REDWatch Submission on Planning Proposal Waterloo Estate (South) PP-2021-3265

REDWatch
is a group of community residents and friends from Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh
and Darlington who support the existing diversity in these areas and wish to
promote sustainable, responsible economic and social development.

REDWatch
recognises the importance of the Aboriginal community to the area.

REDWatch
has been formed to:

Monitor
the activities of the Government (local, state and federal), the Redfern
Waterloo Authority, and any other government instrumentality with
responsibility for the Redfern, Waterloo, Darlington and Eveleigh area, to
ensure that:

(a)
The strategy benefits a diverse community

(b)
Communication and consultation is comprehensive
and responsive

(c)
Pressure is maintained on authorities

Provide
a mechanism for discussion and action on community issues.
Enhance
communication between community groups and encourage broad community
participation.

This
may involve: Holding regular meetings; Holding community forums and other events;
Establishing a website; Communicating with the community through other means;
Meeting with government representatives and authorities; Cooperating with other
community organisations; And any other means the association deems appropriate

REDWatch makes this submission on the Planning
Proposal: Waterloo Estate (South) in line with its objects.

REDWatch welcomes the opportunity to comment
upon this planning proposal.

The government context

Currently under the Future Directions Policy
social housing redevelopments are expected to be self-funding. That model uses
the sale of around 70% of the land to pay for replacement stock and maybe add a
few extra units on supposedly 30% of the land – although in Waterloo South it is
probably only 26.5% of the land. Taking a redevelopment cycle of about 70
years, even at 30% land retention each time, the rebuild area in 70 years would
be 9% of the current land and at 140 years less than 3%. PANS-OPS height
restrictions would cut in well before 140 years. This is clearly a short term
policy that is not repeatable as it sells off government-owned land that will
be required for low income housing and services into the future. The subsequent
resumption of this land is likely to be almost impossible.

REDWatch is firmly of the view that the current
sell off of ‘70% to build 30%’ model is short term and robs the public of sites
that will be needed to address low income and housing equity needs into the
future. It is for this reason that REDWatch does not support the current LAHC
redevelopment model and encourages political parties to adequately fund housing
for those people who cannot afford the prices of the private housing market.

In terms of the government and LAHC’s stated
desire to make mixed tenure communities, this would not sound as hollow if the
government also used other government owned land to create mixed developments
with 30% social housing and not just market housing. For some reason social mix
seems only to be applied to those marginalised in the housing market.

REDWatch welcomes research like that from Dr
Cameron K. Murray and Professor Peter Phibbs on Reimagining
the economics of public housing at Waterloo for Shelter NSW. That research suggests far
better ways, which alienate less land during redevelopment, for governments to
leverage their housing assets. If nothing else, such approaches close the
funding gap for governments to fund low income housing without selling off the
land.

REDWatch’s comments in this submission are
based on developments happening with a paradigm we do not support, but
nevertheless we seek to try and argue for the best possible outcomes for the
provision of low income housing, be it social or affordable within this very
blinkered approach.

REDWatch
also urges the government and LAHC to reimagine the Future Directions policy in
light of Dr Cameron K. Murray and
Professor Peter Phibbs work so that more social and affordable housing can be
delivered to meet the shortfalls in both these tenures.

Aboriginal Housing

REDWatch supports the Redfern Waterloo
Aboriginal Affordable Housing Campaign’s aims of:

1. 10% Aboriginal Affordable Housing In
all government redevelopments in the Redfern Waterloo area.

2. An increase in Aboriginal Social
Housing ensuring that any community housing provider must either be Aboriginal
owned and managed or if not, work in partnership with an Aboriginal led
organisation.

3. Aboriginal Jobs and Ongoing Employment
with targets for Aboriginal employment and contracts for construction and for
Aboriginal employment in the provision of ongoing services in all government
redevelopments in the Redfern Waterloo area.

REDWatch has worked closely with Aboriginal and
local organisations in this campaign. Gentrification has driven many people who
associate with the Redfern Waterloo Aboriginal community out of the local area
and yet many people who still work within the community have to travel long
distances to return for work, sport or community activities. For a long term
viable Aboriginal community, there is a need for Aboriginal Affordable Housing
within the Redfern Waterloo Area. For the Aboriginal community to be a part of
a vibrant future Redfern and Waterloo, the provision of sufficient social and
affordable housing is essential.

REDWatch
requests that 10% of the Waterloo South redevelopment be dedicated as
Aboriginal Affordable Housing in line with the Redfern Waterloo Aboriginal
Affordable Housing Campaign’s request for Aboriginal Affordable Housing to be
delivered on all Government controlled land in the Redfern Waterloo area.

The planning context

The Waterloo Estate was declared a State
Significant Precinct on 18 May 2017 at which point almost identical study
requirements were issued for precinct studies for both Waterloo Estate and
Waterloo Metro. Many studies were initially undertaken for both precincts and
tailored to the relevant Precinct Proposal. In May 2018 the Metro Site was decoupled
from the Waterloo Estate and a SSP exhibition for the Metro was undertaken.

In November 2019 The City of Sydney Council was
made the Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) of the Waterloo Estate site and
Council issued its own Planning Proposal Lodgement Checklist. Some differences
between Council and LAHC over the future of the existing high rise buildings on
the estate saw these areas excluded from the LAHC proposal and a planning
proposal just for Waterloo Estate South was lodged with Council in May 2020.
Most of the supporting studies had been prepared for the earlier combined SSPs.

Council then rejected the LAHC proposal and
prepared its own planning proposal for Waterloo South based on an earlier
alternative proposal developed by Council. The new proposal increased the size
of the earlier Council proposal to match the yield required by LAHC and pushed
for a significant affordable housing contribution in addition to the proposed
30% social housing. LAHC and Council could not however agree on contributions
arrangements for Council’s proposal and the Planning Minister set a deadline
for the standoff between Council and LAHC to be resolved.

When it was not resolved, the Minister removed
Council as the PPA and made The Secretary of the Department of Planning
Industry and Environment (DPIE) the PPA. This role was passed to the section of
the Department responsible for SSDA Assessments to avoid a potential conflict
of interest for the Secretary, as the Secretary was also responsible for the
proponent, LAHC.

The new PPA then submitted the Council proposal
for Gateway Determination, where the Minister had arranged for an Independent
Advisory Group (IAG) to advise on areas of difference between Council and LAHC.
The Gateway determination requested a number of changes and simplifications to
the Council proposal and these were undertaken by the PPA. The modified
proposal is now being exhibited.

This is the first exhibition opportunity the
community has had to comment on any of the three Waterloo South proposals and the
agreement struck between various government parties around density.

In the process of undertaking this submission
we have identified that not all the original LAHC supporting studies and
documents relevant to the proposal were placed on exhibition. The omissions
included:

Population
and Demographic Study
Public
Art Plan
Geotechnical
and Contamination Study
Feasibility
and Economic Benefits Letter of Assurance

Lack of clear
explanation of the scope and impacts of the proposal

The consequence of these changes in the
preparation of the planning proposal has resulted in a highly complex set of
documents going on exhibition. Some studies relate to work undertaken across
two precincts for totally different concepts to this exhibited planning
proposal. Council in effect kept the earlier work and updated studies that
dealt with its proposed built form. The DPIE PPE followed Council’s lead and
changed the reports that related to the changes it was asked to make by the
Gateway determination. As a consequence it was exceedingly difficult to even
work out what studies, documents and diagrams actually related to this
exhibited proposal.

This problem could have been addressed in part,
by producing Planning Proposal Documents that contained all the material
relevant to the exhibited proposal. This did not happen however, and the PPE
took the Council route of only changing the bits they were asked to change.

Of particular concern to REDWatch is, not even
for the baseline proposal of approximately 3012 dwellings, was there clear and
comprehensive testing of the planning proposal. The key environmental
assessment of the amount of sunshine reaching parks, streets and courtyards of
the exhibited proposal was not assessed. Questions have also been raised with
REDWatch by Council officers about whether the apartment solar access diagram
for mid-winter accurately reflects the exhibited proposal.

The 10% Design
Excellence increase not modelled

Another major concern was when REDWatch was
alerted in early April that the figures being used by the PPA excluded the 10%
design excellence provision. The increase for design excellence is designed to
be compulsory, which means that it is highly likely that the number of units
will be between 3300 and 3400 on Council’s figures, rather than the 3012
publically referenced.

The IAG said “having tested multiple options,
the density should remain as proposed in the [City’s] Planning Proposal.” The
PPA has not substantiated any reason for overruling the IAG advice; advice that
was in line with comments made by the Government Architect when the Council
proposal came before the Central Sydney Planning Committee.

The planning proposal does not test the 10%
higher density to show if or how it might work. Council has advised REDWatch
that making its increase in density to match LAHC’s yield required substantial
testing. There is no indication if this testing has been done for the 10%
increase proposed, which is likely to be much harder to accommodate without
adverse impacts on amenity.

Council has also advised REDWatch that its work
in the design guide has not been updated to show the likely outcome from the
proposed density increase.

REDWatch cannot support the proposed 10% design
excellence increase in density which has not been tested in the proposal or
shown to work without creating adverse impacts.

No “clear and easy”
presentation of the proposal

The
NSW Planning Proposals: A guide to preparing planning proposals states: “A planning proposal is a document
that explains the intended effect of a proposed local environmental plan (LEP)
and sets out the justification for making that plan. It will be used and read
by a wide audience including those who are responsible for deciding whether the
proposal should proceed, as well as the general community. It must be concise
and written in language that is clear and easy to understand. It must also be
technically competent and include an accurate assessment of the likely impacts
of the proposal. It should be supported by technical information and
investigations where necessary”.

Further, the NSW Local Environment Plan Making Guideline states, “The planning
proposal should be drafted to ensure that a wide audience including departmental
staff, authorities and government agencies, councils, stakeholders and the
community, can clearly understand the scope and impacts of the proposal.”page27

REDWatch and our advisors did not clearly
understand the scope of the proposal until Council undertook its assessment and
found that the 10% was added onto figures used in the proposal. This was
halfway through the exhibition period. Those without access to this advice
should have been able to take the PPA’s presentations and materials at face value
as “concise and written in language that is clear and easy to understand”.
Regrettably this was not the case, so almost all people will have taken the
3012 dwellings as the likely outcome of the proposal and think that this
density is what needs to be assessed and not a 10% larger development which did
not have its likely impacts disclosed or tested.

As pointed our earlier, because the PPA did not
provide, as part of the proposal, a summary of all the information necessary to
assess the planning proposal and because of the mixed relevance of the studies
provided, it was not even easy for the community to understand impact of the
pre-design excellence proposal.

REDWatch would normally argue in this
circumstance that the proposal should be withdrawn, errors in the documents
fixed (Council has listed many of these in its submission), the proposal
properly tested and then be re-represented to the community in an easy to
understand way. We are however aware we are dealing with a fatigued community
from a long drawn out process who are unlikely to welcome a re-exhibition.

The PPA needs to undertake much more work on
this proposal. It is not clear to REDWatch what the best path forward is to fix
and test the proposal and get further feedback before the planning proposal is
passed back through the Gateway for determination and LEP drafting.

REDWatch cannot support the planning proposal
in its current form, in fact we cannot even assess its likely impact because
the information necessary for this has not been made available in the exhibited
proposal.

Consultation is flawed
with submissions likely to be based on incorrect information

REDWatch has worked with the Planning Proposal
Authority (PPA), other parts of government and the community to try and ensure
the community is widely consulted. The discovery mid-way through the exhibition
that the planning proposal summaries and presentations did not disclose the
likely outcome of the proposal, nor test the likely impact of the increased
proposal, throws into question the validity of the consultation as submissions are
based on the incorrect information and assessments provided to those making
submissions.

Given the objects of the EP&A Act include “(b) to facilitate ecologically
sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and
social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and
assessment”,

REDWatch submits that the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)
precautionary principle should be applied and support for the planning
proposal, based on incorrect information, should not be used to support the
rezoning. In this case the social considerations of ESD are likely at risk if
the proposal were to proceed with further assessment, as important issues are missed.

Density is very high
before the extra 10%, so needs special handling

The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) in advice
to the Gateway determination said “There is a general view by commentators on
this proposed development that the density is too high. … The IAG considers,
however, that at this density, design quality, building quality, and urban
amenity are of significant importance at development assessment stage and at
the construction stage.”

REDWatch shares the general view that the
density, before the 10% design excellence increase is probably already too
high. Council’s initial proposal was for a lower density before it decided it
needed to match what LAHC required. While the IAG thought the Council density
was workable, it did recognise that this level of density places special
importance on design and building quality and urban amenity. The Social
Sustainability study also raises a number of issues it considers crucial to the
project’s success. In both cases however, the delivery of these crucial areas
are kicked down the road, to either the contract or DA stage where they are
potentially subservient to the planning controls.

If even the density proposed before the 10% is
to deliver a successful outcome, REDWatch has been advised that it will be
essential for a number of interventions to be made to ensure the best chance of
a successful development. REDWatch is concerned that the rezoning pushes the
density so high that its success is contingent on outcomes that have not been
adequately set at the planning proposal stage.

It is of particular concern, for example is
that the PPA has already proposed to drop the Council requirement for high
performing buildings. In addition the identified wind impacts around the four
towers, especially at Mount Carmel, have been left to the design excellence
process, whereas Council says in its experience, wind impacts are seldom solved
through this process.

It is the intent of a planning proposal “that
identified potential impacts can be readily addressed during the subsequent LEP
making stages”. It is also the intent to “identify the potential environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the proposal and outline proposed mitigation
measures and justification.” (Local
Environmental Plan Making Guideline pages 72&73).

Booting the necessary mitigation down the road
does not deal with it adequately during the LEP making process. In REDWatch’s
view the planning proposal should proactively set out in the determination those
things that need to happen if the density proposed is to work, not just for the
developer and builder, but also for the community who will live there through
the life of the buildings. This is part of assessing “the suitability of the
precinct for any proposed land use” and “the implications of any change in land
use” set out as what the Department needed to assess under the State Significant Precinct Guidelines (2016)
that initially applied to assessing this project.

In one way this happens with a DCP or a Draft
Design Guide, which, while not enshrined in planning law, do indicate what is
expected to happen as advisory documents. Other areas such as the proportions
of space for different uses are set in the planning controls. Ideally areas
requiring mitigation to ensure success should be set at the strategic
planning / LEP time or the land use should be limited to what the LEP can
ensure will work.

REDWatch urges the PPA to be specific about
what has to happen to make the higher density work for everyone who is to live
within the area of the development. If the mitigation needed cannot be
guaranteed then high density, which is dependent on such mitigation, should not
be proposed.

Social and economic
effects not identified in the planning proposal

As stated earlier the EPA Act 1979 No 203 specifies in Object (b) “to facilitate
ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic,
environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental
planning and assessment”. The Department review of a planning proposal is also
to typically “undertake an assessment of potential environmental, social,
economic, and infrastructure impacts of the proposal”. (Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline p39)

As part of ecologically sustainable
development, social considerations should have equal weight alongside economic
and environmental considerations. It is illuminating that the planning proposal
does not specifically refer to either social impacts or social effects.

In addressing the key matters for
consideration, when demonstrating the justification for a planning proposal
(proposal Section 5.2-5.5 pp 61-76) the key social question is “Q9. Has the
planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?” The
planning proposal answers this question not with a detailed response, as
happens in other areas of the key matters check list, but with the following
response “Yes. The social and economic impacts of this Planning Proposal are
discussed in Section 5.1 – Development Outcomes”. This is the same approach
taken by the Council proposal and to some extent by the LAHC proposal which at
least had a section on the Social Sustainability in the section referred to. Dr
Alison Ziller in her submission goes into the short comings of the Social
Sustainability Study.

One is always suspicious when the answer refers
to the overall section within the report. In the case of the PPA proposal the
section of the report referred to has 15 sub points dealing with development
outcomes, planning controls and the entire substance of the planning proposal.
Within the Development Outcomes section of the report there is no mention of
social effects (the question) or social impacts (the answer).

The Social Sustainability Study and a Social
Baseline Study get referenced only twice in the planning proposal. Once in
relation to community facilities (that we will address later) and once in
relation to school estimates. It is as if continuing to provide social housing
on the site is a sufficient answer to addressing all social effects.

Regarding “Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species,
populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely
affected as a result of the proposal?” Proposal p75. This question is usually
taken to refer to threatened flora and fauna rather than the human species. It
is important to understand in this development that there is a vulnerable
population of social housing tenants living in this critical government created
habitat and that the impact of the development on this population has not been
assessed under either Q7 or Q9 on the checklist.

The supporting studies are primarily focused on
the environmental side and the economics of the development have been raked
over by Council, the IAG and the PPA at the request of the Gateway. The social
considerations however are inadequately tested for the social housing land use
proposed which under the State Significant Precinct Guideline is one of the
areas required to be assessed for “the implications of any change in land use”.

REDWatch
submits that there is no evidence in the planning proposal that the proposal
has adequately addressed social effects or impacts, especially on the
vulnerable population living on the estate. As this assessment is a key
requirement of a planning proposal, REDWatch submits that the PPA should
undertake an independent SIA to assess potential impacts and propose how any
identified impacts can be readily addressed / mitigated.

Suitability of
proposed density not tested for public / social housing use

The proposal redevelops part of an existing 100%
public housing estate and proposes that there will be more social housing
tenancies after the redevelopment on about 30% of the land area. As social
housing is an expected land use then the proposal’s suitability for this land
use needs to be assessed. In addition the change of the use of some land from
social housing to other uses needs to assess the impact of the change on the continuing
social housing population.

Central to this assessment is that the current
social housing population is a distinct community which has been fashioned by
public housing allocation policies over decades. Public housing was originally
built for working people who were not expected to be able to buy their own
home. While some of the aged public housing community is from this era, the
move since 2005 to short term leases and the policy of public housing being
used as housing of last resort, means that almost all allocations into Waterloo
come from the priority housing list rather than from the wait list. Over a couple
of decades the makeup of public housing has changed significantly. In the
future this change is expected to continue, as the older working class public
housing tenants pass on.

The social housing, post the redevelopment,
will have a higher concentration of disadvantage than now. This change will see
more people with complex, multiple diagnoses like drug and alcohol problems coupled
with mental illness in social housing. This concentration of need is a direct
consequence of a lack of public housing properties and the priority allocation
by government to those most in need.

In short this is not a “normal” community. It is
a community of vulnerable people who often find life and their living
situations difficult, either because of their own circumstances or because of
the impact on them of their neighbours’ difficulties. There is no assessment of
how land use at the proposed density and proximity to well off people, able to
buy or rent at expensive inner-city rates, will impact high needs public
housing tenants.

The Waterloo Human Services Action Plan is
looking how to improve services for tenants in regular contact with the justice
system; those who are involved in anti-social behaviour incidents and people
whose tenancies are at risk. Other parts of the human services plan will focus
on safety and wellbeing, including the interaction with those with drug,
alcohol and/or mental health issues. By no means are all these issues unique to
social housing, but they are concentrated in social housing as a result of
government policy decisions.

As an example, tenants who are likely to try to
attempt suicide are allocated housing at ground level, the question has been
asked at the Waterloo Redevelopment Group whether there will be enough ground
floor units to accommodate those deemed at risk in higher buildings. Possibly
the original LAHC proposal that may have put private housing in the towers, but
had more lower rise buildings may have provided better outcomes for the
evolving social housing than the current proposal for 6-13 storey buildings. We
don’t know. Because the plan hasn’t tested the implications of the changes or
the different proposals for suitability for future social housing use, it’s
impossible to know.

LAHC seems driven by the financial opportunity
to renew stock and raise funds for more social housing, rather than
investigating the suitability of the development for high needs social tenants.
Densities that work for a “normal” or “average” 70% of the private community
may not be the same as what is needed for those who will be the public housing
community in the next 10-20 years and beyond.

LAHC’s own assumption on the demographic change
for the redevelopment has not been disclosed and the in the Demographic Study
the authors note that “forecasts are based on key assumptions provided by the
Land and Housing Corporation NSW … Changes to these assumptions would result in
different forecast results” (page 6). It is not possible to test LAHC’s
assumptions for the change in makeup of social housing even in a general
demographic context because they have not been made public in the study.

Regrettably the Demographic Study was one of
the studies not placed on exhibition, although it was referenced by a number of
other studies. REDWatch has accessed it from its archives.

REDWatch
submits that given the particular nature of social housing populations and its changes,
driven by priority allocation for those with highest need into public housing,
there needs to be an assessment of whether or not the density being proposed is
appropriate for the likely population makeup of the social housing 10 to 20
years in the future. Failure to do so, and to put in place measures to mitigate
social consequences, may result in a redevelopment that does not meet the needs
of the 30% social housing tenants who will live in the new development.

A Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) was not conducted and is needed

Many of the problems we have identified above
would have been looked at if there had been a SIA undertaken by LAHC. Requests
were made for both a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as well as a Health Impact
Assessment (HIA). Instead LAHC argued that a Social Sustainability Report (SSR)
would cover the same ground, but it has not. At a basic level the SSR has not
assessed the likely social impact on the existing community, nor assessed the
likely impact of the development on future social housing tenants. The SSR has
not identified if the identified potential impacts can be readily addressed
during the LEP-making process.

Council in its Planning Proposal Lodgement
Checklist correctly requested a SIA, but then wrongly agreed with LAHC that the
SSD already undertaken for LAHC would suffice (SSR page 7-8). Like the PPA
proposal, the Council planning proposal that went to Gateway, only references
the SSR as it related to community facilities and schools. There was no
assessment of site specific merit relating to the social impact of the proposal
on the resident social housing community, nor the required outline of proposed
mitigation measures and justification.

As a result no SIA has looked at the impact of
the project, especially on the public housing community who already lives on
the redevelopment site nor any assessment of what is needed to mitigate the
impact on that vulnerable community.

While there will be a requirement for a SIA at
the DA stage, this is a couple of years away and much of the damage to the
community will have already happened without a mitigation strategy in place. Already
the prolonged six year period since the initial announcement has left present
tenants in a state of limbo and anxiety about when they will be relocated. Relocation
will definitely will be well underway before the SIA is undertaken at the DA
stage. LAHC will also have entered into contracts with the developer delivering
the redevelopment.

Sydney Local Health District undertook their
own Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the impact of the period from the
announcement in 2015 and found significant early impacts well in advance of
relocations and the redevelopment. While LAHC representatives sat on the
steering group with local community representatives, including REDWatch, the
release of the final report has still not been agreed by LAHC, DCJ and SLHD.
The name of the final report has been changed from a Health Impact Assessment
to address LAHC concerns that the HIA name infers impacts from its Waterloo
project that LAHC does not necessarily recognise.

The planning proposal is however about
assessing if there are social impacts and then proposing mitigation.
Irrespective of whether LAHC does not want the project to be seen to have
impacts, it is the planning system role under ESD to investigate and integrate
relevant economic, environmental and social considerations. Such requirements,
as we have earlier pointed out, are part of the DPE planning proposal
guidelines and so are a part of assessing the appropriateness of a particular
land use and suitable controls for that use.

This area of the planning proposal is lacking
and it needs to be investigated before any decision can be made on the planning
proposal. For a more detailed analysis on the limitations of the SSR and the
need for a SIA please see Dr Alison Ziller’s expert submission.

REDWatch
Requests that the PPA undertake a Social Impact Assessment to address the
inadequacies in assessing the social impacts of the planning proposal and its
supporting studies. Ideally the SIA should recommend an initial Social Impact
Management Plan (SIMP) to manage any mitigation required to issues identified
in the SIA.

Social Sustainability
Outcomes not protected

Another area of concern to REDWatch is that
some areas were identified in the Social Sustainability report as essential to
the success of the project, but these have not been identified in the planning
proposal nor raised as items that should be guaranteed. In most cases these are
left for the proponent to agree with the developer, even though they are
essential to the success of the project. Some of these should be identified in
a SIA and implemented through a Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP).

Spaces for programs are identified in the
planning proposal, but the proposal is totally silent on what activities are to
happen in these spaces, and the community more broadly, to make the community
and the facilities work.

Below are some of the areas considered
essential to the success of the project in the Social Sustainability report
that are not guaranteed:

“To support the ongoing integration of the
new community, implementing a placemaking program early in the
redevelopment as part of the procurement process will be essential, as is
the need to ensure these initiatives are reviewed and adapted regularly as
the community and place evolve.” page 70
“……it is essential that a future Community
Facilities Plan considers assumptions around costs and responsible parties
for delivering and maintaining key facilities and ongoing programs. This
includes management, maintenance and operating costs for all community
facilities and open space, as well as responsibilities and ongoing costs
of placemaking and community development activities.” page 58
“Consultation with the community and key
stakeholders such as the Redfern Police Area Command and City of Sydney
emphasised the importance of ongoing community service delivery to support
individuals, as well as the community as a whole. Many felt this was an
essential prerequisite for the successful integration of social and market
housing residents.” page 70
“Consultation with the City of Sydney,
State Government agencies and local service providers has consistently
emphasised the need for a whole-of-government approach to the planning and
delivery of essential community services. A whole-of-government approach
for human services planning will need to be undertaken by the future
proponent, and will be procured as part of the redevelopment procurement
process.” page 74
“The role that local service providers
play in supporting current social housing residents was widely
acknowledged by the community as part of the consultation for the
redevelopment. Service providers’ deep knowledge of and long-standing
relationships with the community and individuals within it, were
considered key existing strengths and essential elements to maintain.”
page 73

REDWatch
proposes that these and other areas essential to the success of the rezoning to
a high density precinct be examined by the SIA and given effect through a SIMP.

LAHC Policy of 30%
social housing has not been met by proposal

Future
Directions for Social Housing in NSW (2016), the policy document driving the Waterloo
South states: “Over the next 10 years the NSW Government will: … d) Ensure
large redevelopments target a 70:30 ratio of private to social housing to
enable more integrated communities (generally with an increased number of
social housing where practicable).” (page 9) This government policy has not
been met in the Waterloo planning proposal.

In addition LAHC has continually told the
community that any affordable housing would come out of the 70% private housing,
not at the expense of the social housing.

The PPA in determining its Affordable Housing
recommendation has done two things. It has decided, for a reason not specified,
to propose 10% of the housing uplift as Affordable Housing. This has then been
added on top of the 30:70 social private breakdown. As a result the social
housing has pushed the level of social housing below the government’s Future
Directions policy of 30%.

It is essential, given the alienation of public
housing land in the development, that at least 30% of the development is social
housing in line with the government’s policy.

REDWatch
recommends that the PPA should rework its proposal, so that no less than 30% of
the site is social housing in line with the Future Directions policy and that
affordable housing comes out of the private 70% allocation.

The Planning Proposal
Authority should calculate the social housing as 30% of residential Gross Floor
Area.

The PPA frames the social and affordable
housing controls in terms of % of residential floor space. Currently social
housing only constitutes 26.5% of residential floor space. On the 600 Elizabeth
Street site Council was successful in gaining 30% of the residential floor
space as social housing. If 30% of the residential floor space was to be
delivered as social housing at Waterloo, 959 social housing units could be
delivered on the pre 10% uplift figures. This would be an increase of 112 units
over the figures proposed as the base case in the current planning proposal and
higher with the 10% uplift.

While we note that the Future Directions policy
is silent on whether the 70:30 relates to dwellings or percentage of
residential GFA, we also note that the intention of the policy is to deliver
“an increased number of social housing where practicable”, and if that is not
possible in a large inner city estate like Waterloo, it is not possible
anywhere. It should be possible to deliver more than the 98 unit base increase.

REDWatch
submits that as for 600 Elizabeth Street Redfern, the PPA should set the social
housing 30% as the percentage of Residential Gross Floor Area (GFA) not as a
percentage of dwellings so that the Future Directions policy is met and the
maximum social housing yield under the policy is achieved.

The financial
constraints need to be reassessed in light of the proposed 10% increase

The financial assessments both by the IAG and
the PPA have been based on the stated dwelling numbers and floor space. However
the PPA has then added the design excellence bonus on top of the figures used
in the financial assessment. Given that the design excellence process is
compulsorily on all buildings under the proposal, it is highly likely that the
yield will be 10% higher than what has been used for the base financial case.
This impacts calculating the feasibility of the quantity of social housing and
its interaction with the affordable and market housing.

A 10% uplift on top of the figures used for
assessing financial feasibility goes close to covering half the usual 20%
developer’s margin. This opens up space for increasing the quantity of the
social and affordable housing that can be funded by the redevelopment.

REDWatch has agreed with the IAG that the
pre-uplift density should not be increased and has further argued that there
needs to be a separate assessment of whether the density proposed is
appropriate for social housing land use. In this context REDWatch needs to
point out that if the proposal is to proceed with the extra 10% added to the
base line then all the financial assessment must be redone.

In a recent study on Reimagining
the economics of public housing at Waterloo for Shelter NSW, Dr Cameron K. Murray and Professor Peter Phibbs demonstrate ways that
LAHC could leverage its property to move well beyond the 70:30 approach that is
present policy. Changing the way LAHC goes about developments could have a big
impact on the quantity of social and affordable housing that can be delivered.

REDWatch
submits that if the 10% bonus on design excellence goes forward, as proposed by
the PPA, the financial feasibility needs to be updated and that the extra
income coming from that uplift must be channelled into increased social and
affordable housing and not into extra income for LAHC or its builder /
developer.

Affordable Housing has
been reduced by the Planning Proposal Authority

“The IAG concludes that this redevelopment can
support 10% affordable housing in addition to the 30% social housing” (page
55). The IAG “recommendations … demonstrate that 7.75% affordable housing can
be achieved with a reasonable expectation of financial feasibility and an
additional 2.25% potentially achieved through the tender process”.

This has been reduced by the PPA to 10% of
uplift, which equates to 7.5% of dwellings and 7% of residential GFA, with the
GFA figure written into the proposed controls. 7.5% is lower than even the
7.75%, let alone taking into account the 2.25% that should be possible in the
tender process. It is the lower risk associated with developing a government
owned site that would probably provide the extra 2.25% that the IAG thought
would be achievable through the tender process.

On the 600 Elizabeth Street site, Council’s
social housing analysis was close to delivering 10% social housing but the
Council request was cut back to 7.5% in its proposal to ensure that the
developer got the average 20% margin. At the Central Sydney Planning Committee
meeting the Government Architect argued 10% was probably feasible given the
lower risk associated with developing a government owned site. LAHC did not
question the figures, it simply opposed putting affordable housing into the 600
Elizabeth Street development because it wanted to use the surplus from the
Redfern site to build social housing in other parts of NSW (Determination
report).

As mentioned above, the paper by Dr Cameron K. Murray and Professor Peter
Phibbs shows that more conventional approaches to development and financing would
make it possible to deliver much more social and affordable housing from a
development like Waterloo South.

As the IAG report
notes, there is a high demand for social and affordable housing in the inner
city. It is almost impossible to get into Waterloo from the waiting list as almost
all allocations are given to those with priority. It should not be possible for
LAHC to use inner city redevelopments as fundraisers for other parts of its
property portfolio, at the expense of social and affordable housing being added
in the inner city. Neither the PPA, nor the Gateway, should preference controls
that deliver a planning uplift to LAHC that increases its funding base instead
of delivering social and affordable housing, especially when other viable
models are available for leveraging LAHC assets.

As we said at the start of this submission,
ideally Government should be funding the much needed social and affordable
housing rather than selling off scarce real-estate that will be needed in the
future for housing and facilities as populations grow. If it must sell off its
assets to provide such housing it needs to leverage its assets much better than
it currently does. Under the Murray & Phibbs analysis there would be no
problem in reaching the 20% affordable housing proposed by the Council.

REDWatch
submits that it is not up to the PPA to ensure a profit to LAHC, a state
government corporation. The planning proposal must assess the proposal on its
merits and at least 10% affordable housing seems supported by both the IAG and
Council analysis on the baseline case under current LAHC operations. The 10%
increase in yield proposed from the additional design excellence and the
changes proposed by Murray & Phibbs shows that much greater affordable
housing could be delivered on the Waterloo South site.

Community Facilities
for existing community organisations not assessed

Community facilities are assessed via the GHD
Social Baseline Study, the Elton Social Sustainability Study and the Council
requested CRED Community Facilities Peer Review. REDWatch has a concern that
the community facilities studies do not assess the adequacy of existing
community facilities to meet the needs of the social housing community. This is
particularly important for the current community, but also for the increase in
support needs in social housing anticipated as government allocates more people
from the priority list.

There seems to be an assumption in the
facilities studies that the existing community is adequately serviced by the
existing services and that the only driver for increased use is that generated
by the increased, largely private, population. While CRED notes (in section 4)
that LAHC owns premises within the wider Waterloo Estate redevelopment foot
print which would need to be replaced, CRED and the other consultants do not assess
the suitability of the facilities of services that work with the public housing
communities, nor what those services may require to continue to service the
social housing community into the future.

Many of these services also operate from LAHC
or Council owned properties. The CRED report specifically mention Counterpoint,
which operates from a LAHC owned property that is not fit for its current
purpose. These services and their needs were not covered by the Community
Facilities Peer Review brief, and hence this has not been assessed or factored
into extra community facilities needed.

The Social Sustainability Report says: “The
role that local service providers play in supporting current social housing
residents was widely acknowledged by the community as part of the consultation
for the redevelopment. Service providers’ deep knowledge of and long-standing
relationships with the community and individuals within it, were considered key
existing strengths and essential elements to maintain” (p.73). These local services
are crucial to support social housing tenants, but their facility needs have
not been assessed.

It is important to understand that many of the
services for social housing tenants are funded by the Department of Communities
and Justice (DCJ) and that this funding does not cover rent. As a result these
services are dependent on peppercorn rents from LAHC, and to a lesser extent
Council, to operate. LAHC has previously tried to impose market rents on these
properties to boost its revenue, but unless DCJ pays the increases incurred, the
agencies would cease operations. The Community Facilities studies should also
have assessed the surrounding services funded to support the public housing
community and ensured that there was suitable space for those organisations
provided within the redevelopment, even though they are currently in LAHC
premises outside the specific redevelopment area.

In addition, as the base line studies were done
for the whole of the Waterloo Estate and the peer review also seems to have
been scoped over the entire Waterloo Estate, it looks as if the proposed
community facility in the south west corner of Waterloo South is intended to
potentially service all three stages of the redevelopment. If that was the case,
it would be important that the only community facility should be centrally
located on the estate as it was supported by the community, in the initial LAHC
proposal. Relegating it to the extremity of the site will not make it easily
accessible.

REDWatch
requests the PPA undertake a facilities assessment of NGOs providing mainly
government-funded support to public housing tenants in the surrounding area to
ascertain what facilities space is required for these agencies to provide
ongoing support for social housing tenants within the Waterloo redevelopment.

Crime Prevention &
Cross Block connections

While REDWatch welcomes the approach of
breaking up large blocks and making the site more permeable, REDWatch has major
concerns about the current form of these narrow cross site links, especially as
they are likely to be screened to preserve the privacy of the private open
spaces through which they pass. There are significant Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) issues to be assessed here and much more work is needed to
ensure a safe outcome.

From conversations with residents, the
community like the convenience of laneways that cut through blocks to make it
easier to navigate the estate, but are concerned about the safety of the
laneways and the lack of any crime mitigation strategies.

Drug related issues happen across the entire
community, however there is a concentration of people with drug, alcohol and
mental health issues in public housing due to government allocation policies.
It is hence even more important in a social housing development that good CPTED
assessments are made initially and ongoing monitoring through safety audits and
place management to ensure a safe community.

Safety concerns also need to be addressed in
relation to open space and this needs to be done in a way that works for the entire
community. Those with money can street drink by using outdoor seating at a
licenced establishment. Others will need to do that in a park. There has to be
space for both in the community. Alcohol free zones have not worked to remove
long-time street drinkers and so the planning proposal has to ask the question
– Where can the street drinkers go? – Rather than assume they will not exist.
Providing a dedicated space contingent on it being looked after under a
community development framework can be a good way of handling this complex
issue in a community development context.

REDWatch
welcomes the PPA announcement to undertake a CPTED review and encourages the
PPA to take the wider Social Impact Assessment lens to this and other issues
that REDWatch would expect to be identified through an independent SIA.

Solar access to parks,
streets and courtyards

It is disappointing that there is not a proper
public assessment of solar impacts on streets, parks and courtyards in the
planning proposal. While the Council proposal was assessed, the exhibited
proposal was not. Part of the disagreement between LAHC and Council was the
different built forms. While orientation of apartments and building go some way
towards addressing solar access, the continuous block form proposed can also
result in dark streets and places that does not happen in the more mixed built
form proposed by LAHC.

It is a major short coming of the planning
proposal that it did not make such a fundamental solar assessment available.
There is a belief that streets will be dark and uninviting. How much sunlight a
space get will determine if plants can grow and thrive.

On the basis of the apartment solar access
diagrams it seems that courtyards will get very little sun, limiting their
planting and recreational possibilities. This will be significantly further
impacted by the PPA proposal when 10% more floor space be added into what is
shown as the de facto reference scheme in the design guide.

It is particularly concerning that a 13 storey
building has been proposed on Wellington Street between George and Cooper Streets,
which will block the sun to the courtyard there. It is highly unlikely that the
large trees shown in the artist’s impressions in this location are likely to
exist, let alone thrive, in this narrow sun-deprived area. We also note that large
trees as shown, would require a deep soil planning on top of what is proposed
in the design guide as a one storey building.

While the rest of the blocks have smaller buildings
to the north, those buildings are narrow and will only allow solar access for a
short period of time. This could be improved by buildings on the north-east and
north-west of these blocks also tapering towards the north. This will be
difficult to do with the 10% extra density proposed added in.

This not only impacts plants, but also whether
apartments facing the courtyards can achieve the two hours minimum mid-winter
solar access under regulations for apartments. The Hassell design study ranks
as poor the apartment solar access assessment inside the building courtyard
spaces. Less than 50% of the internal facing dwellings in all blocks may comply
with the minimum apartment solar access requirements. Wider buildings, possibly
as a result of the need to absorb extra floor space, will require good solar
access for lower floor shaded apartments as it is unlikely they will get solar
access from the east or the west on these building faces.

REDWatch is further concerned that solar
testing the de facto reference proposal may not be particularly useful as it
does not incorporate the extra 10% of residential GFA proposed. In perspective
the 10% increase equates to an extra floor of space on the main development
blocks which has to be fitted somehow into the floor plates of these buildings
as the controls say that the bonus does not entitle any height increase. The likely
consequence is that already narrow courtyards will become narrower and decrease
sun access further.

This illustrates the point made by Council
planners to REDWatch that when you increase the density / floor space you have
to work much harder to make it work. There is insufficient evidence in the base
proposal that crucial areas like sun access have been properly assessed and
none whatsoever that indicates the impacts for a 10% increase have been
assessed. Council, for example, has said that it is doubtful that the bonus
residential GFA will fit within the design guide envelopes.

Finally there is a question as to whether the
Council’s de facto reference scheme, shown in the design guide, is in fact a
likely or a preferred outcome from the planning controls. Not only has the
floor space been increased by the design excellence bonus since it was put
together, the LEP height controls and floor space ratio maps have been changed
to allow for a much wider range of options than the more prescriptive maps
proposed by Council. It is likely that the resultant development will look
nothing like the design guide scheme, as LAHC’s developer will be given
controls that have not properly been tested for adequacy against a reference
proposal derived from them.

REDWatch
submits that the PPA needs to get an independent review of the proposed
controls, including the design excellence floor space bonus, to ensure that
good solar access is achievable for the likely built form given the proposed
controls.

Mitigations of Wind
Impacts

Wind is a significant concern for residents and
is currently a considerable problem on the site. REDWatch shares Council’s
concerns about wind impacts from the tower buildings, especially at Mount
Carmel. The community was told that design would address the wind impacts from
the 18 storey buildings opposite Redfern Station, but at the DA stage it did
not happen.

It is imperative that during the planning
proposal stage, wind impacts are addressed for all tall buildings, especially
those on elevated sites. The Mt Carmel area has been assessed in the wind study
material as having an unacceptably high wind impact. Resulting wind impacts have
been noted in the proposal, but their remediation has been left to be addressed
as part of the design excellence process, risking that it will not be properly
assessed then. Council advises REDWatch that wind is seldom properly dealt with
as part of a design excellence process.

Ideally the proposal should include all that
needs to happen to make the site fit for the proposed built form at its control
height and FSR. This was the approach taken by Council with its building gaps,
but that space was used for more units, rather than left as the mechanism for
wind mitigation. Wind mitigation must not be left to the design excellence
process, wind needs to be mitigated with or without the extra 10% floor space.

REDWatch
proposed that the PPA should form the controls to ensure that wind impacts are
bought to within acceptable specified levels irrespective of design excellence.
In essence the wind assessment needs to be able to trump design considerations
on the tower to ensure that wind impacts are actually dealt with.

Noise Mitigation in
units

Noise mitigation is usually talked about in
terms of external noise from traffic or aircraft or industrial noises. This is
certainly an important consideration along McEvoy Street and there we support
Council’s proposal for narrower buildings allowing natural ventilation on the
non-traffic side of their tenancies.

REDWatch wants to take the opportunity to also
emphasise that one of the most persistent complains we hear from public housing
tenants is about people noise from public spaces inside and outside buildings
as well as the noise generated by neighbours. Given current social housing
allocation policies, allocations happen into any available unit irrespective of
the disruption that might be caused. Social housing tenants often can end up
with a new noisy or troubled neighbour replacing someone who has passed on.
While this problem is not limited to social housing, it is likely to be more
prevalent.

REDWatch
proposes that the sound proofing of apartments should be such that social
housing tenants can still have “the quite enjoyment” of their tenancies they
are entitled to, even if a noisy or troubled tenants is allocated next door.

Opening of Pitt Street
to McEvoy Street

The main report that investigates transport
impacts is the Jacobs Transport Study and a brief Jacobs Addendum done in
response to the Gateway determination. The planning proposal suggests the
opening of Pitt Street at McEvoy with a left in and left out intersection. The
main Jacobs Traffic report says “Although through traffic volumes on Pitt
Street north of McEvoy Street are likely to be very low, the proposed layout
would reinforce the role of Pitt Street as a primarily local street and
discourage through-use of the new access” (Page 62). Jacobs’ modelling
indicated 230 vehicles per hour in morning peak and 293 per hour in evening
peak by 2036.

The proposal to open McEvoy to Pitt Street has
been a major issue raised by residents for a number of reasons. One of the
major concerns is that it is in close proximity to Mt Carmel Primary School
with a rise that restricts visibility. A speed hump has previously been
installed in this no through road in response to speeding cars using this road,
creating risks for young primary school children.

Given the congestion on the surrounding main
roads on Elizabeth, Regent and McEvoy Streets there is a major community
concern that opening up to McEvoy will create an alternative rat run through
the estate towards Redfern.

REDWatch
submits that given the consultants see this as a very low traffic street and
the community concern about this intersection being opened up even on a left in
left out basis, that the PPA should assess if this opening is crucial to the
success of the development, and if not, it should be withdrawn from the
proposal or the necessary mitigation strategy put in place to address all the
issues identified.

Parking

Parking is always a contentious issue in the
inner city, especially so where there are a mix of generations with different
experiences and expectations of transport.

The planning proposal expects that based on
Sydney LEP 2012 rates, the future redevelopment of Waterloo Estate (South)
could result in approximately 1,685 residential and 114 commercial parking
spaces. This would equate to roughly 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling with no
determination as to how many of these would go to each housing type. While some
in the community are of the view that less parking is better, especially given
the proximity of the planning proposal to the Waterloo Metro, others have
raised concerns that the proposed parking is woefully inadequate, especially to
support future retail, community facilities and parking for carers / nurses.

REDWatch supports the reduction of private car
spaces in the inner city as a traffic reduction measure. While home buyers and
private renters can mostly choose if a location with low parking suits them,
social and affordable housing tenants are in a different position. Some older
tenants have grown up with private car usage and removing their car is equated
with the end of their independence. For some low income workers in affordable
housing, access to a car may also be part of their employment.

Tenants with cars fear that when they move into
a new unit they will not have a spot for their car nor a safe place to leave
it. Currently public tenants have access to parking which they fear may
disappear. DCJ and LAHC need to do a proper audit of car ownership among
tenants to ensure that tenants are not targeted through this change.

REDWatch has historically championed
centralised parking in buildings where parking spaces are not sold with
particular units, but rather allocated / leased out as needed. REDWatch also
supports the provision of care share spots and in the precincts that will house
social housing tenants in particular, the provision of spaces for care workers,
disability parking and community transport. Managing parking on a site wide basis
allows for parking to be retrofitted with charge points or to be repurposed for
different uses as car usage patterns change.

REDWatch notes that the Transport study makes
no assessment of the likely need for “serve” trips in Waterloo i.e. “trips
undertaken for the purposes of accompanying another person undertaking a trip,
for example a carer”. There is also no assessment of the need for parking spots
for in home care, community nurses and other services under My Aged Care or the
NDIS that are more likely needed for social housing tenants.

REDWatch
proposes that given the high number of people on disability pensions and people
receiving support services in the 30% social housing that a study should be
undertaken to ensure that the essential transport necessary for the delivery of
in home support services, community transport and disability transport be
properly factored into the provided parking rather than just a calculation
based on parking spaces per unit size and the proximity to public transport.
This assessment should include a study of public housing car ownership that may
realistically need to be accommodated in the rebuild.

Parks & Open Space

REDWatch has also hear concerns raised by
residents about parks. While efforts to retain the existing canopy is welcomed,
REDWatch has heard from community members that the proposed parks and open
space are not adequate nor are reflective of previous community consultations
(Options Testing Consultation Report Key Findings, 2019). The following issues
have been raised:

Green
space in the proposal is at least one hectare less than that proposed under the
preferred masterplan (2019).
The
community endorsed a green boulevard along George Street which is missing from
the planning proposal.
Community
gardens have been dropped without any justification by LAHC, the City of Sydney
or DPE.
Social
corners were another feature that was enthusiastically endorsed by the
community throughout Options Testing consultations and is missing from this
planning proposal.
The
large central park was the original location for the community centre as
desired and requested by both residents and current service providers.

There has also been concern about the size and
overshadowing of the small park. These concerns should be noted and addressed
if they have not been received in submissions elsewhere.

Conclusion

REDWatch has heard concerns from a broad
cross-section of the community throughout the statutory exhibition in
workshops, public meetings and DPE led engagement activities. This has been a
very difficult consultation, in part because of the layered nature of the
various modified proposals, partly because the planning proposal did not
summarise the proposal, partly because the PPA did not fully test the planning proposal
and then present the findings to the community in an easily accessible way. The
10% icing that was found to be on the planning layer cake meant that what
people relied on in the report was not the likely outcome of the proposal given
that 10% had been added without the impact being assessed.

Through this process we have tried to
understand the proposal to the best of our ability as non-planners and to
provide feedback on the issues identified in the community and by ourselves and
our advisors.

We have made a number of recommendations
throughout the report as to what we think needs to happen to address the issues
identified. We encourage the PPA to seriously consider the issues raised and
our suggestions for addressing them.

The Waterloo South Planning Proposal is like
few others. Firstly it has an existing long term residential community that
calls the place home, it is not an ex-industrial site being turned over to a
housing development. The community is also a vulnerable disadvantaged community
in the heart of a gentrifying city, the existing population demographic is the
product of government public housing allocation policies over a long period of
time. Those same allocation policies will see the makeup of social housing
change further in the next 10-20 years as the old working class public housing
cohort is replaced by those accessing what is seen as housing of last resort for
the most needy.

All this means that the planning proposal
should proceed with caution and make sure that the issues facing this community
are properly assessed and addressed. This is the role of a planning proposal
and those who assess the applications – to assess the precinct for the proposed
land use and understand the implications of any change in the land use and the
controls.

In this case REDWatch urges the PPA to
undertake additional studies, like the Social Impact Assessment to understand
the social impacts of the proposal and to seek to mitigate those impacts so
that the final controls, when passed into law, will work for the marginalised
30% part of the future community as well as for those who can pay high
mortgages and rents.

REDWatch thanks the PPA staff for their work
during the exhibition and we look forward to improvements in the proposal
resulting from the exhibition.

For
Further Information, contact:

Geoffrey Turnbull, Co-Spokesperson

On behalf of REDWatch
Inc

c/- PO Box 1567, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012

Ph: (02)
8004 1490 email: mail@redwatch.org.au web: www.redwatch.org.au

REDWatch is a residents and friends group covering
Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the same area originally covered initially
by the Redfern Waterloo Authority). REDWatch monitors government activities in
the area and seeks to ensure community involvement in all decisions made about
the area. More details can be found at www.redwatch.org.au.