REDWatch
Submission on Sydney
City
Draft Subregional Strategy
REDWatch,
the residents group that covers the Redfern Waterloo area wishes to make some
brief comments on the Sydney City Draft Sub Regional Strategy (SRS).
We note that
“Redfern Centre” is one of the five precincts referred to in the Sub Regional
Strategy. We also note that the strategy for Redfern Waterloo is almost
entirely based on the work done by the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) in
their Built Environment Plan (BEP).
REDWatch is
of the view that while the RWA’s work is important to the SRS, the SRS should
consider a broader focus than just that put up by the RWA for our area. We
hence ask the Department to take the following points into consideration in
finalizing the SRS.
While the
strategy references management of traffic to and from the airport as one of the
key transport issues there is no proposal for how this problem will be
addressed. The Redfern Waterloo area is one of the areas directly impacted adversely
by this city / airport / port traffic and yet the SRS does not address how the
impact of this traffic on Redfern Waterloo can be mitigated.
We are aware
that the RWA recognizes the importance of addressing the impact of the arterial
road on the areas development. The RWA has explored a number of options but it
has not been possible to arrive at an acceptable solution with the RTA. Hence there
are no solutions proposed in the RWA Plans for the area. Just because two government
instrumentalities can not agree on a solution does not justify it being left
out of a long term planning document like the SRS. The SRS must recognize and
address the challenge not just of facilitating the traffic movements but also
of mitigating the social and economic disruption that that traffic causes
through a proposed growth area such as Redfern.
The redefinition
in Figure 31 of Redfern as an area to west of Regent Street so that the “Access from to
and from the airport” does not dissect the precinct totally misrepresents the ‘on
the ground’ reality which needs to be addressed.
In fact
Redfern Waterloo has two major divisions which any long term planning strategy
should address. The first is the twin pair roads that separate Redfern Station
from Redfern to the east of the main roads. These main roads also impact on
businesses on Regent Street
and will also do so to new businesses on Gibbons Street when the Redfern Station
development and town centre are built. The town centre will be sandwiched
between the arterial road twin pair which is bound to impact adversely on the
town centre redevelopment.
The second
major division in Redfern Waterloo is the rail corridor. The SRS does not
address the lack of permeability across the railway corridor which is necessary
to link the precinct together. The Minister and the RWA initially proposed a
connection between the CarriageWorks
and the ATP which would have at least created a crossing near the mid point of
the Eveleigh site. Due to the problems of crossing the main rail corridor the
cost blew out and it was decided to instead go with a cheaper proposal of a
crossing near Redfern Station which does little to address the permeability
across the railway line.
When
Eveleigh rail workshops were operating there were three crossings between North
and South Eveleigh to provide good permeability.
A similar number is probably needed to address the needs of the proposed
increase in residential and commercial use of the area. If there is only to be one crossing it should
be made in the middle. The SRS needs to address this issue if there is going to
be a workable Redfern Precinct. The SRS notes (Page 42) the investment in the
area however we are concerned that without the linkage infrastructure issues
being addressed that the investment will not bring the benefits it could to the
area. We would suggest that the area needs a movement economics study similar
to that undertaken in Parramatta
by Space Syntax.
It is of
considerable concern given its pivotal role in Redfern’s redevelopment that plans
for Redfern Station have not yet seen the light of day. We have seen plans for
the areas around the station released separately but not for the key linking
development. The station proposal must address the rail bus interchange issue
and it must address connectivity between the station and the surrounding areas
that it will serve. To date we do not know if it will do this or if it will be
another compromise driven by what can be negotiated between the RWA and the
large infrastructure departments. A robust SRS must recognize these issues and
ensure they are on the region’s planning agenda.
With the
developments happening in the area the SRS must ensure that high priority is
given to an upgrade of Redfern Stations that addresses these issues. Redfern
will grow to be an important commercial hub and it is crucial that the
infrastructure is put in place as early as possible to facilitate this
development.
We wish also
to point out to the Department that Sydney
University is interested in acquiring
the North Eveleigh site when it goes to market
and that if this happens it will impact upon aspects of the SRS. As a result
the finalisation
of the SRS probably should be left until after the North
Eveleigh sale in early 2009.
We support
the SRS proposal for the retention of employment lands in the City Council
area. We are particularly concerned about the need to ensure that the
employment lands are not just used for white collar office positions. Historically
trades people and service industries operated in the area but most of those
sites are being redeveloped for housing and other uses, pushing them to the
fringes of the greater metropolitan area. The SRS needs to ensure that adequate
employment lands are available so that new businesses can establish in the area
and that a full range of trades and services are accessible to businesses and
residents living in the city. We were particularly concerned that the RWA did
not make provision for any of this kind of employment lands in their proposals
for the Redfern Waterloo area. There needs to be trade and blue collar
employment options to provide trade and unskilled employment options for people,
especially those living public housing in the area.
If the SRS
is serious about a creative hub and cultural guidelines then it needs also to
think about what space it plans for the arts. Artists have to be well
established to be able to afford to live or work in the area. Already with
gentrification we have seen artists pushed out. Some affordable studio /
incubation space should be built into forward planning to maintain a flow of up
and coming artists in the area. Already in the performing arts we are being
told that cost recovery policy at CarriageWorks
is putting significant strain on some contemporary groups who by their nature
are not well placed to pay market rates. Unless provision is made to maintain
diversity all that will be left in the city will be the well established
mainstream artistic businesses that can pay high inner city rents.
We welcome
the RWA’s initiatives for leveraging employment and training off the
redevelopment of government assets, but we are of the view that these
opportunities are not structured to be able to accommodate those most impacted by
inter generational unemployment and social disadvantage.
Any regional
planning involves tradeoffs between local and regional priorities. REDWatch is
concerned however that the SRS process has not sought to have any prior consultation
with local resident, business and community groups so that their perspectives
could have been better considered in the preparation of the SRS. The process
used by the RWA to formulated plans has limited input from local business and
residents to responses during exhibition period to pre formulated plans and
hence there is little community input to the SRS through the RWA Plans. As a
result community concerns do not appear to have been adequately assessed in the
SRS preparation and hence were probably not properly considered weighed against
regional and metropolitan imperatives in producing the SRS.
REDWatch is
concerned about the lack of planning for affordable housing in the SRS. In
Redfern the RWA has a policy for raising funds but still the promised
Affordable Housing Programme
has not been developed. The production of a Ministerial Media Release covering
a cabinet decision to put some affordable housing into North
Eveleigh does not replace the need for a well worked policy as to
how the challenges facing
the city or Redfern Waterloo are to be handled. In spite of early indications
from Premier Iemma that affordable housing was going to be one of his government’s
priorities no strategy has materialised. Agreements that raise $58m for affordable
housing will not make a significant dent in the problem over the life of the
SRS. A robust SRS should have addressed this challenge and set out planning
requirements to ensure specific long term affordable housing goals could have
been met in more than a tokenistic manner.
REDWatch
notes that the SRS picks up the RWA BEP2 proposals for revitalisation
of public housing stock. The failure of governments over several decades to
adequately fund public housing has meant that the affordable housing that was
once provided via public housing has effectively disappeared and has been
replaced by housing only for people with increasingly high needs. The SRS
should take the implications of this long term shift into account rather than
assuming, as the RWA has, that urban renewal alone will address the social
issues associated with high concentrations of public housing.
REDWatch
wishes to point out that there is a danger of even greater social conflict
under this policy unless it is accompanied by commitments by government to
deliver the services required to meet the increasing needs of those being
placed into public housing under the stricter allocations policy.
REDWatch
welcomes proposals for better east west bus connections but there is also a
need to address the difficulties faced by those who seek to join inner city bus
routes who often find that they are already full and do not stop. With the
growth in population proposed such problems need to be addressed in the SRS so
that residents have accessible public transport.
REDWatch
supports the introduction of non-car transport options which link communities
to the areas they need to access. We welcome the introduction by South Sydney Community Transport of the trial of a free
“Village to Village” bus linkage. This allows public housing estates for residents
to access hospitals, shopping centres and other facilities that under the all links lead to
the centre system were very difficult to reach. An adequate local transport
system removes many of the needs for local car traffic and hence decreases
traffic impacts. We would encourage the Department to consider the introduction
of a community transport system like the CAT system in Perth as part of their proposals to improve
local access for residents (page 90)
We support
the Councils 2030 strategy proposals for major development sites to play a key
role in helping the City meet greenhouse and sustainability targets. REDWatch
has been concerned at the failure of the RWA to insist these standards in their
North Eveleigh Concept Plan. The SRS exclusion of North Eveleigh and RWA sites
for example for environment provisions such as water recycling (p117) is therefore
of concern. Given the RWA North Eveleigh Concept Plan the SRS should be
requiring such developments to meet City of Sydney’s 2030 targets rather than merely
meeting existing ESD principles and leaving decisions on the greenness of the
site up to whoever purchases the site. As can be seen in the case of the CUB
site this becomes an invitation for the buyer to push the development envelope
in a trade off for meeting environmental outcomes that should have been
included in the initial development consent.
In terms of
heritage we note that Figure 34 does not include all the items recognized as of
historical importance under the Redfern Waterloo SEPP. We also note that the
Rail Car Collection is currently facing dispersal to inappropriate locations
outside the area as a result of the RWA sale of North
Eveleigh. In fact one of the campaigns currently being waged by
residents and heritage people is for aspects of the former rail yards, which
may be impacted by the RWA plans, to be preserved. We fully support Council,
State and Federal review and updating of heritage studies and registers
pertaining to this area. We are especially concerned that because Heritage,
Planning and Redfern Waterloo have been under the control of the same minister arm’s
length assessment of heritage value vs. development potential is not possible.
This problem is further heightened by the provisions in the RWA Act that allow heritage
provisions to be over ridden if they stand in the way of redevelopment in the
area.
REDWatch
supports proposals for creation of greater open space in Redfern Waterloo. We
note however, that contrary to what the SRS says the RWA should be doing, the
RWA has already attempted to remove from public use Marian Park in the Draft
BEP and in their North Eveleigh proposals the
RWA was strongly criticised for the lack of proposed usable public space. We understand this
decision is now being revisited since public exhibition. It is our view that
the SRS should set down requirements that should be provided in major
developments to ensure good quality open space is provided rather than just
space around buildings as was the case with much of that proposed by the RWA
for North Eveleigh.
It is
difficult to create adequate open and civic space if the government imperative
is to maximize its return from the redevelopment of the area so that treasury
minimizes the amount of money it puts into Redfern station and other facilities
in the area.
Finally in
the absence of a Government and Department of Planning commitment to community
participation in the State planning process REDWatch does not support areas
being taken out of the planning control of City of Sydney Council and the CSPC.
As evidenced
by the no longer “owned” section of the Department’s website on Community Engagement
in the NSW Planning System (http://203.147.162.100/pia/engagement/index.htm),
the Department seems to have lost interest in the kind of community engagement that
won that plan an award in 2004. Until the Department recovers a commitment to
community engagement rather than simply to consultation through exhibition we can
not even consider support for the continued handling of projects within Sydney
Council area under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) as
proposed in the SRS.
REDWatch requests
the Department to seriously consider the issues we have raised in this
submission as it finalizes the Sydney SRS.
Geoffrey
Turnbull
REDWatch
Spokesperson