News and Events

• In the News
  
  
• Coming Events
  
  
• Calendar of
  Events
  
  
• Getting to Know You - Glebe Society Social Activities
  
  

Glebe Society opposes amalgamation of
Cities of Sydney and South Sydney

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The Glebe Society Inc is opposed the amalgamation of the councils of the City of Sydney and South Sydney. Our main reasons are:

• The boundary changes implemented in May 2003 are still "bedding in". Further change at this stage would disrupt the process of integrating Glebe into the City and place unnecessary pressure on council staff and result in degradation of the level of services to Glebe residents.
• There is no community of interest between the southern portions of the current South Sydney Council area and the other suburbs that make up the current City of Sydney.
• The area and population covered by the combined councils is so large and diverse as to make adequate local representation on the new council difficult.

BACKGROUND
2.1 The Glebe Society The Glebe Society currently has 275 members, mainly residents of Glebe. It was founded in March 1969 to combat threats to the distinctive Victorian character of the suburb, including the demolition of terrace houses to make way for flats, and a freeway proposal that threatened to cut the suburb in three. While the Society is still concerned with the preservation of the suburb's built and natural environment, it is also involves itself in a wide range of social issues and the improvement of the suburb's amenity, economy and its ability to provide a satisfying life-style for its diverse population. The Society's objectives are summarised in the appendix to this submission.

2.2 Previous representations The Glebe Society made submissions to both the original Sproats Inquiry and the following Boundaries Commission inquiry into the Government's proposal to enlarge the City of Sydney. The Society did not oppose the incorporation of Glebe within the boundaries of a larger council as it saw the potential for more effective, efficient and professional service delivery from an enlarged City of Sydney. However it expressed concern about the ability of Glebe, which has social, environmental and heritage concerns that are not shared by other suburbs, to be adequately represented on a larger council.

THE ISSUES
3.1 In his 2001 report Professor Sproats observed that in any reform process it is important to observe the principles of inclusiveness, a consultative environment, clear communication and transparency - principles not adhered to up till now with regard to the current proposal. The Society believes these objectives, particularly meaningful community consultation, cannot be achieved if a decision is to be made before the March 2004 local government elections, and to rush the process simply to meet this artificial deadline will diminish the credibility of the local government reform process.

3.2 Professor Sproats's late-2003 review of his earlier report has been cited as justification for the proposed amalgamation. We note that Professor Sproats said "the proposition is not necessarily inconsistent with my earlier findings and recommendations". This is hardly a persuasive finding, nor does his report overall provide strong evidence in support of the amalgamation.

3.3 Financial factors It has been suggested that the proposed amalgamation is necessary because the current South Sydney Council is not viable. We can only note that South Sydney denies that this is the case now that the City of Sydney has discontinued its legal efforts to take over certain of South Sydney's properties.

3.4 If there is concern about the viability of South Sydney, the Society believes that the most appropriate solution is to implement the major recommendations of the April 2001 Sproats Report that proposed the amalgamation of the current eight inner city councils into four larger councils, although we would prefer to see minimal change to the current City of Sydney boundaries should this solution be adopted (see Service Delivery and Access below).

3.5 Community of interest and geographic cohesion The present City of Sydney has a community of interest based on what might be termed "city values". The City is no longer a desert after 5 pm; many people now live in the CBD and their interests are similar to those people who live in the city fringe suburbs such as Glebe, Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, Surry Hills etc. The current City boundaries encompass Sydney's most significant business, entertainment, educational and cultural institutions. These, combined with the character of the residents of the City, give it a style which has little in common with the suburban and industrial areas that would be added to the City should the proposed amalgamation proceed.

3.6 Historical and traditional values Glebe was one of the first areas of white settlement outside Sydney Cove and Parramatta. While its current built environment is largely from the Victorian period, significant areas reflect the streetscapes of the 1820s. After a period of industrialisation, Glebe has, over the past 30-40 years, once again become primarily a residential area, although also it is also home to significant institutions of State significance. Its population is diverse, and its character is very much "city fringe" rather than suburban. It has nothing in common with the industrial areas which comprise the southern portions of the South Sydney council area.

3.7 Residents' and ratepayers' attitudes The Society has detected no opinion in Glebe favouring the proposed amalgamation. Our perception is that citizens see significant disadvantages from the merger in that Glebe's particular needs would be overlooked in the larger council and that the resources allocated to Glebe would be significantly reduced.

3.8 Professor Sproats notes that the Minister for Local Government has the option of leaving the current boundaries intact for the March 2004 election and conducting a plebiscite on the proposed merger in association with the elections. In view of the timing and haste of his "review", the Society considers this option warrants consideration. If a plebiscite is not held, the Society urges the Boundaries Commission to conduct meaningful community consultation before completing its report.

3.9 We also note that both councils are opposed to amalgamation. Given the Government's stated policy of "no forced amalgamations", this would appear to be a significant barrier to the amalgamation proceeding.

3.10 Representational issues For most people their local council is the level of government which has the most direct impact on them and their immediate environment. We see it as vital, therefore, that local government boundaries maximise accessibility and accountability to residents of both their elected representatives and council staff. The party political complexion of a council is of lesser importance than having representatives and staff whose prime objective is the amenity of their area and the wellbeing of their community.

3.11 When Glebe was initially incorporated into the City of Sydney, the Society was concerned that the suburb would have little voice in the affairs of the City. To this point our fears have proved unfounded and in fact communication with the Lord Mayor and a number of councillors has been very good. (Of course we recognise that the imminence of the local government elections may account for some of this interest.) It is our intuitive judgment that the current boundaries of the City of Sydney probably represent the maximum population, geographical area and diversity of social groups and built environment which can be managed efficiently by a single council while giving areas such as Glebe an adequate voice in the affairs of the council.

3.12 Service delivery and access Glebe became part of the City of Sydney again on 8 May 2003. The Society believes that Glebe residents have already benefited from the change through improved service delivery and the professionalism of the staff that the City has assigned to Glebe. This has been apparent in routine areas such as street cleaning, graffiti removal, and reform of the previous parking restrictions. The City has also demonstrated an interest in longer term issues, such as upgrading of footpaths, implementation of the foreshore walk in Blackwattle Bay and the revival of the Glebe Point Road business district.

3.13 The Society believes that a precipitate amalgamation of the Cities of Sydney and South Sydney would disrupt the process of incorporation of Glebe and the other new areas added to the City of Sydney on 8 May last year. This task has placed significant demands on council staff and it is far from complete. To force the incorporation of the whole of the current South Sydney Council into the City before the most recent changes have been properly digested would inevitably mean the diversion of the staff and financial resources away from Glebe and put in jeopardy the good work done to date.

3.14 In the event that the Commissioners support the proposed amalgamation, the Society requests that they strongly recommend measures to protect the gains in service delivery achieved in Glebe recently, such as the decentralisation of much Glebe-related administration to staff based at the Glebe Town Hall.

CONCLUSION
4.1 It is worth noting the words of Professor Sproats in the introduction to his "Evaluation and Recommendations" in his 2001 report: "I approached this Inquiry with an open mind. In my analysis and thinking as the Inquiry unfolded I found myself returning several times to remarks made at the public hearings: that any changes without boundary changes will be marginal, but that any boundary changes without fundamental changes to local government itself are hardly worth the trouble. I found myself agreeing increasingly with both points of view."

4.2 The current proposal is for boundary change without any of the fundamental change recommended by Professor Sproats. It will not further the case for local government reform and as such "is hardly worth the trouble".

4.3 The Society is opposed to the amalgamation of the City of Sydney and the City of South Sydney for the reasons set out above. There are no apparent benefits to the people of Glebe, and there is the potential for us to be significantly disadvantaged. Should the Government persist with the proposal it will appear to be motivated by party political advantage rather than the welfare of the people affected.

* * * * *

APPENDIX

Glebe Society objectives
(extract from the Rules of The Glebe Society Incorporated)

The objectives of The Glebe Society include:

• the preservation and enhancement of the natural and architectural character of Glebe, and encouraging sound town planning, architectural and conservation practices;
• opposing by lawful means development detrimental to heritage values or contrary to community interests;
• promoting a better transport system, both public and private, including upgrading facilities for pedestrians and cyclists;
• achieving public access, both pedestrian and cycle, to the entire waterfront of Glebe;
• making Glebe a cleaner and healthier environment,
• encouraging the village atmosphere and community spirit in Glebe; and
• stimulating an interest in the history and character of Glebe, and fostering study of and research into the history of Glebe and its environs.