Randwick: Making sense of proposals for Racecourse, Inglis Newmarket and Health & Education Centre

Randwick:  Making sense of proposals for Racecourse, Inglis Newmarket and Health & Education Centre

Randwick: Making sense of proposals for Racecourse, Inglis Newmarket and Health & Education Centre

Bookmark and Share

by Sue Doran
28/01/2011

On a number of occasions Randwick residents have expressed their confusion to me concerning a number of large projects that are located close by one another and appear to be connected but have different approval rules and different consent authorities. In response to these concerns I have prepared the following outline. It cannot be detailed but I trust it is accurate - to the extent the complexity will allow in a short piece - and that it will go some way to helping residents make sense of these matters. Links are included. In the comments others may like to add detail.

There are three key locations in Randwick in which changes are being proposed. In order of likely decision they are:

1. Randwick Racecourse (bounded by Alison, Wansey, High and Doncaster/old tramway land) 2.Inglis Newmarket complex (5 hectares bounded by Barker, Randwick Girls' & Boys' High Schools, Rainbow St Public School/Paine Reserve, Young St, Botany St) 3.Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre (an area with a 1km radius that includes UNSW, Prince of Wales Hospital and Randwick Racecourse).

1. Randwick Racecourse proposals Currently two applications for development by the Properties Manager for the Australian Jockey Club (99 year lease renewed in 2008) and signed, as owners, by Paul Whelan and Ken Murray, Trustees of this Crown land, have been lodged with the Minister for Planning, Tony Kelly under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These applications qualify for Part 3A by way of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 in which "Tourism and recreation facilities" include "Major sporting facilities" criteria which requires that a development proposal "has a capital value of more than $30 million" (at 6:15:(2)(a)) . The two applications were each exhibited for the requisite one month late in 2010, in which period public submissions were received. They are now at the "Assessment" stage awaiting the Minister's determination. You can view the details at MP10_0098 - Project Application for construction of new stable facilities MP10_0097 - Refurbishment of Spectator Precinct

These two proposals being considered by the Planning Minister under Part 3A, will not be considered by Randwick Council.

Trackside electronic racing wagering technology is predicted to reduce returns in the traditional horse racing industry. It is believed that the AJC wants to increase returns from Randwick Racecourse by diversifying and intensifying uses of the site.

These "infrastructure improvements"are to be funded by $150 million from Tabcorp. In return, "the Government will provide Tabcorp with exclusive operation of Trackside through TAB outlets until 2097. Trackside is "a computer-generated simulated racing game that operates in Victoria" ... that has been reclassified as part of this process as a "wagering product" in NSW expected to turnover $230 million by its third year of operation. Additionally the Government agrees to provide " a wagering tax-free threshold of up to $5 million per year until the end of the 2033-34 financial year." (Australian Jockey and Sydney Turf Clubs Merger Bill and Totalizator Amendment Bill 2010, Agreement in Principle Speech, Mr David Harris, Parliamentary Secretary, Hansard http ://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/... )

In terms of impact, the presentations by the consultants for the AJC outlined the following- in summary:

The developments relate to a change of purpose for the racecourse. The intention is to see the facility become a year-round entertainment venue. New Stable facilities for 600 horses are proposed to be built along Wansey St in the North-eastern corner of the Racecourse site. As well as two-storey stables, accommodation for staff is proposed for above each of the stable buildings. Vehicular entrances will be on both Wansey St and on Anzac Parade. Horses currently stabled behind Kensington Public School by Gai Waterhouse are expected to be included in this new stabling facility along with all of those horses currently stabled on racecourse land along High St (valued at $37.5 million). The Spectator precinct proposal doubles the capacity of the current grandstand at the current height. A new "Theatre of the Horse", an outdoor open air stadium seating 4500, is proposed to be built near the western boundary. Demolition of the heritage listed Teahouse and Betting Pavilion is proposed (valued at $131 million).

No masterplan for Randwick Racecourse has been prepared and placed on the public record.

2. Inglis Newmarket After 90 years on this Newmarket site the horse sales function will relocate to Warwick Farm. A "revitalisation project" is proposed for the site. http://talknewmarket.com.au/images/Randw... "Newmarket will provide a range of housing types, mixed with distinctive parks and public domain elements..." Approximately 800 dwellings are expected to be built. Building heights are proposed to range from 2-9 storeys: 2-3 storeys near existing housing, 6 storeys adjacent to the High Schools, up to 9 storeys along Barker opposite the hospital. To do so the land must be rezoned, amending the current Randwick Local Environment Plan, from Residential A (low density) to Residential Zone 2D allowing mixed density housing as well as commercial and community uses as well as adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. The process July 2010:Randwick Council consented to send the rezoning proposal to the Minister for Planning August 2010: The Minister issued a "Gateway" determination which supports the proposal to the extent that it asks the proponents to undertake a number of technical studies before the plans go on public exhibition. The studies are now complete. A masterplan with development controls is being drafted. The next step will be stakeholder, agency and community consultations. Submissions will go to Council. It is expected that this consultation phase will occur in 2011. When Council considers these it can decide not to approve the plan or to change the plan. In those cases the masterplan will go back to the Planning Minister. If Council supports the masterplan and controls the Department of Planning considers endorsement and the Local Environment Plan is changed. This process for "spot" rezoning is being conducted under the current Randwick Local Environment Plan. This is a different process from the rezoning proposals occurring as part of the development of a new Draft Local Environment Plan.

3.Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre (REHSC) The 89 page RHESC Discussion Paper is in a process of consultation now until the end of March 2011. http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Your_Coun... It is one of six discussion papers proposing changes to zoning codes in response to NSW Planning requirements aimed giving uniformity to zoning codes across the state under a template known as the Comprehensive Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan, a process all Councils are attending to. This process will change zoning criteria across the Local Government Area. Look at the Standard Instrument in this link. The Zones are different. http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Your_Coun... The first step in this rezoning/redevelopment process is a Discussion Paper. The REHSC is the third of 6 such activity centres redevelopment proposals. The rest will be made public during 2011. The consultation process happening now will help Council to reshape the proposals. In response to residents' concerns the Mayor Murray Matson has already agreed to reduce the heights preventing 7-8 storey buildings and has closed off the option of access routes across high school land. Once these proposals are amended, similarly to the Inglis proposal above, new zones and development controls will be drafted into a new Draft Local Environment Plan. This will then come back to the community for consultation before it is finalised, creating new rules for development in Randwick Local Government Area.

The area covered by the REHS Centre includes the Inglis area but doesn't propose to rezone it because, it is assumed, the rezoning will already have been done through the process outlined above in 2. The area also includes Randwick Racecourse but it doesn't need to mention the Part 3A applications currently with the Minister because, it is expected that these will be approved well before this.

Links immediately above include mention of the East Subregional Strategy. Under Planning Minister Sartor (2005) it suggested a targeted increase of 25000 jobs for the East including 2200 for the REHSC by 2031. REHSC along with Sydney Airport and Port Botany are seen as forming part of a Global Economic Corridor. REHSC was mooted as part of this strategy and refers to the UNSW Masterplan 2005 aimed at strengthening its research role. http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/Link... The dwellings growth target for the whole Randwick LGA was 8400 by 2031 No housing appears to be suggested for the Racecourse site on the East Subregional Strategy in 2005 unlike in the Discussion Paper, 2010.

4.Summary & Timelines These three separate planning sites/processes are cumulative. This summary covers information that is available at January 2011. Information about the detail of what might be intended for the south-western corner of the racecourse - determined as "university uses and residential" is hard to know at this stage. Each of the three proposals above is generated by a mix of intentions and each has a separate timeline. The Racecourse proposals are beyond community input at this stage. As far as those with potential for scheduled community input the first to close will be the REHSC Discussion Paper - March 31, 2011. Next will be the rezoning Masterplan of Inglis Newmarket site. Watch out for three more council Discussion Papers this year - Town Centres/Commercial, Open Spaces/Environment and Residential. And finally, the Comprehensive Draft Local Environment Plan, to be developed after all of the Discussion Papers have been issued and submissions received, will be on display for community submissions late 2011 according to a recent flyer accompanying rate notices.

Well that's how I understand it. Hope that's a help.


Report Post

Comments

Some clarification is available. Council has not yet accepted that 800 dwellings are appropriate for the Inglis site nor are the proponents independent of the new 15metre height restrictions I put into place for the broader rezoning proposal that the Inlgis site is contained in. The Council resolution of the 27th July 2010 (http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.a...) makes it clear that the proponents have to bring back further technical studies before any exhibition of a draft LEP happens. This means that they have to establish that 800 dwellings are appropriate. I was not aware that these studies have yet been finalized. I do know that they were not lodged with Council as of the 13th January. In any case, Councillors have not yet seen them. The Council resolution also advises the proponents that a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) will also have to be developed. This DCP will have to be based on the “broader planning principles and strategies contained in the specialized centre discussion paper.” This means that the proponents now have to take into account the new 15metre height restrictions and open space modifications to the discussion paper that I put into place in December via a Mayoral Minute. The proponents were written to on the 13th January this year in reply to a letter they had written to Council after learning of my Mayoral Minute. They were advised that Council considered the resolutions regarding height restrictions of 15m for residential development with concessions for affordable housing and protection of open space, as critical for sustainable growth of the Centre. Murray Matson Mayor Randwick City Council

Julia A posts

There must be open space in this development. The recent Bardon Park issue throws light on the fact that more people in an area puts more pressure on the existing infrastructure/ameneties. Large developments must include provision for plentiful open space such as parks. Developers have gotten away with too much in the eastern suburbs. What mayor Matson is suggesting is a step in the right direction but as we know, if it goes to a Council vote, anything may happen. Its about time that everyone in Council understands that we have had enough of rampant overdevelopment in the east.

Chilla posts

some updates, the two applications at Randwick Racecourse have been approved by the wonderful Department of Planning................. Resident requests that the Stables area be located near the existing stables corner of High St & Anzac Parade, opposite the Uni of NSW instead of across from their homes at the intersection of Alison and Wansey Roads were ignored.......................AND where the stadiums are (at Alison and Darley Roads) will now have a 'Theatre of the Horse' which is really an entertainment venue, with no direct car access from Alison Road. A Joke,

Chilla posts

ALSO, Murray Matson's 15 metre high limit on development around the Uni of NSW and the Prince of Wales Hospital complex is meanless, given it includes concessions for so called affordable housing.

Dear Julia - I note your reference to Council meetings. Councilors decision making on this particular issue is politically skewed as the five Liberal Councillors leave the chamber and do not participate in the debate when this matter comes up. This just leaves the three Greens, four Labor Councillors, two independents and one No Parking Meters Party (NOPMP) Councillor to derive a decision on behalf of the community. All five Liberals left before the debate on my 15 meter height limit change was put into place at the Planning Committee meeting of December 7 last year. In addition Independent Anthony Andrews and Charles Matthews (NOPMP) voted against the height restriction.

RAM posts

It is sad to see that Murray Matson's minute over height limits has been studiously ignored by the Inglis family. Indeed it seems ironic that according to the Inglis consultants that Randwick City Council officers suggested they INCREASE the heights to 9 storeys. An assertion they have made at several different times and venues. . . Equally, the latest number of apartments spoken about is 820 AND around 50 commercial suites and retail tenancies with fewer car parking places than required. The bulk of this is unchanged from their plans last April (apart from the heights that is) as well as the previous suggestion from Randwick Council's Strategic Planners to build roads through Randwick Girls and Randwick Boys and to seek acess to then their open space to allow greater density on the Inglis site. . Luckily both the Premier Kristina Keneally and the Education Minister on November 29 both categorically ruled out this happening. This was weeks before Murray Matson spoke up despite his being notified on November 3. . It is ironic that the "Green Party" Mayor and Candidate for Maroubra should be so slow to react and seemingly so in favour of worsening the overcrowding and concrete canyons in Randwick - especially in the historic Struggletown area. It may not be Tasmanian wilderness (see RCC Mayor's Biography) but it IS IMPORTANT to locals. Murray Matson should look at how many Tower Block developments have been approved during his time on Council and HOW OVER THE STATED LIMITS they have been. Randwick Nissan for example (originally granted Floor Space Ratio TWICE the limit in 2004). 2 times a 5 storey tower equals a 10 storey tower by the way.

Hmmmm "Ram", or should I say “Andrew” :), this all seems a little personal? I think that in all fairness that I have responded fairly quickly to community concerns. Within a relatively short time I put forward two Mayoral Minutes that amongst other things: • Blocked off the shared pedestrian and roadways from Inglis through the school site; • Restricted the height limits to 15 metres with some concession for affordable housing for workers and student accommodation (surely a good thing); • Put into place a cap on the maximum number of new dwellings in the discussion paper area to 1,500; and • Called for the creation of more open space and a commitment to Light Rail. I did it during a meeting in which the 5 Liberal Councillors had to declare conflicts of interest and leave the chamber and thus not vote. This meant that the Greens had to get the support of the four Labor Councillors and independent Councillors to get my changes through. And so what if the Inglis proponents don’t like my 15 metre restriction? Well, this is hardly surprising as they are after all developers and naturally do not like the local Mayor impeding them in any way. And I have no doubt that during next Wednesday night’s Kingsford South precinct committee meeting they will put a positive spin on their relationship with Council. The reality is though that they have not got the support of the majority of Councillors who are currently free to vote on it including myself the Mayor. The tone of your posting makes me wonder exactly what it is that you personally are trying to achieve in all this. After all, the community has got the ear and support of their Mayor, the Councillor who has responded the most to them. Yet you seem determined to inject as much poison as you can into my relationship with the community. Just why is this?

RAM posts

From last to first. I am not looking to "inject as much poison ... into my relationship with the community" - rather I am just revealing the truth about Murray Matson's inaction and refusal to answer the questions that have been asked. Any poison is of the Mayor's creation due to the repeated refusal to answer the questions sent or even in most case acknowledge them let alone attend one of our last four meetings. The Mayor/Candidate for Maroubra says he has the community's ear -he does and they do not like what they are hearing or rather the silence they have received the bulk of the time. Murray Matson has not actually replied to the exact questions asked on behalf of the community. That seems like impeding the community's understanding. Next in line, note, I answer the question asked, perhaps you could pay the community the same courtesy. What am I hoping to achieve - the residents' being listened too and not end up with concrete canyons throughout Randwick. Did you vote for or against the 2004 Council vote on the Randwick Nissan site or the 2010 decision that sees it at close to 215% of the zoned Floor Space ratio? Or height limits? As you know even if the Council does not like something it can be appealed to the Land & Environment Court as you so eloquently put it in your REFUSAL to add a column showing approved FSR vs zoned FSR on the Council website at our discussion on Nov 3 - because of SEPP1 and appeals to the Land & Environment Court. Then you said it could be misleading - why is the TRUTH misleading, inconvenient maybe but not misleading, or is it embarassing? Is Randwick CC the Council that has the largest over-guidelines approval rate for developments perhaps? Do approvals in RCC's area exceed the FSR by more than any other Council in Sydney by number? or by %? You remembered the ability to get a larger development than the guidelines allow in November but seem to have forgotten about that avenue now. Equally you undertook some months ago to report back the legal backing of your mayoral minutes on both the height restriction and 1,500 new dwelling cap - whether they actually have any legal standing? We have not received and answers on that promise of yours? Or is it that once land is zoned by RCC to Residential 2D (high density mixed use) then it should at least conform to the State Govt approved controls set by RCC of up to 24m? You have not told us and the closing date for submissions is fast approaching? Equally why have the minutes of the Nov 3 meeting not been circulated over 4 months since the meeting when the unpaid volunteers running the Precincts are supposed to have minutes done within 10 days (although some, like our own just supply the AGM according to the GM's verbal agreement (never put in writing though). Equally the decision to postpone the Feb Combined Precinct meeting was put off until after the State Election derailing another chance for residents' to ask why their questions have not been answered? This does not seem the actions of an open and transparent operation does it? Do you believe that Councillors should not declare a conflict of interest? That they should risk being seen as acting inappropriately and participating in votes that could lead to developers making hundred's of millions more? Turning to your "affordable housing" attempted distraction. The UNSW is already rumoured to be planning over one thousand additional dwellings on & around the International House site ON CAMPUS. That would seem to cover the 1,500 cap when combined with Inglis. A simple solution would be not to rezone open green space at Randwick Racecourse to Res 2D for concrete canyons as well as the rest of the areas proposed in the discussion paper. Equally, how could Council officers not note the statement of "high frequency public transport" close to the Inglis site - Anzac Parade is a long walk from Jane & Middle St, even more so coming up hill in the rain. So also is the Spot a good distance - yet the planners did not challenge that point nor many others in their positive report supporting the commencement of the rezoning process. Perhaps you should read through your earlier "posts" above as you have contradicted yourself between answers.

Ram/Andrew - you really should consider standing down as an officer holder of the precinct. Your personal animosity towards me is clouding both your judgment and the ability of the precinct to act as a consultative mechanism between the precinct and the Council. Do you seriously think that it is a good thing that the five Liberal Councillors have worked themselves into a position where they now can now vote on behalf of their constituents against the interests of a large stake holder? Think about what this actually means. And please from now on identify yourself as the secretary of the Kingsford South Precinct. You are not being very transparent by using an assumed name. When I comment I never hide.

RAM posts

Murray Matson, as usual you refuse to answer the questions asked. You state you do not hide - untrue; you hide behind personal attacks and do not answer the question asked. Not any from me or the other posts above. Instead you attack the individual or others not the topic and play the blame game. When are you going to answer the questions asked instead of playing petty politics? Yet again you seek to divert attention away from yourself and point the finger at everyone else. Murray as an individual I can speak on behalf of myself, if you chose to make accusation after accusation (breaching privacy legislation is a criminal offense by the way)that is your choice, as are the consequences. The people of Randwick would like to know the answers to the questions they have asked no matter how inconvenient or unpalatable for you - not what you want to say but what they have asked - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Andrew/RAM - what "personal attacks" are you referring to? What "accusation after accusation" have I made? What breech of "privacy legislation" do you mean? How am I diverting attention away from myself?

James Kruss posts

I only learnt of this whole debate today and I was appalled ton see that the council will potentially be voting to ruin our beautiful suburb which will drive me out of it. I live on the corner of barker and botany st primarily because there is enough parking. If any proposals to rezone get up I have no doubt there will no longer be adequate parking. Further, the roads and round-about on the cnr Barker and Botany is already busy enough. I am a renter and have serious doubts as to whether my residence would remain available to me if the re-zoning occurs. If we wanted to live in a high density area, locals would not have chosen Randwick/Kingsford to live in. ...Further more, a discussion paper titled 'Randwick Education & Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper’ which actually deals with residential areas is a joke. Just call a spade a spade! I am a very concerned resident and request those in a position to make a difference to please stand against any sort of density increase in our great suburb! Ongoing sustainability is not all about money and quality of life needs to be preserved!

RAM posts

Murray Matson - yet again YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED ABOVE. Instead you adopt your normal approach into diverting attention from the questions asked of you. If you expect other people to answer your questions (as I did above) then you need to ANSWER EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED. Or is this beneath you? Randwick residents expect their Mayor and Councillors to answer their questions. I am sure the residents of the Maroubra Electorate do not appreciate a candidate who appears afraid to answer questions - what have you got to hide?. You are out of touch with how smart residents are. They have seen your demonstration of petty politics, finger pointing and firing off questions at others you seem happy to do anything to avoid telling people what they want to know. Why? DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ABOVE ANSWERING RESIDENTS' QUESTIONS?

Andrew/RAM - I don't as a general rule answer any questions that do not relate to the subject matter of the article in question i.e. in this case the Inglis proposal, Racecourse Part 3A proposals and the Health Education Discussion paper. I exercise this discipline in order to prevent the debate diverting off course into areas that have no relevance to the subject matter before the readers. Further more, just because I am a public figure I am under no obligation to respond to discourteous rants such as the ones you have posted here. I am about the only Randwick City Councillor who does respond to streetcorner articles and/or comments - but I will only do so when I am treated with respect. You have definitely over stepped the mark. You are the secretary (and past chair) of the Kingsford South precinct committee. You surely must owe your members greater self control than you have demonstrated here in your comments above. You should be going out of your way to facilitate dialogue with the Council. Instead you seem driven to alienate the Council from the community as much as you can. What are you actually trying to achieve? Murray Matson, Mayor Randwick City Council

RAM posts

It appears that the Mayor has a comprehension problem. All the questions asked by myself and the other people above are to do with the article. Perhaps reading the article, before the Mayor launches into yet another meaningless tirade trying to divert attention away from the questions, would be advisable. Indeed Mr Matson - I have already answered your latest questions in my comments above. Maybe you should read them slowly. NOW HOW ABOUT ANSWERING RESIDENTS' QUESTIONS on the topics in the article? Remember all we want are answers not personal attacks, finger pointing and petty politics - if you are capable of answering that is.

Andrew/RAM - sorry you have just used up all your courtesy credit with me. You have just lost my ear.

Fair enough too Mr Mayor I would have given up on the debate with RAM way earlier. There are many of us in the community who are not making this personal and are very reasonable about our concerns please do not let RAM dissuade you from listening to the rest of us.

Enough posts

RAM you are not helping the cause step back and take a deep breath let's keep this on the issue its getting way off course

Enough 2 posts

I agree with Enough! ENOUGH!!

vrv posts

I have to agree with Nicki,precinct meeting chairpeople and councillors must surely have more access to each other than on streetcorner whereas the general public only have streetcorner and I appreciate that the Murray Matson does take the time to comment on our issues. So I too say please respond to us if not to RAM. I was at the meeting the other night and I have a couple of questions to clarify some statements made in the precinct flyer. What do you (Murray Matson) mean by the 15 m height limit has been imposed only if much needed affordable housing is provided? Does that mean if they build cheap dwellings you will allow them to build to 15 metres? What does an upper cap of 1500 additional dwellings mean? In the whole area including the Randwick Health and Ed? If that's the case why in a such a residential area as Struggletown do we need to carry almost two-thirds of that? Also the Inglis team were very dismissive of your 15 m height limit, they went ahead with it anyway. I think the biggest concern residents have is the traffic and parking problems that don't add up to Ingls' "don't worry about that" attitude. We know what it is like to try and get out onto Barker St mornings and afternoons. They suggested that having more roads coming out of Inglis's would solve the problem. I think you can see that more cars coming out of more exits will increase the waiting time. They also said they did another traffic study after the first one was done when the Uni was on holidays but we , as diligent observers, saw no cameras or any other measuring device. They only talk of approx 720 parking spaces for 900 dwellings including up to 50 commercial premises. Most households in Australia have 2 cars not .5 as the Inglis rep calculated for a studio apartment and the belief that a lot of people will walk or ride. It is a fairytale proposal they are putting forward. Having just experienced a horse sale at Newmarket where maybe between 2-300 people and cars have tried to access our streets and park in a provided carpark, I was unable to find a parking spot anywhere in my vicinity. What will happen when possibly up to 1800 cars are fighting for space plus their visitors? And what will happen to the 50 commercial premises on Barker st when that street already has no parking available. I ask you as our representative to liaise between us and Newmarket because they are definately not listening to us and our legitimate concerns.With thanks.

vtv - I address the issues you raise. In December I responded to comments by Labor MP Paul Pearce that the Discussion Paper was “flawed” by suspending it until I clarified it with him. UPPER 1,500 CAP. The rezoning proposals in the Discussion paper are tied to the State Government committing to providing Light Rail. In December I responded to community concerns that it was not clear how many new dwellings were conceived of. Some people were suggesting that the Discussion paper up to 20,000 were possible, which I became alarmed by. The State Government Metro Strategy stipulates that Randwick Council has to accept 8,000 new dwellings within a number of decades. It has been suggested that Council should explore the option of housing up to 1,500 of these in the area where most of the Council’s jobs are located, which is the discussion paper area. The community may not support this and I personally won’t if badly needed transport infrastructure such as Light Rail is not committed to by the state. I want the 1,500 cap to apply to the Inglis proposal – the proponents of it obviously do not. 15 METRE HEIGHT LIMIT. In a subsequent meeting Mr Pearce suggested that a 15 metre (i.e. about 5 storys) was an appropriate maximum rather than then the suggested option of 24 metres option for some areas. It was suggested to me by others that 15 metres is only 3 metres (one floor) that than the 12 metre high buildings that currently exist in some places and that this offered little inducement for a developer to offer affordable housing. At the Council’s December meeting I then recommended that Councillors adjust the discussion paper by applying a maximum height limit of 15 metres with concessions for affordable housing. PRECINCT FLYER. As I understand it the office holders of the Kingsford South Precinct Committee stated at the start of the Wednesday 9th meeting (I arrived latter) that they had deliberately restricted to some degree the distribution of an insert I had placed in the precinct newsletter notifying residents of these above changes. I don’t get why they did this as it will only lead to a break down in communication between the Council and general members of the precinct on what is really being discussed. For instance today I noticed precinct people collecting signatures up at the spot festival for two petitions opposing “9 story” buildings which they obviously thought was still an option up for discussion under the discussion paper. INGLIS PROPONENTS. The Inglis proponents are clearly not prepared to accept that they should be bound by the Discussion Paper’s new 15 metre height limit. They are keen to present themselves as having a very positive dialogue with the Council but the reality is that they have to provide technical studies supporting their claims that the site is sustainable for 800 dwellings. Then they have to convince a majority of Councillors that their version of rezoning Local Environment Plan should be exhibited. LIAISE WITH INGLIS PROPONENTS. I understand you have frustrations with the Inglis proponents (I did not hear their address at the meeting because I arrived late) but I never enter into negotiations with developers on planning matters as I believe this sets up a very inappropriate relationship for any Councillor who does. This means that I will not offer to liaise with them. I will wait till they have presented their technical studies and until I have seen how they are responding to the 15 metre height limit and the cap, then I will make recommendations to Councillors and the community.

pmb posts

This is a great forum for updates on this situation. Thanks to the Mayor and others for posting latest info.

James Kruss posts

Hi Murray, given that the plans are now available on the Council website (http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Places_fo...) down the bottom, and do propose 25m high 9 storey buildings and I think 800-900 dwellings, can you please advise?

Thanks for your tuhohgts. It's helped me a lot.

The Council considered this proposal at it's last meeting and on my motion resolved not to change the current zoning, which is 2A. This zoning will now be translated into the corresponding zone under the State Government's template model and will be exhibited as such when the Draft Comprehensive Local Environment Plan goes on public exihbition. Murray Matson (Greens Councillor Randwick City Council)

KEKE posts

gojvry posts

gojvry


Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

By submitting your comment you agree to our community agreement / terms of use.


Feedback Form
Feedback Analytics