[North Eveleigh] Waterloo South Finalised / LES Issues / REDWatch End of Year Function & AGM

[REDWatch Spokesperson]

Dear REDWatch members, supporters and agencies,



Waterloo South Planning Controls finalised

The Main Links about the decision

Links to the Key Documents

REDWatch Comments on Exhibition

The Large Erecting Shop Exhibition until 24 November 2022

Heritage Principles to consider for the LES rezoning

REDWatch’s initial concerns over the LES Proposal

No Pedestrian Linkage nor even a place for one

Extend the South Eveleigh Access and Protections to the LES

Identify the Moveable Heritage Items associated with the LES

Keep an active line into or alongside the LES for heritage visits

Preserve Heritage Vistas with the LES

Reduce the Development Floor Space

Council Areas of Concern

REDWatch Public Forum and End of year lunch and AGM – Dec 3rd 1pm The Settlement

Please note – this email contains hyperlinks. This means that if you see a blue underlined word or phrase that you can click on it and go directly to a document or to get more information.

Waterloo South Planning Controls finalised

The new planning controls for Waterloo South have been formally approved and placed on the NSW Legislation website to come into effect on 28 February 2023.

There appear to be no changes made by the Gateway section of the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to what the DPE Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) made public when it submitted its recommendations.

Yet to be finalised is a planning agreement between Council and Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) over how infrastructure will be delivered and paid for. This infrastructure includes arrangements about the park and community centre approved in the plan.

When the planning agreement is finalised, it will be exhibited for 28 days for community input – the period will be extended if it overlaps Christmas / New Year holidays. DPE expects this process to be complete before the end of February and before the caretaker period before the NSW election comes into effect on 3 March 2023.

DPE says “finalising the plan provides certainty to the community, LAHC and the City of Sydney on the planning controls, while the deferred commencement ensures any renewal is supported by infrastructure”.

LAHC is currently in the early stages of selecting a consortium including both a developer to build and a Community Housing Provider (CHP) to run the social housing. LAHC expects to appoint a “development partner” by the end of 2023 and it will take some time for the developer to formulate with LAHC and the CHP its development plans for the site. Under the controls a Concept Development Application (DA) is expected to be the first DA for the site, and it is expected to show where social, affordable and private housing will be located. The Sydney Morning Herald has described the Waterloo Estate as a $3 billion redevelopment.

The planning controls lock in at least the floor space that LAHC has permission to build and the process it’s expected to follow. The community will also have a formal say in all the development applications for the site and the building designs. Vigilance will be required by the community as the planning rules just set can be changed with approval on any DA or modification.

LAHC has been collecting questions from tenants about their relocation concerns and expect to issue a relocation plan responding to these questions in early 2023. LAHC has said no one will be relocated before 2024, but that in mid-2023 those who will be first to move, may be issued their 6 months notices.

LAHC is also currently talking to the community about what is necessary for it to deliver the ‘people outcomes’ the community seeks from the redevelopment.
In summary the main changes from the exhibited proposal are:

  *   Pitt Street is extended, but not opened up to McEvoy Street for motor vehicles.
  *   Towers along McEvoy Street have move north a little and building footprints have been increased by up to 25%. As a result, overshadowing has increased in the small park. There is no increase in Floor Space Ratio (FSR).
  *   The Design Guide to now provides “detailed flexible provisions” making the design guide less binding on the redevelopment.
  *   The percentages of social and affordable housing are retained and is made clear they apply to any increase in FSR resulting from design excellence.
  *   FSR changes made are primarily for some private sites.

The Main Links about the decision

The DPE Waterloo South<https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/waterloo-south> Priority Growth Areas and Precincts page has been updated.

The final plan documents can be found at DPE’s Finalised Waterloo Estate (South) Planning Proposal<https://pp.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/finalisation/waterloo-estate-south> (REDWatch has provided direct links to the individual documents below).

This is the link to the Legislation website where the Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012 is amended by the Waterloo South Sydney LEP Amendment (no83)<https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/epi-2022-679>

The Minister’s media release for the approved zoning is Green light for Waterloo South rezoning<https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/articles/2022/green-light-for-waterloo-south-rezoning>.

The Sydney Morning Herald got the media drop for this story which you may see behind the paywall as First stage of Waterloo public housing estate rezoned for $3b revamp<https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/first-stage-of-waterloo-public-housing-estate-rezoned-for-3b-revamp-20221109-p5bwsa.html>. It is an excellent article it is just a pity that many people who would benefit from its summary will not be able to see it!

Information to the background to the proposal and more news as it happens can be found at http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo

The LAHC website for the redevelopment is the Waterloo Project Page<https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/land-and-housing-corporation/greater-sydney/waterloo>

Links to the Key Documents

These documents can be found on the Finalised Waterloo Estate (South) Planning Proposal<https://pp.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/finalisation/waterloo-estate-south> page

The key document explaining the rezoning decision is the Plan Finalisation Report<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Plan+Finalisation+Report.pdf>

The Key documents covering future planning are:

  *   Attachment B - Final Design Guide – Waterloo Estate (South)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Final+Design+Guide+-+Waterloo+Estate+(South).pdf>
  *   Attachment Maps – Final Maps<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+Maps+-+Final+Maps.pdf>

Final Proposal Documents

  *   Attachment A – Final planning proposal – Waterloo Estate (South)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+A+-+Final+planning+proposal+-+Waterloo+Estate+(South).PDF>
  *   Attachment I – Overshadowing analysis (Hassell) – Waterloo Estate (South)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+I+-++Overshadowing+analysis+(Hassell)+-+Waterloo+Estate+(South).PDF>
  *   Attachment J – Revised addendum to urban design (Hassell) – Waterloo Estate (South)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+J+-+Revised+addendum+to+urban+design+(Hassell)+-+Waterloo+Estate+(South).PDF>

DPI Planning Gateway Determinations

  *   Attachment H – Gateway Determination Report<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+H+-+Gateway+Determination+Report.PDF>
  *   Attachment C – Gateway determination – Waterloo Estate (South)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+C+-+Gateway+Determination+-+Waterloo+Estate+(South).PDF>
  *   Attachment C1 – Alteration of Gateway determination (28 January 2022)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+C1-+Alteration+of+Gateway+determination+(28+January+2022).PDF>
  *   Attachment C2 – Alteration of Gateway determination (7 July 2022)<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+C2+-+Alteration+of+Gateway+determination+(7+July+2022).PDF>

Responses to public exhibition submissions

  *   Attachment D – Submissions report (Keylan) – Waterloo<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+D+-+Submissions+report+(Keylan)+-+Waterloo.PDF>
  *   Attachment E – PPA response to LAHC submission – Waterloo south<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+E+-+PPA+response+to+LAHC+submission-+Waterloo+south.PDF>
  *   Attachment F – PPA response to Council submission – Waterloo south<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+F+-+PPA+Response+to+Council+submission+-+Waterloo+south.PDF>
  *   Attachment G – Schedule of post-exhibition amendments<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Attachment+G+-+Schedule+of+post-exhibition+amendments.PDF>

REDWatch Comments on Exhibition

REDWatch was highly critical that the Response to Submissions (RtS) did not address the specifics of the community concerns. The DPE PPA outsourced the RtS to an external company Keylan. The report produced broad summaries of issues raised in submissions rather than specific concerns. REDWatch was also critical that the RtS did not include responses to any Government submissions.

The Plan Finalisation Report<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Plan+Finalisation+Report.pdf> and associated finalisation appendices now detail the Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) and the Gateway responses to the issues raised in the Government submissions especially from LAHC and Council. It is worthwhile reading what LAHC and Council requested and how they were responded to.

Those concerns were also expressed by tenants as can be seen in the Tenant-Only Subgroup of the WRG letter to the Minister about the Waterloo (South) Exhibition<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/South/220921wrgt/view>. The DPE Response to Waterloo Redevelopment Tenant-Only Subgroup letter<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/South/221017dpe/view> on behalf of the Minister did not address tenant concerns.

If you compare the responses to Government submissions with the response to the community submissions you will understand why tenants did not feel they got what DPE promised them – which was that DPE would tell them what it heard and explain why things were, or were not, included in the final planning proposal.

The contrast between how Government and Non-Government submissions get treated in the planning process can be clearly seen with the release of these documents. While the submissions saw some changes around the McEvoy opening, many other issues raised in submissions did not even get mentioned in the Keylan report. Key concerns such as the need for a Social Impact Assessment was not even mentioned, let alone responded to.

Does DPE and its Minister really expect that after this experience tenants and the broader community will bother with its next tick the box exhibition? This exhibition makes a mockery of the planning changes that purported to want to get the community involved in strategic planning rather than have it just complaining about what happened after the event. Waterloo tenants tried to be involved and the planning system failed to deliver.

The Large Erecting Shop Exhibition until 24 November 2022

As earlier advised the State Heritage listed Large Erecting Shop (LES) within the historic Eveleigh Railway Workshops is on exhibition to be rezoned. You can find some details on the REDWatch website at Large Erecting Shop rezoning proposal Exhibition until 24 Nov 2022<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/southeveleigh/large/lesdev/221104dpe>.

Following questions from REDWatch, DPE has reissued an updated Explanation of intended effect amended 10 November 2022<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/NSW+Planning+Portal+Exhibitions/LES+-+Explanation+of+Intended+Effect+amended+10+Nov+22.pdf>. The Additional Uses map and associated explanation has been removed after late changes to the loading bay in the proposal were not reflected in the earlier Explanation of Intended Effect.

Heritage Principles to consider for the LES rezoning

Heritage considerations are central to the rezoning and redevelopment of a State Heritage Registered item like the Large Erecting Shop. In the North Eveleigh Paint Shop exhibition, we saw for the first time the Overarching Conservation Management Plan (OCMP) for the entire Eveleigh Railway Workshop (ERW) heritage precinct. The OCMP was updated for the Paint Shop exhibition, and this is the link to it - Updated Eveleigh Railway Workshops Overarching Conservation Management Plan<https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/Keelie+Drupal+Documents/Updated+Eveleigh+Railway+Workshops+Overarching+Conservation+Management+Plan.pdf>.

The OCMP considered the heritage values of the overall Eveleigh site and created seven overarching heritage management principles with 32 accompanying policies to ensure that the state heritage values of the overall precinct are maintained as part of any future development.

The OCP Eveleigh Railway Workshop (ERW) Heritage Management Principles are reproduced below to guide heritage discussion about the LES which is covered by the OCMP:

  *   HMP 1. All future decisions should be based on an understanding of the heritage values of the place and with a view to retain the identified significant values.
  *   HMP 2. A coordinated approach to management of the individual precincts and areas within the ERW site should be undertaken by future owners to ensure that future decisions are based on consideration for the heritage significance of the whole ERW and its overall presentation.
  *   HMP 3. The ERW site is assessed as being of state significance and therefore any future owners and managers of the site and its individual precincts should manage the place in accordance with best-practice heritage guidelines.
  *   HMP 4. Proposals for change should not unduly affect the significant heritage values of the ERW site and its individual precincts and should facilitate understanding of the place and its heritage values.
  *   HMP 5. The history and significant values of the ERW site and its individual precincts should be interpreted, including within any future redevelopment and reuse of the site where existing elements are to be removed or modified. The place should be interpreted as a major railway workshop facility.
  *   HMP 6. Skilled conservation professionals should be engaged to advise on, document and/or implement conservation and upgrading work and future development proposals for heritage assets of the ERW site and its individual precincts.
  *   HMP 7. Planning for new development, adaptive reuse of heritage assets and heritage interpretation should include opportunities for community consultation.

These overarching principles should guide the redevelopment of the LES and hence provide a measuring stick for those making submissions to assess the current proposal.

REDWatch’s initial concerns over the LES Proposal
No Pedestrian Linkage nor even a place for one
TAHE / TfNSW must include a provision for the bridge to land in South Eveleigh between the LES and the Locomotive Workshop.

On the North Eveleigh side TAHE / TfNSW acknowledged that there was interest in a bridge connecting North and South Eveleigh and said it would be possible to land on the North Eveleigh site even if the bridge was out of scope and not being funded by Government – see Eveleigh Link Bridge - North Eveleigh Bates Smart Page 324<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/TfNSW/220727bs/view>.

On the South Eveleigh side where the Bridge would need to land near the LES there is no mention in any document of a pedestrian and cycle-bridge nor what provision is being made by TAHE / TfNSW / Mirvac for it to land on the site.
Transport Assets Holding Entity (TAHE) / TfNSW must deliver on the promised (and historical) connection

As REDWatch has pointed out during the North Eveleigh exhibition, the NSW Government has been collecting funds towards such a bridge as part of the Redfern-Waterloo Contributions Plan. In addition, when the Australian Technology Park (ATP) site was sold, the NSW Government pocketed the money that the ATP had separately committed towards building the bridge.

Now TAHE is benefiting from redeveloping both sides of the railway line (North Eveleigh and the LES) it should build the bridge that connects both sides of the line.

In the recent Clothing Store Precinct workshops TAHE indicated it was looking at the feasibility of at least holding on to parts of North Eveleigh rather than selling it all off to a developer. If TAHE is to be a long-term investor in North Eveleigh, then it would stand to reap a significant benefit from the site being connected to South Eveleigh and the pedestrian flows that would create.

Come on TAHE Build the Bridge<https://actionnetwork.org/letters/build-a-bridge?>!

Extend the South Eveleigh Access and Protections to the LES

If the LES is to be passed to Mirvac to run, then the new site must be subject to the other protections put in place when the ATP was sold to Mirvac. These protections included Positive Covenants and Easements to protect public access to this privately owned land and its facilities. It also made Mirvac treat heritage equipment in the same way it would be treated if still owned by Government and on a section 170 register. It also included a covenant to land a cross-railway connection bridge on Mirvac’s land and the right to access the heritage items held at South Eveleigh.

If the LES is to be sold or leased to Mirvac to run as part of South Eveleigh, then the South Eveleigh protection provisions need to be extended to the land made available to Mirvac at the LES. The transfer of roadways to Council should also be aligned.

Identify the Moveable Heritage Items associated with the LES

REDWatch notes that the Non-Aboriginal Heritage Study p16 states: “The scope of the Rezoning Proposal does not include specific details about the proposed treatment, management, and incorporation of the significant moveable heritage collection associated with the LES”.

REDWatch argues that identifying the moveable heritage that needs to be incorporated into the LES heritage interpretation is central to the decision about how much commercial floor-space should be allowed. If, like Carriageworks, there is little then this leads to a different outcome to the situation in the locomotive workshop where heritage equipment is in storage as there is no room to display it.

There has been a history at the former ATP of losing heritage items as shown by each update of the register. Clearly Mirvac and TAHE want to fit the maximum floor space into the LES shell. That decision should only be made when it is known what moveable heritage needs to be displayed.

Prior to floor space being allocated TAHE, TfNSW, Transport Heritage NSW and Mirvac need to determine what s170 items belong to the LES and will be available for heritage interpretation. The list in the Heritage Study indicates what is currently in the LES, some of which will move to Chullora when there is space for it. Other parts of TfNSW may also hold equipment of heritage significance to the LES.

Space in and around the LES must allow public access to the machinery collection within the LES at least for heritage events and preferably items should be totally visible from the publically accessible areas of the LES. Heritage items should not be privatised into tenant only areas.

Special consideration should be given by Transport Heritage NSW and TfNSW to locate of at least one locomotive that was constructed at the LES for heritage interpretation purposes on the site.

Keep an active line into or alongside the LES for heritage visits

The LES and the line to its south are among the last active connections to the rail network. To facilitate visits for heritage rail equipment to South Eveleigh an active line to the rail network should be retained. This could be on the line to the South of the LES or a line within it. If an active line is lost it will never return and we will have a heritage rail precinct that are inaccessible for functioning railway heritage assets.

Preserve Heritage Vistas with the LES

REDWatch welcomes the planned proposal for the eastern end of the LES to be open to retain the sense of scale across the building.

REDWatch is concerned however that the east west scale of the building has not been similarly preserved. The narrow separation between the development within the LES shell and the LES is insufficient to give a true sense of the length nor the purpose of the building.

REDWatch thinks it would be more appropriate for one track within the LES to be exposed for the full length of the building. This would enable space for s170 items and for the interpretation of how the building was used.

If handled well, the LES could be a heritage complement to Bays 1 and 2 in the Locomotive Workshop and an opportunity for heritage interpretation and heritage tourism.

REDWatch is also concerned that the loading bay on the southwestern end of the LES will interrupt the east-west vista if it is on the southern side of the building, so a northern vista may be preferable to a special treatment of the loading bay to provide some transparency and sight line to the western door.

Reduce the Development Floor Space

REDWatch agrees with Council that introduction of two internal floors across most of the width of the building will take away from the scale and characteristics of the large space linked to its historic use. Introducing larger voids will require a decrease in floor space, but potentially a better balance between commercial and heritage uses in this state heritage listed building.

REDWatch hence is of the view that, subject to testing, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.8 – 2.0:1 would be more appropriate that the 2.5:1 proposed for the three-level development proposed within this heritage building.

Council Areas of Concern

For easy reference when people are thinking about their submissions, we have included the summary points of concern to Council:

  *   The City argues that the future DA should not be declared state significant as proposed, and that the City should be the consent authority.
  *   A bridge connecting North and South Eveleigh should be considered.
  *   Part of the building should be considered for heritage tourism.
  *   The City supports the retention of the external heritage fabric but is concerned the introduction of two internal floors will take away from the scale and characteristics of the large space linked to its historic use and the low ceilings will result in poor amenity.
     *   The City recommends larger voids and reducing the floor space.
  *   The Redfern Waterloo Authority Contributions Plan is outdated and does not account for this additional development. The City recommends that the RWA Contributions Plan be rescinded, and the City’s development contributions plan should apply.
  *   The City is concerned there is no commitment to affordable workspaces.
  *   The City suggests this site could contribute to the late-night economy, given its location next to the railway.
  *   The City is concerned about the design of the public domain, particularly Locomotive Street, and suggests the City’s public domain, streets and tree planting policies are applied.
  *   The City recommends a reduction in car parking given the site’s location.
  *   The City recommends the application be subject to a design competition.
  *   The project must be informed by the Connecting with Country Framework, in accordance with the Government Architect NSW policy.
  *   The City asks for higher sustainability targets in its development, operation and waste management.

REDWatch Public Forum and End of year lunch and AGM – Dec 3rd 1pm The Settlement

This year’s REDWatch Annual General Meeting (AGM) is combined with an end of year get together, forum and lunch on Saturday December 3rd 2022 at 1 pm at the Settlement Neighbourhood Centre 17 Edward Street Darlington. So, mark it in your diary and come along – it is open to everyone. The REDWatch (AGM) will be held at 3pm on the day and will also be accessible on zoom<https://tinyurl.com/RedwatchZoomMeeting>. There will be no REDWatch meeting on Thursday 1st December.

Further details are to follow about the forum (so keep an eye out on our Facebook page) but broadly speaking, we are bringing communities together to discuss the issues that impact all of us, and how we can be best placed to address them. We will be joined by special guests to discuss climate adaptation in cities, housing affordability, and how we can ensure communities can thrive in dense neighbourhoods. We will be placing an emphasis on ACTION. We all care about these issues, but how can we mobilise and effect meaningful change for the better of our communities and neighbourhoods?

It costs $2 to become a member of REDWatch and to renew your yearly membership. The membership fees enable us to maintain our website and pay for other essential costs so REDWatch volunteers don't need to cover the costs themselves. These should be paid before the AGM by EFT<http://www.redwatch.org.au/redwatch/support> or on the day to Jose Perez, REDWatch treasurer and Public Officer. Donations are always very welcome and help support the REDWatch website (which is in need of urgent updating).

You can download a membership application form from the REDWatch website<http://www.redwatch.org.au/redwatch/incorporation> and email it to mail at redwatch.org.au<mailto:mail at redwatch.org.au> or filled out on the day. If you don’t have an existing member to endorse your application a committee member will be happy to complete your application form.

If you would like to be more involved in REDWatch then drop us a line at mail at redwatch.org.au<mailto:mail at redwatch.org.au> and someone will contact you and have a chat. REDWatch is looking for some more people to be involved on our Coordination group to plan meetings and activities as well as other tasks.

Regards,

Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Co-Spokesperson
Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490  Mob: 0418 457 392
email: spokesperson at redwatch.org.au<mailto:spokesperson at redwatch.org.au>
web: www.redwatch.org.au<http://www.redwatch.org.au/>
FB: www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/<http://www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/northeveleigh/attachments/20221114/1ab4fbd5/attachment-0001.html>