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)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The City of Sydney approved the extension of a footpath license issued to a large bar (The Sugarmill), in December, 2008. The bar is located on the south eastern end of Springfield Plaza, Kings Cross, and the license covered a large portion of this public square (76 sq metres).  I was alerted to the existence of the custom built tables and seats by furious residents who claimed they had not been notified or consulted over the original approval of the outdoor beer garden.

The Sugarmill sought an extension of that footpath license after the initial 6 months trial and the matter was discussed at council on 6th July 2009. The vote at the Council meeting was 7 to 2 for the extension with myself and Councillor Burgmann opposing it.  Since then, a story in the Sydney Morning Herald has described the area as “an alfresco drinking zone”.

What’s in it for council?  $28500 per annum and less complaints about drug dealing in Springfield Plaza. What’s in it for the residents of Carisbrook and Carinyah (Art deco apartment blocks built in the 1920’s) in Springfield Ave? The noise and disruption of a large hotel that trades until 5.00am and an outdoor beer garden that is literally metres away that will also be trading seven days a week up until 9pm.

The spokesman for the Kings Cross Partnership, Mr Adrian Bartels, thinks the beer garden is a great idea and that residents should either move to Pymble or buy some ear plugs. However, I have a different view - that the residents were there a long time before the pub and they have a right to the reasonable enjoyment of their homes. It is up to the pub to do what ever is necessary to deal with the negative effects of its operation and to bear the cost of those measures. To date it is clear to me that they have not done that and that’s why I opposed the extension to the license.

In 2005 when solutions to stop drug activity in the area were sought,  Clover said alfresco dining was an option, but what eventuated was a three-storey pub catering to 1250 people and an outdoor beer garden.

There are other ways Council could have activated this space, but the background to this saga suggests that residents and council may have been misled.
 
In 2008, once the community became aware of the approval, a question was put to the Lord Mayor at the December  Council meeting by Cr Shayne Mallard. In response the Lord Mayor said : “….. I would like some remedial action to address it and clearly the structures around are not part of our policy………….” This response seems to indicate that the Lord Mayor was not supportive of or aware of the footway license approval.
 
However in an email dated 2nd July 2009, the Sugarmill owner wrote to councillors and claimed that the City of Sydney had approached him to apply for a footpath license and that the City had specified the kind of furniture that was required.
 
If this allegation is true then the Lord Mayor has misled the council during question time and she has misled residents who have been adversely affected by the after hours operation of the beer garden every night of the week. When I asked her about this at the 6th July Council meeting Clover denised any knowledge of the application for permission to install a beer garden in Springfield Plaza. For a person who claims to be a champion of residents rights against the beer barns that is a very disappointing response. Residents are entitled to feel they have been sold out by the Lord Mayor who has exchanged their residential amenity for a pittance.
 
The report on the proposed extension of the footpath license that was presented to the Corporate Finance, Properties & Tenders Committee on June 29th indicated that no submissions/objections were received from local residents to the original application for a footpath license.
 
It is inconceivable that residents would ignore this application given the controversy that had been created by the replacement of a Westpac Bank and a Hungry Jacks with two bars licensed for thousands people in a plaza that fronted blocks of heritage residential apartments that were built in the 1920’s. Any proposal to create a beer garden would have received determined opposition from residents in Springfield Ave as is the case now – 22 submissions have been received asking council to reject the extension. It is obvious that the original application was not properly or adequately notified to those who would have been most affected.

Now that the Lord Mayor has allowed the beer garden to continue it is likely that residents will be confronted by a second beer garden application in the next few months.

The trial footpath license for The Elk, a bar on the other side of Springfield Plaza, will be up for renewal shortly. If Clover persists with her current attitude the residents of Springfield Ave will be treated to a 7 day per week party in the Plaza right on their doorsteps.

This seems very unreasonable to me.

Photos: Top: Patrons spill out onto the public square at 12.30am. According to residents this is what usually happens.
             Bottom: Outdoor dining occupies a large portion of the public space

Below is a pdf of the Sydney Morning Herald article

smh-sugarmill-story.pdf

While the Greens welcome the expenditure of over $5B in rail infrastructure for Sydney, they have serious concerns about the CBD Metro proposal and its priorities and are supporting Pyrmont residents in their efforts to save Union Square.

Proposed sites for access to stations and installation of security vents at Union Square, Pyrmont, have prompted community outrage over destruction of heritage buildings, trashing of the village square and disruption to local businesses.

The Greens have thrown their support behind the community’s campaign and are confident that alternative solutions for station access and security vents are viable. The alternative solutions have been carefully thought through and the community should be shown the respect of having these considered through further investigation.

The proposed Pyrmont railway station would require five heritage buildings to be resumed for station access and 72 sq metre security vents. This is totally unsatisfactory when there are alternative solutions which could be considered.

We want a more acceptable solution through further investigation into the use of either the Casino site fronting Union Street or via compulsory acquisition of privately-owned vacant land fronting Harris Street and just north of the intersection of Harris and Union streets. There is no reason why the Metro Authority could not negotiate the location of the station entrance underneath the new Casino building or indeed, as a low-impact and transparent structure in Union Square itself.

In addition, a suitable section of Union Street between Paternoster Row and Pyrmont Bridge Road could be closed temporarily as a storage site for equipment, excavation material and new building materials.  This arrangement will accommodate cycle and pedestrian traffic through the Square and minimise disruption to local business.

The Greens will be attending the community rally on 4th July and will stand with the community to oppose these destructive, expedient and short sighted proposals put forward by the Metro Authority.
 

The Harold Park Paceway has asked the Minister for Planing to use her Part 3A powers to determine a concept plan for the re-zoning and redevelopment of both the trotting facility and the adjacent historic Tramsheds.

The Greens are very concerned about this approach by the Trotting Club to have the concept plan determined inside the minister’s office. Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is meant to give the minister power to fast track critical infrastructure, not to enable an owner to increase the value of a property by being granted a rezoning.  The Greens are calling on the minister to refuse the Part 3A application and to refer the concept plan to the City of Sydney Council to carry out the necessary consultation and assessment.

Consultation Part 3A is a flawed process. Objectors are held at arms length from the decision makers but developers, particularly those who hand over large donations to the major parties, are able to get straight through to the minister. The process creates a very uneven playing field and has led to gross overdevelopment on sites such as the CUB site in Chippendale. The City of Sydney process is a much more open and public process and will allow objectors to have their voices heard.

The other key issue is the future of the historic Tramsheds that are adjacent to the Paceway. The process under which the title for the Tramsheds was transferred to the Trotting Club indicates that this valuable public land was handed over for a peppercorn consideration. In addition, the poor state of the Tramsheds, demonstrates that the Trotting Club has neglected this strategically located facility.

The Tramsheds site is a former depot for Sydney’s trams and now it seems to have found its way from public ownership into the hands of a horse racing business. There needs to be an examination of how this came about and exactly how much the trotting industry paid for it.

Whether or not the Tramsheds site remains the property of the trotting industry or is returned to public ownership, it should be used for a public purpose. Perhaps one good use is for it to be used as a depot for future light rail carriages or even buses. Other possible public uses can be developed by a thorough process of community consultation.

The Tramsheds site is a strategically located and important piece of public land that should be used for the benefit of the community, not to line the pockets of a developer or the trotting industry.

Below is a link to the Central Courier story and a second to the Sydney Morning Herald story.  After opening the link to the Courier story use the arrow to go to page 4 for full story.

http://digitaledition.centralmag.com.au/?iid=24977

smh-story.pdf