It's so good to hear that someone finally is speaking out for the residents of Randwick, we are not alone in our annoyance that we were given no notification for the great Health and Education Centre that only council members seem excited about. We, as residents, are aware of the many problems involved in this sort of large scale growth situation simply because we live here and are already experiencing the reality of traffic and parking problems within the area. As Ms Doran said, we need more time to evaluate and express our views on how it should be dealt with. I, too, wish that the deadline be extended until after April with more public debate about the issue which will have a far-reaching effect on all of us concerned residents.

Everyone knows the chaos of traffic on Belmore Road, High Street and Avoca Street - at peak hours and particularly on the weekend. You can find, on the drawing on page 17 of Part B of the paper, the junction of those three arteries marked to be developed as a "Potential public plaza". That is the quality of the thinking that went into this hare-brained plan.

One further matter must be raised that is unrelated to Council business. Three proposals within this Specialised area are on the desk of the NSW Planning MInister, Tony Kelly. They are two Part 3A plans from Randwick Racecourse, one to move the stables (including Gai Waterhouse's) to the far eastern end of the site and the second, to demolish the heritage listed Teahouse and double the Grandstands as well as build an outdoor stadium to seat 4500 people close to the Doncaster Rd end. The last one for Tony Kelly is the Inglis site on which, once the stables move to Rosehill, it is intended to build a medium and high rise (8-9 storeys included) residential complex. This requires rezoning the land from its current Residential A status. I wonder why this is not being held over to be considered as part of the whole Health and Education Specialised Centre rezoning proposal. I hope it's not intended to become the new standard- the norm - by which all of the rest will be assessed?

Clearly this is a major proposal that requires far more time to properly consider the potential impacts -- both positive and negative. Residents need to be able to deliver constructive, meaningful feedback. What do we need to do in order to have the deadline for comments moved to later next year, rather than the current deadline just before Christmas? That is an unacceptable timeframe.

This is a very very very large development and Council must respect us and give us time to respond properly on this. I only found out yesterday and the document is very large. Pleae extend the deadline Randwick Council.

I agree with vrv above, it is very encouraging that Ms Doran is speaking out for Randwick residents. I have just shared this link on my Facebook page so that others can also be informed as to what's going on. All you do is click on the "share" button above and then select facebook (if you have an account) and the process is very quick and easy. I think the results could be quite powerful as it's a good way of reaching alot of people quickly.

There's a positive response from Greens Mayor Murray Matson. He has given notice today in his Mayor's Message that a second walking tour is being arranged. It is certainly an effective measure for familiarising people with the contents of the Discussion Paper and the staff do a good job responding to residents' questions. Watch Randwick City Council site for date/time. This is responsive to community needs. Great work!

Hi, I have just finished ploughing through the 150+ pages of this study. I would particularly refer residents to pages 103 and following. These pages detail the nub of the potential impact. In brief the chart on p103 identifies the potential massive increase in height and floor space proposed. For a planning document to indicate a proposed control of " 15-24m" is essentially disingenuous. The market value of the land immediately becomes based on the maximum and so a developer will calculate a potential yield based on 24m ( 8 storeys)plus. At the very least a maximum ( not a range) should be stated in the statutory document.In my opinion, it would seem that Randwick Council are intent to jamming all the potential urban growth envisaged for the Council area into this relatively small area. Further the strategy seems to be reliant on existing 'public' open space to make up the consequential shortfall in open space associated with the potential developments. In addition, the area, if developed to the maximum suggested, will seriously overtax the existing physical and transport infrastructure. In effect the private gain to be had will be paid for by the public domain.I am still assessing some of the possible impacts, but it is my opinion that this strategy, at least as concerns the existing residential zones, is very flawed.

Can someone tell me why Randwick Council is so keen on this? Are they getting a financial benefit? Who's going to make all the money from this, didn't the AJC Randwick Racecourse just get hundreds of millions from the State Government, how are they allowed to sell off our land. It's not their land, it's ours. Or have they all forgotten that as well? But back to my point, why is Randwick Council forcing this on us?

since when was Randwick Racecourse open slather for cheap land grabs by UNSW and other developers? this is public land, leased to the AJC for the purpose of horse racing and "ancilliary" purposes (ie stables, grandstand, kiosk, carparking etc) - it is not for sale, and was clearly described as Open Space in the State government's 2005 Metro Strategy to 2031. If the horses don't need all the land, then there are plenty of soccer clubs, netball associations, touch football groups, athletics clubs, cricket players and inter school sports bodies needing outdoor sports grounds - particularly local schools need to compensate for their lost outdoor play space now occupied by stimulus package buildings; in addition, rather than criss crossing Sydney and adding to the horrendous Saturday traffic and generating more C02 emissions, inter schools matches in Sydney's east could utilise sports fields in this open space area. And remember the aquifer? the racecourse is on former Botany swamplands, integral to the Botany aquifer. As publicly owned land, designated as open space, it must be either leased to the AJC for horseracing and ajistment purposes,(no heritage buildings demolished) and remain as part of the essential lungs for overcrowded Sydney. Additional active sports could be invited onto the land. There is probably space for a few more trees too.

Well said Mora, why is this even being considered? The only reason people want to build on open space is they are getting it cheap. If it was priced at market rates there would be no incentive as it would be just as attractive to build on already commerically zoned land. That's what stinks. We lose open space and there is clearly a "cheap deal" in this, an underselling of our land if you like. Well - let's send them this message . Our OPEN SPACE is NOT for sale. We haven't put it on the market and we never should. It should remain open space. We have precious little of it left. If they want to build high-rise, buy commerical land like everyone else has to.

I have responded to Paul Pearce's assertion that the process is "very flawed" by suspending Council work on the discussion paper. See my post at http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show... I am seeking an urgent meeting with Mr Pearce to clarify what the Labor State Government now wants Council to do about meeting the Government's Metro Strategy. The strategy states that Randwick has to find places to put 8,400 new homes by 2031. We wanted to put around 1,500 near the race course, the hospital and UNSW because that is where 40% of our workers work. If Mr Pearce does not want them there then he needs to tell us where the state government does want us to put them. Clovelly? Coogee? Kensington? Randwick City Greens Mayor Matson

Dear All, Randwick Mayor Murray Matson has today announced a suspension of the rezoning proposal pending a meeting with local MP Paul Pearce, after his comments on Streetcorner that the process was "very flawed". Full statement from Murray Matson is here http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show... Regards Streetcorner, YOUR voice in the community

Until Sue pointed it out I thought the 'Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper' was about building hospital and educational facilities not apartments I didn't realise they were planning to build any apartments. That title is not clear I didn't have a clue what that meant. Am I alone or are other residents not getting what it meant either.

Some reasoned discussion about population and the implications for infrastructure is quite urgently needed in this, the most densely populated electorate which accommodates more than 75% of its current population in medium and high density housing. At the 2006 census, early thirty-somethings were the largest group and unsurprisingly, the largest category of children were 0-4. Schooling space is now squeezed, high schools were sold off, the hospital is rating low in recent studies re its capacity to respond to need, essential services are not sufficiently provided and transport/traffic gridlock are the words on everyone's lips. Open space is not expanding in proportion to the housing density. Putting this proposal on hold and finding out both what the Labor government suggests and what the Liberal National coalition intends to provide is an excellent approach. The Mayor should be applauded for this wisdom.

Agreed, putting it on hold is a good idea. Thanks to both Paul Pearce and Murray Matson -- and Sue, for bringing it to our attention. What we need now is a written statement from the Labor Candidate for Coogee, the Coalition Candidate for Coogee, and the Greens Candidate, on exactly what their policy on this will be, should they win government. And if we could have the same for the proposed hotel redevelopment in Coogee Bay Road, that would be even better!

Hi Sue, happy to meet with Murray and discuss the strategy. But let's be clear about one thing, the decision to proceed with this strategy document and the associated planning document was the decision of Randwick City Council. I draw your attention to the document itself which states clearly that it was prepared for Randwick City Council. Based upon possible density outcomes in the area covered by this study, it is quite conceivable that most, if not all, the projected increases in population density slated for the Randwick City Council area could have been accomodated in this one small area. This simply is a bad planning model and needs to be rethought. Future population growth for Randwick ( and Sydney generally) over the next 20 years is inevitable on current trends. It is important that local councils take into account all the possible impacts of their decisions.

Agreed Marianne. The elephant in this Streetcorner column is the Liberal National coalition whose candidate for Coogee, Bruce Notley Smith, is on Randwick Council and, therefore, must be very familiar with the goals and strategies contained in this proposal. What is his view? I would be happy to provide a written statement as you suggest - and for the proposed hotel development in principle. I say, in principle, as we still have no idea what the Government Architect's report said. It has not been made public by the Planning Minister even though it was expected at the end of October. And, therefore, we just don't know after a year of action down on the waterfront what exactly is proposed nor whether Tony Kelly intends to classify it as a Part 3A, meaning he will decide. Hi Paul. No argument that it is Council who has chosen the strategy contained in the Discussion Paper but Council has not chosen to increase its population by the figure mentioned by Murray over and above its natural growth projections without adequate State planning for commensurate infrastructure.

I have read most of the discussion paper and am appalled at what is being proposed, they want to rezone green space and put more high-rises in, this time with 15 to 24m height limits. Whenever I travel around Coogee, I am always amazed to see how densely populate we are, yet they want to build more. However I am glad that we have people like Sue to keep informing us of what is going on. Good on Paul Pearce for making his stand on this too, and it is very encouraging that the Mayor Murray Matson has taken heed of the comments and has for the time being suspended works. It is good the see that our local politicans can hopefully work together for a better outcome for the residents regardless of the party politics.

Jacky is right. Bruce Notley-Smith is conspicously silent and one suspects supports this. Bruce, as the Liberal candidate and a Randwick Councillor I think it is time you let locals know where you stand on this.

Thank you Sue, Murray and Paul I was very worried about this. Thanks particularly to our Mayor as I know this must be a difficult thing to do but it is good leader who makes the hard decisions and a weak one who cannot admit a mistake. I am sure we can come up with a better plan than this intensive development in the one spot. What about rezoning along transport corridors so 2-3 storey buildings could be replaced by 5-6 storeys near where public transport already exists. My daughter is in town planning and she says this is what Melbourne is doing, medium density not high-rise in suburbs like Randwick. We need to protect the character of the area and I make the point that others make as well, we have so little open land in Randwick that is should be prohibited once and for all to erode any more of it. That should be a law.

I know I'm hearing residents' concerns correctly on this matter. Regardless of whether the Council's discussion paper is suspended or not the issues for all of us go well beyond the question of the mandated population growth by the State Government and where/whether that might be located. I have raised the questions of inadequate attention to infrastructure -schools, health, emergency services, transport, open space, above. Other key concerns for us to be debating while Paul Pearce and Murray Matson talk are: - accommodating the University's need to expand. UNSW has purchased a large amount of private property in streets surrounding the university. It hopes for rezoning to turn this property into high rise. - if the high rise is to accommodate students in affordable accommodation surely longer than a ten year commitment to low priced accommodation would be required. - the gradual metamorphosis of a racetrack requires a vigilant eye. Racing is not bringing in the money it once did. Electronic and other forms of gambling are having their effect. The AJC/STC needs to diversify and has $150 million of the Keneally Government's funds to do so. Is it in the public interest to see Crown land exploited in the way described in this discussion paper and further, have we seen the whole picture regarding plans for the racecourse land? - why are the Inglis site and the racecourse developments being considered separately, by the Minister, from the rezoning proposal in this discussion paper? - why does this Liberal dominated Council have no Liberal party councillors willing to speak up about this proposal? The Greens are a small minority on Council. I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in answers to these questions. While the plan is suspended there is time to receive answers.

Let's not hope that with all the concentration on the Randwick Health and Education Paper, the large and just as disastrous Newmarket complex doesn't get swept through while we debate this issue. We will have 900 apartments with up to 8-9 storeys bordering Struggletown and little available parking for residents who already have to fight for parking between people from Uni, Hospital and 3 major schools. Where will they put up to 2000 more vehicles in this small 5 hectare site? Underground, where we have a water table 3 metres deep which means any underground development would need 24 hr pumps and also we have petroleum contaminated soil in the vicinity from the 7/11 incident on the corner oaf Barker and Botany Sts. Residents of the James apartments already have to deal with constant fumes and also monitoring of the wells and pumping of the water. How could the EPA allow this to happen again in a vital underground water system of Randwick? Please Paul Pearce and Sue Doran, don't let Newmarket slip through unnoticed while we rage about the Health and Education debate, include this site also as it will affect the already intolerabale peak hour traffic and the residents of this area.Why do we have to have high rise apartments there, why not a beautiful model village with green areas in keeping with the area as we all have to when submitting plans to develop our properties. Again, I reiterate, please add the Newmarket site to this debate!

Yes vrv, no question that what is happening in the Inglis' Newmarket proposal to Tony Kelly is critical to the remainder of the Health and Education Specialised Centre (HESC) proposal. This land is included in the "circle". I am concerned that should rezoning to 8-9 storeys be agreed to for Newmarket by the Planning Minister it will give the green light for a domino effect across the rest of the "Centre". I suggest writing to the Minister to ask him to put that process on hold to be considered locally along with all of the other land affected by the HESC discussion paper. I am further concerned that the schools who share boundaries with Newmarket appear not to have been involved in decision-making processes to date. It would be good to hear from P&C reps from the schools. Much of the area affected by proposals is, as you say, low-lying flood-prone land.

You've got a very good point vrv and I was about the say that I hope the Newmarket/Inglis complex development will be included in the discussion paper that's been suspended. My main concern is the close proximity to a major hospital complex (Prince of Wales Randwick), where the impact of the additional traffic which could potentially slow down emergency vehicles trying to get to the hospital to save a person’s life. With potentially such high density zone 2D dwellings, it’s going to have a major impact on the community at large. Occasionally we have life saving helicopter flights coming into the hospital, over our property. I have no problem with it as I know it’s for a good cause, but what I am concerned about is what impact the 6-8 storey buildings will have on the safety of the pilots, patients and residents on the ground. Here are a few other concerns that I have: • Where are people who are visiting the sick going to park, as the area is already under enormous parking stress! •What about the exorbitant cost of parking at the hospital for those who cannot afford it but need to be there? •Where are hospital staff (cleaners, nurses, doctors etc) going to park? •If you need to get your loved one to the hospital in an emergency but cannot due to traffic congestion and then the struggle to find a parking, when all you want to do is to get your loved one the care they need! What are you going to do? •What about the additional congestion during school drop off/pick up times and peak hour traffic on the already heaving roads? The location of the proposed new blocks of units are: • 2 blocks away from the Prince of Wales Hospital, the Ambulance department, as well as the Royal Hospital for Women • Around the corner from the Sydney Children's Hospital • 5 blocks from the University of New South Wales I would suggest that such a major change in zoning should incorporate much more effective consultation with the community and hopefully the reconsideration of the zone 2D and 6-8 storey buildings to something more in keeping with the area.

CURIOUS and CURIOUSER . As the person who seems to have started the ball rolling on opposition to the land grab I find it interesting how Randwick Council's "Education and Health Specialist Centre Discussion Paper" has become a POLITICAL POINT SCORING or is it FINGER POINTING match. . Being a lover of reading telephone books when I received the "Discussion paper" in early October I went through it. By the fourth book I was worried. It seemed to be all about rezoning a large chunk of Randwick Racecourse to Residential 2D, all the rest of High St, a good chunk of Barker St and other areas as well to Residential 2D with height limits ranging up to 24m. . I am not a town planner so I can be erring in my thinking but I do not know of many schools in residential tower buildings nor hospitals in apartment blocks. But just what we've seen in the local area is Kingsford town centre, Maroubra Junction town centre and Kensington. . So I asked the council to print eight hundred extra newsletters for our October meeting. Well there was a problem. They would not approve the wording of the newsletter - they disagreed with it as is their right. After a couple of days a compromise was reached. . The newsletter was sent to be printed by RCC. However, despite calling numerous times to check I was told the newsletter HAD NOT BEEN PRINTED. So, we could not deliver it and our planned (& advertised) meeting was canceled. . A funny thing happened. You'd never guess. The newsletter had REALLY BEEN PRINTED. It has even been left for me to collect where I had advised the temporary council staffer to look to see if it was there. So they were all wasted. . As an unpaid volunteer I was "Not happy Jan". So I lodged a complaint. That turned out to be a waste of time. I was informed that nothing would happen as a result of my complaint (verbally) and received an email that did not actually address the specific points I had made. . I created a new version of the newsletter and rescheduled the meeting to October 19. My long suffering children and I folded 2,000 newsletters. Together we delivered the extra 800 newsletters to the area immediately impacted by the "Discussion Paper". . At the Kingsford Precinct October meeting after Property Consultants presenting on behalf of the AJC could not answer my questions a man who then identified himself as an AJC executive (but had not declared his position prior) intervened. The consultants had undertaken weeks earlier "in the interests of transparency and informing the public" to answer some questions I put concerning the so-called "Spectator Precinct" and "Stables" development applications. . These impossible questions were: (1) Exactly how much floorspace in the "Racing Museum" will be solely dedicated to the museum and how much will be for other purposes? (2) Why does the "Parade Ring" have so many seats and is arranged in an unusual way? . You would not think they were too hard to answer. . The AJC executive cleared it up - 4,500 seats and it is designed to be used as a commercial concert & entertainment venue throughout the year. After all the AJC needs to get a return on its money were roughly the words used. . Oh and that museum, well it is really a multi-purpose and multi-configuration conference centre. SOME RACING MEMORABILIA WILL BE IN MOVABLE DISPLAY CABINETS THAT CAN BE WHEELED TO THE SIDES TO MAKE MORE SPACE IF NEEDED. . So I suppose the answer to my original question is there is zero floorspace dedicated solely to the Racing Museum. . Strange that! . Similarly when talking to the property consultants for the Inglis stables I was told how open and transparent the process would be. After a phone call lasting around 45 minutes in which I repeatedly asked for 5 or 6 different sets of information which would help the local residents understand the concept diagram I was left surprised. . I was told that Randwick Council officers had suggested to the consultants that the heights of buildings on Barker St be increased to 9 storeys from 8. That they seek access to the playing fields of Randwick Girls High School and Randwick Boys High School so they could build more on the stables site. That they seek to use the existing road in RGHS and RBHS off Barker St and extend it through to Rainbow as well as extend Middle St roadway through the school to Avoca St. . Now these allegations may well be false, I have seen nothing in writing. . ACTUALLY I HAVE SEEN NOTHING IN WRITING THAT I ASKED FOR FROM THESE CONSULTANTS. So this is what they meant by an open and transparent process - perhaps a dictionary for Xmas would be a good idea. Well it is transparent because I can't see anything that I asked for I suppose. . There was a regular quarterly meeting held on November 3 (YES nearly 4 weeks before any articles) at Randwick Council with the volunteers from nearly all Precinct committees in Randwick. One topic was an address by the Council Strategic Planners on the discussion paper. . I requested in writing (kept a copy) that the AJC proposals and the Inglis concept diagram be an agenda item. The reason for my requests came from two interesting (disturbing) telephone calls with representatives of each project. Meanwhile back at the ranch.. . At the "Precinct Coordination Committee" meeting with the Strategic Planners, the General Manager and the current Mayor we were treated to a presentation about the discussion paper. . Adding up figures in my head as we were shown slide after slide of "reszoned area proposals" to Residential 2D allowing tower buildings with heights up to 24m (8 storey units for example) I came up with a number somewhere between the low 20,000s and mid 30,000s as new dwellings if developers chose to develop all these newly rezoned areas to the maximum permitted. . Another area to be rezoned is the entire block (including the Coles shopping arcade) from High St, Belmore Rd, Arthur St & Clara St. Perhaps Eastland Randwick Shopping Centre like Bondi Junction perhaps. . Of course that would not happen would it? But then again...look at Maroubra Junction, Kingsford or Kensington. . So I asked the Strategic Planners in front of the General Manager, the Mayor and everyone else if this could lead to between 20,000 to 30,000+ new dwellings. . Guess what? Nobody corrected me. . I also spoke about what the AJC executive revealed at our October Precinct meeting. Remember this was NOVEMBER 3, not NOVEMBER 29 or 30 or December 1. . THE MAYOR WAS ALERTED WAY BACK THEN. . Now the discussion paper talks about over 1,000 new dwellings in the area BY 2031. Well the Inglis development was "guessed" by council officers (see RCC report GM35) to be 800-900 dwellings. We were also told that the UNSW may be planning to rebuild certain existing Residential colleges such as International House to provide between 1000-1800 students "dwellings". PROBLEM SOLVED and maybe 15 to 17 years ahead of time, but as RCC has consulted with each of these parties (extensively - see Discussion Paper) they should already know this. So why rezone such vast areas elsewhere? Oh that's right 8,400 additional dwellings by 2031 in the Metro Strategy, but that same strategy talks about rezoning Anzac Parade from Kingsford Roundabout to Beauchamp Road as light industrial (including Maroubra Junction!!!). I did say I like to read telephone books. - But do we have any other large scale developments going on? . Well Yes, Prince Henry site another 300 dwellings to go (300 built so far), next to it 450 planned on ex-UNSW site, Bundock St another 500 or so, on Defence's remaining corner another 600 units, Randwick Nissan, POW Hospital replacement multi-storey residential tower building (400 units?) and they are under way. . Hold on, have we already reached the 8,400 new dwellins set 2 or 3 years ago? Have we Mr Mayor? . After all as the senior strategic planner told me there were slightly over 45,000 dwellings in ALL OF RANDWICK at the time of the 2006 census. So 8,400 is nearly a 20% increase by 2031 and are we there 15 years early? . So, I notified many local residents. One local resident contacted Susan Doran on Nov 25 who then rang me and I briefed her. . But everything I told her I had already told the Mayor (and others) about at the NOVEMBER 3 meeting. He had a 22 day head start. WHAT DID HE DO IN THAT TIME? . Around November 9 or 10 I contacted the Centennial Park & Moore Park Trust to alert them to the AJC's plans and the discussion paper. In very polite terms they did not seem to believe me about the "concert and entertainment venue". Well if you have the centre of the racecourse used for drive-in movies where are the car users for the 4,500 Concert venue going to park? Kensington perhaps? . Our Precinct put in a submission to RCC on Nov 12 (the closing date) highlighting the issues with the AJC's plans as we saw it. Has anything happened since? Or been reported to the Mayor or anyone of authority from these, this time, written details? One thing for certain we have not been contacted. Has anybody? . On November 17 I attended a meeting with the acting Police Local Area Commander at which Paul Pearce also attended. During a lull in the meeting I raised the issue of the AJC Concert venue and the possible 20,000 - 30,000+ new dwellings from the RCC discussion paper. They expressed disbelief at the potential (worst case) number of new dwellings. . Paul Pearce already apparently knew of the AJC proposals but not about the Concert & Entertainment venue nor the non-existent museum cum conference centre. He said he would have to look into it. . On November 24 we held a special Precinct meeting with the Strategic planners attending for nearly two hours. Over 60 residents came along and heard for themselves. The result - a petition has been launched (contact KingsfordSouthPrecinct@GMail.com for info), door knocking to ensure residents know what "Education and Health Specialised Centre" appears to mean and other action. . Then on November 29 with a couple of hours notice I attended the State Govt's Community Cabinet at UNSW. I spoke with Kristina Keneally (Premier), Verity Firth (Education Minister), Tony Kelly (Planning Minister), John Robertson (Transport Minister) amongst others. . From what I remember, the Premier, after I had talked with her for some time, turned to Paul Pearce and asked him whether what I had told her was more or less correct. He responded that he had not finished reading all the documents but that I seemed to have the general thrust correct. That large areas were destined to be 24m tower building zones. He discussed other facets as well. . At the November 3 meeting the RCC General Manager (& strategic planners I think) mentioned that they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Dept of Transport (and others) about studying the introduction of light or heavy rail to the area. At the time I expressed disbelief given that Western Sydney is a bit bigger than us and they are several steps ahead in the queue. . So I asked the Transport Minister & his senior advisors. If this MOU was really meaningful potentially requiring hundreds of millions to billions of funds then surely they would know all about it especially coming into a State Election. Wouldn't they? . You guessed it - THEY ALL SAID they had no idea, had never sighted it nor had ever heard of it. I wonder who signed it? Can the GM table it for public information? . Verity Firth and her advisors said that there was no way that any land from either Randwick Girls or Randwick Boys would be able to be used for roads or a developers open space. . So this is the real time line. Instead of finger pointing, let the facts speak for themselves. It would seem to me that the Mayor has had weeks more to do something than Paul Pearce or Susan Doran. . Mr Mayor can you please fill in the time line?

The traffic problem here is already enormous There is little available parking for residents what with the Uni, Hospital and schools. The impact of the additional traffic will be hugely problematic This whole area is already under enormous parking stress from the Uni and Prince of Wales

Thanks for your comprehensive coverage of your experience RAM. Thank your for your phone call to me the other night following conversations with your precinct members at the walking tour. Being affected by the uncertainty of the Inglis Newmarket development as well as the impact of this HESC is clearly causing locals in the Kingsford area much anxiety. On the northern side, residents of Randwick North are feeling the impact of the plan to move the stables and anxiety about the potential noise from the planned year-round entertainment zones - and everyone is worried about the lack of transport and traffic gridlocks.

I'm confused because where do people want to accommodate the extra people that we are going to have in this area because of increased population etc? From an environmental perspective, I thought urban consolidation and density was preferable to more sprawl? Provided there is adequate public transport etc what is wrong with increased density? Won't this development provide more lower cost homes for people in this area? I'd prefer to see higher density in a single area like this rather than spread randomly though our suburbs. Do we just expect the western suburbs to keep growing and consuming our farm lands?

.

Belle, you've hit the nail on the head. The key issue in all this is that the infrastructure - transport, schools, health, emergency services etc. is in place to provide for an increased population. And it isn't - not even a commitment. Most of the local primary schools have lost their playgrounds to demountable buildings. Secondary schools were closed and sold off (by both Libs and Labor). Tram corridors have been sold off, too. POW hospital emergency/casualty wait times were the worst in the most recent study reported just last week. The density we already have is the kind of density that NSW Planning would like to see for the rest of inner Sydney. Having led this charge, we know that the infrastructure doesn't just happen; it gets forgotten. So, in future, it must come first. Otherwise we let our kids down. Finally, there is no justification for pulling the wool over people's eyes to develop Crown land for profit. Much more detail is needed on this aspect of the plan. More people = more public open space, not less. More time is needed for the community to comprehend and comment on this proposal. That's how an effective democracy works.

Dear RAM, Can I suggest you post your comment as an article on Streetcorner? People appreciate hearing direct from people like yourselves who are passionate and have been involved in an issue. Don't hesitate to contact us if you don't know how to publish an article on Streetcorner. Regards Streetcorner, YOUR voice in the community

Why can't the pro developers see the obvious residents’ experience every day? Peak hour busses being packed out, frequently failing to stop because they are full, public schools coping with increased numbers every year with some having to exceed the recommended class numbers even at Kindergarten and stop excepting out of area siblings, unrealistic waiting times at the hospital emergency wards, grid locked roads at peak hour, the list goes on. I feel somewhat sadden that the focus of planning is more people equals more housing. Something has gone wrong here. As emphasised by Sue, it is time to focus on what infrastructure is needed to A: fix the ailing systems that are struggling to cope with the existing population and B: look at the failures and try not repeating them in the future. In layman’s terms: put out a discussion paper on infrastructure (hospitals, public transport, schools and roads) before any more papers are drafted on how to fix the housing shortage. And yes, everything looks good on paper until one has to experience the shortfalls first hand.

The community was of the view that it had more time now to comment on the HESC Discussion Paper. The suspension is over and the closing date has not changed. According to the Southern Courier today the Mayor and the local member have had their conversation about increased dwelling numbers and their concentration around the racecourse, university and hospital . As a consequence, Randwick Council's Discussion Paper's suspension is now lifted. Council's website identifies closure of time for community comments is 17th December. This date has not changed. The community has been given no more time to decipher this complex document and get the message out to their networks. None of the concerns expressed about this Discussion Paper, its relationship with the Inglis proposal and with the Randwick Racecourse Part 3A applications has gone away. Paul Pearce is rightly concerned about the 24 metre height limit resulting in overdevelopment. Why hasn't he expressed concern about the proposed ceding of public open space land at the Racecourse to UNSW for high rise development?

Hi Sue, rest assured that I raised the issue of the High Street proposals as well. The Mayor and myself had a lengthy discussion and Murray gave me ample opportunity to ventilate all the issues that have been raised with me by residents, as well as my own concerns. The General Manager also participated for some of the discussion. I understand that Mayor Matson will be putting a Mayoral Minute before the Council. It is important however, that everyone keeps abreast of any changes/progress on this study. regards Paul Pearce MP

I am very pleased to announce that at last night's meeting the Greens Mayor, Murray Matson proposed a Mayoral Minute that extends the consultation period on this document until March, as we had hoped. A win for good sense! Further, in developing the new Local Environment Plan for the area lower densities, fixed height limits of 15 metres and protection of open space will be taken into account following community feedback. Don't forget to have a good think about the kinds of social/economic infrastructure that we need in place before higher densities are built. So, be sure to get your responses in to Council - that's after you've had a break! Great work all round.

Actually, the exhibition period has been extended on my recommendation (via Mayoral Minute) to March next year. This resolution of the Councillors only occurred at about 9.30pm last night. The Council web site will be updated accordingly. Further, a general 15 metre height limit for residential development has now replaced the 24 metre option. As noted in a comment, the options for shared pedestrian and driveways through the school will not be continued with. It will be clarified with UNSW as to what their actual student accomodation needs are and where best it can be located. My Mayoral Minute also recommended that unbuilt on open space should be preserved. Actually, the suspension would have still been in place at the time of the posting of the last two comments. It was only lifted at about 9.30pm last night by the Councillors on my recommendation via the Mayoral Minute. The brief article in yesterday's Courier was basicly correct - I told them that the way was clear for the suspension to be lifted. Perhaps I should have clarified to them exactly when it was to happen. Murray Matson (Greens) - Mayor, Randwick City Council

Dear All, Streetcorner has published a new story on the 'Randwick Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper', the approach taken by Murray Matson on the issue following comments by Paul Pearce and the proposal for road and pedestrian access through Randwick Girls & Boys High School. Link to the article is here http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show... (The power of dialogue, Randwick's Mayor adjusts Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper) and all comments are welcome on whether you think the direct dialogue undertaken on this issue is a positive for local politics. Regards Streetcorner, YOUR voice in the community

Inglis presented a very accessible overview of their proposed development for the Newmarket site to the community yesterday. But local residents realised just how confusing all of the various planning processes running at present really are. So I have promised to assist in making things a bit clearer. And i will write a separate article to hopefully relieve this confusion. Until then I hope these few sentences will help. It is important for us all to understand that the Inglis proposal aims to rezone their land to allow mixed density development using a different process and timeline from the process underway for the whole Health and Education Specialised Centre (HESC) Discussion Paper. So, the extended timeline on responding to the HESC paper (which is great!) does not include Inglis even though the Inglis land is shown in the paper to be within the HESC. The Racecourse, too, has two applications with Tony Kelly, the Minister. Those applications - to move the stables to Wansey Rd and to build an outdoor stadium to seat 4500 people near the Doncaster end - are not part of the HESC even though, again, the racecourse appears to be within the radius covered by the HESC Discussion Paper. Again, the extension of time on the community contributions to the HESC discussion paper does not change the timeline for a decision on the racecourse plans.

After attending the Newmarket session the other night I am even more concerned about the outcomes of their "comprehensive study". Very few questions could be answered accurately. The traffic situation has had extensive studies supposedly done a month ago, the same time the cameras were put in after the peak morning traffic and taken away before the peak am traffic the next morning and this was done when the Uni was on a break, I questioned this and she said she would look into it. Their solution to the increased traffic was to have an area where people can park their bikes, shared car facilities and walking footpaths. The assumption is that very few people in this large complex will have cars, women with chidren will walk to the shops in the rain? elderly residents will ride their bikes to the shops? was to me unbelievably naiive. They will provide roads within the complex (which I hadn't heard before) and we,as residents, will be allowed to park in there, which I found even more strange as they are private residences. Another man I spoke to said there will be small businesses in the complex and when I questioned about the parking was informed that they would be businesses without many customers visiting and also that additional parking would be provided for them. Where, how many stories will be needed to provide this? Stormwater drains were mentioned but no one knew who would be footing the bill for them. They had no grasp on the extent of the traffic problems already existing in Randwick . We came out of the meeting more concerned than before. Something must be done to reduce the amount of apartments in the complex to a sustainable amount that allows for sensible rationality and not dreams of a utopian village where everyone shares cars ,rides bikes and walk everywhere.

The Inglis poster presentation can be accessed at http://www.talknewmarket.com.au/

Sue, this information on Inglis, I am confused. Why is this still going ahead? How do I get to know what is happening here, it is small streets around us and I worry how it will work when thousands live behind us. Of course they will drive cars, this is just profit driven talk that makes everyone feel good. Show me a development anywhere in Sydney where the main form of transport is not cars.

We have heard a lot from Murray but nothing from the other Councillors and Murray is not even from our Ward, all credit to him for doing something but where the hell are the guys who are supposed to represent us? Are they hiding behind Murray or do they have something to hide. They are a glaring silence in this debate and personally I think it's about time they stand up and tell us what they think. Or is it a case of when the going gets tough they run and hide?

We have heard a lot fro Murray that is true but we've only heard about it post the topic being raised with Kristina Keneally at the Community Cabinet on November 29 when it was pointed out the potential thousands not one thousand dwellings that were likely. Have a look at the Randwick Council "concept sketches" and you can see what the real thrust looked like. An eight storey continuous wall stretching from the corner of Anzac Parade & High Street all the way up High St (see sektch on RCC site) and then look at the next sketch showing looking down from Coogee Bay Rd down High St. A 5 or 6 storey tower on the corner of Belmore with 8 storey stretching down High St. Did Murray vote for the concept I wonder? How can taking around 100,000 square metres of "Public open space" zoned land (AJC High St ground) tie in to Murray's Herald interview earlier in November? I asked Murray, the General Manager and the strategic planners on November 3 at a meeting about the potential worst case number of dwellings - they have never responded in writing to correct my top-of-the-head estimate of 20,000 to 30,000. Let the residents of Randwick see some hard figures. Murray is talking about limiting the new dwellings in the area to 1,500. Well is there a current plan with UNSW to rebuild over the site of one or two of the colleges to create accommodation for 1,000 additional students? Add that to the units on the Randwick Nissan site and other current projects then that only leaves about 200-300 more for the next 21 years. Surely that means that the Newmarket Stables (aka Inglis site) DOES NOT NEED REZONING from Residential 2A to Residential 2D then. The local Precinct that covers the bulk of the area asked the Mayor and all other Councillors a number of questions about the discussion paper and the tower buildings. Did Murray answer the questions? NO! Did the other Councillors? One did, Robert Belleli did indeed send a response to the questions. None of the others bothered, well contempt of constituents can be a dangerous thing for an elected official when it comes to election time. Suggestions of a 15m height limit sound good in theory but have a look in the Bundock Street development to see the reality. I must have missed the detail in the discussion paper of the flood zones within the circle. Or discussion of the contaminated groundwater and the impact of deep excavation for tower building foundations (with the original 24m height limits). Give us some hard numbers to look at not motherhood statements. Once a precedent is set in the area we have seen how rapidly it can be applied with successive development applications. As one resident at the Precinct meeting told the Strategic Planners - if you are serious about informing Residents then why didn't you put the information in the quarterly rates mail out to guarantee it got noticed? Why indeed?

Hi Sascha, Yes, I can understand why you are confused. When I spoke with residents who attended the Inglis presentation it became clear that some believed that the extension given by the Council to the Health and Education Centre Discussion Paper would include Inglis. It does not include Inglis. Council voted a while ago to approve an application by Inglis to seek the Minister's approval for an application to rezone their land. Inglis will put a separate application for rezoning to Council next year ahead of the rezoning process that the rest of the Health and Education Centre will undergo afterwards. As promised I will soon write an explanation of these differences to help people understand fully in a separate article on Streetcorner. There's not enough space in a comment. I hope that helps at least for now.

A question for MURRAY MATSON. I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald where you stressed that the proposal for the Randwick Education and Health Centre was only a discussion paper and that your support was contingent on the enthusiasm of the local community and commitments for better public transport etc. I speak for a large number of your local community when I say Randwick residents don't want 6-8 storey buildings nor do we want 8-9 storey buildings surrounding three sides of Struggletown heritage area (as in the Newmarket plan). You also mentioned in one of your responses on this site that 'Further a general 15 mt height limit for residential development has now replaced the 24 m option.' What does this mean and does it include the Newmarket site and is this a guarantee and will your support really be contingent on our enthusiasm or lack of? We are not against development, we know it has to happen but we need height limits reduced especially on the Newmarket site as the traffic situation and parking are already intolerable all around this area.Hoping for some clarification and appreciative that you are vocal on this site.

I refer vtv to the Mayoral Minute posted elsewhere on this site. The Newmarket/Inglis proposal is a separate process to the broader Specialized Centre discussion paper although it is referred to in the paper because it falls within the site. The Newmarket/Inglis proponents are currently drafting their final concepts. They have been made aware of the Council resolution to my Mayoral Minute ("general 15 mt height limit for residential development " etc). The advice that I have is that they should now take this resolution into account for their site. It will be interesting to see how they do choose to respond to it in regards of heights. It is expected that Councillors will get a report on their proposals in the late new year. Depending on what the concepts propose, Councillors may or may not resolve to seek Government permission to exhibit them as a formal draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for public comment.

Dear Mr Matson, Thank you for replying to my question but I don't understand what your last sentence means. Could it be that the Councillors may decide not to seek Govt permission to exhibit the report as LEP for public comment on the Inglis proposal?

vtv Council can not make an LEP with out Government permission. There would thus not be much point in Council putting it up for public exhbition with out Government consent.

Thanks for replying so promptly but not being versed in govt workings will we, as a community, be able to see the drafts and have a say at some point (I'm referring to the Inglis proposal)?With thanks.

Sorry , that last comment was for Mr Matson.

Dear Paul Pearce, I think your community needs your help in trying to understand the issues involved in the Newmarket site. Will we have a chance to participate in a public forum when Newmarket drafts its final concepts? I refer to reply from Murray Matson, (see last sentence).With thanks.

vtv - any LEP that the Council decides to proceed with will be put up for public exhibition as a "draft" LEP. The public will make submissions to it and Councillors will take those submissions into account after the exhibition period is over. The Councillors will then make a further decision as to whether they wish to proceed any further with the LEP (and thus rezone the site) or whether they wish to amend the LEP as a response to the submissions received. Council generally provides more consultative mechanisms than just the soliciting of written submissions.

Hi, what the status with the Newmarket site? Everything has gone too quite !

I think the Randwick council has more important matters to discuss, like this

I would also like to know what the latest developments/updates are with regards to the Newmarket/Inglis site?

Happy New Year! I trust a chance to get away from the daily grind was had by all. This is to let you know that, as promised before the break, I have posted a summary of the current status of major proposals for rezoning/development around Randwick in order to assist members of the community who have been confused by the parallel proposals but differing timelines of Newmarket, Racecourse and Education & Health Centre. This summary is based on my own research. I hope this will be a help. I'll be interested in your comments. http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show...

It is clear this site is well read by local politicians, so hopefully some of you may take the time to read this as well... In 13+ years living in Randwick, I have never heard any meaningful talk, let alone planning, for increased transport infrastructure including light rail. Given the costs involved between land acquisition and construction + stock, it is HIGHLY unlikely in my opinion this will ever eventuate. Meanwhile, the population increase foreshadowed under this Government puts increasing pressure on the local inhabitants and will inevitably continue to change the nature of this area for the worse. Between plans for sites ranging from Bundock St, Nissan, Inglis, The RaceCourse and now this 3.14 kms development circumference, it will be impossible to find a park let alone move at peak hour. It is time the Council and the local members and Councillors listened to what locals actually think. 5 Stories - too high; this level of population - too much without APPROVED and budgeted infrastructure to cope with such increase. How plans such as the Nissan site ever got approved is a mystery for those of us who know the area and shame on the Council for not notifying locals in the first place or objecting and the any Councillors involved in backing such an initiative. So which of you Greens, Labour, Liberal or other will commit to: - a cap on mandated population increase drive of ANY figure. - 3 storey height increase with a maximum of 5 level only where reflected in IMMEDIATELY adjacent buildings; - No development circumference and extinguishing of local heritage values that currently exist; - No further major developments that require extraordinary permissions that transcend the above - Revocation of any currently granted DA such as the Nissan site where if it can be proven that such a development has relied upon spurious, misleading or innaccurate information in its' application. Any of you up to putting your hand in the air unequivocally? That candidate would get my vote and the vast majority of my neighbours.

Not sure if you are aware but there is a special precinct meeting tomorrow night (wednesday 9th march) at 7:30pm at the Rainbow street, public school in Randwick. There will be an Inglis presentation and candidates for Coogee and Maroubra will give their views about the Inglis site and the RCC rezoning proposal. Should be an interesting meeting to attend. Also, on a note about traffic conditions, for the last month or so around 8:30am, traffic from the roundabout at barker and botany streets (by the 7-eleven) up to the intersection of alison and botany streets has been gridlocked in all directions. It takes me at least half an hour to get from randwick to bondi junction! How long will that journey take when the proposed new dwellings are built??

Hi LG, Can you publish this on Streetcorner as a story? That way it will reach more people, it will appear on the home page and we'll promote on social media etc as well. Let us know if you have any difficulties publishing it. Kind regards Streetcorner.

Hi Street Corner, how would I go about doing this? Could I perhaps provide you with the details to post as a story? Many thanks

It's always more powerful if it comes from the community itself. To submit a story, register (if you haven't already done so) and then click on the green "Submit a Story" button (top right of page) and follow the prompts. Email us if you have a problem and we'll give you a call and walk you through it. Kind regards Angela

Please see http://www.saverandwick.com/ for further information regarding this subject

lg - this new web site you are advertising uses the email address for the Kingsford South Precinct Committee, which worries me. The site repeats the failure of the precinct committee office holders to acknowledge that my mayoral minute of last December imposed a maximum height limit of 15 metres over the discussion paper area in response to community approaches to me including that of the local MP. Instead the site continues to use the outdated height of 24 metres. This is very misleading. I call on the office holders of the precinct to immediately arrange for the correction of this misinformation. On it there is a request for people to collect petition signatures at polling booths this Satuday. If the precinct is asking people to attend polling booths it has an obligation to provide them with up to date information - otherwise it is simply manipulating their fears and I don't see what clarity can be gained. By imposing the 15 metre height limit I changed the nature of the concept up for discussion. This is what should now be discussed. Murray Matson, Mayor Randwick City Council

Murry this site is COMPLETELY independent and ran by me. The email address for signature collection is for the Kingsford precinct as they are handling that. The email (and phone) for the contact us is NOT the Kingsford precinct!! I attended a meeting in Rainbow st on March 9. The fact that your minute imposed 15m penalties was raised by a resident as the developers had 24m buildings in their plans. The developers openly stated they would test council limits. Further the current discussion paper lists 24m in many places. Has council forgotten to update it? This information is current, valid, and consistent with the 2D proposed by council in the plans. If that has changed, I suggest you have the plans updated. Your support of this mass development and rezoning baffles me, and I can tell you Council has on numerous times provided ambiguous information or erroneous information to the public regarding this issue (and i've only known about it since March 9). That is something I seek to help correct. Your first line in your response to this is highly misleading and you didn't bother to click on contact us to call me and check your facts. Not good enough for a person in public office!!!! Expect an avalanche of public outcry as people become aware of the council plans. This is about real people, not politics, and we do care about our lives Murray!

This site is a sham - I wrote a response to Murray this morning @ 6:30 and it's already been taken down! Shame on you all! 1. Three storeys is enough anyway. 2. On your watch, against a local petition signed by 95 people you still approved the Nissan site overdevelopment. 3. There is already gridlock in the area and no space for parking and still no infrastructure. How about solving these problems which include expanding the Uni and the Hospital envirnoment for the Uni and the Hospital to accommodate your "Urbanisation" programme that is burdening the area. Anyway, not much point in writing as you will doubtless take this response down again. And I have so much more to say...

The "site" I refer to is of course Street Corner, NOT the www.SaveRandwick site which I and my neighbours think is GREAT!!!! and we encourage you to visit it. As a local James, MANY THANKS for a genuine organ that reflects our local voice.

I read Murray's comments above and I'm afraid you still don't get it Murray! 5 storeys is much too much outside of immediately adjacent Uni or Hospital precincts; ANY development pre budgeted infrastructure plain wrong; Greens giving preferences to Labor who feature in so many property development scandals we've lost count and have presided over the demolition of this suburb (amongst others) in the name of "urbanisation" is obscene. Under your watch Murray, nobody stood up and queried the height, density and iespecially traffic study on the Nissan site development, the scale and implication of which is spectacularly inappropriate - even after a petition with 95 local signatories. The “Urbanisation/social engineering” experiment currently pursued, has paid scant regard to meaningful community DIALOGUE. Dialogue which entails listening to what locals say and then RESPONDING to our concerns in a MEANINGFUL way. Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone! There is already traffic gridlock at rush hour, there are already terrible parking problems for locals near the Spot in particular, there are constant promises but no guarantees of proper transport. Until there is a cohesive plan for the area which envisages expansion of the Uni and the Hospital as precincts for those purposes primarily and proper transport to overcome the traffic “pinch” problems of major institutions in the area, these development plans from the RaceCourse to Inglis, are a disgrace. On top of that, this new circumference plan contemplates decimating some existing heritage and historical buildings and allowing buildings more of up to 5 storeys or more in height. 3 storeys is plenty and the developers have already announced they intend challenging even 5! The only good to come out of this unplanned social engineering experiment, "Urbanisation" is that it has united the vast majority of the community - against such vandalistic and irreversible planning!

Dear Too much retoric. Your letters above are great, there are three, was there another one? This site isn't run by council, who would have taken it down? Could Murray Matson have that power? And in all his responses to me, not once has he given me any assurance that even the 15 m limit would be a consistent ruling because if Inglis decide to do low cost housing, it will become negotiable to have more! As you say, three is enough, it's all we can handle and want in our overly populated suburb and why should Newmarket be allowed to be so flimsy with their reports on flooding (they've consulted with the Inglis family and they said it doesn't flood!) and their one off traffic report before and after congested traffic times and in Uni holidays! We went through so much to stay within historic confines of Struggletown limits when we wished to renovate, why can they do anything they want and always have without Council stopping them. It's time our council stood up for the residents that pay for their wages.

TooMuchRetoric - I have noticed that when the streetcorner site administrators take down a comment they seem to always post an explanatory note. In this case there is no explanatory note. Possibly you did not finish your posting correctly. I have done that.

Who's Listening - well, I actually am listening. From memory the original decision to put up the discussion paper was taken before I became Mayor. Soon after I became Mayor, residents and local MP Paul Pearce argued that the discussion paper was "flawed". This was during the exhibition process. I responded by suspending the process and putting qualifiers on the concepts that had been put up for discussion i.e. 15 metre height limit, 1,500 total new building cap etc. It is thus frustrating that the organizers of the petitions and the Kingsford South Precinct officers are still referring to 8 story or 24 metre buildings. I actually moved quite swiftly in responding to the community - and the Councillors supported me in implementing my changes. When all is said and done – this is just a discussion paper designed to find out what the community wants before Councillors make a decision to proceed with any decision to put up an actual rezoning proposal for further exhibition. The Councillors are indeed finding out what the community wants but it is not helpful for the Precinct committee to fail to acknowledge significant responses by Councillors when they occur. Information should flow both ways because that is what precinct committees were set up to do. The precinct officers have stated that they did not distribute a clarification from myself that was intended for precinct members. And yes, I am disappointed to see that the new site is perpetuating this information block. I further reiterate that if people are being asked to collect signatures for a petition then that petition should be accurate. Otherwise you are not showing respect for the people you asking to provide their time.

Murray Matson - 'I actually moved quite swiftly in responding to the community'. More misleading statements for what purpose? You were notified, in front of over a dozen witnesses on November 3 - YOU DID NOTHING. Paul Pearce was notified on Nov 17 - PAUL PEARCE DID SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY. You only responded after Paul Pearce went to the media to publicise it. Equally, you asked for and took original documents about a Council approved a sub-division (the report prepared by Council Offices did not mention the size of the site, floor space ratio etc) to investigate and respond to (back on Nov 3) here we are at March 23 and YET AGAIN YOU'VE DONE NOTHING. Instead you seek to blame everyone else, point the finger elsewhere and avoid responsibility. Play the Ball NOT the man!

Murray - the problem lies in the specifics. You do not respond to any of them. 5 storeys, too high. Your comment? The Nissan site approved with some farcical traffic study. Your comment? Etc., etc., I could go on... On your watch, things have got incrementally worse and those of us who put in a protest Green vote last time round won't now you've thrown in your preferences with Labor who have overseen these excesses under their driven development programme without proper planning or guaranteed infrastructure.

Sorry Murray but once again you have chosen this forum instead of emailing/calling me to request your info be added to the website first. "i.e. 15 metre height limit, 1,500 total new building cap etc." I can't find that in the study up for comment, please direct me. Also, are your minutes legally binding to control council decisions? If not, I'm happy to put that forward just as your personal view on www.saverandwick.com. Otherwise, let me know the legalities and I can put up exactly what the implications of your minutes are for the study (happy to link to your minutes also once I understand what they mean)

Murray, "And yes, I am disappointed to see that the new site is perpetuating this information block." We are doing nothing of the sort. Send me the info backed up with what it means in real terms and i'll get it up there. It's all up to you Murray, we just won't be publishing arbitrary claims without some idea of how solid they are.

Who's listening - actually I'm not preferencing Labor or anyone else in my campaign for Maroubra. Nor for the record do I have any idea what RAM (Andrew Roydhouse - secretary of the Kingsford South precinct committee) is referring to with his claims of the loss of an "original document".

James Kruss - You won't find the new height limit and other changes in the original discussion paper document because I implemented them after the paper was put up for exhibition. The changes that I implemented occurred at the December 14 Council meeting. Yes, the resolutions (i.e decisions that a majority of Councillors vote into place) to Mayoral Minutes are indeed legally binding on Council decisions. I can refer you to the Council's Code of Meeting Practice if you so wish (http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/library/s.... Basically, in NSW, a Mayor is in the position of being able to bring forward any matter for consideration to a Council meeting with out prior notice - this is why they are referred to as "Mayoral Minutes". They become decisions of the Council once a majority of Councillors vote to accept their recommendations. You can find copies of the two relevant Mayoral Minutes (one on the Inglis site and one on the Discussion paper) at http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.a.... If you supply me with a direct email address I can email you them in Ms Word format. Don't ask me to use the precinct's email address as I am simply not convinced that RAM/Andrew will allow it to be passed on.

It seems Murray you do not have much of a clue about anything other than blaming others. You certainly do not answer the question asked. If you do not have any clue about something you promised on Nov 3, in front of witnesses, to follow up and then asked for our copy of the document - that speaks volumes for your ability to hold and fulfill public office.

James Kruss - Oops - my mistake. The two Mayoral Minutes that I directed you to were actually debate at Council Planning committee meeting on the 7th December and not the normal Council meeting on the 14th. Further more, they are in the supplementary paper and not the main business paper. The correct link is: http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.a...

Will try again. http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.a...

How frustrating. There seems to be some character in the url address that I am trying to lodge that causes Streetcorner to terminate the posting at about nsw.gov. Well anyway please go to the Randwick City Council web site. Look for "business papers and minutes" in the top left, call up the documents for 2010 and look in the supplementary paper for the planning meeting of the 7th December.

Murray, you can email (replace the # with an @) info#saverandwick.com. Thanks for that! Given you say it's legally binding can you please confirm that council endorsed Mayoral minutes will override NSW laws and acts regarding zoning when appealed at the Land and Environment court, and can you provide precedence where this has been the case? If so, i'd love to link to your minutes from our site and publish the references/precedence you provide. We are making great progress here, this is the info the people really need :-)

Hi Murray, The link does work if you click on it. Our site just abreviates the display of the URL for some reason, but it's all there if you select it. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion. Regards Streetcorner

Also, can you please confirm, once and for all, how with the Bundock St site, the FULL council voted that it could only proceed if no (0.0000%) asbestos and other contaminants were left on site (is this correct?), but then was allowed to proceed anyway? People have asked me the question but I can't answer it.

...oh and one final question for now. Why restrict the height instead of restricting the zoning 2B or 2C?

James Kruss - ah the Bundock Street site - a long story. From memory it was the Land & Environment Court that actually imposed the ruling, although I supported it. I would have to check the many, many Council resolutions on this matter to see if a majority of Councillors as a body ever supported the ruling. Generally, whenever a development matter relating to Bundock Street came before Council, it was accepted by most Councillors that as long as an EPA accredited certifier was prepared to sign off that it was safe then it was approved. I always found this to be at odds with the actual ruling from the Land & Environment Court. From memory, there was a further problem in that Defence was using it's Commonwealth powers to control the development and remediation of the site. If you are interested, the local greens have posted numerous articles about Bundock Street on our local web site at http://www.randwickbotanygreens.org.au/.

James Kruss - I suggested a height restrictions because the Discussion Paper is proposing a 2D zoning. A 2D zoning allows for more flexible uses (over 2b and 2C) that are suitable to what the discussion paper has up for consultation. The maximun floor space ratios, required landscaping, maximum building and wall height applying in this zone are not set in concrete but are defined by "built form control maps applicable to the land supporting this plan." This gives Council the flexibility to put into place building form controls on an area by area basis. My 15 metre height restriction of December will now have a bearing on what this envelopes will be if any actual zoning is continued with.

Murray, would it be fair to say then that you support the discussion paper generally, and the 2D zoning, though disagree with 24m building hights and some of the specifics (which you have taken action on by way of Mayoral Minute)? Not trying to put words in your mouth but I would love to know where you stand on this and if i'm reading the situation correctly.

Even 15 Metres is just too high for the Inglis site. Murray supports rezoning to 2D. One way or the other, they will get 24m and blame everyone else!!

James Kruss - I became the Mayor of the Council that had resolved to put various rezoning options on public exhibition for discussion. As Mayor I had a responsibility to respond when the community and the local MP found problems with these options. I responded by recommending changes to these options, which a majority of councillors supported. The discussion process will continue and the responses by the public will be assessed and Councillors will resolve whether they wish to continue to the next stage. That time of decision has not yet arrived – not for me any way. It may never arrive while the five Liberal Councillors remain blocked from participating in the decision because of their past benefits from the Inglis site owners. My ongoing responsibility as Mayor is to ensure that transparency and accuracy are paramount in the decision making process. I am clearly striving to meet this responsibility. Council has signed a memorandum of understanding with key stakeholders about returning Light Rail to the area. There will be a new state government after this Saturday. That new government may or may not wish to continue with the objectives of the previous government's metro strategy. Its' candidates (the Liberals) have already indicated that they are prepared at least to support a feasibility study for Light Rail to UNSW. Without Light Rail I see no point in pursuing any significant rezoning in the Discussion Paper area.

Hi Murray, thank you for your public service and for this dialog. I have no doubt this will be useful to members of the public who are trying to make sense of things. From what I can see, the recommended changes you have made at this stage are to some of the controls but not to the zoning (hence my question still to be answered regarding Mayoral Minute vs NSW Zoning Laws and Acts in the Land and Environment Court). Also, are you currently satisfied that 15m high buildings are appropriate for the Inglis site?

James Kruss - Council has as yet made no changes to either the existing controls or the zoning definitions that express them. The only changes that my Mayoral Minutes have made is to what the Council has put up on exhibition for the community to discuss. At the end of the discussion process Councillors may or may not resolve to include changes to the zoning for the discussion paper in the coming Comprehensive LEP that the state requires us to exhibit for the entire Council area. If so, then there will be a second round of public exhibition with definite rezoning proposals. This is were the proposals will get serious. I am not currently satisfied that 15 metre high buildings are appropriate for the Inglis site. Elton (the proponents) have not finished their technical studies and thus have not established their case with either staff or Councillors.

Thanks Murray. Just a couple more questions then I'll let you be for a while! Who proposed the planning of the circumference zone in the Study? In your personal view, what is an appropriate height for residential areas and pockets inside the circumference? For the Nissan site, given the traffic issues, petition by adjacent residents, and that the DA did not meet RCC's own requirements (the maximum FSR, building and wall height, and podium landscape area standards), why did nobody on Council object and how did this get through?

James Kruss - I am not entirely sure what you mean by the "circumference zone". Do you mean the circle that roughly depicts the study region of the Discussion paper? As for appropriate heights, those areas within the circular study region that are proposed for rezoning to 2D can possibly have individual heights for each of their built form control maps (as described above). The upper constraint on them will be the maximum 15 metre height limit (with possible affordable housing concessions) that my mayoral minute of last December imposed over the heights proposed in the original Discussion paper. At this stage I have no particular view on what should be an appropriate height for each possible 2D area other than it should not be greater than 15 metres. I reiterate that the Inglis site is not one of the areas proposed for 2D zoning under the Discussion paper. I am also not entirely sure that we both understand what the other is trying to say when discussing your reference to "Mayoral Minute vs NSW Zoning Laws and Acts in the Land and Environment Court".

James Kruss - I have a question for you. Do you support the Kingsford South precinct officer's collection of signatures for a petition against 24 metre (or 8 stories) buildings now that I have outlined to you that Council is only discussing 15 metre high buildings? This is important because the precinct has asked residents to collect signatures for this petition on the polling booths tomorrow. I believe that the office holders of the precinct should be providing these residents with a petition that actually has the facts - other wise they are showing no respect for the people they are asking to sign it.

Murray, does anyone ever get a straight answer out of you? I've been reading this blog and yet again, you ignore any reference to the Nissan site. Who voted which way and why didn't the Council protect local residents on a traffic front? Blind Freddie knows it will create mayhem. If you are saying "up to 15m" is appropriate inside residential areas inside your "circumference zone" you need to pack up your bags and go home in the view of most locals i know. And as for your mayoral minute about low cost housing exceptions, this proves yet again how out of step you are with the constituents and rate payers who pay your salary.

Murray, the Study makes many references to the Inglis site and I quote, "Option 1: apply equivalent residential Standard Template zone to current proposed residential 2D zone (planning proposal) Option 2: apply specific block by block residential and neighbourhood centre zones (according to site specific DCP)". Also, " Varying heights informed by detailed studies as part of planning proposal. Indicative height range: 9m – 24m".

Whatnonsense - I have simple rule that I follow on this site. If someone is rude to me I stop responding to them.

You have not quantified what you mean by affordable housing or what height restrictions will be placed on it or where it will be allowed, and in any case you have a current development proposal for 25m buildings on the Inglis site. The facts are that the 2D zoning does allow for 24m buildings and the effectiveness of your Mayoral Minute is already being tested for the Inglis site. My understanding is that once an area is rezoned, a Mayoral Minute may not be a golden arrow to cap building heights to lower than those suggested by the zone, and besides you have made an exception already for affordable housing. Zone 2D, if appealed to Land & Environment Court, is up to 24m. If you want lower heights, propose 2B. The petition wording does actually provide the facts!

Also, can you please provide comment on the Nissan site? The approval of this is an issue that has confused/concerned many residents that have spoken to me.

Dear Murray, Astounded at your response to Whatnonsense. Didn't think it was particularly rude, but the fact remains, I read this blog as well and you aren't answering most of the questions posed definitively which interest most of us: - Nissan site as posed by WN - Why you think 5 stories in residential areas is acceptable - Why you think affordable housing should be an exemption - The specifics of your plan for growth of Randwick. Please have a go at answering these questions specifically so we can decide how we want to vote. Go, let this cat out of the boot/bag...

Dear Murray, I think that the right rule to apply both here and in life. If people can't extend common courtesy then they have already lost my ear. I think you are to be applauded for engaging in the way you have but rudeness is unacceptable in a civil discussion. I hope more courtesy is shown so we can continue to work together on this issue in the interests of the community. Jeff_B

James Kruss - the situation is that there is a petition being circulated suggesting that 24 metres (8 stories)is being considered while in fact Council resolved back in December on a maximum height of 15 metres. This is misleading. There is not much more to be said. On the matter of the 2D zonings, a 2D zoned area can not be successfully appealed in the Land & Environment Court to allow 24 metres if its built form control map stipulates that the height must be 15 metres or something less. I don't think that you and I are communicating very well when we talk about Mayoral Minutes. You are correct - a Mayoral Minute can not be used to change the rezoning of an area or "cap" it in some way. But that is not what I have done. To rezone anything in the discussion paper area a draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) will have to be prepared on put on public exhibition for public comment (the current Discussion paper is not a draft LEP). If such an LEP is ever drafted, THEN the 15 metre height limits decided on by my Mayoral Minute will be included into that draft LEP when it goes up for exhibition.

PussinBoots - I am drawing a distinction between myself as the candidate for Maroubra and myself as the Mayor of Randwick dealing with the Discussion Paper. For that reason I am not going to suggest to you that anything I have said in this forum should be used to determine how you vote tomorrow. That was one reason why I did not really want to go to the last Kingsford South Precinct meeting when invited to attend as a candidate to speak on the Inglis site. This is the first and last posting I will make on the subject of my candidacy. Because of electoral responsibilities I will also probably be unable to respond for the next 4 or 5 hours.

For those interested I have posted a chronology of events about the Nissan site at http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show...

Dear Murray, What do you mean by saying " I reiterate that the Inglis site is not one of the areas proposed for 2D zoning under the Discussion paper"...... Please explain!

Good luck tomorrow Murray it is high time for a change in Maroubra and I hope we get it

D1964 - the Inglis site falls within the Discussion Paper area of study but is not actually one of the areas proposed for possible rezoning to 2D.

Can the AJC be honest and inform the public that the land along high st was sold off approx. 7 years ago to a Singaporean? I am sure there must be others who are aware of this. (Council? Local members? State govt?)

Mumof4 - well, I'll don't know anything about that but I will make some inquiries. The former STA land adjacent to Doncaster was sold off by the State Government.

D1964 - The Inglis site is mentioned throughout the Study paper and it proposes an option of accepting the 2D rezoning as per the Development Application. Murray you are splitting hairs here. It is in the Study but the documents specific to the Inglis site apply for 2D with 25m high buildings and can be found at http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Places_fo... (down the bottom). Murray, please try direct people to relevant resources if available. I am afraid your words both here and in the Southern Courier could have the effect of lulling people into a false sense of security and if so, may stifle public comment. Relevant resources are also linked to from our website at www.saverandwick.com.

James Kruss - It is not my intent to stifle clear and realistic public comment nor am I trying lull people into "a false sense of security". People have asked me directly for my views on the Inglis site and I have given them.

Having our Mayor being prepared to answer querstions doesn't give me a false sense of security. I respect him for telling us what he thinks and it's up to the rest of us to make up our own minds and read the information. What is glaringly obvious to me though is that Bruce Notley-Smith is completely absent from this debate and people have just elected him as local member. Bruce was Mayor I think at least part of the time with the Council was drawing up this paper and he is regularly on Streetcorner. Does it strike anyone else as strange that he's completely silent on this issue. I think Murray gets our concerns and is being honest with us. But what's Bruce Notley-Smith going to do? It's the Liberals at Randwick Council we need to hear from. James, can you get them to fuss up as to what their position is. Barry O'Farrell says the Liberals are going to be upfront with the people, so Bruce, let's hear it, you are now the Member for Coogee What's your position on this?

Hi Fatherof2, thanks for posting! I agree Murray is to be commended for engaging in this debate openly. Murray, just alerting you to how some people could take things, no accusation as to intent. Fatherof2, please check out http://www.saverandwick.com/index.php/wh.... Bruce Notley-Smith has been publicly open regarding his views. He is against over development and that includes the Inglis site. Once he has time to settle in as Member I'll ask him to specifically join this debate. The Liberals at the council unfortunately are unable to vote on some things due to a declared conflict of interest. I understand the Liberal Party accepted free use of Inglis facilities (though I don't see how this could be any conflict if they intend to vote against over-development). As such, it's the rest of Council that we need to hear from, unless the Liberals are allowed to vote on the issues.

Thanks James, can you explain what the Liberals have done? If they can't vote because they accepted free facilities from Inglis then what a great outcome for Inglis. The Liberals have been effectively neutered because of a gift. When did the Liberals accept this gift. Surely they can still vote if it is not a significant conflict. What are the Local Government rules on this? Thanks James for helping us and getting all the information out. What is the public position of Randwick's Labor Councillors? Are there any Independents on Randwick Council ?

Perhaps Murray can shed some light on this? Probably best to give Bruce a day or two before requesting he join the debate or it may be difficult to get his attention. I have not seen public statements from others, however outgoing Labor MP Paul Pearce was against over development (photo with our banner on our website). Murray can you provide a list (or is it published somewhere) of who our coucillors are and any political affiliations?

...Have located the list. I will have a list of questions drafted and sent to each councillor and publish responses (or lack of responses) on our website.

Today is the day for final community submissions on the Randwick Education Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper. I have offered a handful of points that people might like to draw on in an article posted today. I know many people are struggling with the length of and the gaps in the paper. Hope this will be a help. Cheers, Sue (citizen!)

I have read Sue’s article - but for me the essential thing is that any rezoning should not proceed without a firm commitment from the new government that light rail is to be implemented. This is already stated in the discussion paper – and lets not forget that it is actually just a discussion paper. Further clarification on its' proposals (as amended by Mayoral Minutes of last December) will obviously be provided when (and if) Council proceeds to the next stage of exhibiting an actual rezoning proposal via a draft LEP for further public comment. Furthermore the new government should provide Council with guidance if they are planning to abandon past government’s initiatives such as the Comprehensive LEP process and the Metro Strategy. Murray Matson, Mayor Randwick City Council

Mumof4 - I have made my inquiries into the land that was sold off. The land you are referring is indeed most likely the land adjacent to Doncaster Avenue (not High Street) and which actually has a Doncaster Avenue address. It was sold off by its owner, the state government, not the AJC. From memory, the AJC actually tried to get access to the site for transportation purposes but was knocked back.

This week's announcements by the Premier concerning Part3A is relevent to the problems facing Council over the Inglis site. The site falls within the Specialized Center study area but is not actually one of the specific areas up for discussion for rezoning by Council. It is a separate rezoning proposal driven by Elton, its proponent. The Discussion paper addresses the Inglis site because it is a process happening within the Specialized Centre. The history behind it is that the proponent met with the NSW Department of Planning to seek the most suitable way forward - whether Part 3A or a rezoning (planning proposal). As I understand it the Department told Elton to put its rezoning proposal (via a draft Local Environment Plan or “LEP”) to Council, which it did. My main concern now is that the matter may be taken out of Council’s hands by the State Government even though the new Premier has apparently indicated that he is winding down or significantly amending Part 3A. Even without Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Minister may under section 54 of the Act (the plan making section) appoint the Director General of the Department of Planning as the relevant planning authority (RPA) if he considers that the council has failed to comply with its obligations in making a satisfactory plan. Examples given by the Department are a failure to give reasonable consideration to a proposal provided to Council or to delay unreasonably the consideration. In the scenario that Council proceeds to exhibit a draft LEP that is not agreeable to the proponents in terms of heights and floor space ratios, the proponent could approach the Minister arguing that Council has not complied with its obligations for processing the proposal within the framework of the Metropolitan strategy and SEPPs, and to seek another relevant planning authority (RPA) to be appointed. Murray Matson, Mayor Randwick City Council

In that case we may need to lobby the Minister and Director General also. Our hope is that council will do the RIGHT thing and not rezone the area at all, based on the surrounding area, heritage implications, traffic/parking/infrastructure issues, and the thousands of resident signatures and MANY submissions. If the developer then appeals it we will aim to already have the Minister and DG up to speed. This planning loophole should in no way influence council to make what would clearly be an inappropriate rezoning in a bid to retain control of the site. Murray as long as council does the right thing here and decides that no rezoning is warranted or appropriate we will do our best to deal with the higher authorities, and if this happens as you describe there would be massive media attention and public outrage state-wide, so council has nothing to worry about by doing the right thing. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Have the relevant dates been set for submissions on the proposal for the Inglis site, and will all the submissions that are also relevant to the Inglis site from the Study paper also be considered?

James Kruss - as of recent days, the Inglis site proponents have not yet finished their technical studies and submitted them to Council. This means that Council officers have not yet assessed those studies and made a report for Councillors to debate. Therefore Councillors have not voted for or against the exhibition of a draft LEP (Local Environment Plan) with an end date for submissions. Until there is a draft LEP there will be no submissions asked for. I will have to check to see if submissions received to date on the Discussion paper could be used as relevent to any as yet undefined Draft LEP on the Inglis site. You also need to remember that the Discussion Paper is not itself an actual draft LEP. It is just a discussion of possible options that might one day be turned into a draft LEP.

Thank you Murray, we would certainly hope that any relevant submissions on the study paper would also be considered with regard to the draft LEP for the Inglis site if/when it gets to that stage. Please let us know when you have an answer on this one. Cheers.

Thanks Murray for clarifying my query. So then, who is selling the land for development on High St - is it the AJC?

Mumof4 - I will make some more inquiries but at this point Council staff don't know of any sale of land on High Street relating to the race course. You mentioned in an earlier comment that the land was sold off "7 years ago to a Singaporean". Are there any more details you can give me?

James Kruss - I have received the following advice from Council staff concerning the reuse of Discussion Paper submissions for the Inglis site proposal. "The response is in effect - yes - these submissions will be considered in the rezoning process. With all submissions, we have acknowledged and clarified that their submission comments will be reviewed for the Specialised Centre discussion paper and that while the Inglis proposal is a separate specific rezoning proposal, that Council will consider their comments when the detailed technical studies are submitted and reported to Council. The subsequent exhibition process will then be a further opportunity for submissions on the actual rezoning proposal. We have also noted that we will further advise when the Inglis rezoning proposal is being reported to Council (we are keeping a list of all submission addresses/emails)."

That is fantastic Murray, thank you!

I am concerned that a misleading set of building statistics may be presented to tonight’s Kingsford South precinct meeting by its precinct officers. These statistics were recently emailed to some Councillors who were then invited to attend the meeting. I as the Mayor did not receive the email nor an invite. I believe that an uncritical acceptance of these statistics will not be in the interest of clear and informed debate on the Randwick Education and Health Discussion paper. The email erroneously suggested that 6,426 new dwellings have either been constructed or have been approved for construction in the Randwick City Council area since 2005. On learning of the email I asked Council planners to check the statistics being supplied to the Councillors. I have been informed that the true figure is actually 3,749. I feel that as the Mayor that I have an obligation to bring this discrepancy to the attention of both Councillors and members of the precinct before it becomes accepted as a reliable fact. I have been informed by Council planning staff that the precinct office holders have made a number of errors when adding up a list of new dwelling numbers that will be produced by approved building sites since 2005. One site, listed as “438 Anzac Pde” for 74 new dwellings, has been erroneously entered into the list a second time as “Castellorisian Kingsford”, supposedly for another 100 additional dwellings. The highly contentious Inglis site rezoning proposal has been entered for “800-900” new dwellings despite not having yet even been considered for approval by Councillors. There is a gross error of magnitude claimed for the surplus Defence land at Bundock Street. 1,350 new dwellings have been claimed when in fact only 565 have been approved since 2005 with another 35 being built before 2005. Similarly with “UNSW Student Housing”, 1,349 dwellings have been claimed but only the equivalent dwelling number of 563 has actually been approved. I say “equivalent dwelling number” because UNSW is building new beds rather than new dwellings. They claim “150+” dwellings for the former Defence Force land known as the “Endeavour House site”. It is actually 141. Again on Bundock street, the office holders have made an understandable mistake when claiming 650 additional dwellings on the area that will be retained by Defence. What they don’t realise is that Defence recently knocked down 650 “living units” they had on the “Endeavour” site that they have now sold off. This thus results in a net gain of only 25 Defence units, not 625. The precinct officers have also factored in another 100 dwellings for what I take to be currently owned parcel of Defence land immediately adjacent to the new Randwick Environment Park which they identify only as “nearby triangle”. Again there is no actual proposal from Defence as to what they intend for this site. I encourage readers to contact me directly via matson@ihug.com.au if you want a complete analysis of these inflated claims. Murray Matson - Mayor Randwik City Councl

Dear Mr Mayor, To correct your inadvertent errors made above: (1) You were sent an invitation via the Community Communications Officer (at least he was requested to - follow up with your employee perhaps?) (2)In the table sent to Councillors it had a note towards the bottom which stated that figures marked by ? were given verbally by people contacted and were yet to be verified by documents. You appear to have left out a very clear and NOT MISLEADING but relevant piece of information. I welcome any and all FACTUAL information - in fact I have been asking for it as have other residents but we have been told RCC does not know the figures. You even state that above. So how can you propose increasing density when you do not know the current starting point? (3) The adjustments worked by RCC staff seem a little uneven and without any substantive explanation. In one part they alter "self-contained rooms" to dwellings by dividing by 2.4 yet in others (Endeavour House) they don't. Equally, nowhere in the Metro Strategy (that I could find) does it say to do this conversion. Also, the UNSW has described many of these "converted" figures as self-contained high standard accommodation - this would seem to imply at least "Studio apartment" or better so why divided by 2.4? (4) The original plan for the entire Bundock St site as approved stated 1,350 dwellings (source: Moverly Precinct records & video. So it appears to be splitting hairs on what stage they are at - they will be built. 5) Please thank Council staff for clarifying the Castellorisian Kingsford double counting (address vs name)- that was a mistake. (6) Inglis site - in your many postings you mention the Mayoral Minute needs to be taken into account but you do not say it has to be followed. What about if they have 1% "affordable housing"? What if a FSR ratio such as shown in the Discussion paper for recently approved multi-unit dwellings of 3.0:1 is given? That was many times the "zoned" level but it still got approved. #### It would be much more transparent to ensure you correctly quote residents and help clear community consultation to progress. I am sure you agree that misquoting does not result in anything but time wasting, confusion and alarm.

Update on the New Market/Inglis Site Rezoning Proposal. I recently said in the Mayoral Column (Southern Courier, 3rd May) that I was concerned that even a 15 metre height may not be sustainable on the Inglis site and that I was awaiting the remaining technical studies that Elton (the proponent) has yet to provide. Elton has now written to me (on the 11th May) informing me that these technical studies will be lodged with “Council by the end of May 2011”. They referred to the 15 metre cap but stated that their “…planning proposal together with an associated Development Control Plan (DCP) will be more appropriate and applicable…”. They have also asked me to meet with them to discuss the proposal. I intend to advising that I will not be doing so and that I will await our Council Officer’s assessment of the technical studies. Murray Matson (Mayor Randwick City Council)

8th July update on the New Market/Inglis Site Rezoning Proposal. Council officers have advised me as follows: "The applicant has recently submitted the technical studies Council has been waiting for in June 2011. Council has appointed independent consultants to review these studies, namely a transport consultant to review the studies on traffic, transport and parking, and has also appointed a consultant to comprehensively assess all studies, with a particular focus on the planning, design and heritage opportunities and constraints of the site and in relation to its surrounds. Given the sensitivity of this infill site and the community interest in its future, Council was concerned to ensure a high calibre in this appointment and is pleased to note that the Government Architect has agreed and recently been appointed to undertake this assessment work." The officers advise me that they meet yesterday with the rezoning proponents and discussed these issues. The officers further inform me that it is envisaged that the review and reporting process will take some weeks and the outcomes will be reported for Councils' consideration in the coming months, as to whether or not the planning proposal is suitable to progress to the next stage, being formal public exhibition and community feedback on the proposal (including all technical studies). Murray Matson (Mayor Randwick City Council)

Elton have now submitted their final studies for the Inglis site rezoning proposal to Council. These have been referred to Council’s consultant for review. This will take 6 weeks (from whenever the consultant got it) and Council staff will need a few weeks on top of that. At the moment I am advised that it will come to Councillors in October for resolution. Murray Matson (Mayor Randwick City Council)

The chair of the Kingsford South precinct committee has this afternoon asked Council for copy of the brief given to the external consultants hired to undertake the review of the technical reports (from Elton) for the Inglis site rezoning application. They have been provided to him. Murray Matson, Mayor Randwick City Council

Thank you for this update Mr Matson. I appreciate you keeping us up to date with what is happening, it is hard to find the information anywhere else.

I would like to indicate that Murray Matson was not at my meeting with Karen Armstrong (Senior Strategic Planner) on Tuesday August 9 at the Council Offices nor was he party to my telephone request for information on the Inglis Rezoning Application to rezone Newmarket Stables from Residential 2A (low density) to Residential 2D - with tower blocks of units. Neither I nor the Precinct has been provided with the document (or perhaps documents) requested. I asked for a copy of the letter (or letters) sent to the State Govt Architect which details exactly what "recently been appointed to undertake this assessment work" means. We wished to be able to show the residents exactly what was asked of the State Govt Architect(SGA) and what the SGA was not asked to assess. I did not ask for what the SGA is being paid, I did not ask for what Murray Matson has said above. I have not been given what I asked for. Residents want to know for example does the "assessment" include looking at the potential adverse amenity impact of the approx 800 units on already badly congested local streets, the adverse impact on emergency vehicle access to the hospital especially when "assessed" against other recent multi-unit developments approved in the area such as Randwick Nissan, the Vet's on Botany St etc. I would Murray Matson to correct the misinformation he has published concerning myself and the Precinct and to ensure in the interests of open and transparent community consultation that we receive the exact information we have previously asked for and not been provided. Daniel Morgan, Chairman, Kingsford South Precinct

Oh for goodness sake - I never said that I was at the meeting. As Mayor, I was told by the General Manager that Mr Morgan had asked for some information which I was told that he was going to be given. If this is not what he wants then I will look into the matter when I get back. I am currently at a conference in Hobart. Murray Matson (Mayor Randwick City Council)

Hi all. I am back and here is some feed back from Council’s Strategic Planner to me as the Mayor regarding the brief given to the external consultants hired to assess the technical reports lodged by Elton for the Newmarket/Inglis site. Please note that the Strategic Planner (see bottom of her advice below the line of ****) advises that a second consultant (GTA) has been commissioned to handle the the traffic and transport modelling. Murray Matson (Mayor Randwick City Council) *************************************************************************** In relation to the request for more information about the technical studies required to be prepared for the Inglis Newmarket site, I can advise as follows: When the applicants for the Inglis site submitted preliminary studies in May 2010 as part of its rezoning request for the 5 ha site, Council resolved in July 2010 to request the applicant to prepare a series of technical studies that should be submitted to determine the suitability and details of their proposal. The Council report noted in Section 3.2 that the following technical studies are required: Technical studies and content required: "Given that the proposal is broad, specific outcomes for the site will need to be adequately supported through a series of further studies : o Heritage: A Heritage Impact Study; proposed interpretation of site’s history: market gardens and horse track (particularly under the main car park), equestrian uses and omnibus transport; adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; o Archaeology: Comprehensive assessment/analysis to determine significance of archaeological resources, including Aboriginal/European heritage; o Urban Design: Study that provides a basis for layout, character, scale, height, subdivision, road widths, setbacks and form of new development in the context of its landscape setting. It should also consider phasing of development; o Built Form: arising from the urban design work, a Built Form Control Map, showing height and FSR and landscaped area on a block by block basis, setbacks; o Open Space: Plan showing the extent and location of public open space, community facilities, land to be dedicated, retention of significant trees (in context of new development); integration with Paine Reserve; o Traffic, Access, Movement: assessment of traffic impacts, cumulative impacts, extension of existing road network into the site, amelioration of impacts and alternative forms of travel; shareways, access and movement to and within the site; o Sustainability: comprehensive report addressing Green Travel Plan; Green Star rating, opportunities to deliver sustainable design, construction, on going management (best practice); o Infrastructure: confirmation that existing facilities can be extended, and/or augmented, Water Sensitive Urban Design measures; o Groundwater/contamination: preliminary investigation to determine whether past activities on and off site have resulted in contamination. The key planning controls such as height, FSR and landscaped area will be incorporated into a draft LEP and other urban design controls will be incorporated into a draft DCP, which should be concurrently prepared and submitted to Council." (for the full document on the Inglis Newmarket site, see Council's web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au) Further to this, the Council considered a Mayoral Minute in December 2010, which set development parameters which are applicable to the Inglis site, namely a maximum height limit of 15m applying, with concessions only for affordable housing. This Minute must also be addressed in the technical studies. Technical studies assessment: These technical studies were lodged with Council in June 2011 and are currently being reviewed, with input from specialist consultants that Council has appointed to assist in its assessment. These include: - Planning/design/heritage experts – NSW Government Architect - Masterplan/design experts - Council’s Design Review Panel - Traffic/transport experts - GTA Consultants It is anticipated that the review process will be completed within the next 4-6 weeks and the planning proposal, including all studies, will be reported to Council in the fourth quarter of the year. The exact timing of reporting will depend on the assessment process, if any further information is submitted by the applicant, and the lead times for reporting in Council business papers. When Council has considered these studies and any variations that may be required to the information contained, then all studies will be placed on public exhibition for community feedback. Consultants assessments: Council regularly commissions expert consultants to assist in its assessment requirements. The NSW Government Architect was provided with a Brief for the required work (see attached). The Govt Architect responded with the attached proposal (staff costs have been excluded). I can confirm that this is the Council's entire brief to this consultant. While not requested but to continue our open discussions on this matter, I am also enclosing relevant documents relating to Council's appointment of traffic consultants GTA to provide independent expert advice on the traffic and transport modelling (see attached and again, with staff costs excluded).

Randwick Council today invited feedback on it's review of planning controls across the municipality. Under consideration are changes to height controls, density (FSR) and re-zoning of some areas. See article here http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/show... (Re-zoning of land in Randwick Council area to allow greater housing density, have your say). We also welcome articles on Streetcorner from any community members who would like to publish their thoughts on the Council's Planning Review.

In the above piece by the Mayor and subsequently the Senior strategic Planner the phrase; "Further to this, the Council considered a Mayoral Minute in December 2010, which set development parameters which are applicable to the Inglis site, namely a maximum height limit of 15m applying, with concessions only for affordable housing" What are the concessions exactly? How much affordable housing is required in a development? Is it 1% by number or value?

For the benefit of other readers of this forum I reiterate my earlier posting that RAM has lost my ear. RAM, otherwise known as Andrew Roydhouse, the discredited and now sacked secretary of the Kingsford South precinct, exhausted my reserves of good will and I am not going to change my position. I am one of the few Councillors prepared to engage in debate on any Council related matter with anyone on this web site in the interest of consultation but there are ground rules. I reserve the right to withdraw from any constituent who is not committed to maintaining a courteous dialogue and is not genuinely committed to consultation. Murray Matson (Mayor, Randwick City Council)

Without an understanding of the "history" between RAM and Mr. Matson other than what we have read in Street Corner, it is extremely difficult to understand the antipathy displayed by you Mr. Mayor. I have found RAM's comments to be insightful, measured and pertinent. However, if something RAM has done has given such offence you refuse to respond to his questions, we, others amongst your electorate who could not have offended you, would very much like your clarifaction on RAMS' last posting. VIZ: "In the above piece by the Mayor and subsequently the Senior strategic Planner the phrase; "Further to this, the Council considered a Mayoral Minute in December 2010, which set development parameters which are applicable to the Inglis site, namely a maximum height limit of 15m applying, with concessions only for affordable housing" What are the concessions exactly? How much affordable housing is required in a development? Is it 1% by number or value? " Can we anticipate this will be forthcoming?

On Tuesday night (8th November, 2011) Randwick City Council’s Planning Committee will debate submissions received on the exhibited “Randwick Education & Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper”. It is expected that all five Liberal Councillors will be unable to participate in the debate due to a conflict of interest that they have declared over the Inglis/New Market stables site on Barker Street. The contentious Inglis site will not be resolved at this meeting as it is a separate proposal from the private owners of the site although it is identified in the discussion paper because it falls within its area. The reports and attachments before the Councillors for Tuesday night make references to the changes imposed by myself via a mayoral minute in December last year in response to resident concerns. Two of these were restricting the height to a maximum limit of 15 metres (verse proposals for up to 24 metres in places) and blocking pedestrian and road way access through the Randwick Girls High School. I am personally gratified to note in the reports that the light rail to Randwick initiative that I supported as Mayor has retained its significance to the discussion paper area. One of the recommendations to the remaining 10 Councillors will be that a broad overview document known as the “The Precinct Plan” be adopted for the area. But off more immediate interest to readers of this web site is another recommendation dealing with a number of specific sites identified in the exhibition paper and how they should be dealt with by two draft planning tools that are expected to be exhibited in coming months. These will be the city wide “Comprehensive Local Environment Plan (LEP)” and an associated Development Control Plan (DCP). Further submissions will be sought. The specific area proposals up for adoption are as follows. “Site A”. An area bordered by High Street, Wansey Road, Arthur Street and Botany Street and which is owned around 75% by UNSW and a private educational institution. It is currently zoned residential 2B. The recommendation is that the “current land use and height controls be retained” with a suggestion of a review should better public transport such as light rail eventuate. “Site B”. An area bordered by High Street, Blenheim Street, Clara Street and Botany Street. Recommendation: “Retain/Translate current zone (which permits health services facilities), and apply a 15m height limit…”. “Site C”. An area bordered by High Street, Botany Street and Eurimbla Avenue. Recommendation: “Introduce a medium density residential zone (which permits health facilities), and apply a 15 metre height limit…”. “Site D”. A triangular area of four (I think) lots on the east side of Belmore Road opposite High Cross Park between Mears Avenue and Coogee Bay. Recommendation: “Retain/translate current zone (which permits health facilities) and apply a 12 metre height limit” with a suggestion of a review should better public transport such as light rail eventuate. “Site E”. An almost triangular business zone area in the Randwick Junction town centre bordered by High Street, Belmore Road, Arthur Street and Clara Street. Recommendation: That ”… the current zoning, height and floor space controls are retained for this block…” and reviewed after any commitment to improved public transport such as light rail. “Site F”. An area of small businesses on the on the south east corner of Botany street and Barker Street. Recommendation: Apply a “Neighbourhood Centre zone” with a height limit of 9.4m and a floor space ratio of 1:1 consistent with the treatment of similar centres in the council area. Cr Murray Matson Randwick City Council

I stumbled across this website and am laughing at all the anti-development people on here. Move into the 21st century people - everything does NOT stay the same and change happens. Deal with it. Medium density residential development is here to say. Instead we have a bunch of whingers and moaners on a site like this who are fuming that other people might want to live in their precious area at the same time as they are MORE than happy to benefit from the increased house prices that have occurred in Randwick due to the gentrification of the area and better and better quality houses/townhouses/luxury apartments being built. Hypocrites. Why don't you find something better to do with your time instead of obsessing about a luxury block of units that might be going up at the end of your street?

More developers making pots of cash... Watch out.. the housing crash will come!!!! Overpriced properties.. lenders lending more then locals can really afford... Repossed homes. Don't think this will not happen in the not so distant future. Watch out .. Its happening all around the world!!! Don't bite off more than you can chew.... It's not sustainable Wages don't correspond with the over valued properies. People Get Real !!!!!!

The long saga of the building heights in the Specialised Centre was wrapped up last night (23rd May 2012) when Randwick Councillors voted to submit the draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan to the Minister for gazettal. I believe that I and the Greens have played a key role in keeping heights in the Centre below 15 metres for all but a few sites. These few sites will be for the benefit of the hospital sector. Readers will note in the postings above that I moved a Mayoral Minute way back in December 2010 blocking excessive heights in the Centre area. Furthermore, the private Inglis rezoning proposal was not supported last night and this particular site (i.e. Newmarket Stables) will remain at its current equivalent residential zoning. RAM (or Andrew Roydhouse) stated at the Council meeting last night that he intends to submit a petition to the Minister critical about Council and the Specialised Center. This petition will erroneously refer to Randwick City Council as rezoning “large areas to allow up to 8 storey tower blocks directly next to existing single dwellings…” This clearly will be at odds with the actual decision taken by Councillors last night and does not recognize the significance of my 2010 Mayoral Minute. I thank all participants who contributed postings on this article and helped frame the debate and its outcome. Randwick City Greens Councillor Murray Matson

Murray, please "all but a few key sites". Exceeding the 15m height limit for sites allowed provided it included an 'affordable housing' element. that might just be a 1 bed unit in a building with hundreds of units.

What, there is no specific affordable housing concession clause in Council's final version of the Comprehensive LEP covering the Specialized Centre. There was discussion about it back in December 2010 but that's all it was, "discussion". The version of the actual draft LEP that was exhibited this year did not contain any specific concession. Thus the version that has been sent to the Minister for possible gazzetel does not contain any specific concession. But residents should realize that the state government's own State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 SEPP over rides any Council LEP in NSW. The Government announced amendments in May last year to this SEPP reducing its impact in low density area. See http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.... The original version of this SEPP was around for some years. It caused concerns in some areas of the municipality but there was nothing Council could do about it because it was not our planning instrument even though we were (and still are) bound by it.

Thank you for the extra details Clr Matson..... Clearly with the SEPPs on 'affordable housing' and 'seniors living' the community needs to remain vigilant..........Just near the "health & education" area there is *(i)* the Inglis site (on Barker Street) who are looking to upzone the site from low density residential, *(ii)* the St Basil's site, on St Pauls Street, corner of Daintrey Cres - near the Ritz where the land owner has flagged a 9 level building and two 7 level buildings with a total floor space ratio of 1.69 to 1 compared to the neighbouring 0.9 to 1 (even exceeding the FSR concessions in the 'seniors living' SEPP and *(iii)* the Kingford markets site (Rainbow Street at Anzac Parade roundabout) which Randwick Council has just rezoned and flagged 8 level buildings (commercial lower floors, residential above)...... So the community is still concerned about high-rise overdevelopment. The old Nissan site (cnr of Avoca & Barker street) exceeded the controls and still was passed.

Greens candidate David Allison should do well in tomorrow's Council elections for West Ward. I base this on the growing resident recognition that I as Mayor back in December 2011 used a mayoral minute to stop the proposed high rise development in the Randwick Health and Education Specialized Centre area. A second Mayoral Minute blocked proposed roadways through the Randwick Girls High School. He should also benefit from the motion that I put to Council in December 2011 blocking the privately proposed rezoning of the Inglis site away from its current low density residential zone. This stopped 800 to 900 dwellings going ahead in the congested streets of the Struggletown area. David knows that traffic and parking issues need to be resolved equitably. Current Greens West Ward Councillor Bradley Hughes has consistently represented the community position against inappropriate development including excessive commercialization of the Kensington Town Centre. I note with concern though that the Saverandwick team are distributing a leaflet with a text box on it that implies incorrectly that the Inglis high rizes will go ahead. This is an erroneous implication as the draft planning instrument that Council recently forwarded to the Government does not allow for high density on that site. The current equivalent low-density 2A zoning has been retained. Therefore no high rizes, no 800 to 900 new dwellings. The Saveradwick team are trying to elect RAM (Andrew Roydhouse) to Council. RAM knows better than anyone that I stopped the Inglis proposal and should clarify to the voters that he is not trying to suggest that the Inglis re-zonig has actually been approved by Council. Greens candidate Murray Matson

Sorry - I made a mistake in the above comment. The "Mayoral minutes" I put forward were in December 2010, not December 2011. Latter in December 2011 I put a "motion" to Council concerning Inglis because I was no longer the Mayor by then. Greens candidate Murray Matson.

The SaveRandwick brochure is not misleading regarding Inglis, it does not say 'high rise' for the Inglis site. BUT the latest we have for this site is the 2010 'Gateway' rezoning application passed by all Councillors (except Margaret Woodsmith) where-in 800 + dwellings was proposed. The fact that a 2011 rezoning request by Inglis, again for around 800 dwellings shows their intent and disregard for community concern and unfortuantely does not change what was passed in 2010. SaveRandwick will vigorously oppose any upzoning for the site due to lack of infrastructure, particularly public transport, owing to extreme traffic congestion in the area. Independent North Ward candidate Paul Chilcott for SaveRandwick

Residents remember who voted on 27 July 2010 to commence the rezoning process (Inglis or Newmarket Stables site) from Residential 2A (low density) Heritage Conservation Area to Residential 2D (highest density) up to 8 Storey High Rise on a proposal for 800-900 high rise units, inadequate parking etc and no amount of misinformation changes that fact. Vote: 14 for & 1 against. Residents remember who went door-knocking to alert them to what RCC was trying to get away with. It wasn't the Greens though. Residents remember who spent hundreds of hours collecting signatures against the RCC High Rise Land grab. It wasn't the Greens though. Is it hypocritical to claim to have stopped it when although the first notified by SaveRandwick Cr Matson was last to act? Actions speak louder than words. Waiting 17 months (July 2010 to Dec 2011) is a better indication of where someone stood. Cr Matson's lack of action was until forced by huge public opinion. Only after SaveRandwick went to all local & Federal MPs, the then Premier, Education Minister etc that it got into to the press as flawed - then Cr Matson acted. HIGH MORAL GROUND - I do not think so. Misinformation - Yes. More recently Cr Matson voted to rezone the Kingsford Markets & car park triangle from Public Open Space to Commercial (highest density) up to 8 Storey High Rise and in doing so Cr Matson voted against his two fellow (now stepping down) Green Councillors. All voting details (RCC's own minutes) are linked to from www.SaveRandwick.com . Do not believe what we've said (or anyone else) until you see the proof. What We Say, We Do. Support Residents, not over-Development! Andrew Roydhouse.SaveRandwick, West Ward Group A

Chilla - the "latest" information is not the gateway determination. There are sets of Council minutes from December 2010, December 2011, and May 2012 that clearly show consistent refusals to the Inglis proposal by Councillors. The real issue here is whether or not the proposed Inglis redevelopment of 800 to 900 new units is going to go ahead under a Council approval as would be erroneously assumed by a casual reader of the poorly laid out Saverandwick election material. The answer is that it is not. It won’t because the Greens stopped it. Saverrandwick is running a negative election campaign against a proposal that was effectively ended by the Greens in December 2010 when we blocked 8 storey towers in the Specialized centre area. The formal refusal of Inglis was moved by me personally in December 2011. Election campaigns should be geared towards achieving positive outcomes. Saveradwick is still fighting a battle that the Greens largely resolved over two years ago. I believe that Saverandwick should clarify their ambiguous election material in the interests of promoting transparency. Candidates who would be Councillors have an obligation to always strive for transparency. Murray Matson Greens candidate for East Ward.

Murray - If you read the www.saverandwick.com website you will see that it is VERY clear in advising THE FACTS and does make note of the later council backflip after the enormous community backlash. It also links to the council website so decisions can be verified. The community deserves councilors that will vote in their interests first and foremost. Not just after people waste hours of their sparse free time to oppose something that obviously is not in the interests of the community! If you are returned on Saturday, I hope that you will vote in the best interests of the community without the need for public outrage first. If independents from the SaveRandwick team are voted in, you can guarantee they will do what is right!

James - I think that we have discussed this before. I am not trying to be vexatious here but the issue was fundamentally resolved by me as Mayor way back in December 2010. And I am sorry, but I do believe that your election material as presented leads it open for members of the public to erroneously believe that the Inglis proposal was some how approved.

Murray - You say it is fundamentally resolved in 2010, yet Inglis tried for around 800 dwellings in 2011. Can you give us a guarantee that there will be NO rezoning on the Inglis site above the current 2A residential?? How can you know how councilors will vote if yet another application is lodged?

James - I have already voted into place a 2A zoning and that is what I think is appropriate for the site. You know that I can't speak for other Councillors who may or may not support a future rezoning. Nor can I predict who will be elected after tomorrow and with what agenda. Nor can I predict what the Planning Minister will do when he comes to make a decision on whether to accept Council's draft LEP. It is theoretically possible that he may change the LEP in Inglis's favour. I believe that we have talked about this possibility some time ago. Greens candidate Murray Matson

It contains truly information. I want to thank you for this informative read; I really appreciate sharing this great. http://www.randwickaccommodation.com.au/

Some people says its nt possible... some who earned says its a wonderful opportunity to earn about $7000 in 1 month on website/internet, did you read the page http://wow42.com

As Liza said its commandable that one can earn about $5500 in 1 month by influencing website articles on Home Profit, did you read the page http://cutt.us/Career

http://www.pussdress.com/Plus-size-Dress... plus size sundresses cheap