The Glebe Society Management Committee has called two meetings to discuss the future of Harold Park.
1. Tuesday, 8 April, at 6:30 pm at Benledi: This will be a meeting of Society members held to decide the Society’s position. As you will recall, the City Council has held several meetings, culminating in presentations on a concept for Harold Park developed by the Government Architect. This plan has not been greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm.
The Harold Park Working Party, chaired by Neil Macindoe, has identified a number of principles (see below) for the future development of Harold Park. It is proposed that these should form the basis of discussion and a resolution agreed by Society members.
2. Wednesday, 21 April, at 6:30 pm at St Scholastica’s. This will be a public meeting open to everyone. The resolution from the Glebe Society’s members’ meeting will be put to this meeting.
The way ahead
Planning for the future of Harold Park is at an early stage, and for this reason we can hope to influence the final outcome. The steps leading to the submission of a development application are:
- A draft rezoning plan is due to go to Council in June.
- The final plan is expected to be exhibited about September 2010, allowing a final round of comments.
- Once the plan is approved and the broad planning controls are in place, the Club can sell the site and a developer can submit a detailed development application (DA). We will need to remain engaged during this entire process.
The Glebe Society believes the consultation process to date has been inadequate, mainly because a lot of essential information arrived too late or was not provided. There is time before June for the Glebe community to get together and have a better discussion of the issues, and hopefully produce a better result, and the Society is providing a forum to make this possible.
Draft Principles
- No building should be higher than the cliff face.
- Public Open Space should be at least one third of the site.
- The density should be lowered in accordance with 1 & 2.
- Access should not be across parkland.
- Layout should encourage easy access for pedestrians and cycles.
- Access to surrounding areas should be improved.
- Open Space should be secure and sunny and connect with existing Open Space.
- All development should be sustainable and energy efficient and protect privacy and amenity.
- There should be no dwellings within the 100 year flood limit.
- Provision should be made for affordable housing, including student housing.
- The Tramsheds, including the forecourt, should be restored to include community use, garden and bird habitat.
- Public transport should be upgraded and include integrated ticketing.
- The Harness Racing Club should not profit from the sale of the Tramsheds.
- A design competition should be held at the DA stage to ensure the most creative result.
6 comments. Please add yours.
There are so many issues with this development it is hard to know what to emphasise. Fully agree that consultation has been inadequate in that residents views are not reflected in the draft plan and that Council should be pressured to totally revise it.
Agree that HRNSW should not profit from the tramsheds site but it also should not receive a huge windfall purely from the rezoning of what has always been open space/a sporting precinct (even before they bought it). The best course is for whole site to be publicly acquired (by some combination of local, state and even federal government) prior to rezoning and development undertaken under public auspices to include open space (more than currently proposed), sporting facilities, targeted housing, residential aged care (Commonwealth involvement?) and a limited amount of private housing in line with the surrounding area.
The TRAMSHEDS could be a $ 35 mill restoration project, but if the " climate change" incentives for Solar power allow the Tramshed to be a sustainable electric power generator, the 2010 cost of restoration could be significantly different to when the site was sold to Harold Park Raceway.
I have had on-going interest in having a MENS SHED located within the TRAMSHED site, and may have interest from the local charity HOPESTREET ( baptist) , and Vinnies ( Catholic) to be part of a MENS SHED project.
There maybe interest from bike sports groups for a regional VELODROME, which could use the Northern French town Roubiax as an example. It has a concrete Velodrome without a roof. This affects the proposed housing design for the site.
The proposed " city farm" use of the site was for up to 11 ha and supported by many City of Sydney councillors. If there is other site options to create this land-use then please discuss them at the meeting. They may already be other sites suggested in the Bays foreshore proposals. Sydney Park has been suggested by a City of Sydney staffer as a possible alternative option.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I commend the Design Principles and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the urban design proposals and the other reports. The Urban Design Study provides a good appreciation of the opportunities and constraints for the site.
However, I do not consider that the Draft Urban Design Study presented adequately addresses the concerns or takes advantage of the opportunities. Like others at the Community Consultation sessions, I have concerns with:
· – the proposed development density (although what is actually proposed is unclear),
· – the traffic and parking solution (although these are also unclear), and
· – the urban form of the preferred option.
I do hope that the undoubted community concern over these issues will be considered and acted upon, and that we are given more complete information so that we can make informed comment. The information provided to date (or lack of it) cannot but make one feel that this is heading toward a planner/developer/financier-determined future.
Traffic and parking
The Arup Traffic Study is totally inadequate for a development of this size and in such a constrained location.
It notes that one of “the major future transport constraint(s) of the site” is “peak hour traffic congestion between 300-500m north and south of the site”. The study offers no data on how this will be affected by the development, nor real proposals on how this congestion will be alleviated. It offers vague and unsupported suggestions as to “future transport opportunities”. Surely one of the aims of brownfield redevelopment should be to improve the local environment, not make it worse.
There are three basic issues:
1. 1. Increased traffic
2. 2. Car parking
3. 3. Access
1. Increased traffic
The report states that 40% of Forest Lodge residents travel to work by private car, which is a clear indication of the transport reality for local residents.
The report then offers the rather hopeful prognosis that “In the future, with significantly better public transport and access to services this proportion should be targeted to reduce 20-25% for the Harold Park site.” This objective requires thorough testing of its underlying assumptions.
· Firstly, the report does not offer any suggestions as to how public transport will improve, other than through the now-cancelled Sydney Metro, and by redirecting bus-routes along Bridge Road or through the site. The light rail already exists (although it has additional capacity) and the bus services already struggle with the Wigram Road access, the congestion on The Crescent and the turn at Bridge Road/Ross Street.
· Second, it seems to rely on undefined “car-share schemes”, although it offers no data to suggest that these will reduce car ownership and use to the degree necessary.
· Third, the report suggests that the proposed on-site services (retail and commercial) are likely to provide some working opportunities for Harold Park residents. While this is likely, the opposite is also likely, that is, the services will also attract non-residents to the fill the 635 jobs available. Further, the report suggests that “the Tram Sheds depot ‘building shell’“ could be used for Light Rail vehicle parking, bringing more traffic into the site.
It appears that the 20-25% figure has been plucked from somewhere and the report written to justify it. The report presents no data on the estimated number of trips to and from the site by residents or workers. It presents no data on projected increases in congestion – cited as one of the major development constraints.
When I approached the Council and Government representatives at the second public forum I was told that Ross Street, Minogue Crescent and The Crescent are RTA roads and the RTA will be upgrading them. Surely this “upgrade” should be revealed as an integral part of an informed consideration of the redevelopment. It is just nonsensical to continue without revealing the future of these roads, which at present are quite clearly incapable of supporting the development. If it is known, then why cannot the public be informed?
2. Car parking
With the exception of the “shell building” to provide 295 spaces for visitors and employees of the tram sheds, the study presents no data on on-site car parking. There is no data on parking for the commercial building, no data on parking for residents, no data on parking for their visitors, and no data on parking for non-residents using the light rail.
However, the study does state that the development is likely to require “introduction of Resident Parking Schemes on the local streets in the vicinity”. Clearly, this will only be necessary if there is inadequate on-site parking; the development MUST cater for its full car parking needs so that local streets are not adversely impacted.
3. Access
In addition, the redevelopment must provide real solutions to access.
Access will clearly be impacted by whatever the RTA does with Ross Street, Minogue Crescent and the Crescent, and it is not sensible to continue without having that resolved.
The study proposes access for at least 295 cars plus those for the commercial building, plus service and delivery vehicles via the Nelson Street/Chapman Road.
The existing bridge crossing was only ever intended to offer periodic and secondary access to the paceway. If accepted, the proposal will be intrusive and disruptive and will introduce a major safety issue for users of Jubilee Park, who are increasing in number since the Children’s Hospital redevelopment and other local infill projects and will be considerably further increased by this development.
Canal Road should be reinstated for access to the site and the bridge across Johnston Creek reserved for pedestrians and cyclists.
Urban form
The Urban Design Study says that “any new development should consider building type, scale and form of residential development in the adjacent suburbs…”, that “new development should respect neighbouring built form”, and that “there is an opportunity to introduce a finer grain of development on the site that is more compatible with the surrounding neighbourhoods”. The proposal falls short in all these measures.
It does not respect neighbouring built scale or form which is single and two storey attached and detached dwellings.
It does not reflect the density of surrounding areas – as is clearly evident from the included neighbourhood density map.
And it does not introduce a finer grain of development compatible with the local areas.
Further, one of the Design Principles is to “ensure that the built form works with the topography of the site”. However, I believe that the designers have misread the topography, and that this is confirmed by the Study report that says “a series of cliffs, cuttings and retaining walls surround the site”. This is not correct, as is clearly evident from the provided sections through the site from Victoria Road, Arcadia Road and Toxteth Road. The cliffs referred to are on the Glebe (eastern) side of the site and at the very south-west, along Minogue Crescent. Elsewhere the adjoining neighbourhoods are at or near the valley floor level as is clearly evident from these sections.
This misreading of topography resulted in almost universal rejection of the “preferred planning option” at the Community Consultation session I attended. The major objections were that the proposed eight storey buildings along The Crescent/Minogue Crescent were too high and that they formed a barrier – a fortress against its neighbours to the west and southwest.
The public comments – and there were many – were misinterpreted as a “gated community” on the Council’s Q&A. The comments were about the imposing and barrier nature of the design, rather than a fence around the site with a gate in it, which the answer suggests.
The proposed 8 storeys would tower approximately 20m above the roof height of some houses opposite. Instead of respecting neighbouring built form, these massive forms confront it. Even the green roofs drawn on the “illustrative plan” do not disguise the size of these buildings – is this a device intended to lessen their impact on the plan?
Further, these buildings are proposed to be built against and following the line of The Crescent/Minogue Crescent. While this undoubtedly satisfies the urban design penchant for a “hard edge” that defines the development, it places a large number of dwellings against an increasingly busy road, one which the study identifies as a “significant noise source”. This seems illogical to me, unless these buildings really are designed to protect the balance of the site from the outside world.
The result is an imposing frontage pushing against its neighbours while locking up breathing space – a park – against the cliff on the east of the site where it is not readily accessible to anyone other than site residents.
Other neighbourhood issues
As mentioned earlier one of the aims of brownfield redevelopment should be to improve the local environment. Redevelopment of the Harold Park precinct offers a rare opportunity to resolve a number of ongoing local issues, two of which are the contaminated fill on the north of the site and the light industrial precinct along The Crescent. The current piecemeal approach to resolving these issues should be replaced by an integrated one that looks strategically at the opportunities and constraints for the whole area, even if they are not immediately realisable. That is what planning is about, after all!
I feel the society is selling out to low on open space
Clovers letter states 35%
get the tramsheds out of the equation and then push for 50% open space to include a hockey field -obesity buster!!!.
we need more affordable housing. there are people living in the parks and under the ramp at broadway. dept of housing properties are needed desperately.
Dr Lesley Lynch
The President
The Glebe Society Inc
Glebe
Dear Lesley
Compliments and Complements for Draft Principles
I have regular evening commitments at the University of Technology Sydney that have prevented me attending Glebe Society meetings for some time now. So I apologise in advance if any of the matters I raise have already been canvassed at these meetings. Nevertheless, the development of Harold Park is the most significant urban intensification project we will see in Glebe, Forest Lodge and Annandale during our lifetimes. We therefore owe a duty to ensure that the Society’s impact on the planning and implementation is as significant as is humanly possible. Remember, this is the Society that stopped Glebe being buried under freeways. I want this letter considered publicly so I have posted it to this site.
Let me commence by thanking the Working Party and its convenor for the considered and thorough work till now. This note is meant to compliment them and complement the Draft Design Principles that emerged from their discussions. The minutes of the Party’s meetings as printed in the Bulletin show how broad ranging were the considerations of the group. Indeed there is much in these minutes that underlie the Draft Design Principles. Some of these and matters of significance should be specifically stated rather than inferred. I therefore suggest these points.
Provide a clear rationale to specifically underpin the Draft Design Principles. This would include commentary on the Conservation and Heritage nature of the area, the site’s significance to the area generally and specifically in foreshore developments, the diversity and density of Glebe, Forest Lodge and Annandale.
I propose that principle 1 be extended to include ‘… and consistent with surrounding streetscapes.[1]’
I propose that an additional principle be included. ‘Parking sufficient for all users of the site shall be provided on site.’
I propose that principle 7 be amended to include the phrases ‘consistent with a site of this size’ and ‘provide a sports field[2]’.
I propose that principle 10 be amended to say, ‘Provision should be made for affordable housing such as students’ accommodation and housing for the ageing.
I propose that principle 13 be amended to say, ‘Any proceeds of the sale of the Tram Sheds be allocated to community developments of the site and surrounds and be administered by the Council of the City of Sydney.’
I propose that principle 14 be amended to include ‘in which representatives of the Glebe, Forest Lodge and Annandale communities shall have representation.’
I do hope your discussions are fruitful. I look forward to the public meeting.
Yours truly
John Gray
April 5, 2010
[1] This is reported as the position of the Working Party and needs to be explicated.
[2] The contracted hockey field was never delivered. I am informed that there is a significant shortage of soccer fields in the inner city and that Jubilee Oval is booked solidly. Moreover the demographiy of the LGA is changing.