Issue No.             Month                Copy Deadline    Mailout Dates

No. 1 of 2013               Feb/March                  20^th February              28th February

No. 2 of 2013               April                             16^th March                  27th March

No. 3 of 2013               May                              17^th April                     24th April

No. 4 of 2013               June                             15^th May                      23rd May

No. 5 of 2013               July                              19^th June                     27th June

No. 6 of 2013               August                         17^th July                       25th July

No. 7 of 2013               September                   21^st August                  29th August

No. 8 of 2013               October                        18^th September           26th September

No. 9 of 2013               November                    16^th October                 24th October

No. 10 of 2013             Dec 2013 / Jan 2014  20^th November             28th November

The Annual Glebe Music Festival would not happen without the robust support of many individuals and organisations. This year is no exception. David Gaunt, Roger Mackell, Christopher Cyril and all the staff at Gleebooks are gratefully acknowledged for making their bookshop available for the opening concert on Friday 9 November at 7pm (Agostino Duo and Sam Sheumack, guitar). On 28 September, the Murdoch Children's Research Institute (Melbourne) announced the appointment of its next Director, Professor Kathryn North. Kathy, as we know her, is the current incumbent at Margaretta Cottage along with her husband Robert Dowsett, and she is warmly congratulated on her appointment. They are also thanked for their indulgence in hosting Glebe Music Festival concerts over many years. But Saturday 10 November will see them host their last concerts at Margaretta Cottage. We wish them well in their move to Melbourne.

Clover Moore and the Council of the City of Sydney are warmly thanked for allowing the use of Benledi at the Glebe Library free of charge, for a free concert by soprano (Donna Cain), clarinet (Johanna Petsche) and piano (Dorine Tolley) on Thursday 15 November at 7pm (Schubert's The Shepherd on the Rock). And importantly, Hutchings Pianos (www.hutchingspianos.com.au) are gratefully acknowledged for waiving the hire fee for the piano. This is a significant contribution towards the Glebe Music Festival in particular and the community in general. St John's Anglican Church has also agreed to waive hire fees for use of the Record Reign Hall on Saturday 17 November at 2pm for the Accordions Alfresco free concert, in lieu of a voluntary donation.

The staff of Christ Church St Laurence and the sisters of the Good Samaritan Congregational Centre St Scholastica's are thanked for allowing the use of their beautiful buildings for the choral concerts (Bel a cappella and Coro Innominata respectively). Denise Schoupp and FM102.5 are thanked for providing publicity – please listen for the Evgeny Genchev interview at 8.10am Wednesday 14 November. Finally, amongst many individuals, Ted McIntosh (box office) and Edwina Doe (Bulletin) are thanked personally, along with the Glebe Society, the musicians and Sasha Morrow who will be doing a trainee internship assisting the Artistic Director.

Further information at www.glebemusicfestival.com  

Draft NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

We refer to this draft Plan which was released in September. The Glebe Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on how the Plan can be strengthened. The submission that follows was prepared by its Transport and Traffic Committee transport@glebesociety.org.au. Please include it on your circulation list.

The Glebe Society has a strategy for improving transport for people living in Glebe that largely focuses on improving public transport in and around Glebe and to destinations taken by Glebe residents. We believe that an efficient and attractive public transport system is vital for our densely populated inner suburb as are steps to make cycling and walking safe and attractive options.

Our view is that transport is about people and not cars. We believe that in the longer term the use of private motor vehicles in Sydney, with the associated costly investment required in roads and other infrastructure and the problem of traffic congestion, should not be promoted and encouraged. Rather, the use of public transport, walking and cycling need to be made attractive options for commuters. In our view this is best done through the development of an integrated and viable public transport system and providing facilities for safe cycling and walking.

For these reasons we support the initiatives set out in the draft Plan to improve and integrate the public transport system in Sydney and to make cycling and walking safe and attractive options, and we ask that funding be made available by the NSW Government to put these initiatives into effect. While we recognise that certain road projects will need to be undertaken in Sydney, our view is that investment in public transport and the encouraging of cycling and walking will have far greater long term benefits.

Public Transport Initiatives

Accordingly we support the initiatives contained in the draft Plan relating to Public Transport, Rail, Light Rail, Bus, Ferries, Cycling and Walking as summarised in Chapter 9 and as fully described throughout the draft Plan. We see these initiatives as going towards creating a high class transport system for Sydney. In particular we believe that real benefits lie in the development of an integrated public transport system as proposed and we applaud the initiatives proposed to bring about this integration, such as the Opal system, accurate and modern real-time and way-finding information and the alignment of public transport timetables. We also believe that investment in a modern transport fleet and investment in interchanges as announced in the draft Plan are critical.

Light Rail

We believe however that the draft Plan can be strengthened in respect of the proposals relating to light rail. In our view the development of a comprehensive light rail system should be a key strategy of a public transport system in and around the localities that experience high commuter traffic. Light rail can play a major role in reducing traffic congestion and should be an integral part of the transport system of a modern and developing city like Sydney.

We would prefer that a commitment be made in the final Plan to building light rail in the three inner Sydney corridors identified on page 154 of the draft Plan ; the Sydney CBD , to the University of Sydney and to University of NSW with a link to Randwick. The draft Plan refers to these projects as requiring further consideration. We believe however that there needs to be a firm commitment to these projects.

The benefits of light rail are well set out on pages 154 and 155 of the draft Plan and we note reference in the draft Plan to a new light rail line having the capacity to carry up to 12,500 passengers in the morning peak hour with significant reduction of traffic resulting. We consider that the light rail line proposal for George Street would have very significant benefits for the CBD, for commuters, tourists, retailers and other businesses alike and will confirm Sydney in the ranks of attractive, modern and progressive international cities. Extending light rail along these corridors will also make it a meaningful option for Glebe residents and for those living in the other inner west suburbs served by the present light rail line, including the extension to Dulwich Hill. For instance, building light rail down George Street to Circular Quay will give many commuters direct access to their place of work in the CBD which the present light rail service does not achieve because it terminates at Central Station.

Infrastructure NSW Report

We refer to the report released by Infrastructure NSW earlier this month. While we appreciate that this report deals with separate objectives to the draft Master Plan and is concerned with identifying all major infrastructure projects for NSW, there are certain aspects of the Infrastructure NSW report which, if implemented, will undermine key options for the development of a viable public transport system in Sydney. As such we believe these aspects should be rejected by the NSW Government.

In particular, we refer to the proposal put forward by Infrastructure NSW to replace plans for light rail in George Street with a network of bus tunnels in the CBD. As mentioned, we believe light rail should be a key component of an integrated and efficient public transport system for Sydney and abandoning the light rail option for the CBD would be a retrograde step. Further, the construction of bus tunnels in the CBD is likely to impinge on heavy rail corridors in the area and so will jeopardise the potential for developing further rail infrastructure in the CBD which we consider must be retained as an option.

Secondly we refer to the rejection by Infrastructure NSW of the need for a second harbour crossing for rail in the foreseeable future. We believe that failure to build a second harbour crossing within the next twenty years will weaken the role of rail as a viable public transport option for greater Sydney and will be detrimental to Sydney’s public transport system as a whole.

We are also concerned about the emphasis in the report given to more road projects for Sydney. In particular we refer to the WestConnex Project. While we appreciate that the report does not identify the exact route of the “inner west” section of the WestConnex Project ( and the routes of the associated road connections in the inner west) , we would be concerned if this project were to result in increased traffic flows in and around Glebe.

We recognise the need for some new roads for Sydney, particularly in the outer suburbs and to key localities such as the airport, but we believe Glebe and greater Sydney would be best served by the development of a high class public transport system. Ultimately more roads lead to more traffic congestion and in the short to medium term undermine investment in public transport. The experience of many other cities in the world, including Los Angeles and Auckland, attests to this.

Yours truly

John Gray

President
October 26, 2012

1. Minister Hazard has replied to my letter of December 2012, regarding the long-awaited Bays Task Force Report and his promises about community consultation.  His letter to me, which is almost identical to replies he has sent to other correspondents regards the same issues, will be available here shortly.

1. I have written to the NSW Premier seeking the release of the report of the Bays Precinct Task Force.  Click here to read that letter.  The Glebe Society is very critical of the government’s current planning processes, and whilst it claims to consult the public, the processes and results of its consultations are not what we would expect.
2. The Society’s letter to the Planning Assessment Commission on the Super Yachts Marina and entertainment complex, in which I argue that piecemeal development of the bays is a dereliction of state duty and I strongly support residents’ submissions.
3. I have also written to the NSW Premier expressing concern about the closure of the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office.  Read the letter here.

1. Local residents of Glebe, especially those near Blackwattle Bay, fear that the proposed Rozelle Bay Super Yacht Marina will harm them in many ways.  Read their flyer here.
2. Following the campaign of Glebe residents, the SMH published the following article which you can read here.
3. The Glebe Society has sent the following submission to Infrastructure NSW regards its radical proposals for solutions to public trasnport in Sydney. Click here to read our submission.
4. The Glebe Society has sent the following submission to the Council of City of Sydney regards the John Street Reserve.  Click here to read it in full.

1. The Society’s submissions to the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan and the Planning Green paper;
2. The Strategy Review process plan;
3. Several files about the Planning System review and how you can help ensure community engagement means something in planning. Click on the following links to read a Letter to the NSW Premier, a Petition to the NSW Government that we invite you to sign, and a Votergram. This is currently the major strategic issue facing the Society. Read the material get involved. Get your network involved, please.
4. You can also watch a number of videos that were recorded at the recent Community Meeting of 23rd October:

• 1. What does the Green Paper change in NSW Planning – James Ryan NCC
  2. Better Planning Network Campaign & Ministers Consultation – Corinne Fisher
  3. Community Concerns – Van Le Pyrmont Action Inc
  4. Community Concerns – Councillor Irene Doutney REDWatch
  5. Sydney By-Election Candidates response to Planning Green Paper

John Gray
President
 

PLANNING GREEN PAPER

Preamble
The Glebe Society welcomes the Review of Planning Legislation. We responded at length to the numerous questions circulated by Tim Moore and Ron Dyer, which addressed the numerous concerns regarding the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act since it became law thirty three years ago.

It is hardly surprising the legislation is out of date after such a long period. Many things that have since become major issues were barely recognised in 1979. Heritage had only just begun to be recognised, but it was clearly of such significance that it received its own Act. Since then the recognition and recording of Heritage has spread throughout the State, though it is by no means universal. This Review presents an ideal opportunity for Heritage to be enshrined in the new legislation and be recognised as one of the key goals to be pursued at all levels. Another change that should be made to the Green Paper is that the Group of CEOs should include the Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage.

Even less recognised were issues of Sustainability and those related to Climate Change. Planning decisions we make now will have a major impact on future generations, and just as Heritage Conservation ensures our past is preserved for future generations to enjoy, so our development must ensure a better way of life for future generations.

Growth
Much of the emphasis in the Green Paper, unlike that in the Review, is on ways of promoting growth. While a certain amount of new development needs to take place to house any increase in population and accommodate new industry, it is important to realise that encouraging sufficient growth is only one goal of a Planning Act. Ensuring that the environment is protected, both now and for future generations, is at least equally important, as is the conservation of the State's heritage. Producing a more sustainable society is even more important, especially by reducing the likelihood of adverse climate change. It is the overall public good that should be the aim of a Planning Act, and this requires a balance, not one narrow goal.

Most of the changes that have been made to the EP&A Act over the last three decades have been designed to make approval of development easier. This was particularly true of Part 3A, where even the most ordinary proposals were taken out of the hands of the proper authorities, declared State Significant, and determined by the Minister. Despite all these efforts investment and growth have been very modest, but the reputations of the Department of Planning and a succession of Planning Ministers have been undermined. While it is important to ensure developments are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner, this is best ensured by increasing the resources of the local authorities and reducing double handling rather than by developing a whole new bureaucracy, as is happening already and is encouraged by the Green Paper.

This particularly applies to large projects. These are, of course, likely to be the proposals of the largest development companies, and by their very size and complexity it is reasonable to expect they would take some time to assess. There is no particular reason why such projects should be expedited. In countries where this has occurred, such as Ireland and Spain, the economic consequences of of ill-considered planning decisions has been particularly severe.

Public Participation
The Glebe Society welcomes the idea of a Charter to ensure Public Participation. The Society also agrees this participation should begin at the earliest stage, in planning the strategies for land use, densities and the like. However, this is indeed only the beginning.

At present, this participation occurs when a Local Environment Plan is placed on public exhibition. With a consultative Council, such as the City of Sydney, it begins even earlier when Design Studies are carried out to determine the content of the LEP.

The Green Paper is vague and general as to how even this early stage of public participation is to be achieved. Electronic means of communicating plans and seeking responses has been available for more than ten years, and has been widely used by local authorities. The response is typically less than 1% of the population. There is nothing in the Green Paper to suggest the Department of Planning can do any better. Only one thousand persons, out of a population of seven million, less than a hundredth of one percent, are recorded as attending its meetings on the Planning Review, a much worse result than achieved by local government. Moreover, this figure includes all those with a professional and special interest.

It is well established that participation increases once a specific proposal is lodged. Hence the Glebe Society believes that the Charter should include guaranteed resident participation at all levels. Leslie Stein's Paper provides examples of representative and elective representation, but also notes that electronic ballots are now possible. A rigorous regime whereby the wider community is consulted at all stages of an application should be instituted.

It is especially important that participation should not be weighted in favour of those with a financial interest. Hence, while those in the construction and development industries should be included, it should only be as individuals who have the same democratic rights as any other citizen.

Furthermore, there is no doubt local authorities are the best placed to make decisions, not only because they are familiar with the local issues but are also experienced in securing public participation in decision making. The legislation should defer to their greater knowledge and experience.

Community Representation
The Glebe Society also welcomes community representation in decision making as proposed by the Green Paper, but the details need to be clarified. The resident community should have representation on every panel at each level, chosen through a democratic system of voting. The legislation should avoid the charge of tokenism by mandating multiple community representatives, and requiring them to be remunerated at the same rate as other members of the panel. It would also be necessary for resources and training to be provided under the legislation.

Existing Plans
It is unclear what is proposed for existing plans. In many cases these would simply need to be supplemented to make them suitable, as is the case with the recently approved CityPlan. Certainly the idea of creating a completely new set of plans for all the LGAs would be very costly and time consuming, as well as unnecessary.

Infrastructure and Transport
The Glebe Society welcomes the incorporation of infrastructure and transport into the planning legislation. This has been one of the main deficiencies in planning in NSW. All major developments make huge demands on infrastructure and transport, and the cumulative effect of a number of such developments can create such problems that any advantages there may have been are severely reduced or completely obscured.

Despite the release of the NSW Transport Plan on 3 September, there is little information available to the public on priorities, funding or starting dates for new transport infrastructure. It would be sensible to delay any major projects until such time as these elements are in place.

This is especially true of public transport. Previous governments have wasted public funds building expressways, and the benefits of these is temporary, lasting only until new traffic fills them up. The effective alternative, as has been demonstrated in most cities throughout the world, is to improve the public transport system by the expansion of the heavy and light rail networks. A case in point is the Sydney CBD, which has reached gridlock, and where the extension of the existing light rail network though the CBD could be achieved at relatively little cost.

New Development
A major concern, especially since the Bankstown fire of 6 September, is the quality of new development and the standard of certification. As noted in our previous response, private certification has been discredited, and it is likely the Coroner will call for greater regulation. The review of the Strata Titles Act should also include requirements for builders to provide comprehensive plans and extend their liability, as well as to update the regulations surrounding Bodies Corporate and building management. Far stricter controls are required, especially for high-rise buildings where so many lives are at risk.

White Paper
The Green Paper is a very general document, making broad statements with very little support or detail. All the necessary detail should appear in the White Paper that precedes legislation, and this should be available for public comment for at least three months.

The above is the initial response of the Glebe Society to the Green Paper. We may make further comments as new information comes to hand.

Yours faithfully,
Neil Macindoe OAM,
Planning Convenor.