Opinion Piece Newcastle Herald 26 February 2026

Newcastle has spoken — and it doesn’t want a licensed Ocean Baths

270 submissions were received addressing the Development Application lodged by council for Stage 2 of the Newcastle Ocean Baths. Approximately 94 per cent objected.

The detail behind these numbers matters. Around three-quarters explicitly raised concerns about alcohol or licensed hospitality. Heritage mattered deeply — but so did alcohol. For many in our community, the introduction of a large, licensed venue into the Ocean Baths was the moment this stopped being a restoration. It became something else. Now it is not just about fixing amenities. It is about changing the purpose of a much loved place.

The Baths were listed on the NSW State Heritage Register in March 2025. That listing recognises not only the physical fabric - the pavilion, façade and ocean pool - but the living heritage of an open civic bathing place. A place of salt, sand and sky where swimmers of all ages share space without ticketing or velvet ropes.

I swim there year round. I see the same people most mornings. We greet each other. We look out for each other’s belongings. We share weather reports and life updates. It is informal, egalitarian and open. You can be 17 or 87 and feel equally at home. That is not accidental. It is built into the design.

The open air changerooms are not a quirk. They are part of a century old bathing culture built around ventilation, visibility and passive supervision. Parents can see children. Swimmers can see their bags. Light and sea air move freely through the space. You cannot preserve an open air bathing culture by putting it inside corridors.

What makes this harder to accept is that Heritage NSW itself raised this early in the process. At a pre lodgement meeting last August, heritage officers noted the Baths’ open pavilion character and warned that roofing over the changerooms would alter light, materiality and experience. They recommended reconsidering open, light‑filled spaces. Options to retain open changerooms were acknowledged, then discounted by Council’s project team on “privacy and safety” grounds.

Yet among the submissions are architects, health professionals and a NSW Police Detective who state the opposite: that open, visible spaces improve passive supervision, reduce antisocial behaviour and support hygiene and that privacy can be achieved through good design, not enclosure. Despite this, the proposal encloses changerooms, introduces internal corridors, and allocates much of the southern pavilion to a licensed café, function room and rooftop terrace. We are told this will “revitalise” the Baths.

But Newcastle does not lack licensed venues. What we do lack is another free, open, civic bathing place outside the logic of the night time economy. Many submissions made this clear. People support restoration, accessibility upgrades and better amenities. They do not support turning the Baths into a hospitality precinct.

As one community member wrote: “I don’t go to the Baths to drink. I go to swim. Please don’t take that away.” Even among submissions marked “support”, many called for limits on alcohol, retention of open-air elements and swimmer first priority, effectively supporting a different scheme to the one lodged.

Then there is the cost.

The DA lists an estimated price just under $40 million before tenders are called. Much of this cost is driven by the scale of commercial redevelopment: enclosed changerooms, internal corridors, rooftop terraces and hospitality infrastructure. If heritage were genuinely respected, retaining open changerooms and restoring rather than reinventing, the project would logically be simpler and cheaper. Newcastle ratepayers are tired of extravagant projects, especially when they come at the expense of deeply valued public places.

We are being asked to accept the costly transformation of a heritage listed bathing place to introduce a licensed venue that a clear majority of respondents have rejected, and that will compete with nearby businesses. That is not a modest refurbishment. It is a significant and irreversible shift.

This debate is not about resisting change. It is about respecting heritage and community. The Baths need maintenance and careful upgrading. But scale and direction matter.

When almost three quarters raise alcohol concerns, when 94 per cent object, and when the price tag approaches $40 million before tenders, it is reasonable to ask whether the community’s voice is being heard. The Ocean Baths are not just another development site. They are a shared civic space shaped by generations of Novocastrians. Their value lies not only in brick and concrete, but in routine, ritual and openness.

I do not go to the Ocean Baths to participate in a night time economy. I go to swim.

And judging by the submissions, I am far from alone.

Peter Wickham

President

FONOB Inc.