[REDWatch Heritage] ATP Sale and Central to Eveleigh Consultation

[Geoff Turnbull]

Dear North Eveleigh and Heritage stakeholders,

This is a quick note to bring you up to date on some issues relating to
Central to Eveleigh. Sorry it is rushed but we have heard from some people
that they know nothing about the ATP EOI sale sessions.

EOI for sale of ATP

In early December we notified you about the launch of an EOI process to sell
the ATP. This was announced just days before UrbanGrowth C2E were to hold
their first broader consultation meeting about planning for this site and
other government owned land in the Central to Eveleigh corridor.

The proposed ATP sale has received some publicity in the SMH with Australian
Technology Park sale: call for expressions of interest
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/atp/sale/141208smh>  and
more recently Eveleigh Locomotive Workshop collection at Australian
Technology Park to be sold.
<http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/eveleigh-locomotive-workshop-collection-at-austra
lian-technology-park-to-be-sold-20150108-12ihyh.html> REDWatch was also
successful in requesting City of Sydney Council to undertake an assessment
of the sale and its implications, and this is to be made public before the
end of January when the EOI process closes. We will place the Lord Mayoral
minute on the REDWatch website.

We have been unable to get a satisfactory explanation from UG of the reason
for the proposed sale or an explanation about how UG proposes to handle the
sale of this important site so its heritage will be protected and
interpreted if it is sold - lots of "trust us" but no real details that will
protect a privatised ATP. 

ATP is holding two drop in sessions to answer questions about the proposed
sale and we encourage anyone with a concern to drop in and ask your
questions of the experts they promise to have on hand. It will be display
board and question asking exercise so it is important that people come along
and ask your questions especially about why this is happening before the C2E
planning exercise, how access to and improved interpretation of heritage can
be preserved and why the process is being done over the Christmas New year
break when people are away!

Further details are available at this section of the ATP website:
http://www.atp.com.au/News---Resources/Latest-news/EOI-information-sessions
and as follows:

.         Session 1: Thursday 22 January, 10.30am-12.30pm

.         Session 2: Wednesday 28 January, 6-8pm

Venue: Meeting Room 5C, Locomotive Workshop, accessible through the entrance
at Bay 4

The NSW Greens announced on Wednesday that they will be making an
application on behalf of the people of NSW in the EOI process that the ATP
stay in government hands. As part of the Newtown campaign The Greens have
launched a survey to collect input on the importance of the ATP -
www.jennyleong.org/atp_survey . Hopefully saving the ATP will be a
bipartisan issue between the ALP and the Greens in Newtown given the
government proposal to sell this iconic site.

UrbanGrowth Community Engagement

The UrbanGrowth Central to Eveleigh consultation in early December raised
some major concerns for REDWatch, as well as for many others, about the
community engagement experience. One community member who does training in
engagement and group processes said it was one of the worst community
engagement exercises they had seen in a long time. We were told on the night
it was a clean sheet of paper exercise, but the detail had been workshopped
by non-community stakeholders a few days earlier and presented to the
community who were asked to comment in a process that gave insufficient time
for people to go into the details. About a third of those present were paid
$100 each to attend  to represent the broader community (many of them often
looked lost in some of the planning discussion because the process did not
give them the background they needed), while a large number of interested
locals were turned away because that section of the community were
over-represented. Resident groups with broader involvement were engaged into
a process that meant they could not raise their concerns nor seek
information about the processes because they were again asked to "react" to
preformed proposals presented to them on the night. Community groups and
interested members of the community were not offered payment for their
attendance.

Following the session REDWatch wrote to the UrbanGrowth's Community
Engagement Manager who had met with some of the local agencies to discuss
how community engagement should be undertaken. The response to our letter
from the C2E Project Manager did not give REDWatch any confidence that
UrbanGrowth wants to listen to community input and to take groups like
REDWatch, who are concerned about good process, with them. You can see our
letter to UG and their reply on the REDWatch website at -  REDWatch Comments
on C2E Forum and UrbanGrowth Response
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/corridor/141216ug> .

Having tried hard to encourage a best practice community engagement approach
by UrbanGrowth over the last 18 months, REDWatch has no confidence after the
December session that UG has the interest or will to implement the best
practice community engagement necessary to take the community with them.
REDWatch was set up to encourage broad community consultation and while we
remain prepared to work with UG if possible, we will not support processes
which are manipulative and do not provide proper opportunities for community
views to be listened to.

What was on the 'Blank' bit of Paper?

UrbanGrowth has posted the presentations that they made to the 9th December
forum. You can see the direction they are taking in C2E from the
presentations they asked for feedback on below:

.         Presentation One: Project Background and Community Engagement
<http://www.urbangrowth.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/ourprojects/C2EVisionWorks
hopSlides.pdf> 

.         Presentation Two: Draft Themes
<http://www.urbangrowth.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/ourprojects/C2E_CommunityV
isioningWorkshopPresentation1.pdf> 

.         Presentation Three : Draft Vision Statements
<http://www.urbangrowth.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/ourprojects/C2E_CommunityV
isioningWorkshopPresentation2.pdf>  

.         Participant Agenda
<http://www.urbangrowth.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/ourprojects/Participantage
nda.pdf> 

A guide to achieving good outcomes in precincts

Roderick Simpson, Peter Phibbs, Julie Walton & Mike Harris from University
of Sydney have produced a good article on planning for precincts like C2E.
It makes specific reference to the Bays Precinct because they have distilled
the messages they heard from the international speakers at UrbanGrowth's
Bays Precinct International Summit and mapped out the key points for such a
process. It provides a check list for achieving good outcomes and you can
read their excellent article at
www.thefifthestate.com.au/articles/a-guide-to-precincts-the-bays-in-particul
ar-to-achieve-good-outcomes/70572. 

We note item 2 in their Overarching Principles deals with Public Engagement
and Participation and we do not think UrbanGrowth Central to Eveleigh have
heard this message. Maybe someone would like to flesh this principle out a
bit further as clearly REDWatch has not been successful in doing this in our
December letter to UrbanGrowth Central to Eveleigh.

Please let both REDWatch and UrbanGrowth NSW know of any concerns or
feedback you have about the EOI for the sale of ATP or the issues raised
about C2E.

 

Regards,

 

Geoff

Geoffrey Turnbull

Spokesperson

REDWatch

Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490  Mob: 0418 457 392

email: mail at redwatch.org.au 

web: www.redwatch.org.au 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/heritage/attachments/20150121/41b4c1c4/attachment.html>