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

SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION

ELIZABETH ELENIUS BA Earth Sciences Macq Univ 1979

SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION

10 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

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.