1952 Harris Martin Flanagan, executor
John Farrell Flanagan, executor
Sarah Flanagan, widow / executor
Patrick Flanagan, estate
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel vide uninterrupted
possession)
1913 1939 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the younger
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland & other parcel vide uninterrupted
possession)
1899 1913 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the senior
****
Note 8:
Current Search
Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (Part Lot 3 DP 755237 South of Queens Wharf Road)
Crown Plan 374 Or
Dated 08th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
UNKNOWN
-15-
Title Tree
Part Lot 3 DP 755237
(a) (b)
**** ****
(c)
****
Summary of proprietor(s)
Part Lot 3 DP 755237 (South)
Note (a):
Year Proprietor
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (south side Queens Wharf Road) &
other parcel Conv Bk 30 No 121)
1853 todate Moses Murphy, publican
1823 1853 Right Reverend William Tyrrell, bishop of Newcastle
Edward Charles Close, esquire
-16-
****
Note (b):
Year Proprietor
(Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (south side Queens Wharf Road) &
other parcel Conv Bk 27 No 363)
1853 todate Joseph Thomas Hall, farmer
1823 1853 Right Reverend William Tyrrell, bishop of Newcastle
Edward Charles Close, esquire
(Portion 3 Parish Maitland Crown Grant Serial 18 Page 160)
1823 1823 Edward Charles Close, esquire
****
Note (b):
Year Proprietor
****
27 JUNE 2017
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 6
Number of Pages: 20
PO Box 114 New Lambton NSW 2305
BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx
29 April 2016
Ms Kelly Lofberg
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
PO Box 100 Stockton NSW 2295
Dear Kelly,
Further to your instructions we have now completed the requested transport planning and engineering assessment of the
traffic planning and engineering aspects and related road design issues for the Plan of Management and Masterplan at
Queens Wharf, Morpeth NSW. This letter outlines the findings of our traffic Impact assessment investigations.
1) Study Background
Maitland City Council is seeking to improving recreational access to the Hunter River, which is seen as a
significant asset to the LGA. Currently seen as being underutilised, access to the river is restricted by the lack of
suitable entry points as well as the absence of public facilities adjoining the river.
A need has been identified for additional facilities to be provided particularly for non-motorised vessels such as
canoes, kayaks, dragon boats, surf skis and paddle boards. There is a perception that the perceived lack of access
has held the community back from accessing the river.
Maitland City Council (MCC) has over a number of years (2013 to 2015) continued with strategic planning that
culminated in Council endorsing in 2015 the Study into Access to the Hunter and Patterson Rivers. (<Author,
2014) The study identified potential sites for future development for access to the rivers for recreational
purposes, including the launching of non-motorised vessels.
An action of Councils endorsement was for the preparation of a Plan of Management and Masterplan for land
located at The Esplanade, Lorn and Queens Wharf, Morpeth.
This report forms part of the baseline studies being prepared to support the Plan of Management for the Queens
Wharf Morpeth site.
f. Assess the access roads to the site, currently perceived as low traffic volumes with narrow
formation widths.
g. Assess the parking needs which are also perceived to provide insufficient parking spaces for cars
and cars with trailers. Advice on parking shortfalls, access and circulation within the site.
a. The Maitland Bicycle Plan and Strategy 2014 identifies a proposed off-road cycleway along
Steamer Street which should also be considered in the Masterplan.
b. Prepare a Traffic Impact Statement suitable for inclusion in the Plan of Management.
3) Site Location
This subject site is located at Morpeth NSW. Access to the Hunter River is available from Queens Wharf Road at its four way
intersection with Morpeth Road and Tank Street. Queens Wharf Road forms the northern leg of this junction. This is the
only access to the river foreshore at this location.
Morpeth is a historic river town that was the used as a shipping wharf during the early years of European settlement in the
Hunter Valley.
Site plans for the proposed development are included as Attachment A to this Report.
The kerb lines within this part of the town are part of the historic precinct, constructed from local stone, and as such have
not been modernised (and are not likely to be so.) The carriageway width kerb to kerb varies, generally in the range of approx.
11 metres, with generous on street parking in the Swan Street precinct.
Morpeth Road is a 2 lane road of varying standards. West of Queens Wharf Road a/ Tank Street parking reverts to parallel
on both side of the carriageway. The southern pavement edge is not kerbed west of Tank Street. The local government road
authority is Maitland City Council.
Tank Street
Tank Street is one of the main access roads for the Morpeth town, connecting to Metford Road and south to Raymond
Terrace Road, and eventually to the New England Highway corridor at East Maitland. It is the key approach route to the
Morpeth town from the south. The sealed pavement width is approximately 9 metres wide.
Photo Plate 2 Tank Street looking south across the Morpeth Rd intersection
Tank Street is also a two lane two way road, with sufficient width for 2 parking lanes and 2 travel lanes. Its cross section is
more typical of an urban street (i.e. sealed pavement with kerb and gutter)
The Tank Street leg of the Morpeth Road intersection is controlled by Stop Signs.
The main access function of Queens Wharf Road is to an existing river boat ramp, and a small foreshore park.
Photo Plate 3 Queens Wharf Road approach to Morpeth Road (looking south)
Photo Plate 4 Queens Wharf Road looking north towards Hunter River
The existing boat ramp facility is utilised to launch a variety of vessels on the Hunter River including motor
boats, canoes, kayaks and dragon boats. The wharf also provides the opportunities for larger water craft to moor
and for people to participate in other water based recreational pursuits such as fishing.
The boat ramp, wharf and adjoining picnic areas are understood to be heavily utilised by the community,
resulting in congestion at times from competing user groups at the site. Launching from boat ramps can be
dangerous due to power boat activity and reversing trailers.
A shortage of car parking spaces in the area has been identified and is resulting in cars being parked on
adjoining private property and in haphazard fashion, at times blocking vehicular movements through the site.
Maximising car parking and trailer parking is seen as necessary to alleviate the conflicts with private property.
However it is noted that the needs of all stakeholders should be assed to avoid potential conflicts if at all possible.
Photo Plate 5 Queens Wharf Road approaching the boat ramp car park
Photo Plate 6 Queens Wharf Road boat ramp car parking (sealed) at Hunter River
Photo Plate 7 Unsealed trailer parking area at Queens Wharf Road boat ramp
Traffic Surveys
In order to provide an up to date base of flow information traffic movements were monitored at the intersection of Morpeth
Road / Tank Street / Queens Wharf Road. The surveys were conducted during an afternoon (PM) and morning (AM) period.
Results of the traffic survey monitoring are included as Attachment A to this report.
As part of the site visit observations were made of the existing conditions on the surrounding road network, taking particular
notice of safety and traffic movement issues:
C. Road conditions
a. The traffic lane width of Morpeth Road in the vicinity of the subject site is of the order of 7 metres, with
adjacent parking lanes
b. East of Tank Street / Queens Wharf Road it is built to urban design standards including kerb and gutter.
c. West of Tank Street / Queens Wharf Road it is built to a mixed standard with some kerbing but also table
drains and shoulders as well.
d. The road width and condition is considered satisfactory for existing 2 way local road operations.
e. Sight distances at the Morpeth Road intersection are considered acceptable for the existing road
conditions.
f. The speed limit set at the standard urban 50 kph speed limit.
Based on the site observations it can be seen that traffic flows in the vicinity if the subject site are operating at
satisfactory Levels of Service, LoS A or B on the local road system, which is considered very good operating
conditions, with little or minimal delays experienced by drivers I the traffic stream.
Considering the above data and assessing intersection capacity based on approach lane capacity the existing
number of approach lanes (one in each direction) is considered satisfactory.
The above guidelines have been used in assessing the scale and type of boat ramp facilities that would be suitable for the
Morpeth context and location.
Failure to provide adequate car only parking would result in cars occupying car and trailer spaces, which limits the capacity
of the ramp facility particularly at sites that also support non-boating user groups (e.g. swimmers, picnicking). Separate car
only parking areas should be provided at a rate of 1 car park per 5 car and trailer spaces. In addition to this, at least one car
only parking space should be provided for disabled access. In large car parking areas, 2% of car only parking spaces should
be allocated for disabled access
Where practicable, the boat ramp parking area may also be considered as a multi-use facility. For example, a section of the
parking area could be designated for commuter use as a park and ride facility during weekdays and returned to boat ramp
users during weekends, school holidays and special events when demand is higher.
Morpeth is a small riverside village within the Lower Hunter Region where there are several boat ramp facilities allowing
access to the Hunter and Williams Rivers. Its setting is essentially a rural village, however it is the furthest inland boat ramp
facility on the Hunter River. It serves a reach of the river that is used for a variety of boating activities, with the Duckenfield
rowing facilities a short distance downstream. It provides access for paddle and power boating, including dragon boats which
are most likely the longest vessels that could use the boat ramp facilities.
Based on these issues, and the RMS guidelines, the following assumptions are recommended for the purposes of initial
concept design for the Queens Wharf facility:
Rural setting single boat ramp with rigging and derigging facilities
Total parking provision of 40-50 spaces, with around 10 spaces as single car spaces including disabled spaces(say 2
spaces) This represents the mid-range of facility for a single boat ramp facility.
A single loop layout of car and trailer parking offset and at 90 degrees from the existing boat ramp location
Rigging bays alongside the access way on approach to the boat ramp
De-rigging bays on the exit in the location of the existing car parking
Figure 3 - Typical tow vehicle & trailer combination (Source: RMS September 2015)
While a 12.5 metre length is the adopted car and trailer combination for design purposes in the RMS Guidelines, it is
recommended in regional facilities that a number of longer car and trailer parking spaces (up to 14 metres) be provided to
accommodate oversized vehicle arrangements (such as dragon boat trailers). Conversely, a small number of shorter car and
trailer parking spaces may also be considered to maximise car and trailer parking opportunities at the site.
It should be noted that trailers are legally able to have a rear overhang of up to 3.7 metres, measured from the centre of
wheel axle(s). As such, overhang of the trailer beyond the rear wheel stop can be accommodated in the design of car and
trailer spaces. The portion of the car and trailer space that is occupied by trailers may be sealed in high use or poor drainage
areas or otherwise grassed to minimise impervious areas and facilitate infiltration of surface runoff.
The width of car and trailer spaces and grassed area (measured perpendicular to the alignment of the parking space) will vary
according to the adopted parking angle as shown in Figure 17. The size and arrangement of car only parking spaces should
be provided in accordance with AS 2890.1. Car spaces for disabled access and associated shared areas, bollards, kerb ramps
and pavement markings should be provided in accordance with AS 2890.6 and AS 1428.
Recommended typical car and trailer parking geometry is illustrated in Figure 4 overleaf.
Figure 4 Typical car and trailer parking space geometry dimensions. (Source: RMS September 2015)
Figure 5 Example of Rigging area adjacent to ramp approach access way (Source: RMS September 2015)
The rigging area should comprise a 3.5 metre wide and 20 metre long parking bay with tapered entry and exit points that
allow traffic to pass alongside it. One bay per boat ramp lane is usually considered. A clear manoeuvring area should be
provided behind the crest of the boat ramp to allow for turning and reversing of vehicles. The manoeuvring area should:
be as wide as the boat ramp;
be orientated to permit straight line reversing to the boat ramp launching position;
provide a land approach 20 metres long; be free of obstructions (e.g. overhead lines, lane dividing barriers, kerbs
etc.); and,
have a longitudinal grade of 1% to 5% towards the boat ramp and 0% to 2% crossfall (0% crossfall is preferred).
To reduce congestion a de-rigging and tie-down area should be provided along the exit access way from the manoeuvring
area. The number of bays and size of this area should be similar to the rigging area. Boat wash-down facilities and garbage
bins should ideally be provided to service each bay of the de-rigging area. Due to potential noise issues, wash-down areas
should be positioned away from residential dwellings where possible. Given the close proximity of residences to the facility it
is recommended that time restrictions be included on the use of wash-down facilities.
11) Parking Layout Concepts
A typical regional parking facility showing all facilities recommended for inclusion in boat ramp facilities (fish cleaning tables,
amenities block, rigging and de-rigging areas etc.) is attached to this report as Attachment A
The Morpeth facility is recommended at a rural (local) level, and as such its facilities may be more in keeping with the facility
as illustrated in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6 Possible ramp facilities concept for Queens Wharf facility (Source: Adapted from RMS September 2015)
Source: Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis
In addition to the flow combinations observed, the initial SIDRA analysis of both Am and PM peak flow conditions confirmed
the level of service for the intersection, and all movements as LoS A.
Photo Plate 9 Queens Wharf Road looking north east towards River Foreshore, Boat Ramp and Car Park
The Austroads Guides for road design standards have been reviewed for a road of the standard of Queens Wharf Road, in
particular the Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design (Austroads 2009).
The Guides to Road Design and Guide to Traffic Management (Austroads 2009) update many aspects of road design and
traffic management, and have subsequently been adopted by the peak Australian state and New Zealand road authorities
under the Austroads banner. However there is still a great deal of variability in road standards from one LGA to another.
The critical information relates to road functional classification, forecast traffic volumes and geometric design standard.
For Queens Wharf Road its existing classification and standard matches the following characteristics:
1) It is both urban and rural in character on parts of its length
2) It performs as a local access place, and is effectively a dead end road.
3) Forecast traffic volumes to be less than 500 vpd
4) 50 kph design speed limit
Based on this information and considering the Austroads and MCC design specifications for both urban and rural settings,
Queens Wharf Road and given its forecast operation is closer to the operating characteristics of a local access place or street
rather than a major collector road it is recommended that:
A rural standard road cross section is considered appropriate given the nature of the Queens Wharf Precinct.
A carriageway width of 7 metres minimum be adopted. This would allow for 2 x 3 metre travel lanes and 0.5 m
sealed shoulders. 3.0 to 3.3 metre lanes are allowable for urban conditions under the Austroads guidelines.
0.5 metre is considered an acceptable minimum sealed shoulder width.
The conclusion here is that with the forecast traffic flows into the future will be less than 500 vpd, it is considered that the
road carriageway width of 7 metres would be able to cater for the anticipated operational levels on Queens Wharf Road.
5) Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the traffic assessment of the proposed Plan of Management for Queens Wharf
Morpeth:
a. Site conditions were observed, considering overall traffic flow conditions and safety aspects of the local
road system in the vicinity of the subject sight.
b. Traffic flow conditions on the surrounding local road system operate well within the limits of available
road capacities, with minimal delay caused to road users. Observed flows during a typical AM and PM peak
were very low.
c. There are no technical capacity reasons why anything more than basic priority controlled intersection is
required for the subject site, or for the Morpeth Rd / Queens Wharf Rd intersection.
d. The posted speed limit on Morpeth Road and Queens Wharf Road of 50 kph is also appropriate for the
urban road conditions that develop along its length.
e. The planned functional level of the Queens Wharf boat ramp facilities is recommended at Rural/local
standard.
f. This generates a need for up to 40-50 parking spaces, including up to 10 and car parking spaces (2 disabled).
g. It is also recommend that overflow parking be catered for by making use of any excess grassed areas
adjacent to the boat ramp facility
h. Right turn treatment requirements in Morpeth Road at the Queens Wharf Road intersection are urban in
nature, and pavement widths are sufficient to allow passing of turning vehicles.
i. Revised forecast traffic flows on Queens Wharf Road allowing for the expansion in boat ramp facilities are
forecast to be less than 500 vpd (based on a 10% peak to daily flow factor)
j. With the forecast traffic flows similar in magnitude to the rural access road threshold of 500 vpd, it is
considered that a local rural road carriageway width of 7 metres would be able to cater for the anticipated
operational levels on Queens Wharf Road.
k. The boat and parking facilities should conform to the RMS guidelines and Australia Standards for car
parking facilities.
Our overall conclusion therefore is that the traffic, access and parking design elements of the plan of management do not
require the installation of higher order controls at the Morpeth Road intersection with Queens Wharf Road. Basic priority
control is considered satisfactory for the forecast flow levels and road conditions.
The upgrading of Queens Wharf Road to a minimum 7 metre pavement to provide some level of pavement edge protection
is considered warranted. It is our recommendation that the road and intersection design requirements be modified to reflect
the type of intersection access and parking design concepts confirmed by this review.
6) Further Information
We hope our traffic investigations and assessment provides sufficient information to assist you with the concept design
considerations for the Queens Wharf site. If you have queries on any aspects of the traffic and parking investigations
please contact me.
Yours sincerely
Mark Waugh
Director
Technical References:
RMS NSW Boat Ramp Facility Guidelines, NSW RMS September 2015
Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis (Austroads 2009)
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3 Geometric Design (Austroads 2009)
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2009)
Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, RTA October 2002
RMS Technical Direction td13-04a (Updated Trip Rates), NSW RMS August 2013
Attachments
A RMS regional Boat Ramp Concept Layout
B Traffic Survey Summary
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 7
Number of Pages: 56
Plan of Management
Lorn Riverbank
Lorn
Prepared for
Maitland City Council
Revision D
06 June 2017
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
The Lorn Riverbank is an important site within The 9.5 hectare site is located on the banks of the
the Maitland LGA as it provides a combination of Hunter River and stretches for approximately 1
recreation facilities and access to the Hunter River. kilometre. Ownership of the site is shared between
The Lorn Riverbank is a popular destination, used Crown Land and Council, adjacent to residential
not only by the local community but also attracts properties and overlooked by the Levee Precinct
visitors from the broader region. It is regularly of the central business area.
used for canoeing and kayak activities since it has
The topography of the land is sloping down
easy beach access to the river.
toward the river with fairly steep and rugged
With this in mind, Maitland City Council (Council) banks down to the waters edge. The northern
has identified the Lorn Riverbank as a priority area boundary of the site contains a levee that creates
for improving access to the Hunter River. This Plan a ridge line along that boundary.
of Management and related Masterplan help to
The site is vegetated primarily with grass. There
interpret the vision for the site.
are Gum Trees and Peppercorn Trees along the
The Plan of Management (PoM) provides a high ground of the levee. The lower areas of the
strategic framework for conserving the sites site are populated with Willows and Casuarina
cultural values and to promote public leisure and trees, which mark the edge of the river.
recreation. Management actions are proposed
Vehicular access to the site is off The Esplanade.
to meet the current and future demands for the
One access point rises steeply from Bowden
sites resources and facilities. They have been
Street and heads directly over the levee. A second
based on stakeholder and community input to
driveway is at the RH Taylor Reserve. This leads to
improve the amenity of the site and respond to
a small parking area.
the communitys values and needs.
Pedestrians can access the site from Belmore
Road via a footpath that ends abruptly in the park,
Figure 0.1: View of the Lorn Riverbank site from The Levee.
Hu
Hi nte 9.5 Hectares
gh rR
Str ive
ee r
t
MAITLAND
Les
Ne Darc
wE yD
ngl rive
and
Hw
y
Project Site
1.4. What is a Plan of Identify ways to manage and maintain the site
outlining project costs and priorities
Management?
Identify potential sources of funding
A PoM is a statutory document that is required Ensure principles of environmental and
under the Local Government Act 1993 for all ecological sustainability are incorporated into
community land and may also be prepared for the practices adopted
public land under the Crown Lands Act 1989. A
Identify flood mitigation and management
PoM provides the management framework for
measures
the future use, maintenance and improvement of
public land. Identify appropriate risk management
measures.
The PoM provides details of the communitys
values and establishes measurable actions for the A masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank site has been
ongoing management of publicly owned land. prepared in conjunction with this PoM. The two
plans complement each other and should be read
together.
e Road
Belmor Sharkies Lane
Th
RH Taylor
e
Reserve
Av
Es
en
pla t
na ee
ue
de tr
e nS
wd
Bo
Project Site
Th Hu
eL nte
Hig ev rR
hS ee ive
tre r
et
Road
Belmore
cA
Se
t 1 94
Lo P53 c A
D Se
t 2 94
Lo P53 ec A
D 3S 4
t 9
Lo P53
D
Th
eA
ve
nu
e
The Es
plana
de
Lot 1
DP953307 Waterways
Lot 7007
DP1006732
Hig
hS
tre
et
Figure 1.4: View of the Lorn Riverbank across the river from Maitland.
Environmental protection principles be Part 2, Clause 36 of the LG Act specifically sets the
observed direction for preparing a PoM over Council land.
The natural resources of Crown land (including This Plan has been prepared in accordance with
water, soil, flora, fauna and scenic quality) be Part 2, Division 2 of the LG Act, which relates to
conserved wherever possible the use and management of community land.
Public use and enjoyment of appropriate
Crown land be encouraged
Multiple use of Crown land be encouraged
where appropriate
Crown land should be used and managed in
such a way that both the land and its resources
are sustained in perpetuity
Lower Hunter Regional Strategy A draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) to rezone
Hunter River Estuary Management Plan (NSW) the subject land from RU1 Primary Production
Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan to RE1 - Public Recreation has received a
2013-2023 (NSW). Gateway Determination from NSW Planning
and Environment to proceed and was publicly
2.1.5. Council Policies exhibited from 2 June to 1 July, 2016.
This PoM is to be used in conjunction with
Council Policies and procedures that govern the
management of Community Land and any facilities
located on such land.
The objectives of RU1 zoning are to: Objectives of RE1 zone are to:
Encourage sustainable primary industry Enable land to be used for public open space
production by maintaining and enhancing the or recreational purposes
natural resource base Provide a range of recreational settings and
Encourage diversity in primary industry activities and compatible land uses
enterprises and systems appropriate for the Protect and enhance the natural environment
area for recreational purposes.
Minimise the fragmentation and alienation of
This PoM and the Masterplan for the Lorn
resource lands
Riverbank have been developed to ensure all
Minimise conflict between land uses within this
outcomes and recommendations are consistent
zone and land uses within adjoining zones.
with the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation
Zone.
Co La
m nd
TH
m
E
un
ity
ES
PL
AN
AD
E
Operational Land
Crown Land
LEGEND
Site Boundary
RU1 Primary Production
RE1 Public Recreation
R1 General Residential
B1 Neighbourhood Centre
B3 Commercial Core
B4 Mixed Use
Figure 2.1: Zoning Plan.
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Park
Foreshore
Figure 2.2: Land categorisation.
The core objectives for management of The core objectives for management of
community land categorised as a natural area are: community land categorised as foreshore are as
To conserve biodiversity and maintain follows.
ecosystem function in respect of the land, or To maintain the foreshore as a transition
the feature or habitat in respect of which the area between the aquatic and the terrestrial
land is categorised as a natural area environment, and to protect and enhance all
To maintain the land, or that feature or habitat, functions associated with the foreshores role
in its natural state and setting as a transition area
To provide for the restoration and To facilitate the ecologically sustainable use of
regeneration of the land the foreshore, and to mitigate impact on the
foreshore by community use.
To provide for community use of and access to
the land in such a manner as will minimise and The category of foreshore is appropriate for those
mitigate any disturbance caused by human areas of land on the site that are wet at high tide
intrusion and dry at low tide (ie land within the tidal zone).
To assist in and facilitate the implementation
of any provisions restricting the use and
management of the land that are set out in
a recovery plan or threat abatement plan
prepared under the Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995 or the Fisheries
Management Act 1994.
Figure 2.3: View of the park area from the Maitland levee
2.3.1. Crown Land The public land under this PoM is generally
meant for the community as a whole to enjoy.
Crown land may be leased or licensed for specific Leasing and licensing restricts this public use by
purposes. A lease and licence provide different granting a single group or entity control over
legal use of Crown land. A lease of Crown land a portion of that land. It is therefore necessary
enables exclusive use over a particular piece of to place guidelines and restriction on the ability
land for a specified term and purpose, whilst a of a Council to grant leases and licenses over
licence is a contractual agreement that grants community land. A Council does have the
the licensee a personal right to occupy the use authority to grant a lease or licence on Community
of Crown land for a particular purpose. A licence Land in accordance with the conditions outlined in
does not provide exclusive use of the area of land the LG Act and/or Crown Lands Act.
as other persons may be permitted to use the
same area of land. Under Section 46 of the LG Act, a lease or licence
applying to Community Land must be expressly
Under the Crown Lands Act 1989, an individual, authorised by a PoM.
organisation, business or local government body
may enter into a lease or license for appropriate This PoM expressly authorises the lease, licence
use on Crown Land provided that: or grants of any estate over the park and any
Management of the land is in accordance with structures on the park for any community purpose
this PoM and relevant Crown Land policies and as determined by Council. The purposes must be
guidelines consistent with the core objectives of a park and
other applicable legislative requirements under
The use of the land is in the public interest
the LG Act.
The lease does not exceed 100 years
The granting of the lease or license is in The type of uses permitted include, but are not
accordance with the relevant provisions of the restricted to:
Crown Lands Act 1989. Casual hire
Licences may be granted for use of the park
The current Crown lands in the Lorn Riverbank are for casual events. Events may include, but will
located along the bank of the river and include: not be limited to, recreational pursuits and
Lot 7007 DP1006732 other community events. These must be for
Waterways. the prescribed purposes pursuant to clause 24
of the Local Government (General) Regulations
Licenses may be granted for special occasions 1998, and may include organised markets,
and other uses provided that the proposed use/ festivals, and performances that may include
activities is in accordance with all legislative stall holders, engaging in a trade or business
requirements, respects the study areas values and and small-scale private sector events including
heritage and designated use of the management parties, weddings, filming and photography.
precinct.
Granting of estates
In accordance with the LG Act, this PoM
expressly authorises Council to grant estate
over Community Land for the provision of
public utilities and works associated with
or ancillary to public utilities. Estates may
also be granted across Community Land for
the provision of pipes, conduits or other
connections under the surface of the ground
The Lorn Riverbank is located on the northern The site is accessed from Lorn via the Esplanade.
bank of the Hunter River, south of the Lorn The main access point for vehicles is at the
township and north of Central Maitland. The intersection of Esplanade, The Avenue and
site is bounded by Belmore Road to the west, Bowden Street. Vehicles enter the site using an
The Espalande to the north and on the south by existing gravel road over the levee. The drive is
Hunter River. Privately owned residential and also used by existing residents on the south side
agricultural land is located along the north-west of The Esplanade. This access travels directly over
boundary. the levee and provides access to all parts of the
site.
The site is a high profile open space area opposite
The Levee Precinct and the commercial area of The single access drive over the levee forms a
Central Maitland. The precinct is popular among dangerous intersection of vehicles moving over
the local community, nearby communities and the levee with limited visibility while pedestrians
those from further afield, especially during festivals are using the same driveway.
and special events. The site is also utilised annually
A secondary vehicular access point is at the R H
for some of Councils largest community events
Taylor Reserve near Belmore Road. This access
New Years Eve and the Riverlights Multicultural
leads to a small car parking area that is contained
Festival. The site provides the location for the
with bollards and rail fence.
fireworks display on New Years Eve and access to
the river for the launching of vessels and the paper There is only one formalised pedestrian access
lantern flotilla during the Riverlights Festival. point. It consists of a shared pathway located at
the intersection of The Esplanade and Belmore
From a regional perspective, the riverbank serves
Road. This pathway leads into the site and ends
as part of the flood management strategy. It
abruptly.
contains the levee that protects Lorn and has a
substantial amount of flood water storage. A shortfall of formal and informal parking for
general and event requirements and general
The riverbank also offers access to the Hunter
access and circulation issues within the site need
River waters for recreation purposes. This allows
to be addressed. A traffic and parking assessment
people to splash in the water as well as the
was undertaken as part of the preparation of this
launching of kayaks, canoes and paddle boards.
PoM and the masterplan. The traffic and parking
final report for the Lorn Riverbank site concludes
3.2. Local Context that:
The Lorn Riverbank is an important site within A permanent parking supply of 40-50 spaces
the Lorn and Maitland communities due to its for the site is considered appropriate
proximity to and visibility from the commercial Existing traffic, access and parking design
area of Central Maitland. It is also one of the few elements of the PoM do not require the
places where people can walk into the water to installation of higher order controls
have a splash or swim. An 8 metre wide sealed access road should be
utilised to provide some level of separation
of vehicles and cyclists. Pavement edge
protection is also warranted.
Figure 3.1: Access down to the beach area. Figure 3.2: Current landscape with mostly grass.
Depth Chart
(metres)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure 3.3: Flood map indicating the flooding depths during a 5 year storm event.
Figure 3.4: Flood map indicating the flooding depths during a 50 year storm event.
3.2.5. The Built Assets the context of the land in accordance with the
appropriate legislative requirements.
There are few built assets on the Lorn Riverbank
site. The structures are described below. Lease arrangements will need to be reviewed
Asphalt entry drive to top of levee should there be any changes to land use resulting
from this PoM and Masterplan.
Segmented and incomplete footpath
Picnic tables near R H Taylor Reserve
Sheds in the leased paddock area
Shed to access flood gate on the levee.
Refer to Figure 3.5 for the locations of the following elements on the site.
Description Condition
R H Taylor Reserve drive and The drive and parking area are
parking in poor condition and in need of
replacement
Driveway off The Esplanade to
contained parking area. Does not meet driveway and
parking standards.
7
6
2
1 5
9
8
Legend
The Wonnarua people are the traditional land The suburb of Lorn was modelled after the English
owners of the Maitland area. Their lands extend and American Garden City movement. This
throughout the Hunter Valley. Other nations that perhaps accounts for the number of trees that
neighboured the Wonnarua include Geawegal, exist in the suburb today.
Worimi, Awabakal, Gamilaroi, Wiradjuri,
The Belmore Bridge (pictured), which was a vital
Darkinjung and Birpai. (www.maitland.com.au)
link between Lorn and Maitland, was first opened
There are no known Aboriginal sites along in 1869. That bridge stood for almost a century,
the Lorn Riverbank. However, like most of the withstanding many floods. The periodic flooding
Australian landmass, sites along major rivers have of the river, however, took its toll on the bridge
the potential to contain the remains of Aboriginal and necessitated the construction of a new bridge
occupation. that could withstand the high waters and the
debris carried with it. A new bridge (currently in
4.2. Non-Indigenous History use) was constructed in 1964 to replace the old
structure.
The Maitland area was introduced to European
settlement in the early 1800s. This early
settlement was predominantly for farming
purposes. The establishment of a port at Morpeth
along with mineral mining activity boosted the
growth of the region.
Figure 4.1: Belmore Bridge before being replaced by the current bridge.
Source: Newcastle Region Library.
The objectives of the Hunter River Access Project The survey was available to be completed between
community consultation were to make stakeholders 01/02/2016 and 18/03/2016, with 103 people
aware of the project, dissemminate information responding.
and to enable stakeholders to provide feedback
to assist in the development of the PoM and Respondents where asked to indicate how
masterplan for the Lorn site. important potential upgrades to the park were to
them.
6.2. Community Workshops The highest priority was access to the sandy beach
In response to Councils desire to improve area along the riverbank. Respondents valued the
community facilities and access to the Hunter passive recreation area and travel from elsewhere
River at Lorn, a community engagement workshop in the local government area to visit the community
was conducted with interested local residents and space.
current users of the facility. Picnic areas and a safe swimming spot were also
As part of the process, participants were asked to identified as upgrades of high importance.
share their thoughts on what is good, what needs
improvement and also their thoughts and ideas
about current and potential future uses of the Lorn
Riverbank.
1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users & visitors
To improve access to the park & the river, for a range of activities, pedestrians &
AIM:
vehicles
Provide shared pathways and internal roads, linked to other destinations and
AIM:
residential areas.
AIM: To improve and upgrade the park with facilities that cater for a range of user groups.
Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up keep of
AIM:
the facility.
To develop a plan that encourages activities and events in the popular community
AIM:
facility
6. Install an iconic feature to define the Lorn 5. Improve vehicular circulation within the site
Riverbank. This could take the shape of a -- Safe entry drives
heritage display, structure or work of art
-- Adequate parking area
7. Improve the beach for kayak/canoe launching -- Potential for trailer parking
-- Kayak / canoe drop off area (potential access
8. Install parking and area lighting to improve
to beach)
safety and minimise anti-social behaviour.
-- Vehicle control devices to keep vehicles from
7.1.2. Environmental leaving roadways.
1. Protect and enhance the river bank 7.1.5. Land Consolidation
2. Ongoing management of the river bank to Investigate the acquisition of adjoining privately
minimise erosion owned lands identified as Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 Sec
3. Use native and indigenous plant species A DP5394, Lot 70 DP456843, Lot 1 DP323698.
where appropriate
-- Re-introduce riverbank ecology.
1. Flooding inundates the entire site on a 2. No formal pathway for pedestrians and
seasonal basis cyclists to access the site
4. Levee banks.
Figure 7.3: Sandy banks rising steeply from the river stabilised by vegetation.
Figure 8.1: Expanded parking with proposed amenities block, picnic facilities and childrens play area.
2
d
re Roa
Belmo 2
8
5
6
25
7
9
Th
e
14
Lorn
Av
en
ue
Th
eE
24 sp
lan
16 ad
e et
24 tre
enS 16
wd
Bo
12
25
10
16 1 22
11 26
Maitland
Legend
1. New entry drive alignment 14. Lawn area for play and events
2. Parking areas 15. Wide concrete steps down to water and beach
3. Overflow parking 16. Shared pathway
45
13. Terraced lawn for activities 26. Potential community garden area Revision: D
0 9 18 27 45 90m
8.3. Funding
There is a range of potential funding sources
from both the NSW and Federal Government, in
addition to revenue generated through Councils
budget process. These potential funding sources
are particularly relevant to parks, waterways and/
or open space that have a regional or state-
wide attraction and that benefit the community
beyond the immediate local government area.
These arrangements are often one-off or short
term grants, with funding usually awarded via a
competitive process. Successfully funding depends
upon priorities within the government department
that is offering the funds and how the applicant
aligns with these priorities.
Objective: Improve access to the Hunter River and the riverbank park for recreational purposes.
Table 9.2
Objective: Improve opportunities for recreation and community activities within the park.
Objective: Enhance the aesthetics of the park in a way that complements the identity of the community
and incorporates Maitlands long-term vision for the area.
Table 9.4
Objective: Ensure the development and use of the riverbank is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.
Appendix B
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Lorn Riverbank
Appendix C
Lorn Riverbank
Traffic Engineering Assessment
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 8
Number of Pages: 13
Lorn Riverbank
Masterplan
Prepared for
Maitland City Council
Revision F
06 June 2017
The Lorn Riverbank Masterplan has been The following document establishes the site and
commissioned by Maitland City Council (Council) design principles used, capturing key elements to be
and prepared in conjunction with the Lorn Riverbank included in the improvement of the site. Importantly,
Plan of Management. visual and physical connections to the surrounding
communities have been included.
The masterplan is a long-term visioning and
planning document. It translates the framework Character photos have been included on each page
established by the plan of management into a to provide examples of how the masterplan could
document that can be used to plan, invest and be interpreted. Elements can be prioritised and
ultimately construct an upgraded facility. sequenced over the entire site to allow for staged
construction.
It represents the communitys aspirations for
the popular community park incorporating new The concepts and designs identified are a result of
amenities and landscape for that area. Through the extensive consultation with a broad range of
a series of workshops and intensive consultation, stakeholders. 1 2
community members and stakeholders provided
feedback on how they would like to use the Key to images on right.
riverbank now and into the future. That feedback 1. Parking area (page 6)
has been incorporated into the development of the 2. Central Plaza (page 7)
masterplan to meet Councils objective to improve 3. Conceptual Water Terrace (page 12)
recreational opportunities for residents, businesses 4. R H Taylor Reserve (page 13)
and visitors alike.
Lo
The Lorn Riverbank site is
rn
Road located along the Hunter
St
re
Belmo
re
River. It sits across the
et
river from Maitlands
Levee precinct.
R H Taylor Reserve
The river bank rises
Lorn steeply from the waters
Th
edge for most of the site
eA
and continues rising to
ve
Es
nu
pl the levee located along
en
e
ad The Esplanade and
e t
tree Bowden Street. Most
nS of the site is prone to
wde
Bo flooding.
Maitland
Key locations/activities
desired
d
re Roa
Belmo
View angles from key
locations
Off-leash
dog park
Th
Shared pathway
e
Av
Th connection needed
en
eE
ue
sp
lan Areas of low flood risk
ad
e suitable for structures
4
risk
Parking
6
lev
6 el b
enc
h-
4 ma
rke
ts
Th
eL 2 3
ev
1
ee
Hig
hS
3 2 3
River 2
tre
1
1
et access
Th
Es
e
pla
Av
na t Shared pathway connection to
ee
e
de
nu
tr
nS Sharkies Lane
e
e
wd
Bo
Observation deck high on bank
Conceptual Water (page 11)
Terrace (page 12) Overflow
Parking
Hu
Th nte
eL rR Re-instated riverbank ecological
ive
ev r The Riverfront
Hig ee area with pathway through it
Pre (page 8)
hS cin The Beach
tre ct Observation deck near water
et (page 9)
level (page 10)
Terraced lawn areas along riverbank
NORTH
Scale 1:2750 @ A3
NORTH
plaza area
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Paved Plaza
activity space
NORTH
definition
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Ramp access to
beach area
Riverfront
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication
NORTH
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Hunter River
Launching area
NORTH
Precinct
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Hunter River
Hunter River
NORTH
Observation of riverbank ecology
Educational signs
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Fishing
Kayak / canoe tie-up
Swimming.
NORTH
Hunter River Scale 1:500 @ A3
NORTH
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Hunter River
Es
pl
construction (approved).
an
ad
e
The existing off-leash dog
Fences Off-leash dog Off-leash dog
area is formalised with
designed to play area play area - Parking
fencing to contain the
accommodate small dogs
dogs. Rubbish bins and
flood waters and access to water are also
debris provided.
Fitness equipment
An adventure play area
Amenities block
is added that contains
structures and shade atop
Proposed covered
the levee. The play then
picnic area with
tumbles down the gentle
tables, BBQ and
slope onto a level lawn
bins
area.
Outdoor exercise
equipment is located
between the dog area
and the adventure play
area.
Childrens adventure
NORTH
play facilities
connected to the
Scale 1:500 @ A3
adjacent lawn below
Level lawn
play area
Stone blocks to retain
and create level lawn area
Shared pathway
Officers Reports
Appendix B - Stakeholder
Engagement Report Lorn Riverbank
(under separate cover)
Attachment No: 9
Number of Pages: 56
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Lorn Riverbank
MARA
CONSULTING
Design & Communication
Document Control
Senior Communications and
Issued By: Kelly Lofberg Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Revised By: Tadd Andersen Senior Landscape Architect Mara Consulting
Senior Communications and
Authorised By: Kelly Lofberg Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Signed:
Date: 14 April 2016 Mara Consulting
Revision History
Revision Date of Issue Details
Initial issue for comment by
00 04 March 2016
Project Team
01 11 April 2016 Draft for issued to MCC
Register of Changes
Page / Reference Details
Company Details
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
2 www.maraconsulting.com.au
C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary 4
Community Consultation 9
Consultation Results 13
Community workshop 15
Survey results 24
Online feedback 28
Consultation Outcomes Summary 29
Conclusion 32
Appendix 1 - Hunter River Access Factsheet 33
Appendix 2 - Social media advertising 35
Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer Edition 2015/2016 36
Appendix 4: MCC Media Release 37
Appendix 6: Feedback from workshop 43
Appendix 7: Survey 44
Appendix 8: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board 53
Appendix 9: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board 54
Appendix 10: Invitation to Workshop 55
3 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Executive Summary
The Maitland local government area is a With this in mind, Mara has developed
picturesque and growing community within a stakeholder engagement strategy to
our region. Situated on the Hunter River, understand the communitys aspirations for
Maitland has a rich history and connection the improved access and facilities at Lorn.
to one of the major rivers in New South
This document has been prepared based on
Wales, connecting the Liverpool Range to
feedback received through the stakeholder
the Port of Newcastle. It was because of this
engagement process undertaken to inform
proximity to the Hunter River that the City
the Plan of Management and Masterplan.
of Maitland grew and prospered.
Consultation with key stakeholders has
Accordingly, Maitland City Council (Council)
occured to identify current issues and to
has identified the Hunter River as a
generate ideas for potential upgrading
significant asset and as such has embarked
and future development of the riverside
on a strategic plan to enhance the heritage
locations.
and natural resource for the entire
community to enjoy. This report summarises the feedback
received through the engagement activities.
Council has engaged Mara Consulting
It also seeks to identify possibilities for the
(Mara) to develop a Plan of Management
site and suggest next steps.
and Masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank
to improve recreational opportunities for
residents, businesses and visitors alike.
Council has provided clear instructions to
guide the development of both projects
with stakeholders as a key focus of both
projects.
4 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Overview
The Hunter River is an iconic natural attraction, renowned for its historical and economic
significance to the region as well as a popular location for recreational activities. With its
origin in the Barrington Tops, the river connects communities along approximately 468
kilometres to the Port of Newcastle.
Along this beautiful and popular waterway, is the riverside community of Lorn. Identified
by Council as a significant but under utilised asset, the site was highlighted as priority area
to improve entry points, public facilities and recreational opportunities.
As a result Council has engaged Mara Consulting to develop a plan of management and
masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank. A key component of this project is to engage with
stakeholders to gain feedback and input into the design process.
Scope
The initial stage of the project includes developing specialist and technical studies to
support the development of the Plan of Management and Masterplan for the site at Lorn .
The preliminary studies include:
Engineering - Flooding and stormwater assessment
Traffic assessment
Community consultation.
The preliminary studies are then used to inform the plan of management and masterplan.
The plan of management is an important planning tool, setting out the guidelines for how
a site will be managed, used and improved.
The site is an important community asset with natural and heritage significance.
The plan of management will incorporate community values and guide how the areas
might be improved or enhanced.
The masterplan is an illustration of what Lorn would look like if the plan of management is
implemented. It is a scaled site drawing that lays out items such as:
Facilities
Access points
Planting areas
Walkways and pathways
Heritage items and memorials
Parking areas and circulation
Open spaces and play areas
Signage
Jetties or launch areas
Other ideas through the design & consultation phases.
A staged works program is then prepared with projects costed and prioritised.
5 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Workshop participants
6 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Project Location
The project is located at Lorn adjacent to the Hunter River and over looked by the popular
new Levee precinct and High Street commercial centre.
7 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image (Top): Workshop participant voting on map.
Image (Bottom): Site map with votes - Red = Needs most improvement Green = Most used
8 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Community Consultation
Overview
Consultation is a key component of the project and a holistic approach to engaging with
stakeholders has been adopted throughout the project. The consultation component has
included:
Developing a consultation and engagement plan that identifies stakeholders and
lists planned activities to support the development of the Plans of Management and
Masterplans
Consultation with the working group made up of representatives from MCC, TfNSW
and RMS to update the group on the projects progress
Workshops held with the community at Lorn (Wednesday 02/03/2016)
An online survey (open on 01/02/2016 and closing 18/3/2016) with more than 100
responses
A presentation to the Maitland Sport and Recreation Advisory Board (15/02/2016).
Door knocking of businesses in High Street Maitland
A letter box drop to residents in Lorn
Targeted focus meetings with relevant stakeholders throughout the process
A project fact sheet available in electronic and hard copy format
Updates on Maitland City Councils Facebook page, Your Say website and Your Say
Facebook page
Advertising to advise of workshops and survey
Email and telephone inquiries and responses
Maitland Your Say information and feedback page
The presence of Maitland City Council Officers at Maitland Taste Festival.
This report also contains a summary of the feedback from the online survey and gathered
at the facilitated workshops with key stakeholders and users of the facilities at Lorn and
Morpeth.
Objectives
The objectives of the Hunter River Access Project community consultation were to:
Make the community and stakeholders aware of the project
Disseminate information to stakeholders, residents and local businesses
Enable the community to provide feedback and provide ideas into the design of
potential future facilities
Assist in the development of recommendations to be incorporated in the plan of
management and masterplan for both sites.
9 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Community Consultation process
Consultation methodology
Completed between January and March 2016, the consultation sought input from a range
of stakeholders including users of the recreational areas, residents, businesses and sporting
groups to determine how the riverside locations can be improved.
A number of activities were ongoing through the project and included two key streams of
engagement. The first was seeking input and feedback through digital mediums (online
survey, Facebook, website and email). The second was face-to-face discussions with
interested stakeholders and groups through workshops, meetings, presentations.
A media release officially launched the consultation, inviting interested members of
the community to attend the facilitated community workshop held on 2 March 2016.
Approximately 30 people attended the workshop, and number of activities were conducted
to guide the conversation and ascertain the communitys aspirations for each site.
At the conclusion of each workshop, feedback forms were provided to attendees at the
meetings as well as a visual aid to indicate how participants felt about the consultation
activities.
Social media was used to promote and encourage input into the project with a number of
posts included on Maitland Your Say Facebook page and on Councils Facebook page. See
Appendix 2 for materials and posts.
An online survey was shared and promoted to stakeholders, with hard copy versions
available to interested community members without access to the internet. A copy of the
survey is included in Appendix 7.
The project team attended the Maitland Taste Festival on 12 and 13 March 2016 as park
of the Maitland Your Say engagement booth. During the two day festival, team members
were available to answer questions and accept feedback about the project. A dedicated
project page was also created on the Maitland Your Say engagement hub to provide
information and online feedback options to all community members.
The site provided project information, Frequently Asked Questions as well as a link to the
online survey and an ideas board for community feedback. All upcoming consultation
opportunities were noted on the site and updated as the project progressed.
10 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Consultation Timing
Stakeholders were able to provide input into the project between early January 2016 and
18 March 2016. The online survey was closed on 18 March 2016, however submissions
beyond this time frame were accepted and included in the final report.
Further discussions with interested community groups were scheduled once draft concept
plans were developed for both sites. The aim of this additional round of consultation was
to gain feedback from key groups prior to submission to Council and the public exhibition
of the plans.
The project timeline in diagram 1 (below), illustrates that the consultation process is
ongoing throughout the project.
Ongoing design process. Technical reports and consultation input into design
11 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Participants at the community workshop
12 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Consultation Results
Overview
Engaging with stakeholders is an important part of the planning process. Understanding
what users and visitors value and their aspirations for the facility will help to better inform
the future vision for this recreational area.
Additionally, engagement and consultation provides Council with information to plan for
new facilities and upgrades that fit with the long-term strategic plan.
This document is designed to summarise the discussion and feedback gathered from the
engagement activities that were carried out between January and March 2016 in regards to
the plan for the Lorn Riverbank.
Follow up meetings and discussions were held with stakeholders once a draft concept was
developed.
Image: Enjoying the Lorn Riverbank NYE firework spectacular. Source Newcastle Herald
13 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Participants at the community workshop
14 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Community workshop
In response to Councils desire to improve community facilities and access to the Hunter
River at Lorn, a community engagement workshop was conducted with interested local
residents and current users of the facility. As part of the process, participants were asked
to share their thoughts on what is good, what needs improvement and also their thoughts
and ideas about current and potential future uses of the park.
This section of the report summarises the priority issues for those in attendance at the
workshop held on 2 March 2016. The workshop was attended by 31 representatives from a
range of user groups, Councillors and Council officers.
Table 2: Attendees - Hunter River Access Lorn Workshop
Name Name
Ted McEniery
15 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Workshop process
The workshop was designed to elicit feedback from current park users and provide an
opportunity for participants to give their opinion on whats good and not so good about
the Lorn Riverbank park. The aim of the workshop was not to reach a consensus, but to
stimulate options and ideas for a future upgrade to the project area.
The workshop commenced with an initial discussion including:
Explanation of the project:
Developing a Plan of Management and Masterplan for the site
Explanation of what the plans do
Plan for the future
Project phases and milestones.
Understanding why the area is important:
Current users
Future users.
Generating ideas and start a conversation:
Whats good and not so good about Lorn Riverbank
Generate ideas and what could be included at the project site.
Report:
Identify opportunities that can be included in the Plan of Management and
Masterplan for the Hunter River Access upgrade
Make recommendations based on the feedback.
16 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Workshop activities
After a presentation about the purpose of the workshop, participants were encouraged to
participate in four activities to generate a discuss. It was the role of Mara to facilitate the
discussion and record the outcomes.
17 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Analysis of Comments
Outcomes - Key themes
The workshop was structured to generate a conversation to gain an understanding of
what stakeholders value or feel is important about the riverside park. It was important that
everyone in attendance had the ability to have their opinion heard and included in the
discussion.
All participants in the workshop were asked to share what was good and why the space
is important to them. Everyone agreed that they enjoyed using the space and said they
valued it as a community facility. Stakeholders indicated that it was important to them that
access and safety were considered in the upgrading of the facility.
A summary of the feedback gathered through the activities from participants is included in
the following pages and will be used in the development of the Plan of Management and
Masterplan for the site.
A number of recurrent themes were evident during the conversation with stakeholders and
are summarised in Figure 1 below.
KEY THEMES
What participants said
18 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Current uses of the Lorn Riverbank
How stakeholders use the community space
Stakeholders placed importance on the ability to use the large open space for a range of
activities.
Participants said that exercise, passive recreation and water sports were there main uses for
the site. Participants also said that the poor vehicular access to the site limited their ability
to use the area in other ways, particularly for launching non-motorised boats.
Many of the participants lived in close proximity to the park and regularly used the spaces
for a range of activities. Consideration was given to other user groups not represented at
the workshop.
The site is popular for its large open spaces and easy access to the river, with visitors
driving to the river edge to swim dogs and walk along the bank. It is also a popular
destination for families with many saying they spend time with their children or
grandchildren to play, swim and ride bikes.
A number of people said they dont currently use the riverbank but have in the past,
particularly for walking with dogs and for launching non-motorised boats.
The Lorn Riverside park is also a popular site for Council hosted events such as the annual
New Years Eve fireworks and the Riverlights Multicultural Festival.
19 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Issues for the park - whats not so good
What stakeholders said needs improvement
Access to the Lorn Riverbank was the most significant theme to emerge from the
workshop. Participants consistently talked about the lack of access to the park and river.
This includes pedestrian, vehicle and boating access and was raised consistently in the
group discussion. Safety was inexorably linked to this discussion, with residents and users
raising concerns about the conflict of users, pedestrians and vehicles accessing the site.
A number of participants talked about maintenance, including weed control and that the
site had been neglected for a number of years. The word eyesore was used but there was
a genuine desire to improve the park and riverbank for all the community to use.
Some participants talked about areas of the site that were unusable after wet weather and
flooding events with some areas in need of significant rehabilitation. Additionally, concerns
with the stabilisation of the bank and erosion along the river edge were raised.
Participants also highlighted the lack of shade, mature trees and covered picnic areas as
items for improvement. Throughout the workshop, comparison was made to the amenities
block at Queens Wharf at Morpeth and a desire to have similar amenities at Lorn was
expressed.
Political influences and a lack of trust in Council were raised as issues in the general
discussion, although not recorded in the activities. Participants said that Council had not
shown any interest in addressing the issues previously raised by residents.
Stakeholders said:
No shade or trees Off-leash area in need of
No toilet facilities - showers improvement
and toilets Safety is a major concern -
Access - entry, internal roads speeding vehicles & hoons
and parking are inadequate Lack of bins
In need of maintenance & weed Neglected for years
control Needs separate vehicle &
Needs activities & events pedestrian access
Limited access on the Levee Flooding & damage not fixed
side forces everyone to Lorn Disconnected from city-centre
Water safety - shallow Lack of parking
swimming area Bad behaviour of people
Stability of riverbank & erosion Not all-ability accessible.
Lack of area to launch kayaks
20 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Riverbank improvements
How the park could be used and upgraded
This activity was completed individually and the aim was to find out what improvements
participants wanted in the short, medium and long term.
The responses were predominantly related to improvements to access and upgrades to
infrastructure with events and activities as the third highest priority.
A number of participants felt strongly about improving access to the site for pedestrians,
vehicles and into the river. Some went on to say that the narrow street access should be
expanded to provide two-way access over the levee, ensuring safe pedestrian access. Safe
access to the water for boats was also raised.
New infrastructure and amenities was a key consideration, with toilets, showers, shared
pathways and parking raised through the discussion. All-ability access and facilities was
also raised, ensuring people with disabilities, mobility issues and families with prams were
considered in any improvements to infrastructure.
Opportunities to attract tourism related events or family-friendly events including
markets, entertainment, outdoor cinema and fishing competitions were supported by of
participants.
Stakeholders said:
Two-way access over the levee Traffic calming devices to slow
Improved vehicle access down vehicles
Pedestrian bridge to the city Area for events
Exercise stations/fitness track Community garden
Swimming area Trees & landscaping of native
All-abilities playground plants/shrubs
Weed clearing & maintenance Safe walking tracks
Designated carpark area A pontoon
Fencing Infrastructure to withstand
Cycleways & pathways flooding
Bins Fishing competition
Signage & lighting Protect area from vandalism
Toilets & showers (like at Night markets & outdoor
Morpeth) cinema
Ramp to allow access to the Swing or water play into river
river for non-motorised boats Better access to riverbank.
21 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Prioritising Riverbank improvements
How the park could be used and upgraded
Working in small groups, participants were asked to prioritise improvements for the Lorn
Riverside park. While the previous exercise was focused on individual desires for the site,
this activity focused on bringing different user groups together and through constructive
discussions, to determine what the groups priorities were.
After each group presented their priorities, the wish list changed slightly and now included
connections and shared pathways in the top three. Improving access still remained the
highest priority with upgrades to infrastructure and amenities as the third highest priority.
During this discussion, safety was intertwined with improved access. There was a genuine
concern that without two-way or separated pedestrian and vehicle access, accidents were
likely to occur.
New infrastructure and amenities would attract more people to the site, increasing the
concerns for pedestrian and vehicle safety.
Shared pathways and connections along the riverbank to other destinations, particularly
the city-centre was highlighted as a priority. Some mentioned a new footbridge connection
across the river to the business district in High Street. Some participants talked about
creating a heritage walk through Maitland (this was also raised in while conducting a door-
knock with businesses in High Street).
Infrastructure such as toilets, showers, parking and a proper launching area were
highlighted as priorities when discussed in a group setting.
Stakeholders said:
Two-way access over the levee Pedestrian bridge to the city
Improved vehicle access Designated carpark area
Restrict vehicle access past the Toilets, showers, parking,
site launch/jetty
Separated vehicle & pedestrian Landscaping, weed control
access & native plants should be
Shared pathways & connections included
22 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Prioritising small improvements
What could be upgraded with small grants
Working in small groups, participants were asked to come up with ideas to improve and
activate the Lorn Riverside park. The aim of this exercise was to create a discussion about
items and activities that the community could achieve with a small grant. This idea is
referred to placemaking and encourages communities to make spaces vibrant and inviting.
Additionally, the exercise was also designed to generate ideas that could be included in
the masterplan and implemented in the short-term. Many of the items on the wish list
require significant funds and planning, while these items can be implemented in some
incidences, immediately.
As small groups, the participants acknowledged that events and activities could be
introduced to broaden the appeal of the space to residents and visitors to Maitland.
Markets, cinemas and regattas were some of the ideas that people came up with to make
better use of the riverside park.
Weed control, clearing and general landscape improvements was another priority.
Participants said that general maintenance of the space would make an immediate and
positive improvement to the park. Additionally, participants said that post and chain
fencing or a natural landscaping barrier would also help maintain areas, while separating
cars from the dog walking area.
The introduction of speed calming devices such as speed humps and mirrors could be a
cost effect and immediate method of improving access and safety to the park.
Stakeholders said:
Markets or outdoor cinema Signage for rules in off-leash
Morpeth to Maitland regatta area
Landscape improvements, weed Gravel to provide river access
control & clearing for canoes
Speed calming list speed Solar lighting to improve safety
humps or mirrors Separate cars from dog walking
Natural barriers to restrict car area.
movements around the site
23 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Survey results
An online survey was used to investigate options for improving access to the Hunter
River. The benefits of using an online survey meant that it could be shared through digital
platforms such as Facebook, websites and email links to reach a broad section of the
community. Many people find the time to complete a paper survey cumbersome and fail to
return the completed questionnaire.
The survey was available to be completed between 01/02/2016 and 18/03/2016, with 103
people responding. Only one paper survey was completed and entered manually into the
database to ensure their views were captured.
Demographics
Approximately eighty-four per cent of respondents were between the ages of 25 to 54,
with most respondents in the 35 to 44 age bracket. Approximately tewnty per cent of
respondents lived in the suburb of Lorn, seven per cent from Morpeth and seventy-three
per cent from elsewhere in the Maitland Local Government Area.
Age
Gender
Answer choices Responses Per cent
Female 64 62.14%
Male 39 37.86%
24 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Where do you live
Of those respondents that use the park, proximity to home, ability to access to the Hunter
River and the large open spaces were what they valued most about the space. The off-
leash dog park was the most popular reason for using the facility, followed closely by a
space to exercise and launching kayaks and canoes.
25 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Upgrades to the Lorn Riverbank park
Respondents where asked to indicate how important potential upgrades to the park were
to them. The highest priority was access to the sandy beach area along the riverbank.
Respondents valued the passive recreation area and travel from elsewhere in the local
government area to visit the community space.
Picnic areas and a safe swimming spot were also identified as upgrades of high
importance.
Community events and activities ranked lowest in terms of priorities for the Lorn Riverbank.
Respondents did not seem to value the space for organised activities. In contrast,
community events ranked highly with participants in the workshop.
Also of low importance were the off-leash dog area and any improvements for exercising.
These results may be a reflection of the high proportion of people that live elsewhere in
the local government area that completed the survey. Those who attended the workshop
prioritised these items much higher. It is likely this is due to the proximity to the park and
how people use the space. Residents tend to use the space more regularly for exercising
and dog walking.
26 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Upgrades to the Lorn Riverbank park
Other responses
Survey respondents provided a number of responses in the open-ended question, which
asked what changes would most improve the park at Lorn.
Respondents provided specific suggestions that could be grouped into three priority areas:
Infrastructure/amenities, access and maintenance. The open-ended question responses
were similar to those that were identified in the workshops. Many comments were related
to the provision of bins, upkeep of the grounds and maintenance of the riverbank. The
provision of pathways and connections was the fourth highest priority, followed by safety,
environment and activities.
27 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Online feedback
Other Contributions
Facebook
The Maitland Your Say page is a
digital platform hosted by Maitland
City Council used to engage with a
broad range of stakeholders. An ideas
board was hosted on the project
page asking participants to share
their ideas for ways to improve access
and recreation opportunities for
both study sites. Six comments were
shared on the board and two up votes were placed.
Social media tools were identified in the engagement strategy as an effective way to seek
feedback from a wide range of users, residents and visitors to the Lorn riverside park.
There are currently more than 2,500 likers on the Maitland Your Say page, providing
access to a large stakeholder group. The Maitland Your Say page was not only used as a
method of directly seeking feedback but also a means of circulating information about the
project, consultation activities, workshops, ways to provide feedback and regular posts to
encourage people to get involved. A total of eight posts appeared on the Maitland Your
Say Facebook page about the project. Several posts were boosted reaching over 15,000
people. Many people expressed an interest in the project and provided their feedback and
ideas for Lorn riverbank.
Something like the Toronto Foreshore would be fab!
A lovely longer river walk towards Oakhampton would be nice too.
Riverside bike track similar to the one around Lake Macquarie - Warners
Bay to Speers Point would be awesome.
The highest priority identified through online engagement was the desire for new
infrastructure and amenities. A number of people compared facilities found around Lake
Macquarie as improvements they would like at the Lorn Riverside park.
Shared pathways for cyclists and walkers were also another priority for Facebook
users. Connecting the city-centre and surrounding suburbs were identified as desirable
improvements.
Stakeholders said changes that would most improve the park:
28 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Consultation Outcomes Summary
Specific key themes & priorities
This section of the report summarises the key themes or focus areas that emerged from
the workshop, through the online survey, Facebook feedback, the Maitland Your Say ideas
board and individual responses received. Aims then outline ways to capitalise on the focus
area and then a list of suggested activities are included to help achieve these outcomes
and a renewed vision for the Lorn Riverbank.
AIM: To improve access to the park & the river, for a range of activities,
pedestrians & vehicles
29 www.maraconsulting.com.au
3. Connections - provide pathways & links
Provide shared pathways and internal roads, linked to other destinations
AIM:
and residential areas.
30 www.maraconsulting.com.au
6. Activities & events - Activating the space
31 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Conclusion
Views were sought from a range of stakeholders providing an opportunity to identify
options to enhance the facilities and natural environment of the Lorn Riverbank. Seven
key themes emerged from stakeholder consultation, helping to identify issues and
opportunities for upgrades to be incorporated in the design process.
Feedback received during the consultation was very consistent between the different
methods used; it was only the order of the priorities that changed. This may have been
due to the stakeholder groups engaged, for example more local residents attended
the workshops and safety and access were the priorities. However, through the survey,
stakeholders said that the improvements to infrastructure and access were the highest
priorities. This may be due to the number of people that lived outside Lorn and what
improvements they would like to make them visit the reserve.
The findings of the Hunter River Access community consultation highlighted options that
may help address a number of safety concerns of residents. The installation of mirrors,
barriers and simple landscaping areas could help to reduce conflicts between pedestrian
and vehicle access. Maintenance, mowing and clearing could also immediately improve the
riverbank park. These suggestions have been provided to Councils customer service team
to progress.
All stakeholders expressed their desire to improve the site for the benefit to suit a range
of people and uses. They also said that effective management of the park is important
to them. Workshop participants clearly stated that the success of the facility in the long-
term must address the safety and access issues, as well as flooding events that regularly
damages any infrastructure on the site.
By collating information from the consultation, identifying options for improving the
site, we have developed a list of suggested next steps and activities (included in the
section above). This information will be provided to Council and help inform the Plan of
Management and Masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank.
This task completes the stakeholder consultation for the project.
32 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 1 - Hunter River Access Factsheet
33 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Image: Page 2 of Hunter River Access Factsheet
34 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 2 - Social media advertising
35 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer
Edition 2015/2016
36 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 4: MCC Media Release
GET ON BOARD AND HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE HUNTER RIVER
Council is inviting the community to get on board and share their ideas about how to improve access and
recreation along the Hunter River at The Esplanade in Lorn and at Queens Wharf in Morpeth.
Councils Manager Community and Recreation Services Lynn Morton says, The Hunter River is an essential part of
Maitlands identity. Not only is it one of our citys greatest assets, but it has always played a central role in the life
and growth of the city.
The Hunter River has the potential to cater for a range of recreational activities, but as a community we dont use
it to its full potential. This is in part because access to the river is restricted by the lack of suitable entry points as
well as the absence of public facilities.
A study was undertaken by Council to identify potential sites for future development to improve access to the
Hunter River for recreational purposes. The study recommended that a Plan of Management and Masterplan be
undertaken for land adjoining the river at The Esplanade in Lorn and Queens Wharf in Morpeth.
These plans will set out how these reserves will be used, managed and improved over time to enhance access
points to the river and recreational opportunities for the Maitland community.
Council has recently engaged Mara Consulting to work with the community and seek input into the design and to
develop the plans for both sites.
This important project will direct future development along the riverbank, which will shape how we as a
community use and interact with the Hunter River. I encourage you to get involved because we want to make sure
the river has the best possible facilities so everyone can enjoy all it has to offer, said Ms Morton.
Mara consulting will be holding two workshops next week where residents can speak with the project team and
provide ideas and suggestions. The first workshop will be held on Wednesday 2 March from 6.00pm to 7.30pm at
Lorn Park Bowling Club in Melrose Street, Lorn. The second workshop is on Thursday 3 March from 6.00pm to
7.30pm at St James Parish Hall, 19 Tank Street, Morpeth.
Anyone interested in attending should contact Councils Recreation Projects Officer Amanda McMahon on 02
4939 1011 or email amanda.mcmahon@maitland.nsw.gov.au. Residents can also share their views through
Councils online engagement hub, Maitland Your Say, by heading to maitlandyoursay.com.au
37 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
38 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
39 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
40 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
41 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 5: Examples used at workshop
42 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 6: Feedback from workshop
Images: Participants were asked how they felt about the workshop
43 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 7: Survey
44 www.maraconsulting.com.au
45 www.maraconsulting.com.au
46 www.maraconsulting.com.au
47 www.maraconsulting.com.au
48 www.maraconsulting.com.au
49 www.maraconsulting.com.au
50 www.maraconsulting.com.au
51 www.maraconsulting.com.au
52 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 8: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board
53 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 9: Maitland Your Say Ideas Board
Get on board,
enjoy our river
Improving access and
recreation along the Hunter
River at Lorn and Morpeth
We are developing plans to improve
community facilities and access to the
Hunter River at the Esplande in Lorn
and Queens Wharf in Morpeth.
Your ideas and suggestions will help
develop a Plan of Management and
Masterplan for the two sites.
54 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Appendix 10: Invitation to Workshop
55 www.maraconsulting.com.au
MARA
CONSULTING
Landscape Architecture | Urban Design | Environmental Planning
Communication | Consultation | Government Relations
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
www.maraconsulting.com.au
27 JUNE 2017
Officers Reports
Attachment No: 10
Number of Pages: 21
PO Box 114 New Lambton NSW 2305
BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx
29 April 2016
Ms Kelly Lofberg
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
PO Box 100 Stockton NSW 2295
Dear Kelly,
Further to your instructions we have now completed the requested transport planning and engineering assessment of the
traffic planning and engineering aspects and related road design issues for the Plan of Management and Masterplan
at The Esplanade, Lorn NSW. This letter outlines the findings of our traffic Impact assessment investigations.
1) Study Background
Maitland City Council is seeking to improving recreational access to the Hunter River, which is seen as a
significant asset to the LGA. Currently seen as being underutilised, access to the river is restricted by the lack of
suitable entry points as well as the absence of public facilities adjoining the river.
A need has been identified for additional facilities to be provided particularly for non-motorised vessels such as
canoes, kayaks, dragon boats, surf skis and paddle boards. There is a perception that the perceived lack of access
has held the community back from accessing the river.
Maitland City Council (MCC) has over a number of years (2013 to 2015) continued with strategic planning that
culminated in Council endorsing in 2015 the Study into Access to the Hunter and Patterson Rivers. (<Author,
2014) The study identified potential sites for future development for access to the rivers for recreational
purposes, including the launching of non-motorised vessels.
An action of Councils endorsement was for the preparation of a Plan of Management and Masterplan for land
located at The Esplanade, Lorn and Queens Wharf, Morpeth.
This report forms part of the baseline studies being prepared to support the Plan of Management for The
Esplanade, Lorn site.
f. Assess the access roads to the site, currently perceived as low traffic volumes with narrow
formation widths.
g. Assess the parking needs which are also perceived to provide insufficient parking spaces for cars
and cars with trailers. Advice on parking shortfalls, access and circulation within the site.
a. Prepare a Traffic Impact Statement suitable for inclusion in the Plan of Management.
3) Site Location
This subject site is located at Lorn NSW. Access to the Hunter River is available from The Esplanade, which connects back to
Belmore road via the local street system, including The Esplanade (one way), the Avenue, and Lorn Street. Belmore Road is
one of the main access roads for villages north of Maitland and north of the Hunter River, accessible via the Belmore
Bridge. The subject site is located on the northern bank of the Hunter Review opposite the Maitland city centre.
Maitland is one of the largest inland cities in NSW, and also one of the fastest growing inland cities.
Site plans for the proposed plan of management are included as Attachment A to this Report.
River access from the Lorn Riverbank is considered desirable because of its high visibility from the commercial
area of Central Maitland. Strategic measures contained in the Central Maitland Structure Plan include the
provision of a pedestrian crossing between Cathedral Street, Maitland and the Lorn Riverbank to improve activity
and amenity on the River Walk. The plan also proposes the extension of the existing river beach on the Lorn
Riverbank with additional sand to create an improved recreation resource. There is an existing car park located
on the north western corner of the site within RH Taylor Reserve. There is also an Off Leash Dog Exercise Area
located on the south western corner of the site.
The focussed Study Area for the subject site is illustrated below.
5) Site Access
Vehicle access to the site is from Bowden Street using an existing gravel road over the levy bank which is also
utilised by an existing resident located on the south side of The Esplanade to access to their property. A sandy
beach area adjacent to the river is currently utilised by the general public to access the river.
Safety concerns have been raised by local residents due to the grassed area being utilised by some members of the general
public to drive at high speed throughout the reserve and causing a general nuisance. In addition cars parked on the street in
The Avenue have been hit by such vehicles leaving the site.
6) Local Road Network
Site visits were conducted to observe the road environment and weekday AM and PM peak traffic operations in the vicinity
of the subject site. This included general observations of the local access arrangements to the Hunter River foreshore.
Belmore Road
Belmore Road is the main north south route that connects Maitland across the Belmore Bridge to Lorn and other localities
to the north. It is a vital road link in the Maitland network, being one of only a handful of crossings of the Hunter River.
The stretch of Belmore Road passing through Lorn has a series of priority intersections with the local road network, with local
village shops and other facilities placed along its length.
Belmore Road is a sub-arterial level road in its function, configured as two traffic lanes and two parking lanes along its length
through Lorn. The route is marked as a cycle route given its crossing of the Hunter River, with the parking lanes designated
as combined parking / cycle lanes. There is also a pedestrian crossing adjacent to Brisbane Street at the site of the local post
office and other small businesses
Parking is not prevented opposite some local intersections which was observed as having impacts on through traffic flows
when local traffic turning movements occurred at peak times.
The roads within this part of the Lorn village are all kerbed, with gutter drainage.
Photo Plate 1 Belmore Road looking north (Brisbane Street to the left)
Photo Plate 2 Belmore Road looking south towards Belmore Bridge (The Avenue to the left)
The Esplanade
The Esplanade is the local street closest to the Lorn Riverbank and will be its primary access street. At its intersection with
Belmore Road it includes a partial road closure that allows exit movements only. This is because of the close proximity of the
intersection to the Belmore Bridge, which has a signal controlled intersection on the immediate south side of the Hunter
River at High Street and Ken Tubman Drive. This is the controlling intersection in the road network.
The Esplanade is a local street of generous width, with connection also to The Avenue and Bowden Street in the local network.
It is kerbed only on the northern side of the road, with sufficient width for local 2 way traffic and a parking lane on the north
side. The southern edge of the road bordering the subject site has an unsealed shoulder and no kerb and gutter drainage.
Photo Plate 4 The Esplanade partial road closure at the Belmore Bridge
The Avenue
The Avenue is a local street connecting Belmore Road to The Esplanade and Bowden Streets. It is a typical urban street, with
kerb and gutter and residential properties along its length. The Avenue is a local access road, sealed to a general width 10
metres. The main access function of the Avenue is to serve adjacent residential property. Access to the riverbank is a
secondary function.
Photo Plate 7 The Esplanade and The Avenue (far right), looking west from the top of the Hunter River levy bank
Lorn Riverbank
The existing foreshore recreational facilities are accessed via a link over the river levy bank from the intersection
of The Esplanade, The Avenue and Bowden Street.
Part of the existing facilities is a car park at the western end of the reserve. The main access link is sealed across
the levy bank only, with less formal and unsealed tracks through the foreshore area to gain access to the various
parts of the reserve.
Photo Plate 9 Access to Lorn River Bank from the intersection of The Esplanade, The Avenue and Bowden Streets.
Photo Plate 10 Riverbank access looking south west, illustrating the unsealed access beyond the levy bank crossing.
Traffic Surveys
In order to provide an up to date base of flow information traffic movements were monitored at the intersections of Belmore
Road with The Avenue, Brisbane Street, and Lorn Street, with some monitoring of the Esplanade exit also). The surveys were
conducted during an afternoon (PM) and morning (AM) period.
Results of the traffic survey monitoring are included as Attachment B to this report.
As part of the site visit observations were made of the existing conditions on the surrounding road network, taking particular
notice of safety and traffic movement issues:
A. Weather conditions were overcast with consistent rain showers in the PM survey period.
B. Traffic Volumes - AM and PM traffic flows were observed on Belmore Road at its intersections with The Avenue,
Brisbane Street and Lorn Street. Observations confirmed:
a. Through flows on Belmore Road were the dominant traffic movements.
b. Through traffic movements at the Belmore Road / Lorn Street were in the order of 770 vehicles
westbound and 300(299) vehicles eastbound in the AM peak hour (8:25 0 9:25), and 450 (445) vehicles
westbound and 630 eastbound in the PM peak hour (15:30-16:30).
c. Traffic Flows into and out of Lorn Street were in the order of 100 (98) in the AM peak hour
(8:05 - 9:05), and also 100 (108) vehicles in the PM peak hour (15:30-16:30).
d. Traffic Flows into and out of The Avenue were observed as being less than 50 (48) in the AM peak hour
(8:05 - 9:05), and also well less than 50 (37) vehicles in the PM peak hour (15:30-16:30).
e. These observed traffic flows along Belmore Road place the intersections above the free flow thresholds
for intersection performance defined in the AustRoads Guidelines.
C. Road conditions
a. Traffic lane widths in Belmore Road through Lorn are round 7 metres (2x3.5m) with 2 parking lanes.
b. It is built to urban design standards including kerb and gutter.
c. The junction of The Esplanade has a partial road closure to prevent turning movements from Belmore
Road. This is because the intersection is right on the Belmore Bridge which has no queuing space
d. Queues were observed regularly, back from the traffic lights on the southern side of the Belmore Bridge
past the intersection with The Esplanade.
e. The road width and condition is considered satisfactory for existing 2 way local road operations.
f. Through traffic is blocked regularly, because of the conflict of local parking with turning movements.
g. Sight distances at local intersections on Belmore Road are acceptable for the existing road conditions.
h. The speed limit set at the standard urban 50 kph speed limit.
Based on the site observations it can be seen that traffic flows on the local road system in the vicinity if the
subject site are operating at satisfactory Levels of Service, LoS A, while Belmore Road operates between LoS B
and D, C/D being the service level of the peak directional flow. All of these levels are considered good operating
conditions, acceptable for typical urban road operating conditions.
Considering the above data and assessing intersection capacity based on approach lane capacity the existing
number of approach lanes (one in each direction) is considered satisfactory.
Of note from the site observations was the occasional significant queuing that occurred when right turning
vehicles blocked the through lane, and adjacent parking lanes meant that through vehicles were held up until
the turns to local streets were executed. A simple remedy would be to restrict parking adjacent to the allowed
right turns to The Avenue and Lorn Street to cater for a small queue (maybe 2 to 3 vehicles at the most.)
On this basis the characteristics of other boat facilities have also been considered.
10) Consideration of boat ramp facilities
Whilst not strictly a boat ramp facility, it is useful to understand some of the concepts in relation to boating, in
so far as recreational activities such as kayaking, canoeing etc. will use this facility for access to the Hunter
River. The characteristics of boat ramp facilities are described in the NSW Boat Ramp Facility Guidelines (NSW
RMS September 2015). The scale and type of facility is influenced in part by the geographic setting, whether it is
rural or within an urban area. Typical characteristics of regional-urban and local-rural ramps are summarised in
Table 3 below.
The above guidelines have been used in assessing the scale and type of parking facilities that would be suitable for the
Esplanade context and location, bearing in mind that most vessels are likely to be roof mounted, not trailer mounted.
While there are not anticipated to be many if any trailer mounted boats requiring launching at the Esplanade site, the
anticipated demand for roof mounted paddle craft is such that the parking levels of a local scale facility are considered to be
appropriate. In addition it is likely that the general recreational parking requirement is likely to be higher than for a specific
boat launching facility.
As such it is recommended that a permanent parking facility of a minimum of 40-50 spaces be provided for the Esplanade
site.
As mentioned earlier, the carrying of paddle craft on the roof of vehicles requires some space for unloading / loading from
the vehicle. IN practical terms this means that parking spaces, if parallel will have ample room on the kerb side of the vehicle.
If angled parking layouts are used, then wider spaces would be appropriate.
In the first instance it is recommended that say 50% of spaces are provided at the wider (accessible width), say 20-25 spaces.
This number could be adjusted to suit specific design layouts, and possible adjusted in the future either with car park
extensions, or re-line marking to match demands of car only parking, and cars with boating needs.
Based on these issues, and the RMS guidelines, the following assumptions are recommended for the purposes of initial
concept design for the Esplanade facility:
Urban setting and recreational beach access only for boating needs.
Total parking provision of 40-50 spaces, with around 10 spaces as accessible spaces for boating needs.
Include disabled spaces (say 2 spaces)
Car parking provision to be as per Australian Standard layout requirements
Source: Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis
In terms of intersection operations, if it is assumed that access to the Esplanade foreshore facilities is signposted via The
Avenue, then the flows as observed on Belmore Road do not exceed the threshold levels for capacity analysis except in the
AM peak period.
It is considered that recreational activity associated with the Esplanade foreshore facilities will not coincide with the AM peak
period, rather highest use of the foreshore is expected to be in non-traditional peak flow periods.
Thus capacity analysis has not been performed on this occasion.
However with the observation of occasional significant queuing that occurred on Belmore Road when right turning
vehicles blocked the through lanes at peak times, and adjacent parking lanes meant that through vehicles were held up
until the turns to local streets were executed. It is recommended that from a general traffic management perspective
some adjustments to the parking / traffic lanes on Belmore Road could improve operating conditions. A simple remedy
that could be considered by the road authority would be to restrict parking adjacent to the allowed right turns to The
Avenue and Lorn Street to cater for a small queue (maybe 2 to 3 vehicles at the most.)
The Major road volumes recorded on Belmore Road near The Avenue range from 300 to 770 vehicles per hour.
The corresponding local road flows range from 50-60 vph. This would suggest that a short channelized turn
facility (CHR(S) would satisfy most operating conditions at this junction. If it is considered that flows into and
out of the local precinct can also be made via Lorn Street and exit movements via The Esplanade, then it is likely
the flow conditions at The Avenue during AM peak operations would also be accommodated satisfactorily by this
CHR(S) type treatment.
The left turn from The Avenue has sufficient capacity as the minor leg of a priority junction such that auxiliary
lane treatment is not considered necessary.
Figure 3 illustrates the basic concepts of a right turn treatment. In the case of the existing Belmore Road
carriageway this would involve restricting parking lanes to achieve the necessary turning lane space.
Figure 3 Basic Right turn treatment (BAR) for a two lane urban road
Source: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2009)
Photo Plate 11 Access to the Esplanade from Belmore Road at The Avenue
The conclusion here is that with the anticipated low traffic flows it is considered that the road carriageway width of 8 metres
for the access way over the Hunter River levy bank would be able to cater for the anticipated operational levels for access to
the Esplanade foreshore area.
5) Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the traffic assessment of the proposed Plan of Management for The Esplanade
at Lorn NSW:
a. Site conditions were observed, considering overall traffic flow conditions and safety aspects of the local
road system in the vicinity of the subject sight.
b. Traffic flow conditions on the surrounding local road system operate within the limits of available road
capacities, with minimal delay caused to local road users. Observed flows during a typical AM and PM peak
were within acceptable urban peak limits.
c. There are no technical capacity reasons why anything more than basic priority controlled intersections are
required for the subject site, or at the intersections along the section of Belmore Road through Lorn.
d. The posted speed limit on Belmore Road and local street s of 50 kph is also appropriate for the urban road
conditions that develop along its length through the Lorn village.
e. The planned functional level of the Esplanade foreshore facilities has been assumed as equivalent to a
local boat launching facility.
f. An assumed permanent parking supply of 40-50 spaces is considered appropriate, with some allowance
for accessible spaces for boat loading / unloading.
g. Right turn treatment requirements on Belmore Road at The Avenue intersection are urban in nature, and
pavement widths are sufficient to allow passing of turning vehicles with parking restrictions in place. .
h. Anticipated traffic flows on The Avenue and other Local streets will remain within environmental capacity
limits of the local street network.
i. With traffic anticipated to be at the lower end of the local access street threshold (<100 vph), it is
considered that a local rural road carriageway width of 8 metres for the access road over the Hunter
River Levy bank would be able to cater for the anticipated operational levels for access to the Esplanade
foreshore area.
Our overall conclusion therefore is that the traffic, access and parking design elements of the plan of management do not
require the installation of higher order controls at the Belmore Road intersections. Basic priority control is considered
satisfactory for the forecast flow levels and road conditions.
The upgrading of the Esplanade access road to a minimum 8 metre pavement to provide some level of separation of vehicles,
and cyclists, and also pavement edge protection is considered warranted. It is our recommendation that the road and
intersection design requirements be modified to reflect the type of intersection access and parking design concepts confirmed
by this review.
6) Further Information
We hope our traffic investigations and assessment provides sufficient information to assist you with the design
considerations for the subject site. If you have queries on any aspects of the traffic investigations please contact me.
Yours sincerely
Mark Waugh
Director
Technical References:
RMS Technical Direction td13-04a (Updated Trip Rates), NSW RMS August 2013
Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis (Austroads 2009)
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3 Geometric Design (Austroads 2009)
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2009)
Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, RTA October 2002
Attachments
A Sample Parking Modules
B Traffic Survey Summary