Tag Archives: Development

  • -
screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-4-17-03-pm

Resubmission of DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation – July 2017

Tags : 

Scape Student Accommodation architects, AJ&C, have resubmitted their revised plans to CoS with design amendments. Objections to the submission close 28 July 2017.

 

The main documents of interest can be found in the archived links below:

Basic Overview of Changes

  • Apartment/ studio units reduced in number from 231 to 218
  • 9 of the 40 trees to the left and right fringes of the property have been maintained
  • Property edges have been reworked to assist shadowing problems and privacy concerns to the surrounding properties noted in the original proposal.

Objections of the revised submission for the 35-47 Wilson Lane Development Application.

Affordable Housing

  • The proposed Scape student accommodation is being developed under the Affordable Housing SEPP – under the guise of a boarding house. Developing under the banner of the AHSEPP allows the developer to  obtain special developer incentives such as increased allowable floorspace (20% more allowable rooms), reduced apartment sizes, reduced solar access provisions and reduced open space requirements. As such Scape must guarantee that the weekly rental prices reflect the affordable housing cost guidelines. Currently rooms of the same size in the Scape Abercrombie Street accommodation are being rented for $569.00!!!! This is NOT affordable housing and should not be allowed to be built under the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP.

Studio Size

  • The outline of the development (Key Benefits page 4) states that overall the proposed studios have increased in size but the majority of them, 133, have remained the same size of 15.08m2. 
  • Page 8 of SoEE states 15.8m2 is the area of the standard studios yet page 19 states 15.08m2. Pls Clarify.
  • Approximately 68% of rooms are still too small in relation to the guidelines outlined in the Sydney DCP. Council has previously noted all rooms should be at least 16.9 m2 as prescribed in Sydney LEP 4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation guidelines.
    • Standard Studio – 133 rooms @ 15.08m2
    • Attick Studio – 10 rooms @ 15.4m2
  • There are conflicting statements in the documentation as to the actual room sizes and room configurations. (Ref SoEE page 5 and page 19) More detail is required as to the actual config and position of rooms on plans.
  • Page 14 of the SoEE states that it is compliant with the ARHSEPP (Affordable rental Housing SEPP) which states the rooms must be 12m2 minimum except that it fails to mention that the measurement excludes kitchen and bathroom facilities which based on the design would make it 11.5m2.  Page 44 – “Unit Sizes” also falsely states that the room sizes are compliant with the SEPP – “Further, the rooms comply with the minimum provisions under clause 29(2)(f) of the Affordable Housing SEPP”.
    It ARHSEPP states:

    • Clause 29 (f)  accommodation sizeif each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

      (i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger.

      screen-shot-2017-07-22-at-12-25-00-am

  • The majority of the proposed studios are not much bigger that the minimum size set for NSW Jail Cells.

Solar Access

  • The lower ground studios have very quite worrying Solar Access issues. More details/plans are required to assess.
  • The DCP Specifies that at least one communal living room receives at least 3 hrs direct sunlight to 50% of the windows in midwinter between 9am and 3pm. The June 21 solar access diagrams (here) do not seem to show ‘full’ sunlight is achieved in the lower level courtyard adjoining the Common Lounge. Updated plans showing solar access to the common room in detail have been since provided but they dont match the original birdseye ones (see below). Additionally a common room skylight is mentioned in clause 29(2)c on page 14 of this application document but it cant be found on the plans provided.
  • screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-28-pm screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-46-pm
  • The DCP also specifies the communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The Solar access diagrams for this period show this is no where near the case.

Building Setback from Wilson street

  • The main bulk of the building along Wilson Street still has no setback and is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. A nil setback will make for a dangerous precedent in the area especially given the forthcoming development across the road for “North Eveleigh”.  As per 4.1.2 of the sydney LEP2012 “Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.
  • The building still does not resonate with the surrounding street in terms of heritage considerations. Its bulk, height and in particular its materiality do not ‘speak’ with the area. The architectural design of having the facades divided horizontally to emulate the linear elements of the surrounding terrace buildings looks cheap and is not in keeping with the area. 
  • The plans also show a slight  ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor.

Parking and Vehicle Bay & Pedestrian Safety

  • No Onsite Parking Spaces are provided for employees or residents. Whilst we appreciate the push for all employees and residents to use bicycles or public transport it is an oversight to think that the entire future population will come without a car. No accommodation is provided for the manager/staff who are noted to be available 24hrs. This suggests shift work which may not be amenable to relying on public transport. More onsite parking should be made available.
  • The rollergated vehicle/service-bay at the rear of the property on Wilson Lane is too small for a standard utility van / small truck and also appears to have quite poor manoeuvrability space and access into the building. 
  • The service bay has a very dangerous pedestrian blind spot for cars/vans reversing out onto Wilson Lane.
  • It is noted on page 10 of this application Document that Loading for Servicing and Cleaning will occur via the primary entrance on Wilson Street. This should be what the incorporated service bay is for. With a large number of cyclists already using Wilson Street together with the added cycle traffic proposed by Scape is would seem very unwise to suggest servicing the development from Wilson Street.

Acoustic Measurements and Smoking Area

SEPP65 Compliance

  • The proposed building design must be considered for SEPP65 Compliance. The proposed room sizes, solar access figures and open space areas are currently non compliant under this code.
  • Page 12 of the SoEE also mentions that Amendment no.3 of the SEPPincludes an anomalous statement that could be read to the effect that student accommodation“. This statement appears incomplete, does not make sense and we could find no statements within the amendment that referenced or could be inferred as ‘student accommodation’.
  • The SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-amBoarding House Registration

  • The Scape development on Abercrombie Street has recently opened and is still not listed on the Boarding House register on the office of Fair Trading website. As the Scape development is using the Affordable Housing SEPP “Boarding House” provision it needs to be ensured that they are registered and thus eligible for local council inspections.    http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

 


  • -
wipeb

New Central to Eveleigh Website – a more realistic North Eveleigh image comparison

Tags : 

The new C2E website has a new page for North Eveleigh. Mid way down the page is a current/proposed image comparison.

Use the slider underneath the image below to see a more realistic lensing of the ‘proposed’ image.

“North Eveleigh with view of the Historic Clothing Store, current and proposed”

Author Note – The buildings in this image are indicative of height, scale and massing. The look of them however is not representative of what is proposed.

A little more alarming compared to the super wide angle rendering provided…….. which as discussed here cheats the realistic height and massing of the proposal.

wipec

 


  • -
screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

Tags : 

17-11-2016

NSW Affordable Rental Housing Legislation

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

City of Sydney outlines development guidelines for Boarding Houses (including Student Accommodation) in the brochure ‘Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012’.This document describes the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as a State Government initiative that assists in the provision of affordable housing near employment areas as a way to provide a means to retain and provide low cost rental accommodation and social housing.

This letter outlines how for-profit commercial accommodation providers/developers are taking advantage of a loophole in the current Affordable Rental Housing legislation that allows for the creation of Student Accommodation stock under the guise of “boarding houses”. Completely in contrast to the social foundations of Affordable Housing legislation these operators are free to charge whatever they want to lodgers and regularly market these developments to international students.

A number of these new Student Accommodation assets are promoting ‘designer’ accommodation and come to market with a ‘designer’ price tag that is disadvantaging poorer students who will undoubtedly have to work more to afford such housing which in turn puts their studies in jeopardy.

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (AHSEPP) offers developers of new rental affordable housing developments incentives and bonuses in the form of:

  • Increased Allowable Floor Space. Most enticingly, they can be built 20 per cent bigger than planning limits specify for other housing types in a local area.
  • Reduced allowable apartment sizes compared to what is normally allowed for Commercial apartment blocks. AHSEPP 16sqm VS SEPP65 32sqm for Studio Apartment.
  • Reduced Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Private Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Car Parking requirements.
  • Reduced Solar Access provisions.
  • AND amongst others a provision that states the consenting local council must not refuse consent to an application that adheres to all the Controls set out in Part 2 Division 3 of the AHSEPP.

Whilst these provisions are valuable in making it easier for non-profit/community housing providers to create rental housing stock for those actually in need of Affordable Housing it is disgraceful that commercial developers can exploit these laxed planning controls and then not be subject to any restriction on rent charges compared to their community housing provider counterparts who must (acting under Part 2 Division 1 of the AHSEPP) set rents at around 75% of current Market Value.

One such student ‘boarding house’ development in Wilson Street, Darlington (currently in DA application with submissions closing Friday 18 November 2016) is a 231 room 5 Storey student accommodation residence proposed by a UK based student housing developer company. The company, who to date has targeted the luxury student accommodation market recently moved into the Australian market acquiring land in Melbourne and Brisbane totaling over 100 million dollars. The company’s Australian capital partner describes the growing asset class (student accommodation) as having “high foot traffic, very good returns and very positive yields.” They is now adding two more properties to thier portfolio in Darlington, Sydney.

It is clear that companies like this are using this loophole for their own benefit with no care for a socially responsible outcome that would provide rental stock to assist in NSW’s affordable housing crisis.

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Amendments are required in the current legislation to put a stop to this blatant abuse of social policy.

Without claiming to be articulate in legislative phrasing I suggest the following amendments to the AHSEPP:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Part 2 New Affordable Rental Housing

Division 3 Boarding Houses

  • 29. Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(6) If for Student Accommodation, a consent authority must not refuse consent to a development to which this division applies if the applicant can provide sufficient resources outlining subsidised lodging fees of:

(a)No more than 30% of the student’s gross weekly earnings, OR

(b)Lodging Fees set at at least 30% off the median rental prices in the area for a similar space AND

(c)Outlining inclusive lodging charges of Electricity, Internet Data and Water.

  • 30B. Standards of Social Affordability

(1) Applicant must show proof of consultation with

(a) a social housing provider OR

(b) a local housing agency

OR to avoid confusion between the distinction of Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation the creation a new Division within the AHSEPP specifically for Student Accommodation which would outline the aforementioned measures when used in relation to Section 4.4 of Sydney DCP 2012 and the Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012.

 

References

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2009/364/part2/div4

Sydney DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/255316/5_WEB_Section4_DCP2012_060516.pdf

Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf

SUPRA – Submission for the Parliament of Australia Inquiry into Affordable Housing, March 2014

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6ed09f82-89c3-49f0-99ae-f125fb8fe419&subId=251701.

The growth of student accommodation as an asset class in Australia

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/414982/wealth+management/The+growth+of+student+accommodation+as+an+asset+class+in+Australia

Students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high- Nov 2016

http://londonstudent.coop/news/2016/10/25/students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high/


  • -
screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

Wilson Street – Proposed DA for 5 Storey 231 Room Student Accommodation opposite CarriageWorks

Tags : 

Proposal for 5 Storey Student Accommodation ‘Boarding House’ with 231 rooms

25-47 Wilson Lane (260 – 314 Wilson Street)

rendering

 

Applicant – Scape  (UK based)

http://www.scapeliving.com/sydney

screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

DA Application – Outline

https://online.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DA/IndividualApplication?tpklapappl=1274029

Proposed Building

Site Area   2583m2

FSR   2:1  (per application)

GFA 5166m2 (per application)

Rooms 231

Floors   5 Storeys (1 underground) -SydneyDCP2012 only allows 3 Storeys

Height 13.2 meters

Purpose Student Accommodation

BCA Building Class 3

Notes of interest for surrounding residents:

  • SydneyDCP2012 only allows 3 Storeys for this block of land.
  • Main entry point will be from Wilson Street even though the DA address is stated as Wilson Lane.
  • They plan to remove all existing trees. This includes two trees on the protected tree list and 11 trees considered of ‘high retention value’.
  • Current design plans show no setback from the Wilson Street footpath which is not in keeping with surrounding architecture. Plans also show an ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor. Developer’s claims that this is in keeping with plans for the proposed “North Eveleigh” Wilson St. facing Apartments are untrue as that proposal stipulates a setback from the footpath.
  • Design renderings shows shrubs along Wilson St. frontage at ground level yet this is not possible without a setback.
  • No onsite Vehicle Parking is included in the plans. Drop Off, Vehicular Service and Delivery access points are not shown. Note – City of Sydney does allow street Car Parking permits for such developments.
  • Roof is not of a linear steeped design (flat 45 degree) in keeping with surrounding residences.
  • Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams, in relation to the communal open space, do not take into account the 6 m high rear wall and staircase along Wilson Lane to the lower level floor. This would add a 9 meter shadow at Midday June 21.
  • It will double the amount disruption due to bi-weekly rubbish collection necessary for the volume of waste created. (via Wilson Lane)
  • The Residential Development is cloaked within the application as being a ‘Boarding House’. This gives the developers planning privileges including: Increased Floor Space (increased allowable apartment numbers), Decreased Private Open Space, No onsite Car Parking, Smaller Studio Apartment sizes. Cloaked as a Boarding House the allowable floor space (FSR)  increases from 1.5:1 to 2.0:1.

Recommendations:

  • Demand the development remains 3 storeys as per City of Sydney Planning Controls.
  • Demand that Scape outline their Market and Subsidised rental pricing for the proposed ‘mini’ studio style apartments to ensure that it qualifies under the Affordable Housing and Boarding House Guidelines.
  • That the SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) NSW Planning and Environment “Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”
  • Demand that Floor Space Ratio to be retained at 1.5:1. The rest of Wilson Street between Golden Grove St and Shepherd Street is defined as 1.25:1. 
  • Demand a DA notice to be placed on public display both on Wilson Street and Wilson Lane. (It currently resides in a little moticed stairwell of the existing building!) Some residents of the current building have not been notified of the proposed application.
  • Demand that the Wilson Street frontage is set back at least 2 meters as plans are not consistent with the current character of Wilson Street or the proposed Urban Growth development on the other side of Wilson Street.
  • Find a way to retain the trees that are on the protected list (tree no 17 and 35). Arboricultural Report shows 11 trees with ‘HIGH’ retention value.
  • As per council requirements all owners, tenants and occupiers of this building are advised that it is the Policy of Council that they are not eligible to participate in any existing or proposed Council on-street resident parking schemes.
  • Amend the proposed 10pm lockout of rooftop area to 9pm Sunday to Friday. Currently 10pm 7 Days.
  • The development needs to demonstrate that the proposal is considerate of the heritage and aesthetic and community ethos of the street and neighbourhood.  The current design does not show visual respect to the surrounding area and does not have a positive impact on the streetscape.
  • Parking requirements – ARHSEPP requires  0.2 car spaces per boarding room;  At least one parking space provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on the site. This area can also be used for vehicular Services / Delivery / Dropoffs as no area is currently allocated.

The developments this company has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  It will at best be semi affordable housing stock for the 15m2 offerings. In Darlington these developers are taking advantage of current government policy to encourage affordable housing developments without any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering boarding house style affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward international students). We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development. 

The application is incomplete and lacks:-

    • Environmental impact statement
    • Design Verification Statement (required for residential building 3 or more storeys in height)
    • BASIX certificate  (required for new residential dwelling)
    • Construction management Plan
    • Outline of Section 94 Developer Contributions

Why does the application say “no” s the current land used for low cost accommodation as it is clearly being used at the moment at low cost to its inhabitants.

 

Submissions
Submissions must be received by council prior to the exhibition closing date. If you wish to make a submission please read the development comments and objections.

Siobhan Fox-Roberts

Viewing the original documents

You may view the original hard copy during the exhibition period by visiting any of the City’s Neighbourhood Service Centre.


  • -
FloorSpaceRatio Map

North Eveleigh update – 10 Sept 2016

Tags : 

North Eveleigh – application for proposed amendments to current planning policy for increase in Building Heights and increase in allowable Floor Space Ratio.

UGNSW are currently completing a number of the technical studies, including traffic modelling, to finalise the North Eveleigh proposal. UGNSW are also continuing their work to finalise the Urban Transformation Strategy to guide development of government owned land in the Central to Eveleigh area.

UGNSW hope to lodge a State Significant Development Application and proposed amendment to the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy with the Department of Planning and Environment later this year. It is assumed the changes will be to raise Building Height limits and allowed Floor Space Ratio. (FSR limits relate to how much Floor area can be built on a given land area)

Current Legislation allows for a maximum of 10 storeys and a Floor Space Ratio of 2:1. The UGNSW North Eveleigh Plans are aiming for 20 Storeys with a FSR of around 6:1.

More info here

The Department will coordinate the statutory exhibition and confirm its timing. As a minimum the proposal will be exhibited for 30 days.


  • -
North_Eveleigh_-_Wilson_Street

Wilson Street Frontages – 3 Storeys! – 15 June 2016

Tags : 

There is a new image on the C2E website showing Wilson Street frontages.

North_Eveleigh_-_Wilson_Street

Just what we feared – 3 storey buildings facing Wilson Street.

These must be 2 storey on Wilson Street. We have also told Urban Growth the roofs on these appts should have a 45 degree incline away from the street as seen on all the surrounding properties.

From Urban Growth website re scale:

  • tapering taller buildings down towards the edges of the site to reflect the scale of neighbouring buildings
  • incorporating characteristics of local historical buildings into building design
  • varying the height and form of buildings with podiums that reflect heights of existing industrial heritage buildings and to achieve a more human scale at street level.

It would be good for UG to show how these buildings present them selves to the Platform Appts.

Urban Growth will be creating the sites DCP (Development Controls Plans) which the eventual developers will have to comply to. The DCP applies restrictions to subsequent building proposals and as such we need to make sure these types of restrictions are added.

 


  • -
c2eMeeting

City of Sydney – C2E – Public Meeting – Wed 15 June 2016 – ATP – 6.30pm

Tags : 

The City of Sydney is concerned about current proposals by UrbanGrowth NSW for the redevelopment of the Central to Eveleigh precinct.

A public meeting will be held to discuss the future of the Central to Eveleigh precinct.

The Theatre, Bay 4
Australian Technology Park
2 Locomotive Street, Eveleigh

6.30pm to 8pm

Entry to The Theatre is via Bay 4.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/news-and-updates/featured-articles/central-to-eveleigh-strategy

c2eMeeting2


  • -
30mm Lens

City Of Sydney – Council discussing Central to Eveleigh – May 16 2016

Tags : 

CoS Council meeting Discuss Central to Eveleigh 

There were a few mentions relating to Urban Growths plans for Central to Evening in this months council meeting.

They are outlined in the smh article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clover-moore-alarmed-by-waterloo-apartment-plans-that-dwarf-singapore-20160516-gowfr0.html

Below are the council extracts.

Item 4.  Central to Eveleigh Update

From the Chief Executive Officer

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/255882/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM43.pdf

 

Item 12.  Notices of Motion

From Councilor Scott:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/255890/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM12.pdf

It is resolved that Council:

  1. (A)  note:
    1. (i)  the significant increase in resident and visitor populations predicted for the Central to Eveleigh precinct; and
    2. (ii)  the continuing uncertainty surrounding UrbanGrowth’s development plans for the area; and
  2. (B)  request the Chief Executive Officer to:
    1. (i)  investigate the possibility of installing City wayfinding information and better lighting between Redfern Station and Carriageworks;
    2. (ii)  seek to work with Carriageworks and the State Government to investigate integrated ticketing for cultural and other events at the Central to Eveleigh precinct and a shared approach to arts and cultural services between the City, Carriageworks and UrbanGrowth; and
    3. (iii)  write to the CEO of UrbanGrowth and Transport for NSW expressing Council’s strong support for:

(a) better pedestrian links through the Central to Eveleigh site, in particular, a pedestrian link from Redfern Station to Carriageworks and a bridge from ATP to Carriageworks; and

(b) working collaboratively on a plan for affordable housing dwellings in the North Eveleigh precinct.


  • 2
sightlines

Urban Growth now using Trees to measure building sightlines?

Tags : 

The 2008 Concept Plan Approval fixed the heights of buildings such that they were below a line of sight from the northern side of Wilson Street (Figure 1).

compareView

As seen above in the Nov 2016 plans Urban Growth sneakily tried to get around this by having the ‘bystanders’ sight line from the south side of Wilson Street. City of Sydney quickly picked up on this and ordered it to be addressed.

Now Urban Growth, in what may be a World First, is now using trees in their measurement of sightlines in their April 2016 Plans!  The Website Link Here – Minimising the Impacts of new buildings.

sightlines

Using imagery (like below left) to show the lovely mature trees covering the view of the 20 Storey buildings they failed to show the same view a few meters down Wilson Street where the trees definitely do not coverup the sightlines.

 

 


  • -
comparisons

North Eveleigh – March 2016 Plan – High Density Living and Open Space Provision – A Vibrant Community Heart?

Tags : 

High Density and Open Space Provision in North Eveleigh 2016 ?

Within the proposed high density North Eveleigh West precinct we have an expected number of around 1600 residents in the new 3.02 ha development area. (700 new apartments plus the existing 88 Platform Apartments = 788 * 2.2 residents per dwelling, in a plan that exceeds local controls for Building Height and Floor Space Ratio)

Referencing the below site comparisons it is VERY evident that the proposed 2016 North Eveleigh plan has the highest population density on the smallest parcel of land. How much Public Open Space is provided for this vibrant new neighbourhood?

The planned public open space park in the South West of the development is 0.35 ha.  Including unusable verges in the entryway  0.43 ha public open space offered ! 

2016Park

It should be noted the Urban Growth NSW continually over inflate the size of the Park. (as well as other misguiding numerics) Currently stated at 0.46 ha (including the entrance above the park which is technically open but in reality its just a pathway – the 2008 plan only included the physical .33 ha park in calculations) the Park size is also mentioned in Central to Eveleigh Documentation as 5,000 sq meters.  This is VERY concerning as the over inflated Open Space claims will obviously look more favourable to Authorities in their determinations. 

 

C2EPark - March Update

North Eveleigh Local Park stated as 5000m2 at C2E Update Meeting – March 31 2016

What is Open Space

NSW Dept of Planning states:

“Open space is the publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, nature conservation, passive outdoor enjoyment and public gatherings. This includes public parks, gardens, reserves, waterways, publicly owned forecourts and squares.”

Open Space is defined into 3 areas:

Regional Open Space (above 5 hectares) – are valued and visited by a broader catchment of people as well as the local community. e.g. Sydney Park

District Open Space (between 2 – 5 hectares) – are valued and visited primarily by people with the corridor providing facilities that include organised and unstructured sport and recreation activities. e.g. Victoria Park

Local Open Space (between 0.5 – 2 hectares) – provides a diversity of character and facilities that appeal to the local community at a neighbourhood level. A 400 metre walkable distance is used for Local Open Space. (8)  e.g. Hollis Park 

According to the Recreation and Open Space Planning Guidelines for Local Government (Department of Planning, 2010), the locally appropriate provision standard for recreational open space in Inner Urban areas within Metropolitan Sydney should be around 15 percent of an LGA’s (Local Government Area) share of non-industrial land (9% for Local/District Open Space and 6% for Regional Open Space) to ensure that there is a 1.5-hectare park within 1 kilometre of most dwellings and a 1000-square metre ‘pocket park’ within 400 metres of most dwellings to provide for neighbourhood needs.

This is great as it works for the current existing community but we are injecting 1600+ new residents into the area (more when North Eveleigh North (other side of carriage works) comes online. These percentage based Open Space measurements don’t take into account population DENSITY.

Urban Growth NSW have two new Pages on their Website about Density. They don’t really say anything specific but its nice that they are there…

What is Density Well Done

Density Design Principles

 

Site Comparisons 

Site Gross Area Hectares per 1000 People Population Density Open Space % Open Space Population OS m² per person
Central Park Broadway  5.8 ha  .28 ha per 1,000 population  431 people per hectare  0.8 ha  12%  2500  3.2m²
Victoria Park Zetland  24.4 ha  1.22 ha per 1,000 population  125 people per hectare  3.7 ha  15% 3060 12.0m²
Harold Park 10.6 ha ?  1.9 ha per 1,000 population ? 235 people per hectare ? 3.8 ha? 33 % ? 2500? 20 m² ?
Green Square  13.7 ha  0.20 ha per 1,000 population  490 people per hectare  1.4 ha  10% 6750 2.0m²
Rhodes West  46 ha  1.28 ha per 1,000 population  123 people per hectare  7.3 ha  16% 5680 12.8m²
North Eveleigh West  3.09 ha  .20 ha per 1,000 population  506 people per hectare  0.35 ha  11% 1600 2.1m²

The above shows an alarming trend in High Density – Low Area Developments that are Packing people into smaller areas and offering less Open Space. As an example South Australia legislates 12.5% of land is to be used for open space which relates to around 4ha per 1000 people in a lower Density development area of 35 ha. It does not make sense that this “percentage ratio” can be used in Higher Density developments. Some studies suggest that an increase in open space is required to compensate the increase in density with people having less private open space. (4)

 (Harold Park DCP specified a minimum of 25% to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space)

(Green Square DCP also specified a minimum of 25% of land to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space, although the above seems to contradict that)

(North Eveleigh 2008 Guidelines response to the Director Generals Report that recommended  25%-30% of land to be used for public open space(page 5).  

With the new 2016 Proposals we appear to have gone from 10m² per person to 2m² per person. Private Open Space within the 2 Superlots total 0.14 ha (thats 1400m²)

Some Background to Open Space Measurements

The relatively old metric used by NSW residential urban planners is to allow for 2.83 hectares of Open Space per 1000 residents within a development (1). The Density based benchmark benchmark takes into consideration that people in higher density dwellings need greater access and quality open space and public realm – their backyard is the public domain.

The standard of 2.83 hectares (7 acres) hectares of open space per 1000 population, which has been widely used in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia, dates back at least to the 1940s. 1975 and 1985 survey reports noted the widespread practice in NSW of dividing the 2.83 ha into 1.21 ha for ‘active’ open space and 1.6 ha into ‘passive’ open space. Even current NSW Open Space Audits reference this metric (7).

This benchmark, a globally adopted maxim originally conceived in the UK, has in recent years been described as outdated and unrealistic in the planning of our new high density city centres. In practice, provision has varied considerably from the traditional formula of 2.83 hectares per 1000 people – from a Inner Sydney median of 1.6 ha to 6.32 ha for some outer council areas (dominated by sports grounds). The use of such a numerical standard to determine adequate levels of open space is said by some to be no longer generally accepted as a satisfactory method of Planning for open space (developers), yet it remains a well used reference guide and Yardstick for the adequate provision of open space (5)(6).  As the alternative ‘needs based’ measures and metrics are somewhat ‘holistic’ and at best sketchy in terms of actual metrics we still see current references to the original method as they are quantifiable (2)(3).

The Sydney Section 94 Developer Contributions plan makes estimates 5.5m² being available per resident by 2020 (p83).

http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/city-of-sydney-development-contributions-plan-updates/documents

Proposed updates to the Plan in early 2016 (Currently under review) are looking to reduce this figure to 2.1m² for each resident. Until updates to the DCP are ratified the plans must reflect the current documents.

 

Addressing Population Growth and Density

In the report on population growth projections UGNSW have used their own statistical calculations to measure population growth which are overall much higher than the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) 2011 report.  We can see from table 15 that compared to the “2036 DPE estimation” of around 1100 residents for the North Eveleigh West precinct Urban Growth NSW has been using the “2036 UGNSW High Scenario” of 1600 residents. The reasoning used was UG thought the 2011 census data was incorrect and instead of using a population of 51 700 in the study area they have increased the starting population to 59000.(page 22). NOTE – This conflicts with table 4 on page 33 which suggests 56700 population. Why is this? Its not really clear but one reason is that they probably have to find a way to pay for Central to Eveleigh and the more properties they can build the more economically Viable the development appears. 

table15

Table 13 below shows the overall potential population growth for the Study Area from 2011 to 2036 based on the predicted growth by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), and based on the low, medium and high development scenarios for the Central to Eveleigh project. (page 68)

 

table13NOTE 1 – “The City of Sydney is updating the Open Space & Recreation Needs Strategy 2006 and reviewing its Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006. The Council recently resolved that the Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs Study will be prepared by the end of 2015” (page 81)

NOTE 2 – As of April 12 2016 the UGNSW website still states “potential new residents” as bw 29,000 and 56,000. So although Urban Growth are telling us they are not furthering discussions on building heights the below seems to suggest there is flexibility in density depending on the outcome of the overall proposition.

NOTE 3 – This article on News.com.au predicts by 2030 54,000 people will call Green Square home.

WebsiteSnapshot

The DPE report also claims that the rise in single-person and couple-only households, as well as an ageing population, is driving the need for smaller dwellings. It also showed how the government would create housing diversity, which included studio or “granny flats”, smaller block sizes in suburbia, an increased number of townhouses and terraces and manor homes (four separately titled units within the same building). This is not the case with the Urban Growth Central to Eveleigh plan. “Let’s not just build tower blocks at extortionate prices, let’s build dwellings that Australians are happy to come home to.”

How do we get an acceptable result of Density and Open Space built to maintain a Vibrant Community?

The aim is to build communities where people want to live, not just build lots of 1 and 2 bedroom High Density rental stock. UG appears to be providing a market with specific customers in mind – ones without children.

The most sensible result would be to reduce the population density to a figure that is more appropriate to what the space can provide. The original plan of 8-12 Storeys which would manage a proposed population of around 800 residents was better. The 2016 plan increased the density by 20% to provide 600- 700 apartments (equating to an additional 1400 residents on top of the 200 in the Platform Apartments). The 20% increase was based on “population growth and site specific design opportunities“. (page42 UGNSW – North Eveleigh – Plan for a new neighbourhood 2015).

Reversing that would leave us with 1120 residents immediately making more open space.

Additionally the NSW Government could follow through with changes to legislation making it harder for property owners to to leave the 10,000 CBD premises vacant.

It is quite obvious that UGNSW is reluctant to change the Density and building heights in North Eveleigh as it creates a precedent for the forthcoming developments in the Central to Eveleigh tract. In followup Posts we will put the facts together to present to the minister for planning  (and the shadow minister) as Urban Growth have made it quite clear they are not moving on this.

The Report from Charles Sturt University offers some fantastic references to many recent case studies on open space consideration in High Density residential areas (4). The benefits of Open Space is obviously necessary to urban planning and is backed up by the 100’s of Australian and International Reports on the subject.  The benefits are generally outlined in Social, Economic and Environmental impacts.

 


 

REFERENCES

(1) Density Health Workshop Report NSW

(2) https://thebayssydney.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BaysPrecinctStrategicFrameworkReportVol1.pdf?2274ba&2274ba

(3) Sydney Open Space Report 2016

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/Sydney-Districts/~/media/7621E08C4AE24C9FBC4970D3438A4C9A.ashx

(4) Best Practice Open Space in Higher Density Developments (2011)

https://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Best%20Practice%20Open%20Space%20in%20Higher%20Denisty%20Developments%20-%20Report%201%20Research%20Findings%20-%2022%20June%202012%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(5) PP01_WP11_Open Space Standards_2009_E3.pdf

(6) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Plans-and-policies/appendix-j-open-space-and-community-facilities-assessment-kellyville-station-precinct-2015-12.ashx

“The current default in many parts of NSW is a rate of 2.8ha per 1,000 new residents. This rate features in a number of planning frameworks, including the NSW Government’s Growth Centres Code and local government open space strategies and development contributions plans3. As an alternative, the Guidelines suggest a default rate of 15% of non-industrial land be allocated for open space purposes.”

(7) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Reports/central-district-open-space-definitions-sydney-open-spaces-draft-audit-summary-2016-02-29.ashx

(8) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

(9) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

 

(10) https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/17530/Best_Practice_Open_Space_in_Higher_Density_Developments_Project_Summary_Report_June_2012.pdf

(11)http://www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_root/PDFs/Precincts/Redfern_Waterloo/North_eveleigh_concept_plan/Electronic_copy_DOP/Appendix%206%20Residential%20Flat%20Code.pdf


 

 


  • 1
FloorSpaceRatio Map

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Tags : 

2016 North Eveleigh development proposal is exceeding allowable FSR (Floor Space Ratio) 

State Environmental Planning Authority 2005 Redfern Waterloo Map states a maximum FSR (Floor Space Ratio) of 2:1 is allowable in the Site.

Not only is Urban Growth NSW’s current 2016 plan exceeding the permissible building heights for the area (which is 10 Storeys) they are also exceeding the allowable Floor Space Ratio for the buildings.

Allowable Floor Space Ratio = 2:1

Superlot 1 FSR = 6.2:1

Superlot 2 FSR = 5.4:1

Superlot 3 FSR = 2.7:1

calculations below

FloorSpaceRatio Map

Building Height Map

 

Floor Space Ratio defines the permissible physical size of development allowed on a piece of land.

A guide for calculations can be viewed in this PDF here supplied by planning.nsw.gov.au.  Height and Floor Space Ratio PDF  

The FSR Calculation is defined as  Gross Floor Area / Site Area

  • Site Area” is the size or area of the Lots upon which the buildings will be built. (does not include areas such as parks, walkways and public streets/roads)
  • Gross Floor Area” (GFA) is the area of internal walls within each floor of a building. (does not include such areas as stairwells and Lift shafts, Ventilation Ducts)

North Eveleigh West Superlots Site Area.

Allowable FSR = 2:1

Proposed GFA 57000 m²

SuperLot A    4000 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 16
  • GFA = 24800 m²
  • FSR  = 6.2:1

SuperLot B    4700 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 14
  • GFA = 25500 m²
  • FSR  = 5.4:1

SuperLot C   2500 m²

  • Storeys 3 – 4
  • GFA  = 6800 m²
  • FSR  = 2.7:1

 

As noted below there is a subclause in the Legislation (State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005) that says the Building Height and FSR restrictions only apply where the minister for planning has not approved a Concept Plan. Until it is approved it is ILLEGAL. In other words he/ she can overrule the legislated restrictions.

It looks like it is up to us as a community to prove to the minister that good planning is NOT:

  1. HIGH POPULATION DENSITY   (506 people per hectare / 1600 residents within a 3.1 hectare precinct)

  2. ILLEGAL BUILDING HEIGHTS   (20 Storey Building Heights where 10 is legislated as the Max)

  3. ILLEGAL FSR   (up to 6.2:1 in an area legislated as 2:1)

  4. POOR ONISTE TRAFFIC (one point of entry and roads crossing public thoroughfares)

  5. INSUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE ( 0.32 ha Public Park for 1600 new residents)


  • -
Building Height Map

North Eveleigh Building Heights – Current NSW Legislation

Tags : 

Building Heights in NSW Legislation

This is part of an ongoing investigation into how Urban Growth NSW can come up with 20 Storey Building Heights on the proposed High Density North Eveleigh site. We have been recently told (Meeting 31 March 2016) that the proposed 20 Storey Heights are apparently “non negotiable”. Hearing that the main reason was the buildings minimal Solar shadowing (across the railway) and the forecast in population increase in Sydney we decided to have a look at the current Legislation.

On the City Of Sydney Planning Controls map it is noted that the North Eveleigh site is listed under the Redfern-Waterloo Authority which uses the following State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 (1).

North Eveleigh is also referenced below in the 2012 Sydney Regional Environment Plan 26 City West (2).

These legislative planning documents outline amongst other things, Building Height restrictions. The below references the current NSW Government Legislations available in regard to the North Eveleigh precinct.

(1) State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005

According to the NSW Legislation Website “State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005”, to which the North Eveleigh Precinct is part of, the Maximum building height allowed for the area is 10 storeys.

Redfern-Waterloo Authority SitesFloorSpaceRatio Map

Height of buildings Map    shows 10 storeys maximum

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/map/SEPP_MD_RWA_HOB_001_20110913.pdf?id=88bf3142-d24c-e128-fad0-e65dcce1fcd2


Building Height Map

 

EDIT 5 April 2016 – The Current Legislation says  In Part 5 Section 21 : Note Clause 3

21   Height, floor space ratio and gross floor area restrictions

(1)  The height of a building on any land that is the subject of the Height of Buildings Map is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on that map.      (10 storeys)

(2)  The floor space ratio of a building on any land that is the subject of the Floor Space Ratio Map is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on that map.   (FSR 2:1)

(2A)  The gross floor area of a building on any land that is the subject of the Gross Floor Area Map, being land known as the Australian Technology Park, is not to exceed the gross floor area shown for the land on that map.

Note. The total maximum floor space ratio for the land to which this subclause applies is equivalent to 2:1.

(3)  This clause applies only in relation to development where the Minister has not, in an approval for a concept plan for the development (whether given before or after the commencement of this clause), provided for the construction of a building that exceeds the height, floor space ratio or gross floor area restrictions, or any combination of restrictions, set out in subclauses (1), (2) and (2A).

(2) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 City West

The 2012 Sydney Regional Environment Plan shows Building Height restrictions on the Streets surrounding North Eveleigh as 9 to 12 meters in Height.

Of Note the Plan additionally outlines planning Principles for the Eveleigh Precinct.

Division 3 Planning principles for Precincts specifies Planning Principles for the Eveleigh precinct:

  • Urban Design

    The height of new buildings should reflect and emphasise the topography of the Precinct, at the same time respecting the height and scale of heritage items.

    New buildings within the Precinct that are close to the Precinct boundaries are to respect the character and height of buildings in their immediate vicinity.

    Any such buildings should not compromise the environmental amenity, heritage significance and general scale of development in their locality.

    Development involving former railway buildings and associated items of heritage significance is to result in their conservation and re-use.

Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

 


  • -
horizontal 1_small

North Eveleigh – Potential Build Timetable

Tags : 

Based on the April 2016 “UGNSW Information Sessions” we have the following Proposed Build Timetable:

March 2017          -> Concept Plans Approval with Detailed Construction Drawings

July 2017               -> Start Infrastructure Works, Roads, Parks and Clothing Store Overhaul   (Period 1 year)

July 2018               -> Sell SuperLots to Developers and Assess Designs

Dec 2018                -> Construction of SuperLots (High Rise) Begins. Potential for Staggered Construction of the 3 SuperLots each taking 12 to 18 months to complete.

December 2020  ->  Estimated Completion of North Eveleigh Precinct

 

 


  • -
Park Area

The North Eveleigh proposed 2015 Park Actually Got SMALLER !!!

Tags : 

Despite claims of a bigger park, with a little bit of Google Love I was able to prove the new 2015 plan actually made the “Local Park” smaller compared to the 2008 Plan.

When Comparing the actual area used to calculate “Local Park”, which is the area on the LHS of the above image underneath the entrance to Carriageworks Way, we can see the Area has not increased to the value of 4479 m² but actually decreased to an area of 0.332 ha. (3320 m²).

GoogleMapOverlay

 

parkCOS Park Plan Options

What else are Urban Growth tricking us with ?

  • Number of new Apartments ? – Should be more like 830 – 870 with a 20% increase in GFA

Saving Our Skies

 


  • -
plans2Format

Picking Holes in the Urban Growth NSW 2015 Concept Plan

Tags : 

Like everyone else I have had a hard time understanding the logic of Urban Growth’s new 2015 North Eveleigh Plans.

Ive spent a few too many days trawling through old and new documents and plans and have found the following:

  • The comparison between the indicative ‘Street View’ between the old and new plans is incorrectly placed and needs to be amended. The City of Sydney response to UGNSW submission found the same.  See Below.compareView

 

  • For some reason the number of apartments magically only rose from “710 – 750”  to “750- 790”, even with an increase from 12 – 20 Storeys.  The Comparison showing this (Fig.7)  is a little misleading and confusing. The GFA (Gross Floor Area) of the Western component of the 2008 plan is 57,506, including the 88 Platform Apartments and the use of the Clothing Store for 22 apartments for residential conversion (Fig.2). However in the comparison the old plan is stated as GFA 50,698 and has removed these two buildings out of the equation (7275) so the 2008 apartment count should reduce as well from 710 to 600. The difference now appears to make sense with a much bigger increase from 600 – 790**. 

 

North Eveleigh Approved Plan

Fig.2 North Eveleigh 2008 Approved Concept Plan

  •  The Original Concept Plan (link-page 19), which included both sites either side of Carriageworks, states a total Estimated Dwelling count of 1258, with 2400 new residents. Fig.5 indicates an estimated 1844 new residents which using the same math and division of apartment sizes (0.8% Studio, 31% 1 br, 45% 2 br and 14% 3 br) would have the new 2015 North Eveleigh West plan to actually contain bw 830 and 960 apartments.
ConceptPlanArea2

Fig.3 Original “North Eveleigh” Site boundary from 2008 Plan

 

ConceptPlanArea4

Fig.4 Original 2008 Concept Plan for 1258 new Apartments either side of Carriageworks.

 

  • One reason given for the Increased Height was that originally the Clothing Store was going to be residential. Searching back thru the documentation Bates Smart only predicted that 22 Dwellings could be placed in there. Using the average of 2.29 occupants per unit this would only account for an extra 50 people. Based on the Below estimated allocation of people this would only be one floor difference. NOT an additional 8 Storeys!
EstimatedResidents

Fig.5

 

  • The comparison documents comparing the Plans old and new are visually adapted to look in favour of the new plan.
  • The Increased Park size (3500 sq m – 6500 sq m ) has really only been achieved by deleting the ring road (which was quite useful so all traffic was not using the one thoroughfare) and slightly changing the appearance of the before and after Pictures. Notice how the new park area in the actual documentation looks to be much more generous.
PlansCompare

Fig.6 Old 2008 Plan overlaid over new comparison image from 2015 Plan Documentation.

 

As compared to this….

 

PlansCompareOrig

Fig.7 Comparison Image as shown in new 2015 plan.

 


  • -
Portal-Banner

City of Sydney and Urban Growth NSW – MOU and CoS Submission Responses

Tags : 

 

Click the Links for the original PDF’s below:

 

City of Sydney – North Eveleigh Precinct Response – Submission Notes:

  • Overall Plan
    • The Revised 2008 plan does not allow for a practical pedestrian crossing of the railway.
    • Overall increase in Building Footprints which has compromised the shape to the new park reducing its size and functionality.
    • The buildings are set out in an arrangement that leads to large building forms, with the effect that there will be considerable overlooking between the apartments and achieveing visual and acoustic privacy will be challenging.
    • Placing park and residential uses next to each other can cause conflict between the two, leading to restrictions being placed on the park.
    • The use of the buildings seem to be generally restricted to residential with the only other uses being confined to the Clothing Store. The adjacent areas of Newtown and Darlington have employment interspersed with the predominant residential use, the number of workers are approximately one third the number of residents. This produces a lively neighbourhood, a better place to live, reduces congestion, increases walking and bicycle use, and builds community. A mix of retail and small commercial uses, (not simply a small supermarket and café) would provide more choice, competition and vitality to the area. These could be located at the ground level of the proposed buildings on the private lots. These uses will also attract nearby residents, providing for improved social integration.
    • The proposed density is similar to only a few of the densest existing areas of the City of Sydney.
    • The large floor plates for the buildings and their ‘slab’ arrangement could produce a monotonous and overbearing built form; and, limiting uses to residential only restricts the future vitality of the area.
    • The relative high density, prominent visibility and harsh site conditions of the southern lots will require better design.
    • Possible loss of Stair Connection at Wilson st and Golden Grove.

     

 

  • The Park
    • The new park has a compromised shape and is in a compromised location due to its layout as a resultant of the shape of the private lots. As a result it will be of lower value to the community. The park should be improved by ensuring that as far as possible, it has publicly-accessible defining streets or paths along the boundary and it has a more regular and usable shape.
    • The irregular shape of the park has effectively created three smaller parks, resulting in a less effective use of the area available
    • The park proposal may have too many elements,whichcould compromise the quality of each of those elements

 

  • The Clothing Store
    • In its entirety, the Clothing Store would be well-suited for community uses that serves both the new residents and the existing surrounding community. Studio spaces, shared work spaces and community-focused creative spaces could be combined with community facilities to make the Clothing Store a lively and essential part of the existing and new community. There would be the potential for uses to reinforce and support the public nature of the proposed new park.

  • 1
UG_Page_NOt_Found

Urban Growth NSW – c2e Website – Frequently asked Questions – Feb 2016

Tags : 

As at Feb 2016 CentralToEveleigh Webiste Content Extract.

Urban Growth Responding to Community Concerns from November Meeting. (pub. 15 Dec 2015)

          Extracted for posterity in case the web-link disappears…….

UG_Page_NOt_Found

 

Central to Eveleigh FAQ’s

Q: The Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh area is a dense inner city area, why are you planning high density development here?

A: Sydney needs more homes in locations close to public transport, jobs and services. We are an evolving city and we’re continually growing. Each week the population grows by 1,600 people, which means over the next 15 years we’ll need more than 650,000 new homes to support population growth. New houses must be built all over Sydney – not just in new subdivisions on the urban edges, but also in existing urban areas in the form of medium and high density development. No part of Sydney is untouched by these growth pressures.

Given its location close to public transport, education and employment the Central to Eveleigh area, like other inner city areas, is ideally suited for new housing.

We are planning for the future of Central to Eveleigh, to accommodate growth in a sustainable way. We are proposing a range of well designed medium and high rise apartment buildings and work spaces, close to improved public transport, to provide accessible and affordable living options, alongside the amenity of new well planned parks and improved community facilities.

We need to plan and manage growth to ensure the area retains its diverse and distinctive identity and remains one of Sydney’s most desirable places to live, work and visit.

Q: Will you protect social housing and provide more affordable housing in the area?

A: Yes. With our Government partners at the Department of Family and Community Services we are placing a high priority on social and affordable housing in our planning to ensure a diversity of homes to meet current and future community needs.

The Department of Family and Community Services commitment is to retain or increase social housing dwelling numbers in the area including the Waterloo Estate – this is a consistent message we have talked through with the community and local elected representatives. We are exploring opportunities to renew the social housing stock and better integrate it with affordable housing and privately owned housing. This will be a long term process – up to 20 years – allowing much time to plan the process well and time to work closely with all existing residents.

Q: There is too much development being planned, why do you want to damage the character of the area with lots of high-rise buildings?

A: We know that protecting the character and amenity of the area from inappropriate development is important and widely valued by the community.

Our focus is on making the most of opportunities to deliver new housing and jobs in a balanced way that maintains and improves the liveability of the area for new and existing residents.

We will be considering a mix of building heights between 2-3 storeys and potentially up to 35 storeys that align with adjoining areas, for example Waterloo already has some buildings equivalent to over 30 storeys in height. There will be a need for all plans to pass strict environmental planning controls and guidelines – and a process to consult and engage with the community through this process as we have been doing. However, given the need to balance metropolitan growth pressures with local amenity impacts we believe we should consider whether tall buildings in defined locations can be built where set back from existing low rise areas can be achieved and solar impacts are limited.

Q: Will proceeds from the sale of public land all be used to fund local infrastructure upgrades?

A: Yes. The land value achieved from medium to high rise development of government land is intended to be prioritised for reinvestment in the local area to support key infrastructure requirements. As confirmed by the Minister when announcing the sale of Australian Technology Park, the revenue generated will be reinvested in the local area.

Our approach is to reinvest proceeds from the sale of public land back into the local area to help finance major infrastructure investments in the Central to Eveleigh corridor, including upgrades to train stations, new parks, restoration of heritage buildings, community facilities and to subsidise delivery of affordable housing. Redfern Station has been identified as a funding priority and we are working with our partners at Transport for NSW in this respect.

Q: How will you ensure critical infrastructure gets upgraded to support population growth?

A: We’ve been working across government to test the impact of future growth on existing infrastructure including public transport, schools, hospitals, community facilities, utilities and green space. This has helped us to identify both the limitations and opportunities for new development in the area.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will identify the key infrastructure required to support growth and will detail the long term funding requirements to deliver infrastructure upgrades.

North Eveleigh community workshop FAQs

Q: Why is North Eveleigh a good place for new housing?

A: Areas with good access to public transport that are close to employment opportunities are becoming the focus for increased density all across Sydney.

The Central to Eveleigh area, including North Eveleigh, has lots of under-utilised and government owned land and is close to the city centre, well serviced by public transport and close to many services and infrastructure, and educational and cultural facilities.

The Central to Eveleigh Urban Transformation and Transport Program will help to meet the current and future needs of residents and support Sydney’s growth as a global city by providing new community facilities and open space, a mix of new housing and employment opportunities and improved connections across the rail corridor.

Increased density also allows us to provide additional community facilities that service the wider neighbourhood. This includes large public parks and restored heritage buildings all contributing to more vibrant local communities.

Q: What makes North Eveleigh suitable for the density and height you are proposing?

A: The inner city needs more homes. We’ve been working across government to test the impact of future growth on existing infrastructure including public transport, schools, hospitals, community facilities, utilities and green space. This has helped us to identify both the limitations and opportunities for new development in the area.

It is not appropriate to have high rise development along the whole length of the Central to Eveleigh corridor because it would overshadow adjoining properties and have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. However, high rise buildings can be located in some areas with minimal impact. In North Eveleigh, tall buildings can be placed next to the railway with minimal overshadowing or overlooking of neighbouring properties.

We are proposing 710 additional apartments at North Eveleigh, with building heights of between three and 20 storeys. The highest buildings will be located at the rear of the site against the rail corridor, with the lowest building heights closest to Iverys Lane and on Wilson Street.

Undeniably, buildings up to 20 storeys in North Eveleigh will have a visual impact – they will affect the outlook for neighbouring residents and will be visible from some distance. However, given the need to balance metropolitan growth pressures with local amenity impacts we believe that the proposed density and mix of building heights is worth considering.

Q: Why are you planning for 20 storey maximum building heights and why do you think these are appropriate next to a conservation area?

A: The plans respond to the heritage conservation area by locating higher buildings next to the railway corridor where they will have least impact, with lower heights closer to existing properties.

We are proposing a mix of building heights with two taller 20 storey buildings next to the railway corridor where they will have minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of sunlight and privacy. Building heights then drop down towards existing properties along Wilson Street and Iverys Lane to respect the existing character of the neighbourhood.

This is consistent with our http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236  Key Move 9 , to integrate new high density mixed use buildings with the surrounding area.

Heritage will be represented through the design of the park which will include public art. We also want to create a new hub for community interaction by restoring and adaptively re-using the Clothing Store building as a new community facility.

Q: Do you have a housing target? And if you don’t, how did you come to the number of apartments?

A: There is no target for the number of new apartments or residents. We used population scenarios of between 15,000 and 26,000 new residents in the corridor and between 29,000 and 56,000 new residents in the wider study area to test possible impacts of population growth on infrastructure and community facilities.

Outcomes from this analysis have been considered alongside expert studies and best-practice design principles to assess the level of growth we believe could be achieved in the corridor. Our focus is on making the most of opportunities to deliver new housing and jobs in a way that improves the liveability of the area for new and existing residents.

Our approach is to optimise development outcomes within the limits of good design. This means we will be pursuing medium and high rise buildings to provide as many homes and jobs as possible on sites that can be developed without overly impacting the amenity of adjoining properties and where development can be balanced with public benefits – including new community facilities and parks for the whole community to enjoy.

Q: Are you also planning to upgrade local transport, schools and health services, parks and community facilities?

A: Yes. We are working closely with other NSW Government agencies such as Transport for NSW, the Department of Education and Training, NSW Health and public utilities on the plans for North Eveleigh to ensure local infrastructure can respond to more people living and working in the area.

As confirmed by the Minister for Planning when announcing the sale of the Australian Technology Park, the revenue generated from development and public land sales will be reinvested in the local area to help finance major infrastructure improvements, including renewal of Redfern Station.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will identify the key infrastructure required to support growth and the long term funding requirements to deliver infrastructure upgrades.

As part of North Eveleigh, we’re making provision for a child care centre on site and also proposing a new facility for creative community uses at the Clothing Store in addition to a new neighbourhood park.

Q: How many car parking spaces will be provided at North Eveleigh and how will you manage street parking in surrounding areas?

A: Our goal is for new developments in the Central to Eveleigh area to encourage the trend of reduced car ownership with more people choosing to use public transport or walk and cycle to get around. Promoting a reduced car dependency also reduces carbon emissions and promotes healthy lifestyles.

We are proposing 530 basement car parking spaces, which includes the existing 39 spaces at the Platform Apartments. This is the maximum number of spaces allowed under the City of Sydney’s controls.

We know there is a mix of views about parking; some people favour additional car parking spaces in new developments and others believe this will only encourage increased car usage.

There is a high rate of car-share use in the area. While some apartments won’t have a dedicated car space, car share schemes will mean that all residents can access a car when they need to.

New residents will also be able to easily access public transport services at Redfern and Macdonaldtown stations and on King Street in Newtown. Future pedestrian and cycle links across the rail corridor and improved cycleways and pedestrian paths will create new links across the site and will also help to reduce car use and traffic.

The City of Sydney does not permit residents living in new apartments to get parking permits. Therefore, new residents will not be able to park in surrounding streets for extended periods of time without the risk of parking penalties.

Q: Will North Eveleigh have affordable housing and what percentage will it be?

A: Yes. At North Eveleigh we supported delivery of the Platform Apartments; 88 Affordable Housing apartments completed in March 2015 that are managed by City West Housing. With plans for an additional 710 apartments in the neighbourhood, this means that 11% of all housing at North Eveleigh will be classified as Affordable Housing.
Q: How can the Minister for Planning assess this proposal when he is also UrbanGrowth NSW’s Minister?

A: The development proposal for North Eveleigh will be considered as State Significant Development, which requires the Minister to determine the proposal, as set out in the <em>Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979</em>. While UrbanGrowth NSW reports to the Minister, there are clear guidelines set out in the Act that must be followed to assess the proposal, including formal public exhibition and a call for submissions once the proposal has been lodged.

Q: How did you promote the North Eveleigh workshop held on 12 November?

A: The workshop was promoted through a mix of methods including a letterbox drop to 41,000 properties in the area. Our distributor uses GPS trackers to ensure delivery to all properties in the area. We also sent 500 individual letters to randomly selected households, distributed an electronic newsletter to more than 1,600 people who have signed-up to receive project updates, placed advertisements in five local newspapers and promoted the workshop on the project website, Facebook and Twitter and at our monthly stalls at the Carriageworks Farmers Market and Redfern Markets.

Q: How will you report back and continue to engage the community?

A: Community feedback from the workshop, online discussion forum, social media channels, emails, letters and community markets, will be considered to refine plans for North Eveleigh.

We will publish a report that summarises the feedback received at the workshop on 12 November to provide a transparent record of community concerns and issues related to the development proposal.

We will undertake further consultation to shape plans before finalising a proposal that will be placed on exhibition in mid 2016. More consultation will be undertaken in early 2016 and will include another workshop, a drop-in display and discuss session, some focus groups and an updated online forum.

The development proposal will include a report detailing all feedback received.

Q: What additional traffic is your modelling showing, and how will this be managed?

A: Traffic consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff is updating a traffic model to test the impact of traffic associated with development at North Eveleigh on the local road network. Preliminary study results indicate that the development will not have a big impact on the local area, with the maximum forecast for an extra 100 trips per hour during morning and afternoon peak travel times. The local road network has the capacity to accommodate this volume of additional traffic.

The City of Sydney has a trend of decreasing car use per person. The proximity of North Eveleigh to rail and bus transport supports the trend towards reduced car dependence and we aim to encourage this trend by promoting public and active transport and car-share schemes.

Q: There is only one entry/exit at the site to Wilson Street proposed. Will this be safe and how will this be managed with the number of cars expected to be entering and exiting the site?

A: There is currently only one access point to the site, however at least one additional access point will be constructed when the North Eveleigh East area is developed. The existing access has been designed in accordance with City of Sydney requirements and our traffic engineers will review the existing access arrangement as part of our development proposal. The preliminary traffic study indicates an additional 100 vehicles per hour will enter or exit the site at busiest times (during peak hour). Further reports are being commissioned as part of the development proposal to advise on traffic impacts.

Q: Why can’t the park be bigger?

A: The proposed park is 4,479 sqm . The size of the new park has been increased by more than 1,000 sqm from the original design by changing the layout of buildings and internal roads. We believe the current design is the optimal balance between open space and well spaced buildings, respecting Clothing Store curtilage, creating through-site links and minimising overshadowing. The park will include a children’s play area, large kick about space and barbeque facilities for community use. Increasing the size of the park further would mean reducing building separation and potentially increasing heights, which would not deliver the best design outcome for the site.

Q: How can you say the development space has only increased by 20% when building heights appear to have more than doubled?

A: Although maximum building heights have increased from 12 to 20 storeys, the total development floor space has only increased by around 20% compared to what was approved as part of the 2008 Concept Plan. Previously, development floor space was approximately 50,000m<sup>2</sup> and is now approximately 62,500m<sup>2</sup>.

This has been achieved by designing taller buildings with smaller footprints to maximise publically accessible space through the site.

The development floor space in the 2008 Concept Plan was all residential, we are now proposing some retail and community uses as part of the revised proposal which is included in the proposed 62,500m<sup>2</sup> of floor space.

Q: What assurances can you give us of the quality of design and construction?

A: We have a long history of delivering design excellence in our projects, and the design principles will guide planning for new development across the area to ensure buildings are well designed and contribute to the creation of highly liveable neighbourhoods.

The planning system in NSW has measures in place to ensure quality design through initiatives such as the SEPP 65 policy for the design quality of residential apartment buildings and through the Building Code of Australia, which sets the provisions for the design and construction of buildings. We will also be guided by the City of Sydney’s approach to achieving design excellence.

In addition to this we are exploring opportunities to require design competitions for new buildings on the site to drive design innovation and excellence.

Q: How will this affect future connections with South Eveleigh? Where is the promised bridge?

A: We know it is important to create connections across the railway corridor, with design that will allow for future pedestrian and cycle links potentially to the Australian Technology Park and South Eveleigh.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will establish the preferred locations for new crossings. A crossing close to the Australian Technology Parkto is likely to be built within the next five to 10 years once development plans around Redfern Station and/or South Eveleigh have been approved. Timing for a crossing is difficult to confirm due to the complexities of construction over the rail line and the need for works to coincide with any above or adjacent development.

The park design allows for a potential walk/bike future crossing from North Eveleigh to South Eveleigh.

Q: With the large increase in foot traffic to and from Redfern Station, how will you make sure Wilson Street is safe?

A: The proposed North Eveleigh development will create buildings fronting onto the street which will provide more active frontages and passive surveillance along Wilson Street. People walking to and from the site will result in increased foot traffic and activation of Wilson Street. Busier pedestrian areas are generally considered to be safer.

As part of http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236  Key Move 2, Wilson Street will be part of a ‘green network’ which means it will be tailored for increased pedestrian and bike use. Pedestrians will use the footpath, separate to cyclists and cars. The footpath on Wilson Street has minimal driveways, which means that it is already a safe pedestrian area.

Q: When will Iverys Lane steps be opened?

A: Access to the stairs to Iverys Lane is currently restricted while we undertake additional work to improve pedestrian safety. This includes: </p><ul><li>appointing a road safety auditor to review the location of the stairs and any additional measures to improve safety</li><li>preparing a concept design for a shared zone in Wilson Lane </li><li>obtaining endorsement from the City of Sydney’s Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Calming Committee and agreement for the shared way to proceed. </li></ul><p>We hope to construct the shared way in 2016 after which we can open the stairs for public access.

Q: How will you manage basic utility services, for example won’t there need to be an additional 800 garbage bins collected from one narrow street?

A: The traffic study being done to inform planning for the site includes analysis of how to adequately service the site for garbage collection and other services.

We are developing the Urban Transformation Strategy that will guide future development in the short, medium and long term while the City of Sydney will retain responsibility for providing municipal services to the area, such as rubbish collection. We meet regularly with the City of Sydney to ensure they are involved in the early planning of the area. There are no foreseeable issues with having a weekly garbage collection service the site.

Q: Why has our opposition to height been ignored?

A: All feedback from the community is carefully considered in our planning. It is our job to consider the trade offs associated with the benefits and impacts of new development on the city and the local area.

We have been consulting with the community for more than two years to develop a <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236″>vision, design principles and the 10 key moves</a> to ensure that we deliver balanced outcomes at metropolitan, inner city and local neighbourhood levels. Feedback indicates that there is broad support for the vison, key moves and design principles. </p><p>There are mixed views about height and density. Some people are strongly opposed to high rise buildings, but many others have told us they can accept tall buildings and high density development as long as we ensure design excellence, variety and innovation and deliver in line with the design principles. </p><p>Our consultation focus is, and always has been, about how we plan and deliver medium and high density development to provide homes and jobs in a way that ensures the area remains a highly desirable place to live, work and visit.

Q: Will there be overshadowing and what impact will it have (including from 8am)?

A: All high rise development casts long shadows, but the impact of the shadows can be minimised through good design. The proposed building layout at North Eveleigh seeks to minimise overshadowing of neighbouring properties and the park by putting taller buildings on the southern boundary near the rail line so that shadows fall primarily into the rail corridor.

<a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>Shadow diagrams</a> have been prepared in accordance with industry standards to show the impacts of overshadowing at key times of the day in mid-winter, when there is the least amount of sunlight, including 9am, 11am, 1pm and at 3pm. They show that at these times the proposed buildings will not overshadow the habitable areas of existing houses and will have minimal impact on the park.

The 8am mid-winter <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>shadow diagram</a> shows more extensive shadowing to the park and houses backing onto Iverys Lane. However, this shadowing has largely gone by 9am as the sun rises. </p><p>The <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>shadow diagrams</a> show that the park will be in full sun for most of the day, which exceeds the City of Sydney’s requirements for only half the park to get direct sunlight for four hours between 9am and 3pm.

 


  • 4
plans2Format

New Banners – Feb 2016

Tags : 

We have x2 new Banner designs available.

At 3000×750 mm the Banners are designed for horizontal balcony positioning. Alternatively there are a few Vertical banners as well (see designs below).

Let us know if you can place one of these on your property to help assist spread the word and SaveYourSkies.

Ideally we want a banner on each corner along Wilson Street. Flyers will go out soon to promote the cause and to drum up support for the forthcoming Petition.

plans2Format

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizontal_Jenny


  • -
ne_bbirdseye

Jan-30-2016 – MajorProjects website – proposed NE Infrastructure works

Tags : 

Majorprojects.planning website –  Infrustructure works.

Namely “Subdivision, eartworks, road works, landscaping, infrastructure and GFA allocation to proposed superlots”

 

majorprojects website link here

Draft PDF outlining the current plans found on the website here.

urban design draft report Dec 2016 here (5 MB)

 

 


  • -
Portal-Banner

North Eveleigh Precinct community Forums are live – 2016

Tags : 

Stealing our Skies website now has community forums.

Current Forums:

  • Community Concerns Forum
  • North Eveleigh Meetings and Events Forum
  • Help Forum

 


Forum Login

UserOnline

Users: 2 Guests