Summary of Bays Precinct Leadership Summit and Sydneysiders Summit

On display were 4 Bays Destinations.  These are identified as the first of 7 Destinations to be tackled:

·       Bays Waterfront Promenade – takes in the Bank Street and Blackwattle Bay foreshore, including the Sydney Fish Markets.  Basically providing a continuous link from Pyrmont to the Glebe Foreshore foreshore walkway (although it seems to miss the gap between the Hansons site and the end of the Glebe walkway).

·       Bays Market District – Also encompasses Blackwattle Bay around to the Glebe Island Bridge (but excludes the bridge abutment) at the end of Bank Street.  Basically focussed on the SFM but proposing fresh food markets and outlets along BW Bay foreshore.  Hidden in the talks was reference to some residential which we assume will pay for the public works.  See Sunday’s Sun-Herald article on one Grand Project with a 32-storey residential tower.

·       White Bay Power Station – takes in the heritage buildings and forecourt down to the head of White Bay and including  White Bay wharves 1 and 2 (and maybe 3).  The objectives tend towards it being a job-creation hub, rather than a grand Tate Modern vision.

·       White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal – Appears to recognise the need to open this facility for much greater local community access.  The Urban Growth speakers did not rule out a ferry service and we can press for cafes/restaurants, noting that there are few ships docking there out of season (none in the past 3 weeks or so).

Noting that there are immediate plans for a doubling the capacity of the luxury cruiser facility and dry boat storage in Rozelle Bay, Urban Growth have identified other Destinations for mid to longer term  development:

·       Rozelle Bay and Bays Waterways – Appears to be focused on powered vessels, with no reference to rowers (there for 130 years) or dragon boaters.   They plan to integrate a mix of new land and maritime uses and other living uses (do they mean residential?) with working harbour (eg Waterways) and on-water recreation facilities (ie jetties, marinas, etc.)   An aside is that it would include better public waterfront access.   UG acknowledged that there was a substantial and unresolved conflict with the idea of a continuous foreshore walkway and the development of more super-yacht and dry boat storage in Rozelle Bay.

·       Rozelle Rail Yards – Development of this area hinges on the future of Westconnex and takes account that some of it is earmarked for light rail stabling.   Also proposed is mixed housing and better north-south linkages across the site.

·       Glebe Island – Long term project as it is earmarked as a deep water port for the foreseeable future but proposed to have public foreshore access at some stage.

The two biggest impediments to achieving good outcomes for any of these Destinations are:

Traffic and Transport

Coordination of all relevant Government departments and agencies

It is proposed to double the visitation to the Sydney Fish Markets.  This can only be achieved with a drastic change to the Pyrmont Interchange and Bridge Road/Wattle Street intersection.   In addition, there will need to be additional public transport.  Ferry services were mentioned at the Summit.

The other big question is whether Urban Growth will have the authority to over-ride departmental obstruction in order to meet its principles and objectives for the Bays Precinct.   So far the rhetoric is a case of hope over experience.

Urban Growth is also launching a call for Great Ideas.  Of course, we’ve had great ideas spanning 20 years, all of which have been incorporated in Master Plans over this period.  The catch is that the community’s ideas will be evaluated alongside Grand Ideas from the likes of Meriton, Lend Lease and Mirvac – and we have been given the same short timeframe to work up our proposals.  Some developers have already prepared detailed plans (eg the Chinese investor hopeful in the SFM).  The Call for Great Ideas opens from 25 May to 6 July.   They will be evaluated against objectives outlined in Transforming City Living:  The Bays Precinct.   The Great Ideas will be categorised according to their contribution to achieving the ambition and objectives.   As most of the objectives relate to job-creation, housing choices, transport and traffic systems and building design; or to specific sites eg White Bay Power Station, the Sydney Fish Markets or White Bay CPT, it’s difficult to see how we can meet more than two objectives (out of a total of 9).   The only Categories that would fit the Bank Street Foreshore Park Project are 3 – Great Ideas that exceed or meet one or more objective, but not all; and Category 4 – Good Ideas.

A number of us are proposing to work up a Good Idea Project for Bank Street Foreshore Park.  This was raised by several speakers at the Leadership Summit and generated considerable interest, also in discussions at the Sydneysiders Summit on Saturday.   The project would include all sites zoned Public Recreation, including the proposed park site, the Sydney Heritage Fleet site, 1 Bank St, the small adjacent RMS site and the Glebe Island Bridge abutment.   We are in touch with a Landscape Architecture student who is working with a team on a class project for the site and may be able to assist with ideas and graphics.  Discussions have taken place with SHF re temporarily accommodating the dragon boats on its site and more representations will be made to the Minister for Finance (now in control of 1 Bank Street) to allow the Pyrmont Heritage Boating Club to be located on the SHFA site.  Senior officers of Urban Growth undertook to take this up with the relevant government officers as a matter of urgency, as PHBC has been advised that it will receive a notice to quit its current site.

The Bays Community Coalition has organised the Bays Community Submission Workshop at 2.30-4.30pm on 7 June, 2015 at Leichhardt Town Hall.   We urge people to come to this important meeting to provide input to a community submission on the proposals presented at the Summits.   Submissions are due 30 June, 2015, so there’s very little time.    In fact, the short timeframe contravenes UG’s Principle 4 which states:  “Allow the time to invest in genuine and early engagement with, and broad acceptance of our plans from all categories of the public, government and industry”.

Visit the Urban Growth website for full details:  www.thebayssydney.com.au.   Also visit http://bayscommunitycoalition.com/ for news and views from the Bays Community Coalition.

Elizabeth Elenius

Convenor, Pyrmont Action Inc.

Anzac Day Service

Pyrmont Action Inc, represented by Elizabeth Elenius, Convenor, participated in the Union Square 

Anzac Day Service, conducted by the Rev Niall Reid of the Mustard Seed Church.   Elizabeth laid a sheaf of native flowers on behalf of PA members, many of whom attended the service.  The ceremony was also attended by the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, and Alex Greenwich, representing NSW Parliament.  The Mustard Seed Choir led the singing of Abide with Me, the Recessional and the National Anthem.   As with previous years, the addresses focused on the message of peace and kindness.   There was a record attendance at the service from babes in arms through to the elderly, and WW1 Pyrmont veteran families were well represented.   The official ceremony was followed by a wonderful morning tea provided by Bartino’s restaurant, ably assisted by local volunteers – a great chance to catch up with our neighbours and friends.

Powerhouse Museum Submission

9 March, 2015

The Hon. Mike Baird

Premier

NSW Government

52 Martin Place
Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Premier

Re: Proposed Sale of Powerhouse Museum

Pyrmont Action Inc is an organisation established to work with governments, residents, business and community groups to improve the amenity of Pyrmont. 

We oppose the sale of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo and its relocation to Parramatta, but strongly support the establishment of new cultural facilities in Western Sydney which could house part of the collections of the Powerhouse Museum, the Art Gallery of NSW and the Museum of Contemporary Art, currently in storage and unable to be displayed through lack of room.

The Powerhouse Museum has been located in Ultimo since 1893.  The Technological Museum was originally housed in what is now the Sydney Institute of Technology in Harris Street, Ultimo.  It moved to its current premises, formerly a power station, as part of what is now a cultural, educational and community precinct, also comprising the Ultimo Community Centre and Library, the Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre, the ABC, UTS and SIT.   It continues to be a central part of everyday life for Ultimo, Pyrmont and Haymarket residents, reinforcing the historical links to the area’s industrial past.   Indeed, the City of Sydney, in its Sustainable Sydney 2030 vision identified the forecourt of the Powerhouse Musum as the hub for its Ultimo/Pyrmont Village.  It is one of the few public spaces remaining among the ever-increasing urban densification occurring in the Inner West of Sydney. 

The activation of the Goods Line linking Central Station to the Powerhouse and Darling Harbour increases visitor access to this public precinct.  These few public facilities, including the Powerhouse, will provide important amenities to the thousands of residents and students moving into the new Darling Walk development.  Given the paucity of public cultural amenities in Pyrmont/Ultimo/Haymarket, it is vital that those that remain are not only retained but revitalised.

The Powerhouse Museum building in Ultimo should not be sold but continue to serve the social, educational and cultural needs of both the local and wider communities.  Our strong preference is for it to continue to operate as a technological and design museum but perhaps with a new focus – one that demonstrates Sydney’s industrial history as well as current and future workplace and technology trends.   It is interesting to note that Ultimo has been identified as the largest IT hub in Australia, with Pyrmont being number 3.   The Powerhouse, as part-IT technology incubator, is ideally placed to provide the connection between the nearby universities and Sydney’s financial/services sector.   But experience at the Australian Technology Park demonstrates that only a government-owned incubator will work. 

Let’s keep the Powerhouse as a public space in which to display the transition from the old technologies to the new.  Reinvigorated as a showcase for innovation it can inspire our children and grandchildren to become the inventors and designers of the future.   The Powerhouse should not be sold for private development. 

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Elenius, Convenor

cc Troy Grant, Deputy Premier, Alex Greenwich MP, Clr Clover Moore, Lord Mayor of Sydney

Ultimo Public School 2014

18 November, 2014

Clr Clover Moore

Lord Mayor,

City of Sydney,

GPO Box 1591

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Clover,

We have received the Minister’s response to our correspondence dated 11 November, 2014, relating to the proposed new school to serve Pyrmont and Ultimo families.  We have also been briefed on recent meetings between you and the Minister, and between you and community representatives.

We note that there has been no resolution to the outstanding issues relating to the purchase price for the publicly owned Wattle/Fig Street site, agreed unanimously by the Inner City Schools Working Party as the only suitable site to cater for the increasing population of children in our area.   We are advised that a base price for the site has been agreed but there are widely differing assessments of the cost of remediation of the site.

Both the Government and the City of Sydney have undertaken independent evaluations of the scope of the work required to remediate the site but it appears that there is a $14.6M discrepancy between the two cost estimates for the work.  The City claims that its estimate is based on the requirements of the EPA for remediating school sites.   We now seek an explanation from both parties as to whether this is an accurate claim.   If, as the City claims, the government is requiring a standard of remediation that considerably exceeds that required by the EPA, we wish to know why the goal posts have been changed and who has advised such exceedance.  We have asked the Minister to provide us with copies of the advice you have received and the EPA’s requirements.   Similarly, we ask that you provide us with copies of the advice you have received on the subject.

We are appalled that the NSW Government and the City of Sydney have allowed this situation to arise.  The Minister’s letter appears to indicate that the Government wants to get out of the undertaking to provide a new school at the Wattle Street site.  We repeat that this is the ONLY site available, given that the planners of the urban renewal of Pyrmont and Ultimo failed utterly to provide for educational, social and sporting facilities in this massive redevelopment.

In addition, you will recall that the Pyrmont community, through CUPA and PA has been pressing for the development of the Wattle Street site for public facilities since you were first elected Lord Mayor.   We identified this as a key project in our Strategic Plan presented to Council for inclusion in its Strategic Plan.  We later included it in our submission on the first Local Action Plan, and then the second Local Action Plan which has never seen the light of day.   We will never accept its sale to commercial interests.  It is our land and must be used to redress the social infrastructure planning failures of the past. 

We have reminded the Minister that the Government is about to embark on a massive program of urban renewal in Central to Eveleigh, the Bays Precinct and Parramatta Road, and has imposed the Darling Harbour redevelopment on an area already stretched beyond the limit in terms of social, sporting and educational infrastructure.  All these developments will bring families with children to the inner city.  Provision of this new school will go a long way to restoring community trust in the government’s ability to build not only new buildings, but also communities which are underpinned by the social, educational and sporting amenities provided by both State and local governments.

Community members have given countless hours of their time to this project over the past two years and there has already been substantial expenditure on the planning for the school.  We urge you to reach agreement with the Government as not only the new school, but also the opportunity to address the social infrastructure backlog are at risk.       

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Elenius

SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION 10th March 2014

I am speaking on behalf of members of Pyrmont Action Inc and have been involved in community consultation across a range of groups and stakeholders since 2004.  I also live immediately adjacent the proposed development.

I am in the position to state the strong affirmation of the Pyrmont Community that the proposed development should be rejected for three fundamental reasons.

1.     There are serious flaws in the reasons presented by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in its recommended approval of the DA

2.     The Department has its facts wrong.

3.     The Department shows no consideration for the residents of this densely populated area nor for recreational users of the adjacent waterway

I would like to illustrate each of those fundamental reasons for our opposition to this proposal.

1. There are serious flaws in the reasons presented by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in its recommended approval of the DA

§  The Master Plan clearly proposes that the Bank Street site will be a 9000 sq metre foreshore park to include a boat ramp (since provided), dragon boat clubhouse and storage facility, a public foreshore walk and footpath and landscaping works (letter Frank Sartor 15 November 2006).

§  There is no ambiguity in the intentions of the Master Plan – no powered vessels.   City of Sydney endorsed this usage in its CEO Memo dated 18 December, 2008.

§  The proposal clearly fails in the stated objective of the Heritage Fleet to consolidate its operations on one site. We are advised that alternative sites have been explored but have not been told why they are deemed unacceptable.    The Fleet found an alternative site for its shipyard operations.  Its tourism operations could be co-located, or moved to the heritage site of Cockatoo Island or other sites in Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays.  We have not been told why this can’t happen.  It’s the Government’s gift to give.

§  It is clearly absurd to state, as the Department continues to do, that the use of the site by passive boaters will be considered in a separate DA.  At present over 100 cars brought to the site by passive boaters, park on what the community has been led to expect will be a public park.   The Department already admits that parking in Bank Street will be stretched as a consequence of approving the Heritage Fleet DA.  Just where do they think they are going to put an additional 100 cars?

§  Approval of the Heritage Fleet DA will pre-empt the very uses approved in the Master Plan.   It’s simply not an answer to shrug the collective shoulders and say that parking will then become the dragon boaters’ problem. We challenge the statement by the assessors that “The proposed land use is considered to be consistent with the Master Plan and it will not prevent the achievement of other aims within it”.   This is a subjective view based on the insistence of the Department to ignore the impact of the use of the site by passive boaters and treat it as a separate issue.

§  We do not accept that this development is of State Significance.  The public benefit in the use of this site lies in its long-promised but undelivered transformation into public parkland with dragon boat facilities and a place for the Pyrmont Heritage Boat Club which does so much in providing training and skills to the disadvantaged youth of the City.

§  The Department relies on noise measurements taken in 2012 at 120 Saunders St which is close to the Anzac Bridge and industrial premises.  No measurements were taken from 1 Distillery Drive which did not exist in 2012, and which is directly opposite the site.  

These are the serious flaws in the reasons presented by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in its recommended approval of the DA.

2. The Department has its facts wrong.   

§  There is no shared cycle/pedestrian path in Bank Street, although we have been promised one for ten years

§  There are only 8 2-hour parking spots in Bank Street, not 43 as stated on p17 of the Major Project Assessment, to serve the residential apartment buildings nearby. 

§  I find it hard to believe that anyone from the Department has actually visited Pyrmont.  If they had they would realise that Bowman Street is far too narrow to enable parking anywhere near the sharp and blind corner with Bank Street (p18).  When construction was occurring in Bowman Street, the developer was obliged to employ flagmen when trucks were parked in the street to ensure safety.   In addition, there is a busy carpark entrance shared by residents of 600-700 apartments.  Parking nearby would obscure the vision of people exiting this entry.

§  The Department’s Assessment (p18) also states that visitors can use the 201 bus.  There is no such bus serving Pyrmont.  The site, and Pyrmont in general, is poorly served with public transport, with the only options being the unreliable and irregular 501 bus and the light rail.  The nearest stop for the 443 bus is in Harris Street, some distance from the site.

§  Any additional traffic will affect the Miller/Bank Street intersection, not only during weekday peak hours, but, more importantly, at weekends.  The Sydney Fish Market is a major traffic draw card, with more and more tour buses both entering the markets, and parking in Bank Street.  

§  Weekend traffic has not been taken into account, yet this is the peak time for dragon boat activity, as well as Heritage Fleet party boat activity and Sydney residents shopping at the Fish Market.

If the Department cannot get this type of basic information correct what level of reliability can be attached to the rest of the proposed development?

3. The Department shows no consideration for the residents of this densely populated area nor for recreational users of the adjacent waterway

§  The Department claims that the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the Bays Precinct Taskforce Report.  The Task Force had precisely ONE community representative on it, and ignored many of the recommendations from the Bays Precinct Community Reference Group which preceded it.   But even so, a number of recommendations will be ignored if this development is approved. Take two of the recommendations as examples:

“Traditional maritime recreational uses (passive boating) are to be preserved and safe navigation and speed parameters retained.”

Currently rowers and dragon boaters use the area of harbour to be alienated by the proposed marina to keep out of the main boat channel through the Glebe Island Bridge abutments.  Their safety will be compromised if pushed into the channel to compete with powered vessels.  This is the only sheltered cove in the Bay.

“Ensure all uses within the Precinct have the minimum possible adverse impact on existing residents and businesses.”

This proposal will have a significant adverse impact on existing residents through additional traffic, air pollution from the firing up (over up to 3 days) of coal- and oil-fueled boilers in a high wind area, loss of parking spaces, loss of views, and the opportunity costs for alternative uses of the publicly owned site, more compatible with a residential area.

§  There is no public transport strategy for the Bays Precinct and the proposed development will result in increased traffic congestion.

§  The subjective view of the Department’s acoustic expert that “operational noise generated by the project would not be unreasonable” based on noise generated by the Anzac Bridge, does not take into account the cumulative impact of additional noise in the vicinity.  Nearby residents, whilst accepting a certain level of noise associated with the working harbour, cannot be expected to tolerate ever increasing levels associated with the government’s desire to generate revenue from its foreshore properties.   After all, it is that same government that has approved substantial new residential developments in the area.   What the acoustic experts deem “reasonable” may not be shared by residents.  Will those residents have any recourse if noise levels are “unreasonable” in their view?

These examples illustrate clearly that the Department shows no consideration for the residents of this densely populated area nor for recreational users of the adjacent waterway.

I wish to conclude by restating that it is the strong position of the Pyrmont Community that the proposed development should be rejected for three fundamental reasons.

1.     There are serious flaws in the reasons presented by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in its recommended approval of the DA

2.     The Department has its facts wrong.

3.     The Department shows no consideration for the residents of this densely populated area nor for recreational users of the adjacent waterway

However, if the PAC decides to ignore all the submissions made by concerned members of the community, we insist that the following measures be included as conditions of approval:

1.     This development must NOT be staged but built in its entirety.  No Interim Occupation Certificates should be issued noting comments by Alan Edenborough to members of the SHF on 23 April, 2013 that funding is not assured; and it may take many years until the SHF completes the development.

2.     There should be no coach parking in Bank Street and no parking in Bowman Street

3.     Immediate transfer of land for the promised park, provision of dragon boat facilities, and access to 1 Bank Street for the Pyrmont Heritage Boat Club.

It is quite obvious that there will be no room for the original approved uses on this site, if this DA is approved.   The Master Plan got it right in 2006.  It is the Government which has required the Heritage Fleet to move to Bank Street.  It is the Government that is pushing this worthy organization from its eminently suitable present location at Wharf 7 next to the Maritime Museum.  It is the Government which is refusing consent to consolidate its activities on any one of a number of suitable Government-owned sites around the Harbour.   The major recommendation of the Bays Precinct CRG, of which I was a member, was that planning of the Bays must be integrated.  This DA represents the worst case of failure to plan for this site in an integrated way.  If the PAC decides to approve the DA it will be seen as rubber-stamping very poor, fragmented Government planning and land-use decisions.  We look to PAC to uphold integrated planning of this publicly owned foreshore land, intended for use as a public park and for passive boating facilities; and to recommend that the Government find a place for the Heritage Fleet which will fulfil its objectives of consolidating its activities on an appropriate harbour site elsewhere.  There are NO alternative sheltered coves in the Inner Harbour for passive boating.

BACKGROUND TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING FOR USE OF THE BANK ST PUBLIC RECREATION AREA

FACT SHEET

·       2004 – Government announces that Bank Street PRA to be set aside for parkland and passive boating

·       2006 - Bank Street Master Plan approved for foreshore park and passive (non-motorised) boating facilities on land zoned Public Recreation

·       2008 - Community representatives and stakeholders reach agreement on layout for park and passive boating facilities

·       2008 – Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) acquire 1 Bank Street, also zoned Public Recreation

·       2009 – February, NSW Maritime announce the relocation of the Sydney Heritage Fleet (SHF) to Bank Street Foreshore Park

·       2009 – Negotiations held between NSW Maritime, SHF, community representatives and stakeholders on the basis that nothing would be done on the site until a compromise was reached.

·       2010 – On the basis that the SHF development would be under $5M and assessed by the City of Sydney, and would be modest in scale, most representatives and stakeholders reluctantly agreed to the allocation of land and water space for the SHF, the public parkland (on the NSW Maritime site) and the Community Water Sports Centre (dragon boat facility) on 1 Bank Street

·       2010 – SHFA withdraws its offer to transfer 1 Bank Street to NSW Maritime, leaving the Community Water Sports Centre with nowhere to locate its facility

·       2011 – SHF reveals its development plans which are far larger than discussed previously.

·       2011 – February – SHF lodges its Preliminary Environmental Assessment documentation under the (now revoked) Part 3A provisions as a Major Project to be assessed by the Department of Planning/Planning Assessment Commission.

·       2012 – Environmental Assessment returned to SHF, with a list of Director-General’s requirements to be addressed

·       2012 – Full DA lodged with Department of Planning, but returned to SHF as it did not address all the D-G’s requirements

·       2013 – SHF submits Response to Submissions

·       2014 – DoPI recommends approval of the SHF DA to PAC