General Safety observations:
- in an area where the evidence has suggested that
both crime rates (including violent crime) and perceptions of fear of crime
have for many years been long standing issues it is hard to understand why
there is no requirement for a separate technical report in relation to CPTED; - crime and safety issues are more or less absent
from almost all the documentation; - none of the documentation references any
strategic alignment with the City of Sydney’s Community Safety Action Plan; - while the documentation is very comprehensive it
is very day centric, contains few images of the nightscape and the intended use
of public spaces after dark – e.g. Urban Design and Public Domain Study
Appendices Volume 2 Photomontages pages 564-571 but every other document is
similar in terms of the absence of nocturnal images -fear of crime and safety
after dark is and for a long time has been a key concern for local residents
yet the issue is not worthy of mention amongst the thousands of pages of documentation. - overall the documentation pays token regard to
urban safety and any technical analysis of CPTED which seems to be considered
almost as an afterthought – for example the Urban Design and Public Domain
Study Volume 2 devotes a single page to Safety (page 653) and 50 pages
(594-644) with extensive analysis, multiple figures and diagrams devoted to
Solar Access. Much of what is written on page 653 regarding Safety are simply
generalised comments which could apply to any development anywhere – there is
no genuine attempt to relate the information to the development.
CPTED Specific observations:
- the key document relating to CPTED is the
(listed under Other) Gateway required study Addendum to Urban Design Report
(Hassall) Waterloo Estate South – the report itself is headed Urban Design
Review Waterloo Estate South – February 2022 – Hassell Consultants; - On page 3 of this report it states “Hassell
has been engaged by DPIE to undertake a ‘broad and holistic’ urban design
review of the Waterloo Estate (South) Planning Proposal prepared by the City of
Sydney” “The project brief requires the review to include (amongst
other things) “Whether Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) principles have been integrated into the planning proposal.” - *at 3.5 under Observations on page 35 CPTED
principles are identified as a key theme - in this section (3) each theme is given two
pages summarising key issues linked to the development – CPTED is mentioned on
pages 59-60 with broad references to sightless, access, visibility,
attractiveness, mid-block links and courtyard security – CPTED is not mentioned
in the summary of observations at the end of this chapter; - section 4 of this report relates to Technical
Analysis of the Planning Proposal – this is where, given the brief, we would
expect some detailed analysis of specific parts of the development and how
CPTED principles have been considered with respect to specific types of crime
and how the design proposal mitigates against these issues in specific
locations – it might also consider the social environment in terms of how the
development will encourage social interaction in private (communal spaces) and
public spaces as a means of encouraging a sense of neighbourliness and people
looking out for each other; - this section (4) on page 67 lists key items in
the Gateway Determination that require further assessment – this does not
include CPTED – but lists other issues (considered more important?) such as
building height, bulk, scale, heritage, building separation and solar access; - from this we can conclude that the consultants
feel that the 2 pages in a 211 page report devoted to CPTED on pages 59-60 meet
the brief that “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
principles have been integrated into the planning proposal;” - clearly (as taxpayers!) this is not the case and
we need to call out that this report as far as CPTED is concerned as
substandard, makes token references to CPTED and makes no real effort to
provide any technical analysis on the development; - the fact that the report has been endorsed by a
Hassall Fellow Ken Maher (page 151) as a so-called Peer Review is also
laughable and hardly impartial – his endorsement does his reputation no favours
as far as CPTED is concerned - we can only conclude from the report that
Hassall consultants are not trained in CPTED and do not have the required
skills to provide the relevant expertise to make for a safer and better
development in Waterloo South. This report reflects poorly on Hassall
Consultants as they have ignored the requirement for a “broad and
holistic” review in relation to “Whether Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles have been integrated into the planning
proposal” and in this regard they have clearly not met the brief.
Based on the available documentation we can only conclude
that the Waterloo South redevelopment pays very little attention to CPTED,
offers at best token references and makes no genuine effort to link specific
crime and safety issues specifically to various components of the development
at specific locations all of which exposes the N.S.W. Government to allegations
that crime and safety issues in major developments on Government land are
unworthy of consideration.
REDWatch Note:
During Waterloo South capacity building sessions, CPTED
concerns were raised about the proposed cross block connections. It was pointed
out that LAHC had spent a lot of money 20+ years ago getting rid of such narrow
connections on estate to cut crime and anti-social behaviour. Such connections
create ambiguity of space, and therefore can be accessed by illegitimate users
and create a “hemmed in” or feeling of enclosure where they are too narrow or
may be avoided altogether if people don’t feel safe using them. It is likely that
as these connections go through private open space in courtyards that they will
be well screened to protect the privacy of people using the private open space
resulting in a lack of eyes on what happens in these cross site connections.