The meeting, convened by FLAG: Residents Impacted by Harold Park (no relationship to the FLAG group affiliated with TGSI), attracted over 100 residents to discuss community concerns about the Harold Park (HP) development.

OVERVIEW OF THE MEETING

The meeting, convened by FLAG: Residents Impacted by Harold Park (no relationship to the FLAG group affiliated with TGSI), attracted over 100 residents to discuss community concerns about the Harold Park (HP) development. The meeting was ably chaired by our local state government member, Jamie Parker, who provided a brief history of the HP development including the roles of Council and the Central Sydney Planning Committee in the process. There were two main speakers – Andrew Rolfe on behalf of FLAG and myself as President speaking on behalf of the Society.   Andrew Rolfe’s contribution focused on encouraging attendees to sign the FLAG petition and to write individual submissions to CSPC members and relevant state government ministers.

Jamie Parker outlined his perspective in some detail and focused on arguments that further traffic studies were needed.  His view was that traffic studies to date looked at ‘traffic at the boundaries’ of the development and were inadequate. Jamie argued that a ‘traffic micro simulation study’ is essential and explained that Leichhardt Council was not in a position to cover the areas that would need to be included in such a study.    Jamie also expressed concern that with the sequence of building being scheduled over some 8 years it was quite possible that as time went on the developers would seek changes to the plans on economic grounds with consequent impacts on, for example, the commitment to the Tramsheds.  The matter of the use of the Tramsheds needs to be determined soon. 

Questions from the audience covered areas such as:

·         Clarification of the maximum and desirable heights of buildings

·         Who can or should carry out the micro-simulation of traffic

·         Concerns about water flow and potential for flooding on the site

·         Demographic impacts on, for example, child care and schools

·         Traffic impacts of Tramsheds and general inadequacy of existing road network

·         Social impacts of development including impact on the PCYC and Hockey Club activities

In summary, this was a successful meeting that allowed members of the community with concerns about the HP development to express their views on continuing concerns with the development as a whole. It also confirmed the Society’s main concerns about building heights and traffic impact reflect the concerns of the community more generally

TGSI PERSPECTIVE

The Society distributed a flyer with the fifteen ‘Planning Principles’ developed by the Society and approved at community meetings in 2010.  Against each Principle was a note to say which had been achieved in terms of inclusion in the Council’s ‘Planning Proposal’ that had been established before the purchase of the site by Mirvac. The Planning Proposal was essentially a statement of the parameters within which developers are expected to work.   

My speaking notes are provided below. 

Intro

Thanks to FLAG for the opportunity to speak on behalf of TGSI and contribute to community efforts to get the best possible outcomes from development at HP.  

I will briefly outline the actions taken to date by TGSI to ensure that any action flowing from this meeting builds on what has been achieved already – we are working to a common goal and need to pull in the same direction.

Background

TGSI has been working on this project since 2009 when Council opened up community consultations with view to establishing parameters for the development of the site.  TGSI also held its own community meetings notably two in 2010 that developed a set of 15 ‘Planning Principles’. These could also be described as ‘desirable features’ for any development on the site.  The Principles were sent to Council and clearly informed their work when Council was developing the framework within which developers were expected to work (the Planning Proposal).

We are pleased with many of the outcomes we achieved for the community through our lobbying and our 15 Planning Principles: In particular:

·         Success in decreasing the commercial area inside Harold Park by 50%

·         Achievement of 35% of space to be allocated as public space

·         An affordable housing component on the site

There are other areas covered by the Principles where the jury is still out that is we cannot yet make judgments as the matters are in progress.   But significantly there remain a number of major areas that do not comply with our Principles even though they meet the Council’s framework for developers.   We believe these need more work and are discussed below under Issues

The Current Situation

Mirvac bought the HP site in 2010 and we are now at the DA stage.   Mirvac has submitted  its Development Plans (DAs) to Council and the community’s comments and submissions on these Plans are now with Council and CSPC pending consideration of the Plans.  

Our submission acknowledged that Mirvac has broadly complied with the Council’s planning framework.  Nonetheless, we highlighted the areas where TGSI has residual concerns and is not yet satisfied as some of the key Principles we enunciated have not been dealt with in the Mirvac DAs.  We wrote to Council about these concerns in 14 October 2011 and now await the circulation of the papers being prepared by Council staff as guidance to the CSPC and Council for the decision making process.  These papers are expected in March or April.

In summary, Glebe Society actions are on hold for a month or so until we see the CSPC papers and can ask our Harold Park Working Party to consider these documents with a view to bringing recommendations to the Management Committee in relation to our next moves.  We expect that we will be making further submissions on the subject and attending CSPC meeting to represent the views of our members and the community more broadly.

The Issues

From the TGSI point of view these are many aspects of the development proposed by Mirvac that are not yet satisfactory. The main ones are:

·         Heights of building which we continue to believe should not be higher than the cliff face.  (Regardless of the number of storeys in the buildings it will be crucial to monitor the construction to ensure that the buildings do not exceed the specified height above sea level – we have learnt lessons from the way the heights of buildings on the Children’s Hospital site were increased long after the development was approved)

·         Lack of convincing data on the traffic impacts of the developments despite the high profile series of traffic studies implemented.  Aspects that concern TGSI  include

o   Overall volume of traffic that will be generated in the area by the number of residents on the site

o   Nature of the commercial enterprises on the site – the type of commercial activity relates directly to the amount of associated traffic

o   Amount of parking which although the DAs meet the Council standard the parking is not sufficient in our view

o   The construction of the new intersection on the Crescent opposite Minogue Crescent which should be brought forward to accommodate traffic associated with the building of Precincts 1 and 2. 

In addition, we are keen to see commitments by Council itself to timely attention to aspects of the development that are Council responsibility including design/construction of:

·         The affordable housing precinct

·         The playing fields

·         Access to the Light Rail station

·         Open spaces for community use

In conclusion, we believe that it will be crucial for the broad plans and intentions for the site as a whole, (not simply Precincts 1 and 2) to be discussed in the near future so that the community can understand what the final outcomes for the site will be at the end of the protracted construction period.  We need to get the Big Picture and not just a picture of the first stage of the work.

Click here to read the Glebe Society's flyer that was distributed at the meeting, an annotated version of the Glebe Society's "15 Principles" document from 2010.

Mairéad Browne

President, Glebe Society

TGSI members might also be interested in the views of another local community group. The Save Rozelle Bay Association' has special interest in this development because of its effects on Annandale, parkland and the foreshores. It has agreed to display its submission on our site. You will see that the submissions are complementary but with slight nuances in each that may suit your considerations and use.

• The height of 8 storeys is excessive and will limit significant views through the site.  A height limit of 6 storeys would be more appropriate for the site.
• Terrace house style apartments with front doors accessing the streets are a good means of creating/maintaining a sense of community.
• Affordable housing on the site is supported and perhaps could be developed with this proposal.

• The views from and to “Cliff Terraces” and other vantage points are of cultural significance. Stories of people who could not afford to pay the entry fee to Harold Park travelled by tram and stood along the iron palisade fence in front of the Cliff Terraces to watch the races.
• The views across the valley (into the site) are also significant to the community. These are apparent at the moment following major demolition on the site.
• The green corridor along The Crescent/Minogue Crescent is also of significance as this is part of our local environment and was planted by the local community.
• Interpretation of the site is important, including the reconstruction of the tramshed gardens and reinstatement of the war memorials. These should be a priority for the site.

• The accessibility of the proposed major Public Open Space/new parkland at the rear of the site needs improving especially for Forest Lodge and Annandale residents.
• The design and implementation for the major Public Open Space/new parkland at the rear of the site should be done in conjunction with the buildings as it is a major element in the design of the site.
• The continuity of the public open space, the green belt adjacent to Minogue Crescent to Wigram Road is important for habitat for small animals and birds and for them to move through the area. The introduction of unconnected pockets parks are not appropriate and would be perceived as private open space.
• The all weather sports field needs to be confirmed as part of the new parkland, this has been a long suffering issue for the community.

• The creation of pocket parks and the wide main roads within the site is a waste of space which could be better utilised for the reduction of the building heights.
• The main access point from the proposed Minogue Crescent intersection/pedestrian access should be developed with the Precincts 1 & 2 buildings.
• The access road across the parkland from Chapman Road should cease to be used as it is unsafe for all using the park and accessing it along this green corridor. It was introduced to be used only on 26 race nights per annum, not 24 hour usage. This road is one lane and is in the area which adjoins the cricket pitch, junior hockey field and skateboard ramp. It is currently being used by all demolition vehicles, which is impacting on Annandale residents.
• There is inadequate onsite parking which will lead to on-street parking in the surrounding areas.

The Glebe Society has sent its Submission to the City of Sydney in response to the Harold Park Master Plan as proposed by Mirvac.  Please note that the Closing Date for submissions to council closed on 28th September.  The Glebe Society's submission follows:

The Glebe Society

• aspects of the traffic management plan
• height and density issues
• configuration and access to the public open space
• timing of some aspects including some within Council’s responsibility

1. The Society continues to believe there should be a maximum of six storeys over underground parking. Those buildings designed to be at the maximum permitted eight storeys are still considered too high as they will rise above the top of the cliff.
2. The amount of parking, although it is at the maximum required by the City's parking code, is in the Society’s view, not enough for the number of people likely to occupy the site. One option open to Mirvac to exceed the City's parking requirements.
3. The new intersection proposed as the major access route for the site, on the Crescent opposite Minogue Crescent, is not scheduled to be installed until after the completion of the first two precincts. Because of the problems of access, especially the need to improve access for Forest Lodge, this development should be brought forward to coincide with their construction.
4. As soon as the site is prepared the City should proceed with the landscaping of the 3.8 ha of Open Space and the construction of the allotted affordable housing (which is closest to Ross Street).
5. The City should complete and implement the proposed management plan for the Hill (between Harold Park and Jubilee Park Station) and the proposed Open Space on the Crescent, North of the site.
6. The Society supports the proposal that Mirvac formally accept the offer of $10 m from the Lifetime Care and Support Authority toward the restoration of the Tramsheds and moves ahead with community consultations about this facility.

• An initial briefing meeting by Mirvac representatives for the Glebe Society Management Committee members has been scheduled for the week of September 5, 2011
• Following this Mirvac briefing, a decision will be made on the necessity for further meetings particularly with Members of the Society. Members will be notified if a meeting is being convened
• The Society will prepare a submission to Council with particular attention to the consistency between the approved design princples (such as building heights) and the plans detailed in the DAs

• The landscape should have primacy, building form should follow topography. The primacy of the existing character of houses following the plateaux tops should remain, and buildings in the valleys subservient and sitting below the landform – not up to the highest buildings and tree canopies.

• The proposed density of 1.2:1 should be achievable with much lower buildings than proposed – most of the terraced housing (net density) around the site is about 1:1. The heights appear to have been ramped up for other reasons; perhaps a hidden agenda.

• Playing with height at the edges is very inefficient and will not have much impact on visual bulk and it will result in horrible congested internal spaces – and poor internal amenity for a large number of dwellings. Irrespective of the planning controls any developer will resist these controls. Seeking to replicate the Glebe grid of streets through the site, fragments the capacity and it is a bit tokenistic – the site is set well below the street patterns on the plateaux and will not be particularly legible. Extension of the grid is a fairly standard and in this case a lazy urban design approach to the site.

• A perimeter block approach to the site with a more continuous but lower edge of building topping out at say 5 storeys so it sits below the escarpments and maintains the long views across the valleys between Annandale Forest Lodge and Glebe is a far better way to go. A four storey street edge with a step back of the top level, five total would produce much more congenial streets and much more marketable housing for the area. The lower level to both The Crescent and the lineal park on the northern side should be mostly non-residential and particularly an active edge to the open space including eateries etc.

• The parallel street from Ross Street should be abandoned – this street should wrap the park edge and accordingly increase the width of this space – otherwise it will be a canyon and much less attractive to use. Otherwise it invites a privatised park edge. The cars, bikes, and walkers should be follow this much more attractive edge, not a canyon within the housing.

• They pretend the bulk and height can be concealed within narrow streets but this development will be viewed across the valleys, from the plateaux and from long distances and will be horrible ziggurats – the sort of outcomes common in North Sydney where this approach has been used for 50 years and should not be emulated.

• I see no benefit cutting heights to the edges or particularly the south end, it just increases the height elsewhere and particularly to the park edge, to its detriment.

Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd have been commissioned by The Glebe Society to review the traffic, transport and parking implications of the proposed redevelopment of the Harold Park Raceway site located on The Crescent/Minogue Crescent/Wigram Road, Glebe. Two traffic reports prepared by Arup have been reviewed, with the Transport, Traffic and Access Study (Stage 2) dated May 2010 discussing a proposal with 1204 dwellings, 3850 sq m of commercial office space and 7211 sq m of retail space, and a second study dated 16 November 2010 dealing with an increased density of residential uses, taking the number of residential units from 1204 to 1251 dwellings.

The general methodology employed in the studies by Arup is sound, subject to the comments made below.

2.0 SITE ACCESS

The main residential area will have access directly off The Crescent/Minogue Crescent, plus a supplementary access off Wigram Road. The latter access would not be adequate as the only access for this residential area. The traffic impact assessment is premised on a new access intersection at The Crescent/Minogue Crescent/Site, controlled by traffic signals. This access and traffic signals will need to be approved by the Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA). There is a chance that the RTA might argue the site already has alternative access points via Wigram Road and Nelson Street and hence a new access off the major road network would not be desirable. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 recommends against access off a classified road “where practicable vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road”. The direct access to the Minogue Crescent/The Crescent intersection, with traffic signals providing safe access and egress would need to be an integral part of any development consent, whether as a deferred commencement consent condition, or a requirement for the access and signals to be approved b y the RTA prior to consent being granted . Access to/from the major road via only left turns would not be adequate.

The minor access off Wigram Road is desirable to better distribute traffic flows. However, one traffic implication of the development that has not been tested is the impact of additional development traffic on the intersection of Wigram Road and Glebe Point Road. Anecdotally, this intersection becomes busy in peak periods, with high pedestrian movements. Additional development traffic could adversely affect its operation. The possible improvement options have been reviewed in previous traffic studies of Glebe. While traffic signals could provide additional safety and road capacity, they would arguably be an inappropriate treatment at this location, with the adjoining neighbourhood shopping centre, where it would not be desirable to remove parking for a signal installation, and also where signals might be considered out of keeping with the character.

The access to the small residential section off Maxwell Road appears acceptable, on the traffic number in the report, subject to the parking rates and consequent trip generation rates being correct.

The access to the tramsheds is logical, however the road will cut across substantial pedestrian flows between the open space/recreational area. The proposal has a lack of details on exactly how the vehicle/pedestrian conflicts would be resolved. Grade separation of the two would clearly have benefits, particularly if the retail traffic generation is higher, as is considered likely.

3.0 PARKING PROVISION

Residential

Low parking rates are proposed, based on “Land Use and Transport Integration Index”. We are not aware of the application of these rates to a development of the nature proposed in Glebe. They are marginally lower than the RTA’s rates for “high density residential flat buildings”, in Sub-regional centres. Leichhardt DCP rates are also given. The respective rates are:

The RTA rates are for developments in sub-regional centres, with local employment, and good public transport. The Harold Park site will have some local employment. The rates are a lot lower than the Leichhardt DCP rates. The principal of restricting on-site parking to restrict peak period traffic generation is arguably not appropriate for residential developments, given the possible off-peak recreational travel demands. The implications of not providing adequate parking on the site would be on-street parking within the site and on adjoining streets. 

We have a significant concern about the simple use of the LUTI rates. A preferred approach would be to survey the current parking demand rates by unit size in the recently redeveloped hospital site on Pyrmont Bridge Road, Forest Lodge. While a first step would be to find out the parking spaces actually constructed on the site, the key issue is the demand, not the supply, so a survey of the car ownership levels of current occupants would be required.

The proposal makes no specific provision for residential Visitor parking. At the RTA rate of one space per five units, a total of 250 parking spaces would be required. The report argues that this parking demand can occur on-street within the site. There has been no analysis presented as to the actual on-street parking supply available.

Commercial

The parking rate of one space per 75 sq m of commercial/office/community space is a constrained rate, and less than the RTA rate of one space per 40 sq m GFA. If this is the actual demand, than the rate is appropriate, but if the rate is artificially low, to constrain peak hour traffic generation, the end result could well be that workers without parking simply park in the residential streets behind the tramsheds, in Victoria and Maxwell Roads. If this is the end result, parking restrictions might need to be introduced into these streets. 

Retail

The adopted retail rate of one space per 50 sq m GFA is substantially lower than the RTA base rate of 6.1 spaces per 100 sq m GLFA. The inherent question is the type of retail use. However the relatively large size, of 7211 sq m of retail space, could well act to become a sub-regional attraction. For example, factory outlet stores often cluster in certain areas. Birkenhead Point has several such stores. A better example could be the DFO (Direct Factory Outlet) complex in Homebush. In this site the building is a recycled supermarket warehouse, where small outlet stores are fitted out within. From surveys we have undertaken of this store, the rates of traffic generation and parking demand are high, and substantially higher than the proposed retail parking rate. If this type of retail use did develop, parking demands would overflow onto residential streets. The rate of parking provision also drives the traffic generation rates. If the parking rate is artificially low, and the parking overflow is not taken into account, the traffic generation projections will be too low.

It is not clear from the information that we have reviewed where the car parking for the tramsheds will be located, or the details of the internal road connections.

4.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION

The traffic generation estimates are based on the parking levels proposed. For example, for the retail use, the RTA generation rate of 16.3 veh/hr/100 sq m is factored down according to the level of parking proposed, to 5.0 veh/hr/100 sq m. However if parking overflows onto the adjacent streets, mainly residential, the added generation of this traffic is not accounted for. 

Based on the assumed parking rates meeting the actual demand, we estimate that the combined retail plus commercial traffic will be approximately 340 veh/hr in the weekday afternoon peak hour and 400 veh/hr in the Saturday morning peak hour.

5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT

The assessment of external traffic impacts is premised on the parking provided meeting the parking demands. For the retail and commercial uses proposed, we have a significant concern that the proposed parking supply will be inadequate, and hence the estimates of traffic generation are too low. This will have underestimated flows along Nelson Street and into the site, as well as additional traffic in the residential streets behind the site, in Victoria Road and Maxwell Road, as well as the feeder roads of Arcadia and Toxteth Roads.

With the access off Nelson Street, this traffic will be cutting across substantial pedestrian desire lines to the open space and recreational areas being provided on the site. We are not aware of the proposed detailed road treatments to cater for these conflicts. Further detailed design is required, to firstly describe what the consent is being sought for, and to show how vehicle/pedestrian conflicts will be resolved.

With the impact on intersections in the area, we note the impacts set out in Table 4 of the Arup report of 16 November 2010. The Johnston Street/The Crescent/Chapman Road intersection currently operates at a level of service of F in the weekday afternoon, and hence clearly does not have spare capacity for additional traffic. At City West Link/The Crescent, the current weekday afternoon level of service of C will worsen to D. There will be impacts at other intersections. In traffic terms, there does not appear to be sufficient justification to increase the residential floor-space ratio from 1.20 to 1.25:1, when there are significant adverse impacts even at 1.20:1. 

There has been no analysis of traffic conditions at Wigram Road/Glebe Point Road. This intersection will be affected by development traffic.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

1.     The parking levels proposed for the residential units appear low. Greater justification for the use of these rates is recommended, ideally based on surveys of a similar development, such as that on the redeveloped hospital site on Pyrmont Bridge Road, Forest Lodge. If inadequate parking is provided, there will be parking overflowing onto firstly the internal site roads, and then onto adjoining public streets. The use of the on-site roads for visitor parking has already been assumed, where the visitor parking demand based on RTA rates will be 250 cars (1251 units @ 0.2 spaces/unit).

2.       The parking levels proposed for the retail area appears too low. The large scale of this retail area could make the site of sub-regional attraction, for possible uses as direct factory outlet stores, attracting high levels of parking demand. There could be significant impacts on parking in the adjoining residential streets of Glebe, also generating traffic into these streets that has not been assessed. 

3.       A higher level of peak period traffic flows along the Nelson Street access to the tramshed site could result in a high level of conflict with pedestrian flows. Details of treatments to accommodate such conflicts are not provided.

4.       The traffic analysis assumes that the RTA will approve a traffic signal controlled access off The Crescent/Minogue Crescent. This access is critical to the development. RTA consent should either be granted for these works prior to the determination of the application or a deferred commencement consent condition applied, to ensure such an access is provided.

5.       Further traffic analysis is required, after parking rates have been reviewed and hence traffic generation estimates revised up.

The following is the text of resolution agreed by the public meeting on 7 December.  The links below will take you to background papers prepared to inform discussion at the meeting.

• Supporting arguments
  
• Traffic and parking
  
• Design principles
  

The Future of Harold Park and the Heritage Tramsheds

Resolution endorsed at a Public Meeting
Forest Lodge Public School  
6 30pm   7 December  2010

Media reports on 10 December indicated that the developer Mirvac has bought the Harold Park site from the Harness Racing Club. Click here to follow the link to the Sydney Morning Herald story.

1. DENSITY

2. HEIGHT AND LAYOUT

3. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL ACTIVITIES 

4. COMMUNITY SPACE WITHIN THE TRAMSHEDS

5. ACCESS TO LIGHT RAIL AND NORTHERN PARKLANDS

6. SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

7. BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

8. TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

9. ADEQUATE FUNDING

10. HERITAGE AND INTERPRETATION

Major community concerns have been ignored in the plans agreed by the Sydney City Council for the development of Harold Park:

•     the height of the buildings is excessive (up to 8 storeys);          
•     residential density (increased from the last version);
•     no restriction on the scale of commercial/retail activity; and
•     inadequate analysis of the local traffic impacts.

We must keep up the pressure for a better outcome on these matters.

It is also time to push Council on important related issues:

•     ensuring adequate funds are available for enhancement of the public open space;
•     a greater proportion of the Tramsheds building (1000m2) should be dedicated to community use; and
•     simultaneous remediation of adjoining open space (‘the hill’) between the Tramsheds and the light rail station for public access and use.

And it is time to re-open community discussion on the preferred uses for the restored Tramsheds.

We have had some big community wins in our Harold Park  campaign – 35% of site for consolidated public open space; 500m2 community space in the restored Tramsheds; land for 50 units of affordable housing.  Now is the time to address these outstanding issues.

For this reason the Glebe Society has organised a meeting at

Forest Lodge Public School
6 30 – 830 Tuesday 7 December

to discuss the proposals currently on public exhibition and develop a strong community response. If you cannot attend please email us your support or amendments to president@glebesociety.org.au. Tell the Councillors and our local member, Verity Firth, what you think  by the closing date 22 December.

Click here to read the planning principles for the future development of Harold Park developed by the Glebe Society through public meetings during 2010.

Planning Convenor Neil Macindoe reports that the Sydney City Council and the Harness Racing Club, which owns Harold Park Paceway, have reached agreement on the proposed rezoning of the site. Consequently the proposal will be forwarded to the Minister for Planning.  He will decide what to do next – probably place the zoning scheme approved by the City and the Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) earlier this year on public exhibition.

Click here to read the Lord Mayor's mayoral minute.

For information to the background on this issue see Neil's report to the AGM in Bulletin 8/2010 and previous Bulletins, or browse to Major Issues – Harold Park.

Unfortunately a family event in the UK prevented President Lesley Lynch from attending the Society's Annual General Meeting held at Benledi on 29 August, 2010.

To read her report on the past year, click here.

The Central Sydney Planning Committee and the Council of the City of Sydney have agreed to zoning proposals for Harold Park. The outcome, confirmed at a meeting of full Council on Monday, 26 July 2010, was not all that we would have wished for, but far more favourable than might have been the case if proposals put forward by the current owner, the NSW Harness Racing Club, had been accepted. The next move will by up to the Club which can accept the City's decision or ask the Minister for Planning to intervene on its behalf.

President Lesley Lynch and Planning Convenor, Neil Macindoe, write:

Last week we sent out calls to Glebe Society members and residents to show their support for the community position on the future of Harold Park at the Council Planning Committee and the Central Sydney Planning Committee(CSPC)  meetings. The response was terrific and neither gathering was in any doubt as to the community’s views or to the strength of feeling on the matter.

We had three formal Glebe Society speakers at both meetings (Lesley, Neil and John Gray) and numerous others spoke on an individual basis. The Club had two speakers. There was consistent support from residents for the overall Glebe Society position expressed through our community resolution and Harold Park principles document.

The Wins
The effort was worth it. While we have ongoing issues with the Council’s draft controls, they did incorporate many of our core principles and as such are a major win for the community. Most significantly, they will deliver us:

• 35% or 3.9 hectares of the site as public open space. This must be continuous and incorporate a full size sport field and a public garden
• Recognition of the heritage status of the Tramsheds and a requirement that they be adaptively restored. 500 square metres of the restored Tramsheds is to be transferred to Council for community uses
• Land sufficient for 50 units of public housing is to be made available at no cost,

We wanted other changes to the draft, but given all the pressures and the broad political context, it was a relief that both the Council and the CSPC endorsed these critical elements which go a considerable way towards protecting the public interest in this site and constraining the drive for maximum windfall private profit from the site. We have expressed our appreciation to Council for its efforts to date.

However, there are two very big reasons why we cannot yet relax. We need to fight for further changes and there is, as of yet, no guarantee that the decisions made by Council/CSPC last week will not be over-ridden by the Minister.

Unresolved Concerns
The draft proposals fall short of our HP principles on a number of critical points:

• We are opposed to the height of the buildings at the perimeter of the site (up to 8 stories) and consider a better configuration is possible
• We are concerned that the current controls will allow large scale retail/commercial activity ( a major super market/retail complex) which would be devastating for our local retail centres and for impact on traffic
• We continue to argue that the public open space would be better located if it was not all on the Glebe side (including a 42-8 metre buffer along the cliff) and connected better with Forest Lodge and the existing parks
• We continue to think the traffic study significantly underestimates the impact on surrounding roads.

As it seems – at this stage – unlikely that we can convince the State Government to acquire the Tramsheds in toto, we are arguing that the dedicated space for community activities needs to be increased from 500 square metres to at least 1000square metres. This is reasonable given the overall floor space of 7500 square metres.

We presented all these points at the meetings. We have a commitment that the planning controls will be amended to:

• leave open the final configuration of the open space – as long as it meets the stated criteria;
• prohibit large scale block retail activity;

and that:

• further traffic impact modelling will be done to incorporate Saturday traffic flow;
• the increase of community space in the Tramsheds to 1000 square metres will be considered

We got no movement on the heights of the buildings. Staff presented a written response to our arguments on this (and a number of other points). Essentially they argued that good design could dramatically reduce the visibility and impact of 8 stories to simulate 6 stories and that this range of heights was essential to maintain the density. The density (now 1200 units) is argued as necessary to meet state and council residential targets in the inner city.

Potential threats in the process
We have moved through an important, but preliminary and non-binding, stage of the rezoning process. The Council and the CSPC have endorsed draft planning controls for the rezoning of Harold Park. Before these can go to the Minister for approval to move to the next stage, the Pacing Club has to agree with the proposals.

At this point they have refused to do this. They continue to argue for less open space, greater  density and for the inclusion of the land required for affordable housing into the open space allocation. They refute our argument that they should not be entitled to a windfall development profit from the Tramsheds part of the site.

If they don’t accept the controls as endorsed by Council/CSPC, they have the option of going directly to the Minister and asking him to intervene. The Minister then has the option of agreeing to intervene on behalf of the Club or of declining.

We must await the outcome of  further negotiations between Council/CSPC and the Pacing Club. Hopefully, if no voluntary agreement is reached,  the current Minister will respect the Council/CSPC processes and the very strong community opposition to Ministerial intervention – as Kristina Keneally did when she was asked to take control of the process last year.

As we understand it, these are the possible outcomes:

• the Club will come to agreement with the Council/CSPC position and the proposals will go to the Minister. He can amend them. He will approve them to go on public exhibition for 28 days during which we can comment futher. After that Council will consider feedback and peocedd to make the final controls
• The Club does not agree. The Council will not proceed further. The Pacing Club  asks the Minister to intervene and change the controls and/or take over the rezoning a Part 3 process. The Minister may or may not act on this.

The best outcome for us is that the process proceeds under the aegis of the Council /CSPC. In that case we could expect the public exhibition stage to be in September.

If there is no agreement with the Pacing Club and the Minister does not accede to any request to intervene, the Council will not rezone the site. Nothing will happen – at least until the State election.

The worst case scenario for the community is that the Minister agrees to intervene- now or after the election. Then folks it is battle stations.

Of course once the site is rezoned, the Pacing Club has to find a buyer and then we will have a DA process to go though…..and that will almost certainly open up the design, density and building height issues … so don’t go away yet!

While we wait to see which of the above scenarios we are confronted with, the Harold Park working group will do some more intensive work to substantiate our arguments on the unresolved issues. 

The President of the Glebe Society, Dr Lesley Lynch, sent the following email to members on Sunday, 18 July:

Dear Glebe Society members

With apologies for the length- this message provides:

• an update on the HP rezoning process;

• a summary of our current response to the rezoning proposal;

• an outline of what action the Glebe Society will take over the next week; and

• a call to each of you to take some action – (see below for detail)

Update on the Rezoning Process

On Thursday the City of Sydney Council (COS) posted the proposed draft planning controls for Harold Park and updated technical reports on its website (click on this link to read the papers).

The process will now move very fast.

These drafts controls will go to the CoS Planning Committee on Monday and to the Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) on Wednesday and then to full Council on Monday 29 July. If the controls are approved, they go to the Minister for Planning for consideration and, if approved, go on public exhibition. We would then have a further opportunity to comment.

If however, the draft controls are not agreed to by the CSPC or the Minister, responsibility for the rezoning of the site will automatically be referred to the Minister for decision as a Part 3 process.This is an outcome we have been very keen to avoid as it effectively cuts the community out of the process.

We understand the Pacing Club will be strongly opposing the Council proposals.

The Political Context

Next week’s critical consideration of the Harold Park proposals will be conducted in the context of a threatening State Government surprise review of the CSPC. We share the widespread apprehension that this review is intended to further reduce the planning powers of the CoS and further shut out the community. One can  only speculate as to why this review is being rushed through so close to the state election. (See analysis by Elizabeth Farrelly SMH 16/7/2010 ,p13 )

The challenge for us in this threatening context, is to find the best ways of fighting for good planning outcomes in the HP redevelopment while defending what we have left of institutions which allow the community access to the decision making process.

While we do not agree with some very important aspects of the current proposal for HP, we do not see the CoS as the main threat to the community in this process. We will be defending the role of the COS and the CSPC in the planning for our city and arguing they should have a stronger role. We remain opposed to the Part 3 powers which allow the Minister to override community and local government views. We know the Council has invited and considered the views of its community. We have no confidence that this will be the case if the rezoning goes to the Minister.

TGSI Response to the Draft Planning Controls

The community got it largely right and the principles submitted by the Glebe Society provide a fair and reasonable basis for the rezoning of the HP and Tramsheds site.

It is clear that the CoS has considered our public resolution and principles and it has responded positively to many of them. We welcome:

• The dedication of 35%  of the site as open public space with a requirement that it be continuous and incorporating a full size sports field;
•  The requirement for at least 50 units of public housing to maintain diversity in our community
• The designation of the Tramsheds as a heritage item and the requirement that 500m²   of floor space be allocated to CoS for community uses.

However the draft controls fall short of the community principles on a number of major points. Our major objections relate to the following:

• The height of the buildings at the perimeters of the site. There was a strong view that the buildings should not be higher than the cliff face or the adjacent residences. This still allowed CoS to achieve a reasonable density though different distribution of building heights on the site
• The allocation of the public open space entirely on the Glebe side of the site incorporating a buffer between the cliff face and the new high rise buildings. We have argued strongly for a link with the existing open spaces and for the bulk of the open space to be along the canal side of the site
• We are not convinced the implications of the traffic that will flow from the increase of 20% in the density (from 1000 to 1200 residential units) has been given sufficient consideration. If the development includes large scale commercial/retail activities this would greatly exacerbate the traffic problems.
• While supporting significant residential development on the HP site as appropriate given the pressure for inner city housing, we will continue to argue against over-development of the site for a host of sound environmental and amenity reasons. To the extent that this increased density and building height is driven by the wish of the Pacing Club to generate a greater profit windfall, we do not think it justified.

The Club gained the publicly owned Tramsheds site with public money so they could build what they claimed were urgently needed stables. These never eventuated and the Tramsheds were allowed to fall into great disrepair.The clear community preference is that the heritage Tramsheds part of the site be restored to the public and community use by reimbursing the Pacing Club for the sum they paid – rather than a windfall development profit. This would be a fair outcome which would still provide the Club with a handsome profit for the benefit of its members.  

The allocation of 35% of the site to public open space and 500m²  of the Tramsheds to community use goes someway to achieving this.

Next Steps

The Glebe Society will register to speak at the Planning Committee meeting on Monday and the CSPC meeting on Wednesday. We will nominate three or four speakers so we can put Forest Lodge and Annandale perspectives as well as our general argument.

What you can do

We urge you to email your responses to Councillors before midday on Monday. Core issues are: 35% public space; buildings no higher than cliff face or adjacent residences and no windfall profit from the Tramsheds site – and general support for the COS and CSPC processes as opposed to Part 3.  Click here for a list of councillors of the City of Sydney.

If you can attend these meetings your presence supporting the Glebe Society position will be very important.

You can ask to speak at the meetings, and you have a right to do so if you put in a submission. You must do this by noon on Monday by registering with Council's Secretariat Unit  9265 9310.

As it is quite possible that these draft controls will not be supported next week, we also urge you to send emails and/or phone Verity Firth, the Premier and the Planning Minister as well as the leader of the opposition and the shadow planning minister. The relevant email addresses are:

• Verity Firth: balmain@parliament.nsw.gov.au, or office@firth.minister.nsw.gov.au
• Premier: Kristina Keneally, premier@nsw.gov.au
• Minister for Planning: Tony Kelly, sharon.armstrong@lpma.nsw.gov.au
• Leader of the Opposition, Barry O’Farrell: LOP@parliament.nsw.gov.au
• Shadow planning minister, Brad Hazard: brad.hazzard@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Relevant documents are on the Glebe Society website (click here for links). We will keep the site up to date with developments.

We are at a critical point in this process. Hope to see quite a few of you at the meetings.

Regards

Lesley Lynch
President
The Glebe Society Inc

18 July 2010