FRIENDS OF ERSKINEVILLE

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. Committee members are aware of Friends of Erskineville and resident concerns in relation t o this project. I again emphasise that this is not a NIMBY approach - we do not in principle oppose development - but we do have concerns that development be sustainable and be accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure. This does not appear t o be the case with this application. I pass to each of you a schedule of some concerns in regard to the application and emphasise that the schedule is by no means exhaustive. Let me voice some high level concerns in the allotted 3 minutes •

The process leading up to this evening's meeting is flawed. It is unfair and unreasonable to give residents and submitters only 4 working days to review the current proposal. In addition one has t o question why

residents

and submitters were only notified and

provided

with

documentation on Friday 5 October when as far as FOE understands there was correspondence between Leighton and the Council about this matter being scheduled for this evening as far back as September 17. Equal notification should have been given to all interested parties. Given the degree of change a minimum of 4 weeks to assess documentation should be allowed - and not a forced attempt at such a task in 4 working days. There appears t o be an inordinate haste to process this application. •

The proposal varies substantially t o the original on which interested parties made submissions. Given the degree of variation between this proposal and the original, the present application must be advertised so that all are aware of the changes and - if appropriate - given the chance t o make further submissions

•

One major request from residents was that a Transport Management Accessibility Plan or TMAP be completed for the project area. The TMAP that has been submitted as part of the application has been rejected by council and there is a requirement for a new plan - but no requirement for residents t o be made aware of or discuss that new plan. Residents have a key stake holding in this issue and must be consulted.

•

Another request was for a Social Impact Assessment to be completed. It does not appear from the application that this request has been considered or undertaken.

•

In general it would appear that most of the matters raised in submissions have been ignored, and nor has there been communication from council as to why these matters have not been taken into consideration.

•

A major issue raised by residents is the public transport infrastructure surrounding the site. All committee members have a copy of communication to the Lord Mayor on this issue. We again reiterate that it is not acceptable

for development t o proceed

without firm

written

commitments concerning transport and infrastructure, and this mandates a whole of area combined approach by the council and the state government. It is not acceptable for either

party t o ignore the issue on the basis of area of responsibility, and there must be a joint approach and agreement. Residents have had these "it will happen in the future or as development takes place" promises in the past - and the reality is that such promises do not happen. Committee members may care t o know that the matter of increased train services; bus services surrounding Erskineville railway station, and the bus route 308 has now been in discussion for 20 years. Let me repeat that - 20 years - and still we have no resolution. Now we are asked to accept assurances that all will be well with transport infrastructure for the Ashmore development when in fact we have the history I have just outlined. Is it little wonder we residents are just a bit sceptical and are demanding the issues be planned and finalised before any development commences. •

The present documentation appears to contain far too many conditions that will be satisfied at some later date - and satisfied without notification to residents; input from residents or advertising of the revised plan. This is a totally unacceptable situation and even more so when this application is the commencement of such a major development as will take place in the Ashmore precinct.

•

It is further noted that additional investigatory work in relation t o the Ashmore site being carried out as a result of submissions on the proposed LEP is incomplete. Hence until these investigations have been completed the DA should not proceed as the results could have a material effect on the proposed DA.

•

Earlier this year in an exchange with a councillor in the previous administration I suggested that any DA be conditioned so that construction could not commence till all infrastructure and other issues had been resolved. The Councillor's response was that this could not be done as there was a danger of it leading to a Land and Environment Court hearing. My response to that is maybe that is where this should go - if there is not the will to attend to the matters raised; place all revised plans on exhibition and allow comment if necessary; and take into account the other issues raised in submissions then maybe the Land and Environment court would be the arbiter and could make an independent decision that all interested parties can then adhere t o .

•

In conclusion the reality is that the current process and time frames are unacceptable and unfair; there has been a major degree of change not notified to residents and submitters until the last minute; there is no plan to place the current proposal and all the changes on exhibition; and matters surrounding infrastructure and traffic have not been adequately addressed. On that basis alone this proposal should not proceed at this time. Nor should it proceed until such time as the outstanding and rejected items in the present DA have been addressed and satisfied before approval, and the investigations being carried out in relation to the LEP have been completed and taken into account.

Thank you Mike Hatton OAM - President, Friends of Erskineville 11 October 2012.

D/2011/2152 - 36-36A/ Summary of Issues SUBJECT SITES

Figure 1 Aerial identifying Leighton DRAFT DCP 1. The proposed Draft DCP includes a built form plan that has problems: a. Building over and generally ignores ROW. b. No transition in heights from MacDonald Street t o Ashmore Street. 2. The ROW noted on the current 88b instrument list several lots that are benefited. An easement for services is also noted on this instrument .Consensus will not be reached with these beneficiaries t o extinguish or in any way modify or vary this ROW. Court action would result. 3. The Draft DCP deletes some existing lanes that are currently in the Current DCP. 4. There is no clear and coherent strategy or plan for Infrastructure funding and delivery. 5. The proposed restrictive (containment) parking controls on new development will create a major on street issue and is a primary concern of the local residents. 6. Further studies instigated by Council after the numerous objections t o the Draft DCP and the Leighton's DA, which were advertised simultaneously, have not been completed. LEIGHTONS DA 7. The development is a "significant variation f r o m the winning scheme (architectural competition). 10% Bonus floor space gained by conducting the Architectural Competition is at the discretion of Council and in this case has resulted in a massive overdevelopment of the site and is in conflict with Councils own studies. 8.

Does not comply with significant planning controls SEPP65, Draft Amendment South Sydney DCP (Ashmore Precinct) FSR, height, setbacks and deep soil planting."

9.

Council has previously advised the applicant that "given the number of non-compliances with Council controls and the desire t o deliver quality Design and Amenity it is considered that the site is not capable of achieving the floor space ratio proposed."

10. The proposal" cherry picks" from present controls and various draft DCP controls that are neither imminent nor certain. 11.

Council has previously advised that this application must be assessed against the current controls of the South Sydney LEP 1998 and the South Sydney DCP 1997.

12. "Council has also advised the applicant that its proposal has not achieved" a suitable massing and scale of the built f o r m t o the public domain, provided a improved sense of space and amenity between and around the built f o r m as well as improved solar access and a perception of scale f r o m the public domain." 13. Position and height of proposed buildings C& D creates unacceptable SEPP65 issues (solar access and building separation). Building D contains no parking and proposes to build over the existing ROW by cantiievering t o the boundary of the adjoining property. Councils own records show that officers have advised that this is not a desirable outcome. 14. Lack of transition in heights from MacDonald Street t o Ashmore Street. Council has previously advised the applicant that "the height non-compliance to both the storeys and street wall height controls will undermine Councils intention of providing the planned transition through the Ashmore precinct and will set an undesirable precedent for future development The height strategy for the Ashmore precinct is t o provide a transition of building heights with iower height on the edge of the precinct to provide a transition in scale." 15. Dramatic changes to Leighton's submission should have been made for Council to now be considering approval. Council has previously advised the applicant that "the development cannot be supported in its current form." 16. Objectors and local residents would require notification of these changes consistent with Council notification policy and in the interest of transparent governance. Council had previously notified objectors that they would be informed of meetings in relation to the progress of this application and documentation would be made available. This has not happened. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Defer determination of Leighton's DA and seek further amendments to better accord with relevant planning requirements. 2. Make public the changes t o the DA by way of re advertising 3.

Expedite Draft DCP, having regard: a. Implement a transition in heights f r o m Macdonald Street to Ashmore Street as per Draft DCP intent. b. Review onsite parking (1 space per apartment) c.

Road and lane networks shown on the current DCP should be maintained t o provide ongoing access and separation.

d.

Implement a clear and coherent strategy for the funding and delivery of infrastructure (review S94 Plan).