Media reports on 10 December indicated that the developer Mirvac has bought the Harold Park site from the Harness Racing Club.
Media reports on 10 December indicated that the developer Mirvac has bought the Harold Park site from the Harness Racing Club.
Posted for Bruce Davis
Posted on 11th December 2010
4 comments. Please add yours.
We sumitted the follwing comments to the City of Sydney Plannng Department a few minutes before their deadline of 5 pm today. We have received ackowledgement that it got in on time.
======================================
Planning Department
C/- Ben Pechey
Via email
Council of the City of Sydney 15 December 2010
bpechey@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au
Comment on Harold Park Development
1. Consultation Process: This can only be a brief reaction as it appears that Draft Planning Agreement for Harold Park, for which public comments must be submitted by 5 pm today, has been gazumped by the news announcement of 10 December (Sydney Morning Herald) that the developer Mirvac has "acquired" the site and "had agreed to terms on the acquisition".
As of the time of writing (afternoon 15 December) the Council’s web site makes no reference to the sale and neither Mirvac nor the Council has revealed any of the "terms" that have been "agreed". Indeed, the Sydney Development Control Plan (Harold Park) 2010 and the Draft Planning Agreement – Harold Park (which refers to the land owner as the NSW Harness Racing Club) are boldly marked "DRAFT" on the web, yet at least five days earlier the ownership had changed with confident public comment from Mirvac five days ago (which would not have been pulled swiftly out of a hat).
Comment: To restore some semblance of fair play over "community consultation", Council needs to inform its residents and the wider community of the precise state of play, including dates of documentation, and extend the period for consultation and determination until a reasonable time after the full facts of the situation have been publicly released.
2. Glebe Society Submission: We endorse the tenor and detail of the submission from the Glebe Society which was carefully and responsibly developed in debate and approval at two public meetings, the most recent being on 7 December (before news broke of Mirvac’s purchase).
Comment: Council had given the impression that it genuinely valued involvement of the local community in the planning process and it should not now ignore the well-informed conclusions of the community which would be adversely affected if the development proceeds as it seems Council now approves. We would then make several more points which there is now no time to prepare.
3. Parking, Vehicles and Traffic: Of many key points to come from the Glebe Society’s submission, we draw attention to the critical, catalytic role that an enormous, local expansion of motor vehicles will have on the entire neighbourhood. With 1,200 new dwellings approved and a thousand new parking spaces, i.e. vehicles, associated with them, all packed into a site accessed to and from a corner (Wigram Road/Ross Street/The Crescent) that is already overloaded in peak hours, it does not require any further "studies" to conclude that new and major traffic jams, noise and atmospheric pollution are inevitable. Council’s conclusion that "the traffic analysis shows only relatively minor impacts on major roads" is simply unbelievable.
Comment: This development has all the hallmarks of a screaming disaster in the making for the suburb and warrants re-working, root-and-branch.
We treat this submission as a public document.
Peter & Jenny Pockley
Thanks for letting us know.
Reset the website's clock,please. I submitted my comment at 4.22 pm (Eastern Summer Time) but the system has recorded the time at 3.22 pm!
Dear Lesley and Neil,
So, the ink was already wet on Mirvac's purchase of the Harold Park site when we were meetiing on 7 December to refine the Society's submission to Council's planning process.
Much of this process and our input seems to have been circumvented by the news item in the SMH , dated 10 December, which states bluntly: "Mirvac said it had agreed to terms on the asqusition, with the stie to be converted to 1,200 medium density dwellings".
Are you able to get a precise handle on these "terms" — and circulate them urgently — so that, collectively and individually we can comment critically on them, especially if the "terms" contradict any factual understandings and formal planning processes. We have just one day to meet the Council's deadline!