SUBMISSION / NORTH EVELEIGH MASTERPLAN
The master planning of Eveleigh North has been through many
steps over nearly a decade, where principles have been derived for compatible
development through community consultation with first the South
Sydney and then the City Council and subsequently denied by State
intervention. The planning and democratic norms have been disgracefully undermined
by an incremental step up in the level of development and its impacts, ignoring
the community, serving the developers and maximising the value of the
land. This is evidently not the last
step; when sold, the developers will no doubt try for even more. The public
interest has been totally subverted.
There was strong community support for the adaptive re-use
for the Carriageworks, linked to low scaled development alongside and
minimising traffic generation, which has now been betrayed.
SCALE AND CHARACTER
The site contains a repository of railway history of
national importance,
integral with the development of the railways. Any
insertions should not disturb the character of the place and be in scale, if
not deferential, as curtilage to a place of State significance.
The site is surrounded by a composite of principally
nineteenth century Conservation Area suburbs that complements the railway
story. It represents a symbiosis of living and working in one place, as an
entity.
Consequently, for about 20 years, planning controls have
controlled density, height, siting, landscaping, form and materials to sustain
scale and character. The scale is principally two storied, sometimes with an
attic storey with about a 50/50 site cover, mostly as private landscaped space
and generally a FSR of 1:1. This scale
is appropriate to all parts of North Eveleigh.
This is a net FSR, not including the public domain, open space, roads etc. Each
developable parcel hence conforms. This proposal fudges this important facet and
hence leads to a much higher net densities that thwart the scale and character
objectives, as well as causing adverse amenity and environmental outcomes.
Apart from the FSR, and how it should apply, height is a
separate issue. There are many models for
achieving low rise high densities. Most
modern urban housing is low rise. We are currently in Europe,
hence the email – virtually all new development is low rise in scale with older
core cities, mostly up to 5 stories. The only aberrations are the residual and
horrible post-war estates, many of which have been demolished.
Planning controls should also be consistent within areas
with similar characteristics and be
equitable in terms of tenure. With this proposal, the parts of the site being
recycled fit the norms. The residual areas deemed to be suitable for
development are way out of line with the norms. The net densities of these
areas exceed by many times the norms, and heights do so even more. The result
will be very damaging to the place, the public domain and to internal and
external amenity.
We had assumed that the mistakes of post WW2 redevelopment
have been learned in Australia
as elsewhere, but there is a serious memory lapse with this proposal.
There are also probity issues with the State planning
agencies setting controls selectively that hugely ramp up the value of lands to
be disposed of. Other avenues are appropriate to pursue this issue.
The suggested scale to Wilson Street is essentially four levels
with a lower storey below street level. This would be of limited viability for
residential use. Another concern is how parking will impact on height and bulk. The proposal is
schematic and the developer will no doubt push the limits, unless they are
firmly established.
This proposal suggests a lower scaled edge to Wilson Street is
compatible and allows a large step up in height with setbacks. On flat terrain
this may be the case to some degree, but this is not a flat site. The full
height and bulk of the higher rise buildings will be apparent both from the
slopes up to King Street
as well as from the long views to the south. Newtown is a hill town, so that viewed from
the south, including from the many passing trains, our building is a landmark.
This all will be obscured and disrupted by the proposed buildings. Stepping the
higher buildings only increases the impact. A uniformly lower height would be
less obtrusive and would better sustain the shared amenity. This amounts to a
major erosion of the quality and character of these suburbs and their
collective heritage.
The amenity impacts include view sharing and climatic
intrusion, particularly access to the sea breezes off Botany Bay We enjoy good
views to the Randwick ridge across this site, which will be lost. Our principal concern is however the damage
represented by this proposal to the public domain, and the shared amenity.
That the character of Sydney
substantially derives from being a built landscape is well understood.
Buildings step up with topography and increase in height particularly along the
ridges, hence dramatising the topography, as well as sharing the amenity
benefits. This is a historic pattern, embodied in the planning controls for
some decades, particularly to the Harbour edge suburbs where view sharing is
apparently more valued that from other places. There seems to be amnesia about
this issue also.
Your Director of Urban Design has articulated this in the
past, but pragmatism seems to have surfaced with respect to Eveleigh and its
communities. It seems that these are
considered able to be safely ignored.
ESD ISSUES
This site has good northerly exposure aligned to Wilson Street for
sun access, supported by the existing pattern of development. Buildings aligned
principally for this aspect would be sensible, particularly they would also
form a barrier against railway noise to the south. The constraints and
opportunities of the site suggest closely spaced low buildings. The higher the
building the wider the spacing for good amenity. Hence the pursuit of high rise to achieve a
high density is a fallacy. Its only purpose is to get good views, usually
captured at the expense of others.
The proposal also has adverse energy conservation impacts.
Buildings with a primarily east/west aspect are much more energy intensive as
well as inferior for living. Higher buildings are more energy intensive to both
build and maintain, as well as more expensive to build. Hence this is a poor
model for sustainable housing except in extreme situations. Microclimatic
considerations are also important in terms of minimising turbulance and winds
in winter and allowing access to sea breezes to
avoid the need for air conditioning in summer.
SOCIAL ASPECTS
Social and environmental issues are intertwined. Putting
more than 2000 new residents, mostly at the western end of the site, in housing
very different in form and character
from its surrounds, will ensure poor community development, as well as
impede integration into a diverse and vibrant local community. It will remain
an enclave. Most new residents are likely to drive on and off the site, unlike
most of the locals. Additionally the proximity to the Carriageworks will ensure
marketing is to high status and high income groups. It will not produce
affordable housing or student housing, as has been suggested.
ACCESS AND TRAFFIC
The site historically only had one vehicular access point
onto Wilson Street close to but offset from Queen Street. This related to the
tram system and reflected the very low level of vehicular access to the site,
mostly by supply trucks. The workers either worked locally of came by train and
tram.
Retaining only one access point at the extremity of the site
for most of the new population, as well as to serve the Carriageworks complex
is totally inadequate, hazardous as well as very inefficient, and it greatly
increases the impacts.
It is a poor connection for the following reasons:
1)
It is circuitous and inefficient at the extremity of
the site further removed from connections to the arterial system as well as to
the City proper.
2)
It poorly serves access, particularly from the
Carriageworks, drawing traffic through the new residential streets.
3)
It has a dangerous off set junction with Queen Street. This
junction already has a high accident record.
4)
The connection at this point will encourage traffic to
use Queen Street.
Queen Street is a very narrow overloaded street already at its environmental
capacity with frequent long delays at King
Street.
5)
It will generate a large number of uncontrolled
movements into Wilson Street
conflicting with the most important radial bike route into the City from the
south and southwest.
Both a dispersal and a relocation of the access is
desirable. The previous Master Plan proposed access with a roundabout at Forbes Street. This
is far preferable in terms of safety and serving the movements, while
minimising intrusion into residential areas. This was inexplicably deleted in
the finalisation of the Built Environmental Plan, with no community debate or
accountability. This is another probity
issue, as your Department’s Director of Urban Design lives in Forbes Street.
In terms of more efficiently and safely serving the
movements while minimising impacts on residents, the preferred access would
seem to be at Golden Grove Street.
This feeds directly into the arterial system and provides direct access to the
Carriageworks. Grade differences have been used to support the existing access,
but the differences in grade are slight
and not significant, given the substantial engineering and changes consequent
of development of this part of the site.
In terms of equity and distribution more than one access
point would be desirable.
OPEN SPACE
It has been fundamental with new development in existing
urban areas that there be no diminution of services with development on a per
capita basis. This area is very deficient in open space compared to even the
norms of the inner city, which is any case much lower that the rest of the
City. The general standard applied to new development areas adjacent to the
City, such as Pyrmont Ultimo is 10 sq m /capita which is less that the rate in
the adjoining areas of the City. New well-designed sectors such as Victoria
Park have a very generous and high quality public domain, including parks
comparable to Pyrmont Ultimo. Community acceptance of urban consolidation is
consequent on the maintenance of such services.
Adding 2000 new residents mostly to the western end of the site should
require at least 20 000 sq m of new open space. The previous Master Plans had
new parks, which were not compromised by a privatised edge of high buildings,
but are enhanced by public edges, roads, paths and landscaping. There is virtually no open space in this
scheme which is large enough for the public to use. The open spaces proposed
are small, enclosed by hard edged housing and should be considered to be common
spaces associated with the development and landscaping, not public open space.
The Newtown Darlington area only has one useful local park, Hollis Park,
well used and developed but very deficient for a very dense area, and it should
not be expected to serve this added population. A park of similar size and
accessibility linked to Wilson
Street should be a minimal requirement. There is a
similar deficiency at the eastern end of the site. The proposed carve up of the
rail fan with residual space between office blocks will not provide useful
public space, but is cosmetic landscaping.
One must assume from the figures provided that many hard
surfaced areas associated with the Carriageworks are being included in the open
space calculation. Apart from these areas also being vehicular space and
parking, their nature greatly limits their recreational value, not withstanding
their heritage importance.
CONCLUSION
There has been a succession of Master Plans for Eveleigh
North. Normally the community and the decision makers would expect some
refinement and improvement in environmental and social outcomes from this
lengthy process. Rather the converse has occurred. The community’s issues have
been ignored and each plan gets more rapacious and developer driven, and the
planning norms are set aside.
If this plan proceeds the new community will be a community
apart or hardly a community at all.
Bruce and Sarah Lay
Wilson Street
Newtown
2042