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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment