REDWatch submission on the Australian
Technology Park EOI
REDWatch wishes to submit some comments
concerning the Expression of Interest for the sale of the Australian Technology
Park Eveleigh.
At the time of the announcement of the EOI,
REDWatch approached the City of Sydney Council to undertake an independent
assessment of the implications for the sale. The city appointed HillPDA
Consulting to undertake the work that resulted in the report Australian Technology Park (ATP) Eveleigh
Stage 1 Call for Expression of Interest: An independent review of the
opportunities and risks related to the Sale of the ATP.
REDWatch welcomes this work by HillPDA and
the Council’s Mayoral Minute which raises key risks and opportunities about the
proposed privatisation and the processes required to ensure that the public
benefit requirement is met. REDWatch shares the concerns raised in the HillPDA
report and asks UrbanGrowth NSW and Government to seriously consider all the
issues and actions proposed in the HillPDA report and Mayoral Minute.
REDWatch is especially concerned about the
process by which the public interest risks will be assessed during the EOI
evaluation as distinct from the risks to UrbanGrowth NSW. There is a tendency
for state development authorities, and the governments that direct them, to
assume that their interest is the same as public interest, and the public
interest is that which they define. REDWatch welcomes and supports proposals in
the HillPDA report for a wide range of parties, including the community and
heritage interests similar to the Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce, to be
represented as part of the process for determining the public interest.
While it is not covered in the Hill PDA
report, REDWatch has two concerns regarding the subdivision which we understand
remains unregistered. Firstly we are concerned that the subdivision seems to
remove the public walkway around the Vice Chancellors Oval. It is unclear to us
how, for example, the Land Zoning map and the subdivision will interact around
this space and the park to the south of the National Innovation Centre, which
was previously the gardener’s compound.
REDWatch notes that the approved subdivision
was approved in the lead up to the 2013 ROI for the sale of three development
sites within the ATP. It is not clear if the implications for a full sale of
the site were taken into account at the time of its preparation.
REDWatch understands from the Council
briefing that the subdivision has not been registered and that if it remains
unregistered the approved subdivision would not come into effect. If the
subdivision remains unregistered at the time of sale, and the purchasing party
elects not to register the subdivision, then the approval would have no effect
and all of the site could end up in private ownership with the loss of access
to all public domain. Clearly this risk needs to be addressed.
In the case of the park to the south of the
Innovations Centre the subdivision protection of a proposed right of footpath
would have no effect over the Business Zone mixed use zoning. Without the
subdivision the park could be replaced by a new Business Zone consistent
development.
REDWatch hence supports council’s proposal
that if the sale is to proceed, all open space and public domain should remain
in government ownership or be dedicated to
City of Sydney Council. This should happen irrespective of any sale.
For REDWatch there are major differences
between the original ROI for three development sites and the proposed EOI for
the sale of the entire Australian Technology Park and all its assets. The ROI
did not directly threaten the role that the ATP currently plays as it would be
an addition to what is there currently. The issues on the ROI would be if the
uses fitted with the broader aims for the park as it exists now.
To sell the Technology Park in its entirety
is to either try to ensure the buyer meets the current government ATP
constitution objectives in the privatisation (i.e. they have to take on all the
objects and ensure they are undertaken when privatised) or the government sale
produces a very different entity and the Government walks away from the roles
it has tried to play with the ATP.
It is not simply a case of selling the
property but a case of working out what roles will be jettisoned and what roles
can be transferred, and how the roles that transfer are guaranteed to be
performed under a new private entity. This then is about the nature of a
privatised ATP and what can be done to ensure that transferred objectives and
obligations can be guaranteed.
The handling of heritage is a case in point.
As a government entity there is the expectation that the heritage machinery
will be preserved, publicly accessible and that there will be suitable
interpretation, educational and cultural activities conducted around the
important physical and state heritage of the site. On a purely sale basis the
machinery collection for example could be transferred and then locked up in the
smallest space and would be preserved but not accessible nor the focus for the
activities mentioned above.
It has been suggested that the CMP provides
protection for the equipment and at a physical level it may, but this is as
only as good as the intention behind the next CMP and the one after that. It is
widely warned by heritage professionals that CMPs are usually revised by
property owners to facilitate avoidance of heritage constraints rather than to
increase heritage protection.
The sale of the ATP potentially changes the
value proposition. As the value of the underlying land increases, the perceived
value of the heritage and its obligations need also to increase otherwise space
that might have been used say for heritage interpretation is turned over to
commercial return. Historically this has been the tension in Bays 1 & 2
South between the heritage operation of blacksmithing works and the ATP’s
desire in 2008 to get a commercial return on a site from all tenants including
the heritage site. It has also been a tension because the ATP has
responsibility for such a large collection of equipment which it needs to
preserve and interpret. In the past equipment has been allowed to sit outside
and be destroyed by neglect because there was not enough room to keep it under
cover and interpret it.
Thankfully this has changed since 2008 but
these issues are bound to re-immerge as private owners try to maximise their
return from the site, rather than deliver the wider community benefits
currently encapsulated in the ATP and its constitutional objects. Under
government control where there is a social obligation, the community can
campaign (as we did in 2008) to ensure these community obligations are
honoured. This becomes much more difficult to do with a private body whose
shareholders do not necessarily have a recognised role in broader civic
concerns. The move from heritage as liability to heritage as an asset could
easily be reversed as the value propositions change without robust controls to
preserve the heritage obligations.
For this reason REDWatch cannot support the
sale of the Locomotive Workshop Building and the National Innovation Centre and
the machinery collections being privatised. For a part of the site such a sale
would be like government saying we will sell the Powerhouse museum for
commercial use but expect whoever buys it to look after the collections,
interpret and display them without there being any detrimental community
impact.
REDWatch hence supports the Council report
recommendation that Heritage Buildings and assets should be excluded from any
potential sale and retained in government ownership with public access.
REDWatch is also concerned about the
potential for further diminution of the science and technological innovation
focus for the ATP. Part of the vision of the ATP was to move from the old
manufacturing base represented by the railway site to a cutting edge technology
park. While the potential sale or lease of the site to a large corporate like
Google might retain the technology focus, there also needs to be opportunities
for start-ups and agglomeration (synergy in the ATP objects) that is crucial in
science and technology development. While government might not see itself as
having a role in a normal business park there is definitely a role for government
in the research and technology incubation area, and REDWatch is concerned that
this aspect will be lost if the government vacates the ATP.
REDWatch was concerned that the proposed sale
of the three development sites could move the ATP further towards a
conventional business park and hasten the government quitting its existing ATP
roles and responsibilities. This trend started with the Media City development.
The sale of sites to mainstream business potentially erodes the innovation
focus of the ATP.
Having said that, REDWatch recognises that
there are costs associated with maintaining heritage and undertaking incubation
activities and that there needs to be a mix of income streams to ensure an
organisation with such obligations will have income streams that cover the cost
of the community benefits also delivered.
In any proposed sale UG and government need
to be clear about what is being transferred and under what conditions, and what
is being jettisoned from a privatised the ATP. That question needs to be asked
of each of the ATP objects below:
(a) establish, maintain and operate a
facility of an international standard, for the operation of businesses and
organisations in various fields including without limitation science and
technology;
(b) protect items of heritage significance in
the facility;
(c) acknowledge the original focus on
sciences and technologies, and encourage a range of activities that create jobs
and support economic growth and innovation within the facility;
(d) conduct activities of an educational or
cultural nature in accordance with the Objects;
(e) manage any facility established and
trading and income generating activities carried on within the facility;
(f) raise funds for the purposes of the
Company and conduct business on its own account;
(g) co-operate with individuals or
oganisations whether governmental (Commonwealth, State and Local),
institutional, corporate or professional;
(h) contribute to the long-term economic and
social sustainability interests of the Redfern-Waterloo and wider community in
accord with the strategic priorities of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia.
(i) Promote high quality environmentally
sustainable urban renewal and design outcomes in the facility;
(j) Facilitate technology transfer between research
institutions and industry;
(k) Encourage synergy among researchers,
designers, entrepreneurs and manufacturers.
REDWatch is especially concerned about the
decision to put the EOI out to the market before the C2E planning is
undertaken. The ATP was one of the key sites in that corridor and REDWatch
strongly believes that the sale pre-empts the broader discussion about the
corridor and where the open space and social infrastructure to support the
higher densities can be located.
This appears to us to be a basic conflict
between the community benefit that would arise from having the entire site
properly planned, and the short term benefit to UG and the Government from
selling a part of the C2E area off to generate income for UG to undertake and
provide some early initiatives in the C2E corridor – in so doing cutting of
other options. From our perspective this is a “cutting off your nose to spite
your face” response.
Central to working with communities,
especially post the Planning White Paper, is the need to deal with the lack of
confidence people have in the planning system. To say that C2E is going to plan
the corridor with the community and then, just before the first wider public
discussion on the corridor, for the government to announce the sell off the ATP
is to fuel cynicism and undermine trust.
Is UG seriously planning to lock in the
existing ATP controls on the sale while it is revisiting them in surrounding
sites? How will UG ensure these controls are not changed, especially when the
new owners could argue that they do not have the kind of densities allowed
under the eventual C2E proposals say near Redfern Station or on other parts of
C2E. Council’s concerns about building in consistency with existing planning
controls and the site’s established vision become crucial if this is what is
proposed. Some people have argued that this is the best outcome because it
locks in the existing controls.
REDWatch is however concerned that UG wants
to have its cake and eat it too. Starting with the EOI on the existing
controls, but then extracting a price based on what might be possible under C2E
leading into the final sale. Such an approach is likely to further undermine
UG’s credibility in its strategic planning.
While there needs to be commercial considerations
in strategic planning they should not be driven, or seen to be driven by, what
the body responsible for the planning might make from the sale of a component
of what is being planned. In REDWatch’s view it is crucial for strategic
planning to be done for the C2E site as a whole. Otherwise it repeats what
happened when the government, through the RWA, sold off Redfern School without
looking at what educational infrastructure would be needed to cater for the
increased population that would be generated by the urban renewal they were
charged with.
We understand that the high-rise through the
Locomotive Workshops in the C2E fly through shown to the Property Council was
included to encompass the possibility of some of the ATP being used for a new
school. This possibility and the location of other social infrastructure to
service the expanding community of the area should be included in the strategic
planning for the C2E corridor. To take the ATP site to market before the work
is done about what is needed and where it might go is to close off options that
should not be closed off early in the planning process.
REDWatch is strongly of the view that if the
government wants to sell the ATP site that it must wait for the strategic
planning associated with C2E to run its course and only after uses and controls
have been exhibited and approved should the site or parts of it be taken to
market. This would ensure that the land uses required are preserved prior to
any sale of surplus lands and also ensure that access desire lines and retail
opportunities associated with say a new rail crossing are fully apparent to the
community and the purchaser.
If UG proposes to introduce changes connected
to the C2E strategic planning process into the ATP sale, then the sale process
must not start until the uses and controls have been exhibited and approved. In
addition planning for the future of the ATP site must be on the table during
strategic planning and all options explored for its use as if it was not
subject to a sale process. As part of any sale process it is important that any
uplift in planning controls or financial opportunities through connectivity be
captured in the sale process. It would be the worst possible outcome for UG and
the community if the ATP was to be sold on the basis of the current controls
and yet the buyer managed to get significant uplift and value without that
being captured in the sale.
REDWatch has concerns about what the sales
proceeds might be spent on. We have long held the view that an upgrade of
Redfern Station, as for other key city stations, is a state responsibility to
fund, and that the local community should not be disadvantaged by having
government assets in the area sold to fund what should be being funded by the
wider state.
One of the main issues in the area is that
there is no connectivity between the ATP and North Eveleigh – when the
railyards operated there were three ways across the rail lines. The proposal
for a link to be near Redfern station only cuts a couple of hundred metres off
the existing trip via Redfern station. The option of having a pedestrian bridge
near the middle of the Erskineville / Macdonaldtown to Redfern stretch makes
much greater sense in terms of connectivity.
REDWatch understands that this option is not preferred
because of the span and potential cost, however in terms of long term community
outcomes it would connect ATP and Alexandria to Darlington and Sydney
University providing a considerable increase in connectivity. Any ATP sale
funds should be directed to options such as this local connection rather than
going to state level infrastructure.
This is not to say that the ATP should not
contribute towards any increase in connectivity to Redfern Station that may
result in increased value for the site or retail opportunities related to that
connectivity.
In conclusion, should the NSW Government
decide to sell the ATP, REDWatch would be looking for the Government to impose
conditions or covenants on the sale that would ensure as far as possible that
the undertakings by the buyer and the conditions of the sale by state could be
enforced in the long term – including upon resale of the site.
REDWatch is not convinced, given the nature
of the ATP objects and the nature of the site, that it is possible to have the
community benefits possible under government ownership transferred with the sale
of the property to a private buyer. For this reason REDWatch takes the view
that the site should remain in Government hands at least until strategic
planning for C2E is finalised and this can be reassessed.
Subsequent privatisation should only be
considered for the such parts of the site that would not impact adversely on
the continuation by government of the ATP objectives or the appropriate
government custodianship and interpretation of the sites heritage assets.
We trust UG and the NSW Government will take
these concerns into account in assessing the EOI and how to subsequently
proceed.
We urge UG to listen carefully to the
community voices and to recognise that the Government / UG interest and the
community interest may not align around the proposed sale. It is important if
UG wishes to work with communities, rather than fan opposition, that it and the
government proceed very carefully is assessing the opportunities and the risks
of the proposed sale of the ATP.
REDWatch is prepared to be involved as a
community voice in the assessment process and to work with UG more broadly to
ensure community voices are heard in decisions about the C2E corridor.
Yours Faithfully
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Spokesperson
c/-
PO Box 1567
Strawberry
Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: (02) 9318 0824
email:
mail@redwatch.org.au