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
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Underneath the Arches
Members and their friends are invited to a Community Picnic in Wentworth Park, in the middle of the Blackwattle Bay side of the railway viaduct, on Sunday 27 February from 5 to 8 pm.
The purpose is to celebrate completion of a major stage in reclaiming Wentworth Park for residents of Glebe, Pyrmont and Ultimo. Rebuilding of both the western and eastern walls of the greyhound track has now been completed, and the infill of the arches of the heritage-listed viaduct which crosses the park has been removed, creating improved visual links towards Blackwattle Bay.
The picnic is BYO everything (food, wine, water, rugs, chairs, glasses, etc). The organisers of the event, the Blackwattle Cove Coalition, of which Pyrmont Action is a member, will be arranging some extra surprises.
It would assist the organisers to have an estimate of the number of people who plan to attend. Please email Elizabeth Elenius eelenius@bigpond.net.au
This should be a great event and a good chance for everyone to catch up with friends, neighbours, and community supporters from other groups.
Hope to see a good turnout from PA members.
The purpose is to celebrate completion of a major stage in reclaiming Wentworth Park for residents of Glebe, Pyrmont and Ultimo. Rebuilding of both the western and eastern walls of the greyhound track has now been completed, and the infill of the arches of the heritage-listed viaduct which crosses the park has been removed, creating improved visual links towards Blackwattle Bay.
The picnic is BYO everything (food, wine, water, rugs, chairs, glasses, etc). The organisers of the event, the Blackwattle Cove Coalition, of which Pyrmont Action is a member, will be arranging some extra surprises.
It would assist the organisers to have an estimate of the number of people who plan to attend. Please email Elizabeth Elenius eelenius@bigpond.net.au
This should be a great event and a good chance for everyone to catch up with friends, neighbours, and community supporters from other groups.
Hope to see a good turnout from PA members.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Cruise Passenger Terminal, White Bay
8 November, 2010
Ms Rebecca Newman,
Department of Planning,
22-33 Bridge Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Dear Ms Newman,
Cruise Passenger Terminal, White Bay – MP 10_0069
Pyrmont Action Inc members have a strong interest in the CPT development at White Bay as it will occupy a key site directly opposite the northern end of the Pyrmont Peninsular. In addition, members have participated in the Bays Precinct CRG, including associated workshops, and attended several public meetings associated with both the Bays Precinct, and the CPT, in particular. We have a strong commitment to the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG.
General Comments – Whilst the Environmental Assessment Report (September 2010: 10058) makes reference to the Bays Precinct process, the application is based on the existing Master Plan and other planning instruments which take no account of the outcomes of Stage 1 of the Bays Precinct planning process. P viii of the EAR makes it clear that Stage 2 of the process has barely begun and it is the outcome of that stage that “will be used to finalise the planning principles which will guide all future planning processes for the precinct.” Given that the plans submitted do NOT take into account recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG, it is our view that the submission of the plans for the CPT is premature and subverts the planning and consultation process of the Bays Precinct CRG and Task Force.
Recommendation: That consideration of the White Bay CPT plans be deferred until the conclusion of Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct planning and consultation process.
In the event that this recommendation is ignored, we offer the following comments on the proposal as outlined in the EAR.
1.0 Land Use – Pyrmont Action is generally supportive of the Working Harbour concept and therefore has no objection in principle to the use of this publicly owned foreshore land for the Cruise Passenger Terminal. The area has been used as a port since the mid-late 1800s, including as a container terminal since 1967 and the proposed development has significant employment generating potential. We acknowledge that the operations of the container terminal caused considerable loss of amenity for local residents but having experienced the recent prolonged stay of the Pacific Jewel at Glebe Island, believe that the impact of the CPT will not be of the same order as a container terminal. We understand that 170 ships will use WB5 per year involving 4,800 passengers and crew/visit, and that the peak operating season runs from October to April. On occasions (number unspecified) there will be two vessels using WB 5 and WB4) at the one time. The EAR also indicates that there will be visits by an unspecified number of international passenger ships (possibly up to 10% of cruise vessels) but does not describe the impact of these in any detail. In the absence of such details, we do not support the use of the CPT for long stay (up to 72 hours) international ships.
Recommendation: We support in principle the use of WB5 as a Cruise Passenger Terminal for domestic cruise ships.
In addition to the primary purpose of the facility, it is proposed that it be used for functions/events when not in use as a port. We have a number of concerns about this use which we will address in more detail later. The EAR indicates (p9) that the site is zoned “Port and Employment” under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West). Permissable uses under this zoning are “uses that facilitate the continuation of the commercial port uses, employment uses, port and maritime uses”. Prohibited uses are “all uses which do not comply with the objectives of the zone”. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the refusal of the development’s proponent to incorporate facilities which could serve the community, eg a café and/or restaurant, foreshore walkway and general public access to the foreshore when the facility is not in use as a port, with the proposal to provide facilities and access for private functions and events which similarly do not comply with the objectives of the zone. If it is possible to use the site for private functions, it is equally possible to make the facilities available more widely for the general community, when ships are not in port. This would enhance the business case for establishing the kiosk and or other food outlets as they would be more widely patronized, especially during periods when ships are not in port. It should be noted that the cruise passenger terminal at Circular Quay is accessible to the public, and, indeed, supports restaurants/cafes which activate the foreshore. I should be noted that there is only ONE foreshore restaurant on the Balmain foreshore and it can be anticipated that such an amenity would be extremely well patronized, especially as the site lies within a substantial residential area, in contrast to Port Botany which is not.
In addition to the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG which call for increased public access along the Bays foreshores, we note the objects of the NSW EP&A Act which seeks to encourage “the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment”; “the provision of land for public purposes”; and “the provision and coordination of community services and facilities”(p20). It is clear from the EAR that one can only get general access if one pays a fee; and the very limited public access that is provided (stairs from Stephen St) can be denied by fee-paying lessees or tenants (p27).
The proposal similarly does not comply with some of the provisions of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 which outlines the objectives of “encouraging development on Glebe Island…”; “providing ongoing rail access to the port and related activities”;” providing pedestrian and cyclist links with surrounding public access networks”; and “providing …. rail access to port activities” (p26).
Recommendation: The CPT should be designed to provide facilities and infrastructure which can be used by the general community, including increased public foreshore access and public transport.
2.0 Building Design – Sydney Ports is to be congratulated on the design of the terminal building. The removal of the existing container shed shell will greatly improve views from both Balmain and Pyrmont. We particularly support the retention of the steel gantries which will continue to remind us of the site’s former use as a busy container port.
Appendix C2 refers to measures to mitigate against noise, including double glazing on the northern and western side of the building. However, the emphasis of this section is on protecting the adjacent residents in Balmain from nuisance with no reference to noise mitigation on the southern side of the building. All affected residents should be protected but as noise carries very effectively across water we would be concerned if such measures were not incorporated on the southern side of the building. As outlined in 1.0 above, we support the incorporation of facilities such as a café/restaurant which can be accessed by the general public on non-ship days. At the very least, the planned kiosk on the southern side of the building should be able to serve the general public on non-ship days. We further note that lighting will be concentrated on the harbourside which will “minimize light spillage to neighbouring Balmain residents”. Whilst this is appropriate, once again, Pyrmont residents appear to be overlooked. Many Pyrmont residents already suffer from excessive ambient light from Glebe Island and White Bay and every effort should be made to place and design the lighting to minimize the impact on Pyrmont residents.
Recommendation: Support the building design and retention of steel gantries; ensure noise mitigation measures incorporated to minimize noise and light impacts on Pyrmont residents as well as those in Balmain; provide additional amenities for community use.
3.0 Noise Impacts - We note that the hours of operation of the domestic cruise ships are: disembarkation – 7.30am – 11am; embarkation – 10am – midday (with the ship leaving by 6pm). Ships will generally have a turnaround of 10 – 12 hours. Outside of these hours providers and staff will arrive and depart. The function/event facilities will operate until midnight. It is likely that the functions/events will have a far greater negative impact on local amenity than the operations of the cruise ships.
We note with alarm that the facility could be used for up to 20 events/year involving more than 1,500 and possibly up to 2.500 people. The facility could be used for up to 50 functions/events a year when not required for port purposes. Functions may include:
• Community/corporate events
• Exhibitions and conventions
• Food and beverage festivals
• Film shoots
• Product launches
• Charity and fundraising functions
• Cultural events
• Special uses
Amusement rides will also be permitted in both internal and external areas no more than 5 times per year, including at night. The EAR states that “to avoid sleep disturbance issues where amusement rides will operate after 10pm, they will only be located between the terminal building and the water” (p60). That may give comfort to Balmain residents, but is of concern to Pyrmont residents. No such operation should occur after 10pm outside the building. Amplified music will be permitted inside the building and outdoor music “should be limited to background music, or music which does not exceed approximately 67dBA at 10m from the speakers”. Given the noise transmitting nature of the harbor, we oppose the use of amplified music outdoors.
The noise impact of patrons departing functions/events has not been evaluated. Pyrmont residents have considerable experience of high noise impacts of people leaving functions en masse, particularly those where alcohol has been served. It is imperative that function operators and Sydney Ports be required to employ sufficient security staff to ensure that patrons leave quietly. Noise standards relating to departing patrons must be established and any operator who does not comply should not be permitted to run any further functions at the facility.
We do not object to the site being used for special events on special days such as NY Eve or Australia Day provided that this is limited to two per year and that the proponents submit a DA which incorporates an Operational Plan upon which the local community, including Pyrmont residents, are consulted. Any noise testing for outdoor events should also be conducted in Pyrmont, not just in Balmain/Rozelle.
Recommendations – Noise mitigation measures should be included to reduce impacts on residents of Pyrmont; noise standards for departing patrons must be established and implemented; no amplified music outdoors; amusement rides outdoors to close at 10pm.
4.0 Traffic and Transport – Traffic – We support the use of James Craig Road for the bulk of traffic to and from the facility but oppose the relocation of the site boundary fence further west as it will remove 50 spaces currently used for residential parking in Buchanan Street and result in the narrowing of Robert Street. This represents a significant loss of amenity for the local community. We ask that further consultation be held with local residents to seek an alternative solution to providing a link to James Craig Road.
It is our view that whilst most of the peak traffic associated with the operations of the CPT will be outside of normal peak hours, it nevertheless represents a significant increase in traffic affecting the inner west area – IF access to and from the terminal is completely reliant on road transport. Each ship visit involves 4,800 passengers and crew and large events will inevitably generate traffic jams, noting that a 500 person event will involve 180 car movements and a large event will see 900 vehicles entering and leaving the site, almost certainly en masse.
Whilst we accept that a 200 space carpark is probably required for short-term drop-offs and pick-ups relating to the ships, we strongly object to the construction of a 200 space long-term carpark on valuable publicly owned foreshore land. This is a completely inappropriate use of such land, particularly as the community is being denied access to most of the site. There is no long term carpark at Circular Quay or at Barangaroo.
Transport – We are very disappointed that there is no provision for improved public transport to serve not only the CPT and the functions/events, but the local community. Contrary to the statements in the EAR, this part of Balmain/White Bay is NOT well served with public transport. Appendix F identifies the nearest bus stop as being 700m walking distance from the CPT. No one can be expected to walk from there with luggage, thus passengers will be forced to use their cars in an area which is already congested. As for passengers and event patrons using bicycles to access the site, this descends into the realm of absurdity. As recommended by the Bays Precinct CRG, it is essential that new public transport infrastructure be provided to serve White Bay and Balmain. It has been proposed that a spur light rail line be introduced to run from the existing line at Rozelle Bay. Such a line could either operate as required to serve the CPT/function centre, or, preferably, on a continuous basis to serve the community as well. There is a line and railway easement already in existence and it is proposed in the EAR that this be retained as some kind of historical relic. We argue that it would be much more effective to actually put it to use. The analysis in Appendix F completely ignores the viability of such a line in the context of its use by the local community. In addition, the CRG strongly supports the provision of a ferry stop at or near the CPT. A new Western Bays ferry service could serve not only White Bay/Balmain, but Pyrmont (with a residential population around 13,000 and worker population of around 16,000), and Blackwattle Bay, especially the Sydney Fish Markets. Again, the analysis in Appendix F only looks at the viability of a ferry serving the CPT/function centre and does not look at the bigger community picture.
It is our view that if public transport is provided it will be well patronized. No evidence is presented in the EAR to indicate that it would not. There are no local demand studies and if you consider the statement on p61 that people accessing DH8 use public transport to access the terminal there, the claims that they wouldn’t use it at White Bay is totally inconsistent with the evidence that they do at DH8.
Recommendation: There should be no long-stay carpark; the W gate to remain in its current position and residents consulted about alternative means of linking to James Craig Road; the existing rail line to be retained and used for a light rail spur line to serve CPT passengers and patrons and local residents; a new Inner Bays ferry service to be introduced with a stop to serve the CPT and local residents.
5.0 Landscaping – As most of the site is to be covered in bitumen or other hard surfaces, it is proposed that there will be little landscaping. In recommending that the 200 long-term carpark be scrapped, we propose that this area be turned into a public landscaped park. This will have the effect of reducing the huge expanse of pavement surface which will result in extensive runoff when it is raining, and provide an attractive area for both users of the facility, and the general public. We further suggest that trees be planted along the foreshore in front of the facility to soften the appearance of the facility from all vantage points and provide shade for patrons of outdoors events, as well as the general public if permitted access to the foreshore. All planting should be local area natives and not include hybrid species.
Recommendation: Establish a landscaped public park in place of the 200 long-term carpark; incorporate trees along the foreshore; all planting to be local area natives.
6.0 Sustainability – It is proposed to capture and recycle run-off from the roof of the building for use in toilets and for irrigation and to collect and redirect water from minor storms to bioremediation swales. We commend the proposal for this initiative. However, we note that whilst it is anticipated that there will be no increase over pre-existing runoff conditions, we recommend that further effort be made to collect and redirect stormwater from heavy rainfall events to a stormwater collection tank for recycling, especially if additional landscaping is implemented along the foreshore.
Recommendation: Incorporate additional stormwater collection facilities.
As stated above, this proposal contravenes the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG in that it pre-empts Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct Task Force deliberations. Stage 2 was supposed to commence in September, 2010 but the announcement of the options developed for the Bays has now been put back to the end of 2010. It is cynical in the extreme for Sydney Ports to submit the CPT plans within this period of planning hiatus with the expectation this it will be rushed through and evaluated against what will shortly be outdated planning criteria. We urge the Minister to defer consideration of this proposal until Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct planning and consultation process is completed.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius
Ms Rebecca Newman,
Department of Planning,
22-33 Bridge Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Dear Ms Newman,
Cruise Passenger Terminal, White Bay – MP 10_0069
Pyrmont Action Inc members have a strong interest in the CPT development at White Bay as it will occupy a key site directly opposite the northern end of the Pyrmont Peninsular. In addition, members have participated in the Bays Precinct CRG, including associated workshops, and attended several public meetings associated with both the Bays Precinct, and the CPT, in particular. We have a strong commitment to the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG.
General Comments – Whilst the Environmental Assessment Report (September 2010: 10058) makes reference to the Bays Precinct process, the application is based on the existing Master Plan and other planning instruments which take no account of the outcomes of Stage 1 of the Bays Precinct planning process. P viii of the EAR makes it clear that Stage 2 of the process has barely begun and it is the outcome of that stage that “will be used to finalise the planning principles which will guide all future planning processes for the precinct.” Given that the plans submitted do NOT take into account recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG, it is our view that the submission of the plans for the CPT is premature and subverts the planning and consultation process of the Bays Precinct CRG and Task Force.
Recommendation: That consideration of the White Bay CPT plans be deferred until the conclusion of Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct planning and consultation process.
In the event that this recommendation is ignored, we offer the following comments on the proposal as outlined in the EAR.
1.0 Land Use – Pyrmont Action is generally supportive of the Working Harbour concept and therefore has no objection in principle to the use of this publicly owned foreshore land for the Cruise Passenger Terminal. The area has been used as a port since the mid-late 1800s, including as a container terminal since 1967 and the proposed development has significant employment generating potential. We acknowledge that the operations of the container terminal caused considerable loss of amenity for local residents but having experienced the recent prolonged stay of the Pacific Jewel at Glebe Island, believe that the impact of the CPT will not be of the same order as a container terminal. We understand that 170 ships will use WB5 per year involving 4,800 passengers and crew/visit, and that the peak operating season runs from October to April. On occasions (number unspecified) there will be two vessels using WB 5 and WB4) at the one time. The EAR also indicates that there will be visits by an unspecified number of international passenger ships (possibly up to 10% of cruise vessels) but does not describe the impact of these in any detail. In the absence of such details, we do not support the use of the CPT for long stay (up to 72 hours) international ships.
Recommendation: We support in principle the use of WB5 as a Cruise Passenger Terminal for domestic cruise ships.
In addition to the primary purpose of the facility, it is proposed that it be used for functions/events when not in use as a port. We have a number of concerns about this use which we will address in more detail later. The EAR indicates (p9) that the site is zoned “Port and Employment” under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West). Permissable uses under this zoning are “uses that facilitate the continuation of the commercial port uses, employment uses, port and maritime uses”. Prohibited uses are “all uses which do not comply with the objectives of the zone”. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the refusal of the development’s proponent to incorporate facilities which could serve the community, eg a café and/or restaurant, foreshore walkway and general public access to the foreshore when the facility is not in use as a port, with the proposal to provide facilities and access for private functions and events which similarly do not comply with the objectives of the zone. If it is possible to use the site for private functions, it is equally possible to make the facilities available more widely for the general community, when ships are not in port. This would enhance the business case for establishing the kiosk and or other food outlets as they would be more widely patronized, especially during periods when ships are not in port. It should be noted that the cruise passenger terminal at Circular Quay is accessible to the public, and, indeed, supports restaurants/cafes which activate the foreshore. I should be noted that there is only ONE foreshore restaurant on the Balmain foreshore and it can be anticipated that such an amenity would be extremely well patronized, especially as the site lies within a substantial residential area, in contrast to Port Botany which is not.
In addition to the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG which call for increased public access along the Bays foreshores, we note the objects of the NSW EP&A Act which seeks to encourage “the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment”; “the provision of land for public purposes”; and “the provision and coordination of community services and facilities”(p20). It is clear from the EAR that one can only get general access if one pays a fee; and the very limited public access that is provided (stairs from Stephen St) can be denied by fee-paying lessees or tenants (p27).
The proposal similarly does not comply with some of the provisions of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 which outlines the objectives of “encouraging development on Glebe Island…”; “providing ongoing rail access to the port and related activities”;” providing pedestrian and cyclist links with surrounding public access networks”; and “providing …. rail access to port activities” (p26).
Recommendation: The CPT should be designed to provide facilities and infrastructure which can be used by the general community, including increased public foreshore access and public transport.
2.0 Building Design – Sydney Ports is to be congratulated on the design of the terminal building. The removal of the existing container shed shell will greatly improve views from both Balmain and Pyrmont. We particularly support the retention of the steel gantries which will continue to remind us of the site’s former use as a busy container port.
Appendix C2 refers to measures to mitigate against noise, including double glazing on the northern and western side of the building. However, the emphasis of this section is on protecting the adjacent residents in Balmain from nuisance with no reference to noise mitigation on the southern side of the building. All affected residents should be protected but as noise carries very effectively across water we would be concerned if such measures were not incorporated on the southern side of the building. As outlined in 1.0 above, we support the incorporation of facilities such as a café/restaurant which can be accessed by the general public on non-ship days. At the very least, the planned kiosk on the southern side of the building should be able to serve the general public on non-ship days. We further note that lighting will be concentrated on the harbourside which will “minimize light spillage to neighbouring Balmain residents”. Whilst this is appropriate, once again, Pyrmont residents appear to be overlooked. Many Pyrmont residents already suffer from excessive ambient light from Glebe Island and White Bay and every effort should be made to place and design the lighting to minimize the impact on Pyrmont residents.
Recommendation: Support the building design and retention of steel gantries; ensure noise mitigation measures incorporated to minimize noise and light impacts on Pyrmont residents as well as those in Balmain; provide additional amenities for community use.
3.0 Noise Impacts - We note that the hours of operation of the domestic cruise ships are: disembarkation – 7.30am – 11am; embarkation – 10am – midday (with the ship leaving by 6pm). Ships will generally have a turnaround of 10 – 12 hours. Outside of these hours providers and staff will arrive and depart. The function/event facilities will operate until midnight. It is likely that the functions/events will have a far greater negative impact on local amenity than the operations of the cruise ships.
We note with alarm that the facility could be used for up to 20 events/year involving more than 1,500 and possibly up to 2.500 people. The facility could be used for up to 50 functions/events a year when not required for port purposes. Functions may include:
• Community/corporate events
• Exhibitions and conventions
• Food and beverage festivals
• Film shoots
• Product launches
• Charity and fundraising functions
• Cultural events
• Special uses
Amusement rides will also be permitted in both internal and external areas no more than 5 times per year, including at night. The EAR states that “to avoid sleep disturbance issues where amusement rides will operate after 10pm, they will only be located between the terminal building and the water” (p60). That may give comfort to Balmain residents, but is of concern to Pyrmont residents. No such operation should occur after 10pm outside the building. Amplified music will be permitted inside the building and outdoor music “should be limited to background music, or music which does not exceed approximately 67dBA at 10m from the speakers”. Given the noise transmitting nature of the harbor, we oppose the use of amplified music outdoors.
The noise impact of patrons departing functions/events has not been evaluated. Pyrmont residents have considerable experience of high noise impacts of people leaving functions en masse, particularly those where alcohol has been served. It is imperative that function operators and Sydney Ports be required to employ sufficient security staff to ensure that patrons leave quietly. Noise standards relating to departing patrons must be established and any operator who does not comply should not be permitted to run any further functions at the facility.
We do not object to the site being used for special events on special days such as NY Eve or Australia Day provided that this is limited to two per year and that the proponents submit a DA which incorporates an Operational Plan upon which the local community, including Pyrmont residents, are consulted. Any noise testing for outdoor events should also be conducted in Pyrmont, not just in Balmain/Rozelle.
Recommendations – Noise mitigation measures should be included to reduce impacts on residents of Pyrmont; noise standards for departing patrons must be established and implemented; no amplified music outdoors; amusement rides outdoors to close at 10pm.
4.0 Traffic and Transport – Traffic – We support the use of James Craig Road for the bulk of traffic to and from the facility but oppose the relocation of the site boundary fence further west as it will remove 50 spaces currently used for residential parking in Buchanan Street and result in the narrowing of Robert Street. This represents a significant loss of amenity for the local community. We ask that further consultation be held with local residents to seek an alternative solution to providing a link to James Craig Road.
It is our view that whilst most of the peak traffic associated with the operations of the CPT will be outside of normal peak hours, it nevertheless represents a significant increase in traffic affecting the inner west area – IF access to and from the terminal is completely reliant on road transport. Each ship visit involves 4,800 passengers and crew and large events will inevitably generate traffic jams, noting that a 500 person event will involve 180 car movements and a large event will see 900 vehicles entering and leaving the site, almost certainly en masse.
Whilst we accept that a 200 space carpark is probably required for short-term drop-offs and pick-ups relating to the ships, we strongly object to the construction of a 200 space long-term carpark on valuable publicly owned foreshore land. This is a completely inappropriate use of such land, particularly as the community is being denied access to most of the site. There is no long term carpark at Circular Quay or at Barangaroo.
Transport – We are very disappointed that there is no provision for improved public transport to serve not only the CPT and the functions/events, but the local community. Contrary to the statements in the EAR, this part of Balmain/White Bay is NOT well served with public transport. Appendix F identifies the nearest bus stop as being 700m walking distance from the CPT. No one can be expected to walk from there with luggage, thus passengers will be forced to use their cars in an area which is already congested. As for passengers and event patrons using bicycles to access the site, this descends into the realm of absurdity. As recommended by the Bays Precinct CRG, it is essential that new public transport infrastructure be provided to serve White Bay and Balmain. It has been proposed that a spur light rail line be introduced to run from the existing line at Rozelle Bay. Such a line could either operate as required to serve the CPT/function centre, or, preferably, on a continuous basis to serve the community as well. There is a line and railway easement already in existence and it is proposed in the EAR that this be retained as some kind of historical relic. We argue that it would be much more effective to actually put it to use. The analysis in Appendix F completely ignores the viability of such a line in the context of its use by the local community. In addition, the CRG strongly supports the provision of a ferry stop at or near the CPT. A new Western Bays ferry service could serve not only White Bay/Balmain, but Pyrmont (with a residential population around 13,000 and worker population of around 16,000), and Blackwattle Bay, especially the Sydney Fish Markets. Again, the analysis in Appendix F only looks at the viability of a ferry serving the CPT/function centre and does not look at the bigger community picture.
It is our view that if public transport is provided it will be well patronized. No evidence is presented in the EAR to indicate that it would not. There are no local demand studies and if you consider the statement on p61 that people accessing DH8 use public transport to access the terminal there, the claims that they wouldn’t use it at White Bay is totally inconsistent with the evidence that they do at DH8.
Recommendation: There should be no long-stay carpark; the W gate to remain in its current position and residents consulted about alternative means of linking to James Craig Road; the existing rail line to be retained and used for a light rail spur line to serve CPT passengers and patrons and local residents; a new Inner Bays ferry service to be introduced with a stop to serve the CPT and local residents.
5.0 Landscaping – As most of the site is to be covered in bitumen or other hard surfaces, it is proposed that there will be little landscaping. In recommending that the 200 long-term carpark be scrapped, we propose that this area be turned into a public landscaped park. This will have the effect of reducing the huge expanse of pavement surface which will result in extensive runoff when it is raining, and provide an attractive area for both users of the facility, and the general public. We further suggest that trees be planted along the foreshore in front of the facility to soften the appearance of the facility from all vantage points and provide shade for patrons of outdoors events, as well as the general public if permitted access to the foreshore. All planting should be local area natives and not include hybrid species.
Recommendation: Establish a landscaped public park in place of the 200 long-term carpark; incorporate trees along the foreshore; all planting to be local area natives.
6.0 Sustainability – It is proposed to capture and recycle run-off from the roof of the building for use in toilets and for irrigation and to collect and redirect water from minor storms to bioremediation swales. We commend the proposal for this initiative. However, we note that whilst it is anticipated that there will be no increase over pre-existing runoff conditions, we recommend that further effort be made to collect and redirect stormwater from heavy rainfall events to a stormwater collection tank for recycling, especially if additional landscaping is implemented along the foreshore.
Recommendation: Incorporate additional stormwater collection facilities.
As stated above, this proposal contravenes the recommendations of the Bays Precinct CRG in that it pre-empts Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct Task Force deliberations. Stage 2 was supposed to commence in September, 2010 but the announcement of the options developed for the Bays has now been put back to the end of 2010. It is cynical in the extreme for Sydney Ports to submit the CPT plans within this period of planning hiatus with the expectation this it will be rushed through and evaluated against what will shortly be outdated planning criteria. We urge the Minister to defer consideration of this proposal until Stage 2 of the Bays Precinct planning and consultation process is completed.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Pyrmont Action Convenor's Report AGM 26 August, 2010
Our major efforts during 2009/10 have been directed towards the Save Union Square issue and the future of the Bays Precinct, working with other local groups, and we continue to seek improved social amenities for Pyrmont, and better public transport.
Bays Precinct Task Force CRG
PA Secretary, John Brooks, has worked tirelessly all year, as the appointed representative of Blackwattle Cove Coalition (BCC) on the Bays Precinct CRG to achieve good integrated planning outcomes for our Inner West Bays. After a delay of several months, I was appointed to represent the Pyrmont community along with Robert Gavagna (PPI). Following a number of workshops, in addition to the regular CRG meetings, a report was produced which outlined the planning principles and objectives which should apply to the Bays development, as well as four strong recommendations, summarised as:
1. No new development proposals to be consider unless they comply with the Planning Principles
2. The Government to approve the broad Objectives and Principles as developed by the CRG;
3. The Government to establish a dedicated authority to coordinate and manage the Bays Precent, with community representation and relevant expertise;
4. The Government to maintain its commitment to community participation in the Bays Precinct Planning Process into Stage 2
Unfortunately, during the deliberations of the CRG, a number of piecemeal planning announcements were made by the Government which undermined the first Objective which seeks Integrated Future Planning and no further ad hoc Government decisions. These were:
a) Baileys Marine development at White Bay Wharf 6 (opposite Pirrama Park)
b) Relocation of the Cruise Passenger Terminal to White Bay Wharves 4 and 5
c) Blackwattle Bay redevelopment (along Pyrmont Bridge Road)
d) Sydney Heritage Fleet to be relocated to Bank Street Public Recreation Area
noting that the proposed developments (b) and (c) both contravene the respective Master Plans for the sites.
A successful community forum was held on 7 July, 2010 organised by John Brooks and Lesley Lynch (Glebe Society) attended by around 150 people from the local communities. The meeting passed a resolution supporting the recommendations of the CRG.
Bank Street – PA members have worked with representatives of other groups, and local stratas to reach agreement on the future of the Bank Street Public Recreation Area. Bill dÁnthes has represented PA in these discussions and I represented the Executive Committee of the Strata of 2 Bowman Street. All groups strongly support the location of the proposed Sydney Community Water Sports Centre at 1 Bank Street. 2 Bowman Street EC opposes the location of the Sydney Heritage Fleet on the NSW Maritime site but the other representatives are not opposing it as they see it as the only way NSW Maritime will agree to allocating part of this site as a public park. NSW Maritime has signed a Terms Sheet with the SHF which sets out the parameters under which the organisation will receive a 40 year lease for the land. The term sheet also supports the SHF taking over a large area of water which leaves little for the WSC and this water allocation is opposed by community groups, the Glebe rowing clubs and the proponents of the WSC. NSW Maritime has yet to finalise agreement with the WSC representatives and community groups, including PA are urging both parties to finalise negotiations. In the meantime, NSW Maritime has given parties currently occupying the site notice to quit, but on the understanding that the passive boating users will be able to come to an agreement on arrangements for their continued use of the site. The illegal commercial activities will cease and it is proposed by the community groups that planning commence for the implementation of the park development.
Wentworth Park/Sydney Fish Markets – 2010 has been a very successful year for the community with the commencement of work on the removal of the walls along Wattle Street, the opening up of the viaduct archways, and the landscaping of additional parkland handed over by the Wentworth Park Sporting Complex Trust to the City of Sydney. In addition, the WPSCT and the CoS have agreed to allocate further funds in order to open up the northern boundary of the complex to integrate it with the northern end of Wentworth Park. BCC will now focus efforts on achieving a better outcome for Sites B1 and B2 along Pyrmont Bridge Road, and improved access to Wentworth Park from Pyrmont and Ultimo.
We (BCC) have had another win with the announcement that the NSW Government has committed $20M towards the Fish Markets redevelopment, in particular to open up the foreshore to public access, provision of public open space, and repair of the damaged seawall.
Save Union Square
PA members worked with the Save Union Square group to oppose the location of the eastern Metro station entrance at Union Square. This took up considerable time and ultimately our efforts contributed to the decision by the NSW Government to cancel the Sydney Metro project.
Parks
PA has continued to press for the enclosure of the children’s playground and for containment of off-leash dogs to areas not associated with food (BBQs) and children. CoS is now calling for the community’s views on off-leash dogs in Waterfront Park, Refinery Park, Cadi Park, Pirrama Park, Gibba Park, Ballarat Park and Metcalfe Park. PA to determine its position at the General Meeting.
Cultural/Social Infrastructure
PA made a strong submission on Sustainable Sydney 2030 published by the City of Sydney. The main points raised were:
Pyrmont should have Village status in its own right and its needs for better infrastructure recognised;
Rejection of the proposal for an Activity Hub for Pyrmont/Ultimo focused on the forecourt of the Powerhouse Museum;
Three projects should be considered for the next Local Action Plan which is due in 2011
- Upgrading of Pyrmont Community Centre and its transformation to a Neighbourhood Centre
- Development of Bank Street Foreshore Park in partnership with the community
- Redevelopment of the Fig/Wattle Street Council Depot site as mixed commercial/community facilities
After a long delay and initial unsatisfactory response from Council, we received a brief reply which appeared to indicate that the City was prepared to look at Pyrmont as a Village Centre separate from Ultimo. There was no confirmation that Local Action Plans would be under development in 2011.
In the meantime, a number of PA members and others have attended workshops and meetings with CoS officers to discuss how the Pyrmont Community Centre can better serve our needs. There have been some positive outcomes, including making a suitable room available for rehearsals of Pyrmont Sings!, and the provision of Over-55s Exercize Classes. PA has submitted a request for an appropriate meeting room for 2011 in the PCC but has not received a response. We have had to use the Maybanke Centre for meetings during the year but this is not a satisfactory venue.
Traffic and Transport
The main push this year has been for a more appropriate approach to the proposed Bulwara Road cycleway. PA was represented at an on-site meeting with Council officers to discuss provision of a shared zone, rather than a 1.5M contra-flow cycleway which would have obstructed pedestrians forced on to the road because of the narrow footpath on the E side of the road. We were able to demonstrate successfully the problems associated with the Council proposal and are advised that the RTA has agreed to a shared zone approach.
A temporary barrier has been placed at the bottom of the Anzac Bridge off-ramp to provide safety for residents (pedestrian and those in cars) from 120-122 Saunders Street. We are advised that a permanent solution is being considered. In the meantime, the local police have had periodic blitzes in the area to try to slow down speeding cyclists.
Safety and Security
PA initiated a meeting with senior police from City Central Local Area Command, attended by representatives from other community groups, and Jacksons Landing Community Association and its Resident Services Manager. Quarterly meetings of the Pyrmont/Ultimo City Central Safety Precinct Community Group have now been initiated at which community concerns are raised, and police initiatives, eg deployment of more cycle police, are reported. Crime statistics over the quarters are presented and crime hot spots identified.
1 Distillery Drive
Following the successful community consultation with Lend Lease, a revised plan for this development was prepared which met the Master Plan, and community concerns. A number of residents attended the Council meeting at which this development was discussed and managed to ensure that the inappropriate conditions proposed by Council, pertaining to the urban bushland design were not approved. Following further geotechnical studies, it is hoped that some mature trees may now be saved. Work is expected to start in August.
Banners DA
In 2009, community groups were advised that DAs were required in order to put up banners advertising community events such as Clean Up Australia, UpTown Festival, Wentworth Park Community Games, Anzac Day ceremony, and Union Square Carols. PA, as an incorporated entity submitted a DA on behalf of the other groups for approval to erect banners for these events. In order to pay for the costs associated with this, the City provided PA with a Quick Response Grant. The DA was finally approved on condition that PA re-apply on an annual basis. The re-application, and payment, has been submitted, with a request that approval be given for a five year period, subject to satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed by Council.
Publicity and Fundraising
PA again participated in the UPTown Festival in March and Second Hand Saturday in September, both organised by the Harris Community Centre. We raised around $50 from the sale of goods, and raised awareness of various issues of concern. We shared booths with Pyrmont Ultimo Landcare and Ultimo Village Voice on both occasions. We have implemented the logo and letterhead concepts designed by UTS students and are now working with website developers whose services have been generously donated by local dentists, Dentartisan. We hope the website will be up and running in 2011.
Elizabeth Elenius
Convenor
Bays Precinct Task Force CRG
PA Secretary, John Brooks, has worked tirelessly all year, as the appointed representative of Blackwattle Cove Coalition (BCC) on the Bays Precinct CRG to achieve good integrated planning outcomes for our Inner West Bays. After a delay of several months, I was appointed to represent the Pyrmont community along with Robert Gavagna (PPI). Following a number of workshops, in addition to the regular CRG meetings, a report was produced which outlined the planning principles and objectives which should apply to the Bays development, as well as four strong recommendations, summarised as:
1. No new development proposals to be consider unless they comply with the Planning Principles
2. The Government to approve the broad Objectives and Principles as developed by the CRG;
3. The Government to establish a dedicated authority to coordinate and manage the Bays Precent, with community representation and relevant expertise;
4. The Government to maintain its commitment to community participation in the Bays Precinct Planning Process into Stage 2
Unfortunately, during the deliberations of the CRG, a number of piecemeal planning announcements were made by the Government which undermined the first Objective which seeks Integrated Future Planning and no further ad hoc Government decisions. These were:
a) Baileys Marine development at White Bay Wharf 6 (opposite Pirrama Park)
b) Relocation of the Cruise Passenger Terminal to White Bay Wharves 4 and 5
c) Blackwattle Bay redevelopment (along Pyrmont Bridge Road)
d) Sydney Heritage Fleet to be relocated to Bank Street Public Recreation Area
noting that the proposed developments (b) and (c) both contravene the respective Master Plans for the sites.
A successful community forum was held on 7 July, 2010 organised by John Brooks and Lesley Lynch (Glebe Society) attended by around 150 people from the local communities. The meeting passed a resolution supporting the recommendations of the CRG.
Bank Street – PA members have worked with representatives of other groups, and local stratas to reach agreement on the future of the Bank Street Public Recreation Area. Bill dÁnthes has represented PA in these discussions and I represented the Executive Committee of the Strata of 2 Bowman Street. All groups strongly support the location of the proposed Sydney Community Water Sports Centre at 1 Bank Street. 2 Bowman Street EC opposes the location of the Sydney Heritage Fleet on the NSW Maritime site but the other representatives are not opposing it as they see it as the only way NSW Maritime will agree to allocating part of this site as a public park. NSW Maritime has signed a Terms Sheet with the SHF which sets out the parameters under which the organisation will receive a 40 year lease for the land. The term sheet also supports the SHF taking over a large area of water which leaves little for the WSC and this water allocation is opposed by community groups, the Glebe rowing clubs and the proponents of the WSC. NSW Maritime has yet to finalise agreement with the WSC representatives and community groups, including PA are urging both parties to finalise negotiations. In the meantime, NSW Maritime has given parties currently occupying the site notice to quit, but on the understanding that the passive boating users will be able to come to an agreement on arrangements for their continued use of the site. The illegal commercial activities will cease and it is proposed by the community groups that planning commence for the implementation of the park development.
Wentworth Park/Sydney Fish Markets – 2010 has been a very successful year for the community with the commencement of work on the removal of the walls along Wattle Street, the opening up of the viaduct archways, and the landscaping of additional parkland handed over by the Wentworth Park Sporting Complex Trust to the City of Sydney. In addition, the WPSCT and the CoS have agreed to allocate further funds in order to open up the northern boundary of the complex to integrate it with the northern end of Wentworth Park. BCC will now focus efforts on achieving a better outcome for Sites B1 and B2 along Pyrmont Bridge Road, and improved access to Wentworth Park from Pyrmont and Ultimo.
We (BCC) have had another win with the announcement that the NSW Government has committed $20M towards the Fish Markets redevelopment, in particular to open up the foreshore to public access, provision of public open space, and repair of the damaged seawall.
Save Union Square
PA members worked with the Save Union Square group to oppose the location of the eastern Metro station entrance at Union Square. This took up considerable time and ultimately our efforts contributed to the decision by the NSW Government to cancel the Sydney Metro project.
Parks
PA has continued to press for the enclosure of the children’s playground and for containment of off-leash dogs to areas not associated with food (BBQs) and children. CoS is now calling for the community’s views on off-leash dogs in Waterfront Park, Refinery Park, Cadi Park, Pirrama Park, Gibba Park, Ballarat Park and Metcalfe Park. PA to determine its position at the General Meeting.
Cultural/Social Infrastructure
PA made a strong submission on Sustainable Sydney 2030 published by the City of Sydney. The main points raised were:
Pyrmont should have Village status in its own right and its needs for better infrastructure recognised;
Rejection of the proposal for an Activity Hub for Pyrmont/Ultimo focused on the forecourt of the Powerhouse Museum;
Three projects should be considered for the next Local Action Plan which is due in 2011
- Upgrading of Pyrmont Community Centre and its transformation to a Neighbourhood Centre
- Development of Bank Street Foreshore Park in partnership with the community
- Redevelopment of the Fig/Wattle Street Council Depot site as mixed commercial/community facilities
After a long delay and initial unsatisfactory response from Council, we received a brief reply which appeared to indicate that the City was prepared to look at Pyrmont as a Village Centre separate from Ultimo. There was no confirmation that Local Action Plans would be under development in 2011.
In the meantime, a number of PA members and others have attended workshops and meetings with CoS officers to discuss how the Pyrmont Community Centre can better serve our needs. There have been some positive outcomes, including making a suitable room available for rehearsals of Pyrmont Sings!, and the provision of Over-55s Exercize Classes. PA has submitted a request for an appropriate meeting room for 2011 in the PCC but has not received a response. We have had to use the Maybanke Centre for meetings during the year but this is not a satisfactory venue.
Traffic and Transport
The main push this year has been for a more appropriate approach to the proposed Bulwara Road cycleway. PA was represented at an on-site meeting with Council officers to discuss provision of a shared zone, rather than a 1.5M contra-flow cycleway which would have obstructed pedestrians forced on to the road because of the narrow footpath on the E side of the road. We were able to demonstrate successfully the problems associated with the Council proposal and are advised that the RTA has agreed to a shared zone approach.
A temporary barrier has been placed at the bottom of the Anzac Bridge off-ramp to provide safety for residents (pedestrian and those in cars) from 120-122 Saunders Street. We are advised that a permanent solution is being considered. In the meantime, the local police have had periodic blitzes in the area to try to slow down speeding cyclists.
Safety and Security
PA initiated a meeting with senior police from City Central Local Area Command, attended by representatives from other community groups, and Jacksons Landing Community Association and its Resident Services Manager. Quarterly meetings of the Pyrmont/Ultimo City Central Safety Precinct Community Group have now been initiated at which community concerns are raised, and police initiatives, eg deployment of more cycle police, are reported. Crime statistics over the quarters are presented and crime hot spots identified.
1 Distillery Drive
Following the successful community consultation with Lend Lease, a revised plan for this development was prepared which met the Master Plan, and community concerns. A number of residents attended the Council meeting at which this development was discussed and managed to ensure that the inappropriate conditions proposed by Council, pertaining to the urban bushland design were not approved. Following further geotechnical studies, it is hoped that some mature trees may now be saved. Work is expected to start in August.
Banners DA
In 2009, community groups were advised that DAs were required in order to put up banners advertising community events such as Clean Up Australia, UpTown Festival, Wentworth Park Community Games, Anzac Day ceremony, and Union Square Carols. PA, as an incorporated entity submitted a DA on behalf of the other groups for approval to erect banners for these events. In order to pay for the costs associated with this, the City provided PA with a Quick Response Grant. The DA was finally approved on condition that PA re-apply on an annual basis. The re-application, and payment, has been submitted, with a request that approval be given for a five year period, subject to satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed by Council.
Publicity and Fundraising
PA again participated in the UPTown Festival in March and Second Hand Saturday in September, both organised by the Harris Community Centre. We raised around $50 from the sale of goods, and raised awareness of various issues of concern. We shared booths with Pyrmont Ultimo Landcare and Ultimo Village Voice on both occasions. We have implemented the logo and letterhead concepts designed by UTS students and are now working with website developers whose services have been generously donated by local dentists, Dentartisan. We hope the website will be up and running in 2011.
Elizabeth Elenius
Convenor
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
FUTURE EVENTS 2010
24/5/10
Event: Wattle Street Depot Workshop
When: 7.30pm
Where: Pyrmont Community Centre
What: The City of Sydney’s Wattle Street Depot is one of the last large undeveloped publicly owned sites which can provide much-needed social and recreational facilities for Pyrmont Village. We invite you to provide ideas on the future of this important site.
30/6/10
Event: Public presentation of Bays Precinct Community Reference Group Recommendations
When: 6.00pm
Where: Wentworth Park Sporting Complex, Glebe
What: The Bays Precinct CRG has presented its recommendations on Planning Principles for the redevelopment of the Inner West foreshores to the NSW Government. The public is invited to learn more about these recommendations and to participate in discussion on how to ensure that they are adopted by the Government.
12/8/10
Event: Pyrmont Action Inc AGM
When: 7.30pm
Where: Pyrmont Community Centre
What: Receive annual reports and elect officers and committee for the coming year. Current and new members invited to attend.
11/9/10
Event: Second Hand Saturday
When: 9am to 2pm
Where: Quarry Green, Bulwara Road, Ultimo
What: Pyrmont Action joins with other community groups to sell donated items to raise funds for their organizations.
12/9/10
Event: Wentworth Park Games
When: 11am – 4pm
Where: Wentworth Park Sporting Complex, Glebe
What: Young and old join in the fun and games and compete on behalf of Pyrmont/Ultimo or Glebe/Forest Lodge in events such as gumboot tossing, boules, Beckham bending and team soccer; attend talks and displays on local history; enter your mutt in races on the hallowed greyhound race track to compete for the Wenty Park Mongrel Cup.
5/12/10
Event: Jacksons Landing Christmas Concert
When: 5.30pm to 9pm
Where: Refinery Square, Bowman Street, Pyrmont
What: Fundraiser organized by local volunteers. Performances by local soloists and Pyrmont Sings! Sing Christmas Carols along with other local artists and the Australian Army Band. Refreshments provided by local restaurants or bring a picnic. Santa will receive gifts for disadvantaged children.
Event: Wattle Street Depot Workshop
When: 7.30pm
Where: Pyrmont Community Centre
What: The City of Sydney’s Wattle Street Depot is one of the last large undeveloped publicly owned sites which can provide much-needed social and recreational facilities for Pyrmont Village. We invite you to provide ideas on the future of this important site.
30/6/10
Event: Public presentation of Bays Precinct Community Reference Group Recommendations
When: 6.00pm
Where: Wentworth Park Sporting Complex, Glebe
What: The Bays Precinct CRG has presented its recommendations on Planning Principles for the redevelopment of the Inner West foreshores to the NSW Government. The public is invited to learn more about these recommendations and to participate in discussion on how to ensure that they are adopted by the Government.
12/8/10
Event: Pyrmont Action Inc AGM
When: 7.30pm
Where: Pyrmont Community Centre
What: Receive annual reports and elect officers and committee for the coming year. Current and new members invited to attend.
11/9/10
Event: Second Hand Saturday
When: 9am to 2pm
Where: Quarry Green, Bulwara Road, Ultimo
What: Pyrmont Action joins with other community groups to sell donated items to raise funds for their organizations.
12/9/10
Event: Wentworth Park Games
When: 11am – 4pm
Where: Wentworth Park Sporting Complex, Glebe
What: Young and old join in the fun and games and compete on behalf of Pyrmont/Ultimo or Glebe/Forest Lodge in events such as gumboot tossing, boules, Beckham bending and team soccer; attend talks and displays on local history; enter your mutt in races on the hallowed greyhound race track to compete for the Wenty Park Mongrel Cup.
5/12/10
Event: Jacksons Landing Christmas Concert
When: 5.30pm to 9pm
Where: Refinery Square, Bowman Street, Pyrmont
What: Fundraiser organized by local volunteers. Performances by local soloists and Pyrmont Sings! Sing Christmas Carols along with other local artists and the Australian Army Band. Refreshments provided by local restaurants or bring a picnic. Santa will receive gifts for disadvantaged children.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Submission to Bus Services Review – 17 September, 2009
State Transit Authority,
Region 6,
Reply Paid 2132,
STRAWBERRY HILLS 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
Noting that Pyrmont now has a resident population of more than 13,000 and a worker population of around 16,000, Pyrmont Action has been seeking improvements in public transport to and from Pyrmont for a number of years. What we have seen has been the gradual erosion of services including:
• Drastic reduction in services that link Pyrmont to the Inner Western suburbs with the completion of the Anzac Bridge
• Change of route of the 443 from Market to King Street, resulting in no public transport services linking to Town Hall for a large number of Pyrmont residents
• Removal of the 449 bus to Broadway without consultation with potential users
• Fewer services of the 501
• Increase in unreliability of 443 and 501 services.
In addition, the STA introduced a “service” – the 448, known as the “Fairfax Special” which provides a peak hour express service one-way to Pyrmont in the mornings and from Pyrmont in the afternoons. Drivers are expressly prohibited from picking up passengers on the return trip. Even when allowed passengers, it is noted that at most it may be 1/3 full.
We note that Balmain and Glebe residents enjoy “cross country” bus services eg the 445 takes passengers from Balmain to Leichhardt and Glebe residents can get to Coogee. If Pyrmont residents want to go to Balmain they either have to take the 443 bus to QVB and transfer to a Balmain bus or take the unreliable 501 to Rozelle and then transfer.
Some examples of poor service have been observed:
• The 501 often arrives early at the first stop in Pyrmont in Miller Street, necessitating passengers with appointments having to take a taxi, especially when the next bus is late
• At the stop on the corner of Pirrama Road and Harris Street, one often observes two or three 443 buses proceeding to the Maritime Museum, yet passengers can wait up to half an hour for a bus to return to take them to the CBD.
• Passengers waiting for a 443 at the QVB stop often observe up to eight 442 buses pulling up, but experience a delay of up to ¾ of an hour for a 443 in peak hours. After such a delay, one then sees two 443 buses riding tandem.
We would like to make the following recommendations:
• Reinstate services from Pyrmont and Ultimo to Broadway Shopping Centre by either:
o Following local consultation regarding the most appropriate service times, reinstate the 449 service to Broadway to meet the needs of residents and workers; or
o Introducing a small bus shuttle service up and down Harris Street, possibly via Broadway Shopping Centre and/or QVB.
• Increase the number of 443 and 501 services to cater for the needs of residents and workers and to improve reliability
• Re-route the 443 back to Market Street, or to Druitt Street which now has a number of services using it safely (with the erection of the safety barriers) to provide a service to the centre of the City, and in particular to Town Hall station which is the only station with disabled access
• Permit the 448 to carry pre-paid passengers both ways
• Introduce new, or re-route existing services which can provide Pyrmont residents with improved public transport access to Balmain, and Inner South and Eastern suburbs eg by diverting either the 441 or 442 bus to Pyrmont and/or one of the 500 bus services.
We look forward to improved services in Pyrmont in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius,
Convenor
Region 6,
Reply Paid 2132,
STRAWBERRY HILLS 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
Noting that Pyrmont now has a resident population of more than 13,000 and a worker population of around 16,000, Pyrmont Action has been seeking improvements in public transport to and from Pyrmont for a number of years. What we have seen has been the gradual erosion of services including:
• Drastic reduction in services that link Pyrmont to the Inner Western suburbs with the completion of the Anzac Bridge
• Change of route of the 443 from Market to King Street, resulting in no public transport services linking to Town Hall for a large number of Pyrmont residents
• Removal of the 449 bus to Broadway without consultation with potential users
• Fewer services of the 501
• Increase in unreliability of 443 and 501 services.
In addition, the STA introduced a “service” – the 448, known as the “Fairfax Special” which provides a peak hour express service one-way to Pyrmont in the mornings and from Pyrmont in the afternoons. Drivers are expressly prohibited from picking up passengers on the return trip. Even when allowed passengers, it is noted that at most it may be 1/3 full.
We note that Balmain and Glebe residents enjoy “cross country” bus services eg the 445 takes passengers from Balmain to Leichhardt and Glebe residents can get to Coogee. If Pyrmont residents want to go to Balmain they either have to take the 443 bus to QVB and transfer to a Balmain bus or take the unreliable 501 to Rozelle and then transfer.
Some examples of poor service have been observed:
• The 501 often arrives early at the first stop in Pyrmont in Miller Street, necessitating passengers with appointments having to take a taxi, especially when the next bus is late
• At the stop on the corner of Pirrama Road and Harris Street, one often observes two or three 443 buses proceeding to the Maritime Museum, yet passengers can wait up to half an hour for a bus to return to take them to the CBD.
• Passengers waiting for a 443 at the QVB stop often observe up to eight 442 buses pulling up, but experience a delay of up to ¾ of an hour for a 443 in peak hours. After such a delay, one then sees two 443 buses riding tandem.
We would like to make the following recommendations:
• Reinstate services from Pyrmont and Ultimo to Broadway Shopping Centre by either:
o Following local consultation regarding the most appropriate service times, reinstate the 449 service to Broadway to meet the needs of residents and workers; or
o Introducing a small bus shuttle service up and down Harris Street, possibly via Broadway Shopping Centre and/or QVB.
• Increase the number of 443 and 501 services to cater for the needs of residents and workers and to improve reliability
• Re-route the 443 back to Market Street, or to Druitt Street which now has a number of services using it safely (with the erection of the safety barriers) to provide a service to the centre of the City, and in particular to Town Hall station which is the only station with disabled access
• Permit the 448 to carry pre-paid passengers both ways
• Introduce new, or re-route existing services which can provide Pyrmont residents with improved public transport access to Balmain, and Inner South and Eastern suburbs eg by diverting either the 441 or 442 bus to Pyrmont and/or one of the 500 bus services.
We look forward to improved services in Pyrmont in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Elenius,
Convenor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)