Representatives of the Glebe Society met with representatives of MIRVAC to discuss the DA – both our concerns and our appreciation of the positive aspects. The meeting was helpful.
The Glebe Society offers the following comments on the Mirvac Development Application (DA) for the adaptive re-use of the Rozelle Tramshed.
General
The restoration and appropriate, adaptive reuse of the heritage Rozelle Tramsheds was a major community concern in the earlier negotiations relating to the rezoning and development of the Harold Park and Tramsheds sites. Community interest in this DA is, not surprisingly therefore, very strong.
While the community did not gain support for all its proposed planning requirements for the adaptation and re-use of the Tramshed, concern about possible inappropriate development and associated uses was alleviated by the some of the requirements that were included in the DCP and the Voluntary Agreement between the Council and Mirvac.
There was also a period in which the offer by the last NSW Government to provide $10 million to fund a rehabilitation pool and exercise centre for accident victims seemed to make possible a much needed and very appropriate community facility within the Tramsheds. The failure of that funding offer to translate into any tangible outcome was a lost opportunity.
There is much that is positive in the current development proposal put forward by MIRVAC. We now have a development proposal that will restore the heritage Tramsheds building for new uses while retaining the existing fabric and preserving its architectural features. The broad plans for the building appear to be appropriate and sensitive to its features. The replacement of the ridged roofing will, for example, maintain a particularly spectacular feature. The required provision of a 500 square metre space within the Tramsheds for community use – under the management of the Council – is a positive that had been previously agreed. The proposed alterations and restoration serve the heritage building well. If the significant problems outlined below are addressed, this is likely to be a splendid restoration and fit well within the equally splendid surrounding parklands.
However, several aspects of this DA have reactivated and heightened some major concerns which were vigorously canvassed during the earlier negotiations.
1. Scope, size and impact of proposed retail activities within the Tramshed.
A core community position through all stages of consultation around the rezoning and development of the Harold Park site was that retail/commercial activity while obviously necessary, must be subject to explicit controls to:
‘limit the size and scale of individual commercial and retail activities so that they are small scale and in harmony with current activities in Annandale and Glebe business strips and do not exacerbate the traffic problems that will come with development of the site.’[1]
This concern was, in part, met by the subsequent amendment of the planning controls to significantly reduce the overall space available for non-residential development on the site. In addition, MIRVAC informed the Glebe Society that large scale intensive retail/commercial activity –such as a large supermarket – was not planned for the site.[2]
The current DA proposals for a market hall with retail (mainly) and commercial activity within the Tramsheds are well within the overall planning control. Nonetheless, they have generated very considerable and reasonable community concerns. In summary the expressed concerns are:
The inclusion of a sizable supermarket as well as 11 retail food shops is excessive provision for the needs of the Harold Park residential development. It appears to be significantly premised on drawing visitor patronage.
This is not consistent with the DCP which specified:
“That the heritage significance of the Former Rozelle Tram Depot is conserved and the Tram Sheds are adaptively reused for community, retail and commercial uses that primarily serve the new residential community and support nearby retail centres.”
It is not credible that this intensity of supermarket/retail activity will not have adverse effects on the neighbouring Annandale and Glebe business strips. (The Glebe community recalls the wildly inaccurate assurances that the Broadway complex would not have negative consequences for retail businesses on Glebe Point Rd.).
It is clear that this level of retail activity will also intensify traffic movements and exacerbate the already difficult and unresolved traffic issues associated with the development- within the site, at the access points to the site and in neighbouring streets. This includes both visitors to the Tramsheds retail centre and large supply/service trucks.
The proposed operating hours for the supermarket (6am- midnight 7 days a week) are unacceptable to nearby residents and unnecessary for profitable operation.
The supermarket should not operate beyond 9pm.
The provision for 4 service vehicle parking spaces appears inadequate for this scale of retail activity. It suggests lengthy service/supply activity into the night and early morning and congestion difficulties. The proposed loading hours are also 6am –midnight 7 days a week.
The scale of the retail activity should be reduced to better align with the proposed service capacity.
This problem could be significantly addressed if the proposed tenancies included a broader mix of commercial and professional activities and commercially based community services such as child care.
While the proposed gym is appropriate, the obvious need for a child care centre as part of this major new residential development, would seem to be a very high public good for MIRVAC to consider.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The proposed retail/commercial hub in the Tramshed be reconsidered to achieve:
a broader mix of commercial and professional activities –including urgently community services such as child care
a less intensive level of retail activity in direct competition with nearby retail strips
a range of commercial/retail activities which will collectively be less traffic intensive than the current proposal
Incorporation of parklands into activated retail zone
The DA proposes that 400 square metres of dedicated public parkland be used for ‘related outdoor seating’ for the adjoining tenancies. This ‘activated zone’ consists of a 4 metre wide zone along the western and southern sides of the Tramsheds.
This is a very sensitive and controversial proposal.
MIRVAC asserts in the DA that the total space of the ‘activation zone’ (400 square metres) ‘is insignificant compared to the total amount of public open space to be dedicated as part of the Harold park redevelopment’. [3] There is an unfortunate and inaccurate implication in this statement that the developer has in some way ‘gifted’ the dedicated parklands portion of the Harold Park sites. This is both an irrelevant and inappropriate argument in support of the proposal.
MIRVAC also asserts that ‘the activation of this space is crucial to ensure the viability of the tenancies that will service it” This is followed by a threat: ‘If the tenancies within the Tram Sheds are not viable, then this would place the adaptive reuse and hence conservation of the Tram Sheds at risk of not proceeding” [4]
The viability argument for the tenancies is at best debatable. This seems to be an argument about increasing the attractiveness of the retailers site and thus profitability. There is no information supporting the claim. Alternative arrangements quite consistent with financially viable operation could be made within the Tramsheds.
The threat to walk away from the restoration of the Tramsheds if the parkland is not provided is, at best, somewhat heavy handed and a regrettable (if familiar) tactic in DA negotiations.
Arrangements like this have been approved by the City of Sydney Council in Victoria Park and on the Black Wattle Bay foreshore walk – and these are cited by MIRVAC. These arrangements are however in a different context. The relevant cafes are owned by the Council not privately. While they are being operated on a commercial basis, the public good remains the underlying principle and there is no potential for effective alienation of public parklands.
This is a proposal to incorporate 400 square metres of public parkland into a private commercial activity. It is contentious. It may be acceptable to the community, but this was not evident at a recent large public meeting held in Glebe Town Hall.[5]
This proposal needs further discussion with the community. The Glebe Society will not support it unless there are strong and clear protections against de facto alienation of dedicated parklands.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The design and planning conditions allowing any use by tenants/retailers of the adjoining parklands in an must clearly signal that this is public parkland and ensure that there can be no de facto alienation of public parklands for largely private benefit. .
3. The Community Space
The Glebe Society argued strongly for the allocation of 1000 square metres for community space. This would have allowed for a good range of activities /uses to meet community needs. Nonetheless the available 500 square metres is very welcome. The Glebe Society and the community look forward to discussions with Council as to the most appropriate uses of this space.
The location of the community space within the building has raised concerns. It is at the rear of the southern shed of the building and will not at entrance level. It is to be located on a newly constructed first floor. There are community concerns that this is a relegation of the community space to the least desirable location in the Tramsheds.
It is difficult to get an accurate sense of the overall attractiveness, visibility and accessibility of the community space from artists’ representations and the floor plans in the DA. However, it seems clear that the space will be flexible and, given the roof design/ material and height, light and airy. It does, however, also need to be easily accessible and reasonably visible.
MIRVAC has told the Glebe Society that it considers this to be the best location in the building. They also indicate that people will be aware of the location as the supermarket is also on the first floor level and both will use the same entry point to the building.
The Glebe Society recommends:
Council officers should carefully assess the design proposals for the community space and ensure that it meets community expectations. The development approval should make explicit any necessary parameters to ensure this.
4. Vehicular Link between Tramsheds and residential development
The Tramsheds are situated in very special dedicated parkland space. The community fought hard for this space over many years and is rightfully very protective of it. As part of that it has been important that the planning for the redevelopment of the site minimise roads cutting through the parklands and across pedestrian and cycle paths – for safety as well as amenity reasons.
There are very strong objections to the inclusion of a vehicle connection between the Mirvac residential development and the Tramsheds. This is not needed. It is close enough for residents to walk or cycle, and if they need or want to drive they can use the same route as everyone else. The proposed connection inevitably cuts across pedestrian/cycle access and creates safety problems.
It will also encourage residents to exit the site via Wigram Rd rather than returning to the Crescent. This is a highly undesirable outcome.
MIRVAC has pointed out that this vehicle access was approved in the earlier planning stage. Nonetheless, it is highly inappropriate.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The proposed inclusion of a vehicle connection between the Mirvac residential development and the Tramsheds be revisited – in the context of the necessary further consideration of overall traffic management within the site.
5. Environmental Sustainability
It was hoped that this redevelopment would incorporate high ESD standards. For that reason it is disappointing in relation to renewable energy provision that the proposal merely notes that fitting solar panels to the extensive roof top is an option but does not incorporate this into its planning.
The Glebe Society recommends:
Solar heating using the capacity for fitting solar panels on the extensive Tramsheds roof be further explored for inclusion in this re-development.
Parking
The provision for bicycle parking (50 places) is inadequate and should be revised upwards.
Car parking provision in the DA seems appropriate – given the constraints and complexities of inner city parking. It is, however, important that MIRVAC ensures that there are constraints or incentives to limit staff parking.
MIRVAC has indicated to the Glebe Society that it considers that pricing will be an effective incentive for staff to utilise other means of transport to the site.
7. General comments on traffic management
This has been a major issue all through the rezoning and planning process for the Harold Park site. The Glebe Society remains sceptical about the adequacy of the traffic studies done as part of the these processes and shares the widespread community expectation that the Harold park development is going to greatly exacerbate traffic (and parking) problems on nearby roads.
We note the very strong concern of Annandale residents and Leichhardt Council about the new proposal to put traffic lights at the intersection of Chapman Road and the Crescent. The Glebe Society does not have sufficient information to have a well-informed view on the implications of this ‘signalisation’ of the intersection. We do, however, urge the Council and MIRVAC to give careful further consideration to this proposal to ensure it will not create more problems than it solves.
General
The restoration and appropriate, adaptive reuse of the heritage Rozelle Tramsheds was a major community concern in the earlier negotiations relating to the rezoning and development of the Harold Park and Tramsheds sites. Community interest in this DA is, not surprisingly therefore, very strong.
While the community did not gain support for all its proposed planning requirements for the adaptation and re-use of the Tramshed, concern about possible inappropriate development and associated uses was alleviated by the some of the requirements that were included in the DCP and the Voluntary Agreement between the Council and Mirvac.
There was also a period in which the offer by the last NSW Government to provide $10 million to fund a rehabilitation pool and exercise centre for accident victims seemed to make possible a much needed and very appropriate community facility within the Tramsheds. The failure of that funding offer to translate into any tangible outcome was a lost opportunity.
There is much that is positive in the current development proposal put forward by MIRVAC. We now have a development proposal that will restore the heritage Tramsheds building for new uses while retaining the existing fabric and preserving its architectural features. The broad plans for the building appear to be appropriate and sensitive to its features. The replacement of the ridged roofing will, for example, maintain a particularly spectacular feature. The required provision of a 500 square metre space within the Tramsheds for community use – under the management of the Council – is a positive that had been previously agreed. The proposed alterations and restoration serve the heritage building well. If the significant problems outlined below are addressed, this is likely to be a splendid restoration and fit well within the equally splendid surrounding parklands.
However, several aspects of this DA have reactivated and heightened some major concerns which were vigorously canvassed during the earlier negotiations.
1. Scope, size and impact of proposed retail activities within the Tramshed.
A core community position through all stages of consultation around the rezoning and development of the Harold Park site was that retail/commercial activity while obviously necessary, must be subject to explicit controls to:
‘limit the size and scale of individual commercial and retail activities so that they are small scale and in harmony with current activities in Annandale and Glebe business strips and do not exacerbate the traffic problems that will come with development of the site.’[1]
This concern was, in part, met by the subsequent amendment of the planning controls to significantly reduce the overall space available for non-residential development on the site. In addition, MIRVAC informed the Glebe Society that large scale intensive retail/commercial activity –such as a large supermarket – was not planned for the site.[2]
The current DA proposals for a market hall with retail (mainly) and commercial activity within the Tramsheds are well within the overall planning control. Nonetheless, they have generated very considerable and reasonable community concerns. In summary the expressed concerns are:
The inclusion of a sizable supermarket as well as 11 retail food shops is excessive provision for the needs of the Harold Park residential development. It appears to be significantly premised on drawing visitor patronage.
This is not consistent with the DCP which specified:
“That the heritage significance of the Former Rozelle Tram Depot is conserved and the Tram Sheds are adaptively reused for community, retail and commercial uses that primarily serve the new residential community and support nearby retail centres.”
It is not credible that this intensity of supermarket/retail activity will not have adverse effects on the neighbouring Annandale and Glebe business strips. (The Glebe community recalls the wildly inaccurate assurances that the Broadway complex would not have negative consequences for retail businesses on Glebe Point Rd.).
It is clear that this level of retail activity will also intensify traffic movements and exacerbate the already difficult and unresolved traffic issues associated with the development- within the site, at the access points to the site and in neighbouring streets. This includes both visitors to the Tramsheds retail centre and large supply/service trucks.
The proposed operating hours for the supermarket (6am- midnight 7 days a week) are unacceptable to nearby residents and unnecessary for profitable operation.
The supermarket should not operate beyond 9pm.
The provision for 4 service vehicle parking spaces appears inadequate for this scale of retail activity. It suggests lengthy service/supply activity into the night and early morning and congestion difficulties. The proposed loading hours are also 6am –midnight 7 days a week.
The scale of the retail activity should be reduced to better align with the proposed service capacity.
This problem could be significantly addressed if the proposed tenancies included a broader mix of commercial and professional activities and commercially based community services such as child care.
While the proposed gym is appropriate, the obvious need for a child care centre as part of this major new residential development, would seem to be a very high public good for MIRVAC to consider.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The proposed retail/commercial hub in the Tramshed be reconsidered to achieve:
a broader mix of commercial and professional activities –including urgently community services such as child care
a less intensive level of retail activity in direct competition with nearby retail strips
a range of commercial/retail activities which will collectively be less traffic intensive than the current proposal
Incorporation of parklands into activated retail zone
The DA proposes that 400 square metres of dedicated public parkland be used for ‘related outdoor seating’ for the adjoining tenancies. This ‘activated zone’ consists of a 4 metre wide zone along the western and southern sides of the Tramsheds.
This is a very sensitive and controversial proposal.
MIRVAC asserts in the DA that the total space of the ‘activation zone’ (400 square metres) ‘is insignificant compared to the total amount of public open space to be dedicated as part of the Harold park redevelopment’. [3] There is an unfortunate and inaccurate implication in this statement that the developer has in some way ‘gifted’ the dedicated parklands portion of the Harold Park sites. This is both an irrelevant and inappropriate argument in support of the proposal.
MIRVAC also asserts that ‘the activation of this space is crucial to ensure the viability of the tenancies that will service it” This is followed by a threat: ‘If the tenancies within the Tram Sheds are not viable, then this would place the adaptive reuse and hence conservation of the Tram Sheds at risk of not proceeding” [4]
The viability argument for the tenancies is at best debatable. This seems to be an argument about increasing the attractiveness of the retailers site and thus profitability. There is no information supporting the claim. Alternative arrangements quite consistent with financially viable operation could be made within the Tramsheds.
The threat to walk away from the restoration of the Tramsheds if the parkland is not provided is, at best, somewhat heavy handed and a regrettable (if familiar) tactic in DA negotiations.
Arrangements like this have been approved by the City of Sydney Council in Victoria Park and on the Black Wattle Bay foreshore walk – and these are cited by MIRVAC. These arrangements are however in a different context. The relevant cafes are owned by the Council not privately. While they are being operated on a commercial basis, the public good remains the underlying principle and there is no potential for effective alienation of public parklands.
This is a proposal to incorporate 400 square metres of public parkland into a private commercial activity. It is contentious. It may be acceptable to the community, but this was not evident at a recent large public meeting held in Glebe Town Hall.[5]
This proposal needs further discussion with the community. The Glebe Society will not support it unless there are strong and clear protections against de facto alienation of dedicated parklands.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The design and planning conditions allowing any use by tenants/retailers of the adjoining parklands in an must clearly signal that this is public parkland and ensure that there can be no de facto alienation of public parklands for largely private benefit. .
3. The Community Space
The Glebe Society argued strongly for the allocation of 1000 square metres for community space. This would have allowed for a good range of activities /uses to meet community needs. Nonetheless the available 500 square metres is very welcome. The Glebe Society and the community look forward to discussions with Council as to the most appropriate uses of this space.
The location of the community space within the building has raised concerns. It is at the rear of the southern shed of the building and will not at entrance level. It is to be located on a newly constructed first floor. There are community concerns that this is a relegation of the community space to the least desirable location in the Tramsheds.
It is difficult to get an accurate sense of the overall attractiveness, visibility and accessibility of the community space from artists’ representations and the floor plans in the DA. However, it seems clear that the space will be flexible and, given the roof design/ material and height, light and airy. It does, however, also need to be easily accessible and reasonably visible.
MIRVAC has told the Glebe Society that it considers this to be the best location in the building. They also indicate that people will be aware of the location as the supermarket is also on the first floor level and both will use the same entry point to the building.
The Glebe Society recommends:
Council officers should carefully assess the design proposals for the community space and ensure that it meets community expectations. The development approval should make explicit any necessary parameters to ensure this.
4. Vehicular Link between Tramsheds and residential development
The Tramsheds are situated in very special dedicated parkland space. The community fought hard for this space over many years and is rightfully very protective of it. As part of that it has been important that the planning for the redevelopment of the site minimise roads cutting through the parklands and across pedestrian and cycle paths – for safety as well as amenity reasons.
There are very strong objections to the inclusion of a vehicle connection between the Mirvac residential development and the Tramsheds. This is not needed. It is close enough for residents to walk or cycle, and if they need or want to drive they can use the same route as everyone else. The proposed connection inevitably cuts across pedestrian/cycle access and creates safety problems.
It will also encourage residents to exit the site via Wigram Rd rather than returning to the Crescent. This is a highly undesirable outcome.
MIRVAC has pointed out that this vehicle access was approved in the earlier planning stage. Nonetheless, it is highly inappropriate.
The Glebe Society recommends:
The proposed inclusion of a vehicle connection between the Mirvac residential development and the Tramsheds be revisited – in the context of the necessary further consideration of overall traffic management within the site.
5. Environmental Sustainability
It was hoped that this redevelopment would incorporate high ESD standards. For that reason it is disappointing in relation to renewable energy provision that the proposal merely notes that fitting solar panels to the extensive roof top is an option but does not incorporate this into its planning.
The Glebe Society recommends:
Solar heating using the capacity for fitting solar panels on the extensive Tramsheds roof be further explored for inclusion in this re-development.
Parking
The provision for bicycle parking (50 places) is inadequate and should be revised upwards.
Car parking provision in the DA seems appropriate – given the constraints and complexities of inner city parking. It is, however, important that MIRVAC ensures that there are constraints or incentives to limit staff parking.
MIRVAC has indicated to the Glebe Society that it considers that pricing will be an effective incentive for staff to utilise other means of transport to the site.
7. General comments on traffic management
This has been a major issue all through the rezoning and planning process for the Harold Park site. The Glebe Society remains sceptical about the adequacy of the traffic studies done as part of the these processes and shares the widespread community expectation that the Harold park development is going to greatly exacerbate traffic (and parking) problems on nearby roads.
We note the very strong concern of Annandale residents and Leichhardt Council about the new proposal to put traffic lights at the intersection of Chapman Road and the Crescent. The Glebe Society does not have sufficient information to have a well-informed view on the implications of this ‘signalisation’ of the intersection. We do, however, urge the Council and MIRVAC to give careful further consideration to this proposal to ensure it will not create more problems than it solves.
John Gray
President
The Glebe Society inc
21/8/2013
[1] Submission of Glebe Society Comments on Harold Park Draft Planning Controls 21/12/2010
[2] Meeting with MIRVAC 7/9/11
[3] DA 3.10 p14
[4] DA 3.10 p14
[5] Meeting organised by FLAG and addressed by local MP Jamie Parker 19/8/13.
John Gray
President
The Glebe Society inc
21/8/2013
[1] Submission of Glebe Society Comments on Harold Park Draft Planning Controls 21/12/2010
[2] Meeting with MIRVAC 7/9/11
[3] DA 3.10 p14
[4] DA 3.10 p14
[5] Meeting organised by FLAG and addressed by local MP Jamie Parker 19/8/1
One comment. Please add yours.
When will there be better public transport (buses) between glebe and suburbs such as waterloo? I had to refuse jobs because of that! it’s such a shame. by the way, not everyone lives near a great bus stop or redfern train station.