[Lift Redfern] FW: Land and Housing Corporation, Redfern and Waterloo and other info
Geoff Turnbull
geoff at turnbulls.au.com
Fri May 4 20:02:39 EST 2012
Dear REDWatch Members & Supporters
We have received today the email below from Nigel Sharpe in response to
REDWatch's attempt to clarify questions related to HNSW's intentions
regarding the Preliminary Masterplan. I have appended details of the earlier
correspondence, we have earlier circulated, so the reply can be viewed in
context and you can see what we asked and what has not been answered.
The REDWatch Co-ord Group will discuss this along with the SMDA Affordable
Housing Strategy and the SMDA's affordable housing at North Eveleigh on
Tuesday 8th at the Tutor Inn, Redfern Street at 5.30pm (Note not Roylal as
advised in the last email in error).
Yesterday the ATP also placed on exhibition the ATP Draft Conservation
Management Plan which is proposed to replace the 1995 CMP. All those with an
interest in heritage issues at Eveleigh are asked to read and comment on the
report. Please also advise REDWatch of you comments so we can prepare our
response in June. The documents can be downloaded from:
www.atp.com.au/News---Resources/Latest-news/AUSTRALIAN-TECHNOLOGY-PARK-DRAFT
-CONSERVATION-MANAGEMENT-PLAN
The Lift Redfern handover over of our 11,000 signatures to the Hon Kristina
Keneally MP went off well on Wednesday morning outside Parliament House. You
can see the media releases here - . Kristina Kemeally accepts 10,000
petitions
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/station/lift_redfern/120502
kk> and 11 000 demand immediate action to make Redfern Station accessible
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/station/lift_redfern/120430
lr> . Ms Keneally tabled the petition later that morning and we have been
advised that a debate will be raised on 23rd August regarding the lack of
access at Redfern station.
Finally in the last couple of days the old RWA website has been shut down. I
have been in contact with the SMDA about archiving the old site. One of the
consequents will be that many links from the REDWatch site which went to the
old RWA sites will no longer work. REDWatch has a mirror copy of the RWA
website so if you cannot find something that was previously on the RWA
website we may be able to help. We will look into the feasibility of making
a copy of the site available if SMDA cannot provide a publicly accessible
archive.
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
From: Nigel Sharpe [mailto:Nigel.Sharpe at services.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2012 6:18 PM
To: geoff at turnbulls.au.com
Cc: Dare Kavanagh; Greg Dowling; Joshua Brandon
Subject: Land and Housing Corporation, Redfern and Waterloo
Geoff,
I refer to your email of 12 April.
With regard to my email to you on 9 March, my intention was to convey the
status of work generated through the preliminary masterplanning process.
In the absence of any Government approved planning framework for the Redfern
and Waterloo sites, this work has no status beyond internal working
documents. As you are aware, the Urban Renewal SEPP changed the planning
process significantly and as it has turned out the Urban Renewal Study
currently being undertaken by SMDA has taken longer than anticipated last
year. Any previous comments about how or when preliminary masterplan
documents would be available would certainly have been made in good faith
with the available information at that time. As you are also aware, the
timeframes for our work are being met according to the HAF agreement with
the Commonwealth.
However, it should be noted that our investigations are being provided to
the SMDA and in particular, the consultants for social and physical
infrastructure and capability are the same with reports prepared in
accordance with the SMDA's formal reporting needs. The Authority has the
responsibility of considering the information available to it and
determining what is relevant to the formal Urban Renewal Study obligations
and reporting it appropriately.
It is likely that our preliminary masterplanning work will require further
review once the detailed planning controls are adopted and that this first
requires formal consultation by SMDA, completion of the Urban Renewal Study
and proposed planning controls, later assessment by the Department of
Planning and Infrastructure and then the consideration of the Minster for
Planning.
We will resume the active community engagement process that has
characterised this project once we are in a position to seek further input
from residents and other stakeholders and we look forward to continuing to
work with REDWatch and all interested stakeholders.
In the meantime, I understand that the report of the March community design
workshops and the summary report of the community engagement process, from
July 2011 to the present, are currently being finalised. These will be
circulated to interested stakeholders and placed on the Department of
Finance and Services website. A newsletter about the community design
workshops is also in production for distribution throughout the community.
These together with the other material widely distributed throughout the
engagement period ensure that there is an open and public record of the
community input into this process. This will also be provided to the SMDA
for its consideration.
As I am now fully occupied with my responsibilities as A/Director and no
longer have the day to day carriage of the project can I ask you to please
contact either Dare Kavanagh or Greg Dowling if you would like further
clarification on the preliminary masterplanning process, or alternatively
the project director, Josh Brandon.
Kind regards,
NS
Nigel Sharpe | A/Director, Project Development
Strategic Projects | Land and Housing Corporation
Department of Finance & Services
T (02) 9268 3566 M 0409 858 902
A Level 10, 234 Sussex St, Sydney NSW 2000
P PO Box K100, Haymarket NSW 1240
E <mailto:nigel.sharpe at services.nsw.gov.au>
nigel.sharpe at services.nsw.gov.au
W <http://www.services.nsw.gov.au> www.services.nsw.gov.au
****************************************************************************
*********
This email message, including any attached files, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed.
The Department of Finance and Services prohibits the right to publish,
copy, distribute or disclose any information contained in this email, or
its attachments, by any party other than the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete it from your system.
No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement
on behalf of the Department of Finance and Services by email.
The views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Department,
except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to
be the views of the Department of Finance and Services.
The Department of Finance and Services accepts no liability for any loss
or damage arising from the use of this email and recommends that the
recipient check this email and any attached files for the presence of
viruses.
****************************************************************************
*********
From: Geoff Turnbull [mailto:geoff at turnbulls.au.com]
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 12:50 PM
To: 'Nigel Sharpe'
Cc: 'Joshua Brandon'; 'Dare Kavanagh'; 'Greg Dowling'
Subject: RE: Redfern Waterloo HAF Preliminary Masterplan
Dear Nigel
We acknowledge receipt of your email of 9 March and now that you have
returned from leave we can respond to you.
In the interim we have written regarding this matter to the SMDA (with copy
to Mike Allen - copy below) asking the SMDA to ensure that any input from
the Preliminary Masterplan (PMP) into the SMDA controls be released with the
other studies used to inform the controls. I have also spoken to Greg
Dowling about this and understand that he was going away to explore if
something along this line is possible.
REDWatch is of the view that the decision not to release the PMP is in
contradiction to the Housing NSW Tenant Engagement Framework and the NSW
government's election promise of transparency and community ownership under
this government. It also raises Federal issues as it was undertaken with
Federal funds. Further REDWatch believes that the failure of HNSW to honour
earlier promises, will not only affect the relationship between the tenant
body and Housing NSW but it will also impact on future engagement during the
full Masterplan process. It will also make life difficult for those funded
by HNSW to promote tenant engagement through the NAB models. In addition, as
we have pointed out to the SMDA in our meeting last week, HNSW's refusal is
likely to negatively affect their BEP2 consultation as people are not likely
to distinguish between the two processes.
>From discussions and correspondence with Dare Cavanaugh there has been some
indications that she thinks we have misunderstood your email. We have
indicated that it seemed quite unambiguous and we have acted accordingly but
should there be some possible areas for confusion we suggest that you
withdraw your earlier email and reissue it.
Following from your email of 9 March and my subsequent discussions with
Greg, Dare and others we are seeking the following clarifications:
a) How does HNSW propose to honour its undertaking at the beginning of
the PMP process to residents to make the PMP available to them?
b) As HNSW and the SMDA both have argued that the PMP will inform the
SMDA controls what will HNSW do to make this contribution to the process
transparent? (Note Kathy Roil's correspondence of 1 Sept 2011 "The
Preliminary Master Plan serves to develop that framework by undertaking
comprehensive studies at a high level to further explore and analyse the
opportunities identified within BEP2. The Preliminary Master Plan address
questions raised by the BEP2 and includes substantial and constant community
and stakeholder consultation. The Preliminary Master Plan will be used to
inform the process of determining planning controls and is the bridge
between BEP2 and a full master plan").
c) If HNSW propose not to release PMP material in conjunction with the
planning controls please explain why this work should be withheld when all
other studies informing the controls will be publically released? Such a
response should address why material is not released / made transparent
given it was produced by a Federally funded project and that it relates to
material supplied by the land owner that will potentially influence the body
making controls over its land.
d) We have been verbally advised the PMP will need to be reworked in
line with the final planning controls and may be publically available at
that time. In addition to b) and c) above will HNSW release, later in 2012,
this version of the PMP and its supporting materials for a non-statutory
public exhibition similar to that used for BEP2 even though this is not the
"normal planning process". We are greatly concerned that your email states
that the PMP is an "internal working document" and that HNSW "do not provide
professional reports or working documents" as these indicate that the PMP
will never be publically released.
e) In our email of 22 February we said we wished to discuss with HNSW
the role the community can play in each of the subsequent steps as this
project is refined and delivered. We are concerned that your email seems to
indicate that this might only happen from here on as part of the "normal
planning processes" rather than as any continuation of HNSW engaging the
community in a non-statutory way in the further development of the proposal.
Does HNSW propose to only engage with the community from this point on as
part of the "normal planning processes"?
f) Dare Cavanaugh, subsequent to your email, supplied us with the
requested updated list of who is who. We note however that HNSW, after a
number of requests, still have not provided details of which consultants are
working on what areas of the PMP. Please advise if HNSW prepared to supply
this information?
g) We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the PMP with Greg
Dowling and yourself but thought it was not appropriate until you were able
to clarify your email of 9 March. In particular we are interested in
discussing progress on the many areas that were supposed to be covered by
the Masterplan that have not been covered in the community consultations. We
earlier provided a compilation of these areas from HNSW and RWA materials.
This can be found on our website under What to Expect in the Master Plan
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/issues/public-housing/redevelopment/hnsw/studies
/expect>
h) We note you have declined to release the HAF project reports. We ask
that you to reconsider this decision as the HNSW HAF PMP progress reports
are of significant public interest to the Redfern and Waterloo communities
and report on your funded community consultation.
I await your clarification on these issues from your email of 9 March 2012.
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
From: Geoff Turnbull [mailto:geoff at turnbulls.au.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2012 4:51 PM
To: Roy Wakelin-King (Roy.Wakelin-King at smda.nsw.gov.au)
Cc: 'Mike Allen'
Subject: HAF funded Preliminary Masterplan and SMDA's precinct study
Dear Roy
I write on behalf of REDWatch concerning recent correspondence between
REDWatch and HNSW regarding the HAF funded Preliminary Masterplan and SMDA's
precinct study and planning control exhibition.
As you are aware REDWatch has long held concerns about how these two
processes mesh, we have met with yourself, Mike Allan and Kathy Roil as well
as with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure about these concerns.
Recently in the email below REDWatch requested that HNSW publically exhibit
its Preliminary Masterplan prior to both it being signed off to the Federal
funder and its use for the developing of further government policy on the
future of the HNSW estates. We understand this would not be a statutory
exhibition but, like the Draft BEP2 exhibition, we believe that allowing
community input early into the development process will strengthen the
outcome and people's understanding of it. The release of the Preliminary
Masterplan would also honour undertakings given to residents by Housing NSW
staff at the beginning of the Masterplanning process that the material would
be available to residents and not withheld as HNSW has been done previously.
Housing NSW has now advised REDWatch that "the preliminary masterplanning is
an internal working document exploring options for Housing and Property
Group's major sites and is in a constant state of development; it does not
represent a final position. Further, it is subject to amended scope and
revision reflecting normal masterplanning practices and is not suitable for
sporadic release".
On this basis only the final Masterplan could ever be released by Housing
NSW and residents will never get to see if HNSW has heard what they have to
say in the Preliminary Masterplan consultation and see what has been done
with their input. On this basis the results of the background research being
undertaken by HNSW with Commonwealth funding will also never be made
available for community scrutiny. Nor will residents be able to verify that
HNSW has actually done what it has warranted to the Federal Government.
HNSW's approach flies in the face of the Minister for Planning and
Infrastructure's statements to REDWatch in our meeting with him that there
would be transparency in planning matters under this government and under
the SMDA.
HNSW's decision not to make available the Preliminary Masterplan for public
scrutiny is a not only a fundamental breach of trust by HNSW, but it is
likely to impact back on the SMDA as people burnt by Housing NSW's approach
to community engagement are not only likely to be more wary of future
engagement with HNSW but also of the SMDA and the work it is currently
undertaking.
While the SMDA has made details of its studies and consultants publically
available and has invited the community to make submissions about anything
they think should be covered as part of its studies, in contrast HNSW has
still not even made this basic information available which we again
requested in our correspondence below.
As you will see from the HNSW email they have argued that "we understand the
outcomes of the SMDA's work will be placed on public exhibition for comment,
it is therefore important that our work, which has no formal status, is not
confused with theirs, which will".
As a particular version of HNSW's Preliminary Masterplan will be made
available to the SMDA and presumably the Government Architect's Office for
review we are writing to request that this version of the Preliminary
Masterplan be made public by the SMDA with all the other studies relevant to
the controls the SMDA is proposing for the site. This would ensure that
within the SMDA process all relevant studies would be in the public domain
as part of the exhibition.
To withhold the Preliminary Masterplan from such an exhibition would, we
believe, bring the legitimacy of the SMDA exhibition itself into question
since both HNSW and the SMDA have argued the Preliminary Masterplan is being
used to inform the SMDA studies.
REDWatch reiterates our strong view that the community will find it very
difficult to digest all the supporting reports and again asks that these be
released preferably with the Urban Renewal Study Overview Report prior to
the public exhibition of the proposed controls. Provision should be made for
community comment on the supporting reports and not just on the proposed
controls as the supporting reports will also be used in further development
of the Government's response to the redevelopment of the HNSW sites.
We trust that the SMDA will favourably consider our request to include the
Preliminary Masterplan with the other supporting studies in the documents to
be made public under the SMDA process.
I would be happy to discuss this issue further and hope that we can get an
early indication of the SMDA's thinking on this matter.
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
From: Geoff Turnbull [mailto:geoff at turnbulls.au.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:54 AM
To: 'Nigel Sharpe'
Cc: 'Greg Dowling'
Subject: HAF Masterplan
Dear Nigel
I write to follow up a number of matters regarding the HAF Preliminary
Master Plan we have previously raised through Kathy Roil and in discussion
with Greg Dowling.
Hopefully now after a few month's work and successful community workshops in
November the shape of the Masterplan, the issues and the process are a
little clearer.
Firstly I would like to thank HNSW for suppling REDWatch with a copy of the
HAF funding agreement. At the time of the receipt of this we did not press
for the supply of the HAF project reports to the Commonwealth. Now that the
December 2011 report is finalised we would like to renew our request for a
copy of all the reports provided by HNSW to the Federal HAF Fund. This will
help us better understand what work has been undertaken and reported to the
Federal Government.
As you will be aware the SMDA have made public the details of the reports
they are undertaking in relation to BEP2. They have made available details
of the consultants doing the reports and in doing so they have asked for any
input that the community wishes to make in terms of areas that should be
covered in these studies. When we requested similar information on the HAF
project earlier we were advised that rather than separate reports that the
Masterplan would have specialist consultants writing chapters but that this
had not been finalised. The Housing NSW - Redfern and Waterloo Preliminary
Masterplanning - Areas of Responsibility
<http://www.redwatch.org.au/issues/public-housing/redevelopment/hnsw/111007H
NSW> earlier supplied did not detail out what studies / chapters were being
done and only detailed Principal Consultants without allocating their areas
of responsibility. Given that we are dealing with a Preliminary Masterplan,
which by definition will not cover everything in a Masterplan, we would like
to clarify precisely what is now planned to be covered and what is not. We
have earlier supplied a list of what was promised at various times would be
covered and what we want to now clarify is what will actually be covered.
We are also concerned that we can see nowhere in the schedule for the work
done on the final preliminary Masterplan to be made available for community
comment and feedback prior to it being signed off to the Federal funding
body. We note an intention to present the Masterplan to the community in the
second half of 2012 but also note there is no reference to exhibition. While
we understand there is not a statutory requirement to exhibit the final
Preliminary Masterplan we fail to understand how the Preliminary Masterplan
can be said to have been the product of community consultation if the
community do not get to see the final Masterplan and have the opportunity to
comment on what has been proposed. We are particularly concerned given that
this might be the only opportunity for community input before the interest
of private partners are introduced for a broader Master Plan.
REDWatch is of the view that the non-statutory BEP2 exhibition, despite of
its deficiencies, was extremely important in providing community comment on
the proposal and in so doing it was instrumental in refining and improving
aspects of proposal. It is one thing to seek community input about some
aspects of the plans as they are drawn up but this needs to be followed by
an opportunity to see what has been done with the input and the consultants
work and to reality test and comment on areas covered in the draft plan. We
are sure that such a process will both improve what is made available to
Government for their consideration as well as improve community
understanding of the proposal. We strongly urge you to make available a
draft of the proposal and supporting studies for feedback prior to the
Preliminary Masterplan being finalised for Government.
We also wish to discuss with HNSW the role the community can play in each of
the subsequent steps as this project is refined and delivered. Community
Engagement and input should not end in this project when the HAF Preliminary
Masterplan comes to its end. The community engagement that has been built up
needs to continue for the life of the broader project. I also needs to cover
a broad range of issues not covered in the Masterplan discussions to date.
REDWatch appreciated the opportunity to discuss the project with Greg
Dowling and feels it would be useful to have a follow up meeting with Greg
and HNSW staff. However on this occasion it would be helpful if we could get
clarification of the matters raised above prior to such a discussion so we
can use the meeting to explore some of the issues in the Masterplan that
have not been the subject of community consultation to date.
REDWatch at its meeting on March 1st we will be having a round table
discussion on Community Facilities, which we have been advised by the SMDA
are now included in the Social Impact Assessment Scoping rather than
proceeding with the earlier standalone report. We are also arranging a
planning 101 Planning for Residents public workshop with Prof Peter Phibbs
on 13 March to help educate people about basic planning.
I await your response to these issues and I would be happy to clarify any of
the issues raised further if required.
Regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
Spokesperson
REDWatch
Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490 Mob: 0418 457 392
email: <mailto:mail at redwatch.org.au> mail at redwatch.org.au
web: <http://www.redwatch.org.au> www.redwatch.org.au
From: Nigel Sharpe [mailto:Nigel.Sharpe at facs.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 4:30 PM
To: geoff at turnbulls.au.com
Cc: Joshua Brandon; Dare Kavanagh; Greg Dowling
Subject: Redfern Waterloo HAF Preliminary Masterplan
Geoff,
Thank you for your email of 22 February and apologies for taking longer than
planned to get back to you.
We have received strong responses from the broad community to the various
engagement events that have been staged since last August; this information
has been very useful in informing our work. I congratulate REDWatch on also
helping to build community capacity through your initiative with Professor
Phibbs.
You may be aware we have a number of further community engagement activities
scheduled for March, culminating in the design workshops on the 21st and
28th.
The SMDA are advancing their work under
<http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/epi+691+2010+cd+0+N>
State Environmental Planning Policy (Urban Renewal) 2010; the formulation of
a planning framework and development controls being the targeted outcome. It
is understood that the SMDA studies and planning framework will be submitted
to the DP&I with recommendations to the Minister. We note your close liaison
with the SMDA which is appropriate as it is the outcomes of their work that
will determine future directions for Redfern and Waterloo.
We are liaising with the SMDA through our own work. However, the preliminary
masterplanning is an internal working document exploring options for Housing
and Property Group's major sites and is in a constant state of development;
it does not represent a final position. Further, it is subject to amended
scope and revision reflecting normal masterplanning practices and is not
suitable for sporadic release.
We understand the outcomes of the SMDA's work will be placed on public
exhibition for comment, it is therefore important that our work, which has
no formal status, is not confused with theirs, which will.
As per normal planning processes, formal proposals for our sites will follow
the establishment of controls, with associated opportunities for the
community to make submissions thereon.
I am happy for Greg Dowling to discuss this further with you.
The reports you refer to that Housing and Property Group submits to the
Commonwealth as required under our agreement are undertakings on the meeting
of milestones and general project progression; we do not provide
professional reports or working documents.
I am away until 10 April. If you have any queries in the interim please
contact Josh Brandon in my absence
Kind regards
NS
Nigel Sharpe
A/ Director, Project Development
Housing & Property Group
Department of Finance and Services
Level 10, 234 Sussex St
Sydney NSW 2000
Postal: PO Box K100, Haymarket NSW 1240
Ph: (02) 9268 3566
Fax: (02) 9268 3496
Email: <mailto:eva.petro at facs.nsw.gov.au> nigel.sharpe at facs.nsw.gov.au
==========================================================
Security Statement
This email may be confidential and contain privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this email, including any attachments. Confidentiality and legal
privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of
mistaken delivery to you. If you have received the email in error please
delete and notify the sender. Any views expressed in this email are those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the department, except
where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views
of the Department of Family and Community Services NSW. The department does
not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this email has
been maintained, or that the communication is free of error, virus,
interception, inference or interference.
==========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/supporters_lift_redfern/attachments/20120504/dcd6e808/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Supporters_lift_redfern
mailing list