About the

Glebe Society

• Background and Aims
  
  
• Membership
  
  
• Publications
  
  
• Really!
  
  
• Getting to Know You
  
  

• Bays and Foreshores
  
  
• Environment
  
  
• Foreshore Walk
  
  
• Glebe's Blue Wrens
  
  
• Heritage
  
  
• Traffic and Transport
  
  
• Planning
  
  
• Management
  

Heritage Development Control Plan Workshop

On Tuesday, 21 March, I attended a workshop run for the City by Architectus, the consultants employed to draw up provisions for protection of Heritage Items, conservation areas and streetscapes as part of the new town plan to be finalised by the end of this year. As well as Glebe, there were representatives from Chippendale, Pyrmont, South Sydney and Paddington and The National Trust, State Rail Authority, the Redfern/Waterloo Authority and Department of Housing.

As you might guess from the attendees, the discussion was wide ranging. The core of the consultants’ work is to adapt the approach used in The Glebe Point Road Main Street Study another first for Glebe!) classifying buildings as either contributory, neutral or detracting in relation to the streetscape and conservation areas.

It was obvious Glebe and Paddington, with their long established resident action groups and existing controls, are in a relatively strong position. However, they should still benefit from the closer analysis, as well as leading the way for less well-studied and protected areas.

Although many of the concerns of residents are being successfully addressed, there are a number of issues still unresolved.

1. Diversity. It is more difficult to devise controls for very diverse streetscapes (e.g. parts of Forest Lodge). For example, it should not be possible to enlarge a building simply because some
other buildings in the street are larger. However, the consultants have made some progress and are confident they can chieve this goal.

2. Contributory versus Heritage Item. Heritage Items have individual statements of significance. This makes protection relatively easy. However, contributory buildings in conservation areas do not have such statements. Workshop participants raised two problems: how are contributory buildings to be distinguished from Heritage Items? and how effective is their protection? Watch this space!

The March Bulletin included a questionnaire from this Workshop, and the consultants are keen to receive feedback. I have spare copies (9660 0208).

Draft Glebe Conservation Area Study

This Study will form the basis of conservation in Glebe, and will probably go on exhibition at Glebe Town Hall and Council’s website before the next Bulletin is published. The key recommendations are:

1. Glebe is divided into eight Conservation Areas to reflect original subdivision patterns.

2. Glebe Point Road is designated a Heritage Streetscape in addition to its inclusion in a number of these Conservation Areas.

3. The listing of Heritage Items on Glebe Point Road has been rationalised. This is because the original listing was based on the Glebe Point Road Main Street Study, which needed updating (this was requested by the Society, as the Study is 15 years old. I can claim credit for most of the listings; previously very few commercial or industrial properties were protected).

4. As a result, twenty four Glebe Point Road properties have been removed. Nevertheless, the number of listings has increased from 69 to 95 because buildings are now listed separately or in smaller groups.

5. Twelve additional properties throughout Glebe have been made Heritage Items. Members with an interest in conservation are asked to inspect and, if they feel inclined, to comment on the Draft. It is likely the Society will object to the removal of at least some of the Items, and while there is no problem with any of the twelve additional Items, it may be possible to make
out a case for the inclusion of others as well.

The Draft is very bulky because Attachment C includes all the Statements of Significance for Glebe Point Road plus the additional twelve Items. However, leaving the Attachments aside, the draft itself is quite short and easy to read.

Planning Powers should remain with Local Government

At its meeting on 30 March the Planning sub-committee deplored the legislation passed the previous day permitting the Minister for Planning (currently Frank Sartor) to appoint panels to take over a Council’s planning powers without a public enquiry. An enquiry ensures the community knows why a council has had its powers curtailed. In most cases, council staff and residents have a degree of local knowledge that cannot be achieved by a panel or a State department, and there should be a very strong justification, including proof of improper conduct, before intervention.

Leaving the decision in the hands of the Minister always raises the suspicion the Minister will use his power to favour some group politically, and development companies are large contributors of funds to all major parties.

Existing Use Rights

The same legislation that extended the Minister’s powers from 29 March did however have one benefit. Previously it was possible not only to continue a use normally prohibited, provided the use already existed, but also to switch to another prohibited use. This was the ploy attempted in the Tramsheds application in 2004, and refused by the Central Sydney Planning Committee.

Now, however, a developer can apply to continue a current use, but not to change it to another one that is also prohibited. The Tramsheds application would now fail on that ground as well.

BASIX

This is a program designed to i

ncrease energy efficiency. Initially introduced for new housing, it is now applicable to renovations as well, so it could affect anyone. Hear all about it in the Community Room at Benledi at 6 pm on Monday, 15 May, from Andrew Thomas, Manager, Strategic Planning at the City of Sydney.

- Neil Macindoe

Late News . .

Tramsheds: The Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) will consider a development application (DA) for the site known as 'The Tramsheds' on Thursday, 28 July. The City Council's Planning Department has recommended refusal on the basis that the proposed development is a prohibited use and that the applicant has not established existing use rights. The Planning Department report does not discuss the merits of the 300 objections received from the public, presumably because it recommends refusal on other grounds. The Society has sought an assurance that, if the CSPC does not agree with the Planning Department recommendation, it will seek a further report discussing the issues raised in the objections.

Queries? email: planning@glebesociety.org.au