Councillor Chris Harris

Harold Park’s owners have an obligation to create a development that favours the public good over profit. 

However if current plans for the redevelopment of Harold Park Paceway go ahead the iconic, though little used, race track will be transformed into a new mini suburb between Glebe and Forest Lodge.  A suburb where close to 2000 people live in eight story apartment buildings next door to a retail hub and multilevel car park built in and around the heritage listed tram sheds.  This would be a massive overdevelopment for the area that would result in surrounding streets becoming chronic traffic snarls and deprive the new residents of meaningful open space - a huge profit for the Harness Racing Club (HRC - the sites owners) but very little positive for the community.

The neighbouring streets do not have the capacity to cope with thousands of extra cars per day.  Therefore the site should be planned to attract people who do not want to own a car while integrating effectively into the public transport network and the proposed commercial areas should not include heavy traffic generators like intensive retail. 

There is also a need for far more open space than is included in the current plan. The surrounding open space includes parks that already get heavy use not just from the local community but also from people who live further afield.  The people who will live here need adequate open space within the new precinct which must also cater for those who will work in the commercial areas.  The site is currently around 35% open space and it needs to stay that way, not be reduced to around 25% as the current plan suggests.
  
Sustainability also needs much more emphasis in any new development on the Harold Park site. In this age of climate change on-site power production through solar panels and trigeneration together with water capture and recycling should be mandatory in a development of this scale.  However in the current plans they get almost no mention.

Along with many other concerned citizens I have called on the HRC to reduce the scale of the development so as not to cause the kind of the disruption to the surrounding area that has been outlined above. The same request has been made by Greens Mayor of Leichhardt Council - Cr. Jamie Parker. Furthermore the Greens view of this proposed development is supported by the Glebe Society and the Glebe Chamber of Commerce. In reply the HRC argues that they can’t accomodate our suggestions because the changes would reduce the economic viability of the project, which will fund a revitalisation of the harness racing industry.

The Greens reject this self serving approach by the HRC especially given that they obtained a valuable piece of land adjoining Harold Park for free in a mates deal with the state government – land which includes heritage listed tram sheds that will form part of the redevelopment.

How on Earth did the HRC get a piece of land in Glebe, almost three football fields in size and right next to a light rail station, for free?  Stay with me and you’ll find out…

The tram shed site and the piece of adjoining land between it and Johnson’s Creek were initially purchased from the state government in the 80’s and early 90’s not by the HRC but by the Harness Racing Authority (HRA), which was a government body at the time.  The HRA then proceeded to lease this land to the HRC for the paltry sum of $1 per year.  The HRC had use of government land for its own purposes for free and never had to pay land tax, council rates or stamp duty because the official owner was a government body.

But if you think that seems unfair, just wait until you hear the next part of the story.

Legislative changes eventually transformed the HRA into a non-government body, which would have taken away its ability to avoid rates, but before these changes took place the land was transferred to the HRC for a peppercorn amount of $2.  Now not only did the HRC get to use the land for free, they were given ownership of it for free.

To take the absurdity a step even further, the $2.3 million which the HRA originally paid for the land came from a grant from the government controlled Racecourse Development Fund.  The fund gives grants to be used for improving racecourses and this money was paid out on the basis that the land would be used for stabling, a use to which it was never put.  All they used the land for was overflow parking and they let the heritage listed tram sheds fall apart - as can be seen in the above image.  In hindsight it seems like they used the grant to engage in a bit of real estate speculation.

It is speculation that certainly paid off.  When the HRC previously considered selling the tram sheds and their surrounds in 2005 their estimated value was $11 million, and they would most likely be worth even more now.  Selling the land for this amount would represent a massive profit to the HRC given the means by which they obtained it in the first place.  Had the government hung onto the land instead of giving it to the HRC years ago there’d be at least an extra $11 million in the public purse right now – $11 million that the government could have spent on affordable housing, public transport improvements or research into renewable energy.  Or they could have kept the land and used it to build a city farm, a youth centre, sporting facilities or something else of benefit to the community.

It is for this reason that the HRC owes it to the people of NSW to scale back their profits a little in the name of giving something back to the community.  And I know that a large number of the residents of Glebe and Forest Lodge agree with me, as evidenced by the 100 plus people who turned out on a Monday night to a meeting on the issue that Jamie Parker and I hosted, as well as from the mass of correspondence that has come into my office.  The message to the HRC is clear – they need to listen to the community and reduce the density of the development, include significantly more open space and sustainability measures and properly integrate with the public transport network so as not to turn the surrounding streets into a traffic nightmare.  Given the good deal they’ve got it is the least they should be doing. 

Image coutesy of Phil Rogers, who took the photo for this issue of Central.

Stories about developers trampling over the desires of local communities are all too common these days.  I know I publish a lot more about problems here than I’d have to in an ideal world but once in a while a good news story comes along and I want to take this opportunity to share with you the experiences of a group of Chippendale residents in protecting a fabulous community asset they have worked very hard to create.

The asset I’m talking about is the garden on the corner of Regent and Cleveland streets, a site that 80 000 motorists pass every day and that a very good number of them admire.  The garden is an oasis of nature in a concrete city, a haven for birds and crickets and a much needed screen between local residents and traffic.

The garden exists because of almost two decades of hard work by a small but dedicated group of local residents, led by artist Wallace Randolph (pictured here in the garden).  It all began in 1992 when Randolph’s artistic eye saw the straggly, unhealthy trees the RTA had planted on a verge and imagined something better could go there.  For 10 years he and his group planted, watered and cleaned up the garden bed entirely unsupported by Council.  They saved plants due to be removed from nearby building sites and moved them to their garden when they could, but other than these recycling windfalls they paid all the costs of setting up and maintaining the garden for the first decade by themselves.

Official help for the garden first came in 2002 when the then South Sydney Council built a protective fence around the garden to prevent trampling and theft of plants.  This was followed later by the installation of a tap, which meant that finally the residents didn’t have to pay out of their own pockets to water this feature enjoyed by so many.  City of Sydney contractors now look after about one third of the garden with the residents being primarily responsible for the rest but also having some input into the council managed section.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t all plain sailing for the garden just recently when it looked like the unstoppable march of “progress” might end the garden’s story short of its 18th birthday.  Council had approved an extensive redevelopment of a property on Regent St, despite many objections from local residents, right behind the garden and the only place the developer could find to use as a works zone was the garden itself. 

The residents who look after the garden expressed serious concern to me that they were not properly informed by Council and were completely shocked when they found out that 75% of their garden was to be destroyed with only vague promises that it would be “re-landscaped” once construction was over.

It was at this point that Randolph asked well known unionist and environmental activist Jack Mundey for advice on how best to deal with Council.  Armed with the support of such a legendary figure the residents mobilised and also contacted me.

I advised the local residents to attend and address the traffic committee that was due to deliberate on the construction zone and I went along to ensure that a better plan was developed so that damage to the garden would be minimised. Following the traffic committee I met on site with residents along with my Greens colleague Cr Irene Doutney and staff marked out exactly where the construction zone would be and how much garden would have to be demolished.

The works zone will still be built on part of the garden, but will now affect only around 15% of the southern end of the site.  The protective fence will be reinstated to make sure that the rest of the garden is not damaged during the works.  Once the construction zone is no longer required all plants removed will be replanted or replaced with plants of a similar size.  All the costs will be paid by the developer who will also be required to pay a $20 000 bond in case the City has to do the work.

This is a very positive outcome for Regent St. and I would like to congratulate all the residents on their many years of hard work in creating such a beautiful and much appreciated landmark. They also engeged constructively to reach an agreement that allows development to take place while not compromising the garden of which they are rightly proud.    

It seemed like the battle of the CoFA development was over but the University of NSW has turned its back on the community once again.  In my previous post on this topic I discussed how City of Sydney Council had reached a compromise agreement between Paddington residents and the University about the streets trucks would use during the contruction and when they would use them.  What seemed like a victory for local residents and for good faith negotiations was, however, sadly short lived.

Much to the anger of the local community UNSW have now decided that they are unhappy with the agreed traffic management plan and are applying to the Department of Planning to have Council stripped of it’s power to make traffic management decisions about the site.  This is poor form on the part of UNSW but also serves to highlight the broader issue of the pro-developer bias in the NSW planning system.

The notorious Part 3A powers of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, enacted by state parliament in 2005 when both the Labor and Liberal parties voted in favour of them, allow the planning Minister to usurp a Council’s powers to approve developments.  The effect of Part 3A is that developments that are totally opposed by the communities most affected by them have a much greater chance of getting approved - especially if the proponent of the development is a donor to one of the major political parties.

I will be doing all I can to make sure the Department of Planning does not overturn the months of negotiations that went into developing the current traffic management plan.  But this is only one battle in the ongoing war that my Greens collegues in state parliment have been fighting for many years against a highly flawed and unbalanced planning system.  

Clover Moore should resign from the Barangaroo board. This position with the Barangaroo Delivery Authority (BDA) represents a conflict of interest with her role on Council.

The Greens & other councillors together with many members of the community have major issues with the plans the BDA have for Barangaroo, considering it to be a massive overdevelopment as the artists impression on the right shows.  Unfortunately the Lord Mayor Clover Moore’s membership of the BDA Board is hampering the City of Sydney Council’s ability to represent the community on these issues.

The Lord Mayor has claimed that her role on the BDA has resulted in a number of positive environmental features, such as water recycling, co-generation and zero waste provisions, being added to plans for the development.  However I have serious doubts about these claims.

Progressive property owners are now including trigeneration, full water recycling & capture & zero waste approaches in major new developments. Recent examples of this approach include the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority’s “Workplace 6” building on Darling Island and Fraser’s Properties Carlton United Breweries site in Chippendale.  I think the state government, desperate to try to show some green credentials, would have included these initiatives in the project whether or not the Lord Mayor was on the board.

The Lord Mayor has also claimed that her influence on the BDA Board resulted in a light rail connection that integrates Barangaroo with the rest of the City being added to the plan, however, as with her environmental claims, I have doubts about how much of a contribution her presence on the board has made.

Firstly, a possible light/heavy rail link to Barangaroo was flagged by the Government long before the Lord Mayor joined the Board in December 2008. Secondly the BDA are proposing a light rail line running from central station to Circular Quay somewhere on the western side of the City – possibly down Sussex St.  There is no proposed integration with the CBD, the shopping precinct of Pitt St mall or Town Hall. The transport proposal is totally inadequate. 

Both my Greens colleague Irene Doutney and I think that we must have a low fare service that intimately links the old eastern and new western sections of the CBD.  It would be like the 555 shuttle buses but would not have to contend with traffic on crowded city streets.  So far, Clover’s involvement hasn’t delivered an integrated transport plan for Barangaroo.

And if a final example of the Lord Mayors ineffectiveness on the board were needed it can be seen in these two documents from the Barangaroo Action Group - a comparison of the building size in the southern section of the site under the original award winning plan and the BDA’s new plan.  Clover herself describes the buildings in the new plan as “too big”, a statement which I completely agree with, yet the plan was released during 2009 while she was on the board and she seems to have been completely unable to stop it.

It seems that the BDA are using Ms Moore’s position on the board to create the impression that the City of Sydney is supportive of what will be a gross overdevelopment of this iconic site.  Since the Lord Mayor joined the BDA board Councillors have not received a single briefing about what is proposed at Barangaroo – confidential or otherwise.  The first time that I had a chance to see what was proposed was at a public presentation by the BDA in the City Recital Hall on 23rd February 2010 and the first time we debated it as a council was on 15th March 2010. That’s a full sixteen months that the other councillors have been kept in the dark about the BDA’s plans.

Ms Moore should resign from the BDA immediately. This would then allow the City of Sydney to better use its resources to advocate in a very public way and demand that the design be revised to reduce the scale of the development, delete the intrusion into the harbour, return the whole of the foreshore to public use and to provide a proper public transport link that would genuinely integrate this beautiful site into the rest of the City.

The City of Sydney Council could be a powerful voice for the community on this matter.  Instead we are being gagged because Ms Moore has to be cautious about not wanting to seem too critical of a project she has helped develop.