REDWatch Response to LAHC’s Preferred Waterloo
Redevelopment Masterplan in light of the City of
Sydney’s “Alternative” proposal
REDWatch
has argued from the beginning of the Waterloo master planning process that
there needed to be a “non-statutory” exhibition of the preferred Land and
Housing Corporation (LAHC) master plan prior to it being finalised for formal
exhibition. A non-statutory process was used in 2011 when the Redfern and
Waterloo Estates were jointly assessed for redevelopment and in REDWatch’s
view, this process worked well for the public housing community.
REDWatch
now renews the call for the release of the supporting material for the
preferred master plan and for a “non-statutory exhibition” to give time for the
community to understand the proposal and its implications and to make further
input before the preferred master plan is formally submitted.
The
REDWatch argument is based on a number of factors:
- There needs to be a chance
to respond to how LAHC has interpreted the options input and to test the
proposal before it is finalised for submission. For example, is the City
Of Sydney (CoS) correct in saying that the two parks will get insufficient
sunlight and that one sunny park is preferable? - It is likely that many
tenants will provide informal feedback during a less structured informal
exhibition process but may not make formal submissions - Tenants need the maximum
time to understand the proposals and their implications. The expectation
that thousands of pages of documents can be read during the official
exhibition excludes most people from participating. - Many people had indicated
they would not participate until they saw what the government wanted. Now
they have seen the proposal they will want to comment. - It was only when the
community saw the preferred plan that it was possible to assess if the
proposal delivered a quality redevelopment within LAHC’s non-negotiable starting
premises.
Rather
than have a non-statutory exhibition LAHC delivered a pictorial map of the
proposal with some high level information. The information released was not
sufficient to understand the proposal or to evaluate it. The release of footage
of the massing model was only released by accident through Channel 7. It was
not scheduled for release until the formal exhibition in a few months’ time.
In the
absence of LAHC releasing information, the CoS planning staff has undertaken
its own assessment. That assessment was based on CoS preparing their own gross
floor area model based on the LAHC pictorial map, LAHC’s unit yield and photos
of the site model. The CoS analysis has raised many issues of concern,
including about the quality and quantity of public space and community gardens.
The CoS has also raised concerns about the amenity of many of the units
especially those within the 60% of buildings that are seven storeys and under
which it estimates will hold 30% of the units. Among other concerns are the low
level of retail space, which the CoS believe will result in expensive long-term
retail rentals that will not suit the low-income portion of the community.
The CoS
has produced an alternative, lower density option that was released on 1 March
2019 and presented to Council – see Waterloo Estate
Redevelopment – A Better Way for the Community. This
lower density model does seem to be financially feasible by reducing the need
to construct so much private housing due to the retention and refurbishment of
some existing high rise, notably Matavai and Taranga and splitting the Marton
and Solander buildings into two. The lower building heights also lower
construction costs. This model produced a similar number of social and
affordable housing units to the model proposed by LAHC but with a significant
reduction in the number private housing units needed to pay for the
redevelopment.
REDWatch
welcomes the CoS analysis and the issues it raises. REDWatch recognises however
that it is prepared without the supporting studies undertaken by LAHC and
without the usual community consultation that would occur if the CoS was
preparing the official master plan for Waterloo.
It
should be noted that the Council meeting on 4th March resolved to
increase the amount of social and affordable housing that CoS wanted to see
delivered in the project. The NSW Government policy requires the project to be
self-funded. CoS’s policy is to achieve 7.5% each of affordable and social
housing throughout its LGA. The CoS target cannot be met if developments on
existing government land do not deliver high levels of affordable and social
housing. To increase the amount of social and affordable housing would require
additional funding from the NSW or federal government or some novel financing
to be financially viable. This requires a change in government policy, which is
what CoS is pushing for.
With
the CoS proposal now on the table questioning the feasibility of LAHC’s
proposal REDWatch would like to see LAHC reassess its proposal in discussion
with CoS and then for there to be a non-statutory exhibition of the proposals
or proposal, if CoS and LAHC can reach some accommodation.
REDWatch
understands from people in the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)
that the proponents (LAHC and UGDC) are at liberty to make public any
information they please in the preparation of the their plan. There is hence no
restriction on LAHC making available shadow diagrams and other technical
reports to the community for discussion before finalising its proposal to DPE.
REDWatch urges LAHC to make available all the technical information that will
allow the community to have a fully informed discussion about the proposal(s).
REDWatch
appreciates that Government is currently in caretaker mode and that LAHC cannot
release this material until after the NSW election and that the submission of
the Masterplan, or further consultation, will be a decision for the new FACS
Minister with Departmental advice. REDWatch hence requests LAHC and the
incoming FACS Minister to enter into a non-statutory exhibition in good faith
prior to submitting the preferred master plan to DPE for formal exhibition.
REDWatch
notes that at the beginning of the master planning process NGO’s requested and
received support from LAHC to assist public housing community understand the
process and the proposals. This process can only work well if LAHC makes
available all the information necessary for the community to understand and
respond to LAHC and the CoS proposals. The current information available is not
sufficient for the community to properly understand the proposals and assess
the issues raised by it.
Further,
REDWatch is concerned that tenants might not distinguish between the different
status of the official LAHC preferred plan and the CoS’s advocacy proposal and
that unnecessary confusion may result. Placing the information required in the
public domain will assist in clearing up confusion. Currently LAHC has not even
confirmed in writing how many affordable and social houses will result from the
plan, with REDWatch and CoS having different understandings of what the LAHC
preferred master plan delivers.
REDWatch
recognises that LAHC has been undertaking its master planning within a
Government framework of “non-negotiables”, such as no loss of social housing,
no cost to government and a target of 30:70 public private split with 5-10%
affordable housing. As far as that framework permitted LAHC has listened to and
incorporated some community input.
It is
only now that a preferred master plan is on the table that CoS and the
community can assess if it has been possible to deliver a high quality outcome
within those non-negotiables. The CoS analysis raises major questions about the
quality of the outcome and it is now time to assess if those non-negotiables
need to be adjusted to deliver the best possible outcome for the community who
will live within the redeveloped Waterloo.
A new
FACS Minister and Government, have the option of reassessing the
non-negotiables under which the draft plan was drawn up in light of the issues
raised by CoS planners. While questioning these non-negotiables has been
excluded from engagement consideration to date, such questioning is a valid
response from the community, especially in the run up to an election where
government decisions are being questioned.
In the
same way that the consideration of a “Build to Rent” model does not neatly fit
the initial “Build to Sell” proposal for Waterloo, other options for either
external funding or adjustments to the model need also to be considered.
In
December 2016, following lengthy discussions with NGOs and the Waterloo NABs,
Waterloo Redevelopment Group, FACS-LAHC produced “Waterloo Stakeholder and Engagement Framework – December
2016. In that document, FACS undertook that it would
build stronger stakeholder relationships through respectful engagement that:
- is transparent and open and based on trust
- clearly considers the needs of each stakeholder group
- appreciates the history of Waterloo and its residents
- is culturally appropriate
- distinguishes between what can and cannot be influenced
- is timely, considered and appropriate
- incorporates feedback from previous consultations
Such
“respectful engagement” should be extended to a community consideration of the
preferred master plan. At the top of that same document, FACS set out key
principles about how engagement would be undertaken.
In line
with those principles, REDWatch submits that LAHC needs to make meaningful
supporting information for its master plan proposal accessible to the community
in a responsive and timely manner so there can be a sincere respectful and
honest discussion leading to feedback being actioned prior to LAHC formally
submitting its masterplan.
In
summary, REDWatch calls for the release of support material of the preferred
masterplan and a “non-statutory” exhibition before the preferred master plan is
finalised for submission. In undertaking this process, the issues raised by the
CoS about the preferred master plan need to be considered alongside CoS’s
option for a lower density redevelopment.
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Co-Spokesperson
12th March 2019