Rosehill inquiry stalls as replacement racecourse proposal is ruled out due to planning controls
The idea to relocate Rosehill race track to the eco-sensitive Sydney Olympic Park would not be possible under current legislation and planning controls, the NSW Parliament inquiry into the proposed sale and development of Rosehill was told on Thursday.
One the third and final day of the inquiry by the NSW Upper House Select Committee into the proposed sale and development of Rosehill, Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) chief executive Carla Armanet crushed hopes of potentially relocating the protected species including bell frog colonies, which inhabit in the wetlands of the sunken brick pit.
Armaret said that the brick pit is zoned to protect, manage, and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values under the SOPA Act and said that studies have shown the green and golden bell frog does not ‘easily relocate’.
“At the moment, under the current planning controls, a racetrack would be prohibited,” she said. “Permissible uses include environmental facilities, environmental protection work and filming. All other uses are prohibited.
“A key consideration for the brick pit is the habitat for the green and golden bell frog … as such only minor development may be undertaken within the space.”
“The work that’s been undertaken over the last 24-odd years at Sydney Olympic Park with the green and golden bell frog is that it’s a habitat that doesn’t easily relocate,” she said.
“I don’t have full details of all studies that have been undertaken to date, but the survival rate is not high.”
Armaret also confirmed that green and golden bell frog as a threatened species under Commonwealth and State legislation, despite Australian Turf Club (ATC) chairman Peter McGauran stating that its endangered status had been changed.
“Not so – it’s a high-risk, very small population and we’re one of the biggest populations in NSW,” she said.
While Armanet would not directly confirm whether SOPA would object to the construction of a racecourse at the brick pit, she said the zoning constraints would make things “challenging”
Armanet also confirmed that she had first heard about the brick pit and its inclusion in the ATC’s unsolicited proposal via a media report in mid-March – three months after premier Chris Minns announced a proposed $5 billion redevelopment of Rosehill for housing.
She also said the department had yet to be consulted on the suitability of the site and whether the government could circumvent ecological concerns by building a racecourse on the nearby cliff tops.
The plan to redevelop the Rosehill racecourse into a 25,000 home mini city hinges on the development of a new racecourse in metropolitan Sydney, with Sydney Olympic Park’s historic brick pit recommended as a potential option.
Horsley Park is another site that is being mooted as a potential location for a new Sydney track and unlike Armanet, Karen Jones, CEO, Office Of Sport, for Sydney International Equestrian Centre said that ATC representatives visited the site as recently as last week, which she said was their second inspection, having had their first in February.
However, Jones told the hearing that no document or specific proposal had been provided to her office for an internal review of the ATC plans.
“In the absence of final scope and accompanying plans submitted by the ATC to the Office of Sport for consideration, it would be misleading and premature for me to provide a definitive answer to questions as to whether the proposed centre of excellence and/or racehorse training facility would fit on the site,” she said.
Jones said she was unaware of the ATC’s plans which include 700 stables, a 1200-metre uphill galloping track, a 2400-metre training track and administration buildings.
“I would put [those plans] outlined as their aspirations because we have not yet seen a plan,” she said. “I think there is a process being followed and that’s the unsolicited proposal process,” she said.
“I’m very comfortable that during that process, the Office of Sport will be engaged at the appropriate time for us to then provide our advice and feedback around what a development on the Sydney International Equestrian Centre site would look like.”
Dr. Saranne Cooke, chair of Racing NSW, was the last person to front the enquiry on Thursday, and she told the committee that it was a “prerequisite” for the board that a Class 1 racetrack be built in another Sydney location.
However, Cooke revealed the idea to upgrade Warwick Farm looked ‘unlikely’ in this early stage.
“We don’t know if Horsley Park will be suitable because due diligence is still being undertaken. The work is not completed yet, but it is looking less likely for Warwick Farm,” said Cooke.
“We are yet to do the work [on Warwick Farm] but it sounds like it’s going to be expensive and again we don’t make decisions without facts and information by the right experts and we will do that. But the early indication is that it will be very expensive.”
During her 30 minutes fronting the inquiry, Cooke also threw her unwavering support behind Peter V’Landys describing him as “the best person in place at this point in time to be our CEO”.
It was the first time Cooke, who became the first woman appointed Racing NSW chair, replacing the long-serving Russell Balding in February, had spoken publicly about the Rosehill issue, and some of the questions raised during the two previous hearings surrounding V’Landys and his running of Racing NSW during his 20-year reign.
In her opening statement Cooke wasted no time to back V’Landys and was critical of how he had been painted by some industry participants throughout the inquiry.
“The CEO himself is an exceptional leader and has been titled the foremost sporting administrator in the country and often said the most important role of the board is who they appoint as their CEO,” she said.
“It would be remiss of me as chair if I did not call out the treatment of our CEO in this inquiry when unsubstantiated accusations were made against him – this was clearly made with the intention to discredit and harm and this is not ok.
“We all agree that people should assist this committee to engage, examine and inform the enquiry into the proposal to develop Rosehill racecourse within the terms of reference, but no reasonable person would agree it is appropriate to treat someone unfairly in that manner without any procedural fairness.
“I also note that I, along with my fellow board members, have been approached by many people, both inside and outside the industry, who have expressed their disappointment at how this inquiry has at times deviated well-outside its originally agreed scope in an attempt to harm the industry as a whole.”
Regarding the proposed sale and development of Rosehill, Cooke continued: “In the Rosehill proposal the role of Racing NSW as regulator and commercial operator is to ensure, in line with our statutory duties, that the full transaction and project is in the best interest of the horseracing industry as a whole in NSW.
“Such a transaction would require a variation in the intracode agreement and given the ATC is currently required under this agreement to conduct races at Rosehill this transaction can only be done with our approval.
“It should be stated that development of Rosehill and necessary construction of an alternative track is extremely complex. If the proposal is successful it would be a once in a lifetime transaction that would set the industry up for the next 50 years.
“At this point in time however, we do not have all the necessary facts and information to make that determination and hence our undertaking a comprehensive due diligence process. Our board will not be in a position to deliberate or make a decision until such time that this has been completed.”
During the first session of the hearing in July, Gai Waterhouse had called for a change in leadership at Racing NSW, a call Cooke rejected on Thursday.
“First of all, that’s the role of the board [to appoint the CEO]. So, as I said before, one of the most important decisions that a board can make is who is their CEO. And in my experience, on almost 20 boards, it’s one that you do not take lightly,” Cooke said.
“You look at all sorts of things like: where is the industry up to? What are the competitors doing? What is the competitive landscape? What problems do we need to solve, tackle and achieve in the next three years? And then you look at the skillset of the person.
“I disagree wholeheartedly. We go through that consideration on an annual basis, in closed session, and have those discussions, and I know the whole board agrees with me that we have the best person in place at this point in time to be our CEO.”
When asked when she became aware of the ATC’s unsolicited proposal to sell Rosehill, Cooke said she had been told the full plan on November 21.
“On November 20 last year, the day before our board meeting, I had a phone call from our then chair Russell Balding and he said to me that we would be made privy to some very highly confidential information at the board meeting the next day and would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement before we were made aware of that information,” she said.
“We were made aware that the ATC were putting in an unsolicited proposal of the full sale of Rosehill to the government. There had been a briefing on November 17, which I wasn’t at. We were briefed that it was just a discussion on the 17th.
“It was pitched as an unsolicited proposal for the sale of Rosehill to the government. In that meeting we discussed the merits [of the sale] and we did say that it would absolutely need an alternative track, so that was going to be a prerequisite.
“We supported the unsolicited proposal to go in because we felt that if it does all stack up, and we don’t know if it will, then it could potentially set the industry up for the next 50 years.
“We also discussed the fact that this is a very complex transaction and it would need to be appropriately governed and we need the right skills in place, and not only the ATC to handle such a transaction, but we would have some work to do in our role as regulator as part of our own decision.”
Earlier on Thursday, senior bureaucrats denied the evaluation process was anything out of the ordinary after the committee raised questions over the speed of progress.
Following a meeting between Minns and the ATC’s head of corporate affairs and government relations Steve McMahon on October 30 last year, it took just four days to progress the idea to a four-option strategy.
Department chiefs were questioned over the fast turnaround of the proposed project, which was officially announced to major fanfare in December last year.
The ATC then officially submitted their unsolicited proposal on March 28 this year.
Premier’s department secretary Simon Draper said the ATC would have been aware that the government was pursuing locations for other metro stations and extra housing when they first flagged the proposal.
“I don’t think there’s any great conspiracy or surprise about that. It was a well publicised, worst kept secret,” he told the committee.
“The government was trying to find additional station locations and build housing around those stations.”
However, Independent MP Mark Latham questioned whether there were issues with the “speed with which the cabinet office was moving on, doing it too fast and maybe some corners were being cut?”
In response, the Department of Enterprise, Investment and Trade (DEIT) director of commercial transactions Rowan Fisher disagreed.
“The unsolicited proposal process, as we’ve described before, is a very robust and structured process for government examining proposals from the private sector,” he said.
The DEIT executive director of commercial transactions Katie Knight said the unsolicited proposal process was robust.
Both Fisher and Knight confirmed they had not received any communication from the premier’s office in the time between Minns and McMahon meeting and the first meeting between the department and the ATC on November 8 on unsolicited proposal guidelines.
Knight also backed an unsolicited proposal process for its “really robust guidelines”.
“It has a very staged approach. It has a rigorous assessment and decision making, separating criteria, so I recommended it as the appropriate path,” she said.
With all three hearings concluded, the report into the findings of the inquiry have to be tabled before parliament no later than November 30.