20 April, 2011
The Chief Executive Officer,
City Plan Development Unit,
City of Sydney,
GPO Box 1591,
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Ref: S081001
Dear Monica,
Thank you so much for arranging your staff’s attendance at our City Plan Forum on 14 April. We greatly appreciate both your attendance and the opportunity to discuss our concerns openly with the team. The following comments should be taken as a Supplementary Submission to our previous submission dated 8 March, 2011 to be read in conjunction.
NSW Government Planning Parameters – It is now quite clear that in preparing the draft City Plan, Council has been forced to comply with stringent and restrictive requirements set down by the Department of Planning and directions from the former Planning Minister. Whilst the Department of Planning has as its aim the establishment of a one-size-fits-all LGA approach, it is obvious from the draft Plan, that this has resulted in, at best, mediocrity, and, at worst, the delivery to developers of a cornucopia of undesirable uses which can occur in the common zones now reduced to 15 throughout the state. What is appropriate in Parkes (say) may not be appropriate in Pyrmont. This has been a shared process with the Department of Planning, but it is apparent that in conforming to these requirements Council has had little room to move in terms of enunciating zones and uses that look forward. The draft Plan is largely a backwards-looking exercise enshrining the status quo whether that represents good planning or not.
NSW now has a new Government which has a stated focus on less intense development in inner and older suburbs and a return of planning decision-making to local Councils. There is now an opportunity to work with the new Minister to amend the planning parameters in the light of the concerns already expressed by local community associations and the Local Government and Shires Association, to achieve good planning for the future, and certainty, not only for developers, but for local communities.
Recommendation: Council to put on hold the draft new City Plan, pending further consultation between the community, Councils and the new NSW Government.
Zoning Map Inaccuracies – We have already pointed out the incorrect zoning of residential apartment buildings in the area bounded by Refinery Drive (S), Mount Street Walk (N), and between Bowman Street, Distillery Drive and Jones Street. Only one such building has any space suitable for commercial/retail purposes, and that is the Distillery on the corner of Bowman Street and Jones Street (W) and the room is under 200 sq m in area. On the other hand, the residential complex 36 – 42 Refinery Drive has two quite large commercial premises, yet this complex is zoned General Residential. Council must address this inconsistency.
A serious zoning error has been made with regard to land on the S side of Distillery Dr and on the W Escarpment on Bank St. In the 2005 Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map this is clearly shown as Public Recreation, and that is, in fact what it is, comprising Carmichael Park and The Knoll Park, and the urban bushland in front of the 1 Distillery Drive development, yet this whole area is shown as Mixed Use on the 2011 draft zoning map. There is also a public walkway/stairs between two of the residential towers which is correctly shown as Public Recreation on the 2005 map, but incorrectly zoned as Mixed Use on the 2011 draft map.
Recommendation – The draft Zoning Maps be re-drawn to reflect the actual zoning which should apply throughout Pyrmont. As mistakes have occurred in consolidating existing controls, all zoning maps should be checked, in consultation with local communities, to ensure they reflect the reality of land use.
Cycleways – We note that the cycleway depicted in Bulwara Road, Ultimo is described as on-road cycleway. This should be changed to reflect Council’s recommendation that it be a Shared Road, following extensive consultation with the local community.
Recommendation – Alter the Cycleways Map for Pyrmont Ultimo to depict Bulwara Road as a Shared road.
Uses Permitted with Consent – We note that there have been significant changes to the Objectives of the Public Recreation zone from those applying to the Ultimo-Pyrmont LEP to those which will now apply across the LGA. We particularly seek the reinstatement of the objective “to provide public access to all parts of the public domain, especially waterfront areas and escarpments”. It is vital to ensure that what should be the primary objective of Public Recreation areas (ie public access and use of an area) should not be alienated through the approval of a use for commercial or private usage.
Recommendation – Add “to provide public access to all parts of the public domain, especially waterfront areas and escarpments” to the list of objectives for the Public Recreation Zone.
With the very large list of permissible uses to chose from, we are still unclear as to the objective criteria Council or the Planning Assessment Commission will adopt for the assessment of DAs on land zoned Public Recreation. In particular, we are concerned about the potential use of Public Recreation land in Bank Street, Pyrmont (the last piece of publicly owned vacant foreshore land) for inappropriate development. Many of the uses listed in the draft Sydney LEP 2011 are considered unsuitable as the sites are surrounded by residential apartment buildings (albeit that 1 Distillery Drive is shown as Mixed Use on the draft zoning map). For instance, how will Council justify refusing a DA which seeks to establish a commercial marina at 1 Bank Street given that marinas are a use permitted with consent? Is a “child care centre” really a recreational use of such a site? Similarly, “electricity generating works” (other than solar panels on any structure which may be constructed for recreational purposes, eg a toilet block or kiosk)? As it stands, we believe that the assessment process is wide open for subjective judgments as to what are appropriate or inappropriate uses in Public Recreation areas. There will be no certainty for local communities.
Recommendation – Prior to finalizing the 2011 City Plan, Council to prepare a statement of objective criteria relating to the use of Public Recreation sites against which any DA submitted will be assessed,
Similarly, comparing the objectives for General Residential zones in the Ultimo-Pyrmont LEP 2005 with those of the draft Sydney LEP 2011 which covers the whole LGA, we note that a number of objectives have been omitted including 2(b) “to ensure that land within the zone is primarily used for residential purposes” and 2(d) “to prohibit tourist development in residential areas (including serviced apartments, hotels and associated tourist facilities) and to prohibit brothels”. We believe these omissions enable Council to include what we have already indicated are inappropriate uses in a residential area, namely” bed and breakfast accommodation”, “boarding houses”,” hostels” and “home occupations (sex services)”. It might very well be that these activities are being carried out illegally in residential areas, but that is no reason to enshrine them as permitted uses in residential areas in the new LEP. Of particular concern for the many thousands of residents who live in secure apartment buildings in such uses is the potential for a breakdown in the security arrangements, the commandeering of precious visitor carparking spaces and the overcrowding which has already been noted where apartments are being used illegally for such purposes.
Recommendation – Reinstate 2(b) and 2(d) objectives of the Residential Zone as listed in the Ultimo-Pyrmont LEP 2005 in the objectives of the draft Sydney LEP 2011. Remove uses which are incompatible with these objectives including “bed and breakfast accommodation”, “boarding houses”, “hostels”, “home occupations (sex services)” from the list of permitted uses in General Residential zones.
We note that a prohibited use in General Residential zones are “boat launching ramps” and cannot see the difference between that and “jetties” which is listed as a permitted use in this zone. Similarly, a jetty can be considered a “charter and tourism boating facility”, which is also listed as a prohibited use. We believe “jetties” should be included in the prohibited uses list and not in the permitted with consent list. Similarly, we fail to see the difference between the prohibited use “sex services premises” and “home occupations (sex services)” – it seems to be a matter of degree, rather than whether the use is appropriate at all.
Recommendation – Remove “jetties” from permitted uses and list as a prohibited use in residential zones.
Integration of 2005 LEP – Further to our earlier submission, we have been advised that the areas shown as white on the draft 2011 zoning map have been excluded from this planning process by order of the NSW Government. We have been told that for those excluded areas, the Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map of 2005 still applies. This situation is patently absurd and we urge Council to negotiate with the new state Government for the integration of the two maps. People cannot be expected to continually refer to two documents prepared six years apart to ascertain the zoning of particular parcels of land. We further note that the 2005 zoning map does NOT include the jetty which is shown as jutting out into the harbor in front of 2 Mount Street Walk on the draft 2011 map. We are advised that this, in fact, represents the LGA boundary but as the wharf does not and will not exist (as a marina at this location has been ruled out by NSW Maritime), we ask that the wharf be deleted from the 2011 maps.
Again, we urge Council to negotiate further on the basic directives given by the previous Government to ensure that the new City Plan is a forward-looking and integrated set of documents to provide certainty to the residents of the City of Sydney. Such negotiation should be in consultation with local communities.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius
Convenor
cc The Hon Barry O’Farrell, Premier of NSW; The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Planning
Thursday, 28 April 2011
PA Submissions on draft City Plan 2011 8th March 2011
8 March, 2011
The Chief Executive Officer,
City Plan Development Unit,
City of Sydney,
GPO Box 1591,
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Ref: S081001
Dear Monica,
We appreciate the opportunity provided by Franscesca O’Brien and her team to brief some of us on the draft City Plan.
We understand that the City is required to prepare the City Plan in accordance with the template provided by the NSW Government whose instructions are to “generally aim to maximize the range of appropriate uses” for each zone across the LGA. The Plan is primarily a land use regulation document which, under current legislation and Government policy, can be ignored when plans are being assessed under Part 3A provisions. Nevertheless, it provides clarity for those developments which are the responsibility of the City of Sydney. We further understand that Council and CSPC have reduced the number of zones from 31 to 15 in the City Plan 2008. This may have resulted in administrative efficiencies, but it has also resulted in inappropriate uses being made to fit into what we consider inappropriate zones. Council has instructed its officers to prepare lists that keep land uses as they are under existing controls, rather than review and update the lists of permissible and prohibited uses in order to look at what is appropriate for future land use.
It is our view that the number of zones should be further reviewed, given the current detailed clarification of what can and can’t be permitted in each of the (now) reduced number of zones.
We refer specifically to the Locality Statements that apply to Pyrmont and Ultimo, the Land Zoning Maps and the Land Use Table which outlines permissible and prohibited uses in the various zones.
Land Use Table – LEP 2011
Zone R1 - General Residential – We note that the City has added the following to the list of uses “Permitted with Consent”: Bed and breakfast accommodation, Food and drink premises; Home-based child care; Home industries; Home occupations (sex services); Jetties; Markets, Roads, Roadside stalls etc. “Home-based child care” could be accommodated under the “Child care centre” usage rather than have its own category. We recommend that these uses more appropriately belong under Zone B4 Mixed Use or Zone B3 Commercial Core as the uses listed in black appear to cover most situations. In particular we urge the removal of permissibility of sex services and bed and breakfast accommodation from this zoning. We already have real problems with some apartment buildings zoned residential setting up backpacker accommodation arrangements for the owners, resulting in loss of amenity to the owner/occupiers and we’re sure most residents in buildings in a residential zone would be horrified to learn that “Home Occupations (sex services)” could operate from their buildings.
Zone B4 – Mixed Use – As noted above, a number of uses listed under General Residential are more appropriate for Mixed Use zone. We support the addition of the objective “to encourage uses that generate employment opportunities and provide facilities and services to the community”.
Zone RE1 - Public Recreation - We are appalled at the range of activities proposed by Council which could be allowed on sites zoned Public Recreation. Almost anything goes, yet these precious green areas, even along the waterfront, can be approved for activities ranging from Charter and tourism boating facilities; electricity generating works; Marinas, Registered clubs; signage, waste or resource management facilities or boat sheds etc etc. It is completely unacceptable that our public parkland be alienated in the ways outlined. Whilst it is accepted that some large sites are currently used for intensive active recreation and have substantial structures on them, activities such as Marinas and Charter and tourism boating facilities more appropriately belong in land zoned industrial or commercial, most likely owned by NSW Maritime or Sydney Ports, in the case of Pyrmont and Glebe. By raising the possibility that such inappropriate development, involving substantial structures could be approved on land zoned Public Recreation, Council is creating a situation where proponents will have an expectation that their DAs will be approved. If it’s on the list, it will be difficult to knock back. We recommend that the “Permitted with consent” section for Zone RE1 include ONLY Kiosks, Recreation Areas and Public Parks. By keeping the list broad, Council will be better able to reject DAs for inappropriate developments. Alternatively, we ask that Council consider creating a new Zone – Public Parks - covering those areas currently zoned RE1 which should be protected from alienation – in particular foreshore parks. Such a zone would prohibit most of the uses outlined in Zone RE1.
As proposed by Council, the only prohibited uses seem to be mining and logging (Resource recovery facilities) or garbage dumps (Waste or resource transfer stations). This list needs to be expanded to include all uses which involve substantial structures and alienation of parks and open space. The City really needs as much green open space as possible – not hectares of concrete. There are still substantial Council-owned sites, eg the Fig/Wattle Street depot, which could accommodate active recreational facilities requiring structures within the Mixed Use Zone.
Whilst many parks under Council control operate under approved Management Plans which may preclude inappropriate activities, these could be changed at any time by a future Council, with the numbers to do so.
Land Zoning - As a general comment, we ask Council to note that most of Pyrmont, and parts of Ultimo have only recently been redeveloped with a mix of medium to high-density residential apartments, integrated with commercial premises and mixed use buildings. It is inconceivable that there will be any demolition or rebuilding within our suburb in the medium to long term. It is therefore important that the zoning is depicted accurately to reflect the reality of this redevelopment and not provide opportunities for property owners to apply for consent for inappropriate uses such as provision of sex services or back packer hostels in residential buildings.
Pyrmont Point – Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_007
• We note the extensive areas designated B4 (Mixed Use) associated with development that has already occurred in this area. As the final two residential buildings at Jacksons Landing are now under construction, we ask that the map be amended to reflect reality. The Rum Store and The Elizabeth in Mount St Walk are residential buildings with restaurants on the ground floor; John Street Square bounded by Harris, John and Harvey Streets is also largely residential, with some small scale commercial/retail at street/square level; similarly, the Affordable Housing on the corner of John and Harris Sts is primarily residential with street level restaurant/small business premises; the Promontory at Pirrama Road and Point Street is almost entirely residential apart from a “public:” carpark; The Distillery, Stonecutters, the Quarry, Sugardock, Silk and Antias (under construction) and located in Bowman Street, Distillery Drive and Tambua Street are all residential buildings as is Fleetview in Bowman Street. Given the long list of uses proposed to be “permitted with consent” under this zoning, including boarding houses, business premises, educational establishments, entertainment facilities, function centres, office premises, passenger transport facilities, registered clubs, roads, etc., we urge the amendment of the Map of areas shown as Mixed Use to Residential, where that is currently the reality and the use for which development approval has been given.
• 1 Distillery Drive – We note that the whole of this site is designated B4, but point out that a strip of land along the top of the Bank Street escarpment is designated “urban bushland” which, we understand, will be transferred to Council. It has already been extensively planted with natives, with further planting following completion of the building. We ask that this land be rezoned RE1 Public Recreation.
• 21 Harris Street is currently zoned B3 Commercial. Whilst we appreciate the desire to achieve a mix of “small scale retail and café uses with large scale commercial uses in certain areas” we are of the view that as there are large areas of vacant office/commercial space in and around Pyrmont north of Pyrmont Bridge Road, and noting the failure of Lend Lease to sell this site (with an approved DA for commercial development), it would be more appropriate to rezone this site B4 Mixed Use to provide flexibility. Residents do not want this site to remain undeveloped but wish to see it developed in such a way as to provide much-needed additional community amenities, including a childcare centre, as well as a mixture of residential and commercial space, as demand is identified. It is essential that the currently approved height and building envelope restriction remains in place.
• Bank Street – We strongly support the retention of the Public Recreation zoning on the sites currently owned by NSW Maritime and SHFA. However, we have strong objection to its use for any activity other than those approved in the Master Plan governing the site – for passive (non-motorised) boating, community recreational facilities, and a public park. As currently listed as “permitted with consent”, there is a large range of possible uses which we consider totally unacceptable including Charter and tourism boating facilities, electricity generating works, emergency services facilities, marinas, research stations, waste or resource management facilities, water treatment facilities. We seek assurance from Council that this site will not be used for any of these purposes.
• Land linking Quarry Master Drive with Bank Street – We note the strip of land zoned RE1 which runs between 1 Distillery Drive and 120-122 Saunders Street and note its future use is unclear. At present it is not publicly accessible and is in a poor state. As the construction of the adjoining 1 Distillery Drive is underway we ask that Council make a decision on this site’s future.
• We note areas marked SHC SREP Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 which shows wharf areas which don’t exist, including a long jetty near the end of Harris Street. In addition, the configuration of the shoreline around Pyrmont Point (now Pirrama Park) does not reflect reality. We ask (a) that Council clarify the implications of the depicted jetty, noting that the LEP 2005 Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map does not show it, and (b) that the map be amended to reflect the current shoreline. To leave the jetty would lead to uncertainty with regards to future marinas, etc. We also recommend that you add the Glebe Island Bridge abutment to the map (RTA owned) and clarify its zoning.
Pyrmont – Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_008
• We strongly support the zoning of the Council-owned site bounded by Fig and Wattle Streets as Mixed Use. We note that the objectives of this zoning include the integration of “suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximize public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling”. We particularly support community facilities as one of the uses of this site and note its proximity to Wentworth Park sports fields and Wentworth Park light rail station. We further urge consideration of access links to Jones Street, above the site, retention of views to the walls of the old Hell Hole Quarry, and linkage across Wattle Street to Wentworth Park. We also particularly support the principle outlined in the Locality Statement for this precinct to “adaptively re-use the historical buildings providing a mix of land uses in the distinctive built forms”.
• We are unclear as to the status of the sites shown white on the map running between the East side of Harris Street and West side of Pyrmont St from Allen Street to William Henry Street. The old Goldsborough Mort building has now been converted to residential and sits adjacent the new M Central residential development. The Global Switch building on the South side of Fig Street is Commercial; there is a private residential development (Bullecourt) between the Global Switch building and the Council-owned Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre which would be more appropriately zoned Public Recreation, and the Powerhouse Museum site is zoned Mixed Development. We ask that the status of these sites be clarified.
• We support the zoning of the Neighbourhood Centre in Harris Street near William Henry Street to serve the Ultimo community whilst recognizing that this would involve a gradual transition from its current usage.
• The sites shown as B4 Mixed Development running to the west of Pyrmont Street between Allen St and Bunn Street, and including the Mirage building to the East of Pyrmont Street are all residential buildings and should be shown as R1.
Locality Statements – Pyrmont Point. There appears to be no reference to the waterfront, despite this being a locality surrounded on three sides by water. A principle should be to retain and enhance public access to the foreshore, especially at Bank Street; and protection of foreshore public recreation areas from inappropriate development such as marinas and Charter and tourism boating facilities. We do however, support low key, kiosk-type facilities that enhance the activation of the waterfront.
Pyrmont – We would recommend that a principle be added: Require owners to either use and maintain buildings in their ownership or have their properties subject to compulsory acquisition following due notice of five years by the relevant Council or Government authority. Pyrmont has a large number of buildings and unused land zoned commercial/residential which are neglected and falling into disrepair, including several heritage buildings. The full activation of Harris Street cannot be achieved because of this failure to develop or utilize these properties. In addition, a valuable vacant site located next to the Pyrmont Community Centre is currently used as a carpark. This site could be acquired by the City of Sydney to enable expansion of the Pyrmont Community Centre to provide much-needed community facilities. We believe that legislation should be enacted that enables Government/Council to acquire such properties within a vibrant and growing suburb, rather than continuing and exacerbating what is now urban blight.
Summary
• Land use tables should be amended to look to the future, rather than reflect the past
• The zoning maps need to be updated to show accurately, current developments on land and water;
• The Land Use Table relating to Zone RE1 Public Recreation should not be amended to include the uses added by Council under Section 3 - “Permitted with consent” or a new zoning should be created to ensure protection of green open spaces from alienation by large-scale structures and other inappropriate uses.
• The Land Use Table relating to Zone R1 should not include the uses added by Council under Section 3 – “Permitted with consent” but these should be included under Zone B4 or Zone B3. These uses may be the current reality in some suburbs, but the Plan should look at what is appropriate in a residential zone for the future – and that does not include provision of sex services
• Include a reference to access to the waterfront in the Locality Statement – Pyrmont Point
• Include an additional principle which enables the compulsory acquisition of neglected and un-used property, particularly those with heritage listing/values.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius
Convenor
The Chief Executive Officer,
City Plan Development Unit,
City of Sydney,
GPO Box 1591,
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Ref: S081001
Dear Monica,
We appreciate the opportunity provided by Franscesca O’Brien and her team to brief some of us on the draft City Plan.
We understand that the City is required to prepare the City Plan in accordance with the template provided by the NSW Government whose instructions are to “generally aim to maximize the range of appropriate uses” for each zone across the LGA. The Plan is primarily a land use regulation document which, under current legislation and Government policy, can be ignored when plans are being assessed under Part 3A provisions. Nevertheless, it provides clarity for those developments which are the responsibility of the City of Sydney. We further understand that Council and CSPC have reduced the number of zones from 31 to 15 in the City Plan 2008. This may have resulted in administrative efficiencies, but it has also resulted in inappropriate uses being made to fit into what we consider inappropriate zones. Council has instructed its officers to prepare lists that keep land uses as they are under existing controls, rather than review and update the lists of permissible and prohibited uses in order to look at what is appropriate for future land use.
It is our view that the number of zones should be further reviewed, given the current detailed clarification of what can and can’t be permitted in each of the (now) reduced number of zones.
We refer specifically to the Locality Statements that apply to Pyrmont and Ultimo, the Land Zoning Maps and the Land Use Table which outlines permissible and prohibited uses in the various zones.
Land Use Table – LEP 2011
Zone R1 - General Residential – We note that the City has added the following to the list of uses “Permitted with Consent”: Bed and breakfast accommodation, Food and drink premises; Home-based child care; Home industries; Home occupations (sex services); Jetties; Markets, Roads, Roadside stalls etc. “Home-based child care” could be accommodated under the “Child care centre” usage rather than have its own category. We recommend that these uses more appropriately belong under Zone B4 Mixed Use or Zone B3 Commercial Core as the uses listed in black appear to cover most situations. In particular we urge the removal of permissibility of sex services and bed and breakfast accommodation from this zoning. We already have real problems with some apartment buildings zoned residential setting up backpacker accommodation arrangements for the owners, resulting in loss of amenity to the owner/occupiers and we’re sure most residents in buildings in a residential zone would be horrified to learn that “Home Occupations (sex services)” could operate from their buildings.
Zone B4 – Mixed Use – As noted above, a number of uses listed under General Residential are more appropriate for Mixed Use zone. We support the addition of the objective “to encourage uses that generate employment opportunities and provide facilities and services to the community”.
Zone RE1 - Public Recreation - We are appalled at the range of activities proposed by Council which could be allowed on sites zoned Public Recreation. Almost anything goes, yet these precious green areas, even along the waterfront, can be approved for activities ranging from Charter and tourism boating facilities; electricity generating works; Marinas, Registered clubs; signage, waste or resource management facilities or boat sheds etc etc. It is completely unacceptable that our public parkland be alienated in the ways outlined. Whilst it is accepted that some large sites are currently used for intensive active recreation and have substantial structures on them, activities such as Marinas and Charter and tourism boating facilities more appropriately belong in land zoned industrial or commercial, most likely owned by NSW Maritime or Sydney Ports, in the case of Pyrmont and Glebe. By raising the possibility that such inappropriate development, involving substantial structures could be approved on land zoned Public Recreation, Council is creating a situation where proponents will have an expectation that their DAs will be approved. If it’s on the list, it will be difficult to knock back. We recommend that the “Permitted with consent” section for Zone RE1 include ONLY Kiosks, Recreation Areas and Public Parks. By keeping the list broad, Council will be better able to reject DAs for inappropriate developments. Alternatively, we ask that Council consider creating a new Zone – Public Parks - covering those areas currently zoned RE1 which should be protected from alienation – in particular foreshore parks. Such a zone would prohibit most of the uses outlined in Zone RE1.
As proposed by Council, the only prohibited uses seem to be mining and logging (Resource recovery facilities) or garbage dumps (Waste or resource transfer stations). This list needs to be expanded to include all uses which involve substantial structures and alienation of parks and open space. The City really needs as much green open space as possible – not hectares of concrete. There are still substantial Council-owned sites, eg the Fig/Wattle Street depot, which could accommodate active recreational facilities requiring structures within the Mixed Use Zone.
Whilst many parks under Council control operate under approved Management Plans which may preclude inappropriate activities, these could be changed at any time by a future Council, with the numbers to do so.
Land Zoning - As a general comment, we ask Council to note that most of Pyrmont, and parts of Ultimo have only recently been redeveloped with a mix of medium to high-density residential apartments, integrated with commercial premises and mixed use buildings. It is inconceivable that there will be any demolition or rebuilding within our suburb in the medium to long term. It is therefore important that the zoning is depicted accurately to reflect the reality of this redevelopment and not provide opportunities for property owners to apply for consent for inappropriate uses such as provision of sex services or back packer hostels in residential buildings.
Pyrmont Point – Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_007
• We note the extensive areas designated B4 (Mixed Use) associated with development that has already occurred in this area. As the final two residential buildings at Jacksons Landing are now under construction, we ask that the map be amended to reflect reality. The Rum Store and The Elizabeth in Mount St Walk are residential buildings with restaurants on the ground floor; John Street Square bounded by Harris, John and Harvey Streets is also largely residential, with some small scale commercial/retail at street/square level; similarly, the Affordable Housing on the corner of John and Harris Sts is primarily residential with street level restaurant/small business premises; the Promontory at Pirrama Road and Point Street is almost entirely residential apart from a “public:” carpark; The Distillery, Stonecutters, the Quarry, Sugardock, Silk and Antias (under construction) and located in Bowman Street, Distillery Drive and Tambua Street are all residential buildings as is Fleetview in Bowman Street. Given the long list of uses proposed to be “permitted with consent” under this zoning, including boarding houses, business premises, educational establishments, entertainment facilities, function centres, office premises, passenger transport facilities, registered clubs, roads, etc., we urge the amendment of the Map of areas shown as Mixed Use to Residential, where that is currently the reality and the use for which development approval has been given.
• 1 Distillery Drive – We note that the whole of this site is designated B4, but point out that a strip of land along the top of the Bank Street escarpment is designated “urban bushland” which, we understand, will be transferred to Council. It has already been extensively planted with natives, with further planting following completion of the building. We ask that this land be rezoned RE1 Public Recreation.
• 21 Harris Street is currently zoned B3 Commercial. Whilst we appreciate the desire to achieve a mix of “small scale retail and café uses with large scale commercial uses in certain areas” we are of the view that as there are large areas of vacant office/commercial space in and around Pyrmont north of Pyrmont Bridge Road, and noting the failure of Lend Lease to sell this site (with an approved DA for commercial development), it would be more appropriate to rezone this site B4 Mixed Use to provide flexibility. Residents do not want this site to remain undeveloped but wish to see it developed in such a way as to provide much-needed additional community amenities, including a childcare centre, as well as a mixture of residential and commercial space, as demand is identified. It is essential that the currently approved height and building envelope restriction remains in place.
• Bank Street – We strongly support the retention of the Public Recreation zoning on the sites currently owned by NSW Maritime and SHFA. However, we have strong objection to its use for any activity other than those approved in the Master Plan governing the site – for passive (non-motorised) boating, community recreational facilities, and a public park. As currently listed as “permitted with consent”, there is a large range of possible uses which we consider totally unacceptable including Charter and tourism boating facilities, electricity generating works, emergency services facilities, marinas, research stations, waste or resource management facilities, water treatment facilities. We seek assurance from Council that this site will not be used for any of these purposes.
• Land linking Quarry Master Drive with Bank Street – We note the strip of land zoned RE1 which runs between 1 Distillery Drive and 120-122 Saunders Street and note its future use is unclear. At present it is not publicly accessible and is in a poor state. As the construction of the adjoining 1 Distillery Drive is underway we ask that Council make a decision on this site’s future.
• We note areas marked SHC SREP Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 which shows wharf areas which don’t exist, including a long jetty near the end of Harris Street. In addition, the configuration of the shoreline around Pyrmont Point (now Pirrama Park) does not reflect reality. We ask (a) that Council clarify the implications of the depicted jetty, noting that the LEP 2005 Ultimo-Pyrmont Zoning Map does not show it, and (b) that the map be amended to reflect the current shoreline. To leave the jetty would lead to uncertainty with regards to future marinas, etc. We also recommend that you add the Glebe Island Bridge abutment to the map (RTA owned) and clarify its zoning.
Pyrmont – Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_008
• We strongly support the zoning of the Council-owned site bounded by Fig and Wattle Streets as Mixed Use. We note that the objectives of this zoning include the integration of “suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximize public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling”. We particularly support community facilities as one of the uses of this site and note its proximity to Wentworth Park sports fields and Wentworth Park light rail station. We further urge consideration of access links to Jones Street, above the site, retention of views to the walls of the old Hell Hole Quarry, and linkage across Wattle Street to Wentworth Park. We also particularly support the principle outlined in the Locality Statement for this precinct to “adaptively re-use the historical buildings providing a mix of land uses in the distinctive built forms”.
• We are unclear as to the status of the sites shown white on the map running between the East side of Harris Street and West side of Pyrmont St from Allen Street to William Henry Street. The old Goldsborough Mort building has now been converted to residential and sits adjacent the new M Central residential development. The Global Switch building on the South side of Fig Street is Commercial; there is a private residential development (Bullecourt) between the Global Switch building and the Council-owned Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre which would be more appropriately zoned Public Recreation, and the Powerhouse Museum site is zoned Mixed Development. We ask that the status of these sites be clarified.
• We support the zoning of the Neighbourhood Centre in Harris Street near William Henry Street to serve the Ultimo community whilst recognizing that this would involve a gradual transition from its current usage.
• The sites shown as B4 Mixed Development running to the west of Pyrmont Street between Allen St and Bunn Street, and including the Mirage building to the East of Pyrmont Street are all residential buildings and should be shown as R1.
Locality Statements – Pyrmont Point. There appears to be no reference to the waterfront, despite this being a locality surrounded on three sides by water. A principle should be to retain and enhance public access to the foreshore, especially at Bank Street; and protection of foreshore public recreation areas from inappropriate development such as marinas and Charter and tourism boating facilities. We do however, support low key, kiosk-type facilities that enhance the activation of the waterfront.
Pyrmont – We would recommend that a principle be added: Require owners to either use and maintain buildings in their ownership or have their properties subject to compulsory acquisition following due notice of five years by the relevant Council or Government authority. Pyrmont has a large number of buildings and unused land zoned commercial/residential which are neglected and falling into disrepair, including several heritage buildings. The full activation of Harris Street cannot be achieved because of this failure to develop or utilize these properties. In addition, a valuable vacant site located next to the Pyrmont Community Centre is currently used as a carpark. This site could be acquired by the City of Sydney to enable expansion of the Pyrmont Community Centre to provide much-needed community facilities. We believe that legislation should be enacted that enables Government/Council to acquire such properties within a vibrant and growing suburb, rather than continuing and exacerbating what is now urban blight.
Summary
• Land use tables should be amended to look to the future, rather than reflect the past
• The zoning maps need to be updated to show accurately, current developments on land and water;
• The Land Use Table relating to Zone RE1 Public Recreation should not be amended to include the uses added by Council under Section 3 - “Permitted with consent” or a new zoning should be created to ensure protection of green open spaces from alienation by large-scale structures and other inappropriate uses.
• The Land Use Table relating to Zone R1 should not include the uses added by Council under Section 3 – “Permitted with consent” but these should be included under Zone B4 or Zone B3. These uses may be the current reality in some suburbs, but the Plan should look at what is appropriate in a residential zone for the future – and that does not include provision of sex services
• Include a reference to access to the waterfront in the Locality Statement – Pyrmont Point
• Include an additional principle which enables the compulsory acquisition of neglected and un-used property, particularly those with heritage listing/values.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius
Convenor
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)