[North Eveleigh] Housing for All Meeting / Waterloo Concept Plan Issues & Demolitions / Participation Plan / Podcast

[Geoff Turnbull (REDWatch Spokesperson)]

Dear REDWatch members, supporters and agencies,


REDWatch Meeting 4th June - Councils Housing for All consultation

Waterloo South Concept Plan Exhibition ends 2nd June

What are the Waterloo South issues people should comment on?

Waterloo South Demolitions

What is the Housing for All discussion paper about?

State wide Community Participation Plan Changes - exhibition until 3rd  June

A podcast window into 20 years of REDWatch and Planning
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.
REDWatch Meeting 4th June - Councils Housing for All consultation
The City of Sydney is seeking feedback on its Housing for All<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/have-your-say-on-future-homes-in-our-area> discussion paper. The paper sets out where further growth should go in our Council area including in Redfern near Prince Alfred Park and Waterloo near Green Square. It also seeks to encourage "more life (and living) on our high streets", "gentle density on laneways", "park-side living for more people to enjoy" and housing built on government owned land. It also encourages the NSW government to accelerate development on its own land and recognises the need for a diverse range of market and non-market housing.
A Council planner will attend the meeting to explain Council's paper and discuss what it might mean more specifically in our area of Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlington and Waterloo (REDW).
This is a public meeting and everyone is welcome. You can join the meeting in person on 4th June from 6:00 pm at Counterpoint's Factory Community Centre, 67 Raglan Street, Waterloo or join us on line by Zoom http://tinyurl.com/RedwatchMeetingZoom.
You can promote this meeting by download a flyer or sharing this Facebook post<https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1407082854781905&set=a.460968159393384>.
Waterloo South Concept Plan Exhibition ends 2nd June
This is just a reminder that the Waterloo South exhibition closes on 2nd June.
The exhibition documents can be found at Planning NSW - Waterloo Estate (South) Concept Exhibition<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-estate-south-concept>. The key document is the Waterloo South Concept Environmental Impact Statement<https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-93222706%2120260417T052316.334%20GMT> (EIS) to which almost all the other documents are Appendices supplying additional information. The last Appendix KK contains the Rezoning Report with the Draft LEP Maps, Revised Design Guide, Connecting with Country Framework and Retail Market Demand Assessment. You can find further information about the exhibition and documents on the REDWatch website at Waterloo South Concept Plan and Rezoning on Exhibition until 2nd June 2026.<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/stage1/260506redw>
What are the Waterloo South issues people should comment on?
REDWatch has been asked this question by tenants and there is no easy answer. The exhibition time is much shorter than previously, and a lot else has been happening, so we have not been able to go through the documents in a way that we would normally like to do. This also has impacted Council which has previously been able to complete its submission and also share its concerns with the community but it has been unable to do this in the short time available. Irrespective below are some ideas you might like to look at for your submission if you have not put in anything yet.
The Social Impact Assessment (SIA)<https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-93222706%2120260417T051441.515%20GMT> and Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP)<https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-93222706%2120260417T051441.292%20GMT> - this is the bit of the planning proposal that deals with how people might be impacted positively or negatively by the development. REDWatch is aware that Council and some other stakeholders have concerns about the adequacy of the existing recommendations. From REDWatch's perspective more needs to happen in the management plan to guarantee that community cohesion is rebuilt and that a successful social mix outcome is achieved in the longer term.
For example, since 2010 there have been lots of meetings with a focus of what is necessary to deliver the promise of "social mix" from mixed tenure developments. The study and plan have a section on "Changing social mix and impact on existing communities" which it recognises as a "High Negative". The management plan proposes a number of measures it expects to move the outcome to become a "High Positive". REDWatch thinks public housing tenants will have some ideas on what needs to happen to deliver the best possible outcomes from the redevelopment, so if nothing else put your thoughts into a submission.
Across a range of areas, the Social Impact Management Plan makes 82 recommendations. There are three questions that need to be asked: a) have all the possible impacts (positive and negative) been identified; b) do the recommendations adequately address the problem and improve the situation, are there any recommendations needed but are missing and; c) what needs to happen to make sure that these recommendations are implemented so that positive improvements actually result.
Community Facilities - The rezoning proposes to introduce "educational establishment" as a permissible use into the 5,000 sqm community facilities part of the development. The EIS on page 94 spells out that this needs to be a school or a tertiary institution constituted by or under an Act. REDWatch is concerned that Stockland seems to be talking publicly about something less formal that does not need this change. REDWatch would not want to see space that could be used for local community activities given over to an external educational facility.  This is especially because there has been a lot of talk about what the community wants to see, but none of it is currently guaranteed. REDWatch would like to see people say what they want the redevelopment to deliver and for Stockland and Council to then cooperate about who will do what in their spaces. At the moment, because Council has not yet decided what it will do with the space it gets, it is easy for Stockland to make assumptions about what things the Council facility will do that will not happen.
Non-Residential space uses - REDWatch is concerned about the adequacy of the Retail Market Demand Assessment<https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-93222706%2120260417T052311.569%20GMT> especially given the importance of the need for low cost retail to service the public housing community who are primarily on pensions and benefits. While a low-cost supermarket would go a long way towards servicing this cohort, there is also a need for other low-cost services and outlets - tenants complain about the recent loss of the cheap bread shop, the cheap greengrocer, bulk billing doctors and where to get a cheap haircut and perm.
The retail market demand assessment does not address this issue even though its figures show that 92% of social housing households have low incomes of under $52,000 per annum it does not look at what is necessary to service this part of the community in long term retail. It is clearly a desktop study with no input from locals about where they shop and why. It does not even distinguish between the lower cost full range supermarkets and the more expensive metro versions of the same brand. The Concept Plan needs to be able to guarantee there will be long-term low-cost facilities.
The Social Impact Management Plan makes some recommendations about what is needed to deliver "Improved retail access and diversity". People should look at these and ask if they are adequate to move the impact from a "Low Negative" to a "High Positive". With the approach to preserving diverse retail not mapped out, REDWatch remains concerned about Stockland's proposal to move 2,000 sqm from non-resident, such as retail, to residential uses. Our concern is that if there is not enough non-residential space and effective mechanisms to reserve space for low-cost retail and community needs, that a shortage of space may lead to high rents and retail focusing increasingly on those who can pay more for goods and services.
Affordable Housing - REDWatch is keen to see all Affordable Housing in perpetuity. We are pleased to see that 7% remains in perpetuity and the undertaking in the EIS that the balance 13% will be for at least 25 years. If financing for an affordable housing block cannot be secured in perpetuity at the build stage REDWatch would like to see first right of refusal arrangements put into the contract so that if government policy has changed at the end of that period of at least 25 years or if the CHP has the financial capacity so it can acquire the stock in perpetuity at the end of the 25-year financing arrangement. There is a difference between the wording in the EIS and the design guide, which is not binding. To avoid ambiguity, REDWatch wants the development conditions to make all affordable housing based on a rent of no more than 30% of household income and managed by a CHP for both that which is in perpetuity and that guaranteed affordable for 25 years.
Design Excellence - REDWatch is concerned that the design excellence provisions are not following those of the City of Sydney for buildings over 35m. The project has committed to a tenure blind approach and yet the private buildings will have design excellence delivered by a design competition whereas for social and affordable housing, design excellence will be determined by a panel in response to a proposal put up by an invited architect. One other change proposed by the Concept is to allow the same architect to deliver more than one building on a block. In the 2022 proposal architects were limited to one building on a block to deliver diverse building designs.
Planning Controls and Concept - To date the comparisons drawn against the concept proposal have been the 2022 approval to which the Department of Planning added 10%. There has not yet been an external examination of the Stockland Concept. REDWatch is aware that Council has a range of concerns about the planning controls and the concept proposal, but we have not seen the details and given the time available we have not been able to form our own views. It will be interesting to find out more about Council's concerns. The Department of Planning will need to assess these potentially competing views.
One document that it is reasonably easy to get an idea of the changes proposed is the proposed Revised Design Guide<https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-93222706%2120260417T052312.892%20GMT>. To make this easy-to-follow Stockland has used the 2022 design guide and track changes, to remove what it wants to take out and add in. Here you can also see the changed diagrams against the 2022 versions and get a good idea of what is proposed to change and what is not by flicking through and looking at what is in red. Just remember the Design Guide is just a guide and it does not have the same binding effect as the zoning or what the Department approves or conditions.
We know we have just scratched the surface of the issues that could be explored, but hopefully if you have not had time to dive into the documents, this gives some ideas to work on.
On the REDWatch website you can also see the Counterpoint Submission on Waterloo Concept Plan May 2026<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/stage1/260525ccs>, which will give you more ideas.
Waterloo South Demolitions
Homes NSW has engaged McMahon Services to undertake the demolition of Stage 1 of Waterloo South. Homes NSW has advised tenants that demolition will likely start end of June and is expected to take place over 9 months. Demolition will take place once buildings are no longer occupied. One building is being used for supported accommodation while awaiting the redevelopment and will be the last building demolished. Homes NSW has advised that currently there are 14 people still awaiting relocation from the Stage 1 site. Of these Homes NSW say 12 have accepted properties, but have not yet moved as some require work to be completed on the properties that they will move into. Only 2 have not yet agreed to move to new properties.
On Monday 25 May the contractors started work to erect fencing and to undertake due diligence. The initial "Notice of Intention to Carry out Demolition Work" from the contractor lacked detail about what was happening and Homes NSW had to issue a follow up letter a couple of days later with a little more information. Homes NSW has been saying little about relocations and its issues so the information about numbers remaining have been conveyed verbally at meetings and are not in writing making what is happening with relocations very opaque and leaving room publicly for "eviction" and "demolishing buildings that still have people in them" narratives.
No one should be surprised that the demolition announcement has whipped up a reaction. After all, since the first notification 10 years ago, many tenants didn't believe anything would happen, that changes when the demolition starts.
The demolition is also a focus for those with a myriad of concerns about the Waterloo South process. While many of the battles may have been lost for Waterloo South the demolition provides a focal point for political points to be made that protesters hope might influence this and future public housing decisions. This includes arguments about estate redevelopment vs new build on surplus government land and its associated impact on the housing waiting list, renovation vs knock-down and rebuild, arguments about if government or CHPs should run new housing, government funding of public housing vs the sell-off of government land. All these are valid concerns in the wider housing debate but they are also outside the current consultation parameters for Waterloo South. The issues did not go away and it shouldn't be a surprise that imminent demolitions have provided a focus for them being raised.
In Waterloo these discussions are also very political because of statements before the last election about the ALP stopping the sell off of government land and the subsequent verbal gymnastics about what a sell off is or isn't, alongside a lack of clarity about the contractual process. It is compounded because the public housing vote has been a strong supporter of local ALP MP Ron Hoenig so an opportunity to use his and the government's missteps on public housing to weaken that grip is also in play.
The concern however is that political messages for effect often get articulated in exaggerated terms, and detail and nuance is lost. Photos for example of protesters taken in front of Matavai and Turanga use Waterloo public housing icons for a political message, but also draw protests from people living in those buildings as they are not impacted by the current demolitions, which are at the other end of the estate. The eviction language elicits images of people being put out on the street homeless and avoids the details that Homes NSW has to find places for the people needing to move, that people are being given choices of places to move to and time to make decisions about what best suits them.
Language is powerful and it can whip up people's anxieties. In a public housing community that has concentrated people with a range of different issues we need to be mindful of the impact of how we talk about the redevelopment and protest so as not to unnecessarily whip up anxiety for Waterloo residents. Of course, that is difficult when the aim of the protest is to make the Government uncomfortable about its policy and practice.
REDWatch members reflect the community diversity and we have members involved in the current demolition protests and those who can't see the development come soon enough. Given this diversity REDWatch has not lent its name to this action, but recognises the importance and validity of many of the issues being raised.
What is the Housing for All discussion paper about?
Council's Housing for All<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/have-your-say-on-future-homes-in-our-area> discussion paper is looking for comments on the three main areas that we have detailed below:
Area 1: Areas Council has planning control over - Council has raised these specific proposals:

  1.  Ultimo and Pyrmont can deliver more housing - with Wentworth Park returned
  2.  Connecting Green Square and Waterloo
  3.  Prince Alfred Park edges - a place to live and work
  4.  Renewing the Supa Centa site near Moore Park
  5.  Renewing Broadway: UTS to Glebe Point Road
  6.  Renewing underused sites along Parramatta Road
  7.  More life (and living) on our high streets
  8.  Mid-rise living in Beaconsfield
  9.  Gentle density on laneways
  10. Park-side living for more people to enjoy
For the REDW area, areas 2 & 3 above are in our suburbs while areas 7,9 and 10 may also apply.
Area 2: Government Controlled area - see map on my SSH article Planning growth in the City and Waterloo<https://southsydneyherald.com.au/planning-growth-in-the-city-and-waterloo/> that shows where sites are already planned for housing (brown) or where Council is advocating for them to be developed for housing (blue). In our area:
Sites where more homes can be built now
1) Homes NSW Redfern Place (former PCYC South Sydney) - DA in place awaiting construction
2) Homes NSW Explorer Street, Eveleigh - Recently rezoned, but no DA
3) Homes NSW Waterloo Estate South - rezoning and concept DA on exhibition
9) TAM Paint Shop, North Eveleigh - rezoned but subject to a proposal as part of a film studio EOI - no DA
10) TAM Clothing Store, North Eveleigh - rezoned & in process of transfer to Homes NSW for 50/50 development. Work being undertaken but no DA
11) TAM Over Station Development, Redfern - zoned 14 storeys in 2006 now waiting for Redfern Station development over Platforms 11 & 12 but no DA
Sites where planning is needed for more homes
18) Homes NSW Waterloo Estate North (including Central) - Expected in next 10 years not rezoned
29) TfNSW Macdonaldtown Stabling Yard - current active rail use but in Urbangrowth proposal for future
30) TfNSW Eveleigh Maintenance Centre - current active rail use but in Urbangrowth proposal for future
31) TfNSW Eveleigh Maintenance Centre - current active rail use but in Urbangrowth proposal for future
32) TAM Eveleigh Maintenance Centre - current active rail use but in Urbangrowth proposal for future. Housing for All says up to 2,500 homes could be delivered on Transport sites above near Macdonaldtown.
Missing from the government owned sites list above in Housing for All in our area are the Redfern public housing estate that sits outside the Sydney LEP until rezoned and Marian Street Park which is not zoned for housing, but may be withheld from the city for construction of Over Station Development at Redfern (11).
The document also proposes growth from light rail along Broadway and light rail or metro connections into Green Square / Rosebery which presumably would run through Redfern and Waterloo with some density implications.
Area 3: Housing to meet diverse needs in the community
This section has a good Housing continuum diagram and deals with:
1) Affordable rental housing
2) Social housing
3) Aboriginal private home ownership and Aboriginal controlled social, affordable, elders and aged housing
4) Naturally occurring low-cost market housing
5) Housing for renters
6) Apartment living
7) Housing for people needing more support
8) Alternative housing models
So that is a quick summary of the scope of the discussion paper. This current discussion paper starts a five-year process before planning controls are set in the Local Environment Plan, so get in early with any concerns and suggestions. You can comment on the document as part of the exhibition by visiting Council's Housing for All Have your say page<https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/have-your-say-on-future-homes-in-our-area>.
State wide Community Participation Plan Changes - exhibition until 3rd  June
The NSW government is proposing a draft statewide Community Participation Plan to replace more than 100 different plans across the state. It argues it is necessary to ensuring consultation is clear and consistent, and that everyone has an equal say on planning decisions, no matter where they live. You can see the proposal and make comments via Have your say: Proposed statewide Community Participation Plan<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/draftplans/exhibition/have-your-say-proposed-statewide-community-participation-plan>.
There are valid reasons that consultation might be different in different places and the idea of a one size fits all approach has raised lots of concerns. For example, in Waterloo we have had great difficulty getting flexibility from the Department of Planning to recognise that not everyone can set up an account on its portal and make their submissions through there. In the end the Department agreed to people being able to handwrite on a form it prepared, but people had to request the form from the Department and it would not allow local trusted services to have copies and make them available independently.
REDWatch is  aware that the City of Sydney also has significant concerns about a state wide one size fits all approach. Like REDWatch it wants to retain 28-day consultations rather than see further reduction to 14 days - this is especially a problem for complex DAs like residential and commercial towers. The proposal removes certain types of development, such as certain residential flat buildings of any scale, shop-top housing and other developments from exhibition, where they comply with planning controls.
These changes are aimed to speed up housing delivery, but they also remove residents from any input on many more local developments. They cut down on the flexibility of councils to respond appropriately to community requests for greater consultation that make communities feel valued and listened to in the change happening around them.
A podcast window into 20 years of REDWatch and Planning
A few weeks ago, Geoff Turnbull, REDWatch Spokesperson, was interviewed by Belinda Barnett for her UrbanTalk Podcast on Community Voice and Advocacy in the Redfern Waterloo area. That podcast is now live on a number of podcast platforms including on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy5sKpSQoI
In this podcast, that lasts about an hour and a quarter, Geoff responds to questions about the NSW planning system and community engagement from the perspective of REDWatch's 20+ year involvement trying to ensure outcomes for community around planning decisions past and present in our area.
Being grilled about what REDWatch does and why is a bit of a change from Geoff's usual role of asking these questions of others in community meetings. It does however give an overview of the why and how REDWatch does some of the things it has done and of some of our struggles with government and developers as well as some of our achievements.

Regards,

Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch 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/20260528/cfe5d121/attachment-0001.html>