Contrary to previous announcements, the South Sydney Leagues Club intends to reinstate poker machines in the Rabbitohs Club in Redfern. However, they are also pushing for approval of a large supermarket on the ground floor of the building. The Greens City of Sydney Councillors see the decision on pokies as a betrayal of good faith by the club and are determined to prevent the supermarket going ahead
 
This is a whole new business model to the one presented to us in 2007 when the South Sydney Leagues Club Board voted to accept a proposal put forward by the South Sydney Football Club to have the club poker machine-free.
 
We viewed the plan for a supermarket in the building in good faith because we were told there would be no pokie den right there where people will be doing the grocery shopping.  It will be very tempting for patrons to spend the grocery money on trying to get a win on the pokies.
 
Recent comments by the Leagues Club Chairman, Bill Alexiou-Hucker, that the club had only agreed to investigate banning poker machines, is at odds with the Leagues Club website which states….’The SSLC Board voted by a 4-3 majority to accept a proposal put forward by the South Sydney Football Club (SSFC) which will see the club become poker machine-free in Redfern.’
 
Mr Alexiou-Hucker is also quoted on the website in 2007 saying “We’re looking forward to working on a poker machine-free club…..’ ‘We will not only have a club that is more family friendly and more welcoming, but we will again be working with the Football Club, that represents this district, to provide the best support for the community.”
 
Mr Alexiou-Hucker’s recent comments and accusations that councillors did not understand the difference between the two clubs and who voted for what, is an attempt to justify this last minute push to sneak the evil of poker machines back into a venue that would also be servicing a family’s grocery shopping needs.
 
My Greens colleague Cr Irene Doutney, who lives three blocks away, was bitterly disappointed with the Club’s decision to reintroduce the poker machines and lack of consideration for the social impacts of the development.

Her comments are below:

“The Club has not taken into account the social impact of putting a supermarket under a gaming and liquor establishment. This is a very disadvantaged area with thousands of low income residents, many of whom have gambling and alcohol problems and this development could really compromise them when they go shopping.

For years there was only the one little supermarket and corner shops, now there seems to be a supermarket proposal on every corner from the same old players. What the residents of this area want is the proposed Aldi store in Phillip Street, which will offer some cheap alternatives.

The Club has not done a social impact statement or considered what would happen to residents and the local businesses in Chalmers and Redfern Streets or the IGA a few blocks away.

This is a diverse and resilient community that has faced many social problems in the past and is in the throws of regeneration and the Club needs to think in this context. We just don’t need this sort of short-sighted development that is only interested in its own income stream and maximising profits rather than supporting the community and its vision for the future.”
 
 

The City of Sydney Council recently approved the construction of a supermarket in the small village of Erskineville. The applicant originally proposed a large 2000 sq metre plus supermarket but after a local campaign, a refusal by Council staff and finally a failed appeal in the Land & Environment Court, the applicant was back with a slimmed down version. This time he wanted a smaller version measuring under 1000 sq metres and this time it was decided by the 10 councillors who received hundreds of written submissions from local residents plus a 1500+ petition opposing the new proposal.

What is at stake here is the viability of a small village in the City of Sydney. For the supermarket to be viable it will need to take business away from the small businesses that have created a charming diversity in the Erskineville village. In fact, history shows that this new presence will make some of the businesses unviable and cause them to close.

City of Sydney staff, who recommended the proposal for approval, focused on whether or not the supermarket would draw its business from outside the area. However, the question that staff should have posed in their assessment was whether or not the existence of this supermarket would threaten the sustainability of the village.

The new project will only have been supported by investors if there is a business case demonstrating it will get at least 20% of business from existing stores. New car parking spots will be sought by shoppers and new car trips will be generated. Traffic in Erskineville, especially at peak shopping times, is already a nightmare.

Viable village communities are sustainable; people walk and don’t drive, the social networks are stronger, people meet in the street and talk to each other, local businesses reinvest their profits in the local community and support the council rate base. They support local food suppliers and local environmental initiatives. Supermarkets that want you through the checkout and out the door as quickly as possible have been the death of main streets all over Australia.  If the operators are part of a large chain, the local spending is drained from the community and sent elsewhere – often overseas as dividends to foreign corporations.

If Erskineville, which has been growing organically, has high levels of pedestrian growth and was an early adopter of car share cars, cannot be protected from the supermarket then the ‘city of villages’ policy is doomed. The City should remove the “City of Villages” from its stationery and its website – it is nothing more than a slogan –  a sham.

Postscript

When this matter came to council on Monday 21st September both Irene and I opposed the approval of the project. The Clover Moore Party councillors and the Liberal Councillor voted in favour of a supermarket in the Erskineville village. The Labor councillor voted with the Greens.

Postscript

The Minister for Housing recently announced that a ‘Common Ground’ facility will be built in Camperdown. The project will provide further accommodation for people on the waiting list for public housing, affordable housing for low paid workers and a specialist unit designed to provide stable accommodation to chronically homeless people. The project follows on the heels of a successful Common Ground pilot project in Adelaide and a larger project in Melbourne. These schemes were very successful in housing chronically homeless people and keeping them off the street. Hand in hand with the accommodation is live-in staff who attend to the complex health & substance addiction needs that are frequently present with homeless people.

The project envisages approximately 90 apartments of which around one third will be allocated to the homeless. A new building will be constructed, with the help of Federal stimulus money, on some vacant land owned by Housing NSW. The land is located between the Joanna O’Dea building, on the corner of Pyrmont Bridge Road & Lyons Road, Camperdown, and the Alexander Terraces which are next door and bounded by Pyrmont Bridge Road & Lambert Street.

The Greens welcome the Common Ground project in Sydney and hope that this will be the first of many. However, some of the current tenants of the Alexander Terraces, constructed by the City of Sydney in 1927, will need to be relocated to other public housing in nearby suburbs and any relocations will need to be handled with sensitivity and openness. The Minister for Housing has indicated that these tenants would be assisted with removal expenses and a brief rent holiday.

Two of the tenants I met have been living in the Terraces for 52 years so understandably the prospects of having to move are very unsettling for them. These elderly tenants will require significant support if they have to relocate and The Greens are very concerned to see that Housing NSW gives them the support they need. Housing NSW will also need to keep tenants well informed about whether or not they will be relocated.

A second issue that has been raised by nearby residents is the use of the small piece of land between the Joanna O’Dea building and the Terraces. In recent times this land has been used by non - Housing NSW tenants as a small park and an exercise area for their dogs. A petition which seeks to locate the project away from Camperdown has been circulated by some residents and has added to the uncertainty surrounding the project.

Some residents have been using this vacant land as their local park and are upset at the prospect of losing this to the Common Ground project. In response I have asked the City of Sydney to meet with Housing NSW to investigate the prospects of jointly developing some adjacent open space that forms part of the Joanna Odea complex into a park that can be used by tenants of public housing, the common Ground project and other residents from the local community. This will serve the dual purpose of providing alternative open space for a park and integrating the new project into the community. 

With good management, sensitivity and a cooperative approach between Housing NSW & the City of Sydney we can create an innovative project that begins to tackle homelessness in Sydney and provides more affordable accommodation & open space for local residents. The site is considered ideal, being close to transport, a hospital and the city. It will include a mix of affordable and social housing and there is a timeline in place that should see design and construction plans ready later this month with approval by Christmas.

Below is a Question Without Notice I asked at council meeting on August 31, 2009.

QWN Cr Chris Harris
 
Lord Mayor
 
There has been considerable misinformation circulating about the common ground project in Camperdown and I am asking that the City provide accurate information in response to my question so that all interested parties may be properly informed.
 
1. How many public housing tenants will be moved from the  Alexander Terraces to  accommodate  the new works that will take place for the Common Ground project? Where will these people be rehoused and what assistance will they receive to do so?
2. Please confirm that the vacant land between the  Alexander Terraces and the Joanna O’Dea complex is owned by Housing NSW and is not a City of Sydney Park.
3. Given that this vacant land has been used by local residents as a local park could the CEO meet with the Department of Housing to discuss redeveloping the land that is enclosed on three sides by the Joanna O’Dea building plus the roadside verge adjacent to Lyons Rd that is used for parking cars. What I am suggesting is that the COS and Housing NSW jointly create a  larger park space that can be shared by residents, common ground and public housing tenants.
4. Can you indicate whether the land on the corner of Lyons Rd &  Lambert Street is likely to be dedicated to the City of Sydney via a voluntary planning agreement and if so could this also be dedicated to a park .
 
 

The pedestrian bridges that span the Westfield Complex and the two David Jones’ Stores in the heart of the city have been slimmed down following pressure from the Lord Mayor. Clover wanted bridges that were 4 metres wide (3.2 metres internal walking space) but Westfield have argued that 5.04 metres (internally 4 metres) is needed to ensure pedestrian comfort and safety. The Market St bridge is currently 9.3 metres wide and the Castlereagh St crossing clocks in at 12.8 metres.
 
I know it seems odd for the Greens to be speaking up for a developer and a major retailer but I think that the Lord Mayor, blinded by her aesthetic bias, is ignoring the needs of the people who shop in the city and find these pedestrian bridges to be very helpful. Both the bridges that were discussed at Council on Monday 31st August span very busy roads and the pedestrian bridges ensure comfort and safety for those who want to visit Centrepoint and the David Jones stores
 
Both Crs Moore and McInerney were absent during discussion of the pedestrian bridges at the Planning Committee on the previous Monday. At that committee three of the Clover Moore Party councillors voted with the Greens, the Labor councillor and the Liberal to recommend the 5.04 metre bridges that were sought as a compromise with a 7-1 majority vote. But at council the Lord Mayor had obviously pulled her budding “independents” into line and the Clover Moore party councillors overturned the Planning Committee vote and reduced the pedestrian bridges to a maximum of 4.5 metres (internally  approx 3.5 metres).
 
It was disappointing to see the three Clover Moore Party councillors lose their independence and cave in under pressure from the Lord Mayor. Westfield made a good case for the wider bridges and certainly responded to Clover’s request by halving the width of both existing bridges to 5.04 metres.
 
Pedestrian flow figures indicated 1100 people per hour crossing the bridges in peak times – that’s about 10 pedestrians every 30 seconds! The internal width agreed to by the Moore Party Councillors is only the span of a quiet suburban street – a response that was simply inadequate.
 
Clover Moore Party councillors also ignored a submission for a 4 metre internal width from widely respected Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes AM. Clearly those with special needs and mothers with prams & strollers have been disregarded in the pursuit of what is little more than architectural design dogma.
 

On 19th November 2007 a legal case on which I had worked for 12 months was heard in the Land & Environment Court. We were suing the Minister for Planning (Frank Sartor) over the proposed development of the 5.7 hectare Carlton & United Brewery site which had been purchased by a Singaporean based developer – Frasers. The Minister gave consent to Frasers to build in excess of 1600 apartments, towers up to 120 metres tall and parking spaces for 2300 cars. The development promised to double the population of Chippendale. From an environmental perspective the minister failed to use his power to require the developer to do any more than “business as usual” and so the opportunity to create a sustainable world class development appeared to be lost. Yet another scandalous use of Part 3A powers to deliver “mate” significant development.
 
The minister called in the Concept Plan in September 2006 and I could see what was likely to happen, so I enlisted the help of a friend and environmental warrior, Michael Mobbs, and we started to plan the challenge. An Inner Sydney Greens member – Matthew Drake Brockman, who was studying law at UNSW, wanted to be the litigant for the action. We did some research to identify an environmental consultant who had court experience and who could conduct primary research on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would be emitted from the giant development.
 
The consent was issued in February 2007 and we immediately approached the EDO to act as our solicitors. Kirsty Ruddock, who was the EDO’s principal solicitor, was interested in preparing a case that tested the relatively new Part 3A powers. She obtained initial legal advice and lodged a legal aid application on our behalf. Our proposed action passed both the “public interest” & “reasonable prospects of success” test applied by the EDO.
 
Meanwhile we went hunting for an environmental consultant, legal counsel and money to cover the cost of the GHG study, court fees and at least something for the legal counsel & the EDO should our legal aid application be unsuccessful. We raised money from the community and the City of Sydney Council also contributed with environmental grant funding. In the end our legal aid application was successful and so crucially we were indemnified against the legal costs of both the Minister and the developer.
 
The main argument in our case sought to build on the principles laid down by the court in the successful “Gray” case (Anvil Hill coal mine). In that case the court found that the minister failed to consider the climate change effects of the coal (both its extraction and end use) that was to be mined and it overturned the minister’s approval for the mine to proceed. We submitted that proper consideration of climate change effects was mandatory and that the minister failed to consider the climate change effects of a huge urban  development that relied on dirty coal fired power for its energy needs, pumped its sewage into the ocean, drew its water from the dam and provided for an unsustainable and unjustifiable number of polluting cars to be housed on the site (it is across the road from UTS and is arguably the best located site for public transport in Australia).
 
We were asking the court to apply the Gray (Anvil Hill) principle to urban development. Success in a case like this had the potential to change the way cities are built.
 
What happened ? We lost. The court ruled that climate change considerations were just one of the matters that the minister needed to consider and that he had the discretion to decide on what weighting that would have.
 
But the pressure that we had applied to the developer and the media attention that the case generated delivered a serendipity. At the conclusion of the hearing the Chief Operating Officer of Frasers approached me and asked if we could convene a meeting of representatives of the local community, ourselves and the Frasers CEO.
 
About two weeks later we met in a coffee shop in Chippendale. The CEO told us that he was unwilling to negotiate with us on the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), which determines the number of apartments they could build, but he was willing to listen to our ideas on sustainability measures that could be introduced and that he would introduce as many measures that he could to reduce GHG emissions
 
The developer followed up by engaging consultants from the Institute of Sustainable Futures at UTS to work up an ESD plan and have publicly committed both to the City of Sydney and in the media that they would aim to develop a 6 green star precinct - a new precinct rating scheme under consideration by the Green Building Council. It would be a first in Australia if delivered.
 
The new precinct is to be powered by gas-powered tri-generation. Complementary initiatives include: design efficiency, green rooftops, smart metering and solar powered public spaces - 100% carbon neutrality is being targeted.
 
Non-potable water will be supplied through on-site rainwater capture, waste water recycling and sewer mining. Mains water will only be supplied for potable uses.
 
Car spaces will not be attached to the title of apartments but will be made available and rented as required. This innovative approach is to encourage people to dispense with their car (and the cost of a space). Frasers have also agreed to supply car share membership with apartment purchases and dedicated spaces to ensure convenient parking spaces for car share vehicles.
 

Postscript
I wrote the above article for Greenmail, the Greens NSW quarterly membership  publication, which was published in March 2009. Since the original story was published the new Minister for Planning, Kristina Kenneally, has approved a revision to the original concept plan. This added around 20,000 metres of extra floor space to what I already consider to be an over development of the site. Incidentally this is estimated to be worth in excess of $160M to the developer.

But the upside to this latest chapter in a long saga is that the Minister has incorporated a condition into the consent that requires the developer to provide tri-generation of power (initially gas fired) to the site and full recycling of black water and grey water together with rainwater harvesting that can be supplemented by sewer mining.
Now it definitely looks like we didn’t lose
 
 
You can read the EDO summary of the case at:
 
http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/casesum/seminar_cub_case_summary.pdf
 
For the serious legal buffs – here is the case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2007/777.html?query=title(drake%20brockman%20%20and%20%20minister)