NEWS on THE CARLTON
UNITED BREWERY SITE
As
promised here’s our News Update on the Carlton United Brewery site which
follows our meeting earlier this week with the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, where we
discussed the site and raised community concerns.
This
was the first time we’d had the opportunity to speak to the Minister following
his announcement at a developer lobby group’s forum last month saying he was
calling the site in, under Part 3A of the EPA Act.
This
legislation is fairly recent and allows the Minister to determine the planning
controls for the site. In calling the site in, the Minster’s actions were
not without controversy because this is the first time the Minister has called
a site in from the Central Sydney Planning Committee (which approves large
scale development in the City of Sydney LGA).
Whilst
the meeting was a little overdue, we’re hopeful this will lead to further
discussions.
The
key issues we raised were the extent and scale of development, an undertaking
from the Minister to honour Council’s previous commitments to the community
(open space, the promised 5,000 square metre park and community facilities) and
the process going forward.
Specifically
we asked that the process going forward provide genuine community engagement,
one which resolves outstanding community issues rather than provide rhetoric.
In response we understand a Stakeholder Reference Panel is being set up (please note Expressions of Interest to participate have
been extended till Friday 21 July) with panel meetings to be convened in
early August and a public meeting to follow.
In
response, the Minister gave his undertaking in relation to the CUB Park, and here
we emphasised the need for the park to be built as part of the first stage of
the project, rather than delayed well into the project.
Whilst
we still hold grave concerns about the extent and scale of redevelopment as
well as the process, which many have described as political interference, the
Minister was refreshingly open, outlining his reasons for intervening and
stating his intentions.
However,
the meeting also raised some issues:
·
Is there a
sufficient understanding of Chippendale – it’s fabric, character, unique
heritage, existing constraints and the challenges Chippendale faces from the
scale of what’s proposed?
·
What is the
amount of the RWA levy? Here we were unable to gain a clear understanding
of the quantum, which is being allowed to affect the scale of the development.
·
A negative
response to sustainable parking which we see as vital to improving local
amenity and preventing traffic gridlock.
·
A tight
timetable for the process with the Minister looking to get out a proposal by
September and the year end targeted for public exhibition. This raises
questions whether the timeframe will compromise the debate and outcomes, with
only 6 – 8 weeks for the Stakeholder Reference Panel and public meeting
feedback.
·
A negative
response to additional open space which is necessary to address forecast
population growth, which is set to double if not triple Chippendale’s
population. Even with the provision of a
5,000 square metre park, Chippendale will still have the lowest open space in Sydney
– only 20% of the minimum standard for the City.
·
A negative
response to consider some land acquisition in Wellington Street, which
immediately adjoins the site and could provide an innovative approach to reduce
density and better integrate the site.
·
The Minister’s
decision is final with no capacity to appeal.
At
the meeting was also Chris Johnson, the Chairman of an Expert Advisory Panel
and key staff, from the Department of Planning, who are responsible for the
project. As part of the requirements for the Act, an expert panel has
been set up (or a Commission of Inquiry) however the Minister whilst obliged to
consider the Panel’s report we believe does not need to rely on it.
On
the positive side, the Minister emphasised he didn’t want to see controls
resulting in high-rise slums with high street walls and gave a commitment to
design excellence. However on the negative side, we had a sense that the
full extent from the redevelopment’s impact on Chippendale’s fabric and
character was not realised nor the environmental constraints appreciated. We felt there was a danger that
Chippendale was merely seen as part of the city. Whilst acknowledging the
site is part of a transition zone from the Central Business District to
Chippendale, the Minister indicated he didn’t see Chippendale as an urban village
but rather as part of the urban environment. The Minister however made it
clear he didn’t want to see a result; like some high-rise in mid Ultimo-Pyrmont
where street walls dominant streets and promised to listen to his Department’s
recommendations.
Interestingly,
Chris Johnson (former Government Architect who was previously on the CSPC CUB
subcommittee) showed us sketches he’d illustrated looking at various vistas to
the site – from Glebe, the Block and Central. Here we suggested he consider the
local vistas such as Balfour Street
as this was one of the important findings in the Jury Report for the previous
Design Competition.
In
giving us some background information, the Minister acknowledged that as the
City’s former Lord Mayor he had stopped the “Balfour Street Park”
from being built to the rear of the site (a park funded and approved by both
the City and former South Sydney City Council) and confirmed he’d had
discussions with Fosters prior to their announcement in April 2003 to sell the
site.
Explaining
his intervention, the Minister stated he’d only recently decided to step in,
after visiting the site and considering the draft controls prepared by the
City, despite an approach by Fosters already last December requesting the
Minister then call the site in.
Whilst
we have continuing concerns about the process which is reliant on the Minister
rather than the usual checks and balances, the Minister assured us he was
confident that by implementing part 3A of the EPA Act, he’ll get a better
result (for the community) than that drafted by the City of Sydney.
Importantly,
the Minister said he wants to be able to drive past the site in 10 years time
and see something you can be proud of, stating he is not looking to achieve a
gross Floor Space Ratio (FSR), but rather looking for design excellence,
despite acknowledging that Fosters want an FSR of 4:5 to 1 across the site.
This FSR is something experts say is unsustainable and
inappropriate. Indeed Council’s own independent experts said a FSR over
3.5 to 1 is not sustainable and importantly this FSR still resulted in tower
formations nearly 33 storeys high.
To
achieve this, Minister is confident by using a “Concept Plan Approval
Process’ this will lead to a better outcome indicating he wanted to open up the
process rather have rigid controls which he described as resulting in street
walls. The Minister hoped this would then attract developers who will
give the community a better outcome and talked about putting in place specific
controls for parcels of land, rather than across the whole site. If
properly enforced this holds some merit, as it specifies controls for particular
parcels of land, however at the moment we remain concerned that the scale and
height of the development will be increased and key heritage buildings lost.
To ensure design excellence, the Minister is considering using design
competitions for specific parcels of land, as part of the approval process.
Whilst
the Minister gave his assurances about open space and parklands, his comments
indicated some heritage (included in the new Conservation Management Plan) may
be lost. We see the Minister using this as trade off for FSR, with the Act
allowing the Minister to do so because the Act does not enforce heritage
obligations. Here we raised the concept of selling heritage floor space
off-site, in order to reduce the density however his feedback indicated a market
price deficiency.
Concerns
were also raised about the row of heritage terraces in Kensington Street
which are owned by Fosters and will be part of the redevelopment. Fears
are held that poor maintenance by Fosters will result in “demolition by
neglect”. Here we asked the
Minister to see what he can do to save these buildings.
Whilst
we feel a better appreciation for the extent and scale of the redevelopment is
needed, overall we were pleased with the meeting and the Minister’s frank
discussions and look forward to a genuine consultation process that resolves
and allays community concerns.
Don’t
forget to tentatively keep Wednesday 2 August at 7pm free iin your
diary – we’re in the process of organising a community meeting to brief you
about the CUB site and also discuss an exciting concept for an off
road high volume pedestrian – cyclist route through Chippendale onto to
the City. We’ll confirm this date and venue details with you
shortly, once we know the meeting dates for the Stakeholder Reference
Panel for the CUB site.
From the Coalition
Chippendale Community Groups (includes Chippendale Residents Interest
Group, Friends of Carlton United Site and East Chippendale Community
Group) email: communityworkingparty@yahoo.com.au