Planning decisions to be made this year will be of major significance to Glebe and surrounding suburbs. The first relates to the future development of Harold Park and the associated Tramsheds. The second, the Bays Precinct, is less specific to Glebe but has the potential to reshape the waterfront of the inner-west. The Glebe Society encourages residents to inform themselves about what is proposed for Harold Park and give their views to the City Council. The replacement of the trotting venue will be the biggest and most important urban development in Glebe for many years, and is an opportunity to do something imaginative with practical benefits both for Glebe and for Sydney. Follow the links below to:
read planning convenor Neil Macindoe’s report on the concept plan for Harold Park presented to community workshops recently;
read President Lesley Lynch’s appeal to Glebe residents to “have your say” on Harold Park; and
readLesley’s report on the last meeting of the Community Reference Group on the future of the Bays Precinct, and its surprisingly positive outcomes.
click here to email your comments on the proposed planning scheme for Harold Park to the Glebe Society.
Harold Park workshops unsatisfactory
The presentations by the Government Architect’s Office (GAO), acting as consultant for the City of Sydney Council, were unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The technical reports essential to making decisions were not available, and consequently residents were often unsure whether they had any basis for objection.
Moreover, there was no provision for questions except within groups, and often there was no answer available anyway.
The presenter showed insufficient regard for the context of the site. It is entirely within the Johnston’s Creek Valley and surrounded by the Glebe, Forest Lodge and Annandale ridges, all Conservation Areas, including many heritage items. There are other heritage items to the north, including the Tramsheds, which are part of the site; the light rail viaduct and Jubilee Park.
Most importantly, the parklands of the valley extend almost from Parramatta Road to the Rozelle Bay foreshore, and include an extensive area earmarked for open space between the carpet factory and the viaduct. The valley also contains the main north-south transport routes. There are a large number of public viewing points across and along the valley.
It became clear the GAO proposal was both too dense and too high to retain the character of the valley, and related poorly to the main features with which it should connect most strongly.
Built Form It also became clear from statements by the City’s Director of Strategic Planning that the number of dwellings proposed was greater than location. In general, the configuration, location, height and circulation associated with proposed residences were unsatisfactory.
Proposed Harold Park layout – Tramsheds at the top.
Access The necessary improvements to pedestrian and cycle access were either absent or vague. Access to the Tramsheds is proposed to be across parkland, whereas the preferred route is to reopen and extend the original access, known as the Canal Road, via a controlled intersection with The Crescent. Part of this route is also recommended for conservation in the Heritage Study. This route could also provide some access to the residential part of the site, taking some of the pressure off the Ross Street entrance.
Another reason to restrict development is that all the major surrounding intersections are at or above capacity, as is all the public transport except light rail.
Open Space The proposed open space along the base of the cliff has many problems. It would create a narrow wind tunnel and, because of the high buildings next to it, would be invisible unless you were actually in it. Thus there are security problems as well as major overshadowing in the mornings. The space appears to double as an access route. It has no relationship to the existing Johnston’s Valley Parklands.
And, in addition, at 2.75 hectares it is a much smaller area than would be justified by the scale of development.
Tramsheds Although theses are recommended partly for community use (state and local) in the Sustainability Study, there was little mention of this in the presentation. The curtilage should include the entire forecourt, which does not preclude reinstatement of the gardens, recreational use and low plantings for small birds.
The Tramsheds are the most distinctive part of the site and should be the focus. They can provide a range of amenities for the new residents on site as well as for the surrounding community, so all types of access, including from the new development, need to be carefully thought out.
The in-situ trams can be restored on site or used on the extended light rail.
Many residents are unaware the GAO proposal includes a large new building next to the Tramsheds, zoned mixed use but intended to house a five storey carpark and extensive commercial element, both in association with the Tramsheds. This is the only mention of parking in the studies, except to point out parking opportunities in the surrounding streets.
Conclusion At this stage the Harold Park Working Party believes the entire project should be extensively rethought and redesigned, taking far greater notice of resident comment than has occurred so far.
– Neil Macindoe Convenor Harold Park Working Party
Have Your Say
We now have the first indications of the thinking from the City of Sydney’s consultants on options for the rezoning of Harold Park. Around 300 residents attended presentations on 10 and 17 February on the Government Architects preferred option for the overall urban design. In addition, the important technical reports on transport, economics, heritage and sustainability are now available on the CoS website.Neil Macindoe has provided an account of community reactions to the Urban Design Study presentation (see aboveI).
It is clear that initial community reactions are at best divided. Feedback to the Glebe Society suggests that most participants were disappointed with the preferred option and most have major concerns.The concerns relate to density, height of buildings, open space, transport/parking and loss of public views and the disappointments relate to lost opportunities for more creative design options.
This is a huge site with enormous potential if a fair and reasonable balance can be struck between private and public good and the creative and sensitive design principles applied.
The positive is that this is still early days and we do have opportunity to influence the outcome. We argued for CoS to have carriage of the rezoning (rather than the Minister under Part 3) because their processes allow for much greater consultation. We now need to take advantage of this and engage with the process at every available point.
Now is one such opportunity to have your say. While the consultation allowed each table to provide reactions, it was, of necessity, a rushed and somewhat chaotic process. Many people are clarifying their reactions post the meeting. Thankfully, we have a small window for more reactions to be registered.
Public input on the presentation and the related technical reports is open via the CoS web-site until Monday 8 March (www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au, search for Harold Park and follow the prompts). Alternatively (or in addition) you can send your views to the Glebe Society by snail mail to PO Box 100, Glebe, by email to planning@glebesociety.org.au, or log on to our website (www.glebesociety.org.au) and comment on the Harold Park News item. We will be providing a response on 8 March and in the interim week are seeking members’ views. We will get a further opportunity to comment when the proposed planning instruments (DCP and LEP) go on public exhibition in September.
There will be strong pressures for unacceptably high density development with the resulting implications for building height and reduction of public space. And there is always the underlying possibility that the Government can call the project in – at any point in the process. So make sure your views are heard.
– Lesley Lynch President
Community Advice to Government on Bays
The Community Reference Group for the Bays Precinct (CRG) held its last formal meeting on Monday 1 March. As reported in the October 2009 Bulletin, the CRG, after a very shaky start, had settled into a more productive mode and at that meeting we provided the Government with the next stage of our advice.
We developed a draft set of principles last year and through February had been working with these to put down some broad brush proposals for the bays and foreshores. One outcome has been agreement to strengthen the principles in relation to public access and uses. We now have a set of agreed objectives, given teeth through a detailed set of planning principles, which we hope Government will accept as setting strategic parameters for the future development of the Bays Precinct. Should they so do, we would have some protection against future ad hoc development decisions that override the public good and community wishes
The CRG objectives for the Bays include: ending the long history of ad hoc decision making; reaffirmation of the primacy of the ‘public good’ over private benefit as the driver for future decision making; protection of the remaining publicly owned harbour and foreshores from further alienation (pity about the proposed excision of Sydney Harbour for the ‘Dubai’ hotel at Barangaroo); much greater access for the community to the foreshores – including continuous access except where precluded by safety or security reasons; restoration of headlands and heads of bays to the community as opportunity arises (pity about the Bailey’s decision); safe access for passive water based recreation (rowing etc); recognition of our maritime and industrial history and conservation of heritage items (watch out for Glebe Island Bridge); prohibition of major planning decisions without simultaneous provision for necessary transport infrastructure; exclusion of future private housing from direct foreshore frontage; maintenance of a contemporary ‘working harbour’ character; provision of major public art and cultural activities and of course best practice sustainability principles to be the new norm.
Well what is new? Perhaps a Government willing to stand by such objectives? Or a network of community groups better armed and more determined to insist they do.
The CRG worked with little technical information, which, in conjunction with the time frame, precluded development of a complete, soundly based vision for the Bays. Its broad brush proposals for the Bays are therefore a first cut with an emphasis on the protections for future community access. We expect to have the opportunity to add depth and detail during the planned Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct Planning process in the second half of 2010.
En route, we reluctantly provided advice to Government on the location of the Cruise Passenger Terminal (CPT). The CRG was divided as to the best location: many were not convinced that the starting point was justified (ie the relocation from its current location) and Balmain community members were pretty equally divided as to whether White Bay or Glebe Island was the preferred alternative site. (The same division of community opinion was manifest at Leichhardt Council’s public meeting on the CPT.) What we did agree on was that the whole exercise around the CPT was an exemplar of a poor planning process. We were required to indicate a preferred site for a major activity without being able to assess relative merits of other options for these and neighbouring sites, with no technical or economic analyses and most glaringly, with no information as to how apparently intractable transport issues were to be managed. We were thus reluctant participants in yet another one-off, un-strategic planning decision. (Three Balmain community members resigned from the CRG largely as a result of disagreements around the CPT White Bay decisions).
A major concern of community groups has been that the Government will continue to make major decisions before the Bays Precinct process is finalised. We can only hope the Government respects the consultative process it has, belatedly, set in place. But if for legal reasons the Government cannot avoid a major planning decision, the CRG has argued that any development must comply with the Planning Principles for the Bays Precinct.
We will be bringing to the last meeting a proposal that Government cuts through the current fragmented management that flows inevitably from the competing agendas and silo mentality of the 11 or so government agencies currently entrusted with ownership/management of the publicly owned parts of the Precinct. It is hard to see how any strategic plan for the Precinct can be implemented successfully under current arrangements. We will be proposing the establishment of an independent Bays Precinct Authority – though not one which is immune from public scrutiny and appeal through the appropriate channels.
Incidentally the CRG, despite numerous requests and a Ministerial instruction, has had no interaction with, nor feedback from, the Bays Precinct Task Force where we understand our public officials are developing their advice on these matters for Government.
We have stayed with this at times very frustrating consultative process because the Bays site is so hugely important, sited as it is between the CBD and the inner west residential areas and with such huge potential for exciting and imaginative redevelopment. It provides a rare opportunity that once missed will not come again. And we hard headed optimists will keep up the battle into and beyond the next election.
We will produce a short ‘glossy’ summarising the CRG advice to Government. The CRG report will be available on the Glebe Society website on 2 March. The Government’s timetable has slowed with the change of Ministers. It seems that the consolidated report from the Bays Precinct Taskforce will emerge sometime around April or May. The timeframe for Stage 2 (developing the Strategic Plan/Master Plan) will then be set.
The CRG objectives for the Bays include: ending the long history of ad hoc decision making; reaffirmation of the primacy of the ‘public good’ over private benefit as the driver for future decision making; protection of the remaining publicly owned harbour and foreshores from further alienation (pity about the proposed excision of Sydney Harbour for the ‘Dubai’ hotel at Barangaroo); much greater access for the community to the foreshores – including continuous access except where precluded by safety or security reasons; restoration of headlands and heads of bays to the community as opportunity arises (pity about the Bailey’s decision); safe access for passive water based recreation (rowing etc); recognition of our maritime and industrial history and conservation of heritage items (watch out for Glebe Island Bridge); prohibition of major planning decisions without simultaneous provision for necessary transport infrastructure; exclusion of future private housing from direct foreshore frontage; maintenance of a contemporary ‘working harbour’ character; provision of major public art and cultural activities and of course best practice sustainability principles to be the new norm.
Well what is new? Perhaps a Government willing to stand by such objectives? Or a network of community groups better armed and more determined to insist they do.
The CRG worked with little technical information, which, in conjunction with the time frame, precluded development of a complete, soundly based vision for the Bays. Its broad brush proposals for the Bays are therefore a first cut with an emphasis on the protections for future community access. We expect to have the opportunity to add depth and detail during the planned Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct Planning process in the second half of 2010.
En route, we reluctantly provided advice to Government on the location of the Cruise Passenger Terminal (CPT). The CRG was divided as to the best location: many were not convinced that the starting point was justified (ie the relocation from its current location) and Balmain community members were pretty equally divided as to whether White Bay or Glebe Island was the preferred alternative site. (The same division of community opinion was manifest at Leichhardt Council’s public meeting on the CPT.) What we did agree on was that the whole exercise around the CPT was an exemplar of a poor planning process. We were required to indicate a preferred site for a major activity without being able to assess relative merits of other options for these and neighbouring sites, with no technical or economic analyses and most glaringly, with no information as to how apparently intractable transport issues were to be managed. We were thus reluctant participants in yet another one-off, un-strategic planning decision. (Three Balmain community members resigned from the CRG largely as a result of disagreements around the CPT White Bay decisions).
A major concern of community groups has been that the Government will continue to make major decisions before the Bays Precinct process is finalised. We can only hope the Government respects the consultative process it has, belatedly, set in place. But if for legal reasons the Government cannot avoid a major planning decision, the CRG has argued that any development must comply with the Planning Principles for the Bays Precinct.
We will be bringing to the last meeting a proposal that Government cuts through the current fragmented management that flows inevitably from the competing agendas and silo mentality of the 11 or so government agencies currently entrusted with ownership/management of the publicly owned parts of the Precinct. It is hard to see how any strategic plan for the Precinct can be implemented successfully under current arrangements. We will be proposing the establishment of an independent Bays Precinct Authority – though not one which is immune from public scrutiny and appeal through the appropriate channels.
Incidentally the CRG, despite numerous requests and a Ministerial instruction, has had no interaction with, nor feedback from, the Bays Precinct Task Force where we understand our public officials are developing their advice on these matters for Government.
We have stayed with this at times very frustrating consultative process because the Bays site is so hugely important, sited as it is between the CBD and the inner west residential areas and with such huge potential for exciting and imaginative redevelopment. It provides a rare opportunity that once missed will not come again. And we hard headed optimists will keep up the battle into and beyond the next election.
We will produce a short ‘glossy’ summarising the CRG advice to Government. The CRG report will be available on the Glebe Society website on 2 March. The Government’s timetable has slowed with the change of Ministers. It seems that the consolidated report from the Bays Precinct Taskforce will emerge sometime around April or May. The timeframe for Stage 2 (developing the Strategic Plan/Master Plan) will then be set.
There are no comments yet. Please leave yours.