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
No comments:
Post a Comment