UNDER SEPARATE COVER

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING
27 JUNE 2017
 27 JUNE 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT

10.8 EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN

FOR QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN RIVERBANK

1. QUEENS WHARF MORPETH PLAN OF MANAGEMENT (UNDER

SEPARATE COVER)

2. APPENDIX A - QUEENS WHARF MORPETH MASTERPLAN

(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

3. APPENDIX B - STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT REPORT QUEENS

WHARF MORPETH (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

4. APPENDIX C - ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN QUEENS

WHARF PRECINCT, MORPETH (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

5. APPENDIX D - PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION QUEENS

WHARF MORPETH (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

6. APPENDIX E - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT QUEENS

WHARF MORPETH (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

7. LORN RIVERBANK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT (UNDER SEPARATE

COVER)

8. APPENDIX A - LORN RIVERBANK MASTERPLAN (UNDER

SEPARATE COVER)

9. APPENDIX B - STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT REPORT LORN

RIVERBANK (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

10. APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT LORN

RIVERBANK (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN
FOR QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND
LORN RIVERBANK

Queens Wharf Morpeth Plan of

Management (under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

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

ACN: 168 093 918

ABN: 13 168 093 918
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
maraconsulting.com.au
0425 715 536 0458 233 001

2 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

 C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction and Overview 6
1.1. Project overview 7
1.2. Project location 7
1.3. What is a Plan of Management? 9
1.4. Purpose of the Plan 9
1.5. Land to which this Plan Applies 10
1.6. Project Background 11
1.7. Preparing the Plan 11
2. Management Context 12
2.1. Regulatory Framework 13
2.1.1. Crown Lands Act 1989 13
2.1.2. State Government Policies and Strategies 13
2.1.3. Local Government Act 1993 14
2.1.4. Other Statutory Requirements 14
2.1.5. Council Policies 14
2.1.6. Maitland Local Environmental Plan 14
2.1.7. Queens Wharf Landscape Masterplan 2003 16
2.2. Categorisation of the Land 17
2.2.1. Core Objectives for Park 18
2.2.2. Core Objectives for Natural Area 18
2.3. Leases and licences 19
2.3.1. Crown Land 19
2.3.2. Community Land 19
3. Historical Context 20
3.1. Indigenous Heritage 21
3.2. Non-Indigenous History 21
4. Site Context 24
4.1. Regional Context 25
4.2. Local Context 25
4.2.1. River Access 25
4.2.2. Natural Environment 26
4.2.3. Landscape 26
4.2.4. Flooding 27
4.2.5. The Built Assets 27
4.3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure 28
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
6. Values Associated with Queens Wharf 38
6.1. Visual Quality 39
6.2. Landscape Character 39
6.3. Social / Recreational 40
6.4. Economic 40
6.5. Cultural Heritage 40
6.6. Accessibility 41
7. Opportunities and Constraints 42
7.1. Opportunities 43
7.1.1. Social and Recreational 43
7.1.2. Environmental 43
7.1.3. Economic 43
7.1.4. Heritage 43
7.1.5. Access and Circulation 43
7.2. Constraints 45
7.2.1. Social and Recreational 45
7.2.2. Environmental 45
7.2.3. Economic 45
7.2.4. Heritage 45
7.2.5. Access and Circulation 45
8. Masterplan 46
8.1. Masterplan Principles 47
8.2. Key Proposals 47
8.2.1. Queens Wharf Site 47
8.2.2. Additional Recommendations 48
8.3. Funding 50
9. Management Strategies 52
9.1. Action Plan 53
9.1.1. Objectives 53
9.1.2. Action Tables 53
10. References 56
11. Appendices 58
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 3
Executive Summary
Background
Queens Wharf is a picturesque site nestled on the
banks of the Hunter River in the historic township
of Morpeth. The site was an important hub in
the Hunter Regions development, supporting
economic development and growth of the valley.
The community space now provides a range
of recreational and community uses, attracting
people from around the region. Queens Wharf
is home to the only boat ramp in the Maitland
Local Government Area (LGA) and is popular
amongst motorised and non-motorised boat
users including dragon boats, canoes, kayaks and
paddle boards.
An adjacent jetty provides a temporary docking
space for boats like tour boats. But more often,
the jetty is used for fishing and as a platform for
swimming.
Queens Wharf also has a small park area with
picnic facilities and an amenities block.
This Plan of Management (PoM) provides a
strategic framework for conserving the sites
heritage and cultural values and to promote public
Figure 0.1: View of the park area at Queens Wharf.
4 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
leisure and recreation. Management actions are
proposed to meet the current and future demands
for the sites resources and facilities. They have
been based on significant stakeholder and
community input to improve the amenity of the
site and respond to the communitys values and
needs. A number of technical studies including
heritage, engineering, traffic and environment
were completed to inform the PoM and related
masterplan.
Current status
Queens Wharf is located in Morpeth, along the
Hunter River. It is approximately 2.8 hectares in
size. The land is owned by Maitland City Council
(Council) with several lots owned privately. Council
officers are in negotiation to acquire the privately
owned lots. Approval has been granted by the
land owner for the preparation of a PoM over
the private land. With this in mind, the PoM and
Masterplan have assumed Council ownership of
the lands.
The topography of the park is sloping down
toward the river with fairly steep and rugged
banks down to the waters edge. There is a
drainage ditch that runs across the site adjacent to
the existing two-lane boat ramp.
The existing park area is vegetated primarily with
grass. There are Ficus trees planted adjacent to the
picnic tables. The remaining trees are along the
river bank and along the drainage ditch.
The only access to the site is off Swan Street
via Tank Street. This turns steeply down a
slope to reach the site. There are no dedicated
pedestrian pathways to access the site. Vehicles
and pedestrians are therefore forced to share the
roadway.
Management Context
The Queens Wharf site is classified as Community
Land and is managed under the Local Government
Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act). This PoM has been
prepared in accordance with Section 36 of the LG
Act and supersedes previous plans for the site.
Aims and objectives for Queens Wharf
The aims of this Plan of Management are to:
1. Facilitate the management of Queens Wharf
to enable its development into a park facility
that serves a wide range of recreational and
cultural needs in the Maitland region
2. Guide the preparation of the Queens Wharf
Masterplan.
More specific objectives have been developed in
consultation with Council and key stakeholders
within the local community. These objectives are:
Improve access to the park and circulation
throughout the park
Improve access to the Hunter River
Improve opportunities for recreation within the
park
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
Ensure the development and use of the park
is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.
Masterplan
The Queens Wharf Masterplan has been prepared
in conjunction with this PoM. The Masterplan
illustrates proposed changes and upgrades to
Queens Wharf to meet the aims and objectives for
the site.
The key proposals of the Masterplan include to:
Upgrade the access road by widening travel
lanes and installing a shared path
Improve access to the site by adding an access
road from Steamer Street
Formalising and paving Queens Wharf Road as
it travels through the site
Install parking for cars and for vehicles towing
boat trailers
Install a Heritage Display to promote the
historical aspects of the site
Highlight heritage elements within the site and
riverbank
Provide a shared pathway network through the
site, linking activity locations
Install BBQs and additional picnic tables
Enhance native planting
Install a substantial beach area for river access
Install a secondary location for swimming and
fishing
Extend the existing jetty along the riverbank
Extend the two-lane boat ramp further into to
river to prevent trailers from getting stuck
Widen the top of the boat ramp to allow
vehicles to pull over and secure the boats and
trailers before leaving the site
Increase native and indigenous planting
Install bank stabilising measures
Install a storage structure for community
group use
Install a group picnic facility with BBQ and roof
structure
Provide a childrens play area near the group
picnic facility.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 5
1. Introduction and Overview

6 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

 The Maitland Local Government area is a growing recreational opportunities for residents, businesses
community with picturesque landscapes within the and visitors alike.
Hunter Region. It has a current (2015) population
of 76,457 and an annual growth rate of 2.1 per 1.1. Project overview
cent. Situated on the Hunter River, Maitland has
This document makes up the PoM for the
a rich history and connection to one of the major
recreation area along the Hunter River at Queens
rivers in New South Wales, which connects the
Wharf, Morpeth. This PoM has been guided by
Liverpool Range to the Port of Newcastle. It was
Councils long-term structure plans and strategic
because of this proximity to the Hunter River that
plans. Therefore this plan sits within the existing
the City of Maitland grew and prospered.
legislative context and will guide the future
It is fitting that Maitland City Council (Council) has management and development of the Queens
identified the Hunter River as a significant asset Wharf site.
and has embarked on a strategic plan to enhance
The PoM provides a suite of practical and
the heritage and natural resource for the entire
achievable strategies and actions that will enable
community to enjoy.
Council to manage this valuable resource in the
Moving toward that end, Council is considering short and long term. The Masterplan offers a plan
the improvement of recreational access to the to guide the future development of the site.
Hunter River and its banks. Access to the river
is currently restricted by a lack of entry points 1.2. Project location
and public facilities. Council has identified the
The project is located along the Hunter River at
Queens Wharf site in Morpeth as a location where
the western edge of the Morpeth township. It
improved access to the river is possible and
is bisected by Queens Wharf Road and access
desirable.
is from Swan Street via Tank Street. The historic
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd (Mara) has been engaged tourist and commercial centre of the town is
by Council to develop a Plan of Management and within walking distance from the site.
Masterplan for the Queens Wharf site to improve
2
2
0

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

Figure 1.1: Site plan of the Queens Wharf project area.

10 18

18

20

12
16

7
20

Queens Wharf Plan of Management

20
22
 Phoenix

Phoenix Park Road

Park

Hunter River
2.8 Ha (approx)

Swan Street

h Road
Morpet Morpeth
Tank Street

Project Site

Figure 1.2: Location of the Queens Wharf project.

Source: Maitland City Council, http://mapping.maitland.nsw.gov.au/.

8 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

1.3. What is a Plan of
Management?
A PoM is a statutory document that is required
under the Local Government Act 1993 for all
community land and may also be prepared
for public land under the Crown Lands Act
1989 (NSW). A PoM provides the management
framework for the future use, maintenance and
improvement of public land.
The PoM provides practical application of the
communitys values and establishes measurable
actions for the ongoing management of publicly
owned land.
1.4. Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of this PoM is to provide Maitland
City Council and the community with a more
coordinated approach to the future development
and management of the Queens Wharf Precint
with the intention of improving access and
connectivity to the Hunter River. It provides
a detailed implementation and management
strategy that addresses the following key items:
To preserve and interpret the heritage and
archaeological sites
Improve the standard of public infrastructure,
facilities and amenities
Identify maintenance improvements
Outline the project costs and priorities
Improve site access, congestion, safety,
circulation, and parking
Identify potential sources of funding
Ensure principles of environmental and
ecological sustainability are incorporated
Identify flood mitigation and management
measures
Identify stormwater management measures
Identify appropriate risk management
measures.
A masterplan for the Queens Wharf site has been
prepared in conjunction with this PoM. The two
plans complement each other and should be read
together.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 9
1.5. Land to which this Plan
Applies
This PoM applies to the public land identified in
Table 1.1. These lots are mapped in Figure 1.3
below. For the purposes of this PoM, this area is
known as Queens Wharf.
Table 1.1
Land Ownership
Refer to Figure 1.3 below for lot locations.

Legal Description Owner Control & Management Size

Lot 3 DP 666772 Maitland City Council Community Land 1164m2

Lot 1 DP 1108099 Maitland City Council Community Land 961.1m2
Lot 5 DP 226025 Maitland City Council Community Land 4844m2
Lot 30 DP 543798 Maitland City Council Community Land 4658m2
Lot 1 DP 169466 Proposed Acquisition Privately Owned 2258m2
Lot 3 DP 1149223 Proposed Acquisition Privately Owned 1714m2
Lot 3 DP 755237 Proposed Acquisition Privately Owned 6102m2
Part Lot 4 DP226025* Proposed Acquisition Privately Owned 5747m2
Waterways Crown Land NSW State TBA
*Land to be subdivided to enable part of the existing lot to be acquired by Council.

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/.

10 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

1.6. Project Background
An objective of Councils +10 Community
Strategic Plan (2013) and Associated Delivery Plan
2013-2017 (Revised) was to improve access from
Council owned land to the Hunter River and its
banks from Council owned land. In response to
this objective, the Study into Access to the Hunter
and Paterson Rivers (2014) was commissioned
and subsequently adopted by the Council. The
study identified Queens Wharf as one of the
priority locations for suitable access to the river.
It also made recommendations for future actions,
one of which was the preparation of a Plan of
Management and a Masterplan for Queens Wharf,
Morpeth.
It should be noted that Transport for NSW
(TfNSW) and Roads and Maritime Services
(RMS) also have an interest in investigating and
developing recreational access to the Hunter River.
Consequently they have produced the Regional
Boating Plan Port Stephens - Hunter (February
2015). The study has identified the investigation
of options for improving recreational access to
the Hunter River as a Priority Regional Project and
eligible for funding under the NSW Boating Now
program.
At a more local level, prior studies and plans have
been undertaken that affect the outcome of this
PoM. These include the Morpeth Management
Plan (2000), Archaeological Management Plan for
the Queens Wharf Precinct (2004) and Queens
Wharf Landscape Masterplan (2003).
As a result of the studies mentioned above and
in anticipation of the masterplanning process,
Council is in the process of negotiating the
purchase of privately owned land adjacent to
Queens Wharf to enlarge its holdings and thus
provide adequate space for future development.
The lots currently under investigation are known
as Lot 3 DP755237, Lot 1 169466 and Lot 3
DP1149223. A portion of Crown land identified as
Hunter River Waterways may also be utilised to
increase riverbank access.
A draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to
rezone the subject land from RU1 Primary
Production to RE1 - Public Recreation received
a Gateway Determination from NSW Planning
and Environment to proceed and was publicly
exhibited from 2 June to 1 July, 2016.
In anticipation of these changes, this PoM and
Masterplan have been prepared on the basis that
the subject land is Council owned and managed
and zoned RE1 Public Recreation.
1.7. Preparing the Plan
In practical terms the PoM sets out the
management of the site and the actions
required to achieve this vision of the Masterplan.
These documents have been influence by the
environment and natural forces influencing the
site. As such, a number of technical studies were
completed to inform the project and identify
potential constraints or opportunities for the site.
These reports are attached as appendices and
include:
Engineering flooding and stormwater
assessment
Heritage study and management report
Environmental site investigation
Traffic assessment.
Both documents have been driven by a
comprehensive community engagement program
with a wide range of stakeholders including local
residents, community members, river-based
users, government agencies, private landholders,
Council staff and Councillors. These engagement
processes ran in parallel with a communications
and media plan. The full details and findings
are presented in Section 5 of the report and in
Appendix B.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 11
2. Management Context

12 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

The Maitland community takes great pride in living
along the Hunter River. A key component is access
to the river that encourages community interaction
with the river in a sustainable and safe way. This PoM
begins the process of enhancing river access along
the Queens Wharf Riverbank.
2.1. Regulatory Framework
Public land is governed by legislation that guides
the development and uses upon that land. Crown
lands are under the jurisdiction of the NSW
Government, while Council owned land is under
the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act).
The majority of the land at Queens Wharf is owned
by Maitland City Council, with a small portion
identified as Crown land (submerged). Therefore
the majority of the site falls under the purview
of local government. This PoM recommends
that Council negotiate with Crown Lands to be
nominated as Trust Manager, or that the Crown
Land be transferred to Council so the entire site
may be governed under the LG Act.
The PoM and associated masterplan has been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the
LG Act and associated regulations, as well as other
relevant land management legislation and policy
documents.
2.1.1. Crown Lands Act 1989
The Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) (CL Act)
provides the framework for the administration and
management of Crown land in NSW.
The objectives and principles of Crown land
Management are listed in Sections 10 and 11 of
the CL Act and form the starting point for the
preparation of Plan of Management. The principles
of Crown land management are the following:
Environmental protection principles be
observed in relation to the management and
administration of Crown land
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
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
Crown land be occupied, used, sold, leased,
licensed or otherwise dealt with in the best
interests of the State consistent with the above
principles.
This Plan has been prepared in accordance with
Division 6 of Part 5 of the CL Act 1989. Part 5 deals
specifically with the management of Reserves and
matters related to the appoint and responsibilities
of Reserve Trusts. The purpose of establishing
reserve trusts is to allow reserved Crown land and
potentially other land (Crown and freehold) to be
managed to varying degrees of independence
from the Crown Lands Division but subject to
Ministerial direction.
The area below Mean High Water Mark is Crown
land. As such, use of this area requires an approval
under the CL Act. Crown land can only be
occupied, used, sold, leases, licensed, dedicated
or reserved or otherwise dealt with under the
provisions of the CL Act. The Department of
Primary Industries (Land Division) administers
the CL Act. It is therefore necessary to consult
with the Department and obtain the relevant
approvals before undertaking use or development
of submerged or foreshore Crown land. Such
developments include structures such as public
jetties, boat ramps, bank stabilisation works.
2.1.2. State Government Policies and
Strategies
NSW Rivers and Estuaries Policy 1993
Regional Boating Plan - Port Stephens
Hunter Region 2015
Hunter River Estuary Management Plan 2009
Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan
2013-2023.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 13
2.1.3. Local Government Act 1993
The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) provides
the legal framework for local government in
NSW. The LG Act helps to regulate relationships
between the community and local government,
to encourage and assist effective community
participation, to give councils some authority
for providing public goods, services, facilities
and administering systems as well as setting
out the principles of Ecologically Sustainable
Development.
The Queens Wharf site is classified as Community
Land under the LG Act. Section 35 of the Act states
that Community Land is required to be managed
in accordance with the PoM applying to that land.
Part 2, Clause 36 of the LG Act specifically sets the
direction for preparing a PoM over Council land.
This PoM has been prepared in accordance with
Part 2, Division 2 of the Act, which relates to the
use and management of community land.
2.1.4. Other Statutory Requirements
This PoM does not replace state and federal
legislation that governs the management of
Community Land in public ownership. There are a
number of other documents that are relevant to
the ongoing management of the project site that
have been considered in the preparation of this
Plan including:
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Environmental Protection & Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act
1979 (NSW)
Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW)
Public Works Act 1912 (NSW)
Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
Crown Lands Regulation 2006
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).
14 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
2.1.5. Council Policies
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. These policies need to be
considered in the planning and management
process and may include the:
Maitland Development Control Plan 2011
Maitland Local Environment Plan 2011
Maitland Recreation and Open Space Strategy
2004
City Wide Contributions Plan 2006-2016
Review of Open Space and Recreation
Maitland Youth Spaces Strategy 2012
Maitland Bike Plan and Strategy 2014
Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2012
Maitland Greening Plan 2002
Maitland Social Plan 2009
Maitland City Council Community Safety Plan
2013
Maitland City Council Action & Inclusion Plan
2008
Community Facilities & Services Strategy 2012.
2.1.6. Maitland Local Environmental Plan
Development and use of Council owned and
Crown land is subject to the provisions of the
Maitland City Council Local Environmental Plan
2011 (LEP). The site is currently zoned RE1 - Public
Recreation and RU1 - Primary Production. The
use of these lands for the community to enjoy
recreationally and access the river is better suited
to RE1 zoning. Rezoning the portion of the
site that is RU1 to RE1 is therefore considered
appropriate.
A draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) to rezone
the subject land from RU1 Primary Production
to RE1 - Public Recreation has received a
Gateway Determination from NSW Planning
and Environment to proceed and was publicly
exhibited from 2 June to 1 July, 2016.
RU1 Primary Production RE1 Public Recreation

The objectives of RU1 zoning include to:
Encourage sustainable primary industry
production by maintaining and enhancing the
natural resource base
Encourage diversity in primary industry
enterprises and systems appropriate for the
area
Minimise the fragmentation and alienation of
resource lands
Minimise conflict between land uses within this
zone and land uses within adjoining zones.
Objectives of RE1 zone are to:
Enable land to be used for public open space
or recreational purposes
Provide a range of recreational settings and
activities and compatible land uses
Protect and enhance the natural environment
for recreational purposes.
This Plan of Management and the Masterplan for
the Queens Wharf Riverbank have been developed
to ensure all outcomes and recommendations are
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

Figure 2.1: Zoning Plan.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 15

2.1.7. Queens Wharf Landscape A PoM was not developed in 2003 and is a
Masterplan 2003 requirement of managing Community land.
This, with legislative and policy changes means
The Queens Wharf Landscape Masterplan (2003)
the 2003 plan is no longer relevant. A PoM and
was prepared to identify improvements to the
Masterplan is required before any upgrades to the
recreational services provided at Queens Wharf.
site can commence.
Key elements of the plan include:
Pedestrian access This PoM and Masterplan will supersede the
Queens Wharf Landscape Masterplan 2003.
Parking
Picnic facilities
Landscaping
Heritage interpretation and conservation of
the riverbank and archaeological remains.

Works outlined in the Masterplan have been

partially carried out. Elements that have been
installed include some parking, concrete footpath,
picnic tables, amenity block and jetty. Interpretive
signage installed was lost during the 2007 flood.

Figure 2.2: Queens Wharf Landscape Masterplan 2003.

16 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

 2.2. Categorisation of the Land Land that is categorised as a natural area must
be further categorised. These lands are to be
The purpose of the categorisation of Community categorised as one or more of the following six
Land is to guide Council on how the land may best categories:
be managed. Categorisation also determines the Bushland
uses allowable on the land. Under section 36 of
Wetland
the LG Act Community Land must be categorised
as one or more of the following: Escarpment

A natural area Watercourse

A sportsground Foreshore

A park A category prescribed by the regulations.

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.

Each category has core objectives that have been

set by the LG Act. These guide the management
strategy adopted by Council. The relevant core
2
0

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

Natural Area (Foreshore)

18

14

Natural Area (Watercourse)

Figure 2.3: Land categorisation diagram.
18

20

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 17

22
2.2.1. Core Objectives for Park To promote community education, and
To encourage, promote and facilitate community access to and use of the
recreational, cultural, social and educational watercourse, without compromising the other
pastimes and activities core objectives of the category.

To provide for passive recreational activities or Foreshore

pastimes and for the casual playing of games
The core objectives for management of
To improve the land in such a way as to
community land categorised as foreshore are as
promote and facilitate its use to achieve the
follows.
other core objectives for its management.
To maintain the foreshore as a transition
2.2.2. Core Objectives for Natural Area area between the aquatic and the terrestrial
environment, and to protect and enhance all
The core objectives for management of
functions associated with the foreshores role
community land categorised as a natural area are:
as a transition area
To conserve biodiversity and maintain
To facilitate the ecologically sustainable use of
ecosystem function in respect of the land, or
the foreshore, and to mitigate impact on the
the feature or habitat in respect of which the
foreshore by community use.
land is categorised as a natural area
To maintain the land, or that feature or habitat,
in its natural state and setting
To provide for the restoration and
regeneration of the land
To provide for community use of and access to
the land in such a manner as will minimise and
mitigate any disturbance caused by human
intrusion
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.

Watercourse

The core objectives for management of

community land categorised as a watercourse are:
To manage watercourses so as to protect
the biodiversity and ecological values of the
instream environment, particularly in relation
to water quality and water flows
To manage watercourses so as to protect the
riparian environment, particularly in relation
to riparian vegetation and habitats and bank
stability
To restore degraded watercourses

18 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

2.3. Leases and licences
2.3.1. Crown Land
Crown land may be leased or licensed for specific
purposes. A lease and licence provide different
legal use of Crown land. A lease of Crown land
enables exclusive use over a particular piece of
land for a specified term and purpose, whilst a
licence is a contractual agreement that grants
the licensee a personal right to occupy the use
of Crown land for a particular purpose. A licence
does not provide exclusive use of the area of land
as other persons may be permitted to use the
same area of land.
Under the Crown Lands Act 1989, an individual,
organisation, business or local government body
may enter into a lease or license for appropriate
use on Crown Land provided that:
Management of the land is in accordance with
this PoM and relevant Crown Land policies and
guidelines
The use of the land is in the public interest
The lease does not exceed 100 years
The granting of the lease or license is in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Crown Lands Act 1989.
The current Crown lands in the Queens Wharf
project area are located along the bank of the river
and include:
Waterways.
Licenses may be granted for special occasions
and other uses provided that the proposed use/
activities is in accordance with all legislative
requirements, respects the study areas values and
heritage and designated use of the management
precinct.
2.3.2. Community Land
The public land under this PoM is generally
meant for the community as a whole to enjoy.
Leasing and licensing restricts this public use by
granting a single group or entity control over
a portion of that land. It is therefore necessary
to place guidelines and restriction on the ability
of a Council to grant leases and licenses over
community land. A Council does have the
authority to grant a lease or licence on Community
Land in accordance with the conditions outlined in
the LG Act.
Under Section 46 of the LG Act, a lease or licence
applying to Community Land must be expressly
authorised by a PoM.
This Plan of Management expressly authorises the
lease, licence or grants of any estate over the park
and any structures on the park for any community
purpose as determined by Council. The purposes
must be consistent with the core objectives of a
Park and other applicable legislative requirements
under the LG Act and/or Crown Lands Act.
The type of uses permitted include, but are not
restricted to;
Casual hire
Licences may be granted for use of the park
for casual events. Events may include, but will
not be limited to, recreational pursuits and
other community events. These must be for
the prescribed purposes pursuant to clause 24
of the Local Government (General) Regulations
1998, and may include organised markets,
festivals, and performances that may include
stall holders, engaging in a trade or business
and small-scale private sector events including
parties, weddings, filming and photography.
Granting of estates
In accordance with the Local Government Act
1993, 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 for the connection of premises
adjoining the Community Land to a facility
of the Council or other public utility provider
that is situated on the Community Land.
Estates will be granted in accordance with the
requirements of the Local Government Act
1993.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 19
3. Historical Context

20 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Morpeth has a vibrant town centre located several for all Aboriginal relics (not being a handicraft
hundred metres from the Queens Wharf site. made for sale) with penalties levied for breaches
The town occupies a hill that commands views of the NPW Act.
across the Hunter River to the valley beyond. This
location has played a large part in shaping the 3.2. Non-Indigenous History
historical development of Morpeth.
The town as it is structured today, has a rich
history that dates to the early European settlement
3.1. Indigenous Heritage
of the Hunter Valley. The town of Morpeth, and
There is little known, recorded or reported about more specifically Queens Wharf, has a recognised
the local Aboriginal people of the Morpeth area. and much celebrated history. Studies have been
The language thought to have been spoken in the carried out on the town of Morpeth and the
area were by the people now known as Awabakal, Queens Wharf site to clarify the history of the
Wonnarua, Guringgai and Geawegal. area. A detailed study named Archaeological
Management Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct,
Like most of the Australian landmass, sites along
Morpeth by Edward Higginbotham & Associates
major rivers have the potential to contain the
Pty Ltd was conducted in 2002 to investigate and
remains of Aboriginal occupation. From a regional
manage heritage items on the site. An earlier
perspective, and given the extent of the Hunter
study by Cynthia Hunter named Historical Survey
River, it is possible to identify some form of
of Morpeth Wharves (1997) was also conducted.
potential modelling for areas alongside the Hunter
River that may contain objects or places of cultural Shipping
heritage.
Due to the navigability of the river to Morpeth, the
A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information town became an important shipping port linking
Management System (AHIMS) reveals a registered the Upper Hunter Valley to the sea at Newcastle.
site, a midden, which is described and depicted as
The Queens Wharf site was a location where
being east 50 metres of boat launching ramp.
loading and unloading of the ships took place. The
This site was registered by a member of the public
wharves there were used to load a range of cargo
and it appears that no previous archaeological
including coal. There was substantial infrastructure
investigations have been made and/or lodged of
that was required for shipping, including coal
the study area.
staithes used to load the coal.
Any sites or artefacts found on the site can be
significant to the Aboriginal community. It is
therefore recommended that any work on the
site be undertaken with an Unexpected Finds
Procedure in place.

For more in depth information, refer to the

heritage report in Appendix C.

The protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage

is governed by the NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), Amendment 2001 (NPW
Act). Section 90 outlines that a person must not
destroy, deface, damage or desecrate, or cause or
permit the destruction, defacement, damage or
desecration of, an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal Figure 3.1: S.S.Namoi at Morpeth.
place. The NPW Act provides statutory protection Source: Newcastle Region Library.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 21

Railroad

With the arrival of the rail in the 1860s, the

shipping along the river began to decline.

At Morpeth, the rail was located parallel to the

river, on the slopes of the hill between the river
and the town along the current Steamer Street
alignment. This meant development along the
river was commercial or industrial and was
serviced by the rail. The residential development
was located higher on the hill. These building Figure 3.2: Historic rail at Morpeth.
forms and uses persist to the present day with the Source: Newcastle Region Library.
buildings adjacent to the river turned away from
it to face the road. By doing so, access to the river
has been restricted within the town.

Mining

Queens Wharf was in a strategic location to

facilitate the transportation of coal. The coal was
transported by rail from the mines to Morpeth,
the nearest shipping port. The site contained the
infrastructure required to transfer coal from rail to
ships.

Recreation Figure 3.3: Historic Morpeth steamer.

Source: Newcastle Region Library.
Remnants of the original Queens Wharf can still
be seen on the site and continues to provide
historical interest to visitors. Queens Wharf
is included in the Morpeth Heritage Walk
information brochure along with other important
heritage sites around the town.

Figure 3.4: Map of Morpeth dated 1869, indicating rail and coal staithes at Queens Wharf.
Source: Newcastle Region Library.

22 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Figure 3.5: Map indicating the coal seams4th
around
FOLD Morpeth. 3rd FOLD
Source: Newcastle Region Library.

HERITAGE SITES 6 99 Swan Street

The sandstone plinths are evidence of a former shops
verandah. From the 1860s to c.1917 William Styman the baker
13 36-46 High Street
Morpeth Public School
replaced about six early
Take your time to stroll along the stone paved footpaths used the shop, which was formerly John Portus Flour Store. private or church schools.
and corridors while you explore the many fascinating heritage 7 97 Swan Street The first building was erected in 1866.
The large allotment once contained
sites the township of Morpeth has to offer. River Royal Hotel opened
a school farm which the children cultivated.
in 1876 and catered for shipping
and railway workers and
1 127 Swan Street passengers arriving at the wharves and station. 14 41 High Street Former M
The Commercial Hotel took over Morpeth now has two hotels The first Methodist chapel and s
from the Farmers United Home in 1867 there were eleven. in the 1860s a larger church was
Hotel which traded from 1865. built. The parsonage became a p
Proving a very popular venue for many a visitor
to Morpeth the hotel is also famous for having 8 90 Swan Street 15 76 High Street Earlsdon
several female licensees over the years including Morpeth Railway Station family home. Engineer John Port
Abigail McKee, Julia Mullens and Eliza Sucker. 1889-1953. The platform is first central flourmill, which his so
several metres lower at the rear. The Portus family were prominen
2 130 Swan Street Passengers awaited their trains in separate male
Former Taylors Bond Store and female waiting rooms in the station building 16 78-80 High Street
with stone stairs leading which has been used by the Public Works Known as Sims Cottages,
up from the wharf, was built Department since 1959. this duplex dwelling provided
between the 1850s and 1860s. Caleb Saul, accommodation for foundry
a chemist, worked here and sold the 9 7 Robert Street workers families. Sims Foundry made cast
strongest rum in the colony. Morpeth Trading Post iron lace and pillars such as is used to
houses old machinery that ornament the verandahs of the cottages.
was part of JG Whites furniture
3 123-125 Swan Street and bedding factory.
Morpeth Court House, now White and his sons carried on the business
17 85 High Street
a Museum, bestowed justice from the1840s until the 1920s. The former Astor Theatre
from 1862 to c.1950. Being was previously a church
drunk and disorderly earned seven days in 10 73-75 Swan Street and a school.
the lock-up. The public clock at the Court The Astor Theatre provided a venue
Marlborough House and its
House was a great benefit because few for entertainment, from silent movies to
beautiful garden were built for
people had timepieces. cinemascope (1921-1964) as well as fetes,
Mary and James Taylor.
fairs, shows and balls.
4 107-109 Swan Street The property passed to Dr Bennett, the first
of many Morpeth doctors who have lived here.
Site of Duncan Sim and familys 18 106-108 High Street Mu
iron and brass foundry from the Dr Bennett also had Morpeths first motorcar.
by successful Morpeth contract
1850s to 1926. The elegant two-unit residence
Sixty men once worked here casting iron
11 69 Swan Street Workers Cottages. was first occupied by merchant
lace, columns, agricultural machinery and In the mid-19th century several single storey double cottages
domestic appliances. in Swan Street housed the families of workers who were 19 110 High Street
employed at the shipping company wharves or on the railway.
Morpeth School of Arts opened
5 105 Swan Street in 1863 with ideals about
12 High St, Cnr of George St.
fostering the moral, social
Morpeth Post and Telegraph Morpeth Police Station with and intellectual growth of the community.
Office opened in this grand residence and stables was built
building in 1881 after operating A committee room here served as
in 1879. Morpeth Council Chambers from
in the courthouse since the 1860s.
The entrance verandah with seven distinctive 1865 to 1944.
Before that, the post office was at todays arches added architectural richness to the
Illalung Park. eastern part of the town. Photos courtesy of Morpeth Museum, Noel Butlin
Many thanks to historian Cynthia Hunter & artists

Figure 3.6: Heritage Walk brochure indicating historical buildings in Morpeth.

Source: www.maitland.nsw.gov.au.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 23

4. Site Context

24 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

4.1. Regional Context
Queens Wharf is situated west of Morpeths main
commercial area on Swan Street. The main street
and surrounding area is known regionally for its
beautiful sandstone buildings and attractions,
steeped in the regions history. The popular
destination, played an important role in the
development of the Hunter Valley and Queens
Wharf was central to this economic period.
Queens Wharf was the main entry point to the
region, connecting the port at Newcastle with the
valley opening up trading routes.
The site is now a popular destination for a
range of recreational and community activities,
particularly for water sports. Queens Wharf is
home to the only boat ramp in the Maitland LGA
which accommodates motorised boats. With
access for a range of sport, the Queens Wharf site
attracts people from across the region to access
the Hunter River.
It should be noted that at the Queens Wharf siteis
subject to tidal fluctuations. This tidal fluctuation
and the seasonal flooding add to the complexity
of the riverbank environment and need to be
considered with any site improvements.
4.2. Local Context
Locally, the Queens Wharf site is a popular
destination for passive recreation, to relax and
enjoy the natural ambience. The site is accessed
from Swan Street, via Tank Street connecting to
Queens Wharf Road that runs through the site.
Steamer Street runs along the southern boundary
of the site and the northern boundary is the
Hunter River.
The site is bounded to the west by privately
owned agricultural land that is used for livestock
grazing and is zoned RU1.
Council is negotiating the purchase of additional
adjacent land west of the current Queens Wharf
site. This land is the subject of a draft LEP
amendment to the land to Recreational land in
keeping with the existing site zoning.
A portion of the land identified to be included in
the PoM is identified as Crown land Waterways,
which is technically considered as submerged land.
Site Access
The site is accessed from Queens Wharf Road via
Tank Street and Swan Street. There is also access
along Steamer Street which is an unpaved public
road.
There is no dedicated pedestrian footpath to
the site, but it can be accessed by foot via the
roadway. Some footpaths have been installed
within the site, but only between the existing
parking and the boat ramp/jetty.
A shortage of car parking spaces in the area has
been identified as an issue. The lack of parking is
resulting in cars being parked on adjoining private
property and is inconsistent. At times this blocks
vehicular movements through the site.
The site currently provides limited parking, public
amenities and picnic facilities which include
seating tables, shelters and landscaping.
4.2.1. River Access
Queens Wharf has been identified as a key
recreational site in the Maitland LGA as it provides
the only public boat ramp into the Hunter River.
The facility is used to launch a variety of vessels
into the river including motor boats, canoes,
kayaks and dragon boats. The wharf also provides
opportunities for larger water craft to moor and
for people to participate in other water recreations
pursuits such as fishing.
The facilities are heavily utilised by the community,
especially during peak holiday seasons, resulting
in congestion from competing user groups at the
site.
A study conducted by TfNSW named Regional
Boating Plan Port Stephens Hunter Region
(2015) provided further information and data
analysis on users, safety and access. Key findings
to improve access included:
Improving the condition of the existing river
and boating infrastructure in the region
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 25
 Increasing capacity at key locations
Managing peak demand by increasing car/
trailer parking capacity at key boat ramps
Providing appropriate water access for small
waterfront townships is important for regional
tourism and recreational activities
Strategic placement of additional moorings
will enhance the overall boating experience,
encourage more visiting vessels to the region
and reduce congestion at public jetties.
These findings have compelled Councils to
improve the condition of existing access facilities.
These improvements include improved safety,
capacity and usability of water access points and
facilities. The report indicates that a continued
growth in vessel ownership is set to continue at a
rate of 3-5% annually across NSW, confirming the
need that future demand for increased access to
the Hunter River must be accommodated.
4.2.2. Natural Environment
The history of Queens Wharf is such that very
little of the original native landscape remains.
What exists today is a product of agriculture
surrounding the commercial and industrial
functions of a working wharf.
There are mature trees along the waters edge that
mark the course of the river. There are also trees
Figure 4.1: The river bank with the remnant scrub
and trees
26 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
that occur along the drainage ditch that bisects
the site.
The river bank rises abruptly from the waters edge
and shows signs of erosion which is exacerbated
with every flooding event.
4.2.3. Landscape
The landscape within which the site sits has
undergone many transformations in its recent
history. As described earlier the majority of the
site has been used extensively for shipping and
boating. Because of this, the landscape has been
modified and shaped to suit the storage and
transportation of goods. Some of the remnants of
this history are:
Jetty and riverbank structures that have been
built and re-built over the years
Drainage channel built over the historical punt
location
Areas cleared and levelled to accommodate
building structures
Traces of the rail that once ran to Morpeth
with the levelled the strip of land now known
as Steamer Street.
The remaining portion of the site has an
agricultural history that has shaped it. Indeed,
some of the historic structures have been
demolished and the land taken over by
Figure 4.2: Current park area with historic building
locations in the foreground.
grazing. This agricultural land has the following 4.2.5. The Built Assets
characteristics.
There are few built assets on the Queens Wharf
The landscape is of flat paddocks that have
site. The notable structures are described below:
been used for grazing
Recent implementation of the Landscape
The paddocks are devoid of trees except along
Masterplan (2003) has added:
the riverbank and drainage ditch
-- A toilet block
Flat areas are prone to flooding with slow
-- Parking
drainage and tend to remain boggy for some
time after rains. -- Segmented and incomplete footpath
-- Picnic tables with roof structures for shade.
Generally, the land slopes toward the river with a
The two-lane boat ramp has been upgraded
steep bank along the waters edge. Currently, most
with a concrete surface and new timbers to
of the land is covered with grass punctuated by a
shore up the side-slopes
line of trees along the riverbank.
A jetty has also been constructed adjacent
The hillside south of the site has been excavated to the boat ramp. This provides a fishing and
to make room for the railroad, leaving a rock cliff- swimming platform for park users
face. There are existing residences located atop
A fish cleaning station.
the cliff, along Morpeth Road, that overlook the
site from the south.

4.2.4. Flooding
The Queens Wharf site is mapped in a floodplain
area and is subject to periodical flooding.

A study was conducted named Hunter River:

Branxton to Green Rocks Flood Study in 2010
by WMA Water that provides information on the
history of and predictions for future flooding
of the Hunter River. Findings of the report have
been considered in preparation of this PoM and
masterplan.

Figure 4.3: Debris carried downstream by flood Figure 4.4: Existing parking with amenities block and
waters. picnic tables beyond.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 27

4.3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure
The following spatial analysis identifies the micro-scale issues and aspects of the site. This spatial
analysis provides an understanding of the current usage and feeds into the associated opportunities and
constraints for the site. Refer to Figure 5.1 for locations of the park elements.

Description Condition

Pathways Pathways are in fair to poor

A portion of concrete pathway has
been installed per the Landscape
Masterplan (2003)
Erosion has damaged connections
to parking area.
condition. Some areas have been
undermined by erosion and need
replacing.

Jetty The jetty is in good condition.

The jetty is small but is adequate
for accessing a docked boat
It is located adjacent to the boat
ramp, which causes conflicts
between swimmers and boaters
using the ramp.

Boat ramp The two-lane boat ramp is in

The boat ramp is two lanes wide good condition. It does not need
allowing the use of two boats at a to be replaced, only modified as
time indicated in the Masterplan.
The concrete surface is good in all
seasons
The ramp does not extend into the
water past the river bank causing
trailers to get stuck.

Parking The paved parking area is in fair

There is parking for 13 cars
including 2 disabled spaces along
Queens Wharf Road
A parking area for boat trailers has
been created with reinforced grass,
however the grass has eroded
away leaving pieces of the plastic
reinforcing material in disarray.
condition
The informal grass parking area
adjacent to the boat ramp is in
poor condition and has been
damaged by flood waters.

Access Road The road is in fair condition but will

The road is paved with grass be inadequate with increased traffic
shoulders and development of the park.
Currently the paved surface is 6m
wide
There is no safety railing and relies
on posts to delineate the edge of
the roadway
There is no footpath along it.

28 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Description Condition

Amenities Block The toilet facilities are in good

An amenities block is provided
that contains a Gents, Ladies, and
Parents facilities
The Gents and Ladies have 2 stalls
each
condition
The facilities are adequate for
current normal use, however with
increased activity during peak use
times and with the proposed park
improvements they may become
inadequate.

Seating and Tables Picnic tables and shade structures

There are 4 picnic tables with are in good condition.
shelters provided
There is 1 picnic table without a
shade structure (accessible table).

Garbage Bins Bins are in fair condition but should

There are 2 bins with metal be replaced with any improvements
enclosures to the park.
There are 4 bins on concrete stands
that serve the parking area closer to
the river

River Bank The river bank is in poor condition

The river edge is constantly eroding generally
with water and wave action Flooding and water action from
The historic stone walls installed boating is damaging the heritage
with the original wharf are in a items and eroding the bank
precarious state and continue to be The new timber walls installed
damaged by water action. with the boat ramp are in good
condition.

Vegetation Generally the trees are in good

There is a line of existing mature condition with the exception of a
trees along the shoreline. Erosion of few along the eroded bank.
the bank is undermining these trees
and any trees to be retained should
be evaluated by a qualified arborist
Along the drainage channel at the
parking edge are Gum trees
Several Ficus trees have been
introduced as part of the Landscape
Masterplan (2003) works
The ground is dominated by grass,
mainly Kikuyu grass.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 29

Description
Drainage structures
The site drains overland into the
Hunter River
There is a drainage ditch that
passes under the road which is not
lined and shows signs of erosion.
Seating / benches
Benches are made of wood and
attached to posts.
Fish cleaning station
Stainless steel bench with timber
supports on concrete pad
A water tap is fixed to one post
A drain is also attached.
Vehicle control rails
Timber posts and rails form a
barrier for vehicles.
Bollards
Timber posts embedded in
concrete footing create barriers for
vehicles.
Fence along river bank
Mesh fencing with galvanised steel
posts
The fence sits at the top of the river
bank in the eastern portion of the
park.
30 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
Condition
The drainage ditch is in poor
condition and in need of ongoing
maintenance to prevent erosion
and collection of rubbish.
The culvert under the roadway
is in fair to poor condition and
will require replacement with
improvements to the road.
The timber has deteriorated over
time causing benches to be in poor
condition
Benches need to be replaced.
The station is in good condition.
Rails are in good condition.
The posts are in good condition
One has been knocked over and
need repair.
The posts are in good condition
The fencing is in good condition
Flooding has washed debris against
the fence which needs to be
cleaned out.
 Description Condition

Signage The existing signs area in fair

There are signs that direct traffic condition
on the boat ramp and list the Repairs are needed to several signs.
acceptable behaviour when boating
in the vicinity.

Lighting The lighting is in poor condition

There is one area light near the and generally inadequate
amenities block There is no lighting provided in the
There is one street light / area light car park.
at the top of the boat ramp
The amenities block has two lights
above the toilet entries.
2
2
0

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

1. Pathways 7. Seating and Tables 13. Fish Cleaning Station

18

14

2. Jetty 8. Garbage Bins 14. Vehicle Control Rails 18

3. Boat Ramp 9. River Bank 15. Bollards

10

20

4. Parking 10. Vegetation 16. Fence Along River Bank

5. Access Road 11. Drainage Structures 17. Signage
20

6. Amenities Block 12. Seating / Benches 18. Lighting

Figure 4.5: Existing facilities locations.
20
22

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 31

5. Stakeholder Consultation

32 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

5.1. Stakeholder Consultation
Consultation was a key component in developing
the plan of management and a holistic approach
to engaging with stakeholders was adopted
throughout the project. The consultation
component included a range of activities such
as workshops, online survey, presentations, door
knocks, one-on-one meetings, letterbox drops,
printed materials, factsheets, advertising, media
releases, social media and attendance at the
Maitland Taste Festival.
The objectives of the Hunter River Access
Project community consultation were to make
stakeholders aware of the project, disseminate
information and to enable stakeholders to provide
feedback to assist in the development of the plan
of management and masterplan for the Queens
Wharf site.
the original wharf and potential damage to the
heritage items if the boat ramp was enlarged.
Discussion about the boat ramp caused passionate
debate and the most angst amongst the
participants. Some participants were adamant that
any expansion of the ramp would compromise
the site. 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 was raised.
Participants also highlighted the lack of shade,
mature trees and covered picnic areas as items for
improvement.
Seven key themes where identified through the
facilitated session and included:
Safety

5.2. Community Workshops Infrastructure

Connections
The workshop was structured to generate a
Heritage
conversation to gain an understanding of what
Maintenance
stakeholders value or feel is important about the
riverside area at Morpeth. Events
Environment.
All participants in the workshop were asked
to share what was good and why the space is These will be summarised at the end of this
important to them. Participants agreed that they section.
valued the heritage significance of Queens Wharf
and of Morpeth township. Participants talked
about the size of the boat ramp and the conflict of
the different user groups.

A number of people raised concerns about

children swimming around the boat ramp creating
a safety issue.

Safety was the most significant theme to emerge

from the workshop. Participants raised the conflict
between different users, particularly swimmers
and boats as a concern. Getting into the site safely
was raised. This includes vehicle, boating and
pedestrian access.

Environmental issues were also voiced as a

concern, particularly erosion of the bank due to
Figure 5.1: Participants at the community workshop.
flooding and boat wash. Participants talked about

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 33

5.3. Online Survey
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.
The survey was available to be completed between
01/02/2016 and 18/03/2016, with 103 people
responding.
Respondents where asked to indicate how
important potential upgrades to Queens Wharf
were to them. The highest priority was to launch
boats with 96 per cent of people indicating this
was extremely important (84%) or important
(12%). Launching kayaks and canoes was also
important as well as a space for picnics. Picnic
areas and a safe swimming spot were also
identified as upgrades of high importance.
5.4. Additional Consultation
A number of people provided feedback via email,
letters or in person. Mara Consulting staff had
one-on-one meetings with interested stakeholders
after the workshop. The feedback and suggestions
presented were very particular to that stakeholder
or to the group that they represented. However,
comments were very similar to those that were
raised at the workshop, in the survey or through
social media.
5.5. Online and social media
feedback
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 Queens Wharf.
The highest priority identified through online
engagement was the desire for new infrastructure
and amenities.
Shared pathways for cyclists and walkers were
also another priority for Facebook users. Others
wanted a water play or slide at Morpeth. A
34 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
designated swimming area away from boats was a
priority, with some saying its dangerous and they
have had to cut the motor when children jump out
in front of them.
5.6. Consultation Summary
The Queens Wharf Morpeth community
consultation was conducted to support the
development of the masterplan and PoM for the
site.
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.
The boat ramp was the hot-button issue, however
there was no desire to expand the ramp amongst
any of the stakeholders that where 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.
A summary of the key priorities identified through
the consultation is included at 5.7.
5.7. Consultation Outcomes and 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 PoM and Masterplan.

1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users & visitors

AIM: To improve safety for all users & separate uses where practical.

Consideration should be given to;

Including measures that improve safety for all users, pedestrians and vehicles in the PoM, masterplan
and construction staging plan for the Queens Wharf facility
Seeking opportunities to provide separate motorised and non-motorised boating facilities
Providing a safe area for swimmers and consider a designated swimming beach area
Pedestrian and vehicle access at the intersection of Tank and Swan Street
Extending the boat ramp further into the water to reduce the risk of vehicles slipping into the river
Signage at boat ramp to remind users of rules and needs of other users
Implementing improvements such as lighting to discourage anti-social behaviour. Lighting should be
considerate of nearby residents.

2. Infrastructure & Amenities - Upgrades to Queens Wharf

AIM: To improve & upgrade Queens Wharf for all the community to enjoy.

Consideration should be given to;

Designated car parking area with provision for boat trailer parking
Creation of a beach area for swimmers, away from the boat ramp
Creation of a separate launch area for non-motorised craft
Space for children to play safely
Fencing and barriers to control vehicle access and movements around the carpark
Upgrade or additional shelters (shade) and seating as well as installation of BBQ/picnic facilities
Consideration of extending the boat ramp into the river to address safety and access issues
Place to tie up boats safely while trailers are being collected
The expansion of the boat ramp is considered inappropriate in this location. In the long-term if there is
demand a suitable second location should be investigated
Heritage should be considered when installing infrastructure and amenities
Consideration of flooding of area and potential impacts to infrastructure.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 35

3. Connections - Provide pathways & links

The creation of a riverside walk, shared pathways and internal paths.

AIM:
Connections should link to the main street & businesses.

Consideration should be given to;

Shared pathways that cater for a range of users including pedestrians, cyclists, families with prams and
is disability accessible (universal access/DDA compliant)
Connections to Swan Street and provide access to businesses
Internal links and pathways around the site, improved parking and access to the river
New pathway along the river edge toward the bridge. This could form part of the Maitland Heritage
Walk. **
**The suggestion of a new pathway along the river eastward toward the bridge is outside the scope of
this project.

4. Heritage - Valuing the history of Queens Wharf

To acknowledge, protect and enhance the historical value of the site and the
AIM:
suburb of Morpeth.

Consideration should be given to;

Singage and interpretive installations that explain the significance of the site
The protection and preservation of the remaining stone wharf and other sites where possible
The impact on heritage items from the trees along the river edge
Highlighting the history and economic significance of Queens Wharf in the design of the upgraded
facilities
Connecting the heritage buildings on Swan Street and surrounding area to Queens Wharf.

5. Maintenance - Cleaning and maintaining Queens Wharf

Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up keep
AIM:
of the facility.

Consideration should be given to;

Providing adequate rubbish bins with regular collections
The provision of educational signs reminding people to clean up after themselves
Regular mowing and weeding to ensure the site can be used for a range of activities and events
Cleaning up the park and ramp after significant rain and flooding events
Improvements that discourage anti-social behaviour, such as lighting
The development of a maintenance plan associated with the Plan of Management and Masterplan.

36 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

6. Events & activities - Activating the space

To develop a plan that encourages activities and events that enhance

AIM:
opportunities for business and tourism.

Consideration should be given to;

Developing a strategy to encourage events and activities to increase user demand for Queens Wharf
Upgrades to Queens Wharf that help stage community events and activities that make use of the water
and the large open space. Events could include; historical events to encourage visitors to Morpeth, a
regatta, promote community gatherings, markets, outdoor cinemas and educational activities.

7. Environment - Enhance & protect Queens Wharf

AIM: To improve the natural environment, riverbank and local ecology.

Consideration should be given to;

Enhancing the space by planting native trees and shrubs local to the area that are suitable in the
riverside location
Capitalising on the beauty of the site by developing a landscape plan
Increasing riverbank stability while providing safe access
Regular flooding events and impacts to the natural environment and infrastructure
Shade trees near seating, picnic and BBQ areas
Bank stabilisation and preservation of the heritage items along the river
Regular clean up after storm events and flooding to remove sand build up on ramp
Signage to educate boat users about boat wash and impacts to heritage walls.

Figure 5.1: Cruising to Queens Wharf. Source: Maitland City Council.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 37

6. Values Associated with Queens Wharf

38 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Queens Wharf is an important venue that serves
the community year round. It provides the
only boat launching facility in the area and is
one of the few locations where the public can
access the Hunter River. Because of the location
and importance of the site, it is important
to understand the values that are placed
upon Queens Wharf by the community and
stakeholders.
6.2. Landscape Character
The landscape character of the site varies as it
slopes up from the Hunter River toward the streets
above it.
The river bank rises steeply from the waters
edge and is held in place by mature trees and
retaining structures that have been built to
create jetties and wharves over the years

The following is a description of the core values
and most significant attributes of the Queens
Wharf site. They were identified during the
consultation process and background studies that
have been conducted. These are qualities that
should be enhanced and taken into account when
formulating future management objectives.
6.1. Visual Quality
Visual quality plays a large role in creating a
first impression of a place. It therefore has an
important role in influencing a persons experience
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.
The bank of the river is heavily eroded with the
seasonal flooding events
A two-lane boat ramp with associated parking
are central to the site
A jetty is located adjacent to the boat ramp
and is connected by a footpath
Grassy paddocks and park areas make up the
majority of the site
South of the site, the land rises again to
residential properties along Morpeth Road
The site houses a toilet block and five picnic
tables with roof structures on each.

Important visual elements include:

The location of Queens Wharf at the base of
a hill and along the river limits the views from
the site
-- There are good views of the adjacent hillside
and the pasture land along the valley floor
-- The most scenic view is down the river to the
Morpeth bridge.
Views into the site are limited by the private
properties along Morpeth Road
-- Turning onto Tank Street toward the river
reveals the entire Queens Wharf site laid out
along the river below
-- The sequence of views as one enters the site
is dramatic and should be preserved and
enhanced if possible.

Figure 6.1: Existing riverbank landscape character.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 39

6.3. Social / Recreational
Due to the location on the river, the site has a key
role in linking people to the river. Few locations
offer access to the river that Queens Wharf
provides.
The two-lane boat ramp allows motorised
boats access to the river
The jetty offers fishing, swimming and sight
seeing with an adjacent fish cleaning station
provided
There is no dedicated launching area for
kayaks, canoes, paddle boards or dragon boat,
but the boat ramp is currently used
Footpaths have been installed in a portion of Figure 6.2: Existing planting along the top of the
the park, which provide some access - these bank
need to be extended throughout the site.

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.

Tourism is important to the town of Morpeth. This

site can play an integral part in promoting tourism
and associated commercial enterprises.
Docking point for boats touring the river
Parking for visitors heading to Swan Street
Historic information can promote heritage
tourism. Figure 6.3: Existing riverbank landscape character.

6.5. Cultural Heritage

Morpeth has a rich heritage that relates to the
European settlement of the Hunter Region. Some
key items relating to the sites heritage include:
One Aboriginal heritage site located
approximately 50m east of a boat launching
ramp
Historic jetty used for shipping - stone batter
along river bank remains
Possible shipwrecks buried in the riverbed
(unverified)
A number of structures scattered over the site
with considerable significance.

40 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

 Historic railway passing adjacent to the site
Historic punt location near current boat ramp
Historic coal staithes located along the current
boat ramp alignment - was only in use for a
short period.

An Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) has

been developed in conjunction with this PoM
(refer to Appendix C). The AMP has located
a number of structures that are of heritage
significance and has made recommendations that
influence the design of the site. These include:
Archaeological monitoring and reporting of
any area that will be disturbed Figure 6.4: Remnants of heritage wall along the
Preserving existing elements of the heritage riverbank.
structures
Introducing interpretive signs to identify
heritage items on site.

The AMP also outlined measures to be taken

before and during any development or
construction on site. These can be found in
Appendix C.

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.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 41

7. Opportunities and Constraints

42 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

The investigations undertaken for the
development of the PoM and Masterplan helped
identify the opportunities and constraints
associated with the site. The opportunities and
constraints have been divided into various
categories as listed below.
7.1. Opportunities
7.1.1. Social and Recreational
1. Provide an area to accommodate group
activities and picnics
2. The incorporation of Crime Prevention
though Environmental Design (CPTED)
concepts
3. Provide information/educational signage at
key locations
4. Establish a beach or second jetty for kayak/
canoe launching
5. Install parking and area lighting to improve
safety and minimise anti-social behaviour
7.1.2. Environmental
1. Protect and enhance the river bank
2. Improve drainage across the site
3. Ongoing management of the river bank to
minimise erosion and damage to heritage
elements
4. Use native and indigenous plant species
where appropriate.
7.1.3. Economic
1. Increase tourism opportunities by providing
connection to the Swan Street commercial
area
2. Promote opportunities for rental and
commercial enterprise within the site
-- Markets
-- Performances
-- Festivals.
3. Undertake EOI for the provision of water hire
activities (such as canoes) from the site
4. Provide areas that can accommodate
community events associated with the river.
7.1.4. Heritage
1. Develop an interpretation strategy to engage
and educate the public to understand the
history and importance of Queens Wharf
-- Re-instate the interpretive signs that have
been developed for the site
-- An interpretation plan for the history of the
wharf would provide the community insight
into previous activities and uses of Queens
Wharf.
2. Highlight the locations of historic buildings to
anchor the history onto the site
3. Introduction of an iconic cultural feature/s
along the riverbank to celebrate the cultural
and historical significance Queens Wharf. This
would add to the sense of place and would
provide a geographic reference point.
7.1.5. Access and Circulation
1. Improve access to the site with connections
to Swan Street
2. Improve circulation within the site to
minimise conflicts and provide access to river
and amenities
3. Create pedestrian/cyclist links to Swan Street
shopping precinct
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 43
 4. Develop a shared pathway along the river 7. Expand boat ramp to accommodate two
bank to connect Queens Wharf with the vehicles simultaneously for rigging and
historic bridge de-rigging

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.

Lieut. E.C. Close

Pioneer of Morpeth

Outlines of former
structures in the YOU ARE HERE
Queens Wharf
Precinct dating
from 1833. 1850 Plan
NSW State Records

The Public Wharf

In 1801 a boat exploration party led by
Lieut Colonel William Paterson reached the area
around Morpeth, which they called Green Hill.
From 1804 a penal outpost occupied the Newcastle area where
convicts mined coal, burnt lime for mortar, and cut timber. Timber-
getting brought gangs of men up the river to Maitland where valuable
cedar, rosewood and ash grew in abundance. About 1818 Lieut Edward
Charles Close was appointed to duties at the convict settlement and in
the following years he too explored the river.
When the region opened to settlement in the early 1820s, Close retired
from the military and settled on a large estate at Green Hill favourably
situated at the limit of navigation for the seagoing ships of the time.
However, free settlement meant that hundreds of colonists reaching
the Hunter Valley by ship came ashore at this point before traveling
overland to their distant destinations. Close declined to give up any land
to the government for a public landing place although people continued
to come ashore and trespass on his estate.
In 1833 the surveyor G B White selected the landing site as the best
place for a public wharf. Close and the government finally reached
agreement. In exchange for surrendering the landing place, a road was
built for the use of all travellers towards Maitland, linking with roads to
Newcastle, Sydney and the northern districts.
The history of Queens Wharf began in the 1820s when the first
wave of settlers to the northern district came ashore beside the river on
E C Closes land. By 1833 about 3 acres (1.2 ha) was secured here as
a public reserve.
Construction of the first wharf began about 1836 and was completed
by 1838. The wharf extended into water deep enough for the sea-going
ships of the times to come alongside. The wharf was below where you
now stand.
Additionally, a punt or ferry was put on to link with settlements
north of the river. This crossing was located just upstream from todays
boatramp. The government provided a ferry keepers cottage and
a two-cell police lock up built of timber.
The reserve and surrounds were soon a place of much activity,
becoming the most important transport hub in the colony outside
of Sydney.
Queens Wharf was named for Victoria who became Queen in 1837.
From about 1839 countless free emigrants who came to the Valley
as agricultural workers first landed at the wharf before beginning the
overland journeys to their destination. A great deal of farm produce
passed across the wharf also.

1841 Plan showing

the landing place.
NSW State Records

Scene on the Hunter River

near Morpeth (below)
State Library of NSW

Remains of Queens Wharf

in the 1930s.
Morpeth Museum Colleciton

Figure 7.1: Panels from interpretive signs that were washed away in flooding events.
Source: www.maitland.nsw.gov.au./Heritage/WebExhibitions#queenswharf

44 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

7.2. Constraints
7.2.1. Social and Recreational
1. The site is a destination with no walk through
or drive through traffic
2. Lack of electricity provisions due to flooding
reduces opportunities for:
-- BBQ facilities
-- Activities during the evening.
3. Security with limited surveillance available
due to the sites location
4. Some conflict between user groups vying for
the same facilities
5. Limited lighting to existing parking area.
7.2.2. Environmental
1. Flooding inundates the entire site on a
seasonal basis
2. Flooding causes erosion of river bank
3. Water action damages heritage walls and
artefacts along bank
4. An existing drainage channel runs across the
site.
Figure 7.2: Remnants of the wall under the historic Queens Wharf jetty.
7.2.3. Economic
1. Limited parking and recreational space
removes reasons for visiting the site
2. Limits to on-site commercial activity due to
flooding.
7.2.4. Heritage
1. Frequent flooding has covered or destroyed
historical structures and artefacts
2. Difficulties in locating Aboriginal sites
3. Little recognition of Indigenous or non-
indigenous heritage of the site, i.e. heritage
displays.
7.2.5. Access and Circulation
1. Narrow and steep vehicular access from
Morpeth Street
2. No formal pathway for pedestrians to access
site from Swan Street
3. No footpaths within site to encourage
pedestrian activity
4. Limited lighting to existing parking area
5. No access for cyclists.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 45
8. Masterplan

46 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

The Queens Wharf Masterplan has been
developed in conjunction with this PoM. The
masterplan provides a long-term vision illustrating
the communitys desire for Queens Wharf. It will
serve to guide the development of the park.
8.1. Masterplan Principles
The following principles have been identified to
guide the future development of the site.
Promote access to the river by providing a
range of locations and methods to reach the
water
Encourage public use of Queens Wharf by
providing safe, high quality and accessible
public spaces
Improve pedestrian connections to the larger
community and commercial areas of Morpeth
Improve access to the site and within the site
for disabled users and their carers
Recognise and protect the heritage elements
of the site
Promote the heritage of the site
Create a public facility that will enhance the
tourism potential of the area
Strengthen Queens Wharfs identity by
applying consistent landscape treatment,
materials, furniture and built form
Increase the range of recreational
opportunities at Queens Wharf.
8.2. Key Proposals
The masterplan illustrates what the park will look
like if all the management actions are completed.
The key elements proposed include the following.
8.2.1. Queens Wharf Site
Formalise and pave Queens Wharf Road as it
travels through the site
Create an entry feature at the main entrance
Create a secondary entry drive that connects
to Steamer Street along the western boundary
Create a circulation system that accommodates
vehicles with trailers using wide travel lanes
and one-way loops
Install paved parking for boat trailers (35
spaces introduced with additional 13 overflow)
Install additional paved car parking (52 spaces
proposed)
Install vehicle control devices (bollards, fencing
and railing) to discourage antisocial behaviour
Increase the size of the existing jetty to allow
temporary tie-up of boats
Widen the top of the existing boat ramp to
allow vehicles to pull off main ramp and secure
the boat and trailer before leaving the ramp
Extend boat ramp toe further into the river to
allow trailers to access deeper water without
getting stuck
Install an Heritage Installation to promote the
historical aspects of the site
Highlight heritage elements within the site and
riverbank
Use sandstone inlays to outline the historical
buildings
Install sandstone steps to symbolise and
protect heritage jetty wall and use them to
create a platform above the riverbank for
picnicking and other activities
Provide a shared pathway network through the
site, linking activity locations
Provide paved areas near parking for groups to
congregate and equipment can be organised
Install a group picnic area with BBQs and roof
structure
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 47
 Install additional picnic tables at strategic
locations around site
Install BBQs at key locations on site
Install a childrens play area
Install beach area west of boat ramp for river
access
Reshape and stabilise the bank along the
beach
Provide paved access pathway to the beach
Create water inlet at historic punt ramp
location to serve as:
-- Drainage outlet to river
-- Canoe / kayak launching area with concrete
or sandstone steps down to water.
Enhance the existing drainage ditch by:
-- Expanding it and planting native plants along
the north eastern portion
-- Create a grass swale with battered slopes
along the south western portion
-- Changing the paving in road as it crosses
over the drainage ditch
-- Bridge over it for pathways.
Construct bank stabilising measures
Increase and enhance native planting
Figure 8.1: Proposed parking and river access around the existing boat ramp.
48 Queens Wharf Plan of Management
Install trees for shade strategically around site
Use native tree species for new planting
Use native shrub and grass species for any new
planting along bank and drainage channel.
8.2.2. Additional Recommendations
Upgrade access from Tank Street by
formalising the road with kerbs and
appropriate guardrails
Install shared pathway connection between
Queens Wharf and the existing bridge
downriver
If and when a larger boat ramp is needed,
explore opportunities to construct a second
ramp in a location further downstream. There
are locations east of the bridge that may be
suitable for installation of the infrastructure
needed for higher volumes of use. This Queens
Wharf site is rich in heritage that would suffer
if more land was paved over.
 Queens Wharf Masterplan
Site Plan
Legend

1. Sandy beach area

2. Rock revetment / bank
stabilisation
3. Existing jetty extended
4. Existing boat ramp
1 5. Car parking
6. Trailer parking
7. Shared pathway
8. Sandstone steps down to water
9. Site of historic jetty
reconstructed to offer raised
lookout area
10. Heritage building locations
highlighted with sandstone
inlays
11. Heritage information wall with
1 signs & displays along ruin
2
walls
25 12. Historic railway display adjacent
Hunter River to historic track location
13. Existing amenities block
24 8 14. Drainage channel enhanced
with native planting
9 3 15. Drainage channel with sloping
grass banks
17
16. Picnic table
16 17. Inlet at location of historic punt
5 25 ramp
10

Figure 8.2: Proposed masterplan for Queens Wharf.

18. Potential future pathway
7 connection along river bank
4 19. Main park entrance with rails
Que
ens inlaid in roadway and railway
Wha 7 crossing gates as a feature
rf Ro
ad 6 20. Secondary entrance to park
6 2 21. Paved terraces in historic
5 building footprint offer
gathering nodes along pathway
14 10 22. Group picnic area with BBQ and
roof structure
23. Childrens play area installed at
Steamer Street level
24. Community storage structure
6 18 25. Fish cleaning station.
10

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

Queens Wharf Plan of Management

et

Morpeth
20 Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication

Date: 18 January 2017

0 3 6 9 15 30m Revision: F

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.

Funding arrangements need to address recurrent

costs of management and maintenance together
with capital costs for upgrading works. Various
sources of funding have been identified and
include the following:
Councils funding sources
Section 94 contributions (Developer
contributions to Council)
Specialised funding/grants from both State
and Federal Governments
Contributions/sponsorship from the private
sector.

Other funding is available and can fund specific

items of the masterplan. Table 8.1 contains a
listing of potential sources of grants.

50 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Table 8.1 Funding Options.
Funding Program & Agency
NSW Community Building
Partnership
http://www.
communitybuildingpartnership.nsw.
gov.au/
Public Reserves Management
Fund
Community Development Grants
Programme
http://investment.
infrastructure.gov.au/funding/
communitydevelopment/index.aspx
Stronger Communities
Programme
http://investment.infrastructure.gov.
au/funding/scp/
RMS Walking and Cycling
Progams
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/
projects/walking-cycling/index.html
Maritime Infrastructure Program
NSW Maritime Authority and
proponents including boating and
marine organisations and Local and
State Government
Indigenous Heritage Program
Australian Government
Australian Trusts Partnership
Programme
Australian Government
Recreational Fishing Trust
Department of Primary Industries
(Fisheries)
Protecting National Historic Sites
https://www.environment.gov.
au/heritage/grants-and-funding/
protecting-national-historic-sites
NSW Heritage Grants
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.
au/Heritage/funding/
Community Youth and Seniors
Heritage Grants
Purpose of Fund
The NSW Community Building Partnership program supports the
improvement of community infrastructure, and creates more vibrant and
inclusive communities by supporting projects that encourage community
participation, inclusion and cohesion. Grant funding of up to $200,000 is
available for every NSW State Electorate.
These funds are available for improvement works to Crown Reserves and
provide for both capital development and maintenance projects. PRM Funds
are limited and there are not guarantees of funding success as applications
are submitted annually and subject to competitive process.
The Australian Government has established the Community Development
Grants Programme to support needed infrastructure that promotes stable,
secure and viable local and regional economies.
The objective of the SCP is to fund small capital projects which will
deliver social benefits. The programme aims to improve local community
participation, cohesion and contribute to vibrant and viable communities.
Maximum of $20,000 and require matched funding.
In line with the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (LTTMP), the purpose
of this is to increase opportunities for people to walk and ride their bikes
more often in order to help reduce congestion, particularly around schools,
employment centres and universities.
The objective of MIP is to assist in providing waterways infrastructure for the
benefit of the boating community and the marine sector on NSW waterways.
Under the program, NSW Maritime will provide in the order of $2 million
annually to assist in funding approved projects. Applications are normally
called in June/July each year. This funding program may be suited to
upgrading the canoe launch area.
The Indigenous Heritage Programme supports projects that identify,
conserve and promote the Indigenous heritage values of places important
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The programme provides
Indigenous organisations or not-for-profit bodies with grants up to $100,000.
The programme allocates funds to the Australian Council of National Trusts
and the State and Territory Trusts. The grants are to support activities that
increase public awareness, understanding and appreciation of Australias
cultural heritage, and enhance and promote its conservation and assist
the Trusts to advocate and work for the preservation and enhancement of
Australias cultural heritage.
Funding applications must relate to the improvement of recreational fishing.
Successful projects are usually funded for one year however funding may
be provided for up to a maximum of three years from the initial grant. Both
small grants of up to $10,000 and large grants over $10,000 are awarded.
The Protecting National Historic Sites programme will provide funding of up
to $11.5 million (GST exclusive) over three years from 2014-15 to conserve,
maintain and protect the places on Australias National Heritage List
recognised for their historic heritage values.
For projects that conserve, manage, promote and support Aboriginal heritage
items listed on the State Heritage Register or an Aboriginal Place.
Aboriginal Heritage places program $20,000 to $780,000. Next round of
funding opens in October.
For projects that build heritage skills confidence and connections within the
community, particularly our youth and seniors.
Funding available: $25,000 to $50,000 (per project ex GST).
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 51
9. Management Strategies

52 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

9.1. Action Plan
9.1.1. Objectives
The aims and objectives for Queens Wharf were
set out in the Executive Summary at the beginning
of this PoM. Using those aims and objectives as a
guide, the PoM and masterplan were developed.
The masterplan is a conceptual representation of
the communitys desire for the design of Queens
Wharf (refer to Figure 8.2). As a means to realise
that concept, and action plan is required. The
following action plan outlines the works necessary
to realise the concept.
As a way to organise the management of the
park, the objectives from the beginning of the
document are used as a framework. They have
been distilled down to 4 organising topics as
shown below.
1. Improve access to the Hunter River and the
park, and improve circulation throughout the
park
2. Improve opportunities for recreation within
the park
3. 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
4. Ensure the development and use of the park
is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.
9.1.2. Action Tables
These action tables present a range of
management actions. They are made up of
directions or guidelines, and more specific on-
ground or tangible actions that will be pursued in
the sites management over the coming 10 years.
Objectives, as listed, are a means to organise the
strategies and actions that will shape the site in
the coming years. They correlate with Councils
long-term objectives and with the outcomes
identified within this PoM.
The strategy column outlines the means of
achieving the related objective. The management
actions described include both specific on-ground
or tangible actions as well as directions more of a
policy, guideline or processes/ procedures nature.
The priority column of the action tables gives an
indication of both the relative importance, and
preferred timing, of each action as follows.
High - Essential to achievement of the
management objectives, and warranting
funding consideration until achieved
Medium - These actions are desirable to
enhance achievement of the management
objectives
Low - These actions are useful for the overall
management of the site or address issues that
have longer-term impacts
Ongoing where the action in question will
be carried out on a regular basis, or apply or
continue throughout the sites management
and/or the life of this Plan.
Queens Wharf Plan of Management 53
Table 9.1

Objective: Improve access to the Hunter River and the park, and the circulation throughout the park.

Number Action Priority

1.1 Provide universal access connection to Swan Street. High
1.2 Install access ramps in locations where footpaths intersect kerbs. High
1.3 Install footpaths throughout the park including footbridge over the drainage channel. High
1.4 Formalise and pave Queens Wharf Road within the park. High
1.5 Improve/add directional signage to the site. High
1.6 Install internal roadways and parking areas with vehicular control devices to keep cars on High
the roadways.
1.7 Install beach access ramp from western car park. Medium
1.8 Install shared pathway from secondary entry at boundary. Medium
1.9 Install secondary entry along western boundary. Low

Table 9.2

Objective: Improve opportunities for recreation within the park.

Number Action Priority

2.1 Finalise the land acquisition. High
2.2 Prepare a strategy to activate the park with events and activities. High
2.3 Expand the existing jetty to allow temporary boat tie-up. High
2.4 Extend the two-lane boat ramp toe further into the river. High
2.5 Expand top of boat ramp to allow rigging and de-rigging of boats. High
2.6 Install picnic tables throughout the site. Medium
2.7 Install a group picnic area with BBQs and roof structure Medium
2.8 Install childrens play area Medium
2.9 Seek Expressions of Interest for the provision of water based services (hire of canoe, Medium
kayak, paddle boards, ect).
2.10 Create beach area in western portion of the site. Medium
2.11 Construct sandstone steps over historic jetty wall west of boat ramp. Medium
2.12 Install new fish cleaning station near western car park. Low
2.13 Install the storage structure at western boundary/car park. Low
2.14 Install the concrete steps at punt ramp location. Low
2.15 Maintain grass lawn areas to allow play and leisure activities on them. Ongoing
2.16 Maintain the toilet / amenities block in good condition. Ongoing
2.17 Maintain the existing fish cleaning station in clean and good condition. Ongoing

54 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Table 9.3

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.

Number Action Priority

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.

Number Action Priority

4.1 Commission a detailed evaluation of each area of the bank prior to stabilisation works. High
4.2 Stabilise eroding banks with rock revetment. High
4.3 Reshape the river bank along the beach areas and plant native trees and shrubs along it. Medium
4.4 Install native trees and shrubs along the eastern portion of the park to re-instate the Medium
riverbank ecology of the area.
4.5 Plant trees and native grasses along the bank to stabilise soils. Ongoing
4.6 Install native shrubs and groundcover along the river bank. Ongoing
4.7 Use native tree species within the park. Ongoing
4.8 Use native shrub and grass species for revegetation. Ongoing

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 55

10. References

56 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

City Plan Urban Design, Central Maitland Structure Public Land Management, Practice Note No.1,
Plan, Maitland City Council, 2009. Department of Local Government, 2000.

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.

Fletcher, Michelle and Dr. Philip Haines, Hunter

Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (Hunter
Estuary Management Plan), BMT WBM Pty Ltd.,
2009.

GHD, Maitland Bicycle Plan and Strategy 2014,

Maitland City Council, 2014

Local Government Act 1993 No 30, New South

Wales Government, 2015

Lorn Heritage Walk, Maitland City Council, http://

www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/heritage/heritagewalks

Maitland Development Control Plan 2011,

Maitland City Council, 2011.

Maitland & District Historical Society, http://www.

maitlandhistorical.org/

Maitland Library, http://www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/

Library/localstudies.

The Maitland City Council Greening Plan, Maitland

City Council, 2002.

Maitland Rural Strategy 2005, Strategic Services

Division, Maitland City Council, 2005

Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2001-2020: A

Strategy for Urban Growth in the Maitland Local
Government Area, Maitland City Council, 2012.

Maitland + 10 Community Strategic Plan, Maitland

City Council, 2013.

Manidis Roberts Consultants, Maitland Recreation

and Open Space Strategy, Maitland City Council,
2004.

Newcastle Region Library, http://www.newcastle.

nsw.gov.au/Library/Heritage-History.

NSW Boat Ramp Facility Guidelines, Roads and

Maritime Services, 2015.

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 57

11. Appendices

58 Queens Wharf Plan of Management

Appendix A
Queens Wharf Masterplan

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

Queens Wharf Plan of Management 59

 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix A - Queens Wharf Morpeth

Masterplan (under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 2

Number of Pages: 10
Queens Wharf
Masterplan
Prepared for
Maitland City Council

Revision G
06 June 2017

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication
Queens Wharf Masterplan
The Queens Wharf Masterplan has been
commissioned by Maitland City Council (Council)
and prepared in conjunction with the Queens Wharf
Plan of Management.
The masterplan is a long-term visioning and
planning document. It translates the framework
established by the plan of management into a
document that can be used to plan, invest and
ultimately construct an upgraded facility.
It represents the communitys aspirations for
the popular community park incorporating new
amenities and landscape for that area. Through
a series of workshops and intensive consultation,
community members and stakeholders provided
feedback on how they would like to use the
riverbank now and into the future. That feedback
has been incorporated into the development of the
masterplan to meet Councils objective to improve
recreational opportunities for residents, businesses
and visitors alike.
Underpinning the masterplan were a series of
specialist studies to guide the project. These
included:
Flood levels and currents
Heritage
Environmental
Traffic study
Preliminary costings to construct.
These studies, along with extensive site analysis and
2
Introduction
research helped to inform the design of the park and
boating facility.
The diagram on the following page establishes
the site and design principles used, capturing key
elements to be included in the improvement of the
site. Importantly, visual and physical connections to
the surrounding communities have been included.
Character photos have been included on each page
to provide examples of how the masterplan could
be interpreted. Elements can be prioritised and
sequenced over the entire site to allow for staged
construction.
1 2
The concepts and designs identified are a result of
the extensive consultation with a broad range of
stakeholders.
Key to images on right.
1. Beach and launch area (page 6)
2. Boat ramp (page 7)
3. Heritage displays (page 9)
4. Boat parking and circulation (page 10)
3 4
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication
Date: 06 June 2017
Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 3
Site Location
Design Notes

The Queens Wharf site is

located along the Hunter
Phoenix Park River. It sits below the
township of Morpeth and
contains a boat ramp that
serves the surrounding
region.

The river bank rises

steeply from the waters
edge and is deeply
Hunter River eroded in some locations.
The entire site is prone to
flooding.

Que Other challenges the site

ens poses are:
Wha
rf Ro Steep access for
ad
vehicles
Limited parking
Queens Wharf Site A number of heritage
2.75 Ha sites throughout
Erosion and bank
stability
No pathway
connection through
site.

Tank Stre
et
er Stre
Steam
Morpeth

NORTH
et
Swan Street

ad
eth Ro
Morp

Existing site photographs

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 4
Design Principles
The consultation process revealed that the community In response to the community and Councils desires for the The diagram below illustrates the main principles behind Legend
desired the following elements and activity areas: site, design principles have been developed to provide a the design that is presented on the following pages.
Formalised and controlled vehicle access and parking framework for the design. Additionally, the principles have
Increased number of parking spaces been influenced by: Important sight lines
River access to launch kayaks, canoes and paddle boards Floodwater levels to be maintained or
away from boat ramp Floodwater currents enhanced
River access for swimming separate from boat ramp Bank erosion / stability
River access for fishing Topography of the site Key locations/activities
Walking and cycling pathways Ecology of the site and river desired
Additional areas with shade trees or structures for Traffic surrounding the site
picnicking and other activities Pedestrian and cycling access locally and regionally. View angles from key
Lighting to discourage anti-social behaviour. locations

Pathway connection
needed to Swan Street

Desired pathway along

the river

River Areas of low flood risk

access suitable for structures

Area of medium flood

View alo

risk
ng river

Drainage across site to be

Hunter River maintained

Heritage building
Potential locations
River
Que parking access
ens
Wha View to historic bridge
rf Ro
ad

Gentle slope offers

opportunity for activity area

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

The site plan provides a view of the

entire site. The subsequent pages
Hunter River highlight areas within the park with
enlarged plans and more detailed
notes. The character photographs
associated with each area provide a
Beach with access path
glimpse of the desired use, materials
and overall impression intended in the
Picnic areas in park
design.
Heritage jetty location
(page 6) Character photographs
Lawn Existing two-lane boat ramp

The jetty (page 7) Native planting

along bank

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

Overflow trailer Lawn

parking

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

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

0 10 20 50 100m
Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 6
Beach and Launch Area
Design Notes

The beach takes

advantage of an existing
beach by expanding it
and providing access for
ry

paddle craft.
ounda

Beach to launch kayaks, canoes

Hunter River
& paddle boards The heritage jetty
b

offers opportunity to
along

Reshaped bank stabilised with symbolically rebuild the

rock gabion mattress that allows historic structure. This
Path access to beach
native grasses to grow through
Fence

creates a platform above

Storage structure the river with stunning
Heritage jetty location views up and down the
highlighted with sandstone steps river.
Fish cleaning station
leading down into the water
The historic punt ramp
Paved area adjacent to parking contains an existing
drainage channel. This
Inlet and steps located in historic will be enlarged to
punt ramp accommodate kayaks
and canoes to form a
secondary launching
Picnic table platform.

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

Character photographs 0 4 8 12 20 40m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 7
Jetty & Boat Ramp
Design Notes
Extended jetty to allow boats to tie-
Existing two-lane boat up temporarily
This design takes
ramp to remain
advantage of the existing
Existing fish cleaning station
jetty and extends it
Hunter River along the river bank
to allow boats a place
to tie-up temporarily.
The expanded jetty will
remain within the extents
Bank stabilisation of the historical jetty.
works to remediate
erosion damage The existing two-
lane boat ramp will
remain with minimal
modifications to increase
safety and efficiency.

The erosion along the

Trailer / car bank needs evaluation
parking and will require
stabilisation works
that are sensitive to
the existing heritage
elements. Native
planting along the bank
Lawn area for
will help stabilise the
open play
bank as well.

Widen ramp to Shared pathway

form rigging bays
Possible future connection
to pathway along the
riverbank

NORTH
Existing picnic tables
with shade structures Scale 1:400 @ A3

Existing
parking

Character photographs 0 4 8 12 20 40m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 8
Group Picnic Area and Secondary Entry
Design Notes

Change of paving across In response to the

road to symbolise the sensitivity of heritage
drainage under roadway building locations, the
Overflow
road and path network
trailer parking
has been kept off of the
Fence along boundary

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

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 4 8 12 20 40m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 9
Main Entrance and Heritage Display
Design Notes
Existing
Sandy beach This area has the only
two-lane
Boat Ramp land high enough
to avoid frequent
inundation. It is also the
site of the historic guest
Native planting along
house that served the
bank to stabilise bank
rail station. Several walls
and enhance the local
of the guest house will
natural environment
be re-constructed using
stone to look like the
Lawn area for
Future pathway remnants of a building.
open play
extension along These walls will hold
Shaded stopping point along river bank signs and displays that
pathway with seating. Also interpret and inform on
location of future connection the history of the site.
to pathway along riverbank
In addition to the
heritage display, the
sloping lawn adjacent to
Accessible
the existing picnic tables
picnic table
will be levelled sightly
to allow open play for
Existing parking children and families to
to remain enjoy the park.

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

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 4 8 12 20 40m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
Queens Wharf Masterplan 10
Trailer Parking and Circulation
Design Notes

Existing Parking is an essential

two-lane element in any park and
Boat Ramp boat ramp facility. The
traffic study undertaken
Trailer recommends 40-50 trailer
parking Parking parking spaces for this
Trailer facility. This masterplan
parking provides 35 paved
trailer parking spaces
that are designed to
accommodate vehicles
on the paved areas with
trailers on the grass
behind. An additional
13 spaces are provided
Overflow
as overflow parking on
trailer parking
grass.
on grass
There are also 52 car
parking spaces situated
across the site. These are
Open lawn area located near activity areas
for convenience.

Trailer
Parking parking

Trailers park on grass

area while vehicles
remain on paving

NORTH
Scale 1:400 @ A3

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 4 8 12 20 40m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: G
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix B - Stakeholder Engagement

Report Queens Wharf Morpeth (under
separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 3

Number of Pages: 56
 Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Queens Wharf, Morpeth

MARA
CONSULTING
Design & Communication

Report prepared for

Maitland City Council

Date: 27 April 2016

Landscape Architecture | Urban Design | Environmental Planning

Communication | Consultation & Engagement | Government Relations
 Project Name
Location:
Project Number
Client
Mara Consulting Document Number
Document Control
Issued By: Kelly Lofberg
Revised By: Tadd Andersen
Authorised By: Kelly Lofberg
Signed:
Revision History
Revision
00
01
02
Register of Changes
Page / Reference
Various
Company Details
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
ACN: 168 093 918
ABN: 13 168 093 918
2 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Hunter River Access Project
Morpeth, NSW
1531
Maitland City Council
MCC-MARA-REP-1531002
Senior Communications and
Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Senior Landscape Architect Mara Consulting
Senior Communications and
Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Date: 27 April 2016 Mara Consulting
Date of Issue Details
Initial issue for comment by
16 April 2016
Project Team
26 April 2016 Draft for issued to MCC
27 April 2016 Final for issue to MCC
Details
Grammatical errors
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
maraconsulting.com.au
0425 715 536 0458 233 001
 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.

Image: Riverbank from Queens Wharf, Morpeth

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.
Queens Wharf at Morpeth was identified by
Council as a priority site for improvement
with upgraded entry points, public
facilities and recreational opportunities.
The surrounding area is a popular tourist
destination, drawing visitors to its beautiful
tree lined streets and many historical
buildings. Accessed from Swan Street, the
riverside park presents an opportunity to
improve and upgrade the facilities for all the
community to enjoy.
As a result, Council has engaged
Mara Consulting to develop a plan of
management and masterplan for the
Queens Wharf. A key component of this
project is to engage with stakeholders to
gain feedback and input into the design
process.
5 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Scope
The initial stage of the project included
developing specialist and technical studies
to support the development of the Plan of
Management and Masterplan for the site at
Morpeth. The preliminary studies include:
Engineering - Flooding and stormwater
assessment
Heritage assessment
Environmental assessment
Traffic assessment
Community consultation.
The preliminary studies were 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 incorporates
community values and guides how the areas
might be improved or enhanced.
 1850 Plan
NSW State Records

The Public Wharf

The history of Queens Wharf began in the 1820s when the first
wave of settlers to the northern district came ashore beside the river on
E C Closes land. By 1833 about 3 acres (1.2 ha) was secured here as
a public reserve.
Construction of the first wharf began about 1836 and was completed
by 1838. The wharf extended into water deep enough for the sea-going
ships of the times to come alongside. The wharf was below where you
now stand.
Additionally, a punt or ferry was put on to link with settlements
north of the river. This crossing was located just upstream from todays
boatramp. The government provided a ferry keepers cottage and
a two-cell police lock up built of timber.
The reserve and surrounds were soon a place of much activity,
becoming the most important transport hub in the colony outside
of Sydney.
Queens Wharf was named for Victoria who became Queen in 1837.
From about 1839 countless free emigrants who came to the Valley
as agricultural workers first landed at the wharf before beginning the
overland journeys to their destination. A great deal of farm produce
passed across the wharf also.

Remains of Queens Wharf

in the 1930s.
Morpeth Museum Colleciton

Image: Maitland City Council publication on Queens Wharf, Morpeth

6 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 The masterplan is an illustration of what
Morpeth 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.
Project Location
The project site is located at Morpeth, a
suburb of Maitland with a population of
1260 (source: ABS Census 2011), located on
the Hunter River.
The project site is has regional historical
significance, being a major port servicing
the region during early European
settlement.
Diagram 1: Queens Wharf Morpeth - project site location map.
7 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Adjacent to the Hunter River, the popular
recreational area is used for a range of
recreational and water activities. The boat
ramp on the site is the only one within a
15 kilometre radius to service motorised
craft. A variety of vessels including motor
boats, canoes, kayaks and dragon boats
are launched into the river from the
existing ramp. The wharf also provides
the opportunities for larger water craft to
moor and for people to participate in other
recreational water pursuits such as fishing.
There is no formalised pedestrian access to
the site, which indicates that the primary
method of reaching the site is by vehicle.
Some pedestrian footpaths have been
installed within the site, but only between
the existing parking and the boat ramp.
A shortage of parking spaces for cars and
trailers in the area has been identified
as an issue. The site currently provides
some parking, public amenities and picnic
facilities, seating tables, shelters and
landscaping.
A detailed analysis of the site will be
included in the Plan of Management for
Morpeth.
 Image: Workshop participants providing feedback.

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
Council, TfNSW and RMS to update the
group on the projects progress
A workshop held with the community
at Morpeth (Thursday 03/03/2016)
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 Swan
Street Maitland
Letter box drop to residents in Morpeth
adjacent to the site
Targeted focus meetings with relevant
stakeholders throughout the process
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
9 www.maraconsulting.com.au
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 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 ideas for 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.
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 area, residents, businesses
and sporting groups to determine how the
riverside location can be improved.
A number of activities were ongoing
throughout 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 the workshop, meetings
and presentations.
 A media release officially launched the
consultation, inviting interested members
of the community to attend the facilitated
community workshop held on 3 March
2016. Thirty-seven people attended the
workshop, and a number of activities were
conducted to guide the conversation and
ascertain the communitys aspirations for
the site.
At the conclusion of the workshop,
feedback forms were provided to attendees
at the meetings as well as a visual aid that
allowed participants to indicate how they
felt about the consultation activities.
Social media was used to promote and
encourage input into the project with a
number of posts included on the 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
part of the Maitland Your Say engagement
booth. During the two day festival, Council
team members were available to answer
Image: Participants at the community workshop
10 www.maraconsulting.com.au
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 website 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.
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 was
ongoing throughout the project.
 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.

Diagram 1: Project phases and milestones

Ongoing consultation with stakeholders

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 helped 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 Queens Wharf.
Identified stakeholders include:
Neighbouring residents &
landowners
Non-motorised boat users - canoes,
kayaks, dragon boats & paddle
boarders
Motorised boat users
Walkers and people exercising
Commercial/business precinct
Casual users
Broader community
Image: Participants at the community workshop
13 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Follow up meetings and discussions were
held with stakeholders once a draft concept
was developed.
Queens Wharf Stakeholders
The Queens Wharf is a popular and well
utilised community facility and provides a
safe, central location for aquatic sports and
activities. A number of organised groups
regularly use the facility, however casual
users frequent the facility to enjoy the large
open space.
Community groups
Emergency services
Councillors
Council officers
Government Departments - RMS,
Waterways, Primary Industries, NSW
Office of Environment & Heritage,
Local Land Services, Maritime
Management Centre.
 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

Cr Robert Aitchison - Maitland City Council

Cr Philip Penfold - Maitland City Council Noel Cavanagh

Heather Barry Greg Hillier

Grahame Clarke Alison Brooker

John Sharp Tracy Clements

Jeanne Macpherson Alex Clements

Barbara Cockbain Alan Daniel

Brad Machann Rob Smith

R Dyer Benadette Gibbs

Grahame March Doreen Dom

Brian Phillips Simon Brooker

Kylie Hacker Paul Gibbs

Tom Lantry Evelyn Shaw

Sue Smith Ian Shaw

Barb Quinn Nicole Sutton

Irene Hemsworth Norm Bruhn

Andrew Mason Heidi Henry

Darryl Lobsey Caroline Lobsey

Peter Cochbain Suzanne Ravagnani

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
feedback from current park users and
provide an opportunity for participants to
give their opinion on whats good and not
so good about Queens Wharf. 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
Queens Wharf
Generate ideas and what could be
included at the project site.
Image: Participants at the workshop
16 www.maraconsulting.com.au
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.
The workshop was ended prematurely
and some visioning exercises were not
completed as there was a level of distrust
held by some participants that was difficult
to resolve. This was in regards to the
intention of the project, more specifically
the belief that the project was specifically
being undertaken with the intention of
expanding the boat ramp. This lead to
spirited debate throughout the workshop
and ultimately forced the early conclusion
of the workshop.
It should be noted that this project is not
about the expansion of the boat ramp at
the site, rather the improvement of the
project site for the entire community to
enjoy.
 Workshop activities
After a presentation about the purpose of
the workshop, participants were encouraged
to participate in four activities to generate a
discussion.
It was the role of Mara to facilitate the
discussion and record the outcomes.
Activity 1: Understanding Queens
Wharf Morpeth
Understanding how people currently access
and use the project area helps to give a
good framework for improving the site.
Three questions were asked:
Access: How do you get to the site?
Uses: How do you use Morpeth
Riverside Park? Participants were asked
to identify how the park is current used.
Issues: Are there any problems or
concerns? Participants were asked to
identify what are the weaknesses of the
project site, what needs improvement
and what they dont like about the
facility.
Image: Participants at the workshop
17 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Activity 2: Direction - Future uses
and facilities
Participants were asked to identify how the
park could be used in the future (should
improvements be made). What would they
like to do, see and experience in the future?
Activity 3: Wish list - Whats
missing from the facility?
Participants were asked to think about the
future - 5, 10, 20 years from now and how
do we get there. What are the activities,
events, facilities, tourism opportunities,
infrastructure needs and other ideas that
will make the park a venue for future
generations.
Activity 4: One important thing
The workshop ended with participants
being asked what is the one reason they
were at the workshop - one thing they
wanted us to take away?
 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.

Figure 1: Key Themes that became evident during the workshop.

KEY THEMES
What participants said

Safety for all users is a priority.

SAFETY Separation of different uses.

Users desire new/upgraded facilities that cater for a

INFRASTRUCTURE range of uses including water & land based activities.

The creation of a riverside walk, shared pathways &

CONNECTIONS linking to the main street.

Acknowledgement, protection & enhancement of the

HERITAGE historical value of the site & suburb.

Wonderful community space that needs regular

MAINTENANCE maintenance particularly after flooding.

Encourage activities & events that enhance

EVENTS opportunities for business & tourism.

Improve the natural environment & stabilise

ENVIRONMENT the riverbank.

18 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Current uses of Queens Wharf Morpeth
How stakeholders use the community space
According to participants at the workshop,
Queens Wharf at Morpeth is used for a
range of activities, on land and in the water.
Participants said they used the site for
walking, exercising dogs, swimming, picnics
and passive recreation.
Many said that they visit the area to enjoy
water sports and to use the boat ramp. The
space was also valued for its natural beauty
and river setting.
A few participants were keen on using the
area for business and tourism opportunities,
capitalising on the historical aspects of the
site.
As the only public boat ramp in the
Maitland City Council area, the site is
popular for launching both motorised and
non-motorised boats. Participants said they
regularly use the toilets and showers on site,
with some traveling to the site because of
the amenities.
Participants said that they often drive to the
river edge at Queens Wharf to show visitors
the area to take in the natural beauty and
get close the river.

Image: Queens Wharf Boat Ramp

Stakeholders said they use the space for:

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
emerge from the workshop. Participants
raised the conflict between different users,
particularly swimmers and boats as a
concern. Getting into the site safely was
raised. This included vehicle, boating and
pedestrian access.
Environmental issues also raised concern,
particularly the erosion of the bank due to
flooding and boat wash. Participants talked
about the original wharf and potential
damage to the heritage items if the boat
ramp was enlarged.
Discussion about the boat ramp caused
passionate debate and the most angst
amongst the participants. Some participants
were adamant that any expansion of the
ramp would compromise the site. Some
Stakeholders said:
Kids swimming as motor boats are
entering/exiting
Very congested on weekends
Power boats are a safety risk for
swimmers & paddle craft
Lack of boat ramp etiquette
Sand & silt build up on ramp
Lack of shade
Wharf too dangerous, especially
for small children
Railway heritage ignored
Parking issues
Area not developed to full potential
Unsafe pedestrian access to Swan
Street
Preservation of heritage stone walls
along river
20 www.maraconsulting.com.au
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 identified the lack of shade,
mature trees and covered picnic areas as
items for improvement.
Political influences and a lack of trust in
Council were raised as issues in the general
discussion, although not recorded in the
activities. Some participants felt that Council
had not shown any interest in addressing
the issues previously raised by residents or
in following through on previous promises.
Depth of river too shallow
Parking for boats will take up
excessive space
Move larger craft downstream
Lack of area to load boats and
kayaks
Needs more vehicle & trailer
parking
A large ramp will mean no
swimming
Erosion - trees will fall into river
Clash of water activities
Boat ramp is too small.
Antisocial behaviour attracted to
the area
 Queens Wharf improvements
How the park could be used and upgraded
This activity was completed individually
and then each item or idea was discussed
as a group. The aim was to find out what
improvements participants would like
to see at Queens Wharf and to identify
opportunities to prioritise upgrades at
the park for varying time frames - short,
medium and long term.
Connections such as shared pathways
was the highest priority upgrade that
participants would like at the site. The
responses were predominantly related to
linking the main street and businesses to
the community facility. People identified
a walkway along the river edge acting as
a heritage walk that links the old tram
station and the bridge as important. This
project is identified within the Morpeth
Management Plan 2000 with funds collected
through the 2006 Citywide s94 Plan.
However, Council is yet to acquire the land
to enable the project to proceed.
Improved infrastructure and amenities
were also high on participants wish
list. Participants were interested in
improvements that encouraged people to
use the space such as additional shade over
seating, boat storage, a pavilion and spaces
for children to play. Participants also wanted
installation of signage to recognise the
history of the area.
There was no clear third priority area with
other suggestions spread across a number
of themes. Events for the community or
for tourism and improvements to the
environment each received 3 suggestions
each.
Also notable was the low priority
participants gave to improving the boat
ramp in the future. The boat ramp ranked
as one of the highest reasons for why
people currently use the site. The topic was
also passionately debated when talking
about the current concerns of the space,
however it was not raised as an area for
improvement in the future by participants.
A small number of participants commented
that the workshop was filled with boat
owners or those with vested interests who
wanted the boat ramp expanded however
this was not reflected in the comments
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

Greater safety at the boat ramp.

21 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Other workshop activities
Conclusion of the workshop
Mara Consulting has been engaged to
understand the communitys desires for
the staged improvement of a parcel of land
adjacent to the Hunter River at Morpeth.
This area is known as Queens Wharf. It
should be noted that this project is not
about the expansion of the existing boat
ramp at Morpeth, rather the improvement
of the entire project site for the entire
community to enjoy. Through consultation
and gaining feedback from stakeholders
about their aspirations for the site, these
ideas can be fed into the design process
and reflected in the Plan of Management
and Masterplan.
However, some participants did not believe
the answers provided. There was a level of
distrust that was difficult to resolve during
the night, which lead to spirited debate and
ultimately forced the early conclusion of the
workshop.
Image: Participants at the Morpeth workshop
22 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Participants were encouraged to contact
Mara Consulting should they want to
discuss any element of the project or have
the opportunity to provide additional input
to be included in the consultation report. A
number of community members took the
opportunity to either provide feedback in
writing or organised one-on-one meetings
with Mara staff. These submissions will be
summarised later in this report.
Participants overwhelmingly stated at the
conclusion of the event that they wanted
to protect Queens Wharf precinct for all
to enjoy. They also provided feedback on
how Mara staff facilitated the workshop.
Participants indicated that the facilitation
was delicately and respectfully managed
given the differing opinions of those
present.
 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
Age
Gender
Answer choices Responses
Female 64
Male 39
23 www.maraconsulting.com.au
were captured. One survey was conducted
to cover two project sites (Queens Wharf
Morpeth and Lorn Riverbank), which reflects
the large number of Lorn residents that
responded.
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 twenty 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.
Per cent
62.14%
37.86%
 Where do you live

Use of the Queens Wharf Morpeth

Respondents where asked how often they
used the park. Twenty-seven per cent of
people indicated that they use the park
daily or weekly, with sixteen per cent
indicating they had never used the facility.
Respondents were asked what they like
most about Queens Wharf. The highest
response were the ability to access the
Hunter River via the existing boat ramp
attracting sixty-two per cent of the
responses. Access to the Hunter River also
ranked highly amongst respondents.
People also indicated they liked the facility
Table: How often do you currently use Queens Wharf
because it was close to home. Of low
importance was the proximity to work and
to the shops as well as the existing fish
cleaning station and wharf.
When respondents were asked how they
use the site, launching boats, launching
kayaks/canoes and as a picnic area were the
most popular responses. Swimming (1%)
and for community events (3%) were the
lowest responses. One respondent said they
fish at Queens Wharf and is reflected in
the comments below however they did not
select this as a survey response (Fishing 0%).

Answer Choices Responses Percentage

Daily 3 4%
Weekly 17 23%
Monthly 11 15%
Few times per year 31 42%
Never 12 16%

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.

I launch ski boats here.

Needs bigger wharf where you can pull boats out.

24 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Upgrades to Queens Wharf Morpeth
Respondents where asked to indicate
how important potential upgrades to
Queens Wharf were to them. The highest
priority was to launch boats with ninety-
six per cent of people indicating this was
extremely important (84%) or important
(12%). Launching kayaks and canoes was
also important as well as a space for picnics.
Picnic areas and a safe swimming spot
were also identified as upgrades of high
importance.
It should be noted that only 6 respondents
lived in Morpeth. These results may be a
reflection of the high proportion of people
that live elsewhere in the local government
area that completed the survey but travel
to use the boat ramp and access the Hunter
River.
Open ended questions
Survey respondents were asked what
changes would most improve the Morpeth
site. After an analysis of the comments,
parking was the highest priority of those
who completed the survey. People said
that a specific parking area for trailers was
important.
Improvements to infrastructure and
amenities also ranked highly amongst
respondents. There was a strong desire
for more picnic tables, shaded areas and a
space for children to play.
Upgrades to the boat ramp was the third
highest priority. Respondents indicated
that a separate area for launching canoes
and kayaks was an important upgrade.
Safety was raised as a concern, particularly
the conflict between the different boating
types and swimmers that all use the ramp
area for access. Creating a sandy beach
area for swimmers and separate space for
non-motorised craft was an idea that was
repeated amongst respondents.
Of note, there were a high proportion of
respondents that use Queens Wharf for
launching motorised and non-motorised
craft, however, only one person suggested
widening the ramp. This does not seem to
be a consideration for boat users.
Safety and maintenance of the facility were
raised, particularly after flooding and storm
events.

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.

More parking available for cars & trailers.

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
email, letters or in person. Mara Consulting
staff had one-on-one meetings with
interested stakeholders after the workshop.
The feedback and suggestions presented
were very particular to that stakeholder
or to the group that they represented.
However, comments were not dissimilar to
those that were raised at the workshop, in
the survey or through social media.
Submissions were made by the Morpeth
Heritage Conservation Group, The Residents
Committee of Closebourne Retirement
Village, Morpeth residents including those
who live adjacent to the park in Steamer
Street, Maitland City Offshore Fishing Club,r
representatives of the businesses in Swan
Street and a local land owner.
Covered seating areas with access to
barbecues for large groups was a particular
requirement. Lighting of the area and
additional parking should be considered.
Emphasis on family-friendly facilities for
everyone to enjoy was raised.
The separation of different uses, such as
motorised boats, non-motorised boats
and swimmers was raised by a number of
people. A dedicated swimming area with a
beach was emphasised.
Protection of the heritage of the area was
raised. One submission raised boat wash
and planting of trees along the water edge
area causing issues. Another said that any
development should be sympathetic to
Morpeths heritage character and protect
the river bank from erosion.
Maintenance and safety were of particular
concerns to residents in the vicinity of the
facility. Night-time antisocial behaviour
and social problems are a concern.
Improvements should consider increased
lighting and maintenance of the facility as
the area backs onto a number of residential
properties.
Maintenance including bin pick ups, regular
mowing, cleaning of the toilet block and
cleaning of the carpark especially after
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.

We need a walkway along the river to the park at Morpeth Bridge.

All development should be sympathetic with Morpeths heritage character

and protect the river bank from erosion.

I would like to talk about maintenance of public spaces and the importance
of considering this issue in the planning strategies.

More parking available for cars & trailers.

In 5 years, a walkway along the river to the park at Morpeth Bridge, in 10

years, a walkway along the river for the length of the township and in 20
years, a walkway linking the river frontage to Morpeth Common.

I consider anything to do with Morpeth Tourism is important and well

overdue for improvement. I would like to see improved facilities for the day

visitors at Morpeth.

26 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Online feedback
Other Contributions
Social & digital media
The Maitland Your Say page is a digital
platform hosted by Maitland City Council
and 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 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 Queens Wharf.
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 Hunter River Access
improvements.
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.
Shared pathways for cyclists and walkers
were also another priority for Facebook
users. Others wanted a water play or slide at
Morpeth. A designated swimming area away
from boats was a priority, with some saying
its dangerous and they have had to cut the
motor when children jump out in front of
them.
(It should be noted that feedback through
social media included two sites: Queens
Wharf, Morpeth and the Lorn Riverside
Park. Some comments were specific to the
Morpeth site, however, many were common
to both.)

Stakeholders said:

Easily accessible area for swimming & kayaking.

Riverside pathway.
More shaded seating & picnic areas.
Car access to water.
BBQs and picnic grounds.
Plant native trees & shrubs to attract native birds. A cycleway sounds good.
There use to be a train line between East Maitland and Morpeth.
Need better/more parking for cars as they take the parking for trailers. Also
need more space at the dock for people to hitch their boat as some people
take up the whole dock making it hard for others to gain access to pick up
and drop off.
Ferry service between Lorn, Morpeth and Newcastle.
There needs to be a designated swimming area at Morpeth, kids jump off
the wharf in front of boats. Its extremely dangerous. Ive had to cut the

motor many times.

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.

Consideration should be given to:

Including measures that improve safety for all users, pedestrians and vehicles in the
Plan of Management, Masterplan and construction staging plan for the Queens Wharf
facility
Seeking opportunities to provide separate motorised and non-motorised boating
facilities
Providing a safe area for swimmers and consider a designated swimming beach area
Pedestrian and vehicle access at the intersection of Tank and Swan Street
Extending the boat ramp further into the water to reduce the risk of vehicles slipping
into the river
Signage at boat ramp to remind users of rules and needs of other users
Implementing improvements such as lighting to discourage anti-social behaviour.
Lighting should be considerate of nearby residents.
2. Infrastructure & Amenities - Upgrades to Queens Wharf

AIM: To improve & upgrade Queens Wharf for all the community to enjoy.

Consideration should be given to:

Designated car parking area with provision for boat trailer parking
Creation of a beach area for swimmers, away from the boat ramp
Creation of a separate launch area for non-motorised craft
Space for children to play safely
Fencing and barriers to control vehicle access and movements around the carpark
Upgrade or additional shelters (shade) and seating as well as installation of BBQ/picnic
facilities
Consideration of extending the boat ramp into the river to address safety and access
issues
Place to tie up boats safely while trailers are being collected
The expansion of the boat ramp is considered inappropriate in this location. In the
long-term if there is demand a suitable second location should be investigated
Heritage should be considered when installing infrastructure and amenities
Consideration of flooding of area and potential impacts to infrastructure.

28 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 3. Connections - Provide pathways & links

The creation of a riverside walk, shared pathways and internal paths.

AIM:
Connections should link to the main street & businesses.

Consideration should be given to:

Shared pathways that cater for a range of users including pedestrians, cyclists, families
with prams and is disability accessible (universal access/DDA compliant)
Connections to Swan Street and provide access to businesses
Internal links and pathways around the site, improved parking and access to the river
New pathway along the river edge toward the bridge. This could form part of the
Maitland Heritage Walk **.
**The suggestion of a new pathway along the river eastward toward the bridge is outside
the scope of this project.

4. Heritage - Valuing the history of Queens Wharf

To acknowledge, protect and enhance the historical value of the site and
AIM:
the suburb of Morpeth.

Consideration should be given to:

Singage and interpretive installations that explain the significance of the site
The protection and preservation of the remaining stone wharf and other sites where
possible
The impact on heritage items from the trees along the river edge
Highlighting the history and economic significance of Queens Wharf in the design of
the upgraded facilities
Connecting the heritage buildings on Swan Street and surrounding area to Queens
Wharf.
5. Maintenance - Cleaning and maintaining Queens Wharf

Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up

AIM:
keep of the facility.

Consideration should be given to:

Providing adequate rubbish bins with regular collections
The provision of educational signs reminding people to clean up after themselves
Regular mowing and weeding to ensure the site can be used for a range of activities
and events
Cleaning up the park and ramp after significant rain and flooding events
Improvements that discourage anti-social behaviour, such as lighting
The development of a maintenance plan associated with the Plan of Management and
Masterplan.

29 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 6. Events & activities - Activating the space

To develop a plan that encourages activities and events that enhance

AIM:
opportunities for business and tourism.

Consideration should be given to:

Developing a strategy to encourage events and activities to increase user demand for
Queens Wharf
Upgrades to Queens Wharf that help stage community events and activities that make
use of the water and the large open space. Events could include; historical events to
encourage visitors to Morpeth, a regatta, promote community gatherings, markets,
outdoor cinemas and educational activities.

7. Environment - Enhance & protect Queens Wharf

AIM: To improve the natural environment, riverbank and local ecology.

Consideration should be given to:

Enhancing the space by planting native trees and shrubs local to the area that are
suitable in the riverside location
Capitalising on the beauty of the site by developing a landscape plan
Increasing riverbank stability while providing safe access
Regular flooding events and impacts to the natural environment and infrastructure.
Shade trees near seating, picnic and BBQ areas
Bank stabilisation and preservation of the heritage items along the river
Regular clean up after storm events and flooding to remove sand build up on ramp
Signage to educate boat users about boat wash and impacts to heritage walls.

Image: Cruising to Queens Wharf. Source: Maitland City Council

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

Image: Advertising for online engagement activities, encouraging people to provide

feedback about the Morpeth site.

34 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer
Edition 2015/2016

35 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Appendix 4: MCC Media Release

Friday, 26 February 2016

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

MEDIA CONTACT for further information or to arrange an interview contact:

Tom Vasey 02 4931 2818 | 0407 029 723 | tom.vasey@maitland.nsw.gov.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

Make a difference - Mara Consulting

PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295

mara@maraconsulting.com.au

maraconsulting.com.au Connect with us

0425 715 536 0458 233 001

www.maraconsulting.com.au
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix C - Archaeological Management

Plan Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth
(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 4

Number of Pages: 94
 Archaeological
Management Plan
Historical and Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage
Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

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

Checked and Dr Rod Bennison

Authorised for 10 June, 2016
Release by Lead Environmental Scientist

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________________________ 1

1. INTRODUCTION____________________________________________________________ 4
2. LOCALITY _________________________________________________________________ 4
3. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES _____________________________________________ 6
4. LIMITATIONS ______________________________________________________________ 7
5. METHODOLOGY ___________________________________________________________ 7
6. HISTORICAL RESEARCH ____________________________________________________ 8
6.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 8
6.2 Non-Aboriginal History 10
7. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS _______________________________ 11
8. UNDERSTANDING THE LOCATION ___________________________________________ 12
8.1 Physical Analysis 12
8.2 Character of the Archaeological Resource 12
8.3 Disturbance to the Archaeological Resource 13
9. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE __________________________________________________ 13
9.1 Assessing Heritage Significance 13
9.2 NSW Heritage Office Standard Criteria 16
9.3 Inventory of Archaeological Sites 18
9.4 Queens Wharf Precinct - Heritage Sites MCC Local Environmental Plan 20
9.5 Queens Wharf Precinct - State Heritage Assessment 20
9.6 Options for conservation management 20
10. CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS ____________________________________________ 21
10.2 NSW Heritage Act, 1977 23
10.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) 23
10.4 Permits required 23
11. MAPPING ________________________________________________________________ 25
11.1 Recommendations for further mapping 25
11.2 Mapping discrepancies noted in Higginbothams AMP (2002) 25
12. SITE REQUIREMENTS _____________________________________________________ 29
12.1 Proposed works 29
12.2 Site Management 29
13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________________ 30
13.1 Activities require to update this Archaeological Management Plan 30
13.2 Following the update to this Archaeological Management Plan 31
13.3 Before any works commence on site: 32
13.4 Following development of the site 33

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx iii
10 June, 2016
14. REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________ 34

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
Extract of T. Kasss historical summary from Higginbothams 2002 Archaeological Management
Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth, NSW

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx iv
10 June, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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.

The following recommendations are made in this report:

A full cultural Aboriginal heritage assessment, including consultation with registered
Aboriginal stakeholders, should be undertaken over the study area. The assessment
should incorporate the archaeological survey of the Hunter River banks at, if possible, a
relatively historically low level, and from the perspective of 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 adjacent underwater areas be undertaken;
A full historical heritage assessment should be undertaken, including:
Statements of Heritage Significance for each archaeological object;
A Statement of Heritage Significance for the Queens Wharf Precinct for the purposes
of a State Heritage listing of the Precinct;
A conservation management plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct which will be
required for the State Heritage listing of the Precinct;
A geophysical sub-surface survey (if possible) in order to determine the presence or
absence of any material remains in areas to be impacted; and
Statements of Heritage Impact for each archaeological object;
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 are conducted. Depths of the river floor likely to be
impacted by the proposal will need to be available prior to any such survey;

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 1
10 June, 2016
 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 are finalised and the areas likely 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, thus providing a clear framework for the future management of
the sites in accordance with the related legislation;
This AMP, and 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 Maitland City Councils (MCC) community consultation policies;
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 listings are located at 90 Swan Street, Morpeth. This area is 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
MCC LEP described as OPWS Morpeth Regional Office, also at 90 Swan Street,
Morpeth, is also referred to as Queens Wharf and Railway Station (former). Reference to
the Queens Wharf from this listing should be deleted;
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;
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;
The appointment of a Project/Contractor Manager to manage the works and the
archaeological importance of the site. The appointee should have prior experience in

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 2
10 June, 2016
 similar works and will be responsible for compliance with notification obligations under the
following legislation:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW);
Heritage Act, 1997 (NSW);
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW);
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act ,1984 (Cth); and
Coroners Act, 2009 (NSW);
The appointment or retention of an archaeologist to:
Facilitate the induction presentations;
Make decisions regarding archaeological materials on site;
Assist the Project/Contractor Manager where necessary and in regard to
archaeological or heritage matters;
To undertake the archival recording of any historic relics located or exposed; and
To undertake notifications and obligations under the Heritage Act, 1977 (NSW) and
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW) and the National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), as they pertain to matters of heritage;
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;
An Unexpected Finds Procedure (including photographic examples) be developed to
incorporate all possible archaeological relics or objects discoverable in the Queens Wharf
Precinct and to provide a consistent approach on how to proceed in the event of
uncovering an unexpected heritage relic or object;
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; and
Interpretative and informative signage, reflecting both the historical importance of the
Queens Wharf Precinct and Aboriginal Cultural heritage perspective of the site, should be
provided. Signage should be constructed to withstand the general floods that regularly
occur 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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 3
10 June, 2016
1. INTRODUCTION

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 4
10 June, 2016
 Figure 2.1 Locality of Morpeth
TM
(Source: Six Maps )

Figure 2.2 Locality of Queens Wharf Precinct, Morpeth with lot boundaries and title details
(Source: MCCs Scope of Works)

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 5
10 June, 2016
 Table 1: Lands within Queens Wharf Precinct

Legal description Owner Control and Management Size

Lot 3 DP666772 Maitland City Council Community Land 1164 m2
Lot 1 DP1108099 Maitland City Council Community Land 961.1 m2
Lot 5 DP226025 Maitland City Council Community Land 4844 m2
Lot 30 DP543798 Maitland City Council Community Land 4658 m2
Lot 1 DP169466 AJ & JI Hines* AJ & JI Hines* 4033m2 (approx.)
Lot 1 DP79370 AJ & JI Hines* Private Land 2968 m2 (approx.)
Lot 14 DP793730 AJ & JI Hines* Private Land 7822 m2
Lot 3 DP1149223 AJ & JI Hines* Private Land 1669 m2
Lot 3 DP755237 AJ & JI Hines* Private Land 3398 m2
Part Lot 4 DP226025 AJ & JI Hines* Private Land 3610 m2 (approx.)
Waterways Crown Maitland City Council 1.153 Ha (approx.)

3. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 6
10 June, 2016
designations of the location and significance of potential archaeological sites within the Queen Street
Wharf Precinct. This AMP also contains recommendations to update and facilitate management of
those archaeological resources within the study area, in view of the MCCs Scope of Works 2015, and
on the overriding basis, that any development of the site should not endanger the archaeological
heritage of the site.

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 7
10 June, 2016
 Historical Previous Physical
research archaeological analysis
assessment

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

6.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 8
10 June, 2016
In view of this, and given the onus of responsibility on a Proponent to address Aboriginal cultural
heritage matters in any development, it is strongly recommended that the MCC obtain a full Aboriginal
cultural heritage assessment of the area. Given the lack of previous research, it is difficult to establish
or identify trends for Aboriginal sites or artefact locations within the local area. However, from a
regional perspective, and given the extent of the Hunter River, it is possible to identify some form of
potential modelling for areas alongside the Hunter River that may contain objects or places of cultural
heritage.

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 9
10 June, 2016
It is certainly expected that the highly disturbed nature of the study area, which has been affected by
previous clearance, development and flooding, would only have low potential to yield Aboriginal
objects or places within the Queens Wharf Precinct at ground surface. However, due to the
preservative effect of continual silt deposition, resulting from regular flooding of the Hunter river
system, sub-surface impacts may reveal in situ artefacts. For instance, NPWS Aboriginal registered
site #38 4 0988 is present below the ground surface.

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.

6.2 Non-Aboriginal History

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).
.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 10
10 June, 2016
 Figure 6.1 Illustration of the Town of Morpeth, 1865 (Source: Newcastle University)

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)

7. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 11
10 June, 2016
No other archaeological assessments or plans of management have been located for the study area.
As the area has been largely undeveloped as a community resource (although officially only resumed
by Maitland City Council in 1970), the lack of archaeological consideration and assessment to date is
not surprising.

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.

8. UNDERSTANDING THE LOCATION

8.1 Physical Analysis

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.

8.2 Character of the Archaeological Resource

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,

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 12
10 June, 2016
accommodation for employees, passengers and travellers, submerged vessel wrecks and items
associated with the railway exist within the study area.

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.

8.3 Disturbance to the Archaeological Resource

The archaeological resources of the Queens Wharf Precinct have been disturbed by the following:-

Cumulative structures since first non-Aboriginal settlement;

The changing pattern of the Hunter River;
Silt deposition by inundation from the Hunter River;
The construction of the railway embankment;
The repair/reconstruction of the Queens Wharf;
Construction of the toilet blocks and related trenching;
Installation of septic tanks;
The excavation of a field drain;
The open drain at the northern end of the field drain; and
The construction of the boat ramp.

Figure 8.2 2015 inundation of the Queens Wharf Precinct

(Source: MCC Scope of Works)
9. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

9.1 Assessing Heritage Significance

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:

Those buildings, works, relics or places of historic, scientific, cultural, social,

archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance for the state of New South
Wales.

and defines a relic falling within that definition to be:

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 13
10 June, 2016
 ... any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that:
a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being
Aboriginal settlement, and
b) is of State or local heritage significance.

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.

9.1.1 Classification Criteria

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:

Historical significance considers the evolutionary or associative qualities of an item with

aesthetics, science and society, identifying significance in the connection between an item
and cultural development and change;

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

Scientific significance involves the evaluation of an item in technical and/or research

terms, considering the archaeological, industrial, and educational and/or research
potential. Within this classification items have significance value in terms of their ability to
contribute to the better understanding of cultural history or environment and their ability to
communicate, particularly to a broad audience within a community.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 14
10 June, 2016
9.1.2 Value Criteria

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.

Considerations for the study of the archaeology of a relic include:

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;

Architectural value depends on considerations of technical design (architectural style, age,

layout, interior design and detail), the personal consideration (i.e. the work of a particular
architect, engineer, designer or builder) and technical achievement (construction material,
construction technique, finish);

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 15
10 June, 2016
9.1.3 Degree Criteria

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.

9.1.4 Level Criteria

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.

On a broader front, by derivation, a relic may be recognised at the:

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.

9.2 NSW Heritage Office Standard 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].

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 16
10 June, 2016
Criterion (f) the quality of an item to possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the
cultural or natural history of NSW or a local area [ie: rare degree of significance].

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

Intrusive indicates that an element is damaging in the assessment of an items significance at

the appropriate level.

9.2.1 Condition and Integrity

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 17
10 June, 2016
 resource without hypotheses based on the archaeological record and on a range of outside
sources;

[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.

9.3 Inventory of Archaeological Sites

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).

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 18
10 June, 2016
 Table 2: Inventory of archaeological sites Queens Wharf Precinct

Item No Item Location/Description Disturbance Significance

1 Road reservation Tank Street, north of Some and Intrusive
Steamer Street
2 Road reservation Tank Street, south of Some
Steamer Street
3 Road reservation Steamer Street Some
4 Railway Maitland to Morpeth Some and Intrusive
embankment branch line
5 Site of railway Queens Wharf Some
platform Railway platform
6 Former railway Queens Wharf Some
platform Railway platform
7 Former coal Queens Wharf Coal Considerable
staithes or shoots Staithes
8 Boat ramp Queens Wharf boat Intrusive
ramp
9 Remains of wharf Queens Wharf Boat ramp Considerable
and coal staithes
10 Site of former punt Southern banks of Field drain Some
crossing Hunter River,
Morpeth.
On the west side of
the former Queens
Wharf is the site of the
former punt across the
Hunter River. The site
is now on or close to a
field drain emptying
into the river
11 Field drain Intrusive
12 Reserve and other Queens Wharf Considerable
structures Reserve
13 Former allotments Facing Steamer and Considerable and
facing Steamer Tank Streets Exceptional
and Tank Streets
upon which
various structures
once stood
14 Former Queens A S N Company Wharf Remaining features Considerable
wharf and buildings. included the stone
Southern banks of batter under and
Hunter River, behind the original
Morpeth. wharf to stop
An intrusive boat ramp erosion from the
indicates the location bank.
of the middle of the
remains of the original
Queens Wharf.
15 Former allotments Considerable

16 Road reservation Queens Wharf Road Some

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 19
10 June, 2016
The item numbering in the table reflects the numbering in Higginbothams AMP (2002) composite of
plan of buildings (see Figure 11.2).

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:

The original Railway platform, shed and guards box;

Various structures such as sheds and shops noted on various allotments;
The Wheatsheaf Inn and accompanying buildings; and
The Lock Up.

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.

9.5 Queens Wharf Precinct - State Heritage Assessment

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.

9.6 Options for conservation management

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 1: Taking no conservation management action would (theoretically) allow development to

proceed unobstructed, but would almost certainly result in the destruction or
irretrievable modification of the archaeological/heritage resource. Such an option
might result in the loss not only of the archaeological resource but also of the
opportunity of recording and interpreting the resource and thereby preserving it for
future study, and a tangible account of the heritage values of the study area.

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 20
10 June, 2016
 would be fully and appropriately recorded and the nett loss in heritage values would be
minimised.

It is recommended that the proposed overall Masterplan for the Queens Wharf Precinct:

Maximise the potential for archaeological value in the construction process;

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);

10. CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS

10.1.1 Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011

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:

Demolition, movement or alteration of a heritage item, an Aboriginal object or a building, work,

relic or tree within a heritage conservation area;

The disturbance or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable

cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being
discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed;

(d) disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance;

(e) erecting a building on land:

on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation

area, or

on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of

heritage significance,

(f) subdividing land:

on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage

significance.

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 21
10 June, 2016
to demolish, alter, damage or move. Consent will be subject to Councils assessment of the impact to
items of heritage significance or within a heritage conservation zone.

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.

10.1.2 Maitland City Council Development Control Plan

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;

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 22
10 June, 2016
 Loading and manoeuvring areas for service vehicles shall be separated from car parks and
pedestrian paths. Where shared access is provided, no loading or unloading shall be carried
out over car parking spaces and access aisles;

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.

10.2 NSW Heritage Act, 1977

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:

Listed on the State Heritage Register, pursuant to s60; and

Not listed on the State Heritage Register, pursuant to s140.

10.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

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).

10.4 Permits required

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 23
10 June, 2016
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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 24
10 June, 2016
11. MAPPING

Integral to the preparation of an AMP, particularly for the development of LEPs and concept designs
and plans is the preparation of GIS mapping.

11.1 Recommendations for further 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.

Figure 11.1 Former Landscape Plan for Queens Wharf Precinct

(Source: Mara Consulting)
11.2 Mapping discrepancies noted in Higginbothams AMP (2002)

The punt landing varies in shape from one plan to another;

The punt keepers house(s) vary from a single structure to two structures and the position is
differential;
The site of the Queens Wharf has been disturbed by the placement of the boat ramp;
The site of the punt landing may have been disturbed by the field drain; and
The coal staithes are only located on one historical plan (1864).

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:

The typically low level of accuracy in historical maps;

Sketches of allotments may not have included all structures; and

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 25
10 June, 2016
 Reference points, measurements and boundaries may be physically different today to where
and how they once were.

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 26
10 June, 2016
a Map of Morpeth, 1860 (National Library of Australia Digital Collections).
b - Map of Morpeth 1849 (Newcastle University Collections).
c Map of Morpeth c.1834 (NSW State Library

Figure 11.3 An overlay of historic maps of Morpeth

Figure 11.4 Map of Morpeth 1849 (Source: Newcastle University Collections)

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 27
10 June, 2016
 Figure 11.5 Surveyors Map of Morpeth 1860 by Reuss & Browne Surveyors.
(Source: National Library of Australia)

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:

Map 1: Study area location

Map 2: Historical mapping
Map 3 Physical condition of the archaeological resource
Map 4 Integrity of the archaeological resource
Map 5 Sites according to historic phases
Map 6 Archaeological research potential
Map 7 Significance of sites
Map 8 Site Requirements

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).

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 28
10 June, 2016
12. SITE REQUIREMENTS

12.1 Proposed works

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:

Survey and or remote sensing;

Trenching;
Underwater survey;
Survey from the Hunter River;
Monitoring of excavations;
Sampling of evidence;
Large scale controlled archaeological open area excavation;
In situ conservation; and
Dedicated areas for storage or display of artefacts.

12.2 Site Management

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.

An Unexpected Finds Procedure (including photographic examples) be developed to

incorporate all possible archaeological relics or objects discoverable in the Queens Wharf
Precinct, and to provide a consistent approach on how to proceed in the event of
uncovering an unexpected heritage relic or object.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 29
10 June, 2016
 All on site workers, employees and sub-contractors shall partake in both an Aboriginal
heritage and cultural induction, as well as an 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.

The appointment or retention of an Archaeologist to:

Facilitate the induction presentations;
Make decisions regarding archaeological materials on site;
Assist the Project/Contractor Manager where necessary and in regard to
archaeological or heritage matters;
To undertake the archival recording of any historic relics located or exposed; and
To undertake notifications and obligations under the Heritage Act, 1977 (NSW) and
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW) and the National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), as they pertain to matters of heritage.

13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Any part of the study area that has the potential to be disturbed, damaged or destroyed by
development will require:

Archaeological monitoring concurrent with the development process, and/or

Archival recording, by plane survey, text, plan and elevation drawings, and photography,
and/or
Appropriate reporting and maintenance of parts or the whole of the heritage resource, or
Any appropriate combination of the above.

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.

13.1 Activities require to update this Archaeological Management Plan

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.

A full Historical heritage assessment including:

Statements of Heritage Significance for each archaeological object;

A Statement of Heritage Significance for the Queens Wharf Precinct for the purposes
of a State Heritage listing of the Precinct;

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 30
10 June, 2016
 A conservation management plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct which will be
required for the State Heritage listing of the Precinct;
A geophysical sub-surface survey (if possible) in order to determine the presence or
absence of any material remains in areas to be impacted; and
Statements of Heritage Impact for each archaeological object.

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.

13.2 Following the update to this Archaeological Management Plan

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 31
10 June, 2016
 referred to as Queens Wharf and Railway Station (former). This reference to the Queens
Wharf in this listing should be deleted;

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.

13.3 Before any works commence on site:

The appointment of a Project/Contractor Manager 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 notification obligations under the following
legislation:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW);

Heritage Act, 1997 (NSW);
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW);
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act ,1984 (Cth); and
Coroners Act, 2009 (NSW);

The appointment or retention of an Archaeologist to:

Facilitate the induction presentations;

Make decisions regarding archaeological materials on site;
Assist the Project/Contractor Manager where necessary and in regard to
archaeological or heritage matters;
To undertake the archival recording of any historic relics located or exposed; and
To undertake notifications and obligations under the Heritage Act, 1977 (NSW) and
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW) and the National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), as they pertain to matters of heritage;

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

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 32
10 June, 2016
 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. An Unexpected Finds Procedure
should be developed to provide a consistent approach on how to proceed in the event of
uncovering an unexpected Aboriginal heritage archaeological find.

13.4 Following development of the site

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 33
10 June, 2016
14. REFERENCES

The following information was used in the preparation of this report:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act , 1984 (Cth).

2. Australian Railway Historical Bulletin 9 (1953).

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.

5. Brown, S. (2007). Landscaping heritage: toward an operational cultural landscape approach

for protected areas in New South Wales. In Australasian Historical Archaeology, 25, 2007.

6. Coroners Act, 2009 (NSW).

7. Crown Lands Act , 1989 (NSW).

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.

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 34
10 June, 2016
20. Maitland City Council (2002), Archaeological assessment of Queens Wharf Precinct,
Morpeth, Consultancy Brief. Maitland City Council.

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).

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 35
10 June, 2016
 Appendix I
Extract of T. Kasss historical summary from Higginbothams 2002
Archaeological Management Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct,
Morpeth, NSW

Historical and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
14193 Mara Consulting Morpeth Queens Street Heritage Final.docx 36
10 June, 2016
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix D - Preliminary Site

Investigation Queens Wharf Morpeth
(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 5

Number of Pages: 126



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

Version Author Date Reviewer Date QualityReview Date

v1 S.Lord 1/03/2016 PSimpson 1/03/2016 PSimpson 2/03/2016


DOCUMENTCONTROL

Version Date Reference Submittedto

v1 2/03/2016 EP0272Mara_Morpeth_PSI MaraConsultingPtyLtd

Melbourne Sydney Newcastle

22/1RickettsRoad G11/283AlfredStreet 3/19BoltonStreet
MountWaverley,Vic,3149 NorthSydney,NSW,2060 Newcastle,NSW,2300
T0385407300 T0283247508 T0249135650
Wwww.eprisk.com.au ABN81147147591

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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.

EP0272 2March2016 Pagei

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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.

EP0272 2March2016 Pageii

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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

EP0272 2March2016 Pagei

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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

EP0272 2March2016 Pageii

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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.

1.3 Scope of Work

ThescopeofworkwascarriedoutingeneralaccordancewithEPRisksproposal(EP10504dated13
October2015),andcomprisedthefollowingtasks:
ASitevisittoobserveonsiteandoffsiteconditions.
ReviewofSitehistorybasedupon:
I. Historicallandtitlerecords;
II. Historicalaerialphotographs;
III. Councilrecords;
IV. DangerousGoodsrecords;
V. Geologicalandhydrogeologicalinformation;and
VI. PublicallyavailablerecordsoftheNSWEPAregardingnotificationsornotices.
Identificationofareasofenvironmentalconcern(AEC)andCOPCfortheSitebaseduponSite
historydata.
PreparationofaPSIreportinaccordancewiththeOEH(2011)ContaminatedSites,Guidelinesfor
ConsultantsReportingonContaminatedSites.

EP0272 2March2016 Page1

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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

EP0272 2March2016 Page2

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

3 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment

The majority of information provided in the following sections was obtained from Lotsearch
EnvironmentalRiskandPlanningReport(2015).AcopyofthereportisprovidedasAppendixA.

3.1 Current Land Use and Layout

ThemajorityoftheSiteisvacantland,howeverapublicaccessibleboatrampwithadjacentvehicle
parkingareacoversalargeportionofLot30DP543798.TheSiteislocatedapproximately6kmeast
oftheMaitlandCentralBusinessDistrict(CBD).TheSitelocationandlayoutcanbeseeninFigures1
and2.

3.2 Site Inspection

EP Risk undertook a Site inspection on 29 February 2016 comprising of a Site walkover and visual
assessment.ThegeneralSitefeaturesandinfrastructureobservedduringtheinspectionarepresented
inFigure3andsummarisedbelowwiththeSitephotosattachedasAppendixB.

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).

EP0272 2March2016 Page3

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

3.3 Surrounding Land Use

TotheNorth

HunterRiveradjacent.

Rural/agriculturallandbeyond.

TotheSouth

QueensWharfRoadadjacent.

Residentialproperties.

MorpethRoadwithopenspaceandagedcarefacilitybeyond.

TotheEast

Residentialpropertiesadjacent.

Morpethcommunityandrural/agriculturallandusebeyond.

TotheWest

Rural/agriculturallanduseadjacentandbeyond.

3.4 Topography and Drainage

ThegeneraltopographyofthesurroundingareaoftheSitehasaslopinggradientrunningnorth.No
stormwaterinfrastructureislocatedattheSite.Therefore,itisconsideredthatsurfacerunoffwould
migrateasoverlandflowtothenorthtowardstheHunterRiver.

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.

3.6 Soil Landscapes

OnsitesoillandscapeshavebeenidentifiedasbeingHuntervariantalluvial.

3.7 Hydrogeology
Oneregisteredgroundwaterborewasidentifiedtobelocatedwith1kmoftheSite.Thegroundwater
boreislocated127meastoftheSite.Nootherinformationwasavailableforthebore.

EP0272 2March2016 Page4

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

3.8 Acid Sulfate Soils

WithreferencetotheCSIRONationalAcidSulfateSoilDatabaseandtheMaitlandLocalEnvironmental
Plan(LEP)(2011),theSiteislocatedwithinareasofClass1,3and4acidsulfatesoils.Inaccordance
withtheMaitlandLEPdevelopmentconsentisrequiredforworkswiththefollowingClassofland:
Class1Anyworks
Class3Worksmorethan1meterbelownaturalgroundsurface(mBNGS)andworksbywhichthe
watertableislikelytobeloweredmorethan1mBNGS.
Class4Worksmorethan2mBNGSandworksbywhichthewatertableislikelytobeloweredmore
than2mBNGS.
A figure showing where the Class of lands are located within the Site boundary is contained in
AppendixA.

3.9 Dryland Salinity

TheSiteislocatedwithinadrylandsalinityareapresentingahighhazardorriskassessmentcategory.

3.10 Mining Subsidence

NoMiningSubsidenceDistrictshavebeenidentifiedwithin1kmoftheSite.

3.11 State Environmental Planning Policy Protected Areas

NoStateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(SEPP)protectedareahasbeenidentifiedwithin1kmofthe
Site.

3.12 State Environmental Planning Policy Major Developments

NoSEPPmajordevelopments(2005)within1kmoftheSitehavebeenidentified.

3.13 State Environmental Planning Policy Strategic Land Use Areas

ThefollowingSEPPstrategiclanduseareashavebeenidentifiedwithin1kmoftheSite:

Biophysicalstrategicagriculturallandonsite.
Biophysicalstrategicagriculturalland70mnorth.
Biophysicalstrategicagriculturalland717meast.

EP0272 2March2016 Page5

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

3.14 List of Contaminated sites Notified to the NSW EPA

ContaminatedsitescurrentlynotifiedtotheNSWEPAwithin1kmoftheSiteareprovidedinTable2.

Table2ContaminatedsitesNotifiedtotheNSWEPA
Distance
Site Activity EPAsitemanagementclass
fromSite
Formerservice RegulationunderContaminatedLand
Servicestation 37meast
station Management(CLM)Actnotrequired
Telstracable
Other RegulationunderContaminatedLand
installationandRTA 314meast
petroleum Management(CLM)Actnotrequired
bridgework

3.15 Records of Notice: Contaminated Land

Norecordsofcontaminatedlandnoticeswereidentifiedwithin1kmoftheSite.

3.16 Former Gasworks

Therearenorecordsofformergasworkswithin1kmoftheSite.

3.17 Waste Management Facilities and UPSS Sensitive Zones

Therearenorecordsofwastemanagementfacilitieswithin1kmoftheSite.TheSiteiswithinan
undergroundpetroleumstoragesystem(UPSS)regulatedenvironmentallysensitivezone.

3.18 Licensed Activities Under the POEO Act 1997

AsummaryofthelicensedactivitiesunderthePOEOAct1997beingundertakenwithin1kmofthe
SiteisprovidedinTable3.

Table3LicensedActivitiesUnderthePOEOAct1997
EPL Organisation Activity DistancefromSite
10393 Council AllwaterbodiesintheMaitlandLEP Onsite

3.19 Delicensed Activities still Regulated by the NSW EPA

NorecordsofdelicensedactivitiesstillregulatedbytheNSWEPAhavebeenidentifiedwithin1kmof
theSite.

EP0272 2March2016 Page6

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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

3.21 Heritage Items

Nolocalheritageitemshavebeenlocatedonsite.

3.22 Sensitive Receptors

SensitivereceptorsidentifiedinthevicinityoftheSiteareconsideredtobe:

CurrentandfutureSiteusers.

Futureconstructionworkers.

OccupiersofresidentialpropertiestothesouthandeastoftheSite.

LocalfloraandfaunaintheHunterRiveradjacenttonorthernSiteboundary.

RecreationalusersoftheHunterRiver.

EP0272 2March2016 Page7

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

4 Site History
4.1 Sources of Information
TheSitehistorysourcesutilisedduringthereviewinclude:

SafeWorkNSWdangerousgoodslicencesearch.

Historicaltitlesearch.

Councilrecords.

Historicalaerialphotographyfromtheyears:1958,1965,1976,1983,1993,2007and2012.

ReviewofArchaeologicalManagementPlanfortheQueensWharfPrecinctMorpethNSW.

4.2 Review of Historical Dangerous Goods Records

In January 2016, a SafeWork NSW search requesting information on the storage of hazardous
chemicalsattheSitewasundertaken.Norecordsofdangerousgoodswereidentifiedinthesearch.A
copyofthesearchresultsfromSafeWorkNSWisattachedasAppendixC.

4.3 Historical Title Search

AreviewofhistoricaltitleinformationfortheSiteissummarisedbelow.Thehistoricaltitlesearch
informationisattachedasAppendixD.

LotsOwnedbyCouncil

Councilhasbeenthesoleproprietorofthelandsincethetitlebeganin1971.

LotsOwnedbyAJandJIHines

AJandJIHineshavebeenoccupiersofthelotssince1974.
Priorto1974thelots havebeenowned byfarmers,graziers,blacksmiths,widowers,from
1932.
ThePermanentTrusteeCompanyofNewSouthWaleswereproprietorsofthelotsfrom1908
to1932.

LotsOwnedbyMistletoeInvestments

MistletoeInvestmentshavebeenproprietorsofthelotsfrom1972.
Priorto1972,thelotshavebeenownedbypredominatelyfarmersfromthetitlescreatingin
1823.

EP0272 2March2016 Page8

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

4.4 Review of Council Records

Council was contacted in relation to records pertaining to the Site. The following Development
Application(DA)recordswereprovided:
04682toerectsignageandconstructfootpaths,seatingandcarparkingandlandscaping.
023634towidentheboatrampandconstructthewharf.
023010todemolishtheexistingamenitiesandconstructnewamenities.

NodatesoftheDAwereprovided.

4.5 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs

Aerial photographs of the Site for the years 1958, 1965, 1976, 1983, 1993, 2007 and 2012 were
reviewed, with a summary provided in Table 5. Copies of the aerial photographs are attached as
AppendixA.

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.

EP0272 2March2016 Page9

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

Thehistoricalaerialphotographicreviewindicatesthefollowing:

TheSitehasremainedpredominantlyrural/agriculturallandfromasearlyas1958.
SomeclearingofthelandhasbeenundertakenacrosstheSite.Predominantlyinthenorth
westernportionoftheSite.
Aboatrampwasconstructedsometimebetween1965and1976.Workstotheboatramp,
includingaddingconcretepave,wideningoftherampandconstructionofavehicleparking
areawereallundertakenatsometimebetweentheyearsof1993and2007.

4.6 Queens Wharf Archaeological Management Plan

A review of the Archaeological Management Plan for the Queens Wharf Precinct Morpeth NSW
identifiedthefollowinginrelationtotheSite:

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.

4.7 Summary of Site History

Insummary,thehistoryoftheSiteisasfollows:

TheSitewasamajoroperationalportduringthemidninetiethcentury,usedforthetransport
andstorageofvariousgoodsincludingcoal.
InfrastructureattheSiteinthemidninetiethcenturyconsistedofwarehousestores,timber
yard,railwaystation,apuntwithkeeperscottageandcoalstaithes/shoots.
AraillinebranchwasconstructedattheSitein1962.
Thewharfundertookrepairsanumberoftimesduringitsoperation.
NorecordsofdangerousgoodsfortheSite.
TheSitecomprisesofmultiplelotswiththreeseparateproprietors.

EP0272 2March2016 Page10

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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.

EP0272 2March2016 Page11

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

5 Potential Contaminating Activities

Onthebasisoftheinspectionandreviewofhistoricalrecords,anumberofactivitieshaveoccurred
attheSitewhichmayhaveresultedinthepotentialforcontaminationtosoilandgroundwater,which
include:

HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Publicaccessibleboatrampwithassociatedvehicleparkingarea.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.

EP0272 2March2016 Page12

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

6 Contaminants of Potential Concern

BaseduponareviewofhistoricalinformationandtheSiteinspectionthecontaminantsofpotentialconcern(COPC)arepresentedinTable6.

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,

EP0272 2March2016 Page13

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

7 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

Apreliminaryconceptualsitemodel(CSM)hasbeendevelopedbasedupontheinformationprovided
insectionsofthisreport.

7.1 Mechanisms of Contamination

AnumberofpotentiallycontaminatingactivitieshavebeenundertakenattheSiteasfollows:

HistoricaluseoftheSiteasashippingportwiththetransportandstorageofgoodssuchas
coal.
Potentialuseofpesticidesassociatedwithhistoricalagriculturaluse.
Clearingofvegetation,predominatelyinthewesternportionoftheSite.
ImportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSite.
Operationofasepticsystemassociatedwithpublicamenities.

7.2 Potentially Affected Media

ThepotentialaffectedmediaattheSiteisconsideredtobesoil,groundwaterandsurfacewater.

7.3 Potential Human and Ecological Receptors

Potentialhumanandecologicalreceptorsareconsideredtobe:

CurrentandfutureSiterecreationalusers.
Currentmaintenanceworkers.
Futureconstructionworkersassociatedwithfuturedevelopment.
OccupiersofresidentialpropertiestothesouthandeastoftheSite.
TerrestrialfloraandfaunaattheSite.
AquaticfloraandfaunaintheHunterRiver.
Usersofregisteredgroundwaterboreswithin1kmradiusoftheSite.
RecreationalusersoftheHunterRiver.

7.4 Potential and Complete Exposure Pathways

An analysis of the potential exposure pathways between the COPC and the identified human and
ecologicalreceptorsarepresentedinError!Referencesourcenotfound.below.

EP0272 2March2016 Page14

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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

EP0272 2March2016 Page15

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

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:

Yes Currentpotential Yes Futurepotential

EP0272 2March2016 Page16

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

ThisreportpresentsthefindingsofaPSIundertakenattheSite,locatedatQueensWharf,Morpeth,
NSW.TheSitecomprisesofmultiplelotsandisapproximately4.7hainsize.ThePSIwascommissioned
byMaraConsultingfor thepurposeofsatisfyinga requirement withinaPlanofManagementand
MasterplanbeingdevelopedfortheSitebyMaraConsulting.
TheSitehistoryreviewindicatesthattheSitehasalonghistoryofactivitydatingbacktotheearly
1800s.TheprimaryuseoftheSiteduringthistimewasitsoperationasamajorportintheHunter
Valleytransporting,viashipandrailway,andstoringnumerousgoodsincludingcoalandtimber.The
useoftheSiteasamajorportdeclinedtowardstheendoftheninetiethcenturyastheutilisationof
theGreatNorthernrailwayincreased,resultinginclosureoftheportin1920.
HistoricalimportationoffillmaterialacrosstheSiteaswellassomeclearingofvegetationacrossthe
Site was evident in the historical aerial photographs review and Site inspection. The Site was
transformed into public open space sometime in the 1970s with the construction of a boat ramp
undertaken.ImprovementstotheboatrampandamenitiesattheSitehavebeenundertakensince
thistime.Someslagmaterialwasidentifiedinsurfacesoilsduringinthenortheasternportionofthe
SiteduringaSiteinspection.
ThepotentiallycontaminatingactivitiesidentifiedintheSitehistoryreviewincludethefollowing:

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.

EP0272 2March2016 Page17

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices

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

LOT SEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AND PLANNING

REPORT

 Lotsearch

Environmental Risk and Planning Report

Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321
Report Buffer: 1000m
Report Date: 11 Dec 2015 12:37:07

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.

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 1

Table of Contents
Location Confidences .............................................................................................................................. 2
Dataset Listings ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................... 5
Contaminated Land ................................................................................................................................. 6
Waste Management Facilities & UPSS Sensitive Zones ........................................................................ 9
EPA Current & Former Regulated Activities ......................................................................................... 10
Historical Aerial Imagery & Maps .......................................................................................................... 12
Topographic Features ........................................................................................................................... 19
Elevation Contours ................................................................................................................................ 22
Hydrogeology & Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 23
Geology ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Soil Landscapes .................................................................................................................................... 27
Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................................. 29
Dryland Salinity ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Mining Subsidence Districts .................................................................................................................. 33
State Environmental Planning ............................................................................................................... 34
Local Environmental Planning .............................................................................................................. 36
Heritage ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Natural Hazards .................................................................................................................................... 42
Ecological Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 43
Terms & Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 47

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

1 Geocoded to the site location or part of site

2 Geocoded with the confidence of the general/wider area

3 Geocoded to the road or rail

4 Geocoded to the road intersection

5 Feature is a buffered point

6 Land adjacent to Geocoded Site

7 Geocoded to a network of features

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 2

Dataset Listing
Datasets contained within this report, detailing their source and data currency:

Dataset Name Custodian Supply Currency Update No. No. No.

Date Date Frequency Features Features Features
Onsite within in Buffer
100m
Cadastre Boundaries Land and Property Information 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 As required - - -

Topographic Data Land and Property Information 10/04/2015 01/04/2015 As required - - -

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

National Waste Management Site Geoscience Australia 21/10/2015 15/11/2012 Quarterly 0 0 0

Database
UPSS Environmentally Sensitive
Zones
Licensed Activities under the
POEO Act 1997
Delicensed POEO Activities still
Regulated by the EPA
Former POEO Licenced Activities
now revoked or surrendered
Points of Interest
Department of Environment, Climate 14/04/2015 12/01/2010 As required 1 1 1
Change and Water (NSW)
Environment Protection Authority 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 Monthly 1 1 1
Environment Protection Authority 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 Monthly 0 0 0
Environment Protection Authority 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 Monthly 3 3 3
Land and Property Information 10/04/2015 01/04/2015 As required 3 4 22

Tanks (Areas) Land and Property Information 10/04/2015 01/04/2015 As required 0 0 0

Tanks (Points) Land and Property Information 10/04/2015 01/04/2015 As required 0 0 2

State Forest Land and Property Information 12/08/2015 22/01/2015 As required 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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 3

Dataset Name Custodian Supply Currency Update No. No. No.
Date Date Frequency Features Features Features
Onsite within in Buffer
100m
Local Environmental Plan - Land NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 27/11/2015 Weekly 0 - -
Reservation Acquisition
State Heritage Items NSW Planning and Environment 07/12/2015 12/03/2015 Quarterly 0 1 2

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
Regional Vegetation Survey
RAMSAR Wetlands
ATLAS of NSW Wildlife
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 28/02/2015 16/11/2009 As required 0 1 3
Commonwealth of Australia Department 08/10/2014 24/06/2011 As required 0 0 0
of the Environment
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 Daily - - -

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 4

Aerial Imagery 2015
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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.

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 5

Contaminated Land & Waste Management Facilities
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

1000m
E

899

1551

Legend
Site Centre Contaminated Land List
E

Site Boundary Former Gasworks

Report Buffer Contaminated Land Record of Notice

Property Boundary Waste Management Facilities

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 6

Contaminated Land
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

List of NSW contaminated sites notified to EPA

Records from the NSW EPA Contaminated Land list within the report buffer:

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:

EPA site management class Explanation

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 7

Contaminated Land
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Contaminated Land: Record of Notices

Record of Notices within the report buffer:

Map Id Area No Name Address Suburb Notices Distance Direction LC

N/A No
records
in buffer

Contaminated Land Records of Notice Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority
Terms of use and disclaimer for Contaminated Land: Record of Notices, please visit
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/clm/clmdisclaimer.htm

Former Gasworks
Former Gasworks within the report buffer:

Map Location Council Further Info Distance Direction LC

Id
N/A No records in buffer

Former Gasworks Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 8

Waste Management Facilities & UPPS Sensitive Zones
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

National Waste Management Site Database

Sites on the National Waste Management Site Database within the report buffer:

Site Owner Name Address Suburb Postcode Landfill Reprocess Transfer Distance Direction LC
Id
N/A No records in
buffer

Wate Management Facilities Data Source: Australian Governement Geoscience Australia

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Underground Petroleum Storage System Sensitive Zones

Is the site within a UPSS Regulation Environmentally Sensitive Zone?

Yes

UPSS Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 9

EPA Activities
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

1000m
10393
E

Legend
Site Centre Licensed Activities under POEO Act
E

Delicensed Activities still Regulated by EPA

Site Boundary
Former Licensed/Regulated Activities (revoked or surrendered)
Report Buffer
Surrendered Licences related to Other Activities on Waterways incl. Appliaction of Herbicides
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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 10

EPA Activities
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997

Licensed activities under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, within the report
buffer:

EPL Organisation Name Address Suburb Activity Loc Distance Direction

Conf
10393 MAITLAND CITY ALL WATERBODIES IN . MAITLAND Other activities 2 0m -
COUNCIL THE MAITLAND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AREA

POEO Licence Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority

Delicensed Activities still regulated by the EPA

Delicensed activities still regulated by the EPA, within the report buffer:

Licence Organisation Name Address Suburb Activity Loc Distance Direction

No Conf
N/A No records in
buffer

Delicensed Activities Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority

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:

Licence Organisation Location Status Issued Activity Loc Distance Direction

No Date Conf
4653 LUHRMANN WATERWAYS Surrendered Other Activities / Non Scheduled 7 0m -
ENVIRONMENT THROUGHOUT Activity - Application of Herbicides
MANAGEMENT NSW
PTY LTD
4838 Robert Orchard Various Waterways Surrendered Other Activities / Non Scheduled 7 0m -
throughout New Activity - Application of Herbicides
South Wales -
SYDNEY NSW 2000
6630 SYDNEY WEED WATERWAYS Surrendered Other Activities / Non Scheduled 7 0m -
& PEST THROUGHOUT Activity - Application of Herbicides
MANAGEMENT NSW - PROSPECT,
PTY LTD NSW, 2148

Former Licensed Activities Data Source: Environment Protection Authority

State of New South Wales through the Environment Protection Authority

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 11

Aerial Imagery 2012
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 12

Aerial Imagery 2007
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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.

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 13

Aerial Imagery 1993
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 14

Aerial Imagery 1983
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 15

Aerial Imagery 1976
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 16

Aerial Imagery 1965
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 17

Aerial Imagery 1958
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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)

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 18

Topographic Features
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Site Centre Site Boundary NPWS Reserve Watercourse Heavy Rail

E

Report Buffer State Forest Pipeline Light Rail

Place Name
Property Boundary O'HE Major Road Underground Rail
# Points of Interest
RATER AVENUE Water Area
Tank
ARArea
N S TR E
E T Road Runway
) FTank Point
"
KORBEL ST Pathway/Track/Lane Major Electricity Transmission Line
WAY STREET REET 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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 19

Topographic Data
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Points of Interest
What Points of Interest exist within the report buffer?

Map Id Feature Type Label Distance Direction

94004 Park Park 0m Onsite

146712 Wharf Wharf 0m Onsite

146775 Boat Ramp Boat Ramp 0m Onsite

9694 Fire Station MORPETH FIRE STATION 100m East

132729 Post Office MORPETH POST OFFICE 142m East

7262 Community Facility ST JAMES PARISH HALL 198m South East

91536 Park ILLALAUNG PARK 206m East

7332 Community Facility ST JOHNS CONFERENCE CENTRE 223m South

101505 Sports Field Sports Field 251m South

58465 Place Of Worship ANGLICAN CHURCH 264m South East

7283 Community Facility HALL 320m South East

84124 Monument WAR MEMORIAL 350m East

57394 Museum MORPETH MUSEUM 355m East

91369 Park NOEL AND DAPHNE UNICOMB PARK 371m East

61578 Place Of Worship UNITING CHURCH 408m East

7408 Community Facility SCOUT HALL 443m East

6266 Community Facility ST JOHNS COLLEGE MINISTRY CENTRE 454m South West

162246 Retirement Village CLOSEBOURNE VILLAGE 558m South

115988 Town MORPETH 633m East

97415 Sports Court TENNIS COURTS 668m South West

166514 Primary School MORPETH PUBLIC SCHOOL 845m East

146220 Police Station MORPETH POLICE STATION 915m East

Topographic Data Source: Land and Property Information (2015)

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 20

Topographic Data
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Tanks (Areas)
What are the Tank Areas located within the report buffer?

Map Id Tank Type Status Name Capture Method Feature Currency Distance Direction

N/A No records in buffer

Tanks (Points)
What are the Tank Points located within the report buffer?

Map Id Tank Type Status Name Capture Method Feature Currency Distance Direction

505153662 Tank-RuralWater Operational Ortho Image 2001-04-02 281m South East

Trace
504857115 Tank-RuralWater Operational Ortho Image 2001-04-02 789m South
Trace

Tanks Data Source: Land and Property Information (2015)

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

State Forest
What State Forest exist within the report buffer?

State Forest Number State Forest Name Distance Direction

N/A No records in buffer

State Forest Data Source: Land and Property Information (2015)

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

National Parks and Wildlife Service Reserves

What NPWS Reserves exist within the report buffer?

Reserve Number Reserve Type Reserve Name Gazetted Date Distance Direction

N/A No records in buffer

NPWS Data Source: Land and Property Information (2015)

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 21

Elevation Contours (m AHD)
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Accuracy & Currency: This contour data can be up to 0.4 of the

contour interval out in height and must therefore not be used for
any design or engineering works, but only as a general guide to
Legend topography. Gaps may occur along contour lines due to vertical
topography, obscured topography in the source photography such
Site Centre Site Boundary
E

as buildings, dense vegetation or dead ground, or the fact that

original buildings have been replaced in the intervening thirty years
Elevation Contour (m AHD) Report Buffer
since the original contour capture.
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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 22

Groundwater Boreholes
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

1000m
21010138
E

Legend
Site Centre Site Boundary
E

Borehole 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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 23

Hydrogeology & Groundwater
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Hydrogeology
Description of aquifers on-site:

Description

Porous, extensive highly productive aquifers

Description of aquifers within the report buffer:

Description

Porous, extensive highly productive aquifers

Hydrogeology Map of Australia : Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia)

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

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:

Groundwater No Drillers Log Distance Direction

No related drill log

data

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 24

Geology 1:250,000
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Qa

Qa
w

1000m
E

Pt

Qa

Legend
Site Centre Fault Metamorphic Boundary
E

Site Boundary E EDyke Shear Zone

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 25

Geology
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Geological Units
What are the Geological Units onsite?

Symbol Description Unit Name Group Sub Group Age Dom Lith Map Sheet Dataset

Pt Siltstone, sandstone, coal, Tomago Coal Tomago Palaeozoic 1:250,000

tuff, claystone, Measures Coal
conglomerate, minor clay Measures
Qa Undifferentiated alluvial undifferentiated Cainozoic 1:250,000
deposits; sand, silt, clay and
gravel; some residual and
colluvial deposits. Includes
some channel, levee,
lacustrine, floodplain and
swamp deposits. May
include some higher level
Tertiary terraces
w Water Cainozoic 1:250,000

What are the Geological Units within the report buffer?

Symbol Description Unit Name Group Sub Group Age Dom Lith Map Sheet Dataset

Pt Siltstone, sandstone, coal, Tomago Coal Tomago Palaeozoic 1:250,000

tuff, claystone, Measures Coal
conglomerate, minor clay Measures
Qa Undifferentiated alluvial undifferentiated Cainozoic 1:250,000
deposits; sand, silt, clay and
gravel; some residual and
colluvial deposits. Includes
some channel, levee,
lacustrine, floodplain and
swamp deposits. May
include some higher level
Tertiary terraces
w Water Cainozoic 1:250,000

Geological Structures
What are the Geological Structures onsite?

Feature Name Description Map Sheet Dataset

No features 1:250,000

What are the Geological Structures within the report buffer?

Feature Name Description Map Sheet Dataset

No features 1:250,000

Geological Data Source : NSW Department of Industry, Resources & Energy

State of New South Wales through the NSW Department of Industry, Resources & Energy

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 26

Soil Landscapes
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 27

Soils
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Soil Landscapes
What are the onsite Soil Landscapes?
Soil Code Name Group Process Map Sheet Scale

ALhub HUNTER variant b ALLUVIAL Newcastle 1:100,000

WATER WATER WATER Newcastle 1:100,000

What are the Soil Landscapes within the report buffer?

Soil Code Name Group Process Map Sheet Scale

ALhu HUNTER ALLUVIAL Newcastle 1:100,000

ALhub HUNTER variant b ALLUVIAL Newcastle 1:100,000

REbe BERESFIELD RESIDUAL Newcastle 1:100,000

SWhua HUNTER variant a SWAMP Newcastle 1:100,000

WATER WATER WATER Newcastle 1:100,000

Soils Landscapes Data Source : NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 28

Acid Sulfate Soils
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 29

Acid Sulfate Soils
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Acid Sulfate Soils

What is the on-site Acid Sulfate Soil Plan Class that presents the largest environmental risk?

Soil Class Description

1 Any works present an environmental risk

If the on-site Soil Class is 5, what other soil classes exist within 500m?

Soil Class Description Distance Direction

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 30

Dryland Salinity
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

1000m
E

Legend Dryland Salinity Assessment

Delineated risk area but no high hazard or
Site Centre High hazard or risk in 2020 and 2050
E

risk rating for either 2000, 2020, 2050

High hazard or risk in 2000 and 2050.
Site Boundary High hazard or risk in 2050 only
2020 not defined as high hazard
Report Buffer High hazard or risk defined for 2050, but
no assessment made for 2000 or 2020 High hazard or risk defined for
Property Boundary all years: 2000, 2020, 2050
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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 31

Dryland Salinity
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Dryland Salinity

Is there Dryland Salinity data onsite?

Yes

Is there Dryland Salinity data within the report buffer?

Yes

What Dryland Salinity assessments are given?

Assessment 2000 Assessment 2020 Assessment 2050 Distance Direction

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.

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 32

Mining Subsidence Districts
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Mining Subsidence Districts

Mining Subsidence Districts within the report buffer?

District Distance Direction

There are no Mining Subsidence Districts within the report buffer

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 33

State Environmental Planning Policy
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 34

Environmental Zoning
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

State Environmental Planning Policy Protected Areas

Are there any State Environmental Planning Policy Protected Areas onsite or within the report buffer?
Dataset Onsite Within Site Buffer Distance

SEPP14 - Coastal Wetlands No No N/A

SEPP26 - Littoral Rainforests No No N/A

SEPP71 - Coastal Protection Zone No No N/A

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 (2005)

State Environmental Planning Policy Major Developments within the report buffer?

Map Id Feature Effective Date Distance Direction

N/A No records within 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

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 35

LEP Planning Zones
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 36

Local Environmental Plan
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 37

Local Environmental Plan
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

What are the onsite Local Environmental Plan Minimum Subdivision Lot Sizes?

Symbol Minimum LEP or SEPP Published Commenced Currency Amendment Percentage

Lot Size Date Date Date of Site Area
AB 40 ha Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 19/12/2014 86.4
Environmental Plan
2011

Maximum Height of Buildings

What are the onsite Local Environmental Plan Maximum Height of Buildings?

Symbol Maximum LEP or SEPP Published Date Commenced Currency Amendment Percentage
Height of Date Date of Site Area
Building
No Data

Floor Space Ratio

What are the onsite Local Environmental Plan Floor Space Ratios?

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?

Application Type LEP or SEPP Published Commenced Currency Amendment Percentage

Date Date Date of Site Area
Included Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 100
Environmental
Plan 2011

Land Reservation Acquisitions

What are the onsite Local Environmental Plan Land Reservation Acquisitions?

Reservation LEP Published Commenced Currency Amendment Comments Percentage

Date Date Date of Site Area
No Data

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 38

Heritage Items
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

C6

1000m
5051380

I205
I208
E

I210

I213 I211 I209 I207

I206 I193
I214 I212
I190 I194
I196
I197
I195 I198
I216

I125
I201 5045646

I204 I203

I215

Legend
Site Centre Site Boundary State Heritage Items
E

Property Boundary Report Buffer Local Heritage Items

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 39

Heritage
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

State Heritage Items

What are the State Heritage Items located within the report buffer?

Map Id Name Address LGA Listing Listing No Plan No Distance Direction

Date
5045646 Morpeth House, Maitland 00375 880 61m South
Closebourne
House, Adjoining
Chapels and
Diocesan Registry
Group
5051380 Morpeth Bridge Main Road 102 Maitland 01476 2653 314m East
over the Hunter Morpeth
River

Heritage Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Local Heritage Items

What are the Local 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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 40

Map Id Name Classification Significance LEP or Act Published Commenced Currency Distance Direction
Date Date Date
I210 Former Bond Store Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 335m East
Group Environmental Plan
2011
I211 Former Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 340m East
Courthouse Environmental Plan
2011
I209 Post Office & Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 485m East
Residence Environmental Plan
2011
I195 Former Cinema Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 500m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I208 Former Queens Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 581m East
Wharf & Railway Environmental Plan
Station 2011
I206 White's Factory Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 588m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I207 Marlborough Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 734m East
House Environmental Plan
2011
I194 Morpeth Public Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 768m East
School Environmental Plan
2011
I193 Police Station Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 903m East
Environmental Plan
2011
I215 General Cemetery Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 912m South
Environmental Plan
2011
I198 Roman Catholic Item - General Local Maitland Local 16/12/2011 16/12/2011 30/05/2014 990m East
Church Environmental Plan
2011

Heritage Data Source: NSW Department of Planning & Environment

Creative Commons 3.0 Commonwealth of Australia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 41

Natural Hazards
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Bushfire Prone Land

What are the nearest Bushfire Prone Land Categories that exist within the report buffer?

Bushfire Prone Land Category Date Certified Distance Direction

No records within buffer

Bushfire Prone Land Data Reference - NSW RFS GIS Data Set

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 42

Ecological Constraints - Vegetation & RAMSAR Wetlands
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 43

Ecological Constraints
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Vegetation Survey

What vegetation from the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Survey exists within the report buffer?

Map id Unit Desc Canopy Desc Distance Direction

17 Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - C. maculata / E. fibrosa / E. punctata 99m South

Ironbark Forest
46 Freshwater Wetland Complex Ludwigia peploides subsp 647m South East
montevidensis / Paspalum distichum
/ Eleocharis sphacelata / Juncus
usitatus
5 Alluvial Tall Moist Forest E. saligna / S. glomulifera / 840m South East
Glochidion ferdinandi

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

N/A No records in buffer

RAMSAR Wetlands Data Source: Commonwealth of Australia - Department of Environment

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 44

Ecological Constraints
Queens Wharf Road, Morpeth, NSW 2321

ATLAS of NSW Wildlife

Endangered &Vulnerable Species on the ATLAS of NSW Wildlife database, within 10km of the site?

Class Family Scientific Common Exotic NSW Status Commonwealth

Status
Amphibia Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog No Endangered, Protected Vulnerable

Amphibia Hylidae Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Aves Acanthizidae Chthonicola sagittata Speckled Warbler No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Accipitridae Hamirostra melanosternon Black-breasted Buzzard No Vulnerable, Protected,

Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Accipitridae Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Accipitridae Pandion cristatus Eastern Osprey No Vulnerable, Protected,

Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Anatidae Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Anatidae Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Anseranatidae Anseranas semipalmata Magpie Goose No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Cacatuidae Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo No Vulnerable, Protected,

Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Ciconiidae Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked Stork No Endangered, Protected

Aves Columbidae Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Meliphagidae Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Meliphagidae Melithreptus gularis gularis Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern No Vulnerable, Protected
subspecies)
Aves Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Petroicidae Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned Babbler (eastern No Vulnerable, Protected

temporalis subspecies)
Aves Psittacidae Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet No Vulnerable, Protected

Aves Psittacidae Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot No Endangered, Endangered

Protected, Category 3
Sensitive Species
Aves Psittacidae Neophema pulchella Turquoise Parrot No Vulnerable, Protected,
Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Rostratulidae Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe No Endangered, Protected Endangered

Aves Strigidae Ninox connivens Barking Owl No Vulnerable, Protected,

Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Strigidae Ninox strenua Powerful Owl No Vulnerable, Protected,
Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Tytonidae Tyto longimembris Eastern Grass Owl No Vulnerable, Protected,
Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Aves Tytonidae Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl No Vulnerable, Protected,
Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Mammalia Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll No Vulnerable, Protected Endangered

Mammalia Dasyuridae Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Emballonuridae Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat No Vulnerable, Protected

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 45

Class Family Scientific Common Exotic NSW Status Commonwealth
Status
Mammalia Molossidae Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Petauridae Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Mammalia Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Mammalia Vespertilionidae Falsistrellus tasmaniensis Eastern False Pipistrelle No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Vespertilionidae Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibersii Eastern Bentwing-bat No Vulnerable, Protected

oceanensis
Mammalia Vespertilionidae Myotis macropus Southern Myotis No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Vespertilionidae Scoteanax rueppellii Greater Broad-nosed Bat No Vulnerable, Protected

Mammalia Vespertilionidae Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern Cave Bat No Vulnerable, Protected

Flora Asteraceae Rutidosis heterogama Heath Wrinklewort No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Flora Elaeocarpaceae Tetratheca juncea Black-eyed Susan No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Flora Juncaginaceae Maundia triglochinoides No Vulnerable, Protected

Flora Myrtaceae Callistemon linearifolius Netted Bottle Brush No Vulnerable, Protected,

Category 3 Sensitive
Species
Flora Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus camaldulensis No Endangered
population in the Hunter catchment Population
Flora Myrtaceae Eucalyptus glaucina Slaty Red Gum No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

Flora Orchidaceae Cymbidium canaliculatum Cymbidium canaliculatum population No Endangered

in the Hunter Catchment Population, Protected,
Category 2 Sensitive
Species
Flora Polygonaceae Persicaria elatior Tall Knotweed No Vulnerable, Protected Vulnerable

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

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 46

 USE OF REPORT APPLICABLE TERMS

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.

Lotsearch Pty Ltd ABN 89 600 168 018 47

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices

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

NSW WORKSAFE DANGEROUS GOODS RECORDS

 PreliminarySiteInvestigation
QueensWharf,Morpeth,NSW
MaraConsultingPtyLtd
Appendices

HISTORICAL TITLE DEED SEARCH

 ADVANCE LEGAL SEARCHERS PTY LTD

(ACN 147 943 842)
ABN 82 147 943 842

P.O. Box 149 Telephone: +612 9644 1679

Yagoona NSW 2199 Mobile: 0412 169 809
Facsimile: +612 8076 3026
Email: alsearch@optusnet.com.au

11th January, 2016

EP RISK MANAGEMENT
G11/283 Alfred Street,
NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060

Attention: Stuart Lord,

RE: Steamer Street & Queens Wharf Road,

Morpeth

Note 1: Lot 8 DP 52394 (page 1)

Note 2: Lot 1 DP 169466 (page 3)
Note 3: Lot 30 DP 543798 (page 5)
Note 4: Lot 3 DP 1149223 (page 7)
Note 5: Lot 14 Section A DP 1684 (page 9)
Note 6: Lot 4 DP 226025 (page 11)
Note 7: Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (north) (page 13)
Note 8: Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (south) (page 15)

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

Folio Identifier 8/52394

Certificate of Title Volume 12044 Folio 142

Certificate of Title Volume 5110 Folio 154

Certificate of Title Volume 4555 Folios 39 & 40

Certificate of Title Volume 1907 Folio 52

****

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

Folio Identifier 1/169466

Certificate of Title Volume 3178 Folio 163

CTVol 2083 Folios 213 & CTVol 2864 Folio 95

CTVol 2083 Folios 213 & 218

****
 -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

Folio Identifier 30/543798

Certificate of Title Volume 11545 Folio 104

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-

Folio Identifier 3/1149223 (title attached)

DP 1149223 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
MISTLETOE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Title Tree
Lot 3 DP 1149223

Folio Identifier 3/1149223

CA 144635

Conveyance Book 3081 No 918

Conveyance Book 2713 No 521

****
 -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-

Folio Identifier 14/A/1684 (title attached)

DP 1684 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
ANTHONY JOHN HINES
JENNET ISOBELLE HINES

Title Tree
Lot 14 Section A DP 1684

Folio Identifier 14/A/1684

Certificate of Title Volume 798 Folio 163

****

Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 14 Section A DP 1684
 -10-

Year Proprietor

(Lot 14 Section A DP 1684)

1989 todate Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
(Lot 14 Section A DP 1684 Area 1 Acre 3 Roods 29 Perches
CTVol 798 Fol 163)
1981 1989 Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
1974 1981 Mistletoe Investments Limited
1964 1974 David Mitchell, farmer
1964 1964 Clare Flanagan, widow
Mary Imelda Flanagan, widow
1913 1964 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the younger
(1909 1913) (lease to Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the younger)
1899 1913 Patrick Flanagan, farmer, the senior
1899 1899 Henry Blandford, carriage & wagon examiner
1886 1899 Joseph Thomas Hall, farmer

****

Note 6:
Current Search
Folio Identifier 4/226025 (title attached)
DP 226025 (plan attached)
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
ANTHONY JOHN HINES
 -11-

JENNET ISOBELLE HINES

Title Tree
Lot 4 DP 226025

Folio Identifier 4/226025

Certificate of Title Volume 11301 Folio 234

IVA 4842

****

Summary of proprietor(s)
Lot 4 DP 226025

Year Proprietor

(Lot 4 DP 226025)
1988 todate Anthony John Hines
 -12-

Jennet Isobelle Hines

(Lot 4 DP 226025 CTVol 11301 Fol 234)
1981 1989 Anthony John Hines
Jennet Isobelle Hines
1974 1981 Mistletoe Investments Limited
1970 1974 David Mitchell, farmer
(Part of Portion 63 Parish Maitland

****

Note 7:
Current Search

Conveyance Book 3081 No 918 (attached)

Part Portion 3 Parish Maitland (Part Lot 3 DP 755237 North of Queens Wharf Road)
Crown Plan 374 Or
Dated 04th January, 2015
Registered Proprietor:
MISTLETOE INVESTMENTS LIMITED
 -13-

Title Tree
Part Lot 3 DP 755237

Conveyance Book 3081 No 918

Conveyance Book 2713 No 521

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)

Conveyance Book 30 No 121 Conveyance Book 27 No 363

**** ****

(c)

Crown Grant Serial 18 Page 160

****

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-

(Portion 3 Parish Maitland Crown Grant Serial 18 Page 160)

1823 1823 Edward Charles Close, esquire

****

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

(Portion 3 Parish Maitland Crown Grant Serial 18 Page 160)

1823 todate Edward Charles Close, esquire

****
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix E - Traffic Engineering

Assessment Queens Wharf Morpeth
(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

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,

Re: Plan of Management and Masterplan - Queens Wharf, Morpeth NSW

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

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.

2) Purpose and Scope of Traffic Assessment

The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement is to, document the existing conditions at the subject site, the features of the
development proposal, and any traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that may be required for successful
operation of the river access facilities. Specifically the work has included:
a. Site Investigations, including a safety and traffic review of existing conditions.
b. Review of available existing documentation relating to traffic movement and parking in the
area, including any recent traffic movement and parking surveys
c. Collection of current data on traffic and parking in the immediate vicinity of both sites.
d. Calculation and analysis of projected traffic and parking demands, and recommendations on
capacity of traffic and parking facilities to be considered for each site
e. Assessment of the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development, including
recommendations for any measures required to address any capacity or environmental impacts
that may occur.
 29 April 2016

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.

Figure 1 Site Location and Morpeth Locality

Map Source: UBD City Streets Version 5 (Newcastle)

Site plans for the proposed development are included as Attachment A to this Report.

4) Queens Wharf Morpeth The Study Area

Morpeth is a popular tourist destination due to its many historical buildings and river bank setting.
Located between the Hunter River and the township itself is an area known as Queens Wharf. This area has particular heritage
significance for its role as a major river port town in the European settlement and development of the Hunter Region in the
19th century. The site was the location of the first wharf and store in Morpeth in the 1830s, and became the major river port
for the Hunter Valley in the 1860s. It was the site chosen for the public wharf in 1836-1838 remaining the focus for economic
activity and shipping in Morpeth well into the late 1900s.
Nowadays Queens Wharf is a key recreational site in the Maitland Local Government Area as it provides the only public boat
ramp into the Hunter River. In addition the site provides a wharf, parking areas, amenities and picnic facilities, including
seating, tables, shelters, and landscaping.
The focussed Study Area for the subject site is illustrated overleaf.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 2

 29 April 2016

Figure 2 Queens Wharf Morpeth Study Area

5) 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.
Morpeth Road
Morpeth Road (Swan Street) is the main east west route that connects Morpeth with Maitland to the west, and routes to the
east via the historic Morpeth Bridge and Duckenfield Road. The intersection of Morpeth Road, Tank Street and Queens Wharf
Road is the western end of the Morpeth main street, Swan Street (Which is a continuation of Morpeth Road.) The road is of
sufficient width to allow angled parking on the north kerb line, with parallel parking on the southern kerb line. The two traffic
are quite generous in width, and there is also sufficient width to allow for a painted median island. To the west of Tank Street
parking reverts to parallel to the traffic lanes.

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 3

 29 April 2016

Photo Plate 1 Morpeth Road looking east to Swan Street

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 4

 29 April 2016

Queens Wharf Road

Queens Wharf Road is a local access road, sealed to a general width o 6 metres, which widens on approach to the Morpeth
Road intersection, and around the 90 degree bend north of Morpeth Road. It is a deed end road, providing access to a small
number of properties that front Morpeth Road but have rear access to Queens Wharf Road there is also access to rural
property to the west on the river flood plain.

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

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 5

 29 April 2016

Queens Wharf Boat Ramp and Foreshore Park

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

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 6

 29 April 2016

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

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 7

 29 April 2016

Photo Plate 8 Queens Wharf Road boat ramp to Hunter River

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:

A. Weather conditions were generally fine.

B. Traffic Volumes - AM and PM traffic flows were observed on Morpeth Road at its intersection with Tank Street
and Queens Wharf Road. Observations confirmed:
a. Through flows on Morpeth Road (Swan Street) were the dominant traffic movements, although traffic
turning to and from Tank Street to Morpeth Road east (Swan Street) were also prominent.
b. Through traffic movements at the Morpeth Road intersection were in the order of 470 (471) vehicles
(east) and 300(296) vehicles west in the AM peak hour (8:15 0 9:15), and 500 (499) vehicles east (329)
west in the PM peak hour (16:05-17:05).
c. Traffic Flows into and out of Tank Street South were 340 (340) in the AM peak hour
(8:05 - 9:05), and 350 (347) vehicles in the PM peak hour (16:05-17:05).
d. The observed traffic flows were above the free flow thresholds for intersection performance defined in
the AustRoads Guidelines. However initial SIDRA analysis indicates very good levels of service. (LoS A)

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 8

 29 April 2016

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.

6) Existing Traffic Flows and Capacity Issues

The Level of Service criteria for urban road conditions is defined in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development
and is reproduced overleaf for reference as Table 1. The observed traffic flows and lane configurations confirm the
existing service levels summarised in Table 2.

Table 1 Urban road peak hour flows per direction

Level of Service One lane (vehicles / hour) Two lanes (vehicles per
hour)
A 200 900
B 380 1400
C 600 1800
D 900 2200
E 1400 2800
Source: Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, RTA October 2002

Table 2 Observed flow levels and level of service

Road AM AM PM Observed PM
Observed LoS Volume LoS
Volume
Location vph vph
Morpeth Rd EB W of Tank Street 124 A 179 A
Morpeth Rd WB W of Tank Street 176 A 156 A
Swan St EB E of Tank Street 146 A 265 B
Swan St WB E of Tank Street 328 B 242 B
Tank Street NB S of Morpeth Rd 106 A 177 A
Tank Street SB S of Morpeth Rd 234 B 181 A
Queens Wharf Rd NB N of Morpeth Rd 8 A 13 A
Queens Wharf Rd SB N of Morpeth Rd 6 A 17 A
Notes: 1. LoS Level of Service

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.

7) Characteristics of boat ramp facilities

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 overleaf.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 9

 29 April 2016

Table 3 - Characteristics of regional and local boat ramp facilities

Source: (RMS September 2015)

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.

8) Assessment of Boat Ramp Parking Facilities

It is important to provide an adequate number of car and trailer spaces to meet the expected demand of a normal weekend
usage period during the boating season. Provision for overflow parking at peak times may also be desirable. Car and trailer
parking is influenced by:
number of boat ramp lanes required
available parking area; and,
demand for parking based on present usage and proximity of alternative boat ramps.
An initial assessment and general recommendation (based on previous guidelines and RMS experience) is that 25 to 30 spaces
should be provided per boat ramp lane. This is also influenced by the level of usage. For example in high use areas, and in
combination with associated support facilities, additional car and trailer parking may be considered.
The RMS Guidelines suggest the following parking levels.
Table 3 Intersection volumes below which capacity analysis is unnecessary
Number of car and trailer spaces per boat ramp lane
Area Ramp Only With boat holding With separate rigging and
structures de-rigging areas
Urban 30-40 40-50 50-60
Rural 20-30 30-40 40-50
Source: NSW Boat Ramp Facilities Guidelines, NSW RMS, September 2015

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 10

 29 April 2016

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

9) Car and Trailer Parking Arrangements

Car and trailer parking spaces should be angled for reversing entry and to optimise the use of available space. A parking space
angle of 45 degrees is preferred with 60 degree and 90 degree parking also option. Car and trailer spaces should be a minimum
of 3.0 metres wide and 12.5 metres long to accommodate typical tow vehicle and trailer combinations. (See Figure 3 below.)

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 11

 29 April 2016

Figure 4 Typical car and trailer parking space geometry dimensions. (Source: RMS September 2015)

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 12

 29 April 2016

10) Rigging, Manoeuvring Area and De-Rigging

To reduce the time that vehicles occupy the manoeuvring area and boat ramp a designated rigging area (refer Figure 5 below)
should be provided along the access way approaching the manoeuvring area.

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 13

 29 April 2016

Figure 6 Possible ramp facilities concept for Queens Wharf facility (Source: Adapted from RMS September 2015)

12) Possible Access from Queens Wharf Road

Entrance driveways into boat ramp facilities from public roads should be positioned to minimise adverse effects on existing
traffic flows from entry/exit of vehicles. The width of entrance driveways should be in accordance with AS 2890.1. As a
minimum, access ways provided within the boat ramp facility should: be 5 metres wide for one-way access along entry and
exit access ways to the boat ramp or parking areas; be 8 metres wide to provide one-way access between opposing angled
(45 or 60 degree) car and trailer parking spaces; be 9 to 10 metres wide to provide one-way access between opposing 90
degree car and trailer spaces; accommodate car and trailer turning paths in accordance with the template provided as
Figure 7.1 within AS 3962-2001; include ground markings (e.g. arrows) to direct traffic into different areas of the facility
and to indicate the direction of traffic flow; provide sufficient length for boat/trailer queuing along the approach access
way from the entrance to the rigging and manoeuvring areas; and, be clear of overhead lines at the rigging and
manoeuvring areas.
13) Assessment of Existing + Proposed Development Traffic Flows
The existing two way flow on Queens Wharf Road north of the intersection of Morpeth Road, (Access to the Study Area) was
observed at below 20 vehicles per hour for both AM and PM peak periods.
The expected level of additional traffic at peak time is quite low, and unlikely to even double the flows on Queens Wharf
Road. The majority of usage is expected to be in non-peak periods when traffic flows are even lower than observed.
Consequently there is not expected to be any significant traffic flow related impacts, and the existing very high (LoS A) will
continue.
Table 3 drawn from the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis provides advice on
intersection operation where traffic flows are relatively low and capacity analysis is unnecessary. Where these limits are not
met, traffic effectively operates under free flow conditions. From the perspective of intersection capacity at the subject site
access intersection the existing plus development flows are well below the threshold limits for free flow conditions as defined
in the Austroads Guidelines. Thus further consideration of the intersection performance is unnecessary.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 14

 29 April 2016

Table 3 Intersection volumes below which capacity analysis is unnecessary

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.

14) Morpeth Road / Tank Street / Queens Wharf Road Intersection

Taking the conditions into account, and allowing for the very minor additional traffic at peak times, it is considered that the
existing form of the Morpeth Road / Tank Street / Queens Wharf Road intersection will be satisfactory for future operations
including allowance for the subject plan of management.
Review of Road cross section requirements
Site observations on Queens Wharf Road from Morpeth Road confirmed the following:
1) The existing speed limit is the standard urban 50 kph limit. This has been assumed as the design speed in
subsequent traffic engineering and road design analysis
2) The existing pavement seal width is approx. 6 metres, widened on bends
3) There is evidence of pavement edge break and repair.
4) Some flaring of the road pavement occurs on bends and on the approach to intersections:
a) To around 11 metres approaching Morpeth Road
b) As part of the approach works to the Seascape Drive Roundabout.
5) Open table drains and unsealed shoulders are part of the road formation east of Seaside Drive
6) Observed traffic flows operated well within the Austroads LoS A range.

Photo Plate 9 Queens Wharf Road looking north east towards River Foreshore, Boat Ramp and Car Park

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 15

 29 April 2016

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)

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 16

 29 April 2016

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

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 17

 29 April 2016

Attachment A RMS regional Boat Ramp Concept Layout

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 18

 29 April 2016

Attachment B Traffic Survey Summary

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 19

 29 April 2016

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC Queens Wharf Morpeth TIS Rev02.docx Page 20

 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

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

ACN: 168 093 918

ABN: 13 168 093 918
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
maraconsulting.com.au
0425 715 536 0458 233 001

2 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

 C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Project overview 7
1.2. Project Background 7
1.3. Project location 9
1.4. What is a Plan of Management? 9
1.5. Purpose of the Plan 9
1.6. Land to which this Plan Applies 10
1.7. Preparing the Plan 11
2. Management Context 12
2.1. Regulatory Framework 13
2.1.1. Crown Lands Act 1989 13
2.1.2. Local Government Act 1993 13
2.1.3. Other Statutory Requirements 14
2.1.4. State Government Policies 14
2.1.5. Council Policies 14
2.1.6. Maitland Local Environmental Plan 14
2.2. Categorisation of the Land 16
2.3. Leases and licences 18
2.3.1. Crown Land 18
2.3.2. Community Land 18
3. Site Characteristics 20
3.1. Regional Context 21
3.2. Local Context 21
3.2.1. Site Access 21
3.2.2. River Access 22
3.2.3. Landscape 22
3.2.4. Flooding 23
3.2.5. The Built Assets 24
3.3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure 25
4. Historical Context 28
4.1. Indigenous Heritage 29
4.2. Non-Indigenous History 29
5. Values Associated with Lorn Riverbank 30
5.1. Visual Quality 31
5.2. Landscape Character 31
5.3. Leisure / Recreation 31
5.4. Economic 31
5.5. Cultural Heritage 31
5.6. Accessibility 31
6. Stakeholder Consultation 32
6.1. Stakeholder Consultation 33
6.2. Community Workshops 33
6.3. Online Survey 33
6.4. Online and social media feedback 34
6.5. Consultation Summary 34
6.6. Consultation Outcomes and Priorities 35
7. Opportunities and Constraints 38
7.1. Opportunities 39
7.1.1. Leisure and Recreation 39
7.1.2. Environmental 39
7.1.3. Economic 39
7.1.4. Access and Circulation 39
7.1.5. Land Consolidation 39
7.2. Constraints 41
7.2.1. Leisure and Recreation 41
7.2.2. Environmental 41
7.2.3. Economic 41
7.2.4. Access and Circulation 41
8. Masterplan 42
8.1. Masterplan Principles 43
8.2. Key Proposals 43
8.2.1. The Lorn Riverbank Site 43
8.2.2. Additional Recommendations 44
8.3. Funding 46
9. Management Strategies 48
9.1. Action Plan 49
9.1.1. Objectives 49
9.1.2. Action Tables 49
10. References 52
11. Appendices 54
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 3
Executive Summary
Background
The Lorn Riverbank is an important site within
the Maitland LGA as it provides a combination of
recreation facilities and access to the Hunter River.
The Lorn Riverbank is a popular destination, used
not only by the local community but also attracts
visitors from the broader region. It is regularly
used for canoeing and kayak activities since it has
easy beach access to the river.
With this in mind, Maitland City Council (Council)
has identified the Lorn Riverbank as a priority area
for improving access to the Hunter River. This Plan
of Management and related Masterplan help to
interpret the vision for the site.
The Plan of Management (PoM) provides a
strategic framework for conserving the sites
cultural values and to promote public leisure and
recreation. Management actions are proposed
to meet the current and future demands for the
sites resources and facilities. They have been
based on stakeholder and community input to
improve the amenity of the site and respond to
the communitys values and needs.
Figure 0.1: View of the Lorn Riverbank site from The Levee.
4 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
Current status
The 9.5 hectare site is located on the banks of the
Hunter River and stretches for approximately 1
kilometre. Ownership of the site is shared between
Crown Land and Council, adjacent to residential
properties and overlooked by the Levee Precinct
of the central business area.
The topography of the land is sloping down
toward the river with fairly steep and rugged
banks down to the waters edge. The northern
boundary of the site contains a levee that creates
a ridge line along that boundary.
The site is vegetated primarily with grass. There
are Gum Trees and Peppercorn Trees along the
high ground of the levee. The lower areas of the
site are populated with Willows and Casuarina
trees, which mark the edge of the river.
Vehicular access to the site is off The Esplanade.
One access point rises steeply from Bowden
Street and heads directly over the levee. A second
driveway is at the RH Taylor Reserve. This leads to
a small parking area.
Pedestrians can access the site from Belmore
Road via a footpath that ends abruptly in the park,
having been badly damaged by floodwaters in
2007. There are no dedicated shared pedestrian/
cycle pathways to access the site from Bowden
Street. Vehicles and pedestrians are therefore
forced to share the roadway over the levee,
creating a safety concern. A portion of LOT
DP953307 is currently under lease for agistment
purposes.
Management Context
The Lorn Riverbank consists of a combination of
crown land and council owned land classified as
either community or operational land. The site is
therefore managed under both the Crown Lands
Act 1989 and the Local Government Act 1993.
This Plan of Management has been prepared
in accordance with Section 36 of the Local
Government Act 1993 and Division 6 of Part 5
of the Crown Lands Act 1989 and supersedes
previous plans for the site.
Aims and objectives
The aims of this Plan of Management are to:
Facilitate the management of the Lorn
Riverbank to enable its development into a
citywide park facility
Guide the preparation of the Lorn Riverbank
Masterplan.
The following objectives serve as a guide in
developing the PoM and to organise the future
management of the park.
1. Improve access to the Hunter River and the
riverbank park for recreational purposes
2. Improve opportunities for recreation within
the park
3. 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
4. Ensure the development and use of the
riverbank is sympathetic to the natural
ecology and environment of the site.
Masterplan
The Lorn Riverbank Masterplan has been prepared
in conjunction with this PoM. The masterplan
illustrates proposed changes and upgrades to the
Lorn Riverbank to meet the aims and objectives
for the site.
The key proposals of the masterplan are to:
Upgrade the access road by re-aligning it over
the levee
Install parking for vehicles
Provide an amenities block near the parking
area
Provide additional amenities at R H Taylor
Reserve parking area
Provide a shared pathway network through the
site, linking activity locations
Provide a play area for children
Install exercise equipment or stations in two
locations
Formalise and upgrade the off-leash dog area.
Create level lawn areas for play and activities
like markets and festivals
Potential to install a water play area that can
be used as a gathering terrace and as a small
amphitheatre (to be determined)
Install two beach areas for river access
Install broad concrete steps along the river
bank for access, informal seating and bank
stability
Provide ramp access to the main beach area
that is designated for kayak, canoe and paddle
board launching
Create a Central Plaza area where large
community events can take place
Install additional picnic tables and BBQs
Increase native and indigenous planting
Stabilise the bank along the entire project area.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 5
1. Introduction

6 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The Maitland local government area is a growing
community with picturesque landscapes within
the Hunter Region. Situated on the Hunter River,
Maitland has a rich history and connection to one
of the major rivers in New South Wales, which
connects the Liverpool Range to the Port of
Newcastle. It was because of this proximity to the
Hunter River that the City of Maitland grew and
prospered.
It is fitting that Council has identified the Hunter
River as a significant asset and has embarked on a
strategic plan to enhance the heritage and natural
resource for the entire community to enjoy.
Moving toward that end, Council is considering
the improvement of recreational access to the
Hunter River and its banks. Access to the river
is currently restricted by a lack of entry points
and public facilities. Council has identified the
Lorn Riverbank site in Lorn as a location where
improved access to the river is possible and
desirable.
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd (Mara) has been engaged
by Council to develop a Plan of Management and
Masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank to improve
recreational opportunities for residents, businesses
and visitors alike.
1.1. Project overview
This document makes up the Plan of Management
(PoM) for the recreation area along the Hunter
River at Lorn. This PoM has been guided by
Councils long-term structure plans and strategic
plans. Therefore this plan sits within the existing
legislative context and will guide the future
management and development of the Lorn
Riverbank site.
The PoM provides a suite of practical and
achievable strategies and actions that will enable
Council to manage this valuable resource in the
short and long term. The Masterplan offers a plan
to guide the future development of the site.
1.2. Project Background
An objective of Councils +10 Community
Strategic Plan (2013) and Associated Delivery Plan
(2013-2017) was to improve access from Council
owned land to the Hunter River and its banks. In
response to this objective, the Study into Access
to the Hunter and Paterson Rivers (2014) was
commissioned and subsequently adopted by
Council. The study identified the Lorn Riverbank as
one of the priority locations for suitable access to
the river. It also made recommendations for future
actions, one of which was the preparation of a
PoM and Masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank.
Additionally, Councils Central Maitland Structure
Plan (2009) identified projects to reconnect the
Maitland City Centre with the Hunter River and the
Lorn Riverbank. Specifically, the plan suggested
the creation of a network of pathways and a
pedestrian bridge connecting the two suburbs.
Improving recreational access to the Hunter
River is also a priority of the NSW Government
and identified in the Regional Boating Plan Port
Stephens - Hunter (2015). As such the project
is eligible for funding through the NSW Boating
Now program. This as well as other potential
funding options are identified in section 8.3.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 7
 oad
ore R
Belm LORN
Th
eE
sp
lan
ad
e

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

Figure 1.1: Location of the Lorn Riverbank project.

Source: Maitland City Council, http://mapping.maitland.nsw.gov.au/

8 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

1.3. Project location
The project is located along the Hunter River at
the suburb of Lorn. It begins at the Belmore Road
bridge and stretches downriver (easterly) to the
Sharkies Lane alignment. It includes the R H Taylor
Reserve as well. Notably, the site occupies the
land across the river from the Levee Precinct in
Maitland.
Refer to Figure 1.1 and 1.2.
1.5. Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of this Plan of Management is
to provide Council and the community with
a development plan to improve access and
connectivity to the Hunter River at the Lorn
Riverbank. It provides a detailed implementation
and management strategy that seeks to:
Improve the standard of public infrastructure,
facilities and amenities and expand
recreational opportunities

1.4. What is a Plan of
Management?
A PoM is a statutory document that is required
under the Local Government Act 1993 for all
community land and may also be prepared for
public land under the Crown Lands Act 1989. A
PoM provides the management framework for
the future use, maintenance and improvement of
public land.
The PoM provides details of the communitys
values and establishes measurable actions for the
ongoing management of publicly owned land.
Identify ways to manage and maintain the site
outlining project costs and priorities
Identify potential sources of funding
Ensure principles of environmental and
ecological sustainability are incorporated into
the practices adopted
Identify flood mitigation and management
measures
Identify appropriate risk management
measures.
A masterplan for the Lorn Riverbank site has been
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

Figure 1.2: Site plan of the Lorn Riverbank project area.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 9

1.6. Land to which this Plan
Applies
This PoM applies to the public land comprised of
the lots as shown in Figure 1.4 and identified in
Table 1.1 below. For the purposes of this PoM and
the Masterplan, the subject area, of approximately
9.6 Ha, is known as Lorn Riverbank.
The site currently contains picnic facilities, an
informal off-leash dog area, a makeshift rope
swing, a partially completed pathway and an
informal car parking area. There are approved
plans for a Proposed Picnic Area adjacent to
the R H Taylor Reserve parking area. The plans
were lodged by the Rotary Club and approved
in August 2013. This picnic area has not been
installed.

More details on the existing condition of the site

are included in Section 3.
Table 1.1
Land Ownership
Refer to Figure 1.3 below for lot locations.

Legal Description Owner Control & Management Size

Lot 1 Sec A DP5394 Maitland City Council Community Land 2044 m2

Lot 2 Sec A DP5394 Maitland City Council Community Land 2044 m2
Lot 3 Sec A DP5394 Maitland City Council Community Land 2044 m2
Lot 1 DP953307 Maitland City Council Operational Land 2.14 Ha
Lot 7007 DP1006732 Crown Land Maitland as manager of the 6.88 Ha
Reserve 1002864 (declared Reserve Trust (MCC)
purpose: public recreation)
Waterways Crown Land Maitland as manager of the 8463 m2
Reserve Trust (MCC) (approx)

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 1.3: Lot descriptions of the Lorn Riverbank project area.

Source: Maitland City Council, http://mapping.maitland.nsw.gov.au/

10 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

1.7. Preparing the Plan
In practical terms the PoM sets out the
management of the site and the actions
required to achieve the vision of the masterplan.
The documents have been influenced by the
environment and natural forces influencing the
site. As such, a number of technical studies were
completed to inform the project and identify
potential constraints or opportunities for the site.
These reports are attached as appendices and
include:
Engineering flooding and stormwater
assessment
Traffic assessment.

The development of the PoM and Masterplan

has included an extensive and comprehensive
engagement program with a wide range of
stakeholders including local residents, community
members, river-based users, government agencies,
private landholders, Council staff and Councillors.
These engagement processes ran in parallel with
a communications and media plan. The full details
and findings are presented in Section 6 of the
report and in Appendix B.

Figure 1.4: View of the Lorn Riverbank across the river from Maitland.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 11

2. Management Context

12 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The Maitland community takes great pride in living
along the Hunter River. A key component is access
to the river that encourages community interaction
with the river in a sustainable and safe way. This PoM
begins the process of enhancing river access along
the Lorn Riverbank.
2.1. Regulatory Framework
Public land is governed by legislation that guides
the development and uses upon that land.
Crown lands are under the jurisdiction of the
NSW Government, while Council owned land is
governed by the Local Government Act 1993.
The Lorn Riverbank site consists of a combination
of Crown and Council owned land.
This Plan of Management and associated
masterplan has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the Local Government Act 1993
and the Crown Lands Act 1989, as well as other
relevant land management legislation and policy
documents.
2.1.1. Crown Lands Act 1989
The Crown Lands Act 1989 (CL Act) provides
the framework for the administration and
management of Crown Land in NSW.
The objectives and principles of Crown Land
Management are listed in Sections 10 and 11 of
the CL Act and form the starting point for the
preparation of the Plan of Management. The
principles of Crown land management include the
following.
Environmental protection principles be
observed
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
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
Crown land be occupied, used, sold, leased,
licensed or otherwise dealt with in the best
interests of the State consistent with the above
principles.
This Plan has been prepared in accordance with
Division 6 of Part 5 of the CL Act 1989. Part 5 deals
specifically with the management of Reserves
and matters related to the appointment and
responsibilities of Reserve Trusts.
2.1.2. Local Government Act 1993
The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) provides
the legal framework for Local Government in
NSW. The LG Act helps to regulate relationships
between the community and Local Government,
to encourage and assist effective community
participation, to give councils some authority
for providing public good, services, facilities
and administering systems as well as setting
out the principles of Ecologically Sustainable
Development.
The Lorn Riverbank site is primarily classified as
Community Land under the LG Act. There is a
portion of the site that is classified as Operational
Land, which is usually reserved for Council
operations. Section 35 of the LG Act states that
Community Land is required to be managed in
accordance with the PoM applying to that land.
In an effort to ensure the ongoing use of the
Lorn Riverbank as a park into the future, this
PoM recommends that the Operational Land is
reclassified to Community Land.
Part 2, Clause 36 of the LG Act specifically sets the
direction for preparing a PoM over Council land.
This Plan has been prepared in accordance with
Part 2, Division 2 of the LG Act, which relates to
the use and management of community land.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 13
2.1.3. Other Statutory Requirements
This PoM does not replace State and Federal
legislation that governs the management of
Community Land and Operational Land in
public ownership. There are a number of other
documents that are relevant to the ongoing
management of the project site that have been
considered in the preparation of this PoM
including:
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
(NSW)
Federal Environmental Protection &
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act
1979 (NSW)
Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW)
Public Works and Procurement Act 1912
(NSW)
Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
Crown Lands Regulation 2006 (NSW)
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Fisheries Management Act 1991
Companion Animals Act 1998.
2.1.4. State Government Policies
NSW State Plan 2021
NSW Rivers and Estuaries Policy 1993 (NSW).
Regional Boating Plan - Port Stephens
Hunter Region 2015 (NSW)
NSW Healthy Eating and Active Living Strategy
2013 - 2018
Lower Hunter Regional Strategy
Hunter River Estuary Management Plan (NSW)
Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan
2013-2023 (NSW).
2.1.5. Council Policies
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.
14 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
These policies need to be considered in the
planning and management process and may
include the:
Maitland Greening Plan 2002
Maitland Recreation and Open Space Strategy
2004
Maitland City Council Action & Inclusion Plan
2008
Maitland Social Plan 2009
Central Maitland Structure Plan 2009
Maitland Development Control Plan 2011
Maitland Local Environment Plan 2011
Maitland Youth Spaces Strategy 2012
Community Facilities & Services Strategy 2012
Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2012
Off Leash Dog Exercise Area Strategy 2013
Maitland City Council Community Safety Plan
2013
Maitland Bike Plan and Strategy 2014
City Wide Section 94 Contributions Plan 2016.
2.1.6. Maitland Local Environmental Plan
Development and use of Council owned and
Crown land is subject to the provisions of the
Maitland City Council Local Environmental Plan
2011 (LEP). The entire site is currently zoned
RU1-Primary Production (see below for zoning
details). However, the use of these lands for the
community to enjoy recreationally and access
the river is better suited to RE1 zoning. Rezoning
the site to RE1-Public Recreation is therefore
considered appropriate.
A draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) to rezone
the subject land from RU1 Primary Production
to RE1 - Public Recreation has received a
Gateway Determination from NSW Planning
and Environment to proceed and was publicly
exhibited from 2 June to 1 July, 2016.
RU1 Primary Production RE1 Public Recreation

The objectives of RU1 zoning are to:
Encourage sustainable primary industry
production by maintaining and enhancing the
natural resource base
Encourage diversity in primary industry
enterprises and systems appropriate for the
area
Minimise the fragmentation and alienation of
resource lands
Minimise conflict between land uses within this
zone and land uses within adjoining zones.
Co La
m nd
Objectives of RE1 zone are to:
Enable land to be used for public open space
or recreational purposes
Provide a range of recreational settings and
activities and compatible land uses
Protect and enhance the natural environment
for recreational purposes.
This PoM and the Masterplan for the Lorn
Riverbank have been developed to ensure all
outcomes and recommendations are consistent
with the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation
Zone.

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.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 15

2.2. Categorisation of the Land
The purpose of the categorisation of Community
Land is to guide Council on how the land may best
be managed. Categorisation also determines the
uses allowable on the land. Under section 36 of
the LG Act Community Land is to be categorised
as one or more of the following:
A natural area
A sportsground
A park
An area of cultural significance
General community use.
The Lorn Riverbank area that falls under this PoM
has been categorised as a Park and Natural Area
(Foreshore).
Figure 2.2: Land categorisation.
16 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
Each category has defined core objectives that
guide the management strategy adopted by
Council. The objectives that guide this PoM are
listed below.
Core Objectives for Park
To encourage, promote and facilitate
recreational, cultural, social and educational
pastimes and activities
To provide for passive recreational activities or
pastimes and for the casual playing of games
To improve the land in such a way as to
promote and facilitate its use to achieve the
other core objectives for its management.
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Park
Foreshore
Core Objectives for Natural Area
The core objectives for management of
community land categorised as a natural area are:
To conserve biodiversity and maintain
ecosystem function in respect of the land, or
the feature or habitat in respect of which the
land is categorised as a natural area
To maintain the land, or that feature or habitat,
in its natural state and setting
To provide for the restoration and
regeneration of the land
To provide for community use of and access to
the land in such a manner as will minimise and
mitigate any disturbance caused by human
intrusion
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
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
Foreshore
The core objectives for management of
community land categorised as foreshore are as
follows.
To maintain the foreshore as a transition
area between the aquatic and the terrestrial
environment, and to protect and enhance all
functions associated with the foreshores role
as a transition area
To facilitate the ecologically sustainable use of
the foreshore, and to mitigate impact on the
foreshore by community use.
The category of foreshore is appropriate for those
areas of land on the site that are wet at high tide
and dry at low tide (ie land within the tidal zone).
17
2.3. Leases and licences
2.3.1. Crown Land
Crown land may be leased or licensed for specific
purposes. A lease and licence provide different
legal use of Crown land. A lease of Crown land
enables exclusive use over a particular piece of
land for a specified term and purpose, whilst a
licence is a contractual agreement that grants
the licensee a personal right to occupy the use
of Crown land for a particular purpose. A licence
does not provide exclusive use of the area of land
as other persons may be permitted to use the
same area of land.
Under the Crown Lands Act 1989, an individual,
organisation, business or local government body
may enter into a lease or license for appropriate
use on Crown Land provided that:
Management of the land is in accordance with
this PoM and relevant Crown Land policies and
guidelines
The use of the land is in the public interest
The lease does not exceed 100 years
The granting of the lease or license is in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Crown Lands Act 1989.
The current Crown lands in the Lorn Riverbank are
located along the bank of the river and include:
Lot 7007 DP1006732
Waterways.
Licenses may be granted for special occasions
and other uses provided that the proposed use/
activities is in accordance with all legislative
requirements, respects the study areas values and
heritage and designated use of the management
precinct.
18 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
2.3.2. Community Land
The public land under this PoM is generally
meant for the community as a whole to enjoy.
Leasing and licensing restricts this public use by
granting a single group or entity control over
a portion of that land. It is therefore necessary
to place guidelines and restriction on the ability
of a Council to grant leases and licenses over
community land. A Council does have the
authority to grant a lease or licence on Community
Land in accordance with the conditions outlined in
the LG Act and/or Crown Lands Act.
Under Section 46 of the LG Act, a lease or licence
applying to Community Land must be expressly
authorised by a PoM.
This PoM expressly authorises the lease, licence
or grants of any estate over the park and any
structures on the park for any community purpose
as determined by Council. The purposes must be
consistent with the core objectives of a park and
other applicable legislative requirements under
the LG Act.
The type of uses permitted include, but are not
restricted to:
Casual hire
Licences may be granted for use of the park
for casual events. Events may include, but will
not be limited to, recreational pursuits and
other community events. These must be for
the prescribed purposes pursuant to clause 24
of the Local Government (General) Regulations
1998, and may include organised markets,
festivals, and performances that may include
stall holders, engaging in a trade or business
and small-scale private sector events including
parties, weddings, filming and photography.
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
 for the connection of premises adjoining the
Community Land to a facility of the Council or
other public utility provider that is situated on
the Community Land. Estates will be granted
in accordance with the requirements of the LG
Act.
Leasing and licensing
This PoM expressly authorises the lease,
licence or grant of any other estate over the
site for community purposes as determined by
Council, for a term not exceeding twenty-one
(21) years. The purposes must be consistent
with the core objectives of land categorised
as park as outlined in the LG Act, and other
applicable legislative requirements. Leases
may be granted for exclusive use to any
organisation for any community purpose
as determined by Council, on such terms as
Council may provide.

Figure 2.4: Crown Land at the eastern portion of the site

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 19

3. Site Characteristics

20 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

3.1. Regional Context
The Lorn Riverbank is located on the northern
bank of the Hunter River, south of the Lorn
township and north of Central Maitland. The
site is bounded by Belmore Road to the west,
The Espalande to the north and on the south by
Hunter River. Privately owned residential and
agricultural land is located along the north-west
boundary.
The site is a high profile open space area opposite
The Levee Precinct and the commercial area of
Central Maitland. The precinct is popular among
the local community, nearby communities and
those from further afield, especially during festivals
and special events. The site is also utilised annually
for some of Councils largest community events
New Years Eve and the Riverlights Multicultural
Festival. The site provides the location for the
fireworks display on New Years Eve and access to
the river for the launching of vessels and the paper
lantern flotilla during the Riverlights Festival.
From a regional perspective, the riverbank serves
as part of the flood management strategy. It
contains the levee that protects Lorn and has a
substantial amount of flood water storage.
The riverbank also offers access to the Hunter
River waters for recreation purposes. This allows
people to splash in the water as well as the
launching of kayaks, canoes and paddle boards.
3.2. Local Context
The Lorn Riverbank is an important site within
the Lorn and Maitland communities due to its
proximity to and visibility from the commercial
area of Central Maitland. It is also one of the few
places where people can walk into the water to
have a splash or swim.
3.2.1. Site Access
The site is accessed from Lorn via the Esplanade.
The main access point for vehicles is at the
intersection of Esplanade, The Avenue and
Bowden Street. Vehicles enter the site using an
existing gravel road over the levee. The drive is
also used by existing residents on the south side
of The Esplanade. This access travels directly over
the levee and provides access to all parts of the
site.
The single access drive over the levee forms a
dangerous intersection of vehicles moving over
the levee with limited visibility while pedestrians
are using the same driveway.
A secondary vehicular access point is at the R H
Taylor Reserve near Belmore Road. This access
leads to a small car parking area that is contained
with bollards and rail fence.
There is only one formalised pedestrian access
point. It consists of a shared pathway located at
the intersection of The Esplanade and Belmore
Road. This pathway leads into the site and ends
abruptly.
A shortfall of formal and informal parking for
general and event requirements and general
access and circulation issues within the site need
to be addressed. A traffic and parking assessment
was undertaken as part of the preparation of this
PoM and the masterplan. The traffic and parking
final report for the Lorn Riverbank site concludes
that:
A permanent parking supply of 40-50 spaces
for the site is considered appropriate
Existing traffic, access and parking design
elements of the PoM do not require the
installation of higher order controls
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.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 21
3.2.2. River Access
A major part of this PoM and Masterplan is
to address the access to the river. There is an
informal (dirt road) access to a sandy beach and
waters edge. This is the only access area that
allows people to enter the river.
There is no boat ramp or access for motorised
boats at this site. However, the beach is used to
launch paddle craft.
Recommendations in sections 8 and 9 seek to
improve the condition of existing access facilities.
These improvements include improved safety,
capacity and usability of water access points and
facilities. While the water along the Lorn Riverbank
is too shallow to accommodate motorised boats,
access for non motorised boats is important.
Access to the water for swimming/splashing and
fishing is considered a high priority in this location.
3.2.3. Landscape
At the site of the Lorn Riverbank, tidal fluctuations
of approximately two metres of the Hunter River
have been recorded.
There are mature trees along the waters edge that
mark the edge of the river. There are also trees
associated with the private lots along the northern
edge of the site.
There is little left of the native riverbank
ecology. This is due in part to human activity in
constraining the river to its present course and
in maintaining a grassy landscape. Areas that are
not steeply sloping have been used for agriculture
and grazing, and therefore contain only paddock
grasses.
The landscape within which the site sits has an
agricultural history that has shaped it. Most of the
land has been used for grazing and therefore has
the following characteristics:
The landscape is of sloping paddocks
The paddocks contain very few trees with most
trees occurring along the riverbank
The land slopes toward the river with a steep
bank along the waters edge
Most of the land is covered with grass
punctuated by a line of trees along the
riverbank.

In addition to this, the Lorn Riverbank site has

historically been prone to flooding. It is wholly
contained on the river side of the levee that
protects Lorn. As a result, the land rises from the
rivers edge quite sharply and continues rising to
the levee height.

Figure 3.1: Access down to the beach area. Figure 3.2: Current landscape with mostly grass.

22 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

3.2.4. Flooding A high level engineering study which provides
advice on Hunter River Impacts including
The riverbank site is mapped in a floodplain area
flooding, bank stability and bank treatments was
(MLEP) and is subject to periodical flooding from
undertaken to inform this PoM and is included as
the Hunter River. Any proposed works on the
an Appendice.
site will give due consideration to the effect of
potential flooding on the works and the potential A levee constructed as part of the Maitland Flood
cost of any rectification works necessary as a result Mitigation scheme is located on the northern part
of flooding. of the site. Any work constructed in, on or adjacent
to the levee will be subject to the requirements
A study was conducted named Hunter River:
of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and
Branxton to Green Rocks Flood Study in 2010
considered by the Office of Water.
by WMA Water that provides information on the
history of and predictions for future flooding
of the Hunter River. Findings of the report have
been considered in preparation of this PoM and
masterplan.

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.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 23

Depth Chart
(metres)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

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.

A parcel of land identified as Lot 1 DP953307 and

classified as operational land is currently leased
for agistment purposes. Surveys have identified
that existing buildings erected by the lessee have
also been constructed across the adjacent Crown
land. Lease arrangements will require review in

24 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

3.3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure
The following spatial analysis identifies the micro-scale issues and aspects of the site. This spatial
analysis provides an understanding of the current usage and feeds into the associated opportunities and
constraints for the site.

Refer to Figure 3.5 for the locations of the following elements on the site.

Description Condition

Pathways Both paths are in poor condition

Segments of pathway have been Erosion and vegetation have
installed at each entry but pathways undermined portions of the path
do not connect. The existing paths require
replacement with any park
improvement.

Bowden Street access drive Access drive is in poor condition

This is a steep, paved drive over the Drive needs replacement and
levee formalisation with any development
Unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles of the park.
entering while a second vehicle is
exiting site
There are no devices to control
vehicles.

R H Taylor Reserve drive and
parking
Driveway off The Esplanade to
contained parking area.
The drive and parking area are
in poor condition and in need of
replacement
Does not meet driveway and
parking standards.

Picnic area Picnic tables are in fair condition

Grassy area on top of levee with 3 A consistent suite of furniture is
picnic tables needed.
There are no shade structures over
the tables.

Paddock structures Structures are in poor condition

Three (3) structures built by lessee Not suitable for publicly accessible
in the leased paddock area. areas.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 25

Description Condition

Floodgate Access Shed Structure appears to be in good

Structure houses flood condition.
infrastructure.

River bank (western portion) River bank is stable with occasional

This section of the river bank is erosion. Mitigation is not necessary
high and steeply rises from water to maintain the bank as it exists
level Reshaping the bank will require
Banks are sandy and are held substantial earthworks and
in place by existing trees and revetment
vegetation
Erosion will occur occasionally, but
can be controlled with vegetation.
River bank (central portion) The beach area is in good
This portion of the bank slopes into condition.
the river with sandy beaches along
the water.

River bank (eastern portion) Condition of the bank is stable

This portion of river bank rises at with no improvements required to
a moderate slope and is heavily stabilise it.
vegetated with grasses, trees and
shrubs.

26 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

 1 3
4

7
6

2
1 5
9
8

Legend

1. Pathways 6. Floodgate access shed

2. Bowden Street access drive 7. River bank (western portion)
3. R H Taylor Reserve drive 8. River bank (central portion)
4. Picnic area 9. River bank (eastern portion)
5. Paddock structures

Figure 3.5: Existing facilities locations.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 27

4. Historical Context

28 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The Maitland area has a long history in agriculture
and industry. This is displayed throughout the
region by the distinct character of the historic
buildings and remnant landscapes. Both Maitland
and Lorn have a number of heritage buildings that
speak to the history of the area.
4.1. Indigenous Heritage
The Wonnarua people are the traditional land
owners of the Maitland area. Their lands extend
throughout the Hunter Valley. Other nations that
neighboured the Wonnarua include Geawegal,
Worimi, Awabakal, Gamilaroi, Wiradjuri,
Darkinjung and Birpai. (www.maitland.com.au)
There are no known Aboriginal sites along
the Lorn Riverbank. However, like most of the
Australian landmass, sites along major rivers have
the potential to contain the remains of Aboriginal
occupation.
4.2. Non-Indigenous History
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.
East Maitland developed early as a planned
residential town. This was followed by the
development of West Maitland as a commercial
centre (present day Maitland). Located across the
Hunter River from the town of West Maitland, Lorn
was originally a land grant to Thomas McDougall
in 1823. The land was subdivided and by 1927 the
town had taken the shape that it holds today.
The suburb of Lorn was modelled after the English
and American Garden City movement. This
perhaps accounts for the number of trees that
exist in the suburb today.
The Belmore Bridge (pictured), which was a vital
link between Lorn and Maitland, was first opened
in 1869. That bridge stood for almost a century,
withstanding many floods. The periodic flooding
of the river, however, took its toll on the bridge
and necessitated the construction of a new bridge
that could withstand the high waters and the
debris carried with it. A new bridge (currently in
use) was constructed in 1964 to replace the old
structure.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 29
5. Values Associated with Lorn Riverbank

30 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The following is a description of the values and
most significant attributes of the Lorn Riverbank
site. They were identified during the consultation
process and background studies that have
been conducted. These are qualities that should
be enhanced and taken into account when
formulating future management objectives.
5.1. Visual Quality
Visual quality plays a large role in creating a
first impression of a place. It therefore has an
important role in influencing a persons experience
and forming an opinion of the place. The site is
located in full view across the river from Maitlands
Levee Precinct and commercial area. It is important
that the site has an appealing visual quality.
Important visual elements include:
The location of Lorn Riverbank is in full view
from The Levee across the river
-- There are excellent views of the entire site
that should be enhanced.
Views into the site from Lorn are limited by the
levee that separates the site from the town.
-- The sequence of views as one enters the site
over the levee is dramatic and should be
preserved and enhanced if possible.
5.2. Landscape Character
The landscape character of the site varies as it
slopes up from the Hunter River toward the levee
above it.
The river bank rises steeply from the waters
edge and is held in place by mature trees and
grasses
Grassy slopes and paddocks make up the
majority of the site
There are mature Casuarina and Willow trees
along the waters edge
There are several mature Eucalyptus and
Peppercorn trees on the higher ground
The ground-level planting is dominated by
Kikuyu grass.
It should be noted that Willow species are
considered Weeds of National Significance.
Control measures will be required for the park.
However, indiscriminate removal should be
avoided because removal of the trees may cause
bank instability.
5.3. Leisure / Recreation
Parks are generally highly valued because they
offer a leisurely escape from the hectic routine
of life and they provide places to play and enjoy
activities with others. The connection to nature
has also been credited for having healing and
therapeutic effects on people. Thus, even though
hard to quantify, outdoor spaces like the Lorn
Riverbank have a high value within the community.
The community expressed the value of the park
even though it contains limited recreational
infrastructure. Due to the parks location on the
river, the site also has a key role in linking people
to the river. Some of the key elements include:
Footpaths have been installed in a portion of
the park, which provide some access - these
need to be extended throughout the site as
walking was highly valued by the community
The beach serves as a launching area for
kayaks, canoes, paddle boards or dragon boats
Off leash dog area is highly used.
5.4. Economic
There are currently no seasonal or casual
commercial operations on the site. The operational
land is under lease for agistment purposes.
5.5. Cultural Heritage
Lorn has a rich heritage that relates to the
European settlement of the Maitland area. The
town was envisioned as a Garden Suburb by the
founders. The improvement of the Lorn Riverbank
into a thriving park will add to this legacy.
5.6. Accessibility
Access to and within the Lorn Riverbank has
been identified as a major shortcoming of the
site. There are only two access points that are
dangerous when vehicles use them.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 31
6. Stakeholder Consultation

32 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

6.1. Stakeholder Consultation
Consultation was a key component of the
developing the PoM and a holistic approach
to engaging with stakeholders was adopted
throughout the project. The consultation
component included a range of activities such
as workshops, online survey, presentations, door
knocks, one-on-one meetings, letterbox drops,
printed materials, factsheets, advertising, media
releases, social media and attendance at the
Maitland Taste Festival.
Maintenance
Events
Environment.
6.3. Online Survey
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.

The objectives of the Hunter River Access Project
community consultation were to make stakeholders
aware of the project, dissemminate information
and to enable stakeholders to provide feedback
to assist in the development of the PoM and
masterplan for the Lorn site.
6.2. Community Workshops
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 Lorn
Riverbank.
The survey was available to be completed between
01/02/2016 and 18/03/2016, with 103 people
responding.
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.

The aim of the workshop was not to reach a

consensus, but to stimulate a conversation about
options and ideas for a future upgrade to the
project area. It was important that everyone in
attendance had the ability to have their opinion
heard and included in the discussion.

Participants value the space as a community

facility. Seven key themes where identified through
the facilitated session (summarised at the end of
this section) and included:
Safety
Access
Connections
Figure 6.1: Participants at the community workshop.
Infrastructure/amenities

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 33

6.4. Online and social media
feedback
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 Lorn.
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.
Stakeholders said the improvements they would
like include:
Recreational facilities like kayak and paddle
board hire
Easily accessible area for swimming and
kayaking
Riverside pathway
More shaded seating and picnic areas
Car access to water
Floating dock or pontoon
Swings near the bridge
BBQs and picnic grounds
Cafs along the riverbank
Plant native trees and shrubs to attract native
birds
Fenced area for swimming on the river
Ferry service between Lorn, Morpeth and
Newcastle.
34 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
6.5. Consultation Summary
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.
A summary of the key priorities identified through
the consultation is included at 6.6.
6.6. Consultation Outcomes and 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 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 Plan of Management and Masterplan.

1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users & visitors

AIM: To improve safety for all users, pedestrians & vehicles

Consideration should be given to:

Include measures that improve safety for all users, pedestrians and vehicles in the Plan of
Management, Masterplan and staging plan for the Lorn Riverside park
Seek to implement a range of safety measures including in the short to medium term:
-- Traffic calming devices
-- Mirrors.
Implement a regular maintenance regime removing weeds and long grass for better visibility.

2. Access - Catering for a range of needs and uses

To improve access to the park & the river, for a range of activities, pedestrians &
AIM:
vehicles

Consideration should be given to:

Separated access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles
Shared pathways to the facility for safe access for pedestrians and cyclists
Disability access to cater for people with mobility issues and for families with prams
Pathways that extend to the river for safe, easy access
Stabilisation of the beach area to provide improved access to the river
Drop off area for non-motorised craft.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 35

3. Connections - Provide pathways & links

Provide shared pathways and internal roads, linked to other destinations and
AIM:
residential areas.

Consideration should be given to:

Shared pathways that cater for a range of users including pedestrians, cyclists, families with prams and
is disability accessible (universal access/DDA compliant)
Connections to Maitland and the Levee to capitalise on the large open spaces and provide access to
businesses
Separated access for pedestrians and vehicles
Two-way access over the levee to the site
Better pathway access to the riverbank
New pathways could form part of the Heritage Walk
Bridge connection to Maitland from the site.

4. Amenities & infrastructure - Upgrades to the park

AIM: To improve and upgrade the park with facilities that cater for a range of user groups.

Consideration should be given to:

Provision of accessible toilet and shower facilities
Creation of a safe, accessible playground area for children to enjoy
Provision of adequate lighting
Designated car parking area with provision for non-motorised boats
Areas for exercising (fitness stations/track)
Swimming platform or pontoon
Bank stabilisation and extension of the beach area
Fencing and barriers to control vehicle access and movements
Upgrade and fencing of off-leash dog area
Drop-off area to riverbank for kayaks/canoes and pathway ramp to the beach
Shelters, seating and BBQ/picnic facilities
Flooding of area and potential impacts to infrastructure to be considered.

36 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

5. Maintenance - cleaning and maintaining the park

Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up keep of
AIM:
the facility.

Consideration should be given to:

Provision of bins and dog waste bins with regular collections
Provision of educational signs reminding people to clean up after themselves and their animals
Regular mowing and weeding to ensure the site can be used for a range of activities and events
Regular maintenance to help keep snakes and other vermin away from area
Clearing near entry to the site to provide better visibility when entering the site
Develop a maintenance plan associated with the Plan of Management and Masterplan.

6. Activities & events - Activating the space

To develop a plan that encourages activities and events in the popular community
AIM:
facility

Consideration should be given to:

Developing a strategy to encourage events and activities to increase user demand for the facility
Events and activities that make use of the water and the large open space. Events could include;
seniors activities, outdoor cinemas, fishing competitions, markets, regattas
Community garden.

7. Environment - Attractive location to enjoy the natural environment

AIM: To improve the natural environment, riverbank and local ecology.

Consideration should be given to:

Enhance the space by planting native trees and shrubs local to the area that are suitable in the
riverside location
Capitalise on the beauty of the site by developing a landscape plan
Increase riverbank stability while providing safe access
Regular flooding events and impacts to the natural environment and infrastructure
Shade trees near seating, picnic and BBQ areas
Improve the health of the Hunter River
Community garden.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 37

7. Opportunities and Constraints

38 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The investigations undertaken for the
development of the PoM and Masterplan helped
identify the opportunities and constraints
associated with the site. The opportunities and
constraints have been divided into various
categories as listed below.
7.1. Opportunities
7.1.1. Leisure and Recreation
1. Provide areas of passive recreation
-- Grassy areas
-- Seating - furniture, steps and walls
-- Shade - trees or canopy.
2. Provide an area to accommodate group
activities and picnics
3. Create facilities for community events
-- Markets
-- Outdoor cinema
-- Fireworks
-- Riverlights launch area.
4. Provide area for community garden
5. The incorporation of Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED)
concepts
6. Install an iconic feature to define the Lorn
Riverbank. This could take the shape of a
heritage display, structure or work of art
7. Improve the beach for kayak/canoe launching
8. Install parking and area lighting to improve
safety and minimise anti-social behaviour.
7.1.2. Environmental
1. Protect and enhance the river bank
2. Ongoing management of the river bank to
minimise erosion
3. Use native and indigenous plant species
where appropriate
-- Re-introduce riverbank ecology.
7.1.3. Economic
1. Increase tourism opportunities by providing
connection to the High Street and Levee
commercial area
2. Promote the Lorn Riverbank as a destination
3. Promote opportunities for rental and
commercial enterprise within the site
4. Provide areas that can accommodate
community events associated with the river.
7.1.4. Access and Circulation
1. Improve access to the site with safe
connections to The Esplanade and Bowden
Street
2. Create pedestrian and cycle links to the Lorn
and Maitland shopping areas
-- Connection to Belmore Road
-- Bridge connection to The Levee.
3. Develop a shared pathway along the river
bank to connect Belmore bridge with Sharkies
Lane
-- Complement the Maitland cycling strategy.
4. Complete the internal pedestrian pathway
network
5. Improve vehicular circulation within the site
-- Safe entry drives
-- Adequate parking area
-- Potential for trailer parking
-- Kayak / canoe drop off area (potential access
to beach)
-- Vehicle control devices to keep vehicles from
leaving roadways.
7.1.5. Land Consolidation
Investigate the acquisition of adjoining privately
owned lands identified as Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 Sec
A DP5394, Lot 70 DP456843, Lot 1 DP323698.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 39
Figure 7.1: New Years Eve fireworks over the Lorn Riverbank.

Figure 7.2: View of site from across the river.

40 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

7.2. Constraints
7.2.1. Leisure and Recreation
1. Lack of electricity provisions due to flooding
reduces opportunities for:
-- BBQ facilities
-- Activities during the evening
-- Use of sound systems, stage lighting,
outdoor cinema
2. Security with limited surveillance available
due to the sites location and condition.
7.2.2. Environmental
1. Flooding inundates the entire site on a
seasonal basis
2. Flooding causes erosion of river bank
3. Damage to vegetation and soils across the
site due to vehicular movement over the site
4. Levee banks.
Figure 7.3: Sandy banks rising steeply from the river stabilised by vegetation.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management
7.2.3. Economic
1. Limited parking and recreational space
reduces reasons for visiting the site
2. Lack of infrastructure to accommodate kiosks,
market stalls, vehicles, etc limit ability to
establish economic activities
3. Limits to on-site commercial activity due to
flooding.
7.2.4. Access and Circulation
1. Narrow, steep and dangerous vehicular
access from The Esplanade
2. No formal pathway for pedestrians and
cyclists to access the site
3. No footpaths within site to encourage
pedestrian activity
4. Limited lighting.
41
8. Masterplan

42 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

The Lorn Riverbank Masterplan has been
developed in conjunction with this Plan of
Management. The Masterplan provides a long-
term vision illustrating the communitys desire for
the park. It will serve to guide the development of
the park.
8.1. Masterplan Principles
The following principles have been identified to
guide the future development of the site.
Encourage public use of the Lorn Riverbank
for recreation purposes by providing safe, high
quality and accessible public spaces
Improve pedestrian connections to the
larger community and commercial centres of
Maitland and Lorn
Improve access to the site and within the site
for disabled users and their carers
Create a public facility that will enhance the
tourism potential of the area
Promote access to the river by providing a
range of locations and methods to reach the
water
Strengthen the Lorn Riverbanks identity by
applying consistent landscape treatment,
materials, furniture and built form
Ensure the proposed works will not impede the
flood mitigation scheme.
8.2. Key Proposals
The masterplan illustrates what the park will look
like if all the management actions are completed.
The key elements proposed include the following.
8.2.1. The Lorn Riverbank Site
Install access road over levee to parking area
Create a circulation system that accommodates
vehicles efficiently and safely
Provide new paved car parking (141 new
spaces proposed, including some spaces for
trailers)
Provide an overflow parking area that is
grassed and can serve as open lawn when not
in use for parking
Install vehicle control devices (bollards, fencing
and railing) to discourage antisocial behaviour
Provide an amenities block near the parking
area and above most flood water levels
Provide a second amenities block adjacent to
the parking at R H Taylor Reserve
Install sandstone blocks to create retaining
wall that will level off a lawn area for open play
Provide a shared pathway network through the
site, linking activity locations
Provide paved areas near parking for groups to
congregate and equipment can be organised
Organise the park around a central plaza
space that is large enough to accommodate
community functions
Potential to provide a water play area and/or
activity space at strategic locations to visually
connect with viewers from the Maitland side of
the river
Install additional picnic tables at strategic
locations around site
Provide exercise equipment/stations
Provide childrens play area
Improve the off-leash dog area
Increase and enhancing native planting
Reshape and stabilise the bank along the
beach
Provide paved access pathway to the beach
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 43
 Construct bank stabilising measures
Install trees for shade strategically around site
Use native tree species for new planting
Use native shrub and grass species for any new
planting along bank.

8.2.2. Additional Recommendations

Construct a pedestrian and cycling bridge that
connects the site with The Levee and Central
Maitland
Creating a cycling / running loop through the
Lorn Riverbank and Lorn
Include the Lorn Riverbank shared pathway in
the Maitland cycling strategy
Provisions to attach a pontoon jetty to the
amphitheatre steps for temporary uses like
-- Fishing competitions
-- Swimming
-- Connection to Maitland across the water
-- Theatrical productions.
Improvements to the Belmore bridge to
accommodate cyclists safely.

Figure 8.1: Expanded parking with proposed amenities block, picnic facilities and childrens play area.

44 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

 Lorn Riverbank Masterplan
Site Plan

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

Figure 8.2: Proposed masterplan for Queens Wharf.

5 3
7
21
13 14
2 14
14
2
4 6
18
16
Hu 15
nte 19
r Riv
Hig er 12
hS 15 18 20
tre Th
et eL 17
ev
ee 12
P rec
inc
t
23

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

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

4. Paved plaza 17. Ramp access to beach
5. Amenities block 18. Ecological riverbank planting
6. Picnic facilities 19. Pedestrian pathway / educational walk
7. Exercise equipment 20. Observation deck near water level
8. Off-leash dog area 21. Observation deck and rest area high on bank
9. Adventure play area 22. Shared pathway connection to Sharkies Lane Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
10. Splash pad / water play with shade elements 23. Potential connection to Maitland Design | Communication
NORTH

11. Steps down to water 24. Existing trees

12. Beach area 25. Native groundcover planting Scale 1:900 @ A0 Date: 07 October 2016

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.

Funding arrangements need to address recurrent

costs of management and maintenance together
with capital costs for upgrading works. Various
sources of funding have been identified and
include the following:
Councils funding sources
Specialised funding/grants from both State
and Federal Governments
Contributions/sponsorship from the private
sector
Philanthropic sources of funds

Funding through grants and sponsorships can

not be guaranteed due to the competitive nature.
They are also reliant on government policies and
budgets.

Other funding is available and can fund specific

items of the Masterplan. Table 8.1 contains a
listing of potential sources of grants.

46 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

Table 8.1 Funding Options.
Funding Program & Agency
NSW Community Building
Partnership
http://www.
communitybuildingpartnership.nsw.
gov.au/
Public Reserves Management
Fund
Community Development Grants
Programme
http://investment.
infrastructure.gov.au/funding/
communitydevelopment/index.aspx
Stronger Communities
Programme
http://investment.infrastructure.gov.
au/funding/scp/
RMS Walking and Cycling
Progams
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/
projects/walking-cycling/index.html
Maritime Infrastructure Program
NSW Maritime Authority and
proponents including boating and
marine organisations and Local and
State Government
Indigenous Heritage Program
Australian Government
Australian Trusts Partnership
Programme
Australian Government
Recreational Fishing Trust
Department of Primary Industries
(Fisheries)
Protecting National Historic Sites
https://www.environment.gov.
au/heritage/grants-and-funding/
protecting-national-historic-sites
NSW Heritage Grants
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.
au/Heritage/funding/
Community Youth and Seniors
Heritage Grants
Purpose of Fund
The NSW Community Building Partnership program supports the
improvement of community infrastructure, and creates more vibrant and
inclusive communities by supporting projects that encourage community
participation, inclusion and cohesion. Grant funding of up to $200,000 is
available for every NSW State Electorate.
These funds are available for improvement works to Crown Reserves and
provide for both capital development and maintenance projects. PRM Funds
are limited and there are not guarantees of funding success as applications
are submitted annually and subject to competitive process.
The Australian Government has established the Community Development
Grants Programme to support needed infrastructure that promotes stable,
secure and viable local and regional economies.
The objective of the SCP is to fund small capital projects which will
deliver social benefits. The programme aims to improve local community
participation, cohesion and contribute to vibrant and viable communities.
Maximum of $20,000 and require matched funding.
In line with the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (LTTMP), the purpose
of this is to increase opportunities for people to walk and ride their bikes
more often in order to help reduce congestion, particularly around schools,
employment centres and universities.
The objective of MIP is to assist in providing waterways infrastructure for the
benefit of the boating community and the marine sector on NSW waterways.
Under the program, NSW Maritime will provide in the order of $2 million
annually to assist in funding approved projects. Applications are normally
called in June/July each year. This funding program may be suited to
upgrading the canoe launch area.
The Indigenous Heritage Programme supports projects that identify,
conserve and promote the Indigenous heritage values of places important
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The programme provides
Indigenous organisations or not-for-profit bodies with grants up to $100,000.
The programme allocates funds to the Australian Council of National Trusts
and the State and Territory Trusts. The grants are to support activities that
increase public awareness, understanding and appreciation of Australias
cultural heritage, and enhance and promote its conservation and assist
the Trusts to advocate and work for the preservation and enhancement of
Australias cultural heritage.
Funding applications must relate to the improvement of recreational fishing.
Successful projects are usually funded for one year however funding may
be provided for up to a maximum of three years from the initial grant. Both
small grants of up to $10,000 and large grants over $10,000 are awarded.
The Protecting National Historic Sites programme will provide funding of up
to $11.5 million (GST exclusive) over three years from 2014-15 to conserve,
maintain and protect the places on Australias National Heritage List
recognised for their historic heritage values.
For projects that conserve, manage, promote and support Aboriginal heritage
items listed on the State Heritage Register or an Aboriginal Place.
Aboriginal Heritage places program $20,000 to $780,000. Next round of
funding opens in October.
For projects that build heritage skills confidence and connections within the
community, particularly our youth and seniors.
Funding available: $25,000 to $50,000 (per project ex GST).
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 47
9. Management Strategies

48 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

9.1. Action Plan
9.1.1. Objectives
The overall concept for the Lorn Riverbank is
illustrated in the masterplan (refer to Figure 8.2).
The following action plan outlines the works
necessary to realise this concept.
As a way to organise the management of the
park, the following four objectives have been
developed.
1. Improve access to the park and the Hunter
River and circulation throughout the park
2. Improve opportunities for recreation within
the park.
3. 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
4. Ensure the development and use of the
riverbank is sympathetic to the natural
ecology and environment of the site.
9.1.2. Action Tables
These action tables present a range of
management actions. They are made up of
directions or guidelines, and more specific on-
ground or tangible actions that will be pursued in
the sites management over the coming 10 years.
Objectives, as listed, are a means to organise the
strategies and actions that will shape the site in
the coming years. They correlate with Councils
long-term objectives and with the outcomes
identified within this PoM.
The strategy column outlines the means of
achieving the related objective. The management
actions described include both specific on-ground
or tangible actions as well as directions more of a
policy, guideline or processes/ procedures nature.
The Priority column of the action tables gives an
indication of both the relative importance, and
preferred timing, of each action as follows.
High - Essential to achievement of the
management objectives, and warranting
funding consideration until achieved.
Medium - These actions are desirable to
enhance achievement of the management
objectives
Low - These actions are useful for the overall
management of the site or address issues that
have longer-term impacts
Ongoing where the action in question will
be carried out on a regular basis, or apply or
continue throughout the sites management
and/or the life of this Plan.
Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 49
Table 9.1

Objective: Improve access to the Hunter River and the riverbank park for recreational purposes.

Number Action Priority

1.1 Install new drive and parking area at RH Taylor Reserve. High
1.2 Install new entry drive over the levee at Bowden Street. High
1.3 Install shared pathway along the entry drive. High
1.4 Install new parking area near the Bowden Street entry drive. High
1.5 Install new shared pathway from Belmore Road to the Bowden Street entry. High
1.6 Install beach access ramps. High
1.7 Install shared pathway from Bowden Street to Sharkies Lane. Medium
1.8 Install shared pathway from parking area to Lorn Street. Medium
1.9 Install the riverbank ecological walk. Medium
1.10 Create the overflow parking lawn. Medium
1.11 Install the shared pedestrian/cycle bridge over the river. Low

Table 9.2

Objective: Improve opportunities for recreation and community activities within the park.

Number Action Priority

2.1 Install picnic facility with shade structure and BBQ at R H Taylor Reserve. High
2.2 Install the childrens play area with play equipment and adventure play. High
2.3 Create fenced off-leash dog area including seating, shade and water. High
2.4 Install toilet / amenities block at the Central Plaza. High
2.5 Install the Central Plaza paving, walls and landscape. High
2.6 Create the beach along the Riverfront. High
2.7 Install the concrete steps and terraced lawns along the bank at the Riverfront and beach High
area.
2.8 Prepare a strategy to promote events on site and place activation. High
2.9 Reclassification and categorising of land from operational to community and discontinue High
current lease for agistment on the site.
2.10 Seek Expressions of Interest for the provision of water based services like hiring of High
canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, etc.
2.11 Install water feature and splash pad with shade elements at Water Terrace (to be Medium
confirmed).
2.12 Install steps down to the water at conceptual Water Terrace location. Medium
2.13 Create beach area at Water Terrace. Medium
2.14 Install exercise equipment near the Central Plaza. Medium
2.15 Reshape the lawn areas to create terraces between the Central Plaza and Water Terrace. Medium
2.16 Install picnic tables around the parking and Central Plaza areas. Medium
2.17 Install toilet / amenities block at R H Taylor Reserve. Medium
2.18 Install sandstone blocks to create level lawn area by childrens play area. Medium
2.19 Install exercise equipment/stations adjacent to childrens play area. Medium
2.20 Investigate the possible acquisition of private properties adjoining the site including: Medium
Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ,10 Sec A DP5394, Lot 70 DP456843, Lot 1 DP323698.
2.21 Construct the observation deck at the ecological area. Low
2.22 Construct the observation deck adjacent to the shared pathway. Low

50 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

Table 9.3

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.

Number Action Priority

3.1 Install shrub planting around parking area. High

3.2 Install separation device (edging, path, etc) between shrub and grass planting. High
3.3 Maintain existing and new trees to ensure healthy trees and safety around them. Ongoing
3.4 Establish and maintain lawn areas for recreation. Ongoing
3.5 Inspect and maintain bank stabilisation measures. Ongoing
3.6 Develop a maintenance program to mow the grass, edge along pathways and kerbs, trim High
shrubs, prune trees and maintain pathways.

Table 9.4

Objective: Ensure the development and use of the riverbank is sympathetic to the natural ecology and
environment of the site.

Number Action Priority

4.1 Install native shrubs and groundcover along the river bank in the western portion of the Ongoing
park.
4.2 Reshape the river bank east of the Water Terrace and plant native trees and shrubs Medium
along it.
4.3 Install planting buffer along the northern boundary of the park. High
4.4 Install planting around the parking areas. High
4.5 Install native trees and shrubs along the eastern portion of the park to re-instate the Medium
riverbank ecology of the area.
4.6 Install native trees and shrubs to increase bank stability along the river bank between the Ongoing
Belmore Bridge and the conceptual Water Terrace.
4.7 Develop a weed management strategy to replace species within site without High
compromising bank stability.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 51

10. References

52 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

City Plan Urban Design, Central Maitland Structure
Plan, Maitland City Council, 2009.

City Wide Contribution Plan 2006-2016: Review of

Open Space and Recreation, Maitland City Council,
2007.

Fletcher, Michelle and Dr. Philip Haines, Hunter

Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (Hunter
Estuary Management Plan), BMT WBM Pty Ltd.,
2009.

GHD, Maitland Bicycle Plan and Strategy 2014,

Maitland City Council, 2014.

Local Government Act 1993 No 30, New South

Wales Government, 2015.

Lorn Heritage Walk, Maitland City Council, http://

www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/heritage/heritagewalks.

Maitland Development Control Plan 2011,

Maitland City Council, 2011.

Maitland & District Historical Society, http://www.

maitlandhistorical.org/.

The Maitland City Council Greening Plan, Maitland

City Council, 2002.

Maitland Rural Strategy 2005, Strategic Services

Division, Maitland City Council, 2005.

Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2001-2020: A

Strategy for Urban Growth in the Maitland Local
Government Area, Maitland City Council, 2012.

Maitland + 10 Community Strategic Plan, Maitland

City Council, 2013.

Manidis Roberts Consultants, Maitland Recreation

and Open Space Strategy, Maitland City Council,
2004.

Off Leash Dog Exercise Area Strategy, Maitland

City Council, 2013.

Public Land Management, Practice Note No.1,

Department of Local Government, 2000.

Regional Boating Plan Port Stephens - Hunter

Region, Transport for NSW, 2015.

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 53

11. Appendices

54 Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management

Appendix A
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan

Appendix B
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Lorn Riverbank

Appendix C
Lorn Riverbank
Traffic Engineering Assessment

Lorn Riverbank Plan of Management 55

 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN FOR
QUEENS WHARF MORPETH AND LORN
RIVERBANK

Appendix A - Lorn Riverbank Masterplan

(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 8

Number of Pages: 13
Lorn Riverbank
Masterplan
Prepared for
Maitland City Council

Revision F
06 June 2017

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan
The Lorn Riverbank Masterplan has been
commissioned by Maitland City Council (Council)
and prepared in conjunction with the Lorn Riverbank
Plan of Management.
The masterplan is a long-term visioning and
planning document. It translates the framework
established by the plan of management into a
document that can be used to plan, invest and
ultimately construct an upgraded facility.
It represents the communitys aspirations for
the popular community park incorporating new
amenities and landscape for that area. Through
a series of workshops and intensive consultation,
community members and stakeholders provided
feedback on how they would like to use the
riverbank now and into the future. That feedback
has been incorporated into the development of the
masterplan to meet Councils objective to improve
recreational opportunities for residents, businesses
and visitors alike.
Underpinning the masterplan were a series of
specialist studies to guide the project. These
included:
Flood levels and currents
Traffic study
Preliminary costings to construct.
These studies, along with extensive site analysis
and research helped to inform the design of the
riverbank.
2
Introduction
The following document establishes the site and
design principles used, capturing key elements to be
included in the improvement of the site. Importantly,
visual and physical connections to the surrounding
communities have been included.
Character photos have been included on each page
to provide examples of how the masterplan could
be interpreted. Elements can be prioritised and
sequenced over the entire site to allow for staged
construction.
The concepts and designs identified are a result of
the extensive consultation with a broad range of
stakeholders. 1 2
Key to images on right.
1. Parking area (page 6)
2. Central Plaza (page 7)
3. Conceptual Water Terrace (page 12)
4. R H Taylor Reserve (page 13)
3 4
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication
Date: 06 June 2017
Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 3
Site Location
Design Notes

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.

Other challenges the site

poses are:
Single access point for
vehicles
Access is directly over
the levee with minimal
Lorn Riverbank Site driver visibility
Erosion and bank
Th stability
eL
ev No pathway
ee
Hig connection through
hS
tre Hunt site
et er Riv
er Existing residential
access across site
Current zoning.

Maitland

Existing site photographs

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 4
Design Principles
The consultation process revealed that the community Space for events like markets, outdoor cinema, picnics Floodwater currents
desired the following elements and activity areas: and celebrations Bank erosion / stability
Safe access from surrounding streets (Esplanade and The Provision of an amenities building Topography of the site
Avenue) Enhancement to the existing off-leash dog area Ecology of the site and river
Formalised and controlled vehicle access and parking Creation of a playground Traffic surrounding the site
River access to launch kayaks, canoes and paddle boards Community garden area Pedestrian and cycling access locally and regionally.
River access for swimming Connection to The Levee across the river.
River access for fishing The diagram below illustrates the main principles behind the
Walking and cycling pathways In response to the community and Councils desires for the design that is presented on the following pages.
Additional areas with shade trees or structures for site, design principles have been developed to provide a Legend
picnicking and other activities framework for the design. Additionally, the principles have
BBQ and drinking fountains been influenced by: Important sight lines
Equipment or areas for exercise activities Floodwater levels to be maintained or
enhanced

Main connection point to

the wider community

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

Area of medium flood

2 6
6

risk

Parking
6
lev
6 el b
enc
h-
4 ma
rke
ts

Gentle slope offers

6
opportunity for
activity area6

Th
eL 2 3

ev
1

ee
Hig
hS
3 2 3

River 2

tre
1
1

et access

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 5
Site Plan
Design Notes
Off-leash dog area contained with fencing
The site plan provides a
Existing parking view of the entire site.
The subsequent pages
e Road Amenities block highlight areas along
Belmor the park with enlarged
Picnic area with shade structures plans and more detailed
notes. The character
photographs associated
Childrens play area (page 13) with each area provide
a glimpse of the desired
Vehicular entry drive use, materials and overall
Shared pathway impression intended in
Shared pathway the design.
connection

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

Sight line from

Riverlink Building to Parking Lawn
Lawn
future focal point (to Central Plaza (page 6)
be determined) (page 7)

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

Character photographs 0 30 60 90 100 200m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 6
Parking Area
Design Notes
Shared pathway
connection to Lorn The proposed access
drive is aligned to
improve safety at the
intersection and provide
Access road over levee good visibility while
with separate pedestrian Picnic tables driving over the levee. A
footpath Overflow formal parking area with
parking area vehicle control devices
will restrict cars to the
parking area. The parking
is terraced to fit the slope
Wide spaces to allow trailer of the riverbank with
parking with trailer on grass footpaths connecting it
to the central plaza.

The parking spaces

closest to the river are
extra-wide to allow easy
access to roof racks for
Parking loading and unloading
boards and kayaks. Direct
access to the beach is
Extra-wide parking spaces made via a pedestrian
along southern edge of ramp.
Parking parking to facilitate
removing equipment A grass field allows
from roof racks overflow parking during
special events. This field
can serve as open play
area when not in use.
Central entry from
parking with direct Picnic tables
Wide walkway pathways to beach
connection to main

NORTH
plaza area
Scale 1:500 @ A3

Character photographs 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 7
Central Plaza
Character photographs Design Notes

Footpath connection to The Plaza is designed

Entry drive over levee
Esplenade to provide space for
community activities
Amenities block and social events. It
is a paved area that
Possible community is relatively level and
garden location overlooks the river. The
paved area is designed
to accommodate weekly
markets, festivals and
other community events.
Exercise
equipment The Plaza Lawn expands
the usable space of the
Plaza. This large lawn
can be used for events
Parking like markets as well as
Plaza Lawn everyday picnicking and
play.
Picnic tables
The Central Plaza is the
hub of the Lorn Riverbank
with connections to Lorn,
Maitland and the waters
edge.

Paved Plaza
activity space

Low walls for seating,

retaining and spatial

NORTH
definition
Scale 1:500 @ A3

Ramp access to
beach area

Riverfront
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
0 5 10 15 25 50m
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 8
Riverfront
Design Notes

The Riverfront consists of

a series of wide concrete
steps leading down to
the river. With fluctuating
water levels the steps will
lead to the beach area or
the water.
Paved Plaza area
The steps vary in width
to provide terraces that
serve many functions:
Sunbathing
Picnics
Seating
Informal amphitheatre
around the beach.

The Riverfront terraces

allow usable lawns that
are fairly level above
them.

Sandy beach with The overhead shared

water access access bridge frames
the plaza and Riverfront
area and provides
an interesting visual
backdrop to the park.

Concrete steps down to the river

Terraced lawn areas along riverbank

Connection to Levee Precinct

NORTH
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Hunter River

Character photographs 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 9
The Beach
Design Notes
Parking
The Beach is designed
as the main launching
site for kayaks, canoes
and paddle boards.
Depending on water
levels, it offers a wide
beach and wide steps
to assist in launching
Open lawn area activities.
Ramp access from
parking to beach The Beach also provides
water access for
swimming and fishing.
Open lawn area

Sandy beach Sandy beach

Launching area

Concrete ramp access to

Concrete steps down to beach
beach from Plaza
Terraced lawn areas along riverbank
Connection with Levee

NORTH
Precinct
Scale 1:500 @ A3

Hunter River

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 10
Ecological Walk and Deck
Design Notes
Open lawn area
The Ecological Walk
takes advantage of the
existing vegetation and
Open lawn area
shape of the riverbank to
introduce native plants. It
offers an opportunity to
showcase the riverbank
ecology. This gives
educational opportunities
for schools as well as the
larger community.

Places like the timber

deck along the waters
Timber pathway edge will offer a place to
connection stop and observe nature.
There will be signs with
educational information
along the pathway.

Hunter River

Re-instated riverbank ecological

planting with pathway through it

Timber deck over water with lower

level landing:

NORTH
Observation of riverbank ecology
Educational signs
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Fishing
Kayak / canoe tie-up
Swimming.

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 11
Shared Pathway and Overlook
Design Notes
Terrace overlooking the ecological
Shared pathway connection
planting and river On the bank above the
to Sharkies Lane
Rest stop for pathway users ecological planting,
Views over the river a shared pathway
meanders across the
entire site, linking
Belmore Road with
Sharkies Lane. At this
eastern end, there is
a stopping point that
overlooks the Hunter
Shared pathway River and the ecological
planting. The overlook is
perched high on the bank
and offers space enough
to accommodate cyclists
and walkers alike to stop
and enjoy the view.

Open lawn area

Nature walk trail within the ecological

planting along the riverbank

Riverbank ecological planting to stabilise

bank and re-introduce native species
stabilises river bank
educational value for school groups
and community members

NORTH
Hunter River Scale 1:500 @ A3

Character photographs for landscape elements 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 12
Conceptual Water Terrace
Design Notes

Directly across the

river from the Riverlink
Building on High Street
Conceptual only is a Conceptual Water
Water play splash pad with in- Terrace. This could
ground water jets provide a splash pad with
sculptural shade canopies
Design resolution Sculptural elements with shade adjacent to the shared
yet to be determined canopies pathway. The water could
run down the slope to
Shared pathway connects to shallow splashing area.
Reserve and The Plaza area The design resolution is
yet to be determined
Concrete step down to sandy
beach area
Wide steps then lead
down to the river. The
Bowl shaped lawn with terraced
steps along the river
steps for seating
provide access to the
water and a small beach.
Pathway down sloping lawn with
stage / activity area at bottom
Level areas on either side of A Water Terrace could
pathway to accommodate offer an activity area
Conceptual only
market stalls and an interesting visual
Slo connection across the
pe river from the Levee.

Te The land between the

ma rrace
rke to Water Terrace and the
ts a Central Plaza could be
an llow
Concrete steps into the river Slo d ac terraced to provide level
pe tiv
itie grass areas wide enough
s
Native vegetation along the for two market stalls with
waters edge to stabilise the bank walking space between.

NORTH
Scale 1:500 @ A3
Hunter River

Character photographs for possible landscape elements 0 5 10 15 25 50m

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
Lorn Riverbank Masterplan 13
R H Taylor Reserve
Character photographs Design Notes
Shared pathway
The Reserve offers
Off-leash dog area contained space on top of the
e Road with fence
Belmor levee which is above
normal flood levels. The
existing parking needs
to be formalised with
Existing paving and kerbs and is
Parking extended. An expanded
picnic area has been
proposed adjacent to
the parking and awaits

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

Mara Consulting Pty Ltd

Design | Communication

Date: 06 June 2017

Revision: F
0 5 10 15 25 50m
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN
FOR QUEENS WHARF MORPETH
AND LORN RIVERBANK

Appendix B - Stakeholder
Engagement Report Lorn Riverbank
(under separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

Attachment No: 9

Number of Pages: 56
 Stakeholder Engagement Report
Hunter River Access Project
Lorn Riverbank

MARA
CONSULTING
Design & Communication

Report prepared for

Maitland City Council

Date: 14 April 2016

Landscape Architecture | Urban Design | Environmental Planning

Communication | Consultation & Engagement | Government Relations
 Project Name
Location:
Project Number
Client
Mara Consulting Document Number
Document Control
Issued By: Kelly Lofberg
Revised By: Tadd Andersen
Authorised By: Kelly Lofberg
Signed:
Revision History
Revision
00
01
02
Register of Changes
Page / Reference
Various
Company Details
Mara Consulting Pty Ltd
ACN: 168 093 918
ABN: 13 168 093 918
2 www.maraconsulting.com.au
Hunter River Access Project
Lorn, NSW
1531
Maitland City Council
MCC-MARA-REP-1531001
Senior Communications and
Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Senior Landscape Architect Mara Consulting
Senior Communications and
Mara Consulting
Engagement Specialist
Date: 14 April 2016 Mara Consulting
Date of Issue Details
Initial issue for comment by
04 March 2016
Project Team
11 April 2016 Draft for issued to MCC
14 April 2016 Final for issue to MCC
Details
Grammatical errors
PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295
mara@maraconsulting.com.au
maraconsulting.com.au
0425 715 536 0458 233 001
 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.

Image: Lorn Riverbank from the Levee, Maitland

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.

Diagram 1: The Esplanade Lorn - project site location map.

About the site

Lorn is a suburb of Maitland with a population of 1264 (source: ABS Census 2011), located
on the Hunter River and opposite the central business district in Maitland.
The site is known as the Lorn Riverbank, measuring approximately 9.5Ha and used for
some of the Citys largest community events. Adjacent to the Hunter River, the popular
recreational area is used for a range of recreational activities. The site includes a levee bank
on the northern side of the site, constructed to mitigate the impacts from flooding events.
A detailed analysis of the site will be included in the Plan of Management for Lorn.

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.

Image: Participants at the community workshop

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.

Image: Participants at the community workshop

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.

Diagram 1: Project phases and milestones

Ongoing consultation with stakeholders

Ongoing design process. Technical reports and consultation input into design

Key findings and emerging themes

The Hunter River Access community consultation report identifies the values and
aspirations that stakeholders have in 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.

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.

Lorn Riverbank Stakeholders

The Lorn Riverbank is a popular and well utilised community facility and provides a safe,
central location for aquatic sports and activities. A number of organised groups regularly
use the facility, however casual users frequent the facility to enjoy the large open space.

Identified stakeholders include:

Dog walkers (off-leash area) Community groups

Neighbouring residents &
landowners
Non-motorised boat users
- canoes, kayaks, paddle
boarders
Walkers and people exercising
Commercial/business precinct
Casual users
Broader community
Emergency services
Councillors
Council officers
Government Departments
- RMS, Waterways, Primary
Industries, NSW Office of
Environment & Heritage,
Local Land Services, Maritime
Management Centre.

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

Fiona Abernethy Nicole Wall

Virginia Ross Steve Orchard

Melissa March Lisa Craven

Carmel Smith Mark Lantry

Bob Dennek Kris Turner

Tom Lantry Barry West

Les Adams John Skillicorn

Sally ONeal Grahame March

Brian Phillips Pat Aclams

Lorraine Brown Colleen Gollege

Loretta Baker Richard Hersham

Barry Ross Frank Oakes

Megan Wensrich Ann Bartlett

Sue Smith Greg Hillier

David Campbell Cole Campbell

Ted McEniery

The workshop was also attended by:

Amanda McMahon (MCC), Janita Klein (MCC) Lynn Morton (MCC) Tadd Andersen (Mara
Consulting), Kate Bestwick (Mara Consulting) and facilitated by Kelly Lofberg (Mara
Consulting).

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.

Image: Participants learn the importance of sticky-notes at the Lorn workshop

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.

Activity 1: Understanding the Lorn Riverbank

Understanding how people currently access and use the project area helps to give a good
framework for improving the site. Three questions were asked:
Access: How do you get to the site?
Uses: How do you use Lorn Riverside Park? Participants were asked to identify how the
park is current used.
Issues: Are there any problems or concerns? Participants were asked to identify what
are the weaknesses of the project site, what needs improvement and what they dont
like about the facility.

Activity 2: Direction - Future uses and facilities

Participants were asked to identify how the park could be used in the future (should
improvements be made). What would they like to do, see and experience in the future?

Activity 3: Wish list - Whats missing from the facility?

Participants were asked to think about the future - 5, 10, 20 years from now and how do
we get there. What are the activities, events, facilities, tourism opportunities, infrastructure
needs and other ideas that will make the park a venue for future generations?

Activity 4: Top 3 priorities

Participants were asked to prioritise their wish list and as small groups come up with the
top 3 projects to complete in the short to medium term.

Activity 5 : Top 3 priorities...on a budget

Participants were asked if the priorities would be the same if they were given a grant to the
maximum of $30,000. Participants were asked to identify 3 priority projects that could be
completed with funding of $10,000 for each project.

Activity 6: Role playing - What if..

Participants were asked to assume an identity and put themselves in the shoes of a
different stakeholder group. The activity aims to challenge participants view of the facility,
to consider other peoples needs and to come up with new ideas to improve the area. The
challenge was to see if the priorities would be different when considering other people.

Activity 7: One important thing

The workshop ended with participants asked what is the one reason they were at the
workshop - one thing they wanted us to take away?

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.

Figure 1: Key Themes that became evident during the workshop.

KEY THEMES
What participants said

Safety for all users is a priority.

1. SAFETY Vehicle & pedestrian safety.

Ability for everyone to access the park & river,

2. ACCESS catering for a range of needs & uses.

Shared pathways & internal roads, linking to other

3. CONNECTIONS destinations & residential areas.

Users desire new/upgraded facilities that cater for a

4. AMENITIES range of uses.

Community facility, everyone welcome to enjoy but

5. MAINTENANCE needs regular maintenance, bins & fencing.

Encourage activities & events in the popular

6. EVENTS community facility.

Improve the natural environment, riverbank &

7. ENVIRONMENT local ecology.

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.

Stakeholders said they use the space for:

Walking Running, boot camps &
Swimming exercise
Dog walking and swimming Enjoying the riverbank
Watching fireworks Watching birds and wildlife
Fun and activities with children Fishing
Picnics Stand up paddle boarding
Kayaking Jumping off the bridge

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
No toilet facilities - showers
and toilets
Access - entry, internal roads
and parking are inadequate
In need of maintenance & weed
control
Needs activities & events
Limited access on the Levee
side forces everyone to Lorn
Water safety - shallow
swimming area
Stability of riverbank & erosion
Lack of area to launch kayaks
Off-leash area in need of
improvement
Safety is a major concern -
speeding vehicles & hoons
Lack of bins
Neglected for years
Needs separate vehicle &
pedestrian access
Flooding & damage not fixed
Disconnected from city-centre
Lack of parking
Bad behaviour of people
Not all-ability accessible.

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
Improved vehicle access
Restrict vehicle access past the
site
Separated vehicle & pedestrian
access
Shared pathways & connections
Pedestrian bridge to the city
Designated carpark area
Toilets, showers, parking,
launch/jetty
Landscaping, weed control
& native plants should be
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
Morpeth to Maitland regatta
Landscape improvements, weed
control & clearing
Speed calming list speed
humps or mirrors
Natural barriers to restrict car
movements around the site
Signage for rules in off-leash
area
Gravel to provide river access
for canoes
Solar lighting to improve safety
Separate cars from dog walking
area.

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

Use of the Lorn Riverbank park

Respondents where asked how often they used the park, with only two people indicating
they use the park daily and nearly twenty-three per cent said they have never used the
park.
Table: How often do you currently use the park at Lorn

Answer Choices Responses Percentage

Daily 2 2.53%
Weekly 16 20.25%
Monthly 10 12.66%
Few times per year 33 41.77%
Never 18 22.78%

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.

Maitland desperately needs off road shared cycle and pathways

like other council areas. This would be a good location for some of
the lengths of shared pathway. Then you see families spending time
together in healthy activity just like in other council areas.

Stakeholders said changes that would most improve the park:

Bins & bags for dog walkers
Picnic & BBQ facilities
Better & safer road access
Parking & access to beach
Toilets/amenities building
Shade trees & seating close to
beach
Revegetation that does not
jeopardise the integrity of
the levee including plants
indigenous to the area
Walking & cycle paths
Fenced play equipment
Dedicated safe area to launch
kayaks & canoes
Access to drinking water
Retaining wall with steps to
river
Dredge the river to allow boat
access
Maintained separate dog area
Family friendly park
Dog-friendly cafe
Safe & clean area for
swimming.

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:

Recreational facilities like kayak Swings near the bridge

& paddle board hire BBQs and picnic grounds
Easily accessible area for Cafs along the riverbank
swimming & kayaking Plant native trees & shrubs to
Riverside pathway attract native birds
More shaded seating & picnic Fenced area for swimming on
areas the river
Car access to water Ferry service between Lorn,
Floating dock or pontoon Morpeth and Newcastle.

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.

1. Safety - Ensure the facility is safe for all users

AIM: To improve safety for all users, pedestrians & vehicles

Consideration should be given to:

Include measures that improve safety for all users, pedestrians and vehicles in the Plan
of Management, Masterplan and staging plan for the Lorn Riverside park
Seek to implement a range of safety measures including in the short to medium term:
Traffic calming devices
Mirrors
Implement a regular maintenance regime removing weeds and long grass for better
visibility.

2. Access - Catering for a range of needs and uses

AIM: To improve access to the park & the river, for a range of activities,
pedestrians & vehicles

Consideration should be given to:

Separated access for pedestrians and vehicles
Pathways to the facility for safe access for pedestrians and cyclists
Disability access to cater for people with mobility issues and for families with prams
Pathways that extend to the river for safe, easy access
Stabilisation of the beach area to provide improved access to the river
Drop off area for non-motorised craft.

Image: Participants at the Lorn workshop

29 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 3. Connections - provide pathways & links
Provide shared pathways and internal roads, linked to other destinations
AIM:
and residential areas.

Consideration should be given to:

Shared pathways that cater for a range of users including pedestrians, cyclists, families
with prams and is disability accessible (universal access/DDA compliant)
Connections to Maitland and the Levee to capitalise on the large open spaces and
provide access to businesses
Separated access for pedestrians and vehicles
Two-way access over the levee to the site
Better pathway access to the riverbank
New pathways could form part of the Heritage Walk
Bridge connection to Maitland from the site.

4. Amenities & infrastructure - Upgrades to the park

To improve and upgrade the park with facilities that cater for a range of
AIM:
user groups.

Consideration should be given to:

Provision of accessible toilet and shower facilities
Creation of a safe, accessible playground area for children to enjoy
Provision of adequate lighting
Designated car parking area with provision for non-motorised boats
Areas for exercising (fitness stations/track)
Swimming platform or pontoon
Bank stabilisation and extension of the beach area
Fencing and barriers to control vehicle access and movements
Upgrade and fencing of off-leash dog area
Drop-off area to riverbank for kayaks/canoes and pathway ramp to the beach
Shelters, seating and BBQ/picnic facilities
Flooding of area and potential impacts to infrastructure to be considered.

5. Maintenance - cleaning and maintaining the park

Encourage ongoing use of the park through regular maintenance and up
AIM:
keep of the facility.

Consideration should be given to:

Provision of bins and dog waste bins with regular collections
Provision of educational signs reminding people to clean up after themselves and
their animals
Regular mowing and weeding to ensure the site can be used for a range of activities
and events
Regular maintenance to help keep snakes and other vermin away from area
Clearing near entry to the site to provide better visibility when entering the site
Develop a maintenance plan associated with the Plan of Management and Masterplan.

30 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 6. Activities & events - Activating the space

To develop a plan that encourages activities and events in the popular

AIM:
community facility

Consideration should be given to:

Developing a strategy to encourage events and activities to increase user demand for
the facility
Events and activities that make use of the water and the large open space. Events
could include; Sailabilty events (sailing for the disabled), seniors activities outdoor
cinemas, fishing competitions, markets, regattas
Community garden.

7. Environment - Attractive location to enjoy the natural

environment

AIM: To improve the natural environment, riverbank and local ecology.

Consideration should be given to:

Enhance the space by planting native trees and shrubs local to the area that are
suitable in the riverside location
Capitalise on the beauty of the site by developing a landscape plan
Increase riverbank stability while providing safe access
Regular flooding events and impacts to the natural environment and infrastructure
Shade trees near seating, picnic and BBQ areas
Improve the health of the Hunter River
Community garden.

Image: Participants at the Lorn workshop

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

Image: Advertising for online engagement activities, encouraging people to provide

feedback about the Lorn site.

35 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Appendix 3: MCC Momentum - Summer
Edition 2015/2016

36 www.maraconsulting.com.au
 Appendix 4: MCC Media Release

Friday, 26 February 2016

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

MEDIA CONTACT for further information or to arrange an interview contact:

Tom Vasey 02 4931 2818 | 0407 029 723 | tom.vasey@maitland.nsw.gov.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.

Come along to a community

workshop to have your say
LORN WORKSHOP MORPETH WORKSHOP
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH THURSDAY 3 MARCH
LORN PARK BOWLING CLUB ST JAMES PARISH HALL
MELROSE ST LORN 19 TANK STREET MORPETH
6.00pm 7.30pm 6.00pm 7.30pm

Register your interest with Amanda McMahon on 02 4939 1011

or email Amanda.mcmahon@maitland.nsw.gov.au

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

Make a difference - Mara Consulting

PO Box 100
Stockton NSW 2295

mara@maraconsulting.com.au

maraconsulting.com.au Connect with us

0425 715 536 0458 233 001

www.maraconsulting.com.au
 27 JUNE 2017

Officers Reports

EXHIBITION OF DRAFT PLAN OF

MANAGEMENT AND MASTERPLAN
FOR QUEENS WHARF MORPETH
AND LORN RIVERBANK

Appendix C - Traffic Engineering

Assessment Lorn Riverbank (under
separate cover)

Meeting Date: 27 June 2017

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,

Re: Plan of Management and Masterplan The Esplanade, Lorn NSW

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

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.

2) Purpose and Scope of Traffic Assessment

The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement is to document the existing conditions at the subject site, the features of the
development proposal, and any traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that may be required for successful
operation of the river access facilities. Specifically the work has included:
a. Site Investigations, including a safety and traffic review of existing conditions.
b. Review of available existing documentation relating to traffic movement and parking in the
area, including any recent traffic movement and parking surveys
c. Collection of current data on traffic and parking in the immediate vicinity of both sites.
d. Calculation and analysis of projected traffic and parking demands, and recommendations on
capacity of traffic and parking facilities to be considered for each site
e. Assessment of the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development, including
recommendations for any measures required to address any capacity or environmental impacts
that may occur.
 29 April 2016

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.

Figure 1 Site Location and Lorn Locality

Map Source: UBD City Streets Version 5 (Newcastle)

Site plans for the proposed plan of management are included as Attachment A to this Report.

4) The Lorn Riverbank The Study Area

The subject site known as The Lorn Riverbank is a high profile open space area located between Lorn and the Hunter
River and opposite the commercial area of Central Maitland. The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production, and is irregular in
shape, and has an area of around 9.5Ha. Maitland City Councils utilises the site for two annual community events, New
Years Eve celebrations and the River Lights Multicultural Festival. The site provides the location for a fireworks display on
New Years Eve and access to the river for the launching of vessels and the paper lantern flotilla during the River lights
Festival.

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 2

 29 April 2016

The focussed Study Area for the subject site is illustrated below.

Figure 2 Lorn Riverbank Study Area

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 3

 29 April 2016

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 4

 29 April 2016

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.

The sealed pavement width is approximately 7 metres wide.

Photo Plate 3 The Esplanade

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 5

 29 April 2016

Photo Plate 5 The Avenue looking west toward Belmore Road

Photo Plate 6 The Avenue looking east from Belmore Road

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 6

 29 April 2016

Photo Plate 7 The Esplanade and The Avenue (far right), looking west from the top of the Hunter River levy bank

Photo Plate 8 Lorn Street looking east from Belmore Road

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 7

 29 April 2016

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 8

 29 April 2016

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.

7) Existing Traffic Flows and Capacity Issues

The Level of Service criteria for urban road conditions is defined in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development
and is reproduced overleaf for reference as Table 1. The observed traffic flows and lane configurations confirm the
existing service levels summarised in Table 2.

Table 1 Urban road peak hour flows per direction

Level of Service One lane (vehicles / hour) Two lanes (vehicles per
hour)
A 200 900
B 380 1400
C 600 1800
D 900 2200
E 1400 2800
Source: Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, RTA October 2002

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 9

 29 April 2016

Table 2 Observed flow levels and level of service

Road AM AM PM Observed PM
Observed LoS Volume LoS
Volume
Location vph vph
Belmore Rd EB E of Lorn Street 299 B 630 D
Belmore Rd WB E of Lorn Street 770 D 465 C
Lorn StS NB S of Belmore Rd 42 A 31 A
Lorn St SB S of Belmore Rd 56 A 78 A
Brisbane St NB N of Belmore Rd 31 A 42 A
Brisbane St SB N of Belmore Rd 37 A 27 A
The Avenue NB S of Belmore Rd <10 A <10 A
The Avenue SB S of Belmore Rd 46 A 30 A
Belmore Rd EB E of The Avenue 309 B 586 C
Belmore Rd WB E of The Avenue 781 D 424 C
Notes: 1. LoS Level of Service

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.)

8) Review of Traffic Generation Rates

The Esplanade Plan of Management is understood to encompass a range of recreational facilities that will include some level
of boating access to the Hunter River. Given the nature of the river at this location it is not planned to include a boat ramp
facility, but rather river beach access where it will be possible to launch a variety of non-motorised craft such as dinghies,
kayak, skis etc.
As such the traffic generation and parking elements of the facility are expected to be more akin to a riverside recreational
park, with some allowance for parking of vehicles that will be used to transport boat craft. It is expected that the vast majority
of these craft will be roof mounted, not trailer mounted. Based on this it has been assumed that a more standard parking
facility is warranted, possibly with some additional accessible spaces where the additional width will aid in loading and
unloading boat craft from vehicle rooves.

9) Recreational Parking Requirements

Off-street car parking must be provided to accommodate peak demand periods at the facility. Analysis ideally should be based
on a predicted 85th percentile usage. In the case of large recreation developments, development applications must be
supported by a traffic impact statement which incorporates a survey of similar developments.
Research by the RTA has failed to find a conclusive relationship between parking demand and the size and nature of the
recreation facilities, indicating that the number of parking spaces required is best determined by the nature of the proposed
development. Comparisons may be drawn from surveys conducted by the RTA on particular recreation facilities and other
similar facilities.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 10

 29 April 2016

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.

Table 3 - Characteristics of regional and local boat ramp facilities

Source: (RMS September 2015)

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.

11) Assessment of Boat Ramp Parking Facilities

It is important to provide an adequate number of car and trailer spaces to meet the expected demand of a normal weekend
usage period during the boating season. Provision for overflow parking at peak times may also be desirable. Car and trailer
parking is influenced by:
number of boat ramp lanes required
available parking area; and,
demand for parking based on present usage and proximity of alternative boat ramps.
An initial assessment and general recommendation (based on previous guidelines and RMS experience) is that 25 to 30 spaces
should be provided per boat ramp lane. This is also influenced by the level of usage. For example in high use areas, and in
combination with associated support facilities, additional car and trailer parking may be considered.
The RMS Guidelines suggest the following parking levels.
Table 3 Intersection volumes below which capacity analysis is unnecessary
Number of car and trailer spaces per boat ramp lane
Area Ramp Only With boat holding With separate rigging and
structures de-rigging areas
Urban 30-40 40-50 50-60
Rural 20-30 30-40 40-50
Source: NSW Boat Ramp Facilities Guidelines, NSW RMS, September 2015

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 11

 29 April 2016

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

12) Assessment of Existing + Proposed Development Traffic Flows

The existing two way flows on The Avenue and Lorn Street south of Belmore Road are well within the environmental capacity
limits of local streets, and the expected traffic flows will not change this.
Even if the full car park allocation of 50 vehicles were to experience a 100% turnover in the peak hour of road operations,
the flows would still be less than 100 vph, and less than the environmental capacity limits.
Table 3 drawn from the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis provides advice on
intersection operation where traffic flows are relatively low and capacity analysis is unnecessary. Where these limits are not
met, traffic effectively operates under free flow conditions. From the perspective of intersection capacity at the subject site
access intersection the existing plus development flows are well below the threshold limits for free flow conditions as defined
in the Austroads Guidelines. Thus further consideration of the intersection performance is unnecessary.
Table 3 Intersection volumes below which capacity analysis is unnecessary

Source: Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 Traffic Studies and Analysis

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 12

 29 April 2016

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.)

13) Belmore Road / The Avenue Intersection

Taking the existing traffic conditions into account, and allowing for the conservative 50 adjacent trips to the foreshore at
peak times flows along The Avenue would still be well less than 100 vehicles per hour typically only 50-60 vehicles at the
most.
The Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2009)
provides guidance on the warrants for various auxiliary lane treatments at intersections. Figure 2 below
illustrates the principles for a design speed of less than 100 kph. The posted speed limit on Belmore Road in the
vicinity of The Avenue intersection is 50 kph. The Avenue is a local street posted also at a 50 kph limit. The
warrants relate turn treatments to a combination of major road traffic volume and turning volumes.

Figure 2 Warrants for turn treatments on major roads at unsignalised intersections

(Design Speed < 100kph)
Source: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2009)

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 13

 29 April 2016

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)

Review of Road cross section requirements

Site observations on The Avenue at Belmore Road confirmed the following:
1) The existing speed limit is the standard urban 50 kph limit. This has been assumed as the design speed in
subsequent traffic engineering and road design analysis
2) The existing pavement seal width is approx. 10 metres
3) Kerb and gutter drainage along its full length
4) The junction of The Avenue with The Esplanade and Bowden Street is low volume. Priority should be given to
the Avenue Traffic flows to and from the Lorn Riverbank
5) Observed traffic flows operated well within the Austroads LoS A range.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 14

 29 April 2016

Photo Plate 11 Access to the Esplanade from Belmore Road at The Avenue

The Esplanade Access Road

Austroads road design standards have been reviewed in considering the access to the Esplanade from The Avenue / The
Esplanade are the Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design (Austroads 2009).
The Austroads 2009 Guide to Road Design and Guide to Traffic Management 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. It provides a consistent source of design information where there is still a great deal of variability in road
design standards from one LGA to another.
The critical information relates to road functional classification, forecast traffic volumes and geometric design standard.
For The Esplanade access its classification and standard matches the following characteristics:
1) Within the recreational reserve is character is more suitable to rural road formations
2) It essentially performs as a local access place, and is effectively a dead end road.
3) Forecast traffic volumes in the order of < 100 vph at peaks
4) A 10 kph shared zone design speed limit would be appropriate
Based on this information and considering the Austroads Guide specifications for both urban and rural settings, The
Esplanade road access 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 carriageway width of 8 metres minimum be adopted over the Hunter River levy bank. This would allow for 2 x 3
metre travel lanes and 1.0 m sealed shoulders as an absolute minimum width for a cycle lane. . (3.0 to 3.3 metre
lanes are allowable for urban conditions under the Austroads guidelines.)
1.0 metre is considered an acceptable minimum sealed shoulder width where the likelihood of low traffic volumes
.and the possibility of cycling activity.

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.

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 15

 29 April 2016

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

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 16

 29 April 2016

Attachment A Sample Parking Modules

Source: AS/NZS 2890.1 2004 Parking Facilities Off Street Parking

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 17

 29 April 2016

Attachment B Traffic Survey Summary

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 18

 29 April 2016

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 19

 29 April 2016

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 20

 29 April 2016

Confidential Mark Waugh Pty Ltd trading as Better Transport Futures

BTF201652 MCC The Esplanade Lorn TIS Rev02.docx Page 21