Primary Education for Children in Pyrmont and Ultimo

3 November, 2013

The Inner City Schools Working Party was established around a year ago following the Minister for Education’s statement that the Ultimo Primary School was his “top educational priority”.  There have been only around six meetings of this group since its inception; there have been two chairs, so little continuity; and no progress reports have been provided to the community whose concerns about the future of the school led to the formation of the Working Group.

 

We do not accept the excuse of “commercial-in-confidence” claims which underpin the refusal to report back to the community.  We know where the available sites are and are not interested in any discussions on price/valuations.   All we want to know is how the Department of Education is going to cater for the demand for school places for children in Ultimo and Pyrmont, both next year and into the future.   The matter is extremely urgent as already enrolments at Ultimo Primary School for 2014 exceed the ability of the School to meet the demand without compromising even more of the small amount of open space within the school grounds with demountables.

 

The Working Group is also exploring opportunities for a new comprehensive Secondary School in the Inner City.  We have proposed to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and UrbanGrowth, that such a school could be planned as part of the proposed Central to Eveleigh development to meet the demand for secondary school places for Inner City students.   UrbanGrowth is developing an ROI, the specifications for which will determine how this huge redevelopment project will proceed.  Will social infrastructure such as schools be included?

 

Of course, it is important to ensure that any new schools encompass integrated facilities.  In the case of a new Primary School for Ultimo/Pyrmont, it is vital that it incorporates childcare and out of school hours facilities and services, and that sporting facilities and halls can be made available after school hours for local community use.   New schools should also be safely accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.

 

Pyrmont Action’s membership includes parents of young children and they need to know now where their children will be going to school in the next few years.   The City of Sydney has committed $55M towards the provision of six new childcare centres and has identified Pyrmont as a high priority area.  The City owns, on behalf of the ratepayers, a large undeveloped site at the corner of Wattle and Fig Streets.  A contamination report was prepared some four years ago, and around $4M was allocated in the City’s budget for decontamination of the site.  This sum has since disappeared from the budget.  It makes good sense for the Department/Working Group to work with the City to plan for an integrated educational facility on this publicly owned site.

 

We have asked the Department of Education the following questions:

 

• When will the Working Group will be able to report progress to the community on meeting the demand for Primary and Secondary School placements?
• Is the Working Group considering delivery of an integrated educational facility to meet the demand for childcare, out of hours care and primary education in Pyrmont/Ultimo?
• What action will be taken to accommodate the 2014 new enrolments?

 

All those with concerns about educational facilities for children in Pyrmont and Ultimo and the Inner City are invited to write to:

 

The Hon Adrian Piccoli, Minister for Education

Alex Greenwich MP, Member for Sydney

Clr Clover Moore, Lord Mayor, City of Sydney

 

Elizabeth Elenius, Convenor

White Paper 2013

Elizabeth Elenius, Convenor 9C/2 Bowman

5 March, 2013,

The Hon Barry O’Farrell, MP

Premier of NSW,

Parliament House,

SYDNEY   NSW   2000

Dear Premier,

Planning White Paper

It is clear that there is strong concern at the grass roots community level about the proposals outlined in the Planning Green Paper, noting that of the 1220 submissions received, the vast majority were from members of the community (739) and from community groups such as ours (136).   Many of the issues raised by the community were echoed in the submissions from Local Government (114). The Government now has a challenge to deliver a system that is acceptable to the broad community, ie the electors in NSW.

We, in Pyrmont, have first-hand experience of living in a “planned” community, and we continue to live through the ad hoc and piecemeal planning decisions initiated by the previous government, with many, ultimately, signed off by your government.    These include:

• Piecemeal development of the Bays Precinct and continuing delay in releasing the Bays Precinct report which, we hope, will contain viable planning principles to guide future integrated development of the Bays
• Absence of the social infrastructure required to support a residential population of up to 15,000 residents (now around 12,000) and 16,000 workers in Pyrmont, noting that when planned it was assumed by the planners that there would be no children living in Pyrmont – WRONG!
• The lack of planned new infrastructure to serve the local communities moving to the City with the construction of Barangaroo, Darling Harbour redevelopment, Central Park, and Harold Park. 

Planned Developments Demonstrate No Improvement

In the consultation on the redevelopment of Darling Harbour, we were appalled to learn that the winning consortium has no obligation to provide transport to the site, or educational and sporting facilities for the children and young people moving to Haymarket.  One would have expected Infrastructure NSW to have thought of these matters – but they did not and have now referred them back to their respective silos (Departments) where they will no doubt languish.  

With the demolition of the monorail, there will be a reduction in public transport to the centre of the City.  The Transport Master Plan is silent on the timelines for starting and finishing the proposed light rail extensions, noting that the Government has not even finally committed to the project itself.  27,000 people are planned to attend functions at Tumbalong Park, in addition to those living there, and attending functions at other venues, yet there is no commitment towards transporting them there!

Much of this lack of planning can be sheeted home to the old Part 3A system, now replaced by the projects of State Significance system which enables projects to be quarantined from the standards that apply elsewhere.   But most of it comes down to the silo mentality in each government department or instrumentality.   It’s all very well to combine Roads and Maritime Services on paper, but they still operate as silos.  

§  As an example, we in Pyrmont, have to deal with at least 3 separate divisions within the Department of Planning when it comes to getting public land maintained – and none of them talk to one another.

Given our experiences with “planning” in our neighbourhood, we have little confidence that pushing through more development, with few or no controls, in the shortest possible time scale, with no community consultation at the local level will deliver anything but future blight which will cost a lot more to fix up.

New Legislation Requires New Thinking

Before finalizing the White Paper, we ask that the Government listens to the community and ensures that the new legislation incorporates the following:

• Ecologically Sustainable Development must be the key driver of all planning – not Growth.
• Meaningful community participation must be guaranteed at both strategic planning level and when individual developments are being assessed
• Code-complying development must be limited to low risk, low impact development
• New large scale developments must not be assessed in isolation.  The cumululative impact, especially on provision of adequate social, educational, sporting, aged care, childcare and cultural infrastructure, must be assessed and if inadequate, provided, possibly through developer contributions
• Decision-making must be open and transparent and involve publication of the reasons for particular decisions
• Decision-making panels must be equally accessible to members of the community as well as developers
• No spot rezoning should be allowed unless it complies with the strategic planning for the area
• Enterprise zones must conform with the strategic planning framework
• Appeal rights should apply equally to communities as well as developers
• Any reviews of strategic plans must involve genuine community engagement

Further, we seek an assurance from you that the Government will provide at least six months to enable members of the community to examine the White Paper, and formulate their responses.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Elenius,

Convenor

Sydney Heritage Fleet Submission

29 April, 2013

Director-General

Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

GPO Box 39,

SYDNEY  NSW   2001

Attention Mr Daniel Gorgioski

Dear Mr Gorgioski,

3 Bank Street, Pyrmont – Sydney Heritage Fleet

Pyrmont Action Inc has met and considered the documentation associated with the construction of the Sydney Heritage Fleet at Bank Street, Pyrmont and has resolved to oppose the development. 

We have been in discussion with representatives of a number of community/stakeholder groups over many years and note the detailed analysis of the Environmental Assessment and accompanying reports submitted by the Proprietors of Strata Plan 80937, 2 Bowman Street, Pyrmont and endorse their findings regarding (a) the inadequacy of the documentation; and (b) traffic, transport, noise and visual impacts, but do not propose to duplicate these excellent submissions.

Our primary ground for opposition to the development is that it contravenes the current Bank Street Pyrmont Master Plan (2006).   We note that of the many planning instruments referenced in the Environmental Assessment document, there is NO reference to the current Master Plan.  We further note that the recently released Bays Precinct Task Force Report (p48 August 2012) “supports the current Master Plans as an appropriate guide to development within the Precinct and that the Master Plans should be considered by approval and consent authorities in development assessment”.   The Government has been considering the Task Force report for nearly a year and its recommendations now carry the weight of Cabinet endorsement.

The Bank Street Pyrmont Master Plan was approved by the then Minister for Transport, Frank Sartor in November, 2006 after many years of consultation with community/stakeholder groups, and gave effect to the then Government decision, announced in 2004, to dedicate the Maritime site as a “home for passive boating such as dragon boats and kayaks…. and include valuable open space.”  (Sandra Nori, Port Jackson Newsline, December, 2004).   In announcing the approval of the Master Plan, Minister Sartor advised that it “provides for a 9000 square metre foreshore park, including a boat ramp, dragon boat clubhouse and storage facility, a public foreshore walk and footpath and landscaping works”.   The Bays Precinct Task Force Report also recognises all sites on the Bank Street Public Recreation Area as the home for passive boating and waterfront park (p74).  The Task Force also recognises that the protection of the use of the waterways for recreational activities such as dragon boating, rowing and sailing is an important community priority.

Pyrmont Action Inc, along with all community/stakeholder groups expects the current Government to honour the terms of the Bank Street Pyrmont Master Plan and make the necessary arrangements with the City of Sydney, Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and the passive boating and other community stakeholders, to expedite the provision of public passive and active recreation facilities on the site owned by Roads and Maritime Services, and a community water sports centre at 1 Bank Street, owned by SHFA.  We have been waiting almost ten years for the Bank Street Foreshore Park.

If this development application is approved at Bank Street, it will set a precedent for overturning all other Master Plans associated with the Bays Precinct, noting that two further Blackwattle Bay development applications are about to be submitted for assessment.  It must be rejected.

We ask that the Sydney Heritage Fleet DA and our submission be referred to the Planning Assessment Commission for determination and that we be permitted to address the PAC.

Yours sincerely,

Bill d’Anthes,

Deputy Convenor

Pyrmont Action Press Release: 448 Bus Service

18 February, 2013

PRESS RELEASE

Pyrmont Action has sought clarification on the failure of the Government to make the 448 bus service available to Pyrmont residents with John Ajaka, Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Roads.

1. The Government claims that Route 448 was introduced and designed in response to growing demand.  Regular observations of Pyrmont residents reveal that around a maximum of 8 passengers use the service on any one run.   This cannot be considered an efficient use of public resources.
2. There continues to be UNMET demand by Pyrmont residents for use of the bus on its return journey (currently they are prohibited from using the bus on its return journey).  As the service is pre-paid, we fail to understand why use of the service on the return journey would require ANY additional resources.  There is one bus and one bus driver, both of which must make the return journey in order to pick up the workers who are allowed to travel in the opposite direction.   What extra resources are required?
3. As this is a peak hour service, the Government’s statement that the 448 service is not exclusive and is available to the travelling public is incorrect.  Pyrmont workers want to travel INTO the city in the mornings and FROM the city in the evenings.   The 448 is therefore NOT available to Pyrmont residents as it only carries passengers in the opposite direction.
4. We have asked for advice on how much Transport for NSW receives by way of private sector subsidy for the 448 bus service.
5. We have asked for advice on the exact date of the review of Inner West bus services promised for 2013.
6. The review will not be able to gauge unmet demand if it only considers customer feedback, patronage data and operational performance.  It is critical for the government to find out what members of the community actually want and need by way of bus services.  For example, the 449 service was removed without any consultation as to whether it was scheduled at times that met potential customer demand.   This service was particularly important for Pyrmont and Ultimo residents who do not have cars to be able to shop at Broadway, especially the many social housing residents.

Elizabeth Elenius

Convenor

Pyrmont Action Supports SINC-UP Motions for Childcare & Family Day Care in Pyrmont

18 February 2013

Dear Councillors, 

At our last Committee Meeting, Pyrmont Action Inc members resolved to support the following resolutions proposed by SINC-UP for the consideration of Council at its next meeting.   We urge Councillors to adopt these resolutions.  Pyrmont Action has already put forward the case for additional childcare in Pyrmont which was acknowledged in the revised motion debated by Council at its December meeting.   We see the immediate allocation of discretionary funds to assist in the establishment of a Family Day Care program as a supplementary and interim measure to address the immediate and future needs.

We do hope that Council will support these resolutions.

Elizabeth Elenius, Convenor, Pyrmont Action Inc. 

SINC-UP ( Social Infrastructure For Children In Ultimo & Pyrmont) is a new grouping of concerned parents, grandparents and residents in Pyrmont and Ultimo focusing on the need for adequate facilities and infrastructure to meet the education, health and recreation needs of all children and young people in the area. 

An immediate primary concern is the provision of more childcare, especially in Pyrmont. We therefore request that you propose and support the following motion on our behalf:

Council motion

Background:

Council is aware that in planning the new suburb of Pyrmont the estimate of children likely to be living in Pyrmont in 2013 was greatly underestimated.

Council has already made a major commitment of funds over the medium term to address the now pressing issue of the shortage of childcare places across the council area.   

Council has also committed to re-establish the family day care program to address the shortage of places in the  immediate term. 

To begin this process the following is recommended:

1. Council allocate discretionary funds from the 2012/13 Council budget for a Project Manager to develop the family day care program. 
2. Part of the project will be to  establish a Family Day Care Coordination Unit in Pyrmont. 
3. The family day care coordination unit to be established by June 2013 and operational funds to for the unit be included in the 2013/14 council budget
4. A community representative nominated by the community to work with the project manager to provide community knowledge and expertise to the project.
5. Council allocate resources and a time frame in the 2013/14 council budget to identify sites for potential CC centres in Pyrmont.  
6. The research and feasibility to include council, state owned and private properties as well as private development projects. 

Council motion

Background:

Council is aware that in planning the new suburb of Pyrmont the estimate of children likely to be living in Pyrmont in 2013 was greatly underestimated.

Council has already made a major commitment of funds over the medium term to address the now pressing issue of the shortage of childcare places across the council area.

Council's strategic plan aims to have much improved local access to child care over the next 10 years.In order to provide a realistic and cost effective plan for childcare in Pyrmont Council needs to update its base data,population trends and identify potential sites.  To begin this process the following is recommended:

1. Council allocate resources and a time frame in the 2013/14 council budget to identify sites for potential CC centres in Pyrmont.  
2. The research and feasibility to include council, state owned and private properties as well as private development projects.