DEAR News Of The Area,

I TAKE this opportunity to correct the broad agenda-driven statements made by Janet Cohen in her letter to the editor, 2 August, regarding the management of the Camden Head Pilot Station.

Firstly, the inference that when Camden Haven Community College (CHACE) was allotted the management rights to the facility the broader community had equitable access is not what took place.

Newsletters from the initial years of the ‘acquisition’ of the Management Rights of the Pilot Station show a very small group of vested interests/people were making all the decisions, and focussed immediately on removing the significance of the maritime heritage from the facility.

The actual history of the ‘acquisition’ has been documented in an email to the Camden Haven CCAT dated 17 December 2021 by a former Executive Member of the Camden Haven Marine Sciences Association, the organisation that held the management rights previously.

Just because the word “community” is in the CHACE name does not mean broad community involvement or consultation took place.

Secondly, the claim that the management of the Pilot Station was consistent with the Burra Charter principles is another statement open to challenge.

The main Burra Charter principles are replicated in the PMHC Local Environment Plan (LEP) (2011).

Particular attention should be paid to clause 1b): ‘To conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views’.

It is visually obvious at the Headland today that this conservation did not occur over the past 24 years and I am surprised that the community cultural development advisor for PMHC at the time did not correct the ‘vision’ or ‘approach’ that the CHACE were pursuing, rather than ensure the fostering of maritime heritage.

The Camden Head Pilot Station is included in the LEP Maps.

The guidelines outlined in the Burra Charter (and other guidelines for that matter) form the basis of best practice management and are crucial for compliance tracking purposes with the associated legislation.

Thirdly, the statement referring to the vegetation being a result of ‘natural recruitment and succession’ of plants in the area behind the Pilot House, and bounded by Camden Head Road, is also not an accurate reflection of what occurred.

A number of personnel in the community have stated that they planted trees and scattered seeds within this area over the past 24 years with the intention of making the area ‘littoral rainforest’.

The area is not naturally ‘littoral rainforest’.

It is evident that these ‘operatives’ were not only working outside of the Pilot Station’s allotment, but were also working to their own agenda, completely ignoring the recommendations of the Pilot Station Vegetation Management Plan (Terry Rolls, 2000).

Finally, the statement regarding accessing bar and river mouth safety from the web page shows a complete non-appreciation of the purpose and intent of the heritage listed Pilot Station; that being as a facility for maritime safety.

Safety verified by physical observation.

One would also suggest that the Pilot Station should be the new home of the Camden Haven Marine Rescue organisation so that they may continue the proud and important Pilot Station Marine Safety history associated with the Pilot Station, and where they may also get a better ‘view’ of the bar and river mouth so they may more accurately report on conditions on the web page!

Regards,
Greg OSBORNE,
Camden Head