Preliminary Review of GHD 2018 Final Social Baseline Report –
Waterloo
Potential issues/ Gaps the study might be perceived to have missed
- The report does not detail
ownership of current community assets or delineate between (tenants/owners/length
of tenure). For example, The Factory Community Centre is a Housing NSW
property but run by CCS or that Alexandria Town Hall is a City of Sydney
multipurpose hall but used by a multicultural community centre run by Counterpoint
Multicultural Services (previously South Sydney Community Aid) and a
community theatre organisation; MilkCrate. - The report doesn’t detail the
total volume of assets each department has. Would it not be useful to
know how many commercial/community spaces LaHC, City of Sydney, Dept of
Education etc have? - The report does not detail the
age of the assets or their current physical conditions/ lifespans,
maintenance required etc. - In addition, it has not
outlined which properties might require being demolishing /replacing
within the study area. For example, CCS’s two workshops: the Waterloo
Furniture Recycling Workshop and our Cycle Re-cycle Project spaces currently within the high rises garage space owned by LaHC will
potentially need re-housing during development. - It also does not detail
volume of Housing NSW community rooms; ones currently used, ones currently unusable and ones underutilised.
Maybe to address this recommendation each department should carry out facility an asset audit? - The report doesn’t detail
estimated current usage/uptake of said facilities or provided any comment
on the suitability of current locations. - The report doesn’t document
those facilities that meet current disability and access requirements, WHS
requirement’s etc; all of which would be important when deciding what
asset to retain, replace or upgrade. - Are any current facilities
having any historic issues not yet resolved such as asbestos? Rewiring
issues etc. - The report does not detail or
explore the current management structures, governance arrangements and
quality of the management of current facilities and services. This may
not be important at this stage in the exercise but will be important in
looking at future provision nor do doses explore the financial health of
service providers and future funding needs (in terms of facility or
service). - It also doesn’t document
users satisfaction of service providers or facilities. - The report does not outline the
type of function/activities current facilities are used for in great
detail. For example, what are the
multipurpose hall’s capacity and being used for. - Outdoor events held in open
spaces and needs /gaps in infrastructure that may exist for those events.
(e.g. Community day, Summer on Green) - Report doesn’t document outdoor
equipment condition such as play parks – (which one are up to modern
standards or need to be upgraded) - Lack of information on off
leash dog park; no exploration of demand /need/gaps - Report lack of detail places of
religious worship and what their asset being used for/by
community - Report briefly mentioned some
recreational space/ pocket parks and basketball courts community rooms,
community gardens etc. on Housing NSW land without document of conditions;
most of which will be demolished as part of the redevelopment process. - Report doesn’t identify issues
of Alcohol-Free Zones verse community issue /debate on the need for safe
wet spaces. - Report
doesn’t detail currently vacant- derelict underutilised spaces/ facilities - The report failed to identify
community facilities utilised within private precincts and the
effectiveness (or lack of) challenges and positive use within private
developments such as Merriton complex in Waterloo /Zetland and effect of
strata management of those spaces. - Lack of information on the
identified potential of assets such as the local schools to be utilised
for community provision when they are not in use or of the pros and cons
of co-location as such facilities and to the potential to be delivered on
a peppercorn rent. - Details of current and
potential tourist/heritage/street art attraction assets appears
missing - Potentially debatable that public
car parks are community facility but it is a contentious and recurring
issue might be worth exploring park and ride options. - Some the maps are a bit
unclear/hard to read.
Specific notes
- The baseline report information
appears to be outdated; an analysis of the funded contract with FaCS for
Sydney and South East Sydney regions should provide clarity. - Noticed South Sydney Community
Aid (now Counterpoint Multicultural Services is mislabelled (now at
Alexandria Town Hall), Waterloo Recycling Workshop, Cycle Re-cycle,
(might also be worth cross-checking with Inner Sydney Voice online map of
services) , - Weave Youth & Community
Services and South Sydney Youth Services are the same organisations; this
highlights the lack of understanding of the service providers of the area. - Marton and Solander Community
Garden is part of Waterloo Estate Community Garden; again highlights the
lack of understanding of the community group available. - Centacare no longer exist and
were never a CALD specific service providers. - Noticed child care/ preschools
not broken down in terms of capacity to capture gaps/needs. - Noted not much comment on
student welfare support/gap in service provision, e.g., out of school
hours care. - The report didn’t talk about
challenges faced in current facilities. For example, the different
usability of the community rooms. A discussion that would need a lot of
further unpacking with community and service providers. - No comment in the report on the
need for supported facilities/services for a range of target groups
including new tenants, young homeless, substance misusers, emergency
accommodation for victims of domestic violence, ex-offenders released from
prison, carers respite, or early intervention accommodation for mental
health crisis etc. - Social housing not broken down
in terms of landlord provider i.e.: Government public verse community
housing etc. (some residents are sensitive about them being clumped
together) - Technology and communication
might be worth also exploring the provision of community services through
technology – online community support live etc. - Note relying on census data in
relation to social housing demographic is unreliable due to the
significantly low response to census data collection within social housing
context. - No mention of high number of
LGBT community residents and service gaps/needs. - Recommendation should be made
to ensure any future of tendering of community facilities management or
service provision should not be at risk or demise of existing
well-established NGO providers - Food insecurity and services
not identified in the report as a historic issue - No mention/recommendation of
the importance to fund independent community development workers and
explore place managers? - Should the report refer to the
need for community transport to local facilities for aged/and disabled - Report didn’t cover any issues in
relation to cycleway - Report didn’t identify public
gathering spots/nodes - No reference to RWA employment
strategies and human service plans – should be recommended that this is
all re-visited and updated. - Underemployment and economy
recommendations post re-development
strategies – strata
management and landlords could also be encouraged to explore traineeships for keeping local
tradies /repairs teams/ training schemes - The report doesn’t mention the
importance of NGO’s and their relationship with the community terms of
their management of facilities both internal ones and external spaces and
their ability to build cohesion and local ownership through the
utilisation of these assets and community preference to deal with NGO
rather than Government agencies. Nor is there any comment on the
economic value of NGO provision and the cost saved to the government
through this provision. - Lack of recommendation on the
need to review how services are financed particularly around true cost
recovery. For example, The Factory Community Centre received funding for programs but in
terms of ensuring the building has minimum 2 staff at all times this is
not directly funded nor is the equipment /furnishing needed to run such
facilities. - Security provision of public
housing such concierge project is important and costly part of local
infrastructure and will continue to be needed - Little reference to ensure
heritage /history of current community facilities is retained/ documented
and celebrated - While there is some documenting
of current human service provision, it is not certain it’s a full
comprehensive in-depth analysis. It may need to be recommended to be
carried out as this development plans are progressed. - Need for any childcare
pre-school space to be near/have access to outdoor space as required under
legislation standards - The difference between balance
of leisure, community, social, cultural and commercial infrastructure not
clearly articulated - Any new facilities will have to
ensure adequate parking provision for service vehicle’s such as community
buses, along with adequate storage facilities for such things as event
equipment. Outdoor spaces often lack faculties such as power for
community events as well. - The financing model of new
facilities also has to be matched with maintenance financing.
Initial comments: Michael Shreenan – Counterpoint Community Services INC
(CCS) 12 Dec 2018